HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Prior Lake Outlet Channel Restoration Project and Revised Agreement
3. ,
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Prior Lake Outlet Channel Restoration Project and
Revised Agreement between the Cities of Prior Lake and
Shakopee, Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District and the
Shakopee Mdewakonton Sioux Community
DATE: June 7, 2005
At the June 7, 2005 City Council work session, prior to the City Council meeting, staff
will present a power point presentation on the Prior Lake Outlet Channel Restoration
Project with a future cooperative agreement revision to the Joint Powers Agreement that
currently exists. This agreement will have a cost sharing proposal for the construction
and maintenance of the channel for all entities involved. Representatives from the
Watershed District, the Cities of Shakopee and Prior Lake and more recently Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) have been meeting for approximately five
years to revise the existing Joint Powers Agreement, which was entered into in the early
1980's. A redesign of the outlet channel is necessary due to development and future uses
of the channel by all entities and the fact is that the existing channel is not adequate to
meet the needs of the Cities and the Watershed District in the future. Each entity has
areas that drain into the channel and even different uses of the channel from a hydraulic
perspective.
Several meetings have been held in the past year, which have been more productive that
the meetings in the previous fours years, to bring about a potential draft agreement which
will be entered into between the Cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee and the Watershed
District. The Watershed District would have a separate agreement with the SMSC. The
design for the channel has been completed in concept with a bio-engineered channel for
aesthetics and to match into the natural environment with armored portions of channel, as
necessary, to control erosion and provide stability of the channel. Preliminary costs have
been generated, based on this concept design, and these costs have been separated into
eight segments of the channel from the outlet of Prior Lake to Blue Lake in Shakopee.
Various models between the government entities have been reviewed and completed to a
point where the various government agencies can agree on certain flows from each
government area.
The Technical Advisory Group has come to an agreement on a cost sharing percentage
for each area with runoff goals and a cost sharing for each segment can then be
calculated. Additionally, costs have been generated for the maintenance of the channel
for on-going operation of this channel and cost sharing for each government entity.
Finally, a construction phasing and annual costs have been generated for each partner that
will use the channel and these costs will be presented to the Council in a draft form on
June 7, 2005.
The purpose of this agenda item is to bring the Council the information, which has been
formulating for several years, and has made significant progress in the past few months
It is important for the Council to enter into an agreement for ultimate channel
improvements as there is development that is occurring in this area that will utilize the
channel. Cost sharing with other entities will keep the City of Shakopee's costs to a
minimum, yet serve all partners to their desired needs.
At this point this memo is strictly informational to the Council as to the status of the
revised Joint Powers Agreement. If there are any questions or Council wishes to provide
staff direction as we move forward in this agreement that would be appropriate.
Bruce Loney
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
ENGR/EMPLOYEEFOLDER/PPENNINGTON/COUNCIL/OUTLETCHANNEL
Prior Lake Outlet Channel Restoration Project
Cooperative Agreement
Summary of Technical Advisory Group Meetings and Cost Share
Proposal
May 2005
Presentation Outline
Outlet Channel Project Need and Principles
Project Challlenges
Technical Advisory Group
Technical Advisory Process, Summary and Recommendations
Model Evaluation
Construction cost share
Maintenance cost share
Construction phasing
JPA language
Current Status of
JPA agreement [including cost share]
Estimated construction schedule
Questions/Discussion
.
Outlet Channel Project Need
Outlet Channel operated under existing JPA since early 1980's
In 2003, partners completed a study of existing and future needs
and the conceptual re-design of the Outlet Channel
Re-Design of the Outlet Channel is necessary because:
Development in the watershed leading to:
Forcasted increase in frequency of lake outlet discharges
Cities need for a reliable outlet of storm water
Need to address existing erosion
Opportunity to improve water quality aesthetics and channel habitat
Outlet Channel Project Principles
A durable Outlet Channel that meets partners needs
Fair distribution of costs among partners
Based on use of the channel includes construction and maintenance
Cost responsibility begins at point of entry into the outlet
channel and extends downstream
Meet easement needs through development process
Outlet channel design is based on ecological principles
Design & maintenance based on ecological principles
Native vegetation /bioengineering meets channel needs at a
resonable cost, while making the channel a local amenity &
improving habitat and aesthetics
Acceptable to regulatory entities
2
JPS Challenges
Patners have different needs
Differences between hydrologic and hydraulic models
constructed by partners
Construction phasing, and timing of cooperative
agreement to meet construction schedule
Developing a fair cooperative agreement
Modeling Challenges
Intended to use one H&H model to determine cost share
Each partner had their own H&H model
Each model was created for different purposes
and showed different results
The cost to merge all the new information from
each partner's model was >$50,000
No guarantee of satisfactory results
Approach
Convened Technical Advisory Group to discuss
modeling differences
Devised a cost share approach that relies on
existing information
Technical Advisory Group
Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District
Shannon Lotthammer, District Administrator, Ed
Matthiesen, District Consulting Engineer, Rebecca
Kluckhohn, Consulting Engineer
City of Prior Lake
Steve Albrecht, City Engineer
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Stan Ellison, Land Manager; Scott Walz, Hydrologist; Dave
Pogg, Consulting Engineer
City of Shakopee
Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Todd Hubmer,
Consulting Engineer
Technical Advisory Group Process
Evaluated partner's models
Used existing data to explore cost share options
Technical advisory group met to review findings
Additional information developed between meetings to
address technical group questions
Mettings held
March 17, 2005
April 15, 2005
May 3, 2005
Meeting Highlights
March 17, 2005
Discussed parnter's models
Discussed overall elements of a fair cost share breakdown
Reviewed potential cost share scenarios
April 15, 2005
Reviewed proposed partner runoff goals
Discussed basis for construction cost share
Developed recommendation for construction cost share
May 3, 2005
Discussed basis for maintenance cost share and reviewed analysis
Developed recommendation for maintenance cost share
Discussed annual costs and construction schedule
Summarized next steps (JPS language and review process)
Modeling Discussion
Modeled areas
The red shaded area shows the PLSLWD
Outlet Channel Model extent and sub-watersheds
Prior Lake Outlet modeled at 65 cfs
continuous outflow. Note that this is a
maximum flow rate
Modeled Areas
Partner land areas
tributary to Prior Lake
Outlet Channel
Locations for comparison
Blue Lake Inlet
McKenna Rd
(Blue Lake Channel)
.
Summary of Model Comparison
Model input: The models are close on total areas and
curve numbers, though individual sub-watershed
delineations differ.
Model Output: The model results are very different,
runoff volumes and flow rates differ between each model
because of
Differences in the model computations
Assumptions
Base information
Purpose
Construction Cost-Share Discussion
Cooperative Agreement Funding
Breakdowns could be based on:
Runoff Rate, Runoff Volume, Area
Contributed by each partner (The Cities of Prior Lake and
Shakopee, Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District and
The Mdewakanton Sioux Community)
.
Cooperative Agreement Funding
Breakdowns could be based on:
Runoff Rate: Runoff Volume:
Modeled flow rates Modeled volume
(differ based on model Expected runoff volume
assumptions etc.) using Curve Numbers and
Runoff Rate Goals. areas from the model, and
For example, Shakopee has a SCS runoff methodology
runoff goal of 0.1 cfs/acre. for the chosen storm.
Multiplied by the area covered
by the city, this translates into a
flow rate. Multiply it by a period
of time and we get a volume.
Potential Scenarios (For Discussion)
PLSLWD Model - Outlet Channel
SMSC Prior Lake
(Trust City of Spring Lake
Lands Prior City of Watershed
Percent of Total Cost Only) Lake Shakopee District Total
Original Proposal 0% 10% 45% 45% 100%
Option 1: Volume* 6% 29% 46% 19% 100%
Option 2: Flow Rate
Goals** 7% 32% 55% 6% 100%
*100 year event, plus 65 cfs
through outlet for 5 days (based
on curve numbers)
**Rate goal x area no duration factor
TAG Discussion
The Technical Advisory Group agreed:
The potential benefits of additional modeling did
not justify the costs
There is no perfect answer, and the goal is to
develop a cost share that everyone finds
reasonable
To employ a simplified approach using runoff
rate goals (specified by each partner) and areas
to determine the cost share
Runoff Rate Goals Provided by Partners
Partner Goal
Prior Lake Spring Lake 65 cfs constant outflow, vary the
Watershed District duration [10 days]
City of Shakopee 0.1 cfs/acre for the Direct
Tributary Area and Sub-watersheds
south of Dean Lake
0.33 cfs/acre for all areas of the
city entering the channel north of
Dean Lake
City of Prior Lake 0.17 cfs/acre [from model]
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 0.05 cfs/acre from both Fee &
Community Trust lands
Used the idea
of a duration
factor to calculate
construction
cost-share by
segment.
Results: Segment based construction Cost Share
Segment PLSLWD City of City of Prior SMSC Total
Shakopee Lake
1 $650,170 $0 $55,910 $2,819 $708,900
2 $363,996 $14 $43,739 $1,751 $409,500
3 $263,196 $7,626 $71,046 $1,482 $343,350
4 $245,211 $204,966 $92,715 $68,807 $611,700
5 $331,122 $353,990 $125,199 $93,290 $903,600
6 $161,364 $162,936 $61,013 $51,937 $437,250
7 $218,445 $378,201 $82,595 $70,309 $749,550
8 $102,459 $182,674 $38,740 $32,977 $356,850
Percentage of
Cost Share 51.7% 28.5% 12.6% 7.2% 100%
Total $2,335,963 $1,290,407 $570,957 $323,373 $4,520,700
Notes: Does nto include easement acquisition (need at least 75' centered on the channel). Capital
costs are based on est. $150/ln foot of channel, which reflects our experience so far with the project.
Maintenance Cost-Share
Discussion
12
Basis for Maintenance Cost
Share
Estimate unit costs
Considered breakdowns for
wet & dry years
annual precipitation and
measured outlet flows from one
wet year and one dry year.
Compared to the breakdown
for construction
Discussed annual and
partner costs by segment
Developed
recommendation
Estimated Maintenance Costs (unit costs)
$250,000 maintenance fund; funded over 5 year period;
replenished annually based on work done in segment
(replenishment should account for inflation).
$10/lf of channel annually for the first 5 years of
vegetative establishment & maintenance
$5/lf of channel annually after the first 5 year period
Notes
1. $10/lf is based on a 150-foot wide buffer (ideal width, 75 is minimum); and a cost of
$3,000/acre for 0-5 year maintenance - this is included in construction costs
2. $5/lf is based on the same width, and a cost of $1,500/acre for 5+year maintenance
13
Estimated Maintenance Costs per Partner
Dry Construction
Stakeholders COnditions Wet Conditions Agreement
Prior Lake Spring Lake 8% 54% 52%
Watershed District
City of Shakopee 31% 19% 29%
City of Prior Lake 46% 18% 13%
Shakopee Mdewakaton 15% 9% 7%
Dry Condition assume 15% of precipitations as runoff volume. Wet
conditions assume 35% of precipitations as runoff volume.
This runoff volume is compared to the outflow volume from Prior Lake
That value is based on flow measurements, days of flow, & gates open
Simplify the agreement by using the same cost share that
was used for construction
Construction Phasing and Annual Costs
Segment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Prior Lake to D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M2
CR 42 05-06)
2 CR 42 to Pike D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2
Lake inlet 06-07)
3 Pike Lake Inlet D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2
to Pike Lake 07-08)
Trail
4 Pike Lake Trail D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2
to CR 16 07-08)
5 CR 16 to D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M2
Deans Lake 05-06)
outlet
6 Deans Lake D C(fall M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M2
Outlet to TH winter 05-
169 06)
7 TH 169 to TH D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2 M2 M2
101 06-07)
8 TH 101 to Blue D C(winter M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M2
Lake inlet 07-08)
Notes
D=Design, C=Construction, M1=0-5 yr. maintenance, M2, 6+ yr maintenance
14
Annual Costs for Each Partner
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
PLSLWD $904,095 $475,501 $398,591 $222,551 $181,567
City of Shakopee $434,533 $267,753 $209,692 $173,369 $100,299
City of Prior Lake $192,996 $114,185 $116,049 $59, 875 $44,379
SMSC $119,424 $68,427 $57,847 $38,326 $25,135
Total $1,651,048 $925,845 $780,980 $494,120 $351,380
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Partner Total
PLSLWD $155,731 $117,642 $81,281 $81,281 $77,865 $2,696,105
City of Shakopee $86,027 $68,796 $49,103 $49,103 $43,014 $1,481,688
City of Prior Lake $38,064 $29,993 $20,323 $20,323 $19,032 $654,198
SMSC $21,558 $16,623 $11,878 $11,878 $10,779 $381,677
Total $301,380 $233,055 $162,585 $162,585 $150,690 $5,213,669
Note
Annual costs shown here include capital and maintenance costs but not any easement acquisition costs
Capital construction cost estimates are based on $150/linear foot of channel
Annual Costs for Each Partner
$1,000,000 PLSL WD
$900,000 City of Shakopee
$800,000 City of Prior Lake
$700,000 SMSC
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
.
TAG Recommendations
Employ a simplified approach using runoff rate goals
and relative drainage area to determine the cost share
Calculate cost share by segment
Only apply cost share from the point where partner's
stormwater enters the channel and downstream
Use same formula for construction and maintenance
cost-share to simplify application
Establish $250,000 fund for "hard" maintenance with
reimbursement mechanism
Plan/budget annually for vegatation maintenance
Meet annually in March to discuss project plans and
needs (both construction and maintenance)
Current Status of Cost Share Recommendation
Technical Advisory Group recommends using a cost share
breakdown for construction and maintenance based on tributary land
area and new development standards set by each Partner (runoff rate
as a flow rate per area) The TAG also recommends meeting annually
in March to review and budget for recommended work.
Percent of Total Project Cost
PLSLWD 51.7%
City of Shakopee 28.5%
City of Prior Lake 12.6%
SMSC 7.2%
16
Current Staus of JPA Agreement
PLSLWD will draft a revised agreement (May-June)
JPA for the cities and the PLSLWD
MOA for the SMSC and the PLSLWD (a separate agreement is
necessary because under state law, SMSC cannot be a party to a
JPA)
PLSLWD attorney will review the agreements
Draft revised JPA will be distributed to
partners for review (July)
Channel design and construction
costs incurred while the JPA is under
development will be reimbursed
according to the cost-share
agreement
Current Status of Construction Schedule
Proposed Construction Schedule by Channel Segment
1. Prior Lake to County Road 42: Winter 2005-2006
2. Country Road 42 to Pike Lake: Winter 2006-2007
3. Pike Lake Outlet to Pike Lake Trail: Winter 2007-2008
4. Pike Lake Trail to Country Road 16: Winter 2007-2008
5. County Road 16 to Deans Lake Inlet: Winter 2005-2006
6. Deans Lake Outlet to TH 169: Winter 2005-2006
7. TH 169 to TH 101: Winter 2007-2007
8. TH 101 to Blue Lake: Winter 2007-2008
17
Questions?
Comments?
Thank you!