September 2, 2015 board of managers packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, September 2, 2015, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A) Permit # 15-028 Como Transportation Improvements (Kelley) B) Permit # 15-029 Midway Office Warehouse (Hosch) IV.

Special Reports A) Trout Brook Stormsewer Interceptor – 5 Year CIP, Anna Eleria

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Master Water Steward Participant Agreement (Beckman) C) AR: Approve Preliminary 2016 Budget & Levy (Doneux)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) FI: Willow Reserve Update (Eleria) B) FI: Lafayette Park Update (Eleria)

VII.

General Information A) FI: Administrator’s Report

VIII. Next Meeting A) Wednesday, September 16, 2015 Meeting Agenda Review IX.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\September 2, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Brett Hussong St. Paul Parks and Recreation 25 West 4th Street (CHA 400) St. Paul, MN 55102

Permit 15-028 Como Park Transportation Improvements Consultant: John Hink Solution Blue 318 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Description: Expansion of parking facilities and road improvements Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes utilizing existing stormwater facilities and green space District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 4.08 Acres Impervious Area: 1.24 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Provide a site map that includes: a. The location of each existing BMP. b. Delineated watersheds/drainage areas. c. Surface flow direction. d. Storm sewer network.

3. Provide topographic maps with outlet inverts for the existing ‘Infiltration Areas’ consistent with HydroCAD. 4. Provide rate control such that the proposed activity does not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year critical storm event. The provided HydroCAD indicates the peak discharge rate from device 39P (existing) is 9.8 cfs. The peak discharge rate from device 73P (proposed) is 10.1 cfs.

5. Document the existing underground system has been adequately maintained and continues to infiltrate water as originally designed.

6. Clarify type of infiltration test, or provide documentation for double-ring infiltrometer tests to include: a. Duration of each test. b. Volume of water infiltrated. c. Diameter of the inner ring. d. Post-test calculations consistent with this document from the University of Minnesota: http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/infiltration

Horton Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 15-028

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 09/02/15

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-028

Review date:

August 20, 2015

Project Name:

Como Park Transportation Improvements

Applicant:

Brett Hussong City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation 400 City Hall Annex, 25 W Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102

Purpose:

Parking lot expansion and pavement replacement.

Location:

Como Park and Conservatory in St. Paul

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 6 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Technical Memorandum – Preliminary Drainage Analysis and Comments, by Civil Methods, Inc., dated 8/14/15, recd. 8/14/15 2. Como Park Transportation Improvement Plans, by Solution Blue, dated 8/4/15, recd. 8/14/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 1 of 4

ďƒ˜ Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity exceed existing runoff rates for the 2year critical storm event. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. However, it is unclear if the existing BMPs are dedicated to an alternate purpose. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 53,982 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Volume 1.1 Retention Retention inch BMP Provided Required (cu.

Runoff below outlet ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Existing Underground (76P) 6,987 2,875 Existing Basin 1 (74P) 2,614 15,127 4,948 Existing Basin 2 (73P) 2,919 Total 8,408 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volumes and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. Infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is not pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested.

5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City of St. Paul and the CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface and underground systems.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 2 of 4

2 inch Runoff (cu. ft.)

12,704 27,504

Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements but adequate conveyance has be provided to prevent flooding.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands in the project area.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 3 of 4

Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation: Approve with 6 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Provide a site map that includes: a. The location of each existing BMP. b. Delineated watersheds/drainage areas. c. Surface flow direction. d. Storm sewer network.

3. Provide topographic maps with outlet inverts for the existing ‘Infiltration Areas’ that is consistent with the HydroCAD model.

4. Provide rate control such that the proposed activity does not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year critical storm event. The provided HydroCAD indicates the peak discharge rate from device 39P (existing) is 9.8 cfs. The peak discharge rate from device 73P (proposed) is 10.1 cfs.

5. Document that the existing underground system has been adequately maintained and continues to infiltrate water as originally designed.

6. Clarify type of infiltration test, or provide documentation for double-ring infiltrometer tests to include: a. Duration of each test. b. Volume of water infiltrated. c. Diameter of the inner ring. d. Post-test calculations consistent with this document from the University of Minnesota: http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/infiltration .

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 4 of 4

WEST PICNIC LOT PAL ML OT O

ES TA B RO K

N

K DRIVE

ESTABROO

IV

DR

VE

I DR

ES T SH ABR EE OO TS K C8 DRIV ,C 12, E - V IE C1 6, & W 2 C2 : 0

AY

KW

AR

YP

WA

#

CHECKED BY RAT DATE 08-04-2015 JOB NO. 150501

DRAWN BY LMM

SHEET NUMBER

C2

ENGINEER: RANDAL A. TWEDEN 08-04-2015 LICENSE NO.: ________ 26871 DATE: ____________

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

E

PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP

CAROUSEL BUILDING

UF MA

COMO PARK TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

KA

LEXINGTON PARKWAY

ACE AIDA PL

& AY N , W IO : ID CT T 10 M SE LO , C 6 8 R M C TE PAL TS C1 N I & EE 4, SH C1 E LAC NP SO NA

PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 8/4/2015 12:31 PM

7 T: C1 LO , & IC 13 CN 9, C I P T 5, C ES C W TS EE H S

MID

CADD USER: SBI 2 FILE: C:\USERS\SBI 2\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150501 - COMO PARK TRANSIT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\OVERALL MAP.DWG

R

O

IT

IS

/V

RY

TO

VA

ER

NS

CO

ER

NT

CE

N

SBI

GRAPHIC SCALE

( IN FEET )

ESTABROOK DRIVE - VIEW 1: SHEETS C7, C11, C15, & C19

THE MINNESOTA BUILDING

318 CEDAR STREET

SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651)-294-0038

REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Brett Hussong St. Paul Parks and Recreation 25 West 4th Street (CHA 400) St. Paul, MN 55102

Permit 15-028 Como Park Transportation Improvements Consultant: John Hink Solution Blue 318 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Description: Expansion of parking facilities and road improvements Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes utilizing existing stormwater facilities and green space District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 4.08 Acres Impervious Area: 1.24 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Provide a site map that includes: a. The location of each existing BMP. b. Delineated watersheds/drainage areas. c. Surface flow direction. d. Storm sewer network.

3. Provide topographic maps with outlet inverts for the existing ‘Infiltration Areas’ consistent with HydroCAD. 4. Provide rate control such that the proposed activity does not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year critical storm event. The provided HydroCAD indicates the peak discharge rate from device 39P (existing) is 9.8 cfs. The peak discharge rate from device 73P (proposed) is 10.1 cfs.

5. Document the existing underground system has been adequately maintained and continues to infiltrate water as originally designed.

6. Clarify type of infiltration test, or provide documentation for double-ring infiltrometer tests to include: a. Duration of each test. b. Volume of water infiltrated. c. Diameter of the inner ring. d. Post-test calculations consistent with this document from the University of Minnesota: http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/infiltration

Horton Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 15-028

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 09/02/15

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-028

Review date:

August 20, 2015

Project Name:

Como Park Transportation Improvements

Applicant:

Brett Hussong City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation 400 City Hall Annex, 25 W Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102

Purpose:

Parking lot expansion and pavement replacement.

Location:

Como Park and Conservatory in St. Paul

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 6 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Technical Memorandum – Preliminary Drainage Analysis and Comments, by Civil Methods, Inc., dated 8/14/15, recd. 8/14/15 2. Como Park Transportation Improvement Plans, by Solution Blue, dated 8/4/15, recd. 8/14/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 1 of 4

ďƒ˜ Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity exceed existing runoff rates for the 2year critical storm event. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. However, it is unclear if the existing BMPs are dedicated to an alternate purpose. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 53,982 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Volume 1.1 Retention Retention inch BMP Provided Required (cu.

Runoff below outlet ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Existing Underground (76P) 6,987 2,875 Existing Basin 1 (74P) 2,614 15,127 4,948 Existing Basin 2 (73P) 2,919 Total 8,408 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volumes and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. Infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is not pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested.

5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City of St. Paul and the CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface and underground systems.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 2 of 4

2 inch Runoff (cu. ft.)

12,704 27,504

Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements but adequate conveyance has be provided to prevent flooding.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands in the project area.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 3 of 4

Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation: Approve with 6 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Provide a site map that includes: a. The location of each existing BMP. b. Delineated watersheds/drainage areas. c. Surface flow direction. d. Storm sewer network.

3. Provide topographic maps with outlet inverts for the existing ‘Infiltration Areas’ that is consistent with the HydroCAD model.

4. Provide rate control such that the proposed activity does not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year critical storm event. The provided HydroCAD indicates the peak discharge rate from device 39P (existing) is 9.8 cfs. The peak discharge rate from device 73P (proposed) is 10.1 cfs.

5. Document that the existing underground system has been adequately maintained and continues to infiltrate water as originally designed.

6. Clarify type of infiltration test, or provide documentation for double-ring infiltrometer tests to include: a. Duration of each test. b. Volume of water infiltrated. c. Diameter of the inner ring. d. Post-test calculations consistent with this document from the University of Minnesota: http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/infiltration .

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-028 Como Transportation Improvements\15-028 Como Park Trasportation_Review_02fjkedit.doc Page 4 of 4

WEST PICNIC LOT PAL M LOT

BR O

E O K

N

OK DRIVE

ESTABRO

IV

A ST DR

E

D V RI

ES T SH ABR EE OO TS K C8 DRI V ,C 12, E - V I C1 6, & EW 2 C2 : 0

AY

KW

AR

YP

WA

#

DRAWN BY LMM

CHECKED BY RAT DATE 08-04-2015 JOB NO. 150501

SHEET NUMBER

C2

ENGINEER: RANDAL A. TWEDEN 08-04-2015 LICENSE NO.: ________ 26871 DATE: ____________

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

E

PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP

CAROUSEL BUILDING UF MA

COMO PARK TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

CE

KA

LEXINGTON PARKWAY

7

AIDA PLA

& AY N W TIO T: 0, D 1 I C M SE LO , C 6 ER ALM S C C18 T IN P ET , & E 4 SH C1 E LAC NP SO NA

PLOT SCALE: 1:2 PLOT DATE: 8/4/2015 12:31 PM

T: C1 LO & C 13, I CN , C PI 9 T 5, C ES C W TS EE H S

MID

CADD USER: SBI 2 FILE: C:\USERS\SBI 2\DROPBOX\PROJECTS\150501 - COMO PARK TRANSIT\WORKING FILES\CAD\DWG\PLAN SHEETS\OVERALL MAP.DWG

R

O

IT

IS

/V

RY

TO

VA

ER

NS

CO

ER

NT

CE

N

SBI

GRAPHIC SCALE

( IN FEET )

ESTABROOK DRIVE - VIEW 1: SHEETS C7, C11, C15, & C19

THE MINNESOTA BUILDING

318 CEDAR STREET

SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 (651)-294-0038

REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Brandon Champeau United Properties 3600 American Blvd W, Suite 750 Bloomington, MN 55431

Permit 15-029 Midway Office Warehouse Consultant: Stacee Demmer LHB, Inc 701 Washington Avenues South Minneapolis, MN 55401

Description: Site redevelopment from vacant baseball stadium to office warehouse, including environmental mitigation.

Stormwater Management: Underground infiltration system District Rule: C Disturbed Area: 12.9 Acres Impervious Area: 10.1 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $50,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Add the following item to the underground infiltration detail: Specify dimensions of tire shreds 3. Provide pre-treatment for all parking areas along west corners of building.

4. Reconcile calculations for the volume of contaminated soil and debris to be removed. Sheet C3.00 shows 6,320 cf. of contaminated soil will be removed from the site. However, Note #4 on Sheet C3.00 says calculations indicate approximately 17,000 cf. of contaminated soil and debris will be removed from the site.

Snelling Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 15-029

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 9/2/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-029

Review date:

08/24/15

Project Name:

Midway Office Warehouse

Applicant:

Brandon Champeau, MVP Real Estate, LLC

Purpose:

Warehouse and office building

Location:

1785 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 4 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plan Set (29 Sheets), by LHB, Inc., dated 08/06/2015, recd. 08/19/15.

2. NPDES Coverage Card, by MPCA, dated 6/23/2015, recd. 08/19/15 3. Drainage Report, by LHB, Inc., dated 07/28/2015, received 07/29/15.

4. Geotechnical Report, by American Engineering Testing, dated 05/12/2015, recd.

07/29/15.

5. Draft Maintenance Agreement, MVP Real Estate, LLC., dated 07/29/15, recd.

07/29/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The site is located on a former landfill and is classified as a brownfield. However, the applicant proposes to mitigate the contamination by removing waste material and replacing it with clean fill.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 1 of 4

 Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 439,956 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Volume 1.1 inch 2 inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

Underground 57,867 40,330 73,326 Infiltration System 40,330 Total 57,867 cf c. Infiltration volume and facility size has not been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. d. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. e. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

5. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has been submitted. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface and/or underground system.

Maintenance agreement includes a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 2 of 4

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 3 of 4

Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $50,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Add the following item to the underground infiltration detail: Specify dimensions of tire shreds 3. Provide pre-treatment for all parking areas along west corners of building.

4. Reconcile calculations for the volume of contaminated soil and debris to be removed. Sheet C3.00 shows 6,320 cf. of contaminated soil will be removed from the site. However, Note #4 on Sheet C3.00 says calculations indicate approximately 17,000 cf. of contaminated soil and debris will be removed from the site.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 4 of 4

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES VES

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Brandon Champeau United Properties 3600 American Blvd W, Suite 750 Bloomington, MN 55431

Permit 15-029 Midway Office Warehouse Consultant: Stacee Demmer LHB, Inc 701 Washington Avenues South Minneapolis, MN 55401

Description: Site redevelopment from vacant baseball stadium to office warehouse, including environmental mitigation.

Stormwater Management: Underground infiltration system District Rule: C Disturbed Area: 12.9 Acres Impervious Area: 10.1 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $50,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Add the following item to the underground infiltration detail: Specify dimensions of tire shreds 3. Provide pre-treatment for all parking areas along west corners of building.

4. Reconcile calculations for the volume of contaminated soil and debris to be removed. Sheet C3.00 shows 6,320 cf. of contaminated soil will be removed from the site. However, Note #4 on Sheet C3.00 says calculations indicate approximately 17,000 cf. of contaminated soil and debris will be removed from the site.

Snelling Ave

Permit Location Permit Report 15-029

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 9/2/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-029

Review date:

08/24/15

Project Name:

Midway Office Warehouse

Applicant:

Brandon Champeau, MVP Real Estate, LLC

Purpose:

Warehouse and office building

Location:

1785 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 4 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plan Set (29 Sheets), by LHB, Inc., dated 08/06/2015, recd. 08/19/15.

2. NPDES Coverage Card, by MPCA, dated 6/23/2015, recd. 08/19/15 3. Drainage Report, by LHB, Inc., dated 07/28/2015, received 07/29/15.

4. Geotechnical Report, by American Engineering Testing, dated 05/12/2015, recd.

07/29/15.

5. Draft Maintenance Agreement, MVP Real Estate, LLC., dated 07/29/15, recd.

07/29/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The site is located on a former landfill and is classified as a brownfield. However, the applicant proposes to mitigate the contamination by removing waste material and replacing it with clean fill.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 1 of 4

 Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 439,956 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Volume 1.1 inch 2 inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

Underground 57,867 40,330 73,326 Infiltration System 40,330 Total 57,867 cf c. Infiltration volume and facility size has not been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. d. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. e. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

5. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has been submitted. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface and/or underground system.

Maintenance agreement includes a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 2 of 4

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 3 of 4

Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $50,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Add the following item to the underground infiltration detail: Specify dimensions of tire shreds 3. Provide pre-treatment for all parking areas along west corners of building.

4. Reconcile calculations for the volume of contaminated soil and debris to be removed. Sheet C3.00 shows 6,320 cf. of contaminated soil will be removed from the site. However, Note #4 on Sheet C3.00 says calculations indicate approximately 17,000 cf. of contaminated soil and debris will be removed from the site.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-029, Midway Office Warehouse\15-029 Midway Office Warehouse R2.doc

Page 4 of 4

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VESVES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES

VES

VES

VES

VES VES VES VES VES VES

September 2, 2015 Board Meeting IV. Special Report A.) TBI 5-Year CIP (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 27, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager Approve TBI 5-Year Maintenance, Repair and Capital Improvement Plan

Background CRWD’s work for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor has been guided over the past eight years by a 10-year maintenance, repair and capital improvement plan. With the exception of two repair projects, CRWD has accomplished all of the capital improvement recommended in the 10-year CIP. CRWD, with Barr Engineering’s assistance, completed an in-pipe visual inspection of the entire 5-mile TBI in 2014. The structural conditions in the pipe were assessed and the pipe sections were designated as in good, fair or poor condition. Overall the majority of TBI was found to be in fair condition with a few areas designated either as good or poor condition.

Issues The 2014 TBI inspection results served as a basis for the enclosed draft 5-year CIP for TBI. The plan calls for four major capital improvement repairs over the next six years in sections of TBI that are in fair or fair to poor condition. The engineering and construction cost estimates for the four major repair projects are provided in the CIP. One of the four recommended major repairs is installing a new inlet in TBI near Farrington Avenue and Cottage Avenue where localized flooding is occurring. This repair would be coupled with in-pipe repairs in this area in 2020-2021.

The first proposed CIP project involves addressing missing mortar in the limestone blocks of TBI for nearly 3,000 feet starting at the point of CRWD’s ownership. The draft 2016 TBI budget allocates $90,000 for engineering and design of these repairs.

The CIP also presents a list of operation and maintenance activities such as general engineering services, easement work, and TBI modeling update. CRWD staff will review the 5-year TBI CIP with the Board and seek Board approval at the meeting.

Action Requested Approve the 5-Year Maintenance, Repair and Capital Improvement Plan for TBI.

enc:

Draft 5-Year TBI CIP Report

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\CIPs\TBI 2015-2020 CIP\Board Memos\BM TBI 5-Year CIP 09-02-15.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

5-YEAR MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE TROUT BROOK STORM SEWER INTERCEPTOR

August 2015

5-YEAR MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE TROUT BROOK STORM SEWER INTERCEPTOR

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Barr Engineering Co.

Saint Paul, Minnesota August 2015

5-Year Maintenance, Repair, and Capital Improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor August 2015

Contents 1.0

Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0

Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2

3.0

Capital projects ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 0+00 to 28+49 ...................................................................................................... 3

3.2

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 28+65 to 50+72 .................................................................................................... 3

3.3

New Farrington Inlet and Ditch Stabilization ...................................................................................................... 3

3.4

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 135+06 to 180+29 ............................................................................................... 4

4.0

Operations Activities .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1

General Engineering Services ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4.2

Easement Verification and Acquisition................................................................................................................... 5

4.3

TBI 5-Year Inspection Program ................................................................................................................................. 5

4.4

TBI CIP Development..................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.5

Atlas 14 Hydraulic Modeling of the TBI ................................................................................................................. 6

4.6

TBI Subwatershed Modeling ...................................................................................................................................... 6

4.7

TBI Location Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.8

General (Minor) Maintenance of TBI ....................................................................................................................... 6

5.0

Summary of Recommended Action Items ................................................................................................................. 7

6.0

Other Projects .....................................................................................................................................................................10

7.0

References ............................................................................................................................................................................11

\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\2015 CIP Development\2015_TBI_5year_CIP.docx

i

List of Tables Table 5-1

Capital Improvement Projects (CRWD Fund – Trout Brook BMPS # 415) .................................... 8

Table 5-2

Operations Activities (CRWD Fund – Trout Brook Subwatershed #315) .................................... 9

List of Figures Figure 2-1

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Map

ii

Certifications I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota.

August 27, 2015 Nathan Campeau

Date

PE #: 44917

iii

1.0

Purpose

The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) retained Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to prepare a 5-year Maintenance, Repair, and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI) in 2015. This CIP serves as an update to the 2009 CIP developed by TKDA (TKDA, 2009), which incorporates completed repair work and identifies ongoing operational activities.

The purpose of this CIP is to recommend a repair schedule for the TBI, highlighting specific improvements necessary to improve and maintain the System at a level of “Good Operating Condition.” A legal definition of “Good Operating Condition” can be found in MN Statute 473.5111. Additionally this CIP will develop estimated budgets for engineering and construction of recommended improvements and elements.

As presented in the TBI 10-Year CIP (2009-2018), CRWD has defined “Good Operating Condition” as follows: “In order for any section of the sewer system to be considered in ‘good operating condition,’ it shall (1) have foundation soil or pile foundations structurally adequate to carry the loads imposed on it, (2) be free from damage, such as that allowing corrosion of reinforcing steel and mortar loss between bricks or blocks, that may lead to further deterioration that could be considered to threaten the structural integrity of the pipe, and (3) be free from defects, such as offsets or sags, that significantly reduce the flow capacity of the pipe and defects, such as holes and cracks, that permit significant exfiltration of stormwater or infiltration of groundwater.”

1

2.0

Background

The TBI was constructed as a combined sanitary sewer and storm sewer system from the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. The combined sewer system was separated in 1988. The tunnel system ranges in size from six (6) to thirteen (13) feet in diameter (or height) and is composed of several different shapes including, circular, horseshoe, arched, and box sections. The tunnel sections typically consist of reinforced concrete but other construction materials such as brick and limestone block were utilized in construction. The TBI was owned by the Metropolitan Council until 2006 when ownership was transferred to CRWD. The TBI includes three primary branches: 1.

TBI Mainline (approximately 23,200 feet)

2.

West TBI Extension (approximately 5,100 feet)

3.

East TBI Extension (approximately 3,000 feet)

In 2014, Barr was retained to visually inspect the entire TBI system for defects (i.e. cracks, holes, infiltration, sags, etc.), compare the inspection findings to past inspections, and determine the existing structural condition of the TBI (Barr, 2015).

During the 2014 inspection, approximately 31,334 feet of the TBI tunnel system were inspected over 11 days. The inspections were conducted with a three-person team performing the inspection in the tunnel and one to two-members performing surface attendant duties. The information gathered in the 2014 inspection was used in preparing several of the recommended activities in this CIP. Barr inspected and rated the condition of TBI using the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) developed by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO).

Overall, the majority of the TBI was found to be in fair condition with a few areas designated as good or poor condition with notable changes observed since the last condition inspection in 2007 (CNA, 2007).

Changes in tunnel condition are attributed to repairs made to TBI since the 2007 inspection as well as deterioration of the tunnel over time. Significant repairs to TBI since the 2007 inspection are: 

Pipe replacement near the Willow Reserve Storm Water Pond from Mainline Station 168+73 to Station 171+13 in 2006/2007.



Sag 1 and Sag 2 repairs completed in 2008/2009 from Mainline Station 93+16 to Station 95+20 and from Station 89+94 to Station 90+00, respectively. In addition, in-pipe repairs were completed from Station 58+00 to Station 112+76, consisting of minor concrete repairs and crack sealing.



In-pipe repairs completed in 2011 at three locations of TBI, including replacing a catch basin at Station 23+85, repairing a concrete structure at Station 23+40 and improving the monitoring station access vault at Station 10+30.



TBI realignment (Mainline-A) which was constructed in 2012/2013 from Station 52+80 to Station 60+36, replacing the cast-in-place tunnel with a 12-foot by 9-foot precast box section.

2

3.0

Capital projects

The following capital projects are recommended over the next five years based on the 2014 TBI inspections and CRWD staff input. Budget and priority for these projects are identified in Table 5-1:

3.1

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 0+00 to 28+49

The 2014 TBI inspections performed by Barr resulted in a recommendation to rehabilitate TBI between Stations 0+00 and 28+49 (Barr, 2015). This section was recommended for repair in the 2009 10-year CIP, and received a structural rating of “fair” in both the 2007 and 2014 TBI inspections. The observed deficiencies in this segment occur in the limestone block portion of the tunnel and include “missing mortar” (MMM) between the blocks. MMM equates to a grade level of 3 in the PACP coding and is described as a “moderate defect”. However, this region is in close proximity to the railroad tracks and is subject to frequent vibrations from the overhead traffic.

Although this section has been in service for many years, these combined conditions could further deteriorate the condition and accelerate spalling and dislodge blocks. Common repair methods for missing mortar include the installation of a cementitious mortar between the blocks. If infiltration is observed at the damaged joints, the seepage water will need to be sealed off prior to the repair. Other recommended repairs in this interval include crack and fracture sealing, minor surface repair and removal of sediments, as necessary.

3.2

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 28+65 to 50+72

The 2014 TBI inspections performed by Barr resulted in a recommendation to rehabilitate TBI between Stations 28+65 and 50+72 (Barr, 2015). This section was recommended for repair in the 2009 10-year CIP, and received a structural rating of generally “fair” in the 2007 inspection, downgraded to generally “fair to poor” in the 2014 inspections. The deficiencies occur in reinforced concrete segments of the tunnel and include “surface reinforcement visible” (SRV). SRV equates to a grade level of 5 in the PACP coding and is described as “a most significant defect”. SRV is a most significant defect because it is often found in areas of concrete spalling and or deterioration with visible or missing aggregate. When the reinforcement is exposed to the elements, it is susceptible to corrosion and deterioration and may result in decreased strength. Other items recommended for repair include “hole soil visible” (HSV) at Station 32+66, and an “infiltration gusher” (IG) at Station 43+00. Common repair methods for visible reinforcement include sealing the reinforcement with epoxy or the installation of cementitious material over the affected area.

Other recommended repairs in this interval include crack and fracture sealing, minor surface repair and removal of sediments, as necessary.

3.3

New Farrington Inlet and Ditch Stabilization

A localized flooding concern has been identified at 300 Cottage Ave. W. The low-lying area on this property periodically experiences standing water following precipitation events, prompting complaints from the homeowner. The “Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Drainage Improvements at Vicinity of Cottage Ave. and Farrington St. Feasibility Report” (Barr, 2014) identified a number of alternatives to

3

reduce flooding, including the selected alternative which includes the construction of a new and larger beehive-style inlet to TBI at approximately Station 168+00. In addition to the new inlet, Barr recommends stabilizing 220 feet of eroding ditch upstream of the proposed inlet to reduce sediment loading to the TBI.

3.4

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 135+06 to 180+29

The 2014 TBI inspections performed by Barr resulted in a recommendation to rehabilitate TBI between Stations 135+06 and 180+29 (Barr, 2015). This section was recommended for repair in the 2009 10-year CIP, and received a structural rating of generally “fair” in the 2007 inspection, downgraded to generally “fair to poor” in the 2014 inspections. The deficiencies occur in reinforced concrete segments of the tunnel and include “surface reinforcement visible” (SRV). SRV equates to a grade level of 5 in the PACP coding and is described as “a most significant defect”. SRV is a most significant defect because it is often found in areas of concrete spalling and or deterioration with visible or missing aggregate. When the reinforcement is exposed to the elements, it is susceptible to corrosion and deterioration and may result in decreased strength. Common repair methods for visible reinforcement include sealing the reinforcement with epoxy or the installation of cementitious material over the affected area. Other recommended repairs in this interval include crack and fracture sealing, minor surface repair and removal of sediments if necessary.

4

4.0

Operations Activities

The following operations activities are recommended based on previous experience with assisting the operations of TBI and CRWD input. Estimated budget and priority for these activities are identified in Table 5-2:

4.1

General Engineering Services

CRWD’s TBI engineering consultant provides the following engineering services, on an as needed basis, to assist the CRWD with overall management of the TBI: 1.

General day-to-day consulting, planning and communications with CRWD and project stakeholders, including but not limited to telephone calls and email communications.

2.

Attendance at staff and board meetings and preparation of meeting materials.

3.

Gather and review available reports, documents and other data regarding the TBI system and issues.

4.

Prepare letters, memorandums, conceptual design documents, preliminary drawings, outline specifications and written descriptions of TBI project.

5.

Site visits and inspections.

6.

Assist CRWD to determine the general scope, extent and character of TBI projects.

7.

Advise CRWD if additional data or professional services are necessary, and assist CRWD in obtaining any such data and services.

8.

Evaluate and discuss with CRWD various alternative solutions and approaches available to CRWD.

9.

Preparation of opinion of probable costs for proposed projects (or applicable portion thereof).

10. Periodic maintenance of the TBI webmap.

11. Other tasks as requested by the CRWD.

4.2

Easement Verification and Acquisition

CRWD has identified numerous locations along TBI where CRWD either does not own a permanent easement or the easement that CRWD owns is insufficient to perform maintenance activities. CRWD is working with its engineering consultant to assist in identifying locations where additional easement should be acquired and to assist the CRWD in determining the potential uses of the easement. CRWD’s legal counsel will then negotiate with landowners to obtain the recommended easements.

4.3

TBI 5-Year Inspection Program

The TBI 5-Year Inspection Program monitors the condition of the TBI to proactively identify defects and deficiencies and provide recommendations to address problems. CRWD’s current TBI inspection program typically includes inspections every five years using the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) developed by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The most recent inspection was performed by Barr in 2014 in support of this 2015 CIP.

5

4.4

TBI CIP Development

Following the 5-year inspection the TBI CIP is updated to reflect the results of the inspection, identifying repair projects and operations activities to keep the TBI in Good Operating Condition.

4.5

Atlas 14 Hydraulic Modeling of the TBI

In 2012 CRWD completed an updated calibrated hydraulic model of the TBI, using the calibrated model to develop 2-, 10-, and 100-year flood flows for the TBI (Barr, 2012). The flows were developed using rainfall amounts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s (NOAA) “Technical Paper 14”, often referred to as TP40. Since the development of the flood flows, NOAA has issued updated precipitation estimates for design rainfall events, released in NOAA’s “Atlas 14 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 8”. These updated precipitation values are generally 25 percent greater than the TP40 values, in the Capitol Region watershed. The existing TBI model is not constructed to accommodate these larger rainfalls and resulting flows from Atlas 14 (overflows and ponding areas are not deep enough). Therefore, CRWD should consider upgrading the hydraulic model to determine the new 2-, 10-, and 100-year flows based on NOAA’s Atlas 14 data.

4.6

TBI Subwatershed Modeling

In 2012 CRWD completed an updated calibrated hydraulic model of the TBI, using the calibrated model to develop 2-, 10-, and 100-year flood flows for the TBI (Barr, 2012). The model uses very coarse hydrology (over 50 acre watersheds on average) and primarily models only the hydraulics of the TBI. CRWD would like to add hydrologic and hydraulic resolution to the model by adding in more detail from the tributary watersheds and municipal/MnDOT stormsewers. In addition, CRWD would like water quality models built to assess the pollutant loading from the various parts of the watershed in order to target water quality improvement projects. These updates should address the recommendations presented in Section 5.0 of the TBI hydrologic and hydraulic modeling report (Barr, 2012). This update to the TBI model will take place over many years, and should occur after the hydraulics of the entire model have been increased to accommodate an Atlas 14 precipitation event (Section 4.5).

4.7

TBI Location Services

Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) performs locating services of the TBI for all locate requests (Gopher One Call). SPRWS charges CRWD an annual fee of $15,000 to provide this service.

4.8

General (Minor) Maintenance of TBI

Continued maintenance efforts will be part of the ongoing work to sustain the integrity of TBI. This work will include replacing manhole lids and frames, clearing inlets and trash racks, removing debris and sediment from the line, and other general maintenance practices that will be required when periodic inspections deem them necessary.

6

5.0

Summary of Recommended Action Items

Recommended action items and estimated budgets to maintain and improve the defined limits of the TBI System to a level of “Good Operating Condition� are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 and described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Distribution of the projects was based on CRWD staff input.

The estimated cost for the New Farrington Inlet and Ditch Stabilization project (Table 5-1, Project 3) is based on the Farrington feasibility study (Barr, 2014), Alternative 2: New Inlet Upstream of Farrington Avenue. The study estimated the construction cost (with 30 percent contingency, NOT including engineering costs) of Alternative 2 at $23,500. A budget of $40,000 is recommended to include engineering, construction support and other incidental costs associated with this project. In addition, the project includes stabilizing approximately 220 feet of eroding ditch, at approximately $400 per linear foot of ditch, which includes 30 percent contingency and 25 percent engineering costs.

To develop the estimated costs for the in-tunnel capital improvement projects shown in Table 5-1 (Projects 1, 2 and 4) Barr reviewed recent repair projects on TBI and City of Minneapolis tunnels conducted over the past seven years. Items from each repair project that are similar to the capital projects recommended in this CIP (e.g., crack repair, exposed reinforcement repair, etc.) were tabulated and normalized to the linear feet of tunnels that were repaired. Costs were separated into engineering (design and construction observation) and construction fees, and then converted to 2015 costs using industrystandard cost indices. Barr’s analysis determined that the average total project cost (construction and engineering) for tunnel defect repair is approximately $300 per linear foot of tunnel, with engineering related costs around 25 percent of the construction related costs. For the cost estimates in Table 5-1, a 30 percent contingency was added to the project costs to account for unknown repairs, and other escalation costs that may not be known until final design and construction.

7

Table 5-1

Capital Improvement Projects1, 2 (CRWD Fund – Trout Brook BMPS # 415) Future Projects

2016

1

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 0+00 to 28+49 (2,849 feet)

2

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 28+65 to 50+72 (2,207 feet)

3

New Farrington Inlet and Ditch Stabilization, Approx. Sta 168+00

4

In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 135+06 to 180+29 (4,523 feet) TOTALS

$90,000

2017

2018

2020

2021

$1,110,000

$1,110,000

1

$100,000

$800,000

$800,000

$900,000 $40,000

$90,000

$130,000

$900,000

$900,000

$1,800,000

$940,000

$990,000

$4,030,000

2015 dollars Estimated budget for each repair and reconstruction project includes 25% engineering design/observation and 30% contingency.

2

8

Total $1,200,000

$100,000

$90,000

2019

Table 5-2

Operations Activities1 (CRWD Fund – Trout Brook Subwatershed #315) Future Activities

2016

$20,000

2018

1

General Engineering Services

$20,000

2

Easement Verification and Acquisition

$80,000

3

TBI 5-Year Inspection Program

$20,000

4

TBI CIP Development

5

Atlas 14 Hydraulic Modeling of the TBI

$50,000

6

TBI Subwatershed Modeling

$25,000

7

TBI Location Services

$15,000

$15,000

$15,000

8

General (Minor) Maintenance of TBI

$10,000

$10,000

$200,000

$45,000

2019 $20,000

2020 $20,000

Total $100,000 $80,000

$100,000

$100,000 $10,000

TOTALS 1

2017

$10,000 $50,000

$100,000

2015 dollars

9

$100,000

$225,000

$15,000

$15,000

$75,000

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

$50,000

$145,000

$145,000

$155,000

$690,000

6.0

Other Projects

All stations along TBI where capital improvement projects were recommended in the 2009 CIP (TKDA, 2009) have either been repaired or are recommended for repair in this CIP, with two (2) exceptions. Based on the 2014 TBI inspection, other capital projects have risen in priority above these exceptions. The following locations should be given careful attention during the next inspection and the proposed projects should be reevaluated in the next CIP: 

2009 CIP Project 11: Repair Work Sta. 112+76 – 136+16 (Mainline). Based on the observations during the 2014 inspection, the condition of the tunnel in this section remains “fair”. The majority of defects observed in this interval were grade 1-2 from the structural and operations and maintenance categories consisting of; cracking, infiltration weepers, and surface aggregate visible (SAV). However, between Sta. 115+47 and Sta. 120+63 there is a high concentration of infiltration runners (IR) and six locations of visible reinforcement (SRV). This interval was not included in the repair segments of this CIP because the most reoccurring severe defects, (IR) are from the operations and maintenance category and are less likely to impact the structural integrity of the tunnel over time than structural defects.



2009 CIP Project 14: Repair Work (West Tunnel) Sta. 0+00 – 17+62. The condition of this section of the tunnel was downgraded from “good to fair”. The majority of defects observed in this interval were grade 2 from the operations and maintenance category consisting of; infiltration weepers (IW) and attached deposits, Between Sta. 0+36 and Sta. 9+13, there is a high concentration of infiltration runners (IR), and seven locations of defective patches (RPPD). This interval was not included in the repair segments of this CIP because the most reoccurring severe defects (IR) are from the operations and maintenance category and are less likely to impact the structural integrity of the tunnel over time than structural defects.

10

7.0

References

1.

Barr Engineering Co. “2014 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Inspection Report .” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. March 2015

2.

Barr Engineering Co. “Feasibility Report: Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Drainage Improvements at Vicinity of Cottage Ave. and Farrington St.” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. March 2014

3.

Barr Engineering Co. “Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor and Detailed Assessment of North TBI Study Area.” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. June 2012

4.

CNA Consulting Engineers. “Trout Brook Storm Tunnel System Inspection and Assessment Report.” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District and TKDA. September 2007

5. TKDA. “10 Year Maintenance, Repair, and Improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor.” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. June 22, 2009

11

Lake McCarrons A

Stationing

Structural Pipe Rating Index, 2014 Inspection

7 6 5 4 27

51+00A

7 6 5 4 30

A

Fair

40+00 A

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - West Extension

A

Poor

30+00 A

A

A

A

10+00A

51

140+00

3 A

Como Lake

180+00

160+00

A

A

A

A

A

A A

230+00

A

A

220+00

A

A

210+00

A

A

200+00

A

A

190+00

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - Mainline (Not Inspected)

A

A

A A 00+00 30+20

130+00

A

A

A

A

A

120+00

4

£ ¤ 61

A

A

A 20+00

A 110+00

A

232+14

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-08-25 16:38 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Maps\CIP_Development_2015\Fig2-1 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Map.mxd User: jjl2

A

150+00

§ ¦ ¨ 35E

20+00

7 6 5 4 170+00

Good

A

A

100+00

A

A10+00

00+00

A A A A 90+00

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - Mainline

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - East Extension

Future Capital Improvement Projects No. Future Project Year(s) In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 0+00 1 2016-17 to 28+49 (2,849 feet) In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 2 2018-19 28+65 to 50+72 (2,207 feet) New Farrington Inlet and Ditch 3 2020-21 Stabilization, Approx. Sta 168+00 In-Pipe Repairs Mainline Sta 4 2020-21 135+06 to 180+29 (4,523 feet)

7 6 5 4 31

A A 80+00 A A 70+00

7 6 5 4 32

7 6 5 4 49

A

7 6 5 4 55

61+08AA 60+00

7 6 5 4

58

A 53+08A

53

50+00 A

Completed Capital Improvement Projects Completed Project Year(s) Pipe replacement near the Willow Reserve Storm Water Pond 2006-07 Sta 168+73 to Sta 171+13

A 40+00 A

7 6 5 4 33

7 6 5 4

2

Image Source: FSA (2013)

7 6 5 4 35

N

30+00 A

A

1,750

A

Sag 2 repairs Sta 89+94 to Sta 90+00 2008-09

; !

5

A

33

Sag 1 repairs Sta 93+16 to Sta 95+20 2008-09

In-pipe repairs consisting of minor concrete repairs and crack sealing 2008-09 Sta 58+00 to Sta 112+76 In-pipe repairs consisting of replacing 2011 a catch basin Sta 23+85 In-pipe repairs consisting of repairing 2011 a concrete structure Sta 23+40 In-pipe repairs consisting of repairing 2011 a concrete structure Sta 10+30 TBI realignment (Mainline-A) 2012-13 Sta 52+80 to Sta 60+36

7 6 5 4

20+00

7 6 5 4 56

Feet 0

1,750

1

A

A

10+00

7 6 5 4

A

34

00+00

A

§ ¦ ¨ 94

§ ¦ ¨ 94

£ ¤ 52

5

£ ¤

952A

£ ¤

A

61

A -10+00 A A -20+00

7 6 5 4 36

A

ssip pi River Missi

7 6 5 4

Figure 2-1 TROUT BROOK STORM SEWER INTERCEPTOR MAP Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor 5-Year CIP Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, Minnesota

September 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of August 19, 2015 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones Shirley Reider Mary Texer Mike Thienes

B)

Staff Present Wyatt Behrends, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Lauren Haydon, CRWD Joe Sellner, CRWD Britta Suppes, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD Sarah Wein, CRWD

Public Attendees Carrie Wasley, Ramsey Conservation District Steve Duerre, CAC Member

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No changes requested.

Motion 15-184: Approve the August 19, 2015 Agenda with no changes.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved II.

PUBLIC HEARING – 2016 Budget and Levy

Public Hearing Watershed District 2016 Budget and Levy President Collins requested that communication of the public hearing be included in the record. The proposed 2016 budget was reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee on August 12, 2015. Notice of the Public Hearing was emailed to City and County elected officials and two legal postings were included in the Pioneer Press. Information of the Public Hearing and proposed budget was also posted on CRWD’s website. Mr. Fossum reviewed the budget schedule. President Collins attended the CAC meeting on August 12th and reviewed concerns addressed by the CAC. Members of the CAC were concerned about the 25% increase in the levy. The CAC had no suggestions on cutting the budget but requested seeing a budget with only a 5% and 15% increase. The public comment period will remain open until September 1st. The final budget will be presented for approval on December 16th.

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

There were no public attendees for the public hearing. No public comments to record.

Motion 15-085: Close the Public Hearing for the Proposed 2016 Budget and Levy of the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved Public Comments – For Items not on the Agenda Ms. Carrie Wasley from the Ramsey Conservation District thanked the Board of Managers for including her in the budget discussions. Ms. Wasley shared that 25% of the Ramsey Conservation District’s budget is from a grant.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates

No Permits IV.

Special Reports A) Monitoring, Research and Maintenance Division Update (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum introduced Monitoring staff to provide an update on some of the new technologies implemented in the last year. Ms. Suppes, Monitoring Program Coordinator, provided an update on the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Monitoring (TBNS). CRWD partners with City of St. Paul Public Works, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation and Great River Greening. The goals of the additional monitoring was to gather baseline data to demonstrate the functions and benefits of TBNS. The other goal was to verify TBNS is fulfilling project objectives such as: treat & utilize stormwater to improve water quality. Provide a natural stream system to support aquatic life. Create habitat for wildlife, to connective a greenway between Lake McCarrons and the Mississippi River and to provide a natural resource for bikers, pedestrians, residents and students. In 2015 more aquatic biological, vegetation and wildlife monitoring have been added to the program.

Ms. Wein, Water Resource Technician, provided an update to the Managers on BMP Monitoring Initiatives. Ms. Wein shared with the Board of Managers that the majority of data is not reported on an annual basis. Data is used for helping in major projects such as Villa Park, Curtiss Pond and Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. The goals of BMP Monitoring are to: reduce volume, reduce pollutant load and track performance over time. Additional monitoring sites have been added along the Green Line, Arlington-Pascal, Villa Park, William Street Pond, and Curtiss Pond.

Mr. Sellner, Water Resource Technician, provided an update on the new WISKI database. Mr. Sellner shared a number of problems with the previous software such as: storage, size limits, limited ability to edit and load calculations. Mr. Sellner showed the Board of Managers how quickly he was able to up-load information and create reports. The Managers were very pleased.

Mr. Behrends, Water Resource Technician, provided an update on the remote data access. Mr. Behrends reviewed for the Board of Managers that power has now been supplied to monitoring stations at Trout Brook Westbranch and Trout Brook east branch. The remote data access has enabled staff to reduce the number of site visits. Staff is able to received text messages from the sites letting them know when samples are ready to be picked up.

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Ms. Haydon, Temporary Water Resource Technician, provided an update on the Summer Intern work she has done. Ms. Haydon thanked the Board of Managers for her time at CRWD and was very grateful for what she has learned from being in the field.

No action was requested. Information was shared to show the progress made on the recommended monitoring program.

V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the August 5, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 15-186: Approve Minutes of the August 5, 2015 Regular Meeting.

Texer/Jones Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for July 2015 (Sylvander)

Motion 15-187: Approve July 2015 Accounts Payable/Receivable and July Budget Report, direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Thienes/Reider Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Approve MOU with Department of Agriculture for Curator Status with MNWRL (Wein)

Ms. Wein reviewed for the Board of Managers that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture implemented an online database containing an inventory of water research relevant to Minnesota’s water resources. Ongoing growth and maintenance of the Library depends upon the partnerships created with institutions that use and conduct water research. The 2014-2016 Monitoring Program Review highlighted the importance of collaboration with external partners. There is no direct financial responsibility for this role, staff time commitment is variable dependent on what the partnering organization is able to give.

Motion 15-188: Authorize the Administrator to execute a MOU with the MDA for partnership with the MNWRL, subject to the review and approval of the Ramsey County Attorney.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved D)

AR:

Authorize 2016 Clean Water Legacy Grant Request (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria reviewed that CRWD in partnership with MN Pollution Control Agency, began a feasibility study to evaluate the opportunities for implementing green infrastructure practices on the Lafayette Park Campus in St. Paul. Barr Engineering has developed preliminary concept plans that will treat stormwater runoff to MIDS standard, be cost-effective and enhance the aesthetics of the property. Ms. Eleria share the preliminary concept plans. The plans include: water treatment with pavers, tree trenches, and raingardens. The parking lot could be reconfigured to add 30 additional spaces. Staff are seeking authorization to apply for a $400,000 CWF grant and offer a 25% CRWD match of $100,000 for the Lafayette Park Campus Project.

Motion 15-189: Authorize staff to submit grant application for FY 2016 Clean Water Fund for the Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Improvement Project.

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved E) AR: Adopt 2015 CRWD Awards Program (VanPatten) Ms. VanPatten reviewed for the Managers the CRWD Watershed Steward Awards program. At the May 13, 2015 CAC meeting, committee members discussed adding a project award category to the program since CRWD is no longer sponsoring an award through the Blooming St. Paul program. Ms. VanPatten reviewed the timeline of the awards program. Manager Reider suggested adding contractors to the program promotion list.

Motion 15-190: Approve the 2015 CRWD Watershed Steward Awards program.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved F) (Kelley)

AR:

Approve Contract Amendment with SRF Consulting for the Upper Villa Park Project

Mr. Fossum reviewed for the Managers that SRF has submitted two proposed contract and budget amendments for construction observation as well as water quality monitoring instrumentation. Work includes observation and support services during and after construction of the water harvesting, reuse and infiltration system.

Services will also include design of a water quality monitoring instrumentation and sampling package to be installed during construction. Mr. Fossum stated that not all the funding would most likely be used, because of the tight schedule staff felt it would be best to have extra funding approved so the project would not be delayed waiting for board approval.

Motion 15-191: Approve Contract Amendment #3 – Construction Observation and Closeout with SRF Consulting Group for the Upper Villa Reuse and Volume Reduction BMP project in an amount not to exceed $44,900.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved Motion 15-192: Approve Contract Amendment #4 – Exfiltration Monitoring Design with SRF Consulting Group for the Upper Villa Reuse and Volume Reduction BMP project in an amount not to exceed $15,700.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting Update (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Fossum reviewed for the Board of Managers that the second round of aquatic weed harvesting has been completed. Residents have been very pleased with the new vendor used this year. Staff will continue monitoring. Manager Thienes said the water level has been higher this year. Manager Thienes also said the neighbors are very pleased with the weed harvesting.

VII.

General Information Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

A) CAC Update (Doneux) President Collins said the members of the CAC had a very good discussion about the budget at the August 12th meeting.

VIII. Next Meeting A) Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Board Meeting.

B) Wednesday, September 9, 2015 CAC Meeting Motion 15-193: Adjournment of the August 19, 2015 Regular Board Meeting at 7:50 p.m.

Texer/Reider Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

W:\04 Board of Managers\Minutes\2015\August 19, 2015 DRAFT Regular Mtg.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

September 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Master Water Stewards participant agreement (Beckman)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 27, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Beckman Master Water Stewards participant agreement – Beckman

Background In July 2015, CRWD Board Managers approved the District’s participation in Freshwater Society’s Master Water Stewards program which trains, certifies and supports community leaders to install pollution prevention projects that educate community members and reduce polluted runoff. In 2016, Freshwater Society will train eight Stewards who will carry out their service hours in CRWD. Issues Staff has drafted a participant agreement to be signed by each Master Water Steward that is being reviewed by Attorney Mogen. Some questions have arisen for which staff would like Board guidance: 1. Should we charge a registration fee to approved Master Water Stewards candidates?

2. If so, how much is the fee? Staff recommends $200.00.

3. Should the fee be reimbursed to the Master Water Steward once they have completed certification? Staff recommends yes.

4. Should CRWD offer the possibility of a waiver to potential Stewards for whom the $200.00 temporary fee presents a financial hardship?

Request Action Approve Master Water Stewards participation fee of $200 to be reimbursed upon completion of the certification and allow staff to waive fee in the event of a financial hardship.

"W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Partnerships\Master Water Stewards\BM MWS Participant Agreement_2015.docx"

September 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Item C) Approve Preliminary 2016 Budget and Levy (Doneux)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 28, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Adopt Preliminary 2016 Budget and Certification of Levy

Background The Board has discussed and reviewed the preliminary 2016 Budget and Tax Levy during several meetings and workshops this summer. A copy of our summary budget and hearing notice was sent to the affected cities and Ramsey County officials in August. The Board of Managers held a special workshop on July 8th and 27th to review the draft budget and levy. The Citizen’s Advisory Committee reviewed and provided comments on the proposed 2016 budget and levy at their August meeting. A duly noticed Public Hearing was held on August 19th to collect public comment on the proposed 2016 budget and levy. The Board of Managers must adopt a Preliminary 2016 Budget and Levy Certification before the initial September 15, 2015 deadline.

Issues I am recommending that the Board adopt the preliminary budget and levy as presented. At the August 12th CAC meeting, members asked that prior to adoption, the Board consider two levels of reductions in the budget that would reduce the levy increase to 15% and 5%. Staff have outlined possible reductions to achieve those targets. While perception of the amount of levy increases has always been a concern for the Board, our levy as proposed will result in a $4.17 increase for the average home valued at $150,000 in St. Paul (see attached Property Tax Impacts table). I think the overlying question should be is a $4,266,566 levy appropriate. I believe it is and would like to lay out a few reasons to support that statement. Our 2010 Watershed Plan identifies a $5,785,000 budget amount for 2016. If you were to remove the one time building cost of $3,500,000 our 2016 budget would be $5,471,271 which is in line with our adopted plan. The District is prudent when it comes to fiscal management and 2016 is no exception. The proposed levy is 48% of total budget which is consistent over the past five years. More remarkable is that our CIP levy is a mere 16% of our total CIP Budget. What is happening in 2016 is not that our expenditures are increasing (if you discount the one time building expense) but rather our revenues are down. The 2013A Series Bond Issue revenue runs out in 2015 and to maintain our programs we need to back fill that lost revenue.

The City of St. Paul has provided comments on our draft budget (enclosed). Their letter, while not identifying specific costs, would recommend approximately $320,000 of funding. The current budget includes all but $100,000 of their requests and I have drafted a response to their comments and recommend that we add $100,000 in Fund Balance revenue to include those projects.

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Board of Managers August 28, 2015 Page Two

The District took the unprecedented step of conducting a Five Year Mid Term Review. This review validated the work of the District over the past five years. The findings did not recommend a significant reduction in effort and in fact recommends to stay the course or even increase our efforts with some refinement in areas of focus.

Ultimately the Board must decide the approach on the budget and levy. I believe CRWD is still growing and continues to be asked to do more. CRWD is still in catch up mode to complete work that wasn’t done prior to our existence. Our proposed budget and levy is consistent with our approved watershed plan with the tax burden of less than 50% of expenditures and at just under $30 for a median value home. If the Board intends to reduce the levy, I would recommend doing that at the December, Final Levy Certification to allow for better estimating of fund balance as well as external budget requests. Therefore I am recommending that the Board adopt the preliminary budget and levy as presented.

Recommendation Staff is recommending the preliminary budget of $459,950 for Administration, $1,864,089 for Programs, $877,471 for Projects for a total Operations Budget of $3,201,510 and $5,769,761 for Capital Improvement Projects. This results in a total Preliminary 2016 Budget of $8,971,271. This is an increase of $4,104,843 from 2015. The proposed 2016 tax levy is $4,266,566. This includes $3,897,230 for the operations and capital levy and $369,336 for debt. This levy is $863,104 or 25.32% higher than 2015.

Requested Action Approve and adopt the Preliminary 2016 Budget and Levy Certification.

enc:

August 26, 2015 City of St. Paul Comment letter on proposed 2016 budget 2016 Budget - Property Tax Impacts Preliminary 2016 Project List with reductions to meet CAC comments Preliminary 2016 CRWD Expenditure, Revenue and Levy Summary (11”x17”) Draft Levy Certification form Draft Debt Levy Certification form Draft Resolution – Adopting 2016 Budget & Levy

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Budget - 2016\Budget Files\Preliminary Budget 9-2-15\Board Memo - Adoption of Preliminary 2016 Budget and Levy - 8-2815.docx

2