- About the FEMA Library
- Search for Resources
- Search By FEMA Publication Number
- Search By Resource Title
- View Featured Resources
- View Most Downloaded Resources
- View New Resources
- Other Resources
Resource Record Details
FY 2010 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Guidance
1.2 - Definition / Purpose
| Titles of Opportunities: | ||
| Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) | ||
| Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) | ||
| Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) | ||
| Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) | ||
| Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) | ||
| Funding Opportunity Numbers: | ||
|
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers for the five Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs are: |
||
| 97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) | ||
| 97.047 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) | ||
| 97.029 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) | ||
| 97.092 Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) | ||
| 97.110 Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) | ||
| Federal Agency Name: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) | ||
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established to address all hazards. During the cold war, the focus was on nuclear catastrophe. In the past decade the focus was on natural disasters. Most recently, in response to a variety of human caused disasters, such as terrorism and hazardous materials spills, the definition has shifted to mitigation for these types of hazards:
Hazard Mitigation means any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural disasters. (FEMA publication 44CFR, Chapter 1, subpart M, SOURCE: 55fr 35529, August 30, 1990.
All Hazard mitigation planning is designed to decrease the amount of damage and costs to a community in the event of a disaster. All types of hazards, categorized as natural, technological, or human, are considered in this planning process. Mitigation projects are developed in response to the perceived risk of such hazards occurring based on historical occurrence and analysis.
The purpose of the Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Planning project is to identify and prioritize hazards, and to develop and implement projects that will decrease the damages from these hazards in Mower County.
1.3 - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
HMGP Guiding Documents
For disasters declared on or after June 1, 2009, please refer to FY2010
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Unified Guidance.
For disasters declared prior to June 1, 2009, please refer to the HMGP Desk Reference.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program?
- Who is eligible to apply?
- What types of projects can be funded?
- How are potential projects selected and identified?
- What are the minimum project criteria?
- How much money is available in the HMGP?
- How do I apply for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program?
- What is the deadline for applying for HMGP funds?
- How long will it take to get my project approval?
- Will I be forced to sell my home if my community is granted funding for an HMGP acquisition project?
- Why didn't I receive HMGP funds when some of my neighbors did?
- Will someone be able to rebuild and make a profit on the property I sell in an HMGP acquisition project?
- How can I get more information about the HMGP?
Last Modified: Thursday, 09-Jul-2009 11:58:56 EDT
1.4 - Hazard Mitigation Plan Requirement
For Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), or Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grants
In accordance with 44 CFR Part 201, all Applicants for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), PDM, FMA, RFC, or SRL must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. In addition, all sub-applicants to the PDM, FMA, and SRL for mitigation projects must have a FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan by the application deadline and at the time of obligation of grant funds. The RFC program does not currently have a requirement for a local hazard mitigation plan. There is no local hazard mitigation plan requirement for any HMA program if the sub-applicant is applying for a planning sub-grant.
Applicants for HMGP funding must have a FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan at the time of the disaster declaration and at the time plan at the time of the declaration will have 30 calendar days from the date of signing the FEMA-Tribal Agreement to formally submit an approvable Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan for FEMA review and approval.
HMGP sub-applicants must have a FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan at the time of obligation of plan requirement in extraordinary circumstances, when justification is provided. If this exception is granted, a local hazard mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project sub-grant to that community. Extraordinary circumstances exist when a determination is made by the Applicant and FEMA that the proposed project is consistent with the priorities and strategies identified in the State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan, that the project is an essential component of the community’s recovery, and that the jurisdiction meets at least one of the following criteria:
| Meet the small impoverished community criteria (see Part VIII B.2); | |
| Have been determined to have had insufficient capacity prior to the current disaster; | |
| Have been considered to be at low risk from hazards; or | |
| Have experienced significant disruption from the declared incident which impacts their ability to complete the planning process prior to award of a project grant. |
In determining whether to grant the exception, FEMA will take into consideration factors
including whether an Applicant has prioritized their authorized HMGP project assistance for use in those communities with an approved local hazard mitigation plan, whether there are additional project funds available for award to a jurisdiction that does not have an approved local hazard mitigation plan, and whether an Applicant has placed higher priority for grant funding on communities with higher risks. In all cases, a local hazard mitigation plan must be completed and approved by FEMA within 12 months of the award of the project subgrant to that subgrantee. If a local hazard mitigation plan is not provided to FEMA within this timeframe, the project subgrant will be terminated and any costs incurred after the notice of the subgrant’s termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA. For additional information, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office.
D.5.1 Conformance with Hazard Mitigation Plans
Projects submitted for consideration for HMA funding must be consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the current, FEMA-approved State or Tribal (Standard or Enhanced) Hazard Mitigation Plan and local or Tribal hazard mitigation plan for the jurisdiction in which the activity is located.
1.5 - Legal Authority / Overview
Mower County has long had an Emergency Operations Plan in place to serve as a guide for county, city, and emergency operations response teams in emergency situations. Now, in addition to the Emergency Operations Plan, the county has accepted the additional responsibility of creating and implementing an All Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP).
Legal Authority for the Mower County AHMP is derived from U.S. Pubic Law 106-390, created through the approval of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Section 322 of this statute requires that a state hazard mitigation plan be prepared following a disaster declaration, and among other things states that mitigation plans are a new prerequisite for hazard mitigation funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also requires open public involvement in the (planning) process, and coordination with neighboring communities.
MN Statutes, Chapter 12 provides that the Minnesota Division of Emergency Management (DEM) be responsible for local emergency operations managers. The Governor’s Executive Order 99-20 assigns emergency responsibilities (including hazard mitigation) to state agencies. The DEM is the coordinating agency for disaster preparedness, emergency response and disaster recovery assistance. In addition, in Minnesota the legal basis for planning is via Minnesota Statutes 462: Housing, Redevelopment, Planning and Zoning.
Mower County has an Emergency Operations Plan. Part of the introduction for that plan describes some of the hazards that require attention in Mower County:
Tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and other natural disasters can affect Austin/Mower County. In addition, major disasters such as train wrecks, plane crashes, explosions, hazardous materials releases, emergency levee failures, pipeline leaks, and national security emergencies pose a potential threat to public health and safety in Austin/Mower County. An emergency plan is needed to ensure the protection of the public from the effects of these hazards. Hazards that have a probability of involving Austin/Mower county would be flooding in the City of Austin due to the Dobbins Creek, Turtle Creek and Cedar River Watershed which join in the City of Austin. In addition, we have experienced numerous tornado warnings and a few touchdowns resulting in property damage as well as the transportation routes carrying hazardous material on Interstate 90 and the Soo Line Railroad which involves both the City of Austin and the County of Mower.
Three pipelines are located in Mower County. The Dome Pipeline runs across the southwest corner with the AMOCO Pipeline in the northeast corner and Northern Natural Gas along the north boundary and from there into the City of Austin. These Pipelines carry petroleum products, propane heating oil and natural gas.
The difference between the Emergency Operations Plan and the Hazard Mitigation Plan is that the Operations Plan describes how to react to specific emergencies, while the Hazard Mitigation Plan describes potential hazards and ways to mitigate the negative effects of those hazards.
- Printed and other printed resources
1.6 - Planning Process (FEMA)
The four basic hazard mitigation planning steps outlined by FEMA were utilized during the Mower County planning process:
Organize Resources
Existing Emergency Response plans
Interested Community Members
Technical Experts
Assess Risk
Identify and prioritize natural, technical and human caused hazards
Prioritize those hazards
Identify how those hazards could affect key facilities
Develop Mitigation Plan
Develop mitigation strategies
Determine priorities of addressing potential hazards
Implement the plan and Monitor the progress
Community members and emergency response personnel put the plan into action
Evaluate efforts for effectiveness
Revisit and revise plans as necessary as changes occur
1.7 - The Mower County Planning Process
The Mower County planning process incorporated a series of strategic planning sessions, public meetings and surveys to gather the information, data and prioritization necessary for the mitigation plan. The county involved organizations, cities, townships and county officials in the process. The process was initiated through a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Grant from the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. It began in early 2003, and was completed in November 2004.
FEMA requires the All Hazard Mitigation plan be updated every 5 years. The plan was adopted by Mower County in April of 2005 making the FEMA and State updated plan needs to be adopted by April of 2010. The Emergency Management department of Mower County started the planning process necessary to update the plan in the spring of 2009.
1.7.1 - Documentation of the Planning Process
During the process of developing the All Hazard Mitigation Plan the key committee used the City of Austin and Mower County’s Comprehensive Plans as a source of background information for the County. The Maxfield Housing Analysis for the City of Austin and Mower County were also used to provide a detailed analysis of current housing situations and the needed housing. The City of Austin in 2002 had a Hazard Mitigation Plan completed by Pettipiece Cesario Development Solutions, Inc. which addressed flooding. These documents provided detailed information to the committee and consultant so we didn’t have to rediscover information which was already available. Letters were sent out to all Mower County Townships and cities in 2003, asking them to be involved in the planning process. The county received a one hundred percent positive response from the fourteen cities and twenty townships.
The 2005 All Hazard Mitigation plan was reviewed and updated to digital form. The 2005 plan was the source of background information for the updates.
1.7.2 - Public Participation
The first step was to get consensus from each of the local government units in the County. Toward this end the County Commissioners sent letters to each LGU in February, 2003, asking them to be involved in the planning process. The county received a one-hundred percent positive response from the fourteen cities and twenty townships.
The process gathered steam in early 2004 when the county Environmental Services department held a series of mitigation planning forums that were part of on-going city and township meetings. In April 2004 the county hired a consultant to assist with project coordination, and shortly thereafter a number of strategic planning sessions were sponsored in the county. In July a large public information meeting was held to summarize the results of a series of surveys that had been undertaken, and to gather additional input on hazard prioritization and risk assessment. The public participation component of the Mower County project concluded with another information meeting in September, several DRAFT review meetings in October, and County Board review and approval meetings in November.
The department’s first step was to send an initial packet on May 6, 2009 to the ten cities and twenty townships which included a request to update a data base of mitigation plans and actions entities have taken for hazards that have occurred or have been identified in Mower County. Mitigation strategies, goals and objectives for these hazards were developed in 2004-2005. The updated plan will act as a follow-up on how and if the mitigation plans have been implemented updated and results of mitigation actions. The price to implement any actions in the plan if available will be included in the update. The second step was to send two department personnel to an 8 hour update training session in Alexandria, Minnesota. FEMA presented expectations for the updated plan. On July 8, 2009 letters of commitment to participation in the updating of the plan were mailed to cities and townships in Mower County. These were to be signed, dated and returned to the Mower County Emergency Management.
1.7.3 - Continued Public Involvement
As with the initial process, public participation is an essential ingredient of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan or a comprehensive planning process. One needs to use the addage that instead of “planning for people you are planning with people”. By using this approach, we will end up with a more successful project. The following procedure will be used each year: Representatives of the Environmental Services and/or Emergency Management Department will make speaking engagements at the Mower County Township Association meeting, in May or October and with the League of Municipalities at their October meeting to discuss the All Hazard Mitigation Plan. This person will explain what has been done and will encourage them to use the document as they are conducting their business. A Mower County city/township meeting was held on August 26,2009.
The county used a series of surveys to gather the base data for the hazard mitigation plan. The first survey went to organizations, cities, townships and county staff. This All Hazards Survey listed (16) natural hazards, (5) technological hazards, and (19) human-caused hazards and asked the respondents to provide historical data for the events, and to prioritize each of the hazards. The results of this survey provided the basis for the remainder of the mitigation planning process.
An All Hazards Survey was sent out in May, 2009 again asking the respondents to provide historical data for the events, and to prioritize each of the hazards. The results of this survey provided the basis for updating the All Hazards Mitigation plan.
1.7.5 - Assets Inventory Survey
The second survey, called the “Assets Inventory” survey was distributed to each city and township in the county. The respondents were provided with an extensive list of community assets ranging from medical facilities, emergency services, schools, churches, and other public resources. They were asked to describe these resources in their community so that the county could compile a list of critical assets county-wide. The received nearly one hundred percent response from this survey. This same survey was sent out on May 8, 2009. The changes have been incorporated in to the updated plan.
1.7.6 - Hazards Profile and Risk Assessment Surveys
The third and fourth “surveys” were distributed at the public meeting on August 26th, 2009, and mailed to any city, township or organization representatives not in attendance. These surveys were actually variations of the standard “Hazard Profile” and “Risk Assessment” Worksheets templates provided by the state and FEMA. Another excellent response to these surveys resulted in an “Overall Priority” hazards database for the county.
1.7.7 - Townships Meeting
On September 16, 2004, county officials met with township representatives at a regularly scheduled township meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to provide the township officers with a DRAFT of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan DRAFT report, and to solicit specific mitigation activity suggestions. This meeting was well attended, and resulted in a number of the mitigation activities described in this plan.
On Wednesday August 26, 2009 a meeting was held with all Mower County cities and townships.
1.7.8 - Cities Meeting
On October 21, 2004 county officials met with city representatives at a regularly scheduled League of Cities meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to provide the city officials with a DRAFT of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan DRAFT report, and to solicit specific mitigation activity suggestions. This meeting was well attended, and resulted in a number of the mitigation activities described in this plan.
On Wednesday August 26, 2009 a meeting was held with all Mower County cities and townships.
1.7.9 - 2009 Cities and Township Meeting
On August 26, 2009 county officials met with city and township representatives at a special meeting. The primary purpose of this meeting was to give an update on the actions that have been accomplished with previously sent worksheets.
1.8 Draft Review and Approval Meetings
Also in September, a DRAFT of the MCAHMP was distributed to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for comments and suggestions. That department responded with a “Crosswalk” that listed specific areas needing attention in the Mower County Plan. The County’s consultant and county staff responded to each of those suggestions to create the Final Plan.
On October 26, 2004, county staff also presented the revised DRAFT Plan to the Mower County Board of Commissioners for their review and approval. The Plan was discussed and the Board was asked to expect to see an HSEM-approved Plan in November for their final approval.
On January (blank), 2010, a draft of the MCAHMP was submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for comments and suggestions. A crosswalk was submitted with the MCAHMP.
The Goals of the Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Plan include:
| Protect Life and Property | |
| Prevent Loss of Life and limit damage | |
| Protect emergency response personnel and resources |
The Objectives include specific mitigation activities designed to address hazards in the county in relation to the stated goals.
1.10 Implementation
1.10.1 - Plan Adoption and Maintenance
Once the Mower County Plan has been approved by the HSEM, the Plan will be brought before the County Board for their approval. The finalized Plan will also be re-distributed to each county, city, and township for review and approval. Each local government unit will be asked to pass a resolution adopting the Mower County Plan.
1.10.2 - Adoption by the Local Governing Board
The County adopted the plan in April 2005 The finalized Plan was re-distributed to each county city and township for review and approval. Attached is the proposed resolution to be used for adoption of the plan once it has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security (Attachment B).
1.10.3 - Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms
All government agencies and non-governmental agencies that have participated in the All Hazard Mitigation Plan process will be send a copy of the approved plan for their use. When they are doing their yearly budgets, the City Councils will use their All Hazard Mitigation Plan and discuss how they can address the goals, objectives, and strategies identified and to look at the most cost effective method of achieving those results. They will be requested to forward their results to the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department.
1.10.4 - Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption
Once the plan has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security and Mower County, the communities will adopt it. Attached is the proposed resolution to be used by the municipalities for adopting the plan. Copies of each resolution from the adoption of the plan by the cities is included in the appendix to the plan (Attachment C).
1.10.5 - Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan
Each local government was asked to pass a resolution adopting the Mower County Plan. There are ten of the fourteen cities letters authorizing the adoption of the plan in 2005. Elkton, Lyle, Mapleview and Taopi did not have letters. The Mower County Environmental Services Director and/or Emergency Management Director will be sending out to all cities in the County their mitigation activities that have been approved in the plan and request for an update in December of 2006. This request will ask for information on what has been done, and if not done, has a different mitigation strategy been replaced? This process will go on each year in December for calendar years 2006 through 2011. In the year of 2010 the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department will again institute the update of the All Hazard Mitigation Plan for the entire County. The key committee members and all of the municipalities and townships will b contacted to participate in this process. From out perspective, we see the All Hazard Mitigation Plan as a process similar to the comprehensive Plan process where you receive goals, strategies, implementation ideas and these are then reviewed yearly by the appropriate governmental agencies and if changes are necessary, the changes are made. It is a constant process that goes on. After this update is completed in 2009/2010, the Plan will be resubmitted to Homeland Security for approval.
January 2010 update completed and submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for review.
1.10.6 - Project Implementation
The Mower County All Hazard Mitigation Plan includes individual implementation activities to be undertaken by each local government unit in the county. Responsible officials in each LGU will ensure that the individual activities are undertaken according to the plan. The county Environmental Services office will coordinate this process and provide assistance to each community, as requested. In the year of 2010 the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department will again institute the update of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan for the entire County. The key committee members and all of the municipalities and townships will be contacted to participate in this process. From our perspective, we see the All Hazard Mitigation Plan as a process similar to the Comprehensive Plan process where you receive goals, strategies, implementation ideas and these are then reviewed yearly by the appropriate governmental agencies and if changes are necessary, the changes are made. It is a constant process that goes on. After this update is completed in 2009/2010, the Plan will be resubmitted to Homeland Security for approval.
January 2010 update completed and submitted to the State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for review.
1.10.7 - Implementation of Mitigation Activities
For the fourteen municipalities in the County, the individual mitigation strategies will be implemented and administered by each governmental unit unless the activity transcends several jurisdictions then it will be a multiple approach. The City Council will be the primary responsible agency for the cities since they are also charged with determining the cost benefit of the proposed activities. When they are doing their yearly budgets, the City Councils will use their All Hazard Mitigation Plan and discuss how they can address the goals, objectives & strategies identified and to look at the most cost effective method of achieving those results. They will be requested to forward their results to the Environmental Services Department or Emergency Management Department. By using this approach, the city council will be able to determine what is the best financial interest of the community. When each city Developed their implementation strategies, they were cognizant of the cost benefit of the items that they were selecting.
1.10.8 - Updates and Responsible Parties
The county Emergency Management department will be responsible for annual review and updates to the Plan. County staff will review progress made by each community toward their individual mitigation activities, and will make adjustments to the plan as warranted.
As Mower County evolves, the All Hazard Mitigation Plan will also evolve. As they become available, new data and demographic information will be incorporated or updated. In addition, mitigation projects will be completed and new projects advanced.
1.11 Mower County Community Profile
The following profile sections provide a description of the county, and a basis for creating and implementing the All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the maps in the Community Assets section of this report for additional detail.
1.12 COUNTY OVERVIEW
As of 2009, Mower County's population is 38,040 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 0.16 percent.
| The median home cost in Mower County is $108,100. Home appreciation the last year has been -6.80% (depreciation). | |
| Compared to the rest of the country, Mower County's cost of living is 19.82% Lower than the U.S. average. | |
| Mower County public schools spend $5,703 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $6,058. There are about 12 students per teacher in Mower County. | |
| The unemployment rate in Mower County is 7.30% (U.S. avg. is 8.50%). Recent job growth is Negative. Mower County jobs have decreased by 0.50%. |
High Risk Populations
| Type Of Population Needs |
Estimated Population Size |
Anticipated | |
| People with disabilities | 6327 | Handicap | |
| Senior Citizens (age 65+) | 7547 | ||
| Residents with limited English proficiency | 1261 | Language |
Mower County is in the Upper Mississippi River Valley of the Midwest with rolling hills and relatively flat farm land. The City of Austin is an urban area on the far western end of the county. The area experiences a temperate climate with both warm and cold season extremes. Winter months can bring occasional heavy snows, intermittent freezing precipitation or ice, and prolonged periods of cloudiness. While true blizzards are rare, winter storms impact the area on average about 4 times per season. Occasional arctic outbreaks bring extreme cold and dangerous wind chills.
Thunderstorms occur on average 30 to 50 times a year, mainly in the spring and summer months. The strongest storms can produce associated severe weather like tornadoes, large hail, or damaging wind. Both river flooding and flash flooding can occur along with urban-related flood problems. Heat and high humidity is occasionally observed in June, July, or August. The autumn season usually has the quietest weather. Dense fog occurs several times during mainly the fall or winter months. High wind events can also occur from time to time, usually in the spring or fall.
1.13.1 - Location, Area and Municipalities
Mower County is located in the rich agricultural region of Southeastern Minnesota. It contains fourteen cities and twenty townships. The largest city is Austin with a population of 23,671. Other than Austin, all of the other cities have a population of 922 or less. The County has a total land are of 453,205 acres, or 708 square miles. Surrounding Mower County are three Iowa counties to the South (Worth, Mitchell, and Howard), and from West to East, the Minnesota counties of Freeborn, Steele, Dodge, Olmsted and Fillmore.
Mower County contains the following incorporated and unincorporated cities:
| Adams | Austin | Brownsdale | Dexter |
| Elkton | Grand Meadow | LeRoy | Lyle |
| Mapleview | Racine | Rose Creek | Sergeant |
| Taopi | Waltham |
The largest city, Austin, is the county seat for Mower County, and is located along Interstate 90. Austin is known for its agricultural processing facilities, and specifically, Hormel Inc., the producer of the world-renowned “Spam” processed meat products. Each of the other communities serves a variety of important roles in the county.
The county also contains the following townships:
| Adams | Austin | Bennington | Clayton |
| Dexter | Frankford | Grand Meadow | Lansing |
| LeRoy | Lodi | Lyle | Marshall |
| Nevada | Pleasant Valley | Racine | Red Rock |
| Sargeant | Udolpho | Waltham | Windom |
The settlement of Mower County began in earnest in the 1850’s. Seeking to take advantage of the County’s rich agricultural soils, settlers from throughout the world homesteaded the county. The population of the county grew dramatically between 1860 and 1870 with the introduction of the railroad to the region. During the railroad era, virtually every existing village, except Austin, was given birth by the railroads, which crisscrossed the County in every direction. Austin grew as a railroad division center, a major agricultural shipping point and a center for the lumber trade.
Villages also grew with the railroads as the centerpiece of their economies. Several of them were developed as railroad stations while others became small industrial hubs, reliant on railroad service. Throughout its history, Mower County has remained primarily an agricultural economy.
| People Quick Facts (US Census Bureau) | Mower County |
Minnesota |
| Population, 2008 estimate Mower County |
37,859 |
5,220,393 |
| Population, percent change, April 1, 200 to July 1, 2008 |
-1.9% |
6.1% |
The County continued to grow until 1960, when it reached a population of 48,498. Surprisingly, the small cities maintained a relatively stable population in spite of the loss of the railroads while the townships and the City of Austin declined substantially in population due, in large part, to the leveling off of employment growth and the loss of basic industry. This trend of population loss began to change in the 1990’s into 2000. Since 1990 the population has increased, but the household size has continued to decrease. During that period Austin showed an increase in the number of households and population, but household size declined.
The cities, on the other hand, have exhibited a different growth pattern. Austin’s population grew in response to a growing economy, which included the founding of the George A. Hormel Company in 1891. The other cities as a group also continued to grow modestly until 1960. Since then their collective population has essentially remained stable, although a number have declined including Austin whose population fell from 27,908 in 1960 to 23,314 in 2000. However, data from the past decade begin to show a reversal of this trend, particularly with Austin’s population increasing during that time.
Household Population Comparisons – Cities and Townships, 2007 to 2004
|
MCD Name |
2007 Pop. |
2007 House-holds |
2007 Persons per House-hold |
2006 Pop. |
2006 House-holds |
2006 Persons per House-hold |
2005 Pop. |
2005House-holds |
2005 Persons per House-hold |
2004 Pop. |
2004 House-holds |
2004 Persons per House-hold |
|
Adams city |
761 |
324 |
2.14 |
768 |
324 |
2.15 |
771 |
324 |
2.16 |
777 |
325 |
2.17 |
|
Adams township |
459 |
151 |
3.03 |
484 |
158 |
3.06 |
479 |
156 |
3.07 |
482 |
156 |
3.08 |
|
Austin city |
23671 |
10341 |
2.24 |
23702 |
10276 |
2.24 |
23761 |
10267 |
2.25 |
23749 |
10277 |
2.26 |
|
Austin township |
1345 |
499 |
2.62 |
1371 |
507 |
2.63 |
1372 |
506 |
2.64 |
1378 |
507 |
2.64 |
|
Bennington township |
164 |
62 |
2.64 |
174 |
65 |
2.67 |
176 |
65 |
2.7 |
176 |
65 |
2.7 |
|
Brownsdale city |
702 |
291 |
2.41 |
704 |
291 |
2.41 |
706 |
291 |
2.42 |
711 |
292 |
2.43 |
|
Clayton township |
149 |
52 |
2.86 |
164 |
56 |
2.92 |
167 |
56 |
2.98 |
170 |
56 |
3.03 |
|
Dexter city |
325 |
131 |
2.48 |
335 |
134 |
2.5 |
337 |
134 |
2.51 |
339 |
134 |
2.52 |
|
Dexter township |
282 |
100 |
2.82 |
298 |
405 |
2.83 |
297 |
104 |
2.85 |
294 |
103 |
2.85 |
|
Elkton city |
148 |
54 |
2.74 |
149 |
54 |
2.75 |
150 |
54 |
2.77 |
151 |
54 |
2.79 |
|
Frankford township |
351 |
125 |
2.8 |
370 |
131 |
2.82 |
373 |
132 |
2.82 |
371 |
131 |
2.83 |
|
Grand Meadow city |
922 |
407 |
2.14 |
922 |
406 |
2.16 |
935 |
408 |
2.18 |
938 |
405 |
2.2 |
|
Grand Meadow township |
331 |
107 |
3.09 |
355 |
114 |
3.11 |
351 |
112 |
3.13 |
348 |
111 |
3.13 |
|
Lansing township |
1234 |
477 |
2.51 |
1261 |
486 |
2.52 |
1294 |
498 |
2.52 |
1295 |
496 |
2.54 |
|
LeRoy city |
902 |
421 |
2.13 |
903 |
418 |
2.15 |
903 |
415 |
2.16 |
910 |
415 |
2.18 |
|
LeRoy township |
370 |
134 |
2.76 |
397 |
143 |
2.77 |
400 |
144 |
2.77 |
404 |
145 |
2.78 |
|
Lodi township |
213 |
78 |
2.73 |
241 |
87 |
2.77 |
243 |
87 |
2.79 |
242 |
86 |
2.81 |
|
Lyle city |
568 |
216 |
2.62 |
569 |
216 |
2.63 |
570 |
216 |
2.63 |
565 |
213 |
2.65 |
|
Lyle township |
363 |
137 |
2.64 |
387 |
145 |
2.66 |
386 |
144 |
2.68 |
389 |
144 |
2.7 |
|
Mapleview city |
170 |
84 |
2.02 |
170 |
83 |
2.04 |
172 |
83 |
2.07 |
174 |
83 |
2.09 |
|
Marshall township |
371 |
121 |
3.06 |
382 |
124 |
3.08 |
385 |
125 |
3.08 |
383 |
124 |
3.08 |
|
Nevada township |
327 |
120 |
2.72 |
341 |
124 |
2.75 |
345 |
125 |
2.76 |
348 |
125 |
2.78 |
|
Pleasant Valley township |
309 |
103 |
3 |
317 |
105 |
3.01 |
316 |
104 |
3.03 |
316 |
104 |
3.03 |
|
Racine city |
403 |
140 |
2.87 |
411 |
142 |
2.89 |
402 |
139 |
2.89 |
395 |
136 |
2.9 |
|
Racine township |
409 |
169 |
2.42 |
429 |
174 |
2.46 |
428 |
171 |
2.5 |
435 |
171 |
2.54 |
|
Red Rock township |
713 |
278 |
2.56 |
729 |
283 |
2.57 |
722 |
279 |
2.58 |
722 |
278 |
2.59 |
|
Rose Creek city |
387 |
160 |
2.41 |
394 |
162 |
2.43 |
391 |
160 |
2.44 |
385 |
157 |
2.45 |
|
Sargeant city |
74 |
30 |
2.46 |
72 |
29 |
2.48 |
76 |
30 |
2.53 |
77 |
30 |
2.56 |
|
Sargeant township |
296 |
91 |
2.51 |
308 |
95 |
2.54 |
310 |
96 |
2.56 |
299 |
96 |
2.58 |
|
Taopi city |
78 |
30 |
2.6 |
82 |
31 |
2.64 |
83 |
31 |
2.67 |
87 |
32 |
2.71 |
|
Udolpho township |
439 |
159 |
2.76 |
452 |
163 |
2.77 |
449 |
162 |
2.77 |
453 |
163 |
2.77 |
|
Waltham city |
191 |
67 |
2.85 |
192 |
67 |
2.86 |
192 |
67 |
2.86 |
194 |
68 |
2.85 |
|
Waltham township |
397 |
142 |
2.79 |
410 |
146 |
2.8 |
410 |
146 |
2.8 |
411 |
146 |
2.81 |
|
Windom township |
599 |
213 |
2.81 |
610 |
216 |
2.82 |
613 |
217 |
2.82 |
616 |
218 |
2.82 |
1.13.3 - Physical Characteristics
Mower County has some of the richest agricultural land in the country. It is primarily flat and is contains parts of four watershed districts.
The County is classified within the Central Lowland physiographic province and is largely a broad, flat or slightly undulating, well-drained plain. The extreme northeastern section of the County lies in the Dissected Till Plains of the Central Lowlands. This area is characterized by rugged terrain and two streams: Deer and Bear Creeks, which are cutting into the soil and the underlying limestone bedrock, thereby forming deep valleys.
The dominant physiographic feature in the area is the deep Cedar River valley and the hummocky hills and poorly drained depressions of the Wisconsin terminal moraine located northwest of Austin.
The plateau upon which Mower County is situated rises over 1,400 feet above sea level and is the highest part of the upland surface. Elevations range from 1,435 feet above sea level in the east central section of the County near Dexter and Elkton to 1,160 feet at the Cedar River in the southwest corner of the County.
Of particular relevance to the county’s all hazard mitigation plan is the Karst geology of the region. Mower County contains significant Karst areas. Karst is a limestone landscape that is characterized by sinkholes, disappearing and underground streams, caves, and cracks in the bedrock. Karst features and the active processes that form Karst features can potentially have a significant impact on human activities and the County will need to address and plan for appropriate land uses in Karst regions. For instance, one of the key concerns with Karst topography is the susceptibility to ground water pollution and contamination.
The most visible Karst features are sinkholes. Over 125 sinkholes have been mapped in LeRoy Township, and field observations indicate that there are many more to be mapped. Many of the sinkholes have been modified by human activity or road construction and drain-tile have modified the hydrologic characteristics of sinkholes. Although humans have modified existing sinkholes, new ones are still forming. In 1994, a sinkhole formed in County Highway 12 south of LeRoy.
The second kind of Karst features is disappearing streams. Theses surface streams end suddenly where all surface water flow sinks into the subsurface and flow through the subsurface drainage system. A disappearing stream may have more than one point where it disappears, which are called stream sinks. Two stream sinks have been identified in LeRoy Township south of the City of LeRoy at the Iowa border.
The third kind of Karst features is springs and seeps. Karst springs and seeps are the points where ground water is naturally returned to the surface. Karst springs range in size and type (diffuse and conduit). A recent inventory conducted by the MN DNR, the County, and the Minnesota Geological Survey shows that there are at least twelve springs surrounding the City of LeRoy.
1.13.5 - Surface Waters/Wetlands
The County is divided by four major watersheds. They include the Cedar River, the Root River, the Upper Iowa River and the Upper Wapsipinicon River watersheds. The major topographic divide, which separates the major watersheds (Root and Cedar), occurs in central Mower County.
07040008
Root; state(s): IA, MN, WI
07060002
Upper Iowa; state(s): IA, MN
07080102
Upper Wapsipinicon; state(s): IA, MN
07080201
Upper Cedar; state(s): IA, MN
The largest watershed unit, the Cedar River, embraces most of western Mower County and contains 487.6 square miles. Its headwaters are located six miles northeast of Blooming Prairie and it drains south into the Iowa River, which in turn drains to the Mississippi River. The Cedar River has a fall of 145 feet over its 40 miles of length within Minnesota.
A fifth watershed area, the Turtle Creek Watershed, (not identified on the map) has sections of it located in Udolpho, Lansing and Austin townships in Mower County. The major portions of Turtle Creek Watershed are not located in Mower County, but during floods it greatly effects the county.
Mower County is very unusual in that it is laced with rivers, creeks and ditches but has only four man-made ponds and no natural lakes. Ponds include the Lake Louise Mill Pond, East Side Lake, Mill Pond in Austin, and the Ramsey Mill Pond in Lansing Township.
Most of the rivers, creeks and ditches are categorized by the MDNR as tributary river segments for purposes of State mandated shoreland management. Only segments of the south branch of the Root River, Deer Creek, the north branch of the Root River, Deer Creek, the north branch of the Root River and the Cedar River are categorized as agricultural river segments. The Ramsey Mill Pond is classified as a natural environment lake. All are required to be regulated in accordance with the 1989 Minnesota Shoreland Management Rules and Regulations.
With the introduction of farm field tiling, many of the wetlands that originally existed in Mower County have been drained. Wetlands needing protection under the State’s Wetland Management rules are still in the process of being identified and categorized. Lakes, rivers, creeks and streams depend on wetlands to remain healthy. Vegetation found in wetlands acts as a filter for water. It removes phosphates and other plant nutrients from surrounding land. This, in turn, reduces the growth of aquatic weeds and algae. Otherwise, the waterway could choke by stealing oxygen that plants and animals need. Wetlands are an important part of the ecosystem in other ways. They can prevent flooding by holding water. Wetlands are also important habitat for water fowl and wildlife. It’s easy to understand why wetlands are important and why they need surface water management and flood control and a 10-year plan by the Cedar River Water Shed District to accomplish those two goals. For more information go to www.cedarriverwd.org. or visit the following links.
Flooding is a fairly common occurrence along a number of the river segments in Mower County, especially when spring snow melt and major rainfalls coincide. Generally speaking, runoff rates are rapid and the river is subject to peak flows only for short durations. Areas susceptible to flooding are delineated and are regulated by the County’s Shoreland Management and Floodplain Management Ordinances.
Flooding along the Cedar River and other streams has been a concern of Mower County for several years. In order to address this issue, Mower County, City of Austin, Adams, Brownsdale, LeRoy, Mapleview, Rose Creek and Waltham participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mower County and City of Austin also participate in the Federal Community Rating System which provides a ten percent yearly reduction on flood insurance premiums to policy holders in Mower County. Since the 1978 flood until 1993, the City of Austin, through the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), has purchased and removed 234 homes from the floodplains of Austin. After the flooding of 1993, the county made an application for funding for a flood buy-out program to remove homes from the floodplain. In 1995 and 1996, thirteen homes were removed from the flood plain and the land dedicated as permanent open space.
After the 2000 flooding, the county again administered a buy-out program and purchased another six homes. There were major floods in 2004 and 2008 with more buy-out programs. The buyout program for repetitive flooding in an ongoing process for Mower County.
Since 1998, Mower County has been included in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Disaster Declaration five times:
1998 – Severe storms
2000 – Severe storms/flooding
2001 – Flooding
2004 – Severe storms/flooding
2008 – Severe storms/ flooding
Flood Mitigation Program for the City of Austin, Minnesota
FLOOD MITIGATION
1. Project Descriptions
The City of Austin is in the midst of undertaking many projects relating to flooding issues. Outlined below are the different capital projects the City of Austin plans to undertake. More projects will be identified as engineering studies are completed.
a) North Main:
This project would provide for structural protection of properties from 4th Avenue NE (Cedar River Dam) to I-90. A preliminary project scope has been developed with an estimated budget of $13,100,000 (in 2006 dollars). The project can be completed in a phased sequence. The funding for this project is from a proposed DNR Bonding bill grant ($6,550,000) and the local options sales tax ($6,550,000). The project are scheduled as follows: Phase 8 – structural protection from 2nd Avenue to Packer Arena. The estimated cost is $1,400,000 and is scheduled for 2009.
Design Work – required to be done for the North main Area. The estimated cost is $1,200,000 and is scheduled for 2008/2009. Property Acquisition – North main property is needed to be acquired to construct structural solutions. The estimated cost is $3,000,000 and is scheduled for 2008- 2010.
North Main Structure – The construction of the flood protection in the North main area is estimated at $8,500,000 and is scheduled for 2009-2011.
b) Scattered Site Acquisition:
Property located throughout Austin has been subject to repetitive flood losses. A number of these parcels cannot be cost effectively protected and the only feasible mitigation effort is acquisition. All acquisition would be based on repetitive loss criteria to determine eligibility. The total estimated cost of the project is $5,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a proposed DNR Bonding bill grant ($2,500,000) and the local options sales tax ($2,500,000). The project is scheduled for 2009 through 2012.
c) Lions Park:
The property on 2nd Avenue NE from the Cedar River east to 8th Street is proposed to be structurally protected or acquired. The total estimated cost for the project is $500,000 and the funding for this project is from a proposed grant ($250,000) and the local option sales tax ($250,000). The project is scheduled for 2010 through 2011.
d) Turtle Creek Area:
The Turtle Creek area from I-90 to the confluence with the Cedar River is being impacted more often and to a greater degree. The project would provide for acquisition and structural work. The total estimated cost of the project is $6,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a DNR Bonding bill grant ($3,000,000) and the local options sales tax ($3,000,000). The project is scheduled for 2010 through 2012.
e) Dobbins Creek:
This project would involve the acquisition and structural protection of property and infrastructure from 28th Street NE to the Cedar River. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,000,000 and the funding for this project is from a DNR Bonding bill grant ($500,000) and the local options sales tax ($500,000). The project is scheduled for 2012 through 2013.
f) Stream Bank Protection:
To stabilize stream banks throughout Austin that is adjacent to public property. The program would involve riprap and native vegetation. The total estimated cost of the project is $500,000 and the funding for this project is from the local options sales tax The project is scheduled for 2009 through 2013
2. Project Schedule
Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
a) North Main: $6,550,000 $4,250,000 $2,300,000
b) Scattered Site: $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000
c) Lions Park: $250,000 $250,000
d) Turtle Creek: $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
e) Dobbins Creek: $500,000 $500,000
f) Stream Bank: $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Expenses $8,650,000$8,600,000 $5,650,000 $2,600,000 $600,000
3. Funding Summary
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
a) Grants: $4,275,000 $4,250,000 $2,775,000 $1,250,000 $250,000
b) Local Sales Tax: $4,375,000 $4,350,000 $2,875,000 $1,350,000 $350,000
Total Flood Mitigation $8,650,000 $8,600,000 $5,650,000 $2,600,000 $600,000
See Section II for a review of the Grants.
On the Move: A Minnesota City Creatively Battles Repetitive Flooding - Full Mitigation Best Practice Story Mower County, Minnesota
Austin, MN - In the spring of 2000, floodwaters in Austin, Minnesota, crested at 23.4 feet, the highest on record. But far fewer homes received flood damage than in the multiple flood events of the last 30 years. A first-of-its-kind acquisition program was conducted after two major floods in 1978. With additional buyouts occurring after succeeding floods, a total of 163 structures were eventually removed from the flood plain before the flood of 2000.
An in-depth study bears out the cost effectiveness of the buyout program in terms of moneys saved by avoiding damages in future flooding. The report concludes that the "losses avoided" analysis has demonstrated the economic viability of the various acquisition projects in Austin, Minnesota since 1978. The implementation of an acquisition program and the development of a park system along the river illustrate what we've learned about our close connections with a river. We no longer need to live right on the riverbanks for our water and power needs. The community of Austin has made it possible to reduce the suffering from nature's power when rains swell the river and its destructive waters escape overland. In addition, the natural beauty of the water resources and recreational possibilities can be shared by all in the community through the establishment of public open space. After the second devastating flood hit within 10 days in July 1978, residents and City officials in Austin knew something had to be done. Concerned citizens formed the Floodway Action Citizens Task Source (FACTS) to investigate ways to solve the flooding problem. The group, with a membership that reached 450, met and dialogued with the Austin City Council, Turtle Creek Watershed Board, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's office and state and local agencies to gather as much information as possible.
Although moving from a home, especially as a result of a natural disaster, can be a very traumatic event, the active participation of Austin residents, through the FACTS group, helped smooth the transition as government agencies worked together on voluntary buyouts. Most flood-damaged houses were torn down and the debris removed. Houses that were structurally sound were auctioned off with the condition that they be moved out of the floodplain. The sales proceeds went back into the HRA acquisition fund to purchase more flood-damaged homes.
Because of the flood protection work of the city, flood insurance policyholders have lower premiums. The Community Rating System (CRS) was developed to reward communities that are doing more than meeting the minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements to help their citizens prevent flood losses. Community participation is voluntary. The CRS schedule identified 18 creditable activities, organized under four categories The City of Austin has received credit for 15 out of 18 activities. This has earned the City of Austin a Class 5 rating and a reduction of 25% in flood insurance premiums for policyholders. A riverside park is now being developed where houses once stood. A church building purchased in the buyout program was renovated into a flood-proof park structure through the determination of city leaders, following strict Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) guidelines.
An example of buy-out homes and locations are represented here (see floodplain maps in the Community Assets section):
| Year | # of Homes | Location | |
| 95/96 | 7 | Section 26, Lansing Township | |
| 95/96 | 6 | Section 10, Austin Township | |
| 2000 | 1 | Section 23, Lansing Township | |
| 2000 | 3 | Section 27, Austin Township | |
| 2000 | 1 | Section 15, Austin Township | |
| 2000 | 1 | Section 28, Lyle Township | |
| 2007 | 15 | Wildwood Park, Austin Township |
The City of Austin is trying to implement another flood mitigation project.
As written in the July 21, 2009 edition of the Austin Daily Herald, Jon Erichson briefed the city council on flood mitigation proposals. Currently, the City of Austin is planning to build a combination of walls and berms along the Cedar River with city money and a number of grants. Erichson said the North Main area near Mill Pond is the priority, but the preventative system is slated to continue along the river past 11th Avenue Northwest toward Interstate #90. Where possible, the city would like to construct berms, but walls will be necessary at some points. Under discussion is whether the walls will be permanent brick walls or “invisible” walls that can be planked in when flood waters rise. The invisible wall would cost roughly $540,000 more but would be less restrictive between Main Street and Mill Pond. Either type of wall would stand about 7.5 feet tall during a flood. Erichson said the council didn’t need to reach a conclusion during the tour but should begin thinking heavily about what they’d prefer. He added that construction would ideally begin late this year or early in 2010. The walls and berms would protect approximately 59 acres from flooding.
In Austin Minnesota, losses avoided analysis has demonstrated the economic viability of the 163 property acquisitions. During the first phase, in a time span of about 20 years, the investment of $1.7 million (normalized to $4.8 million to the year 2001) from HUD has saved more than $3.9 million in losses avoided. This savings in disaster costs represents greater than 80% return on mitigation investment. Later, in the aftermath of 1993 floods, an investment of $5.5 million (normalized to $7 million to the year 2001), with the HMGP has saved $2.6 million; a return on investment of more than 36%
The 9-Point Flood Protection Plan – How are we doing today?
Completed: Wildwood Park. This neighborhood is located north of I-90 west of the Hormel Corporate Office on 1st Street NE. Properties subject to repetitive flood events have been acquired through a FEMA grant.
In Process: North Main. This project provides for protection of properties from 4th Avenue NE (Cedar River Dam) to I-90. It will consist of many elements including raised berms, “invisible walls” with removable panels, a storm water pump station, and acquisition.
Completed: Railroad Revitalization Project. Provide for the voluntary acquisition of commercial properties which had been subjected to repetitive flooding. As part of the project, repetitive flood property owners (Jim’s Super Valu and Eagles Club) have redeveloped on the railroad redevelopment site on 10th Street NE.
Ongoing: Scattered Site Acquisition. Includes acquisition of properties located throughout Austin which have experienced repetitive flood losses.
Completed: East Side Lake: A berm was constructed to protect residential properties on 14th street NE between 4th avenue and 6th Avenue NE – properties that had been subjected to flooding.
Grant Application Submitted: Turtle Creek. The Turtle Creek area from I-90 to the confluence with the Cedar River is flooding more often and to a greater degree. The City proposes to conduct a structural and acquisition review to determine the necessary mitigation required and then take corrective action.
Ongoing: Dobbins Creek. Projects need to be designed for the Dobbins Creek area from I-90 to 21st Street NE. A number of properties have developed their own protective measures, but a comprehensive review needs to be completed and additional corrective action taken.
Cedar River Watershed District Created: Regional Flood Mitigation. In order to reduce the amount of water flowing into Austin by 20%, the City is working with regional governments in a joint effort to manage surface water in the Upper Cedar River Watershed.
Ongoing: Stream Bank Protection. There are a number of areas adjacent to public property subject to erosion with unstable banks from repetitive flooding. A comprehensive program using rock and native vegetation to stabilize banks in these areas would minimize future flooding.
Source: Mower County Austin Public Schools, City of Austin, News, May 2009
1.13.6.1 - Mower County Flood Plain Map by Jurisdiction
Vulnerability Assessment – There are relatively numerous assets within Mower County, which are exposed to flooding hazards. There are currently 13,302 residential properties 1094 commercial, office & industrial facilities, 1150 religious, government, educations, and non-profit institutional facilities, and 6317 agricultural areas located with Mower County. Continued enforcement of development regulations and the land use plan will significantly reduce vulnerability and prevent future development projects and building critical infrastructure in flood prone areas.
Assets Exposed to Hazard - The major area of concern in Mower County that have repetitive flood loss is within the City of Austin (non-residential and residential). The City of Austin sustained significant damage in 2004 and again in 2008. The City of Austin and Southwest portion of the county suffered significant damages with flooding during both of these events. The data was collected from the various municipalities and the Mower County Tax Assessors Office.
Damage Assessment - Complete losses of those properties located within flood zones in Mower County would result in significant losses and damages.
Land Use and Development Trends - Mower County has and continues to make significant efforts to eliminate the placement of structures identified in flood hazard areas. The County and all municipalities have enacted and vigorously enforce land use plans. These land use plans provide guidance for the prevention of development within flood prone areas. The county promotes the safety and general welfare by regulating land use, the location, height and size of buildings, the density of population and the division of the county into districts for residential, industrial and agricultural uses, thereby ensuring orderly future development outside the limits of incorporated municipalities. The county also promotes the safety and community welfare through building plan review, permit requirement, inspection of construction and application of International and State of Minnesota Building Codes. The following are participants in the NFIP in Mower County:
Mower County NFIP Participation as of 01/01/2010:
|
|
Communities Participating in the National Flood Program |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CID |
Community Name |
County |
Init FHBM |
Init FIRM |
Curr Eff |
Reg-Emer Date |
Tribal |
|
Identified |
Identified |
Map Date |
|||||
|
270308# |
ADAMS, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
7/30/1976 |
8/15/1979 |
8/15/1979 |
8/15/1979 |
No |
|
275228# |
AUSTIN, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
5/14/1971 |
8/18/1992 |
5/14/1971 |
No |
|
27310 |
BROWNSDALE, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
05/10/1974 |
|
NFIP |
03/18/1985 |
No |
|
270583# |
LEROY, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
12/27/1974 |
5/15/1980 |
5/15/1980 |
5/15/1980 |
No |
|
270586# |
MAPLEVIEW, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
4/18/1975 |
5/15/1984 |
5/15/1984 |
5/15/1984 |
No |
|
270307# |
MOWER COUNTY * |
MOWER COUNTY |
3/21/1975 |
7/16/1979 |
7/16/1979 |
7/16/1979 |
No |
|
270598# |
ROSE CREEK, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
6/10/1977 |
7/16/1979 |
7/16/1979 |
7/16/1979 |
No |
|
270311# |
WALTHAM, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
8/9/1974 |
10/16/1979 |
10/16/1979 |
10/16/1979 |
No |
The below municipalities do not participate in the NFIP due to not being sanctioned and not being mapped for flood plain at this time. Also depending on staff levels in the future may wish to participate in the NFIP and the feasibility of participation for the individual jurisdictions.
|
|
Communities Not Participating in the National Flood Program |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CID |
Community Name |
County |
Init FHBM |
Init FIRM |
Curr Eff |
Reg-Emer Date |
Tribal |
|
Identified |
Identified |
Map Date |
|||||
|
None issued |
DEXTER, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
GRAND MEADOW, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
ELKTON, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
LYLE, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
RACINE, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
SARGEANT, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
|
None issued |
TAPOI, CITY OF |
MOWER COUNTY |
N/A |
N/A |
Not mapped |
N/A |
No |
Multi-Jurisdictional Concerns – All jurisdictions within Mower County can potentially be affected by flooding. There are many areas throughout the county where localized flooding has been an issue (due to flash floods). There are also rivers and streams throughout the entire county. All mitigation efforts will focus on countywide improvements.
Hazard Summary – Floods pose a significant threat in Mower County. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee has identified mitigation efforts related to flooding. Mower County and its cities and townships have worked hard to mitigate the loss of life and property in our community from flood hazards. This has been accomplished by taking a countywide approach to code enforcement and seeking mitigation grant funding to reduce flood hazards.
1.13.6.2 - Mitigated/Unmitigated Repetitive Loss
Mower County its Cities and townships have found the most effective way to control repetitive loss from flooding is by property acquisition. The City of Austin has acquired 250 homes as part of the Flood Mitigation Program. Mower County in conjunction with the City of Austin have had studies conducted in 1969-Corp of Engineers Study, 1979-Corps of Engineers Study, 2001-FEMA Property Acquisition Study, 2002-Corps of Engineers Study, 2002-Mower County/City of Austin Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004-FEMA Post Event Mitigation Study and 2005-City of Austin North Main Street Study. The following chart is the most current information on unmitigated/mitigated properties located in Mower County.
|
Losses |
Total Paid |
Average Pay |
Data Type |
As of Date |
Local Property Identifier |
County Name |
|
4 |
74,942.87 |
18,735.72 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
177,013.95 |
44,253.49 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
6,442.70 |
3,221.35 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
32,062.38 |
10,687.46 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
16.040.0020 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
25,145.11 |
12,572.56 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
12,396.20 |
6,198.10 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
7,091.02 |
3,545.51 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
20,757.90 |
10,378.95 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
39,823.81 |
13,274.60 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
17,487.44 |
5,829.15 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
123,249.32 |
30,812.33 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
19,498.49 |
9,749.25 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
54,610.07 |
18,203.36 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
72,563.32 |
24,187.77 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
133,869.97 |
33,467.49 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
40,617.30 |
13,539.10 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
109,720.47 |
36,573.49 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
39,549.65 |
13,183.22 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
08-051-0140; 08-051-0150; 08-051 - 0160 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
48,212.04 |
24,106.02 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
14,287.60 |
4,762.53 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
02-012-0190 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
17,961.61 |
8,980.81 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
79,067.96 |
39,533.98 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
31,684.50 |
10,561.50 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
30,981.51 |
15,490.76 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
23,300.00 |
11,650.00 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
18,203.39 |
9,101.70 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
77,724.30 |
25,908.10 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
42,800.00 |
14,266.67 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
39,598.74 |
19,799.37 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
156,870.10 |
78,435.05 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
158,100.49 |
79,050.25 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
08-051-012- |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
29,218.67 |
14,609.34 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
47,516.42 |
15,838.81 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
18,028.80 |
9,014.40 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
86,327.18 |
28,775.73 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
8,818.13 |
4,409.07 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
92,584.49 |
46,292.25 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
35,362.44 |
17,681.22 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
139,918.00 |
34,979.50 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
5,230.20 |
2,615.10 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
26,879.87 |
13,439.94 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
115,477.49 |
57,738.75 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
30,740.51 |
15,370.26 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
17,120.68 |
5,706.89 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
08.023.0120 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
24,879.14 |
6,219.79 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
5 |
147,918.82 |
29,583.76 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
5 |
36,837.51 |
7,367.50 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
24,613.05 |
8,204.35 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
72,776.97 |
18,194.24 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
16,524.07 |
4,131.02 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
3,622.13 |
1,811.07 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
105,499.22 |
26,374.81 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
44,401.72 |
11,100.43 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
8,930.90 |
4,465.45 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
129,470.94 |
32,367.74 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
23,728.55 |
7,909.52 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
08.011.0090 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
6 |
49,264.78 |
8,210.80 |
Unmitigated Data only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
163 |
3,087,324.89 |
18,990.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
Losses |
Total Paid |
Average Pay |
Data Type |
As of Date |
Local Property Identifier |
County Name |
|
2 |
37,702.02 |
18,851.01 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
22,977.08 |
11,488.54 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
33,466.68 |
16,733.34 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
29,340.80 |
14,670.40 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
14,215.65 |
7,107.83 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
15,417.79 |
7,708.90 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
10,866.14 |
5,433.07 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
80,426.52 |
40,213.26 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
39,032.99 |
19,516.50 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
22,411.28 |
11,205.64 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
6,194.40 |
3,097.20 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
17,975.84 |
8,987.92 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
08-023-0040 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
27,504.22 |
9,168.07 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
19,232.61 |
6,410.87 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
66,727.20 |
16,681.80 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
16,777.48 |
8,388.74 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
19,979.35 |
9,989.68 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
19,301.16 |
9,650.58 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
4,640.57 |
2,320.29 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
17,320.26 |
8,660.13 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
11,242.82 |
5,621.41 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
13,345.68 |
6,672.84 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
31,306.55 |
10,435.52 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
9,481.67 |
4,740.84 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
13,610.18 |
6,805.09 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
101,597.30 |
50,798.65 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
12,566.26 |
6,283.13 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
20,271.90 |
10,135.95 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
17,465.38 |
8,732.69 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
12,802.32 |
6,401.16 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
2,982.87 |
1,491.44 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
24,363.04 |
8,121.01 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
24,782.70 |
12,391.35 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
5 |
24,629.73 |
4,925.95 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
16,908.56 |
5,636.19 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
6 |
183,270.12 |
30,545.02 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
08.023.0030 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
14,278.83 |
7,139.42 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
53,136.75 |
13,284.19 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
9,675.95 |
3,225.32 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
19,291.03 |
9,645.52 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
4 |
71,285.52 |
17,821.38 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
14,252.18 |
4,750.73 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
3,218.00 |
1,609.00 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
21,013.19 |
7,004.40 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
20,045.10 |
6,681.70 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
17,711.73 |
8,855.87 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
23,677.88 |
7,892.63 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
37,202.28 |
12,400.76 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
15,389.89 |
7,694.95 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
27,415.65 |
9,138.55 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
7,687.54 |
3,843.77 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
16,239.56 |
8,119.78 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
26,853.73 |
8,951.24 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
34,390.60 |
11,463.53 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
02.007.0412 |
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
6,753.79 |
2,251.26 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
11,197.35 |
3,732.45 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
31,955.31 |
15,977.66 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
17,609.80 |
5,869.93 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
10,000.00 |
5,000.00 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
2 |
12,053.87 |
6,026.94 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
26,860.87 |
8,953.62 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
10,756.63 |
3,585.54 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
54,689.33 |
18,229.78 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
3 |
25,491.27 |
8,497.09 |
Mitigated Data Only |
07/31/2008 |
|
MOWER COUNTY |
|
164 |
1,696,702.96 |
10,013.62 |
|
|
|
|
The glacial drift and Paleozoic limestones and sandstones are the chief water bearing formations in Mower County. While shallow drift wells produce sufficient water supplies for farms and domestic use, municipal and industrial wells tap the St. Peter sandstone at depths of 400-700 feet. Water can also be found in the Dresbach sandstone formation at considerably greater depths.
Mower County relies on several aquifer systems for domestic, agricultural and industrial water supplies. The Cedar Valley-Galena aquifer system of the Middle Devonian (385 mya) to Late Middle Ordovician age (460 mya) is referred to as the upper system. The lower system is comprised of the St. Peter (sandstone)-Prairie Du Chien (carbonate)- Jordan (sandstone) group which is the Middle Ordovician (480 mya) to Late Cambrian (580 mya) age. Ground water movement through the sandstone units is basically through intergranular flow. Ground water movement through the carbonate units is basically through fracture flow. The fractures range from microscopic openings to large, pipe like cracks. The Cedar Valley and the Galena are separate aquifers with the Maquoketa functioning as an aquitard.
1.13.8 - Climate / Precipitation
According to the 1989 Soils Survey of Mower County, Minnesota, the average temperature in winter is 15° F and the lowest temperature on record was -34° at Grand Meadow on January 30, 1951. In summer the average daily temperature is 68° F and the highest recorded temperature was 100° F on August 22, 1955 also at Grand Meadow.
Precipitation averages 31.6 inches per year with 23 inches or 70% falling between April and September. Thunderstorms occur on about 42 days each year and most of those occur during the summer. The average seasonal snowfall is 52 inches.
The sun shines 65% of the time during the summer and 40% of the time in the winter. Average relative humidity is approximately 65% and the prevailing winds are from the south with average wind speed being the highest at 14 mph during the spring.
| Austin average annual snowfall is 41 inches per year | |
| The average winter temperature is 15 degrees F | |
| The average summer temperature is 73 degrees F | |
| Average Yearly Rainfall: 31.97’ | |
| National Average: 38.64’ |
TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
(Recorded from 1951-1980 at Grand Meadow, MN)
|
TEMPERATURE |
PRECIPITATION |
||||||||||||
|
MONTH |
AVERAGE |
AVERAGE |
AVERAGE |
2 YEARS IN 10 |
AVERAGE |
AVERAGE |
2 YEARS IN 10 |
AVERAGE |
AVERAGE |
||||
|
|
DAILY |
DAILY |
|
WILL |
HAVE |
# OF |
|
LESS |
MORE |
# OF |
SNOW- |
||
|
|
MAX |
MIN |
|
MAX< |
MIN> |
GROWING |
|
THAN |
THAN |
DAYS |
FALL |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEGREE |
|
|
|
0.10 IN |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAYS* |
|
|
|
OR MORE |
|
||
|
|
° F |
° F |
° F |
° F |
° F |
Units |
Inches |
Inches |
Inches |
|
Inches |
||
|
JAN |
20 |
1.1 |
10.6 |
42 |
-27 |
0 |
0.95 |
0.29 |
1.48 |
3 |
13.10 |
||
|
FEB |
26 |
6.4 |
16.2 |
46 |
-21 |
0 |
0.87 |
0.25 |
1.37 |
3 |
9.40 |
||
|
MAR |
36.1 |
18.1 |
27.1 |
64 |
-11 |
0 |
2.08 |
0.93 |
3.05 |
5 |
11.80 |
||
|
APR |
53.7 |
34 |
43.9 |
84 |
13 |
35 |
2.77 |
1.60 |
3.81 |
7 |
7.90 |
||
|
MAY |
67.5 |
45.7 |
56.6 |
88 |
27 |
242 |
4.14 |
2.62 |
5.51 |
8 |
0.00 |
||
|
JUN |
76.6 |
55.6 |
66.1 |
93 |
41 |
483 |
4.61 |
2.67 |
6.32 |
8 |
0.00 |
||
|
JUL |
81 |
59.8 |
70.4 |
95 |
46 |
632 |
4.1 |
1.80 |
6.05 |
7 |
0.00 |
||
|
AUG |
78.8 |
57 |
67.9 |
92 |
42 |
555 |
4.07 |
1.39 |
6.27 |
7 |
0.00 |
||
|
SEP |
70.2 |
47.9 |
59.1 |
89 |
30 |
278 |
3.27 |
1.17 |
5.01 |
6 |
0.00 |
||
|
OCT |
59.3 |
37.4 |
48.4 |
85 |
19 |
104 |
2.24 |
0.72 |
3.48 |
4 |
0.30 |
||
|
NOV |
41.5 |
23.6 |
32.6 |
68 |
-5 |
0 |
1.51 |
0.36 |
2.42 |
4 |
4.40 |
||
|
DEC |
26.7 |
10.2 |
18.5 |
53 |
-20 |
0 |
0.99 |
0.38 |
1.49 |
3 |
9.80 |
||
|
Average |
53.1 |
33.1 |
43.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
|
Extreme |
- |
- |
- |
96 |
-28 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
|
Total |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2,329 |
31.60 |
24.98 |
37.6 |
65 |
51.7 |
||
|
* A growing degree-day is a unit of heat available for plant growth. It can be calculated by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and subtracting the temperature below which growth is minimal for the principal crops in the area (50 degrees F). |
|||||||||||||
|
Source: Soil Survey of Mower county, MN, USDA, SCS. |
|
|
|
||||||||||
Average Climate in Austin, Minnesota
Based on date reported by over 4,000 weather stations
Climate and weather gives you a meaningful look at Austin, MN 55912’s weather patterns and risks. Average high/low temperatures are shown for January and July. Weather risk provides you with a percentage of the national average (100) for select environmental events. A score of 50 would be half the national average, while a score of 200 would be double the national average.
Weather
risk
1.13.9 - Commissioner Districts
There are five Commissioner Districts in Mower County. Each of the districts except District 2 contains wards and precincts within the City of Austin. Districts 4 and 5 are comprised entirely of Austin wards and precincts.
Mower County Board of Commissioners
Five people are elected as Mower County Commissioners, serving staggered four year terms. Commissioners work to provide services to people and communities while overseeing the cost of such services. The Mower County Board meets the first, second, and fourth Tuesday each month in the Board Room located in the Lower Level of the Mower County Courthouse. The first meeting of the month begins at 1:00 PM while the remaining begin with departmental business at 8:30 AM with general business starting around 10:00 AM.
|
1st District |
2nd District |
3rd District |
4th District |
5th District |
|
Commissioner Tim Gabrielson 23264 570th Ave Austin, MN 55912 (507) 433-2598 |
Commissioner Raymond Tucker P.O. Box 28 Dexter, MN 55926 (507) 584-6366 or (507) 584-6767 |
Commissioner David Hillier 1613 31st Street S.W. Austin, MN 55912 (507) 437-4216 |
Commissioner Dick Lang 11027 4th Avenue N.E. Austin, MN 55912 (507) 437-3414 |
Commissioner Mike
Ankeny
|
|
The 1st District includes the following townships: Lansing, Red Rock, Udolpho, and Waltham. The following Cities are in the first District: Brownsdale, Mapleview, Waltham, and the 1st ward, 1st Precinct of the City of Austin. |
The 2nd District includes the following townships: Adams, Bennington, Clayton, Dexter, Frankford, Grand Meadow, LeRoy, Lodi, Marshall, Pleasant Valley, Racine and Sargeant. The following cities are in the 2nd District: Adams, Dexter, Elkton, Grand Meadow, LeRoy, Racine, Sargeant and Taopi. |
The 3rd District includes the following townships: Austin, Lyle, Nevada and Windom. The following cities are included in the 3rd District: Lyle, Rose Creek and the 2nd Ward, 2nd Precinct of the City of Austin. |
The 4th District includes all of the 3rd Ward of the City of Austin. |
The 5th District includes the 1st Ward, 2nd Precinct and the 2nd Ward 1st Precinct of the City of Austin. |
Mower County has countywide zoning and planning covering the entire county excluding the fourteen (14) cities of the county which all have some planning and zoning. At the present time four (4) townships Lansing, Pleasant Valley, Udolpho and Red Rock have their own planning and zoning ordinances.
Public education is under great stress in rural communities where there is a high incidence of obsolete school facilities combined with small and shrinking enrollments and too few dollars to commit to quality education. These characteristics are evident in Mower County.
The County is served by nine independent school districts with 2008 enrollments ranging from 268 to 4,056. Four of the eight districts providing enrollment information lost students between 1990 and 1990 - paralleling the general decline in population. Much more significant enrollment shrinkage occurred during the late 1970’s.
Wherever possible, school districts in rural areas should be expected to service an area within a radius of 15 miles or 40 to 50 minutes travel time from a high school and have a minimum K-12 student enrollment of 1,500 to 2,000 students. This translates to many less districts than the nine that currently serve Mower County.
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS
|
DISTRICT NAME |
1975 |
1980 |
1985 |
1990 |
% CHANGE 1980-1990 |
2008 |
% CHANGE 1990-2008 |
|
|
203 |
Hayfield |
N/A |
1,054 |
968 |
1,025 |
-2.8 |
902 |
-13.63% |
|
492 |
Austin |
6,613 |
4,786 |
4,211 |
4,056 |
-15.3 |
4318 |
+6.7 |
|
497 |
Lyle |
330 |
322 |
269 |
268 |
-16.8 |
240 |
-11.67 |
|
499 |
LeRoy/Ostrander |
N/A |
375 |
378 1 |
383 2 |
+2.1 |
319 |
-20.01 |
|
500 |
Southland |
1,073 |
794 |
680 |
627 |
-21.0 |
672 |
-6.7 |
|
534 |
Stewartville |
1,841 |
1,784 |
1667 |
1,636 |
-8.30 |
1809 |
+9.56 |
|
756 |
Blooming Prairie |
1,219 |
963 |
963 |
1,051 |
+9.1 |
755 |
+39.21 |
|
495 |
Grand Meadow |
514 |
427 |
377 |
416 |
-2.6 |
416 |
0.0 |
|
|
Kingsland |
|
|
|
|
|
757 |
|
In 2008 there were five school districts located completely in Mower County. Austin School District, LeRoy/Ostrander School District, Lyle School District, Grand Meadow School District and Southland School District. Student enrollments ranged from 240 to 4318.
|
District Name |
Phone |
County |
Students |
Schools |
|
AUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 NW Third Avenue, Austin, MN 55912 |
(507) 433-0966 |
Mower |
4,318 |
16 |
|
CEDAR RIVER EDUCATION DISTRICT 401 3rd Avenue NW, Austin, MN 55912 |
(507) 433-0966 |
Mower |
N/A |
0 |
|
GRAND MEADOW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 68, Grand Meadow, MN 55936 |
(507) 754-5318 |
Mower |
416 |
3 |
|
LEROY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 1000, LeRoy, MN 55951 |
(507) 324-5743 |
Mower |
319 |
2 |
|
LYLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 700 2nd Street, Lyle, MN 55953 |
(507) 325-4146 |
Mower |
240 |
2 |
|
SOUTHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Box 351, Adams, MN 55909 |
(507) 582-3283 |
Mower |
672 |
3 |
Mower County’s population grew steadily though erratically between 1860 and 1960 from 3,217 to 48,498 people in large part because of the availability of jobs in and related to agriculture. Substantial population growth occurred between 1860 and 1880 attributable to the first major incursion of eastern farmers, the advent of the railroads, and the growth of commerce related to both. The County’s population continued to grow, but as a slower rate, between 1880 and 1930, as a result of more diversified farming practices, farm tiling and the growth of Austin as a railroad center. Between 1930 and 1960 growth again accelerated due to the coming of age of the George A. Hormel meat packing company that employed approximately 5,000 workers in Austin in the early 1940’s. After 1960, the County’s population declined substantially until 1990 for a variety of reasons. Since 1990, there has been resurgence in both employment and population.
The Township populations shrank steadily form 1960 to 1990. Only Frankford Township grew during the 1960’s, Racine Township in the 1970’s and the Townships of Racine and Clayton in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s the population of the Townships began to stabilize with population increases in 10 of the 20 Townships. Collectively, the Townships have lost 36% of their population since 1960 and they comprise just 24.8% (30.9% in 1960) of the County’s population. In 2007 the townships comprise 23.6%.
| 2007 Data | |||
| Mower Population | 38,603 | Minnesota | 4,919,479 |
| Mower Medium Age | 38.90 | Minnesota | 35.40 |
| Mower Females | 19,595 | Minnesota | 848 |
| Mower Males | 19,008 | Minnesota | 435,631 |
| Median Household Income | $36,654 | Minnesota | $47,111 |
In 2008 the population of Mower County was 37,859, a decrease of 744 people from 2007.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division
The Cities also declined in population between 1960 and 1990 but to a lesser degree (18.4%) than the Townships. The Cities began to stabilize in the 1990’s with an increase of almost 1,650 persons, or 6.0%. Austin was the biggest loser in the 1990’s accounting for virtually all of the Cities collective losses. In the 1990’s only four of fourteen municipalities lost population. Cities now comprise 75.2% (69.1% in 1960) of the County’s population. Every unit of government in the County had an appreciably smaller household size in 2000 than in 1960
POPULATION OF MUNICIPALITIES IN MOWER COUNTY
|
MUNICIPALITY |
1960 |
1970 |
% CHANGE |
1980 |
% CHANGE |
1990 |
% CHANGE |
2000 |
% CHANGE |
2007 |
% CHANGE |
|
Adams |
806 |
771 |
-4.3 |
797 |
3.4 |
756 |
-5.2 |
800 |
5.8 |
761 |
-5.12 |
|
Austin |
27,908 |
26,210 |
-6.1 |
23,020 |
-8.2 |
21,907 |
-4.8 |
23,314 |
6.4 |
23,671 |
1.51 |
|
Brownsdale |
622 |
625 |
0.5 |
691 |
10.6 |
695 |
0.6 |
718 |
3.3 |
702 |
-2.28 |
|
Dexter |
313 |
252 |
-19.5 |
279 |
10.7 |
303 |
8.6 |
333 |
9.9 |
325 |
-2.46 |
|
Elkton |
147 |
134 |
-8.8 |
139 |
3.7 |
142 |
2.2 |
149 |
4.9 |
148 |
-0.67 |
|
Grand Meadow |
837 |
869 |
3.8 |
965 |
11.0 |
967 |
0.2 |
945 |
-2.3 |
922 |
-2.49 |
|
LeRoy |
971 |
870 |
-10.4 |
930 |
6.9 |
904 |
-2.8 |
925 |
2.3 |
902 |
-2.55 |
|
Lyle |
607 |
522 |
-14.0 |
576 |
10.3 |
504 |
-12.5 |
566 |
12.3 |
568 |
0.35 |
|
Mapleview |
381 |
328 |
-13.9 |
253 |
-22.9 |
206 |
-18.6 |
189 |
-8.3 |
170 |
-11.18 |
|
Racine |
180 |
197 |
9.4 |
285 |
44.7 |
288 |
1.1 |
355 |
23.3 |
403 |
11.91 |
|
Rose Creek |
351 |
390 |
11.1 |
371 |
-4.9 |
363 |
-2.2 |
354 |
-2.5 |
367 |
3.54 |
|
Sargeant |
113 |
85 |
-24.8 |
95 |
11.8 |
78 |
-17.9 |
76 |
-2.6 |
74 |
-2.70 |
|
Taopi |
92 |
59 |
-35.9 |
96 |
62.7 |
83 |
-13.5 |
93 |
12.0 |
78 |
-17.50 |
|
Waltham |
207 |
189 |
-8.7 |
176 |
-6.9 |
170 |
-3.4 |
196 |
15.3 |
191 |
-2.62 |
|
TOTAL POP |
33,535 |
31,501 |
|
28,673 |
|
27,366 |
|
29,013 |
|
38,603 |
|
|
% TOT POP |
69.1 |
70.1 |
|
71 |
|
27.366 |
|
75.2 |
|
76.4 |
|
|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau |
|||||||||||
POPULATION OF TOWNSHIPS IN MOWER COUNTY
|
TOWNSHIP |
1960 |
1970 |
% CHANGE |
1980 |
% CHANGE |
1990 |
% CHANGE |
2000 |
% CHANGE |
|
Adams |
651 |
575 |
-11.7 |
514 |
-10.6 |
458 |
-10.9 |
475 |
3.7 |
|
Austin |
3,052 |
2,777 |
-9.0 |
2,386 |
-14.1 |
1,779 |
-25.4 |
1,396 |
-21.5 |
|
Bennington |
332 |
244 |
-26.5 |
209 |
-14.3 |
182 |
-12.9 |
178 |
-2.2 |
|
Clayton |
328 |
275 |
-16.2 |
191 |
-30.5 |
192 |
0.5 |
178 |
-7.3 |
|
Dexter |
530 |
417 |
-21.3 |
337 |
-19.2 |
285 |
-15.4 |
289 |
1.4 |
|
Frankford |
425 |
482 |
13.4 |
359 |
-25.5 |
348 |
-3.1 |
358 |
2.9 |
|
Grand Meadow |
549 |
490 |
-10.7 |
364 |
-25.7 |
338 |
-7.1 |
344 |
1.8 |
|
Lansing |
2,101 |
1,828 |
-13.0 |
1,558 |
-14.8 |
1,270 |
-18.5 |
1,292 |
1.7 |
|
LeRoy |
510 |
446 |
-12.5 |
422 |
-5.4 |
392 |
-7.1 |
396 |
1.0 |
|
Lodi |
451 |
408 |
-9.5 |
309 |
-24.3 |
267 |
-13.6 |
249 |
-6.7 |
|
Lyle |
584 |
511 |
-12.5 |
500 |
-2.2 |
419 |
-16.2 |
402 |
-4.1 |
|
Marshall |
515 |
478 |
-7.2 |
411 |
-14.0 |
387 |
-5.8 |
382 |
-1.3 |
|
Nevada |
557 |
482 |
-13.5 |
467 |
-3.1 |
391 |
-16.3 |
353 |
-9.7 |
|
Pleasant Valley |
399 |
375 |
-6.0 |
328 |
-12.5 |
292 |
-11.0 |
308 |
5.5 |
|
Racine |
521 |
383 |
-26.5 |
483 |
26.1 |
527 |
9.1 |
445 |
-15.6 |
|
Red Rock |
1,019 |
968 |
-5.0 |
872 |
-9.9 |
754 |
-13.5 |
715 |
-5.2 |
|
Sargeant |
461 |
402 |
-12.8 |
338 |
-15.9 |
271 |
-19.8 |
316 |
16.6 |
|
Udolpho |
595 |
577 |
-3.0 |
535 |
-7.3 |
487 |
-9.0 |
458 |
-6.0 |
|
Waltham |
626 |
553 |
-11.7 |
477 |
-13.7 |
391 |
-18.0 |
416 |
6.4 |
|
Windom |
757 |
747 |
-1.3 |
657 |
-12.0 |
589 |
-10.4 |
640 |
8.7 |
|
TOTALS |
14,963 |
13,418 |
|
11,717 |
|
10,019 |
|
9,590 |
|
|
% TOT CP POP |
30.9 |
29.9 |
|
29.0 |
|
26.8 |
|
24.8 |
|
|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau |
|||||||||
1.14.2 - Household Composition
A national trend has also had an affect on population trends, that being the general shrinking of household size attributable in part to lifestyle changes and, in rural areas, to declining employment opportunities. Mower County lost 23% of its population between 1960 and 1990 with a substantial part of that decline attributable to Austin. An increase in basic employment allowed the county to grow by 3.3% in the 1990’s.
The number of households in Mower County increased very modestly by 59 during the 1980’s. In spite of this growth, the population deceased by 3,005 due to shrinking household size. According to the 2000 Census the number of households in the County increased substantially between 1990 and 2000 by 554. The number of people per household declined from 2.65 in 1980 to 2.44 in 1990 and continued to decrease through 2000 to 2.42.
Household composition has changed in the County with approximately an 8% decrease in married couples with children and a 14% increase in non-family households between 1990 and 2000. The most significant change during this time was a 57% increase in male households.
The Types of Households in Mower County, Minnesota in 2005-2007
|
The Types of House-holds in Mower County in 2005-2007
|
Married-couple families |
50% |
|
|||
|
Other families |
15% |
|
||||
|
People living alone |
28%
|
|
||||
|
Other nonfamily households |
7% |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||
For people reporting one race alone, 95 percent was White; 1 percent was Black or African American; less than 0.5 percent was American Indian and Alaska Native; 2 percent was Asian; less than 0.5 percent was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 2 percent was Some other race. One percent reported Two or more races. Seven percent of the people in Mower County was Hispanic. Eighty-nine percent of the people in Mower County were White non-Hispanic. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
| Races in Mower County, Minnesota: | ||
| White Non-Hispanic (93.0%) | ||
| Hispanic (4.3%) | ||
| Other race (2.2%) | ||
| Two or more races (0.9%) | ||
| Vietnamese (0.6%) | ||
| Black (0.6%) | ||
| (Total can be greater than 100% because Hispanics could be counted in other races) | ||
| Median resident age: | 38.9 years | |
| Minnesota median age: | 35.4 years | |
| Males: 19,008 | (49.2%) | |
| Females: 19,595 | (50.8%) | |
| Average wage per job in 2003: $29,809 | ||
| County population in 2003: 38,859 | ||
| Jobs in 2003: 17,148 | ||
Household type by relationship
Households: 37,745
- In family households: 31,690 (8,630 male householders, 1,795 female householders) 8,537 spouses, 10,893 children (9,996 natural, 246 adopted, 651 stepchildren), 267 grandchildren, 269 brothers or sisters, 162 parents, 323 other relatives, 814 non-relatives
- In nonfamily households: 6,055 (2,288 male householders (1,815 living alone)), 2,893 female householders (2,730 living alone)), 874 nonrelatives
- In group quarters: 858 (603 institutionalized population)
Size of family households: 5,016 2-persons, 1,981 3-persons, 1,921 4-persons, 1,018 5-persons, 296 6-persons, 193 7-or-more-persons.
Size of nonfamily households: 4,545 1-person, 532 2-persons, 42 3-persons, 46 4-persons, 12 5-persons, 4 6-persons.
Language Skills
92.8% of residents of Mower County speak English at home.
4.3% of residents speak Spanish at home (43% speak English very well, 21% speak English well, 23% speak English not well, 13% don't speak English at all).
1.8% of residents speak other Indo-European language at home (76% speak English very well, 15% speak English well, 6% speak English not well, 4% don't speak English at all).
0.8% of residents speak Asian or Pacific Island language at home (32% speak English very well, 24% speak English well, 30% speak English not well, 13% don't speak English at all).
0.3% of residents speak other language at home (75% speak English very well, 25% speak English well).
1.14.3 Age Trends and Distribution
The County’s population has aged consistent with national trends. It had a median age of 27.9 years in 1950 and has aged by over eleven years since then. The age distribution has also changed rather significantly since 1970 when 29.6% of the County’s population was between five and 17 years of age. In 1990 and 2000, only 19.0% of the population fell in that age group.
The 25 to 44 age group decreased from 26.6% to 25.7% attributable to the aging of the baby boom generation. What was not expected was the decrease in the 65 and over age group.
Generally speaking, Cities have a much higher percentage of their population in the over 65 age group (20.1%) than the Townships (13.2%) while the Townships have a somewhat higher percentage of their population in the 45 to 54 age group (14.0%) than the Cities (11.2%).
Mower County, Minnesota
|
Population, 2008 |
37,859 |
5,220,393 |
|
Population, percent change, April 1, 200 to July1, 2008 |
-1.9% |
6.1% |
|
Population base April1, 2000 |
38,604 |
4,919,492 |
|
Persons under 5 years old, percent 2008 |
7.0% |
6.9% |
|
Persons under 18 years old, percent 2008 |
24.3% |
24.0% |
POPULATION OF MOWER COUNTY: From 2005-2007, Mower County had a total population of 38,000 – 19,000 (51%) females and 19,000 (49%) males. The median age was 39.5 years. Twenty-five percent of the population was under 18 years and 10% was 65 years and older.
|
MOWER COUNTY MEDIAN AGE |
|
|
1950 |
27.9 |
|
1960 |
27.4 |
|
1970 |
29.3 |
|
1980 |
33.9 |
|
1990 |
37.4 |
|
2000 |
38.9 |
|
2007 |
39.5 |
|
Source: 1950-2000 – U.S. Census Bureau |
|
|
Source: 2005-2007 – American Community Survey |
|
1.14.4 - Housing Mix and Tenure Trends
According to 1990 Census data, housing in Mower County (excluding Austin) is predominantly single-family with 93.6% of the stock consisting of single-family and mobile homes. Only 250 or 4.2% are classified as multi-family units having between three and 19 units, with virtually all of these being located in cities.
Housing is predominantly owner-occupied with 84.5% of occupied units outside of Austin being so classified in 1990. More than 70% of the renter occupied housing stock outside of Austin consists of single-family homes.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: From 2005-2007, Mower County had a total of 17,000 housing units, 8 percent of which were vacant. Of the total housing units, 82 percent was in single-unit structures, 15 percent was in multi-unit structures, and 3 percent was mobile homes. Thirteen percent of the housing units were built since 1990.
The Types of Housing Units in Mower County, Minnesota in 2005-2007
|
|
Single-unit structures |
82% |
|
||
|
In multi-unit structures |
15% |
|
|||
|
Mobile homes |
3% |
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
Percent of housing units
Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2007
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS: From 2005-2007, Mower County had 16,000 occupied housing units - 12,000 (78 percent) owner occupied and 3,400 (22%) renter occupied. Five percent of the households did not have telephone service and 6% of the households did not have access to a car, truck, or van for private use. Multi-vehicle households were not rare. Forty-one percent had two vehicles and another 23% had three or more.
| People in group quarters in Mower County, Minnesota | |
| 481 people in nursing homes | |
| 196 people in homes for the mentally retarded | |
| 57 people in religious group quarters | |
| 36 people in residential treatment centers for emotionally disturbed children | |
| 35 people in local jails and other confinement facilities (including police lockups) | |
| 31 people in wards in general hospitals for patients who have no usual home elsewhere | |
| 18 people in other non-institutional group quarters | |
| 2 people in homes or halfway houses for drug/alcohol abuse | |
The overall housing vacancy rate is about average at 4.1% but there are rather substantial vacancies in excess of 10% in several of the Townships and smaller Cities. This is attributable to an agricultural economy that is under stress and/or farming of more acres utilizing less manpower.
|
Dwellings |
Mower County |
Minnesota |
United States |
|
Vacant |
3.93% |
11.7% |
12.36 |
|
Owner Occupied |
70.92% |
68.22% |
59.23% |
|
Renter -occupied |
25.15% |
20.6% |
28.41% |
In 2003 the Mower County Assessors office tabulated home sales for the county. The City of Austin had 427 sales with an average value of $92,855. The other cities had 98 sales with an average value of $66,000. The townships had 42 sales with an average value of $99,500. The total sales for the county in 2003 were 567 with an average value of $88,705.
Mean price in 2007:
|
In 3-to-4-unit structures: $116,836
|
In 5-or-more-unit structures: $109,555
|
$116,836
|
Mobile homes: $25,321
|
Occupied boats, RVs, vans, etc.: $37,500
|
Median
monthly housing costs for homes and condos with a mortgage: $1,273
Median monthly housing costs for units without a mortgage: $286
|
Institutionalized population: 583 Detached houses: $175,402
|
Townhouses or other attached units: $172,309
|
In 2-unit structures: $145,053
|
Here: |
|
|
State: |
|
HOUSING COSTS: The median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was $976, non-mortgaged owners $330, and renters $533. Twenty-six percent of owners with mortgages, 14 percent of owners without mortgages, and 41 percent of renters in Mower County spent 30 percent or more of household income on housing for 2005-2007.
Mower County’s total employment grew rapidly until 1950 in large part paralleling the growth of the George A. Hormel Company, which comprised a substantial proportion of the total labor force in 1943 (perhaps as much as 40%). As the Company expanded geographically, beginning in the 1940’s, slowing employment growth in Austin, total County employment leveled off at around 16,600 jobs where it has remained through 1990. Hormel comprised just 14% of the work force in 1980 and 11% in 1990. On the other hand, Quality Pork (QPP) began to operate in a portion of the Hormel plant in 1989 and has grown to approximately 700 employees since.
Manufacturing employment continued to grow but very slowly between 1960 and 1970 while agricultural employment declined significantly. Between 1970 and 1980, manufacturing employment declined while agriculture remained stable. From 1980 to 1990, both manufacturing and agricultural employment decreased in number and percent of total employment. The primary areas of employment growth from 1960 to 1990 were services, wholesale and retail sales. It is substantially because of the erosion in basic industrial employment that the population of Mower County decreased from 1960 to 2000.
DISABILITY: In Mower County, among people at least five years old from 2005-2007, 18% reported a disability. The likelihood of having a disability varied by age - from 8% of people 5 to 15 years old, to 14% of people 16 to 64 years old, and to 40% of those 65 and older.
INDUSTRIES: From 2005-2007, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading industries in Mower County were Educational services, and health care, and social assistance, 25%, and Manufacturing, 22%.
Employment by Industry in Mower County, Minnesota in 2005-2007
Employment in 2007 was divided as White-Collar – 14,712 and Blue-Collar – 4,203
Percent of employed people 16 years and over Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2007
|
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining |
|
|
Construction |
7% |
|
Manufacturing |
22% |
|
Wholesale trade |
|
|
Retail trade |
|
|
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities |
3% |
|
Information |
|
|
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing |
|
|
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services |
|
|
Educational services, health care, and social assistance |
|
|
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, and food services |
|
|
Other Services (except public administration) |
|
|
Public administration |
|
TRAVEL TO WORK
Seventy-eight percent of Mower County workers drove to work alone from 2005-2007, 8% carpooled, 3% took public transportation, and 6% used other means. The remaining 5% worked at home. Among those who commuted to work, it took them on average 18.2 minutes to get to work.
Like most of greater Minnesota, household income for Mower County lagged behind that of the State in 1989. The median income for a household in the county in 2008 was $36,654, and the median income for a family was $45,154. Males had a median income of $31,743 versus $23,317 for females. The per capita income for the county was $19,795. About 6.30% of families and 9.20% of the population were below the poverty line, including 11.30% of those under age 18 and 5.60% of that age 65 or over. Seventy-three percent of the households received earnings and 20% received retirement income other than Social Security. Thirty-six percent of the households received Social Security. The average income from Social Security was $14,267. These income sources are not mutually exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than one source.
POVERTY AND PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: From 2005-2007, 12% of people were in poverty. Fifteen percent of related children under 18 were below the poverty level, compared with 10% of people 65 years old and over. Nine percent of all families and 34% of families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the poverty level.
| Table 19 | ||||
| Household Income - 1989 | ||||
| Minnesota | Mower County | |||
| Income | Households | % | Households | % |
| Less than $5000 | 72,190 | 4.4 | 778 | 5.2 |
| 5,000-9,999 | 155,847 | 9.5 | 1,694 | 11..3 |
| 10,000-14,999 | 141,255 | 8.6 | 2,065 | 13.8 |
| 15,000-24,999 | 289,134 | 17.5 | 3,342 | 22.3 |
| 25,000-34,999 | 273,729 | 16.6 | 2,715 | 18.1 |
| 35,000-49,999 | 325,530 | 19.7 | 2,525 | 16.9 |
| 50,000-74,999 | 256,771 | 15.6 | 1,305 | 8.7 |
| 75,000-99,999 | 74,782 | 4.5 | 351 | 2.3 |
| 100,000-149,999 | 38,185 | 2.3 | 134 | .9 |
| 150,000 or More | 21,402 | 1.3 | 75 | .5 |
| Total Households | 1,648,825 | 100.0 | 14,984 | 100.0 |
| Median Household Income | $30,909 | $23,763 | ||
| Source: U.S. Census Bereau | ||||
Average household size: 2008
Mower County 2.4 people
Minnesota 2.5 people
Estimated median household income in 2008 ($36,654 in 1999)
Mower County $43,415
Minnesota $55,802
|
2005 |
Person |
Family Income |
2006 |
Persons |
Family Income |
2007 |
Persons |
Family Income |
|
Totals |
5,129 |
74,941 |
Totals |
5,149 |
$78,938 |
Totals |
5,190 |
79,993 |
|
NO INCOME |
|
|
NO INCOME |
|
|
NO INCOME |
27 |
0 |
|
$1 TO $2,499 |
|
|
$1 TO $2,499 |
|
|
$1 TO $2,499 |
25 |
1,234 |
|
$2,500 to $4,999 |
17 |
3,587 |
$2,500 to $4,999 |
74 |
8,243 |
$2,500 to $4,999 |
42 |
4,101 |
|
$5,000 to $7,499 |
57 |
5,654 |
$5,000 to $7,499 |
|
|
$5,000 to $7,499 |
32 |
6,162 |
|
$7,500 to $9,999 |
46 |
8,725 |
$7,500 to $9,999 |
92 |
10,424 |
$7,500 to $9,999 |
65 |
7,780 |
|
$10,000 to $12,499 |
86 |
11,061 |
$10,000 to $12,499 |
74 |
12,474 |
$10,000 to $12,499 |
79 |
11,225 |
|
$12,500 to $14,999 |
88 |
13,007 |
$12,500 to $14,999 |
97 |
15,786 |
$12,500 to $14,999 |
57 |
12,791 |
|
$15,000 to $17,499 |
101 |
15,715 |
$15,000 to $17,499 |
103 |
15,886 |
$15,000 to $17,499 |
99 |
13,497 |
|
$17,500 to $19,999 |
65 |
18,099 |
$17,500 to $19,999 |
111 |
19,520 |
$17,500 to $19,999 |
92 |
18,556 |
|
$20,000 to $22,499 |
99 |
19,241 |
$20,000 to $22,499 |
86 |
21,236 |
$20,000 to $22,499 |
100 |
19,465 |
|
$22,500 to $24,999 |
103 |
22,247 |
$22,500 to $24,999 |
110 |
23,574 |
$22,500 to $24,999 |
91 |
22,932 |
|
$25,000 to $27,499 |
151 |
24,371 |
$25,000 to $27,499 |
105 |
28,340 |
$25,000 to $27,499 |
138 |
24,909 |
|
$27,500 to $29,999 |
89 |
28,574 |
$27,500 to $29,999 |
116 |
29,377 |
$27,500 to $29,999 |
86 |
25,717 |
|
$30,000 to $32,499 |
105 |
29,026 |
$30,000 to $32,499 |
105 |
32,163 |
$30,000 to $32,499 |
145 |
29,259 |
|
$32,500 to $34,999 |
89 |
32,866 |
$32,500 to $34,999 |
91 |
32,969 |
$32,500 to $34,999 |
84 |
30,666 |
|
$35,000 to $37,499 |
119 |
34,506 |
$35,000 to $37,499 |
62 |
36,501 |
$35,000 to $37,499 |
96 |
32,287 |
|
$37,500 to $39,999 |
90 |
36,361 |
$37,500 to $39,999 |
133 |
38,285 |
$37,500 to $39,999 |
79 |
36,577 |
|
$40,000 to $42,499 |
113 |
38,812 |
$40,000 to $42,499 |
76 |
40,802 |
$40,000 to $42,499 |
154 |
36,810 |
|
$42,500 to $44,999 |
129 |
39,938 |
$42,500 to $44,999 |
109 |
42,551 |
$42,500 to $44,999 |
104 |
40,283 |
|
$45,000 to $47,499 |
97 |
41,755 |
$45,000 to $47,499 |
87 |
47,237 |
$45,000 to $47,499 |
91 |
41,531 |
|
$47,500 to $49,999 |
110 |
42,189 |
$47,500 to $49,999 |
144 |
43,691 |
$47,500 to $49,999 |
66 |
46,302 |
|
$50,000 to $52,499 |
127 |
50,244 |
$50,000 to $52,499 |
106 |
53,615 |
$50,000 to $52,499 |
127 |
48,156 |
|
$52,500 to $54,999 |
119 |
48,196 |
$52,500 to $54,999 |
138 |
51,457 |
$52,500 to $54,999 |
83 |
48,400 |
|
$55,000 to $57,499 |
144 |
51,790 |
$55,000 to $57,499 |
115 |
54,466 |
$55,000 to $57,499 |
88 |
51,929 |
|
$57,500 to $59,999 |
73 |
55,690 |
$57,500 to $59,999 |
135 |
52,927 |
$57,500 to $59,999 |
84 |
54,060 |
|
$60,000 to $62,499 |
140 |
58,008 |
$60,000 to $62,499 |
103 |
62,746 |
$60,000 to $62,499 |
165 |
51,372 |
|
$62,500 to $64,999 |
108 |
54,870 |
$62,500 to $64,999 |
133 |
64,093 |
$62,500 to $64,999 |
57 |
57,997 |
|
$65,000 to $67,499 |
115 |
58,718 |
$65,000 to $67,499 |
59 |
66,392 |
$65,000 to $67,499 |
139 |
63,780 |
|
$67,500 to $69,999 |
80 |
62,986 |
$67,500 to $69,999 |
112 |
68,956 |
$67,500 to $69,999 |
92 |
64,057 |
|
$70,000 to $72,499 |
150 |
65,271 |
$70,000 to $72,499 |
110 |
71,567 |
$70,000 to $72,499 |
136 |
66,838 |
|
$72,500 to $74,999 |
88 |
70,313 |
$72,500 to $74,999 |
97 |
72,959 |
$72,500 to $74,999 |
57 |
70,419 |
|
$75,000 to $77,499 |
123 |
69,412 |
$75,000 to $77,499 |
87 |
74,070 |
$75,000 to $77,499 |
120 |
72,842 |
|
$77,500 to $79,999 |
69 |
74,578 |
$77,500 to $79,999 |
92 |
80,417 |
$77,500 to $79,999 |
128 |
77,884 |
|
$80,000 to $82,499 |
129 |
74,193 |
$80,000 to $82,499 |
104 |
74,517 |
$80,000 to $82,499 |
74 |
74,234 |
|
$82,500 to $84,999 |
90 |
76,837 |
$82,500 to $84,999 |
83 |
78,464 |
$82,500 to $84,999 |
93 |
78,010 |
|
$85,000 to $87,499 |
83 |
85,535 |
$85,000 to $87,499 |
54 |
78,420 |
$85,000 to $87,499 |
78 |
80,115 |
|
$87,500 to $89,999 |
83 |
83,889 |
$87,500 to $89,999 |
82 |
79,525 |
$87,500 to $89,999 |
72 |
76,496 |
|
$90,000 to $92,499 |
99 |
89,970 |
$90,000 to $92,499 |
53 |
85,373 |
$90,000 to $92,499 |
94 |
81,214 |
|
$92,500 to $94,999 |
82 |
89,532 |
$92,500 to $94,999 |
90 |
90,527 |
$92,500 to $94,999 |
51 |
84,441 |
|
$95,000 to $97,499 |
90 |
95,967 |
$95,000 to $97,499 |
49 |
94,752 |
$95,000 to $97,499 |
62 |
93,615 |
|
$97,500 to $99,999 |
36 |
98,746 |
$97,500 to $99,999 |
1,468 |
157,859 |
$97,500 to $99,999 |
43 |
76,837 |
|
$100,000 and over |
1,304 |
152,325 |
$100,000 and over |
|
|
$100,000 and over |
1,596 |
155,002 |
Source: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2008
Since the early settlement days, agriculture has been a predominant land use in Mower County. Although the county has seen some rural development along with urban expansion, agriculture is still the predominant land use. In 1987, 404,238 acres, or about 90% of its total land area, was in a farm. While it represented only 7.8% of all jobs in 1990, agriculture is the heart of the past, present and future economy.
Generally speaking, the average number of farms in Minnesota has been declining while the average size of farms has been increasing. In 1981, there were approximately 104,000 farms with an average size of 292 acres. In 1997, there were 73,367 farms averaging 354 acres in size. From 1987 to 1997, the amount of agricultural land in Minnesota diminished by 579,198 acres, a 2.2% loss.
The county has witnessed an overall decline in the number of livestock farms from 1987 to 1997. Although there was a 42% decrease in the number of hog and pig operations, the number of livestock increased 22%, indicating a significant trend toward larger and fewer operators in this livestock industry. Mower County ranked 14th in the state for overall hog and pig production.
Agriculture in Mower County in 2007
· Average size of farms: 379 acres
· Average value of agricultural products sold per farm: $164,229
· Average value of crops sold per acre for harvested cropland: $284.07
· The value of livestock, poultry, and their products as a percentage of the total market value of agricultural products sold: 40.97%
· Average total farm production expenses per farm: $137,437
· Harvested cropland as a percentage of land in farms: 90.08%
· Irrigated harvested cropland as a percentage of land in farms: 0.25%
· Average market value of all machinery and equipment per farm: $115,300
· The percentage of farms operated by a family or individual.
· Minnesota is ranked highly among the states in several areas of production:
· First in sugar beets, turkeys, and green peas for processing
· Second in canola, spring wheat, oats and sweet corn for processing
· Third in soybeans, hogs and pigs, and American cheese, dry edible beans, and flaxseed
· Fourth in corn and sunflowers
· Fifth in total cheese and mink pelts
In 2007, the state was home to approximately 79,000 farms totaling 27.4 million acres, for an average acreage of 347.
Farm Numbers and Average Size (1985-2007)
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Minnesota 2008 Agricultural Statistics
· Average age of principal farm operators: 51 years
· Average number of cattle and calves per 100 acres of all land in farms: 5.99
· Milk cows as a percentage of all cattle and calves: 21.75%
· Corn for grain: 173,874 harvested acres
· All wheat for grain: 572 harvested acre
· Soybeans for beans: 169,278 harvested acres
· Vegetables: 12,557 harvested acres
The following information is from the Unites States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture, County Profile.
|
|
2007 |
2002 |
% change |
|
Number of Farms |
1,088 |
1,088 |
0 |
|
Land in Farms |
419,889 acres |
412,145 acres |
+ 2 |
|
Average Size of Farm |
386 acres |
379 acres |
+ 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Value of Products Sold |
$287,603,000 |
$178,681,000 |
+ 61 |
|
Crop Sales $166,424,000 (58%) |
|
|
|
|
Livestock Sales $121,179,000 (42%) |
|
|
|
|
Average Per Farm Reporting Sales |
$264,341 |
$164,229 |
+ 61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government Payments |
$7,847,000 |
$6,693,000 |
+ 17 |
|
Average Per Farm Receiving Payments |
$9,784 |
$10,203 |
- 4 |
1.15 Infrastructure
1.15.1 - Highways, Roads and Bridges
Where railroads once interconnected all of the County’s Cities and Villages, they have been almost replaced by highways. Those cities that are fortunate enough to be located on a State highway have generally fared better economically than those that are located on lesser roadways.
Mower County has a number of major highways including Interstate #90, Interstate #35, U.S. Trunk Highways 218 and 63, and State Trunk Highways 105, 56, 251 and 16. None of them are operating at anything near capacity. All of the remainder of the County system (404.7 miles) is comprised of County Roads and County State Aid Highways (CSAH), which are also operating well within capacity. Most are paved (87%) two lane roadways having a surface width of 22 to 24 feet. Some of these carry between 500 and 1,000 cars per day but most carry much less traffic.
Mower County projects to get share of stimulus
With transportation funding from the federal stimulus package now available, Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced Thursday 60 state highway projects, including at least three in Mower County, that are slated to begin construction in Greater Minnesota as early as this spring. Stimulus funds targeted for the Greater Minnesota highway construction, paving, bridge and safety projects totals $180 million.
In southeast Minnesota, MN/DOT District 6, the stimulus projects include:
• Interstate 90 (Olmsted and Mower Counties) -Mill and overlay on eastbound lanes from 2.5 miles east of Mower County Road 1 to about one mile east of Hwy. 63
• Interstate 90 (Mower County) -Replace overpass under the I-90 westbound off-ramp near the junction of Highway 218 (Austin). This project will be staged with Turtle Creek and Dobbin Creek replacements currently in 2009 regular construction season.
• Highway 218 (Mower County) - Install four railroad gates at crossing on Highway 218 about a mile and a half north of Austin.
• Interstate 90 (Freeborn County) - Overlay on westbound lanes and a concrete overlay on eastbound lanes from the west limits of Alden to Highway 13.
Source: Austin Daily Herald, February 27, 2009.
The only other categories of roads are those that are termed “local”. These gravel Township roads primarily follow section lines, providing direct access to farmsteads.
According to a recent needs study conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Department, upgrading of the present County State Aid Highway System to nine-ton capacity would cost $66 million (1986 dollars not adjusted for inflation), excluding local County roads. Furthermore, all bridges are owned by the County, and 75 are classified as deficient. The estimated cost to replace deficient bridges is another $12 million.
Generally speaking, the county roadway system is not in need of expansion. It is however, in need of substantial rehabilitation and reconstruction at a cost that greatly exceeds the County’s available resources.
Major Highways
| Interstate 90 | Minnesota State Highway 16 | ||
| U.S. Highway 63 | Minnesota State Highway 56 | ||
| U.S. Highway 218 | Minnesota State Highway 105 |
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Statistics
Number of bridges: 51
Total length: 228 meters (748ft)
Total costs: $7,030,000
Total average daily traffic: 392,219
Total average daily truck traffic: 33,687
NEW BRIDGES
1930-1939: 11
1940-1949: 0
1950-1959: 23
1960-1969: 8
1970-1979: 3
1980-1989: 1
1990-1999: 3
2000-2009: 2 See Full National Bridge Inventory Statistics for Austin, MN
With transportation funding from the federal stimulus package now available, Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced 60 state highway projects, including at least three in Mower County, that are slated to begin construction in Greater Minnesota as early as this spring. Stimulus funds targeted for the Greater Minnesota highway construction, paving, bridge and safety projects totals $180 million.
The Austin Municipal Airport is classified as a General Utility Airport serving a variety of business and personal aircraft. The Austin Airport has gone through a major expansion and upgrade of the airport facilities. More information will be supplied by the City of Austin. Austin’s airport currently accommodates corporate jets with a 4,800 foot runway, and plans are underway to expand to 6,500 feet..
Though a tremendous asset, there are issues related to the Airport, most notable noise and safety. Some land uses are not compatible with take-off and landing zones. Obstructions to airspace are also of concern. In January of 1978, an Airport Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Austin-Mower County Joint Airport Zoning Board, which regulates obstructions to airspace and land use safety. It defines airspace zones for the purpose of airspace protection and land use safety zones within which land use is carefully regulated. Permitted uses include agriculture, non-spectator recreation, wildlife habitat, cemeteries and automobile parking. Austin Municipal Airport is located in the state of Minnesota (county of Mower), at latitude N 43.66469, longitude W -92.93352 (also known as lat-long or GPS coordinates).
Austin Municipal Airport Geographical Survey map USGS Austin East quad.
The nearest major town is Nicolville. .
· Single Engine Aircrafts: 20
· Other services: INSTR,RNTL,SALES Remarks
· Lighting Schedule: HIRL RY 17/35 PRESET LOW INTST; TO INCR INTST & ACTVT REIL RY 17, MALSR RY 35 & PAPI RYS 17 & 35 - CTAF. Runway 1 General ID: '17/35,
· Length: 5800 ft, Width: 100 ft,
· Runway Surface Type Condition: Portland cement concrete, Good condition,
· Runway Weight Bearing Capacity: Single Wheel: 14,000 lbs, Dual Wheel: 19,000 lbs,
· Edge Lights Intensity: High Base End
· Base End ID: '17, True Alignment: 172,
· Right Traffic Pattern: No,
· Runway Markings Type: Precision instrument,
· Markings Condition: Poor,
· Physical GPS (Degrees): Lat: 43° 40' 13.850'', Lng: -92° 56' 03.945'',
· Physical GPS (Seconds): Lat: 43.670514, Lng: -92.934429,
· Physical Elevation: 1231 ft,
· Threshold Crossing Height: 41.0 ft,
· Glide Path Angle: 0.03 °,
· Elevation At Touchdown Zone: 1231.0 ft,
· Visual Glide Slope Indicators: P4L,
· Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL): Yes,
· Controlling Object Description: TREES, FAA
The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, the Chicago Great Western, the Illinois Central, the Winona and Southwestern and the Southern Minnesota Railroads were their original names. Today, the cities remain but their progenitor is all but gone. Just Austin and Lyle are currently served by the Soo Line rail. I&M Rail Link serves Austin and six carriers offer truck transportation services
First the automobile and then the truck began to compete with rail for passengers and product. Highways were subsidized by the Federal government during most of the 20th century much as rail had been favored during the late 19th century. Since the 1930’s, pipelines, aviation and telecommunications have also taken their toll on rail service. The auto and truck will continue to be the predominant mode of transit in the foreseeable future, especially in rural areas of Mower County.
Mower County, Minnesota Compiled by M. J. Camp, Railroad Station Historical Society, Inc
|
City |
Railroad |
Current Location |
Type |
Current Use |
Date Built |
Track Status |
Bldg. Mat. |
Current Railroad |
Notes |
|
Austin |
CMStP&P |
4th Ave. NE |
C |
State License Bureau |
1941 |
in use |
brick |
ICE |
restored, Field checked 10/08 |
|
Austin |
CMStP&P |
Relocated at Mower County Fairgrounds off 12th St. SW |
C |
Museum |
1886 |
none |
wood |
None |
depot from Oakland, moved 1964, labeled Milwaukee Junction, Field checked 10/08 |
|
Austin |
Iowa Chicago & Eastern |
1.5 blocks south of CMStP&P depot |
F |
Rr |
newer |
in use |
metal prefab |
ICE |
Field checked 5/06 |
|
Brownsdale |
CMStP&P |
relocated to southwest corner of Fremont/Johnson |
C |
garden storage |
|
none |
wood |
None |
bay window removed, Field checked 10/08 |
|
Dexter |
CMStP&P |
Main St. |
C |
Bar |
|
gone |
wood |
None |
highly modified, unrecognizable from outside, Field checked 7/06 |
|
Oakland |
CMStP&P |
moved to Austin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
The Austin/Mower County Area Transit (AMCAT) provides transportation to Austin and Surrounding area residents with a fleet of eight buses. Rides are available between 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on weekdays, and on Saturdays from 9:00 to 5:00. In addition, a work route serves Austin’s largest employers during three separate daily periods. AMCAT is a Joint Powers Board made up of two Mower County Commissioners, two Austin City Council members, and a private citizen who serves as the Chair. AMCAT has acquired property in downtown Austin and has constructed a transit hub in 2005 with the aid of a federal grant.
|
2008 Achievements: |
|
| Increased ridership. | |
| Moved into a new permanent facility. | |
| Provided transit service in an expanded area of Mower County. | |
|
2009 Objectives: |
|
| Increase ridership. | |
| Continue renovation of transit facility. | |
| Continue to expand service within the rural areas of Mower County. | |
| 2010-2015 Long-Range Plans: | |
| Implement strategic planning. | |
| Provide better service to rural areas. | |
| Promote transit service within the entire county area. | |
The Mower County Senior Center also provides transportation to residents by means of its Volunteer Driver program. This service is most often utilized by frail elderly, rural residents, and persons needing to go to medical appointments in Rochester. Approximately twenty-five volunteers provide this service in exchange for mileage reimbursement.
Dial-A-Ride Dial-A-Ride is a service from AMCAT. It is designed to serve riders with special needs by providing home pickup service which drops them off directly at their destination in Mower County. Dial-A-Ride can take you directly from your home to the grocery store, appointments, or anywhere you need to go!
| Dial-A-Ride is designed to assist the following AMCAT riders: | |
| Disabled/handicapped customers | |
| Seniors who have difficulty getting to bus stops | |
| Anyone who lives more than 4 blocks from a regular AMCAT route | |
1.15.5 - Public Libraries
AUSTIN PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Austin Public Library is located in Austin. It includes 11,300 square feet and over 87,000 titles, 4,633 audio materials; 3,266 video materials; and 319 serial subscriptions. It has branch libraries in the Cities of Grand Meadow, LeRoy and Brownsdale. The Austin/Mower County Bookmobile operates from the Austin Public Library and services the entire County. Lyle also has a small library (3,500 volumes) that is unrelated to the Austin system.
Computers Services at the Library
The library’s computers provide patrons with Internet access and Microsoft Office 2003 programs (Word, Excel, Access, and PowerPoint). There are 11 computer stations available in the computer lab. Three Express work stations and one Adaptive station are located near the Information Desk. There are six computers in the Children's Department for children under 12 to use. Two networked laser printers are available to all stations. Black and white printouts are 10 cents each and color printouts are 50 cents each. Library staff can provide basic assistance in helping patrons get started with using the computers. If further assistance is required, please ask the Information Desk staff about upcoming educational opportunities.
· Interlibrary Loans
Materials not owned by the library may often be borrowed from another SELCO regional library. Patrons' library cards in good standing are honored by SELCO libraries and by most Minnesota public libraries. Regional materials can be requested through the SELCO Catalog. To request materials not owned by any SELCO regional library, patrons in good standing can use the MnLINK statewide library system. For further assistance in requesting materials, please call the Information Desk at 507-433-2391.
·
Meetings
Two meeting rooms are available for the public's use. The small room seats
up to 15; the large room up to 100. Non-profit groups pay no fee during
regular library hours. For-profit groups pay $10 per hour ($25 minimum) for
the large room and $5 per hour ($10 minimum) for the small room. The library
must be notified at least 48 hours in advance if a meeting is cancelled. The
library director's secretary is the official contact person at the library.
The room seating must be left as shown on the diagram on the wall in either
room. Audio visual equipment is available for a fee. Call the library to
request a meeting room application. Food and beverages may be served in
either room.
· Microfilm Reader and Printer
Two microfilm reader-printers are available for public use. The Austin Daily Herald is available on microfilm from November 1891 to present, plus the Austin Post Bulletin, various county newspapers, census records, naturalization records, and other microfilm pertaining to Mower County.
1.15.6 - Parks, Recreation and Trails
The County currently has no parks; it relies for the most part on its Cities to provide these services. However the County and Prairie Visions and MN DNR are working on a multipurpose recreational trail which when completed with will connect LeRoy and the City of Austin. This trail is the “Shooting Star Trail and has been completed from LeRoy to Rose Creek. The City of Austin is working with Albert Lea on the Blazing Star Trail between the two Cities. Both trails when completed will join in the city of Austin. The County and the snowmobile association maintains an extensive countywide snowmobile trail system consisting of approximately 200 miles of State approved, groomed trails.
Trail Extended in the Fall of 2008 Trail now about 15 miles.
Both ends of the Shooting Star Trail have been extended. At the eastern end, the trail was extended into the city of LeRoy and the Trail Head parking lot-shelter including a restored railroad bridge across the Upper Iowa River. All parts of the shorter rides are entirely on the trail, no travel on city streets or the county highway to start riding. At the western end, the trail has been extended about 5 more miles west from the parking lot and restroom at Taopi along the old Milwaukee Road rail bed through Adams to the city park on the western edge of the city and across the road from the area swimming pool. There is also camping in the city park. Further westward extension of the trail toward Rose Creek is in the engineering phase and hopes are up to see another 7 miles added soon. The final link of about 10 miles to link with the City of Austin system of trails and the Hormel Nature Center is still on the distant horizon.
City of Austin Bike Trails
The Todd Park Bike Trail leaves from the Mill Pond Path. The trail heads east along 8th Avenue NE, then North on the East side of the railroad tracks and then into Todd Park. 2.1 miles in length.
The Cedar River Bike Trail leaves from the Mill Pond Path. This trail follows the Cedar River, winding through Driesner Park and ends at the Bandshell Community Park and Skinner's Hill. 2.1 miles in length.
The East Side Lake Bike Trail leaves the Mill Pond Path and follows 8th Avenue NE to East Side Lake. The trail continues around the lake and follows Oakland Avenue to Driesner Park where it connects to the Cedar Fiver Trail. 2.1 miles in length.
The Mower County Sheriff’s Department was established in the 1850’s and has grown from a one-man department to a one of 38 full-time employees including deputies and civilian personnel. The County also shares 13 dispatchers and one dispatch supervisor with the City of Austin. The Sheriff is elected.
The County Sheriff’s Department shares the Law Enforcement Center with the City of Austin Police Department. The Center is operated by the Law Enforcement Center Commission and is scheduled for limited upgrading/renovation. In the spring of 2009 construction of a new 35-40 million dollar jail/justice center began. It will be located downtown directly across from the current courthouse and scheduled to open July of 2010. In addition to Austin, most of the small Cities also provide police service. Due to a relatively stable population, the County anticipates no increases in police personnel.
The County and Cities will not likely be able to deliver the current level of police protection indefinitely without experiencing service deterioration. More than sufficient evidence already exists to suggest that new ways will have to be found to provide police services in a more efficient manner in the future.
Crime
Mower County, MN, violent crime, on a scale from 1 (low crime) to 10, is 3. Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and no negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The US average is 3.
Mower County, MN, property crime, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10, is 3. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft-type offenses is the taking of money or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The US average is 3.
The Austin Police Department (APD) is currently comprised of 30 sworn personnel, 3 Community Service Officers, the Police Reserves, and the Police Explorers.
Staffing as of January 2003: 1 Chief, 1 Captain, 3 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants/Investigators, 3 Detectives, 18 Patrol Officer, 2 School Liaison Officer. Totaling 30. The department operates with three shifts of 10 hours each, covering 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week.
The APD is housed in the Mower County Law Enforcement Center, which is also the home of the Mower County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD), Mower County Court House, Mower County Jail, Mower County Correctional Services, and Mower County Attorney’s Office. The APD jointly works with the MCSD with the support of the Communications Center (Dispatch). The Communications Center operates under nonsworn personnel, whom direct Law Enforcement Officials, Fire Department Officials, and Emergency Response Personnel to reports throughout the city/county, handle emergency calls, and are responsible for many other duties. The APD is proud to serve the Austin community by Community Policing activities, and works closely with the Austin school system with the help of a 2 School Liaison Officer. The Austin Police Department provides many services to the community. They investigate crime and traffic accidents, respond to medical emergencies and provide educational programs such as: Junior Police, and child safety fingerprinting. They patrol the community day and night trying to prevent crime and keep the city safe. They also have a K-9 Unit. This department is also a member of and participates in the Southeastern Minnesota Drug Task Force. The Austin Police Department is important to the city of Austin in that they are usually the first people who are called if something goes wrong or help is needed. We respond to thousands of calls for service and hundreds of medical emergencies each year.
|
2008 |
AUSTIN |
MINNESOTA |
UNITED STATES |
|
Total Crime Risk |
76 |
84 |
100 |
|
Personal Crime Risk Index |
50 |
59 |
100 |
|
Murder Risk Index |
26 |
41 |
100 |
|
Rape Risk Index |
138 |
113 |
100 |
|
Robbery Risk Index |
10 |
59 |
100 |
|
Assault Risk Index |
43 |
53 |
100 |
|
Property Crime Risk Index |
83 |
89 |
100 |
|
Burglary Risk Index |
62 |
76 |
100 |
|
Larceny Risk Index |
119 |
99 |
100 |
|
Motor Vehicle Theft Risk Index |
12 |
62 |
100 |
Mower County Safe Communities Coalition (MCSCC) exists to keep Mower County residents safe on the road. Current membership includes representatives from Law Enforcement, non-profit agencies, child care, public health (CPS Advocate/Technician), the medical community, parents, youth, business, the City of Austin, area schools, corrections, the county attorney’s office and members of the faith community.
Throughout the past five years of existence, the coalition has utilized multiple strategies in its campaign to increase seat belt use, reduce drunk driving and reduce the number of traffic crashes in Mower County. Strategies for the current grant year include media campaigns, information dissemination, youth-focused activities and community events.
The County and Cities will not likely be able to deliver the current level of police protection indefinitely without experiencing service deterioration. More than sufficient evidence already exists to suggest that new ways will have to be found to provide police services in a more efficient manner in the future.
Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Mower in the State of Minnesota enforced by Mower County from 1985 to 2005
|
Number of Violent Crimes Reported by Mower County by Year and Total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
By 2006, over 15,000 law enforcement agencies submitted crime reports to the FBI, but since not all jurisdictions provide reports there is a possibility that you won't find complete data on some of our agency crime report pages. When a city located in a county starts submitting its own reports, the population assigned to the county is reduced to reflect that fact.
|
Number of Property Crimes Reported by Mower County by Year and Total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UCR Crime Statistics prepared by the: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Knowing the trend of the rate of crime can be an important measure of the social health of our communities. An unusually high rate may be caused by an isolated tragic event, the location of the jurisdiction in an area with a large industrial zone or that serves as a tourist destination, and a low rate may be caused by the assignment of crimes to multiple agencies serving the same area, only one of which can be assigned the population, or an error in the number of crimes reported.
1.16.2 - Fire and Rescue Services
The following fire departments are located in Mower County. Please select a fire department in Mower County to view the details.
|
Adam Volunteer Fire Department |
Austin Fire Department |
|
Brownsdale Volunteer Fire Department |
Dexter Volunteer Fire Department |
|
Grand Meadow Fire & Rescue |
LeRoy Fire Dept |
|
Lyle Fire Department |
Mapleview Fire Dept |
|
Rose Creek Volunteer Fire Department |
|
Fire protection is provided by the Mower County Cities of Adams, Austin, Brownsdale, Dexter, LeRoy, Lyle, Grand Meadow and Rose Creek. It is also serviced by several non-Mower County Cities including Stewartville, Spring Valley, Blooming Prairie, Hayfield and Ostrander. All of these departments service the surrounding Townships via mutual aid agreements. Townships pay for fire service on a per incident flat fee basis. All are volunteer departments except Austin. Austin currently has 10 full-time firefighters and numerous volunteer firefighters.
The County is served by six emergency rescue services, including Austin, Adams, Blooming Prairie, Gold Cross, Hayfield, Grand Meadow and LeRoy. All except Gold Cross are volunteer services. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement are available. All are having difficulties with cost containment and several are in need of costly new equipment. The need most often identified is countywide paging of volunteers.
Existing fire protection is considered to be acceptable for rural areas. Stations must be located where volunteers are most readily available, which is in the Cities, and distances to remote incidents are necessarily lengthy. Except for Austin, fire insurance ratings are generally in the seven to nine ranges, attributable in part to the absence of public water service beyond City limits.
Virtually every department serving Mower County perceives the need for improved facilities, but all have limited resources with which to undertake such improvements. Fire and rescue services are, by nature, exercises in cooperation in rural areas but even more needs to be done to increase efficiency and improve training. The County may appropriately play the roll of facilitator in streamlining fire and rescue services to insure a cost effective level of protection for all of its residents.
Mower County is serviced by Austin Medical Center, a division of Mayo Health Systems. A central hospital is located in the City of Austin, with regional clinics located the towns of Adams, LeRoy, and Grand Meadow.
In addition, the Mower County chapter of the Red Cross is located within the city of Austin. The Red Cross also has several areas throughout the county that may be designated as temporary shelters as needed.
1.17.1 - Strongest AM Radio Stations in Austin
| Call Letters | AM | Power (Kw) | Location | Owner |
| KNFX | 970 | 5 | Austin, MN | Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, INC |
| KAUS | 1480 | 1 | Austin, MN | Three Eagles of Luverne, INC |
| KFAN | 1130 | 50 | Minneapolis, MN | AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC |
| WCTS | 1030 | 50 | Maplewood, MN | Cntl. Bapt, Theo/AL Semi Minnespolis |
| WCCO | 830 | 50 | Minneapolis, MN | Infinity Media Corporation |
| KSTP | 1500 | 50 | St. Paul, MN | KSTP-AM, LLC (Deleware) |
| KOLM | 1520 | 10 | Rochester, MN | Olmsted County Broadcasting Company |
| KTIS | 900 | 25 | Minneapolis, MN | Northwestern College |
| KXEL | 1540 | 50 | Waterloo, IA | KXEL Broadcasting Company, INC |
| KDHL | 920 | 5 | Faribault, MN | Cumulus Licensing Corp. |
| WHO | 1040 | 50 | Des Moines, IA | Citicasters Licenses, L.P. |
| KGLO | 1300 | 5 | Mason City, IA | Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, INC |
| KWEB | 1270 | 5 | Rochester, MN | Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, INC |
1.17.2 - Strongest FM Radio Stations in Austin
| Call Letters | FM | Location | Owner |
| K277AD | 103.3` | Austin, MN | Minnesota Public Radio |
| K280EF | 103.9 | Austin, MN | Minnesota Public Radio |
| KMSK | 91.3 | Austin, MN | Mankato State University |
| K252DM | 98.3 | Austin, MN | Austin Christian Radio |
| KAUS | 99.9 | Austin, MN | Three Eagles of Luverne, Inc |
| KROC | 106.9 | Rochester, MN | Southern Minnesota Broadcasting Co. |
| KYBA | 105.3 | Stewartville, MN | Southern Minnesota Broadcasting Co. |
| KQPR | 96.1 | Albert Lea, MN | Hometown Broadcasting, Inc |
| KLSS | 106.1 | Mason City, IA | Three Eagles of Mason City, Inc |
| KVGO | 104.3 | Spring Valley, MN | KVGO, Inc |
| KCPI | 94.9 | Albert Lea, MN | Three Eagles of Luverne, Inc |
| KBDC | 88.5 | Mason City, IA | American Family Association |
| KSMA | 98.7 | Osage, IA | Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc |
| KJCY | 95.5 | St. Ansgar, IA | Minn-Iowa Christian Broadcasting, Inc |
| KYTC | 102.7 | Northwood, IA | Three Eagles of Mason City, Inc |
1.17.3 - TV Broadcast Stations around Austin
| Call Letters | Channel | Location | Owner |
| KAAL | 6 | Austin, MN | KAAL-TV, Inc |
| KYIN | 24 | Mason City, IA | Iowa Public Broadcasting Board |
| KIMT | 3 | Mason City, IA | Media General Broadcasting of So. Carolina Holdings, Inc. |
| KTTC | 10 | Rochester, MN | KTTC Television, Inc |
| K34DH | 43 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K45DF | 45 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K49DB | 49 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K51CY | 51 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K53DI | 53 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K55FJ | 55 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K61EU | 61 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| K57EU | 57 | Austin, MN | Teleview Systems of Minnesota |
| KSMQ | 15 | Austin, MN | Independent School District #492 |
Adams Monitor Review
LeRoy Independent
Austin Daily Herald
Austin/Rochester Post Bulletin
Mower County Shopper
The County plays no role in the provision of public utility services (sewer and water) to residents. All of the municipalities within Mower County have public water systems with the exception of Taopi where private wells are shared. All but Taopi also provide a public sanitary sewer service. Because urban densities require public utilities, the County is concerned only that the Cities provide such services in the most efficient and cost effective manner consistent with the needs to protect the public’s health and welfare, the environment, commercial agriculture and the rural lifestyle.
The County is directly responsible for the regulation of private on-site utilities in all unincorporated areas of the County and it intends to exercise its regulatory authority in a manner that will limit development in areas that are generally unsuitable for on-site utilities in an effort to protect the public’s welfare.
An energy consortium has proposed the “Green Power Express,” a plan to run high-voltage lines from the Dakotas to Illinois via southern Minnesota. Initial sketches indicate that proposed line would go through Adams, Minn., in Mower County en route to Madison, Wisconsin. Many locals say mega-power line proposals are poor alternatives to a decentralized approach that emphasizes smaller lines and uses existing lines to full capacity. Opponents also question why Minnesota power consumers must pay for a line that would transmit power to population centers outside the state, such as Chicago and Milwaukee. Energy companies say the lines are necessary to bolster power infrastructure in St. Cloud, the Twin Cities and Rochester, and to transmit new renewable energy from where it’s generated in wind-rich western and southeastern Minnesota and the Dakotas. Minnesota utility companies are scrambling to meet a requirement that 25% of energy generated in the state come from renewable sources by 2025.
In 2007 Mower County received $420,000 from a wind-energy
company for road damage during the construction last year of 43 turbines
north of Taopi. County Coordinator Craig Oscarson told the county board on
Tuesday that FPL Energy had agreed to the amount during talks with county
leaders. The payment will cover damage done to county-owned and
county-state-aid roadways, specifically Mower County Road 8, he said. .It's
a typical agreement for wind-farm projects, Oscarson said. Source:
Post-Bulletin)
By
Tim Ruzek, Post-Bulletin, Rochester, Minn
Southeastern Minnesota could benefit from a Michigan company's proposal to
build a nearly $12 billion high-voltage power line through seven states to
better move wind-generated electricity. ITC Holdings Corp., of Novi, Mich.,
unveiled a plan Monday for the 765,000-volt line that would run 3,000 miles,
including across southern Minnesota and using an existing electrical station
in Adams. It appears the line will cut through Mower and Houston counties,
although an exact route hasn't been determined. Source: Post-Bulletin)By
Tim Ruzek, Post-Bulletin, Rochester, Minn. Feb. 11
Dodge, Mower, Olmsted and Goodhue counties all have proposed or existing wind farms, and experts say the proposal would provide a way to bring the power they generate to the places where it's needed. "Transmission is absolutely needed if wind energy is going to continue to develop," said John Garry, executive director for the Development Corp. of Austin & Mower County. “More wind farms in the area are taking shape through agreements with landowners and for purchase of power”, Garry said, but, with transmission lines near capacity, further progress is being delayed.
“The proposed project is good news for those wanting more wind farms”, he said. With its "Green Power Express" project, ITC wants to create a network of transmission lines that would help move 12,000 megawatts of power from wind-abundant areas in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa to Midwest load centers, such as Chicago, southeastern Wisconsin, Minneapolis and other states demanding clean, renewable energy, according to a news release. "The Green Power Express will create the much-needed link between the renewable energy-rich regions of the Midwest and high-demand population centers," said Joseph L. Welch, ITC's chief executive officer and president.
ITC officials say the project would address the recognized lack of electric transmission infrastructure needed to integrate renewable wind energy. “The project could prove controversial because some people are uncomfortable with transmission lines”, Garry said. The Green Power Express transmission project will traverse portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. As ITC keeps working with wind developers and other local utilities in the region to identify their project needs, other lines and stations might be identified for adding to the plans, the company stated. Project officials filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting approval of a revenue requirement formula and incentives for the construction, the first of many regulatory steps needed for overall approval. RES Americas, one of the project's supporters, has meteorological towers in northern Mower County collecting data for potentially building 174 wind turbines. Those turbines would be in five Mower County townships and connected to another proposed wind development in southern Dodge County, an RES Americas official said in September. At that time, RES Americas officials said they hoped the Mower County turbines could be running in three years but noted the process is slow for getting wind farms connected to the power grid.
FEMA funds will help bury power lines in Udolpho Township in Mower County. About 3 inches of ice collected on power lines in the hardest-hit areas of Mower County during a major winter storm in February 2007. For a time, the storm knocked out power to about 2,800 members of Freeborn Mower Cooperative Services. Freeborn Mower needed seven days to finish major restoration, which included fixing power poles and lines grounded by the storm.
Now a $145,125 federal grant connected to that ice storm will help Freeborn Mower in its ongoing effort to put power lines underground to protect them. On Tuesday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency released funds from its hazard-mitigation grant program for Freeborn Mower to bury 3 miles of overhead power lines underground in Udolpho Township in Mower County's northwest corner. Those power lines serve 726 cooperative members in two counties and frequently are damaged by wind and ice storms, according to a FEMA news release.
FEMA will pay for 75 percent of the project, with Freeborn Mower covering the remaining 25 percent, the release says. "This project will ensure the health, safety and welfare of the people who are served by these power lines," stated Janet Odeshoo, acting regional administrator for FEMA Region V. The lines funded by the grant are a "very critical" segment in Udolpho Township because they connect two substations, said Steve Lucas, director of operations for the co-op. The grant will help Freeborn Mower be proactive and improve service to that area, Lucas said. About 95 percent of Freeborn Mower's major work projects every year relate to burying overhead power lines, Lucas said, which has been on ongoing effort since likely the early 1990s.
Lucas estimated about 35 percent of the co-op's power lines now are underground. Probably about 15 miles of lines are buried every year, with a focus first on areas with problems, he said. Based in Albert Lea, Freeborn Mower is a member-owned electric cooperative that provides energy to more than 6,000 member-owners, mainly in Freeborn and Mower counties. Its service area covers roughly 1,335 square miles, including 1,974 miles of distribution lines and 15 substations.
A wind farm is a group of wind turbines in the same location used for production of electric power. Individual turbines are interconnected with a medium voltage (usually 34.5 kV) power collection system and communications network. At a substation, this medium-voltage electrical current is increased in voltage with a transformer for connection to the high voltage transmission system. A large wind farm may consist of a few dozen to several hundred individual wind turbines, and cover an extended area of hundreds of square miles (square kilometers), but the land between the turbines may be used for agricultural or other purposes. A wind farm may be located off-shore to take advantage of strong winds blowing over the surface of an ocean or lake.
· 43 2.3-megawatt Siemens turbines that are capable of generating enough electricity to power 33,000 homes
· Each turbine is 262 feet tall from the ground to the hub in the center of the blades
Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of wind power are relatively minor. Wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation.
Over a sustained period of time, people living too close to the wind farms can develop a disorder related to the inner ear disruption, WTS, which can cause nervousness, heart disorders, nightmares, problems and even cognitive development issues in small children.
HOW IT WORKS
Wind turbines work on the same principle as a child’s pinwheel. When you blow on a pinwheel, the blades of the pinwheel spin around, same with a wind turbine. When the wind blows against the blades of the wind turbine, the blades slowly rotate. The blades are connected to a drive shaft inside the large box (called a nacelle) seen on the top of the tower. The drive shaft turns the generator, which makes the electricity. Each wind turbine operates independently of the others. Each is, essentially, an individual power plant. The turbine has a weather station on the top that tells it the wind speed and wind direction. That information is sent to the turbine’s computer, which moves the top of the turbine (the nacelle and blades) so that the blades are always facing into the wind. The nacelle can turn 360 degrees. The electricity is carried in cables from the generator down the inside of the tower, then underground to the site’s substation. That power then goes into the offsite transmission lines and is used by the local utility to serve its customers in the region.
Minnesota is among the nation’s leaders in wind energy production, ranking fourth behind Texas, California, and Iowa. Since the construction of its’ first wind farm in Crookston in 1987, Minnesota has been the Midwest’s pioneer for wind energy development. In the past 20 years, over 60 wind farms have sprouted up across Minnesota with a total wind energy capacity of over 1300 MW.
Minnesota has the legislation to prove it believes in wind energy projects and local ownership models. The Minnesota government has instituted renewable energy objectives for utilities, tax incentives and community-based legislation (C-BED statute), all encouraging wind energy developments. The goal of the legislation is to have 25% of energy come from wind resources by 2025.
Minnesota Wind Stats As of December 31, 2008
Total installed wind energy capacity (MW): 1752.16
Current wind energy capacity under construction (MW): 0
Total wind energy potential (Billions of kWh/year): 657
Average potential power output (MW): 75,000
Ranks 9th in US for potential wind energy output
Ranks 4th in US for current wind energy output
Mower County currently has about 300 wind turbines. The County is directly responsible for the regulation of private on-site utilities in all unincorporated areas of the County and it intends to exercise its regulatory authority in a manner that will limit development in areas that are generally unsuitable for on-site utilities in an effort to protect the public’s welfare.
Windpower Development Addition to Zoning Ordinance (65KB) (Mower County)
Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician based in New York, studied 10 families who lived close to wind farms, and says eight out of the 10 ended up moving away from their homes because of WTS(Wind Turbine Syndrome)-related illnesses. That’s a small survey sample, but it’s a continuation of research done by other scientists in the field. Pierpont recommends that wind turbines should be built at least 2 kilometers (a little over a mile) away from people’s homes, and she tells the Independent that: “It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies - and governments - to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.”
The problem, according to Pierpont, is that the wind farms emit a constant low-frequency vibration and noise, which human beings are sensitive to (not unlike fish’s sensitivity to noise in the water) and the wind farm vibrations can disrupt the inner ear’s vestibular system (responsible for balance and spatial orientation). Over a sustained period of time, people living too close to the wind farms can develop a disorder related to the inner ear disruption, WTS, which can cause nervousness, heart disorders, nightmares, problems and even cognitive development issues in small children.
Renewable Energy Sources
Great River Energy currently purchases the output of six wind projects in Minnesota for a total of 318 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy. A 160-foot, 200-kilowatt wind turbine is located on the site of our Maple Gove facility. Great River Energy is on track to reach the 25 percent renewables goal by 2025 set by the Minnesota Legislature.
Great River Energy receives wind energy from:
- The 100-MW Trimont Area Wind Farm – Minnesota’s first commercial-scale, landowner-developed wind farm in November 2005. Forty-three landowners in Jackson and Martin counties partnered with PPM Energy and Great River Energy to develop the project.
- The 100-MW Prairie Star Wind Farm in Mower County, Minnesota, generates enough electricity to power approximately 36,000 Minnesota homes. The wind farm consists of 61 1.65-MW wind turbines.
- The 100-MW Elm Creek Wind Farm located near the Trimont Area Wind Farm.
- Great River Energy also purchases the output from three smaller wind projects in Chandler, Minnesota; Dodge Center, Minnesota, and Jackson County, Minnesota.
Wellspring Renewable Energy
|
Great River Energy and our member cooperatives offer the popular Wellspring Renewable Energy Program. Through the program, customers may choose to buy additional wind energy for a nominal monthly fee. To date, nearly 6,700 co-op members purchase Wellspring renewable energy. To purchase Wellspring renewable energy, contact your local electric cooperative. |
|
View the previous day’s wind generation from the Chandler Hills Wind Farm. |
Prairie Star Wind Farm
|
Prairie Star Wind Farm, which began operating in December 2007, is located in southeastern Minnesota, approximately 15 miles east of the town of Austin on gently rolling prairie land in southern Mower County. Prairie Star Wind Farm has an installed capacity of 101 MW - enough to power approximately 30,000 Minnesota homes with clean energy each year. The wind farm utilizes 61 Vestas V82 1.65 MW turbines. Great River Energy purchases the wind farm’s energy. |
1.20 Mower County Community Assets
This section contains the following maps:
Section 27-T102N-R18W Detail Map
Section 26-T102N-R18W Detail Map
Medical Facilities Red Cross Shelters Map
Preserved Natural Lands, Historic Sites Map
The American Red Cross helps keep people safe in the community every day as well as in an emergency.
Minnesota - Mower County Chapter - American Red Cross
1.21 Presidential Disaster Declarations
Mower County has been included in six Presidential Disaster Declarations in the sixteen years since 1993. The worst of these in terms of federal disaster funds expended was the rain and flooding disaster of 1993. According to records from the Region V FEMA office, and the Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, after that disaster, over $45 million of federal disaster funds were expended. The 1993 rain / flooding disaster was also one of the most damaging in the state’s history, affecting 56 of the state’s 88 counties – mostly those of the Red River, Minnesota River, and lower Mississippi River watersheds.
There were three other severe storm and flooding disasters in recent history that included Mower County. The 2000 disaster covered 17 counties and cost over $18 million. The 2001 disaster covered 66 counties with a federal funds cost of over $40 million. In addition, a huge rainfall event on September 14 and 15, 2004 created flooding conditions in several southern Minnesota Counties. Mower County was one of the hardest hit. This event resulted in another presidential disaster declaration for Mower County. During this event, the City of Austin and several townships experienced some of the most severe flooding ever recorded. The declaration covers damage to private and public property from severe storms and flooding that began on September 14.
Federal disaster aid once again was made available for Mower County to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the areas struck by severe storms and flooding beginning on June 7, 2008 and continuing. FEMA Administrator David Paulison said the President's action makes federal funding available to state and local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms and flooding in the counties of Fillmore, Freeborn, Houston and Mower.
