September 3, 2014 board packet

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

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,

September 3, 2014 6:00 p.m.

Note: The meeting location is Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive, Saint Paul, MN 55108.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

A) Attendance

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

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

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

Board Discussion and Action.)

A) 14-028 Highland Village Streetscape (Kelley)

B) Permit Close-Outs (Poland)

C) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

IV. Special Reports –Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Feasibility Report, SRF Consulting, Inc.

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

B) AR: Authorize Purchase of Monitoring Database (Suppes)

C) AR: Adopt 2015 Preliminary Budget and Levy (Doneux)

VI. Unfinished Business

A) FI: Highland Ravine Stabilization Project Update (Eleria)

B) FI: Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Update (Fossum)

VII. General Information

A) Administrator’s Report

VIII. Next Meetings

A) CAC Meeting, Wednesday, September 10, 2014

B) Board Meeting Wednesday, September 17, 2014

IX. Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2014\September 3, 2014 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

Materials Enclosed

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 14-028 highland Village Streetscape

Permit 14-028 September 3, 2014 Board Meeting

Aerial Photo

Applicant: Jesse Farrell Consultant: N/A

St. Paul Public Works

25 West 4th Street (CHA 900)

St. Paul, MN 55112

Description: Streetscape improvements for the sidewalks near the inetersection of Ford Pkwy and Cleveland Ave

Stormwater

Management: Permeable pavers and CU Structural Soil

District Rule: C, D, F

Disturbed Area: 1.63

Impervious Area: 1.43 Acres

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions

1. Provide revised drainage area map and calculations to document treatment catchments

2. Document soil types to ensure the infiltration practice will drain within 48 hours.

3. Remove geotextile fabric from around the CU Soil.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits from the Public Works volume bank.

Permit Location

Ford Pkwy

Clev

eland

Av

e

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report

CRWD Permit #: 14-028 Review date: August 29, 2014 Project Name: Highland Village Streetscape Applicant: City of St. Paul Purpose: Reconstruction of approximately 4,600 feet of sidewalk. Location: Ford Parkway between Cretin Avenue and Kenneth Street;

Cleveland Avenue between Pinehurst and Hillcrest Avenues Applicable Rules: C, D and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions Volume Bank Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits Recommendation: from the Public Works volume bank. EXHIBITS:

1. Construction Plan, by City of St. Paul, dated 7/1/14, recd. 8/1/14. 2. Memo to CRWD, by City of St. Paul, dated 7/31/14, recd. 8/1/14. 3. Specifications, by City of St. Paul, dated 6/30/14, recd. 8/1/14. 4. Email to CRWD, by City of St. Paul, dated 8/22/14, recd. 8/22/14. 5. NPDES permit, recd. 8/22/14.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed

existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount

equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to

maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-028 Highland Village Streetscape\14-028 Permit_Review02.doc Page 1 of 4

Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is not used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for

the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 54,014 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

4,051 BMP Volume Below Tree trench 5,940 (However, 2” runoff to the tree trenches is 3,564 cf.)

c. Withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of credits from the Public Works

volume reduction bank has been requested d. It is not known if infiltration volume and facility size has been

calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate.

e. It is not known if the infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.

f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Best management practices likely achieve 90% total suspended solids removal on an annual basis.

5. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City and the CRWD.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year

floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a

project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings


1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or

adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, sufficient conveyances have been provided to allow the storm sewer system to function as or better than it did prior to the project.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

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

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control

measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.

Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management

practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and

proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

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

proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.


RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:

1. Provide revised drainage area map and calculations to document treatment catchments

2. Document soil types to ensure the infiltration practice will drain within 48 hours. 3. Remove geotextile fabric from around the CU Soil.

VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve withdrawal of 487 cubic feet of volume reduction credits from the Public Works volume bank.


8/29/2014 Volume Banking CreditsAccount: Saint Paul Public Works

Transaction Requested Approved Permit Project Deposit Withdrawal Balance (cf)Deposit 4/4/2007 NA Chatsworth-Goodrich 10,532 10,532Withdrawal 4/4/2007 07-009 Davern 0 5,717 4,815Withdrawal 1/22/2008 08-001 Selby Avenue 0 3,790 1,025Deposit Pending 07-008 Hubbard-Griggs 9,386 10,411Withdrawal 8/20/2008 08-003 Seventh-Bay 0 8,278 2,133Withdrawal 8/20/2008 08-004 Ashland-Pascal 0 20,069 -17,936Deposit Pending 08-016 Payne Avenue 2,576 -15,360Withdrawal 3/18/2009 09-004 East Sixth Street 0 6,044 -21,404Deposit Pending 09-009 Victoria Street 1,991 -19,413Withdrawal 6/3/2009 09-011 Magnolia-Earl 0 18,356 -37,769Deposit Pending 09-017 Knapp-Ramond 2,338 -35,431Withdrawal 3/16/2010 5/5/2010 10-005 Seventh-Douglas 0 17,462 -52,893Withdrawal 4/14/2010 5/19/2010 10-011 Davern-Jefferson 0 39,308 -92,201Deposit 5/26/2010 Pending 10-014 Front-Victoria 14,791 -77,410Withdrawal 2/2/2011 2/2/2011 11-002 Fairview 18,034 -95,444Deposit 2/25/2011 Pending 11-004 Blair-Griggs 5,935 -89,509Withdrawal 2/25/2011 4/20/2011 11-005 Howell-Goodrich (revised 15,238 to Zero) 0 -89,509Withdrawal 2/25/2011 4/20/2011 11-006 Davern-Jefferson II 25,611 -115,120Deposit 9/7/2011 Pending 11-021 College Park 99,457 -15,663Transfer 10/14/2011 11/16/2011 09-031 Wells and Russell 116,436 100,773Deposit 11/16/2011 Pending 11-027 Hewitt-Tatum 4,067 104,840Deposit 1/4/2012 1/4/2012 NA St. Albans-Arundel Trenches 35,710 140,550Withdrawal 1/4/2012 Pending 11-030 Prior-Goodrich TBD 140,550Deposit 5/2/2012 Pending 12-004 Wheelock Parkway Bridge 391 140,941Deposit 9/19/2012 Pending 12-018 Hamline Library Pervious Alley 7,100 148,041Withdrawal 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12-029 Arlington-Rice 28,035 120,006Withdrawal 2/6/2013 2/6/2013 13-001 Hatch-Agate 22,216 97,790Withdrawal 2/6/2013 2/6/2013 13-002 Hamline Avenue Bridge 6,697 91,093Deposit 5/15/2013 Pending 13-014 Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 103,455 194,548Withdrawal 7/10/2013 7/10/2013 13-021 Jefferson-Griggs Bike Routes 5,881 188,667Withdrawal 9/18/2013 9/18/2013 13-018C Prince Street 7,303 181,364Deposit 2/19/2014 Pending 14-004 Hampden Park 24,908 206,272Withdrawal 3/5/2014 3/5/2014 13-033 Fairview-Bohland 16,626 189,646Withdrawal 3/19/2014 3/19/2004 14-001 Montana-Greenbrier 11,091 178,555Withdrawal 9/3/2014 9/3/2014 14-028 Highland Village Streetscape 487 178,068

439,073 261,005 178,068

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

DATE: August 28, 2014

TO: CRWD Board of Managers

FROM: Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician

RE: Permit Closeouts

Background

Construction activity is complete for permits 07-011 and 07-020.

Issues

07-011 Desoto Skillman: As-built plans were submitted 8/5/2014 and approved. A

Memorandum of Agreement is in place. A closeout inspection was conducted on 8/19/2014. No

problems were found during the inspection.

07-020 Polar Bear Exhibit: As-built plans were submitted on 4/4/2014 and approved. A

Memorandum of Agreement is in place. A closeout inspection was conducted on 7/31/2014.

Some trash and small amounts of sediment were found in the basin. A notice was submitted to

the permittee, but staff recommends that permit gets closed.

Action Requested

Approve Certificates of Completion for permits 07-011 and 07-020.

cc: Jim Mogen, Ramsey Country Attorney’s Office

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2014-09-03 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

September 3, 2014

III. Permit Applications

B) Permit Closeouts (Poland)

DATE: August 29, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Forrest Kelley, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager RE: Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study ____________________________________________________________________________________ Background The District was awarded a $275,000 Clean Water Partnership grant in 2012 for the identification, design, and construction of volume reduction practices in the Lake McCarrons subwatershed. In January of 2014, the District was awarded an additional $360,000 towards construction of the combined infiltration/harvest and reuse BMP underneath the Upper Villa Park Softball field. On April 16, 2104, the Board of Managers approved a contract with Geosyntec for professional services to assist SRF Consulting Group in assessing the feasibility of a stormwater harvest and reuse, and to determine the benefit of an actively controlled system (OptiRTC). Issues The Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study is complete and attached for review. CRWD and SRF staff will present the findings and recommendations and answer any questions the Board of Managers may have. Requested Actions Adopt the Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study enc: Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study - Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP

Project

September 3, 2014 Regular Board Meeting

III. Special Reports B) Upper Villa Harvest and

Reuse Feasibility Study (Kelley)

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\Lake McCarrons Subwatershed CWP Grant\Reuse Feasibility\Brd Memo Reuse Feasbility 2014-09-03.docx


1

Upper Villa Harvest and Reuse Feasibility Study

Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP Project

Location: B‐Dale Club, Upper Villa Park, Roseville, Minnesota

SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Geosyntec Consultants

June 3, 2014

Revised August 27, 2014

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of this feasibility study was to analyze a stormwater harvesting, storage, and reuse system as

an irrigation water source for the B‐Dale softball field located in the Upper Villa Park. Two criteria that

guided the analysis were:

1. The overall goal of 45 lbs of total phosphorus reduction on an average annual basis through

runoff volume reduction should be met or exceeded.

2. The reliance on municipal water for irrigation should be reduced as much as possible, with the

ultimate goal of providing all irrigation water from the reuse system for an average rainfall year.

Basic System Configuration

The basic system is comprised of two major components:

‐ An underground tank or cistern that stores stormwater, which can be reused for ball field

irrigation by pumping the water through a filter to the existing sprinkler system.

‐ An underground infiltration gallery or field that receives pretreated stormwater from the cistern

and infiltrates the stormwater into underlying sand deposits.

Other minor components such as stormwater pre‐treatment, a splitter structure that directs low flows

to the cistern and high flows to a system bypass, irrigation system pump and filter, and additional

appurtenances make up a complete system. The irrigation system itself was not included in the analysis

or cost estimates since it is considered to be the same for all scenarios except for Scenario 6 (see below

for a description of the various scenarios). See the attached figures for the various system layouts.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the two‐component stormwater harvesting and

reuse system that would meet the above criteria, both passive and actively controlled scenarios were

investigated.

Passive Storage System Operation

The passive system operates without any management inputs. A flow splitter receives inflows from the

upstream watershed and directs inflows to the system or to the existing outfall beyond the system as

bypass based on water levels in the flow splitter structure. The system is configured as follows: inflow

2

from the splitter enters a storage tank to be used for irrigation purposes. Once the storage tank is full,

an overflow weir conveys flow to an infiltration basin. Once the infiltration is full, an outlet pipe conveys

overflow to the existing stormwater system and to the site outfall. Specific model parameters are listed

below:

‐ Storage Cistern:

o Plan view dimensions of 9,455 square feet with an overflow weir located 5.5 feet above

invert, which goes to the infiltration basin. This provides approximately 52,000 cubic

feet of available storage.

o An irrigation demand of 1 inch per week was utilized for 70,000 square feet of

surrounding fields. This was modeled as a constant outflow.

o The resulting outflow rate from the storage tank, representing irrigation demand, is

0.006 inches per hour

‐ Infiltration Chamber:

o Plan view dimensions of approximately 5,490 square feet, with an overflow pipe to the

existing stormwater system located 4 feet above the invert. This provides

approximately 21,965 cubic feet of additional storage.

o An infiltration rate of 3 inches per hour was utilized. Discussions between SRF and

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) determined this high infiltration rate was

justified due to numerous pretreatment BMPs in place upstream of the infiltration basin

and a high existing infiltration rate based on soil borings taken in the ball field.

Actively Controlled Storage (Geosyntec’s OptiRTC) System Operation

This assumes the same setup as the passive system described previously, except a 10 inch control valve

is installed leading to the infiltration chamber at an invert of 1.23 feet above the bottom of the cistern.

In general, the OptiRTC control scenarios were developed with the following sequence:

1) Interpret the incoming 48 hour forecast information and calculate the required tank volume

needed to prevent overflow

2) Based on current water levels in the tank, convert the required volume into a specific level that

the cistern must be drained to in order to capture the incoming storm

3) Open the valve and drain the cistern to the required level to prevent/minimize overflow

4) Close the valve prior to the storm to control wet weather flow to the infiltration system.

Infiltration Only System Operation

This configuration reverts back to the originally proposed method to meet the phosphorus removal goal

through deep infiltration only. It is comprised of a large underground infiltration chamber that receives

flow from the splitter and discharges flow back to the storm sewer during large rainfall events. This is a

passive system with no active controls and no storage cistern.

3

Modeling Simulation Runs and Results

Model Scenarios: Five different model scenarios were run using EPA‐SWMM 5 for the “passive” and

“controlled” systems based on various storage volumes as follows:

Scenario 1: Full cistern volume and full infiltration chamber volume (based on numbers noted

previously)

Scenario 2: Full cistern volume and half infiltration chamber volume

Scenario 3: Half cistern volume and full infiltration chamber volume

Scenario 4: Half cistern volume and half infiltration chamber volume

Scenario 5: Small 13,370 cubic ft (100,000 gallon) cistern and full infiltration chamber volume

As a factor of safety, the OptiRTC actively controlled models will not drain the large cisterns in scenarios

1 through 4 down lower than the volume associated with 2 weeks of irrigation demand during the

irrigation season (11,667 cubic feet of storage). In Scenario 5, the cistern will be drained down to within

one foot of the tank bottom.

Results: Preliminary results were generated based on the amount of inflow that the system was able to

handle before overflowing to the outfall. The results are presented based on overall volume reduction

and phosphorus reduction. Phosphorus reduction calculations were based on monitoring information

received from the CRWD, which showed an average total phosphorus (TP) concentration of 0.64 mg/L.

This concentration was applied to the total volume reduction model result. It should be noted that the

0.64 mg/L concentration is based on recent monitoring completed by CRWD staff over one monitoring

season, and may not reflect long term concentrations. In addition, infiltration rates will also be assessed

based on current recommendations from the Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2014) and site analysis. As

design proceeds, both the concentration and infiltration rates will be reviewed again and adjusted as

necessary if additional data becomes available.

Table 1: Volume reduction by Scenario

Scenario

Volume Reduction (ft3/year)

Phosphorus Reduction (lbs/yr) @ 0.64 mg/L

Passive Controlled Passive Controlled

1 1,126,066 1,340,401 45.0 53.6

2 762,004 903,315 30.4 36.1

3 1,114,244 1,251,325 44.5 50.0

4 747,197 817,808 29.9 32.7

5 1,109,396 1,235,397 44.3 49.4

4

Table 2: Percent Reduction of Water Flowing into Cistern

ScenarioVolume Reduction

Passive Controlled

1 30.1% 35.8%

2 20.4% 24.1%

3 29.8% 33.4%

4 20.0% 21.9%

5 29.6% 33.0%

Results Interpretation: For Scenario 5, the cistern volume of 13,370 cf (100,000 gallons) has been

optimized to meet the irrigation demand 99% of the time (during a 10‐year continuous simulation

model). The volume lost by irrigation use is less significant than the volume lost through infiltration.

Therefore, the design adjustments of reducing the cistern storage, while leaving the full infiltration

storage constant, provides an optimized scenario while maintaining the TP removal goal.

As can be seen in Table 1, utilizing the active control in Scenario 5 makes the difference between not

meeting and exceeding the phosphorus removal goal. The added benefits of active controls relate to

the cistern tank health and the effective use of dry‐weather infiltration capacity. The actively controlled

system allows for better oxygenation and water turn over when compared to the passive system, which

will help prevent water stagnation and algae growth. Furthermore, by discharging cistern water into the

infiltration system during dry weather just before a rainfall event, additional volume and thus TP

removal can be obtained. As Table 1, Scenario 5, illustrates, an additional 5.1 lbs/yr TP is removed

simply by actively controlling the cistern.

Another advantage not quantified by the volume reduction results presented above is the actively

controlled system’s ability to be adaptively managed based on preliminary monitoring results. If

preliminary monitoring results indicate that the system is not achieving phosphorus reduction goals as

designed, logic can be adapted to better meet those goals. For example, logic could be altered to require

longer detention times or altered to focus on capturing and detaining first flush runoff from storms after

long dry periods (i.e., higher phosphorus build up in the watershed). These flexible systems are able to

adapt quickly to changing boundary conditions and environmental factors, as well as feedback on past

performance.

Example: Refer to the plots below for an example comparison between the passive and controlled

system during the month of October 1996.

5

Scenario 1 Example: Actively Controlled System (October 1996)

6

Scenario 1 Example: Passive System (October 1996)

7

Scenario 6: Infiltration Only Comparison

This simulation analyzed a single infiltration system without cistern storage as Scenario 6. As reported in

the Subwatershed Analysis Report (January, 2013), based on P8 modeling, a 21,600 square foot

infiltration system was needed to meet the 45 lbs/year TP removal rate. Since then, Hydraulic and

Hydrologic (H&H) XPSWMM and EPA SWMMM 5 models were developed in order to complete the

system configuration runs as described earlier. In addition, further refinement of the infiltration system

was completed for this feasibility study. The infiltration rate and TP loading were also updated to 3

inches per hour and 0.64 mg/L (based on CRWD monitoring), respectively. These results were entered

back into P8 and the infiltration system footprint was adjusted to obtain the 45 lbs/year goal. Based on

these new conditions the revised infiltration area footprint is expected to be approximately 8870 square

feet.

Locations

Two locations for the system were identified within the B‐Dale complex.

Ball field: Place the entire system underneath the ball field outfield area.

Parking Lot: Place the entire system underneath the adjacent parking lot.

The City of Roseville Park and Recreation Department has indicated their preference for the parking lot

location. Their preference would be to not place infrastructure with surface features such as manholes

in the ball field due to possible safety and playability issues. Figures 1a through 3b provide a layout for

Scenarios 1, 5, and 6 respectively for both the ball field and parking lot, to provide a visual of the

different potential sizes of the systems.

Construction Cost Estimates

Three of the six scenarios were selected for construction cost estimating. Scenario 1 represents the

largest system and is the highest cost, therefore providing a good upper cost boundary. Scenarios 2 and

4 do not meet the TP removal goal and thus were eliminated from further analysis. Scenario 3

represents a “middle ground” option, but since Scenario 5 represents the most cost effective option to

meet both the TP removal and irrigation goals, Scenario 3 was not considered further. Scenario 6

represents the least costly option which also meets the TP removal goal. Scenario 6 does not include

water harvesting and reuse, and thus does not provide the water conservation effect that is gained with

a reuse system.

The construction cost estimates provided in Table 3 are preliminary and are based on the following

assumptions:

‐ Both the cistern and infiltration gallery are proprietary systems. The cistern is a StormTrap pre‐

fabricated modular concrete system that is constructed with a water proofing membrane

outside of the concrete floor and walls. The infiltration gallery is a heavy duty Triton plastic

8

dome system that uses the S‐29 model with a 6” open graded rock cushion that surrounds the

domes. Cost estimates for these systems were provided by the respective manufacturers.

‐ Restoration of the ball field consists of laying new lawn sod over disturbed areas. The irrigation

system reconstruction within the disturbed area is considered to be part of the ball field

reconstruction costs already borne by the Parks and Recreation Department, and is not included

in this cost estimate.

‐ Restoration of the parking lot includes reconstruction of the disturbed stalls and includes new

base, asphalt, curb and gutter, and stall striping.

‐ Costs for storm sewer, manholes, connections, etc. come from the MnDOT average bid prices

list for 2013.

‐ The hydrodynamic separator is a proprietary technology call the “SAFL Baffle.”

‐ Contractor mobilization is assumed to be 10 percent of the materials and labor cost.

‐ A 15 percent contingency is included in all cost estimates.

‐ Engineering design and construction administration costs are not included.

Table 3: Summary of Estimated Costs

Scenario Location

Passive System Active System

Cost Estimate

TP removed(lb/yr)

TP Removal Cost ($/lb)

Cost Estimate

TP removed (lb/year)

TP Removal Cost ($/lb)

1 Ball field $939,960 45.0 $20,890 $999,960 53.6 $18,660

1 Parking Lot $1,108,800 45.0 $24,640 $1,168,800 53.6 $21,810

5 Ball field $551,860 44.3 $12,460 $611,860 49.4 $12,390

5 Parking Lot $631,030 44.3 $14,250 $691,080 49.4 $13,990

6 Ball field $296,550 45.3 $6,550 ‐ ‐ ‐

6 Parking Lot $376,970 45.3 $8,320 ‐ ‐ ‐

Summary

Scenario 5 with an active OptiRTC control system represents the most cost effective option that meets

the stated goals noted above. While placement beneath the playing field is estimated to cost less, it is

not consistent with the City’s preference to not place infrastructure within the ball field, and may result

in higher long term maintenance and restoration costs. The Scenario 5 active OptiRTC system placed

within the parking lot exceeds the TP removal goal by 16 percent, and represents a moderate cost

increase due to restoration of pavement, and is therefore the recommended option.

Figure 1a

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 1_

ball f

ield.m

xd

Scenario 1 - Ball Field: Full Cistern and Full InfiltrationLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendSanitaryManhole

SanitaryLiftStation

SanitaryPipe

Storm SewerExisting

Proposed

Proposed BMP0 100 200Feet [

Hydrodynamic Separator

Water Reuse Storage

Infiltration System

Figure 1b

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 1_

parki

ng lo

t.mxd

Scenario 1 - Parking Lot: Full Cistern and Full InfiltrationLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District


SanitaryPipe

Storm SewerExisting

Proposed

Proposed B-Dale ClubUnderground BMP0 100 200

Feet [

Infiltration System


Water Reuse Storage

Figure 2a

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 5_

ball f

ield.m

xd

Scenario 5 - Ball Field: Small Cistern and Full InfiltrationLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendExisting Sanitary Manhole

Proposed StormSewer

Proposed Storm Sewer

Existing Sanitary Sewer

Storm SewerExisting Storm Sewer

Proposed TreatmentLayer

Construction Footprint

Treatment Footprint0 100 200Feet [


Water Reuse Storage

Infiltration System

Figure 2b

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 5_

parki

ng lo

t.mxd

Scenario 5 - Parking Lot: Small Cistern and Full InfiltrationLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendExisting Sanitary Manhole

Proposed StormSewer

Proposed Storm Sewer

Existing Sanitary Sewer

Storm SewerExisting Storm Sewer

Proposed TreatmentLayer

Construction Footprint

Treatment Footprint0 100 200Feet [


Water Reuse Storage

Infiltration System

Figure 3a

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 6_

ball f

ield.m

xd

Scenario 6 -Ball Field: Infiltation OnlyLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District


SanitaryLiftStation

SanitaryPipe

Storm SewerExisting

Proposed

Proposed BMP0 100 200Feet [

Hydrodynamic SeparatorInfiltration System

Figure 3b

J:\Ma

ps\78

96\M

XD\R

euse

\Reu

se_0

8122

014\S

cena

rio 6_

parki

ng lo

t.mxd

Scenario 6 - Parking Lot: Infiltation OnlyLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District


SanitaryPipe

Storm SewerExisting

Proposed

Proposed B-Dale ClubUnderground BMP0 100 200

Feet [

Infiltration System



Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,

August 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING

I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) at 6:02 p.m.

A) Attendance

Joe Collins

Shirley Reider

Seitu Jones

Mary Texer

Mike Thienes

Staff Present

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD

Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD

Corey Poland, CRWD

Public Attendees

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Joe Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. Administrator Doneux asked to add

VI. E) Unfinished Business: Island Station Update to the agenda.

Motion 14-174: Approve the updated August 20, 2014 Agenda.

Texer/Reider

Unanimously approved

II. Public Comments – For Items not on the Agenda Public Hearing Watershed District 2015 Budget

and Levy

There were no public comments. President Collins requested that communication of the public hearing be

included in the record. The proposed 2015 budget was reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee in August.

Notice of the Public Hearing was sent to City and County elected officials and two legal postings were included

in the Pioneer Press. Information of the Public Hearing and proposed budget was also posted on CRWD’s

website. Manager Texer asked how the new building process will impact the budget. Administrator Doneux

indicated that there was $150,000 budgeted for planning related to the new office and he expects to include

construction costs on the 2016 budget.

Motion 14-075: Close the Public Hearing for the Proposed 2015 Budget and Levy of the Capitol Region

Watershed District.

Texer/Jones


September 3, 2014 Board Meeting

V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes

of August 20, 2014

DRAFT Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)


III. Permit Applications and Program Updates

A) Permit Closeouts (Poland)

Mr. Poland reviewed completed construction projects for permits 07-001, 07-015, 07-018, 08-006, 08-

014, 08-031, 09-007, 09-025, 12-014 and 12-024.

07-001 Stuart Care Facility: As-built plans have been received and approved. Proof of a recorded

maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 1/9/2014. At the closeout

inspection, conducted on 6/12/2014, inlet protection devices were still installed, the EcoStorm Plus unit

(stormwater filtration system) needed cleaning, and the system was not draining. These issues were

addressed on 8/11/2014: The EcoStorm Plus unit was vacuumed out and back flushed, a piece of wood

blocking the outlet was removed, and the storage pipes were vacuumed out.

07-015 United Family Practice Health Center: As-built plans have been received and approved. Proof

of a recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 6/6/2014. At

the closeout inspection, conducted on 6/18/2014, minor maintenance on the system was needed, and

grass was dying near sidewalks. The site was inspected again on 8/13/2014. All problems were

addressed.

07-018 Loeb Lake Fishing Pier: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no

permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No


08-006 Rice Street Business Center: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required

since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on

7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

08-014 Rice Street Bridge: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required since no

permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on 7/29/2014. No


08-031 TBI Maryland Ave: This was a CRWD project, inspections were conducted as part of contract

work.

09-007 SPPA Pierce Butler Site: This permit has been transferred to CRWD permit 11-001 Banbro

Warehouse. As-built plans are not required since they were submitted on permit 11-001. Proof of a

recorded maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 7/22/2014. At the

closeout inspection, conducted on 7/29/2014, sediment was found in one of the catch basins. This will

be noted in a maintenance report and submitted to current owners.

09-025 Roseville Dog Park Erosion: Neither as-built plans nor a maintenance agreement is required

since no permanent stormwater practices were installed. A final inspection was conducted on

7/29/2014. No problems were found during the inspection.

12-014 Trout Brook Realignment: This was a CRWD project, inspections were conducted as part of

contract work.

12-024 Johnson Brother Liquor: As-built plans have been submitted and approved. Proof of a recorded

maintenance agreement with Ramsey County was submitted to CRWD on 6/10/2014. At the closeout

inspection, conducted on 7/18/2014, there were no plants in the back rain garden. The garden was

planted prior to the 7/30/2014 follow-up inspection. The plants were being watered regularly and

appeared to be establishing. This garden will be inspected again before the August 20 board meeting.

Verbal update will be given at this time.

Motion 14-176:

Approve Certificates of Completion for permits 07-018, 08-014, 08-031, 09-007, 09-025, and 12-

014.


Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 07-001 Stuart Care Facility and return surety of

$3,800

Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 07-015 United Family Practice Health Center and

return surety of $5,600

Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 08-006 Rice Street Business Center and return

surety of $1,000

Approve a Certificate of Completion for Permit 12-024 Johnson Brother Liquor and return surety

of $10,100

Thienes/Jones


B) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

No update was given.

Manager Reider suggested that boulevard rain garden projects that are done in partnership with the City of Saint

Paul be added to an upcoming agenda for further discussion. Administrator Doneux said he will include it on the

September 3rd or 17th agenda and emphasized that homeowner education for these projects is a priority for the

District.

IV. Special Reports. There were no special reports

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the August 20, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 14-177: Approve Minutes of the August 6, 2014 Regular Meeting.

Jones/Reider


B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for July 2014 (Sylvander)

Motion 14-178: Approve July 2014 Accounts Payable/Receivable and July Budget Report and direct Treasurer

and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Thienes/Texer


C) AR: Approve Grant Application for Targeted Watershed Program (Zwonitzer)

Administrator Doneux introduced the Targeted Watershed Program in Mr. Zwonitzer’s absence. In

2013, a state law was passed requiring BWSR to award grants to local government units to implement projects

that will result in a significant and measureable reduction in water pollution in a selected subwatershed. BWSR

created the Targeted Watershed Demonstration Program which has $10 million in grant funds available over the

next two years to fund projects in three to six watersheds. CRWD submitted an application for the 2014 grant

cycle and was not awarded funding. Administrator Doneux indicated that staff would like the Board’s approval


to submit a grant application for the 2015 Targeted Watershed Program for the McCarrons Lake watershed and

that staff will incorporate changes to the submittal based on feedback on last year’s application. President

Collins asked if we were not awarded the requested $2 million but a lower amount if we would be able to

achieve measurable results. Mr. Fossum explained that the program is designed to fund high impact projects and

that CRWD has many projects they could implement so any funding support would be useful.

Motion 14-179: 1. Authorize Administrator to apply for a $2 million grant through the BWSR Targeted Watershed

Demonstration Program for the McCarrons Lake watershed.

2. Commit up to $500,000 in matching funds over four years for the BWSR Targeted Watershed

Demonstration Program.

Texer/Reider


D) AR: Approve Grade Promotion for Lindsay VanPatten (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed Ms. VanPatten’s employment and performance at the District and

requested the Board to approve a grade promotion from Grade 5 to Grade 6.

Motion 14-180: Promote Lindsay VanPatten to grade 6, Education and Outreach Specialist I

Texer/Jones


VI. Unfinished Business

A) FI: MOU for Stormwater Management Master Plan for Como Regional Park (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux introduced the Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Stormwater

Management Master Plan for Como Regional Park between CRWD, and the City of Saint Paul

Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Public Works. Mr. Fossum explained that this

agreement would help coordinate projects and reporting for the City and CRWD who are both MS4

permit holders. President Collins asked if this would impact the Como Lake TMDL. Mr. Fossum

explained that stormwater improvement projects within Como Regional Park would certainly help

address water quality issues for Como Lake and therefore be TMDL.

Requested Action: Provide Comments on draft MOU for Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan.

The Board was unanimous in their support of the MOU.

B) FI: Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting Update (Zwonitzer)

Administrator Doneux gave the Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting update in Mr. Zwonitzer’s

absence. He explained that low water levels made harvesting challenging for this second round but they

removed as much as they could access in the designated areas. Administrator Doneux indicated that

harvesting is complete for the year and that further discussion will take place before making plans for

next year.


C) FI: Office Remodel Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux said that construction is underway and they are making progress.

D) FI: 2013 Audit Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux indicated that the exit interview with auditor will take place in the next few

weeks and asked if Mangers Thienes or Jones would like to attend. Manger Thienes said he’d like to

attend if he is available.

E) FI: Island Station Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed the most recent development plans for the Island Station construction

area. The plans included some mixed-use development with housing and commercial spaces as well as

an office for National Park Service and possibly other water resource organizations.

VII. General Information

A) CAC Update

Manger Reider and President Collins attended the August CAC meeting. The CAC is in the process of

creating an awards program and Manager Reider wanted to acknowledge that the CAC has done a great

job of working on the project.

Motion 14-181: Support the CAC in their development of an Awards program.

Reider/Texer


B) Administrator’s Report

Administrator Doneux reviewed the Administrators Report.

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Stewardship Grant Agreement with D12 for two large rain gardens on Raymond Ave. - $8,600.

b) Consultant Services Agreement with Wenck Associates for RSVP Design Standards - $4,400.

c) Amendment No. 1 to 2013 Stewardship Grant Agreement with German Immersion School to increase

maximum award amount from $10,000 to $20,000.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) Corey Poland’s last day at CRWD will be September 5, 2014. We are currently accepting applications for

BMP Inspector through August 15.

b) The 2014 Clean Water Summit is September 11, 2014 8:00am – 5:00pm at the Minnesota Landscape

Arboretum. CRWD is a sponsor and planning member of the conference. The topic is “Green

Infrastructure for Clean Water: Costs & Benefits to Our Communities” and the Lowertown Regional

Ballpark will be featured as a case study.

c) CREATE: The Community Meal by Manager Seitu Jones will be held on September 14, 2014 on

Victoria Street in Saint Paul.


d) CRWD and the CAC are co-sponsoring the September 18 Moos Family Speaker Series, “Dwindling

Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space” with Dr. Jay Famiglietti. The presentation begins at

7:00pm at the University of Minnesota St. Paul Student Center. Register at

www.freshwater.org/lectures.

e) Saint Paul Open Streets celebration with be Saturday, September 21, 2014.

f) CRWD Staff will be participating in a mobile workshop of Green Line Green Infrastructure during the

Rail-Volution Conference, September 23, 2014 from 1-4pm.

g) Mark Doneux, Nate Zwonitzer and Bob Fossum will be attending WEFTEC in New Orleans, Louisiana

from September 27 – October 1.

h) Mark will be out of the office August 14-19.

4) CRWD events and meetings

a) BWSR tour of Green Line Green Infrastructure, August 26, 11:00am – 1:00 pm.

b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, September 3, 2014 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

c) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, September 10, 2014 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm.

5) Project and Program Updates a.) U of M Community Capacity Study update: The first phase of interviews with organizations and

agencies that serve communities on the Green Line is almost complete, the next phase with minority and

new immigrant business owners and property owners along the Green Line and the east side of Saint

Paul is beginning. A meeting of the Project Advisory Team and CRWD staff is tentatively scheduled for

September.

Community Capacity Survey Project Advisory Team: Patricia Ohmans of Frogtown Green, Cheng Lee

of Asian Outdoor Heritage, Craig Johnson of Model Cities, Melanie Peterson-Nafzinger of Great River

School, Carol Swenson of District Councils Collaborative, Bill Zajicek of Payne-Phalen Planning

Council, Jonee Kulman Brigham of U of M and Fullspring Studio

b.) Watershed Partners, Partner Grant for Guard your Stormdrain: Focus groups were conducted to gather

feedback on initial Guard your stormdrain messaging and design. In response to the feedback, the program

name has been changed to Adopt a Stormdrain. Another round of public feedback on the revised

information is planned in August.

c.) Highland Ravine Project: Pre-construction meetings with the contractor and homeowners will be held on

August 25, 2014 from 3 – 6:30pm. Construction is scheduled to start on September 8 and be substantially

completed by October 15.

d.) Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Study: The project kick-off meeting will be held on August 21 at

8:30 am at Lauderdale City Hall, 1891 Walnut Street. Representatives from Lauderdale, Ramsey County

and possibly the future developer of the adjacent private property will be in attendance.

VIII. Adjournment

Motion 14-182: Adjournment of the August 20, 2014 Regular Board Meeting at 7:27 p.m.

Texer/Reider

Unanimously Approved

Respectfully submitted,

Lindsay VanPatten

http://www.freshwater.org/lectures

DATE: August 28, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator RE: Authorize Purchase of Monitoring Database

Background

CRWD has been collecting continuous time-series flow data and discrete water quality data since 2005 through the District Monitoring Program. Cumulatively, monitoring data collected since 2005 has built a lengthy and robust dataset that comprehensively characterizes District water resources. CRWD has been seeking a monitoring database system to efficiently and effectively manage monitoring data. An improved database system will allow CRWD staff to: organize, view, and query all years of data; more efficiently edit, analyze, and QA/QC data; improve data sharing and public access to data; and provide a consistent method for saving data to prevent data loss. At the April 16, 2014 Board Meeting, the Managers approved the recommendations detailed in the Monitoring Program Review, including Recommendation 3:

“Develop a comprehensive monitoring database that could more effectively manage the large data sets of the District. This would improve: data organization, data accessibility, data querying, and data analysis. The database should have components useable to both District staff and the general public.”

Issues

CRWD has been evaluating database options. Based on research and product demos, the Kisters WISKI database is recommended by staff as the most suitable monitoring database software for District monitoring data. The WISKI database was selected because of its ability to meet all CRWD criteria. In addition, the WISKI database proved to be the most comprehensively developed and capable water quality monitoring software on the market that will best meet the District’s needs. The 2014 costs of the WISKI database are $48,750 and are detailed in Table 2 of the enclosure. CRWD has budgeted for a monitoring database annually since 2009. Table 4 of the enclosure details the 2014 and 2015 budgets for a monitoring database under project number 211-##220 Monitoring & Data Collection – Long-term Monitoring Database. For 2014, the remaining equipment budget for program number 211 of $50,000.00 will be used for the monitoring database. Action Requested

Authorize purchase of Kisters WISKI monitoring database not to exceed $50,000.00. enc: Memo— Evaluation of Database Options for a CRWD Monitoring Program Database W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\Monitoring DATABASE\Board Mtg Materials\v2_Board Memo-Monitoring Database_09-03-2014.docx

September 3, 2014 V. Action Items, B) Authorize

Purchase of Monitoring Database (Suppes)


1


TO: Bob Fossum, Program Manager

FROM: Britta Suppes, CRWD Monitoring Coordinator; Joe Sellner, CRWD Water Resource

Technician

RE: Evaluation of Database Options for a CRWD Monitoring Program Database

Background

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has been collecting continuous time-series flow data

and discrete water quality data from over twenty stations since 2005 through the District

Monitoring Program. In addition, CRWD has been collecting a variety of other continuous or

discrete data from 50+ locations throughout the District, including climatological data, lakes,

wetlands, stormwater pond level data, groundwater level data, and BMP performance data.

Cumulatively, monitoring data collected since 2005 has built a lengthy and robust dataset that

comprehensively characterizes District water resources.

When CRWD’s Monitoring Program was first established in 2005, the method developed for

recording data was to enter it into individual Excel spreadsheets on the server (generally organized

by site name and year). This method has continued over the past ten year. As the monitoring dataset

has grown to represent ten years of data, Excel spreadsheets are no longer sufficient for managing

such a large record of data. Issues with the current data management system include: 1) each

monitoring year includes a significant number of individual spreadsheets, which makes it difficult

to see continuity between monitoring years; 2) the potential for data loss or spreadsheet

disorganization is high when managing so many spreadsheets; 3) data QA/QC is inefficient

because the data is recorded in many different places on the CRWD server; 4) the current system

of saving data to Excel by year and site does not have a consistent protocol, so as CRWD staff has

changed, the data has been saved differently year-to-year; 5) having multiple years of Excel

spreadsheets for each site makes it difficult to share data with outside parties.

CRWD has been seeking an alternative monitoring database system to more efficiently and

effectively manage the past ten years of monitoring data as well as data into the future. An

improved database system will allow CRWD staff to:

Organize all years of monitoring data for easy viewing, querying, and analyzing

o Having data in one place will allow all different types of data to be connected (e.g.

numerical data with field notes)

View all monitoring data in collective location for year-to-year continuity

Easily query and search data for all monitoring years and data types

Efficient and accurate data editing and documentation capabilities for data QA/QC

2

Simplify flow calculations, loading calculations, statistical calculations, and graphical

output (i.e. tables, figures, graphs)

Easily output and share data upon requests from outside parties (or have a system capable

of outside parties querying and downloading data by themselves)

Make data available to the public by having web-capable software with interactive maps

Have all data in one place and backed up to prevent data loss

Streamline data entry for data continuity and consistency

Issues

CRWD has been investigating a variety of options for implementing a database system, including

out-of-the-box database software as well as the option of developing a program with a consultant.

The monitoring database options include:

1. Kisters WISKI

2. Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS

3. Teledyne Isco FLOWLINK

4. Kisters HYDSTRA

5. Monitoring database developed by South Washington Watershed District (SWWD)/

Houston Engineering

Each database option has different applications, features, and costs. To evaluate this, staff

developed a list of criteria that outlines the desired features and applications of a monitoring

database. Table 1 lists the criteria that were determined important in evaluating each database

option. Using this criteria, each database package was researched and tested to see if the defined

criteria was met. Table 1 provides a checklist summarizing how each database option meets those

criteria. In addition, an overall ranking (‘Good’, ‘Fair’, ‘Poor’) was assigned to each database

option based on what criteria was met to further narrow down the options.

Based on the criteria outlined in Table 1, the Kisters WISKI database and the Aquatics Informatics

AQUARIUS database were identified as the most useful solutions for a monitoring database. Both

databases are similar, though differences exist between them in terms of their capabilities, features,

and functions. CRWD staff have had several conference calls with the vendor representatives as

well as received demos and trial versions of both the WISKI and AQUARIUS databases in order

to explore these differences and see how the database applies to the CRWD monitoring dataset.

Differences in features and functions include:

WISKI database is more developed in functions:

o Interval partitioning, flow calculations, and load calculations are very simple to

execute in WISKI and are well-developed

o AQUARIUS can do intervals, flow calculations and load calculations, but these

functions require additional development for easy use

o AQUARIUS equations are more user-friendly to apply, but are limited in scope

The AQUARIUS database has a more easily navigated interface and dashboard

o WISKI would require some training and learning in order to easily navigate

3

WISKI has a greater range of options for statistical or graphical output

The WISKI KiWIS web module allows for users to create their own widgets and GUIs for

better communication with the public

o The AQUARIUS WebPortal is still currently being developed and is not available

to users yet

WISKI has more options for software configurability by the end user

WISKI has the ability to integrate field form information into the record more completely

WISKI has advanced scripting and user access built in

AQUARIUS is geared more towards those using or developing rating curves

Table 1: Criteria for database selection and the database options investigated.

Additionally, there are differences between start-up costs and projected 3-year costs when

comparing WISKI and AQUARIUS. The differences in cost are detailed in Tables 2 and 3. In

general, WISKI is more expensive than the AQUARIUS software. The primary differences in

price are related to the (1) licensing fees and (2) add-on modules.

The licensing for WISKI is more expensive because the software has been more widely developed

and has greater application. The software requires the purchasing of an Admin License ($15,000)

that acts as the “base” license for the main software administrator. For any other computers

Criteria WISKI AQUARIUS FLOWLINK HYDSTRA Houston/SWWD

Large data storage capacity x x x x x

Time-series/Continuous Data x x x x x

Discrete/Single-point Data x x -- x x

Water Quality Data x x x -- x

Flow Calculation x x x -- --

Interval Idenification & Quantification x x x -- --

Loading Calculations x x -- -- --

Data Correction/Editing x x x x --

Storm Recreation? x x -- -- --

Graphical &/or Statistical Output x x x x x

Mapping Capabilities &/or ESRI compatible x x -- x x

Querying/Data filtering? x x -- x x

Field Notes/Forms Capable x x -- x --

Data Sharing Capabilities x x -- x x

Website Access Capable? (Private & Public) x x -- x x

Web Enabled/Remote Data Acces? x x x x --

Equipment inventorying? x x -- x --

Customizable? x x -- x x

Event-based alarm system/messaging? x x x -- --

Interface with National Databases for upload x x -- x x

Database Type Oracle/SQL Oracle/SQL File-based File-based (?)

Data Importing/Integration: Easy,Moderate, Difficult Easy Easy Moderate Easy Moderate

User friendliness: Easy, Moderate, Difficult Easy Easy Moderate Easy Moderate

Overall Ranking: Good, Fair, Poor Good Good Poor Fair Poor

4

requiring WISKI administrative rights, an additional license is required ($10,000 per license).

WISKI read-only licenses are available for a 5-pack bundle ($1,250). Comparatively, the primary

admin AQUARIUS license allows for three users and has a base price of $27,500. This license

also allows for read-only concurrent licensing for other computers. In total, the difference between

the base licensing fee of AQUARIUS versus WISKI is $8,750 less.

Add on modules are also a primary cost difference between the two software solutions. First,

WISKI offers a Water Quality Module (KiWQM) for advanced data management and hydrologic

calculations (e.g. flow and loading calculations); whereas AQUARIUS has this integrated into

their software already (though, the extent of those functions are less developed). In addition, both

software solutions require an add-on module purchase for making the data web-enabled. For both

solutions, the web-enabling software (WISKI KiWIS or AQUARIUS WebPortal) adds a

substantial cost increase to both packages. CRWD staff feels having web-access to the data is a

key component of having a database, regardless of which software is selected; however, this

additional module is planned for 2015 after staff has been able to get the database up and running.

For both software solutions, the annual support and maintenance fee is a percentage based off of

the initial purchase price. Subsequently, the WISKI software has a higher annual maintenance fee

since the base licensing is more expensive (support and maintenance for WISKI is 20% of the

initial purchase price). AQUARIUS has a 25% annual support and maintenance fee, but the

software is overall less expensive, so the annual fee is less than WISKI’s.

Table 2: Estimated costs of Kisters WISKI for 2014, 2015, 2016, and subsequent years.

Kisters WISKI QTY Unit Price USD Total

2014 CostsWISKI Admin Suite License 1 $15,000 $15,000

WISKI Add'l Licenses w/ Editing 2 $10,000 $20,000

WISKI Read-only Licenses (5-pack min) 5 $250 $1,250

WISKI Water Quality Module 1 $4,500 $4,500

On-site Training (3 Days) 1 $8,000 $8,000

ORACLE or SQL Server 1 NA NA

2014 Projected Cost TOTAL $48,750

2015 CostsAnnual Support & Maint (20% orig price; starts 90 days after install) 1 $8,150 $8,150

WISKI KiWIS Module(HTML Web Acces & Dwnld) 1 $30,000 $30,000


2016 Costs (+ Subsequent Years)

Annual Support & Maint (20% orig price+WISKI KiWIS cost) 1 $14,150 $14,150


Estimated 3-year Total Cost $101,050

Estimated Average 3-year Cost ($/year) $33,683

5

Table 3: Estimated costs of Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS for 2014, 2015, 2016, and subsequent years.

Based on the strong need for a monitoring database, CRWD has been anticipating the purchase

and implementation of a monitoring database for several years. Subsequently, a database has been

budgeted for annually since 2009, though the allocated funds have not been used to date. Table 4

lists the 2014 and 2015 budget allocations for the project number 211-##220 Monitoring & Data

Collection – Long-term Monitoring Database.

Table 4: Budgeted and expended totals in 2014 and 2015 for 211-##220 Long-term monitoring database.

Action Requested

CRWD staff recommends the WISKI database be purchased and implemented as the CRWD

Monitoring Program Database.

Aquatics Informatics AQUARIUS QTY Unit Price USD Total

2014 Costs

3 Single-User Licences (1 Rating Curve Devel Tool) 1 $27,500 $27,500

On-site training (3 Days) 1 $8,250 $8,250

ORACLE or SQL Server 1 NA NA


2015 CostsAnnual Support & Maint (25% of orig price) 1 $6,875 $6,875

WebPortal (Web Access & Dwnld) 1 $20,000 $20,000


2016 Costs (+ Subsequent Years)

Annual Support & Maint (25% of orig price + WebPortal cost) 1 $11,875 $11,875


Estimated 3-year Total Cost $74,500

Estimated Average 3-year Cost ($/year) $24,833

Year Budgeted $ $ Expended (YTD ) $ Remaining

2014

2014 Long-term Database Development Budget (211-14220) $11,180 $2,267 $8,913

2014 Equipment Budget (211) $103,432 $53,432 $50,000

2014 Budget Total $58,913

2015

2015 Budgeted Long-term Database Development (211-15220)* $16,320 $0 $16,320

2015 Budget Total $16,320

*Project # 211-15220 budget will be ammended in Dec 2014 to account for estimated database cost increases

DATE: August 22, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator RE: Adopt Preliminary 2015 Budget and Certification of Levy Background The Board has discussed and reviewed the preliminary 2015 Budget and Tax Levy during several meetings and workshops this summer. A copy of our summary budget and hearing notice was sent to the affected cities and Ramsey County officials in August. The Citizen’s Advisory Committee reviewed and provided comments on the proposed 2015 budget and levy at their August meeting. A duly noticed Public Hearing was held on August 20th to collect public comment on the proposed 2015 budget and levy. Issues The Board of Managers must adopt a Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy Certification before the initial September 15, 2014 deadline. The Board of Managers held a special workshop on June 26th and July 11th to review the draft budget and levy. Based on the Board recommendations, the revised preliminary budget provides $611,700 for Administration, $1,562,772 for Programs, $807,595 for Projects for a total Operations Budget of $2,982,017 and $2,542,231 for Capital Improvement Projects. This results in a total Preliminary 2015 Budget of $5,524,248. This is an increase of $1,285,854 from 2014. The proposed 2015 tax levy is $3,404,228. This levy includes $3,036,117 for the general levy and $368,131 for debt. This levy is $434,970 or 14.65% higher than 2014. Requested Action Approve and adopt the Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy Certification. enc: Preliminary 2015 CRWD Expenditure, Revenue and Levy Summary (11”x17”) Draft Levy Certification form Draft Debt Levy Certification form Draft Resolution – Adopting 2015 Budget & Levy

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Budget - 2015\Board Memo - Adoption of Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy - 8-22-14.docx

September 3, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Item C) Approve

Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy (Doneux)


COUNTY, CITY AND SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT LEVY CERTIFICATION PROPOSED TAXES PAYABLE IN 2015

FOR: Capitol Region Watershed District

(Governmental Agency)

LEVY PURPOSE

CERTIFIED FINAL TAX LEVY

NET TAX CAPACITY BASED LEVIES 1) General

$3,036,117.02

2) Debt $ 368,130.98 3) Other (Please Specify)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10) Total Net Tax Capacity Based Levies

(Total 1 through 9)

$3,404,228

MARKET VALUE BASED LEVIES 11) $ 12)

13)Total Market Value Based Referendum Levies

(Total 11 & 12)

$

14)Total Certified Levy

(Total 10 & 13)

$3,404,228

I, the authorized representative of the above mentioned Governmental Agency, certify that the foregoing information is accurate to the best of my knowledge. ____________________ Signature of Authorized Representative Title Date Phone Number of Contact Person

CAPITAL REGION W/S===================

ADDITIONS OR CERTIFIEDORIGINAL DATE PAYABLE 2015REDUCTIONS BY DEBT

BOND ISSUES PRINCIPAL ISSUED DEBT LEVY RESOLUTION LEVY============== ========== ======== ============ ============= =============TX SUPP 2007A 1,555,000 4-Jan-07 $120,441.57 0.00 $120,441.57GO Note 2010 447,200 15-Dec-10 49,563.46 476.58 50,040.04 GO 2013A 3,000,000 15-May-13 49,377.78 148271.60 197,649.38

---------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------$219,382.81 $148,271.60 $367,654.41

============ ============= =============

$3,036,573.59

I hereby certify that the above schedule of bond levies to be spread on the payable 2015 tax rolls agrees with Capital Region W/S records and is true and correct. Copies of any resolutions which increase or reduce these levies are attached.

Signed: ___________________________________

Date: _______________

Resolution Capitol Region Watershed District

In the matter pertaining to: The 2015 Preliminary Budget and Levy Board Member: Thienes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Board Member ___________. WHEREAS, A Board workshop was held June 26th and July 11, 2014 to review the detailed Operations Budget, CIP and Project Financing Plans and WHEREAS, At the July 23, 2013 Board meeting, the draft 2015 Work Plan was reviewed, and WHEREAS, at the CRWD Board of Managers meeting on August 23, 2014 the Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy was reviewed and approved for distribution for Public Review and Comment, and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2014 the Citizens’ Advisory Committee reviewed and recommended adoption of the budget and levy as presented; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held on August 22, 2014 at 6:00 PM at Great River School, 1326 Energy Park Drive with no members of the public present commenting on the budget, and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CRWD Board of Managers approves and adopts the 2015 Preliminary Operations Budget of $2,982,017 and a Capital Improvement Budget of $2,542,231 for a total 2015 Budget of $5,524,248. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the proposed 2015 tax levy is $3,404,228. This levy includes $3,036,117 for the general levy and $368,131 for debt. Vote: Approved/Denied

*Approval must receive minimum of 3 Yeas

W:\04 Board of Managers\Motions\Resolutions 2014\Resolution 14-xxx CRWD Prelim 2015 Levy.doc

Requested By: Mark Doneux Recommended for Approval: Approved by Attorney: N/A Funding Approved: N/A

Manager Yeas* Nays Absent Abstain Collins Texer Jones Thienes Reider

TOTAL

Supporting Documentation Incorporated By Reference Date Document Prepared By

6/26/14 Prelim. 2015 Work Plan CRWD 7/11/14 Prelim. 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD 7/23/14 Prelim. 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD 8/4/14 Public Notice for Budget Hearing CRWD

8/11/14 Public Notice for Budget Hearing CRWD 8/20/14 Public Review Draft Budget CRWD 9/03/14 Preliminary 2015 Budget and Levy CRWD

Resolution # 14-xxx Date Adopted: September 3, 2014

Resolution Adoption Certified By the Board of Managers: By: _____________________________________________ Date: September 3, 2014



TO: CRWD Board of Managers and Staff

FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator

RE: September 3, 2014 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Stewardship Grant Agreement for a rain garden at 1614 Highland Parkway, Saint Paul - $518.65

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) Corey Poland’s last day at CRWD will be September 5, 2014.

b) The 2014 Clean Water Summit is September 11, 2014 8:00am – 5:00pm at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.

CRWD is a sponsor and planning member of the conference. The topic is “Green Infrastructure for Clean Water:

Costs & Benefits to Our Communities” and the Lowertown Regional Ballpark will be featured as a case study.

Register here.

c) CREATE: The Community Meal by Manager Seitu Jones will be held on September 14, 2014 on Victoria Street

in Saint Paul.

d) CRWD and the CAC are co-sponsoring the September 18 Moos Family Speaker Series, “Dwindling

Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space” with Dr. Jay Famiglietti. The presentation begins at 7:00pm at

the University of Minnesota St. Paul Student Center. Register at www.freshwater.org/lectures.

e) Saint Paul Open Streets celebration with be Saturday, September 21, 2014.

f) CRWD Staff will be participating in a mobile workshop of Green Line Green Infrastructure during the Rail-

Volution Conference, September 23, 2014 from 1-4pm.

g) Mark Doneux, Nate Zwonitzer and Bob Fossum will be attending WEFTEC in New Orleans, Louisiana from

September 27 – October 1.

4) CRWD events and meetings

a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, September 10, 2014 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm.

b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

5) Project and Program Updates

a.) Curtiss Pond Project: The preconstruction meeting was held on Wednesday, August 27, 2014. Work is expected

to begin September 2nd.

b.) Highland Ravine Project: Pre-construction meetings with the contractor and homeowners were held on August 25,

2014 from 3 – 6:30pm. Construction is scheduled to start on September 15 and be substantially completed by

October 15.

c.) Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Study: The project kick-off meeting was held on August 21 at 8:30 am at

Lauderdale City Hall. Representatives from Lauderdale, Ramsey County were in attendance.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2014\Administrator's Report 9-3-14.docx

http://www.mnarbonline.com/Public-Policy-2014-C151.aspx

http://www.freshwater.org/lectures

Documents

September 3, 2014 board packet