HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-04 PACKET 12.B.REQUEST dF CITY COUPVCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEET"ING ITEM #
�ATE 11f4(98 � ,
PREPAF2ED BY: Community [7evelopment Kim Lindquisf
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTNOR
s..��.aa..as��«���s..tr..�«.�.tr.«�...�.�.�.a�.e,.
COUNCIL ACTiON REQUEST:
Direction from Councii regarding developing a strategy 4o address upcoming watershed
issues.
BUDGET IMPLICATION
BUDGETED AMOUNT
ADVISORY COMtJIISSION ACTION
■' •'
■ ' :
■ � : •'
�... . �. . . �
� '
■ a • � . �-
■
�•
REVIEWED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
ACTUALAMOUNT
DENIED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
APPROVED
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
..a• r•
►� • - - . . .. .. -. • � •;
■ • � ' •'
■ •'�
- - � i . � .
� . � �,. �
►� s . . . . . -. • » _ -. - •:
- - . -..- :-. r. . � -- . .. -. . .,
- - . -..- :-. �- . -- . ._ -. • � •:
,� „ w , �
I
�a�C .� �__.. /a ,�r� q
�Etj/ s4d(itl�115Qf�tC9C ��$�
�am
�ca��c�L ���r�o� �r� r�: ❑ ����ac�v��a � ���i�� ❑ a
z�"4GROUP9WLAFl�ENG\99981Ci1'YCOUN1Wat .. Issues �uer-reav4.Uaq
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
DATE: October 30, 1998
RE: Watershed Issues
Introduction
Some time ago, Councilmember Kohls initiated a discussion regarding the need to develop a
strategy for addressing upcoming watershed issues, particularly the centrai draw project.
Basically, the idea was that the City should be more proactive in gathering information about
the City's long-term storm water needs rather than wait untii the Watershed District decided the
method and size of the water transference system. This wouid allow the City to adequately as-
sess the project proposa� from both a funding perspective and from a"service° perspective.
Given that discussion, staff met with HDR and requested a proposai to conduct a surface
water management study of the eastern third of the South Washington County Watershed
District located within the community. It is intended that the study wouid lay out the infra-
sYructure and ponding needs for that portion of the City similar to the draft surface water
management pian done by Bonestroo. The study, in the short term, wouid allow the City to
assess our own infrastructure needs and see how those relate to the central draw outiet pro-
posal which will be decided by the District next year. It wil! also allow the City to heip determine
what the city's "fair share" of the project cost would be and what would be solely attributable ;o
Woodbury's needs. In the long term, the study will complement the current draft surface water
management pian. Due to the future installation of the sanitary sewer interceptor and expan-
sion of the treatment plant, it is expected that this area wiii be where new growth wiil ultimately
occur. Although it isn't expected that development wiil occur for five to seven years, planning
for future infrastructure needs, similar to the West Draw engineering studies, will need to be
conducted. This study wouid address the areas surface water management needs.
At the next Watershed meeting, the Board will begin a discussion on funding. In discussions
with their consultant, it is expected the discussion will be general in nature and will attempt to
identify appropriate funding mechanisms for different types af projects. For example, the Board
may discuss if flood control projects shouid be funded similarly to water quality projects. They
may a�so discuss how to fund projects depending upon total project cost — through their
general budget, by bonding, or through some other source. They will aiso be discussing use of
a utility charge and how that is implemented. It is hoped that they may come up with some
general parameters which would be forvvarded to the member cities for input. From the infor-
mation I received, it appears the Watershed will not be deciding the funding mechanism for the
Watershed Issues
October 30, 1998
Page 2 of 3
Central Draw project specifically. However, certainly, these general discussions have policy
implications for that project. An eariier memo from the Watershed consultants regarding
funding is attached for your information.
Discussion
Storm Water Study
Staff received a proposal from HDR in July to conduct the surface water management plan
outlined above. The proposal is attached for the Council's review. In addition, the proposal
includes a storm water plan for the remainder of east Cottage Grove. This request was
prompted by drainage discussions that have arisen in the past.
Staff has not pursued initiation of the study because it appeared tnat the Watershed District
might accomplish many of the same tasks. From staffs perspective, the Central Draw Over-
flow Study is a re-analysis of the Woodbury storm water plan. The District is reviewing their
plan to ascertain if modifications can be made, hence reducing the amount of outflow. It seems
that Cottage Grove should have the same consideration — Watershed review of city drainage
impacts within the community. The City analysis is aiso critical in understanding the appropri-
ate sizing for the Central Draw Facility. It is my understanding that the estimated flows from
Cottage Grove were developed by the Watershed's engineering consultants on a cursory
basis. It is these flows that are being used for discussion of the appropriate overflow vehicle
and its appropriate size. Further, understanding the City's needs wiil aid in defining how big the
drainage problem is and if it is a problem now or will be in the future.
Should the Council choose to initiate a study, staff wouid like to approach the District first to
see if they would fund the study or some portion of it. They have indicated that some of the
work of the City study wouid be beneficiai for thei� analysis. Staff is obtaining proposals from
other engineering firms whose primary expertise is hydrology issues. As in most projects, we
will bring all received proposals, with budget, to the Council. it is expected this item will be on
the November 18 agenda for authorization shouid you wish to proceed with the analysis,
regardiess of District participation.
Monitoring of Dist�ict Activities
A second option to the City, or in addition to the above study, wouid be hiring an engineering
firm to represent the City at specific watershed meetings. Presently, I attend most of the regu-
lar District meetings and the Community Advisory Committee meetings for the Central Oraw
Overfiow Study. Councilmember Kohis has also attended the Advisory Committee meetings
along with some residents of the City. There are also other Technical Advisory Committee
meetings for wetiand issues and drafting of the rules, which have been attended by myself and
AI Larson of Public Works.
The Council �uld decide to contract with a firm to have a consultant represent the City,
monitoring specific watershed issues, from a hydrologisYs perspective. This option could
provide some continuity during development of the Central Draw study. One issue would be
Watershed issues
October 30, 1998
Page 3 of 3
determining which meetings are appropriate for the consultanYs attendance. As can be seen
from above, the Watershed is conducting a variety of ineetings which have abundant overlap
in topics. To keep overaii costs down, it would be prudent to define what the role of the con-
suitant would be and which meetings would be the most pertinent.
Another option, which falis under the monitoring activity, is to hire a consultant to review work
done or will be done by the District. This would be more of a"work in the office" type of system,
where the city would fonrrard appropriate documents and information to the consultant. The
consuitant would monitor the situation and may from time to time forward comments or rec-
ommendations to the City. This would allow the consuitant to keep up with the progress of the
Central Draw Project but may �educe overall costs to the City. Of course at any time the
Councii wouid wish to engage the consuitant to represent them at District meetings, that couid
happen.
Conciusion
The Central Draw Overfiow project is an issue that has lang-term ramifications for the
community. The City is interested in obtaining the best information regarding the community
drainage needs to assess our contribution to the drainage "problem" and our financial fair
share to the solution. Bringing an independent hydrologist into the discussions, at some level,
may better position the City throughout the DistricYs decision-making process.
Recommendation
Staff is requesting direction from the Councii.
�� `,
. '' � .�
Date: Septcm
To: SWVJL
From: Cecilio
Re: SWW]
::. ,• � �.
Summary Mernorandum
3` 1998
Brett Emmons
Financing Pot3cy. Preltmfnery Thoughts on Balancing Gities Concerns
Last March Di k Hammero requested we put together a memo with some thoughts on how the
SW WD could otentialiy Finance a large capital project that wouid make sense to the respective
cities. Also ne ding to be addressed was the issue of possible transfer of existing inter-
communiry fac lities to the SWWD. The purpose oftnis memo was to address the issues raised
by Woodbury d Cattage Grove letters (January 28 and February 23, 1998) in the context of
the SWWD Pl policies and in the event that a big capital improvement project was needed for
the Ceotral Dr .
Ihe raemo was to be discussed at the April 1", 1998 Workshop [o follow up on the cities'
questions and c ncerns. Around that time, Bob Koch's term expired and Dick felt he needed a
break from his any years on the Watershed Board. During that trans3tion time the financing
policies discus on did not advance much.
_, '..�, .
After the input eceived from both Woodbury and Cottage Grove's ciry counsels on August 18`�
and 19�' 1998 e commitment was made by the Boszd ta sYart addressing the financSng issue in
the near futurc. This seems an opporiune timc to revisit this memo (atrached). The memo
attempts to bzi some key financial issues to the tah(e for discussion relative to a large capital
project and to ve a general initial perspective of how the different fmaneial pieces could $t
together. This pproach cou(d be madified and used as azae of a few scenarios depe�ding on the
type of final pr ject(s) needed.
To disct�ss cantent of inemo attd determine next steps in determining a financial strategy.
830! Valley �reek Road • Woodbary, MN 55125 •(651) 714-3500 • Faac (651) ?14-3501
of the
and c
i�. "? � �'• �� `�/_ .
'���� --�_-' .
. - �� � � �,, ,
� i i
jj i, ! �CT 2 9 �998 .� j�
;. � `'
���f iv '
i
i
acch 25,7998
���: "?`o ejj`'ectively manage the environmental resources
Washington Watershed in cooperation with our cztzzens
� � � �
Note:
for di
1. Finan
financing
a.
b.
c. ,
d.
2.
Fax Nota �6��
intercommunity flows and how to merge
to the SWWD
a. , how, and when to transfer facilities
b, rediting the cost of the facilities (this may be linked ta the Financing Policy)
c. 'ability and responsibility fot future operation and maintenance
: The cost and f3raanciaag policies recommended aa the SWWD
3nagement Plat� and the input on wst and financing received from
n�w�tses can be summarized in the following questions:
1. Can total cost of �roject(s) (Centtal Draw and others) be reduced by
looking at infiltrahoa artd othet alternative managemeat methods?
2. Can construCtion of project(s) be delayed to get closer to the ultimate
service area tax base?
3. Is it possible to lower the ftnsncial hardship on current development
(especaally rural and agricvltural azeas) and at the sazne dre�e allow for
eqaitable paymeat by those who need the facilities now or will used them
ia the future ("users pay" approach)?
4. Can the Distriet accouat for the possibility of Eaet Cattege Grove not ever
deve[oping and still propose an equitable financing policy?
5. Shou,id the 75R'o • 25% policy be applied to a potetttial Central Draw ouflet
project? (the 5WWD Plan leaves the door open on this matter)
is some bac ound infonnation and preliminary ideas and comtnents on the issues
>n at the Ap ' 1" workshop.
valorem" taxes
nwater utitity
Charges
6, What should be the SWWU policy on transferriag af regional facilities?
Should the District reimburse cities for any capital eacpenditnres incurred in
the past?
'7. ts it possible to combine "ad valorem", utitity and area charges with
alternatfve bondfng methods to respond to the above questions?
8. Does the Board need to form a financial committee and/or hire a financial
expert to specifically respond to these questions?
on these issues, the followin discussion shows some specific ideas and policy
tives of bow the different ad� ities of the Distrid could be financed.
�,: Present and future SWWD activities can be divided into 3 groups;
a.) �SWWD Genezal Administration and implementation of Programs and Studies.
b.) Implementation of Capital Improvement Pzojects ( water quantiry, quality and
nat ral resources prpjects).
c.) �Operation and Maintenance of Facilities.
Itles ��der a.l ; The SWWD Surface Water Management Plan shows the
izag of these activiries under a watershed-wide ad valorem tax. T'�e rational and
ples supporting this financing method remain unchanged.
v b. : The SWWD Plan proposes to use ad valorem taxing for
pro ects not exceeding $500,000 to $1,000,�00 total cast. Similazly, the Plan proposes
a st rmwatez utility charge for capital pro'ects exceeding $500,000 to $1 000,000 total
cos . In both cases a"subdistrict vs. tot� district" financing �oliey applies, This
pol cy is 75%a-25%, 50%-SO% and 2S%-75% for watez quantity, water quality and
nat ralresources projects respectively,
A ncern from fhe Ciry of Woodbury has been the potential burden and hardship that a
pot aflally expensive project may have on current Woodbury residents. Also of
co rn is the perceprion that tne city of Woodbury may finance almost ent'uely the
Ce tral Dzaw project for wtric6 the city of Cottage Grove may be benefiting in the
fut re, Conversely, Cottage Grove does not want to participate in any high wst projea
to lve a situatlon, that as of today, they don't participate in and they don't benefit
To ddress ffiase concerns, the Boazd may want to cqnsidec ways to include Bondine
an Area Charges into this overall fi�ancial apptpach, k'or ��astance a 20 to 30-year
oud with back-loaded interest and orincioal oavments combined wiCh Area
h as paid by new developments (say 20% eo 40% of the total project cost) occurring
in t e subwatershed in the next 20 to 30 years. Area charges percentage participation
co d be estirnated by projecting development in the subwatershed during the length of
the ond and wmpare it with e�cisting devclopmant. Arca Char�es cao also be back-
(i.e. area charges at yeaz 15 would be highet than area charges at year 5) to be
fair to residents that have been taxed £or a longer period of time. 'i'ltxs approach also
d not tsene£�t development occurring later in the process versus earliet development.
Afr r the 20 to 30 yeazs bonding period, A�a Charees could be m�jntained at the same
v ' ear to have any futurelong-term development in the
sub atershed paying their fair shate. Income from t2�ese late area chazges can be used
to 1 wer the Operation & Maitntenance stormwater utility chazges oa ex�sting
de lopmant at that time.
2
�ce the poten6a2 omiad cost as much as possible through infattatioa and active
ige management, a{�d 51e,�ay ��struction of p1Qiects to be closer to the ultimate
ice area, are othez impoztant co[�siderations that will substantialiy contribute to lower
inancial impact on curreat residents and allow for equitabie payment by those who
he facilities.
Th Boazd may want to consider hiring a 5nancial expert and/or forming ' n i 1
to more spec3f'ically discuss and analyze the above or other financial 'adeas,
A ntaees of the �pprqaqh �t�ove are; a,) Equitable and defensible financing policy
tha is not too difficult to mana�e, b.) Lawers financial hardship on current residents at
the e time that requires a fau shaze from futute development, a} Addzesses
de elopment timing issues and "users pay" issues brought up by Cottage Grove and
ties under � l: The SWWI) Plan does not state a specific financing policy for
a Operation & Maintenance activities. The financing policy for Operation &
, nance activities is somewhat linked to any transfetring of facilities policy. The
may want to considex � different scenarios r rdi p,She}�ossible transfeirine of
1.) No facilities aze transfened to the SWWD, The 5WWD only takes over
owaersta.ip, operation & maintenance of facitities built by the SWVJD.
2.} A11 facilities that handle flows from two or more communities are
consideted intercommunity regipnal faciliries and ultzmately would have been the
res�onsibility of the SWWD. The SWWD takes over ownership, operation and
mamtenance of the "back bone" system.
3.) OnlY key facilities arc transferred to t6e SWWD, The SWWD is
responsible foc factilities built by the SWWD and a limited number of key
intercommunity areas such as ponds a[ I-94, Bailey Iake lift station, CD-P85,
Dale Road outlet stntcture fot $ailey Iake and the West Di&w lzft station.
Alternative 1.) : Eliminates the issue of ownership liability of facilities not
designed or built by SWWD and reduces O& Ivf invalvement by the
watershed. On the otheT hand, the SWWD does not have direct control on key
facilities w(uch regulaz or emergency operaGon by the cities utay have watershed
wide repercussions or significantly affect other downstream watershed owned
facilities.
Aiternative 2.) : Significantly increasas SWWD involvement iu O& M
aetivities and the liability associated to it. In this case, the SW"Wb has total
control of the main watershed system inaeasin� its abiliry to quickly and
effectively respond ro regular and emergency situations.
Alternative 3.) : This alternative znay represent a compromise to minimixe
SWWD owners2up and involvement in system management activities, but at the
same tizne be abte to control aad manage the main system effeckively from a
watershed-wide, interconnmunity perspective.
If the Boazd makes the policy decision of taking avee the addirional ownership
liability and O& M costs of some of the extsting intezcommunity facilities, the
Floatd may want to consider ta do it without crediti4g the communities for all the
cspital cost incurred, T'he Board may want to consider to give credits onlv for
issue of crediting cities becomes very impoRant in choosing a financing method for
ration & Maintenance of facilities. Thc $aatd may �.�si,der 2 financine
a.) 100% subwatershed finenced by "ad valorem" tax.
b.) 100% subwatershed financed by stormwater uti2ity tax.
Altemative a.) ; It is a more direct, less complicated (no need to figuze out
land use runoff wntributions) way to finance O& M, but it may not be as
equitable as t6e stormwater utility method (specially for e�cisting rural and
agicvltural development). Also, it will be very difficult to use in a city crediting
scenario, if that is the policy of the $oard.
Alteraative b.) : Requires to develop a tunoff contribuYion methodology for
the implemantation oP a sroanwater utility tax, but development will contribute to
the O& M fund based on amount of generated runoff. On the other hand, a
number of routine Q& M costs are independent of the amount of iunoff
handled by the facility. A stormwater utility tas will give the watetshed more
fle7tibility to implennent a crediting system.
of the above financing alternatives would requue the formation of a number of
�1 pnrpose subwatersheds for tax collection.
3.
in new
ex, development reviews by wa4ershed
ta : SWWD past discussions have pointed out two main issues on
s enforcement af standards:
e.) o work in concert with its citizoas and the cities.
b.) ot to crcate unnecessary, additional reviews better addressed at a local level.
on recent discussions with the TAC and CAC, they agree tt�at duplicarive
v is not desired. T6ey also felt that the SWWD being involved in reviews
be very posidve. Thc positive aspects are:
>siet the cities in enforcing watershed stsndards in difficult or complicated
;�e cansistent e�forcement of the standazds from city to city
vent intexcammunity fxiction from the perception of lack of enforcemenC
any city
• If desired by the citizens oz ciries the SWWD would be apen to be
inv Ived in develo�ment revxews on an on-going basis. The SWWD would
coo dinate with crUes and structure the reviews to eliminate redundant reviaws, The
S could ensure revleW ��t dces r�gt iatnact residenY ta�e� b avi reviews
' f o' s d v . T6e SWWA may want to limit its review
ro o ly projects of a cettain ty.Qe or size, unless specifically requested othezwise by
thc ities or citizens groups.
4
July 9, 1998
Mr. Ryan Schrocdcr
City Administrator
City of Cottage Crrove
7516 — 80th Street South
Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016-3195
RE: City of Cottage Crrove
Storm Water Management Plan
Deaz Mr. Schroeder:
On behalf of HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), thank you for the opportunity to submit our
proposal for a Storm Water Management Plan to the City of Cottage Grove.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Understandine and Goa(s
Based on our discussions, we understand that you would like assistance with the City's Storm
Water Management Plan. It is our unpression that the City of Cottage Grove would like
assistance for the following:
Provide a storm water plan for Cottage Grove without considering overland flows or
dischazges from surrounding communities and estimate capital costs for the drainage system.
Provide a second storm water plan for Cottage Grove which includes normal and customary
overland flows and dischazges from surrounding communities and estimate capitai costs for
upgrading the system.
The plans wili provide design of sufficient detail to prepare a meaningful cosf estimate for
plaruiing and financing purposes. They aze not intended to identify deficiencies in minor
drainage components such as local pipes, culverts and iniets that presently exist.
Assumntions
Wetland delineation and water quality modeling shall not be part of this scope of work.
Developers shall provide local detention ponds for peak flow rate control from their
developments. The costs for these controls will not be included in the cost estimate.
� --
Methodoloav
Watersheds will be modeled using the XP-SWMM computer program. T'he program is capable
of dynamic modeling of complex hydraulics through pipes and channels such as flow reversals.
The program uses standard Soil Conservation Service methods to deternune runoff voIumes and
HDR Engineering, inc.
Employee-owned
300 Parkdale t Bldg.
5407 Gamble Drive
Suite 300
Minneapoiis, MN
5 5 41 615 7 8
Telephone
612 591•5400
Fau
612 591-5413
Mr. Ryan Schroeder
July 9, 1998
Page 2
flow rates. Detention ponds and pumps can aiso be modeled. The model will be based on the
proposed ultimate development of the city.
Work Ptan
The work envisioned for the Storm Water Management Plan will be divided into two phases.
The fust phase is the modeling of drainage areas that conh to the proposed 84-inch diameter
pipe from Woodbury and the second phase is tt�e modeling of the remainder of east Cottage
Grove. The tasks for eacb phase aze similaz and a detailed description of the tasks is as follows:
Task 1.0 — Data Collecfion
Input data for the model shail come from various sources, namely the Ciry of Cottage Grove,
SWWD, Washington CounTy, surrounding cities, and Mimiesota Departrnent ofNatural
Resources. Data needed includes information on existing and future drainage structures, future
land uses, soil surveys, and the location of protected waters and wetlands.
The City of Cottage Crrove will provide HDR with an electronic base map of the study area.
Task 2.0 — Model Development and Alfernarive Analysis
The study area will be delineated into natural watershed drainages and convenient subwatersheds
based upon land use, planned roads and planned developments. The information gathered during
data collection will be ovetlain onto the watersheds, then input into the computer model. A
network consisting of natural drainage ways, ponds and proposed gipes will be developed. Three
storm water drainage network alternatives will be analyzed and reviewed with the City of
Cottage Grove and coordinated with SWWD plans to detemune the best option.
Task 3.0 — Construction Cost Estimates
Sepazate estimates of the cost for installing the storm water system tru�ilc and laterals will be
prepazed. A tabular comparison will be made of component sizes and costs for upgrading the
proposed system to carry storm water flows from ouuide sources.
Task 4.0 — City 53'orkshop 1dleetings
HDR plans on attending up to three City Council workshop meetings.
Deliverables
A brief Preliminary Engineer's Report will be provided containing the following:
1. Findings of the analysis and recommenda6ons for specific problems.
2. A map of the study area, utilizing the City's electronic base map, showing the watershed
boundaries and location of components of the proposed storm water system.
3. Comparative cost esrimate of the cost for constructing the system trunk and laterals and
system upgrades to handle outside storm water flows.
Mr. Ryan Schroeder
July 9, 1998
Page 3
En�ineerinQ Cost and Schedule
HDR's estimates of the cost of the above services aze summarized on the attached table. HDR
will provide draft plans as outlined above by September 30, 1998 for review and comments and
final versions by October 31, 1998.
Per Diem Services
Additional services shall be provided on a per diem unit rate basis plus approved expenses.
T'hese tasks may include the foilowing:
• Site investigations to resolve difficult drainage pattems, such as old Cottage Grove.
• Attend addi6onal City Council workshops to discuss fmdings of the plans.
• Negotiations with officials from Woodbury, SWWD and public hearings.
• If surveys of highway culvert invert or pond outlet elevations aze needed, this service
will be conducted by a subconsultant.
We look forwazd to working with the City of Cottage Grove on their Storm Water Management
Plan. If I can answer any questions or provide additional information to you, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 6I2-591-5460.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Robert J. Bedului, P.E.
Water Resources Section Manager
�
� �y- c�,
�� T' Donald R. Krebs, P.E.
�Senior Vice President
Enciosure
Z
� a
a � W
�
1- W 0
W W �
�
W
U �
Q a
� C �
9 W O
�a�
a 3 a
� � w
o �
x0
�
�
m
�
�m
d O
c t �
� � ti
a ;;
d �
A �
� 3
� d
O y
Ns
u
m c
� �
Q� P
wm
R q
U a
� m � � r
�- v, � � w
b
m
m
c ° ° m v m
c +n w � e�v
wl
m V Q N
U
0 0
� �T N N
m � � �
C
��
� N � N
N O) O W
�
>
E
d e,
Q c
'n w
W � m
o � m �
0
m � E �
� U E W r
!- a q m n
o O tn U �
3 � c� ci v
d
>
0
..
�m
m�
mm
�p m
O
� U "
a. ,,,
r y
m R
� W
`o
� d
N �
°' E
` O �
�
� N
� m
N
U a
N t'> N
F � c+�i rn m
� us ev
q
d
�
c N m o �
m r �,�
a �' an an «n
a
u
� N N C
U
N N � � 'N
t C
U il �p N �
f �
�
O
d
.� c � � �
o °'
' c
N O Q O
!' V N V
a
>
.�
�
d �
a c
a ° a rn
� m c
0 o d d
�V T W ° L
m � E �
m V E W r
f W y y n
3 � N U �
N M lS
�
N
s
a
�
c
�
�
a
a
`a
September 10, 1998
Mr. Ryan Schroeder
Administrator
Ciry of Cottage Grove
7516 — 80`" Street South
Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016-3195
Rer HDR Services Regarding Watershed Management Planning
Dear Mr. Schroeder
�
Thank you and Kim Lindquis2 for taking the time to meet with 7 ony Lufr and myself. As [ have discussed
with you and members of the Cottage Grove Ciry Council, there is no easy answer on how to best approach
the watershed issue. During our conversations, we have discussed a variery of ways that HDR could assist
the City of Cottage Grove. I understand your desire to have a concrete product come out of any work we
may undertake.
HDR has prepared a proposal to the City for devising a specific drainage plan. This has now been put on
hold until the Watershed District provides direction on an outlet system iaute. It appears, however, that
the City is seazchine for information and answers, but unsure on how to proceed in a fiscally responsible
macmer. The City needs a strategy a�d direction on this issue.
HDR would like to propose an approach towards developing a strategy. This approach includes a council
workshop and providing assistance as Ciry advocate to the Watershed District.
When I fust worked for the City, HDR conducted a series of council workshop sessions. The ultimate
product was comments on the overall watershed management plan. However, we began the process
discussing the watershed process, reviewing altemative funding approaches and identifying issues that the
council wanted specifically addressed. I believe HDR can assist you in your Administrative role by
conducting a watershed issues workshop for the Ciry Councii and key depardnent staff. HDR proposes the
following:
1. Review the watershed planning process — there aze new members on the Councii who were not part of
the original process.
2. Review ihe watershed project implementation process — watershed districu have specific legal and
technical requirements, we would review how a project, such as the outlet, could be implemented.
3. Review the funding mechanisms - what would be the relative impact to the City of Cottage Grove.
The benefit of conductine the workshop is that the council will be working from a common knowledge
base. It will also provide guidance to Ciry staff in future negotiations. HDR estimates that preparation for
and attendance at a workshop would cost approximately $1,000.
As City Advocate, HDR would represent the Ciry at watershed disuict functions. HDR proposes the
following:
l. Attend SW WD meetings to determine the Watershed DistricPs proposed plans for outfall route.
2. Participate during work sessions to voice Ciry commenu and suggest constructive altematives to
Watershed District plans.
3. Review SWWD plans and advise the council of impacu and alternatives.
HDR Engineering, inc. 300 Parkdaie t Bldg. Telephone
5401 Gambie Drive 612 591•5400
Suite 300 F�
Minneapolis, MN 612 591-5413
Employee-owned 5 5 4 9 61518
As the number of ineetings with the Watershed Disaict needed to arrive at a beneficial outcome can not be
determined, this work would be billed at a per diem rate not to exceed 5300 per meeting.
Without a strategy, the City of Cottage Grove will be forced to react to whatever final plans the Watershed
District develops. By developing a proactive posture, the City stands to have its needs met in finding a best
route for the outfall. The City can then proceed with the originat proposed work to determine the variance
in cosu between a City-only storm water drainage system and the upgraded system for district use.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 591-5460.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering Inc.
/ � � � ��G�
`r Robert l. Beduhn, P.E.
Water Resources Section Manager
�,��^,�. �
Mark Wollschlager
Senior Vice President