Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016.04.18 CC Packet
AGENDA HUGO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 2016 - 7:00 PM HUGO CITY HALL A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 2, 2016 Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf Pasta Dinner 2. April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of new Hugo Deputy Kelly Olson G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and a roll call vote. If a member of the City Council or the public wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Approve Appointment of Firefighter Colin Emans as Training Lieutenant 3. Approve Reduction in the Letter of Credit for Meridian Land Company LLC, Fox Meadows Development 4. Approve Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for CSAH 4 and CSAH 57 Construction Inspection Services 5. Approve Personnel Policy Amendment to Include Fire Department Data and Social Media Policy 6. Approve Renewal of 2 a.m. Closing Time for Sal's Angus Grill 7. Approve Special Event Permit for Blue Heron Grill Outdoor Tent Party 8. Approve Special Event Permit for Oneka Elementary 5K Color Run 9. Approve Letter to the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Update on Stormwater Grants 2. I. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2. J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. K. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Update on the Yellow Ribbon Network 2. L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS I . Parks Commission Interviews on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2. Metro Cities Annual Meeting on Thursday, April 21, 2015 3. Habitat for Humanity Home Dedication on Saturday, April 23, 2016 4. Joint Lions Park Workshop on Thursday, April 28, 2016 5. Spring Cleanup on Saturday, April 30, 2016 6. Kidz n' Biz on Saturday, April 30, 2016 7. Six Cities Meeting on Thursday, May 26, 2016 8. M. ADJOURNMENT BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 18, 2016 D.1 April 2, 2016 Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf Pasta Dinner D.2 April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting Staff recommends Council approve the minutes as presented. F.1 Introduction of new Hugo Deputy Kelly Olson Three deputies had been transferred out of Hugo in 2016, and three new deputies are now patrolling. Council previously met Deputies Scott Zitzloff and Lee Mars. Deputy Kelly Olson will be in attendance, and Sergeant Wayne Johnson will introduce her to Council. G.1 Approval of Claims Staff recommends Council approve the Claims Roster as presented. G.2 Approve Appointment of Firefighter Colin Emans as Training Lieutenant The Hugo Fire Department Leadership interviewed five candidates for the Training Lieutenant position and selected Colin Emans as the best fit. Colin currently holds the Fire Marshal's position and will retain those responsibilities until Department Leadership appoints a replacement. Fire Chief Kevin Colvard recommends Council approve Colin Emans as the Training Lieutenant effective April 1, 2016. G.3 Approve Reduction in the Letter of Credit for Meridian Land Company LLC, Fox Meadows Development Meridian Land Company has requested the City reduce their letter of credit for the Fox Meadows Development 1st Addition to $147,900.00 which is 10% of the original letter of credit. Senior Engineering Technician Steve Duff has inspected the work and recommends the reduction of the letter of credit being held for the constructed improvements in the Fox Meadows Development 1 st Addition be reduced to $147,900.00 of the original letter of credit $1,479,000.00. GA Approve Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for CSAH 4 and CSAH 57 Construction Inspection Services Staff has been working with the Washington County Public Works Department on a cooperative agreement for inspection services on the upcoming CSAH 4/CR 57 project. The agreement provides for construction observation and inspections to be done by Hugo's Senior Engineering Technician Steve Duff for a fixed fee of $46,500. Staff recommends Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for CSAH 4 and CSAH 57 for construction inspection services. G.5 Approve Personnel Policy Amendment to Include Fire Department Data and Social Media Policy The Hugo Fire Department is requesting to include a policy in the City Employee Personnel Policy to address the use of data by members of the department on duty, or off duty if their position allows access not given to the public. This policy prohibits photographs, recordings, etc. from being shared on social media or otherwise, unless approved by the Fire Chief. This also addresses the personal positing on social media by fire department members. Fire Chief Kevin Colvard recommends Council approve the Fire Department Data and Social Media Policy. G.6 Approve Renewal of 2 a.m. Closing Time for Sal's Angus Grill Sal's Angus Grill, 12010 Keystone Avenue North, has applied for renewal of its 2:00 a.m. closing time license. City staff has reviewed the application and found it to be satisfactorily complete. Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the 2:00 a.m. closing time for Sal's Angus Grill. G.7 Approve Special Event Permit for Blue Heron Grill Outdoor Tent Party on June 24 & 25 The Blue Heron Grill, 14725 Victor Hugo Boulevard, has submitted an application for a Special Event Permit for outdoor concerts in the evenings on Friday, June 24 and Saturday, June 25. This event requires Special Event Permit approval by Council because the event is expected to draw approximately 500 people each night, alcohol will be sold and served, and there will be an amplified sound system. The event will be conducted the same as in the past years. Staff recommends Council approve the Special Event Permit for the Blue Heron Grill for their outdoor tent party on June 24 and 25, 2016. G.8 Approve Special Event Permit for Oneka Elementary 5K Color Run on May 7, 2016 Oneka Elementary has submitted a Special Event Permit application for approval of a 5K Color Run on Saturday, May 7, 2016. This event requires a Special Event Permit approved by Council because the event is expected to draw between 500-700 participants and will include the use of City trail/sidewalks/streets. Oneka Parkway will be closed for the duration of the event, and the applicant has worked with the City and Washington County Sheriff's Department on the details. This event was held last year and was very successful. Staff recommends Council approve the Special Event Permit for the Oneka Elementary 5K Color Run on May 7, 2016. G.9 Approve Letter to the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District At their April 4, 2016 meeting, the Council considered the request of Washington County for nominees to the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District and/or endorsement of three Board Managers whose terms expire on June 21, 2106. Council had concerns regarding the Watershed District and directed staff to draft a letter to the County. Staff recommends Council approve the draft letter to the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District. H. Update on Stormwater Grants Staff would like to provide Council an update on recent stormwater grants. K.1 Update on the Yellow Ribbon Network Council Members Chuck Haas and Phil Klein will update the Council on the activities of the Yellow Ribbon Network to date. L.1 Parks Commission Interviews on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 The Council has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, April 19, 2016 for the purpose of conducting interviews to fill the vacancy on the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission. Staff has received three applications. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. L.2 Metro Cities Annual Meeting on Thursday, April 21, 2015 Metro Cities will hold their annual meeting on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, St. Paul. The event will begin at 5:30 p.m. with a social hour, followed by a presentation on elections by Professor David Schultz. The Council has scheduled this as a meeting. L.3 Habitat for Humanity Home Dedication on Saturday, April 23, 2016 Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity is having a home dedication for eight families who have built homes in Generation Acres. The dedication will be on Saturday, April 23rd at loam. The dedications last about 40 minutes with time for the homebuyers, sponsors, Habitat staff & Board to all share briefly. The City Council is invited to attend and to say a few words during the program if they wish. LA Joint Lions Park Workshop on Thursday, April 28, 2016 At its March 7, 2016 meeting, Council scheduled a joint workshop with the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission to discuss phasing and funding options for the development of Lions Park. The workshop is scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 7 p.m. L.5 Spring Cleanup on Saturday, April 30, 2016 The City of Hugo will hold its annual Spring Cleanup event on Saturday, April 30, 2016 at the Hugo Public Works Department from 8 a.m. to noon. L.6 Kidz n' Biz on Saturday, April 30, 2016 The Annual Kidz n'Biz Fest will take place on Saturday, April 30, 2016 at the Oneka Elementary School from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Council has scheduled this as a meeting to attend. L.7 Six Cities Meeting on Thursday. MU 26.2016 The Met Council Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study was completed in December, 2015. This study reviews the potential to combine the municipal water systems of six cities: Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington, and Lino Lakes. A meeting is scheduled with all six cities for Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7 p.m. at Lino Lakes City Hall. Staff recommends Council schedule this as a meeting. M. Adiournment City of Hugo Claims April 18, 2016 Vendor Alexandria Technical College Invoice 101986 $ Amount 120.00 Description State Fire School - Rick Grego re Department Fire Dept Allied 100 - AED Superstore AI's Coffee Company 587304 139572 $ 1 $ 448.00 68.95 AED Heart Smart Pads Breakroom Supplies Fire Dept Public Works Aspen Mills 178275 11 $ 195.40 Boots, Name Ta , Belt, Patches, Etc Fire Dept Aspen Mills 179085 $ 411.85 Jacket, Boots, EMS Pants, Sweatshirt, Etc Fire Dept Aspen Mills 179084 $ 193.50 Boots, EMS Pants Name Ta., Etc Fire Dept Aspen Mills 179083 $ 263.45 Boots, EMS Pants, Name Tag, Shirt, Etc Fire Dept Aspen Mills 179086 $ 1,260.55 Hu o Fire Department Shirts Fire Dept C -Aire Inc 130996 1 $ 777.47 Air Compressor Parts & Repairs Fire Dept Century College 607273 1 $ 700.00 Firefighter I Tuition - Zaheer Khan Fire Dept Century College 610048 1 $ 700.00 Firefighter I & Skills Tuition - Michael Wamsley jFire Dept Century College 610590 1 $ 700.00 Firefighter I & Hazmat Tuition - Justin Williams _ Fire Dept Century College 607275 1 $ 1,476.25 EMT Tuition - Matthew Drew Fire Dept Century College 607275 $ 219.40 EMT Textbook - Matthew Drew ___ Fire Dept Century College 1 607275 $ --$-219 1,476.25 EMT Tuition - Andrew Luchsinger Fire Dept Century College 607275 40 EMT Textbook - Andrew Luchsin er Fire Dept Century College 607275 $ 1,476.25 EMT Tuition - Jason PalmquistFire Dept CenturyCollege 607275 $ 219.40 EMT Textbook - Jason Palmquist Fire Dept Century Link 651 653-1154 T-56 85 SCADA Lines Water & Sewer Century Link 651429-3212 $ 67.03 Fire Station Phone Lines _ Fire Dept Century Link 651 426-8763 $ 60.27 911 Emergency Line Administration City of Roseville 221338 $ 396.53 March Phone Service Various City of Roseville 221318 $ 3,914.17 March Computer Service Various Colvard, Kevin CLAIM $ 333.00 Chief Vehicle Heating Costs Fire Dept Comcast 3/26/2016 $ 120.92 Business Internet thru May 5) Public Works Comcast 3/18/2016 $ 148.77 Business Internet (thru April 27) Fire Dept Companion Animal Control LLC March $ 522.20 Monthly Service Charge Animal ControlAIM Compton Jr, Jim CL $ 333.00 Chief Vehicle Heating Costs Fire Dept Eagle Engraving Inc 2016-661 $ 166.95 Award Holders Fire Dept Earl F. Andersen 0110679 -IN $ 346.00 Stop Signs Street Dept Emergency Apparatus Maintenance Inc 85316 $ 276.95 Re airs - Unit #4211 Fire Dept Emergency Apparatus Maintenance Inc 85449 $ 695.27 NFPA Pump Test & Repairs - Unit #4211 Fire Dept Emergency Apparatus Maintenance Inc 85450 $ 658.32 NFPA Pump Test & Re airs - Unit#4212 Fire Dept Finance & Commerce Inc 742689817 $ 318.42 Ad for Bids -Beaver Ponds Stormwater Reuse Stormwater Fund Fordham, Jim CLAIM $ 333.00 Chief Vehicle Heatin Costs Fire Dept Frattallone's Hardware Store 102394 $ 4.40 Hardware -Conference Room Gen Gov't Bid s G & K Services March $ 449.18 Cleaning Supplies Various G & K Services March $ 1,172.63 Uniform & Floor Mat Services Various G & K Services March $ 740.82 Supplies & Floor Mat Services Fire Dept Gene's Disposal Service Inc 282367 $ 468.60 March Waste Hauling - PW Facility Public Works Gene's Disposal Service Inc 282367 $ 144.27 March Waste Hauling - Fire Station Fire Dept Gene's Disposal Service Inc 282367 $ 64.40 March Waste Hauling - City Hall Gen Gov't Bldgs Gene's Disposal Service Inc 282348 $ 413.99 Dum ster Rental - 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Gopher State One Call 6030450 $ 224.75 March Service Charges Water/Sewer Gregoire, Rick CLAIM $ 478.12 State Fire School Ex arises Fire Dept HD Supply Waterworks LTD F197886 $ 12,285.00 Radio Meters Water Utility HD Supply Waterworks LTD F203783 $ 515.00 Gate Valve - Lift Station No. 2 Sewer Utility HD Supply Waterworks LTD F341577 $ (270.00) Radio Meters (Price Adjustment) Water Utility Hisdahl Inc 14530 $ 52.50 Name Plates Fire Dept Hotsy Equipment of Minnesota 51628 $ 488.95 Bulk Soap & Parts for Washbay Public Works Hotsy Equipment of Minnesota 51623 $ 354.03 Bulk Soap & Parts for Washbay Fire De2t Hugo Feed Mill 9204-2 $ 12.90 Parts - Unit #207 Sewer Utilit Hugo Feed Mill 15933-1 $ 140.00 Screen Repairs - 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Hugo Plumbing & Pump Service Inc 6463 $ 3,235.00 Plumbing Repairs -14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties InnoGra hics Design Grou 3447 $ 475.00 Spring Newsletter Design Misc Unallocated InnoGra hics Design Group 3447 $ _ 350.00 City of Hugo Logo Design Community Development Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN1142008 $ 214.20 Copy Paper Administration Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN1142008 $ 268.02 File Folders 'Administration International Association of Fire Chiefs 81595 $ 234.00 2016 Membership Dues - Kevin Colvard Fire De t International Association of Fire Chiefs 110785 $ 234.00 2016 Membership Dues - Jim Compton Jr Fire De2t International Association of Fire Chiefs 110786 $ 234.00 2016 Membership Dues - Jim Fordham Fire Dept International Code Council _ 0002PR12 $ 44.99 International Building Code Plan Review Records Building Inspections Jefferson Fire & Safety 225077 $ 20.58 Flat Pac Mini Kit Fire Dept Jefferson Fire & Safety 225225 $ 45.00 Honeywell Suspenders Fire Dept Johnsonlfurner March $ 4,054.68 March Prosecution Fees Flat Fee General Legal Johnson/Turner March $ 653.25 March Disbursements Prosecution Costs General Le al Johnsonrrurner March $ 1, 842.501 March Civil Legal Fees - See Attached Breakdown General Legal Kath Fuel Oil Service Co. 12320094 $ 2,989.35 March Unleaded Gas & Diesel Purchases Various Leitz Rachel CLAIM 1 $ 70.00 1 Storage Cabinet - 14715 Forest Blvd I Rental Properties Page 1 City of Hugo Claims April 18, 2016 Vendor r, Leitz, Rachel Invoice CLAIM $ Amount 40.00 Description Microwave - 14715 Forest Blvd I Department Rental Properties Leitz, Rachel CLAIM $ 17.25 Mileage Communit -Development Leitz, Rachel CLAIM $ 117.88 Mileage - 14715 Forest Blvd Su lies Pick Up) Rental Properties Mark's Painting Service 4/5/2016 $ 350.00 Conference Room Painting Gen Gov't Bldgs Menards 15479 $ 18.73 Hardware Fire Dept Menards 18419 $ 5.48 _ Supplies - 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Menards 18449 $ 30.44 Supplies - 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Menards 18535 $ 1.84 Supplies - 14715 Forest Blvd_ Rental Properties Menards 16020 $ 19.31 Lumber & Hardware- Compost Site Recycling Menards 16208 $ 23.86 _ Supplies- 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Menards 16304 $ 1.69 _ 1 Hardware - Public Works Menards 19492 $ 56.09 Fire Department Supplies Fire Dept Minnesota Cleaning Services Inc 04161<03 $ 573.30 March Cleaning Service Gen Gen Gov't Bldgs Minnesota CleaningServices Inc 0416K05 $ 480.00 March Cleaning Service Public Works Minnesota Cleaning Services Inc 0416K05 $ 200.00 March Cleaning Service Fire Dept Minnesota Cleaning Services Inc 0416K04 $ 95.00 March Cleaning Service - Hanill Parks Dept Minnesota Department of Health 8412 $ 23.00 Water Operator Renewal - Jeff Maas _ Water Utility Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Assn 300000787 $ 57.00 2016 Membership Dues -Jim Fordham Fire Dept Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Assn 300000585 $ 57.00 2016 Membership Dues - Dave Jensen Fire Dept MN Fire Service Certification Board 3981 $ 26.66 Fire Instructor Certification Exam - Bieniek Fire Dept MN Fire Service Certification Board 3981 $ 26.67 Fire Instructor Certification Exam - Churchill Fire Dept MN Fire Service Certification Board 3981 $ 26.67 Fire Instructor Certification Exam - Richardson Fire Dept MN State Colleges and Universities 3214 $ 75.00 MRTC Membership Dues 3 Fire Dept MN State Colleges and Universities 3214 -f-1 50. 00 BLS Instructor Manual & DVD Set Fire Dept Oxygen Service Company 3337786 $ 19.22 Welding Supplies Public Works Preisler, Chuck CLAIM $ 22.95 Renter Credit Report - 14715 Forest Blvd Rental Properties Press Publications 508656 $ 20.46 City Council Special Meetings Notice Ordinances/Proceedings Press Publications 508657 $ 20.46 Boards & Commissions Special Meeting Notice Ordinances/Proceedings Press Publications 508658 $ 163.68 Ad for Bids - Beaver Ponds Stormwater Reuse Stormwater Fund Recreation Sports and Play Inc 31 -Mar -16 $ 390.00 Lacrosse Goals - Val Jean Park Parks Dept Roetter, Jim CLAIM $ 100.00 IFire Officer School Expenses (Additional) Fire Dept Sam' Club 57695 $ 174.09 1 Fire Department Supplies Fire Dept Sam's Club 3411 268610151 $ 90.00 12016 Business Membership Dues Dues/Memberships Siteim rove, Inc 44512 $ 2,200.00 Website Maintenance Administration Toshiba Financial Services 299989822 $ 214.98 Aril Copier Lease Payment Fire Dept Toshiba Financial Services 299989822 $ 5.45 Overage Charges B & W) Fire Dept Toshiba Financial Services 299989822 $ 58.55 Overage Charges Color) Fire Dept Twin Cities Bicycling Club 459 T-405. 00 Tour de Hugo Advertisement Parks Dept Unique Paving Materials Cc 253737 $ -t-425 130.00 Pothole Mix Street Dept US Bank 4247025 00 Paying Agent Fees Sinking Fund Verizon Wireless 9762352129 - $ 40.02 Cellular Phone Charges Fire Dept Washington County 85803 $ 4,326.84 800 Radio User Fees - January thru March Fire Dept Ziegler Inc SW200054597 1 $ 1,836.70 jParts& Repairs -Unit #316 Stormwater Fund Total Claims for April 18, 2016 1 $ 65,394.15 Page 2 JOHNSON/TURNER -LEGAL April 11, 2016 City of Hugo c/o Ron Otkin, Finance Director 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Dear Ron: Enclosed, please find our billing statements for the City of Hugo as of March 30, 2016. Below is a summary of the matter description, subtotal and total amount due and owing for the attached statements: MATTER MATTER I.D. SUBTOTAL General 2016 16-2359-039 $1,842.50 Prosecution 12-2359-024 $4,707.93 TOTAL NOW DUE: $6,550.43 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the billing statements. Sincerely, JOHNSON/TURNER LEGAL Id K. Sny' de DKS/mah Enclosures 56 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 206 / Fore9,t Lake, MN55025 / p 651.464.7292 f651,464-7348 / johnsonturnercorn FOREST LAKE / LAKE ELMO / WOODBURY / BLAINE Michele Lindau From: Kevin Colvard Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:33 PM To: Michele Lindau Cc: Bryan Bear; JR Compton; James Fordham Subject: Lieutenant's position Michele For the next council meeting please add approval of Colin Emans being appointed to Training Lieutenant effective 4-1- 16. Department Leadership interviewed 5 candidates for the LT position and selected Colin. Colin currently holds the Fire Marshal's position and will retain those responsibilities until Department Leadership appoints a replacement. Questions, comments, concerns? Kevin Colvard Chief 4 City of Hugo Fire Department '!� Email: Kcolvard(@ci.hugo.mn.us Cell 651-274-6750 Meridian Land April 11, 2016 Mr. Steve Duff Senior Engineering Technician City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue, N. Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Fox Meadows —1n Addition Letter of Credit Reduction Dear Steve: Please reduce the letter of credit amount necessary for Fox Meadows— in Addition to $147,900. consideration in this matter. stick Murray Senior Vice President Rli vises,. arnca 3811 Westerns Pkwy., Suite G, Henrico, VA 23233 - 804-261-6868 mmorso...nnu 3600 American Blvd. W., Suite 750, Minneapolis, MN 55431 • 952-898-1110 meridian landcompany.com Meridian Land Company Is a subsidiary of United Properties 6.3 WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF HUGO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 4 AND COUNTY ROAD 57 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES WASHINGTON COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 10138 DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION TRANSPORTATION TERM SIGNATURE TO END OF PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Hugo, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County desires to perform pavement preservation projects on Washington County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 4, hereinafter referred to as CSAH 4, and Washington County Road (CR) 57, hereinafter referred to as CR 57; and WHEREAS, a cooperative effort between the City and the County is the appropriate method to facilitate construction observation and inspection of the proposed projects; and WHEREAS, the County desires to use State Aid and local funds for CSAH 4 and local funds only for CR 57. WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to statutory authority contained in Minnesota Statute 162.17 sub.1. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: PURPOSE The City shall provide to the County construction observation and inspection services for pavement preservation projects on CSAH 4 and CR 57. This agreement includes Exhibit A (CSAH 4 location map) and Exhibit B (CR 57 location map). II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. CSAH 4 Resurfacing. This is a pavement preservation project consisting of removing the existing bituminous surface and repaving with hot -mix asphalt. In addition, placement of shouldering material, culvert replacement, ditch cleaning, and signing and striping will be included in this project. The project limits are illustrated on Exhibit A. B. CR 57 Surface Reclamation. This is a pavement preservation project consisting of full -depth reclamation of the existing road surface. Placement of shouldering material, culvert replacement, culvert and ditch cleaning, erosion control, turf establishment, and signing and striping will also be included in this project. The project limits are illustrated on Exhibit B. III. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, OBSERVATION, AND TESTING A. City construction observation and inspection services shall include: Services to be provided by one certified inspector. Pre -construction conference attendance. - 1 - Day-to-day on-site coordination in the contractor. Tracking Item Record Accounts. Daily and weekly written construction diaries. Track change in construction status. Coordinate change orders with County Construction Engineer. B. The County shall be responsible for any construction administration that is not included under Section III, A. of this agreement. The County shall be responsible for all material testing and shall oversee labor compliance and administrative functions in regards to the projects. IV. PAYMENT A. Cost of Services. The cost of inspection services is $46,500 with 50% of the total amount attributable to each project. B. Payment. Upon bid award, the County shall pay the City 100% of the agreed lump sum amount after receipt of an invoice from the City. In the event the County does not award construction contracts for one or both of the projects, this agreement will be cancelled. V. CIVIL RIGHTS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION The provisions of Minn. Stat. 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set further herein, and shall be part of any Agreement entered into by the parties with any contractor, subcontractor, or material suppliers. VI. WORKERS COMPENSATION It is hereby understood and agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City in the performance of construction and/or construction engineering work or services required or provided for under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the County and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the construction and/or construction engineering work or services to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. VII. INDEMNIFICATION A. The City agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the County may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the City, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this agreement. B. The County agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any and all liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses which the City may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of any negligent act by the County, its agents, officers or employees during the performance of this agreement. C. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the parties to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of -2- liability, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subd. la(b). The parties to this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of another party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other parties as provided for in Section 471.59, subd. 1 a. D. Each party's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 and other applicable law. The parties agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minnesota Statute 471.59, subdivision 1a and that the total liability for the parties shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single unit of government as specified in 466.04, subdivision 1(a). VIII. DATA PRIVACY All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, or used for any purposes in the course of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 1984, Section 13.01, et seq. or any other applicable state statutes and state rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as state statutes and federal regulations on data privacy. IX. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until the CSAH 4 and CR 57 projects are complete. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON By By Chair County Board of Commissioners Molly O'Rourke County Administrator Approved as to form: By Asst. County Attorney CITY OF HUGO By Date Mayor By Date City Administrator Approved as to form: By Date City Attorney -3- Date Date Date APPENDEX A Hugo Fire Department Policy Regarding Data and Social Media SUBJECT: The collection, taking, production, use, distribution, and release of pictures, recordings, social, digital or other media by members of the Hugo Fire Department while they are on duty or while off-duty and their position allows special access not otherwise available to members of the public. This includes off-duty access to Fire department facilities, apparatus and equipment. PURPOSE: This policy is intended to protect the department, the reputation of the department, the confidentiality of its members, the patients and members of the public with whom we interact. Nothing in this policy is intended to unlawfully restrict a members' First Amendment right to free speech or restrict discussions as a private citizen over matters of public concern. POLICY: • Any photographs, recordings, digital or other media collected, taken, secured, generated or produced while a member is on -duty shall be the property of the fire department . • Any photographs, recordings, digital or other media produced while a member is on - duty for purposes of investigation, training, documentation, or public awareness may be used only with the advance written approval of the Fire Chief. • Any photographs, recordings, digital or other media produced for purely personal purposes while a member is off-duty but through special access shall be generally acceptable and appropriate so as not to impugn the character of the department. Such purely personal media produced should in no way be construed or characterized to be endorsed by the department. Any such media deemed by the Fire Chief to be inappropriate or that is in conflict with the character of the department shall be immediately removed from social media or other public postings. • Any person's social media postings, shall not be construed or characterized as an official release of information by the Hugo Fire Department. Fnecessary, the member shall provide a disclaimer stating that the posting is their own opinion and does not represent that of the department. • Unless otherwise restricted by the MN Data Practices Actor other applicable law, Minnesota Statutes § § 13 et seq. and specifically § 13.82, all photographs, digital recordings or other media that are the property of the fire department may subj ect to public disclosure if directed by the Fire Chief. The provisions of this policy as well as those of the Section 22-21.2 shall apply. ENFORCEMENT: This policy is enforceable by the Fire Chief through the employee discipline policy established for the City of Hugo and the Hugo Fire Department. Adopted by the Hugo City Council on April 18, 2016 Kevin Colvard, Chief 2 Date Renewal Application for Optional Liquor 2AM License 3 :-waG.ie-f amem License Type: 2AM-100K-5001 Expires On: May 6, 2016 ID Number: 14397 DBA Saint Ansus Grill hic. Sal's Angus Grill 12010 Keystone Ave N Hugo MN 55082 Business Phone: 6514396625 if any of the above licensee information is not correct, please make corrections as necessary. ensee must report previous 12 month on sale alcoholic beverage gross receipts by checking one of the boxes below. Next he box you check is your 2 AM license fee. Make check payable to: Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division .GED). Mail this application and check to: AGED, 445 Minnesota St, Suite 222, St. Paul, MN 55101-5133. _$300 2 AM license fee - Up to $100,000 in on sale gross receipts for alcoholic beverages _$750 2AM license fee - Over $100,000, but not over $500,000 in on sale gross receipts for alcoholic beverages _$1000 2AM license fee - Over $500,000 in on sale gross receipts for alcoholic beverages _$200 2AM license fee - 3.2% On Sale Malt Liquor licensees or Set Up license holders _$200 2AM license fee - Did not sell alcoholic beverages for a full 12 months prior to this application Yes _No Does the city or county that issues your liquor license allow the sale of alcoholic beverages until 2 AM? City Clerk/County Auditor Signature Date (I certify that the city or county of approves the sale of alcoholic beverages until 2AM) Licensee Signature 'I certify that I have answered the above questions truthfully and correctly) icensee Minnesota Tax ID Number Licensee: Prior to submitting this application to the Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division you must have this form signed by your local city or county licensing official Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) 445 MinnesotaStreet, Suite 222, St. Paul, MN 551015133 Telephone 651-201-7500 Fax 651-2975259 TTY 651-282-6555 dps.mn.gov City of qwHugo To: City Administrator Bryan Bear From: City Clerk Michele Lindau Date: April 12, 2016 for the City Council Meeting April 18, 2016 Re: Blue Heron Grill Special Event Permit 1. BACKGROUND: Memorandum This event will be identical to their two day event held last year, which according to the Washington County Sheriff Department generated one complaint on loud music. 2. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT: The event will consist of the band "GB Leighton" playing on Friday, June 24"' and "Boogie Wonderland" playing on Saturday, June 25th from 7 p.m. — midnight both nights. The warmup band "Touch of Rust" will be playing at 6 p.m. both nights. The music will be outdoors in a tent adjacent to the west entrance of the building. Alcohol will be sold and served in the tent area. The event is outlined in detail below. Parking The event tent will occupy a portion of the Blue Heron parking lot. The Blue Heron also has a shared parking agreement with the property to the north occupied by Festival Foods and adjacent businesses in the Victor Gardens North Village shopping center. Blue Heron Assistant General Manager Amy Lindberg will contact the property owner regarding the use of the lot and agreed to leave several rows in front of Festival Foods open during their business hours. Blue Heron will have private security patrolling the parking lot during the event. The Ideal Credit Union and the Health Partners Clinic have also agreed to allow parking in their lots after business hours. A cleanup crew will be in the parking areas between 6-8 a.m. both Saturday and Sunday morning to pick up any litter. Stage Structure and Tents A 140' X 40' tent will be rented and installed by a professional company. The tent will be of fire retardant material, and no smoking will be permitted inside the tent. The stage, lights, and sound will also be set up by professionals who will assist in determining the best configuration to control the sound and lights away from adjacent properties. Bathroom facilities/waste management The applicant will be renting additional porta-potties that will be located between the building and tent area. There will also be access to the bathrooms inside the building. Garbage receptacles shall be regularly emptied and the event site kept clear of debris. The Blue Heron's current refuse hauler, Ace, will be contacted for an extra Saturday morning pickup. Food and Liquor No food will be prepared in the tent area but will be available inside the building. There will be a cover charge to get in, and patrons must show proper I.D. and will be given wrist bands. The entrance/exit will be monitored by hired security to ensure no alcohol leaves the area. The applicant will be contacting local cab companies, providing sober ride contact information to patrons, and encouraging designated drivers. 3. REQUIREMENTS: The applicant has provided the City the completed permit and permit fee. hi accordance with this permit, the applicant shall conduct the event as described herein and meet the following conditions: PRIOR TO THE EVENT 1. The applicant will provide the City a signed Hold Harmless Agreement. 2. The applicant will receive permission from Ideal Credit Union and Health Partners for parking on their sites. 3. The applicant will post signs prohibiting parking in front of Festival Foods and adjacent businesses during business hours. 4. The applicant will notify adjacent business owners of the event. 5. The stage will be placed according to the attached site plan to minimize noise to neighboring properties. DURING THE EVENT 6. The applicant shall conduct the event in accordance with the approved plans submitted with the application. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances. 8. Parking area will be monitored, and parking attendants will direct traffic to approved locations. 9. Security will be posted at all entrances/exists to ensure no alcohol leaves the tent area. 10. All activities associated with the outdoor stage performances and amplified sound shall end by midnight both nights. 11. Cleanup crews will remove all litter from the parking area on Saturday and Sunday morning at 6 a.m. 12. Garbage receptacles shall be regularly emptied and the event site kept clear of debris. AFTER THE EVENT 13. All signage will be removed immediately after, and temporary structures placed on the property for this event will be removed within 12 hours of the end of the event. 14. All trash will be removed from the site, including all parking areas. Minor changes to this permit may be approved by City staff. Changes staff deems to be significant will require Council review and approval. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The City has, worked with the Blue Heron to address potential impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Hugo and participants of this event. The City will contact the Washington County Sheriff s Department and inform them of the event if this permit is approved by Council. The City has also received a Certificate of Liability Insurance showing the City of Hugo as additionally insured for this event. Staff recommends Council approve the Special Event Permit for outdoor concerts at the Blue Heron on Friday and Saturday night, June 24 and 25, 2016. 1FH< 11 \ „I ugo Special Event Permit Application Hugo City Hall, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 55038 - Phone (651) 762-6300 - FAX (651) 426-2859 APPLICANT I0Frt73 Application Fee:75.00 PAID a' 3-zl-IL, Address: PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER Name: DESCRIPTION OF EVENT Please review the items on the check list on the back of the application for information that is required to make this application cgrpple)e; if there is not enough room below to describe the event please submit on a separate sheet of paper. City Council Approval lwh Date Clerk Signature �er� 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes with Conditions WM N a r, 1, Ll 7Lfa y u s i l a r, 1, Ll 7Lfa y u CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE I$ ISSUE" AS A MATTER OF tNFORNWTION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATH/ELY AMEND, INTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED EY THE PO - THIS BELOW THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSITTUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED RFPRESENTATIVE-OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER IMPORTANT. IF the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the pDlloyft! ) must he endorsEd_ If SUBROGATION I$ WAIVED, su6Ject to the tenf th s and conditions oe policy, certain may ay rsyulm an e°dorsemonL. A staternent on this cerNNcats does not conker rights to the certificate holder in lieu of Such endoreeneent(s). PRODUCER COfrIAC( NNE . Jim Nesser Agency, Inc. ° Erve- 4175 Lovell Rd .Lexington, Mn 55014 .. msuRSefsl AevnARwn onvcnw.-.. INSURED Blue Heron Grill, Inc. Blue Heron Grill 14725 Victor Hugo Blvd N - - - ------ E K"ISIUN NUMBER; THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF„INSURANCE UsIl E BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED iO THE INSURED NgMPlI ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED- NOTTVITHSfANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM R CONDITION OF CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAm, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITION$ OF SUCH POLICIES. ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WIT}i RESPECT TO WHICH THIS THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY 7HE POUGES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, LIMIT$ SHOWN MAY HAVE �LM ° SEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. MDIIMe93 l m 10 MMN� UNITS GENEAALLLWLRY EWH OCCURRENCE COMMERCWLGENERALUABRIIY DwnsMAGE occuR A 9E91b a_ S 300 000 A BR 235735 1-1-1 / MFDEAP MY9a nssPl s 000 1-1-17 PERSONALSAVVINMRY s OO AGGREGATE UMRAPpUES P FR GENEAALAGGREGATE 4rGFNL POUCY T& LOC PRODUUM-COMP/OPAGG s 9 MOBILE VABILnT BI [-0S lE Ir FA ASO LLOVYNED SCHEODUBI BODILY MIURY (PerpeRvn) s 1f10S ANON-0N11Eo BODILY INJURY IPr.wdli s IRED AVTOS AUTOS PR�P� ° vB s S UMBRE.ALIABOCCUR ExcEss oAe MAIMS-MAOE EACH OCCURRENCE s AGGREGATE s OED RETEMION9 WORNERB CDMPENBATIDN 9 MIB EMVLDYER. UARI1Jrr YIN • aFFPce wemawtMMUDDBU? rVm�❑ NIA B EL EACHACCmEm 9 500,000 InmAdetorymNH) L+C6589721-1_1/ If yes. desaftmwder OESCRBRION OPOPERATONS beIP.r1-1— _ EL OISEAEE-EA EMPL s 7 ELOISPA9E-POUCNUMIr i A Liquor Liab BR235735 1-1-16/ 1,000,000/2,000,000 -1-17 Limit of Liabilit OFSCWPTDN OF Op61ATIDNS/LOfATIONS/vpfiClF9 (ANaervACOnnlef,AddMmW RsmuXeSWedNe, Nmenepsee Isngeind) Tent Party Held June 24th and 25th 2016 CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City Of Hugo SHOULD ANY OFTNEA19ME DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCULM BEFORE 14669 Fitzgerald N - 'THE O°'IRATION DATE TNEREor NOTICE MLL BE nElnm. IN ACCOIrDANCE W fD1 THE POUCYPROVISIONS_ Hugo, Mn 55038 . .. AV1110m1�NB'gGSHi'IATVe Ahh I -1417 A 8 t9R8-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved, ADORE) 25 (2010/05) - The ACORD name and Id o rem 8 A .. glslamd marks of ACORp. . 6 - C t. 0City of Hugo To: City Administrator Bryan Bear From: City Clerk Michele Lindau Date: April 12, 2016 for Council Meeting on April 18, 2016 Re: Oneka Elementary 5K Color Run on Saturday, May 7, 2016 1. BACKGROUND: Memorandum Oneka Elementary has submitted a Special Event Permit application for approval of a 5K Color Run on Saturday, May 7, 2016. This event requires a Special Event Permit approved by Council because the event is expected to draw between 500-600 participants and will include the use of City trail/sidewalks/streets. 2. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT: A Color Run is a fund-raising event for the Oneka Elementary and Hugo Elementary school. Students and families will get donations and earn rewards for the amount of money raised for participation in the 5K run/walk. This is their second annual event, and will be conducted as follows: Organizers will set up the event between 6-8 a.m. Registration will be from 9-10 a.m. and the run will begin at 10 a.m. The run will take place along Oneka Parkway from the Oneka Elementary School towards CSAH 8 and back. With the number of runners expected, it will be necessary to close Oneka Parkway for the race. All residential areas have an alternate means of accessing their homes except the homes along Farnham Ave, north of Oneka Parkway. A Washington County Deputy will be stationed at that intersection to allow traffic to go across the Parkway on Farnham, allowing vehicles to enter/exit that neighborhood. Another deputy and car will be stationed at the Oneka Parkway/Frenchman Road intersection to prevent vehicles from entering. The run is expected to last approximately two hours, and the road will be reopened immediately after all runners/walkers return to the school. Color packets will be sprayed on runners at specified locations along the route. One week prior to the event, the Hugo Public Works Department will place the electronic sign at the Frenchman Road/Oneka Parkway intersection notifying road users that Oneka Parkway will be closed on May 7 from 8 a.m. -1 p.m. Hugo Public Works Department will drop off cones/barricades along Oneka Parkway at all intersections to be closed. Adult volunteers will block off the intersection with the cones and barricades at approximately 8 a.m. and remain at the intersection until all run/walkers are done using the Parkway. Barricades will then be immediately moved to allow normal traffic flow, and Public Works will pick up the barricades following the event. • The applicant will place signage along the route notifying residents that a race is in progress. Prior to the event, the applicant will also notify all HOA's in the area of the road closure so they may get the word out to their residents. • A post -race party will be held in the busing area where there will be event activities and a DJ playing until 1 p.m. • Water, fruit, and muffins will be available free of charge. • Limited parking will be in the front entrance parking lot at Oneka Elementary, and additional parking available at Hugo Elementary where a bus will be used to transport participants to and from the event. • Two 10' X 20' tents will be used, and there will be an inflatable arch at the beginning/end of the race. • Race organizers are working on having a Hugo Fire Department vehicle at the event, and they will have staff trained in first aide. • Weather will be monitored by race organizers, and in the case of inclement weather participants will be ushered into the school gymnasium. 3. REQUIREMENTS: The applicant has provided the City the completed permit and permit fee. In accordance with this permit, the applicant shall conduct the event as described herein and meet the following conditions: Prior to the Event 1. The applicant shall provide the City a copy of the signed Hold Harmless Agreement 2. The applicant shall provide the City a copy of the insurance for the event naming the City of Hugo as additionally insured. 3. The applicant will notify all HOA's in the area of the road closure so they may get the word out to their residents. 4. The applicant shall secure Washington County Sheriff s Deputies to be stationed at specified intersections during the event, as recommended by the Sheriff's Department. 5. The applicant shall install temporary directional markers and caution signs along the route. 6. All crossing guards will meet with the Washington County deputies working the event to discuss procedures to follow along the route and at all intersections. During the Event 7. The applicant shall conduct the event in accordance with the approved plans submitted with the application. 8. The applicant and all volunteers will comply with all directions from the Washington County Deputies. 9. Adult crossing guards will be at all intersections to direct runners and ensure vehicular traffic does not enter the Parkway. Guards will also have the ability to contact a deputy should a problem arise. 10. Color packets will not be directed towards or sprayed near any vehicle, private property, or individual not participating in the event. 11. No food will be prepared and served on site. 12. Weather conditions will be monitored during the event and delays/cancellations will be determined by the opinions of medical, security and police staff. After the Event 13. All garbage shall be removed from the school property and streets and properly disposed of. 14. All signage visible from a public street will be removed immediately after the close of the event. Minor changes to this permit may be approved by City staff. Changes staff deems to be significant will require Council review and approval. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: The City has worked with the applicant and Washington County Sheriff's Department to address potential impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Hugo and participants of this event. Oneka Elementary has agreed to the above conditions, and staff recommends Council approve the Special Event Permit for the Color Run on Saturday; May 7, 2016. UHU> r �aa Hugo City Hall, 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 55038 — Phone (651) 762-6300 — FAX (651) 426-2859 Application Fee: $75.00 PAIDS APPLICANT Name:/ Address: 0 Phon &,A FAX: Email: V\ _ V\Ics Signature: Date: L4-1—� FVFNT INFORMATION Addre Date: PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER — - i , Name: \�`/�1 V(�� Address: l� U PhoneCpc�)p �U� � FAX:A �� Email: 11 Signatur yr� w��—< v Date: �� DESCRIPTION OF EVENT Please review the items on the check list on the back of the application for information that is required to make this application complete. If there is not enough room below to describe the event please submit on a separate sheet of paper. cd oL c{v� City Council Approval nate taerK wgnaxure ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes with Conditions Conditions � b' ly'�, �%'rl •% i - �____.•.____ _... ,. _ __ � � y,��Mrr`y .6 ' 1l- �' t��' � .�� ' .G _ pp 1, �� ,I� l:r,_yi Illi '•'n _ •�r. M M AI `1�;,� 1� iz ;,�,� � � t; ; Ti p'� °` r�+„�l;i�����.r',44�f �j+''''' J y ems, A.'•,FR ti 1 Yl` L79 :i- i, ai�.yyd �I,� A 1��r,'I�ylyj�'� I1��i.�► 5 rs , . � �✓ ,� � ' `�' �q1� ;:Ian' - � � �4��. �', � '� .,s:� _' . - �., j ., �' �° � � � .r. '_.�V r = �.. � 4� �, r � � �'t �,� � _ (l� fP� �� � r1' .ja`'+••Y a z i. L'' ! 9 �yNtlHjJ2lV3 L p `N a: Ve 2131 Oj j� ti J V �(' %, IV -`0 to MNtljI�'`*►' l Y' A Sw `�+`_'' .'7'31- N�Y�P � �• V I �` '�'+ � � �'4 � �rr.� �' 2 . 0O ® 1 l-4 W ' i ;, .: 'r r'_- _ �:.44• Sdi+ „js w.W.. -,__.. :NOlN3AJ r - -- z _. WO as IoL *44 W 0 ��y' �►! � . `� '►�� ,Y, .. p...,, ..;r � Y ', � - -- I�:.. � p� .,. �� tr'�'W L� .l� , OQF � '�',yR�� . . , �y w°+r • d. w n '�..8 ::f Z V J �c `.T<o `gr � '+v N Ak J4:f : _14- T� � y e Y r.i ,.� •, s � .x`� a: � F' ri��..-� � V < fir. d r► - - . �. ?�N3NIW3 !�' � i 'F""r�>c•x 'i ,. �.a, �! �� �" � d � � ,ir ,r,:' '� City of ugQ 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North, Hugo, MN 55038 (651) 762-6300 www.ci.hugo.mn.us April 18, 2016 Nancy S. Brase Administrative Services Manager 1494962 d Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Nancy, At its April 4, 2016 meeting, the Hugo City Council considered the Washington County Board's request for a list of nominees for the Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Watershed District Board of Managers. It is also understood the three managers with expiring terms are seeking reappointment. The City invited the three incumbents to the April 18, 2016 meeting to discuss Watershed District related topics; however, all three member were apparently unable to attend. The City of Hugo requests an extension of the April 24 deadline to submit our nominations for the Board's consideration. This will allow time for the three incumbents to be introduced to the Council at one of the Hugo City Council meetings. The Council meets the first and third Monday of each month. The requested time of the extension would be dependent on the ability to schedule a date that they would be able to attend. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me at 651-762-6320 if you have questions Respectfully, gaiaaa$i�i9saaaaaaa��. Bryan J. Bear City Administrator cc: Washington County Administrator Molly O'Rourke Washington County Board of Commissioners Carnelian -Marine St. Croix Board Administrator Jim Shaver METRO CITIES PomNebi N MLONT.M M W tlpeWks Metro Cities Annual Meeting Thursday—Apr d 21, 2016 UNIVERSITY CLUB 420 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul Valet Parking Available 5:30 p.m. Social Hour with Light Hors d'oeuvres & Cash Bar 6:30 p.m. Guest Speaker: David Schultz 7:00 p.m. Metro Cities Business Meeting Speaker: Da vi d Seh ultz David Schultz teaches classes in American politics and public policy, government ethics and elections, as well as elections law, at Hamline University. Professor Schultz is a Fulbright scholar who is nationally renowned for his astute work covering a vast array of topics in the area of American politics, and is the author of over 30 books on the subject. He is regularly quoted in national and local media, and has won awards for his teaching. Professor Schultz will join us to discuss what makes this election year unique, and the possible implications for national and state politics in the years ahead. Professor Schultz will discuss factors informing the upcoming Presidential and national races, the Supreme Court nomination, and electoral trends in state and local elections. Don't miss this chance to quiz a national expert on politics and policy! This is a great opportunity to connect with your peers from other metropolitan cities, get the latest news and information from Metro Cities, and elect those who will guide our organization through the upcoming year. Both elected officials and staff are welcome and encouraged There is no charge for attending the meeting, but we do askthat you RSVP by April 9" to J curie at LawieCaWetroCiticsMN.orgor 651-215-4000. d c •.� E oAlr _ `o W I L.3 Michele Lindau From: Michele Lindau Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 2:41 PM To: HugoCityCouncil Cc: Bryan Bear Subject: FW: Habitat for Humanity Home Dedication Attachments: Invitation - Digital.pdf I can put this on the next Council agenda if you would like to schedule something. Michele Lindau Hugo City Clerk 651-762-6315 From: Emily Evans [mailto:emily.evans@tchabitat.org] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:56 PM To: Michele Lindau <MLindau@ci.hugo.mn.us> Subject: Habitat for Humanity Home Dedication Hello Michele, My name is Emily Evans and I organize the home dedications for Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity. I am writing to invite you & the Hugo City Council to a home dedication we are holding for 8 families in Hugo on April 23rd at 30am. The invitation is attached, with more detail. A home dedication is an event that brings together the homebuyers with sponsors, volunteers, community members, neighbors, and Habitat staff, board, and supporters. It is a celebration of the family's hard work and of the tremendous contributions from supporters and volunteers that make building the home possible. Dedications last about 40 minutes, with time for the homebuyers, sponsors, Habitat staff & Board to all share briefly. Then there is time to tour the home, socialize, and have cake (often there is other food supplied by the family). Generally, speakers are given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves, welcome the family to their new home; thank sponsors & volunteers; share a little bit about your city's connection to Habitat or with the family; share any personal connections to Habitat, the home or the family; and give well -wishes for the family. Please let me know if any of the City Council are available to attend and if they would be willing to say a few words during the program. Thank you so much, Emily Emily Evans .�fl Wtat Events Assistant emily.evans@tchabitat.org 612-305-7177 1954 University Ave W St. Paul, MN 55401 Carload of trash $5 and up Pickup load of trash $25 and up Trailer load of trash $25 and up Lawn mower(Push) $15/unit Lawn mower (Rider) $30/unit Household appliance $15/unit Commercial appliance $75 and up Air conditioner $20/unit Water softener $20/unit Mattress or box spring $20/unit Upholstered furniture $20/each Carpet $1/yard Bicycle with tires $5/each Bicycle without tires FREE Scrap metal FREE Tires $2.50 and up Cash or checks only. Please bring small bills. Please make pa (Proportional rates may be applied to partial loads and overl Hazardous materials and electronics will be accepted free -of -charge from households only (no businesses). Proof of residency required. Household Items: Home Improvement & Construction: • Mercury thermometers and thermostats • Latex/oil paint &stain • Fluorescent bulbs (bundled together with • Paint remover/thinner rubber bands, no tape) Automotive & Recreation: • Household cleaners • Antifreeze • Sharps, syringes, needles and used epi . Used motor oil and filters pens in a sealed, sturdy container • Propane tanks • Computers & monitors • Rechargeable batteries • Peripherals (keyboards, mice, speakers, Public etc.) Yard & Garden: • Printers &fax machines - • Insect/roach/ant killer • TVs, DVD & VCR players • Ferdlizers/herbicides • Cell phones 4S'(d�Building ITDTE: Document shreddingwill also be offered. Please In orderto serve as many people as possible, organizeyOUrloadSo no morethan fourboxes per customerwill be accepted. all electronics and Please note thatshredding capacitymay be jilhazardousmaterials reached before the end of the event. It be removed first. A Aab Gdy ProoF`iSl 6idency such as a driver's of Hugo y 137th S NN. laded trucks) a �.: "� license is required. 0HC„yor Questions? Call the Hugo City Hall at 651 762 6300 Washington ugo =—=5County (Co. A N Hugo i d I Public Public Works Building 140t IN, dWorks 4S'(d�Building 6900 137th St. N. 137th S NN. 0HC„yor Questions? Call the Hugo City Hall at 651 762 6300 Washington ugo =—=5County I L r'. • T T *rl A - } x ;y 1~ IIl [ll..0 uAY: rat. 11T.F>. A F11"; 1� +'O. r� - The Council's mission is to foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region. Metropolitan Council Members Susan Haigh Chair Edward Reynoso District 9 Katie Rodriguez District 1 Marie McCarthy District 10 Lona Schreiber District 2 Sandy Rummel District 11 Jennifer Munt District 3 Harry Melander District 12 Gary Van Eyll District 4 Richard Kramer District 13 Steve Elkins District 5 Jon Commers District 14 James Brimeyer District 6 Steven T. Chavez District 15 Gary L. Cunningham District 7 Wendy Wulff District 16 Adam Duininck District 8 The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the seven -county Twin Cities area. The Council operates the regional bus and rail system, collects and treats wastewater, coordinates regional water resources, plans and helps fund regional parks, and administers federal funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate -income individuals and families. The 17 -member Council board is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the governor. This publication printed on recycled paper. on request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call Metropolitan Council information at 651-602-1140 or TTY 651-291-0904. About this Report The Metropolitan Council recognizes that water supply planning is an integral component of long-term regional and local comprehensive planning. The Council has implemented a number of projects to provide a base of technical information needed to make sound water supply decisions. This report summarizes the result of work to assist in water supply planning for the Metropolitan Area which meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.1565, Subdivision 1, which calls for the Council to "carry out planning activities addressing the water supply needs of the metropolitan area as defined in Section 473.121, Subdivision 2.0 The report is organized into 11 sections. The introduction (Section 1.0) provides an overview of the Council and the need for the project. The following 10 sections discuss methods and results. There are also five appendices, which include maps and supporting data. Special funding for this project was provided through the Clean Water Fund. VVAT:F, LAND & LEGACY 3\II NDNIF\ [ Acknowledgements The Council would like to acknowledge the following people who assisted with this study and its resulting recommendations: Ali Elhassan, Metropolitan Council John Chlebeck, Metropolitan Council Brian LeMon, Barr Engineering Company Michelle Stockness, Barr Engineering Company Doug Klamerus, Bolton & Menk (Now with Rochester Public Utilities) Recommended Citation Metropolitan Council. December 1, 2015. MCES Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study. Prepared by Barr Engineering Company, Metropolitan Council: Saint Paul. Table of Contents MetropolitanCouncil Members.............................................................................................................. 2 Listof Figures........................................................................................................................................ 4 Listof Tables......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Report Organization.......................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Location.............................................................................................................................7 2.2 Existing Water Systems..................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Summary of Joint System Analysis.................................................................................... 7 2.3.9 Capital Costs....................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Operational Costs............................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Financial and Organizational Structure................................................................ 8 2.4 Overall Recommendations................................................................................................ 9 2.5 Recommendations for Future Work................................................................................... 9 3.0 Background and Purpose........................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Tasks...............................................................................................................................10 3.2 Assumptions....................................................................................................................11 4.0 Water System Performance Criteria......................................................................................... 13 4.1 Design Period.................................................................................................................. 13 4.2 Planning Area.................................................................................................................. 13 4.3 Population....................................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Existing System............................................................................................................... 14 5.0 Water Supply and Demand...................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Well Supply Requirements.............................................................................................. 15 5.2 Unaccounted-for Water Use............................................................................................ 15 5.3 Existing Water Supply and Projected Demands............................................................... 16 5.4 Future Water Supply........................................................................................................ 20 5.5 Well Contamination......................................................................................................... 20 5.6 Water Quality and Treatment........................................................................................... 21 6.0 Water Storage......................................................................................................................... 22 6.1 Storage Requirements..................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Water Storage Facilities................................................................................................... 22 7.0 Water Distribution System.. ...................................................................................................... 25 7.1 Water System Interconnects............................................................................................ 25 7.2 Watermain Size............................................................................................................... 25 7.3 Watermain Layout........................................................................................................... 25 8.0 System Operations and Maintenance....................................................................................... 27 9.0 Evaluation of Development Options 1-3................................................................................... 28 9.1 Cost Estimates................................................................................................................ 28 9.9.1 Capital Costs..................................................................................................... 29 9.9.2 Repair and Replacement Costs......................................................................... 30 9.1.3 Anticipated Water Costs.................................................................................... 30 Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 2 9.2 Analysis of Options 1, 2 and 3......................................................................................... 30 9.2.9 Comparison of Capital Costs............................................................................. 30 9.3 Benefits of a Joint Utility (Option 1 and 2)........................................................................ 32 9.3.9 Future Watermain Efficiencies........................................................................... 32 9.3.2 Supply and Storage Savings .............................................. ........................... 32 9.3.3 Optimized Water Supply Siting......................................................................... 33 9.3.4 Operations and Maintenance............................................................................ 33 9.4 Benefits of Individual Development (Option 3) ................................................................. 34 9.5 Summary of Costs and Benefits to each City................................................................... 34 10.0 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 35 10.1 Future Studies................................................................................................................. 36 Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Detailed Cost Estimates Appendix C: Development Timelines Appendix D: Existing Water Systems Appendix E: Glossary Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 3 Figure 4.1 Population projections for the six -city region.................................................................... 14 Figure 5.1 Average percent of water pumped and water unaccounted for by city from 2009-2013 ... 16 Figure 5.2 Available well capacity and peak day water demands ..................................................... 17 Figure 5.3 Required and excess firm well capacity for 2013 systems ............................................... 18 Figure 5.4 Projected water demand for the six -city region through 2030 ........................................... 19 Figure 5.5 Existing and future well capacity requirements for joint and individual development........ 20 Figure 6.1 Available and required storage volumes for 2013 systems .............................................. 23 Figure 6.2 Required storage capacity for joint and individual development ....................................... 24 Appendix A Figures Figure A 1 Geographic location Figure A2 Current land use (2010) Figure A3 Future land use Figure A4 Existing system Figure A5 Trigger chart well capacity by year Figure A6 Joint system Figure A7 Trigger chart storage capacity by year Figure A8 Individual development future watermain Figure A9 Bedrock geology Figure A 10 Buried clay layers Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 4 List of Tables Table 4.1 Populations projections for the six -city region.................................................................. 14 Table 5.1 Available firm well capacity and peak day demand.......................................................... 17 Table 5.2 Projected water demand for the six -city region through 2030 ........................................... 19 Table 6.1 Available and required storage capacity.......................................................................... 23 Table 9.1 Summary of capital costs for Options 1 and 2 -- Joint Utility development ........................ 29 Table 9.2 Summary of capital costs for Option 3 — individual city development ............................... 29 Table 9.3 Summary of annual repair and replacement costs for Options 1, 2, and 3 ....................... 30 Table 9.4 Average cost of water per 1000 gallons sold................................................................... 30 Table 9.5 Summary of costs and benefits for Options 1, 2, and 3 ................................................... 34 Table 10.1 Revised cost estimate WITHOUT the City of Columbus .................................................. 36 Table10.2 Future studies.................................................................................................................. 37 Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 5 This report is a high level feasibility study reviewing the potential for combining municipal potable water systems in the northeast Twin Cities metropolitan area. Six cities requested that the Metropolitan Council investigate the costs and benefits of combining the construction and operation of their potable water systems. The six -city coalition is an existing collaborative effort between the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington and Lino Lakes. The purpose of this coalition is to identify opportunities for efficiency and cost savings in the public water system services they provide. The geographic planning area is shown in Figure Al (located in Appendix A). This concept aligns with the Metropolitan Council's goal to ensure sustainable water supply for current and future generations of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The purpose of this study is to support sustainable water supply planning for the northeast metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council authorized Barr Engineering to conduct a preliminary investigation of a combined or joint water utility. The three system configurations considered are: Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 1: storage and treatment system. Independently constructed, owned and operated distribution systems. Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 2: storage, treatment and distribution system. Independent Make no changes. Operate as independent Utilities utilities. Option 3: This study examines in a preliminary way the effects of a joint system on the existing and future drinking water systems. This report identifies the preliminary advantages and disadvantages of combining systems, how the collaborative effort might be managed, and possible financial impacts to each city. This study includes the gathering of existing and future water utility data, development of feasibility and cost/benefit analyses, and recommendations for future work. 1.1 Report Organization The remainder of the report is organized into the following sections: • Section 2.0 Executive Summary • Section 3.0 Background and Purpose • Section 4.0 Water System Performance Criteria • Section 5.0 Water Demand and Supply • Section 6.0 Water Storage • Section 7.0 Water Distribution • Section 8.0 System Operations and Maintenance • Section 9.0 Evaluation of Development Options 1-3 • Section 10.0 Recommendations Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 6 2.0 Executive Summary 2.1 Location The cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo, Lexington and Lino Lakes are located approximately 20 miles northeast of Saint Paul in Anoka and Washington counties. The region is situated amongst many lakes and includes a substantial amount of undeveloped land. The geographic location of the six cities is depicted in Figure Al. Figure A2 depicts current land use and Figure A3 depicts future land use. These figures are located in the Appendix A of this report. 2.2 Existing Water Systems Municipal water supply systems provide both potable drinking water and fire protection. The systems consist of supply, treatment, storage, and distribution piping to deliver water to customers. Each of the six cities currently owns and operates its own potable water system, and all six cities use groundwater for their water supply. However, the number and size of distribution watermain, number of groundwater supply wells, water quality, water treatment, and number of storage tanks varies between cities. There are several existing small diameter interconnections between some of the cities that allow water to flow between the separate systems for emergency uses. The age of the water system components also vary since the systems are at varying stages of development. There are two general groups in this regard, those that are can be classified as a developed city with little to no expected additional growth and those that can be classified as a growing city which have large undeveloped parcels and anticipate future growth. • Those classified as a developed city include: Lexington, Circle Pines and Centerville. These communities have more mature water systems which supply most or all of the developable area in their respective cities. • Those classified as a growing city include: Hugo, Lino Lakes and Columbus. They are projecting growth and new infrastructure to accommodate future populations. A depiction of the existing water systems is provided in Figure A4 in Appendix A. A key potential benefit of joining the systems together is that each of these groups has assets that can benefit the other. Generally, the fully developed cities' water systems have supply and storage that, when combined with the growing cities, can be used to meet future development needs. Conversely, the growing communities are able to generate capital via developers' fees and assessments. This creates a condition where a potential buyer with capital (growing city) can join up with a potential seller who has assets (developed city) needed by the buyer. The creation of a Joint Utility would connect the growing communities with the fully developed communities via a purchase of the needed assets. They would then enter into a long term relationship beneficial to both groups. 2.3 Summary of Joint System Analysis At a high level, the key advantages of a Joint Water Utility under Option 1—a jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, storage and treatment system, or Option 2—a jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, storage, treatment and distribution system are: For the growing cities: • Less expensive supply a Less expensive storage Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 7 Need to hire fewer future staff For the developed cities: Influx of capital as growing communities, via the Joint Utility, purchase access to existing infrastructure Less expensive well maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance • Less expensive tower maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance For the Joint Water Utility communities as a whole: g Need for fewer groundwater wells o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for the wells due to fewer installations • Need for fewer storage tanks o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for storage due to fewer installations 4 Delay in infrastructure needs Efficient use of resources + Potentially improved purchasing leverage Strategic infrastructure siting potentially resulting in easier and less costly permitting Capital cost savings through shared infrastructure and reduced redundancy • Operational cost savings through shared operations, maintenance, management staff and equipment Opportunities for cost sharing may be realized through more efficient use of infrastructure, shared labor and shared maintenance and operations. Cost savings can also be realized through reduced need for future investment in water system infrastructure. The most important costs and benefits identified in this study are outlined below. 2.3.1 Capital Costs For large capital projects, it is estimated that a joint system of the six cities would eliminate the need for 3 million gallons of water storage and seven (7) future groundwater wells over the course of the planning period through 2030, as compared to individual city development. This translates to a cost savings of $12 million as compared to individual development. 2.3.2 Operational Costs The formation of a joint utility would provide cost savings in administrative and operations staffing and equipment. Much of this savings would be dependent on how the joint utility would be governed and operated. Maximum savings would occur under Option 2 with the completely joined system. Billing and distribution system maintenance would be combined under one entity, and distribution system maintenance could be the responsibility of one joint utility crew. Since most Minnesota cities hire maintenance staff to meet snow plowing demands, cities may also need to share this responsibility to see the maximum savings. Savings would be reduced if billing and distribution system maintenance were to stay with individual cities. Given the high level scope of this study and the number of options available, cost savings are not quantified for specific operational benefits; however, it can be concluded that significant savings could be made by combining into a single utility. 2.3.3 Financial and Organizational Structure Based on the high level findings of this study, the potential for resource and rate efficiencies in forming a joint utility exists. Financially, capital costs and projected water rates are reduced overall by forming a Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 8 joint utility. However, individual savings will vary for each member city depending on how the joint utility is formed and how the joint utility costs are proportioned to each city. In Option 1, where a Joint Utility does not own and operate the distribution system, there may initially be more benefit to cities with older water systems that are near full development, as they would not need to share the new development costs of trunk mains in other cities. However, as cities with older water systems age and need repair this initial benefit would be offset by the fact that the larger Joint Utility would not help fund the repair and replacement of the aging distributions systems. Under Option 2 the Joint Utility would share increased maintenance costs associated with aging watermain. There should be more discussion between the member cities as to how the Joint Utility costs would be allocated to each city, and whether there would be buy -in costs to help make membership more equitable across the varied maturity of the member cities. 2.4 Overall Recommendations Detailed recommendations are discussed in Section 10.0; however, a summary of our recommendations is as follows: • Continue to investigate forming a Joint Utility under Option 2 • Plan for joint development now before the opportunity is lost as each city builds out more infrastructure that might not be needed in a Joint Utility setting V Investigate which cities should be in the Joint Utility, and consider removing Columbus due to geographic reasons Negotiate initial buy -in for asset and capital sharing between cities Refine cost estimates based on new comprehensive planning and other studies 2.5 Recommendations for Future Work As this study included only a high-level preliminary analysis, three subsequent studies are recommended to move the project forward. A detailed list of these studies is shown in Section 11 in the order in which they should occur. The studies include: 1. Study 1 Water Quality Analysis. This study would quantify the impacts of mixing different qualities of water to help finalize the correct combination of cities for a joint utility. 2. Study 2 Facility Plan. This study would define in greater detail the physical facilities needed to create a Joint Utility. This would include the size of interconnecting watermain, the location of new storage, and whether or not pressure zones would need to be managed with pump stations and pressure reducing valves. 3. Study 3 Financial and Governance Plan. This study would review the financial and organizational aspects of the Joint Utility to add more certainty to the final costs that each community would see as a result of the formation of a Joint Utility. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 9 3.0 Background and Purpose The Metropolitan Council commissioned Barr Engineering to conduct a preliminary joint water utility feasibility study for the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Hugo, Lexington, Lino Lakes and Columbus. The goal of this study is to perform a high level evaluation of the feasibility of combining municipal water systems with two options for joint utility ownership, construction and operation, as compared to individual development. Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 1: storage and treatment system. Independently constructed, owned and operated distribution systems. Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 2: storage, treatment and distribution system. Independent Make no changes. Operate as independent Utilities utilities. Option 3: This study examines the impacts of both Option 1 and Option 2 and recommends whether the idea of a collaborative system is worthwhile and merits further investigation, as compared to Option 3. The time period for this study runs through 2030 and compares future infrastructure investment and maintenance costs. 3.1 Tasks In order to evaluate the water system development options, the following steps were completed: 1.0 Data Collection and Evaluation Collect necessary information—including relevant reports, operational and planning information—from the cities/townships involved in the study. 2.0 Estimate Current and Future System Demands Determine current and projected water demand through 2030, with data provided by the cities. Future demands are based on projected populations, zoning and planning, relying heavily on the existing city 2030 Comprehensive Plans. Water systems were mapped for infrastructure locations, geologic setting of their water supply, and future land use. 3.0 Estimate Future Infrastructure Based on current and future water demands, the necessary supply, treatment, storage and distribution infrastructure was evaluated to meet average, peak day and fire flow demands. 4.0 Cost Estimates and Analysis Using the data gathered above on the existing and future systems, cost estimates were developed to compare the two joint options for utility operation with a status quo option of making no changes. These costs were used along with figures to help compare the advantages and disadvantages to combining water systems. Joint water lJtility Feasibility Study 10 5.0 Meetings The Metropolitan Council and Ban- staff met with representatives of the six cities at the kickoff of this project and to review the draft report. City staff and Metropolitan Council staff were given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report in September 2014 before the final report was completed. 3.2 Assumptions To analyze the data and prepare feasibility study recommendations, several assumptions had to be made as part of the process. Below is a list of assumptions made in the creation of this report. These assumptions are based on the 2012 Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board Recommended Standards for Water Works (Ten States Standards'), and our engineering judgment and experience working with municipal water supply systems. Assumptions made in this report are as follows: 1.0 The existing system is assumed to be the year 2013 water system, and the future system is assumed to be the year 2030 water system. 2.0 Population estimates were taken from the existing city comprehensive plans, which detailed infrastructure needs through 2030, and from the Metropolitan Council's "Thrive NiSP 2040". Comprehensive Plan population projections for 2030 were adjusted to match the Metropolitan Council's 2030 estimate if there was a large discrepancy between the two projections. 3.0 Future development boundaries, land use, and infrastructure locations were taken from the existing city 2030 Comprehensive Plans. 4.0 Per capita water use (average and peak) for each city was estimated based on the average per capita use for the most recent 5 years (2009-2013) of data available. For cities where all five years of data was not available, an average was computed from what data was available from 2009-2013. 5.0 There is no upward or downward trend in per capita water use. Future per capita water use is assumed to reflect current historical per capita water use. Future studies may want to look at the emerging trends that show some reduction in per capita use for many cities across the region. 6.0 There is no upward or downward trend in percent of water unaccounted for. The percent of water unaccounted for is calculated as the average of the most recent five years of data reported in Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water use reports. 7.0 The population served by cities' water supply systems is based on city reported data and historical patterns. No future assumptions are made for increased or decreased service areas beyond what cities have projected in their comprehensive plans. 8.0 The City of Columbus's existing water demand is generated primarily by industrial and commercial users. Therefore, per capita water use is much higher than the other cities, and is unlikely to reflect demand added by future residential customers. Future demand for the City of Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2012. Recommended Standards for Water Works. Albany: Health Research Inc., 2012. Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 11 Columbus was taken from the City's existing comprehensive plan rather than predicted by population projections and existing per capita use. 9.0 It is assumed that the future ratio of peak day water use to average day water use will reflect the previous historical five year average for each of the cities. The average peaking factor of the joint utility was computed by taking a population -weighted average of the six cities' individual peaking factors. This is likely conservative as a larger population base of a Joint Utility should result in a lower peaking factor. 10.0 The required fire flow for the City of Lino Lakes is 4,500 gpm for four hours. As this is the highest known fire flow requirement for any of the six cities, 4,500 gpm for four hours was also assumed to be the requirement of the combined utility. Lino Lake's fire flow is relatively large in comparison to what would be normally expected for cities of similar size; in the absence of city - specific data for the remaining five cities, fire flow requirements were assumed to be 3,500 gpm for three hours for the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbus, Hugo and Lexington. 11.0 For the purposes of this preliminary analysis it is assumed that pressure zones are compatible for connecting water systems, sharing elevated storage and pumping stations. Further detailed analysis would be needed to determine the compatibility of the various systems with regards to pressure zones and operating pressures. 12.0 Cost estimates in this study are preliminary, high-level estimates intended only for comparison purposes within this study. A more detailed review of the costs to install and maintain various system components is needed to increase the accuracy of the predicted costs of the future systems and reduce uncertainty. 13.0 All future development within the cities will utilize groundwater for water supply. Surface water options were not considered in this study. 14.0 New groundwater wells would have a nominal capacity of 1,000 gpm. Note that some locations within the study area may reliably supply greater amounts and this could be considered in a future study to better analyze the benefits of a joint supply system. 15.0 We did not assume any regional water treatment plants as part of this study. It is assumed that water quality issues would be handled by chemical addition or small treatment plants at the well. If all cities plan to treat for iron and manganese then large regional treatment plants will almost always prove to be more cost effective than small distributed local plants. This is actually a potential benefit of a Joint Utility as many communities tend to move towards treated water as they mature. Doing so in a Joint Utility setting would add even more benefit by reducing the number of plants needed to meet the quality needs. 16.0 Infrastructure repair and replacement costs were estimated as a percent of total capital costs. The following assumptions were made regarding annual maintenance costs: 1 % per year for watermain replacement, 2% per year for storage and wells maintenance and replacement, 3% per year for SCADA system replacement and repair. 17.0 Specific projections of future joint utility operational costs are not accounted for in this study. It was assumed that operational costs such as power and labor would be the same for the given total future water use, regardless of the specific system ownership or configuration. 18.0 Staffing is discussed at a high level in Section 8.0; however, staffing would be largely dependent on how the joint utility is formed. Thus, staffing costs for Options 1-3 are not directly compared. 19.0 For the creation of comparative future water costs it was assumed that the developers would pay for 100% of new watermain costs, and all other capital costs would be funded 80% through development and water availability charges, and 20% by rate payers. Joint water Utility Feasibility Study 12 4.0 Water System Performance Criteria This section of the report forms the criteria for evaluating the existing water system, its ability to meet future demand, and opportunities for efficiency in infrastructure and operations. These criteria provide a framework for the analysis of past, current and projected populations, historical water use, categorical water use, peak demand use, water policy, and capital improvement plans. A glossary of frequent terms for water system design and planning is located in Appendix E. 4.1 Design Period This evaluation is based on conditions anticipated through the year 2030. This design period was chosen as the most recent city comprehensive plans detail projected capital improvements through 2030. Since the costs of a joint system are compared to the cities' individual capital improvement plans, it is necessary to follow the same timeline. This report should be updated at least on a ten year basis in conjunction with master planning and reviewed every five years for adjustments prior to any major capital expenditure, to ensure that outcomes are based on the best Information available at the time. Deviations from expected development will occur and should be accounted for in planning for and execution of a joint system. 4.2 Planning Area An important aspect in the analysis of the joint water utility system is the area included in the planning process. For the purposes of this preliminary study, the planning area is defined as the six -city area within the boundaries of Centerville, Columbus, Circle Pines, Hugo, Lexington and Lino Lakes. The planning area is depicted in Figure Al. Note that the planning area has a significant impact on the outcome. Different combinations of cities may be desired for a Joint Utility. For example, Columbus is spatially removed from the other cities and this fact impacts costs related to trunk watermains considerably. In addition to this, Lexington already receives treated water from Blaine and Circle Pines filters its water while the remaining communities do not filter their water. This creates the possibility that mingling filtered and unfiltered water will result in unanticipated and undesirable interactions. A study (Study 1 in the recommendations) to determine the results of mixing these waters should be done before finalizing any Joint Utility agreement and determining member cities 4.3 Population Water use is closely linked to population so the accuracy of predicted water demand largely depends on the accuracy of population projections. Population projections are comprised of City reported projections and the Metropolitan Council's Thrive MSP 2040 forecasts. The City's current projections from their 2030 Comprehensive Plans were used unless they differed greatly from the Thrive MSP 2040 forecasts. In that case, the Thrive MSP 2040 forecasts for 2030 were used instead. Population across the six -city area is expected to increase 50% from 2013 to 2030. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 summarize current and projected populations served by the water system. Please note that the City of Columbus currently serves a very small portion of their residents with potable water. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 13 Population Served Projections through 2030 80,000 70,000 60,000 1 50,000 o` 40,000 W 3 CL 30,000 20,000 10,000 7 0 imm 2013 2020 Year Figure 4.1 Population projections for the six -city region Table 4.1 Populations projections for the six -city region it I 2030 Centerville Circle Pines _'Columbus Hugo v Lexington Lino Lakes 4.4 Existing System A summary of the existing water system of each city is located in Appendix D. A map of ail the individual existing water systems is depicted in Figure A4. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 14 T*tal Population POPUIalloO Surer Mar - 2013 2020 2030 2013 2020 2030 I,I Centerville 3,800 4200 4,200 3,282 3,750 3,750 [ Circle Pines 5.300 5.300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5.300 n` Columbus 3,949 5.150 5,850 4 1 040 1.620 Hugo 13:8?4 29 000 30,750 11,024 25 900 27,650 Lexington 2021 2,250 2.300 2.020 2,249 2.299 Lino Lakes 21,000 25,090 27.000 17,228 22,516 27 000 i Joint System 49,904 70,900 75 400 38,858 60,755 67,619 Centerville Circle Pines _'Columbus Hugo v Lexington Lino Lakes 4.4 Existing System A summary of the existing water system of each city is located in Appendix D. A map of ail the individual existing water systems is depicted in Figure A4. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 14 5.0 Water Supply and Demand The major components of the various water systems were analyzed to determine existing performance and future needs, both as a joint utility and individually. Water supply and demand was the first quantity examined. Historical data showing water pumped in previous years provides a useful tool for predicting future water demand. The last five years of well pumping data for each city was reviewed in order to establish general trends and per capita use. Water demand projections are based on average historical water use patterns from 2009 to 2013, along with expected population growth for the region. Most of the data is from city documents such as comprehensive plans, DNR Water Conservation Plans and DNR annual reports. Missing data was estimated on a case by case basis. 5.1 Well Supply Requirements Well supply or production is a measure of the water system's ability to supply water needed to sustain demand. Per "Ten State Standards" a water system should be designed with sufficient firm capacity to supply the peak day demand of the system. Firm capacity is the amount of water that would be available if the highest capacity well was out of service (in case of maintenance or emergency). Peak day demand is the day of highest demand over the course of a year. It is usually calculated as a multiple of the average day demand based on historic trends. This is a key factor in understanding the potential benefit of a Joint Utility. In a Joint Utility fewer wells are needed to meet firm pumping capacity. As independent cities each would require one extra well to meet firm pumping capacity. In a Joint Utility those same six communities would only need one extra well to meet firm pumping capacity. 5.2 Unaccounted-for Water Use Water systems lose water through leaks in watermains, flushing, or other un -metered activities such as firefighting, street cleaning, construction, unauthorized water use and improper meter calibration. The amount of water pumped will always be greater than the amount of water sold. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which regulates groundwater appropriations, recommends that the amount of unaccounted water should be less than 10% of the total water pumped in order to minimize lost water. For this study each city's unaccounted for water use was assumed to remain constant and meet historical averages through the future study period. Figure 5.1 shows unaccounted for water as a percent of total water pumped from the most recent five years of data available for each of the six cities. As a joint utility, the amount of water unaccounted for is less than 10%, meeting the DNR benchmark. However, some cities have unaccounted water greater than or close to 10%. It would be beneficial for these cities to begin taking steps to reduce the amount of unaccounted water regardless of whether a joint utility is created or not. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 15 a Unaccounted M Pumped 100 90 80 70 60 50 DNR Maximum % unaccounted for 40 30 20 10 0 Centerville Circle Columbus Hugo Lexington Lino Joint Pines Lakes System Figure 5.1 Average percent of water pumped and water unaccounted for by city from 2009-2013 5.3 Existing Water Supply and Projected Demands The cities' combined total well capacity is 26 million gallons per day (mgd) and the firm well capacity is 23 mgd. This capacity (23 mgd) is more than enough to meet the 2013 estimated peak day demand of 13 mgd for the Joint Utility. Peals day demand and available well capacity are shown in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.1. Required firm well capacity versus available firm well capacity is shown in Figure 5.3 and Table 5.1. As shown in Figure 5.2, capacity in excess of peak day demand is a result of the requirement for each individual city to maintain its own firm well capacity. In a combined utility, this excess capacity can be harnessed to reduce the total number of wells needed to meet future demand. One of the most immediate benefits of this excess firm capacity is that future capital investment could shift from drilling wells to interconnecting the communities with adequately sized trunk watermain. If the water distribution systems are properly interconnected to allow enough water to flow between the cities, no new wells would need to be drilled in the six -city Joint Utility until 2021 or later if demand trends continue to decline. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 16 30 25 II I ,620 E U u i5 € 10 A 5 0 Centerville Circle Columbus Hugo Lexington Lino Joint Pines Lakes System Peak Day Available Capacity Figure 5.2 Ava liable well capacity and peak day water demands Table 5.1 Available firm well capacity and peak day demand Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 17 Peak day (mgd) Total well Available firm Excess firm capacity (mgd) capacity (mgd) capacity �rrigd) Centerville 08 24 08 00 Circle Pines 10 3.2 14 04 Columbus 04 35 20 16 Hugo 39 78 61 2.2 Lexington 14 14 0 0* 00 Lino Lakes 5_5 Z-9 1-3 0_0 Joint System 131 260 234 103 * Lexington maintains reliability in water supply through interconnection with the City of Blaine. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 17 25 20 v rn i 915 a 910 E 5 �- p Centerville Circle Columbus Hugo Lexington Lino Joint Pines Lakes System Required Firm Capacity K Excess Firm Capacity Figure 5.3 Required and excess firm well capacity for 2013 systems Since there are no known major water users planning to relocate to the six -city region at this time, future demand growth is based on population forecasts and historical per capita water use. The population is expected to increase 50% by 2030 which is likely to have a large impact on demand. Figure 5.4 and Table 5.3 show projected average and peak day demand for the six -city region through 2030. It should be noted that that the major increases in demand are expected to come from development in Hugo and Lino Lakes. To arrive at peak day demand the average day demand was multiplied by the peaking factor of 3.6 from Table D2.1 (Appendix D). The 2030 Average Day Demand is 6.8 mgd and the 2030 Peak Day is 25 mgd. Figure 5.4 shows that the existing firm well capacity is almost enough to meet demand needs through 2030. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 18 30 radsting Rrm VAdiCapadity 25 20 v Peak Demand Average Demand c E 15 10 5 0 2010 2020 2030 Year Figure 5.4 Projected water demand for the six -city region through 2030 Table 5.2 Projected water demand for the six -city region through 2030 Year Joint Utility Average Joint Utility Peak Day (ingcl) Day (mgdI 2010 3 13 2020 6 23 2030 7 25 To allow the existing wells to serve the needs of a Joint Utility, properly sized interconnections will need to be installed that allow the existing wells to deliver water from the fully developed communities to the growing communities. It is possible that some trunk watermain improvements may also be needed to ensure to that high flows can make it from the source to the point of use without excessive head loss. Under this scenario the communities needing supply would purchase a portion of the wells currently owned by the communities who have excess supply. The cost of the wells would be a negotiated item that would be resolved during the formation of the Joint Utility. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 19 5.4 Future Water Supply With development expected to occur between now and 2030, additional water supply will be needed to sustain growth of the water system and maintain adequate firm capacity. The trigger chart shown in Figure A5 was used to determine the future needs of the six -city area. By 2030 it is estimated that the joint utility would require an additional 2,000 gpm (2.9 mgd) of well pumping capacity. This relates to two (2) new 1,000 gpm wells. After Lino Lakes Well No. 6 is online, the joint utility would only need one (1) additional well at 1,000 gpm. Please note that these new wells are not shown in Figure A6, Joint System 2030 Watermain—particular well sites are not identified in this report, only the number and comparative cost of the future wells. Figure 5.5 shows the required and existing well capacities for joint and individual development. The reduced need for additional wells is one of the most significant benefits of a joint system. With the increase in new efficient plumbing fixtures and rising awareness of conservation, per capita demand has been steadily declining in recent years. If this trend continues It is possible that no new wells would be needed between now and 2030. 40 35 2013 Required Well Capacity 30 2030 Required Well Capacity •, 25 Q is 20 EL 3 15 2013 Eid.nng Well ap.atr 10 5 0 Joint System Individual Development Figure 5.5 Existing and future well capacity requirements for joint and individual development 5.5 Well Contamination No serious contaminants have been detected in any of the wells to date. However, this may change as new land is developed in the future. A large area such as the area represented by the Joint Utility offers a significant advantage in diversifying supply in areas unlikely to be contaminated. In addition to this, Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 20 the clay layer present west of Highway 35 offers some protection from activities at the surface reducing the risk of contamination to wells located there. 5.6 Water Quality and Treatment Existing water quality meets the primary standards set by the MDH, so no additional treatment is required. However, a key component of the planning for a Joint Utility will be to study and understand the interaction of the different water qualities present in the member communities. Lexington receives treated water from Blaine most of the year and Circle Pines also treats its water. Mixing the different water qualities may result in undesirable results. A study to determine the impacts of mixing the different water qualities should be undertaken to allow proper planning and protection of water quality. Additional water treatment is not expected to be necessary unless specific wells or mixing creates water quality issues. Contamination is not expected to be an issue as there are no known groundwater contamination plumes in the area of this study. If contamination is discovered, wells should be placed strategically so as to avoid contamination and associated treatment costs. A larger system such as the Joint Utility allows for much easier placement of wells to avoid contamination should plumes be discovered that affect existing wells. Another benefit of a joint utility is that if treatment is desired in the future, as often happens when water systems mature, then fewer, more cost effective treatment facilities could be planned to meet the treatment demand. This again would result in lower upfront costs and lower life cycle costs. Joint water Utility Feasibility Study 21 6.0 Water Storage 6.1 Storage Requirements Water storage facilities serve several important functions including providing reserve to meet peak demands when well capacity is exceeded, maintaining constant pressure on the system, providing fire flow reserves, and reducing maintenance by preventing frequent pump stopping and starting. Storage facilities are also important during emergency scenarios such as fires, power outages and facility breakdowns. Minimum water storage requirements are outlined in "Ten State Standards." According to this document, "storage volume must be greater than or equal to the average daily consumption, and should include a reasonable fire -fighting reserve." Storage volumes can be decreased if adequate backup generators would allow for wells to be pumped during a power outage. Future water system storage was planned to meet average day demand plus firefighting volumes outlined in Section 3.2 (assumption 10). Again, storage is a place where a joint utility offers efficiency. By combining communities, larger storage structures may become feasible. Larger storage structures are more cost effective from both a construction and operations standpoint. Furthermore, dependent on detailed hydraulic modeling, cities may not have to each individually maintain fire flow reserves which could reduce overall storage volume requirements. 6.2 Water Storage Facilities Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 depict existing storage volumes and deficits for individual cities and the joint system. The average day demand for the combined six -city region was about 3.5 million gallons over the most recent five yearS2. Combined, the cities would only need to maintain one volume of fire flow, rather than individual fire flow volumes for each city. Incorporating the required fire flow of 1.08 million gallons (the maximum fire flow volume required for the six cities), the minimum recommended storage volume for a Joint Utility (in 2013) is 4.6 million gallons. The available storage capacity of 5.0 million gallons is sufficient to provide the recommended storage volume for a 2013 joint system. An immediate benefit of a Joint Utility is that construction of water storage facilities could possibly be delayed in favor of trunk watermain interconnections. Sizing of the interconnecting watermains would need to be carefully modeled to ensure that adequate fire flow could be conveyed from the storage facilities to the endpoints of the system. 2 Based on DNR Annual Water Use Reports, and City records. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 22 14 12 10 E IM 6 125f Required storage computed as 4 average day demand +fireflow 2 Centerville Columbus Circle Pines Hugo Lexington Lino Lakes Joint System Is Available Storage r- Required Storage Figure 6.1 Available and required storage volumes for 2013 systems Table 6.1 Available and required storage capacity Figure A7 in the appendix shows the calculations used to estimate required storage capacities for a joint utility system through 2030. Siting of additional storage is not within the scope of this study. These estimates show that by 2030 the joint system would need an additional 3 million gallons of storage Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 23 Storage Required City Capacity (MG) (MG) Centerville 05 09 Columbus 0 07 Circle Pines 05 1 1 Hugo 20 16 Lexington 0 09 Lino Lakes 2.0 2.6 Joint System 50 46 Figure A7 in the appendix shows the calculations used to estimate required storage capacities for a joint utility system through 2030. Siting of additional storage is not within the scope of this study. These estimates show that by 2030 the joint system would need an additional 3 million gallons of storage Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 23 capacity. The existing and required storage for years 2013 and 2030 is shown in Figure 6.2 for both joint and individual development. It should be noted that storage should not be planned without considering the impact of supply. Additional recommended storage could be eliminated with the addition of backup power generation at several of the existing wells. In some cases, backup power may be more economical than additional elevated storage. 14 13 r. 12 11 10 Fi 8 1 W E 7 6 5 ...... 4 3 2 1 0 Joint Utility Individual Development 2013 Required Storage Capacity � 2030 Required Storage Capacity — 2013 Available Storage Capacity Figure 6.2 Required storage capacity for joint and individual development Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 24 7.0 (Nater Distribution System This report analyzes the water distribution system layout based on approximate flows and a well -looped system, but does not include a hydraulic analysis of systems and pressure zones. The existing distribution systems were evaluated based on watermain size, percentage of unaccounted water, and operational capabilities. 7.1 Water System Interconnects Individual city distribution systems should have multiple interconnections with other cities to provide backup supply water in case of an emergency. This is one of the main benefits of the joint utility. The joint system would have more interconnections and larger diameter connections. Joint system interconnections would be part of the trunk system interconnecting the member communities rather than the small diameter pipe connections at the perimeter of the systems that currently exist between some communities in the study area. This significantly strengthens the ability to transfer water between communities and enhances the community's resiliency in the face of catastrophic events where a portion of one community may be damaged by a tornado or other significant event that would otherwise limit its ability to produce, treat, store or distribute water to its constituents. The size and location of the interconnections should be planned out in a future study using water distribution system computer modeling. If done correctly the modeling should allow for a net reduction in the length of large diameter main since approximately a quarter to half of the larger diameter outer loops would be eliminated in the growing communities through interconnections. 7.2 Watermain Size Existing watermain size and layout is depicted in Figure A4. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that existing watermain is able to provide adequate flow to meet current needs, and there are no significant hydraulic issues within the existing systems. Watermain will need to be upgraded to accommodate increased flow across municipal boundaries if cities are connected. 7.3 Watermain Layout Watermain layout was analyzed geographically for its ability to distribute water throughout the six -city region and for its ability to provide looping. The piping network was not analyzed for its ability to provide required fire flows, however this analysis should also be included as part of future hydraulic modeling for detailed design. Watermain recommended for the development of a joint utility is shown in Figure A6. Future watermain for individual development (according to cities' comprehensive plans) is shown in Figure A8. The location of some watermain intended for future development as shown in Figure A8 was changed in Figure A6 to provide connections between the cities. These location changes are merely to illustrate one possible layout for connecting the cities. Were a joint utility created, the location of future watermain would be optimized to best suit the cities' development needs. Cities should work together to identify the layout that works best for them. There are several existing interconnections between the six cities. Additional large diameter interconnections between the existing water systems will be needed to provide better connectivity between all cities in the Joint Utility. The details of these interconnections play a large part in the costs associated with a Joint Utility. For this effort a simple high level approach was taken. This joint utility cost is estimated to be the same as individual 2030 trunk watermain costs, but the future watermain would be in slightly different locations or slightly larger in diameter. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 25 Interconnections will be used to convey water from the existing sources and storage facilities in developed communities to those communities that are growing and need more water supply. The development of a detailed hydraulic model to plan strategically placed interconnections is recommended as a next step. In general, the cost of interconnecting the communities is considered to be at no additional cost to implement in the long run. All interconnections would be recommended in locations where existing watermains would have been placed anyway. The sizes would be increased in some cases but the benefits of interconnecting the systems would actually reduce other watermain sizes within each of the growing communities. In most cases watermain was already planned to be installed in the areas shown in Figure A6. However, some of the planned watermain would be installed as new trunk main interconnecting the communities. For areas where dead-end watermain exists, additional watermain is recommended to be installed to loop the piping for improved circulation and water quality. A benefit of a joint utility is that dead end lines could be more easily looped with pipes in neighboring communities rather than looped back to another main in the same community. In some cases joining the pipes would be a few feet of additional watermain as opposed to hundreds needed to loop back to another main within the same community. A key factor in analyzing a joint utility will be planning the future watermains so that there is no net increase in cost over the cities developing independently. If planned properly and early, there should be opportunity to actually reduce costs over independent development. Cost reductions could be realized through the elimination of dead end watermain by interconnections at city boundaries (rather than looping watermain within each city), as well as eliminating the need to provide perimeter trunk main (medium to large diameter watermain around the perimeter of a city) for each individual city. Interconnections would eliminate the need for each community to carry large diameter trunks along their municipal border parallel to similar large diameter main in the adjacent community. In other words, perimeter trunk main could be provided for the joint utility as a whole, thus reducing redundancies created by individual adjacent systems. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 26 8.0 System Operations and Maintenance Routine maintenance and infrastructure replacement is important for preventing system failures and lowering the cost of system repairs. Replacement costs are assumed to be 1 % of capital costs per year for watermain, 2% per year for wells and storage and about 3% per year for SCADA systems. Analysis of specific operational maintenance needs based on the age and condition of existing infrastructure is not within the scope of this study but is recommended as future work on this project. Operational and maintenance needs of the six cities could be combined to provide efficiency and costs savings. For example, the creation of a joint utility could eliminate the need for up to seven additional wells. Since each well requires roughly $150,000 of rehabilitation work every 7-10 years, this leads to a $1,000,000 reduction in maintenance costs over the same time span. This equates to about $100,000 per year of well maintenance savings for the remaining life of the Joint Utility. Similar maintenance savings would be seen for storage infrastructure. Combined fleets could also require fewer total vehicles. Shared emergency equipment could reduce the overall need in this area as well. Shared staff could also provide a reduction in cost. Finally, larger entities can pool their influence in bargaining for price on certain bulk purchases. A larger system would provide cushion against disruption when taking system components, such as wells or pumps, out of service. Operational and further maintenance considerations should be analyzed in greater detail in future work. Joint water Utility Feasibility Study 27 9.0 Evaluation of Development Options 1-3 9.1 Cost Estimates Based on the analysis of the future individual and Joint Utility water system needs in the previous sections of this report, this section provides preliminary estimated costs associated with each development path as well as an evaluation of the options and recommendations for future work. Three options for development of the future water supply systems were considered in this report. Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 1: storage and treatment system. Independently constructed, owned and operated distribution systems. Joint Utility Jointly constructed, owned and operated supply, Option 2: storage, treatment and distribution system. Independent Make no changes. Operate as independent Utilities utilities. Option 3: A summary of the comparative capital costs and annual maintenance costs are provided in Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 for the three options considered in this report. Capital costs include, groundwater supply wells, water storage facilities, and control systems. Repair and replacement costs of infrastructure are estimated including storage tanks, wells, watermain and SCADA systems. A preliminary estimate of capital improvement and replacement costs were detailed for each option. The same unit costs were applied to the different alternatives. Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix B and will be presented in the subsequent sections in greater detail. The decision as to the proportion each city would pay of the total cost to the Joint Utility has not been determined. However, at the start of the Joint Utility the growing communities would pay a negotiated price to access the existing assets now owned by the fully developed communities. A portion of the cost savings realized by the growing communities would be applied to installing needed interconnection piping or upsizing existing interconnections. Once the initial opt -in costs for the growing communities are determined, capital costs for additional infrastructure or maintenance costs should be recovered from development fees or distributed across the joint utility members. The exact costs paid for existing and new infrastructure would be negotiated but would result in the growing communities purchasing access to the existing infrastructure at a discount over the price of a new installation thereby providing incentive to them to participate. Since Lino Lakes Well 6 was not yet constructed at the beginning of this study, a future well is stili included in the future costs to Lino Lakes and the joint utility, and this is not shown as existing infrastructure. A key assumption is that developers would pay for all distribution related capital costs (new watermain and interconnections), so no distribution costs are included in the capital cost estimates (Tables 9.1 and 9.2). A more detailed look at this item may result in some reconstruction of existing interconnections to up size them to meet conveyance needs. The costs of these types of upgrades would need to be borne Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 28 by the benefiting community to a large extent but not entirely since an interconnection is valuable to all parties. 9.1.1 Capital Costs As shown in Table 9.1 and Table 9.2 below, total capital costs are decreased by $12 million through the formation of a joint utility (Options 1 and 2) as compared to individual development (Option 3). The formation of a joint utility would reduce the need for 7 wells and 3 million gallons of storage. In addition to this the maintenance of the reduced infrastructure will be spread out over a larger population base. The total number of wells per person in a joint utility will be less than for individual cities. The total gallons of storage per person will also be less in a joint utility than for the individual cities. If the total benefit of the excess supply can be realized through the installation of back up generation at key wells, storage can be further reduced. If declining per capita use trends continue it is possible that zero new wells are needed at all through the remainder of the planning period. Table 9.1 Summary of capital costs for Options i and 2 — Joint Utility development Centerville Circle Pines Columbus Hugo Lexington Lino Lakes Joint Utility Cost Total Storage Supply Contingency Legal anal Combined Combined Engineering Infrastructuire Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $p $0 $u $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,900,000 $4 200,000 $3,300.000 $2,900000 $17,400;000 $6,900,000 $4,200,000 $3,300,000 $2,900,000 $17,400,000 Table 9.2 Summary of capital costs for Option 3 - individual city development Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 29 Storage Supply Contingency Legat and Combined Engineering Infrastru."ure Costs Centerville $1,500,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $3,600,000 Circle Pines $1.500,000 $200000 $500,000 $400,400 $2.700,000 Columbus $2.150,000 $200,000 $700,000 $600.004 $3,700;000 Hugo $4.600,000 $3,300,000 $2,400000 $2,100000 $12.300,200 Lexington $0 $200000 $60,000 $50,000 $300,000 Lino Lakes $2,080.000 $2,100.000 $1,200,100 $1.100,000 $6,500,000 Joint Utility Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $11,800,000 $6,800,000 $5,600,000 $4,900.000 $29,000,000 Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 29 9.9.2 Repair and Replacement Costs Repair and replacement costs, shown in Table 9.3, are divided based on ownership. Maintenance costs are likely to be lower for a joint utility compared to individual development since less infrastructure will need to be maintained and administrative costs can be combined. Table 9.3 Summary of annual repair and replacement costs for Options 1, 2, and 3 9.9.3 Anticipated Water Costs Anticipated water costs are shown in Table 9.4. The average cost of 1,000 gallons (kgal) of water sold in the six -city region in 2010 was $2.07. The cost of water is expected to increase in both Individual Development and Joint Development scenarios as more infrastructure is needed to accommodate growth and maintenance costs. However, the increase in costs is less for joint development as less infrastructure is required per person served. Table 9.4 Average cost of water per 1000 gallons sold Cost per thousand gallons 2010 (average) $207 2030 Joint Development $277 2030 Individual Development $295 9.2 Analysis of Options 1, 2 and 3 9.2.9 Comparison of Capital Costs Capital Costs for Option 1 —jointly owned supply, storage and treatment system The cost estimates for Option 1 were developed using population projections and historical water use data. Using this data, the trigger charts in Figures A5 and A7 were created. The trigger charts were used to estimate when additional wells and storage would be needed. Future watermain was adapted from cities' comprehensive plans and additional watermain was added to connect all of the cities and provide looping to improve circulation where it was needed. The joint system would need specific locations of trunk watermain installed to facilitate interconnections and combine the separate distribution systems. This cost is estimated to be the same or less than individual 2030 trunk watermain costs, but the future watermain would be in slightly different locations or slightly larger in Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 30 Option Z Option 2 Option 3 Centerville $300.000 $0 $500.000 Circle Pines $300,000 $0 $500,000 Columbus $200,000 $0 $300,000 Hugo $1.600000 $0 $2,200;000 Lexington $200000 $0 $200.000 Lino Lakes $1,700,000 $0 $2.100;000 Joint Utility $1.400,000 $5:700,000 $0 Total $5,700,000 $5,700,000 $5,800,000 9.9.3 Anticipated Water Costs Anticipated water costs are shown in Table 9.4. The average cost of 1,000 gallons (kgal) of water sold in the six -city region in 2010 was $2.07. The cost of water is expected to increase in both Individual Development and Joint Development scenarios as more infrastructure is needed to accommodate growth and maintenance costs. However, the increase in costs is less for joint development as less infrastructure is required per person served. Table 9.4 Average cost of water per 1000 gallons sold Cost per thousand gallons 2010 (average) $207 2030 Joint Development $277 2030 Individual Development $295 9.2 Analysis of Options 1, 2 and 3 9.2.9 Comparison of Capital Costs Capital Costs for Option 1 —jointly owned supply, storage and treatment system The cost estimates for Option 1 were developed using population projections and historical water use data. Using this data, the trigger charts in Figures A5 and A7 were created. The trigger charts were used to estimate when additional wells and storage would be needed. Future watermain was adapted from cities' comprehensive plans and additional watermain was added to connect all of the cities and provide looping to improve circulation where it was needed. The joint system would need specific locations of trunk watermain installed to facilitate interconnections and combine the separate distribution systems. This cost is estimated to be the same or less than individual 2030 trunk watermain costs, but the future watermain would be in slightly different locations or slightly larger in Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 30 diameter. Some of the future watermain locations from the cities' comprehensive plans were changed in order to accommodate connections between the cities. Initial construction of key interconnections would be needed as soon as a growing community needed access to an existing fully developed community's existing asset. The timing of the construction of the interconnections would need to be planned based on projected supply and storage need. Maintenance of the new interconnection would remain the responsibility of the community in which the interconnection exists. If an existing interconnection must be upsized to facilitate appropriate conveyance then a portion of the costs of the interconnection would be borne by the community in which the interconnection exists based on depreciated value of the existing watermain being upsized for the interconnection and the road above it if applicable. Beyond this, additional watermain and interconnections would be added as communities naturally developed. In some cases, when a specific interconnection is needed the Joint Utility could work with the member communities and their planners to create appropriate incentives for a given area where an interconnection is needed to develop first so that the needs of the Joint Utility as a whole could be met. Capital Costs for Option 2 —jointly owned supply, storage, treatment and distribution system The quantity and timeline of future infrastructure was estimated as described for Option 1. The only difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is ownership of the distribution system and sharing of all repair and replacement costs. Developers would provide the funds for additional watermain as the cities develop, but once the watermain is installed the Joint Utility, rather than the individual cities would retain ownership and associated costs of the distribution system. As in Option 1, initial construction of key interconnections would be needed as soon as a community needed access to another community's existing asset. The timing of the construction of the interconnections would need to be planned based on projected supply and storage need. In this case the costs of these interconnections would be shared by the Joint Utility as a whole rather than being split between the community needing access to the existing asset and the community in which the interconnection exists. Maintenance of the new interconnection would then be the responsibility of the Joint Utility. Beyond this, additional watermain and interconnections would again be added as communities naturally developed. As in Option 1, when a specific interconnection is needed the Joint Utility could work with the member communities and their planners to create appropriate incentives for a given area where an interconnection is needed to develop first so that the needs of the Joint Utility as a whole could be met. Capital Costs for Option 3 — individual development Costs for Option 3 were primarily developed using city comprehensive plans. Since these plans are slightly outdated, trigger charts were created using the most recent population projections and water use data. Where cities' capital improvement plans differed significantly from the trigger charts created for this study, engineering judgment was used to determine which scenario was most likely to represent future needs. In its current arrangement, the formation of a joint utility would reduce the cities' capital investment in new infrastructure by about 40%. The joint utility system is estimated to cost $12 million (41 %) less than individual development. Lengthy interconnections and the associated costs could be reduced by removing the City of Columbus from the joint system as it is not geographically close enough to make its inclusion economical. There are existing interconnections between most of the other cities Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 31 considered in this study which may make a joint system financially feasible though some would need to be upsized. Reducing the length of interconnections by removing the City of Columbus from the joint utility is likely to reduce the annual repair and replacement costs for a joint utility under Option 2 and for Columbus itself under Option 1. The main difference between Options 1 and 2 is the distribution of repair and replacement costs for watermain. This difference may be insignificant if maintenance costs are distributed according to city population. However, fully developed communities with aging watermain will have disproportionately higher maintenance costs in the near term under Option 1 than the newer cities with larger populations and newer systems. Under Option 2 the growing communities would end up subsidizing watermain repair and replacement costs for the older cities with smaller populations if costs are distributed by population. This is an incentive for older cities with little forecasted development to join the joint utility, and ultimately leads to mutual benefit for all cities involved—growing communities benefit by obtaining access to the older cities' supply and storage as they continue to develop. In return, they purchase access to those assets and help to fund the repair and replacement of aging infrastructure in the smaller cities. This mutual benefit would be reduced if distribution infrastructure is not jointly owned as in Option 1. For this reason, Option 2, joint ownership of the entire water system, is likely to be more equitable for all cities involved than Option 1. 9.3 Benefits of a Joint Utility (Option 1 and 2) 9.3.9 Future Watermain Efficiencies For the distribution system, the joint system would need specific locations of large watermain installed to facilitate interconnections and combine the separate distribution systems that now exist. It is assumed that the majority of this cost would be fully paid for by developers per current policies of the growing cities. Some larger diameter connecting watermains needed to access existing infrastructure in fully developed communities may be shared trunk main costs that cannot be fully billed to developers but should still allow for real savings. Creation of a joint utility is not expected to provide a cost savings in large trunk watermain, but the total amount of large diameter looped watermain installed within each community should be reduced to some extent. The reason for this is that each community would typically have a large diameter main looped around its perimeter to ensure adequate fire protection to the fringes of the community. Two communities bordering each other would each have larger diameter mains running roughly parallel to each other in relatively close proximity. If the communities are joined together, only a single main would be needed to accomplish the same level of fire protection. The large diameter main would continue across community borders rather than turning to follow a border thus reducing the need for parallel mains. Furthermore, when looking at member cities, the amount of required additional watermain could be reduced if the City of Columbus is not included in the joint utility or if the communities were realigned based on proximity and existing interconnections to other large communities such as the City of Blaine. 9.3.2 Supply and Storage Savings Additional advantages of a joint system include the ability to share water supply and storage under Options 1 and 2. As each city is currently required to provide firm well capacity to meet peak demand, a joint system would eliminate the need for up to seven (7) future wells and generators. Furthermore, wells could be sited in areas with greater productivity, to target certain aquifer capture zones, or areas with less connectivity to surface contamination. For example, Hugo is anticipated to need 5 additional wells before 2030 due to expected development. Figures A9 and Al depict the bedrock geology and location of impermeable clay layers. In Figure A10 it can be seen that although Hugo has relatively productive wells, the clay layer is spotty within Hugo's Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 32 boundaries. It may be beneficial to site additional wells in Lino Lakes rather than Hugo due to better coverage by an impermeable layer. The costs associated with additional wells and storage would be reduced as part of a joint system. it is estimated that the cities would save about $12 million through the sharing of storage and wells. Seven (7) wells and three (3) million gallons of additional storage would not be needed as a result of the development of a joint system. 9.3.3 Optimized Water Supply Siting In terms of groundwater supply, Figure Ag shows that groundwater well productivity is not observed to vary significantly across the region. However, as Figure A9 also shows, different groundwater aquifers are available in different geographic regions of the study area. There will be benefits in terms of well siting in order to increase or decrease the use of certain aquifers to create a more sustainable groundwater supply, or to manage the impact that withdrawal from a given aquifer may have on surface water features of high value. Given the large geographic area of the hypothetical Joint Utility there would be many opportunities to site wells in a way to better manage impacts while also providing opportunities for enhanced recharge or aquifer storage and recovery systems. For example, the existence of a relatively continuous clay layer in the geographic region generally west of Highway 35E, and the absence of a clay layer east of Highway 35E, as shown in Figure A10, suggests that groundwater wells west of Highway 35E are more protected. Groundwater wells needed for future development east of the highway could be placed in the western areas to reduce potential impact to surface waters. Conversely, areas east of Highway 35E offer greater opportunities to directly enhance recharge into the aquifers west of Highway 35E from which the withdrawals are occurring. While infiltration of clean runoff in a planned way is good, doing so in areas where infiltration can directly improve the drinking water source aquifer is even better. Infiltration in the areas west of Highway 35E is still beneficial but it largely benefits the water table aquifer rather than the drinking water aquifer While some will slowly infiltrate through the clay layer and into the underlying drinking water aquifers, much will move laterally to a groundwater fed stream and ultimately exit the local system. Infiltration in areas east of Highway 35E where the clay layer is generally absent will have a more pronounced and immediate impact upon the actual source water aquifers. Existing surface water runoff that currently leaves the region through ditching and piping networks may be better managed to infiltrate into the source water aquifers in the areas east of Highway 35E. 9.3.4 Operations and Maintenance Although not within the scope of this study additional benefits of a point system could be realized through labor and maintenance sharing. Administrative staff could be shared in a way to reduce total cost of running a joint utility as compared to running each one independently. Shared accounting and professional services can result in reduced costs as well. Maintenance staffs are often governed by the need to plow streets so to truly leverage a joint utility there may also need to be cooperation in other areas of municipal maintenance including things like plowing. Staff reduction does not have to occur when a Joint Utility is formed if this is not politically acceptable. Rather, the optimum staff can be achieved through attrition and not replacing staff who retire or leave for other opportunities. A more detailed look into this aspect of the benefits of a Joint Utility is warranted in a future study if the communities elect to continue to pursue this course of action. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 33 9.4 Benefits of Individual Development (Option 3) The main deterrent to a Joint Utility are the upfront costs it will take to plan and implement the combined system. Though not easily captured in terms of cost, the political issues associated with forming a Joint Utility also need to be considered. Communities will need to agree to create incentive for each other to make a joint utility work. This will mean negotiating the purchase price related to sharing existing infrastructure, equipment, and staff and finding a way to equitably share maintenance costs. While these prices and costs can all be "determined" using financial and engineering tools and analysis, in the end they will likely be a result of negotiations. This will mean sitting down and agreeing how much some of the communities will pay to the others for the rights to access their assets. If the communities want to make this happen and are looking for a way to create mutual benefit this may be relatively easy. Obviously there can be places where these types of negotiations can be more difficult. In most cases this is a single time up front issue. Once the communities have agreed to join and the prices are negotiated then ongoing operations are usually less challenging. 9.5 Summary of Costs and Benefits to each City Table 9.5 Summary of costs and benefits for Options 1, 2, and 3 City Benefit to combining Cost to combining Centerville • Gain firm well capacity Share capital costs of new • Meet recommended water storage volumes development Gain an interconnect • Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Circle Pines Meet recommended water storage volumes Share capital costs of new Share costs of watermain replacement development Q Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Hsjgo • Lower cost to meet future supply and storage needs • Share replacement costs • Share costs of new trunk watermain for older systems Shares costs of new infrastructure Lexington Gain firm well capacity • Share capital costs of new • Meet recommended water storage volumes development • Improved water quality • Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Lino Lakes Lower cost to meet future supply and storage needs • Share replacement costs • Gain firm well capacity for older systems • Meet recommended water storage volumes • Share costs of new trunk waterrr,ain • Shares costs of new infrastructure All cities • Optimized well siting • Development may need to • Improved water circulation in the distribution system be moved to areas which • Decreased new water storage and number of wells are more convenient to 6 Increased backup supply and interconnections serve as part of a print Some small cost savings system Operational and logistical • More resilient system challenges to combining systems Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 34 10.0 Recommendations This study suggests that a joint system would provide benefits to each of the member communities, but that more information is needed before making a decision on forming a joint utility. The recommendations of this study are as follows: • Continue to investigate forming a Joint Utility under Option 2 According to the analysis performed in this study, the formation of a joint utility appears to be mutually beneficial to all cities involved so long as the Joint Utility is constructed alongside the cities' natural development. Option 2, joint ownership of the entire system is recommended as the best ownership structure as it is more equitable for all cities involved, providing more benefit to the older, smaller cities than Option 1. Plan for joint development now before the opportunity is lost as each city builds out more infrastructure that might not be needed in a Joint Utility setting A preliminary timeline for the formation of a joint utility is shown in Appendix C as well as a timeline for individual development for comparison. At the conception of the Joint Utility, Hugo, Lino Lakes and Centerville would initiate interconnections and begin sharing resources until there is a need for more supply and storage. It is expected that within the next five years, the Joint Utility would add 2 wells and 2 million gallons of storage and initiate an interconnection with Circle Pines. As the cities continue to develop, they share infrastructure until capacity is reached and ultimately add an interconnection with Lexington. By 2030 it is expected that five cities (Hugo, Centerville, Circle Pines, Lino Lakes and Lexington) would share interconnections and the joint utility would have added a total of four wells and 2.5 million gallons of storage, saving roughly $11 million compared to individual development. Note that the timeline for development is merely a suggestion based on the population information available. Projections should be revised based on the most up-to-date population and development projections as they become available. • Investigate which cities should be in the Joint Utility, and consider removing Columbus due to geographic reasons Due to its geographical separation from the other cities, Columbus should not be incorporated as part of the joint utility in the near future. Columbus does not have any existing interconnects with other cities and connecting it would require significant investment in new watermain along 1-35 that would render the joint utility financially infeasible until development naturally occurs in this area. As development does occur along 1-35 from Lino Lakes to Columbus, Columbus could be integrated into the joint utility. Removing Columbus from the joint utility for the foreseeable future requires the addition of two more wells and increases the total supply capital cost. However, storage needs are reduced so the total capital cost is roughly the same, albeit shared by fewer cities. The revised cost estimate without Columbus is shown in Table 10.1 below. Compare this to Tables 9.1 and 9.2 in the previous section. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 35 Table 10.1 Revised cost estimate WITHOUT the City of Columbus Storage Supply Contingency Centerville $0 $0 $0 Circle Pines $0 $0 $0 Hugo $0 $0 $0 Lexington $0 $0 $0 Lino Lakes $0 $0 $0 Joint Utility Cost without Columbus $6,100000 15,476,000 $3472,800 Total $6,100,000 $5,476,000 $3,472,800 Legal and Engineering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.009.760 $3,009,760 • Negotiate initial buy -in for asset and capital sharing between cities Combined Infrastructure Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,058,560 $18,000,000 The final financial terms of a Joint Utility are open for negotiation. But assuming that all parties are interested in making it happen the benefits are straight forward. The fully developed communities have existing assets (wells and water towers) that are needed by the growing communities. The growing communities can either build them new on their own or purchase use of the existing assets from the fully developed communities as part of the formation of the Joint Utility. In this transaction, the assets would be valued at some fraction of the cost it would take to build them new. The "purchase price" paid by the Joint Utility to the fully developed communities would be based on remaining useful life and acknowledge the fact that the existing fully developed community still needs and uses the asset. In this way the growing communities get to access supply and storage at a fraction of the cost of buying new and the fully developed communities get an influx of capitol to either pay off bonds or use as they see fit. Once joined as a utility the costs of maintenance would be shared by a larger group. In addition to this fewer total items would need to be maintained. • Refine cost estimates based on new comprehensive planning, other studies The formation of a joint utility appears to be beneficial as long as the cost of new trunk watermain does not outweigh the benefits to one municipality over another. As the costs reported in this study are considered high-level preliminary estimates, they should only be used for comparison purposes. Future work should include a more in-depth cost analysis using future 2018 Comprehensive Plans and other studies. 10.1 Future Studies As this study included only a high-level preliminary analysis, several subsequent studies are recommended to move the project forward. Each recommended future study should use revised 2018 City Comprehensive Plans through 2040 that use the new population projections. Studies are shown in the order in which they should occur. The first two studies shown address if the water systems should be joined at all and if so which ones should actually be combined. The remaining studies provide guidance related to better defining the details of how city water systems would join together. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 36 Table 10.2 Future studies Study Topics Reason Priority Study 1 Water quality analysis to This may be a deal breaker if mixing waters of High Water Quality define the impacts of mixing differing qualities results in unacceptable Analysis filtered water from Circle Pines impacts with unfiltered water from other communities Specific objective: Consider alternate alignment This grouping includes communities that receive High to capture proximity and filtered water It reduces the likelihood of What is the existing relationships such as unacceptable impacts resulting from mixing correct a group including Blaine. dissimilar water It also leverages cities that combination of Circle Pines and Lexington already share water regularly (Blaine and cities for a joint Consider if Columbus should Lexington) utility be included at all If so when Study 2 Distribution system model of Create a tool needed to perform the study Medium Facility Plan all communities to be joined together Specific Storage facility siting Use of existing storage to benefit growing Medium Objective: communities is a key benefit to joining the Define the utilities together Modeling is needed to make sure the existing facilities can be connected in a remaining way to benefit the growing communities and that technical the minimum amount of future storage is added constraints to reduce costs guiding a Joint Interconnection main sizing This study should be done in conjunction with Medium Utility distribution modeling and storage siting since they all affect each other Storage siting and utilization are both affected by the size of the interconnecting watermain Pressure zone analysis This study is needed to determine if pressure Low reducing valves or pump stations are needed to facilitate interconnecting the communities Well Siting Use of existing wells to benefit growing Medium communities is another key benefit to a joint utility This study would ensure that the supply is available to meet needs while not impacting surface water features of value. Study 3 Financial Infrastructure cost basis Determine the value of existing infrastructure Medium and Governance valuation This will provide a starting point for the purchase Plan price that would be paid by growing cities to developed cities Specific Analyze operational and This study is needed to help define staff needed Medium Objective: staffing costs to operate and maintain a joint utility This would be needed in final rate determinations Define the financial and Rate Analysis Using different financing tools and payback High periods analyze the resulting impacts to rates governance parameters Governance Determine community representation and Medium needed to create governance of the utility a Joint Utility Joint water Utility Feasibility Study 37 Appendix A: Figures >,Z m z O' H_ U m Q� o U a v O c Cc 0 mn IC ¢ -Jli n I U LL rj 44� m (7�a a E LL LLJ .62 •d �_ 0 � f � v � 4 � d m e C U Q r E mm E W a , ul d li tm w` a ffi E o m g a uo 0 LL o a E E a a m m m W to op LL m o m m to 7 7 5 o x x m a a a U _ m c m c 5 v v' �v E6 C c m V o Q, = LL. m in �n a i i E YL 5 a , Ali �,. Lip * _� . ST4rFF"".': „Y{SS"..11'ee-II// T ;n ,�-raY•v e 16 ' Y . . .. oo #� I 12 '. \' [ ��,+�-..u..;._.�__�:...l ..�r,�.- _mxwrcx ._mss �: � $l a.,,'i�-• M_. Wa �KfIPuu 1l0 n11 WrIWum�- en ljl4 a1P syyuSll}La1SA�Ae, +;'I�Pod 6S:W LOOISLO L"Ol ai�erv�weej uee O w EL LL 0) as _ _vi LL W 3 « � c w m e m w ii e LL m mB �r3 6'e a••� f �a c v L �v $v c c -L m'i wb wi c c c mzy c 'dE E E E E U Ed �U c c a� dr :5 �� w n w e �a 15 63rc e 43cWrc m @ a -+ - S 4. '�9 OUA49 - W v�3.Nade}A+dNY:£LLS� >,Z ol c �o m W a U c X � m w0 (� y e `•�� • � _ '; 1' Li IiJ - �.� fir° a, � `` � •'•. a Z a m Q o f o m m jy] eo LL to La O Li '�9 OUA49 - W v�3.Nade}A+dNY:£LLS� ol `•�� • � _ '; 1' Li IiJ - �.� fir° a, � `` � •'•. a '�9 OUA49 - W v�3.Nade}A+dNY:£LLS� m lz Or W 'a 7 ami L_ m Z3 Wad �at ~ J E W LL r N M w 'a M C y m U) C (OdJ} aNWVW3a Ada )IV3d cimo 011d M O N O O N Lf) N O N LA O N O_ O N Lo O N O O Y Y � � Y OC LO Q Q O O O O O O O O O O O ti d crj C7 11 O p O O O O a O O M M N Ln 0 CL tm CL Com O O M M Lo o d a 1 lY0 Y Y O CLCc Z a a d V U N ami = E °� o a .ECD C x LL1 2 F- LL N a: w aj O � J W O C � Z (OdJ} aNWVW3a Ada )IV3d cimo 011d M O N O O N Lf) N O N LA O N O_ O N Lo O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O M M N Ln N (OdJ} aNWVW3a Ada )IV3d cimo 011d M O N O O N Lf) N O N LA O N O_ O N Lo O N O L rte' ej-y � _��^�,4. �� �. I � ' .i_ a r�� ,b'� - a • -- ©1 �I m R J1 c OGN r ® a� e z�3 X mp }FLL p m c c C e e c c LLcl = C CL .gg .5@cis ao y� Q W d 7 d $ LL 9 GO N a W r r r a N c ° C C Y G G 10A L rte' ej-y � _��^�,4. �� �. I � ' .i_ a r�� ,b'� - a • -- ©1 �I m R J1 c OGN r ® J •'JAL . e �1 iaw ax11 Lmu'maarAs L H a fs .90L LO-0Li Ltd _ w^ 0 0 N LYi M O N 0 co O N LO 0 N o N O O N O O O O N (adD) amanom 30VUOlS NOIlb►ZiivnD3 aNV 3AN383H 3NI:I `aNVW3a Aida NVU a31a3md Co O O O p > ID N x Z CD f od a cn °1 C) N cr Lm FL p ; QHS py Z> o 2 a `o Q. in a' N O -�._iz T Lu LL ❑ > N Z� cD `ov U) 3 N _, w a os m E C o rn 0 CD _^ i _ O O Q O O LO v co N r i _ Y 4 "i �t. 0 0 N LYi M O N 0 co O N LO 0 N o N O O N O O O O N (adD) amanom 30VUOlS NOIlb►ZiivnD3 aNV 3AN383H 3NI:I `aNVW3a Aida NVU a31a3md Co O O O O CD CD 0 CD CDO O O Q O O LO v co N r 0 0 N LYi M O N 0 co O N LO 0 N o N O O N O O O O N (adD) amanom 30VUOlS NOIlb►ZiivnD3 aNV 3AN383H 3NI:I `aNVW3a Aida NVU a31a3md y,Z ag N Z N UZEC c m p ;a a U Cr V � J R c C S �i a•, Q > µ1 L o CPA c c i S7� LD W¢LL a F N _ O7L c c m 'o m a E d_; ELLS d CL s iE Q 7 LL Y ^ W m O O Z G ll! m N N Q 0 W iV o °c m CL E c SEA q q E r i Y E $o � 1 Y E $o m a E c$ 1 a N •p �2 C}rD min C � �SU n s m Y Q W m� LL c U c $ g 2 C ° a % LULoc � 8 � 5 e - In dl € g@ n s a r ra $ u� EL M S® U a z o LL?° g O v 3o ,. �0000 � 1 M e. ` 1[ yj' i 1 '�.. 1 I� � ry La ` �; �'.'.: �"'. _, .. _ " ---i � i..�..i" •e�,•c '� +'"`�� � Ts � 11/1 S v' ---- - - r - -- Jol IL a s EAR - A a r s -. " a, of aY •,� � _ ; "_- " ,'��: ,>—� `. rx &O N iu �Z' q 7 LU _ O �d gco c S m q pm y V -j wt_ !i w Q U-fo Ca c g c `mm 3€ e c a c e c e »% v m LL C] m m 41 CL CL LL m E m m e m c W W a a 5 ® LL % CL d to CL LU Appendix B: Detailed Cost Estimates Table 131- Option 1 and Option 2, Joint Development Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table 132- Option 1 and Option 2, Joint Development Capital Costs WITHOUT Columbus Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements 1 0.3 MG Storage Tank -- -- -- 2 0.4 MG Storage Tank -- -- -- 3 0.5 MG Storage Tank -- -- — -- 4 0.75 MG Storage Tank -- — — -- 5 1.0 MG Storage Tank 3 EA $2,300,000 $6,900,000 6 Wells + Welihouse 2 EA $490,000 $980,000 7 Generator (1 per well) 2 EA $130,000 $260,000 8 SCADA system 1 EA $3,000,000 $3,000,000 9 Contingency (30 %) LS 8 $3,340,000 10 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $3,000,000 $2,900,000 Contingency (30 %) Distribution Subtotal -- 10 Storage Subtotal of all costs) LS $6,900,000 $3,010,000 Supply Subtotal Distribution Subtotal $4,240,000 Subtotal, 2030 -- $17,000,000 Table 132- Option 1 and Option 2, Joint Development Capital Costs WITHOUT Columbus Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements 1 0.3 MG Storage Tank -- -- — 2 0.4 MG Storage Tank -- -- -- 3 0.5 MG Storage Tank 1 EA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4 0.75 MG Storage Tank -- — -- -- 5 11.0 MG Storage Tank 2 EA $2,300,000 $4,600,000 6 Wells + Wellhouse 4 EA $490,000 $1,960,000 7 Generator (1 per well) 4 EA $130,000 $520,000 8 SCADA system 1 EA $3,000,000 $3,000,000 9 Contingency (30 %) LS $3,470,000 10 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $3,010,000 Distribution Subtotal -- Storage Subtotal $6,100,000 Supply Subtotal $5,480,000 Subtotal, 2030 $1$,000,000 Table 133 -Individual Development, Combined Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table B4 - Individual Development, Centerville Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank 1 EA $650,000 $650,000 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage 1 EA $2,080,000 $2,080,000 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — -- 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- -- 6 5 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 3 EA $1,500,000 $4,500,000 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank 2 EA $2,300,000 $4,600,000 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank — — -- $490,000 9 12 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- -- 12 10 Wells + Wellhouse 9 EA $490,000 $4,410,000 11 Generator (1 per well) 9 EA $130,000 $1,170,000 12 SCADA system 6 EA $200,000 $1,200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $5,580,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $820,000 $4,840,000 Distribution Subtotal $4,000,000 Storage Subtotal $11,830,000 Supply Subtotal $6,780,000 Subtotal, 2030 $29,000,400 Table B4 - Individual Development, Centerville Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage -- -- — 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- -- 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- -- 5 10.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- _ 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- -- 10 Wells + Wellhouse 1 EA $490,000 $490,000 11 Generator(1 perwell) 1 EA $130,000 $130,000 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $640,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $590,000 Distribution Subtotal Storage Subtotal $1,500,000 Supply Subtotal $820,000 Subtotal, 2030 $4,000,000 Table B5- Individual Development, Circle Pines Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank -- — — -- 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage -- — -- 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — -- 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — — -- 5 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- __ 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank — — -- 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank — — -- 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank — — -- 10 Wells + Wellhouse — -- -- 11 Generator (1 per well) — -- -- 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $450,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $430,000 Distribution Subtotal -- Storage Subtotal $1,500,000 Supply Subtotal $200,000 Subtotal, 2030 $3,000,000 Table 136- Individual Development, Columbus Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table 137 -Individual Development, Hugo Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantlty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank 1 EA $650,000 $650,000 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage — — __ 2 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank _ 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- 5 70.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1 EA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank — 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- 6 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- _ 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank 2 EA $2,300,000 10 Wells + Wellhouse — -- _ -- -- 11 Generator (1 per well) 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $650,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $600,000 $650,000 Distribution Subtotal SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 Storage Subtotal 13 $2,150,000 LS Supply Subtotal $2,310,000 $200,000 Subtotal, 2030 LS $4,000,000 Table 137 -Individual Development, Hugo Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantlty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage -- — _ 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank 5 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank — 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank 2 EA $2,300,000 $4,600,000 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — _ 10 Wells + Wellhouse 5 EA $490,000 $2,450,000 11 Generator (1 per well) 5 EA $130,000 $650,000 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $2,310,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $2,040,000 Distribution Subtotal Storage Subtotal $4,600,000 Supply Subtotal $3,300,000 Subtotal, 2030 $12,000,000 Table 138 -Individual Development, Lexington Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quante Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table 139 -Individual Development, Lino Lakes Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank — -- — - 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage — -- - 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- - 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- — $2,080,000 5 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- — — 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- — — 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- — 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — — 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — — 10 Wells + Wellhouse -- — — 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank 11 Generator (1 per well) -- — — 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $60,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $50,000 -- Distribution Subtotal — — -- Storage Subtotal — 10 Supply Subtotal $200,000 Subtotal, 2030 $300,040 Table 139 -Individual Development, Lino Lakes Capital Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Improvements Comp Plan 1 0.15 MG Underground Storage Tank -- — — -- 2 2.5 MG Underground Storage 1 EA $2,080,000 $2,080,000 3 0.3 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — — -- 4 0.4 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — -- 5 10.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — -- 6 0.75 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- — — - 7 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank -- -- — -- 8 1.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- — -- 9 2 MG Elevated Storage Tank — -- -- 10 Wells + Wellhouse 3 EA $490,000 $1,470,000 11 Generator (1 per well) 3 EA $130,000 $390,000 12 SCADA system 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 13 Contingency (30 %) LS $1,180,000 14 Legal and Engineering (20% of all costs) LS $1,060,000 Distribution Subtotal -- Storage Subtotal $2,080,000 Supply Subtotal $2,060,000 Subtotal, 2030 $6,000,000 Table B70 -Option 1 Joint Utility Annual Costs Payment Joint Utility Option 1, Year 2030 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement 3 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacemei 6 Contingency (30%) 7 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all Subtotal Table B11- Option 1 Centerville Annual Costs Unit Unit Cost Annual Costs of NEW watermain 1 EA of NEW storage and wells 1 EA of EXISTING watermain of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA it of SCADA system 1 EA LS $1 Total Cost $1 Payment Estimated Item Description Quanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Centerville Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $1,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $220,000 $220,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $66,000 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $57,000 Subtotal Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS ..-- „-w, Table B12- Option 1 Circle Pines Annual Costs Payment Table Estimated Item Description Quantitv Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Circle Pines Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1%Annual Repair& Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $1,000 $1,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $60,000 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $52,000 Subtotal Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS --_-__ ------- Table B13 - Option 1 Columbus Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Columbus Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 10 Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA 1 $23,0001 $23,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA 1 $90.0001 $90,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $34,000, 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $29,000 Subtotal .-_- ___ Table B14 -Option 1 Hugo Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Id..nn r%.flnn i Vanr 9n3n Table B15- Option 1 Lexington Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Annual Costs 1 1%Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $402,000 $402,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $600,000 $600,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $301,000 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $260,000 Subtotal $172,000 $1,600,000 Table B15- Option 1 Lexington Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table B16 -Option 1 Lino Lakes Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Annual Costs 1 I% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain — — $349,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $120,000 $120,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $36,000 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $31,000 Subtotal $172,000 $200,000 Table B16 -Option 1 Lino Lakes Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Table 817 -Option 2 Joint Utility Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Annual Costs 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 I EA 1 $349,0001 $349,000.00 2 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA 1 $750,000 1 $750,000 3 Contingency (30%) LS $330,000 4 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $286,000 Subtotal $172,000 $1,700,000 Table 817 -Option 2 Joint Utility Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Annual Costs 1 1%Annual Repair & Replacement cf NEW watermain 1 EA $958,000 $958,000 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells 1 EA $172,000 $172,000 3 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement cf EXISTING watermain 1 EA $1,980,000 $1,980,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $450,000 $450,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING SCADA system 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 6 lContingency (30%) LS 1 $1,098,000 7 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $951,000 Subtotal $5,700,000 Table B10 -individual Development, Centerville Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Totai Cost Combined Svstem Ootlon 1. Year 2030 Table B19 -Individual Development, Circle Pines Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain -- EA 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells 1 EA $42,000 $42,000 3 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $220,000 $220,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 6 lContingency, (30%) LS I 1 $99,000 7 1 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS LS $86,000 Subtotal $89,000 6 1 Legal and Engineering (20 % of ail costs) $500,000 Table B19 -Individual Development, Circle Pines Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1, Year 2030 Table 11320 -Individual Development, Columbus Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item DescriptionQuantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined System Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $1,000 $1,000 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 3 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 4 3.3% Annual Repair & Repleoement of SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 5 lContingency (30%) LS I 1 $89,000 6 1 Legal and Engineering (20 % of ail costs) LS $77,000 Subtotal $500,000 Table 11320 -Individual Development, Columbus Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item DescriptionQuantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined System Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1 % Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $23,000 $23x000 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells 1 EA $43,000 $43,000 3 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $90,000 $90,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 6 lContingency (30%) LS $64,000 7 ILegal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $55,000 Subtotal $300,000 Table 1321 -Individual Development, Hugo Annual Costs Payment Estimated item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1, Year 2030 Table B22 -Individual Development, Lexington Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1, Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 1%Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $575,000 $575,000 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells 1 EA $154,000 $154,000 3 1%Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $600,000 $600,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 6 lContingency (30%) LS $449,000 7 1 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $389,000 Subtotal $2,300,000 Table B22 -Individual Development, Lexington Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1, Year 2030 Table B23 -Individual Development, Lino Lakes Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1. Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain - - 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and wells -- - - 3 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $120,000 $120,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 6 lContingency (30%) LS $44,000 7 1 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $38,000 Subtotal EA $17,000 $200,000 Table B23 -Individual Development, Lino Lakes Annual Costs Payment Estimated Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Combined Svstem Option 1. Year 2030 Annual Costs 1 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW watermain 1 EA $388,000 $388,000 2 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of NEW storage and walls 1 EA $79,000 $79,000 3 1% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING watermain 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 4 2% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING storage and wells 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 5 3.3% Annual Repair & Replacement of EXISTING SCADA system 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 6 lContingency (30%) LS $415,000 7 Legal and Engineering (20 % of all costs) LS $360,000 Subtotal $2,200,000 Appendix C: Development Timelines 4-1 C N Q O N N D a 3 N M N N4-0 L N L m - }J C J O C 40 tko 0 Ln NN 0 U GA :3 tko 0 Ln NN 0 U o cin O o o A 0)� a) U O w o O 0 U m �� C 0 2 w {� n r4 m y J c J'lv�, cu o qp Q O E;41 1 L 4 h o � u N cu r' CL °a (u .v o 3 _ O a 3 O bD , f6 � V R E Q C i O +�+ CL C4" c � c � O .X J Ili 4-0 N Q o N y N E ^o c V y• J c Q7 N 0 O bjO 'a U �, 3 +, 2 2 CL S "O Q T O o 0 0 N bo O i U L 47 N V4 Q Ln ate•+ c C N Q 0 4-J m �d O � L t11 N Q l Q qp Q O E;41 1 L 4 h M •C C � = f6 N cu r' CL °a (u .v o 3 _ O V, T Ln 3 O , .0 L f6 � V R E Q C i O +�+ CL C4" Appendix D: Existing Water Systems Q. Existing Water Systems The existing water infrastructure and use for each of the cities is described in the sections below. A map of all the individual existing water systems is depicted in Figure A4. D1 Water Supply Water supply for the six -city area is comprised of 18 existing groundwater wells. These wells and the aquifers they are constructed in are shown in Figure A9, Bedrock Geology. The City of Lino Lakes is currently in the process of the design and construction of new Well No. 6. Additionally, the City of Lexington receives a significant portion of its water wholesale from the City of Blaine. Tables D1.1 and Table D1.2 summarize well information for the six cities. The combined cities have a total well capacity of 18,080 gallons per minute (gpm) or 26 million gallons per day (MGD). Table DIA summary of existing water supply wells Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-1 Nominal Well Considered City City Well Year Capacity Geological Unit Vulnerable to Source Number Installed (`3pm) Water Contaraination? ('aryl) Centerville 1 1988 560 Prairie du Chien - Jordan Centerville 2 1993 1,100 Prairie du Chien -Jordan No Circle Pines 2 1961 1 000 Quaternary Sand and Gravel No Circle Pines 3 1967 1,200 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Columbus 1 2006 400 Quaternary Sand and Gravel No Columbus 2 2007 1,000 Quaternary Sand and Gravel No Columbus 3 2007 1.000 Franconia -Ironton -Galesville No Hugo 2 1993 625 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Hugo 3 2000 1,200 Jordan No Hugo 4 2002 1,200 Jordan No Hugo 5 2007 1,200 Jordan No Hugo 6 1.200 Jordan No Lexington 1 945 Quaternary Sand and Gravel No Lino Lakes 1 1971 675 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Lino Lakes 2 1986 625 Prairie du Chien -Jordan No Lino Lakes 3 1995 1.800 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Lino Lakes 4 1996 750 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Lino Lakes F 2005 1.600 Prairie du Chien - Jordan No Lino Lakes 6 2015' TBD Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-1 Table 131.2 Total well capacities for individual cities and a joint system City Total Well Capacity Total Well Capacity Firm Well firm Well U)M) (rngd] C91PB it (gpmj Gdpacii yr (mgd) Centerville 1 660 24 560 08 Circle Pines 2.200 32 1,000 14 Columbus 2 400 35 1 400 20 Hugo 5.426 78 4.225 61 Lexington 945 14 0 0 Lino Lakes 5.450 79 3.650 5533 Total 18.080 260 16.280 234 D2 Water System Demands Current average day and peak day water use for each city, and the combined cities, are summarized below in Figure D2.1 and Table D2.1. The City of Columbus has only four residential connections, so its gallons per capita water use Is not a comparable metric for that municipality. Additionally, the peaking factor for the City of Lexington is unusually high which can most likely be attributed to incomplete historical data. 14,000,000 12,000,000 peak day a average day 10,000,000 'q 8,000,000 CO 0 0 CL H 0 6,000,000 m 0 2,000,000 0 �- i kL Centerville Crile Pines Columbus Hugo Ladngton Lino Lakes Joint System Figure D2.1 Five year average, average day and peak day water use Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-2 Table D2.1 Five year average of historical average day and peak day water use D3 Water Use by Category Categorical water use is helpful for understanding a city's demand needs and for predicting future demand for a city. Water sales by category for all the combined cities are provided in Figure D3.1. The vast majority of water demand across the six cities is from residential customers. 2013 Water Sold by Category Unaccounted 8% Commercial, Industrial and City/Other Institutional 2% 9% k Figure D3.1 Categorical water use for the six -city area Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-3 ,average Day Average Day Peak Day Peak Day Peaking Factor (gpcd) (mgd) (gpcd) (mgd) jgpcd) Centerville 84 028 258 085 29 Circle Pines 89 0 45 216 1 112 4 Columbus 11 560 005 154,300 062 14 0 Hugo 115 107 438 417 39 Lexington 114 0 23 616 125 60 Lino Lakes 91 148 338 5.53 37 Total 98 356 354 1248 36 D3 Water Use by Category Categorical water use is helpful for understanding a city's demand needs and for predicting future demand for a city. Water sales by category for all the combined cities are provided in Figure D3.1. The vast majority of water demand across the six cities is from residential customers. 2013 Water Sold by Category Unaccounted 8% Commercial, Industrial and City/Other Institutional 2% 9% k Figure D3.1 Categorical water use for the six -city area Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-3 D3.1 City of Columbus Categorical Water use Unlike the five cities, the City of Columbus has much higher commercial, industrial and institutional water use than most cities. Demand is generated by a few of major users and very few residential users are connected to the city's water system. Figure D3.2 shows categorical water use for the City of Columbus. 2013 Columbus Water Sold by Category Unaccounted Residential Figure D3.2 Categorical water use for the City of Columbus D3.2 Major Water Users A major user is considered a customer which uses greater than 5% of the water sold. As a joint system, major water users would account for less than 1 % of use. The City of Columbus presents an unusual circumstance as most of the city's demand comes from commercial/industrial use—the two most important consumers being Running Aces Harness Track and Ziegler, Inc. Together, these two users accounted for 66% of use. D4 Water Treatment Since each City's water supply comes from groundwater wells, the six cities have similar raw water quality characteristics with the primary issue being iron and manganese. The City of Circle Pines is the only city which operates a treatment plant for iron and manganese removal. However, the City of Lexington receives treated water from Blaine during most of the year. Joint water Utility Feasibility Study D-4 D4.1 Iron and Manganese Iron and manganese do not pose a health problem, however, they can adversely affect maintenance costs and water aesthetics and are considered a secondary treatment standard by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Five of the six cities add polyphosphates at the wellhead in order to limit iron and manganese precipitation in the distribution system. The City of Circle Pines operates a water treatment plant at Well No. 2 which uses greensand filters to remove iron and manganese. Before any two water systems are combined, further investigation is needed to determine whether combining and mixing water supplies would have negative effects to water quality. It is possible that combining the two treatment strategies may pose a problem in mixing water supply from Circle Pines with water from the rest of the cities. D4.2 Chlorine and Fluoride Addition All six cities add chlorine and fluoride to their drinking water in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) guidelines. D4.3 Hardness Hardness is considered a secondary drinking water standard and does not pose a health threat, however it may pose an economic problem as customers use more soap and detergent to overcome its effects. Water softening is not done by any of the six cities involved in this study. D5 Water Distribution System The distribution system is comprised of buried watermain piping, hydrants, valves, service lines, meters and pumping facilities. The existing distribution system is depicted in Figure A4. D5.1 Piping Network There are several areas in the existing watermain distribution system which are not looped, or connected back to each other, which results in dead end piping. Looping watermain systems helps to improve water quality and reduce water age in the system. Many of the dead end watermains are located near the municipal border. This is one opportunity for potential improvement through a joint water system. D5.2 Water System Interconnects Most of the cities in this study have interconnections with one or more cities. Existing connections between the cities make a joint system easier to develop. However, additional interconnections are likely to be a component of the joint system to facility higher capacity water flow between the cities and better movement within the system. Existing interconnects are shown in Figure A4. The City of Columbus does not have any interconnects with another water system. Existing interconnects are typically used for emergency scenarios, however, the City of Lexington shares an interconnection with the City of Blaine which it uses as a key component of its water supply. The City of Lexington operates their well only during the spring, summer and fall months and typically relies on Blaine for water during the winter months. Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study i]-5 D6 Water Storage Most cities maintain their own storage space and several have plans to increase storage capacity before 2030. The opportunity to share storage facilities is another efficiency that can be provided by a joint water system. Existing storage is shown in Table D6.1. The Cities of Lexington and Columbus are not shown in Table D6.1 as they do not currently have any storage. Lexington does not maintain storage, most likely due to its shared water supply with the City of Blaine. Columbus has plans to add 150,000 gallons of underground storage in the near future and uses a small hydropneumatic tank to maintain water pressure. Table D6.1 Summary of existing storage facilities by city City Tank Number Total Capacity Type of Storage Elevation (Ma) Centerville 1 05 Elevated 1054 5 ft Circle Pines 1 05 Elevated Not provided Hugo 1 15 Elevated Not provided Hugo 2 05 Elevated Not provided Lino Lakes 1 10 Elevated 1054 5 ft Lino Lakes 2 1.0 Elevated 1054 5 ft Total 5.0 Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study D-6 Appendix E: Glossary Term Definition or Method of Calculation GPCD Gallons of water per capita per day GPD Gallons of water per day MGD Millions of gallons of water per day MG Million gallons Average Day Demand (gpcd) — Calculated The calculated average day demand (gpd) divided by the population served for a given year Average Day Demand (gpd) — Minimum The population served multiplied by the DNR Projection benchmark of 75 gpcd Average Day Demand (gpd) — Design The population served multiplied by the average Projection five year average use of 100 gpcd Average Day Demand (gpd) — Maximum The population served multiplied by the maximum Projection annual per capita (gpcd) Peak Day Demand (gpd) — Calculated The calculated average day demand multiplied by the peaking factor reported for a given year Peak Day Demand (gpd) — Projection The average day demand multiplied by the 5 year average peaking factor Peaking Factor— Projection The ratio of peak day water use to average day water use, projected as an average of the past 5 years Population Served (gpd) The population of the city or region minus those using a private water supply Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study E-1 r: ��: April 2 016 April 2016 May 2016 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Mar 27 28 29 30 31 Apr 1 11:45am Lunch with Emmer (Stella's on 97) 2 6:00pm Food Shelf Pasta Dinner (Legion) 3 4 7:00pm City Council Meeting 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Severe Weather Week 7:00pm Parks 14 Tornado Drills 15 16 12:00pm Park Dental Grd Breaking (14741 Victor Hugo Boulevard m LBAE 6:30pm BOZA 7:00pm Planning 17 (OpmCity Council Meetin 19 S:OOpm EDA Meets 20 21 22 23 10:00am Habitat for Humanity Dedication (Generation Acres) 5:30pm Metro Cities Annual Meeting (University Club) 7:00pm Parks interviews (Hugo Conference 7:00pm Historical 24 25 26 27 5:00pm Burger Night (Hugo Legion) 28 6:30pm BOZA 29 30 8:00am Cleanup Day 11:00am Kidz n Biz (Oneka Elem) pm Workshop-Lions Park Imp 7:00pm Meetings in green are scheduled/posted meetings 1 4/14/2016 2:41 PM May 2016 Su Mo May 2016 Tu We Th Fr Sa June2016 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY May 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7:OOpm City Council Meeting 8 15 22 29 9 10 11 7:OOpm Parks 16 17 18 7:OOpm City Council S:OOpm EDA Meets Meetin 7:OOpm Historical Commission 12 13 6:30pm BOZA--� 7:OOpm Planning Commission 19 1 20 23 24 25 26 27 S:OOpm Burger Night 6:30pm - Michele (Hugo Legion) 7:OOpm Six Cities Meeting (Lino Lakes) 7:OOpm Planning 30 31 Jun 1 2 3 14 21 n Meetings in green are scheduled/posted meetings 2 4/14/2016 2:41 PM