Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2020 Council Work Session PacketCouncil Work Session Monday, September 28, 2020 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 WORK SESSION AGENDA The Orono Council Work Session is open to the public 1. Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Presentation by MCWD 2. Parks and Equipment CIP Discussion Council Work Session Monday, September 28, 2020 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Past Meeting Agendas September 14, 2020  Building and Community Investment CIP Discussion August 24, 2020  Interview Park Commission Applicant  Budget August 13, 2020  Public Works Move Feasibility Study Annual Discussions Timeframe:  Budget: Part of June, All of July, August and October.  City Administrator & Police Chief Update (3 times per year for 15 minutes) Summary This Implementation Roadmap Preview highlights the key findings and near-term project priorities that will be included in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Implementation Roadmap, set to be completed in early 2021. The roadmap is a result of a collaborative planning process to identify feasible and cost- effective projects that create healthier and more vibrant communities within the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. Purpose The Cities of Long Lake, Medina, and Orono; Long Lake Waters Association (LLWA); and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD or District) have agreed to work together towards a common goal of improving water quality within the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. The partners aim to restore the five impaired lakes in the system to meet state water quality standards, providing fishable and swimmable lakes that underpin the quality of life in their surrounding communities. To support this effort, the District has led the development of a science-driven “implementation roadmap” that identifies the highest-impact and most feasible projects to achieve this vision. By working together to develop and follow a shared implementation plan, the partners will be able to leverage each other’s resources and have greater success at securing grant funding to support the work. This Implementation Roadmap Preview has been developed as an interim deliverable to provide an overview of the findings and recommendations for the city councils. The full roadmap will be finalized in early 2021 and will include three main components: 1. data, methodology, and findings from the subwatershed assessment 2. prioritized projects, costs, and benefits 3. recommended action steps, roles, timeline, and funding strategy for implementation Background Five lakes within the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed are impaired for excess nutrients including Holy Name, School, Wolsfeld, Long, and Tanager (see Figure 1). In 2014, the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) completed the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study which sets pollutant reduction goals needed to meet water quality standards so that each lake is suitable for recreational use and can support aquatic life. The TMDL assigned load reduction requirements to the Cities of Medina, Orono, and Long Lake that must be met as part of the cities’ Municipal Separate Stormsewer System (MS4) permits. In 2016, the three cities adopted resolutions to work together to pursue grant funding and implement projects to improve water quality and address TMDL requirements (Attachment A). The cities recognized that taking a coordinated and collaborative approach could increase their chances of success. In parallel, the Long Lake Waters Association (LLWA), a non-profit entity composed of residents throughout the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed, formed to protect and enhance water quality within the subwatershed. Between 2016 and 2018, the cities and LLWA began to engage the District in efforts to manage carp in Long Lake as a strategy to improve water quality. As a regional unit of government spanning the three cities, the District assumed the role of convener to help coordinate and guide the efforts of the partnership. The group agreed that a holistic and data-driven approach was needed in order to identify and pursue the most cost-effective projects to improve water quality. In 2018, with the support of the partners, the District obtained a $112,000 Accelerated Implementation Grant from the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR). Through this grant, the District has been serving as the technical and planning lead to conduct a subwatershed assessment, identify cost-effective projects and strategies to improve water quality, and develop a clear and actionable roadmap to guide implementation. Since 2018, the District, cities, and LLWA have routinely met to share information and align goals, plans, and expectations for how the partners will work together to advance water quality improvement projects. Roadmap Development To develop the implementation roadmap, the District has followed a 4-step approach:  Understand resource needs – Complete a natural resource assessment to understand issues and drivers of poor water quality throughout the subwatershed  Understand land use plans - Incorporate land use plans to identify opportunities to implement water quality improvement projects  Integrate and prioritize – Integrate land use and natural resource understanding to evaluate and prioritize project opportunities  Develop implementation plan – Develop an implementation plan that provides clarity on roles, action steps, timelines, and funding strategy The following sections summarize the work completed and findings under each of these four steps. Note that this assessment focused on the upper portion of the subwatershed (everything draining to Long Lake). In 2011, MCWD completed a study for the lower portion of the subwatershed (everything downstream of Long Lake) which took a similar approach to diagnose drivers of poor water quality and identify and prioritize project opportunities. The findings from that study have been incorporated into the implementation section. Understanding Resource Needs The first step in solving a water quality issue is understanding the underlying drivers of the problem. To diagnose the drivers of the impairments in the Long Lake Creek system, the MCWD conducted a natural resource assessment that involved intensive water quality monitoring, analysis of in-lake conditions, ecological health assessments, and watershed modeling. Figure 1 As part of the assessment, the subwatershed was broken into smaller management units based on how water flows through the system and the unique landscape conditions and land uses present in each unit. Below is a summary of the primary drivers of poor water quality for each management unit, with the corresponding numbers shown in Figure 2: 1. Degraded wetlands, stream erosion, and agricultural runoff are the primary watershed sources of phosphorus to School Lake and Wolsfeld Lake in Medina 2. Agricultural runoff and degraded wetlands in Medina contribute phosphorus to Holy Name Lake and Long Lake 3. Urban runoff in downtown Long Lake/Orono delivers the largest phosphorus load to Long Lake 4. Degraded wetlands and golf course runoff in Orono contribute excess phosphorus to Long Lake 5. Altered wetlands and streams in Orono/Long Lake are the primary drivers of phosphorus loading to Tanager Lake 6. Internal loading — the process in which phosphorus that has settled to the lake bottom is released back into the water — is a significant source of phosphorus for all of the impaired lakes 7. Common carp densities are high in Long Lake and Wolsfeld Lake; however, this is unlikely to be a significant driver of poor water quality in these deep lakes Based on this understanding of the drivers, the following were identified as key management strategies to improve water quality:  Stormwater Management – Add new, or enhance existing, stormwater management practices to treat polluted stormwater before it enters lakes  Stream and Wetland Restoration – Restore degraded wetlands and streams to improve water quality, reduce flooding, and improve habitat  Land Use-Specific Practices – Implement best practices for specific land uses like agriculture and golf courses to reduce phosphorus loading from these properties  Internal Load Management – Reduce internal loading through practices like alum treatment, shallow lake drawdown, and rough fish management Figure 2 Understanding Land Use Plans Water quality improvements are often most cost-effective when integrated into other land use changes such as redevelopment, road reconstruction, or park improvements. To identify opportunities to integrate projects that address major drivers of water quality into these land use changes, MCWD held work sessions with each partner to share the findings of the natural resource assessment and discuss local knowledge and land use plans. This included review and discussion of the following:  City capital improvement plans  Anticipated development/redevelopment activity  Priorities and problem areas  Existing stormwater treatment  Landowner relationships This dialogue was a key step in the process that allowed MCWD to translate the management strategies into specific, tangible project opportunities. Integration and Prioritization Based on input from the three cities, a total of 47 potential projects or strategies were identified, and a preliminary engineering analysis was conducted to develop load reduction and cost estimates to help prioritize the opportunities. In addition, 7 projects that were identified as high priority in the 2011 feasibility study for the lower portion of the subwatershed were incorporated, for a total of 54 project opportunities. Of the 54 projects evaluated, 37 are recommended for advancement based on their high cost- effectiveness and feasibility to implement. The full list of evaluated projects, and maps showing the project locations, are included as Attachment B. If completed in total, these projects would achieve 95-100 percent of the reductions required by the state for Wolsfeld Lake, Long Lake, and Tanager Lake. The estimated percent progress toward the state requirements for School Lake and Holy Name Lake are 57 percent and 20 percent, respectively; however, additional projects are currently being evaluated for these areas, so these numbers are expected to increase for the final roadmap. This diagram shows the total load reductions required by the state to achieve water quality standards (total number of boxes) and the estimated progress that would be made by implementing the recommended projects (blue boxes). Figure 3 The table below provides a breakdown of the state-required load reductions for each city compared to the total estimated load reductions and construction costs for the 37 recommended projects. Location Total Load Reductions Required by TMDL (lbs TP/yr) Total Load Reductions from Recommended Projects (lbs TP/yr) Construction Cost City of Long Lake 172 119 $4,058,000 City of Medina 237 108 $1,587,000 City of Orono 187 145 $1,876,000 Internal Loading 625 702 $2,446,000 Total 1221 1074 $9,967,000 Implementation Planning The cities have requested that the District provide recommendations for project priorities, funding strategy, and implementation timeline. The proposed projects and actions are not a mandate but simply recommendations intended to help the cities make progress toward their water quality goals. The following is a basic framework for implementation based on the discussions of the partnership to date. Additional detail on the implementation approach, actions steps, and funding strategy for the recommended projects will be incorporated into the final roadmap. Roles The following is a general characterization of roles for implementing the roadmap. Specific roles for the design, construction, maintenance, and funding of each project will be determined on a case-by-case basis and memorialized through cooperative agreements. Cities As the regulated parties with assigned load reductions through the state TMDL, the cities are assumed to be the primary implementers for projects on the landscape. As such, the pace and scale of implementation will be largely driven by the cities. It is expected that the cities will continue to actively participate in the partnership to identify and evaluate new project opportunities, coordinate implementation efforts, and provide support for grant applications. District The District proposes to serve the following roles:  Develop and maintain the implementation roadmap and funding strategy  Continue to convene the partnership to coordinate implementation efforts and grant applications, track progress, and identify new project opportunities  Provide technical, planning, and financial support to cities for implementation of projects on the landscape  Lead the development and implementation of internal load management projects LLWA The LLWA’s primary role is to support the implementation efforts of the partnership by continuing to build awareness and support in the community. This may involve relaying information, helping to convene residents, and advising the cities and District on engagement efforts. Funding Based on discussions with the cities, it is assumed that implementation will be primarily grant dependent. The District will develop and maintain the grant strategy with the goal of leveraging the maximum amount of external funding. This will involve evaluating the recommended projects (estimated benefits, costs, readiness to implement) against the potential grant sources (eligibility requirements, review criteria, available funds, timelines) to find the best matches. The table below provides a summary of potential grant and loan programs, availability, and match requirements. Most grants require a match, and it is recommended that the cities begin to dedicate funds or otherwise develop a strategy for contributing to grant match. Agency/Grant Program Typical Projects Funded Typical Availability Typical Application Deadlines Match Required BWSR Accelerated Implementation Grant Pre-project identification, planning and design work to accelerate implementation of projects that improve or protect water quality Annual, variable funds (~$20M) Late Summer- Early Fall Yes: 25% cash or in-kind BWSR Projects and Practices Grant (P&P) Projects and practices that will protect or restore water quality in lakes, rivers or streams Annual, variable funds (~$12M) Late Summer Yes: 25% cash or in-kind BWSR Watershed- Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) Water quality improvement projects prioritized in collaboration with other LGUs in the West Mississippi Metro Basin Biennial, variable funds (~$875K) Late Summer- Early Fall Yes: 25% cash or in-kind MPCA Section 319 Small Watershed Focus (SWF) Small-scale watershed planning and comprehensive implementation that targets total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans Annual, variable funds (~$2.8M) Early Fall (2021 is last cycle) Yes: 40% cash or in-kind MPCA Point Source Implementation Grants (PSIG) Stormwater projects that contribute towards meeting wasteload reductions prescribed under a total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan Annual, variable (max. grant award of $7M) Summer Yes: 20% match MPCA Clean Water Partnership Loans Low-interest loans for nonpoint-source best management practices that target the restoration and protection of a water resources Annual, variable funds (max. loan award of $3M) Accepted on a rolling basis N/A MPCA/EPA Clean Water Revolving Fund (SRF) Low-interest loans for stormwater projects ranked on the Project Priority List Annual, variable Spring N/A Hennepin County Natural Resources Opportunity Grant Implementation of projects that improve water quality or preserve, establish or restore natural areas Annual, variable funds (max. grant award of $100K) Open year- round No match required Hennepin County AGBMP Loan Program Low-interest loans to make improvements or implement practices that will reduce or prevent nonpoint source pollution Annual, variable funds (~$14M) N/A N/A MN DNR Conservation Partners Grant Program Restoration or enhancement of prairies, wetlands, forests, or habitat for fish, game or wildlife Annual, variable funds (grants range from $5K- $400K) Fall Yes: 10% non- state funds MET Council Stormwater Grant Program Practices to treat and manage stormwater for redevelopment projects or retrofit fully developed areas with new stormwater management practices Annual, variable funds (grants range from $10K- $100K) Fall to Winter Yes: 25% match Timeline The project list in Attachment B categorizes projects into short, mid, and long-range priorities, with the exception of a few projects that are dependent on development/redevelopment activity. These categorizations are based on the following:  Prioritization of the most cost-effective projects  Consideration of project feasibility, complexity, land ownership, dependency on other projects/development  Watershed management best practice of reducing upstream/external nutrient loads before managing internal loads for greater longevity and cost-effectiveness  Assumption that implementation is primarily grant-dependent and cities will need time to allocate funds to cover grant matches Short-Range Implementation Priorities Below is a summary of recommended implementation activities for the next 5 years. This includes implementation of short-range (1-5 year) priorities, as well as development of some mid-range (5-10 year) priorities. These recommendations are intended to help the cities pursue the projects that are most cost-effective and will be strong candidates for grant funding. It is anticipated that the implementation plan will be updated every few years, in coordination with the partnership, to account for new information and add detail for the next few years. Activity Project Name Lead Agency Est. Load Reduction (lb TP/yr) Est. Construction Cost Preliminary Grant Strategy (see grant table above) Project Implementation Wolsfeld Woods Ravine Stabilization Medina 46.0 $290,196 2020 BWSR WBIF Holbrook Park Regional Stormwater Management Long Lake 51.3 $1,309,646 2021 MPCA SWF, 2021 BWSR P&P, 2021/22 Hennepin Opportunity, 2021/22 MPCA PSIG Orono Golf Course Wetland Restorations Orono 11.2 $206,900 2021 MPCA SWF, 2022 BWSR WBIF Project Investigation/ Development Co Rd 6 Regional Stormwater Pond Retrofit MCWD 17.2 $183,900 TBD Wolsfeld Agricultural BMPs Medina 36.7 $331,175 TBD Public Works Regional Stormwater Management Long Lake 30.4 $1,232,814 TBD Spring Hill Golf Club Reuse Orono 26.1 $279,625 TBD Swamp Lake Internal Load Management MCWD TBD TBD TBD Project Identification/ Screening Screening of development/ redevelopment activity for opportunities All TBD TBD TBD Attachment A: 2016 City Partnership Resolutions REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 25, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer Parks Director Report ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Partnership _____________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits. 1. Draft Resolution 2. Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Partnership Summary 3. Map of the Tanager Lake/Long Lake Subwatershed 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Council action is to gain approval to adopt a resolution to partner with other governmental agencies to pursue and show support in the pursuit of water quality improvement grant funding in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. 2. Background. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was established for Long Lake Creek and Tanager Lake. This TMDL was established as a result of a study of the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed, which Long Lake Creek ultimately discharges to. Impaired waterbodies located in the subwatershed include: Tanager Lake (Orono), Long Lake (Long Lake/Orono), Dickey Lake (Medina), Holy Name Lake (Medina), Wolsfeld Lake (Medina), and School Lake (Medina). The TMDL includes a nutrient load reduction allocation that Cities are required to show progress toward meeting. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has set a load reduction goal of 125lbs/yr. The City of Medina, City of Long Lake, Hennepin County, and MnDOT have also been assigned nutrient load reduction goals. Long Lake, Medina, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have all expressed interest in partnering to improve water quality in the subwatershed. 3. Proposal. The requirement and focus on Long Lake Creek/Tanager Lake provides an opportunity to partner to apply for grants and collaboratively complete larger regional projects to meet these goals. Potential funding sources include the: MPCA, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Through a partnership the associated organizations should be able to leverage grant funds to complete cost effective projects to reduce the TMDL in the subwatershed. 4. Process. The attached resolution, if adopted, could be included in all grant applications for projects proposing to improve water quality in the subwatershed and would authorize city staff to coordinate with partnering cities and the watershed district in pursing grants. If a grant application is selected for an improvement project a separate resolution will be provided to each participating organization to enter into an agreement with the lead agency on the proposed project. 5. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider a motion to adopt the attached resolution to partner with other intergovernmental agencies in seeking grants and to improve water quality in the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed. Item #06 - CC Agenda - 04/25/2016 Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Partnership [Page 1 of 4] CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 66 10 A RESOLUTION TO PARTNER WITH OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO PURSUE AND SHOW SUPPORT IN THE PURSUIT OF GRANTS TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN THE LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED WHEREAS, The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) completed the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacterial TMDL Study in March 2014; and WHEREAS, The Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacterial TMDL Study addresses nutrient impairments and nutrient budgets in the distinct hydraulic basin referred as the "Upper Watershed" of the Minnehaha Creek including; and WHEREAS, The Tanager Lake Subwatershed, also known as the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed, is located in the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed and includes Long Lake Creek and 6 impaired lakes within the City of Long Lake, City of Medina, and City of Orono; and WHEREAS, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations have been established for City of Long Lake, City of Medina, City of Orono, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and WHEREAS, The City of Orono is required to show progress towards meeting the established TMDL allocation; and WHEREAS, Grants are available to support municipality and partnership projects to improve surface water quality in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Partnering with other intergovernmental agencies in pursuing these grants for the Long Lake Subwatershed may result in a more organized and effective effort to improve water quality in the Long Lake Subwatershed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the City Council does hereby partner with other intergovernmental agencies to pursue and show support in the pursuit of grants to improve water quality in the Long Lake Subwatershed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 25, 2016. ATTEST: 3 e Tiegs, Cit Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Building a legacy – your legacy. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651-286-8450 Fax: 651-286-8488 Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Partnership Loads/Load Reductions: Load Reduction (lbs) Holy Name Long Lake School Wolfsted Tanager Total P Load Reduction (lbs) Hennepin County 0 36 0 0 5 41 Long Lake 0 135 0 0 37 172 Orono 0 125 0 3 59 187 Medina 26 103 32 76 0 237 MnDOT 0 12 0 0 6 18 Total 26 411 32 79 107 655 The goal of the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Restoration Partnership Project is to restore the quality of surface water resources that contribute to the Long Lake Creek subwatershed located within the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Water quality improvements will be accomplished through a coalition of partners implementing specific BMPs identified in the Upper Minnehaha Creek TMDL and other water quality studies and data. Project Partners: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District / City of Long Lake / City of Orono / City of Medina / Hennepin County/ MnDOT Affected Waterbodies: Tanager Lake / Long Lake / Dickeys LakeHoly Name Lake / Wolfsted Lake / School Lake Funding Sources: MPCA:  Surface Water Assessment Grant  Section 319 Funds  Point Source Implementation Grants Hennepin County/MCWD BWSR:  Projects and Practices  Accelerated Implementation Program Potential Projects: Much of the initial assessment work and data analysis has been completed to understand the problem. Implementation is the next phase. An adaptive management approach should be used during implementation which involves implementing the project, completing data collection, and using the data to inform future management.  Regional Infiltration Implementation of opportunities to increase infiltration, including but not limited to construction of infiltration basins and devices, wetland restoration, reforestation, revegetation.  Wetland/Stream Restoration Restoration of drained or degraded wetlands, along with the restoration of streambanks, management of native vegetation, and in-stream habitat improvement.  Carp Management Project Rough fish are identified as a potential source of unknown impact in almost all lakes. Study could look at quantifying population, tracking, removing, and developing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan for the entire upper watershed. Next Steps:  Identify how many projects have been implemented so far.  Track reductions  Build implementation and priority list of projects based on cost effectiveness  Complete BBR and PPL applications. Item #06 - CC Agenda - 04/25/2016 Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Partnership [Page 3 of 4] $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( CLO05 S002-854 CLO01 S002-928 CLO03 S003-728 CCL04 S004-099 CCL01 S003-720 LFM01 LMR01 LTS01 LDR01 LDY01 LCN01 LSH01 LLS01 LHD01 LMO01 LHN01 LWO01 LWA01 LMU01 LPE01 LTG01 LCR01 LMA01 LLO01/RQJ/DNH 0RRQH\/DNH +RO\1DPH/DNH 7DQDJHU/DNH :ROVIHOG/DNH +DGOH\/DNH 6WXEEV%D\ 6FKRRO/DNH 'LFNH\V/DNH LLC-41 741.7 Ac. LLC-8 577.8 Ac. LLC-10 463.8 Ac. LLC-11 419.5 Ac. LLC-6 375.7 Ac. LLC-2 257 Ac. LLC-1295.5 Ac. LLC-4 267.9 Ac. LLC-3 212.9 Ac. LLC-9 173 Ac. LLC-7 199.4 Ac. LLC-50 158 Ac. LLC-24 180.5 Ac. LLC-5 174.2 Ac. LLC-26 173.2 Ac. LLC-48 170.1 Ac. LLC-12 169.8 Ac. LLC-47 169.6 Ac. LLC-51 130 Ac. LLC-25 158.9 Ac. LLC-23 143.7 Ac. LLC-46 141.5 Ac. LLC-19 141.4 Ac. LLC-52U 131.1 Ac. LLC-40 126.9 Ac. LLC-18 108.1 Ac.LLC-13 107.7 Ac. LLC-42 105.6 Ac. LLC-34 85.2 Ac. LLC-16 78.4 Ac. LLC-17 61.3 Ac. LLC-43 59.3 Ac. LLC-49 59.2 Ac. LLC-39 47.9 Ac. LLC-31 36.1 Ac. LLC-53 94.1 Ac. LLC-22 104.3 Ac. LLC-44 87.8 Ac. LLC-14 60 Ac. LLC-45 47.7 Ac. LLC-29 40.8 Ac. LLC-35 38.7 Ac. LLC-15 36.2 Ac. LLC-37 31 Ac.LLC-27 30.7 Ac. LLC-30 29.2 Ac. LLC-32 28.6 Ac. LLC-36 23.9 Ac. LLC-38 23.9 Ac. LLC-33 10.8 Ac. LLC-2U 9.7 Ac. LLC-28 9.2 Ac. LLC-52M 10.9 Ac. Lower Lake Crystal Bay Long Maxwell Bay Mooney Thomas Tanager Holy Name Classen Winterhalter Lydiard Thies Hadley Wolsfeld Marion School Dickey's French Marsh Louise Peavey French Marsh Shaver Ferndale Marsh £¤12 ""12 ""554567115 45676 456724 456715 456784 456751 4567146 4567101 456715 ¨©201 ¨©116 ¨©201 6RXUFH(VUL'LJLWDO*OREH*HR(\HLFXEHG86'$86*6$(;*HWPDSSLQJ$HURJULG,*1,*3 VZLVVWRSRDQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\  )HHW ±Path: L:\0147\0147-243\mxd\Model Maps\Tanager Lake.mxd Date: 3/5/2014Time: 7:44:05 AM User: shujc0243 :HQFN Legend Tanager Lake Subwatersheds 0RQLWRUHG6XEZDWHUVKHG 8QPRQLWRUHG6XEZDWHUVKHG 2WKHU6XEZDWHUVKHGV !(/DNH6DPSOLQJ6LWHV ")6WUHDP6DPSOH6LWHV ,PSDLUHG/DNHVLQ6WXG\ ,PSDLUHG6WUHDPVLQ6WXG\ $)ORZ'LUHFWLRQ Member Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO.2016-27 A RESOLUTION TO PARTNER WITH OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO PURSUE AND SHOW SUPPORT IN THE PURSUIT OF GRANTS TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN THE LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED WHEREAS, The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) completed the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacterial TMDL Study in March 2014; and WHEREAS, The Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed Nutrient and Bacterial TMDL Study addresses nutrient impairments and nutrient budgets in the distinct hydraulic basin referred as the "Upper Watershed" of the Minnehaha Creek including; and WHEREAS, The Tanager Lake Subwatershed, also known as the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed, is located in the Upper Minnehaha Creek Watershed and includes Long Lake Creek and 6 impaired lakes within the City of Long Lake, City of Medina, and City of Orono; and WHEREAS, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations have been established for City of Long Lake, City of Medina, City of Orono, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); and WHEREAS, The City of Medina is required to show progress towards meeting the established TMDL allocation by the year 2018; and WHEREAS, Grants are available to support municipality and partnership projects to improve surface water quality in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Partnering with other intergovernmental agencies in pursuing these grants for the Long Lake Subwatershed may result in a more organized and effective effort to improve water quality in the Long Lake Subwatershed; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that the City Council does hereby partner with other intergovernmental agencies to show support in the pursuit of grants to improve water quality in the Long Lake Subwatershed. Furthermore, City Council directs staff to work with the City Engineer to submit a Biennial Budget Request BBR) to the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for the fiscal year 2018-2019. This submission is the first effort of the partnership to obtain funding for a prospective project; The cost to facilitate this request is a not to exceed amount of $1,500. Resolution No. 2016-27 April 5, 2016 Dated: April 5, 2016. Attes • dietj4 Jodi . Gallup, City Clerk er on, Acting Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Martin and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Anderson, Cousineau, Martin, Pederson And the following voted against same: (Absent: Mitchell) None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2016-27 2 April 5, 2016 Attachment B: List and Maps of Evaluated Projects Lo c a t i o n Pr i o r t i z a t i o n   (R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ) Pr i o r i t i z a t i o n (T i m e l i n e ) Pr o j e c t  ID P r o j e c t  Na m e Re c e i v i n g   Im p a i r e d   Wa t e r b o d y Pr o j e c t / S t r a t e g y  De s c r i p t i o n Ne t  TP   Im p r o v e m e n t   (l b / y r ) Construction  CostLifecycle      CostNormalized Lifecycle  Cost  ($/lb  TP/30 ‐yr) Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 0 1 G r a n d  Av e n u e   Lo n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Re ‐pl u m b  st o r m   se w e r  to  by p a s s  Lo n g  La k e 4. 4 $ 1 9 0 , 2 0 0 $ 1 9 0 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 4 3 5 Lo n g  La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Sh o r t  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y LL 0 3 H o l b r o o k  Pa r k L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Su b s u r f a c e   in f i l t r a t i o n 51 . 3 $ 1 , 3 0 9 , 6 4 6 $ 1 , 3 4 6 , 7 4 6 $ 8 7 5 Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 0 4 ‐A I n d u s t r i a l  Bl v d  Po n d  ‐   A L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  We t l a n d   re s t o r a t i o n  an d  re ‐pl u m b  st o r m s e w e r 3. 1 $ 2 0 6 , 2 3 8 $ 3 5 5 , 9 3 9 $ 3 , 8 2 7 Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 0 4 ‐B I n d u s t r i a l  Bl v d  Po n d  ‐   B L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Re ‐pl u m b   st o r m s e w e r 2. 2 $ 7 7 , 6 1 3 $ 7 7 , 6 1 3 $ 1 , 1 7 6 Lo n g  La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y LL 0 4 ‐C I n d u s t r i a l  Bl v d  Po n d  ‐   C L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Re ‐ro u t e  Da n i e l s   St  st o r m s e w e r  wh e n  ro a d  is  re c o n s t r u c t e d 17 . 7 $ 6 2 1 , 5 0 2 $ 6 2 1 , 5 0 2 $ 1 , 1 7 0 Lo n g  La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   LL 0 5 L L  Pu b l i c  Wo r k s L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Su b s u r f a c e   in f i l t r a t i o n 30 . 4 $ 1 , 2 3 2 , 8 1 4 $ 1 , 2 6 9 , 9 1 4 $ 1 , 3 9 4 Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 0 7 ‐3a VA  Pr o p e r t y  wi t h   we s t e r n  ar e a Lo n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Ma x i m i z e   tr e a t m e n t  by  br i n g i n g  of f ‐si t e  ru n o f f  in t o  th e  si t e 15 . 0 $ 1 , 5 6 3 , 1 6 0 $ 1 , 6 0 6 , 2 2 7 $ 3 , 5 6 9 Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 0 7 ‐3b V A  Pr o p e r t y L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Sc e n a r i o  3a  pl u s   tr e a t m e n t  by  re c o n s t r u c t i n g  Ci t y  Ha l l  pa r k i n g  lo t 18 . 0 $ 1 , 7 6 9 , 4 0 0 $ 1 , 8 1 2 , 4 6 7 $ 3 , 3 5 6 Lo n g  La k e No t  Re c o m m e n d e d LL 1 1 Ne l s o n  Pa r k  So u t h  Po n d   Re t r o f i t Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  re t r o f i t / e x p a n s i o n :  Ir r i g a t e  ci t y   pa r k 1. 6 $ 1 4 7 , 9 0 0 $ 2 4 7 , 2 6 7 $ 5 , 1 5 1 Lo n g  La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   LL 1 2 Ne l s o n  Pa r k  No r t h  Po n d   Re t r o f i t Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Su b s u r f a c e  sp e n t   li m e  fi l t e r 10 . 8 $ 5 2 4 , 4 8 3 $ 5 6 2 , 0 8 7 $ 1 , 7 2 9 Lo n g  La k e Al t e r n a t i v e De v e l o p m e n t ‐ de p e n d e n t LL 1 3 ‐A f i t H A U S  Pr o p e r t y  ‐   A L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :  Su b s u r f a c e   st o r a g e  & MT D   7. 0 $ 5 5 4 , 0 6 5 $ 5 9 1 , 1 6 5 $ 2 , 8 0 5 Lo n g  La k e Re c o m m e n d e d De v e l o p m e n t ‐ de p e n d e n t LL 1 3 ‐B f i t H A U S  Pr o p e r t y  ‐   B L o n g  La k e Re g i o n a l  st o r m w a t e r  tr e a t m e n t :    Su b s u r f a c e   in f i l t r a t i o n 8. 5 $ 3 6 9 , 0 6 5 $ 4 0 6 , 1 6 5 $ 1 , 5 9 7 Lo c a t i o n Pr i o r t i z a t i o n   (R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ) Pr i o r i t i z a t i o n (T i m e l i n e ) Pr o j e c t  ID P r o j e c t  Na m e Re c e i v i n g   Im p a i r e d   Wa t e r b o d y Pr o j e c t / S t r a t e g y  De s c r i p t i o n Ne t  TP   Im p r o v e m e n t   (l b / y r ) Construction  CostLifecycle      CostNormalized Lifecycle  Cost  ($/lb  TP/30 ‐yr) Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   MD 0 1 Sw a m p ‐Sc h o o l  Co r r i d o r   Im p r o v e m e n t s Sc h o o l  La k e St r e a m b a n k  st a b i l i z a t i o n :  Ch a n n e l  st a b i l i z a t i o n  (1 / 2   of  1, 6 0 0 '  le n g t h ,  bo t h  si d e s ) 7. 2 $ 4 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 4 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 6 5 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   MD 0 2 W i l l o w  Dr  We t l a n d W o l s f e l d  La k e We t l a n d  re s t o r a t i o n :  Wa t e r  qu a l i t y ,  fl o o d  st o r a g e ,   an d  ha b i t a t  en h a n c e m e n t TBD T B D T B D Me d i n a No t  Re c o m m e n d e d MD 0 3 ‐A W o l s f e l d  Ag  BM P s  ‐   A W o l s f e l d  La k e A g  BM P s :  A.  Gr a s s e d  wa t e r w a y 0 . 3 $ 2 5 , 6 6 8 $ 3 8 , 2 5 1 $ 5 , 0 9 3 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   MD 0 3 ‐B W o l s f e l d  Ag  BM P s  ‐   B W o l s f e l d  La k e  Ag  BM P s :  We t l a n d  re s t o r a t i o n 1 2 . 7 $ 2 8 9 , 5 0 0 $ 4 3 9 , 2 0 1 $ 1 , 1 5 4 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   MD 0 3 ‐C W o l s f e l d  Ag  BM P s  ‐   C W o l s f e l d  La k e A g  BM P s :  Al t e r n a t i v e  ti l e  in t a k e s 1 1 . 7 $ 3 , 5 0 0 $ 6 , 0 1 7 $ 1 7 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   MD 0 3 ‐D W o l s f e l d  Ag  BM P s  ‐   D W o l s f e l d  La k e A g  BM P s :  Bu f f e r 1 2 . 3 $ 3 8 , 1 7 5 $ 4 5 , 7 2 5 $ 1 2 4 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y MD 0 4 N W  Wo l s f e l d  Ra v i n e W o l s f e l d  La k e R a v i n e  st a b i l i z a t i o n :  65 0  ft ,  bo t h  si d e s 5 . 9 $ 3 6 2 , 5 0 0 $ 3 6 2 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 0 6 6 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Sh o r t  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y MD 0 5 W o l s f e l d  Wo o d s  Ra v i n e W o l s f e l d  La k e Ra v i n e  st a b i l i z a t i o n :  St a b i l i z e  ra v i n e  in  Wo l s f e l d   Wo o d s 46  $      290,196   $      312,896  $227 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d De v e l o p m e n t ‐ de p e n d e n t MD 0 6  an d   MD 0 7 Ag  La n d  NW  of  Ho l y   Na m e   Lo n g  La k e La n d  us e  po l i c y :  Co n s e r v a t i o n  de n s i t y  in c e n t i v e s   wh e n  pa r c e l s  de v e l o p N/A N / A N / A Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d De v e l o p m e n t ‐ de p e n d e n t MD 0 8 Ag  La n d  NE  of  Ho l y   Na m e   Ho l y  Na m e We t l a n d  re s t o r a t i o n  an d  po l i c y :  Ex p l o r e  we t l a n d   ba n k i n g  wh e n  pr o p e r t y  de v e l o p s N/A N / A N / A Me d i n a No t  Re c o m m e n d e d MD 1 0 Ta m a r a c k  Ro a d   We t l a n d Lo n g  La k e W e t l a n d  Re s t o r a t i o n :  Ta m a r a c k  Ro a d  fl o o d i n g N / A N / A N / A N / A Me d i n a Al t e r n a t i v e Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y MD 1 1 De e r h i l l  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   A Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Su b s u r f a c e  sp e n t   li m e  fi l t e r 10 . 3 $ 5 6 3 , 5 4 6 $ 6 0 1 , 1 4 9 $ 1 , 9 3 8 Me d i n a Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y MD 1 2 De e r h i l l  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   B Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  De e r h i l l  Po n d   Re u s e 11 . 8 $ 1 5 7 , 4 0 0 $ 2 5 6 , 7 6 7 $ 7 2 5 Me d i n a No t  Re c o m m e n d e d MD 1 3 De e r h i l l  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   C Lo n g  La k e S t o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Di v e r s i o n  fi l t e r N / A N / A N / A N / A Lo c a t i o n Pr i o r t i z a t i o n   (R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ) Pr i o r i t i z a t i o n (T i m e l i n e ) Pr o j e c t  ID P r o j e c t  Na m e Re c e i v i n g   Im p a i r e d   Wa t e r b o d y Pr o j e c t / S t r a t e g y  De s c r i p t i o n Ne t  TP   Im p r o v e m e n t   (l b / y r ) Construction  CostLifecycle      CostNormalized Lifecycle  Cost  ($/lb  TP/30 ‐yr) Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 0 1 Or o n o  Wo o d s  Po n d   Re t r o f i t Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Su b s u r f a c e  sp e n t   li m e  fi l t e r 7. 4 $ 5 8 6 , 5 7 1 $ 6 2 4 , 1 7 4 $ 2 , 8 1 4 Or o n o No t  Re c o m m e n d e d OR 0 3 C R  6  Po n d  Ex p a n s i o n L o n g  La k e S t o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Po n d  ex p a n s i o n   N/ A N / A N / A N / A Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 0 3 ‐AC R  6  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   A L o n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  A.  Ir o n ‐en h a n c e d   sa n d  fi l t e r  be n c h 17 . 2 $ 1 8 3 , 9 0 0 $ 2 2 0 , 3 5 0 $ 4 2 7 Or o n o Al t e r n a t i v e Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 0 3 ‐BC R  6  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   B L o n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  B.  Al u m  in j e c t i o n   sy s t e m 19 9 . 5 $ 9 5 2 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 2 8 6 , 3 4 1 $ 3 8 2 Or o n o No t  Re c o m m e n d e d OR 0 3 ‐CC R  6  Po n d  Re t r o f i t  ‐   C L o n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  C.  St o r m w a t e r   re u s e  sy s t e m 2. 3 $ 1 2 1 , 4 0 0 $ 2 2 0 , 7 6 7 $ 3 , 2 0 0 Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 0 4 ‐A Sp r i n g  Hi l l  Go l f  Cl u b   Re u s e  ‐   A Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  re u s e :  Re u s e  fr o m  we t l a n d  fo r  go l f   co u r s e  ir r i g a t i o n TBD T B D T B D Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 0 4 We t l a n d  Re s t o r a t i o n   Ar e a Lo n g  La k e We t l a n d  re s t o r a t i o n :  Wa t e r  qu a l i t y  an d  ha b i t a t   im p r o v e m e n t s TBD T B D T B D Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 0 5 Sp r i n g  Hi l l  Go l f  Cl u b   Re u s e  ‐   B Lo n g  La k e S t o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Po n d  re u s e 9 . 8 $ 1 5 7 , 1 2 5 $ 2 5 6 , 4 9 2 $ 8 7 2 Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 0 6 Sp r i n g  Hi l l  Go l f  Cl u b   Re u s e  ‐   C Lo n g  La k e S t o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Po n d  re u s e 1 6 . 3 $ 1 2 2 , 5 0 0 $ 2 2 1 , 8 6 7 $ 4 5 3 Or o n o Al t e r n a t i v e Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 0 7 S p r i n g  Hi l l  Rd  Fi l t e r L o n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  po n d  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Ir o n ‐En h a n c e d   Sa n d  Fi l t e r 14 . 3 $ 7 2 7 , 1 6 3 $ 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 $ 1 , 7 7 8 Or o n o No t  Re c o m m e n d e d OR 1 0 6t h  Av e  N  Cu l v e r t   Re p a i r Lo n g  La k e St o r m w a t e r  en h a n c e m e n t s :  Ad d r e s s  up s t r e a m   fl o o d i n g  an d  lo a d  fr o m  go l f  co u r s e N/ A N / A N / A N / A Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 2 0 1 1 _ 0 1 Br o w n  Rd  Ou t f a l l   St a b i l i z a t i o n Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  St a b i l i z a t i o n  of  Br o w n  Rd   Ou t f a l l  Si t e s  (S t a  76 5 0 ‐76 7 5 ) 11 . 6  $        49,731   TBD  TBD Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 2 0 1 1 _ 0 2 Re a c h  2  St r e a m   Re s t o r a t i o n Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  St r e a m  re m e a n d e r  ar o u n d   Sm i t h  Du m p  Si t e 30 . 1  $      396,100   TBD  TBD Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Sh o r t  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 2 0 1 1 _ 0 3 Or o n o  Go l f  Co u r s e   We t l a n d  Re s t o r a t i o n s Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  En h a n c e m e n t  of  we t l a n d s  D ‐ 11 7 ‐23 ‐02 ‐01 3  an d  D ‐11 7 ‐23 ‐02 ‐03 9 11 . 2  $      206,900   TBD  TBD Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   OR 2 0 1 1 _ 0 4 YM C A  We t l a n d   Re s t o r a t i o n Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  Re s t o r a t i o n  of  we t l a n d  D ‐ 11 7 ‐23 ‐03 ‐01 6 4. 9  $        34,500   TBD  TBD Or o n o Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y L L/ O R 2 0 1 1 _ 0 Lo n g  La k e  Cr e e k   We t l a n d  Re s t o r a t i o n Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  Re s t o r a t i o n  of  we t l a n d  D ‐ 11 7 ‐23 ‐03 ‐04 4 A   36 . 8  $      138,500   TBD  TBD Lo c a t i o n Pr i o r t i z a t i o n   (R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ) Pr i o r i t i z a t i o n (T i m e l i n e ) Pr o j e c t  ID P r o j e c t  Na m e Re c e i v i n g   Im p a i r e d   Wa t e r b o d y Pr o j e c t / S t r a t e g y  De s c r i p t i o n Ne t  TP   Im p r o v e m e n t   (l b / y r ) Construction  CostLifecycle      CostNormalized Lifecycle  Cost  ($/lb  TP/30 ‐yr) In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y CM _ D I R _ 0 1 Lo n g  La k e  Ca r p   Ma n a g e m e n t Lo n g  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Ca r p  re m o v a l T B D $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0  $400,000  TBD In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y CM _ D I R _ 0 2 _B Lo n g  La k e  St r u c t u r a l   Ca r p  Ba r r i e r Lo n g  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  St r u c t u r a l  ca r p  ba r r i e r T B D $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0  $100,000  TBD In ‐La k e Al t e r n a t i v e Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y CM _ D I R _ 0 2 _A Lo n g  La k e  El e c t r i c  Ca r p   Ba r r i e r Lo n g  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  El e c t r i c  ca r p  ba r r i e r T B D T B D $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0  TBD In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y IL _ D I R ‐01 Lo n g  La k e  Al u m   Tr e a t m e n t Lo n g  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Al u m  tr e a t m e n t 2 9 5 $ 8 2 5 , 0 0 0  $825,000  $30   In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y IL _ H N D _ 0 1 Ho l y  Na m e  Al u m   Tr e a t m e n t Ho l y  Na m e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Al u m  tr e a t m e n t 6 9 . 6 $ 7 2 , 0 0 0  $72,000  $34   In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   CM _ W S _ 0 1 S c h o o l  Fi s h  Ba r r i e r S c h o o l  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Fi s h  ba r r i e r T B D $ 5 0 , 0 0 0  $50,000  TBD In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y CM _ W S _ 0 2 W o l s f e l d  Ca r p  Re m o v a l   Wo l s f e l d  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Ca r p  re m o v a l T B D $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0  $200,000  TBD In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   IL _ W S _ 0 1 S w a m p  Dr a w d o w n S c h o o l  La k e In t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Dr a w d o w n  of   wa t e r b o d y TB D $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0  $300,000  TBD In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   IL _ W S _ 0 2 S c h o o l  Al u m  Tr e a t m e n t S c h o o l  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Al u m  tr e a t m e n t 9 2 . 7 $ 1 8 3 , 0 0 0  $183,000  $66   In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Mi d  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y   IL _ W S _ 0 3 K r i e g  Al u m  Tr e a t m e n t W o l s f e l d  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Al u m  tr e a t m e n t T B D T B D T B D T B D In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y IL _ W S _ 0 4 Wo l s f e l d  Al u m   Tr e a t m e n t Wo l s f e l d  La k e I n t e r n a l  lo a d  ma n a g e m e n t :  Al u m  tr e a t m e n t 8 0 $ 2 7 9 , 0 0 0  $279,000  $55   In ‐La k e Re c o m m e n d e d Lo n g  Ra n g e   Pr i o r i t y OR 2 0 1 1 _ 0 5 Ta n a g e r  Al u m   Tr e a t m e n t Ta n a g e r  La k e 20 1 1  Fe a s i b i l i t y  St u d y :  Ta n a g e r  La k e  al u m   tr e a t m e n t 16 4 . 7  $        37,400   $        37,400  TBD Swamp School Lake Krieg Wolsfeld L ake Deerhill Pond Dickey's Lake Long Lake Hwy 6 Pond M EDIN A OR O NO LO N G LAK E Hw y 12 CSAH 24 P a r k v i e w D r CM_WS_02 CM_WS_01 IL_WS_01 IL_WS_02 IL_WS_03 IL_WS_04 MD01 MD02 MD03 MD04 MD05 Path: Q:\Departments\GIS\Projects\LLSubwatershed_Assessment\GIS\LLSW_SchoolWolsfeld_Projs_092020.mxd ¯ 0 750 1,500375 Feet LEGEND Internal Loading Project Partner Identified Oppor tunities School/Wolsfeld Manag ement Unit LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED POTENTIAL PROJECTS Wolsfeld Lake Deerhill Pond Holy Name Lake MEDINA T a m a r a c k D r H u n t e r D r Medina Rd CSAH 24 P L Y M O U T H MD06 MD07 MD08 MD09 MD10 MD11 MD12 IL_HND_01 Path: Q:\Departments\GIS\Projects\LLSubwatershed_Assessment\GIS\LLSW_HolyName_Projs_092020.mxd LEGEND Partner Identified Opportunities Holy Name/ DeerhillManagement Unit Internal Loading Project ¯ 0 600 1,200300 Feet LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED POTENTIAL PROJECTS Dickey's Lake Long LakeLONG LAK E Hwy 12 LL01 LL03 LL04 LL05 LL06 LL07 LL08 LL09 LL10 LL11 LL12 LL13 OR01 Path: Q:\Departments\GIS\Projects\LLSubwatershed_Assessment\GIS\LLSW_Downtown_Projs_092020.mxd LEGEND Partner Identified Opportunities Downtown Long Lake/ Orono Management Unit LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED POTENTIAL PROJECTS ¯ 0 320 640160 Feet Wolsfeld Lake Deerhill Pond Dickey's Lake Long Lake Hwy 6 Pond Lydiard Lake Hwy 12 Ponds MEDINA ORONO LONG LAKE T a m a r a c k D r H u n t e r D r CM_DIR_01 IL_DIR-01 MD13 OR02 OR03 OR04 OR05 OR06 OR07 OR08 OR09 OR10 Path: Q:\Departments\GIS\Projects\LLSubwatershed_Assessment\GIS\LLSW_Direct_Projs_092020.mxd LEGEND Internal Loading Project Partner Identified Opportunities Direct Management Unit LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED POTENTIAL PROJECTS ¯ 0 500 1,000250 Feet Brown's Bay Long Lake Hwy 12 Ponds Tanager Lake ORO NO LONG LAKE Hw y 12 LL01 LL02 OR2011 01 OR2011 02 OR2011 03 OR201104 OR2011 05 LL/OR2011 01 CM_DIR_02_ACM_DIR_02_B Path: Q:\Departments\GIS\Projects\LLSubwatershed_Assessment\GIS\LLSW_LongLake_Projs_092020.mxd ¯ 0 590 1,180295 Feet LEGEND Internal Loading Project Partner Identified Oppor tunities Long Lake Creek Manag ement Unit LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED POTENTIAL PROJECTS 2021 CIP – Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Walsh and Orono City Council From: Ron Olson, Finance Director Subject: Parks and Improvement Outlay Fund Date: September 28, 2020 Attachments: Budget Information As part of the budget process, staff has continued to work on the 2021 CIP. The Park CIP and the Equipment CIP information and fund balance information is provided for discussion. Issues for discussion: • Funding of the Equipment CIP. Funding for the Equipment CIP is through the Improvement Equipment Outlay fund. The Improvement / Equipment Overlay Fund was created to buy non-police General Fund assets such as equipment and building improvements. The source of funding for this fund has been an annual transfer from the general fund. For 2021 the budgeted transfer will be $225,000. The fund is now being used to purchase non-infrastructure capital items for the enterprise funds also. Enterprise purchases are funded by a transfer from the enterprise fund in the year that the purchases are made. The projected balance of the fund on 12/31/2020 is $205,103. Looking into the future, this fund is in good financial health. • Funding for Long Lake Fire. The improvement Equipment Outlay Fund also fund the purchase of fire equipment. The balance set aside for fire capital appears to be adequate at this time. Future decisions on the fire department will impact these funds. • Funding of the Park CIP. Primary Funding for the Park CIP is through the Park Fund. This fund’s primary source of revenue has been Park Dedication fees that are collected as part of subdivisions and development. Beginning in 2021 a tax levy has been reinstated to provide additional funding for parks. The items currently proposed for the Park CIP will exceed the balance of the fund. Capital Improvement Plan, City of Orono Park Fund Current Balance:$94,244 22525000 Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Operation and Maintenance (1)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP Expenditures $469,300 $160,000 $90,000 $131,702 $320,000 $245,000 $180,000 $245,890 $514,700 $567,000 Total Expenses $469,300 $160,000 $90,000 $131,702 $320,000 $245,000 $180,000 $245,890 $514,700 $567,000 Revenues - $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues - Park Dedication $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Revenues - Tax Levy $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Annual Balance ($465,800)($160,000)($90,000)($131,702)($320,000)($245,000)($180,000)($245,890)($514,700)($567,000) Year End Cash Balance ($371,556)($531,556)($621,556)($753,258)($1,073,258)($1,318,258)($1,498,258)($1,744,148)($2,258,848)($2,825,848) Improvement/Equipment Outlay Fund Current Balance:$465,370 Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Equipment, CIP $250,267 $126,184 $334,873 $225,000 $450,000 $390,500 $185,800 $135,500 $140,461 $40,000 Building CIP $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 IT, CIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Golf, CIP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $525,267 $126,184 $334,873 $225,000 $450,000 $390,500 $185,800 $135,500 $140,461 $40,000 Revenues (Transfer)$215,000 $255,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 Tax Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Enterprise Funds $50,000 $48,500 $63,000 $37,000 $450,000 $300,000 $145,500 $37,000 $0 $0 Annual Balance ($260,267)$177,316 $43,127 $127,000 $315,000 $224,500 $274,700 $216,500 $174,539 $275,000 Year End Cash Balance $205,103 $382,419 $425,546 $552,546 $867,546 $1,092,046 $1,366,746 $1,583,246 $1,757,785 $2,032,785 Improvement/Equipment Outlay Fund - Long Lake Fire Account Current Balance:$213,307 Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Long Lake Fire CIP $9,350 $110,500 $46,750 $0 $0 $114,750 $0 $51,000 $488,750 $76,500 Total Expenses $9,350 $110,500 $46,750 $0 $0 $114,750 $0 $51,000 $488,750 $76,500 Revenue - General Fund Transfer (2)$85,000 $90,000 $95,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Revenues - Interest (2)$5,000 $2,940 $2,764 $3,274 $4,307 $5,350 $5,256 $6,308 $6,862 $3,043 Annual Balance $80,650 ($17,560)$51,014 $103,274 $104,307 ($9,400)$105,256 $55,308 ($381,888)$26,543 Year End Cash Balance $293,957 $276,397 $327,411 $430,685 $534,991 $525,591 $630,847 $686,156 $304,267 $330,810 Capital Improvement Plan, City of Orono Parks CIP Project 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Trail Construction along CSAH 19 (Livingston to Dakota) $120,000 Lurton gravel trails $20,000 Swim Platform for Sandy Beach $10,000 Dock For Lydiard Beach $10,000 CSAH 112 PH 3 Trail (School to CSAH 6)929333 CR 6 Trail (OCB - Willow) Improvement $36,402 Crystal Bay Park Improvements (Scope TBD)$300,000 Summit Beach Improvements (paved parking and l d) $95,300 Trail construction along North Arm Drive to Lakeview k $80,000 French Creek Park (Tree Mainteance and Planting)$20,000 Hackberry Improvements $300,000 Dock Replacement (15 year life)$10,000 GC Wetland and Fairway #4 Improvements $160,000 GC Lawn Bowling $80,000 Trail Access to Lowry Woods $100,000 GC Tow Rope $102,000 Trail Construction along Hunter or Ferndale Roads i li h b d $133,890 GC Perimeter Trail $214,700 Trail Construction along OCB and North Shore (Luce Line k)$567,000 Trail Construction along CSAH 19 south from the Dakota l 200,000$ Playground Equipmetn Replacement (Antoine)$65,000 Playground Equipment Replacement (Navarre, kb d d l ) $70,000 Lake Access dock Replacements (15 year replacement hdl)$10,000 $10,000 Lake Access Refresh (Gravel, Signage, Fencing and gates)$10,000 10,000$ Golf Course Micellaneous Improvemetns 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Totals $160,000 $90,000 $131,702 $320,000 $245,000 $180,000 $245,890 $514,700 $567,000 $280,000 5-Year CIP Planning Period Notes: 1. The CSAH 112 Trail amount was provided by Hennepin County. The amount exceeds avaible funding. Trail would required extensive eathwork/retianign walls for area next to wetlands. Timeing is depended upon CSAH 112 Ph 3 project. Decision to proceed will be needed by the County by October 2020. 2. A dock/swim platform for Sandy Beach was added ot hte CIP at hte request of hte Park Commision on July 6th,2020. Capital Improvement Plan, City of Orono Bumper #Equipment Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 452 Skid loader 48,500$ 482 Trailer 11,000$ 604 Tool Cat 66,684$ 603 Tee Mower 38,000$ 605 Greens Mower 9,700$ 619 Top Dresser 10,000$ 491 Crack Sealing Equipment 65,000$ 431 Truck, 1 Ton Dump Truck w/Plow and Sander 142,373$ 712 Utility Service Truck with hoist 63,000$ 432 Hot Patch Truck 188,000$ 710 Chevy 3/4 Ton Pickup w/Plow 37,000$ 713 Vactor Truck 450,000$ 422 Truck, 3/4 Ton Pickup w/Plow 50,000$ 471 Chipper 40,500$ 711 Jet Rodder-Tank pump and hose unit 300,000$ 211 Building Inspection Vehicle 40,300$ 430 Tractor Loader Backhoe 145,500$ 481 Trailer 9,000$ 483 Trailer 11,000$ 601 Rough Mower 65,500$ 618 Greens / Turf Roller 13,000$ 709 Ford 3/4 Ton Pickup 37,000$ 451 Skid loader 70,000$ 110 Admin vehicle 50,000$ 615 Mower (Big island)8,961$ 490 Air Compressor 40,000$ 451A Snow blower 11,500$ 470 Roller 40,000$ 424 Dump Truck w/ Plow and Sander 260,000$ 428 Truck, 1 Ton Dump Truck w/Plow and Sander 102,800$ Totals 126,184$ 328,073$ 225,000$ 450,000$ 390,500$ 185,800$ 135,500$ 140,461$ 40,000$ 402,800$ 5 Year CIP Planning Period