1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

June 2, 2015
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has rescheduled
its June 10, 2015 Regular Board of Directors Meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to conduct its regular
business. The LMCD Board will also hold a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. the same day to review and discuss
possible updates to the approved LMCD Strategic Plan with Craig Rapp, LLC. Both LMCD Board meetings
will take place at Wayzata City Hall (600 Rice Street, Wayzata, MN 55391).
Members from the public interested in attending are welcome. Questions can be directed to LMCD
Executive Director Greg Nybeck.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
5:00 PM, Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ROLL CALL
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 5/05/15 LMCD Special Meeting
5/13/15 LMCD Special Board Meeting
5/13/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
5.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A) Audit of vouchers (5/16/15 - 5/31/15) and (6/1/15 - 6/15/15)
B) April financial summary and balance sheet
C) CRAIG RAPP, LLC, approval of agreement to serve as a facilitator for updates to the approved
LMCD Strategic Plan (to be emailed)
D) LMCD Resolution 141, a resolution approving Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court
Data Services and Authorizing Execution Thereof
6.
OTHER BUSINESS
A) Approval of draft 2016 LMCD Budget
B) Ordinance Amendment, first reading of a draft ordinance relating to the storage of government
watercraft on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd. 6
7.
OLD BUSINESS
8.
NEW BUSINESS
9.
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM
4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LMCD SPECIAL MEETING
11:00 A.M., Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Minnetonka City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg
Thomas, Tonka Bay; Deborah Zorn, Shorewood
PUBLIC MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Rapp
PURPOSE: To review and discuss proposal for Strategic Planning services offered by Craig Rapp, LLC.
SUMMARY: Discussion with Mr. Rapp included: identifying the core Strategic Planning sessions to focus first
phase, his recommendation on optional sessions to add-on accordingly. Mr. Rapp will revise proposal and forward
to Deborah Zorn week of May 11th.
Dan and Deborah confirmed that the LMCD Board will devote the first meeting of each month (2 nd Wednesday) to
these Strategic Planning sessions with the following session dates outlined as below. Mr. Rapp confirmed he is
holding the following dates for LMCD Strategic Planning sessions:





Session 1: Wednesday, June 10th, 5:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Session 2: Wednesday, July 8, 5:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Session 3: Wednesday, August 12, 5:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Session 4: Wednesday, September 9, 5:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Note: additional sessions will be added in October and November as needed
___________________________________
Dan Baasen Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
5:30 P.M., Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
Baasen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas, Tonka
Bay; David Gross, Deephaven (to be sworn in); Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Dennis Klohs,
Minnetonka Beach; Dave Lang, Minnetrista; Fred Meyer, Woodland; Jeff Morris, Excelsior; Rob Roy, Greenwood;
Sue Shuff, Minnetonka; Deborah Zorn, Shorewood. Also present: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper,
Administrative Technician.
Members absent: None
Baasen stated that this meeting has been scheduled to discuss the draft 2016 LMCD Budget (in follow-up to the
April 22nd Special LMCD Board Meeting). He asked Nybeck to provide an overview of the new materials provided
to the Board.
Nybeck summarized his staff memo, dated 5/7/15, and made the following comments:
 Three options were offered by staff and discussed by the Board on April 22nd, in which he provided an
overview of each option. At that meeting, no action was taken on forwarding a draft 2016 LMCD Budget
to the member cities. A summary of the Board discussion was as follows:
1. The $35,000 proposed for the Equipment Replacement Fund (depreciation) and whether this was
the proper level. The consensus of the Board was to take this up further after staff completes its
work on a Capital Plan.
2. The consensus was that the LMCD should continue to take a leadership role on partially funding
and managing watercraft inspections on Lake Minnetonka (at selected public accesses).
3. The general consensus was that funding for added Water Patrol presence in 2016 should be
considered with Save the Lake Funds (similar to 2015).
4. Possible programs or activities where reductions could be considered such as Eurasian
Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting and Shoreline Inventory Programs (no Board consensus).
 He directed the Board to an Option 4 draft budget for their discussion and consideration. He offered the
following overview:
1. Similar to the activities planned in the adopted 2015 LMCD Budget.
2. A 5.3% decrease in the overall levy to the LMCD member cities (reduction of $18,125).
3. $35,000 for the Equipment Replacement Fund in 2016 (consistent with 2015).
4. He provided an overview of a draft LMCD Capital Plan prepared by staff, which covered
replacement of the LMCD's EWM Harvesting Program equipment. This plan suggests $63,500 is
needed annually; however, the level of funding is at the discretion of the LMCD Board.
5. $85,500 for the 2016 EWM Harvesting Program (a 10% reduction from $95,000 from 2015). A
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Special Board Meeting
May 13, 2015


Page 2
$30,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) is budgeted for in
2016.
6. $40,000 has been proposed for unspecified aquatic invasive species (AIS) prevention programs
in 2016 (most likely watercraft inspectors). Two grants for this program are budgeted for in 2016
($20,000 from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and $4,000 from the MN DNR).
Preliminary approval of this option, or an amended option, needs to be finalized at this meeting. This
would allow staff to submit a draft 2016 LMCD Budget (with cover letter) to the member cities in the next
couple of days.
He entertained questions or comments from the Board.
A summary of the Board discussion was as follows:

EWM Harvesting Program:
1. Whether there is a need for the proposed 10% reduction of the overall budget for 2016.
2. A question was raised as to whether additional harvesting should be considered rather than less
(potential additional times where harvesting could be considered based on EWM growth).
3. A discussion of possible changes to the program in 2016 utilizing 2015 as a season to experiment
with potential changes (i.e., operating two harvesters rather than three harvesters).
4. Harper provided background of past harvesting programs (including priorities and how some of the
decisions are made).
5. A discussion of whole bay and large scale herbicide treatments managed by the Lake Minnetonka
Association (LMA). It was communicated that the treatments planned by the LMA appear to be
reduced (primarily because of fundraising challenges).
6. A question was raised whether the harvester was working in between docks, rather than keeping
the Lake navigable. Harper asked that if anyone saw or had knowledge of the harvester being where
it was not supposed to be to notify him directly.

Equipment Replacement Fund:
1. There was mixed feedback from the Board on the first draft of the Capital Plan.
2. Board members that expressed concern about the draft plan had questions about the useful life used
to compute the needed reserves and replacement costs detailed.
3. The Board discussed whether the proposed transfer of $35,000 from the Administration and AIS
Reserve Funds to the Equipment Replacement Fund could be reduced. It was suggested that a
reduction in the proposed amount could be used to offset the overall levy to member cities (there was
no consensus of this).
4. Target reserve fund levels for Administration and AIS (30% to 50% of annual expenses) and whether
these are the appropriate levels. It was noted that Option 4 projects a balance of 47.8% for the
Administration Reserve Fund and 47.5% for the AIS Reserve Fund (as of 12-31-16).
MOTION:
Baasen moved, Jabbour seconded to reduce the amount of funds included in the draft 2016
LMCD Budget for the Equipment Replacement Fund from $35,000 to $17,500.
VOTE:
Ayes (11), Nays (2; Hughes and Shuff), Abstained (1, Gross); motion carried.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Special Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 3
MOTION:
Roy moved, Thomas seconded to not include $35,000 in the draft 2016 LMCD Budget for added
Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka.
VOTE:
Ayes (13), Abstained (1, Gross); motion carried.
MOTION:
Baasen moved, Lang seconded to provide preliminary approval of Option 4, with the reduction of
Equipment Replacement Funds to $17,500 and direct Nybeck to forward it to the member cities
(with cover letter).
Jabbour proposed a friendly amendment to reduce the overall proposed levy to the LMCD member cities by
$17,500. Baasen and Lang did not agree to this.
VOTE:
Ayes (6; Baasen, Hoelscher, Lang, Meyer, Shuff, and Thomas), Nays (7), Abstained (1, Gross);
motion failed.
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Green seconded to provide preliminary approval of Option 4, subject to: 1) the
reduction of Equipment Replacement Funds to $17,500, 2) the reduction of the overall levy by
$17,500 due to the reduction of Equipment Replacement Funds, and 3) direct Nybeck to forward
it to the member cities (with cover letter).
VOTE:
Ayes (9), Nays (4; Baasen, Hughes, Shuff, and Thomas), Abstained (1, Gross); motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Dan Baasen, Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
4
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
Baasen called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas,
Tonka Bay; David Gross, Deephaven; Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Dennis Klohs,
Minnetonka Beach; Dave Lang, Minnetrista; Fred Meyer, Woodland; Jeff Morris, Excelsior; 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: None
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the agenda as submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
4. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
Baasen made four Chair announcements: First, an update on obtaining a strategic planning facilitator will be
offered under agenda item 9D. Second, there may be discussion at the end of this meeting whether there is a
need to conduct the May 27th Regular Board meeting (based on the level of business). Third, the Board of
Directors went into a closed session at their April 22nd Regular Board meeting to discuss the 2014
performance of Executive Director Greg Nybeck. The review was conducted based on eight functions of his
approved position description and it was the consensus of the Board that Nybeck had not met expectations in
several key areas of his position; in particular, leadership, communication (internal and external), and general
administration. An action plan has been established for Nybeck to address these areas of concern (with
monthly updates to the Executive Committee and reviews with the LMCD Board at three and six months).
Fourth, the Cities of Deephaven and Excelsior have re-appointed David Gross and Jeff Morris, respectively, to
the LMCD. Morris gave his Oath of Office prior to this meeting. Therefore, Baasen asked LeFevere to
administer the Oath of Office for Gross who was seated as a representative to the Board. Baasen welcomed
both back.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
4/22/15 LMCD Special Board Meeting
4/22/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 2
MOTION: Shuff moved, Green seconded to approve the 4/22/15 LMCD Special Board Meeting minutes as
submitted.
VOTE:
Ayes (9), Abstained (5, Hoelscher, Klohs, Lang, Morris, and Zorn); motion carried.
MOTION: Zorn moved, Roy seconded to approve the 4/22/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes as
submitted.
VOTE:
Ayes (10), Abstained (4, Hoelscher, Klohs, Lang, and Morris); motion carried.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Green moved, Shuff seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so
approved included: 6A) Audit of vouchers (4/24/15 – 5/15/15); 6B) MCWD, approval of Cost-Share Agreement for
2015 Lake Minnetonka Watercraft Inspection Program; and 6C) Approval of 2015 State of Minnesota Grant
Contracts (LMCD Watercraft Inspection and Harvesting Programs).
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
There were no public comments.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
 T & T Boatworks Marina, 2015 new multiple dock and special density license applications to increase
Boat Storage Units from 90 to 99 on 1,104 feet of continuous shoreline on Wayzata Bay.
Baasen asked Harper for an overview of this agenda item.
Harper directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 5/8/15. He stated a new multiple dock license
application has been submitted to add nine overnight boat storage units (BSU). This site is currently
licensed for 90 BSU (80 overnight and 10 transient) with a storage density of 1:12’ (1,104 feet of
approved shoreline). The proposed changes would include adding: 1) six tie-on BSUs to the north portion
of the south dock, 2) a dock structure to create a three sided slip to form BSU 81, and 3) BSU 89 (with
two tie poles). He provided a detailed overview of a relevant code section pertaining to this application
(Qualified Commercial Marina), as well respective staff comments that were outlined within his memo. He
recommended the Board approve the new multiple dock license application for the 2015 season, subject
to submitting a revised as-built survey. He entertained questions and comments from the Board, in which
he confirmed the dimensions of BSU #81.
Baasen invited the applicant to address the Board, in which the applicant declined. He opened the public
meeting at 7:16 p.m. There being no comments, Baasen closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 3
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Green seconded to approve the 2015 T&T Boatworks Marina new
multiple dock license application, subject to staff’s recommendation.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. U of M Carlson School of Management, presentation of Lake Minnetonka survey findings
Baasen stated that representatives from the University of Minnesota (U of M) Carlson School of Management
were present to report on a survey commissioned by Jabbour prior to his service on the Board. He welcomed
the representatives and asked Zorn (who Jabbour asked to coordinate as a resident of Lake Minnetonka) if she
would like to preface this project.
Zorn stated that she and Jabbour met with representatives from the U of M relative to the surveying of Lake
Minnetonka stakeholders as it pertains to the LMCD. She and Jabbour assisted in identifying the stakeholders,
as well as in the review of the surveyed questions; with the students making the ultimate decision. She further
stated that the City of Shorewood (in which she represents) had requested that the survey be a direct mail to
their residents. However, that data analysis, as well as the surveying through a Lake Minnetonka Association
direct mail, were not included within this meeting’s upcoming presentation (but were found to be in line with the
results being presented).
Messrs. Brian Grundtner, Mark Tucher, and Dan Ochs and Ms. Anan Luo introduced themselves as first year
Master of Business Administration students (with an emphasis in Marketing and Strategy or Entrepreneurship).
Grundtner Tucher, and Ochs previously served in the Armed Forces, in which those in attendance thanked
them for their service.
Grundtner stated the team was a part of the Carlson Brand Enterprise whereby students come together to
provide both short and long-term research and analysis of client based businesses. This effort is utilized by
paying customers based on the team’s use of best practices for research and analysis, unbiased results, and
access to faculty advisors and Ph.D. marketing research professionals. He provided the following outline of their
presentation, which was offered as a handout to the Board and via a PowerPoint presentation.
Project Overview
 Project Scope was to determine the awareness and perception of success that the LMCD has with their
key stakeholders.
 Project Objectives included: 1) determining the key stakeholder groups, 2) assessing awareness and
perception of success each stakeholder has, and 3) analyzing and reporting findings to the LMCD.
 The Project Deliverable included assessment analysis and primary research data in raw format.
Project Methodology
 Stakeholder research;
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015


Page 4
Conduct the survey and interviews; and
Assess and report to the LMCD.
Stakeholder Identification (Geographic Representation; Stakeholder’s Choice of Best Represented)
 Lake Users;
 Home Owners;
 Government Representatives; and
 Business Owners.
Ochs presented pages 8 through 13. He directed the Board to a pie chart that represented the four stakeholder
categories (62% home owner, 17% lake user, 11% business owner, and 10% government) based on the receipt
of 205 responses. He prefaced that two databases existed (those offered within this presentation and the other
stakeholders that Zorn referred to). The results referenced by Zorn will be forwarded to the LMCD at a later
date; however, he stated the results were consistent to what is being presented via the 205 responses outlined
within this meeting. He provided the following comments to the respective survey questions:
LMCD Awareness on a 1:7 Scale (Effective Communication)
 Who manages Lake Minnetonka (top of the mind awareness write in question): 47% recognized and
were familiar with the LMCD (58% home owner, 16% Lake users, 14% business owners, and 12%
government).
 How familiar are you with the LMCD (name prompted question): 53% originally did not recognize LMCD
but when prompted had positive familiarity ratings (66% home owner, 18% Lake users, and 8% both
business owner and government).
LMCD Efforts on a 1:7 Scale (Ineffective)
 High Familiarity: 44% of the 66% sample population believed the LMCD was ineffective (22% effective).
 Low Familiarity: 11% of the 15% sample population believed the LMCD was ineffective (4% effective).
Stakeholder Core Mission Importance - Effectiveness on a 1:7 Scale (AIS, Regulation, Safety, Lake Access)
 AIS (2.6 effectiveness- 6.2 importance).
 Regulation (3.6 effectiveness- 5.0 importance).
 Safety (3.5 effectiveness- 5.6 importance).
 Lake Access (3.4 effectiveness- 4.4 importance).
Luo presented pages 14 through 17, which provided an overview (“..at a Glance”) of each represented
stakeholder category (Lake user, business owners, home owners, and government representatives) offering: 1)
the percentage of respective stakeholders who recognized the LMCD as a lake management organization
without prompting, 2) their level of discontent to a specific topic (AIS, regulation, safety, and Lake access), 3)
the ineffective rate of those that were highly familiar with the LMCD, and 4) top three values.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 5
Tucher presented pages 18 through 23. He stated that the LMCD maintained a consistent level of overall
stakeholder familiarity as compared to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR). The stakeholders believed the LMCD was better suited for Lake
use regulations while the MN DNR was seen as more suitable for leading the efforts of AIS and Lake access.
Additionally, both agencies were viewed as highly active with the LMCD’s effectiveness declining. The Board
members rated the LMCD’s effectiveness as a 5.9 on a scale of 10; having the highest average rating of LMCD
effectiveness among all stakeholders.
Grundtner stated their team was asked to collect, analyze, apply scientific methods, and present the analyzed
data. He believed there was a good representative sample of the population. To this end, the team left the
Board with the following recommended ideas: 1) communicate, 2) leverage, and 3) reassess. He stated more
communication would provide the stakeholders with a better knowledge of the LMCD’s effectiveness, additional
partnerships would increase its leverage, and the reassessment of priorities would assist in keeping the
priorities on track. He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Zorn asked if the team could speak to what their goal was for the surveyed respondents and did you meet the
proper number to provide an adequate analysis.
Grundtner stated their advisor confirmed a sampling of 100 responders would offer a factual statistical analysis;
offering that they doubled that amount.
Baasen asked if there was a particular segment that responded past their level of expectations.
Tucher stated that in an effort to gain access to potential Lake users, they solicited various emails from the
member cities. Additionally, they tried to pull in the various clubs that were affiliated with the Lake.
Zorn, in recognizing that the responders’ email address was confidential, asked Tucher if their system was
capable of tracking what percentage actually completed the survey; acknowledging that the respondent had the
ability to self-select the category in which they fell into (i.e., a business owner could document themselves as a
home owner).
Tucher stated the team knew exactly who was taking the survey based on their respective Internet Protocol (IP)
address. However, that information is just a number as multiple surveys could have been completed from one
computer. He confirmed they were able to track unfinished surveys; however, it made it difficult to ascertain the
information. He stated that a lot of their analysis was completed by utilizing parts of the front and back of a
respondent’s survey to compare similarities (tossing out data that is opposite).
Hughes asked for further clarification of the additional respondents Zorn referred to (including confirmation that
the data would also be analyzed and submitted to the LMCD).
Grundtner stated that data had not been “cleaned” to date. Therefore, more work needed to be done prior to
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 6
releasing that data, which will then be submitted to the LMCD.
Jabbour thanked the team. He stated that he commissioned the survey process during a time when he was not
serving on the Board (over a year ago) and wanted to go on record that he has not been involved in this
process other than offering some respondent names. Additionally, he pointed out that this company is the best
one could obtain in Minnesota. He asked the team if this body was included in the “Government
Representatives” category of statistical analysis (offering that also included the member city administrators and
mayors).
Luo stated that this body was surveyed; however, their response was based on their personal identification of
themselves (i.e., if they chose “Government Representatives” their response would have been analyzed within
the presented statistics).
Baasen asked if the perceptions from this Board were off of the direct interview or from the survey itself.
Additionally, he asked if there would have been as large of an ineffective rate if AIS was set aside from the
survey results.
Ochs stated some of the interview questions were quantified (i.e., top three or a specific score out of 10). If it
was quantifiable, it was compared against quantifiable data. However, if it was qualitative they were presented
as general trends within a quote. Lastly, he stated that the LMCD rated ineffective on the other three core
missions (Regulation, Safety, and Lake Access).
Jabbour stated that the team was provided the MN DNR’s Service Provider list for the “Business Owner”
category (businesses that are not located on Lake Minnetonka but reside in Hennepin, Wright, and Carver
counties).
Grundtner stated the “Business Owners” list itself was more than double the individual referenced contacts
(confirming one only needs a dataset of 40 to provide for a quantitative analysis). He believed this information
would reaffirm that this and all surveys analyzed could not be from biased information.
Baasen asked if their school performed surveys for other regulatory agencies and, if so, how did that agency
compare to the LMCD.
Tucher stated that their team has not performed a survey for another regulatory agency.
Luo stated that she asked that question of her advisor who confirmed surveying of regulatory agencies was not
common within this region (more globally).
Gross requested confirmation: 1) that the samples taken were not of a represented population (i.e., specific zip
code area) but from individuals that have a biased interest in the Lake and 2) as to the targeted confidence level
the team was aiming for with their statistical design.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 7
Grundtner confirmed this project was a targeted survey of LMCD stakeholders and that they were targeting a
90% confidence level.
Klohs requested clarification on what the advisor had stated was not common in this region.
Grudtner confirmed it was not common to perform a constituent or awareness survey for regulatory agencies
within the region.
Jabbour stated that 10 years ago he commissioned this school to perform a city-wide survey on the City of
Shorewood (specifically why they live within). He believed that survey was telling of the purpose. Additionally,
in serving on a commercial and redevelopment board, he also commissioned a need study for the East
Hennepin Commercial Association.
Thomas thanked the team for their efforts and believed this information would be of service (specifically with the
Board’s upcoming strategic planning process).
On behalf of the LMCD, Baasen thanked the team for their work. He expressed an interest in maintaining
contact on this matter.
B. Ordinance Amendment, first reading of a draft ordinance relating to Quiet Waters on North Seton
Channel.
Baasen asked Nybeck for an overview of this agenda item.
Nybeck directed the Board to a draft ordinance relating to changes for an established Quiet Water Area (QWA)
within the North Seton Channel. He stated Seton Village Homeowners Association (Seton Village), which is
located to the east of the Seton channel, raised concern with watercraft operators speeding through the
currently approved QWA (marked with three minimum wake buoys). The Board considered this matter at their
April 8th meeting, at which time Nybeck communicated that he previously worked with Tony Brough of Hennepin
County Environment and Energy who did not want to add additional buoys but was willing to relocate them (as
described within the April 8th minutes). If the Board concurred with the draft ordinance, he recommended they
approve the first reading, waive the second and third readings and adopt.
MOTION:
Green moved, Hughes seconded to approve the first reading of the draft ordinance amendment
as submitted, to waive the second and third readings, and adopt it.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Executive Committee, update of proposed changes to the LMCD Code for Lake Minnetonka yacht clubs and
sailing schools
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 8
Baasen asked LeFevere to provide an overview of this agenda item.
LeFevere stated that the Executive Committee has been meeting with the yacht clubs in an effort to consider
various regulations pertaining to their operation. This effort is similar to the Board’s prior work in establishing
regulations for commercial marinas; the establishment of “Qualified Commercial Marinas” (QCM). This effort
provided for additional rights previously not available to them. In working with the yacht clubs, the committee
held a series of meetings which resulted in the receipt of a unified proposal from the yacht clubs and, in turn,
direction from the committee to draft a list of recommended ordinances for the Board’s consideration. He
directed the Board to an outline of those recommendations within their packet, dated 4/28/15. He prefaced that
the recommendations were outlined in more detail than what was proposed by the yacht clubs or discussed and
given direction by the committee. This was based on additional restrictions and limitations that were previously
considered and approved with the QCMs. He provided a detailed overview of the following recommendations:
Definitions
“Qualified Yacht Club” (QYC); a non-profit corporation, owned by its members, volunteer-driven, created to
further the sport of sailing, with a least 25 boat storage units (BSU) at the licensed site.
“Qualified Sailing School” (QSS); a 501(c)3 corporation created to educate and train for the sport of sailing and
associated on the same site with a QYC.
Extension of Docks to 200 Feet
 Subject to evaluation by the Board (utilizing subjective criteria outlined within Section 2.03);
 Extensions allowed at facilities with variances if a new variance is granted. This is based on the
possibility of the documented hardship for the currently approved variance being removed with the
proposed extension;
 No extensions that: 1) overlap another dock use area (DUA), 2) interfere with navigation or access to
another DUA or district mooring area, or 3) require removal of emergent vegetation; and
 Allow expansion of density for facilities that are non-conforming (maintaining a density currently not
allowed by code) without limiting total square footage of slips. Such sites can currently expand and
reconfigure; however, they are not able to increase their total square footage of all of the BSUs added
together.
Boat Storage Density and Special Density Licenses
 Eliminate special density licenses for QYCs and QSSs;
 Establish new density standard of 1:10 for QYCs and QSSs;
 Make initial increase in density above current authorized density subject to review by the Board, using the
subjective criteria for commercial and multiple docks under Section 2.03;
 Addition of BSUs allowed at facilities with variances only if a new variance is granted;
 Shoreline calculation subject to a straight line measurement rule; and
 No increase in density that requires removal of emergent vegetation.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 9
Executive Director’s Authority to Approved Changes
Executive Director would have authority to approve changes in dock licenses of conforming QYCs and QSSs
subject to the following limitations:
 No increase in number of watercraft or dock length; and
 The change will not adversely affect nearby properties, navigation, safety, wetlands with emergent
vegetation, or the environment.
Executive Director would have authority to approve changes in dock licenses of non-conforming QYCs and
QSSs subject to the following limitations:
 Not a conversion to slides to slips; and
 No substantial change in the amount of the Lake obstructed or occupied by the dock.
Count Sailing Boats up to 20 Feet Long as Unrestricted Watercraft
Allow non-motorized boats up to a 20 foot hull length, stored on land, at a QYC or QSS to be counted as
unrestricted watercraft (and therefore not count for density purposes unless stored in water). This is a new
recommendation not previously considered with the QCMs. He further explained that all sailboats greater than
16 feet are considered restricted (providing for the watercraft to be counted against their density and placed in a
respective BSU).
Allow Additional Density of Restricted Watercraft Used for Coaching and Safety
Allow up to one powerboat of up to 20 feet in length and 90 horsepower for each six student boats. The
additional restricted watercraft would not be counted for density purposes provided they are operated
exclusively by the QSS for safety, education, coaching, or managing sailboat races and are stored on land, a
slide, or a small boat launch ramp. This is a new recommendation not previously considered with the QCMs.
LeFevere entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Gross expressed concern about the proposed definition of a QSS; specifically, the use of the words “….
associated on the same site with a Qualified Yacht Club.” He requested further clarification on the definition of
the word “site.”
LeFevere stated “site” is a defined term within the code; a legally subdivided lot, parcel, or other piece of
property that is identified by a single property tax identification (PID) number.
Gross stated Minnetonka Yacht Club’s sailing school owns the island (deed holder) and is not on the same site
as the respective yacht club [with Jabbour interjecting the same holds true for the Wayzata Yacht Club].
Therefore, he requested clarification as based on the proposed definitions; the two respective sailing schools
would not be considered a QSS.
LeFevere deferred that question to the yacht clubs as it was his understanding that the sailing schools and
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 10
yacht clubs were affiliated and associated with all the respective multiple dock licenses on the Lake.
Gross expressed concern that the definition could be discriminatory as it prevents other future 501(c) 3 sailing
schools from obtaining QSS status (possibly the Boy Scouts or a future municipal sailing school).
LeFevere stated that decision would ultimately be up to the Board. The recommendations being discussed
were specifically for the yacht clubs and do not go beyond that scope (granting additional rights or
considerations for other sailing schools).
Baasen invited Jonathon McDonagh to address the Board.
Mr. Jonathon McDonagh introduced himself as Rear Commodore of the Wayzata Yacht Club. He confirmed
that the yacht clubs’ proposal utilized the word “associated” in referencing a sailing school and its respective
yacht club. He could not speak to the LMCD’s definition of the word “site.”
Jabbour believed the LMCD representatives were pushing for the yacht clubs to have a sailing school with
501(c) 3 status in considering use of the term “qualified.” He did not believe it was the LMCD’s intention that
they must be on the same site as defined by code (referencing they are two different entities).
Gross stated that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not like the word “associated” as they do not want
tax deductible dollars subsidizing a sport.
McDonagh stated that, in all cases, the yacht clubs support their sailing school with donations, manpower, and
volunteers. He confirmed that the sailing schools are not, by any stretch of the means, supporting the yacht
clubs.
Gross believed that respective clause could be removed from the definition, in which McDonagh concurred.
Baasen stated that the Board chose to consider these efforts with individual groups (commercial marinas, yacht
clubs, and municipalities) based on their individually unique aspects. This effort was not to reinvent the wheel
but to facilitate operation that was not free of regulation but with more efficient execution of their needs. He
believed the yacht clubs have provided a proposal that meets that intent. Therefore, he believed the Board
needed to focus on the intent of the efforts and work within all means to utilize proper terminology to meet the
goals.
Gross directed the Board to the use of the words “…. students’ boats” (within the last paragraph on page two of
the recommendations); offering it as an undefined term.
LeFevere questioned what other boats would be at a sailing school than those utilized for students.
Baasen believed the intent was to consider all boats used for the purpose of safety, education, etc., of all ages.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 11
McDonagh stated the proposal provided for an educational boat to be defined as “a non-motorized boat up to
20’ hull length, manually stored completely onshore, operated by a Qualified Sailing School, and used
exclusively for educational purposes.”
Jabbour recommended the word “native” be placed in front of any reference to “emergent vegetation.”
Green asked McDonough, on behalf of all the proposed QYCs and QSSs, if they were in sync with the
recommendations offered (other than the changes discussed at this meeting).
McDonagh believed all parties were in sync with the recommendations. However, he requested confirmation
that the existing density of the non-conforming sites would be maintained via the recommendations offered and
that recommendation #4, “Shoreline calculation subject to a straight line measurement rule” offered under Boat
Storage Density and Special Density Licenses was the same recommendation staff had previously explained to
him during the processing of a former application, in which McDonough referenced the Board and staff nodding
in a “yes” fashion to both.
Nybeck recommended the Board follow the same process offered in consideration of the QCMs’ proposal
(based on the Board’s approval): 1) review the committee’s recommendations (completed this evening),
2) direct LeFevere to draft an ordinance amendment for consideration at a future meeting, and 3) schedule a
public meeting (directing staff to submit the draft ordinance to the public for review and comment). He
recommended that the review of the draft ordinance be schedule for the June 10th Regular Board’s meeting.
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Green seconded to adopt Nybeck’s process offered above.
Thomas concurred with Jabbour’s comment about adding the word “native” in front of emergent vegetation
(referencing the LMCD harvesting emergent vegetation on a seasonal basis).
LeFevere clarified that emergent vegetation was a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR)
definition for cattails and that Eurasian watermilfoil would be a submerged vegetation.
Gross requested further consideration in the use of the words “associated” and “site” as discussed above.
LeFevere stated that he will act on the Board’s direction.
Jabbour stated that the Board wants to make sure the yacht clubs have value added through the sailing
schools, which is a delivered service that would qualify them as a QYC. He believed the use of the word
“affiliated” would be an appropriate term. He asked McDonagh if the yacht clubs had a concern with the use of
that word, in which McDonagh stated they would not.
Gross continued to express concern in limiting QSSs to those associated with a yacht club. He referenced the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 12
City of Minneapolis running a sailing school on Lake Harriet that also offers value but is not associated with a
yacht club.
Baasen asked LeFevere to explain why an LMCD member city could not operate a sailing school on the Lake.
LeFevere stated that, based on the proposed recommendations, a member city could not operate as a QSS as
they would not be affiliated with a QYC (requiring 25 BSUs, non-profit status, owned by its members, etc.).
This, however, did not prevent them from operating on the Lake.
Green stated the benefits are being offered to the sailing schools not the yacht clubs.
LeFevere stated the proposed recommendations provide dual rights to a QYC and QSS; both can extend out to
200 feet and maintain a density of 1:10, etc.
Green stated that sailing schools not affiliated with a yacht club would not receive the benefits of the proposed
recommendations.
LeFevere stated the question proposed is whether a sailing school not associated with a yacht club should
receive benefits.
Green stated the Board would have to figure that out when the time comes.
Baasen asked if there had been any yacht clubs on the Lake that did not make it.
Jabbour stated the Lake has lost a substantial amount of sailboats over the years (referencing a 1984 to 2014
MN DNR Boating Trends Report on the LMCD’s website for accurate statistics). He urged the Board not to lose
sight of this effort; acknowledging a great deal of research went into the recommendation of the 200 foot
extension and the ability to turn a yacht club with an affiliated sailing school into a conforming facility so that
they could proceed with updates needed to operate within current standards. He welcomed additional sailing
schools on the Lake; however, recognized that the recommendations were drafted to accommodate the yacht
clubs listed within the proposal.
McDonagh was not against another sailing school requesting their affiliation to the current yacht clubs.
Shuff asked LeFevere to clarify the options offered for the establishment of a new sailing school on the Lake.
LeFevere confirmed that the proposed recommendations do not prevent another sailing school from
establishing themselves on the Lake. However, if they are not affiliated with a yacht club, they would not
receive the status of a QSS nor receive the proposed benefits of such.
Meyer took that one step further and requested clarification if a sailing school was a 501(c) 3.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 13
LeFevere confirmed the school would not be considered a QSS. However, they may qualify as a QCM or
provide enough amenities to qualify for an approved special density license, etc. In closing, he would draft the
ordinance based on the direction of the Board.
Jabbour stated, to Meyer’s point, he currently has a sailing school housed within his commercial marina that
operates independent of themselves.
Nybeck recommended the Board take a vote on the motion. If approved, LeFevere can begin drafting the
ordinance knowing that both Board and yacht club representatives are available to him for any questions that
may arise.
LeFevere believed that it would just be a matter of removing a clause from a draft ordinance should the Board
decide, at a later date, that they did want to extend the additional benefits to those not affiliated with a yacht
club.
Morris concurred with Gross and did not see any point in making the QSSs more restrictive as the removal of
the affiliated clause would grant all benefits to everyone. It also leaves the door open for all sailing schools that
would like to establish themselves on the Lake.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously
D. Craig Rapp, LLC, update on LMCD Strategic Plan Facilitator Proposal
Baasen asked Zorn for an update on this agenda item.
Zorn directed the Board to an amended proposal from Rapp, dated 5/11/15, which was offered in response to a
May 5th meeting. At this meeting, Board representatives in attendance expressed an interest in further refining
the proposal to: 1) minimize the cost and scope of the project, 2) offer a menu approach; preserving a core
proposal for strategic planning, and 3) establish strategic priorities, measurable outcomes, and performance
targets for a three year period. She provided an overview of the amended proposal, in which the Board would
dedicate the first Wednesday of June through approximately September. She further stated that at their April 8th
meeting, the Board approved expending up to $16,500 on a proposal with Rapp (subject to further defining the
scope of the proposal). The current amended proposal has been reduced to $7,500 with the option to select
individually priced sessions as this process proceeds. She recommended the Board consider approval of this
proposal, as well as dedicating the first meeting (working with staff to identify any matters that need to be
addressed under a short Regular Board meeting). She asked Nybeck to expound on the Board’s meeting
schedule and any respective needs over and above the strategic planning.
Nybeck stated that he did not think the draft ordinance relative to the yacht clubs and sailing schools (discussed
under item agenda 9C above) would result in a public hearing for the Board’s June 10th meeting (recommending
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 14
this be considered at the June 24th meeting). However, approval of the draft 2016 LMCD Budget is a high
priority that must receive conditional approval on June 10th.
Baasen stated that the May 5th meeting discussions with Rapp also included the January 10th Board Strategic
Planning Workshop, the Carlson School of Management survey, and how the Board can make this process
smoother. Therefore, the current amended proposal of $7,500 incorporates three of the sessions within his
proposal, dated 4/8/15. He stated this process could be considered as Zorn has proposed or by scheduling two
four-hour sessions, two days in a row or an eight-hour session on a Saturday. To this end, he urged the Board
to not be so concerned about giving up the first meeting of the month but allowing for the flexibility to move
forward in a smooth fashion as determined through the process.
Jabbour solicited the Board’s interest in inviting back the three former LMCD Board members that previously
participated in this process (Jim Doak, Woodland; Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; and Chris Jewett, Deephaven) as
a contributing guest.
Baasen confirmed he has already invited those three to continue their participation in this process, in which all
three have agreed to do so.
Klohs asked if those contributing guests would be participating on equal ground (i.e., will they be able to vote).
Baasen confirmed the guests are not official members and would not be able to vote. However, this would not
exclude their active participation.
The consensus of the Board was to continue with the current amended proposal. Rapp would submit a draft
service agreement for the Board’s approval at a future meeting.
E. 2015 EWM Harvesting Program, project overview
Baasen asked Harper for an overview of this agenda item.
Harper directed the Board to a 2015 Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting program outline and offered
the following comments (via a PowerPoint presentation):
 Six seasonal employees are proposed; one of which is the site supervisor. He will continue
serving as EWM Project Manager and recommended the Board approve a Fleet Mechanic
contract (within their packet) with Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc.
 The program budget will remain at $95,000 ($65,000 of funding from the member cities and a
$30,000 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grant, which is based on $100 per acre).
 Program schedule included scouting, launching of equipment, and training of crew/initiation of
harvesting the weeks of June 1st, 8th, and 15th, respectively. This is a nine week program in
which the seasonal employees will work four, 10 hour days Monday through Thursday from 7:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The program will be shut down the week of June 29th due the July 4th holiday.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015



Page 15
The North Upper Lake option will be implemented (subject to change based on actual EWM
growth).
The equipment consists of three paddlewheel harvesters and one transport barge. A
combination of clear and channel cutting for impediment to navigation will be utilized (higher
priority to matted milfoil). Tandem cutting and skimming will be emphasized to address milfoil
fragments. The MN DNR permit has been secured and the grant agreement has been executed.
He recommended the Board approve the hiring, without benefits, of: 1) Tom Elmer as Site
Supervisor at the rate of $16.50 per hour (2nd season), 2) Alex Stock (third year returning
seasonal employee) at the rate of $13 per hour, and 3) four additional seasonal employees at the
rate of $12 per hour. Additionally, he reiterated his recommendation to approve the Fleet
Mechanic contract with Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc. at the rate of $90 per hour.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board. He confirmed the overtime authorized
during the 2014 season (based on late EWM growth during the historical high waters) was not
expected to continue this season and that the seasonal employees will be certified as a Lake
Service Provider.
MOTION:
Roy moved, Hughes seconded to approve the 2015 EWM Harvesting Program seasonal
employees and Fleet Mechanic contract as recommended by staff.
VOTE:
Ayes (13), Abstained (1, Shuff); motion carried.
F. Staff overview of 2015 LMCD Residential Code Enforcement Program
Baasen asked Herman for an overview of this agenda item.
Herman directed the Board to her staff memo, dated 5/8/15. She offered the following comments (via a
PowerPoint presentation):
 The Board established this program in 2006 for the purpose of enforcing watercraft storage ordinances
at residential sites (offering a review of the primary enforcement efforts).
 An overview of the established communication process (offering sample letters within), as well as the
process involved in submitting documentation to the prosecuting attorney should compliance efforts be
exhausted.
 An update on the further refined 2014 findings.
 Staff’s report (via detailed spreadsheets and staff comments within) of: 1) prosecution costs and fine
revenue and 2) value and operational costs of the LMCD’s 1994, 19’ Mako watercraft with a 175 HP
Mercury motor. This report was offered at the request of a few Board members in December of 2014.
 She recommended the Board continue this program for the 2015 boating season as previously
established, as well as the re-hiring of Mr. Miles Wilson (third season) at the rate of $13 per hour
(without benefits). She stated Wilson navigates the watercraft and provides additional assistance.
 She entertained questions and comments from the Board, in which she clarified: 1) historical staff hours
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 16
obtained for both her and Wilson in performing this program (based on December 2014 presentation),
as well as the Boat Storage Count Program (simultaneously) on even years only. She stated that
Nybeck has recommended that the Shoreline Boat Storage Count be pushed back to 2019 vs. the next
regularly scheduled year of 2016 and 2) communication relative to a site previously discussed with
Jabbour.
MOTION:
Thomas moved, Shuff seconded to proceed with the 2015 Proactive Code Enforcement
Program, including the hiring of Miles Wilson at the rate of $13 per hour (without benefits).
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
10. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES
Green stated the AIS Task Force met last Friday. Topics of discussion included:
 An update from the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) on the hiring or seasonal watercraft inspectors
for the 2015 LMCD Watercraft Inspection Program.
 An update from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on an Initiative Foundation
(Lessard Sams) funded multi-phase project relative to the continued prevention and management of
AIS at launching ramps around the Lake via watercraft operators obtaining a permit (police enforced)
after going through a defined decontamination or educational process to park at a specific public
access. The MCWD was awarded up to $700,000 for use in 2016. During the interim, the MCWD will
be talking with watercraft inspectors, as well as representatives from the 14 member cities. He stated
that a number of the Task Force members had strong feelings relative to this subject; however,
hesitancy on the proposed parking ordinance was expressed based on: 1) Lake Minnetonka being
too large of an entity to initiate a pilot study on this project, 2) a watercraft operator going to a smaller
lake would have to stand in a decontamination line with 20 other operators going to Lake Minnetonka,
and 3) that there are so many public accesses that this effort could push the Lake user back to using
the fire lanes or parking on the street. He had a personal concern of enforcing AIS regulations after a
watercraft operator had already launched the boat. He raised this matter so that the Board could
educate their respective cities, as well. He offered all to contact him with questions that may arise.
Thomas asked if this was something the LMCD Board needed to take a position on.
Green believed the Board will need to consider this at a future date. He stated this project would be
an all or nothing, as one city could not opt in and another out.
Jabbour stated that he, Green, and John Barten from the TRPD serve on the Initiative Foundation
Board that approved this grant. It was disheartening to him and Barten that the two components that
they found of value are not currently being pursued.
Green stated Barten’s concern was that the project had to be tried (a pilot program), which goes back
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 17
to Green’s concern that the pilot should not be on such a large body of water; referencing Lake
Minnetonka’s variables.
Morris believed challenges existed with the enforcement aspect.
Jabbour believed the peace officers would have to have the permission of the public access owner
(e.g., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or other public organizations) to write tickets on
their land.
Green stated that since the permits would be issued via a local ordinance, their respective peace
officers would be the only enforcer. Additionally, some of the accesses are federally funded which
could cause further difficulties. On a side note, he stated that John Barten, who was an original
member of the AIS Task Force (formerly known as the EWM Task Force) will be retiring from the
TRPD next month. He expressed an interest in recognizing Barten at an upcoming Board meeting.
MOTION: Green moved, Jabbour seconded to approve the recognition of John Barten’s service
at an upcoming LMCD Board meeting.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Green stated that he recently presented to the Mound City Council, in which one of the topics discussed was
obtaining their approval to utilize Cooks Bay for watercraft inspections (Right of Entry Authorization). The
Council, specifically the Mayor, expressed concerns about the program based on the 2014 quality of service.
To this end, the LMCD does not currently have permission to perform watercraft inspections at this site.
Therefore, they asked him to respond to the following: 1) how effective is the watercraft inspection program,
2) how much money has the LMCD put into Cooks Bay (estimated $9,000), 3) report back with
recommendations or alternatives as to where those funds would be better spent as opposed to doing the
inspections, and 4) what are the other member cities’ thoughts relative to this matter. He solicited the Board’s
comments on this matter.
Zorn believed those questions pose a good example of what should be discussed within the strategic planning
sessions (evaluation of the LMCD’s activities).
Gross referenced the survey presented under item agenda 9A above, which referenced the ineffectiveness of
AIS. He would like to see an empirical study of how AIS inspections slow the rate AIS spreads and are they
cost effective.
Morris paraphrased Barten by stating inspections are 98% affective.
Meyer stated there is a notion out there that Lake Minnetonka is responsible for the spread of AIS throughout
the state. He believed the LMCD was obligated to try and stop the spread (whether it is from the Lake or not).
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 18
He questioned how far the LMCD needs to go to meet that obligation.
Jabbour concurred with Meyer that the Lake is labeled, by state, as a super spreader. He believed that Doug
Jensen from the Minnesota Sea Grant could provide multiple charts that document Minnesota as being
extremely affective in slowing rapid spread of AIS. He reminded the Board that there are other AIS that Lake
Minnetonka is still at risk of and that the current inspection goal is 50% ingoing and 50% outgoing. Lastly, he
spoke of Lake Service Providers that are currently getting ticketed with the presence of zebra mussel residue;
therefore, those individuals are going to start utilizing accesses such as Cooks Bay that are currently not
being manned.
Baasen stated the Save the Lake Committee met on April 28th to review the results of the fundraising event
that took placed at this year’s banquet. The committee will reconvene in June, which is when the last two
Boater Safety Education Program training sessions will be held (Saturday the 20th and Monday the 22nd).
The Executive Committee met on April 28th at which time they discussed the yacht clubs and sailing schools
proposal, as well as delivered the Executive Director’s 2014 annual performance evaluation.
Green stated that the Mound City Council suggested the LMCD have a Boater Safety Education (with AIS
education) booth at one of their farmers’ market events and during the Spirit of the Lake celebration.
Additionally, they asked if the boater safety sessions could expand to adults.
Baasen stated the committee is looking into the adult sessions; acknowledging that a number of states have
adopted that practice. He confirmed the sessions are reaching many adults through the youth sessions.
Klohs stated the Ordinance Review Committee is meeting on May 27th to continue their discussion with the
municipalities relative to ordinance amendments.
11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck directed the Board to his Executive Director Report, dated 5/7/15. This report provided an outline of
pending activities and projects within the LMCD office. Additionally, he highlighted the following information:
Memorial Day Weekend Projects
1. LMCD Watercraft Inspections:
 Inspections will take place at Carsons, Halstead, and Wayzata Bay public accesses (Cooks Bay
public access pending approval). Right of entry forms have been secured from the Cities of
Deephaven (Carsons Bay), Minnetrista (Halstead Bay), and Wayzata (Wayzata Bay);
 LMCD tablets have been forwarded to the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) and their seasonal
employees have been secured; and
 Grant funds have been secured from the MN DNR ($4,000) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (50% of total costs).
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 19
2. Added Water Patrol Presence:
 He had been in communication with Lt. Kent Vnuk; and
 The added Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol deputy (per an approved Save the Lake funded
project) have been trained and assigned for additional coverage specific to Lake Minnetonka on
Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays (1 p.m. to 9 p.m.) from Memorial Day weekend through
Labor Day. This project will provide for monthly reporting with a mid-season update to the Board.
Spring Park Public Access Upgrades
Hennepin County Environment and Energy has planned upgrades to the Spring Park public access during the
2015 boating season with infrastructure, including electrical and repaving, planned for the month of June.
They have delayed progress until after the Memorial Day weekend to accommodate traffic launches
(specifically due to the restrictions offered at the Grays Bay public access because of County Road 101
construction). They will obtain bids on the electronic changeable message sign (partial Save the Lake funding
approved) mid-summer. A tentative completion date for this project has been set for late summer or early fall.
Browns Bay Marina (Site 2), Tanager Lake
The south opening slips for the south dock have been removed and the dock structure was aligned to the
north. Per the approved variance order, an as-built survey has been received and is pending staff and legal
counsel review. In regards to the pending litigation relative to this site, the Minnesota State Supreme Court
declined a Petition for Review (e-mail forwarded to the Board on April 29th) and the Minnesota Court of
Appeals has scheduled Oral Arguments for June 18th at 10:30 a.m. in St. Paul, in which he plans on attending
(open to public).
He entertained questions and comments from the Board, in which Jabbour requested he forward the briefs to
the Board.
12. OLD BUSINESS
Jabbour stated he met with Three Rivers Park District Superintendent Boe Carlson and their Public Safety
Director. This gathering resulted in their verbal agreement to place a manned patrol boat at Tonka Bay
Marina for the 2015 boating season. He recommended the LMCD send a letter of appreciation to the TRPD
(with Jabbour forwarding the details to the LMCD).
13. NEW BUSINESS
Baasen asked Nybeck to expound on whether the May 27th meeting should be cancelled.
Nybeck stated that various Board members had previously commented to him that the LMCD should consider
cancelling meetings that are short in nature. At this time, the LMCD has agenda items that would result in a
20 to 30 minute meeting on May 27th. He made reference to the May 27th Ordinance Review Committee
meeting, which could continue to take place either at this location or the LMCD office. He entertained
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 2015
Page 20
questions from the Board in which he confirmed: 1) the draft budget was not a concern as it will be mailed to
the member cities tomorrow for a review and comment session that is scheduled for June 4th at the LMCD
office, 2) Rapp’s service agreement and a conditional approval of the 2016 draft budget could be approved
just prior to the June 10th proposed strategic planning session, and 3) that he would communicate to the yacht
clubs and sailing schools that the ordinance amendment and public hearing would be scheduled for the June
24th meeting,
MOTION: Baasen moved, Roy seconded to cancel the May 27th Regular Board Meeting.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
___________________________________
Dan Baasen Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM 5B
LMCD MONTHLY CASH FLOW CHART
APRIL, 2015
Administration
2015 General Revenue/Expense
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Revenue (That Month Only)
Expense (That Month Only)
2015 General Ending Cash
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$-
General ending cash
Budget (16% of 2015 Annual Admin. Expenses)
11:01 AM
Lake Minnetonka Gonservation District
06/0{/'t 5
Cash Balances
As of April 30, 2015
Cash Basis
Apr30,15
ASSETS
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
Beacon Checking
1024M10. Beacon Checking - Gen
1024M20' Beacon Checking - STL
1024M30 ' Beacon Checking . EWM
Total Beacon Checking
USB Checking/4M
1025M10 ' USB
'1025M20' USB
1025M30 ' USB
1025M50 . USB
20,609,89
Sweep
Ghecking/4M Sweep -cen
Gheckinrg/4M Sweep -S/L
Gheckinrg/4M Sweep - EWM
Checking/4M
Sweep.EquiRepl
Total USB Checking/4M Sweep
1090M10 . Beacon
Bank. {iavings
Total Checking/Savings
Total Current Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES & EQUIry
-45,317,98
12,473.60
53,454.27
-354,464.04
204,950.56
82,04',t.16
67,472.32
0.00
688,466.66
709,076.55
709,076.55
709,076.55
0.00
Page
1
'l
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
I :00 AM
Administrative Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual
06/01/15
Janurry through April 2015
Accrual Becis
Jan -
Apr'15
i
Budgct
Over
8u...
% of Budgot
Ordlnery Incomo/Expcnse
Incomo
3020M10 ' Municipel Dues . Admin.
3000M10' Intcrcrt - Admin.
3110M10 . Multiple/Pcrm. Dock Lic -Admin.
3120M10 ' DMA liccnsc . Admin.
3130Ml0 ' Deicing Liconlo - Adnrin.
3170M10 . Vrriencec - Admin.
3200M10 . Spccitl Donlity . Admin.
3220M10 ' Spocial Evcntr - Admin.
32401S10 . Chrrtcr Boatc - Admin.
3260M10 . Court Fines - Admin.
32tOM10' Liquor/Bccr/Winc Liccnrc-Adrnin.
3300M10 ' Othcr Incomc - Admin.
33/t0M10 ' Public Agoncy Grantr-Aidc - Adm
t400M10 ' Trenslcrr ln - Admin.
Totel Incomc
Grocr Profit
n9,494.75
833.27
74,223.38
3,350.00
0.00
-186.50
0.00
0.00
3,250.00
7,785,48
20,'150.00
510.00
0.00
0.00
247,992.00
2,000.00
76,650.00
3,350.00
5,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
0.00
-178,497.25
-1
,166.73
-2,426.62
28.0o/o
41 ,70/o
0.00
96.8%
100,0%
-5,500.00
-2,186.50
-9.3%
-2,500.00
O.0o/o
0.0o/o
0.00
0.00
-750.00
-47,214.52
-850.00
-1 ,490.00
-500.00
0.00
179,410.38
422,492.00
-243,081.62
42,5%
179,410.38
422.492.00
-243,081.62
42.5o/o
204,488.00
15,643.00
15,364.00
7,486.00
2,460.00
1,050.00
-140,109.3'l
-10,439.07
-10,262.'.t8
-36.00
-1,585.20
31 .5o/o
-1,0s0.00
0.0%o
s,000.00
31 .1%o
11,000.00
1,000.00
1,100.00
2,500.00
0.00
3,300.00
-3,444.18
-10,676.01
-947.75
-876.30
-1,484.78
0.00
-2,400.00
27 3%
4,500.00
-2,83't.27
37'.t%
4,260.00
17,'t80.00
7,250.00
1,700.00
-663.66
-10,066.00
-7,250.00
-1,700.00
-11,798.68
4,000.00
55,000.00
21,000.00
2,000.00
s00.00
0.0o/o
81.3%
'14.2%
96.0%
25,5%
0.Oo/o
0.0%
Exponrr
4020M10' Selerlcr-002 - Admin
4021M10 . ER Shrrc of Admln FtCA/Mcdicero
4022M10 . ER PERA - Admin
.
'0040M10 . Audtfing Admin.
4060M10 Tolephono - Admin.
4070M10 'Wob Pagc / Internct - Admin.
'f0E0M'10'. Poetrge Admin.
4100M10 Printing . Admin.
.
'fi10M10 Publlc Info./Lcgal - Admin.
4140Ml0 ' Equipmcnt REM . Admin.
41E0M10 ' Profcsslonal Servicec - Admin.
41E1Ml0 . Frofessional Comp. Serv.-Adnrin.
41E2M'10 ' Mcdia (Cabtc/tntcrnct) - Admin.
4220M10. Office Supptics -Adrnin.
.
'f230M10 . Moeting Exp. - Admin.
a320ill0 Office Ront - Admin.
tl340itl 0 . Incurancs - Adnrin.
4t60Ml 0 . Subs/Mombcrshlps - Admln.
43E0M10 . Employcc Bcncfits - Admin.
. Milcagc/Exp's - Admin.
'0400M'10 . 'Inining/Prof.
Devcl. - Admin.
'f410M10
a620lrll0' Furniture & Equip - Admin.
4530M10 . Comp. Sftwr & Hdwr - Admin.
4620M10 . Lcgel Fccs - Admin.
/t640M10 . Prorccution Fces . Admln.
4650M10 . Room t Board - Admin.
4660i110 . Proactive Codo Enforcemcnt prog
49A0Ml0 . Contingoncy . Admin.
Totel Expcnre
Not Ordlnery Incomc
Nct Incon'ro
64,378.69
5,203.93
5,10't .82
7,450.00
874.80
0.00
1,555.82
323 99
52.25
223.70
1,015.22
0.00
900.00
1,668.73
3,596.34
7,114.00
0.00
0.00
6,922.32
8:t.95
242.15
0.00
907.53
8,241.66
9,398.88
0.00
353,00
341.00
18,72',t
OO
33.3%
33.2%
99.5%
35.6%
2.9o/o
5.2o/o
20.30/o
40.60/o
0.0o/o
u.4%
41 .4o/o
0.Oo/o
0.iYo
37.OVo
2,000.00
-'t,916.05
4,2%
400.00
60.5o/o
1,500.00
2,000.00
32,000.00
-157.85
-1,500.00
-1,092.47
-23,758.U
45,000.00
-35,601
2
25.8o/o
20.9o/o
.1
0.0%
45.4o/o
1,000.00
-1,000.00
0.00/o
4,590.00
4,237.00
7.7o/o
10,000.00
-9,659.00
't25,949.78
422,492.00
-296,542.22
29.8o/o
53,460.60
0.00
53,460.60
100.0%
53,460.60
0.00
53,460.60
100.0%
3.40/o
Fege
1
't:'t7
pM
oltoztls
Accrual
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Basis
AIS ManagemenUPrevention Profit & Loss Budget \/s. Actual
January through April 2015
Jan - Ap...
Budget
26,481.50
0.00
94,500.00
500 00
53,500 00
$ Over
Bu...
o/.
ot 8...
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
3020M30 . Municipal Dues - AIS
3080M30.lnterest-AlS
3300M30 ' Public Agencies/Other Income
Total Incorne
Gross Profit
000
-68,018.50
-500
00
28 0%
0.0%
-53,500.00
0.Oo/o
26,481.50
148,500.00
-122,018.50
,t7.8%
26,481.50
148,500.00
-122,018.50
17.80k
Expense
AIS Prevention Program
4131M30 . Uniforms - AIS Prevention
4151M30 . Equip. Supplies -AlS prevention
4171M30 . Fuel/Supl. Spayr-AlS prevention
4181M30 . Prof. Services - AIS prevention
4382f'/130 . Salaries - AIS Prevention
4383[1/130 ' ER Share AIS Prevent. Fica-Med
4531 M30 . Software & Hardware/Training
4981M30 . Contingency - AIS prevention
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
000
0 00
0.00
Total AIS Prevention Program
0.00
0.00
0.00
39,000 00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
-39,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,500 00
-14,500.00
53,500.00
-53,500 00
32,602.00
2,494 00
200 00
-132,602.00
0 0%
0.Oo/o
0.0%
0.0To
0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
0
00/o
0.0%
EWM Harvesting Program
4020M30'Salaries-EWM
4021M30
4060M30
4100M30
. ER Share of EWM FtCA,/Medicare
.Telephone - EWM
. Printing/Advertising - EWM
4110M30.Public Info./Legal - EW|M
4130M30 .Uniforms - EWM
. Equipment R&M - EWM
. Equip. Suppties & Maint. - EWM
. Fuel - HarvestorMk Boats-EWM
417011t30' Fuel/Suppty - Van - EWM
434011/130 . Insurance W/C - EWM
4140M30
4150M30
4160M30
43501tl130 .
47201V130 .
Ins./Equip. - EWM
Contract Mechanic Fees - EWM
47211Vi3O. Specialty Mechanic - EWM
4740M30 .Truck Service - EWM
498011/130 . Contingency - EWM
500011/130
. EWM Reserve Expense
Total EVVM Harvesting Program
Total Expense
Net Ordinary Income
Net Income
000
000
0.00
1
86.1 0
19.00
000
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
000
0.00
0.00
000
11969
1
86.1 0
19.00
94.90
0.0%
0 0To
0 0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
-2,494.00
-200.00
0.00
0.00
-94 90
-12,500.00
12,500 00
6,500 00
1,500.00
3,000.00
500 00
12,000 00
2,000 00
19,000.00
2,404.00
-19,000.00
-2,284.31
0.0%o
95,000 00
-94,675.21
03%
-1,t8,175.21
0.20/o
00
-1,500.00
-3,000 00
-500.00
- 12,000.00
-2,000 00
-6,500
0 0%
0
00/o
0.0%
0.0%
0.0vo
0 0%
0 0%
5.0%
0.00
324.79
324
79
26,156.71
26,156.71
148,500.00
0.00
0.00
"26,156.71
:26,156.71
100.0%
100.0%
Page
1
Lake Minnetonka Gonservation District
11:01 AM
Save the Lake Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual
06/01 /1 5
Accrual Basis
January through April 2015
Jan - Apr 15
Budget
$ Over
Budget
% of Budget
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
3001M20 . Donations (General) - S/L
3002M20 . Donations (Photograph) - S/L
3003M20 ' Donations (Safety prog.) - S/L
3005M20 ' Donations (Banquet) - S/L
3270M20. S/L Recognition Dinner - S/L
Total Income
3,749,67
96.80
2,789.25
8,730.00
4,560.00
't9,925.72
Gross Profit
19,925,72
Expense
4080M20.Postage-S/L
4100M20'Printing-S/L
41'11M20'
4160M20 '
4220M20.
4980M20 .
Public Service/Education . S/L
Public Safety - S/L
Office Suppties - S/L
Contingency - S/L
Total Expense
Net Ordinary Income
Net Income
336.96
0.00
11,849.12
321.61
0.00
?4 00
'12,539.68
7,386.04
7,386.04
7,386.04
Page
1
u @E
c
c
.Hg:EEg
E*
E 3i
-.glJ
q
v
q
a
c
c
c
cc
c
F
o
q
q
tr
!.s E^
6.!
L!
$ic
c
a
F
{€
o
(6
U
o
6
tr
d
F.
frE
fiH
EH
o5
xm
=\
rd
aiE
FC
o=
q
es
gR
tr
q N a
v
di tr
o6
IH'
iE fib
oh
EE
E.H
8s 'Ib
LU
q
f
c
T
F
o
II
Efr$
gFE
(J=
UIJ
zi
o
g>
!*l o
EX
o.=
utu
ad:
=
o
c
c
z4
q
L
t
c
n
q
C
c
=
u F
:
tI
c
c
c
c
0(
d
6
I
F
c f:
c
tr
c
c
cc
r
a
c
rtr
V
o
q
n
V x tr
F
o F
d
F
=
r
c
6 U
6 tr o
q c
6
rn
tr
A
o
o
q
q o)
F c
q 6 i
tr
v
o
o
tr
(
g)
tr
to
c
oo
c
c(
f
t
c
(
C
f,
l
c
s
I
C
+
+
n
T
c
E
o
a
(
0
I
I
C
a
T
U
o o
c
t
c o
6
c c
tr
c
t
b
c
?
E
c
c
o
c6
q
a
q
c^
F
C
+
o
o
o
o
o
o
q
t
q
(
c
+
c
F
v c
o
C u
c !
-Ft
z
t
I
d
f
c
c
c
j
c
c
i
F
q
+
F s
e o ! I
f
c6 c G
t
o d
I
E
HI
ul
=
c FI
v
E
d
o
c
:
q
F
6l
ml
@l
nl
=l
xl
ol
bl
xl
o
c
o
v
n
<x
]nii
ri
oi
No
I
o
f
q
v c o
6 o
a
G
c
o
c
c
o-o
-iE
c
(
F
+
q
H#i
(
e
c Ic T
'a
C
0(
tr
(9Q
+c F
'c tr
c
fi
OE
!
,I
o
6
F.
:
F..
di
$
ITEM
5C
SERVICE AGREEMENT
entered into by and between
CRAIG RAPP, LLC
(herein referred to as CRAIG RAPP)
and
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(herein referred to as the “Client”)
WHEREAS CRAIG RAPP wishes to provide to the Client certain services described in this Agreement and the
Client wishes CRAIG RAPP to provide such services / work:
THE PARTIES THEREFORE NOW AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
CRAIG RAPP shall provide facilitation and strategic planning services to the Client.
2.
SCOPE OF WORK
2.1
The scope of work shall be facilitation and strategic planning services as outlined in the
proposal attached to, and forms part of, this Agreement as Appendix A.
2.2
CRAIG RAPP shall make best efforts to incorporate the assistance of the Client in the delivery of
the work as described in order to minimize, and to the extent feasible, reduce the cost. CRAIG RAPP
shall be the final arbiter regarding assistance to be provided and cost reductions.
3.
ALTERATIONS / ADDITIONS TO WORK
3.1
Neither party may affect any change of whatever nature to the Scope of Work outlined in
Clause 2 and outlined in the proposal without the prior written approval of the other party.
3.2
Should the scope and parameters of work change materially after the signing of this
Agreement, the parties shall draw up and sign a new Agreement which new Agreement shall
cancel and revoke the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
Service Agreement
4.
page 2 of 10
DURATION OF WORK
4.1
The work shall commence on June 1, 2015 and shall be completed by September 30, 2015.
4.2
Should CRAIG RAPP foresee that it will be unable, for whatever reason, to complete the
mandate by the completion date, then CRAIG RAPP shall give written notice to that effect to
the Client at least two (2) weeks prior to the completion date and apply to the Client for an
extension of the completion date.
4.3
On receipt of such notice / application for extension the Client shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of such application provided that CRAIG RAPP shows good cause in support of its
application.
5.
CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
5.1
The contract price for the scope of work identified in Appendix A is $7,500.00, which includes all
costs.
5.2
Optional sessions beyond the initial scope of work identified in Appendix A are offered as
follows:
5.2(a) Optional session to facilitate the development of action plans is $2,000.00. The Client shall
provide notice in writing to engage the optional session.
5.2(b) Optional session to facilitate a session on effective governance is $2,500.00. The Client shall
provide notice in writing to engage the optional session.
5.2(c) Optional session to the development of a strategic profile and environmental scan is $2,000.00.
The Client shall provide notice in writing to engage the optional session.
5.3
The first payment, in the amount of $2,000.00 shall be made upon execution of this agreement.
5.4
The CRAIG RAPP shall submit progress invoices monthly. Client shall make payment within 30
days upon receipt of an invoice from CRAIG RAPP.
6.
CONTACT PERSONS
6.1
For this Agreement, the contact person for CRAIG RAPP is Craig Rapp.
6.2
For this Agreement, the contact person for the Client is Greg Nybeck.
6.3
The persons referred to in Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 shall be regarded as the contact persons for all
matters concerning the work and any substitution of either person by either party shall be
effected by way of written notice to the other party.
7.
GOOD FAITH
The parties shall act with the utmost good faith between each other in all matters concerning this
Agreement and the parties shall use their best efforts to ensure that the objectives of this Agreement
Service Agreement
page 3 of 10
are met and realized.
8.
DUTIES OF CRAIG RAPP
CRAIG RAPP shall conduct all work associated with the contract individually.
9.
DUTIES OF CLIENT
The Client shall ensure that:
9.1
All assistance given to CRAIG RAPP shall be timely to ensure that the terms and objectives of
this Agreement are met.
9.2
Payments due as required by terms of this Agreement are made in accordance with the
provisions of Clause 5 hereof.
10.
INDEMNIFICATION
Notwithstanding any provisions in this Agreement, CRAIG RAPP warrants that it shall use its best
efforts to ensure that the work is of the highest standard, no warranty can be given by CRAIG RAPP in
respect of the work and accordingly the Client hereby agrees to waive all claims for any harm or loss,
including consequential losses, which it may substantially have against CRAIG RAPP, its employees,
agents, and other persons connected in some way to such work, such claims having arisen from any
cause whatsoever.
11.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
All copyright, title and interest in any document produced or process designed or devised by CRAIG
RAPP in the course of this Agreement shall remain vested in CRAIG RAPP. CRAIG RAPP hereby grants
to Client an unlimited non-exclusive license right to reproduce and use, for its governmental purposes,
all deliverables and any underlying data produced under this agreement, including the right to made
and use derivative works.
12.
VARIATIONS / AMENDMENTS
No variation or amendment of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall have any force or
effect unless same are reduced to writing and such amending document is signed by the parties.
13.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including its Addenda, shall constitute the entire Agreement and no other conditions,
warranties, stipulations or representations shall be binding on the parties.
Service Agreement
14.
page 4 of 10
SIGNATORIES
The signatories to this Agreement warrant that they are duly authorised to bind their respective
employers, CRAIG RAPP and the Client.
CRAIG RAPP:
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District:
40 East Chicago Ave # 340
Chicago, IL 60611
Accepted for and on behalf of
Accepted for and on behalf of
CRAIG RAPP, LLC
and duly authorized
and duly authorised
Signature:
Signature:
Name:
Craig R. Rapp
Name:
Designation:
President
Designation:
Date:
May 26, 2015
Date:
Place:
Chicago, IL 60611
Place:
Service Agreement
page 5 of 10
APPENDIX A
IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONS & THE PEOPLE WHO LEAD THEM
May 11, 2015
Deborah Zorn
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Revised Proposal for Strategic Planning
Dear Ms. Zorn,
Based upon our recent conversation at Minnetonka City Hall, the attached revised proposal is submitted
for your consideration.
The proposal specifically addresses the following needs identified during our discussion:
 The desire to minimize the cost and scope of the project—specifically, maintaining comparability
with similar projects in constituent cities
 Offering a “menu” approach to the offerings—but preserving a core proposal for strategic
planning
 Establishment of strategic priorities, measurable outcomes and performance targets for a threeyear period. Deliver actionable plans based upon current environmental conditions, survey
results and Board member feedback.
Based upon my understanding of the desired outcomes and meeting schedules, the process described is
projected to run for approximately three-four months beginning in June and ending in AugustSeptember 2015.
I have attached a brief summary of my credentials, along with a representative client list and project
examples. As indicated, I have over 30 years of experience as a senior executive and consultant to local
government and have conducted hundreds of workshops and strategy sessions across the country.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services to the LMCD.
Yours truly,
Craig Rapp
President
Service Agreement
page 7 of 10
Proposal
The following describes in detail the strategic planning process proposed for the LMCD.
Session #1- Review Organizational Purpose/Mission—4 hour meeting This session will be focused on
determining the organization’s mission, vision and values. The first step will be determining the mission
(purpose)—supported and focused by a discussion of enabling authority, other competing and
complementary organizations, and the LMCD’s desired value proposition. To the extent relevant, this
will also include a review of stakeholder survey results. The outcome will be a draft mission statement.
In alignment with the Board’s philosophy and the mission, a set of organizational values will be
developed—establishing core principles for the operation. A draft vision statement—summarizing the
LMCD’s vision for the future, will be developed. Accomplishing all three elements in a single meeting will
depend upon the how quickly agreement and alignment on these issues can be achieved, and the extent
to which current statements/beliefs need to be modified.
a.
Review current Mission, Vision, Values, enabling authority (supplied by LMCD)
b.
Develop session outline/agenda materials
c.
Facilitate session
d.
Summarize results- prepare agenda materials
Session #2- Examine the Environment- SWOT Analysis, Identify Organizational Challenges, Priorities– 3-4
hour meeting. This session will be dedicated to examining the internal and external environment within
which the LMCD operates. A facilitated process using information generated by the environmental scan,
stakeholder survey, and a SWOT questionnaire filled out in advance by the LMCD Board and staff. The
outcome will be a set of organizational challenges and strategic priorities.
a.
Develop and distribute SWOT questionnaire
b.
Review and compile questionnaire results
c.
Review stakeholder survey and environmental scan results
d.
Develop agenda materials
e.
Facilitate session
f.
Summarize results- prepare agenda materials
g.
Incorporate results into follow-up session
Session #3 – Determine Strategic Priorities, Establish Key Outcomes and Performance Targets- 4-5 hour
meeting This session will build on the work of the previous session—resulting in the confirmation of
Strategic Priorities, and the identification of desired outcomes. This will include the creation of Key
Outcome Indicators (KOI’s), and performance targets. An initial list of supporting initiatives may also be
discussed, reflecting specific projects to be undertaken.
a.
Prepare background materials
b.
Review previous session discussion/results
c.
Discuss plans/documents with Executive Director
d.
Facilitate session
e.
Summarize results
Summary Report. A summary report, detailing the process, will be presented. This will include the
strategic priorities, desired outcomes, key outcome indicators and targets along with supporting
initiatives. The newly adopted mission, vision and values will also be included.
a.
Prepare summary report
Optional Session – Develop Strategic Initiative Action Plans – 3 hour meeting This session will be
conducted with the staff and will focus exclusively on finalizing the supporting initiatives and creating
detailed action plans for each strategic priority, in line with the Key Outcome Indicators. Action plans
need to be developed in sufficient detail to establish accountability and make the effort real. The
Service Agreement
page 8 of 10
session will include a review of the strategic planning process to provide guidance on the development
of effective plans.
a.
Meetings with Executive Director
b.
Prepare background materials
c.
Review previous session discussion/results
d.
Facilitate session
e.
Summarize results
Optional Session- Effective Governance- Roles and Responsibilities – 2.5-3 hour meeting
An interactive session with the Board and staff leadership team will be conducted to familiarize the
group with best practices in governance and effective decision-making. Prior to the session, participants
will complete a questionnaire, the results of which will be used to identify issues relevant to the LMCD’s
governance process. The session will build upon the work completed on mission, vision and values to
focus the discussion. Session topics covered will include: roles and responsibilities, leadership and
teamwork, handling conflict, accountability and decision-making.
a.
Develop and administer questionnaire
b.
Summarize questionnaire results
c.
Prepare background materials.
d.
Facilitate session
Optional Session- Environmental Scan, Strategic Profile –2-3 hour meeting
An environmental scan –or a detailed review of the organization and its operating environment is
employed as a preliminary step in a strategic planning process. It provides a detailed profile of the
organization and its capacity, as well as a detailed look at the primary external influences that impact
organizational performance. This will be developed by staff, but includes consultant support and
guidance in the form of templates, examples, and approaches for the development of a useful
environmental scan.
a.
Review organizational context with Executive Director
b.
Recommend environmental scanning approach
c.
Present examples and outline an approach for consideration
d.
Provide advice and support as needed
e.
Review documents and organize environmental scan
f.
Present/co-present to LMCD Board
Proposed Fee
Service Agreement
page 9 of 10
The total fee for the proposed process—Sessions 1-3—is $7,500.00, which includes all costs.
The fees for Optional Sessions are listed below:
Select the process by placing an (X) in all boxes that apply:
X $7,500.00- facilitated strategic planning process-sessions 1,2,3
$2,000.00- Optional session-develop action plans with staff
$2,500.00- Optional session-Effective Governance-Roles and Responsibilities
$2,000.00- optional session-Environmental Scan, Strategic Profile process
$235/hour—Consulting services hourly rate
_____________________________________________________________________________
for the LMCD
Date
May 12, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
for Craig Rapp, LLC
Date
REFERENCES
Below are selected references from recent engagements similar to the one proposed for the LMCD.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
City of Brooklyn Center
City of Golden Valley
City of New Brighton
City of Roseville
City of Edina
City of Wayzata
City of Minnetrista
City of Crystal
City of Brooklyn Park
Contact:
Curt Boganey, City Manager, City of Brooklyn Center – [email protected], (763) 5693303
Tom Burt, City Manager, City of Golden Valley, [email protected], (763) 593-8095
Dean Lotter, City Manager, City of New Brighton- [email protected],
(651) 638-2041
Service Agreement
page 10 of 10
Scott Neal, City Manager, City of Edina – [email protected], (952) 826-0401
Heidi Nelson, City Manager, City of Wayzata- [email protected], (952) 404-5309
Pat Trudgeon, City Manager, City of Roseville, [email protected], (651) 792-7021
Mike Barone, City Administrator, City of Minnetrista, [email protected], (952) 241-2511
Anne Norris, City Manager, City of Crystal, [email protected], (763) 531-1000
Mike Sable, Acting City Manager, City of Brooklyn Park, [email protected], (763) 4938000
Examples of strategy and vision projects from the following clients is attached:





City of Wayzata- Strategic Plan- includes priorities, measureable outcomes, strategic initiatives
Village of Cary, IL-Strategic Plan (conducted as part of my alliance w/ Northern Illinois University) –
includes priorities, outcomes and details of initiatives/action plans
City of Edina- Strategy driven work plan-shows the organization’s work plan—developed in
alignment with the strategic plan
City of Lakeville-Community Vision- a community-wide effort to establish a 25-year vision-a ninemonth effort involving a survey, focus groups, community forums and hundreds of community
participants
City of New Brighton-Performance Report- example of a quarterly performance report developed
to report progress on strategic priorities and targeted outcomes
Consultant Credentials
Craig Rapp, President, Craig Rapp, LLC is a nationally recognized speaker, a former city manager, and
the former Director of Consulting for the International City-County Management Association (ICMA). Mr.
Rapp speaks and conducts workshops throughout the United States on a wide range of subjects such
as: leading in difficult political environments, effective governance, service delivery optimization, and
authentic leadership.
Mr. Rapp’s thirty-five years of experience as a senior executive in the public, private and non-profit
sectors includes service as city manager in three Minnesota cities, senior director at the Metropolitan
Council, and vice president of a national consulting firm. The focus of his work is leadership
development, strategic planning and optimizing organizational performance. He has a master’s degree
in public administration, a bachelor’s degree in urban studies, holds a Credentialed Manager designation
from ICMA, and has completed the Senior Executive Institute at the University of Virginia.
ITEM
5D
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 141
A RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT
FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF
WHEREAS, the LMCD requires access to court records for criminal
prosecutions; and
WHEREAS, for electronic access to court records, the State of Minnesota, Office
of State Court Administration requires execution of its MASTER SUBSCRIBER
AGREEMENT FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES and the MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR MPA
MY CASE; and
WHEREAS, the two Agreements were approved by the LMCD Board on October
24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Courts have adopted a new data management system for
criminal records which requires approval of a new MASTER SUBSCRIBER
AGREEMENT FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that approval and execution of such
Agreement is in the best interests of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District Board of Directors that the MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR
MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES is hereby
approved and the Executive Director is authorized and directed to execute such
agreement, transmit them to the Court and take such other steps as are necessary to
carry out the terms of said agreements.
ADOPTED by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this
10th day of June, 2015.
Dan Baasen, Chair
ATTEST:
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
6A
May 15, 2015
TO:
LMCD City Administrators
LMCD Board Members
FROM:
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Draft 2016 LMCD Budget
Enclosed is a copy of the draft 2016 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Budget. The
LMCD invites you to attend a review and comment session scheduled for Thursday, June 4th, at 11
a.m. in the LMCD office.
By state statute, the allocation of levy to the 14 member cities is based on their percentage of the
cumulative net tax capacity, with no city paying greater than 20% of the overall levy. The LMCD
Board has considered and recognizes the economic challenges the member cities are currently facing.
Thus, a decrease in the overall levy is proposed.
Highlights of the draft 2016 LMCD Budget include the following:
Budget Highlights
Overall Levy
Total Expenditures
Personnel Services
Office Lease & Storage
Eurasian Watermilfoil
(EWM) Harvesting Program
Equipment Replacement
Fund
Aquatic Invasive Species
Prevention & Management
Draft 2016 LMCD Budget
Details
10.4% decrease ($306,866 compared to $342,492 in 2015).
2.1% decrease ($570,366 compared to $582,492 in 2015).
0.2% increase ($254,738 compared to $254,216 in 2015).
Compensation adjustments are proposed at up to 2.5% in Contingency
and will be based on performance (see enclosed survey).
2.5% increase ($17,609 compared to $17,180 in 2015).
$85,500 for EWM mechanical harvesting of public navigational
areas (10% decrease from 2015 due to whole bay and large scale
herbicide treatments coordinated by Lake Minnetonka
Association). A $30,000 grant is anticipated from the MN DNR.
$17,500 in transfers ($15,000 from the AIS Reserve Fund and
$2,500 from the Administration Reserve Fund) for future
replacement of EWM capital equipment (compared to $35,000
in 2015).
$40,000 for watercraft inspections through various partnerships.
A $4,000 grant from the MN DNR and a $20,000 grant from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are anticipated.
The LMCD values your review and input. Please let me know if you would like me to attend an
upcoming city council meeting to discuss the draft 2016 LMCD Budget or to review LMCD activities
and projects. Review and approval by the LMCD Board is planned for the June 10th meeting.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2016 BUDGET AND LEVY
(DRAFT)
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
Data
2014 Taxable
Market Value
2014 Net Tax
Capacity
% of Total
Net Tax
Capacity
(Note 1)
Share of
Admin. Levy
in 2016
DEEPHAVEN
3,642
1,032,251,985
11,581,247
5.0%
$16,325
$4,914
$21,239
$23,018
-$1,779
-7.7%
EXCELSIOR
2,188
370,753,654
4,630,478
2.0%
$6,527
$1,965
$8,492
$9,053
-$561
-6.2%
GREENWOOD
688
287,137,820
3,276,453
1.4%
$4,618
$1,390
$6,009
$6,560
-$551
-8.4%
MINNETONKA
49,734
7,755,295,658
97,592,653
42.2%
$47,173
$14,200
$61,373
$68,498
-$7,125
-10.4%
City
Share of AIS Share of Total Share of Total
Levy in 2016 Levy in 2016 Levy in 2015
Increase in
Total Levy
from 2015
% of
Increase
from 2015
MTKA BEACH
539
279,018,887
3,254,759
1.4%
$4,588
$1,381
$5,969
$5,738
$231
4.0%
MINNETRISTA
6,384
1,286,340,955
13,666,702
5.9%
$19,264
$5,799
$25,063
$28,290
-$3,227
-11.4%
MOUND
9,052
1,006,507,064
10,665,953
4.6%
$15,034
$4,526
$19,560
$21,276
-$1,716
-8.1%
ORONO
7,437
2,431,401,691
27,566,309
11.9%
$38,857
$11,697
$50,553
$59,334
-$8,781
-14.8%
SHOREWOOD
7,307
1,449,497,111
15,926,414
6.9%
$22,449
$6,758
$29,207
$33,032
-$3,825
-11.6%
SPRING PARK
1,669
216,026,342
2,578,200
1.1%
$3,634
$1,094
$4,728
$5,545
-$817
-14.7%
TONKA BAY
1,475
512,085,023
5,815,803
2.5%
$8,198
$2,468
$10,665
$12,024
-$1,359
-11.3%
VICTORIA
7,345
1,162,010,000
12,231,055
5.3%
$17,241
$5,190
$22,430
$23,344
-$914
-3.9%
WAYZATA
3,688
1,494,142,332
19,605,682
8.5%
$27,636
$8,319
$35,954
$40,215
-$4,261
-10.6%
437
262,265,908
3,066,103
1.3%
$4,322
$1,301
$5,623
$6,564
-$941
-14.3%
101,585
19,544,734,430
231,457,811
100.0%
$235,866
$71,000
$306,866
$342,491
-$35,625
-10.4%
WOODLAND
Maximum Levy Per MN statute 103B.635 (Total Taxable Market Value * .00242%):
(Note 1) Per MN statute 103B.631, no city may pay more than 20% of the total levy. The City of Minnetonka would pay a constant 20% of any amounts to be levied.
Remaining cities factor for determining levy amounts is computed as: (City Net Tax Capacity / ( Total Net Tax Capacity - Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity ) ) * 80%
Total Net Tax Capacity
less Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity
Net Tax Capacity for remaining 13 cities
231,457,811
(97,592,653)
133,865,158
$472,983
2016 BUDGET DETAIL (Draft)
2013
Actual
REVENUES
1. Administration
a) LMCD Communities Levy
b) Use from Administration Reserve
c) Court Fines
d) Licenses
e) Other Public Agencies
f) Interest
g) Other Income
SUB-TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
2014
Budget
2014
Actual
2015
Budget
2015 Actual
Projected
2016
Budget
Footnote #
See Appendix A
238,652
34,096
55,611
110,382
696
2,055
2,259
443,751
245,990
19,565
55,000
115,000
0
1,250
2,000
438,805
245,990
0
62,156
114,586
696
1,358
1,043
425,829
247,992
0
55,000
115,000
500
2,000
2,000
422,492
247,992
0
55,000
115,000
500
1,250
2,000
421,742
235,866
17,500
55,000
115,000
500
1,500
2,000
427,366
91,951
51,893
0
484
144,328
94,625
30,000
0
375
125,000
94,625
51,841
0
0
146,466
94,500
30,000
0
500
125,000
94,500
53,500
0
500
148,500
71,000
54,000
0
500
125,500
25,000
0
0
25,000
25,000
0
0
25,000
25,000
0
0
25,000
35,000
0
0
35,000
35,000
0
0
35,000
17,500
0
0
17,500
TOTAL REVENUES
613,079
588,805
597,295
582,492
605,242
570,366
Total Levy
330,603
340,615
340,615
342,492
342,492
306,866
DISBURSEMENTS
ADMINISTRATION
1. Personnel Services:
a) Salaries- excludes EWM Project Management time
b) FICA & Medicare
c) Employer Benefit Contributions
SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
198,718
15,199
31,802
245,719
200,524
15,340
33,279
249,143
203,829
15,502
32,397
251,728
204,488
15,643
34,085
254,216
207,618
16,068
32,707
256,393
205,100
15,690
33,948
254,738
3
4
5
39,143
2,130
41,273
47,409
2,500
49,909
16,760
2,054
18,814
17,180
2,500
19,680
17,180
2,500
19,680
17,609
2,500
20,109
6
7
2. Aquatic Invasive Species
a) LMCD Communities Levy
b) Other Public Agencies
c) Use from AIS Reserve
d) Interest
SUB-TOTAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
3. Equipment Replacement
a) Transfers from Administration and AIS Reserves
b) Receipt from LMCIT
c) Use from Equipment Replacement Reserve
SUB-TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
2. Contractual Services:
a) Office Lease & Storage
b) Professional Services
SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1
2
2016 BUDGET DETAIL (Draft)
2013
Actual
3. Office & Administration:
a) Office, General Supplies
b) Telephone
c) Website, Internet, & E-mail
d) Postage
e) Printing, Publications, Advertising
f) Maintenance, Office Equipment
g) Subscriptions, Memberships
h) Insurance, Bonds
i) Public Information, Legal Notices
j) Meeting Expenses
k) Media (Cable & Internet)
l) Mileage
m) Employee Training
SUB-TOTAL OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION
2014
Budget
2014
Actual
2000
400
39,860
4,500
2,640
300
5,000
12,000
1,100
1,768
7,250
1,000
4,500
3,600
2000
400
46,058
0
543
543
1,000
2,000
3,000
478
1,583
2,061
1,500
2,000
3,500
1,500
2,000
3,500
1,500
2,000
3,500
31,674
50,963
317
82,954
32,000
45,000
1,000
78,000
40,744
29,738
812
71,294
32,000
45,000
1,000
78,000
32,000
45,000
1,000
78,000
32,000
45,000
1,000
78,000
6. Contract Services/Studies:
a) Audit
b) Information Technology
SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDIES
7,050
81
7,131
7,268
500
7,768
7,250
303
7,553
7,486
750
8,236
7,486
750
8,236
7,711
750
8,461
7. Code Enforcement Program
3,410
4,000
11,940
4,590
4,500
4,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,000
25,000
25,000
0
0
2,500
26,700
7,125
3,073
10,000
20,000
12,000
468,751
463,805
432,902
422,492
435,649
429,866
9. Equipment Replacement Fund
10. Contingency
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
5,000
10,500
1,100
1,700
7,000
1,000
4,500
1817
0
36,021
Footnote #
See Appendix A
4,500
2,640
300
5,000
11,500
1,100
1,700
7,250
1,000
4,350
3,600
2000
400
45,340
8. Administration Reserve Fund
3,637
9,996
850
1,611
7,205
939
3,833
2016
Budget
4,500
2,460
300
5,000
11,000
1,100
1,700
7,250
1,000
4,260
3,300
2000
400
44,270
5. Legal:
a) Legal Services
b) Prosecution Services
c) Hennepin County Room & Board
SUB-TOTAL LEGAL
4,500
2,160
2015 Actual
Projected
4,077
2,621
228
4,968
11,575
917
1,677
6,591
1,435
5,786
0
1514
50
41,439
4. Capital Outlay:
a) Furniture & Equipment
b) Computer Software & Hardware
SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
3,943
2,190
2015
Budget
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2016 BUDGET DETAIL (Draft)
2013
Actual
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (AIS)
1. Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting Program
2014
Budget
2014
Actual
2015
Budget
2015 Actual
Projected
2016
Budget
Footnote #
See Appendix A
79,428
95,000
97,496
95,000
95,000
85,500
15
2. Equipment Replacement Fund
0
0
0
35,000
35,000
15,000
16
3. AIS Reserve Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. Herbicide Treatment Program
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,472
30,000
35,492
30,000
39,000
40,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
112,900
125,000
132,988
160,000
169,000
140,500
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
581,651
588,805
565,890
582,492
604,649
570,366
5. AIS Prevention & Management Programs
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
1. Purchase of New Mechanical Harvester
17
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
Draft 2016 LMCD Budget
Appendix A
Use from Administration Reserve
A $17,500 reserve fund transfer has been budgeted for 2016. Further analysis of this reserve fund balance is detailed
Fund (Footnote #1)
on the last page of Appendix A.
Other Public Agencies (Footnote #2)
It is anticipated that: 1) the MN DNR will fund the LMCD with a grant of $30,000 for mechanical harvesting, 2) the MN DNR
will fund the LMCD with a grant of $4,000 for watercraft inspections, and 3) the MCWD will fund the LMCD with a grant of
$20,000 for watercraft inspections.
Salaries (Footnote #3)
Executive Director
Administrative Technician (also serves as EWM Project Manager)
Less 2 pay periods for EWM Project Manager
Administrative Assistant/Code Enforcement
Administrative Clerk (part-time)
Seasonal Code Enforcement (part-time)
2016 estimated actual
$81,210.59 (*)
$58,240.00 (*)
-$4,853.33
$50,668.80 (*)
$17,833.92
$2,000.00
$205,099.98 (**)
(*) Salaries will be grossed up to pay for long-term disability insurance for full-time LMCD employees
(**) Salary adjustments & limited overtime (including F.I.C.A., medicare, & P.E.R.A.) are included in Contingency (line-item 10)
F.I.C.A. & Medicare (Footnote #4)
Total Salaries- including EWM Project Management (7.65%)
Less 2 pay periods for EWM Project Manager
$16,061.43
$371.28
$15,690.15
Employer Benefit
Contributions (Footnote #5)
P.E.R.A. (7.50%)
NCPERS Life Insurance
Medical & Dental Insurance
Office Lease & Storage (Footnote #6)
Professional Services (Footnote #7)
Contracted Payroll & Taxes
Contracted Bookkeeping Consulting
$15,596.50
$576.00
$17,775.16
$33,947.66
Monthly Rate
$1,458.32
$1,494.78
Months
9
3
$13,124.88
$4,484.34
$17,609.22
$2,000.00
$500.00
$2,500.00
Printing, Publications, & Advertising
(Footnote #8)
$12,000 has been budgeted for two LMCD Newsletters, the re-printing of the Summer and Winter Rules brochures,
and other LMCD literature.
Insurance, Bonds (Footnote #9)
$7,250 has been budgeted with the League of Minnesota Cities for insurance for the LMCD.
Media (Cable & Internet)
(Footnote #10)
$3,600 has been budgeted to contract with a producer and on-line viewing of LMCD Board Meetings.
Computer Software & Hardware
(Footnote #11)
$2,000 has been budgeted for information technology, hardware, and software updates.
Legal Services (Footnote #12)
$32,000 has been budgeted for legal services, which will be partially off-set by charging expenses back to applicants.
Prosecution Services (Footnote #13)
$45,000 has been budgeted for prosecution services. These expenses will be offset by projected $55,000 of court fines.
Equipment Replacement Fund
(Footnote #14)
$2,500 has been budgeted for replacement of depreciated EWM Harvesting Equipment.
EWM Harvesting Program (Footnote #15)
A 9-week mechanical harvesting program is planned from mid June through mid August to manage EWM on Lake
Minnetonka. Harvesting priorities will be based on impediments to public navigation to the open water due to EWM
growth (in particular matted areas). All areas that dictate the need for harvesting will be done at least once, with high
growth areas being harvested twice (time permitting). Further details of the proposed project (including a more detailed
budget) will be provided in the spring of 2016.
Equipment Replacement Fund
(Footnote #16)
$15,000 has been budgeted for replacement of depreciated EWM Harvesting Equipment (in addition to Footnote #14).
AIS Prevention & Management
Programs (Footnote #17)
$40,000 has been budgeted for unspecfified AIS management and prevention programs (most likely watercraft
inspections). Similar to past years, the LMCD will seek partnerships for the implementation of these projects (in
particular funding partners from the MN DNR and MCWD).
RESERVE FUND ANALYSIS:
2015
12/31/14 Balance
Reserve Fund Contribution
Transfer from Reserve Fund
Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund
Projected 12/31/15 Balance
Administration
$235,036
$0
($13,157)
$0
$221,879
Administration
2016
Projected 12/31/15 Balance
Reserve Fund Contribution
Transfer from Reserve Fund
Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund
Projected 12/31/16 Balance
Projected % of 2015 Annual Budget
AIS
Equipment Replacement Fund
$109,339
$0
$0
($35,000)
$74,339
AIS
$67,472
$0
$0
$35,000
$102,472
Equipment Replacement Fund
$221,879
$0
($17,500)
($2,500)
$201,879
$74,339
$0
$0
($15,000)
$59,339
47.8%
47.5%
$102,472
$0
$0
$17,500
$119,972
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
Salary and Hourly Rate Adjustments Survey (2010-2015)
Public Agency
Deephaven
Excelsior
Greenwood
LMCD
MCWD
Minnetonka
Minnetonka
Beach
Minnetrista
Mound
Orono
Shorewood
2010
0%
2011
2%
2012
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
2%
2%
2%
2014
2%
2%
2%
Contracts with the City of Deephaven
1.5%
2%
2%
3%
5%
3% (met expectations)
$.50 per hour
for all employees
($1,040- full time)
2.5% (police)
1.5% COLA & 1% lump sum
(non union)
2% budgeted each year from 2010-2013 for non-union employees. Funds
were put in a pool & adjustments were based on performance & position
in the market range for each employee. The average has been 1.5% the
past couple of years (varies by position).
2%
Tonka Bay
Victoria
0.83%
1%
0%
3%
3%
3.75%
(These numbers include COLA increases)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1.5%
2%
3%
3% was the norm
2%
2%
2%
2% was typical
(average was 2.18%)
2% on 4/1 (police)
Non union (ranged from
1% to 4%)
2% COLA (non union)
2% COLA & 2%
market adjustment (police)
Woodland
2015
2.50%
2.50%- union employees (same
anticipated for non-union)
2.50%
3% (met expectations) plus pay for
performance (ranged from 1-3%)
1.83%
1.63% (1% annual increase &
(non union employees) market analysis for each position)
Public work employees not
settled (city % could change)
3.50%
3.50%
1.81%
1.56%
1.46%
1.44%
Increases in 2011 were split in January and July. This is the overall
average (non-union). Every employee receives a 1% & based on a
market analysis, some positions receive a market increase.
2%
2%
1%
1%
(Plus 3.5% step increases to those eligible)
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
$.50 per hour
$.50 per hour
for all employees
for all employees
($1,040- full time) ($1,040- full time)
1%
1%
1%
1%
2.0% (police)
(July, 2012)
1.5% lump sum (non
union)
Spring Park
Wayzata
2013
2%
Contracts with the City of Deephaven
ITEM
6B
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STORAGE OF
GOVERNMENT WATERCRAFT ON LAKE MINNETONKA;
AMENDING LMCD CODE, SECTION 2.02, SUBD. 6
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1.
LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd. 6 is repealed and the following is
substituted therefor:
Subd. 6. Special Rule for Government Service Watercraft. Government Service
Watercraft are not counted for density purposes at the Site at which they are stored;
license fees for the Boat Storage Units at which they are stored are waived; and
application fees for a dock plan amendment being made solely to accommodate such
Boat Store Units are waived, provided:
a)
the Government Service Watercraft is stored at a designated Boat Storage
Unit on a dock plan and within the Dock Use Area of the Site. Boat Storage
Units for Government Service Watercraft may be approved by the Executive
Director, and
b)
the Boat Storage Unit is provide by the owner as a public service for no
compensation.
For purposes of this Subdivision, a Government Service Watercraft is a watercraft
that is owned and operated exclusively by a federal, state or local government unit or
agency and used exclusively for law enforcement, firefighting, rescue,
environmental studies or maintenance of the Lake or aids to navigation.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication.
1
461760v1 LK110-4
Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this 10th day of June,
2015.
Dan Baasen, Chair
ATTEST:
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
2
461760v1 LK110-4