HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 15 10 City Council work session __ _ _
_ __ _
0 N oO O I� �. O O O� �
� O O) �� O I� c7
N O N � N I� N � tf) V N
� N � M I� O OD �� O O
O (fl � OO t17 M �
r � p � N `--' �.— O
� � F— M ch I� � (O
� N v
n � �
= M V' � OO O O(h � O�
tq � rn o v c� � co o ch
`.0 aO � O � N'ct �- � V N
� M � l(') � 6� (O I` N N O
� N
� V N(O I� � ~ V� M
N
f!-3 � y �, bg
O ln ln O 0�0 N O O V O � O
O� (O � � ln CO O tf1 a0 V
� V O lC� T CO aO N c7 a0 N
� � N(`') �--' O O M N CO
� V V ao I� I� ch V
N
EA ER EA Efl
C�') O M �(h (O O O('7 O ��
� N ch O � � I� �
� N � c+7 � M O) (fl N � a0
� O O O �� O O� � � N
N 'ct N(O f� CO V M
� EA di E�Y
O� V p V� O O(O � N�
��� 6 N c� O�i N �
� 1� O� f� `— V� � N CO �
N M V� v � C�O � N V
� �ry c� �
�� N ��� O O O � � N
� V O t(7 O) � O O �' I� N
� a0 � O `-' (O � V � �
� M N(fl tn � � N
N
� EH Efi3 Ef-T
OD C'') � O O N W N I�
� M (O (O N O lt� Ln
V L1J � � � OJ O I�
lA �— M V N V I` I� a0 �
r 00 OD CO � L(') O O�
N M V 00 Ln lf1 (h � v
Ef3 EH Hi �
� (O 00 V � O M O O M � N N
� �� O� �� O OO L�A LL'7 O
� ti � � � � � � �
0 I� N O V r CO CO �I' O
N M � Lf) � LA
E!-? � � E�
M O M � M� O� OO V � O
�„� lA � O �(O � O l(� V ��
Z � �D N�f7 � V � c0 07 M V
� � C"� V oO �n � N M
N
d EA Efl Uf ER
I ~ OD O 00 � O� O� V Ll) �� �.
J N� I� 07 �� ln CO � O O)
a � (O I� M �� oJ O (O u7 '�.
� O V l.() O �(�'� OO I� LCJ M �
�J,J � N ch � t.C) t[) N M i
Y � I
� W � e» c� e»
H
Q j O O O N � O O� O O O�
� � O� t� O O O � O O
� O � (O O CO lf) f� N V O�
a N O M �[7 O�i V� �[7 � C�O N �
� N N �.
I O t— E9 EA EA EA
� �
U N V U� �p o � � �� C.1 c.1 cf
� � � � N . � � � C C C
C Q � T � � C � �7 �0 �V
� a = � � � � N �C c4
i C O = C� � O m m m
��6 47 � L O � � C C C
I 1�A K E � c� � w �n � � � � �
� U � � � o � � LL
Q' � v� v� � -a � c rn a�
i O r o � a a� c� a� � • c c
a � , �,; � � � � o �, '� �a
�. � �� � � o � � � �
w� C � w n. R '� W
� w 0 `�'' �i O � a U 00
� �I.LIJ o � m °
� _._ � �
N O
� �
_ _
�
0
N
O
i N
O�
O
� N i
i
�
�
O
N
N
C
f� N
c
o �
N �
.�
�
�
(Q C
O
O �
N
'C n
C O O
7 t� �
lL O
� N �
_ � `_
f6 � N w
� � U
i-y �► N
v
` � o
y � a`
� O � �°
o °-
N �
U
■
c'� i
0
N
N
O
N
- _ N,� g a - - o
N
—�-
O O O o O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O EA
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O � 0�0 1� (O � � O ( O�
E� f!T f� Ef} E!-} H7 ({y E� E�
E/-}
I
L- —.__.. ___ _- _ _ _._ - ._
11/12/2010
I
� 2011 Water Quality Utility Budget
I
City Council Workshop
. ;��� .�.� � �r;�„���
�� ��E���PII�E � N@W SiC�N WA
.�,
'�'� CHEAPER THAN
ACTUqtty p�',N_G
SoMfl'TNiriG
Q ABouT iT.
�
���" LAND OF 1�,000 �, � � �� •
{}, � SCuM�CoVEREDe , � ; ` �;�
F�RTiLtZER•PoLI.uT@Ds ;�,,;;�
A�GA�-cHoKe� � <
� ' FiSH�.�SS Bo6S �
,, r
r ; — � �, � ,
f �; ' ,� �--� � $ s
— ` ,f , � : �i�� ��
�
#'^ �� ��_� � ..�r g � 4f'
r'
��� �,a���,�,� � .a.-. �."�_, �zra�.�.� � `� II
City of Prior Lake '
i
� . , I
Presentation Overview
� $` Why Manage Water?
• "Public Utility" Concept
' • Water Quality Utility Strategy
`'� Current Infrastructure/Pollution reduction/Liability
• ' Grant Opportunities
• 'Priorities recommendation
• Budget recommendation
- Key Feedback Needed
Utility rate increase? Does level of investment match desired
outcome?
• r Grant strategy and Re-Vision clarification: "Work with Watershed,
County and Township to establish a cooperative plan to clean up
�,� ����; Spring Lake, Upper and Lower Prior Lake within 10 years through
-� State and Federal funds."
�
1
�
_ _____
�_ _ _ _ _ _ I
11/12/2010
�
�
Why Manage Water? '
� � 1
.._ �.'� �, :
T
1. Citizen's Ethic of Environmental Stewardship: 2030 Vision and I
Strategic Plan — We care about our waters because they are valued '
� `� natural amenities, worth protecting.
2.. Protect Public Health and Safety: Wellhead Plan and Surface Water
° Plan; Water quality fundamentally affects the health of the public.
Flood protection, Drought Management; Mother nature frequently
reminds us that too much of a good thing is possible!
3. Makes Economic Sense: Proactive, comprehensive and well
�__._ informed management of this resources reduces regulatory liability
and reduces intra-organizational waste. Doing the right thing all i�
along is cheaper in the end!
4. Follow Local, State and Federal Requirements: Watershed plans,
NPDES/M54 permits — We have to do it anyways. I
� � �.; �
II I
I
I
A Public Utility?
-� • Level of Service? Provide a service that increases or protects
the Health, Safety & Welfare of the public (LOS) I,
,., • Tools: Physical Infrastructure, Programmatic Efforts, '
`� Enforcement of standards.
���� �
•� Principals: i
— Transparency/ Accountability ,
— Effectiveness / Cost Efficiency �
— Equity / Responsibility
Outcome = f(Understanding, Strategy, Effort) x Share
� � �15'fe: "Water Quality & Flood Risk Management ,,
fU�iGt(on of... ��.
"lstanding: Water body response to any action, assimilative capacity of natural system, mass loading rates and drivers, delayed �
natural rystem response, hydrology, pollutant sources, 8MP rystems understanding, nutrient cy[ling, anthropogenic ��
pollutant chemistry, particle size distri6utions. �
Strate�yr'�:�. Adaptive management, Risk management, Margin of safety &[onfidence, BMP selection & diversifitation, Practice '
� outwme and effectiveness monitoring. Practice based effectiveness and mst efficiency modeling.
�E�� � Private compliante rate & percent participation, Public and private negative externalities, Treatment land-share, .
" Share: Utility watershed land-share, how much of the problem can the City be expected to solve?
I
I
�� �
�___._ _. _. _ _ .. _ _ __. — _ ._._ . _ __ _. _ __._ . _ _ – _ .._ .. — _ ._
__ ___
11/12/2010 ,
i
A Water Quality Utility?
� r��' ��
Brief description of
1. system geography
�.
�,
�
_._2. switch/response model
a �.
.
WQ Utility Strategy
�-��1:"�: Line of authority: God / Mother Nature / Citizens / Council �
Frank / Steve / Larry / Ross? Water quality level of service
responsibilities and efforts appear throughout organization.
'�� (Sanitary, Water, Street, Building, Planning, Parks, Fire)
�
�,. Level of service: Flood Protection and Water Quality service
targets; 10/100 risk, durability, chemical, biological, aesthetic.
�.Most targets established outside organization, we choose how
well to implement to meet them.
3. Collaborations and Efficiency: Intra-organizational, Cross-
Jurisdictional, Cross Sector; Partnerships for reducing waste
4. Infrastructure and Programs: Implement a meaningful,
,
manageable and diverse range of practices to meet levels of
" service, prevent intra-organizational and regulated parties from
backsliding.
���� `
�� u come = f(Understanding, Strategy, Effort) x Share
I
3
�
_ __
11/12/2010
I
� , "Best Guess" '�
;,� �° (AKA Current Infrastructure, Pollution Reduction, Liability)
F;
1. Current System: Conveyance Infrastructure $10Million@50yr
DL=$200K/yr; Treatment Infrastructure $8Million@20yr
DL=$400K/yr; Programmatic & Minor Maintenance=$250K/yr;
� �`�. Natural Environment=($???/Yr) (DL=Design Life)
o E
2: Current Treatment: Conveyance = F(P,S,X); Treatment = F, 1200 ,
Ibs P; 2000 Ton Sediment & T55; ?X I
i 3. Current Pollutant Liability: 80% TMDL Reduction P Spring =
1441b P; 50% TMDL Reduction P Upper Prior = 4001b P;
Antidegradation = must maintain existing treatment capacity
4. Future Pollutant Liability: Phosphorus or Sediment TMDLs = �
Cleary, Pike, Deans, Minnesota River & Possibly Arctic, Markley, I
Jeffers Pond. TMDL Chlorides?, TMDL Other contaminates?
5. Timeline: 10yr/30yr/50yr? Natural system lag / control?
�' C�'��; L:OS indicators: F=Local flood protection, P=Phosphorus, ,
S=Sediment, X=The rest. (bracket= -negative LOS)
�
i
�
Local/State/Federal $'s ��
�5Ca�8 Of �OCB� $'S: (Approx 50% match usually required, <50% requires creative �
matching of federal/state)
• City $420K/Yr WQ Fee I
t� City $100-200K/Yr Reconstruction Bonds, Levy '
��`� WD $800K/Yr Levy I
Wliere are grant opportunities? j
• $$$$: Federal earmarks / Pork! ,
• $$$: Research I
� $$: Innovative demonstration !
$: Implementation (requires close coordination with WD)
0: Permit requirements
I
ity's 5trengths/Future Grant Strategy:
��•" � Cost efficient asset management, decision making systems I
• Innovative technology
I
�
4
� - -- _ _ - - - - -- --- _ _ - --- _ - - -- - -- �
_ __
_ __ �
11/12/2010 I '
� Approximate Grants Totals 2009-2013
� _ ������
� Street5weeping 319 (Research)
Prior Lake Match & In-Kind =(475 hours), ($129,000)
°�, Prior Lake Direct Benefit = 500 hours, $36,000
� Local WD/State/Federal = $431,000
Con Enhanced Sand Filtration 319 (Research)
I Prior Lake Match & In-Kind =(1000 hours), ($175,000)
Prior Lake Direct Benefit = 2700 hours, $65,000
I Local WD/State/Federal = $398,000
2011 Water Quality Maintenance And Retrofit (Innovative Demonstration)
Prior Lake Match & In-Kind =(500 hours), $0
i Prior Lake Direct Benefit = 0 hours, $25,OOOmin, $200,OOOmax
� ^'f`:
ntal Outside Funds $829,000 vs. Total Match & In-Kind ($304,000)
Additional WD/State Grants
� � �AF� Cleanup: $0 (Implementation)
Ca12 Retrofits: $35,000 (Implementation)
2011,2012 Boudins Retrofits: $Omin, $150,OOOmax (Innovative Demonstration)
Possible Future Grants
2 1�2013 Application Dates:
Asset'management, cost efficiency, decision making systems (Research &
Demonstration)
`�Biological filtration, fioating island up-filtration, Wetland nutrient capture and
��` sequestration (Research & Demonstration)
Iron,enhanced sand filtration, wetland and pumped applications (Research &
\
'Demonstration)
Stormwater reuse (Research & Demonstration)
Habitat management for multiple benefit (Research & Demonstration)
PAH Cleanup (Implementation)
j ' Reconstruction retrofit (Implementation)
I aintenance and retrofit(Implementation)
g. �
���. `
2013+Appiication Dates:
.—.. Y s;
� tr�ef'��sweeping Part 2; whole system sediment control (Research & Demonstration)
on enhanced sand filtration Part 2, whole pond systems (Research &
Demonstration)
5
_
� i
11/12/2010 '
I
�
,
Recommended Priorities
��� f �(new) Build Asset Management Tools: Transparency, Accountability �
• (new) Build Cost Efficiency Tools: Effectiveness, Cost Efficiency,
Transparency, Accountability ,
�'� • (?) Maintain Current Systems: Equity, Responsibility ''
�hile....
• (new) Staff Existing Grant Partnerships: Effectiveness, Cost Efficiency ,
�
• `.(new) Adding new treatment capacity in TMDL implementation I
area: Equity, Responsibility
• Apply for new grant funding: Cost Efficiency
And if there's time or money....
• Adding new treatment capacity on reconstruction projects:
Effectiveness, Cost Efficiency
• Innovate new cost effective practices and partnerships:
Effectiveness, Cost Efficiency
�� �L. t; Provide Leadership from the bottom up to support efficient cross- '
` jurisdiction decision making at Watershed and State Levels:
I
�
Water Quality Utility Budget
,, �� �r "�� Needs & Partnerships for Greater Efficiency
��
�
What do we need to start to solve the problem of poor planning and systemic waste?
Need Partnership
1. IVeed easy-to-use asset management A. Intra-organizational, County,
system, data and cost collection, Watersheds, Neighboring Cities or
data storage and water quality Townships. �
accounting systems.
2. Need to use best science to inform B. Watersheds, University and
decision making process. Regulatory Agencies. �
. Need to align regulation with water C. Intra-organizational, Watersheds, ;
� quality outcomes and budgetary University and Regulatory Agencies.
;;" realities.
.'Need water quality forum and credit D. Watersheds, Regulatory Agencies, ,
broker to trade cross sector. Townships, Private land owners. I
��'
I
6 I
� . _