13b. Prepare sweter and water comp plan for new MUSA area 1
0 /3_6
CITYOF
__________
,,1
, ,
cHANBAssEN
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I ,1k-
MEMORANDUM
1 .
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and --
Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer o ._
DATE: April 18, 1991
1 SUBJ: Staff Proposal to Undertake Prepare a Comprehensive Sewer
and Water Plan for the Expanded MUSA Area
1 BACKGROUND
II As the City Council is aware, Chanhassen's approved Comprehensive
Plan and MUSA line amendment is currently being reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council. Barring any potential glitches, we expect to
have formal action by the Metropolitan Council by the end of May.
1 We have already been experiencing a considerable amount of interest
by developers in large tracts of land in what will become the newly
expanded MUSA area. One of the fundamental questions we are faced
1 with whenever we look at these potential projects is how the city
wishes to run municipal trunk and sewer lines and ancillary
facilities such as lift stations, wells and water storage
II reservoirs. We strongly believe that it is important for the city
to get out in front of this issue. In other words, we want to be
in a position of telling developers where we think our major
facilities need to be rather than have them drive expansion of city
1 utilities. This is not to infer that any work they may do would be
inadequate but simply that it would be in our best interest to
determine the best means of serving our entire community. A
I developer, for obvious reasons, is looking at the best interests
for him or herself.
The Comprehensive Plan contains some rudimentary work wherein a
1 major sanitary sewer lift station at Bluff Creek and Lyman
Boulevard has been proposed, along with some ideas as to where city
trunk sewer mains should run. However, this information is, at
II best, sketchy and is insufficient in proceeding to the next step.
This rudimentary information does not even exist for water
facilities. We therefore believe it is an opportune time for the
1 city to take the initiative and be in a position wherein we can
responsibly manage this growth as it occurs. We are, therefore,
proposing that the city undertake what can best be referred to as
11
Expansion of Sewer and Water Plan
' April 18, 1991
Page 2
' comprehensive sewer and water plans for the newly expanded MUSA
area. The resulting plans would give us detailed information as to
where these lines should be run, how they should be sized, where
related facilities should be developed, projected costs and program
phasing. In essence, these will serve as the blueprint which will
allow us to ultimately move onto the next step which is detailed
feasibility studies and work programs for individual sections of
this system as development proceeds.
Based upon this perceived need, staff has taken it upon ourselves
to request proposals from responsible consultants so that we can
bring this item before the City Council for action. We realize
that this has been undertaken in advance of formally getting
Council approval, however, we note that at this point there are no
commitments to proceed and the decision to do so is entirely up to
the Council. We believe that the resulting cost is fairly modest
in light of the development activity that is expected to occur.
' We further believe that the cost of this study can ultimately be
buried within actual construction projects as they are undertaken.
Lastly, we have worked closely with the City Manager, who assures
us that this work can be funded out of the Administrative Trust
' without impacting other required programs or financial needs.
REVIEW OF PROPOSALS
' Staff contacted a total of 6 capable engineering firms and
requested that they a prepare a proposal to do the work as outlined
by staff. The firms represent a mix of companies that have either
worked in the community before or are well established elsewhere
but are new to our community. They included Bonestroo, Anderlik
and Rosene; Engelhardt and Associates; Hansen, Thorpe, Pellinen and
Olson; Orr, Shelen and Mayeron; Short, Elliot and Hendrickson; and
Tolltz, King, Duvall and Anderson. The Assistant City Engineer and
Planning Director reviewed these firms based upon four sets of
' criteria, including the focus of proposal, consistency with city
needs, previous related experience of the firm, quality of project
staff and costs.
In reviewing the submittals, we found that while each firm could
probably complete the work adequately, two firm's proposals seemed
to standout from the rest. These included the proposals from the
Bonestroo firm and SEH. We then compared the proposed costs of
each submittal, noting that the range was from $8,876 for Bonestroo
and up to $30,000 from TKDA, with SEH being in the $10,000 to
' $12, 000 range. We would be comfortable with the selection of
either the Bonestroo firm or SEH firm and are willing to discuss
other firms if so desired by the Council. However, it is our
recommendation that the Bonestroo firm be given the contract for
several reasons, as follows:
11
Expansion of Sewer and Water Plan
April 18, 1991 1
Page 3
1. Bonestroo is currently' working with the city on sanitary sewer
issues to help assure passage of the Comprehensive Plan by the
Metropolitan Council. We believe that their work to date has
been acceptable and that they have already developed a basic
familiarity with the city. We further note that Bonestroo
represented the MWCC on the construction of the Lake Ann
Interceptor and they are also familiar with that.
2. The Bonestroo proposal included computer modeling of water 11
systems using current technology, where the SEH proposal
listed this as an added cost item. While computer modeling is 11 not necessarily essential, it does help to produce quality
work and leaves us with a product that makes it easy to test
new assumptions over time as development proposals are
received in the future.
3 . The bottom line is that Bonestroo appears to be offering more
for a lower cost. Frankly, we were somewhat surprised with
the cost ranges that we received since, with the exception of
the TKDA proposal, they all seemed to be lower than what we
had expected. '
Copies of the Bonestoo and SEH proposals are attached. Please
contact staff if you wish to review proposals prepared by other
firms.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize entering into a
contract with the Bonestroo firm to undertake a sewer and water
comprehensive plan effort outlined in their proposal. We are
further recommending that entering into this contract be subject to
two conditions.
1. Resolution of MUSA line amendment approval process with the
Metropolitan Council.
2 . Ability to enter into a satisfactory contract. . '
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposal from Bonestroo.
2 . Proposal from SEH.
I
1
1