Loading...
1e. Consultant Selection for Storm Water Drainage Utility I , CITYOF •- �' CHANHASSEN 1 F CHANHASSEN, • *1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 .ow_; 400- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 IAction by City A'^;5:^'•,`l'a MEMORANDUM " 1 TO: Don Ashworth , City Manager Deers: Rejec`e-7 FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer Da` rn �° Date , . : 3n DATE: April 4, 1990 - Date - ,_ 41_4 1 SUBJ: Approve Consultant Selection for Establishing `f _ �L�-- Storm Water Drainage Utility File No. PW207 I As part of the final modifications to the 1990 budget, the City I Council authorized $50 ,000 to pursue and implement a storm water management program. As such, a special revenue fund ( "Environmental Protection" ) has been established in the 1990 budget, of which storm water management is one element (see Iattached excerpt) . There are basically three elements which comprise the storm water I management program, namely; (1) storm water utility, (2) wetland mapping, and ( 3) local water management plan. The $50,000 was intended as seed money to proceed with initiating these programs and not intended as total funding liability. The local water I management plan for example could cost the City anywhere from $100,000 to $150, 000 alone. I In light of the financial liabilities associated with the other elements of the program, it became apparent that the Storm Water Utility should be aggressively pursued first since one of its I goals is to establish a funding source for completing the other elements of the storm water management program. Based on this conclusion, proposals were solicited from Barr I Engineering and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) for establishing and implementing the storm water utility district for the City of Chanhassen. Copies of these two proposals are I attached for review. The Planning Director and I have met with both firms to review their qualifications and approach to this work task. While both firms appear well-qualified, SEH we feel I has been on the forefront, having prepared a number of these plans for similar communities in the twin cities. As can be seen from SEH's submittal, they have provided a significant amount of detail in their proposal as to the scope of services and approach Ito the project. II .1 ' Don Ashworth ' April 4, 1990 Page 2 I Their process, which is sensitive to public/council input, calls for three workshops, two public information meetings and one formal public hearing leading to adoption of the utility district I by August 13, 1990 . This is revealed on page 7 of their submittal. Further , the SEH three-step scope of work, which is summarized beginning on page 2 of the proposal , provides for an in-depth up front review of various financial alternatives to I funding the storm water utility, i .e. special assessments, Ad Valorem tax. . . , which we believe is important in arriving at the proper financial scenario for the City in this matter. IBoth firms have proposed a cost range for completing these work tasks. This makes sense in light of the variables involved with I public information meetings and being open to the input from the City staff and City Council . SEH' s costs are summarized on page 8 of the proposal which show a range of $13,500 to $21,000 depending on the amount of staff reliance and meetings necessary. I The concept plan , Task 1, would be conducted for a lump sum of $4 ,500 with the remaining elements pursued on a time and materials basis . Barr Engineering, on the other hand, has I proposed doing the work entirely on a time and materials basis with an estimated range of $5 ,000 to $20,000 . The $5 ,000 element, I believe, coincides with the concept plan element of I the SEH proposal . It is therefore recommended for the reasons noted above that the firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. be selected to assist the I City with establishing and implementing a storm water utility district consistent with the scope of services defined in their March 15 , 1990 proposal . I ktm Attachments: 1. Memo to Don Ashworth dated April 17 , 1989 . I 2 . Budget summary. 3. Proposal from Barr Engineering dated March 22, 1990 . 4 . Proposal from SEH dated March 15 , 1990. I I I I I , i 11. ._ __.: CITYOF „; f ;4 CHANHASSEN 11. ...' " ile'7 . , . 4 ty., .__ ,,i0.- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager °11tj I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineerl: D I ATE: April 17 , 1989 SUBJ: Storm Water Drainage Utility I File No. PW207 Attached is an information packet from the City of Roseville con- cerning the establishment of a storm drainage utility for that city. Minnesota Statutes Section 44-075 was modified in 1983 to I specifically allow the establishment of storm drainage utilities by statutory cities and others as a funding mechanism for operating, maintaining, constructing, reconstructing and enlarging storm sewer systems and the pertinent facilities. As I you are aware, the City of Chanhassen does not have such a funding mechanism in place for dealing with storm system improve- ments and maintenance and has relied strictly on excess State-Aid I funds which have been recaptured from State-Aid projects or other general obligation funds for correction of and construction of storm drainage facilities. I I strongly believe with the development pressures in the City and with the State commitment to the organization of Water Management Organizations (WMO's) , a storm water drainage utility makes a lot I sense (cents) .while the City of Roseville was the first community to establish a utility district in the State of Minnesota, several have followed suit such as the City of Edina, City of I Minnetonka, City of Fridley, City of Bloomington, City of Apple Valley and the City of St. Paul. The City lies in three watershed districts as established by the I Chapter 509 legislation, namely Minnehaha Creek, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and Lower Minnesota. Each of these districts has progressed to the point of completing, at least in I draft form, a formal water management plan for their watershed. Likewise the City, in order to be in compliance with the Chapter 509 legislation, needs to be addressing preparation of its own I local WMO plan compatible with these overall watershed plans. Preparation of a plan of this nature needs to commence in 1990 . I Don Ashworth I April 17 , 1989 Page 2 IIA very crude budget estimate for this activity is $60 ,000 to $80 ,000 . This plan needs to be completed for the City to comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter 509. IWhile the political winds never favor tax increases, I believe the attached approach utilized by Roseville, if properly pre- I sented to the Council and the public, makes good sense and in fact can provide a more financially sound approach to accomplishing the goals of the effective watershed management I plan. I wanted to get this information to you as I know we will be embarking on the 1990 budget in the not-to-distant future and it I will be my recommendation that we strongly consider the establishment of a storm water drainage utility as a part of this process. I look forward to discussing this further with you at Iyour convenience. ` Attachment II1 . Storm water drainage utility information packet Icc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney (w/enclosure) I I I I I I I I I Page 1 DESIGNING SERVICE CHARGES FOR STORM SEWER MANAGEMENT ' The idea of storm drainage utilities is not new. It began over ten years ago on the west coast following the "Proposition 13" taxpayer revolt. A storm ' drainage utility is quite similar to those which are common in most cities. This would include water, electric, and sanitary sewer utilities. A storm drain utility is probably closest in many ways to that of a sanitary ' sewer utility. This is true because it deals with a substance that is normally unmeasured as far as volume, produces a byproduct which affects others off the site, and frequently requires some type of treatment or control after it leaves 1 the site. Also, the property owner can affect thetsituation by providing partial treatment on site through his own private actions, which ultimately will help others off the site. BACKGROUND OF ROSEVILLE ' The establishment of a storm water utility is not the sort of action which is only useful or possible in large communities. Roseville is a first tier suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but is relatively small. It contains only 13 1/2 ' square miles and approximately 37,000 people. It developed in the '50s and '60s and now has fully developed with very little unused land. It has a mixture of residential land uses making up over half of the community. ' Approximately 40% of the land, however, is used for commercial and industrial activities. There are three major lakes, a dozen minor lakes, plus numerous ' ponding areas in the community. Approximately 70% has storm sewers in lace p and the remainder uses overland flow techniques. ' WHY HAVE A STORM DRAINAGE UTI TY? 1 Although the answer may be different in every city, in the case of Roseville, } • Page 2 a storm drain utility was created because it was felt to be the right way to ,, approach storm drainage, rather than it being installed as a way out of financial problems. Fortunately, Roseville is a fiscally sound and solvent co..— which has through sound management been able to avoid personnel lay-offs over II the past difficult years. The city had actually been aware of the opportunities available through a storm II drainage utility for many years, but due to the state law in Minnesota not .I specifically stating that a storm drain utility was permitted by a city, it was not possible. This changed in 1983, however, when several cities joined I together to get legislation passed which specifically allowed the establishment II of storm drainage utilities. The emphasis also came from the passage at the same time of a state law requiring the establishment of storm drainage planning II organizations throughout the entire Twin City metropolitan area. There are IIseveral advantages to a storm drainage utility. Some of these are as follows: 1. Fair -- Charges are based on how much of the problem the property owner creates. Property taxes on the other hand frequently bare II little relationship to how much or what quality storm water leaves a site. II 2. Dependable -- The funding technique produces consistent funding levels II and an easy to project source of revenue. 3. Dedicated funds -- There is no competition for the use of these funds II for other city activities. Storm drainage, historically, has not been II a high visibility, emotional subject and, therefor, has received less _ than its share of funds in competitive situations. II 4. Unrestricted use -- The funds can be used for any type of administra- tive, planning, maintenance, reconstruction, new construction, or .' other use associated with storm drainage. 5. LeRelly defensible -- More and more special assessment projects are II being challenged in the courts with benefits being difficult to I • Page 3 allocate to properties on high ground which drain their water down stream. 6. Tax levy reduction -- The tax levy can be reduced by no longer funding these activities from the general funds supported by taxes. 7. Simple -- The approval by the city of another utility, development of a charge system, explanation to the public, and an additional line on the utility bills is not complicated or unreasonably difficult. ' 8. Flexible -- The fee system is very adaptable to meet local situations. ' USES OF THE FUND ' As it was previously mentioned, the fund is not restricted in use except to the degree that the activities should relate to storm drainage. The decisions of how to use the funds collected are, therefore, primarily limited only by the needs of the community and its innovativeness. typically uses such as administration, planning, and routine maintenance of ' pipes, pumps, ponds, ditches, vehicles, etc. would be expected in any plan. When rates are being established, these activities as a minimum should be considered. ' Many cities that have established storm drainage utilities, however, have gone well beyond these uses. They include in their program such activities as street sweeping, leaf and grass collection, adding chemicals to purify lakes, weed cutting of lakes, erosion protection activities, educating citizens on the affects of fertilizer, and other less obvious activities. Also included in ' many programs are the reconstruction costs of old deteriorated pipes or ditches, replacing or enlarging undersized systems and expanding siltation ' ponds. If appropirate and attainable, it would be desirable to also include ' the construction of new facilities to provide even better quality treatment to the runoff, reduce flooding or erosion, or simply serve areas that as yet do ' not have a storm drainage system. I Page 4 All of the above were incorporated into Roseville's system with the exception I that the city proposes to special assess 25% of the costs of the storm water collection system in as yet unserved areas. Even in these areas, however, ponds, large trunk sewers, major ditch construction, storm water pumps or similar facilities are being entirely funded by the utility. NEEDED INFORMATION Before actual decisions can be made on establishing rates , ing for a storm drainage utility, a considerable amount of information should be available. Obtaining , this information generally will not be too difficult, but will require some time and work. In Roseville's case, it took approximately pproximately 100 man hours to produce the necessary data. This will vary, of course, depending on the size of the community and the availability of information. Most of the information was available either through existing utility billings, financial records, capital improvement programs, budgets, time card accounting systems, zoning maps, and aerial maps. Exact information is probably not necessary. Therefore, it is recommended that the effort allocated to obtaining the information be kept to a minimum. Just get sufficient information to make reasonable decisions. Experience with the utility will allow refinement of the exact fees, credits, ' etc. to be made at a later date. Among the information needed is the following: 1. State Law -- See if the existing state law allows for a storm ' drainage utility. Check with your city attorney, a league of municipality's attorney, state attorney general, or other available source. ' 2. Current Activities -- Find out how much is being spent now and for what sort of activities. Any proposed change inevitably requires , a sound set of reasoning as to how things are currently being done. By obtaining that information early, it will be a good basis for your evaluation process of proposed changes. I Page 5 3. Present Funding Service -- Determine how funds are presently being obtained and from whom. It is very important to know where the funding is presently coming from. If possible break the sources down into groups such as residential, commercial, industrial, churches, ' schools, vacant property, etc. This will be vital information when specific types of property owners inquire how the change will affect them. It will also allow you to formulate a rate structure that responds best to your objectives concerning who should pay for the ' utility. ' 4. Present Utility Billing System -- Find out how the present utility system billing functions and how it would potentially be affected by adding ' this new utility. 5. Planning Needs -- What planning and administrative costs are anticipated. If master plans are necessary, or comprehensive P lans ' need to be updated, then this should be known as the system is prepared. In Roseville's case, the new state law required the ' establishment of major planning efforts. Although short term in nature, these expenses would place a noticeable burden on the typical city budget. 6. Maintenance Cost -- Establish the maintenance and operational needs of your system, even if they are not already being done. ' 7. Needed System Replacements -- Estimate what system replacements or enlargements are needed, both currently and in the future. ' 8. Estimate Future Needs -- Estimate what new facilities will be needed, - ' approximately when and at what cost. 9. Current Lane Use -- Estimate both the number of parcels of each type of zoning and the total number of acres of each type of zone in the community. This information preferably would include data as to what ' percent of each type of zone is vacant. • Page' 6 I 10. Typical Parcel Size and Imperviousness -- Calculate typical parcel size and percent impervious of each of the various types of zoning in the community. Your knowledge of the community can probably allow you to do I this by making a few sample calculations from aerial photos. This infor -mation is vitally important to properly develop the fee system. It II becomes the focal point for the system for charging various property user 11. Soil. Slope and Rainfall -- Estimate the general type of soil in the community and typical slope or grade of the normal parcel. It is also II necessary to obtain typical rainfall data, so that when calculations are ultimately made, information will be available from which to base the dell: 12. Potential Credits -- Find out to the best of your ability the type and magnitude of ag privately constructed and maintained ponds, holding basins, skimming facilities, and other similar improvements that are on private II property. If a credit system is to be considered, its effect will have to be quantified in some manner. Actual calculations or field investigation' are not recommended for this portion of the information. Doing so would be much too costly and time consuming at this stage of the process. II 13. Who Should Pay -- Determine what groups of individuals you feel should II pay for the facilities. The process will allow subsequent decisions to be made in the setting of the rates. These decisions are subjective and II more of an art than a science. As such, having predetermined your preference for the ultimate decision, it will be easier to make the II correct choices. This facet cannot be emphasized enough. It is, indeed, in this area that the utility will, in all probability, either II succeed or fail. If the utility is perceived as charging the right II types of land and as being reasonable, then it will probably be a success. If the fee system is viewed as being unfair, or resulting in II charges to the wrong type of land users or in the wrong magnitudes, then it will probably fail. I 1 Page 14. Political Situation -- Review the existing political situation. If it is just a month before elections, there is a bitter fight between council members, or other political facets exist, this may not be the right time to propose a new program. On the other hand, if there are fiscal restraint: it is budget time, or the council is looking for innovative ideas, this may be the ideal time to move ahead. DEVELOPING ROSEVILLE'S CHARGE SYSTEM ' Once you have obtained the previously mentioned information, you are now ready to do a more difficult portion of the operation. You now need to make those ' decisions on what the charge system will actually be. There is no single right answer that will fit all communities. Each case is slightly different and may ' need its own unique approach. Following is Roseville's system and a brief ' overview of the approach that was followed: 1. Political Tireliness -- It was concluded that with the relatively ' stable political climate and the need for significant new funds for preparing the storm water management plans as mandated by the state, ' that this was the appropriate time to consider a storm drainage utility. 2. Select Fee Basis -- Past experience with utilities showed that the ' primary basis for a storm drainage fee would be the zoning of the land and the size of the particular parcel in acres. In the case of single- family, residential land, it was concluded that the development would be essentially similar regardless of the size of the parcel, and, therefore, a single rate was used for all single-family, residential ntial parcels. This simplified the billing and the amount of effort required to calculate the bills significantly. It also followed the ' approach used in the sanitary sewer utility which already existed. I/ Page 8 • 3. Exclusions and Charges -- Due to the fact that the system basically I was to reflect increases in storm water flows caused by development, it was decided that vacant property would not be charged. This II simplified the collection system because utility bills for sanitary II sewer and water service are already being sent to the developed parcels, but not to the vacant parcels. It also reflected the fact II that the general populace would think it was unfair to charge them for rainfall occurring on undeveloped natural land. A second major 1 exception was made in the removal of all public road rights-of-way IIfrom the fee system. The reasoning for this decision was that most of the rights-of-way were owned by the city itself, and to pay those fees II ' would have simply meant raising property taxes. This would have been counter-production. It would also have meant establishing collections 1 from state highway and county governments. This was viewed as politically sensitive. This was particularly true since Roseville's II storm drainage utility was the first ever done in the State of 1 Minnesota, and it was desired that it be as uncontroversial as possible. 1 u. Runoff Evaluation Technicue -- The SCSS System for determining 11 runoff was selected. This system was chosen because it was felt to be fair, well accepted nationally, and most importantly; because of its II flexibility in being able to establish a fee system which would be in keeping with the needs and desires of Roseville. I 5. Select Locally Appropriate Rainfall and Program Level -- Several alternatives were run in an effort to establish the best rainfall to II use with the SCSS System. It had been concluded by the staff that a II system which minimized the charge affects on the single-family, residential property owners would be the most desirable. It was also II desirable that the charge system be capable of providing enough fees to offset the costs of the maintenance, planning, replacements and II I • , Page enlargement of the system. The alternative selected to achieve this using the Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55 was for a ' two inch total rainfall amount with antecedent moisture condition II. 6. Credit System -- It was decided that for fairness and to encourage ' and reward those property owners who were assisting the overall city system by reducing the overall amount of water, slowing it down, or ' improving its quality, that a credit system should be provided. ' Because of the fact that the city was essentially developed and most of the collection system already existed, the decision was made that up to 50% of the fee could be reduced by providing water quality benefits and up to 25% by reducing the rate of flow. Wet ponds were determined to be the best way for water quality improvement and Brune's trap efficiency curve was used as the basis for determining that aspect. The 25% available credit for slowing the water down was ' broken into two potential steps. Ten percent of it would be granted if the peak outflow rate was reduced to a five year rainfall event for predevelopment conditions, and an additional 15% if that could be ' done for a 100 year event. Reductions in the charge would also be granted if the property owner could demonstrate that the actual ' development on his parcel was significantly less than the standards established for the normal parcel of that particular land use zone. 7. Set Fees -- Using the SCS two inch rainfall for a single-family parcel as a basis and assuming that the average lot was one-third of an acre in size, a ratio of charges was developed for each type of ' land use zone in the city. Where similar ratios existed for various type of land use, these were combined into a single classification ' for determining the actual fee. The following table identified as "Roseville Storm Drainage Utility" shows the actual fees developed by Roseville. Please note that the fee system is not identical to the percent of imperviousness assumed on each land use zone. As an II Page 10 • IIexample using classification 3, single-family, residential as a base you will see that 25% is assumed impervious with a residential factor II of one and the rate of $13 per acre. Category 6 of commercial and industrial land is assumed to be 85% impervious. If only the previous II percentage were used it would result in a fee proportion of 3.4 times residential property. When I the two inch rainfall is used on the SCSS set of tables, however, it I produces a equivalent factor of five. The final fee used by Roseville is $65 per acre, identical to this factor of five. This approach is II significant in the final determination in who will pay for the operation of this new utility. It was felt that the large highly I developed parcels containing extensive amounts of asphalt and roof area were actually contributing the major water problems both in regard to rate of flow, resulting in large pipe sizes and/or flooding problems, I and in water quality problems. This rate structure reflects that determination. The size of the fee was set at an amount which would I bring in adequate funds for both the present and the anticipated future needs of the community. At the same time by using this system, II the $4.35 per quarter charge to single-family residents was felt to II be small enough to not be a burden and to be considered reasonable by the citizens. II II II II II Page 11 .1 ROSEVILLE STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1 RESIDENTIAL AVE. QUIVALENT CLASSIFICATION LAND USES IMPERVIOUS FACTOR RATE/QT 1 1 Cemeteries 4% 0.25 3.25/ac II Golf Courses 2 Parks with Parking 15% 0.75 9.75/ac II Facilities 1 3 Single Family and 25% 1.00 13.00/ac Duplex Residential or 4.35/10 1 4 Public and Private Schools 3`O% 1.25 16.25/ac Community Center 1 5 Multiple Family Residential 50% 2.50 32.50/. Churches and Governmental II Buildings 1 6 Commercial, Industrial 85% 5.00 65.00/ac Warehouse II7 Improved Vacant Varies As Assigned 1 8. Sell Idea to Decision Makers -- Once the above action was done, the conclusion was reached that the storm drainage utility was indeed 1 viable, fair, and a good idea. At this point, it needed to be 1 presented to the decision makers in a manner that would be favorably received. The idea was first explained to the City Manager and examples- , given as to impact of the fee. It was then included in the preliminary budgets as future, new revenue. A work session with the 1 council was scheduled, written material presented, and a 4 uestion and 1 answer period held. The following table identified as "Comparison with Tax Approach" was utilized to show how the impact of the utility IIwould affect each of the various land use zones. ?age 12 II COMPARISON WITH TAX APPROACH I CLASS UTILITY FEE TAX LEVY % OF INCOME % OF INCOME 1. Residential 28.3 50.1 1 2. Cemeteries, golf courses .8 1.9 3. Parks, etc. 1.9f 0 4. Schools, public and private 2. 1' 0 5. Apartments, churches, etc. 8.3' 8.9 6. Commercial, industrial 57.5 39.1 * 8.9% from Non Taxable Sources t I Of particular interest is the fact that the residential costs to fund the same level of activities as proposed would be almost double if tax levies were used while the commercial and industrial zonings would conversely be little more than half if the tax levy system continued. ' This together with the fact that almost 9% new funds would be attained by charging previously tax free units such as schools, churches, 1 county or state parks, etc. was very useful and enlightening. After some minor adjustments, the council unanimously favored the concept. The staff was authorized to get the utility formed. I 9. Explain to Citizenry -- In order to get the idea of the utility to the citizens, several news releases were prepared and were 1 published by the local newspapers. In addition, speeches were given to the local Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Lion's Club, etc. to inform them of this proposal and solicit understanding and possible support. I A special mailing was also sent to each property owner explaining in simple terms what the storm drainage utility was, why it was needed, II what their anticipated costs would be, how this would be different Page 13 from the current system, why a storm drainage system was needed, and Ihow the money would ultimately be spent. The council then publicly considered the new storm drainage utility. It was unanimously passed with almost no opposition. Additional news releases were sent ' out to inform the citizens that the city had changed its method of paying for storm drainage, and a second flier was sent to all property ' owners advising them of what had taken place and how this would affect ' them. When the first fee was added on their normal utility bills, an additional letter explaining the change was also included. ' 10. Implementation -- Meetings were held with the city's private utility billing service, and a new form and system developed for the storm drainage utility. Careful and thorough explanation of the new ' system was given to city employees--particularly those who had to deal with the public or work with this new utility. It was felt that it was very important that the employees understand the system and feel that this was a fair and reasonable approach. City engineering staff ' and personnel used the existing utility billing land identification ' system identify each parcel and measured the land area of each of the non-single single family parcels involved from land identification maps. ' Using the standard fee system per acre for this particular zone, the consultant's computer then calculated the actual fee for each parcel. ' RESULTS TO DATE The City of Roseville began collecting storm drainage utility on April 1, 1984. ' It might be noted that since that time three additional suburban communities have followed Roseville's approach and approved storm drainage utilities as well. Although in each case the utilities have a different fee, this is felt to be reasonable and expected, because in each case a different level of ' program was adopted, different community needs existed, and different financial systems were desired. Page 14 1/ There have been very few complaints to date and very few credits requested or I given. The system has been well received and thought to be fair. Of over 9,000 accounts, only 31 people have even requested credits with 13 of those being found to be proper. These have resulted in $37,000 worth of credits ' being given, which has reduced potential income approximately 6.7%. This is actually lower, both in number of credits or total dollars, then was 1 originally anticipated. The monies collected have come from three primary groups. First is commercial and industrial properties which pay over $300,000, second is the single-family, residential properties paying approximately ' $150,000, and the third is the tax exempt property paying approximately $50,000. INCOME SOURCES QUARTERLY ' S CLASS FEE COLLECTED 1. Residential 4.35/lot 148,000 2. Cemeteries, golf courses 3.25/acre 4,000 3. Parks, etc. 9.25/acre 10,000* 4. Schools, public and private 16.25/acre 11,000* 5. Apartments, churches, etc. 13.50/acre 44,000* 1 6. Commercial, industrial 65.00/acre 302,000 TOTAL FOR YEAR 519,000 * $47,000 from Non Taxable Sources II ' '• • Page 15 These are all in keeping with the estimated sources from the original set of . numbers generated during the alternative phase of the ro ram. This P 8 is utility ' has also allowed over $200,000 to be removed from the tax levy. The difference between the utility fee and the tax levy reduction being the cost needed to ' cover the planning expenses plus the new construction proportion of the overall program. The funds collected have been used as shown in the following table: i USE OF UTILITY FUNDS ' USES $ Personnel (2 full time & 4 part ,time) 57,000 Equipment (8 vehicles) 42,000 Supplies 9,000 ' Master plan and WMO costs 105,000 ' Overhead 26,000 Projects 280,000 Match Fed. Grant 200,000 ' Flood Correction 40,000 Future Project 40,000 It should be noted that once the master plans have been prepared, that $60,000 to $70,000 of those expenses will no longer exist. 1 I • Contributors a y for utility costs i p y The chart shows Faced with increasing budgets, government possible uses of officials may be hesitant when implementing EROSION & ADMINISTRATION storm water utility a costly multi-year storm water management SEDIMENTATION generated funds. program CONTROL RECREATION A relatively new, unique and legal funding ENHANCEMENT I source alleviates that hesitancy, without generating phone calls from residents angry about rising property tax bills. The funding is generated by a storm water utility. WATER I Charles Honchell, Deputy Director of FLOOD QUAUTY Public Works for the City of Bloomington, TROL PROGRAM Minnesota, describes storm water utilities as a "fair, dependable, flexible and legally defensible" way to generate funding for storm water projects. Honchell, who spoke NEW CONSTRUCTION to city officials recently about creating storm RE–CONSTRUCTION I water utilities, has implemented two such LAND AWISIT1ON funding sources, one in Bloomington and DETENTION BASIN one in Roseville, Minnesota. CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS Storm water utilities—as is the case with PUMPING STATIONS I all utilities—are based on the simple financ- OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ing principle- contributors pay Storm SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT water utility charges are based on a proper- ty's PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION "contribution" to the need for storm water management. Contribution is determined by the amount all other municipal utilities (water, sewer of runoff and/or pollution load that is con- and electric). I tributed by a particular parcel. Communities have used storm water The utility approach generates a dedicated utilities to pay the cost of administering, fund for surface water management, plan- planning and maintaining surface water pro- ving and implementation. Problems that jects. The utilities can also be used to pay I occur in trying to show benefit for storm for street sweeping, leaf pickup, lake treat- water improvements during assessment ment and rehabilitating existing facilities. procedures can be eliminated by using the Most of those costs, Honchell adds, have I utility approach. usually been paid for with general funds Storm water utilities originated in California. Honchell does not recommend using a The utilities can be used in both large and storm water utility to construct all new small communities. The Minnesota State facilities. He advocates retaining the assess- Legislature adopted a law in 1983 that ment system to pay for new improvements allows storm water utilities to operate like (continued on page 5) I City, state join for highway by-pass Cooperation key to A transportation project that spent nearly Construction traffic handling and utility I success in River two decades in the planning stages is under- infrastructure will be two of the concerns Falls by-pass. way at River Falls, Wisconsin. addressed concurrently in the design. Traffic on S.T.H. 35 through downtown Newman says an alignment previously set River Falls has increased to levels beyond by Wi/DOT will be followed with final acceptable service limits. According to James design plans created by SEH. C. Newman, P.E., Chippewa Falls Office The firm will also revise and resubmit the Manager, the proposed project is a four-lane environmental impact document that was III highway by-passing the downtown area. The approved more than 13 years ago. project may be scaled back to a two-lane In response to one local concern, the roadway if Wisconsin Department of design features a parking area for fisherman , Transportation traffic projections do not sup- access to local streams. The access was re- port the need for an immediate four-lane quired by the State Department of Natural facility. Total project costs are estimated at Resource. $14 million, based on a four-lane design. The River Falls by-pass project offers the While the sponsoring agency is Wi/DOT, challenge of coordinating a state project particular care will be taken to address local with local interests in an effort to minimize concerns about the highway by-pass. disruption of this Midwestern community. c 3 • 11111 ' III Statement 3 Page 2 1990 BUDGET Special Revenue Funds pCommentary ill Administrative Trust Fund: This fund was established to act as a trust fund for expenses anticipated to occur in providing services to special assessment improvement projects, administering debt service accounts during the period of assessments, and to help in the purchase/construction of major pieces of equipment/buildings. The concept of "transfers" from this fund to the General Fund has been eliminated. This change is in keeping with the general policy statement of the Council in 1983 to eliminate transfers to the maximum extent possible, i.e. establishing total costs within one control center. Secondarily, the City must maintain the integrity of the General Fund in future IP years while providing a means by which special consultive or major capital purchases can be made which are typically beyond the scope of the general operating departments. All special studies (official mapping 212, traffic studies, etc.) are paid for by this fund. III Monies collected from developers for inspection/administra4tive services for their projects is being receipted into this fund. Current work/collections allow for the employment of a project engineer, engineering aide,and consultive the engineering services. Revenue from ill projects is monitored to insure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. Equipment R Replacement Fund: This fund was established to: 1) provide a means by which III long range motor vehicle purchases could be monitored and planned; 2) to provide a "control center" for purchase/maintenance/usage of vehicles and equipment; and 3) to divorce from the operating costs the peaks and valleys created by a number of major purchaes occurring (or not occurring) in any one year. During any five year period, P since origination of this fund, costs have approximated 1% of the valuation of property within the community (the relationship between property sewered, streets/utilities, and equipment necessary for property/public improvements served is highly predictable). III Defeasing several of our debt service funds has provided us with the ability to eliminate the overlaping certificates. Starting in 1990 the City will be in a position III to make a single levy for equipment purchases and thereby eliminate the extra accounting/ interest costs associated with a 5-year overlaping schedule. CATV: Under the terms of the franchise agreement with Triax Cablevision, the City is ill to receive 5% of the revenues derived from cable television sales within the City. These monies are dedicated solely to improving public broadcasting capabilities, studio impro- vements, and other capital expenditures improving the overall system. III Pioneer Cemetery: Operational costs for the cemetery are minimal (contractual service set at 8O% of interment fee). Maintenance is provided through the Public Works Department. IIIEnvironmental Protection (Management): This fund has been established to provide funding and accounting control for environmental impact issues/projects. The expense for each specific project/issue will be separately accounted for as a department with-in this fund until completion or transfer to a different fund/classification. Currently, these depart- ments include: Recycling, Storm Water Management, Street Preservation/Management and ill ""'"V Eurasian Water Milfoil. I 1990 BUDGET Statement 3 Page 1 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 4 1990 Budget Total Admin Equip. 1989 Trust Replacement Fire Cemetery Environmental REVENUE Budget Fund 0 Fund Relief CAN Fund Protection Total Taxes: current 73,500 204,250 18,000 28,000 127,000 377,25( Delinquent 800 - 500 50( Intergovernmental 21,000 24,000 12,000 36,00( Charges - Current Services 223,500 220,000 500 220,50( Int & Other Revenue 31,000 22,000 8,000 2,000 2,500 3,200 200 37,90( TOTAL REVENUE 349,800 242,000 212,250 44,500 30,500 3,700 139,200 672,15 EXPENDITURES: Personnel ,iv' 69,300 32,800 32,80( Contractual Services Professional Services 138,300 170,000 16,000 500 107,000 293,50( Remitt - Fire Dept 35,580 35,580 35,5B( Other 22,380 2.000 2,200 4,20( Capital Outlay Vehicles 150,500 152,000 152,00( Equipment 82,500 8.000 118,000 14,000 140,00( Other 30,000 30,00( TOTAL EXPENDITURES 498,560 212,800 270,000 35,580 30,000 500 139.200 688,08( REV. OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURE -148,760 29,200 (57,750) 8,920 500 3,200 0 (15,93( Fund Balance Forward 405,930 230,500 341,254 20,770 37,500 28,500 5,050 663,55 Transfers In (Out) 78,200 (150,000) 137,050 5,000 (7,95( Less Required Reserve -266,810 100,000 280,000 29,690 28,000 31,700 0 469,39( Total Res. over (under) Liab 68,560 9,700 140,554 0 10,000 0 10,030 170,281 See Commentary- Next Page I , • Barr Engineering Company ' 7803 Glernoy Road Minneapolis,MN 55435 612/830.0555 612/835.0186(Facsimile) I March 22, 1990 ' Mr. Gary Warren City Engineer City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 57��E{� © Re: Stormwater Utility District MAR 2 31990 Dear Mr. Warren: ENGINEERING DEPT. ' Barr Engineering is pleased to submit the following work plan and cost estimate for assisting the City of Chanhassen in establishing a Stormwater Utility Drainage Utility. A stormwater utility provides funding similar to that of sanitary sewer and water utilities. It is established and operated in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 444.075. A stormwater utility fund provides the City with the following advantages: 1. The user fee is a fair assessment with the charges based the quantity of runoff generated by an individual piece of property. ' Property taxes are rarely related to quantity of runoff leaving a site. 2. The utility is a dependable funding technique producing a consistent funding level with no competition for funds for other City activities. ' 3. The fund is legally defensible especially with more and more special assessment projects being challenged in the court system. ' 4. The City's general fund can be reduced by no longer funding stormwater management activities that are currently being funded by taxes. 5. The fee system is very flexible and adaptable in meeting citywide objectives and individual, site by site, situations. ' I Mr. Gary Warren March 22, 1990 Page 2 We have assisted the Cities of Edina and Bloomington and are currently 1 working with the City of Wayzata in establishing a storawater utility fund. The initial step in developing this process is to meet with the City Council and staff to outline the advantages of this program and what it means to the City of Chanhassen. The next task is to develop the criteria to be used in establishing the fund, e.g. , the design storm to calculate rates of runoff, parameters regarding differences in land-use, credits for areas that currently provide stormwater detention or are classified as wetland areas in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. Using the City's land use mapping, for both existing and ultimate ' conditions, and county property information, a determination of land use versus parcel size and ownership can be made. This data can be placed in a spreadsheet format, such as Lotus Quattro or similar type program that the City may currently be using, providing the City with a data base that can be easily modified and adapted to current billing procedures. This will provide the City with an estimated total revenue to be generated by this fund. Typically, the drainage utility user fees are based on the runoff generated from a parcel of property for a given rainfall event with the runoff generated by a typical single-family residential lot being the baseline data. For example, if a single-family residential lot is given a runoff factor of 1.00, a commercial or industrial lot, of the same area, may be given a runoff factor of 5.00 or be required to pay a fee that is five times greater than the single-family lot. With water quality issues now an integral part of stormwater management and governmental requirements concerning water quality becoming more stringent, the City may wish to consider adding a factor to the I user fee equation which addresses sediment/nutrient loading generated for various land uses. A draft ordinance establishing the stormwater utility is then prepared. Because this ordinance requires a public hearing, it is recommended that a newsletter be prepared and sent to the citizens of Chanhassen outlining the proposed utility fund. The utility fund would typically be used for administration, planning, and maintenance of existing systems. Where existing systems are in need of upgrading or improvement to meet the current design criteria of the City, this fund provides the City a mechanism for undertaking these improvements. The fund should not be used to serve areas that are not yet developed within the City. Existing assessment or development procedures should continue to provide the systems in these developing areas. We would be pleased to assist the City in developing a stormwater utility fund as outlined. Professional staff will be called upon as necessary to address the various issues in the development of the ordinance. Because of the number of meetings that may be required in developing this process and the amount of work to be undertaken by City staff, we propose to 1 Mr. Gary Warren March 22, 1990 Page 3 ' assist the City on a time and expenses basis in accordance with the current fee schedule, a copy of which is attached. We estimate to complete the work tasks as outlined could range from $5,000 to $20,000. We would be happy to discuss cost further if you feel it is necessary. Thank you for the opportunity of submitting this work plan for ' assisting the City in establishing a stormwater utility fund. Please give me a call if you have any questions or request additional information. ' Sincerely, R ert . Obermeyer ' RCO/pls Enc. A./CHAN 1 { II Revision No. 90A II BARR E N G I N E E R I N G CO . ELLICULE I Allan Gebhard. Professional Engineer $120 per hour Douglas W. Barr. Professional Engineer $110 per hour II John D. Dickson, Professional Engineer $110 per hour Leonard J. Kremer, Professional Engineer $100 per hour I Lawrence R. Molsather, Professional Engineer $100 per hour Dennis E. Palmer, Professional Engineer $100 per hour Timothy V. Skoglund, Professional Engineer $90 per hour II Dale L. Wikre. Geologist $90 per hour Alan J. Fandrey, Professional Engineer $85 per hour Dean T. Malotky, Chemist $85 per hour II Earl C. Bancroft, Professional Engineer $80 per hour John P. Borovsky, Soil Scientist 880 per hour Lawrence D. Dalen. Professional Engineer $80 per hour II John R. Larson, Professional Engineer $75 per hour Robert C. Obermeyer, Professional Engineer 875 per hour I Philip B. Solseng, Professional Engineer $75 per hour Steven M. Klein, Professional Engineer $70 per hour I Gordon W. Meyer, Soil Scientist $70 per hour Henry M. Runke. Environmental Engineer 870 per hour Robert L. Whartman, Geologist $70 per hour Brian N. Borg, Professional Engineer $65 per hour II Wesley J. Olson, Professional Engineer $65 per hour James A. Smith, Professional-Engineer $65 per hour II Frank J. Svoboda, Certified Wildlife Biologist 865 per hour Douglas E. Connell, Hydrogeologist $60 per hour Mark A. Deady, Professional Engineer $60 per hour II Amal M. Djerrari, Hydrogeologist $60 per hour Suzanne D. Jivani, Professional Engineer $60 per hour Gregory D. Keil, Professional Engineer $60 per hour II James R. Langseth, Professional Engineer $60 per hour John T. Lee, Professional Engineer $60 per hour Nels P. Nelson, Professional Engineer $60 per hour II John E. Quist, Professional Engineer $60 per hour Michael M. Rolf, Hydrogeologist $60 per hour Dana R. Gauthier, Professional Engineer $55 per hour II Mark V. Hibbs, Professional Engineer $55 per hour Thomas J. Radue, Professional Engineer $55 per hour Peter J. Sabee, Biologist $55 per hour II Dean V. Skallman, Professional Engineer $55 per hour Page 1 of 3 I II t IIRevision No. 90A FEE SCHEDULE (continued) I Lori L. Stegink, Chemical Engineer $55 per hour Karen S. Stoller. Certified Industrial Hygienist $55 per hour Joel W. Toso, Professional Engineer $55 per hour I Ray W. Wuolo, Professional Engineer $55 per hour Eric C. Yost, Chemist $55 per hour Timothy J. Anderson, Professional Engineer $50 per hour I William J. Bangsund, Hydrogeologist $50 per hour Mark D. Bjelland, Civil Engineer $50 per hour Karen L. Chandler, Professional Engineer $50 per hour PRandall E. Duncan, Biologist $50 per hour William J. Forsmark, Civil Engineer $50 per hour John C. Greer. Hydrogeologist $50 per hour I James P. Herbert, Professional Engineer $50 per hour Randall J. Hunt, Hydrogeologist $50 per hour James C. Jentzen, Geological Engineer $50 per hour IITerry L. Kaiser, Professional Engineer $50 per hour Arthur R. Kalmes, Civil Engineer $50 per hour II Liane R. Kroemer, Chemical Engineer $50 per hour Lisa M. Lee, Professional Engineer $50 per hour Jihshya J. Lin, Professional Engineer P$50 per hour I Mary T. Mackey, Environmental Scientist $50 per hour Richard A. Marton, Geochemist $50 per hour Paul K. Nielsen, Professional Engineer $50 per hour I Jeffrey W. Pipes, Hydrogeologist $50 per hour Don E. Richard, Civil Engineer $50 per hour John K. Seaberg, Hydrogeologist $50 per hour Paul T. Svenson, Civil Engineer $50 per hour IEric R. Edvalds, Air Quality Specialist $45 P er hour Karlene A. French-Raschig, Geologist $45 per hour I Mark T. Hagley, Hydrogeologist $45 per hour Kerry L. Bever, Technical Writer $45 per hour Kurt A. Leuthold, Civil Engineer $45 per hour IBradley J. Lindaman, Civil Engineer $45 per hour Stephen N. Lorentz, Geologist $45 per hour Josephine R. Lundquist, Civil Engineer $45 per hour I Steven M. Marshik, Civil Engineer $45 per hour Thomas D. Mattison, Chemical Engineer $45 per hour Elizabeth M. Metzen, Geologist $45 per hour I Karen S. Oakes, Librarian/Information Manager $45 per hour Thomas F. Prehoda, Civil Engineer $45 per hour Margaret R. Rattei. Biologist $45 per hour II John T. Simonson, Chemical Engineer $45 per hour Sue D. Swenson, Business Development Specialist $45 per hour Natalie C. Wright-Wells, Geologist $45 per hour pPage 2 of 3 II Revision No. 90A II ELL-SZEFZULL.I.CINILialeall James S. Aiken, Geologist $40 er hour II P r Richard J. Bosshardt, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Dianne L. deJolsvay, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Daniel J. Fetter, Civil Engineer $40 per hour II Dale W. Finnesgaard, Civil Engineer $40 per hour John M. Fox, Geologist $40 per hour II Sergio D. Gaitan, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Mark C. Johnson, Geologist $40 per hour Nancy Johnson, Civil Engineer $40 per hour II Thomas R. Johnson, Civil Engineer $40 per hour William C. Klawitter, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Jon W. Lennander, Civil Engineer $40 per hour II John R. McCain, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Catherine M. Meuwissen, Civil Engineer $40 per hour I Randall E. Peterson, Civil Engineer $40 per hour Mitchell B. Sawh, Professional Engineer $40 per hour Thomas J. Tangeman, Civil Engineer $40 per hour II Daniel W. Wiitala, Geophysicist $40 per hour John W. Adams, Civil Engineer $35 per hour Ellen K. Kirschner, Geologist $35 per hour II David J. Melmer, Biologist $35 per hour II Engineering Technicians - $20 to $50 per hour Report Typing and Assembling $20 to $40 per hour II Any amount not paid within 60 days of the date of the invoice shall bear II interest from the date 20 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18% per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable lay. II A five percent (Si) mark-up will be added to subcontracts for professional and construction services (such as technical consultants, well drillers, soil exploration firms, and testing laboratories) to cover overhead I expenses. Page 3 of 3 II II II II Barr Engineering Corryany 7803 Gamy Road Minneapolis,polis,MN 55435 612/830-0555 612/835-0186(Facsimile) ' April 2, 1990 ' Mr. Gary Warren City Engineer City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Mr. Warren: As requested, enclosed are the resumes of the key personnel proposed to be used in assisting the City of Chanhassen in establishing a Stormwater Utility Drainage District. Barr Engineering Co. uses a systematic team approach with the team consisting of professionals and technicians drawn from ' a diverse staff to satisfy the client's specific needs. Mr. John Dickson, who has over 30 years of experience in the area of stormwater management, will be the principal-in-charge. To project completion, Mr. Dickson will ' monitor work for overall requirements in budget, schedule, and quality. Mr. Brian Borg will serve as project manager. He will direct the day-to-day activities of the project and serve as the primary contact person with the City. Mr. Borg was the City of Bloomington's drainage engineer for nine years and was instrumental in the establishment of the Stormwater Utility District for Bloomington. Other professionals and technical staff will be ' utilized as necessary to complete the project. As we discussed, it is estimated that to proceed through the entire ' process in establishing the Stormwater Utility District would take approximately three months. We are able to commence work on the project immediately upon notification to proceed. ' We look forward to the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions or request additional information, please contact either John Dickson or me at 830-0555. Sincerely, ober C. Obermeyer, .E. ice President Enclosures 11 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KEY PERSONNEL I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II JOHN D. DICKSON, Professional Engineer Senior Vice President Experience: Mr. Dickson has been with the firm since 1960. His work has focused on hydrology and hydraulic engineering related to dam engineering, stormwater management, flood control, watershed ' management, lake improvement, and development of recreational areas and attractions. As principal-in-charge or project manager, he has a long performance record with projects ' requiring a range of technical expertise. Mr. Dickson's key accomplishments include the following: ' • Completed programs for the repair or improvement of dams, hydropower facilities, pipelines and appurtenances throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. Projects include the ' Big Falls, Lake Byllesby, Ladysmith, Granite Falls, Saxon Falls, Merrill, Thornapple, and Cold Spring dams. Work has included studies and evaluations, designs, ' specifications, and construction quality control. • Principal-in-charge for FERC applications for Kettle ' Falls, Granite Falls, and Minnesota Falls hydroelectric dams. Experience includes preliminary permit, exemption, and license applications. • Designed and reviewed construction for new concrete dams at St. Cloud and Anoka, Minnesota. ' • Participated in design of earth dams for flood control, including mile-long flood dike for Valleyfair Amusement Park in Shakopee, and an embankment to form Normandale ' Lake in Bloomington, Minnesota. ■ Prepared flood control feasibility analyses for ' Monticello, Little Falls, and Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, for Black River and Kinnickinnic, Wisconsin, and for Liverpool, Illinois. Completed detailed flood studies for several other projects as well. • Designed stormwater management plans and system ' components, including reservoirs, control structures, flood dikes, and groundwater drainage systems. Completed projects for cities of Annandale, Brainerd, Burnsville, ' Eden Prairie, Edina, Mankato, Maplewood, St. Paul, and Worthington, and Mower County, Minnesota. ■ Appointed as engineer for four Minnesota ditches. Participated in design and construction review of ditch improvements or abandonment in Hennepin and Ramsey counties and served as an expert witness in litigation. II JOHN D. DICKSON (cont.) I • Completed industrial and municipal water supply projects, including the repair and expansion of distribution system for Bayfield, Wisconsin. • Participated in preparing watershed management plans for Nine Mile Creek and Shingle Creek watersheds, Minnesota. , Activities included development of Normandale Lake and Marsh Lake areas. • Completed lake improvement plans for Hyland, Bush, Rattail, Mud, Goose, Lemans, and Bryant lakes in the Twin Cities. , • Provided development services for parks and commercial and residential developments, including site investigation and design of grading plans, utilities, groundwater control, campgrounds, ponds, and parking lots. Projects include Valleyfair and developments in Blaine, Inver Grove 11 Heights, and New Hope, Minnesota. • Completed designs and construction review for complex amusement rides at theme and water parks in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Maryland. Attractions include flume and whitewater raft rides, innertube rides, and dolphin pools. • Evaluated, designed and reviewed site improvements and dock expansion for shipping facilities on Lake Superior in Two Harbors, Minnesota. • Directed analysis, design and construction review for 10- mile navigation channel in Minnesota River to accommodate barge traffic. Supervised design and development of dredge spoil areas for disposal of excavated materials. ' • Participated in a variety of waste management projects, ranging from designs for landfills to remedial action at sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. Specific experience includes design and construction review for removal of contaminated soil at Fridley site; design of surface runoff control facilities for Flying Cloud Landfill in Eden Prairie; and preliminary design of water supply and disposal facilities for Hanna Mining Company, northern Minnesota. II JOHN D. DICKSON (cont.) • Helped develop the company's unique computer method to determine the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. ' • Served as an expert witness for cases involving hydrologic, hydrogeologic and geotechnical engineering and construction. ' Education: Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1955 ' Registration: Civil Engineer: MN, IA Land Surveyor: IA ' Memberships: National Society of Professional Engineers Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers President 1977-1978 Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota ' Presentations/ Publications: "Case History of Compression of Organic Materials for an Earth ' Dam Foundation." Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Conference, University of Minnesota. 1981. "Water Resource Management for Small Watershed in Urbanizing Area." Symposium on Watersheds in Transition, Water Resources Association, Colorado State University. 1972. I I II ROBERT C. OBERMEYER, Professional Engineer Vice President Experience: Mr. Obermeyer joined Barr Engineering in 1973 while attending , the University of Minnesota. His primary responsibilities have been in the fields of hydrology and hydraulic engineering, including the following activities: ' • Prepared detailed design of drainage facilities • Analyzed and designed stormwater detention facilities 1 • Completed the analysis and delineation of floodplain areas Mr. Obermeyer assisted in the preparation of the comprehensive drainage plans for the cities of Annandale, Hastings, Maplewood, New Brighton, and Worthington, Minnesota, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. He has also been involved in the design of major stormwater drainage systems in Eden Prairie, Maplewood, Edina, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Mr. Obermeyer is the engineer for the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff ' Creek Watershed District and the assistant engineer for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. His responsibilities have included the following: • Prepared engineer's annual reports • Prepared water quality reports and management plans for watershed lakes and streams • Reviewed numerous development and utility plans for projects located within watershed districts • Completed plans and specifications for stormwater conveyance and detention facilities Mr. Obermeyer has worked with several major developers in the preparation of site grading and utility plans for shopping centers throughout the country. He has also assisted these developers in obtaining the necessary local, state and federal governmental permits for these projects. education: Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1974 Registration: Civil Engineer: MN, IL, IN, CO ' Memberships: Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers Minnesota Geotechnical Society Presentations/ publications: "Erosion Control Measures During and After Construction." Minnesota Public Works Association. April 1981. I BRIAN N. BORG, Professional Engineer Experience: Mr. Borg has approximately 20 years of experience in stormwater management and municipal engineering. He spent seven years with Barr and rejoined the company in 1989. He also spent nine years as the drainage engineer for the City of Bloomington. Samples of his municipal work include the following: • Responsible for Bloomington's stormwater drainage projects ' during rapid urbanization. Provided direction and expertise in planning, analysis, design, and construction. Managed projects to conform with municipal standards, ' public interests, and budget constraints. • Directed major stormwater study following the July 1987 ' superstorms, which closely affected Bloomington. • Prepared engineering reports, including watershed management plan for the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. ' • Prepared plans and specifications for storm drainage projects, sanitary sewer and watermain alterations, street and parking lot surfacing, landscaping, pedestrian ' bridges, police pistol range modifications, and building additions. • Helped procure and coordinate the work of four consulting engineering firms. Mr. Borg's experience with Barr has involved a broad spectrum of projects. Responsibilities include investigations, feasibility studies, designs, plans, specifications, and construction observation. Typical projects include: ' • Stormwater management • Flood insurance studies (supervised approximately ' 20 field technicians for surveying) • Groundwater studies • Lake restoration ' • Dam rehabilitation • Municipal street and utility projects ' Education: Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1973 Bachelor of Physics, University of Minnesota, 1968 ' Registration: Civil Engineer: MN Memberships: Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers I/ BRIAN N. BORG, Professional Engineer (cont.) BARR ENGINEERING CO. Past Member, Board of Directors Past President, Southdale Chapter Past Chairman, Professional Engineers in Construction American Society of Civil Engineers American Concrete Institute Minnesota Geotechnical Society , I I I 1 1 i I 1 II JAMS A. SMITH, Professional Engineer Experience: Mr. Smith joined Barr Engineering in 1975. He has extensive experience in the field of computerized data management and analysis with an engineering systems modeling background. Much of his work the design and implementation of computerized data management systems. Highlights of his experience follow: • Currently plays key role in the use and application of ' computerized Geographic Information System and Facilities Management programs. This work includes the design and implementation of extensive inter-system communication and ' networking systems. • Developed and currently instructs seminars on computerized 1 Geographic Information Systems development and design. • Completed analysis, design and configuration of computer ' software and hardware systems used for data base management, CADD, technical analysis, and systems modeling. • Prepared reports and documentation on computerized systems evaluation, design, and development. " Designed and implemented proprietary materials quality data base management system for several clients. ' • Designed and assisted in the development of a series of computerized data management programs for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's solid waste management program. • Designed and developed a data base management system for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for technical and ' administrative floodplain management information. • Conducted hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of urban stormwater projects, including using of a variety of computerized modeling techniques. ' • Performed all aspects of Flood Insurance Studies for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. ' • Conducted hydrologic analysis of various regional watersheds using computer models developed by the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service, and proprietary software developed by Barr. I JAMES A. SMITH (cont.) • Prepared watershed yield and appropriation analyses based on current and projected land uses with Barr's watershed yield model. ' • Completed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis regarding safety of existing dams and proposed modifications, including using the NOAA DAMBRK computer model. • Analyzed and designed hydraulic control structures and related flood control and containment facilities. • Conducted hydraulic analysis of open waterways using computer models developed by the Corps and the National Weather Service. Also analyzed and designed waterway improvements and channel relocations for mining. • Analyzed hydrology and determined hydraulic requirements for highway river crossings in Minnesota and Wisconsin. • Conducted analysis of sediment transport and design of mixing system for industrial wastewater treatment facilities. 1 Mr. Smith also provides computer system consulting services, including software design and development, on a private basis. Examples of this work are as follows: ■ Designed and devolped facilities management software, integrating CAD graphics with data base management systems, and providing clients with the ability to perform spatial analysis on its production and warehousing facilities. ■ Developed data base management system model of industry leading automated manufacturing control system. Model is used by system design and sales staff to develop system component schedules and cost estimates. Education: Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1975 Registration: Civil Engineer: MN I Memberships: Society for Computer Applications in Engineering, Planning, and Architecture, Inc. 11 I KURT A. LEUTHOLD, Civil Engineer Experience: Mr. Leuthold joined Barr Engineering in 1987 after working with the City of Spring Park. His education and experience emphasize hydraulics and water resources. His project experience at Barr includes the following: ' ■ Completed hydraulic/hydrologic analysis for design of flood and erosion control features for Fish Creek in Minneapolis, including storm sewer interceptor and stormwater reservoirs. ' • Completed flood survey and analysis for Nine Mile Creek, Riley Creek, and Bluff Creek in the Twin Cities. • Designed storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water supply systems for Shroeder Dairy expansion and for Oaks of Vadnais housing development subdivision, Twin Cities. ' ■ Prepared plans and bid documents for sanitary sewer realignment for Shroeder Dairy in the Twin Cities. ■ Reviewed development permits for Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. ' • Designed surface water drainage and erosion control facilities for Burnsville and Dakhue sanitary landfills. ' ■ Prepared plans and bid documents for response actions for contaminated soil. ' Education: B.S. , Civil Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1987 (Cum Laude) I I