December 2, 2015 board of managers meeting packet

Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, December 2, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Materials Enclosed

I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A)

Permit # 15-037 MNDOT Pedestrian Bridges (Kelley)

IV.

Special Reports – A) Special Grants Update, Nate Zwonitzer

V.

Action Items A) Approve Minutes of the November 18, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) Approve 2016 Special Grants (Zwonitzer) C) Approve Vehicle Purchase (Fossum) D) Approve Engineering Work Order with Barr Engineering for TBI Repair Work (Eleria) E) Approve Comments on Draft City of St. Paul Chapter 52 Ordinance on Stormwater (Kelley) F) Approve Amendment for Special Grant for the Midway Stadium Redevelopment (Zwonitzer) G) Approve MAWD Annual Meeting Resolution Recommendations (Texer)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project (Kelley)

VII.

General Information A) Administrator’s Report

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, December 9, 2015 CAC Meeting B) Wednesday, December 16 2015 Annual Board Meeting, 5:00 PM, Wilder Center IX.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\December 2, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District

Applicant:

Erik Brenna Mn/DOT 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113

Permit 15-037 MnDOT Pedestrian Bridges Consultant: N/A

Description: Construction of two new pedestrian bridges over Highway 94 at Grotto and Mackubin Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes volume reduction bank credit withdrawal and one SAFL Baffle for gross pollutant removal

District Rule: — C, F Disturbed Area: 1.51 Acres Impervious Area: 0.55 Acres

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Provide a detail or specification for structure 5001A (“Special 1”). This appears to be the SAFL Baffle, but it is not specifically identified.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION:

Approve withdrawal of 2,196 cubic feet from Mn/DOT’s volume reduction bank

Dale Street

I‐94

Permit Location

Permit Report 15-037

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 12/2/2015

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

15-037

Review date:

November 20, 2015

Project Name:

MNDOT Pedestrian Bridges

Applicant:

Erik Brenna MNDOT 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 651-234-7522

Purpose:

Replacing pedestrian bridges over I-94 at Grotto Street and Mackubin Street

Location:

Intersection of N. Grotto & Concordia to the intersection of N. Grotto & St. Anthony, and intersection of Mackubin & Concordia to the intersection of Mackubin and St. Anthony.

Applicable Rules: Recommendation:

C and F Approve with 3 Conditions

Volume Bank Recommendation:

Approve withdrawal of 2,196 cubic feet from Mn/DOT’s volume reduction bank

EXHIBITS: 1. State Proj. No. 6282-200 Plan Set (Sheets 8, 19-22, 52-54), by MNDOT, not dated, recd. 11/16/15.

2. State Proj. No. 6282-201 Plan Set, by MNDOT, not dated, recd. 11/16/15.

3. Permit Submittal Letter, by MNDOT, dated 11/10/15, recd. 11/16/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-037 MnDOT Pedestrian Bridges\15-037 MnDOT Ped Bridges.doc

Page 1 of 4

Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is not used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity may exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. However, bridge decks are exempt from Rule C. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a welldefined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 23,958 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 23,958 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 2,196 ft3 Volume Volume 1.1 inch 2 inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

None 0 0 0 2,196 Total 0 cf 4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to existing topography and safety concerns and limited space within a major highway corridor. The majority of pervious areas within the project area are steep backslopes to I-94 and remaining pervious areas are too small to treat the required volume. a. The applicant requests to utilize the MNDOT volume credit bank to satisfy the volume reduction requirement.

5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5” rainfall) or on an annual basis. The applicant indicates a SAFL Baffle will be installed with the Grotto Street project (but the location is not shown on the plans). The SAFL Baffle will treat a tributary area of 0.74 acres (0.59 acres impervious); this is an impervious area larger than the proposed impervious area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-037 MnDOT Pedestrian Bridges\15-037 MnDOT Ped Bridges.doc

Page 2 of 4

6. A memorandum of understanding exists between MnDOT and CRWD concerning stormwater maintenance.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site do comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-037 MnDOT Pedestrian Bridges\15-037 MnDOT Ped Bridges.doc

Page 3 of 4

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Provide a detail or specification for structure 5001A (“Special 1”). This appears to be the SAFL Baffle, but it is not specifically identified.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 2,196 cubic feet from Mn/DOT’s volume reduction bank

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-037 MnDOT Pedestrian Bridges\15-037 MnDOT Ped Bridges.doc

Page 4 of 4

11/25/2015

Volume Banking Credits Account:

Mn/DOT

Transaction Requested Approved Withdrawal 1/6/2010 1/7/2010 Deposit 7/7/2010 Pending Transfer 7/7/2010 11/3/2010 Deposit 10/27/2010 Pending Withdrawal 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 Withdrawal 12/2/2015 12/2/2015

Permit 09-030 10-002 10-010 10-029 15-034 15-037

Project TH 94 TH 36 and Rice Ramsey County Maryland/Rice I-94 and 280 TH 94 at 7th Street 94 Pedestrian Bridges

Deposit Withdrawal Balance (cf) 4,247 -4,247 108,199 103,952 5,400 98,552 2,351 100,903 2,915 97,988 2,196 95,792

Totals

110,550

14,758

95,792

December 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of November 18, 2015 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones Shirley Reider Mary Texer Mike Thienes

B)

Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Public Attendees Pat Cavanaugh, CAC Member

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins opened the meeting with introductions and welcomed Ms. Pat Cavanaugh from the CAC. President Collins asked for any additions or changes to the agenda. Administrator Doneux requested the addition of Action Item E. to set a different time and location for the Annual Meeting.

Motion 15-240: Approve the November 18, 2015 Agenda with changes.

Jones/Texer Unanimously approved II.

Public Comment

No comments.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates Permit #12-011 Hmong Academy – Permit Closeout (Hosch)

A)

Ms. Hosch reviewed Permit #12-011. Final inspection has been conducted to confirm construction function of permeable paver and underground infiltration system and in October 2015 to confirm final site stabilization.

Motion 15-241: Approve Certificate of Completion and $4,250 surety return for permit #12-011, Hmong Academy.

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

Unanimously approved IV.

Special Reports No Special Reports

V.

Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the November 4, 2015 regular Meeting (Sylvander) Manager Texer noted a comment regarding Master Watershed Steward Scholarships that was not recorded in the minutes.

Motion 15-242: Approve Minutes of the November 4, 2015 regular meeting as amended.

Jones/Texer Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve October 2015 Accounts Payables/Receivables (Sylvander)

Motion 15-243: Approve October 2015 Accounts Payables/Receivables.

Thienes/Reider Unanimously approved C)

Contract Amendment for Trout Brook Interceptor Engineering Services (Eleria)

Administrator Doneux reviewed for Ms. Eleria that since late 2009, Barr Engineering Co. has provided general engineering services on an as-needed basis for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI). This year beyond regular general engineering tasks for TBI, CRWD staff has sought Barr Engineering’s assistance on several specific projects including upgrading the TBI online mapping tool, reviewing MCES permit application to abandon sanitary sewer line in TBI-East Branch and coordination and evaluation of MnDOT’s 35E/Cayuga construction activities pertinent to TBI. Most recently, CRWD and Barr are evaluating MnDOT’s dewatering activities adjacent to TBI just south of Maryland Avenue to minimize impacts to TBI and identify any structural issues. We have reviewed MnDOT’s dewatering plans, daily groundwater level data, installed crack gauges in TBI and conducted several inspections of the gauges before and during dewatering. It is anticipated that dewatering will continue until end of November and three more inspections will be conducted.

Higher TBI related workload in 2015 has already led to one budget increase of $10,000 for TBI engineering services that was approved by CRWD’s Administrator in July. CRWD staff are seeking Board approval of a second budget increase of $15,000 to cover work in November and December.

Manager Texer asked how the TBI is looking. Administrator Doneux replied that staff is continuing to monitor and so far it appears there is no damage from the MN Pass dewatering.

Motion 15-244: Approve Contract Amendment No. 8 for TBI Work Order No. 1 with Barr Engineering in an amount of $15,000 for a total 2015 TBI engineering services budget not to exceed $40,000.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved

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

D)

Amend Employee Flexible Benefit Program (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed the District has purchased a health benefit package from Health Partners through Bearance since 2012. On November 4, 2015 the Board of Managers approved the 2016 CRWD Benefit Plan and Employee Contribution Rates.

The District has added an option for employees to select a health plan with a Health Savings Account (HSA).

Employees may also take advantage of using a Limited Flexible Spending Account (FSA) which can be used for reimbursement of dental, vision and post-deductible expenses. The District has a benefit plan with Benefits Extra to administer the HSA. The current plan is for a FSA. Staff is requesting to amend the plan to include a Limited HSA Spending Account.

Motion 15-245: Amend the Flexible Benefits Plan to include a Limited Health Care Flexible Spending Account for reimbursement of dental, vision and post-deductible expenses.

Texer/Texer Unanimously approved E)

Set time and location for 2015 Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony

Administrator Doneux shared with the Board of Managers that Annual Awards Ceremony is continuing to grow. Additional space is needed to accommodate the growing attendance for the Awards Ceremony. Wilder Foundation has a large meeting room that could work so that the Board of Managers could have a business meeting at 5:00 p.m. followed by the Awards Ceremony at 6:30 p.m. on December 16, 2015.

Motion 15-246: Approved the Wilder Foundation’s meeting room for the Annual Meeting and move the Board meeting time to 5:00 p.m.

Thienes/Jones Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) Upper Villa Park Stormwater Improvement Project (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley provided an update to the Board of Managers on the Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project.

Administrator Doneux shared a time lapse video of the project. Manager Texer asked about possibility of sodding the field. Administrator Doneux replied that the field will most likely not be sodded due to the weather. Additional conversations are planned to take place with the City of Roseville about sodding in the fall of 2016 and using a temporary field surface for the 2016 season.

B) Willow Reserve Restoration Plan (Eleria) Administrator Doneux updated the Board of Managers that a community meeting is planned for Tuesday, December 15th. Staff will be presenting the draft plans and looking for feedback from the community.

VII.

General Information A)

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

VIII. Next Meeting A) Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Board Meeting.

B) Wednesday, December 9, 2015 CAC Meeting. Manager Thienes will be attending.

C) Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Annual Meeting and Awards Program, Annual Meeting to be held at Wilder Foundation, business meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.

The Managers each received a note from the Water Environment Federation regarding Administrator Doneux.

The note recognized Administrator Doneux for his work with the Stormwater Committee and the appreciation from the Water Environment Federation.

Motion 15-247: Adjournment of the November 18, 2015 Regular Board Meeting at 6:35 p.m.

Texer/Reider Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander W:\04 Board of Managers\Minutes\2015\November 18, 2015 DRAFT.docx

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

December 2, 2015 V. Action Items B) Approve 2016 Special Grants (Zwonitzer)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 20, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist and the Special Grant Review Committee 2015 Special Grants Award Recommendations

Background For the past several years the District has budgeted funds for Special Projects and Grants. The District typically sets a preliminary budget amount and then solicits applications for projects to fund.

Applications for 2016 Special Grant funds were due October 2, 2015. CRWD received six project applications totaling $1.04 million.

Issues A review committee consisting of two board members and two Citizen Advisory Committee members met to review applications and develop a funding recommendation. Five projects were selected for full or partial funding, and one project was determined to provide insufficient benefit to warrant funding. In total, $319,150 of the $350,000 available is recommended for project funding. The remaining funds will be reserved to supplement projects if additional opportunities are identified or to fund additional projects that may come up in 2016. The attached table summarizes the projects and the review committee’s recommended funding amounts.

After grant funds are awarded, staff will work with applicants to further develop/refine projects so an agreement can be finalized (template enclosed). For most projects this will take place in early 2016. At that point applicants can move forward with their project with the involvement of CRWD staff.

Action Requested 1. Approve funding for 2016 Special Grants as follows: a. Catholic Charities - $10,000 for additional feasibility for a rainwater harvesting system at the new Dorothy Day Center b. East Side Neighborhood Development Company - $37,500 for “Pocket Neighborhood” stormwater management feasibility study c. Rondo Community Land Trust - $95,000 For feasibility, construction documents, construction and educational signage d. St. Paul Parks - $136,650 for construction of Swede Hollow stream improvements e. St. Paul Parks - $40,000 for North Lake Como stabilization and habitat improvements 2. Approve 2016 Special Grant agreements and authorize Board President and Administrator to execute agreements pending approval of Assistant Ramsey County Attorney enc:

CRWD 2016 Special Grant Award Recommendations 2016 Special Grant agreement template

\\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\Special Grants\2016\Bd Memo 2016 Special Grant Award Recommendations 12-02-2015.docx

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

2016 Special Grants Grant Award Budget = $350,000 Applicant

Catholic Charities*

Project Name

Total Grant Request

Project Description

Dorothy Day Rainwater Rainwater reuse system for toilet flushing at new Harvesting Demonstration Dorothy Day Center.

Rondo Community Land Trust

Feasibility study for stormwater management at new "Pocket Neighborhood" located on Maryland Maryland Payne Pocket Ave. between Payne Ave. and Edgerton St. This area Neighborhood Development is known for difficult soils and high groundwater levels.

Feasibility to identify stormwater management approaches $37,500

St. Paul Parks

St. Paul PW

Lakeshore restoration/stabilization on Como Lake, slope stabilization and restoration to savanna adjacent to Como Lake, and oak forest enhancement near the lake. A total of 4.25 acres will be enhanced and/or restored.

North Lake Como Restoration

Design and construction for paving 0.25 acres of gravel street and alley to reduce sediment load to Como Lake. Paving includes Victoria St. between Como Ave and railroad, and a section of alley south of Como Ave. between Colne St. and Victoria St.

Victoria Street

Total *Application received after deadline. Review Committee to determine eligibility.

2016 Special Grant Budget Committee Recommendation Remaining

$37,500 $15,000 for feasibility, $20,000 for construction documents, $10,000 for signage, and $50,000 for construction

$190,600

St. Paul Parks

$10,000

Selby Milton Victoria Feasibility analysis and implementation of Senior Housing & Business stormwater management projects at two sites on Development Milton Ave. without access to storm sewer.

Implementation of identified project priorities including groundwater management, pond outlet Swede Hollow Park Stream reconstruction, and potentially storm sewer Improvements modifications. This project was awarded a 2015 special grant for design, which is about to begin.

$350,000 $319,150 $30,850

2

Funded Elements

Additional Feasibility $448,000

East Side Neighborhood Development Company

Recommended Award

$95,000

Funding for construction costs $147,150

$136,650

Funding for implementation $40,000

$40,000

No funding $140,475 $1,003,725

$0 $319,150

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT GRANT AGREEMENT

Re:

Cost Share Grant Funding for Design and Construction of BMPs for ___________________ Included Exhibits:

A. Project Definition and Grant Award Summary

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ____day of __________, 2016, by and between __________________, hereinafter referred to as the “Grantee”, and the Capitol Region Watershed District, hereinafter referred to as the “District”.

WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the District has an approved Watershed Management Plan which includes funding for implementing Best Management Practices throughout the Watershed District; and WHEREAS, the District has adopted and approved the 2016 Budget and Workplan which includes funding for Special Projects and Grants; and WHEREAS, the District and the Grantee have worked cooperatively to develop a project approach that is acceptable to both parties; and WHEREAS, the District and the Grantee have a desire to design and construct drainage and site improvements to improve runoff leaving ________________; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Managers has authorized payment of no more than $_________ for the design and construction of drainage and site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is committed to funding the remainder of the project costs; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Project:

The Grantee shall perform the Project as defined in Exhibit A, as approved by the District.

2. Payment: The District shall make a grant to the Grantee in an amount not to exceed $_____________.

The grant is limited to costs associated with items identified in Exhibit A. Payment will be in the form of reimbursement for actual costs, following receipt of documentation from the Grantee that the work has been completed satisfactorily.

The Grantee shall complete the project and request reimbursement no later than ________________.

3. Functionality: If the Project is a physical improvement, the Grantee shall ensure that the Project is fully functional, adequately maintained and meets the specifications of the grant application for a period of 15 years. If the Project is a study or analysis, the Grantee shall make the final Project available to the public, or shall provide a copy to the District.

4. Reports: The Grantee will invite the District to key planning meetings and provide periodic updates during the design process. Reports shall provide information on project status, draft and final deliverables, project meeting summaries and other relevant work products for the project. If the project is 1

a physical improvement, the grantee must obtain written approval of the final plans and specifications from the District prior to construction.

5. Liability: The Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement, whether by the parties or by their agents, employees or contractors. Neither the District, or the Grantee, if applicable, waive any immunities provided by any law or doctrine, including those of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. Nothing herein shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability limits from the individual parties.

6. Modification: It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that this agreement shall not be modified or amended except in writing duly signed by each of the parties.

This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until _____________, unless earlier terminated by mutual agreement of the Grantee and the District.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed.

GRANTEE

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

By _________________________________

By_____________________________________ Joseph Collins Board President

Name ______________________________ Title _______________________________

By _________________________________ ________________________ Name ______________________________

By_____________________________________ Mark Doneux District Administrator

Title ______________________________

Approved as to Form:

By ___________________________________ James A Mogen Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Attorney for CRWD

2

December 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Items C) District Vehicle Lease from Midway Ford (Doneux)

DATE: November 19, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator RE: Authorize Vehicle Lease Agreement from Midway Ford _________________________________________________________________________________ Background Since 2005 CRWD has been leasing vehicles from the City of St. Paul. In 2013 staff conducted a solicitation of quotes and determined that Midway Ford is best suited for the needs of the District and had the most competitive costs. Midway Ford offers vehicle pick up for repairs and maintenance for service, eliminating down time for staff waiting for repairs and service. Midway Ford offers a larger selection of overall vehicles in each class of cars, trucks and SUVs. Midway Ford also offers more experience and selection for customizing work vehicles. The District currently leases a sedan and SUV from Midway Ford.

Issues Staff have determined a more customized vehicle (truck) would increase the efficiency of the District’s monitoring program. Staff have worked with Midway Ford to design a customized 2016 F250 with a Knapheide canopy service body. (See attached photo) This truck would have four wheel drive, more storage for tools and monitoring equipment allowing staff to be more efficient. The cost of leasing from the City of St. Paul continues to increase about 7% each year. The district is currently paying $675.00/month for each two wheel drive truck leased from the City of St. Paul. Four wheel drive trucks cost an estimated $750/month or $9,000/year however are only available in the summer. The lease quotation from Midway Ford is $978.31/month or $11,740/year. The lease would be for 48 months at 5.95% interest with the option to purchase for $1 at the end of the lease. (This option is essentially a financing plan for purchase and would result in a final cost of $46,959.) To purchase the same vehicle outright the quotation from Midway for is $41,360. Based on a 10-year analysis of truck costs, staff recommend buying the vehicle outright for the following reasons:  Lowest cost over 10 years  It will allow for a customized vehicle to maximize staff efficiency  At the end of 10 years the District can expect trade-in/resale value of $5,000-$8,000 This approach could save the District an estimated $60,000 over ten years and provide a more function vehicle. Funding would come from existing available 2015 Monitoring Budget (Fund #211).

Request Action Authorize Administrator to purchase 2016 Ford F250 with customized box with Midway Ford for an amount not to exceed $42,000. enc:

Photo of customized 2016 F250 with a Knapheide canopy service body Table comparison of Truck leasing and purchasing options.

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Vehicles\2016 Ford PU\Truck Lease Memo to the Board - Dec 2015.docx

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

2

Monitoring Truck Cost Comparison--City of St. Paul Lease vs Midway Ford Lease/Purchase 11/25/2015

$ $

2015 750.00 $ 9,000.00 $

Midway Ford 5Yr. Lease 5.95% Ford F250 $46,958.88 Gas Maint.

Total Cost

$ $ $ $

2015 11,740 1,500 200 13,440

VS. City Lease 4X4 Savings

$ $

9,000 $ (4,440) $

9,630 $ (4,110) $

Midway Ford Purchase Ford F250 $41,360.00 Gas Maint.

Total Cost

2015 41,360 1,500 $ 200 $ 43,060 $

2016

$ $ $ $

1,500 $ 500 $ 2,000 $

1,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $

1,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $

1,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

VS. City Lease 4x4 Savings

$ $

9,000 $ (34,060) $

9,630 $ 7,630 $

10,304 $ 7,804 $

11,025 $ 8,525 $

11,797 $ 9,297 $

12,623 $ 9,623 $

13,507 $ 10,507 $

14,452 $ 11,452 $

15,464 $ 12,464 $

PU 4X4

Notes:

City of St. Paul Lease monthly1 annual

$ $ $ $

2016 2017 802.50 $ 858.68 $ 9,630.00 $ 10,304.10 $

2016 11,740 1,500 500 13,740

$ $ $ $

2017 11,740 1,500 1,000 14,240

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 10-yr Total 918.78 $ 983.10 $ 1,051.91 $ 1,125.55 $ 1,204.34 $ 1,288.64 $ 1,378.84 11,025.39 $ 11,797.16 $ 12,622.97 $ 13,506.57 $ 14,452.03 $ 15,463.68 $ 16,546.13 $ 124,348

$ $ $ $

2019 1 1,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,501 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

1,500 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $

10,304 $ (3,936) $

11,025 $ (3,214) $

11,797 $ 9,296 $

12,623 $ 9,623 $

13,507 $ 10,507 $

14,452 $ 11,452 $

15,464 $ 12,464 $

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

$ $ $ $

2018 11,740 1,500 1,000 14,240

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024 10-yr Total $ 46,960 1,500 $ 15,000 1,500 $ 11,200 3,000 $ 73,160

16,546 $ 13,546 $ Residual Value 2 $ Total Savings $

2024 10-yr Total $ 41,360 1,500 $ 15,000 1,500 $ 11,200 3,000 $ 67,560

16,546 $ 13,546 $ Residual Value 2 $ Total Savings $

1 - CRWD currently pays $675/month for two wheel drive trucks, 4x4 trucks cost an estimated $750/month however are only available in the summer, annual increase estimated at 7% 2 - After a ten year period the City of St. Paul lease has zero value. The Midway Ford purchased vehicle would still have a trade-in value of $5,000-$8,000.

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Vehicles\2016 Ford PU\[2015 Vehicle worksheet.xlsx]5-10yr Projection 4X4

124,348 51,188 5,000 56,188

124,348 56,788 5,000 61,788

December 2, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Item - D) TBI Work Order No. 10 – St. 0+00 to 28+49 Repairs (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 25, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager Approve TBI Work Order No. 10 for TBI Repairs from Station 0+00 to 28+49

Background CRWD’s 5-year capital improvement plan (CIP) for TBI identifies four major CIP repairs in sections of tunnel that are in fair or fair to poor condition. The first CIP project involves addressing missing mortar in the limestone blocks of TBI, sealing cracks, and patching damaged concrete and voids in nearly 3,000 feet of tunnel starting at the downstream end of CRWD’s ownership of TBI. The estimated construction cost is $1,110,000.

Issues Barr Engineering has prepared the enclosed draft work order, which describes the tasks and budget for designing repairs from TBI Station 0+00 to 28+94. Tasks include pre-design in-tunnel inspection to determine the estimated quantities for each type of repair, designing the tunnel repairs, estimating construction cost, preparing bidding/contract documents, and administrating the bidding process. Barr will utilize and modify where feasible existing repair details and specifications from previous TBI projects for the specific TBI profile, cross section and project conditions. The estimated engineering cost is $75,000.

The draft 2016 budget for TBI Repairs is $91,900.

Action Requested Approve TBI Work Order No. 10 in an amount not to exceed $75,000 and authorize Administrator to execute work order amendments not to exceed $7,500.

enc:

Draft TBI Work Order No. 10

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Board\BM TBI Work Order No 10 12-02-15.docx

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

Work Order No. 10 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor CIP Repair Station 0+00 to 28+49 Applicable to Agreement Dated November 11, 2009 Between

Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) 4700 W. 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108

Designated Representative:

Designated Representative:

James P. Herbert, P.E.

Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager

I.

Scope Language

CRWD requests that Barr perform the work described below in accordance with the terms of the above referenced Agreement.

The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) prepared a 10 Year Maintenance, Repair and Improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TKDA, June 22, 2009), amended by the 2014 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Inspection Report (Barr, March 2015) and 5-Year Maintenance, Repair and Capital Improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (Barr, August 2015). The 2015 reports by Barr make several recommendations on areas to perform repairs for maintaining the integrity of the TBI. The objective of this work order is to assist the CRWD with final design and preparation of contract documents for the following repair items identified in the 2015 reports and recommended for construction in 2016: •

Repair degraded/missing mortar between limestone blocks

•

Repair/replace manhole steps in structures

•

Crack sealing

•

Minor concrete repair

•

Patching of damaged concrete and voids

•

Sediment and debris removal

The following tasks are included in the scope of work for final design and preparation of plans and specifications for the referenced projects.

Page 1 W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Work Order\TBI Work Order No 10 Revised.docx July 13, 2010 Version

Task A—Preliminary Tasks

Existing drawings and the 2015 inspection report will be utilized to develop appropriate layout and designs for the proposed repairs of the TBI sections. It will be necessary to identify locations to be utilized for water control (pump or divert around) during construction. This task consists of the following items: 1. Collecting and reviewing existing reports, drawings, utility data, street information, etc.

2. Performing pre-design in-tunnel inspection to determine the estimated quantities for each type of repair. This work will consist of measuring identified repair areas to determine quantities for the bidding documents. We assume two (2) days of inspection will be necessary, with three (3) in-tunnel inspectors. We will utilize one (1) surface attendant and the services of Rescue Resources, Inc. to provide surface attendance duties and emergency egress support.

Deliverables: Periodic communications, emails, etc.

Task B – Design Tasks

Design of tunnel rehabilitation repairs will include: 1. Station 0+00 to 28+49 occurs in the limestone block section of the tunnel. The observed deficiencies include missing mortar between the blocks. The recommended repairs included installing cementitious material in joints and removal/replacement of damaged or dislodged blocks.

2. Repairs will also include general operations and maintenance items including removal of deposits and sealing of cracks and fractures. In places where full patching of the wall is required, structural design of the patch and associated reinforcement will be performed, as necessary, to ensure the integrity of the TBI. Where appropriate, existing repair details and specifications from previous TBI projects will be reevaluated and modified for the specific TBI profile, cross section and project conditions. New repair details and specifications will be developed for the limestone block tunnel and other features identified during the pre-design inspection, as necessary, for the specific TBI profile, cross sections and project conditions based on pre-design inspection.

Deliverables: Periodic communications, emails, etc.

Task C – Construction Opinion of Cost

On this project we will review the existing bid tabulation from previous TBI construction projects and other appropriate Barr projects to aid in preparation of the construction opinion of cost. Experienced contractors may also be contacted to discuss the project from a contractor’s perspective to identify construction issues and their opinions of project costs.

Deliverables:

1. Final opinion of cost for construction Page 2 W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Work Order\TBI Work Order No 10 Revised.docx July 13, 2010 Version

Task D – Contract/Bidding Documents

Final drawings will be prepared and arranged in a format for competitive bidding and use in construction of the project. We anticipate the bid package to include the following drawings: 1. Cover Sheet & Index (1 Sheet) 2. Plan & Profile: Existing Conditions & Repairs: Sta. 0+00 to 28+49 (4 sheets) 3. Existing TBI Typical Sections (1 Sheet) 4. Crack, Concrete Repair Details (3 Sheets) 5. Miscellaneous Details (2 Sheets) Additional Contract Documents that will be prepared for competitive bidding and subsequent construction will include: 1. Technical Specifications 2. Advertisement 3. Instructions to Bidders 4. Bid Form 5. Agreement 6. General Conditions 7. Supplementary Conditions 8. Up to two (2) addenda, if necessary.

The front-end documents will be based on the EJCDC Standard Forms as edited and revised by CRWD’s attorney for the 2012-13 TBI Realignment project. In addition to the front-end documents, construction specifications will be prepared using the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) standard format. The Bidding Documents will provide potential contractors with the necessary information to bid on the project and perform the work. This task does not include copying and distribution of Contract Documents. Budget includes incorporating one (1) round of CRWD edits.

We anticipate that bidding will occur in 2016.

Deliverables:

1. Preliminary design drawings and contract documents for review 2. Final design drawings and contract documents (paper copy and electronic pdf).

Task E – Bid Administration

Barr will provide bid administration services for one (1) round of bidding under this work order. Barr will provide the following bid administration services: 1. Barr will assist the CRWD in advertising for bids for construction, materials, equipment, and services. We will use an online bidding distribution system such as QuestCDN to distribute bidding documents and to maintain a record of prospective bidders.

Page 3 W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Work Order\TBI Work Order No 10 Revised.docx July 13, 2010 Version

2. Barr will schedule and conduct a pre-bid meeting and prepare an attendance roster and meeting notes, as necessary. The pre-bid meeting will include a pre-bid walk-through with CRWD staff and potential bidders 3. Barr will address prospective bidder questions during the bidding period.

4. Barr will prepare and issue up to two (2) addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents.

5. Barr will schedule and conduct the bid opening, prepare bid tabulation of all bids and assist the CRWD in evaluating bids.

6. Barr will assist CRWD in selecting the Successful Bidder.

7. Barr will assist CRWD with assembling and awarding the contract to the Successful Bidder.

We will also attend the CRWD Board meeting to discuss the bids, if desired.

Deliverables:

1. Meeting minutes and addenda.

Task F–Permitting & Easement Coordination

Barr will assist CRWD with permitting services. We assume CRWD will take the lead on permitting and easement acquisition. Permits and coordination activities may include: 1. Preparation of MDNR Protected Waters or construction dewatering permit (confirm with DNR).

2. Assistance with easement issues for contractor staging area, TBI access, etc.

3. Saint Paul, Ramsey Co., BNSF coordination, others (if necessary).

4. NPDES construction permit and preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not anticipated unless the project includes grading over one acres of land for construction of staging areas.

Task G – Project Management and Meetings

Ensuring the project proceeds in a timely fashion and the District staff and managers are wellinformed of the project status, project management tasks and two (2) meetings are included in the scope. These tasks and meetings will include: 1. Project management tasks, including regular and timely communication and coordination w/ CRWD staff and stakeholders, internal project management and meetings, administration tasks, invoicing etc.

2. Attendance at meeting with CRWD staff and preparation of meeting materials. We have assumed one staff meeting at Barr’s or CRWD’s office.

3. Presentation at one (1) public meeting, assumed to be at CRWD’s office.

Barr’s project management staffing approach for this project will be as follows: Page 4 W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Work Order\TBI Work Order No 10 Revised.docx July 13, 2010 Version

1. Principal: Jim Herbert, PE: Jim will serve as the project’s principal, providing design guidance and handling all contractual issues.

2. Project Manager: Nathan Campeau, PE: Nathan will serve as the day-to-day contact with CRWD and stakeholders and assist in the design.

3. Design Manager: Joe Welna, PE: Joe will lead Barr’s staff in the design of the repairs.

II.

Compensation and Assumptions ("Service Assumptions") Upon Which compensation is based

Compensation shall be on a time and expensed basis in accordance to the referenced Agreement. The cost of the services shall not exceed $75,000 without prior approval by the CRWD. Note the following assumptions: 1. Scope does not include construction administration tasks.

2. Scope assumes the use of the front end contract documents of the TBI Realignment project.

3. Scope does not include detailed design of dewatering system due to extreme infiltration problems or if it is necessary to lower groundwater elevation for repairing cracks.

4. Geotechnical borings are not anticipated and are not included in the scope.

5. Although a quantity inspection will be performed, the scope does not include additional survey.

6. The cost estimate is based on anticipated 2016 fee schedule. These rates are subject to change.

III.

Schedule and Assumptions Upon Which Schedule is Based

Schedule shall be coordinated between Barr and CRWD Designated Representatives. It is our understanding bidding is anticipated during fall 2016 with construction following during winter of 2016/2017.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: BARR ENGINEERING CO.

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

By:

By:

Title: Date:

Vice President

Title: Date:

Page 5 W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Repairs 2015-2016\Work Order\TBI Work Order No 10 Revised.docx July 13, 2010 Version

Project Name: TBI 2016 Repairs Client Name: Capitol Region Watershed District Date: November 19, 2015 Approved by: Jim Herbert Name (Last, First) Initials Billing Rate Project Role A: Preliminary Tasks Review Existing Reports Field Recon for Site Access Quantities Inspection Subtotal B: Design Tasks Base Map and Sheet Setup Develop Repair Details ID Repair Locations from Reports Subtotal C: Construction Opinion of Cost Opinion of Cost Subtotal D: Contract/Bidding Documents Finalize plansheets Technical Specifications Front-End Specifications Subtotal E: Bid Administration Report Production Bid Administration and Walk-Through Subtotal F: Permitting and Easement Coordination Assistance to CRWD Subtotal G: Project Management and Meetings Progress Meeting Presentation to Board Project Management

Herbert, James JPH $180.00 PIC

Minneapolis 1

Welna, Joseph JAW2 $110.00 Co-PM/Design Lead

Redinger, Samuel SOR $85.00 Design

Jouppe, Max MJJ $105.00 CADD Minneapolis

Swenson, Joel JNS2 $135.00 Advisor

Minneapolis 1 24 25

0

10 10

6 7

10

Surface Attendant $85.00 Subtotal Hours

Subtotal Labor

Expenses

1

1 1 1 3

1 2 1 4

4 4 4 12

4 4 8 16

40 16 8 64

4 4 8

10

0

0

50 41 26 117

1 1

1 1

4 4

6 6

0

0

2 2

0

0

14 14

$ $

10 3 3 16

10 6 10 26

40 16 6 62

40

4 8

8

20

12

8

0

0

104 61 19 184

$ 12,390.00 $ 7,310.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 22,350.00 $

1 8 9

2 6 8

6 16 22

10 10

4

0

0

8 8 16

20 20

21 68 89

$ $ $

2,270.00 $ 7,340.00 $ 9,610.00 $

2 2

8 8

4 4

8 8

0

0

0

0

0

22 22

$ $

2,640.00 2,640.00 $

4 3 10

4 3 6

4 6 12

Subtotal

17

13

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

12 12 28 0 52

$ $ $ $ $

1,740.00 1,635.00 3,990.00 7,365.00

Project Subtotal

49

61

150

85

108

30

27

16

40

566

$ 66,210.00 $

40

Minneapolis 1

Burt, Deborah DAB3 $90.00 Admin

1 1

20

Minneapolis

Nielsen, Paul PKN $170.00 Structural

Minneapolis 1 3 20 24

Contingency %

Project Total

Minneapolis

Campeau, Nathan NDC $145.00 Co-PM

4

Sub Contractors

Project Total

Percentage of Total

Minneapolis

0

20 20

4 3 81 88

$ $ $ $

510.00 330.00 $ 8,490.00 $ 9,330.00 $

$ 510.00 50.00 $ 380.00 500.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 13,390.00 550.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 14,280.00

19%

$ 5,305.00 $ 5,170.00 $ 2,825.00 $ 13,300.00 $

-

$

-

$ 5,305.00 $ 5,170.00 $ 2,825.00 $ 13,300.00

18%

-

$

-

$ $

1,615.00 1,615.00

2%

-

$ 12,390.00 $ 7,310.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 22,350.00

30%

500.00 $ 2,770.00 1,000.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 10,540.00 1,500.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 13,310.00

18%

1,615.00 1,615.00 $

$ $ $ $

-

-

$

$

-

$ $

2,640.00 2,640.00

4%

-

$ $ $ $ $

1,790.00 1,685.00 4,030.00 7,505.00

10%

50.00 50.00 40.00 140.00 $

2,190.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

December 2, 2015 V. Action Items (E) Approve Comments on St. Paul Draft Ordinance

November 25, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, PE Comments on Draft Stormwater Runoff Ordinance Chapter 52 Revisions

Background The City of St. Paul is required by their NPDES Phase I MS4 permit to update stormwater requirements to include volume reduction. CRWD staff have participated in a City initiated ordinance revision stakeholder group that met three times since February of 2015.

Issues Staff have reviewed the draft proposed ordinance and have provided a comment letter that outlines three overarching concerns. Detailed comments on the revised language are provided in the attached redlined version of the ordinance. Staff will review the letter and ordinance and answer any questions the Board may have.

Action Requested

Approve Draft Comment Letter on City of St. Paul’s Proposed Revised Stormwater Runoff Ordinance.

Enc:

Draft Comment Letter to City of Saitn Paul’s Proposed Stormwater Runoff Ordinance Chapter 52 of Proposed Ordinance with CRWD comments

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\St. Paul\Ordinance Revision- Chapter 52\Board Memo Chapter 52.docx

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

December 2, 2015 Kathy Lantry, Director St. Paul Public Works 1500 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re:

Ricardo Cervantes, Director St. Paul Department of Safety and Inspections 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220 Saint Paul, MN 55101

Draft Revisions to City Ordinance Stormwater Runoff Chapter 52

Dear Ms. Lantry and Mr. Cervantes: Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) appreciates the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder group and provide comment on the City of Saint Paul’s draft revisions to Chapter 52 - Stormwater Runoff of the Code of Ordinances. CRWD commends the City for its efforts to consolidate, simplify, and improve the City requirements associated with stormwater management.

CRWD staff have reviewed the draft revised ordinance and feel they will result in more consistent stormwater management on a citywide basis. However, CRWD requests the following overarching issues be addressed, as well as the detailed comments provided in the attached redlined copy of the ordinance.

Water Quality for Small Sites As outlined in Strategy 2.15 of the City’s Water Resource Management Plan, CRWD recommends the City revise Chapter 52 to require volume reduction practices on developments greater than 10,000 square feet. Since 2009, CRWD has attempted to advance water quality and volume reduction practices on projects less than one acre. At the City’s request, CRWD removed proposed language within its Rules that would require volume reduction on projects less than one acre. At the time, the upcoming City Ordinance revision process was identified as a potential solution to address these small sites, and the Water Resources Management Chapter of Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies Strategy 2.15 to develop water quality standards on small sites.

Current and proposed revisions require private developments to invest in significant rate control infrastructure for all sites greater than 10,000 square feet, but do not require any water quality practices for sites less than one acre. Through previous analysis of actual small sites with municipally approved plans, CRWD determined that volume reduction and water quality practices could be implemented through slight modifications to rate control infrastructure with a nominal cost increase of approximately 1-3% of total project cost.

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

Permitting and Review Process Currently, Chapter 52 requirements are reviewed as part of the City Site Plan Review process.

However, unlike other City ordinances, Chapter 52 does not specify what city department is responsible to review and determine compliance with stormwater runoff standards, or how inspection and enforcement will be implemented post approval. CRWD understands and supports the efforts to eliminate duplicative review processes by exempting projects that require Watershed District permits, but it is unclear what impact the review for projects that are not within Watershed Districts, including street projects (and small sites if implemented), will have on City staffing and budget constraints.

CRWD recommends clear delineation of responsibilities between Public Works and the Department of Safety and Inspections within the ordinance, and a guidance or policy document intended for use by applicants to navigate the permitting process.

Ordinance Focus The current ordinance has a clear focus on erosion and sediment controls during construction. Many of the definitions and requirements pertain to temporary practices appropriate for implementation on active construction sites. The proposed updates add limited language that requires permanent stormwater volume control and water quality practices. With this required expansion of focus, much of the terminology and intent becomes inconsistent and at times confusing. CRWD recommends significant effort be taken to eliminate redundancies, and utilize terms and language more commonly used by stormwater practitioners found within existing local, state, and national regulations. For example, Stormwater Pollution Control Plan should be replaced by Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

Additional clarification and consistency is required to provide clear differentiation between temporary best management practices (BMPs) to control construction site runoff and permanent Stormwater BMPs for post-construction stormwater management The City of St. Paul continues to make great strides in stormwater management and policy. CRWD kindly requests that the City incorporate the recommended changes to the Stormwater Runoff Ordinance, Chapter 52. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (651) 644-8888 or mark@capitolregionwd.org.

Sincerely,

Mark Doneux, Administrator enc:

Draft Proposed Ordinance with CRWD Comments and Redlined Edits

cc:

Anne Weber, City of St. Paul Wes Saunders-Pearce, City of St. Paul Anne Hunt, City of Saint Paul Wes Saunders-Pearce, City of Saint Paul Jesse Carlson, WSB

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\St. Paul\Ordinance Revision- Chapter 52\Draft St Paul Ordinance Chapter 52 CRWD Comments.docx

Chapter 52. - Stormwater Runoff

Contents Sec. 52.01. - Purpose. ................................................................................................................................... 2 Sec. 52.02. - Scope. ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Sec. 52.03. – Exemptions. ............................................................................................................................ 2 Sec. 52.04. - Definitions. ............................................................................................................................... 2 Sec. 52.05. - Stormwater pollution control plan. ........................................................................................ 4 Sec. 52.06. - Review. ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Sec. 52.07. - Modification of plan. ............................................................................................................... 9 Sec. 52.08. - Financial securities. ................................................................................................................ 9 Sec. 52.09. - Failure of the stormwater pollution control plan. ............................................................ 109 Sec. 52.10. - Enforcement. ..................................................................................................................... 1110 Sec. 52.11. - Right of entry and inspection. ............................................................................................. 11 Sec. 52.12. - Record retention. .................................................................................................................. 11 Sec. 52.13. - Abrogation and greater restrictions. ................................................................................... 11 Sec. 52.14. - Other statutes, rules and ordinances. ............................................................................ 1211 Sec. 52.15. - Severability. ....................................................................................................................... 1211

Page 1

Sec. 52.01. - Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to control stormwater pollution associated with land disturbance and post construction runoff in the city. It establishes standards and specifications for practices and planning activities, which minimize stormwater pollution, soil erosion and sedimentation.

(C.F. No. 04-267, § 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.02. - Scope.

Any person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, state agency, or political subdivision proposing a l a n d d i s t u r b a n c e g r e a t e r t h a n 1 0 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t construction activity, including projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale identified in parts (1) or (2) below shall submit a Sstormwater Ppollution control Prevention plan to the cityD e p a r t m e n t o f S a f e t y a n d I n s p e c t i o n s ( o r P u b l i c W o r k s ? for approval. No land shall be disturbed until the plan, conforming to the standards set forth herein, is approved by the city.

Commented [FK1]: This could be misinterpreted to mean that all land disturbances of any size require stormwater pollution control plans. Consider moving the 10,000 square foot threshold up into the paragraph.

Commented [FK2]: Specify who will review and approve

(a) Construction activity greater than 10,000 square feet shall: 1. Meet the detention standard specified in section 52.05(b) except activity related to public roads and public and private utilities; and 2. Provide effective erosion and sediment control BMPs appropriate to the site conditions and anticipated construction activity. (b) Construction activity of one-acre or more shall also meet the pollution control standard in section 52.05(c).

Commented [FK3]: The Scope section should not include specific requirements and should only include the conditions that trigger review per the ordinance.

(C.F. No. 04-267, § 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.03. – Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempt from all of the requirements of this ordinance: (a) Emergency work necessary to protect life, limb, or property. (b) Applicants required to obtain an equivalent stormwater permit from a Watershed District specified in section 52.05(c).

Sec. 52.04. - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used in this chapter have the meanings defined as follows: (a) Applicant means any person or entity that applies for a building permit, subdivision approval, or a permit to allow construction activities. Applicant also means that person's agents, employees, and others acting under this person's direction. (b) Best management practices (BMPs) mean the erosion and sediment control and water quality management practices that are the most effective and practicable means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing degradation of surface water, including avoidance of impacts, construction phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are exposed, prohibitions, and other management practices published by state or designated area-wide planning agencies. Individual BMPs are described in the current versions of the “Minnesota Stormwater Manual.” "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2000. BMPs must be adapted to the site and can be adopted from other sources. However, they must be similar in purpose and as effective and stringent as the MPCA's BMPs. Other sources include the current versions of "Minnesota Small Sites Urban BMP Manual," Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 2001, and "Erosion Control Design Manual," Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1993.

Page 2

Commented [FK4]: The definition should specify if permanent Stormwater BMPs are included here, or just temporary erosion and Sediment Control BMPs. The terms “Stormwater Pollution Control Measures” and “BMPs” could be easily confused

(c) Common plan of development means a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct landdisturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different schedules, but under one proposed plan. (d) Construction activity means disturbance to the land that may result in soil erosion and the movement of sediments into surface waters, drainage systems or onto adjacent properties, including clearing, grading, filling and excavating except for mill and overlay or other resurfacing activities which do not alter the soil material beneath the pavement base.

Commented [FK5]: Remove definition of “Construction Activity” and use “Land Disturbance”

(e)(d) Dewatering means the removal of water for construction activity. It can be a discharge of appropriated surface or groundwater to dry and/or solidify a construction site. It may require state department of natural resources permits to be appropriated and if contaminated may require other MPCA permits to be discharged. (f)(e) Discharge means the release, conveyance, channeling, stormwater, including snowmelt, from a construction site.

runoff,

or drainage,

of

(g)(f) Erosion means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, ice, and/or construction activities. (h)(g) Erosion control means methods employed to prevent erosion including, but not limited to soil stabilization practices, limited grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing. (i)(h) Final stabilization means that all soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uniform, evenly distributed perennial vegetative cover with a density of seventy (70) percent of the cover for unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures has been established, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) have been employed. (i) Impervious surface means a constructed hard surface that prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads.

Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering

(j) Land Disturbance. Any activity on property that results in a change or alteration in the existing ground cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, development, redevelopment, demolition, construction, reconstruction, clearing, grading, filling, stockpiling, excavation, and borrow pits.

Routine vegetation management, and road milling/overlay activities that do not alter the soil material beneath the road base, will not be considered land disturbance. In addition, in-kind catch basin and pipe repair/replacement done in conjunction with a mill/overlay project shall not be considered land disturbance (k) MPCA means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (l) NPDES means the national pollutant discharge elimination system, the program for issuing, modifying, and enforcing permits under the Federal Clean Water Act. (m) Owner means the person or party possessing the title of the land on which the construction activity will occur; or if the construction activity is for a lease holder, the party or individual

Page 3

Commented [FK6]: Use the CRWD, RWMWD, and MIDS definition provided here.

identified as the lease holder; or the contracting government agency construction activity.

responsible for the

(n) Permanent cover means final stabilization. Examples include grass, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. (o) Runoff means rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface.

Commented [FK7]: Redundant to include both “Runoff” and “Stormwater Runoff”?

(p) Sediment control means the methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site.

Sediment control practices include, but are not limited to, silt fences, sediment traps, earth dikes, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drains, pipe slope drains, storm drain inlet protection, and temporary or permanent sedimentation basins. (q) Stabilization means covering the exposed ground surface with appropriate materials such as mulch, staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Sowing grass seed is not considered stabilization.

Commented [FK8]: Redundant with “Final Stabilization” and “Temporary Erosion Protection” definitions.

(r) Standard plates means general drawings having or showing similar characteristics or qualities that are representative of a construction practice or activity. (s) Stormwater runoff includes precipitation runoff, snow melt runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage. "Stormwater" does not include construction site dewatering. (t) Stormwater pollution control plan means a plan, prepared by the applicant, for stormwater discharge that includes erosion and sediment control measures that, when implemented, will decrease soil erosion on a parcel of land and decrease off-site pollution. a combination of drawings, calculations, and narrative which together demonstrates conformance with the provisions of Chapter 52. (u) Surface waters means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems (v) Temporary erosion protection means short term methods employed to prevent erosion.

Examples of temporary cover include: straw, erosion control blankets, wood chips, and erosion netting. (w) Wetlands as defined in Minnesota Rules 7050.0130, subpart F, "wetlands," are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

(C.F. No. 04-267, § 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.05. - Stormwater pollution control planPrevention Plan.

Any person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, state agency, or political subdivision proposing a construction activity of one (1) acre or more within the city shall submit a stormwater pollution control plan to the city for approval. No land shall be disturbed until the plan, conforming to the standards set forth herein, is approved by the city. At a minimum these pollution abatement control practices must conform to those in the current version of the MPCA's publication, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" or other sources as defined in section 52.04(2).

Page 4

Commented [FK9]: Consider utilizing the term “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” A plan that describes the strategies and steps that will be taken to prevent nonpoint source pollution discharges during the entire construction process. It includes temporary erosion and sediment controls as well as permanent stormwater management practices. There are also references to “Site Construction Plans

The stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan contains minimum standards for construction a n d p o s t - c o n s t r u c t i o n activity. Additional standards, requirements, and provisions may be found within the city’s public works policy document, zoning code for subdivisions, and parking lots. (a) General stormwater pollution control plan submittal requirements: 1.

The name, address and telephone number of the following individuals: a.

Owner,

b.

Applicant,

c.

Person responsible for the preparation of the stormwater pollution control plan,

d.

On-site person responsible for implementation, inspection and maintenance of the requirements of the stormwater pollution control plan,

e.

Person responsible for the long term operation and maintenance of the permanent stormwater management system.

2.

A project description that includes the nature and purpose of the construction activity, the amount of grading, utilities, and building construction involved and the location of the project.

3.

Construction phasing that includes time frames and schedules for the project's various aspects including erosion and sediment control practices.

4.

A map of the existing site conditions that includes existing topography, utilities, property information, steep slopes, existing drainage systems/patterns, type of soils, groundwater elevations waterways, wetlands, vegetative cover and one hundred-year flood plain boundaries.

5.

A site construction plan that includes the location of the proposed construction activity and the plan for the maintenance and inspection of the stormwater pollution control measures, including the plan for disposal of collected sediment and floating debris.

6.

Location of temporary and permanent stormwater pollution control measures.

7.

Standard plates and/or specifications for all stormwater pollution control measures.

8.

Location of streams, lakes or wetlands which may be impacted by the construction activity.

9.

Provisions for preventing sediment damage to adjacent properties and other designated areas such as streams, wetlands and lakes.

10. A plan to stabilize utility construction areas as soon as possible.

11. A plan for permanent stabilization including how the site will be stabilized after construction is completed, including specifications and schedules.

12. A plan for removal of temporary erosion and sediment control measures at the end of the project.

13. Calculations that were made for the design of such items as rate control, sediment basins, wet detention basins, diversions, waterways, infiltration zones and other applicable practices.

14. Documentation to demonstrate that the stormwater pollution controls were designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state. Constructed Ccontrols and the intended function must be certified by a professional engineer after construction .

15. Hydrologic models and design methodologies used for the determining runoff characteristics and analyzing stormwater management structures must be approved by the city. Plans, specifications and computations for stormwater management facilities submitted for review must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional engineer. All

Page 5

Commented [FK10]: If there are other known requirements, specific references to those should be included, or the requirements should be incorporated directly.

computations must appear in the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approv ed by the City. (b) Erosion and sediment control requirements: 1.

Applicant shall provide a map of the existing and proposed site conditions that includes topography, property information, steep slopes, drainage systems/patterns, type of soils, surface waters, vegetative cover and one hundred-year flood plain boundaries.

2.

Applicant shall provide a site construction plan that includes a combination of notes and symbols identifying the proposed construction activity erosion and sediment control BMPs. a. Construction activities identified in section 52.02(1) must include provisions addressing perimeter containment, inlet protection, site entrance/egress management, soil stabilization, and recovery of sediment discharged or tracked off-site. Where additional BMPs are needed, they will be specified at the discretion of the city. b. Construction activities identified in section 52.02(2) must provide a level of erosion and sediment control equivalent to that required by Minnesota’s NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity.

Any person, firm, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, state agency, or political subdivision proposing a construction activity of one (1) acre or more within the city shall submit a stormwater pollution control plan to the city for approval. No land shall be disturbed until the plan, conforming to the standards set forth herein, is approved by the city. At a minimum these pollution abatement control practices must conform to those in the current version of the MPCA's publication, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" or other sources as defined in section 52.04(2). (a) Minimum requirements of the stormwater pollution control plan: 1.

2.

The name, address and telephone number of the following individuals: a.

Owner,

b.

Applicant,

c.

Person responsible for the preparation of the stormwater pollution control plan,

d.

On-site person responsible for implementation, inspection and maintenance of the requirements of the stormwater pollution control plan,

e.

Person responsible for the long term operation and maintenance of the permanent stormwater management system.

A project description that includes the nature and purpose of the construction activity, the amount of grading, utilities, and building construction involved and the location of the project.

(b) Minimum stormwater pollution control measures. These minimum control measures are required where bare soil is exposed. Where additional control measures are needed, they will be specified at the discretion of the city.

1.

All stormwater pollution control plans must be reviewed by the city for the effectiveness of erosion control measures in the context of site topography and drainage.

2.

Sediment control measures must be properly installed by the builder before the construction activity begins. Such structures may be adjusted during dry weather to accommodate short term activities, such as those that require the passage of very large vehicles. As soon as this activity is finished or before rainfall, the erosion and sediment control structures must be returned to the original configuration.

3.

Divert channeled runoff around disturbed areas and protect the channel.

Page 6

Commented [k11]: Portions of this section are redundant with the General Requirements and could be incorporated there and simplified.

Commented [k12]: Use consistent terminology, redundant with SWPPP and Pollution Control Plan

4.

If a stormwater management plan involves directing some or all of the site's runoff to adjacent property, the applicant or his designated representative shall obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other property interests concerning the flowing of such water.

5.

Scheduling the site's activities to lessen their impact on erosion and sediment creation, so as to minimize the amount of exposed soil.

6.

Control stormwater runoff as follows: a.

All exposed soil areas with a continuous positive slope within two hundred (200) lineal feet of a surface water, must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:

Type of Slope

Time*

Steeper than 3:1

7 days

10:1 to 3:1

14 days

Flatter than 10:1

21 days

* Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.

These areas include pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a stormwater conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. b.

Install erosion and sediment controls at locations specified in the stormwater management plan. Minimum requirements include silt fences, rock check dams, or other equivalent control measures along slopes. Silt fences are required along channel edges to reduce sediment reaching channel. Silt fences, rock check dams, etc. must be regularly inspected and maintained.

c.

The work shall conform to the current version of the MPCA's publication, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," and the current requirements found in the same agency's NPDES/SDS permits for stormwater associated with construction activities.

7.

Silt fence shall be required to hold all sheet flow runoff generated at an individual site, until it can either infiltrate or seep through silt fence's pores.

8.

Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence or other effective sediment controls, and cannot be placed in surface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches.

9.

Temporary rock construction entrances are required wherever vehicles enter and exit a site.

10. Streets must be cleaned and swept whenever tracking of sediments occurs and before sites are left idle for weekends and holidays. A regular sweeping schedule shall be established.

11. Water (impacted by the construction activity) removed from the site by pumping must be treated by temporary sedimentation basins, geotextile filters, grit chambers, sand filters, up-flow chambers, hydro-cyclones, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls. Such water shall not be discharged in a manner that causes erosion or flooding of the site, receiving channels, adjacent property or a wetland.

12. All storm drain inlets must be protected during construction until control measures are in place with either silt fence or an equivalent. (c)

Stormwater Runoff Rate Control Stormwater infrastructure for detention.

1. Construction activities that meet the criteria of 52.02(1) must include provisions to reduce the rate of stormwater discharge. Stormwater runoff rate control is required for sites that are larger than one quarter (1/4) of an acre which go through the City’s site plan review process.

Stormwater discharge into public storm sewers shall be controlled, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the department of public works policy. Required information

Page 7

Commented [FK13]: Ensure section reference is correct 52.02(a)(1)?

Commented [k14]: This Policy should be incorporated

to be submitted as part of the stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is available in a handout from the department of public works. Peak stormwater discharge rates from the site for all storms up to and including the critical 100year frequency will not exceed: Q = 1.64 × A where Q = the maximum acceptable discharge rate in cubic feet per second and A = the site area in acres.

Commented [FK15]: Ordinance should specify TP-40 or Atlas14 rainfall depths . An analysis of the impact of using updated Atlas -14 rainfall depths on private stormwater detention systems should be conducted, and justification for requiring detention of the 100-yr rainfall event on site provided, considering St. Paul’s sewers are now separated.

Discharge of all stormwater runoff and surface water shall be in a fashion so as to preclude drainage onto adjacent property or toward buildings.

2. Applicant shall provide a site construction plan in conformance with section 52.02(c)(1) which identifies the location and elevation of all emergency overflow (EOF) area, and the low floor elevation for new construction must be a minimum of one (1) foot above the critical one hundred-year flood elevation. (d)

Commented [FK16]: Stormater Pollution Control Plan? Utilize consistent terminology Commented [FK17]: Ensure correct section reference

Flood control for buildings. The low floor elevation for new construction must be a minimum of one (1) foot above the critical one hundred-year flood elevation and at least four (4)feet above normal groundwater elevation.

Temporary Sediment Basins For common drainage locations that serve an area with ten (10) or more acres disturbed at one (1) time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin must be provided prior to the runoff leaving the construction site or entering surface waters. In addition to this requirement, the applicant is encouraged to install temporary sediment basins where appropriate in areas with steep slopes or highly erodible soils even if less than ten (10) acres drains to one (1) area. The basins must be designed and constructed in accordance with the current version of the MPCA's general permit to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity under the NPDES.

(e)

Stormwater infrastructure for pollution control.

1. Construction activities that meet the criteria of 52.02(2) shall prohibit stormwater discharge from the site for 1.1 inches of runoff from all new or redeveloped impervious surface, notwithstanding those applicants required to obtain an equivalent stormwater permit from a Watershed District, which are exempt. All provisions to reduce the volume of stormwater discharge shall be based on the MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) Calculator and conform to the current version of the “Minnesota Stormwater Manual.”

2. Construction activities that meet the criteria of 52.02(d)(1) and have site constraints which limit full compliance with the standard are allowed to follow the MPCA MIDS Design Sequence Flowchart of flexible treatment options. All constraints and treatment options explored must be included within the applicant’s Stormwater Pollution Control Plan.

(f) Permanent stormwater infrastructure to be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state. Constructed controls must be certified by a professional engineer as required in section 52.05(g). (g) Models/methodologies/computations. Hydrologic models and design methodologies used for the determining runoff characteristics and analyzing stormwater management structures must be approved by the city, notwithstanding section 52.05(c). Plans, specifications and computations for stormwater infrastructure submitted for review must be sealed and signed by a licensed professional engineer. All computations must appear in the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by the city. (h) Inspection and maintenance of the stormwater pollution control plan's measures.

1. The applicant must routinely inspect the construction site once every seven (7) days during active construction and within twenty-four (24) hours after a storm event greater than one-

Page 8

Commented [k18]: Clarify section reference

Commented [k19]: Consider language similar to the MIDS performance goal, CRWD and RWMWD Rules . Stormwater runoff shall be retained on site in the amount equivalent to 1.1 inches of runoff from the impervious surface of the development.

half (0.50) inches in twenty-four (24) hours.

2. The city's inspection staff is authorized to perform inspection and enforce provisions of this article as may be required, to ensure that erosion and sediment control measures are properly installed and maintained. If the applicant fails to maintain proper erosion control measures on site and/or perform necessary remedial action, as directed by the inspector, the inspector may take such enforcement action as may be required to achieve compliance.

Enforcement may be, but is not limited to, stopping all construction work at the site, until necessary remedial actions have been completed and erosion and sediment controls are in compliance with the approved plans.

3. For sites that require permanent stormwater infrastructure, a certification letter shall be submitted after the facilities have been installed to affirm that construction has been completed in accordance with the approved stormwater pollution control plan. At a minimum, certification shall include a set of as-built drawings comparing the approved stormwater management plan with what was constructed. Other information shall be submitted as required by the approving agency.

4. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or other property interests to allow access to the stormwater management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes.

5. All stormwater pollution control infrastructure must be designed to minimize the need of maintenance, to provide easy vehicle and personnel access for maintenance purposes and be structurally sound. These facilities must have a plan of operation and maintenance that ensures continued effective removal of the pollutants carried in stormwater runoff.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.06. - Review.

The city shall review the stormwater pollution control plan pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Sec. 15.99.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.07. - Modification of plan.

An approved stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planmay be modified upon submission of a written application for modification to the city, and after written approval by the city. In reviewing such an application, the city may require additional reports and data.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.08. - Financial securities.

The city may require financial security, in the form of either bond, letter of credit or cash escrow, for the performance of the work described in the approved stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planand any related remedial work. This security must be available prior to commencing the project. (a) Action against the financial security. The city may act against the financial security if any of the conditions listed below exist. The city shall use funds from this security to finance any corrective or remedial work undertaken by the city or a contractor under contract to the city and to reimburse the city for all direct cost incurred in the process of remedial work including, but not limited to, staff time and attorneys' fees.

1. The applicant ceases construction activities and/or filling and abandons the work site prior to completion of the stormwater pollution control plan.

2. The applicant fails to conform to the stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planas approved by the city, or to related supplementary

Page 9

Commented [k20]: The ordinance should require the operation and maintenance plan be submitted for review and approval.

instructions.

3. The techniques utilized under the stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planfail within one (1) year of installation.

4. The applicant fails to reimburse the city for corrective action taken under section 52.09 5. Emergency action is taken under section 52.09 (b) Returning the financial security. Any unspent amount of the financial security deposited with the city for faithful performance of the stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planand any stormwater and pollution control plan related remedial work must be released not more than one (1) full year after the completion of the installation of all such measures and the establishment of final stabilization.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.09. - Failure of the stormwater pollution control plan. (a) Notification by the city. The city shall notify the applicant, when the City has determined that any of the conditions set forth in 52.08(a) exist. The initial contact will be to the party or parties listed on the stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planas contacts.

Except during an emergency action, the city at its discretion may begin corrective work fortyeight (48) hours after notification by the city. Such notification should be in writing, but if it is verbal, a written notification should follow as quickly as practical. If after making a good faith effort to notify the responsible party or parties, the city has been unable to establish contact, the city may proceed with corrective work. (b) Emergency action. If circumstances exist that pose an immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare, the city, upon making this determination, may take immediate action to abate said circumstances for the purpose of restoring the site to a safe condition. The city shall, as part of this action, make reasonable effort to contact and give notice to the applicant of the decision to institute this emergency procedure. Any cost to the city associated with this emergency action is recoverable from the applicant or the applicant's financial security. (c)

Erosion off-site. If erosion breaches the perimeter of the site, the applicant shall immediately develop a cleanup and restoration plan, obtain the right-of-entry from the adjoining property owner, and implement the cleanup and restoration plan within forty-eight (48) hours of obtaining the adjoining property owner's permission. In no case, unless written approval is received from the city, shall more than seven (7) calendar days go by without corrective action being taken. If, in the discretion of the city, the applicant does not repair the damage caused by the erosion, the city may do the remedial work required and charge the cost to the applicant.

(d) Erosion into streets, right-of-ways, wetlands or water bodies. If eroded soils (including tracked soils from construction activities) enter or appear likely to enter streets, right-of-ways, wetlands, or other water bodies, prevention strategies, cleanup and repair must be immediate. The

applicant shall provide all traffic control and flagging required to protect the traveling public during the cleanup operations and secure required right-of-way permits from the department of public works. (e) Failure to do corrective work. When an applicant fails to conform to any provision of sections 52.08 or 52.09 within the time stipulated, the city may take the following actions: 1. Withhold the scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

2. Revoke any permit issued by the city to the applicant for the site in question.

3. Direct the correction of the deficiency by city forces or by a separate contract.

4. All costs incurred by the city in correcting stormwater pollution control deficiencies must be reimbursed by the applicant. If payment is not made within thirty (30) days after costs are incurred by the city, payment will be made from the applicant's financial securities

Page 10

as described in section 52.08 5. If a financial security as described in section 52.08 was not required by the city, or if there is an insufficient financial amount in the applicant's financial securities to cover the costs incurred by the city, then the city in its discretion is authorized to either certify the remaining amount to the property taxes or to assess the remaining amount against the property.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.10. - Enforcement.

The city shall be responsible for enforcing this chapter. Any person, firm, or corporation failing to comply with or violating any of these regulations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine or imprisonment or both. All land use and building permits must be suspended until the applicant has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.11. - Right of entry and inspection.

The applicant shall allow the city and their authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials to: (a) Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information, examining records, conducting investigations or surveys or for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in stormwater pollution control. (b) Bring such equipment upon the permitted site as is necessary. (c)

Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to activities or records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permitted site.

(d) Inspect the stormwater pollution control measures. (e) Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to stormwater pollution control measures.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.12. - Record retention.

The stormwater pollution control plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planand all changes to it must be kept at the site during construction. The applicant must keep the stormwater pollution control plan, along with the following additional records, on file for three (3) years after completion of the construction project: (a) Any other permits required for the project; (b) Records of all inspections and maintenance conducted during construction; (c)

All permanent operation and maintenance agreements that have been implemented, including all right-of-way, contracts, covenants and other binding requirements regarding perpetual maintenance and;

(d) All required calculations for design of the temporary and permanent stormwater management systems.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.13. - Abrogation and greater restrictions.

This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Page 11

Sec. 52.14. - Other statutes, rules and ordinances.

The applicant shall comply with all federal and state statutes and local ordinances including the current version of the MPCA's general permit to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity under the NPDES and the requirements of the applicable watershed district or watershed management organization.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Sec. 52.15. - Severability.

The provisions of this chapter are severable, and if any provisions of this chapter, or application of any provisions of this chapter to any circumstance, are held invalid, the application of such provisions to other circumstances and the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected.

(C.F. No. 04-267, ยง 1, 4-7-04)

Page 12

December 2, 2015 V. Action Items F) Amendment for Special Grant for Midway Stadium Redevelopment (Zwonitzer) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 24, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist Amend 2015 Special Grant Award for Midway Stadium Redevelopment Site

Background In December, 2014 the Board approved a grant totaling $150,000 to the St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA) for the Midway Stadium redevelopment site. Of those funds, $10,000 was designated for educational signage, and $10,000 was designated to install water sampling wells. The remaining grant funds were designated for innovative BMPs that treat above and beyond CRWD rules. There was an added stipulation that since the proposed infiltration BMP was so large it should treat runoff from other properties, primarily Energy Park Drive.

Issues Though Energy Park Drive is a County road, the stormwater infrastructure is managed by St. Paul.

SPPA approached the City about directing flow from the sewer to the large infiltration BMP at the Midway site. The City would not allow it due to liability concerns. SPPA also approached the property to the west, but they were unable to reach an agreement. The project will treat a small area of the fire safety facility to the east as well as the site’s entire footprint to roughly a three inch event.

A stormwater management plan highlighting proposed BMPs is enclosed. In addition to educational signage and sampling wells, the primary BMP on site will be a large, underground infiltration gallery. It will be backfilled with tire-derived-aggregate which will create the void space for storing water and provide structural support for the parking lot above. Additionally, two types of porous surfaces will be installed. Filterpave is a porous material made from recycled glass and stone. Pavedrain is a block that when installed has gaps that allows water to infiltrate. Pavedrain was installed at the RWMWD parking lot, but staff are not aware of either product being installed in CRWD. Additionally, four SAFL Baffles will be installed as pre-treatment. The variety of BMPs, monitoring opportunities, overall size of the site, and partnership with SPPA make the project a great fit for the Special Grant program.

Since the project will have less benefit than the original proposal, staff are recommending a reduction in the grant award to a total of $120,000.

Action Requested Amend 2015 Special Grant award to Saint Paul Port Authority for the Midway Stadium Redevelopment project as follows: $10,000 for educational signage, $6,500 for monitoring equipment installation, and $103,500 for BMP installation for a total grant award of $120,000. enc:

Midway Stadium Redevelopment Stormwater Management Plan and Grant Calculation

\\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\Special Grants\2015\Applicants\Midway Stadium Redevelopment\Bd Memo Midway 2015 Sp Grant Recom.docx

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

Midway Stadium Redevelopment Grant Calculation Infiltration Gallery Calculations Total Cost $183,524 Storage (CF) 116,218 Constructed Cost/CF $1.58 Size (CF) Required Storage for 1.1" Event (Permit 15‐029) Additional Storage to Treat up to 2" Event Additional Storage to Treat up to 3.2" Event (overflow) Total

Cost

Grant Rate

Grant Award

40,330

$63,687

0%

$0

32,990

$52,096

100%

$52,096

42,898 116,218

$67,742 $183,524

30%

$20,323 $72,418

Grant Funding Recommendation Infiltration Gallery $73,000 Permeable Pavers $30,500 Education/Signage $10,000 Monitoring Wells $6,500 Total $120,000

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

October 15, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Item - G) Approve 2015 MAWD Resolutions (Doneux)

November 24, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Approve 2015 MAWD Resolution Recommendations

Background As part of the annual meeting of the Minnesota Association of Watershed District (MAWD), delegates are asked to consider and take action resolutions submitted to the membership. This year several resolutions are being considered at the annual meeting. Enclosed is the 2015 Resolution packet for the MAWD Annual Meeting.

Issues The MAWD Policy/Resolutions Committee will work under the following process for the upcoming 2015 Annual Meeting. Resolutions passed by the membership at Annual Meetings will remain MAWD policy from year to year unless MAWD members, the Board of Directors, or the Policy/Resolutions Committee brings that policy back to the full membership during the resolutions process for updating and discussion at any regular annual meeting. There will be no need to keep revisiting MAWD standing policy on issues like flood mitigation, problem beaver control, etc. once a policy decision has been made by the membership. Proposed resolutions submitted by members will be reviewed by the Policy/Resolutions Committee and policy recommendations will be made to the membership and Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting.

Requested Action Provide recommendations for CRWD Delegates regarding MAWD Annual meeting resolutions. enc:

2015 MAWD Resolution packet

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\MAWD\MAWD 2015 Annual Conference\Bd Memo MAWD Resolutions 11-24-15.docx

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

November 24, 2015 CRWD Board of Managers and Staff Mark Doneux, Administrator December 2, 2015 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements a) Consultant Services Agreement with Cathryn Kennedy Consulting Ltd for CRWD media engagement not to exceed $5,000. Stewardship Grant Agreement for a rain garden at 1462 Charles Ave, Saint Paul not to exceed $317.Stewardship Grant Agreement with Saint Anthony Greens HOA / Omega Management for cost associated with the installation of a rain garden at 814 Seal Street in St. Paul not to exceed $11,263. b) Change Order No. 11 with Sunram Construction for Highland Ravine for additional stabilization $6,050.45 with a total not to exceed $407,105.20. c) Consultant Services Agreement with Applied Ecological Services, Inc. for the Como Pond Buffer Management Plan not to exceed $4,260. d) Contract Purchase Agreement with Vacker Inc. for the fabrication and installation of 19 new interpretive signs at Green Line tree trench locations. e) Amendment No. 4 to Consultant Services Agreement with Barr Engineering for additional work and flood control alternatives for the Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Feasibility Study for $3,000 with a total not to exceed $61,080. f) Amendment No. 7 to Work Order No. 1 for Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor for 2015 general engineering services to increase from $15,000 to $25,000. g) Grant Agreement with AD Green Roof for green roof monitoring at the Penfield building not to exceed $7,025. h) Stewardship Grant Agreement for cost associated with a curb cut rain garden at 1851 Chelton Ave. not to exceed $5,340. i) Stewardship Grant Agreement for costs associated with a curb cut rain garden at 1227 Seminary Ave. not to exceed $6,205. j) Stewardship Grant Agreement for costs associated with construction of four rain gardens, two dry wells and two porous pavements at 1778 Colvin Ave. not to exceed $3,410.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements 3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events 4) CRWD events and meetings a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday December 9, 2015 from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. b) The Annual Meeting will be Wednesday, December 16 at 5:00 – 6:30 p.m. at Wilder Center, 451 Lexington Parkway North. c) The 2015 CRWD Watershed Steward Awards Ceremony will be held directly after the Annual Meeting from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. also at Wilder Center.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2015\Administrator's Report 12-2-15.docx

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