Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 08-26-1996 SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, August 28,1998 - 8 p.m. Mayor. Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, Tom Perrault Call to order. Consideration of adopting modifications to the Trunk Storm Sewer Policy. Adjournment. Special Council Agenda - 8/26/96 Cnn_niderallon of adnnt nQ modifications t�+� thok Trunk S orm Sewer Policy. (J.OJ A RFFFRENCE AND BArKGROUND: The City Council is asked to review proposed amendments to the Trunk Storm Sewer Program and to consider making modifications. The request is submitted by City staff and is based on additional information and concerns provided by a number of property owners with property primarily located in the industrial areas within the community. This group raised a number of concerns regarding the trunk storm sewer policy, most of which are addressed in the proposed modifications. Prior to outlining the modifications, I would like to summarize some of the goals of a tank storm sewer program. GOALS A. A trunk storm sewer program should include engineering design standards that will assure cost-effective construction and maintenance, thereby assuring the greatest value per dollar spent. B. Trunk storm sewer improvement program should prevent serious storm water problems caused by urbanization while limiting premature capital improvement expense. The program should strive to achieve timely acquisition of land and timely construction of facilities at a pace even with the rate of land development. C. The funding program should rely only on general taxes when assessment and storm sewer revenue is unavailable to pay for storm sewer construction at the time of construction. D. The funding program should include assessments against properties benefiting from storm sewer development. E. Now development shuuld pay its alum of the cost associated with managing storm water created by new development. F. The finding program should be designed and administered in a manner that supports business oxpamion and development. CONCERNS The concerns expressed by industrial property owners focused in the following areas: Special Council Agenda - 8/26/96 It was felt by some that the design standards may be excessive, thus driving up the cost for storm sewer service per acre. The trunk fee program results in an unexpected fee for existing industrial developments. They felt they owned completely developed, "assessment -free" property. Applying this unexpected fee retroactively to the entire industrial site is an impediment to existing expansion plans. It is also not consistent with treatment of existing residential development. For example, in the case of Tappers, Inc., the trunk storm sewer fee is applied to the existing acreage encompassed by the existing building and parking area (3 acres). The trunk fee requires that a fee be paid for the 3 acres that are already developed Bad the fee must also cover the expansion area of 3 more acres. C. The trunk storm sewer fee should be based on only that portion of a parcel that is actually being developed and not based on the size of the entire parcel on which a development occurs. For example, under the current plan, industrial development is required to pay for trunk storm sewer service based on full development of the parcel even though only half the parcel is actually being developed. There was a concern that the City should not be collecting fees based on undeveloped land areas that are not contributing toward an increase in storm water runoff. D. Requiring full payment of the trunk storm sewer fee at the time of acquisition of a building permit is a problem. The program does not provide for a method of financing this fee or spreading the cost over a period of time. PROPOSED PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS After review of the concerns expressed by industrial property owners, City staff proposes maintaining certain aspects and changing others. Following is our recommendation. A. DESIGN STANDARDS City staff does not propose any modifications to the design standards of the trunk storm sewer systems. Please we the trunk storm sewer justification report for more detail regarding design standards. As you Special Council Agenda - 8126/96 know, the standards call for centralization of ponding systems and interconnection of regional ponds with overland and underground systems. TRUNK FEE CALCULATION Currently, the program requires that the trunk storm sewer fee be based on the entire area of the parcel being developed even if the parcel is large and the portion of the parcel developed is small. Staff suggests that it appears reasonable to calculate the fee paid by a development based on the actual area developed and not on the potential area. For example, if only half of a 5 -acre parcel is developed, then the trunk fee associated with that particular parcel would be limited to 2.5 acres X the trunk fee. The portion of a parcel determined as being developed would be measured based on the footprint of the building, parking, and setbacks for the zoning district in which the building is located. At such time that 85% of a parcel is developed, including setbacks, the parcel would be deemed fully developed, and the fee would then be based on development of the full parcel. ASSESSMENT PROGRAM It is proposed that the trunk storm sewer fee would not be retroactive W cuver existing duvelupment; however, existing develupment wuuld be subject to the standard assessment process. Itis proposed that future trunk stone sewer projects be assessed against benefiting property owners. Benefiting properties would consist of all parcels developed as of August 1996. In calculating the assessment rate, the entire acreage of the area benefited by the trunk storm sewer improvement would be used in calculating the rote. Individual parcel assessments would be based on the area within that parcel developed as of August 1996. This area would be measured based on the footprint of the building area, parking lot, outside storage, and sethacks. For each storm sewer project, an assessment roll would be prepared. The amount paid by each parcel would be dependent on the level of development of the parcel as of August 1996. For example, a 10 -acro parcel that is 41 developed and '/i vacant will pay as follows: The portion developed will only pay assessments based on projects completed over time. The other 5 -acre portion of the site will pay a taunk foo at time of development and will never pay an assessment. Thus, the total cost of trunk storm sewer improvements will be paid via assessment for all existing developed areas and trunk fees for expansion and newly- Special Council Agenda - 8/26196 developing areas. This program is actually very similar to what we ultimately adopted for financing the Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Improvement. D. It is proposed that the City allow the property owner to place the cost of the trunk storm sewer fee against the property as an assessment. Thus, the City will collect this trunk storm sewer fee over time. The major implication for the changes in the policy are as follows: 1. Trunk storm sewer design standards are maintained. There is actually no implication for system design. 2. The changes will not limit the City's ability to complete storm sewer projects on a timely basis. 3. The proposed changes will result in a shifting of the cost to upfront city improvements to general taxes and away from industrial development because the City will be collecting funds based on only the area encompassed by development and not the area encompassed by development + future expansion areas. It is the view of City stall' that this alternative, though resulting in greater upfiront cost for the City, is more fair and, therefore, justifiable. 4. The original funding program did include assessments in addition to the trunk storm sewer fee program; however, under the proposed modification that calls for existing developed industrial land to pay an assessment rather than a trunk fee at the time of expansion, it is possible that the potential for obtaining revenue from such sites would be slightly diminished due to difficulties in establishing benefit equal to assessment cost. 6. The proposed changes to the program are consistent with the goal of requiring that development pay for its share of trunk storm sewer expenses. Linking the fee per acre to the actual developed area and providing an alternative method for financing the fee are changes that will help support business expansion and development. 6. Finally, the trunk storm sower fee relies on user fees and assessments to pay for capital expense associated with development of the trunk storm sewer system. If Council believes that the cost per acro for trunk storm sewer will impact the City's ability to compoto with other communities, the Council could lower the trunk storm sower fee by committing general funds to pay for a percentage of the trunk storm sewer expenses. Currently, under this program, the City's expenses Special Council Agenda - 8/26/96 are limited to the holding cost associated with completing projects prior to collection of sufficient trunk storm sewer and assessment funds. Council may wish to consider contributing even more to the program by paying for a portion of the cost to complete these projects right off the top. It is not recommended by staff that the City fund a portion of the trunk storm sewer cost because it is our view that the trunk storm sewer cost should be reflected in the price of the land, which is ultimately dictated by the marketplace. We are concerned that subsidizing expense of the trunk storm sewer fee would not result in a reduction in the cost of land, thus would have no effect on making Monticello desirable for industry. It might be better to leave the fee at a higher level, then provide incentives to defray the expense on a case- by-case basis. Motion to adopt the proposed modifications to the trunk storm sewer program retroactive to the date when the fees were established. Under this alternative, the City Council believes that the proposed modifications are reasonable and that they represent a positive refinement of the trunk storm sewer policy and that City staff should proceed to make adjustments to agreements and to fees that have already been paid relating to the trunk storm sewer fee and make them consistent with this action. Motion to approve the proposed modifications with further modifications as established by the City Council. Based on Council discussion, there may be other aspects of the policy that need clarification or modifications. Perhaps the City Council desires to pay for a portion of trunk storm sewer expenses out-of- pocket, etc. Motion to abandon the trunk storm sewer policy and direct City staff to develop an alternative method for funding trunk storm sower projects. Under this alternative, the assessment program becomes the primary method for obtaining revenues for trunk storm sewer improvements. As noted in previous discussions, relying entirely on assessments to Special Council Agenda - 8/26/98 collect trunk storm sewer funds is quite difficult and will likely result in the City paying a major portion of the principal expense associated with trunk storm sewer improvements. Council may wish to direct staff to investigate establishment of special taxing districts for each watershed. Under this alternative, each parcel pays taxes based on the cost to build storm sewer facilities in the watershed in which a parcel is located. This alternative was not selected previously because such a high percentage of the areas being served are occupied by school district or church property, which would not be contributing taxes toward their respective watershed districts. C. STAFF RF.COMMFNDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Public Works Director, and City Engineer to adopt the proposed modifications to the trunk storm sewer policy as outlined. We believe that concerns put forth by affected property owners had validity, and we believe that the proposed modifications are justifiable and represent a good compromise. We also believe that the basic reasons for the trunk storm sewer policy justify the continuation of the policy. Many cities in the metro area use similar policies to collect trunk storm sewer fees, and many have higher costs per acro. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Storm water trunk fee justification report; Storm sewer trunk fee application examples. SCENAR 10 1 - ` VACANT 10 ACRE PARCEL SCENARIO 2 - EXAMPLE: ANY VACANT PARCEL 10 ACRE PARCEL CONTAINING 6 ACRES DEVELOPED I j j FUTURE I I I I j VACANT I j j EX ISTING I j I j 1 j I j I I I I I I I PA"to LW i L._._. -.-•---.-I I. ZL.—.---.J A - PATS NO ASSSSSNENT AT ANY TINS A - 4 ACRE PORTION PATI TRUNK FEE AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT e — PATS TRWR FEE ONLY AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL / OUSINEsfi &"W ON THE POUT 101 DEVELOPEDCOMMERCIAL Ac x 15200/Ac CDIEERIc1AA. / WAINESSI INDUSTIRIAW 10 Ac x 462oWAC - 152.000.00 10 AC x 64155/AC INMTR1AM.1 REIIOENTIu A 4 UNITS / Ac 10 Ac x 64155/AC - 64.010.00 10 Ac x 6450.60/ Ac RESIOENTIAL • 4 UNITS / AC 0 — 1 ACRE PORTION PAYS ASSESSWNT AT TIME 0 10 AC x 94602.90/ AC - 46.025.00 STOOK UvM r"JAIM PRWECT r ftpft MCI 00 "a w j M.r.....�..a. Storm Sewer Trunk 'Wom"a p Fee Payment Senarios w64^'- Monticello, Minnesota FOn No. I SCENARl0 3 - SCENARIO 4 - 10 ACRE PARCEL - 5 ACRE 10 ACRE SITE COMPLETELY EXPANSION PROJECT DEVELOPED PRIOR TO INCEPTION OF TRUNK STORM MATER FEE r -------•-------I- - - - - - - -� -----------; BUILDING I EXPANSION j I EXISTING I I i I I BUILDING j I I I I I SX. BUILDING N 1 I I 1 EXISIING 1 PARXINO I PARKING 1 I I j A - TRUNK Pu BASSO ON SX►ANSId1 AMA A - PAW" PATS ASSESSMENT AT TIL[ oulmo BT NEV PAIRING/ BUILDING PLUS W STORY SEVER TRUNK PRWECT SET-GACXS RRSLTIPLE ASSESSWNTSI B - EXISTING B ACRES DEVELOPED PORTION PAYS ASUSSM[NT AT TILE W STWM Ull" TRUNK PRWECT NILLTIPLE ASSEisIS{NTSI 1101010"WIde 010 Storm Sewer Trank Fee Payment Senarios Monticello. Minnesota �r mP"aft Wv on "Nu ♦• RpuA No. 2 _ / A WSB & Associates, Inc. INFRASTRUCTURE StormENGINEERS Water PLANNERS Trunk Fee Justification Report February 8, 1996 Prepared far RwAsul City of Mollticello 250 East Broadway 3MWDO dLmboM.•e«1 ybyna eom.wa P.O. Box 1147 wnwou'UNNO Itk Monticello, Minnesota 55362 D Storm Water Trunk Fee Justification Report Prepared for the City of Monticello By WSB & Associates, Ina 350 Westwood Lake OJJlce 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Date: February, 1996 Reg. No. 15998 Revised: August 1996 RIB ftjM Na 1010.06 • SWm Rata Pham} Fee JrttiJh II= Repar CV y Of ff- leeno Table of Contents Introduction...................................................... 1 Il. Procedures and Methods Followed. 3 III. Capital Costs Associated With Trunk Drainage System Construction ................................................ 8 A. Meadow Oak Watershed ................................ 9 Al. Description 9 A2. Anticipated Improvements 9 B. Industrial Park Watershed ............................. 11 Bl. Description 11 B2. Anticipated Improvements 11 C. Hart Boulevard Watershed ............................ 13 Cl. Description 13 C2. Anticipated Improvements 13 D. Trunk Highway 25 Watershed ......................... 15 DI. Description is D2. Anticipated Improvements IS E. 7th Street Watershed .................................. 16 El. Description 16 E2. Anticipated Improvements 16 IV. Policy Administration ....................................... 17 V. Summary Conclusions and Recommendation ................ 18 WSB Proud lea HIM • ftm Wour 11aeR Fa AmUkatim Rgon Cary qI Mootkao Introduction This storm water trunk fee justification report has been prepared for the City of Monticello to provide documentation to support the trunk storm water fees that the Cite intends to charge property owners developing land within the City. This fee is necessary in order for the City to provide assurances that: I. An adequate trunk drainage system will be available so that storm water runoff from parcels within the City can be reasonably accommodated, not only within these parcels, but through downstream areas. 2. Adequate storm water storage facilities are available so that flooding will not take place within the City for up to a 100 -year return frequency critical duration rainfall event. 3. Adequate treatment is provided for the storm water runoff so that the quality of water in downstream water bodies is not significantly impacted by development in upstream areas. This is also necessary in order to meet state and federal requirements for treatment of storm water runoff. 4. Developers have some flexibility relative to wetland preservation and meeting the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. 5. The trunk drainage system, including storage areas and conveyance systems, can be designed so that the sizing of the system can be minimized as much as reasonably possible. This will allow the City to construct these drainage systems for the lowest cost. 6. The City can acquire properly for building the trunk storm sewer system, as well as the associated retention and treatment pond areas while new development takes place so that the plans of both the City and the developer can be coordinated. Outlined in the remainder of this report is a description of the design standards, procedures and methods followed in developing the preliminary design and estimating the anticipated trunk fee costs, and a breakdown of the capital costs associated with the construction of the trunk ponding and conveyance system. 11IS8ProjenNa 10/0.06 • ftrm 10arer Mnk FeeAU07efiUm Raped Page I TABLE I Swnmary ojCapltal Com of Trunk System "R projectNa 1010.06 • &arm Neta Ttunk Are Irst(Ileadox Repoli Pate 2 Industrial Meadow TV 25 7th A Harr Blvd Park Oak Retention A Trearment LandAcqulsltlon& 52,400,000 $165,000 5646,800 $1,060,000 5709,000 Construction Incl. 10% LEAF Convq once System Construction Incl. $1,618,500 $244,400 5774,800 5833,000 5611,000 30% LEA F Total $4,018,500 5409,400 51,471,600 51,893,000 51,320,100 (GrossAcra) 1,019 144 435 536 323 Area Net Acres 713 101 319 375 226 Aswrage Cost Per Net $3,636 54,053 $4,456 $3,048 53,842 Acre Average Cost Per Net $0.1294 $0.0931 $0.10 $0.1159 50.1341 Square Fact "R projectNa 1010.06 • &arm Neta Ttunk Are Irst(Ileadox Repoli Pate 2 A Procedures and Med:ods Followed The costs associated with the construction of a trunk drainage system for the City of Monticello can generally be broken out into the costs associated with securing the land, and constructing the trunk storm water storage, treatment, and conveyance systems within the City. In order to develop these costs, consideration must be given to the City's engineering design standards and policies associated with construction of new storm water retention and treatment facilities, as well as conveyance systems. Toward this end, please find outlined below specific design standards and implementation policies that the City intends to utilize to calculate the fee and implement this program: Storm water storage will need to be provided for areas in their fully - developed condition for a 100 -year return frequency critical duration rainfall event. In many cases, the 100 -year, 10 -day snow melt will be determined as a critical duration event. The trunk storm sewer conveyance system will be limited to that required to allow ponding areas to draw down to approach their runout elevation in no greater than a 10 -day period following a critical duration rainfall event. Treatment must be provided to remove a minimum of 60% of the total phosphorus and over 95% of the total suspended solids loading of untreated runoff directed to a treatment pond. Based on these standards, it is likely that approximately 7% of the tributary drainage area will need to be utilized for retention and treatment basin construction. To achieve these goals, utilizing guidelines developed through the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program and the Directives of the Metropilitan Council, the treatment will typically be provided for storm water runoff by constructing treatment ponds with dead water storage volumes equal to the runoff volume from a 2.5" rainfall event. Basin geometries including length to width ratios and average depth will also be designed in accordance with the direction provided by Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Studies and Metropolitan Council Driectives. Side slopes associated with the construction of the retention and treatment basins must be maintained at 6:1 over the first 12 feet watenvard, followed by a maximum of 3:1 slope in the interior of these basins. This II'SB Projm Na 1010.06 • Srorm Water Mnt Pea JurtlJkketlon Report Post! requirement does not apply in areas where natural depressions are going to be used to provide retention and treatment. The outlets from these basins will have a design configuration such that skimming of oil and floatables will be provided for low flow discharges. A two-stage design configuration shall also be utilized for these systems to improve retention and treatment functions of the basin. ■ The City will work toward constructing gravity outlets for most systems. In cases where it can be demonstrated through a cost benefit analysis that the costs for using a lift station will be less than that associated with a gravity system, consideration for a lift station outlet from a given drainage area will be considered. • During development, the City anticipates acquiring easements or outlot dedications at no cost over parce;s that will be utilized for storm water storage, treatment, or conveyance system construction, to the extent necessary to accommodate runoff from the proposed development. In addition, floodplain and wetland areas will be required to be dedicated at no cost. ■ The City will attempt to delay construction of downstream retention and treatment facilities until such time as property in these areas is under development. In cases where an upstream system must be provided an outlet, the City will consider utilizing portable pumps to maintain normal water elevations in designated storm water storage areas. • It will be a property developer's responsibility to convey storm .water runoff through lateral systems and overland, overflow systems from a given site to a designated storm water storage area. The construction of these lateral systems must accommodate a 10 -year return frequency rainfall event. Overland overflows must also be available for these areas which will convey water to the designated storm water storage and treatment area prior to a building floor being inundated. ■ The City will give consideration to utilizing open drainageways instead of storm sewers in situations where such a system can be built at reduced cost provided it can be demonstrated that long-term maintenance of that facility will not warrant the use of a lower maintenance but more capital intensive piping system. 11 SB Protea No. 101x06 0 Storm Werer rrun1 Fee Juallkadon RWrl Pale 4 ■ In the construction of any new storm water retention/treatment basin, the City will attempt to incorporate into the design the construction of wetland areas that would be suitable for use as a mitigation site for wetlands that could be filled in other locations. Such systems will likely utilize a two - cell design configuration and attempt to limit the bounce in the area to be created to less than one foot in a 10 -year storm in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act rules. • The City will pay the developer for the cost of oversizing the system to accommodate upstream runoff if reasonable and appropriate to do so. ■ Cost calculations associated withe the excavation of material in an effort to construct a storm water retention pond will be based on the assumption that 50% of the material excavated will be trucked away and the remaining 50% will remain onsite. • Based on the preliminary analyses completed as a part of the preparation of this report, the cost of the relative benefit for the drainage system construction was deemed to be most equitable by uniform]}, distributing the costs throughout all the areas of the City. No drainage sub -districts were identified to be singled out to allow a variation in the per unit acre charge for the trunk fee. • The City anticipates generating revenue to construct the storm sewer system, as well as maintain and replace it through two sources. The funds for constructing the system will come from the storm water trunk fee. The funds for maintaining the system will come from storm water utility fees. ■ Costs for land acquisition and improvements are based on an engineer's estimate of average costs based on a variety of land acquisition and construction scenarios. The typical scenario utilized herein assumes that the City would attempt to acquire land and construct most projects concurrently with land development activities. • The trunk storm water fee will be based on the total cost associated with the construction of the system divided by the net acreage benefitted. • It is the intention of the City to charge the storm water management fee to all properties that are developing, provided that these properties have not previously paid a storm water management fee or assessment. In cases NSB Projeet Na main; a Storm Niter Mnk Fee Just porro• Repwr Paso 5 where a special benefit charge was assessed to a given parcel as part of the storm water utility fee, consideration will be given for a reduction in the storm water management fee if it is deemed reasonable to do so. ■ The estimated construction cost for the storm sewer system took into consideration Mn/DOT funding for selected portions of this system, as well as the receipt of any tax increment financing funding. ■ The preliminary design and cost estimates for the system were developed using reasonable care. However, it will be necessary to periodically update the design assumptions and cost estimates contained herein. It is recommended that this report be reviewed and updated annually or as necessary to reflect changes in construction costs or changes in the assumptions utilized for the trunk system design. ■ For areas draining into the City that are outside its municipal boundaries, it will be assumed that no revenue will be generated from areas outside of the City's municipal boundaries unless a joint powers agreement has been drafted between the City and an adjoining governmental unit that addresses each community's responsibility relative to funding the construction of such systems. • Storm water retention treatment ponds will be lined with an impermeable membrane or soils in areas where land use activities are believed to provide a significant potential for groundwater contamination. In cases where basins are constructed as two -cell systems, the primary cell will be lined but it will not be necessary to line the secondary cell with an impermeable membrane. • The costs associated with the trunk storm water fee includes administrative, legal, permitting, and engineering costs for trunk drainage improvements. • Administrative, legal, permitting, and engineering costs were estimated at 30% of the construction costs. • The calculations for the trunk fee charge were based on the estimated total cost of the trunk system construction divided by the net developable acres that it will be present in the watersheds. Within the net developable acres, there will be developed and undeveloped parcels. Developed parcels are defined as platted or unplatted parcels that contain a structure or are IISfiftfsri t101a06 • Morn Mater Trunk Fee l ignewksReyorr Pap actively used in conjunction with an adjacent or nearby developed parcel. Developed land within a developed parcel is defined as land that contains a structure and that is actively used in conjunction with activities associated with the structure. Undeveloped parcels are defined as vacant land that is platted or unplatted that is generally unimproved or vacant, and does not contain a structure or is not actively used in conjunction with an adjacent or nearby developed parcel. For the purposes of administering the trunk storm water fee program, the fee will be applied to all vacant land that is proposed for development as well as to develop property that is being redeveloped. Any land that has paid a trunk fee will not be subject to future assessment charges. Parcels that have not paid a trunk fee and that are developed, will be subject to assessments as improvements are constructed within the trunk drainage system. NSA Profcer NA 1010.06 • &am N afa Punk Fa J*Vukwtm RgoN Pass 7 111. Capital Costs Associated Willi Trunk Drainage System Construction The capital costs associated with constructing the trunk system are broken out into costs associated with the following: I. Land acquisition for retention and treatment facilities. Generally determined to be 7% of the total watershed area, multiplied by the land costs. This report assumed a $4,500 per acre land cost, which is low for the industrial/commercial areas. 2. Costs associated with constructing the retention area. This is the volume of material that must be moved to construct the required storage. If existing ponds are utilized, this amount can be reduced. An average price for the excavation of $1.50 per cubic yard is assumed. 3. Costs associated with constructing the treatment area. According to Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards, 5% of the watershed must be treatment area with dead storage four feet deep. This calculation also assumes $1.50 per cubic yard excavation costs. 4. Costs associated with construction of the trunk conveyance system. These are estimates of the construction cost of future and existing trunk conveyance systems using actual or 1996 construction prices. These will need to be adjusted for ILture years, Items I - 3 are categorized in Table I as "Retention & Treatment Land Acquisition & Construction Including 10% LEAF". The 10% LEAF includes legal, engineering, administrative and fiscal overhead costs. Summarized, this is the ponding aspect of the storm water system. Item 4 is categorized as "Conveyance System Construction Including 30% LEAF". The 30% LEAF includes legal, engineering, administrative and fiscal overhead costs. Summarizcd, this includes the storm sewer piping and appurtenances. I$SB Projw N& 101M • SWm Il ate rank Fee lrsiUke ion Repon Pose Outlined in this section, please find a description of the watersheds modeled and a description of anticipated improvements necessary to be completed. A. Meadow Oak Watershed Al. Description The Meadow Oak Watershed is located on both sides of Interstate 94 (1- 94). The area north of 1-94 is bounded on the north by the Mississippi River, on the east by Gillard Avenue, on the west by the eastem edge of the River Mill Subdivision, and on the south by I-94. For areas south of I-94, the district is bounded on the north by I-94, on the west by the Briar Oakes and Eastwood Knoll Subdivisions, on the east by the Meadow Oak Subdivision, and on the south by County Road 118. The majority of the watershed area is located south of I-94 and has an existing storm drainage network of trunk facilities and ponds which discharge north into the I-94 ditch system. The storm water then travels to a pond on the north side of 1-94 through a series of pipes located within the interstate right-of-way. From that point, the water travels through a storm sewer system located within the Gillard Avenue Pond to the Mississippi River. AZ Anticipated Improvements With the recent completion of the storm sewer system along Gillard Avenue discharging into the Mississippi River, the core storm sewer network is now in place. Future enhancements include, but are not limited to, the following: Development of the storm sewer system to serve the Norell property located west of Sandberg East 2nd Addition will include ponding areas and a trunk connection to the Gillard Avenue storm sewer system. Additional storm water ponding easement must be acquired from several lots located adjacent to the primary Meadow Oak Pond. Trunk stone water piping beaveen the large Briar Oakes pond and the Meadow Oak ponding system. RSB pmjmNo6 mm a Storm Rater Punk F'eeJuitUkartoe Reporr Pate 9 Trunk storm sewer improvements for a 160 -acre area located south of I-94 not currently located within the Meadow Oak Watershed District. Necessary improvements may include a storm water lift station and associated piping to the Meadow Oak ponding system, as well as internal piping between proposed ponding areas within the new 160 -acre area. WSR Profsd No.101 QOM Ar Rom Wara rrvxA Fa AvPL bx Rgwr FRo 10 B. Industrial Park Watershed Bl. Description The Industrial Park Watershed is generally bounded on the north by 1-94, on the west by Fallon Avenue, on the south by the southern city limits, and on the east by Fenning Avenue. The total watershed area extends slightly south of the city limits and slightly east of Fenning Avenue, as shown on the attached drawing. This system has been modeled to discharge generally in the direction of the southeast quadrant of Fenning Avenue/County Road 118 and 1-94. From this location, the storm water discharges northerly across the freeway into the AME Ready Mix site. The storm water then discharges under the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and into the existing drainage ditch located adjacent to Hawks Bar, with the ultimate discharge point being the 54 -inch storm sewer system located adjacent to the River Mill Subdivision. It should be noted that the discharge rete from the AME Ready Mix site is set at 22 cfs. There was available capacity in the existing 54 -inch storm sewer pipe due to a realignment of drainage districts in the River Mill Subdivision area and so the 22 cfs discharge is proposed to be carried through the existing 54 -inch storm sewer. Consequently, a proportional amount of the project cost associated with the 54 -inch storm sewer installation should be spread against the Industrial Park Storm Water District. B2. Anticipated Improvements Most of the anticipated improvements for this district have not been completed at this time. Further, the improvements suggested by the stone water study may be altered due to plans being developed by the primary property owner in the district. Anticipated improvements, as identified at this time, are as follows: Construction of a storm water pond and associated ditch through the A Glorious Church site. Possible acquisition of land for the necessary ponding area that is greater than what is required to be provided by A Glorious Church. Augured storm sewer outlet from AME Ready Mix to CSAH 75 ditch to provide an outlet from the AME Ready Mix site. $FSB Projm Na 1010.06 • Mora 11 ower rmak fee hur tkalae Report past 11 Construction of a pond at the southeast quadrant of County Road 118 and I-94. Construction of ponding and associated trunk storm sewer from the Monticello Commerce Center site. Auguring of County Road 118 at the intersection with School Boulevard to serve the Monte Club Hill. Construction of a pond south of the Cardinal Hills development and associated trunk storm sewer piping to serve the site located just south of Cardinal Hills. WSB Project Na HIM 0 Sbrw Wats rmni Fm AwUkadmr Rqw pose 12 C. Hart Boulevard Watershed Cl. Description The Hart Boulevard Watershed is bisected by I-94. For the areas north of 1-94, the district is bounded on the north by Hart Boulevard and CSAH 75, on the east by County Road 118, on the west by Washington Street and Ramsey Street, and on the south by 1-94. For areas south of 1-94, the district in this area is bounded on the north by 1-94, on the south by the south city limits, on the east by Fallon Avenue, and on the west by County Road 117. This drainage district is served on the south side of 1-94 by a large drainage ditch running midway between Fallon Avenue and County Road 117, and a smaller drainage ditch located near Thomas Park Drive. Ponding is generally provided in the ditches with little additional ponding required outside the ditch area. The ditch outlets are proposed to be restricted in order to limit the storm water discharge to the north across I- 94. The storm water from south of the freeway to north of the freeway discharges through several inplace Mn/DOT culverts and is then picked up by a City storm sewer system located at the southwest quadrant of 7th Street and Washington Street. This system discharges north of the railroad tracks and into a ditch system located along the school property, which then is picked up by a storm sewer system which discharges to the Mississippi River. Currently, a 36 -inch pipe carries the storm water across CSAH 75 to a new system recently installed between Han Boulevard and Mississippi River. C2. Anticipated Improvements Many of the primary storm sewer improvements are complete in this district, however, a number of major ponding and storm sewer improvements remain to be completed. They include: Two-stage outlet structures at Dundas Road, Chelsea Road and 1.94 for the ditch system on the south side of 1-94 to restrict storm water flow in the ditches. Miscellaneous improvements to the storm sewer system located at the railroad tracks. wsD Profess loiao6 a &atm crater rraat Fnlavomw R4vrr Pate 13 Extension of the trunk storm sewer across CSAR 75 to connect to the system located at Hart Boulevard. Development of the proposed pond adjacent to CSAR 75. Development of the proposed pond located near Thomas Park. N58ProJedA'aIM06 • Rom Wannao8Fee AvUkWoouRgor1 Pap 14 A Trunk Highway 25 Watershed y DI. Description The Trunk Highway (TH) 25 Watershed, as shown on the attached figure, is generally bounded by 1-94 on the north, east of a line running due north from the intersection of 85th Street and TH 25, north of 85th Street, and west of County Road (CR) 17 (Oakwood Drive). Storm water runoff from this watershed is generally directed into numerous depressions within the watershed which are anticipated to eventually outlet to the north under 1- 94, and into the Maple Street storm sewer system that is within the 7th Street Watershed. D2. Anticipated Improvements The improvements anticipated to accommodate storm drainage within the TH 25 watershed are outlined in detail in the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan for the TH 25 drainage area that was previously prepared in February of 1995. This plan provides outlets from a number of depressions already present within the watershed, and carries the water to the north to a depression that would be pumped by a lift station under 1- 94 into the Maple Street storm sewer. Improvements tend to range from the construction of the trunk drainage system which would provide outlets from the natural depressions located within the TH 25 watershed, to the construction of a jacked force main under 1-94 and the construction of a 10 cfs lift station to carry water from this drainage area. NSB Projed No. mao6 • &ww Nun, nunk Fa lruj/4wiar Ripon tar is E. 7th Street Watershed El. Description The 7th Street Watershed is generally bounded by 1-94 on the south, Elm Street on the west, the Mississippi River on the north, and Locust Street on the east. Storm water runoff from this watershed is generally directed to the north to the Mississippi River via a number of stone sewer systems that are present within the generally north -south facing streets as they travel toward the Mississippi River. Most of the areas within this watershed are fully developed with areas on the northerly two-thirds being primarily residential, and the southerly one-third being developed as commercial property. The existing storm sewer system in the streets that sena this area have typically been sized for a five to 10 -year return frequency event. For events having a greater intensity, ponding typically occurs in the streets and in boulevard areas adjacent to the streets. For commercial areas that have recently developed on the south side of the watershed adjacent to the 1-94 corridor, onsite ponding has been incorporated to minimize downstream flooding as a result of this development. E2. Anticipated Improvements A hydrologic analysis and feasibility report for anticipated improvements to the 7th Street Watershed was completed in January, 1990. This study recommended that the following improvements be constructed as additional development takes place within the watershed to provide assurances that storm water management in the watershed is adequately addressed: Construct an eight-acre/foot retention basin south of the mall as a municipal improvement project. (Completed) Plan for or construct in conjunction with development, a 1.5. acre/foot overflow basin in the vicinity of 6th Street and Locust Street. Construct a 14-acre/foot retention basin west of A1innesota Street and south of proposed 7th Street. USB P.VJee N061010,06 a SIOM Nett► MRM Fn lartiJJl &d= Report pqe 16 IV. Policy Administration The trunk storm water management fee program will be administered by a combination of several City departments as outlined in the following procedure: 1. The developer will submit improvement plans and calculations to the Planning and Engineering Department for review and approval. 2. The Planning and Engineering Department will review the plans and determine the area over which the trunk's storm water fee would apply. Generally speaking, the trunk storm water fee will apply to all vacant land that is proposed for development as well as any developed land that is proposed for redevelopment. Parcels that have paid a trunk storm water fee are not anticipated to need to pay for future storm water assessments. Parcels that are developed but have not paid a trunk fee will be subject to assessments for drainage projects taking place in their watersheds. For parcels that are subject to payment of the trunk fee, the City will calculate the charge based on the land area information submitted by the developer. NSB PmJed No. 1010.06 • Storm Warn Trunk Fee JaVUkarlon RgwM Page 17 V. Summary Conclusions and Recommendation This storm water trunk fee justification report has been prepared for the City of Monticello to provide documentation to support the trunk sewer fees that the City intends to charge against property owners that are developing land within the City. This fee is necessary in order for the City to fund and construct storm drainage facilities that are required to develop future property in the City. The costs associated with constructing the trunk drainage system in the City were based on developing a system that meets the City Engineering Design standards associated with the construction of new storm water retention and treatment facilities, as well as conveyance systems. The City's Engineering Design standards utilized in estimating the future cost for the trunk system are included in Section II of this report. The capital costs associated with construction of the trunk drainage system in each of the five watersheds in the City is outlined in Section III of this report. The anticipated capital costs associated with the construction of these systems are broken out into costs for land acquisition for both the retention and treatment facilities, as well as conveyance system facilities, and the construction costs for the retention and treatment facilities, as %yell as conveyance system facilities. Also estimated are the costs associated with the legal services associated with securing the land, the engineering services associated with the design and project management, and the administrative costs associated with implementing these improvements. A summary of the capital costs is provided in Table 1. WSA ProJwN& JOla06 • S►anw Neta hue! FahulJltatlw Rrpon Pad• 18 Or 1 vl sea i% �-�� pitch t t AN ,