September 3, 2014 board packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:00 p.m.

Note: The meeting location is Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive, Saint Paul, MN 55108.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Materials Enclosed

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) 14-028 Highland Village Streetscape (Kelley) B) Permit Close-Outs (Poland) C) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

IV.

Special Reports –Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Feasibility Report, SRF Consulting, Inc.

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Authorize Purchase of Monitoring Database (Suppes) C) AR: Adopt 2015 Preliminary Budget and Levy (Doneux)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) FI: Highland Ravine Stabilization Project Update (Eleria) B) FI: Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Update (Fossum)

VII.

General Information A) Administrator’s Report

VIII.

Next Meetings A) CAC Meeting, Wednesday, September 10, 2014 B) Board Meeting Wednesday, September 17, 2014

IX.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2014\September 3, 2014 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District

Permit 14-028 highland Village Streetscape

Applicant:

Jesse Farrell St. Paul Public Works 25 West 4th Street (CHA 900) St. Paul, MN 55112

Consultant:

N/A

Description:

Streetscape improvements for the sidewalks near the inetersection of Ford Pkwy and Cleveland Ave

Stormwater Management: Permeable pavers and CU Structural Soil District Rule: C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.63 Impervious Area: 1.43 Acres RECOMMENDATION: Appr ove with 3 Conditions 1. Provide revised drainage area map and calculations to document treatment catchments 2. Document soil types to ensure the infiltration practice will drain within 48 hours.

3. Remove geotextile fabric from around the CU Soil.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits from the Public Works volume bank.

Cleveland Ave

Ford Pkwy

Permit Location Permit 14-028

Aerial Photo September 3, 2014 Board Meeting

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

14-028

Review date:

August 29, 2014

Project Name:

Highland Village Streetscape

Applicant:

City of St. Paul

Purpose:

Reconstruction of approximately 4,600 feet of sidewalk.

Location:

Ford Parkway between Cretin Avenue and Kenneth Street; Cleveland Avenue between Pinehurst and Hillcrest Avenues

Applicable Rules:

C, D and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 3 Conditions

Volume Bank Recommendation:

Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits from the Public Works volume bank.

EXHIBITS: 1. Construction Plan, by City of St. Paul, dated 7/1/14, recd. 8/1/14.

2. Memo to CRWD, by City of St. Paul, dated 7/31/14, recd. 8/1/14.

3. Specifications, by City of St. Paul, dated 6/30/14, recd. 8/1/14.

4. Email to CRWD, by City of St. Paul, dated 8/22/14, recd. 8/22/14.

5. NPDES permit, recd. 8/22/14.

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\2014\14-028 Highland Village Streetscape\14-028 Permit_Review02.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 not 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 not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 54,014 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

4,051 BMP Volume Below Tree trench 5,940 (However, 2” runoff to the tree trenches is 3,564 cf.) c. Withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of credits from the Public Works volume reduction bank has been requested d. It is not known if infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. It is not known if the infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Best management practices likely achieve 90% total suspended solids removal on an annual basis.

5. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City and the CRWD. 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.

Findings

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-028 Highland Village Streetscape\14-028 Permit_Review02.doc

Page 2 of 4

1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

However, sufficient conveyances have been provided to allow the storm sewer system to function as or better than it did prior to the project.

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.

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\2014\14-028 Highland Village Streetscape\14-028 Permit_Review02.doc

Page 3 of 4

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide revised drainage area map and calculations to document treatment catchments 2. Document soil types to ensure the infiltration practice will drain within 48 hours.

3. Remove geotextile fabric from around the CU Soil.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits from the Public Works volume bank.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-028 Highland Village Streetscape\14-028 Permit_Review02.doc

Page 4 of 4

8/29/2014 Account:

Volume Banking Credits Saint Paul Public Works

Transaction Requested Approved Deposit 4/4/2007 Withdrawal 4/4/2007 Withdrawal 1/22/2008 Deposit Pending Withdrawal 8/20/2008 Withdrawal 8/20/2008 Deposit Pending Withdrawal 3/18/2009 Deposit Pending Withdrawal 6/3/2009 Deposit Pending Withdrawal 3/16/2010 5/5/2010 Withdrawal 4/14/2010 5/19/2010 Deposit 5/26/2010 Pending Withdrawal 2/2/2011 2/2/2011 Deposit 2/25/2011 Pending Withdrawal 2/25/2011 4/20/2011 Withdrawal 2/25/2011 4/20/2011 Deposit 9/7/2011 Pending Transfer 10/14/2011 11/16/2011 Deposit 11/16/2011 Pending Deposit 1/4/2012 1/4/2012 Withdrawal 1/4/2012 Pending Deposit 5/2/2012 Pending Deposit 9/19/2012 Pending Withdrawal 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 Withdrawal 2/6/2013 2/6/2013 Withdrawal 2/6/2013 2/6/2013 Deposit 5/15/2013 Pending Withdrawal 7/10/2013 7/10/2013 Withdrawal 9/18/2013 9/18/2013 Deposit 2/19/2014 Pending Withdrawal 3/5/2014 3/5/2014 Withdrawal 3/19/2014 3/19/2004 Withdrawal 9/3/2014 9/3/2014

Permit NA 07-009 08-001 07-008 08-003 08-004 08-016 09-004 09-009 09-011 09-017 10-005 10-011 10-014 11-002 11-004 11-005 11-006 11-021 09-031 11-027 NA 11-030 12-004 12-018 12-029 13-001 13-002 13-014 13-021 13-018C 14-004 13-033 14-001 14-028

Project Deposit Withdrawal Balance (cf) Chatsworth-Goodrich 10,532 10,532 Davern 0 5,717 4,815 Selby Avenue 0 3,790 1,025 Hubbard-Griggs 9,386 10,411 Seventh-Bay 0 8,278 2,133 Ashland-Pascal 0 20,069 -17,936 Payne Avenue 2,576 -15,360 East Sixth Street 0 6,044 -21,404 Victoria Street 1,991 -19,413 Magnolia-Earl 0 18,356 -37,769 Knapp-Ramond 2,338 -35,431 Seventh-Douglas 0 17,462 -52,893 Davern-Jefferson 0 39,308 -92,201 Front-Victoria 14,791 -77,410 Fairview 18,034 -95,444 Blair-Griggs 5,935 -89,509 Howell-Goodrich (revised 15,238 to Zero) 0 -89,509 Davern-Jefferson II 25,611 -115,120 College Park 99,457 -15,663 Wells and Russell 116,436 100,773 Hewitt-Tatum 4,067 104,840 St. Albans-Arundel Trenches 35,710 140,550 Prior-Goodrich TBD 140,550 Wheelock Parkway Bridge 391 140,941 Hamline Library Pervious Alley 7,100 148,041 Arlington-Rice 28,035 120,006 Hatch-Agate 22,216 97,790 Hamline Avenue Bridge 6,697 91,093 Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 103,455 194,548 Jefferson-Griggs Bike Routes 5,881 188,667 Prince Street 7,303 181,364 Hampden Park 24,908 206,272 Fairview-Bohland 16,626 189,646 Montana-Greenbrier 11,091 178,555 Highland Village Streetscape 487 178,068 439,073 261,005 178,068

September 3, 2014 III. Permit Applications B) Permit Closeouts (Poland)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 28, 2014 CRWD Board of Managers Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician Permit Closeouts

Background Construction activity is complete for permits 07-011 and 07-020.

Issues  

07-011 Desoto Skillman: As-built plans were submitted 8/5/2014 and approved. A Memorandum of Agreement is in place. A closeout inspection was conducted on 8/19/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

07-020 Polar Bear Exhibit: As-built plans were submitted on 4/4/2014 and approved. A Memorandum of Agreement is in place. A closeout inspection was conducted on 7/31/2014.

Some trash and small amounts of sediment were found in the basin. A notice was submitted to the permittee, but staff recommends that permit gets closed.

Action Requested Approve Certificates of Completion for permits 07-011 and 07-020. cc: Jim Mogen, Ramsey Country Attorney’s Office W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2014-09-03 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

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

September 3, 2014 Regular Board Meeting III. Special Reports B) Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study (Kelley)

DATE: August 29, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Forrest Kelley, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager RE: Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study ____________________________________________________________________________________ Background The District was awarded a $275,000 Clean Water Partnership grant in 2012 for the identification, design, and construction of volume reduction practices in the Lake McCarrons subwatershed. In January of 2014, the District was awarded an additional $360,000 towards construction of the combined infiltration/harvest and reuse BMP underneath the Upper Villa Park Softball field. On April 16, 2104, the Board of Managers approved a contract with Geosyntec for professional services to assist SRF Consulting Group in assessing the feasibility of a stormwater harvest and reuse, and to determine the benefit of an actively controlled system (OptiRTC).

Issues The Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study is complete and attached for review. CRWD and SRF staff will present the findings and recommendations and answer any questions the Board of Managers may have.

Requested Actions Adopt the Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study

enc:

Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study - Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\Lake McCarrons Subwatershed CWP Grant\Reuse Feasibility\Brd Memo Reuse Feasbility 2014-09-03.docx

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

Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP Project Location: B‐Dale Club, Upper Villa Park, Roseville, Minnesota SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Geosyntec Consultants June 3, 2014 Revised August 27, 2014 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The goal of this feasibility study was to analyze a stormwater harvesting, storage, and reuse system as an irrigation water source for the B‐Dale softball field located in the Upper Villa Park. Two criteria that guided the analysis were: 1. The overall goal of 45 lbs of total phosphorus reduction on an average annual basis through runoff volume reduction should be met or exceeded.

2. The reliance on municipal water for irrigation should be reduced as much as possible, with the ultimate goal of providing all irrigation water from the reuse system for an average rainfall year.

Basic System Configuration The basic system is comprised of two major components: ‐ ‐

An underground tank or cistern that stores stormwater, which can be reused for ball field irrigation by pumping the water through a filter to the existing sprinkler system.

An underground infiltration gallery or field that receives pretreated stormwater from the cistern and infiltrates the stormwater into underlying sand deposits.

Other minor components such as stormwater pre‐treatment, a splitter structure that directs low flows to the cistern and high flows to a system bypass, irrigation system pump and filter, and additional appurtenances make up a complete system. The irrigation system itself was not included in the analysis or cost estimates since it is considered to be the same for all scenarios except for Scenario 6 (see below for a description of the various scenarios). See the attached figures for the various system layouts.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the two‐component stormwater harvesting and reuse system that would meet the above criteria, both passive and actively controlled scenarios were investigated.

Passive Storage System Operation The passive system operates without any management inputs. A flow splitter receives inflows from the upstream watershed and directs inflows to the system or to the existing outfall beyond the system as bypass based on water levels in the flow splitter structure. The system is configured as follows: inflow 1

from the splitter enters a storage tank to be used for irrigation purposes. Once the storage tank is full, an overflow weir conveys flow to an infiltration basin. Once the infiltration is full, an outlet pipe conveys overflow to the existing stormwater system and to the site outfall. Specific model parameters are listed below: ‐

‐

Storage Cistern: o Plan view dimensions of 9,455 square feet with an overflow weir located 5.5 feet above invert, which goes to the infiltration basin. This provides approximately 52,000 cubic feet of available storage. o An irrigation demand of 1 inch per week was utilized for 70,000 square feet of surrounding fields. This was modeled as a constant outflow. o The resulting outflow rate from the storage tank, representing irrigation demand, is 0.006 inches per hour Infiltration Chamber: o Plan view dimensions of approximately 5,490 square feet, with an overflow pipe to the existing stormwater system located 4 feet above the invert. This provides approximately 21,965 cubic feet of additional storage. o An infiltration rate of 3 inches per hour was utilized. Discussions between SRF and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) determined this high infiltration rate was justified due to numerous pretreatment BMPs in place upstream of the infiltration basin and a high existing infiltration rate based on soil borings taken in the ball field.

Actively Controlled Storage (Geosyntec’s OptiRTC) System Operation This assumes the same setup as the passive system described previously, except a 10 inch control valve is installed leading to the infiltration chamber at an invert of 1.23 feet above the bottom of the cistern.

In general, the OptiRTC control scenarios were developed with the following sequence: 1) Interpret the incoming 48 hour forecast information and calculate the required tank volume needed to prevent overflow 2) Based on current water levels in the tank, convert the required volume into a specific level that the cistern must be drained to in order to capture the incoming storm 3) Open the valve and drain the cistern to the required level to prevent/minimize overflow 4) Close the valve prior to the storm to control wet weather flow to the infiltration system.

Infiltration Only System Operation This configuration reverts back to the originally proposed method to meet the phosphorus removal goal through deep infiltration only. It is comprised of a large underground infiltration chamber that receives flow from the splitter and discharges flow back to the storm sewer during large rainfall events. This is a passive system with no active controls and no storage cistern.

2

Modeling Simulation Runs and Results Model Scenarios: Five different model scenarios were run using EPA‐SWMM 5 for the “passive” and “controlled” systems based on various storage volumes as follows:     

Scenario 1: Full cistern volume and full infiltration chamber volume (based on numbers noted previously) Scenario 2: Full cistern volume and half infiltration chamber volume Scenario 3: Half cistern volume and full infiltration chamber volume Scenario 4: Half cistern volume and half infiltration chamber volume Scenario 5: Small 13,370 cubic ft (100,000 gallon) cistern and full infiltration chamber volume

As a factor of safety, the OptiRTC actively controlled models will not drain the large cisterns in scenarios 1 through 4 down lower than the volume associated with 2 weeks of irrigation demand during the irrigation season (11,667 cubic feet of storage). In Scenario 5, the cistern will be drained down to within one foot of the tank bottom.

Results: Preliminary results were generated based on the amount of inflow that the system was able to handle before overflowing to the outfall. The results are presented based on overall volume reduction and phosphorus reduction. Phosphorus reduction calculations were based on monitoring information received from the CRWD, which showed an average total phosphorus (TP) concentration of 0.64 mg/L. This concentration was applied to the total volume reduction model result. It should be noted that the 0.64 mg/L concentration is based on recent monitoring completed by CRWD staff over one monitoring season, and may not reflect long term concentrations. In addition, infiltration rates will also be assessed based on current recommendations from the Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2014) and site analysis. As design proceeds, both the concentration and infiltration rates will be reviewed again and adjusted as necessary if additional data becomes available.

Table 1: Volume reduction by Scenario Volume Reduction (ft3/year) Scenario Passive Controlled 1 1,126,066 1,340,401 2 762,004 903,315 3 1,114,244 1,251,325 4 747,197 817,808 5 1,109,396 1,235,397

3

Phosphorus Reduction (lbs/yr) @ 0.64 mg/L Passive Controlled 45.0 53.6 30.4 36.1 44.5 50.0 29.9 32.7 44.3 49.4

Table 2: Percent Reduction of Water Flowing into Cistern Scenario 1 2 3 4 5

Volume Reduction Passive Controlled 30.1% 35.8% 20.4% 24.1% 29.8% 33.4% 20.0% 21.9% 29.6% 33.0%

Results Interpretation: For Scenario 5, the cistern volume of 13,370 cf (100,000 gallons) has been optimized to meet the irrigation demand 99% of the time (during a 10‐year continuous simulation model). The volume lost by irrigation use is less significant than the volume lost through infiltration.

Therefore, the design adjustments of reducing the cistern storage, while leaving the full infiltration storage constant, provides an optimized scenario while maintaining the TP removal goal.

As can be seen in Table 1, utilizing the active control in Scenario 5 makes the difference between not meeting and exceeding the phosphorus removal goal. The added benefits of active controls relate to the cistern tank health and the effective use of dry‐weather infiltration capacity. The actively controlled system allows for better oxygenation and water turn over when compared to the passive system, which will help prevent water stagnation and algae growth. Furthermore, by discharging cistern water into the infiltration system during dry weather just before a rainfall event, additional volume and thus TP removal can be obtained. As Table 1, Scenario 5, illustrates, an additional 5.1 lbs/yr TP is removed simply by actively controlling the cistern.

Another advantage not quantified by the volume reduction results presented above is the actively controlled system’s ability to be adaptively managed based on preliminary monitoring results. If preliminary monitoring results indicate that the system is not achieving phosphorus reduction goals as designed, logic can be adapted to better meet those goals. For example, logic could be altered to require longer detention times or altered to focus on capturing and detaining first flush runoff from storms after long dry periods (i.e., higher phosphorus build up in the watershed). These flexible systems are able to adapt quickly to changing boundary conditions and environmental factors, as well as feedback on past performance.

Example: Refer to the plots below for an example comparison between the passive and controlled system during the month of October 1996.

4

Scenario 1 Example: Actively Controlled System (October 1996)

5

Scenario 1 Example: Passive System (October 1996)

6

Scenario 6: Infiltration Only Comparison This simulation analyzed a single infiltration system without cistern storage as Scenario 6. As reported in the Subwatershed Analysis Report (January, 2013), based on P8 modeling, a 21,600 square foot infiltration system was needed to meet the 45 lbs/year TP removal rate. Since then, Hydraulic and Hydrologic (H&H) XPSWMM and EPA SWMMM 5 models were developed in order to complete the system configuration runs as described earlier. In addition, further refinement of the infiltration system was completed for this feasibility study. The infiltration rate and TP loading were also updated to 3 inches per hour and 0.64 mg/L (based on CRWD monitoring), respectively. These results were entered back into P8 and the infiltration system footprint was adjusted to obtain the 45 lbs/year goal. Based on these new conditions the revised infiltration area footprint is expected to be approximately 8870 square feet.

Locations Two locations for the system were identified within the B‐Dale complex.

Ball field: Place the entire system underneath the ball field outfield area.

Parking Lot: Place the entire system underneath the adjacent parking lot.

The City of Roseville Park and Recreation Department has indicated their preference for the parking lot location. Their preference would be to not place infrastructure with surface features such as manholes in the ball field due to possible safety and playability issues. Figures 1a through 3b provide a layout for Scenarios 1, 5, and 6 respectively for both the ball field and parking lot, to provide a visual of the different potential sizes of the systems.

Construction Cost Estimates Three of the six scenarios were selected for construction cost estimating. Scenario 1 represents the largest system and is the highest cost, therefore providing a good upper cost boundary. Scenarios 2 and 4 do not meet the TP removal goal and thus were eliminated from further analysis. Scenario 3 represents a “middle ground” option, but since Scenario 5 represents the most cost effective option to meet both the TP removal and irrigation goals, Scenario 3 was not considered further. Scenario 6 represents the least costly option which also meets the TP removal goal. Scenario 6 does not include water harvesting and reuse, and thus does not provide the water conservation effect that is gained with a reuse system.

The construction cost estimates provided in Table 3 are preliminary and are based on the following assumptions: ‐

Both the cistern and infiltration gallery are proprietary systems. The cistern is a StormTrap pre‐ fabricated modular concrete system that is constructed with a water proofing membrane outside of the concrete floor and walls. The infiltration gallery is a heavy duty Triton plastic

7

‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

dome system that uses the S‐29 model with a 6” open graded rock cushion that surrounds the domes. Cost estimates for these systems were provided by the respective manufacturers.

Restoration of the ball field consists of laying new lawn sod over disturbed areas. The irrigation system reconstruction within the disturbed area is considered to be part of the ball field reconstruction costs already borne by the Parks and Recreation Department, and is not included in this cost estimate.

Restoration of the parking lot includes reconstruction of the disturbed stalls and includes new base, asphalt, curb and gutter, and stall striping.

Costs for storm sewer, manholes, connections, etc. come from the MnDOT average bid prices list for 2013.

The hydrodynamic separator is a proprietary technology call the “SAFL Baffle.”

Contractor mobilization is assumed to be 10 percent of the materials and labor cost.

A 15 percent contingency is included in all cost estimates.

Engineering design and construction administration costs are not included.

Table 3: Summary of Estimated Costs Passive System Active System TP Removal TP TP Removal TP Scenario Location Cost Cost Cost removed Cost removed Estimate Estimate ($/lb) (lb/year) ($/lb) (lb/yr) 1 Ball field $939,960 45.0 $20,890 $999,960 53.6 $18,660 1 Parking Lot $1,108,800 45.0 $24,640 $1,168,800 53.6 $21,810 5 Ball field $551,860 44.3 $12,460 $611,860 49.4 $12,390 5 Parking Lot $631,030 44.3 $14,250 $691,080 49.4 $13,990 6 Ball field $296,550 45.3 $6,550 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 Parking Lot $376,970 45.3 $8,320 ‐ ‐ ‐

Summary Scenario 5 with an active OptiRTC control system represents the most cost effective option that meets the stated goals noted above. While placement beneath the playing field is estimated to cost less, it is not consistent with the City’s preference to not place infrastructure within the ball field, and may result in higher long term maintenance and restoration costs. The Scenario 5 active OptiRTC system placed within the parking lot exceeds the TP removal goal by 16 percent, and represents a moderate cost increase due to restoration of pavement, and is therefore the recommended option.

8

J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 1_ball field.mxd

Water Reuse Storage

Infiltration System Hydrodynamic Separator

Legend SanitaryManhole SanitaryLiftStation SanitaryPipe

Storm Sewer Existing Proposed

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 1 - Ball Field: Full Cistern and Full Infiltration Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Proposed BMP

Figure 1a

Infiltration System

Hydrodynamic Separator

J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 1_parking lot.mxd

Water Reuse Storage

Legend SanitaryManhole SanitaryPipe

Storm Sewer Existing Proposed

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 1 - Parking Lot: Full Cistern and Full Infiltration Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Proposed B-Dale Club Underground BMP

Figure 1b

Water Reuse Storage

Legend J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 5_ball field.mxd

Existing Sanitary Manhole

Proposed Storm Sewer Infiltration System Hydrodynamic Separator

Proposed Storm Sewer Existing Sanitary Sewer

Storm Sewer Existing Storm Sewer

Proposed Treatment Layer Construction Footprint

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 5 - Ball Field: Small Cistern and Full Infiltration Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Treatment Footprint

Figure 2a

Water Reuse Storage

Infiltration System

Legend

J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 5_parking lot.mxd

Existing Sanitary Manhole

Proposed Storm Sewer Proposed Storm Sewer

Hydrodynamic Separator

Existing Sanitary Sewer

Storm Sewer Existing Storm Sewer

Proposed Treatment Layer Construction Footprint

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 5 - Parking Lot: Small Cistern and Full Infiltration Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Treatment Footprint

Figure 2b

J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 6_ball field.mxd

Infiltration System Hydrodynamic Separator

Legend SanitaryManhole SanitaryLiftStation SanitaryPipe

Storm Sewer Existing Proposed

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 6 -Ball Field: Infiltation Only Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Proposed BMP

Figure 3a

Infiltration System

J:\Maps\7896\MXD\Reuse\Reuse_08122014\Scenario 6_parking lot.mxd

Hydrodynamic Separator

Legend SanitaryManhole SanitaryPipe

Storm Sewer Existing Proposed

0

100

200 Feet

[

Scenario 6 - Parking Lot: Infiltation Only Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Capitol Region Watershed District

Proposed B-Dale Club Underground BMP

Figure 3b

September 3, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of August 20, 2014 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) at 6:02 p.m.

A) Attendance Joe Collins Shirley Reider Seitu Jones Mary Texer Mike Thienes

B)

Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD Corey Poland, CRWD

Public Attendees

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Joe Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. Administrator Doneux asked to add VI. E) Unfinished Business: Island Station Update to the agenda.

Motion 14-174: Approve the updated August 20, 2014 Agenda.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved II.

Public Comments – For Items not on the Agenda Public Hearing Watershed District 2015 Budget and Levy

There were no public comments. President Collins requested that communication of the public hearing be included in the record. The proposed 2015 budget was reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee in August.

Notice of the Public Hearing was sent 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. Manager Texer asked how the new building process will impact the budget. Administrator Doneux indicated that there was $150,000 budgeted for planning related to the new office and he expects to include construction costs on the 2016 budget.

Motion 14-075: Close the Public Hearing for the Proposed 2015 Budget and Levy of the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Texer/Jones Unanimously approved

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

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A)

Permit Closeouts (Poland)

Mr. Poland reviewed completed construction projects for permits 07-001, 07-015, 07-018, 08-006, 08014, 08-031, 09-007, 09-025, 12-014 and 12-024. 



    

  

07-001 Stuart Care Facility: As-built plans have been received and approved. Proof of a recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 1/9/2014. At the closeout inspection, conducted on 6/12/2014, inlet protection devices were still installed, the EcoStorm Plus unit (stormwater filtration system) needed cleaning, and the system was not draining. These issues were addressed on 8/11/2014: The EcoStorm Plus unit was vacuumed out and back flushed, a piece of wood blocking the outlet was removed, and the storage pipes were vacuumed out.

07-015 United Family Practice Health Center: As-built plans have been received and approved. Proof of a recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 6/6/2014. At the closeout inspection, conducted on 6/18/2014, minor maintenance on the system was needed, and grass was dying near sidewalks. The site was inspected again on 8/13/2014. All problems were addressed.

07-018 Loeb Lake Fishing Pier: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

08-006 Rice Street Business Center: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

08-014 Rice Street Bridge: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

08-031 TBI Maryland Ave: This was a CRWD project, inspections were conducted as part of contract work.

09-007 SPPA Pierce Butler Site: This permit has been transferred to CRWD permit 11-001 Banbro Warehouse. As-built plans are not required since they were submitted on permit 11-001. Proof of a recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 7/22/2014. At the closeout inspection, conducted on 7/29/2014, sediment was found in one of the catch basins. This will be noted in a maintenance report and submitted to current owners.

09-025 Roseville Dog Park Erosion: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

12-014 Trout Brook Realignment: This was a CRWD project, inspections were conducted as part of contract work.

12-024 Johnson Brother Liquor: As-built plans have been submitted and approved. Proof of a recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 6/10/2014. At the closeout inspection, conducted on 7/18/2014, there were no plants in the back rain garden. The garden was planted prior to the 7/30/2014 follow-up inspection. The plants were being watered regularly and appeared to be establishing. This garden will be inspected again before the August 20 board meeting.

Verbal update will be given at this time.

Motion 14-176:  Approve Certificates of Completion for permits 07-018, 08-014, 08-031, 09-007, 09-025, and 12014.

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

 Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 07-001 Stuart Care Facility and return surety of $3,800  Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 07-015 United Family Practice Health Center and return surety of $5,600  Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 08-006 Rice Street Business Center and return surety of $1,000  Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 12-024 Johnson Brother Liquor and return surety of $10,100

Thienes/Jones Unanimously approved B)

Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

No update was given.

Manager Reider suggested that boulevard rain garden projects that are done in partnership with the City of Saint Paul be added to an upcoming agenda for further discussion. Administrator Doneux said he will include it on the September 3rd or 17th agenda and emphasized that homeowner education for these projects is a priority for the District.

IV.

Special Reports. There were no special reports

V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 14-177: Approve Minutes of the August 6, 2014 Regular Meeting.

Jones/Reider Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for July 2014 (Sylvander)

Motion 14-178: Approve July 2014 Accounts Payable/Receivable and July Budget Report and direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Thienes/Texer Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Approve Grant Application for Targeted Watershed Program (Zwonitzer)

Administrator Doneux introduced the Targeted Watershed Program in Mr. Zwonitzer’s absence. In 2013, a state law was passed requiring BWSR to award grants to local government units to implement projects that will result in a significant and measureable reduction in water pollution in a selected subwatershed. BWSR created the Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program which has $10 million in grant funds available over the next two years to fund projects in three to six watersheds. CRWD submitted an application for the 2014 grant cycle and was not awarded funding. Administrator Doneux indicated that staff would like the Board’s approval Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

to submit a grant application for the 2015 Targeted Watershed Program for the McCarrons Lake watershed and that staff will incorporate changes to the submittal based on feedback on last year’s application. President Collins asked if we were not awarded the requested $2 million but a lower amount if we would be able to achieve measurable results. Mr. Fossum explained that the program is designed to fund high impact projects and that CRWD has many projects they could implement so any funding support would be useful.

Motion 14-179: 1. Authorize Administrator to apply for a $2 million grant through the BWSR Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program for the McCarrons Lake watershed.

2. Commit up to $500,000 in matching funds over four years for the BWSR Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved D)

AR:

Approve Grade Promotion for Lindsay VanPatten (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed Ms. VanPatten’s employment and performance at the District and requested the Board to approve a grade promotion from Grade 5 to Grade 6.

Motion 14-180: Promote Lindsay VanPatten to grade 6, Education and Outreach Specialist I Texer/Jones Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A)

FI: MOU for Stormwater Management Master Plan for Como Regional Park (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux introduced the Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Stormwater Management Master Plan for Como Regional Park between CRWD, and the City of Saint Paul Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Public Works. Mr. Fossum explained that this agreement would help coordinate projects and reporting for the City and CRWD who are both MS4 permit holders. President Collins asked if this would impact the Como Lake TMDL. Mr. Fossum explained that stormwater improvement projects within Como Regional Park would certainly help address water quality issues for Como Lake and therefore be TMDL. Requested Action: Provide Comments on draft MOU for Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan.

The Board was unanimous in their support of the MOU. B)

FI: Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting Update (Zwonitzer)

Administrator Doneux gave the Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting update in Mr. Zwonitzer’s absence. He explained that low water levels made harvesting challenging for this second round but they removed as much as they could access in the designated areas. Administrator Doneux indicated that harvesting is complete for the year and that further discussion will take place before making plans for next year.

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

C)

FI: Office Remodel Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux said that construction is underway and they are making progress.

D)

FI: 2013 Audit Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux indicated that the exit interview with auditor will take place in the next few weeks and asked if Mangers Thienes or Jones would like to attend. Manger Thienes said he’d like to attend if he is available.

E)

FI: Island Station Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed the most recent development plans for the Island Station construction area. The plans included some mixed-use development with housing and commercial spaces as well as an office for National Park Service and possibly other water resource organizations.

VII.

General Information A)

CAC Update

Manger Reider and President Collins attended the August CAC meeting. The CAC is in the process of creating an awards program and Manager Reider wanted to acknowledge that the CAC has done a great job of working on the project.

Motion 14-181: Support the CAC in their development of an Awards program.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved B)

Administrator’s Report

Administrator Doneux reviewed the Administrators Report.

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements a) Stewardship Grant Agreement with D12 for two large rain gardens on Raymond Ave. - $8,600. b) Consultant Services Agreement with Wenck Associates for RSVP Design Standards - $4,400. c) Amendment No. 1 to 2013 Stewardship Grant Agreement with German Immersion School to increase maximum award amount from $10,000 to $20,000.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements 3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events a) Corey Poland’s last day at CRWD will be September 5, 2014. We are currently accepting applications for BMP Inspector through August 15. b) The 2014 Clean Water Summit is September 11, 2014 8:00am – 5:00pm at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. CRWD is a sponsor and planning member of the conference. The topic is “Green Infrastructure for Clean Water: Costs & Benefits to Our Communities” and the Lowertown Regional Ballpark will be featured as a case study. c) CREATE: The Community Meal by Manager Seitu Jones will be held on September 14, 2014 on Victoria Street in Saint Paul.

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

d) CRWD and the CAC are co-sponsoring the September 18 Moos Family Speaker Series, “Dwindling Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space” with Dr. Jay Famiglietti. The presentation begins at 7:00pm at the University of Minnesota St. Paul Student Center. Register at www.freshwater.org/lectures. e) Saint Paul Open Streets celebration with be Saturday, September 21, 2014. f) CRWD Staff will be participating in a mobile workshop of Green Line Green Infrastructure during the Rail-Volution Conference, September 23, 2014 from 1-4pm. g) Mark Doneux, Nate Zwonitzer and Bob Fossum will be attending WEFTEC in New Orleans, Louisiana from September 27 – October 1. h) Mark will be out of the office August 14-19.

4) CRWD events and meetings a) BWSR tour of Green Line Green Infrastructure, August 26, 11:00am – 1:00 pm. b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, September 3, 2014 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm. c) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, September 10, 2014 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm.

5) Project and Program Updates a.) U of M Community Capacity Study update: The first phase of interviews with organizations and agencies that serve communities on the Green Line is almost complete, the next phase with minority and new immigrant business owners and property owners along the Green Line and the east side of Saint Paul is beginning. A meeting of the Project Advisory Team and CRWD staff is tentatively scheduled for September.

Community Capacity Survey Project Advisory Team: Patricia Ohmans of Frogtown Green, Cheng Lee of Asian Outdoor Heritage, Craig Johnson of Model Cities, Melanie Peterson-Nafzinger of Great River School, Carol Swenson of District Councils Collaborative, Bill Zajicek of Payne-Phalen Planning Council, Jonee Kulman Brigham of U of M and Fullspring Studio b.) Watershed Partners, Partner Grant for Guard your Stormdrain: Focus groups were conducted to gather feedback on initial Guard your stormdrain messaging and design. In response to the feedback, the program name has been changed to Adopt a Stormdrain. Another round of public feedback on the revised information is planned in August. c.) Highland Ravine Project: Pre-construction meetings with the contractor and homeowners will be held on August 25, 2014 from 3 – 6:30pm. Construction is scheduled to start on September 8 and be substantially completed by October 15. d.) Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Study: The project kick-off meeting will be held on August 21 at 8:30 am at Lauderdale City Hall, 1891 Walnut Street. Representatives from Lauderdale, Ramsey County and possibly the future developer of the adjacent private property will be in attendance.

VIII. Adjournment Motion 14-182: Adjournment of the August 20, 2014 Regular Board Meeting at 7:27 p.m.

Texer/Reider Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Lindsay VanPatten Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

September 3, 2014 V. Action Items, B) Authorize

Purchase of Monitoring Database (Suppes)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 28, 2014 CRWD Board of Managers Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator Authorize Purchase of Monitoring Database

Background CRWD has been collecting continuous time-series flow data and discrete water quality data since 2005 through the District Monitoring Program. Cumulatively, monitoring data collected since 2005 has built a lengthy and robust dataset that comprehensively characterizes District water resources.

CRWD has been seeking a monitoring database system to efficiently and effectively manage monitoring data. An improved database system will allow CRWD staff to: organize, view, and query all years of data; more efficiently edit, analyze, and QA/QC data; improve data sharing and public access to data; and provide a consistent method for saving data to prevent data loss.

At the April 16, 2014 Board Meeting, the Managers approved the recommendations detailed in the Monitoring Program Review, including Recommendation 3: “Develop a comprehensive monitoring database that could more effectively manage the large data sets of the District. This would improve: data organization, data accessibility, data querying, and data analysis. The database should have components useable to both District staff and the general public.”

Issues CRWD has been evaluating database options. Based on research and product demos, the Kisters WISKI database is recommended by staff as the most suitable monitoring database software for District monitoring data. The WISKI database was selected because of its ability to meet all CRWD criteria. In addition, the WISKI database proved to be the most comprehensively developed and capable water quality monitoring software on the market that will best meet the District’s needs. The 2014 costs of the WISKI database are $48,750 and are detailed in Table 2 of the enclosure.

CRWD has budgeted for a monitoring database annually since 2009. Table 4 of the enclosure details the 2014 and 2015 budgets for a monitoring database under project number 211-##220 Monitoring & Data Collection – Long-term Monitoring Database. For 2014, the remaining equipment budget for program number 211 of $50,000.00 will be used for the monitoring database.

Action Requested Authorize purchase of Kisters WISKI monitoring database not to exceed $50,000.00. enc:

Memo— Evaluation of Database Options for a CRWD Monitoring Program Database

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\Monitoring DATABASE\Board Mtg Materials\v2_Board Memo-Monitoring Database_09-03-2014.docx

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

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 21, 2014 Bob Fossum, Program Manager Britta Suppes, CRWD Monitoring Coordinator; Joe Sellner, CRWD Water Resource Technician Evaluation of Database Options for a CRWD Monitoring Program Database

Background Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has been collecting continuous time-series flow data and discrete water quality data from over twenty stations since 2005 through the District Monitoring Program. In addition, CRWD has been collecting a variety of other continuous or discrete data from 50+ locations throughout the District, including climatological data, lakes, wetlands, stormwater pond level data, groundwater level data, and BMP performance data.

Cumulatively, monitoring data collected since 2005 has built a lengthy and robust dataset that comprehensively characterizes District water resources.

When CRWD’s Monitoring Program was first established in 2005, the method developed for recording data was to enter it into individual Excel spreadsheets on the server (generally organized by site name and year). This method has continued over the past ten year. As the monitoring dataset has grown to represent ten years of data, Excel spreadsheets are no longer sufficient for managing such a large record of data. Issues with the current data management system include: 1) each monitoring year includes a significant number of individual spreadsheets, which makes it difficult to see continuity between monitoring years; 2) the potential for data loss or spreadsheet disorganization is high when managing so many spreadsheets; 3) data QA/QC is inefficient because the data is recorded in many different places on the CRWD server; 4) the current system of saving data to Excel by year and site does not have a consistent protocol, so as CRWD staff has changed, the data has been saved differently year-to-year; 5) having multiple years of Excel spreadsheets for each site makes it difficult to share data with outside parties.

CRWD has been seeking an alternative monitoring database system to more efficiently and effectively manage the past ten years of monitoring data as well as data into the future. An improved database system will allow CRWD staff to:  Organize all years of monitoring data for easy viewing, querying, and analyzing o Having data in one place will allow all different types of data to be connected (e.g. numerical data with field notes)  View all monitoring data in collective location for year-to-year continuity  Easily query and search data for all monitoring years and data types  Efficient and accurate data editing and documentation capabilities for data QA/QC

1

    

Simplify flow calculations, loading calculations, statistical calculations, and graphical output (i.e. tables, figures, graphs) Easily output and share data upon requests from outside parties (or have a system capable of outside parties querying and downloading data by themselves) Make data available to the public by having web-capable software with interactive maps Have all data in one place and backed up to prevent data loss Streamline data entry for data continuity and consistency

Issues CRWD has been investigating a variety of options for implementing a database system, including out-of-the-box database software as well as the option of developing a program with a consultant.

The monitoring database options include: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Kisters WISKI Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS Teledyne Isco FLOWLINK Kisters HYDSTRA Monitoring database developed by South Washington Watershed District (SWWD)/ Houston Engineering

Each database option has different applications, features, and costs. To evaluate this, staff developed a list of criteria that outlines the desired features and applications of a monitoring database. Table 1 lists the criteria that were determined important in evaluating each database option. Using this criteria, each database package was researched and tested to see if the defined criteria was met. Table 1 provides a checklist summarizing how each database option meets those criteria. In addition, an overall ranking (‘Good’, ‘Fair’, ‘Poor’) was assigned to each database option based on what criteria was met to further narrow down the options.

Based on the criteria outlined in Table 1, the Kisters WISKI database and the Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS database were identified as the most useful solutions for a monitoring database. Both databases are similar, though differences exist between them in terms of their capabilities, features, and functions. CRWD staff have had several conference calls with the vendor representatives as well as received demos and trial versions of both the WISKI and AQUARIUS databases in order to explore these differences and see how the database applies to the CRWD monitoring dataset.

Differences in features and functions include: 



WISKI database is more developed in functions: o Interval partitioning, flow calculations, and load calculations are very simple to execute in WISKI and are well-developed o AQUARIUS can do intervals, flow calculations and load calculations, but these functions require additional development for easy use o AQUARIUS equations are more user-friendly to apply, but are limited in scope The AQUARIUS database has a more easily navigated interface and dashboard o WISKI would require some training and learning in order to easily navigate 2

 

   

WISKI has a greater range of options for statistical or graphical output The WISKI KiWIS web module allows for users to create their own widgets and GUIs for better communication with the public o The AQUARIUS WebPortal is still currently being developed and is not available to users yet WISKI has more options for software configurability by the end user WISKI has the ability to integrate field form information into the record more completely WISKI has advanced scripting and user access built in AQUARIUS is geared more towards those using or developing rating curves

Table 1: Criteria for database selection and the database options investigated.

Criteria WISKI AQUARIUS Large data storage capacity x x Time-series/Continuous Data x x Discrete/Single-point Data x x Water Quality Data x x Flow Calculation x x Interval Idenification & Quantification x x Loading Calculations x x Data Correction/Editing x x Storm Recreation? x x Graphical &/or Statistical Output x x Mapping Capabilities &/or ESRI compatible x x Querying/Data filtering? x x Field Notes/Forms Capable x x Data Sharing Capabilities x x Website Access Capable? (Private & Public) x x Web Enabled/Remote Data Acces? x x Equipment inventorying? x x Customizable? x x Event-based alarm system/messaging? x x Interface with National Databases for upload x x Database Type Oracle/SQL Oracle/SQL Data Importing/Integration: Easy,Moderate, Difficult Easy Easy User friendliness: Easy, Moderate, Difficult Easy Easy Overall Ranking: Good, Fair, Poor Good Good

FLOWLINK HYDSTRA Houston/SWWD x x x x x x -x x x -x x --x -----x x ----x x x -x x -x x -x --x x -x x x x --x --x x x ---x x File-based File-based (?)

Moderate Easy Moderate Moderate Easy Moderate Poor Fair Poor

Additionally, there are differences between start-up costs and projected 3-year costs when comparing WISKI and AQUARIUS. The differences in cost are detailed in Tables 2 and 3. In general, WISKI is more expensive than the AQUARIUS software. The primary differences in price are related to the (1) licensing fees and (2) add-on modules.

The licensing for WISKI is more expensive because the software has been more widely developed and has greater application. The software requires the purchasing of an Admin License ($15,000) that acts as the “base” license for the main software administrator. For any other computers 3

requiring WISKI administrative rights, an additional license is required ($10,000 per license).

WISKI read-only licenses are available for a 5-pack bundle ($1,250). Comparatively, the primary admin AQUARIUS license allows for three users and has a base price of $27,500. This license also allows for read-only concurrent licensing for other computers. In total, the difference between the base licensing fee of AQUARIUS versus WISKI is $8,750 less.

Add on modules are also a primary cost difference between the two software solutions. First, WISKI offers a Water Quality Module (KiWQM) for advanced data management and hydrologic calculations (e.g. flow and loading calculations); whereas AQUARIUS has this integrated into their software already (though, the extent of those functions are less developed). In addition, both software solutions require an add-on module purchase for making the data web-enabled. For both solutions, the web-enabling software (WISKI KiWIS or AQUARIUS WebPortal) adds a substantial cost increase to both packages. CRWD staff feels having web-access to the data is a key component of having a database, regardless of which software is selected; however, this additional module is planned for 2015 after staff has been able to get the database up and running.

For both software solutions, the annual support and maintenance fee is a percentage based off of the initial purchase price. Subsequently, the WISKI software has a higher annual maintenance fee since the base licensing is more expensive (support and maintenance for WISKI is 20% of the initial purchase price). AQUARIUS has a 25% annual support and maintenance fee, but the software is overall less expensive, so the annual fee is less than WISKI’s.

Table 2: Estimated costs of Kisters WISKI for 2014, 2015, 2016, and subsequent years.

Kisters WISKI 2014 Costs

QTY Unit Price USD Total

WISKI Admin Suite License WISKI Add'l Licenses w/ Editing WISKI Read-only Licenses (5-pack min) WISKI Water Quality Module On-site Training (3 Days) ORACLE or SQL Server

1 2 5 1 1 1

$15,000 $10,000 $250 $4,500 $8,000 NA

$15,000 $20,000 $1,250 $4,500 $8,000 NA

$48,750

2014 Projected Cost TOTAL

2015 Costs Annual Support & Maint (20% orig price; starts 90 days after install) WISKI KiWIS Module(HTML Web Acces & Dwnld) 2015 Projected Cost TOTAL

1 1

$8,150 $30,000

$8,150 $30,000

$38,150

2016 Costs (+ Subsequent Years) Annual Support & Maint (20% orig price+WISKI KiWIS cost) 2016 Projected Cost TOTAL Estimated 3-year Total Cost Estimated Average 3-year Cost ($/year)

1

$14,150

$14,150

$14,150 $101,050 $33,683

4

Table 3: Estimated costs of Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS for 2014, 2015, 2016, and subsequent years.

Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS 2014 Costs

QTY Unit Price USD Total

3 Single-User Licences (1 Rating Curve Devel Tool) On-site training (3 Days) ORACLE or SQL Server 2014 Projected Cost TOTAL

1 1 1

$27,500 $8,250 NA

$27,500 $8,250 NA

$35,750

2015 Costs Annual Support & Maint (25% of orig price) WebPortal (Web Access & Dwnld) 2015 Projected Cost TOTAL

1 1

$6,875 $20,000

$6,875 $20,000

$26,875

2016 Costs (+ Subsequent Years) Annual Support & Maint (25% of orig price + WebPortal cost) 2016 Projected Cost TOTAL Estimated 3-year Total Cost Estimated Average 3-year Cost ($/year)

1

$11,875

$11,875

$11,875 $74,500 $24,833

Based on the strong need for a monitoring database, CRWD has been anticipating the purchase and implementation of a monitoring database for several years. Subsequently, a database has been budgeted for annually since 2009, though the allocated funds have not been used to date. Table 4 lists the 2014 and 2015 budget allocations for the project number 211-##220 Monitoring & Data Collection – Long-term Monitoring Database.

Table 4: Budgeted and expended totals in 2014 and 2015 for 211-##220 Long-term monitoring database.

Year 2014 2014 Long-term Database Development Budget (211-14220) 2014 Equipment Budget (211) 2014 Budget Total

Budgeted $ $ Expended (YTD ) $ Remaining $11,180 $103,432

$2,267 $53,432

$8,913 $50,000

$58,913

2015 2015 Budgeted Long-term Database Development (211-15220)* 2015 Budget Total

$16,320

$0

$16,320

$16,320

*Project # 211-15220 budget will be ammended in Dec 2014 to account for estimated database cost increases

Action Requested CRWD staff recommends the WISKI database be purchased and implemented as the CRWD Monitoring Program Database.

5

September 3, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Item C) Approve Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy (Doneux)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 22, 2014 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Adopt Preliminary 2015 Budget and Certification of Levy

Background The Board has discussed and reviewed the preliminary 2015 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 Citizen’s Advisory Committee reviewed and provided comments on the proposed 2015 budget and levy at their August meeting. A duly noticed Public Hearing was held on August 20th to collect public comment on the proposed 2015 budget and levy.

Issues The Board of Managers must adopt a Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy Certification before the initial September 15, 2014 deadline. The Board of Managers held a special workshop on June 26th and July 11th to review the draft budget and levy.

Based on the Board recommendations, the revised preliminary budget provides $611,700 for Administration, $1,562,772 for Programs, $807,595 for Projects for a total Operations Budget of $2,982,017 and $2,542,231 for Capital Improvement Projects. This results in a total Preliminary 2015 Budget of $5,524,248. This is an increase of $1,285,854 from 2014. The proposed 2015 tax levy is $3,404,228. This levy includes $3,036,117 for the general levy and $368,131 for debt. This levy is $434,970 or 14.65% higher than 2014.

Requested Action Approve and adopt the Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy Certification.

enc:

Preliminary 2015 CRWD Expenditure, Revenue and Levy Summary (11”x17”) Draft Levy Certification form Draft Debt Levy Certification form Draft Resolution – Adopting 2015 Budget & Levy

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Budget - 2015\Board Memo - Adoption of Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy - 8-22-14.docx

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

COUNTY, CITY AND SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT LEVY CERTIFICATION PROPOSED TAXES PAYABLE IN 2015 FOR: Capitol Region Watershed District (Governmental Agency)

CERTIFIED FINAL TAX LEVY

LEVY PURPOSE NET TAX CAPACITY BASED LEVIES 1) General

$3,036,117.02 $ 368,130.98

2) Debt 3) Other (Please Specify) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Total Net Tax Capacity Based Levies

(Total 1 through 9) $3,404,228 MARKET VALUE BASED LEVIES 11)

$

12) 13)Total Market Value Based Referendum Levies (Total 11 & 12) $ 14)Total Certified Levy (Total 10 & 13) $3,404,228 I, the authorized representative of the above mentioned Governmental Agency, certify that the foregoing information is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Signature of Authorized Representative Phone Number of Contact Person

Title

____________________ Date

CAPITAL REGION W/S =================== ADDITIONS OR CERTIFIED ORIGINAL DATE PAYABLE 2015 REDUCTIONS BY DEBT BOND ISSUES PRINCIPAL ISSUED DEBT LEVY RESOLUTION LEVY ============== ========== ======== ============ ============= ============= TX SUPP 2007A 1,555,000 4-Jan-07 $120,441.57 0.00 $120,441.57 GO Note 2010 447,200 15-Dec-10 49,563.46 476.58 50,040.04 GO 2013A 3,000,000 15-May-13 49,377.78 148271.60 197,649.38 ---------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------$219,382.81 $148,271.60 $367,654.41 ============ ============= =============

$3,036,573.59

I hereby certify that the above schedule of bond levies to be spread on the payable 2015 tax rolls agrees with Capital Region W/S records and is true and correct. Copies of any resolutions which increase or reduce these levies are attached.

Signed: ___________________________________ Date:

_______________

Resolution # 14-xxx Date Adopted: September 3, 2014

Resolution

Capitol Region Watershed District In the matter pertaining to: The 2015 Preliminary Budget and Levy Board Member: Thienes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Board Member ___________.

WHEREAS, A Board workshop was held June 26th and July 11, 2014 to review the detailed Operations Budget, CIP and Project Financing Plans and WHEREAS, At the July 23, 2013 Board meeting, the draft 2015 Work Plan was reviewed, and WHEREAS, at the CRWD Board of Managers meeting on August 23, 2014 the Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy was reviewed and approved for distribution for Public Review and Comment, and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2014 the Citizens’ Advisory Committee reviewed and recommended adoption of the budget and levy as presented; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held on August 22, 2014 at 6:00 PM at Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive with no members of the public present commenting on the budget, and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CRWD Board of Managers approves and adopts the 2015 Preliminary Operations Budget of $2,982,017 and a Capital Improvement Budget of $2,542,231 for a total 2015 Budget of $5,524,248.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the proposed 2015 tax levy is $3,404,228. This levy includes $3,036,117 for the general levy and $368,131 for debt.

Vote: Approved/Denied Manager Yeas* Nays Collins Texer Jones Thienes Reider TOTAL

Absent

Abstain

Requested By: Recommended for Approval: Approved by Attorney: Funding Approved:

Mark Doneux N/A N/A

*Approval must receive minimum of 3 Yeas Supporting Documentation Incorporated By Reference Date Document Prepared By 6/26/14 Prelim. 2015 Work Plan CRWD 7/11/14 Prelim. 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD 7/23/14 Prelim. 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD 8/4/14 Public Notice for Budget Hearing CRWD 8/11/14 Public Notice for Budget Hearing CRWD 8/20/14 Public Review Draft Budget CRWD 9/03/14 Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD Resolution Adoption Certified By the Board of Managers: By: _____________________________________________

Date: September 3, 2014

W:\04 Board of Managers\Motions\Resolutions 2014\Resolution 14-xxx CRWD Prelim 2015 Levy.doc

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

August 28, 2014 CRWD Board of Managers and Staff Mark Doneux, Administrator September 3, 2014 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements a) Stewardship Grant Agreement for a rain garden at 1614 Highland Parkway, Saint Paul - $518.65 2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements 3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events a) Corey Poland’s last day at CRWD will be September 5, 2014. b) The 2014 Clean Water Summit is September 11, 2014 8:00am – 5:00pm at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.

CRWD is a sponsor and planning member of the conference. The topic is “Green Infrastructure for Clean Water: Costs & Benefits to Our Communities” and the Lowertown Regional Ballpark will be featured as a case study.

Register here. c) CREATE: The Community Meal by Manager Seitu Jones will be held on September 14, 2014 on Victoria Street in Saint Paul. d) CRWD and the CAC are co-sponsoring the September 18 Moos Family Speaker Series, “Dwindling Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space” with Dr. Jay Famiglietti. The presentation begins at 7:00pm at the University of Minnesota St. Paul Student Center. Register at www.freshwater.org/lectures. e) Saint Paul Open Streets celebration with be Saturday, September 21, 2014. f) CRWD Staff will be participating in a mobile workshop of Green Line Green Infrastructure during the RailVolution Conference, September 23, 2014 from 1-4pm. g) Mark Doneux, Nate Zwonitzer and Bob Fossum will be attending WEFTEC in New Orleans, Louisiana from September 27 – October 1.

4) CRWD events and meetings a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, September 10, 2014 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm. b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

5) Project and Program Updates a.) Curtiss Pond Project: The preconstruction meeting was held on Wednesday, August 27, 2014. Work is expected to begin September 2nd. b.) Highland Ravine Project: Pre-construction meetings with the contractor and homeowners were held on August 25, 2014 from 3 – 6:30pm. Construction is scheduled to start on September 15 and be substantially completed by October 15. c.) Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Study: The project kick-off meeting was held on August 21 at 8:30 am at Lauderdale City Hall. Representatives from Lauderdale, Ramsey County were in attendance.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2014\Administrator's Report 9-3-14.docx

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