Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-12-13 City Council Meeting Packet
Agenda City Council Meeting City of Edina, Minnesota Edina City Hall Council Chambers Monday, December 13, 2021 6:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. Participate in Community Comment and Public Hearing in person, or Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 4628128. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta6 member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Pledge of Allegiance IV.Approval Of Meeting Agenda V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Mayor will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. The City Manager will respond to questions raised during Community Comments at the next meeting. VI.Public Hearings During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after sta) and/or applicants make their presentations. The following guidelines are in place to ensure an e+cient, fair, and respectful hearing; limit your testimony to three minutes and to the matter under consideration; the Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary; avoid repeating remarks or points of view made by previous speakers. The use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A.PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-123, Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA- 461 B.PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-122, Blake Road Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA- 463 VII.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: December 13, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Aaron T. Ditzler, PE, Assistant City Engineer Item Activity: Subject:PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-123, Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-461 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Close the public hearing at noon, December 15, and continue action on the item to the December 21 City Council meeting. INTRODUCTION: Staff initiated this project. Staff proposes to reconstruct Branson Street, Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Littel Street, Lynn Avenue, Morningside Road, Oakdale Avenue and West 42nd Street. The overall project cost is estimated at $7,843,103. Funding will be a combination of special assessments, City Utility and Pedestrian and Cyclists Safety (PACS) funds, and property taxes. Staff analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-123: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Engineering Study BA-461 Certificate of Mailing RESOLUTION NO. 2021-123 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT FOR MORNINGSIDE D & E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-461 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 3rd day of November 2021, fixed a date for a council hearing on Improvement No. BA-461, the proposed improvement of Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly published notices of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of December 2021, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible to update aging infrastructure. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 3. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. Dated: December 21, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of December 21, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Special Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of __________, 20___. _______________________________ City Clerk ENGINEERING STUDY MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION Branson Street, Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Littel Street, Lynn Avenue, Morningside Road, Oakdale Avenue, West 42nd Street IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-461 DECEMBER 1, 2021 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 42003 12/1/21 Aaron Ditzler Reg. No. Date Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 2 SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new concrete curb and gutter and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems in the neighborhood. The estimated total project cost is $7,843,103, excluding the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs. 29% of the roadway cost will be funded by will be funded through property taxes and 71% will be funded through special assessments at a rate of approximately $9,300 per residential equivalent unit (REU). Utility improvements amount to $4,521,300 and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $86,700 and will be funded through the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project addresses updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system and pedestrian facilities. LOCATION: The project includes Branson Street, Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Littel Street, Lynn Avenue, Morningside Road, Oakdale Avenue and West 42nd Street. Approximately 240’ of Morningside Road west of Oakdale Avenue is within the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park. A detailed location map of the project is shown in Figure 1. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 3 Figure 1: Project Area Map Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadways The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed before the 1930s (see Photo 1). Photo 1: Morningside D&E Neighborhood, 1969 Maintenance records indicate bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter installation occurred in 1978, and seal coating was performed within the project area in 1994. All of the streets in the neighborhood have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway width ranges from 25’ to 35’ and the average roadway width is 28’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb or edge of pavement. A recent geotechnical Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 5 evaluation of the project area performed by Braun Intertec showed the roadway section varies from 3” to 4.5” of pavement over an apparent aggregate base followed by primarily silty sandy soils. As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects (alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is 76 and the average PCI for Morningside D&E is 5. An example of the current pavement condition can be seen in Photo 2. Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition Traffic and Crash Data Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes within the neighborhood range between 210 and 1,318 vehicles per day with 85th percentile speeds between 23.2 and 31.3 miles per hour. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A. Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are present on all streets in project area except Littel Street, and the sidewalks are in average condition. Sidewalks are also present immediately adjacent to the project area on Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road, West 42nd Street and West 44th Street (see Appendix B). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 6 Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle facilities within the project area; however, there is a signed bike route immediately adjacent to the project area on West 44th Street (see Appendix C). Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system consists of 9” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in 1979. Historical records indicate there have been a moderate number of sewer back-ups or blockages in the area (see Appendix D). Watermain The watermain system consists of 6”, 8” and 12” cast iron pipe (CIP) installed in 1977 and 6” and 8” CIP which was cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) lined in 2015. The CIPP lined system has experienced no breaks, and the 1977 CIP pipes have experienced a moderate number of breaks (see Appendix D). Most of the fire hydrants were installed between 1977 and 2015. Many homes in the neighborhood were constructed prior to the availability of municipal water. Although several have had private wells properly sealed, City records suggest some remain unsealed. Based on Utility Billing records, there are no properties in the project area that rely on private wells for domestic water. Staff will communicate the benefits of sealing private wells to property owners. Storm Sewer The storm sewer network is in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The system consists of 12” - 48” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), 9-15” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and 15” high density polyethylene (HDPE) installed between 1968 and 2016. There are a moderate amount of storm sewer inlets and pipes located within the project area. Stormwater infiltration basins were constructed in 2016 adjacent to Little Street to accommodate Sidell Trail drainage. The majority of Morningside D and E streets within the project area drain to Weber Pond (and subsequently, the City of Minneapolis), while a small portion drains to overland into the City of St. Louis Park. Private Utilities Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are a combination of overheard and underground facilities located in backyards or along the boulevards. Street lighting consists of standard lantern style lights mounted on fiberglass poles located throughout the project area as shown in Appendix E. DESIGN INPUT: City Council 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in Appendix B, there are proposed bicycle lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and Morningside Road. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 7 2015 Living Streets Policy This policy balances the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The City will apply the Policy to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of how these principles are incorporated into this project: All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate all modes of travel. Existing facilities form a multimodal network within the neighborhood. Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems. Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work; this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place pipe liners. This project will also reduce inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties. Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan The CWRMP identified multiple areas of flood inundation within the project area for both the 10-percent and 1-percent-annual-chance flood event (also referred to as the 10-year and 100-year frequency event, respectively). The first area is a backyard depression south of Branson Street (see Figure 2). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 8 Figure 2: Branson Street Backyard Flood Zone (MS_7) A backyard depression area collects 5.8 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties, and surface overflows between 4303, 4301, and 4215 Branson Street and drains to the City’s storm sewer system. 10-12 structures could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. The second area is Grimes Avenue, Branson Street and backyard depressions adjacent to both streets (see Figure 3). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 9 Figure 3: Grimes Avenue and Branson Street Roadway and Backyard Flood Zones (M3_3, MS_8, MS_48) This modeled inundation area impacts both the roadway and backyard sections of Branson Street and Grimes Avenue. Approximately 17.1 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties discharge to the City’s storm sewer system that runs along Morningside Road as well as a rear yard storm sewer alignment until it connects to the system near Morningside Road and Crocker Avenue. The stormwater eventually drains into Weber pond (and subsequently, the City of Minneapolis). 12-15 structures on Branson Street and Grimes Avenue could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. The third area is on Littel Street and the backyard depression south of Littel Street (see Figure 4). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 10 Figure 4: Little Street Roadway and Backyard Flood Zone (MS_19, MS_20) This modeled inundation area impacts both the roadway and backyard sections of Littel Street. Approximately 5.2 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties discharge to the City’s storm sewer system and into two infiltration basins. 3.5 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties discharge to the City’s storm sewer system that runs along Lynn Avenue, West 42nd Street and into Weber pond. 3 structures on Lynn Avenue and Littel Street could be impacted by the 10- and 100- year flood zones. The fourth area on Crocker Avenue and the backyard depression west of Crocker Avenue (see Figure 5). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 11 Figure 5: Crocker Avenue Roadway and Backyard Flood Zone (MS_2, MS_22 This modeled inundation area impacts both the roadway and backyard sections of Crocker Avenue. A backyard depression area collects 5.6 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties, and surface overflows between 4236 and 4238 Crocker Avenue and drains to the City’s storm sewer system. 7-9 structures could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. Approximately 10.7 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties discharge to the City’s storm sewer system that runs along Crocker Avenue, West 42nd Street and into Weber pond. 3 structures on Lynn Avenue and Littel Street could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. 3-5 structures could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. The fifth area is a backyard depression adjacent to 4209 Grimes Avenue (see Figure 6). Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 12 Figure 6: Grimes Avenue Backyard Flood Zone (MS_9) A backyard depression area collects 2.9 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties that drains into the City’s storm sewer system that runs along Grimes Avenue. 3 structures on Grimes and Alden Avenues could be impacted by the 10- and 100-year flood zones. The sixth area includes the majority of West 42nd Street (see Figure 7). Figure 7: West 42nd Street Roadway Flood Zone (MS_1, MS, 45) 1.7 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties discharge to the City’s storm sewer system that runs along West 42nd Street and into Weber pond. The 1- Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 13 percent and 10-percent-annual-chance events do not appear to impact structures on West 42nd Street. Public Works A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department. They support replacement of concrete curb and gutter, as well as replacement of deficient watermain components (including fire hydrants, gate valves and water services). Police and Fire A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. The Fire Department supports watermain improvements, including adding fire hydrants as necessary to meet public safety standards. They noted that temporary fire hydrants should be of a consistent style for ease of access, that emergency access should always be maintained during construction and that drive widths and turn arounds should meet fire code. Edina Transportation Commission Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October 28, 2021, a draft engineering study was provided for review. Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G. Residents As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior to a potential reconstruction project, residents were invited to an open house in September 2019. Materials from these meetings are available upon request. Additionally, virtual neighborhood informational presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in August 2020 and October 2021. Residents were notified of the virtual meetings and were able to directly ask questions to staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email. Materials from this presentation can be found in Appendix H. On June 11, 2021, residents in Morningside D and E were asked to complete a questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems within the project area. The questionnaire was completed by 65 of 254 property owners, a return rate of 26%. The following is a summary of feedback received from residents: 35 of 65 (54%) were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic in the neighborhood; 29 (45%) were not concerned. 37 (57%) were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in the neighborhood; 28 (43%) were not concerned. 38 (58%) identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood. 60 (92%) walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 26 (40%) ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 18 (28%) reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week; 34 (52%) reported parking on the street less than once per month. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 14 *Percentages based on number of returned surveys The full questionnaires and responses can be found in Appendix I. Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in Appendix J. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of Engineering, Public Works and other City staff. Roadways Typical Section The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. A minimum of 8” of aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to placement of 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 1.5” of bituminous wear course. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings. Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road and West 42nd Street are designated as a Local Connector Streets in the Living Streets Plan. Per the plan’s design guidelines, Local Connector Streets have a typical width of 24’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Local Connector streets that vary from these guidelines include: Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street to Morningside Road is proposed to be reconstructed to 30’ to provide adequate access to the Morningside neighborhood while accommodating parking on both sides of the street adjacent to Edina Morningside Church. West 42nd Street is proposed to be reconstructed to 27’ to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Morningside Road is proposed to be reconstructed to 28’ to accommodate parking on both sides of the street and match the existing street width at the east and west project limits. All remaining roadways within the project area are designated as Local Streets in the Living Streets Plan. Per this plan’s design guidelines, Local Streets have a typical width of 27’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) without sidewalks or 24’ with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Littel Street is proposed to be reconstructed to 24’ since parking is currently restricted on the south side and only three residential properties directly access this street. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 15 Parking Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on classification, adjacent land uses, existing demand and costs of construction and maintenance. Given the existing demand for parking, staff believes that parking changes should not occur in the project area, with exception of Oakdale Avenue between Branson Street and Morningside Road. This segment is proposed to be changed from parking on both sides to parking on the east side only to be consistent with the Living Streets Plan. The existing and proposed roadway widths, sidewalks and parking recommendations are shown in Table 1. Street Existing Right-of Way Width (face to face), feet Existing Roadway Width (face to face), feet Proposed Roadway Width (face to face), feet Existing Sidewalk Parking Grimes Avenue, West 44th Street to Morningside Road 60 32-34 30 Both sides Two-sided Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road to West 42nd Street 40 26 24 Both sides East side only Morningside Road 60 30-33 28 Both sides Two-sided West 42nd Street 50 30-32 27 North side only Two-sided Branson Street 40 24 24 Both sides North side only Crocker Avenue 40 25 24 East side only East side only Littel Street 44 24 24 None North side only Lynn Avenue 40 26 24 Both sides East side only Table 1: Street Widths, Sidewalks and Parking Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 16 Street Existing Right-of Way Width (face to face), feet Existing Roadway Width (face to face), feet Proposed Roadway Width (face to face), feet Existing Sidewalk Parking Oakdale Avenue, West 44th Street to Branson Street 40 24 27 1 None 2 Two-sided Oakdale Avenue, Branson Street to Morningside Road 40 26 24 East side only East side only Oakdale Avenue, Littel Street to West 42nd Street 40 26 24 Both sides East side only 1 The City will likely mail a questionnaire this winter to the Oakdale Avenue property owners Avenue south of Branson Street to provide feedback on two options: 24-foot-wide street with parking on only one side to ensure adequate fire lanes for the Fire Department 27-foot-wide street with parking on both sides, consistent with the Edina Living Streets Plan guidelines 2 Sidewalk exists on the west side between 4344 and 4356 Oakdale Table 1: Street Widths, Sidewalks and Parking (cont.) Roadway Signage All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Spot replacement of sidewalks will occur where utility improvements are proposed. Sidewalk installation is not proposed where gaps are present due to lack of demand and existing topography. The grass boulevards that will separate the new curb and the existing sidewalks may vary from the existing boulevard widths on some streets due to proposed street width changes. Figure 8 shows all existing pedestrian and proposed bicycle facilities. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 17 Figure 8: Existing Pedestrian Facilities All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing sidewalk will be reconstructed as necessary. Because the sidewalk segments are not along Municipal State Aid routes, adjacent to City property nor included in the City’s Active Routes to School Plan, they will continue to be maintained by the adjacent property owners. Bicycle Facilities As previously mentioned, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends bike lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and Morningside Road. Because the narrow 40’ right-of-way width prohibits bicycle lanes, Staff recommends Grimes Avenue include Bike Boulevard pavement markings and signage to accommodate both the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park Master Plans. Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main. The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 18 Watermain Non-invasive pipe condition assessment testing was not performed on the watermain within the project area because the majority of the watermain was CIPP lined in 2015. Staff has reviewed historical break data to determine the extent of improvements needed on the watermain that has not been CIPP lined. Watermain will be replaced using a combination of pipe bursting and open cut methods along the following streets. 1. Branson Street 2. Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and Morningside Road 3. Oakdale Avenue south of Branson Street Water service leads connected to replaced watermain will be replaced as well. With the exception of the gate valves and hydrants replaced in 2015 with the CIPP lining project, all gate valves and fire hydrants within the project area will be replaced and, if needed, additional hydrants will be installed to meet current public safety standards. The new fire hydrants will include the Storz nozzle fittings desired by the Edina Fire Department for quick connection of fire hoses. As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly sealed. Storm Sewer Based on the scope of utility work, concrete curb and gutter will be replaced throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater. The storm sewer network will significant modifications to resolve existing drainage issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition. Sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system. Barr Engineering Co. was hired by the City to prepare a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy (FRRS) and to recommend improvements relating to the FRRS “Bigger” option for the Morningside C, D and E neighborhoods. The FRRS can be found in Appendix K and the proposed Morningside D and E project area improvements are shown in Figure 9. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 19 Figure 9: Proposed FRRS Storm Sewer Improvements During the project design phase, staff will: 1. Review the feasibility of lowering roadway elevations to facilitate lot drainage to either the front yard or the street. 2. Determine the proposed number of storm drains based on inlet capacity recommendations from Barr Engineering Co. 3. Communicate and coordinate with adjacent property owners as necessary. Private Utilities Staff met with representatives of several private utility companies on November 15, 2021 to discuss the proposed 2022 reconstruction projects and preliminary improvements. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed at a later date with minimal disturbance through the use of trenchless technologies. The lighting Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 20 in the neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff is recommending no revisions to the current street lighting. RIGHT-OF-WAY/ EASEMENTS: Existing right-of-way in this neighborhood varies from 40’ to 60’. It is anticipated that the majority of this project can be constructed within existing ROW. Many properties have vegetation, boulders or other landscaped items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to complete the necessary work. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $7,843,103, excluding the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs (see Table 2). The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. Item Amount Total Cost Funding Source Roadway $ 2,285,103 Special Assessments Roadway $ 950,000 Property Taxes Roadway Total: $ 3,235,103 Sanitary Sewer $ 613,800 Watermain $ 1,912,900 Storm Sewer * $ 1,994,600 Utility Total: $ 4,521,300 City Utility Funds Sidewalk Total: $ 86,700 PACS Fund Project Total: $ 7,843,103 Storm Sewer – Flood Risk Reduction Strategy $ 12,250,000 City Utility Funds Table 2: Estimated Project Costs *Excludes Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 21 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are 246.21 roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) in the Morningside D & E project area. The estimated assessment per REU is $9,300 (see Figure 10). The preliminary assessment roll can be found in Appendix L. Figure 10: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map All single-family residential properties located entirely within the project area receive an assessment of 1 REU, except for the properties shown in the tables below. There are 14 single-family residential properties located in the project limits that have been previously assessed a partial REU or are corner lots with an adjacent street that will be assessed with a future project. Tables 3 & 4 show their REU calculations based on the City’s assessment policy. Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 22 PID House Number Street Type of Property Proposed REU REU Factor Assessable REU 702824130108 4200 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130121 4224 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130118 4308 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130117 4324 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130113 4408 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130112 4500 42ND ST W Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824130122 4125 KIPLING AVE Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824420138 4245 SIDELL TR Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 702824420129 4248 SIDELL TR Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 Table 4: Previously Assessed Single-Family Residential Properties There is one city owned properties located in the project limits. Table 5 shows their REU calculations based on the City’s current assessment policy. PID House Number Street Description Comments Proposed REU 702824420085 4232 LYNN AVE Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 Table 5: City-Owned Properties Table 3: Single-Family Residential Corner Properties with Future Additional Assessment PID House Number Street Previous Project Previous REU Assigned Proposed REU Assessable REU 702824440116 4022 44TH ST W West 44th Street – 2011 1 1 0 702824430131 4100 44TH ST W West 44th Street – 2011 1 1 0 702824410127 4201 GRIMES AVE Morningside B – 2014 0.33 1 0.67 702824410109 4114 MORNINGSIDE RD Morningside B – 2014 1 1 0 702824440122 4115 MORNINGSIDE RD Morningside B – 2014 1 1 0 Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 December 1, 2021 23 There is one place of worship property located in the project limits, Table 6 shows their REU calculations based on the City’s assessment policy. PID House Number Street Type of Property Gross Square Footage Institutional REU (Based on Square Footage) Assessable REU 702824430148 4201 MORNINGSIDE RD Church 15,207 3.04 3.04 Table 6: Institutional – Places of Worship PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to the project: Neighborhood Open House (all 2021/2022 projects) September 26, 2019 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 and Future projects) March 11, 2021 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 projects) October 2021 ETC Engineering Study Review October 28, 2021 Receive Engineering Study December 13, 2021 Open Public Improvement Hearing December 13, 2021 Close Public Improvement Hearing December 21, 2021 Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 21, 2021 Bid Opening March/April 2022 Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2022 Complete Construction Fall 2022 Final Assessment Hearing October 2023 RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2022 construction season. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to improve the public infrastructure in the Morningside D and E neighborhood. APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks E. Streetlights and Signs F. Living Streets Plan G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes H. Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation Materials I. Resident Questionnaire J. Correspondence from Residents K. Flood Risk Reduction Strategy L. Preliminary Assessment Roll APPENDIX A Traffic and Crash Data A B E C D F G 1 Location Year ADT 85% Speed A 2014 2021 (July) 1011 1697 26.5 28.6 B 2011 226 26.3 C 2005 2021 (July) 806 826 31.3 27.5 D 2005 1126 30.2 E 2020 1318 29.6 F 2016 328 24.2 G 2016 210 23.2 1 – Peds Peds Bikes 2019 2021 2021 NB+SB = 209 NB + SB = 159 NB = SB = 69 EB+WB = 243 EB + WB = 191 EB = WB = 80 14325Crash DataLocationSeverityYear Month Time1Property damage – Collision with motor vehicle2018 February 9:00 am.2Property Damage – Collision with motor vehicle2014 November 8:00 am.3Property Damage – Collision with motor vehicle2014 November 8:00 am.4Minor Injury – Collision with bicyclist2012 July 5:00 pm.5Possible Injury – collision with motor vehicle2019 December 5:00 pm.Morningside D & E APPENDIX B City Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities Map ?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y Mud Lake )y ?ÞA@ ?úA@ Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e kBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVEFRANCE AVE SXERXES AVE SCAHILL RD70TH ST W 66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 44TH ST W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W GLEASON RD70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VI E W R D VALLEY VIEW RD MINNESOTA DR78TH ST W / Engineering DeptJanuary 2020 Pedestrian Facilities Proposed FacilitiesExisting Facilities Existing Sidewalk Existing Park Pathway Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail New Primary Sidewalk New Secondary Sidewalk New Shared-Use Path Upgrade to Shared-Use Path Twin Loops Facility Existing Shared-Use Path Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail APPENDIX C City Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities Map æ ¹» æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º ñ ¹» æ æ ñ æ æ æ ñ ñ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mir r o r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Me l o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsPark YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 44th St W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View R d Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gl e a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLin c o l n D rWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinge r B l v d 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W Valley View Rd Engineering Dept.January 2020 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Upgrade to Buffered Bike Lane Proposed Bicycle Facilities Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Neighborhood Slow Street Standard Bike Lane New Buffered Bike Lane New Shared Use Path Upgrade to Shared Use Path Twin Loops Facility Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail æ ¹» ¹» æ æ æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ æ ñ æ ¹º ñ æ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mi r r o r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Mel o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsGolf Course YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minneh a h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 44th St W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View R d Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gl e a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLin c o l n D rWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinge r B l v d 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W Valley Vie w Rd Engineering DeptMay 2018 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Existing Bicycle Facilities Bike Lanes Bike Lanes-Shared Lane Markings Shared Lane Markings Bike Boulevards Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Advisory Bike Lanes Green Shared Bike Lanes Signed Bike Routes Bike or Shared Use Paths APPENDIX D Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks 4 4 1840124112 4211 4208 4236 41404100 42004356 421543084232 4166 4405 43044306 4248 44094239 4412 44104194 3936 4220 4234 4218 4219 4238 4234 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4240 4235 4216 4238 4213 4231 4243 4209 4239 40104 0 0 0412241764213 4209 4233 4 0 0 4418 842064 0 0 2 4417416442114018 4210 40084307 4226 4419 43114401411743054244 4225 4235 4238 422542304406 41054003430143034401 4120 4221 41604201 4236 401440164226 4220 4109 3 4220 4003 4216 4324 4215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 41504232 4117 4105 4231 4208 4121 4114 4217 4 0 0 6 4215 4100 4224 4121 4232 4113 4116392 4222 412641124108 4501 4222 4407 4412 4410 4205 4010420743244103 4234 4230 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 41204213 4219 4212 440842164404 4410 440543154109 4234 4246 4121 4242 4406 4 0 5 2 400644044231 44004238 4226 41084235 43174370 4239 4233 4 0 1 39304227 4230 4238 4234 4212 440544064221 400441034235 4247 4244 4240 44144205441341114214 4402421242424243 4217 4237 4229 4222 4242 410941154230 42104226 4248 4246 41124237 4223 4312 4413 4239 4242 4229 4243 4227 4208 4223 4400 4228 4219 4236 42134232 4248 41074411 4200 4240 4310 43084215 4232 4223 4240 40224206 440341254124 4245 4212 4237432142254225 4221 4409 422343084213 43154306 441 64311412843104242 431342184215 4217 411343174108 43044240 4219 430542004227 4228 4102 4 0 0 9431143164228 42244502 4 0 0 7 4224 4228 4204 43144231 43074232 42414504 4302421245004227 42024231 43094208 440543124212 4220 44074 4 0 7422443004224 4216 4244 4015 4223 40214403 4236 4216 4211 4233 4220 4227 4 4249 4215 43164219 4241 422944084301 440744094365 4 0 1 1 4120 43304112 4116 440143004 0 1 4 4305 430943094361 440643064313401142064312 4209 40014368 430740204200 43053915420142174304417143034244 414143084307 4205 4315 4204 4247 41554313 41014215 41073947 4313 4005 4 0 0 8 4224 4202 4360 4246 4245 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 4309 4001 4 4400 4 3 2 4 430243 01413041014201 42494310 4338 421042074350 4364 4202420842124 4330 40044300 42144334 4245 41324 3 1 8 421341094342 4247 4211411141134311 4248 401342004243 4307 4303 4344 4301 42474246 44164411420042094315 4352 4 0 4 84221 4315 4246 4353 4420 43134204420841104201 4348 40174411 430344154417 4115 4201 4405 4201 4401 42284232 4236 4240 4244 4245PROJECT LIMITSLYNN AVEGRIMES AVECROCKER AVESIDELL TRLMORNINGSIDE RD W 4 4 T H S T B R A N S O N S T LITTEL STOAKDALE AVEW 42ND ST KIPLING AVELYNN AVEMONTEREY AVEOAKDALE AVECITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF EDINA/ Engineering Dept October 2021 Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks Morningside D and E Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e Legend Sewer Blockages Watermain Breaks APPENDIX E Street Lights and Signs 4 4 1840124112 4211 4208 4236 41404100 42004356 421543084232 4166 4405 43044306 4248 44094239 4412 44104194 3936 4220 4234 4218 4219 4238 4234 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4240 4235 4216 4238 4213 4231 4243 4209 4239 40104 0 0 0412241764213 4209 4233 4 0 0 4418 842064 0 0 2 4417416442114018 4210 40084307 4226 4419 43114401411743054244 4225 4235 4238 422542304406 41054003430143034401 4120 4221 41604201 4236 401440164226 4220 4109 3 4220 4003 4216 4324 4215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 41504232 4117 4105 4231 4208 4121 4114 4217 4 0 0 6 4215 4100 4224 4121 4232 4113 4116392 4222 412641124108 4501 4222 4407 4412 4410 4205 4010420743244103 4234 4230 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 41204213 4219 4212 440842164404 4410 440543154109 4234 4246 4121 4242 4406 4 0 5 2 400644044231 44004238 4226 41084235 43174370 4239 4233 4 0 1 39304227 4230 4238 4234 4212 440544064221 400441034235 4247 4244 4240 44144205441341114214 4402421242424243 4217 4237 4229 4222 4242 410941154230 42104226 4248 4246 41124237 4223 4312 4413 4239 4242 4229 4243 4227 4208 4223 4400 4228 4219 4236 42134232 4248 41074411 4200 4240 4310 43084215 4232 4223 4240 40224206 440341254124 4245 4212 4237432142254225 4221 4409 422343084213 43154306 441 64311412843104242 431342184215 4217 411343174108 43044240 4219 430542004227 4228 4102 4 0 0 9431143164228 42244502 4 0 0 7 4224 4228 4204 43144231 43074232 42414504 4302421245004227 42024231 43094208 440543124212 4220 44074 4 0 7422443004224 4216 4244 4015 4223 40214403 4236 4216 4211 4233 4220 4227 4 4249 4215 43164219 4241 422944084301 440744094365 4 0 1 1 4120 43304112 4116 440143004 0 1 4 4305 430943094361 440643064313401142064312 4209 40014368 430740204200 43053915420142174304417143034244 414143084307 4205 4315 4204 4247 41554313 41014215 41073947 4313 4005 4 0 0 8 4224 4202 4360 4246 4245 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 4309 4001 4 4400 4 3 2 4 430243 01413041014201 42494310 4338 421042074350 4364 4202420842124 4330 40044300 42144334 4245 41324 3 1 8 421341094342 4247 4211411141134311 4248 401342004243 4307 4303 4344 4301 42474246 44164411420042094315 4352 4 0 4 84221 4315 4246 4353 4420 43134204420841104201 4348 40174411 430344154417 4115 4201 4405 4201 4401 42284232 4236 4240 4244 4245PROJECT LIMITSLYNN AVEGRIMES AVECROCKER AVESIDELL TRLMORNINGSIDE RD W 4 4 T H S T B R A N S O N S T LITTEL STOAKDALE AVEW 42ND ST KIPLING AVELYNN AVEMONTEREY AVEOAKDALE AVECITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF EDINA/ Engineering Dept October 2021 Existing Street Lights Morningside D and E Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e Legend Existing Street Lights 1238 !"$bcdpf bcdpf 89:{± ±² 89:z bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$!"$!"$!"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$!"$ÅÆÇ!"$!"$ bcdpf GFH`!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$bcdpf !"$ !"$!"$!"$ÅÆÇ !"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"!" 89:m 89:m 89:m 89:m1238 !"$bcdpf1238 !"$!"$ !"$ !"$bcdpf bcdpf!"$ bcdpf bcdpf 89:l bcdpf bcdpf 4 4 1840124112 4211 4208 4236 41404100 42004356 421543084232 4166 4405 43044306 4248 44094239 4412 44104194 3936 4220 4234 4218 4219 4238 4234 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4240 4235 4216 4238 4213 4231 4243 4209 4239 40104 0 0 0412241764213 4209 4233 4 0 0 4418 842064 0 0 2 4417416442114018 4210 40084307 4226 4419 43114401411743054244 4225 4235 4238 422542304406 41054003430143034401 4120 4221 41604201 4236 401440164226 4220 4109 3 4220 4003 4216 4324 4215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 41504232 4117 4105 4231 4208 4121 4114 4217 4 0 0 6 4215 4100 4224 4121 4232 4113 4116392 4222 412641124108 4501 4222 4407 4412 4410 4205 4010420743244103 4234 4230 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 41204213 4219 4212 440842164404 4410 440543154109 4234 4246 4121 4242 4406 4 0 5 2 400644044231 44004238 4226 41084235 43174370 4239 4233 4 0 1 39304227 4230 4238 4234 4212 440544064221 400441034235 4247 4244 4240 44144205441341114214 4402421242424243 4217 4237 4229 4222 4242 410941154230 42104226 4248 4246 41124237 4223 4312 4413 4239 4242 4229 4243 4227 4208 4223 4400 4228 4219 4236 42134232 4248 41074411 4200 4240 4310 43084215 4232 4223 4240 40224206 440341254124 4245 4212 4237432142254225 4221 4409 422343084213 43154306 441 64311412843104242 431342184215 4217 411343174108 43044240 4219 430542004227 4228 4102 4 0 0 9431143164228 42244502 4 0 0 7 4224 4228 4204 43144231 43074232 42414504 4302421245004227 42024231 43094208 440543124212 4220 44074 4 0 7422443004224 4216 4244 4015 4223 40214403 4236 4216 4211 4233 4220 4227 4 4249 4215 43164219 4241 422944084301 440744094365 4 0 1 1 4120 43304112 4116 440143004 0 1 4 4305 430943094361 440643064313401142064312 4209 40014368 430740204200 43053915420142174304417143034244 414143084307 4205 4315 4204 4247 41554313 41014215 41073947 4313 4005 4 0 0 8 4224 4202 4360 4246 4245 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 4309 4001 4 4400 4 3 2 4 430243 01413041014201 42494310 4338 421042074350 4364 4202420842124 4330 40044300 42144334 4245 41324 3 1 8 421341094342 4247 4211411141134311 4248 401342004243 4307 4303 4344 4301 42474246 44164411420042094315 4352 4 0 4 84221 4315 4246 4353 4420 43134204420841104201 4348 40174411 430344154417 4115 4201 4405 4201 4401 42284232 4236 4240 4244 4245PROJECT LIMITSLYNN AVEGRIMES AVECROCKER AVESIDELL TRLMORNINGSIDE RD W 4 4 T H S T B R A N S O N S T LITTEL STOAKDALE AVEW 42ND ST KIPLING AVELYNN AVEMONTEREY AVEOAKDALE AVECITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF EDINA/ Engineering Dept October 2021 Existing Traffic Signs Morningside D and E Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e APPENDIX F Living Streets Plan Living Streets Plan 2015 Safety Health Choice Economy 8 2. Living Streets Policy INTRODUCTION The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The Policy is followed by a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. POLICY Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their construction. LIVING STREETS VISION Edina is a place where ... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Mini Fact Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for cyclists on the road. Treat them as you would any slow-moving vehicle. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 9 LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. All Users and All Modes Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled; and Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel; Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights- of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas; Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development; and Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Context Sensitivity Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place; Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban forest, sensitive slopes and soils; Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts; Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 10 Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities; and Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public, Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of roadways; and Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease of maintenance. LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above. Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects. Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles. The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by: • Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work. • By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given project area. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 11 The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will: • Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level recommendations. • Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services they help provide. • Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards. • Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets. Network The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility, accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit the city. Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include: • Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification) • Sidewalk Facilities • Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan) • Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan • Transit Service Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and prioritized: • Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority. • Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top priority. • Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional public transit are a top priority. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 12 Context Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and implementation of Living Streets. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS Ecological Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest Air quality Climate Sun and shade Materials, waste, energy, sustainability Regulatory State Aid roadway Watershed rules Operational Maintenance operations Traffic control or functional constraints Project Type Public Neighborhood street reconstruction Neighborhood street reconstruction with major associated utility work State Aid street reconstruction Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project Public partner lead State County Transit agency Parks district Private development Will remain private Future public Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 13 • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas. • Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Engagement Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and opportunities for public engagement. Design The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs. The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6): • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share public right of way. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 14 Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling. This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through neighborhoods is a comfortable experience. Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely. It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers. These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information. Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably. Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided. These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. An active way of life is available to all. Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina will have the ability to lead an active way of life. There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways. Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume. Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows to local surface waters. Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 15 The City will draw on the following data to measure performance: • Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post-project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. Mini Fact Motorists must stop behind all crosswalks. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy APPENDIX G Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Public Works Multi-Purpose Room October 28, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Ahler, McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Johnson Late: Commissioners Kitui, Clark Absent: Commissioners Brown, Kane, Lewis, Richman Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler, Project Engineer Charlie Gerk III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to approve the agenda. Quorum was not reached. Motion failed. Commissioner Kitui arrived at 6:06. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve the September 23, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Community Comment Paul Rosland with Suburban Waste Services stated that the Commission’s organized trash collection report indicates more impact than there actually would be, noting that there is minimal impact with regard to the environment, economy, quality of life or traffic. Rosland also noted that the intersection study cited in the report didn’t accurately account for recycling and organics trucks. Jason Vierkant with Vierkant Disposal testified that residents won’t get the quality of service with organized collection that they receive now. Vierkant also noted that there are significant impacts to garbage haulers when cities go to organized collection and that he almost lost his business in Bloomington after they recently switched. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. 2022 Roadway Reconstruction Projects Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler and Project Engineer Charlie Gerk presenting the proposed 2022 roadway reconstruction projects for review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included; • Morningside D/E o Why wouldn’t the City consider extending the existing Grimes Ave sidewalk north to West 42nd St? Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 o Would the proposed bike boulevard have sharrows? o Support narrowing W 42nd St and Morningside Rd due to multiple speed complaints. • Blake Rd o East of the project area on Interlachen Blvd, would the bike lane improvements continue in the future? o Support the proposed 6’ bike lanes. o How will bikers move through the proposed roundabout? o Every time the City has added a roundabout, it has been a positive experience. o Where does the proposed shared-use path start? o Support the concrete bike lanes instead of asphalt. o Is it possible to include bollards on the bike lane for additional protection and separation? B. East Grandview Transportation Study. Staff presented the East Grandview Transportation Study for review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included; • What are the benefits of the proposed “dog bone” roundabout compared to the two mini roundabouts recommended at the intersection of Eden Ave and Grange Rd? • Would the proposed westbound left turn at W 50th St and Grange Rd include a dedicated signal cycle? This might be needed for the neighborhood traffic making U-turns to travel east. • Support the proposed pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. • The proposed shared-use path on Grange Rd might be unsafe if the freeway ramps remain. • Is there a way to provide temporary ped/bike facilities over the Eden and Vernon Ave bridges to connect to the proposed shared-use paths on the east side? • Recommend the City conduct a feasibility study on implementing bike lanes on Eden Ave. Commissioner Clark arrived at 6:59. C. Organized Trash Collection Final Report The Commission reviewed the final draft report for the organized trash collection initiative. Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Plumb- Smith to approve the organized trash collection report with the amended recommendation: “The Transportation Commission believes that there is sufficient evidence to support establishing organized trash collection in Edina and recommends that City Council create a plan to establish organized trash collection, including a communication plan to educate the community and solicit public input.” All voted aye. Motion carried. Commissioner Kanti Mahanty left at 7:32. Commissioner Clark left at 8:01. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 D. Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021. E. 2021 Work Plan Updates • #1 Organized Trash Collection – Commission approved the final report. • #2 Street Funding Task Force – City will host a Town Talk on the recent changes to street funding. The virtual event will be Monday, November 1 from 7-8 pm, hosted by City Manager Scott Neal with presentation by Engineering Director Chad Millner and Ann Swenson, chair of the Street Funding Task Force. More information can be found on BetterTogetherEdina.org. • #3 CloverRide – New rack cards have arrived with updated route and schedule information. City will provide DARTS with a letter of support for federal grant to purchase two wheelchair- accessible transit vehicles. • #4 Traffic Safety Reports – Commission reviewed the September 28 report. • #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Sidewalk construction has begun on the roadway reconstruction projects. • #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Commission reviewed 7001 France study. Staff is expecting studies for projects at 7300 Bush Lake Rd and 4660 W 77th St. • #7 Metro Transit Connectivity – No update. F. Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates Staff presented the proposed regular meeting dates for the 2022 calendar year. Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Kitui to approve the proposed 2022 regular meeting dates. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. Chair and Member Comments – Received. VIII. Staff Comments – Received. IX. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to adjourn the October 28, 2021 meeting at 8:25 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100% Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100% Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90% Kitui, Janet 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90% Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80% Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70% Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 1 1 2 100% Lafferty, Peter 1 1 Resigned 2 N/A Scherer, Matthew Resigned 0 N/A Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 6 67% Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 7 78% APPENDIX H Neighborhood Informational Meeting Materials The CITYofEDINA2022 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational Meeting The CITYofEDINAAgenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questionswww.EdinaMN.gov2-A The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov3-AEngineering - Design & Construction DivisionChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerEvan AcostaGraduate EngineerEdinah MachaniEngineering TechnicianLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorCharlie GerkProject EngineerTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianJon MooreSr. Engineering Technician The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov4-C2022 Projects Areas•Morningside D/E •-254 Properties•Blake Road (MSA) •- 62 properties The CITYofEDINA•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•- Maximizes economics of scale•- Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•- Pavement condition•- Underground utility issues5-Cwww.EdinaMN.govWhy My Street? The CITYofEDINAWhy Reconstruct?•Previously reconstructed in the 1970s-1990s *•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)www.EdinaMN.gov6-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Some streets have curb and gutter, some do not•Some properties already have concrete driveway aprons, some do notwww.EdinaMN.gov7-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mainswww.EdinaMN.gov8-C•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failing The CITYofEDINA•Mailboxes•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsExisting Conditions – Right-of-Waywww.EdinaMN.gov9-C The CITYofEDINAWhat / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveywww.EdinaMN.gov10-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Roadways•Replacement of curb & gutter (all or sections)•Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and pavement surfacewww.EdinaMN.gov11-A The CITYofEDINALiving Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•- Minimum roadway design elements•- Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Planwww.EdinaMN.gov12-C The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement Policywww.EdinaMN.gov13-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Utilities•May include localized watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Storm sewer upgradeswww.EdinaMN.gov14-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitewww.EdinaMN.gov15-C The CITYofEDINA•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentUtility Ownershipwww.EdinaMN.gov16-AResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary Service The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements –Ped / Bike•Based on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan•Final design evaluated based on network consistency and construction conflictswww.EdinaMN.gov17-C The CITYofEDINAPrivate Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectwww.EdinaMN.gov18-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Localized flooding during rainfall•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov19-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)www.EdinaMN.gov20-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curewww.EdinaMN.gov21-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•-You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•- Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be seededwww.EdinaMN.gov22-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•We will;•- Provide opportunities for input•- Keep you informed•- Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needswww.EdinaMN.gov23-A The CITYofEDINACity Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•- Storm sewer •(curb and gutter, •driveway aprons, •sump drain pipe) •- Sanitary sewer•-Watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov24-C The CITYofEDINAPedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise fees•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•-Sidewalks /shared-use paths•- Bike lanes•-Associated signage and pavement markingswww.EdinaMN.gov25-C The CITYofEDINADo Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~22% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•- Snowplowing•- Pothole repairs•- Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•Beginning in 2022, taxes will pay for a portion of street reconstructionwww.EdinaMN.gov26-A The CITYofEDINASpecial Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•- Roadway and driveway removals•-Asphalt pavement•- Restoration•- Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingswww.EdinaMN.gov27-A The CITYofEDINAResidential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•- Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertieswww.EdinaMN.gov28-CScenarioLand Use ClassREU FactorASingle-Family Residential1.0BMulti-Family Residential – Duplex0.8C Multi-Family Residential – Apartment/Condos 0.5IInstitutional – Places of Worship0.2* The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Blake Road A, B and C•62 properties (36.13 REUs)•0.42 miles of road•Partial watermain, water services replacement•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Roundabout at Interlachen Blvd•Two 6’ on street concrete bike lanes •5’ concrete walk south of Interlachen Blvd•8’-10’ asphalt path north of Interlachen Blvdwww.EdinaMN.gov29-A The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Morningside D & E•254 properties (248.04 REUs)•1.98 miles of road•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Spot sidewalk repair•Localized watermain improvements•Watermain services•Substantial storm sewer improvementswww.EdinaMN.gov30-C The CITYofEDINAMorningside Flood Infrastructure Project•Improvements in 2022 and 2023•Separate but coordinated project with roadway reconstruction•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsidewww.EdinaMN.gov31-C The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local www.EdinaMN.gov32-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed $10,000 $15,000 $20,0002020100%$10,000 $15,000 $20,000202178.90%$7,890 $11,835 $15,780202273.64%$7,364 $11,046 $14,728202368.38%$6,838 $10,257 $13,6762024-203563.12%-5.26%$6,312-$526 $9,468-$789 $12,624-$1,05220360%$0$0$0 The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - MSAwww.EdinaMN.gov33-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of MSA Roadway Costs Assessed $5,000 $7,500 $10,000202020%$5,000 $7,500 $10,000202115.78%$3,945 $5,918 $7,890202214.73%$3,682 $5,523 $7,364202313.68%$3,419 $5,129 $6,8382024-203512.62%-1.05%$3,156-$263 $4,734-$395 $6,312-$52620360%$0$0$0 The CITYofEDINAPreliminary Assessments*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)www.EdinaMN.gov34-ANeighborhood% of Roadway Costs Assessed Estimated Assessment Range per REU*#of REUsSquareYards of PavingSquare Yards of Paving per REUMorningside D, E 73.64% $6,900 - $10,200 248.04 27,928 112.6Blake Road A, B, C14.73% $10,300 - $15,200 34.63 11,602 335.0 The CITYofEDINATypical Project Timelinewww.EdinaMN.gov35-AJuly –September2021 Engineering studies/estimates providedDecember 2021 Public hearingsJanuary – March 2022 Plan preparation and biddingApril – May 2022 Construction beginsOctober – November 2022 Construction concludesSpring 2023 Warranty workFall 2023Final assessment hearing The CITYofEDINAAssessment Timingwww.EdinaMN.gov36-CInitial Public HearingsDecember 2021Project ConstructedSummer 2022Final Assessment HearingOctober 2023Assessment Filed with County November 2023Assessment on Tax Statement January 2024 The CITYofEDINAPayment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•- Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•- 2020 interest rate was 3.53%•-Assessing Department – 952-826-0365www.EdinaMN.gov37-C The CITYofEDINACommunicationwww.EdinaMN.gov38-A•Regular Mail-All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires- Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers -Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project Page The CITYofEDINABetter Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc•www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and scheduleswww.EdinaMN.gov39-A The CITYofEDINAProviding Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•-Traffic/pedestrian issues•- Street drainage issues•- Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2021•- Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernswww.EdinaMN.gov40-C The CITYofEDINAQuestionnaire Resultswww.EdinaMN.gov41-CNeighborhoodResponses Received to DateMorningside D & E26% (65 / 254)Blake Road A, B & C19% (9 / 48) The CITYofEDINAHow To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedwww.EdinaMN.gov42-A The CITYofEDINAEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Contact Uswww.EdinaMN.gov43-ALiz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.gov The CITYofEDINAQuestions?www.EdinaMN.gov44-A•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake‐rd‐abc•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside‐d‐e•Call or email The CITYofEDINAThank you for your time!www.EdinaMN.gov45-A APPENDIX I Resident Questionnaires Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 15 August 2021 PROJECT NAME: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction SURVEY QUESTIONS Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 1 of 44 Q1 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? 29 (45.3%) 29 (45.3%) 23 (35.9%) 23 (35.9%) 12 (18.8%) 12 (18.8%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (64 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 2 of 44 Q2 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on your street? 29 (44.6%) 29 (44.6%) 23 (35.4%) 23 (35.4%) 13 (20.0%) 13 (20.0%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 3 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM See above regarding traffic on 42nd street. Edina could generate more $ policing this intersection than on 100/62. It's a goldmine for traffic citations. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM 44th/Grimes. More and more drivers are using 44th street as well as bikes. As I mentioned above, not only is traffic increasing but people are rolling through stop signs. It is getting busier every year and has increased since the work on Sunnyside to slow and divert traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM Please see above. Thank You Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Crocker Avenue tends to become congested as the street is quite narrow. Not everyone observes the no parking signs on the west side of the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM Grimes Ave is used as an alternative to France Ave and gets lots of traffic from trucks, buses, and vehicles using it to get to homes in the neighborhood as well as to Weber Park and Golden Years. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes is becoming more of a cut through as neighborhood density increases Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM Along 42nd Ave -- used by many outside the neighborhood as shortcut to avoid excelsior and France ave. These people are usually going at excessive speeds. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM Lots of vehicles due to construction, but not permanent Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd, between France and Quentin. Noise. Q3 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 4 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM The amount of construction trucks is RIDICULOUS. There should be no more than one new build allowed on a street at a given time in Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Concern regarding construction vehicles on the "L" consisting of Oakdale Ave S and Branson Street. Very often construction vehicles are blocking the street and during the school year there are issues with buses getting through. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM The traffic at the 4-way stop on Morning side and Grimes is busy, and Grimes carries a lot of traffic on school days. The street is fairly narrow, and there is a lot of construction parking on the street which makes for a lot of congestion. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM There are a lot of young kids (under the age of 10) in this area of Morningside and the construction recently has been excessive, with large trucks and heavy machinery on a daily basis. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM So many contractors and construction work takes a toll on our roads, large potholes Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM 42nd and grimes due to school and cut through from country club and to countryclub Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Lots of traffic on 44th and Morningside; can get very tight with parking on both sides of the street Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM west 42nd street and Monterey ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Too many vehicles (mostly construction) parking on the hill from Morningside Rd to Oakdale Ave. Terrible visibility; an accident waiting to happen. Construction vehicles blocking street, Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 5 of 44 driveways; parking in No Parking zones. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Grimes is not a through street, it is residential. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM see above. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM On west 42nd Street as a through street coming west off of France Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM France and 42nd, very difficult to cross at France. Would really like a crosswalk with flashing lights so pedestrians can cross Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 08:02 AM My main concern is the large volume of construction vehicles for all the teardowns in my neighborhood. One side of Branson St. is commonly lined with construction vehicles, adding congestion for the residents. Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 12:32 PM When multiple properties within a block or two are under construction at the same time, it can cause traffic flow and congestion problems. This increases in the spring-fall construction season, which also coincides with increased summer automobile traffic as well as pedestrian and bike traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM Too many large trucks for construction Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd serves as a through street Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Grimes ave at 42 and Morningside. Drivers do not stop at the sign. Sometimes 2 cars go through the intersection at one time. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Branson St- Road curves, cars park on one side of the street, lots of kids. Potential for kids to run out and be hit by fast moving cars Screen Name Redacted See previous comment ... lots of traffic to and from that school Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 6 of 44 7/10/2021 03:57 PM Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Oakdale Ave (Morningside neighborhood) - the construction parking and trucks have been overwhelming for the last two years. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W42nd Street and Monterey. St. Louis Park doesn't allow left turns off northbound France Avenue during rush hour traffic. Edina absorbs all of the traffic trying to get to Hwy 100. W42nd Street is the last turn allowed before Excelsior Blvd. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM There is a lot of traffic on Grimes between 42nd and Morningside because the only other North-south through streets are France and Wooddale, and the two schools adjacent to Weber fields generate a lot of traffic from busses and parents. When cars are parked on one side of the street, there is only room for one vehicle at a time to pass through the pinch points. Screen Name Redacted 8/13/2021 08:15 AM It seems to be a throughfare for traffic Optional question (35 response(s), 30 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 7 of 44 Q4 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield, and driving aggressively.) 20 (30.8%) 20 (30.8%) 28 (43.1%) 28 (43.1%) 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 8 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Most drivers don't even tap the brakes here. I have successfully pegged several cars with baseballs, softballs, etc. and will continue to do so until my arm requires Tommy John surgery. And then with successful rehab, I might be able to crank it up to 80MPH again. There are over 20 kids living within 100 ft of this intersection. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM See above. Same. Speeding, rolling through stop signs, increased traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Grimes at any of the 4 stop signs from 42nd thru Sunnyside. Generally female in suburbans or similar, or any Audi & BMW generally male or puff blonde. Stopsigns are advisory for this crew have had many near misses with being rea ended Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM Same as question 1...Speed on some roads Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM Don't need new rules, enforce aggressively the rules in place Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd and Monterey/42nd and Monterey- numerous friendly reminders and conversations by myself and neighbors to motorists to to stop if you see kids, pedestrians. We have come to expect minimal stops and basically a yield sign at other times. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Stop signs in the neighborhood tend to be regarded more as yield signs or in some cases, not observed at all. In particular, the four way stop at Morningside and Grimes. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Speed, rolling stop signs Screen Name Redacted At the corner of 44th and Grimes, the traffic on 44th regularly does Q5 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 9 of 44 6/15/2021 05:19 AM not stop at the stop sign. It is unsafe for the other vehicles, but I am mostly concerned for children crossing the street there. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd, between France and Quentin. A "straight-away" in a residential neighborhood lends itself to speeding and going through stop signs. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM See #4 remarks. A vast number of construction vehicles don't observe speed limits. They are rude, obstruct driveways, park in no parking zones and tell neighbors to F off and use profanities regularly. City Homes hires the worst offenders. Low class subs all around. I have been called a F' Bit' for asking politely to gain access to my own property. It's a real problem. Morningside isn't anti build; it's pro-respect. We would like contractors to observe Edina's ordinances and speed limits when visiting our city and recognize they may have a job to do but we live here and pay property taxes and abide by laws. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM rolling through stop signs at intersection of morningside and grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM As noted above - vehicles not noticing the dead end sign and lack of stop sign at intersection of Oakdale/Branson. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM The traffic at the 4-way stop on Morning side and Grimes is busy, and Grimes carries a lot of traffic on school days. The street is fairly narrow, and there is a lot of construction parking on the street which makes for a lot of congestion. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM The roads are too torn up to drive fast and the only Stop Sign in the area is at Morningside and Oakdale, which is much needed and paid attention to given the blind hill coming up Morningside from the West. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM 44th and Morningside Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM w42nd street and Monterey. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 10 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM There is are several areas of low visibility due to hedges and cars just plow around those corners at full speed. For example Oakdale and Littel, 42nd Street near Grimes and Kiping Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM All of the reasons listed above, plus the ubiquitous construction vehicles who flout parking restrictions at will (and are rude if you ask them to move: You and what army?) Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Nobody stops at stop signs on 44th and Grimes or Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM There’s no enforcement of traffic laws against locals so no one follows the law, especially teens. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM There should be a stop sign on Branson where it meets Oakdale Ave S. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM On West 42nd Street and Lynn Avenue; On West 42nd Street and France Avenue. With recent social unrest, traffic can access West 42nd Street from France and use a through street. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM Speeding, as stated Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM speeding mostly. the cyclists run the stop signs. Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Rolling through stop signs on busier intersections, such as Grimes + 44th Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 07:56 AM See speed comments above. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Close and fast passing of cyclists is very common, making it a worry to let kids cycle alone. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 11 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM 42nd /Morningside Lynn - cars fly down hill. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM I have witnessed a child on a bike being struck by a driver at Grimes and Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Morningside Rd/Grimes, 44th/Grimes, Grimes/42nd, Grimes northbound to 42nd there is a hill and you can't see traffic coming up hill till it's too late and they travel too fast---Rolling through stop signs and high speeds Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM 44th and France, Grimes and 44th intersection, Grimes and Woodale intersection, 42nd and grimes intersection, Grimes and Morningside intersection Frequent near misses during walks, most cars roll through intersections especially on 44th when they are released in waves from 44th and France signal intersection. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM lots of people driving to and from the school Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W 42nd Street and Monterey. Same as above Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM All locations, but particularly Oakdale Avenue and Morningside Road. We walk, drive and bike the neighborhood daily and the safety of us, our dogs and children of others is threatened by fast and inattentive driving. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Many drivers on Grimes avenue are distracted. Motorists tend to develop a lot of speed on the long block heading north, and if heading south they often "gun their engines" heading up the hill as if developing momentum will help their car make it to the top. There is a lot of speeding traffic in front of my house. Optional question (37 response(s), 28 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 12 of 44 Q6 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are: 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) 11 (16.9%) 11 (16.9%) 37 (56.9%) 37 (56.9%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 13 of 44 Q7 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? 38 (58.5%) 38 (58.5%) 27 (41.5%) 27 (41.5%) Yes No Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 14 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM You know which one. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM I am not sure it is quite up to "unsafe" but it can be. 44/grimes. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Kiopling and Morningside the hedges on the Northeast need to be trimmed way back Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM The cross walk on 44th at Kojetin Park is a little dangerous. Many cars do not stop for pedestrians and drive very fast. It can get scary when with our young kids. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM 44th and Grimes. very bad sight lines due to bushes on NW corner. Oakdale and Litel - unable to see around corner due to bushes at NE corner - drivers cut the corner with no visual ability Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd and Monterey, 42nd and Oakdale stop signs Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM The corner of Morningside and France is very blind when trying to turn onto France Ave from Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:19 AM 44th/Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM France Ave. and 43rd street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM The Morningside / Oakdale Ave intersection hill. There are blind spots for traffic due to incline/decline. If you are walking across Morningside and a car is approaching (usually speeding) they have to screech on the brakes. I have seen too many kids and dog Q8 Which intersection do you feel is unsafe? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 15 of 44 walkers nearly missed. It would be a wise decision for the city to add a marked/painted pedestrian crosswalk at Sidell Trl/Morningside or Oakdale / Morningside with pedestrian crossing indicator lights (similar to what was installed at the Vernon Ave & City Hall crosswalk. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM 44th street and grimes avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Crossing France can be difficult Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Oakdale Ave S/Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Grimes and 42nd; Grimes and morning side Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Wooddale and Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM morningside road and wooddale - a stop sign should be added onto Wooddale so it is a 4 way stop Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Sunnyside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM W42nd and Monterey Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 05:50 AM 42nd and France Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM Oakdale and Littel due to vegetation blocking visibility Monterey/42nd/Oakdale has stop signs, but the street alignment is strange, and it is hard to tell how to handle moving to or from Oakdale and Monterey unless you are making a R turn. When turning L from 42nd to Oakdale drivers stopped at the stop sign and heading east often start going before you can complete your turn. The intersections at 44th, France and Sunnyside are a mess. The parking on street should be removed and L turn lanes should Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 16 of 44 be installed. With the increased businesses and apartments, one person turning left can snarl traffic on France for a few light cycles. Parking should be replaced, spilling over to our neighbors is not a kind option. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Morningside Rd and Oakdale Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM 44th and Grimes, Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Grimes and 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM Morningside & Wooddale might be better if it were a 4-way stop, especially now that Wooddale is a bike route. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM Where Branson meets Oakdale Ave S. Need to have a stop sign on Branson. Also where Oakdale meets Morningside - there should be a cross walk across Morningside with some flasher lights when people are crossing. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM West 42nd Street and France Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM France and 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM 42 st and France ave Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM 44th and Grimes. Most traffic is safe and respectful of pedestrians, but I have witnessed many cars rolling through the stop sign or even one car speeding around stopped traffic and running the sign. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Morningside and Grimes 44th and Grimes 42nd and France Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 17 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Any with cars, in winter time intersections with standing water due to drains being placed such that they do not clear and you have to climb the snowbank and walk in the street to get around the pool of water. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM when on morningside road heading east to France Av, there's a very slight downhill slope. In winter this stretch gets icy and since it's just very slightly graded downward toward France there can be a big sheet of ice ... and since it's at France with a stop sign it's dangerous. This can be icy when most other streets aren't based on how the water drains/flows and then can re-freeze Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Morningside Road and Oakdale Ave. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W 42nd Street and Monterey Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Morningside Road and Oakdale Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM 42nd & Grimes vehicles often do not stop, signal, or actually look both ways. It's difficult for me to back out of my driveway. 42nd & France is also difficult to cross as a pedestrian and turn onto as a vehicle. Optional question (38 response(s), 27 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 18 of 44 Q9 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 22 (51.2%) 22 (51.2%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 7 (16.3%) 7 (16.3%) 3 (7.0%) 3 (7.0%) 14 (32.6%) 14 (32.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Drivers turning corner too fast Street(s) too wide Other (please specify)Insufficient lighting Question options 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Optional question (43 response(s), 22 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 19 of 44 Q10 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: 17 (37.8%) 17 (37.8%) 4 (8.9%) 4 (8.9%) 24 (53.3%) 24 (53.3%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Optional question (45 response(s), 20 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 20 of 44 Q11 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood? 50 (78.1%) 50 (78.1%) 10 (15.6%) 10 (15.6%)4 (6.3%) 4 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (64 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 21 of 44 Q12 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 63 (96.9%) 63 (96.9%) 27 (41.5%) 27 (41.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 22 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Would love a major cross walk at 42nd and France (similar to the one on 47th and Xerxes) Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM People trimming their bushes free from the sidewalk. Many sidewalks are overgrown from adjacent bushes! Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM Plans to increase tree canopies. With all the teardown loads of trees have been removed. And few if any are replaced. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:00 AM Sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Less hills. (kidding) Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Get rid of construction traffic. Quit authorizing teardowns. Morningside used to have affordable housing and character. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM adding cross walk lights on W.42nd. More stop signs on w42nd and morningside rd. SLP has stop signs every block to keep car speed down and to help prevent side streets from becoming over used by cars that are trying to use side streets as shortcuts. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM sidewalks are appreciated, please finish connectors- W side of Grimes heading to 42nd street, Lynn from 40th to 42nd street, Monterey where it curves coming up the hill Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Additional sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM Crosswalk at West 42nd Street and France Avenue would be fabulous! Q13 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all that you can think of. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 23 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Clear priority at 4 ways for pedestrians to cross. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Speed bumps or other traffic calming improvements. Slower traffic speeds as less traffic is unrealistic Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Hard barriers extending into the roadway to minimize the crossing distance. Paint and flex posts are near worthless as deterents. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM sidewalks are good for Morningside Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Crosswalks at heavily walked uncontrolled intersections. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Please add a marked crosswalk at the top of the grimes hill where the sidewalk ends. Pedestrians crossing there have a clear view of the street in both directions and are easily seen by drivers against the background. In addition, the no parking near the crosswalk will eliminate a critical pinch-point. Optional question (16 response(s), 49 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 24 of 44 Q14 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) 24 (36.9%) 24 (36.9%) 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 6 (9.2%) 6 (9.2%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 25 of 44 Q15 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 51 (91.1%) 51 (91.1%) 29 (51.8%) 29 (51.8%) 4 (7.1%) 4 (7.1%)6 (10.7%) 6 (10.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Other (please specify)Access transit Question options 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Optional question (56 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 26 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM 44th street is a heavily used bike route, and even though it is a wide roadway, there are no painted bike lanes. This could improve bicyclist safety. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Crossing 42nd and France with family is challenging. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Fewer hills, haha Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM Smoother roads -- less cars parked along the roadway. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Connecting bike lane or trail to lake Harriet Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM More bike trails would be ideal, but bike lanes on streets linking the parks would be helpful. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM Do not add bike lanes they create a greater confusion then help for young drivers and old drivers - leave it alone Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM More stop signs to keep car traffic speed down and prevent them from using side streets as highways Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM better sight lines at intersections Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Bicyclists who do not obey traffic laws, blowing through stop signs and lights, hogging the road in packs, are a danger to everyone. Bike lanes not effective on busy/narrow roads, especially when the center line (yellow) for cars is eliminated. Not enough room for either. Q16 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that you can think of. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 27 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Speed of traffic, failure to yield at intersections Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM Crosswalk at West 42nd Street and France Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Fixing the numerous dangerous potholes on every block. Reduce on-street parking that narrow the road and obscures cyclists from motorists. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Biking is for TRAILS and the bike lanes are Hazardous to bikers and drivers. CARS are for roads. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Traffic calming and speed and traffic enforcement Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Safer roads and sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Separated, protected (curb) bike lanes Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM fewer cars, especially with cars and constuction vehicles on both sides of Morningside road, and speed limit should be reduced like in S. Mpls Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Only allowing parking on one side of the road. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Just a sign to remind drivers to look for bicycles. Optional question (20 response(s), 45 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 28 of 44 Q17 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? 8 (12.3%) 8 (12.3%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%) 13 (20.0%) 13 (20.0%) 26 (40.0%) 26 (40.0%) 8 (12.3%) 8 (12.3%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 29 of 44 Q18 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? 3 (4.6%) 3 (4.6%) 23 (35.4%) 23 (35.4%) 28 (43.1%) 28 (43.1%) 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 2 (3.1%) 2 (3.1%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 30 of 44 Q19 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood? 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 12 (18.5%) 12 (18.5%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%)1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 31 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM NA. No concerns. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Due to the narrowness of Crocker Avenue, there is no parking allowed on the west side of the street. This is necessary, but it does create a lack of available parking space on the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Older homes on street all had single, car-width driveways leading to detached garages behind the house. Newer homes are being built with double wide driveways and garages in front. Since parking is only allowed on the north side of our street, when a double driveway takes the place of a single driveway on that side, all the houses near it lose a street parking spot. Ironically, the new homeowners don't even park in front of their own house, they park in front of the older homes because we have room for 2 cars. Developers should not be able to do this. It affects everyone on both sides of the street and on either side of the new house, and it's an impact nobody thinks about. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM with construction, people working on the new houses park in front of fire hydrants, and on the wrong side of the street, and block the passage of other cars. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM It's the construction parking creating the parking stress in Morningside. Reduce the tear down permits to no more than one per street in Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Construction adversely impacts street parking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM we can only park on one side of the street where we live, which is fine. The issue is neighbors have "claimed" certain spots on the street and they park across the street at the bottom of our driveway, which makes it annoying backing out of our driveway Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM I like that there is parking only on one side of the street (branson) Q20 Any additional comments about parking? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 32 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM The continued construction on Branson street means that construction people often take all the parking spots on our narrow street. It is really aggravating Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:37 AM Construction traffic is a nightmare and often takes all or most of the available on-street parking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Parking enforcement could be improved, especially when several homes are under construction in the neighborhood. Several times over the past few weeks, contractors have blocked the road (double parked), blocked driveways for neighbors, or parked haphazardly which has created situations that are tough to navigate. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM Like that parking is allowed only on one side to maintain flow of traffic, but this obviously reduces available parking Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM leave parking restricted on blocks so 1 side you can park on that side and you can't on the other side Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Streets can be tight with parking on both sides Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM We have a single car garage with a short driveway (one car is in garage the other car is in the driveway or parked in the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM keep business parking off nearby neighboring streets Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM No Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Our street is extremely busy with construction parking. Sometimes it is not very controlled, making it challenging to get through the street and/or challenging to get out of the driveway. I worry about emergency vehicles being able to get through at times, if needed. Screen Name Redacted On street parking frequently makes roads like Morningside road a Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 33 of 44 6/27/2021 05:03 PM slalom course of vehicles weaving in and out. making it unpleasant to cycle or even drive on. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM I would like to park in the street past November IF there is no snow. It would be nice to start the policy on the first snow and not on a specific date. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Please enforce the 30 foot set back from corners. Especially at Morningside and Grimes. Sight lines are diminished and cars cannot make turns when something activity is happening at the church or drop off or pick up. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Neighbor across the street park their cars on the street and only place to park is our side of the street. There are always cars parked outside our house and never space when we need it. Widen road and allow pkg on both sides of the street? Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Too much of it. Would prefer paid street parking but at our density I know is not feasible. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM the amount of construction vehicles is crazy Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM There are so many construction trucks in the neighborhood and in front of my house most days that it's almost impossible to park on the street. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Glad that parking is now limited to only one side of the street on Oakdale Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM I believe it is unsafe for people to park vehicles near the crest of the hill on Grimes. Optional question (27 response(s), 38 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Q21 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 34 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM Street condition is worsening throughout the Morningside area, largely as a result of the residential construction activity. Heavy trucks are harder on the roads and continual cutting, patching, and repairing for utility hookups is damaging to the roadways. It would be nice if this activity, which is resulting in more damage to the roadways, bears a higher share of the cost of roadway repair. This could be done by fees/taxes associated with residential construction permit process. I do not know if this is part of the project scope but residential construction activity and recent tree trimming by utilities resulted in a number of lost trees on our boulevards. Replacing boulevard trees along Morningside Rd should be made a priority. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Truck volume due to the number of teardowns is directly responsible for the fast deterioration of our streets. It's ridiculous that residents should have to pay for these excessive repairs. Tax the remodelers. Or have trucks pay to access the job site. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Morningside is generally off the grid so we are not a thruway. The North South connector of Woodale has been choked down to unreasonable levels from Excelsior thru to 50th. This was the main North South connector ands still should be. Narrowing the street thru Country Club impedes my ability to safely navigate to our doctors at Southdale. Given the mess which 100 and France have become Wooddale is the only safe alternative - Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM 20 MPH on side streets would be fine. Bigger issue is speeding and complete stops at intersections. This is a walking/running/biking neighborhood. People need to treat it as such. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM Need repair/ replacement as planned- Thank You!!!! Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes is poorly maintained and as a through street should not be sssessed to Morningside residence, but cover by taxes/public works budgets instead of wasting money on 100 year flood management fit lots in a flood plane that Edina developed and collects taxes for. It would have been more cost effective to by up high risk flood lots and turn them into park than pursue the flood conditions in your neighborhood. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 35 of 44 management initiatives - poor city planning Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM The everyother street stop sign on 38th and 39th st. drives traffic down 42nd st. There's a high flow of vehicles that were East Bound on Excelsior, that instead turn SE on 39th st. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM Surfaces of streets are poor, which creates safety issue for bicyclists. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM the street itself is a mess - pot holes, uneven. no issues with traffic,but very difficult to drive or bike down our street (branson) Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Could there some way be a limit of the number of construction workers who can park on the street for each home being built. On Branson there are 3 with another tear down expected this month. Plus one on Oakdale. Could some of the workers be required to park further away and double up to get here. We only have parking on one side. It's really difficult. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Branson and Oakdale streets are in terrible shape!! There is more pothole patch than original asphalt and the potholes keep coming back because of the Construction and Truck traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:21 AM 4219 Oakdale Ave. S. Edina, MN Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM I would finish so sidewalks are on all streets ie Kipling - upper Oakdale not sure where else - I would even consider putting a sidewalk on the south side of 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Road is such that entire street drains down our driveway. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM We have a difficult time backing out of our driveway because of traffic on w42nd street. If we need to park on the street the cars go speeding very close preventing getting in or out of our vehicle. Screen Name Redacted street lights can affect sleep and should use appropriate light Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 36 of 44 6/17/2021 04:07 PM wavelengths Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Moves to fast for the density of the neighborhood. A lot of children Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Please future proof the streets by including conduit through which fiber optic cable could be run. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM The street is in pretty terrible shape. I'm not going to lie, it feels pretty ridiculous that street repairs are not included in our existing taxes which are some of the highest in the area. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM My primary concern regarding speeding isn’t listed, and that is that I have 2 kids and we have many kids in our neighborhood that are outside playing every day. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM 4350 Morningside Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA 4350 Morningside Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA Screen Name Redacted 6/29/2021 05:49 AM Traffic is fine except when construction crews fill streets with driving, parking, or temporarily blocking traffic while unloading, etc. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Our roads look like 3rd world and I have spent a lot of time in the 3rd world. They are unacceptable and in horrible condition. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Enforce the speed limits on Grimes. Please Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM City Homes has built a lot of homes in the Morningside neighborhood and they have increased the damage to roads and problematic parking. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Nothing else. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Thank you for the sidewalk on 42nd!!!!!!! it's always busy and makes a huge difference. I believe a crosswalk is required at the top of the hill where the sidewalk ends. See 14 above. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 37 of 44 Optional question (27 response(s), 38 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 38 of 44 Q22 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are funded by special assessment) 16 (25.4%) 16 (25.4%) 40 (63.5%) 40 (63.5%) 7 (11.1%) 7 (11.1%) Yes No Other (please specify) Question options Optional question (63 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 39 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM W. 42nd Street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM 44th Street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM Lynn between Morningside and 42st Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Crocker Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM Grimes Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes Ave. S. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Branson Street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM 42nd St. Screen Name Redacted Grimes Ave Q23 What is your street name? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 40 of 44 6/15/2021 05:19 AM Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Branson Street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:51 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:00 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:37 AM Oakdale Avenue S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Branson St. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 41 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:37 PM lynn ave Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:21 AM 4219 Oakdale Ave. S. Edina, MN Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM Crocker Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 02:12 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM West 42nd street Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 05:50 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM Oakdale Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Crocker Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 42 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM Sidell Trail Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM West 42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 08:02 AM Oakdale Ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 12:32 PM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM 42 st w Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 07:56 AM Branson St (NW Corner of Branson St & Grimes Ave S) Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/29/2021 05:49 AM Lynn Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 43 of 44 Screen Name Redacted 6/30/2021 05:52 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM Grimes Av. S Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Oakdale Ave Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Oakdale Avenue Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Grimes Avenue between 42nd and Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 01:11 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 8/13/2021 08:15 AM Grimes Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Single Line Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 44 of 44 APPENDIX J Correspondence from Residents 1 Aaron Ditzler From:Chad Millner Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 8:35 AM To:'MTA' Cc:Aaron Ditzler Subject:RE: 4321 West 42nd Street Edina, MN 55416 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Mary, Thanks for the note. When we finalize the information, we will send you a copy for your review. Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952‐826‐0318 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: MTA > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 10:53 AM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: 4321 West 42nd Street Edina, MN 55416 EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Mr. Millner: Re: Sept. 26th open house about my neighborhood roadway reconstruction I am not able to attend the Sept. 26th open house about roadway reconstruction process being considered that could potentially impact my street in summer 2022. I am interested in being informed and would appreciate if you can forward a link or information about this to me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mary 2 Mary T. Absolon 9 Aaron Ditzler From:Christopher Genco > Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 10:54 AM To:Andrew Scipioni Cc:Liz Moore Subject:Re: Inquiry about Morningside Neighborhood Construction 2023 EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Andrew and Liz, Thank you so much for this information. This was very helpful. My wife and I very much appreciate it. Hope you’re staying healthy and safe! Sincerely, Christopher Genco On Apr 13, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Andrew Scipioni <ascipioni@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: Christopher, All streets within the roadway reconstruction project will have the asphalt pavement replaced and either partial or full replacement of concrete curb and gutter (the latter is typically determined one year prior to construction based on existing condition and proposed utility repairs). You are correct that Monterey Rd is not recommended to have a sidewalk per the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and as such, we will likely not recommend installing a new sidewalk as part of the 2023 project. This is a slight chance that residents along Monterey could express interest in a sidewalk during the upcoming public engagement, but I would say this is unlikely. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions related to proposed sidewalks or bike facilities. <image001.gif> Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner 952-826-0440 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ascipioni@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Liz Moore <LMoore@EdinaMN.gov> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 2:22 PM To: Cc: Andrew Scipioni <ascipioni@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: FW: Inquiry about Morningside Neighborhood Construction 2023 Hi Christopher, 10 I have copied Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner. He can answer your below question about sidewalks. Thank you, <image001.gif> Liz Moore, Engineering Admin Coordinator 952-826-0449 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 LMoore@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Find updates on the City’s response to COVID-19 and resources to help at EdinaMN.gov/coronavirus. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Christopher Genco <c Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 2:20 PM To: Liz Moore <LMoore@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Inquiry about Morningside Neighborhood Construction 2023 EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Liz, Thank you for the quick response. I have been reading the materials on bettertogetheredina.org. One clarification I was wondering if you could clarify this for me. From the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edina, it looks as if the Lynn Avenue road would have a new sidewalk, but that Monterey Ave does not. I found a similar picture on page 63 of the proposed Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan. Regarding the documents in the September open house (document dated 09/26/2019), does that means that Monterey Rd. will not have a sidewalk, boulevard, curb and gutter done and instead is just curb and gutter? <image002.png> <image003.png> Thank you for your time in clarifying these points. Sincerely, Christopher M. Genco Jr. On Apr 13, 2020, at 12:21 PM, Liz Moore <LMoore@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon Christopher, Roadway reconstruction in the Morningside Neighborhood has not been postponed. There will not be an estimate of assessment cost until Winter 2022. If you would like additional information on street projects in Edina, please visit https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/streets. 11 Thank you, <image001.gif> Liz Moore, Engineering Admin Coordinator 952-826-0449 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 LMoore@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Find updates on the City’s response to COVID-19 and resources to help at EdinaMN.gov/coronavirus. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Christopher Genco Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 11:15 AM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Inquiry about Morningside Neighborhood Construction 2023 EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Edina Engineering Department, I am a prospective home buyer looking at homes in Edina. I went to the city of Edina’s construction services page and noticed that one of the homes my wife and I are interested in (section C of the Morningside neighborhood) is listed to be up for roadway reconstruction in 2023. Is the information still accurate considering the current conditions, and whether assessment estimates have been made for homes in the Morningside neighborhood? Thank you for your time and I hope you’re healthy and safe. Sincerely, Christopher M. Genco Jr. 15 Aaron Ditzler From:Jesse LaDousa Sent:Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:39 AM To:Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: Branson & Grimes Street Reconstruction Question EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the quick response. Jesse LaDousa ‐ mobile > On Jun 22, 2020, at 5:56 PM, Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: > > Jesse, > > Thanks for your question. Unfortunately, it's unknown at this time. > > It depends on potential improvements to the water main and water services. If the water services will be replaced, construction will likely disturb the sidewalk, requiring replacement. We'll have a better understanding of the utilities and sidewalks during summer of 2021. > > Thank you. > > Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer > 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 > 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 > ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov > Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. > > Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Jesse LaDousa > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 1:05 PM > To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov>; Liz Moore <LMoore@EdinaMN.gov> > Subject: Branson & Grimes Street Reconstruction Question > > EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Good Afternoon ‐ > 16 > I own the property at 4200 Branson St (corner of Branson & Grimes). It appears based on the last open house presentation that both our streets are slated for reconstruction in 2022. I have several sidewalk squares that are in bad need of replacement and I was planning to have them done this summer. I am wondering if the sidewalks will be included in the 2022 reconstruction project? > > Thank you! > > > Jesse LaDousa > ( ‐ Mobile > > > 19 Aaron Ditzler From:Liz Moore Sent:Friday, August 28, 2020 11:27 AM To:' Cc:Lynette Biunno Subject:RE: Branson Street Repair Good Morning Jessica, Branson Street, between Oakdale Avenue and Grimes Avenue, is scheduled for reconstruction in the summer of 2022. Additional information can be found at: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/2021‐2022‐street‐reconstruction‐ projects Thank you, Liz Moore, Engineering Admin Coordinator 952‐826‐0449 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 LMoore@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jessica Lin Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:14 AM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Branson Street Repair EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Wanted to follow up on this. Thanks > On Aug 15, 2020, at 10:44 AM, Jessica Lin <wrote: > > Hi there, > > Hope you’ve been well! I have lived in Branson Street for 10 years and it’s been a wonderful place to live, but unfortunately since we’ve been here we have never seen the street fixed or rehauled. It now has more cracks, patches, and potholes than actual street. It truly is super worn and you can feel the difference turning onto the street. Does the city have any plans to put down some asphalt over here? Please help keep our street beautiful and functional! > 20 > Thank you, > Jessica 22 Aaron Ditzler From:Chad Millner Sent:Friday, January 22, 2021 6:53 AM To:'Jay Kosters' Subject:RE: Contact for Julia Kosters Attorney-In-Fact Thanks for the information. Please continue to visit this site as we use it as our primary location of information for street reconstruction. https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/ https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/2021‐2022‐street‐reconstruction‐projects Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Jay Kosters Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 4:31 PM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Contact for Julia Kosters Attorney‐In‐Fact EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chad, Thank you for returning calls today. My request to be added to Edina’s list of property and any other City of Edina notifications etc. on behalf of my mother, Julia Kosters, is a priority to me. Her property address is 4304 42nd Street West with ID 07‐028‐24‐13‐0119. Please forward my contact info to appropriate departments. As I mentioned on the phone she is living autonomously so far and I will support that as long as possible but I want to be appropriately available along the way. So, if you could have Edina’s database include the following information so I can be copied I would be grateful. If you need POA documents I will get them to whomever needs them. Kind regards, Jay A. Kosters 5813 Tingdale Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55436 34 This email, including attachments, is confidential, per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please take notice that your retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and delete it. From: Stacey Huebner Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:12 PM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@edinamn.gov> Cc: Andrew Brown ; Scott H. Neal <sneal@edinamn.gov>; James Hovland Ross Bintner <RBintner@edinamn.gov> Subject: Re: Morningside Barr Engineering Project Chad, My mom's property is located at 4101 Kipling Ave. I live out‐of‐state and am doing my best to keep up‐to‐date and informed on this project. Both my mom and I have serious concerns regarding the huge scope of this project and the impacts on her property and access to her home while the work takes place. Sincerely, Stacey Huebner On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:37 PM Chad Millner <cmillner@edinamn.gov> wrote: Andy, Thanks for the introduction. Stacey ‐ We've been meeting with residents to better understand concerns and values as we begin design of the project. We would be happy to meet with you and your mother. I have an idea on what property it is but if you can confirm we could take this conversation off‐line. Ross Bintner and I would be happy to discuss. He is copied here. Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952‐826‐0318 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Andrew Brown < 35 Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 12:56 PM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>; Stacey Huebner < Cc: Scott H. Neal <sneal@EdinaMN.gov>; James Hovland < Subject: Morningside Barr Engineering Project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Stacey, I know your Mom is very concerned about the flood mitigation project that looks to be going on right next to her house. I would imagine Barr engineering will be in and around her property given the recent passage of funds by the council. I’ve attached Edina’s city manager (Scott Neal), City Engineer (Chad Milner) and the Mayor (James Hovland)’s email to this note. I would definitely reach out to them regarding you and your Mom’s concerns regarding access to her garage, loss of any of the beautiful landscaping she has back there and that spectacular pine tree she has. I know you and your family have put a tremendous amount of heart, soul and finances into your family home over the last 45 years. I hope to see you and the family back in town once Covid recedes. Stay safe. Yours truly Andy Brown Sent from my iPhone 36 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:50 AM To:' Subject:RE: Pink markings 4222 Grimes Ron, The markings are control points for the topographic survey related to the 2022 Roadway Reconstruction Project. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Zuleyka Marquez <ZMarquez@EdinaMN.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:15 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: FW: Pink markings 4222 Grimes Can you confirm if this is part of the recon 2022 project and let the resident know? Thanks. Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer 952-826-0322 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ZMarquez@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: RON BERG < Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:18 AM To: Zuleyka Marquez <ZMarquez@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Pink markings 4222 Grimes EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Zule, Here are photos. Any help 37 38 you can provide thanks. Ron Sent from my iPhone 40 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:06 PM To:'Greg Daggett' Subject:RE: Question: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Greg, Two things: 1. A sidewalk on the west side of Crocker is not proposed. However, this could change if there is enough interest via a petition. https://www.edinamn.gov/formcenter/contact‐usshare‐a‐concern‐33/petition‐to‐the‐city‐council‐262 2. Point taken on the resident survey statement you submitted to BTE. Unfortunately there’s not much we can do to change it this year. We can modify for future projects. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Greg Daggett Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:53 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Question: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Aaron, I live at 4238 Crocker Ave. Will the west side (my side) of Crocker get sidewalks with this project? Thanks. Greg 41 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:00 PM To:'John Quinlan' Subject:RE: Morningside Road Construction John, The flood risk reduction scope of work will be paid for using the storm drain utility fund, NOT special assessments. We’ll prepare a formal estimated assessment range later this summer. Based on the number of properties and 2021 costs my “unofficial and too early” estimated range would be $8,000 to $16,000. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: John Quinlan <j om> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:18 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Morningside Road Construction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Aaron Hope all is well. I wanted to reach out with a few questions regarding the roadwork that is going to start next year. 1. In regards to the flood work, is the cost of that mitigation being covered by the city, or by special assessment? If special assessment, is it fair to assume the homeowners in the actual flood area are going to be billed for that and not those homes that are at no risk? 2. For the roadwork project. We are looking at budgeting that in and were curious if there is a ballpark for that this is going to cost each homeowner. Obviously nothing confirmed, but just a range would be helpful. Appreciate the help! John 4202 Branson St 44 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:06 AM To:'Mary Absolon' Subject:RE: Inquiry: Mary Absolon 4321 West 42nd Street Mary, The construction would begin in April or May 2022, and the final assessment invoice would be mailed to you in September or October 2023. Payment options include: ‐ Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid finance charges ‐ Pay minimum 25% of amount without interest and the balance rolls to your property taxes spread over 15 years with interest (typically 3‐4%) ‐ Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years spread over 15 years with interest. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mary Absolon < Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 7:45 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Inquiry: Mary Absolon 4321 West 42nd Street EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Aaron. When is it anticipated that this project would start and then be assessed? Thank you. Mary Absolon > On Jun 21, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: 45 > > Mary, > > Each project area has unique assessment amount. We'll prepare a formal estimated assessment range later this summer. > > Based on the number of properties and 2021 costs my "unofficial and too early" estimated range would be $8,000 to $16,000 per single family home. > > Thank you. > > Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer > 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 > 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 > ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov > Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. > > Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Mary Absolon > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:19 AM > To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> > Subject: Inquiry: Mary Absolon 4321 West 42nd Street > > EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Hi Aaron: > > I am trying to better understand the Morningside project and my property. > > Where is information about anticipated assessment for my property and what will this assessment pay for? > > Thank you. > > Mary Absolon > > > > > > 49 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Monday, July 19, 2021 12:10 PM To:'Ryan Sullivan' Subject:RE: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Ryan, I’m happy to answer your questions. 1. Each project area has unique assessment amount. We’ll prepare a formal estimated assessment range later this summer. Based on the number of properties and 2021 costs my “unofficial and too early” estimated range would be $8,000 to $16,000 per single family home. For reference, many Minnesota cities have taxes pay for road reconstruction as well. It’s up to each city to decide how to fund these projects. 2. The City Council selected the $10M option. These stormwater improvements are not assessed to property owners. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Ryan Sullivan Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 3:17 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Aaron, Hope you enjoyed your weekend. I'm guessing you wish your email address wasn't posted online about now. A couple of new issues have arisen and I'd love your insight: 1. The idea of a 'Special Assessment' is new to me. Here in Maplewood, NJ, our taxes pay for all road work/utilities needed. That said, how do I find out what the planned 2022 road work is going to cost me personally? Have those costs already been assessed? As I'm currently in the process of purchasing a house in Morningside, it would certainly be helpful to know what charges are coming. 2. Has it been determined which Flood Mitigation plan will be used? I believe there were $5M, $10M & $15M option. Thanks again for your help. 50 ‐Ryan On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 3:42 PM Ryan Sullivan <wrote: Thanks again for your help, Aaron. May all your future internet needs be fast, cheap and reliable! On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 3:38 PM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Ryan, The cost of installation is on the private utility firm. My understanding is that they plan to begin submitting permits in fall 2021. We’ve share our reconstruction plans with them for 2022. If they are ready, they could install with the reconstruction project. If they aren’t ready, they will install by trenchless horizontal directional drill method with minimal disruption to the street pavement, turf boulevards, or other infrastructure in the right of way. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Ryan Sullivan Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 10:03 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 51 Thank you very much for your rapid response to my inquiry. In looking at coverage maps, it appears Edina is, surprisingly, quite far behind neighboring Linden Hills and St. Louis Park when it comes to providing its residents with fast, reliable and affordable fiber internet. I'm hoping you can share if there are any public forums that I can use to participate in the discussion of advocating for fiber installation while roads are under construction? Would the cost of laying fiber be placed on the City of Edina or do the providers (CenturyLink/Quantum) cover those costs? Many thanks for your help and guidance. ‐Ryan On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:47 AM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Ryan, Good question. Discussions regarding fiber optic installation in the City are ongoing. Plans and permit applications to install fiber optic with Morningside project have not yet occurred. If they are approved before spring 2022, the work can be coordinated with the street project. If they are not approved before spring 2022, fiber optic conduit can be installed in the future by trenchless horizontal directional drill method with minimal disruption to the street pavement, turf boulevards, or other infrastructure in the right of way. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov 52 Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Ryan Sullivan Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:47 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mr. Ditzler, I hope this finds you well. My family and I are excited to be brand new residents to Morningside (and new to Minneasota) at the end of August. In doing neighborhood research, I understand the roads in Morningside will be replaced in 2022 as well as plumbing efforts to mitigate flooding in the area. I am wondering if you know if there will be fiber internet laid under the roads while they have them open? As a video professional that works from home, I use gobs of upload/download bandwidth and really need the reliability and speed of fiber. I've spoken with local vendors (CenturyLink/Quantum and US Internet) and neither provide service to the neighborhood. I would appreciate any insight you can provide. Many thanks. ‐Ryan ‐‐ 53 Ryan Sullivan Maplewood, NJ 07040 P.2 M ‐‐ 3 Aaron Ditzler From:Jonathan G Sent:Monday, August 9, 2021 4:20 PM To:Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: Homeowner responsibilities during street reconstruction Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Aaron, Thanks for your prompt reply and clarifications. I will give you a call, but just to be clear from the start, I absolutely do not want a sidewalk on the steep hill in front of my house. The City Council voted explicitly to NOT extend the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes; a very wise decision indeed. Would you extend it to the corner taking out 5 huge maples in the process? Not extend it to the corner and end it on my driveway where pedestrians would then cross 75 feet from the corner and blind to oncoming cars speeding over the top of the hill? I'm baffled by your suggestion. That idea may look good on a map, but the ground truth will quickly correct that. Jonathan On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 3:58 PM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Jonathan, Give me a call to discuss the City extending the sidewalk in front of your home. Answers to your questions are below. The City will do its best to replace landscaping impacted by construction at no additional cost to you. If there is something unique that can’t be replaced and it’s within 10 +/‐ of the existing curb, we recommend you relocate it prior to construction. Property owners have no responsibility to do anything with utilities with this project. If construction impacts utilities, the City will reconnect at no additional cost to you. We do encourage residents to inspect their private utilities to see if they need to be replaced. This is not required. Thank you. 4 m m m m Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Jonathan G Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 2:27 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Homeowner responsibilities during street reconstruction EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Ditzler, I am having trouble understanding some specifics about the street reconstruction taking place next year on Grimes Avenue. The site indicates that homeowners are responsible for protecting/transplanting landscaping. How close to the curb do we need to be concerned? There is no sidewalk in front of my house. Are we required to reconnect water and sewer to the new utilities? How do we coordinate this? The lines to my house connect under the front steps, and run under ornamental plantings and a patterned cobblestone walkway. Will these need to be removed and replaced? How do I or my contractor coordinate with the city. Sincerely, Jonathan Gross 4208 Grimes Ave S Edina, MN 55416 (If no answer, please leave a message so I know it's not spam) From:Randall Larson To:Aaron Ditzler; Jonathan G Subject:Re: Continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes Avenue near 42nd Street West Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:06:03 AM Attachments:image002.png EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you Aaron. We really appreciate that. So do our giant beautiful maple trees! Randall Larson | Chief Creative Officer From: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Date: Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 11:01 AM To: Jonathan G Cc: Randall Larson < Subject: RE: Continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes Avenue near 42nd Street West Jonathan, When we write the Engineering Study and present to the City Council in December, we will not include a recommendation for extending the Grimes Ave sidewalk. For reference, the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will review and comment on the draft Engineering Study in November. The ETC prepares their own recommendations, and the ETC may agree or disagree with Engineering’s recommendations. The ETC has no authority to approve a sidewalk extension, but in December the City Council typically likes to review the ETC recommendations. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-03927450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Jonathan G Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:07 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Randy Larson Subject: Continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes Avenue near 42nd Street West EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Ditzler, I wonder if you would clarify an aspect of the Morningside Neighborhood Reconstruction Project for 2022 relative to a telephone conversation we had a few weeks ago? Point 5 on the list of work typically included (https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e?tool=qanda#tool_tab) is: · Concrete sidewalk installation where gaps in the network exist, and in our conversation you mentioned that a new sidewalk was to be constructed closing the gap in continuity of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes from the top of the hill to the corner of 42nd Street. However, the PedestrianFacilities Master Plan dated January 2020 shows that segment remaining empty. Is the information that I have out of date? Are there plans to build a sidewalk on the lots of the three houses between the top of the hill and the corner? We object to the construction of a sidewalk across these three lots. There are a number of practical reasons that we would object to the construction of a new sidewalk at this location, but before we sign a petition objecting to the construction, we need to know if this is actually in the plans for the project. Sincerely, Jonathan Gross 4208 Grimes Avenue South. From:Jonathan G To:Aaron Ditzler Cc:Randy Larson Subject:Re: Continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes Avenue near 42nd Street West Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:05:18 AM Attachments:image002.png EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks, Aaron! On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:01 AM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Jonathan, When we write the Engineering Study and present to the City Council in December, we will not includea recommendation for extending the Grimes Ave sidewalk. For reference, the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will review and comment on the draftEngineering Study in November. The ETC prepares their own recommendations, and the ETC mayagree or disagree with Engineering’s recommendations. The ETC has no authority to approve asidewalk extension, but in December the City Council typically likes to review the ETCrecommendations. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Jonathan G > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:07 AMTo: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov>Cc: Randy LarsonSubject: Continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes Avenue near 42nd Street West EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Ditzler, I wonder if you would clarify an aspect of the Morningside Neighborhood Reconstruction Project for2022 relative to a telephone conversation we had a few weeks ago? Point 5 on the list of work typicallyincluded (https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e?tool=qanda#tool_tab) is: · Concrete sidewalk installation where gaps in the network exist, and in our conversation you mentioned that a new sidewalk was to be constructed closing the gap in continuity of the sidewalk on the west side of Grimes from the top of the hill to the corner of 42nd Street. However, the Pedestrian Facilities Master Plan dated January 2020 shows that segment remaining empty. Is the information that I have out of date? Are there plans to build a sidewalk on the lots of the threehouses between the top of the hill and the corner? We object to the construction of a sidewalk across these three lots. There are a number of practicalreasons that we would object to the construction of a new sidewalk at this location, but before we sign apetition objecting to the construction, we need to know if this is actually in the plans for the project. Sincerely, Jonathan Gross 4208 Grimes Avenue South. 1 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:21 AM To:Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson Cc:Charles Gerk Subject:RE: A new question has been added to Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project Jessica, Please respond as follows: Yes, poor subgrade soils under the pavement are removed during construction and replaced with crushed rock. The City’s field staff will review the soils during construction to determine the appropriate depth of crushed rock to ensure a 50‐year roadway life. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson <jwilson@edinamn.gov> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 3:12 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov>; Charles Gerk <cgerk@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: FW: A new question has been added to Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project Aaron and Charlie, Could you help me answer this question below? Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson, CFM, Water Resources Coordinator 952-826-0445 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 jwilson@edinamn.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Better Together Edina <notifications@engagementhq.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:09 PM To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov>; Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson <jwilson@edinamn.gov> Subject: A new question has been added to Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi there, 2 Just a quick heads up to let you know that a new question has been asked at Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project by ATH. The question that was asked is: Will the subgrade material below the kipling and Lynn road be removed and replaced with better fill material prior to compaction and repaving of the roads? The current subgrade material is obviously not compacted well and mostly likely filled with organics leading to deformation of a lot of the roads. Please DO NOT reply to this email. If you want to provide an answer to this question, sign into your site and respond to the question from within the Q & A tool. Regards Bang The Table Team 3 Aaron Ditzler From:Rick Hardy < Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:15 AM To:Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: Morningside D&E roadway reconstruction project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Aaron, Thank you for the response and confirmations. I’m sorry about getting your name wrong on the initial e‐mail….I had one too many multi‐tasking things going on I guess! Best, Rick > On Oct 19, 2021, at 8:07 AM, Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: > > Rick, > > Yes, your property at 4245 Sidell Trail will be assessed 0.5 REUs. > > We'll put the intersection on the "existing drainage issue" list for review and modification during the design this winter. > > Thank you. > > > Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer > 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 > 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 > ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov > Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. > > Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Rick Hardy > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:31 PM > To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> > Subject: Morningside D&E roadway reconstruction project > > EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > 4 > Hello Adam, > > My name is Rick Hardy, and my wife, Sarah and I are the owners/residents at 4245 Sidell Trail, formerly 4408 Morningside Road. I was unaware until recently that our section of Monringside Rd. and the surrounding area would be reconstructed in 2022. As the planning for this is likely already underway, I’d like to bring two things to your attention, and hope they can be confirmed before the project begins: > > ‐ Since we are at a corner (Northeast corner of Morningside Rd. & Sidell Trl.), my understanding is that our assessment is calculated as 50% of 1 REU for this project. In our case, our “front” street is Sidell Trail, which based on the map is not part of the project area (makes sense since Sidell Trail was recently built). Our “side” street is now Morningside Road, and this is the result of our address moving to the current 4245 Sidell Trl. from the old 4408 Morningside Rd. when Sidell Trail was completed (see attached confirmation from the City). This change is not reflected accurately in the project area map on the website. Can you please confirm then that the assessment we will receive for this project will be only for 50% of 1 REU? > > ‐ When Sidell Trail was constructed, the drainage at the intersection with Morningside Road was not properly done. Large puddles form after every rain, and there is very hazardous freeze/refreeze in the crosswalk just off our corner of the intersection all winter long. No amount of shoveling / ice breaking / sand / salt by us can fix this issue to keep the crosswalk safe ‐ and the crosswalk is not even our responsibility! We have taken to a makeshift sign just to warn people. When the road was built we had numerous exchanges with both City Homes (the developers) and the City of Edina Engineering Department and Residential Redevelopment Coordinator. Nothing was ever done to fix the issue, and so it’s still a problem. My hope is that as Morningside Road is reconstructed, we can provide appropriate drainage where it intersects with Sidell Trail ‐ can you please confirm that this can and will be done? > > Thanks very much for your attention and assistance with these items. We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the project, and have a person that is “listening.” > > Best, > Rick Hardy > Cell: > 5 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Monday, November 1, 2021 4:12 PM To:'Gordon Smith' Subject:RE: Questions about Morningside D & E project Gordon, Now is a fine time. You're welcome to discuss at the public hearing on December 13 as well. We plan to narrow West 42nd Street from its current width (30‐32' wide) to 27' wide. This street width change, with continued parking on both sides should provide some traffic calming. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Gordon Smith < Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 11:25 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Questions about Morningside D & E project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Aaron, I had a couple of questions regarding the design of the project and the new roadways. These specifically relate to any efforts to calm traffic on 42nd St (it seems with the high number of stop signs in SLP just to the north, many people view 42nd St as a speedway to cut through the neighborhood, nevermind the kids crossing to the bus stop!). My primary question to you is: when and where is the best venue to voice those concerns to the city staff and engineers for the project? Thanks in advance, Gordon Smith 4500 W. 42nd St. 6 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Friday, November 12, 2021 11:39 AM To:Chad Millner Cc:Evan Acosta; Charles Gerk; Edinah Machani Subject:RE: 4311 Grimes Ave - 2022 Street Recon - ADA Access We’ve got it on the list to resolve. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:32 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov>; Charles Gerk <cgerk@EdinaMN.gov>; Evan Acosta <EAcosta@EdinaMN.gov>; Edinah Machani <EMachani@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: 4311 Grimes Ave ‐ 2022 Street Recon ‐ ADA Access I just had a conversation with the owner at 4311 Grimes. She has a son with mobility challenges. She has to transport him to a program and needs vehicle access to the back of the house to get him into the car. I told her we would reach out prior to construction to determine if the access is across the neighbors half of the apron or a temp access across her yard. She needs access most of the time. Her phone number is I did not add this to the project spreadsheet. Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. 1 Aaron Ditzler From:Engelsma, Jamie <com> Sent:Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:24 PM To:Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: Morningside D & E Roadway project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for the info. And follow up!! Sent from my iPhone On Nov 30, 2021, at 5:05 PM, Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Jamie, Your property was assessed a full 1.0 residential equivalent unit (REU) for the 2014 roadway reconstruction project. Therefore, your property will be assessed 0 REU for the 2022 project, yielding a $0 assessment. Thank you. <image001.gif> Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Engelsma, Jamie Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 4:00 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Morningside D & E Roadway project EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Aaron – Good afternoon. I am writing in regards to the Morningside D & E Roadway project. I live at 4114 Morningside Road. I see that our home has been identified as part of the proposed assessment for the project. As I look at the map of the homes that are identified for the proposed assessment, it appears to me that every house that is identified for assessment has an address, front door or a driveway on the reconstructed streets, except for ours. 2 Looking at the proposed work for the project, a lot of it doesn’t pertain to us. 1. Complete reconstruction of the asphalt pavement. We do not have an address, front door or driveway on the impacted street. 2. Spot replacement, or full replacement of the concrete curb and gutter. Curb and gutter does not need to be replaced at our Grimes facing portion of the street. 3. Replacement of Fire hydrants and watermain gate valves. Our nearest fire hydrant is on Morningside. I am not sure where this is fed from, Morningside or Grimes, or if this is part of the proposed project. If residential water lines are being worked on, ours is on Morningside road. 4. Improvements to sanitary and storm sewer. Our nearest catch basins are on Morningside road, which do not appear to currently be in the yellow portion of the reconstructed area. 5. Concrete sidewalk installation where gaps in the network exist. We have full sidewalks in good shape. No work is needed. Very little of this project impacts us except for potentially benefits from the fire hydrant upgrade, which as I mentioned, I am not sure if this is part of the project. Below is a screen grab from one of the preliminary project documents. I have circled our home. I think this document more correctly excludes our home from included in the scope of work, and the assessment. <image003.png> I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the details of this project with you or someone else from the engineering department. Kindly Jamie Engelsma, 4114 Morningside Road IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. Accordingly dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of this contents by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. All information or opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of our organization. All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this E‐mail. As our organization accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this E‐mail or attachments, we recommend that you subject these to IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. Accordingly dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of this contents by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. All information or opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of our organization. All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this E‐mail. As our organization accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this E‐mail or attachments, we recommend that you APPENDIX K Flood Risk Reduction Strategy 0 CITY OF EDINA FLOOD RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY April 7, 2020 City of Edina, Engineering Department www.EdinaMN.gov 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Problem statement ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Project initiation ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Pathways to structural flood risk .............................................................................................................. 8 Groundwater levels are increasing: summary of monitoring data ....................................................... 9 Flood risk factors ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Drivers of increasing flood risk ............................................................................................................... 10 Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Climate Action Plan: in progress item ................................................................................................. 12 Formulating a Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 13 Comprehensively Reduce Flood Risk throughout the Community ......................................................... 13 The gap between the current Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan and the Strategy 14 City Sectors of Work ................................................................................................................................... 15 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis .......................................................................................... 16 Morningside Roadway Reconstruction Engineering Study: in progress item ..................................... 17 Regulation ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis ............................................................. 21 From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis ........................................................... 22 Impervious limit: in progress item ...................................................................................................... 23 Outreach and Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 23 Outreach products: in progress item .................................................................................................. 24 Emergency Services ................................................................................................................................ 24 Strategy Development ................................................................................................................................ 25 Task Force role and process .................................................................................................................... 25 Brainstorming, prioritizing, and categorizing possible actions ............................................................... 27 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Resident Task Force Report .................................................................................................. A 2 Appendix B: ‘Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis’, technical memo ............................................................................................................. B Appendix C: ‘Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis’, technical memo .............................................. C Appendix D: ‘Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis’, technical memo ................. D Appendix E: ‘From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis’, technical memo ............... E Appendix F: Actions for Flood Resilient Homes, fact sheets .................................................................... F Appendix G: Task Force charge ................................................................................................................ G Appendix H: Potential action matrix key, ranked response, and potential action matrix ........................H 3 Executive Summary This flood risk reduction strategy summarizes the framework for understanding risk and how we can connect on the promise to comprehensively reduce the risk of flooding throughout the community. Over a ten-month period, a task force of staff and community members worked to come to a shared understanding of what flooding is, what is valuable, and what matters, where, and to whom. Structural flood risk occurs through a variety of pathways; over the land surface, through groundwater seepage, and via sanitary backflow. Efforts to reduce risk depend on time. The best time to reduce flood vulnerability is before the flood. During a flood, the focus shifts to staying safe from harm, or sustaining or restoring services. After the flood, we focus on recovering and reviewing risk. Over the land surface Groundwater seepage Sanitary backflow Through the process, we come to a new understanding of the factors that define flood risk. Climate, exposure, and vulnerability vary with time, and across the landscape, assets, and people that characterize the community. Short term (weather), mid-term (seasonal), and long term (climate) risks. Rainfall varies over time, and climate change increases the extremes. 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. 4 Conventional flood risk management focuses primarily on reducing exposure to flooding or transferring risk, although sometimes in unknown or unexpected ways. This often means public capital infrastructure projects to modify the flood or regulatory standards applied when properties develop or redevelop. Through this framework we recognize that the public realm is a large opportunity space to reduce risk, but not the only one. Some of the simplest and most cost-effective ways to reduce risk are for people to reduce the vulnerability of their structures and property. This framework calls for public and private actions to reduce community flood risk. Additionally, the framework recognizes climate as a factor. Increasing climate extremes drive exposure and demand adaptation or resilience to mitigate the change. We explored the factors that are driving increasing flood risk. 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. 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. 5 These efforts to put flooding into focus have resulted in the creation of this framework to connect on the promise to comprehensively reduce the risk of flooding throughout the community. Approaches for managing risk include reducing exposure, reducing vulnerability, transferring and sharing risks, increasing resilience to changing risks, and preparing, responding and recovering from floods. Through the following areas of work, we will work with the community to comprehensively reduce flood risk. 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. Staff would like to thank the Task Force for their contributions. The experience, knowledge, and curiosity they brought to the process added value and influenced the Strategy. Nora Davis (co-chair), Lake Cornelia Neighborhood Kathy Amlaw (co-chair), Lake Edina Neighborhood Greg Lincoln, Morningside Neighborhood Michael Platteter, Morningside Neighborhood Louise Segreto, Indian Hills Neighborhood Roxane Lehmann, Sunny Slope Neighborhood Richard Strong, Concord Neighborhood Richard Manser, Todd Park Neighborhood City of Edina budget goals 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. 6 Problem statement Flooding can affect people, damage property, threaten health and safety, and disrupt transportation and business. Flooding is common in Edina and climate change is expected to make flooding worse. Flooding has historically been considered a technical problem, requiring a technical solution. Land ownership, space, legislation, and hydrology are interwoven with values about problem ownership, water stewardship, service tradeoffs, and transferring risk. When there is consensus on both values and knowledge, the problem is a technical one. A scientific problem is one in which there is consensus on values, but disagreement on knowledge. A political problem is one in which there is consensus on knowledge, but disagreement on values. When there is disagreement on both knowledge and values, the problem is a social one. Timothy M. Gieseke. Shared Governance for Sustainable Working Landscapes What was once considered purely a technical problem may be more of a mix of a technical, scientific, political, and social one. This type of problem requires a different set of strategies, skill sets, and tools. Project initiation In September 2018 City Council adopted the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. The implementation section of the plan included development of a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy. A City Manager Task Force of Edina residents was formed to provide a community voice to the process. The City recognizes the contribution of these individuals and appreciates the value they’ve provided. Resident Task Force members; Nora Davis (co-chair), Lake Cornelia Neighborhood Kathy Amlaw (co-chair), Lake Edina Neighborhood Greg Lincoln, Morningside Neighborhood Michael Platteter, Morningside Neighborhood Louise Segreto, Indian Hills Neighborhood Roxane Lehmann, Sunny Slope Neighborhood Richard Strong, Concord Neighborhood Richard Manser, Todd Park Neighborhood 7 The Task Force was charged with supporting and providing recommendations to inform the development of this strategy, specifically to; • Incorporate local challenges, opportunities, knowledge, and community values. • Incorporate voices from throughout the City of Edina. While the Morningside neighborhood has been identified as a focal area for case study, strategies and outcomes ought to be scalable city- wide. • Identify action steps for building community capacity to address flood risk and resiliency in Edina. In July 2019 staff began working with a resident Task Force to develop a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy. The group met over a dozen times, investing hundreds of hours collectively. The strategy doesn’t solve flooding. We’ve learned that it’s too big of a problem to solve outright; however, we’ve charted a path to reduce the risk of flooding. Through this effort, we; • Explored technical questions like, “How much does impervious cover matter?”, “What kind of flood risk does the future hold in the wake of a changing climate?”, “How much benefit can private storage provide?”, and “How much benefit can bigger infrastructure provide?” • Interviewed the operators and maintainers of the system to better understand the level of service the system currently provides and its vulnerabilities. • Gained a better understanding of the factors and drivers that influence flood risk. • Described the various ways in which structural flooding occurs; over the land surface, through groundwater seepage, and sanitary sewer backflow. • Defined the areas within which we already work and identified other actions the City could undertake, connecting these areas of work to Council work plan goals. • Widened our approaches for reducing flood risk. • Heard people share their experience and knowledge about flooding. The Task Force shared their community values around flood risk and informed the framework and strategy. Based on Council and community feedback, the Morningside neighborhood was selected as the focal area for the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy. Further description about how the neighborhood was used to test ideas is provided in the Strategy Development section of this report. Throughout this report, we briefly highlight relevant in-progress items and summaries of the technical analyses – more detailed memorandums describing the technical analyses are provided in the Appendix. 8 Pathways to structural flood risk Too much water from rain or melting snow can overwhelm the system. Pipes run full, intersections flood, lakes and creeks overtop their banks, water flows over the land surface, sidewalks and paths become impassible, yards are inundated, groundwater builds up, water seeps through basement walls and floors, and water can back up into homes through sanitary sewers. 9 Groundwater levels are increasing: summary of monitoring data Groundwater levels are increasing: summary of monitoring data In the winter of 2020 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District separately convened local water resources and emergency managers to share their groundwater level monitoring data. After a string of exceptionally wet years and a record-breaking precipitation year in 2019, lakes and creeks are high, the ground is saturated and, in many places, groundwater level monitoring records show water table elevations are on the rise. Data from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District showed one groundwater monitoring well in Edina near Bredesen Park had an increase of about 15 feet since 2010. In areas where the depth to the regional groundwater table is shallow, structures with basements are at an increased risk for flooding from groundwater seepage. Groundwater is difficult to map. It’s dynamic, inconsistent, and the distribution can vary drastically from what we see on the land surface. Flood risk factors Flood Risk: Flood risk is determined by climate, exposure, and vulnerability. Flood Exposure: The degree to which property, homes, buildings, infrastructure, and other assets come into contact with flood water. Flood Vulnerability: The degree to which exposed assets are unable to resist flooding and are damaged by floods. For example, two homes side-by-side might have the same flood exposure, but one home might be less vulnerable to the exposure. Vulnerability can be decreased with the installation of downspouts, proper grading, a basement sump pump, waterproof or reinforced foundations, mature trees with strong root systems, and excellent drainage through well-designed rain gardens, among other things. Flood risk factors and definitions adapted from IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 10 Drivers of increasing flood risk Flooding issues within the City of Edina continue to increase in frequency and severity. The following have been identified as primary drivers leading to increased flood risk. Climate change and changing weather patterns: • Climate change is the lead driver of increasing flood risk in Edina. Climatologists indicate that large, intense rainfall events are occurring more frequently, and models predict that large rainfall events will become more intense in the future. Minnesota is already experiencing prolonged wet periods; in fact, the years between 2015 and 2019 were the wettest in Minnesota history and we can expect more wet years in the future. This increase is also impacting neighboring communities, is occurring at the international, national, state, and watershed levels, and is expected to get much worse. • With the update to the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, the most recent precipitation frequency estimates were incorporated into the City’s flood model which showed increased flood risk throughout the City. It should be noted that this data only brings us to current climate conditions and does not provide protection for additional future risk caused by climate change. • Modeling of storms and flood risk, and visualization of that risk has improved dramatically in recent decades, leading to better community perception of risk. • See ‘Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis’ and ‘Climate Action Plan: in progress item’ sections of this report. Aging and obsolete infrastructure: • Infrastructure is aging, and much is in poor repair, stretching maintenance and operations staff thin. Current resources dictate a reactive approach instead of a proactive approach. • The current stormwater system was built for a different time and standard. Climate change has already increased the risk and made most of the system obsolete. • Needs far exceed available resources. Flooding issues are extensive and improvements that address the 1%-annual-chance storm are often out of reach at current levels of funding. 11 Demand for well-drained landscapes: • Development has connected the landscape to the water to make land well drained. Demand for well-drained landscapes has led to private and public drain line and gutter expansion. This expansion directly connects the landscape and the water generated there to downstream properties and waterbodies. • While this a major historic driver, it is a minor driver increasing future flood exposure. Most of the drainage and land development decisions have been made, but there are some public and private system retrofits that continue to connect landscape and water bodies, marginally affecting flood exposure. Imperviousness: • Community demand for garages, parking areas, patios, decks, pools, and bigger homes has increased the hard cover of soils. • There is an increasing trend of imperviousness in the City of Edina. Specifically, within the focal area of Morningside, nearly one million square feet of impervious surfaces (homes, structures, driveways, patios, swimming pools, etc.) have been added since 1950. This equates to about 14% of the total size of occupied parcels in the Morningside neighborhood (2019, City of Edina staff). • This is a minor driver increasing future flood exposure. Most of the land development decisions have been made, but small additions to impervious cover marginally affect flood exposure. Soils can’t soak up the amounts of water floods provide. • See ‘Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis’, ‘From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis’, and ‘Impervious limit: in progress item’ sections of this report. 12 Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis Through the Task Force process, staff heard the sentiment, “Stop studying the problem, you have the answer, it’s time to act.” While action is needed now, this report rebuts the sentiment that we have the answers. Our new understanding of risk in the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan show the system is overloaded. We now can more easily see how ‘solving’ a problem in one area can make a downstream problem worse. ‘Solutions’ need to review downstream risk and be packaged together comprehensively, acknowledging or mitigating the risk transfer. Packaging problems requires a scale of effort that has not been attempted in Edina, and the scales contemplated still do not totally ‘solve’ the problem, instead they may not even be keeping up with climate change. Climate change is changing the target. Solutions of today have to accommodate more water than in the past, and solutions have to withstand the effects of climate change in the future. We need a new approach to planning. It is necessary to shift the approach from trying to reduce flood exposure for some, to reducing the vulnerability to flooding for all. A memorandum describing the analysis in more detail is available in the appendix. Climate Action Plan: in progress item Climate Action Plan: in progress item Development of a Climate Action Plan would further outline and prioritize actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. City staff is working to scope a process for creating a Climate Action Plan for Edina. The Energy and Environment Commission recently completed a study and report on a timeline and parameters for such a plan, including the City’s leadership role. Undoubtedly, carbon reduction in both the private and public sectors will be an area of opportunity. In order to meet community-wide emission reduction goals, it will take a process that includes the community to understand what actions are important and how to prioritize them. There is a clear overlap between addressing flood risk and mitigating climate change. To that end, it is prudent that the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy inform the larger Climate Action Plan work of the City’s Sustainability Manager and Energy and Environment Commission. 13 Formulating a Strategy Comprehensively Reduce Flood Risk throughout the Community Flooding in Edina is not only common, it’s increasing. The City of Edina’s strategy is to comprehensively reduce risk throughout the community. This means we address flooding through a broad range of actions and that decisions consider the assets and people that characterize the City. Approaches for managing risk include reducing exposure, reducing vulnerability, transferring and sharing risks, increasing resilience to changing risks, and preparing, responding and recovering from floods. Adapted from IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Strategy helps answer the question, “What are we trying to accomplish?” Every community has limited resources and deals with its own unique challenges – strategy acts as a guide to a set of actions and filters out those that do not fit. Tactics help answer the question, “How are we going to accomplish our goal?” Tactics are the actions within the following City sectors of work; infrastructure, regulation, outreach and engagement, and emergency services. Each sector of work supports a City Council budget work plan goal. Flood Risk Reduction Approaches Reduce Exposure Reduce Vulnerability Transfer and Share Risks Increase Resilience to Changing Risks Prepare, Respond, and Recover 14 These areas of work and the current state of practice are spelled out in greater detail in the water resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. The gap between the current Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan and the Strategy Past iterations and the current Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan have focused primarily on reducing exposure to flooding or transferring risk, although sometimes in unknown or unexpected ways. This often means capital infrastructure projects to modify the flood or regulatory standards applied when properties develop or redevelop. The current Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan outlines projects that add or upsize pipes or surface flood storage. This narrow approach has some pitfalls. • First, it limits the approaches, and thereby the actions that could be implemented to reduce flood risk. The actions focus on reducing exposure only. Many opportunities exist using 15 approaches to reduce vulnerability, transfer and share risks, increase resiliency to changing risks, and preparing, or responding, and recovering from flooding. • Second, it ignores the risk transferred to downstream people and assets. Many of the capital infrastructure projects don’t consider impacts outside the immediate project area. In a fully developed landscape, many of the downstream storage areas in Edina and in our neighboring communities are already full. • Third, it implies that the public realm is the only opportunity space to reduce risk – some of the simplest and most cost-effective ways to reduce risk are for people to reduce the vulnerability of their structures and property. Some resources to this end have been developed as part of this process (see Outreach Products in the Outreach and Education section of this report). • Fourth, it doesn’t recognize the lead driver; climate change, and sets us on a path in which we cannot catch up to the increasing risk. The strategy and associated actions must be able to scale to the problem. City Sectors of Work The City of Edina works in the following four sectors to reduce community flood risk. Detailed in each sector overview is; a statement of the intended outcome of the work, a list of the City departments and partners who lead the work, a list of City departments and partners who help, are involved, or are part of the process, a description of when and how flood risk is considered, and a summary of gaps identified during detailed discussions with the Task Force. Infrastructure What is the outcome; Building stormwater infrastructure that manages areas of flood flow and storage that, with the landscape, define areas of vulnerability. Reducing the vulnerability of infrastructure so they are durable to extreme events or fail-safe. Reducing exposure and vulnerability of related sanitary sewer infrastructure that can serve as a conduit for flood waters between structures. The service provided by water resource and other infrastructure is defined in the 2018 City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Who does the work; Public Works Department, Engineering Department, property owners, private redevelopment, and contractors. Who is involved; Planning Department, Building Department, and future property owners. When flooding risk is considered; At decision points, in projects, during design, failure analysis, and during infrastructure planning. Gaps; Actual service level falls short of expected service, aging infrastructure, reactive maintenance, reactive emergency response, capital improvements do not have scale to ‘fix it’ or even keep up with climate change trend. Pace of redevelopment: Currently driven by owners of at-risk properties. 16 Enhancing public infrastructure by building new, retrofitting old, and keeping what we have in working condition is a key action to reducing flood exposure. Stormwater systems route water to low areas where it is temporarily stored, and then they work to convey water downstream. The stormwater system is made up of 127 miles of gravity main ranging from 12-84” in diameter, 6800 manholes, 900 outlets, 38 miles of small diameter sump drain, 11 stormwater lift stations, one half mile of stormwater force main, and more than 150 ponds and wetlands (2018 Draft Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7). The City’s stormwater system was designed to convey a certain amount of water and protect against impacts at a certain level. This “level of protection” is based on the capacity of public infrastructure to handle stormwater and on the probability that a storm will occur. When storms are bigger or more intense than the infrastructure is designed to handle, or when it clogs, there are consequences such as disruptions to services, facilities, or damage to property. The city stormwater system is exposed to flooding and also determines the flood exposure of people and assets. Risk is changing primarily because climate is changing and the level of protection for design is a moving target. Designs from the past are undersized for today and there is a growing realization in technical circles that even if designs were revised to reflect today’s climate they would quickly be obsolete due to the changing risk brought by climate change. Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis To test the possible scale of implementation in the face of projected climate change impacts, a preliminary evaluation and conceptual design of potential flood risk reduction options for the Morningside neighborhood was completed. A cursory evaluation was conducted to assess which option reduced flood exposure for the most homes. This was completed for a range of storm events from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5- year storm which is 3.6 inches in 24 hours) to the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm which is 7.5 inches in 24 hours). Infrastructure options that were evaluated included increasing storm sewer pipe sizes, constructing flood walls, creating additional flood storage by excavating (lowering) the ballfield area of Weber Park and then reconstructing the fields, creating additional flood storage by excavating the wooded area north of Weber Pond and excavating and re-grading existing low areas (e.g. low area at Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue north of West 42nd Street), excavating backyards in key locations, installing predictive pumping systems for a few key areas (including Weber Pond), and installing underground flood storage. Seven infrastructure options were developed using combinations of some of the mitigation options identified above with planning-level costs estimated between $3.4M and $31.6M. The option with the largest benefit in terms of homes that would no longer be exposed to flooding up to the 1%-annual- chance storm event (Option 7b, the ‘Go Bigger’ option) has an estimated cost of $8.5M and completely removes approximately 24% of the homes potentially impacted under existing conditions. 17 The next best infrastructure option (Option 2b, the ‘Go Big’ option) removes approximately 16% of the homes currently impacted and would cost approximately $4.5M. Baseline; the current replacement value of stormwater infrastructure in the City is about $70M. Over 16 square miles this is approximately; • $6,800/acre • Baseline replacement value of stormwater infrastructure The ‘Go Big’ option contemplated a $4.5M project serving about 630 properties and 185 acres. • $24,300/acre • Cost 3.6 times larger than the baseline The ‘Go Bigger’ option contemplated an $8.5M project serving about 630 properties and 185 acres. • $45,900/acre • Cost 6.7 times larger than the baseline In addition to costs, the projects come with tradeoffs, contemplating major changes in parks, open spaces, existing water bodies, and piping and utility operations changes. The projects also present opportunity for co-planning around park and sustainability improvements as sections of aging infrastructure are renewed. A memorandum describing the analysis in more detail is available in the appendix. Morningside Roadway Reconstruction Engineering Study: in progress item Morningside Roadway Reconstruction Engineering Study: in progress item Infrastructure options remain the foundation of reducing flood exposure, but the scale of climate change will make transformation change a challenge. In April 2020 staff will ask Council to consider a scope of service for preliminary engineering for the street reconstruction project in the Morningside D/E and Morningside C neighborhoods in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Staff will also ask Council to consider the engagement plan to go along with the project concept-level design. This would be the first major street reconstruction project to be designed under the proposed flood risk reduction strategy. The operations and maintenance of public infrastructure is a key component of reducing flood risk. Operations includes inspection and condition assessment, street cleaning, catch basin clog clearing, pipe and outlet clog clearing, sediment control, pump and power system monitoring, and emergency 18 operations. Maintenance includes catch basin repair, pipe repair, outlet repair, sediment removal, weed and woody debris removal, and other actions. Stormwater models that predict flood problems assume that all pipes, catch basins, inlets, and outlets are in good working order and free from obstructions. The reality is that material and debris often enter the system before or during storms and can cause service disruptions. Aging infrastructure also lends to more failures. Staff prioritizes their stormwater operation and maintenance work based on opportunity and requests for service within the constraints of their resources. Opportunities include repairing and renewing stormwater infrastructure in areas where other work is already planned. For example, crews inspect and repair stormwater catch basins in neighborhoods where street improvements are planned, thereby extending the life of the street improvement and providing real value to the public. Requests for service also get prioritized. As storm events occur, staff evaluate the risk and respond as resources allow. Operations and maintenance staff were invited to talk about their work with the Task Force. Some themes related to the challenges and opportunities emerged. Challenges related to operation and maintenance: • Much of the system aside from pump and power systems are managed with reactive, run-to-failure approach and there is significant deferred maintenance in the system leading to small items remaining unaddressed, leading to larger issues. • The program for evaluating maintenance needs meets the minimum regulatory standard. It is not comprehensive. • The system is aging, much of it originating in the 1950s and 1960s. • During events, stormwater systems and sanitary sewer systems are stressed at the same time. When flood events coincide with snow and ice events, staff are further stretched to provide services and must make decisions about priorities, constrained by their resources. • Some stormwater features in the city have been installed to intentionally capture pollutants and debris in order to protect clean water. When not properly maintained, they can interfere with overlapping drainage and flood protection services. • Service levels are not clearly defined. During the peak of events, staff are receiving, prioritizing, responding to, and communicating on requests for service. Residents often don’t know where their issue ranks or what service level they can expect. Opportunities for operation and maintenance: • Proactive maintenance, the benefits of which go beyond flood protection. Proactively cleaning and maintaining stormwater infrastructure can support clean water goals by properly managing accumulated pollutants. • Increased street sweeping to keep stormwater conveyances clear. This also has a clean water benefit. 19 • Promotion of the new metro-wide adopt-a-drain program to augment city street sweeping. Residents are asked to adopt a storm drain in their neighborhood and keep it clear of leaves, trash, and other debris to reduce water pollution. The program also works to provide flood protection. Often, once a system is flooded, the primary objective for maintenance staff is to clear the obstruction. At this point, the opportunity to clear and dispose of clogging debris before its transported to downstream waterbodies is largely lost. • High value infrastructure retrofits. In some cases, maintaining and optimizing existing can be more cost effective than new infrastructure. • Better definition of service levels to inform residents on what they can expect for given issues. • More general communication about the City’s flood response during and after events. • Continued investment in the sanitary sewer system and its resiliency during floods. An increase in resources dedicated to public works staff would be required in order to address issues and capitalize on opportunities in operations and maintenance. Regulation What is the outcome; Homes and buildings have reduced exposure to floods. Those that are exposed to floods take actions to reduce vulnerability. Private improvements such as structures, landscaping, grading and other private systems manage their own risk, and take actions that do not increase exposure of neighboring properties, reducing it if possible. Who does the work; Engineering Department, Building Department, private permit applicants. Who is involved; Public Works Department, Planning Department, future property owners. When flooding risk is considered; At application and permit, during construction, at final inspection and permit close. Gaps; Added impervious marginally increases community risk, long term maintenance of private drainage systems is uncertain, “retail” nature of permitting a variety of single family improvements is time intensive, regulation in limited areas due to limited resources, the first point of contact that interfaces with builders, homeowners, and describes issues in homes with existing exposure is time intensive. Redevelopment provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build-in resilience. City staff are actively engaged with the development community through regulatory programs and provide technical support to permitted and affected private parties. In response, new structures or additions can be required to meet minimum elevations for low floors (such as basements) or low openings (such as the top of windows wells). Another response to redevelopment includes requiring durable flow paths to route water away from structures. The City could consider enhancing standards for resilience in redevelopment plans or encourage a deeper risk conversation with the development community to promote resilient decision-making within the permit process. Increased regulation of redevelopment in 20 Edina would reduce risk. A tradeoff would be that a change in regulation could impose additional costs to developers and impact overall market conditions. Future flooding is projected to get worse. The models that predict flood risk use data from the past to estimate precipitation. The City could consider a flood risk standard that incorporates future risk due to climate change to match the lifecycle of the private improvements that rely on them. By planning street flood storage, lowering roads, managing overflow paths, and taking other actions based on a future flood risk level due to climate change, capacity could be built into the system to make them future ready for their expected design lives. Land use is often cited as a key sector for managing flood risk, though fully developed communities such as Edina may not be able to realize the same returns in this sector as a less developed community. Many of the decisions about land use in Edina have already been made – that is to say that neighborhoods emerged in places and at times that might not have otherwise happened if those land use decisions were made today. The regulatory program remains an effective way to reduce the consequences of flooding for the developing property. The City could consider further enhancing the outreach to property owners, builders and developers to promote resilient design. Where they work: As private improvements are made, or properties redevelop, the City provides flood risk information and holds standards that control or mitigate the exposure to flooding through its regulatory program. Existing controls through the regulatory program are working to raise the low elevations or low openings of structures. This raising of structures reduces the exposure to flooding. Where they don’t work: While the regulatory program is good to reduce exposure and vulnerability to the property or improvement that is changing and its immediately adjacent neighbors, it is a poor tool to reduce the flood exposure downstream. 21 Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis The impact of comprehensive stormwater storage including underground storage within private property, the right of way, or under streets in the Morningside neighborhood was evaluated. This analysis was conducted as a result of Task Force discussions about the potential impacts of requiring private homeowners to store stormwater running off from their impervious areas on-site similar to requirements for commercial development. The benefits achieved by storing the first 1-inch, 2-inches, and 3-inches of precipitation from storm events of varying size, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm) to the 1%-annual- chance storm event (100-year storm) are summarized in the table below. For the private storage evaluation underground storage vaults were assumed under a portion of each of the 570 residential parcels within the Morningside neighborhood. The analysis showed that storing the first 1-inch of storms of this magnitude had a negligible impact on flood levels. Storing the first 2-inches and 3-inches showed a more significant benefit with regards to reduction in peak flood levels. Depending on the storm event, and depending on the location within in the neighborhood, the results varied anywhere from flood level decreases of a few inches to decreasing nearly a foot and a half. However, this apparent benefit comes at an initial cost of approximately $15,000 per inch of stormwater stored per residential parcel. To store 2-inches of runoff in the entire neighborhood would cost approximately $17 million. In addition, while the flood levels may be lowered, the number of homes that are removed from potential impacts from flood inundation is small. For example, one home may potentially be removed from flood inundation at Weber Pond depending on the storm event. Finally, the management and maintenance of these underground stormwater storage vaults distributed throughout an entire neighborhood is expected to be complicated and unprecedented. This solution would provide a moderate benefit for a very high cost. Additionally, a preliminary look at the compounding effect of climate change suggests that any improvement realized by implementing additional storage would be taken back by climate change (i.e., increased precipitation amounts). Inches of Runoff Stored on Private Property Approximate Cost for All Parcels in Morningside to Store Runoff Flood Level Reduction Benefit (in feet) for Weber Pond Subwatershed (MS_40) 5-yr Storm (3.6" of precipitation) 10-yr Storm (4.3" of precipitation) 50-yr Storm (6.4" of precipitation) 100-yr Storm (7.5" of precipitation) 1 inch $ 8,550,000 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 2 inches $ 17,100,000 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 3 inches $ 25,650,000 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 A memorandum describing the analysis in more detail is available in the appendix. 22 From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis The Task Force wanted to explore the impact of limiting impervious cover through regulating development and redevelopment. The impact of decreased imperviousness across the Morningside neighborhood was evaluated. The analysis showed an impervious limit would have little impact on flood risk. Although an impervious limit or reduction supports other values such as open space, room for trees, neighborhood character, and limiting heat island effect, the case for flood risk reduction was weak. Additionally, setting impervious limits would require a large financial investment. The impervious area that is directly connected to the storm sewer system in the Morningside neighborhood is estimated to be about 25% of the total land area, in aggregate. The analysis tested the sensitivity to changes in impervious by modifying the stormwater model so that the imperviousness of the entire contributing drainage area was increased, decreased, and even lowered all the way to 0%, which reflects a pre-development condition. This sensitivity test was also completed for a range of storm events, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm) to the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm). As expected, the imperviousness sensitivity test showed that less impervious area generates less stormwater runoff and more impervious area generates more stormwater runoff. However, the magnitude of the runoff changes generated by adjusting imperviousness were not as impactful as may have been expected. Additionally, the little flood reduction benefit shown in the analysis does not consider future climate change. A memorandum describing the analysis in more detail is available in the appendix. 23 Impervious limit: in progress item Impervious limit: in progress item At their February 12th, 2020 Planning Commission meeting heard an introduction to a zoning ordinance amendment which would limit impervious cover. Current code includes only a building coverage limit. Outreach and Engagement What is the outcome; People understand their vulnerability and exposure to flooding, know what action to take to reduce each in the immediate, short and long term. People have the knowledge and resources to take action. People are motivated to take action to protect themselves. Who does the work; Engineering Department, Communications Department, partner agencies, community groups. Who is involved; The public, and public and private organizations. When flooding risk is considered; In anticipation of spring melt, during flood events, post-hazard recovery, at property transfer, upon FEMA flood hazard map update. Gaps; No coordinated plan and message, limited public and private resources. Knowledge alone doesn’t equal action. Although not at the same scale as a capital item, engaging the public still costs money. Equity should be considered in tactics. When people understand the risks of flooding, they can take actions to reduce the consequences of flooding. Actions could range from simple things, like moving valuables to higher floors, to more complex retrofit improvements like flood proofing and sanitary sewer backflow prevention. Risk awareness could be encouraged by improved distribution of information products like the existing flood risk map available on the City’s website. This local map is industry leading, with few small cities producing and publicly sharing detailed local flooding information. Although the information had been public for a long time, it had been in a format that required some technical knowledge to interpret. With new mapping tools, increasingly detailed digital stormwater system data, and more precise data about topography of the landscape, we’re better able to visually display the risk. 24 Outreach products: in progress item Outreach products: in progress item Through the process, we uncovered some ‘quick-win’ actions to be implemented immediately. • Actions for Flood Resilient Homes Fact Sheets. These fact sheets describe common actions that people can take to reduce their own exposure and vulnerability to flooding. A copy of the fact sheets are provided in the appendix. • “What is my flood risk?” interactive map. This application allows users to visualize the flooding on the land surface for any property in the City of Edina. This information is already available on the interactive water resources map; however, this application is more focused on communicating flood risk specifically. The map is available on the Maps page of the City website. • Sandbagging how-to videos. The City provides sandbags, free of charge. This series of videos will be used to promote the service, inform people on how to request sandbags, demonstrate how to build a sandbag dike, and describe how to dispose of sandbags after a flood. Emergency Services What is the outcome; Parties respond to remove people from harm. Parties respond to prevent damage to property if possible, or provide aid after damage occurs. Limited disturbance and damage. Rapid return to normalcy. Who does the work; Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Department, County/State/Federal Emergency Responders, other infrastructure owners, and private contractors. Who is involved; Emergency operations command, emergency responders, the public, property owners, visitors, other infrastructure owners. When flooding risk is considered; In emergency operations plans, disaster planning, training and drills, post-hazard recovery. Gaps; Current response is triggered in major/severe events. The utility group’s first priority is to maintain or reestablish function of infrastructure systems. Call centers can be overwhelmed and need clear triage procedure. There is nearly no service available for property owners during a flood. The process of after-action inquiry, questions and blame that realize long-known service gaps is adversarial and leads to rushed planning. Requests or complaint-based reactions may not provide an equitable distribution of services. 25 The City’s role in emergency situations include responding to life, health and safety calls and supporting or restoring the operation of the utilities. When floods occur the ability to respond effectively quickly degrades as phone lines and other communications channels fill with requests and reports. The ability to sort and serve these requests goes into triage with critical system function and support measures competing with urgent requests from the public. Empowering people to adapt to flood risk, prepare for flood events, and mitigate the impacts of climate change all contribute to a more resilient community. Adaptation and preparedness actions work to mitigate the consequences of flooding. Strategy Development Task Force role and process In order to incorporate community values into the process, a volunteer Task Force of eight Edina residents was formed. Members represent homeowners with a variety of knowledge and experience. Most have experienced flooding on their properties or have engaged with flood issues in the larger community. Members came from all across the City of Edina. Task Force members met 12 times and attended two City Council work sessions between July 2019 and March 2020. The Morningside neighborhood was selected as the focus area of study due to the presence of significant modeling and research in the area. The Morningside neighborhood faces a range of flooding challenges that past efforts have struggled to address. As part of this effort, a 2-dimensional model was developed and field calibrated to better refine the flood model and relate the models of St Louis Park and Minneapolis. The Morningside neighborhood was also used as the case study neighborhood for evaluating impervious limits, private storage, big infrastructure, and future climate change as noted in the various analysis sections of this report. The Task Force’s charge was to “Provide recommendations to inform a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy to be considered for adoption by the City Council and incorporation as a major amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.” The products of this process including meeting agendas, minutes, and analyses are available for review in the Water Resources Library on the City of Edina website. To better understand the nature of the issue, Task Force members requested and were presented with the following: • Overview of the focal area of Morningside neighborhood, its historical and current flood challenges, and previous efforts to evaluate flood risk reduction options. • A technical exploration of City-owned stormwater infrastructure, maintenance operations, levels of service, and the stormwater utility. • Regulatory options that have been implemented in other comparable communities and associated challenges and trade-offs. 26 • Modeled sensitivity analyses to explore the potential impact of comprehensive impervious limits, private stormwater storage, and enhanced infrastructure including larger pipes and stormwater storage. • Communications strategies that promote preparedness and connect residents with resources during flood events. • Overview of the City’s floodplain management ordinance and participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. • The City’s policy and standards for stormwater management through the permit process, related to development and redevelopment. • A conversation with maintenance staff to understand routine operation and maintenance as well as storm response. Interacting directly with the Task Force has provided staff members with insight into public perception of their role in flood risk reduction. During these conversations, staff began to see certain discrepancies between the following City assumptions; perception of risk, interpretation of the term ‘flooding’, and the role of City services. • How does the City define flood risk? Flood risk has been seen as a combination of the statistical probability of a flood event happening and the potential community-wide losses that occur as a consequence of that event. In the City of Edina, the increasing value of homes located within the floodplain is occurring in tandem with changing weather patterns that increase intensity of storm events, both of which increase the overall risk. The City’s idea of current flood risk is also being shaped by changing community expectations for service. • Defining “flooding” is similarly complicated by social perception. FEMA defines flooding as “A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of 2 or more acres of normally dry land area or of 2 or more properties…” When intense or prolonged rain events occur, the system can become overwhelmed. A wet basement, flooded garage, or standing water may not fit FEMA’s definition, but each impacts the community and was considered “flooding” by Task Force members. • City services play a critical role in the following common flooding issues; creeks outside their banks, curb lines flowing full, storm drains clogging, pipes running full, low points in streets or yards filling up and threatening structures, flow paths eroding, sump pumps flowing, basement foundations leaking, and sanitary sewers backing up. Community service expectations are mismatched with available resources for preventative maintenance and timely emergency response to these issues. Staff heard the following sentiments from the Task Force; • Flooding affects quality of life by disrupting daily activities, risking safety, and damaging structures. • A priority should be to reduce risk to residential structures. • Help property owners protect themselves and prevent damage to structures. • Be ready to help the community recover after floods. 27 • Maintain the function of the existing system to maintain service. • Be a good neighbor. Brainstorming, prioritizing, and categorizing possible actions A series of actions were proposed for a possible menu or toolbox of actions as a result of discussions with the Task Force. Each action was accompanied by a detailed description, justification/motivating factors, tradeoffs and other considerations, cost score, staff-ranked effectiveness score, community enthusiasm ranking, and action category. The brainstorming exercise resulted in more than 40 potential actions. Reviewing and ranking these actions was no small task. Task Force members were asked to rank possible flood risk reduction actions based on community enthusiasm, informed by community held positions and interests related to flooding. Positions are surface statements of where a person or community stands. Interests are the underlying reasons, values or motivations that explain a certain position. Based on perceived community position and interests, the Task Force was asked to rank the action items in terms of community enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the community’s interest or approval of the action. Considerations for community enthusiasm include tradeoffs, community impacts, land, sustainability, environmental outcomes, and social outcomes. Task Force members shared their hesitation in representing the community with their rankings because they felt that each flood experience was unique and they hadn’t had sufficient information or opportunity to gauge community enthusiasm at this detailed level. A summary of the aggregated Task Force rankings is included in the appendix with this caveat - in the end, the conversations around actions provided the most value for staff in forming the framework and strategy. The process helped to identify quick-win actions that could be implemented immediately, clarified areas of agreement and disagreement between the Task Force and staff, and will be used as a starting point for future Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan program development work. We would expect rankings to be continually refined as more people participate and more information becomes available. The exercise itself outweighs the absolute ranking of the actions. The full set of possible actions as well the Task Force ranking summary is included in the appendix of this report. Conclusion The process has reiterated the need to address flooding with a range of strategies that span technical, scientific, political, and social approaches. Many communities are struggling with managing increasing flood risk. Key takeaways: • The current stormwater model helps to better visualize where the issues are; they are extensive, interwoven, and difficult to solve. The existing stormwater system is overloaded and the strategy to put water somewhere else is limited. • Climate change impacts are significant. 28 • Groundwater levels are increasing. The years between 2015 and 2019 were the wettest in Minnesota history. • The Flood Risk Reduction Strategy widens our approaches, and thereby actions, to reduce flood risk. The current Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan is narrow and can’t keep up with the lead driver; climate change. • There are opportunities to empower people and institutions to adapt, prepare, and mitigate. The Strategy opens the approach of reducing vulnerability. Often, some of the simplest and most cost-effective ways to reduce risk are for people to reduce the vulnerability of their structures and property. • Impervious surfaces matter; however, the opportunity to reduce flood risk by limiting or reducing impervious cover in the City of Edina is limited. • Additional resources are needed to implement actions. • Residents have high expectations for service. • Other promising opportunities exist for operation and maintenance, public infrastructure (though climate change will make transformational change a challenge), and redevelopment standards anchored in resiliency. Lastly, there is an opportunity to knit together the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy with the existing Living Streets Plan and forthcoming Climate Adaptation Plan. Bringing these efforts into focus and examining strategies through an equity lens are necessary to deliver high-value benefits to the community. 29 Acknowledgement Staff would like to thank the Task Force for their contributions. The experience, knowledge, and curiosity they brought to the process added value and influenced the Strategy. Nora Davis (co-chair), Lake Cornelia Neighborhood Kathy Amlaw (co-chair), Lake Edina Neighborhood Greg Lincoln, Morningside Neighborhood Michael Platteter, Morningside Neighborhood Louise Segreto, Indian Hills Neighborhood Roxane Lehmann, Sunny Slope Neighborhood Richard Strong, Concord Neighborhood Richard Manser, Todd Park Neighborhood 30 Appendix Appendix A: Resident Task Force Report Appendix B: ‘Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis’, technical memo Appendix C: ‘Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis’, technical memo Appendix D: ‘Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis’, technical memo Appendix E: ‘From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis’, technical memo Appendix F: Actions for Flood Resilient Homes, fact sheets Appendix G: Task Force charge Appendix H: Potential action matrix key, ranked response, and potential action matrix A Appendix A: Resident Task Force Report Resident Task Force Report Flood Risk Reduction Task Force - 2020 City Council Report “For decades Edina took land from the water – now the water wants the land back” Task Force Work The Flood Risk Reduction Task Force began meeting in July of 2019. For the past several months the Task Force has grappled with this increasingly complex issue. There are no simple answers. Flooding issues will require a multi-pronged approach across multiple sectors within the community. Many of the actions we are suggesting have environmental benefits – which will assist Edina in achieving Climate Action Plan goals. BACKGROUND Edina History Settlers first arrived in Edina in the 1800’s and by the end of 1854 all the land in Edina had been claimed. Much of the western portion was part of the “Big Woods” – with elm, basswood, maple and oak trees. The terrain was uneven and much of the area was poorly drained and swampy. Over time many of the hills were bulldozed, trees felled, the wetlands filled in – and development began. Two hundred years of development has profoundly affected storm water management, and this is a major factor in our current flooding problems. Scope of problem In preparation for the 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, Edina staff and consultants reviewed the city for areas of flooding concern... Five areas in the city were chosen for further study – Weber Park, Concord, Halifax, Southdale First Addition Residential & Crosstown 62 & Hwy 100. Another twenty areas were screened, while fifty-four areas await further study. In total – those areas contain - 692 homes/apartment buildings, and 863 structures. Storm water affects Edina in a variety of ways – including overflow from natural bodies of water to runoff from developed areas causing street flooding, damage to basements from seepage and ground water to sanitary sewer system back-ups. This is a situation affecting the health and safety of residents and those who visit, shop, and work in our community. Each news cycle brings yet more warnings about the damage of increasing rainfall and ground water issues – and Edina is not immune. Resident Task Force Report Contributing Factors Increased rainfall due to Climate Change – in 2019 we received 43.17 inches of rain, 12.56 inches above average. Rains will continue to increase, and those rains will come fast, hard and more frequently. Early snow melt compounds the flooding problem, causing additional problems for residents. Ground water levels are rising and are difficult to measure. More residents are operating sump pumps year-round – while other residents are discovering they now need to install a sump pump. More development replaces vegetation and soil with impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces causes rainwater to runoff rather than infiltrate natural ground surface. Not only does runoff cause surface water to accumulate in land depressions, it can cause rainwater to reach streams faster and in greater quantities; both increasing the risk that flooding will occur sooner and more severely than if rain were to fall on the natural ground surface. Impervious surfaces also increase the “heat island effect” causing yet more rain. The issue is not going away – and it’s imperative that Edina approach this situation proactively. Reduced imperviousness results in less runoff. Any reduction in the amount of runoff translates into increased infiltration and enhanced flood control. Limiting impervious surfaces and increasing the City’s greenspace will help reduce runoff volume, lower summertime temperatures, and improve both water and air quality. Increased greenspace will also make our community more attractive and promote recreational activities that enhance the quality of life for those who live, shop, visit and work in Edina. Our Recommendations Land Use Regulate impervious surfaces to promote green space, trees and filtration. (Impervious surfaces have increased by 80% in Morningside over the past 50 years – exposing that neighborhood to serious flood risk.) As property is redeveloped add below ground water storage and above ground storage. Above ground storage (day-lighting the water) adds environmental benefits in addition to water storage. It also serves as a “water feature” for the development. Restrict removal of mature trees. Encourage tree planting and rain gardens Increase green space/park areas for both temporary water storage and environmental benefits Voluntary buy-out of homes and converting that land to temporary storage/park /green space. Allowing a rebuild at higher elevation does nothing to protect the neighborhood. Resident Task Force Report Infrastructure Be proactive (rather than reactive) in maintenance of current system Improve data collection to assist in planning, protection and outreach efforts Replace aging infrastructure At street reconstruction add larger storm sewer pipes, lower streets for temporary storage Pumping if cost effective and doesn’t create issues for others Education Provide education to residents on a number of platforms to alert them to their flooding risks and how to mitigate those risks. This effort would include information on city services including sandbag delivery, placement and pick-up, along with information on flood insurance. Reach-out to plumbing contractors and other water mitigation businesses to inform them of Edina’s permitting and regulations regarding water issues. Continue the Technical Support Program through Edina’s Engineering Department to help residents reduce their risk Ongoing Develop a comprehensive Emergency Plan to assist residents during and after a flooding emergency. Plan should include volunteers who could assist homeowners with sandbagging and flood clean-up. (Service clubs such as the Edina Rotary clubs, faith communities, etc.) Continue to work with both watershed districts and surrounding communities to address ongoing water issues. Respectfully submitted: Flood Risk Reduction Task Force Members Richard Strong, Louise Segreto, Michael Platteter, Richard Manser, Greg Lincoln, Roxane Lehmann, Nora Davis (Co-chair), Cathy Amlaw (Co-chair) B Appendix B: ‘Getting to scale: a challenging problem made even more challenging, climate change impact analysis’, technical memo Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Project: Edina Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Support (23271728.00) Precipitation totals have been increasing in the Twin Cities for decades. The total precipitation in 2019 was the highest amount of annual precipitation on record. Barr reviewed climatological data to evaluate changes and long-term trends in precipitation. As shown in Figure 1, the record for the highest annual precipitation recorded at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was in 2019 and was nearly 8% higher than the next highest year (2016). Figure 1 shows the top 10 wettest years (most annual precipitation) for the Twin Cities using the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport gage. It is worth noting that three of the years on this plot are within the past two decades (2002, 2016, and 2019), and the two highest years, 2016 and 2019, are very recent. The average annual precipitation total for the Twin Cities (at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport) is 30.6 inches. The driest year on record (1910) had a precipitation total of 11.5 inches. The 2019 annual precipitation was over 40% higher than an average year. Figure 1 Top 10 wettest years in the Twin Cities (precipitation at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport) To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx Figure 2 shows annual precipitation totals for the past 50 years, including 2019. In the past 50 years, there has been an increasing trend in average annual rainfall totals at a rate of about 0.66 inches more precipitation per decade. Figure 2 Annual precipitation for Hennepin County from 1970 to 2019 (Source: MNDNR State Climatology Office) It is worth noting that the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s were three consecutive decades with approximately average precipitation. This was a prolonged period of relatively stable conditions when much of the development in Edina occurred. Prior to this period, the 1930s was a dry decade; in fact, the driest on record. From the 1960s on, there has been a clear trend in the total precipitation, both on an annual basis (as shown in Figure 2) and by decade. Figure 3 shows the average annual precipitation depth per decade from the end of the 19th century to the 2010s. The 2010s are the wettest decade in Minnesota’s history. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 3 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx Figure 3 Average annual precipitation by decade (Source: MNDNR State Climatology Office) In much of Edina, the stormwater infrastructure was designed and developed decades ago (in the 1950s and 1960s) using design storms. At the time, the design storms were estimated based decades-worth of precipitation prior to the design. This means that stormwater infrastructure was likely designed largely based on precipitation experienced in the first half of the 20th century, and since then, precipitation quantities have only increased. The City’s stormwater system was designed to convey a certain amount of water and protect against impacts at a certain level. This “level of protection” is based on the capacity of public infrastructure to handle stormwater and on the likelihood, or probability, that a storm will occur. When storms are bigger or more intense than the infrastructure is designed to handle, or when it clogs, there are consequences such as disruptions in services and facilities, or damage to property. The relationship between the probability of these storm events occurring (defined by climate and infrastructure) and the resultant consequences (defined by vulnerabilities of public or private infrastructure) determines the overall community flood risk. Risk is changing primarily because climate is changing and is increasing the probability, or chance, that large, flood-causing storms will occur. The level of protection for design is a moving target. Designs from the past are undersized for today and there is a growing realization in technical circles that even if designs were revised to reflect today’s probability of storm events they may quickly be obsolete due to the changing risk brought by climate change. The question is, should engineering designs be based on the climate models of today or on some predicted future condition? The trade-off for future-sizing a design so that we are better prepared for climate change would likely mean higher present costs. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show how the extent of flooding has changed in the Weber Pond area of the Morningside neighborhood over time and what it To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 4 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx may look like in the future. The flood inundation extents shown are based on model results of storm events using the City’s stormwater management model (XP-SWMM). Figure 4 Flood inundation for a predicted 1% annual chance flood event in the past (~6.0 inches over a 24-hour period, based on Technical Paper 40) Figure 5 Flood inundation for a predicted 1% annual chance flood event using more recent climate data (~7.5 inches over a 24-hour period, based on Atlas 14) To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 5 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx Figure 6 Flood inundation for a 1% annual chance flood event projected for the future (~10 inches over a 24-hour period) In the following figure (Figure 7), we attempt to visually show the effects of infrastructure projects and the impacts of climate change on the flood volumes stored in Weber Pond. In Figure 7, one blue rectangle represents 10 acre-feet of stormwater storage in Weber Pond. This volume is equivalent to the storage capacity available in Weber Pond before impacts to the adjacent park or homes would begin to occur. 10 acre-feet of water is not inconsequential. It can be thought of as one foot of water over a 10-acre area, or 10 feet of water over a 1-acre area, or more specifically, 3 feet of water over the approximately 3.3-acre footprint of Weber Pond. In the present climate, Weber Pond would actually need to store close to 40 acre-feet of stormwater in the 1%-annual-chance (100-year) design storm event to avoid impacts to the park or adjacent homes; 40 acre-feet is nearly four times the amount that can currently be stored in Weber Pond without impacting infrastructure or amenities. If directly connected imperviousness were reduced by 25% in the contributing watershed, it reduces the flood volume that needs to be stored in Weber Pond to avoid impacts, but the reduction is minor. There are other methods to alter the flood exposure, such as with large infrastructure projects (pipes, pumps, storage, etc.). As shown in Figure 7, Option 2b (from Appendix C) actually transfers risk downstream, reducing flooding in other areas of the Morningside neighborhood and increases the volume that would need to be stored in Weber Pond (requiring additional protection for homes adjacent to Weber Pond, for example, by constructing flood walls), while Option 7b (from Appendix C) shows the greatest benefit in reducing flood volumes. Coincidentally, the amount of stormwater that needs to be stored in Weber Pond with the large infrastructure project Option 7b looks a lot like the amount of water that needed to be stored in the 1%-annual-chance (100-year) design storm event used in the past. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 6 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx Figure 7 Pictograph of effects and impacts on stormwater volumes in Weber Pond due to climate change and infrastructure projects To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 7 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix B - Climate Change Impact Analysis.docx Finally, it is worth noting that in all of the conditions shown in Figure 7, Weber Pond is not able to store the flood volume generated by these large amounts of precipitation (i.e., all conditions exceed “1 Weber Pond Equivalent”). In other words, there will be impacts to infrastructure and amenities adjacent to Weber Pond during a 1%-annual-chance (100-yr) storm event, even with large infrastructure projects, and/or with decreases in imperviousness, due to system capacity constraints and climate change. The stormwater management target continues to change as precipitation amounts continue to get larger and larger. C Appendix C: ‘Go Big, Go Bigger: infrastructure analysis’, technical memo Edina Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Concepts This report will summarize analysis conducted by Annetta Wilson, Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner to define and describe flood risk and consequence for the Morningside Neighborhood in Edina and create a conceptual framework that could be used to create a scope of work that would compare or judge flood risk reduction options. The report is conceptual only and should not be relied on for actual improvement decisions. Context and Scope The Morningside neighborhood has a valley and several low or landlocked areas that are prone to flooding. The neighborhood is fully developed with primarily single family homes built between 1910 and 1960, with some infill happening later and redevelopment currently replacing some structures (Appendix A.) Stormwater characteristics for the neighborhood are described in greater detail in chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (2018 Draft, Barr Engineering). This document is the Local Water Plan (LWP) for the city. For this report, flood risk will be described in terms of both the probability and possible consequence of high water on structures. Two rainfall probabilities modeled in development of the LWP are used in this analysis, the 1% and 10% probability rainfalls. Assuming normal soil moisture conditions (AEP neutral conditions), flood probabilities are assumed to be the same as the storm event probabilities creating the flooding. The possible consequences of flooding are categorized and costs are estimated assuming homeowners have taken no special effort to limit the consequence of flooding. Annualized potential costs to homeowners are then estimated to test economic return on possible flood mitigating infrastructure improvements to this area. Infrastructure improvement options were part of a separate effort by Barr Engineering. These options are preliminary, non-exhaustive, and not optimized. A variety of data and analysis was conducted to inform the analysis of flood risk. The following subsections describe the original data sources (assembled data) and methods used to calculate criteria relating to flood risk (derived data). Assembled and Derived Data Geographical data was assembled from City of Edina sources and new data was derived from the relationships in the data to inform the flood risk analysis. The following is a summary of data and methods. The development of methodology to derive adjacent ground elevations based on LIDAR and home shape has applicability outside this study and is described in greater detail in Appendix B. Assembled Data: • Digital Elevation Map (DEM) from 2011-2012 Minnesota DNR LIDAR data with 5cm accuracy • Subwatershed and Sewershed data (City of Edina) • Building Footprints originally from 2002 Markhurd, Updated by City of Edina with 2012 and 2015 based on Hennepin County joint aerial photograph project • Lot surveys from City of Edina Building Department records • Property ID (PID), building year built, livable total and basement square footage, finished basement %, building sales data, and building market values data from the City Assessor • City of Edina Datalink Map, Google Streetview, Google search for Real Estate sale pictures and descriptions of homes, Site visits • 10% and 1% probability inundation polygon and elevation data from 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. • 2017 Flood Loss Estimations Table (Source: National Food Services, FloodTools.com, based on national FEMA flood loss tables) • Potential flood risk mitigation options from Barr Engineering Derived Data: • The following general data was derived from the assembled data to inform the analysis. Minimum, maximum, and average adjacent grade elevations. Adjacent grades were calculated by comparing DEM and building footprint clips using the method described in Appendix B. The following building elevations data were derived • Basement type was determined by looking at the elevation profile and StreetView. If it wasn’t easy to see in StreetView or determine from the profile, the address was Google searched to find Real Estate information and additional pictures of the house. If those were unavailable, the site was visited to see in person, while remaining on city property. See the appendix for more information on how the basement type was used in the elevation calculations. • Building elevations; Elevations were overwritten if a survey was found in Building Department survey data. Data source was recorded in a note field. Detailed information about building elevation calculations can be found in Appendix B. The following attributes were calculated using the derived adjacent grades: • Low floor elevation was calculated by subtracting 8 feet from the maximum adjacent elevation • Low opening elevation was equated to the minimum adjacent ground elevation. • Garage floor elevation was equated to the maximum adjacent ground elevation. • First floor elevation was calculated by adding 1 foot to the maximum adjacent ground elevation. • The Elevation Difference was calculated by subtracting the minimum adjacent ground elevation from the maximum adjacent ground elevation. Property characteristics and property value were calculated to inform the analysis of consequence of flood risk: • Number of Sales was calculated from Excel Pivot Table using data from Assessor’s Office (see appendix) • Value per Square Foot was calculated (Building MV/Square Footage) • Subwatersheds names of subwatersheds that intersect with building footprint Analysis of Structural Flood Probability For this analysis flood probability is categorized based on various ways water can intrude into residential dwelling structures based on the following scheme. The thresholds defined in this scheme allow an in/not in trigger to describe flood risk at varying probability storms and are not based on a literature review of studies on flood effects on varying structures. A cursory review for similar work turned up many interesting concepts, but no direct examples or industry standards that detail flood risk at this granular a scale. The thresholds defined here are based on professional judgement and are obviously not definitive. The categories are used to define probability of damage to each vector of flood risk. Direct flood risk is from waters that overtop the foundation block and saturate and infiltrate through wood framed portions of a home, overtop and flood window wells and collapse windows, or saturate and infiltrate through low opening elevations such as windows and doors. Direct flood risk will be categorized as follows: • Moderate: Peak 1%/10% probability flood elevation is above minimum adjacent grade, but below or equal to average ground elevation. • Major: Peak 1%/10% probability is above average adjacent grade, but below or equal to maximum adjacent grade. • Severe: Peak 1%/10% probability is above maximum adjacent grade. See Appendix B for GIS Methodology. Indirect flood risk is from nearby standing flood waters saturating the ground and causing hydrostatic pressure on foundations that typically result in water leaking from cracks and joints in foundation block or concrete slab floors. In severe cases this hydrostatic pressure is known to collapse block foundations. While these issues can also be attributed to raised groundwater with a variety of causes such as temporary rises due to rainfall or flow paths, anywhere in the watershed, this category focuses only on those areas with nearby standing flood waters. Indirect flood risk will be categorized as follows: • Minor: Peak 1%/10% probability flood elevation in same subwatershed is </= 4’ above basement elevation but > 2’ above basement elevation • Moderate: Peak 1%/10% probability flood elevation in same subwatershed is >4’ above basement elevation Sanitary flood risk is from flood water in nearby homes subject to direct flooding flowing into the sanitary sewer system through flooded floor drains and fixtures making its way into the public sanitary line and overwhelming its capacity causing backup into other homes. Sanitary flood risk will be categorized as follows: • Moderate: Home is within the same sanitary sewershed where between 1 and 3 neighboring homes are subject to Major or Severe Direct Flood Risk and the home is within 250’ of one of the neighboring Direct Risk homes, and has a basement elevation lower than the flooded basement plus 1 foot. • Major: Home is within the same sanitary sewershed where between greater than 3 neighboring homes are subject to Major or Severe Direct Flood Risk and the home is within 250’ of one of the Direct Risk homes, and has a basement elevation lower than the flooded basement plus 5 feet. The flood risk scheme above was compared to derived building low floor elevations to create effective differential flood elevations for each affected single family dwelling. These differential elevations, along with property characteristics were used to estimate the consequence of flooding, described in the next section. Overall, direct flood risk is the highest risk type followed by sanitary flood risk, with indirect flood risk being the lowest risk. Since homes often fit into multiple risk types, they were assigned to the highest risk of their designated risk types. Figure 1: Morningside 10% Annual Probability Flood Risk Figure 2: Morningside 1% Annual Probability Flood Risk Analysis of Flood Consequence This analysis attempts to create a decision framework to generalize costs of flood risk at the neighborhood scale by assigning individual probability that any given home will experience damage by any of the three risk categories described above, using best available data. The cost of flooding is then annualized based on this probability. Using the same method, the base case condition is then compared to neighborhood wide potential flood mitigation options. Methodology The following steps were used to develop flood consequence on a home by home basis for the base case and each potential mitigation option. Only primary structures are considered. 1. Generate flood elevations. For this analysis, flood elevations were generated for 50, 20, 10, 4, 2 and 1% probability events by Barr Engineering for the existing conditions, and seven potential flood mitigation options. 2. Apply elevations to structures. To simplify conditions where a structure was subject to risk from more than one subwatershed (i.e. located on a subwatershed divide), each structure was assigned to a single subwatershed, whichever was judged to be highest risk or most significant. Figure 1: 999.5 1000.0 1000.5 1001.0 1001.5 1002.0 1002.5 1003.0 1003.5 0.0010.0100.1001.000 Peak Flood Elevation (feet)Annual Exceedance Probability Flood Elevation -Mean Flood Elevation - Mean 3. Determine possible damages. A square footage estimate of $40 per square foot was used. This estimate was informed by the referenced FEMA damage tables. The square foot estimate of damage was then factored for each risk category and a probability of damage was assigned to factor the square foot rate consistent with the scheme described above, and depicted in the table below. The probability of damage was based on the trigger elevations set in the section above, and the probability factor was a guess based on experience. Table 1: Probabilities of Damage Occurring, given a mode and a "chance of damage" factored with percent of maximum damage by mode Direct Mode Direct Mode2nd Level Indirect Mode Sanitary Mode Minor 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Moderate 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 Major 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.8 Severe 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.8 The results are very sensitive to these factors, particularly the indirect mode since it can trigger at lower elevations with correspondingly more probable events than the other damage types. The factors are based on feel, and a non-exhaustive review of similar work. 4. Determine elevation damage curves. Basement floor, minimum adjacent grade, average adjacent grade, and maximum adjacent grade were compared to subwatershed elevation data using the trigger elevations on the subject home to develop damage curves for each structure for direct and indirect risk. Figure 2: 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100Peak Flood Elevation (feet)Damage, Accounting for Probability of Damage Thousands Direct Damage Indirect Damage Sanitary Damage 5. Relate damages to annual exceedance probability (AEP). Damages in dollars were related to AEP using the specified flood level elevations for the assigned subwatershed. Values for intermediate probabilities were interpolated to create a cost versus probability damage curve for calculating annualized damages. Two methods for combining risk types were tested, a maximum, and a combined probability ‘or’ method. The ‘or’ method was used in the analysis. Figure 3: 6. Calculate total annualized flood risk. The annualized damages were calculated by integrating the potential damages by the AEP. The annualized expected damages take into account AEP for a wide range of precipitation events, probability of damages from an event, and potential damage cost to a home. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 0.0010.010.11 Mean Damage, Accounting forProbability of DamageAnnual Exceedance Probability Maximum Or 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅_$=�(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷_$)(𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴2 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴1 Figure 4: 7. Calculate total neighborhood risk. The annualized damage cost for each home was then summarized for existing conditions to determine the annualized cost impact to the neighborhood under existing conditions. 8. Repeat steps 1 through 7 for Barr’s proposed flood risk mitigation options. Calculate the total annualized neighborhood damage for each option, because none of the proposed options will eliminate all risk of damage. 9. Compare to option cost. The annual benefit for each improvement was calculated by subtracting the option annualized risk from the existing conditions annualized risk. A 60 year infrastructure lifecycle was assumed, which is a typical conservative lifecycle estimate for stormwater infrastructure. The option implementation cost was then annualized by the improvement lifecycle.. The annualized Benefit Cost Ratio for each solution was calculated dividing the solution cost avoidance by the annualized solution implementation cost. This simple, straight line depreciation approach ignores the cost of money. A future refinement could include a present value analysis. Results Potential Flood Mitigation Options Alt 2b: Increase Storm Sewer Size (up to 60”) and add flood wall at Weber Pond. Alt 3a: Excavate Weber Field Park, area North of Weber Pond, Open Space 5, area West of Monterey Ave, and backyard between 44th St and Branson St. Add flood walls at Weber Pond and along Monterey Ave. Add culvert to Weber Pond to drain north. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 0.0010.010.11 Mean Damage, Accounting forProbability of DamageAnnual Exceedance Probability Or Alt 4a: Excavate Open Space 5 and do predictive pumping from Open Space 5 and Weber Pond to park north of Calvin School Alt 5a: Add Underground Storage to Weber Park and park west of Monterey Ave Alt 7b: Combination of 3a and 4a Alt 8: Excavate areas North and West of Weber Pond and add flood wall. Alt 9: Alt 8 and add Underground Storage at park west of Monterey Ave, and predictive pumping to Weber Pond. Table 2: Barr Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost for Proposed Flood Mitigation Options Option Estimated Project Cost Minimum Estimated Cost (-30%) Maximum Estimated Cost (+50%) Alt 2b $4,469,000.00 $3,129,000.00 $6,704,000.00 Alt 3a $5,069,000.00 $3,549,000.00 $7,604,000.00 Alt 4a $3,444,000.00 $2,411,000.00 $5,166,000.00 Alt 5a $31,681,000.00 $22,177,000.00 $47,522,000.00 Alt 7b $8,507,000.00 $5,955,000.00 $12,761,000.00 Alt 8 $5,179,000.00 $3,626,000.00 $7,769,000.00 Alt 9 $13,786,000.00 $9,651,000.00 $20,679,000.00 Table 3: Number of Homes per Option with Greatest Benefit Option Homes with Greatest Benefit Alt 3a 2 homes Alt 5a 1 home Alt 7b 69 homes Alt 8 13 homes Alt 9 11 homes Table 4: Damage Risk Change from Existing Conditions Option Risk Increase Risk Decrease Alt 2b 15 homes 111 homes Alt 3a 1 home 117 homes Alt 4a 1 home 127 homes Alt 5a 92 homes Alt 7b 1 home 150 homes Alt 8 74 homes Alt 9 136 homes The homes at increased risk are in the areas where the flood elevation increased as a result of increased water flow to the associated subwatershed as a result of increased drain size or predictive pumping. Berms or Flood Walls were included in the options to mitigate direct flood risk, but indirect flood risk may still be a factor. The increased risk is minimal (less than $1000 annualized for the worst case scenario). Table 5: Homes at Risk of Flood Damage by Option Option Homes at Risk Homes no longer at risk Current 160 homes Alt 2b 134 homes 26 homes Alt 3a 150 homes 11 homes Alt 4a 154 homes 6 homes Alt 5a 155 homes 5 homes Alt 7b 123 homes 38 homes Alt 8 155 homes 5 homes Alt 9 126 homes 34 homes Table 6: Simple Annualized Costs and Benefits by Option (assuming 60 year lifecycle and simple depreciation of capital cost and no ongoing maintenance) Table: Condition Annual Damage Annual Benefit Improvement Cost Annual Improvement Cost Benefit - Cost Benefit Cost Ratio Existing $404,202 -- Alt 2b $287,348 $116,854 $4,469,000.00 $74,483.33 $42,370.82 1.57 Alt 3a $271,606 $132,596 $5,069,000.00 $84,483.33 $48,112.68 1.57 Alt 4a $335,313 $68,889 $3,444,000.00 $57,400.00 $11,489.43 1.20 Alt 5a $326,616 $77,586 $31,681,000.00 $528,016.67 -$450,430.65 0.15 Alt 7b $170,765 $233,437 $8,507,000.00 $141,783.33 $91,654.14 1.65 Alt 8 $337,045 $67,157 $5,179,000.00 $86,316.67 -$19,159.21 0.78 Alt 9 $190,566 $213,636 $13,786,000.00 $229,766.67 -$16,130.51 0.93 Overall Alt 7b has the greatest benefit, based on the benefit cost ratio, greatest benefit to homes, and number of homes improved or removed from flood risk. Options 5a, 8, and 9 are cost prohibitive, in which the cost outweighs the benefit. Reducing the assumed lifecycle below 60 years was tested and Option Alt 7b still is cost beneficial at a lifecycle of 40 years minimum. Increasing the improvement costs to the maximum estimated in Table 2 still results in Alt 7b being cost beneficial and having the greatest benefit of the proposed options, but wouldn’t be cost beneficial at a lifecycle below 60 years. Summary of Options: None of the mitigation options will eliminate risk, but most will reduce risk with a few exceptions of increased risk to individual homes. Additional incentives for homeowners to decrease their risk are recommended such as backflow preventers and sump pumps, in addition to infrastructure improvement. Alt 2b: This option has a favorable Benefit Cost Ratio (1.57) and improvement cost ($ 4.5MM), but puts 15 homes at greater risk, mostly in the Weber Park area from the larger storm drains upstream. There are other options that have greater impact. Alt 3a: This option also has a favorable Benefit Cost Ratio (1.57) and reduces risk in 117 homes, but only removes 11 homes from risk. Alt 4a: This option has the lowest improvement cost ($3.4 MM) and decreases risk to 127 homes, but only removes 6 homes from risk. Alt 5a: The annualized cost outweighs the benefit for this option. Alt 7b: This option has the highest Benefit Cost Ratio (1.65), removes the highest number of homes from risk (38 homes), and also reduces risk in the most homes of all options (150 homes). The only significant disadvantages are that it increases risk in one home and has the 3rd highest cost ($8.5 MM). Alt 8: The annualized cost outweighs the benefit Alt 9: The annualized cost outweighs the benefit Home Sales Data Inquiry We tested the hypothesis that homeowners that experience home flood inundation are more likely to sell their homes. To test for a correlation, sales data was obtained from the assessor’s office for the Morningside neighborhood. This data was on all sales from 1/1/1970 through 4/27/2018 and included traditional sales, as well as bank sales, physical change sales (“flipping”), and estate sales. A pivot table was used to determine the number of sales per home and the data was then added to the ArcMap Building Data attribute table to calculate the mean number of sales for each flood condition. Table 7: Morningside Mean Number of Sales per Home: All homes 10% Surface Inundation Annual Risk 1% Surface Inundation Annual Risk Under 1% Surface Inundation Annual Risk 2.92 3.06 2.63 2.97 There is a higher mean number of sales per home in the 10% surface risk category, which may show a correlation, but what this doesn’t take into account is the age of homes built post-1970, which would have less overall tenure. Morningside Mean Home Year Built in or post 1970 All homes 10% Surface Inundation Annual Risk 1% Surface Inundation Annual Risk Under 1% Surface Inundation Annual Risk 2004 1999 1998 2006 Appendix A: Year Built Statistics for Morningside Single Family Homes: The Single Family Homes were selected by attribute and the following statistics were generated: Figure 5: Chart of ArcGIS statistics showing the majority of Morningside homes were built between 1910 and 1960. Appendix B GIS Methodology: Home Elevation Methodology The adjacent grade elevations were calculated in Arc Map, using the DEM (digital elevation map) and Building Footprint feature class. The DEM was clipped to the building footprints, converted into a polygon feature class, and then spatially joined back to the Building Footprint feature class to add minimum, average, and maximum elevations for each footprint. Since the DEM data needs to be in integers to be converted to a polygon feature class (ArcGIS limitation), the elevation data was converted from meters to feet and multiplied by 10, and converted to integers using the Map Algebra Tool before converting to a polygon feature class. Once converted, the data was divided by 10 to get elevation data to the nearest tenth. Figure 6: GIS Model of Adjacent Grade Elevation calculation process Figure 7: Example footprint with elevation data from DEM clip and derived data below. The first floor and basement elevation data were obtained from the home lot surveys when possible. If the survey contained a top-of- foundation or TOB (top of block) elevation, 1 foot was added to that number to account for the sub-floor and floor. If basement elevation data wasn’t available, 9 feet was subtracted from the First Floor Elevation. If the lot survey was missing or didn’t contain elevation data, the first floor elevation was calculated by adding 1 foot to the maximum footprint elevation from the DEM and the basement elevation was determined by subtraction 8 feet from that elevation (or 9 feet total from the first floor elevation). The critical structures at risk of surface inundation were also viewed using Street View to confirm the first floor elevations. First Floor Elevation: Plan versus Calculated Differences To test the confidence level of the First Floor Elevation calculation methodology above, the homes with known First Floor Elevations were selected (238 homes) and the calculated values subtracted from the plan values to create a difference data. The data was then exported to Excel to be statistically analyzed and summarized. Figure 8: Histogram of Plan versus Calculated First Floor Elevation difference The 95% Confidence Level is 0.2’ with the Mean being 0.17’ and a Standard Deviation of 1.72. 47.7% of home calculated FFE’s were within ½’ of the plan FFE and 76.4% of home calculated FFE’s were within 1’ of the plan FFE. This is close enough to use for our analysis and to use for future city-wide models. The difference outlier homes were further analyzed: The biggest difference home (14.8’ plan above calculated FFE) was built after the LIDAR data was collected. The landscape was significantly raised to elevate the home out of the flood plain. The other homes with negative differences were mostly split-level walkout basement homes with FFE’s below the maximum elevation. The Basement Elevation calculations were also compared against the plan lFE’s in a total of 97 homes. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -8.5-7.5-6.5-5.5-4.5-3.5-2.5-1.5-0.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.510.511.512.513.514.5MoreFrequency Plan - Calculated Difference First Floor Elevation: Plan versus Calculated Difference Figure 9: Histogram of Plan versus Calculated Basement Elevation difference: The 95% Confidence Level is 0.66’ with the Mean being 0.46’ and a Standard Deviation of 3.28 . 26.8% of home calculated FFE’s were within ½’ of the plan FFE and 43.3% of home calculated FFE’s were within 1’ of the plan FFE. The outlier homes correspond with the outliers in the FFE analysis. Flood Risk GIS Methodology: In ArcMap, the 1% and 10% inundation shape polygons were overlaid on an elevation relief map (from the DEM) and carefully inspected to remove false “artifacts” from the Barr model. Others were edited or removed when new build landscaping elevation was done to increase the home elevation and reduce the flood risk. Elevation contour lines from the plot surveys were used to reshape the polygons. After editing the polygons, the structures were matched with their subwatersheds by selecting the structures that intersected each subwatershed polygon. The subwatershed 1% and 10% inundation elevations were added for each watershed. Since most structures overlapped 2 or more subwatersheds, the higher inundation elevation numbers were added, unless there was surface inundation risk by lower elevation inundation. To determine surface flood risk, the structures overlapping the 1% and 10% inundation polygons were selected. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -8.5-7.5-6.5-5.5-4.5-3.5-2.5-1.5-0.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.510.511.512.513.514.5Frequency Plan - Calculated Difference Basement Elevation: Plan versus Calculated Difference Direct Flood Risk GIS Methodology: The data was selected using the commands below for each 1% and 10% risk: Moderate Flood Risk: Type = ‘Single Family’ AND SurfaceFlood10%/1% = 'Yes' AND ( FloodElevation10%/1% > Minimum Adjacent Elevation) AND ( FloodElevation10%/1% </= Average Elevation) Major Flood Risk: Type = ‘Single Family’ AND SurfaceFlood10%/1% = 'Yes' AND ( FloodElevation10%/1% > Average_Elevation ) AND ( FloodElevation10%/1% </=Maximum_Elevation) Severe Flood Risk: Type = ‘Single Family’ AND SurfaceFlood10%/1% = 'Yes' AND FloodElevation10%/1% > Maximum_Elevation Indirect Flood Risk GIS Methodology: The data was selected using the commands below for each 1% and 10% risk: Minor: Type = ‘Single Family’AND FloodElevation10%/1% <=( BasementElevation + 4) AND ( FloodElevation10%/1% > BasementElevation) Moderate: Type = ‘Single Family’AND FloodElevation10%/1% >( BasementElevation + 4) Sanitary Flood Risk Methodology Moderate: • Select by Attributes: DirectFloodRisk 10%/1% = ‘Major’ OR DirectFloodRisk 10%/1% = ‘Severe’ • SanitaryRiskElevation10%/1% = BasementEvelation + 1. Sort the homes from lowest to highest sanitary risk elevation • Create a 250’ buffer around the selected homes, using the buffer tool • Select by location the buildings intersecting the each buffer, starting with the buffer from the target home with the lowest sanitary elevation and work upwards, since there will be overlap. • Then select by attributes from that selection Type = ‘Single Family’ AND Sewershed = [the one from the target home] • Remove any other target homes with higher sanitary risk elevations from the selection, then copy the SanitaryRiskElevation for the target home to the rest of the homes in the buffer • Then Select by Attributes from current selection: SanitaryRiskElevation10%/1% > BasementElevation. The selected homes will be your Moderate Risk homes Major: Major is done similar to Moderate, with the following differences: • Review Moderate flood risk buffers for clusters of over 3 homes with Major or Severe Direct Flood risk that are on the same sanitary main. Select the buffers of these homes and export selected to create a new feature class • Then Select by Attributes: DirectFloodRisk 10%/1% = ‘Major’ OR DirectFloodRisk 10%/1% = ‘Severe’ • SanitaryRiskElevation10%/1% = BasementElevation +5. Sort the homes from lowest to highest sanitary risk elevation •Repeat the rest of the steps from the Moderate Sanitary Risk Methodology Potential Mitigation Option Mapping The Barr Engineering team helped created an Excel Macro-enabled spreadsheet to calculate and summarize the annualized risk to each home, based on current conditions and each potential mitigation option. The annualized risk data for each home and condition was then imported to ArcMap and merged with the home data feature class. The risk change was calculated for each option by home by subtracting the risk for the option from the current condition risk. The homes removed from risk classifications were calculated by applying a selection criterion for the current risk not equal to zero and the improvement option equaling zero. These selections were exported as layers for creating the maps below. 3 sets of maps were made with this data: -A single Greatest Impact map showing the at-risk homes categorized by the option that would yield the greatest improvement to existing conditions. The greatest improvement option for each home was calculated by selecting the option with the highest risk changes (positive). The homes that had multiple options with the same improvement were left out. -A series of maps depicting the homes at risk for current and each improvement condition. The maps for the improvement conditions also included a category for the homes removed from risk for the specified condition. A color gradient was used to show the risk level to each home in $3000 increments (not noted on the maps to keep confidential). -A series of maps showing the risk change from existing conditions for the improvement options. Some of the improvement options had a few homes with increased risk, which were depicted in red, while the improvement risk decrease amounts (in $3000 increments as above) were shown on a green gradient. A category showing the homes removed from risk was also shown for each option. Resources References for concept used in creating expected annual damage and damage-exceedance probability and cost curves; https://www.nap.edu/read/21720/chapter/5 http://www.naic.org/documents/cipr_study_1704_flood_risk.pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.52.5.1016 https://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/a10327c71a76f7c88d7cf403dcf60f4f/Actuarial_Methods_and_Assumptions_2013-09-04_508.pdf Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Greatest Impact Flood Mitigation Options Greatest Impact Alt3a (2 homes)Alt5a (1 home)Alt7b (69 homes) Alt8 (13 homes)Alt9 (11 homes) No Impact Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Existing Conditions (160 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 2b (134 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (26 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 3a (150 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (11 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 4a (154 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (6 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 5a (155 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (5 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 7b (123 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (38 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 8 (155 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 23 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (5 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey 45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Homes at Risk of Inundation Option Alt 9 (126 homes at risk) 1 - lowest risk 2 3 4 5 - highest risk homes removed from risk (34 homes) No risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 2b 1 - small risk increase no change 1 - small risk decrease23 45 - large risk decrease removed from risk Proposed Berm around Weber Pond may mitigate increased flood risk to surrounding homes Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 3a 1 - small risk increase no change 1 - small risk decrease 2345 - large risk decrease removed from risk Proposed Flood Wall may mitigate increased risk to home Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 4a 1 - small risk increase no change 1 - small risk decrease23 45 - large risk decrease removed from risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 5a no change 1 - small risk decrease 2345 - large risk decrease removed from risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 7b 1 - small risk increase no change 1 - small risk decrease 2345 - large risk decrease removed from risk Proposed Flood Wall may mitigate increased risk to home Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 8 no change 1 - small risk decrease 2345 - large risk decrease removed from risk Weber Field Park Open Space 5 Kojetin Park Open Space 6 France44th Grimes42nd 40th LynnScottMorningsideAldenKipling SunnysideCrockerBransonMonterey45th EtonCurveOakdaleNatchezSidellInglewoodLittel LynnOakdale ² City of Edina Engineering Dept Semptember 2018 Morningside Flood Risk Change by Mitigation Option Option Alt 9 no change 1 - small risk decrease 2345 - large risk decrease removed from risk 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, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Project: 23271649.00 1.0 Purpose of Project and Project Background This technical memorandum summarizes Barr Engineering Co.’s (Barr’s) preliminary evaluation and conceptual design of potential flood risk reduction options for the Morningside neighborhood within the city of Edina. This work included a high-level evaluation of potential flood risk reduction options and development of associated planning-level opinion of probable construction costs. In parallel to Barr’s work, city of Edina staff (City) have been working on an approach for summarizing impacted structures and estimating potential flood damages and we understand that this damage information (dollars) will be used in conjunction with the estimated project cost data developed by Barr to help City staff further evaluate the costs and benefits of flood risk reduction opportunities in the study area. 2.0 Description of Existing Conditions The Morningside/Weber Park area is described in the City’s 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP, reference (1)): The Morningside/Weber Park area is in the far northeastern corner of Edina, bordering St. Louis Park to the north and Minneapolis to the east. The area is characterized by numerous backyard depressions and several large low-lying areas, including Weber Park. There are two large stormwater detention basins in the area, one located just north of West 42nd Street between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue, and the other located just north of West 42nd Street and west of France Avenue South (in Weber Park). The area is drained by a piped outlet that conveys stormwater to Lake Bde Maka Ska (formerly named Lake Calhoun) in Minneapolis. The storm sewer and detention basins in this area were originally designed for the 2-percent-annual-chance (50-year) storm event using TP-40 rainfall frequency estimates. Portions of this area have experienced flood problems historically. Model results indicate that approximately 65 principle structures and Avail Academy – Edina Campus (formerly Calvin Christian School) may be directly impacted by the 1-percent-annual-chance (100-year) flood elevations within this area. In the west part of this area, the flood elevation is approximately 872.1 feet (subwatershed MS_26). In the southwest part of this area, the flood elevation is approximately 871.7 feet (subwatershed MS_15). In the southeast part of this area, the flood elevation is approximately 870.1 feet To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx (subwatershed MS_52). In subwatersheds MS_40 and MS_39a and MS_39b, the flood elevation is 870.0 feet. In the smaller depressions without outlets to storm sewer such as subwatersheds MS_58, MS_20, MS_22, MS_57, MS_17, and MS_24, the peak flood elevations are 872.9 feet, 877.3 feet, 872.4 feet, 902.5 feet, 902.5 feet, and 872.1 feet respectively. Flood elevations in subwatersheds MS_20 and MS_22 are controlled by the 10-day snowmelt event, while flood elevations in the remaining subwatersheds are controlled by the 24- hour duration event. Flood inundation mapping for the 1-percent-annual-chance (100-year) and the 10-percent-annual-chance (10-year) storm events can be found on Figure 12.3 of the CWRMP and on the City’s Interactive Web Map. 3.0 Potential Flood Risk Reduction Options Several potential flood risk reduction options were evaluated using the City’s XP-SWMM model. Five storm recurrence intervals (i.e., 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year 24-hour storm events) were simulated for each flood risk reduction option to help understand the amount of improvement each option can achieve depending on the severity of the rainfall event. Barr conducted a cursory evaluation of potentially impacted structures for each potential flood risk reduction option to assess which options provided the greatest level of flood risk reduction (in terms of a reduction in the number of impacted structures). The seven options that provided the greatest level of flood risk reduction are described below and additional details are also shown on the figures included in Attachment A. • Option 2b: Increase the size of the main trunk storm sewer along West 42nd Street and Crocker Avenue (up to 60”), including some of the lateral storm sewer (e.g., along Grimes Avenue, 24” to 48”), and construct a flood wall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond, between the pond and the adjacent residential properties, tying into West 42nd Street on the south side of Weber Pond (Figure A-1). • Option 3a: Provide additional flood storage by excavating (i.e., lowering) the ballfield area of Weber Park and reconstructing the fields, excavating the wooded area north of Weber Pond, excavating and re-grading the low area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue north of West 42nd Street, lowering the open area between Susan Lindgren Elementary School and Monterey Avenue (Yale Gardens Park), and excavating some of the backyards between 44th Street and Branson Street. Additionally, construct a flood wall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond, between the pond and the adjacent residential properties (also included in Option 2b), and construct an earthen berm along the west side of Monterey Avenue between West 41st Street and West 42nd Street. This option would also include installation of a culvert to connect Weber Pond to the newly excavated storage in the wooded area north of West 41st Street (Figure A-2). • Option 4a: Provide additional flood storage by excavating and re-grading the low area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue north of West 42nd Street, and installing predictive pumping To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 3 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx systems from the aforementioned low area and Weber Pond to the park (Minikahda Vista Park) north of Avail Academy – Edina Campus to free up flood storage capacity prior to significant rainfall events (Figure A-3). The predictive pumping rates were chosen to draw down these two water bodies from their normal levels to about 6-inches of water depth over a 24 hour period (recognizing that predicting storms more than 24 hours in advance is challenging). For modeling purposes, the pumping rates were assumed to be the same regardless of predicted precipitation amounts in order to maximize available flood storage. • Option 5a: Provide additional flood storage by installing underground storage in Weber Park and the open area between Susan Lindgren Elementary School and Monterey Avenue (Yale Gardens Park). Water would be diverted from the storm sewer to the underground storage by installing three diversion weirs in the existing storm sewer manholes (Figure A-4). Pumps would be used to draw down water levels in the underground storage after precipitation events (one pump in each underground storage unit). • Option 7b: A combination of Options 2b, 3a, and 4a (Figure A-5), which includes: o Increasing the size of the trunk storm sewer along West 42nd Street and Crocker Avenue (up to 60”) and some of the lateral storm sewer (e.g., along Grimes Avenue, 24” to 48”) o Excavating additional flood storage in the low area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue o Installing predictive pumping systems o Excavating (lowering) the open area between Susan Lindgren Elementary School and Monterey Avenue (Yale Gardens Park) o Constructing an earthen berm west of Monterey Avenue o Constructing a flood wall east and south of Weber Pond • Option 8: A more simple variant of Option 3a (Figure A-6), which includes: o Excavating (i.e., lowering) the ballfields in Weber Park and excavating (to a greater extent, and deeper, than in Option 3a) the wooded area north of Weber Pond o Constructing a flood wall east and south of Weber Pond o Modifying (lowering) the inverts of the storm sewer pipe from Weber Pond to Minneapolis so that the normal water level of Weber Pond can be lowered by less than 2 feet. • Option 9: A combination of Option 2b, parts of 5a, and 8 (Figure A-7), which includes: o Increasing the size of the trunk storm sewer along West 42nd Street and Crocker Avenue (up to 60”) and some of the lateral storm sewer (e.g., along Grimes Avenue, 24” to 48”) o Constructing a flood wall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 4 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx o Excavating (i.e., lowering) the ballfields at Weber Park and excavating (to a greater extent) the wooded area north of Weber Pond. o Modifying (lowering) the inverts of the storm sewer from Weber Pond to Minneapolis so that the normal water level of Weber Pond can be lowered by less than 2 feet. o Installing underground storage in Yale Gardens Park, the required diversion weir in the nearby manhole structure, and the low-flow pump to drain the stored water. 4.0 Results Barr provided tables of peak flood elevations to the City for a subsequent analysis of flood consequences and damages (reference (2)). The tables summarized flood elevations, by subwatershed, under existing conditions and under each of the seven flood risk reduction options for each of the five modeled recurrence intervals. Barr and City staff then developed a method to estimate flood damages based on the peak flood elevations and approximate home elevations. The goal of the analysis was to estimate flood risk and associated impacts at a neighborhood-scale for varying storm events. 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 (3)) and assumptions or judgments about the probability of damage given a flood level relative to the assumed (LiDAR-based) home elevations. The methodology for quantifying flood risk accounts for probability of flood events, probability of damage, and the magnitude of damages for existing conditions and for each of the seven flood risk reduction options. This approach for quantifying flood risk considers damage due to potential direct flooding of homes at the surface, indirect flooding of homes via groundwater, and flooding of homes via sanitary sewer backups. The results are detailed in the City’s documentation (reference (4)) and are summarized below to provide a comparison of relative flood risk reduction in terms of the number of impacted principle structures. Please note that in the City’s documentation and the summary provided below, principle structures are referred to as “homes”. Additionally, homes that are referred to as “removed from risk” in the summary below are homes that are no longer at risk of damage by the three damage modes considered for storm events that have a 1%, or greater, chance of occurring each year; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk. Homes described as “increased risk” would expect higher peak flood levels for some or all of the storm events modeled, and subsequently, higher expected damages in dollars. Conversely, homes described as “decreased risk” would expect lower peak flood levels for some or all of the storm events modeled, and subsequently lower expected damages in dollars. • Option 2b: 26 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 111 homes throughout the area, and the risk was increased for 15 homes. These 15 homes are primarily around Weber Pond where water would accumulate due to the additional conveyance of storm sewer upstream. 6 of those homes where the risk increased would be protected by the flood wall, increasing the total number of homes removed from risk to 32. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 5 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx • Option 3a: 11 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 117 homes throughout the area, and the risk was increased for one home, which is near Yale Gardens Park where additional storage and the earthen berm would allow water to be stored to a higher elevation. However, the berm would separate this home from the stored water and it would be protected, increasing the total number of homes removed from risk to 12. • Option 4a: 6 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 127 homes throughout the area, and the risk was increased for 1 home. This 1 house is east of Weber Pond. Refinement of the predictive pumping scheme may help in further protecting this home. • Option 5a: 5 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 92 homes throughout the area, and the risk was not increased for any homes. • Option 7b: 38 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 150 homes throughout the area, and the risk was increased for 1 home. This 1 house is near Yale Gardens Park where additional storage and the earthen berm would store water higher. However, the berm would separate this home from the stored water and it would be protected, increasing the total number of homes removed from risk to 39. • Option 8: 5 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 74 homes throughout the area, and the risk was not increased for any homes. • Option 9: 34 homes were completely removed from risk, the risk was decreased for 136 homes throughout the area, and the risk was not increased for any homes. 5.0 Planning-Level Opinion of Probable Construction Cost The Engineer’s planning-level opinions of probable construction cost have been developed for each of the flood risk reduction options discussed in Section 3.0 and are included as Attachment B. The planning- level opinions of probable construction cost are intended to provide assistance in evaluating and comparing flood risk reduction options and should not be assumed as absolute values for given options. 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, wide-scale 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. At this stage of planning, the range of uncertainty of total project cost is high. Due to the early stage of the project, it is standard practice to place a broad accuracy range around the point cost estimate. 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 2018 U.S. dollars and include costs for engineering and project administration. Quantities are estimated with calculations based on site development assumptions as described for each potential flood risk reduction option. Dimensions, areas and volumes were assumed based on LiDAR elevation data and current understanding of proposed grading. For each potential flood risk reduction To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 6 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx option considered, planning-level opinion of costs do not include land acquisition or coordination with residents or other subcontractors. The opinion of probable cost provided in this report is made on the basis of Barr Engineering’s experience and qualifications and represents our best judgment as experienced and qualified professionals familiar with the project. It is acknowledged that additional investigations and additional site specific information that become available in the next stage of study or design may result in changes to the assumed configuration, cost and functioning of project features. In addition, because we have no control over the eventual cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Barr cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual costs will not vary from the planning-level opinion of probable costs presented. 6.0 References 1. City of Edina. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Edina, MN : s.n., July 2018. 2. Barr Engineering Co. Annualized Damage Method - Barr to Edina Round 2 - with Macro.xlsm. [Excel File] September 14, 2018. 3. FEMA. Estimated Flood Loss Potential Tables. Flood Loss Estimations 2017. [Online] [Original data source: National Flood Services, FloodTools.com] [Cited: September 1, 2018.] https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1499290622913- 0bcd74f47bf20aa94998a5a920837710/Flood_Loss_Estimations_2017.pdf. 4. City of Edina. Edina Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Concepts. Edina, MN : s.n., September 2018. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 7 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx Attachment A Map Figures of the Flood Improvement Options 970 foot flood wall (top elev=871 ft) 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave C u r v e A v e Inglewood AveW 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-1 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 2BMorningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 12:23 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 2b.mxd User: sms Option 2B Proposed Storm Sewer Size Increase (up to 60") Option 2B Flood Wall !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Excavate 4.3 ac-ft580 foot berm (top elev = 874 ft) Excavate 16.3 ac-ft970 foot flood wall (top elev = 870 ft) Excavate 8.0 ac-ft Excavate 13.6 ac-ft Excavate 2.3 ac-ft 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave Cu r v e A v e W 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oa k da le A ve Figure A-2 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 3AMorningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 12:22 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 3a.mxd User: sms Option 3A Berm / Flood Wall Option 3A Excavation Option 3A Culvert !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave C u r v e A v e Inglewood AveW 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-3 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 4AMorningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 12:26 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 4a.mxd User: sms Option 4A Predictive Pumping Option 4A Excavation !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Excavate 9.4 ac-ft Predictive Pumping at 4.2 cfs for 24 hrs Predictive Pumping at 9.3 cfs for 24 hrs 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave C u r v e A v e Inglewood AveW 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-4 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 5AMorningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 15:53 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 5a.mxd User: sms Option 5A Underground Storage Option 5A Weir !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Underground Storage 5.7 ac-ft Underground Storage 47.6 ac-ft 970 foot flood wall (top elev = 871 ft) Excavate 4.3 ac-ft580 foot berm (top elev = 874 ft) 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave Cu r v e A v e Inglewood Ave W 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-5 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 7BMorningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 12:35 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 7b.mxd User: sms Option 3A Berm / Flood Wall Option 4A Predictive Pumping Option 4A Excavation Option 3A Excavation !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Excavate 2.3 ac-ft Excavate 9.4 ac-ft Predictive Pumping at 9.3 cfs for 24 hrs Predictive Pumping at 4.2 cfs for 24 hrs 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave Cu r v e A v e Inglewood AveW 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-6 PPROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 8Morningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 12:49 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 8.mxd User: sms Option 8 Proposed Storm Sewer Invert Changes Option 8 Berm Option 8 Excavation Option 8 Culvert !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 Excavate 16.3 ac-ftLower NWL by 1.93 ft 970 foot flood wall (top elev = 870 ft) Excavate 23.3 ac-ft 456717 45673 France Ave SW 44th St W 42nd St Grimes Ave W 39th St Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Da le Ave S Branson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Sunnyside Rd Lynn Ave SVallacher Ave Joppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SDar t A ve W 40th La Eaton Pl Ottawa Ave SW 45th StOakdale Ave C u r v e A v e Inglewood AveW 42 1/2 St Colgate A v e Glendale Ter Little St Monterey Ave SNatchez Ave Waveland Ter Glenhurst Ave SSunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Figure A-7 PROPOSED FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OPTION - OPTION 9Morningside Neighborhood City of Edina Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-07-06 15:56 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Morningside FRRS 23271649\Maps\Figure X Option 9.mxd User: sms Option 8 Proposed Storm Sewer Invert Changes Option 5A Underground Storage Option 5A Weir Option 8 Berm Option 8 Excavation Option 8 Culvert !>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Existing Storm Sewer Subwatersheds Parcels 0 240 480Feet !;N Note: Vertical datum for all listed elevations is NGVD29 Imagery: USDA NRCS NAIP, 2017 UndergroundStorage 5.7 ac-ft Excavate 16.3 ac-ftLower NWL by 1.93 ft 970 foot flood wall (top elev = 870 ft) Excavate 23.3 ac-ft To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Cory Anderson, Sarah Stratton, and Janna Kieffer Subject: Morningside Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Conceptual Study Date: November 19, 2018 Page: 15 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Technical Summary Memo\Morningside FRRS Exec Summary Memo_11192018.docx Attachment B Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Project Cost for Flood Improvement Options PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 2B Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $240,000.00 $240,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Flotation Silt Curtain LF 900 $11.00 $9,900.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 4,580 $20.00 $91,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 F 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 278 $110.00 $30,580.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 G 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 710 $170.00 $120,700.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 H 48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 368 $270.00 $99,360.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 I 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 840 $225.00 $189,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 J 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $340.00 $894,200.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 K Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 14 $372.00 $5,208.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 56 $608.00 $34,048.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 14 $804.00 $11,256.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,450.00 $324,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Casting Assembly Each 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Tie-In Existing Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 38 $700.00 $26,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Excavation CY 1,110 $4.00 $4,440.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Offsite Disposal of Excavated Material CY 890 $16.00 $14,240.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Site Grading SY 2,230 $2.00 $4,460.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Reinforced Structural Concrete Flood Wall CY 450 $1,000.00 $450,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Clearing and Grubbing AC 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 W Tree 2", B&B Each 20 $500.00 $10,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,638,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$791,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,429,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$1,029,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $11,000.00 1,2,3,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,469,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$3,129,000.00 5,8 50%$6,704,000.00 5,8 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. 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. 7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per lineal foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 1 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 2 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 3A Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $270,000.00 $270,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Flotation Silt Curtain LF 1,000 $11.00 $11,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Remove Existing Sports Infrastructure LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Excavation CY 72,903 $4.00 $291,613.33 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 72,290 $16.00 $1,156,634.07 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Site Grading SY 125,540 $2.00 $251,080.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Place On-Site Soil for Berm Construction CY 1,504 $5.00 $7,518.52 1,2,3,4,5,6 J 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (5' - 8' depth)LF 50 $110.00 $5,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 K 36" RC Pipe Sewer Flared End Section (Furnish and Install)Each 2 $1,540.00 $3,080.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 L MnDOT Class IV RipRap with Filter Fabric TON 53 $100.00 $5,275.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Reinforced Structural Concrete Flood Wall CY 450 $1,000.00 $450,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Clearing and Grubbing AC 9 $6,000.00 $54,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Upland Native Vegetation AC 5 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Tree 2", B&B Each 150 $500.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 17 $3,000.00 $52,314.05 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Sod SY 4,840 $6.00 $29,040.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Erosion Control Blanket SY 29,476 $2.00 $58,951.20 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Wetland Restoration AC 2.5 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Reconstruction of Baseball Field LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Reconstruction of Ice Rink LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,966,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$890,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,856,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$1,157,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $56,000.00 1,2,3,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,069,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$3,549,000.00 5,8 50%$7,604,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 2 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 3 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 4A Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $186,000.00 $186,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Excavation CY 15,165 $4.00 $60,661.33 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 15,165 $16.00 $242,645.33 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Site Grading SY 14,520 $2.00 $29,040.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Opti CMAC Predictive Pumping Control System (Furnish and Install)Each 2 $85,000.00 $170,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 G 2,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 H 4,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $700,000.00 $700,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Pumping Station Outlet Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 1,116 $40.00 $44,640.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 J Pumping Station Inlet Suction Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 24 $40.00 $960.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 K Tie-In Storm Sewer to Existing Manhole Each 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 L Clearing and Grubbing AC 3.2 $6,000.00 $19,239.67 1,2,3,4,5,6 M Upland Native Vegetation AC 0.7 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Tree 2", B&B Each 50 $500.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 0.5 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Erosion Control Blanket SY 1,452 $2.00 $2,904.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Wetland Restoration AC 2 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,038,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$611,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,649,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$795,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,444,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$2,411,000.00 5,8 50%$5,166,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 3 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 4 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 5A Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 $576,000.00 $576,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Remove Existing Sports Infrastructure LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Excavation CY 785,587 $4.00 $3,142,346.67 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Excavate and Haul offsite CY 112,933 $16.00 $1,806,933.33 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Site Grading SY 43,560 $2.00 $87,120.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Salvage and Replace Existing Topsoil CY 7,260 $9.00 $65,340.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 H StormTrap Subsurface Storage CF 2,866,250 $6.00 $17,197,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I 500 GPM Pump (Subsurface Storage Drawdown)Each 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 J 3,500 GPM Pump (Subsurface Storage Drawndown)Each 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 K 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10' - 15' depth)LF 300 $215.00 $64,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 L 42" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10' - 15' depth)LF 50 $270.00 $13,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 M Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 w/ Weir (Diversion Structure)Each 3 $15,000.00 $45,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Tie-In Existing Storm Sewer to Manhole Each 5 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Clearing and Grubbing AC 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Tree 2", B&B Each 25 $500.00 $12,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 9.0 $3,000.00 $27,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Reconstruction of Baseball Field LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Reconstruction of Ice Rink LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $23,524,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$7,057,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $30,581,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION $1,100,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $31,681,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$22,177,000.00 5,8 50%$47,522,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 4 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 5 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 7B Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $455,000.00 $455,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Excavation CY 26,923 $4.00 $107,693.33 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 25,200 $16.00 $403,194.07 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Site Grading SY 40,712 $2.00 $81,424.44 1,2,3,4,5,6 Place On-Site Soil for Berm Construction CY 1,504 $5.00 $7,518.52 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Reinforced Structural Concrete Flood Wall CY 450 $1,000.00 $450,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Flotation Silt Curtain LF 900 $11.00 $9,900.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 4,580 $20.00 $91,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 J 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 278 $110.00 $30,580.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 K 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 710 $170.00 $120,700.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 L 48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 368 $270.00 $99,360.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 M 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 840 $225.00 $189,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 N 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $340.00 $894,200.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 O Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 14 $372.00 $5,208.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 56 $608.00 $34,048.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 14 $804.00 $11,256.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,450.00 $324,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 S Casting Assembly Each 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 T Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 9 $1,000.00 $9,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 U Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 38 $700.00 $26,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Opti CMAC Predictive Pumping Control System (Furnish and Install)Each 2 $85,000.00 $170,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 W 2,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 X 4,000 GPM Pumping Station (Includes Building Structure, Electric Supply, Control Panel)LS 1 $700,000.00 $700,000.00 Y Pumping Station Outlet Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 1,116 $40.00 $44,640.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Z Pumping Station Inlet Suction Piping (Furnish and Install)LF 24 $40.00 $960.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 AA Clearing and Grubbing AC 6 $6,000.00 $33,994.49 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB Upland Native Vegetation AC 0.7 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC Wetland Restoration AC 2.0 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD Tree 2", B&B Each 150 $500.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 4.7 $3,000.00 $14,134.85 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF Sod SY 4,840 $3.00 $14,520.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 GG Erosion Control Blanket SY 5,324 $2.00 $10,648.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $5,001,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$1,500,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $6,501,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$1,950,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $56,000.00 1,2,3,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $8,507,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$5,955,000.00 5,8 50%$12,761,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 5 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 6 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 8 Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $278,000.00 $278,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Flotation Silt Curtain LF 1,000 $11.00 $11,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Remove Existing Sports Infrastructure LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Excavation CY 64,998 $4.00 $259,992.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 64,778 $16.00 $1,036,448.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Site Grading SY 87,070 $2.00 $174,140.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Reinforced Structural Concrete Flood Wall CY 450 $1,000.00 $450,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 1,190 $20.00 $23,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 K Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 L 30" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 16' depth)LF 910 $160.00 $145,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 M 42" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 16' depth)LF 280 $250.00 $70,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 N Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 16 $608.00 $9,728.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 42 $804.00 $33,768.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P Casting Assembly Each 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Q Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 R Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 2 $700.00 $1,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 S 6' x 8' Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 100 $1,000.00 $100,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 T 6' x 8' Box Culvert End Section (Furnish and Install)Each 4 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 U MnDOT Class IV RipRap with Filter Fabric TON 248 $100.00 $24,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 V Clearing and Grubbing AC 5 $6,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 W Upland Native Vegetation AC 4.5 $5,000.00 $22,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Tree 2", B&B Each 100 $500.00 $50,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 13.0 $3,000.00 $38,969.01 1,2,3,4,5,6 Z Erosion Control Blanket SY 24,200 $2.00 $48,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Reconstruction of Baseball Field LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB Reconstruction of Ice Rink LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC Wetland Restoration AC 0.5 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $3,058,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$917,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $3,975,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$1,193,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $11,000.00 1,2,3,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,179,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$3,626,000.00 5,8 50%$7,769,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 6 PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 7 OF 7 BY:KJN2 DATE:7/6/2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY CHECKED BY: KAL DATE: 7/6/2018 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY:DATE: PROJECT:Morningside FRRS Study ISSUED:DATE: LOCATION:City of Edina ISSUED:DATE: PROJECT #:23/27-1649.00 ISSUED:DATE: OPINION OF COST - SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE: Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Morningside Flood Mitigation Feasibility Project Option 9 Cat.ESTIMATED No.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $741,000.00 $741,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 B Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 C Dewatering LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 D Flotation Silt Curtain LF 1,000 $11.00 $11,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 E Remove Existing Sports Infrastructure LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 F Excavation CY 113,398 $4.00 $453,592.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 G Off Site Disposal of Excavated Material CY 101,885 $16.00 $1,630,154.67 1,2,3,4,5,6 H Site Grading SY 96,750 $2.00 $193,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 I Salvage and Replace Existing Topsoil CY 7,260 $9.00 $65,340.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 J Reinforced Structural Concrete Flood Wall CY 450 $1,000.00 $450,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 K 6' x 8' Box Culvert (Furnish and Install)LF 100 $1,000.00 $100,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 L 6' x 8' Box Culvert End Section (Furnish and Install)Each 4 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 M MnDOT Class IV RipRap with Filter Fabric TON 248 $100.00 $24,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 N Remove and Dispose of Existing Storm Sewer LF 5,770 $20.00 $115,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 O Remove and Dispose of Existing Manhole/Catch Basin Each 26 $750.00 $19,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 P 24" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (12 - 13' depth)LF 278 $110.00 $30,580.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Q 30" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 16' depth)LF 910 $160.00 $145,600.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 R 36" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 13' depth)LF 710 $170.00 $120,700.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 S 42" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 16' depth)LF 280 $250.00 $70,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 T 48" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (15' depth)LF 368 $270.00 $99,360.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 U 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (8 - 10' depth)LF 840 $225.00 $189,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 V 60" RC Pipe Sewer (Furnish and Install) (10 - 16' depth)LF 2,630 $340.00 $894,200.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 W Construct Drainage Structure SD-48 LF 14 $372.00 $5,208.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 X Construct Drainage Structure SD-60 LF 72 $608.00 $43,776.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 Y Construct Drainage Structure SD-72 LF 70 $804.00 $56,280.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 A Construct Drainage Structure SD-84 LF 224 $1,450.00 $324,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 AA Casting Assembly Each 26 $750.00 $19,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 BB Tie-In Storm Sewer Main to Manhole Each 9 $1,000.00 $9,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CC Connect CB Leads to Constructed Storm Sewer Each 40 $700.00 $28,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 DD 72" Diameter Weir Manhole (Diversion Structure)Each 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 EE StormTrap Subsurface Storage CF 304,920 $6.00 $1,829,520.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 FF 500 GPM Pump (Subsurface Storage Drawdown)Each 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 GG Clearing and Grubbing AC 5 $6,000.00 $30,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 HH Upland Native Vegetation AC 5 $5,000.00 $22,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 II Tree 2", B&B Each 100 $500.00 $50,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 JJ Turf Establishment (w/ Disc Anchored Mulch)AC 15.0 $3,000.00 $44,969.01 1,2,3,4,5,6 KK Erosion Control Blanket SY 24,200 $2.00 $48,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 LL Reconstruction of Baseball Field LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 MM Reconstruction of Ice Rink LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 NN Wetland Restoration AC 0.5 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $8,151,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$2,445,000.00 1,5,8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $10,596,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION (30%)$3,179,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,8 RESIDENTIAL/CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT EASEMENT $11,000.00 1,2,3,5,8 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $13,786,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 -30%$9,651,000.00 5,8 50%$20,679,000.00 5,8 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. \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271649 Morningside FRRS Study\WorkFiles\Cost Estimates\Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost_20180704.xlsx 7 D Appendix D: ‘Keep your water to yourself: private infrastructure analysis’, technical memo Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Project: Edina Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Support (23271728.00) Executive Summary Barr was asked to review model-predicted flood impacts in the focal geography of the Morningside neighborhood to evaluate the sensitivity of those impacts to the magnitude of stormwater storage within the watershed. In particular, the focus was on underground storage methods within private property, the right-of-way, or under streets. This evaluation was conducted as a result of Task Force discussions about the potential benefits of requiring private homeowners to store stormwater on-site similar to requirements for commercial development. Barr reviewed the benefits achieved by storing the first 1-inch, 2-inches, and 3-inches of precipitation from storm events of varying size, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm; 3.59 inches) to the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm; 7.49 inches). For the private storage evaluation (underground storage vaults under a portion of each of the 570 residential parcels), storage was assumed for every parcel within the Morningside neighborhood. Barr found that storing the first 1-inch of storms of this magnitude had a negligible impact on flood levels. Storing the first 2-inches and 3-inches showed a more significant benefit with regards to reduction in peak flood levels. Depending on the storm event, and depending on the location within in the neighborhood, the results varied anywhere from flood level decreases of a few inches to decreasing nearly a foot and a half. However, this apparent benefit comes at an initial cost of approximately $15,000 per inch of stormwater stored, per residential parcel. To store 2-inches of runoff in the entire neighborhood (~570 residential parcels) would cost approximately $17 million. In addition, while the flood levels may be lowered, the number of homes that are removed from potential impacts from flood inundation is small. For example, one home may potentially be removed from flood inundation at Weber Pond depending on the storm event. Finally, the management and maintenance of these underground stormwater storage vaults distributed throughout an entire neighborhood is expected to be complicated and unprecedented. This is all to say, this solution would provide a moderate benefit for a very high cost. Additionally, a preliminary look at the compounding effect of climate change suggests that improvements realized by implementing additional private storage may eventually be negated by climate change (i.e., increased precipitation amounts, see Appendix B on Climate Change Impacts Analysis). To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 2 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Private Infrastructure Analysis Details A common example of private stormwater management infrastructure (infrastructure on a privately owned parcel), is a rainwater garden (Figure 1). Rainwater gardens are typically designed to store the first one inch of runoff generated from a storm, aimed at both reducing the volume of runoff and improving water quality downstream. Figure 1 Photo of a rainwater garden. Other examples of private infrastructure for stormwater storage can include tree trenches, cisterns, permeable pavement, and underground storage vaults. Figure 2 shows an example of an underground stormwater storage vault. To simplify our analysis, we assumed that all parcels in the Morningside neighborhood are approximately 60 feet wide (along the road), and also assumed that every parcel would have underground storage (below grade) that is 3 feet deep. Then we determined how wide the underground storage vault would need to be to contain 1 inch of runoff, 2 inches of runoff, or 4 inches of runoff. We found that underground storage vaults on every parcel in the Morningside neighborhood would need to be 5 feet wide to store 1 inch of runoff, 10 feet wide to store 2 inches of runoff, and 20 feet wide to store 4 inches of runoff. Figure 3 provides a graphic that shows the extent of underground storage needed for sample parcels in Morningside. Figure 2 Example of an underground storage vault (37th Avenue Greenway, Minneapolis). To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 3 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 3 Private stormwater storage sizing examples for storing varying amounts of runoff. Barr also analyzed using stormwater storage under streets and/or in the public right-of-way. Figure 4 provides a graphic that shows the approximate extent of underground storage available for a typical road within the Morningside neighborhood. Assuming two 15-foot wide (and 3 feet deep) underground storage vaults can be installed under all of the roads or right-of-way in the Morningside neighborhood, 3-inches of runoff could be stored in those vaults. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 4 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 4 Stormwater storage sizing (width) available for typical roads or right-of-way in the Morningside neighborhood. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 5 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 5 shows the subwatersheds in the Morningside neighborhood. Graphs are included below that show the results and range of benefits of residential/private stormwater storage for Weber Pond (subwatershed MS_40, Figure 6), for the area along Branson between Oakdale Avenue and Grimes Avenue (subwatershed MS_48, Figure 7), and for the area along Crocker Avenue between West 42nd Street and Morningside Road (subwatershed MS_2, Figure 8). Figure 5 Map showing subwatershed divides in and around the Morningside neighborhood To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 6 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx In Figure 6, the horizontal, maroon-dashed lines represent approximate low elevations based on structure footprints for the four lowest homes around Weber Pond. They may or may not represent actual low entry elevations of these homes. However, they give a good representation of the home elevations and how close they are to the flood levels. Figure 6 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in the Weber Pond subwatershed (MS_40). At first glance, the reductions shown in Figure 6 appear smaller than would be expected. There are multiple other factors affecting the flood volume stored in Weber Pond. First, Weber Pond ultimately receives water from Edina and also from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. While private infrastructure is overall beneficial, reducing the runoff to Weber Pond from Edina may allow more water from St. Louis Park and Minneapolis to fill the pond back up during an event. Second, at the peak flood elevations shown in Figure 6, stormwater flows out of Weber Pond both into Weber Park and over France Avenue to the east to Minneapolis. When ponds rise high enough to overflow banks, additional water does not tend to have a significant impact on the water level since water can start following natural overflow paths. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 7 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 7 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in subwatershed MS_48. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 8 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 8 Peak water surface levels resulting from varying amounts of runoff stored using private infrastructure for varying storm events in subwatershed MS_2. Barr commonly estimates that the cost per cubic foot of underground stormwater storage is approximately $10 to $20. For one inch of runoff, for one 0.25-acre parcel, storage volume equals 900 cubic feet. This equates to a little under $15,000 (+/- $5,000) per parcel per inch of runoff stored. Figure 9 shows the approximate cost per parcel of underground storage using varying widths of underground storage units and varying amounts of runoff stored. To put the cost of private underground storage into perspective, Figure 10 shows a portion of the Morningside neighborhood (~180 parcels) and provides a breakdown of an approximate cost to capture two inches of runoff from every parcel. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 9 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx Figure 9 Approximate cost per parcel of underground storage using varying widths of underground storage units and varying amounts of runoff stored. Figure 10 Cost breakdown for using private stormwater storage for a portion of the Morningside neighborhood. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 10 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx In total, there are approximately 570 residential parcels in the Morningside neighborhood watershed drainage area, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 Parcels in the Morningside neighborhood watershed/drainage area. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix D - Private Infrastructure Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 11 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix D - Private Infrastructure.docx The results of Barr’s private storage analysis are summarized in Table 1 below. Recall that storing 1-inch of runoff from every parcel in Morningside had a marginal benefit in general on peak flood levels. Table 1 below shows that to store 2-inches of runoff in the entire neighborhood would cost approximately $17 million. While storing 2-inches of runoff does reduce flood levels, the number of homes that are removed from potential impacts from flood inundation is small. For example, as shown in Figure 6, depending on the storm event, this level of effort may potentially remove only one home from flood inundation at Weber Pond. Table 1 Summary of costs and benefits of private stormwater storage for the whole Morningside neighborhood. Inches of Runoff Stored Cost for All Parcels to Store the Runoff Flood Level Reduction Benefit (in feet) for Weber Pond Subwatershed (MS_40) 5-yr Storm (3.59" of precip) 10-yr Storm (4.29" of precip) 50-yr Storm (6.39" of precip) 100-yr Storm (7.49" of precip) 1 inch $ 8,550,000 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 2 inches $ 17,100,000 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 3 inches $ 25,650,000 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 E Appendix E: ‘From ‘ill-drained’ to impervious: impervious surface analysis’, technical memo Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Project: Edina Flood Risk Reduction Strategy Support (23271728.00) Executive Summary Barr was asked to review model-predicted flood impacts in the focal geography of the Morningside neighborhood, and to review the sensitivity of those impacts to the magnitude of imperviousness (the hard surfaces that prohibit water infiltration). For reference, the impervious area that is directly connected to the storm sewer system in the Morningside neighborhood is estimated to be about 25% of the total land area, in aggregate (Figure 1). The directly connected imperviousness is the portion of the watershed that is impervious and routes flow directly to an outlet (catch basin, pond, depression, outlet, etc.). Some prominent examples of this type of imperviousness in a low-density residential neighborhood tend to be streets, parking lots, driveways, water bodies (i.e., Weber Pond), portions of roofs with gutters and downspouts directed to impervious surfaces such as a driveway, etc. Figure 1 Imperviousness raster data set from the University of Minnesota. The Morningside neighborhood is in the northeast corner. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx Barr tested the sensitivity by modifying the stormwater model so that the imperviousness of the entire contributing drainage area was increased, decreased, and even lowered all the way to 0%, which reflects a pre-development condition. This sensitivity test was also completed for a range of storm events, from the 20%-annual-chance storm event (5-year storm) to the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm). As expected, the imperviousness sensitivity test showed that less impervious area generates less stormwater runoff and more impervious area generates more stormwater runoff. However, the magnitude of the runoff changes generated by adjusting imperviousness were not as impactful as may have been expected. For reference, in the Weber Pond subwatershed, the 1%-annual-chance storm event (100-year storm) flood level would need to be reduced by just over 4 feet in order to remove the 5 lowest homes from potential structural impacts from flood inundation. Based on Barr’s imperviousness analysis, reducing or increasing impervious area by half (50%) tends to cause the peak water level to decrease or increase by up to approximately half a foot. This effect is more significant for small storm events, and less so for larger storm events. While affecting the flood level by half a foot may seem like a big gain, this change removed one impacted home at most from the flood inundation area around Weber Pond. Again, to achieve even this low level of impact, the entire contributing area (all of the Morningside neighborhood) would be required to reduce imperviousness by half (i.e., road widths are cut in half, driveway widths are cut in half, roof area cut in half and/or downspouts Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Details The sensitivity analysis focused on design storm events (NOAA Atlas 14, MSE3 temporal distribution) rather than an observed historical event(s). Modeled design storm events included the 5-year (3.59 inches), 10-year (4.29 inches), 50-year (6.39 inches), and 100-year events (7.49 inches), all 24-hour durations (i.e., for a 100-year storm event, 7.49 inches fall over a 24-hour period of time). Imperviousness parameter values were adjusted relative to “base case” values from the stormwater model. In general, the “base case” imperviousness parameter values were adjusted to +50%, +25%, -25%, -50%, and finally a “low” case to attempt to significantly reduce runoff. The range of values for each of the sensitivity cases is listed in Table 1. Most of the Morningside neighborhood is “low density residential”; for simplicity, only the values for this land use type is presented in Table 1. All other land use types, with varying imperviousness were similarly adjusted upward and downward for this sensitivity analysis. Table 1 Imperviousness parameter values for the sensitivity analysis Parameter Low Case -50% -25% 0% (Base) +25% +50% Directly Connected Percent Impervious1 0% 2 ~13% ~19% ~25% ~31% ~38% 1) Only the value for “low density residential” is shown here, as this covers most of the model area. All land use types were similarly modified for each of the sensitivity cases (-50%, -25%, etc.) Subwatersheds in the Morningside neighborhood are shown in Figure 2. To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 3 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx Figure 2 Map showing subwatershed divides in and around the Morningside neighborhood The directly connected impervious percentage tends to have an impact up to ±0.5 feet for the ±50% change in the base value. Example graphs are included that show the results for Weber Pond (MS_40, Figure 3), for the low area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue, north of West 42nd Street (MS_26, Figure 4), and for a landlocked subwatershed (MS_22) between Lynn Avenue and Crocker Avenue, south of West 42nd Street (Figure 5). To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 4 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx In these figures, the horizontal, maroon-dashed lines represent approximate low elevations based on structure footprints for the five lowest homes around Weber Pond. They may or may not represent actual low entry elevations of these homes. However, they give a good representation of the home elevations and how close they are to the flood levels. Figure 3 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in Weber Pond (subwatershed MS_40) for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. 865.0 865.5 866.0 866.5 867.0 867.5 868.0 868.5 869.0 869.5 870.0 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_40 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 5 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in MS_26 for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. 868.0 869.0 870.0 871.0 872.0 873.0 874.0 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_26 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 6 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx Figure 5 Sensitivity analysis results showing peak flood levels in MS_22 (a landlocked subwatershed) for a range of imperviousness and a range of storm events. 869.5 870.0 870.5 871.0 871.5 872.0 872.5 873.0 873.5 -200%-175%-150%-125%-100%-75%-50%-25%0%25%50%75%Peak Water Surface Elevation (feet)% Change in Percent Impervious Comparing the Events for the Percent Impervious parameter, at MS_22 20% Annual Chance (5 year) 10% Annual Chance (10 year) 2% Annual Chance (50 year) 1% Annual Chance (100 year) Low Houses Zero Percent Impervious (undeveloped)CurrentCondition To: Jessica Wilson and Ross Bintner, City of Edina From: Sarah Stratton and Cory Anderson, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Appendix E - Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis Date: March 30, 2020 Page: 7 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271728 Flood Risk Reduction Strategy\WorkFiles\General Support\FRRS Appendices\FRRS Appendix E - Imperviousness Sensitivity Analysis.docx As mentioned previously, some prominent examples of directly connected imperviousness in a low- density residential neighborhood tend to be streets, parking lots, driveways, water bodies (i.e., Weber Pond), portions of roofs with gutters and downspouts directed to impervious surfaces such as a driveway, etc. To achieve a 50% decrease in this parameter, these portions of the watershed would need to decrease in area by 50%. In essence, this means driveway and street widths would be cut in half, half of the directly connected roof area would be rerouted to pervious surfaces, half of the parking spaces converted to pervious surfaces and/or routed to BMPs to offset the runoff, etc. Such changes over the entire watershed would be significant and require a coordinated effort from all parcels. This would produce a beneficial change in the peak flood level, but would generally be limited to a benefit of about half a foot or less in this neighborhood. For some homes adjacent to Weber Pond, for example, where the 100-year peak flood level is multiple feet above the suspected low entry elevations, the impacts to peak flood levels shown in Figure 3 due to changes in directly connected imperviousness do not change whether these homes are wet or dry during a large, intense storm event. The results of the sensitivity analysis change depending on the storm event that is being modeled (e.g., 5- year versus 10-year). Trends and overall magnitudes do not change substantially from what is shown in the few example figures above. Other cases of interest (different storms, different subwatersheds, etc.) can be viewed in a companion Excel spreadsheet generated for the Morningside XP-SWMM Modeling technical memorandum (Barr, March 2020). Finally, it is also important to remember that the results of the sensitivity analysis depend on the input storm itself. As described, this analysis used the NOAA Atlas 14, 24-hour design storm with a MSE3 temporal distribution. This storm is both significant in total precipitation depth and very intense in the middle part of the storm. Storms with high intensity near the beginning or near the end of the event may produce different results, as will storms with more moderate, consistent intensity. However, given that flood management within the City is currently informed by Atlas 14 storms with the MSE3 temporal distribution, this storm was used for the sensitivity analysis. F Appendix F: Actions for Flood Resilient Homes, fact sheets Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Actions and Programs Overview Surface water flooding Sanitary backflow Groundwater seepage Where does the flood water in my home come from? Flood waters come from different sources. No matter the source, all can cause extensive damage to your home. Depending on the situation, different actions will work better than others to reduce damage to your property from the excess water. Gathering more information about how the water is entering your home, such as through a home drainage assessment, will help you choose the appropriate solution. Typical scenarios can include: Sanitary backflow flooding can be caused by a blockage in the City’s sewer system. This normally occurs when the sewer pipes are flooded with stormwater. When this happens, wastewater can flow backwards—into your home. Severe storms or prolonged periods of wet weather can cause water levels in creeks, ponds, lakes, and rivers to rise and overflow their banks. If your home is near these water bodies or in a low-lying area, it can be at risk of flooding. Surface water can also cause what’s known as “flash flooding.” Because it occurs with little notice, flash flooding can catch people off guard. This normally occurs when existing drainage systems are overwhelmed by extremely heavy rain. Instead of soaking into the ground or draining through stormwater sewers, the water flows over the land surface, collecting in low-lying areas. Urban areas can be particularly vulnerable to flash flooding due to a greater amount of impervious surface. Groundwater can also be a source of flooding. This tends to occur after long periods of heavy rain or snowmelt, when more water infiltrates the ground and causes the groundwater to rise above the home’s foundation level. There’s no doubt about it. No matter where you live in the Twin Cities area, it’s been tough to stay dry. In fact, the years between 2015 and 2019 were the wettest in Minnesota history. And, with our changing climate, we can expect more wet years, more powerful storms—and more flooding. The City of Edina’s strategy is to comprehensively reduce the risk of flooding throughout the community. This is accomplished through infrastructure, regulation, emergency services, and outreach and engagement. A series of factsheets were developed to describe actions people can take to reduce their own exposure and vulnerability to flooding. These factsheets, on topics ranging from sump pumps to sandbags, are now available on our website to help you determine what action is right for you. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Actions can reduce exposure or vulnerabilityHome retrofitting and flood prevention devices The table below provides a quick overview of some common actions you can take to create more flood resilient buildings and landscapes. The factsheets that follow provide in-depth information on how, when, and where to use these actions and additional resources for residents. Building action Yard action Action City permit requiredDNR permit requiredWatershed permit requiredGroundwater floodingSurface water floodingSanitary backflowRelative Cost Before floodDuring floodAfter floodReduces exposureReduces vulnerabilitySump pump x x x Low x x Sanitary backflow prevention x x Medium x x Dry floodproofing x x x Med-High x x Sandbags x Low x x Wet floodproofing x x x High x x x Basement and low-level area pumping x x x Low x Rain gardens and landscape changes x1 x2 x Medium x x Shoreline restoration x3 x x High x x Backyard element siting x4 x x Low x x Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Actions and Programs Overview Reduces vulnerability Reduces exposure The extent to which property, homes, buildings, infrastructure, and other assets come into contact with flood water The extent to which an exposed asset is able to resist flood-related damage 1Rain gardens may require a City permit if grading over 10 cubic yards. 2Rain gardens may require a permit from the watershed district. To learn more about your watershed visit: http://www.ninemilecreek.org or http://www.minnehahacreek.org. 3DNR permit may be required; visit https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rys/index.html for more info. 4Setbacks and structure count may apply; contact the City Planning Department for more info. Image source: mprnews.org Take action! The following factsheets describe actions that can protect your home from damage related to flooding. Not all actions will benefit your home; a proper home drainage assessment can help you understand which measures will be best for your situation. Many measures will require assistance from professional contractors and may require City permits. Please refer to each factsheet for additional information. Flood insurance The City of Edina participates in the National Flood Insurance Program which enables anyone residing in Edina to purchase a National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy. Your homeowner’s or renter’s insurance agent may also be able to help you purchase flood insurance. A list of participating providers can be found here: https://www. floodsmart.gov/find. Home drainage self-evaluation Improper drainage can cause water damage during even minor rain or snowmelt events. Whether you’re an owner or a renter, the Home Drainage Basics factsheet can help you assess problem areas where you live. Adopt-A-Drain By committing to keep drains clear of trash, leaves, grass, snow, and ice you can help prevent flooding—not to mention keeping Minnesota’s lakes, streams, and rivers free of pollutants. For greater impact, consider working with a friend or your neighbors to adopt multiple drains. More information on the Adopt-A-Drain program can be found by visiting: https://www.adopt-a-drain.org/. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Programs and Evaluation Described below are a few ways to take action in the fight against flooding. Consider flood insurance and a home drainage assessment to protect your home; consider adopting a drain to protect the environment and your community. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Flood Insurance According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), flooding is the most common natural disaster in the United States and the consequences can be costly. Even 1 inch of water can cause $25,000 damage to your home. While homeowner’s insurance policies do not typically cover flood damage, the good news is that you can purchase separate protection. Because the City of Edina participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), all of its residents are eligible to purchase flood insurance. Who needs flood insurance? Under federal law, if your home is within, or touches, a high-risk flood area and you have a mortgage on the property, you will be required to purchase flood insurance. Homes considered to be at high risk are those located within the 100-year floodplain— areas where there is a 1% annual risk of water rising above the base flood elevation. If you live near an area of past flooding, you should consider purchasing flood insurance. Even if you don’t live in or near a high- risk area, flood insurance can be a wise investment. In fact, more than 20 percent of flood insurance claims come from properties outside of high-risk flood zones. And, compared to the cost of paying back a disaster loan, flood insurance is a bargain. The Minnesota Commerce Department calculates that the average payment on a $50,000 disaster loan is $240 per month ($2,880 per year) for 30 years, while a $100,000 flood insurance premium is about $33 per month ($400 per year). Flood insurance is not limited to homeowners; it is also available to renters and owners of non-residential buildings. How do I find out about my risk of flooding? To learn about your specific risk of flooding, go to the City of Edina’s interactive flood risk map, or visit FEMA’s Flood Map Service Area. How do I buy insurance? You can start by contacting the agent who provides your auto, homeowner’s, or renter’s insurance. They may be able to help you purchase flood insurance. If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Help Center at 800-427-4661. What does flood insurance cover? You can purchase separate coverage for your home and its contents; both are recommended for the best protection. Make sure your policy contains a comprehensive list of items covered. Almost all walled and roofed buildings above ground can be covered. Coverage available for basements typically includes foundation elements (including posts or other support systems), utility connections, and necessary mechanical equipment (e.g., furnace, hot water heater, clothes washer and dryer, food freezer, air conditioner, electrical junction). Items typically found in finished basements—paneling, carpeting, furniture—are not covered. You must normally wait 30 days after you’ve paid your premium before your policy will be effective. Other considerations Losses from sewer backup are not covered by flood insurance unless the backup occurs as a result of surface water flooding. You may want to consider purchasing a rider on your homeowner’s policy to protect you from sewer backups not related to flooding. COST: $150-$12,0001 Costs are variable based on whether the location of the structure being insured is above or below the base flood elevation, whether the policy holder is a homeowner or renter, and many other factors. Due to the numerous variables, the best way to learn what your costs would be is to contact multiple providers and utilize the resources at the bottom of this page. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1According to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the average cost for a flood insurance policy is $500 per year. In low-to-moderate risk areas insurance can cost just over $100 per year. A renter’s policy can range from $150–$900 according to the Policygenius website: https://www.policygenius.com/renters-insurance/what-renters-need-to-know-about-flood-insurance/ Other resources: FEMA National Flood Insurance Program: www.floodsmart.gov Minnesota Department of Commerce Flood Insurance Basics: https://mn.gov/commerce/consumers/your-home/protect/other/floods/basics.jsp Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Flood Insurance FAQs: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/floodplain_management_fact_sheet_8.pdf Before flood action During flood action After flood action Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Home Drainage Basics The graphic below shows common home drainage issues and solutions. Basic measures such as repositioning downspouts, grading away from your foundation, and seasonal home maintenance routines can help keep your home dry during heavy rainfall events. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. http://www.ashireporter.org/HomeInspection/Articles/Keeping-Basements-Dry/1048 Turf to native conversion helps infiltrate stormwater and prevents flooding. The conversion can also be a money and water saver; native plants often require less water than turf lawns. Clearing storm sewer drains helps them perform effectively. Drains frequently become clogged with stormwater debris or blocked by snow and ice. This can cause water to accumulate and overflow onto roads and lawns. Gutter installation is the key to directing water from your roof away from your home’s foundation. Too much water falling too close to your home can cause soil erosion, foundation problems, and water in the basement. To be effective, gutters must be cleaned in spring and fall. Installing shields can prevent flooding through low-level windows. To protect window wells, create a gravel reservoir that allows water to slowly dissipate into the ground and install a cover. Rain gardens, soil amendments, rock trenches, and sub-surface systems can all assist with stormwater infiltration on your property. See Rain Garden Factsheet for details. Proper downspout alignment helps to drain water away from the home. Make sure the downspout extension is at least 4–6 feet long and properly positioned to avoid water backup. Grading away from your home provides water with a path away from your home’s foundation. Inset images courtesy of: http://www.ashireporter.org/HomeInspection/Articles/Keeping-Basements-Dry/1048 Sump pump discharge pipe locations should follow the guidance provided on the Sump Pump Factsheet. Follow similar guidance for downspouts to ensure water drains away from the home. NOTE: When stockpiling snow during the winter, plan ahead for the spring melt. Make sure water can effectively drain away from your property rather than pooling. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sump Pumps What is a sump pump? A sump pump is a small pump installed in the lowest part of your basement. Its purpose is to collect subsurface water from the ground near your home’s foundation and pump it out to your yard to keep your basement dry. Who needs a sump pump? According to the American Society of Home Inspectors, 60% of homes in the United States have wet basements. If yours is one of them—or if one of the conditions below applies—you should consider installing a sump pump. • Your basement has flooded • You live in a low-lying area (see the interactive flood risk map) • You have a finished basement where you store valuables (including appliances such as a washer/dryer) • You live in an area that receives significant amounts of rain or experiences rapid snowmelt How does a sump pump work? The sump pump usually stands in a “sump pit,” which is a hole about 2 feet deep and 18 inches wide. Water from the soil around your home’s foundation flows into the sump pit through drains. Once that water reaches a certain level in the pit a pressure sensor or float activator (similar to the one in your toilet) turns the pump on. The activated pump moves the water out of the pit through a pipe that should empty onto the ground at least 20 feet away from your home. In the City of Edina a utility connection permit is required to drain sump water to the storm sewer. Reduces vulnerability Reduces exposure COST: $400 (median MN)1 Sump tank Sump pump 3/4” Clear gravel Foundation drain tile pipe Interior drainage system 2” Discharge pipe Check valve FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION BASEMENT FLOOR For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1According to improvenet.com (2020) for cost of replacement sump pump installation. May be substantially higher for new pumps, depending on type of pump/flooring and location. Groundwater Before flood action During flood action After flood action For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Sump pump standards can be found at: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/397/Sump-Pump-Discharge-Connection-Policy-PDF. Information on utility connection permits can be found at: https://epermits2.logis.org/home.aspx?city=ed. Sump drain detail: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/848/310---Sump-Drain-PDF Sump drain connection detail: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/849/311---Sump-Drain-Service-Connection-PDF Installing sump pump requires a permit: https://www.edinamn.gov/209/Building-Permits-Resources. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sump Pumps Connecting your sump pump to City of Edina storm sewers: • The pipe exiting the house should have an air gap and drain to an area that slopes away from your home’s foundation. Direct the drainage away from your home toward green areas that infiltrate water or toward public drainage paths. • Sump drain lines can connect your sump pump directly to the storm sewer. This is best done by a licensed professional and requires a permit from the City of Edina. AIR GAP DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIR GAPS The air gap is outside your home, at the point where the sump pump’s internal discharge line exits your basement and connects to the external discharge line. The air gap provides an outlet for the footing drain flows to escape in the event of an issue in the external discharge, the curb collection system or the stormwater system. Different air gap configurations have been used in footing drain disconnections. Each type of air gap serves its purpose as a temporary footing drain water release. City of Ann Arbor A2gov.org/sumppumps Atrium Air Gap If the pump is running frequently 8 to 24 hours after a rain event, and water is splashing out of the air gap, the homeowner should contact a plumber to investigate the external discharge line. Keep your air gap free of dirt, grass clippings and debris. Do not allow air gap to become buried below ground or below landscaping. WHEN TO SEEK HELP Candy Cane Air Gap Pipe in Pipe Air Gap AIR GAP DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIR GAPS The air gap is outside your home, at the point where the sump pump’s internal discharge line exits your basement and connects to the external discharge line. The air gap provides an outlet for the footing drain flows to escape in the event of an issue in the external discharge, the curb collection system or the stormwater system. Different air gap configurations have been used in footing drain disconnections. Each type of air gap serves its purpose as a temporary footing drain water release. City of Ann Arbor A2gov.org/sumppumps Atrium Air Gap If the pump is running frequently 8 to 24 hours after a rain event, and water is splashing out of the air gap, the homeowner should contact a plumber to investigate the external discharge line. Keep your air gap free of dirt, grass clippings and debris. Do not allow air gap to become buried below ground or below landscaping. WHEN TO SEEK HELP Candy Cane Air Gap Pipe in Pipe Air Gap AIR GAP DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIR GAPS The air gap is outside your home, at the point where the sump pump’s internal discharge line exits your basement and connects to the external discharge line. The air gap provides an outlet for the footing drain flows to escape in the event of an issue in the external discharge, the curb collection system or the stormwater system. Different air gap configurations have been used in footing drain disconnections. Each type of air gap serves its purpose as a temporary footing drain water release. City of Ann Arbor A2gov.org/sumppumps Atrium Air Gap If the pump is running frequently 8 to 24 hours after a rain event, and water is splashing out of the air gap, the homeowner should contact a plumber to investigate the external discharge line. Keep your air gap free of dirt, grass clippings and debris. Do not allow air gap to become buried below ground or below landscaping. WHEN TO SEEK HELP Candy Cane Air Gap Pipe in Pipe Air Gap Other considerations • Drain tile around your home is an essential part of your sump pump system. The purpose of the tile is to collect water around the basement foundation and channel it to the sump pit. • Gutters can significantly affect the water that gets into your basement. Make sure your gutters are well maintained and large enough to handle heavy rains. Downspouts should be directed away from the home. Similarly, make sure that the land next to your home is properly graded—directing water away from the foundation. • Sump pumps should be checked regularly, particularly in early spring and when heavy rains are forecast. To test your pump, pour a bucket of water into the pit to make sure it starts automatically and that the water pumps out quickly. • Pump maintenance should include removing the pump from the pit and cleaning the grate on the bottom. You should also make sure that if you are using a discharge pipe, the air gap is clear. The air gap is located outside your home, where the sump pump’s internal discharge line exits the basement and connects to the external discharge line. Its purpose is to provide an outlet for flows in the event there is a problem with the discharge line or the stormwater system. If the air gap is obstructed, water can backflow, flooding the basement and causing the pump to burn out. • A standard 15-amp, 110-volt, three-pronged grounded electrical outlet can handle a sump pump. The outlet should be an isolated line, with no other connections between the breaker and the outlet. Because the pump is located near water you may want to plug it into a working ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). However, keep in mind that lightning has been known to trigger GFCIs and could shut off power to your pump during a heavy rainstorm. Make certain to check on the pump during the storm so you can reset the GFCI if necessary. • Consider replacing your sump pump every 10 years. Make sure your sump pump is ready for whatever water comes its way … Sump pumps often come with water-level or flood alarms to alert you if the pump fails. Some can even call your cell phone or notify your alarm company. To minimize the risk of flooding, test your sump pump periodically to make sure it is in good operating condition. Your user’s manual should specify when and how to test your pump. You can also consider investing in a backup pump to operate if the primary pump fails or becomes overwhelmed with water from a large storm. Similarly, because sump pumps operate on electricity, they are vulnerable to power outages. Pumps with backup battery power are available, or a generator can be used. Air gap types (left to Right): Atrium, candy cane, pipe in pipe. Images source: City of Ann Arbor https://www.a2gov.org/departments/ engineering/Documents/AirGapInfoSheet_2018.pdf For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1According to HomeAdvisor (2020). Costs to install a backflow preventer (including device) depend on the size and type of system. Note that many insurance companies offer discounts to homeowners who install sanitary backflow prevention devices. What is a sanitary backflow prevention device/ backflow valve? A sanitary backflow prevention device is a valve attached to your plumbing system. It is designed to prevent overflow waste water from the City’s sewer system from backing up into your home. Who needs a sanitary backflow prevention device? Because sanitary backflow prevention devices can prevent the significant damage caused by sewer backup, the City of Edina recommends them for all homes. If you have a newer home a valve may have been installed during construction. Backflow valves are usually located in the floor; if you have a sump pump the valve is likely to be close by. Note that many insurance companies offer discounts to homeowners who install sanitary backflow prevention devices. The City recommends that backflow prevention devices be installed by a licensed plumber. A permit is required for this installation. How do sanitary backflow prevention devices work? A backflow valve has a flap with small floaters on both sides that allow the flap to open and close. Under normal conditions, the flap is open—allowing water from your home to flow into the main sewer system. However, if a large storm or snowmelt overwhelms the sewer system, causing water or sewage to backflow toward the house, the floaters will close the flap, effectively shutting your home off from the street sewer system (see detail above). Once the street sewer system has a chance to drain and return to normal functioning, the flap opens again to discharge waste water. Due to the potential for clogging, annual inspection of the device is needed. Reduces vulnerability Reduces exposure COST: $135-$1,0001 Backflow preventer location Sewer lateral Sewer main BASEMENT Water level House sanitary sewer line Sanitary backflow prevention device detail (Image Credit: Mainline Backflow Products) Sanitary backflow prevention devices overview Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sanitary Backflow Prevention Devices Before flood action During flood action After flood action For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sanitary Backflow Prevention Devices Make sure you’re ready for sewer backups … Backflow prevention devices can function automatically or be operated manually. To protect your home, the valve must be closed during overload periods—which will vary with the size of the storm, but typically last from 2 to 6 hours. Be aware that during the time the valve is closed you will not be able to use your plumbing. Other considerations • You should have your backflow prevention device cleaned and checked annually, preferably by the licensed plumber who installed it. • To avoid backflow in your home plumbing system, keep your plumbing free of materials such as diapers, sanitary napkins, and cigarette butts. • Backwater from a public sewer system is hazardous to your health. If sewer water enters your home, you should hire a licensed and trained professional cleaning service. (Top) Image of sewer backup in bathroom, courtesy of https:// blueskyplumbingfl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/sewer- backup-in-bathroom.jpg (Right) Sanitary backflow prevention device install; image courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/69302634@ N02/16327005228/in/photostream/ Sanitary backflow preventer installation For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1The cost of dry floodproofing varies depending on the building size, depth of required protection, types of material used, and number of openings. Examples of general cost estimates can be found in FEMA publications: Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding and Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. What is dry floodproofing? Dry floodproofing describes a range of strategies to seal the exterior of a building from flood waters. Who should use dry floodproofing? Dry floodproofing is only viable for buildings that are structurally sound in areas with low-velocity, relatively shallow flooding (below 3 feet). It is most appropriate for slab-on-grade buildings with concrete or solid masonry walls. Due to risk of structural failure from excessive flood forces, dry floodproofing is not advised for homes with basements or homes comprising weaker construction materials (e.g., wood frame with siding). Note that dry floodproofing residential structures will not reduce flood insurance premiums. What are dry floodproofing methods? • Temporary installation of waterproof membranes: Heavy plastic sheeting or a waterproof membrane along a wall’s exterior can be effective in preventing water from entering the home. • Use of sealants: Waterproof sealants can be applied to building walls, structural joints, and openings for utility lines. Cement and asphalt-based coatings are effective, but can drastically change the appearance of the home and may be susceptible to puncturing. Clear coatings (e.g. epoxies or polyurethanes) can be applied to exterior walls without changing appearance but tend to be less effective. (continued on next page) Reduces exposure Reduces vulnerability COST: VARIES1 Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Dry Floodproofing (Above) “A way to seal an existing brick-faced wall is to add an additional layer of brick with a seal in between. Please note that weep holes (drainage) and wick drains are moved up to prevent moisture from getting inside the walls.” Images and descriptions provided by FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014) (Left) Example of exterior application of asphalt membrane (courtesy of https://staydrywaterproofing.com/) (Right) An interior application of a fiber-reinforced polymer wrap, image provided by FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014) Before flood action During flood action After flood action Flood level Existing walls Brick ties Fully grouted Existing floor New foundation extension tied to existing foundation with steel dowels Existing foundation New foundation (added to support new brick veneer) Ground New drain or relocated drain, or sump pump in crushed stone New masonry veneer New masonry rowlock Grout Existing masonry veneer For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Other considerations • The Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends that dry floodproofing should be designed by licensed professionals. Failure to anticipate hydrostatic forces (force due to the pressure of a fluid at rest) may result in extensive damage. • Placement of flood shields or waterproof membranes is not feasible during flash floods or when warning times are short. • Ongoing maintenance is required. • Flood shields and sealants may not be aesthetically pleasing. • Dry floodproofing does not mitigate the potential impact of high-velocity flood flow, wave action, erosion, or debris. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Dry Floodproofing • Addressing closures: Openings in the walls need to be either temporarily or permanently sealed shut. For example, low window openings at ground level can either have a pre-sized closure fitted over their surface or a low wall constructed around the opening. Similarly, all or part of a low window could be replaced with brick or glass block. • Using flood shields: Temporary watertight shields can be placed over windows or doors in anticipation of flooding. Most residential shields can be stored in the home and installed when needed by bolting them into place or securing them in permanently installed brackets or tracks. • Addressing interior drainage: A good interior drainage system to collect leaking water (e.g., a sump pump with an emergency power source) is an important component of a dry floodproofing system. Sanitary backflow prevention is also recommended. (Above) Metal shields installed with bolts or permanently installed tracks; image courtesy of www.psfloodbarriers.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/4/2016/09/Flood-Plank-21.jpg (Left) Low window raised and original opening filled with brick; image provided by FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014) What are dry floodproofing methods? (continued) For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1Costs vary depending on the size of the area to be protected. Under severe flood conditions, it may be necessary to build a sandbag dike to protect your home from water damage. Sandbags that are properly filled and placed can successfully divert water—moving it around buildings rather than allowing it to flow through them. The information below outlines the materials and steps necessary to build a sandbag dike. Sandbag materials Sandbags themselves are generally made of treated burlap or woven polypropylene and measure approximately 24 inches by 14 inches. A sandy soil is best for filling sandbags, but other available materials (silt, clay, gravels, or a mixture) may be used. Sandbags can be found online and in hardware stores. The City does not endorse any specific company but some local sources of sand or gravel include: • Bjorklund & Companies, 763-444-9301 • Hedberg Supply, Landscape & Masonry, 763-545-4400 • Marshall Concrete Products, 612-789-4303 • Plaisted Companies, 763-441-1100 Filling a sandbag Filling and deploying sandbags is usually a three- person job: one person to hold the bag open, one person to shovel sand, and a third person to position the bag. The use of gloves is advised, as well as safety goggles. Bags should be filled about one-half to two- thirds full and will weigh approximately 35–40 pounds. Untied bags are recommended for most applications. Reduces exposure Reduces vulnerability COST: VARIES1 Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sandbags Placing sandbags Remove any debris from the area before placing sandbags. To avoid placing stress on walls, you should leave at least 8 feet between the dike and the building you want to protect. Place the first layer of bags lengthwise, parallel to the direction of the water flow. The bags should be “lapped” so that the filled portion of one bag lies on the unfilled portion of the next. The untied end should be facing downstream. Similar to brick laying, offset adjacent rows or layers by one-half bag length to eliminate continuous joints. To form a tight seal, walk on the bags as they are placed and continue walking on them as succeeding layers are added. Because bags may remain untied, make certain to fold under all loose ends. image: https://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/dmp/sandbagging/Pages/default.aspx Before flood action During flood action After flood action How to make a request • During regular business hours, requests can be made by calling in to the Public Works utility line (952-826-0375). • On weekends, requests can be made by calling in to the non-emergency police (952-826-1600) to get routed to the on-call person. • Leave name, address, and the quantity of sandbags desired. If you’re unsure, describe the size of the area and Public Works can help determine how many are needed. City-provided sandbags Public Works delivers sand bags to residents when requested and will leave sand bag pallets at the end of the property driveway. Requests are typically fulfilled within 24 hours. Residents must place the sand bags themselves—Public Works staff does not place sandbags. When sandbags are no longer needed, residents may keep the sandbags or place them back on the pallet and call Public Works for pickup. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Other considerations • Sandbags can become contaminated with bacteria and other pathogens from polluted flood waters. The sand from these bags should never be used in children’s sandboxes. • Full sandbags may be stored for short periods of time and reused for same-season flood fighting. However, prolonged storage can lead to mold. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the safest place to dispose of full sandbags is a sanitary landfill. Sandbags may also be disposed in a demolition landfill. Be aware, however, that not all landfills will accept sandbags, so call first. • Even when properly installed, water can leak and rain may fall inside the barrier. Be prepared with a pump to remove water from inside the barrier.. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Sandbags How high and how wide should my dike be? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends that your dike should have a base three times wider than its height, although a ratio of 2:1 is also commonly recommended. A triangular pyramid shape should be used for a dike that is higher than 1 foot. For heights less than a foot, support the wall of sandbags every 5 feet with clusters of bags; this will stabilize the structure. How many bags will I need? The North Dakota State Extension Service offers the following estimates for the number of sandbags needed per 100 linear feet of dike. Dike Height 3:1 base to height 2:1 base to height 2 foot 2,100 bags 1,700 bags 3 foot 4,500 bags 3,000 bags 4 foot 7,800 bags 5,500 bags 5 foot 12,000 bags 9,000 bags Sealing the dike To improve water tightness, your finished dike should be sealed with a sheet of plastic at least 6 mils thick. First, spread a loose layer of soil or sand about 1 inch deep and 1 foot wide along the bottom of the dike on the water side. Then, lay the plastic sheeting so the upper edge extends over the top of the dike and the bottom extends 1 foot beyond the bottom of the dike (over the layer of soil and sand). Be careful not to stretch the plastic too tight; this could lead to puncturing. Finally, put a row of sandbags on the bottom and top edges of the plastic to form a watertight seal and hold it in place. Be careful to avoid puncturing the plastic by walking on it. Sandbag alternatives Alternatives to sandbags include “sandless” sandbags and Hydrabarriers, which can be purchased online or at some hardware stores. The sandless bags are made of an absorbent polymer that swells on contact with water—basically self-inflating the bags to form a water barrier. The Hydrabarrier is a tube (available in different sizes) that you fill with water to form a barrier. The advantage of these systems is that they are lighter weight, reusable, and do not pose a disposal problem. The disadvantage is that these systems can be expensive to purchase. image: http://goldenlake.co/ For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1Costs of wet floodproofing vary with the methods adopted. Major costs are associated with rearrangement of utility systems, installation of flood vents, and replacement of materials that are not resistant to floods. Note that wet floodproofing will not reduce flood insurance premium rates on residential structures. What is wet floodproofing? Wet floodproofing refers to a range of strategies used to prevent or provide resistance to flood damage—while allowing water into the uninhabited portion of a building (e.g., unfinished basement, crawlspace, garage). Allowing floodwater to enter the enclosed areas of a home equalizes pressure, which can prevent structural damage. Successful wetproofing involves (1) ensuring that floodwaters inside the home rise and fall at the same rate as floodwaters outside the home, (2) reducing damage through the use of flood-resistant materials, (3) protecting service equipment inside and outside of the home, and (4) relocating any high-value items stored below the designed flood elevation (DFE). • Elevate appliances and utilities or install barriers: Items that should be elevated or protected with a barrier include your furnace and air-conditioning unit, outside air-conditioner compressor, washer and dryer, water heater, freezer, and electrical outlets and switches. You can also relocate these to a place in your home that is higher than the DFE (e.g., an attic), or build a small addition that would serve as a utility room and as storage for valuable furnishings during a flood. • Use flood-resistant materials: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes flood-resistant classifications for flooring, wall, and ceiling materials, as well as the adhesives used to install them (Technical Bulletin 2-08). Carpeting, paneling, and gypsum wallboard can all be replaced with materials that would require cleaning rather than replacement. A table on the following page lists materials that are acceptable in wet floodproofing home projects. (continued on next page) Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Wet Floodproofing Reduces exposure Reduces vulnerability COST: VARIES1 Before flood action During flood action After flood action Wet floodproofing techniques for a house. Image from FEMA P-259 (Figure -10) https://www.restoration1greaterminneapolis.com/how-to-deal-with-a-flooded-basement What are wet floodproofing methods? An advantage of wet floodproofing is that it is flexible; it can be done in stages—many of them relatively inexpensively. A good time to employ wet floodproofing strategies is when you remodel your home. The following are some wet floodproofing methods: Base flood elevation Who should use wet floodproofing? If you are at risk of flooding and cannot elevate your home or build reliable flood barriers, wet floodproofing of non-living spaces is an option. It is most suitable for shallow flooding that inundates uninhabited space. It is not practical for most slab-on-grade structures that have the living space at or near ground level. Also, it is not a reasonable approach if the duration of a flood is expected to be more than one day. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Other considerations • Ongoing maintenance is required to minimize flood risks. • Pumping water from a basement too soon after a flood may lead to structural damage. • Work on electrical systems, gas systems, or air- conditioning compressors requires a licensed contractor, and permits may be required. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Wet Floodproofing What are wet floodproofing methods? (continued) Materials that are acceptable in wet floodproofing home projects: Material Type Acceptable Unacceptable Structural Flooring Materials • Concrete • Naturally decay-resistant lumber • Pressure-treated plywood • Oriented strand board (OSB) Finish Flooring Materials • Clay tile • Ceramic or porcelain tile • Terrazzo tile • Vinyl tile or sheets • Engineered wood or laminate flooring • Carpeting • Wood flooring Structural Wall and Ceiling Materials • Brick face, concrete, or concrete block • Cement board/fiber-cement board • Pressure-treated plywood • Solid, standard structural lumber (2x4) • Non-paper-faced gypsum board • Fiberglass insulation • Paper-faced gypsum board • OSB Finish Wall and Ceiling Materials • Glass blocks • Metal cabinets or doors • Latex paint • Wood cabinets and doors • Non-latex paint • Particleboard cabinets and doors • Wallpaper FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014) • Sewage backflow prevention is important; a backflow valve should be installed. • Because wet floodproofing allows your home to flood, extensive cleanup may be necessary to remove potential chemical and biological contamination and prevent mold growth and decay. • Install flood vents: Flood vents (permanent openings) allow water into the structure, equalizing interior and exterior pressures to avoid structural damage. (Above) “Wall openings must allow floodwaters not only to enter the home, but also to rise and fall at the same rate as floodwaters outside the home.” Images provided by FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014). (Left) Base flood elevation and location of flood vents. Images provided by FEMA Technical Bulletin 2, 2008, Openings in Foundation Walls and Walls of Enclosures. Base flood elevation Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Pumping Guidance If dry floodproofing methods fail during a large storm or you’ve chosen wet floodproofing, you may end up with a significant amount of water in your basement. Though your impulse may be to remove the water as soon as possible, it’s important to remember that moving too quickly may cause structural damage to your home. Even though flood waters may have receded, there is still water in the ground that may be exerting force against your basement walls. If that force is greater than the force of water inside your basement, the foundation, basement walls, or floors may rupture or crack. Pumping procedure—when and how much to pump If you need to pump water out of your basement or house, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommends taking the following steps to avoid serious damage to your home. 1. Begin pumping only when floodwaters are no longer covering the ground outside. 2. Pump out 1 foot of water, mark the water level, and wait overnight. 3. Check the water level the next day. If the level rose to the previous mark, it is still too early to drain the basement. 4. Wait 24 hours, pump the water down 1 foot, and mark the water level. Check the level the next day. 5. When the water level stops returning to your mark, pump out 2 to 3 feet and wait overnight. Repeat this process daily until all of the water is out of the basement. Safety first! Remember that water conducts electricity. Before walking into a flooded basement make certain the power is turned off and wear heavy rubber boots and rubber gloves that do not leak. Reduces vulnerability Reduces exposure COST: VARIES1 For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1Costs rely on a number of factors—including the amount of water and whether you choose to do the pumping yourself. You can contract with a water-removal service, but you may have to wait several days for assistance. After flood action During flood action Before flood action Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Pumping Guidance For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Pumping procedure—equipment A submersible pump is needed to remove water from a flooded basement. You can rent this type of equipment from a construction rental store or a hardware store; this will be less expensive than purchasing professional pumping equipment. The pump is encased in a waterproof shell with a sealed electrical cord; it connects to a regular garden hose or a sump hose. The power source for the pump will depend on whether you have electricity. If you don’t have electricity you will need to connect to a generator. Be careful! Do not use gasoline-powered pumps or generators indoors; these can produce deadly carbon monoxide exhaust fumes. Note: opening doors and windows does not provide sufficient ventilation. Another option is a pump that runs on a 12-volt marine or car battery or a petrol/diesel driven pump. If you do have power, you can use a heavy-duty extension cord to run the pump on standard electricity—provided you have a place to plug it in. If your fuse box isolates your basement and you are absolutely sure you can disable the power in the basement, you can use electricity on the ground floor or higher. No matter what energy source you use, you will need to be careful to keep the connection between the extension cord and the pump cord away from water. You can do this by looping the cords around a ceiling joist or another heavy object. Other considerations • A second pump should be considered to provide increased capacity and act as a backup. • Strainers should be used to protect pumps from large debris. • Use clean, fresh fuel in your pump or generator and make sure you have enough available to act in a flood. • Be careful around floodwater that may have been contaminated by sewage. Tetanus shots are recommended when cleaning flooded areas. Pumping procedure—pumping out the water To pump water, a garden or sump hose should be attached to the fitting on the top of the pump. The end of the hose is then pointed away from the house to drain away to the street or storm sewer If the water is low enough, you can place the pump in the lowest part of the basement, making sure to wear rubber boots. In the event of very high water, you can lower the pump into the basement using rope. Once the pump is in place, start the generator, plug the extension cord in, and turn the pump on. If you’re using electricity, plug the extension cord into an upstairs wall socket. If your water is less than an inch deep, a wet-dry vacuum can be used. These work well, but can be very labor intensive; the tank on a wet-dry vacuum generally holds only 4 to 5 gallons of water and will need to be emptied frequently. One inch of water in a 1,500–2,000 square foot home would be 1,000–1,200 gallons and would require approximately 250 empties! image courtesy of https://www.forconstructionpros.com/equipment/ worksite/pumps/article/11477112/pick-the-right-submersible-pump- for-dewatering-applications For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. 1According to the Rain Garden Alliance, a do-it-yourself rain garden will cost about $3–$5 a square foot. If you use a landscaper to plan and install the garden, the cost will be $10–$15 a square foot or more. Plants are the most costly consideration in a rain garden. Parts of the City of Edina are within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, which offers cost-share grants for rain gardens. The minimum grant is $500 and requires a 25% match. To see if your home is located within the district and to learn more about the grant program, go to https://www.ninemilecreek.org/. Other considerations • Rain gardens require partial to full sun. They should be built at least 10 feet away from your home to prevent water damage to foundations and basements. • Rain gardens are typically 100 to 300 square feet, depending on the slope of the surrounding landscape and the size of the area draining to it; a garden will typically handle runoff from an impervious area three times its size. More than one garden may be needed to handle runoff from large surfaces (e.g., large rooftops). • To prevent plants from drowning and mosquitoes from breeding, a rain garden requires soil that is porous enough to soak up water within 48 hours of a rainstorm. You can test your soil by digging a wide 10-inch-deep hole, filling it with water, and observing whether the water disappears within 48 hours. • Before you dig, contact Gopher State One Call (811) or visit http:// www.gopherstateonecall.org/to locate electrical, gas, or telephone lines. What is a rain garden? A rain garden is a tool used to decrease runoff and filter pollutants from stormwater. These gardens, built in shallow depressions, are filled with long-rooted grasses and plants that soak up rainwater from impervious surfaces—before the polluted flow enters lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Because they decrease runoff, rain gardens are also useful in flood prevention. Once established, they require little watering and minimal maintenance. In addition to decreasing runoff and filtering pollutants, rain gardens also create habitat for birds and butterflies, recharge groundwater, reduce mosquito breeding, and enhance property value. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Rain Gardens How do I plant a rain garden? There are many online resources that provide guidance on the construction and maintenance of rain gardens, including: Rain Garden FAQs, Rain Garden Alliance Rain Gardens Provide a Healthy Corrective to Runoff Flooding, WisContext How and Why to Build a Rain Garden, U of M Extension How Much Does a Rain Garden Cost?, Cost Helper USDA Rain Garden Fact Sheet, USDA Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Grants How to Create an Effective Rain Garden, Habitat Network Rain Gardens in Minnesota, Natural Resources Conservation Service Who should use a rain garden? Rain gardens are particularly beneficial for those who have a large amount of nearby impervious surface (rooftops, walkways, driveways), have downspouts running into the lawn, or areas downhill from a downspout. They may also be helpful if you have soil erosion. (With deep-rooted plants, rain gardens hold soil in place and prevent erosion). image courtesy of Minnehahacreek.org image courtesy Natural Shore: http://www.naturalshore.com/rain-garden-project-album/ Reduces vulnerability COST: VARIES1 Reduces exposure Before flood action During flood action After flood action What is shoreline restoration? Shoreline restoration involves the use of native vegetation to provide a buffer between your yard and the water’s edge. This buffer (10–50 feet) replaces turf grass. Although shoreline restoration does not reduce your exposure to flooding, it can reduce your vulnerability. Unlike turf grass, native trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses have long roots that better withstand the effects of flooding. Under lengthy, high-water conditions, this may prevent the need to replace flooded turf. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Shoreline Restoration How do I restore my lakeshore? “Restore Your Shores,” offered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rys/ index.html) provides online guidance for implementing shoreland restoration projects, including steps and techniques, a plant guide, and references and resources. Comprehensive guidance, pertinent to Minnesota landscapes, is also available in the book, “Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality,” published by the Minnesota DNR. Or, consult a local landscaper who specializes in shoreline restoration. Reduces exposure COST: VARIES1 Reduces vulnerability Before flood action During flood action After flood action In addition to reducing flood vulnerability, shoreland restoration has a number of ecological benefits: • Deep-rooted native plants are more resistant to wave and ice erosion and reduce the likelihood of slope failure. • Native plantings improve water quality by slowing and filtering runoff before it enters the lake. • A mixture of native vegetation provides diverse habitat for fish and wildlife. • A buffer prevents wave action from stirring up sediment that can cause the lake to become murky. • A buffer area provides privacy and aesthetic views while discouraging nuisance geese. Other considerations • Some shoreline restoration projects will require a local or Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit. Helpful websites: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakescaping/index.html https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/shoreline_alteration.html For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Parts of the City of Edina are within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, which offers cost-share grants for rain gardens. The minimum grant is $500 and requires a 25% match. To see if your home is located within the district and to learn more about the grant program, go to https://www.ninemilecreek.org/. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Helpful websites https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/manage-flood-risk https://www.homeadvisor.com/r/flood-proof-landscaping/ https://www.owntheyard.com/how-to-fix-backyard-flooding/ https://aibd.org/6-backyard-flooding-solutions-landscaping-storm-proof-yard/ The damage that can be caused by flood water doesn’t stop at your front door. The way you care for your yard and how you site and construct accessory structures can reduce both flood exposure and vulnerability. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Floodproofing Accessory Structures and Yards Floodproofing yards There are many options you can consider to reduce flooding in your yard. • Make sure your yard is properly graded: Patios, driveways, walkways, flowerbeds—if possible, they should all be graded so that the water flows away from the house. • Install a rain garden: Rain gardens protect your yard from flooding by allowing runoff water to pool and slowly percolate into the ground. See the City’s factsheet for more information on rain gardens. • Install dry wells: Dry wells are underground structures that help rainwater dissipate into the ground. They can be used for wet spots or small, flood-prone areas on your property. • Create or take advantage of natural swales: Swales are depressions in the landscape that redirect water flow, normally to a dry well or a garden bed with good drainage. You can slow the flow by lining the lowest point with rocks or adding deep-rooted plants on the slope. • Use heavier mulch: Light-weight mulch can spread under flooding conditions, clogging drains. If using mulch near your home’s exterior, make sure the mulch is at least 6 inches from your siding to prevent moisture wicking and rotting. • Replace impervious surfaces: Impervious (non-porous) surfaces increase runoff. Replace them with pervious materials or landscaping. • Drain your driveway: Driveways are a big contributor to stormwater runoff. You can mitigate the impact of that stormwater by adding drainage on the sides of the pavement—or by replacing the pavement with a pervious surface. • Plant a tree: Trees create a leafy canopy that intercepts rainfall and reduces runoff. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a typical street tree can intercept from 500 to 760 gallons of water per year, depending on the species. Before flood action During flood action After flood action Floodproofing accessory structures Your yard is an extension of your living space, which needs to be protected. The first step in floodproofing is to site the accessory structures on your property—your patio, fire table/pit, garden shed, gazebo—on high ground. You can also reduce your vulnerability by building these structures with flood-resistant materials. See the City’s factsheet on Wet Floodproofing for a list of flood-resistant materials. You should also secure yard items to prevent them from being damaged or swept away. Anchor them or attach them to more stable structures. Other considerations Parts of the City of Edina are within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, which offers cost-share grants for rain gardens. The minimum grant is $500 and requires a 25% match. To see if your home is located within the district and to learn more about the grant program, go to: https://www.ninemilecreek.org/. For more information on flood resilience, contact the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Even if you don’t own a home, your property may be at risk during a flood. Below are some simple steps you can take to reduce that risk. Actions for Flood Resilient Homes: Reducing Risk as a Renter or Condo Owner Consider buying flood insurance It’s important to know that your regular renter’s insurance policy does not cover flooding. But, flood insurance is available for renters and condo owners through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The policy covers your personal property and contents during a flood. It does not include “loss-of-use” coverage or any additional expenses caused by a flood. Flood insurance premiums are based on a number of factors including flood risk, year of building construction, building occupancy, the number of floors, the location of your contents, and the deductible and amount of coverage you choose. Even if you live in a low-to-moderate risk area, it’s worth considering flood insurance. According to the NFIP, nearly 26 percent of all flood claims occur in these areas. Also, you may be eligible for a “preferred risk policy,” which carries the lowest premiums. The cost for renters’ flood insurance generally ranges from $150 to $900 per year. Though flood insurance is provided by the NFIP and prices are set by the NFIP, it is sold by private insurance companies. Contact your insurance agent to find out whether they can provide coverage. If not, call the NFIP at 800-427-4661 to request an agent referral. If you decide to buy insurance, don’t wait for the next storm. There’s typically a 30-day waiting period between when the policy is purchased and when coverage applies. Consider the low spaces—including underground garages If you have personal items in the basement or garage, put them in covered, plastic containers and store them on shelving—off the floor. Similarly, don’t leave valuables in your car if flood waters are predicted. Get the facts First, find out if the building where you live is in a high-risk flood area. You can check by going to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search and entering your address. It’s also helpful to know what steps your landlord/association has taken to decrease the building’s exposure and vulnerability. Here are some questions you might ask: • Does the building structure have flood insurance? This may be important because it could influence your landlord’s ability to recover following a flood—and your ability to continue living in the property. • Has the landlord/association taken flood resilience measures (wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing)? • Is there a sump pump in the building? Is there a sewer backflow prevention device? This is particularly important if you store personal items in the basement of the building. • In the event flood waters are predicted, is there available above-ground storage? • In the event of an impending flood will the landlord/association be responsible for sandbagging? If not, will you be allowed to sandbag? (See City factsheet on sandbagging for more information.) Helpful websites https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/How-Buy-Flood- Insurance https://www.policygenius.com/renters-insurance/what-renters-need-to-know- about-flood-insurance/ Floodwater level G Appendix G: Task Force charge EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I FLOOD RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY I CITY OF EDINA Page 1 CITY MANAGER TASK FORCE PROJECT: FLOOD RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY PURPOSE Support the City’s development of a strategy to address flood risk and resiliency. OBJECTIVE Provide recommendations to inform a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy to be considered for adoption by the City Council and incorporation as a major amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. METHODOLOGY - Learn about technical challenges and opportunities from the Expert Panel (EP) - Review policies and practices of other communities - Review past City studies/initiatives - Promote conversations with stakeholders to evaluate community values - Apply gained knowledge on technical feasibility and community values to weigh tradeoffs - Participate in defining the flood risk service target for the stormwater utility TIMELINE June 2019 through December 2019 KEY DATES June 2019 City Manager appoints Task Force members September 4, 2019 Task Force presents recommendations to City Council (work session) December 17, 2019 City Council considers adoption of the final Flood Risk Reduction Strategy COMMITMENT - Appointed members will be asked to fulfill their work until Council adopts the final Flood Risk Reduction Strategy in December 2019 - Appointed members should expect to meet at least monthly with additional off-line work - Appointed members should consider project timeline prior to appointments MEETINGS - The Task Force will establish their schedule including meeting times and dates as needed to complete the work - The Task Force will be invited to attend meetings with the Expert Panel - Conclusion of work must fall into the indicated timeline - Meetings are open to the public LEVEL OF AUTHORITY EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I FLOOD RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY I CITY OF EDINA Page 2 CITY MANAGER The City Manager has the authority to: - Establish and appoint Task Force members - Appoint/remove members as he sees fit - Designate the Staff Liaison and any additional staff support needed - Authorize financial resources - Enter into a service contract with a subject matter expert/consultant TASK FORCE The Task Force has the authority to: - Conduct public engagement and collect input using the City’s public engagement protocols - Provide input on the strategy - Make a recommendation on the final Flood Risk Reduction Strategy which will be presented to Council for consideration TASK FORCE LEADERSHIP The City Manager will designate a member of the Task Force to serve as the Chair and another member as the Vice Chair. The role of the Chair will be to: - Prepare the meeting agenda - Lead meetings and facilitate discussions - Maintain meeting decorum - Encourage participation of all members The Vice Chair will support the Chair as needed and perform the Chair duties if the Chair is unavailable. STAFF LIAISON The City Manager will designate the staff liaison to the Task Force. The role of the Liaison will be to: - Support the Task Force Chair in preparing agendas and meeting materials - Provide technical expertise and access to City resources - Relay information from City Manager to Task Force and vice versa - Submit packet materials for City Council review The Task Force does not direct the work of the liaison. RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Task Force will have access to City resources available for advisory groups i.e. marketing/communications, meeting supplies, etc. Also, see City Manager’s level of authority. OUTCOMES A Flood Risk Reduction Strategy that: - Incorporates local challenges, opportunities, knowledge, and community values EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I FLOOD RISK REDUCTION STRATEGY I CITY OF EDINA Page 3 - Incorporates voices from throughout the City of Edina. The Morningside neighborhood has been identified in the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan as a focal geography for case study; however, outcomes from the strategy development ought to be able to scale city-wide. - Identifies action steps for building community capacity to address flood risk and resiliency in Edina. MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION The City of Edina’s Volunteer Edina program will manage the recruitment, application and onboarding process. CONSIDERATIONS & COMPOSITION The City Manager will appoint up to seven members with a variety of perspectives and experiences on flood risk and resiliency from throughout the City. H Appendix H: Potential action matrix key, ranked response, and potential action matrix Actions Sheets Key Sector: The sector of work under which the action would fall. Infrastructure (I), Regulatory Program (R), Outreach and Engagement (O), and Emergency Services (E). Task Force Rank: Based on aggregate of individual Task Force member rankings. Task Force members were asked to rank their top 10 with the action believed to have the most community enthusiasm ranked number 1 and the action believed to have the least community enthusiasm ranked number 10. Actions beyond 10 were effectively not ranked. Cost Score: Staff scored. $ Minor; Savings or efficiency, takes minor amount of staff time, or can roll into existing duties with existing staff time and resources, <0 to 20hrs, <0 to $2K $$ Modest; Modest additional costs, modest amount of staff time. 20 to 100hrs, $2-10K $$$ Moderate; Moderate additional costs, takes moderate amount of additional staff time, or can be contracted out in future budgets. 100-500hrs, $10-50K $$$$ High; Additional costs, takes additional staff time, can be contracted out with additional resources. 500-2000hrs, $50-200K $$$$$ Major; Significant costs, takes significant amount of staff time, or can be included in future capital improvement plans. 2000+hrs, $200K+ Staff Rated Effectiveness Score: Staff scored. Based on effectiveness and confidence at reducing community vulnerability to flooding, at reducing community exposure to flooding, and at reducing the community share of climate change drivers. Action Category: Quick Win = do now or contract under flood risk reduction effort. Planning = develop a plan as part of flood risk reduction effort, or include in Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan amendment, future budget, or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Development = may be worth doing with additional resources, a special circumstance, a partnership, or as technology improvements change cost structure. None = benefit is not worth the cost or effort. Task ForceAverage RankCostEffectivenessCategoryI.07 Infrastructure Better Maintain Existing System 5.0 $$$$$ high Planning I.08 Infrastructure Control Sources of Clogs 7.3 $$$$$ high Planning E.01 Emergency Services Develop Local Flooding Emergency Response Plan 7.4 $$$ medium Planning I.15 Infrastructure New Storage in Parks 7.6 $$$$$ high Development I.19 Infrastructure Buy Low Homes 8.4 $$$$$ low None I.16 Infrastructure New Storage in Roads 8.4 $$$$$ high Development I.13 Infrastructure Search for System Constraints and Quick Wins 9.0 $$$ high Planning I.10 Infrastructure Reduce Sanitary System Inflow 9.1 $$$$$ medium Ongoing I.24 Infrastructure Flood Storage with Predictive Pumping 9.1 $$$$$ high Development R.08 Regulatory Program Update Plans with Flood Risk 9.3 $$$ low Planning R.03 Regulatory Program Regulate Impervious 9.3 $$$$ low Development I.25 Infrastructure Capital Project Prioritization Framework 9.5 $$ medium Development I.01 Infrastructure Citywide Risk Modeling 9.6 $$$ high Planning R.04 Regulatory Program Require Private Flood Storage 9.8 $$$$ low None E.02 Emergency Services Define and Communicate the Available Services 9.9 $$ medium Quick Win I.09 Infrastructure Reduce Vulnerability of Sanitary Lift Stations 10.0 $$$$$ medium Development I.14 Infrastructure Bigger Pipes 10.0 $$$$$ high Development I.03 Infrastructure Peak Flood Visualization 10.1 $$$ high Planning I.04 Infrastructure Flow Path Visualization 10.3 $$$ high Planning O.08 Outreach and Engagement Develop Flood Intervention Fact Sheets 10.3 $$$ medium Quick Win O.07 Outreach and Engagement Develop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)10.5 $$ high Quick Win I.17 Infrastructure Design to a Future Risk Level 10.6 $$$$$ medium Planning I.18 Infrastructure Plan Emergency Overflow Paths 10.6 $$$ high Planning O.01 Outreach and Engagement Build Awareness of Stormwater System 10.6 $$ low Planning I.02 Infrastructure Standardize Failure Analysis 10.6 $$$$ medium Development O.06 Outreach and Engagement Promote Sandbag Service 10.8 $$ high Quick Win O.10 Outreach and Engagement Host Flood Summit 10.8 $$$ medium Development R.02 Regulatory Program Flow Path Review 10.9 $$$ high Planning O.05 Outreach and Engagement Develop a 'What is My Flood Risk?" Map 10.9 $$$ high Quick Win I.05 Infrastructure Predictive Snowmelt Modeling 11.0 $$$ low Development I.06 Infrastructure Active Lake Level Monitoring, Smart Infrastructure Pilot 11.0 $$$$ high Development I.11 Infrastructure Assess Water Supply System Risk 11.0 $$$$ medium Planning I.12 Infrastructure Communicate Risk to Power and Utility Industry 11.0 $$ medium Development I.20 Infrastructure Incentivize Redevelopment of Exposed Structures 11.0 $$$$$ low None R.01 Regulatory Program More Permit Review and Regulation 11.0 $$$ medium Development R.05 Regulatory Program Regulate Development to a Higher Flood Standard 11.0 $$ low Development R.06 Regulatory Program Tiered Stormwater Utility Fee Based on Impervious Cover 11.0 $$$ low Development R.07 Regulatory Program Participate in the Community Rating System 11.0 $$ low Planning O.02 Outreach and Engagement Develop and Communicate Dynamic Flood Threat Indicator 11.0 $$$ low Development O.03 Outreach and Engagement Groundwater Level Viewer 11.0 $$ low Planning O.04 Outreach and Engagement Promote WaterAlert (USGS) Subscriptions 11.0 $ low Quick Win O.09 Outreach and Engagement Provide Stormwater Technical Assistance Grant Program 11.0 $$$ medium Quick Win O.11 Outreach and Engagement Engage With Stakeholders at Time of Capital Investment 11.0 $$ medium Development O.12 Outreach and Engagement Engage Realtors, Developers, Insurers on Local Flood Risk 11.0 $ medium Development ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.01InfrastructureCitywide Risk ModelingCreate a standard method across the city (and potentially across other nearby cities) to analyze the risk and consequence of potential for failure of the entire storm sewer system, pipe by pipe, structure by structure. Additionally, this would include creating a standard method to determine impacts due to failure of a part of the system. Finally, reporting methods (maps, prioritized infrastructure components, etc.) would be standardized so that infrastructure risk in different parts of the city and even nearby cities can be easily compared by staff, residents, and decision-makers.A general understanding of the risk of each part of the storm sewer infrastructure system will be able to help prioritize maintenance and inspection activities. Additionally, failure analysis which is often risk based, is not currently standard and is generally quantified on a case by case basis and by the people involved. Therefore, comparing infrastructure risk in different parts of a city or between cities is quite difficult. The only way to know which parts of the infrastructure system should be prioritized in maintenance, with a finite maintenance crew, is to assess the risk of entire storm sewer system in a standard and comprehensive way. The process of evaluating risk of infrastructure may not lend itself to a process that is general. It may be a process that is so "case by case" that the standardized method may become overly complicated and onerous. TBD $$$ high PlanningI.02InfrastructureStandardize Failure AnalysisCreate a standard process for investigating reported or actual failures after significant events. Post event investigation would survey debris lines for peak flow elevations, review damage, investigate system function using hydrologic models, investigate past maintenance records and report expected and actual system performance.This is an alternative or lead-in to smart infrastructure that allows the organization to build knowledge of system function, and periodically review and plan interventions in operations and maintenance that may lead to better system function.Additional data could sit on the shelf if there is not organizational capacity to review, utilize or react to it.TBD $$$$ medium DevelopmentI.03InfrastructurePeak Flood VisualizationCreate products that visualize and explain the extent of expected flooding during storm events. The various types of products could be paper and/or digital maps, the online water resources web map, Google Earth xml files, or other innovative methods. Creating maps or other visualizations of the potential extent of flooding helps identify the locations throughout the city that are most likely to flood. Additionally, similar to the activity of education and outreach, identifying areas of potential flooding and areas that do not show flooding help the public become aware of instances when the system is not functioning as expected. As the public becomes more aware of flooding throughout the city through these products, the new knowledge can likely motivate more citizens to take part in flood risk reduction efforts when they are aware of the extent of flooding throughout the city. With new flood mapping that is far more extensive than traditional FEMA maps, flood insurance prices and home prices may be affected. Maps alone do not tell the entire story; they cannot explain other flood characteristics such as duration. The public may react to the maps by implementing a fix that doesn't appropriately address the issue, i.e., a resident might plan to place a sandbag wall when the duration of flooding is so long that they might still be exposed to basement flooding from groundwater seepage. Some interpretations of the flood maps from the public may not be accurate. Notes concerning the reliability of the tools must be included (based on a calibrated or uncalibrated model, validated with observed data, etc.). TBD $$$ high Planning ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.04InfrastructureFlow Path VisualizationCreate visual products that explain the routes that water would flow during storm events. The various types of products could be paper and/or digital maps with flow direction arrows, the online water resources web map, Google Earth xml files, animations or videos, or other innovative methods. Creating maps or other visualizations of flood water flow paths helps identify the locations throughout the city that should remain open (no obstructions, no development, no pedestrians, cars, etc.) during a flood. Additionally, similar to the activity of education and outreach, identifying areas where water should be flowing during flooding events helps the public be aware of times when the system is not functioning as expected. Areas that would be emergency overflow areas (EOFs) during a flood can also be improved prior to flooding so that when activated, they do not erode. With new flood mapping that is far more extensive than traditional FEMA maps, flood insurance prices and home prices may be affected. Maps alone do not tell the entire story; they cannot explain other flood characteristics such as duration. Some reactions to the flood maps from the public may not be entirely appropriate. Notes concerning the reliability of the tools must be included (based on a calibrated or uncalibrated model, validated with observed data, etc.). Homeowners who live adjacent to flow paths and/or emergency over flows (EOFs) may take it into their own hands, on their own property, to alter the terrain so that water does not flow adjacent to their home. This may have other adverse consequences on their own or on other people's homes. TBD $$$ high PlanningI.05InfrastructurePredictive Snowmelt ModelingForecasted/predicted snowmelt modeling to help the city better understand spring flood risk.Predictive snowmelt modeling may help city staff and the community better understand spring flood risk. Forecasted high springtime water levels associated increased flood risk may inform flood risk reduction measures by the city (e.g. preparation for emergency pumping, sandbags, etc.), especially for landlocked basins and basins with restricted outlets.While melt can be estimated, it is uncertain due to duration of melt and any intervening rainfalls. This can lead undue alarm or a 'cry-wolf' affect. This effort may be better at a watershed or metro area level. Alternatives include amplifying general messages from the NWS. Existing water levels and snowpack measurements are required to forecast spring water levels. Collecting this information may take considerable staff time; but without this information, the snowmelt modeling may only provide a limited benefit for restricted outlet and landlocked basins.TBD $$$ low DevelopmentI.06InfrastructureActive Lake Level Monitoring, Smart Infrastructure PilotConstruct water level and discharge measurement sensors at key stormwater management system points (i.e. critical lakes, ponds, streams, and pipes).Current water level measurements can be used to monitor flood exposure, and therefore inform flood management activities (i.e. emergency pumping, sandbagging) as well as optimize operation of dynamic stormwater management systems equipped with adjustable weirs and outlets. Inconsistencies between measured data and flood models has led to identification of stormwater infrastructure no longer functioning as intended (i.e. sediment filled pipes, pipes with frost heaves, sediment filled channels, clogged outlets, etc.). Increasing the number of sensors throughout the city would allow for a more widespread system performance evaluation. Sensors can be difficult to maintain and are frequently damaged by adverse weather conditions and vandalism. Discharge monitoring may lead to identification of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) issues. Data connections could be considered to creek flow gages maintained by watershed districts.The ability to construct and utilize adjustable weirs based on forecasted data may be limited by the DNR. For these additional measurements to be useful, the existing flood models may need to be refined to provide real-time forecasting abilities.TBD $$$$ high Development ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.07InfrastructureBetter Maintain Existing SystemUse a proactive asset management strategy to proactively inspect system to 1) identify infrastructure with relatively minor issues that can be readily repaired, and 2) add operations to remove collected debris and sediment from system trash racks, storm sewer pipes, catch basins, and inlets.Repair and replace stormwater infrastructure before minor issues escalate to costly replacements (inspect concrete pipe cracks, CCTV, stormwater pump head tests, ditch/stream thalweg surveys).Additionally, trash racks, culvert inlets, and storm sewer pipes can be blocked by sediment and debris. Poorly performing infrastructure reduces the overall stormwater infrastructure system efficiency and results in additional flooding/drainage issues. Addressing minor issues may provide water quality benefits. Less complaints from residents and more confidence in the stormwater management system.TBD $$$$$ high PlanningI.08InfrastructureControl Sources of ClogsStreet and flow path debris can clogs and plug stormwater infrastructure. Proactive street sweeping and maintenance of inlets and flow paths can reduce debris sources. Trash racks, culvert inlets, and storm sewer pipes can be blocked by sediment and debris, resulting in additional flooding/drainage issues. Even if partially plugged, additional flooding can occur. To address these sources of clogs and debris, the city could evaluate the benefits of implementing/constructing more stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) (i.e. vegetative cover, construction stormwater management, etc.). Addressing the sources of clogs and debris may provide water quality benefits and documentation of these measures may be useful for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.Addressing the sources of clogs and debris may also require enforcement, which could adversely impact relationships with private property owners in the city. TBD $$$$$ high PlanningI.09InfrastructureReduce Vulnerability of Sanitary Lift Stations Assess risk, floodproof, raise or relocate sanitary lift stations out of floodplain. For those sanitary lift stations that are low in elevation and within the floodplain, it may be important to elevate the lift station, or move it entirely so that it is no longer in the floodplain.When sanitary lift stations are in the floodplain, they can become unreachable during a significant flood. Additionally, they may become inundated with stormwater. This could cause a problem by allowing stormwater into the sanitary system, overwhelming it with too much flow. Improvements could include raising the electrical and controls systems, floodproofing the hatch, planning for emergency sandbagging and pumping to access, raising a section of the structure, or relocating entirely. Often these features are placed where they are for multiple very good reasons. Moving a lift station is a significant task, especially when space in a well-developed city is hard to come by. And finding another place out of the floodplain that is still as good as the original place (with regard to the other deciding factors) is a difficult task.TBD $$$$$ medium DevelopmentI.10InfrastructureReduce Sanitary System InflowFailures in the sanitary sewer system can cause backup into structures. The long term reduction of sources of infiltration and inflow of surface and groundwaters can incrementally reduce risk.This program is ongoing and associated with the sanitary sewer utility. It is ongoing in standalone projects and the neighborhood and Municipal State Aid (MSA) street reconstruction programs.TBD $$$$$ medium OngoingI.11InfrastructureEvaluate Water Supply System RiskFor those water supply systems (for example, wells) that are low in elevation and within the floodplain, it may be important to elevate the system, or move it entirely so that it is no longer in the floodplain.When water supply systems are in the floodplain, they can become unreachable during a significant flood. Additionally, they may become inundated with stormwater. This could cause a problem by contaminating the water supply system and creating an expensive condition that requires remediation.Often these features are placed where they are for multiple very good reasons. Moving water supply systems is a significant task, especially when space in a well-developed city is hard to come by. And finding another place out of the floodplain that is still as good as the original place (with regard to the other deciding factors) is a difficult task. Often distribution pipes are buried under roads and this would require tearing up roads. TBD $$$$ medium Planning ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.12InfrastructureCommunicate Risk to Power and Utility IndustryMuch like an emergency action plan, or education and outreach, this activity would be providing the proper information to private utility companies (electric, internet, fiber optic, etc.) of the locations and facilities that are most flood prone. Ideally, the activity that publishes flood extent visualizations could feed into this one. Access to buried utilities could be very limited around flood prone facilities. During flood events, driven often by large storm events, electricity could be down in parts of the city. The private utility companies should be aware of the areas and facilities prone to flooding so that they can plan to reduce the vulnerability of exposed systems, or be better prepared to fix elements of their system during and after a storm. This could become a daunting task every time the modeling is updated and the maps are recreated. Additionally, if there are flooding issues and private utilities are down, the city could be blamed or even sued if the private utilities company feels that the provided information was not accurate enough to help them be successful. TBD $$ medium DevelopmentI.13InfrastructureSearch for System Constraints and Quick Wins The stormwater network involves a complex system of overland flow, stormwater pipes, ditches, ponds, basins, and streams to convey stormwater off of the landscape. Using existing models and infrastructure data, identify the isolated and "easy to solve" choke points that may be limiting the overall capacity of the stormwater management system. Significant reductions in flood risk may be achievable in areas with "easy to solve" stand-alone constraints. These "easy to solve" fixes are likely to be significantly less expensive than other comprehensive system changes.Some of these retrofits are likely to be located within stormwater easements on private property (i.e. backyard flooding problems). Replacement/retrofit of the storm sewer in these areas may be disruptive.(Assume this is a desktop review to find these "easy to solve" retrofits and other activities are the construction/implementation for those locations). The effort can be used to inform future project scope and selection to better target resources to flood risk reduction.TBD $$$ high PlanningI.14InfrastructureBigger Pipes Replace undersized storm sewer in specific flood areas in some areas where there are no/limited downstream impacts associated with larger discharge from bigger pipes. Replace undersized storm sewer in specific flood areas to improve discharge away from the site and reduce flooding for areas without concerns of downstream impacts.In many instances, retrofitting bigger pipes is likely to lead to downstream impacts. Furthermore, other governing agencies, such as watershed management organizations or downstream cities, may limit or refuse additional discharge associated with larger pipes because of downstream impacts. There are limited opportunities for this type of risk transfer after the affects of climate change are factored in to an already constrained system.TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.15InfrastructureNew Storage in ParksRetrofit new storage into or under park spaces.There is limited available, open space for construction of stormwater storage. Utilizing the space in or under park spaces is one of the few remaining places for stormwater storage. Increased stormwater storage will reduce downstream discharge and reduce flood risk (impacts) to downstream properties.There will likely resistance from the community to flooded parks and additional resources may be required to convert the park to a multipurpose land use. The addition of new storage may not be applicable everywhere, including sites with limited infiltration capacity, polluted ground, adjacent to wellheads, or with high bedrock. To use park spaces as flood storage, the city will likely need to educate residents about the multipurpose land use and that the park space will be flooded from time to time. The Park and Recreation Department, Park and Recreation Commission, and park users would be stakeholders.Stormwater reuse for irrigation may be an option is some parks.TBD $$$$$ high Development ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.16InfrastructureNew Storage in RoadsRetrofit new stormwater storage into or under roads.There is limited available, open green space for construction of stormwater storage (i.e., a stormwater pond). As roads and parking lots are reconstructed, utilize this space in or under parking lots/roads as one of the few remaining places for stormwater storage. Increased stormwater storage can help reduce downstream discharge and reduce flood risk (impacts) to downstream properties.Flooded roads and parking lots may receive pushback from the community and additional resources may be required to educate residents about where to drive/park during wet periods. The addition of new storage may not be applicable everywhere, including sites with limited infiltration capacity, polluted ground, adjacent to wellheads, or with high bedrock. Furthermore, stormwater storage on roadways is limited by requirements for emergency vehicle access. Storage under roadways is also limited by other buried utilities.TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.17InfrastructureDesign to a Future Risk LevelWhen designing a part of the stormwater infrastructure system, we can no longer rely on using design storm events that are based solely on past observed data. We should be considering what climate forecasting models are telling us, and we should be considering the expected life of the infrastructure.A part of the stormwater infrastructure system that is mean to last 5 years and then no longer function does not necessarily need to be overly concerned with what the climate may be 30 years from now. Additionally, the probability of a 1% annual chance event occurring in the next 5 years is only about 5 percent. On the contrary, a part of the system meanT to be functional for the next 50 years should most certainly be considering the changing climate and the predictions of future large storm events. The probability of a 1% annual chance event occurring in the next 50 years is 40 percent. Given that, the chance of a piece of infrastructure being tested by its design storm during its life depends on the expected life of the infrastructure. And the magnitude of the change in the characteristics of the design storm event also depends on the expected life of the infrastructure. This approach will create even more uncertainty in the design process. In all likelihood, ponds, pipes, structures, weirs, pumps, and all other infrastructure will be designed bigger, potentially uncomfortably big and uncomfortably expensive, if the future climate risk is seriously considered in design. TBD $$$$$ medium PlanningI.18InfrastructurePlan Emergency Overflow PathsPlanning emergency flow paths is the approach of understanding the natural emergency overflows, and then planning to create, maintain, and protect those that exist, that safely pass stormwater flow, and therefore protect people and structures from flooding and harm. Having a prepared understanding of the emergency flow paths, rather than surprise of where stormwater ends up flowing, is beneficial for the protection of infrastructure within the city. Additionally, similar to the activity of publishing visualizations of flow paths, this planning can help understand the function of the system and whether or not it is operating appropriately during large flood events. Some residents may not like where emergency overflows are planned, prepared, maintained and protected. This would impact park uses. There are certainly instances of unplanned overflow locations that will surprise the public, and require study and private or public action to limit exposure. There may be pushback from the public in creating or maintaining these features. Outreach and would be necessary to communicate where these areas are and how park uses may be impacted.TBD $$$ high Planning ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.19InfrastructureBuy Low HomesOffer to purchase homes that are so flood exposed that the cost to protect them from flooding (or significantly reduce their flood exposure) is so high that it is beyond the value of the home. This is much like totaling a car after an accident significant enough that it doesn't even make sense to try and fix the car.The cost of capital projects to protect some homes can be very high, particularly for some homes that are built very low and near bodies of water. The vulnerability can be due to a number of factors and decisions when the home was built. Regardless of the reason for the high vulnerability, the cost to protect homes in this condition is beyond the value of the home itself. Additionally, there may be a cost in emergency rescues for people who live in those homes during flood events. Therefore, buying the home is the most cost-effective solution. Buyouts have been shown to be a cost-saving measure for taxpayers because the damages avoided result in cost savings on both flood insurance and disaster relief.Strategies to reduce vulnerability of these homes to flood can be much more fruitful. Buying out a resident is an emotional process; it may or may not be easy for a person to move, even if it is for their protection and benefit. Often, the cost/benefit for acquisitions makes the most sense on the lowest value homes - it is important to consider offsetting acquisitions with affordable housing options. Removing the vulnerable home will also remove a property/home from the tax base of the city. The loss in tax base may make sense if a 'fix' is considerably more expensive. The city then would have to decide if it is possible to redevelop the site, raise the future structure to limit exposure, or leave it vacant. A vacant site may provide minimal temporary storage. Leaving properties vacant could also increase green space. If state or federal funding is used, it might be deed restricted as open space in perpetuity.TBD $$$$$ low NoneI.20InfrastructureIncentivize Redevelopment of Exposed StructuresThe city can create a program that is available to residents where they can redevelop or reduce the flood risk of their home and be helped financially by the city. A redevelopment project of a home is expensive financially, takes time and effort, can be stressful if the home is inhabitable for a time, and has other factors that make it difficult. Incentives offered by the city can be motivating to a homeowner to help them decide to take action and protect themselves. The incentives can also turn the necessary project from impossible to possible financially. If the voluntary acquisitions are not an option, this approach may be able to reduce flood risk while maintaining, or even improving, the tax base. This process of redevelopment is happening without incentives. Incentives complicate the financial proposition, and involve the city in a process that is atypical and may cause more uncertainty and conflict. Incentives may need to be large to convince a homeowner to take on such a big task. The overall cost of the city depends on the number of homes that they intend to provide aid to, and the number of people willing to join the incentive program. TBD $$$$$ low None ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryI.24InfrastructureFlood Storage with Predictive PumpingAdd the innovative technology that monitors current conditions, tracks forecasts, models predicted flooding, and operates pumps to respond, to pump stations on water bodies that could benefit from predictive pumping flood risk reduction strategies.Water bodies with passive outlets can only be drawn down to the outlet's invert, or sometimes below with long periods of evaporation and minimal rain. All of the water in the water body is taking up storage that cannot be filled with incoming stormwater. A water body with a pumped outlet could potentially be drawn down further than normal to create the opportunity for added stormwater storage during a flood event. This is a way to create or provide storage without actually creating additional ponds, underground storage, or other types of storage on the landscape. It's simply a way to better utilize the current volume available for storage within the city. This method (predictive pumping) requires good weather forecasts, calibrated models with proven prediction capabilities. This method will likely be a long process of working with the DNR to develop a plan that improves storage capacity for the protection of the people, but also promotes protection of the other living things in and around the water body. Retrofitting predictive pumping will require more than electronics, wiring, and programming logic. It will likely require modifications to pipes on the suction side of the pump to be able to draw the water body down further. Some lift stations are quite small (fitting in the space of a manhole perhaps) and retrofitting this type of capability may require a small box or building on the surface to house the equipment. TBD $$$$$ high DevelopmentI.25InfrastructureDevelop Capital Project Prioritization FrameworkMaximize the effectiveness of limited funds by being deliberate in examining the vulnerability to floods and the greatest sources of possible disruption. Develop a scoring system using cost benefit analysis to identify and prioritize capital projects. The method used should be objective, transparent, and easy for the public to access and understand.Capital projects don't go through a vetting process. Requests are considered without determining how a specific issue ranks in comparison to others with regard to flood exposure, effectiveness, etc.There is a feeling among the Task Force that 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'.Some project petitioners may find their project doesn't even register when compared to others. Even among Task Force members this would likely be the case.Judging criteria would have to be determined.TBD $$ medium DevelopmentR.01Regulatory ProgramMore Permit Review and RegulationEngineering review for small additions, accessory structures (sheds), impervious expansions not related to a building (deck/patio/etc.). Permits for grading, new homes, and major remodels with footprint changes all include engineering review for flow paths, grading and drainage. Retaining wall, minor remodels, interior remodels, mechanical, and other permit types are not reviewed.Reviewing more permit types may catch additional issues relating to site-to-site, drainage.This program is staff intensive, and would require additional resources for a fairly limited benefit.TBD $$$ medium DevelopmentR.02Regulatory ProgramRegulate Flow PathsInventory overland flow paths. Consider flow paths in permit review process. Make room for and plan for flow where it occurs by grading or armoring flow paths. Divert or limit unplanned flow paths by requiring engineered grading plans during permit review, when serious issue areas are encountered. Some improvements may not be presently triggering a permit review by the Engineering Department. Staff could investigate and identify issue areas, create a comprehensive list, and require private properties to address the risk in design if at the time a permit is applied for on an issue area.Minor addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Minor addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision may be necessary.TBD $$$ high Planning ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryR.03Regulatory ProgramRegulate ImperviousImpervious surfaces generate more runoff. Limiting impervious surfaces by changing ordinance can reduce runoff generation.Analysis in task force effort showed this approach is very limited in terms of effectiveness.Major additional cost to some private parties. Moderate addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Moderate addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision would be necessary.Would increase green space and may promote more trees. Both cost and benefit is highly variable depending on the level of regulation, and if mitigation is allowed. The costs are born by both the public, and private parties, depending on the level of regulation.TBD $$$$ low DevelopmentR.04Regulatory ProgramRequire Private Flood StorageProjects that trigger the regulatory check would be required to store volume on their site.There is a perception that redevelopment is adding volume and contributing to flood impacts. Analysis in task force effort showed this approach is very limited in terms of effectiveness. Current regulatory program manages risk on a permit-by-permit basis for residential, commercial, and industrial sites. Sites larger than one acre in size are required to control stormwater volume under the Construction Stormwater Permit.Major addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering. Additional design, coaching, and inspection necessary.Post-construction program with inspections necessary.Maintenance agreements or other legal instrument necessary.Enforcement necessary.Will limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property and will increase their costs.Policy or code revision would be necessary. There are additional costs that would be born by private parties that is not included in the costs score.TBD $$$$ low NoneR.05Regulatory ProgramRegulate Development to a Higher Flood StandardLevel of protection is currently the 1% annual chance (100-year) storm. This would be more restrictive, applying standards for a larger storm event such as the 0.2% annual chance (500-year) storm. (i.e. higher lowest floors and potentially further setback from water).Climate change is a main driver of increased flooding. Future predictions are that flood events will be larger and more frequent. Minor addition to staff review process for permits that are already reviewed by Engineering.Minor addition in permits that would trigger a review by Engineering.May limit property owners ability to implement improvements on their property or increase their costs.Policy or code revision will be necessary.TBD $$ low Development ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryR.06Regulatory ProgramTier Stormwater Utility Fee Based on Impervious CoverHigh impervious sites pay more. Model site runoff generation and rework the land use x acreage calculations to consider specific impervious of the individual site.Make the polluter pay' concept. Applying penalties for adding impervious may deter those from implementing projects. Staff intensive. Potential for a lot of negotiating back and forth about impervious cover. Would need to consider how residential stormwater BMPs like raingardens, landscaping, permeable pavements, and rain barrels fit it. May require staff intensive site inspections/verifications and annual or biannual updates. Some owners may be willing to 'pay their way out' to still be able to complete their project.TBD $$$ low DevelopmentR.07Regulatory ProgramParticipate in the Community Rating SystemThe City of Edina participates in the National Flood Insurance Program.The National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements.As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions.Potential cost savings for those holding policies. Number of policies and staff time required will determine if participation is cost-effective.TBD $$ low PlanningR.08Regulatory ProgramUpdate Plans with Flood RiskRoll the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy and Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan amendment into the Comprehensive Plan with a major amendment.Promote a citywide vision for flood risk reduction. Need to collaborate with other comp plans and groups such as the Southdale work group and other small area plans.TBD $$$ low PlanningO.01Outreach and EngagementPromote Awareness of Stormwater SystemEducation and outreach to community on the function and importance of the stormwater management system.An education and outreach program will help the community understand the function and importance of the stormwater management system and its role to minimize flooding and manage water quality. Education may improve flooding issues (e.g. improved participation in Adopt-a-Drain), identify stormwater infrastructure that is no longer functioning as designed, and help residents understand multipurpose land use (e.g. flooded parks and soccer fields).Additional understanding of flood risk has the potential to impact property values may reduce some property values. Synergy with MS4 required community education/outreach may limit additional city resources required. Education of the community may also improve water quality (reducing illicit dumping, salt usage, etc.). Staff would utilize customer service standards of integrity, quality, and service to assist residents in accessing available resources.TBD $$ low Planning ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.02Outreach and EngagementDevelop and Communicate Dynamic Flood Threat IndicatorForecast flood threat for design storms and also scenarios such as ice jams, saturated conditions, and snow melt. Host the dynamic indicator online.Perception of flood threat determines action. Would require moderate maintenance effort.Groundwater level and extent is highly uncertain and non-continuous. May provide false sense of security. TBD $$$ low DevelopmentO.03Outreach and EngagementDevelop Groundwater Level ViewerUsers can view relative groundwater level with year over year changes.Flooding risk may increase if shallow groundwater is high and stormwater infiltration is limited.May provide false sense of comfort. Groundwater elevations and extent is extremely variable spatially and temporally. Might be difficult to relate relative groundwater level to an individual basement elevation. Money may be better spent encouraging those at greatest risk to invest in draintile and sump pump systems instead.TBD $$ low PlanningO.04Outreach and EngagementPromote WaterAlert (USGS) SubscriptionsAnyone can sign up for text alerts for available United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge sites.Program already operating. Would be low cost/energy to implement. Changes can be viewed in nearly real-time. Experience may help customers to benchmark their own risk on the hydrograph (water elevation graph).May provide false sense of comfort. Urban streams tend to be flashy (i.e., flow and elevation can increase rapidly).Can add to website Frequently Asked Questions.TBD $ low Quick WinO.05Outreach and EngagementDevelop a 'What is My Flood Risk?" MapComplementary to existing water resources map with the goal of communicating flood risk clearly.Better communication of flood risk. Understanding circumstance is first step in addressing vulnerability and exposure.Concern over impact on property values as community becomes more flood aware.It may be difficult to show the depth of flooding on the map - some may be an inch whereas others may be more than a foot.Some assumptions are made about topography - more detailed surveys on a site by site basis could show structures higher or lower than the model and aerial photo suggest.Concern about accuracy and completeness. Feedback from those that use the map is critical.TBD $$$ high Quick WinO.06Outreach and EngagementPromote Sandbag ServiceCreate series of videos to communicate how to make a request for sandbags and how to build a sandbag wall. Train staff how to receive requests and provide assistance over the phone.Most are unaware of the service. Those that are aware highly value the service.Some property owners and renters may have limited ability to place their own sandbags. Unclear what service provider might do this type of work if it were hired out.Disposal of sandbags post-event.Staff would need to be trained on how to receive requests and provide assistance over the phone.TBD $$ high Quick Win ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.07Outreach and EngagementDevelop Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)Available on the City website. A resource for reception staff to direct customers to.Would help to debunk myths. Help people self-serve the information. More immediate access to information versus calling a staff person, although always an option.Occasional review and minor edits would be needed. Need to inform staff that the resource is available to share with customers. Standard customer service standards of integrity, quality, and service apply.TBD $$ high Quick WinO.08Outreach and EngagementDevelop Flood Intervention Fact SheetsDevelop Fact Sheets for common interventions that property owners and renters could implement to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to flooding. Interventions may be pre, mid, or post storm. Fact sheets would provide a description, general cost information, and appropriate applications. Examples include floodproofing, elevating utilities, flood insurance, sanitary backflow prevention, sandbagging, among others. Some feedback suggests that the interactive water resources map in its current form requires technical expertise to interpret. Changes to the interactive map would make the flood risk information more accessible.A potential barrier to reducing one’s own exposure to flooding may be their perceived ability (knowledge, skills, and resources) to take action. Other barriers, such as cost may limit a property owner or renter's ability to implement.Renters may have limited ability to implement strategies.Considerations ought to be made for all residential structures, not just single dwelling units.Fact sheets may be used by sellers to show how structures are less exposed/vulnerable.TBD $$$ medium Quick WinO.09Outreach and EngagementProvide Stormwater Technical Assistance Grant ProgramPilot year completed in 2019. Competitive grants help pay for technical evaluation of an issue affecting a resident’s property. A report documents understanding of the problem and lays out a potential plan that could then be implemented by the property owner, at their cost. Some technical assistance can increase the perceived ability (expertise, knowledge, resources) for an individual to help themselves. Case studies may be useful to others in similar situations.Grant covers design, up to a cap. Grant does not cover implementation.Reformat to cover more, from 1:1 to presentation and future design consultations.This could be like a mini flood summit.$20,000/yr existing funding.Would need to ensure the program is attractive to applicants.TBD $$$ medium Quick WinO.10Outreach and EngagementHost Flood SummitDirect mail invitations to at-risk properties. Get all stakeholders together including representatives from neighborhoods, insurance, emergency service professionals, county, police and fire, landscapers, home service providers, MN DNR, engagement professionals, decision-makers, Watershed Districts, infrastructure experts, neighboring cities. All share and discuss roles and approaches for a changing climate with increasing flood risk.Incorporates various approaches involved in reducing exposure, increasing resilience to changing risks, transformation, reducing vulnerability, transferring and sharing risks, and preparing, responding, and recovering.Would require major staff effort and coordination of other parties. Would be a pilot. Unaware of a local model to follow or existing process/program to leverage.Consider equity when selecting a pilot community.TBD $$$ medium Development ID Sector Activity Name Description Justification/Motivating factors Tradeoffs and Other Considerations Task Force RankCost ScoreStaff Rated Effectiveness ScoreAction CategoryO.11Outreach and EngagementEngage with Stakeholders at Time of Capital InvestmentIncorporate into public improvements such as street reconstruction and park improvement projects. Develop custom engagement plans as appropriate.Incorporate into public improvements such as street reconstruction and park improvement projects. Develop custom engagement plans as appropriate.Opportunities to address problem areas may lie outside of the public improvement project boundaries.Some solutions may require private property cooperation in the form of easements, agreements, and assessments.This is a long term strategy driven by private and public investment.TBD $$ medium DevelopmentO.12Outreach and EngagementEngage with Realtors, Developers, and Insurance Agents on Local Flood RiskHost a class to inform realtors, developers, and insurance agents on local flood risk. Presentation materials could be hosted online or made into a brief video.As more stakeholders understand flood risk, there will likely be a market effect.As more stakeholders understand flood risk, there may be a market effect.Desire for residents and property owners to be engaged first.Information must be accurate, current, and easy to understand.TBD $ medium DevelopmentE.01Emergency ServicesDevelop Local Flooding Emergency Response PlanSource flood threat information and predict flood threat.Define affected areas/parties and frontline communities.Develop warning system.Develop emergency response plan.Establish public information program.Develop maintenance and improvement program.Coordinate with other departments/agencies.A hazard response plan exists for major disasters only.Customers expect a higher level of service and response than the current major disaster response plan provides.The perceived flood threat likely influences property owner/renter behavior.The plan should consider frontline communities and vulnerability. Developing a plan based on historical service requests alone is not an equitable approach.This strategy doesn't effect the flood, but instead effects the preparation for and recovery after a disaster. Damages may be reduced and a return to normalcy may happen more rapidly.Would require setting a trigger condition.Opportunity to consider better protections for frontline communities.TBD $$$ medium PlanningE.02Emergency ServicesDefine and Communicate the Available ServicesInfo about what the City can and can’t do about active flooding; explanation of how the City prioritizes flood-related requests for service posted to City website. Call center training and emergency response plan inclusion. There is a gap between the status quo service level and customer expectations. Better defining available services may motivate property owners and renters to take actions to reduce their own exposure.Potential equity disparity if service delivery is driven by requests for service only. Have a plan for engaging with frontline communities, reaching out rather than only waiting for a request for service.TBD $$ medium Quick Win APPENDIX L Preliminary Assessment Roll MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐461 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID HOUSE NO. STREET OWNER ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 1 702824130108 4200 42ND ST WDONALD E NOTVIK 0.5 $4,650.00 2 702824420002 4201 42ND ST WR LARSON & A ANDRESEN 1 $9,300.00 3 702824130109 4202 42ND ST WT W & S L MARTENS 1 $9,300.00 4 702824420001 4205 42ND ST W LARRY H STOTTS ETAL 1 $9,300.00 5 702824130123 4212 42ND ST WL SUTIN & M K NULTY 1 $9,300.00 6 702824420003 4213 42ND ST WS B & V T ANDERSON 1 $9,300.00 7 702824420041 4215 42ND ST WSTEPHEN G & OLGA V ENGELS 1 $9,300.00 8 702824420040 4217 42ND ST WROD AUGUST & DAWN SCHOLL 1 $9,300.00 9 702824420039 4221 42ND ST WD & S MACPHERSON 1 $9,300.00 10 702824130121 4224 42ND ST WJOSEPH S MCAULIFF ETAL 0.5 $4,650.00 11 702824130120 4300 42ND ST WJOSEPH P HOLEWA 1 $9,300.00 12 702824420044 4301 42ND ST WD A ROSENBERG/G A ROSENBERG 1 $9,300.00 13 702824130119 4304 42ND ST WJULIA KOSTERS TRUST 1 $9,300.00 14 702824420043 4305 42ND ST W LYNETTE R ANDOR 1 $9,300.00 15 702824130118 4308 42ND ST WB & C BOONSTRA 0.5 $4,650.00 16 702824420042 4309 42ND ST WSTEVEN J DOVORANY 1 $9,300.00 17 702824420084 4313 42ND ST WCAROLYN REIGELSBERGER MORGAN 1 $9,300.00 18 702824420083 4317 42ND ST WVINCENT DURAY 1 $9,300.00 19 702824420082 4321 42ND ST WMARY T ABSOLON 1 $9,300.00 20 702824130117 4324 42ND ST WM H PHOTOGRAPHER & L SHI 0.5 $4,650.00 21 702824130116 4330 42ND ST WLINDA S BERBEROGLU 1 $9,300.00 22 702824130139 4404 42ND ST W JEFFREY A/JULIA POPE STEELE 1 $9,300.00 23 702824130138 4406 42ND ST WSETH JACOB SERGENT LEVENTHAL 1 $9,300.00 24 702824420122 4407 42ND ST WMICHAEL A HAMMER & S HAMMER 1 $9,300.00 25 702824130113 4408 42ND ST WJ E NIELSEN & A F NIELSEN 0.5 $4,650.00 26 702824130112 4500 42ND ST WG B SMITH & E D SMITH 0.5 $4,650.00 27 702824130111 4502 42ND ST WT M MCINTYRE ET AL TRUSTEES 1 $9,300.00 28 702824130110 4504 42ND ST WJ HOGERVORST & J PECORARO 1 $9,300.00 29 702824440116 4022 44TH ST WJ VANZANDT/RONALD W VANZANDT 0 $0.00 30 702824430131 4100 44TH ST WANDREW R & LINDA W STOTTS 0 $0.00 31 702824430119 4200 BRANSON ST J H LADOUSA & E G LADOUSA 1 $9,300.00 32 702824430118 4202 BRANSON ST J T QUINLAN & R A QUINLAN 1 $9,300.00 33 702824430117 4204 BRANSON ST M CANCIALOSI/N E CANCIALOSI 1 $9,300.00 34 702824430121 4205 BRANSON ST JOHN BLACK & EMILY E BLACK 1 $9,300.00 35 702824430116 4206 BRANSON ST COLIN JONES & BRIANNA JONES 1 $9,300.00 36 702824430122 4207 BRANSON ST MARK ALEXANDER STEVENS 1 $9,300.00 37 702824430115 4208 BRANSON ST BRIAN F & ANNIKA C JOY 1 $9,300.00 38 702824430123 4209 BRANSON ST L J FAHRNER LIV TRUST ET AL 1 $9,300.00 39 702824430114 4210 BRANSON ST S D OSTLIE & C M OSTLIE 1 $9,300.00 40 702824430124 4211 BRANSON ST KAREN A SEAL 1 $9,300.00 41 702824430153 4212 BRANSON ST C C PADESKY & E W PADESKY 1 $9,300.00 42 702824430125 4213 BRANSON ST K C HEINECKE & E L HEINECKE 1 $9,300.00 43 702824430112 4214 BRANSON ST EUGENE L MATTSON ETAL 1 $9,300.00 44 702824430126 4215 BRANSON ST VAUGHN P HILST ETAL 1 $9,300.00 45 702824430111 4300 BRANSON ST NASSIM ROSSI TRUST ET AL 1 $9,300.00 46 702824430083 4301 BRANSON ST B D SCHMIDT & D T SCHMIDT 1 $9,300.00 47 702824430110 4302 BRANSON ST JEFFREY/ELIZABETH M GENRICH 1 $9,300.00 48 702824430084 4303 BRANSON ST J D DYKSTRA & M K DYKSTRA 1 $9,300.00 49 702824430076 4304 BRANSON ST M J PLATTETER/S L PLATTETER 1 $9,300.00 50 702824430085 4305 BRANSON ST TIMOTHY T BENNETT ET AL 1 $9,300.00 51 702824430078 4306 BRANSON ST R C & P M MAUDE‐GRIFFIN 1 $9,300.00 52 702824430086 4307 BRANSON ST HONGWEI OYANG & HUIJIE LIN 1 $9,300.00 53 702824430073 4308 BRANSON ST PATRICIA G MILLS TRUST 1 $9,300.00 54 702824430087 4309 BRANSON ST THE CREDIT TRUST 1 $9,300.00 55 702824430072 4310 BRANSON ST J P LASSIG & A A LASSIG 1 $9,300.00 MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐461 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID HOUSE NO. STREET OWNER ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 56 702824430088 4311 BRANSON ST MARIA K STOTESBERY ET AL 1 $9,300.00 57 702824430068 4312 BRANSON ST QI ZHAO & ZHI YANG 1 $9,300.00 58 702824430089 4313 BRANSON ST ANDREW W MAHONEY & K MAHONEY 1 $9,300.00 59 702824430071 4314 BRANSON ST N RAJALINGAM/M D RAJALINGAM 1 $9,300.00 60 702824430090 4315 BRANSON ST D KLUESNER & E KLUESNER 1 $9,300.00 61 702824430066 4316 BRANSON ST ADRIANE HAWES & SHANE HAWES 1 $9,300.00 62 702824430065 4400 BRANSON ST D WATTSON & M M GUTIERREZ 1 $9,300.00 63 702824430091 4401 BRANSON ST 4401 BRANSON LLC 1 $9,300.00 64 702824430062 4402 BRANSON ST W & M KLATT 1 $9,300.00 65 702824430092 4403 BRANSON ST 4403 BRANSON ST PROPS LLC 1 $9,300.00 66 702824430059 4404 BRANSON ST JOANNA E BENNETT TRUST 1 $9,300.00 67 702824430093 4405 BRANSON ST K B KETCHUM & V M MCCARTHY 1 $9,300.00 68 702824430060 4406 BRANSON ST M J MITCHELL & D J MITCHELL 1 $9,300.00 69 702824430094 4407 BRANSON ST MARION MCNURLEN/ LANE AYRES 1 $9,300.00 70 702824430057 4408 BRANSON ST J A CHRISTIAANSEN ET AL 1 $9,300.00 71 702824430095 4409 BRANSON ST BENJAMIN TAYLOR/SARA TAYLOR 1 $9,300.00 72 702824430141 4410 BRANSON ST ANNE E F & OKECHUKWU A AZODO 1 $9,300.00 73 702824430054 4411 BRANSON ST K S REBSTOCK/PETER REBSTOCK 1 $9,300.00 74 702824420045 4206 CROCKER AVE S & P PORTER 1 $9,300.00 75 702824420038 4209 CROCKER AVE BRETT BROHL & SARA BROHL 1 $9,300.00 76 702824420046 4212 CROCKER AVE PODALY U JAY & DESMOND B JAY 1 $9,300.00 77 702824420037 4213 CROCKER AVE TIMOTHY/SUSAN GRUIDL 1 $9,300.00 78 702824420035 4215 CROCKER AVE BRUCE GEORGE REITER 1 $9,300.00 79 702824420047 4216 CROCKER AVE DAVID/CATHERINE PINSKE TRUST 1 $9,300.00 80 702824420036 4217 CROCKER AVE F R C BACON & A BACON 1 $9,300.00 81 702824420034 4219 CROCKER AVE GALEN L LUNDGREN & WIFE 1 $9,300.00 82 702824420048 4220 CROCKER AVE CHELSEA IHNAT & DANIEL IHNAT 1 $9,300.00 83 702824420033 4221 CROCKER AVE TOLLBERG HOMES LLC 1 $9,300.00 84 702824420032 4223 CROCKER AVE GERLINDE S PAULAT 1 $9,300.00 85 702824420049 4224 CROCKER AVE R & S LANDRUD 1 $9,300.00 86 702824420031 4225 CROCKER AVE KARL O SHARP ETAL 1 $9,300.00 87 702824420050 4226 CROCKER AVE S & D GORMAN 1 $9,300.00 88 702824420030 4227 CROCKER AVE ROBERT P MONGE ETAL 1 $9,300.00 89 702824420051 4228 CROCKER AVE B A GILLOON & C L GILLOON 1 $9,300.00 90 702824420029 4229 CROCKER AVE STEPHEN LESOURD/SHAUNA YUAN 1 $9,300.00 91 702824420052 4230 CROCKER AVE M V SCHAEFER & K M SCHAEFER 1 $9,300.00 92 702824420028 4231 CROCKER AVE MATTHEW GILLMER & K GILLMER 1 $9,300.00 93 702824420053 4232 CROCKER AVE WILLIAM J & BARBARA L BUENZ 1 $9,300.00 94 702824420027 4233 CROCKER AVE HANS P KUDER/KAITLIN L LYTLE 1 $9,300.00 95 702824420054 4234 CROCKER AVE G M CARLSON & J J CARLSON 1 $9,300.00 96 702824420025 4235 CROCKER AVE A T MISSAGHI & A MISSAGHI 1 $9,300.00 97 702824420055 4236 CROCKER AVE K D POTTS & H A BEAL 1 $9,300.00 98 702824420026 4237 CROCKER AVE S B RUUD & L R RUUD 1 $9,300.00 99 702824420056 4238 CROCKER AVE G M D & R L M TRUST 1 $9,300.00 100 702824420023 4239 CROCKER AVE L J DEVORE & J DEVORE 1 $9,300.00 101 702824420057 4240 CROCKER AVE ALYSSA L THOMAS TRUST 1 $9,300.00 102 702824420024 4241 CROCKER AVE LYLE R EIDE & WIFE 1 $9,300.00 103 702824420058 4242 CROCKER AVE MONIQUE J WERRY 1 $9,300.00 104 702824420022 4243 CROCKER AVE W OLEXY & J K HESSION 1 $9,300.00 105 702824420059 4244 CROCKER AVE PAUL EKLUND THOMPSON 1 $9,300.00 106 702824420021 4245 CROCKER AVE L J MADDAUS‐WHITE ET AL 1 $9,300.00 107 702824420060 4246 CROCKER AVE T J BRAATEN & E G BRAATEN 1 $9,300.00 108 702824420020 4247 CROCKER AVE B G JOHNSON & B N JOHNSON 1 $9,300.00 109 702824420062 4248 CROCKER AVE FRANCES L SIFTAR 1 $9,300.00 110 702824420019 4249 CROCKER AVE GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES INC 1 $9,300.00 111 702824410127 4201 GRIMES AVE AMY STRODL & JASON STRODL 0.67 $6,231.00 MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐461 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID HOUSE NO. STREET OWNER ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 112 702824420004 4208 GRIMES AVE JONATHAN REX GROSS 1 $9,300.00 113 702824410123 4209 GRIMES AVE J P MELLEMA & D A MELLEMA 1 $9,300.00 114 702824420005 4212 GRIMES AVE J J BRAKKE PAYNE & T L PAYNE 1 $9,300.00 115 702824410122 4213 GRIMES AVE MAHESH JOHARI & WEI DONG 1 $9,300.00 116 702824410120 4215 GRIMES AVE G T GENUNG & S L DALLIN 1 $9,300.00 117 702824420006 4216 GRIMES AVE G H WILSON & L T WILSON 1 $9,300.00 118 702824410121 4217 GRIMES AVE R S GREENE & R TAYLOR‐GREENE 1 $9,300.00 119 702824420007 4218 GRIMES AVE HEIDI & DARREN WENNEN 1 $9,300.00 120 702824410118 4219 GRIMES AVE M M CAVANAUGH/R D LAVERCOMBE 1 $9,300.00 121 702824410119 4221 GRIMES AVE JOSEPH CHISLER 1 $9,300.00 122 702824420009 4222 GRIMES AVE H R BERG/J A GUNDERSON BERG 1 $9,300.00 123 702824410116 4223 GRIMES AVE S BLATNIK & A M CURTIN 1 $9,300.00 124 702824420008 4224 GRIMES AVE C A HALLBERG/J S RUNESTRAND 1 $9,300.00 125 702824410117 4225 GRIMES AVE CAROL A FRANZEN 1 $9,300.00 126 702824420010 4226 GRIMES AVE R P & V M KEARNEY 1 $9,300.00 127 702824410114 4227 GRIMES AVE KYLE MEEHAN & KATIE MEEHAN 1 $9,300.00 128 702824410115 4229 GRIMES AVE V R SHENAI & AMITA V SHENAI 1 $9,300.00 129 702824420011 4230 GRIMES AVE RAYMOND V HALL ETAL 1 $9,300.00 130 702824410113 4231 GRIMES AVE STEVEN MORGAN 1 $9,300.00 131 702824420012 4232 GRIMES AVE KATE AMELIA QUALE 1 $9,300.00 132 702824420013 4234 GRIMES AVE MARTHA J ARNESON 1 $9,300.00 133 702824410112 4235 GRIMES AVE N T WISSINK & S S WISSINK 1 $9,300.00 134 702824420014 4238 GRIMES AVE THE JELTEMA LIVING TRUST 1 $9,300.00 135 702824410111 4239 GRIMES AVE JOHN GEELAN & MEGAN FEENEY 1 $9,300.00 136 702824420015 4240 GRIMES AVE GRAFE TRUST 1 $9,300.00 137 702824420016 4242 GRIMES AVE GRAFE TRUST 1 $9,300.00 138 702824410110 4243 GRIMES AVE JEFFREY & JENIFER SHOEMATE 1 $9,300.00 139 702824420125 4246 GRIMES AVE HELEN S BURKE 1 $9,300.00 140 702824410108 4247 GRIMES AVE JOSEPH BAUER & BRIANNE BAUER 1 $9,300.00 141 702824430150 4306 GRIMES AVE MATTHEW B KRUSH REVOC TRUST 1 $9,300.00 142 702824440117 4307 GRIMES AVE PETER R & MENA K BJERKE 1 $9,300.00 143 702824440118 4311 GRIMES AVE L S PARMEKAR & L J PARMEKAR 1 $9,300.00 144 702824440114 4313 GRIMES AVE B GILLMER & C CURRIER 1 $9,300.00 145 702824440115 4315 GRIMES AVE C F GRAFT & J A GRAFT 1 $9,300.00 146 702824430120 4324 GRIMES AVE SARAH HUSS & JOSEPH HUSS 1 $9,300.00 147 702824130122 4125 KIPLING AVE J M SEVERSON & T A SPITALE 0.5 $4,650.00 148 702824420135 4401 LITTEL ST ANDREW E DAVIS & K H DAVIS 1 $9,300.00 149 702824420121 4200 LYNN AVE B A BENYAS & D S BENYAS 1 $9,300.00 150 702824420081 4211 LYNN AVE J A & A B WHITE 1 $9,300.00 151 702824420109 4212 LYNN AVE E & S FLACH 1 $9,300.00 152 702824420080 4213 LYNN AVE T J FINER & A K FINER 1 $9,300.00 153 702824420079 4215 LYNN AVE D A & M R HORAN 1 $9,300.00 154 702824420110 4216 LYNN AVE J M BUSZIN & M E LOGEAIS 1 $9,300.00 155 702824420078 4217 LYNN AVE CASEY CARL & JAMIE CARL 1 $9,300.00 156 702824420077 4219 LYNN AVE R G PARISH & A H PARISH 1 $9,300.00 157 702824420111 4220 LYNN AVE HEATHER L BRACKEN 1 $9,300.00 158 702824420076 4221 LYNN AVE P A & J D SIDELL 1 $9,300.00 159 702824420075 4223 LYNN AVE I TOWNSEND & K TOWNSEND 1 $9,300.00 160 702824420112 4224 LYNN AVE T J RUDNICKI/K J H RUDNICKI 1 $9,300.00 161 702824420074 4225 LYNN AVE N P BISHOP & K M BISHOP 1 $9,300.00 162 702824420072 4227 LYNN AVE ROBERT J LOGELIN 1 $9,300.00 163 702824420113 4228 LYNN AVE KENNETH L & JUDITH R HANSEN 1 $9,300.00 164 702824420073 4231 LYNN AVE EUGENE EDWARD VEIT 1 $9,300.00 165 702824420114 4232 LYNN AVE T J & M B GREELEY 1 $9,300.00 166 702824420085 4405 LITTEL ST CITY OF EDINA 0 $0.00 167 702824420071 4233 LYNN AVE J M HARRIS & S S HARRIS 1 $9,300.00 MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐461 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID HOUSE NO. STREET OWNER ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 168 702824420086 4234 LYNN AVE PETER GABLER & KAREN GABLER 1 $9,300.00 169 702824420070 4235 LYNN AVE JOHN H MITCHELL TRUST 1 $9,300.00 170 702824420127 4236 LYNN AVE NANCY B KILLILEA REV TRUST 1 $9,300.00 171 702824420069 4237 LYNN AVE LACHLAN J BADENOCH 1 $9,300.00 172 702824420088 4238 LYNN AVE M S HUNT & C OFFICER‐HUNT 1 $9,300.00 173 702824420068 4239 LYNN AVE MICHAEL J DEVINE ET AL 1 $9,300.00 174 702824420087 4240 LYNN AVE C HAMMERSTRAND ET AL 1 $9,300.00 175 702824420090 4242 LYNN AVE JEFFREY A OHM & JOYCE E OHM 1 $9,300.00 176 702824420066 4243 LYNN AVE M S BRINKMAN & M Q BRINKMAN 1 $9,300.00 177 702824420089 4244 LYNN AVE M S BROWN & A L SZYMCZAK 1 $9,300.00 178 702824420067 4245 LYNN AVE AARON JILSON & K F JILLSON 1 $9,300.00 179 702824420093 4246 LYNN AVE S CAVANAUGH & T CAVANAUGH 1 $9,300.00 180 702824420063 4247 LYNN AVE ALEX J WILSON & A N WILSON 1 $9,300.00 181 702824410109 4114 MORNINGSIDE RD J D ENGELSMA & E H ENGELSMA 0 $0.00 182 702824440122 4115 MORNINGSIDE RD EHREN J SEIM & HOLLY A SEIM 0 $0.00 183 702824420126 4200 MORNINGSIDE RD R & J WALKOVETS 1 $9,300.00 184 702824430148 4201 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MORNINGSIDE CHURCH 3.04 $28,272.00 185 702824420017 4208 MORNINGSIDE RD GREENWOOD DESIGN BUILD LLC 1 $9,300.00 186 702824430151 4209 MORNINGSIDE RD DAVID R & ELIZABETH P CECCHI 1 $9,300.00 187 702824430038 4211 MORNINGSIDE RD C S HAYHOE & B S HAYHOE 1 $9,300.00 188 702824430152 4213 MORNINGSIDE RD STEWART RALLIS/MONICA RALLIS 1 $9,300.00 189 702824430107 4215 MORNINGSIDE RD SCOTT R INGRAM ETAL 1 $9,300.00 190 702824430108 4301 MORNINGSIDE RD R M LIESTMAN & K S LIESTMAN 1 $9,300.00 191 702824430109 4303 MORNINGSIDE RD J W TAYLOR & K E TAYLOR 1 $9,300.00 192 702824430079 4305 MORNINGSIDE RD M A BANFIELD & L L BANFIELD 1 $9,300.00 193 702824430077 4307 MORNINGSIDE RD T J MCGILL & L K MCGILL 1 $9,300.00 194 702824420061 4308 MORNINGSIDE RD C C BINDERT/BRIANA L BINDERT 1 $9,300.00 195 702824430075 4309 MORNINGSIDE RD D & S TOTH 1 $9,300.00 196 702824420065 4310 MORNINGSIDE RD B W CIFERRI & B L CIFERRI 1 $9,300.00 197 702824430074 4311 MORNINGSIDE RD AMIT BHARGAVA/ANNE BHARGAVA 1 $9,300.00 198 702824430070 4313 MORNINGSIDE RD PETER CLAYBURGH 1 $9,300.00 199 702824430069 4315 MORNINGSIDE RD A K YANG & L A VOSSLER‐YANG 1 $9,300.00 200 702824430067 4317 MORNINGSIDE RD M D HOBBS & J D HOBBS 1 $9,300.00 201 702824420064 4350 MORNINGSIDE RD THOMAS J PLANT/JUDY L PLANT 1 $9,300.00 202 702824420092 4400 MORNINGSIDE RD SANFORD BERMAN 1 $9,300.00 203 702824430064 4401 MORNINGSIDE RD S C FLEMMING & S L DINAPOLI 1 $9,300.00 204 702824430063 4403 MORNINGSIDE RD JUSTIN E STEINBRUCHEL ET AL 1 $9,300.00 205 702824430061 4405 MORNINGSIDE RD JASON STRODL & AMY STRODL 1 $9,300.00 206 702824430058 4409 MORNINGSIDE RD IMRAN SYED & MEHER RAHMAN 1 $9,300.00 207 702824430132 4411 MORNINGSIDE RD K M PRINCE & M J PRINCE 1 $9,300.00 208 702824430133 4413 MORNINGSIDE RD J A WILDE & C A WILDE 1 $9,300.00 209 702824430135 4415 MORNINGSIDE RD M C PECARD & C M BEHREND 1 $9,300.00 210 702824430134 4417 MORNINGSIDE RD S LAFRENZ & T LAFRENZ 1 $9,300.00 211 702824340082 4501 MORNINGSIDE RD TALLAKSON FAMILY LIV REC TRU 0.5 $4,650.00 212 702824420101 4200 OAKDALE AVE T MARTINEZ & A MARTINEZ 1 $9,300.00 213 702824420123 4201 OAKDALE AVE P & S LEDIN 1 $9,300.00 214 702824420102 4204 OAKDALE AVE J BALLARD & K BALLARD 1 $9,300.00 215 702824420124 4205 OAKDALE AVE GAVIN QUINN & KATIE QUINN 1 $9,300.00 216 702824420103 4208 OAKDALE AVE DAVID SIEBEN/KATHRYN SIEBEN 1 $9,300.00 217 702824420120 4211 OAKDALE AVE KAY FINBERG JOHNSON 1 $9,300.00 218 702824420104 4212 OAKDALE AVE N M BIZILY & T K D BIZILY 1 $9,300.00 219 702824420119 4215 OAKDALE AVE H M GRAVES & J P GRAVES 1 $9,300.00 220 702824420105 4216 OAKDALE AVE D P JUNKER & J M BERGSTEDT 1 $9,300.00 221 702824420118 4219 OAKDALE AVE B & J STROMBERG JR 1 $9,300.00 222 702824420106 4220 OAKDALE AVE J P GOAN & S C GOAN 1 $9,300.00 223 702824420117 4223 OAKDALE AVE S P MURNAN & A H MURNAN 1 $9,300.00 MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐461 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID HOUSE NO. STREET OWNER ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 224 702824420107 4224 OAKDALE AVE M A STEVENS & J L STEVENS 1 $9,300.00 225 702824420116 4227 OAKDALE AVE T B MOLLDREM/R A H MOLLDREM 1 $9,300.00 226 702824420108 4228 OAKDALE AVE T A & A J YOUEL 1 $9,300.00 227 702824420115 4231 OAKDALE AVE J J SCHWERT & C P SCHWERT 1 $9,300.00 228 702824420136 4232 OAKDALE AVE CAROL E SIDELL 1 $9,300.00 229 702824430136 4303 OAKDALE AVE K VICKMAN & J VICKMAN 1 $9,300.00 230 702824430137 4305 OAKDALE AVE SACHIN CHAUHAN/UPAMA UNIYAL 1 $9,300.00 231 702824340083 4306 OAKDALE AVE GROUNDUP DEVELOPMENT LLC 1 $9,300.00 232 702824430138 4307 OAKDALE AVE S HANNULA & K LAWTON 1 $9,300.00 233 702824430139 4309 OAKDALE AVE MARY E GROTTE 1 $9,300.00 234 702824340084 4312 OAKDALE AVE ANDRIA ROSS‐REDPATH REV TRST 1 $9,300.00 235 702824430140 4315 OAKDALE AVE M S VALGEMAE/R A VALGEMAE TR 1 $9,300.00 236 702824340085 4318 OAKDALE AVE ANN VICTORIA HOFFMAN TRUSTEE 1 $9,300.00 237 702824340086 4324 OAKDALE AVE LINDA M TILLITT 1 $9,300.00 238 702824340087 4330 OAKDALE AVE C B JOHNS & C M JOHNS 1 $9,300.00 239 702824340088 4334 OAKDALE AVE T R PFEIFER JR & E R PEPIN 1 $9,300.00 240 702824340073 4338 OAKDALE AVE A A GLAISNER & L M GLAISNER 1 $9,300.00 241 702824340074 4342 OAKDALE AVE R K & C A JOYCE 1 $9,300.00 242 702824430056 4344 OAKDALE AVE D J POWELL & KIARA J POWELL 1 $9,300.00 243 702824430055 4348 OAKDALE AVE SUSAN L SHERIDAN 1 $9,300.00 244 702824430052 4352 OAKDALE AVE PAUL J DONNAY THREE LLC 1 $9,300.00 245 702824430051 4353 OAKDALE AVE MITCHELL & JENNIFER BEST 1 $9,300.00 246 702824430053 4356 OAKDALE AVE KATE M CARPENTER 1 $9,300.00 247 702824430049 4360 OAKDALE AVE T M MCGOWAN & C J MCGOWAN 1 $9,300.00 248 702824430042 4361 OAKDALE AVE J P NOESKE & A J NOESKE 1 $9,300.00 249 702824430050 4364 OAKDALE AVE G R SKOV & J M UNZICKER 1 $9,300.00 250 702824430041 4365 OAKDALE AVE L A COOLEY & J L THAYER 1 $9,300.00 251 702824430045 4368 OAKDALE AVE C W & C A BEHLING 1 $9,300.00 252 702824430048 4370 OAKDALE AVE AMY B JOHNSON 1 $9,300.00 253 702824420138 4245 SIDELL TR RICHARD HARDY & SARAH HARDY 0.5 $4,650.00 254 702824420129 4248 SIDELL TR JASON ZUCKER & CARLY ZUCKER 0.5 $4,650.00 Total 245.71 $2,285,103.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING NOTICE CITY OF EDINA ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified acting City Clerk of the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby certify that on the following dates November 23, 2021, acting on behalf of said City, I deposited in the United States mail copies of the attached Notice of Public Hearing for Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction (Exhibit A), enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon duly prepaid, addressed to the persons at the addresses as shown on the mailing list (Exhibit B), attached to the original hereof, which list is on file in my office, said persons being those appearing on the records of the County Auditor as owners of the property listed opposite their respective names, as of a date 19 days prior to the date of the hearing; and that I also sent said notice to the following corporations at the indicated addresses whose property is exempt from taxation and is therefore not carried on the records of said County Auditor. NAME ADDRESS WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this 23rd day of November, 2021. ________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk 0702824430109 JEREMY & KRISTY TAYLOR 4303 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420006 GARRETT H WILSON & & LAURA THATCHER WILSON 4216 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430064 SCOTT FLEMMING & SUSAN DINAPOLI 4401 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430135 MICHAEL C PECAED & CHRISTINE M BEHREND 4415 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430058 IMRAN SHAFI SYED & MEHER KHALID RAHMAN 4409 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430132 KATHERINE & MICHAEL PRINCE 4411 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430108 RYAN & KATHRYN LIESTMAN 4301 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430077 TIMOTHY J MCGILL & LAURA K MCGILL 4307 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430134 SCOTT LAFRENZ & TERI LAFRENZ 4417 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420014 WADE & NICOLLE GULBRANSEN 4016 SALEM AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 0702824420002 RANDALL LARSON & ANGELICA ANDRESEN 4201 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824130112 GORDON BRAWN SMITH & ERIN DUDLEY SMITH 4500 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824130117 MUFADDAL H PHOTOGRAPHER & LIXIA SHI 4324 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824130121 JOSEPH & TIA MCAULIFF 4224 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430060 MAURA J MITCHELL & DAVID J MITCHELL 4230 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430079 MATTHEW & LAURENCE BANFIELD 4305 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824130110 JOEP HOGERVORST & JESSICA PECORARO 4504 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430069 ALAN K YANG & LORI A VOSSLER-YANG 4315 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420102 JEFFREY & KRISTIN BALLARD 4204 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420060 TREVOR & EYLEEN BRAATEN 4246 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420063 ALEX & ALISON WILSON 4247 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420074 NICHOLAS & KILIAN BISHOP 4225 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420068 MICHAEL J DEVINE & EDMONDA BRUSCELLA DEVINE 4239 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420087 CHRISTOPHER & ALICIA HAMMERSTRAND 4240 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420061 CHRISTOPHER & BRIANA BINDERT 4308 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420027 HANS KUDER & KAITLIN LYTLE 4233 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420028 MATTHEW & KARIE GILLMER 4231 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420051 BENJAMIN & CONSTANCE GILLOON 4228 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420056 GREGORY M DAGGETT & RUTH MERID 4238 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420075 ISAAC & KATHERINE TOWNSEND 4223 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420127 PETER & NANCY KILLILEA 4236 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420080 TAD & ALEXANDRA FINER 4213 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420107 JENNIFER STEVENS 4224 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420067 AARON & KATHERINE JILLSON 4245 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420101 TOM & AIMEE MARTINEZ 4200 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420104 NEIL M BIZILY & TARA K DOYLE BIZILY 4212 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420065 BRINK & BETSY CIFERRI 4310 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420038 BRETT & SARAH BROHL 4209 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420022 WILLIAM OLEXY & JANE KING HESSION 4243 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420117 GREGORY & JESSICA HEIDEMANN 4223 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420110 JUSTIN M BUSZIN & MARY E LOGEAIS 4216 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410110 KIM CLINE & NATHAN OTREMBA 4243 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824410120 REAMONN STYNES & MAX STYNES 4215 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410112 NATHANIEL & STEPHANIE WISSINK 4235 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410121 RICHARD S GREENE & TAMELA R TAYLOR-GREENE 4217 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410116 STEPHEN BLATNIK & ANN M CURTIN 4223 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410115 VASANTH & AMITA SHENAI 4229 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430065 DANIEL WATTSON & MARIA MERCEDES GUTIERREZ 4400 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430049 TIMOTHY & CAROLINE MCGOWAN 4360 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430057 RYAN & MICHELLE SULLIVAN 4408 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430056 DAVID & KIARA POWELL 4344 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430095 BENJAMIN & SARA TAYLOR 4409 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430111 FEDERICO & NASSIM ROSSI 4300 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430093 KATHERINE B KETCHUM & VIRGINIA M MCCARTHY 4405 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430123 RYAN & NICOLE WILLIAMS 4209 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430063 JUSTIN & ADITI STEINBRUCHEL 6224 PEACEDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430110 JEFFREY GENRICH & ELIZABETH A MENAPACE-GENRICH 4302 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430119 JESSE & ERIKA LADOUSA 4200 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430085 TIMOTHY T BENNETT & INNA SHABASH-BENNETT 4305 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430138 SETH HANNULA & KATHERINE LAWTON 4307 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430137 SACHIN CHAUHAN & UPAMA UNIYAL 4305 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430117 MICHAEL & NICOLE CANCIALOSI 4204 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430072 JEFFREY & AMY ANNE LASSIG 4310 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430150 MATTHEW KRUSH & ELIZABETH FALLON 4306 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430140 MARK & RUTH VALGEMAE 4315 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430054 KATHERINE & PETER REBSTOCK 4411 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430088 MJL HOMES LLC 18624 KALMAR TRAIL LAKEVILLE MN 55044 0702824430118 JOHN & RACHEL A QUINLAN 4202 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430136 KURT & JEANNETTE VICKMAN 4303 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430071 NATHAN & MACKENZIE RAJALINGAM 4314 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430089 ANDREW & KAREN MAHONEY 4313 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824440114 AARON & ASHLEY YENTZ 4313 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824440115 CHRISTOPHER & JESSICA A GRAFT 4315 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430120 SARAH HUSS & JOSEPH HUSS 4324 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430051 MITCHELL & JENNIFER BEST 4220 CHOWEN AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410 0702824340087 CHRISTOPHER & CORRAL JOHNS 4330 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824130108 DONALD E NOTVIK 4200-42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824340084 ANDREA & SCOTT A REDPATH 4312 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430053 KATE M CARPENTER 4356 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430148 EDINA MORNINGSIDE CHURCH 4201 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430087 DEIRDRE OLSON 3809 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE NW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 0702824430066 ADRIANE HAWES & SHANE HAWES 4316 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824420004 JONATHAN REX GROSS 4208 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430074 AMIT BHARGAVA/ANNE BHARGAVA 4311 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824130120 JOSEPH P HOLEWA 4300 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420005 THOMAS L PAYNE 4212 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824130118 ERIN & THOMAS POWELL 4308 W 42ND ST EDINA MN 55416 0702824420009 H R BERG/J A GUNDERSON BERG 4222 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430076 MICHAEL/STEPHANIE PLATTETER 4304 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430045 CHRISTOPHER & CHERYL BEHLING 4368 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430124 KAREN A SEAL 4211 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824340085 ANN V HOFFMAN 4318 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430107 SCOTT R INGRAM 4215 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430070 HILLARY FOX CLAYBURGH 4313 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430125 KENNETH & ELIZABETH HEINECKE 4213 BRANSON STREET EDINA MN 55424 0702824420012 KATE AMELIA QUALE 4232 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430090 DAVID & ELIZABETH KLUESNER 4315 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430041 LINTON COOLEY & JOHN THAYER 4365 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430121 JOHN & EMILY BLACK 4205 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824420015 TIMOTHY H GRAFE 4242 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420125 HELEN BURKE 4246 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430061 NEXT NEST MN LLC 4201 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824130139 JEFFREY A STEELE 4404 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430059 JOANNA & ANDREW BENNETT 4404 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430038 CHRISTOPHER & BARBARA HAYHOE 4211 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420007 HEIDI & DARREN WENNEN 4218 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430084 JEFFREY D & MOLLY K DYKSTRA 4303 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824130123 MAB NULTY & LAWRENCE SUTIN 4212 W 42ND ST EDINA MN 55416 0702824430094 MARION MCNURLEN/ LANE AYRES 4407 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824340086 ALAN CLINARD & MICHELE KAPLAN CLINARD 4324 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430048 AMY B JOHNSON 4370 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430126 VAUGHN P HILST 4215 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430122 MARK ALEXANDER STEVENS 4207 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824420010 ROBERT & VIRGINIA KEARNEY 4226 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420011 PATRICK & RACHEL LYTLE 4230 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824430153 CORY & ELIZABETH PADESKY 4212 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430075 LORAN & CHRISTY GUTT 4309 MORNINGSIDE ROAD EDINA MN 55416 0702824130111 TODD & CAROLYN MCINTYRE 4502 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430114 STEVEN & CATHY OSTLIE 4210 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430141 ANNE E F & OKECHUKWU A AZODO 4410 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430068 QI ZHAO & ZHI YANG 4312 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430139 MARY E GROTTE 1932 DREW AV S MPLS MN 55416 0702824430091 JENNIFER & CHRISTOPHER EDE 4413 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430092 ABRAHAM & NINA FIELDS 4403 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824130122 T A SPITALE & J M SEVERSON 4125 KIPLING AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824130113 JOHN E NIELSEN 4408 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430112 EUGENE L MATTSON 4214 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430133 JAMES A & CONNIE A WILDE 4413 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430083 BRYAN & DARLENE SCHMIDT 4301 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824420008 C HALLBERG & J RUNESTRAND 4224 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824430052 JOHN & MADELINE MCELHENNY 4352 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824420129 DRAGANA & AARON BERG 4248 SIDELL TR EDINA MN 55416 0702824420016 TIMOTHY H GRAFE 4242 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420126 JANET C WALKOVETS 4200 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824340082 W L TALLAKSON 4501 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430116 ANGELA VANGRIMSVEN 4206 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824130109 THOMAS W & SONJA L MARTENS 4202 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430067 MICHAEL D & JOHNNA D HOBBS 4317 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824340083 JOHN & JACQUELYN PETERKA 3680 LANDINGS DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0702824430115 BRIAN F & ANNIKA C JOY 4208 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824130116 LINDA S BERBEROGLU 4330 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430062 W NICHOLAS & M JAYNE A KLATT 4402 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430078 ROLAND C MAUDE-GRIFFIN 4306 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430042 J P NOESKE & A J NOESKE 4361 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824420013 MARTHA J ARNESON 4234 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824340074 ROBERT K & CYNTHIA A JOYCE 4342 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824430151 ANGELA VANGRINSVEN 4209 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824340073 ANDREW & LISA GLAISNER 4338 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824130119 JULIA KOSTERS 4304 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 JAY KOSTERS 5813 TINGDALE AVE EDINA MN 55436 0702824340088 E R & T R PFEIFER JR 4334 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430086 HONGWEI OYANG & HUIJIE LIN 4307 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430055 SUSAN L SHERIDAN 4348 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55424 0702824130138 SETH JACOB SERGENT LEVENTHAL 4406 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824430073 PATRICIA G MILLS 4308 BRANSON ST EDINA MN 55424 0702824430050 GLENN SKOV & JEAN UNZICKER 4364 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824430152 STEWART RALLIS/MONICA RALLIS 4213 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824430131 ANDREW R STOTTS 4100 44TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 0702824420025 TAJALLI & AMIR MISSAGHI 4235 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420043 LYNETTE R ANDOR 4305 W 42ND ST EDINA MN 55416 0702824420090 JEFFREY A & JOYCE E OHM 4242 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420035 BRUCE G REITER 4215 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420083 VINCENT DURAY 4317 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420049 ROBERT G & SHARON L LANDRUD 4224 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420089 ANNETTE SZYMCZAK BROWN 4244 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420071 JAMES M HARRIS 4233 LYNN AVE SO EDINA MN 55416 0702824420079 DAVID A HORAN 4215 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420034 GALEN L LUNDGREN 4219 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420026 STANLEY B & LISA RAE RUUD 4237 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420053 WILLIAM J BUENZ 4232 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420122 MICHAEL & STACEY HAMMER 4407 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420023 LAWRENCE J DEVORE 4239 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420052 TIMOTHY & STEPHANIE OEHLER 4230 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420059 PAUL E THOMPSON 4244 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420040 ROD AUGUST & DAWN SCHOLL 4217 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420086 PETER GABLER & KAREN GABLER 4234 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420039 DAVID E MACPHERSON 4221 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420057 ALYSSA & ROBERT THOMAS 4240 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420045 STEVEN W & PEGGY R PORTER 4206 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420033 ERIK & MORGAN GRENZ 4221 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420085 CITY OF EDINA 4801 50TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 0702824420036 FRANK & ANNLIV BACON 4217 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420029 STEPHEN LESOURD & SHUANA YUAN 4229 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420003 S BRIAN & VALERIE T ANDERSON 4213 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420017 ROSEMARY LELICH 5555 78TH ST W, STE L EDINA MN 55439 0702824420088 JENS KNUTSON & MEREDITH CAIN- NEILSEN 4238 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420058 MONIQUE J WERRY 4242 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420136 CAROL & FRANK SIDELL 4232 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420123 PAUL & SHARON LEDIN 4201 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420070 JOHN H MITCHELL 4235 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420042 STEVEN J DOVORANY 4309 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420081 JOHN A & ANN B WHITE 4211 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420019 KUSHAL CHOTTEPANDA & SARAH BAKKEN 4249 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420121 BRADLEY & DIANE BENYAS 4200 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420046 PODALY & DESMOND JAY 4212 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420138 RICHARD HARDY & SARAH HARDY 4245 SIDELL TRAIL EDINA MN 55416 0702824420030 ROBERT P MONGE 4227 CROCKER AVE SO EDINA MN 55416 0702824420135 REBECCA REMARICK 3918 SUNNYSIDE RD EDINA MN 55424 0702824420077 ROBERT G & AMY H PARISH 4219 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420093 STACEY CAVANAUGH 4246 LYNN AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824420024 LYLE R EIDE 4241 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420064 THOMAS J PLANT/JUDY L PLANT 4350 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420055 KENNETH POTTS & HEATHER BEAL 4236 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420048 CHELSEA IHNAT & DANIEL IHNAT 4220 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420021 L J MADDAUS-WHITE/T A WHITE 4245 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420050 STEVEN G & DIANE L GORMAN 4226 CROCKER AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824420037 TIM AND SUSAN GRUIDL 4213 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420072 ROBERT J LOGELIN 4227 LYNN AVE SO EDINA MN 55416 0702824420103 DAVID & KATRHYN SIEBEN 4208 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420076 PHILIP A & JENNIFER D SIDELL 4221 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420041 STEPHEN G & OLGA V ENGELS 4215 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420032 GERLINDE S PAULAT 4223 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420078 CASEY CARL 4217 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420108 THEODORE A & AMELIA J YOUEL 4228 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420062 PAUL & JANNA SIFTAR 4248 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420047 DAVID D & CATHERINE A PINSKE 4216 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420073 GENE E VEIT 4231 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420084 CAROLYN REIGELSBERGER MORGAN 4313 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420069 LACHLAN J BADENOCH 4237 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420066 M S BRINKMAN & M Q BRINKMAN 4243 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420031 KARL O & MARY L SHARP 4225 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420092 SANFORD BERMAN 4400 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824420082 MARY T ABSOLON 4321 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420105 D P JUNKER & J M BERGSTEDT 4216 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420106 JOHN P GOAN & SUZANNE C GOAN 4220 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420044 DANIEL A ROSENBERG 4301 42ND ST W EDINA MN 55416 0702824420054 JENNIFER & GREGORY CARLSON 4234 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420020 BRIAN G & BETSY N JOHNSON 4247 CROCKER AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420001 LARRY H STOTTS 4205 W 42ND ST EDINA MN 55416 0702824420114 TIMOTHY J/MALINDA B GREELEY 4232 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420112 TIMOTHY & KATHY RUDNICKI 4224 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420119 HYUN MEE & JEFFREY GRAVES 4215 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420118 BERT E STROMBERG JR 4219 OAKDALE AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824420116 TODD & RACHAEL MOLLDREM 4012 INGLEWOOOD AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420124 GAVIN QUINN & KATIE QUINN 4205 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420115 JAMES J & CAROLINE E SCHWERT 4231 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420120 KAY FINBERG JOHNSON 4211 OAKDALE AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420109 ERIC & SUSAN FLACH 4212 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420111 HEATHER BRACKEN 4220 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824420113 STEVEN & KRISTEN CHRISTIANSON 4228 LYNN AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410111 JOHN GEELAN & MEGAN FEENEY 4239 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824440117 PETER R BJERKE 4307 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824410109 JAMES & ELIZABETH ENGELSMA 4114 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 0702824440116 JENNIFER L VAN ZANDT 4022 44TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 0702824410113 STEVEN MORGAN 4231 GRIMES AVENUE SOUTH EDINA MN 55416 0702824410114 KYLE & KATIE MEEHAN 4227 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410127 AMY STRODL & JASON STRODL 4201 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410118 RICHARD LAVERCOMBE 4219 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410122 MAHESH JOHARI & WEI DONG 4213 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824410108 JOSEPH BAUER 4247 GRIMES AVE S EDINA MN 55416 0702824440118 LARS S PARMEKAR 4311 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55424 0702824410119 JOSEPH CHISLER 4221 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410117 CAROL A FRANZEN 4225 GRIMES AVE EDINA MN 55416 0702824410123 JAMES PETER MELLEMA 4209 GRIMES AVE SO EDINA MN 55416 0702824440122 EHREN J SEIM & HOLLY A SEIM 4115 MORNINGSIDE RD EDINA MN 55416 November 24, 2021 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-461 MORNINGSIDE D & E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION The Edina City Council will meet at Edina City Hall on Monday, Dec. 13, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., to consider the public hearing on roadway improvements for Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This hearing has been called as a recommendation from staff. The proposed project would be constructed in the summer of 2022 with the assessment hearing occurring in the fall of 2022. The estimated cost is $2,285,103.00 and is funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per assessable lot is $9,300.00 per residential equivalent unit. The assessment can be divided over a fifteen-year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance. The area proposed to be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes the following: 4200 to 4504 West 42nd Street, 4022 and 4100 West 44th Street, 4200 to 4411 Branson Street, 4206 to 4249 Crocker Avenue, 4201 to 4324 Grimes Avenue, 4125 Kipling Avenue, 4401 Littel Street, 4200 to 4247 Lynn Avenue, 4114 to 4501 Morningside Rd, 4200 to 4370 Oakdale Avenue, 4245 and 4248 Sidell Trail Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement. The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of the hearing. Staff’s recommendations to City Council are: • Grimes Avenue south of Morningside Road reconstructed to 30-feet wide, Morningside Road reconstructed to 28- feet wide, West 42nd Street and Oakdale Avenue south of Branson Street reconstructed to 27-feet wide; all other streets reconstructed to 24-feet wide • Grimes Avenue bike boulevard pavement striping • Partial replacement of concrete sidewalk due to utility improvements • New concrete curb and gutter and new asphalt pavement on all streets • Storm sewer improvements to reduce flood risk and resolve local drainages issues • Partial replacement of watermain; full replacement of hydrants, valves and water services • Spot repairs of the sanitary sewer main and installation of sump drains where feasible The Engineering Study will be available online as part of the Dec. 13 City Council meeting agenda at http://bit.ly/2y3wCOo; under Meeting Type select City Council Meeting, click Search and you will see the Dec. 13 Agenda. Due to a low survey response rate, a neighborhood wide in person Q&A meeting will not occur. To comment, you may: • Post questions online at https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e for review by City Council and Engineering • Write to City of Edina, Attention Engineering, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439. • Watch or attend public hearing to offer comments, leave a voicemail in advance, or submit your comments online. Ways to participate are included in this mailing. How to Participate in a Public Hearing HOW TO PARTICIPATE: Public hearing input can be provided in a variety of ways to the City Council. Options 1 & 2 are available now: 1) Complete the Public Hearing Comment Form online at: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings 2) Leave a voicemail with your feedback. (952-826-0377) Options 3 & 4 are available the night of the public hearing meetings: 3) Watch the meeting and call in to provide testimony. a. Edina TV (Comcast Channels 813 or 16) b. Facebook.com/EdinaMN c. EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings • City Council: Call in to provide live testimony at the September 9th meeting, 1-800-374- 0221. The Conference ID 4628128. 4) Attend the meetings to provide testimony, City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th S DEADLINES: The City Council is scheduled to make a decision at its December 21 meeting. Deadline for comments via voicemail or BetterTogetherEdina.org is Noon, Wednesday, December 15. FURTHER INFORMATION: City of Edina Engineering Department, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439, 952-826-0371 Date: December 13, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Aaron T. Ditzler, PE, Assistant City Engineer Item Activity: Subject:PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-122, Blake Road Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA-463 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to close the public hearing at noon, December 15, and to continue action on the item to the December 21 City Council meeting. INTRODUCTION: Staff initiated this project. Staff proposes to reconstruct Blake Road between Scriver Road and Spruce Road. The overall project cost is estimated at $12,152,060. Funding will be a combination of special assessments, Municipal State Aid, City Utility and Pedestrian and Cyclists Safety (PACS) funds. Staff analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-122: Blake Road Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Engineering Study BA-463 Certificate of Mailing RESOLUTION NO. 2021-122 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT FOR BLAKE ROAD A, B & C NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-463 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 3rd day of November 2021, fixed a date for a council hearing on Improvement No. BA-463, the proposed improvement of Blake Road A, B & C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly published notices of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of December 2021, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible to update aging infrastructure. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 3. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. Dated: December 21, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of December 21, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Special Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of __________, 20___. _______________________________ City Clerk ENGINEERING STUDY BLAKE ROAD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION Scriver Road to Spruce Road IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-463 DECEMBER 1, 2021 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 42003 11/30/21 Aaron Ditzler Reg. No. Date Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 2 SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new concrete curb and gutter, construction of a roundabout, new concrete sidewalks and shared-use paths and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems in the neighborhood. The estimated total project cost is $12,152,060. The estimated roadway construction cost is $9,368,660; 97% of the roadway cost will be funded by Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds and 3% will be funded through special assessments at a rate of approximately $7,000 per residential equivalent unit (REU). Utility improvements amount to $2,286,400 and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $497,000 and will be funded through a combination of MSA and Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project addresses traffic operations and safety as well as updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system and pedestrian facilities. LOCATION: The project includes Blake Road between Scriver Road and Spruce Road. A detailed location map of the project is shown in Figure 1. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 3 Figure 1: Project Area Map Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadways The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed between 1937 and 1945 (see Photo 1). Photo 1: Blake Road from Scriver Road to Spruce Road, 1969 Blake Road between Scriver Road and Spruce Road is included in the City’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street system, a program administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). This program provides funding to assist municipalities with the construction and maintenance of roadways which carry relatively heavier traffic than local roadways. Maintenance records indicate seal coating was performed within a portion of the Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 5 project area in 2008; bituminous overlays were performed within portions of the project area in 2003, 2009 and 2015. Approximately 65% of Blake Road does not have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway width ranges from 30’ to 36’ (measured from the face of curb or the edge of the existing bituminous pavement). A recent geotechnical evaluation of the project area performed by Braun Intertec showed the roadway section varies from 4” to 8” of pavement over an apparent aggregate base followed by primarily sandy clay soils with some silty sandy soils. As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects (alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is 76 and the average PCI for Blake Road is 25. An example of the current pavement condition can be seen in Photo 2. Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition Traffic and Crash Data Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes along Blake Road range between 3,289 and 9,758 vehicles per day (measured between 2013 and 2021) with 85th percentile speeds between 19.6 and 34.2 miles per hour in 2021. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 6 Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities A sidewalk is present on the east side of Blake Road between Scriver and Lake Ridge Roads. The sidewalk is adjacent to the existing concrete curb and gutter for much of the block. Sidewalks are also present immediately adjacent to the project area on Blake Road and Maloney Avenue (see Appendix B). Bicycle Facilities Standard on-street bicycle lanes are present between Waterman Avenue and Spruce Road, and shared bicycle lanes are present between Scriver Road and Waterman Avenue. Standard and shared bicycle lane markings exist immediately south of the project area on Blake Road and standard bicycle lane markings exist immediately east of the project area on Interlachen Boulevard (see Appendix C). Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system consists of 9” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed between 1954 and 1964. Historical records indicate there have been few sewer back-ups or blockages in the area (see Appendix D). Watermain The watermain system consists of 6” cast iron pipe (CIP) and 12” ductile iron pipe (DIP) installed between 1963 and 1967. The overall system has experienced a moderate number of breaks north of Interlachen Boulevard, and no breaks south of Interlachen Boulevard (see Appendix D). Most of the fire hydrants were installed between 1963 and 1967. A majority of properties between Interlachen Boulevard and Waterman Avenue are served from water services connected to the watermain on Waterman Avenue. Many homes in the neighborhood were constructed prior to the availability of municipal water. Although several have had private wells properly sealed, City records suggest some remain unsealed. Based on Utility Billing records, there is a single property in the project area that relies on private wells for domestic water. Staff will communicate the benefits of connecting to the City water supply to the property owner. Storm Sewer The storm sewer network is in both the Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts. The system consists of 12” - 18” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), 18” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and 10” polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) installed between 1967 and 2003. There are a moderate amount of storm sewer inlets and pipes located within the project area. The majority of Blake Road streets within the project area drain to Mirror Lake (and subsequently, Minnehaha Creek), while a small portion drains to stormwater ponds south of Belmore Lane and just west of the Interlachen golf course. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 7 Private Utilities Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are a combination of overheard and underground facilities located in backyards or along the boulevards. Street lighting consists of standard “cobra head” lights mounted on wooden poles located throughout the project area as shown in Appendix E. CenterPoint Energy completed improvements to their 24” natural gas beltline between Waterman Avenue and Spruce Road in 2019. DESIGN INPUT: City Council 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in Appendix B, there is a proposed sidewalk between Lake Ridge Road and Spruce Road, and a shared-use path between the two Interlachen Boulevard intersections. This shared-use path would be part of the City’s Twin Loops facility. Appendix C shows proposed bicycle lanes between Scriver Road and Spruce Road. 2015 Living Streets Policy This policy balances the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The City will apply the Policy to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of how these principles are incorporated into this project: All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate all modes of travel. Existing right-of-way will be repurposed to provide new multimodal transportation facilities, which in combination with existing and planned facilities, will form a multimodal network within the neighborhood. Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems. Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 8 the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work; this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place pipe liners. This project will also reduce inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties. Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan The CWRMP identified multiple areas of flood inundation within the project area for both the 10-percent and 1-percent-annual-chance flood event (also referred to as the 10-year and 100-year frequency event, respectively). The first area is south of Lake Ridge Road (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Blake Road and Lake Ridge Road Backyard Flood Zone A backyard depression area collects 2.2 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties that drains into the City’s storm sewer system that runs along Blake Road and discharges into Mirror Lake. The 1-percent and 10-percent-annual-chance events may impact the structure at 5100 Lake Ridge Road. ML_7 Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 9 The second area is Mirror Lakes adjacent to Blake Road (see Figure 3). Figure 3: Blake Road Roadway Flood Zone (ML_1 & 32) Mirror Lake and its 288-acre watershed primarily impact the backyards along lake. The Mirror Lake storm sewer outlet is pumped to the Blake Road storm sewer system south of the project area. This system flows south and ultimately discharges to Mud Lake. The 1-percent and 10-percent-annual-chance events do not impact structures along Blake Road. The third area is between Belmore Lane and Spruce Road (see Figure 4). ML_1 ML_32 Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 10 Figure 4: Blake Road Backyard Flood Zones (HO_4 & HO_16) Backyard depression area HO_4 collects approximately 2.6 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties and discharges to the City’s storm sewer system via a backyard catch basin at 301 Blake Road. Further downstream, the City’s storm sewer system discharges to another stormwater pond, which is pumped to a storm sewer system that discharged into a City of Hopkins storm sewer system. The 1-percent and 10-percent annual-chance events could impact the structures at 301 and 309 Blake Road. Stormwater pond HO_16 collects approximately 2.7 acres of stormwater from the neighboring properties and discharges to the City’s storm sewer system that connects to the backyard catch basin at 301 Blake Road referenced above. Staff Public Works A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department. They support installation of concrete curb and gutter, as well as replacement of deficient watermain components (including fire hydrants, gate valves and water services). They HO_16 HO_4 Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 11 recommended replacement of an existing cracked RC storm sewer pipe in front of 412 Blake Road. They also recommend replacement of existing CMP and PVC storm sewer within the project area. Police and Fire A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. The Fire Department supports watermain improvements, including adding fire hydrants as necessary to meet public safety standards. They noted that temporary fire hydrants should be of a consistent style for ease of access, that emergency access should always be maintained during construction and that drive widths and turn arounds should meet fire code. Edina Transportation Commission Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October 28, 2021, a draft engineering study was provided for review. Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G. Residents As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior to a potential reconstruction project, residents were invited to an open house in September 2019. Materials from these meetings are available upon request. Additionally, virtual neighborhood informational presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in August 2020 and October 2021. Residents were notified of the virtual meetings and were able to directly ask questions to staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email. Materials from this presentation can be found in Appendix H. On June 11, 2021, residents in Blake Road were asked to complete a questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems within the project area. The questionnaire was completed by 9 of 48 property owners, a return rate of 19%. The following is a summary of feedback received from residents: 6 of 9 were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic in the neighborhood; 3 of 9 were not concerned. 7 of 9 were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in the neighborhood; 2 of 9 were not concerned. 3 of 9 identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood. 6 of 9 walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 4 of 9 ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 0 reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week; 8 reported parking on the street less than once per month. 0 identified localized drainage problems in the neighborhood. *Percentages based on number of returned surveys The full questionnaire and responses can be found in Appendix I. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 12 Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in Appendix J. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of MSA, Engineering, Public Works and other City staff. Roadways Typical Section The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. Aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to placement bituminous pavement. The following typical sections are based on the existing soil subgrade and traffic volumes. 1. Blake Road between Scriver Road and Interlachen Boulevard: a. 8” of aggregate base, 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 3” of bituminous wear course. 2. Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road between Interlachen Boulevard and Spruce Road: a. 12” of aggregate base, 3” of bituminous non-wear and 4” of bituminous wear course. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. Moderate subgrade removals are anticipated project wide, based on the preliminary soil boring reports prepared by Braun Intertec. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings. Blake Road is designated as a Collector in the Living Streets Plan. Per the design guidelines of this plan, Collectors have a design width (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) of 32’ without parking and 40’ with parking. The proposed typical section will have a 34’ width (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb), including two 11’ driving lanes with bulkhead style concrete curb and gutter. The proposed schematic layout for Blake Road can be found in Appendix K. Geometric Modifications A one-lane roundabout is proposed for the northern intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard (see Figure 5). This facility will reduce vehicle queues and delays during peak hours, slow traffic along Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard, and improve safety for pedestrian, cyclist and motor vehicles traveling along the corridor. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 13 Figure 5: Proposed Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard Roundabout Parking Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on classification, adjacent land use, existing demand and costs of construction and maintenance. As Blake Road is classified as a Collector and given the limited right-of- way, on-street parking will continue to be restricted on both sides due to the combination of the 22’ street section width and 6’ on-street bicycle lanes as reference on Figure 6. Figure 6: Proposed Blake Road Typical Section Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 14 Roadway Signage All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). New signage will include No Parking, 25- and 30-mph speed limit signs. Retaining Walls Due to the existing topography and presence of Mirror Lake within or very near the right of way, significant retaining walls in both length and heigh are required to support the proposed roadway, pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities A 6’ edge-of-road -style concrete sidewalk is proposed on both sides of Blake Road between Scriver and Lake Ridge Roads. This sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk on the east side of Blake Road south of Scriver Road. A 6’ edge-of-road - style concrete sidewalk is proposed on the west side of Blake Road between Lake Ridge Road and Interlachen Boulevard. An 8’ shared-use path is proposed on the west side of Blake Road between Interlachen Boulevard and Spruce Road. This path will connect to an existing sidewalk on Blake Road north of Spruce Road in Hopkins, and an existing sidewalk on Maloney Avenue west of Blake Road. An 8’ shared-use path is also proposed on the Blake Road land bridge between the two Interlachen Boulevards. This path will connect to proposed future paths on Interlachen Boulevard east and west of Blake Road. These future paths will comprise a portion of the Twin Loops network. Bicycle Facilities Two 6’ on-street bicycle lanes are proposed on each side of Blake Road between Scriver and Spruce Roads. The bicycle lanes will be concrete to distinguish the bicycle and vehicle travel lanes. The bicycle lanes will connect to existing bicycle lanes on Blake Road south of Scriver Road, north of Spruce Road, and on Interlachen Boulevard east of Blake Road. The bicycle lanes will provide an improved connection to the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Station on Blake Road just north of Excelsior Boulevard in Hopkins. Figure 7 shows all existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 15 Figure 7: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing sidewalk will be reconstructed as necessary. Because Blake Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid roadway, the proposed sidewalk and shared-use path will be maintained by City staff, including snow removal. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 16 Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main. The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater. Watermain Echologics, LLC was hired by the City to perform a non-invasive pipe condition assessment on the watermain within the project area, and staff has reviewed historical break data to determine the extent of improvements needed. The existing watermain north of Interlachen Boulevard will be replaced using a combination of pipe bursting and open cut methods, and associated water service will also be replaced. A 6” watermain will be added between Interlachen Boulevard and Waterman Avenue, and associated water services will also be added for potential private connections by adjacent property owners. SEH was hired by the City to evaluate the City’s water supply system and prepare and overall Water Supply Plan. The Plan recommends a 12” watermain be added along Interlachen Boulevard between Blake Road and Mirror Lakes Drive to improve flow from both water treatment plant 4 and 6. The improvement will also help increase system redundancy, transmission capacity and overall water system circulation. Therefore, a 12” watermain will be added from Blake Road to the project limits on Interlachen Boulevard using a combination of horizontal directional drilling and open cut methods. All gate valves and fire hydrants within the project area will be replaced and, if needed, additional hydrants will be installed to meet current public safety standards. The new fire hydrants will include the Storz nozzle fittings desired by the Edina Fire Department for quick connection of fire hoses. As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly sealed. Storm Sewer Based on existing conditions and the scope of utility work, new concrete curb and gutter will be installed throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater. The storm sewer network will have modifications to resolve existing drainage issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition or due to new road geometry. Some structures may be installed with sump structures to collect sediment and debris before it enters Mirror Lake. The 10” PVC storm sewer north of Lake Ridge Road will be replaced with a 12” pipe to reduce flood risk to the structure at 5100 Lake Ridge Road. Sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 17 Staff will evaluate the existing drainage areas and if necessary, extend storm sewer pipes and inlets to satisfy MnDOT’s requirement to keep the vehicle driving lanes sufficiently clear of stormwater during a 10-year storm event. Staff will communicate and coordinate with adjacent property owners as necessary. The modeled flood risk along Mirror Lake is regional in nature and influencing the flood elevation cannot be addressed within the scope of this project. The 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan noted that the most likely option to reduce flooding impacts noted in HO_4 and HO_16 is to increase the downstream pipe capacity, which may also require upsizing the existing lift station, both of which will not be part of the Blake Road project scope of work. The project location adjacent to Mirror Lake offers challenges from a storm water perspective. To meet the transportation goals, widening of the corridor is needed, requiring soil fill within Mirror Lake that will impact the floodplain, possibly requiring mitigation. Stormwater permits are necessary due to the increased impervious surface and floodplain impacts associated with the improvements. Coordination is underway with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Stormwater improvement Best Management Practices will be evaluated during the design phase, including potential floodplain mitigation. Private Utilities Staff met with representatives of several private utility companies on November 15, 2021, to discuss the proposed 2022 reconstruction projects and preliminary improvements. CenterPoint Energy will resume improvements to their 24” natural gas beltline between Scriver Road and Waterman Avenue prior to or during the City’s project. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed at a later date with minimal disturbance through the use of trenchless technologies. The lighting in the neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff is recommending no revisions to the current street lighting. RIGHT-OF-WAY/ EASEMENTS: The existing Blake Road right-of-way width is 66’. It is anticipated that the majority of this project can be constructed within existing ROW. Many properties have vegetation, boulders or other landscaped items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to complete the necessary work. Discussions are ongoing with a few properties for temporary and permanent easements to construct the project. Specifically, the property owners between 6300 and 6308 Interlachen Boulevard along the private street have verbally committed to providing easements for the project. Staff continues to work with impacted properties on the necessary easements. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 18 PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $12,152,060 (see Table 1). The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. The estimated roadway project cost is $9,368,660; 97% will be funded through MSA funds and 3% will be funded through special assessments. Utility improvements amount to $2,286,400 and will be funded through a combination of MSA and City utility funds. Sidewalk facility improvements amount to $497,000 and will be funded through a combination of MSA and PACS funds. Item Estimated Cost 1 City PACS MSA Special Assessments Roadway $ 9,095,800 $ 272,860 Storm Sewer 2 $ 1,003,200 Water Main $ 1,050,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 233,200 Sidewalk $ 99,400 $ 397,600 Subtotal $ 2,286,400 $ 99,400 $ 9,493,400 $ 272,860 Project Total $12,152,060 1 Costs are in 2022 dollars 2 Assumes 100% storm sewer participation from City. If the MSA roadway contractor bid costs are favorable, a portion of the storm sewer costs may be supplemented by MSA funds. Table 1: Estimated Project Costs ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are 38.98 roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) in the Blake Road project area. The estimated assessment per REU is $7,000 (see Figure 8). The preliminary assessment roll can be found in Appendix L. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 19 Figure 8: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map All single-family residential properties located entirely within the project area receive an assessment of 1 REU, except for the properties shown in the tables below. There are 20 single-family residential properties located in the project limits that have been previously assessed a partial REU or are corner lots with an adjacent street that will be assessed with a future project. Tables 2 & 3 show their REU calculations based on the City’s assessment policy. Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 20 PID House Number Street Type of Property Proposed REU REU Factor Assessable REU 3011721410041 5000 OAK BEND LA Three-sided Corner lot 1 0.33 0.33 3011721120102 300 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721120036 316 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721120054 402 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721140007 605 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721410014 5108 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 2911721320003 5125 BLAKE RD S Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 2911721320004 5100 LAKE RIDGE RD Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 2911721320005 5101 LAKE RIDGE RD Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721120049 6408 MALONEY AVE Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721130059 6401 MENDELSSOHN LA Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 2911721320005 5101 SCRIVER RD Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721410015 5111 SCRIVER RD Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721410016 5117 SCRIVER RD Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 3011721140046 6324 WATERMAN AVE Corner lot 1 0.5 0.5 Table 3: Previously Assessed Single-Family Residential Properties Table 2: Single-Family Residential Corner Properties with Future Additional Assessment PID House Number Street Previous Project Previous REU Assigned Proposed REU Assessable REU 3011721110025 301 BLAKE RD S Mendelssohn A / Interlachen Park A – 2013 0.33 1 0.67 3011721110030 321 BLAKE RD S Mendelssohn A / Interlachen Park A – 2013 0.33 1 0.67 3011721110060 401 BLAKE RD S Mendelssohn A / Interlachen Park A – 2013 0.33 1 0.67 3011721110065 421 BLAKE RD S Mendelssohn A / Interlachen Park A – 2013 0.33 1 0.67 3011721140051 501 BLAKE RD S Mendelssohn A / Interlachen Park A – 2013 0.33 1 0.67 Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 21 There are six City owned properties located in the project limits. Table 4 shows their REU calculations based on the City’s current assessment policy. PID House Number Street Description Comments Proposed REU 3011721140024 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake side of Blake Road between Interlachen Boulevard and Waterman Avenue Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721140025 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake east side of land bridge between both Interlachen Boulevards Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721140036 24 Address Unassigned Mirror Lake side of Blake Road between Interlachen Boulevard and Waterman Avenue Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721120037 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Parcel south of 312 Blake Road Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721120038 312 BLAKE RD S Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721410042 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake side of Blake Road across from 5000 Oak Bend Lane Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 Table 4: City-Owned Properties There is one place of worship property located in the project limits, Table 5 shows their REU calculations based on the City’s assessment policy. PID House Number Street Type of Property Gross Square Footage Institutional REU (Based on Square Footage) Corner REU Factor Assessable REU 3011721130001 500 BLAKE ROAD S Church 22,987 4.60 0.5 2.30 Table 5: Institutional – Places of Worship Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 22 There are four residential properties located in the project limits that are not assessed. Table 6 shows their REU calculations based on the City’s assessment policy. PID House Number Street Description Comments Proposed REU 3011721410031 5001 OAK BEND LANE 29.87 feet of Blake Road frontage and existing Blake Road topography does not support a potential driveway access to Blake Road. 0 3011721410007 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake side of Blake Road across from 5020 Blake Road Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721410009 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake side of Blake Road across from 5101 Blake Road Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 3011721140056 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Mirror Lake side of Interlachen Boulevard across from 6224 Interlachen Boulevard Not developable with current zoning and flood plain restrictions. 0 Table 6: Residential Properties Not Assessed PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to the project: Neighborhood Open House (all 2021/2022 projects) September 26, 2019 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 and Future projects) March 11, 2021 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 projects) October 2021 ETC Engineering Study Review October 28, 2021 Receive Engineering Study December 13, 2021 Open Public Improvement Hearing December 13, 2021 Close Public Improvement Hearing December 21, 2021 Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 21, 2021 Bid Opening March/April 2022 Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2022 Complete Construction Fall 2022 Final Assessment Hearing October 2023 Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 December 1, 2021 23 RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2022 construction season, assuming sufficient MnDOT State Aid funding is available. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to improve the public infrastructure along Blake Road. APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks E. Streetlights and Signs F. Living Streets Plan G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes H. Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation Materials I. Resident Questionnaire J. Correspondence from Residents K. Blake Road Proposed Layout L. Preliminary Assessment Roll APPENDIX A Traffic and Crash Data Location Year ADT 85% Speed A 2001 8152 38.7 B 2005 2009 2013 2015 2021 9133 6857 9758 8604 4730 36.2 36.3 35.6 34 34.2 C 2005 9358 33.7 D 2001 11849 31.4 E 2005 7846 36.6 F 2016 2021 8684 5861 36.9 37 G 2009 2013 2016 2021 3684 4101 3289 3633 12.7 20.4 21.6 19.6 1‐ Peds 2016 NB+SB= 96 EB+WB= 37 2‐ Peds + Bikes 2020 Peds= 50 Bikes= 7 ACBDEFGHCrash DataLocation Severity Year Month TimeAPossible Injury– Westbound vehicle fail to yieldProperty Damage – Collision with post20142017FebruaryAugust5:00 pm.1:00 am.BProperty Damage – Eastbound collision due to ice2019 November 6:00 pm.CProperty Damage – Collision with utility/light pole2019 July 11:00 am.DMinor Injury – Collision with bicyclistMinor Injury ‐Ran off road (intoxicated)Property Damage –Rear‐endProperty Damage – Failure to yield2011201220142015AprilOctoberSeptemberSeptember5:00 pm.2:00 pm.6:00 pm.5:00 pm.EPossible Injury –Rear‐end 2016 June 2:00 pm.FProperty Damage – Northbound failure to yieldSerious Injury –Head‐onProperty Damage –Rear‐end201720172021JuneSeptemberFebruary3:00 pm.3:00 pm.10:00 am.GProperty Damage – Failure to yield 2015 August 3:00 pm.HPossible Injury –Head‐onProperty Damage –Ran off road (intoxicated)20112016JanuaryJune10:00 am.7:00 am.Blake Road APPENDIX B City Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities Map ?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y Mud Lake )y ?ÞA@ ?úA@ Minnehaha Creek Nin e M ile Cr eek Nine Mile CreekBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVEFRANCE AVE SXERXES AVE SCAHILL RD70TH ST W 66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 4 4 T H S T W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W GLEASON RD70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VIEW RD VALLEY VIEW RD MINNESOTA DR78TH ST W / Engineering DeptJanuary 2020 Pedestrian Facilities Proposed FacilitiesExisting Facilities Existing Sidewalk Existing Park Pathway Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail New Primary Sidewalk New Secondary Sidewalk New Shared-Use Path Upgrade to Shared-Use Path Twin Loops Facility Existing Shared-Use Path Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail APPENDIX C City Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities Map æ ¹» æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º ñ ¹» æ æ ñ æ æ æ ñ ñ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mirror Lake Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Melody Lake LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsPark YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minnehaha Creek N ine Mile Creek Nine Mile Creek Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 4 4th S t W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View Rd Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gle a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLincoln DrWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinger Blvd 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W V alley V iew RdEngineering Dept.January 2020 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Upgrade to Buffered Bike Lane Proposed Bicycle Facilities Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Neighborhood Slow Street Standard Bike Lane New Buffered Bike Lane New Shared Use Path Upgrade to Shared Use Path Twin Loops Facility Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail æ ¹» ¹» æ æ æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ æ ñ æ ¹º ñ æ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mirror Lake Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Melody Lake LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsGolf Course YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minnehaha Creek Ni ne M ile C re e k Nine Mile Creek Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 4 4 th S t W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View Rd Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gle a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLincoln DrWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinger Blvd 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W V alley View R dEngineering DeptMay 2018 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Existing Bicycle Facilities Bike Lanes Bike Lanes-Shared Lane Markings Shared Lane Markings Bike Boulevards Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Advisory Bike Lanes Green Shared Bike Lanes Signed Bike Routes Bike or Shared Use Paths APPENDIX D Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks 6320 5008 5020 5012 5113 6205 5109 309 6228 6547 5012 5109 402 300 308 300 517 500 6201 5117 5117 5017 5113 6321 604 5020 6405 5101 5016 64096413 6405 6408 6501 6400 304 6223 6404 5101 5024 5025 412 6528 6200 5021 5025 6217 6516 62336521 5016 6204 413 5020 525 6520 6201 5004 5005 5101 5000 5121 6519 5008 5009 308 5013 609 6229 609 4916 6300 6220 5004 421 421420 6225 5115 512 5000 6419 6328 5021 605 409 5017 412 6501 51086300 5105 6229 6417 6304306 309 5125 6214 5100 4900 412 304 413 417416 401 417 405 409 413 304 413 416 409 417 416 412 405 408 404 314 6501 401 605 315 301 008 309 305 309308 5011 305 317 408 516 301 316 400 301 315 301 524 311 311 520 505 409 532 408 413 4917 6301305 6300 305 300 405 6512 308 409 309 6424 501 505 6424 6212 315 6308509 4920 6224 6304 6220 509 6413 404 529 5021 501 5025 509 6224 5 301 6201 6308 404 504 01 4921 6521 500 4925 6409 404 305 6527 5111 309 6312313 417 315 6221 4901 6508 6519 6412 312 508 412 4929 421 6321 6424 4928 4924 4905 5116 513 417 510 5117 504 6405 63204904 545 6301 420 321 6424 6420 5108 5112 6401 6428 421 6501 6512 408 6421 513 613 6420 6425 500 6433 6404 521 416 4909 544 6416 6309 6429 631665116517 64166516 310 414 6509 541 6305 6400 6313 6216 6305630963136208 540 6408 6324 62286216517 533 6320 537 521 62286412306 6202 6408 300 PROJECT LIMITS B L A K E R DBLAKE RDCity of Edina City of Hopkins SPRUCE RD BELMORE LN MALONEY AVE WATERMAN AVE MENDELSSOHN LN INTERLACHEN BLVD INTERLACHEN BLVD LA K E RID G E R D SCRIVER RDOAK BEND LN/ Engineering Dept November 2021 Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks Blake Road Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e Legend Sewer Blockages Watermain Breaks APPENDIX E Street Lights and Signs 6320 5008 5020 5012 5113 6205 5109 309 6228 6547 5012 5109 402 300 308 300 517 500 6201 5117 5117 5017 5113 6321 604 5020 6405 5101 5016 64096413 6405 6408 6501 6400 304 6223 6404 5101 5024 5025 412 6528 6200 5021 5025 6217 6516 62336521 5016 6204 413 5020 525 6520 6201 5004 5005 5101 5000 5121 6519 5008 5009 308 5013 609 6229 609 4916 6300 6220 5004 421 421420 6225 5115 512 5000 6419 6328 5021 605 409 5017 412 6501 51086300 5105 6229 6417 6304306 309 5125 6214 5100 4900 412 304 413 417416 401 417 405 409 413 304 413 416 409 417 416 412 405 408 404 314 6501 401 605 315 301 008 309 305 309308 5011 305 317 408 516 301 316 400 301 315 301 524 311 311 520 505 409 532 408 413 4917 6301305 6300 305 300 405 6512 308 409 309 6424 501 505 6424 6212 315 6308509 4920 6224 6304 6220 509 6413 404 529 5021 501 306 5025 509 6224 5 301 6201 6308 404 504 01 4921 6521 500 4925 6409 404 305 6527 5111 309 6312313 417 315 6221 4901 6508 6519 6412 312 508 412 4929 421 6321 6424 4928 4924 4905 5116 513 417 510 5117 504 6405 63204904 545 6301 420 321 6424 6420 5108 300 5112 6401 6428 421 6501 6512 408 6421 513 613 6420 6425 500 6433 6404 521 416 4909 544 6416 6309 6429 631665116517 64166516 310 414 6509 541 6305 6400 6313 6216 6305630963136208 540 6408 6324 62286216517 533 6320 537 521 62286412306 6202 6408 PROJECT LIMITS B L A K E R DBLAKE RDCity of Edina City of Hopkins SPRUCE RD BELMORE LN MALONEY AVE WATERMAN AVE MENDELSSOHN LN INTERLACHEN BLVD INTERLACHEN BLVD LA K E RID G E R D SCRIVER RDOAK BEND LN/ Engineering Dept October 2021CITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e Existing Street Lights Blake Road Roadway Reconstruction 89:lbcdpfbcdpfbcdpf89:ybcdpf¨©1238bcdpf 89:l bcdpf¨© !"$ !"$!"$89:z !"$ !"$ ¨© ±² !"$ bcdpf !"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$ 89:;½¾¿ !"$ !"$ !"$!"$ ÅÆÇÝÞßꨩ 1238bcdpfbcdpf bcdpfÝÞßêÅÆÇbcdpf bcdpf¨© bcdpf bcdpfbcdpf bcdpf 89:;½¾¿bcdpf89:;½¾¿ !"$89:{¨©89:;89:{ !"$ 1238 °±°±°±°±°±°±°±°±ª«¬ª«¬bcdpf bcdpf89:;½¾¿bcdpf¨© bcdpf89:E bcdpf¨©89:;½¾¿ !"$bcdpf 89:=bcdpf bcdpf!"$bcdpf¨© bcdpf 89:{!"$89:=bcdpf 89:Ebcdpfbcdpf bcdpf¨©bcdpf¨© !"$89:zbcdpf bcdpf !"$89:= 89:m89:m 89:z89:z 89:z89:{!"$ ±² !"$89:{89:{±² ±² 89:z ±² 89:{!"$ª«¬ 89:l 89:l bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpfbcdpf 123889:{ 89:z 89:z1238 bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpf 89:{ 89:{89:{ 89:lª«¬¯!"$ 6320 5008 5020 5012 5113 6205 5109 309 6228 6547 5012 5109 402 300 308 300 517 500 6201 5117 5117 5017 5113 6321 604 5020 6405 5101 5016 64096413 6405 6408 6501 6400 304 6223 6404 5101 5024 5025 412 6528 6200 5021 5025 6217 6516 62336521 5016 6204 413 5020 525 6520 6201 5004 5005 5101 5000 5121 6519 5008 5009 308 5013 609 6229 609 4916 6300 6220 5004 421 421420 6225 5115 512 5000 6419 6328 5021 605 409 5017 412 6501 51086300 5105 6229 6417 6304306 309 5125 6214 5100 4900 412 304 413 417416 401 417 405 409 413 304 413 416 409 417 416 412 405 408 404 314 6501 401 605 315 301 008 309 305 309308 5011 305 317 408 516 301 316 400 301 315 301 524 311 311 520 505 409 532 408 413 4917 6301305 6300 305 300 405 6512 308 409 309 6424 501 505 6424 6212 315 6308509 4920 6224 6304 6220 509 6413 404 529 5021 501 306 5025 509 6224 5 301 6201 6308 404 504 01 4921 6521 500 4925 6409 404 305 6527 5111 309 6312313 417 315 6221 4901 6508 6519 6412 312 508 412 4929 421 6321 6424 4928 4924 4905 5116 513 417 510 5117 504 6405 63204904 545 6301 420 321 6424 6420 5108 300 5112 6401 6428 421 6501 6512 408 6421 513 613 6420 6425 500 6433 6404 521 416 4909 544 6416 6309 6429 631665116517 64166516 310 414 6509 541 6305 6400 6313 6216 6305630963136208 540 6408 6324 62286216517 533 6320 537 521 62286412306 6202 6408 PROJECT LIMITS B L A K E R DBLAKE RDCity of Edina City of Hopkins SPRUCE RD BELMORE LN MALONEY AVE WATERMAN AVE MENDELSSOHN LN INTERLACHEN BLVD INTERLACHEN BLVD LA K E RID G E R D SCRIVER RDOAK BEND LN/ Engineering Dept October 2021 Existing Signs Blake Road Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e APPENDIX F Living Streets Plan Living Streets Plan 2015 Safety Health Choice Economy 8 2. Living Streets Policy INTRODUCTION The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The Policy is followed by a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. POLICY Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their construction. LIVING STREETS VISION Edina is a place where ... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Mini Fact Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for cyclists on the road. Treat them as you would any slow-moving vehicle. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 9 LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. All Users and All Modes Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled; and Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel; Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights- of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas; Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development; and Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Context Sensitivity Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place; Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban forest, sensitive slopes and soils; Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts; Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 10 Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities; and Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public, Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of roadways; and Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease of maintenance. LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above. Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects. Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles. The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by: • Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work. • By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given project area. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 11 The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will: • Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level recommendations. • Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services they help provide. • Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards. • Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets. Network The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility, accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit the city. Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include: • Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification) • Sidewalk Facilities • Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan) • Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan • Transit Service Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and prioritized: • Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority. • Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top priority. • Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional public transit are a top priority. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 12 Context Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and implementation of Living Streets. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS Ecological Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest Air quality Climate Sun and shade Materials, waste, energy, sustainability Regulatory State Aid roadway Watershed rules Operational Maintenance operations Traffic control or functional constraints Project Type Public Neighborhood street reconstruction Neighborhood street reconstruction with major associated utility work State Aid street reconstruction Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project Public partner lead State County Transit agency Parks district Private development Will remain private Future public Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 13 • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas. • Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Engagement Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and opportunities for public engagement. Design The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs. The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6): • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share public right of way. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 14 Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling. This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through neighborhoods is a comfortable experience. Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely. It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers. These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information. Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably. Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided. These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. An active way of life is available to all. Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina will have the ability to lead an active way of life. There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways. Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume. Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows to local surface waters. Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 15 The City will draw on the following data to measure performance: • Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post-project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. Mini Fact Motorists must stop behind all crosswalks. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy APPENDIX G Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Public Works Multi-Purpose Room October 28, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Ahler, McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Johnson Late: Commissioners Kitui, Clark Absent: Commissioners Brown, Kane, Lewis, Richman Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler, Project Engineer Charlie Gerk III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to approve the agenda. Quorum was not reached. Motion failed. Commissioner Kitui arrived at 6:06. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve the September 23, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Community Comment Paul Rosland with Suburban Waste Services stated that the Commission’s organized trash collection report indicates more impact than there actually would be, noting that there is minimal impact with regard to the environment, economy, quality of life or traffic. Rosland also noted that the intersection study cited in the report didn’t accurately account for recycling and organics trucks. Jason Vierkant with Vierkant Disposal testified that residents won’t get the quality of service with organized collection that they receive now. Vierkant also noted that there are significant impacts to garbage haulers when cities go to organized collection and that he almost lost his business in Bloomington after they recently switched. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. 2022 Roadway Reconstruction Projects Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler and Project Engineer Charlie Gerk presenting the proposed 2022 roadway reconstruction projects for review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included; • Morningside D/E o Why wouldn’t the City consider extending the existing Grimes Ave sidewalk north to West 42nd St? Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 o Would the proposed bike boulevard have sharrows? o Support narrowing W 42nd St and Morningside Rd due to multiple speed complaints. • Blake Rd o East of the project area on Interlachen Blvd, would the bike lane improvements continue in the future? o Support the proposed 6’ bike lanes. o How will bikers move through the proposed roundabout? o Every time the City has added a roundabout, it has been a positive experience. o Where does the proposed shared-use path start? o Support the concrete bike lanes instead of asphalt. o Is it possible to include bollards on the bike lane for additional protection and separation? B. East Grandview Transportation Study. Staff presented the East Grandview Transportation Study for review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included; • What are the benefits of the proposed “dog bone” roundabout compared to the two mini roundabouts recommended at the intersection of Eden Ave and Grange Rd? • Would the proposed westbound left turn at W 50th St and Grange Rd include a dedicated signal cycle? This might be needed for the neighborhood traffic making U-turns to travel east. • Support the proposed pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. • The proposed shared-use path on Grange Rd might be unsafe if the freeway ramps remain. • Is there a way to provide temporary ped/bike facilities over the Eden and Vernon Ave bridges to connect to the proposed shared-use paths on the east side? • Recommend the City conduct a feasibility study on implementing bike lanes on Eden Ave. Commissioner Clark arrived at 6:59. C. Organized Trash Collection Final Report The Commission reviewed the final draft report for the organized trash collection initiative. Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Plumb- Smith to approve the organized trash collection report with the amended recommendation: “The Transportation Commission believes that there is sufficient evidence to support establishing organized trash collection in Edina and recommends that City Council create a plan to establish organized trash collection, including a communication plan to educate the community and solicit public input.” All voted aye. Motion carried. Commissioner Kanti Mahanty left at 7:32. Commissioner Clark left at 8:01. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 D. Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021. E. 2021 Work Plan Updates • #1 Organized Trash Collection – Commission approved the final report. • #2 Street Funding Task Force – City will host a Town Talk on the recent changes to street funding. The virtual event will be Monday, November 1 from 7-8 pm, hosted by City Manager Scott Neal with presentation by Engineering Director Chad Millner and Ann Swenson, chair of the Street Funding Task Force. More information can be found on BetterTogetherEdina.org. • #3 CloverRide – New rack cards have arrived with updated route and schedule information. City will provide DARTS with a letter of support for federal grant to purchase two wheelchair- accessible transit vehicles. • #4 Traffic Safety Reports – Commission reviewed the September 28 report. • #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Sidewalk construction has begun on the roadway reconstruction projects. • #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Commission reviewed 7001 France study. Staff is expecting studies for projects at 7300 Bush Lake Rd and 4660 W 77th St. • #7 Metro Transit Connectivity – No update. F. Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates Staff presented the proposed regular meeting dates for the 2022 calendar year. Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Kitui to approve the proposed 2022 regular meeting dates. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. Chair and Member Comments – Received. VIII. Staff Comments – Received. IX. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to adjourn the October 28, 2021 meeting at 8:25 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: October 28, 2021 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100% Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100% Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90% Kitui, Janet 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 88% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90% Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80% Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70% Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 1 1 2 100% Lafferty, Peter 1 1 Resigned 2 N/A Scherer, Matthew Resigned 0 N/A Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 6 67% Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 7 78% APPENDIX H Neighborhood Informational Meeting Materials The CITYofEDINA2022 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational Meeting The CITYofEDINAAgenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questionswww.EdinaMN.gov2-A The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov3-AEngineering - Design & Construction DivisionChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerEvan AcostaGraduate EngineerEdinah MachaniEngineering TechnicianLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorCharlie GerkProject EngineerTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianJon MooreSr. Engineering Technician The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov4-C2022 Projects Areas•Morningside D/E •-254 Properties•Blake Road (MSA) •- 62 properties The CITYofEDINA•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•- Maximizes economics of scale•- Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•- Pavement condition•- Underground utility issues5-Cwww.EdinaMN.govWhy My Street? The CITYofEDINAWhy Reconstruct?•Previously reconstructed in the 1970s-1990s *•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)www.EdinaMN.gov6-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Some streets have curb and gutter, some do not•Some properties already have concrete driveway aprons, some do notwww.EdinaMN.gov7-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mainswww.EdinaMN.gov8-C•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failing The CITYofEDINA•Mailboxes•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsExisting Conditions – Right-of-Waywww.EdinaMN.gov9-C The CITYofEDINAWhat / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveywww.EdinaMN.gov10-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Roadways•Replacement of curb & gutter (all or sections)•Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and pavement surfacewww.EdinaMN.gov11-A The CITYofEDINALiving Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•- Minimum roadway design elements•- Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Planwww.EdinaMN.gov12-C The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement Policywww.EdinaMN.gov13-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Utilities•May include localized watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Storm sewer upgradeswww.EdinaMN.gov14-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitewww.EdinaMN.gov15-C The CITYofEDINA•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentUtility Ownershipwww.EdinaMN.gov16-AResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary Service The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements –Ped / Bike•Based on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan•Final design evaluated based on network consistency and construction conflictswww.EdinaMN.gov17-C The CITYofEDINAPrivate Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectwww.EdinaMN.gov18-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Localized flooding during rainfall•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov19-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)www.EdinaMN.gov20-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curewww.EdinaMN.gov21-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•-You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•- Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be seededwww.EdinaMN.gov22-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•We will;•- Provide opportunities for input•- Keep you informed•- Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needswww.EdinaMN.gov23-A The CITYofEDINACity Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•- Storm sewer •(curb and gutter, •driveway aprons, •sump drain pipe) •- Sanitary sewer•-Watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov24-C The CITYofEDINAPedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise fees•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•-Sidewalks /shared-use paths•- Bike lanes•-Associated signage and pavement markingswww.EdinaMN.gov25-C The CITYofEDINADo Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~22% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•- Snowplowing•- Pothole repairs•- Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•Beginning in 2022, taxes will pay for a portion of street reconstructionwww.EdinaMN.gov26-A The CITYofEDINASpecial Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•- Roadway and driveway removals•-Asphalt pavement•- Restoration•- Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingswww.EdinaMN.gov27-A The CITYofEDINAResidential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•- Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertieswww.EdinaMN.gov28-CScenario Land Use Class REU FactorA Single-Family Residential 1.0B Multi-Family Residential – Duplex 0.8C Multi-Family Residential – Apartment/Condos 0.5I Institutional – Places of Worship 0.2* The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Blake Road A, B and C•62 properties (36.13 REUs)•0.42 miles of road•Partial watermain, water services replacement•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Roundabout at Interlachen Blvd•Two 6’ on street concrete bike lanes •5’ concrete walk south of Interlachen Blvd•8’-10’ asphalt path north of Interlachen Blvdwww.EdinaMN.gov29-A The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Morningside D & E•254 properties (248.04 REUs)•1.98 miles of road•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Spot sidewalk repair•Localized watermain improvements•Watermain services•Substantial storm sewer improvementswww.EdinaMN.gov30-C The CITYofEDINAMorningside Flood Infrastructure Project•Improvements in 2022 and 2023•Separate but coordinated project with roadway reconstruction•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsidewww.EdinaMN.gov31-C The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local www.EdinaMN.gov32-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed $10,000 $15,000 $20,0002020100%$10,000 $15,000 $20,000202178.90%$7,890 $11,835 $15,780202273.64%$7,364 $11,046 $14,728202368.38%$6,838 $10,257 $13,6762024-203563.12%-5.26%$6,312-$526 $9,468-$789 $12,624-$1,05220360% $0 $0 $0 The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - MSAwww.EdinaMN.gov33-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of MSA Roadway Costs Assessed $5,000 $7,500 $10,000202020%$5,000 $7,500 $10,000202115.78%$3,945 $5,918 $7,890202214.73%$3,682 $5,523 $7,364202313.68%$3,419 $5,129 $6,8382024-203512.62%-1.05%$3,156-$263 $4,734-$395 $6,312-$52620360% $0 $0 $0 The CITYofEDINAPreliminary Assessments*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)www.EdinaMN.gov34-ANeighborhood% of Roadway Costs Assessed Estimated Assessment Range per REU*#of REUsSquareYards of PavingSquare Yards of Paving per REUMorningside D, E 73.64% $6,900 - $10,200 248.04 27,928 112.6Blake Road A, B, C14.73% $10,300 - $15,200 34.63 11,602 335.0 The CITYofEDINATypical Project Timelinewww.EdinaMN.gov35-AJuly –September2021 Engineering studies/estimates providedDecember 2021 Public hearingsJanuary – March 2022 Plan preparation and biddingApril – May 2022 Construction beginsOctober – November 2022 Construction concludesSpring 2023 Warranty workFall 2023 Final assessment hearing The CITYofEDINAAssessment Timingwww.EdinaMN.gov36-CInitial Public Hearings December 2021Project Constructed Summer 2022Final Assessment Hearing October 2023Assessment Filed with County November 2023Assessment on Tax Statement January 2024 The CITYofEDINAPayment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•- Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•- 2020 interest rate was 3.53%•-Assessing Department – 952-826-0365www.EdinaMN.gov37-C The CITYofEDINACommunicationwww.EdinaMN.gov38-A•Regular Mail-All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires- Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers -Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project Page The CITYofEDINABetter Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc•www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and scheduleswww.EdinaMN.gov39-A The CITYofEDINAProviding Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•-Traffic/pedestrian issues•- Street drainage issues•- Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2021•- Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernswww.EdinaMN.gov40-C The CITYofEDINAQuestionnaire Resultswww.EdinaMN.gov41-CNeighborhoodResponses Received to DateMorningside D & E26% (65 / 254)Blake Road A, B & C19% (9 / 48) The CITYofEDINAHow To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedwww.EdinaMN.gov42-A The CITYofEDINAEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Contact Uswww.EdinaMN.gov43-ALiz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.gov The CITYofEDINAQuestions?www.EdinaMN.gov44-A•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake‐rd‐abc•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside‐d‐e•Call or email The CITYofEDINAThank you for your time!www.EdinaMN.gov45-A APPENDIX I Resident Questionnaires Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 15 August 2021 PROJECT NAME: Blake Road A, B, & C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction SURVEY QUESTIONS Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 1 of 26 Q1 Does you property have drainage issues the City should know about? Examples: History of flooding/standing water, grading, b... 9 (100.0%) 9 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) No Yes Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 2 of 26 Q3 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 3 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake and Belmore.- Speeding when motorist going to work and from. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road at Maloney. Cars are often speeding Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Frequent cars going well over 30 mph in a 30 mph zone. This is on Blake Road South between Excelsior Blvd. (Hopkins) and Interlachen Blvd. -- a straight line of road. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Residential neighborhood should not have cars traveling more than 35 or 40 mphl Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM speed Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Coming around the sharp corner on Interlachen/Blake stretch of the road Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Blake road is a straight shot and people like to speed through it Q4 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 4 of 26 Q5 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on your street? 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 5 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Higher traffic volume = higher traffic noise. Volume is higher during morning and evening commutes, which is to be expected. Large trucks (semi-trailers, dump trucks and flatbeds) are a bigger issue, using Blake Road South as a short-cut conduit between Excelsior Blvd. and Hwy. 100. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Volume is near reasonable limit. Would be very concerned if traffic continues to increase. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM blake to interlachen...big trucks Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen/Blake intersection Q6 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (4 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 6 of 26 Q7 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield, and driving aggressively.) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 7 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake and Belmore.- Speeding when motorist going to work and from. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road at Maloney. Cars are often speeding and take the turn onto Maloney (usually going west) very fast. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Speeding (well in excess of posted 30 mph limit) and tailgating are frequent. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM We do see some vehicles over 40 mph Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Blake and striver Q8 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 8 of 26 Q9 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are: 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 5 (55.6%) 5 (55.6%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 9 of 26 Q10 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 6 (66.7%) Yes No Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 10 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Area before and after Interlachen Blvd/Blake Intersection Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM blake and scriver needs a crosswalk Q11 Which intersection do you feel is unsafe? Optional question (2 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 11 of 26 Q12 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 4 (100.0%) 4 (100.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers turning corner too fast Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Street(s) too wide Insufficient lighting Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 Optional question (4 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 12 of 26 Q13 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: 1 (16.7%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 3 (50.0%) 3 (50.0%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 13 of 26 Q14 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood? 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Never Rarely (less than once per month) Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 14 of 26 Q15 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 7 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 15 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Additional crosswalks intersecting Blake Rd. Sidewalks would also be nice. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM None. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Not needed, already have a bike lane which is rarely used and adequate for walking as well as biking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Adding sidewalks on Interlachen/Blake in addition to the bike lane. Clear separation of the road and where pedestrian traffic would be. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Lack of a sidewalk on Blake Road between Interlachen and Lake Ridge Road makes walking/running very dangerous. Q16 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all that you can think of. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 16 of 26 Q17 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 17 of 26 Q18 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 5 (83.3%) 5 (83.3%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (16.7%) 1 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 6 Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 18 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM None. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Bike lanes in streets Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Not needed, already have a bike lane Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM DO NOT MAKE MORE OR WIDER BIKE PATHS ON BLAKE ROAD!!!!!!! BIKE LANES ALREADY CONSUMED OUR VALUABLE PARKING. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Lack of a bike lane on Blake Road Q19 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that you can think of. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 19 of 26 Q20 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 6 (66.7%) 6 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Rarely (less than once per month)Never Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 20 of 26 Q21 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Rarely (less than once per month)Never Very frequently (daily or near daily) Question options Optional question (8 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 21 of 26 Q22 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood? 3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 4 (57.1%) 4 (57.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Question options Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 22 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM The overnight parking restrictions for the Winter season are a little extreme / unnecessary. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Blake Road South is not a residential street in the usual sense of the term -- it is a thoroughfare or county road connecting Excelsior Blvd. to Interlachen Blvd. "Ownership" of Blake Road South has gone back and forth over the years between Edina and Hennepin County. With its high traffic volume, it very CLEARLY is not suitable for on-street parking on either side! (Note: Blake School eliminated parking along the shoulder of Blake Road South several years ago.) Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM I am on a corner facing Blake and see very frequent foot traffic crossing Blake, including by my own family on walks. Additional crosswalks would be nice. Sidewalks rounding the corner between Blake Rd and Interlachen would also be an improved safety measure. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM More frequent Edina Police patrols along Blake Road South would help reduce speeding and tailgating. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Please don’t destroy beautiful trees for the sake of a sidewalk. If a sidewalk is deemed necessary, put it adjacent to the street to avoid excessively damaging the mature trees, including a century-old oak in my yard. Also, I have a very steep front yard due to previous installation of the bike lane. If a sidewalk is put in I would need a stone wall, similar to many others found throughout the city. Without the wall, my front yard would be unmowable or else the roots of my oak tree will be severely impacted, and probably die. Q23 Any additional comments about parking? Optional question (2 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Q24 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street conditions in your neighborhood. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 23 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM Most of us are very curious why there have been so many projects on Blake Road that happen year after year. Our driveway access has been built up so many times that the asphalt is higher than our driveways which deteriorates our driveways with what seems to be no accountability from the city/county to remediate. We are all very tired and vexed why these projects are unable to be combined into less projects that impose the massive inconvenience and waste of tax dollars to continually tear up infrastructure that repeats practically every year. Is it project mgmt? Funding? Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen Blvd is bike friendly at some spots, but not all. I would not say it is pedestrian or truly bike friendly in the area surrounding the Interlachen Blvd/Blake intersection and around those two corners before and after where those roads intersect. Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Excited about the sidewalk for my kids safety. Not excited about the proposed round-about. Traffic is only bad during peak rush hour. I feel a round about would only aid in people's ability to speed through the neighborhood. Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 24 of 26 Q25 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are funded by special assessment) 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) 6 (75.0%) 6 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Yes No Other (please specify) Question options Optional question (8 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 25 of 26 Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake rd s Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Blake Road South (Note: the northernmost part of BRS -- approx. 2 blocks -- is in Hopkins.) Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Blake rd Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Blake Rd S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM blake r. s. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen Blvd Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Scriver Road Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM scriver Q26 What is your street name? Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Single Line Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX J Correspondence from Residents From:Timothy Nowak To:Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: Estimated household cost Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 8:31:15 PM EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for getting back. I appreciate that. Tim On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 10:37 AM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Tim, We’re estimating a preliminary assessment range of $10,300 to $15,200 per REU at this time. Since your property is a corner lot with one street not in the project area, you will beassessed at 0.5 REU. So the preliminary assessment range is $5,150 to $7,600 for your specific property. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Timothy Nowak Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:40 AMTo: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov>Subject: Estimated household cost EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My wife and I are inquiring to find out what the estimated cost per household will be tocomplete the project below. We reside at 316 Blake Rd S, 55343. Thank you Tim and Christine Nowak From:Aaron Ditzler To:"Nick Mattison" Cc:Nikki Mattison Bcc:Chad Millner Subject:RE: Blake Road Rebuild Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 2:31:22 PM Nick, We’ll reach out to you for some dates and times to meet regarding the design and your fence. Yes, your math looks good. Draft layout in CAD the measurement is between 9 and 12’ from the south end of the property to the north end. Hopefully you had a chance to look at the graphical illustration on the Better Together website. https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc/news_feed/blake-road-proposed-layout Because Blake Road is a state aid street, the walk will be maintained by City staff, including snow removal. Thank you. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-03927450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Nick Mattison Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:46 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Nikki Mattison Subject: Re: Blake Road Rebuild EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks so much for your responses Aaron, very helpful. We completed the survey and look forward to the larger discussions as well. We'd like to have you come out when convenient as I'm not sure how that retaining wall would apply to our property as our backyard is mostly at street level currently, unlike most of the others impacted by the plan. Is my math correct that you'll be taking the current 28' road and expanding the total width to ~46' (including the sidewalks, but not the green space) and that would be equally taken from the center of the road? Something like 8-10 feet in additional width from each side? One last question, who would be responsible for snow maintenance of this sidewalk? Thank You, Nick On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:24 AM Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@edinamn.gov> wrote: Nick, Thanks for your questions. See responses below in red. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer952-826-0443 | Fax 952-826-03927450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Nick Mattison Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 5:12 PM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Nikki Mattison Subject: Blake Road Rebuild EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Aaron, My wife and I (cc'ed here) moved to 5111 Scriver Road in May 2021, we just got the notice of the road rebuild on Blake occurring next year. Our address is not on Blake but our backyard is which would be impacted. I'm hoping you can confirm a couple things and answer some questions for us when you have a moment. We're supportive of the project to improve accessibility and safety of the area overall. 1. We had a fence built with guidance from the City of Edina of a 15' setback in the backyard. I see the plan is to have two 11' roadways, two 6 foot bike lanes, and possibly 10 feet of green area/sidewalk. What is the current width of the street? I'm assuming that this expansion will not infringe upon the setback stated to us. The existing street width is approximately 28 feet wide. Retaining walls within the 66 foot City right-of-way are anticipated along much of Blake Road between Scriver Road and Interlachen Boulevard. We will blend in new topsoil and seed between the top of the retaining wall and the existing ground surface. We hope this blended slope ties in within the City right-of-way, but temporary grading easements may be necessary. We can meet with you at your home to review your fence location and the estimated blended slope tie in. 2. I'm curious how 6 feet was decided for the bike lane widths? Interlachen Boulevard east of Blake Road is a designated bike route, does that road utilize 6 foot width on both sides? I believe the state of Minnesota allows for 5 or 6 feet to be used where traffic is < 30 mph. With a designated sidewalk decompressing pedestrian traffic unlike sections of Interlachen Boulevard, 6 feet doesn't seem necessary. 5 feet is allowed by MnDOT and is the minimum in Edina’s Living Streets Plan. 6 feet allows a bit more buffer between vehicles and pedestrian facilities. I don’t know the exact dimension of Interlachen Blvd bike lane, but that street has an already defined street width with little room for adjustment. 3. Will you be removing the sidewalk on the east side of Blake road North of Scriver and using that space to account for some of this widening? Having two sidewalks for less than a block is a poor use of space. We will replace the sidewalk on the east side of Blake Road between Scriver and Lake Ridge Roads to accommodate pedestrians on the east side of Blake Road. The sidewalk will not continue on the east side of Blake Road north of Lake Ridge Road. 4. Why is there a proposed green space between the sidewalk and the road for just this section? That's not how the sidewalk is constructed on all of Blake Road south of Scriver, or in any of the other areas on this project. We'd advocate to remove that. The City’s prefers 5’ green space for snow storage. However, the City will likely eliminate the green space to avoid lawn maintenance on the remote area along the back side of properties. The City standard walk width when adjacent to the concrete curb and gutter is 6’ minimum. 5. I read that Edina is changing the way that these types of projects are funded via removing Special Assessments. However, that change is phased in over 6 years, correct? Won't every property impacted by this project pay both ways then? If you're not the right person to discuss the tax aspects, I understand, please let me know who to discuss with. The Policy change has assessment phased over 16 years. Yes, you will pay by both assessment and taxes. Over the 16-year phasing, the cumulative amount paid to the city from a median-valued single-family home is estimated at $1,865. 6. Construction hours are no earlier than 7 and no later than 7 for this project, correct? Do you have an idea of when the project would be working on the area near us? The City’s working hours are 7 AM to 9 PM Monday through Friday and 8 AM to 7 PM on Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or holidays without permission from the City. Contractors historically work between 7 AM and 7 PM during the week. Again, we understand and support the safety impacts and need for this work, our number 1 priority is making sure the setback is correct and that there's a solid plan to use the space efficiently across all impacted properties. Thank You, Nick Mattison 4 Aaron Ditzler From:Aaron Ditzler Sent:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 11:17 AM To:'Daniel Hunt' Subject:Blake Road Improvements Daniel, Thanks for your questions. 1. Yes, there will be tree and vegetation removals associated with the improvements along Mirror Lakes. We'll look for locations to install new trees along the impacted Mirror Lakes area. 2. The difference between the elevation of the Blake Rd where it intersects Interlachen Blvd where Interlachen Blvd heads west will be similar to the existing. Less than 1 foot difference. 3. Steel sheet pile retaining walls will be installed along Mirror Lakes. A barrier will be attached to the top of the sheet pile walls. I replaced the three page aerial layout PDF this morning. Try again and let me know if it isn't working. Aaron Ditzler, Assistant City Engineer 952‐826‐0443 | Fax 952‐826‐0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Daniel Hunt Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:32 AM To: Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Aaron, I have a few questions regarding the Blake Roadway reconstruction. My questions are as follows: 1. The ROWs along Mirror Lake are thick with trees and vegetation. Will any of that be thinned ou? 5 2. Do you know the difference between the elevation of the Blake Rd where it intersects Interlachen Blvd where Interlachn Blvd heads west? 3. What will be used for guard rails? Additionally, some of the data available yesterday on the BetterTogetherEdina web page is no longer available; specifically the overhead photos with the road improvements overlayed. Thank you, Daniel Hunt 43 Aaron Ditzler From:Scott Searl Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 10:56 AM To:Chad Millner Cc:Scott H. Neal; Adam Driscoll; Steve Hanneman; Pete Barott; Aaron Ditzler Subject:Re: 500 Blake Rd RE: Property Assessment? EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chad ‐ Thanks for your help. Just knowing there’s a $16,000 bill coming in 2023/2024 is very helpful for our planning purposes. Pastor Scott On Dec 1, 2021, at 7:52 AM, Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: I realized there may be a question on how that was calculated. Church’s, commercial, retail and other non‐residential properties are calculated with a square footage factor. The SF is from the assessing department and the factor was based on number of trips from transportation guidance. The engineering study will show the actual calculations if your interested. The study will be available very soon. Thanks <image001.gif> Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Chad Millner Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 12:03 PM To: 'Scott Searl' Scott H. Neal <sneal@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Adam Driscoll Steve Hanneman Pete Barott Aaron Ditzler <ADitzler@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: 500 Blake Rd RE: Property Assessment? Pastor, 44 Thanks for the questions. The preliminary assessment calcs are just wrapping up. The church’s assessment is around $16,100 for the Blake Rd Project. If council approves the project and assessments in December, it will become a pending assessment. If everything goes as planned, we will construct in 2022, final out all the costs in summer 2023 and conduct the final assessment hearing October 2023. The assessments would be filed with Hennepin County November 2023 with the first payment due 2024 if you choose not to pay it off at the time of notice in 2023. Assessments can be spread out over 15‐ years with an interested rate 1% above what the City can borrow the money at. It is typically between 3‐ 4%. I hope that helps. Thanks, Chad <image001.gif> Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Scott Searl Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:18 AM To: Scott H. Neal <sneal@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>; Adam Driscoll Steve Hanneman Pete Barott Subject: Re: Property Assessment? EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Scott ‐ Thank you for your quick response! I’ll look forward to understanding what our assessment might be and the timeline for making whatever payment is needed. Thanks! Pastor Scott On Nov 30, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Scott H. Neal <sneal@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: Hi Pastor Scott – Yes, I can see how this might be confusing. City governments cannot tax churches or other non‐profits. That is true. A special assessment, however, is not considered to be a “tax”. Cities may special assess churches and other non‐profits for infrastructure projects from which those institutions derive a “special” benefit. We use a formula to spread the project cost over the benefiting properties. The unit of measure is call an 45 REU, residential equivalency unit. I have copied the City Engineer on this reply so that he can share more technical information with you about this matter. Scott <image001.gif> Scott H. Neal, City Manager 952-826-0401 | Fax 952-826-0390 sneal@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Follow me on Twitter. From: Scott Searl Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:45 AM To: Scott H. Neal <sneal@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Property Assessment? EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Scott ‐ Hope all is well with you and you had a good Thanksgiving. We’re wondering about this possible assessment. As a nonprofit is our property assessed and if so how do we determine what our possible assessment amount might be. Thanks ‐ Pastor Scott Pastor Scott 46 Aaron Ditzler From:Chad Millner Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 12:14 PM To:'Nick Jude' Cc:Brent Frederick; Nick Mattison; Kirsten Frederick; Jane Feichtinger; Aaron Ditzler; Charles Gerk; Evan Acosta Subject:RE: Blake Rd Street Recon Meeting Thanks for the note. 1. 5‐ft sidewalk request: When the sidewalk is on the back of curb 6‐ft is the minimum width for two reasons. First our plow equipment is 5‐ft wide and needs some buffer so it doesn’t fall off the curb and second it provides a 1‐ ft buffer for pedestrians before the also fall of the curb. We create different style joints so someone with visual issues can feel that before stepping off. 2. A turn lane is not proposal. The yellow is the pavement needed to adjust the curb line into Scriver. It is adjusting the radius slightly because the location of the new curb to make sure it is a smooth transition from new to old. 3. Easement Areas: We do not anticipate any changes to the permanent easements with this project. If during final design an issue arises we will discuss with that property owner. We are just exercising the right to use the space that is available to the City. 4. The bike lanes are 6‐ft wide but that is right up to the curb face. We want to provide enough space between the vehicles lanes and curb for cyclists. Two bike lanes are needed because they are 1‐way or 1 in each direction. As we look at impacts near your property we may consider a small change in the width of the bike lanes. Thanks for the comments and notes. Please reach out with any other questions. Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Nick Jude Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 8:39 PM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Brent Frederick Nick Mattison Kirsten Frederick Jane Feichtinger Subject: Re: Blake Rd Street Recon Meeting EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chad, Thanks for your time tonight. A couple of questions after reviewing the schematic with my wife. 47 We would request a 5 ft sidewalk in the portion of our backyard which would be consistent with the 5 ft walks everywhere else. Is there a reason this was proposed as 6 ft? The yellow turn lane looking portion on the corner of Blake and Scriver ‐ what is that showing? We would request there to be no vehicle turn lane or large radius turn into the neighborhood, reducing the impact to our yard. Does the Easement that the City of Edina currently has on our backyards change with any of this or are you simply exercising the right to that easement? I just want to make sure that the City's Easement doesn't encroach any closer to our house after this project. How wide are the bike lanes being proposed? Is there any way to do this project with one bike line ‐ reducing the impact to back yards? Thanks, Nick Jude On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:54 AM Chad Millner <cmillner@edinamn.gov> wrote: Can we do 5 pm tomorrow night, Tuesday, Nov. 30? I have another meeting at 6:30 so this date and time would work really well. Thanks Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Brent Frederick Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:16 PM To: Nick Mattison Cc: Nick Jude Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>; Kirsten Frederick Jane Feichtinger Subject: Re: Blake Rd Street Recon Meeting EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 49 Thanks, Nick Mattison Sent from my iPhone On Nov 26, 2021, at 6:28 PM, Nick Jude <wrote: Chad and Neighbors, With the hearing on this topic scheduled for Dec 13th, can we plan on meeting about this this coming week or early the following week? I would prefer to find a time that the Mattisons and Fredericks could also attend. I plan to attend the Dec 13th meeting in person. Thanks, Nick Jude On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:54 PM Brent Frederick wrote: Hi chad, I have cc’d everyone on this email to set up a day and time that works for everyone. Thanks for your help on this. On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:33 PM Chad Millner <cmillner@edinamn.gov> wrote: Brent, Thanks for checking in yesterday. If you send over contact information, I can reach out individually to your neighbors and set up individual meetings. Or I can do 1 visit with all of you. Whatever is easiest. 50 Thanks, Chad <image001.gif> Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐ Thanks, Brent Frederick APPENDIX K Blake Road Proposed Layout APPENDIX L Preliminary Assessment Roll BLAKE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐463 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID OWNER HOUSE NO. STREET ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 1 3011721410009 MARY A LACH 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 2 3011721120037 VIL OF EDINA 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 3 3011721140056 J A SORTEBERG & C M KENNEDY 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 4 3011721140024 CITY OF EDINA 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 5 3011721140025 CITY OF EDINA 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 6 3011721410007 A T MITCHELL & R M MITCHELL 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 7 3011721140036 VILLAGE OF EDINA 24 Address Unassigned 0 ‐$ 8 3011721410042 CITY OF EDINA 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 ‐$ 9 3011721120102 T A RUTHERFORD & J S BAXTER 300 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 10 3011721110025 T R EVON & C A EVON 301 BLAKE RD S 0.67 4,690.00$ 11 3011721120039 T J & S R DILLON 308 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 12 3011721110026 L & D HERIAN 309 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 13 3011721110027 J DETERS & J DETERS 311 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 14 3011721120038 CITY OF EDINA 312 BLAKE RD S0‐$ 15 3011721110028 JOHN DETTERS/JENNIFER DETERS 315 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 16 3011721120036 CHRISTINE NOWAK 316 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 17 3011721110030 ELIZABETH W EASTMAN 321 BLAKE RD S 0.67 4,690.00$ 18 3011721110060 MARK D SCHWARTZ 401 BLAKE RD S 0.67 4,690.00$ 19 3011721120054 PETER R HEMSTAD 402 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 20 3011721120053 JOEL B SAMAHA & DOUGLAS KASA 404 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 21 3011721110061 R E KRENGEL & A V KRENGEL 405 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 22 3011721120052 RIVKAH WACHTER & R WACHTER 408 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 23 3011721110062 THOMAS J STEIN 409 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 24 3011721120051 JULIE KAPLAN & REED HART 412 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 25 3011721110063 HAYLE STERN 413 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 26 3011721120050 R & J FITZGERALD JT REV TR 416 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 27 3011721110064 C F STENNES ETAL 417 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 28 3011721110065 STEVEN M WARD 421 BLAKE RD S 0.67 4,690.00$ 29 3011721130001 SHEPHERD OF HLS LTH CH EDINA 500 BLAKE RD S 2.30 16,100.00$ 30 3011721140051 SAMUEL WELNA & JENNA WELNA 501 BLAKE RD S 0.67 4,690.00$ 31 3011721140028 ROLLAND C TOENGES ET AL TR 505 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 32 3011721140017 P M SIMPSON & M M SIMPSON 509 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 33 3011721140043 FRANK N DRAKE 513 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 34 3011721140044 J H & E M LORENTZ 517 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 35 3011721140045 BETH GRANT 521 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 36 3011721130078 KEVIN KOMADINA 604 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 37 3011721140007 MARC KENVILLE/SARAH KENVILLE 605 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 38 3011721140057 GRANDE HOMES LLC 609 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 39 3011721410021 A T MITCHELL & R M MITCHELL 5020 BLAKE RD S 1 7,000.00$ 40 3011721410014 B R FREDERICK/K A FREDERICK 5108 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 41 2911721320003 IRMGARD E FARAH 5125 BLAKE RD S 0.5 3,500.00$ 42 3011721140055 PETER M LINSTROTH REV TRUST 6212 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 43 3011721140054 JOHN A SORTEBERG TRUST ET AL 6224 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 44 3011721140060 D C HAMM & G L HAMM 6228 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 45 3011721140040 RUTH Y OSTROM ETAL 6300 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 46 3011721140041 ALISON & MATTHEW RUOHO 6304 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 47 3011721140042 PATRICIA ANN ALBANI 6308 INTERLACHEN BLVD 1 7,000.00$ 48 2911721320005 MARY A LACH 5101 LAKE RIDGE RD 0.5 3,500.00$ 49 2911721320004 LEONARD T BRENNY 5100 LAKE RIDGE RD 0.5 3,500.00$ 50 3011721120049 QUALITY HME RESTORATIONS LLC 6408 MALONEY AVE 0.5 3,500.00$ 51 3011721130059 PHILLIP J DE LA VEGA ET AL 6401 MENDELSSOHN LA 0.5 3,500.00$ 52 3011721130049 SHEPHERD OF HLS LTH CH EDINA 6400 MENDELSSOHN LA 0 ‐$ 53 3011721410041 W A VOLLAND & K A VOLLAND 5000 OAK BEND LA 0.33 2,310.00$ 54 3011721410031 GEORGE E MAAS TRUSTEE 5001 OAK BEND LA 0 ‐$ 55 2911721320005 NICOLAI A LEWIS 5101 SCRIVER RD 0.5 3,500.00$ BLAKE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA‐463 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PID OWNER HOUSE NO. STREET ASSESSABLE REU ASSESSABLE AMOUNT 56 3011721410015 FSA PROPERTIES LLC 5111 SCRIVER RD 0.5 3,500.00$ 57 3011721410016 NICHOLAS JUDE & JANE JUDE 5117 SCRIVER RD 0.5 3,500.00$ 58 3011721140046 WILLIAM J PIERRO 6324 WATERMAN AVE 0.5 3,500.00$ Total 38.98 272,860.00$ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING NOTICE CITY OF EDINA ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified acting City Clerk of the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby certify that on the following dates November 23, 2021, acting on behalf of said City, I deposited in the United States mail copies of the attached Notice of Public Hearing for Blake Road Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction (Exhibit A), enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon duly prepaid, addressed to the persons at the addresses as shown on the mailing list (Exhibit B), attached to the original hereof, which list is on file in my office, said persons being those appearing on the records of the County Auditor as owners of the property listed opposite their respective names, as of a date 19 days prior to the date of the hearing; and that I also sent said notice to the following corporations at the indicated addresses whose property is exempt from taxation and is therefore not carried on the records of said County Auditor. NAME ADDRESS WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this 23rd day of November, 2021. ________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk 3011721110060 MARK SCHWARTZ 401 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120102 THEODORE A RUTHERFORD & JENNIFER SALMON BAXTER 300 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721110025 TIMOTHY R EVON & COLLEEN A EVON 301 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721130001 SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS 500 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721130049 SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS 500 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721410014 BRENT R FREDERICK & KIRSTEN A FREDERICK 5108 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55436 3011721140041 ALISON & MATTHEW RUOHO 6304 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 3011721140040 RUTH Y OSTROM & DEAN T BECKER 6300 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 3011721410016 NICHOLAS M JUDE & JANE E JUDE 5117 SCRIVER RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721410021 ALEX T MITCHELL & RENEE M MITCHELL 5020 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55436 3011721110061 ROBERT E & AUDREY V KRENGEL 306 GARFIELD ST N BOX 274 ATWATER MN 56209 3011721110064 CHARLES F STENNES 417 BLAKE RD EDINA MN 55343 3011721110030 ELIZABETH W EASTMAN 321 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140007 MARC & SARAH KENVILLE 605 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120054 PETER R HEMSTAD 402 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140045 BETH GRANT 521 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120038 CITY OF EDINA 4801 50TH ST W EDINA MN 55424 3011721410031 AIKERS TRUST 5001 OAK BEND LA EDINA MN 55436 3011721140028 ROLLAND C TOENGES 505 BLAKE RD EDINA MN 55343 3011721140051 SAMUEL WELNA & JENNA WELNA 501 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120053 JOEL B SAMAHA 404 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 2911721320005 MARY LACH 5101 LAKE RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 2911721320003 JACQUELINE & CHRISTOPHER LONGER 5125 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55436 3011721140017 PETER M SIMPSON 509 BLAKE RD EDINA MN 55343 3011721130078 KEVIN KOMADINA 604 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120036 CHRISTINE NOWAK 316 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140060 DAVID C HAMM 6228 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 3011721120039 SARAH ROGERS DILLON 308 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140043 FRANK N DRAKE 4812 FRANCE AVE S EDINA MN 55410 3011721110063 HAYLE STERN 413 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120052 JOSHUA ARRINGTON 408 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721410041 WAYNE A & KATHLEEN A VOLLAND 2605 TARPON RD NAPLES FL 34102 3011721110027 JOHN & JENNIFER DETERS 311 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 2911721320004 LEONARD T BRENNY 4721 155TH LA N W RAMSEY MN 55303 3011721120051 JULIE KAPLAN & REED HART 412 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721110026 LON & DEBRA K HERIAN 309 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721130059 LUCAS & ERIC CHURCH 6401 MENDELSSOHN LANE EDINA MN 55343 3011721110028 DERECK MATTSON & LAURA FUGLEBERG 315 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721120050 ROGER & JOYCE FITZGERALD 416 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140057 MODENA LLC, ATTN: JOSH WERT 2221 DWIGHT LA MINNETONKA MN 55305 3011721120049 QUALITY HOME RESTORATNS LLC 117 INTERLACHEN RD HOPKINS MN 55343 3011721140042 PATRICIA ANN ALBANI 6308 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 3011721410020 NICOLAI LEWIS 5101 SCRIVER ROAD EDINA MN 55436 3011721110065 STEVEN M WARD 4732 PLEASANT AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55419 3011721140046 WILLIAM J PIERRO 6324 WATERMAN AVE EDINA MN 55343 3011721410015 NICHOLAS & NICOLE MATTISON 5111 SCRIVER RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721110062 THOMAS J STEIN 409 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140044 JOHN & EILEEN LORENTZ 517 BLAKE RD S EDINA MN 55343 3011721140055 PETER LINSTROTH 10137 INDIAN RIDGE DR RENO NV 89511 3011721140054 JOHN SORTEBERG 6224 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 November 24, 2021 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-463 BLAKE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION The Edina City Council will meet at Edina City Hall on Monday, Dec. 13, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., to consider the public hearing on roadway improvements for Blake Road Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This hearing has been called as a recommendation from staff. The proposed project would be constructed in the summer of 2022 with the assessment hearing occurring in the fall of 2022. The estimated cost is $272,860.00 and is funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per assessable lot is $7,000.00 per residential equivalent unit. The assessment can be divided over a fifteen-year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance. The area proposed to be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes the following: 300 to 5125 Blake Road South, 6212 to 6308 Interlachen Boulevard, 5100 to 5101 Lake Ridge Road, 6408 Maloney Avenue, 6400 to 6401 Mendelssohn Lane, 5000 Oak Bend Lane, 5101, 5111 and 5117 Scriver Road, 6324 Waterman Avenue Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement. The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of the hearing. Staff’s recommendations to City Council are: • Roundabout at Interlachen Boulevard, and new asphalt pavement on all streets. • Blake Road reconstructed to 34-feet wide with no parking on either side of the street • New concrete curb and gutter on all streets, including two 6-foot on-street bike lanes on each side of the street • New 8-foot asphalt shared use path on the west side of Blake Road north of Interlachen Boulevard • New 6-foot concrete sidewalk on the west side of Blake Road south of Interlachen Boulevard • Partial replacement of watermain and water services; full replacement of hydrants and valves • Spot repairs of the sanitary sewer main • Storm sewer improvements to resolve local drainages issues and installation of sump drains where feasible The Engineering Study will be available online as part of the Dec. 13 City Council meeting agenda at http://bit.ly/2y3wCOo; under Meeting Type select City Council Meeting, click Search and you will see the Dec. 13 Agenda. Due to a low survey response rate, a neighborhood wide in person Q&A meeting will not occur. To comment, you may: • Post questions online at https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc for review by City Council and Engineering • Write to City of Edina, Attention Engineering, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439. • Watch or attend public hearing to offer comments, leave a voicemail in advance, or submit your comments online. Ways to participate are included in this mailing. How to Participate in a Public Hearing HOW TO PARTICIPATE: Public hearing input can be provided in a variety of ways to the City Council. Options 1 & 2 are available now: 1) Complete the Public Hearing Comment Form online at: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/public-hearings 2) Leave a voicemail with your feedback. (952-826-0377) Options 3 & 4 are available the night of the public hearing meetings: 3) Watch the meeting and call in to provide testimony. a. Edina TV (Comcast Channels 813 or 16) b. Facebook.com/EdinaMN c. EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings • City Council: Call in to provide live testimony at the September 9th meeting, 1-800-374- 0221. The Conference ID 4628128. 4) Attend the meetings to provide testimony, City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th S DEADLINES: The City Council is scheduled to make a decision at its December 21 meeting. Deadline for comments via voicemail or BetterTogetherEdina.org is Noon, Wednesday, December 15. FURTHER INFORMATION: City of Edina Engineering Department, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439, 952-826-0371