HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-16 City Council Work Session Meeting PacketAgenda
City Council Work Session
City of Edina, Minnesota
VIRTUAL MEETING
Call 800-374-0221, enter Conference ID 5119377 to listen to meeting
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
5:30 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Sustainable Buildings Policy Overview
IV.Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project – Preliminary Sta#
Recommendation
V.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the
public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli(cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: March 16, 2021 Agenda Item #: III.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Reports / Recommendation
From:Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Sustainable Buildings Policy Overview Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None. Discussion only.
INTRODUCTION:
Sustainability Coordinator Grace Hancock will introduce the City's work to date on Sustainable Building Policies
for City-owned buildings and new private buildings.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Sustainable Buildings Policy Report
Draft City Sustainable Buildings Policy
Staff Presentation
Staff Presentation Buildings
March 16, 2021
Mayor and City Council
Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
Sustainable Buildings Policy Report
Executive Summary
Climate change in Minnesota is here. The state’s climate today is warmer, wetter, and less predictable than
in the past thanks to an accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) - primarily CO2 - in the
atmosphere. To meet this challenge, the City of Edina set emission reduction goals of 30% by 2025, and 80%
by 2050, from 2007.
In Edina, building energy use – electricity and natural gas - accounted for ~60% of GHG emissions in 20181.
Roughly 60% of building energy use comes from commercial buildings (rather than residential). Finally, the
top 20% of commercial energy accounts consume nearly 90% of Edina’s commercial electricity use2. The
City wishes to review options to institute Sustainable Buildings requirements that sets energy efficiency and
environmental protection levels to meet City emission reduction goals and to adapt the built environment
to the area’s changing climate.
In reading this report, staff asks City Council to consider the following questions regarding how to
implement such a policy in Edina:
• Applicability – Who should be subject to a sustainable buildings policy in Edina? The City could
require compliance based on such factors as public funding requests and requests for zoning
variances. The City could also include thresholds for compliance, including the amount of public
funding requests, or square footage thresholds of the building in question.
• Policy Parameters – What should the policy require? Policy elements could require compliance with
a third party rating system, along with or instead of an Edina-specific set of sustainability
requirements. If Edina-specific sustainability requirements are included, these could be met either in
full or in part (i.e. three of the five requirements must be met to certify policy compliance).
• Implementation – Who should lead the process for compliance? City staff might manage the
compliance process from intake, to step-by-step guidance, to final approval of policy compliance.
This requires new process developments and potentially additional staffing resources. Alternatively,
Edina could participate in Hennepin County’s second Efficient Building Collaborative to buy into
these resources along with area cities.
1 Regional Indicators Initiative, https://www.regionalindicatorsmn.com/emissions-chart, 2018
2 Edina Electricity Action Plan, Xcel Energy, 2016
STAFF REPORT Page 2
Policy Framework and Peers
Sustainable building policies establish minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for
new construction or significantly renovated developments. Included criteria typically target areas for
pollution reduction and resource conservation, also known as mitigation and adaptation practices.
Because the State of Minnesota sets the building code, cities are unable to establish building requirements
that are more strict than existing code. With financial levers and authority over land use, however, cities can
use sustainable building policies as a tool to make progress toward sustainability goals.
Sustainable Building policies are increasingly common in Minnesota, with six cities having already codified
some kind of guidance for City and commercial buildings. Further, any project that receives general
obligation bond funding from the State of Minnesota must meet B3 sustainable building guidelines. Syncing up
approaches across jurisdictions simplifies requirements for developers who work in different cities. It also
provides a platform for cities to focus on what works, leaving behind what doesn’t and avoiding reinventing
the wheel3.
Existing Sustainable Building Policies in Minnesota
St. Louis Park Maplewood St. Paul Minneapolis Rochester Duluth
Policy
Structure
City Overlay +
Third Party
Rating
System
Green Code City Overlay
+ Third
Party Rating
System
Third Party
Rating
System
City Overlay
+ Third Party
Rating
System
Third Party
Rating System
- OR - Point
System
Applies to Municipal
Commercial
Multifamily
Single Family
Industrial
Renovations /
Additions
Municipal
Commercial
Single Family
Industrial
Renovations /
Additions
Municipal
Commercial
Multifamily
Single Family
Industrial
Renovations /
Additions
Municipal Municipal
Commercial
Multifamily
Single Family
Industrial
Municipal
Commercial
Multifamily
Single Family
Industrial
Policy
Triggers
Public
funding; PUD
requests (in
development)
City
Financing
Public
funding
Municipal
buildings
only
Tax
Increment
Financed
projects
Developments
10,000 square
feet or greater
3 Center for Energy and Environment, Minnesota Sustainable Buildings Report
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Policy Trends
Policies across Minnesota cities apply to new construction and significant renovations. All policies apply to
municipal projects, and a majority apply to commercial, multi-family, single family and industrial projects.
Most cities apply the policy when a project seeks public funding. Unique to St. Louis Park is their interest in
adding Planned Unit Development (PUD) requests as a trigger for policy application. St. Louis Park and
Minneapolis are actively reviewing their policies in 2021.
The most common policy structure is two-fold. First, a policy requires a project to meet a third-party rating
system, which provides processes for developers to achieve city goals in a streamlined fashion. Some
common examples are noted below.
Third-party Rating Systems and applicable building types
Municipal, Commercial, Mixed-Use,
Industrial
• LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations;
Certified Silver or higher
• B3 Guidelines
• International Living Future Institute; Core Green
Building Certification, Living Building Challenge Petal
Certification, or Living Building Challenge Living
Certification
Multifamily • LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations;
Certified Silver or higher
• B3 Guidelines
• Minnesota Housing overlay
• Enterprise Green Communities
• GreenStar Homes; Certified Silver
Parks and open space • Green Business Certification, Inc. SITES Rating System;
Certified Silver
Parking • Park Smart Silver
Second, a policy can include a city-specific overlay. This overlay is a collection of sustainability requirements
that must be met regardless of what third party rating system is followed. Here is an example overlay that
incorporates successful rules from Minnesota cities, large drawing from Minnesota B3 guidelines.
Example Overlay Criteria Example Rule
Predicted and actual energy use Meet SB 2030 Energy Standard through design and
operation;
Predicted greenhouse gas emissions Calculate and report.
Predicted and actual use of potable water Achieve 30% below the water efficiency standards of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
STAFF REPORT Page 4
Predicted use of water for landscaping Achieve 50% reduction from consumption of traditionally
irrigated site.
Utilization of renewable energy Evaluate 2% of on-site renewables; install if cost-effective
using SB 2030 guidance.
Electric vehicle charging capability (if
parking is included)
Install conduit that allows charging stations to be
installed at a future date.
Diversion of construction waste from
landfills and incinerators
Achieve 75% diversion rate
Indoor environmental quality Use low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials
including paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, carpet, as
well as ASHRAE thermal and ventilation minimums.
Stormwater management Adhere to quantity and quality requirements, including
infiltration rate, suspended solid, and phosphorous
reductions.
Resilient design Document a design response to several identified
potential shocks and stressors such as utility interruption,
extreme rainfall and transportation interruption. Design
Team shall integrate the identified strategies into the
design of the project.
Ongoing monitoring of actual energy and
water use
Benchmark using ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager
annually.
Interviews with cities who already require sustainable building practices from development projects did not
report a slowdown in development. When initially enforced, training for builders and developers smoothed
the rollout of these new requirements, and showcasing case studies also built understanding and buy-in. The
financial cost of compliance can range from a 5-10% increase in overall development costs, but result in
long-term cost-savings from efficiency measures while reducing impact on the natural environment and
contributing to community sustainability goals.
Applicability, Exceptions, Enforcement
Applicability
While cities cannot establish building requirements that are more strict than existing code, cities can use
special development requests related to public funding or zoning variances to apply specific sustainability
requirements.
Thus, developments for new construction or a significant renovation which seeks the following provisions
could be subject to a Sustainable Buildings policy in Edina:
STAFF REPORT Page 5
• Public funding: other cities have a minimum trigger of $200K; Edina recommends no minimum but
rather a limited list of funding sources that are most commonly used on large projects in Edina.
These might include:
1. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
2. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
3. Bonds
4. HOME Investment Partnership Program
5. Housing Redevelopment Authority funds
6. Land write-downs
7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
8. A dedicated Sustainable Building Policy fund
9. Any other Federal, State, Regional (e.g., Met Council), or City funding source
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) requests: Where a city has a large tract of land for development,
it can set rules such as a sustainable building policy for the site while giving the developer flexibility
in how that is accomplished.
Since 2012, an estimated 60 large projects were proposed in Edina that would have been subject to this
policy if it was in place. Around nine of these projects, or 15%, were funded by TIF – half of these were
affordable housing developments and two were parking garages. The remaining projects were commercial
developments. Thus, instituting the public financing trigger alone would not result in many regulated
projects. In contrast, roughly 40 of these large projects requested a PUD. Thus, the PUD exception process
appears to be an important tool for Edina to require sustainable building practices and meet GHG emission
reduction goals.
Exceptions
In other cities, exceptions to the policy are rare, and blanket upfront exceptions are not specified.
Generally, exceptions occur when uncommon building types are proposed, such as an ice arena. Exceptions
are not generally granted in other cities due to financial or timing concerns alone.
In some cities, exception needs are determined by city staff on a case-by-case basis and presented to City
Council to request a partial waiver to the policy. The partial waiver specifies which elements of the Overlay
and third-party rating system might still be applied. If a partial waiver is granted, staff may also work with a
proposal team to identify other sustainable building practices to include beyond the policy, such as Xcel
Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program.
Enforcement
Public funding is often needed to encourage and make such developments viable in the first place, making a
financial penalty for non-compliance challenging to employ. For that reason, the best practice is to be
proactive on the front end, providing sufficient resources and check-ins during the design development
process to ensure compliance along the way.
For projects triggered by a PUD request, the city could enact a fine for violation, which has been done in
other American cities. In Edina, policy compliance must be met before building permits are issued at
STAFF REPORT Page 6
different stages of the development stages. One example is the stormwater management requirements –
projects must demonstrate compliance before additional permits are issued. This enforcement method
could be applied in the case of a sustainable buildings policy as well.
In either case, compliance with the sustainable building policy should be included in the development
agreement and loan documents.
Implementation
Implementation points of contact occur at the following junctures:
a) Intake review
b) Ongoing point of contact
c) Inspection at point of construction
d) Commissioning
e) Ongoing monitoring
It is also critical to include a third-party verification component in the policy. Verifiers should be proposed
by the developer and acceptable to the city.
In general, city staff should provide the process of implementation to ensure compliance, but the developer,
architect and design team should include a “special inspector” to incorporate sustainable building policy
requirements and affirm compliance.
Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative (EBC) opportunity
Developing and implementing such policies can take significant expertise and staff capacity. To address this
issue, the Efficient Buildings Collaborative Phase 2 proposes to create an implementation model for cities to
share in technical assistance and enjoy standardized processes, making implementation more efficient and
cost-effective for participating cities.
Imitating the EBC implementation model used for city benchmarking policies, EBC phase 2 will create
sustainable building policies implementation supports and resources, which cities will be able to access
through a joint MOU with the County. The first step is to identify the specific support needed by
cities. The second step is developing a County RFP to find an implementer to provide those
supports. Hennepin County anticipates releasing an RFP for a program implementor in June, 2021.
Edina-specific
In Edina, a sustainable buildings policy would complement the City’s existing Building Energy Benchmarking
ordinance and its Green Business Recognition program, ensuring the most efficient building is designed,
constructed and operated to help the community meets its GHG emission reduction goals and build a more
resilient city.
Staff recommends drafting a policy that encompasses best practices from around the state of Minnesota,
while customizing overlay metrics to acknowledge Edina’s specific context and goals. While GHG emissions
from City operations are less than 5% of the total community emissions profile, staff suggests that the City
lead by example and institute a Sustainable Buildings Policy for City-owned buildings ahead of passing a
STAFF REPORT Page 7
broader commercial sustainable buildings policy. Though similar in scope, a policy focused on City-owned
buildings could be implemented at a faster rate, and could serve as an avenue to build successful case studies
in Edina.
A Sustainable Buildings Policy would apply to new construction and significant renovations that either (a)
seek public funding or (b) seek a Planned Unit Development variance. A policy of this design would cover
roughly two thirds of large commercial development proposals, while only relying on a funding trigger would
cover just 10-15%. The Policy would include two requirements: projects select and comply with a third-
party rating system, and comply with the City’s Overlay.
Points of Flexibility
(1) The Overlay could be constructed as a points system, similar to Duluth’s approach. This means staff
can assign points to each category, and a developer can choose to implement some of the categories
to meet a minimum required point value – say, 70 out of 100 available points. This could ease
project-specific challenges and reduce the number of exception requests.
(2) Implementation – the City can choose to review staff capacity to administer this policy in house, or
it might opt to buy into the Hennepin County EBC implementation model.
Next Steps
City staff are drafting a City Operations Sustainable Building Policy, and anticipate adoption in summer, 2021.
For the Commercial Policy, staff will hold stakeholder focus groups with area developers, property
managers, and others to receive feedback on recommendations in spring, 2021. Staff anticipates completing
outreach and submitting a policy for adoption by fall, 2021. The policy would go into effect in either winter,
2021 or early 2022.
☐City Council Approved: Click here to enter a date.
☐City-Wide Revised: Click here to enter a date.
☐Department
City of Edina Policy
City Operations Sustainable Buildings Policy
Policy Goal
To curb the impact of climate change and increase Edina’s resilience to its effects, City Council has set emission
reduction goals for the community and has asked City Operations to lead by example. This policy establishes
minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction or significantly renovated
developments. Included criteria target areas for pollution reduction and resource conservation, energy efficiency
and transition to renewable sources, among others.
In Edina, building energy use accounted for an estimated 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. While
emissions from City operations are a small portion of these emissions, the City has the resources and
responsibility to lead by example and demonstrate the social, environmental, and economic benefits of sustainable
building practices.
Definitions
Major Renovation means renovation work performed on a building or portion thereof consisting of at
least 2,500 square feet, and requiring installation of new mechanical, ventilation, or cooling systems,
or the replacement of such systems.
New Construction means the planning, design, construction and commissioning of a new building, or
an addition to an existing building if such addition requires installation of new mechanical, ventilation,
or cooling systems.
Applicability
This policy applies to City-owned buildings, including new structures constructed after the date of this policy’s
adoption, and significant renovations occurring after the adoption date. Significant renovations are defined as those
affecting more than 10,000 square feet, or which include the evaluation or replacement of the building’s heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system.
Requirements:
Any building, constructed, significantly renovated, or purchased by the City for City operations is required to be
certified under one of the following Sustainable Building Standards, and meet the standards set forth in this policy’s
Edina Sustainable Buildings Overlay section. . A third party special inspector should be included as part of the
development project team to affirm compliance with policy requirements.
Sustainable Building Standards include any of the following, at the listed rating level:
For City-Owned Buildings:
A. State of Minnesota B3 Guidelines; Certified Compliant
B. LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation: Certified Silver, Gold or Platinum
C. Or equivalent rating system with prior staff approval
Page | 2
For City-Owned Parking Structures:
A. ParkSmart; Certified Silver or Gold
For City-Owned Parks and Open Space Sites:
A. Green Business Certification, Inc. SITES Rating System; Certified Silver, Gold or Platinum
Exceptions
These requirements may be excepted, in whole or in part, by the Edina City Council.
• Per B3 guidelines, any sustainable building practice whose payback period is not 12 years or less is
excepted from this policy.
Variance process – there may be significant cost or functionality constraints to meeting certification
and/or overlay. Any new construction must go through initial review stage with B3 to demonstrate payback
period of sustainable building improvements does meet the 12-year threshold.
Enforcement
For City-owned buildings, CAS Fund can assist in meeting budget gaps for already planned projects in the
current CIP plan. Buildings will not advance to the next stage of construction or operation, including
necessary permit issuance, without demonstrated ongoing compliance with this Policy.
Edina Sustainable Buildings Overlay
In addition to certification with one of the Sustainable Building Standards, projects complying with the
Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy must also meet and document the requirements laid out in this
section, referred to as The Overlay.
While achieving the Overlay requirements may contribute toward compliance with one or more of the
identified Sustainable Building Standards, some additional documentation of compliance for The Overlay
must be completed.
The following section lists the requirements of The Overlay, the required method(s) of demonstration
of compliance, and the time at which this is due to be reported to the Sustainability Facilitator. Some of
the requirements have coordinating or overlapping reporting requirements; these are ordered to
streamline project teams reporting.
List of Overlay Requirements:
1. Predicted and actual energy use
Predicted greenhouse gas emissions
Ongoing monitoring of actual energy use
2. Predicted and actual use of potable water
Predicted use of water for landscaping
Ongoing monitoring of actual water use
3. Utilization of renewable energy
4. Electric vehicle charging capability
Page | 3
5. Diversion of construction waste from landfills and incinerators
6. Indoor Environmental Quality
7. Stormwater Management
8. Resilient Design
Overlay Requirement 1: Meet SB 2030 Energy Standard
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
• Predicted and actual energy use
• Predicted greenhouse gas emissions
• Ongoing monitoring of actual energy use
Overlay requirement:
Project teams must demonstrate that projects meet the State of Minnesota’s SB 2030 Standard during
both design and through 10 years of occupancy. The SB 2030 Standard sets an absolute energy target in
Energy Use Intensity (EUI) in annual kBtu/sf based on the building’s program and schedule. This standard
is based on the following reduction from a 2003 baseline average building: 80% from 2020 through 2024,
and 90% from 2025 through 2030. Achieving this energy target may be done through improvement in
energy efficiency and/or on-site renewable energy. Owners of campuses or sites that are greater than,
and contiguous with the specific project site are permitted to locate new renewable systems that
contribute to meeting SB 2030 anywhere on that campus, not merely on the portion associated with the
relevant project.
The SB 2030 program documentation is available at http://www.b3mn.org/2030energystandard/ Multiple
paths may be available for projects, including methods for smaller buildings (under 20,000ft2) with more
limited energy modeling requirements.
Overlay Requirement 2: Indoor and Outdoor Water Efficiency
Meeting this requirement during design, construction, and operation will document compliance with the
following items:
• Predicted and actual use of potable water indoors
• Predicted use of water for outdoor use (i.e. landscaping)
• Ongoing monitoring of actual water use
Overlay requirement:
The project shall achieve the following:
Indoor water use: Reduce predicted and actual municipal potable water or harvested groundwater use
in the building by 30% compared to code (Energy Policy Act of 1992) for any fixture types and water
consuming appliances referenced by that standard. The criteria may be met by any combination of:
selection of low or no flow fixtures, use of alternatively sourced water, or other strategies.
Outdoor water use: Design and maintain landscape so that after a 2-year establishment period, the
landscape uses 50% less municipal potable water or harvested ground water for irrigation than a base
case landscape design. (Exception: annuals are exempt.) Any amount of site-harvested rainwater, storm
Page | 4
water, or gray or waste water treated on site to tertiary standards may be used. The criteria may be
met by any combination of: selection of native or low water use plants, use of alternatively sourced
irrigation water as described, use of high efficiency irrigation systems, or other strategies. In order to
verify compliance with this guideline during operation of the building it is necessary to sub-meter
irrigation separately from indoor water consumption.
Overlay Requirement 3: Renewable Energy
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
• Utilization of renewable energy
Overlay requirement:
Project teams must implement a renewable energy system designed to meet at least 2% of the annual
energy need of the project through on-site solar and/or wind renewable energy systems if determined
cost-effective using SB 2030 guidance. It may be necessary to supply more than 2% of the energy needs
to meet Overlay Requirement 1: Meet SB 2030 Energy Standard.
Overlay Item 4: Electric Vehicle Ready
Meeting this item during design and construction will document compliance with the following items:
• Electric vehicle charging capability
Overlay requirement:
Provide Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) infrastructure for at least 5% of parking
provided by the project, and adequate infrastructure to permit future electric vehicle charging for at
least an additional 10% of the parking provided by the project. If the project is providing five or fewer
total parking spaces EVSE Infrastructure must be provided for at least one space. EVSE infrastructure
shall consist of:
• Dedicated space for future electrical distribution equipment to support EVSE
• Raceway of at least 1” connecting the future EVSE parking space(s) to dedicated space above
Considerations for locations of EVSE should include the ability for accessible parking to access charging
capability.
EVSE pedestals shall be designed to minimize potential damage by accidents or vandalisms, and to be safe
for use in inclement weather.
EVSE shall be installed in compliance with all relevant requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
Locate EVSE in convenient parking locations that will serve as an incentive for the use of electric
vehicles.
Overlay Requirement 5: Construction Waste Diversion
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
Page | 5
• Diversion of construction waste from landfills and incinerators
Overlay requirement:
Divert at least 75% (by weight) of construction, demolition, and land clearing debris from landfill and
incinerator disposal.
Overlay Requirement 6: Indoor Environmental Quality
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
• Indoor Environmental Quality
Overlay requirement:
Projects must meet all of the following:
• Use low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials including paints, adhesives, sealants,
flooring, carpet, as well as ASHRAE thermal and ventilation minimums.
• All newly installed interior materials must comply with the California Department of Health
(CDPH) Standard Method v1.1-2010 and be certified as low-VOC. Interior materials are
considered to be those within the least vapor-permeable most continuously-sealed layer.
• Projects must document a Construction IAQ Management Plan, including following the
SMACNA IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction, 2nd edition, if any
portion of the building is occupied during construction.
• Projects not regulated under the Minnesota State Residential Code must achieve ventilation
rates of not less than that required by the Minnesota State Energy Code or ASHRAE 62.1,
whichever is more stringent.
• Document that the project is designed to meet the design, operating, and performance criteria
of the most current version of ASHRAE 55.
Overlay Requirement 7: Stormwater Management
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
• Stormwater Management
Overlay requirement:
Refer to City of Edina Water Resources Management Plan for requirements and guidance to meet such
requirements to control stormwater-related volume and pollutants.
Overlay Requirement 8: Resilience in Design
Meeting this requirement during design and construction will document compliance with the following
items:
• Resilient Design
Page | 6
Overlay requirement:
Urban resilience, as defined by the Rockefeller Foundation, is “the capacity of individuals, communities,
institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of
chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience.” Building resilience is about making people,
communities, and systems better prepared to withstand catastrophic events—both natural and
manmade—and able to bounce back more quickly and emerge stronger from these shocks and
stressors.
For the purposes of The Overlay, Priority Shocks and Priority Stressors are identified as:
Priority Shocks are:
• Utility interruption: Partial or complete disruption of water, sewer, natural gas, and/or
electricity service, evaluated during a period of extreme heat or extreme cold.
• Extreme rainfall: Precipitation equal to or greater than a 50-year, 24-hour (ATLAS 14) storm
event.
• Transportation interruption: loss of passenger vehicle access to the building site for a period of
10 days.
Priority Stressors:
• Water quality: Document positive impact to chloride levels or other pollutant(s) of concern
leaving the site, beyond the level required by other portions of this policy and other regulations.
• Heat island: Document positive impact to building’s heat island effect, beyond the level required
by this Ordinance and other regulations.
• Air quality: Document positive impact to air quality or the building’s response to existing and
future outdoor air quality issues, beyond the level required by this and other regulations.
The design team must identify from the above list at least one Priority Shock and one Priority Stressor
that could reasonably be expected to impact the project in the future. The design team must then
develop at least one strategy to address the identified Priority Shock(s) and Priority Stressor(s) and
integrate those strategies into the design of the project.
Additionally, the design team will provide a Resilience Plan, a narrative that identifies the selected Priority
Shock(s) and Priority Stressor(s) and a describes the strategy/strategies adopted to address the them.
The CITY ofEDINA
2020 Edina State of Sustainability
Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
March 16, 2021
The CITY ofEDINACommitment to Sustainability
•2007 –Joined Regional Indicators Initiative (RII)
•2010 –Began benchmarking city building energy use
•2015 –Established Conservation and Sustainability Fund
•2016 –Hired first full-time sustainability staff
•2019 –Passed Building Energy Benchmarking Ordinance
•2020 –Climate Action Plan RFP
www.EdinaMN.gov 2
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Goals
30% by 2025 80% by 2050
The CITY ofEDINA
www.EdinaMN.gov 3
MITIGATION
Actions to reduce emissions
that cause climate change
ADAPTATION
Actions to manage the risks
of climate change impacts
Electric
Transportation
Renewable
Energy
Energy
Efficiency
Forests and green
space
Flood
Protection
Waste Management
R
E
S
I
L
I
E
N
C
E
A Livable City
The CITY ofEDINAEdina GHG Emissions
www.EdinaMN.gov 4
69%
29%
2%
~2007 Community Emissions, tonnes CO2e
Building Energy use Transportation Waste
62%
36%
2%
2018 Community Emissions, tonnes CO2e
Building Energy use Transportation Waste
786,354 tonnes CO2e 677,457 tonnes CO2e-14%
Regional Indicators Initiative
The CITY ofEDINATransportation Emissions
www.EdinaMN.gov 5
City Operations Transport 2011 2020 Change
# Fleet Vehicles 240 230 -5%
Total Gallons Fuel 161,354 145,650 -~10%
Equivalent Tonnes CO2e 1,434 1,295 -~10%
Average Miles per Gallon 8.5 12 +40%
The CITY ofEDINACity Building Energy Use
www.EdinaMN.gov 6Energy Star Portfolio Manager
Emissions change since 2009 Key Building Changes
Total City Building Emissions +5%Energy Management Plan Approach
Edina Liquor Southdale -34%Refrigeration, door & condenser updates
Braemar Arena +36%Added Braemar Field
The CITY ofEDINARenewable Energy
www.EdinaMN.gov 7
City Commitment
~5,500,000 kWh
subscribed to
community solar
(1/3 of City energy
needs)
Community Resources
~700,000 kWh
community solar array on
City Public Works
building for residents –
68 subscribers
The CITY ofEDINAWaste Management
www.EdinaMN.gov 8
49.00%
36.00%
15.00%
2020 Waste Estimates
Landfill
Recycling
Organics
2020 GreenStep Cities
The CITY ofEDINA
ForestsWater
Natural Systems
www.EdinaMN.gov 9
Hennepin County Climate Action Plan
2019 2020
City Trees removed 123 169
City Trees planted 608 1536
Estimated Community Tree Canopy: 43%
The CITY ofEDINAToolbox: CAS Fund
www.EdinaMN.gov 10
2021 CAS Projects
Building Energy
Implement Edinborough Park Energy Management Plan finding
Develop City Hall Energy Management Plan
Develop City Park Buildings Energy Management Plan
Transportation Energy
Install Electric Vehicle Infrastructure at Edina Liquor sites
Install additional EV chargers at City Hall to accommodate increased City fleet and public charging needs
Purchase electric and efficient City fleet replacements
Community Policies & Resources
Develop Climate Action Plan
Implement Building Energy Benchmarking Ordinance
Cost-share Residential Energy Efficiency Audit Services
~$1,750,000
The CITY ofEDINA
Adaptation
•Flood Reduction Strategy
•Tree Canopy Ordinance
•Organics Recycling
Mitigation
•Building Energy Benchmarking
Ordinance
•Green Fleet Policy
•Sustainable Buildings Policy:
City & Commercial Buildings
(in development)
Toolbox: Policy
www.EdinaMN.gov 11
The CITY ofEDINAWhat’s next?
•Climate Action Plan
•lays the groundwork for Edina to
imagine a resilient future and
identify pathways to create this
future.
•Staff Capacity
•Summer intern
•MN GreenCorps Member
www.EdinaMN.gov 12
The CITY ofEDINA
Thank You
www.EdinaMN.gov 13
The CITY ofEDINA
Edina Sustainable Buildings Policy
Grace Hancock, Sustainability Coordinator
The CITY ofEDINA
www.EdinaMN.gov 2
Why Sustainable Buildings?
2016 Edina Electricity Action Plan
The CITY ofEDINA
Develop Sustainable Buildings
policy for city-owned building
construction and major
renovation
www.EdinaMN.gov 3
Two Pathways, One Goal
Develop Sustainable Buildings
policy for commercial building
construction and major renovation
Reduce building energy
GHG Emissions 30% by
2025
The CITY ofEDINA
Environment
Economy
Sustainable
Buildings
Equity
Committed to the Triple
Bottom Line
www.EdinaMN.gov 4
The CITY ofEDINAKey Questions
City Policy
•Parameters –How to balance economic, environment and community
goals? Spending threshold.
Commercial Policy
•Applicability –Who should be subject to a sustainable buildings policy in
Edina?
•Policy Parameters –What should the policy require?
•Implementation –Who should lead the process for compliance?
•Public Engagement –Who should we involve?
www.EdinaMN.gov 5
The CITY ofEDINA
Draft
Commercial
Policy
Stakeholder
Focus
Groups
ELT,
Commission
Review
Submit to
City Council
for adoption
Commercial
Policy takes
effect
Process & Timeline
www.EdinaMN.gov 6
Jan -Mar Apr -Jun Jul -Sep Oct -Dec
Draft
City
Policy
Commission, Council,
ELT Review
City Manager adopts
City Policy, immediate
effect
Hennepin County Efficient Buildings
Collaborative project scope
The CITY ofEDINADraft Sustainable Buildings Policy
www.EdinaMN.gov 7
City & Commercial Sustainable Buildings Policy
Policy Structure Third Party Certification + Edina-specific Overlay
Applies to
-Municipal, -Commercial (including Multifamily and Industrial),-Parking
Policy Triggers Public Funding or PUD
The CITY ofEDINADraft Sustainable Buildings Policy
www.EdinaMN.gov 8
Third-party Rating Systems and applicable building types
Municipal, Commercial,
Mixed-Use, Industrial
•LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher
•Minnesota B3 Guidelines
•International Living Future Institute
Multifamily
•LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher
•Minnesota B3 Guidelines
•Minnesota Housing overlay
•Enterprise Green Communities
•GreenStar Homes; Certified Silver
Parks and open space •Green Business Certification, Inc. SITES Rating System; Certified Silver
Parking •Park Smart Silver
The CITY ofEDINA
Edina-specific Overlay
Measure energy and GHG emissions
Conserve in/outdoor water use
Incorporate renewable energy
Encourage electric vehicles
Divert construction waste
Improve indoor environmental quality
Manage stormwater
Draft Sustainable Buildings Policy
www.EdinaMN.gov 9
The CITY ofEDINA
Policy Triggers
•Planned Use Development (PUD)
•~40 of 60 large projects in last 10
years sought PUD.
•Public funding
•~9 of 60 projects in last 10 years
sought Tax Increment Financing.
Applicability
•Municipal
•Commercial
•Single Family
•Industrial
•Multi-family
•Parking
•Renovations/Additions >10,000 sq.
ft.
Draft Sustainable Buildings Policy
www.EdinaMN.gov 10
The CITY ofEDINA
•Interviews with cities who already require sustainable building practices from
development projects did not report a slowdown in development.
•When initially enforced, training and case studies for builders and developers
smoothed the rollout of these new requirements.
•The financial cost of compliance can range from a 5-10% increase in overall
development costs.
•Results in long-term cost-savings from efficiency measures while reducing
impact on the natural environment and contributing to community
sustainability goals.
Development Considerations
www.EdinaMN.gov 11
The CITY ofEDINAKey Questions
www.EdinaMN.gov 12
City Policy
•Parameters –Should there be a dollar threshold to cap spending on a given building?
Commercial Policy
•Applicability –Who should be subject to a sustainable buildings policy in Edina?
•Staff recommends developments receiving public financing or PUD
•Policy Parameters –What should the policy require?
•Third party rating system & overlay
•Overlay as a la carte or full compliance
•Implementation –Who should lead the process for compliance?
•Option A: Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative 2.0 (potential)
•Option B: Staff leads process, onus on developer to ensure compliance
•Public Engagement –Who should we involve?
•Developers, property managers, etc.
Date: March 16, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Reports / Recommendation
From:Ross Bintner P.E., Engineering Services Manager
Item Activity:
Subject:Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project –
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
This agenda item is for discussion, no action is requested. The attached staff report suggests several key
questions for discussion.
Does the strategy seem sound?
Do you need more context or policy analysis before deciding?
What features or opportunities resonate?
Should we increase focus or add requirements or design goals to any of the features?
Are there tradeoffs or risk you need to understand better, or are not willing to make?
Does the recommended level of infrastructure seem reasonable and valuable?
INTRODUCTION:
At its April 21, 2020 meeting, the City Council approved a scope of service for planning, and a plan to engage the
public to plan Morningside Flood Infrastructure ahead of planned 2022, and 2023 neighborhood reconstruction
projects.
The attached staff report provides a summary of the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project and planning
process, and presents a preliminary recommendation for discussion. Also attached are detailed technical and
engagement reports.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report
Technical Memo
Engagement Report
Staff Presentation
March 16, 2021
Mayor and City Council
Ross Bintner, P.E., Engineering Services Manager
Jessica Wilson, Water Resources Coordinator
Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project – Preliminary Staff Recommendation
Information / Background:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project and preview
the preliminary staff recommendation that will be refined for Council consideration in April.
The report includes the following sections and topics:
• In Section 1, the report provides background and context from the 2018 Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) update, the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, the timeline for
creation of new infrastructure in the Morningside neighborhood, and previews the challenge of
flooding and meeting the challenges of flooding.
• In Section 2, the report provides information about how we engaged the public and used public
input to inform the concept design and a framework for the concept design and engineering process
that tested scenarios and developed and refined options.
• In Section 3, the report provides detail on the scenarios, lessons learned, and how they informed the
design.
• In Section 4, the report details the options at three levels of effort and decision criteria that were
used to explore the scale and relative value of the varying features of the options.
• In Section 5, the report provides context on the development of a preferred option and a
preliminary staff recommendation and next steps.
Section 1: Background and Context
Flooding in Edina is not only common, but also increasing. The City of Edina uses its Flood Risk Reduction
Strategy to understand and address this issue.
Flood risk is defined by climate, exposure, and vulnerability. These factors vary with time, and across the
landscape, assets, and people that characterize the community.
STAFF REPORT Page 2
Weather patterns and climate
trends. Rainfall varies over time,
landscapes, and elevation. Soils
and the natural shape of the
land also define runoff.
The degree to which property,
homes, buildings, infrastructure
and other assets come into
contact with flood water.
The degree to which exposed
assets, both public and private,
are unable to resist flooding and
are damaged by floods.
The metric we use to measure flood risk is the exposure and vulnerability to principal, habitable structures.
Structural flood risk can occur through over land flooding, groundwater seepage, and sanitary backflow.
Over the land surface Groundwater seepage Sanitary backflow
The primary and secondary drivers are climate change and aging infrastructure. Well-drained landscapes
and imperviousness also matter but are more historical drivers of flood risk.
Climate change is making storms more intense and increasing the chance of
extended wet periods or drought. Climate change has already and will expose
more assets to flooding in the future. This driver is predicted to overwhelm the
other drivers in terms of scale.
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Private and public assets and infrastructure are both exposed and vulnerable.
Public infrastructure can define flood exposure for different points in the
landscape and serve as a pathway for private risk. Public infrastructure assets are
old and not capable of meeting the current demand. This is a significant driver as
infrastructure provides most stormwater service.
Development has connected the landscape to the water to make land well-
drained. While this a major historic driver, it is a minor driver increasing future
flood exposure. Most of the drainage and land development decisions have
already been made and cannot be unmade. There is additional demand for
drainage that can reduce vulnerability, but marginally affects flood exposure
downstream.
Community demand for garages, parking areas, patios, decks, pools, and bigger
homes has increased the hard cover of soils. Imperviousness drives runoff in small
storms and marginally affects flood exposure in large storms.
We defined the sectors of municipal work within which we work to connect on the promise to
comprehensively reduce the risk of flooding throughout the community; infrastructure, regulation, outreach
and engagement, and emergency services. This planning project was conducted to be consistent with the
City Council’s Better Together public engagement goals to plan infrastructure consistent with the Strong
Foundation (maintain physical assets and infrastructure) goals. The project focused on the infrastructure
and engagement areas of work.
INFRASTRUCTURE: We will renew our infrastructure and operate it to reduce risk.
We will plan public streets and parks to accept and transmit flood waters to reduce the risk
and disruption of related city services.
REGULATION: We acknowledge competing demands of land use and addressing
drainage, groundwater, and surface water issues. We help people solve issues without
harming another.
OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT: We make flood information available and give
people tools for flood resilience.
EMERGENCY SERVICES: We help people prepare for floods, remove people from
harm during floods, and recover after floods.
City of Edina budget goals
STAFF REPORT Page 4
While developing the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy, we used the Morningside Neighborhood as a focus area
to test concepts on what works to reduce flood exposure for homes. Two concepts that challenged the
infrastructure area of work in that Strategy development effort also challenged this infrastructure design
effort – scale and balance.
Scale and Balance; Infrastructure sized to provide benefit to all, and harm no one, while balancing flood risk
reduction benefits, takes neighborhood scale with additional flood storage, and careful sizing and planning
of pipes, flow paths and intervening flood storage.
Anticipated roadway reconstruction in the Morningside neighborhood in 2022 and 2023 presents an
opportunity to explore infrastructure-based solutions to managing flood risk. This is the first project to
engage a neighborhood and plan flood infrastructure under the new strategy. Staff initiated the engagement
and engineering design in early 2020 to prepare for the street reconstruction design, set to kick-off in May
2021.
Section 2: Flood Infrastructure Concept Design Process
The design team was made up of City of Edina staff and scientists and engineers from Barr Engineering
Company. The design team engaged with a variety of individuals and groups to inform the design. Here is
who was involved.
Strong Foundation: Maintain physical
assets and infrastructure. Livable City: Plan for connected and
sustainable development.
Reliable Service: Maintain service levels
that best meet the needs of the community. Better Together: Foster an inclusive
and engaged community.
STAFF REPORT Page 5
Public Policy Technical
Individuals in the Morningside
neighborhood
Energy and Environment
Commission
Expert engineering panel
Morningside Neighborhood Association
steering committee
Planning Commission Neighboring cities staff
Avail Academy and Susan Lindgren
School
Parks and Recreation
Commission
Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
The design process involved the following steps to iteratively gather input and develop flood infrastructure
scenarios leading to conceptual designs:
1. Preliminary public engagement
2. Scenario development
3. Scenario public engagement
4. Scenario technical expert panel
5. Option development
6. Option public engagement
7. Option expert panel
8. Staff recommendation of refined option
We are grateful to many individuals that followed, posted, emailed, called, attended and otherwise reached
out during this project. Here is a summary of what we heard, and how it affected the design:
• Concerns for individual residential structures
• Concerns for balancing and sharing of benefits throughout neighborhood
• Concerns for future flood risk with climate change
• Concerns about property acquisition or use of public property for flood storage
• Concerns about public spaces and natural resources
• Concerns about floodwall scenarios
• Concerns about some options not serving part of the neighborhood
Additional details, including specific events and comments in the public engagement process are available in
the appendix (Public Participation Summary, January 22, 2021). Additional detail about the flood
infrastructure scenarios and concepts are provided in the following sections.
Here is how public input affected our design;
• Include as design goals;
o No increase in risk to any individual property
o Balance the risk and benefit of the project
o No private property will be proposed for acquisition
o Avoid floodwalls
• Include as design consideration;
o Future climate change
o Limit impact at Weber Park
STAFF REPORT Page 6
• Take advantage of opportunity;
o Enhance natural areas where impacts occur
o Consider park improvements where impacts occur
o Remove or reduce potential for flood overflow into private property through minor changes
in grade
o Add inlets in low areas to fully utilize pipe
• Detailed conversations also led the design team to;
o Consider backflow and overflow on Grimes Avenue
o Improve system map and model accuracy in 41st street right-of-way
o Consider overflow on Crocker Avenue
In addition to these direct effects on our design, City staff engaged directly with many residents on
individual concerns and responded with phone conversations, conducted site visits, shared flood
vulnerability reduction technical advice, interpreted and questioned model results, expanded on and shared
ideas for flood risk and reduction techniques, attended on-site public open houses, and held online virtual
meetings with discussions.
Section 3: Flood Infrastructure Scenarios
The design team created and reviewed the following scenarios to test key infrastructure strategies at
reducing flood risk.
• Pipes / Floodwalls
• Flood storage
• Graded overflows
• Ponds and predictive pumping
• Combination
Each of the scenarios resulted in increased flood risk for some properties in the neighborhood. Some
scenarios and specific infrastructure features lead to unacceptable results or risks that drew concern from
the public including those that contemplated using private property or tried to store flood water above
home elevations with floodwalls.
Key lessons learned:
1. Additional storage is key for providing benefit for middle and low elevation areas, above ground
storage in existing and expanded ponds and low areas is most valuable and cost effective.
2. Subwatershed scale is large and providing benefit across the subwatershed takes significant pipe
upgrade. Pipes transfer risk downstream that must be mitigated with additional flood storage.
3. Balancing the flood risk benefits and making sure no additional risk was produced for some
properties took careful planning and iterative testing using stormwater modeling.
4. Lowering storage areas with new lower pipe outlets, or pumped outlets was the only way to create
the amount of new storage needed to reduce flood elevations and get to subwatershed scale while
keeping park land tradeoffs reasonable.
In the end, while no single scenario met the mark for the designers nor the community, we kept the
elements that did provide value and explored what various levels of implementation would look like.
STAFF REPORT Page 7
Additional details on lessons learned from the scenario development can be found in the February 3
Technical Memo, Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood located in
the appendix.
Section 4: Options and Decision Criteria
The design team created and reviewed the three various size options “Big”, “Bigger” and “Biggest”, by
iteratively adding or removing individual features of the design. Due to the interconnected relationship of
storage to pipes, and the all-in cost of some of infrastructure features, some features were upsized or
downsized in one or more of the options. The options were then reviewed with decision criteria described
in this section, to find which were providing good value, and which were not. The process to create these
three options built off the lessons learned from the scenarios described in Section 3.
The design team explored the following criteria to refine the options and inform the staff recommendation.
Criteria / Name No-build Big Bigger Biggest
Approximate Infrastructure
Cost
$0M(2) $5M $10M $15M
Neighborhood-scale? Not applicable No Yes Yes
Balances upstream and
downstream risk?
Not applicable Yes Yes Yes
Homes removed from risk (1%-
annual-chance event)(1)
0 5 28 37
Home with risk reduced (1%-
annual-chance event) (1)
0 91 119 119
Benefit (Annualized damage
avoided) (1)
$0 $102,200 $172,500 $180,800
% Reduction damages (1%-
annual-chance flooding) (1)
0 -10% -46% -53%
Neighborhood wide reduction
in damage (damage avoided in
1% annual-chance flooding) (1)
0 $291,000 $1,386,000 $1,612,000
% Reduction damages (10%-
annual-chance flooding) (1)
0 -28% -47% -48%
Neighborhood wide reduction
in damage (damage avoided in
10% annual-chance flooding) (1)
0 $439,000 $750,000 $759,000
Damage Reduction / Cost Ratio Not applicable 1.1 0.9 0.7
Parks, land, natural resource,
tradeoffs and opportunities
No Yes Yes Yes
Note 1; 1% annual chance event, sometimes called the 100-year event, or 10% annual chance event,
sometimes called the 10-year event. More detail on smaller and larger event metrics can be found in the
technical memo, in the appendix.
STAFF REPORT Page 8
Note 2; While the no-build option is listed in this chart as $0, we note that the renewal of the existing
infrastructure scheduled for 2022 and 2023 as part of planned street reconstruction will exceed $2M. While
some savings accrue by upgrading parts of the infrastructure rather than maintaining, additional costs for
maintaining existing infrastructure are planned as part of the neighborhood reconstruction program.
While the three refined options are not fully optimized for stormwater flood risk reduction, the design team
feels they represent a good range of the scale and value that can be achieved, for the costs and tradeoffs
proposed. The design team concludes that several of the features only found in the “Biggest” option, are not
providing good value or are redundant with features that perform better. Section 3 of the technical memo
has detailed descriptions of all the features.
The technical memo also includes figures that show existing and proposed flood inundation mapping for all
options for a variety of storm sizes. The 1%-annual-chance event for the existing and “Bigger” options are
shown as examples.
Existing 1%-Annual-Chance Event Inundation (7.5
inches in 24 hours)
1%-Annual-Chance Event, $10M-“Bigger” Option
Inundation
The design team sees the potential for significant flood reduction in even large events, at the “Bigger”
option, $10M cost. While flooding on private properties and risk to homes is not eliminated, it is
STAFF REPORT Page 9
significantly reduced. Some areas, particularly landlocked areas have more modest benefits as the design
proposes to eliminate or reduce the potential to overflow into those areas.
Section 5: Preliminary Recommendation and Next Steps
The staff and design team are preliminarily recommending creating infrastructure consistent with the
“Bigger” option, with the following features to include in design (see Table 1 and Figure 2 of the tech
memo);
1. An expanded and lowered Weber Pond, (tech memo Feature 1) including:
a. Expansion into Weber Woods and the removal of approximately 6 acres of trees
b. Natural resource restoration and improvement of the entire Weber Woods land area
c. Creation of nature trails and a bridge or floating boardwalk connecting east to west across
the pond
2. An expanded and lower Lynn/Kipling inundation area (tech memo feature 4) including:
a. Tree removal along most of the basin, with several tree stands saved
b. A mixed wetland and pond, with aquatic and upland natural resource restoration
3. An expanded pipe and swale to provide overflow from the Lynn/Kipling inundation area (tech memo
features 2 and 3) including:
a. A box culvert along the 41st right-of-way and easement corridor between homes
b. A landscaped swale along the north side of the active play spaces in Weber Park to provide
high flow and clean water benefits, including an east to west park trail.
4. An expanded and reconfigured pipe network extending west on 42nd, south on Crocker, east on
Morningside Road, south on Grimes, and west on Branson (Technical Memo features 9, 9a, and 10)
including:
a. Expanded surface inlets to fully utilize pipe capacity in extreme events
b. Minor changes to grades in streets and curb lines to reduce potential surface flows or flood
backflow into low or landlocked areas.
After discussion at the March 16 Council work session, Staff proposes to refine their recommendation and
proposes to include the following actions for Council consideration:
1. Affirm design goals, considerations and opportunities described in section 2 above.
2. Set maximum capital improvement budget of approximately $10M (excluding soft costs) or
maximum total costs of approximately $12M.
3. Affirm strategy of risk transfer with pipe, and mitigation and additional flood reduction with storage.
4. Affirm use of park space in Weber Park, Weber Woods, and Lynn/Kipling inundation area (List of
features from “Bigger” option described in section 5 to bring forward.)
5. April City Council action; approve infrastructure design and park landscape architecture scope of
service.
Key questions for discussion
Does the strategy seem sound?
Do you need more context or policy analysis before deciding?
What features or opportunities resonate?
STAFF REPORT Page 10
Should we increase focus or add requirements or design goals to any of the features?
Are there tradeoffs or risk you need to understand better, or are not willing to make?
Does the recommended level of infrastructure seem reasonable and valuable?
Attachments
Technical Memo
Engagement Report
Past reports to Council
September 1, 2020 Council Work Session – Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project Update
April 21, 2020 Approve Public Participation Plan for Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project and Request
for Purchase for Engineering and Engagement Services
Public Participation Plan
April 7, 2020 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy approval
March 5, 2019 FRRS Strategy Update
September 5, 2018 – Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
April 3, 2018 – Work Session – Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan – Implementation
Discussion
January 17, 2018 – Authorize Staff to Submit Draft Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for
Agency Review
November 21, 2017 – Work Session – Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
Presentation for Review and Comment
Water Resources Library – Historical Morningside Neighborhood Stormwater Reports
May 17, 2016 – Weber Woods Purchase Agreement
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Memorandum
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina
From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Project: 23271798.00
1.0 Purpose of Project and Project Background
This technical memorandum summarizes Barr Engineering Co.’s (Barr’s) evaluation of the refined potential
options for flood risk reduction in the Morningside neighborhood within the City of Edina (Figure 1). This
evaluation expanded on previous efforts briefly summarized in Section 2.0. The flood risk reduction
features of the refined options are described in Section 3.0. The benefits and the associated costs of each
of the refined options are discussed in Section 4.0, and Section 5.0 describes some tradeoffs and
opportunities that may exist for
further refinement ahead of final
detailed design and construction.
Finally, conclusions of this work
and the previous efforts and a
summary of recommended next
steps are included in Section 6.0.
The goal of this memo is to provide
City staff and City Council with the
information needed to make
decisions in 2021 aimed at
implementing the most
economical, advantageous, and
optimized flood risk reduction
project in the Morningside
neighborhood in coordination with
the planned street reconstruction
in 2022 and 2023.
The City has also performed
extensive community engagement
to address flood risk reduction options in the Morningside neighborhood. These efforts are described in a
separate report.
Figure 1 Morningside Neighborhood study area (storm
sewer shown in black lines)
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
2.0 Summary of Previous Work
The City of Edina’s Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (CWRMP), published in July 2018
(reference (1)) identified the Morningside neighborhood as
an area with a significant number of structures at risk of
flooding. This neighborhood is also planned for street
reconstruction in 2022 and 2023 (reference (2)). Given both
the need to reduce flood risk and the street reconstruction
opportunity, the City began planning for a flood risk
reduction project. At the time the CWRMP was published, an
uncalibrated stormwater model of the City was used to
determine the main factors affecting flood risk. These factors
were identified as limited outlet capacity from the
Morningside neighborhood to Minneapolis and limited flood
storage capacity within the neighborhood. A preliminary
analysis was completed to understand options available to
reduce peak water levels during storm events and to assess
the impact of each potential flood risk reduction option.
Ultimately, the suggestions documented in the CWRMP
included increased flood storage in Weber Park, increased
outlet capacity to Bde Maka Ska (in coordination with
Minneapolis), and increased pipe capacity and additional or
new stormwater outlets within the neighborhood.
In November 2018, the uncalibrated stormwater model was
used to conduct a more detailed assessment of the options
for reducing the flood risk identified in the CRWMP
(reference (3)). In this evaluation, flood risk reduction
scenarios (i.e., surface storage, conveyance, underground
storage, pumping, etc.) were initially analyzed, one at a time,
to understand the impacts of each type of approach and
identify the locations in the neighborhood that would receive
the most flood risk reduction benefit. Individual components
of each flood risk reduction scenario were then grouped into
multiple “combination options” to further increase flood risk
reduction benefits. Additionally, a method was developed to (1) estimate potential flood damage (in
dollars) to individual homes and to the neighborhood as a whole, and (2) estimate the value of each flood
risk reduction option (in dollars of potential damage avoided). The study included planning-level opinions
Timeline of Previous Related Work
2018
• City of Edina Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan
developed
• Uncalibrated Morningside
neighborhood stormwater model
used to assess feasibility of
preliminary options for reducing flood
risk
2019
• Morningside surface water levels
monitored and used to calibrate
existing stormwater model in
cooperation with St. Louis Park and
Minneapolis
• City engages a citizen task force to
help inform a flood risk reduction
strategy
2020
• City publishes a Flood Risk Reduction
Strategy
• Updated stormwater model used to
evaluate design storm events;
resulting flood risk documented
• Local engineering experts in
urban/residential flooding and
mitigation meet to further evaluate
existing flood risk reduction concepts
and discuss new and modified
approaches
• Calibrated and detailed stormwater
model used to model the best subset
of flood risk reduction scenarios
• “Refined options” are created that
maximize the flood risk reduction
benefit to the neighborhood while
considering a range of estimated
costs
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
of construction costs for comparison to the estimated value of each flood risk reduction option (i.e.,
benefit-cost analysis). This analysis showed:
1) Additional flood storage volume is necessary in this neighborhood.
2) Increased pipe capacity benefits the upstream (south and west) portions of the neighborhood and
is only possible if increased flood storage volume is also included.
3) Pumping is one way to create additional flood storage volume.
4) Adding a predictive component to the pumping increases the cost by a relatively small amount
(approximately 1% of the overall cost estimate, or about 10% of the pump station alone).
5) Although it can provide significant storage, underground storage is not economical.
It was during this study that the option for a larger outlet pipe to Minneapolis was removed from
consideration because it would exacerbate existing flooding concerns within Minneapolis.
Evaluations up to this point were completed using an uncalibrated stormwater model. In 2019 the
hydrology and hydraulics of the neighborhood were studied in more detail by monitoring surface water
levels and then using the data to calibrate the stormwater model to multiple storm events. The model was
also combined with the stormwater models of the adjacent cities of St. Louis Park and Minneapolis to
further reduce uncertainties associated with model boundary conditions. Finally, additional overland flow
detail (two-dimensional modeling of water on the ground surface) was added to the model to improve
the understanding of surface flow during large storm events. The updated model was used to model
design storm events (from the 20%-annual-chance event through the 0.2%-annual-chance event), and the
resulting flood risk was documented in April 2020 (reference (4)).
In 2020, City staff convened two meetings of local engineering experts in urban/residential flooding and
mitigation to further evaluate existing flood risk reduction concepts and discuss new or modified
approaches. For this meeting, a modified version of an Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) approach was used—
a problem was presented, and multiple rounds of thoughts and opinions shared until consensus was
reached. These meetings helped confirm that there are three primary approaches to reducing flood risk in
this area (reference (5)):
1) Increase conveyance to move water away from people and structures
2) Increase storage to hold water away from people and structures
3) Move people and structures away from water to reduce exposure and/or reduce structure
vulnerability
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
The three primary approaches confirmed during these meetings were consistent with the previous work
described above; however, there was no detailed discussion about where to use these general approaches
within the Morningside neighborhood.
Also in 2020, the calibrated two-dimensional stormwater model was used to model the best subset of the
flood risk reduction scenarios created in 2018. This was an effort to update our understanding of the
benefit of these scenarios (compared to the existing flood risk) using the best available model (reference
(5)). The main conclusions from the 2018 analysis were confirmed and the modeling highlighted the
increased benefit of combining features best suited for different portions of the neighborhood.
At the end of 2020, “refined options” were created that maximize the flood risk reduction benefit to the
neighborhood while considering a range of estimated costs (Section 3.0). Throughout this process, every
effort was made to avoid relying on acquisition of homes to reduce exposure to flood risk.
In 2020, the City also developed a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy (reference (6)) that included a summary
of actions that homeowners can take to reduce their vulnerability to flooding. This information, along
with other information related to flooding and drainage, is available on the City’s website (reference (7)).
3.0 Description of the Refined Options
Refining flood risk reduction options requires a “balancing act.” For example, while using larger pipes to
increase conveyance may reduce flood risk in the upstream portion of the watershed, it can also push the
problem downstream. To mitigate the effect of increased upstream conveyance, increased storage
downstream is required. In short, we need to take care that flood risk reduction measures do not simply
transfer risk from one area of the watershed to the other. In addition to achieving balance, an additional
goal for refined flood risk reduction options was that flood risk should not increase for any structure.
The effort to refine flood risk reduction options was informed by the previous work described in Section
2.0 and summarized below:
• Additional flow capacity out of the neighborhood to Minneapolis should be removed from
consideration. While adding flow capacity using larger pipe will effectively decrease risk in
upstream areas, it also transfers that risk to downstream areas—where conveyance capacity does
not exist. There are existing and significant flooding issues present in Minneapolis between the
Morningside neighborhood and Bde Maka Ska, and on the lake itself.
• Additional flood storage in the Morningside neighborhood is necessary. Additional flood
storage not only serves those who live closest to it by reducing local water levels, but also makes
it possible to increase conveyance from upstream areas to the areas with additional storage.
Without additional flood storage, additional conveyance merely transfers risk from upstream to
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
downstream. Increasing flood risk to individual downstream structures is not an acceptable
outcome.
• The additional flood storage needed should be placed in open areas located at the surface
(i.e., not underground), near the mid- and downstream portions of the neighborhood. The
result is a few large, concentrated pond features in the neighborhood. The upstream portions of
the neighborhood are fully developed with no room for large surface storage, and underground
storage is not a cost-effective solution here.
• A moderately sized pump station can be added to the neighborhood and can provide
substantial available storage in advance of large storms by pumping down the ponds in a
controlled manner (i.e., predictive pumping). Using pumping to pre-emptively increase
available storage can allow greater effective storage within a smaller footprint. Predictive ability
(monitoring weather forecasts and water levels in real-time) can be added for little additional cost
and automates the operation of this feature.
• Increased conveyance capacity via storm sewer pipes is necessary to reduce upstream
flooding and limit surcharging and overland flow in the mid-to-downstream areas. The
main storm sewer lines through the neighborhood flow above full capacity during large storms,
which results in water spilling out of the storm sewer into the streets and onto the surface
(surcharging). Increased conveyance can transfer risk from upstream to downstream if there is
insufficient storage capacity downstream; thus, increased conveyance must be balanced with
increased storage volume.
• Flood risk in backyard areas that lack or do not have sufficient storm sewer outlets can be
reduced by adding catch basins or similar structures. However, this can only be done if the
capacity of the connected storm sewer lines is increased to accommodate the additional water.
Ultimately, this can only be done if additional flood storage volume is provided downstream.
• Individual home and property owners can and should take preventative measures to further
reduce flood risk to themselves. One of the approaches for reducing flood risk is to limit
exposure and/or vulnerability. As homes are rebuilt in the City, policies regarding minimum
building elevations may reduce exposure and therefore flood risk. Additionally, features such as
backflow preventers, tile drain around homes, and backup generators reduce vulnerability and
risk (reference (8)). The City’s Flood Risk Reduction Strategy included a tool kit that provide
residents with a range of ideas (including low-cost and no-cost options) to reduce the
vulnerability of their homes, such as storing valuable items off the basement floor, redirecting
downspouts and taking temporary mitigation measures when rains are anticipated.
A refined combination option was created based on the bullet points above. The initial concept was
intended to achieve as much flood risk reduction as possible, while avoiding options previously ruled out
(e.g., increasing flow to Minneapolis, acquisition, avoiding unrealistically sized infrastructure). The
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
probable cost was estimated for construction and design (~$15M, “Biggest” option) and identified to be
higher than the anticipated funding available. Therefore, the refined combination option was modified by
removing features that were less beneficial (compared to their individual cost) until the costs were
lowered to levels closer to the available-funding estimate provided by City staff (~$5M, “Big” option) and
about double that value (~$10M, “Bigger” option).
The following numbered list describes each of the individual flood risk reduction features in the refined
options. Figure 2 shows the locations of those features identified using the numbers from the list below.
Table 1 identifies which features are included at the three different estimated cost levels. Additional
information is available in the published documents on the City’s Better Together website, particularly
documents related to the December 2020 virtual public meeting (reference (9)).
1) The first feature is an expanded Weber Pond, creating some of the necessary additional flood
storage in the downstream-most portion of the neighborhood. The proposed pond is larger in
extent, expanding into Weber Woods and slightly west into Weber Park. The pond bottom is
lowered, and the outlet elevation of the pond is also lowered by creating a lower gravity outlet, or
a pumped outlet, which creates more vertical flood storage capacity before water levels reach
homes or other infrastructure. This feature also includes a pump station with predictive pumping
capabilities to draw the level of the pond down by as much as 3 feet in advance of large storm
events. The pump will not pump the pond fully dry, leaving at least 1 foot of water prior to very
large storm events. Predictive pumping introduces an element of operational uncertainty; the
potential impacts of predictive pumping scenarios were evaluated and summarized in Table 2 of
(reference (5)). The expanded pond requires the removal of a portion of the existing Weber
Woods. Recognizing that these woods are a valued neighborhood amenity, the intent is to keep
them accessible via a bridge over the pond that connects walking paths and enhances the park.
There is also an opportunity to improve the wildlife habitat and restore some ecological integrity.
The preliminary assessment indicates that Weber Woods is a “D” quality lowland forest, close to
classification as an altered/non-native forest/woodland. The canopy is mostly second-growth
cottonwoods, with some box elder, Siberian elm, and American elm. The shrub layer comprises
mostly invasive species or weedy natives, and the ground layer is mostly bare.
This feature is a foundational component of all refined options due to the significant need for
additional storage, although the impact to Weber Woods is smallest in the “Big” refined option and
includes pumped outlets in the ”Bigger” and ”Biggest” refined options.
2) The second feature is a surface swale through Weber Park, between existing park features
(tennis court, baseball and softball fields, etc.). The proposed swale extends from Grimes Avenue
to the expanded Weber Pond, conveying surface flow from the west to the pond in a controlled
manner. The swale can double as a walking path in normal conditions and will be used to convey
flows during large storm events, such as those with less than a 10% chance of occurring annually.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
This feature is not used in the “Big” refined option and is used in the “Bigger” and “Biggest” refined
options. The design of this feature must be considered in conjunction with the design of feature #9,
as both features increase conveyance and have different sizing constraints.
3) The third feature is a large box culvert conveying flow from the open space area between Lynn
Avenue and Kipling Avenue to the storm sewer at the intersection of Grimes Avenue and the W
41st Street corridor. This box culvert could be installed parallel to the existing storm sewer but will
more likely replace the existing storm sewer in that location due to space constraints. In normal,
low-flow conditions, the box culvert will convey water to the existing storm sewer at Grimes
Avenue and the W 41st Street corridor, and water will continue to flow through the storm sewer
out to Minneapolis. During larger storm events, the large box culvert will convey significantly
more flow than the current storm sewer pipes in that location and will discharge excess flow into
the proposed swale in Weber Park (again for large events with less than a 10% chance of
occurring annually). This box culvert is also intended to relieve the flow that would occur over
Kipling Avenue and then overland between homes to Grimes Avenue.
This feature is not used in the “Big” refined option and is used in the “Bigger” and “Biggest” refined
options.
4) The fourth feature is an expansion and lowering of the current open space area between
Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue. This open space is periodically inundated by stormwater. The
current normal water level is controlled by the two storm sewer outlets available in the northwest
and northeast corners. These outlets will be reconstructed so that the outlet control level is
lowered by about 3 feet. Additionally, dredging and clearing of vegetation may be done to create
more storage capacity. The City recognizes that the trees along the perimeter of this inundation
area have value, offering a wooded and more natural appearance to this open area. Therefore, the
outer perimeter of trees will be partially left intact to maintain the appearance from the street and
for residents living along Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue. The area also has the potential to be
improved for natural resource and wildlife habitat. The final design should consider expanding
these benefits through natural resource restoration.
This feature is used in all three of the refined options.
5) The fifth feature is a large box culvert conveying flow from open park space (Yale Gardens
Park) west of Monterey Avenue to the expanded and lowered inundation area between Lynn
Avenue and Kipling Avenue. This box culvert could be installed parallel to the existing storm
sewer but may end up replacing the storm sewer in that location instead due to space constraints.
In normal, low-flow conditions, the box culvert will not carry significant flow or may not carry flow
at all because the open space west of Monterey Avenue is intended to store and infiltrate water
(feature #6). During larger storm events (those with less than a 4% chance of occurring annually)
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
the large box culvert will convey flow into the expanded and lowered open space area between
Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue. This box culvert is also intended to eliminate the overland flow
that would occur over Monterey Avenue on the surface between homes towards Lynn Avenue.
This feature is only used in the “Biggest” refined option.
6) The sixth feature is an engineered, lowered, open field on the Susan Lindgren School
property west of Monterey Avenue. This area currently stores some flood water during large
storm events, but storage is limited due, in part, to a rise in the ground elevation in the northeast
corner. This feature will require leveling and lowering the field by 2 to 3 feet and enhancing the
drainage of the field. With this feature, the annual chance that the existing storm sewer pipe that
runs under this space, carrying water from St. Louis Park into Edina, would surcharge is about 20%
or less. During smaller storm events, the field would drain quickly and be usable as open park
space.
This feature is only used in the “Biggest” refined option.
7) The seventh feature is a cleared space to create additional surface storage on the Avail
Academy School Property. Consisting largely of trees, there is some flood storage available in
this area. The trees would be cleared in the interior of this area, the ground would be lowered by
about 5 feet, and the area would be connected via buried storm sewer pipe to the expanded
Weber Pond. This area would be inundated with water as the water level in Weber Pond rises
above an elevation of approximately 859 feet (during events with a less than 20% annual chance
of occurring). Because of the connection to Weber Pond, this area would stay inundated for a
long period of time (likely greater than 48 hours). Additionally, the proposed storm sewer pipes
along Inglewood Avenue (feature #8) would discharge to this area during larger storm events—
those with a 10% or less annual chance of occurring.
This feature is only used in the “Biggest” refined option.
8) The eighth feature is improved conveyance along W 40th Street, Grimes Avenue, and new
conveyance under Inglewood Avenue. Surface flow in the street along W 40th Street carries
some flow from St. Louis Park and some flow from portions of the neighborhood north of W 40th
Street. Currently, a significant portion of that water flows south along the surface of Monterey
Avenue, Lynn Avenue, and Kipling Avenue towards the open space area between Lynn Avenue
and Kipling Avenue and the storm sewer along the W 41st Street corridor. This feature would
increase the pipe capacity along W 40th Street; limit the overland and street flow south on
Monterey Avenue, Lynn Avenue, and Kipling Avenue via modified street grade; and add storm
sewer pipes under Inglewood Avenue. Runoff during low flows and smaller storm events would
be carried entirely by storm sewer pipe to the intersection of Grimes Avenue and Inglewood
Avenue and then out to Minneapolis via the new pipes under Inglewood Avenue, bypassing the
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
expanded Weber Pond. Larger storm events would result in street flow down Grimes Avenue,
ultimately contributing to the storm sewer discharging to Weber Pond and the surface swale
through Weber Park.
This feature is only used in the “Biggest” refined option.
9) The ninth feature is increased capacity in the existing storm sewer along W 42nd Street and
along a portion of Crocker Avenue (feature #9) and additional capacity along Crocker
Avenue to Morningside Avenue, serving homes around Branson Street and Morningside
Road (feature #9a). The additional capacity (from larger diameter pipe, and in some cases, where
possible, a steepened pipe slope) serves the upstream and midstream portions of the
neighborhood by increasing conveyance and moving water away from these areas and by limiting
surcharging water nearer to the midstream and downstream areas. The additional capacity also
potentially allows for adding stormwater outlets to backyard areas that currently do not have
outlets, such as the area west of Crocker Avenue and south of W 42nd Street. The additional
capacity along W 42nd Street also allows for a stormwater outlet from the southeast corner of the
open space area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue, further benefiting the homes in that
area. In addition, proposed localized grading (within the street right-of-way) may be needed in
low areas on the west side of Crocker Avenue to prevent water from overflowing from the street
into backyards. The portion of this feature along W 42nd Street and extending south along a portion
of Crocker Avenue (feature #9) is used in all three of the refined options. This is one of the more
costly features of the refined options. Therefore, only the $10M and $15M cost options include
increased pipe capacity that extends farther south to Morningside Road (feature #9a).
10) The tenth feature consists of disconnecting storm sewer pipe at Scott Terrace from storm
sewer pipe to the west along W 42nd Street. In the existing condition, the storm sewer pipe
under W 42nd Street is under capacity and carries such significant flow that it surcharges,
increasing the flood risk to homes near Scott Terrace and W 42nd Street. The storm sewer pipe to
the west under W 42nd Street is disconnected and rerouted to Weber Pond under the southeast
corner of Weber Park. The increased capacity under W 42nd Street (feature #9) also helps with the
flooding in this intersection by limiting surcharge.
This feature is used in all three of the refined options.
11) The eleventh feature consists of modifications within Weber Park, in particular to the sports
fields. The baseball and softball fields would all be lowered by an average of about 7 feet, and
the drainage would be enhanced. The northeast softball field would be mirrored to the southwest
corner to make room for the swale (feature #2). The annual chance that this area would be used
for temporary flood storage is about 10% or less, and the area would be inundated for less than
24 hours. The area closer to Grimes Avenue would also be leveled, lowered by about 5 feet on
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 10
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
average, and the ice rink would be rebuilt in a new configuration to make room for the park
swale. This area would be used for temporary flood storage during events with a less than 2%
annual chance of occurring and is estimated to be inundated for less than 12 hours.
This feature is only used in the “Biggest” refined option.
There are other locations throughout the neighborhood where some localized grading may be required to
prevent overflow from the streets into private parcels, particularly into backyards. Locations that have
been identified through modeling (based on LiDAR elevation data) are: near the intersection of Grimes
Avenue and Inglewood Avenue, along Little Street near Lynn Avenue, along Grimes Avenue, Alden Drive,
and Scott Terrace all south of W 42nd Street, the north side of W 42nd Street near Kipling Avenue, and
finally along Branson Street, west of Grimes Avenue. These areas may require slightly higher curbs and/or
surface grading near the streets to ensure that the stormwater flow stays in the streets during large storm
events.
Table 1 Summary of individual flood risk reduction features included in the refined options at
the three different cost levels
Feature
Number Feature Description “Big”
(~$5M)
“Bigger”
(~$10M)
“Biggest”
(~$15M)
1 Expanded Weber Pond and Pump Station1 X X X
2 Surface swale through Weber Park X X
3 Large box culvert from Kipling to Grimes X X
4 Open space area between Lynn and Kipling X X X
5 Large box culvert from Monterey to Lynn X
6 Open field on Susan Lindgren School property west of
Monterey X
7 Avail Academy property surface storage X
8 Improved conveyance along W 40th Street, Grimes, and
Inglewood X
9 Increased storm sewer capacity along W 42nd Street and
north portion of Crocker Avenue X X X
9a
Increased storm sewer capacity extending south along
Crocker Avenue and additional capacity around Branson
and Morningside Road
X X
10 Disconnecting storm sewer at Scott Terrace X X X
11 Modifications to sports fields within Weber Park X
1 In the “Big” refined option, the Weber Pond expansion into Weber Woods is smaller and does not include a pump station.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 11
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Figure 2 Flood risk reduction features of the refined options (see numbered list and Table 1)
Inundation mapping is provided in Attachment B for the ~$15M refined option, in Attachment C for the
~$10M refined option, and Attachment D for the ~$5M refined option.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the incremental flood storage volume that is gained by layering several
components of the flood risk reduction options for both the Weber Pond area and the open space area
between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue, respectively.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 12
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Figure 3 Incremental flood storage volume gained at Weber Pond with various flood risk
reduction options
Figure 4 Incremental flood storage volume gained with various flood risk reduction options at
the open space area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Total Flood Storage Volume Available (acre-feet)Incremental Flood Storage Gained at
Weber Pond with Various Options
Previous Increment(s)This Increment
Existing flood
storage volume
available between
the normal water
level of Weber
Pond and the
lowest adjacent
home
+ Expand
Weber Pond
2 acres into
Weber
Woods
+ Expand
Weber an
additional 3
acres into
Weber
Woods and
Weber Park
+ Lower
expanded
Weber Pond
2.5 feet below
normal water
level using a
pump station
+ Lower
expanded
Weber Pond
an additional 3
feet prior to
storm using
predictive
pumping
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total Flood Storage Volume Available (acre-feet)Previous Increment(s)This Increment
Existing flood storage
volume available
between the normal
water level and the
lowest adjacent
home
+ Expand storage
area by 3 acres
+ Lower the controlling outlet elevation
and normal water level by 3 feet
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 13
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
4.0 Benefits and Costs
Barr and City staff developed a method to estimate flood
damages based on the peak flood elevations and approximate
home elevations. The method is detailed in the City’s 2018
analysis (reference (10)) and summarized in the sidebar. The
goal of the analysis was to estimate flood risk and associated
impacts at a neighborhood-scale for varying storm events with
and without flood risk reduction options. The flood damage
estimates reflect “loss potential” in dollars, based on estimated
flood loss potential tables published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) (reference (11)) and assumptions
or judgments about the probability of damage given a flood
level relative to the home elevations. Home elevations were
based on surveyed basement or first-floor elevations for about
half of the homes and estimated from LiDAR-based (elevation
data) adjacent grades for the other half of homes using the
process documented in reference (10).
On an individual home-by-home basis we expect some results
to be underestimated and some to be overestimated.
However, at the neighborhood scale, we believe that the
estimate of total damages is comparable to the level of
confidence in the planning-level costs developed for each
option. As the City’s flood risk reduction effort continues and
surveyed elevations of homes are collected, the analysis can
be updated with more accurate elevation information and
subsequently improve the damage estimates on both a home-
by-home and neighborhood-wide basis. Additionally, as more
information about storm sewer connections or rebuilt homes
is shared and learned, the estimates of the number of homes
impacted and the total damages in dollars is improved.
Table 2 shows the number of structures at risk during each of the storm events modeled, up to the 1%-
annual-chance event.
Table 3 shows the annualized, monetized damage of each condition (existing and with a flood risk
reduction option), the annualized monetary benefit of each flood risk reduction option, and the number
of structures at risk, removed from risk, and where risk was reduced. The annualized, monetized damage
and benefit considers all of the storm events modeled and the probability of those events occurring.
The City’s method estimates an annualized flood
damage for each structure with consideration for
three potential modes of flooding for each
structure:
1) Indirect (floodwater against the foundation)
2) Direct (floodwater over the foundation)
3) Sanitary sewer backup
A curve is developed for each structure
correlating water surface elevation (WSEL) and
estimated damage (or “potential loss”). Damages
are estimated according to the mode of
flooding, severity (i.e., flood depth), structure
footprint, and unit area.
An annualized damage estimate is generated for
each property by integrating the estimated
damage at a given WSEL multiplied by the
annual exceedance probability between the 5-
year and 100-year events, as shown:
The benefit of a flood risk reduction action is
estimated as the difference in the annualized
damage estimates using pre- and post-
mitigation water surface elevations between the
20%-annual-chance event and the 1%-annual-
chance event.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 14
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Table 2 Summary of the number of structures with potential damage by any of the three
modes of damage (direct surface water, indirect groundwater, or sanitary backup)
by storm event up to the 1%-annual-chance event (ACE) [100-year event]
Condition 5-year
20% ACE
10-year
10% ACE
25-year
4% ACE
50-year
2% ACE
100-year
1% ACE
500-year
0.2$ ACE
Existing 95 107 115 126 139 160
“Big” 80 94 103 116 134 154
“Bigger” 76 80 84 95 111 141
“Biggest” 76 80 82 89 102 133
Table 3 Summary of assessment of potential damages and impacts to structures
Condition Annualized
Damage, $
Annualized
Benefit, $
# of
Structures
with Risk
Removed
# of
Structures
with Risk
Reduced
# of
Structures
with Risk
Increased
# of
Structures
with Risk
Added
Total
Structures
at Risk of
Flood
Damage
Existing $362,600 --- --- --- --- --- 160
“Big” $260,400 $102,200 6 106 0 0 154
“Bigger” $190,100 $172,500 19 138 0 0 141
“Biggest” $181,800 $180,800 27 139 0 0 133
Table 4 Summary of the potential neighborhood-wide damages in dollars due to flooding by
storm event up to the 1%-annual-chance event (ACE) [100-year event]
Condition 5-year
20% ACE
10-year
10% ACE
25-year
4% ACE
50-year
2% ACE
100-year
1% ACE
Existing $1,037,000 $1,588,000 $1,999,000 $2,349,000 $3,003,000
“Big” $703,000 $1,149,000 $1,413,000 $1,898,000 $2,712,000
“Bigger” $661,000 $838,000 $1,081,000 $1,261,000 $1,617,000
“Biggest” $660,500 $828,500 $995,600 $1,185,000 $1,391,000
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 15
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Table 5 Summary of the neighborhood-wide benefits (reduction in damages) in dollars by
storm event up to the 1%-annual-chance event (ACE) [100-year event]
Condition 5-year
20% ACE
10-year
10% ACE
25-year
4% ACE
50-year
2% ACE
100-year
1% ACE
Existing --- --- --- --- ---
“Big” $334,000 $439,000 $586,000 $451,000 $291,000
“Bigger” $376,000 $750,000 $918,000 $1,088,000 $1,386,000
“Biggest” $377,000 $759,000 $1,003,000 $1,164,000 $1,612,000
The estimates of damages neighborhood-wide (Table 4) and the benefits (Table 5) are not the annualized
damages and benefits, but the estimated total (in dollars) for particular storm events (20%-annual-chance
event through 1%-annual-chance event). They show the total neighborhood-wide estimated damage
(dollars) and benefit (reduction in damages in dollars) for each of the listed storm events.
An Engineer’s planning-level opinion of probable construction cost had been developed for each of the
previous flood risk reduction options (reference (3) and (5)). The costs were updated to reflect the three
levels of the refined options (“Big,” “Bigger,” and “Biggest”) and are included as Attachment E. The
planning-level opinions of probable construction cost are intended to aid in evaluating and comparing
flood risk reduction options and should not be assumed as absolute values for each option. These
opinions of probable cost generally correspond to standards established by the Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). This cost estimate is characterized by limited project definition,
widescale use of parametric models to calculate estimated costs (i.e., making extensive use of order-of-
magnitude costs from similar projects or proposals), and uncertainty. The estimated accuracy range for
the opinions of probable cost developed as part of this analysis is -30% to +50%. All estimated
construction costs are presented in 2020 U.S. dollars and include costs for engineering and project
administration. Further details of the planning-level opinions of probable cost are included in the memo
detailing the previous effort (reference (3)).
Estimated construction costs were compared to the total annualized benefit of each flood mitigation
option, divided over an assumed 60-year period (valuable life of the project). Benefit/cost (B/C) ratios
greater than one (1) indicate the estimated reduction in flood damage expected from a given mitigation
option is greater than the cost to implement that mitigation option. B/C ratios are presented in Table 6.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 16
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Table 6 Economic assessment of the flood risk reduction options
Condition Annualized
Damage, $
Annualized
Benefit, $
Improvement
Cost, $
Annual
Improvement
Cost, $
Benefit – Cost Benefit / Cost
Ratio
Existing $362,600 --- --- --- --- ---
“Big” $260,400 $102,200 $5.5M $92,000 $10,200 1.1
“Bigger” $190,100 $172,500 $11.2M $187,000 -$14,500 0.9
“Biggest” $181,800 $180,800 $15.8M $263,000 -$82,200 0.7
The “Big” option of limited additional storage and conveyance capacity is the only option with a B/C ratio
greater than 1. However, this refined option reduces flood risk to the fewest number of homes and has
limited potential for adding future flood risk reduction efforts. The “Biggest” option has the lowest B/C
ratio at 0.7. Additionally, the “Biggest” option reduces risk for a number of homes that is similar to the
“Bigger” option, which costs nearly $5M less to design and construct. Regardless of the resulting B/C
ratios, the ETE discussions with additional local engineering experts confirmed that the refined options
use the most cost-effective approaches applicable in this area. The design phase of any selected flood risk
reduction option will also provide further opportunity to evaluate expanding benefits and reducing cost.
Additional discussion on the costs and benefits of several of the components is also provided in Section
5.0.
5.0 Tradeoffs and Opportunities
To provide a significant flood risk reduction benefit in the Morningside neighborhood, large infrastructure
changes are required. With some of those large infrastructure changes come similarly large changes to
the landscape. Because the neighborhood is mostly developed and open space is limited, the remaining
open space is highly valued by the community. However, as described herein, additional storage is a
necessary component to reduce flood risk, and storage underground and out of sight is not economically
feasible for this site. Therefore, there are some social, aesthetic, and recreational tradeoffs and
opportunities to consider as the City evaluates the feasibility of the refined options.
The swale through Weber Park (feature #2) will utilize park space and require moving or reconfiguring
some athletic fields.
• The benefits or opportunities are that the swale collects and concentrates runoff from the park
(versus diffusive flow in the existing condition), has high conveyance capacity as an open channel
feature, and could have water quality and infiltration benefits. If properly designed, the swale
could be an attractive feature that also provides clean-water benefits.
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 17
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
• If the loss of the space in Weber Park is not acceptable, an alternative means of conveyance is
needed. It may be possible to further increase the pipe capacity (increase pipe size) under W 42nd
Street (feature #9) to Weber Pond. This will need more study in the design phase to confirm
constructability with related utility conflicts. The box culvert outlet (feature #3) from the open
space between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue would be eliminated and the new outlet from
the southeast corner of the inundation area would become much larger. With this tradeoff, the
potential for water quality and infiltration benefits is lost, and stormwater is kept underground
and hidden, removing the potential for a water feature in Weber Park.
The expansion of Weber Pond into the woods to the north modifies that open space from its current use.
• The benefits or opportunities are that the expanded pond provides the storage required to
maximize neighborhood flood risk reduction at a much lower cost than underground storage. The
expanded pond could also provide passive recreation benefit through improvement of trails and
enhancement of the natural resource habitat. The design phase should employ landscape
architectural design to refine and promote a well-utilized recreational space if the open water
feature is maintained; this may include boardwalks, viewing alcoves, or other community features.
• If the loss of some of the woods to the north of Weber Pond is not acceptable, an alternative
means of storage is needed. If the woods are more valuable to the community than the sports
fields, then it may be preferable to leave the woods intact and expand Weber Pond into the
sports fields area (i.e., making feature #11 actual pond space and removing the sports fields).
The anticipated use of predictive pumping significantly increases the effective storage available within the
neighborhood, but introduces some uncertainty related to feasibility and operations.
• The benefits or opportunities of predictive pumping include a significant increase in available
storage achieved with a relatively small increase in cost. Increased storage is a foundational
component of the refined options, and predictive pumping allows more effective storage to be
achieved with a smaller footprint and, therefore, less impact to existing natural areas and open
space.
• Predictive pumping has operational risks that may affect performance (e.g., pump failure, difficulty
in predicting large precipitation events, downstream water levels that limit pumping). Uncertainty
related to predictive pumping is evaluated in greater detail in Section 3.1 of reference (5). These
risks may be mitigated by the development of an operating plan. Additional uncertainty in
feasibility (e.g., permitting requirements) must also be considered during optimization of any
refined options including predictive pumping (see Section 6.0).
Additional storage will be required to realize similar benefits without predictive pumping. Storage
options may include Weber Park athletic fields, private property, and/or Minikhada Vista Park in
St. Louis Park. Private property and St. Louis Park property each come with additional cost and
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 18
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
tradeoffs that are uncertain because they are not under the City’s direct control. Several of these
options were removed from consideration due to cost, complexity, and other factors (e.g., being
outside City jurisdiction). The “Big” option provides a measure of the benefits achieved without
the predictive pumping.
Modifications to the storm sewer present an opportunity to alter the large conveyance pipe underneath
Crocker Avenue and W 42nd Street.
• The benefits or opportunities of modifying the storm sewer at Crocker Avenue and W 42nd Street
include the potential to add connections to alleviate backyard flooding issues. The flood risk in
these types of areas is primarily due to winter melt, which allows residents the ability to anticipate
issues and prepare temporary pumping or other mitigation (due to the relatively slow nature of
winter melt).
• Tradeoffs to this possible action include the need for land acquisition and/or easements for
access and structures. Additionally, connection of landlocked areas will transfer flood risk to
downstream areas where it may pose greater risk to structures and will require additional storage.
This opportunity was removed from consideration at this point in time due to concerns about
feasibility and the City’s preference to avoid acquisitions. It is worth noting however that the
refined options currently provide more benefit in the “downstream” portions of the neighborhood
where there are large storage features (see Figures B-7, C-7, and D-7 in Appendices B, C, and D,
respectively) so that in the future, additional stormwater connections can be made, thereby
increasing benefits throughout the neighborhood.
6.0 Conclusions
The Morningside neighborhood has a high potential for flood damage. Detailed flood-related studies
have been completed in the past few years in advance of expected street reconstruction in 2022 and 2023.
These studies have continually and transparently refined flood risk reduction options, considering the
economics, the benefits, and the values of the community, using direct engagement with the Flood Risk
Reduction Task Force for the earlier effort (July 2019 through February 2020), and a specific engagement
plan as part of this effort. Given the space available in the neighborhood, the values of the community,
and the funding that is expected to be available, refined options to reduce flood risk in an optimized way
have been summarized and presented in this memo.
The “Big” option of limited additional storage and conveyance capacity is the only option with a benefit-
to-cost (B/C) ratio greater than 1. However, this refined option reduces flood risk to the fewest number of
homes with limited potential for coordination with future flood risk reduction efforts. The “Bigger” option
is the minimum required to extend the benefit neighborhood wide. The “Biggest” option has the lowest
B/C ratio at 0.7. Additionally, the “Biggest” option reduces risk for a number of homes that is similar to the
“Bigger” option, which costs nearly $5M less to design and construct
To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Greg Williams, and Sarah Stratton
Subject: Infrastructure Options to Reduce Flood Risk in the Morningside Neighborhood
Date: February 3, 2020
Page: 19
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Upon approval to continue pursuing final design of a flood risk reduction project in the Morningside
neighborhood, the chosen refined option should be optimized once more in final design to match the
overall cost with the approved funding. This effort will coincide with additional evaluation of predictive
pumping feasibility and permitting, including coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and the City of Minneapolis. The final
design should consider detailed topographic survey data, wetland permitting, potential flood insurance
impacts, groundwater levels, and soils information from boreholes. The final design should also reconsider
the tradeoffs and opportunities and be reassessed for geographical balance that addresses risk reduction
and benefits, as discussed in Section 5.0. After optimizing the option to match funding and account for
tradeoffs and opportunities, the option should also be reassessed to finalize the estimate of flood damage
reduction benefits.
7.0 References
1. City of Edina. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Edina, MN : s.n., July 2018.
2. —. 2020 Street Reconstruction Projects. City of Edina. [Online]
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/2020StreetRecon.
3. Barr Engineering Co. Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study.
November, 2018.
4. —. Morningside XP-SWMM Modeling. April, 2020.
5. —. Morningside Neighborhood Flood Infrastructure Project. October, 2020.
6. City of Edina. Flood Risk Reduction Strategy. s.l. : City of Edina Engineering Department, 2020.
7. —. City Service Status: Flooding and Drainage. City of Edina. [Online]
8. —. Flooding and Drainage. City of Edina. [Online] August 2020.
https://www.edinamn.gov/371/Flooding-and-Drainage.
9. —. Better Together. Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project. [Online] August 2020.
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/6145/widgets/19058/documents/11586.
10. —. Edina Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Concepts. Edina, MN : s.n., September 2018.
11. FEMA. Estimated Flood Loss Potential. Flood Loss Estimations 2017. [Online] [Cited: September 1,
2018.] https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1499290622913-
0bcd74f47bf20aa94998a5a920837710/Flood_Loss_Estimations_2017.pdf.
Attachment A
Existing Conditions
Inundation Maps and Structure Impacts
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 19:30 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-1 Existing Conditions 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
20% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-1
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 19:33 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-2 Existing Conditions 10% AEP.mxd User: EMA
10% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-2
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 19:33 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-3 Existing Conditions 4% AEP.mxd User: EMA
4% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-3
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 19:33 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-4 Existing Conditions 2% AEP.mxd User: EMA
2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-4
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-16 07:58 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-5 Existing Conditions 1% AEP.mxd User: EMA
1% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-5
!;N
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
0 175 350
Feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 19:33 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig A-6 Existing Conditions 0.2% AEP.mxd User: EMA
0.2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK
EXISTING CONDITIONSFIGURE A-6
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
Total Flood Risk (160 Homes at Risk)
234
No Risk1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Attachment B
Refined Option at the ~$15M Cost
Inundation Maps and Structure Impacts
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
20% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-1
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
10% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-2
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
4% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-3
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-4
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
1% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-5
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
0.2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$15M COST
FIGURE B-6
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (27 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (133 Homes at Risk)
$15,600; 64%$51,700; 98%
$20,100; 40%
$1,600; 6%
$500; 4%
$63,200; 79%
$3,400; 14%$17,400; 25%$7,200; 28%
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-18 16:20 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig B-7 Option 12 Zone Benefits.mxd User: EMA
FIGURE B-7
0 175 350
Feet
Primary Structures Annualized Damage Reduction, $
< $10,000
$10,000 - $20,000
$20,000 - $30,000
$30,000 - $40,000
$40,000 - $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
TOTAL FLOOD RISKREDUCTION AS ADOLLAR AMOUNT ANDAS A PERCENTAGE
REFINED COMBINATIONOPTION, ~$15M COST
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Attachment C
Refined Option at the ~$10M Cost
Inundation Maps and Structure Impacts
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
20% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-1
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
10% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-2
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
4% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-3
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-4
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
1% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-5
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
0.2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$10M COST
FIGURE C-6
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (19 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (141 Homes at Risk)
$13,100; 54%$48,900; 93%
$17,800; 35%
$1,600; 6%
$500; 4%
$63,000; 79%
$3,400; 14%$16,900; 24%$7,200; 28%
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-18 16:15 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig C-7 Option 12 Zone Benefits.mxd User: EMA
FIGURE C-7
0 175 350
Feet
Primary Structures Annualized Damage Reduction, $
< $10,000
$10,000 - $20,000
$20,000 - $30,000
$30,000 - $40,000
$40,000 - $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
TOTAL FLOOD RISKREDUCTION AS ADOLLAR AMOUNT ANDAS A PERCENTAGE
REFINED COMBINATIONOPTION, ~$10M COST
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Attachment D
Refined Option at the ~$5M Cost
Inundation Maps and Structure Impacts
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
20% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-1
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
10% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-2
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
4% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-3
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-4
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
1% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-5
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
Kojetin Park
Open Space 5
OpenSpace 6
WeberField Park
Weber Woods
LynnFrance40th
42nd
Morningside
44th
SunnysideLittel
SidellGrimesNatchezOa
k
d
a
l
e
C
u
r
v
e Eaton45th InglewoodBranson CrockerAldenScottKiplingMontereyBarr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-09-15 20:05 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig F-1 Option 10 20% AEP.mxd User: EMA
0.2% ACE INUNDATION AND TOTAL FLOOD RISK REFINED COMBINATION OPTION, ~$5M COST
FIGURE D-6
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018
Inundation Depth (feet)
< 0.1 feet
0.1 - 1 feet
1 - 3 feet
3 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
9 - 12 feet
> 12 feet
234
1 - Lowest Risk
5 - Highest Risk No Risk
Added Risk (0 home)
Homes Removed fromRisk (6 homes)
!;N
0 175 350
Feet
Note: Total Flood Risk accountsfor all storm events modeled, notthe risk for an individual storm.
Total Flood Risk (154 Homes at Risk)
$13,300; 54%$18,600; 35%
$2,100; 4%
$0; 0%
$300; 2%
$53,700; 67%
$3,400; 14%$3,600; 5%$7,200; 28%
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2021-01-18 16:24 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271798\Maps\Fig D-7 Option 12 Zone Benefits.mxd User: EMA
TOTAL FLOOD RISKREDUCTION AS ADOLLAR AMOUNT ANDAS A PERCENTAGE
FIGURE D-7
0 175 350
Feet
Primary Structures Annualized Damage Reduction, $
< $10,000
$10,000 - $20,000
$20,000 - $30,000
$30,000 - $40,000
$40,000 - $50,000
$50,000 - $60,000
$60,000 - $70,000
REFINED COMBINATIONOPTION, ~$5M COST
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Mitigation Alternatives Technical Memo\Jan2021
Memo\Morningside_Flood_Infrastructure_Technical_Memo_02032021.docx
Attachment E
Planning Level Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$15M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
General Mobilization/Demobilization (<10%)LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $70,000.00 $70,000.00
Flotation Silt Curtain LF 450 $11.00 $4,950.00
Excavate Excavation CY 69,000 $4.00 $276,000.00
Weber Pond Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 69,000 $18.00 $1,242,000.00
Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Excavate Tree 2", B&B Each 150 $500.00 $75,000.00
Weber Woods Clearing and Grubbing AC 5 $8,500.00 $42,500.00
Excavation CY 89,000 $4.00 $356,000.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 89,000 $18.00 $1,602,000.00
Lower Sport Excavation CY 27,000 $4.00 $108,000.00
Fieds in Park Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 27,000 $18.00 $486,000.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 1.2 $3,000.00 $3,636.09
Erosion Control Blanket SY 3,610 $3.00 $10,830.00
Remove and Rebuild 3 baseball diamonds LS 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00
Excavation CY 15,000 $4.00 $60,000.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 15,000 $18.00 $270,000.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 1.4 $3,000.00 $4,338.84
Erosion Control Blanket SY 2,220 $3.00 $6,660.00
Remove and Rebuild ice hockey rink area LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Swale Excavation CY 3,900 $4.00 $15,600.00
through Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 3,900 $18.00 $70,200.00
Park Upland Native Vegetation AC 0.4 $5,000.00 $1,928.37
Erosion Control Blanket SY 1,870 $3.00 $5,610.00
Walking Trail LS 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
Avail Excavation CY 5,000 $4.00 $20,000.00
Academy Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 5,000 $18.00 $90,000.00
Excavation Tree 2", B&B Each 25 $500.00 $12,500.00
Clearing and Grubbing AC 0.8 $8,500.00 $7,219.93
Upland Native Vegetation AC 0.8 $5,000.00 $4,247.02
24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 400 $120.00 $48,000.00
Inglewood 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 1,000 $180.00 $180,000.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 30 $730.00 $21,900.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
Susan Excavation CY 20,000 $4.00 $80,000.00
Lindgren Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 20,000 $18.00 $360,000.00
School Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 2.5 $3,000.00 $7,575.76
Park Erosion Control Blanket SY 2,780 $3.00 $8,340.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 470 $650.00 $305,500.00
Open Space Excavation CY 29,000 $4.00 $116,000.00
Number 5 Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 29,000 $18.00 $522,000.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 470 $650.00 $305,500.00
Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 1
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$15M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
New / Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 4,580 $20.00 $91,600.00
Additional Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 22 $850.00 $18,700.00
Pipe Capacity 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 728 $120.00 $87,360.00
36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 710 $180.00 $127,800.00
48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 368 $300.00 $110,400.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 840 $320.00 $268,800.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $400.00 $1,052,000.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 434 $450.00 $195,300.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 56 $730.00 $40,880.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 14 $970.00 $13,580.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,360.00 $304,640.00
Casting Assembly Each 52 $800.00 $41,600.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 9 $1,000.00 $9,000.00
Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 68 $700.00 $47,600.00
Pump System
Opti CMAC Predictive Pumping Control System (Furnish and
Install)Each 1 $85,000.00 $85,000.00
For Weber
Pond
4,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric
Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $700,000.00 $700,000.00
Pumping Station Outlet Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 1,100 $40.00 $44,000.00
Pumping Station Inlet Suction Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $11,001,000.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$3,300,000.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $14,301,000.00
ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION
OBSERVATION (10%)$1,430,000.00
RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $56,000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $15,787,000.00
-30%$11,051,000.00
50%$23,681,000.00
Notes
6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following
construction.
7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per lineal foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials
8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars.
ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE
1 Limited Design Work Completed
2 Quantities Based on Design Work Completed.
3 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time.
4 Minimal Soil and Field Investigations Completed. Costs do not included remediation of contaminated soils (if found).
5 This feasibility-level (Class 4, 10-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-06) cost estimate is based on feasibility-level designs, alignments, quantities and unit
prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time.
Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at
this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -30% to +50%. The accuracy range is based on
professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency
and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk
contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 2
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$10M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
General Mobilization/Demobilization (<10%)LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Flotation Silt Curtain LF 450 $11.00 $4,950.00
Excavate Excavation CY 49,000 $4.00 $196,000.00
Weber Pond Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 49,000 $18.00 $882,000.00
Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Excavate Tree 2", B&B Each 150 $500.00 $75,000.00
Weber Woods Clearing and Grubbing AC 5 $8,500.00 $42,500.00
Excavation CY 76,000 $4.00 $304,000.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 76,000 $18.00 $1,368,000.00
Lower Sport Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Fieds in Park Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
Remove and Rebuild 3 baseball diamonds LS $300,000.00 $0.00
Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
Remove and Rebuild ice hockey rink area LS $50,000.00 $0.00
Swale Excavation CY 3,900 $4.00 $15,600.00
through Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 3,900 $18.00 $70,200.00
Park Upland Native Vegetation AC 0.4 $5,000.00 $1,928.37
Erosion Control Blanket SY 1,870 $3.00 $5,610.00
Walking Trail LS 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00
Avail Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Academy Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Excavation Tree 2", B&B Each $500.00 $0.00
Clearing and Grubbing AC $8,500.00 $0.00
Upland Native Vegetation AC $5,000.00 $0.00
24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF $120.00 $0.00
Inglewood 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF $180.00 $0.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF $730.00 $0.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each $1,000.00 $0.00
Susan Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Lindgren Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
School Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Park Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF $650.00 $0.00
Open Space Excavation CY 29,000 $4.00 $116,000.00
Number 5 Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 29,000 $18.00 $522,000.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 470 $650.00 $305,500.00
Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 3
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$10M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
New / Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 4,580 $20.00 $91,600.00
Additional Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 22 $850.00 $18,700.00
Pipe Capacity 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 728 $120.00 $87,360.00
36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 710 $180.00 $127,800.00
48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 368 $300.00 $110,400.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 840 $320.00 $268,800.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $400.00 $1,052,000.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 434 $450.00 $195,300.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 56 $730.00 $40,880.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 14 $970.00 $13,580.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,360.00 $304,640.00
Casting Assembly Each 52 $800.00 $41,600.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 9 $1,000.00 $9,000.00
Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 68 $700.00 $47,600.00
Pump System
Opti CMAC Predictive Pumping Control System (Furnish and
Install)Each 1 $85,000.00 $85,000.00
For Weber
Pond
4,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric
Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $700,000.00 $700,000.00
Pumping Station Outlet Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 1,100 $40.00 $44,000.00
Pumping Station Inlet Suction Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $7,809,000.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$2,343,000.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $10,152,000.00
ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION
OBSERVATION (10%)$1,015,000.00
RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $56,000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $11,223,000.00
-30%$7,857,000.00
50%$16,835,000.00
Notes
6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following
construction.
7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per lineal foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials
8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars.
ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE
1 Limited Design Work Completed
2 Quantities Based on Design Work Completed.
3 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time.
4 Minimal Soil and Field Investigations Completed. Costs do not included remediation of contaminated soils (if found).
5 This feasibility-level (Class 4, 10-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-06) cost estimate is based on feasibility-level designs, alignments, quantities and unit
prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time.
Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at
this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -30% to +50%. The accuracy range is based on
professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency
and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk
contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 4
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$5M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
General Mobilization/Demobilization (<10%)LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Flotation Silt Curtain LF 450 $11.00 $4,950.00
Excavate Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Weber Pond Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Dewatering LS $50,000.00 $0.00
Excavate Tree 2", B&B Each 90 $500.00 $45,000.00
Weber Woods Clearing and Grubbing AC 3 $8,500.00 $25,500.00
Excavation CY 26,000 $4.00 $104,000.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 26,000 $18.00 $468,000.00
Lower Sport Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Fieds in Park Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
Remove and Rebuild 3 baseball diamonds LS $300,000.00 $0.00
Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
Remove and Rebuild ice hockey rink area LS $50,000.00 $0.00
Swale Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
through Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Park Upland Native Vegetation AC $5,000.00 $0.00
Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
Walking Trail LS $7,000.00 $0.00
Avail Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Academy Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
Excavation Tree 2", B&B Each $500.00 $0.00
Clearing and Grubbing AC $8,500.00 $0.00
Upland Native Vegetation AC $5,000.00 $0.00
24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF $120.00 $0.00
Inglewood 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF $180.00 $0.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF $730.00 $0.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each $1,000.00 $0.00
Susan Excavation CY $4.00 $0.00
Lindgren Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY $18.00 $0.00
School Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC $3,000.00 $0.00
Park Erosion Control Blanket SY $3.00 $0.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF $650.00 $0.00
Open Space Excavation CY 29,000 $4.00 $116,000.00
Number 5 Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 29,000 $18.00 $522,000.00
10' W x 4' H Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 0 $650.00 $0.00
Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 5
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET:1 OF 5
BY:CDA DATE:8/27/2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY:KJN2 DATE:12/3/2020
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE:
PROJECT:Morningside FRR Preliminary Engineering ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27-1798.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project
REFINED COMBINATION OPTION at ~$5M
Cat.ESTIMATED
No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST
New / Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 3,000 $20.00 $60,000.00
Additional Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 22 $850.00 $18,700.00
Pipe Capacity 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 728 $120.00 $87,360.00
36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 330 $180.00 $59,400.00
48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 0 $300.00 $0.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 0 $320.00 $0.00
60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $400.00 $1,052,000.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 434 $450.00 $195,300.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 56 $730.00 $40,880.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 14 $970.00 $13,580.00
Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,360.00 $304,640.00
Casting Assembly Each 52 $800.00 $41,600.00
Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 9 $1,000.00 $9,000.00
Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 68 $700.00 $47,600.00
Pump System
Opti CMAC Predictive Pumping Control System (Furnish and
Install)Each $85,000.00 $0.00
For Weber
Pond
4,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric
Supply, Control Panel)LS $700,000.00 $0.00
Pumping Station Outlet Piping (Furnish and Install)LF $40.00 $0.00
Pumping Station Inlet Suction Piping (Furnish and Install)LF $40.00 $0.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $3,796,000.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$1,139,000.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $4,935,000.00
ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION
OBSERVATION (10%)$494,000.00
RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $56,000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,485,000.00
-30%$3,840,000.00
50%$8,228,000.00
Notes
6 Estimate costs are to design, construct, and permit each alternative. The estimated costs do not include maintenance, monitoring or additional tasks following
construction.
7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per lineal foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials
8 Estimate costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars.
ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE
1 Limited Design Work Completed
2 Quantities Based on Design Work Completed.
3 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time.
4 Minimal Soil and Field Investigations Completed. Costs do not included remediation of contaminated soils (if found).
5 This feasibility-level (Class 4, 10-15% design completion per ASTM E 2516-06) cost estimate is based on feasibility-level designs, alignments, quantities and unit
prices. Costs will change with further design. Time value-of-money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time.
Contingency is an allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at
this level of project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is -30% to +50%. The accuracy range is based on
professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The contingency
and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs for risk
contingency. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271798 Morningside FRR Prelim Eng & E\WorkFiles\Cost Benefit methods\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20201203.xlsx 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
ii
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 2
PHASE 1: SHARE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 4
Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
“Walk the Line” Activity in Weber Park ............................................................................................................... 5
Virtual Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 6
PHASE 2: PRESENT INITIAL CONCEPTS .................................................................................................................... 7
Videos ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Virtual Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 9
PHASE 3: PRESENT REFINED CONCEPTS .................................................................................................................. 9
“Halloween-Themed” Activity in Weber Park ...................................................................................................... 9
Virtual Public Meeting ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 12
MAJOR THEMES ................................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES ......................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS ............................................................................................. 19
APPENDIX C – FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................. 28
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
PROJECT: MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
BACKGROUND
The Morningside neighborhood has several low or landlocked areas that are prone to
flooding, and many homeowners experience varying levels of flooding when there is a
significant rainstorm. Flooding can occur due to water flowing over the land surface,
through groundwater seepage, and as a result of sanitary backflow (Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Causes of Flooding
Source: Barr Engineering, Morningside Flood Infrastructure Technical Memo, September 2020
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
2
The Edina City Council recently adopted a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy identifying four
areas of work:
• Infrastructure
• Regulation
• Outreach and Engagement
• Emergency Services
Anticipated roadway reconstruction in the Morningside neighborhood in 2022 and 2023
presents an opportunity to explore infrastructure-based solutions to managing flood risk in
the Morningside neighborhood. This is the first project to engage a neighborhood and plan
flood infrastructure under the new strategy. The result of this work will be a
recommendation to the City Council on infrastructure scenarios to address some of the
flooding issues in the Morningside neighborhood in conjunction with the future roadway
reconstruction projects.
The City of Edina contracted with Barr Engineering to conduct technical studies, model
water flow, and develop and evaluate multiple options for reducing flooding risk through
infrastructure in the Morningside neighborhood. The technical report can be reviewed at
www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
The City of Edina developed a public participation plan (Figure 2) for both informing
Morningside residents and property owners about flood risk and engaging them in the
development and evaluation of infrastructure options for reducing flood risk. The plan
acknowledged that any decisions would be made by the Edina City Council and identified
the following key stakeholders:
• Morningside Neighborhood residents
• Morningside Neighborhood Association
• Park and Recreation Commission
• Energy and Environment Commission
• Planning Commission
• Avail Academy (formerly Calvin Christian School)
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
• City of St. Louis Park
• City of Minneapolis
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
3
Figure 2 - Public Participation Approach Objective The City will share
flood risk
information and the
City’s Flood Risk
Reduction Strategy.
Staff will inform
people of actions
they can take to
reduce their own
flood risk. Staff will
inform people of
the project and
process.
The City will present
initial concepts and
receive feedback.
The City will gauge
community values
and the tradeoffs
people are willing to
consider.
The City will
refine concepts
based on
feedback and
present them for
more feedback.
Staff will describe
how feedback
was used.
Staff will make a
recommendation
to Council. Council
decides.
Staff will
communicate the
decision to the
public. Staff will
archive the project
and process online. Anticipated Outcomes People are risk
aware. People have
access to
information about
how to reduce their
exposure and
vulnerability to
flooding. People
know how and
when to provide
feedback.
People have access
to information.
People have the
ability to provide
their feedback.
People have
access to
information.
People know how
initial feedback
was used. People
have the ability to
provide their
feedback.
The recommended
concept-level
design is
influenced by
community values.
People know what
decision was made.
People can view the
information,
process, and
decision on the
BetterTogetherEdina
webpage. Timeline Summer 2020
Fall 2020 Winter 2020 Spring 2021 Spring 2021
Source: City of Edina, Public Participation Plan, Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project, approved April 21,2020
Close the
loop
Make a
decision
Present
Refined
Concepts
Present
Initial
Concepts
Share
Information
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
4
The public participation plan included five key steps that are concurrent with steps in the
technical analysis and design phases of the project. These steps and the public
participation objectives of each phase are shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to
document the public participation activities and the resulting input for Phases 1-3.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the strategies used to engage people in the Morningside
Flood Infrastructure Project during 2020 were modified to use primarily online tools
(www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside) and virtual meetings. In-field activities that
were designed for social distancing were also used along with email, social media, and
direct mail correspondence. Public Participation in Phase 1-3 activities is summarized in
Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Public Participation in Phases 1-3
Note: Data is from project start through January 18, 2021
PHASE 1: SHARE INFORMATION
The purpose of Phase 1 public participation was to build an understanding of the
complexities and history of flooding and flood risk in the Morningside neighborhood, as
well as to gain an understanding of people’s concerns and to answer questions about
flooding, flood risk and the process being used for the Morningside Flood Infrastructure
Project. A web page – www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside - was established to
provide ongoing information about the project, provide access to project documentation,
and provide an ongoing means for people to share their opinions through an ideas board,
an interactive map, and a survey. In addition, a virtual meeting was held on June 3, 5-6:30
p.m., and a socially distanced “walk the line” event was held in Weber Park.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
5
SURVEY
An online survey was conducted on www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside to gain a
better understanding of people’s experiences with flooding and things they had done to
reduce flooding on their properties. While only eight people responded to the survey,
almost all of those people had experienced flooding in the Morningside neighborhood.
• Yard flooding was the most common type of flooding, followed by street and
basement flooding.
• A quarter of respondents experience flooding more than once a year and a quarter
experience flooding every year or every few years.
• Almost half of the respondents said they have a plan for flooding, but they would not
feel prepared.
• The most common strategies that people installed on their properties to help with
flooding were gutters and downspouts, landscaping, regrading, and sump pumps.
“WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY IN WEBER PARK
An outdoor activity that people could do independently was set up in Weber Park for
approximately three weeks in late June 2020. The purpose of this activity was to provide
information about the causes of flooding, the types of flooding, the Morningside Flood
Infrastructure Project, and what people can do on their own properties to reduce flooding.
QR codes were provided so that people could provide real time comments or take the
survey by linking directly to www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside. The displays
were spaced apart so that people could be socially distanced while viewing the displays
and participating in the activities (Figure 4). This event was announced through social media
and the project website. The field experience was also replicated in an online interactive
story map. Details of the exercise are provided in Appendix B.
Figure 4 - "Walk the Line" Field Activity
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
6
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
A live virtual public meeting was held on June 3, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via WebEx/YouTube.
The purpose of this meeting was to provide information to people about flooding in the
Morningside neighborhood (causes, types, history, frequency, etc.) and to provide an
opportunity for people to ask questions and provide comments about the Morningside
Flood Infrastructure Project. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700 addresses
in the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also publicized
through social media and the Better Together Edina website. Key stakeholders were
notified of the meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their
constituents. During the meeting, people were also directed to the project webpage if they
wished to provide additional comments and were given the opportunity to meet
individually with staff about concerns that they had about a particular property. Questions
and comments received during the virtual public meeting are summarized here. The
presentation can be viewed on the project webpage.
• Concerns were expressed about the amount of recent redevelopment in the
neighborhood and an associated increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. Staff
commented that impervious cover is more of a historical driver of flood risk in the
neighborhood and climate change and aging infrastructure are the biggest current
drivers. Properly managing drainage with impervious cover is most valuable for
smaller, more frequent storms. For larger storms, increases in impervious cover were
less important. During heavy rain events, pervious areas such as lawns become
saturated with water and then experience runoff that is similar to impervious areas.
• There were questions about flooding experiences on specific properties. Staff talked
one-on-one with these individuals following the meeting.
• Information was provided about planned street construction projects in the
neighborhood.
• A question was asked about whether properties or yards would be acquired to
provide the necessary flooding infrastructure. Staff responded that the city does not
expect to acquire property or easements for flood infrastructure. The work will focus
on existing streets, rights-of-way, easements, and parks.
• One person commented that temporary flooding of streets and parks would be
acceptable if it did not increase flooding risk for permanent structures.
• Several clarifying questions were asked and responded to regarding climate change,
frequency of flooding, terminology, and flood protection actions that homeowners
can take.
COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
In addition to the activities described above, city staff met with individuals upon request.
City staff met with both Susan Lindgren School and Avail Academy to review the flood risks
for each property and gauge the willingness of each to be included in the planning for flood
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
7
risk reduction scenarios. Both schools are amenable to planning and interested in the
project benefits of each scenario. City staff maintains frequent contact with the
Morningside Neighborhood Association, in particular about upcoming events. The
Association has been helpful in getting the word out about these events and places to get
information about flooding and the project. The City also provided flood data that could be
downloaded and viewed using Google Earth prior to the second live virtual public meeting.
https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside/news_feed/view-flood-data-on-google-
earth
During Phase 1, Barr Engineering and the City met with a panel of experts for an Estimate-
Talk-Estimate (ETE) or mini “Delphi” meeting to vet developed scenarios and to propose
new or refined concepts for the community to consider. This group included
representatives from the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park and from four local
engineering consulting companies. The first meeting of this group was held on July 29,
2020. The discussions at this meeting resulted in technical refinements of flood reduction
scenarios that were subsequently presented to a City Council workshop held on September
1, 2020, and at the virtual public meeting held on September 3, 2020.
PHASE 2: PRESENT INITIAL CONCEPTS
During Phase 2, efforts continued to build understanding of flooding in the Morningside
neighborhood. In addition, several scenarios for managing flood risk were evaluated.
Flood infrastructure elements were presented at a virtual public meeting on September 3,
2020, 5-6:30 p.m.
VIDEOS
Two videos were produced, published on YouTube, and linked on the project website.
These videos included:
• A video that explains how and why flooding occurs including the types of flooding,
flooding frequency, terminology and contributing factors.
• A series of videos from the stormwater model showing neighborhood flooding for
varying design storms.
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
A live virtual public meeting was held on September 3, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via
WebEx/YouTube. The purpose of this meeting was to provide information to people about
the various flood infrastructure elements that were being considered to reduce flood risk in
the Morningside neighborhood and to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions
and provide comments. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700 addresses in
the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also publicized
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
8
through social media and the project website. Key stakeholders were notified of the
meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their constituents. People
were directed to the project webpage to provide additional comments/questions and were
given the opportunity to meet individually with staff about concerns they had about a
particular property. Questions and comments received during the virtual public meeting
are summarized below. The presentation can be viewed at
www.BetterTogetherEdina.com/morningside.
• There were questions about flooding experiences on specific properties. Staff talked
one-on-one with these individuals following the meeting.
• Where does the Weber pond outflow to and can the capacity of that area be
increased? Weber Pond has one outlet pipe that runs north, then east through
Minneapolis to Bde Maka Ska. Although a bigger pipe is technically feasible, the cost
as well as the transfer of risk to the City of Minneapolis, which has its own flooding
problems, makes it unworkable.
• 41st Street right-of-way does not continue between Kipling and Grimes – that was
turned into private property some time ago. That is correct.
• Does the City of Edina own the Susan Lindgren land area west of Monterey? This
property is owned by the St. Louis Park School District.
• Should the City prohibit new construction on lots that are high risk (red on map)?
This is a regulatory issue that is not part of the infrastructure project. When
properties redevelop, there is an opportunity to reduce vulnerability to flooding.
• Will residents be able to discharge sump lines into the sewer system in all options?
Sump pump drains should be connected to the stormwater system – it is illegal to
connect them to the sanitary sewer system. There is a factsheet available about this
topic at www.EdinaMN.gov/flooding.
• Some of the options look very expensive. Will these expenses be borne by residents
through assessments for street reconstruction or is this a budget item for the city?
The sanitary sewer, municipal water, and stormwater utilities all have designated
funds from quarterly utility bills. The special assessment is for the roadway
reconstruction. Because the flood infrastructure will be paid from the stormwater
utility fund, the City does not foresee the project impacting special assessments.
• Are there ways to add fill to a property to reduce flooding without negatively
impacting the flood areas? This depends on the property. Every grading permit (over
10 cubic yards) is reviewed for stormwater flow paths and flooding potential.
• How does the city interact with builders to be more water removal conscious by
providing down spouts directed to rain gardens or deep into the groundwater? The
City interacts with builders through the plan review and permitting process.
• How does the current economic situation affect the road reconstruction timeline?
The street reconstruction project is continuing as planned.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
9
COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
During Phase 2, city staff continued to meet with individuals upon request. City staff
continued to have discussions with both Susan Lindgren School and Avail Academy as well
as adjoining cities to review the flood risk infrastructure scenarios. City staff kept the
Morningside Neighborhood Association informed about upcoming events. The Association
has been helpful in getting the word out about the project.
During Phase 2, Barr Engineering and the City met again with the ETE panel of experts for
an Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) – only the representatives from the cities of Minneapolis
and St. Louis Park were able to attend – on November 9, 2020. The purpose of this second
meeting was to update the group on refinements to scenarios and seek comments on the
refined concepts and concept-level cost estimates. This review led to additional
refinements in the flood reduction scenarios, which were shared with the public during a
live virtual public meeting held on December 9, 2020.
PHASE 3: PRESENT REFINED CONCEPTS
Following the completion of Phase 2, attention was turned to refining the various concepts
into several flood risk management scenarios. These scenarios were documented in
several one-pagers (see Appendix C) that were posted on the project website. A
Halloween-themed field activity (with social distancing) was held in Weber Park on
October 31st, and a live virtual public meeting was held on December 9, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m.
“HALLOWEEN-THEMED” ACTIVITY IN WEBER PARK
An outdoor activity that people could do physically distanced was set up in Weber Park on
October 31, 2020. This included several display boards of the one-pager materials (see
Appendix C) as well as tables with individual bags of candy, copies of the one-pagers, and
contact information. Staff was available (with masks and social distancing) from 1-3 p.m.
to explain the scenarios and answer questions. The purpose of this activity was to provide
information about the scenarios that were tested and collect feedback. QR codes were
provided so that people could make real time comments or leave comments online by
linking directly to the project webpage. The displays were spaced apart so that people
could be socially distanced while viewing the displays and participating in the activities
(Figure 5). The displays remained available for public viewing in the park for approximately
three weeks. This event was announced through social media and the
www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside website.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
10
Figure 5 - Halloween-Themed Field Activity
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
11
VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING
A third live virtual public meeting was held on December 9, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via
WebEx/YouTube. Following the live virtual meeting in September, scenarios were tested
and modified based on public feedback. The purpose of the meeting was to share the
refined concept, describe how feedback was used, and provide an opportunity for people to
ask questions and provide comments. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700
addresses in the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also
publicized through social media and the project website. Key stakeholders were notified
of the meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their constituents.
People were directed to project website to provide additional comments and were given
the opportunity to meet individually with staff about concerns that they had about a
particular property. Questions and comments received during the virtual public meeting
are summarized here. The presentation can be viewed at
www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside.
• Some participants indicated they like the idea of expanding Weber Pond and
improving Weber Park and the trails.
• Some people expressed a desire to protect wildlife and trees and had questions
about the potential impacts of the proposed scenario.
• Concerns were expressed that reducing flood risk on some properties would not
increase flood risk on other properties. Staff responded that a key design goal of
scenario development was to make sure that no homes would have increased risk.
They were able to meet that design goal for each of the three levels of effort.
• It was suggested that adding street inlets would better utilize existing pipe flow
capacity and reduce water and ice build-up from sump pumps. Staff responded that
additional outlets to optimize use of pipe capacity were included in the recommended
scenario.
• A question was raised about whether excavation would occur on private property.
Staff responded that all excavation would occur on public lands.
• There were some questions about why Crocker was selected as the preferred
alignment. Staff responded that Crocker is preferred because 1) there is an existing
pipe on Crocker that would need to repaired and there are some cost savings if an
existing pipe can be upsized, 2) there would be better opportunity to provide more
flood benefit in the future if more space were created downstream, and 3) because of
the grade of the streets less earth would have to be dug through if Crocker were used.
• A question was asked about landscape and property restoration. Staff responded
that landscape and property restoration costs would be included in the project.
• Concerns were raised about the cost of the scenario and how infrastructure
improvements would be funded. Staff responded that cost/funding is related to the
desired level of service. This project has helped the city to understand what is
achievable, what the cost would be, and what the community would support. The level
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
12
of effort in this neighborhood and citywide has not yet been determined. Community
feedback during this process and the Council’s decision in 2021 will guide the service
level and associated funding.
• There were several questions about specific properties. Staff offered to have
individual conversations about specific properties.
COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
During Phase 3, city staff continued to meet with individuals upon request, and continued
to have discussions as needed with key stakeholders. Many of these conversations were
captured on the project website. City staff continued to update the Morningside
Neighborhood Association about upcoming events. The Association has been helpful in
getting the word out about these events and about where to get information about the
project.
The following meetings have been or will be held prior to presentation of the Morningside
Flood Infrastructure Project to City Council:
• Morningside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee Check-In – January 4
• Energy and Environment Commission - January 14
• Planning Commission – January 27
• Park and Recreation Commission – February 9 (tentative)
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District – February 16 (tentative)
MAJOR THEMES
The following are major themes heard from residents during Phases 1-3:
• People seem to highly value open spaces and the wildlife they support. They seemed
supportive of protecting and enhancing natural areas. Some people expressed
support for expanding/deepening Weber Pond, improving/modifying Weber Park,
and expanding the trail system.
• People are concerned about the amount of recent redevelopment in the
neighborhood and the permitting process and requirements for building in areas
with flood risk.
• People are interested in understanding the causes, frequency and other aspects of
flooding and flood risks and are open to doing what they can as property owners to
reduce their own flood risk.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
13
• People seem to understand the potential impacts of climate change and expressed
an appreciation that this was considered in developing the flood infrastructure
scenarios.
• People expressed concerns about the acquisition of properties or yards and
excavation on private property. There was also interest in property restoration
being included as part of project cost.
• People do not support infrastructure options that increase risk for downstream
properties.
• People are concerned about the cost of flood infrastructure and the funding for
infrastructure construction.
• People seemed supportive of moving an infrastructure project forward.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
14
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
15
APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
16
APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
17
APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
18
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
19
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
20
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
21
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
22
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
23
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
24
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
25
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
26
APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
27
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA
28
APPENDIX C – FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS
Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE Scenario: Pipe Sizes and FloodwallsFrance Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Townes R
d Littel St Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
S
Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
S
Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Townes R
d Townes R
d Townes R
d Littel St Littel St Littel St Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkFloodwallIncreased Pipe Size and/or New Storm SewerExisting Park Existing Storm Sewer PipeParcelsLEGENDWith this scenario, the size of the main trunk sewer along West 42nd Street and Crocker Avenue would be increased up to 60 inches. The sizes of some of the lateral storm sewer (e.g., along Grimes Avenue) would also be increased (24 to 48 inches). More stormwater inlets (e.g., catch basins) would be added at intersections and a floodwall would be constructed on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties. The height of the floodwall would range from 1.5 feet to 7 feet, based on existing ground elevation. The advantage of this scenario is that pipe sizes could be increased during planned street reconstruction in 2022 and 2023 (see www.edinamn.gov/360/Design-and-Construction-Projects for more details) which covers this proposed project area with the exception of West 42nd Street east of Grimes Avenue, previously reconstructed in 2014. Increasing the pipe sizes upstream would help reduce flood risk for some upper portions of the drainage area, but increase risk for some areas farther downstream (transfer of risk). Thus, mitigation (e.g., floodwalls) would be required to help offset some of the flood risk. Floodwalls are expensive, per property protected, and may not be able to defend homes from the groundwater risk that could be associated with high water.Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. (Reduced risk in 118 homes)(16 homes removed from risk)(Increased risk in 16 homes)32%The height of the floodwall at any given location is determined by the ground elevation. Under normal water level conditions, water will not reach the floodwall. Water levels shown are for illustration purposes only and reflect temporary conditions – the depth and duration of high water will depend on the size of the storm. WHAT IT IS:THE DISTANCE FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP OF THE FLOODWALL WOULD VARY BASED ON LOCATIONWHAT IT DOES:WHAT WE LEARNED:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideColColCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColCoCoCollllWavelaWaWaWaWaWaWaWWWWWWWWavelaWWaWaWaWaaavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavWavvvvvvvveveveveveveveeelelandelandelelelelelelelaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTdddddddddddddddddddddTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererColColCoCCCColColColColllllColColCoCCCColCoCoColllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiddorningside RdMMMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMMMMMMMRRRRRRRMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRdddd tawa Aveawa Avawa Avawa Avawa Avawa Avawa AvOttOttOttOttOttOttOttOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOtOOOOtttttttttttttaaaawwwwaaaaAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAve eeeLynn Ave Lynn AveynnLLLAAnALyAAAveLLLLLLLyyyyyyynnnnnnnLyLyLyLyLyLyLyLynnnnnnnnnnnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnAvAvAvAvAveAvAvAve eeedddddddningningningningningningningeorningside RdMMrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside RdMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRddddSSSSSSorningside RdMMRMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRddddSSSSSSEstimated cost of floodwall:$850,000Estimated cost of pipes:$4.1 Million!;N0 175 350FeetDo you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you!
Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE (8 homes removed from risk)France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkFloodwallLEGENDExcavationCulvertExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. WHAT IT IS:Scenario: Flood StorageThis scenario would create additional flood storage by excavating (i.e., lowering) areas on several public properties and some private backyards (as allowed by homeowners). It would also include installation of a storm sewer pipe to connect Weber Pond to newly created stormwater storage and construction of a floodwall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties.(Reduced risk in 105 homes)(Increased risk in 5 homes)33%WHAT IT DOES:WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideThis scenario would be most advantageous for small storms. The excavation shown does not provide enough storage volume to completely solve the flood problem, but would benefit homes closest to the excavation areas. The floodwall shown would reduce vulnerability of the homes adjacent to Weber Pond during larger storms. This scenario affects the use and appearance of the park, and further evaluation is needed to understand how often the park would flood and what tradeoffs would be acceptable for the active use areas.WHAT WE LEARNED:Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingCONCEPTUAL BRIDGE TRAIL FOR THE PROPOSED EXCAVATED OPEN WATER IN WEBER WOODSThe method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350FeetCCCCCCWaveland TeWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWWWWWWWWaveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland TWWaWaWaWaWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOAveAveAveAveAveAveAveOakdale AdaledaledaledaledaledaleOakdale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale AvelOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOaOOOOOOaaaaaaaOOOOaaaakkkkddddaaaalllleeeeAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAveeeeW 42 1/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/W421W421W421W421W421W421 /2 St2St2St2St2St2St2St/W W W W 44442 2221111/////2 222SSSSt tttOOOOOOOOOOOOtOttawa AOOttawa AOOOOOOOtttttttttttttttttOtOOOOttOtOtOttttttttttttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwawaaaaaaaaaaattttttttaaaawwwwaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAALLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOAve Oakdale OOa daOOOOaaaakkkkddddaaaalllleeeeAvAvAvAvvvvveeeeAAAAAAAAAAAAAEstimated cost of floodwall:$850,000Estimated cost of excavation areas:$4.2 MillionChange in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.We want to hear from you!
Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE (9 homes removed from risk) *This scenario assumes that homes along Lynn and Kipling would be redeveloped at a higher elevation.Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town
e
s R
d Little St Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
S
Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
S
Wood Dal
e
A
v
e
SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town
e
s R
d
Town
e
s R
d
Town
e
s R
d Little St Little St Little St Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018WeberParkWeberParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing Stormsewer PipeParcelsSubwatershedLEGENDPredictive PumpingFloodwallIncreased StormSewer Pipe SizeLand ExcavationRaise HomesExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDEmergency OverflowExcavationSwaleLower StreetsWHAT IT IS:Scenario: Graded OverflowsWith this scenario, both West 42nd Street and West 40th Street would be lowered up to approximately 2 feet and regraded to route stormwater more directly to Weber Park and Weber Pond. This would limit flow south along Monterey, Lynn, and Kipling Avenues. The ball fields in Weber Park would also be lowered to create additional stormwater storage; these fields would not be playable during a 5-year (or greater) storm. A 5-year storm is defined as 3.6 inches of precipitation over a 24-hour period and has a 20% chance of occurring in any given year. Unlike the pipes scenario, this one would not use the floodwalls to mitigate the risk transfer, so its overall benefit was reduced. This scenario assumes that homes along the west side of Lynn and east side of Kipling would rebuilt at higher elevation through the normal turnover and/or rebuild process, the timeline of which is determined by property owners.(Reduced risk in 54 homes)(Increased risk in 41 homes)10%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideThe large number of connections and other utility conflicts add significant cost and complexity. By itself, this scenario conveys water downstream—which benefits upstream properties but transfers risk to homes downstream. In addition, the location of the graded overflow along West 42nd Street includes a portion of the street (east of Grimes Avenue) was reconstructed in 2014 and is not part of the street reconstruction planned for 2022/2023; therefore, the City would like to avoid additional reconstruction for that portion of 42nd Street. While the lowering and grading of streets does not appear to be a practical option, the overflow swale in the park does present a feasible opportunity for providing a flood-risk-reduction benefit, especially when combined with other flood-risk-reduction components shown in the other factsheets. WHAT WE LEARNED:Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingThe method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350FeetThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. CONCEPTUAL SWALE AND TRAIL NEAR BALLFIELDSSSSStTScottScott TSco TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSooooooooottotttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttTTTTTTTTerTerer TeTeTeTeTeTeTeTeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrccccotoooottttttt tttTeTeTeTeTeTeTeTer rrrColgate AveAveColgate AvevvvvvvvveveveveveveveAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeeeeeeeete Ate Ate Ate Ate Ate Ate AeteteteteteteteaaaaaaaatttttttggggggggagagagagagagaoCoCCCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColColColCololgolgolgolgolgalgalgalgagatgatgatgatateateateateteteteteAvAvAvAvAveAveAveAveveveveveWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWavelaWavelaWWWWWWWWWWaWaWaWaaavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavWavvvvvvvveveveveveveveeellandelandelelelelelelelaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTdddddddddddddddddddddWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTererererereveveeeeeeevvvvveveveveevevevvvvvveveveve*Further project definition and public input are needed before developing a cost estimateWe want to hear from you!
CHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectFrance Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Curve A
v
e
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDPredictive PumpingThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. WHAT IT IS:Scenario: Ponds and Predictive PumpingAdditional stormwater storage would be provided through excavation and regrading of the open park space area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue (north of West 42nd Street). Predictive pumping systems would be installed from that open park space area and Weber Pond to Minikahda Vista Park. Predictive pumping involves anticipating storms (through weather forecasting) and preemptively pumping water out of stormwater storage areas to create stormwater storage before the storm occurs. The accuracy of predicting localized storms is very uncertain.(Reduced risk in 93 homes)(Increased risk in 6 homes)16%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideOne challenge with this scenario is that predicting localized storms to facilitate pumping is very difficult and may not be effective. Without additional excavation, benefits are small and primarily limited to the downstream portion of the drainage area. WHAT WE LEARNED:CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF STORMWATER STORAGE AREA BETWEEN LYNN AND KIPPLING AVENUES (Looking south on Lynn Avenue)The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350Feetrrrrrrrererer eeeer rrrelellandelandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTddddddddddddddddddddddelelelelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTerererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererererererererereeeeeelelaelelelelelaelaelaelaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeleelalaelelelelelaelaelaelalaaaaEstimated total cost of this scenario:$3.4 MillionChange in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.(0 homes removed from risk)Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you!
Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project(29 homes removed from risk)CHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve
A
v
e
Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
S
Wood Dale
A
v
e
SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve
A
v
e
Curve
A
v
e
Curve
A
v
e
Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d
Town
es
R
d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Oakdale A
v
e
Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDPredictive PumpingFloodwallExcavationIncreased Pipe Size and/or New Storm SewerWHAT IT IS:Scenario: CombinationThis scenario combines four approaches: (1) increasing the pipe sizes of storm sewer pipes along West 42nd Street/Crocker Avenue and Grimes Avenue, (2) constructing a floodwall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties, (3) installing predictive pumping systems, and (4) excavation to provide additional stormwater storage. Excavation would be in the open park space area between Lynne Avenue and Kipling Avenue and the open area between Susan Lindgren Elementary School and Monterey Avenue. (Reduced risk in 125 homes)(Increased risk in 9 homes)56%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideCarefully choosing the best aspects of each of the previous scenarios maximizes benefits for all portions of the neighborhood, however, the total cost is high.WHAT WE LEARNED:The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. CONCEPTUAL VIEW FROM RESIDENCE AFTER WEBER POND EXCAVATION AND FLOODWALL INSTALLATION!;N0 175 350FeetSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStTScottScott TSco TSSSSSSSoooooooottotttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttTerTTTTTTTerer TeTeTeTeTeTeTeTeeerererererererSSSSccccotoooottttttt ttttttTeTeTeTeTeTeTeTer rrrColgate AveAve Colgate Ave eeeeeeeevvvvvvvveveveveveveveAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeeeeeeeeteAteAteAteAteAteAteAteteteteteteteaaaaaaaatttttttggggggggagagagagagagaoCoCCCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColColColCololgolgolgolgolgalgalgalgagatgatgatgatateateateateteteteteAvAvAvAvAveAveAveAveveveveveWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWavelaWavelaWWWaWWWWWWavavavavavavavavWavavavavavavavvvvvvvvvelveveveveveveelandelandelelelelelelaaaaaaaaalanaaaaaanandanananananand TedTddddddddTdTdTdTdTdTdTWaWaWaWaWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererEstimated total cost of this scenario:$9 Million*See the other factsheets for costs related to each component This rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you!
Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project
City Council Work Session
March 16, 2021
Ross Bintner –Engineering Services Manager
1.Context
2.Public Engagement
3.Infrastructure Strategy
4.Recommendation
5.Discussion and Next Steps
EdinaMN.gov 2
Outline
Staff & Consultants
•Ross Bintner –Engineering Services
Manager
•Jessica Wilson –Water Resources
Coordinator
•Sarah Stratton –Senior Water
Resources Scientist, Barr Engineering
•Cory Anderson –Water Resources
Engineer, Barr Engineering
EdinaMN.gov 3
Context
•2018: Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan
•Spring 2020: Flood Risk Reduction Strategy
Approval
•2020-21: Morningside Flood Infrastructure
Preliminary Engineering and engagement
•2021-22: Design, Bid
•2022: Build
•2022: Phase 1 construction Morningside (Areas
D&E) 2023: Phase 2 Construction Morningside
(Area C)
Project engagement and preliminary design are well aligned
with Flood Risk Reduction Strategy
How we work with the community to comprehensively
reduce flood risk:
•INFRASTRUCTURE: We renew our infrastructure
and operate it to reduce risk. We plan public streets and
parks to hold and move flood waters to reduce the
disruption of city services.
•OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT: We make flood
information available to the public and give residents tools
for flood resilience to help reduce their risk.
EdinaMN.gov 4
Context -
Flood Risk Reduction Strategy
Former Task
Force Members
residing in
Morningside
•Michael
Platteter
•Greg Lincoln
EdinaMN.gov 5
Project engagement was conducted in alignment with Council goals
Better Together: Conduct clear and meaningful community engagement where:
1.The decision to be made and decision-making process is clearly defined,
2.Individuals understand how and when they can participate,
3.The City communicates what feedback is used and why,
4.Inclusive engagement methods provide a variety of ways for the public to participate
in the decision-making process and ensure all voices are heard.
EdinaMN.gov 6
Strategic Alignment -
Council Engagement Strategy
Include as design goals;
•No increase in risk to any individual property
•Balance flood risks and benefit of the
project
•No private property will be proposed for
acquisition
•Avoid floodwalls
Include as design consideration;
•Future climate change
•Limit impact at Weber Park
Take advantage of opportunity;
•Enhance natural areas where impacts occur
•Consider park improvements where impacts
occur
•Remove or reduce potential for flood overflow
into private property through minor changes in
grade
•Add inlets in low areas to fully utilize pipe
Detailed conversations also led the design team to;
•Consider backflow and overflow on Grimes
Avenue
•Improve system map and model accuracy in 41st
street right-of-way
•Consider overflow on Crocker Avenue
EdinaMN.gov 7
Engagement –How input was
used
Project preliminary design is well aligned with Council goals
Strong Foundation:
1.Incorporate financial, societal, and environmental costs into decision-making
processes.
2.Incorporate lifecycle and maintenance costs and climate adaptation design practices
to allow more informed decision making.
3.Provide funding to maintain and replace City facilities, assets and equipment in a
manner that avoids deferred maintenance, prevents emergency repair and replaces
assets at the most cost effective time.
4.Design and build for resiliency in the infrastructure that reduces flooded structures,
improves water quality
EdinaMN.gov 8
Strategic Alignment -
Council Infrastructure Strategy
Section 5 in Staff Report
•~$10M Capital Cost (middle
or “bigger” option)
Safely Store Water
•Expanded and lowered
Weber Pond (1)
•Expanded and lower
Lynn/Kipling inundation area
(4)
Safely Move Water
•Expanded pipe and swale
outlet (2,3)
•Upstream pipe, grade
changes (9,9a,10)9
Recommendation
Impacts and Opportunities
•Limit Impact in Weber
Park
•Pond area +240%
•Flood storage +600%
•Storage is foundational
•Restore and enhance
natural resources
•Park trail connections so
people can loop through
natural areas on their
walks
EdinaMN.gov 10
Park
EdinaMN.gov 11
Park
Impacts and Opportunities
•~9.5 Acre “Woods” property
•~3.3 acre upland forest, no impact,
improve natural resources
•~6.2 acre flood forest, tree removal
•~4 acre pond,
•~2 acre natural restoration pond edge)
•~3.76 Acre “pond” property
•2.9 Acres pond
•0.86 acres pond slopes, treed edge
•0.1 Acres pond on “park” property
EdinaMN.gov 12
Existing (North)
EdinaMN.gov 13
$10M (North)
EdinaMN.gov 14
Existing (Middle)
EdinaMN.gov 15
$10M (Middle)
EdinaMN.gov 16
Existing (South)
EdinaMN.gov 17
$10M (South)
EdinaMN.gov 18
Discussion & Next Steps
Discussion Questions
•Does the recommended level of infrastructure seem
reasonable and valuable?
•Are there tradeoffs or risk you need to understand better, or
are not willing to make?
•Should we increase focus or add requirements or design goals
to any of the features?
EdinaMN.gov 19
Discussion & Next Steps
Discussion Questions
•Does the strategy seem sound?
•Do you need more context or policy analysis before deciding?
•What features or opportunities resonate?
EdinaMN.gov 20
Criteria / Staff
Report
Scale / Balance
•Neighborhood scale
–Adding to 100
acre-feet and 1000
cubic feet per
second
•Balance recipe 2
parts storage in
ponds, 1 part
moving water with
pipes