The URL can be used to link to this page

09-21-21 City Council Agenda REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting during public comment sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm. Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1- 415-655-0001 and entering access code 177 493 2543. Members of the public wishing to address the Council should call 763-593-8060. 1. Call to Order A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages B. Roll Call 2. Additions and Corrections to Agenda 3. Consent Agenda Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. Approval of Minutes 1. Special City Council Meeting (Interviews) – September 9, 2021 3 2. Special City Council Meeting (Interviews) – September 14, 2021 4 B. Approval of City Check Register 5 C. Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces: 1. Appointment to the Planning Commission – Sophia Ginis 6 D. Bids, Quotes, and Contracts: 1. Authorize City Manager to Sign License Agreement Amendment with Golden Valley Orchestra 7-11 2. Approve Agreements for DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project: a. Grant Amendment with the Department of Natural Resources b. Cooperative Agreement with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission c. Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering Co for Final Design and Construction Services for the Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $415,900 12-151 September 21, 2021 – 6:30 pm Hybrid Meeting City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 2021 – 6:30 pm 2 3. Approve Agreements for Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project: a. Cooperative Agreement with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission b. Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering Co for Final Design and Construction Services for the Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $353,000 152-335 4. Approve the Hennepin County Public Safety Radio Communications System Subscriber Agreement for the Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Departments 336-347 5. Approve Executive Search Consultant Contract with AB Strategic Security Group 348-358 6. Approve Updated Memorandum of Understanding with the Robbinsdale School District Regarding Pilot Program for School and Public Safety Partnership 359-362 E. Grants and Donations: 1. Approve Resolution No. 21-70 Accepting the Federal Grant Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) the American Rescue Plan Act 363-365 F. Approve Resolution No. 21-71 Appointing Election Judges and Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2021 366-368 G. Approve Scheduling the Truth-in-Taxation (Proposed Property Tax) public hearing for Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:30 pm 369 4. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing – Preliminary Plat – 8810 10th Avenue North, 915 and 1021 Boone Avenue North, Academy of Whole Learning 370-380 B. Public Hearings on Residential Street Light District for Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive and Consideration of Adopting Resolution No. 21-72 Accepting the Feasibility Report and Ordering Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements and Resolution No. 21-75 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua 1. Project Hearing 2. Assessment Hearing 381-400 5. Old Business 6. New Business All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input. A. Adopting Proposed 2022-2023 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2022 and Consenting to the Preliminary 2022 Housing and Redevelopment Proposed Levy, Resolution Nos. 21-73 and 21-74 401-410 B. Review of Council Calendar 411 C. Mayor and Council Communications 1. Other Committee/Meeting updates 7. Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Maurice Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg Present: Council Member Larry Fonnest Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank and Executive Assistant Tara Olmo 1. Commissioner Interviews The Golden Valley City Council interviewed the following candidates for appointments to various boards and commissions: Sophia Ginis 2. Adjournment The Council adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:45 pm. ________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Tara Olmo, Executive Assistant September 9, 2021 – 5:30 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Maurice Harris, Gillian Rosenquist, and Kimberly Sanberg Present: Council Member Larry Fonnest Staff present: City Manager Cruikshank and Executive Assistant Tara Olmo 1. Commissioner Interviews The Golden Valley City Council interviewed the following candidates for appointments to various boards and commissions: Rob Roy 2. Adjournment The Council adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:00 pm. ________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Tara Olmo, Executive Assistant September 14, 2021 – 5:45 pm Council Chambers Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. B. Approval of City Check Register Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley. Financial Or Budget Considerations The check register has a general ledger code as to where the claim is charged. At the end of the register is a total amount paid by fund. Recommended Action Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. Supporting Documents Document is located on city website at the following location: http://weblink.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=876916&dbid=0&repo=GoldenValley The check register for approval: • 09-12-21 Check Register • 09-16-21 Check Register Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Planning Commission Appointment Prepared By Tara Olmo, Assistant to the City Manager´s Office Summary Sophia Ginis has been interviewed and is requesting to be appointed to the Planning Commission. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to appoint Sophia Ginis to the Planning Commission. Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 1. License Agreement Amendment with Golden Valley Orchestra Prepared By Greg Simmons, Recreation and Facilities Supervisor Rick Birno, Parks & Recreation Director Summary The Golden Valley Orchestra has been a regular tenant at Brookview for many years. Staff has worked with representatives of the Golden Valley Orchestra to develop a space for performance license agreement for scheduled use of the Bassett Creek Room at Brookview. The new agreement amendment is attached to this summary and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Recommended Action Motion to authorize City Manager to sign license agreement amendment with the Golden Valley Orchestra. Supporting Documents • 2021 Golden Valley Orchestra License Agreement Amendment (4 pages) Page 1 of 4 THIRD AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY & THE GOLDEN VALLEY ORCHESTRA THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY & THE GOLDEN VALLEY ORCHESTRA (this “Third Amendment”) is made effective as of September 21st, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between the City of Golden Valley (“Licensor”) and the Golden Valley Orchestra (“Licensee”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. RECITALS WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee are parties to a License Agreement, dated January 1st, 2018 (the “License”), and previously amended by mutual agreement of the parties. WHEREAS, upon the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and Licensee, the terms of the License may be modified. WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend and amend the License as set forth below. AGREEMENT The parties agree to amend the License as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Any capitalized terms used herein but not defined have the same meaning as that ascribed to them in the License. 2. Extension of Term. The t erm of the License shall be extended and the License shall continue in effect until December 31, 2021. 3. Exhibits. Exhibits B and C are replaced in their entirety with the attached Exhibits B and C. 4. Ratification. Except as specifically provided in this First Amendment, each and every provision of the License, as amended through the date hereof, remains, and is, in all respects, in full force and effect. 5. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile and .pdf, each of which constitutes an original and all of which, collectively, constitute one and the same instrument. The signatures of the parties need not appear on the same counterpart. Page 2 of 4 6. Miscellaneous. (i) The provisions hereof are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns; and (ii) this Third Amendment , the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, and the License constitute the entire understanding between the parties in respect to the subject matter hereof. INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as evidenced by the signatures of their authorized representatives below. Signed: Golden Valley Orchestra, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: _____________________________ Print Name: ______________________ Its (Title):________________________ Signed: City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation By ______________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT B List of Rehearsal Dates and Board Meetings Date Start Time End Time Purpose 9/13/2021 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Rehearsal 9/20/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 9/27/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Board Meeting 10/4/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 10/11/2021 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Rehearsal 10/18/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 10/25/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Board Meeting 11/1/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/8/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 11/15/2021 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Rehearsal 11/22/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Board Meeting 11/29/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 12/6/2021 9:00 AM 12:00 PM Rehearsal 12/13/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Rehearsal 12/20/2021 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Rehearsal 12/27/2021 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Board Meeting Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT C Agreed Services Sunday, November 21, 2021; 4:00-5:00 PM Brookview – Teddy Bear Concert Monday, December 6, 2021; 12:45 PM-1:15 PM Brookview – Holiday Tea Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 2. Approve Agreements for DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor Summary On December 29, 2016 the City submitted an application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program to help fund the construction of a series of capital projects outlined in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. Building off of the construction of the Liberty Crossing flood storage, the first phase of the project identified for construction under the grant program was the DeCola Ponds B and C Improvement Project funded in part by the 2018 state bonding bill and completed in 2020. The next phase of the project is the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. This project was included in state legislature’s 2020 bonding bill with an allocation of $1,300,000 to the MnDNR flood damage reduction program. On July 6, 2021 the City approved Resolution #21-51 to apply to the DNR’s flood damage reduction program to access the $1,300,000. The grant application was accepted and a grant amendment reflecting the additional funding is attached to this summary. This grant will help fund the construction of the DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. The engineering feasibility study for the project was recently completed in close partnership with the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The study included a significant amount of engagement with the neighborhood, school district, and community. The Community Input report can be found on the City’s project webpage. The DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project is included in the BCWMC capital improvement program and the watershed is contributing a significant amount of funding for the project. On September 16, 2021 the BCWMC ordered the project and authorized the City of Golden Valley to design and construct the project on its behalf, pending the execution of the cooperative agreement attached to this summary. The planning level cost estimate for the project is approximately $3,100,000. Based on the funding allocated in the 2020 bonding bill, the DNR will provide $1,300,000 and the City and its partners will provide a local match of $1,300,000 plus the remaining funding to complete the project. There are no special assessments to residents. Following is an estimate of the funding sources for the project: City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 2 MnDNR $1,300,000 BCWMC $1,300,000 Hennepin County & City of Golden Valley $ 500,000 Total $3,100,000 As is typical with collaborative projects like this one, project costs will be paid up front by the City and reimbursed by the MnDNR and its local partners on a monthly or quarterly basis, as project milestones are reached. The City solicited a proposal from Barr Engineering Company to assist with final design and construction services for the project. Barr worked with the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal to complete the Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan, the design and construction of the previous flood storage projects, and the feasibility study for the DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. As part of its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, Barr will utilize its vendor outreach program to subcontract with a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) to perform test trenching and additional suvey work during design and construction. Barr’s proposal is for the not-to-exceed cost of $415,900. Following is the anticipated project schedule: Final Design Fall 2021-Spring 2022 Community Input & Engagement Fall 2021-Spring 2022 Bid and Award Contract Spring/Summer 2022 Construction Summer 2022-Summer 2023 Financial or Budget Considerations The City’s portion of the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project, approximately $200,000, would be funded by the CIP Storm Sewer section SS-69 and Parks section P-002 (for trail extensions and park improvements). Recommended Actions 1. Motion to approve the Grant Amendment in the form approved by the City Attorney with the Department of Natural Resources for the DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project 2. Motion to approve the Cooperative Agreement in the form approved by the City Attorney with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission for DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project 3. Motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement in the form approved by the City Attorney with Barr Engineering Co for the DeCola Ponds SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Final Design in an amount not to exceed $415,900. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 3 Supporting Documents • Location Map (1 page) • Department of Natural Resources Grant Amendment #2 for General Obligation Contract #147299/3000140570 (2 pages) • Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Cooperative Agreement (SEA School- Wildwood Park Flood Reduction Project BC-2, 3, 8, 10) (117 pages) • Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering Co for the DeCola Ponds SEA School- Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Final Design (17 pages) DecolaPond A DecolaPonds B & C Deco laPondE Deco laPond F Deco laPond D Golden Meadows Pond Medicine Lake Road Pond Dove r HillPondLiberty BasinSchoo l ofEngineeringand Arts Christia nLifeCenter Golden ValleyCemetery Canadian Pacific Railroad HampshirePark PennsylvaniaWoods WildwoodPark IsaacsonPark MadisonPond 456770 4567156 Wynnwood Rd 25th Ave N Bies DrJonellen Ln Sumter Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy Ln Valders Ave NWinnetka Ave NDuluth St Green Valley Rd W esley Dr Archer Ave NKelly DrPennsylvania Ave NMadison Ave W Nevada Ave NLouisiana Ave NCo unty Rd 70 ValdersAve NValders Ave N23rd Ave N Rhode IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medici ne La ke Rd SandburgLn Co unty Rd 70 San dbu rg Rd Winn etka He igh ts D rKelly D r Maryland A v eNQuebecAveNJ u lia nneTerOrklaDrValdersCtValdersAve NWinnetkaHeights Dr County Rd 156LouisianaAveNLiberty CrossingInfrastructureImprovement Project DeCola Ponds B & CImprovement Project SEA School /Wildwood ParkPotentialFlood Mitigation I 0 500 1,000250Feet Print Date: 4/7/2020Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2020).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.Location Map Rev. 6/11 Amendment #2 for General Obligation Bond Grant Contract #147299/3000140570 Contract Start Date: October 2, 2018 Total Contract Amount: $3,600,000.00 Original Contract Expiration Date: December 31, 2019 Original Contract: $2,300,000.00 Current Contract Expiration Date: December 31, 2021 Previous Amendment(s) Total: $0.00 Requested Contract Expiration Date: December 31, 2023 This Amendment: $1,300,000.00 This amendment is by and between the State of Minnesota, through its Commissioner of Natural Resources (“State”) and the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (“Grantee”). Recitals 1. The State has a grant contract with the Grantee identified as #147299/3000140570 dated October 2, 2018 (”Original Grant Contract ”) to provide funding for a public comprehensive long term flood mitigation effort referred to as the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan. 2. Minnesota Session Laws 2018 Chapter 214, Article 1, Section 7, subdivision 3 and Minnesota Session Laws 2020, 5th Special Session Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 7, subdivision 3 appropriate funds for flood hazard mitigation projects. 3. The State and Grantee agree additional time, funding and change of scope are necessary to complete the work for which State Flood Hazard Mitigation funding was appropriated. 4. The State and the Grantee are willing to amend the Original Grant Contract as stated below. Grant Contract Amendment REVISION 1. Clause 1.2 “Expiration date” is amended as follows: 1.2 Expiration date: December 31, 20212023, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. REVISION 2. Clause 2 “Grantee’s Duties” is amended as follows: The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will be responsible for: Engineering, design, acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of a community flood risk reduction project phases referred to as De Cola Ponds B and C Expansion & Pennsylvania Woods Flood Mitigation Projects and SEA School Flood Storage, as described in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long–Term Flood Mitigation Plan dated May 31, 2016, and the Grantee’s application for state funding assistance dated December 29, 2016. Property acquired or bettered by the Grantee shall remain in permanent public ownership. The Grantee agrees that the land shall be used only for public purposes compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands or stormwater management practices per adopted State and local floodplain and shoreland management ordinances. All project expenses not identified as being related to work outlined above, or as subsequently amended in this agreement, must be approved by the State in writing prior to the Grantee incurring said expense. REVISION 3. Clause 4.1(a) “Compensation” is amended as follows: (a) Compensation. The Grantee will be reimbursed 50% for eligible project expenses, not to exceed $3,600,000.00 $2,300,000.00. Grantee must provide a match equal to the State’s contribution. REVISION 4. Clause 20 “Jobs Reporting” is amended as follows: Jobs Reporting Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16A.633, subd. 4, the Grantee shall collect, maintain and, upon co mpletion of the project, provide the information to the State on forms provided by the State. The information must include the number and types of jobs created by the project, whether the jobs are new or retained, where the jobs are located, and pay ranges of the jobs . Except as amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Original Grant remain in full force and effect. 1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. '' 16A.15 and 16C.05 Signed: Date: SWIFT Contract/PO No(s). 147299/3000140570 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: SHEPARD M HARRIS, MAYOR Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 By: Title: TIMOTHY J CRUIKSHANK, CITY MANAGER Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 3. STATE AGENCY By: Title: Director, Ecological & Water Resources Date: Distribution: Agency Grantee State’s Authorized Representative 1 BA295-1-741239.v3 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Reduction Project BC-2, 3, 8, 10) This Cooperative Agreement (“Agreement”) is made as of this 21st day of September 2021 by and between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization (“Commission”), and the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”). The Commission and the City may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.” RECITALS A. The Commission adopted the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Watershed Management Plan on September 17, 2015 (“Plan”), a watershed management plan within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231. B. The Plan includes a capital improvement program (CIP) that lists a number of capital improvements including the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Implementation, which includes as a component the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Reduction Project (“Project”). C. The Project is in the City of Golden Valley and will be designed and constructed as described in the feasibility report for the Project prepared by Barr Engineering Co. entitled SEA School- Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project, dated June 2021 (“Feasibility Report”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Project will consist of the work identified in the Feasibility Report as Concept 3 – Wet Meadow. D. The estimated planning level opinion of cost of the Project, including feasibility study, design, and construction, is $3.1 million. E. The Plan specifies that the Project will be partially funded, up to $1.3 million, by the Commission. F. On September 16, 2021, the Commission adopted a resolution ordering the Project and directing that it be constructed by the City. G. In accordance with the Plan, the first portion of Project costs were certified to Hennepin County, which will levy taxes throughout the watershed for Project costs in 2021 for collection and settlement in 2022, and the Commission intends to certify the remaining portion of Project costs to Hennepin County in 2022 for collection and settlement in 2023, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.251. H. The City is willing to construct the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. I. 2 BA295-1-741239.v3 AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Project. The Project will consist of the work identified as Concept 3 – Wet Meadow in Section 5.3 and 8.0 of the Feasibility Report, plus appendices, which includes installing a vegetated basin with iron-enhanced sand trenches (biofiltration basin), installing a diversion manhole with a weir on Duluth Street to divert water into the biofiltration basin area, restoring areas that are expected to be inundated during the 2-year 24-hour Atlas-14 storm event with wet meadow habitat, restoring areas adjacent to the wet meadow with native prairie grasses, increasing the total flood mitigation volume by approximately 8.5 ac-ft from existing conditions through excavation and regrading on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties, modifying the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E, along with other modifications, improvements, and vegetation management, all as specified in the Feasibility Report. 2. Condition of Commission Funding. A condition precedent of the Commission’s obligations under this Agreement is that the City receives or commits funding from other sources as needed to fully fund the portion of the Project costs not being reimbursed by the Commission under this Agreement. The City shall provide such documentation to the Commission as may reasonably be needed to demonstrate that the additional funding has been secured before the Commission will take any actions in furtherance of this Agreement or make any reimbursement payments. 3. Design and Plans. The City will design the Project and prepare plans and specifications for construction of the Project. The 50% and 90% plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Commission for approval in accordance with the Commission’s CIP project review process. Any changes to the Commission-approved 90% plans and specification must be submitted to the Commission and shall require written approval of the Commission’s engineer following a reasonable review period, which shall be no less than 10 business days. Minor change orders may be approved by the City without requiring additional approvals by the Commission. For purposes of this paragraph, “minor change orders” shall mean those changes to the approved plans that do not materially change either the effectiveness of the Project to meet its intended purposes, the aesthetics, form, or function of the Project, or the environmental impacts of the Project. 4. Contract Administration. The City will advertise for bids and award contracts in accordance with the requirements of applicable law. The City will award the contract and supervise and administer the construction of the Project to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The contract may only be let to a responsible contractor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.285 and the City will require the contractor to provide all payment and performance bonds required by law. The City will further require the contractor to name the Commission as additional insured on all liability policies required by the City and the Commission shall be given the same notification of cancellation or non-renewal as is given to the City. The City will require the contractor to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission and the City, their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from negligent acts, errors or omissions of the contractor. The City will supervise the work of the 3 BA295-1-741239.v3 contractor. However, the Commission may observe and review the work of the Project until it is completed. The City will display a sign at the construction site stating “Paid for by the Taxpayers of the Bassett Creek Watershed.” 5. Contract Payments. The City will pay the contractor and all other expenses related to the construction of the Project and keep and maintain complete records of such costs incurred. 6. Commission Reimbursement. The Commission will use its best efforts to secure payment from the County in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.251 in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) by tax levy in 2021 for collection in 2022 and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) by tax levy in 2022 for collection in 2023. The total reimbursement paid by the Commission to the City for the Project may not exceed the total amount levied, anticipated to be One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,300,000), less Commission expenses. Out- of-pocket costs incurred and paid by the Commission related to the Project including but not limited feasibility studies, publication of notices, securing County tax levy, preparation of contracts, review of engineering designs, review of proposed contract documents, grant application development, grant administration, administration of this contract, and up to a 2.5% administrative charge shall be repaid from the amount specified above from funds received in the tax settlement from Hennepin County. All such levied funds in excess of such expenses are available for reimbursement to the City for costs incurred by the City in the design and construction of the Project. Reimbursement to the City will be made as soon as funds are available, provided a request for payment has been received from the City that contains such detailed information as may be requested by the Commission to substantiate costs and expenses. The City shall complete and submit with its final reimbursement request to the Commission a final report on the Project using the Commission’s final reporting form and providing such other information as may be requested by the Commission. 7. Limits on Reimbursement. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount specified above from the amount received from the County for the Project, less any amounts retained by the Commission for Commission expenses. Reimbursement will not be increased by grants or other revenues received by the Commission for the Project. Reimbursement will not exceed the costs and expenses incurred by the City for the Project, less any amounts the City receives for the Project as grants from other sources. All costs of the Project incurred by the City in excess of such reimbursement, shall be borne by the City or secured by the City from other sources. 8. Audit. All City books, records, documents, and accounting procedures related to the Project are subject to examination by the Commission and either the State Auditor or the Legislative Auditor for at least six years after completion of the Project. 9. Environmental Review. The City will perform all necessary investigations of site contamination and secure all necessary local, state, or federal permits required for the construction of the Project and will not proceed with the Project until any required environmental review and remediation of site contamination is completed or a plan for remediation is approved by appropriate regulatory agencies. 4 BA295-1-741239.v3 10. Ongoing Maintenance. Upon completion of the Project, the City shall be responsible for its ongoing maintenance. The City agrees to perform, at its cost, such maintenance as may be required to sustain the proper functioning of the improvements constructed as part of the Project for their useful life. 11. Data Practices. The City shall retain and make available data related to the letting of contracts and construction of the Project in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 12. Term. This Agreement shall be in effect as of the date first written above and shall terminate once the Project is completed and the Commission has completed its reimbursement payments to the City as provided herein. 13. Entire Agreement. The above recitals and the exhibits attached hereto are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties regarding this matter and no amendments or other modifications of its terms are valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on behalf of the parties as of the day and date first above written. BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION By:__________________________________ Its Chair And by:______________________________ Its Secretary Date:_________________________________ 5 BA295-1-741239.v3 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: _________________________________ SHEPARD M HARRIS, MAYOR And by: ______________________________ TIMOTHY J. CRUIKSHANK CITY MANAGER Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 6 BA295-1-741239.v3 EXHIBIT A Feasibility Report [attached hereto] SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Feasibility Study Golden Valley, Minnesota June 2021 Prepared for Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone: 952.832.2600 Fax: 952.832.2601 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Feasibility Study Golden Valley, Minnesota June 2021 Prepared for Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\SEA School Feasibility_BCWMC_FINAL_2021.06.docx i SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Feasibility Study June 2021 Contents 1.0 Executive summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Site conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Project alternatives ................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Relationship to Watershed Management Plan ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.5 Project impacts and estimated costs ............................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 1-8 2.0 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project area description ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Goals and objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Considerations .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 Site conditions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Proposed Project Location and Characteristics ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Existing Flooding Conditions ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Site access .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.3 Environmental Review ........................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.4 Topographic, Utility, and Tree Surveys........................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.5 Wetland Delineations ............................................................................................................................ 3-5 3.1.5.1 Wetland Description ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.7 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 3-6 4.0 Stakeholder input ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Public Stakeholder Meetings .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Public Stakeholder Input – DeCola Ponds E & F Planning Study ........................................ 4-1 4.1.2 Public Stakeholder Input – SEA School-Wildwood Park Feasibility Study ....................... 4-2 4.1.2.1 City of Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission ...................... 4-2 4.1.2.2 Public Presentation and Virtual Open House ........................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 City of Golden Valley Meeting with Robbinsdale Area Schools/SEA School .................. 4-3 4.2 Technical Stakeholder Meeting ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 ii 5.0 Concepts Evaluated............................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Concept 1— Underground Storage with Stream ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Concept 2— Open Water ..................................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Concept 3— Wet Meadow .................................................................................................................................. 5-4 6.0 Project Modeling Results and Potential Impacts .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Water Quality Modeling ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Available Models ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 XP-SWMM Flood Elevation Results ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.3 P8 Water Quality Modeling Results................................................................................................. 6-6 6.2 Wetland and Upland Creation and Restoration .......................................................................................... 6-6 6.3 Open Water Area Creation .................................................................................................................................. 6-7 6.4 Easement acquisition ............................................................................................................................................. 6-7 6.5 Permits required for the project ........................................................................................................................ 6-7 6.5.1 Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification ..................................................................... 6-8 6.5.2 Construction Stormwater General Permit ..................................................................................... 6-8 6.5.3 Guidance for Managing Contaminated Soils and Debris-Containing Fill ........................ 6-8 6.5.4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act ............................................................................................ 6-8 6.5.5 Stormwater Management Permit ..................................................................................................... 6-8 6.5.6 Right-of-Way Management (ROW) Permit .................................................................................. 6-9 6.6 Other project impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 6-9 6.6.1 Temporary Closure of Walking Trails and Playground ............................................................ 6-9 6.6.2 Temporary Closure of SEA School Driveway ............................................................................... 6-9 6.6.3 Tree Removals .......................................................................................................................................... 6-9 6.6.4 Impacts to Bats ........................................................................................................................................ 6-9 7.0 Project cost considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Opinion of Cost ........................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.1 Temporary easements .......................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Wetland mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 7-2 7.1.3 Maintenance considerations .............................................................................................................. 7-2 7.1.4 30-year cost .............................................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.1.5 Annualized pollutant reduction cost ............................................................................................... 7-4 7.1.6 Miscellaneous costs ............................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2 Funding sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.3 Project schedule ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-5 8.0 Alternatives assessment and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 8-1 9.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 iii List of Tables Table 1-1 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Impacts Summary .................................................... 1-7 Table 3-1 City of Golden Valley Tree Ordinance Definitions ............................................................................ 3-5 Table 6-1 SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Concept Matrix Summary ..................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Project Area Key Flood Areas and Flood Elevation Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 6-4 Table 6-3 Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Project Area At-Risk1 Properties ...................... 6-5 Table 7-1 Estimated Operations and Maintenance Tasks and Annual Costs ............................................. 7-3 Table 8-1 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Impacts Summary .................................................... 8-3 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Project Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-2 DeCola Ponds Watershed Divides ........................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 3-1 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................................ 3-8 Figure 5-1 Conceptual Design 1 – Underground Storage with Stream ......................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-2 Proposed Flow Patterns ............................................................................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3 Conceptual Design 2 – Open Water ....................................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-4 Conceptual Design 3 – Wet Meadow .................................................................................................. 5-10 List of Appendices Appendix A Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B Feasibility Level Cost Estimates iv Certifications I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 6/8/2021 Jennifer Koehler, PE PE #: 47500 Date 1-1 1.0 Executive summary 1.1 Background The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission’s (BCWMC) current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Table 5-3 in the 2015-2025 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan, as revised) includes BC-2, 3, 8, 10: Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan (MLRWA Plan) Project. The second phase of this CIP project is the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project (BC-10), the subject of this feasibility study. At the August 2020 meeting the Commission approved the BCWMC Engineer’s proposal to conduct a feasibility study for this project. The SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project builds on the City of Golden Valley’s Liberty Crossing flood mitigation and conveyance project that was completed in 2017 and the DeCola Ponds B & C flood mitigation project that was completed in spring 2020 in collaboration with the BCWMC. Both of these previous projects were implemented as recommended in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan Report (Barr, 2016). The City of Golden Valley city council is also supportive of the SEA School-Wildwood Park flood mitigation study (and the larger long-term flood mitigation plan) with the flood mitigation projects identified in the plan being included in the City of Golden Valley’s CIP and in the City’s 2021 Legislative Priorities. In 2020, the City of Golden Valley conducted a planning-level study for the SEA School-Wildwood Park flood mitigation study to begin stakeholder and public engagement efforts early to inform the direction of the concepts. As is required for BCWMC CIP Projects, a feasibility study must be completed prior to BCWMC holding a hearing and ordering the project. This study examines the feasibility of developing flood storage volumes within Wildwood Park and on the adjacent School of Engineering & Arts (SEA school) property, developing additional water quality treatment volume, modifying existing storm sewer on Duluth Street, and modifying the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. The goal of the project is to reduce flooding on DeCola Ponds D, E, and F and to improve water quality by trapping additional sediment and pollutants in open water or filtration basins and expanded storage areas, thus minimizing sediment and nutrients passing downstream to Bassett Creek. The proposed project will also improve ecology and wildlife habitat, enhance active and passive recreation opportunities, and provide educational opportunities. Three conceptual flood mitigation designs were investigated during this feasibility study. The first conceptual design examined a scenario utilizing subsurface storage with a permanent pool for water quality treatment and a meandering stream, wet meadows, and prairie habitat for flood storage. The second conceptual design incorporates a wet retention pond for water quality treatment and wet meadows, prairie habitat, and depressed turf areas for flood storage. The third conceptual design examined the benefits of iron enhanced biofiltration for water quality treatment and a combination of wet meadows, prairie habitat, and depressed turf areas for flood storage. Permitting requirements for each conceptual design were reviewed and cost estimates are provided. The proposed SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project was identified as a priority in the MLRWA Plan and is proposed as “Phase 2” of this CIP project to mitigate flooding and improve water quality in the 1-2 Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds area. If ordered, the CIP calls for implementing the project in 2022 and 2023. The BCWMC CIP funding (ad valorem tax levied by Hennepin County on behalf of the BCWMC), is not the sole source of funding for this project. The remainder of the funding will come from a variety of sources, including the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota Depar tment of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Flood Damage Reduction Grant program, and other sources (e.g. other grants, as appropriate). 1.2 Site conditions The SEA School and Wildwood Park are located in the City of Golden Valley south of Duluth Street and west of Kelly Drive. This area consists of deciduous forest, a wooded knoll, turfed green space, paved walking trails, and various sporting facilities (e.g., pickleball courts, playground) (Figure 2-1). The park is used heavily by the single family and multi-family residential communities surrounding the area. The SEA School students and teachers also utilize the park for the outdoor playground and for outdoor learning activities. As part of the City of Golden Valley’s SEA School-Wildwood Park Planning Study completed in 2020, city staff engaged with facilities and teaching staff at the SEA school. The SEA School administrators support the flood storage project. Modifications of the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E are also included as part of this study. The existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E is located under Winnetka Heights Drive and between existing residential parcels. DeCola Ponds D and E are not listed as MnDNR public waters. Modifications to the storm sewer are not anticipated to have an impact on the normal water levels (NWLs) of DeCola Pond D or E. Adequate drainage easements already exist on the residential parcels on the south end of DeCola Pond D and the north end of DeCola Pond E for the storm sewer modifications. A temporary easement is anticipated for this outlet modification. DeCola Ponds D and E discharge downstream to DeCola Pond F, which continues to Honeywell Pond and ultimately discharges to Bassett Creek. Currently, stormwater runoff from the SEA School-Wildwood Park parcels discharge either to DeCola Pond E or through storm sewer to Honeywell Pond. Any improvements to runoff water quality within the SEA School-Wildwood Park areas will result in improvements to the Main Stem of Bassett Creek which is currently listed as impaired. The affected use is aquatic life based on fish bioassessments, and although a stressor identification study has not been completed to determine the exact cause of this impairment, reductions in sediment and pollutant loads to the creek can li kely help address this impairment. As part of this study, wetland delineations on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties and around DeCola Ponds D and E were completed. Topographic and tree surveys were also completed. Furthermore , desktop reviews of cultural resources, threatened and endangered species databases, and environmental databases were finalized. The results of these studies were utilized as much as applicable to define the conceptual designs and quantify impacts for this feasibility study. This information can be found in Section 3.1. 1-3 1.3 Project alternatives The BCWMC Engineer evaluated three conceptual designs for developing flood storage volume within the SEA School and Wildwood Park properties. All three concepts incorporated various configurations of wet meadows, depressed turf, and prairie habitats to provide flood storage. The method used for water quality treatment varied between each concept. Concept 1 investigates the use of subsurface storage with a permanent pool to capture sediment and particulate contaminants. Concept 2 incorporates an open water retention pond to improve water quality and Concept 3 utilizes a biofiltration basin with iron enhance sand filtration (IESF) trenches to help remove particulate and dissolved contaminants. In addition to expanding flood storage within varying footprints within the project area and providing various best management practices (BMPs) for water quality improvement , measures considered for potential implementation in all scenarios included the following: o Re-aligning the SEA School Driveway so that the intersection aligns with Maryland Avenue North. This allows for additional flood storage volume to extend from Wildwood Park onto the SEA School property. o Diverting the majority of stormwater runoff that currently discharges to the south end of DeCola Pond E to discharge into the proposed storage in Wildwood Park (modifying storm sewer on Duluth Street). o Increasing the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E to a 48”-diameter pipe to reduce flood levels. o Restoring areas that are frequently inundated (≤ 2-year Atlas-14 event) as wetland habitats. All areas outside of this will be restored as prairie habitat or turfed habitat. o Preserving trees on the large knoll in Wildwood Park. Some tree removal is expected within project area. However, upland areas will be restored with native vegetation and replanted with trees at a density potentially ranging from savanna (~35 trees/acre) to forest (~110 trees/acre) – to be determined during final design. o Relocating the SEA School orchard trees. o Replacing disturbed trails that may be impacted during construction with ADA-compliant trails to preserve park use, improve walking trail opportunities, and provide maintenance access. o Protecting existing, highly used park infrastructure within the project area, such as the pickleball courts, the playground, and the sledding hill. The alternatives are discussed in more detail in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. 1.4 Relationship to Watershed Management Plan The BCWMC included the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project in its CIP, based on the following “gatekeeper” policy from the BCWMC Plan. Those items in bold italics represent those that directly apply to this project. 1-4 110. The BCWMC will consider including projects in the CIP that meet one or more of the follo wing “gatekeeper” criteria. • Project is part of the BCWMC trunk system (see Section 2.8.1, Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15 of the report) • Project improves or protects water quality in a priority waterbody • Project addresses an approved TMDL or watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPS) • Project addresses flooding concern The BCWMC will use the following criteria, in addition to those listed above, to aid in the prioritization of projects: • Project protects or restores previous Commission investm ents in infrastructure • Project addresses intercommunity drainage issues • Project addresses erosion and sedimentation issues • Project will address multiple Commission goals (e.g., water quality, runoff volume, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, recreation, etc.) • Subwatershed draining to project includes more than one community • Addresses significant infrastructure or property damage concerns The BCWMC will place a higher priority on projects that incorporate multiple benefits, and will seek opportunities to incorporate multiple benefits into BCWMC projects, as opportunities allow. The SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project meets multiple gatekeeper criteria— the project addresses flooding concerns (main objective) and the project will improve water quality by reducing the amount of sediment and pollutants that reach Bassett Creek. Additionally, this project will address intercommunity drainage concerns as multiple communities (the Cities of Golden Valley, Crystal, and New Hope) are within the project’s subwatershed. In addition to meeting “gatekeeper” criteria, the project will address multiple Commission goals by capturing increased runoff volume, enhancing water quality, providing recreation opportunities, and improving wildlife habitat. 1.5 Project impacts and estimated costs Potential impacts of the proposed project (increasing the flood storage and water quality treatment volumes within SEA School/Wildwood Park and increasing the storm sewer size between DeCola Ponds D and E) are summarized in Table 1-1. Of the project impacts, the most significant consideration is the creation of additional flood storage volume, the impact on flood elevations. and reductions in the number of structures at risk of flooding. One of the main purposes of the proposed SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project is to lower the flood depths on DeCola Ponds D, E, and F to protect structures around this area. The SEA School- 1-5 Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project would build on the Liberty Crossing and DeCola Ponds B &C Flood Mitigation Projects implemented by the City of Golden Valley and the BCWMC. These projects helped to lower the 100-year flood elevations on the Medicine Lake Road to allow the safe passage of emergency vehicles and reduced the number of structures at-risk of flooding around DeCola Ponds A, B, and C, along Medicine Lake Road, and within Rosalyn Court. The proposed feasibility concept designs for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project aim to improve upon the flood reductions resulting from the Liberty Crossing and DeCola Ponds B & C Flood Mitigation Projects. This project will focus on reducing flood elevations specifically on the downstream DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. The XP-SWMM hydrologic modeling results for this project indicate that for all three concepts, all ten structures are expected to no longer be at-risk of flooding during the 100-year event on DeCola Pond D. For DeCola Ponds E and F, three structures are removed from being at-risk for the 10-year and 25-year storm events. While reductions in the 50-year and 100-year flood elevations (-0.1 to -0.3 feet, respectively) on DeCola Ponds E and F are anticipated, the reductions in flood elevations do not result in a reduction the number of at-risk structures for these larger storm events. A future project identified in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood mitigation plan (and included in the BCWMC CIP) is intended to have a more significant impact on flood reductions on DeCola Ponds E & F. That project is included under CIP #BC-10 and is slated to have a feasibility study completed in 2023 and if approved, constructed in 2025-2026. For Concepts 1 and 2, the proposed projects will result in increased permanent pool volume and sediment storage volume on the Wildwood Park property, therefore, reducing sediment and particulate phosphorus loading to the main stem of Bassett Creek and all downstream water bodies, including the Mississippi River. For Concept 3, the proposed project will result in the inclusion of a biofiltration basin with iron- enhanced sand filtration (IESF) trenches on the Wildwood Park property, therefore, reducing sediment and particulate and dissolved phosphorus loading to downstream features. Section 6.0 presents estimates of existing pollutant loadings. It’s estimated this project would remove an additional 1.6 to 4.1 pounds per year, depending on the concept. To develop the flood storage volume, some tree removals within the project area will be required. Because a portion of the project area is within a public park and is a popular walking area, community resistance to tree removal is a concern. Wetland and upland restoration, including planting of new trees and shrubs, will occur in all areas disturbed by construction, and many existing trees will be preserved in key areas, such as the wooded knoll within Wildwood Park. The City of Golden Valley Forester has also stated that some of the trees recently planted may be candidates for transplanting. The existing orchard on the SEA School property that is currently in the anticipated disturbance limits will be relocated under all concept scenarios. Table 1-1 presents the feasibility-level opinion of costs for implementing the various concepts for the 2022-2023 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. This table also lists the 30-year annualized total phosphorus reduction costs (based on the estimated cost of the water quality improvement work only) and the project costs per acre foot of flood mitigation volume created. 1-6 The cost per pound of phosphorus removed for this project using the current P8 model analysis is high when compared to other BCWMC CIP projects—for example, previous high costs per pound of phosphorus removed for a BCWMC CIP project w ere $5,900 for the Northwood Lake Improvement Project and $9,600 for the DeCola Ponds B&C project. The high cost per pound of phosphorus removed for this project is due to do the fact that the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project’s primary goal is to mitigate flooding and to mitigate the water quality treatment lost from diverting stormwater away from DeCola Ponds E and F. A major portion of the construction costs are for the creation of flood storage volume, for the restoration of the graded areas, and for the mitigation of lost water quality from re- routing stormwater runoff rather than for water quality improvement. Concept 1 is particularly high because water quality improvement includes the installation of subsurface storage to achieve the water quality treatment. The BCWMC CIP includes $1.3 million for this project. Additional funding for this project will come from a DNR Flood Damage Reduction Grant, the city of Golden Valley, and other possible grants. For a complete summary of the estimated impacts, permitting requirements, disposal of contaminated sediment, closure of pedestrian trails, and costs of the concepts, including the methodology and assumptions used for the cost estimate, refer to Section 6.0, Section 7.0, and Table 6-1. 1-7 Table 1-1 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Impacts Summary Category Item Existing Conditions Concept 1: Underground Storage with Stream Concept 2: Open Water Concept 3: Wet Meadow Flood Mitigation Increase in Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) (SEA School/Wildwood) - 9.1 8.6 8.5 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (10-year) 9 6 6 6 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year) 29 19 19 19 Water Quality Increase in Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft) - 0.8 0.8 0.2 Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) - 1.6 1.8 4.1 Trees Tree Removal Estimate SEA School/Wildwood Park - 72 81 81 Tree Removal Estimate between DeCola Ponds D and E - 3 3 3 # of Significant Trees Removed 110 48 57 57 # of Orchard Trees Removed/Relocated 11 11 11 11 Tree Planting Estimate - 35 - 70 35 - 80 35 - 80 Restoration Restored Wetland Area (ac) - 0.6 0.3 0.8 Restored Prairie Area (ac) - 1.1 0.9 1.4 Restored Turf Open Green Space (ac) - 1.2 1.3 0.7 Project Costs Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost - $ 4.1 million $2.9 million $3.1 million Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume - $451,900 $329,800 $360,000 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment) - $53,200 $5,700 $5,900 1-8 1.6 Recommendations Although there is some variation in the flood mitigation volume between the three concepts (ranging from 8.5 to 9.1 acre-ft), the modeling demonstrated that the difference in the flood reduction in DeCola Ponds D, E, and F is minimal and does not change the number of structures at risk of flooding among the three concepts. Therefore, in terms of flood reduction benefits, Concepts 1, 2, and 3 perform equally. Each of the concepts include opportunities to improve water quality and provide additional pollutant removal beyond the existing conditions. Concepts 1 and 2, which relied on wet retention for the removal of particulates, are estimated to remove 1.6 and 1.8 additional pounds of phosphorus per year, respectively. Concept 3, which relies on iron-enhanced sand filtration, is able to remove both particulate and dissolved total phosphorus and is estimated to remove an additional 4.1 pounds of total phosphorus per year. Based on review of the project impacts and benefits for each of the three concepts, the overall project costs, and comments received from BCWMC staff, City of Golden Valley staff (e.g., Open Space and Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission), SEA School representatives, the neighborhood, park users, and the general public during the feasibility study process, the BCWMC Engineer recommends constructing Concept 3, with the following features with noted additional considerations during final design: • Upsizing the outlet from DeCola Pond D with design and restoration in coordination with impacted property owners and City maintenance staff. • Diverting runoff from Pennsylvania Ave and Duluth Street toward the water quality treatment and flood storage in the Wildwood Park/SEA School properties, including pretreatment of flows • Providing an iron-enhanced sand filtration basin, considering a design that integrates vegetation/screening between the filtration trenches • Developing approximately 8.5 acre-feet of flood storage, with an overflow berm and extended detention outlet in the northeast corner of the project area, discharging to the storm sewer system at the corner of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive • Incorporating a low wet meadow habitat area, exploring opportunities to promotes better drainage toward the proposed outlet • Replacing disturbed trails with an accessible looped walking trail around the site that is above the ~10 year event elevation or higher to make the trail more accessible, reduce maintenance, and provide maintenance access to the stormwater features. Additionally, the trail alignments and design should consider an east-west trail connection from Kelly Drive to the park interior (i.e. the playground), should consider future access and space needs around the pickleball courts, and consider future safe routes to school alignments along Kelly Drive. • Restoring a variety of habitat types and replanting trees, to mitigate tree loss and provide shade in specific locations 1-9 • Realigning of the northern SEA School Driveway with Maryland Avenue, continuing to coordinate design with SEA School staff and evaluating specific items requested during final design. Also, phasing construction in this area to minimize impacts to SEA School access and operations. • Preserving key park features in including the pickleball courts, the playground area, the wooded knoll, the sledding hill, and open turf areas for various recreation activities and gathering (e.g. the northeast corner of the park). The planning level cost for Concept 3 is $3.1 million (-20%/+30%). The planning level budget that the BCWMC and the City of Golden Valley have been using for budgeting is $2.7 – 3.0 million (-20%/+40%). The project will be funded by a variety of funding sources. The BCWMC proposes to use $1.3 million of its CIP funds to help pay for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. The CIP funds are raised through an ad valorem tax levied by Hennepin County on behalf of the BCWMC. For this project, $300,000 is proposed to be levied in 2022 and $1 million levied in 2023. To make up the difference, other sources of funding for this project are required and include: • City of Golden Valley, • MnDNR Flood Damage Reduction Grants ($1.3 million through the state legislature/project bonding bill for this project), • Other sources, including potential grants that could be applied for through the design process (e.g. Hennepin County Natural Resource Opportunity grants) 2-1 2.0 Background and objectives The BCWMC’s current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Table 5-3 in the 2015-2025 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan, as amended in 2018) includes projects BC-2, BC-3, BC-8, and BC-10, Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Project. This large CIP project is split into three separate phases, all located in the City of Golden Valley. In 2020, the City constructed Phase I, the DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project . Phase II, this project, the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project (BC-10), is slated for construction beginning in 2022. Phase III, the DeCola Pond F Flood Storage & Diversion Project, is slated for construction in 2025. The BCWMC approved the 5-year (working) CIP at their March 2020 meeting, which includes implementation of Phase II, the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. At their August 2020 meeting, the Commission approved the Commission Engineer’s proposal to conduct a feasibility study for the SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. The SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project builds on the City of Golden Valley’s Liberty Crossing flood mitigation and conveyance project, completed in 2017, and the DeCola Ponds B & C flood mitigation project, completed in spring 2020 in collaboration with the BCWMC. Both previous projects were implemented as recommended in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan Report (MLRWA Plan) (Barr, 2016). The City of Golden Valley city council supports the SEA School-Wildwood Park flood mitigation study (and the larger long-term flood mitigation plan), as evidenced by the inclusion of flood mitigation projects identified in the MLRWA Plan in the City of Golden Valley’s CIP. Also, in 2020, the City of Golden Valley conducted a planning-level study for the SEA School- Wildwood Park flood mitigation project to begin early stakeholder and public engagement efforts to inform the direction of the concepts. In 2016, the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal developed a long-term flood mitigation plan (Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan) to address chronic flooding since the 1970s around the DeCola Ponds and on Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and other streets near the ponds. That plan outlined critical flood mitigation project locations and planning - level costs that could be used to direct future efforts. The study assessed eight (8) flood storage mitigation projects, including locations in Yunker Park (Crystal), Roslyn Court (New Hope), and the Liberty Crossing Development, Pennsylvania Woods/DeCola Ponds B and C, Isaacson Park/Sandburg Industrial Parcels, and the School of Engineering and Arts (from here forward referred to as the SEA School) (Golden Valley). These specific areas were analyzed as they are expected to have the most significant impact on flood elevation reductions. The City of Golden Valley worked in partnership with a private developer for the construction of the first flood mitigation alternative at the Liberty Crossing Development. Construction was completed in 2017. Additionally, the city worked in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and the BCWMC to implement the second project, the DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project, that expanded flood storage around DeCola Ponds B & C and established the connection to the storage developed as part of the Liberty Crossing development project. Project construction and 2-2 restoration was completed in 2020. In 2016, the City of Crystal also developed additional flood storage in Yunker Park. These three projects lowered peak water surface elevations along the low point on Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds A, B, and C. However, high water levels are also a concern for residents surrounding DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. Additional flood mitigation projects, such as the project discussed in this feasibility study, are needed to lower peak flood elevations on these ponds. 2.1 Project area description The SEA School and Wildwood Park are located in the City of Golden Valley south of Duluth Street and west of Kelly Drive. This area consists of deciduous forest, a wooded knoll, turfed green space, paved walking trails, and various sporting facilities (e.g., pickleball courts, playground). The park is used heavily by the single family and multi-family residential communities in the surrounding area. The SEA School students and teachers also utilize the park for outdoor learning activities. The SEA School-Wildwood Park area was selected as a potential flood mitigation site because of its proximity to the flooding problems, the publicly-owned land, the availability of open space to develop additional flood storage, and the opportunities to incorporate water quality treatment, develop habitat, and provide educational opportunities for the SEA School students, families, and park users. This study also includes modifications of the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. The existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E is located under Winnetka Heights Drive and between existing residential parcels. Modifications to the storm sewer are not anticipated to have an impact on the normal water levels (NWLs) of DeCola Ponds D or E. DeCola Ponds D and E discharge downstream to DeCola Pond F, which ultimately discharges to Bassett Creek. Currently, stormwater runoff from the SEA School/Wildwood Park parcels discharge either to DeCola Pond E through storm sewer on Duluth street (west of Kelly Drive) or through storm sewer towards Honeywell Pond. Any improvements to runoff water quality within the SEA School/Wildwood Park areas will result in improvements to the Main Stem of Bassett Creek, which is currently listed as impaired. The affected use is aquatic life based on fish bioassessments, and although a stressor identification study has not been completed to determine the exact cause of this impairment, reductio ns in sediment and pollutant loads to the creek can likely help address this impairment. Figure 2-1 shows the SEA School/Wildwood Park and DeCola Ponds D and E project areas. Figure 2-2 shows the DeCola Ponds tributary watershed areas. 2.2 Goals and objectives The goals and objectives of the feasibility study are to: 1. Review the feasibility of creating additional flood storage and water quality treatment areas in the SEA School/Wildwood Park project areas, and identify and evaluate three alternatives. 2-3 2. Develop three conceptual designs, including preliminary grading in AutoCAD Civil 3D, modeling hydrology and hydraulics using XP-SWMM, and modeling water quality improvements using P8. 3. Provide a planning level opinion of cost for design and construction of the alternatives. 4. Identify potential project impacts and permitting requirements. 5. Develop visual representations of the three alternatives for public input. The goals and objectives of the flood mitigation project are to: 1. Create additional flood mitigation volume in the project area to help reduce flood elevations and flood damage to structures, properties, and infrastructure around DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. 2. Divert the majority of stormwater runoff from the storm sewer that runs along Duluth Street into the proposed flood storage volume on the SEA School and Wildwood Park properties. Stormwater runoff diverted to the SEA school/Wildwood Park properties will be detained and slowly released to the existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive, which will allow the stored volume to bypass DeCola Ponds E and F. 3. Provide water quality treatment best management practices to r educe sediment and phosphorus loading to the Main Stem of Bassett Creek and improve water quality in the downstream MnDNR public waters. 4. Preserve the significant trees on the wooded knoll located in the northeast corner of Wildwood Park. Preserve existing park features, such as the pickle ball court, the playground, and the sledding hill. 5. Restore natural habitat quality and species diversification by restoring wetland and upland habitat within the project disturbance limits, including investigation of various flooding frequencies for the restoration of habitat within the nature area (e.g., wetland meadows) and increased educational opportunities. 6. Replace disturbed trails with accessible trails that are positioned above the 10-year flood frequency event to ensure at least one loop of the Wildwood Park trails can be utilized following larger precipitation events for park users and for maintenance access. The trails will also allow the natural habitat and park features to be enjoyed more frequently by the public. 7. Modify the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E to a 48” diameter pipe that will reduce the maximum water surface elevations for larger storm events on DeCola Pond D, while also ensuring no increase in downstream flood elevations. 2.3 Scope The feasibility study addresses and includes the feasibility study criteria adopted by the BCWMC in October 2013: • Analysis of multiple alternatives within the context of Commission objectives, including the following for each alternative: o Pros and cons analysis 2-4 o Cost estimate for construction and a “30-year cost” o Analysis of life expectancy o Summary of each alternative for the Commission to judge its merits o Cost estimate for annualized cost per pound of pollutant removal o Evaluation of new and/or innovative approaches o Identification of permitting requirements The BCWMC developed the above criteria when the BCWMC’s CIP was limited to water quality improvement projects, so they do not specifically address flood mitigation aspects of CIP projects. Therefore, in addition to the criteria above, the following will also be analyzed as part of each alternative: • Evaluate the flood reduction benefits of each alternative, including acre-feet of additional flood storage provided, lowering of 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 -yr flood elevations at key locations, and quantification of homes and other structures and infrastructure impacted (e.g., homes/households no longer within 1% annual chance floodplain, reduced inundation depth at adjacent roadways, etc.). As is required for BCWMC CIP Projects, a feasibility study must be completed prior to BCWMC holding a public hearing and ordering the project. This feasibility study developed conceptual designs of the flood mitigation project, reviewed the permitting requirements, reviewed the field investigation results, and developed concept plans and cost estimates for the project. The BCWMC completed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 2009 through which the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the BCWMC agreed on a series of steps, work items, deliverables (called “protocols”) that must be accomplished and submitted to complete the RMP process and USACE review/approval process. Although this project was not included in the RMP, the USACE has allowed the RMP protocols to be applied to other projects not specifically included in the RMP. With the completion of the protocols, we expect the USACE application process to move more quickly than it would otherwise. Most of the protocols must be addressed as part of the feasibility study, in addition to the usual tasks that would be performed as part of a BCWMC feasibility study. In general, the protocols require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Compliance with Section 106 typically requires a cultural resources inventory. In addition to the tasks above, the feasibility study included identifying wetland impacts to meet the RMP pre-application protocols and gathering stakeholder input. The BCWMC Engineer worked with the BCWMC Administrator and City of Golden Valley staff to identify and implement effective measures for gathering input from the public and other affected stakeholders. 2.4 Considerations Key considerations for project alternatives included: 1. Maximizing the amount of flood storage up to the 100-year event. 2. Providing water quality best management practices. 3. Minimizing the permitting required to construct the project. 2-5 4. Maintaining or improving the functionality of DeCola Ponds D, E, and F, including water quality, flood control, and habitat functions. 5. Minimizing wetland impacts. 6. Balancing tree loss and flood storage development while preserving healthy, significant hardwood trees in upland areas. 7. Maintaining or improving the functionality/maintenance access of the walking trails, enhancing the SEA School/Wildwood Park user experience, and providing flood mitigation and water quality educational opportunities for students, neighborhood residents, and park users. 8. Although stormwater reuse was evaluated as part of this study, it was not identified as part of this project because the SEA School and Wildwood Park properties do not currently irrigate, and irrigation is not part of the long-term plan for either site. The considerations listed above played a key role in determining final recommendations and will continue to play a key role through final design. ”51”5127”27””12”12”8”84242 18”18” 1212 10”10”36361 0 1 0 121210”10”18”18” 1850 Kelly Dr 1820 Kelly Dr 1800 Kelly Dr 1760 Kelly Dr 7350 Duluth St7400 Duluth St7450 Duluth St 7200 Duluth St 7210 Duluth St7310 Duluth St 7501 Duluth St 7205 Duluth St 1831 Maryland Ave N 1781 Maryland Ave N 1785 Maryland Ave N 1910 Pennsylvania Ave N 1901 Pennsylvania Ave N 1811 Pennsylvania Ave N 1801 Pennsylvania Ave N 1711 Pennsylvania Ave N 1721 Pennsylvania Ave N rD ylleK rD ylleKN evA ainavlysnnePN evA ainavlysnnePMaryland Ave NMaryland Ave N Duluth St Duluth St Duluth St Duluth St 894 920912904900902 914 906 890916 908 896 910918 89289 8 894 896 916906904 902 896 898910 896898898 900 912 908908898 90 0 019898 904898 902 908 902 918890 904 898 900 9 0 2 89890 4 904896900900 906 906904900910 90 2 914892 89 4894Hill Sports Field Pickleball Courts Existing Wooded AreaExisting Wooded Area Playground Sun Shelter Wildwood ParkWildwood Park School of Engineering and Arts (SEA) School of Engineering and Arts (SEA) Existing Footpath Existing Park Trail Contours 2-foot existing contour 10-foot existing contour Existing Storm Sewer Parcels ±”51”5127”27””12”12”8”84242 18”18” 1212 10”10”36361 0 1 0 121210”10”18”18” 1850 Kelly Dr 1820 Kelly Dr 1800 Kelly Dr 1760 Kelly Dr 7350 Duluth St7400 Duluth St7450 Duluth St 7200 Duluth St 7210 Duluth St7310 Duluth St 7501 Duluth St 7205 Duluth St 1831 Maryland Ave N 1781 Maryland Ave N 1785 Maryland Ave N 1910 Pennsylvania Ave N 1901 Pennsylvania Ave N 1811 Pennsylvania Ave N 1801 Pennsylvania Ave N 1711 Pennsylvania Ave N 1721 Pennsylvania Ave N rDylleKrDylleKNevAainavlysnnePNevAainavlysnnePMaryland A v e N Maryland A v e N Duluth StDuluth St Duluth St Duluth St 894 920912904900902 914 906 890916 908 896 910918 89289 8 894 896 916906904 902 896 898910 896898898 900 912 908908898 90 0 019898 904898 902 908 902 918890 904 89 8 900 9 0 2 89890 4 904896900900 906 906904900910 90 2 914892 89 4894Hill Sports Field Pickleball Courts Existing Wooded AreaExisting Wooded Area Playground Sun Shelter Wildwood ParkWildwood Park School of Engineering and Arts (SEA) School of Engineering and Arts (SEA) Existing Footpath Existing Park Trail Contours 2-foot existing contour 10-foot existing contour Existing Storm Sewer Parcels ± DeCola Ponds - SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Project Area LEGEND 0 10050 Feet DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F 4567102 456766 456770 4567102 456770 4567102 4567102 4567102 4567156 4567102456770 Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave N Patsy L a Patsy L a Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBies DrBies Dr Green V a l l e y R d Green V a l l e y R d Duluth L a Duluth L a Archer A v e Archer A v e Florida Ave NFlorida Ave NManchester DrManchester Dr Wesley D r Wesley D r Kelly Dr NKelly Dr N25th A v e N 25th A v e N Idaho AveIdaho AveW Constance Dr W Constance Dr Or k l a D rOr k l a D r Kenneth W a y Kenneth W a y St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v eJersey AveJersey Ave Ham p s h i r e P l Ham p s h i r e P l Colorado Ave NColorado Ave N Wynnwood R d Wynnwood R dVirginia AveVirginia AveRosalyn CtRosalyn Ct Jonellen L a N Jonellen L a N Quebec AveQuebec Ave Valders AveValders AveOregon Ave NOregon Ave NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NValders Ave NValders Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Brunswick AveBrunswick Ave Medicine Lake RdMedicine Lake Rd Westbrook R d Westbrook R d Olympia StOlympia St Wisconsin A v e N Wisconsin A v e N Winnetka Heights Dr Winnetka Heights Dr Duluth S t Duluth S t Heritage CirHeritage Cir Julianne T e r Julianne T e r Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NOrkla DrOrkla DrWisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave N St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Valders Ave NValders Ave NWisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave N Duluth St Duluth St Duluth S t Duluth S t Valders Ave NValders Ave N St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v eOrkla DrOrkla DrKel ly D r Kel ly D r Brunsw ick Ave NBrunsw ick Ave NPennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NFlorida Ave NFlorida Ave N Wynnwood R d Wynnwood R d Orkla DrOrkla DrAdair Ave NAdair Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NPat sy LaPat sy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NNevada Ave NNevada Ave NOrkla DrOrkla DrSt Croix AveSt Croix AveColorado Ave NColorado Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave N Contours 0 500250 Feet ± Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds 2-foot contour 10-foot contour 100-year Inundation Storm Sewer Parcels Project Area Overview DeCola Pond D 27” outlet pipe SEA School/ WIldwood Park Project area (see details at right) Figure 2-1 Crystal Golden Valley New Hope 4567102 456770 4567156 456766 32nd Ave N Medicine Lake Rd Duluth St 23rd Ave NFlag Ave Douglas Dr NBoone Ave Douglas Dr Aquila Ave NWinnetka Ave N28th Ave 3 2 n d P l N Louisiana Ave Olympia St Brunswick Ave 29th Ave Idaho Ave Hampshire Ave Aquila Ave Brunswick Ave NJersey Ave Sandburg Rd W e s l e y D r Winnetka Ave Kelly Dr Kentucky Ave Patsy La Xylon Ave N30th Ave N Ensign Ave NSumter Ave NValders Ave NCavell Ave NQuebec Ave NFlorida Ave Sumter Ave Pennsylvania Ave N30th Ave Northern Dr 31st Ave N 32nd Ave Julianne Ter Westbend Rd Decatur Ave N29th Ave N Hampshire La NUtah Ave Elgin Pl N Quebec Ave Xylon Ave Wisconsin Ave NOrkla Dr Kelly Dr NAdair Ave Adair Ave NZealand Ave N33rd Ave N Flag Ave NEdgewood Ave Bies Dr Hampshire Pl Wynnwood Rd Nevada Ave Virginia Ave 2 9 t h P l N Zealand Ave Lamplighter La 25th Ave NEnsign Ave Cavell Ave La m phere Dr Viewcrest La St Croix A ve Pennsylvania Ave Rose Manr Louisiana Ave NGeorgia Ave Winsdale St Yukon Ave 31st Ave Hampshire Ave N32nd Cir Manchester Dr Westbrook Rd Oregon Ave NWinnetka Heights Dr Rosalyn Ct Maryland Ave Ensign Ct 32nd Pl 33rd Cir Brogger Cir 33rd Ave Duluth St 29th Ave Zeal and Ave NFlorida Ave 29th Pl NEnsign Ave Olympia St Zealand Ave N Georgia Ave Yukon Ave 30th Ave N Orkla Dr 33rd Ave N 2 9 t h A v e N 31st Ave Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-05-04 14:18 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Feasibility Report\Figure2-2_DrainageArea.mxd User: kjn2DECOLA PONDSWATERSHED AREASCitie's of Golden Valley,New Hope, and Cr ystal FIGURE 2-2 0 500 1,000 Feet !;N Flow Direction Study Area Municipality Subwatersheds Streets Ponds and Wetlands Decola Pond ADirect WS = 66 acTotal WS = 66 ac Decola Pond BDirect WS = 306 acTotal WS = 372 ac Decola Pond CDirect WS = 79 acTotal WS = 451 ac Decola Pond DDirect WS = 4 acTotal WS = 455 ac Decola Pond EDirect WS = 57 acTotal WS = 512 ac Decola Pond FDirect WS = 93 acTotal WS = 605 ac DeCola Pond A DeCola Pond B DeCola Pond C DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E DeCola Pond F Honeywell Pond SEA School/ Wildwood Park Flood Project Liberty Crossing Development Flood Project Yunker Park Flood Project DeCola Ponds B&C Flood Project 3-1 3.0 Site conditions 3.1 Proposed Project Location and Characteristics The 492-acre watershed area tributary to DeCola Ponds D and E drains portions of the cities of Crystal, New Hope, and Golden Valley (Figure 2-2). The watershed is fully-developed; the existing land use includes a mixture of single-family residential, commercial/industrial, parks and open spaces, multi-family residential, and open water. Portions of the SEA School and Wildwood Park properties are tributary to DeCola Pond E. Runoff sheet flows from the portions of the property into storm sewer located on Pennsylvania Avenue North and Duluth Street, which ultimately discharges to DeCola Pond E. Portions of the SEA School property also discharge to storm sewer on Kelly Drive, which discharges to storm sewer that drains towards Honeywell Pond (bypassing DeCola Ponds E & F). Ultimately, this entire area drains to Bassett Creek. This study also includes modifications of the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E to reduce the maximum water surface elevations on DeCola Pond D during larger storm events without impacts to maximum water surface elevations on DeCola Pond E. The existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E is located under Winnetka Heights Drive and between existing residential parcels. The storm sewer varies in size from 27” to 30” in diameter. DeCola Ponds D and E are not listed as MnDNR public waters. DeCola Pond D and E are approximately 0.5 and 2.0 acres, respectively. Modifications to the storm sewer are not anticipated to have an impact on the normal water levels (NWLs) of DeCola Ponds D or E. 3.1.1 Existing Flooding Conditions Significant flooding is an on-going concern for this area. The low point on Medicine Lake Road is one location that has experienced significant flooding in the past. The road runs east to west, and the low point is located at the boundary of Golden Valley and New Hope; the flooding at the low point created a complex intercommunity water management issue. Flooding at the low point presented significant public safety and access issues, as the depth of flooding did not allow for the passage of emergency vehicles. The flooding also resulted in damages to adjacent structures, such as the former VFW building (demolished, now part of Liberty Crossing), apartment buildings at Rosalyn Court, and the Dairy Queen. Documented flooding impacts have been noted since the early 1970s. More recent examples of rainfall events that have resulted in notable flooding along Medicine Lake Road include: • May 7 – 8, 2006: 4.0 inches of rainfall fell within 3.5 hours • June 25, 2010: 3.0 – 3.7 inches (depending on watershed location) of rainfall fell within 1.9 hours • June 21, 2013: 2.7 inches of rainfall fell • July 28, 2015: 2.5 inches of rainfall fell within approximately 1.0 hours • September 20, 2018: 4.5 inches of rainfall fell Directly downstream of the Medicine Lake Road low point are the DeCola Ponds. The DeCola Ponds are a series of six ponds (DeCola Ponds A through F) that are connected by a storm sewer system. The series of 3-2 ponds were constructed in the 1960s; several were developed within an existing wetland area. The ponds were originally designed for the 50-year flood event, which was standard for that time. Historical, chronic flooding has been observed on the system of ponds, especially in DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. One home is known to flood on DeCola Pond A. One reason for the persistent chronic flooding is that approximately 18 homes were built with low floors and openings below the 50-year and 100-year flood events, which was common during this period of construction. The DeCola Ponds are not within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, due to the size of the drainage area. However, property owners have filed five flood insurance claims in the past and eleven residents hold flood insurance policies. Various studies and flood mitigation projects have been completed since 1979, aiming to alleviate the severe flooding that occurs within the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal. However, flooding continues to be an issue. In 2017, the first flood mitigation projects that were investigated in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan (Barr, 2016) were implemented. In the upper DeCola Ponds watershed, the City of Crystal modified the storm sewer through Yunker Park and slightly expanded the flood mitigation storage in the park. Additionally, the City of Golden Valley constructed flood mitigation storage areas as part of the Liberty Crossing re-development project, located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. Subsurface and surface storage areas were constructed on the site to hold and treat stormwater runoff from the direct watershed and from Medicine Lake Road overflows. In spring 2020, the construction of the DeCola Ponds B and C Improvement Project was completed by the city of Golden Valley and the BCWMC. These three projects have a significant impact on the flood depths experienced at the Medicine Lake Road low point and the associated flooding of structures. The estimated existing 10-year and 100-year flood elevations on the Medicine Lake Road low point prior to the implementation of these projects were approximately 904.0 and 905.3 respectively (NAVD88). After the implementation of the flood mitigation projects in Yunker Park, on the Liberty Property, and the park areas surrounding DeCola Ponds B & C, the 10-year and 100-year flood elevations reduced to 901.5 and 902.2 respectively (NAVD88). The lowering of the flood elevations at the low point on Medicine Lake Road from these three projects had the following impact on flood depths and impacted structures: • 10-year depth of flooding reduced from 3.5 feet to 1.0 foot • Removal of 2 structures from being at-risk of flooding during the 10-year storm event • 100-year depth of flooding reduced from 4.8 ft to 1.7 feet • Removal of 5 structures from being at-risk of flooding during the 100-year storm event Despite substantial flood reductions on Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds A, B, and C, there are still a number of structures that are at-risk of flooding surrounding DeCola Ponds D, E, and F. Therefore, several additional flood mitigation projects, such as this SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project, are needed to further reduce flooding on the DeCola Ponds. 3-3 3.1.2 Site access Construction access will be straightforward because the project is located on public property (SEA School, Wildwood Park) or within a City of Golden Valley right-of-way or drainage and utility easement (Storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E). The City may need to obtain permanent and temporary easements from the SEA School for the work on the SEA School property. Relatively few obstacles or infrastructure elements block access to the proposed work areas. Potential site access locations for SEA School/Wildwood Park are along Kelly Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue North, Duluth Street, or via the SEA School Drive. Site access for the modification of the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E will be off of Winnetka Heights Drive. 3.1.3 Environmental Review The BCWMC Engineer completed an environmental desktop review to assess the potential for contamination in the project area. The review included MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) web map of environmental sites (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/whats-my-neighborhood), Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) WIMN map of known and potential sources of agricultural contamination, and a review of historical maps and aerial photos. One petroleum release site was identified in the project area: The School of Engineering and Arts petroleum leak site #LS0020433 (Leak Site 20433). Other contaminated sites or releases identified were of deminimis quantity or downgradient of the project area, and unlikely to impact the soils or groundwater in the project area. Barr reviewed the MPCA files for Leak Site 20433. A petroleum release was discovered in 2017 during removal of a 6,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank (UST), which had been installed west of the south portion of the school building in 1998. During tank removal on June 29, 2017, soil sampling was completed on the north end of the UST basin below the tank and it indicated a minor release of diesel range organics (DRO) at a concentration of 15.5 mg/kg. The concentration was below MPCA guidelines for unregulated fill (100 mg/kg), indicating the soil is acceptable for reuse and does not pose a risk to human health. The tank was in good condition and the release was presumed to be from overfilling the tank. Perched groundwater was encountered at 7 feet below the ground surface, but no evidence of groundwater contamination was observed. No contaminated soil was reported to be removed. No staining or odors were detected from the soil collected from the UST removal samples . A limited site investigation was completed by the consultant for the SEA School for the leak #LS0020433 in 2017 that included collection of six soil samples and soil vapor sampling n ear the former UST. Photoionization detector (PID) readings collected during the advancement of the soil borings did not exceed background concentrations (10 parts per million [ppm]) and no other evidence of impacts (odors or sheen were noted). Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and DRO were not detected in any of the six soil samples collected during the investigation. In addition, soil gas sampling and utility screening did not indicate petroleum impacts in the soil gas or utility features at the site. In summary, there is no indication the reported SEA School petroleum release impacted the soil, soil gas or groundwater at the site. 3-4 Based on review of historical aerial photos and topographical maps, apparent filling has occurred in Wildwood Park. Wetlands are indicated on topo maps through 1977 and subsequent development of the park occurred by the 1990s. Land disturbance is visible in 1945 and 1971 aerial photos in Wildwood Park, which also indicates filling. The source of fill at the site is unknown, so there is a potential for environmental impacts to be present in the fill soils in the project area. Based on the historical filling at the site, the BCWMC Engineer recommends field screening for environmental impacts and debris, and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis be performed during geotechnical investigations as part of final design. Based on the investigation results, the BCWMC Engineer also recommends that either a response action plan or site contingency plan be prepared during final design to address potential impacts of contamination or debris that may be identified in the fill during the project construction and develop plans to appropriately manage and dispose of the soils. 3.1.4 Topographic, Utility, and Tree Surveys The BCWMC Engineer subcontracted with Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. (EFN) to complete a topographic, tree, and utility survey within the project extents in fall 2020. Topographic information was collected in Hennepin County NAD83 horizontal datum and NAVD88 vertical datum and was imported into AutoCAD Civil 3D to create an existing conditions surface for this feasibility study. Underground utilities were located based on the location of manhole structures, as-built/construction plan drawings from the City, and through a Gopher State One Call utility locate. Trees larger than 4 inches in diameter were surveyed and the species, condition, and diameter data were collected. A total of 135 trees larger than 4 inches in diameter were surveyed at the project site. Eleven trees smaller than 4 inches in diameter were surveyed within the existing orchard on the SEA School property. The survey focused on the edges of the large, wooded knoll within Wildwood Park and did not include the entire knoll, as the goal is to preserve the trees in this area. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the surveyed trees. Since an expansive tree survey of the entire SEA School/Wildwood Park area was not completed, the tree removal summaries presented in Table 6-1 are only based on the surveyed trees located in the proposed excavation areas only. Based on the survey data collected, trees were classified in accordance with the City of Golden Valley’s tree ordinance (see Table 3-1). The survey showed that 54 of the surveyed trees 4” and greater in the project area are elm, 30 are poplar, 21 are birch, and 21 are maple. The remaining 9 trees consist of species such as spruce, ash, hackberry, and oak. Of the trees surveyed, 134 were found in good condition, and 12 in fair condition. Additionally, of the trees surveyed 4” and greater, 110 were significant and 0 were legacy. Section 6.6.3 discusses the anticipated impacts to the trees from the proposed project. 3-5 Table 3-1 City of Golden Valley Tree Ordinance Definitions Tree Type1 Significant Legacy Other Hardwood Deciduous 6” ≤ Diameter < 30” Diameter ≥ 30” Diameter < 6” Softwood Deciduous Diameter ≥ 12” - Diameter < 12” Coniferous 4” ≤ Diameter < 24” Diameter ≥ 24” Diameter < 4” 1 A healthy tree not considered a nuisance under City regulations 3.1.5 Wetland Delineations The BCWMC Engineer completed a wetland delineation for the SEA School/Wildwood Park project area on September 14, 2020. The delineation area included segments of DeCola Pond D, DeCola Pond E, and Wildwood Park. The wetland delineation identified two wetlands (DeCola Pond D and E) within the project area. Descriptions and assessments of the wetlands are provided below. Appendix A provides the full wetland delineation report, including figures and wetland data sheets. The wetland delineation report was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual,” USACE, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010) and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The delineated wetland boundary and sample points were surveyed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the USFWS Circular 39 system (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), and the Eggers and Reed Wetland Classification System (Eggers and Reed, 1977). An approved jurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on January 18, 2021. Following USACE Review on March 10, 2021 the USACE determined they do not have jurisdiction over DeCola Ponds D and E. As a result, no permitting from the USACE would be required for the project. 3.1.5.1 Wetland Description DeCola Ponds D and E are hydraulically connected through a culvert located under Winnetka Heights Dr. Water flows from DeCola Pond D into Pond E and then flows outside of the project area into DeCola Pond F, ultimately draining to the Main Stem of Bassett Creek. Both wetlands were classified as Type 4/deep marsh wetlands due to the depth of the water and lack of emergent vegetation (PUBH). The wetlands are bordered by private residences that have altered the vegetation along the wetland boundary. Mowed lawns are maintained up to the wetland boundary and ornamental tree species have been planted in the surrounding area. Species identified along the wetland borders included reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis), and water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia). Woody vegetation, such as boxelder (Acer negundo) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and American elm (Ulmus americana) was also identified. No emergent vegetation was observed within the inundated area of the wetland boundary. 3-6 Using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) wetland assessment methodology, both DeCola Ponds D and E were classified as a Manage 2 wetlands, as the wetland is rated medium for aesthetics and low for amphibian habitat. Refer to Appendix A for the MnRAM Excel spreadsheet. 3.1.6 Threatened and Endangered Species Through a license agreement (LA-898) with the MnDNR for access to the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database, the BCWMC Engineer queried the NHIS database in October 2020 to assess if any rare species could potentially be affected by the proposed project. The NHIS database did not identif y any state listed species within one mile of the project area. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) website identified one federally listed species potentially occurring in the project area: the northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; threatened). No designated critical habitat for any federally listed species is located within the project area. According to GIS data obtained from the MnDNR, there are no Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) Sites located within one mile of the proposed project site. Additionally, no state-owned wildlife management areas (WMA), Scientific Natural Areas (SNA), or native plant communities are present within one mile of the proposed project area. Impact Analysis The northern long-eared bat hibernates in caves during the winter and uses forested areas for roosting and foraging during the bat’s active season of April through September. Suitable roost trees for this species have trunks measuring greater than three inches diameter at breast height (DBH) with loose, peeling bark or crevices. Numerous trees exceeding three inches DBH exist in the project area. It is likely the project will require the removal of some trees within the project area. According to the M nDNR, the nearest hibernacula is approximately 13.6 miles southeast of the proposed project area and no maternity roost trees have been identified within one mile of the proposed project area. A prudent, but not mandatory, measure to avoid all direct impacts to the northern long -eared bat is to remove the proposed trees outside of the active season (outside of April—September). In summary, this project is not expected to impact any state-listed species. In addition, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally threatened norther n long-eared bat and is not expected to cause a prohibited take of this species. 3.1.7 Cultural Resources In October 2020, the BCMWC Engineer requested a file searc h from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Standing Structures (Historic) and Archaeology Inventories for all public land survey sections located within one mile of the project area (the evaluated area). SHPO responded to the data request with information indicating that there are numerous recorded historic and archaeological resources within the evaluated area. The file search identified 143 historical 3-7 inventory records and no archaeological inventory records within the evaluated area. Recorded resources largely consisted of residential buildings located in the adjacent neighborho od around the project area. No historical inventory records or archaeological records were identified within the project area or the immediate adjacent properties. The proposed project would not impact any previously recorded standing structures or archaeo logical sites. This review only reflects currently known cultural resources; it is possible that unidentified cultural resources may be present within the project area. Further cultural resources evaluation may be required as part of future design and permitting efforts. nm kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkjkjkj nm nm kjkjkj nmnm kjkjkj kjkj kj kj kjkj kj kj kjkj kj qp qp qp qp qp kj kj kjnmnm nm nmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmkjnmnmkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj kj nmkj kj kjkj nm nm nmnm kjnmnmnm kjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj nm nm kj kjnm nm nm nm nm nmnmnmnmnm nmnm nmkj Kelly Dr NMaryland Ave N Green Valley Rd Duluth St Pennsylvania Ave NKelly DrSEA SCHOOL/WILDWOODPARK FLOOD STORAGEPROJECTSITE CONDITIONS FIGURE 3-1 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-03-18 14:46 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Feasibility Report\Figure3-1_SiteConditions.mxd User: kjn2!;N SEA School Wildwood Park DeCola Pond E DeCola Pond F Project Extents Delineated Wetlands Watermain Storm Pipe Sanitary Main Surveyed Trees Other Surveyed Trees nm Significant Hardwood kj Significant Softwood qp Significant Coniferous 0 12060 Feet nm nm kj kj kjkj kj DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E 4-1 4.0 Stakeholder input 4.1 Public Stakeholder Meetings Because the flood mitigation concepts will impact Wildwood Park and the northern portion of the SEA School property, input from city staff, Robbinsdale Area Schools, and the public were compiled and considered before refining the flood mitigation concepts. As a result of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and public safety concerns, virtual events rather than in-person public open houses were held to gather public input. 4.1.1 Public Stakeholder Input – DeCola Ponds E & F Planning Study Public stakeholder involvement for the proposed flood storage features on the SEA School and Wildwood Park properties began in early April 2020 as part of the City of Golden Valley’s DeCola Ponds E & F Planning Study. Public stakeholder involvement throughout the duration of the planning study included coordination with City of Golden Valley representatives, and virtual meetings with Robbinsdale Area School/SEA School representatives. This engagement intended to find out how the SEA School utilizes the school and park parcels, find out more about future facilities plans for the SEA School site, and discuss the background and purpose of the project. Two virtual public engagement efforts were offered during the DeCola Ponds E & F Planning Study. The first virtual public engagement activity included an online video offering background information on the proposed project and an interactive map. After watching the video, participants were invited to complete an online survey. Within the survey, participants could describe their views on issues, concerns, and needs for the park area. The survey results allowed the City of Golden Valley to gain insight about the use of the park and school property, the community’s perceived values of these resources, and the community’s issues regarding the existing site. This first activity was made available from June 11 through June 26, 2020. A letter was mailed to residents informing them of the video and online survey. Web links were also made available on the SEA School Project webpage, the City website news feed, social media, and in an update in the weekly DeCola Ponds project news posting to promote participation in the survey. This preliminary input was used to inform the development of the planning level concepts. A second virtual public engagement effort was offered from September 17, 2020 through October 5, 2020, which presented three planning level concepts for flood storage on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties. The designs were presented using a pre-recorded video posted on the City of Golden Valley’s project webpage. A letter was mailed to residents informing them of the online presentation. Web links were made available on the SEA School Project webpage, the City website news feed, social media, and i n an update in the weekly DeCola Ponds project news posting to promote review and feedback of the concepts. A CityNews story was also developed. Participants were encouraged to submit their thoughts and concerns on the planning level concepts through an online form. City staff followed up with individuals who provided input and wanted further discussion to clarify comments and answer questions. 4-2 A summary of the results of the public input from the planning study is compiled here: https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/stormwater/pdf/SEA-School-Input-Report.pdf These comments were considered as part of the development of the feasibility study concepts. 4.1.2 Public Stakeholder Input – SEA School-Wildwood Park Feasibility Study 4.1.2.1 City of Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission Golden Valley staff presented the feasibility study concepts to the members of the City of Golden Valley Open Space & Recreation Commission (OSRC) to solicit input at the March 23, 2021 meeting. The OSRC advises, recommends, and assists the Golden Valley City Council in policies and plans relating to open space needs, parks and recreation programs, trail systems, and Brookview Golf Course. In general, the OSRC supported the project and members of the committee indicated preference for Concepts 2 and 3. A couple of the member indicated a preference for Concept 3 and one indicated preference for Concept 2. However, a few other members were concerned with the installation of open water (e.g., aesthetics and odor concerns). Questions/comments included consideration of natural surface trails and that the final design consider future access and space needs around the pickleball courts. Other comments included the addition of a park shelter to mitigate the loss of trees/shade, recognizing this could be a future amenity paid for by park funds. 4.1.2.2 Public Presentation and Virtual Open House As part of this feasibility study, public input was also encouraged through posting a pre-recorded presentation describing the three feasibility designs, offering an online form to submit questions/comments, and hosting a virtual public open house. The pre-recorded presentation and online comment forms were available from March 29, 2021 through April 16, 2021. The virtual public open house was hosted on April 8, 2021 using WebEx. WebEx allowed the group to host various “rooms” that were staffed by representatives from the City of Golden Valley, the BCWMC, and the BCWMC Engineer where the public could come and ask questions and discuss the project after watching the virtual video. The discussion rooms offered open conversation on: • Flooding history and background • Feasibility concept plans • Transportation (realigned SEA School driveway, traffic safety, parking, trails, and sidewalks) • Parks and recreation (park usage and amenities, pickleball, sports field, SEA School usage and partnership) Public feedback received at the virtual public open house or through the online forms indicated general support for the project; however, the preferred feasibility concept varied. General comments on the concepts as presented included: 4-3 • Liked improved diversity of habitat while still preserving turf areas for recreation; however, want to make sure design allows for well-established vegetation and a well-drained system rather than a muddy/mucky area with poorly established vegetation • Concern about safety of the open water concept • Some concern expressed about tree removal around the existing knoll and desire to replace trees for shade in select areas (e.g. near playground) • Preference to preserve an east-west internal trail from Kelly Drive into the park • Concern about access to parts of the park during construction • Future in-person engagement during final design (assuming post-pandemic) • Support for a looped walking trail around the park A summary of the results of the public input from the feasibility study is compiled here: https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/stormwater/pdf/SEA-School-Input-Report.pdf 4.1.3 City of Golden Valley Meeting with Robbinsdale Area Schools/SEA School City of Golden Valley staff met with representatives of the Robbinsdale Area Schools and SEA School staff the week of March 29, 2021 to discuss the status and schedule of the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Study, outlining the benefits of the proposed projects to their property and assessing the school’s needs and concerns. SEA School staff are supportive of the flood mitigation project and did not indicate a preference for a specific concept. Most comments from the staff were related to the design of the proposed realignment of the northern driveway (bus exit) that will be further evaluated as part of final design. Additionally, staff had comments about trails related to maintenance and expressed interest in extension of a trail along Kelly Drive all the way south to Olympia. 4.2 Technical Stakeholder Meeting A technical stakeholder meeting with regulatory agencies was held virtually on December 16, 2020 to discuss the proposed SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage project and to solicit feedback on and discuss permitting requirements. Attendees included representatives from the BCWMC, the City of Golden Valley, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). MnDNR staff were not included as DeCola Ponds D, E, or F are not mapped as public waters. The BCWMC Engineer presented background information on the flooding, and the general goals and design concept for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project, which was followed by discussion related to technical feedback and permitting input. The items discussed included: • Review of project background and history • Review of DeCola Ponds E & F Planning Study • Review of site information compiled to-date and site investigation work completed • Review of potential design concepts • Discussion of regulatory issues and potential permit requirements 4-4 • Discussion of feasibility study Section 6.5 summarizes the anticipated permitting requirements as discussed at the meeting. 5-1 5.0 Concepts Evaluated This section outlines the components of each of the three conceptual designs developed and evaluated for the SEA School and Wildwood Park areas for this feasibility study. Section 6.0 summarizes the impacts of the conceptual designs The primary focus of all three conceptual designs was to maximize the development of flood storage in the project area without significant impacts to the hardwood trees on the knoll and to maintain open turf areas to the largest extent possible. Each conceptual design also includes a BMP for water quality treatment. 5.1 Concept 1— Underground Storage with Stream Figure 5-1 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 1. This alternative includes the following design components: • Installing an underground storage chamber that includes 4 feet of permanent pool depth for water quality treatment and 3 feet of depth for flood storage. The use of underground storage allows for a larger area of turf to remain open for active and passive recreation and this area of turf would remain dry during all rain events. • Installing a diversion manhole with a weir on Duluth Street to divert water into the proposed underground storage area. Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff that flows east along Duluth street is discharged into DeCola Pond E. Figure 5-2 shows a graphical depiction of how flow patterns would change from existing to proposed conditions. • Constructing an intermittent stream feature downstream of the underground storage chamber that would flow full during frequent, smaller storm events (approximately a 0.5-inch rain event). The intermittent stream would be surrounded by wet meadow habitat designed to be fully inundated by a 2-year 24-hour design storm event (2.87 inches). This full inundation corresponds to a water surface elevation of approximately 894.0 ft MSL. A wet meadow is a type of wetland with soils that are saturated during the growing season due to periods of short inundation from storm events. The wet meadows will have standing water for approximately 1 day following storm events larger than the 25-year 24-hour design storm, but the soils will remain fairly saturated for longer durations. Vegetation in wet meadows can consist of a mix of grasses, rushes, sedges, and wildflowers. • Restoring areas adjacent to the wet meadows, above elevation 894.0 ft MSL, with turf grass that would only be temporarily inundated for large, less frequent storm events (greater than 10-year 24-hour design storm event). Inundated turf areas would have standing water no longer than 8 hours for the 10-year 24-hour design storm event and 20 hours for the 100-year 24-hour storm event. 5-2 • Installing a backflow preventer in the storm sewer pipe downstream of the intermittent stream so that small storm events cannot discharge to a low-lying prairie basin through the pipe. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge into the prairie habitat basin if enough runoff pools in the wet meadow storage areas to overtop a berm with a minimum elevation of 895.0 ft MSL. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge to the prairie habitat for events greater than or equal to the 10-year 24-hour design storm event (4.29 inches). The prairie habitat would be inundated for approximately 36 hours for the 100-year 24-hour design storm event (7.42 inches). • Installing an overflow berm with a top elevation of 897.2 ft MSL that runs along Duluth Street and Kelly Drive to maximize storage within the Wildwood Park and SEA School properties. • Installing a 12-inch storm sewer outlet pipe downstream of the proposed park stormwater features that would discharge to the existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive. The small pipe diameter would allow for extended detention and slow draw down of the features in Wildwood Park. The existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive bypasses DeCola Ponds E and F and discharges downstream to Honeywell Pond and Bassett Creek. • Re-aligning the existing SEA School driveway to align perpendicular to Maryland Avenue. This would help improve intersection safety and allow for the expansion of the prairie habitat storage area onto the SEA school property. • Relocating the disturbed SEA School orchard adjacent to the existing playground. • Incorporating a nature play area adjacent to the playground to provide nature education and play options to park users. • Replacing disturbed trails with an ADA compliant looped trail system adjacent to Duluth Street, Kelly Drive, and the re-aligned SEA School driveway that would also connect existing park features (i.e., pickleball courts, playground, picnic shelter). • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 9.1 ac-ft from existing conditions through excavation and regrading on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties. • Preserving trees and existing trails on the knoll in Wildwood Park. Tree removal is expected within project area. However, 1.1 acres of upland and prairie areas would be restored with native vegetation and replanted with trees at a density potentially ranging from savanna (approximately 35 trees/acre) to forest (approximately 110 trees/acre) – to be determined during final design. • Restoring 0.6 acres of wetland habitat. • Restoring 1.2 acres of open, turf areas. 5-3 • Modifying the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. The existing storm sewer would be increased to a 48” diameter pipe. The proposed storm sewer would decrease the amount of bounce on DeCola Pond D during storm events while not increasing the 10 -year or 100-year 24-hour flood elevations on the downstream ponds. 5.2 Concept 2— Open Water Figure 5-3 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 2. This alternative includes the following design components: • Installing an open water area that includes 4 feet of permanent pool depth for water quality treatment and flood storage above the NWL. The open water area would also provide a new habitat type in the park inviting aquatic macrophytes and macroinvertebrate s. • Installing a diversion manhole with a weir on Duluth Street to divert water into the proposed open water pond area. Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff that flows east along Duluth street is discharged into DeCola Pond E. • Restoring areas around the open water pond with wet meadow habitat designed to be fully inundated by a 2-year 24-hour design storm event (2.87 inches). This full inundation corresponds to a maximum water surface elevation of approximately 894.0 ft MSL. The inundation period for the 2-year 24-hour design storm event is approximately 36 hours. • Restoring areas adjacent to the wet meadows above elevation 894.0 ft MSL with turf grass or native prairie grasses that would only be temporarily inundated for larger storm events (greater than the 10-year 24-hour design storm event). Inundated turf areas would have standing water no longer than 10 hours for the 10-year 24-hour design storm event and 18 hours for the 100- year 24-hour storm event. • Installing a backflow preventer in the storm sewer pipe downstream of the open water area so that small storm events cannot discharge to a low-lying prairie basin through the pipe. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge into the prairie habitat basin if enough runoff pools in the wet meadow storage areas to overtop a berm with a minimum elevation of 895.0 ft MSL. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge to the prairie habitat for events greater than or equal to the 10-year 24-hour design storm event. The prairie habitat would be inundated for approximately 36 hours for the 100-year 24-hour design storm event (7.42 inches). • Installing an overflow berm with a top elevation of 897.2 ft MSL that runs along Duluth Street and Kelly Drive to maximize storage within the Wildwood Park and SEA Scho ol properties. • Installing a 12-inch storm sewer outlet pipe downstream of the proposed park stormwater features that would discharge to the existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive. The small pipe diameter would allow for extended detention and slow draw down of the features in Wildwood Park. The existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth 5-4 Street and Kelly Drive bypasses DeCola Ponds E and F and discharges downstream to Honeywell Pond and Bassett Creek. • Re-aligning the existing SEA School driveway to align perpendicular to Maryland Avenue. This would help improve intersection safety and allow for the expansion of the prairie habitat storage area onto the SEA school property. • Relocating the disturbed SEA School orchard adjacent to the existing playground. • Incorporating a nature play area adjacent to the playground to provide nature education and play options to park users. • Replacing disturbed trails with an ADA compliant looped trail system adjacent to Duluth Street, Kelly Drive, and the re-aligned SEA School driveway that would also connect existing park features (i.e., pickleball courts, playground, picnic shelter). • Installing an ADA compliant floating platform off of the paved trail to allow access to the open water area for aesthetic enjoyment, habitat research, and school group activities. • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 8.6 ac-ft from existing conditions through excavation and regrading on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties. • Preserving trees and existing trails on the knoll in Wildwood Park. Tree removal is expected within project area. However, 0.9 acres of upland and prairie areas would be restored with native vegetation and replanted with trees at a density potentially ranging from savanna (approximately 35 trees/acre) to forest (approximately 110 trees/acre) – to be determined during final design. • Restoring 0.3 acres of wetland habitat. • Restoring 1.3 acres of open, turf areas. • Modifying the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. The existing storm sewer would be increased to a 48” diameter pipe. The proposed storm sewer would decrease the amount of bounce on DeCola Pond D during storm events while not increasing the 10-year or 100-year 24-hour flood elevations on the downstream ponds 5.3 Concept 3— Wet Meadow Figure 5-4 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 3. This alternative includes the following design components: • Installing a vegetated basin with iron-enhanced sand trenches (biofiltration basin) for water quality treatment. The biofiltration basin would not only assist with the removal of particulate contaminants, but would also remove dissolved contaminants. 5-5 • Installing a diversion manhole with a weir on Duluth Street to divert water into the proposed biofiltration basin area. Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff that flows east along Duluth street is discharged into DeCola Pond E. • Installing a Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) downstream of the weir diversion structure and upstream of the biofiltration basin for pre-treatment (e.g., removal of sediment and particulate solids). • Installing a second diversion manhole with a weir on Duluth Street to divert storm water runoff that bypasses the biofiltration basin for larger storm events into the proposed wet meadow. • Restoring proposed areas that are expected to be inundated during the 2-year 24-hour Atlas-14 storm event with wet meadow habitat. This inundation depth corresponds to a maximum water surface elevation of approximately 894.0 ft MSL. A wet meadow is a type of wetland with soils that are saturated during the growing season due to periods of short inundation from storm events. The wet meadows will have standing water for approximately 1-day following storm events larger than the 25-year 24-hour design storm event, but the soils will remain fairly saturated for longer durations. Vegetation in wet meadows can consist of a mix of grasses, rushes, sedges, and wildflowers. • Restoring areas adjacent to the wet meadows above elevation 894.0 ft MSL with native prairie grasses. • Restoring areas adjacent to the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive and areas adjacent to the existing pickleball courts with turf grass. Inundated turf areas would have standing water no longer than 8 hours for the 10-year 24-hour design storm event and 15 hours for the 100- year 24-hour storm event. • Installing a backflow preventer in the storm sewer pipe downstream of the wet meadow so that small storm events cannot discharge to a low-lying prairie basin through the pipe. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge into the prairie habitat basin if enough runoff pools in the wet meadow storage areas to overtop a berm with a minimum elevation of 895.0 ft MSL. Stormwater runoff would start to discharge to the prairie habitat for events greater than or equal to the 10- year, Atlas-14 storm event. The prairie habitat would be inundated for approximately 36 hours for the 100-year 24-hour design storm event (7.42 inches). • Installing an overflow berm with a top elevation of 897.2 ft MSL that runs along Duluth Street and Kelly Drive to maximize storage within the Wildwood Park and SEA School properties . • Installing a 12-inch storm sewer outlet pipe downstream of the proposed park stormwater features that would discharge to existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and Kelly Drive. The small pipe diameter would allow for extended detention and slow draw down of the features in Wildwood Park. The existing storm sewer at the intersection of Duluth Street and 5-6 Kelly Drive bypasses DeCola Ponds E and F and discharges downstream to Honeywell Pond and Bassett Creek. • Re-aligning the existing SEA School driveway to align perpendicular to Maryland Avenue. This would help improve intersection safety and allow for the expansion of the prairie habitat storage area onto the SEA school property. • Relocating the SEA School orchard adjacent to the existing playground. • Incorporating a nature play area adjacent to the playground to provide nature education and play options to park users. • Replacing disturbed trails with an ADA compliant looped trail system that is more interior to the park and offset from the roadways. This may promote more enjoyment of the new habitat types restored in the park. • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 8.5 ac-ft from existing conditions through excavation and regrading on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties. • Preserving trees and existing trails on the knoll in Wildwood Park. Tree removal is expected within project area. However, 1.4 acres of upland and prairie areas would be restored with native vegetation and replanted with trees at a density potentially ranging from savanna (approximately 35 trees/acre) to forest (approximately 110 trees/acre) – to be determined during final design. • Restoring 0.8 acres of wetland habitat. • Restoring 0.7 acres of open, turf areas. • Modifying the existing storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. The existing storm sewer would be increased to a 48” diameter pipe. The proposed storm sewer would decrease the amount of bounce on DeCola Pond D during storm events while not increasing the 10 -year or 100-year 24-hour flood elevations on the downstream ponds. DeCola Ponds - SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Concept 1: Underground Storage with Stream Estimated Cost (-20%/+30%) = $4.1 Million ST Kelly Dr Kelly Dr Pennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NDuluth St Duluth St Relocated Orchard N e w d r i v e a l i g n m e n t Wildwood ParkWildwood Park School of Engineering School of Engineering Wet Meadow with Intermittent Stream FeatureTurf with Proposed Subsurface Stormwater Treatment and Storage Turf with Proposed Subsurface Stormwater Treatment and Storage Prairie Habitat Nature play Existing Wooded AreaExisting Wooded Area Hill Sports Field Pickleball Courts Playground Turf Turf and Arts (SEA)and Arts (SEA) Existing Footpath Proposed Paved Trail Proposed Storm Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Proposed 5’ Contour Proposed 1’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour ± Wet Meadow Turf Prairie Orchard Trees Planting Areas Subsurface Treatment Wood Area FEET 0 6030 Additional 1.6 lbs/yr phosphorus removed 1.7 acres total 1.2 acres total 45 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Restored Turf Area: Tree Removal: - 0.6’ 0/0 - 2.8’ 10/0 - 0.8’ 9/6 - 0.1’ 19/19 Additional Flood Storage Created: 9.1 acre-feet Reduction of Flood Level on Ponds: Concept Summary D D E,F E,F DeCola Pond DeCola Pond 10-yr 10-yr 100-yr 100-yr LEGEND Figure 5-1 At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/proposed): DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F 4567102 456766 456770 4567102 456770 4567102 4567102 4567102 4567156 4567102456770 Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NPatsy La Patsy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBies Dr Bies Dr Green Valley Rd Green Valley Rd Duluth La Duluth La Archer Ave Archer Ave Florida Ave NFlorida Ave NManchester Dr Manchester Dr Wesley Dr Wesley Dr Kelly Dr NKelly Dr N25th Ave N25th Ave N Idaho Ave Idaho Ave W Constance Dr W Constance Dr Or k l a D r Or k l a D r Kenneth Way Kenneth Way St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Jersey Ave Jersey Ave Ham p s h i r e P l Ham p s h i r e P l Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Virginia Ave Virginia Ave Rosalyn Ct Rosalyn Ct Jonellen La NJonellen La N Quebec Ave Quebec Ave Valders Ave Valders Ave Oregon Ave NOregon Ave NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NValders Ave NValders Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NHa m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Brunswick Ave Brunswick Ave Medicine Lake Rd Medicine Lake Rd Westbrook Rd Westbrook Rd Olympia St Olympia St Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave N Winnetka Heights Dr Winnetka Heights Dr Duluth St Duluth St Heritage Cir Heritage Cir Julianne Ter Julianne Ter Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Valders Ave NValders Ave NWisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NDuluth St Duluth St Duluth St Duluth St Valders Ave NValders Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Kel ly D r Kel ly D r Brunsw ick Ave NBrunsw ick Ave NPennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NFlorida Ave NFlorida Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NPat sy La Pat sy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NNevada Ave NNevada Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr St Croix Ave St Croix Ave Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave NContours 0 500250 Feet ± Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds 2-foot contour 10-foot contour 100-year Inundation Storm Sewer Parcels Project Area Overview Increase DeCola Pond D outlet pipe from 27” to 48” Storm sewer diversion and flood strorage project on SEA School/ WIldwood Park Property (see details at right) Existing Street Widths to be MaintainedPaved TrailDiversion Manhole Paved Trail Backflow Preventor DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F Rhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave N Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Green V a l l e y R d Green V a l l e y R dKelly Dr NKelly Dr NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Winnetka H e i g h t s D r Winnetka H e i g h t s D r Duluth S t Duluth S t Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N Duluth St Duluth St Kel ly D rKel ly D r Pennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave N Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave N Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds Storm Sewer Proposed Flow Pattern Parcels ± 0 500250 Feet Overﬂow Path (during high ﬂow events) Existing Flow Path DeCola Ponds - SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Proposed Flow Patterns LEGEND DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F Rhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave N Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Green V a l l e y R d Green V a l l e y R dKelly Dr NKelly Dr NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Winnetka Heights Dr Winnetka Heights Dr Duluth S t Duluth S t Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave N Duluth St Duluth St Kel ly D r Kel ly D r Pennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NSandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave N Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds Storm Sewer Proposed Flow Pattern Parcels ± 0 500250 Feet Overﬂow Path (during high ﬂow events) Existing Flow Path Increase DeCola Pond D outlet pipe Flow reconnects to storm sewer bypassing DeCola Ponds E and F Storm sewer diverts most flows to SEA School/ WIldwood Park property Overflow from high flow events continues along road and storm sewer towards DeCola Pond E (similar to existing conditions) Figure 5-2 DeCola Ponds - SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Concept 2: Open Water N e w d r i v e a l i g n m e n t Wildwood ParkWildwood Park School of Engineering School of Engineering Wet Meadow with Open Water Feature Prairie Habitat Nature play Existing Wooded AreaExisting Wooded Area Hill Sports Field Pickleball Courts Playground Turf Turf Turf and Arts (SEA)and Arts (SEA) Floating Platform Floating Platform Kelly Dr Kelly Dr Duluth St Duluth St Relocated Orchard Existing Footpath Proposed Paved Trail Proposed Storm Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Proposed 5’ Contour Proposed 1’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour ± Wet Meadow Turf Prairie Open Water Wood Area Orchard Trees Planting Areas FEET 0 6030Pennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NLEGEND Estimated Cost (-20%/+30%) = $2.9 Million Additional 1.8 lbs/yr phosphorus removed 1.6 acres total 1.3 acres total 54 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Restored Turf Area: - 0.6’ 0/0 - 2.8’ 10/0 - 0.8’ 9/6 - 0.1’ 19/19 Additional Flood Storage Created: 8.6 acre-feet Reduction of Flood Level on Ponds: Concept Summary D D E,F E,F DeCola Pond DeCola Pond 10-yr 10-yr 100-yr 100-yr At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/proposed): DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F 4567102 456766 456770 4567102 456770 4567102 4567102 4567102 4567156 4567102456770 Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NPatsy La Patsy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBies Dr Bies Dr Green Valley Rd Green Valley Rd Duluth La Duluth La Archer Ave Archer Ave Florida Ave NFlorida Ave NManchester Dr Manchester Dr Wesley Dr Wesley Dr Kelly Dr NKelly Dr N25th Ave N25th Ave N Idaho Ave Idaho Ave W Constance Dr W Constance Dr Or k l a D r Or k l a D r Kenneth Way Kenneth Way St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Jersey Ave Jersey Ave Ham p s h i r e P l Ham p s h i r e P l Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Virginia Ave Virginia Ave Rosalyn Ct Rosalyn Ct Jonellen La NJonellen La N Quebec Ave Quebec Ave Valders Ave Valders Ave Oregon Ave NOregon Ave NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NValders Ave NValders Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NHa m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Brunswick Ave Brunswick Ave Medicine Lake Rd Medicine Lake Rd Westbrook Rd Westbrook Rd Olympia St Olympia St Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave N Winnetka Heights Dr Winnetka Heights Dr Duluth St Duluth St Heritage Cir Heritage Cir Julianne Ter Julianne Ter Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Valders Ave NValders Ave NWisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NDuluth St Duluth St Duluth St Duluth St Valders Ave NValders Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Kel ly D r Kel ly D r Brunsw ick Ave NBrunsw ick Ave NPennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NFlorida Ave NFlorida Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NPat sy La Pat sy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NNevada Ave NNevada Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr St Croix Ave St Croix Ave Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave NContours 0 500250 Feet ± Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds 2-foot contour 10-foot contour 100-year Inundation Storm Sewer Parcels Project Area Overview Increase DeCola Pond D outlet pipe from 27” to 48” Storm sewer diversion and flood strorage project on SEA School/ WIldwood Park Property (see details at right) Tree Removal: Existing Street Widths to be MaintainedPaved Trail Paved Trail Figure 5-3 Diversion Manhole Backflow Preventor DeCola Ponds - SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Concept 3: Wet Meadow Pennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NN e w d r i v e a l i g n m e n t Nature play Playground Wildwood ParkWildwood Park Prairie Habitat Existing Wooded AreaExisting Wooded Area Turf Turf Wet Meadow Wet Meadow School of Engineering School of Engineering Hill Sports Field Pickleball Courts and Arts (SEA)and Arts (SEA) Relocated Orchard Kelly Dr Kelly Dr Duluth St Duluth St Vegetated Iron-Enhanced Filtration Basin Vegetated Iron- Enhanced Filtration Basin Existing Footpath Proposed Paved Trail Proposed Storm Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Proposed 5’ Contour Proposed 1’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour ± Wet Meadow Turf Prairie Vegetated Iron-Enhanced Filtration Basin Wood Area Orchard Trees Planting Areas FEET 0 6030 LEGEND Estimated Cost (-20%/+30%) = $3.1 Million Additional 4.1 lbs/yr phosphorus removed 2.3 acres total 0.7 acres total 54 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Restored Turf Area: - 0.6’ 0/0 - 2.8’ 10/0 - 0.8’ 9/6 - 0.1’ 19/19 Additional Flood Storage Created: 8.5 acre-feet Reduction of Flood Level on Ponds: At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/proposed): Concept Summary D D E,F E,F DeCola Pond DeCola Pond 10-yr 10-yr 100-yr 100-yr DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E SEA School/ Wildwood Park (Project Area) DeCola Pond F 4567102 456766 456770 4567102 456770 4567102 4567102 4567102 4567156 4567102456770 Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NPatsy La Patsy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBies Dr Bies Dr Green Valley Rd Green Valley Rd Duluth La Duluth La Archer Ave Archer Ave Florida Ave NFlorida Ave NManchester Dr Manchester Dr Wesley Dr Wesley Dr Kelly Dr NKelly Dr N25th Ave N25th Ave N Idaho Ave Idaho Ave W Constance Dr W Constance Dr Or k l a D r Or k l a D r Kenneth Way Kenneth Way St C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Jersey Ave Jersey Ave Ham p s h i r e P l Ham p s h i r e P l Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Virginia Ave Virginia Ave Rosalyn Ct Rosalyn Ct Jonellen La NJonellen La N Quebec Ave Quebec Ave Valders Ave Valders Ave Oregon Ave NOregon Ave NLouisiana Ave NLouisiana Ave NValders Ave NValders Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NWinnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NHa m p s h i r e L a N Ha m p s h i r e L a N Brunswick Ave Brunswick Ave Medicine Lake Rd Medicine Lake Rd Westbrook Rd Westbrook Rd Olympia St Olympia St Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave N Winnetka Heights Dr Winnetka Heights Dr Duluth St Duluth St Heritage Cir Heritage Cir Julianne Ter Julianne Ter Winnetka Ave NWinnetka Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr Wisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Valders Ave NValders Ave NWisconsin Ave NWisconsin Ave NRhode Island Ave NRhode Island Ave NDuluth St Duluth St Duluth St Duluth St Valders Ave NValders Ave NSt C r o i x A v e St C r o i x A v e Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Kel ly D r Kel ly D r Brunsw ick Ave NBrunsw ick Ave NPennsylvania Ave NPennsylvania Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NFlorida Ave NFlorida Ave NWynnwood Rd Wynnwood Rd Orkla Dr Orkla Dr Adair Ave NAdair Ave NBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NPat sy La Pat sy La Sandburg Rd Sandburg Rd Quebec Ave NQuebec Ave NNevada Ave NNevada Ave NOrkla Dr Orkla Dr St Croix Ave St Croix Ave Colorado Ave NColorado Ave NSumter Ave NSumter Ave NContours 0 500250 Feet ± Project Area Railroad Subwatersheds 2-foot contour 10-foot contour 100-year Inundation Storm Sewer Parcels Project Area Overview Increase DeCola Pond D outlet pipe from 27” to 48” Storm sewer diversion and flood strorage project on SEA School/ WIldwood Park Property (see details at right) Tree Removal: Existing Street Widths to be MaintainedPaved Trail Figure 5-4 Diversion Manhole Hydrodynamic Separator Diversion Manhole Backflow Preventor 6-1 6.0 Project Modeling Results and Potential Impacts This section discusses the results of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality modeling and provides information on potential project impacts, including permitting requirements. Table 6-1 summarizes the design features and potential impacts of the three concepts, in comparison to the project area’s existing conditions. 6.1 Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Water Quality Modeling 6.1.1 Available Models Hydrologic and hydraulic information and water quality information are available for the project area in the form of a XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model and a P8 water quality model, respectively. The BCWMC completed the Phase 2 XP-SWMM model in 2017 for Bassett Creek and its contributing watersheds. The BCWMC developed the P8 model in 2012 for Bassett Creek and its contributing watersheds, and updates the model regularly. The BCWMC Engineer used the 2017 BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model that was modified in 2019 to include the Liberty Crossing and the DeCola Ponds B&C development features. This XPSWMM model was modified again in 2020 to include updates to the existing channel east of the railroad along DeCola Pond C. This updated model was used to represent existing conditions for the project area and its flood elevation results were used as a basis of comparison for the proposed conceptual designs. The updated existing conditions BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model was hydrologically and hydraulically modified to model the three conceptual designs. Watershed parameters, storage curves, storm sewer routing, and outlet control structures were revised to represent the proposed grading contours and culvert designs for the three concepts. Maximum flood elevations for the 1-, 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year 24- hour recurrence intervals were analyzed and compared for the conceptual designs. This study also included updating the P8 model with current site conditions for the DeCola Ponds areas. The BCMWC Engineer used the updated P8 water quality model to estimate the water quality improvement expected from each proposed SEA School/Wildwood Park alternative. Final design efforts should include additional refinements to the XP-SWMM and P8 water quality modeling as the design progresses. The improvements that will ultimately be constructed should also be incorporated into the official BCWMC XP-SWMM model and the P8 model after completion of the project. 6.1.2 XP-SWMM Flood Elevation Results Table 6-1 (the comparative matrix) provides the maximum 10-year and 100-year 24-hour flood elevations for existing conditions and the three conceptual designs for the following locations: 1) The low point on Medicine Lake Road 2) DeCola Ponds A, B, and C (ponds equalize during precipitation events) 3) DeCola Pond D 4) DeCola Ponds E and F 6-2 Table 6-2 provides the 10-year and 100-year flood elevations for existing conditions and the three conceptual designs for key flood areas within the cities of New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley. The key flood areas were originally defined in the 2016 Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan and are based on known historical flooding concerns. A main purpose of the proposed SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project is to lower the flood elevations on DeCola Pond D, E and F during larger storm events. Reductions in flood elevations can translate into reductions in flood risk for structures. Table 6-3 lists the potentially at-risk properties as originally identified in the 2016 Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan. The table summarizes the 10-year and 100-year flood elevations and depth of flooding over the low opening elevation at each structure for existing conditions (after the implementation of the Liberty Crossing and DeCola Ponds B&C Flood Mitigation Projects) and for each of the conceptual designs. Under existing conditions, the structures on DeCola Pond D remain at risk of flooding for the 100-year storm event. Currently, no structures are at risk of flooding for events less than or equal to the 50-year storm event. For all three concepts, the ten homes on DeCola Pond D that are identified as at risk of flooding during the 100-year storm event are no longer at risk of flooding with the installation of the SEA School/Wildwood Park flood storage areas and the upsizing of the pipe between DeCola Ponds D and E. All three concepts are expected to lower the 100-year flood elevation on DeCola Pond D by approximately 2.80 feet from existing conditions. All three concepts also reduce flood elevations on DeCola Ponds E and F. Under existing conditions, there are structures on DeCola Ponds E and F that are at-risk of flooding for events as small as the 10-year storm event. For all three concepts, the expanded flood storage area on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties reduces the 10-year flood elevations on DeCola Ponds E and F by approximately 0.8 feet. This reduction in the 10-year flood elevations removes three structures from being at risk of flooding during the 10-year storm event (six structures remain at risk). For all three concepts, the flood elevations on DeCola Ponds E and F from the 25-year event are estimated to be reduced by 0.7 feet. This reduction in the 25-year flood elevations removes three structures from being at risk of flooding during the 25-year storm event (fifteen structures remain at risk of flooding). The impact of the expanded flood storage on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties will have minimal impact on reducing the flood elevations on DeCola Ponds E and F for the 100-year event because the primary driver of flooding at these ponds is the runoff volume from the area east of the railroad tracks that discharges into the northeast corner of DeCola Pond F and the direct watersheds to Ponds E and F. For the 100-year event, the flood elevations on DeCola Ponds E and F are estimated to be reduced by 0.1 feet for all three concepts. This reduction in flood elevations for the 100 -year event does not result in removing structures from being at risk of flooding. A future project (Phase III) is intended to have a more significant impact on lowering the flood elevations and flood risk to structures on DeCola Ponds E and F. CategoryItemExisting ConditionsConcept 1: Underground Storage with StreamConcept 2: Open WaterConcept 3: Wet MeadowDeCola Pond D Normal Water Level (NWL)892.2892.2892.2892.2DeCola Pond E Normal Water Level (NWL)888.2888.2888.2888.2Storm Sewer Diameter (inches)27 - 30484848Total Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) (SEA School/Wildwood)-9.18.68.510-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Ponds A, B, & C)898.5898.5898.5898.510-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond D)893.7893.1893.1893.110-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond E)893.2892.4892.4892.410-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond F)893.2892.4892.4892.4# of Potentially At-Risk Structures (10-year)9666100-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Ponds A, B, & C)901.7901.7901.7901.7100-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond D)899.8896.9897.0897.0100-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond E)895.9895.9895.9895.9100-Year Flood Elevation (DeCola Pond F)895.9895.8895.8895.8# of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year)29191919Open Water Surface Area (ac) (Wildwood Park)--0.5-Permanent Pool Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft)-0.80.8-Biofiltration Basin Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft)---0.2Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr)73.475.075.277.5Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr)-1.61.84.1Total # of Surveyed1 Trees (> 4 inches) and Trees <4" in SEA School Orchard146 146 146 146Total # of Surveyed1 Trees SEA School/Wildwood Park139 139 139 139Total # of Surveyed1 Trees between DeCola Ponds D and E7 7 7 7Tree Removal Estimate SEA School/Wildwood Park-728181Tree Removal Estimate between DeCola Ponds D and E-333# of Significant Trees Removed110485757# of Legacy Trees Removed0000# of Orchard Trees Removed/Relocated11111111# of Dead/Dying Trees Removed0000Tree Planting Estimate-35 - 7035 - 8035 - 80Preservation of Trees on KnollYesYesYesYesRestored Wetland Area (ac)-0.60.30.8Restored Prairie Area (ac)-1.10.91.4Restored Turf Open Green Space (ac)-1.21.30.7Length of Trail to be Removed (ft)-118011801180Length of New Paved Trail (ft)-240022401600Length of New Floating Boardwalk/Platform (ft)--135-Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost-$ 4.1 million$2.9 million$3.1 millionFeasibility Level Opinion of Cost Range (-20% to +30%)-$3.3 - 5.4 million$2.3 - $3.7 million$2.5 - 4.0 million30-Year Annualized Cost Estimate-$246,200$171,500$192,400Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume- $451,900 $329,800 $360,000Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Total Project)-$153,900$98,000$47,300Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment)-$53,200 $5,700 $5,9001 Does not reflect a complete survey of all trees in the SEA School/Wildwood Park areas; Trees on large, upland knoll and trees outside disturbance extents were not all included in the original survey as the goal was not to impact those trees as part of this flood mitigation project.Project CostsTable 6-1: SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Concept Matrix SummaryTrailsOutlet ModificationsFlood MitigationWater QualityTreesRestoration 10-yr100-yr10-yr100-yr10-yr100-yr10-yr100-yr1Terra Linda Low Point906.5907.3906.5907.3906.5907.3906.5907.32Medicine Lake Road Low Point/Rosalyn Court901.5902.2901.5902.2901.5902.2901.5902.23Rhode Island Ave Low Point898.9901.7898.9901.7898.9901.7898.9901.74Dover Hill Apartments900.9901.7900.9901.7900.9901.7900.9901.75Decola Pond A898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.76Decola Pond B898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.77Decola Pond C898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.7898.5901.78Decola Pond D893.7899.8893.1896.9893.1897.0893.1897.09Decola Pond E893.2895.9892.4895.9892.4895.9892.4895.910Decola Pond F893.2895.9892.4895.8892.4895.8892.4895.811Medicine Lake Road East of Railroad911.6912.3911.6912.3911.6912.3911.6912.312East of Railroad to Decola Pond C900.1901.6900.1901.6900.1901.6900.1901.613East of Railroad at Low Point on Nevada903.0903.8903.0903.8903.0903.8903.0903.814East of Railroad at Low Point on Sandburg902.3903.8902.3903.8902.3903.8902.3903.815East of Railroad to Decola Pond F898.6901.2898.6901.2898.6901.2898.6901.216Honeywell Pond883.4886.4883.3886.3883.3886.3883.3886.31 Existing conditions flood elevations include the Liberty Crossing and DeCola Ponds B&C flood mitigation projects and includes modifications to channel east of DeCola Pond C.Table 6-2: Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Project Area - Key Flood Areas and Flood Elevation SummaryFlood Area Flood Area DescriptionExisting Conditions (Phase 2 XP-SWMM Model)1Concept 1 - UG Storage w/ StreamConcept 3 - Wet MeadowFlood Elevation (ft-NAVD88)Concept 2 - Open Water 10-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)3100-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)310-year Flood Depth (ft)4100-year Flood Depth (ft)410-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)3100-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)310-year Flood Depth (ft)4100-year Flood Depth (ft)410-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)3100-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)310-year Flood Depth (ft)4100-year Flood Depth (ft)410-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)3100-Year Flood Elevation (ft - NAVD88)310-year Flood Depth (ft)4100-year Flood Depth (ft)47145 SANDBURG RD GOLDEN VALLEY Business 15 901.00 898.6 901.20.00.2898.6 901.20.00.2 898.6 901.2 0.0 0.2 898.6 901.2 0.0 0.27825 MEDICINE LAKE RD GOLDEN VALLEY Business 2 903.95 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.07775 MEDICINE LAKE RD GOLDEN VALLEY Business 2 904.68 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.02740 ROSALYN CT NEW HOPE Multi-Residential 2 903.43 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.02710 ROSALYN CT NEW HOPE Multi-Residential 2 904.63 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.02700 ROSALYN CT NEW HOPE Multi-Residential 2 904.40 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.02730 ROSALYN CT NEW HOPE Multi-Residential 2 904.49 901.5 902.20.00.0901.5 902.20.00.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.0 901.5 902.2 0.0 0.07500 WINNETKA HEIGHTS DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 5 899.98 898.5 901.70.01.7898.5 901.70.01.7 898.5 901.7 0.0 1.7 898.5 901.7 0.0 1.72155 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 900.32 893.7 899.80.00.0893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02145 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 899.84 893.7 899.80.00.0893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02135 KELLY DR6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 899.31 893.7 899.80.0 0.4893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02125 KELLY DR6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 898.73 893.7 899.80.0 1.0893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.07350 WINNETKA HEIGHTS DR6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 898.31 893.7 899.80.0 1.4893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.07400 WINNETKA HEIGHTS DR6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 898.43 893.7 899.80.0 1.3893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.07450 WINNETKA HEIGHTS DR6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 898.37 893.7 899.80.0 1.4893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02120 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 899.18 893.7 899.80.0 0.6893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02140 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N6GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 897.98 893.7 899.80.0 1.8893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 898.06 893.7 899.80.01.7893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02220 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 897.26 893.7 899.80.02.5893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.02240 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 8 897.09 893.7 899.80.02.7893.1 896.90.00.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.0 893.1 897.0 0.0 0.07820 TERRA LINDA DR NEW HOPE Residential 1 905.80 906.5 907.30.71.5906.5 907.30.71.5 906.5 907.3 0.7 1.5 906.5 907.3 0.7 1.51920 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 892.43 893.2 895.90.83.5892.4 895.90.03.4 892.4 895.9 0.0 3.4 892.4 895.9 0.0 3.57450 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 892.71 893.2 895.90.53.2892.4 895.90.03.2 892.4 895.9 0.0 3.2 892.4 895.9 0.0 3.27400 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 891.18 893.2 895.92.04.7892.4 895.91.24.7 892.4 895.9 1.2 4.7 892.4 895.9 1.2 4.77350 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 891.99 893.2 895.91.23.9892.4 895.90.43.9 892.4 895.9 0.4 3.9 892.4 895.9 0.4 3.97310 DULUTH ST GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 897.37 893.2 895.90.00.0892.4 895.90.00.0 892.4 895.9 0.0 0.0 892.4 895.9 0.0 0.01925 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 890.96 893.2 895.92.25.0892.4 895.91.44.9 892.4 895.9 1.5 4.9 892.4 895.9 1.4 5.01945 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 893.24 893.2 895.90.02.7892.4 895.90.002.6 892.4 895.9 0.00 2.6 892.4 895.9 0.00 2.71965 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 892.36 893.2 895.90.83.6892.4 895.90.03.5 892.4 895.9 0.1 3.5 892.4 895.9 0.0 3.62005 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 893.47 893.2 895.90.02.4892.4 895.90.02.4 892.4 895.9 0.0 2.4 892.4 895.9 0.0 2.42015 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 893.93 893.2 895.90.02.0892.4 895.90.01.9 892.4 895.9 0.0 1.9 892.4 895.9 0.0 2.02035 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 894.29 893.2 895.90.01.6892.4 895.90.01.6 892.4 895.9 0.0 1.6 892.4 895.9 0.0 1.62065 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 9 894.88 893.2 895.90.01.0892.4 895.90.01.0 892.4 895.9 0.0 1.0 892.4 895.9 0.0 1.02080 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 895.75 893.2 895.90.00.2892.4 895.80.00.05 892.4 895.8 0.0 0.1 892.4 895.8 0.0 0.12060 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 894.16 893.2 895.90.01.8892.4 895.80.01.6 892.4 895.8 0.0 1.6 892.4 895.8 0.0 1.72040 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 894.31 893.2 895.90.01.6892.4 895.80.01.5 892.4 895.8 0.0 1.5 892.4 895.8 0.0 1.52020 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 893.70 893.2 895.90.02.2892.4 895.80.02.1 892.4 895.8 0.0 2.1 892.4 895.8 0.0 2.12000 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 892.21 893.2 895.91.03.7892.4 895.80.23.6 892.4 895.8 0.2 3.6 892.4 895.8 0.2 3.61940 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 893.28 893.2 895.90.02.6892.4 895.80.02.5 892.4 895.8 0.0 2.5 892.4 895.8 0.0 2.61920 KELLY DR GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 892.68 893.2 895.90.53.2892.4 895.80.03.1 892.4 895.8 0.0 3.1 892.4 895.8 0.0 3.21925 MARYLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 891.48 893.2 895.91.74.4892.4 895.80.94.3 892.4 895.8 0.9 4.3 892.4 895.8 0.9 4.41935 MARYLAND AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY Residential 10 899.38 893.2 895.90.00.0892.4 895.80.00.0 892.4 895.8 0.0 0.0 892.4 895.8 0.0 0.02400 RHODE ISLAND AVE N (Garage) GOLDEN VALLEY Multi-Residential 4 903.74 900.9 901.70.00.0900.9 901.70.00.0 900.9 901.7 0.0 0.0 900.9 901.7 0.0 0.02400 RHODE ISLAND AVE N (Garage) GOLDEN VALLEY Multi-Residential 4 903.75 900.9 901.70.00.0900.9 901.70.00.0 900.9 901.7 0.0 0.0 900.9 901.7 0.0 0.02- Lowest openings determined from 2014 survey (Barr), 2006 survey (from New Hope/Stantec), and 1978 survey (Barr, verified in 2014)3 - Flood elevation based on XP-SWMM modeling utilizing the Atlas 14 precipitation depths and nested storm distribution 4 - Flood depth above low opening of structure, based on difference between the flood elevation and the lowest opening of structure5- BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model was updated to include the Libertry Crossing and DeCola Ponds B&C flood mitigation projects and includes updates to channel east of DeCola Pond C.6- Structure removed from being at-risk during the 100-year storm eventTable 6-3: Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Project Area - At-Risk1 PropertiesExisting Conditions5Concept 1 - Underground Storage w/ Stream Concept 2 - Open Water1 - Properties determined to be at-risk of flooding based on comparison of modeled flood elevations and surveyed low openings.Concept 3 - Wet MeadowElevation of Lowest Opening (ft - NAVD88)2Address1City Property TypeFlood Area 6-6 6.1.3 P8 Water Quality Modeling Results Although the primary goal of the SEA School/Wildwood Park project is to create additional flood mitigation volume, there is also an opportunity to improve the water quality. As discussed previously, the proposed design for the SEA School-Wildwood Park flood mitigation study includes the diversion of stormwater runoff away from DeCola Ponds E and F into the proposed features for extended detention. This means the diverted volume would no longer be treated in DeCola Ponds E and F. Thus, a main goal of the water quality design for the SEA School/Wildwood Park features included the mitigation of this water quality treatment loss. A secondary goal was to treat above the mitigation standards to further protect downstream waterbodies. The BCWMC Engineer estimated the pollutant (total phosphorus) removals for the SEA School/Wildwood Park area for each conceptual design alternative using the BCWMC P8 model. The model was updated to reflect existing conditions. The model was then updated to reflect the proposed rerouting of watersheds and additional permanent pool and flood pool volumes provided by each of the concepts. Under current conditions, the P8 model estimates that approximately 73.4 pounds of total phosphorus are removed annually in DeCola Ponds D, E, and F and the downstream pond (Honeywell Pond). With implementation of Concept 1, the total phosphorus removal rate would increase to approximately 75.0 pounds per year (additional removals of 1.6 pounds of total phosphorus per year). The implementation of Concept 2 would increase the total phosphorus removal rate to approximately 75.2 pounds per year (additional removal of 1.8 pounds of total phosphorus removal per year). With the implementation of Concept 3, the total phosphorus removal rate would increase to approximately 77.5 pounds of total phosphorus per year (additional 4.1 pounds of total phosphorus removal per year). The Main Stem of Bassett Creek is currently listed as impaired. The affected use is aquatic life based on fish bioassessments. Although a stressor identification study has not been completed to determine the exact cause of this impairment, reductions in sediment and pollutant loads to the creek can likely help address this impairment. 6.2 Wetland and Upland Creation and Restoration For all three concepts, various habitat types will be created on the SEA School/Wildwood Park properties. Depending on the concept, these habitat types include wet meadows, prairie, open water, turfed open green space, and a planted biofiltration basin. The restoration type will be determined based on the frequency and duration of inundation. In all concepts, areas that are expected to be inundated by the 2-year 24-hour and smaller events will be restored as a type of wetland known as a wet meadow. These enhanced wetland areas would allow for increased water quality treatment and enriched habitat communities for animal and plant species. The total created wetland areas for each concept are summarized in Table 6-1. 6-7 Areas outside of the 2-year inundation would either be restored with native prairie species or turfed open green space depending on the activity use for the area. The total created prairie and turfed green space areas for each concept are summarized in Table 6-1. For all conceptual designs, some tree removal would be required in the disturbed area to create the additional flood storage and to install the storm sewer between DeCola Ponds D and E. However, the upland areas would be restored with native plants, shrubs, and trees. The density of trees in these restored areas would be determined during final design, although it is anticipated that the tree density that would be replanted would range from a savannah type ecosystem (approximately 35 trees per acre) to a forest ecosystem (approximately 110 trees per acre). These trees should provide shade and aesthetically pleasing views for park users and provide habitat for upland dwelling wildlife. Existing trees would be preserved in areas outside the disturbed area and only a limited number of trees would be removed from the wooded knoll in Wildwood Park. 6.3 Open Water Area Creation Concept 2 includes the development of approximately 0.5 acres of open water within Wildwood Park. This open water area is proposed to have a maximum depth of 4 feet, with a 10-foot wide safety bench installed around the entire periphery of the pond for safety reasons. The open water area would provide permanent pool volume for water quality treatment and allow for the introduction of aquatic habitat into the park. For park users, the concept proposes the installation of a floating platform down to the water surface. This would allow for passive enjoyment of the open water area and can also allow for student participation in environmental learning activities at the SEA School. 6.4 Easement acquisition Nearly all of the proposed work is located on City of Golden Valley property, right-of-way, or within existing drainage and utility easements. However, permanent or temporary easements are anticipated for this project: • The City may need to obtain permanent and temporary easements from the SEA School for the work on the SEA School property. The BCWMC Engineer assumed no cost to the City for obtaining the required easements. • A temporary construction easement on residential land will be needed to accommodate access, construction staging, and the installation of storm sewer pipe between DeCola Ponds D and E . The planning level opinions of cost include the estimated cost of obtaining these easements. 6.5 Permits required for the project The proposed project is expected to require the following permits/approvals, regardless of the selected concept: • Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • Compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing contaminated material and debris- containing fill 6-8 • Compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act • Stormwater Management Permit from the City of Golden Valley • Right-of-Way Management Permit from the City of Golden Valley 6.5.1 Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification According to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the placement of fill and certain dredging activities in jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States. Jurisdictional wetlands and other waters are those that the USACE determines to have a significant nexus with navigable waters. A jurisdictional determination request w as sent to the USACE to determine if DeCola Ponds D and E are jurisdictional. The USACE determined that DeCola Pond D and E are not jurisdictional and do not require a Section 404 permit or 401 certifications. 6.5.2 Construction Stormwater General Permit A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Construction Stormwater General Permit from the MPCA authorizes stormwater runoff from construction sites. A Construction Stormwater General Permit is required as the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of soil. Preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan explaining how stormwater will be controlled within the project area during construction will be required as part of this permit. 6.5.3 Guidance for Managing Contaminated Soils and Debris-Containing Fill Phase II investigations indicate the soils in the project area meet the MPCA’s guidelines for unregulated fill, with the exception of debris-containing fill, which should be disposed at a permitted landfill. Debris- free soils with no field evidence of environmental impacts must be managed in acco rdance with MPCA’s Best Management Practices for the Off-Site Reuse of Unregulated Fill (MPCA, 2012) and the provisions of the Response Action Plan and Site Contingency Plan (Barr, 2015). 6.5.4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) was enacted to protect wetlands not protected under the MnDNR’s public waters work permit program. The WCA regulates filling and draining of all wetlands and regulates excavation within Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands. The WCA is administered by a local governmental unit (LGU), and it is expected that the city of Golden Valley will be the LGU for WCA- regulated wetland impacts associated with the proposed project. 6.5.5 Stormwater Management Permit The City of Golden Valley requires Stormwater Management Permits for land-disturbing activities that remove soils or vegetation, including but not limited to clearing, digging, dredging, draining, or filling. This permit would be required for projects that construct, expand, or modif y a stormwater quality treatment facility or stormwater BMP. It is anticipated the City of Golden Valley would require a Stormwater Management Permit for the proposed project. 6-9 6.5.6 Right-of-Way Management (ROW) Permit The City of Golden Valley requires a Right-of-Way (ROW) permit for temporary obstructions to travel ways and for the planting of trees, shrubs, or other landscaping features over 12-inches high. It is anticipated that City of Golden Valley would require a ROW permit for the proposed project. 6.6 Other project impacts 6.6.1 Temporary Closure of Walking Trails and Playground SEA School and Wildwood Park contain paved trails that connect to Kelly Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue. Since a portion of the walking trails will be impacted by the construction activities , it will be necessary to close the trails during construction activity. Additionally, because construction will occur directly adjacent to the playground, the playground will be temporarily closed. Trail and playground closure signs and barricades will be installed, and a pedestrian detour route will be determined during final design. Every effort will be made to minimize the duration of the trail and playground closures, including considering winter construction to minimize impacts to park users. 6.6.2 Temporary Closure of SEA School Driveway All three concepts propose the re-alignment of the SEA School driveway. During the driveway re - alignment, road closure signs and barricades will be installed. Vehicle detour routes will be determined during final design. Every effort will be made to minimize the duration of the driveway closure, including working during months when school is not in session and/or considering weekend construction to minimize impacts to school traffic. 6.6.3 Tree Removals For the proposed conceptual designs 75 - 84 of the surveyed trees are estimated for removal (those located within the project disturbance/grading limits on the SEA School/Wildwood Properties and for the storm sewer install between DeCola Ponds D and E). Of the trees estimated for removal, 48 - 57 are classified as significant (by Golden Valley ordinance). Eleven of these trees are also part of an existing orchard on the SEA School property. All of the trees located in the existing orchard will be relocated to a new orchard area adjacent to the playground. It is expected that residents and community members may have concerns about the tree removals. To address these concerns, it will be essential to show and describe the restoration efforts that will be implemented to mitigate the tree losses. Additionally, the City of Golden Valley Forester indicated that some recently planted trees may be viable for transplanting. Specific details on site restoration can be found in Section 6.2. 6.6.4 Impacts to Bats Preservation of bat species in Minnesota has recently become an important issue. White Nose Syndrome (WNS) has been attributed to the deaths of millions of bats in recent years across the United States, and all four species that hibernate in Minnesota are susceptible to the disease (MnDNR, 2015). Bats typically hibernate in sheltered areas such as caves, but some bats nest in trees during summer months. Extensive tree removals are to be avoided when bats are in their active season (April – September) so that nests or foraging areas are not inadvertently destroyed. During final design, there should be additional 6-10 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service or MnDNR regarding the timing of any tree removals and the potential impacts to bats. 7-1 7.0 Project cost considerations This section presents the feasibility-level opinion of cost of the evaluated alternatives, discusses potential funding sources, and provides an approximate project schedule. 7.1 Opinion of Cost The opinion of cost is a Class 4 feasibility-level cost estimate as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACI International) and uses the assumptions listed below and detailed in the following sections. 1. The cost estimate assumes a 25% construction contingency. 2. Costs associated with design, permitting, and construction observation (collectively “engineering”) is assumed to be 25% of the estimated construction costs. 3. Although much of the project area is located on City of Golden Valley property, right-of-way, or within a drainage and utility easement, a temporary construction easement may be necessary south of DeCola D for the modification to the storm sewer pipe between DeCola Ponds D and E; a minor cost was included for a construction easement in the feasibility-level opinion of cost. The BCWMC Engineer assumed no cost to the City for obtaining the required easements on the SEA School property. The Class 4 level cost estimates have an acceptable range of between -15% to -30% on the low range and +20% to +50% on the high range. Based on the development of concepts and initial vetting of the concepts by the City of Golden Valley, it is not necessary to utilize the full range of the acceptable range for the cost estimate; and we assume the final project costs may be between -20% and +30% of the estimated project budget. The feasibility-level total construction cost estimates, 30-year annualized total construction cost estimates, cost per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume, and annualized costs per pound of total phosphorus removed for each recommended concept are summarized in Table 6-1. These costs do not include the cost of feasibility design. Appendix B provides detailed cost-estimate tables for all three concepts. 7.1.1 Temporary easements Nearly all of the proposed work is located on City of Golden Valley property, right-of-way, or within existing drainage and utility easements. However, a temporary construction easement on residential land will be needed to accommodate access, construction staging, and the installation of storm sewer pipe between DeCola Ponds D and E. The City may need to obtain permanent and temporary easements from the SEA School for the work on the SEA School property. The BCWMC Engineer assumed no cost to the City for obtaining the required easements. 7-2 7.1.2 Wetland mitigation The wetland delineation for DeCola Ponds D and E and the SEA School/Wildwood Park areas identified wetlands at the pond peripheries. The goal of the proposed alternatives is to minimize the amount of wetland impacts, restore all impacted wetland areas to the existing wetland type, and develop new wetland habitat in the disturbed extents. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will incur additional costs for wetland mitigation. 7.1.3 Maintenance considerations Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities will be the responsibility of the City of Golden Valley. This section provides an overview of the anticipated maintenance activities for each concept design. The O&M recommendations include specific inspection/maintenance activities and frequency, and estimated annual costs based on existing project data. The City of Golden Valley may have alternative unit costs for each O&M task based on annual staffing and equipment availability. The following table summarizes the recommended maintenance activities for the proposed project features and the anticipated annual costs. 7-3 Table 7-1 Estimated Operations and Maintenance Tasks and Annual Costs Feature O&M Task Frequency Estimated Annual Cost Biofiltration Basin with Iron-Enhanced Sand Trenches Inspect basin for trash, debris, soil accumulation, presence of weeds, depth of mulch, condition of plants, blockages in inlet/outlet structures, presence of plowed snow (winter only), standing water (>48 hours) Once per month (growing season), twice per winter and following rain events >2” $9,000/basin Remove weeds from basin; remove all vegetative growth from iron -enhanced sand trenches Once per month (growing season) Remove and replace dead or diseased plants, remove invasive plants At least once per year Remove trash, debris, and sediment from energy dissipation structures, inlet structure, outlet structure, and basin Infrequent (as needed) Draintile jetting when prolonged inundation is observed (standing water > 48 hours) Infrequent (as needed) Replace mulch in bare areas Infrequent (as needed) Remove and replace iron-enhanced sand trenches Every 15+ years Stormwater Ponds; Inlet/Outlet Structures Inspect stormwater ponds for accumulation of trash, debris, and sediment; inspect slopes for presence of weeds, erosion, invasive species, and condition of plants; inspect inlet structures for structural damage or blockage At least once per year and following rain events >2” $5,000/pond Inspect outlet control structures, storm sewer pipes, sumps, weirs, and orifices for accumulation of trash, debris, and sediment; inspect for water surface elevations not dropping to normal water level (blocked outlet); inspect for structural damage At least four times per year and following rain events >2” Inspect diversion manholes for trash, debris, and sediment accumulation in the structures; inspect for storm sewer pipe blockages; inspect for structural damage At least once per year and following rain events >2” Remove trash and debris from stormwater ponds; remove weeds and invasive species and provide seed/sod; remove and replace dead or diseased plants At least once per year and following rain events >2” Remove trash, debris and sediment from diversion manholes and outlet control features with vacuum truck hose At least once per year and following rain events >2” Survey bottom of dead storage stormwater ponds to estimate volume of sediment accumulation Every 10 years Dredge accumulated sediment in stormwater ponds Every 10+ years Underground Storage Inspect underground storage area for accumulation of trash, debris, oil, sediment, structural damage, blocked inlet/outlet pipes; Measure sediment depth; Inspect ground surface for depressions or sink holes At least once per year and following events >2” $1,000/storage area Remove accumulated trash, debris, oil, and sediment in storage area with vac truc k hose Infrequent (as needed) Wet Meadow and Prairie Habitat Areas Inspect wet meadow and prairie habitats for trash, debris, soil accumulation, presence of weeds, condition of plants, blockages in inlet/outlet structures, presence of plowed snow (winter only), standing water (>48 hours) Once per month (growing season), twice per winter and following rain events >2” $2,500/Area Remove weeds from wet meadow and prairie habitats Once per month (growing season) Remove and replace dead or diseased plants, remove invasive plants At least once per year 7-4 7.1.4 30-year cost The 30-year cost for each alternative is calculated as the future worth of the initial capital cost (including contingency and engineering costs) plus the future worth of annual maintenance and significant maintenance at the end of the alternative’s estimated useful life. A 4% rate of inflation is assumed. The annualized cost for each alternative is calculated as the value of 30 equal, annual payments of the same future worth as the 30-year cost. The 30-year annualized cost estimates for each concept are presented in Table 6-1. 7.1.5 Annualized pollutant reduction cost Section 6.1.3 and Table 6-1 show the estimated annual loading reductions for total phosphorus (TP) for each recommended conceptual design alternative. The BCWMC Engineer estimated the total phosphorus load reductions by modifying the BCWMC P8 model to include the proposed alternatives and comparing to existing conditions. The annualized pollutant-reduction cost for each alternative is presented in two ways. The first value is the annualized 30-year total project cost (including both flood and water quality portions of the project) divided by the annual load reduction. The second value is the estimated annualized 30-year water quality treatment project cost divided by the annual load reduction. The water quality treatment project cost was estimated by summing the itemized project costs related to water quality improvement, comparing this to the total project cost, and utilizing that fraction of the total project cost. The 30-year annualized total phosphorus removal cost was analyzed using two different methods since the project goal is primarily for flood mitigation and secondarily for water quality improvement. The cost per pound of phosphorus removed for this project using the current P8 model analysis is high compared to other BCWMC CIP projects—for example, previous high costs per pound of phosphorus removed for BCWMC CIP projects were $5,900 for the Northwood Lake Improvement Project and $9,600 for the DeCola Ponds B&C Flood Mitigation Project (water quality improvement components). The high cost per pound of phosphorus removed for this project is due to do the fact that the SEA School- Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project’s primary goal is to mitigate flooding and to mitigate the water quality treatment lost from diverting stormwater away from DeCola Ponds E and F. A major portion of the construction costs are for the creation of flood storage volume, for the restoration of the graded areas, and for the mitigation of lost water quality from re-routing stormwater runoff rather than for water quality improvement. Concept 1 is particularly high because water quality improvement includes the installation of subsurface storage to achieve the water quality treatment. 7.1.6 Miscellaneous costs Miscellaneous costs that may arise during final design might relate to park recreational or educational improvements. Since the proposed project area is within an existing park and adjacent to a school, final design may uncover opportunities to improve trash management, pet waste management, tree management, park safety and/or incorporate other recreational amenities such as overlooks, sun shelters, benches, and wildlife habitat/features. The inclusion of educational signage or interactive features could also be considered as part of final design due to the large number of patrons that utilize the park, 7-5 including students, neighborhood residents, and residents that travel to the park from outside of the neighborhood for sporting activities (e.g., pickle ball). These additional features may not be applicable for BCWMC CIP funding, so funding may need to be coordinated with the City of Golden Valley. 7.2 Funding sources As described in Section 8.0 below, the Commission Engineer recommends implemented Concept 3. The planning level estimated cost for Concept 3 is $3.1 million (-20%/+30%) (see Section 8.0). The BCWMC proposes to use $1.3 million of its CIP funds to help pay for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project. The CIP funds are raised through an ad valorem tax levied by Hennepin County on behalf of the BCWMC. For this project, $300,000 is proposed to be levied in 2022 and $1 million levied in 2023. As a result, the BCWMC CIP funds alone will not fully cover the implementation of this project. Other sources of funding for this project are required and include: • City of Golden Valley, • MnDNR Flood Damage Reduction Grants (through the state legislature/project bonding bill), • Other sources, including potential grants (e.g. Hennepin County Natural Resource Opportunity grants) The current amount allocated thorough the MnDNR Flood Damage Reduction Grant for this project is $1.3 million. 7.3 Project schedule The BCWMC will hold a public hearing in September 2021 on this project. Pending the outcome of the hearing, the BCWMC would officially order the project, enter into an agreement with the City of Golden Valley to design and construct the project, and certify to Hennepin County a final 2022 tax levy for this project. The construction work would likely begin in the fall or winter of 2022, as tree removal should occur in the period from October through March, outside of the northern long -eared bat’s active season (April through September). Additionally, excavation during the winter would be appropriate to complete the major earthwork during periods with less frequent runoff events. However, construction phasing should also consider minimizing impacts to the SEA School as the driveway realignment will affect bus traffic at the school. Construction would be completed in spring/summer 2023. If project construction is scheduled for fall or winter 2022, spring or summer 2022 bidding is recommended. This would give contractors adequate scheduling time to complete the project at a reasonable price. In the intervening time, the City would gather public input, prepare the final design, and obtain permits. 8-1 8.0 Alternatives assessment and recommendations Table 8-1 provides an overview of the main project impacts and benefits for each Concept based on the details outlined in the previous sections (also summarized in Table 1-1). For a complete summary of the estimated impacts, permitting requirements, closure of pedestrian trails, and costs of the concepts , including the methodology and assumptions used for the cost estimate, refer to Section 6.0, Section 7.0, and Table 6-1. Based on review of the project impacts for each of the three concepts, the overall project costs, and comments received from BCWMC staff, City of Golden Valley staff (e.g., Open Spaces and Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission), SEA School representatives, the neighborhood, park users, and the general public during the feasibility study process, the BCWMC Engineer recommends constructing Concept 3. While Concept 1 results in the development of the most flood mitigation volume when compared to Concepts 2 and 3, the difference in the flood reduction in DeCola Ponds D, E, and F is only a maximum of 0.05 feet during the 100-year 24-hour event. This difference in flood elevations on DeCola Ponds D, E, and F does not change the number of structures at risk of flooding. Therefore, in terms of flood reduction benefits, Concepts 1, 2, and 3 perform equally. The existing permanent pools in DeCola Ponds E and F already provide a significant amount of pollutant removal; however, the addition of new flood storage areas in wet meadows and prairies and the inclusions of dead pool storage or biofiltration results in an increase in the treatment provided by the project. Concept 3 provides the largest total phosphorus removal of the three concepts analyzed and relies on iron-enhanced sand filtration, which is an added benefit because the material would be able to remove a portion of the dissolved fraction of the total phosphorus. Although tree preservation is targeted for certain areas within Wildwood Park (e.g. the existing knoll in the northeast corner of the park), tree impacts are expected for all three concepts. Concept 3 proposes the removal of only 9 additional trees from that of Concept 1. The planning level budget that the BCWMC and the City of Golden Valley have been using for budgeting is $2.7 – 3.0 million (-20%/+40%). Concept 3 has a point opinion of cost of $3.1 million (-20%/+30%), which falls within the range of the original planning level budget. Through discussions with BCWMC and City representatives, SEA School representatives, the neighborhood, park users, and the general public, the following items will also be considered during the final design of Concept 3: • Coordinating the upsizing and restoration of the DeCola D outlet with impacted property owners • Including additional pre-treatment considerations for stormwater runoff diverted from Pennsylvania Ave and Duluth Street toward the water quality treatment and flood storage in the Wildwood Park/SEA School properties. 8-2 • Integrating vegetation/screening between the filtration trenches in the proposed iron-enhanced sand filtration basin. • Exploring opportunities to promote better drainage towards the proposed outlets in the wet meadow habitat areas. • Providing an accessible looped walking trail around the site that is above the ~10 year event elevation or higher to make the trail more accessible and reduces maintenance. Additionally, the trail alignments and design should consider an east-west trail connection from Kelly Drive to the park interior (i.e. the playground), should consider future access and space needs around the pickleball courts, and consider future safe routes to school alignments along Kelly Drive. • Restoring a variety of habitat types and replanting of trees, to mitigate loss of trees and provide shade in specific locations • Continuing to coordinate design of the realignment of the northern SEA School driveway to Maryland Avenue with SEA School staff and evaluate specific items requested during final design. Also, phasing construction in this area to minimize impacts to SEA School access and operations. • Preserving key park features in including the pickleball courts, the playground area, the woo ded knoll, the sledding hill, and open turf areas for various recreation activities (e.g. the northeast corner of the park). • Providing flood mitigation and water quality educational opportunities for students, neighborhood residents, and park users. 8-3 Table 8-1 SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Impacts Summary Category Item Existing Conditions Concept 1: Underground Storage with Stream Concept 2: Open Water Concept 3: Wet Meadow Flood Mitigation Increase in Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) (SEA School/Wildwood) - 9.1 8.6 8.5 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (10-year) 9 6 6 6 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year) 29 19 19 19 Water Quality Increase in Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft) - 0.8 0.8 0.2 Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) - 1.6 1.8 4.1 Trees Tree Removal Estimate SEA School/Wildwood Park - 72 81 81 Tree Removal Estimate between DeCola Ponds D and E - 3 3 3 # of Significant Trees Removed 110 48 57 57 # of Orchard Trees Removed/Relocated 11 11 11 11 Tree Planting Estimate - 35 - 70 35 - 80 35 - 80 Restoration Restored Wetland Area (ac) - 0.6 0.3 0.8 Restored Prairie Area (ac) - 1.1 0.9 1.4 Restored Turf Open Green Space (ac) - 1.2 1.3 0.7 Project Costs Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost - $ 4.1 million $2.9 million $3.1 million Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume - $451,900 $329,800 $360,000 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment) - $53,200 $5,700 $5,900 9-1 9.0 References Barr Engineering, Co. (Barr). Phase II Investigation Report and Response Action Plan – Liberty Crossing/Pennsylvania Woods. Technical Report. September 2015. Barr Engineering, Co. (Barr). Sediment Characterization of Stormwater Ponds at Liberty Crossing/Pennsylvania Woods Site. Technical Memorandum. December 30, 2015 Barr Engineering, Co. (Barr). Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long-Term Flood Mitigation Plan. BCWMC Memorandum. May 31, 2016. Barr Engineering, Co. (Barr). Wetland Delineation Report - DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project. BCWMC Report. October 2017. Approved November 2017. Barr Engineering, Co. (Barr). Summary for Test Trench Investigation - DeCola Ponds B & C Improvement Project. Technical Memorandum. March 28, 2018. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Watershed Management Plan. September 2015. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and R.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS079/31, pp. 103. 1979. Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota.1997. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). White-nose Syndrome and Minnesota's bats. [http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wns/index.html]. 2015. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Managing Stormwater Sediment Best Management Practice Guidance. June 2015. [https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm4-16.pdf]. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Best Management Practices for the Off-Site Reuse of Unregulated Fill. February 2012. Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. pp. 67. 1956. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Midwest Region. August 2010. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). 1987. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetlands of the United States Circular 29. 1956. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Appendices Appendix A Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B Feasibility-Level Cost Estimates Appendix A Wetland Delineation Report (2020) Wetland Delineation Report DeCola Ponds – SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Prepared for City of Golden Valley October 2020 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Wetland Delineation Report DeCola Ponds – SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Prepared for City of Golden Valley October 2020 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Wetland Delineation i Wetland Delineation Report October 2020 Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 General Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Topography ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Precipitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.4 National Wetland Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.6 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Wetland Delineation ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods .............................................................................................. 5 3.2 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Regulatory Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ii List of Tables Table 1 Antecedent Moisture Conditions Table 2 Precipitation in Comparison to WETS Data Table 3 Soils located in the project area Table 4 Delineated Wetlands List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 LIDAR Map Figure 3 National Wetlands Inventory Figure 4 Public Waters Inventory Figure 5 Hydric Soils Map Figure 6 Wetland Delineation Map List of Appendices Appendix A Wetland Delineation Datasheets Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C MnRAM Excel Spreadsheet 1 1.0 Introduction This wetland delineation report has been prepared by Barr Engineering Co., (Barr) on behalf of the City of Golden Valley in support of the DeCola Ponds – SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Stormwater Project. The project area is located in the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota in Section 29 of Township 118 North, Range 21 West (Figure 1). A field wetland delineation was conducted by Barr for the proposed project on September 14, 2020. This delineation delineated two wetlands within the project area. This Wetland Delineation Report has been prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual”, USACE, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010) and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. This report includes general environmental information (Section 2.0), descriptions of the delineated wetlands (Section 3.0), and a discussion of regulations and the administering authorities (Section 4.0). The Tables section includes antecedent precipitation data. The Figures section includes the Project Location Map, Topography Map, National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Public Waters Inventory (PWI), Hydric Soils Map, and the Wetland Delineation Map. Appendix A includes Wetland Data Forms and Appendix B includes site photographs. 2 2.0 General Environmental Setting 2.1 Site Description The project area is made up of two segments. (Figure 1). The southern segment of the project area is located within the City of Golden Valley’s Wildwood Park and the School of Engineering and Arts (SEA) School property. Wildwood Park offers recreational amenities such as pickleball courts, play structures, picnic shelter, general open space, and trails. This area also includes the area along the storm sewer discharge from Duluth Street to DeCola Pond E. The northern project area is located within a residential neighborhood and is crossed by Winnetka Heights Drive, following along the outlet pipe alignment from the south end of DeCola Pond D to the north end of DeCola Pond E (Figure 6). 2.2 Topography The project area is in an urban setting where the natural topography has been altered. Generally, The topography of the project area gentle slopes towards the DeCola Ponds. The highest elevation in the project area is 916 Feet MSL located in Wildwood Park just south of the pickleball court. The lowest elevation is 890 feet MSL along DeCola Pond E (Figure 2). Developed areas surrounding the project area are relatively flat. 2.3 Precipitation Recent precipitation data was compared to historic precipitation data to evaluate monthly deviations from normal conditions. Precipitation data was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group, Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database (Minnesota Climatology Office, 2020) for wetlands in Hennepin County, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, Section 29. Antecedent moisture conditions were within the normal range according to precipitation data from the three months prior to the September 14, 2020, site visit (Table 1). During the month of August, the City of Golden Valley received around 4.97 inches of precipitation, which is within the normal range for August. In July the area received below-average levels of precipitation while June was within normal range. The water year has varied between dry and wet for the past nine years but fell mostly into the wet range from 2016 through 2019 (Table 2). Table 1, Antecedent Moisture Conditions Score using 1981-2010 normal period (value are in inches) first prior month: August 2020 second prior month: July 2020 third prior month: June 2020 estimated precipitation total for this location: 4.97R 2.75R 3.74R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 3.47 2.86 3.46 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 5.12 4.25 5.34 type of month: dry normal wet normal dry normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 10 (normal) 3 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) *’R” following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates Table 2 Precipitation in comparison to WETS data Precipitation Totals are in Inches Color Key Multi-month Totals: total is in lowest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution WARM = warm season (May thru September) total is => 30th and <= 70th percentile ANN = calendar year (January thru December) total is in highest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution WAT = water year (Oct. previous year thru Sep. present year) 2.4 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data was reviewed for any wetlands located within or adjacent to the project area. Two NWI wetlands are mapped within the project area. The northern most NWI is classified as a freshwater pond with a shallow open water plant community (PABH; Figure 3). The southern most wetland is classified as a freshwater pond with a non-vegetated aquatic community (PUBH). No NWIs are located within Wildwood Park or the SEA School property. 4 2.5 Water Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Public Water Inventory (PWI) was queried for any Public Waters located within or adjacent to the project area (Figure 4). No PWI watercourses or PWI basins are located within the project area. DeCola Pond A is the closet PWI located approximately 220 feet west of the project area. DeCola Pond A is hydrologically connected to Decola Pond D through a series of culverts that ultimately lead to Decola Pond D. DeCola Pond D and E are not identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as impaired waters. 2.6 Soil Resources Soil information for the wetland delineation area was obtained from the Soil Survey for Hennepin County, Minnesota (USDA, 2004). Four soils are mapped within the project area (Table 3). None of the soils are classified as hydric soils (Figure 5). Table 3 Soils located in the project area Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating (%) Acres in AOI Percent of Project Area L22C2 Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded predominantly non-hydric (2%) 3 32.3 L52C Urban land-ester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes No Hydric (0%) 3.9 41.2 M-W Water, Miscellaneous Not Hydric (0%) 0 0.2 U1A Urban land- udorthents, wet substratum, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not Hydric (0%) 0.7 7.1 U2A Udortents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not Hydric (0%) 1.8 19.3 Total 9.4 100 5 3.0 Wetland Delineation 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods The wetland delineation was completed according to the Routine On-Site Determination Method specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Edition), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010), and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The delineated wetland boundaries and associated sample points were surveyed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the USFWS Circular 39 system (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), and the Eggers and Reed Wetland Classification System (Eggers and Reed, 2015). Soil samples were collected to examine for the presence of hydric soil indicators using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) hydric soil indicators (Version 8.2). Hydrologic conditions were evaluated at each soil boring. Additionally, the dominant plant species were identified, and the corresponding wetland indicator status of each plant species was determined. The soil colors, hydrologic conditions, and dominant plant species and indicator species were noted on the Wetland Data Forms (Appendix A). Photographs taken at the time of the site visit are provided in Appendix B. 3.2 Aquatic Resources During the wetland delineation, two wetlands totaling 0.03 acres were delineated within the project area (Table 4). The delineated wetlands included DeCola Pond D and E (Figure 6). Delineations were limited to the areas around the DeCola Pond D outlet pipe, the northern storm sewer discharge into DeCola Pond E, and the southern storm sewer discharge into DeCola Pond E, where potential modifications to storm sewer infrastructure might be made. Descriptions and assessments of the wetland areas are provided below, with representative photographs in Appendix B. 6 Table 4: Delineated Wetlands Wetland Name Circular 39 Cowardin Classification Eggers and Reed Wetland Size (Acres) DeCola Pond D Type 4 PUBH Deep marsh 0.01 Dakolo Pond E Type 4 PUBH Deep marsh 0.02 DeCola Ponds D and E are connected hydrologically through a culvert located under Winnetka Heights Dr. Water flows from DeCola Pond D into Pond E and then flows outside of the project area into DeCola Pond F, ultimately draining to Bassett Creek. Since DeCola Ponds D and E are similar and, one upland/wetland transect was conducted to represent both of the delineated wetland areas for this project. At Sample Point 1, two primary hydrology indicators were observed, including saturation (A3), inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7). Both of the wetlands were classified as a Type 4/deep marsh due to the depth of the wetlands and lack of emergent vegetation (PUBH; Figure 6). The two ponds are hydrologically connected through a culvert under Winnetka Heights Drive, that drains Decola Pond D into Decola Pond E. The wetlands are bordered by private residences that have altered the vegetation along the wetland boundary. Mowed lawns are maintained up to the wetland boundary and ornamental tree species have been planted in the surrounding area. Species identified along the wetland borders included, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis; FACW), water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia; OBL). Woody vegetation such as boxelder (Acer negundo; FAC) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides; FAC), and American elm (Ulmus americana; FACW) were also identified. No emergent vegetation was observed within the inundated area of the wetland boundary. According to NRCS data, the soils mapped at Sample Point 1 are classified as Urban land-Lester complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes, a non-hydric soil. Sampled soils consisted of a dark matrix color from the soil surface down to approximately 6 inches. A gleyed matrix with a lighter gray color was found 6 inches below the soil surface. The soils at Sample Point 1 met the loamy gleyed matrix (F2) hydric soil indicator. The transition to upland was defined by a sudden 2 foot change in elevation around the perimeter of the wetland. The vegetation in the adjacent upland area consisted of maintained lawns. The southern boundary of DeCola Pond D was defined by a constructed retaining wall made of rocks. Using the MnRAM wetland assessment methodology, both DeCola Pond E and D were classified as a Manage 2 wetlands. As the wetland is rated medium for aesthetics and low for amphibian habitat . See the attached for the MnRAM Excel spreadsheet. 4.0 Regulatory Overview The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the dredge or placement of fill materials into wetlands that are located adjacent to or are hydrologically connected to interstate or navigable waters 7 under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the USACE has jurisdiction over any portion of a project, they may also review impacts to wetlands under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Filling, excavating, and draining wetlands are also regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and the Minnesota Public Waters Inventory Program, which are administered by the City of Golden Valley and the MnDNR. The City of Golden Valley, MnDNR, and the USACE, should be contacted before altering any aquatic resources in the project area. Delineated wetland boundaries may be reviewed, if needed, by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Hennepin County, and the City of Golden Valley, along with the USACE. 8 5.0 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and R.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS079/31, 103 pp. Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. 2015. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Version 3.2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota, July 2015. Minnesota State Climatology Office. 2020. Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database. Accessed from: http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt and J.F. Berkowitz(eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. August 2010. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1956. Wetlands of the United States Circular 39. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Figures 456766 456770 4567102 4567156 100 55 £¤169 City ofGoldenValley City ofNew Hope City ofPlymouth City ofRobbinsdaleCity ofCrystalT118N, R22WS24 T118N, R21WS19 T118N, R21WS20 T118N, R21WS21 T29N, R24WS7 T118N, R22WS25 T118N, R21WS30 T118N, R21WS29 T118N, R21WS28 T29N, R24WS18 T118N, R22WS36 T118N, R21WS31 T118N, R21WS32 T118N, R21WS33 T29N, R24WS19 HennepinCounty Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 20:36 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 1 Project Location.mxd User: VAW PROJECT LOCATIONDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 1 Project Boundary 1 inch = 2,000 feet 0 2,000 4,000 Feet !;N Imagery Source: MNGEO 900' 8 9 8 ' 8 9 2 ' 902 ' 89 0 '936'932'924'914'934'9 2 8 '926'920'906' 930' 918' 9 1 6 ' 91 2 ' 90 8 ' 916' 908' 924' 9 1 4 '918'910'906'904'902'918'908'904'890'896 ' 89 4 ' 900' 896' 894'900'896'902'896'9 0 4 '894'906' 898' 902' 90 0 '942'938'934'90 2 ' 89 8 '894'890'882'880'876'894 ' 890'942'940'922'920'918' 914'908' 9 0 4 ' 90 2 '932'930'888' 886' 884' 910'904'912'90 0 ' 892'898'892'8 9 0 ' 904' 900'898'904'936'896'89 2 ' 878' 898' 896'892'930'930' 912'906'890'9 4 4 ' 936' 934' 9 3 4 '928'906'90 0 '898'892'938'938' 934' 934'934'926'920'904'902'904'904' 904' 900'90 0 ' 898' 8 9 4 '886'882'882'880' Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 20:46 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 2 LiDAR Map.mxd User: VAW LIDAR MAPDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 2 Project Boundary Elevation Index Contour (10' Interval) Intermediate Contour (2' Interval)1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 DeCola Pond A DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond E DeCola Pond F T118N, R21WS29 PUBH PEM1A PEM1A PUBH PUBH PABH PEM1A PFO1A Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 20:46 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 3 NWI Map.mxd User: VAW NWI MAPDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 3 Project Boundary National Wetland Inventory 1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 T118N, R21WS29 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 20:46 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 3 PWI Map.mxd User: TAC PWI MAPDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 4 Project Boundary Public Water Inventory Watercourses Public Water Inventory Basins 1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 DeCola Pond A DeCola Pond E DeCola Pond D DeCola Pond F T118N, R21WS29 L52C L52C U6B L37B U1A M-W M-W U1A U1A U1A U1A U1A L22C2 L22C2 U2A U1A U1AU1A Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 20:57 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 5 Soils Map.mxd User: VAW SOILS MAPDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 5 Project Boundary Soil Boundary Hydric Rating by Map Unit Predominantly non-hydric (1 to 33%) Not Hydric (0%) 1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 !(!(DeCola Pond DDeCola Pond E DeCola Pond F 2 1 Kelly CirPennsylvania Ave NK e l l y D r Winnetka He i g h t s D r Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 21:00 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 6 Delineated Wetlands.mxd User: VAW DELINEATED WETLANDSDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 6 !(Sample Point Project Boundary Delineated Wetlands (PUBH) Culverts 1 inch = 116 feet 0 100 200 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 DaCola Pond E Maryland Ave NKelly Dr NPennsylvania Ave NQuebec Ave NDuluth St Kelly DrBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 21:00 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\SEASchool_Wildwood\Maps\Reports\Wetland_Delineation_Report\Figure 6 Delineated Wetlands.mxd User: VAW DELINEATED WETLANDSDeCola Ponds- SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project FIGURE 6 !(Sample Point Project Boundary Delineated Wetlands (PUBH) Culverts 1 inch = 163 feet 0 100 200 Feet !;N Imagery Source: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Appendix A Wetland Delineation Datasheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Applicant/Owner:City of Golden Valley City/County:Golden Valley Sampling Date:09/14/20 Investigator(s):TAC Township:118 Range:21 Slope %:0 Subregion (LRR):M Latitude:45.001748 Longitude:-93.373845 Datum:NAD 1983 Hennepin County Feet Soil Map Unit Name:Urban Land-lester complex Circular 39 Classification:Type 4 General Remarks (explain any answers if needed): Sample point is located within the boundary of wetland 1. According to antecedent precipitation data the area has received normal levels of rain fall in the past three months. Project/Site:Sea School Sampling Point:SP 1 State:MN Section:29 Land Form:Depression Local Relief:Concave Cowardin Classification:PUBH Eggers & Reed (primary):Deep MarshAre climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are vegetation No Soil No Hydrology No No No No (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed? Are vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Vegetation Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. VEGETATION Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 45Populus deltoides FAC FACW FACW FACW FAC 0 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 Herb Stratum Ulmus americana 15 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 Impatiens capensis 40 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Rhamnus cathartica 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cover:45 Total Cover:15 Total Cover:80 Total Cover:0 Dominance Test Worksheet: 4 4 100.00% 0 85 55 0 0 140 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:(A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: X 1 = X 2 = X 3 = X 4 = X 5 = (A) 170 165 0 0 335 Prevalence Index = B/A =2.39 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Morphological Adaptations [1] (provide supporting data in vegetation remarks or on a separate sheet) No Yes % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation [1] (Explain)No [1] Indicators of hydric soil & wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Eggers & Reed (secondary): Eggers & Reed (tertiary): Eggers & Reed (quaternary): Yes Prevalence Index ≤ 3.0 [1] Hydric soil present?Yes Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Indicators of wetland hydrology present?Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland?Yes Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: 30 ft ) 15 ft ) 5 ft ) 30 ft ) Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Yes Yes Yes No 50/20 Thresholds:20%50% Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum 9 22.5 3 7.5 0 0 16 40 If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:Wetland 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegetationNo Mapped NWI Classification:PUBH % Sphagnum Moss Cover: 10/5/2020 5:49:51 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (explain in remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface water present?Surface Water Depth (inches): Water table present?Water Table Depth (inches):3 Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe)Saturation Depth (inches):0 Stream GaugeMonitoring WellRecorded Data: Hydrology Remarks: Field Observations: Describe Recorded Data: Aerial Photo Indicators of wetland hydrology present?Yes Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Previous Inspections True Aquatic Plants (B14) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sampling Point:SP 1SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the abscence of indicators). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depth (inches) 0 - 6 Matrix Color (moist)% 6 - 12 - 12 - 24 - - 10YR 2/1 100 SiL Mucky 10YR 2/1 10Y 5/1 10Y 5/1 Redox Features Color (moist)%Type [1]Loc [2]Texture Remarks 60 SiL 40 SiL 70 SiL [1] Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains [2] Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils [3]: [3] Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Dark Surface (S7) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in soil remarks) Soil Remarks: Restrictive Layer (if present):Type:Depth (inches):Hydric soil present?Yes 10/5/2020 5:49:52 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Applicant/Owner:City of Golden Valley City/County:Golden Valley Sampling Date:09/14/20 Investigator(s):TAC Township:118 Range:21 Slope %:0 Subregion (LRR):M Latitude:45.001767 Longitude:-93.373832 Datum:NAD 1983 Hennepin County Feet Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-Lester complex Circular 39 Classification:Upland General Remarks (explain any answers if needed): Sample point is located adjacent to Wetland 1. According to antecedent precipitation data the project area has received normal levels of precipitation over the last three months. Project/Site:Sea School Sampling Point:SP 2 State:MN Section:29 Land Form:Depression Local Relief:Concave Cowardin Classification:Upland Eggers & Reed (primary):UplandAre climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are vegetation No Soil No Hydrology No No No No (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed? Are vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Vegetation Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Vegetation at the sample point was mowed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. VEGETATION Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 45Populus deltoides FAC FACW FAC FACU FACU 0 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 Herb Stratum Ulmus americana 15 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 Poa pratensis 45 Glechoma hederacea 40 Taraxacum officinale 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cover:45 Total Cover:15 Total Cover:100 Total Cover:0 Dominance Test Worksheet: 3 4 75.00% 0 15 90 55 0 160 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:(A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: X 1 = X 2 = X 3 = X 4 = X 5 = (A) 30 270 220 0 520 Prevalence Index = B/A =3.25 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Morphological Adaptations [1] (provide supporting data in vegetation remarks or on a separate sheet) No Yes % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:0 Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation [1] (Explain)No [1] Indicators of hydric soil & wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Eggers & Reed (secondary): Eggers & Reed (tertiary): Eggers & Reed (quaternary): No Prevalence Index ≤ 3.0 [1] Hydric soil present?No Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Indicators of wetland hydrology present?No Is the sampled area within a wetland?No Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: 30 ft ) 15 ft ) 5 ft ) 30 ft ) Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Yes Yes Yes No 50/20 Thresholds:20%50% Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum 9 22.5 3 7.5 0 0 20 50 If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegetationNo Mapped NWI Classification:Upland % Sphagnum Moss Cover: 10/5/2020 5:49:52 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (explain in remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface water present?Surface Water Depth (inches): Water table present?Water Table Depth (inches): Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe)Saturation Depth (inches): Stream GaugeMonitoring WellRecorded Data: Hydrology Remarks:No hydrology indicators were observed. Field Observations: Describe Recorded Data: Aerial Photo Indicators of wetland hydrology present?No Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Previous Inspections True Aquatic Plants (B14) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sampling Point:SP 2SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the abscence of indicators). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depth (inches) 0 - 14 Matrix Color (moist)% 14 - 24 - - - - 10YR 3/1 100 SL 10YR 3/1 10YR 8/1 Redox Features Color (moist)%Type [1]Loc [2]Texture Remarks 90 7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL SL 5 [1] Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains [2] Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils [3]: [3] Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Dark Surface (S7) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in soil remarks) Soil Remarks: Restrictive Layer (if present):Type:Depth (inches):Hydric soil present?No 10/5/2020 5:49:52 PM Appendix B Site Photographs DeCola Ponds – SEA School/Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Photolog September 14, 2020 Photograph 1, west side of the pickleball courts in Wildwood Park. view north Photograph 2, northside of the pickleball courts in Wildwood Park, view east Photograph 3, Northeastern segment of project area. view east Photograph 4, eastern edge of Wildwood Park, view south Photograph 5, Wildwood Park. view west Photograph 6, wooded trails in Wildwood Park, view east Photograph 7, Southern DaCola Pond E outlet. Photograph 8, Southern boundary of DaCola Pond E, view north. Photograph 9, northern segment of project area, view north. Photograph 10, northern segment of project area, view south. Photograph 11, northern boundary of DaCola pond E, view south. Photograph 12, northern boundary of DaCola pond E, view east. Photograph 13, southern boundary of DaCola pond D, view south. Photograph 14, DaCola pond E, view north. Appendix C MnRAM Wetland Management Classification DeCola Pond D MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3637 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7071 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P MnRAM 3.2 Digital Worksheet, Side 2 Question Description Rating Highest-rated: 1 Veg. Table 2, Option 4 0.20 0.3 TOTAL VEG Rating 0.22 L 4 Listed, rare, special plant species?n next 5 Rare community or habitat?n next 6 Pre-European-settlement conditions?n next 7 hydrogeo & topoDepressional/Flow Through#N/A 8 Water depth (inches) 60 Water depth (% inundation) 9 Local watershed/immedita drainage (acres) 10 Existing wetland size 0.75 11 SOILS: Up/Wetland (survey classification + site) 12 Outlet characteristics for flood retention A 1 13 Outlet characteristics for hydrologic regime A 1 14 Dominant upland land use (within 500 ft)B 0.5 0.5 15 Soil condition (wetland) B 0.5 16 Vegetation (% cover)7%L 0.1 17 Emerg. veg. flood resistance C 0.1 18 Sediment delivery C 0.1 19 Upland soils (based on soil group)B 0.5 20 Stormwater runoff pretreatment & detention A 1 0.1 21 Subwatershed wetland density B 0.5 22 Channels/sheet flow A 1 23 Adjacent naturalized buffer average width (feet)2 L WQ 0.1 L 0.1 24 Adjacent Area Management: % Full 0%0 1 0.5 adjacent area mgmt: % Manicured 100%0.5 adjacent area mgmt: % Bare 0%0 25 Adjacent Area Diversity & Structure: % Native 10% 0.1 2 0.55 adjacent area diversity: % Mixed 90%0.45 adjacent area diversity: % Sparse/Inv./Exotic 0% 0 26 Adjacent Area Slope: % Gentle 100%1 1 1 adjacent area slope: % Moderate 0%0 adjacent area slope: % Steep 0%0 27 Downstream sensitivity/WQ protection A 1 28 Nutrient loading C 0.1 29 Shoreline wetland? N N 30 Rooted shoreline vegetation (%cover )Enter a percentage 31 Wetland in-water width (in feet, average)Enter a percentage 32 Emergent vegetation erosion resistance Enter valid choice 33 Shoreline erosion potential Enter valid choice 34 Bank protection/upslope veg. Enter valid choice 35 Rare Wildlife N N 36 Scarce/Rare/S1/S2 local community N N 37 Vegetation interspersion cover (see diagram 1)8 L 0.1 38 Community interspersion (see diagram 2)1 L 0.1 0 39 Wetland detritus C 0.1 40 Wetland interspersion on landscape B 0.5 0.1 41 Wildlife barriers C 0.1 42 Amphibian breeding potential-hydroperiod A 1 43 Amphibian breeding potential--fish presence c 0.1 44 Amphibian & reptile overwintering habitat A 1 45 Wildlife species (list) Redwing black bird 46 Fish habitat quality B 0.5 47 Fish species (list) N/A 48 Unique/rare educ./cultural/rec.opportunity N N 49 Wetland visibility A 1 50 Proximity to population Y 1 51 Public ownership A 1 52 Public access C 0.1 53 Human influence on wetland C 0.1 54 Human influence on viewshed C 0.1 55 Spatial buffer B 0.5 56 Recreational activity potential C 0.1 57 Commercial crop--hydrologic impact N/A N/ADigital worksheet, section IIDigital worksheet, section IUser entry This comes in from Side 1 automatically using the weighted average. To use the highest rated veg. Community rating, please manually overwrite that value (shown to the right) into the field at E5. Enter data starting here. Yellow boxes are used in calculations. Scroll down to answer more questions and see formula calculations WETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version_Decola Pond D.xls1 10/7/2020 MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P 58 GW - Wetland soils R R or D 0.1 59 GW - Subwatershed land use R R or D 0.1 60 GW - Wetland size and soil group R R or D 0.1 61 GW - Wetland hydroperiod D R or D 1 62 GW - Inlet/Outlet configuration D R or D 1 63 GW - Surrounding upland topographic relief D R or D 1 64 Restoration potential w/o flooding Y or N 3.3 65 Landowners affected by restoration E a b c Enter valid choice 66A Existing wetland size (acres) [from #10]0.75 __ acres 66B Total wetland restoration size (acres) __ acres 0.1 66C (Calculated) Potential New Wetland Area [B-A] -0.75 __ acres #### 67 Average width of naturalized upland buffer (potential)0 __ feet 0.1 value: #### 68 Likelihood of restoration success a b c Enter valid choice 69 Hydrologic alteration type Outlet, Tile, Ditch, GW pump, Wtrshd div., Filling 70 Potential wetland type (Circ. 39)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 71 Wetland sensitivity to stormwater E a b c 72 Additional stormwater treatment needs a b c Function Name Formula shown to the right. Vegetative Diversity/Integrity 0.22 L Hydrology - Characteristic 0.53 Med Flood Attenuation 0.59 Med Water Quality--Downstream 0.60 Med Water Quality--Wetland 0.25 Low Shoreline Protection N/A N/A Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure 0.28 0.28 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat 0.30 0.22 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat 0.03 Low Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural 0.38 0.49 Med Commercial use N/A N/A 0 Special Features listing: - ____ Groundwater Interaction indeterminate GW source Groundwater Functional Index no special indicators Restoration Potential (draft formula) #VALUE! ##### Stormwater Sensitivity (not active)Final RatingRating CategoryFunctional Rating SummariesRaw scoreAdditional questions% effectively drained: WETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version_Decola Pond D.xls2 10/7/2020 Appendix C MnRAM Wetland Management Classification DeCola Pond E MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3637 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7071 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P MnRAM 3.2 Digital Worksheet, Side 2 Question Description Rating Highest-rated: 1 Veg. Table 2, Option 4 0.22 0.3 TOTAL VEG Rating 0.22 L 4 Listed, rare, special plant species?n next 5 Rare community or habitat?n next 6 Pre-European-settlement conditions?n next 7 hydrogeo & topoDepressional/Flow Through#N/A 8 Water depth (inches) 60 Water depth (% inundation) 9 Local watershed/immedita drainage (acres) 10 Existing wetland size 0.82 11 SOILS: Up/Wetland (survey classification + site) 12 Outlet characteristics for flood retention A 1 13 Outlet characteristics for hydrologic regime C 0.1 14 Dominant upland land use (within 500 ft)B 0.5 0.5 15 Soil condition (wetland) B 0.5 16 Vegetation (% cover)30%M 0.5 17 Emerg. veg. flood resistance B 0.5 18 Sediment delivery C 0.1 19 Upland soils (based on soil group)B 0.5 20 Stormwater runoff pretreatment & detention A 1 0.1 21 Subwatershed wetland density B 0.5 22 Channels/sheet flow A 1 23 Adjacent naturalized buffer average width (feet)30 M WQ 0.5 L 0.1 24 Adjacent Area Management: % Full 0%0 1 0.5 adjacent area mgmt: % Manicured 100%0.5 adjacent area mgmt: % Bare 0%0 25 Adjacent Area Diversity & Structure: % Native 60% 0.6 3 1.01 adjacent area diversity: % Mixed 80%0.4 adjacent area diversity: % Sparse/Inv./Exotic 10% 0.01 26 Adjacent Area Slope: % Gentle 25%0.25 3 0.525 adjacent area slope: % Moderate 50%0.25 adjacent area slope: % Steep 25%0.025 27 Downstream sensitivity/WQ protection B 0.5 28 Nutrient loading C 0.1 29 Shoreline wetland? N N 30 Rooted shoreline vegetation (%cover )Enter a percentage 31 Wetland in-water width (in feet, average)Enter a percentage 32 Emergent vegetation erosion resistance Enter valid choice 33 Shoreline erosion potential Enter valid choice 34 Bank protection/upslope veg. Enter valid choice 35 Rare Wildlife N N 36 Scarce/Rare/S1/S2 local community N N 37 Vegetation interspersion cover (see diagram 1)4 M 0.5 38 Community interspersion (see diagram 2)1 L 0.1 0 39 Wetland detritus B 0.5 40 Wetland interspersion on landscape B 0.5 0.5 41 Wildlife barriers C 0.1 42 Amphibian breeding potential-hydroperiod A 1 43 Amphibian breeding potential--fish presence A 1 44 Amphibian & reptile overwintering habitat A 1 45 Wildlife species (list) Redwing black bird 46 Fish habitat quality C 0.1 47 Fish species (list) N/A 48 Unique/rare educ./cultural/rec.opportunity N N 49 Wetland visibility A 1 50 Proximity to population Y 1 51 Public ownership A 1 52 Public access A 1 53 Human influence on wetland C 0.1 54 Human influence on viewshed C 0.1 55 Spatial buffer B 0.5 56 Recreational activity potential C 0.1 57 Commercial crop--hydrologic impact N/A N/ADigital worksheet, section IIDigital worksheet, section IUser entry This comes in from Side 1 automatically using the weighted average. To use the highest rated veg. Community rating, please manually overwrite that value (shown to the right) into the field at E5. Enter data starting here. Yellow boxes are used in calculations. Scroll down to answer more questions and see formula calculations WETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version Decola Pond E.xls1 10/7/2020 MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P 58 GW - Wetland soils R R or D 0.1 59 GW - Subwatershed land use R R or D 0.1 60 GW - Wetland size and soil group R R or D 0.1 61 GW - Wetland hydroperiod D R or D 1 62 GW - Inlet/Outlet configuration D R or D 1 63 GW - Surrounding upland topographic relief D R or D 1 64 Restoration potential w/o flooding Y or N 3.3 65 Landowners affected by restoration E a b c Enter valid choice 66A Existing wetland size (acres) [from #10]0.82 __ acres 66B Total wetland restoration size (acres) __ acres 0.1 66C (Calculated) Potential New Wetland Area [B-A] -0.82 __ acres #### 67 Average width of naturalized upland buffer (potential)0 __ feet 0.1 value: #### 68 Likelihood of restoration success a b c Enter valid choice 69 Hydrologic alteration type Outlet, Tile, Ditch, GW pump, Wtrshd div., Filling 70 Potential wetland type (Circ. 39)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 71 Wetland sensitivity to stormwater E a b c 72 Additional stormwater treatment needs a b c Function Name Formula shown to the right. Vegetative Diversity/Integrity 0.22 L Hydrology - Characteristic 0.30 Low Flood Attenuation 0.64 Med Water Quality--Downstream 0.59 Med Water Quality--Wetland 0.25 Low Shoreline Protection N/A N/A Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure 0.29 0.28 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat 0.17 0.22 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat 0.32 Low Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural 0.49 0.49 Med Commercial use N/A N/A 0 Special Features listing: - ____ Groundwater Interaction indeterminate GW source Groundwater Functional Index no special indicators Restoration Potential (draft formula) #VALUE! ##### Stormwater Sensitivity (not active)Additional questions% effectively drained:Final RatingRating CategoryFunctional Rating SummariesRaw scoreWETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version Decola Pond E.xls2 10/7/2020 Appendix B Feasibility Level Cost Estimates PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 2 CREATED BY:KJN2 DATE:2/17/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: JAK2 DATE: 2/19/2021 PROJECT:SEA School - Concept 1 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION:City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23270051.50 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $238,400 $238,400 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Clearing and Grubbing AC 1 $10,000 $11,926 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 1,903 $5 $9,516 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose of Concrete Pavement SY 83 $5 $416 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Remove and Dispose of Curb & Gutter LF 189 $8 $1,509 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 281 $6 $1,686 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Remove and Dispose of Rock Wall LF 186 $20 $3,720 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (12" RCP)LF 414 $30 $12,420 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (24" RCP)LF 8 $30 $240 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (27" RCP)LF 190 $30 $5,700 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (30" RCP)LF 170 $30 $5,100 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Remove Existing Structure Each 6 $600 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 1,315 $10 $13,152 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Excavation (P)CY 21,096 $9 $189,864 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Subgrade Excavation CY 2,960 $11 $32,555 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 21,376 $20 $427,510 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 3,088 $30 $92,627 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 425 $45 $19,136 1,2,3,4,5,6 W Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Topsoil Import TON 1,511 $40 $60,438 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 952 $30 $28,560 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z Concrete Sidewalk (Typ)SY 1,600 $45 $71,979 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Curb & Gutter LF 1,457 $35 $50,995 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB 15" CPEP Pipe Sewer LF 42 $73 $3,066 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 CC 15" CPEP FES Each 2 $800 $1,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Special Grate for 15" CPEP FES (0.5" Openings)Each 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE 15" CPEP Inline Check Valve Each 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF 12" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 107 $90 $9,630 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 GG 12" RCP FES Each 1 $680 $680 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH 12" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $650 $650 1,2,3,4,5,6 II 15" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 354 $110 $38,940 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 JJ 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 103 $130 $13,390 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 KK 24" RCP FES Each 3 $1,000 $3,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 LL 48" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 360 $370 $133,200 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MM 48" RCP FES Each 2 $2,880 $5,760 1,2,3,4,5,6 NN 48" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $4,800 $4,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 OO 48" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 5 $5,500 $27,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 PP 60" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 4 $7,500 $30,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 QQ 72" Diameter RC Drainage Structure with 6-foot Weir, Complete Each 1 $15,000 $15,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 RR Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 30 $80 $2,400 1,2,3,4,5,6 SS Bulkhead Existing Storm LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 TT Subsurface Storage CF 69,520 $12 $834,240 1,2,3,4,5,6 UU Restoration/Planting AC 3.5 $50,000 $175,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,621,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$655,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,276,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$819,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS $16,800 1,5,6 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,112,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$3,290,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$5,346,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost SEA School - Concept #1 ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 1 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 1 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 2 CREATED BY:KJN2 DATE:2/17/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: JAK2 DATE: 2/19/2021 PROJECT:SEA School - Concept 2 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION:City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23270051.50 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $164,000 $164,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Clearing and Grubbing AC 1 $10,000 $11,926 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 1,903 $5 $9,516 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose of Concrete Pavement SY 83 $5 $416 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Remove and Dispose of Curb & Gutter LF 189 $8 $1,509 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 281 $6 $1,686 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Remove and Dispose of Rock Wall LF 186 $20 $3,720 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (12" RCP)LF 414 $30 $12,420 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (24" RCP)LF 8 $30 $240 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (27" RCP)LF 190 $30 $5,700 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (30" RCP)LF 170 $30 $5,100 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Remove Existing Structure Each 6 $600 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 1,315 $10 $13,152 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Excavation (P)CY 24,787 $9 $223,083 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Subgrade Excavation CY 2,635 $11 $28,988 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 24,514 $20 $490,270 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 3,541 $30 $106,225 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 418 $45 $18,830 1,2,3,4,5,6 W Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Topsoil Import TON 1,098 $40 $43,917 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 952 $30 $28,560 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z Concrete Sidewalk (Typ)SY 1,559 $45 $70,140 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Curb & Gutter LF 1,457 $35 $50,995 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB 15" CPEP Pipe Sewer LF 42 $73 $3,066 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 CC 15" CPEP FES Each 2 $800 $1,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Special Grate for 15" CPEP FES (0.5" Openings)Each 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE 15" CPEP Inline Check Valve Each 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF 12" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 111 $90 $9,990 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 GG 12" RCP FES Each 2 $680 $1,360 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH 12" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $650 $650 1,2,3,4,5,6 II 15" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 354 $110 $38,940 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 JJ 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 55 $130 $7,150 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 KK 24" RCP FES Each 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 LL 48" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 360 $370 $133,200 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MM 48" RCP FES Each 2 $2,880 $5,760 1,2,3,4,5,6 NN 48" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $4,800 $4,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 OO 48" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 6 $5,500 $33,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 PP 60" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 4 $7,500 $30,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 QQ 72" Diameter RC Drainage Structure with 6-foot Weir, Complete Each 1 $15,000 $15,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 RR Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 32 $80 $2,560 1,2,3,4,5,6 SS Bulkhead Existing Storm LS 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 TT Restoration/Planting AC 4 $50,000 $180,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,804,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$451,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,255,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$564,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS $16,800 1,5,6 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,836,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$2,269,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$3,687,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost SEA School - Concept #2 ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 2 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 2 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 1 CREATED BY:KJN2 DATE:2/17/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: JAK2 DATE: 2/19/2021 PROJECT:SEA School - Concept 3 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION:City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23270051.50 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $177,000 $177,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Clearing and Grubbing AC 1 $10,000 $11,926 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 1,903 $5 $9,516 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose of Concrete Pavement SY 83 $5 $416 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Remove and Dispose of Curb & Gutter LF 189 $8 $1,509 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 281 $6 $1,686 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Remove and Dispose of Rock Wall LF 186 $20 $3,720 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (12" RCP)LF 414 $30 $12,420 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (24" RCP)LF 8 $30 $240 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (27" RCP)LF 190 $30 $5,700 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (30" RCP)LF 170 $30 $5,100 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Remove Existing Structure Each 6 $600 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 1,315 $10 $13,152 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Excavation (P)CY 23,721 $9 $213,489 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Subgrade Excavation CY 2,984 $11 $32,822 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 23,823 $20 $476,457 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 3,441 $30 $103,232 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 336 $45 $15,117 1,2,3,4,5,6 W Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Topsoil Import TON 1,694 $40 $67,759 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 952 $30 $28,560 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z Concrete Sidewalk (Typ)SY 1,064 $45 $47,863 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Curb & Gutter LF 1,467 $35 $51,345 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB 15" CPEP Pipe Sewer LF 73 $73 $5,329 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 CC 15" CPEP FES Each 4 $800 $3,200 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Special Grate for 15" CPEP FES (0.5" Openings)Each 1 $1,000 $1,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE 15" CPEP Inline Check Valve Each 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF 12" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 149 $90 $13,410 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 GG 12" RCP FES Each 3 $680 $2,040 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH 15" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 354 $110 $38,940 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 II 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 99 $130 $12,870 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 JJ 24" RCP FES Each 2 $1,000 $2,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 KK 48" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 360 $370 $133,200 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 LL 48" RCP FES Each 2 $2,880 $5,760 1,2,3,4,5,6 MM 48" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $4,800 $4,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 NN 48" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 6 $5,500 $33,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 OO 60" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 5 $7,500 $37,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 PP 72" Diameter RC Drainage Structure with 6-foot Weir, Complete Each 2 $15,000 $30,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 QQ Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 35 $80 $2,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 RR Restoration/Planting AC 3.7 $50,000 $185,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 SS Clean Washed Sand with 5 percent iron filings CY 102 $260 $26,579 1,2,3,4,5,6 TT Small Splash Block Assembly (Pipe Discharge)EA 1 $1,800 $1,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 UU 6" Perforated Dual Wall HDPE Draintile Pipe and Fittings (no sock) (P)LF 387 $23 $8,901 1,2,3,4,5,6 VV 6" PVC Storm Sewer Pipe and Fittings (P)LF 103 $36 $3,708 1,2,3,4,5,6 WW 6" Draintile Cleanout and Cover Unit EA 3 $650 $1,950 1,2,3,4,5,6 XX Planting Soil (75% sand, 25% leaf compost - MnDOT Grade II) (P) CY 95 $60 $5,695 1,2,3,4,5,6 YY Hydrodynamic Separator Each 1 $65,000 $65,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,947,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$487,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,434,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$609,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS $16,800 1,5,6 OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost SEA School - Concept #3 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 3 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,060,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$2,448,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$3,978,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 SEA School Wildwood\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\Appendices\Appendix B_Cost Estimates\Engineers OPC_SEASch_KJN2_Feasibility_clean.xlsx Concept 3 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (ENGINEERING SERVICES) THIS AGREEMENT is made this 9/21/2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between Barr Engineering Company a Minnesota corporation with its principal office at 7300 Market Pointe Drive, Ste. 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 (“Consultant”), and the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 (the “City”): RECITALS A. Consultant is engaged in the business of providing professional engineering consulting services. B. The City desires to hire Consultant to provide final design and construction observation services for the SEA School-Wildwood Park phase of the DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Project. C. Consultant represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide the City with the requested professional services. D. The City desires to engage Consultant to provide the services described in this Agreement and Consultant is willing to provide such services on the terms and conditions in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Agreement, the City and Consultant agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Services. Consultant agrees to provide the City with professional consulting services as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). Exhibit A shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals currently providing similar services. 2. Time for Completion. The Services shall be completed on or before August 31, 2023, provided that the parties may extend the stated deadline upon mutual written agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from the effective date and continuing until the completion of the project, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The City shall pay Consultant for the Services on an hourly basis according to Consultant’s fee schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Consultant’s total compensation for the Services, including hourly fees and expenses charged pursuant to paragraph 4, shall not exceed $415,900. The consideration shall be for both the Services performed by Consultant and the expenses incurred by Consultant in performing the Services. The City shall make progress payments to Consultant on a monthly basis. Consultant shall submit statements to the City containing a detailed list of project labor and hours, rates, titles, and amounts undertaken by Consultant during the relevant billing period. The City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days after Consultant’s statements are submitted. 4. Expense Reimbursement. In addition to hourly fees, Consultant shall be compensated separately for necessary out-of-pocket expenses at the rates set forth in Exhibit B. 2 5. Approvals. Consultant shall secure the City’s written approval before making any expenditures, purchases, or commitments on the City’s behalf beyond those listed in the Services. The City’s approval may be provided via electronic mail. 6. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: a. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; b. Consultant may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City upon providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City; c. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or d. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon Consultant’s failure to have in force any insurance required by this Agreement. In the event of a termination, the City shall pay Consultant for Services performed to the date of termination and for all costs or other expenses incurred prior to the date of termination. 7. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 8. Remedies. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the City because of a breach by Consultant, the City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons or entities, or any combination thereof. These remedies provided to the City for breach of this Agreement by Consultant shall not be exclusive. The City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or equitable remedies available because of Consultant’s breach. 9. Records/Inspection. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, Consultant agrees that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Consultant, that are relevant to this Agreement or transaction, are subject to examination by the City and the state auditor or legislative auditor for a minimum of six years. Consultant shall maintain such records for a minimum of six years after final payment. The parties agree that this obligation will survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant, and Consultant's successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all claims; lawsuits; causes of actions of any kind, nature, or character; damages; losses; and costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, professional services, and other technical, administrative or professional assistance to the extent caused by Consultant’s (or its subcontractors, agents, volunteers, members, invitees, representatives, or employees) negligent performance of the duties required by or arising from this Agreement, or caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by Consultant, or arising out of Consultant’s failure to obtain or maintain the insurance required by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation of liability to which the City is entitled. The parties agree that these indemnification obligations shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 3 11. Insurance. Consultant shall maintain reasonable insurance coverage throughout this Agreement. Consultant agrees that before any work related to the approved project can be performed, Consultant shall maintain at a minimum: Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability 1. Coverage A: Per State Statute 2. Coverage B: $500,000 Each Accident $500,000 Disease – Policy Limit $500,000 Disease – Each Employee Commercial General Liability 1. $2,000,000 General Aggregate 2. $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations Aggregate 3. $1,000,000 Each Occurrence 4. $1,000,000 Personal Injury Commercial Automobile Liability 1. $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage The Commercial Automobile Liability shall provide coverage for the following automobiles: 1. All Owned Automobiles 2. All Non-Owned Automobiles 3. All Hired Automobiles Umbrella Liability 1. $10,000,000 Each Claim $10,000,000 Annual Aggregate 2. The Umbrella Liability provides excess limits for the Commercial General Liability, Employers’ Liability, and Commercial Automobile Liability policies. Professional and Pollution Incident Liability Professional Liability insurance including Pollution Incident Liability coverage with limits of not less than $5,000,000 Per Claim/ $5,000,000 Annual Aggregate. Consultant shall provide the City with a current certificate of insurance including the following language: “The City of Golden Valley is named as an additional insured with respect to the commercial general liability, business automobile liability and umbrella or excess liability, as required by the contract. The umbrella or excess liability policy follows form on all underlying coverages.” Such certificate of liability insurance shall list the City as an additional insured and contain a statement that such policies of insurance shall not be canceled or amended unless 30 days written notice is provided to the City, or 10 days written notice in the case of non-payment. 12. Subcontracting. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign or transfer any rights under or interest (including, but without limitation, moneys that may become due or moneys that are due) in this Agreement without the written consent of the other except to the extent that the effect of this limitation 4 may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Consultant from employing such independent consultants, associates, and subcontractors, as it may deem appropriate to assist it in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Any instrument in violation of this provision is null and void. 13. Assignment. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the other party’s prior written consent. Any assignment in violation of this provision is null and void. 14. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor. Consultant’s duties shall be performed with the understanding that Consultant has special expertise as to the services which Consultant is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. Consultant shall provide or contract for all required equipment and personnel. Consultant shall control the manner in which the services are performed; however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. The parties agree that this is not a joint venture and the parties are not co-partners. Consultant is not an employee or agent of the City and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of the City except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement. All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits. 15. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in effect as of the date Consultant agrees to provide the Services. Consultant’s guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, and subcontractors shall abide by the City’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and tobacco, drug, and alcohol use as defined on the City’s Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Policy, as well as all other reasonable work rules, safety rules, or policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of persons on City property, at all times while performing duties pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant agrees and understands that a violation of any of these policies, procedures, or rules constitutes a breach of the Agreement and sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement by the City. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits, and any addenda signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Consultant. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by the City and Consultant. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. If there is any conflict between this Agreement and Exhibits A or B, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. 17. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 18. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and all parties to this 5 Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 19. Conflict of Interest. Consultant shall use reasonable care to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in its representation of the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, Consultant shall advise the City and either secure a waiver of the conflict, or advise the City that it will be unable to provide the requested Services. 20. Work Products and Ownership of Documents. All records, information, materials, and work product, including, but not limited to the completed reports, data collected from or created by the City or the City’s employees or agents, raw market data, survey data, market analysis data, and any other data, work product, or reports prepared or developed in connection with the provision of the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain reproductions of such records, information, materials and work product. Regardless of when such information was provided or created, Consultant agrees that it will not disclose for any purpose any information Consultant has obtained arising out of or related to this Agreement, except as authorized by the City or as required by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall grant or transfer any rights, title or interests in any intellectual property created by Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement; however, to the extent Consultant generates reports or recommendations for the City using proprietary processes or formulas, Consultant shall provide the City (1) factual support for such reports and recommendations; (2) a detailed explanation of the method used and data relied upon to arrive at the recommendation; and (3) a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the methodology used. All of the obligations in this paragraph shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 21. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other professional service providers for this or other matters, in the City’s sole discretion. 22. Data Practices Act Compliance. Any and all data provided to Consultant, received from Consultant, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with, and is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Consultant agrees to notify the City within three business days if it receives a data request from a third party. This paragraph does not create a duty on the part of Consultant to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. These obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. 23. No Discrimination. Consultant agrees not to discriminate in providing products and services under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion. Violation of any part of this provision may lead to immediate termination of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363A. Consultant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys’ fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of these laws by Consultant or its guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives and subcontractors. Upon request, Consultant shall provide accommodation to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all Services under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to utilize its own auxiliary aid or service in order to comply with ADA requirements for effective communication with individuals with disabilities. 6 24. Authorized Agents. The City’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, or designee. Consultant’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Jen Koehler, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 25. Notices. Any notices permitted or required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to: CONSULTANT THE CITY Barr Engineering Company City of Golden Valley 4300 Market Pointe Drive Suite #200 ATTN: Jeff Oliver Minneapolis, MN 55435 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55437 joliver@goldenbvalleymn.gov or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 26. Waiver. No waiver of any provision or of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provisions or any other or further breach, and no such waiver shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged with such a waiver. 27. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or affect the scope and intent of this Agreement. 28. Payment of Subcontractors. Consultant agrees that it must pay any subcontractor within 10 days of the Consultant’s receipt of payment from the municipality for undisputed Services provided by the subcontractor. Consultant agrees that it must pay interest of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from Consultant must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing the action. 29. Publicity. At the City’s request, the City and Consultant shall develop language to use when discussing the Services. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall not release any publicity regarding the Services or the subject matter of this Agreement without prior consent from the City. Consultant shall not use the City’s logo or state that the City endorses its services without the City’s advanced written approval. 30. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 31. Signatory. Each person executing this Agreement (“Signatory”) represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective organization. In the event Consultant did not 7 authorize the Signatory to sign on its behalf, the Signatory agrees to assume responsibility for the duties and liability of Consultant, described in this Agreement, personally. 32. Counterparts and Electronic Communication. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be transmitted by electronic mail in portable document format (“pdf”) and signatures appearing on electronic mail instruments shall be treated as original signatures. 33. Recitals. The City and Consultant agree that the Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below. BARR ENGINEERING CO.: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY: By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ By: _________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: _________________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager 8 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com September 15, 2021 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Scope for the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage Project Final Design Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to continue providing professional engineering services to the City. We will do our best to justify your expression of confidence in us. This letter scope, along with the City’s professional services agreement (PSA), sets forth the Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Barr Engineering Company regarding the final design work for the flood storage project at the School of Engineering and Arts (SEA School) and Wildwood Park. This project is a critical component of the flood mitigation alternatives identified in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan (MLRWA plan; Barr, 2016). This letter presents the scope of professional consulting services we will provide for your project, including the proposed work tasks, the cost estimate, and the schedule for the completion of the proposed work. This scope builds off the SEA School-Wildwood Park Flood Storage project (BC-10) feasibility study completed for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC; Barr, 2021). Introduction The following is our proposed approach for the final design, engineering, and permitting work to be completed for the flood storage project at the SEA School and Wildwood Park, along with construction administration and oversight. The project area is located in the City of Golden Valley south of Duluth Street and west of Kelly Drive. The MLRWA plan completed by the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal, identified the project area as a potential flood mitigation site because of its proximity to the flooding problems on DeCola Ponds E & F, the publicly-owned land, the availability of open space to develop additional flood storage, and the opportunities to incorporate water quality treatment, develop habitat, and provide educational opportunities for the SEA School students, families, and park users. The proposed tasks build on work completed during the Liberty Crossing project, DeCola Ponds B/C project, and the 2021 BCWMC feasibility study for this project area. Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 2 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx Proposed Work Tasks Task 1: Soil Investigations & Topographic Survey Task 1 includes collecting up to five (5) test pits (each up to 10 feet deep) at locations to be determined to help characterize the soils and presence of fill/debris for design and for the contractors during the bidding process. Soil samples will be field screened for evidence of debris or contamination and analyzed for PAHs, DRO w/silica gel and RCRA Metals. We assume collection of up to 10 soil samples for laboratory analysis. Task 1 also includes an additional survey budget for areas that may need additional survey detail or areas on the fringes of the survey conducted during the feasibility study, in particular near the SEA School building and proposed driveway entrance. This will help better inform the project design in this area and respond to the specific questions and comments received from SEA School representatives during the feasibility study. We will also subcontract with DBE firms to perform the test trenching and additional survey work. Assumptions: We assume that contamination will not be identified, and the project can be managed under a construction contingency plan and will not require the development of a Response Action Plan (RAP). Deliverables: Test trench logs/characterization/screening for up to five (5) test pits locations; an updated base map of existing conditions features. Task 2: Development of Final Construction Plans and Specs Task 2 includes developing the final construction plans and technical specifications for the SEA School and Wildwood Park project. We plan to utilize the standard specifications from the City of Golden Valley (as applicable) and incorporate special provisions as necessary. Our design scope will focus on the following: • Upsizing the outlet from DeCola Pond D and other storm sewer modifications • Diverting runoff from Pennsylvania Ave and Duluth Street toward the water quality treatment and flood storage practices in the Wildwood Park/SEA School properties, including pretreatment of flows • Expanding flood storage and water quality treatment volume, providing an iron-enhanced sand filtration basin and a design that integrates vegetation/screening • Creation of wet meadow and prairie habitats, turf areas, and a nature play area • Replacing and redesigning trails above approximately the 10-year event elevation to improve safety/accessibility and reduce maintenance. During trail design, we will also seek to provide an east-west trail connection from Kelly Drive to the park interior and will consider future Safe Routes to School needs • Restoring and enhancing vegetation, including tree replacement and relocating the existing orchard from SEA School Property Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 3 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx • Realigning the northern SEA School Driveway with Maryland Avenue, and phasing construction in this area to minimize impacts to SEA School • Preserving key park features including the pickleball courts, playground area, wooded knoll, sledding hill, and open turf areas for various recreation activities and gathering • Incorporating educational signage Throughout the design process, we assume we will hold monthly team meetings with key city staff (up to eight (8) meetings). We will develop the construction plans and provide to City of Golden Valley staff for review and comment at 50% and 90% completion (as required by the BCWMC). Along with the 50% and 90% design plans, we will provide a submittal letter to the City, which the City can then submit to the BCWMC for review and approval at commission meetings. We assume the city’s design review team will include the city engineer and other physical development staff, the parks and recreation director, parks maintenance supervisor, and the utilities supervisor. We also assume SEA School/Robbinsdale Area School staff will be involved in design review. This task includes up to two (2) virtual design review meetings with City of Golden Valley and SEA School/Robbinsdale Area School staff including review and comment on the 50% and 90% design plans. We will develop 100% design plans based on the 90% review that will be used for project bidding. Engineering opinions of probable cost will be developed at 50%, 90%, and 100% design. This task also includes preparation of 50% and 90% design summaries and two (2) presentations to the BCWMC Commission and one (1) presentation to the Golden Valley City Council. We will develop front end documents (starting with City of Golden Valley standard specifications and making any required updates) and technical specifications and incorporate special provisions as necessary for the 90% and 100% submittals. The specifications will also address environmental management issues, including development of contaminated soil specification topics and unit pricing in support of the project. The specifications will include topics for Contractor safety, contaminated or debris-containing soil management, and unit pricing for management of contaminated soil disposal and off-site reuse of clean soil. This task also includes developing the necessary temporary and permanent easement descriptions over SEA School and residential properties at the DeCola Ponds D/E outlet for the culvert replacement. This includes developing easement exhibits, legal descriptions, and coordinating appraisals. This task also includes developing a long-term operation and maintenance plan for the flood mitigation project that will outlining maintenance activities and schedules based on the final design. Assumptions: We will utilize standard specifications used by the City of Golden Valley (as applicable); meetings with City staff SEA School/Robbinsdale Area School staff will be held virtually Deliverables: 50% design plan set, 90% design plan set, final (100%) construction plan set and technical specifications documents; up to eight (8) monthly team meetings; two (2) design review meetings; two (2) summary presentations to the BCWMC Commission; one (1) presentation to the Golden Valley City Council; one (1) operation and maintenance plan Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 4 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx Task 3: Hydrologic and Hydraulic and Water Quality Modeling In Task 3 we will perform hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) and water quality modeling of the proposed design. We will update the XP-SWMM and P8 models developed for the BCWMC SEA School and Wildwood Park feasibility study to quantify the impact of the proposed design on flood elevations and on pollutant/nutrient reductions, respectively. Because this project is one in a series of projects intended to mitigate/improve the regional flooding issue around the low point on Medicine Lake Road (completed) and the downstream DeCola ponds, the XP- SWMM model will be used to evaluate the performance of the proposed system and verify that the design will not increase flooding around any of the DeCola Ponds. We will use the model to evaluate the impact of the flood mitigation project on flood elevations during the Atlas 14 2-yr, 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events. We will use the P8 model to quantify the estimated pollutant load reductions resulting from the project, focusing on total phosphorus and total suspended solids. We will prepare a technical memo summarizing the results of the XP-SWMM and P8 models based on the final design. Assumptions: Utilize the BCWMC feasibility study XP-SWMM model to evaluate the flood elevations during the Atlas 14 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events; utilize the BCWMC feasibility study P8 model to quantify pollutant load reductions Deliverables: XP-SWMM and P8 models of the system final design; one (1) technical memo summarizing the modeling results Task 4: Permitting For Task 4, Barr will perform the necessary permitting activities for the SEA School and Wildwood Park project. Much of the field work for this project was completed as part of the BCWMC feasibility study. These completed efforts included: • Environmental desktop review, 2020 • Topographic, utility, and tree Survey, 2020 • Wetland delineations, 2020, approved 2021 • Cultural resource desktop review, 2020 Based on the concepts developed and the agency meetings that were held during the feasibility study, we anticipate the following permits/approvals will be required before construction can begin: • Construction Stormwater General Permit from the MPCA (responsibility of the contractor) • City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way (ROW) Management Permit (responsibility of contractor, no fee) • City of Golden Valley Stormwater Management Permit (responsibility of contractor, no fee) Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 5 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx • Compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing contaminated material and debris containing fill (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/c-rem2-02.pdf) • Permitting and compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act The permitting process will commence upon completion of at least 50% design. The permitting process is anticipated to take approximately four (4) months to complete. The estimated budget includes payment of anticipated permit fees. The City will designate Barr as its agent for permitting, as applicable, allowing Barr to coordinate with regulatory agencies directly as questions arise. Deliverables: One (1) permit application package for each referenced permit Task 5: Public Engagement To keep the lines of communications, open with the residents around DeCola Ponds that were developed during the BCWMC feasibility study, Task 5 includes preparing for and attending up to two (2) public outreach/open house style meetings about the SEA School and Wildwood Park project design, including the impacts on the regional flooding around Medicine Lake Road and DeCola Ponds. The goal will be to hold one meeting earlier in the design process (30-50% design) and the second meeting later in the design process (approximately 90% design). We will also conduct an outreach effort with SEA school facilities and program/curriculum staff early in the design process to help define features of the flood storage system that could be used for play, education, and other school programming. Task 5 also assumes we will attend up to three (3) smaller meetings with residents, as needed. Assumptions: City staff will coordinate the public outreach meetings; public outreach meetings will be held either virtually or at a location to be determined based on current Covid 19 guidelines; smaller meetings may be held at the project site or virtually Deliverables: Two (2) public outreach meetings; outreach effort specific to SEA School; up to three (3) smaller meetings with residents Task 6: Bidding, Construction Administration, and Construction Oversight Based on our conversations with city staff, we assume the contract documents will be developed as two separate bid packages. The first bid package will include all work related to excavation, infrastructure, trails, and other park-related improvements. The second bid package will include work related to the site restoration including preparation, seeding, plantings, and vegetation establishment over three growing seasons. In Task 5, we will develop the two sets of bid documents using the standard City of Golden Valley front end documents (to be provided by the City), prepare the advertisement for bid, attend up to three (3) bidding coordination meetings with City staff, and attend up to two (2) pre-bid meetings. We assume these meetings will be held virtually. We assume that bidding will be electronic, and that Barr will attend Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 6 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx two virtual bid openings and will compile and review the submitted bids. We will be available to answer questions during the bidding and bid review period. We assume that city staff will lead the contract administration and project management during construction including day-to-day interaction with the contractor and residents, managing pay requests, and change orders. However, Barr will attend one (1) preconstruction meeting, perform construction staking and construction oversight (assuming a construction duration of up to 2-3 months (approximately 40-50 working days)). Construction oversight will include general, environmental, and restoration oversight during the construction process and during the warranty period (see further discussion below). Additionally, we included time to provide general construction assistance, which includes construction engineering, requests for information, review of pay applications and/or change orders, and other tasks that come up during construction. We assume Barr will attend weekly construction meetings (up to 12 meetings). We will also perform a survey after excavation to quantify materials removed (to establish quantities for pay applications) and perform a final record drawing survey upon completion of the project. Construction oversight will be performed primarily by general field staff. We assume one full-time staff on site for general construction oversight for a duration of approximately thirty-five (35) working days. During site planting and restoration and during the vegetation establishment and warranty period, we assume Barr staff will be available for up to ten (10) half-day site visits. We assume a limited amount of time (50 hours) for environmental staff to perform observation and field screening during excavations in areas that may be identified to have debris requiring landfill disposal (see Task 1). Assumptions: City will provide front end bid documents; bid coordination and pre-bid meetings will be held virtually; City staff will lead the contract administration and project management during construction; Barr will provide one (1) full time staff onsite during construction for an estimated construction period of approximately 40-50 working days. Deliverables: Two (2) complete bid packages and advertisement, three (3) bid coordination meetings (virtual), one (1) pre-bid meeting (virtual), virtual bidding on Quest CDN, two (2) virtual bid openings; one (1) preconstruction meeting; construction staking; up to 12 weekly virtual construction meetings; as-built/record drawing survey; record drawing plan set. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below shows the estimated costs associated with the tasks, as described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services and is based on an October 5, 2021 start date. The proposed schedule reflects the time to move through the design and permitting process and assumes that bidding will happen after permits have been obtained. If the start date is later than stated, the schedule will shift accordingly. Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE September 15, 2021 Page 7 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P174.21 City of Golden Valley SEA School Wildwood Park\SEA School-Wildwood Park_Proposal_09152021.docx Task Description Estimated Hours Amount Estimated Work Period 1 Soil Investigations & Topographic Survey 75 $19,300 October-November 2021 2 Construction Plans and Specifications 1,341 $192,000 October 2021 – May 2022 3 Hydrologic and Hydraulic and Water Quality Modeling 73 $9,900 October 2021 – May 2022 4 Permitting 76 $8,900 January 2022 – May 2022 5 Public Meetings 168 $24,400 October 2021 – May 2022 6 Bidding, Construction Administration, and Construction Oversight 997 $123,600 June 2022 – August 2023 Project Total 2,730 $378,100 10% Contingency1 $37,800 Project Total with Contingency $415,900 1 - 10% contingency included based on discussion with City staff. Use of contingency will only be allowed based on authorization by City staff. We will inform you of our progress through periodic e-mail updates, telephone calls, invoice details, and other communications. We will bill the city monthly. The total project cost of the services will not exceed $415,900 without prior approval by you. We understand you or your designees (Eric Eckman) have the authority to direct us. We will direct communications to you (and Eric Eckman) at the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road. Direction should be provided to Jennifer Koehler at Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55435. Sincerely, Karen Chandler, PE Jennifer Koehler, PE Vice President, Principal in Charge Project Manager EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule—2021 Rev. 12/26/2020 Rate* Description (U.S. dollars) Principal $160-295 Consultant/Advisor $185-250 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist IV $155-180 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist III $125-150 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist II $95-120 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist I $65-90 Technician IV $155-180 Technician III $125-150 Technician II $95-120 Technician I $65-90 Support Personnel III $155-180 Support Personnel II $95-150 Support Personnel I $65-90 Rates for litigation support services will include a 30% surcharge. A ten percent (10%) markup will be added to subcontracts for professional support and construction services to cover overhead and insurance surcharge expenses. Invoices are payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Any amount not paid within 30 days shall bear interest from the date 10 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18 percent per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable law. For travel destinations within the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Canada, meals will be reimbursed on a per diem basis. The per diem rate will be as published by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on the High-Low method. Full day per diem rates will be pro-rated on travel days. For travel destinations outside the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Canada, meals will be reimbursed based on actual expenses incurred. All other reimbursable expenses including, but not limited to, costs of transportation, lodging, parking, postage, shipping and incidental charges will be billed at actual reasonable cost. Mileage will be billed at the IRS-allowable rate. Materials and supplies charges, printing charges, and equipment rental charges will be billed in accordance with Barr’s standard rate schedules. Principal category includes consultants, advisors, engineers, scientists, and specialists who are officers of the company. Consultant/Advisor category includes experienced personnel in a variety of fields. These professionals typically have advanced background in their areas of practice and include engineers, engineering specialists, scientists, related technical professionals, and professionals in complementary service areas such as communications and public affairs. Engineer/Scientist/Specialist categories include registered professionals and professionals in training (e.g. engineers, geologists, and landscape architects), and graduates of engineering and science degree programs. Technician category includes CADD operators, construction observers, cost estimators, data management technicians, designers, drafters, engineering technicians, interns, safety technicians, surveyors, and water, air, and waste samplers. Support Personnel category includes information management, project accounting, report production, word processing, and other project support personnel. *Rates do not include sales tax on services that may be required in some jurisdictions. Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 3. Approve Agreements for Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Eric Eckman, Environmental Resources Supervisor Summary The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) capital improvement program includes water quality and flood control projects that provide a benefit to the Bassett Creek watershed and its residents. The project listed as Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project ML-12 in the BCWMC CIP is identified for construction in 2022-23. The City’s designation for the project is Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project (#20-26). This stormwater improvement project has numerous public benefits. One of the primary benefits of the proposed project is improving the water quality of Medicine Lake and surface waters around Medley Park. Medicine Lake is experiencing water quality concerns and does not meet state standards due to high amounts of nutrients, like phosphorus, which generate excess algae growth. Medley Park is upstream of Medicine Lake. Stormwater runoff from the surrounding neighborhoods funnels through Medley Pond and eventually flows to the lake. One of the goals of this project is to reduce the amount of phosphorus reaching the lake. Medley Park provides a unique opportunity to help meet that goal as it is one of the few locations in Golden Valley that drains to Medicine Lake. Another primary benefit is reducing flood risk and damage to nearby homes and infrastructure. Flooding has occurred in the areas surrounding Medley Park during large storm events. This flooding impacts the use of streets, trails, and park facilities and has resulted in damage to homes, property and infrastructure. Creating flood storage and reducing flood levels helps protect public health and safety, and preserve economic value in the community. Additional project benefits include improving ecological diversity, wildlife and pollinator habitat, enhancing active and passive recreation, and providing educational opportunities to park users. The BCWMC recently completed the engineering feasibility study for the project in close partnership with the City, and approved the study on June 17, 2021. The study included a significant amount of engagement with the surrounding neighborhood, community, and other stakeholders. The Community Input report is located on the City’s project webpage. On September 16, 2021 the BCWMC ordered the City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 2 project and authorized the City of Golden Valley to design and construct the project on its behalf, pending the execution of the cooperative agreement attached to this summary. The cost estimate for the project is approximately $2,000,000. There are no special assessments to residents. Following is a breakdown of the funding sources: BCWMC $1,500,000 City of Golden Valley $ 500,000 Total $2,000,000 As is typical with cooperative projects like this one, project costs will be paid up front by the City and reimbursed by the BCWMC on a monthly or quarterly basis, as project milestones are reached. The City solicited a proposal from Barr Engineering Company to assist with final design and construction services for the project. Barr completed the feasibility study for the project on behalf of the BCWMC and has the qualifications to ensure that the expected project outcomes are achieved. As part of its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, Barr will utilize its vendor outreach program to subcontract with a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) to perform survey work and record drawings for the project. Barr’s proposal is for the not-to-exceed cost of $353,000. Following is the anticipated project schedule: Final Design Fall 2021-Spring 2022 Community Input & Engagement Fall 2021-Spring 2022 Bid and Award Contract Summer 2022 Construction Fall/Winter 2022-Summer 2023 Financial or Budget Considerations The City’s portion of the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project, approximately $500,000, would be funded by the CIP Storm Sewer sections SS-23 and SS-49 (for pond dredging, sediment disposal, and stormwater improvements) and Parks section P-002 and P-037 (for trail extensions, trail lighting, and park improvements). Recommended Actions 1. Motion to approve the Cooperative Agreement in the form approved by the City Attorney with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission for Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project 2. Motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement in the form approved by the City Attorney with Barr Engineering Co for the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project Final Design in an amount not to exceed $353,000 City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 3 Supporting Documents •Location Map (1 page) •Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Cooperative Agreement (Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project ML-12) (164 pages) •Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering Co for the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project Final Design (16 pages) ProposedProjectBoundary Medley ParkMendelssohnLnNMedicine Lake Rd Medley Rd M e n delss ohnLnNMayfa i r Rd TamarinTrTamarin T rKings ValleyRd EnsignC irKings Valley Rd EFlagAveNHillsboro Ave NMendel ssohnLnNDuluth St S t rod enCi r 23rd Ave NEnsignAveNMedley Ln KilmerLaNElgin PlEnglishCirMarquis R d DuluthSt EnsignAveNKingsVa lleyRd WUS Hwy 169US Hwy 169HillsboroAveNFlag Ave NMedley Cir DecaturAveNMendelssohn A v e N MedleyParkPond JFB NWPond Medley P ark ProjectLocation Map 1 BA295\1\741238.v2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project ML-12) This Cooperative Agreement (“Agreement”) is made as of this 21st day of September 2021 by and between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization (“Commission”), and the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”). The Commission and the City may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.” RECITALS A. The Commission adopted the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Watershed Management Plan on September 17, 2015 (“Plan”), a watershed management plan within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231. B. The Plan includes a capital improvement program (CIP) that lists a number of capital improvements including the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project (“Project”). C. The Project is in the City of Golden Valley and will be designed and constructed as described in the feasibility report for the Project prepared by Barr Engineering Co. entitled Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility, dated June 2021 (“Feasibility Report”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Project will consist of the work identified in the Feasibility Report as Concept 3. D. The estimated planning level opinion of cost of the Project, including feasibility study, design, and construction, is $2 million. E. The Plan specifies that the Project will be partially funded, up to $1.5 million, by the Commission. F. On September 16, 2021, the Commission adopted a resolution ordering the Project and directing that it be constructed by the City. G. In accordance with the Plan, the first portion of Project costs were certified to Hennepin County, which will levy taxes throughout the watershed for Project costs in 2021 for collection and settlement in 2022, and the Commission intends to certify the remaining portion of Project costs to Hennepin County in 2022 and 2023 for collection and settlement in 2023 and 2024, respectively, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.251. H. The City is willing to construct the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows: 2 BA295\1\741238.v2 1. Project. The Project will consist of the work identified as Concept 3 in Section 5.3 of the Feasibility Report, plus appendices, which includes dredging and expanding Medley Pond to a bottom elevation of 894 ft MSL and landfilling approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediment, diverting the existing intermittent stream into the constructed stormwater pond, and constructing two new stormwater ponds (open water areas with wetland fringe) downstream of the stream diversion, along with other modifications, improvements, and vegetation management, all as specified in the Feasibility Report. 2. Condition of Commission Funding. A condition precedent of the Commission’s obligations under this Agreement is that the City receives or commits funding from other sources as needed to fully fund the portion of the Project costs not being reimbursed by the Commission under this Agreement. The City shall provide such documentation to the Commission as may reasonably be needed to demonstrate that the additional funding has been secured before the Commission will take any actions in furtherance of this Agreement or make any reimbursement payments. 3. Design and Plans. The City will design the Project and prepare plans and specifications for construction of the Project. The 50% and 90% plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Commission for approval in accordance with the Commission’s CIP project review process. Any changes to the Commission-approved 90% plans and specification must be submitted to the Commission and shall require written approval of the Commission’s engineer following a reasonable review period, which shall be no less than 10 business days. Minor change orders may be approved by the City without requiring additional approvals by the Commission. For purposes of this paragraph, “minor change orders” shall mean those changes to the approved plans that do not materially change either the effectiveness of the Project to meet its intended purposes, the aesthetics, form, or function of the Project, or the environmental impacts of the Project. 4. Contract Administration. The City will advertise for bids and award contracts in accordance with the requirements of applicable law. The City will award the contract and supervise and administer the construction of the Project to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The contract may only be let to a responsible contractor in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.285 and the City will require the contractor to provide all payment and performance bonds required by law. The City will further require the contractor to name the Commission as additional insured on all liability policies required by the City and the Commission shall be given the same notification of cancellation or non-renewal as is given to the City. The City will require the contractor to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission and the City, their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from negligent acts, errors or omissions of the contractor. The City will supervise the work of the contractor. However, the Commission may observe and review the work of the Project until it is completed. The City will display a sign at the construction site stating “Paid for by the Taxpayers of the Bassett Creek Watershed.” 5. Contract Payments. The City will pay the contractor and all other expenses related to the construction of the Project and keep and maintain complete records of such costs incurred. 3 BA295\1\741238.v2 6. Commission Reimbursement. The Commission will use its best efforts to secure payment from the County in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.251 in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) by tax levy in 2021 for collection in 2022 and One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000) by tax levy in 2022 and 2023 for collection in 2023 and 2024. The total reimbursement paid by the Commission to the City for the Project may not exceed the total amount levied, anticipated to be One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), less Commission expenses. Out-of-pocket costs incurred and paid by the Commission related to the Project including but not limited feasibility studies, publication of notices, securing County tax levy, preparation of contracts, review of engineering designs, review of proposed contract documents, grant application development, grant administration, administration of this contract, and up to a 2.5% administrative charge shall be repaid from the amount specified above from funds received in the tax settlement from Hennepin County. All such levied funds in excess of such expenses are available for reimbursement to the City for costs incurred by the City in the design and construction of the Project. Reimbursement to the City will be made as soon as funds are available, provided a request for payment has been received from the City that contains such detailed information as may be requested by the Commission to substantiate costs and expenses. The City shall complete and submit with its final reimbursement request to the Commission a final report on the Project using the Commission’s final reporting form and providing such other information as may be requested by the Commission. 7. Limits on Reimbursement. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount specified above from the amount received from the County for the Project, less any amounts retained by the Commission for Commission expenses. Reimbursement will not be increased by grants or other revenues received by the Commission for the Project. Reimbursement will not exceed the costs and expenses incurred by the City for the Project, less any amounts the City receives for the Project as grants from other sources. All costs of the Project incurred by the City in excess of such reimbursement, shall be borne by the City or secured by the City from other sources. 8. Audit. All City books, records, documents, and accounting procedures related to the Project are subject to examination by the Commission and either the State Auditor or the Legislative Auditor for at least six years after completion of the Project. 9. Environmental Review. The City will perform all necessary investigations of site contamination and secure all necessary local, state, or federal permits required for the construction of the Project and will not proceed with the Project until any required environmental review and remediation of site contamination is completed or a plan for remediation is approved by appropriate regulatory agencies. 10. Ongoing Maintenance. Upon completion of the Project, the City shall be responsible for its ongoing maintenance. The City agrees to perform, at its cost, such maintenance as may be required to sustain the proper functioning of the improvements constructed as part of the Project for their useful life. 11. Data Practices. The City shall retain and make available data related to the letting of contracts and construction of the Project in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 4 BA295\1\741238.v2 12. Term. This Agreement shall be in effect as of the date first written above and shall terminate once the Project is completed and the Commission has completed its reimbursement payments to the City as provided herein. 13. Entire Agreement. The above recitals and the exhibits attached hereto are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties regarding this matter and no amendments or other modifications of its terms are valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on behalf of the parties as of the day and date first above written. BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION By:__________________________________ Its Chair And by:______________________________ Its Secretary Date:_________________________________ 5 BA295\1\741238.v2 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: _________________________________ SHEPARD M HARRIS MAYOR And by: ______________________________ TIMOTHY J CRUIKSHANK CITY MANAGER Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 6 BA295\1\741238.v2 EXHIBIT A Feasibility Report [attached hereto] Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study Golden Valley, Minnesota June 2021 Prepared for Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone: 952.832.2600 Fax: 952.832.2601 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study Golden Valley, Minnesota June 2021 Prepared for Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Report\MedleyParkFeasibility_BCWMC_FINAL_06.2021.docx i Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study June 2021 Contents 1.0 Executive summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Site conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Project alternatives ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Relationship to Watershed Management Plan ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.5 Project impacts and estimated costs ............................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 1-7 2.0 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Project area description ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Goals and objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.4 Considerations ....................................................................................................................................................... ...2-3 3.0 Site conditions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Proposed project location and characteristics ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Medicine Lake water quality concerns ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Existing flooding conditions ............................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Site access .................................................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.4 Sediment sampling and bathymetric survey – 2020 ................................................................. 3-6 3.1.4.1 Bathymetric Survey .............................................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.4.2 Native Pond Bottom ........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.1.4.3 Sediment Characterization ............................................................................................... 3-8 3.1.5 Geotechnical investigation .................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.1.6 Environmental review ......................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.1.7 Topographic, utility, and tree surveys ......................................................................................... 3-11 3.1.8 Wetland delineations ......................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.1.8.1 Wetland 1 ............................................................................................................................. 3-12 3.1.9 Threatened and endangered species .......................................................................................... 3-12 3.1.10 Cultural resources ................................................................................................................................ 3-13 4.0 Stakeholder input ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Public stakeholder meetings ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Public stakeholder engagement 1 ................................................................................................... 4-1 ii 4.1.2 Public stakeholder engagement 2 ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Technical stakeholder meeting .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 5.0 Potential improvements .................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Concept 1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Concept 2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Concept 3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5-4 6.0 Project modeling results and potential impacts ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality modeling ................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Available models ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 XP-SWMM flood elevation results ................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.3 P8 water quality modeling results .................................................................................................... 6-6 6.2 Wetland and upland creation and restoration ............................................................................................ 6-6 6.3 Open water area creation ..................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.4 Easement acquisition ............................................................................................................................................. 6-7 6.5 Permits required for the project ........................................................................................................................ 6-7 6.5.1 Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification ..................................................................... 6-7 6.5.2 Construction Stormwater General Permit ..................................................................................... 6-7 6.5.3 Guidance for managing dredged material ................................................................................... 6-8 6.5.4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act ............................................................................................ 6-8 6.5.5 Stormwater Management Permit ..................................................................................................... 6-8 6.5.6 Right-of-Way Management (ROW) Permit .................................................................................. 6-8 6.6 Other project impacts ............................................................................................................................................ 6-8 6.6.1 Temporary closure of park trail ......................................................................................................... 6-8 6.6.2 Tree removals ........................................................................................................................................... 6-8 6.6.3 Impacts to bats ........................................................................................................................................ 6-9 7.0 Project cost considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Opinion of cost ......................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Conceptual designs’ opinions of cost ............................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.2 Project costs per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume .......................................................... 7-1 7.1.3 Off-site sediment disposal .................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.1.4 Wetland mitigation ................................................................................................................................ 7-2 7.1.5 Maintenance considerations .............................................................................................................. 7-2 7.1.6 30-year cost .............................................................................................................................................. 7-4 7.1.7 Annualized pollutant reduction cost ............................................................................................... 7-4 7.1.8 Miscellaneous costs ............................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2 Funding sources ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.3 Project schedule ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-6 iii 8.0 Alternatives assessment and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 8-1 9.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Impacts Summary.................................................. 1-6 Table 3-1 City of Golden Valley Tree Ordinance Definitions .......................................................................... 3-11 Table 6-1 Medley Park Improvement Project Concept Matrix Summary .................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Medley Park Project Area Key Flood Areas and Flood Elevation Summary............................ 6-4 Table 6-3 Medley Park Project Area At-Risk Properties ...................................................................................... 6-5 Table 7-1 Estimated Operations and Maintenance Tasks and Annual Costs ............................................. 7-3 Table 8-1 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Impacts Summary.................................................. 8-3 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Project Area ................................................................................................................................................... ..2-5 Figure 2-2 Project Site Watershed Tributary Areas .............................................................................................. ..2-6 Figure 3-1 Medicine Lake Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll-a Concentrations....................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Existing Conditions 100-year Inundation ............................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3 Typical storm water pond configuration .............................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-4 Site Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 3-14 Figure 5-1 Conceptual Design 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-2 Conceptual Design 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-3 Conceptual Design 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 5-8 List of Appendices Appendix A Sediment Sampling and Bathymetric Supplementary Information (2020) Appendix B Geotechnical Soil Boring Logs (2020) Appendix C Wetland Delineation Report (2020) Appendix D Feasibility Level Cost Estimates iv Certifications I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Karen Chandler, PE PE #: 19252 Date June 10, 2021 1-1 1.0 Executive summary 1.1 Background The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission’s (BCWMC) current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Table 5-3 in the 2015-2025 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan, as revised) includes the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility project (Project). At their August 2020 meeting, the Commission approved the BCWMC Engineer’s proposal to conduct a feasibility study for the Project (2022 CIP Project ML-12). As is required for BCWMC CIP Projects, a feasibility study must be completed prior to BCWMC holding a hearing and ordering the project. This study examines the feasibility of developing flood storage volumes and water quality treatment best management practices (BMPs) in the western portion of Medley Park adjacent to (and within) existing Medley Pond. The feasibility study includes examining the development of additional water quality treatment volume, the installation of biofiltration BMPs, re-aligning the existing channel north of Medley Pond, diverting small storm event flows from existing stormwater infrastructure, and removing accumulated sediment from Medley Pond. The goal of the project is to alleviate local flooding in the subdivision south of Medley Park and to improve water quality downstream of Medley Park by trapping additional sediment and pollutants in the pond, in biofiltration BMPs and within expanded storage areas, thus minimizing pollutants passing downstream to Medicine Lake. The proposed project will also improve ecology and wildlife habitat, enhance active and passive recreation opportunities, and provide educational opportunities. Three conceptual designs were investigated during this feasibility study. The concept design layouts investigated various combinations of biofiltration basins, constructed stormwater ponds, the expansion and dredging of the existing Medley Pond, and the diversion of runoff from existing storm infrastructure upstream of the project area. All concept designs were developed to balance flood mitigation storage and water quality treatment. Flood benefits were assessed with the hydrologic and hydraulic model XPSWMM and water quality benefits were quantified by using the P8 model. Permitting requirements for each conceptual design were reviewed and cost estimates are provided. If ordered, the CIP calls for implementing the project in 2022 and 2023. The BCWMC CIP funding (ad valorem tax levied by Hennepin County on behalf of the BCWMC), is not the sole source of funding for this project. The remainder of the funding will come from the City of Golden Valley and other sources (e.g. other grants, as appropriate). 1.2 Site conditions Medley Park is located in the City of Golden Valley east of Highway 169 and south of Medicine Lake Road (Figure 2-1). Medley Park is a public, urban, walking park consisting of open green spaces, deciduous forest, open water, various wetland communities, playground equipment, and sporting facilities (e.g., basketball court, tennis court, ice skating rinks). The walking trails are used heavily by the single family and multi-family residential communities surrounding the park. 1-2 In the western portion of Medley Park is an existing open waterbody named Medley Pond, which has a surface area of approximately 0.5 acres. Medley Pond is not listed as a Minnesota Depart of Natural Resources (MnDNR) public water. Medley Pond receives stormwater runoff from a drainage area of approximately 95 acres in Golden Valley and New Hope and discharges downstream to a small stormwater pond, Pond ML-2 (as named by the City of Golden Valley). Local residents also refer to this pond as Kings Valley Pond, which is named after the surrounding townhome community. Runoff from Pond ML-2 discharges to another small stormwater pond, Pond ML-3, which ultimately discharges to Medicine Lake. Any improvements to runoff water quality within Medley Park will result in improvements to Medicine Lake, which is currently listed as impaired for excess nutrients. Reductions in sediment and pollutant loads to the lake can likely help address this impairment. 1.3 Project alternatives The BCWMC Engineer evaluated three conceptual designs for developing flood storage volume and water quality BMPs within Medley Park. All three concepts analyzed several stormwater runoff diversion alternatives from existing stormwater infrastructure and investigated various layouts of stormwater ponds, biofiltration basins, and Medley Pond expansion and dredging to balance flood storage management and water quality treatment. The three concepts are fully described in Section 5.0. In addition, measures considered for potential implementation in all scenarios include the following: o Increasing the Medley Pond open water area, and increasing associated water quality treatment volume through expanding contours below the normal water level (NWL) and dredging accumulated sediment. The proposed expansion and dredging of accumulated sediment would provide additional water quality treatment volume and provide additional habitat for aquatic life, such as turtles, frogs, macroinvertebrates, and aquatic plants. o Creating additional stormwater pond(s) to provide additional water quality treatment volume, improve ease of maintenance, enhance water quality in downstream locations, and increase flood storage capacity. o Diverting stormwater runoff from upstream stormwater infrastructure. Two diversions were assessed and include diverting low flows from storm sewer northeast of the project area and/or re-aligning the existing channel that currently discharges directly into Medley Pond. Diverting stormwater runoff from the existing stormwater infrastructure allows for biofiltration treatment of the runoff before discharging downstream, which would help to remove particulate and dissolved pollutants. Re-aligning the stormwater channel into new stormwater ponds allows for a longer detention time, which would promote enhanced sediment and particulate contaminant settling. o Preserving trees on the west side of Medley Pond. Tree removal is expected within project disturbance limits. However, upland areas would be restored with native vegetation and replanted with trees to replace those removed during construction. 1-3 o Replacing disturbed trails with ADA-compliant trails to preserve park use, improve walking trail opportunities, and allow for maintenance access. For all concepts a looped trail around the stormwater features is provided. o Restoring all disturbed areas with native plantings and pollinator friendly habitats. The alternatives are discussed in more detail in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. 1.4 Relationship to Watershed Management Plan The BCWMC included the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project in its CIP, based on the following “gatekeeper” policy from the BCWMC Plan. Those items in bold italics represent those that directly apply to this project. 110. The BCWMC will consider including projects in the CIP that meet one or more of the following “gatekeeper” criteria. • Project is part of the BCWMC trunk system (see Section 2.8.1, Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15 of the report) • Project improves or protects water quality in a priority waterbody • Project addresses an approved TMDL or watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPS) • Project addresses flooding concern The BCWMC will use the following criteria, in addition to those listed above, to aid in the prioritization of projects: • Project protects or restores previous Commission investments in infrastructure • Project addresses intercommunity drainage issues • Project addresses erosion and sedimentation issues • Project will address multiple Commission goals (e.g., water quality, runoff volume, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, recreation, etc.) • Subwatershed draining to project includes more than one community • Addresses significant infrastructure or property damage concerns The BCWMC will place a higher priority on projects that incorporate multiple benefits, and will seek opportunities to incorporate multiple benefits into BCWMC projects, as opportunities allow. The Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility meets multiple gatekeeper criteria— the project addresses flooding concerns and the project will improve water quality by reducing the amount of sediment and pollutants that reach Medicine Lake. Additionally, this project will address intercommunity drainage concerns, multiple communities (the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope) are within the project’s subwatershed, and the project will address multiple Commission goals by capturing increased 1-4 runoff volume, enhancing water quality, providing recreation opportunities, and improving wildlife habitat. 1.5 Project impacts and estimated costs Potential impacts of the proposed project (increasing the flood storage and water quality treatment volumes of Medley Pond and developing a water quality BMP in the existing Medley Park area) are summarized in Table 1-1. Of the project impacts, one of the most significant considerations is the development of the flood storage volume, the impact on flood elevations in surrounding areas, and the reduction in the number of structures at-risk of flooding. One of the main purposes of the project is to lower the flood depths on the roads in the subdivision south of the park and to protect structures around this area. The XP-SWMM results for this project indicate that for the 50-year, 24-hour recurrence interval the flood depth on the low point on Kings Valley Road is reduced from 3.3 feet to 2.7 – 3.0 feet, depending on the concept. For the 100-year, 24-hour flood event, the flood depth on Kings Valley Road is reduced from 4.0 feet to 3.5 – 3.7 feet, depending on the concept. Reductions in flood elevations can translate to structures no longer being at-risk of flooding. For the three concepts, 5 – 6 structures are expected to be removed from the at-risk properties list for the 25-year, 24-hour event, 4 – 5 structures for the 50-year, 24-hour event, and 3 structures for the 100-year, 24-hour event. Of the project impacts, a second significant consideration is the improvement of water quality to downstream Medicine Lake. The proposed project will result in increased permanent pool volume and sediment storage volume in the new stormwater ponds and the expanded Medley Pond footprint and, therefore, reduce sediment and particulate phosphorus loading to all downstream water bodies, including Medicine Lake. Concepts 1 and 2 also include the construction of biofiltration basins, which will help to remove particulate and dissolved pollutants, such as dissolved phosphorus, through sorption to the soil and intake by plants. Dissolved inorganic phosphorus is the form directly used for photosynthesis. Other forms of phosphorus must be transformed before becoming useful for photosynthesis. Therefore, by removing dissolved inorganic phosphorus from stormwater runoff through biofiltration, less is available for algae and plants to grow in downstream waterbodies. Dissolved phosphorus can also be removed in stormwater ponds through uptake by submerged plants and phytoplankton. However, uptake of dissolved phosphorus by phytoplankton and plants is usually offset by death and decay of these organisms at the end of the growing season. The dead organic matter will settle as particulate phosphorus, and has the potential to re-release phosphorus due to decomposition by bacteria. Through decomposition, phosphorus in the organic matter is converted from particulate phosphorus to dissolved phosphorus. Therefore, because the uptake and release of dissolved phosphorus can be net neutral in stormwater ponds over the course of a year, the removal of dissolved phosphorus by submerged plants and algae is not quantified for the stormwater pond expansions and additions in the three concepts presented. Section 6.0 presents estimates of existing pollutant loadings. The estimated increase in total phosphorus removal ranges from approximately 14.0 pounds per year (Concept 1) to 18.6 pounds per year (Concept 1-5 2). The estimated increase in dissolved phosphorus removal ranges from 1.2 pounds per year (Concept 1) to 6.3 pounds per year (Concept 2). Dissolved phosphorus is not removed in Concept 3 because the proposed design only includes the construction of stormwater ponds and no biofiltration basins. To develop the flood storage and water quality volumes, tree removals within the project disturbance/grading limits will be required. Because the project area is in a park and is a popular walking area, community resistance to tree removal is a concern. Wetland and upland restoration, including planting of new trees and shrubs, will occur in all areas disturbed by construction, and many existing trees will be preserved in key areas, such as on the west side of Medley Pond. The feasibility-level opinion of costs for implementing the various concepts for the 2022-2023 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project are present in Table 1-1. This table also lists the 30-year annualized total phosphorus reduction costs and the project costs per acre foot of flood mitigation volume developed. For a complete summary of the estimated impacts, permitting requirements, disposal of contaminated sediment, closure of pedestrian trails, and costs of the concepts, including the methodology and assumptions used for the cost estimate, refer to Section 6.0, Section 7.0, and Table 6-1. 1-6 Table 1-1 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Impacts Summary Category Item Existing Conditions Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Flood Mitigation Increase in Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) -- 5.3 6 8.3 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (25-year) 6 1 1 0 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (50-year) 15 11 11 10 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year) 20 17 17 17 Water Quality Additional Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft) -- 2.8 2.7 4.3 Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) -- 14 18.6 17 Dissolved Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) 0 1.2 6.3 0 Restoration Number of Trees Removed - 7 7 7 Restored Wetland Area (ac) -- 0.56 0.69 0.56 Restored Prairie Area (ac) -- 0.85 0.49 0.56 Project Costs Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost -- $1,848,000 $2,137,000 $1,845,000 Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume -- $349,000 $356,000 $222,000 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment) -- $5,900 $4,500 $3,500 1-7 1.6 Recommendations Based on review of the project impacts for each of the three concepts, the overall project costs, feedback from BCMWC staff, the City of Golden Valley, and residents during the public engagement efforts, the BCWMC Engineer recommends implementation of Concept 3, which best balances the development of flood mitigation volume with water quality treatment. Concept 3 creates approximately 8.3 acre-feet of additional flood storage for the 100-year, 24-hour flood frequency event, which reduces the 100-year, 24-hour maximum water surface elevations by 0.5 feet within Medley Park and the downstream Kings Valley Pond (ML-2). This reduction in flood elevation removes three structures from being at-risk of flooding for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. For the 25- year, 24-hour storm event, the maximum water surface elevations within Medley Park and on Kings Valley Pond are reduced by 0.6 feet, which removes six structures from being at-risk of flooding for the 25-year, 24-hour event. Reducing the maximum water surface elevations of Medley Pond and the Kings Valley Pond during larger storm events also results in reduced road flooding depths near the Kings Valley Townhomes. For the 100- year, 24-hour storm event, the maximum flood depth at the low point on Kings Valley Road is reduced from approximately 4.0 feet to 3.5 feet. For the 50-year, 24-hour storm event, the maximum flood depth at the low point is reduced from approximately 3.3 feet to 2.7 feet. For the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the maximum flood depth is reduced from approximately 2.5 feet to 1.9 feet. Concept 3 also increases the phosphorus load reduction by 17.0 pounds per year and restores 0.6 acres of wetland and 0.6 acres of upland, prairie habitat. Disturbed trails would be replaced with a looped ADA paved trail to provide active recreation and habitat viewing opportunities for park users and to provide maintenance access. The planning level estimated cost for Concept 3 is $1.8 million (-20%/+30%). The revised BCWMC CIP budget for this project is $1.5 million (originally $500,000, but updated March 2021). The BCWMC CIP funding (ad valorem tax levied by Hennepin County on behalf of the BCWMC), is not the sole source of funding for this project. The remainder of the funding may come from a variety of sources, including the City of Golden Valley and other sources (e.g. other grants, as appropriate). The City of Golden Valley may have up to $500,000 in funds available for use on this project. The exact amount will be determined during final design. 2-1 2.0 Background and objectives The Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility is included in the BCWMC’s current CIP as ML-12 (Table 5- 3, as amended in 2018). The proposed project is located in Golden Valley and the goals are to address community flooding issues and improve water quality in Medicine Lake. The feasibility study will aid in the future development of designs for anticipated construction and implementation of the project in 2022 and 2023. The proposed facility would help achieve the goals of the Medicine Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients. The proposed project would create flood storage within the project area (approximately 3.6 acres of existing park area) adjacent to the existing Medley Pond, develop additional water quality treatment volume for total suspended solids (TSS) and particulate phosphorus removal, and develop opportunities to enhance dissolved phosphorus removal. The project would help alleviate flooding of residential structures and streets south of the park by expanding the existing Medley Pond footprint and creating additional stormwater ponds within the project area. Additionally, the project would improve water quality downstream by trapping sediment and suspended particulates in the expanded storage, thus minimizing sediment and solids transferred to downstream stormwater ponds and Medicine Lake. Additional stormwater features that target the removal of dissolved phosphorus were also investigated (e.g., biofiltration basins). Furthermore, the proposed project would improve ecology and wildlife habitat, enhance active and passive recreation opportunities within the park, and provide educational opportunities to park users. 2.1 Project area description Medley Park is located east of Highway 169 and south of Medicine Lake Road. In the western portion of Medley Park is an existing open waterbody named Medley Pond, which has a surface area of approximately 0.5 acres. Approximately 95 acres of urban drainage area in Golden Valley and New Hope discharges into Medley Pond through a constructed stormwater channel north of the pond. Medley Park is a public, urban, walking park consisting of open green spaces, deciduous forest, open water, various wetland communities, playground equipment, and sporting facilities (e.g., basketball court, tennis court, ice skating rinks). The walking trails are used heavily by the single family and multi-family residential communities surrounding the park. Figure 2-1 shows the Medley Park project area. Figure 2-2 shows the project site tributary drainage areas. 2.2 Goals and objectives This project is consistent with the goals (Section 4.1) and policies (Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.8, and 4.2.10) in the 2015 – 2025 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan. The goals and objectives of the feasibility study were to: 1.Review the feasibility of developing increased flood storage areas and water quality treatment best management practices (BMPs) in Medley Park, and identify and evaluate three alternatives. 2-2 2.Develop three conceptual designs, including preliminary grading in AutoCAD Civil 3D, modeling hydrology and hydraulics using XP-SWMM, and modeling water quality improvements using P8. 3.Provide a planning level opinion of cost for design and construction of the alternatives. 4.Identify potential project impacts and permitting requirements. 5.Develop visual representations of the three alternatives for public input. The goals and objectives of the flood mitigation and water quality improvement project are to: 1.Develop additional flood mitigation volume in the project area to help reduce flooding in the residential neighborhood south of the project site and reduce flood elevations on Pond ML-2. 2.Develop stormwater BMPs in the project area to remove sediment and particulate and dissolved nutrients to improve water quality of downstream waterbodies, including Medicine Lake. 3.Reduce sediment and particulate nutrient loading to Medicine Lake and improve downstream water quality by providing additional water quality treatment volume in an expanded Medley Pond footprint and within new stormwater ponds in the project area. 4.Reduce dissolved nutrient loading to Medicine Lake and improve downstream water quality by providing biofiltration BMPs in the project area. 5. Remove accumulated, contaminated sediment within Medley Pond to restore water quality treatment capacity and provide enhanced aquatic habitat. 6. Preserve existing trees on the west shoreline of Medley Pond. 7.Restore natural habitat quality and species diversification by restoring wetland and upland habitat within the project disturbance limits, including investigation of various flooding frequencies for the restoration of habitat within the park (e.g., wetland fringe zones). 8.Replace trails disturbed by project construction with accessible trails that are positioned above the 10-year flood frequency event to ensure at least one loop of the park trails can be utilized following larger precipitation events. This will allow the park habitat to be enjoyed more frequently by the surrounding residents. 2.3 Scope The feasibility study addresses and includes the feasibility study criteria adopted by the BCWMC in October 2013: •Analysis of multiple alternatives within the context of Commission objectives, including the following for each alternative: o Pros and cons analysis o Cost estimate for construction and a “30-year cost” o Analysis of life expectancy o Summary of each alternative for the Commission to judge its merits o Cost estimate for annualized cost per pound of pollutant removal 2-3 o Evaluation of new and/or innovative approaches o Identification of permitting requirements The BCWMC developed the above criteria when the BCWMC’s CIP was limited to water quality improvement projects, so they do not specifically address flood mitigation aspects of CIP projects. Therefore, in addition to the criteria above, the following will also be analyzed as part of each alternative: •Evaluation of flood reduction benefits of each alternative, including acre-feet of additional flood storage provided, lowering of 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100-yr flood elevations at key locations, and quantification of homes and other structures and infrastructure impacted (e.g., homes/households no longer within 1% annual chance floodplain, reduced inundation depth at adjacent roadways, etc.). As is required for BCWMC CIP Projects, a feasibility study must be completed prior to BCWMC holding a public hearing and ordering the project. This feasibility study developed conceptual designs of the flood mitigation and water quality improvement project, reviewed the permitting requirements, reviewed the field investigation results, considered input from residents and city staff, and developed concept plans and cost estimates for the project. The BCWMC completed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 2009 through which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the BCWMC agreed on a series of steps, work items, deliverables (called “protocols”) that must be accomplished and submitted to complete the RMP process and USACE review/approval process. Although this project was not included in the RMP, the USACE has allowed the RMP protocols to be applied to other projects not specifically included in the RMP. With the completion of the protocols, we expect the USACE application process to move more quickly than it would otherwise. Most of the protocols must be addressed as part of the feasibility study, in addition to the usual tasks that would be performed as part of a BCWMC feasibility study. In general, the protocols require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Compliance with Section 106 typically requires a cultural resources inventory. In addition to the tasks above, the feasibility study included identifying wetland impacts to meet the RMP pre-application protocols and gathering stakeholder input. The BCWMC Engineer worked with the BCWMC Administrator and City of Golden Valley staff to identify and implement effective measures for gathering input from the public and other affected stakeholders. 2.4 Considerations Key considerations for project alternatives included: 1. Maximizing the amount of permanent pool storage for water quality benefit and maximizing flood storage up to the 100-year event. 2.Maximizing the amount of sediment and particulate and dissolved phosphorus removed during frequent storm events. 3.Minimizing the permitting required to construct the project. 2-4 4.Maintaining or improving the functionality of Medley Pond, including water quality, flood control, and habitat functions. 5.Minimizing wetland impacts. 6.Balancing tree loss and flood storage development and/or replacing removed trees to the extent feasible. 7.Maintaining or improving the functionality of the walking trails and enhancing the park experience. The considerations listed above played a key role in developing final recommendations and will continue to play a key role through final design. 930 910 930930 93 0 910 910 910 910 910 910 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-06-04 09:56 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Figure2.1_ProjectArea.mxd User: tao2 MEDLEY PARKPROJECT AREA FIGURE 2-1 120 0 120 Feet !;N Proposed Project Boundary Hennepin County Parcels Storm Sewer Pipe Watermain Sanitary Sewer Main Flow Direction Existing Contours 10-foot contour 2-foot contour Medley Pond Medley Park Kings Valley Townhomes K i n g s V a l l e y R d E Mayfair Rd.Ensign Ave N£¤169 GOLDEN VALLEY PLYMOUTH MEDICINE LAKE NEW HOPE CRYSTAL Proposed Project Location Medicine Lake VirginiaAveIndependence Ave NVi r g i n i a Ci r Mendelssohn Ave NMe d i c i n e L a k e B l v d E Kilmer LaYukon Ave27th Ave Lancaster LaDuluth St We s t b e n d R d Wisconsin Ave NEnsign Cir Aqui la AveFlag Ave NBoone Ave Winnetka Heights Dr Medicine Lake Rd Brogger CirPilgrim LaWisconsin Ave N26th Ave HillsboroAve NEnsign AveGettysburgAve24th Ave Winnetka Heights Dr 23rd Ave NFlag Ave27th Ave Duluth St Terra Linda DrQuaker LaMedicine Lake Rd N Wynnwood RdZealand Ave NElgin Pl N Aquila Ave N27th Pl Duluth St Bies DrNathan LaEarl St Naper St Winnetka Ave24th Ave N Valders AveValders Ct ValdersAve NCavellAve25th Ave N GetysburgCtNaper St 29th Ave 28th A v e ZealandAve21st Ave Medley La N Xylon Ave NJonellen La NOrkla DrQuaker LaKilmer La18th Ave Valders Ave NEnsign Ave NHillsboroAve N26th Ave 23rd Ave Kilmer La NLancaster LaDul u t h S t 25th Ave Decatur Ave NVirginia Ave17th Ave Yukon Ave29th Ave 30th Ave Winnetka Ave NFlag Ave NLancaster LaWinnetka Ave NCavell Ave NGettysburg Ave NOrkla DrWinn e t k a H e i g h t s D r Winnetka AveJulianne TerKilmer LaPatsy La Ros e M a n r Valders Ave NZealand A ve N Me d i c i n e R i d g e R d M e d i c i n e R i d g e R d Ensign AveXylon AveHillsboro AveHillsboro Ave28th Ave 29th Ave Pilgrim La456770 4567156 4567156 £¤169 £¤169 Golden ValleyPlymouth New Hope CrystalBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-04-19 10:51 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Figure2.2_DrainageArea.mxd User: tao2 MEDLEY PARKWATERSHED AREASCities of Golden Valley and New Hope FIGURE 2-2 !;N Flow Direction Ponds and Wetlands Municipality Subwatersheds Medicine Lake 0 500 1,000 Feet Medley PondDirect WS = 95 acTotal WS = 95 acKing's Valley Pond (ML-02)Direct WS = 77 acTotal WS = 172 ac ML-03Direct WS = 11 acTotal WS = 183 ac 3-1 3.0 Site conditions 3.1 Proposed project location and characteristics The 95-acre watershed area tributary to Medley Pond drains portions of the cities of Golden Valley and New Hope. Medley Pond, is not classified as a public water by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). The watershed is fully-developed; the existing land use includes a mixture of single- family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/industrial, parks and open spaces, and open water. Stormwater runoff discharges from Medley Pond through a 36”-diameter storm sewer pipe south to a downstream stormwater pond, ML-2 (locally known as Kings Valley Pond). Not including the area tributary to Medley Pond, the additional area tributary to Pond ML-2 is approximately 77 acres and drains portions of the City of Golden Valley. This tributary area is fully-developed; the existing land use includes a mixture of single-family and multi-family residential and commercial properties. Pond ML-2 discharges southwest to another small stormwater pond, ML-3, which eventually discharges to Medicine Lake. 3.1.1 Medicine Lake water quality concerns Medicine Lake is a deep-water lake located within the Bassett Creek watershed west of Highway 169 and north of Highway 55. The water quality in Medicine Lake does not meet state standards and is considered poor due to high amounts of nutrients, like phosphorus, which generate excess algae growth. Over the past 20 years, algae levels in the lake have notably increased, impacting aquatic life, and recreation like swimming, boating, and fishing. The monitored concentrations of total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a within Medicine Lake over time are presented in Figure 3-1. Medicine Lake is included on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) impaired waters list for mercury, chlorides, and excess nutrients (based on total phosphorus chlorophyll-a and Secchi disc transparency). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the excess nutrient impairments in 2011. Much of the phosphorus load is coming from within the lake itself as aquatic plants die and as phosphorus is released from sediment in the bottom of the lake. In addition to this internal nutrient loading, there are external sources of nutrients coming from the tributary watershed. This occurs through direct urban runoff and from storm sewer systems that collect and convey stormwater to the lake. The BCWMC and its member cities have completed stormwater projects to help reduce the amount of polluted runoff reaching Medicine Lake. However, as shown in Figure 3-1, investigating additional water quality treatment opportunities is warranted to bring the lake closer to compliance with state standards. Medley Park is located within the Medicine Lake watershed. Stormwater runoff from the surrounding neighborhoods funnels through Medley Pond and eventually flows to Medicine Lake. One of the goals of 3-2 this project is to further reduce the amount of phosphorus reaching Medicine Lake. Medley Park provides a unique opportunity to meet that goal. For additional details on the nutrient concerns for Medicine Lake, information on Medicine Lake’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study and TMDL implementation plan can be viewed here: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/medicine-lake-excessive-nutrients-tmdl-project 3-3 Figure 3-1 Medicine Lake Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll-a Concentrations 3.1.2 Existing flooding conditions During public input processes in 2019/2020 when the City of Golden Valley engaged with the surrounding neighborhoods about proposed amenity changes in Medley Park, many residents indicated that Medley Park and the surrounding areas experience flooding and drainage issues during large, intense storm 3-4 events. Of those who responded to the engagement efforts, a few of the residents indicated that the park trails and low-lying open green spaces are inundated following larger storm events and that the low-lying green space areas remain wet for extended periods of time. The City documented flooding impacts for the major storm event that occurred in 1987, where 12 known existing structures had basements or first floors with standing water. During the July 1987 storm event, approximately 8 inches of precipitation fell in 6 hours near the City of Golden Valley. Of the 12 known structures with flood impacts, two of these structures had approximately 12 inches of standing water in the basements and four of the structures had up to 18 inches of standing water. For additional information on local flooding, please contact the City of Golden Valley. Furthermore, existing conditions hydrologic and hydraulic modeling indicates that the depth of flooding that occurs at the low point on Kings Valley Road East for events greater than or equal to the 25-year 24- hour Atlas-14 storm event creates public safety and access issues (with depths of flooding that do not allow for the passage of emergency vehicles). Existing conditions modeling shows that the depth of flooding at the low point on Kings Valley Road East ranges from 2.5 feet for the 25-year event to 4.0 feet for the 100-year event. This depth of flooding will also result in damages to adjacent structures. The existing conditions 100-year flooding inundation is shown in Figure 3-2. 25th Ave 23rd Ave 23rd Ave N Medley La N 26th Ave Elgin Pl N Kilmer LaHillsboro Ave Medicine Lake Rd Duluth St 456770 £¤169 £¤169 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-06-03 10:29 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\FigureX_Inundation.mxd User: tao2 Medley ParkExisting Conditions100-year Inundation FIGURE 3-2 0 300 Feet !;N Existing Conditions 100-year Inundation Proposed Project Boundary Storm Pipe Ponds & Wetlands Hennepin CountyParcels Other Parcels Parks 3-6 3.1.3 Site access Construction access will be straightforward because the project is located on public property (Medley Park). Relatively few obstacles or infrastructure elements block access to the proposed work areas. Potential site access locations are at the northeastern portion of the park off of Ensign Avenue North at the existing maintenance access road. 3.1.4 Sediment sampling and bathymetric survey – 2020 In 2020, the BCWMC Engineer completed sediment characterization work and bathymetric surveys for Medley Pond as part of this feasibility study. Sediment sampling was conducted in accordance with the MPCA’s Managing Stormwater Sediment, Best Management Practice Guidance May 2017 (MPCA, 2017). This document provides technical guidance for characterizing sediment in stormwater ponds, including the number of samples that should be collected and potential contaminants to be analyzed. The baseline parameters listed in the MPCA guidance are arsenic, copper, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are organic compounds that are formed by the incomplete combustion of organic materials, such as wood, oil, and coal. They are also naturally occurring in crude oil and coal. The MPCA determined that coal tar-based sealants were the largest source of PAHs to stormwater ponds, and a state-wide ban of coal tar-based sealants took effect January 1, 2014. Additional parameters analyzed included all eight Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver); diesel range organics (DRO); and gasoline range organics (GRO) to assess if the sediment, if excavated, could be considered Unregulated Fill and reused as fill offsite. Stormwater pond sediment that does not meet Unregulated Fill criteria is typically disposed in a landfill. The objectives of this work were to (1) collect bathymetric survey data to assess the current volume of the pond and identify areas of accumulated sediment; (2) characterize sediment contamination for dredging and filling purposes; and (3) identify the native pond bottom due to the lack of available construction drawings for the original excavation of Medley Pond. Appendix A provides supplementary tables and figures of the sediment sampling and bathymetric survey process and results. 3.1.4.1 Bathymetric Survey The BCWMC Engineer performed a bathymetric survey of Medley Pond in September 2020. The survey indicated that much of the northern portion of the pond is shallow due to a large volume of accumulated sediment. Current bottom elevations generally range from 897 feet (NAVD88) in the center of Medley Pond to 898 feet at the northeastern channel inlet. GPS and elevation data from the stormwater pond survey were imported into AutoCAD Civil 3D software. The geographically-referenced survey data points were used to create elevation contours, which represent the current pond bottom conditions. These contours were used to calculate the existing permanent flood pool storage and to assist in calculating the sediment volume removals in the proposed dredging locations. 3-7 Figure 3-3 shows a conceptual profile of a typical stormwater pond. The permanent pool, or dead storage volume, is the volume below the pond’s outlet elevation. The flood pool is the volume between the outlet elevation and the flood elevation. The permanent pool volume and wetted surface area of Medley Pond were calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D contours and volume calculation tools, and the outlet elevation data. Figure 3-3 Typical storm water pond configuration 3-8 3.1.4.2 Native Pond Bottom As noted in Section 3.1.4, there are no as-built drawings available for Medley Pond, so the native or original constructed pond bottom are not known. However, a September 2005 construction plan set shows a proposed bottom excavation elevation of 895.0 feet (NAVD88) at the northeast inlet channel. If the northeastern portion of Medley Pond was dredged to elevation 895.0 feet as shown in the plan set, then approximately 3.0 feet of sediment has accumulated at the channel inlet to Medley Pond over the past 15 years, based on the 2020 bathymetric survey. To help further understand the native or original constructed pond bottom, the survey crew recorded the depth of “soft sediment” by measuring the depth they could push a pole by hand into the sediment. The depth of soft sediment can help approximate the depth of accumulated sediment that has settled on the pond bottom over time. The measured soft sediment depth may represent the survey rod hitting a firm substrate like sand or clay, or may represent increasingly dense or cohesive sediments that resists further push of the survey rod by hand. The soft sediment depths recorded by the survey crew ranged from approximately 0.5 – 1.5 feet in the northeast area of the pond to as much as 5 feet in the southern and northwestern areas of the pond (push depth elevation of 893.0 feet, NAVD88). The average soft sediment push depth was approximately 3.0 feet. It is hypothesized that smaller soft sediment depths were recorded in the northeast portion of the pond because larger diameter sediment, such as gravel and sand, settles more readily at the channel outlet to the pond and would restrict the depth that the rod could be pushed down by hand. The BCWMC Engineer also used sediment core logs to estimate the native pond bottom. Sediment cores were collected at two locations in Medley Pond. The sediment cores were visually logged in the field, and sediment core logs are included in Appendix A. Based on sediment coring logs, there is a transition from soft organic silt to peat at a depth of approximately 4.5-5.0 feet below the pond water surface. Thus, the soil transition elevation, based on the sediment core logs, is approximately 893.5 feet, NAVD88. Without an as-built survey of the original Medley Pond construction, it is difficult to approximate the original, native bottom elevation before the watershed was urbanized. However, based on the soft sediment push methodology conducted during bathymetric survey and analysis of the sediment cores, we can estimate that the native bottom elevation was at 893.5, based on the sediment layer transition that occurs at that elevation. 3.1.4.3 Sediment Characterization Sediments from the pond were tested for a variety of contaminants to determine whether sediment, if excavated, could be used as fill or should be disposed in a landfill. The BCWMC Engineer collected the sediment samples and sent them to Pace Analytical to analyze for the following parameters: • Metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, selenium, silver and mercury • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) • Diesel range organics (DRO) • Gasoline range organics (GRO) • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) 3-9 Results of sediment testing in Medley Pond indicate concentrations of PAHs in the pond sediments exceed Minnesota’s Residential SRV for BaP equivalents (2 mg/kg). The PAHs that were analyzed can be grouped into two categories: carcinogenic (i.e., cancer causing) and general. To assess the contamination level of the carcinogenic PAHs in stormwater pond sediment, the MPCA requires the calculation of a “BaP equivalents value.” The BaP equivalents value is a single value representing the combined potency of 17 individual carcinogenic PAH compounds with BaP (benzo[a]pyrene) acting as the reference compound. The MPCA guidance document (MPCA 2017) lists the compounds and their respective potency equivalents factors that are used to calculate the BaP equivalents value, along with methods for addressing constituents at concentrations below the detection limit. Concentrations of BaP equivalents in Medley Pond sediment ranged from 4.6 mg/kg to 6.5 mg/kg, which is above Minnesota’s Residential SRV (2 mg/kg) but below Minnesota’s Industrial SRV (23 mg/kg). Minnesota does not have SRVs for DRO. However, the MPCA’s memorandum on Unregulated Fill lists a Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) threshold of 100 mg/kg for soil/sediment to be considered Unregulated Fill (MPCA, 2012). The DRO concentrations in the Medley Pond sediment ranged from 79.4 mg/kg to 129 mg/kg. The results of the DRO testing are estimated values, as concentrations were above the method detection limit but below the method reporting limit. The Medley Pond sediment test results indicate the sediment does not meet the MPCA’s guidelines for Unregulated Fill. BaP equivalents values exceeded the MPCA’s Residential (SRV) in all sediment samples; additionally, the DRO concentration exceeded the MPCA’s Unregulated Fill TPH threshold of 100 mg/kg in sample SED-01. Medley Pond sediment could potentially be reused as Regulated Fill on a property with industrial or commercial land use designation; however, the additional costs associated with finding a suitable property to accept the material and obtaining MPCA approval to reuse the sediment as Regulated Fill are likely to exceed the costs of landfilling the sediment. Therefore, the BCWMC Engineer recommends that the Medley Pond sediment, if excavated, be disposed in a landfill. During final design, it is recommended that the sediment characterization data be reevaluated and compared to the MPCA SRVs in effect at that time. 3.1.5 Geotechnical investigation The BCWMC Engineer subcontracted with Haugo GeoTechnical Services (Haugo) to collect soil borings in Medley Park, east of Medley Pond, to assess infiltration opportunities. Haugo collected two geotechnical borings (SB-North and SB-South) in the areas anticipated to incorporate water quality infiltration/filtration practices. The geotechnical borings were each completed using a hollow stem auger and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) using an 18” split spoon, and sampling continuously to a depth of 12 feet below ground surface. SPT blow counts indicated a low strength soil, commonly identified with clays and silts. Soils encountered were mostly organic lean clays above a native peat layer near the water table. The peat encountered is at a similar elevation to the peat encountered in the pond sediment cores. The geotechnical investigation showed limited opportunities for infiltration best management practices. Soils were also field screened for debris and environmental impacts (odor, sheen, and discoloration). No debris was encountered in either boring. No environmental impacts were identified in either of these 3-10 borings. Soils were also screened for volatile organic headspace readings using a 10.6 eV photo ionization detector. All headspace readings were below 10ppm, suggesting there are no volatile organic compound impacts to the soils in the borings. Based on the absence of field screening observations indicating potential contamination, no environmental analytical samples were collected during the geotechnical investigation. Soil boring logs and a map of the boring locations are included in Appendix B. 3.1.6 Environmental review The BCWMC Engineer completed an environmental desktop review to assess the potential for contamination in the project area. The review included MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) web map of environmental sites (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/whats-my-neighborhood), Minnesota Department of Agriculture WIMN map of known and potential sources of agricultural contamination, and a review of historical maps and aerial photos. MPCA WIMN identified one contaminated site near the project area, the AMSTAR petroleum leak site #LS0000183 (Leak Site 183), a gasoline service station located at 9405 Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley, about 600 feet northwest of the project area. Barr reviewed MPCA files for Leak Site 183. Petroleum releases at the site were discovered in 1987 and 1992. On both occasions, contaminated soil was excavated and removed from the site. Groundwater monitoring performed from 1987 through 1989 at three locations north, west and southwest of the release did not identify concentrations of concern and no free product was documented at the site. Groundwater flow direction was reportedly to the southwest, toward Medicine Lake, away from Medley Park. The 1992 soil excavation removed 791 cubic yards of contaminated soil and left petroleum impacts in place along the western and northeastern edges of the excavation, but impacts to the south and east of the excavation appear to be contained within the leak site property boundaries. Based on the absence of documented free product or groundwater impacts, the distance from the project area, and the inferred direction of groundwater flow being side gradient to Medley Park, the petroleum releases are unlikely to have impacted soils or groundwater at the Medley Park project area. However, there is potential for Medley Pond sediments to be impacted by contaminants through storm sewer inputs or direct runoff, as is common for stormwater ponds in suburban areas. Historical aerial photos and topographic maps of the project area were reviewed to assess the potential that dumping or filling occurred in the project area. Excavation and filling at the site occurred in the past, as evidenced by the historical presence of wetlands and construction of Medley Pond some time prior to 1991. The source of fill at the site is unknown, however, field observations at two geotechnical boring locations completed did not show evidence of debris or impacts. Based on the environmental desktop review, there is potential for contamination in the Medley Pond sediments. The sediment investigation described in Section 3.1.4.3 addresses these potential impacts. Based on the historical filling at the site, the BCWMC Engineer recommends preparation of a site contingency plan to address potential impacts of contamination that may be identified in the fill or debris during the project construction. 3-11 3.1.7 Topographic, utility, and tree surveys The BCWMC Engineer subcontracted with Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. (EFN) to complete a topographic, tree, and utility survey within the project extents in fall 2020. EFN collected topographic information in Hennepin County NAD83 horizontal datum and NAVD88 vertical datum, and imported the information into AutoCAD Civil 3D to create an existing conditions surface for this feasibility study. They located underground utilities based on the location of manhole structures, as-built/construction plan drawings from the City, and through a Gopher State One Call utility locate. This project would incur some tree loss and some tree replacement. Therefore, trees larger than 4 inches in diameter were surveyed and the species, condition, and diameter data were collected. A total of 79 trees were surveyed within Medley Park. Figure 3-4 shows the location of the surveyed trees. The tree survey covered only the portion of Medley Park where proposed excavation would occur. As a result, the tree removal summaries presented in Table 6-1 are based on the percentage of trees removed in the proposed excavation areas only, not the entire park. Based on the survey data collected, trees were classified according to the City of Golden Valley’s tree ordinance (see Table 3-1). The survey showed that 43 of the trees 4” and greater in diameter in the surveyed portion of Medley Park are elm, 22 are boxelder, and 4 are spruce. The remaining 10 trees surveyed consist of species such as basswood, poplar, locust, hackberry, and maple. Of the 79 trees surveyed, 72 trees were found in good condition, 4 trees in fair condition, and 3 dead or dying. Additionally, 42 of the trees surveyed were significant and 0 were legacy. Section 6.6.2 discusses the anticipated tree impacts from the proposed Project. Table 3-1 City of Golden Valley Tree Ordinance Definitions Tree Type1 Significant Legacy Other Hardwood Deciduous 6” ≤ Diameter < 30” Diameter ≥ 30” Diameter < 6” Softwood Deciduous Diameter ≥ 12” - Diameter < 12” Coniferous 4” ≤ Diameter < 24” Diameter ≥ 24” Diameter < 4” 1 A healthy tree not considered a nuisance under City regulations 3.1.8 Wetland delineations The BCWMC Engineer completed a wetland delineation for the Medley Park project area on September 14, 2020. The wetland delineation area included Medley Pond, the northern edge of the downstream stormwater pond (City of Golden Valley Pond ML-2), and the Medley Park area. One wetland (Wetland 1) was delineated within the project area. The descriptions and assessments of the wetland is provided in Section 3.1.8.1. Appendix C provides a full summary of the wetland delineation, including figures and wetland data sheets. The wetland delineation report was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual,” USACE, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of 3-12 Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010) and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The delineated wetland boundary and sample points were surveyed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the USFWS Circular 39 system (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), and the Eggers and Reed Wetland Classification System (Eggers and Reed, 1977). 3.1.8.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 included both Medley Pond and City of Golden Valley Pond ML-2 as the two wetland segments are connected through a culvert located underneath the upland berm between the two ponds. Both segments of the wetland were classified as a deep marsh bordered with a seasonally flooded basin (PUBGx/PEMC). Vegetation along the wetland boundary was dominated by cattails (Typha spp.; OBL), and bordered by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis; FACU), and water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia; OBL). Woody vegetation such as boxelder (Acer negundo; FAC) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica; FAC) were also present. Duckweed was observed floating within the deep marsh portion of the wetland. Using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) wetland assessment methodology, the wetland area was classified as a Manage 2 wetland as the wetland is rated low for amphibian habitat. Refer to Appendix C for the MnRAM Excel spreadsheet. 3.1.9 Threatened and endangered species Through a license agreement (LA-898) with the MnDNR for access to the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database, the BCWMC Engineer queried the NHIS database in October 2020 to assess if any rare species could potentially be affected by the proposed project. The NHIS database did not identify any state listed species within one mile of the project area. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) website identified one federally listed species potentially occurring in the project area: the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; threatened). No designated critical habitat for any federally listed species is located within the project area. According to GIS data obtained from the MnDNR, there are no Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) Sites located within one mile of the proposed project site. Additionally, no state-owned wildlife management areas (WMA), Scientific Natural Areas (SNA), or native plant communities are present within one mile of the proposed project area. Impact Analysis The northern long-eared bat hibernates in caves during the winter and utilizes forested areas for roosting and foraging during the bat’s active season of April through September. Suitable roost trees for this species have trunks measuring greater than 3-inch diameter at breast height with loose, peeling bark or 3-13 crevices. Less than ten trees exceeding 3 inches at breast height are proposed for clearing as part of this project. According to data provided by the MnDNR, there are no known, occupied roost trees or hibernacula located with the project area. The nearest known hibernacula are located over 14 miles southeast of the project area. However, because the project occurs within the range of the northern long- eared bat and potentially up to ten trees will be cleared for the development of flood storage, the possibility of direct and indirect impacts cannot be completely discounted. As a result, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally threatened northern long-eared bat and is not expected to cause a prohibited take of this species. A prudent, but not mandatory, measure to avoid all direct impacts to the northern long-eared bat is to remove the proposed trees outside of the active season (outside of April—September). In summary, this project is not expected to impact state-listed species. The project is not anticipated to adversely affect or cause prohibited take of the federally listed northern long-eared bat. 3.1.10 Cultural resources In September 2020, the BCWMC Engineer requested a file search from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Standing Structures (Historic) and Archaeology Inventories for all public land survey sections located within one mile of the project area. SHPO responded to the data request with information indicating that there are numerous historical sites located within a mile of the project area; however, no previously recorded archaeological sites are located within a mile of the project area. Most of the project area has been previously disturbed from the construction of the existing stormwater pond, paved bike trail and baseball field. During these disturbances no archaeological resources were identified. The proposed project would not impact any previously recorded standing structures or archaeological sites. This review only reflects currently known cultural resources; it is possible that unidentified cultural resources may be present within the project area. Further cultural resources evaluation may be required as part of future design and permitting efforts. !. !. !> !> kjkjkj kjkj nm kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkjkj kjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkj nm nm kj nm nm q q q q nm nm kj kjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj 910 910 910 910910 910 910 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.8.1, 2021-06-03 10:30 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Figure3.3_SiteConditions.mxd User: tao2 MEDLEY PARKSITE CONDITIONS FIGURE 3-4 120 0 120 Feet !;N Proposed Project Boundary Wetland Survey BoundaryHennepin County Parcels !>Soil Boring Locations !.Sediment Sampling Locations Storm Sewer Pipe Watermain Sanitary Sewer Main Surveyed Trees qSignificant Coniferous nmSignificant Hardwood kj Significant Softwood Delineated Wetlands PEMC PUBGx Existing Contours 10-foot contour 2-foot contour Flood Area: Medley Pond/Park Kings Valley Townhomes Flood Area: King's Valley Pond (ML-2)/Townhomes Flood Area: Pond ML-3 Kings Valley RoadLow Point 4-1 4.0 Stakeholder input 4.1 Public stakeholder meetings Because the proposed flood mitigation and water quality BMPs will impact Medley Park, input from two public stakeholder engagement events was compiled and considered before refining the flood mitigation concepts. As a result of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and public safety concerns, online materials and surveys rather than in-person public open houses were held to gather public input about the stormwater retrofit project within Medley Park. 4.1.1 Public stakeholder engagement 1 The first virtual public engagement activity included a pre-recorded presentation offering background information on the proposed project. After watching the pre-recorded presentation, participants were invited to complete an online survey. Within the survey, participants could describe their views on issues, concerns, and needs for the park area. This first activity was available online from the end of November 2020 through mid-December 2020. A letter was mailed to residents informing them of the presentation and online survey. Web links were provided on the City of Golden Valley’s Medley Park Project webpage, the City’s website news feed, social media, and on the BCWMC’s project webpage to promote participation. The comments received were grouped into several themes including the following: • General support for flood mitigation, protection of structures from flooding, and preservation of the neighborhood • Desire for trail accessibility and maintenance • Concerns about wet or water-logged open green space areas • General support for Medley Pond expansion and/or more open water area • Support of restoration with native species and pollinator species • Support of invasive species management • Concerns related to tree management • Concerns related to special assessment for property owners Following closure of the survey, a Medley Park Stormwater Feasibility Study Community Input report was developed summarizing all of the responses. This report can be reviewed at the following location: http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/stormwater/pdf/medley-input-report.pdf These comments were considered as part of the development of the feasibility study concepts and will continue to be considered as the project progresses through final design. 4.1.2 Public stakeholder engagement 2 A second public stakeholder virtual presentation was posted from April 16 to May 7, 2021, which provided background details on the feasibility study and presented the three concept designs. Public feedback was 4-2 received through online forms and email correspondence. A total of nine participants provided feedback and/or asked questions about the concept designs. One participant noted preference for Concepts 1 or 2 because of the biofiltration basin’s ability to remove dissolved phosphorus. Another participant noted Concept 2 as a preference and stated their excitement for natural plantings. Two other participants noted Concept 3 as preferential for flood benefits. One participant asked that the park remain as it looks now. The remaining four participants provided feedback and asked questions, but did not indicate a preference for any of the alternatives. In addition, City of Golden Valley staff engaged with the City's Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission for comments and feedback. Both were supportive of the concepts and the potential project, and no preferred concept was identified. 4.2 Technical stakeholder meeting A technical stakeholder meeting with regulatory agencies was held virtually on December 16, 2020 to solicit feedback on and discuss permitting requirements for the proposed Medley Park stormwater retrofit designs. Attendees included representatives from the BCWMC, the City of Golden Valley, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). MnDNR staff were not included since Medley Pond is not mapped as a public water. The BCWMC Engineer presented background information on the flooding, water quality concerns, and general goals and design concepts for the Medley Park Stormwater Project, which was followed by discussion related to technical feedback and permitting input. The items discussed included: • Review of project background and history • Review of site information compiled to-date and site investigation work completed • Review of potential design concepts • Discussion of regulatory issues and potential permit requirements • Discussion of feasibility study Section 6.4 summarizes the anticipated permitting requirements as discussed at the meeting. 5-1 5.0 Potential improvements This section outlines the components of each of the three conceptual designs developed and evaluated for the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility. The primary focus of all three concepts was to add flood storage in Medley Park and provide water quality treatment for small events by diverting stormwater runoff from existing storm infrastructure. Section 6.0 summarizes the impacts of the conceptual designs. 5.1 Concept 1 Figure 5-1 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 1. This alternative includes the following design components: • Installing a diversion weir structure at the existing manhole upstream of the park’s intermittent stream. Under proposed conditions, stormwater runoff would be directed south to a new stormwater pond during smaller storm events. During larger storm events, stormwater runoff would overtop the weir wall in the diversion structure, discharge into the existing channel, and flow towards Medley Pond. • Constructing a new stormwater pond (open water with fringe wetland) downstream of the diversion weir structure with a normal water level at 902.5 ft MSL. The proposed water quality treatment volume of the new pond is approximately 0.8 ac-ft, and the proposed flood volume is 3.1 ac-ft (up to the 100-year flood elevation). The primary outlet of the new pond would consist of a submerged, back-sloped storm sewer pipe to prevent accumulation of debris at the outlet. An outlet control structure would be positioned downstream of the back-sloped pipe and consist of a 6-inch diameter orifice (invert 902.5 ft MSL) and concrete weir wall that is the full height of the structure. The manhole would also have a grate positioned approximately 0.8 feet below the proposed trail low point to act as an overflow for larger storm events. • Constructing a biofiltration basin downstream of the new stormwater pond. Two submerged and back-sloped storm sewer pipes would allow volume from the upstream new stormwater pond to enter the biofiltration basin while limiting the amount of floatable debris that can enter the basin. The storm sewer outlet to the biofiltration basin would be set one foot above the basin bottom to allow a minimum of one-foot treatment depth. A berm, with an emergency overflow, would be constructed to separate the pond and basin. The biofiltration basin would provide approximately 0.6 ac-ft of water quality treatment volume below the outlet rim elevation (2 feet above the basin bottom) and remove approximately 1.2 pounds of dissolved phosphorus per year through sorption to soils and sand. No filtration enhancements are proposed for the biofiltration basin substrate (i.e. iron-enhanced sand) to remove additional dissolved phosphorus. Limitations for the configuration of the basin and stormwater ponds, including existing stormwater infrastructure, existing topography, and the volume of stormwater runoff tributary to the park, results in a longer than recommended inundation period for iron-enhanced 5-2 sand. Under longer periods of inundation, iron-enhanced sand removal efficiency decreases and can even release phosphorus under certain conditions. • Dredging Medley Pond to a bottom elevation of 894 ft MSL and landfilling approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. • Expanding Medley Pond to increase the open water area of the existing pond by 0.2 acres to 0.7 acres. • Increasing the total open water area in Medley Park by 0.48 acres from existing conditions with the expansion of Medley Pond and the installation of a new stormwater pond. The total open water area under Concept 1 is 0.94 acres. • Increasing the total water quality volume by 2.8 acre-feet to 3.2 acre-feet from existing conditions through expansion of Medley Pond and excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 5.3 acre-feet to 18.3 acre-feet (up to the 100- year flood elevation) from existing conditions through expansion of Medley Pond and excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. • Removing 7 trees within the proposed project area and preserving trees on the western side of Medley Pond. • Replacing disturbed trails with a looped, ADA-compliant paved trail above elevation 906 (above the 10-year flood elevation) and around the proposed features. An emergency overflow at elevation 906 would be positioned in the western trail profile to allow preferential flow from the new stormwater pond into Medley Pond during overflow conditions. • Restoring 0.9 acres of prairie habitat and 0.6 acres of wetland habitat surrounding the new project features. • Reducing the size of the existing ice-skating rink by approximately 20% to allow for creation of additional flood mitigation volume. • Protecting the existing stream and pedestrian bridge north of Medley Pond. 5.2 Concept 2 Figure 5-2 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 2. This alternative includes the following design components: Components from Concept 1: 5-3 • Dredging Medley Pond to a bottom elevation of 894 ft MSL and landfilling approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. • Removing 7 trees within the proposed project area and preserving trees on the western side of Medley Pond. • Replacing disturbed trails with a looped, ADA-compliant paved trail above elevation 906 (above the 10-year flood elevation) and around the proposed features. An emergency overflow at elevation 906 would be positioned in the western trail profile to allow preferential flow from the new stormwater pond into Medley Pond during overflow conditions. • Protecting the existing stream and pedestrian bridge north of Medley Pond. Components unique to Concept 2: • Installing a new manhole and diversion weir structure 175 ft upstream of the storm sewer outlet to the park’s intermittent stream. Under proposed conditions, stormwater runoff would be directed southwest to a biofiltration basin during smaller storm events. During larger storm events, stormwater runoff would overtop the weir wall in the diversion structure, discharge into the existing channel, and flow towards Medley Pond. • Constructing a biofiltration basin in the eastern half of the construction area. The biofiltration basin would provide 0.7 ac-ft of water quality treatment volume below the outlet structures’ rim elevations (1.5 feet above the basin bottom). Flows from the basin would discharge west to the new stormwater pond. The biofiltration basin would remove approximately 6.3 pounds of dissolved phosphorus per year through sorption to soils and sand. No filtration enhancements are proposed for the biofiltration basin substrate (i.e. iron-enhanced sand) to remove additional dissolved phosphorus. Limitations for the configuration of the basin and stormwater ponds, including existing stormwater infrastructure, existing topography, and the volume of stormwater runoff tributary to the park, results in a longer than recommended inundation period for iron- enhanced sand. Under longer periods of inundation, iron-enhanced sand removal efficiency decreases and can even release phosphorus under certain conditions. • Constructing a new stormwater pond (open water with fringe wetland) with a normal water level at 900 ft MSL. The water quality treatment volume of the new pond would be 1.0 ac-ft, and the flood storage volume would be 6.6 ac-ft (up to the 100-year flood elevation). The primary outlet of the new pond would consist of a 30-inch RCP with a trash rack. • Constructing a berm between the biofiltration basin and new stormwater pond with an emergency overflow set at 906 ft MSL. • Diverting the existing intermittent stream into the constructed stormwater pond by constructing a berm at the mouth of the existing stream with a crest elevation of 904.5 ft MSL and installing a 5-4 14’ x 5’ box culvert (invert 899.5 ft MSL) that would connect the stream diversion to the new stormwater pond. • Expanding Medley Pond to increase the open water area of the existing pond by 0.1 acres to 0.6 acres. • Increasing the total open water area in Medley Park by 0.58 acres from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the installation of a new stormwater pond. The total open water area under Concept 2 is 1.04 acres. • Increasing the total water quality volume by 2.7 acre-feet to 3.0 acre-feet from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 6.0 acre-feet to 19.0 acre-feet (up to the 100- year flood elevation) from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. • Restoring 0.5 acres of prairie habitat and 0.7 acres of wetland habitat surrounding the new project features. • No planned impacts to the existing ice-skating rink. 5.3 Concept 3 Conceptual design 3 consists of creating a design that maximizes flood storage volume by the addition of stormwater ponds. Figure 5-3 shows a visual representation of the proposed features of Concept 3. This alternative includes the following design components: Components from Concepts 1 and 2: • Dredging Medley Pond to a bottom elevation of 894 ft MSL and landfilling approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. • Removing 7 trees within the proposed project area and preserving trees on the western side of Medley Pond. • Replacing disturbed trails with a looped, ADA-compliant paved trail above elevation 906 (above the 10-year flood elevation) and around the proposed features. An emergency overflow at elevation 906 would be positioned in the western trail profile to allow preferential flow from the new stormwater pond into Medley Pond during overflow conditions. • Protecting the existing stream and pedestrian bridge north of Medley Pond. 5-5 • Diverting the existing intermittent stream into the constructed stormwater pond by constructing a berm at the mouth of the existing stream with a crest elevation of 904.5 ft MSL and installing a 14’ x 5’ box culvert (invert 899.5 ft MSL) that would connect the stream diversion to the new stormwater pond. Components unique to Concept 3: • Constructing two new stormwater ponds (open water areas with wetland fringe) downstream of the stream diversion. The first stormwater pond would have a normal water level at 900 ft MSL. The water quality treatment volume would be 2.1 ac-ft, and the flood storage volume would be 8.1 ac-ft (up to the 100-year flood elevation). The primary outlet of the new pond would consist of a 24-inch RCP with a trash rack. The second stormwater pond would have a normal water level at 899 ft MSL. The water quality treatment volume would be 0.5 ac-ft and the flood storage volume would be 3.7 ac-ft. The primary outlet of the second stormwater pond would consist of a 24-inch RCP with a trash rack. • Expanding Medley Pond to increase the open water area of the existing pond by 0.1 acres to 0.6 acres. • Increasing the total open water area in Medley Park by 1.01 acres from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the installation of two new stormwater ponds. The total open water area under Concept 3 is 1.47 acres. • Increasing the total water quality volume by 4.3 acre-feet to 4.6 acre-feet from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. Filtration BMPs that would remove dissolved phosphorus were not included in this concept due to considerable bounce of water levels and long inundation periods for smaller storm events (see Section 8.0 for further discussion on the limitations of dissolved phosphorus removal for Concept 3). • Increasing the total flood mitigation volume by 8.3 acre-feet to 21.3 acre-feet (up to the 100- year flood elevation) from existing conditions through the expansion of Medley Pond and the excavation and regrading of the western portion of Medley Park. • Restoring 0.6 acres of prairie habitat and 0.6 acres of wetland habitat surrounding the new project features. • Reducing the size of the existing ice-skating rink by approximately 10% to allow for additional flood mitigation volume. 23rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 90 0 90 0 900900905905 900900 900900905905910910 910910 910910 905905 905905 905905 900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley Rd EHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N0 100 20050 Feet LEGEND Concept 1 Estimated Cost = $1.8 million 1.4 acres total 0.9 acres total 7 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Tree Removal Estimate 5.3 acre-feet Additional Flood Storage Created: Concept Summary 23rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 90 0 90 0 900900905905 900900 900900905905910910 910910 910910 905905 905905 905905 900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley RdEHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N 0 100 20050 Feet Expanded Medley Pond Open Water with Fringe Wetland Biofiltration Basin Open Water Area: 15/116/1 20/17 At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/ proposed): 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr Additional 14.0 lbs/yr phosphorus removed (1.2/lbs/yr dissolved phosphorus) Medley Park Stormwater Impovement Feasibility Study Existing Pedestrian Bridge Stormwater Diversion Structure Figure 5.1 23rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 900900 900900 900900900900 905905905905910910 910910 9 1 0 9 1 0 905905 905905 900900900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley Rd EHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N0 100 20050 Feet Concept 2 Estimated Cost = $2.1 Million 23rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 900900 900900 900900900900 905905905905910910 910910 9 1 0 9 1 0 905905 905905 900900900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley RdEHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N 0 100 20050 Feet 1.2 acres total 1.0 acres total 7 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Open Water Area: Tree Removal Estimate 6.0 acre-feet Additional Flood Storage Created: Concept SummaryLEGEND Medley Park Stormwater Impovement Feasibility Study Box Culvert Stream Channel Re-alignment Expanded Medley Pond Biofiltration Basin Open Water with Fringe Wetland 15/116/1 20/17 At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/ proposed): 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr Additional 18.6 lbs/yr phosphorus removed (6.3/lbs/yr dissolved phosphorus) Existing Pedestrian Bridge Figure 5.2 Stormwater Diversion Structure Figure 5.323rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 900900 900900905905 900900 900900905905910910 910910 9 1 0 9 1 0 905905 9 0 5 9 0 5 9 0 0 9 0 0 900900 895895 900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley Rd EHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N0 100 20050 Feet 23rd Ave N23rd Ave N 895895 900900 900900905905 900900 900900905905910910 910910 9 1 0 9 1 0 905905 9 0 5 9 0 5 9 0 0 9 0 0 900900 895895 900900 ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Bioﬁltration Basin Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water ± Proposed Paved Trail Parcel Boundary Lines Existing Paved Trail Wet Meadow Prairie Proposed 1’ Contour Proposed 5’ Contour Existing 1’ Contour Existing 5’ Contour Existing Storm Sewer Pipe Existing Stream Proposed Storm Sewer Pipe Open Water Medley ParkMedley Park Kings Valley TownhomesKings Valley Townhomes Baseball Field Ice Skating Rink Future Community Garden Hockey Rink K in g s Valley RdEHillsboro Ave NHillsboro Ave N 0 100 20050 Feet Concept 3 Estimated Cost = $1.8 Million Additional 17.0 lbs/yr phosphorus removed (0.0/lbs/yr dissolved phosphorus) 1.1 acres total 1.5 acres total 7 trees total Improved Water Quality: Restored Wetland and Prairie habitat: Tree Removal Estimate 8.3 acre-feet 15/106/0 20/17 Additional Flood Storage Created: At-Risk Flooded Structures (existing/ proposed): Concept Summary 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr LEGENDExisting Pedestrian Bridge Box Culvert Stream Channel Re-alignment Expanded Medley Pond Open Water Area: Open Water with Fringe Wetland Open Water with Fringe Wetland Medley Park Stormwater Impovement Feasibility Study 6-1 6.0 Project modeling results and potential impacts This section discusses the results of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality modeling and provides information on potential project impacts, including permitting requirements. Table 6-1 summarizes the design features and potential impacts of the three concepts, in comparison to the project area’s existing conditions. 6.1 Hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality modeling 6.1.1 Available models Hydrologic and hydraulic information and water quality information are available for the project area in the form of a XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model and a P8 water quality model, respectively. The BCWMC completed the Phase 2 XP-SWMM model in 2017 for Bassett Creek and its contributing watersheds. The BCWMC developed the P8 model in 2012 for Bassett Creek and its contributing watersheds and updates the model regularly. The BCWMC Engineer used the 2017 BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model to perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for this project. The existing BCWMC Phase 2 Model was updated to reflect more detailed hydrology (i.e. subwatershed divides) in the proposed project area. Also, detailed survey information including existing infrastructure and bathymetric data were added to the existing conditions model. This updated model was used to represent existing conditions for the project area and its flood elevation results were used as a basis of comparison for the proposed conceptual designs. The updated existing conditions BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model was hydrologically and hydraulically modified to model the three conceptual designs. Watershed parameters, storage curves, storm sewer routing, and outlet control structures were revised to represent the proposed grading contours and culvert designs for the three concepts. Maximum flood elevations for the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year 24-hour recurrence intervals were analyzed and compared for the conceptual designs. This study also included updating the P8 model to match the hydrology updates made to the XPSWMM model. The BCWMC Engineer used the updated P8 water quality model to estimate the water quality improvement expected from each proposed alternative at each pond location. Final design efforts should include additional refinements to the XP-SWMM and P8 water quality modeling. The improvements that will ultimately be constructed should also be incorporated into the official BCWMC XP-SWMM model and the P8 model after completion of the project. 6.1.2 XP-SWMM flood elevation results Table 6-1 (the comparative matrix) provides the maximum 10-year and 100-year 24-hour flood elevations for existing conditions and the three conceptual designs for the following key flood locations (as shown on Figure 3-3): 1) Medley Pond/Park 2) King’s Valley Pond/Townhomes (ML-2) 6-2 3) Pond downstream of King’s Valley Pond (ML-3) Table 6-2 provides the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year 24-hour flood elevations for existing conditions and the three conceptual designs for key flood areas. One primary goal of the proposed Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project is to lower the flood depths in Medley Park and downstream in the King’s Valley Pond and neighborhood. The XP-SWMM modeling results indicate that for all three concepts the 25-year recurrence interval flood depth in Medley Park and King’s Valley Pond and townhomes is reduced by 0.3 feet to 0.6 feet, depending on the concept. For the 100-year flood event, the flood depth in Medley Park and King’s Valley Pond and townhomes is reduced by 0.3 feet to 0.5 feet, depending on the concept. Reductions in flood elevations translate into reductions in flood risk for structures. Table 6-3 lists the potentially at-risk properties. The table summarizes the 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year 24-hour flood elevations and depth of flooding over the low opening elevation at each structure for existing conditions and for each of the conceptual designs. The BCWMC Engineer estimated the low opening elevation for each structure by analyzing each structure’s perimeter for the minimum elevation based on 2011 LiDAR data. Based on the minimum elevation analysis, no structures are at-risk of flooding for the 10-year 24- hour or smaller events. For all three concepts, three structures are removed from the list of at-risk properties for the 100-year event (i.e., no longer at risk of flooding). For concepts 1 and 2, four structures are no longer at risk of flooding for the 50-year event. Concept 3 provides enough flood storage to remove five structures from being at-risk of flooding for the 50-year event. For the 25-year event, Concepts 1 and 2 remove five structures from being at-risk of flooding, and six structures are removed for concept 3. Lowering flood depths within Medley Park and the downstream King’s Valley Pond also translates to lower flood depths on the roads near the Kings Valley Townhomes. The XP-SWMM model results for this project indicate that for the 25-year recurrence interval event, the flood depth on the low point on Kings Valley Road is reduced from 2.5 feet to 1.9 – 2.2 feet, depending on the concept. For the 50-year recurrence interval event, the flood depth on the low point on Kings Valley Road is reduced from 3.3 feet to 2.7 – 3.0 feet, depending on the concept. For the 100-year flood event, the flood depth at the low point on Kings Valley Road is reduced from 4.0 feet to 3.5 – 3.7 feet, depending on the concept. Additional flood mitigation projects may be warranted to further lower the flood depths at the low point on King’s Valley Road to allow passage of emergency vehicles during larger storm events. A maximum flood depth of 1.5 feet is generally recommended for the safe passage of emergency vehicles. Table 6-1 Medley Park Improvement Project Concept Matrix SummaryCategoryItem Existing Conditions Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3Normal Water Level (NWL) (ft, NAVD88) 898.57 898.57 898.57 898.57Overflow Elevation (Medley Pond) (ft, NAVD88) 902.5 902.5 902.5 902.5Total Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) in Medley Park113 18.3 19 21.3Increase in Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft)1-- 5.3 6 8.325-year Flood Elevation in Medley Park (ft, NAVD88) 907.0 906.7 906.7 906.425-year Flood Elevation in King's Valley Pond (ft, NAVD88) 907.0 906.7 906.7 906.4# of Potentially At-Risk Structures (25-year) 6 1 1 050-year Flood Elevation in Medley Park (ft, NAVD88) 907.8 907.5 907.5 907.250-year Flood Elevation in King's Valley Pond (ft, NAVD88) 907.8 907.5 907.5 907.2# of Potentially At-Risk Structures (50-year) 15 11 11 10100-year Flood Elevation in Medley Park (ft, NAVD88) 908.5 908.2 908.2 908.0100-year Flood Elevation in King's Valley Pond (ft, NAVD88) 908.5 908.2 908.2 908.0Depth of Flooding at King's Valley Road Low-Point (100-year) (ft) 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.5# of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year) 20 17 17 17Open Water Surface Area (ac) in Medley Park 0.46 0.94 1.04 1.47Increase in Open Water Surface Area (ac) in Medley Park -- 0.48 0.58 1.01Total Water Quality Treatment Volume (Permanent Pool + Filtration) (ac-ft) 0.3 3.2 3.0 4.6Additional Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft) -- 2.8 2.7 4.3Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) 12.4 26.4 31 29.4Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) -- 14 18.6 17Dissolved Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) 0 1.2 6.3 0Accumulated Sediment Removal Volume in Medley Pond (Cu. Yd.) -- 1500 1500 1500Length of Trail to be Removed (ft)-- 530 270 530Length of Constructed Paved Trail (ft) -- 915 650 967Number of Trees Removed- 777Restored Wetland Area (ac)-- 0.56 0.69 0.56Restored Prairie Area (ac)-- 0.85 0.49 0.56Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost-- $1,848,000 $2,137,000 $1,845,000 Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost Range (-20% to +30%) -- $1,479,000 to $2,403,000 $1,710,000 to $2,779,000 $1,476,000 to $2,399,00030-Year Annualized Cost Estimate-- $121,000 $138,000 $122,000 Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume -- $349,000 $356,000 $222,000 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Total Project) -- $8,600 $7,400 $7,200 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment) -- $5,900 $4,500 $3,500 1. Total flood mitigation volume summarized up to the 100-year flood elevationProject CostsOutlet ModificationsFlood MitigationWater QualityTrailsRestoration Table 6-2 Medley Park Project Area Key Flood Areas and Flood Elevation Summary2-yr10-yr25-yr50-yr100-yr2-yr10-yr25-yr50-yr100-yr2-yr10-yr25-yr50-yr100-yr2-yr10-yr25-yr50-yr100-yrMedley Park 903.4 905.9 907.0 907.8 908.5 902.9 905.5 906.7 907.5 908.2 903.2 905.5 906.7 907.5 908.2 902.5 905.2 906.4 907.2 908.0King's Valley Pond (ML-2) /Townhomes903.4 905.9 907.0 907.8 908.5 902.9 905.5 906.71 907.5 908.2 903.2 905.5 906.7 907.5 908.2 902.5 905.2 906.4 907.2 908.0ML-3 Pond 900.7 902.2 903.2 904.1 905.1 900.4 901.9 902.9 903.8 904.9 900.4 901.8 902.8 903.7 904.7 900.1 901.6 902.7 903.5 904.6Flood Area DescriptionExisting ConditionsFlood Elevation (ft-NAVD88)Concept 1Concept 2Concept 3 Table 6-3 Medley Park Project Area At-Risk Properties1Address CityProperty TypeElevation of Lowest Opening (ft - NAVD88)225-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]50-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]100-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]25-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]50-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]100-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]25-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]50-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]100-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]25-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]50-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]100-Year Flood Elevation (Flood Depth) [ft]English Circle Structure #1 Golden Valley Residential 908.2 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.00) 908.5 (0.26) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.00)English Circle Structure #2 Golden Valley Residential 908.2 908.1 (0.00) 908.2 (0.03) 908.5 (0.30) 908.1 (0.00) 908.2 (0.03) 908.2 (0.07) 908.1 (0.00) 908.2 (0.02) 908.2 (0.07) 908.1 (0.00) 908.2 (0.02) 908.2 (0.07)English Circle Structure #3 Golden Valley Residential 907.2 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.62) 908.5 (1.30) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.32) 908.2 (1.04) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.32) 908.2 (1.04) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.07) 908.0 (0.83)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #1 Golden Valley Residential 907.0 907.0 (0.02) 907.8 (0.77) 908.5 (1.46) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.48) 908.2 (1.19) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.48) 908.2 (1.19) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.22) 908.0 (0.99)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #2 Golden Valley Residential 906.7 907.0 (0.32) 907.8 (1.07) 908.5 (1.76) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.78) 908.2 (1.50) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.78) 908.2 (1.49) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.52) 908.0 (1.29)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #3 Golden Valley Residential 907.7 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.05) 908.5 (0.73) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.47) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.47) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.27)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #4 Golden Valley Residential 907.1 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.64) 908.5 (1.32) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.35) 908.2 (1.06) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.35) 908.2 (1.06) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.09) 908.0 (0.86)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #5 Golden Valley Residential 906.8 907.0 (0.23) 907.8 (0.99) 908.5 (1.67) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.69) 908.2 (1.41) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.69) 908.2 (1.40) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.43) 908.0 (1.20)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #6 Golden Valley Residential 906.9 907.0 (0.15) 907.8 (0.90) 908.5 (1.58) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.61) 908.2 (1.32) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.60) 908.2 (1.32) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.35) 908.0 (1.12)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #7 Golden Valley Residential 907.0 907.0 (0.09) 907.8 (0.84) 908.5 (1.52) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.55) 908.2 (1.26) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.54) 908.2 (1.26) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.29) 908.0 (1.06)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #8 Golden Valley Residential 906.6 907.0 (0.43) 907.8 (1.18) 908.5 (1.86) 906.7 (0.10) 907.5 (0.89) 908.2 (1.60) 906.7 (0.09) 907.5 (0.89) 908.2 (1.60) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.63) 908.0 (1.40)Kings Valley Rd E Structure #9 Golden Valley Residential 907.4 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.37) 908.5 (1.05) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.07) 908.2 (0.79) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.07) 908.2 (0.78) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.58)Marquis Rd Structure #1 Golden Valley Residential 907.0 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.75) 908.5 (1.43) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.45) 908.2 (1.17) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.45) 908.2 (1.16) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.20) 908.0 (0.96)Marquis Rd Structure #2 Golden Valley Residential 907.8 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.04) 908.5 (0.72) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.46) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.46) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.26)Marquis Rd Structure #3 Golden Valley Residential 907.8 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.00) 908.5 (0.64) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.38) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.37) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.17)Mayfair Rd Structure #1 Golden Valley Residential 907.8 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.01) 908.5 (0.69) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.43) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.43) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.23)Mayfair Rd Structure #2 Golden Valley Residential 908.5 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.00) 908.5 (0.02) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.00)Mayfair Rd Structure #3 Golden Valley Residential 907.9 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.00) 908.5 (0.55) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.29) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.29) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.09)Mayfair Rd Structure #4 Golden Valley Residential 907.6 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.20) 908.5 (0.88) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.62) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.61) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.41)Mendelssohn Ln N Structure #1 Golden Valley Residential 908.3 907.0 (0.00) 907.8 (0.00) 908.5 (0.19) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.7 (0.00) 907.5 (0.00) 908.2 (0.00) 906.4 (0.00) 907.2 (0.00) 908.0 (0.00)Concept 31 Properties determined to be at-risk of flooding based on comparison of modeled flood elevations and low opening elevations.2 Lowest opening elevations determined from the minimum LiDAR elevation along the building footprint3 BCWMC Phase 2 XP-SWMM model was updated to include Medley Park survey information collected in 2020.Existing Conditions3Concept 1Concept 2 6-6 6.1.3 P8 water quality modeling results Another primary goal of the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility project is to identify opportunities to improve the water quality treatment provided by the system. The BCWMC Engineer estimated the pollutant (total phosphorus) removals for each conceptual design alternative using the BCWMC P8 model. The model was updated to reflect existing conditions, using the bathymetric survey data collected during this study, and to revise subwatershed divides to the major project features. The model was then updated to reflect the additional filtration, permanent pool, and flood pool volumes provided by each of the alternatives. Under current conditions, the P8 model estimates that approximately 12.4 pounds of total phosphorus are removed annually in Medley Pond. With implementation of Concept 1, the total phosphorus removal rate would increase to approximately 26.4 pounds per year (additional removals of 14.0 pounds of total phosphorus per year, of which 1.2 pounds per year would be dissolved phosphorus). The implementation of Concept 2 would increase the total phosphorus removal rate to approximately 31.0 pounds per year (additional removal of 18.6 pounds of total phosphorus removal per year, of which 6.3 pounds per year would be dissolved phosphorus). With the implementation of Concept 3, the total phosphorus removal rate would increase to approximately 29.4 pounds of total phosphorus per year (additional 17.0 pounds of total phosphorus removal per year, with no dissolved phosphorus removal). Medicine Lake is currently listed as impaired. Reductions in sediment and pollutant loads to the lake can likely help address this impairment. 6.2 Wetland and upland creation and restoration For all three concepts, various habitats would be restored within the disturbed areas of Medley Park. Depending on the concept, these habitat types include wetland fringe, prairie, open water, and a planted biofiltration basin. The restoration type would generally be determined based on the frequency and duration of inundation. In all concepts, areas that are expected to be inundated by the 2-year 24-hour and smaller events would be restored as wetland fringe. Enhanced wetland areas should allow for increased water quality treatment and enriched habitat communities for animal and plant species. The total created wetland areas for each concept are summarized in Table 6-1. Areas outside of the 2-year 24-hour inundation would be restored with native prairie species. The total created prairie area for each concept is summarized in Table 6-1. For all conceptual designs, tree removal would be required in the disturbance limits to develop the additional flood storage and water quality treatment BMPs. However, the upland areas would be restored with native plants, shrubs, and trees. The density of trees in these restored areas would be determined during final design, although it is anticipated that the replanted tree density would range from the existing density (approximately 2 trees per acre) to a savannah type ecosystem (approximately 35 trees per acre). At a minimum, the 7 trees removed would be replaced in-kind. These trees should provide 6-7 shade and aesthetically pleasing views for park users and provide habitat for upland dwelling wildlife. Existing trees would be preserved in areas outside the disturbance limits and on the western shoreline of Medley Pond. 6.3 Open water area creation In all concepts, the total open water area within Medley Park would increase through the expansion of the existing Medley Pond footprint and through the installation of new stormwater ponds. Open water area provides permanent pool volume for water quality treatment and also allows for the expansion of aquatic habitat. Under existing conditions, Medley Park has approximately 0.5 acres of open water area (footprint of existing Medley Pond). Under Concepts 1, 2, and 3, the total area of open water in the park would be approximately 0.9, 1.0, and 1.5 acres, respectively. Options for submerged macrophyte restoration can also be considered to provide aquatic habitat and promote clearer water conditions. 6.4 Easement acquisition The proposed work is located on City of Golden Valley property or right of way. No temporary or permanent easements should be needed for the proposed work. 6.5 Permits required for the project The proposed project is expected to require the following permits/approvals, regardless of the selected concept: • Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 401 Water Quality Certification • Construction Stormwater General Permit from the MPCA • Compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing dredged material • Compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act • Stormwater Management Permit from the City of Golden Valley • Right-of-Way (ROW) Management Permit from the City of Golden Valley 6.5.1 Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification According to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USACE regulates the placement of fill and certain dredging activities in jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States. Jurisdictional wetlands and other waters are those that the USACE determines to have a significant nexus with navigable waters. A jurisdictional determination request was sent to the USACE on March 19, 2021 to determine if Medley Pond is under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The USACE determined that Medley Pond was not under the jurisdiction of the USACE and will not require a section 404 permit. 6.5.2 Construction Stormwater General Permit A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Construction Stormwater General Permit from the MPCA authorizes stormwater runoff from construction sites. A Construction Stormwater General Permit is required as the proposed project would disturb more than one 6-8 acre of soil. Preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan explaining how stormwater would be controlled within the project area during construction would be required as part of this permit. 6.5.3 Guidance for managing dredged material Dredged material is defined as waste by Minnesota Statute 115.01, and the management and disposal of dredge material is regulated by the MPCA. It is anticipated that sediment dredged as part of the proposed project would be removed from the project site and disposed of at an appropriate landfill, in compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing dredged materials. 6.5.4 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) was enacted to protect wetlands not protected under the MnDNR’s public waters work permit program. The WCA regulates filling and draining of all wetlands and regulates excavation within Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands. The WCA is administered by a local governmental unit (LGU), and it is expected that the City of Golden Valley will be the LGU for WCA- regulated wetland impacts associated with the proposed project. 6.5.5 Stormwater Management Permit The City of Golden Valley requires Stormwater Management Permits for land-disturbing activities that remove soils or vegetation, including but not limited to clearing, digging, dredging, draining, or filling. This permit would be required for projects that construct, expand, or modify a stormwater quality treatment facility or stormwater BMP. It is anticipated the City of Golden Valley would require a Stormwater Management Permit for the proposed project. 6.5.6 Right-of-Way Management (ROW) Permit The City of Golden Valley requires a Right-of-Way (ROW) permit for temporary obstructions to travel ways and for the planting of trees, shrubs, or other landscaping features over 12-inches high. It is anticipated that City of Golden Valley would require a ROW permit for the proposed project. 6.6 Other project impacts 6.6.1 Temporary closure of park trail Medley Park contains paved trails that connect Ensign Avenue, Hillsboro Avenue, and the Kings Valley Townhomes. Since a portion of the walking trails would be impacted by the construction activities within Medley Park, it would be necessary to close a portion of the trails during construction activities. Trail closure signs and barricades would be installed, and a pedestrian detour route would be determined during final design. Every effort would be made to minimize the duration of the trail closure, including considering winter construction to minimize impacts to park users. 6.6.2 Tree removals For the proposed conceptual designs seven of the surveyed trees are estimated for removal (those located within the project disturbance/grading limits). Two of the trees are conifers less than 7” in 6-9 diameter, and the remaining five trees range from 12” to 28” in diameter (four significant hardwoods and one significant softwood). 6.6.3 Impacts to bats Preservation of bat species in Minnesota has recently become an important issue. White Nose Syndrome (WNS) has been attributed to the deaths of millions of bats in recent years across the United States, and all four species that hibernate in Minnesota are susceptible to the disease (MnDNR, 2015). Bats typically hibernate in sheltered areas such as caves, but some bats nest in trees during summer months. Extensive tree removals are to be avoided when bats are in their active season (April – September) so that nests or foraging areas are not inadvertently destroyed. During final design, there should be additional consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service or MnDNR regarding the timing of any tree removals and the potential impacts to bats. 7-1 7.0 Project cost considerations This section presents the feasibility-level opinion of cost of the evaluated alternatives, discusses potential funding sources, and provides an approximate project schedule. 7.1 Opinion of cost The opinion of cost is a Class 4 feasibility-level cost estimate as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACI International) and uses the assumptions listed below and detailed in the following sections. 1. The cost estimate assumes a 25% construction contingency. 2. Costs associated with design, permitting, and construction observation (collectively “engineering”) is assumed to be 25% of the estimated construction costs. The Class 4 level cost estimates have an acceptable range of between -15% to -30% on the low range and +20% to +50% on the high range. Based on the development of concepts and initial vetting of the concepts by the City of Golden Valley, it is not necessary to utilize the full range of the acceptable range for the cost estimate; and we assume the final project costs may be between -20% and +30% of the estimated project budget. The total construction cost estimates for each recommended alternative are summarized in Table 6-1. These costs do not include the cost of feasibility design. Appendix D provides detailed cost-estimate tables for all alternatives considered. 7.1.1 Conceptual designs’ opinions of cost The total capital cost for construction of conceptual design 1 is $1.8 million (-20%/+30%), which includes estimated construction costs of $1.2 million, plus $296,000 for construction contingency and $370,000 for engineering. The total capital cost for construction of conceptual design 2 is $2.1 million (-20%/+30%), which includes estimated construction costs of $1.4 million, plus $342,000 for construction contingency and $428,000 for engineering. The total capital cost for construction of conceptual design 3 is $1.8 million (-20%/ +30%), which includes estimated construction costs of $1.2 million, plus $295,000 for construction contingency and $369,000 for engineering. 7.1.2 Project costs per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume The total construction costs per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume created on-site is as follows: • The cost per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume created (5.3 acre-feet) for conceptual design 1 is approximately $349,000. 7-2 • The cost per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume created (6.0 acre-feet) for conceptual design 2 is approximately $356,000. • The cost per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume created (8.3 acre-feet) for conceptual design 3 is approximately $222,000. 7.1.3 Off-site sediment disposal All of the conceptual design alternatives assume that excavated sediment will be removed from the site. Testing of Medley Pond sediment indicates the sediment does not meet the MPCA’s guidelines for Unregulated Fill. BaP equivalents values exceeded the MPCA’s Residential (SRV) in all sediment samples; additionally, the DRO concentration exceeded the MPCA’s Unregulated Fill TPH threshold of 100 mg/kg in sample SED-01. Medley Pond sediment could potentially be reused as Regulated Fill on a property with industrial or commercial land use designation; however, the additional costs associated with finding a suitable property to accept the material and obtaining MPCA approval to reuse the sediment as Regulated Fill are likely to exceed the costs of landfilling the sediment. Therefore, the BCWMC Engineer recommends that the Medley Pond sediment, if excavated, be disposed in a landfill. A line item for sediment dredging and disposal of contaminated sediment from Medley Pond is included in the feasibility cost estimates. It assumes all sediment dredged from Medley Pond will require landfill disposal. Additional testing and onsite observation during excavation and hauling should be considered. 7.1.4 Wetland mitigation The wetland delineation for Medley Pond and the northern portion of ML-2 (Kings Valley Pond) identified wetlands at the pond peripheries and within the ponds. The goal of the proposed alternatives is to minimize the amount of wetland impacts, restore all impacted wetland areas to the existing wetland type, and develop new wetland habitat and wetland fringe areas in the disturbed extents. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the projects will require additional costs for wetland mitigation since the proposed project intends to impose only temporary impacts to existing wetlands. 7.1.5 Maintenance considerations Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities will be the responsibility of the City of Golden Valley. This section provides an overview of the anticipated maintenance activities for each concept design. The O&M recommendations include specific inspection/maintenance activities and frequency, and estimated annual costs based on existing project data. The City of Golden Valley may have alternative unit costs for each O&M task based on annual staffing and equipment availability. The following table summarizes the recommended maintenance activities for the proposed project features and the anticipated annual costs. 7-3 Table 7-1 Estimated Operations and Maintenance Tasks and Annual Costs Feature O&M Task Frequency Estimated Annual Cost Stormwater Biofiltration Basin Inspect basin for trash, debris, soil accumulation, presence of weeds, depth of mulch, condition of plants, blockages in inlet/outlet structures, presence of plowed snow (winter only), standing water (>48 hours) Once per month (growing season), twice per winter and following rain events >2” $4,000/basin Remove weeds from basin Once per month (growing season) Remove and replace dead or diseased plants, remove invasive plants At least once per year Remove trash, debris, and sediment from energy dissipation structures, outlet structures, and basin Infrequent (as needed) Draintile jetting when prolonged inundation is observed (standing water > 48 hours) Infrequent (as needed) Replace mulch in bare areas Infrequent (as needed) Stormwater Ponds; Inlet/Outlet Structures Inspect stormwater ponds for accumulation of trash, debris, and sediment; inspect slopes for presence of weeds, erosion, invasive species, and condition of plants; inspect inlet structures for structural damage or blockage At least once per year and following rain events >2” $5,000/pond Inspect outlet control structures, storm sewer pipes, sumps, weirs, and orifices for accumulation of trash, debris, and sediment; inspect for water surface elevations not dropping to normal water level (blocked outlet); inspect for structural damage At least four times per year and following rain events >2” Inspect diversion manholes for trash, debris, and sediment accumulation in the structures; inspect for storm sewer pipe blockages; inspect for structural damage At least once per year and following rain events >2” Remove trash and debris from stormwater ponds; remove weeds and invasive species and provide seed/sod; remove and replace dead or diseased plants At once per year and following rain events >2” Remove trash, debris and sediment from diversion manholes and outlet control features with vacuum truck hose At once per year and following rain events >2” Survey bottom of dead storage stormwater ponds to estimate volume of sediment accumulation Every 10 years Dredge accumulated sediment in stormwater ponds Every 10+ years 7-4 7.1.6 30-year cost The 30-year cost for each alternative is calculated as the future worth of the initial capital cost (including contingency and engineering costs) plus the future worth of annual maintenance (see Table 7-1) and significant maintenance at the end of the alternative’s life span. The life span for each proposed concept was assumed to be 30-years. A 4% rate of inflation is assumed. The annualized cost for each alternative is calculated as the value of 30 equal, annual payments of the same future worth as the 30-year cost. Conceptual Design 1 30-year cost: • The estimated total 30-year annualized cost is $121,000. Conceptual Design 2 30-year cost: • The estimated total 30-year annualized cost is $138,000. Conceptual Design 3 30-year cost: • The estimated total 30-year cost annualized cost is $122,000. 7.1.7 Annualized pollutant reduction cost Section 6.1.3 and Table 6-1 show the estimated annual loading reductions for total phosphorus (TP) for each recommended conceptual design alternative. The BCWMC Engineer estimated the total phosphorus load reductions by modifying the BCWMC P8 model to include the proposed alternatives and comparing to existing conditions. The annualized pollutant-reduction cost for each alternative is presented in two ways. The first value is the annualized 30-year total project cost (including both flood and water quality portions of the project, factoring in an assumed life span of 30 years for the proposed features) divided by the annual load reduction. The total cost per pound of phosphorus removed for this project is high compared to other BCWMC CIP projects—for example, a previous high cost per pound of phosphorus removed for a BCWMC CIP project was $5,900 for the Northwood Lake Improvement Project. The higher cost per pound of phosphorus removed for the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility project can be attributed to a significant portion of the construction cost coming from flood mitigation features. Approximately 43-66% of the construction costs are for the development of flood storage volume and for the restoration of the graded areas rather than for water quality improvement, depending on the alternative. Because the Medley Park project has two primary goals: flood mitigation and water quality improvement, the second value listed below is the estimated annualized 30-year cost of only the water quality treatment components cost divided by the annual load reduction. The water quality treatment project cost was estimated by summing the itemized project costs related to water quality improvement, comparing this to the total project cost, and applying that fraction of the total project cost. 7-5 Conceptual Design 1 annualized pollutant reduction cost: • The estimated total project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 1 are $8,600 per pound TP removal. The estimated water quality project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 1 are $5,900 per pound TP removal. Conceptual Design 2 annualized pollutant reduction cost: • The estimated total project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 2 are $7,400 per pound TP removal. The estimated water quality project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 2 are $4,500 per pound TP removal. Conceptual Design 3 annualized pollutant reduction cost: • The estimated total project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 2 are $7,200 per pound TP removal. The estimated water quality project annualized pollutant reduction costs for conceptual design 3 are $3,500 per pound TP removal. 7.1.8 Miscellaneous costs Miscellaneous costs that may arise during final design might relate to park recreational or educational improvements. Since the proposed project area is within an existing park, final design may uncover opportunities to improve trash management, tree management, park safety, and/or incorporate other recreational amenities such as overlooks, benches, and wildlife habitat/features. These additional features may not be applicable for BCWMC CIP funding, so funding may need to be coordinated with the City of Golden Valley. 7.2 Funding sources The BCWMC originally proposed $500,000 in CIP funds for the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Project. After feasibility-level cost estimates were developed, it was quickly realized that the initial CIP budget would not cover the construction and design costs of the proposed project. At the March 2021 BCMWC meeting, the Commission approved its 5-year CIP, including an increase to the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility CIP funding to $1.5 million. Even with this increase in the BCWMC’s CIP funding, the BCWMC CIP funds alone would not fully cover the implementation of project alternatives presented in this study. Other sources of funding for this project may include: • City of Golden Valley • Other sources, including potential grants (e.g. Hennepin County Natural Resource Opportunity grants, Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grants) 7-6 The City of Golden Valley may have up to $500,000 in funds available for use on this project. The exact amount will be determined during final design at the City of Golden Valley’s December 2021 city council meeting. 7.3 Project schedule The BCWMC will hold a public hearing in September 2021 on this project. Pending the outcome of the hearing, the BCWMC will consider officially ordering the project, entering into an agreement with the City of Golden Valley to design and construct the project, and certifying to Hennepin County a final 2022 tax levy for this project. The construction work would likely begin in winter 2022/2023, as tree removal should occur in the period from October through March, outside of the northern long-eared bat’s active season (April through September). Additionally, excavation during the winter would be appropriate to complete the major earthwork during periods with less frequent runoff events. Final construction and restoration would be completed in spring/summer 2023. For project construction to occur in winter 2022/2023, project design should begin in winter 2021/2022 or spring of 2022. If project construction is scheduled for winter 2022/2023, summer 2022 bidding is recommended. This will give contractors adequate scheduling time to complete the project at a reasonable price. In the intervening time, the City would gather public input, prepare the final design, and obtain permits. 8-1 8.0 Alternatives assessment and recommendations Table 8-1 provides an overview of the main project impacts and benefits for each Concept based on the details outlined in the previous sections (also summarized in Table 1-1). For a complete summary of the estimated impacts, permitting requirements, disposal of contaminated sediment, closure of pedestrian trails, and costs of the concepts, including the methodology and assumptions used for the cost estimate, refer to Section 6.0, Section 7.0, and Table 6-1. Based on review of the project impacts for each of the three concepts, the overall project costs, feedback from the public, the City and BCWMC staff, the BCWMC Engineer recommends implementation of Concept 3, which best balances the development of flood mitigation volume and water quality treatment. Concept 3 results in the development of the most flood mitigation volume when compared to Concepts 1 and 2; however, the difference in the flood reduction in Medley Park is only a 0.2 feet difference during the 100-year 24-hour event. For all concepts, three structures in the Kings Valley Townhomes development are removed from being at-risk of flooding. Although the three concepts result in the same reduction of at-risk structures for the 100-year 24-hour event, despite the difference in available flood storage volume, more notable impacts are realized with the implementation of Concept 3 for the 25- and 50-year 24-hour events. For the 50-year 24-hour event, 5 structures are removed from being at-risk of flooding with the installation of Concept 3 features. For Concepts 1 and 2, 4 structures are removed from being at-risk during the 50-year. 24-hour event. For the 25-year 24-hour event, 6 structures are expected to be removed from being at risk of flooding with the installation of Concept 3. Concepts 1 and 2 remove 5 structures from being at-risk during the 25-year 24-hour event. Concept 3 resulted in the second highest removal of total phosphorus of the three concepts analyzed. The installation of the Concept 3 stormwater features within Medley Park would increase the phosphorus load reduction by 17.0 pounds per year to downstream water bodies, which includes Medicine Lake. Because Concept 3 currently does not include filtration features, dissolved phosphorus would not be removed with this design. Adding filtration features to Concept 3 would be accompanied by a number of trade-offs, which would include: • The loss of flood mitigation volume to develop water quality treatment areas in separate basins or benched features. • The loss of flood mitigation volume to develop enough elevation difference to adequately filtrate stormwater runoff. • Increased maintenance of the filtration media and draintiles due to substantial bounce of maximum water surface elevations in the stormwater ponds and prolonged periods of inundation for small storm events. • Limited options for filtration media due to prolonged periods of inundation for smaller storm events. Iron-enhanced sand is not recommended due to the risk of anoxic conditions and release of previously bound phosphate. Spent lime is not recommended due to the risk of media 8-2 instability from prolonged periods of inundation. Biochar is not recommended because phosphorus removal efficiency is limited and the media is more appropriate for the removal of E. coli. Cleaned washed sand could be utilized within a filtration bench; however, the cost of including this filtration bench may outweigh the benefits due to the limited dissolved phosphorus removal efficiency. Rather than include filtration in Concept 3, the BCWMC may want to consider infiltration or filtration features at other locations in the Medicine Lake watershed, if dissolved phosphorus removal is desired in future projects. Concept 3 would also include the restoration of 0.6 acres of wetland and 0.6 acres of upland, prairie habitat. Disturbed trails would be replaced with a looped ADA paved trail to provide active recreation and habitat viewing opportunities for park users and to provide maintenance access. Based on the planning level estimated cost, Concept 3 has the lowest anticipated construction and design cost of the three concepts analyzed at approximately $1.8 million (-20%/+30%). Concept 3 also has the lowest annualized cost per pound of total phosphorus removed (water quality treatment portion) and lowest cost per acre-foot of flood mitigation volume developed, at approximately $3,500 and $222,000, respectively. 8-3 Table 8-1 Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Impacts Summary Category Item Existing Conditions Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Flood Mitigation Increase in Flood Mitigation Volume (ac-ft) -- 5.3 6 8.3 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (25-year) 6 1 1 0 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (50-year) 15 11 11 10 # of Potentially At-Risk Structures (100-year) 20 17 17 17 Water Quality Additional Water Quality Treatment Volume (ac-ft) -- 2.8 2.7 4.3 Increase in Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) -- 14 18.6 17 Dissolved Phosphorus Removal (lbs/yr) 0 1.2 6.3 0 Restoration Number of Trees Removed - 7 7 7 Restored Wetland Area (ac) -- 0.56 0.69 0.56 Restored Prairie Area (ac) -- 0.85 0.49 0.56 Project Costs Feasibility Level Opinion of Cost -- $1,848,000 $2,137,000 $1,845,000 Cost per Acre-Ft of Flood Mitigation Volume -- $349,000 $356,000 $222,000 Annualized Cost per Pound of Total Phosphorus Removed (Water Quality Treatment) -- $5,900 $4,500 $3,500 9-1 9.0 References 1. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2015 Watershed Management Plan. September 2015. 2. —. Resource Management Plan for Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission Proposed Water Quality Improvement Projects 2010 - 2016. 2009. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. White-nose Syndrome and Minnesota's bats. [http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wns/index.html]. 2015. 4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Medicine Lake Excess Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load. November 2010. 5. —. Medicine Lake Excess Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan. September 2010. 6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Managing Stormwater Sediment, Best Management Practice Guidance, document wq-strm4-16. 2017. 7. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2020 Proposed Impaired Waters List. [https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw1-65i.pdf]. 2021. Appendix A Sediment Sampling and Bathymetric Supplementary Information (2020) Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Kevin Menken & Katie Turpin-Nagel, Barr Engineering Subject: Medley Pond Sediment Characterization Date: January 26, 2021 Project: 23/27-0051.51 Introduction This memorandum summarizes sediment characterization for sediment samples and bathymetric measurements collected from Medley Pond in the City of Golden Valley (City). The purpose of sediment characterization is to determine whether the sediment in the pond, when excavated or dredged, could potentially be reused as fill, or if other management methods (such as landfill disposal) would be required. The use and/or disposal of excavated or dredged material is determined based on concentrations of potential contaminants in the sediments, including metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Excavated sediment and soils that do not exceed 100 mg/kg total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); and do not exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Soil Reference Values (SRV) or applicable Screening Soil Leaching Values (SLVs) may be considered Unregulated Fill that is suitable for off-site reuse, according to the MPCA document Best Management Practices for the Off-Site Reuse of Unregulated Fill (MPCA, 2012). Sediment or soil excavated from stormwater ponds with constituents that exceed SRVs or applicable Screening SLVs, or have TPH greater than 100 mg/kg, are often disposed at a solid waste landfill. Sediment Sample Collection Methodology Sediment samples were collected by Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) on October 13, 2020 on behalf of Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Sediment sampling was conducted in accordance with the MPCA’s Managing Stormwater Sediment, Best Management Practice Guidance (MPCA, 2017). The MPCA guidance document provides technical guidance for characterizing sediment in stormwater ponds, including the number of samples that should be collected and potential contaminants to be analyzed. Barr staff collected two sediment samples, consistent with MPCA guidance recommendations for an excavation area less than 2 acres in size. Barr staff used a 3-inch diameter aluminum tube with vibracoring equipment to collect the sediment cores. A GPS unit was used to record the sediment sampling locations. Sediment samples were placed in containers provided by the laboratory, and sent to Pace Analytical laboratory in Minneapolis for analyses of potential contaminants. The MPCA guidance for stormwater pond sediment management lists the baseline parameters that should be tested to determine whether excavated sediment is contaminated or could be considered To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Kevin Menken & Katie Turpin-Nagel, Barr Engineering Subject: Medley Pond Sediment Characterization Date: January 26, 2021 Page: 2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\DRAFTMedleyParkPond_Sediment_v4.docx Unregulated Fill (MPCA, 2017). The baseline parameters listed in the MPCA guidance are arsenic, copper, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are organic compounds that are formed by the incomplete combustion of organic materials, such as wood, oil, and coal. They are also naturally occurring in crude oil and coal. The MPCA determined that coal tar-based sealants were the largest source of PAHs to stormwater ponds, and a state-wide ban of coal tar-based sealants took effect January 1, 2014. Based on Barr’s experience with characterizing sediment in stormwater ponds, Barr recommended the following additional parameters be analyzed beyond the baseline parameters: the full list of RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver); diesel range organics (DRO); gasoline range organics (GRO); and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). There is not an analytical test directly measuring TPH; therefore, the sum of DRO and GRO are compared to the MPCA’s Unregulated Fill threshold value. Field screening was conducted for signs of impacts from petroleum hydrocarbons, such as an oily sheen, petroleum odor, or visible staining. Field staff did not observe oily sheen or petroleum odor during sediment sampling. Laboratory Methodologies and Determination of BaP Equivalents The parameters analyzed and their laboratory analytical methods are listed below: • Metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, selenium (method EPA 6010D); mercury: EPA 7471B • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (method EPA 8270D by SIM) • Diesel range organics (DRO) (method WI modified DRO, with silica gel cleanup) • Gasoline range organics (method WI modified GRO) • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) (method EPA 8260D) The PAHs that were analyzed can be grouped into two categories: carcinogenic (i.e. cancer causing) and general. To assess the contamination level of the carcinogenic PAHs in stormwater pond sediment, the MPCA requires the calculation of a “BaP equivalents value”. The BaP equivalents value is a single value representing the combined potency of 17 individual carcinogenic PAH compounds with BaP (benzo[a]pyrene) acting as the reference compound. The list of compounds and their respective potency equivalents factors used to calculate the BaP equivalents value can be found in the MPCA guidance document, along with methods for addressing constituents at concentrations below the detection limit (MPCA 2017). Laboratory analytical results for the sediment samples are summarized in Table 1. Field logs of the sediment cores are included in Attachment A, and photographs of the sediment cores are included in Attachment B. The detailed laboratory reports are included in Attachment C. Bathymetric Survey and Sediment Core Logs Barr conducted a bathymetric survey of Medley Pond on September 16, 2020. Pond bottom elevations were collected using Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS and robotic total station survey equipment, with a horizontal accuracy of 0.03 feet and vertical accuracy of 0.1 feet. The current bathymetry of Medley Pond To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Kevin Menken & Katie Turpin-Nagel, Barr Engineering Subject: Medley Pond Sediment Characterization Date: January 26, 2021 Page: 3 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\DRAFTMedleyParkPond_Sediment_v4.docx is shown on Figure 1 attached to this memo. Current bottom elevations generally range from 897 feet (NAVD88) in the center of Medley Pond to 898 feet at the northeastern channel inlet. In addition to surveying the pond bottom, the survey crew recorded the depth of “soft sediment” by measuring the depth they could push a pole by hand into the sediment. The measured soft sediment depth may represent the survey rod hitting a firm substrate like sand or clay, or may represent increasingly dense or cohesive sediments that resists further push of the survey rod by hand. The soft sediment depths are shown on Figure 2. The corresponding elevations of the bottom of soft sediment are shown on Figure 3. The soft sediment depths recorded by the survey crew ranged from approximately 0.5 - 1.5 feet in the northeast area of the pond to as much as 5 feet in the southern and northwestern areas of the pond (push depth elevation of 893.0 feet, NAVD88). The average soft sediment push depth was approximately 3.0 feet. It is hypothesized that smaller soft sediment depths were recorded in the northeast portion of the pond because larger diameter sediment, such as gravel and sand, settles more readily at the channel outlet to the pond and would restrict the depth that the rod could be pushed down by hand. Sediment cores were collected at two locations as shown on Figure 1. The sediment cores were visually logged in the field, and sediment core logs are included in Attachment A. At location SED-01, the water depth was 0.6 feet at the time of sampling and the approximate sediment elevation was 897.7 feet, NAVD88; the sediment coring tube was pushed 4.0 feet into sediment, and 2.7 feet of sediment was recovered. Core SED-01 consisted of soft organic silt with plant matter and sand lenses over interval 0-2.6 feet, and peat 2.6-2.7 feet. At location SED-02, the water depth was 1.0 foot at the time of sampling and the approximate sediment elevation was 897.3 feet, NAVD88; the sediment core tube was pushed 5.6 feet into sediment, and 4.0 feet of sediment was recovered. Core SED-02 consisted of soft organic silt with trace sand over interval 0-2.5 feet, and peat 2.5-4.0 feet. Based on sediment coring logs at the two locations, there is a transition from soft organic silt to peat at a depth of approximately 4.5-5.0 feet below the pond water surface (assuming that the difference between sediment core push length and recovered core length is due to displacement of soft sediment and not the displacement or loss of underlying peat). Thus, the soil transition elevation is approximately 893.5 feet, NAVD88. Unfortunately, there is no available as-built drawing for Medley Pond that would show a constructed pond bottom. However, there is a construction plan set from September 2005 that shows a proposed bottom excavation elevation of 895.0 feet (NAVD88) at the northeast inlet channel. If the northeastern portion of Medley Pond was dredged to elevation 895.0 feet as shown in the plan set, then based on the bathymetric survey, over the past 15 years approximately 3.0 feet of sediment has accumulated at the channel inlet to Medley Pond. Since no as-built survey of Medley Pond is available, it is difficult to approximate the original, native bottom elevation before the watershed was urbanized. However, based on the soft sediment push methodology conducted during bathymetric survey and analysis of the sediment cores, we can approximate that a sediment layer transition occurs at approximately elevation 893.5 feet. To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Kevin Menken & Katie Turpin-Nagel, Barr Engineering Subject: Medley Pond Sediment Characterization Date: January 26, 2021 Page: 4 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\DRAFTMedleyParkPond_Sediment_v4.docx For the purpose of estimating a sediment excavation volume for this memo, excavation to elevation 894.0 feet was selected. Excavation to this elevation would correspond to a maximum water depth of 4.6 feet post-excavation, and remove the organic silt while generally avoiding the underlying peat. Avoiding the underlying peat layer is recommended as disturbance and exposure of the underlying peat could result in the release of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which could result in the water turning brown. Peat also has a lower density, which can correlate to enhanced wind driven sediment resuspension. The estimated sediment removal required to restore the pond bottom to an elevation of 894.0 ft is 1.0 ac-ft (~1,640 cubic yards). The dredge depth and proposed pond bottom elevation will be investigated in further detail during the Medley Park Stormwater Retrofit Feasibility Study. Results of Sediment Characterization - BaP Equivalents Table 1 compares the results of the laboratory analytical testing on the sediment samples to the MPCA’s current SRVs and Screening SLVs. Results of DRO and GRO testing were compared to the MPCA’s Unregulated Fill guidance for gross contamination of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The BaP equivalents values in Medley Pond sediment samples ranged from 4.6 mg/kg to 6.5 mg/kg, which are greater than the Residential SRV (2mg/kg) but lower than the Industrial SRV (23 mg/kg). DRO results ranged from 79 mg/kg to 129 mg/kg, while GRO results were non-detect; therefore, TPH results for Medley Pond sediment samples range from 79 mg/kg to 129 mg/kg – the MPCA’s total petroleum hydrocarbons threshold for Unregulated Fill is 100 mg/kg. The Medley Pond sediment could not be reused as Unregulated Fill due to BaP equivalents results exceeding the MN Residential SRV. Potential management options for Medley Pond sediment include reuse as Regulated Fill on property with a commercial or industrial land use designation, or disposal at a municipal solid waste landfill. If the sediment were reused as Regulated Fill, the costs associated with finding a suitable property to receive the sediment, conducting additional environmental investigations, and obtaining approval from the MPCA for reuse as Regulated Fill may negate any cost savings when compared to landfill disposal. Therefore, it is Barr’s recommendation that the Medley Pond sediment, if excavated, be disposed in a landfill. The MPCA’s current soil criteria, as well as current guidance documents and regulations, should be reviewed at the time of sediment excavation. To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Kevin Menken & Katie Turpin-Nagel, Barr Engineering Subject: Medley Pond Sediment Characterization Date: January 26, 2021 Page: 5 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\DRAFTMedleyParkPond_Sediment_v4.docx References Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2012. Best Management Practices for the Off-Site Reuse of Unregulated Fill. February 2012. MPCA, 2017. Managing Stormwater Sediment, Best Management Practice Guidance, document wq-strm4- 16, May 2017. Tables Table 1 – Medley Park Pond Sediment Characterization Analytical Summary Figures Figure 1 – Medley Park Bathymetry Survey & Sediment Core Locations Figure 2 – Medley Park Pond Sediment Push Depths Figure 3 – Medley Park Pond Soft Sediment Bottom Elevations Attachments Attachment A – Sediment Core Field Logs Attachment B – Photographs Attachment C – Laboratory Analytical Data Report Tables Table 1 Medley Park Pond Sediment Characterization Analytical Summary SED-02 10/13/2020 0 - 4 ft N FD N Parameter Units MPCA Screening Soil Leaching Values MPCA Residential Soil Reference Values MPCA Industrial Soil Reference Values MPCA Criteria for Unregulated Fill Effective Date 06/01/2013 12/30/2019 12/30/2019 06/22/2009 Exceedance Key Bold Underline No Exceed Italic General Parameters Moisture %42.0 45.7 58.9 Metals Arsenic mg/kg 5.8 9 20 5.8 3.6 3.9 6.1 Barium mg/kg 1700 1100 18000 1100 94.2 97.8 131 Cadmium mg/kg 8.8 25 200 8.8 0.48 0.54 0.62 Chromium mg/kg 36 CR6 87 CR6 650 CR6 36 20.8 20.3 23.9 Copper mg/kg 700 100 9000 100 29.6 28.2 42.3 Lead mg/kg 2700 300 700 300 54.8 48.7 59.0 Mercury mg/kg 3.3 MC 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.050 0.053 0.080 Selenium mg/kg 2.6 160 1300 2.6 < 0.54 U < 0.56 U < 0.75 U Silver mg/kg 7.9 160 1300 7.9 < 0.060 U < 0.063 U < 0.083 U PAHs (carcinogenic) 3-Methylcholanthrene mg/kg T T T 0.0380 J 0.0365 J 0.0608 J 5-Methylchrysene mg/kg T T T 0.206 0.204 0.209 J 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene mg/kg T T T < 0.0629 U < 0.0673 U < 0.0890 U 7h-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole mg/kg T T T < 0.0225 U < 0.0241 U < 0.0319 U Benz(a)anthracene mg/kg T T T 1.27 1.24 1.98 Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg T T T 1.41 1.38 1.98 Benzofluoranthenes mg/kg T T T 3.38 3.43 4.78 Chrysene mg/kg T T T 1.91 1.88 2.84 Dibenz(a,h)acridine mg/kg T T T < 0.0106 U < 0.0114 U 0.0848 J Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg T T T 0.263 0.234 0.338 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene mg/kg T T T 0.346 0.281 0.383 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene mg/kg T T T 0.142 J 0.123 J 0.17 J Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene mg/kg T T T 0.0366 J 0.0278 J 0.0361 J Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene mg/kg T T T < 0.0395 U < 0.0423 U < 0.0559 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg T T T 0.806 0.686 0.972 BaP Equivalent, Kaplan-Meier mg/kg 1.4 T 2 T(BTV)23 T 1.4 5.1 a 4.6 a 6.5 a % Non-detects %26.7 a 26.7 a 20.0 a PAHs (general) 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 100 369 0.0220 J 0.0215 J 0.0904 J Acenaphthene mg/kg 81 1200 5260 0.13 J 0.122 J 0.431 Acenaphthylene mg/kg NA 0.0691 J 0.0815 J 0.0732 J Anthracene mg/kg 1300 7880 45400 0.37 0.373 0.796 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg NA 0.139 J 0.118 J 0.165 J Fluoranthene mg/kg 670 1080 6800 4.06 4.11 6.65 Fluorene mg/kg 110 850 4120 0.195 0.185 0.49 Naphthalene mg/kg 4.5 10 28 < 0.0509 U < 0.0545 U 0.292 Phenanthrene mg/kg NA 2.28 2.21 4.92 Pyrene mg/kg 440 890 5800 2.92 2.86 4.64 Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene mg/kg 0.017 6 10 < 0.0388 U < 0.0436 U < 0.0556 U Ethyl benzene mg/kg 1.0 200 200 < 0.0388 U < 0.0436 U < 0.0556 U Toluene mg/kg 2.5 107 305 < 0.0388 U < 0.0436 U < 0.0556 U Xylene, total mg/kg 5.4 M 45 M 130 M < 0.116 U < 0.131 U < 0.167 U Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel Range Organics, silica gel cleanup mg/kg 100 129 J 79.4 J 89.6 Gasoline Range Organics, C6-C10 mg/kg < 5.0 U < 5.3 U < 6.9 U Sample Type SED-01 10/13/2020 0 - 2.7 ft Location Date Depth Page 1 of 2 1/14/2021 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\Table\Medley-Park_Data Summary_12292020.xlsx Data Footnotes and Qualifiers N Sample Type: Normal FD Sample Type: Field Duplicate a Estimated value, calculated using some or all values that are estimates. J Estimated detected value. Either certain QC criteria were not met or the concentration is between the laboratory's detection and quantitation limits. U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected. CR6 Value represents the criteria for Chromium, hexavalent. M Value represents the criteria for mixed Xylenes. MC Mercury as Mercuric Chloride. NA Criterion value is not available for this analyte. T Value represents a criteria for the total carcinogenic PAHs as B(a)P. CR6 Value represents the criteria for Chromium, hexavalent. M Value represents the criteria for mixed Xylenes. T Value represents a criteria for the total carcinogenic PAHs as B(a)P. T(BTV)Value represents a criteria for the total carcinogenic PAHs as B(a)P; SRV set to the Background Threshold Value for BaP equivalent. Barr Standard Footnotes and Qualifiers MPCA Screening Soil Leaching Values MPCA Soil Reference Values Page 2 of 2 1/14/2021 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Sediment_Sampling\Memo\Table\Medley-Park_Data Summary_12292020.xlsx Figures !. !. SED-01 SED-02 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-25 14:55 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Appendices\Sediment_Bath\Figure1_Contours_SedCoreLocations.mxd User: kjn2 MEDLEY PARKBathmetric Sur vey &Sediment Core Locations FIGURE 1 40 0 40 Feet !;N !.Sediment Sampling Location Major Contour 5ft Minor Contour 1ft Water Line (NWL = 898.6 ft) Storm Pipe £¤169 GOLDEN VALLEY PLYMOUTH MEDICINE LAKE NEW HOPE CRYSTAL Proposed Project Location Medicine Lake900910 Imagery: Nearmap, 4/4/2020 Bathymetry: 2020 Survey (NAVD88) 897 897 898899915 8 9 8 8 9 8 898898 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-18 15:42 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Appendices\Sediment_Bath\Figure2_SoftSedimentDepths.mxd User: kjn2 MEDLEY PARKSoft Sediment Push Depths FIGURE 2 40 0 40 Feet !;N Soft Sediment PushDepth (ft) 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0 Major Contour 5ft Minor Contour 1ft Water Line Storm Pipe £¤169 GOLDEN VALLEY PLYMOUTH MEDICINE LAKE NEW HOPE CRYSTAL Proposed Project Location Medicine Lake900910 *Soft sediment pu sh de pth estimate d b y pressing survey rod through soft sediment to stable, subsurface sediment. Imagery: Nearmap, 4/4/2020 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-18 15:45 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Feasbility Report\Appendices\Sediment_Bath\Figure3_SoftSedimentBottomElev.mxd User: kjn2 MEDLEY PARKSoft Sediment Bottom Elevations(NAVD88, feet) FIGURE 3 40 0 40 Feet !;N Soft Sediment BottomElev (N AVD 88, ft) 892.8 - 893.5 893.5 - 894.0 894.0 - 895.0 895.0 - 896.0 896.0- 898.0 Major Contour 5ft Minor Contour 1ft Water Line Storm Pipe £¤169 GOLDEN VALLEY PLYMOUTH MEDICINE LAKE NEW HOPE CRYSTAL Proposed Project Location Medicine Lake900910 *Soft sediment bo ttom elevation estimated by pressing survey rod through soft sediment to stable, subsurface sediment. Imagery: Nearmap, 4/4/2020 Attachment A Sediment Core Field Logs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ttachment B Photographs Photograph #1: Medley Pond, northeast shoreline facing southwest. Photograph #2: Medley Pond, sediment core SED-01. Photograph #3: Medley Pond, sediment core SED-02. Attachment C Laboratory Analytical Data Report #=CL# October 23, 2020 LIMS USE: FR - KEVIN MENKEN LIMS OBJECT ID: 10535359 10535359 Project: Pace Project No.: RE: Kevin Menken Barr Engineering 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Dear Kevin Menken: Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on October 13, 2020. The results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the applicable TNI/NELAC Standards and the laboratory's Quality Manual, where applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report. The test results provided in this final report were generated by each of the following laboratories within the Pace Network: • Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis • Pace Analytical Services - Montana If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Amanda Albrecht amanda.albrecht@pacelabs.com Project Manager (612)607-6382 Enclosures cc:BarrDM, Barr Engineering Company Data Management, Barr Engineering Terri Olson, Barr Engineering Company Accounts Payable, Barr Engineering REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 1 of 27 #=CP# CERTIFICATIONS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis MN 1700 Elm Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414 1800 Elm Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414--Satellite Air Lab A2LA Certification #: 2926.01* Alabama Certification #: 40770 Alaska Contaminated Sites Certification #: 17-009* Alaska DW Certification #: MN00064 Arizona Certification #: AZ0014* Arkansas DW Certification #: MN00064 Arkansas WW Certification #: 88-0680 California Certification #: 2929 Colorado Certification #: MN00064 Connecticut Certification #: PH-0256 EPA Region 8+Wyoming DW Certification #: via MN 027- 053-137 Florida Certification #: E87605* Georgia Certification #: 959 Hawaii Certification #: MN00064 Idaho Certification #: MN00064 Illinois Certification #: 200011 Indiana Certification #: C-MN-01 Iowa Certification #: 368 Kansas Certification #: E-10167 Kentucky DW Certification #: 90062 Kentucky WW Certification #: 90062 Louisiana DEQ Certification #: AI-03086* Louisiana DW Certification #: MN00064 Maine Certification #: MN00064* Maryland Certification #: 322 Massachusetts DWP Certification #: via MN 027-053-137 Michigan Certification #: 9909 Minnesota Certification #: 027-053-137* Minnesota Dept of Ag Certifcation #: via MN 027-053-137 Minnesota Petrofund Certification #: 1240* Mississippi Certification #: MN00064 Missouri Certification #: 10100 Montana Certification #: CERT0092 Nebraska Certification #: NE-OS-18-06 Nevada Certification #: MN00064 New Hampshire Certification #: 2081* New Jersey Certification #: MN002 New York Certification #: 11647* North Carolina DW Certification #: 27700 North Carolina WW Certification #: 530 North Dakota Certification #: R-036 Ohio DW Certification #: 41244 Ohio VAP Certification #: CL101 Oklahoma Certification #: 9507* Oregon Primary Certification #: MN300001 Oregon Secondary Certification #: MN200001* Pennsylvania Certification #: 68-00563* Puerto Rico Certification #: MN00064 South Carolina Certification #:74003001 Tennessee Certification #: TN02818 Texas Certification #: T104704192* Utah Certification #: MN00064* Vermont Certification #: VT-027053137 Virginia Certification #: 460163* Washington Certification #: C486* West Virginia DEP Certification #: 382 West Virginia DW Certification #: 9952 C Wisconsin Certification #: 999407970 Wyoming UST Certification #: via A2LA 2926.01 USDA Permit #: P330-19-00208 *Please Note: Applicable air certifications are denoted with an asterisk (*). Pace Analytical Services Montana 150 N. 9th Street, Billings, MT 59101 A2LA Certification: # 3590.01 EPA Region 8 Certification #: 8TMS-L Idaho Certification #: MT00012 Minnesota Dept of Health Certification #: 030-999-442 Montana Certification #: MT CERT0040 North Dakota Dept. Of Health #: R-209 Washington Department of Ecology #: C993 Nevada Certificate # : MT00012 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 2 of 27 #=SS# SAMPLE SUMMARY Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Lab ID Sample ID Matrix Date Collected Date Received 10535359001 SED-01 Solid 10/13/20 10:30 10/13/20 16:00 10535359002 SED-02 Solid 10/13/20 11:30 10/13/20 16:00 10535359003 DUP-01 Solid 10/13/20 00:00 10/13/20 16:00 10535359004 Tip Blank Solid 10/13/20 00:00 10/13/20 16:00 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 3 of 27 #=SA# SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Lab ID Sample ID Method Analytes Reported LaboratoryAnalysts 10535359001 SED-01 WI MOD DRO 2 PASI-MJVM WI MOD GRO 2 PASI-MNS1 EPA 6010D 8 PASI-MDCF EPA 7471B 1 PASI-MLMW ASTM D2974 1 PASI-MJDL EPA 8270E by SIM 27 PASI-MCH3 EPA 8260D 8 PASI-MTMAM 10535359002 SED-02 WI MOD DRO 2 PASI-MJVM WI MOD GRO 2 PASI-MNS1 EPA 6010D 8 PASI-MDCF EPA 7471B 1 PASI-MLMW ASTM D2974 1 PASI-MJDL EPA 8270E by SIM 27 PASI-MCH3 EPA 8260D 8 PASI-MTMAM 10535359003 DUP-01 WI MOD DRO 2 PASI-MJVM WI MOD GRO 2 PASI-MNS1 EPA 6010D 8 PASI-MDCF EPA 7471B 1 PASI-MLMW ASTM D2974 1 PASI-MJDL EPA 8270E by SIM 27 PASI-MCH3 EPA 8260D 8 PASI-MTMAM 10535359004 Tip Blank WI MOD GRO 2 PASI-MNS1 EPA 8260D 8 PASI-MTMAM PASI-M = Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis PASI-MT = Pace Analytical Services - Montana REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 4 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:SED-01 Lab ID:10535359001 Collected:10/13/20 10:30 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: WI MOD DRO Preparation Method: WI MOD DRO Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIDRO GCS Silica Gel WDRO C10-C28 129 mg/kg 10/17/20 20:49 T610/15/20 14:4811.3 3.0 1 Surrogates n-Triacontane (S)56 %.10/17/20 20:49 638-68-610/15/20 14:4830-150 1 Analytical Method: WI MOD GRO Preparation Method: EPA 5030 Medium Soil Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIGRO GCV Gasoline Range Organics <5.0 mg/kg 10/15/20 00:5910/14/20 11:0017.5 5.0 1 Surrogates a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)98 %.10/15/20 00:59 98-08-810/14/20 11:0080-150 1 Analytical Method: EPA 6010D Preparation Method: EPA 3050B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 6010D MET ICP Arsenic 3.6 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-38-210/15/20 16:131.7 0.34 1 Barium 94.2 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-39-310/15/20 16:130.83 0.13 1 Cadmium 0.48 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-43-910/15/20 16:130.25 0.050 1 Chromium 20.8 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-47-310/15/20 16:130.83 0.17 1 Copper 29.6 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-50-810/15/20 16:130.83 0.23 1 Lead 54.8 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7439-92-110/15/20 16:130.83 0.19 1 Selenium <0.54 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7782-49-210/15/20 16:131.7 0.54 1 Silver <0.060 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:21 7440-22-410/15/20 16:130.83 0.060 1 Analytical Method: EPA 7471B Preparation Method: EPA 7471B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 7471B Mercury Mercury 0.050 mg/kg 10/15/20 18:16 7439-97-610/15/20 16:310.031 0.013 1 Analytical Method: ASTM D2974 Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Dry Weight / %M by ASTM D2974 Percent Moisture 42.0 %10/21/20 11:19 N20.10 0.10 1 Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM 2-Methylnaphthalene 22.0J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 91-57-610/14/20 13:0717215.7 10 3-Methylcholanthrene 38.0J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 56-49-510/14/20 13:0717219.2 10 5-Methylchrysene 206 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 3697-24-3 M610/14/20 13:0717211.9 10 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene <62.9 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 57-97-6 M610/14/20 13:0717262.9 10 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole <22.5 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 194-59-210/14/20 13:0717222.5 10 Acenaphthene 130J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 83-32-910/14/20 13:0717254.0 10 Acenaphthylene 69.1J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 208-96-810/14/20 13:0717244.5 10 Anthracene 370 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 120-12-710/14/20 13:0717227.7 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 1270 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 56-55-310/14/20 13:0717219.9 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 1410 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 50-32-8 M610/14/20 13:0717215.5 10 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 139J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 191-24-2 M610/14/20 13:0717222.3 10 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)3380 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 N210/14/20 13:0751541.8 10 Chrysene 1910 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 218-01-910/14/20 13:0717224.4 10 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 5 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:SED-01 Lab ID:10535359001 Collected:10/13/20 10:30 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM Dibenz(a,h)acridine <10.6 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 226-36-810/14/20 13:0717210.6 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 263 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 53-70-310/14/20 13:0717220.6 10 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene 346 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 192-65-4 M610/14/20 13:0717222.0 10 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene 142J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 189-64-0 M610/14/20 13:0717212.4 10 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene 36.6J ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 189-55-9 M610/14/20 13:0717217.5 10 Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene <39.5 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 191-30-0 M610/14/20 13:0717239.5 10 Fluoranthene 4060 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 206-44-010/14/20 13:0717234.9 10 Fluorene 195 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 86-73-710/14/20 13:0717236.1 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 806 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 193-39-5 M610/14/20 13:0717218.9 10 Naphthalene <50.9 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 91-20-310/14/20 13:0717250.9 10 Phenanthrene 2280 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 85-01-8 M610/14/20 13:0717229.0 10 Pyrene 2920 ug/kg 10/15/20 22:07 129-00-010/14/20 13:0717220.4 10 Surrogates 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)67 %.10/15/20 22:07 321-60-8 D310/14/20 13:0742-125 10 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)64 %.10/15/20 22:07 1718-51-010/14/20 13:0746-125 10 Analytical Method: EPA 8260D Preparation Method: EPA 5035/5030B Pace Analytical Services - Montana 8260D MSV UST Benzene <38.8 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:24 71-43-210/20/20 12:3377.6 38.8 1 Ethylbenzene <38.8 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:24 100-41-410/20/20 12:3377.6 38.8 1 Toluene <38.8 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:24 108-88-310/20/20 12:3377.6 38.8 1 Xylene (Total)<116 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:24 1330-20-710/20/20 12:332331161 Surrogates Dibromofluoromethane (S)93 %.10/20/20 18:24 1868-53-710/20/20 12:3375-125 1 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)94 %.10/20/20 18:24 17060-07-010/20/20 12:3375-125 1 Toluene-d8 (S)101 %.10/20/20 18:24 2037-26-510/20/20 12:3375-125 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)103 %.10/20/20 18:24 460-00-410/20/20 12:3375-125 1 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 6 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:SED-02 Lab ID:10535359002 Collected:10/13/20 11:30 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: WI MOD DRO Preparation Method: WI MOD DRO Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIDRO GCS Silica Gel WDRO C10-C28 89.6 mg/kg 10/17/20 20:42 T610/15/20 14:4813.6 3.6 1 Surrogates n-Triacontane (S)80 %.10/17/20 20:42 638-68-610/15/20 14:4830-150 1 Analytical Method: WI MOD GRO Preparation Method: EPA 5030 Medium Soil Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIGRO GCV Gasoline Range Organics <6.9 mg/kg 10/15/20 01:2710/14/20 11:0024.2 6.9 1 Surrogates a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)102 %.10/15/20 01:27 98-08-810/14/20 11:0080-150 1 Analytical Method: EPA 6010D Preparation Method: EPA 3050B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 6010D MET ICP Arsenic 6.1 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-38-210/15/20 16:132.3 0.47 1 Barium 131 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-39-310/15/20 16:131.1 0.18 1 Cadmium 0.62 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-43-910/15/20 16:130.34 0.068 1 Chromium 23.9 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-47-310/15/20 16:131.1 0.23 1 Copper 42.3 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-50-810/15/20 16:131.1 0.32 1 Lead 59.0 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7439-92-110/15/20 16:131.1 0.26 1 Selenium <0.75 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7782-49-210/15/20 16:132.3 0.75 1 Silver <0.083 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:26 7440-22-410/15/20 16:131.1 0.083 1 Analytical Method: EPA 7471B Preparation Method: EPA 7471B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 7471B Mercury Mercury 0.080 mg/kg 10/15/20 18:18 7439-97-610/15/20 16:310.043 0.018 1 Analytical Method: ASTM D2974 Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Dry Weight / %M by ASTM D2974 Percent Moisture 58.9 %10/21/20 11:20 N20.10 0.10 1 Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM 2-Methylnaphthalene 90.4J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 91-57-610/14/20 13:0724322.2 10 3-Methylcholanthrene 60.8J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 56-49-510/14/20 13:0724327.2 10 5-Methylchrysene 209J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 3697-24-310/14/20 13:0724316.8 10 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene <89.0 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 57-97-610/14/20 13:0724389.0 10 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole <31.9 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 194-59-210/14/20 13:0724331.9 10 Acenaphthene 431 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 83-32-910/14/20 13:0724376.3 10 Acenaphthylene 73.2J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 208-96-810/14/20 13:0724363.0 10 Anthracene 796 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 120-12-710/14/20 13:0724339.1 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 1980 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 56-55-310/14/20 13:0724328.2 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 1980 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 50-32-810/14/20 13:0724322.0 10 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 165J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 191-24-210/14/20 13:0724331.6 10 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)4780 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 N210/14/20 13:0772959.1 10 Chrysene 2840 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 218-01-910/14/20 13:0724334.5 10 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 7 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:SED-02 Lab ID:10535359002 Collected:10/13/20 11:30 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM Dibenz(a,h)acridine 84.8J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 226-36-810/14/20 13:0724315.1 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 338 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 53-70-310/14/20 13:0724329.2 10 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene 383 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 192-65-410/14/20 13:0724331.1 10 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene 170J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 189-64-010/14/20 13:0724317.6 10 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene 36.1J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 189-55-910/14/20 13:0724324.8 10 Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene <55.9 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 191-30-010/14/20 13:0724355.9 10 Fluoranthene 6650 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 206-44-010/14/20 13:0724349.4 10 Fluorene 490 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 86-73-710/14/20 13:0724351.1 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 972 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 193-39-510/14/20 13:0724326.7 10 Naphthalene 292 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 91-20-310/14/20 13:0724372.0 10 Phenanthrene 4920 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 85-01-810/14/20 13:0724341.1 10 Pyrene 4640 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:28 129-00-010/14/20 13:0724328.9 10 Surrogates 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)65 %.10/15/20 23:28 321-60-8 D310/14/20 13:0742-125 10 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)60 %.10/15/20 23:28 1718-51-010/14/20 13:0746-125 10 Analytical Method: EPA 8260D Preparation Method: EPA 5035/5030B Pace Analytical Services - Montana 8260D MSV UST Benzene <55.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:44 71-43-210/20/20 12:3311155.6 1 Ethylbenzene <55.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:44 100-41-410/20/20 12:3311155.6 1 Toluene <55.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:44 108-88-310/20/20 12:3311155.6 1 Xylene (Total)<167 ug/kg 10/20/20 18:44 1330-20-710/20/20 12:333341671 Surrogates Dibromofluoromethane (S)91 %.10/20/20 18:44 1868-53-710/20/20 12:3375-125 1 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)90 %.10/20/20 18:44 17060-07-010/20/20 12:3375-125 1 Toluene-d8 (S)100 %.10/20/20 18:44 2037-26-510/20/20 12:3375-125 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)99 %.10/20/20 18:44 460-00-410/20/20 12:3375-125 1 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 8 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:DUP-01 Lab ID:10535359003 Collected:10/13/20 00:00 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: WI MOD DRO Preparation Method: WI MOD DRO Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIDRO GCS Silica Gel WDRO C10-C28 79.4 mg/kg 10/17/20 20:56 T610/15/20 14:4812.3 3.3 1 Surrogates n-Triacontane (S)75 %.10/17/20 20:56 638-68-610/15/20 14:4830-150 1 Analytical Method: WI MOD GRO Preparation Method: EPA 5030 Medium Soil Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIGRO GCV Gasoline Range Organics <5.3 mg/kg 10/15/20 01:5410/14/20 11:0018.7 5.3 1 Surrogates a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)101 %.10/15/20 01:54 98-08-810/14/20 11:0080-150 1 Analytical Method: EPA 6010D Preparation Method: EPA 3050B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 6010D MET ICP Arsenic 3.9 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-38-210/15/20 16:131.7 0.35 1 Barium 97.8 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-39-310/15/20 16:130.86 0.14 1 Cadmium 0.54 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-43-910/15/20 16:130.26 0.052 1 Chromium 20.3 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-47-310/15/20 16:130.86 0.17 1 Copper 28.2 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-50-810/15/20 16:130.86 0.24 1 Lead 48.7 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7439-92-110/15/20 16:130.86 0.19 1 Selenium <0.56 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7782-49-210/15/20 16:131.7 0.56 1 Silver <0.063 mg/kg 10/16/20 12:27 7440-22-410/15/20 16:130.86 0.063 1 Analytical Method: EPA 7471B Preparation Method: EPA 7471B Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 7471B Mercury Mercury 0.053 mg/kg 10/15/20 18:23 7439-97-610/15/20 16:310.036 0.015 1 Analytical Method: ASTM D2974 Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Dry Weight / %M by ASTM D2974 Percent Moisture 45.7 %10/21/20 11:20 N20.10 0.10 1 Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM 2-Methylnaphthalene 21.5J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 91-57-610/14/20 13:0718416.8 10 3-Methylcholanthrene 36.5J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 56-49-510/14/20 13:0718420.6 10 5-Methylchrysene 204 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 3697-24-310/14/20 13:0718412.7 10 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene <67.3 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 57-97-610/14/20 13:0718467.3 10 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole <24.1 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 194-59-210/14/20 13:0718424.1 10 Acenaphthene 122J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 83-32-910/14/20 13:0718457.8 10 Acenaphthylene 81.5J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 208-96-810/14/20 13:0718447.7 10 Anthracene 373 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 120-12-710/14/20 13:0718429.6 10 Benzo(a)anthracene 1240 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 56-55-310/14/20 13:0718421.3 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 1380 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 50-32-810/14/20 13:0718416.6 10 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 118J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 191-24-210/14/20 13:0718423.9 10 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)3430 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 N210/14/20 13:0755244.7 10 Chrysene 1880 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 218-01-910/14/20 13:0718426.1 10 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 9 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:DUP-01 Lab ID:10535359003 Collected:10/13/20 00:00 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "dry weight" basis and are adjusted for percent moisture, sample size and any dilutions. Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: EPA 8270E by SIM Preparation Method: EPA 3550C Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis 8270E MSSV CPAH by SIM Dibenz(a,h)acridine <11.4 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 226-36-810/14/20 13:0718411.4 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 234 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 53-70-310/14/20 13:0718422.1 10 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene 281 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 192-65-410/14/20 13:0718423.6 10 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene 123J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 189-64-010/14/20 13:0718413.3 10 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene 27.8J ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 189-55-910/14/20 13:0718418.8 10 Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene <42.3 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 191-30-010/14/20 13:0718442.3 10 Fluoranthene 4110 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 206-44-010/14/20 13:0718437.4 10 Fluorene 185 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 86-73-710/14/20 13:0718438.6 10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 686 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 193-39-510/14/20 13:0718420.2 10 Naphthalene <54.5 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 91-20-310/14/20 13:0718454.5 10 Phenanthrene 2210 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 85-01-810/14/20 13:0718431.1 10 Pyrene 2860 ug/kg 10/15/20 23:55 129-00-010/14/20 13:0718421.9 10 Surrogates 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)72 %.10/15/20 23:55 321-60-8 D310/14/20 13:0742-125 10 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)67 %.10/15/20 23:55 1718-51-010/14/20 13:0746-125 10 Analytical Method: EPA 8260D Preparation Method: EPA 5035/5030B Pace Analytical Services - Montana 8260D MSV UST Benzene <43.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 19:05 71-43-210/20/20 12:3387.2 43.6 1 Ethylbenzene <43.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 19:05 100-41-410/20/20 12:3387.2 43.6 1 Toluene <43.6 ug/kg 10/20/20 19:05 108-88-310/20/20 12:3387.2 43.6 1 Xylene (Total)<131 ug/kg 10/20/20 19:05 1330-20-710/20/20 12:332621311 Surrogates Dibromofluoromethane (S)91 %.10/20/20 19:05 1868-53-710/20/20 12:3375-125 1 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)92 %.10/20/20 19:05 17060-07-010/20/20 12:3375-125 1 Toluene-d8 (S)101 %.10/20/20 19:05 2037-26-510/20/20 12:3375-125 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)103 %.10/20/20 19:05 460-00-410/20/20 12:3375-125 1 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 10 of 27 #=AR# ANALYTICAL RESULTS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Sample:Tip Blank Lab ID:10535359004 Collected:10/13/20 00:00 Received:10/13/20 16:00 Matrix:Solid Results reported on a "wet-weight" basis Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualMDLPQL Analytical Method: WI MOD GRO Preparation Method: EPA 5030 Medium Soil Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis WIGRO GCV Gasoline Range Organics <2.8 mg/kg 10/20/20 02:3810/19/20 10:4110.0 2.8 1 Surrogates a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)98 %.10/20/20 02:38 98-08-810/19/20 10:4180-150 1 Analytical Method: EPA 8260D Preparation Method: EPA 5035/5030B Pace Analytical Services - Montana 8260D MSV UST Benzene <25.0 ug/kg 10/20/20 15:20 71-43-210/20/20 12:3350.0 25.0 1 Ethylbenzene <25.0 ug/kg 10/20/20 15:20 100-41-410/20/20 12:3350.0 25.0 1 Toluene <25.0 ug/kg 10/20/20 15:20 108-88-310/20/20 12:3350.0 25.0 1 Xylene (Total)<75.0 ug/kg 10/20/20 15:20 1330-20-710/20/20 12:3315075.0 1 Surrogates Dibromofluoromethane (S)92 %.10/20/20 15:20 1868-53-710/20/20 12:3375-125 1 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)89 %.10/20/20 15:20 17060-07-010/20/20 12:3375-125 1 Toluene-d8 (S)103 %.10/20/20 15:20 2037-26-510/20/20 12:3375-125 1 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)96 %.10/20/20 15:20 460-00-410/20/20 12:3375-125 1 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 11 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 704364 EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO WIGRO Solid GCV Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3763027 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg <2.8 10.0 10/14/20 13:552.8 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.91 80-150 10/14/20 13:55 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3763028LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE & LCSD: LCSSpike LCSD % Rec RPD Max RPD LCSD Result 3763029 Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg 41.750 83 80-1209849.2 17 20 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.105 80-150107 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3763110MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10535347001 3763111 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg G+54.1 101 80-12093 9 2054.1ND 54.6 50.2 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.100 80-15092 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 12 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 705230 EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO WIGRO Solid GCV Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359004 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3768022 Associated Lab Samples:10535359004 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg <2.8 10.0 10/19/20 15:192.8 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.98 80-150 10/19/20 15:19 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3768023LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE & LCSD: LCSSpike LCSD % Rec RPD Max RPD LCSD Result 3768024 Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg 48.450 97 80-12010250.9 5 20 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.98 80-15098 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3768135MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10535689002 3768136 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Gasoline Range Organics mg/kg 60.1 109 80-120100 8 2060.1ND 65.8 60.7 a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene (S)%.98 80-15099 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 13 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 704597 EPA 7471B EPA 7471B 7471B Mercury Solids Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3764269 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL Mercury mg/kg <0.0078 0.019 10/15/20 17:500.0078 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3764270LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike Mercury mg/kg 0.470.47 101 80-120 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3764271MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10534433003 3764272 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Mercury mg/kg E,M10.96 114 80-120127 10 2010.87 2.0 2.2 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 14 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 704596 EPA 3050B EPA 6010D 6010D Solids Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3764265 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL Arsenic mg/kg <0.20 0.95 10/16/20 11:510.20 Barium mg/kg <0.075 0.48 10/16/20 11:510.075 Cadmium mg/kg <0.029 0.14 10/16/20 11:510.029 Chromium mg/kg <0.095 0.48 10/16/20 11:510.095 Copper mg/kg <0.13 0.48 10/16/20 11:510.13 Lead mg/kg <0.11 0.48 10/16/20 11:510.11 Selenium mg/kg <0.31 0.95 10/16/20 11:510.31 Silver mg/kg <0.035 0.48 10/16/20 11:510.035 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3764266LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike Arsenic mg/kg 45.346.7 97 80-120 Barium mg/kg 48.646.7 104 80-120 Cadmium mg/kg 49.546.7 106 80-120 Chromium mg/kg 49.246.7 105 80-120 Copper mg/kg 47.646.7 102 80-120 Lead mg/kg 48.846.7 104 80-120 Selenium mg/kg 45.246.7 97 80-120 Silver mg/kg 23.423.4 100 80-120 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3764267MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10534433003 3764268 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Arsenic mg/kg 101 86 75-12588 6 201055.4 92.5 98.0 Barium mg/kg 101 94 75-125104 6 20105146241255 Cadmium mg/kg 101 91 75-12592 5 201050.60 92.4 97.3 Chromium mg/kg 101 95 75-12599 7 2010519.0 115 123 Copper mg/kg 101 90 75-12595 7 2010525.7 117 126 Lead mg/kg R11018375-125125 35 2010528.1 112 160 Selenium mg/kg 101 89 75-12591 7 20105ND91.1 97.3 Silver mg/kg 50.6 89 75-12592 7 2052.7ND 45.2 48.4 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 15 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 705751 ASTM D2974 ASTM D2974 Dry Weight / %M by ASTM D2974 Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Dup Result Max RPD QualifiersRPDResult 10535900020 3770546SAMPLE DUPLICATE: Percent Moisture %12.3 N243011.8 Parameter Units Dup Result Max RPD QualifiersRPDResult 10535359003 3770716SAMPLE DUPLICATE: Percent Moisture %46.0 N213045.7 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 16 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 705578 EPA 5035/5030B EPA 8260D 8260D MSV UST Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Montana Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003, 10535359004 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3769696 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003, 10535359004 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL Benzene ug/kg <24.9 49.7 10/20/20 13:3924.9 Ethylbenzene ug/kg <24.9 49.7 10/20/20 13:3924.9 Toluene ug/kg <24.9 49.7 10/20/20 13:3924.9 Xylene (Total)ug/kg <74.6 149 10/20/20 13:3974.6 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%.92 75-125 10/20/20 13:39 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%.97 75-125 10/20/20 13:39 Dibromofluoromethane (S)%.90 75-125 10/20/20 13:39 Toluene-d8 (S)%.101 75-125 10/20/20 13:39 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3769697LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike Benzene ug/kg 692926 75 61-127 Ethylbenzene ug/kg 784926 85 69-125 Toluene ug/kg 785926 85 69-125 Xylene (Total)ug/kg 24102780 87 71-125 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%.85 75-125 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%.100 75-125 Dibromofluoromethane (S)%.90 75-125 Toluene-d8 (S)%.96 75-125 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3769698MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10535359001 3769699 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Benzene ug/kg 1640 73 41-13772 2 301640<38.8 1200 1170 Ethylbenzene ug/kg 1640 82 30-15080 2 301640<38.8 1340 1320 Toluene ug/kg 1640 84 38-14182 2 301640<38.8 1370 1340 Xylene (Total)ug/kg 4910 83 30-15085 2 304910<116 4080 4160 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%.85 75-12592 4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%.99 75-12597 Dibromofluoromethane (S)%.90 75-12590 Toluene-d8 (S)%.101 75-125100 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 17 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 704319 EPA 3550C EPA 8270E by SIM 8270E CPAH by SIM MSSV Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3762883 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg <0.91 10.0 10/15/20 20:190.91 3-Methylcholanthrene ug/kg <1.1 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.1 5-Methylchrysene ug/kg <0.69 10.0 10/15/20 20:190.69 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ug/kg <3.7 10.0 10/15/20 20:193.7 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole ug/kg <1.3 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.3 Acenaphthene ug/kg <3.1 10.0 10/15/20 20:193.1 Acenaphthylene ug/kg <2.6 10.0 10/15/20 20:192.6 Anthracene ug/kg <1.6 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.6 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/kg <1.2 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.2 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/kg <0.90 10.0 10/15/20 20:190.90 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/kg <1.3 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.3 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)ug/kg <2.4 30.0 N210/15/20 20:192.4 Chrysene ug/kg <1.4 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.4 Dibenz(a,h)acridine ug/kg <0.62 10.0 10/15/20 20:190.62 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/kg <1.2 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.2 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ug/kg <1.3 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.3 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene ug/kg <0.72 10.0 10/15/20 20:190.72 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene ug/kg <1.0 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.0 Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene ug/kg <2.3 10.0 10/15/20 20:192.3 Fluoranthene ug/kg <2.0 10.0 10/15/20 20:192.0 Fluorene ug/kg <2.1 10.0 10/15/20 20:192.1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/kg <1.1 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.1 Naphthalene ug/kg <3.0 10.0 10/15/20 20:193.0 Phenanthrene ug/kg <1.7 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.7 Pyrene ug/kg <1.2 10.0 10/15/20 20:191.2 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)%.76 42-125 10/15/20 20:19 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)%.81 46-125 10/15/20 20:19 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3762884LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 71.1100 71 39-125 3-Methylcholanthrene ug/kg 72.4100 72 31-125 5-Methylchrysene ug/kg 90.6100 91 63-125 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ug/kg 69.7100 70 30-125 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole ug/kg 89.4100 89 59-125 Acenaphthene ug/kg 77.6100 78 46-125 Acenaphthylene ug/kg 76.4100 76 42-125 Anthracene ug/kg 83.3100 83 56-125 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 18 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3762884LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: LCSSpike Benzo(a)anthracene ug/kg 82.4100 82 61-125 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/kg 81.2100 81 60-125 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/kg 64.1100 64 48-125 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)ug/kg 255 N23008562-125 Chrysene ug/kg 87.8100 88 64-125 Dibenz(a,h)acridine ug/kg 89.2100 89 60-125 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/kg 87.8100 88 58-125 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ug/kg 82.5100 82 56-125 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene ug/kg 88.1100 88 56-125 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene ug/kg 80.4100 80 53-125 Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene ug/kg 57.4100 57 30-125 Fluoranthene ug/kg 90.1100 90 61-125 Fluorene ug/kg 82.2100 82 52-125 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/kg 85.4100 85 58-125 Naphthalene ug/kg 70.3100 70 37-125 Phenanthrene ug/kg 91.2100 91 61-125 Pyrene ug/kg 85.4100 85 61-125 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)%.70 42-125 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)%.83 46-125 Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3762885MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10535359001 3762886 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 171 64 39-12572 3017122.0J 131J 146J 3-Methylcholanthrene ug/kg 171 42 30-13450 3017138.0J 111J 123J 5-Methylchrysene ug/kg M6171-26 30-1455 30171206162J215 7,12- Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ug/kg M6171030-1500 30171<62.9 <62.7 <62.7 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole ug/kg 171 67 30-14064 30171<22.5 115J 110J Acenaphthene ug/kg 171 59 37-12572 9 30171130J231253 Acenaphthylene ug/kg 171 68 40-12575 6 3017169.1J 185 197 Anthracene ug/kg 171 57 47-12583 9 30171370468513 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/kg 171 81 30-13591 1 30171127014001420 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/kg M61712830-13647 2 30171141014601490 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/kg M61712030-12724 3 30171139J173179 Benzofluoranthenes (Total)ug/kg N25143934-12551 2 30514338035803640 Chrysene ug/kg 171 54 30-14274 2 30171191020002040 Dibenz(a,h)acridine ug/kg 171 88 30-14895 30171<10.6 151J 163J Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/kg 171 46 42-12545 0 30171263341339 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ug/kg M61711230-131-1 6 30171346367345 Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene ug/kg M61712030-14120 1 30171142J177176 Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene ug/kg M61711830-13122 3017136.6J 66.9J 73.6J Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene ug/kg M61711430-13117 30171<39.5 <39.4 44.1J Fluoranthene ug/kg 171 86 30-149104 1 30171406042004240 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 19 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. Parameter Units MS Result % Rec Limits Qual% RecConc. 3762885MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: MSSpike Result 10535359001 3762886 MSD Result MSD % Rec RPD RPD Max MSDMS Spike Conc. Fluorene ug/kg 171 54 39-15070 9 30171195288316 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/kg M6171630-134-3 2 30171806817801 Naphthalene ug/kg 171 64 37-12569 30171<50.9 135J 143J Phenanthrene ug/kg M6171-17 30-15064 6 30171228022502390 Pyrene ug/kg 171 35 30-15059 1 30171292029803020 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)%.D36942-12571 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)%.66 46-12567 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 20 of 27 #=QC# QUALITY CONTROL DATA Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result. QC Batch: QC Batch Method: Analysis Method: Analysis Description: 704673 WI MOD DRO WI MOD DRO WIDRO Solid GCV Laboratory:Pace Analytical Services - Minneapolis Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Parameter Units Blank Result Reporting Limit Qualifiers METHOD BLANK:3764539 Associated Lab Samples:10535359001, 10535359002, 10535359003 Matrix:Solid AnalyzedMDL WDRO C10-C28 mg/kg <2.7 10.0 10/16/20 21:312.7 n-Triacontane (S)%.121 30-150 10/16/20 21:31 Parameter Units LCS Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers% RecConc. 3764540LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE & LCSD: LCSSpike LCSD % Rec RPD Max RPD LCSD Result 3764541 WDRO C10-C28 mg/kg 75.180 94 66-1259374.8 1 20 n-Triacontane (S)%.103 30-150102 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 21 of 27 #=QL# QUALIFIERS Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond DEFINITIONS DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to dilution of the sample aliquot. ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit. TNTC - Too Numerous To Count J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit. MDL - Adjusted Method Detection Limit. PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit. RL - Reporting Limit - The lowest concentration value that meets project requirements for quantitative data with known precision and bias for a specific analyte in a specific matrix. S - Surrogate 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine decomposes to and cannot be separated from Azobenzene using Method 8270. The result for each analyte is a combined concentration. Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values. LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate) MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate) DUP - Sample Duplicate RPD - Relative Percent Difference NC - Not Calculable. SG - Silica Gel - Clean-Up U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for each analyte is a combined concentration. Pace Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes. TNI - The NELAC Institute. ANALYTE QUALIFIERS Sample was diluted due to the presence of high levels of non-target analytes or other matrix interference.D3 Analyte concentration exceeded the calibration range. The reported result is estimated.E Late peaks present outside the GRO window.G+ Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.M1 Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution.M6 The lab does not hold NELAC/TNI accreditation for this parameter but other accreditations/certifications may apply. A complete list of accreditations/certifications is available upon request.N2 RPD value was outside control limits.R1 High boiling point hydrocarbons are present in the sample.T6 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 22 of 27 #=CR# QUALITY CONTROL DATA CROSS REFERENCE TABLE Pace Project No.: Project: 10535359 23270051.51 Medley Park Pond Lab ID Sample ID QC Batch Method QC Batch Analytical Method Analytical Batch 10535359001 704673 705083SED-01 WI MOD DRO WI MOD DRO 10535359002 704673 705083SED-02 WI MOD DRO WI MOD DRO 10535359003 704673 705083DUP-01 WI MOD DRO WI MOD DRO 10535359001 704364 704432SED-01 EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO 10535359002 704364 704432SED-02 EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO 10535359003 704364 704432DUP-01 EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO 10535359004 705230 705305Tip Blank EPA 5030 Medium Soil WI MOD GRO 10535359001 704596 704831SED-01 EPA 3050B EPA 6010D 10535359002 704596 704831SED-02 EPA 3050B EPA 6010D 10535359003 704596 704831DUP-01 EPA 3050B EPA 6010D 10535359001 704597 704820SED-01 EPA 7471B EPA 7471B 10535359002 704597 704820SED-02 EPA 7471B EPA 7471B 10535359003 704597 704820DUP-01 EPA 7471B EPA 7471B 10535359001 705751SED-01 ASTM D2974 10535359002 705751SED-02 ASTM D2974 10535359003 705751DUP-01 ASTM D2974 10535359001 704319 704789SED-01 EPA 3550C EPA 8270E by SIM 10535359002 704319 704789SED-02 EPA 3550C EPA 8270E by SIM 10535359003 704319 704789DUP-01 EPA 3550C EPA 8270E by SIM 10535359001 705578 705764SED-01 EPA 5035/5030B EPA 8260D 10535359002 705578 705764SED-02 EPA 5035/5030B EPA 8260D 10535359003 705578 705764DUP-01 EPA 5035/5030B EPA 8260D 10535359004 705578 705764Tip Blank EPA 5035/5030B EPA 8260D REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.Date: 10/23/2020 12:02 PM Pace Analytical Services, LLC 1700 Elm Street - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)607-1700 Page 23 of 27 Page 24 of 27 Page 25 of 27 Page 26 of 27 Page 27 of 27 Appendix B Geotechnical Soil Boring Logs (2020) !> !> SB_North 45.00538, -93.39667 SB_South 45.00492, -93.39667 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-04-07 09:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Field Investigations\MedleyPark_KJN2_Geotech.mxd User: kjn2 MEDLEY PARKSOIL BORING LOCATIONS FIGURE B1 0 120 Feet !;N !>Soil Boring Locations Project Boundary Storm Pipe* Watermain* Sanitary Main* Medley Pond Medley Park Kings Valley Townhomes K i n g s V a l l e y R d E Mayfair Rd.Ensign Ave N£¤169 GOLDEN VALLEY PLYMOUTH MEDICINE LAKE NEW HOPE CRYSTAL Proposed Project Location Medicine Lake *Utility pipes shown on this figure are not all inclusive. A Gopher State One Call for utility locates was performed prior to geotechnical investigation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PID:3.6 PID:4.8 PID:4.8 PID:4.0 PID:4.0 PID:5.2 PID:3.8 PID:2.3 2-3-3-. 2-2-3-. 1-1-2-. 2-2-3-. 4-4-5-. 2-2-3-. 1-1-1-. 1-2-2-. SILTY SAND (SM): very fine to fine grained; light brown; moist; loose; trace gravel; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. ORGANIC SILT (OL): brown; moist; medium stiff; with fine grain sand; organic; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. LEAN CLAY (CL): olive gray; moist; medium stiff to stiff; trace fine grain sand and fibrous; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. PEAT (PT): brown; moist; soft; organic and fibrous; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. End of boring 12.0 feet SM OL CL PT Datum: NAD83 Drill Rig:Truck Logged By:JWJ Date Boring Completed: 10/6/20 PID = Headspace; D/O/S = Discoloration/Odor/Sheen; FID/MC = FID/Methane Corrected; G/S/F = Gravel/Sand/Fines Project: Project No.: Location: Medley Park 23270051.51 Golden Valley, MN Coordinates: Lat: 45.00538° Long: -93.39667° Surface Elevation: 906.3 (NAVD88) Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SS Completion Depth: 12.0 ft Drilling Contractor: Haugo Date Boring Started: 10/6/20 Additional data may have been collected in the field which is not included on this log.Sample Type &RecoverySHEET 1 OF 1 Depth, feetSample No.Remarks: Borehole was drilled with 4-1/4 HSA from 0-12 feet. Borehole was abandoned with soil.Elevation, feetLOG OF BORING SB-NorthBarr Engineering Company 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Telephone: 952-832-2600 \\EDI-CAD\CAD\GINT\PROJECTS\23270051.51_MEDLEY PARK\23270051.51_MEDLY PARK.GPJ BARRLIBRARY.GLB ENVIRO LOG BARR TEMPLATE.GDTENVIRONMENTAL DATA Blows/6in.LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Graphic LogU S C S 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PID:5.9 PID:6.6 PID:6.2 PID:6.3 PID:6.3 PID:6.3 PID:5.9 1-3-3-. 2-2-4-. 2-2-5-. 2-2-3-. 2-2-2-. 1-2-2-. 1-2-2-. 2-1-1-. ORGANIC SILT (OL): black; moist; medium stiff; topsoil; black organics; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. LEAN CLAY (CL): black to olive gray; moist; stiff; trace peat; trace very fine to fine grained sand; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. 4.5-6 feet: no recovery, 2 inch gravel chunk in sampler shoe. PEAT (PT): brown; moist; soft; fibrous organics; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. LEAN CLAY (CL): olive gray; wet; soft; with very fine to fine grained sand; no odor; no sheen; no discoloration. End of boring 12.0 feet OL CL PT CL Datum: NAD83 Drill Rig:Truck Logged By:JWJ Date Boring Completed: 10/6/20 PID = Headspace; D/O/S = Discoloration/Odor/Sheen; FID/MC = FID/Methane Corrected; G/S/F = Gravel/Sand/Fines Project: Medly Park Project No.: 23270051.51 Location: Golden Valley, MN Coordinates: Lat: 45.00492° Long: -93.39667° Surface Elevation: 907.7 (NAVD88) Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SS Completion Depth: 12.0 ft Drilling Contractor: Haugo Date Boring Started: 10/6/20 Additional data may have been collected in the field which is not included on this log.Sample Type &RecoverySHEET 1 OF 1 Depth, feetSample No.Remarks: Borehole was drilled with 4-1/4 HSA from 0-12 feet. Borehole was abandoned with soil.Elevation, feetLOG OF BORING SB-South Barr Engineering Company 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Telephone: 952-832-2600 \\EDI-CAD\CAD\GINT\PROJECTS\23270051.51_MEDLEY PARK\23270051.51_MEDLY PARK.GPJ BARRLIBRARY.GLB ENVIRO LOG BARR TEMPLATE.GDTENVIRONMENTAL DATA Blows/6in.LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Graphic LogU S C S 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 Appendix C Wetland Delineation Report (2020) Draft Wetland Delineation Report Medley Park Prepared for City of Golden Valley October 2020 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Draft Wetland Delineation Report Medley Park Prepared for City of Golden Valley October 2020 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Field Investigations\Wetland Delineation i Wetland Delineation Report October 2020 Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 General Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Topography ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Precipitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.4 National Wetland Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.6 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.7 Historic Aerial Imagery Review .................................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Wetland Delineation ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods .............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Regulatory Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 ii List of Tables Table 1 Antecedent Moisture Conditions Table 2 Precipitation in Comparison to WETS Data Table 3 Delineated Wetlands List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Topographic Map Figure 3 National Wetlands Inventory Figure 4 Public Waters Inventory Figure 5 Hydric Soils Map Figure 6 Historic Aerial Imagery Review Figure 7 Wetland Delineation Map List of Appendices Appendix A Wetland Delineation Datasheets Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C MnRAM Excel Spreadsheet 1 1.0 Introduction This wetland delineation report has been prepared by Barr Engineering Co., (Barr) on behalf of the City of Golden Valley in support of the Medley Park Stormwater Project. The project area is located in Medley Park in the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota in Section 30 of Township 118 North, Range 21 West (Figure 1). A field wetland delineation was conducted by Barr for the proposed project on September 14, 2020. This delineation identified one wetland within the project area. This Wetland Delineation Report has been prepared in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual”, USACE, 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010) and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. This report includes general environmental information (Section 2.0), descriptions of the delineated wetlands (Section 3.0), and a discussion of regulations and the administering authorities (Section 4.0). The Tables section includes antecedent precipitation data. The Figures section includes the Project Location Map, Topography Map, National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Public Waters Inventory (PWI), Hydric Soils Map, Historic Aerial Imagery, and the Wetland Delineation Map. Appendix A includes Wetland Data Forms and Appendix B includes site photographs. 2 2.0 General Environmental Setting 2.1 Site Description The project area is located within the Medley Park, just east of Highway 169 (Figure 1). The park is in a residential setting and can be accessed through a system of paved trails from the north and east side of the project area. The park includes a variety of amenities such as play structures, two baseball fields, tennis courts and an ice-skating rink. The project area is also used for stormwater management, with a stormwater detention basin located on the west side of the project area. 2.2 Topography The project area is in an urban setting where the natural topography has been altered. Generally, The topography of the project area consists of gentle slopes from the eastern side with a high elevation of 910 feet MSL to the western side with a low elevation of 900 feet MSL (Figure 2). 2.3 Precipitation Recent precipitation data was compared to historic precipitation data to evaluate monthly deviations from normal conditions. Precipitation data was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group, Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database (Minnesota Climatology Office, 2020) for wetlands in Hennepin County, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, Section 30. Antecedent moisture conditions were within the normal range according to precipitation data from the three months prior to the September 14, 2020, site visit (Table 1). During the month of August, the City of Golden Valley received around 5.11 inches of precipitation, which is within the normal range for August. In July the area received below-average levels of precipitation while June was within the normal range. The water year has varied between dry and wet for the past nine years but fell mostly into the wet range from 2016 through 2019 (Table 2). Table 1, Antecedent Moisture Conditions Score using 1981-2010 normal period (value are in inches) first prior month: August 2020 second prior month: July 2020 third prior month: June 2020 estimated precipitation total for this location: 5.11R 2.82R 3.72R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 3.40 2.82 3.38 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 5.18 4.21 5.26 type of month: dry normal wet normal dry normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 10 (normal) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) *’R” following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates 3 Table 2 Precipitation in comparison to WETS data Precipitation Totals are in Inches Color Key Multi-month Totals: total is in lowest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution WARM = warm season (May thru September) total is => 30th and <= 70th percentile ANN = calendar year (January thru December) total is in highest 30th percentile of the period-of-record distribution WAT = water year (Oct. previous year thru Sep. present year) 2.4 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data was reviewed for any wetlands located within or adjacent to the project area. Two NWI wetlands are mapped on the western side of the project area. The northern most NWI is classified as a freshwater pond with a freshwater emergent wetland connected to the north 4 (PUBH/EM1A; Figure 3). The southern most wetland is classified as a freshwater pond with a freshwater forested/emergent wetland around the parameter (PUBH/PFO1/EM1A). 2.5 Water Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Public Water Inventory (PWI) was queried for any Public Waters located within or adjacent to the project area (Figure 4). No PWI watercourses or PWI basins are located within the project area. The nearest PWI basin is Medicine Lake located approximately 0.31 miles west of the project area. 2.6 Soil Resources Soil information for the wetland delineation area was obtained from the Soil Survey for Hennepin County, Minnesota (USDA, 2004). Three soils are mapped within the project area; Urban land Udorthents wet substratum complex, Udorthents wet substratum, and urban land-udorthents (Cut and fill land). All of these soils are classified as non-hydric soils (Figure 5). 2.7 Historic Aerial Imagery Review Historic aerial imagery of the project area was reviewed for the presence of wetland signatures. Aerial imagery from 1937, 1956, 1971, 1991 and 2017 was reviewed. In 1937the project area appears to have been used for agricultural practices, no wetland signatures were identified within the project area. In 1971, the project area is still used for agricultural practices however the crops located in the western portion of the project area appear to be stunted and a wetland signature is present in the northwestern corner of the evaluation area. By 1991 a wetland appears in the western side of the project area. The wetland is of similar size and shape in the 2017 aerial imagery. 3.0 Wetland Delineation 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods The wetland delineation was completed according to the Routine On-Site Determination Method specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Edition) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE, 2010) and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The delineated wetland boundaries and associated sample points were surveyed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the USFWS Circular 39 system (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), and the Eggers and Reed Wetland Classification System (Eggers and Reed, 2015). Two soil samples were collected to examine for the presence of hydric soil indicators using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) hydric soil indicators (Version 8.2). Hydrologic conditions were evaluated at each soil boring. Additionally, the dominant plant species were identified, and the 5 corresponding wetland indicator status of each plant species was determined. The soil colors, hydrologic conditions, and dominant plant species and indicator species were noted on the Wetland Data Forms (Appendix A). Photographs taken at the time of the site visit are provided in Appendix B. 3.2 Aquatic Resources During the wetland delineation, one wetland totaling 0.82 acres was delineated within the project area (Table 3). Descriptions and assessments of the wetland areas are provided below, with representative photographs in Appendix B. Table 3: Delineated Wetlands Wetland Number Sample Point Number Circular 39 Cowardin Classification Eggers and Reed Wetland Size (Acres) Wetland 1 SP 1 Type 3/4 PUBGx/PEMC Shallow Marsh/Deep marsh 0.82 Wetland 1 is a storm water detention basin that is separated into two segments by an upland berm. The two wetland segments are connected through a culvert located underneath the berm. Both segments of the wetland were classified as a deep marsh boarded with a seasonally flooded basin (PUBGx/PEMC; Figure 7). Vegetation along the wetland boundary was dominated by cattails (typha spp.;OBL), boarded by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis; FACU), water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia; OBL), in addition to woody vegetation such as boxelder (Acer negundo; FAC) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica; FAC). floating vegetation like duck weed ( observed within the deep marsh portion of the wetland. At the time of the field survey, much of the wetland area was inundated with approximately 4-6 feet of water. The area receives water from a drainage channel located on the northern end of the wetland boundary. Water flows from the northern wetland area into the wetland area to the south and outside of the project area. At sample point 1, two primary hydrology indicators were observed, including saturation (A3), inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7). According to NRCS data, the soils mapped within the boundary of Wetland 1 are classified as Urban land- Udorthents, Wet Substratum Complex, a non-hydric soil. Sampled soils consisted of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) matrix color from the soil surface down to approximately 4 inches. A depleted grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) matrix is present starting at 4 inches below ground surface with 10 percent distinct prominent redoximorphic features. A gleyed matrix with a dark greenish gray (10Y 4/1) color was found 8 inches below the soil surface. The soils at Sample Point 1 met the loamy gleyed matrix (F2) and redox dark surface (F6) hydric soil indicators. The transition to upland was defined by a sudden change in topography around the perimeter of the wetland. The vegetation in the adjacent upland area consisted of woody vegetation along the side slopes of the wetland with maintained grassland. 6 Using the MnRAM wetland assessment methodology, the wetland area was classified as a Manage 2 wetland. As the wetland is rated low for amphibian habitat . See the attached for the MnRAM Excel spreadsheet. 4.0 Regulatory Overview The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the dredge or placement of fill materials into wetlands that are located adjacent to or are hydrologically connected to interstate or navigable waters under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the USACE has jurisdiction over any portion of a project, they may also review impacts to wetlands under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Filling, excavating, and draining wetlands are also regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and the Minnesota Public Waters Inventory Program, which are administered by the City of Golden Valley and the MnDNR. The City of Golden Valley, MnDNR, and the USACE, should be contacted before altering any aquatic resources in the project area. Delineated wetland boundaries may be reviewed, if needed, by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Hennepin County, and the City of Golden Valley, along with the USACE. 7 5.0 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and R.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS079/31, 103 pp. Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. 2015. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Version 3.2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota, July 2015. Minnesota State Climatology Office. 2020. Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database. Accessed from: http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt and J.F. Berkowitz(eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. August 2010. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1956. Wetlands of the United States Circular 39. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Figures 4567156 4567102 456770 456773 456766 55 £¤169 Cit y o fMedicineLake Cit y o fGoldenValley Cit y o fNew H op e Cit y o fPlymout h Cit y o fCrystal T118 N, R22WS23 T118 N, R22WS24 T118 N, R21WS19 T118 N, R21WS20 T118 N, R22WS26 T118 N, R22WS25 T118 N, R21WS30 T118 N, R21WS29 T118 N, R22WS35 T118 N, R22WS36 T118 N, R21WS31 T118 N, R21WS32 HennepinCounty Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 18:58 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure 1 Pro ject Locatio n.mxd User: VAW PROJECT LO CATIO NMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 1 Project Boundar y 1 i nch = 2,0 00 feet 0 2,000 4,000 Feet !;N Imager y S ource: MNGEO Medley Pond Medley Park Ensign Ave N926' 9 2 4' 9 2 2 '920' 9 1 8' 9 1 0'908'9 0 6 '902'904'900'922'914'912'908'924'9 2 0 '9 1 6 '910'926'924'922'926'924'920'9 0 6 '9 0 4 '902'926'924'920'918'910'908'908'906'916'914' 912' 9 0 6 '928' 9 1 2 ' 9 0 8 '9 1 6 '900'916'9 1 0 ' 908'906'908' 9 0 8 '902' Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 18:20 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure 2 LiDAR Map.mxd User: VAW LIDAR M APMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 2 Eleva tion Inde x Conto ur (1 0' Inter val) Interm ediate Contour (2' Inter val ) Project Boundar y 1 i nch = 120 feet 0 120 240 Feet !;N Imager y S ource: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Medley Pond Medley Park Ensign Ave NT118 N, R21WS30 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 19:17 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure 3 N WI Map.mxd User: VAW NWI MAPMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 3 Project Boundary Wetlands (Natio nal Wetlan ds In ventor y) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1A) Freshwater Forested/Emergent Wetland (PFO1/EM1A) Freshwater Pond (PUBH)1 i nch = 120 feet 0 120 240 Feet !;N Imager y S ource: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Medley PondMedley Park Ensign Ave NT118N, R21WS30 23rd Ave N Westbend RdQuakerLaPilgrimLa Wisconsin Ave NMedicine Lake Blvd E Yukon Ave27th Ave Lancaster LaKilmer LaDuluth St EnsignCir Aqui l a AveIndependenceAveBoone AveBroggerCirWisconsin Ave N25th Ave N 26th Ave 2 4 th A ve CavellAveMe dicine Lake Rd27thAveMedicine L a k e R d N Zealand Ave NElgin Pl N Aquila Ave N28th Ave 27th Pl Duluth StNathan LaEarl St Xylon Ave30th Ave N Flag Ave24th Ave N 3 0 t h Ave 29th Ave Zealand Ave21s t Av e Xylon Ave NMe dley La NRevereLa Orkla DrQuaker LaKilmer La18th Ave Ensign Ave NHillsboroAve N26th Ave 2 3 r d A v e Kilmer La NLancast er LaDuluth St Patsy La 25th Ave Independence Ave N28th Ave 29th AveGettysburgAve Decatur Ave NVirginia AveYukon Ave29th Ave Flag Ave NMe d ici n e R i d g e R d Lancaster LaCavell Ave NGettysburg Ave NOrkla DrWinnetkaHeights Dr E n s i g n Av e K il me r L a RoseManr Z e a l a n d Av e NEnsign AveMedicine Ridge Rd Hillsboro AveHillsboro AvePilgrim LaMendelssohn Ave N456770 £¤169 £¤169 Me dicine Unname d Unname d Unname d Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 19:17 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure 4 PWI Map.mxd User: VAW PWI MAPMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 4 Project Boundar y Public Water Inv entory Waterc ourses.lyr Public Water Inv entory Basins.lyr 1 i nch = 755 feet 0 0.25 0.5 Miles !;N Imager y S ource: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Medley Pond Medley Park Ensign Ave NT118 N, R21WS30 U1AU1A U1A U2A U6B U6B L52C L52C L52C Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 19:06 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure5 So ils Map.mxd User: VAW SOILS M APMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 5 Project Boundar y Soil Bound ar y Hydric Rat ing No t Hydri c (0%) 1 i nch = 125 feet 0 120 240 Feet !;N Imager y S ource: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Barr Footer : ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-07 14:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Users\VAW\MedleyPark_Historic_Aerial_Topo.mxd User : VAW MEDLEY PARKHISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY REVIEW1937 FIG URE 6a 0 120 Feet !;NProject Boundary Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-07 14:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Users\VAW\MedleyPark_Historic_Aerial_Topo.mxd User: VAW MEDLEY PARK HISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY REVIEW 1957 FIGURE 6b 0 120 Feet !;NProject Boundary Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-07 14:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Users\VAW\MedleyPark_Historic_Aerial_Topo.mxd User: VAW MEDLEY PARK HISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY REVIEW 1971 FIGURE 6c 0 120 Feet !;NProject Boundary Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-07 14:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Users\VAW\MedleyPark_Historic_Aerial_Topo.mxd User: VAW MEDLEY PARKHISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY REVIEW1991 FIGURE 6d 0 120 Feet !;NProject Boundary Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-07 14:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work_Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Users\VAW\MedleyPark_Historic_Aerial_Topo.mxd User: VAW MEDLEY PARKHISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY REVIEW2017 FIGURE 6d 0 120 Feet !;NProject Boundary !( !( Medley Pond Medley Park 12 Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-24 19:54 File: I:\Client\BassettCreek\Work _Orders\2020\Medley_Park\Maps\Wetland_Del ineation_F igure_Set\Figure 6 Del ineated Wetlands.mxd User: VAW DELINEATED W ETL ANDSMedley Park Sto rmw ater Treatment FacilityGolden Valle y, MN FIGURE 7 Project Boundar y Cla ssifica PEMC PU BG x !(Sampl e Point Culverts Drainage Channels 1 i nch = 96 feet 0 120 240 Feet !;N Imager y S ource: Nearmap 09/04/2020 Appendix A Wetland Delineation Datasheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Applicant/Owner:City of Golden Valley City/County:Golden Valley Sampling Date:09/14/20 Investigator(s):TAC Township:118 Range:21 Slope %:2 Subregion (LRR):M Latitude:45.004886 Longitude:-93.397445 Datum:Hennepin County Soil Map Unit Name:urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum Circular 39 Classification:Type 3/4 General Remarks (explain any answers if needed): Sample point is located within the boundary of wetland 1. According to antecedent precipitation data the area has received normal levels of precipitation in the three months prior to the field survey. Project/Site:Medley Park Sampling Point:SP 1 State:MN Section:30 Land Form:Depression Local Relief:Concave Cowardin Classification:PUBGx/PEMC Eggers & Reed (primary):Deep MarshAre climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are vegetation No Soil No Hydrology No No No No (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed? Are vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Vegetation Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. VEGETATION Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 0 OBL FACU FACW FAC 0 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 Herb Stratum 0 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 Typha angustifolia 35 Cirsium arvense 30 Impatiens capensis 10 Rumex crispus 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cover:0 Total Cover:0 Total Cover:80 Total Cover:0 Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 2 50.00% 35 10 5 30 0 80 35 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:(A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: X 1 = X 2 = X 3 = X 4 = X 5 = (A) 20 15 120 0 190 Prevalence Index = B/A =2.38 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Morphological Adaptations [1] (provide supporting data in vegetation remarks or on a separate sheet) No No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation [1] (Explain)No [1] Indicators of hydric soil & wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Eggers & Reed (secondary):Shallow Marsh Eggers & Reed (tertiary): Eggers & Reed (quaternary): Yes Prevalence Index ≤ 3.0 [1] Hydric soil present?Yes Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Indicators of wetland hydrology present?Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland?Yes Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: 30 ft ) 15 ft ) 5 ft ) 30 ft ) Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Yes No No 50/20 Thresholds:20%50% Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 40 If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:Wetland 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegetationNo Mapped NWI Classification:PUBHx % Sphagnum Moss Cover: 10/5/2020 2:59:42 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (explain in remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface water present? Surface Water Depth (inches): Water table present? Water Table Depth (inches): Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe) Saturation Depth (inches):4 Stream GaugeMonitoring WellRecorded Data: Hydrology Remarks: Field Observations: Describe Recorded Data: Aerial Photo Indicators of wetland hydrology present?Yes Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Previous Inspections True Aquatic Plants (B14) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sampling Point:SP 1SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the abscence of indicators). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depth (inches) 0 - 4 Matrix Color (moist)% 4 - 8 - 8 - 24 - - 10YR 3/2 100 SiL 2.5Y 5/2 10YR 3/2 Gley 1 10Y 4/1 Gley 110Y 5/1 Redox Features Color (moist)%Type [1]Loc [2]Texture Remarks 60 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M SiCL 30 95 SiCL 5 [1] Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains [2] Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils [3]: [3] Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Dark Surface (S7) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in soil remarks) Soil Remarks: Restrictive Layer (if present):Type: Depth (inches):Hydric soil present?Yes 10/5/2020 2:59:42 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Applicant/Owner:City of Golden Valley City/County:Golden Valley Sampling Date:09/14/20 Investigator(s):TAC Township:118 Range:21 Slope %:7 Subregion (LRR):M Latitude:45.004844 Longitude:-93.397442 Datum:Hennepin County Coordinates Soil Map Unit Name:urban land-Udorthents, wet substratum Circular 39 Classification:Upland General Remarks (explain any answers if needed): Sample point is located on a berm adjacent to wetland 1. According to antecedent precipitation data the area has received normal levels of precipitation in the three months prior to the field survey. Project/Site:Medley Park Sampling Point:SP 2 State:MN Section:30 Land Form:Hillslope Local Relief:Convex Cowardin Classification:Upland Eggers & Reed (primary):UplandAre climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are vegetation No Soil No Hydrology No No No No (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed? Are vegetation Soil Hydrology naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Vegetation Remarks: (include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Vegetation at the sample point was stunted and appeared to be mowed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. VEGETATION Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status 0 FACU FACW FAC 0 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 Herb Stratum 0 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 Cirsium arvense 45 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Hordeum jubatum 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cover:0 Total Cover:0 Total Cover:70 Total Cover:0 Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 2 50.00% 0 15 10 45 0 70 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC:(A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: X 1 = X 2 = X 3 = X 4 = X 5 = (A) 30 30 180 0 240 Prevalence Index = B/A =3.43 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Morphological Adaptations [1] (provide supporting data in vegetation remarks or on a separate sheet) No No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:30 Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation [1] (Explain)No [1] Indicators of hydric soil & wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Eggers & Reed (secondary): Eggers & Reed (tertiary): Eggers & Reed (quaternary): No Prevalence Index ≤ 3.0 [1] Hydric soil present?No Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Indicators of wetland hydrology present?No Is the sampled area within a wetland?No Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic vegetation present?No (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: (Plot Size: 30 ft ) 15 ft ) 5 ft ) 30 ft ) Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Yes No 50/20 Thresholds:20%50% Tree Stratum Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 35 If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegetationNo Mapped NWI Classification:Upland % Sphagnum Moss Cover: 10/5/2020 2:59:42 PM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (explain in remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface water present? Surface Water Depth (inches): Water table present? Water Table Depth (inches): Saturation present? (includes capillary fringe) Saturation Depth (inches): Stream GaugeMonitoring WellRecorded Data: Hydrology Remarks:No hydrology indicators were observed. Sample point is located on top of a berm inbetween two wetlands. Field Observations: Describe Recorded Data: Aerial Photo Indicators of wetland hydrology present?No Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Previous Inspections True Aquatic Plants (B14) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sampling Point:SP 2SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the abscence of indicators). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depth (inches) 0 - 30 Matrix Color (moist)% 30 - 36 - - - - 10YR 3/1 100 SCL 10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/6 Redox Features Color (moist)%Type [1]Loc [2]Texture Remarks 80 SCL 20 [1] Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains [2] Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils [3]: [3] Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Dark Surface (S7) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in soil remarks) Soil Remarks: Restrictive Layer (if present):Type: Depth (inches):Hydric soil present?No 10/5/2020 2:59:42 PM Appendix B Site Photographs Medley Park Photolog Photograph 1,eastern edge of the project area, view north Photograph 2, southeastern edge of project area, view west Photograph 3,center of baseball field, view north Photograph 4, native prairie planting on the southwest end of the project area, view west Photograph 5,overview of native prairie planting, view south Photograph 6, wetland 1, view north Photograph 7,northern end of wetland 1, view south Photograph 8, Southern segment of wetland 1, view southeast Appendix C MnRAM Wetland Management Classification MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3637 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7071 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P MnRAM 3.2 Digital Worksheet, Side 2 Question Description Rating Highest-rated: 1 Veg. Table 2, Option 4 0.22 0.3 TOTAL VEG Rating 0.22 L 4 Listed, rare, special plant species?n next 5 Rare community or habitat?n next 6 Pre-European-settlement conditions?n next 7 hydrogeo & topoDepressional/Flow Through#N/A 8 Water depth (inches) 60 Water depth (% inundation) 9 Local watershed/immedita drainage (acres) 10 Existing wetland size 0.82 11 SOILS: Up/Wetland (survey classification + site) 12 Outlet characteristics for flood retention A 1 13 Outlet characteristics for hydrologic regime C 0.1 14 Dominant upland land use (within 500 ft)B 0.5 0.5 15 Soil condition (wetland) B 0.5 16 Vegetation (% cover)30%M 0.5 17 Emerg. veg. flood resistance B 0.5 18 Sediment delivery C 0.1 19 Upland soils (based on soil group)B 0.5 20 Stormwater runoff pretreatment & detention A 1 0.1 21 Subwatershed wetland density B 0.5 22 Channels/sheet flow A 1 23 Adjacent naturalized buffer average width (feet)30 M WQ 0.5 L 0.1 24 Adjacent Area Management: % Full 60%0.6 2 0.8 adjacent area mgmt: % Manicured 40%0.2 adjacent area mgmt: % Bare 0%0 25 Adjacent Area Diversity & Structure: % Native 10% 0.1 3 0.51 adjacent area diversity: % Mixed 80%0.4 adjacent area diversity: % Sparse/Inv./Exotic 10% 0.01 26 Adjacent Area Slope: % Gentle 25%0.25 3 0.525 adjacent area slope: % Moderate 50%0.25 adjacent area slope: % Steep 25%0.025 27 Downstream sensitivity/WQ protection B 0.5 28 Nutrient loading C 0.1 29 Shoreline wetland? N N 30 Rooted shoreline vegetation (%cover )Enter a percentage 31 Wetland in-water width (in feet, average)Enter a percentage 32 Emergent vegetation erosion resistance Enter valid choice 33 Shoreline erosion potential Enter valid choice 34 Bank protection/upslope veg. Enter valid choice 35 Rare Wildlife N N 36 Scarce/Rare/S1/S2 local community N N 37 Vegetation interspersion cover (see diagram 1)4 M 0.5 38 Community interspersion (see diagram 2)1 L 0.1 0 39 Wetland detritus B 0.5 40 Wetland interspersion on landscape B 0.5 0.5 41 Wildlife barriers C 0.1 42 Amphibian breeding potential-hydroperiod A 1 43 Amphibian breeding potential--fish presence A 1 44 Amphibian & reptile overwintering habitat A 1 45 Wildlife species (list) Redwing black bird 46 Fish habitat quality C 0.1 47 Fish species (list) N/A 48 Unique/rare educ./cultural/rec.opportunity N N 49 Wetland visibility A 1 50 Proximity to population Y 1 51 Public ownership A 1 52 Public access A 1 53 Human influence on wetland C 0.1 54 Human influence on viewshed C 0.1 55 Spatial buffer B 0.5 56 Recreational activity potential C 0.1 57 Commercial crop--hydrologic impact N/A N/ADigital worksheet, section IIDigital worksheet, section IUser entry This comes in from Side 1 automatically using the weighted average. To use the highest rated veg. Community rating, please manually overwrite that value (shown to the right) into the field at E5. Enter data starting here. Yellow boxes are used in calculations. Scroll down to answer more questions and see formula calculations WETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version.xls 1 10/7/2020 MnRAM_3.2_Score_Sheet.xls 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P 58 GW - Wetland soils R R or D 0.1 59 GW - Subwatershed land use R R or D 0.1 60 GW - Wetland size and soil group R R or D 0.1 61 GW - Wetland hydroperiod D R or D 1 62 GW - Inlet/Outlet configuration D R or D 1 63 GW - Surrounding upland topographic relief D R or D 1 64 Restoration potential w/o flooding Y or N 3.3 65 Landowners affected by restoration E a b c Enter valid choice 66A Existing wetland size (acres) [from #10]0.82 __ acres 66B Total wetland restoration size (acres) __ acres 0.1 66C (Calculated) Potential New Wetland Area [B-A] -0.82 __ acres #### 67 Average width of naturalized upland buffer (potential)0 __ feet 0.1 value: #### 68 Likelihood of restoration success a b c Enter valid choice 69 Hydrologic alteration type Outlet, Tile, Ditch, GW pump, Wtrshd div., Filling 70 Potential wetland type (Circ. 39)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 71 Wetland sensitivity to stormwater E a b c 72 Additional stormwater treatment needs a b c Function Name Formula shown to the right. Vegetative Diversity/Integrity 0.22 L Hydrology - Characteristic 0.30 Low Flood Attenuation 0.64 Med Water Quality--Downstream 0.60 Med Water Quality--Wetland 0.26 Low Shoreline Protection N/A N/A Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure 0.28 0.28 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat 0.22 0.22 Low Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat 0.32 Low Aesthetics/Recreation/Education/Cultural 0.49 0.49 Med Commercial use N/A N/A 0 Special Features listing: - ____ Groundwater Interaction indeterminate GW source Groundwater Functional Index no special indicators Restoration Potential (draft formula) #VALUE! ##### Stormwater Sensitivity (not active)Final RatingRating CategoryFunctional Rating SummariesRaw scoreAdditional questions% effectively drained: WETLANDS_Function_MnRAM_Excel_Spreadsheet_Version.xls 2 10/7/2020 Appendix D Feasibility Level Cost Estimates PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 1 CREATED BY:TAO2 DATE:2/18/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: KJN2 DATE: 2/22/2021 PROJECT: Medley Park - Concept 1 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION: City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #: 23270051.51 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $107,500 $107,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Removal and Disposal of Tree < 7" Diameter EA 2 $390 $780 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Removal and Disposal of Tree 12 inch to 28 inch Diameter EA 5 $1,200 $6,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 508 $5 $2,539 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 24 $6 $144 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (36" RCP)LF 16 $30 $480 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Remove Existing Structure Each 1 $600 $600 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 586 $10 $5,863 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Excavation (P)CY 12,033 $9 $108,297 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Subgrade Excavation CY 1,971 $11 $21,686 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Contaminated Sediment Excavation CY 1,499 $20 $29,980 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 13,812 $20 $276,249 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 1,949 $30 $58,461 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 228 $45 $10,250 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Topsoil Import TON 722 $40 $28,885 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 1,367 $30 $41,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 V 12" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 25 $90 $2,250 1,2,3,4,5,6 W 12" RCP FES Each 1 $680 $680 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 X 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 401 $130 $52,130 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y 24" RCP FES Each 7 $1,000 $7,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Z 24" FES Trash Rack Each 2 $1,800 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA 48" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB 60" Diameter RC Drainage Structure with 5-foot Weir, Complete Each 2 $11,000 $22,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 10 $80 $800 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Restoration/Planting AC 1.4 $15,000 $21,300 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE Clean Washed Sand CY 1,053 $105 $110,530 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF Small Splash Block Assembly (Pipe Discharge)EA 2 $1,800 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 GG 6" Perforated Dual Wall HDPE Draintile Pipe and Fittings (no sock) (P)LF 632 $23 $14,536 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH 6" Draintile Cleanout and Cover Unit EA 3 $650 $1,950 1,2,3,4,5,6 II Planting Soil (75% sand, 25% leaf compost - MnDOT Grade II) (P) CY 526 $60 $31,580 1,2,3,4,5,6 JJ Plantings and Mulch SF 14,211 $5 $71,055 1,2,3,4,5,6 KK Dewatering LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,182,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$296,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,478,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$370,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS 1,5,6 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,848,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$1,479,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$2,403,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Medley Park - Concept #1 Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Cost Estimate\Engineers OPC_Medley_TAO2_Feasibility_02232021.xlsx Concept 1 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 1 CREATED BY:TAO2 DATE:2/18/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: KJN2 DATE: 2/22/2021 PROJECT:Medley Park - Concept 2 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION:City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23270051.51 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $124,300 $124,300 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Removal and Disposal of Tree < 7" Diameter EA 2 $390 $780 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Removal and Disposal of Tree 12 inch to 28 inch Diameter EA 5 $1,200 $6,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 249 $5 $1,247 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 24 $6 $144 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Remove and Dispose Sewer Pipe (36" RCP)LF 16 $30 $480 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 586 $10 $5,863 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Excavation (P)CY 13,236 $9 $119,124 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Subgrade Excavation CY 1,810 $11 $19,912 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Contaminated Sediment Excavation CY 1,499 $20 $29,980 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 14,339 $20 $286,783 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 1,949 $30 $58,461 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 170 $45 $7,667 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Topsoil Import TON 473 $40 $18,920 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 1,022 $30 $30,667 1,2,3,4,5,6 U 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 250 $130 $32,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 V 24" RCP FES Each 3 $1,000 $3,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 W 30" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 73 $150 $10,950 1,2,3,4,5,6 X 30" RCP FES Each 2 $1,310 $2,620 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y 30" FES Trash Rack Each 1 $2,300 $2,300 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z 48" Diameter RC Drainage Structure, Complete Each 3 $5,500 $16,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA 60" Diameter RC Drainage Structure with 5-foot Weir, Complete Each 1 $11,000 $11,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB 14' x 5' Precast Concrete Box Culvert LF 74 $1,040 $76,960 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC 14' x 5' Precast Concrete Box Culvert End Section Each 2 $14,500 $29,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 50 $80 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE Restoration/Planting AC 1.2 $15,000 $17,700 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF Clean Washed Sand CY 1,266 $105 $132,953 1,2,3,4,5,6 GG Small Splash Block Assembly (Pipe Discharge)EA 1 $1,800 $1,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH 6" Perforated Dual Wall HDPE Draintile Pipe and Fittings (no sock) (P) LF 1,099 $23 $25,277 1,2,3,4,5,6 II 6" Draintile Cleanout and Cover Unit EA 6 $650 $3,900 1,2,3,4,5,6 JJ Planting Soil (75% sand, 25% leaf compost - MnDOT Grade II) (P)CY 633 $60 $37,987 1,2,3,4,5,6 KK Metal Hand Rail LF 110 $225 $24,750 1,2,3,4,5,6 LL Plantings and Mulch SF 17,094 $5 $85,470 1,2,3,4,5,6 MM Turf Reinforcement Mat SY 100 $30 $3,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 NN Dewatering LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,367,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$342,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,709,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$428,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS 1,5,6 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,137,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$1,710,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$2,779,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Medley Park - Concept #2 ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Cost Estimate\Engineers OPC_Medley_TAO2_Feasibility_02232021.xlsx Concept 2 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 1 CREATED BY:TAO2 DATE:2/18/2021 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST CHECKED BY: KJN2 DATE: 2/22/2021 PROJECT:Medley Park - Concept 3 APPROVED BY: DATE: LOCATION:City of Golden Valley ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23270051.51 ISSUED:DATE: ISSUED:DATE: Stormwater Retrofit (Feasibility Design) Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $107,400 $107,400 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Control Measures LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Construction Layout and Staking LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $5,500 $5,500 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Coordinate Utility Relocation LS 1 $4,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Removal and Disposal of Tree < 7" Diameter EA 2 $390 $780 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Removal and Disposal of Tree 12 inch to 28 inch Diameter EA 5 $1,200 $6,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose Bituminous Pavement SY 508 $5 $2,539 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 24 $6 $144 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Salvage and Place Topsoil (P)CY 586 $10 $5,863 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Excavation (P)CY 18,875 $9 $169,875 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Subgrade Excavation CY 1,245 $11 $13,695 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Contaminated Sediment Excavation CY 1,499 $20 $29,980 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Clean)CY 19,373 $20 $387,460 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Offsite Disposal of Excavated Soil (Contaminated)TON 1,949 $30 $58,461 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Aggregate Base (CV), Class 5 CY 519 $45 $23,333 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Common Borrow Import CY 1 $16 $16 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Topsoil Import TON 407 $40 $16,296 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Bituminous Pavement (Typ)SY 1,556 $30 $46,667 1,2,3,4,5,6 T 24" RCP Pipe Sewer LF 119 $130 $15,470 1,2,3,4,5,6 U 24" RCP FES Each 4 $1,000 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 V 24" FES Trash Rack Each 2 $1,800 $3,600 1,2,3,4,5,6 W 14' x 5' Precast Concrete Box Culvert LF 74 $1,040 $76,960 1,2,3,4,5,6 X 14' x 5' Precast Concrete Box Culvert End Section Each 2 $14,500 $29,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Random Riprap, Class III with Filter Fabric TON 50 $80 $4,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z Restoration/Planting AC 1.1 $15,000 $16,800 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Metal Hand Rail LF 110 $225 $24,750 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB Turf Reinforcement Mat SY 100 $30 $3,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC Dewatering LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,181,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (25%)$295,000 1,4,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,476,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, & DESIGN (25%)$369,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 EASEMENTS 1,5,6 PERMITTING & REGULATORY APPROVALS 1,5,6 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,845,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -20%$1,476,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 30%$2,399,000 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 4 This design level (Class 4, 1-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-11) cost estimate is based on concept designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -20% to +30%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included. 5 Estimate assumes that projects will not be located on contaminated soil. 6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following construction. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials 8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars. 3 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available. OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Medley Park - Concept #3 ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE Notes 1 Quantities based on Design Work Completed (1 - 15%). 2 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time. P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\CIP\Capital Projects\2022 Medley Park\Feasibility\Workfiles\Cost Estimate\Engineers OPC_Medley_TAO2_Feasibility_02232021.xlsx Concept 3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (ENGINEERING SERVICES) THIS AGREEMENT is made this 9/21/2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between Barr Engineering Company a Minnesota corporation with its principal office at 7300 Market Point Drive, Ste. 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 (“Consultant”), and the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 (the “City”). RECITALS A. Consultant is engaged in the business of providing professional engineering consulting services. B. The City desires to hire Consultant to provide final design and construction observation services for the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project. C. Consultant represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide the City with the requested professional services. D. The City desires to engage Consultant to provide the services described in this Agreement and Consultant is willing to provide such services on the terms and conditions in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Agreement, the City and Consultant agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Services. Consultant agrees to provide the City with professional consulting services as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). Exhibit A shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals currently providing similar services. 2. Time for Completion. The Services shall be completed on or before October 31, 2023, provided that the parties may extend the stated deadline upon mutual written agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from the effective date and continuing until the completion of the project, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The City shall pay Consultant for the Services on an hourly basis according to Consultant’s fee schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Consultant’s total compensation for the Services, including hourly fees and expenses charged pursuant to paragraph 4, shall not exceed $353,000. The consideration shall be for both the Services performed by Consultant and the expenses incurred by Consultant in performing the Services. The City shall make progress payments to Consultant on a monthly basis. Consultant shall submit statements to the City containing a detailed list of project labor and hours, rates, titles, and amounts undertaken by Consultant during the relevant billing period. The City shall pay Consultant within thirty (30) days after Consultant’s statements are submitted. 4. Expense Reimbursement. In addition to hourly fees, Consultant shall be compensated separately for necessary out-of-pocket expenses at the rates set forth in Exhibit B. 5. Approvals. Consultant shall secure the City’s written approval before making any expenditures, purchases, or commitments on the City’s behalf beyond those listed in the Services. The City’s approval may be provided via electronic mail. 6. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: a. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; b. Consultant may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City upon providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City; c. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or d. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon Consultant’s failure to have in force any insurance required by this Agreement. In the event of a termination, the City shall pay Consultant for Services performed to the date of termination and for all costs or other expenses incurred prior to the date of termination. 7. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 8. Remedies. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the City because of a breach by Consultant, the City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons or entities, or any combination thereof. These remedies provided to the City for breach of this Agreement by Consultant shall not be exclusive. The City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or equitable remedies available because of Consultant’s breach. 9. Records/Inspection. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, Consultant agrees that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Consultant, that are relevant to this Agreement or transaction, are subject to examination by the City and the state auditor or legislative auditor for a minimum of six years. Consultant shall maintain such records for a minimum of six years after final payment. The parties agree that this obligation will survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant, and Consultant's successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all claims; lawsuits; causes of actions of any kind, nature, or character; damages; losses; and costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, professional services, and other technical, administrative or professional assistance to the extent caused by Consultant’s (or its subcontractors, agents, volunteers, members, invitees, representatives, or employees) negligent performance of the duties required by or arising from this Agreement, or caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by Consultant, or arising out of Consultant’s failure to obtain or maintain the insurance required by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation of liability to which the City is entitled. The parties agree that these indemnification obligations shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 11. Insurance. Consultant shall maintain reasonable insurance coverage throughout this Agreement. Consultant agrees that before any work related to the approved project can be performed, Consultant shall maintain at a minimum: Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability 1. Coverage A: Per State Statute 2. Coverage B: $500,000 Each Accident $500,000 Disease – Policy Limit $500,000 Disease – Each Employee Commercial General Liability 1. $2,000,000 General Aggregate 2. $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations Aggregate 3. $1,000,000 Each Occurrence 4. $1,000,000 Personal Injury Commercial Automobile Liability 1. $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage The Commercial Automobile Liability shall provide coverage for the following automobiles: 1. All Owned Automobiles 2. All Non-Owned Automobiles 3. All Hired Automobiles Umbrella Liability 1. $10,000,000 Each Claim $10,000,000 Annual Aggregate 2. The Umbrella Liability provides excess limits for the Commercial General Liability, Employers’ Liability, and Commercial Automobile Liability policies. Professional and Pollution Incident Liability Professional Liability insurance including Pollution Incident Liability coverage with limits of not less than $5,000,000 Per Claim/ $5,000,000 Annual Aggregate. Consultant shall provide the City with a current certificate of insurance including the following language: “The City of Golden Valley is named as an additional insured with respect to the commercial general liability, business automobile liability and umbrella or excess liability, as required by the contract. The umbrella or excess liability policy follows form on all underlying coverages.” Such certificate of liability insurance shall list the City as an additional insured and contain a statement that such policies of insurance shall not be canceled or amended unless 30 days written notice is provided to the City, or 10 days written notice in the case of non-payment. 12. Subcontracting. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign or transfer any rights under or interest (including, but without limitation, moneys that may become due or moneys that are due) in this Agreement without the written consent of the other except to the extent that the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Consultant from employing such independent consultants, associates, and subcontractors, as it may deem appropriate to assist it in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Any instrument in violation of this provision is null and void. 13. Assignment. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the other party’s prior written consent. Any assignment in violation of this provision is null and void. 14. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor. Consultant’s duties shall be performed with the understanding that Consultant has special expertise as to the services which Consultant is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. Consultant shall provide or contract for all required equipment and personnel. Consultant shall control the manner in which the services are performed; however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. The parties agree that this is not a joint venture and the parties are not co-partners. Consultant is not an employee or agent of the City and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of the City except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement. All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits. 15. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in effect as of the date Consultant agrees to provide the Services. Consultant’s guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, and subcontractors shall abide by the City’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and tobacco, drug, and alcohol use as defined on the City’s Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Policy, as well as all other reasonable work rules, safety rules, or policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of persons on City property, at all times while performing duties pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant agrees and understands that a violation of any of these policies, procedures, or rules constitutes a breach of the Agreement and sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement by the City. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits, and any addenda signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Consultant. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by the City and Consultant. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. If there is any conflict between this Agreement and Exhibits A or B, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. 17. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 18. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 19. Conflict of Interest. Consultant shall use reasonable care to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in its representation of the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, Consultant shall advise the City and either secure a waiver of the conflict, or advise the City that it will be unable to provide the requested Services. 20. Work Products and Ownership of Documents. All records, information, materials, and work product, including, but not limited to the completed reports, data collected from or created by the City or the City’s employees or agents, raw market data, survey data, market analysis data, and any other data, work product, or reports prepared or developed in connection with the provision of the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain reproductions of such records, information, materials and work product. Regardless of when such information was provided or created, Consultant agrees that it will not disclose for any purpose any information Consultant has obtained arising out of or related to this Agreement, except as authorized by the City or as required by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall grant or transfer any rights, title or interests in any intellectual property created by Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement; however, to the extent Consultant generates reports or recommendations for the City using proprietary processes or formulas, Consultant shall provide the City (1) factual support for such reports and recommendations; (2) a detailed explanation of the method used and data relied upon to arrive at the recommendation; and (3) a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the methodology used. All of the obligations in this paragraph shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 21. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other professional service providers for this or other matters, in the City’s sole discretion. 22. Data Practices Act Compliance. Any and all data provided to Consultant, received from Consultant, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with, and is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Consultant agrees to notify the City within three business days if it receives a data request from a third party. This paragraph does not create a duty on the part of Consultant to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. These obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. 23. No Discrimination. Consultant agrees not to discriminate in providing products and services under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion. Violation of any part of this provision may lead to immediate termination of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363A. Consultant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys’ fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of these laws by Consultant or its guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives and subcontractors. Upon request, Consultant shall provide accommodation to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all Services under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to utilize its own auxiliary aid or service in order to comply with ADA requirements for effective communication with individuals with disabilities. 24. Authorized Agents. The City’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, or designee. Consultant’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Katie Turpin-Nagel, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 25. Notices. Any notices permitted or required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to: CONSULTANT THE CITY Barr Engineering Company City of Golden Valley 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite #200 ATTN: Jeff Oliver Minneapolis, MN 55435 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55437 joliver@goldenbvalleymn.gov or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 26. Waiver. No waiver of any provision or of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provisions or any other or further breach, and no such waiver shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged with such a waiver. 27. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or affect the scope and intent of this Agreement. 28. Payment of Subcontractors. Consultant agrees that it must pay any subcontractor within 10 days of the Consultant’s receipt of payment from the municipality for undisputed Services provided by the subcontractor. Consultant agrees that it must pay interest of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Consultant shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from Consultant must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing the action. 29. Publicity. At the City’s request, the City and Consultant shall develop language to use when discussing the Services. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall not release any publicity regarding the Services or the subject matter of this Agreement without prior consent from the City. Consultant shall not use the City’s logo or state that the City endorses its services without the City’s advanced written approval. 30. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 31. Signatory. Each person executing this Agreement (“Signatory”) represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective organization. In the event Consultant did not authorize the Signatory to sign on its behalf, the Signatory agrees to assume responsibility for the duties and liability of Consultant, described in this Agreement, personally. 32. Counterparts and Electronic Communication. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be transmitted by electronic mail in portable document format (“pdf”) and signatures appearing on electronic mail instruments shall be treated as original signatures. 33. Recitals. The City and Consultant agree that the Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below. BARR ENGINEERING CO.: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY: By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ By: _________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: _________________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com 9/15/2021 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Scope for the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Final Design Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to continue providing professional engineering services to the City. We will do our best to justify your expression of confidence in us. This scope letter, along with the City’s professional services agreement (PSA), sets forth the Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Barr Engineering Company regarding the final design work for the flood mitigation and water quality improvement project in Medley Park. This project is critical to reduce flooding within the surrounding neighborhood communities and to improve the water quality of downstream water bodies, which includes Medicine Lake. This letter presents the scope of professional consulting services we will provide for your project, including the proposed work tasks, the cost estimate, and the schedule for the completion of the proposed work. This scope builds off of the Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study completed for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC; Barr, 2021). Introduction The following is our proposed approach for the final design, engineering, and permitting work to be completed for the flood mitigation and water quality improvement project in Medley Park, along with the construction administration and oversight effort. Medley Park is located in the City of Golden Valley east of Highway 169 and south of Medicine Lake Road. Medley Pond receives stormwater runoff from a drainage area of approximately 95 acres in Golden Valley and New Hope and discharges downstream to a small stormwater pond, Pond ML-2 (as named by the City of Golden Valley). Local residents also refer to this pond as Kings Valley Pond, which is named after the surrounding townhome community. The King Valley townhome community is particularly vulnerable to flooding during larger storm events and this proposed project will play a role in reducing flood elevations within the park and surround ing communities. The proposed project also includes a water quality improvement component to assist in the removal of sediment and particulate contaminants. Any improvements to runoff water quality within Medley Park will result in improvements to Medicine Lake, which is currently listed as impaired for excess nutrients. Reductions in sediment and pollutant loads to the lake can likely help address this impairment. The proposed tasks build on work completed during the BCWMC feasibility study. Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 2 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx Proposed Work Tasks Task 1: Development of Final Construction Plans and Specs Task 1 will include the development of the final construction plans and technical specifications for the Medley Park Stormwater Improvement Project. We plan to utilize the standard specifications from the City of Golden Valley (as applicable) and incorporate special provisions as necessary. The construction plans and specifications will be developed based on the field and desktop information collected during the BCWMC feasibility study. The information collected during the feasibility study includes: • Topographic, utility, and tree surveys • Geotechnical Investigation (two soil borings collected) • Wetland Delineations • Bathymetric survey of Medley Pond • Sediment cores from Medley Pond • Desktop Environmental Review • Desktop Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment • Desktop Cultural Resources Assessment Our scope for final design will focus on the following: • The realignment of the existing stream channel that currently discharges into the northeast corner of Medley Pond. • The box culvert connection between the stream channel re-alignment and a new stormwater pond. • The excavation of two new stormwater ponds within the western portion of Medley Park to increase the water quality treatment volume and flood mitigation volume within the park. • The removal of accumulated sediment and the expansion of Medley Pond to increase the water quality treatment volume and the flood mitigation storage volume. • Minimizing tree removal to the extent possible. • Erosion and sediment control and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). • Vegetation restoration and enhancement. • Other park-related improvements including the replacing/relocating of pedestrian trails, replacing/relocating of trail lighting, replacing/incorporating benches, overlooks and signage, and other landscape and habitat features. Through the design process, we assume monthly team meetings with key city staff (up to eight (8) meetings). Additionally, we plan to develop the construction plans and will provide for review and comment by City of Golden Valley staff at 50% and 90% completion (as required by the BCWMC). We assume design review will include the city engineer and other physical development staff, the parks and recreation director, parks maintenance supervisor, and the utilities supervisor. This task includes up to two (2) design review meetings with City of Golden Valley staff at Golden Valley City Hall (or virtual Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 3 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx depending on COVID-19 transmission rates) including review and comment on the 50% and 90% design plans. Engineering opinions of probable cost will be developed at 50%, 90%, and 100% design. This task also includes 50% and 90% design summary and presentation to the BCWMC Board of Commissioners and one (1) presentation to the Golden Valley City Council. Technical specifications will be developed for the project in this task. Barr will utilize the City of Golden Valley standard specifications (as applicable) and incorporate special provisions as necessary. The specifications will also address environmental management issues, including development of contaminated soil specification topics, a site contingency plan, and unit pricing in support of the project. The specifications will include topics for Contractor safety, contaminated soil/sediment management, and unit pricing for management of contaminated soil disposal and off-site reuse of clean soil. This task will also include the development of a long-term operation and maintenance plan for the flood mitigation and water quality improvement project, outlining maintenance activities and schedule based on the final design. The maintenance recommendations presented in the BCWMC feasibility study will be used as a starting point. Assumptions: We will utilize standard specifications used by the City of Golden Valley (as applicable); Meetings with City staff will be held at Golden Valley City Hall (unless virtual meetings are needed to address safety concerns related to changes in COVID-19 transmission). Deliverables: 50% design plan set, 90% design plan set, final construction plan set and technical specifications documents; Up to eight (8) monthly team meetings; Two (2) design review meetings; Two (2) summary presentations to the BCWMC commission ers; One (1) presentation to the Golden Valley City Council; One (1) operation and maintenance plan Task 2: Hydrologic and Hydraulic and Water Quality Modeling Task 2 will include the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) and water quality modeling of the proposed design. We will perform the modeling using the XP-SWMM and P8 models developed for the BCWMC Medley Park Stormwater Treatment Facility Feasibility Study to quantify the impact on the proposed design on flood elevations and on pollutant/nutrient reductions, respectively. The XPSWMM model will evaluate the impact of the flood mitigation project for the Atlas 14 2-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events. The P8 model will be used to quantify the estimated pollutant load reductions resulting from the project, focusing on total phosphorus and total suspended solids. A technical memo will be developed summarizing the results of the XP-SWMM and P8 models based on the final design. Assumptions: Utilize the BCWMC feasibility study XP-SWMM model to evaluate the Atlas 14 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events; Utilize the BCWMC feasibility study P8 model to quantify pollutant load reduction Deliverables: XP-SWMM and P8 models of the system final design; One (1) technical memo summarizing the modeling results Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 4 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx Task 3: Environmental Permitting For Task 3, Barr will perform the necessary environmental permitting activities for the Medley Park Improvement Project. Based on the concepts developed and the agency meetings that were held during the feasibility study, we anticipate the following environmental review and permits/approvals will be required before construction can begin: • Construction Stormwater General Permit from the MPCA (responsibility of the contractor) • Compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing dredged material (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/dredged-materials-management) • Compliance with the MPCA’s guidance for managing contaminated material and debris containing fill (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/c-rem2-02.pdf) • Compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act • City of Golden Valley Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit (responsibility of the contractor, no fee) • City of Golden Valley Stormwater Permit (responsibility of the contractor, no fee) The permitting process will commence upon completion of at least 50% design. The permitting process is anticipated to take approximately four (4) months to complete. The estimated budget includes payment of anticipated permit fees. Assumptions: The City will designate Barr as its agent for permitting, as applicable, allowing Barr to coordinate with regulatory agencies directly as questions arise. Deliverables: One (1) permit application package for all referenced permits Task 4: Public Engagement In an effort to keep open lines of communication with the residents around Medley Park following the BCWMC feasibility study, Task 4 includes preparing for and attending up to two (2) public outreach/open house style meetings (or virtual presentations/open houses depending on COVID-19 safety requirements) about the Medley Park improvement project design. The goal will be to hold one meeting earlier in the design process (30-50% design) and the second meeting later in the design process (~90% design). Assumptions: City staff will coordinate the public outreach meetings; Public outreach meetings will be held at Golden Valley City Hall or Brookview Community Center (unless virtual public engagement activities are needed to address safety concerns related to changes in COVID-19 transmission) Deliverables: Two (2) public outreach meetings Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 5 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx Task 5: Bidding, Construction Administration, Construction & Environmental Oversight, and Post- Construction Survey Subcontract Development Based on recent projects and discussions with the City, we have assumed the contract documents will be developed as two separate bid packages. The first bid package will include all work related to excavation, infrastructure, trails, and other park-related improvements. The second bid package will be in relation to the site restoration including preparation, seeding, plantings, and vegetation establishment over three growing seasons. In Task 5, we will develop the two sets of bid documents using the standard City of Golden Valley front end documents (to be provided by the City), prepare the advertisement for bid and attend up to two (2) bidding coordination meetings with City staff. We have assumed these meetings will be held virtually. We assume that bidding will be electronic, and that Barr will attend two virtual bid openings and will compile and review the submitted bids. We will be available to answer questions during the bidding and bid review period. We have assumed that Barr will work with the City to perform contract administration and project management during construction including day-to-day interaction with the contractor and residents, managing pay requests, and change orders. Barr will also attend one (1) preconstruction meeting and perform construction oversight (assuming a construction duration of up to 3-3.5 months (~70 working days)). Construction oversight will include general, environmental, and restoration oversight during the construction process and during the warranty period (see further discussion below). Additionally, we have included time to provide general construction assistance which includes construction engineering, requests for information, review of pay applications and/or change orders, and other tasks that come up during construction. Similar to the Liberty Crossing and DeCola Ponds B&C improvement projects, we have assumed Barr will attend weekly construction meetings (up to 15 meetings). We will also develop a subcontract with a DBE firm to perform a post-construction survey after excavation and dredging in order to quantify materials removed (to establish quantities for pay applications) and perform a final record drawing survey upon completion of the project. Construction oversight will include general field staff and environmental staff as needed based on conditions observed in the field during excavation. Environmental review and geotechnical investigation performed during the BCWMC feasibility study did not identify contamination concerns within the park (outside of the contaminated sediments in Medley Pon d). However, if unanticipated contamination is encountered during soil excavation, appropriate environmental staff will be sent to the site to determine observation and sampling needs. Currently, we have assumed one part-time environmental staff member on site for ten (10) days during construction for contaminated sediment removal and for unexpected environmental review needs during soil excavation. If field conditions require additional environmental staff review, sampling requirements, and implementation of the site contingency plan, Barr will reach out to the City to discuss options. We have assumed one part-time staff on site for general construction oversight including excavation of the native soils, installation of the box culvert, and re-alignment of the stream channel, for a duration of ~50 half-day site visits. During site planting and restoration and during the vegetation establishment and warranty period, we have assumed Barr staff will be available for up to ten (10) half -day site visits. Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 6 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx Dewatering will likely be necessary during construction and it is anticipated that the water can be monitored under a contingency plan and discharged to the downstream stormwater ponds (ML-2, ML-3). A special discharge permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer will likely not be needed. Assumptions: City will provide front end bid documents; Bid coordination meetings will be held at Golden Valley City Hall (or virtually for COVID-19 safety considerations); City will lead bid opening and compile and review bids, Barr will assist with review; Barr staff will be leading the contract administration and project management during construction; Barr will provide one (1) part time staff onsite during construction for an estimated construction period of ~50 working days; Barr will assess environmental review needs based on field conditions Deliverables: Two (2) Complete bid package and advertisement, Two (2) bid coordination meetings, One (1) preconstruction meeting; Up to 15 weekly construction meetings; As- built/Recording Drawing Survey (through DBE firm subcontract) Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with the tasks as described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, and is based on an October 5, 2021 start date. The proposed schedule reflects the time to move through the permitting process and assumes that bidding will happen after permits have been obtained. If the start date is later than stated, the schedule will shift accordingly. Task Description Estimated Hours Amount Estimated Work Period 1 Construction Plans and Specifications 1,300 $191,000 October 2021 – May 2022 2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic and Water Quality Modeling 130 $15,700 December 2021 – May 2022 3 Environmental Permitting and Review 75 $9,900 December 2021 – May 2022 4 Public Engagement 80 $10,500 December 2021 – May 2022 5 Bidding, Construction Administration, Construction & Environmental Oversight, and Post-Construction Survey Subcontract Development 610 $93,900 June 2022 – October 2023 Project Total 2,195 $321,000 October 2021 – October 2023 10% Contingency1 $32,000 Project Total with Contingency $353,000 1 - 10% contingency included based on discussion with City staff. Use of contingency will only be allowed based on authorization by City staff. Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE 9/15/2021 Page 7 W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2021\P175.21 City of Golden Valley Medley PK SW Retro FD\Final Files\MedleyPark_Proposal_FINAL_09.15.21.docx We will inform you of our progress through periodic e-mail updates, telephone calls, invoice details, and other communications. The total project cost of the services will not exceed $353,000 without prior approval by you and we will bill the City monthly. We understand you or your designees (Eric Eckman) have the authority to direct us. We will direct communications to you (and Eric Eckman) at the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road. Direction should be provided to Katie Turpin-Nagel at Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55435. Sincerely, _______________________________ _______________________________ Kurt Leuthold, PE Katie Turpin-Nagel, PE Vice President, Principal in Charge Project Manager EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule—2021 Rev. 12/26/2020 Rate* Description (U.S. dollars) Principal $160-295 Consultant/Advisor $185-250 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist IV $155-180 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist III $125-150 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist II $95-120 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist I $65-90 Technician IV $155-180 Technician III $125-150 Technician II $95-120 Technician I $65-90 Support Personnel III $155-180 Support Personnel II $95-150 Support Personnel I $65-90 Rates for litigation support services will include a 30% surcharge. A ten percent (10%) markup will be added to subcontracts for professional support and construction services to cover overhead and insurance surcharge expenses. Invoices are payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Any amount not paid within 30 days shall bear interest from the date 10 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18 percent per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable law. For travel destinations within the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Canada, meals will be reimbursed on a per diem basis. The per diem rate will be as published by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on the High-Low method. Full day per diem rates will be pro-rated on travel days. For travel destinations outside the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Canada, meals will be reimbursed based on actual expenses incurred. All other reimbursable expenses including, but not limited to, costs of transportation, lodging, parking, postage, shipping and incidental charges will be billed at actual reasonable cost. Mileage will be billed at the IRS-allowable rate. Materials and supplies charges, printing charges, and equipment rental charges will be billed in accordance with Barr’s standard rate schedules. Principal category includes consultants, advisors, engineers, scientists, and specialists who are officers of the company. Consultant/Advisor category includes experienced personnel in a variety of fields. These professionals typically have advanced background in their areas of practice and include engineers, engineering specialists, scientists, related technical professionals, and professionals in complementary service areas such as communications and public affairs. Engineer/Scientist/Specialist categories include registered professionals and professionals in training (e.g. engineers, geologists, and landscape architects), and graduates of engineering and science degree programs. Technician category includes CADD operators, construction observers, cost estimators, data management technicians, designers, drafters, engineering technicians, interns, safety technicians, surveyors, and water, air, and waste samplers. Support Personnel category includes information management, project accounting, report production, word processing, and other project support personnel. *Rates do not include sales tax on services that may be required in some jurisdictions. Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 4. Approve the Hennepin County Public Safety Radio Communications System Subscriber Agreement for the Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department Prepared By John Crelly, Fire Chief Summary The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the COUNTY and the USER with respect to the cooperative and coordinated purchase, lease, maintenance, technical and administrative support and use of portable, mobile, desktop and other end user radios by the USER on the COUNTY’s System. The System is a multi-site general purpose wireless communications system designed to provide, among other things, 95% area coverage reliability for portable radio operation above ground level in light to medium buildings throughout most of the County. Other USER benefits and services include, access to a statewide public safety radio communications system, multiple system redundancies with backup power, a wide range of talk groups, electronic identification of all radios on all transmissions, 99.999% microwave system reliability, encryption availability, system security, radio interoperability, 24 hour a day system monitoring and repair response, access to a pool of special event radios and USER radio user training. This subscriber agreement includes police, fire and public works radio systems. Financial or Budget Considerations Each department has budgeted for their own fees, based on the Appendix A: 2021 Annual Subscriber Fees and Appendix A: 2021 Time and Materials Charges Recommended Action Motion to authorize the signing of the Communications System Subscriber Agreement with Hennepin County. Supporting Documents • Communications System Subscriber Agreement (11 pages) CONTRACT No. A2110627 Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Communications Division 1245 Shenandoah Ln Plymouth, MN 55447 Regionwide Public Safety Radio Communications System Communications System Subscriber Agreement Between Hennepin County and Authorized Users Regarding: Use of the Regionwide Public Safety Radio Communications System, Lease, Maintenance and Repair of Subscriber Radios, Administrative and Operational Support of the Subscriber Radio Fleet 2 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a body politic and corporate, under the laws of the STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," A-2303 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427, acting by and through its duly authorized officers, hereinafter referred to as the "USER". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY operates a Local Subsystem as part of the Regionwide Public Safety Radio Communications System, hereinafter referred to as “System”; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has provided for the capability of Cities, Agencies, Districts and Other Authorized Users within the County to have access to the System; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY bears primary responsibility for the health, security and integrity of the System and other communications systems; WHEREAS, the USER has elected to participate as a subscriber with end user radios operating on the System; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY and the USER agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the COUNTY and the USER with respect to the cooperative and coordinated purchase, lease, maintenance, technical and administrative support and use of portable, mobile, desktop and other end user radios by the USER on the COUNTY’s System. The System is a multi-site general purpose wireless communications system designed to provide, among other things, 95% area coverage reliability for portable radio operation above ground level in light to medium buildings throughout most of the County. Other USER benefits and services include, access to a state wide public safety radio communications system, multiple system redundancies with backup power, a wide range of talk groups, electronic identification of all radios on all transmissions, 99.999% microwave system reliability, encryption availability, system security, radio interoperability, 24 hour a day system monitoring and repair response, access to a pool of special event radios and USER radio user training. 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF USER 2.1 Conformance to Statewide Emergency Communications Board (SECB), Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB) and COUNTY Standards USER agrees to be aware of and conform to all applicable standards, policies, procedures and protocols established or amended by the SECB, MESB and COUNTY related to use of the System including but not limited to System supported radios and equipment, radio user training requirements, radio operating guidelines, audit, monitoring and compliance. 2.2 Conformance to Federal Laws and Regulations USER agrees to be aware of and conform to all applicable Federal Rules, Regulation and Laws pertaining to use of the System including but not limited to the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended and Part 90 of the Federal Communications Commission Rules and Regulations. 3 2.3 Response to Improper Use In the event COUNTY informs USER that statistical analysis of System usage or other information indicates that USER personnel may have inappropriately used the System, or may have violated standards, policies, procedures, rules, regulations or laws regarding proper operation of the System, or may have violated the provisions of this Agreement, USER agrees to take immediate and appropriate investigative and corrective action to stop the violation and eliminate any reoccurrence. 2.4 Radio and Equipment Lease Fees USER agrees to pay to COUNTY all lease fees assessed to USER by COUNTY throughout the lease term in accordance with a lease policy established by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners for end user radios or other related equipment furnished to USER by COUNTY under this Agreement. The specific lease fee schedule established by COUNTY and the list of equipment leased by USER shall be detailed in Appendix A attached hereto, and such Appendix A shall be made a part of this agreement. 2.5 Subscriber Fleet Support Fees USER agrees to pay COUNTY all Subscriber Fleet Support Fees assessed to USER by COUNTY in accordance with a cost recovery policy established by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners for costs including but not limited to programming, software updates, technical support, administrative support, configuration support, access to the special event shared pool of radios, training support and other costs attributable to USER’s participation under this Agreement. The Subscriber Fleet Support Fees as stated in Appendix A. 2.6 Maintenance and Repair Fees USER agrees to pay COUNTY all fixed fees for Tier 1 maintenance and repair services; time and material charges for consumables and repairs not covered under Tier 1 service. The Tier 1 Maintenance and Repair Fees as stated in Appendix A. 2.7 Pass Through Metropolitan Emergency Services Board User Fees USER agrees to pay to COUNTY all user fees attributable to USER assessed to the COUNTY by the MESB, or its successor entity if applicable. The MESB user fees are set forth in Appendix A. 2.8 Invoicing and Payment Terms COUNTY will invoice USER monthly, or at other intervals as mutually agreed to in writing, for all fees specified herein. Principal charges for leased equipment will commence when the COUNTY is invoiced by the equipment supplier. All other fees specified in this Agreement will commence as follows: For radios activated on or before the 15th of the month, USER will be charged for the entire month. For radios activated after the 15th of the month, the fees will commence on the first day of the following month. Payment of all fees herein shall be made directly to the COUNTY in accordance with state and federal law governing the payment of claims and/or invoices. 2.9 Flow Down Metropolitan Emergency Services Board Contract Provisions USER agrees to comply with all applicable flow down provisions set forth in Appendix A. 2.10 Provisional Use of USER Purchased and Owned Radios and Radio Software USER may utilize radios purchased and owned by USER on the System provided that such USER’s radios and equipment shall be pre-approved for support by COUNTY. COUNTY shall have no obligation to support, maintain, or repair radios or equipment that are not pre-approved. Non-certified radios, or radios operating with non-certified software versions will not be allowed to access or use the System. If USER acquires radios or equipment that are not pre-approved, either party may immediately terminate this Agreement. 2.11 De-certification and Disposition of Obsolete Radios The SECB (Statewide Emergency Communications Board), MESB and/or COUNTY may de-certify previously pre-approved radios, equipment, and/or radio operating software versions which become obsolete for reasons including but not limited to: become unsafe to use, impair System performance, are 4 no longer supported by the radio Manufacturer, are no longer supported by the COUNTY, exhibit substantial defects, exhibit performance deficiencies, impair implementation of System upgrades, become unreliable, become economically unfeasible to maintain, etc. De-certified radios, equipment, or radios operating with de-certified software versions will not be allowed to access or use the System. USER agrees to dispose of obsolete radios, batteries and other equipment in accordance with applicable laws and rules regarding disposal of hazardous materials. 2.12 Limitation of Radio Programming, Radio Code Plug Programming Files and System Key File Regardless of ownership, all radios on the System shall be programmed only by the COUNTY, and the COUNTY shall retain an archived electronic copy of all radio code plug programming files and encryption keys files installed in all USER radios covered under this Agreement. The configuration of all radio code plug programming files and radio templates shall be subject to approval by the COUNTY before the radios will be activated on the System. All radio code plug programming files, system key files and encryption key files are the sole property of the COUNTY, and contain information that is classified as security information and non-public government data. Unless specifically authorized by the COUNTY in writing, USER may not directly or indirectly, or permit any third party to: view, read, print, extract, copy, archive, edit, create, clone, transfer, tamper with or otherwise compromise the security of any radio code plug programming file, system key file or encryption key file for any radio on the System. In the event USER learns that any party has improperly or fraudulently obtained radio code plug programming file information, system key file or encryption key file, USER will immediately notify COUNTY of the security breech. 2.13 Payment for Damaged Radios USER agrees to promptly pay COUNTY for all costs incurred to repair radios damaged for any reason, excluding normal wear and tear which is included in the COUNTY’s maintenance program, and also excluding damage which occurs while the radios are in the possession of COUNTY. 2.14 Risk of Loss for Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Radios USER assumes full risk of loss for COUNTY provided radios assigned to USER including special event and repair loaner radios temporarily assigned to USER which are lost, stolen, physically un-repairable or destroyed for any reason excluding damage which occurs while the radios are in the possession of COUNTY. USER will be invoiced, and agrees to pay, the remaining amount of the non-depreciated lease balance, for any lost, stolen or destroyed radios. Assessment of subscriber fleet support fees and Tier 1 fixed maintenance fees will be terminated upon such payment. 2.15 Notification to COUNTY of Lost or Stolen Radios USER agrees to immediately notify COUNTY of any missing, lost or stolen radios, so the radio can be deactivated on the system. 2.16 Radios Not Economical to Repair A USER radio which is covered under the annual Tier 1 fixed fee maintenance and repair services program listed in Appendix A which has malfunctioned, broken or failed, excluding a radio that is damaged, lost, stolen, destroyed or physically un-repairable as described in sections 2.13 and 2.14 above, and which the COUNTY determines cannot be economically repaired, by mutual agreement shall (1) be considered an ob solete radio, deactivated and terminated from the maintenance program with no additional fees payable by USER except the outstanding balance of fees due for services rendered before the radio was deemed not economical to repair (2) Considered an obsolete radio, deactivated and terminated from the lease program with no additional frees payable by USER. In the event the replacement option is chosen, the used replacement radio may, at COUNTY’s option, be reconditioned or rebuilt from salvaged parts and the COUNTY shall retain or assume ownership of the original failed radio and such radio may be salvaged for spare parts, rebuilt or otherwise disposed of by COUNTY. Further, if the failed radio is a COUNTY owned radio leased to USER, and the deactivate and terminate lease option is chosen, the COUNTY shall also retain ownership and disposition rights of the failed radio. 2.17 Assignment of Leased Equipment USER may terminate in whole or part the lease of radios or other equipment under this Agreement 5 provided USER assigns the leased equipment in writing to another authorized user who has a subscriber agreement in effect with the County and further provided that the Assignee agrees in writing to make all applicable payments to COUNTY including the remaining lease payments. 2.18 Prepayment of Leased Equipment USER may pay off the remaining amount of the non-depreciated lease balance, at any time during the lease term without any additional prepayment penalty. Title to the leased equipment shall transfer to the USER upon such payoff subject to the provisions of Section 3.2. 3. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNTY 3.1 Furnishing of End User Radios COUNTY will periodically solicit orders for new, additional and replacement radios from USER. This will normally occur on an annual basis, however USER may request radios at any time. Subject to budget availability and approval by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners, on USER’s behalf COUNTY will purchase radios, receive, inventory, inspect, test, program and install radios as requested by USER. COUNTY will assist USER in selecting and ordering radios that are purchased directly by USER for use on the System. 3.2 Financing of End User Radios and Transfer of Title Subject to budget availability and approval by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners, COUNTY will finance the purchase of radios for USER’s Public Safety operations (police, fire, EMS or Emergency Management) as requested by USER. The equipment lease period shall be for the expected useful life of the equipment, as determined by COUNTY and listed in Appendix A. The combined equipment will be depreciated over the lease period. Upon completion of payment of all principal to COUNTY, and execution by USER of any applicable Software License Agreements or Assignment of Rights Agreements regarding use of embedded software, COUNTY shall transfer title to the leased equipment to USER. 3.3 Radio Maintenance and Repair Services In accordance with the provisions herein, COUNTY will provide one tier of maintenance and repair services for USER radios. Tier 1 service will be provided at a fixed annual fee determined by the COUNTY and may be based on the model and age of the radio. Tier 1 service includes access to the shared pool of repair loaner radios. The fixed annual fee for Tier 1 service includes all parts, labor and other costs to provide maintenance and repair for internally malfunctioning radios and normal wear and tear. Normal wear and tear is anticipated degradation which normally occurs to the equipment in the regular course of work for the job position, assuming the user takes reasonable care and precaution. Tier 1 service excludes consumables such as batteries and antennas, and excludes radio accessories. Repairs beyond internal malfunctions and normal wear and tear including damage caused by negligence or accidental damage such as fire, water immersion, crushing, dropping from a moving vehicle, etc., and consumables will be assessed on a time and materials basis in addition to the fixed annual Tier 1 maintenance fee. Unless specifically excluded by COUNTY, all radios assigned for public safety operations on the System under this Agreement, regardless of ownership, will be provided with Tier 1 maintenance service by COUNTY and will be allocated the annual fixed costs. 3.4 Repair Loaner and Special Event Radios COUNTY will maintain a fleet of radios which will be made available to USER, generally on a first come first serve basis, for temporary assignment for special events, response to emergencies, or other similar events. USER may receive a temporary loaner radio to replace a radio taken out of service for maintenance or repair if the failed radio is covered under the Tier 1 annual fixed fee maintenance and repair services program listed in Appendix A. If there are more requests for loaner radios than can be accommodated, the COUNTY will prioritize allocations and may require that USER return repair loaner and special event radios early. 3.5 Allocation of System Resources COUNTY will allocate to USER, by mutual agreement, sufficient System resources including but not 6 limited to; Talk Groups, Radio Unit IDs, Alias IDs, etc. in order to provide USER with an equivalent grade of service afforded to other comparable System users. 3.5 Monitoring of USER Talk Groups COUNTY will periodically monitor talk groups allocated to USER for USER’s internal use for system management purposes including but not limited to maintenance, troubleshooting, system performance assessments, unusual traffic patterns (sudden jump in usage), policy and procedure compliance checks, etc. COUNTY monitoring of USER’s talk groups may occur at any time, for any duration, may be without notice and is subject to recording. 3.7 Radio Operator Training COUNTY will provide USER with access to end user radio training instructional materials provided to COUNTY from the SRB, MESB or other sources. For the deployment of immediate and near term radios as defined in the COUNTY’s Radio Purchasing and Deployment Plan adopted by Board Resolution No. 01-622R2, attached as Appendix B, COUNTY will assist USER in training USER’s personnel by providing a COUNTY radio trainer (or trainers) to work in conjunction with a USER provided trainer (or trainers) to deliver training to USER’s radio operators. Once the near term deployment is completed, USER will have primary responsibility for training new employees and for providing refresher training. 3.8 Database Administration COUNTY will manage and administer the System database records containing the information related to inventory, configuration, programming history, software version control, radio IDs, service levels, statistical usage analysis, etc. for USER’s subscriber radios used on the System. 3.9 Radio Station Licenses COUNTY shall hold and administer all FCC licenses on behalf of all users of the System. USER shall operate as authorized mobile, portable and control station units under the COUNTY’s FCC radio station licenses. 4. TERM AND CANCELLATION 4.1 Term of Agreement This Agreement shall be for an initial term of five (5) years beginning on the date executed by the COUNTY. through December 31, 2025. After the initial term and any subsequent extensions thereto, this Agreement will automatically be extended for an additional one (1) year term, for up to a maximum of three (3) of one(1) year terms beyond the initial term of five (5) years (“Renewal Term”), unless either party gives written notice of intent not to extend to the other party, at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the then current term. 4.2 Cancellation of Agreement This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon one hundred eighty (180) days’ written notice, provided that any such cancellation by COUNTY shall require action by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners. 4.3 Actions Upon Termination Upon expiration or cancellation of this Agreement as provided for herein, USER shall cease all use of the System including using the system with radios owned by USER. 5. MERGER AND MODIFICATION 5.1 Entire Agreement It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. 7 5.2 Amendments to Agreement Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement, except for revisions to Appendix A as provided for below, shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 6. DEFAULT 6.1 If either party fails to perform any material term of this Agreement, the parties shall cooperatively and collaboratively attempt to resolve the issue(s). 6.2 The failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. 6.3 If either party terminates agreement due to default, USER shall return all equipment for deprogramming. Following deprogramming activities COUNTY shall return all equipment to USER. User shall pay COUNTY the remainder of the balance of the original cost of the leased equipment which has not been recovered under lease payments. USER shall cease all use of COUNTY’s System. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Independent Parties It is mutually understood that this Agreement does not create an employment relationship between the parties, nor does it create a partnership or joint venture, nor does it constitute a cooperative agreement or joint powers agreement. 7.2 Liability Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. 7.3 Data Privacy To the extent applicable under federal and state law, USER, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers or subcontractors agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. 7.4 Records – Availability/ Access To the extent applicable under federal and state law, subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 (as may be amended), the USER agrees that the COUNTY, the State Auditor, the Legislative Auditor or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the USER and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the contract and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation. 7.5 Contract Administration In order to coordinate the services of the USER with the activities of the COUNTY so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, the party(s) named on the Delegation of Authority for Contracting Officers Technical Responsibilities as provided by User, shall manage this contract on behalf of the USER and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the USER. 8 7.6 Notices Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the Office of the County Sheriff at the address given below. Notice to the USER shall be sent to the address stated below. To COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator A-2303 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Copy to: Radio Systems Manager Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Communications Division 1245 Shenandoah Ln Plymouth, MN 55447 USER: City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 ATTN: Chief Jason Sturgis Chief John Crelly This Portion of Page Intentionally Left Blank 9 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL USER, having signed this contract, and the County having duly approved this contract on the ____ day of _____________, ______, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Reviewed by County Attorney’s Office By: Michael Bernard Date: Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office By: Tracey A. Martin Chief Deputy Date: Document Assembled by: By: Kristine Urbowicz Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA By: David Hough County Administrator Date: By: Sheri Selton County Administration Clerk Date: USER By: SHEPARD M HARRIS MAYOR Date: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Communications Division 10 Appendix A Communications System Subscriber Agreement Appendix A: 2021 Annual Subscriber Fees Device Type & Support Level HC Subscriber Fleet Support Fee1 MESB Fee2 State PTID Fee3 Tier 1 – All Radios $286.32 $8.28 Admin Only – All Radios $18.60 $8.28 Mobile Data Computer $537.24 $0.00 $360.00 Tri-Tech Software License fee (Field Ops) $180.00 Tri-Tech Software License fee (Desktop) $35.00 $360.00 1 Note: Currently billed as “Radio Fleet Fee” or “MDC Support Fee.” Tier 1 Subscriber Fleet Support Fee includes programming, maintenance, repair, software updates, technical support, database and configuration support, access to the special event shared pool of radios, repair loaners, training support, and other costs attributable to supporting the radio fleet. Fleet Support Fee for Consolettes (base radios) only covers maintenance and repair on the radio unit, it does not include parts for or repair of desktop remotes, wiring for remotes, antennas or antenna feedline. Tier 2 is no longer available. Admin only is available only when specifically authorized through cooperative agreement. The annual fixed price MDC fleet support fee includes: (1) All Core Software Support services described in the MDC Fleet Support Amendment to the Subscriber Agreement; (2) Diagnosis of hardware failures, including GPS receivers and commercial air cards. (3) Switching to repair loaner hardware; (4) Processing of hardware covered under manufacturer’s warranty or extended service plan; (5) Software setup for new and replacement MDCs (excluding installation in vehicle). 2 MESB Fee is a pass-through fee assessed by the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board for its radio related administrative expenses. 3 State PTID Fee is a pass-through fee assessed by the State of Minnesota for access to State Criminal Justice Database. This fee is ONLY charged for MDCs and desktops requiring this access. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Communications Division 11 Communications System Subscriber Agreement Appendix A: 2021 Time and Materials Charges Hourly Rates Communications Technician $50.00 Software Technician $105.00 Lead Communications Technician $60.00 Communications Engineer $69.00 Parts, Accessories, Batteries and Other Equipment Cost Plus 10% Markup for Administrative Costs External Contractor Repair Services Cost Plus 10% Markup for Administrative Costs Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 5. Approve Executive Search Consultant Contract with AB Strategic Security Group Prepared By Kirsten Santelices, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director Summary The City conducted a request for proposal (RFP) to find an executive search company who would lead the recruitment process for the open Police Chief position. The City selected America’s Best Strategic Security Group (ABSS): Mission Statement Our mission is to be a virtuous executive search and recruiting group specializing in the recruitment and placement of diverse professionals for organizations of every scale which promote equity, inclusion, equality, and acceptance of all. Our dedication to ongoing improvement, fostering a strong relationship-driven strategy to recruiting, and industry best practices will produce extraordinary value-based services to every client. Vision Strategically identify the talent and unleash their potential to build a better tomorrow for all. Values Our core value system is based on the principles of procedural and social justice. ABSS is led by former Police Chief Jesus “Eddie” Campa, and retired El Paso Lieutenant, Juan Carlos Wittke. Their team will lead a thorough international executive search, including significant community engagement, which will put the City in the best position to hire its next Police Chief. Financial Or Budget Considerations Contract not to exceed $30,415; covered by the General Fund. Recommended Action Motion to approve contract with AB Strategic Security Group. Supporting Documents • Professional Services Agreement (10 pages) 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR EXECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made this September 21, 2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between America’s Best Strategic Security Group, LLC a Texas limited liability company with its principal office located at 152 Aspen Road, El Paso, TX 79915 (“Contractor”), and the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 (the “City”): RECITALS A. Consultant is engaged in the business of providing executive search consulting services. B. The City desires to hire Contractor to provide executive search consulting services as part of its Parks and Recreation programming. C. Contractor represents that it has the professional expertise and capabilities to provide the City with the requested services. D. The City desires to engage Contractor to provide the services described in this Agreement and Contractor is willing to provide such services on the terms and conditions in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions expressed in this Agreement, the City and Contractor agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Services. Contractor agrees to provide the City with the services as described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Services”). Exhibit A shall be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. All Services shall be provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals currently providing similar services. 2. Time for Completion. The Services shall be completed on or before March 31, 2022, provided that the parties may extend the stated deadlines upon mutual written agreement. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect commencing from the effective date and continuing until the completion of the project, unless terminated by the City or amended pursuant to the Agreement. 3. Consideration. The City shall pay Contractor for the Services according to the terms on the attached hereto as Exhibit A. The consideration shall be for both the Services performed by Contractor and any expenses incurred by Contractor in performing the Services. Contractor shall submit statements to the City upon completion of the Services. The City shall pay Contractor within thirty (35) days after Contractor’s statements are submitted. 4. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated as follows: a. The parties, by mutual written agreement, may terminate this Agreement at any time; 2 b. Contractor may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the City upon providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the City; c. The City may terminate this Agreement at any time at its option, for any reason or no reason at all; or d. The City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon Contractor’s failure to have in force any insurance required by this Agreement. In the event of a termination, the City shall pay Contractor for Services performed to the date of termination and for all costs or other expenses incurred prior to the date of termination. 7. Amendments. No amendments may be made to this Agreement except in a writing signed by both parties. 8. Remedies. In the event of a termination of this Agreement by the City because of a breach by Contractor, the City may complete the Services either by itself or by contract with other persons or entities, or any combination thereof. These remedies provided to the City for breach of this Agreement by Consultant shall not be exclusive. The City shall be entitled to exercise any one or more other legal or equitable remedies available because of Contractor’s breach. 9. Records/Inspection. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5, Contractor agrees that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Contractor, that are relevant to the contract or transaction, are subject to examination by the City and the state auditor or legislative auditor for a minimum of six years. Contractor shall maintain such records for a minimum of six years after final payment. The parties agree that this obligation will survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor, and Contractor’s successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all claims; lawsuits; causes of actions of any kind, nature, or character; damages; losses; or costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, professional services, and other technical, administrative or professional assistance resulting from or arising out of Contractor’s (or its subcontractors, agents, volunteers, members, invitees, representatives, or employees) performance of the duties required by or arising from this Agreement, or caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by Contractor, or arising out of Contractor’s failure to obtain or maintain the insurance required by this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled. The parties agree that these indemnification obligations shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 11. Insurance. Contractor shall maintain reasonable insurance coverage throughout this Agreement. Contractor agrees that before any work related to the approved project can be performed, Contractor shall maintain at a minimum: Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 176.181; and Commercial General Liability in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury or death arising out of each occurrence, and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence for property damage, $2,000,000.00 aggregate. To meet the Commercial General Liability requirements, Contractor may use a combination of Excess and Umbrella coverage. Contractor shall provide the City with a current certificate of insurance including the following language: “The City of Golden Valley is named as an additional insured with respect to the commercial general liability, business automobile 3 liability and umbrella or excess liability, as required by the contract. The umbrella or excess liability policy follows form on all underlying coverages.” Such certificate of liability insurance shall list the City as an additional insured and contain a statement that such policies of insurance shall not be canceled or amended unless 30 days’ written notice is provided to the City, or 10 days’ written notice in the case of non-payment. 12. Subcontracting. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign, or transfer any rights under or interest (including, but without limitation, moneys that may become due or moneys that are due) in the Agreement without the written consent of the other except to the extent that the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Consultant from employing such independent consultants, associates, and subcontractors, as it may deem appropriate to assist it in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement. Any instrument in violation of this provision is null and void. 13. Assignment. Neither the City nor Consultant shall assign this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the other party’s prior written consent. Any assignment in violation of this provision is null and void. 14. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor. Consultant’s duties shall be performed with the understanding that Consultant has special expertise as to the services which Consultant is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. Consultant shall provide or contract for all required equipment and personnel. Consultant shall control the manner in which the services are performed; however, the nature of the Services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by the City. The parties agree that this is not a joint venture and the parties are not co-partners. Consultant is not an employee or agent of the City and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of the City except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement. All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City for any purpose, including but not limited to: income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts and eligibility for employee benefits. 15. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall exercise due professional care to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations in effect as of the date Consultant agrees to provide the Services. Consultant’s guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, and subcontractors shall abide by the City’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and tobacco, drug, and alcohol use as defined on the City’s Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Policy, as well as all other reasonable work rules, safety rules, or policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of persons on City property, at all times while performing duties pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant agrees and understands that a violation of any of these policies, procedures, or rules constitutes a breach of the Agreement and sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the Agreement by the City. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, any attached exhibits, and any addenda signed by the parties shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and Consultant, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the City and Consultant. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing signed by the City and Consultant. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the 4 referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. If there is any conflict between Exhibits A and B, the terms of Exhibit B shall prevail. 17. Third Party Rights. The parties to this Agreement do not intend to confer any rights under this Agreement on any third party. 18. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 19. Conflict of Interest. Consultant shall use reasonable care to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety in representation of the City. In the event of a conflict of interest, Consultant shall advise the City and, either secure a waiver of the conflict, or advise the City that it will be unable to provide the requested Services. 20. Work Products and Ownership of Documents. All records, information, materials, and work product, including, but not limited to the completed reports, data collected from or created by the City or the City’s employees or agents, raw market data, survey data, market analysis data, and any other data, work product, or reports prepared or developed in connection with the provision of the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City, but Consultant may retain reproductions of such records, information, materials and work product. Regardless of when such information was provided or created, Consultant agrees that it will not disclose for any purpose any information Consultant has obtained arising out of or related to this Agreement, except as authorized by the City or as required by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall grant or transfer any rights, title or interests in any intellectual property created by Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement; however, to the extent Consultant generates reports or recommendations for the City using proprietary processes or formulas, Consultant shall provide the City (1) factual support for such reports and recommendations; (2) a detailed explanation of the method used and data relied upon to arrive at the recommendation; and (3) a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the methodology used. All of the obligations in this paragraph shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 21. Agreement Not Exclusive. The City retains the right to hire other professional consultant service providers for this or other matters, in the City’s sole discretion. 22. Data Practices Act Compliance. Any and all data provided to Consultant, received from Consultant, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with, and is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Consultant agrees to notify the City within three business days if it receives a data request from a third party. This paragraph does not create a duty on the part of Consultant to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. These obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement. 23. No Discrimination . Consultant agrees not to discriminate in providing products and services under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance, or religion. Violation of any part of this provision may lead to immediate 5 termination of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363A. Consultant agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorneys’ fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of these laws by Consultant or its guests, invitees, members, officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives and subcontractors. Upon request, Consultant shall provide accommodation to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all Services under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to utilize its own auxiliary aid or service in order to comply with ADA requirements for effective communication with individuals with disabilities. 24. Authorized Agents. The City’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Kirsten Santelices, the Deputy City Manager/HR Director of the City, or designee. Consultant’s authorized agent for purposes of administration of this contract is Jesus “Eddie” Campo, or designee who shall perform or supervise the performance of all Services. 25. Notices. Any notices permitted or required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or upon deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to: CONSULTANT THE CITY Jesus “Eddie” Campo America’s Best Strategic Security Group, LLC 152 Aspen Road El Paso, TX 79915 jec@abstrategicgroup.com Kirsten Santelices City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 ksantelices@goldenvalleymn.gov or such other contact information as either party may provide to the other by notice given in accordance with this provision. 26. Waiver. No waiver of any provision or of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provisions or any other or further breach, and no such waiver shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged with such a waiver. 27. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or affect the scope and intent of this Agreement. 28. Payment of Subcontractors. Consultant agrees that it must pay any subcontractor within 10 days of the prime contractor’s receipt of payment from the City for undisputed Services provided by the subcontractor. Consultant agrees that it must pay interest of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the prime contractor shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from a prime contractor must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing the action. 29. Publicity. At the City’s request, the City and Consultant shall develop language to use when discussing the Services. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall not release any publicity regarding the 6 Services or the subject matter of this Agreement without prior consent from the City. Consultant shall not use the City’s logo or state that the City endorses its services without the City’s advanced written approval. 30. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be severed, and the balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 31. Signatory. Each person executing this Agreement (“Signatory”) represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective organization. In the event Consultant did not authorize the Signatory to sign on its behalf, the Signatory agrees to assume responsibility for the duties and liability of Consultant, described in this Agreement, personally. 32. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be transmitted by electronic mail in portable document format (“pdf”) and signatures appearing on electronic mail instruments shall be treated as original signatures. 33. Recitals. The City and Consultant agree that the Recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated into this Agreement. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally. Signature page follows.] 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have caused this Professional Services Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives in duplicate on the respective dates indicated below. AMERICA’S BEST STRATEGIC SECURITY GROUP, LLC CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY: By: _________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ By: _________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: _________________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES & FEE SCHEDULE Service Description Fee Jesus E. Campa Recruiter: Not to exceed 4 hrs. per week Unless authorized by City $50.00 per hr. Estimated 30 weeks at 4 hrs. a week= 120 hrs. billed Not to exceed $6,000 Juan Wittke Recruiter: Not to exceed 4 hrs. per week Unless authorized by City $50.00 per hr. Estimated 20 weeks at 4 hrs. a week= 80 hrs. billed Not to exceed $4,000 Administrative Administrative Fees not to exceed 2 hrs. per week Unless authorized by City $20.00 per hr. Estimated 32.5 weeks at 2 hrs. a week= 64 hrs. billed Not to exceed $1,300 Recruitment Brochure design Electrical Design & distribute electronically $1,000.00 Estimated 10 hrs. = $100.00 per hour Not to exceed $1,000 Marketing- Advertising, Posting, Job Advertising: social media, Websites, Job boards, Websites, etc. $9,000.00 Advertising costs built into the proposal Not to exceed $9,000 Questionnaire ABSSG recruiters will develop $75.00 per Includes preparation of the Not to exceed a written examination Candidate not questionnaire, $1,125 customized to the to exceed 15 dissemination of the organization's priorities and key unless questionnaire, analysis of domains of interest. ABSSG authorized by responses, and virtual will disseminate the City of Golden briefing with the questionnaire to the candidates, Valley. organization evaluate the questionnaires, and hold a virtual briefing with the organization. Recorded Online A recorded online interview $160.00 per Includes preparation of the Not to exceed Interview provides the organization to Candidate not video, preparation of the $2,400 evaluate technological to exceed 15 questions, creating links competence, demeanor, verbal candidates for candidates, uploading communication skills, and on- unless and downloading video, camera presence. ABSSG will provide a list of suggested authorized by the City of analyzing content, ranking candidates, Providing questions to the organization, Golden Valley detailed report to the city aid the candidates in completing the interview, and of Golden Valley email a link to the organization to view the interview. REFERENCE CHECKS ABSSG utilizes a two-level progressive and adaptive automated reference check system that provides insights on candidates' soft skills from a group f references. For example, in level one reference check, the candidate will provide three references who can attest to their character. The references can be relatives or friends. Level ll, the references must be professional, educational, or civil references. In addition, ABSSG provides a written $30.00 Level I not to exceed 15 candidates $120.00 Level II not to exceed 2 candidates. ABSSG will contact Level One references are relatives or friends that can help establish the character of the candidates. Level two references are separate from a background investigation Not to Exceed $45 Not to exceed $240.000 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION Social Security verification • Address history verification • Driving record (MVR) • Federal criminal records search • National criminal database search • Global homeland security search • Sex offender records search • State criminal court search (for current and previous states of residence) • County criminal, civil, and wants/warrants search (for every county in which Candidate has lived or worked) for previous IO years • Credit report (if desired) • Education verification • Employment verification (if desired) • Military verification if desired $400.00 (per candidate) not to exceed 2 candidates unless authorized by the City of Golden Valley If requested by the City of Golden Valley Not to exceed $800 COMPREHENSIVE MEDIA REPORT ABSSG LLC utilizes a state-of- the -art proprietary media search process. The media reports are put into a user- friendly format with the candidate's name highlighted each time it appears. $200.00 not to exceed 5 candidates unless authorized by the City of Golden Valley With the ease of manufacturing facts, a comprehensive media report helps us weed out manufactured facts and base our decisions on supported documented acts. Not to exceed $1,000 DISC® MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT The DiSC® Management assessment analyzes the candidate 's preferences in five vital areas: management style, directing and delegating, motivation, development of others, and working with his/her own manager. $160.00 not to exceed 5 candidates unless authorized by the City of Golden Valley Not to exceed $800 Travel For ABSSG Search Team to and from The City of Golden Valley All-inclusive if required for Face-to-Face meetings. Flights Car Rental Hotel Meals Incidentals. If the selection process is done virtual their will be no cost for travel. $2,300.00 total for 2 recruiters to travel to site. $00.00 cost to City of Golden Valley $2,300.00 per site visit to be determined by the City of Golden Valley If done virtual $2,300.00 per site visit. $00.00 for Travel TOTAL: The total is based off 20% of the approved FY120 Chief of Police Salary as per the City of Golden Valley website. 20% of approved salary 18% of approved salary With Travel (up to 2 trips) If done Virtual $30,415.00 Not to exceed $28,115.00 Not to exceed summary to the organization once all reference checks are completed. A minimum of ten (10) references must be provided by each candidate, and six (6) responsive references are required to produce a written re art. Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. D. 6. Update to Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Pilot Program for School and Public Safety Partnership Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary On June 15, 2021, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Robbinsdale School District to implement a new pilot program in which the City and the District will continue to work together to create a welcoming and safe environment in the District’s schools and the City will not provide a School Resource Officer at Highview Alternative Program or Sandburg Middle School. The District subsequently asked to change the wording of the recitals in the MOU. The substance of the agreement between the parties has not changed; however, staff recommends the Council approve the updated version of the MOU for clarity and consistency. Financial or Budget Considerations There are no new budget impacts as a result of this update to the MOU. The budget impact of the pilot program is discussed more fully in the June 15, 2021 memorandum to Council. Recommended Action Motion to approve updated Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Pilot Program for School and Public Safety Partnership Supporting Documents • Updated Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Pilot Program for School and Public Safety Partnership (3 pages) Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Pilot Program for School and Public Safety Partnership This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made by and between the City of Golden Valley (the “City”) and Independent School District 281 (the "District") (collectively, the “Parties”). RECITALS 1. The Parties have agreed to implement a new pilot program in which the City and the District will continue to work together to create a welcoming and safe environment in the District’s Highview Alternative School and Sandburg Middle School. 2. The parties wish to implement this pilot program based on their mutual desire to provide the most physically and emotionally safe learning environment for students. In furtherance of this goal, the parties wish to explore programs that they believe will build positive relationships between families, staff, and public safety. TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING 1. The Participants. The Parties shall be the City and the School District. 2. The City’s Role and Responsibilities. The City agrees to assume the following roles and responsibilities: a. The City will respond to 911 calls placed by the District. b. The City will continue to attend all safe school meetings. c. The City will engage with District staff pursuant to the District’s MTSS handbook. d. The City will continue to answer the District’s questions regarding building security and occupant safety. e. Subject to the City’s availability, the City will provide speakers on age appropriate subjects related to law enforcement, safety, community service opportunities to present to Highview and Sandburg students as requested by Highview and Sandburg administration. The City will communicate City hosted family and age appropriate events and community engagement and outreach opportunities to the District for continued school/community relationship building. 3. The District’s Role and Responsibilities. The District agrees to assume the following roles and responsibilities: a. Call 911 for emergency service when required. b. Invite the City to safe school meetings. c. Keep the City informed of changes to MTSS handbook and data trends that will require amendment of support. d. Inform the City of family and age appropriate events and community engagement and outreach opportunities to District families. 4. Ongoing Collaboration. The Parties shall meet at least once annually to discuss work completed during the previous year, work proposed for the year, and any proposed changes to this MOU. If the District requires additional services, such as police presence at specific events, the Parties will enter into a separate services agreement for those services. 5. Indemnification. Each Party shall be responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the greatest extent authorized by law. Neither Party agrees to accept the liability of the other. 6. Nondiscrimination. Both Parties agree they will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment to be employed in the performance of this MOU respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin or similarly protected statutes of the employee or applicant. Neither Party will, in the performance of this MOU, discriminate or permit discrimination in violation of federal or state laws or local ordinances. 7. Relationship of the Parties. It is agreed that nothing contained in this MOU is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing a partnership or joint venture between the Parties. Neither Party agrees to accept responsibility for the acts of the other Party or of the other Party’s officers, personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or servants. Any claims arising out of the employment or alleged employment, including without limitation, claims of discrimination, by or against a Party’s officers, personnel, employees, agents, contractors, or servants will in no way be the responsibility of the other Party. Neither Party will have any authority to bind the other by or with any contract or agreement, nor to impose any liability upon the other. All acts and contracts of each Party will be in its own name and not in the name of the other, unless otherwise provided herein. 8. Term. This MOU shall commence on July 1, 2021, (the "Commencement Date") and shall continue indefinitely until terminated. 9. Termination. Either Party may terminate this MOU, with or without cause, upon 60 days’ written notice to the other Party. 10. Amendment. The Parties may amend this MOU by mutual written agreement. Any such amendment shall only be effective if duly executed by the authorized representatives of each Party. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature page follows.] Executed the day and year first above written, by the parties as follows: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY: By: ______________________________________ By: _____________________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: ______________________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Approve Resolution No. 21-70 Accepting the Federal Grant Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) the American Rescue Plan Act Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The City of Golden Valley has been the recipient of $2,315,911 from the American Rescue Plan Act Funds (ARPA). The first half funds arrived July 27. The second half funds should arrive one year later or July 27, 2022. There are two broad categories that are ineligible uses of the APRA Funds: o Direct or indirect tax reductions, rebates, credits, etc. o Deposit into pension funds. Potential Allocation of American Rescue Plan Act Funds: Year One -thru December 2021 TH 55 Lift Station $770,000 PRISM-rent and food assistance $ 50,000 Discover St Louis Park $ 15,000 GV Historical Society $ 5,000 Broadband Boosters $ 25,000 Public Safety Technology Infrastructure $ 70,000 Equity and Inclusion Outreach Specialist $ 15,000 Brookview Facility- 3.1 $207,955 TOTAL $1,157,955 City Council Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 2 Year Two or later (2022-2024) Hennepin County Embedded Social Worker $ 60,000 Zane-Lindsey Water Improvements $750,000 PRISM-rent and food assistance $ 50,000 Broadband Boosters $ 25,000 Equity and Inclusion Outreach Specialist $ 61,800 Brookview Facility $211,155 TOTAL $ 1,157,955 Unlike the CRF funds through the CARES Act, these funds are available through December 31, 2024. As staff and council review the 2022-2023 Budget and 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program more projects may be defined that would benefit the City of Golden Valley residents and businesses. Staff will continue to review US Treasury guidance as periodically new items are added. Staff will be attending numerous meetings to discuss use of monies received. Each project will be brought back to council and approved before the monies are spent. Financial Or Budget Considerations All projects spending over $10,000 in total will need to be approved by City Council as per federal guidelines. Recommended Action Approve Resolution No. 21-70 Accepting the Federal Grant Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) the American Rescue Plan Act. Supporting Documents • Resolution No. 21-70 Accepting the Federal Grant Funds from American Rescue Pan Act (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 21-70 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS FROM AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021 the City Council approved Resolution No. 21-40 Accepting the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Established Under the American Rescue Act, and WHEREAS, Congress adopted the American Rescue Plan Act in March 2021 (“ARPA”) and WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley will receive a total of $2,315,867.34 in two installments, one was received on July 26, 2021 and the second will be one year later. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that grant funds will be used for those allowed expenditures by the US Treasury. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of September, 2021. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. F. Appointing Election Judges and Establishing a n Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, Resolution No. 21-71 Prepared By Theresa Schyma, City Clerk Summary As required per Minnesota Statute § 204B.21, Council needs to approve the a ppointment of the Election Judges and establishment of an Absentee Ballot Board for the upcoming general election. The Absentee Ballot B oard will have the responsibility of accepting and rejecting absentee ballots based on the criteria set in statute. The City Clerk has compiled a list of in dividuals who either served as election judges in 2020 or have expressed interest in serving in 2021. Only those individuals that complete the required training will be able to serve on Election Day. Recruitment is still ongoing and the list will be adjusted as needed. Additionally, the Hennepin County Elections Office will appoint an Absentee Ballot Board that w ill be responsible for accepting/rejecting a ll mail-in absentee ballots received at the Hennepin County Government Center. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not Applicable Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution No. 21-71 approving the appointment of Election Judges and establishment of an Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election to be held on November 2, 2021. Supporting Documents •Resolution No. 21-71 approving the appointment of Election Judges and establishment of an Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election on November 2, 2021 (2 pages) RESOLUTION NO. 21-71 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES AND ESTABLISHING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2021 WHEREAS, the City Clerk is the authorized Election Official for the City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 204B.21 requires persons serving as election judges be appointed by the City Council at least 25 days before the election; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has submitted for approval a list of election judges (Exhibit A) to officiate at the November 2, 2021 General Election; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has the authority to make any substitutions or additions as necessary to maintain the required minimum staffing levels while conducting the November 2, 2021 General Election; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 203B.121 states that an Absentee Ballot Board must be established by the City Council to facilitate the absentee ballot process for an upcoming election; and WHEREAS, the absentee ballot board is authorized to examine absentee ballot envelopes and accept or reject absentee ballots in the manner provided by Minnesota Statute; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley City Hall serves as an in-person absentee ballot center for the residents of Golden Valley and the Hennepin County Elections Office serves as a mail-in absentee ballot center for the residents of Golden Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Golden Valley City Council hereby approves the list of election judges, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to officiate at the November 2, 2021, General Election. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Golden Valley City Council approves guidelines establishing an absentee ballot board and authorizes the City Clerk to oversee the appointment and procedural processes for the City of Golden Valley. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on the 21st day of September 2021. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 21-71 EXHIBIT A Tracy Anderson Omar Ansari Rebecca Ansari Britt Marea Bakke Kirk Ballard Colin Bartol Roger Bergman Ian Black Pamela Blackamoore Karen Boehne Sarah Brady Bradley Brown Alison Bucklin Elizabeth Burgy Kathleen Burke- Scheffler Pat Butler Julia Calstrom Cristin Capron White Elayne Chiat Michelle Christensen Gary Cohen Christine Costello Carol Cummins James Curme Kathleen Day Daniel Decker Kay Decker Paula Deziel Beth Doughty Cheryl Dragotis Caitlin Ekegren Brian Erickson Erica Fair John Farrell Tom Farrell Celeste Gaspard Janet George Teresa George Dale Gerber Emily Gilmore Pierre Girard Norma Glagus Beth Glommen Cheryl Gustafson Susan Haggberg-Miller Nathan Haines Christopher Harwood Jennifer Haskett Cyndi Hasselbusch Daniel Hedlund Heather Hegi Laura Hermer Angela Higgins Jennifer Hoffman Diane Hoffstedt Richard Holcomb Liz Honey Claire Huisman Joe Hunziker Antoinette Ihrke Maria Johnson Gwen Jorgens Michael Knisely Tracy Koski Deborah Kotcher Barbara Krenn Robert Lang Julia L'Enfant Dustin Leslie Beth Lilja Margaret Macneale Theodora Blattner Prill Mason Abby McDonald Sandra Mendivil Steve Merriman Norman Mitchell Kari Moreau Kay Myers Kit Nisam Tara Olmo Bruce Osvold Dianne Osvold Jane Pagenkopf Thomas Parker Mark Pirkl John Polta Lisa Powell Robin Preble Laura Pugh Beverly Robinson Gary Rowland Barb Ruud Clare Sanford Janet Schultz William Schultz Sue Schwalbe Mary Sellke Carl Selness Richard Sienko Louise Simons Dean Smith Linda Stein Teresa Stephens Karla Stone Don Taylor Mindy Thompson Penny Thompson-Burke Marie Tiffin Barbara Tillman Hilary Toren John Toren Barbara Van Heel Sheila Van Sloun Helen (Toots) Vodovoz Connie Waffensmith Walter Waffensmith Jackie Wells Andrea Wiley Georgeann Wobschall Carrie Yeager Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 3. G. Set Date for Proposed Property Tax Levy Payable 2022 and 2022-2023 Budget Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Staff recommends that the City Council set Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. for the budget and levy public hearing. M.S.275.065 now requires that the City adopt a proposed budget and levy and certify the proposed budget and levy to the county auditor by September 30th. The county auditor will use this information to prepare and send parcel specific notices between November 10, 2021 and November 24, 2021. The meeting date and time are required to be announced at the time of the adoption of the preliminary levy and budget. Financial Or Budget Considerations None Recommended Action Motion to set the date of the Truth-in-Taxation (Proposed Property Tax) public hearing for Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:30 pm. Supporting Documents • None Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing – Preliminary Plat – 8810 10th Avenue North, 915 and 1021 Boone Avenue North Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Plann ing Manager Summary Academy of Whole Learning is proposing to consolidate the properties located at 8810 10th Avenue North, 915 Boone Avenue North, and 1021 Boone Avenue North into a single parcel. A school use is planned at this location. The existing building will be renovated and a future addition/expansion is expected. The consolidation of the underlying parcels would allow future construction to take place across what are now interior property lines. At its meeting on August 23, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the consolidation. The subject properties are zoned Institutional (I-1) and total 226,542 square feet in area. They front on 10th Avenue North and Boone Avenue North and are sit adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad to the north. The existing building is currently served by sufficient sewer and water service and the potential expansion to the south would be sufficiently served by existing utilities. Zoning Analysis Institutional (I-1) Lot Requirements For uses in the Institutional (I-1) zoning district, the principal structure must be set back 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right-of-way line. All front yards must be maintained as landscaped green areas and shall contain no off-street parking. Required side yards must be no less than 50 feet in width and required rear yards shall be no less than 50 feet in depth. One half of the required side and rear yards shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a buffer zone. The proposed lot consolidation would only give additional space for the site to meet the above requirements. The proposed lot would be 353 feet wide at the southern border, 630 feet wide at the eastern border, 349 feet wide at the northern border, and 662 feet wide at the western border; total 226,542 feet in area; and enable the school to expand the current building footprint without violating the setbacks relative to the existing interior lot lines. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 2 Additional Department Review The Fire Department reviewed the application and has determined that a fire hydrant should be placed on the northeast portion of the site. The existing hydrants in the area are all on the opposite side of the street, and should the building require the fire department, using those hydrants would force fire trucks to block the free flow of traffic with their hoses. It would also potentially cut off further access to the building via the north driveway. While there are multiple ways the applicant could satisfy the requirement for a hydrant, it is a condition of approval that a hydrant be placed in the northeast portion of the site. Engineering staff reviewed the application and determined that the drainage easements should be adjusted in the Final Plat based on final site grading. This is a condition of approval. Evaluation of Minor Consolidation According to Section 109-121 of the City Code, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor consolidations: Factor/Finding 1. A minor consolidation shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the minimum area and dimensional requirements for the Zoning District in which they are located, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. Standard met. The consolidated lot would meeting the minimum area and dimensional requirements and would have access from two abutting improved streets. 2. A minor consolidation may be denied upon the City’s determination that a resulting new lot is encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. Standard met. While a portion of the consolidated lot near the railroad is in the local floodplain, the lot as a whole is not encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness. 3. A minor consolidation may be denied if sewer and water connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot. Standard met. The consolidated lot is already served by sewer and water connections. 4. Approval shall be conditioned on the granting of easements for necessary public purposes. Standard conditionally met. Adjustments to drainage easements must made on the final plat prior to City Council approval. 5. Approval may be conditioned on the requirements of outside public agencies with jurisdiction. Not applicable. 6. Approval shall be conditioned on the resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 3 Standard conditionally met. 7. Minor consolidations of nonresidential parcels may be denied if new development will cause undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities or will adversely affect adjacent uses. Standard met. Engineering staff have determined the proposed development will not cause undo strain on adjacent roads or on public utilities and will not adversely affect adjacent uses. 8. Approval shall be conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee, sewer and water access charge, and pending or levied deferred assessments. Standard met. No outstanding fees, access charges, or assessments are required. 9. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor consolidation. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. Standard met. Financial Or Budget Considerations None Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for 8810 10th Avenue North, and 915 and 1021 Boone Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a fire hydrant in the northeast portion of the site, in accordance with the Fire Department’s needs. 2. The applicant shall dedicate all drainage and utility easements deemed necessary by Engineering staff and in accordance with final site grading plans. Such dedications shall be in place prior to approval of the final flat. 3. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final flat. Supporting Documents • Memo to the Planning Commission dated August 23, 2021 (4 pages) • Planning Commission Minutes dated August 23, 2021 (2 pages) • Site Plan dated June 17, 2021 (1 page) • Tree Inventory, dated June 17, 2021 (1 page) 1 Date: August 23, 2021 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Valerie Quarles, Community Development Intern Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Preliminary Plan for Minor Consolidation of 8810 10th Ave N Property address: 8810 10th Ave N Applicant: Academy of Whole Learning Property owners: Academy of Whole Learning Zoning District: Institutional (I‐1) Zoning District Lot size: 226,542 square feet (5.2 acres) Current use: Vacant (school use planned for 8810 10th Ave N) Future land use: Institutional Adjacent uses: Office, light industrial, railroad 2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County) 2 Summary Academy of Whole Learning is proposing to consolidate the properties located at 8810 10th Avenue North, 1021 Boone Avenue North, and 915 Boone Avenue North into a single parcel. A school use planned at this location. Existing Conditions The subject properties are zoned I‐1 Institutional and allow for places of worship, schools (with the exception of higher education), Class I essential services, and seasonal farm produce sales. The lots total 226,542 square feet in area. They front on 10th Avenue N to the south and are adjacent to Boone Avenue to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad to the north. The school is currently served by sufficient sewer and water service, and the potential expansion of the school to the south would be sufficiently served by existing utilities. Staff Review I‐1 Lot Requirements For uses in the I‐1 Institutional zoning district, the principal structure must be set back 35 feet from any front lot line along a street right‐of‐way line. All front yards must be maintained as landscaped green areas and shall contain no off‐street parking. Required side yards must be no less than 50 feet in width and required rear yards shall be no less than 50 feet in depth. One half of the required side and rear yards shall be landscaped, planted, and maintained as a buffer zone. The proposed lot consolidation would only give additional space for the site to meet the above requirements. The proposed lot would be 353 feet wide at the southern border, 630 feet wide at the eastern border, 349 feet wide at the northern border, and 662 feet wide at the western border, total 226,542 feet in area, and enable the school to expand its current footprint without violating the existing setbacks relative to the existing interior lot lines. Minor Consolidation Eligibility In the City’s subdivision code there are 3 conditions for a request to be considered for a minor consolidation action: 1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded registered land survey (RLS) 2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels 3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in new roads or utilities to serve the lots. The subject properties meet all three conditions to be eligible for a minor consolidation action. They were platted as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Golden Valley Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota in 1967. The consolidation will create less then four new parcels (1). Since no new public roads or utilities are required, the site will require no new public investment. 3 Additional Department Review The Fire Department has reviewed the application and has determined that a fire hydrant should be placed on the northeast portion of the site. The existing hydrants in the area are all on the opposite side of the street, and should the building require the fire department, using those hydrants would force fire trucks to block the free flow of traffic with their hoses. It would also potentially cut off further access to the building via the north driveway. While there are multiple ways the applicant could satisfy the requirement for a hydrant, it is a condition of approval that a hydrant be placed in the northeast portion of the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and determined that the drainage easements should be adjusted in the Final Plat based on final site grading. This is a condition of approval. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Consolidation According to Section 109‐121 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor consolidations with staff comments related to this request: 1. Minor consolidations shall be denied if the proposed lot does not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district, or if vehicular access is not provided from an abutting improved street. The new lot meets the requirements of the I‐1 Institutional Zoning District. 2. A minor consolidation may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lot is not buildable. The City Engineer finds that the combined lot is buildable. 3. A minor consolidation may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. The lot consolidation would not place an undue strain on City utility systems. 4. Approval of the minor consolidation may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The Engineering Department has found that drainage easements will need to be adjusted in the Final Plat based on the final grading of the site. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor consolidation, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. The streets adjacent to the site are owned by the City, so this regulation is not applicable. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 7. The minor consolidation may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee is not required for this subdivision since the lots were previously platted. 4 8. The conditions spelled out shall provide the only basis for denial of a minor consolidation. Approval will be granted to any application that meets the established conditions. All qualifications have been met. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor consolidation subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. The applicant agrees to provide a fire hydrant in the northeast portion of the site, in accordance with the Fire Department’s needs. 3. The applicant agrees to dedicate all drainage and utility easements deemed necessary by City Engineering staff, and in accordance with final site grading plans. Such dedications shall be in place prior to approval of the Final Plat. Attachments Civil Site Plan (1 page) Tree Inventory (1 page) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl. Roll Call Commissioners in person: Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Mike Ruby, Chuck Segelbaum Commissioners virtual: Rich Baker Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Myles Campbell – Planner Council Liaison present: Gillian Rosenquist 2. Approval of Agenda Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Johnson asked for an update on the remaining Comprehensive Plan Rezoning. MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the agenda of August 23, 2021. Motion carried. 3. Approval of Minutes Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from August 9, 2021. MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to approve minutes. Motion carried. 4. Informal Public Hearing – Consideration of Preliminary Plat Address: 8810 10th Ave North Applicant: Academy of Whole Learning Val Quarles, Community Development Intern, introduced the topic. The Academy of Whole Learning is seeking to consolidate the three parcels they own: 8810 10th, 915 Boone Ave North, and 1021 Boone Ave North. Staff noted the proposed conditions for the preliminary plat approval, and that the application otherwise met the City’s criteria for approval of a minor lot consolidation. August 23, 2021 – 7 pm City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm 2 Recommended Action Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat by Planning Commission, subject to conditions. Chair Pockl asked if any Commissioners had questions for staff. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the purpose of the lot consolidation. Quarles clarified that while, the school owned all three properties, the shared internal lot lines would impact the ability to expand the building, due to minimum required setbacks. Commissioner Brookins asked how the north side of the lot was considered side or rear yard. Quarles stated that it would be considered a side yard since it did not front a public street. Johnson asked about the condition regarding the provision of a new fire hydrant and who would be responsible for that cost. Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that the applicant would be responsible for the purchase and installation costs, while the city would become involved if maintenance were required long‐term. Pockl asked whether the applicant was aware of the fire hydrant and easement conditions. Staff affirmed that they were aware of all proposed conditions. Hearing no further questions from Commissioners, the Chair invited the applicant to address the body. Dan Noyes, with Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Noyes confirmed that they had planned for the hydrant with the Fire Marshall and that they were planning for the needed easements. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the site had vehicle access from Boone. Mr. Noyes noted that it does, and that the school was planning to use that access as the principal exit. Hearing no further questions from the applicant, the Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:17pm. No commenters were in person at the meeting. No commenters called into the official phone line. The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:18. Chair Pockl asked Commissioners for their discussion. Commissioner Baker noted what a great asset the school seemed. He had no issues with the proposal. Commissioner Segelbaum noted that the application seemed to meet the necessary requirements for a consolidation had been met, and that he felt it should be approved. He agreed with Commissioner Baker on the value of the School. Chair Pockl affirmed. Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for a motion. MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, with the conditions as written by staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum. The motion passed unanimously. DN DN DN BOONE AVENUE NORTHCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETW E T WETWETWET WET 5.0' 4.0' 4.0' 18.5' TYP. 9.0' TYP. dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com dwgmodels.com 25.0' MIN BUFFER 17 17 17 22 11 12 3 22 24.0' 4.0' 14 141414 15 14 14 3 20.0' 18.0' 18.5' TYP. 9.0' TYP. 24.0' 24.0' 24.0' 12.5' 45.0' 45.0' 10.5' 120.0' 80.0'8.0' 5.0' 8.0' 8.0'DATE: 6.17.2021CHECKED BY: E. BeazleyDRAWN BY: A. AndersonPROJECT NO.: 20XXXREVISION:0PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION1021 Boone Ave NGolden Valley, MNxxxxx6.8.2021C2-1SITE PLANRIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AREAS (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS dwgmodels.com PROPOSED TREES (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) Feet 1" = 30' 6030015 1 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION (SEE ARCH) 2 PROPOSED OUTDOOR PLAY AREA NOTES: 1.SEE THE NOTES SHEET (C4-1) FOR FULL SITE PLAN NOTES, WHICH ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS PLAN SHEET. 2.CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 3.SEE THE REMOVALS PLAN FOR PROTECTION OF EXISTING FEATURES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES TO REMAIN. 4.THE REMOVAL, PRUNING, AND/OR PLANTING OF TREES IN THE PUBLIC BOULEVARD REQUIRES AN APPROVED PERMIT FROM THE CITY FORESTER. ANY WORK MUST BE COMPLETED BY A LICENSED TREE CONTRACTOR. 5.INSPECTION CONTACT: THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE RIGHT OF WAY INSPECTOR ONE WEEK PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC CONTROL, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND COORDINATION OF ALL WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. NOTE: IF A ONE WEEK NOTICE IS NOT PROVIDED TO THE CITY, ANY RESULTING DELAYS SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 6.AS PART OF THE ROW PERMITTING PROCESS, TWO WEEKS BEFORE ANY WORK BEGINS THAT IMPACTS THE ROW IN ANY WAY THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE TO THE ROW INSPECTOR THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER OR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PROVIDED THERE MAY BE A DELAY IN OBTAINING PERMITS FOR THE WORK IN THE ROW. SAID DELAYS WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER 7.A FOUR-SIDED TRENCH BOX IS REQUIRED ON ALL EXCAVATIONS DEEPER THAN 5 FEET WHERE UNDERGROUND WORK OR INSPECTION IS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS. FOR ALL WET TAPS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS, A MINIMUM TRENCH BOX SIZE OF 8 FEET HIGH X 8 FEET WIDE X 10 FEET LONG IS REQUIRED. LADDERS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST EXTEND 3 FEET ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE TRENCH. SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENTS, DUCTS AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE UNDERMINED UNLESS A SUPPORT SYSTEM OR ANOTHER METHOD OF PROTECTION IS PROVIDED. TRENCHES IN EXCESS OF 20 FEET IN DEPTH MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE KEPT A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH. 8.CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY: ALL WORK ON CURBS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE DONE TO CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY A CONTRACTOR LICENSED TO WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK SECTION. SIDEWALK GRADES MUST BE CARRIED ACROSS DRIVEWAYS. 9.RIGHT OF WAY RESTORATION: RESTORATION OF ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ARE PERFORMED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT TO THE CITY FOR THE COST OF THE RESTORATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE TO SET UP A WORK ORDER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY REMOVALS IN THE STREET. PROCEDURES AND UNIT COSTS ARE FOUND IN STREET MAINTENANCE'S "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -ALL RESTORATION" AND ARE AVAILABLE AT THE PERMIT OFFICE. 1 2 3 EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN 3 3 4 PROPOSED PLAYGROUND AREA (SEE ARCH) 4 APPROX. DISTURBANCE LIMITS PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONS 5 PROPOSED 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6 PROPOSED ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP 7 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED STORMTECH RETENTION/FILTRATION SYSTEM 8 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA WITH 8" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB 9 B612 CURB AND GUTTER 10 PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION AREA 11 BLOCK RETAINING WALL AT ASTRO TURF EDGE. 12 PROPOSED NOSE DOWN CURB/ END OF CURB AND GUTTER 5 5 5 PROPOSED ASTRO TURF PLAY AREA 9 9 9 10 6 12 7 5 11 11 11 12 13 BUS DROP OFF AND LOADING ZONE 14 PASSENGER VEHICLE DROP OFF AND LOADING ZONE 15 APPROXIMATE WETLAND DELINEATION (NWI) 16 MONUMENT (BY OTHERS) 13 14 16 EXISTING GREEN SPACE PROTECTION AREA 17 ADJUST CATCH BASIN MANHOLE CASTING (SEE UTILITY PLAN) 17 15 15 8 18 PROPOSED FENCE (SEE ARCH) 18 18 18 9 19 NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARD PLATE GV-STRT-060 19 18 20 2' FLAT RIBBON CURB 21 PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP PER CITY STANDARDS 21 22 RE-STRIPE PARKING LOT 22 20 SEAL COAT EXISTING PAVEMENT219 23 PROPOSED STMH 1 23 9 10TH AVENUE NORTHBOONE AVENUE NORTH CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD508485865857596053545556837980818291909293949596979998100101103102104105106109108107262725241237891011121314333435383652787772717073746968676665646362617576494828232956181921201730462216314744454342414051393215878889437XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTREE PRESERVATION LEGENDEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMAIN4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMAINEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO REMOVE4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO REMOVEXXEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION4242EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONPROJECT NO.:ISSUE RECORD ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION SPERIDES REINERS ARCHITECTS, INC. 6442 CITY WEST PARKWAY SUITE 300 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, 55344 PH: 952-996-9662 WWW.SRA-MN.COM COPYRIGHT 2021 SPERIDES REINERS ARCHITECTS, INC CDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:I HERBY CERTI)Y THAT THIS P/AN, SPECI)ICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER9ISION AND THAT I AM A DU/Y REGISTERED /ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE /AWS O) THE STATE O) MINNESOTA. TERRY MINARIK, AS/A 42242 ;;;;2021 REGISTRATION NO.DATE SR a ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS P R E L IM I N A R YNOT FORCONSTRUCTION0162021 DESIGN DE9E/OPMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTCONFLUENCEwww.thinkconfluence.com530 N THIRD STREET, SUITE 120MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401PH: (612) 333-3702TREE PRESER9ATIONP/AN/101TREE PRESERVATION PLAN01L101 30'60'15'0'SCALE:1"=30' Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearings on Residential Street Light District for Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive 1. Project Hearing 2. Assessment Hearing Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer Summary At the September 9, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report for a new Residential Streetlight District (RSL) on Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive. The proposed project consists of installing five new decorative streetlight poles along Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive. The proposed streetlights are located on the property lines at the following locations: 2132 and 2144 Regent Avenue North 2160 and 2200 Regent Avenue North 2224 and 2244 Regent Avenue North 2225 Regent Avenue North and 5101 Minnaqua Drive 5125 and 5129 Minnaqua Drive Costs for installation of the poles and associated electrical would be assessed to 19 adjacent benefitting property owners. The total project cost is $13,700. As with all RSL districts, a quarterly fee would also be included on these property’s utility bill. The current fee rate for ornamental streetlighting is $12.79/quarter. Streetlight projects are typically initiated with a petition process. The requestor works with City staff to develop the scope, number of lights, and area of district. Staff then drafts a petition to send to the requestor for signatures. If 35% of signatures are obtained, a feasibility report is ordered and performed for the project. The feasibility report is then presented to City Council via public hearing where the Council votes on project approval. Financial Or Budget Considerations Current estimated streetlight costs are $13,700 for a per unit cost of $721 (plus county assessment fees if applicable). The project will be paid for upfront out of the City Street CIP and 100% reimbursed by the benefitting property owners via special assessments. City Council Regular Meeting Executive Summary City of Golden Valley September 21, 2021 2 Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution No. 21-72 accepting the Feasibility Report and Order Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements for Residential Street Light District on Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Supporting Documents • Location Map (1 page) • Resolution No. 21-72 - Accepting Feasibility Study and Ordering Construction of Certain Proposed Public Improvements on Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Residential Street Light District • Resolution No. 21-75 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Street Light Improvement Project • Feasibility Report (9 pages) !³ $+ $+ !³ !³ !³ !³ !³ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ !$+ !$+ !$+ !$+ !$+Regent Ave NToledo Ave NWindsor WayWestbend Rd M innaqua DrScott Ave NB assett Creek D r2021 2434 50502405 4925497523555005 505524102285 5100 226051105120 4930512651302244 2225 4940 2200 2201 22002201 2160 2157 216021202157 2144 2143 21442115 2115 21312132 213221502101 21172120 22245101 22242223 5125 5129 21205000211021492107211021042145 2100 2100 49202141 2030 4981 49552021 49452011 0 150 30075Feetby the City of Golden Valley, 6/25/2021 I Street Light Proposal Light Fixture $+Existing Decorative !³Existing Cobra Head !$+Proposed Decorative Street Lighting District Existing Street Light District New District RESOLUTION NO. 21-72 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON REGENT AVENUE AND MINNAQUA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council No. 21-69 adopted September 9, 2021, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer (the “Feasibility Study”) with reference to the proposed Improvement for Residential Street Light District on Regent Avenue and Minnaqua Drive, the improvement of the following: Residential Street Light District Five ornamental light poles installed on the lot lines of the following properties listed below: 2132 and 2144 Regent Avenue North 2160 and 2200 Regent Avenue North 2224 and 2244 Regent Avenue North 2225 Regent Avenue North and 5101 Minnaqua Drive 5125 and 5129 Minnaqua Drive WHEREAS, the Feasibility Study provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels; and WHEREAS, a council hearing was held on this public improvement on this day (September 21, 2021) at 6:30 pm The meeting was held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the City of Golden Valley under Minnesota Statute, section 12.37, ten days’ mailed notice and two weeks’ published notice of the hearing was given, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA: 1. The Feasibility Study is hereby approved. 2. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 3. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 4. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 5. The council will consider the assessment of abutting properties for at least 20% of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $13,700. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 21st day of September 2021. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 21-75 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR REGENT AVENUE NORTH AND MINNAQUA DRIVE STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT 1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for public improvements: Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessment 2021 Improvement Regent Ave N & Minnaqua Dr Street Light Improvements 10 4% 2022 $14,270.14 against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed assessments. 2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described. 3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of four (4) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2022, collectible in 2022, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter until the entire assessment is paid. 4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by November 12, 2021. Resolution No. 21-75 - Continued September 21, 2021 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Theresa Schyma, City Clerk R.J. Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY FEASIBLITY REPORT REGENT AVENUE AND MINNAQUA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL STREETLIGHT DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 4 Streetlights ............................................................................................................................. 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 4 Streetlights ............................................................................................................................. 4 ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING ....................................................... 4 Estimated Project Costs ......................................................................................................... 4 Streetlight Construction Costs ..............................................................................................................................4 Streetlight Quarterly Costs ...................................................................................................................................5 Proposed Project Financing ................................................................................................... 5 Special Assessments ...........................................................................................................................................5 Streetlights............................................................................................................................................................5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 5 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Proposed Residential Streetlight District Petition for Streetlights APPENDIX B Streetlights Assessment Roll 1 INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2021, a resident along Regent Avenue North requested street lights along a portion of Regent Avenue North between Westbend Road and Bassett Creek Drive. As part of the request, it was determined that this portion of Regent Avenue North as well as the adjacent Minnaqua Drive does not have streetlights and neither street is included in an existing Residential Street Light (RSL) district. A petition was routed for the proposed residential streetlight district that included both Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive. The signed petition is attached as Appendix A. The feasibility report will discuss the existing conditions of the street lights within the project area. In addition, the report will discuss the proposed project design, estimated project costs, and the proposed financing, including a preliminary special assessment roll. PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Streetlights Five ornamental light poles installed on the lot lines of the following properties listed below: 2132 and 2144 Regent Avenue North 2160 and 2200 Regent Avenue North 2224 and 2244 Regent Avenue North 2225 Regent Avenue North and 5101 Minnaqua Drive 5125 and 5129 Minnaqua Drive 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Streetlights • There are no existing streetlights in the project area. The surrounding areas are including in existing residential street light districts. There is an existing streetlight on the corner of Regent Avenue North and Westbend Road. There is also a streetlight on the corner of Regent Avenue North and Bassett Creek Drive. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS This portion of the feasibility report will focus on the proposed design of the project. The estimated project costs and project financing will be discussed later in this report. Streetlights Five ornamental light poles will be installed on the lot lines of the following properties listed below: • 2132 and 2144 Regent Avenue North • 2160 and 2200 Regent Avenue North • 2224 and 2244 Regent Avenue North • 2225 Regent Avenue North and 5101 Minnaqua Drive • 5125 and 5129 Minnaqua Drive New underground electrical service will be installed in conduit to power the light fixture at each pole. ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING Estimated Project Costs The estimated costs for the improvements outlined in this report are separated by the type of work and funding sources. These categories include streetlights. The estimated project costs include construction costs and an estimated 7 percent administrative cost. Discussion on the financing and funding sources for the proposed improvements is included in the next section of this report. Streetlight Construction Costs The estimated streetlight costs include installation of three new streetlights and all associated electrical work. Estimated Construction Costs = $ 12,800 Estimated 7% Admin Costs = $ 900 Estimated Streetlight Total = $ 13,700 3 Streetlight Quarterly Costs Each property within the new RSL district will be charged a quarterly fee based on the City’s fee resolution. The current rate for decorative streetlighting is $12.79/quarter. This amount is subject to change annually. Proposed Project Financing The proposed financing for the project is 100 percent special assessments to properties abutting the improvement area, located in the proposed RSL district. Special Assessments The proposed special assessments for the Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Streetlights are consistent with the City of Golden Valley Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The use of special assessments for financing public improvement projects is outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Streetlights The preliminary special assessment rate of $721.06 per unit with 19 units for a total cost of $13,700. Based upon the current schedule for the project, it is anticipated that the Xcel Energy agreement authorization and the Public Hearings for the Special Assessments and Project will be held at the September 21, 2021 City Council Meeting. As shown on Appendix B: Streetlights Preliminary Special Assessment Roll, the estimated amount of streetlight costs to be financed through special assessments is $13,700. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This feasibility report for the proposed Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Residential Streetlight District Project has been prepared in accordance with the Golden Valley City Council’s order on September 9, 2021. Engineering staff has determined that the improvements outlined in this report are feasible from an engineering perspective. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed improvements should be determined by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the Regent Avenue North and Minnaqua Drive Residential Streetlight District Project, as discussed within this report. Staff further recommends that the City Council authorize associated agreement with Xcel Energy Outdoor Lighting. Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Regent Avenue and Minnaqua Drive Proposed Residential Streetlight District !³ $+ $+ !³ !³ !³ !³ !³ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ $+ !$+ !$+ !$+ !$+ !$+Regent Ave NToledo Ave NWindsor WayWestbend Rd M innaqua DrScott Ave NB assett Creek D r2021 2434 50502405 4925497523555005 505524102285 5100 226051105120 4930512651302244 2225 4940 2200 2201 22002201 2160 2157 216021202157 2144 2143 21442115 2115 21312132 213221502101 21172120 22245101 22242223 5125 5129 21205000211021492107211021042145 2100 2100 49202141 2030 4981 49552021 49452011 0 150 30075Feetby the City of Golden Valley, 6/25/2021 I Street Light Proposal Light Fixture $+Existing Decorative !³Existing Cobra Head !$+Proposed Decorative Street Lighting District Existing Street Light District New District Petition for Streetlights Street Lights Assessment Roll STREETLIGHTS ASSESSMENT ROLL PID ADDRESS ASSESSMENT 18-029-24-23-0003 2101 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-23-0001 2115 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0055 2120 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0056 2132 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0057 2144 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-23-0061 2157 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0058 2160 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0059 2200 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-23-0060 2201 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-24-0060 2224 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-026-24-22-0184 2225 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-21-0067 2244 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-21-0068 2260 Regent Ave N $751.06 18-029-24-22-0186 5100 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 18-029-24-22-0185 5101 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 18-029-24-22-0187 5110 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 18-029-24-22-0188 5120 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 18-029-24-23-0020 5125 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 18-029-24-22-0189 5126 Minnaqua Dr $751.06 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $14,270.14 Golden Valley City Council Meeting September 21, 2021 Agenda Item 6. A. Adopting Proposed 2022-2023 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2022 and Consenting to the Preliminary 2022 Housing and Redevelopment Proposed Levy, Resolution Nos. 21-73 and 21-74 Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2021. The final property tax levy for pay 2022 will be adopted by the City Council on December 7, can be less than the proposed levy, but not greater. The property tax levy, included as part of the 2022-2023 Proposed Budget, is currently $27,927,443. The General Fund Levy portion is $22,291,855 and the Bonded Debt Levy is $5,635,588. At the meeting City staff will make a short presentation reviewing the Proposed 2022-2023 General Fund Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2022. Financial Or Budget Considerations The supporting documents set the budget for 2022. The budget is a plan that will give departments a guideline to conduct business. Recommended Action 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 21-73 for Proposed 2022-2023 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2022 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 21-74 Consenting to the Preliminary 2022 Housing and Redevelopment Proposed Levy Supporting Documents • Resolution No. 21-73 Adopting Proposed 2022-2023 Budget and Proposed Tax Levies Payable in 2022 (2 pages) • 2022-2023 Proposed Revenue Summary (3 pages) • 2022-2023 Proposed Expenditure Summary by Division (3 pages) • Resolution No. 21-74 Consenting to the Proposed 2022 Housing and Redevelopment Levy (1 page) RESOLUTION NO. 21-73 ADOPTING THE PROPOSED 2022-2023 BUDGET AND PROPOSED TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2022 WHEREAS, State Law requires the certification of a proposed budget and proposed tax levies no later than September 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council has met and discussed the proposed budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016C (B2822), the amount of $390,981 will not be levied due to the utilization of the franchise fees collected from gas and electric utilities, and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2013A (B2891), will contribute the savings of a reduced levy amount of $18,029 will not be levied in 2022 only, and WHEREAS, the debt service levy as established in the bond documents for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017B (B3114), the amount of $18,910 will not be levied due to the utilization of the internal state aid monies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that there is hereby levied upon all taxable property located within the City of Golden Valley the following amounts: General Tax Levy $22,291,855 Bonded Debt Levy: Brookview Center 1,218,300 Street Improvement Bonds 4,417,288 TOTAL Tax Levy $27,927,443 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk shall certify to the Hennepin County Auditor a copy of this resolution approving the property tax levies for collection in 2022 for the City of Golden Valley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed 2022 budget of the General Fund is $25,447,590 and the proposed 2023 budget is approved in concept only. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council declares its intent to take all necessary actions legally permissible to the submission and approval of the City’s budget and property tax levies both proposed and final. Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on the 21st day of September 2021. _____________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk 2019 2020 2021 2021 2021% 2022 2022 % 2022 2023 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2021 Concept AD VALOREM TAXES 4011 AD VALOREM TAXES 18,149,133 19,393,128 20,326,285 20,326,285 100.00% 21,437,750 22,291,855 109.67% 23,871,695 ALLOWANCE FOR ABATEMENTS/DEL (175,000) (175,000) (175,000) (175,000) (175,000) LESS HOMESTEAD CREDIT 4014 HOMESTEAD CREDIT 4012 PENALTIES & INTEREST 17,744 17,871 TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES 18,166,877 19,410,999 20,151,285 20,151,285 100.00% 21,262,750 22,116,855 109.75% 23,696,695 LICENSES 4023 LICENSE-NEW/USED VEHICLES 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 100.00% 4,800 4,800 100.00% 4,800 4025 LICENSE-TEMPORARY LIQUOR 900 200 900 200 22.22% 900 200 22.22% 200 4026 LICENSE-WINE ON/SALES 13,500 12,460 13,500 10,000 74.07% 13,500 10,000 74.07% 10,000 4027 LICENSE-LIQUOR ON/SALE 113,450 91,326 113,450 105,750 93.21% 113,450 105,750 93.21% 105,750 4028 LICENSE-LIQUOR OFF SALE 1,000 1,800 1,000 1,600 160.00% 1,000 1,600 160.00% 1,600 4029 LICENSE-NONINTOX ON SALE 3,375 3,150 3,375 3,000 88.89% 3,375 3,000 88.89% 3,000 4030 LICENSE-NONINTOX OFF SALE 450 1,100 450 600 133.33% 450 600 133.33% 600 4031 LICENSE-SUNDAY LIQUOR 3,000 1,639 3,000 2,400 80.00% 3,000 2,400 80.00% 2,400 4033 LICENSE-CIGARETTE 5,500 4,050 5,500 4,050 73.64% 5,500 4,050 73.64% 4,050 4034 LICENSE-DOG (KENNEL) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0.00% 1,000 1,000 0.00% 1,000 4038 LICENSE-GARBAGE COLLECTORS 3,300 5,000 3,300 3,300 100.00% 3,300 3,300 100.00% 3,300 4041 LICENSE-PEDDLER/SOLICITOR 570 120 570 300 52.63% 570 300 52.63% 300 4044 LICENSE-GAS STATION 3,575 4,275 3,575 4,125 115.38% 3,575 4,125 115.38% 4,125 4046 LICENSE-APARTMENT 83,960 100,415 83,960 83,960 100.00% 83,960 83,960 100.00% 83,960 4048 LICENSE-AMUSE DEVIC 150 90 150 90 60.00% 150 90 60.00% 90 4052 LICENSE-HEATING 14,325 10,726 14,325 13,000 90.75% 14,325 13,000 90.75% 13,000 4058 LICENSE-MASSAGE 5,740 6,262 5,740 5,740 100.00% 5,740 5,740 100.00% 5,740 4059 LICENCE-CHICKEN COOP/RUN 300 575 300 250 83.33% 300 250 83.33% 250 TOTAL LICENSES 258,895 248,988 258,895 244,165 94.31% 258,895 244,165 94.31% 244,165 PERMITS 4101 PERMIT-BUILDING 835,496 590,965 625,000 625,000 100.00% 625,000 625,000 100.00% 625,000 4102 PERMIT-PLUMBING 70,635 65,689 60,000 60,000 100.00% 60,000 60,000 100.00% 60,000 4103 PERMIT-SEWER 23,500 14,450 25,000 5,000 20.00% 25,000 5,000 20.00% 5,000 4104 PERMIT-HEATING 270,941 222,791 125,000 125,000 100.00% 125,000 125,000 100.00% 125,000 4105 PERMIT-WATER 3,100 850 2,500 1,800 72.00% 2,500 1,800 72.00% 1,800 4107 PERMIT-STREET EXCAVATING 80,026 82,436 30,000 28,000 93.33% 30,000 28,000 93.33% 28,000 4108 PERMIT-FIRE 10,046 20,137 5,000 20,000 400.00% 5,000 20,000 400.00% 20,000 4109 PERMIT-BILLBOARD 6,925 2,775 7,500 3,000 40.00% 7,500 3,000 40.00% 3,000 4114 PERMIT-TEMPORARY OCCUPENCY 4,000 600 2,000 0.00% 2,000 0.00% 4115 PERMIT-REFUNDS(20%) 2,409 822 500 500 500 500 0.00% 500 4116 PERMIT-GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSI 9,920 7,200 5,000 6,000 120.00% 5,000 6,000 120.00% 6,000 4117 PERMIT-TREE PRESERVATION 4,400 1,000 900 1,200 133.33% 900 1,200 133.33% 1,200 4119 PERMIT-ELECTRICAL 121,918 73,669 95,000 75,000 78.95% 95,000 75,000 78.95% 75,000 4120 PERMIT-FIREWORKS 100 300 100 100 100.00% 100 100 100.00% 100 4121 PERMIT-SPECIAL EVENTS 450 75 300 50 16.67% 300 50 16.67% 50 4122 ELECTRIC DOCUMENTATION FEE 3,102 18,670 200 13,000 6500.00% 200 13,000 6500.00% 13,000 TOTAL PERMITS 1,446,968 1,102,429 984,000 963,650 97.93% 984,000 963,650 97.93% 963,650 FEDERAL GRANTS (1) 4137.1 ARPA GRANT 121,800 4137 CARES MONIES 1,630,153 4137.1 CARES MONIES-HENN CTY 8,065 4131 FEMA GRANT 25,116 4132.1 FED VEST PROGRAM 4132.3 SAFE AND SOBER TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS - 1,663,334 - - - 121,800 - STATE AID/GRANTS (1) 4149 LOCAL PERFORMANCE AID 4150 FIRE POST BOARD TRAINING GRANT 72,520 4,786 11,685 25,000 11,395 25,000 11685.00% 25,000 4151 STATE AID 1,185 - 4152 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) - 4153 POLICE TRAINING 29,415 29,176 27,000 27,000 100.00% 27,000 25,000 92.59% 25,000 4153.1 TOWARDS ZERO DEATHS (TZD) 16,854 3,887 - 4153.6 VEST REIMBURSEMENT GRANT 2,339 - TOTAL STATE GRANTS 122,313 37,849 38,685 52,000 134.42% 38,395 50,000 129.25% 50,000 COUNTY AID/GRANTS (1) 4173 OTHER COUNTY GRANTS 21,445 - - - Proposed 2022 - 2023 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley 2019 2020 2021 2021 2021% 2022 2022 % 2022 2023 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2021 Concept Proposed 2022 - 2023 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley TOTAL COUNTY GRANTS - 21,445 - - - - - GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4191 CERTIFICATION FEE 10,530 12,690 7,500 7,500 100.00% 7,500 7,500 100.00% 7,500 4194 ADMIN LIQUOR LICENSE 1,000 500 500 500 100.00% 500 500 100.00% 500 4196 GENERAL GOVT-GEN SER 7,784 21,452 10,000 10,000 100.00% 10,000 10,000 100.00% 10,000 4197 FILING FEES 30 - 10 25 - 0.00% 15 4200 LIQUOR LICENSE CHECKING 2,900 2,500 2,500 2,200 88.00%2,200 88.00% 2,200 4203 COPY/MAILING FEES 80 21 750 50 6.67% 0.00% 4204 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REG 40 - - 40 4207 LEGAL FEES 1,949 100 - - TOTAL GENERAL GOVERMENT 24,313 37,263 21,260 20,315 95.56% 18,000 20,200 95.01% 20,215 PUBLIC SAFETY 4226 BRECK TRAFFIC CONTROL 28,933 22,369 28,650 28,650 100.00% 30,475 28,650 100.00% 28,650 4228 ALARM ORDINANCE VIOLATION 6,577 3,880 3,700 3,700 100.00% 3,700 3,700 100.00% 3,700 4229 SECURITY SERVICES 1,463 - 17,000 - 0.00% 17,000 0.00% 4230 POLICE DEPT CHARGES - - SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-281 102,253 57,616 66,000 - 0.00% 66,000 - 0.00% - 4231 FIRE DEPT CHARGES 41,637 850 44,000 850 1.93% 44,000 850 1.93% 850 4232 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEES 445 360 1,200 600 50.00% 1,200 1,200 100.00% 1,200 4233 ACCIDENT REPORTS 26 3 300 - 0.00% 100 0.00% 4237 NUISANCE VIOLATION 2,600 (350) 500 500 100.00% . 4239 ANIMAL IMPOUND CONTRACT-RO 3,995 2,660 3,000 3,000 100.00% 3,000 1,800 60.00% 1,800 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 187,929 87,388 164,350 37,300 22.70% 165,475 36,200 22.03% 36,200 PUBLIC WORKS 4258 PLANNING & ZONING FEES 12,013 8,150 7,500 10,000 133.33% 7,500 7,500 100.00%7,500 4251 CHGS FOR STREET DEPT 34,064 146 8,000 100 1.25% 8,000 100 1.25%100 4253 CHGS FOR PARK DEPT 185 - - 4254 WEED CUTTING 2,765 1,263 3,800 2,000 52.63% 3,800 3,800 100.00%3,800 4255 STREET LIGHT MAINT CHGS 167,027 170,974 160,000 170,000 106.25% 160,000 175,000 109.38%175,000 4256 CHGS FOR ENGINEERING (14,424) (11,386) - - - 4262 CHARGING STATION-CITY HALL 210 - - 75 - TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 201,840 169,147 179,300 182,175 101.60% 179,300 186,400 103.96% 186,400 PARK & RECREATION 4305 MISC INCOME-BROOKVIEW 55 900 1,000 1,000 100.00% 1,000 1,000 100.00% 1,000 4307 PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL 30,810 8,710 22,000 22,000 100.00% 22,000 22,000 100.00% 22,000 4308 LIQUOR PERMIT-BV 2,050 250 500 500 100.00% 500 500 100.00% 500 4309 ATHLETIC FACILITY RENTALS 49,315 36,646 48,000 48,000 100.00% 48,000 48,000 100.00% 45,000 4311.1 MEADOWBROOK RENTAL 28,195 9,323 28,000 28,000 100.00% 28,000 28,000 100.00% 28,000 4311.2 MEADOWBROOK PROGRAMS 9,757 3,192 8,000 8,000 100.00% 8,000 8,000 100.00% 8,000 4314 FINANICAL ASSISTANCE (37) (21) (1,500) (1,500) 100.00% (1,500) (1,500) 100.00% (1,500) 4315 FOOD TRUCK PERMITS 1,550 1,360 1,500 2,000 133.33% 1,500 1,500 100.00% 1,500 4316 SPONSORSHIPS - - 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 100.00% 1,200 4317 GV LOGO CLOTHING 1,148 707 1,500 1,500 100.00% 1,500 1,500 100.00% 1,000 4325.1 ADULT-ATHLETICS 12,590 750 21,600 7,000 32.41% 21,600 18,000 83.33% 19,000 4325.2 ADULT SOFTBALL 31,560 20,060 24,500 34,000 138.78% 35,000 37,000 151.02% 38,000 4325.3 ADULT-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 39,223 12,413 34,000 34,000 100.00% 34,000 34,000 100.00% 35,000 4355.1 YOUTH-ATHLETICS 29,836 12,930 76,000 30,000 39.47% 76,000 76,000 100.00% 76,000 4355.2 YOUTH-SUMMER PLAYGROUND 33,217 13,843 35,000 30,000 85.71% 35,000 46,000 131.43% 46,000 4355.3 YOUTH-PROGRAM & EVENTS 34,432 10,107 45,000 20,000 44.44% 45,000 45,000 100.00% 45,000 4389 FIELD MAINTENANCE FEES 14,480 12,000 12,000 100.00% 12,000 12,000 100.00% 12,000 4405.1 SENIOR-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 1,753 567 4,000 4,000 100.00% 4,000 4,000 100.00% 4,500 4405.2 SENIOR-TRIPS 63,465 3,396 58,000 58,000 100.00% 58,000 58,000 100.00% 60,000 TOTAL PARK AND RECREATION 383,399 135,133 420,300 339,700 80.82%430,800 440,200 104.73% 442,200 OTHER FUNDS 4433 CHGS TO CONSTRUCTION FUND 165,998 2,733 125,000 125,000 100.00% 125,000 125,000 100.00% 125,000 4434 CHGS TO UTILITY FUND 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 100.00% 275,000 275,000 100.00% 275,000 4435 CHGS TO BROOKVIEW FUND 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 100.00% 85,000 85,000 100.00% 85,000 4436 CHGS TO MOTOR VEHICLE FUND 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 4437 CHGS TO RECY FUND 51,500 51,500 51,500 51,500 100.00% 51,500 75,000 145.63% 75,000 4438 CHGS TO CEMETARY FUND 1,450 400 4439 HRA TRANS-ADMIN 4440 CHGS TO STORM UTILITY FUND 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100.00% 200,000 200,000 100.00%200,000 2019 2020 2021 2021 2021% 2022 2022 % 2022 2023 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated B VS E Concept Proposed 2021 Concept Proposed 2022 - 2023 General Fund Revenue Report City of Golden Valley TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 808,948 644,633 766,500 766,500 100.00% 766,500 790,000 103.07% 790,000 FINES & FORFEITURES 4155.1 DWI VEHICLE FORFEITURES - - - - - 4155 COURT FINES & FORFEITURES 260,565 148,672 165,000 126,100 76.42% 165,000 125,000 75.76% 125,000 TOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES 260,565 148,672 165,000 126,100 76.42% 165,000 125,000 75.76% 125,000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 4471 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 259,642 232,215 150,000 125,000 83.33% 150,000 150,000 100.00% 150,000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 259,642 232,215 150,000 125,000 83.33% 150,000 150,000 100.00% 150,000 TRANSFERS IN 4501 PERMANENT TRANS-MOTOR VEH 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 30,000 100.00% 30,000 OTHER REVENUE 4479 TOWER RENTAL 13,805 15,591 14,820 10,000 67.48% 14,820 14,820 100.00% 14,820 4480 BUILDING RENTS -BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE 127,200 127,200 127,500 127,500 100.00% 127,200 100,000 78.43% 100,000 -MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 100.00% 22,000 22,000 100.00% 22,000 -VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 100.00% 24,000 24,000 100.00% 24,000 4478 SPECIAL ASSESS COLL-COUNTY 8,189 13,592 6,000 6,000 100.00% 6,000 6,000 100.00% 6,000 4483 CONTRIBUTIONS & DONATIONS 191 1,150 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 195,385 203,533 194,320 189,500 97.52% 194,020 166,820 85.85% 166,820 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 4476 BURIAL CHARGE-CEMETERY 3,000 1,150 3,000 1,500 50.00% 3,000 1,500 50.00% 1,500 4707 PENALTIES-LIQUOR/TOBACCO 1,200 30 4474 SCRAP METAL 3,584 1,914 3,000 2,000 66.67% 3,000 2,000 66.67% 2,000 4486 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 7,082 2,500 1,000 40.00% 2,500 2,500 100.00% 2,500 4487 OVER AND SHORT (335) (202) 4488 RETURNED CHECK FEE 30 4489 ATM 627 117 300 300 100.00% 300 300 100.00% 300 4491 CERTIFICATION FEES 225 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 15,413 3,009 8,800 4,800 54.55% 8,800 6,300 71.59% 6,300 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 22,362,487$ 24,176,037$ 23,532,695$ 23,232,490$ 98.72% 24,651,935$ 25,447,590$ 108.14% 26,907,645$ 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT 001 COUNCIL 1001 COUNCIL $312,987 $301,861 $363,425 $329,115 $361,315 $376,955 $393,515 1002 PEACE COMMISSION 2,100 1,650 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1003 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 2,466 1,113 2,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1040 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 1,500 1,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1050 PLANNING COMMISSION - - 3,570 2,595 3,640 3,640 3,725 1060 PARK & OPEN SPACE COMM 670 17 1,100 250 1,100 1,100 1,100 1070 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - - 1,145 805 1,145 1,145 1,145 1142 ELECTIONS 23,995 65,001 28,465 33,115 58,970 67,370 44,120 TOTAL DIVISION (001)343,718 371,142 404,205 373,880 434,170 458,210 451,605 003 CITY MANAGER 1030 CITY MANAGER 777,565 940,726 1,082,250 1,081,730 1,143,275 1,285,825 1,373,465 TOTAL DIVISION (003)777,565 940,726 1,082,250 1,081,730 1,143,275 1,285,825 1,373,465 004 TRANSFERS OUT 1025 TRANSFERS OUT 2,207,580 2,567,580 2,717,580 2,717,580 2,800,000 2,750,000 2,850,000 TOTAL DIVISION (004)2,207,580 2,567,580 2,717,580 2,717,580 2,800,000 2,750,000 2,850,000 005 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1101 GENERAL SERVICES 778,235 829,264 831,600 844,435 837,355 877,235 900,300 1102 ACCOUNTING 297,035 301,353 340,530 316,820 366,035 437,890 466,840 1105 COMPUTER SERVICES 891,996 1,064,922 1,099,300 1,160,050 1,181,370 1,257,905 1,291,370 TOTAL DIVISION (005)1,967,266 2,195,539 2,271,430 2,321,305 2,384,760 2,573,030 2,658,510 006 LEGAL SERVICES 1121 LEGAL SERVICES 181,240 203,749 204,605 226,175 412,965 428,045 441,390 TOTAL DIVISION (006)181,240 203,749 204,605 226,175 412,965 428,045 441,390 007 RISK MANAGEMENT 1115 INSURANCE 316,205 318,902 350,000 350,000 350,000 355,000 360,000 TOTAL DIVISION (007)316,205 318,902 350,000 350,000 350,000 355,000 360,000 011 BUILDING OPERATIONS 1180 BUILDING OPERATIONS 703,237 662,487 753,160 769,785 755,875 816,045 818,300 TOTAL DIVISION (011)703,237 662,487 753,160 769,785 755,875 816,045 818,300 016 PLANNING 1166 PLANNING 346,280 414,321 379,140 380,450 405,110 392,330 423,110 TOTAL DIVISION (016)346,280 414,321 379,140 380,450 405,110 392,330 423,110 018 INSPECTIONS 1162 INSPECTIONS 806,258 749,003 815,655 786,180 845,990 912,335 941,210 TOTAL DIVISION (018)806,258 749,003 815,655 786,180 845,990 912,335 941,210 / PROGRAM DIVISION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2022 - 2023 OPERATING BUDGET 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT / PROGRAM DIVISION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2022 - 2023 OPERATING BUDGET 022 POLICE 1300 POLICE ADMINISTRATION 1,048,558 1,235,765 1,265,245 1,248,870 1,517,820 1,736,955 1,775,865 1320 POLICE OPERATIONS 4,595,273 5,003,688 5,154,255 5,153,275 5,816,495 5,441,620 5,990,585 1323 SAFE AND SOBER 16,138 3,178 - - - - - 1324 POLICE SECUITY SERVICE-POTU 6,915 1,456 - - - - - 1130 PROSECUTION AND COURT 262,437 168,523 312,535 300,535 - - - TOTAL DIVISION (022)5,929,321 6,412,610 6,732,035 6,702,680 7,334,315 7,178,575 7,766,450 023 FIRE 1346 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 1,356,343 1,320,993 1,679,195 1,590,320 1,780,660 1,843,165 2,058,780 TOTAL DIVISION (023)1,356,343 1,320,993 1,679,195 1,590,320 1,780,660 1,843,165 2,058,780 035 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 1400 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 304,176 328,200 325,220 334,755 332,740 350,690 402,810 TOTAL DIVISION (035)304,176 328,200 325,220 334,755 332,740 350,690 402,810 036 ENGINEERING 1420 GENERAL ENGINEERING 476,549 731,423 609,730 633,605 616,105 819,975 840,025 1452 MISC CONCRETE REPAIR 10,925 - - - - - - TOTAL DIVISION (036)487,474 731,423 609,730 633,605 616,105 819,975 840,025 037 STREETS 1440 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,678,603 1,313,843 1,799,695 1,808,960 1,832,410 1,936,330 2,107,560 1448 SNOW AND ICE CONTROL 334,014 205,641 243,005 239,440 246,985 246,985 240,360 1449 STREET LIGHTS 200,028 233,074 235,000 235,000 235,000 237,500 237,500 1450 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 34,233 29,984 53,000 53,000 53,000 54,000 55,500 TOTAL DIVISION (037)2,246,878 1,782,542 2,330,700 2,336,400 2,367,395 2,474,815 2,640,920 066 PARK AND REC ADMINISTRATION 1600 PARK AND REC ADM 772,488 801,996 859,980 866,145 888,205 928,445 967,060 TOTAL DIVISION (066)772,488 801,996 859,980 866,145 888,205 928,445 967,060 067 PARK MAINTENANCE 1620 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,034,851 1,119,804 1,152,410 1,164,330 1,176,695 1,208,890 1,232,280 1646 TREE MAINTENANCE 172,602 192,036 213,135 227,050 227,700 243,665 246,850 TOTAL DIVISION (067)1,207,453 1,311,840 1,365,545 1,391,380 1,404,395 1,452,555 1,479,130 068 PARK AND REC PROGRAMS ADULT PROGRAMS: 1596 ADULT-ATHLETICS 7,344 1,989 15,800 16,400 15,800 17,785 18,375 1597 ADULT-SOFTBALL 22,721 17,009 29,250 27,140 29,250 31,400 32,400 1680 ADULT-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 34,086 10,928 30,975 30,975 30,975 30,995 31,015 TOTAL ADULT PROGRAMS 64,151 29,926 76,025 74,515 76,025 80,180 81,790 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED ESTIMATED CONCEPT PROPOSED CONCEPT / PROGRAM DIVISION CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2022 - 2023 OPERATING BUDGET YOUTH PROGRAMS: 1660 YOUTH-SUMMER PLAYGROUND 58,305 26,059 67,225 59,325 65,225 80,100 80,100 1670 YOUTH-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 27,046 8,436 55,530 28,680 55,530 55,530 55,530 1673 YOUTH-ATHLETICS 27,873 15,179 54,235 25,935 54,235 54,235 55,960 1679 YOUTH-RINK SUPERVISION 23,235 25,450 25,300 25,300 25,300 25,300 27,300 TOTAL YOUTH PROGRAMS 136,459 75,124 202,290 139,240 200,290 215,165 218,890 SENIOR PROGRAMS: 1691 SENIOR-PROGRAMS & EVENTS 24,179 6,667 30,430 30,430 30,430 30,430 30,925 1694 SENIOR-TRIPS 58,081 5,118 56,200 56,200 56,200 55,700 56,200 TOTAL SENIOR PROGRAMS 82,260 11,785 86,630 86,630 86,630 86,130 87,125 RONALD B DAVIS COMM CTR: 1695 MEADOWBROOK COMM CTR 33,549 37,541 45,820 44,015 45,820 47,075 47,075 TOTAL RONALD B DAVIS COMM C 33,549 37,541 45,820 44,015 45,820 47,075 47,075 TOTAL DIVISION (068)316,419 154,376 410,765 344,400 408,765 428,550 434,880 099 CONTINGENCIES 1900 CONTINGENCIES - 396,343 240,000 - - - - TOTAL DIVISION (099)- 396,343 240,000 - - - - GENERAL FUND TOTAL DIVISIONS 20,269,901 21,663,772 23,531,195 23,206,770 24,664,725 25,447,590 26,907,645 RESOLUTION NO. 21-74 CONSENTING TO THE 2022 PROPOSED HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT LEVY WHEREAS, The Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the “HRA”) has authorities and powers according to MN Statutes, Section 469.033, subd. 6 provides that subject to the consent by the resolution of the governing body of the city in and for which it was created, an authority may levy upon all taxable property within the city for housing and redevelopment purposes, and WHEREAS, The HRA is requesting the City of Golden Valley to approve a consent to an intent to levy for HRA Housing Program that may begin with the year payable 2022, and WHEREAS, The HRA discussed the levy and budget on August 10, 2021 and at the September 21, 2021 meeting, and WHEREAS, The HRA levy is $194,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Golden Valley that it approves and consents to certification of a 2022 tax levy in the amount of $194,000 for housing and redevelopment purposes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota on the 21st day of September 2021. __________________________ Shepard M.Harris, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Theresa Schyma, City Clerk 23 Golden Valley Business Council Meeting 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM Hybrid Brookview - Valley View Room 26 Market in the Valley 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM City Hall Campus 30 Grand Opening of 10 West End Begins at 2:30 PM 1601 Utica Ave S St Louis Park 30 League of Women Voters - Golden Valley City Council Candidates Forum Begins at 7:00 PM Virtual Event 5 Special City Council Meeting (Interviews) (Tentative) 5:15 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 5 City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 7 Neighborhood Public Input Meeting - South Tyrol Park 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM Brookview Basset Creek South Room 9 Mighty Tidy Day 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Brookview Park 9 Public Safety Open House 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM Fire Station 1 7800 Golden Valley Rd 12 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 19 City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 28 Golden Valley Business Council Meeting 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM Hybrid Brookview - Valley View Room 28 Building An Equitable Golden Valley Quarterly Conversation: City of Golden Valley's Equity Plan 6:00 - 7:15 PM Hybrid 30 Leaf Drop 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Brookview Park 30 Saturday - City Hall Open for Absentee Voting 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM City Hall 2 Election Day 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM City Precincts/Polls 3 City Council Meeting (Wednesday) 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 6 Leaf Drop 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Brookview Park 9 Special City Council Meeting 6:15 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 9 HRA Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 9 Council Work Session 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 11 City Offices Closed for Observance of Veterans Day 12 Leaf Drop 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM Brookview Park 13 Leaf Drop 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM Brookview Park 16 City Council Meeting 6:30 PM Hybrid Council Chambers 25 Golden Valley Business Council Meeting 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM Hybrid Brookview - Valley View Room 25 City Offices Closed for Observance of Thanksgiving 26 City Offices Closed for Observance of Thanksgiving ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETINGS AND EVENTS Three or more Council Members may attend the following OCTOBER NOVEMBER SEPTEMBER