1a5 SWMP FeesCITYOF
CHASHAS
Phor~ ~ :~rl.11~O
Fa: _~0 :~/.1110
PamL, q &
Fnor~ -~ ~7.1130
F-~ 952.227.1110
NMe
MI~.MO~~
To: Todd Ocrhard~ City
From: Loft ~ Wate~ Resources Coordinamr.~
Date:
Re:
Annual Update of Surf~e W~r ~ Phm (SWMP)
Connection Char~
PURPOSE
The lxn'posc of this memo is to update the Surface Water Mm~agcmtmt Plan
(SWMP) connection charges m keep timm ca:mm with ri~ing land values and
BACKGROUND
The City's Suffa~ Water Ma~lgcm~nt Plan (SWMP) was adopt~ in
~ 1~. ~~~~~U~~w~
~~ f~ ~ a ~ ~ ~nE d~ i~~ ~~
~ ~ S~. ~~ f~ ~ c~ ~ ~~ ~ m ~ p~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ of pubic
s~ w~ i~.
landuse. The fcc per acre varies bylanduse as aresult ofthe amount of
impervious ~ allowed within that ]and use catcgoO,.
At that time, the rates were calculsted using mafl~ values of land in thc City
of Chsnhass~ and th~ construction pric~ ind.. In Appendix O fromPazt Iof
thc SWMP, it was noted tim "the rates should be hxxcased annually in linc
with thc construction price index'(Attachmcnt 2), but, until last year, the fees
l~d not Inch uixlat~ ~ ~loption.
In October 2002, thc Council increased SWMP fees by 8.9~ m be~i~'n to b~
thc fcc~ in linc with the construction price index. Staff rcco~ another
TI. CI~ o~ C~m.~. A OnmmO cammrd~ ~ ~ ~ gaily ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bah, ~ bemub'~l ~ A ~ ~ ~ I~ wxk. ~ pla~
SWMP Fee Upas.
December 26, 2002
Page2 of 4
The SWMP fees should be utxiamd for seve~ral r~asons:
1. The construaion price index was 5210 in 1994. In ~uly of 2002, it was listtxi at
6605, a diff-e~ace of 26.8 percent (Att~.hrn~t 3).
2. When thc City of Chimhass~ adopted the SWMP, the cost for to.ti syslt~
construction was reduced by 35 percent from. $20,186,000 to $13,120,900 to keep
~ fees corn.nm'able to other communities (Att,~.hm,.~ 2).
construction price index by ~g the fees anuually by a ra~ of 8.9 pcrccat
over three ycar~ ingrcad of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.8 ~t in one .y~r
(AUachm~ts 3 and 4).
WATER OUALITY
WATER OUAN'ITrY
SWMP F~e
Docemh~ 26, 2002
Pa~3 of 4
Staff recommends that the City Council srlopt the following resolution to increase SWMP
fe~ by 8.9% .nd amend the City Code:
RF. SOLUTION TO UPDATE SURFACE WATER MANA~
WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY CONNECTION CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhsss~'s Sur6ze Wa~r M.~nz~z~ P~n (SWMP)
was sdopted in Pebru.~ 1994, and
'~ the Chan.has~:n City Code does not include a lxovi~on for tl~ anm.ml
utx:lating of the Surface Wate~ I~ Connection Chm'l~.
NOW, THI~RFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the fees f~r w~cr quality
quantity connection charl~ shall be as sct forth in thc following schedule:
WATER QUP. LITY
~in~.t~nily R~iickmfi.J $949
~ $~
row~on~ $1,814
~boolK~mrch $1.772
WATER QUANTITY
~,~e-Fsmi~,a.,ow D~msi~ ~
~ spsce $~711
SWMP Fee Up~-
December 26, 2002
Page 4 of 4
A'~'A~NTS
1. Resolution to Up~. Surface Water Msm~e~n~t Water Quality and Wa~r
2. Excerpt fl~m Part I of the SWMP, Appendix O.
3. M~norand~n f~m Bonestmo, Rosea~, And~'lik & Associates, Inc. to l_~i Haak,
4. Menxmm~m fromBonesln~,Rosene,~&~~-~,Inc, t~LofiHaak,
July 19, 2002.
CITY OF CHAN~qEN
CAR~ A~D ~ COUNTI~, MINNESOTA
Date Resolution
Motion By Secamied By
RESOLUTION TO UPDATE SURFACE WATER MANA~
WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY CONNF_,CHON CHARGES
WrmRRAS, the City of Chmhnssen's Surface W~-~ Mm~g~m~t Plan (SWMP) wss
ndopted in February 1994, and
WHEREAS, the ~ W,~'~' Mm~ge~nznt ~ _reco__mm~ded the City establish
surfil~ water connection fees as a mem~ of ~ the citywid~ im.m~vmm~m ~
tire. n, and
NOW, Tm~tK~ORE, BE IT RESOL~, the fees fur water quality and water quam~
~in~-l~mily Ro~leafial $949
Du~e~ $1,033
Townhome $1,814
SctmoVOmrch $1,772
WATER QUAI.ITY
WATER QUA/~HTY
dayof
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · RO. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBS:
SWMP T~k: Force
Paul Iramu.s, AICP, ~ of
December 1, 1993
SWMP Financing
As most of you know, thc issue of financing, ~ to the estabIishmem of the storm wamr
trunk fee sysmz'n for new development, is the last si~if~cant tmmsolved matmr holding up
adoption of the SWlVIP Ptan. Our last ~ was devoted to ttm topic and we have had a
number of discussions on this in the past. ThLs Ls the pzimar7 Ls~ae for the curreat meeting.
Staff was asked to go back and develop some proposaL~ We were also asked to seeg some
outside assistance from other e~ginea-s in reviewing the proposaL Honeatiy, we do not have
a definitive proposal at thi.~ time but we have made at~mpts lu define thc discussion u follows:
FINDINGS
Svs~m Co~
Bonestroo (BRA) has estimau:d a total system cost of $20,186,000 for storm drainage zelated
improvements. ~ oosts do not in~lude ~anumr qn,l~ty re. lated Jzatm~vements whi~ have a
separate fee ~ b~in inmconnections and large downstream pon/ting areas. BRA staff
ac~owledg~ that these costs are conservative and based upon a worst case wenario. We
believe that the costs are reasonably ao~tu'ate but may ~y overstate the actual system
cost for a number of reasons outlined below.
may be a conservative way of projecting costs tim ~re highly variable, i~ also s~ns
excessive. A 40~ figure may be more r~asonable. This change alone would knock $4.4
ml]]ion off total system cost with commensura~ decreases in acreage and -n{t ch~ges.
need only it 12", thc City is only responsible for thc over~ing. Ovcrai~ing is only a
relatively srrmll incremental cost. Thus, ~ wc can piggy-back construction with
nn on-going developrncnt, which is oft~ ~ case, we can save a si~t amonnt of
th~ plan. This is not a ~ usum:pfion bra raih~ one In which sta~ has had
percent of the costs n.re assessed, with the ~ 50~ absorbed by the City from
General Funds. Thus, costs of inmlling dr~i,,n~ i.~ts in Frontier TraR,
Minnewnahm Parkway, Kerber Boulevard, Bluff Creek Boulevard and potentially (~tan
cost in much the same mann~ we u.~ thc Water and Sanim'y Trunk Funds but cyst so
Through the use of TH: funds, we have been able w install the required systems in the
CBD and industrial park as well as. sections of Hwy. 101, Audubon Road, etc. We nrc
going tO be using TI~ proc~ tO upsrade a sen'its of county roads in rite near future to
retm'n some of the TIF benefits d/rectly t~ the County. Here again we will be able to
construct substantial portions of the ttmnir System at no cost to thc Trunk Fund. Simil~ly,
State Aid funds can be used to pay for up to 2/3's of the cost of drainage i .mlvmvcm~nts
for consu'u~on on designated mutes. Most major roadways in the City are on the State
Aid system.
Other revenue sources may be possible. We arc cuzrcnfly investigating a joint agency
project to work on Bluff Creek, for c~arnpie, that has the potenlJal to bring in new funds.
f.
Chanhassen has a Surface Wal~r Utility that generates funding to ~ sonz of these
issues. The program's primary focus to daw has been to ~ water quality
problems and n_darcss wetland protection and this will likely continue to be thc case. We
also note that we believe the program to be significantly under funded. Still some of the
money will ultimately be used to addr~s storm wnt~ issues and in fact we trove already
the total ftwdir~§ formula. With it we are not solely relying on what is an impact fee on
new developm~t w address problems c~ated by existing development.
Suml'nnrY
Thc cost estimates shown for the system appe~ to si~i6canfly over estima~ its ultiroate cost.
Off-setting this h the need for funding long-trrm rr~qi.~n..~ of thc sy"~m which has not been
included in the projected costs. Whi~ we believe it is not possible to tr. ll you with certainty that
the ultimate cost of the storm system is 'X" but we do think it will be less tbcn $20,186,000.
For lack of a m__ore concrete figure, we a~e recommending that a system cost of $13,120,900 or
65~ of the BRA projection, be used as the basis for establl,hh, g fees.
How Would Fee~ Be Asses~
The level of developer participation remains n little foggy. Simply put, we believe that in most
cases with larger developments, much of the trnnk charge wonld be waived for in-kind
is not thc case in Eagau. Dave and I called over there ~md found that they give ca'edit only fmr
impwve~nents that a~e hmal~l by the C~ty as a public h~l~nmt. ~ a develc~t- ~ hh
or her own pipe~ or ponds they ~ give~ no credit. Nelthez Dave or I ~ ~h~ is equitable ami
dedication b~u~d on whether it meets a community need, it is very i .mlmrmnt that the City
the flexibility to designate a~te p~a~ng ar~as. We do not want to wind up ~ a large
of the Plan. The plsn must clearly state th.t we will review developmeat lm~po~ on a
will reloca~ ponding basins as long as total system needs are met. Our syste~ has been
computer modeled' specific~y so that we can hsve ~is flexibility.
What is Covered by the Fee?
The mink fee only covers the cost of storm ponds aud piping. It does not cover the cost of
water quality basins which have a separate f~mdi~g formula. We find this to be nccurate in terms
of where the money is going but confn~ng in actual pra~c~ This is made even more ~g
by the fact in many cases, the same ponding ~ will be design~ to LcCOmmodate both
functions. The plan should lay out both funding formulas n~xt to each other and ~mable au easier
assessment of actual fees to be made. Whon ~ developar does not wish to provide a r~uimt
demonstrated (at the developers expense) to be viabl~ and ths developer pays the full cost of off-
u~ i~ on several projects.
District ¢ost~ vs. Averane Costs
The plan allows for a ht-..akdown of i cos'~ by )n,+ividud drainage disuict~ Based upon
BRA's cost analysis, district fees vary from $4980 per acre around ~ Marsh Lak~, to a low
of $1640 at Purgatory Creek. The cost di~-~rentials represent variable costs of particular disuict
needs and to some exlm~t show that remediafing problems in developed areas is more expea~ve.
Decreeing the total system cost as ~ above would lower the per ac~ fee but not the
~ty. It is our re~:nnmendation, that for the sake of simplicity and equity, tha~ an avernge
RECO~ATIONS
e
'I'be City must rclzin tl~ right to accept ~ reject ixma~,,g Ia'Optml~ for Ix~ ~
quality m,m:i storm walm' _hn.~n.~ ~ upon mcct~g ti~ _COm~,mhy's ~ u
established by the ~
Thc fog structm'c ,.hould tallow for a dcvelot~' to off~'t momc of t~ di..-'cct costs by
inauflling ovcrsize, xi or required impro~ts if con~m~ wirb rbe ~ u ~
by thc Oty.
We fee] that fu/'ther work is l'C~lttil'~ to reins- ~ ~n,nt~ pagkitgo. We ~ ~ ~
T~ F~e v~ ~ ~c &e S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~nnning ~~
~O~~f~o~ Wc~~~o~g~t~~~m~
~ B~ ~ o~ ~ ~w o~ ~~ ~~ m ~ ~ ~g p~
6. Thc rates should b~ incrcas~ annually in line with the construction In'icc index.
Memo
Project Name: SWMP Area Trunk Charges
Update
To: Lod Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
From: Ismael Martinez & John Smyth
Re: Trunk Area Charges
C/.tent: City of Chanhassen
F//e No: 393GEN
J3a~: 4/5/2001
Remarks:
There are two ways to adjust the area charges.
1) Ul~_._fin~ the cost esfim~intheplanbysubtmctingtheinfrasmm'mmbufltin~7~. This
is an accurate method ~ ~u mi~ ~ to ~y~ ~ ~ ~ SW1VIP (I.iicely in 2004).
The construction price index whea the plan was ~ was 5210 as of April of this year the index is
6286. The con'eaponding adjustmant is 20.6 per cent.
It is important to mention that when the City adopted tbe plan the eo~t for total ~ consUu~on was
decreased by 35 per cent from $20,186,000 to $13,120,900 to have the fees c~aapamble to other
Ove~l the focu~ should be to meet the 20.6 l~r cent increa~ as ~ as po~'ble. It would likely not fly to
have a 20.6 pe~eat increase in 1-ymr. You may want to look at ~ an increase in over the ne~t ~
years, with 6.7 ~ incma~per yea~. If you cazz accord, llsh this we will be closer to beingback oa
track.
Paul Olflee: 0
_-~-~_ _ Wear I-Igt~a~ 38 151a Wear Mequaa Fl~ad 112 7a 8tm~ NE
8[. Paul, MN ~113 Mequea, WI ~3r~
0 8¢. Ctoucl Olfloe:
Letter of Transmittal
Date.- 7/19/02
F/Je No.- 393.-02-00
To..C./~an~ Clty Haft
77O0 Market Bird
PO Box 147
Chanhaeaen, MN 55317-0147
Att~: Lorf Haak
We are .ending you:
Theme are transm/tted: (See code)
1. For approval 5. Reviewed 9.
2. Foryo~ruse 6. Revlewed-Make~noim:l 10.
3. As requested 7. Revise and resubmit
4. Forrevlewandcommm'~t 8. Rejected
Not Reviewed
RECEIVED
,,JUL ?, 3 ZOOZ
~'~L'~'~ Wear I..Igh~*~y 3e
Bt. Paui, 14d 65113
Pilene: 651..~36-4000
~ ~61-.938-1311
' ~on Cost Indox History (1908-2001) Page 1 of 3
~lc',( here for a
FREE Tidal
SLIbscrlp'do n to
ESR
Honlll
This week's magazine
~ Cover Story
~ Cove~ and Fe~tur~
~ E-Construction
~ Equipment Traclm &
Trends
~ Industry Calendar
~ Opinion
~ People and Awards
~ Co~t Indexe~
~ Construct]on
Economics
Headline News
~ Buildings
r Business & Labor
~ Environment
~ Rnance
~ Technology
r Transporl~flon
~ Industrial
Wealtter
Career Opportunities
Project Bids and Legal
Notices
Special Sections
Energy Delivery
Nation's Construction
Schools
ENR'S Top Ranked Firms Top Design Firms
Top Contractors
Construction Cost Index History (1908-2002)
HOW ENR BUH.,DS THE INDEX: 200 hours of common labor, at tl
city average of ~ommnn labor rat~ plus 25 cwt of standard structural
shapes at the mill price prior to 1996 and the fabricated 20-city price ti
1996, plus 1.128 tons of portland cemextt atthe 20-city price, plus 1,0
board-i of 2 x 4 lumb r at the 20-<fity price.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG S~P OCT lqOV DISC ANN'[
AVG
3132 3134 3159 3143 3139 3198 3260 3304 3319 3327 3355 3376 3~7
3372 33~ 33M ~50 ~71 34~ 3~8 3616 3657 36~ 3~7 36~ 3535
37~ 3~ 3~1 3~1 37~ 3815 38~ 38~ 3~ 3~1 3917 3950 3~
3~ ~1 ~ ~1 ~3 ~3 41~ 4132 4142 4127 4133 4110 ~
41~ 4113 4118 4132 4142 4161 41~ 41~ 4176 4161 4158 41~ 41~
4145 4153 4151 4150 4171 4201 4~0 4~0 4~9 4~ 4~1 4~ 41~
4218 4~0 4~1 4~2 4275 43~ 4332 43~ 4335 43~ 4~2 4351 4295
4354 4352 4359 4363 4369 4387 ~ ~3 ~56 ~59 ~53 ~78 ~
~70 ~ ~ ~9 ~93 45~ 4532 4542 4535 4555 4567 45~ 4519
4580 45~ 4574 45~ 4578 45~ ~08 ~18 ~8 ~58 ~ ~5 ~15
J~ ~ ~~ ~Y~ ~ AUG~ ~ NOV D~ ~
&VG
~ ~85 ~91 ~ 47~ 47~2 4~ 47~2 4~4 4~1 4787 4~ 4732
4~ 4~3 47~ 47~ ~01 ~18 ~ ~ ~91 ~ ~ ~89 ~35
~88 ~M 4~7 4~ 4~5 4~3 4~ 5~2 5~2 5052 5058 5~9 4~5
5~1 5~0 51~ 5167 5~2 5~ 5~2 5~0 5255 5~ 5278 5310 5210
5336 5371 5381 ~5 5~5 5~8 5~ 54~ ~37 ~37 ~39 ~39 ~
5~3 5~ 5435 ~32 ~33 ~32 ~ 55~ 5491 5511 5519 55~ 5471
55~ 5532 5537 5550 55~ 55~ 5617 5652 5683 5719 57~ 57~ 5~0
5765 5769 5759 57~ 5837 58~ 5863 5~4 5851 5~ 5838 5858 5~
5852 5874 5875 5883 5881 5895 5~1 5~9 5~3 59~ 5~5 5~1 5~
~ 5~ 5986 ~ ~ ~39 6~6 ~1 6128 61~ 6127 6127 ~
j~ ~ ~~ ~Y~ ~ AU~ ~NOV ~ ~
AVO
6130 61~ 62~ 6201 6~3 6~8 6~ 6~3 6~ ~59 6~6 6~3 6~1
6~1 62~ 6~0 ~86 6~8 6319 ~ 6389 6391 63~ ~10 63~ 6~2
6462 6462 6502 6480 6512 6532 6605
Base: 1915=100
h t tp : l lenr. co nstnmti on. com/ eost/ eoste~ asp 7/150.002