Rice Creek Watershed DistrictF68A5205... · 2015 at a Glance Capital Projects & Program Summary 2015 Water Quality, Reuse, and Drainage Projects xContinued implementation of Bald

Rice Creek Watershed District 2015 Annual Report Page 1

Rice Creek Watershed District

2015 Annual Report

4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, #611

Blaine, Minnesota 55449

(763) 398-3070 | www.ricecreek.org

Contact: Phil Belfiori, Administrator


Photo Acknowledgements

Kyle Axtell

Pages 19 and 33 Elizabeth Hosch Pages 24 and 26 Matt Kocian Pages 16 and 21 Ed Nater Page 2 Sage Passi Page 14 Bryan Pynn Page 31 Tom Schmidt Pages 36, 37, and 38


Table of Contents Table of Contents Page

Photo Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Financial Report............................................................................................................................................4

Board of Managers and Advisory Committee..........................................................................................5 Staff and Consultants.................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction and Map of the RCWD..................................................................................................... 7-8

2015 At a Glance......................................................................................................................................9-11

2015 Activity Reports and 2016 Work Plans

A. Education, Outreach, and Communication..................................................................................12-15

B. Stream Management........................................................................................................................16-17

C. Lake Management............................................................................................................................18-22

D Regulatory Program..........................................................................................................................23-26

E. Land and Water Conservation ...................................................................................................... 27-29

i. Resource Management Plans (RMPs)..............................................................................28-29

ii. Cost-share Programs

a. Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost-Share Program..........................................30

b. RCWD Clean Water Grant Program................................................................... 31-32

F. Groundwater Management............................................................................................................33-34

G. Wetland Management...........................................................................................................................35

H. Drainage System and Creek Maintenance...................................................................................36-37

I. District Facilities Operations and Maintenance…………………………………………………………...38

J. Information Management...............................................................................................................39-40

K. Local Water Plan Adoption……………………………………………………………………………….41-42


Financial Report

Budget, Expenditures & Revenue

Based on Audit

Expenditures/Programs 2014 Budget2014

Expenditures 2015 Budget2015

Expenditures 2016 BudgetGeneral Administration 351,055$ 340,868$ 357,858$ 355,344$ 371,412$ ProgramsEnvironmental Education 120,524 115,440 123,222 115,739 126,956 Information Mgmt/Technology 107,748 84,701 110,087 102,181 114,132 Water Resource Restoration 1,736,940 733,842 1,815,726 1,093,304 2,097,683 Regulatory 794,091 783,324 809,125 807,465 848,405 Ditch & Creek Maintenance 639,946 542,271 662,725 552,426 875,648 Lake & Stream Mgmt/Monitoring 1,491,183 1,312,857 1,574,975 538,016 1,477,539 District Facilities 155,000 30,932 345,000 36,361 100,000 Total Program Expenses 5,396,487 3,944,235 5,798,718 3,600,836 6,011,775

Revenue General Fund509 Planning Special

Revenue FundTotal Governmental Funds

2015General Property Taxes 361,860 3,878,110 4,239,970Special Assessments 165,118 165,118Intergovernmental 138 393,575 393,713Market Value Homestead CreditGrants & Reimbursements 0Permits 136,735 136,735Investment Income 11,590 43,239 54,829Miscellaneous 1,566 69,324 70,890Total Revenues 375,154 4,686,101 5,061,255


Board of Managers & Advisory Committee

Patricia Preiner, President Email: [email protected] County: Anoka Term Expires: January 2017 Barbara Haake, First Vice President Email: [email protected] County: Ramsey Term Expires: January 2017 John Waller, Second Vice President Email: [email protected] County: Washington Term Expires: January 2019 Mike Bradley, Secretary Email: [email protected] County: Ramsey Term Expires: January 2018 Steve Wagamon, Treasurer Email: [email protected] County: Anoka Term Expires: January 2019

Dave Anderson [email protected] Paul Gardner [email protected] Ken Hallberg [email protected] Gary Krejcarek [email protected] Wayne LeBlanc [email protected] Bridget Osborn [email protected] Douglas Ramseth [email protected] Bob Rosenquist [email protected] Jeff Severseike [email protected] Mary Sue Simmons [email protected] Mary Jo Truchon [email protected]


Staff & Consultants2015 RCWD Staff Phil Belfiori – Administrator Kyle Axtell - Water Resource Specialist/Program Manager Mike Behan - District Inspector Samantha Berger - District Technician Jessica Bromelkamp - Education, Outreach, & Communication Coordinator Chris Buntjer - Technical Specialist/Permit Reviewer Patrick Hughes - Regulatory/Office Assistant Matthew Kocian - Lake & Stream Specialist Catherine Nester – District Technician/Inspector Tom Schmidt - Public Drainage Inspector Theresa Stasica - Office Manager Nick Tomczik - Permit Coordinator/Wetland Specialist 2016 RCWD Staff Phil Belfiori – Administrator Kyle Axtell - Water Resource Specialist/Program Manager Mike Behan - District Inspector Samantha Berger - District Technician Jessica Bromelkamp - Education, Outreach & Communication Coordinator Chris Buntjer - Technical Specialist/Permit Reviewer Patrick Hughes - Office/Regulatory Assistant Matthew Kocian - Lake & Stream Specialist Catherine Nester – District Technician/Inspector Tom Schmidt - Public Drainage Inspector Theresa Stasica - Office Manager Nick Tomczik - Permit Coordinator/Wetland Specialist

Legal, Professional and Technical Consulting Services In 2014, the RCWD solicited statements of interest for legal, technical, and accounting professional services. Following solicitation, the RCWD selected Smith Partners for legal counsel, Rinke – Noonan for legal counsel related to drainage, Redpath and Company for accounting, and Houston Engineering. The District also certified thirteen other engineering firms to be part of an engineering pool for the same period of time. These agreements will continue through December 31, 2016.

Legal Counsel Smith Partners Louis N. Smith, Charles B. Holtman 400 Second Avenue S., Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-344-1400

Rinke Noonan John Kolb Suite 300, US Bank Plaza PO Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Phone: 320-251-6700

Consulting Engineers & Other Services Houston Engineering Mark Deutschman 6901 E Fish Lake Rd Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone: 763-493-4522

Redpath & Company - Accounting & Auditing Mark Gibbs 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Phone: 651-426-7000


Introduction & Map of RCWD The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) established the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) at the request of citizens, county boards, and cities on January 18, 1972. The purpose of the RCWD is to conserve and restore the water resources of the District for the beneficial use of current and future generations. A Board of Managers appointed by the commissioners of Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Counties governs the RCWD. Public board meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at the Shoreview City Hall. Watershed districts are local, special-purpose units of government that work to solve and prevent water-related problems. The boundaries of each district follow those of the watershed and consist of land in which all water flows into one outlet such as Rice Creek. Natural resources such as water are managed on a watershed basis because water knows no political boundaries and therefore coordination across city and in some cases state lines is important for successful resource conservation and management. The RCWD is approximately 186 square miles of urban and rural land in Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. Portions of the District can be found in the following municipalities: Arden Hills, Birchwood Village, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Columbus, Dellwood, Falcon Heights, Forest Lake, Fridley, Grant, Hugo, Lauderdale, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, May Township, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, Saint Anthony, Scandia, Shoreview, Spring Lake Park, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township and Willernie.

The Rice Creek Watershed District:

Manages lakes, streams, groundwater, and wetlands Monitors water quality Promotes best management practices to improve water quality Maintains public drainage systems Inventories natural resources Issues permits and inspects construction sites Administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Educates residents about the watershed and how they can help Helps municipalities fulfill Clean Water Act mandates

The RCWD has demonstrated leadership in effectively managing water resources throughout Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. The District board and staff work together to adapt management priorities and practices to meet the needs of our constituents through the following activities:

1. Demonstrating world class problem-solving in our everyday work and planning;

2. Identifying impairments and improving water quality throughout the RCWD

3. Partnering with RCWD residents in all conservation efforts;

4. Operating in a way that is fiscally responsible and accountable to District residents

5. Making decisions with the RCWD as a whole in mind


Rice Creek Watershed District Map

The map below depicts the boundaries of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The headwaters of the District are located in Clear Lake, Hardwood Creek, and Clearwater Creek. Water then flows through

the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes and empties into the Mississippi River.


2015 at a Glance Capital Projects & Program Summary

2015 Water Quality, Reuse, and Drainage Projects

Continued implementation of Bald Eagle Lake Alum Treatment Project: The second full lake alum treatment will be implemented in 2016 (the first treatment was implemented in 2014). Project partially funded through MPCA 319 implementation loan. Oneka Ridge Golf Course Water Reuse Irrigation Project: Continued project maintenance and monitoring of water quality/phosphorous reduction project in partnership with the City of Hugo and Oneka Ridge Golf Course. Project partially funded through BWSR Clean Water Fund implementation grant. Clear Lake Water Quality Treatment Project: Continued maintenance of water quality/phosphorus reduction project in partnership with City of Forest Lake. Project partially funded through BWSR Clean Water Fund implementation grant. Hansen Park Project: Developed preliminary project plans to construct a regional flood control and water quality improvement project in partnership with the City of New Brighton to protect Long Lake and communities in the southwest portion of the RCWD. Partially funded through Clean Water Fund /Targeted Watershed Demonstration Grant program. Mirror Lake Project: Entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of St. Anthony to design, construct, operate, and maintain a regional flood control and water quality improvement project to protect Long Lake and communities in the southwest portion of the RCWD. Partially funded through Clean Water Fund /Targeted Watershed Demonstration Grant program. Middle Rice Creek Restoration: Finalized project plans to complete a stream restoration on a portion of Middle Rice Creek in the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. Construction was delayed to 2016 as a result of the mild weather conditions. Partially funded through Clean Water Fund /Targeted Watershed Demonstration Grant program. Carp Management: Partnered with the University of Minnesota to study the population dynamics and movements of common carp in the RCWD. The results of the study will inform development of the Long Lake watershed carp management project. Partially funded through Clean Water Fund /Targeted Watershed Demonstration Grant program. Golden Lake Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Project: Project implementation to retrofit an existing stormwater pond with an iron-enhanced sand filter in partnership with the Anoka Conservation District and the City of Blaine. Project partially funded through BWSR Clean Water Fund implementation grant. Implementation of the Anoka Chain of Lakes TMDL: Continue to pursue competitive grant opportunities to implement water quality BMP’s in partnership with local partners. Partnered with BWSR to begin developing a stormwater reuse irrigation assessment tool. Project funded through BWSR Clean Water Fund implementation grant. Partnered with the City of Hugo, MN DNR, MnDOT and the St. Paul Water Utility to fund the construction and restoration of the Bald Eagle Lake Dam. Proposed project construction to repair and maintain the public drainage system to provide for agricultural drainage and future municipal stormwater drainage.


o Anoka County Ditch 31 (begin process for repair) o Anoka-Ramsey Judicial Ditch 1 Branch 4 (begin process for repair) o Anoka County Ditch 46 (begin process for repair) o Judicial Ditch 4 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance) o Anoka County Ditch 53-62 Branch 1 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance) o Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance) o Washington County Judicial Ditch 2 (ongoing maintenance by City of Hugo)

Additional Collaborative Efforts

Cooperated with Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Conservation Districts to monitor lake levels, reference wetlands, and carry out the RCWD Clean Water Grant Program. Participated in Washington County Water Consortium meetings and activities. Participated on the Anoka County Water Resource Task Force. Participated in educational efforts at county fairs and RCWD community events. Worked with local communities on MS4 Management Plans. Participated on the Watershed Partners Steering Committee. Coordinated education activities with the East Metro Water Resource Education Program.

2015 & 2016 RCWD Programs

Clean Water Grant Program: This program provides public and private landowners with technical and financial assistance to install projects that reduce or reuse stormwater runoff, prevent erosion, and filter pollutants. Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost-Share Program: This program provides financial support to public partners interested in building projects that provide water quality treatment and flood control. Water reuse was added as a new priority in 2015. Ditch and Stream Maintenance Program: The Drainage Inspector oversees the inspections and maintenance of the 120 miles of public drainage located in the RCWD. District Facility Repair, Operations, and Maintenance Program: The Drainage Inspector oversees the maintenance and operation of the 20 District-owned water quality treatment projects, lake level control structures, and conservation easements. Water Quantity, Flood Control, and Water Quality Permit Program: This program addresses stormwater quantity and quality through regulation of new development and re-development projects along with the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act in 26 of the District’s 28 cities. Resource Management Plan Implementation: RCWD staff provide technical assistance for communities to implement Resource Management Plans throughout the RCWD. Lake and Stream Management Program: The Lake and Stream Specialist oversees water-quality monitoring, develops lake management plans, works to control invasive species, and supports the volunteer Stream and Wetland Monitoring Program. Education, Outreach, and Communication Program: The Program Coordinator develops outreach and communication initiatives to inform RCWD residents of District-led projects, trainings, and events as well as opportunities to help capture and treat stormwater runoff at home. The RCWD continues to provide workshops for maintenance professionals to address water resource issues related to winter road and summer turfgrass maintenance.


Capital Improvement Early Coordination Program: RCWD staff work with cities and counties to address District water quality and quantity rules for present and future road and redevelopment projects.

Proposed 2016 Water Quality, Reuse, and Drainage Projects

Continue implementation of Bald Eagle Lake Alum Treatment Project: The second full lake alum treatment will be implemented in spring of 2016. Oneka Ridge Golf Course Water Reuse Irrigation Project: Continue maintenance and monitoring of water quality/phosphorous reduction project in partnership with the City of Hugo and Oneka Ridge Golf Course. Clear Lake Water Quality Treatment Project: Continue maintenance of water quality/phosphorus reduction project in partnership with the City of Forest Lake. Hansen Park Project: Project construction of a regional flood control and water quality improvement project to occur 2016-2018 in partnership with the City of New Brighton. Mirror Pond Project: Project construction of a regional flood control and water quality improvement project to occur 2016-2018 in partnership with the City of St. Anthony. Middle Rice Creek Restoration: Project construction to restore historic stream meanders on a portion of Middle Rice Creek in the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant to occur in late 2015 through 2017. Carp Management: The RCWD is partnering with the University of Minnesota to conduct carp research. The U of M’s findings will inform development of a carp management plan, which the District will implement in 2017-2018. Golden Lake Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Project: Continue maintenance and monitoring of water quality/dissolved phosphorous reduction project in partnership with the Anoka Conservation District and the City of Blaine. Hardwood Creek Restoration: Continue monitoring water quality and biota to determine project effectiveness. Implementation of the Anoka Chain of Lakes TMDL: Continue to pursue competitive grant opportunities to implement water quality BMP’s in partnership with local partners. Partner with BWSR to develop and implement a stormwater reuse irrigation assessment tool. Proposed project construction to repair and maintain the public drainage system to provide for agricultural drainage and future municipal stormwater drainage.

o Anoka County Ditch 31 (begin process for repair) o Anoka-Ramsey Judicial Ditch 1 Branch 4 (begin process for repair) o Anoka County Ditch 46 (begin process for repair) o Judicial Ditch 4 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance) o Anoka County Ditch 53-62 Branch 1 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance) o Anoka County Ditch 10 -22 -32 (ongoing maintenance by City of Hugo) o Washington County JD 2 (repair completed, ongoing maintenance by City of Hugo)


Education, Outreach & Communication Goal: Use education and outreach tools as an integral element within the many aspects of the operation of the District to credibly convey data and information, thereby increasing knowledge, awareness and the capacity for decision-making among the constituents of the District. 2015 ACTIVITIES Blue Thumb – Planting for Clean Water® The Blue Thumb – Planting for Clean Water® program (bluethumb.org) helps residents improve water quality by providing the resources and support needed to plant beautiful native gardens, raingardens, and shoreline stabilizations. The RCWD started the Blue Thumb program in 2006 to help residents and municipalities achieve water quality goals and meet Clean Water Act mandates. Blue Thumb is the primary education and outreach tool used by the District to convey steps residents can take to reduce stormwater runoff. The Blue Thumb website, displays, and brochures are used by staff regularly to educate residents at local and statewide events. The RCWD has been working closely with the Blue Thumb Steering Committee and partners to create a more sustainable financial and administrative structure for the program. A local non-profit organization, Metro Blooms, assisted with managing the program on a temporary basis during part of 2014-2015. A license and transfer agreement for Blue Thumb was executed between the District and Metro Blooms in June of 2015. Since that time, Metro Blooms has secured funding and a Green Corp member to support expanding Blue Thumb to southeastern Minnesota. Blue Thumb successfully participated in the State Fair and Landscape Revival again this year. Significant work was done to prepare for launching a new website in 2016. Additionally, new professional development and networking opportunities were offered to current and prospective partners. The RCWD board will make a determination about whether to transfer the program in the fall of 2017. Metro Watershed Partners (WSP) The RCWD is a member of the Watershed Partners, a coalition of more than 70 public, private, and non-profit organizations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Through collaborative educational outreach, the partners promote a public understanding that inspires people to take action to protect and improve their local water resources. Since 1997, the partners have cooperated through education projects, networking, and resource-sharing. The following table depicts the purchased media and online resources provided by Watershed Partners in 2015.


Media type Number of media Number of times published

Circulation/ Audience

Twins Radio Network

25 in-game ads, plus 10 bonus spots during game delays and 30-bathroom stall adds

June 2015 2,678,554- Metro area audience

Online Stormwater Pollution Prevention Education

www.cleanwatermn.org MN MS4 Toolkit, document upload tool and image gallery

In 2015, RCWD staff participated on the Watershed Partner’s Steering Committee. The committee hired Water Words that Work, LLC to create a focused communications plan with consistent messages and strategies for members to help implement. The coalition is moving away from purchased media and towards strategies focused on measurable behavior change. Over the next three years, Watershed Partners will produce new photographs, social media posts, blog and newsletter articles, a new Cleanwatermn.org website, materials to organize and publicize Clean Water Clean-ups, and start an Adopt-a-Drain program. Partners will be able to track and report on who receives and responds to messages, and who takes action in a designated service area. StormDrain Goalie The StormDrain Goalie Facebook page has more than 1,400 followers. In 2015, Watershed Partner’s posts about clean water reached approximately 50,000 people. An interactive display was also featured at the Minnesota State Fair and Wild Games this year, reaching new and returning audiences. Communications

Distributed 58 public notices Emailed the RCWD’s 2015 Summer Newsletter and mailed hard copies to member cities Distributed press releases and/or wrote columns about RCWD program and projects resulting in 14 articles Represented the RCWD at 7 community events by hosting a booth or speaking to residents

Winter Roads Maintenance Workshops (9/30/15) In 2015, the RCWD hosted a Winter Roads Maintenance Workshop in partnership with Fortin Consulting, Inc., the City of Shoreview, and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District on September 30th. The workshop content focused on best management practices for snow and ice control that minimize impacts to water quality without compromising safety. Master Water Stewards Program Launches in the RCWD The Master Water Stewards Program was created to provide training and support for community members to help solve water resource problems in partnership with local experts and agencies.


Modeled after the Master Gardener Program, Stewards learn about environmental policy, stormwater management, hydrology, environmental decision-making, and more. In 2015, RCWD staff worked to recruit four community members to participate in the program in 2016. RCWD staff will work closely with the Stewards to plan and implement a capstone project comprised of an education and outreach campaign, and a project designed to reduce stormwater runoff. Ongoing education and volunteering is required in subsequent years to maintain ones’ certification. The Master Water Stewards Program has the potential to build capacity in RCWD communities to help the District and residents achieve their clean water goals. RCWD’s Steward, Paul Westby is featured in the photo below at the program kick-off meeting.

Stormdrain Marking The stormdrain marking program reinforces the simple, yet important concept that “every curb is a shoreline.” The markers say, “Be a Stormdrain Guardian! Clean streets = Cleaner Lakes & Creeks.” As part of this program, volunteers receive training to assist with keeping stormdrains and city streets free of debris through sweeping and maintenance. The stormdrain markers themselves are also valuable in that they provide residents with the RCWD’s contact information to report drainage as well as erosion problems. 2016 WORK PLAN Education, Outreach, and Communication This program includes a variety of education, outreach, and communication activities including drafting content for the annual report, website, biannual newsletters, press releases and articles for city newsletters as well as other media outlets. Staff also frequently speak at or attend community events to share information about RCWD programs and projects as well as coordinate meetings and workshops for city staff and maintenance professionals to achieve water quality goals. Participation in key partnerships such as the East Metro Water Education Partnership, Metro Watershed Partners, and Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials increases the depth and breadth of our work.


RCWD Projects Education, outreach, and communications plans are being established for the Long Lake Targeted Watershed Demonstration, Peltier, and Bald Eagle Lake projects. Each plan will be tailored to meet the needs of the community as well as to effectively share project benefits and plans with residents. Examples of this work may include developing signage and brochures, project tours, a canoe trip to explore the restored sections of the creek, and significant coordination with partners to accomplish any one of these goals. Additional projects in 2016 will include supporting Master Water Stewards as they develop and implement capstone projects, working with the media to share details about the Stormwater Irrigation Assessment Tool, and collaborating with RCWD staff to target outreach efforts to support the District’s Clean Water Grant Program. Blue Thumb – Planting for Clean Water RCWD will remain an active participant in and supporter of the Blue Thumb program in 2016. District staff will continue to participate on the Steering Committee as well as to monitor progress made towards the goals established in the Blue Thumb license and transfer agreement. Additionally, Blue Thumb materials and displays continue to be an important part of the District’s outreach program.


Stream Management

Goal: Healthy and vibrant streams that support wildlife and function to transport water minimizing flooding. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

Establish long-term monitoring sites in strategic locations throughout the District and gather data from those sites in the most efficient way possible. Data gathered is used to monitor the long-term changes in flow and water quality, and to provide the basis for evaluating improvement projects Establish morphology of all streams in the District and use this information to develop restoration plans Meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for all streams

Stream Monitoring The RCWD monitored water quality and quantity (continuous flow monitoring) at eleven stream sites in 2015. The District also cooperated with the U.S. Geological Survey to collect real-time flow on Rice Creek. Hardwood Creek TMDL Implementation The Hardwood Creek TMDL Implementation project was completed in 2014. The main objective of the project was to reduce suspended solids and biological oxygen demand concentrations by restoring stream reaches and doing livestock management. Restoration-related construction was completed on two reaches of Hardwood Creek in 2013. At one site, a previously straightened section of Hardwood Creek was returned to its original meander pattern, significantly improving stream stability and aquatic habitat. At another site, eroding banks were re-sloped and stabilized to decrease sediment inputs and nutrient loading. Minor vegetative work was completed in 2014. Habitat, stream stability, and geomorphological surveys were also completed. The monitoring results, and the project as a whole, were presented at the 2015 Minnesota Water Resources Conference. Stream Health Evaluation Project (SHEP) The RCWD partners with Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) and the MPCA to implement the Stream Health Evaluation Project (SHEP). The SHEP team consists of 30 volunteers who monitor area streams and collect macro-invertebrate data that can be used to indicate overall stream health. This project, led by FMR, trains volunteers to systematically collect and identify benthic macro-invertebrates. The data is then shared with decision-makers


to help inform discussions about stream health and water quality. Sites on Rice, Hardwood, and Clearwater Creeks are chosen for their locations upstream or downstream of significant natural resource impacts, such as ditch maintenance and new suburban development, as well as stream restoration projects. This allows volunteers to identify and track trends in the ecological health of the stream as land use changes and management/restoration projects are implemented in the watershed. Once collected, data is quality assured, a final report is written and a presentation developed that summarizes the monitoring results in order to share the results with the public and cities. 2016 WORK PLAN Lake and Stream Management and Monitoring - Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program The Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program is guided through the Monitoring Program Plan and executed by the Lake and Stream Specialist. The District has a stream and lake monitoring network that continues to be refined to make it more pertinent to current water-quality concerns. Other monitoring supported by the District includes the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) with nine lakes enrolled. Counties continue to be an important partner for lake-quality and water-level monitoring with support and coordination from the District. The MN DNR works closely with the District for lake vegetation and fisheries management, and stream-channel restoration. In 2015, the District entered into inter-agency agreements with the Washington and Anoka Conservation Districts to conduct lake level and reference wetland monitoring. Lake and Stream Management Program (TMDL Implementation) The Lake and Stream Management Program is focused on using the monitoring information, completed TMDL studies, and the SW Urban Lakes Study to select and implement a range of projects, programs and activities to maintain, restore and/or enhance the conditions of lakes and streams within the District. To date, the following TMDL studies have been completed and approved: Bald Eagle Lake Nutrient TMDL, Golden Lake Nutrient TMDL, Silver Lake Nutrient TMDL, and the Hardwood Creek Biota TMDL, Anoka Chain of Lakes nutrient TMDL, and Peltier/Centerville Lakes nutrient TMDL.


Lake Management

Goal: Manage lake systems for their ecological and community value, in a manner consistent with user expectations and technically achievable goals and the resources available for preservation, maintenance, and restoration. 2016 ACTIVITIES Strategies We work with lake associations toward restoration and conservation goals. In 2015, the RCWD worked with Bald Eagle, Clear Lake, Locke Lake, Reshanau Lake, Locke Lake, Turtle Lake, and Silver Lake associations on a variety of water quality projects including shoreline restoration, diagnostic studies, aquatic plant surveys, aquatic invasive plant control, carp management, and an alum treatment (Bald Eagle). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Instead of counting calories for lakes’ diets, we measure “Total Maximum Daily Loads,” or TMDLs. A “Total Maximum Daily Load” is the total amount of a pollutant, in pounds, that a given water body can assimilate and still meet its designated use. The “designated use” of each water body must first be identified. Is it a source for drinking water? Is it used for recreation, such as swimming? Does it supply agriculture or industry? Does it provide significant habitat for fish and other aquatic life? After a lake’s designated use is identified, the water must be tested for pollutants. If it fails to meet the minimum standards for its designated uses, pollution sources must be identified, and steps must be taken to limit pollutants entering it, so that it becomes suitable for those uses. TMDLs for the Anoka County Chain of Lakes and Peltier / Centerville Funding for these TMDLs was split between the District (Anoka Chain of Lakes TMDL) and the MPCA (Peltier/Centerville TMDL). These TMDLs were initiated in late 2007, finalized and approved in 2013. Implementation (project) planning continued in 2015. Current applied research on common carp (see “Long Lake Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program”) applies to this system. TMDL Golden Lake This TMDL was completed in 2009, and approved by the MPCA and EPA. The Anoka Conservation District, working with the City of Blaine and the RCWD, received a 2014 Clean Water Fund grant for an iron-enhanced sand filter retrofit project in the Golden Lake watershed. Project design began in 2014, and construction was completed in 2015. Project monitoring began in 2015 and will continue in 2016. TMDL Silver Lake The Three Rivers Park District provided a $40,000 match to the RCWD funding to complete a TMDL project for Silver Lake. This TMDL was completed and approved in 2010. Implementation activities are already underway, with several cities utilizing the RCWD cost-share funds to complete water quality improvement projects around the lake and in the watershed. The RCWD provided cost-share


funding for a City of St. Anthony stormwater pond retrofit project, which includes alum dosing. This project was completed in 2014. In 2013 and 2015, the RCWD partnered with the City of St. Anthony and Three Rivers Park District to remove carp in Silver Lake. 3,800 pounds of adult carp were removed in 2015 alone. The District will continue to work with local cities and the Silver Lake Association to implement projects identified in the Silver Lake TMDL. TMDL Bald Eagle Lake Funded entirely by the RCWD, the Bald Eagle Lake TMDL study was started in 2007. The final report for this study was completed in 2010. Final approval was given in May of 2012. The Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Reuse and Phosphorus Reduction Project was completed in 2014. Details included below. The first of two alum applications was conducted in the spring of 2014. The second treatment is planned for 2016. The Bald Eagle Alum Project will result in 1100 lbs. of phosphorus removed from the lake phosphorous budget each year. Monitoring data in Bald Eagle Lake suggest significant improvements following the first alum application. In 2014 and 2015, Bald Eagle Lake met state phosphorus standards for the first time since 1980 when data were first collected.

Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Reuse & Phosphorus Reduction Project The District, working with the City of Hugo and Oneka Ridge Golf Course, developed a large stormwater reuse system at Oneka Ridge Golf Course to reduce phosphorus loading to Bald Eagle Lake. Much of the work in 2014 focused on completion of project construction and implementation of a monitoring plan developed by the District. The project intercepts runoff from a private ditch network that drains nearly 1,000 acres of land before it runs into Ramsey-Washington Judicial Ditch #1 and Bald Eagle Lake. The design is anticipated to stop approximately 75 pounds of phosphorus from reaching Bald Eagle Lake, annually, depending on the amount of rainfall received. The volume of groundwater pumped by the golf course for irrigation is expected to be reduced by 40-50% as well. This project was primarily funded by a large grant provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). Project construction was completed in November 2014.

Southwest Urban Lake Management Planning Although not technically a TMDL, this “TMDL-like” study was developed by the RCWD to assess and improve the water quality of the lakes within fully developed watersheds. The project, conceptually defined in early 2007, was initiated after receiving numerous complaints and concerns from properties adjacent to the urban lakes. Much of the data assessment, lake sediment data collection and preliminary BMP strategy development were done in 2007, with additional lake water quality


data collection, model development and management approach development completed in 2008. In 2015, the District used the results of the study to complete several water quality improvement projects, including an exemplary raingarden upstream of Locke Lake in Fridley, MN. The SW Urban Lakes study continues to act as a guidance document for future projects. Long Lake Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program In 2014, the District was awarded a $3,000,000 Clean Water Fund grant from BWSR’s Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program to help implement a series of projects aimed at improving water quality in Long Lake in New Brighton by reducing total phosphorus and sediment loading. The four primary projects being implemented through this program include 1) a stream restoration and re-meandering project on Middle Rice Creek within the former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, 2) development of a carp management plan for Long Lake and its connected waters and implementation of that plan, 3) a water quality and flood control project within Hansen Park in New Brighton, and 4) a water quality and flood control project within Mirror Lake in Saint Anthony. 2015 saw significant advancements on all aspects of the program:

Construction was slated to get under way in 2015 on the Middle Rice Creek Restoration Project, but was delayed until early 2016 due to inadequate winter weather conditions. Research is well underway on common carp migration and population dynamics in the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes system. Preliminary plans have been developed by the District, working in partnership with the City of New Brighton, for the Hansen Park Comprehensive Water Management Project. Construction is expected to begin in late 2016. The District has entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of Saint Anthony whereby the City will design, construct, operate and maintain the proposed Mirror Lake Improvement Project. Construction is expected to begin in late 2016.

Aquatic Invasive Species Management The RCWD provided funding and plant surveys to support management of invasive plant species on Bald Eagle, Reshanau, and Clear Lakes. Funding and surveys were provided to manage curlyleaf pondweed on Bald Eagle and Reshanau Lakes. The District was also awarded grant funding from the DNR to treat curlyleaf on Bald Eagle and Reshanau Lakes. Curlyleaf is a non-native, invasive aquatic plant which, due to an unusual life-cycle, contributes to internal phosphorus loading in lakes. The District also contributed plant surveys to several lake associations to assist with management of Eurasian watermilfoil. Lake Monitoring In 2015, the District entered into inter-agency agreements with the Washington and Anoka Conservation Districts to conduct lake level, water quality, and reference wetland monitoring. The RCWD staff were responsible for monitoring water quality on ten lakes. This monitoring continues and will enable the RCWD to verify effectiveness with the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and rule provisions and, thereby, adapt our rules and tactics accordingly.


The District, working in cooperation with lake associations on Bald Eagle, Reshanau, and Clear Lakes, completed aquatic plant surveys. Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) The RCWD continued to support citizen lake monitoring through the CAMP program in 2015. Ten lakes were monitored by CAMP volunteers. They collected data on nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) as well as chlorophyll-a and transparency. 2016 WORK PLAN Bald Eagle Lake Water Management District Implementation This capital improvement project is intended to address the issue of lake water quality for Bald Eagle Lake. The Bald Eagle Lake Management Plan (LMP) sets forth numeric goals for water quality. The timeline to meet water quality goals is over a 10-year period. Intermediate goals (on a 5-year timeline) are a 4.5 feet summer average transparency, 70 parts per billion concentration for total phosphorus, and 30 parts per billion concentration for chlorophyll a. One component of the LMP is an alum treatment to lower phosphorus concentrations within the lake, thereby reducing the amount of algae and improving water clarity along with continued curlyleaf pondweed control and implementation of shoreline and watershed nutrient reduction projects. In 2013, the RCWD received a Clean Water Partnership Loan to fund the Bald Eagle Lake alum project. The first of two alum applications was completed in 2014 as seen in the photo above. The second application will occur in 2016. This project is expected to reduce internal phosphorus loading by about 1100 lbs. per year. The RCWD also initiated a neighborhood raingarden program in 2013 to reduce phosphorus from stormwater runoff and two raingarden demonstration projects were created as part of this effort. Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Reuse & Phosphorus Reduction Project Project dollars were provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). Construction was completed in 2014. Regular water quality monitoring around the project area was conducted in 2015, and will continue into the future. Southwest Urban Lakes Implementation The issue addressed by this capital improvement program is the degraded water quality of lakes located within the southwest portion of the District. This program is generally identified within the Lake Management Plans contained within the report titled, “Southwest Urban Lakes Study” dated April 2009. The Southwest Urban Lakes Study assessed the water quality of 24 lakes in the southwest portion of the District, particularly in relation to state water quality standards, and resulted in the development of management action plans for each lake. The intent of each management action plan is to give the District a prioritized list of projects for further investigation. For most projects further feasibility assessments are needed before the District proceeds with a particular project. Over 200


potential retrofit BMPs are identified in the management action plans. This improvement project is intended to implement these BMP retrofits. Long Lake Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program In 2015, the District began construction on the Middle Rice Creek Restoration project and continued design and regulatory work on the Hansen Park and Mirror Lake projects. The Middle Rice Creek Restoration Project is expected to be completed in 2016, and project monitoring is currently underway. Construction will begin in the winter of 2016-2017 on the Hansen Park and Mirror Lake projects. Loucks, Inc. developed the rendering below to depict the iron-enhanced sand filter at Hansen Park post construction. Carp tracking and associated research for the management plan will also continue in 2016.


Regulatory Program Goal: Effective regulatory program that fosters sound land use and water resource management in the District. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

Review District rules making appropriate adjustments to align the rules with the District’s long-term goals. In 2015, the District advanced its District-wide hydrologic model and the resultant data is being discussed for potential changes to the regulatory and other programs. Ensure that permits are processed in a timely and professional manner. Work with cities to ensure that the RCWD rules are well-understood by city staff. Ensure the District’s permit program and responsibilities as the WCA Local Governmental Unit (LGU) are applied fairly and uniformly throughout the District. Ensure strict requirements for the assumption of permitting authority from the RCWD. Continue review of old files, eliminate duplicative information, and further develop the archival system in an effort to make files more accessible and take up less office space. Ensure permit holders and municipalities are using and encouraging proper erosion control measures at development sites though regular site inspections. Foster productive professional relationships with other regulating entities and promote unified messages that encourage successful projects.

Permit Application Review Actions Permit application review is undertaken by a team of engineers, attorneys, and RCWD staff. Houston Engineering is the District engineer. The District’s legal counsel includes the two law firms of Smith Partners and Rinke Noonan. The District also provides dedicated regulatory staff serving the public throughout the entire regulatory process; from pre-application discussion, effective application review, site inspections, and the maintenance of stormwater facilities. The RCWD encourages early discussion on project compliance with District regulation; this is especially important when applicants and their consultants are responding to the nuances of the regulations. At times, District files contain important information on past projects and/or studies, such as regional stormwater facilities, which can be made available for consideration. Early project coordination also serves to address areas of regulation that benefit from additional explanation; providing clarity for applicants. The District continually updates the numerous guidance documents and worksheets, available on the website, for applicants and consultants to use and reference in response to the District's rules. The regulatory process includes sufficient lead time to ensure ongoing communication to “fine tune” materials and demonstrate compliance with the rules. Most permit applications require the RCWD Board’s consideration at the second monthly board meetings; although some regulatory matters have been delegated to the Administrator. District staff and engineers continue to identify regulatory areas needing clarification through guidance documents or additional revision of the regulations.


Inspection The RCWD continues to conduct two types of regular permit inspections: routine and close-out. The routine inspections are intended to ensure compliance with the RCWD rules during construction. This most frequently includes ensuring use of proper sediment and erosion control BMPs at residential, commercial, and industrial development sites. Routine inspections also ensure that stormwater management features are built correctly and functioning properly, and that wetland and floodplain impacts do not exceed the amounts in the approved plan. In recent years, there has been a decrease in overall violation rates. Success can be attributed to the ongoing relationship between the RCWD inspectors and on-site personnel. Significant cost-savings can be realized when deficiencies are identified during the construction process rather than after construction is complete. Close-out inspections are performed when the project has been completed, to verify that it has been built according to the approved plan, final stabilization/vegetation has been established, and that all temporary BMPs have been removed. Close-out inspections typically lead to permit closure and the return of any surety held under the permit. The RCWD inspectors continue to maintain a strong presence on active construction sites while balancing the need to resolve older, inactive permits.

In 2015, the RCWD continued contracting for inspection services within a portion of the District with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD). This relationship was started to accommodate staff transitions in an area of the District where RCD was already an active presence and continues to be a substantial contribution to the RCWD’s inspection activity. In 2014, the District was subdivided into four areas being served by separate staff with multiple duties; the inspection department is equivalent to 2.5 full time staff members.

The following photos depict an outlet structure and dewatering outlet.

BMP Monitoring and Assessment This project was initiated in 2007 and a revised program continued in 2015 to assess the function of stormwater BMPs that have been constructed within the District, and identify site specific deficiencies and remedies. The 2015 program did not involve hiring additional interim staff solely dedicated to BMP inspection. Therefore, only 14 sites were inspected for the year with a result of 86% compliance rate of BMP functionality. That trend will likely continue in 2016 since the program is moving towards completing inspections based on landowner concerns in the future. The District website now includes guidance on BMP inspections and reporting. Overall, the message is getting out to people that stormwater features need to be maintained and features are being routinely maintained as a result. Although there is a high level of responsiveness from property owners receiving a RCWD maintenance report, the District received a very limited number of the required


Annual Inspection Reports. The presence of RCWD inspectors continues to be a useful maintenance education tool and promotes awareness of required maintenance obligations.

2015 Permit Activity Review Files

(WCA-only decisions, complaint files, and other site reviews)

213

General Permits Issued 108

Variances Issued 2

Enforcement Actions Taken 0

Construction sites inspected 216

Notices of violation

(including all inspection reports issued containing at least one non-compliant item, including minor compliance issues)

226

Total inspections 730

Erosion Control Violation Rate 8.6%

Sediment Control Violation Rate 14.4%

Temporary BMP Maintenance Violation Rate 11.8%

Permanent Stormwater Management Violation Rate 6.21%

Stop work orders (10-day notice) 9

Frequency of inspection for active construction sites Weekly

Permits closed 172

Previously permitted sites inspected for permanent Stormwater BMP maintenance

17


2016 WORK PLAN Managing excess runoff is necessary to prevent areas from flooding, reduce erosion, and address water quality problems. District rules and the permit review program are the primary methods used to achieve this goal. Excess runoff management broadly includes managing peak runoff rates, runoff volume, floodplain capacity, lake water levels, flooding, and the consequences of excess runoff, including erosion and sedimentation. The effective management of excess runoff reduces the need for public expenditures to construct large and more expensive stormwater management facilities. Erosion and sedimentation are addressed, at least in part, by the ongoing inspection of active construction sites. Excess runoff is generally managed on a day-to-day basis through implementation and enforcement of District rules, the review and approval of Local Water Management Plans within the District, and by providing technical data, support, and information. This overall strategy will continue in 2016.

Permit Review Program The purpose of this program is to implement the District rules through the receipt and review of applications for permit issuance, and subsequent inspection and enforcement of permit terms. Permit application review will continue in 2016. This program also includes an annual audit of the City of Hugo, which has assumed administrative delegation of some of the District rules. This annual review will continue in 2016.


Land & Water Conservation Goal: Capitalize on opportunities to enhance water quality, reduce runoff volume, and flood damages, and enhance ecological resources by using open space and greenways. 2015 ACTIVITIES Resource Management Plans (RMPs) The RCWD has developed an innovative method for dealing with the seemingly incompatible objectives of protecting wetlands and improving water quality while providing viable options for land development and agricultural drainage. Termed Resource Management Plans (RMPs), the RCWD is using provisions within a variety of state and federal environmental laws to develop regional management plans that take into account not only the conditions of today, but the effects of land development into the future. The RMPs rely upon sophisticated computer models to predict the quantity and quality of water pre- and post-development. The RMPs include an intensive resource inventory and processes to protect the unique resource, while consolidating lower quality resources into larger habitat blocks thereby increasing their value. Consolidating habitat also provides for larger contiguous areas for development. The RMPs are valuable for balancing the District's multiple obligations, including their role as the Wetland Conservation Act Local Governmental Unit and as the drainage authority. The RMPs are used to guide many decisions including the extent of repair of the public drainage systems. A key element of each RMP is the development of a Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan (CWPMP) and implementation of the rules under the authority of the MN WCA. These plans also try to align with current Army Corp of Engineers wetland regulation to achieve a higher level of regulatory uniformity. The adoption of the different CWPMPs occurred over a period of time, each adoption subject to the independent concerns and political will of the subject municipalities. Many of the CWPMPs and their implementing rules included slightly varying standards creating an administrative challenge and confusion within the regulated community. In 2013, the District consolidated the RMP implementation rules into a single rule, with unified terms and standards for wetland protection and stormwater management consistent among the RMPs. The stormwater volume bank model was removed in the 2013 rule adjustments. However, the current rule includes provisions for municipalities and road authorities to develop Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans (CSMP). These plans, developed in close coordination with the District, provide stormwater planning opportunities for unique geographic areas. Generally, the plans are a stormwater framework for future development/redevelopment, balancing what can be unique water quality and rate control requirements for future regulatory implementation. The RMPs remain in place and continue to be used to guide District resource decisions, especially relative to defining contiguous wetland corridors. The following is a short summary of the adopted RMP/CWPMPs.


ACD 53-62 RMP/CWPMP In 2015, the RCWD continued coordination with permit applicants and the City of Blaine to implement the landscape scale concept which defines a wetland corridor along the public drainage system identified in the RMP and CWPMP. Anoka-Washington Judicial Ditch 4 (JD4) RMP/CWPMP The JD4/ACD15 RMP includes the entire drainage area of Anoka-Washington Judicial Ditch 4 and Anoka County Ditch 15 encompassing parts of Columbus and Forest Lake. This RMP includes many of the attributes of the 53-62 RMP including a Wetland Preservation Zone, landscape scale wetland functional assessment, and standards to protect water quality. This drainage area was challenged with a capacity constrained tile ditch system and very poor soils for infiltration. Since much of the area is planned for intense development, the RMP balances the needs of resource protection along with critical issues such as flooding. The RMP proposed a stormwater volume bank as described in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Implementing this stormwater volume bank was challenged by a lack of initializing deposits; resulting in variances to the regulatory requirement. Yet, the stormwater treatment requirements have been fulfilled under the customary eligible stormwater treatment actions. The stormwater volume bank model was removed in the 2013 rule adjustments and replaced with the CSMP concept noted above. The District successfully completed restoration of a large peat wetland complex (more than 100 acres) within the Wetland Preservation Zone called Brown’s Preserve. The project included rerouting a portion of the main trunk of JD 4 around the large wetland complex to substantially reduce the nutrient load to the wetland basin and restore drainage function. In 2015, the District continued adaptive management of the site’s wetland vegetation; increasing vegetative diversity and overall quality. Lino Lakes RMP/CWPMP The Lino Lakes RMP is an innovative collaboration between the RCWD and the City of Lino Lakes. The RMPs are also part of the implementation plan for TMDLs located within the city. Future land use decisions are being guided by not only the traditional economic/developmental needs of the city but also resource protection and water quality goals. The RMP contains a multifaceted assessment of public ditches, drainage ways, wetlands and water quality as well as hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. The City used this wealth of information to make land use decisions that are compatible with the needs of the natural resources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was a partner in this project and efforts are intended to result in a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) under the 404 permitting process. Recent permit applications in the vicinity of Interstate 35E and Anoka County Ditch 55 & 72 uncovered complications between development and the outlet capacity for the area. The City’s comprehensive plan has the area slated for development, which would result in significant stormwater runoff. However, with the area having a limited outlet, development on one parcel was modeled to result in adverse impacts to downstream parcels. The models indicate the limited outlet results in downstream parcels storing stormwater on the landscape. The City is developing a CSMP proposal to increase the outlet capacity while maintaining water quality and rate control.


Columbus RMP/CWPMP The Columbus RMP/CWPMP is a collaboration between the City of Columbus and the RCWD. These plans are used by the RCWD to manage the public drainage systems within the City of Columbus and the natural resources within the CWPMP boundary. Ultimately, the CWPMP and RMP balances the development needs of the City of Columbus and the goals of the RCWD with the goals of the WCA and other environmental standards to achieve a no-net loss of wetland and associated ecological function. District Wide Model The District has worked with Houston Engineering to further develop a comprehensive hydrologic model of the District’s landscape. The resultant data is essential for planning and illuminating potential future stormwater quality, rate, and capacity conditions. 2016 WORK PLAN Resource Management Plan (RMP) Program The RMP is a planning document developed by the RCWD to guide the management of public drainage systems, wetlands, water quality, and stormwater in the urbanizing areas of the District. The RMP implements the multiple responsibilities of the District as the legal drainage authority, the Local Governmental Unit responsible for administering the WCA, and the policies and goals established by this RMP related to managing the rate and volume of runoff, improving water quality, and providing opportunities for open space. The RMP is comprised of three separate, but related documents, used to guide the management of a public drainage system administered by the RCWD. These documents are a repair report, a CWPMP, and a rule implementing the CWPMP. Each of the documents has a specific purpose. Important results from the three documents are integrated into the RMP as a single planning document used to provide options in the management of a legal drainage system. This program supports implementation activities identified in the following RMP/CWPMP’s: Village Meadows Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan; Anoka County Ditch 53-62 RMP; Anoka County Ditch 15/ Judicial Ditch 4 RMP, Lino Lakes RMP; and Columbus RMP. District Wide Model The District will continue to advance the model and digest the results to assist the district in planning for future stormwater conditions.


Urban Stormwater Remediation Program Goal: Protect and enhance water resources by providing financial assistance to help municipalities and other entities incorporate water quality management practices into redevelopment, roadway, and storm sewer improvements. 2015 ACTIVITIES In 2015, the District’s Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost-Share Program was revived after two years of inactivity. Approximately $150,000 was made available to assist cities, counties, school districts, libraries and other public and private entities with implementation of stormwater management projects. Three projects were initially funded, totaling $145,000, but one was ultimately cancelled due to high bids which exceeded the applicant’s budget. The two remaining projects are expected to be completed by December 31, 2017.

The City of Columbia Heights plans, as part of the Silver Lake TMDL Implementation Plan, to redesign an existing stormwater treatment pond at the Silver Lake boat launch to enhance phosphorus removal efficiency resulting in reduced nutrient inputs to Silver Lake. Activities include excavation and grading to create a two-cell stormwater pond and bioretention area. This project carries an estimated budget of $268,400 and received $50,000 in RCWD cost-share assistance. The City of Fridley plans to redesign an existing regional stormwater treatment basin (dry pond) located behind Village Green Apartments. The goal of the project is to provide additional flood storage capacity and increase infiltration, resulting in reduced transport of sediment and nutrients downstream to Rice Creek. The project site accepts stormwater runoff from nearly 80 acres of land within the RCWD, and transfers it downstream to Rice Creek, although the site itself lies just outside the RCWD’s political boundary. This project carries an estimated budget of $184,650 and received $50,000 in RCWD cost-share assistance.

2016 WORK PLAN In keeping with the goals and objectives outlined in its Watershed Management Plan and as part of its continued efforts to protect and enhance its water resources, the RCWD is making available approximately $200,000 in cost-share funding to assist cities, counties, school districts, libraries and other public and private entities with implementation of stormwater management projects. Funding is available for projects that provide stormwater quality treatment and/or runoff volume or peak runoff rate control. Project funding is not available for treatment required as part of a RCWD permit and should not be a part of a new development project. Projects proposed in conjunction with municipal street reconstruction projects or other site redevelopment projects are encouraged. For the 2016 funding cycle, additional priority will be given to applications involving stormwater reuse irrigation projects.


RCWD’s Clean Water Grant Program

Goal: Establish financial partnerships with private landowners aimed at implementing targeted small scale water quality improvement projects. 2015 ACTIVITIES The vast majority of land within the RCWD is held in private ownership. Financial partnerships with private landowners are increasingly essential to the installation of projects that help to improve water quality in the District. The RCWD dedicates funds each year to this program, aimed at implementing smaller-scale water quality improvement projects throughout the RCWD, in accordance with District grant policy. In 2015, the District reviewed its Water Quality BMP Cost-Share Program in order to focus on targeting projects with greater benefits to the watershed. Three changes were recommended by the Citizen Advisory Committee and approved by the Board in 2015. 1) Staff developed a packet for landowners with information about the RCWD, grants, raingardens, and more. 2) Projects with greater water quality benefits may now receive up to $7,500 and no more than 75% of the total project cost. 3) Staff will work with the conservation districts to utilize board approved plans to target areas in need of treatment. In addition, the program was renamed to the Clean Water Grant Program, to make it more marketable. Seven projects were approved for funding in 2015, primarily consisting of stormwater infiltration projects (such as raingardens) and erosion control projects on lakeshores and streambanks. Two of the installed projects included retrofitting parking lots with raingardens, at a church and an apartment complex. The total approved project implementation funding equaled approximately $29,825 in 2015. The Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Conservation Districts continue to assist the RCWD by providing technical assistance for landowners that are interested in installing water quality improvement projects. Staff is optimistic that the 2015 program changes will spur more interest in the program in 2016. 2016 WORK PLAN Clean Water Grant Program funding is available for a variety of activities related to improving water quality, reducing runoff volume, and enhancing ecological resources. Funding is available for installing a raingarden, stabilizing an eroding lakeshore or streambank, restoring a wetland, and implementing agricultural clean water projects, among other innovative practices. This program is operated through technical service


agreements with the Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Conservation Districts. The District Technician is responsible for administering the grant program. Approximately $150,000 is available for project implementation in 2016, which includes some carry-over funding from 2015. In 2016, staff will begin actively targeting project locations and working with the conservation districts to complete sub-watershed assessments to identify the most cost-effective water quality projects in a given area. Staff will also reach out to landowners in the more rural parts of District, to expand the quantity and type of projects being funded through the program. Additionally, staff will be reaching out landowners that have expressed an interest in installing projects in the past, but declined to participate due to the 50% funding cap.


Groundwater Management

Goal: Incorporate ground water considerations into the decision making process with mindfulness of the interconnectedness of water and water dependent natural resources. 2015 ACTIVITIES The RCWD continues to work with cities and counties to develop and refine groundwater management plans to ensure groundwater conservation. In 2015, the RCWD continued to review and comment on municipal Wellhead Protection Plans (WHPPs). Vulnerable areas that have been identified in municipal WHPPs are also considered during the permit review process when examining the feasibility of using infiltration to achieve required stormwater management goals. Conversely, the RCWD works to ensure that infiltration is not strictly banned from use in these areas without information to support the restriction of infiltration practices. As part of an on-going review process with new and/or updated Local Surface Water Management Plans, the RCWD works with municipalities to ensure that groundwater conservation is a component of each plan. Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Re-use/Phosphorus Reduction Project 2015 marked the first full year of operation for the stormwater reuse irrigation project at the Oneka Ridge Golf Course. The project reduced the golf course’s dependency on groundwater for irrigation by 40% despite an electrical issue that took the system offline for one month, and significant rainfall, which lessened the demand for irrigation. Golf course staff is more comfortable operating the system and reports that the lift station reduces wear and tear on their force mains and sprinkler heads, resulting in substantially lower maintenance costs overall. The District sees this project as an example of successful groundwater stewardship for the region. This project received a $497,100 BWSR Clean Water Fund grant to assist with project implementation in 2012. [insert “ORGC photo”]

BWSR Stormwater Reuse for Irrigation Assessment Tool


In 2015, the RCWD began development of a stormwater reuse irrigation assessment tool. The tool will identify and prioritize possible project locations to determine which offer the greatest reductions in groundwater pumping for the lowest cost. The RCWD sees this project as a critical step towards addressing the growing concerns of residents about regional groundwater management. This project has been awarded funding in the amount of $100,000 from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) through the Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment. Groundwater Planning & Management Activities The RCWD continues to participate as requested in coordination activities related to implementing county and municipal groundwater plans and projects. 2016 WORK PLAN The RCWD will work to ensure that groundwater conservation and stormwater management conflicts are addressed when reviewing local water plans for approval. Bald Eagle Lake Watershed Stormwater Re-use/Phosphorus Reduction Project The RCWD will continue to monitor groundwater pumping and water quality though 2019 to assess the project’s effectiveness and improve operational efficiency where possible. The Oneka Ridge Golf Course is responsible for day-to-day operation and maintenance of the project. BWSR Stormwater Reuse for Irrigation Assessment Tool In 2016, the RCWD will complete development of the assessment tool and begin using it to identify and prioritize possible project locations throughout the District. Field analysis will occur to verify the ten most promising project locations. The District will then draft detailed descriptions about each of the ten locations including possible projects, expected benefits, and cost estimates. Lastly, the District will adapt the stormwater reuse irrigation assessment tool based on lessons learned and will share those findings and the revised tool in a final report to BWSR. Upon completion of this project, this tool will be available for use by others statewide.


Wetland Management

Goal: Manage wetlands in a manner, which improves diversity and ecological integrity on a District-wide basis, consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act and local opportunities for preservation, enhancement, and restoration, while balancing multiple resource issues. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

The RCWD is the Local Government Unit (LGU) and administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and local wetland regulations. The RCWD utilizes the WCA Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) in the discussion of wetland issues and review of wetland applications. The District notices the TEP as required but also consults with the TEP on wetland applications in the Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan (CWPMP) areas. Monitors reference wetlands to determine hydrologic regimes under a variety of circumstances and uses data to refine wetland management in other areas. Restores degraded wetlands in areas determined as high public value based on CWPMP/RMPs.

The RCWD contains 27,500 acres of wetland. These areas are protected and regulated by the WCA. The RCWD has undertaken significant efforts to conserve the highest quality wetlands and enhance the wetland resource throughout the District. This effort includes administration of WCA, a local wetland rule as well as the development of CWPMPs under WCA. The goal of these plans is to maintain and improve the quality, quantity, and biological diversity of wetland resources within the RCWD through the prioritization of existing wetlands and the strategic selection of replacement sites. The purpose of developing a plan is to provide a watershed and ecosystem-based framework to make wetland impact and replacement decisions that meet state standards and locally identified goals, and support the sustainability or improvement of wetland resources in the watershed. The CWPMPs are a significant factor in the District’s response to anticipated future development by identifying resource corridors in which to promote the restoration, preservation and addition of wetlands as a cohesive unit. These plans are discussed in-depth in the land and water conservation section of this report.


Drainage Systems & Creek Maintenance Goal: Manage and operate the public drainage system and manage and use waterways in a manner that recognizes the origin of the system (e.g., constructed vs. natural), the interconnectedness of resources, and present and future conveyance needs while considering and respecting legally established rights. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

Four full and nine partial system inspections and twenty-one maintenance projects were completed in 2015. The District received a Clean Water Fund grant in 2014 to develop a drainage system database which allows for more detailed technical and financial tracking, as well as mobile data entry and retrieval. Work on implementing this database, as well as development of a detailed drainage system inspection process, will allow for more effective and timely maintenance. A repair memo was completed for Anoka-Ramsey Judicial Ditch #1, Branch #4. Repair/Investigative memos were also completed for Anoka-Ramsey Judicial Ditch #1, Branch #5 and Washington Judicial Ditch #2, Branch #1.

Washington County Judicial Ditch (JD) 2 Maintenance Program This program was developed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the RCWD and the City of Hugo allowing Hugo to assume the responsibility for maintenance of JD 2 with costs to be reimbursed by the RCWD up to $40,000 annually. Continued maintenance work is planned for 2016. Public Drainage System Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Program The purpose of this program is to inspect, maintain, and repair the public drainage systems within the RCWD. The responses to requests for maintenance are completed through this program, as is the preparation of an annual inspection report. This program includes completing technical analyses and related activities


associated with maintenance requests, the completion of repair reports, and repair of the drainage system.

2016 WORK PLAN Public Drainage System Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Program The purpose of this program is to inspect, maintain, and repair the public drainage systems within the RCWD. The response to requests and petitions for maintenance are completed through this program, as is the preparation of an annual inspection report. Repair Reports In 2016, the District plans to complete a repair report for ACD 53-62 Branch #2. Repair reports are part of the RCWD’s continuing effort to refurbish the District’s aging drainage system to meet the demands of the twenty-first century.


District Facilities Operations and Maintenance Program

Goal: Construct, maintain, and operate facilities owned or operated by the District in accordance with their resource management purposes and gauge their effectiveness over time. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

Manage District-owned facilities subject to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program requirements consistent with permit conditions and facilitate data sharing among public entities within the District, subject to MS4 program requirements. Manage District-owned facilities in accordance with the original design purposes, periodically review these purposes, and modify operations in consideration of current resource management objectives. Manage District-owned properties and easements in accordance with prescribed management plans.

Water resource management facilities such as water level control structures, water quality treatment facilities, and fish barriers are owned and operated by the District. The RCWD also holds easements on, and is responsible for, the operation and maintenance of the Walls Wetland Bank as well as other property owned by the District. The Public Drainage Inspector is responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of these facilities. Minor repairs of the Brown’s Preserve Wetland Bank were completed in 2015. The District Facilities Maintenance Program, established by the Board of Managers, addresses the need to maintain and repair facilities owned and operated by the District, which are not public drainage systems. Many of these facilities were constructed during the late 1980’s as a part of the Long Lake Chain of Lakes Clean Lakes Project. Important aspects of this program include conducting an inventory of facilities and providing documentation, which will become part of a long-term record, assessing work that has been done and what repairs are needed, and developing operating plans and procedures. 2016 WORK PLAN District Facilities Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Program The purpose of this program is to inspect, maintain, and repair facilities, easements, and property owned and operated by the District. A record of the inspection of RCWD facilities is created yearly.


Information Management

Goal: RCWD information systems will enable staff and landowners to access data to enhance conservation efforts. 2015 ACTIVITIES Strategies

Maintain effective computer network capabilities. Develop, maintain, and enhance information management system(s) for recording natural resource data gathered by the RCWD in databases accessible to staff and partners. Maintain and refine an archival system for RCWD files.

Actions:

Established a new contract with Computer Revolution to install a new server, upgrade to Office 365, and provide day-to-day technical support. Continued to organize, update, prioritize, and close out historic permit files. Continued to maintain and update the District’s permit and inspection databases. Continued to maintain and update the District’s online mapping systems for recording, editing, and managing hydrologic, ditch, and permit/review file information. Continued development of the new public drainage system inspection plan and database.

Website The goal of the RCWD website is to provide information about District programs, projects, and educational initiatives in a way that is easily accessible to the public. Website features include staff and board contact information, project details and photos, an events calendar, the District’s current rules and guidance documents for permittees, and the Ditch Portal which provides comprehensive data and records about our public drainage system, and much more. Laserfiche (Digital Document Storage) Laserfiche is a document management system which serves as the centralized location for the District’s official records. All documents relating to permit applications and inspections as well as other regulatory activities are stored in Laserfiche. Storing records in a digital format allows staff and the District’s consulting engineer to access the most up-to-date information with relative ease. It also saves the District money because file storage can be costly. PermitViewer (GIS) PermitViewer is a web-based interactive map used by RCWD staff to identify project locations associated with new permit applications and review files. Additional information available in PermitViewer includes aerial photography, land use data, hydrography data, soils data, Rule boundaries, LiDAR contours, District-wide hydraulic and hydrologic model information, etc. The goal is to ensure that these databases will encompass long-lasting, accessible data that is and will continue to be an important asset as the District grows.


2016 WORK PLAN The RCWD continues to modernize and utilize the permit database as a centralized location for permit tracking information. The permit and inspection databases streamline the communication process with permit holders and contractors. Staff will continue to manage the data storage, processing, and distribution of information to create efficiencies and promote data-sharing between cities, developers, and citizens within the District. Completion of the new public drainage system inspection database will afford the Drainage Inspector more efficient record-keeping capabilities in the future. Staff will continue working towards the goal of developing a better tracking system for the Clean Water Grant Program in the form of a database either alongside of or integrated with the permit database to aid in tracking and maintenance inspections (staff are currently using GIS/Microsoft Excel to track grant program activities).


Local Water Plan Adoption 2015 ACTIVITIES The District reviews municipalities’ Local Water Plans pursuant to the RCWD’s 2010 Watershed Management Plan (WMP), MN § 103B.235 and MN Rule 8410. In 2015, the District reviewed plans from the Cities of Blaine, Circle Pines, Hugo, Lino Lakes, and St. Anthony. The Cities of Circle Pines and Lino Lakes have been approved by the District Board. The other three cities are still in the process of reworking their plans based on comments provided by the District. Additionally, the District reviewed and approved a Local Water Plan amendment for the City of Spring Lake Park. The City of Circle Pines, with the approval of their “Level 2” water plan, will soon be responsible for issuing permits for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F within their boundary. The “Level 2” plan is an option described in the District’s WMP that allows cities to enforce a portion of the District’s rules if they successfully complete a more rigorous Local Water Plan and meet other criteria outlined in Ch. 8.3.2 in the District’s WMP. At this time, several cities need to amend their plans to become current with the 2010 WMP or have yet to submit a plan all together. A summary of the submittals is listed below.

RCWD Final RCWD FinalApproval Plan Date Approval Plan Date

Approved current plan

Comments sent

Nothing received

Approved, needs update

Birchwood

MunicipalityLocal Water Plan

Arden Hills 08/08/12 07/16/12

Centerville 10/10/12 09/21/12

Blaine

Columbia Heights

Circle Pines 01/27/16 01/20/16

Dellwood

Columbus 11/04/10 10/18/10

09/25/13 09/13/13

Falcon Heights 10/28/09 09/30/08

Lexington

Lauderdale 08/27/08 08/14/08

Hugo

Grant 05/27/09 12/01/09

Fridley

Forest Lake

Mahtomedi 07/23/14 06/26/14

Lino Lakes 01/13/16 12/28/15

Mounds View 04/22/09 04/30/09

May Twp 09/25/13 09/18/13

Roseville 03/13/13 02/28/13

New Brighton 08/08/12 07/19/12

Scandia 09/26/12 08/22/12

Saint Anthony

MunicipalityLocal Water Plan

Willernie 01/12/11 11/03/10

White Bear Twp 11/04/10 10/21/10

White Bear Lake

Spring Lake Park 05/22/13 04/11/13

Shoreview


2016 WORK PLAN A recent update to MN Rule 8410 and MN § 103B.235 will alter how the District and municipalities amend and complete Local Water Plans and Watershed Management Plans. As part of this process, the District will amend our WMP to include the revised amendment procedures outlined in the new state requirements and add an emphasis on water reuse. These changes must be incorporated into cities’ 10-year comprehensive planning process. In past years, the District has provided reminder letters to cities who have yet to submit their Local Water Plans; however, given the recent change in submittal timelines the District will await the new plans in 2018 as many cities will begin the planning process in 2016. With the updates to state law, the District will need to coordinate a review process for up to 28 cities. The District anticipates creating a process for staggering submittals in order to alleviate workload concerns. The District will meet with cities in the spring of 2016 to discuss how these changes will affect the RCWD’s Watershed Management Plan and concurrently, the cities Local Water Plan. At the meeting, the District will discuss the planned WMP changes, the changes to state law, and a process for submitting revised or new plans. Additionally, the meeting will emphasize the importance the of local water planning including how the plans may help inform the District’s Capital Improvement Plan and assist with leveraging grant awards offered by the Clean Water Fund. The meeting is intended to help cities kick-off the planning process by offering resources and tips for submitting a successful plan.

Appendix A Financial Statements & Audit

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICT

ANNUALFINANCIALREPORT

December31, 2015

Thispageintentionallyleftblank -

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTTABLEOFCONTENTS

RefNo.PageNo.

INTRODUCTORYSECTION

Organization3

FINANCIALSECTION

IndependentAuditor'sReport7

BasicFinancialStatements:

Government-WideFinancialStatements: StatementofNetPositionStatement112StatementofActivitiesStatement213

FundFinancialStatements: BalanceSheet - GovernmentalFundsStatement314StatementofRevenues, ExpendituresandChangesinFundBalance -

GovernmentalFundsStatement415ReconciliationoftheStatementofRevenues, ExpendituresandChangesin

FundBalancesofGovernmentalFundsStatement516

StatementofNetPosition - FiduciaryFunds - PerformanceDepositsAgencyFundStatement617

NotestoFinancialStatements19

RequiredSupplementary Information: BudgetaryComparisonSchedule - GeneralFundStatement742BudgetaryComparisonSchedule - 509PlanningSpecialRevenueFundStatement843ScheduleofProportionateShareofNetPensionLiability - GeneralEmployeesRetirementFundStatement945

ScheduleofPensionContributions - GeneralEmployeesRetirementFundStatement1046NotestoRSI47

IndividualFundFinancialStatements: BalanceSheet - GeneralFundStatement1150ComparativeStatementofRevenues, ExpendituresandChangesin

FundBalance - GeneralFundStatement1251StatementofChangesinAssetsandLiabilities - FiduciaryFundsStatement1352

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTTABLEOFCONTENTS

RefNo.PageNo.

SUPPLEMENTARYFINANCIALINFORMATION

SchedulesofRevenuesandExpenditures - BudgetandActual: MajorFund:

509PlanningFund: EnvironmentalEducation - 30Exhibit154InformationManagement - 35Exhibit255RestorationProjects - 60Exhibit356Regulatory - 70Exhibit457DitchandCreekMaintenance - 80Exhibit558LakeandStream - 90Exhibit659DistrictFacilities - 95Exhibit760

OTHERINFORMATION - UNAUDITED

TaxLevyandRevenuebyCountyExhibit862

OTHERREPORTS

ReportonInternalControl65

MinnesotaLegalComplianceReport67

INTRODUCTORYSECTION

1


2

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTORGANIZATIONDecember31, 2015

TermExpiresManagers:

PatriciaL. Preiner - PresidentJanuary17, 2017

BarbaraA. Haake - FirstVice-PresidentJanuary17, 2017

JohnJ. Waller - SecondVice-PresidentJanuary17, 2016

StevenP. Wagamon - TreasurerJanuary17, 2016

MichaelJ. Bradley - SecretaryJanuary17, 2018

Staff:

Administrator: PhilBelfiori

OfficeManager: TheresaStasica

LakeandStreamSpecialist: MatthewKocian

PermitCoordinator/WetlandSpecialist: NickTomczik

EducationOutreachandCommunicationCoordinator: JessicaBromelkamp

PublicDrainageInspector/Technician: TomSchmidt

WaterResourceSpecialist: KyleAxtell

Inspectors: MikeBehan

Technician/Inspector: CatherineNester

TechnicalSpecialist/PermitReviewer: ChrisBuntjer

Regulatory/OfficeAssistant: PatrickHughes

Technician: SamanthaBerger

3


4

FINANCIALSECTION

5


6

INDEPENDENTAUDITOR'SREPORT

TotheHonorableManagersoftheRiceCreekWatershedDistrictBlaine, Minnesota

Wehaveauditedtheaccompanyingfinancialstatementsofthegovernmentalactivities, eachmajorfundandtheaggregateremainingfundinformationofRiceCreekWatershedDistrict, asofandfortheyearendedDecember31, 2015, andtherelatednotestothefinancialstatements, whichcollectivelycomprisetheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict’sbasicfinancialstatementsaslistedinthetableofcontents.

Management’sResponsibilityfortheFinancialStatements

ManagementisresponsibleforthepreparationandfairpresentationofthesefinancialstatementsinaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica; thisincludesthedesign, implementation, andmaintenanceofinternalcontrolrelevanttothepreparationandfairpresentationoffinancialstatementsthatarefreefrommaterialmisstatement, whetherduetofraudorerror.

Auditor’sResponsibility

Ourresponsibilityistoexpressopinionsonthesefinancialstatementsbasedonouraudit. WeconductedourauditinaccordancewithauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaandthestandardsapplicabletofinancialauditscontainedinGovernmentAuditingStandards, issuedbytheComptrollerGeneraloftheUnitedStates. Thosestandardsrequirethatweplanandperformtheaudittoobtainreasonableassuranceaboutwhetherthefinancialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement.

Anauditinvolvesperformingprocedurestoobtainauditevidenceabouttheamountsanddisclosuresinthefinancialstatements. Theproceduresselecteddependontheauditor’sjudgment, includingtheassessmentoftherisksofmaterialmisstatementofthefinancialstatements, whetherduetofraudorerror. Inmakingthoseriskassessments, theauditorconsidersinternalcontrolrelevanttotheentity’spreparationandfairpresentationofthefinancialstatementsinordertodesignauditproceduresthatareappropriateinthecircumstances, butnotforthepurposeofexpressinganopinionontheeffectivenessoftheentity’sinternalcontrol. Accordingly, weexpressnosuchopinion. Anauditalsoincludesevaluatingtheappropriatenessofaccountingpoliciesusedandthereasonablenessofsignificantaccountingestimatesmadebymanagement, aswellasevaluatingtheoverallpresentationofthefinancialstatements.

4810WhiteBearParkway, St. Paul, MN, 55110 651.426.7000 www.redpathcpas.com7

Webelievethattheauditevidencewehaveobtainedissufficientandappropriatetoprovideabasisforourauditopinions.

Opinions

Inouropinion, thefinancialstatementsreferredtoabovepresentfairly, inallmaterialrespects, therespectivefinancialpositionofthegovernmentalactivities, eachmajorfundandtheaggregateremainingfundinformationoftheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict, asofDecember31, 2015, andtherespectivechangesinfinancialpositionfortheyearthenendedinaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

EmphasisofMatter

RiceCreekWatershedDistrictAsdescribedinNotes6and15tothefinancialstatements, adoptednewaccountingguidance, GASBStatementNo. 68, AccountingandFinancialReportingforPensions – anAmendmentofGASBStatementNo. 27fortheyearendedDecember31, 2015 Ouropinionisnotmodifiedwithrespecttothismatter.

ReportonSummarizedComparativeInformation

WehavepreviouslyauditedRiceCreekWatershedDistrict’s2014financialstatements, andweexpressedanunmodifiedauditopinionontherespectivefinancialstatementsofthegovernmentalactivities, eachmajorfundandtheaggregateremainingfundinformationinourreportdatedApril9, 2015. Inouropinion, thesummarizedcomparativeinformationpresentedhereinasofandfortheyearendedDecember31, 2014isconsistent, inallmaterialrespects, withtheauditedfinancialstatementsfromwhichithasbeenderived.

OtherMatters

RequiredSupplementaryInformation

Managementhasomittedthemanagement’sdiscussionandanalysisthataccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmericarequiretobepresentedtosupplementthebasicfinancialstatements. Suchmissinginformation, althoughnotapartofthebasicfinancialstatements, isrequiredbytheGovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard, whoconsidersittobeanessentialpartoffinancialreportingforplacingthebasicfinancialstatementsinanappropriateoperational, economic, orhistoricalcontext. Ouropiniononthebasicfinancialstatementsisnotaffectedbythismissinginformation.

8

AccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmericarequirethatthebudgetarycomparisoninformation, theScheduleofProportionateShareofNetPensionLiabilityandtheScheduleofPensionContributionsonpages42through47bepresentedtosupplementthebasicfinancialstatements. Suchinformation, althoughnotapartofthebasicfinancialstatements, isrequiredbytheGovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard, whoconsidersittobeanessentialpartoffinancialreportingforplacingthebasicfinancialstatementsinanappropriateoperational, economic, orhistoricalcontext. WehaveappliedcertainlimitedprocedurestotherequiredsupplementaryinformationinaccordancewithauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica, whichconsistedofinquiriesofmanagementaboutthemethodsofpreparingtheinformationandcomparingtheinformationforconsistencywithmanagement’sresponsestoourinquiries, thebasicfinancialstatements, andotherknowledgeweobtainedduringourauditofthebasicfinancialstatements. Wedonotexpressanopinionorprovideanyassuranceontheinformationbecausethelimitedproceduresdonotprovideuswithsufficientevidencetoexpressanopinionorprovideanyassurance.

OtherInformation

OurauditwasconductedforthepurposeofformingopinionsonthefinancialstatementsthatcollectivelycomprisetheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict’sbasicfinancialstatements. Theintroductorysection, individualfundfinancialstatements, supplementaryfinancialinformation, andotherinformationarepresentedforpurposesofadditionalanalysisandarenotarequiredpartofthebasicfinancialstatements.

Theindividualfundfinancialstatementsandsupplementaryfinancialinformationaretheresponsibilityofmanagementandwerederivedfromandrelatedirectlytotheunderlyingaccountingandotherrecordsusedtopreparethebasicfinancialstatements. Suchinformationhasbeensubjectedtotheauditingproceduresappliedintheauditofthebasicfinancialstatementsandcertainadditionalprocedures, includingcomparingandreconcilingsuchinformationdirectlytotheunderlyingaccountingandotherrecordsusedtopreparethebasicfinancialstatementsortothebasicfinancialstatementsthemselves, andotheradditionalproceduresinaccordancewithauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica. Inouropinion, theindividualfundfinancialstatementsandthesupplementaryfinancialinformationarefairlystatedinallmaterialrespectsinrelationtothebasicfinancialstatementsasawhole.

Theintroductoryandotherinformationsectionshavenotbeensubjectedtotheauditingproceduresappliedintheauditofthebasicfinancialstatementsand, accordingly, wedonotexpressanopinionorprovideanyassuranceonthem.

9

OtherReportingRequiredbyGovernmentAuditingStandards

InaccordancewithGovernmentAuditingStandards, wehavealsoissuedourreportdatedApril7, 2016, onourconsiderationoftheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict’sinternalcontroloverfinancialreportingandonourtestsofitscompliancewithcertainprovisionsoflaws, regulations, contracts, andgrantagreementsandothermatters. Thepurposeofthatreportistodescribethescopeofourtestingofinternalcontroloverfinancialreportingoroncomplianceandtheresultsofthattesting, andnottoprovideanopinionontheinternalcontroloverfinancialreportingoroncompliance. ThatreportisanintegralpartofanauditperformedinaccordancewithGovernmentAuditingStandardsinconsideringtheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict’sinternalcontroloverfinancialreportingandcompliance.

REDPATHANDCOMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota

April7, 2016

10

BASICFINANCIALSTATEMENTS

11

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTSTATEMENTOFNETPOSITIONStatement1December31, 2015

PrimaryGovernmentGovernmentalActivities

2015Assets:

Cashandinvestments$ 9,701,939Duefromothergovernments13,391Accountsreceivable - net10,793Propertytaxesreceivable: Delinquent67,155Duefromcounty52,135Specialassessmentsreceivable: Deferred260,954Specialdeferred65,594Delinquent14,689Duefromcounty13,342Prepaiditems6,127

Capitalassets - net: Nondepreciable1,252,807Depreciable54,357

Totalassets11,513,283

Deferredoutflowsofresources: Relatedtopensions83,358

Liabilities: Accountspayable155,892Contracts/retainagepayable21,980Duetoothergovernments67,275Unearnedrevenue1,245,314Accruedinterestpayable6,040Capitalleasepayable: Duewithinoneyear4,548Dueinmorethanoneyear8,716

Compensatedabsencespayable: Duewithinoneyear2,129Dueinmorethanoneyear40,649

Loanspayable: Dueinmorethanoneyear200,000

Netpensionliability: Dueinmorethanoneyear595,990

Totalliabilities2,348,533

Deferredinflowsofresources: Relatedtopensions40,617

Netposition: Investmentsincapitalassets, netofrelateddebt1,293,900Unrestricted7,913,591

Totalnetposition$ 9,207,491

Theaccompanyingnotesareanintegralpartofthesefinancialstatements. 12

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement2STATEMENTOFACTIVITIES

ForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015

Net (Expense) RevenueandProgramRevenuesChangesinNetPosition

OperatingCapitalPrimaryGovernmentChargesForGrantsandGrantsandTotals

Functions/ProgramsExpensesServicesContributionsContributions2015

Primarygovernment: Governmentalactivities: Generalgovernment$ 1,363,941$136,735$ - $ - ($ 1,227,206) Programs2,189,80536,111591,726 - ( 1,561,968) Interestexpenseondebt6,040 - - - ( 6,040)

Totalgovernmentalactivities$3,559,786$172,846$591,726$ 0($ 2,795,214)

Generalrevenues: Propertytaxes$ 4,235,447Grantsandcontributionsnot

restrictedtospecificprograms1,613Unrestrictedinvestmentearnings54,829Miscellaneousother34,779Totalgeneralrevenues4,326,668

Changeinnetposition1,531,454

Netposition - January1, asoriginallyreported7,815,793Priorperiodadjustment( 139,756) Netposition-January1, asrestated7,676,037

Netposition - December31$ 9,207,491


RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTBALANCESHEETStatement3GOVERNMENTALFUNDSDecember31, 2015WithComparativeTotalsForDecember31, 2014

509PlanningSpecialRevenue

GeneralFundFundTotalGovernmentalFundsAssets20152014

Cashandinvestments$140,515$9,561,424$9,701,939$8,447,212Duefromothergovernments - 13,39113,39181,404Accountsreceivable - net41710,37610,7936,452Propertytaxesreceivable: Delinquent5,45061,70567,15571,678Duefromcounty4,45047,68552,13551,995

Specialassessmentsreceivable: Deferred - 260,954260,954362,333Specialdeferred - 65,59465,59447,831Delinquent - 14,68914,68912,552Duefromcounty - 13,34213,34210,390Prepaiditems1,3714,7566,1276,231

Totalassets$152,203$10,053,916$10,206,119$9,098,078

Liabilities, DeferredInflowsofResources, andFundBalance

Liabilities: Accountspayable$8,513$147,379$155,892$161,593Contracts/retainagepayable - 21,98021,98092,894Duetoothergovernments26767,00867,27513,175Unearnedrevenue - 1,245,3141,245,3141,618,805

Totalliabilities8,7801,481,6811,490,4611,886,467

Deferredinflowsofresources: Unavailablerevenue5,450298,086303,536273,551

Fundbalance: Nonspendable1,3714,7566,1276,231Committed - 6,770,3466,770,3465,529,201Assigned - 1,499,0471,499,0471,285,860Unassigned136,602 - 136,602116,768

Totalfundbalance137,9738,274,1498,412,1226,938,060

Totalliabilities, deferredinflowsofresources, andfundbalance$152,203$10,053,916$10,206,119$9,098,078

Fundbalancereportedabove$ 8,412,122AmountsreportedforgovernmentalactivitiesintheStatementofNetPositionare

differentbecause: Capitalassetsusedingovernmentalactivitiesarenotfinancialresourcesand,

therefore, arenotreportedinthefunds. 1,307,164Deferredoutflowsofresources - pensionrelatedarenotcurrentfinancialresourcesand, therefore, are

notreportedinthefunds. 83,358Deferredinflowsofresources - pensionrelatedareassociatedwithlong-termliabilities, thatarenotdueandpayableinthecurrentperiodand, therefore, notreportedinthefunds.(40,617)

Long-termliabilitiesarenotdueandpayableinthecurrentperiodand, therefore, arenotreportedinthefunds: Compensatedabsencespayable( 42,778) Netpensionliability( 595,990) Loans( 200,000) Accruedinterestpayable( 6,040) Capitalleasepayable( 13,264)

Otherlong-termassetsarenotavailabletopayforcurrentperiodexpendituresand, therefore, arereportedasunavailablerevenueinthefunds.303,536

Netpositionofgovernmentalactivities$ 9,207,491


RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement4STATEMENTOFREVENUES, EXPENDITURESAND

CHANGESINFUNDBALANCEGOVERNMENTALFUNDSForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015WithComparativeTotalsForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2014

509PlanningSpecial

GeneralFundRevenueFund TotalGovernmentalFunds20152014

Revenues: Generalpropertytaxes$361,860$3,878,110$4,239,970$4,225,342Specialassessments - 165,118165,118329,041Intergovernmental138393,575393,713348,579Permits - 136,735136,73577,726Investmentincome11,59043,23954,82942,857Miscellaneous1,56669,32470,89045,092

Totalrevenues375,1544,686,1015,061,2555,068,637

Expenditures: Current:

Generalgovernment355,344999,4301,354,7741,228,315Programs - 2,183,8452,183,8452,656,211

Capitaloutlay - 61,83861,83859,709DebtservicePrincipal - 379379 - Totalexpenditures355,3443,245,4923,600,8363,944,235

Revenuesover (under) expenditures19,8101,440,6091,460,4191,124,402

Otherfinancingsources (uses): Loanproceeds - - - 200,000

Capitallease - 13,64313,643 - Totalotherfinancingsources (uses) - 13,64313,643200,000

Netchangeinfundbalance19,8101,454,2521,474,0621,324,402

Fundbalance - January1118,1636,819,8976,938,0605,613,658

Fundbalance - December31$137,973$8,274,149$8,412,122$6,938,060


RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement5RECONCILIATIONOFTHESTATEMENTOFREVENUES,

EXPENDITURESANDCHANGESINFUNDBALANCESOFGOVERNMENTALFUNDSForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015

2015Amountsreportedforgovernmentalactivitiesinthe

StatementofActivities (Statement2) aredifferentbecause:

Netchangesinfundbalances - totalgovernmentalfunds (Statement4)$1,474,062

Governmentalfundsreportcapitaloutlaysasexpenditures. However, intheStatementofActivitiesthecostofthoseassetsisallocatedovertheirestimatedusefullivesandreportedasdepreciationexpense. Thisistheamountbywhichcapitaloutlaysexceededdepreciationinthecurrentperiod.50,809

RevenuesintheStatementofActivitiesthatdonotprovidecurrentfinancialresourcesarenotreportedasrevenuesinthefunds.29,985

Theissuanceoflong-termdebt (e.g. bonds, leases) providecurrentresourcestogovernmentalfunds, whiletherepaymentoftheprincipaloflong-termdebtconsumesthecurrentfinancialresourcesofgovernmentalfunds. Neithertransaction, however, hasanyeffectonnetposition. Thisamountistheneteffectofthesedifferencesintreatmentoflong-termdebtandrelateditems.(13,264)

SomeexpensesreportedintheStatementofActivitiesdonotrequiretheuseofcurrentfinancialresourcesand, therefore, arenotreportedasexpendituresingovernmentalfunds. 12,348

Governmentalfundsreportpensioncontributionsasexpenditures, however, pensionexpenseisreportedintheStatementofActivities. Thisistheamountbywhichpensionexpenseexceededpensioncontributionsinthecurrentperiod: Pensioncontributions$53,360Pensionexpense(75,846) (22,486)

Changeinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivities (Statement2)$1,531,454


RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement6STATEMENTOFNETPOSITION

FIDUCIARYFUNDSPERFORMANCEDEPOSITSAGENCYFUNDDecember31, 2015WithComparativeTotalsForDecember31, 2014

20152014Assets: Cashandinvestments$1,542,732$1,478,371

Totalassets$ 1,542,732$1,478,371

Liabilities: Fundsheldintrust - escrow$1,542,732$1,478,371

Totalliabilities$1,542,732$1,478,371



18

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTNOTESTOFINANCIALSTATEMENTSDecember31, 2015

Note1SUMMARYOFSIGNIFICANTACCOUNTINGPOLICIES

TheaccountingpoliciesoftheRiceCreekWatershedDistrict (theDistrict) conformtoaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaapplicabletogovernmentalunits. Thefollowingisasummaryofsignificantaccountingpolicies.

A.FINANCIALREPORTINGENTITY

TheDistrictwasorganizedJanuary18, 1972undertheMinnesotaWatershedActasamendedbytheMinnesotaWaterResourcesBoardasprovidedinMinnesotaStatutesChapter112. TheDistrictcoversareaswithinthefollowingfourcounties: Anoka, Hennepin, RamseyandWashington. TheDistrictisoperatedbyafivememberBoardofManagersappointedbytherespectiveCountyBoardsofCommissionersforstaggeredthreeyearterms. InaccordancewithGASBpronouncementsandaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica, thefinancialstatementsofthereportingentityshouldincludetheprimarygovernmentanditscomponentunits. TheDistrictprimarygovernment) doesnothaveanycomponentunits.

ComponentunitsarelegallyseparateentitiesforwhichtheDistrict (primarygovernment) isfinanciallyaccountable, orforwhichtheexclusionofthecomponentunitwouldrenderthefinancialstatementsoftheprimarygovernmentmisleading. Thecriteriausedtodetermineiftheprimarygovernmentisfinanciallyaccountableforacomponentunitiswhetherornottheprimarygovernmentappointsthevotingmajorityofthepotentialcomponentunit’sgoverningbody, isabletoimposeitswillonthepotentialcomponentunit, isinarelationshipoffinancialbenefitorburdenwiththepotentialcomponentunit, orisfiscallydependentuponbythepotentialcomponent.

Basedonthesecriteria, therearenoorganizationsconsideredtobeacomponentunitoftheDistrict.

B.GOVERNMENT-WIDEANDFUNDFINANCIALSTATEMENTS

Thegovernment-widefinancialstatements (i.e., theStatementofNetPositionandtheStatementofActivities) reportinformationonallofthenonfiduciaryactivitiesoftheprimarygovernment. Forthemostpart, theeffectofinterfundactivityhasbeenremovedfromthesestatements. Governmentalactivities, whichnormallyaresupportedbytaxesandintergovernmentalrevenues, arereportedseparatelyfrombusiness-typeactivities. Therearenobusiness-typeactivities, whichrelytoasignificantextentonfeesandchargesforservices.

TheStatementofActivitiesdemonstratesthedegreetowhichthedirectexpensesofagivenfunctionareoffsetbyprogramrevenues. Directexpensesarethosethatareclearlyidentifiablewithaspecificfunction. Programrevenuesinclude1) chargestocustomersorapplicantswhopurchase, useordirectlybenefitfromgoods, servicesorprivilegesprovidedbyagivenfunctionand2) grantsandcontributionsthatarerestrictedtomeetingtheoperationalorcapitalrequirementsofaparticularfunction. Taxesandotheritemsnotincludedamongprogramrevenuesarereportedinsteadasgeneralrevenues.

Separatefinancialstatementsareprovidedforgovernmentalfundsandfiduciaryfunds, eventhoughthelatterareexcludedfromthegovernment-widefinancialstatements. Majorindividualgovernmentalfundsarereportedasseparatecolumnsinthefundfinancialstatements.

19


C.MEASUREMENTFOCUS, BASISOFACCOUNTINGANDFINANCIALSTATEMENTPRESENTATION

Thegovernment-widefinancialstatementsarereportedusingtheeconomicresourcesmeasurementfocusandtheaccrualbasisofaccounting. Revenuesarerecordedwhenearnedandexpensesarerecordedwhenaliabilityisincurred, regardlessofthetimingofrelatedcashflows. Propertytaxesarerecognizedasrevenuesintheyearforwhichtheyarelevied. Grantsandsimilaritemsarerecognizedasrevenueassoonasalleligibilityrequirementsimposedbytheproviderhavebeenmet. TheDistrict’sonlyfiduciaryfundisanAgencyFund. AgencyFundsarecustodialinnature (assetsequalliabilities) anddonotinvolvemeasurementorresultsofoperations.

Governmentalfundfinancialstatementsarereportedusingthecurrentfinancialresourcesmeasurementfocusandthemodifiedaccrualbasisofaccounting. Revenuesarerecognizedassoonastheyarebothmeasurableandavailable. Revenuesareconsideredtobeavailablewhentheyarecollectiblewithinthecurrentperiodorsoonenoughthereaftertopayliabilitiesofthecurrentperiod. Forthispurpose, theDistrictconsidersallrevenues, exceptreimbursementgrants, tobeavailableiftheyarecollectedwithin60daysoftheendofthecurrentfiscalperiod. Reimbursementgrantsareconsideredavailableiftheyarecollectedwithinoneyearoftheendofthecurrentfiscalperiod. Expendituresgenerallyarerecordedwhenaliabilityisincurred, asunderaccrualaccounting.

Propertytaxes, intergovernmentalrevenues, andinterestassociatedwiththecurrentfiscalperiodareallconsideredtobesusceptibletoaccrualandsohavebeenrecognizedasrevenuesofthecurrentfiscalperiod. AllotherrevenueitemsareconsideredtobemeasurableandavailableonlywhencashisreceivedbytheDistrict.

TheDistrictreportsthefollowingmajorgovernmentalfunds:

GeneralFund – isthegeneraloperatingfundoftheDistrict. ItisusedtoaccountforfinancialresourcestobeusedforgeneraladministrativeexpensesandfortheconstructionandmaintenanceofprojectsofcommonbenefittotheDistrict. PursuanttoMinnesotaStatutes103D.905, Subdivision3, theadvaloremtaxlevyfortheGeneralFundmaynotexceed .048percentoftaxablemarketvalue, or $250,000, whicheverisless.

509PlanningFund (specialrevenuefund) – hasbeenestablishedtorecordtransactionsresultingfromtheMetropolitanSurfaceWaterManagementAct (Chapter509, Lawsof1982MinnesotaStatutesSection473.875to473.883). Propertytaxesarecommittedforthe509PlanningFund.

Additionally, theDistrictreportsthefollowingfundtype:

AgencyFunds – theperformancedepositsagencyfundisusedtoaccountforassetsheldbytheDistrictasanagentforindividuals, privateorganizationsand/orothergovernments.

Asageneralruletheeffectofinterfundactivityhasbeeneliminatedfromthegovernment-widefinancialstatements. Exceptionstothisgeneralrulearetransactionsthatwouldbetreatedasrevenues, expendituresorexpensesiftheyinvolvedexternalorganizations, suchasbuyinggoodsandservicesorpaymentsinlieuoftaxes, aresimilarlytreatedwhentheyinvolveotherfundsoftheDistrict. Eliminationofthesechargeswoulddistortthedirectcostsandprogramrevenuesreportedforthevariousfunctionsconcerned.

20


Amountsreportedasprogramrevenuesinclude1) chargestocustomersorapplicantsforgoods, servicesorprivilegesprovided, 2) operatinggrantsandcontributions, and3) capitalgrantsandcontributions, includingspecialassessments. Internallydedicatedresourcesarereportedasgeneralrevenuesratherthanasprogramrevenues. Likewise, generalrevenuesincludealltaxes.

D.BUDGETS

TheDistrictpreparesannualrevenueandexpenditurebudgetsfortheDistrict'sGeneralFundand509PlanningSpecialRevenueFund. TheDistrictmonitorsbudgetperformanceonthefundbasis. AllamountsoverbudgethavebeenapprovedbytheBoardthroughthedisbursementapprovalprocess. ThemodifiedaccrualbasisofaccountingisusedbytheDistrictforbudgetingdata. Allappropriationsendwiththefiscalyearforwhichtheyweremade. Encumbranceaccounting, underwhichpurchaseorders, contractsandothercommitmentsofmoniesarerecordedinordertoreservethatportionoftheapplicableappropriation, isnotemployedbytheDistrict.

E.CASHANDINVESTMENTS

Cashandinvestmentbalancesfromallfundsarepooledandinvestedtotheextentavailableinauthorizedinvestments. Investmentincomeisallocatedtoindividualfundsonthebasisofthefund'sequityinthecashandinvestmentpool.

Investmentsarestatedatfairvalue, baseduponquotedmarketprices. Investmentincomeisaccruedatthebalancesheetdate.

F.PROPERTYTAXREVENUERECOGNITION

TheBoardofManagersannuallyadoptsataxlevyandcertifiesittotheCountyinOctoberlevy/assessmentdate) ofeachyearforcollectioninthefollowingyear. TheCountyisresponsiblefor

billingandcollectingallpropertytaxesforitself, theDistrict, thelocalSchoolDistrictandothertaxingauthorities. SuchtaxesbecomealienonJanuary1andarerecordedasreceivablesbytheDistrictatthatdate. Realpropertytaxesarepayable (bypropertyowners) onMay15andOctober15ofeachcalendaryear. PersonalpropertytaxesarepayablebytaxpayersonFebruary28andJune30ofeachyear. ThesetaxesarecollectedbytheCountyandremittedtotheDistrictonorbeforeJuly7andDecember2ofthesameyear. DelinquentcollectionsforNovemberandDecemberarereceivedthefollowingJanuary. TheDistricthasnoabilitytoenforcepaymentofpropertytaxesbypropertyowners. TheCountypossessesthisauthority.

GOVERNMENT-WIDEFINANCIALSTATEMENTSTheDistrictrecognizespropertytaxrevenueintheperiodforwhichthetaxeswerelevied. Uncollectiblepropertytaxesarenotmaterialandhavenotbeenreported.

21


GOVERNMENTALFUNDFINANCIALSTATEMENTSTheDistrictrecognizespropertytaxrevenuewhenitbecomesbothmeasurableandavailabletofinanceexpendituresofthecurrentperiod. Inpractice, currentanddelinquenttaxesandStatecreditsreceivedbytheDistrictinJuly, DecemberandJanuaryarerecognizedasrevenueforthecurrentyear. TaxescollectedbytheCountybyDecember31 (remittedtotheDistrictthefollowingJanuary) andtaxesandcreditsnotreceivedatyearendareclassifiedasdelinquentandduefromCountytaxesreceivable. TheportionofdelinquenttaxesnotcollectedbytheDistrictinJanuaryarefullyoffsetbydeferredinflowofresourcesbecausetheyarenotavailabletofinancecurrentexpenditures.

G.SPECIALASSESSMENTREVENUERECOGNITION

SpecialassessmentsareleviedagainstbenefitedpropertiesforthecostoraportionofthecostofspecialassessmentimprovementprojectsinaccordancewithStateStatutes. TheseassessmentsarecollectiblebytheDistrictoveratermofyearsusuallyconsistentwiththetermoftheproject. Collectionofannualinstallments (includinginterest) ishandledbytheCountyAuditorinthesamemanneraspropertytaxes. Propertyownersareallowedtoprepayfutureinstallmentswithoutinterestorprepaymentpenalties.

Onceaspecialassessmentrollisadopted, theamountattributedtoeachparcelisalienuponthatpropertyuntilfullpaymentismadeortheamountisdeterminedtobeexcessivebytheBoardorcourtaction. Ifspecialassessmentsareallowedtogodelinquent, thepropertyissubjecttotaxforfeitsale. ProceedsofsalesfromtaxforfeitpropertiesareremittedtotheDistrictinpaymentofdelinquentspecialassessments. PursuanttoStateStatutes, apropertyshallbesubjecttoataxforfeitsaleafterthreeyearsunlessitishomesteaded, agriculturalorseasonalrecreationallandinwhicheventthepropertyissubjecttosuchsaleafterfiveyears.

GOVERNMENT-WIDEFINANCIALSTATEMENTSTheDistrictgenerallyrecognizesspecialassessmentrevenueintheperiodthattheassessmentrollwasadoptedbytheBoard. However, incaseswheretheprojectisnotsubstantiallycomplete, theassessmentrollisdeemedunearned. Uncollectiblespecialassessmentsarenotmaterialandhavenotbeenreported.

GOVERNMENTALFUNDFINANCIALSTATEMENTSRevenuefromspecialassessmentsisrecognizedbytheDistrictwhenitbecomesmeasurableandavailabletofinanceexpendituresofthecurrentfiscalperiod. Inpractice, currentanddelinquentspecialassessmentsreceivedbytheDistrictarerecognizedasrevenueforthecurrentyear. However, incaseswheretheprojectisnotsubstantiallycomplete, theassessmentisdeemeddeferred. SpecialassessmentsthatarecollectedbytheCountybyDecember31 (remittedtotheDistrictthefollowingJanuary) arealsorecognizedasrevenueforthecurrentyear. Allremainingdelinquent, deferredandspecialdeferredassessmentsreceivableingovernmentalfundsarecompletelyoffsetbydeferredinflowofresources.

H.INVENTORIES

Theoriginalcostofmaterialsandsupplieshasbeenrecordedasexpendituresatthetimeofpurchase. TheDistrictdoesnotmaintainmaterialamountsofinventoriesofgoodsandsupplies.

22


I.CAPITALASSETS

Capitalassets, whichincludeproperty, plant, equipment, infrastructureassets, andintangibleassetssuchaseasementsandcomputersoftware, arereportedintheapplicablegovernmentalcolumnsinthegovernment-widefinancialstatements. CapitalassetsaredefinedbytheDistrictasassetswithaninitial, individualcostofmorethan $5,000 (amountnotrounded) andanestimatedusefullifeinexcessofoneyear. Suchassetsarerecordedathistoricalcostorestimatedhistoricalcostifpurchasedorconstructed. Donatedcapitalassetsarerecordedatestimatedfairmarketvalueatthedateofdonation.

Thecostsofnormalmaintenanceandrepairsthatdonotaddtothevalueoftheassetormateriallyextendassetslivesarenotcapitalized.

GASBStatementNo. 34requiredtheDistricttoreportanddepreciatenewinfrastructureassetseffectivewiththebeginningofthe2004calendaryear. Infrastructureassetsincludelakeimprovements, damsanddrainagesystems. Neithertheirhistoricalcostnorrelateddepreciationhashistoricallybeenreportedinthefinancialstatements. Forgovernmentalentitieswithtotalannualrevenuesoflessthan $10millionforthefiscalyearendedDecember31, 1999, theretroactivereportingofinfrastructureisnotrequiredundertheprovisionsofGASBStatementNo. 34. TheDistricthasnotacquiredanyinfrastructureassetssinceimplementingGASBNo. 34.

TheDistrictimplementedGASBStatementNo. 51, AccountingandFinancialReportingforIntangibleAssetseffectiveJanuary1, 2010. GASBStatementNo. 51requiredtheDistricttocapitalizeanddepreciateintangibleassets. Forgovernmentalentitieswithtotalannualrevenuesoflessthan $10millionforthefiscalyearendedDecember31, 1999, theretroactivereportingofintangibleassetsinnotrequiredundertheprovisionofGASBStatementNo. 51. TheDistricthaselectednottoreportintangibleassetsacquiredinyearspriorto2010.

Property, plantandequipmentoftheDistrict, isdepreciatedusingthestraight-linemethodoverthefollowingestimatedusefullives:

Equipment5yearsVehicles5yearsTemporaryeasementsLifeofeasements

J.COMPENSATEDABSENCES

ItistheDistrict’spolicytopermitemployeestoaccumulateearnedbutunusedvacationandsickpaybenefits. Allvacationandsickpaybenefitsthatarevestedasseverancepayisaccruedwhenincurredinthegovernment-widefinancialstatements. Aliabilityfortheseamountsisreportedinthegovernmentalfundsonlyiftheyhavematured, forexample, asaresultofemployeeresignationsandretirements. InaccordancewiththeprovisionsofStatementofGovernmentAccountingStandardsNo. 16, AccountingforCompensatedAbsences, noliabilityisrecordedfornonvestingaccumulatingrightstoreceivesickpaybenefits.

K.LONG-TERMOBLIGATIONS

Inthegovernment-widefinancialstatements, long-termdebtandotherlong-termobligationsarereportedasliabilitiesintheapplicablegovernmentalactivities.

23


L.FUNDBALANCECLASSIFICATIONS

Inthefundfinancialstatements, governmentalfundsreportfundbalanceinclassificationsthatdiscloseconstraintsforwhichamountsinthosefundscanbespent. Theseclassificationsareasfollows:

Nonspendable - consistsofamountsthatarenotinspendableform, suchasprepaiditems.

Restricted - consistsofamountsrelatedtoexternallyimposedconstraintsestablishedbycreditors, grantorsorcontributors; orconstraintsimposedbystatestatutoryprovisions.

Committed - consistsofinternallyimposedconstraints. TheseconstraintsareestablishedbyResolutionoftheBoardofManagers.

Assigned- consistsofinternallyimposedconstraints. TheseconstraintsreflectthespecificpurposeforwhichitistheDistrict’sintendeduse. TheseconstraintsareestablishedbytheBoardofManagers.

Unassigned - istheresidualclassificationforthegeneralfundandalsoreflectsnegativeresidualamountsinotherfunds.

Whenbothrestrictedandunrestrictedresourcesareavailableforuse, itistheBoard’spolicytofirstuserestricted, andthenuseunrestrictedresourcesastheyareneeded.

Whencommitted, assignedorunassignedresourcesareavailableforuse, itistheBoard’spolicytouseresourcesinthefollowingorder: 1) committed, 2) assignedand3) unassigned.

M.INTERFUNDTRANSACTIONS

Interfundservicesprovidedandusedareaccountedforasrevenues, expendituresorexpenses. Transactionsthatconstitutereimbursementstoafundforexpenditures/expensesinitiallymadefromitthatareproperlyapplicabletoanotherfund, arerecordedasexpenditures/expensesinthereimbursingfundandasreductionsofexpenditures/expensesinthefundthatisreimbursed. Allotherinterfundtransactionsarereportedastransfers.

N.USEOFESTIMATES

ThepreparationoffinancialstatementsinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciplesGAAP) requiresmanagementtomakeestimatesthataffectamountsreportedinthefinancial

statementsduringthereportingperiod. Actualresultscoulddifferfromsuchestimates.

O.RECLASSIFICATIONS

Certainreclassificationsweremadetoprioryearamountstoconformtothecurrentyearpresentation.

24


P.PREPAIDITEMS

Certainpaymenttovendors (insurance) reflectcostsapplicabletofutureaccountingperiodsandarerecordedasprepaiditemsinbothgovernment-wideandfundfinancialstatements. Prepaiditemsarereportedusingtheconsumptionmethodandrecordedasexpenditures/expensesatthetimeofconsumption.

Q.COMPARATIVETOTALS

Thebasicfinancialstatements, requiredsupplementaryinformation, individualfundfinancialstatements, andsupplementaryfinancialinformationincludecertainprior-yearsummarizedcomparativeinformationintotalbutnotatthelevelofdetailrequiredforapresentationinconformitywithgenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciples. Accordingly, suchinformationshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeDistrict’sfinancialstatementsfortheyearendedDecember31, 2014, fromwhichthesummarizedinformationwasderived.

R.DEFERREDOUTFLOWS/INFLOWSOFRESOURCES

Inadditiontoassets, thestatementoffinancialpositionwillsometimesreportaseparatesectionfordeferredoutflowsofresources. Thisseparatefinancialstatementelement, deferredoutflowsofresources, representsaconsumptionofnetpositionthatappliestoafutureperiod(s) andsowillnotberecognizedasanoutflowofresources (expense/expenditure) untilthen. Thegovernmenthasoneitemthatqualifiesforreportinginthiscategory. Itisthepensionrelateddeferredoutflowsreportedinthegovernment-wideStatementofNetPosition.

Inadditiontoliabilities, thestatementoffinancialpositionwillsometimesreportaseparatesectionfordeferredinflowsofresources. Thisseparatefinancialstatementelement, deferredinflowsofresources, representsanacquisitionofnetpositionthatappliestoafutureperiod(s) andsowillnotberecognizedasaninflowofresources (revenue) untilthattime. Thegovernmenthaspensionrelateddeferredinflowsofrelateddeferredinflowsofsourcesreportedinthegovernment-wideStatementofNetPosition.Thegovernmentalsoanitem, whicharisesonlyunderamodifiedaccrualbasisofaccountingthatqualifiesforreportinginthiscategory. Accordingly, theitem, unavailablerevenue, isreportedonlyinthegovernmentalfundbalancesheet. Thegovernmentalfundsreportunavailablerevenuesfromthefollowingsources: propertytaxes, specialassessments.

25


S.RECONCILIATIONOFGOVERNMENT-WIDEANDFUNDFINANCIALSTATEMENTS

1.EXPLANATIONOFCERTAINDIFFERENCESBETWEENTHEGOVERNMENTALFUNDSTATEMENTOFREVENUES, EXPENDITURESANDCHANGESINFUNDBALANCEANDTHEGOVERNMENT-WIDESTATEMENTOFACTIVITIES

ThegovernmentalfundStatementofRevenues, ExpendituresandChangesinFundBalanceincludesareconciliationbetweennetchangesinfundbalance – totalgovernmentalfundsandchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivitiesasreportedinthegovernment-wideStatementofActivities. Oneelementofthatreconciliationexplainsthat “governmentalfundsreportcapitaloutlaysasexpenditures. However, intheStatementofActivitiesthecostofthoseassetsisallocatedovertheirestimatedusefullivesandreportedasdepreciationexpense”. Thedetailsofthis $50,809differenceareasfollows:

Capitaloutlay$ 61,838Depreciationexpense( 11,029)

Netadjustmenttoincreasenetchangesinfundbalances - totalgovernmentalfundstoarriveatchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivities.$ 50,809

ThegovernmentalfundStatementofRevenues, ExpendituresandChangesinFundBalanceincludesareconciliationbetweennetchangesinfundbalance – totalgovernmentalfundsandchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivitiesasreportedinthegovernment-wideStatementofActivities. Oneelementofthatreconciliationstatesthat “revenuesintheStatementofActivitiesthatdonotprovidecurrentfinancialresourcesarenotreportedasrevenuesinthefunds”. Thedetailsofthis $29,985differenceareasfollows:

UnavailableRevenue - GeneralPropertyTaxes: AtDecember31, 2014($71,678) AtDecember31, 201567,155

UnavailableRevenue - SpecialAssesments: AtDecember31, 2014(201,873) AtDecember31, 2015236,381

Netadjustmentstodecreasenetchangesinfundbalances - totalgovernmentalfundstoarriveatchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivities.$29,985

26


Anotherelementofthatreconciliationstatesthat “theissuanceoflong-termdebt (e.g. bonds, leases) providescurrentfinancialresourcestogovernmentalfunds, whiletherepaymentoftheprincipalofthelong-termdebtconsumesthecurrentfinancialresourcesofgovernmentalfunds. Neithertransaction, however, hasanyeffectonnetposition”. Thedetailsofthis ($13,264) differenceisasfollows:

Debtissuedorincurred: Capitallease($13,643) Principalrepayment - capitallease379

Netadjustmenttodecreasenetchangesinfundbalances - totalgovernmentalfundstoarriveatchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivities.($13,264)

Anotherelementofthatreconciliationstatesthat “someexpensesreportedintheStatementofActivitiesdonotrequiretheuseofcurrentfinancialresourcesand, therefore, arenotreportedasexpendituresingovernmentalfunds”. Thedetailsofthis $12,348differenceareasfollows:

Compensatedabsences: AtDecember31, 2014$61,166AtDecember31, 2015(42,778)

Accruedinterestpayable: AtDecember31, 2014 - AtDecember31, 2015(6,040)

Netadjustmenttodecreasenetchangesinfundbalances - totalgovernmentalfundstoarriveatchangesinnetpositionofgovernmentalactivities.$12,348

Note2DEPOSITSANDINVESTMENTS

A.DEPOSITS

InaccordancewithMinnesotaStatutes, theDistrictmaintainsdepositsatthosedepositorybanksauthorizedbytheDistrictBoard, allofwhicharemembersoftheFederalReserveSystem.

MinnesotaStatutesrequirethatallDistrictdepositsbeprotectedbyinsurance, suretybond, orcollateral. Themarketvalueofcollateralpledgedmustequal110% ofthedepositsnotcoveredbyinsuranceorbonds.

MinnesotaStatutesrequirethatsecuritiespledgedascollateralbeheldinsafekeepingbytheDistrictTreasurerorinafinancialinstitutionotherthanthatfurnishingthecollateral. Authorizedcollateralincludesthefollowing:

a)UnitedStatesgovernmenttreasurybills, treasurynotesandtreasurybonds;

27


b)IssuesofUnitedStatesgovernmentagenciesandinstrumentalitiesasquotedbyarecognizedindustryquotationserviceavailabletothegovernmententity;

c)Generalobligationsecuritiesofanystateorlocalgovernmentwithtaxingpowerswhichisrated “A” orbetterbyanationalbondratingservice, orrevenueobligationsecuritiesofanystateorlocalgovernmentwithtaxingpowerswhichisrated “AA” orbetterbyanationalbondratingservice;

d)Generalobligationsecuritiesofalocalgovernmentwithtaxingpowersmaybepledgedascollateralagainstfundsdepositedbythatsamelocalgovernmententity;

e)IrrevocablestandbylettersofcreditissuedbyFederalHomeLoanBankstoamunicipalityaccompaniedbywrittenevidencethatthebank’spublicdebtisrated “AA” orbetterbyMoody’sInvestorsService, Inc. orStandard & Poor’sCorporation; and

f)Timedepositsthatarefullyinsuredbyanyfederalagency.

ThefollowingisareconciliationoftheDistrict’scashandinvestmentbalancesasofDecember31, 2015:

CashandinvestmentsonStatementofNetPosition$ 9,701,939Fiduciaryfundsstatementofnetposition1,542,732

Totalcashandinvestments$ 11,244,671

CustodialCreditRisk – Deposits: Custodialcreditriskistheriskthatintheeventofabankfailure, theDistrict’sdepositsmaynotbereturnedtoit. Statestatutesrequirethatinsurance, suretybondsorcollateralprotectallDistrictdeposits. Themarketvalueofcollateralpledgedmustequal110% ofdepositsnotcoveredbyinsuranceorbonds. TheDistricthasnoadditionaldepositpolicesaddressingcustodialcreditrisk. AtDecember31, 2015, thecarryingamountsoftheDistrict’sdepositswere11,244,671andthebankbalancewas $11,440,448. Theentirebankbalancewascoveredbyfederal

depositoryinsuranceorperfectedcollateralheldbytheDistrict’sagentintheDistrict’sname.

B.INVESTMENTS

MinnesotaStatutesauthorizetheDistricttoinvestinthefollowing:

a)DirectobligationsorobligationsguaranteedbytheUnitedStatesoritsagencies, itsinstrumentalitiesororganizationscreatedbyanactofcongress, excludingmortgage-backedsecuritiesdefinedashighrisk.

b)SharesofinvestmentcompaniesregisteredundertheFederalInvestmentCompanyActof1940andwhoseonlyinvestmentsareinsecuritiesdescribedin (a) above, generalobligationtax-exemptsecurities, orrepurchaseorreverserepurchaseagreements.

c)ObligationsoftheStateofMinnesotaoranyofitsmunicipalitiesasfollows: 1)anysecuritywhichisageneralobligationofanystateorlocalgovernmentwithtaxing

powerswhichisrated “A” orbetterbyanationalbondratingservice; 2)anysecuritywhichisarevenueobligationofanystateorlocalgovernmentwithtaxing

powerswhichisrated “AA” orbetterbyanationalbondratingservice; and3)ageneralobligationoftheMinnesotaHousingFinanceAgencywhichisamoral

obligationoftheStateofMinnesotaandisrated “A” orbetterbyanationalbondratingagency.

d)BankersacceptancesofUnitedStatesbanks.

28


e)CommercialpaperissuedbyUnitedStatescorporationsortheirCanadiansubsidiaries, ofthehighestquality, andmaturingin270daysorless.

f)RepurchaseorreverserepurchaseagreementswithbanksthataremembersoftheFederalReserveSystemwithcapitalizationexceeding $10,000,000; aprimaryreportingdealerinU.S. governmentsecuritiestotheFederalReserveBankofNewYork; certainMinnesotasecuritiesbroker-dealers; or, abankqualifiedasadepositor.

g)Generalobligationtemporarybondsofthesamegovernmentalentityissuedundersection429.091, subdivision7; 469.178, subdivision5; or475.61, subdivision6.

TheDistrictdidnotinvestinanyoftheabovelistedinvestmentsatDecember31, 2015.

C.INVESTMENTRISKS

CreditRisk Creditriskistheriskthatanissuerorothercounterpartytoaninvestmentwillbeunabletofulfillitsobligationtotheholderoftheinvestment. TheDistrictfollowsStateStatutesinregardstocreditriskofinvestments. TheDistrictdoesnothaveaninvestmentpolicywhichfurtherlimitsitsinvestmentchoices.

InterestRateRisk Interestrateriskistheriskthatchangesintheinterestratesofdebtinvestmentscouldadverselyaffectthefairvalueofaninvestment. TheDistrictdoesnothaveaninvestmentpolicywhichlimitsinvestmentmaturitiesasameansofmanagingitsexposuretofairvaluelossesarisingfromincreasinginterestrates.

ConcentrationofCreditRisk ConcentrationofcreditriskistheriskoflossthatmaybeattributedtothemagnitudeoftheDistrict’sinvestmentinasingleissuer. TheDistrictdoesnothaveaninvestmentpolicywhichaddressestheconcentrationofcreditrisk.

CustodialCreditRisk - Forinvestmentsinsecurities, custodialcreditriskistheriskthatintheeventofafailureofthecounterparty, theDistrictwillnotbeabletorecoverthevalueofitsinvestmentsecuritiesthatisinthepossessionofanoutsideparty. TheDistrictdoesnothaveaninvestmentpolicywhichaddressesthecustodialcreditriskofinvestments.

Note3RECEIVABLES

SignificantreceivablebalancesnotexpectedtobecollectedwithinoneyearofDecember31, 2015areasfollows:

MajorFunds509Planning

GeneralFundTotal

Deferredspecialassessments$ - $ 31,200$31,200Specialdeferredspecialassessments - 65,60065,600Delinquentspecialassessments - 11,20011,200Delinquentpropertytaxes4,80054,40059,200

Total$4,800$162,400$167,200

29


Note4UNAVAILABLEREVENUES

Governmentalfundsreportdeferredinflowsofresourcesinconnectionwithreceivablesforrevenuesthatarenotconsideredtobeavailabletoliquidateliabilitiesofthecurrentperiod. Attheendofthecurrentfiscalyear, thevariouscomponentsofunavailablerevenuereportedinthegovernmentalfundswereasfollows:

Property SpecialTotalTaxesAssessments

GeneralFund$5,450$ - $5,450509PlanningFund61,705236,381298,086

Totals$67,155$236,381$303,536

Note5CAPITALASSETS

CapitalassetactivityfortheyearendedDecember31, 2015wasasfollows:

BeginningPriorPeriodEndingBalanceAdjustmentIncreasesDecreaseBalance

Governmentalactivities: Capitalassets, notbeingdepreciated:

Constructioninprocess$ - $ 391,007$43,087$ - $434,094Landandpermanenteasements818,713 - - - 818,713

Totalcapitalassets, notbeingdepreciated818,713391,00743,08701,252,807

Capitalassets, beingdepreciated: Vehicles88,110 - - - 88,110Equipment131,665 - 18,751 - 150,416Temporaryeasements30,000 - - - 30,000

Totalcapitalassets, beingdepreciated249,775018,7510268,526

Lessaccumulateddepreciationfor: Vehicles62,599 - 6,419 - 69,018Equipment131,666 - 610 - 132,276Temporaryeasements8,875 - 4,000 - 12,875

Totalaccumulateddepreciation203,140011,0290214,169

Totalcapitalassetsbeingdepreciated - net46,635 - 7,722 - 54,357

Governmentalactivitiescapitalassets - net$865,348$391,007$50,809$ 0$1,307,164

30


Depreciationexpensewaschargedtofunction/programsoftheDistrictasfollows:

Governmentalactivities: Generalgovernment$5,069Programs5,960

Totaldepreciationexpense - governmentalactivities$11,029

Note6DEFINEDBENEFITPENSIONPLANS

A.SUMMARYOFSIGNIFICANTACCOUNTINGPOLICIES

Pensions. Forpurposesofmeasuringthenetpensionliability, deferredoutflows/inflowsofresources, andpensionexpense, informationaboutthefiduciarynetpositionofthePublicEmployeesRetirementAssociation (PERA) andadditionsto/deductionsfromPERA’sfiduciarynetpositionhavebeendeterminedonthesamebasisastheyarereportedbyPERAexceptthatPERA’sfiscalyearendisJune30. Forthispurpose, plancontributionsarerecognizedasofemployerpayrollpaiddatesandbenefitpaymentsandrefundsarerecognizedwhendueandpayableinaccordancewiththebenefitterms. Investmentsarereportedatfairvalue.

B.PLANDESCRIPTION

TheDistrictparticipatesinthefollowingcost-sharingmultiple-employerdefinedbenefitpensionplansadministeredbythePublicEmployeesRetirementAssociationofMinnesota (PERA). PERA’sdefinedbenefitpensionplansareestablishedandadministeredinaccordancewithMinnesotaStatutes, Chapters353and356. PERA’sdefinedbenefitpensionplansaretaxqualifiedplansunderSection401 (a) oftheInternalRevenueCode.

GeneralEmployeesRetirementFund (GERF)

Allfull-timeandcertainpart-timeemployeesoftheDistrictarecoveredbytheGeneralEmployeesRetirementFund (GERF). GERFmembersbelongtoeithertheCoordinatedPlanortheBasicPlan. CoordinatedPlanmembersarecoveredbySocialSecurityandBasicPlanmembersarenot. TheBasicPlanwasclosedtonewmembersin1967. AllnewmembersmustparticipateintheCoordinatedPlan.

C.BENEFITSPROVIDED

PERAprovidesretirement, disability, anddeathbenefits. Benefitprovisionsareestablishedbystatestatuteandcanonlybemodifiedbythestatelegislature.

BenefitincreasesareprovidedtobenefitrecipientseachJanuary. Increasesarerelatedtothefundingratiooftheplan. Membersinplansthatareatleast90percentfundedfortwoconsecutiveyearsaregiven2.5% increases. Membersinplansthathavenotexceeded90% funded, orhavefallenbelow80%, aregiven1% increases.

31


Thebenefitprovisionsstatedinthefollowingparagraphsofthissectionarecurrentprovisionsandapplytoactiveplanparticipants. Vested, terminatedemployeeswhoareentitledtobenefitsbutarenotreceivingthemyetareboundbytheprovisionsineffectatthetimetheylastterminatedtheirpublicservice.

GERFBenefits

Benefitsarebasedonamember’shighestaveragesalaryforanyfivesuccessiveyearsofallowableservice, age, andyearsofcreditatterminationofservice. TwomethodsareusedtocomputebenefitsforPERA'sCoordinatedandBasicPlanmembers. Theretiringmemberreceivesthehigherofastep- ratebenefitaccrualformula (Method1) oralevelaccrualformula (Method2). UnderMethod1, theannuityaccrualrateforaBasicPlanmemberis2.2% ofaveragesalaryforeachofthefirsttenyearsofserviceand2.7% foreachremainingyear. TheannuityaccrualrateforaCoordinatedPlanmemberis1.2percentofaveragesalaryforeachofthefirsttenyearsand1.7% foreachremainingyear. UnderMethod2, theannuityaccrualrateis2.7% ofaveragesalaryforBasicPlanmembersand1.7% forCoordinatedPlanmembersforeachyearofservice. FormembershiredpriortoJuly1, 1989, afullannuityisavailablewhenageplusyearsofserviceequal90andnormalretirementageis65. FormembershiredonorafterJuly1, 1989, normalretirementageistheageforunreducedSocialSecuritybenefitscappedat66.

D.CONTRIBUTIONS

MinnesotaStatutesChapter353setstheratesforemployerandemployeecontributions. Contributionratescanonlybemodifiedbythestatelegislature.

GERFContributions

BasicPlanmembersandCoordinatedPlanmemberswererequiredtocontribute9.1% and6.50%, respectively, oftheirannualcoveredsalaryincalendaryear2015. TheDistrictwasrequiredtocontribute11.78% ofpayforBasicPlanmembersand7.50% forCoordinatedPlanmembersincalendaryear2015. TheDistrict’scontributionstotheGERFfortheyearendedDecember31, 2015, were $53,360. TheDistrict’scontributionswereequaltotherequiredcontributionsassetbystatestatute.

E.PENSIONCOSTS

GERFPensionCosts

AtDecember31, 2015, theDistrictreportedaliabilityof $595,990foritsproportionateshareoftheGERF’snetpensionliability. ThenetpensionliabilitywasmeasuredasofJune30, 2015, andthetotalpensionliabilityusedtocalculatethenetpensionliabilitywasdeterminedbyanactuarialvaluationasofthatdate. TheDistrict’sproportionofthenetpensionliabilitywasbasedontheDistrict’scontributionsreceivedbyPERAduringthemeasurementperiodforemployerpayrollpaiddatesfromJuly1, 2014, throughJune30, 2015, relativetothetotalemployercontributionsreceivedfromallofPERA’sparticipatingemployers. AtJune30, 2015, theDistrict’sproportionwas .0115%, whichwasadecreaseof .0003% fromitsproportionmeasuredasofJune30, 2014.

32


FortheyearendedDecember31, 2015, theDistrictrecognizedpensionexpenseof $75,846foritsproportionateshareoftheGERF’spensionexpense.

AtDecember31, 2015, theDistrictreporteditsproportionateshareoftheGERF’sdeferredoutflowsofresourcesanddeferredinflowsofresourcesrelatedtopensionsfromthefollowingsources:

DeferredOutflowsDeferredInflowsofResourcesofResources

Differencesbetweenexpectedandactualeconomicexperience$ - $30,048

Changesinactuarialassumptions - - Differencebetweenprojectedandactualinvestmentearnings56,420 -

Changesinproportion - 10,569ContributionspaidtoPERAsubsequenttothemeasurementdate26,938 - Total$83,358$40,617

26,938reportedasdeferredoutflowsofresourcesrelatedtopensionsresultingfromDistrictcontributionssubsequenttothemeasurementdatewillberecognizedasareductionofthenetpensionliabilityintheyearendedDecember31, 2016. Otheramountsreportedasdeferredoutflowsandinflowsofresourcesrelatedtopensionswillberecognizedinpensionexpenseasfollows:

PensionYearEndedExpenseDecember31,Amount

2016$56620175662018566201914,1052020 -

Thereafter -

F.ACTUARIALASSUMPTIONS

ThetotalpensionliabilityintheJune30, 2015, actuarialvaluationwasdeterminedusingthefollowingactuarialassumptions:

Inflation 2.75% peryearActiveMemberPayrollGrowth 3.50% peryearInvestmentRateofReturn 7.90%

Salaryincreaseswerebasedonaservice-relatedtable. Mortalityratesforactivemembers, retirees, survivorsanddisabilitantswerebasedonRP-2000tablesformalesorfemales, asappropriate, withslightadjustments. Costoflivingbenefitincreasesforretireesareassumedtobe1% effectiveevery

stuntil2034, and2.5% thereafter. January1

33


ActuarialassumptionsusedintheJune30, 2015, valuationwerebasedontheresultsofactuarialexperiencestudies. TheexperiencestudyintheGERFwasfortheperiodJuly1, 2004, throughJune30, 2008, withanupdateofeconomicassumptionsin2014.

Therearenochangesinactuarialassumptionsin2015.

Thelong-termexpectedrateofreturnonpensionplaninvestmentsis7.9%. TheStateBoardofInvestment, whichmanagestheinvestmentsofPERA, preparesananalysisofthereasonablenessofthelong-termexpectedrateofreturnonaregularbasisusingabuilding-blockmethodinwhichbest- estimaterangesofexpectedfutureratesofreturnaredevelopedforeachmajorassetclass. Theserangesarecombinedtoproduceanexpectedlong-termrateofreturnbyweightingtheexpectedfutureratesofreturnbythetargetassetallocationpercentages. Thetargetallocationandbestestimatesofarithmeticrealratesofreturnforeachmajorassetclassaresummarizedinthefollowingtable:

TargetLong-TermExpectedAssetClassAllocationRealRateofReturn

DomesticStocks45%5.50% InternationalStocks15%6.00% Bonds18%1.45% AlternativeAssets20%6.40% Cash2%0.50%

G.DISCOUNTRATE

Thediscountrateusedtomeasurethetotalpensionliabilitywas7.9%. Theprojectionofcashflowsusedtodeterminethediscountrateassumedthatemployeeandemployercontributionswillbemadeattheratespecifiedinstatute. Basedonthatassumption, eachofthepensionplan’sfiduciarynetpositionwasprojectedtobeavailabletomakeallprojectedfuturebenefitpaymentsofcurrentactiveandinactiveemployees. Therefore, thelong-termexpectedrateofreturnonpensionplaninvestmentswasappliedtoallperiodsofprojectedbenefitpaymentstodeterminethetotalpensionliability.

H.PENSIONLIABILITYSENSITIVITY

ThefollowingpresentstheDistrict’sproportionateshareofthenetpensionliabilityforallplansitparticipatesin, calculatedusingthediscountratedisclosedintheprecedingparagraph, aswellaswhattheDistrict’sproportionateshareofthenetpensionliabilitywouldbeifitwerecalculatedusingadiscountrate1percentagepointloweror1percentagepointhigherthanthecurrentdiscountrate:

1% Decreasein1% IncreaseinDiscountRate (6.9%)DiscountRate (7.9%)DiscountRate (8.9%)

District'sproportionateshareoftheGERFnetpensionliability$ 937,108$ 595,990$ 314,279

34


I.PENSIONPLANFIDUCIARYNETPOSITION

Detailedinformationabouteachpensionplan’sfiduciarynetpositionisavailableinaseparately- issuedPERAfinancialreportthatincludesfinancialstatementsandrequiredsupplementaryinformation. ThatreportmaybeobtainedontheInternetatwww.mnpera.org.

Note7FUNDBALANCE

A.CLASSIFICATIONS

AtDecember31, 2015, asummaryofthegovernmentalfundbalanceclassificationsareasfollows:

509PlanningSpecial

GeneralFundRevenueFund

Nonspendable: Prepaiditems$1,371$4,756

Committedfor: Watermanagement - 6,770,346

Assignedfor: Watermanagement - 1,499,047

Unassigned136,602 -

Total$137,973$8,274,149

B.MINIMUMUNASSIGNEDFUNDBALANCEPOLICY

TheDistricthasformallyadoptedapolicyregardingtheminimumunassignedfundbalancefortheGeneralFund. ThemostsignificantrevenuesourceoftheGeneralFundispropertytaxes. Therevenuesourceisreceivedintwoinstallmentsduringtheyear – JuneandDecember. Assuch, itistheDistrict’sgoaltobegineachfiscalyearwithsufficientworkingcapitaltofundoperationsbetweeneachsemi-annualreceiptofpropertytaxes.

Thepolicyestablishesayearendtargetedunassignedfundbalanceamountforcashflowtimingneedsofnotlessthan40% ofthesubsequentyear’sbudgetedexpenditures. AtDecember31, 2015, theunassignedfundbalanceoftheGeneralFundwas36.78% ofthesubsequentyear’sbudgetedexpenditures.

35


Note8FEDERALLYASSISTEDPROGRAMS - COMPLIANCEAUDITS

TheDistrictreceivesfinancialassistancefromfederal, stateandlocalgovernmentalagenciesintheformofgrants. Thedisbursementoffundsreceivedundertheseprogramsgenerallyrequirescompliancewithtermsandconditionsspecifiedinthegrantagreementsandissubjecttoauditbythegrantoragencies. Anydisallowedclaimsresultingfromsuchauditscouldbecomealiabilityoftheapplicablefund. However, intheopinionofmanagement, anysuchdisallowedclaimswillnothaveamaterialeffectonanyofthefinancialstatementsoftheindividualfundtypesincludedhereinorontheoverallfinancialpositionoftheDistrictatDecember31, 2015.

Note9LONG-TERMDEBT

CHANGEINLONG-TERMLIABILITIES

Long-termliabilityactivityfortheyearendedDecember31, 2015, wasasfollows:

BalanceBalanceDueWithin12/31/14AdditionsDeletions12/31/15OneYear

Governmentalactivities: Capitalleasepayable$ - $ 13,643$ 379$13,264$4,548Compensatedabsencespayable61,1661,69820,08642,7782,129Loanspayable200,000 - - 200,000 -

261,166$15,341$20,465$256,042$6,677

CompensatedabsencesaregenerallyliquidatedbytheGeneralFund. Loanspayableareliquidatedbythe509PlanningFund.

Itisnotpracticabletodeterminethespecificyearforpaymentoflong-termaccruedcompensatedabsences.

THECLEANWATERPARTNERSHIPLOAN

TheDistrictapprovedtheloanintheamountof $500,000during2013. ThetermsoftheloanagreementstatethattheMinnesotaPollutionContractAgencyshallnotdisburseanyfundsuntilithasapprovedtheProjectWorkPlanandwithdrawalsarerequestedbytheWatershedDistrict. Allrequestsshallcertifythatdisbursementsareonlyforreimbursementofcostsincurredtoimplementtheapprovedworkplan. Theinterestrateoftheloanis2% perannum. AsofDecember31, 2014, theDistrictdrew $200,000ontheloan. Oncetheloanisfullydisbursed, theprojecthasbeenfullycompletedortheprojectimplementationperiodhasexpiredwhichevercomesfirst), TheMPCAwilldeterminethefinalrepaymentschedule. Thedistrictdidnothaveany

requiredinterestpaymentsonthisloanduring2015.

CAPITALLEASEPAYABLE

OnDecember1, 2015, theDistrictenteredintoaleasepurchaseagreementtofinancethepurchaseofserver. Thisleaseagreementqualifiesasacapitalleaseforaccountingpurposesand, therefore, hasbeenrecordedatthepresentvalueoffutureminimumleasepaymentsasoftheinceptiondate. Depreciationintheamountof $227hasbeenrecordedasdepreciationexpenseduring2015.

36


ThefutureminimumleaseobligationsandthenetpresentvalueoftheseminimumleasepaymentsasofDecember31, 2015, areasfollows:

YearPayment2016$ 4,54820174,54820184,168

Totalminimumleasepayments13,264Lessamountrepresentinginterest-

Presentvalueofminimumleasepayments$ 13,264

Note10OPERATINGLEASES

A.BUILDINGLEASE

TheDistrictleasesbuildingspaceunderanoperatinglease. Theleasecalledformonthlypaymentsof2,528. TheDistrictamendedthecontracttoleaseastorageroomfor $617permonth, starting

February2013. StartinginSeptemberof2015, theDistrictamendedthisleasewithrequiredbasemonthlypaymentsthatvaryfromyeartoyearandallowstheDistricttorentthestorageroomonamonth-to-monthbasisandexpiresin2020. Totalleasepaymentswere $52,140and $37,458in2015and2014respectively.

Priortotheleaseamendment, inadditiontotheabovebaserent, theDistrictisresponsiblefortheirpercentageshareofoperatingcostsandtaxes. TheDistrict’spercentageshareofoperatingcostsandtaxesis7.00% ontheeffectivedateofthislease. TheDistrictpaid $29,276and $49,658in2015and2014respectively, foroperatingcosts.

COPIERLEASE

TheDistricthasanoperatingleasethatexpiresin2017. Theleasecallsformonthlypaymentsof $338plusapplicabletaxes. Totalleasepaymentsin2015were $4,056

INTEGRASERVICELEASE

TheDistricthasanoperatingleasethatexpiresin2020. Theleasecallsformonthlypaymentsof $714plusapplicabletaxes. Totalleasepaymentsin2015were $4,282.

37


B.FUTUREMINIMUMANNUALLEASEPAYMENTSFORALLOPERATINGLEASESAREASFOLLOWS:

CopierIntegraBuildingTotal2016$4,056$8,564$73,952$86,57220171,3528,56475,22085,1362018 - 8,56476,48885,0522019 - 8,564103,956112,5202020 - 4,28226,20030,482

Total$5,408$38,538$355,816$399,762

Note11RISKMANAGEMENT

TheDistrictisexposedtovariousrisksoflossrelatedtotorts; theftof, damagetoanddestructionofassets; errorsandomissionsandnaturaldisasters.

Workerscompensationcoverageisprovidedthroughapooledself-insuranceprogramthroughtheLeagueofMinnesotaCitiesInsuranceTrust (LMCIT). TheDistrictpaysanannualpremiumtotheLMCIT. TheDistrictissubjecttosupplementalassessmentsifdeemednecessarybytheLMCIT. TheLMCITreinsuresthroughWorkersCompensationReinsuranceAssociation (WCRA) asrequiredbylaw. Forworkerscompensation, theDistrictisnotsubjecttoadeductible. TheDistrict’sworkerscompensationcoverageisretrospectivelyrated. Withthistypeofcoverage, finalpremiumsaredeterminedafterlossexperienceisknown. Theamountofpremiumadjustment, ifany, isconsideredimmaterialandnotrecordeduntilreceivedorpaid.

Propertyandcasualtyinsurancecoverageisprovidedthroughapooledself-insuranceprogramthroughtheLMCIT. TheDistrictpaysanannualpremiumtotheLMCIT. TheDistrictissubjecttosupplementalassessmentsifdeemednecessarybytheLMCIT. TheLMCITreinsuresthroughcommercialcompaniesforclaimsinexcessvariousamounts. TheDistrictretainsriskfordeductibleportions. Thesedeductiblesareconsideredimmaterialtothefinancialstatements.

Therewerenosignificantreductionsininsurancefromthepreviousyearorsettlementsinexcessofinsurancecoverageforanyofthepastthreefiscalyears.

Note12CONTINGENCIES

TheDistrict’smanagementhasindicatedthattherearenopendinglawsuitsorotheractionsinwhichtheDistrictisadefendant.

Note13COMMITMENTS

TheDistricthadcommittedcontractsintheamountof $977,738atDecember31, 2015.

38


Note14RECENTLYISSUEDACCOUNTINGSTANDARDS

TheGovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoards (GASB) recentlyapprovedthefollowingstatementswhichwerenotimplementedforthesefinancialstatements:

StatementNo. 72FairValueMeasurementandApplication. TheprovisionsofthisStatementareeffectiveforfinancialstatementsforperiodsbeginningafterJune15, 2015.

StatementNo. 76TheHierarchyofGenerallyAcceptedAccountingPrinciplesforStateandLocalGovernments. TheprovisionsinStatement76areeffectiveforreportingperiodsbeginningafterJune15, 2015.

StatementNo. 77TaxAbatementDisclosures. TheprovisionsofthisStatementareeffectiveforreportingperiodsbeginningafterDecember31, 2015.

StatementNo. 79CertainExternalInvestmentPoolsandPoolParticipants. TheprovisionsofthisStatementareeffectiveforreportingperiodsbeginningafterJune15, 2015, exceptforcertainprovisionsonportfolioquality, custodialcreditrisk, andshadowpricingwhichareeffectiveforreportingperiodsbeginningafterDecember15, 2015.

Theeffectthesestandardsmayhaveonfuturefinancialstatementsisnotdeterminableatthistime.

Note15CHANGEINACCOUNTINGPRINCIPLE/CHANGEINESTIMATE

FortheyearendedDecember31, 2015, theDistrictimplementedGASBStatementNo. 68, AccountingandFinancialReportingforPensions – anAmendmentofGASBStatementNo. 27. GASB68addressesaccountingandfinancialreportingforpensionplansthatareprovidedtoemployeesofstateandlocalgovernments. ThestandardrequirestheDistricttorecorditsshareofthenetpensionliabilityofdefinedbenefitplans, aswellasanycorrespondingdeferredinflowsandoutflowsofresources. SeeNote6forfurtherinformation.

ThestandardrequiredretroactiveimplementationwhichresultedinarestatementofnetpositionasofDecember31, 2014. Certainamountsnecessarytofullyrestate2014financialinformationarenotdeterminable, therefore, prioryearcomparativeamountshavenotbeenrestated.

InadditiontothepriorperiodadjustmentrelatingtotheimplementationofGASB68, anadjustmentwasmadetoconstructioninprocessforwetlandcredits (intangibleasset) theDistrictownsrelatingtoaprojectstartedbackin2008. Amountswereexpensedinpreviousyear’sstatementsastheseamountswerenotknowntobematerial, however, in2015, theDistrictwasawardedCoreCreditswhichmadethewetlandcreditsmaterialtothefinancialstatements.

39


Detailsofthepriorperiodadjustmentareasfollows: Governmental

Activities

Netposition - January1, 2015, aspreviouslyreported$7,815,793

Priorperiodadjustment: Changeinaccountingprinciple: Deferredoutflowsofresources - pensionrelated23,542Netpensionliability( 554,305)

Changeinestimate: Constructioninprocess391,007

Netposition - January1, 2015, asrestated$ 7,676,037

40

REQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

41

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement7REQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

BUDGETARYCOMPARISONSCHEDULE - GENERALFUNDForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015WithComparativeActualAmountsForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2014

VariancewithFinalBudget -

2015Actual Positive2014ActualAmounts( Negative) AmountsBudgetedAmounts

Revenues:OriginalFinalGeneralpropertytaxes:

Currentanddelinquent: RamseyCounty$196,351$196,351$193,610($2,741)$168,883AnokaCounty96,20496,20494,861(1,343)84,326WashingtonCounty71,86671,86670,863(1,003)61,398HennepinCounty2,5622,5622,526(36)2,306Totalgeneralpropertytaxes366,983366,983361,860(5,123)316,913

Intergovernmental - - 13813884Investmentincome6,7296,72911,5904,86110,785Miscellaneous - - 1,5661,5662,530

Totalrevenues373,712373,712375,1541,442330,312

Expenditures: Current: Hydrologicalengineering56,50056,50042,59313,90741,576Legal27,35727,35722,1825,17522,915Wages148,164148,164157,599(9,435)149,430Manager'sperdiem15,00015,00018,175(3,175)16,050Manager'stravelandexpense4,5004,5007,311(2,811)4,417Accountingandauditing55,80355,80358,784(2,981)56,928Contractservices8,7008,7005,1283,5726,314Insurance4,1744,1747,640(3,466)4,258Officeexpense9,2519,2518,97028110,224Publicationinformationandeducation4,3944,3944,0563385,367Rent18,32118,32117,63169018,102Duesandmemberships5,6945,6945,2754195,287

Totalexpenditures357,858357,858355,3442,514340,868

Revenuesover (under) expenditures 15,854$15,85419,810$3,956(10,556)

Fundbalance - January1118,163128,719

Fundbalance - December31$137,973$118,163

42

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement8REQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONPage1of2BUDGETARYCOMPARISONSCHEDULE - 509PLANNINGSPECIALREVENUEFUND

ForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015WithComparativeActualAmountsForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2014


2015Actual Positive2014ActualAmounts( Negative) AmountsBudgetedAmounts

Revenues:OriginalFinalGeneralpropertytaxes:

Currentanddelinquent: RamseyCounty$2,069,936$2,069,936$2,041,038($28,898)$2,038,690AnokaCounty1,048,2431,048,2431,033,609(14,634)1,063,329WashingtonCounty786,894786,894775,909(10,985)777,457HennepinCounty27,94427,94427,554(390)28,953Totalgeneralpropertytaxes3,933,0173,933,0173,878,110(54,907)3,908,429

Specialassessments228,500228,500165,118(63,382)329,041Intergovernmental1,355,0001,355,000393,575(961,425)348,495Investmentincome8,1638,16343,23935,07632,072Licensesandpermits67,74067,740136,73568,99577,726Miscellaneous18,35418,35469,32450,97042,562

Totalrevenues5,610,7745,610,7744,686,101(924,673)4,738,325

Expenditures: Planningandprojects:

Informationmanagement: Permittingmapper40,10040,10027,40512,69529,597

Environmentaleducation: Watereducationandoutreach9,3009,3009,493(193)17,965Bluethumb18,00018,00017,58141918,736

Restorationprojects: Urbanstormwaterremediation150,000150,000148,4151,5852,447RiceCreekmeander100,000100,000105,551(5,551)6,684ColumbusRMP25,00025,00023,4951,50514,598JD4RMPimplementation136,000136,00085,42850,57275,549JD4ACD15RMP - - - - 473JD4ACD15WMD25,00025,00022,3422,658 - District-wideSWMMModelPhaseI10,00010,00072,777(62,777)47,436ACD53-62RMPimplementation25,00025,00080,368(55,368)119,624LinoLakesRMPimplementation25,00025,00029,602(4,602)63,496SouthwestUrbanLakeimplementation150,000150,00011,902138,09872,857ACD53-62WMD25,00025,000137,715(112,715)135,912ClearLakeWaterQuality25,00025,000 - 25,0001,062HansenPark800,000800,000188,552611,44854,287MirrorPond200,000200,00032,167167,83342,226

Planningandprojects: Regulatory: Rulerevisions25,00025,00024,9722829,899Permitreview316,000316,000351,324(35,324)329,776Roadauthority72,00072,00077,395(5,395)80,277Watershedmanagement45,00045,00022,79122,2091,090

43

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTStatement8REQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONPage2of2BUDGETARYCOMPARISONSCHEDULE - 509PLANNINGSPECIALREVENUEFUND

ForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015WithComparativeActualAmountsForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2014


2015Actual Positive2014ActualBudgetedAmountsAmounts( Negative) Amounts

Expenditures: (continued)OriginalFinalDitchandcreekmaintenance: Ditches - generalprojects$220,000$220,000$162,525$57,475$192,069JD-240,00040,00048,908(8,908) - Repairreports190,000190,00073,512116,488135,620ACD10-22-3210,00010,00075,580(65,580)22,943

Districtfacilities: LongLakesedimentbasin250,000250,00022,786227,21414,505Outfall & structureassessment & repair75,00075,0001,52173,4794,360Wallwetlandrestoration20,00020,00012,0547,94612,067

Lakeandstream: BaldEagleLakeWMD58,97658,9763,27855,69814,937BaldEagleLakeTMDL325,000325,0001,356323,644499,005BaldEagleLakeReuse10,00010,0001,0308,970228,238BMPcost-shareprogram100,000100,00077,81022,190122,879Lakeandstreammonitoring200,000200,000166,38433,616143,785TMDLgrant550,000550,00067,319482,681121,812Carpmanagementproject #90-26100,000100,00050799,493 -

Totalprojectsandplanning4,370,3764,370,3762,183,8452,186,5312,656,211Capitaloutlay0061,838(61,838)59,709Administrative: Employeeeducation13,21613,21610,1353,0815,586Legalfees4,7604,76011,389(6,629)3,511Managers' travelandsubsistence3,3023,3022,6976054,123Officeexpense192,965192,965144,63048,335125,385Payrolltaxes47,24147,24144,6352,60640,075Rent68,92168,92163,7855,13663,811Salariesandwages740,079740,079722,15917,920644,956

Totaladministrative1,070,4841,070,484999,43071,054887,447Debtservice: Principal - - 379(379) -

Totalexpenditures5,440,8605,440,8603,245,4922,195,3683,603,367

Revenuesover (under) expenditures169,914169,9141,440,6091,270,6951,134,958

Otherfinancingsources: Loanproceeds - - - - 200,000

Capitallease - - 13,64313,643 - Totalotherfinancingsources (uses)0013,64313,643200,000

Netchangeinfundbalance$169,914$169,9141,454,252$1,284,3381,334,958

Fundbalance - January16,819,8975,484,939

Fundbalance - December31$8,274,149$6,819,897

44


SCHEDULEOFPROPORTIONATESHAREOFNETPENSIONLIABILITY* - GENERALEMPLOYEESRETIREMENTFUNDForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015

ProportionateShareProportionateoftheNetPensionPlanFiduciary

ProportionShare (Amount)LiabilityasaNetPositionasPercentage) ofoftheNetCovered-PercentageofitsaPercentage

MeasurementFiscalYeartheNetPensionPensionEmployeeCovered-EmployeeoftheTotalDateEndingLiabilityLiability (a)Payroll (b)Payroll (a/b)PensionLiability

June30, 2015December31, 20150.0115%$595,990$677,00888.0%78.2%

ThescheduleisprovidedprospectivelybeginningwiththeDistrict'sfiscalyearendedDecember31, 2015andisintendedtoshowatenyeartrend. Additionalyearswillbereportedastheybecomeavailable.

45


SCHEDULEOFPENSIONCONTRIBUTIONS* - GENERALEMPLOYEESRETIREMENTFUNDForTheYearEndedDecember31, 2015

StatutorilyContributionsinContributionCovered-ContributionsasaRequiredRelationtotheDeficiencyEmployeePercentageof

FiscalYearContributionStatutorilyRequired(Excess)PayrollCovered-EmployeeEnding(a)Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c)

December31, 2015$53,360$53,360$0$711,4687.5%

ThescheduleisprovidedprospectivelybeginningwiththeDistrict'sfiscalyearendedDecember31, 2015andisintendedtoshowatenyeartrend. Additionalyearswillbereportedastheybecomeavailable.

46

RICECREEKWATERSHEDDISTRICTREQUIREDSUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONBUDGETARYCOMPARISONSCHEDULENOTESTORSIDecember31, 2015

NoteALEGALCOMPLIANCE – BUDGETS

TheGeneralFundand509PlanningSpecialRevenueFundbudgetsarelegallyadoptedonabasisconsistentwithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica. Thelegallevelofbudgetarycontrolisatthefundlevelforbothfunds.

NoteBPENSIONINFORMATION

PERA – GeneralEmployeesRetirementFund

Therearenofactorsthataffecttrendsintheamountsreported, suchaschangeofbenefittermsorassumptions. WithonlyoneyearreportedintheRSI, thereisnoadditionalinformationtoincludeinthenotes. DetailscanbeobtainedfromthefinancialreportsofPERA.

47

Documents

Rice Creek Watershed DistrictF68A5205... · 2015 at a Glance Capital Projects & Program Summary 2015 Water Quality, Reuse, and Drainage Projects xContinued implementation of Bald