HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-10 Packet4
DRAFT MINUTES
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday October 10, 2013
7:02 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Bale, Gubrud, Heer, Kostuch, Latham, Rudnicki, Sokol, and Zarrin.
Absent: Thompson
Late Arrival: Howard, Risser, and Chair Sierks
Staff Present: Ross Bintner, Laura Adler and Scott Neal
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion made by Member Latham and seconded by Member Kostuch to approve the Agenda. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes
Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Zarrin to approve the September Minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Member Howard arrived at 7:04p.m.
B. Attendance report and roster
Motion made by Member Latham and seconded by Member Gubrud to approve the amended Attendance
report emailed on Oct. 41h. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Workgroup list and minutes.
Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Zarrin to approve Andrew Harmon and
Chuck Prentice to the Education and Outreach Working Group. Motion carried unanimously.
5
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT. No Comment.
VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Sustainability in City Operations
i. EEEP. Mr. Bintner gave an update on the Edina Chamber of Commerce "Emerging Leaders
Event". Mr. Bintner said there hasn't been any applications or inquires for the Edina Emerald
Energy Program over the past few months. A few inquiries about the PACE Financing Tool. Mr.
Neal, City Manager, said what's making the process hard is the City can't use its own public
funds.
ii. Purchasing Policy. The Purchasing Policy was adopted on March 20, 2012. Mr. Neal said 2013
was the first full year administrating the Policy. He will have an annual report due in December
2013. The report will include the differences of purchasing behaviors in commodities and other
services provided.
iii. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Performance Management. Does the City have a plan to reduce
carbon emission by 15% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 80% by 2050? Mr. Neal is unaware of a
plan. Member Kostuch raised a concern about additional Capital Improvement Projects that are
not being reviewed with carbon reduction goals in mind. Acting Chair Heer reminded the
Commission that this topic is a 2014 Work Plan Item.
Chair Sierks arrived at 7:45p.m.
B. Commission Organization. Chair Sierks suggested some Working Groups might turn into Task Forces
focused on the 2014 Annual Work Plan priorities to become more focused on accomplishing those work
plan items. Task Forces could also provide opportunities to work with other Board and Commission
Members. Chair Sierks gave an update on the Board and Commission Chairs Workshop with City Council
to review the proposed 2014 Annual Work Plans, and noted topics on other commissions that might
relate to EEC. Members discussed what the role of a Commissioner is in City decisions.
Member Risser arrived at 8:27p.m.
C. Education and Outreach Working Group. Member Gubrud gave an update on the Home Energy Squad
article in the About Town. Member Howard proposed a film showing series in December. The April
event topic could be Residential Energy Use or a repeat of What's Up with the Weather?.
D. Business Recycling Task Force. Member Zarrin said the task force needs to publicize the Hennepin
County grant with City staff.
M
E. Student Member Sokol said there's Geek Squad Member in the Media Center to help with technology.
F. Commissioner liaison reports (54th Street, Living Streets, Grandview, France, Etc). Member Heer gave an
update on the W 54th St meeting. Member Risser gave an update on the Living Streets meeting.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS. No Comment.
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS. Member Latham gave an update on trees being planted
within City parks using money from the Eco Tour. Member Latham gave an update on Allied Waste's garbage
collection.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
A. City projects update. Mrs. Adler gave an update on the FEMA map revision and appeals that are
occurring within the City. Mrs. Adler gave an update on the new requirements in SWPPP. Mr. Bintner
presented the new Edina Neighborhood map.
There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Sierks declared the meeting adjourned at 9:44p.m.
Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Kostuch to adjourn meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Foster
GIS Administrator
3
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday November 14, 2013
7:00 PM
AGENDA ITEM 6.6 Building Energy Efficiency
ATTACHMENTS
1. Building Energy Use, Annual Report —Ross Bintner
2. Year 1, Measurement & Verification Report- McKinstry
AGENDA ITEM 7 CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS
ATTACHMENTS
1. Founders Day Invite
2. ICLEI Initiative
AGENDA ITEM 8 CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
ATTACH M E NTS
1. Summary and schedule for 2013 EEC term.
2. Draft summary and schedule for 2014 EEC term
3. Draft 2014 EEC workplan
AGENDA ITEM 9 STAFF COMMENTS
ATTACH M E NTS
1. Excerpt from Improvement No. BA -416 2014 54th Street state aid street reconstruction draft project feasibility
report.
2. Water System Demand and Capacity Analysis for Water Treatment Plant No. 5.
LINKS
1. BA -406 2014 Morningside neighborhood street reconstruction project feasibility <LINK>
NARRATIVE
• I'll describe a stakeholder engagement process for considering the future of the Fred Richards Golf Course.
• Review attached reports and link for two sustainability analyses for street reconstruction projects, and a
planned water treatment expansion.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS:
City Events Calendar (link)
1
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday November 14, 2013
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes
B. Attendance report and roster
C. Workgroup list and minutes
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment, " the Energy & Environment Commission will invite residents to share new issues
or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission, or which aren't slated for future
consideration. Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or
Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Commission might refer the matter to
staff or to an EEC Working Group for consideration at a future meeting.
VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Update on Braemar outdoor ice and sports arena expansion project. (Ann Kattreh)
B. Building Energy Efficiency
i. State B3 Benchmarking Update (Ross Bintner)
ii. Capital improvements, building needs, management framework (Tim Barnes)
iii. Guaranteed Energy Savings Program (Bill Sierks)
C. Workplan Item 4 — Sustainability in City Operations (Commission Discussion)
D. Education and Outreach Working Group
E. Business Recycling Task Force
F. Student Initiatives
VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS
VIII.CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
A. City projects update
i. Fred Richards Golf Course
2
ii. Neighborhood Reconstruction Program
iii. State Aid Street Reconstruction
iv. Utilities Projects
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS: http://www.edinamn.gov/ <click calendar>
11/19/13 City Council Meeting — City Hall
12/3/13 City Council Meeting — City Hall
12/14/13 EEC October Meeting — City Hall
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 amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in
advance of the meeting.
E
E&OWG Meeting Notes
10/1/13 at 7pm in the Community Room
In Attendance: Bob Gubrud, John Howard, Bill Sierks, Andy Harmon, Chuck Prentice, Stacy of CEE and
Paul Thompson.
1. Greetings and brief sharing of current happenings.
2. Minutes from 9/3/13 meeting approved unanimously.
3. Residential Energy Usage: CEE Presentation by Stacy.
Stacy began by giving some background information on the Home Energy Squad (HES) program:
• HES has won awards, well regarded nationally.
• No income ceiling for efficiency loans.
• CEE works with the MAC for airplane noise abatement.
• One homeowner needs to be home during the visit/install.
• Periodically hold workshops to do education, attend events to find HES participants.
Following the explanation of the program, Stacy provided statistics on home energy use:
• Residential use accounts for 23% of energy use - area targeted by HES visit.
• For typical home, energy is divided: 10% water heating, 15 % appliances, 20% for lighting, 55%
for HVAC.
• Triangle sign on water heater is recommended setting, corresponds to about 120 degrees F.
Also reduces the likelihood of scalding.
• Efficient toilets are 1.5 gallons/flush. Efficient bathroom fixtures can save $35/year.
• Front loading washers can use 40 gallons less per wash.
• Xcel will buy old fridge for $35.
• Recommend power strip to reduce phantom load, could be $14/year savings.
• Powering down computer hard drive saves more than turning down/off the monitor.
• A CFL saves $5 per year, but needs to be recycled.
• LED is an additional charge, costs around $10-15/bulb.
• Programmable thermostat could save $91- biggest saver.
• All told, $330 savings/year if all options are implemented.
• HES puts together a report showing the energy saving potential of different options.
4. EWG & E&OWG collaboration
Community solar has hit a snag, seemingly with Xcel. Paul is hosting events at his home about the
community solar system on Oct. 11th and Nov. 15th. Community solar is apparently big in Colorado.
10
5. Edina Day of Service: Oct. 26
a. HES installs- Four HES will be available for Edina day of service. Bob is working with Chris at
the Edina Resource Center.
b. Publicity- may be less than last year although there was an article in Edina magazine recently
publicizing the day. It is still possible to make event plans, so John will attempt to plan a buckthorn pull.
Paul would like to see an Edina solar tour, could do video of events in the future.
6. Enhanced HES
Status: Sign-ups & Installs- 23 are done, 2 are scheduled, so 5 remaining.
Publicity Plans;
a. About Town Article published in the fall edition.
7. EEC workplan
a. April Event ideas - Earth day is around Easter, which may cause the event to be after Earth
day (Tues., April 22). Tentative plan is April 17th - Thursday, or the week after at Edina High School.
Having local flavor may draw in community, and Paul would like to see local emphasis. Celebrity could
add draw, ideas include: Paul Douglas, Jon Foley, Maggie Koerth-Baker, Jon Seeley, or Jon Abraham.
Semi famous people that could be a draw include a university president or Mr. Mooty of Dairy Queen.
8. Community Events
a. Monthly video discussion groups- Number of films cover possible topics; ones that come to
mind are Thin Ice Climate, Planeat, Carbon Nation, and Chasing Ice. Likely there is a licensing fee, often
around $100 for public screening. Impression is the commission would be able to cover this cost.
b. Partners- Chuck shared his experience periodically hosting environmental movies at libraries
over the last 5 years. Chuck would be happy to work with us. Chuck will look into Chasing Ice for our
first film. Tentative dates for showings are Nov. 12, Dec. 10th, Jan. 14th, and mid February. Chuck will
look into locations and pricing.
9. Next meeting: Flog, 29=3 Rescheduled to Nov. 13.
Adjourned at 9:35pm.
Andy Harmon and Chuck Prentice are interested in officially joining the working group. Approved at
October EEC meeting.
11
Notes from EBR meeting held on Wednesday, October 16th 2013 at Edina City Hall.
Present:
Sarah Zarrin (EEEC)
Aileen Foley (EGG)
Andre Xiong (Hennepin County Environmental Services)
Promotion of business recycling was discussed.
➢ Suggestions:
o Window clings with year (renewable)
o (Organics Award 2013
o Recycling Award 2013)
o The City of Sacramento paints a green line outside a business
that it considers sustainable.
➢ Sarah suggested that Hennepin County assist cities in
promotion of new grants.
➢ Solvei to mail flyers about Business Recycling grant to the
businesses mailing list city has.
➢ The Rotary breakfast was identified as an event at which the
new grant could be promoted.
➢ Andre will write an article on grant for publication in Sun
Current. (We will let him know (per Jennifer in
Communications at City Hall) deadline for articles.
Current.mnsun.com
➢ Historic Preservation Committee gives substantial awards.
EBR will research model.
➢ Aileen will research how other cities promote business
recycling.
)0- Sarah, Aileen, Andre and members of EGG are meeting with
managers of Salut, Barrio and Edina Cinema to discuss
business recycling, promotion of grants and branding.
Meeting this Friday, October 25th at 3:45 at Salut.
➢ Aileen will discuss business recycling, promotion of grants
and branding with Beth at Galleria.
12
➢ Bill Nueundorf will ensure that the remodeled Byerley's on
France is aware of recycling grant. Sarah will ask him about
new senior living building on Tracy/Crosstown.
• Aileen to enquire about Galleria and how the grant application is
proceeding. Aileen corresponded with Beth in Galleria. They have to
make a decision on a cardboard compactor and that is delaying the
application process. Aileen enquired about their system for
recycling organics and is waiting to hear back.
• Sarah said that the Hennepin County grant should be dealt with in
three phases
Phase 1: Grant model - Edina
Phase 2: Expansion of program
Phase 3: Assessment.
• Andre will do pre -grant waste assessments at small businesses in 50th
and France area. Rachel will provide names.
• Dairy Queen HQ is applying for a grant for organic recycling.
• Biobins were discussed.
13
DATE: November 14, 2013
TO: Energy and Environment Commission
CC: Facility Managers
FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer
RE: Building Energy Use, Annual Report
The following is a summary of City of Edina building energy use. The period of review is October 2012 to
September 2013 (Q412 -Q313) and the baseline for comparison is October 2011 to September 2012 (Q41 I -
Q312.) Notable changes to the building stock over this period include the destruction and rebuilding of the
golf dome and the addition of the Hornets Nest to Braemar Arena.
Building Stock and Energy Use
The following tables summarize building energy and resulting carbon emission as recorded in the State B3
benchmarking database (https://mn.b3benchmarking.com/) The organization wide facilities are broken up into
four categories: parks, other, fire, and liquor, and are sorted from most to least building area.
Parks: 342,849sf 12 facilities
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439
www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392
Q411-
Q412-
Change
Q312
Q313
Change
in
Y/Y
Y/Y
Building
Q411 -Q312
Carbon
Q412 -Q313
Carbon
in Cost
Carbon
Cost
Carbon
Area (sf)
Cost ($)
(ton)
Cost ($)
(ton)
($)
(ton)
(%)
(%)
Braemar Arena
143,168
$299,683
3017
$381,868
3355
$82,185
338
27.4%
11.2%
Braemar Golf Dome
70,000
$49,155
486
$18,519
156
($30,636)
(330)
-62.3%
-67.9%
Edinborough Park
42,000
$148,688
1465
$165,415
1499
$16,727
34
11.2%
2.3%
Braemar Golf
Course Clubhouse
18,935
$51,446
430
$53,407
392
$1,962
(38)
3.8%
-8.9%
Senior Center
17,000
$33,036
308
$35,191
265
$2,155
(43)
6.5%
-13.9%
Centennial Lakes
Maintenance
16,100
$5,945
46
$6,350
45
$404
(1)
6.8%
-1.2%
Art Center
7,613
$20,918
179
$24,688
187
$3,770
8
18.0%
4.7%
Arneson Acres
Greenhouse
7,500
$3,225
22
$3,768
26
$542
4
16.8%
17.7%
Centennial Lakes
Pavilion
6,500
$21,073
177
$25,430
201
$4,357
24
20.7%
13.4%
Fred Richards
Clubhouse
6,246
$5,738
43
$5,624
38
($114)
(5)
-2.0%
-11.4%
Arneson Acres
Museum
5,000
$6,477
46
$6,442
48
($35)
2
-0.5%
4.1%
Fred Richards
Maintenance
2,787
$1,647
11
$1,961
13
$314
2
19.0%
13.5%
Subtotal Parks
342,849
$647,031
6,231
$728,662
1 6,226
$81,632
-5
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439
www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392
14
Other: Public
Works 159,205sf 1 facility, Administration and Police 69,000 1 facility
Q411 -Q312
Cost ($)
Q411-
Q411-
Q412-
0412-
Change
Change
342,849
$647,031
6,231
Q312
Q312
Q313
Change
in
Y/Y Y/Y
Y/Y
Building Q411 -Q312
Carbon
Q412 -Q313
Carbon
in Cost
Carbon
Cost Carbon
in Cost
Area (sf) Cost ($)
(ton)
Cost ($)
(ton)
($)
(ton)
(%) (%)
City Hall
69,000 $128,086
1450
$145,084
1469
$16,998
19
13.3% 1.3%
Public Works
159,205 $111,204
977
$128,296
1004
$17,092
27
15.4% 2.8%
Subtotal Other 228,205 $239,290
2,427
$273,380
2,473
$34,091
47
$3,332
Fire: 62.734sf 3 Facilities
8.1%
-3.8%
Fire Station No. 1
5,157
$13,519
125
Liquor: 22,330sf 3 Facilities
Building
Area (sf)
Q411 -Q312
Cost ($)
Q411-
Q412 -Q313
Cost ($)
Q412-
Change in
Cost ($)
Change
Parks
342,849
$647,031
6,231
$728,662
Q312
$81,632
Q313
Change
in
Y/Y
Y/Y
$273,380
Building
Q411 -Q312
Carbon
Q412 -Q313
Carbon
in Cost
Carbon
Cost
Carbon
$10,037
Area (sf)
Cost ($)
(ton)
Cost ($)
(ton)
($)
(ton)
(%)
(%)
South Metro
8,800
$21,949
193
$24,233
197
$2,285
4
10.4%
2.1%
Training Facility
38,000
$41,068
317
$44,400
305
$3,332
(12)
8.1%
-3.8%
Fire Station No. 1
5,157
$13,519
125
$12,817
108
($703)
(17)
-5.2%
-13.9%
Tracy Ave
19,399
$34,823
359
$40,809
371
$5,986
13
17.2%
3.6%
Fire Station No. 2
York Ave
5,335
$7,965
70
$8,683
68
$719
(2)
9.0%
-2.4%
Subtotal Fire
62,734
$83,856
746
$93,892
745
$10,037
-1
Liquor: 22,330sf 3 Facilities
Organization Total
Building
Area (sf)
Q411 -Q312
Cost ($)
Q411-
Q412 -Q313
Cost ($)
Q412-
Change in
Cost ($)
Change
Parks
342,849
$647,031
6,231
$728,662
Q312
$81,632
Q313
Change
in
Y/Y
Y/Y
$273,380
Building
Q411 -Q312
Carbon
Q412 -Q313
Carbon
in Cost
Carbon
Cost
Carbon
$10,037
Area (sf)
Cost ($)
(ton)
Cost ($)
(ton)
($)
(ton)
(%)
(%)
York Ave
8,800
$21,949
193
$24,233
197
$2,285
4
10.4%
2.1%
Vernon Ave
8,373
$17,438
170
$19,407
170
$1,969
0
11.3%
0.3%
50th St
5,157
$13,519
125
$12,817
108
($703)
(17)
-5.2%
-13.9%
Subtotal Liquor
22,330
$52,906
488
$56,457
475
$3,551
-13
Organization Total
I:\Energy and Environment Comm ission\Projects\B3\Q412-Q313 Building Energy Report.docx
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439
www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392
Building
Area (sf)
Q411 -Q312
Cost ($)
Q411 -Q312
Carbon
(ton)
Q412 -Q313
Cost ($)
Q412 -Q313
Carbon
(ton)
Change in
Cost ($)
Changein
Carbon
(ton)
Parks
342,849
$647,031
6,231
$728,662
6,226
$81,632
-5
PW/City Hall
228,205
$239,290
2,427
$273,380
2,473
$34,091
47
Fire
62,734
$83,856
746
$93,892
745
$10,037
-1
Liquor
22,330
$52,906
488
$56,457
475
$3,551
-13
TOTAL
656,118
$1,023,082 1
9,892
$1,152,392
9,919
$129,310
27
I:\Energy and Environment Comm ission\Projects\B3\Q412-Q313 Building Energy Report.docx
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439
www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392
;�t�y
Of Mer Somme
City of Edina
Year 1 Measurement &
Verification Report
September 2013
15
6900 Wedgwood Road North I Maple Grove, MN 55311 ( 763.767.0304 1 FAX 763.392.6462
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
3. FACILITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
Interior Lighting Upgrades
Building Envelope
Solar Photovoltaic Installation
Water Conservation
4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5. APPENDICES
CITY OF EDINA) YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
CONTENTS
Mfr
17
1. Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2011 City of Edina signed a Detailed Engineering Study Agreement with McKinstry for the purpose
of developing a performance contract. A performance contract totaling $701,098 was signed on October 4,
2011. This report summarizes the annual savings for Year 1 for the implemented systems at City of Edina. The
project has natural gas (Therm), electric (kWh), and water (gallons) savings due to the implemented Facility
Improvement Measures (FIMs).
ENERGY AND COST SAVINGS
The project is achieving utility savings through the implementation of the following FIMs:
The guaranteed annual performance savings of $50,077 was exceeded through the installation of the FIMs.
The following table illustrates the performance savings realized to the guaranteed performance savings:
Guaranteed Performance Savings $50,077
Performance Savings Realized $52,136
Difference (Excess Savings) $2,059
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR I M&V REPORT
�M� 1
Guaranteed
Performance
FIM Name
Project Locations.
Savings
$35,332
Savings Realize]
$33,748
Interior Lighting
City Hall, Braemar Arena, Art Center,
Fire Station 1, Fire Station 2, Braemar
Clubhouse, Braemar Maintenance,
Executive Clubhouse, Edina Liquor
Vernon, Edina Liquor 50th
Building Envelope
City Hall, Braemar Arena, Art Center,
$11,078
$14,312
Fire Station 2, Braemar Clubhouse,
Braemar Maintenance, Executive
Clubhouse, Public Works Edina Liquor
Vernon, Edina Liquor 50;'
Solar PV
City Hall
$1,306
$831
Water Conservation
Art Center, Fire Station 1, Fire Station
$2,361
$3,245
2, Braemar Clubhouse, Public Works
Total
$50,077
$52,136
The guaranteed annual performance savings of $50,077 was exceeded through the installation of the FIMs.
The following table illustrates the performance savings realized to the guaranteed performance savings:
Guaranteed Performance Savings $50,077
Performance Savings Realized $52,136
Difference (Excess Savings) $2,059
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR I M&V REPORT
�M� 1
18
2. Environmental Impact
The first year performance savings of $52,132 equates to the reduction of natural gas, electric, and water
consumption. The FIMs have a total savings of 17,047 therms, 422,827 kWh and 364,042 gallons of water.
The savings combine to a 7.4% reduction in total energy usage for the affected buildings.
By implementing the facility improvement
measures, the City is not only saving
money, but also helping to protect the
environment.
• The City of Edina lowered its
electric CO2 production by 292
Metric Tons.
• The City of Edina lowered its
natural gas CO2 production by 85
Metric Tons.
• The City of Edina is saving the
equivalent of 0.55 Olympic -sized
swimming pools' worth of water.
Environmental Impact Information is intended for informational use only.
Please see Appendix A for Supplemental Information.
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
Goq 2
YM
19
3. Facility I m provement Measures
Interior Lighting Upgrades
FIM DESCRIPTION
McKinstry retrofitted the lighting in the following buildings: City Hall, Braemar Arena, Art Center, Fire Station
1, Fire Station 2 Braemar Clubhouse, Braemar Maintenance, Executive Clubhouse, Edina Liquor Vernon, and
Edina Liquor 50�. The Implementation of this FIM improved the quality of light and reduced the electric utility
consumption throughout the buildings. The annual electric utility consumption from lighting has been reduced
by 46% which equates to $33,744 in annual utility savings.
FIM SAVINGS VALIDATION
Annual utility savings as a result of these upgrades were achieved by:
• Retrofitting existing T12 fixtures with T8 lamps and ballasts.
• Retrofitting existing 32W T8 fixtures with reduced wattage T8 lamps.
• Upgrading high bay fixtures with high output fluorescent fixtures.
• Retrofitting existing CFLs with LED lamps.
• Retrofitting Incandescent lamps with CFLs.
• Replacing existing exit signs with LED exit signs.
• Delamping over lit areas.
• Installing occupancy sensors where applicable.
-310 Therms -303 Therms -$213 -$208
392,732 kWh 384,188 kWh $35,547 $33,957
Unrealized Savings 1 1-$1,584
The following flaures depict the are and cost annual enerav usaae of Interior fixtures.
CITY OF EDINA i YEAR I M&V REPORT
QV 3
Y Ilv
,(00
L
3 t;trxri
Y
Mug)
`m MR)
c
A :Ix;rr�
I
L
City of Edina Interior lighting
-77
Ilk -
21
3. Facility Improvement Measures
Building Envelope
FIM DESCRIPTION
McKinstry Improved the building envelope in the following buildings: City Hall, Braemar Arena, Art Center, Fire
Station 2, Braemar Clubhouse, Braemar Maintenance, Executive Clubhouse, Public Works, Edina Liquor
Vernon, and Edina Liquor 50th. Filling in cracks and crevices of each building increases the performance of the
building by reducing exterior air infiltration into the conditioned spaces of the building.
FIM SAVINGS VALIDATION
Annual utility savings as a result of these upgrades were achieved by:
• Sealing all exterior wall and roof penetrations to prevent air infiltration.
• Sealing exterior door sweeps and replacing weather stripping around doors.
• Caulking around window frames to ensure no air Now through cracks.
• Replacing deteriorated weather stripping around operable windows.
Sealing roof/wall Intersections to keep warm air from escaping during the winter.
Predicted Energy Savings Actual Energy Savings
Predicted
11,259 Therms 16,035 Therms
$8,625 $12,481
18,301 kWh 20,161 kWh
$1,640 $1,831
154 CCF 0 CCF
$813 $0
Excess Savings
$3,234
The following figure depicts the actual data from a building pressurization test at the Braemar Maintenance
Building.
Please see Appendix C for Additional Supporting Information.
CITY OF EVINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
(211-9-5v5
22
3. Facility Improvement Measures
Solar Photovoltaic Installation
FIM DESCRIPTION
McKinstry installed a 25 kW roof -mounted photovoltaic system on the City Hall Building. This renewable power
generation system offsets electricity consumed in the City Hall building and provides the City with clean,
renewable power.
FIM SAVINGS VALIDATION
Annual utility savings as a result of these upgrades were achieved by:
• Installing a 25 kW solar photovoltaic array system on the roof of the City Hall building.
Predicted Utility Savings Actual Utility Savings Predicted $$ Actual $$
18,478 kWh
Unrealized Savings
1
The following graphs depict the solar panel production and the solar insolation available for harvesting. At the
completion of this report, insolation data for July and August were not available. The City has the capability of
trending solar insolation with the weather station Installed within the McKinstry project. More information
detailing how the panels should perform can be collected If the City wishes for future M&V.
CIN OF EDINA I YEAR I M&V REPORT
6
GO.H.-V
23
3. Facility Improvement Measures
Solar Photovoltaic Installation - Continued
Installed solar panels on the City Hall roof shown with mirror reflectors
Please see Appendix D for Additional Supporting Information.
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
7
MM
24
3. Facility Improvement Measures
Water Conservation
FIM DESCRIPTION
McKinstry upgraded the plumbing fixtures in buildings throughout the City. These new, more efficient fixtures
use less water by incorporating screens and aerators to slow the water flow down while maintaining adequate
flow for general purposes. By Implementing these new more efficient fixtures, the City of Edina Is saving water
as well as natural gas used to heat the water.
FIM SAVINGS VALIDATION
Annual utility savings as a result of these upgrades were achieved by:
• Conducting a diaphragm calibration or X -Body replacement of flushometers for urinals and
toilets.
• Installing Vandal -Resistant flow control faucet heads throughout City facilities.
• Installing low flow wall and handheld shower units throughout City facilities.
Predicted Utility Savings Actual Utility Savings
726 Therms 1,322 Therms
Predicted $$ Actual $$
$629 $1,130
180 CCF 487 CCF
$1,731 $2,114
Excess Savings
$884
The following graphs depict the actual pre and post -flow measurements on specific fixture types.
Please see Appendix E for Additional Supporting Information.
CITY CF EDINA I YEAR I M&V REPORT
8
QTV
25
4. Conclusions & Recommendations
McKinstry recommends utilizing all systems as commissioned to maintain savings obligations. Further savings
can be achieved by ensuring the light fixtures in unoccupied spaces are kept off, water usage is kept to
minimal necessary levels, and space temperatures and schedules are adjusted for the typical occupancy
patterns throughout the year.
The following chart depicts the utility rates used to determine dollar savings from the calculated energy
savings. The rates are taken directly from the Performance Contract signed between McKinstry and the City
of Edina.
City Hall
$0.07
$0.77
$4.
Braemar Arena
$0.09
$0.63
$4.
Art Center
$0.10
$0.82
$4.
Fire Station 1
$0.07
$0.79
$4.
Fire Station 2
$0.09
$0.89
$4.
Braemar Golf Course
$0.09
$0.91
$4.
Fred Richards Executive GC
$0.11
$0.92
$4.
Public Works
$0.10
$0.85
$4.
Edina Liquor 1 - 50th St.
$0.08
$1.03
$4.
Edina Liauor 2 - Vernon
$0.08
$0.94
$4.
CIT/ OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
9
a.m.
26
5. Appendices
Appendix A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The following chart shows the pre and post project energy consumption and CO2 production from the
website below.
CO2 from kWh CO2 from Themes Tote
Pre Project 3,876 1,154 5,030
Post Protect 3,584 1,069 4,653
kWh Therms kBTt
Pre Project 5,617,730 230,792 42, 247, 692
Post Proiect 5,194,903 213,745 39,100,273
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
The following table shows the total Number of Each Equivalent based on savings from the energy source:
79
61
18
Number of Passenger Vehicles
42,310
32,758
9,552
Gallons of Gasoline
878
680
198
Barrels of Oil
5
4
1
Tanker Trucks
57
44
13
Electricity from Number of Homes
19
15
4
Energy from Homes
9,677
7,492
2,185
Trees Grown for 10 Years
310
240
70
Number of Acres of Pine or Fir Forest
3
2
1
Acres of Trees Saved
15,725
12,175
3,550
Propane Cylinders
2
1
0
Railcars' Worth of Coal
141
109
32
Tons of Waste Recycled Rather than Landfilled
377
292
85
Metric Tons
CITY OF EDINA I M&V REPORT
QTV 10
27
5. Appendices
Appendix B
INTERIOR LIGHTING UPGRADES
The following table depicts the savings associated with interior lighting installed throughout the City.
The following table depicts the actual pre and post measurement data at several of the retrofitted
buildings.
City Hall
34,885
13,243
21,642
$1,515
Braemar Arena
545,749
300,994
244,755
$22,028
Art Center
47,054
23,243
23,811
$2,381
Fire Station 1
43,718
33,829
9,889
$692
Fire Station 2
8,581
5,576
3,005
$270
Braemar Clubhouse
62,069
27,629
34,440
$3,100
Braemar Maintenance
19,855
6,524
13,331
$1,200
Fred Richards Clubhouse
6,401
2,885
3,516
$387
Edina Liquor Vernon
35,540
22,738
12,802
$1,024
Edina Liquor 50th 1
31,741 1
14,744 1
16,9971
$1,360
Total
835,593 451,405 384,188 33,957
The following table depicts the actual pre and post measurement data at several of the retrofitted
buildings.
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
Q.W11
aw.
1L 75W INT
75
16
78.4%
Art Center
4L 32W WIX4
110
96
12.7%
2L 34W WIX4
78
43
44.6%
1L 60W INC
60
20
66.7%
Fire Station 1
2L 32W 4'T8
58
52
10.3%
3L BL 32W 4' T8
85
73
14.1%
4L 32W 4'T8
110
85
23.1%
3L 32W INDUSTRIAL
85
55
34.9%
Fred Richards
3L LT2X4 32W
85
78
8.2%
3L 60W INCAN
180
39
78.3%
2L SM2X2 U 34W
78
31
60.0%
2L PT1X4 34W TW
78
20
74.4%
2L SM2X2U 34W
78
32
59.0%
4L SM2X4 34W
156
54
65.4%
Braemar Clubhouse
2L SS8 60W
129
57
55.6%
2L SS8 40W
88
27
69.9%
4L W1X4 34W
156
56
64.1%
4L W1X4 34W
156
56
64.1%
2L INDUS I WAL 60W
129
59
54.3%
Maintenance Shop
2L 8' INDUSTRIAL 95W
209
134
35.8%
2L W1X4 34W
78
60
23.1%
1L MHHB 1000W
1,080
456
57.8%
Arena
3L LT2X4 32W
86
66
23.8%
2L WIX4 32W
58
44
23.6%
4L WIX4 32W 1
110 1
91 1
17.3%
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
Q.W11
aw.
5. Appendices
Appendix C
BUILDING ENVELOPE
The following table depicts the savings associated with Building Envelope Improvements at the city.
The following calculation depicts the pre and post Effective Leakage Area that was sealed by implementing
building envelope improvements at the Braemar Maintenance Building.
ObtainMg Effective
Leakage
Area (ELAI
rho- 1.2
kg/m^3
ELA a Qf / ((2Pf/rho)^.5)
Constant
Qf . Blower Door Test Forced Air Flow Rate
Leakaae
Ira ELA
o 10.76
Past ILA
0.36
0.08 0.908
ft^2
0.279
Pressure
flow Rate
Pressure
Flow Rate
Reference Pressure
(Pa)
(CFM)
Flow in m^3/s
ELA
ELA
(Pa)
(CFM)
Flow in m^3/s
ELA
10
Q
't•
3.0
0.367
0.338
' . :
>:%1
2.6
0.29
Power Law
-
3.0
0.376
0.348
r7
'i =
2.6
0.29
0.557
3.0
0.366
0.337
-
2.6
0.29
4 i
2.8
0.371
0.34619°
2.3
0.29
i5 =
2.8
0.364
0.339
2.3
0.29
�>
2.8
0.361
0.336
d :
=1='-
2.3
0.29
2.6
0.367
0.345
t
2.1
0.28
2.6
0.376
0.355
;O.-
2.1
0.28
2.6
0.368
0.346
1�`".<-=
2.1
0.29
2.3
0.355
0.337
'��
:a:
2.1
0.29
2.3
0.361
0.343
,r '
1.9
0.28
+
2.3
0.373
0.355
a,, 'n
1.9
0.28
1.8
0.342
0.333
-
"r
1.9
0.28
5 -
1.7
0.341
0.332
t
t
1.6
0.27
1.8
0.36
0.352
t°°.-
1.6
0.27
1.6
0.27
r1
1.2
0.25
1.2
0.25
1.2
0.25
CITY OF EDINA I M&V REPORT
012
29
5. Appendices
Appendix D
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATION
The following table depicts the savings associated with the solar photovoltaic system installation at the
Edina City Hail.
January
13,487
2,488
18.4%
9,900
1,050
10.6%
February
14,996
2,672
17.8%
10,083
778
7.7%
March
17,558
3,030
17.3%
16,158
11548
9.6%
April
16,889
2,743
16.2%
14,263
1,501
10.5%
May
20,496
3,199
15.6%
12,778
1,682
13.2%
June
20,452
3,111
15.2%
14,354
1,921
13.4%
July
21,027
3,196
15.2%
N/A
2,754
N/A
August
20,071
3,060
15.2
N/A
2,556
N/A
September
17,848
2,806
15.7/
18,408
1,951
10.6%
October
15,116
2,466
16.3%
10,174
1,079
10.6%
November
10,037
1,686
16.8%
9,535
1,011
10.6%
December
9,9831
1,791
17.9/
8,553
647 1
7.6%
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
so 13
(I M *W
01
5. Appendices
Appendix E
WATER CONSERVATION
The following tables depict the actual measured flows through the identified Fixtures, the estimated flows
through the same fixtures, and the percent of savings based on estimated and actual information.
CITY GF EDINA f YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
014
MMI
City Hall
HI Use
Crane
Reverse Tra
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.4
1.5
0.9
City Han
M use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6 9pf
1.6 qpf
1.7
1.6
2.0
1.6
0.4
city Han
low Use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6 Qpf
1.6 qpf
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.6
0.4
city iO11
M Use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6 gpf
1.6 gpf
2.1
1.6
2.4
1.7
0.7
City Hall
M Use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6 gpr
1.6 gpf
1.7
1.6
2.5
2.0
O.S
City Han
General Use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6
1.6 gpr
2.0
1.6
2.2
1.8
0.4
City Hall
General Use
Crane
Reverse Trap
1.6 wr
1.6 qpf
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
0.1
City Hall
M Use
Crane
Reverse Trap1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.7
0.4
Talk[ Flow
Braemar Arena
Hi Use
Kohler
Siphon let
1.6 W
1.6 Qpf
2.3
1.6
3.4
2.S
0.9
Braemar Arena
M Use
Am 500
Reverse Trap
3.5 gpf or More
3.5 go or More
2.7
2.4
2.4
1.9
0.5
Braemar Arena
M use
Am Std
Reverse Trap
3.5 gpf or More
3.5 gpf or More
2.5
2.4
3.6
2.4
1.1
Braemar Goll Course
M Use
Am Std
Siphon Jet
3.5 qpf or More
3.5 gpf or More
3.0
2.6
3.4
3.1
0.3
Braemar Golf Course
M Use
Am Std
S' n Jet
3.5 Qpf of More
3.5 gpf or More
3.0
A
4.5
3.0
1.6
EdMa Art Center
M use
Am Std
Siphon let
1.6 qpf Tank Tollet 1.6 qpf Tank Tog at
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.9
0.1
Edina Art Center
General Use
Am 500
Siphon Jet
1.6 Tank Toile
1.6 Tank ToiNt
4.3
3.0
5.2
4.0
1.2
Braemar Golf Course
Staff Use
Am Std
Siphon Jet
3.5 gof or More
3.5 f or More
2.5
2.6
4.2
3.9
0.3
City Han
M use
Crane
Siphon let Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
0.6K0.6
l.L
0.6
0.5
C Han
M Use
Crane
SI hon let Urinal
1.0 Urinal
l.0 pf Urinal0.6
0.8
0.70.1
Fre Station 1
M Use
A
SI hon let Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.4
Fre Station 1
General Use
A
SI hon let Urmai
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
0.9
1.2
1.7
-0.5Fre
Ihinel Fklw
Station 2
HI Use
Am Sto
Si hon Jet Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.5
1.6
0.6
1.0
Braemar Arena
General Use
Kohler
51 hon let Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
t.1
0.5
0.6
-0.2
9raemarrenaGeneral
Use
Kohler
S n let Urinal
1.0 Urinal
1.0 Urinal
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.0
Braemar Golf Coursel
HI Use
Kohler
I Siphon let Urmall
1.0 opf Urinal
1.0 gpf Urinal
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.2
CITY GF EDINA f YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
014
MMI
31
5. Appendices
Appendix E -Continued
WATER CONSERVATION
Sink Flow
City Hall
lav Sink
2.2
0.5
10/26/11
AO -0
2.1
10/26/11
Actual
0.5
1.6
City bell Ilav Sink 1.9 0.5 10/26/11 1.9 10/26/11 0.5
1.4
jUse
CM Hall LGeneral Use Sink 2.3 1.5 10/26/11 2.1 10/26/11 1.4
0.7
CI Hall LLav Sink 2.0 0.5 10/26/11 2.1 10/26/11 0.5
1.6
Ci Hall Lav Sink 2.1 0.5 10/26/11 2.1 10/26/11 0.5
1.6
Ci Hall Hlav Sink 2.3 0.5 10/26/11 2.0 10/26/11 0.5
1.5
City Hall General Use General Use Sink 2.1 1.0 10/26/11 2.1 10/26/11 0.5
1.6
City Hall General Use General Use Sink 2.3 1.5 10/26/11 2.0 10/26/11 1.4
0.6
Fire Station 1 HI Use Multipurpose Lav Sink 1.7 1.0 10/27/11 2.0 10/27/11 0.8
1.1
Fire Station 1 HI Use Multipurpose Lav Sink 1.7 1.0 10/27/11 2.0 10/27/11 0.8
1.2
Fire Station 1 H1 Use Multipurpose Lav Sink 1.7 1.0 10/27/11 1.9 10/27/11 0.8
1.1
Fire Station 1 HI Use Multipurpose lav Sink 1.7 1.0 10/27/11 2.0 10/27/11 0.9
1.1
Fire Station L General Use General Use Sink 1.9 1.5 10/27/11 2.1 10/27/11 1.6
0.5
Fire Station i General Use General Use Sink 2.0 1.5 10/27/11 1.8 10/27/11 1.4
0.4
Fire Station 1 General Use General Use Sink 2.2 1.5 10/27/11 1.8 10/27/11 1.5
0.3
Fire Station 1 General Use Lav Sink 1.7 0.5 10/27/11 1.9 10/27/11 0.5
1.4
Fire Station 1 General Use Lav Sink 1.7 0.5 10/27/11 1.9 10/27/11 0.5
1.4
Fire Station 1 General Use Lav Sink 1.8 0.5 10/27/11 1.9 10/27/11 0.5
1.5
Fire Station 1 General Use Lav Sink 1.8 0.5 10/27/11 1.9 10/27/11 0.5
1.4
Fire Station 2 Hi Use Mulhpurpose Lav Sink 2.3 1.0 10/27/11 2.7 10/27/1,11 0.9
1.8
Fire Station 2 General Use General Use Sink 2.4 1.5 10/27/11 2.6 10/27/11 1.5
1.1
Braemar Golf Course Staff Use Lav Sink 1.9 0.5 10/31/11 1.9 10/31/11 0.5
1.5
Braemar Golf Course Staff Use Lav Sink 2.3 0.5 10/31/11 1.8 10/31/11 0.5
1.3
Public Works General Use General Use Sink 3.0 L.5 10/31/11 2.0 10/31/11 1.3
0.6
Shower Flow
city Hail
Low Use
Wall Showers
1.88
1.80
10/26/11
1.6
10/26/11
1.4
0.2
city Hall HI Use Wall Showers 1.88 1.80 10/26/11 2.1 10/26/11 0.7
1.4
Fire station #2 HI Use Handheld Showers 2.75 1 1.80 10/27/11 2.9 10/27/111 1.7
1.2
Fire station #2 HI Use Handheld Showers 3.00 1.80 10/27/11 3.7 10/27/11 1.9
1.8
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 1.75 1.80 10/27/11 1.4 10/27/11 1.0
0.4
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 1.75 1.80 10/27/11 1.4 10/27/11 1.1
0.3
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 1.75 1.80 10/27/11 1.5 10/27/11 1.3
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 1.75 1.80 10/27/11 1.5 10/27/11 1.3
0.2
0.3
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 2.00 1.80 10/27/11 1.3 10/27/11 1.1
0.3
Braemar Arena General Use Wall Showers 1 2.00 1 1.80 10/27/11 1.5 10/27/111 1.2 1
.3
Braemar Arena General Use Wail Showers 2.00 1.80 10/27/11 1.4 10/27/11 1.2
0.2
Braemar Arena General Use Wali Showers 1.50 1.80 10/27/11 1.5 10/27/11 1.5
0.0
Publk Works General Use Handheld Showers2.13 1 1.80 10/31/11 1.7 10/31/111 1.6
0.2
Public Works General Use Handheld Showers 2.00 1 1.80 10/31/11 1.7 1.0/31/111 1.4
0.3
CITY OF EDINA I YEAR 1 M&V REPORT
15
we.
{ e 1
32
October 21, 2013 OCT 2 3 2013
Y Of
Ross Bintner, Liaison ►�'
Edina Energy & Environment Commission �--
7450 Metro Boulevard
Edina, MN 55439
Dear Ross:
On behalf of the City of t?dina. Edina I listorical Society and the Quasquicentennial Committee. I
am writing to invite you and your Commission to join us on Thursda, December 12, 2013 at
Edina City I fall to celebrate Founders Day. Founders Day is the 125" anniversary of the vote in
1888 to form the Village of Edina and will mark the end of festivities that included an historic
house tour, EdinaScapes art show, a history -themed July 4"' parade. and neighborhood and school
reunions.
We would be delighted to have you join us for a frill evening ofevents but specifically hope that
you can attend the Founders Day program from 7 to 8 p.m. Historical Society Executive Director
Marci Matson promises "125 years of Edina history in 45 minutes." The program will include
introductions of founding family descendents and public officials interspersed with short
vignettes from historic letters, diaries and public records and songs performed by the Edina
Chorale.
You also are welcome to join us earlier in the evening. Founders Day events will begin at 5 p.m.
with open houses at the historic Cahill School and Grange [fall, on Eden Avenue across from
Edina City I fall. At 6 p.m., festivities will move to Edina City Hall with a social hour and music
by the Edina Choraic. Throughout the evening, the City Hall lobby will feature a display of
historic photographs and a timeline created by Edina's Human Rights & Relations Commission
of Edina's human rights milestones.
At the end of the evening, the City of Edina will host a reception at City Flail with cake and other
refreshments.
We hope you and your Commission are able to join the celebration on Founders Day. Please let
me know if you have any questions,
Sincerely Yours,
;I ni Bennett
Edina City Council Member
4003 Lynn Avenue
Edina MN 55416
jonibennett 12gcomcastmet
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street . Edina, Minnesota 55424
www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-927-8861 • Fax 952-826-0390
33
September 20, 2013
The Honorable James B. Hovland
4801 W 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Hovland,
As chair of the newly launched national Resilient Communities for America campaign
(ResilientAmerica.org), I'm writing to invite you to join me and an elite group of mayors and
other local elected officials for an opportunity to demonstrate your leadership in response to
America's extreme weather, climate, energy, and economic challenges.
Resilient Communities for America is a critical and innovative initiative led by mayors and
other local elected officials who are building resilience through infrastructure renewal, clean
energy, and preparedness initiatives while strengthening our local economies and improving
the health of our communities. Central to the campaign is the Resilient Communities for
America. Agreement, a sign -on letter in which local leaders make a commitment to action on
resilience.
We launched the initiative just a few short months ago and already have more than 80 cities
and other local governments on board including the mayors of Cincinnati, OH; Kansas City,
MO; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; and county supervisors from Arlington County, VA and
Broward County, FL. Resilient Communities for America gives shape to an emerging
movement and provides a platform for local officials to speak with one voice on the need for
better -prepared communities, the leadership of local governments, and the need for
collaboration with state and federal agencies and with the private sector.
The broad-based campaign is led by four outstanding non-profit organizations ICLEI USA,
United States Green Building Council, the National League of Cities and World Wildlife
Fund. These organizations and other partners are providing valuable tools and resources to
signatory communities, including opportunities for signatories to connect with the White
House, FEMA and other federal agencies on particular local needs, and free capacity -building
tools for local government staff.
Over the past two years extreme weather events have threatened our cities and our nation like
never before — they have taken hundreds of lives and cost us an estimated $188 billion in 2012
alone. Meanwhile many of our cities have aging and vulnerable infrastructure, reliance on
unsustainable energy supplies and a deep need for creating good paying sustainable jobs that
cannot be outsourced. I know you agree that we cannot ignore these interrelated threats to the
vitality of our cities. In fact, we must redouble our efforts to create more resilient
I C L E I NATIONAL 016
Local
LEAGUE `
Governments ,USA o
for Sustainability of CITIES Q" WWF
34
communities that are able to bounce back from disruptions and sustain a good quality of life
for all.
While the White House, federal agencies, and Congressional leaders have all recognized the
importance of building resilience, we know that the work and leadership must come from the
local level. You and other leaders around the country are taking proven actions to prepare for
extreme weather events and the repercussions from a changing climate; to rebuild outdated
community infrastructure; and to attract investment and create jobs by building safer and
more sustainable places. That's resilience in action. The solutions are here today, and we must
not let the opportunities slip away or go unnoticed.
I hope you will join me as a signatory of the Resilient Communities for America Agreement.
We will be announcing our latest signatories this fall at the National League of Cities meeting
in Seattle and I hope we can include you in the announcement. To participate, simply sign the
attached Agreement letter, scan and email it to Patrice.parsons@iclei.org, or sign online at
www. resitientamerica. org/sign-the-e-agreement-here/
More information can be found on the campaign website, and ICLEI USA's Outreach
Director Patrice "Pete" Parsons would be happy to speak with you or an appropriate staff
member to answer any questions you may have. Pete can be reached directly at 210-722-
7270.
Thank you very much for your leadership and for your consideration of this opportunity.
Mayor
Sacramento, California
I C L E I NATIONAL I
I Local LEAGUE
L for Sustainability ts ``' of CITI ES °
WWF
35
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
March 2013 — February 2014 Term SUMMARY AND DRAFT SCHEDULE
Item
Workplan
WP1
City building energy project
May preview of staff proposal, discussion of State GESP
alternative
WP2
Energy efficiency community outreach
March vote for Earth Day proclamation, review of CEE - HES
enhanced service; April 18 event; May preview of staff
proposal, film show idea; June vote to recommend CEE-HES
enhanced service for 2014 budget.
WP3
Promote EEEP,
May preview of staff proposal
WP3b
review residential PACE
May vote not to pursue
WK
Integrate comp plan Ch 10 into city operations
March review of staff summary of City environmental goals,
June vote to use "living streets framework" approach to
implement. September council advisory / New facilities GHG
emissions.
WP5
Surface water quality policy
WP6
Update solid waste license ordinance,
April vote not to recommend, update only.
WP6b
Provide commercial recycling
June vote to present task force recommendations as
recommendation
information only.
WP7
Greenstep reporting
February review of 2012 greenstep actions
WP8
Purchasing policy
WP9
Urban Forestry
April vote to recommend proposal with minor amendments.
CC
Research MPLS group request to support
May vote to recommend deferring to council due to lack of
add 1
franchise agreement legislation
expertise, suggest attorney review.
March 14, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: WP2 Outreach around April 18 Edina Forum
Presentations: City of Edina Communications Staff
April 11, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: Solid Waste WP6, WP9 Recommendations for residential soil waste ordinance and commercial recycling,
review goals and methods, and education and outreach report. Urban Forest Task Force Report
Presentations: Dianne Plunkett Latham
May 9, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: Energy WP1, WP2, WP3 Results and decisions around contract methods, planning, scope and budget for
building energy.
Presentations: CEE, Staff
June 13, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: Complete Streets and Prepare for CC Worksession, WP1-3 Energy, WP9 UFTF, WP6 Solid Waste and
Recycling.
Presentations: Wayne Houle / Jennifer Janovy
June 18, 2013 JOINT EEC / CC Workshop
36
July 11, 2013 Meeting
Prior to regular meeting:
SWPPP Annual Report
54t" Street Stakeholder Engagement
Item of focus: WP1 GESP/Performance Contracting/Building Re -commissioning, WP2 Review EEEP program
implementation, education and outreach coordination
Presentations: WP1 CEE, State DoC/Energy, City facilities manager WP2 Environmental Engineer
August 8, 2013 Meeting
City Infrastructure Tour— Lift Station 6, Water Treatment Plant 6, 41VIG reservoir, Bridge, Pond
September 12, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: Create 2014 Workplan (Due September 23 to Karen Kurt)
October 10, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: Sustainability in City Operations WP4 and WP8 purchasing policy.
Presentations: WP8 Scott Neal, WP4 St.
November 14, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: WP1 Building Energy
Presentations: Ann Kattreh, Tim Barnes, Ross Bintner
December 12, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus: WP7 Prepare and review annual reports, awards, recognition.
Presentations: Scott Neal — Purchasing Policy Implementation Report
January 9, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: Televised: Annual Reports
Presentations:
February 13, 2013 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
Need Time and Date:
Presentations: Sarah Zarrin — Business Recycling
Presentations: Ken Bradley —Community Solar
37
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
March 2014 — February 2015 Term SUMMARY AND DRAFT SCHEDULE
Choose Month/Date for 2014 JOINT EEC / CC Workshop
March 13, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: WP2 Outreach around April 18 Edina Forum
Presentations: City of Edina Communications Staff
April 10, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
May 8, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Surface Water Policy
Presentations:
June 12, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
July 10, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
August 14, 2014 Meeting
City Infrastructure Tour— Fred Richards, Golf Dome, More?
September 11, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: Create 2014 Workplan (Due September ?? to Karen Kurt)
October 9, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
November 13, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
WorkplanItem
WPI
City building energy project
WP2
Environmental purchasing policy
WP3
Energy efficiency community outreach
WP4
Integrate comprehensive plan chapter 10 into
city operations.
WP5
I Business recycling task force
WP6
I Local food
Choose Month/Date for 2014 JOINT EEC / CC Workshop
March 13, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: WP2 Outreach around April 18 Edina Forum
Presentations: City of Edina Communications Staff
April 10, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
May 8, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Surface Water Policy
Presentations:
June 12, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
July 10, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
August 14, 2014 Meeting
City Infrastructure Tour— Fred Richards, Golf Dome, More?
September 11, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: Create 2014 Workplan (Due September ?? to Karen Kurt)
October 9, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
November 13, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
W
December 11, 2014 Meeting
Item of focus: WP7 Prepare and review annual reports, awards, recognition.
Presentations:
January 8, 2015 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
February 12, 2015 Meeting
Item of focus:
Presentations:
Staff Suggested Topics
Three Rivers regional trail project and Nine Mile Creek stream stabilization projects
The future public uses for Fred Richards golf course
Urban ecology, nutrient flows and clean surface waters.
Local energy conservation strategies
Regional energy systems
Urban soils, contamination, site development and wellhead protection.
Consumer goods, materials and waste.
Growth of personal device energy use.
FEASIBILITY STUDY - BA -416
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
54TH STREET ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
OCTOBER 21, 2013
SUMMARY: The decision-making framework used to
improvements presented in this report is
Engagement Process and Envision Sust
System summarized in this report and de
improvements address many of the'issu6
stakeholders while still balancing and ma
State and City engineering requirements.
The project includes ad
lanes, a sidewalk on 0
bridge and decorative h
removing and replacing
reconstructing the bitun
subgrade lolls = It,also it
Aid requirerh00ts and c4
sewer system as neede
installed to connect exis
39
at the recommended
by the pilot Stakeholder
Infrastructure Rating
in the Appendix. Proposed
concerns raised by
rareauired minimum
Ig"Jo 54" Street shared vehicle'and bicycle
Orth side of 54th Street with lighting and a new
ng at Minnehaha Creek. The project involves
eXisting concrete curb and gutter and
Dus pavement and a portion of the poor
ides in storm sewer that meets State
iecting a,sump pump drain pipe to the storm
In addition, a'trunk water main pipe will be
g'City water pipe systems on either side of
: cost is,$X XXX,O.00;. Funding for the entire
iination of special assessments and State Aid
estimated roadway construction cost, including
ghting is $j( A0_0 and will be 80 percent
the remainder will be funded by special
XXXXX per REU. Utility improvements and
repairs amount to ,$X,XXX,000 and will be funded through their respective
utility fund.
The project'can be completed during the 2014 construction season. Staff
'believes the project is necessary, cost effective and feasible to improve
toe infrastructure as initiated by the vision of Edina's Vision 20/20 —
"Livable Environment" and "A Sound Public Infrastructure".
LOCATION: The project includes 541h Street between the Wooddale Avenue right -of -
'way (ROW) to the west and the France Avenue ROW to the east for a
total distance of approximately 2,640 feet (Figure 1).
Page 1 of 23
40
INITIATION & ISSUES: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the
City's Municipal State Aid. Street reconstruction program and identified in
the Capital Improvement Program. As part of this project the City
collaborated with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to
address`cr6ek issues and needs and develop a separate comprehensive
water resource management plan for the Arden Park Area. This feasibility
study addresses updating 'aging infrastructure issues associated with the
pavement condition, a structurally deficient bridge, and stormwater
collection and conveyance within the project corridor.
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of
Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, Comprehensive Bicycle
Transportation Plan, the Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Plate, the Living Streets Policy and Envision'"' Sustainability Evaluation.
City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Sidewalk Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalks facilities
within the City. As shown in Figure 7.10 of Appendix F, a sidewalk is
proposed along 54'" Street between Wooddale Avenue and France
Avenue.
Bicycle Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed bicycle facilities
within the City as part of the Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Page 2 of 23
41
Figure 7.11 of Appendix F identifies 54th Street as a secondary bicycle
route between Wooddale Avenue and France Avenue.
City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
The project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan indicates no
storm water issues within the street right of way.
Living Streets Policy and EnvisionT"" Sustilhabilliltv Evaluation
The vision statement of the Living Streetsolicy, attached in Appendix K,
expresses the need to look at projects; differently in the future:
Living Streets balance the needs pf 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.
Although the Living Streets Plan ,-has not been developed, staff has
included elements that pertain to collector streets such as 54th Street in
the rehabilitation of the infrastructure and replacement of the road.
For the very first time, , taff used : -a sustainability scoring system for this
project calledENVISIONTM .to help measure what effect project decisions
and recommendations have ;,:on sustainability. ENVISIONTM was
developed in joint,, collaboration between the Zofnass Program for
Sustainable Infrastructure. at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and
the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure'.
ENVISIONlh was created to support transformational, collaborative
approaches that.promote sustainable infrastructure development using a
.comprehensive, triple bottom line approach toward decision-making. It is
intended to foster a, 'necessary and dramatic improvement in the
performance and resiliency of physical infrastructure across the full
economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
The rating 's, ystem includes a total of 60 credits organized into five
'categories: '-
i
Quality of Life: Goal is to improve the project's impact on the
surrounding community
• Leadership: Goal is to strengthen collaboration, stakeholder
involvement, and long-term planning considerations
• Resource Allocation: Goal is to wisely manage materials, energy,
and water resources used for project
• Natural World: Goal is to understand and minimize negative
environmental impacts of project
' The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure is a not for profit education and research organization
founded by the American Public Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
American Council of Engineering Companies
Page 3 of 23
42
Climate and Risk: Goal is to minimize emissions and design for
resilience - in both the short-term and long-term
Within each credit, points are earned based on revel of achievement
obtained from "improved" to *enhanced" to "superior" to "conserving" to
"restorative."
The project was evaluated based on a set of 52 ENVISIONT"A credits that
were determined to be most relevant to this project and the Arden Park
Stormwater Management Plan.
The ENVISION''" evaluation was conducted at three stages during the
planning process. During the first "stage, the project team identified
ENVISIONTM credits deemed most relevant to the critical issues identified
through stakeholder engagement including intercept surveys and door
knocking.
During the second stage the project team used ENVISIONT14 to evaluate
the alternative desigh scenarios for each of the three .project sections
(West End, Middle Section, and East End). Results of this evaluation
were presented at the September 30;' final scenario workshop and are
summarized in Appendix L.
Finally, ENVISIONTm was used by the project team to evaluate the
preferred design alternative that is being presented as part of this study.
Overall project., scoring is shown in Figure 2 and detailed results of this
evaluation are summarized In Appendix L.
Overall Scaring
200 -----
180 - - -
160
140
120
100
80
so
"I NATURAL WORLD
KI RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
P LEADERSHIP
40
20 — + QUALITY OF LIFE
0
Total Points
Figure 2 -Overall Project Scoring Using Envision-rm
Page 4 of 23
43
Overall, the preferred alternative scored 176 points out of a possible ;500
points. The scores will increase substantially as the project moves from
the feasibility phase to the detailed design and construction phases. At
this stage of the project there was no basis to assign points to a large
number of the credits available because decisions related to those credits
have not yet been made.
The preferred design scored highest in terms of Quality of Life (85 points),
Leadership (44 points), and Climate and Risk (27 points). It achieved
fewer points for Natural World (11 points) 4hd Resource Allocation (9
points).
In terms of Quality of Life, the preferred design scored well because it
improves quality of life for the,�heighborhood, encourages alternative
modes of transportation, im proves `` site accessibility, safety, and way
finding, and enhances public spaces.
For Leadership, the pSoject scored well because of the City and project
team's effective leadership and commitment to the project, a robust
stakeholder involvement process, a id.efforts to improve infrastructure
integration (such as Iinking,the,Arden Park and 54th Street reconstruction
project planning).
In the Climate and Risk category, the project scored moderately well, -
reflecting the fact that the design (in,particular raising the bridge) helps
the community prepare for long-term adaptability and short-term hazards
associated with,changing climate conditions. Minimizing pavement use
also helps manage beet island effects.
For the Natural World criteria, the project scored very low because at this
stage of the project it isnot possible to score several of the credits. The
project team and City are addressing a number of these credits,
especially those related.`to"the creek, and as the project moves forward
there will be an opportunity to capture points associated with factors such
as: .protecting surface water, preserving floodplain functions, and
preventing surface water contamination.
In;terms of Resource Allocation, the project scored very low because at
`this stage: there is no formal commitment or design that will support
sustainable procurement, use regional materials, divert waste from
landfills, reduce excavated materials taken off site, or other related
factors. Addressing this category of credits in the next phase of the
project will significantly increase scoring.
Staff Issues
The following existing issues and/or features, some generated by
stakeholders, are addressed in this study:
• Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety
• Minnehaha Creek access/safety
• Recreational use at Minnehaha Creek as it relates to 54th Street
• Parking capacity
• Poor condition of existing pavement surface
Page 5 of 23
44
• Storm water quality and drainage
• Existing landscaping, retaining walls and driveways
• Existing mature trees
Summary Stakeholder Engagement Process and Outcomes
This robust, collaborative, and transparent engagement served as a
pilot/model for the City. Below is a summary of both the process and
outcomes.
Technical and Engagement Parameters (June 13, 2013): The City and
consulting team jointly determined the key engagement issues and
"promise" to the public, agreed on core'engagement values, identified and
analyzed the project's key stakeholders, and determined the project's
technical and engagement parameters. The resulting Stakeholder
Engagement Plan drove all engagement activities and communications.
The technical parameters framed the project within the context of City
policies, plans, and regulations including sidewalks, bike facilities, and
special assessments; Watershed policies and plans, and the partnership
with the City to help address Minnehaha Creek's iMpalred waterway
status; and MnDOT State,Aid requirements for this roadway.
Input on Needs and Issues (late June -late July 2013): Over 450
stakeholders offered issues and needs for both projects through
doorknockirig, Intercept surveys, online surveys, and small group
sessions in response to questions around issues and needs on 54th
Street and thb bridge, and stormwater-related issues and needs for
Minnehaha Creek ..and Arden Park. All input was documented and
reported back to .the"conimunity, and informed the preliminary street
design components and stormwater management plan. Broad categories
of input- were aesthetics; Creek access and safety; water quality and
runoff; parking availability; road geometry and pavement conditions;
safety for pedestrians; bicyclists, vehicles, Creek users: lighting and
signage; and traffic and speeding. See detailed report in Appendix A.
Feedback on Design Components (August 2013): Based on that input,
the consulting team developed a variety of design components and
received great feedback from over 112 stakeholders attending a workshop
or completing an online survey. Participants provided either positive or
negative feedback on each design component. See detailed report in
Appendix B.
Roadway
Configurations
(sidewalks, bike
lanes, arki
Many participants
still weren't aware
of the MnDOT/City 0
roadway
requirements.
Feedback on
specific design
components varied
considerably and was often highly individualized. Stakeholders with
Page 6 of 23
45
Feasibility Study
54'" Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
children, walkers and bikers, and Arden Park and Creek users more often
provided positive feedback on the practical and safety advantages of
these requirements. There was generally positive feedback on one vs.
two sidewalks, and varied feedback on where parking was needed and
why, and the value of boulevards; there were many more concerns about
the narrower western section of the roadway. Some drivers and bicyclists
were frustrated about the "mixed messages" about bike lanes/sharrows
on the east end of the road. Some stakeholders wanted more parking for
Park and Creek, as well as church attendees. Others were concerned
about the impact on people's property -even though the City owns that
right-of-way.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety, Speeding: Original stakeholder issues
and needs prioritized pedestrian and bicyOist safety, so numerous design
components focused on those topics. Feedback continued to support
safety as a key priority. Many concerns and opinions reflected the
interconnections among effectiveness, cost, and appropriateness of
various speed reduction and pedestrian crossing safety design
components. There were concerns about flas4ing signals and
stakeholders took various positions on pedestrian crossing aesthetics, but
there was clear consensus on the need for safe crossings.
Bridge Safety and Creek Access: Feedback on the bridge designs varied,
and many participants preferred a bridge that maintains the area's
"country" feel ;and fits with the residential area. Others focused on designs
that allow Creek users sufficient headroom; many were attracted to the
possibility of a path underneath the bridge. Stakeholders posed important
questions about. Creek access and use as well, including positive
feedback on ar) updated canoe landing that is not "slickery" when wet,
and how landings or steps can double as places to play, watch, and
otherwise have fur' a60 be safe alongside the Creek.
Water., Quality,oadi Park : o in While there appeared to be
general understand ng . � and support for the need for stormwater
management, a number of the design components in this category
garnered a range of positive and negative feedback. There was a lot of
feedback on filtration design components, with generally positive feelings
about including native plants. Stakeholders generally favored maintaining
green space and
existing park uses,
and ensuring that
any new design
' cgmponents
address water
safety especially in 4
play areas.
Feedback on
Design Scenarios
(September
2013): The design
team developed
alternative
scenarios for different segments: west, middle/bridge plus Creek and
Page 7 of 23
M
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
stormwater, and east. Each of these brought together feedback on the
design components with MnDOT and City plans and policies. At the
session and subsequent online survey, c. 120 stakeholders offered
feedback. See detailed report in Appendix C.
Middle/bridge. Creek. stormwater: There was very strong support for
Scenario 1 that directly addressed stakeholder -identified safety issues at
that intersection for both crossings and vehicle/bicycle stopping, and also
maintained the rapids for recreational use. For canoe landing, bridge, and
railing designs, etc., there was solid preference for a more natural look,
but these component design choices;. merit more specific input and
feedback once the process moves for*grd.
West end: The scenarios for this narrower section of roadway generated
the most response, especially fr�olm residents on 54th Street. The concerns
were overwhelmingly focused, on' ways to avoid or minimize property
impacts from any of the options. Widespread objections to dedicated bike
lanes in Scenario 1 focused, on the property impacts of the additional 10'
of pavement; the sharrow option garnered more support. (See West+East
below.)
East end: These scenarios generated; varied responses, again with many
concerns about property ° impacts with an additional sidewalk plus
dedicated bike lanes and 'parking in various configurations. The option to
mix bike, ,lanes and sharrows caused some to worry this would confuse
drivers and bicyclists. Feedback 'generally supported one-sided parking,
with mixed feedback and ;questions about the need for extra or special
parking on the north side (See West+East below.)
•, -West+East: Most stakeholders supported a sidewalk on one side, but the
varied' opinions about.north versus south side suggest that the volume of
infomnatign may,have resulted in misunderstandings about impacts.
Some recommended,'centering the roadway to "share the pain" on both
north -and south sides, ' Many questioned the purpose and width of even
the smaller 2' curbs. Everyone preferred preserving trees. Most supported
more and better lightirig, and many specified the design must be
downward-facing/sky-friendly. Almost no one saw any value to having a
Kika roil M him e4nnc nnri enma nnfad +Kn4 mne4 hi mac nnui Kava Kika
EXISTING CONDITIONS: This segment of 54th Street is included in the City's Municipal State Aid
(MSA) roadway system.
Street
The street was originally constructed in 1954. The existing street is surfaced
with bituminous pavement. Patches, longitudinal cracking and transverse
Page 8 of 23
47
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
cracking are present throughout the street section as shown in Figures 3 and
4. The existing pavement is generally in poor condition.
Figure 3- Looking West from OaklaWn Avenue towards Kellogg Avenue
Figure 4- Looking East from Halifax Avenue to France Avenue
As part of this study, a total of four (4) soil borings were taken along 54�'
Street. The borings identified an 8 to 17 -inch thick layer of poorly graded
gravel base material beneath the pavement. Plastic sandy loam soils beneath
the street section are poor and do not provide proper structural capacity for
the existing street section.
Page 9 of 23
48
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
The average pavement condition index (PCI) for the City of Edina is 51 and
the average PCI for 54`h Street as calculated in 2009 is approximately 20.
The City of Edina recently hired a consultant to evaluate all bituminous
roadways within the City. The streets were graded based on a number of
conditions such as sagging, alligator cracking, raveling and potholes.
Streets are rated on a scale from 0 to 100; with 0 being extremely poor and
100 representing a brand new road surface. The City evaluates the PCI
values of streets to determine a proper maintenance program. Streets with a
PCI less than 45 are evaluated for total reconstruction, PCI's between 45 and
65 are evaluated for mill and overlays,, and PCI's greater than 65 are
considered for seal coats.
The pavement surface of the street "appears ;to be near the end of its useful
life while the costs to maintain and repair the road are steadily increasing.
Overlaying or seal coating the pavement is no longer feasible.
Street grades vary throughout the area from approximately 0.4 percent to 7.5
percent*.
Currently, 54th Street has two (2) distinct and different street typical sections
west and east of the bridge at Minnehaha Creek.
West Segment Typical Section
The existing street between Wooddale.Avenue and the bridge at Minnehaha
Creek is abutted by residential, properties. The street varies in width from 29 -
feet to 34 -feet with ' no parking,. concrete, curb and gutter or sidewalks on
either side. This segment includes 57foot dedicated bicycle lanes on both
sides. A three space bump -out vehicle parking area exists west of the bridge
at Minnehaha Creek
\'. .The existing street between' the bridge at Minnehaha Creek and France
`Avenue is abutted ''by residential, commercial and civic properties. The street
has an, existing width of 40 -feet with concrete curb and gutter and ;8 -foot
parking lanes on both sides. The street is striped with 5 -foot advisory bike
lanes m , both directions inside of the dedicated parking lanes. The concrete
curb, and gutter. and pavement are generally in poor condition.
Metro. Transit operates a total of seven (7) bus stops on each side of 541h
Street between and including Wooddale Avenue and France Avenue. The
existing bus stops are typically located at each intersecting street. Existing
stop signs are in-place at the Minnehaha Boulevard intersection.
>''there are nineteen (19) residential and five (5) commercial driveway
entrances along the street. Two (2) residential driveway pavements feature
decorative concrete textures and brick paver blocks along the west segment
of 54th Street. Figure 5 depicts a driveway with brick paver block edging found
in the project area.
Page 10 of 23
49
Feasibility Study
50 Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Figure 5 — 5357 Oaklawn Avenue - Paver Block Driveway and Retaining Walls
Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities
Existing sidewalk is present along the south side of 54`h Street beginning east
of the Edna Lutheran Community Church parking lot up to 4015 54" Street
for approximately 250 -feet and along the north and south side of 54th Street
beginning at 3907 54, Street up to the France Avenue ROW for
approximately 135 -feet on each side. The existing sidewalk is in satisfactory
condition.,.54 Street Is identified as a secondary bicycle route and contains
dedicated.,and advisory,lanes on the west and east segments respectively.
,ightino
Street lighting in the project area consists of standard cobra head lights
mounted on wood pales that are typically located at intersections of side
streets. The locations of the existing street lights are shown in Appendix
H.
Traffic, Parkino and Crash Data
Average daily traffic volumes ranged from 1,166 to 2,602 cars per day with
85`h percentile speed ranging from 29.8 to 30.5 mph. Traffic and crash data
are included In Appendix G.
A parking study was conducted on the east side of the project area from
Minnehaha Boulevard to France Avenue to determine existing parking
capacity and usage rates. Parking study results are shown In Appendix J.
Landscapina
Fourteen (14) private retaining walls and decorative landscaping features are
located in the ROW in the project area. Many of these landscape items are
located directly behind the edge of the street. Figure 6 shows a typical
landscaping feature found in the project's ROW.
Page 11 of 23
Feasibility Study
54"' Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Figure 6 — 5336 Brookview Avenue - Landscaping Feature
The existing geometry of the intersections at Park Place and Minnehaha
Boulevard creates large surface areas of pavement and intersection corners
with long radius curb -lines. This existing geometry allows vehicles to
comfortably maneuver through the intersection at speeds higher than typical
or desirable for conVentfonal intersections. This situation can lead to
diminished pedestrian crossing safety and requires additional city resources
during snow removal ope tions. The existing geometric configuration of the
intersections'is shown in Figure 7.
5333
EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
%Y �B
C,10 *� •� ..
54TH ST
EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER
! 4200 4113
Figure 7 — Existing Geometric Configuration at the Park Place
and Minnehaha Boulevard Intersections
Page 12 of 23
51
Feasibility Study
54'h Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Recreational Creek Use and Brida
The project area contains unique recreational opportunities at Minnehaha
Creek due to its configuration near the existing bridge and the presence of a
grade control structure. During moderate to high flow conditions, the existing
grade control structure causes the creek water to form rapids that are
enjoyed by experienced users. A photo of the existing rapids is shown in
Figure 8.
Typically, recreational users access Minnehaha Creek by parking on
Minnehaha Boulevard or on 54u' Street. Currently, there is an unmarked
creek landing area located on the eastern creek bank north of the bridge.
Based on observations and stakeholder feedback, lesser experienced users
avoid the rapids by crossing 541h Street near the bridge. Stakeholders
overwhelmingly identified these crossings as common and unsafe since no
clearly marked pedestrian crossing(s) exist(s).
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District recognizes the unique recreational
opportunities in this area, but has also identified the grade control structure
as a source of inhibiting water quality and aquatic growth upstream of the
project area.
The existing bridge at Minnehaha Creek was originally constructed in 1935
and widened to the current configuration in 1948. The structure is a single
span comprised of steel beams with a ' concrete deck that has been paved
over with bituminous as part of previous street surfacing projects. The main
span is 32 -feet long and the deck is 33,5 -feet wide including concrete curb
and gutter and a 4 -foot sidewalk on the south side. The superstructure is
supported on high concrete abutments and wingwalls. The bridge is not
eligible for 'the Natkn' al Register of Historic Places. MnDOT's Structure
Inventory Report shown in Appendix i; identifies the bridge as Structurally
Deficient with a Sufficiency* Rating of 40.2. The existing bridge railing is rated
substandard. The bridge is also load restricted and posted. A photo of the
existing bridge is shown n Figure 8.
:ek
Page 13 of 23
52
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Public Utilities
Water Main
The existinq� water main system layout is shown in Appendix D. Properties
abutting 54t Street east of Halifax Avenue are served from a 8 -inch cast iron
trunk water main pipe that was constructed in 1946. The valves are operable
and the trunk pipe is in satisfactory condition due to no record of pipe breaks.
In 2009, the City repaired two (2) water service pipe breaks at 4109 and 4113
54th Street.
All other properties abutting 54th Street are 'served by trunk water main pipes
located in north/south intersecting streets. Trunk water main pipe was never
installed along 54th Street between Halifax Avenue and Park Place to loop the
City's water system. System pressure and water quality needs are
satisfactory without this missing trunk pipe, but are,not optimal.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary seW6r<system layout is shown in Appendix D. Properties
abutting 54th Street east of Halifax Avenue are served from � a 9 -inch clay
trunk sanitary sewer pipe that was constructed in 1952. Historical records
indicate there have been no sewer; backups or blockages in the trunk or
service pipes. All .,other propertiesy abutting 54th Street are served by trunk
sanitary sewer pipes located in north/south intersecting streets.
Storm Sewer
The ,existing storm,_ sewer system layout is shown in Appendix D. The storm
sewer system is located within the legal boundary of Minnehaha Creek
Watershed. ;Resident feedback identified ice problems near the bridge during
Winter. No locations 'of 'either localized surface drainage issues or street
a flooding during heavy storm, events were identified by stakeholders.
Private Utilitles
v
Providers of privately "owned gas, electric, communications and cable
television utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are either
-overhead or buried underground both within and outside the street ROW.
The'.decision-making framework used to arrive at the recommended
improvements presented in this report is driven by the pilot Stakeholder
Engagement Process and Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System
summarized previously and detailed in the Appendix. Proposed
':improvements address many of the issues and concerns raised by
stakeholders while still balancing and maintaining required minimum State
and City engineering standards.
The project includes adding to 54th Street shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, a
sidewalk on the north side of 54th Street with lighting and a new bridge and
railing at Minnehaha Creek. The project involves removing and replacing all
existing concrete curb and gutter and reconstructing the bituminous
pavement and a portion of the poor subgrade soils. The project also involves
installation of storm sewer that meets State Aid standards and connecting
Page 14 of 23
53
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -418
October 21, 2013
sump pump drain pipe to the storm sewer system as needed. The project will
also involve trunk water main pipe installation in order to connect existing
water pipe systems on either side of Minnehaha Creek.
Street
The project will reconstruct the street with a bituminous surface to
approximately its existing widths on the west and east segments respectively,
The project will recycle and mix the existing bituminous street pavement and
the amounts of aggregate base below it together to form a material that can
be used as utility trench backfdl or as a suitable material to replace poor
subgrade soils on other City street reconstruction projects.
The project will remove and replace all of the sections of existing concrete
curb and gutter. New concrete driveway aprons are proposed whether they
are present today or not. The stop signs at the Minnehaha Boulevard
intersection are proposed to remain in place.
54"' Street West Segment Typical Section
The proposed street typical section between Wooddale Avenue and the
bridge at Minnehaha Creek is shown in Figure 9. The bump -out vehicle
parking area west of the bridge at Minnehaha Creek will be reincorporated
into the project.
Northc% ��1 South
r
...rte.W...1
CL
5' sm..ik Ili 1 14' Shared Vehicle/ 14' Shared Vehicle/
Concrete Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
Btv35'
Figure 9 — 54th Street West Segment Typical Section
The recommended typical section for the West Segment (Figure 9)
addresses the following stakeholder needs, issues and concerns in
conjunction with meeting minimum State Aid and City design requirements:
• Minimizes impact to adjacent ROW and calms traffic by using
MnDOT's minimum width design standards for shared vehicle and
bicycle lanes
• Results in no tree removals on either side of the street
• Improves safety for bicyclists by creating facilities that are consistent
throughout the corridor
Page 15 of 23
54
Feasibility Study
54'h Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Avoids a significant construction schedule delay to relocate eight (8)
overhead power/telephonetcab!e TV poles and remove at least five
(5) trees by generally matching the proposed south edge of the ne%v
concrete curb and gutter with the south edge of the existing street
Minimizes the number of pedestrian street crossings by adding a
sidewalk on the North side to support access to Arden Park: the
corridor's primary pedestrian destination
Increases pedestrian sidewalk safety, as recommended by the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA), by installing a 1 -foot detectable
warning strip of exposed aggregate concrete between the concrete
curb and the sidewalk
541' Street East Segment Tyuical Sections
The east segment contains two (2) proposed street typical sections as shown
in Figures 10 and 11. The typical section in Figure 10 is proposed east of
Minnehaha Boulevard for approximately 350 -feet up to Halifax Avenue. Here,
a wider sharrow-lane supports combined vehicle/bike use, with Sunday -only
parking allowed on the north side of 541' Street to accommodate parkirg
needs near the Edina Community Lutheran Church.
North I South
CL
5' 91d.1k Ili 18' Shared Vehicle/ ( 14' Shared Vehicle/ i T Parking
a" Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
46' --
Figure 10 - 541h StreetEast Segment Typical Section — for 350 -feet East of Minnehaha
Boulevard - North'Side Parking on Sunday Only
The recommended typical section in Figure 10 addresses the following
stakeholder needs, issues and concerns in conjunction with meeting
minimum State Aid and City design requirements:
• Minimizes impact to adjacent ROW and calms traffic by using
MnDOT's minimum width design standards for shared vehicle and
bicycle lanes along with a dedicated parking lane
• Results in no tree removals on either side of the street
• Improves safety for bicyclists by creating facilities that are consistent
throughout the corridor
• Accommodates the need identified in the parking study (Appendix J)
for additional parking near Edina Community Lutheran Church on
Sundays
Page 16 of 23
Feasibility Study
54`h Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
North
55
Avoids a significant construction schedule delay to relocate five (5)
overhead power/telephone/cable TV poles and significant impact to
Edina Community Lutheran Church landscaping, lighting and retaining
walls by generally matching the proposed south edge of the new
concrete curb and gutter with the existing south edge of the existing
street
Minimizes the number of pedestrian street crossings by adding a
sidewalk on the North side to support access to Arden Park; the
corridor's primary pedestrian destination
Increases pedestrian sidewalk safety, as recommended by the ADA,
by installing a 1 -foot detectable warning strip of exposed aggregate
concrete between the concrete curb and the sidewalk
The typical section in Figure 11 is proposed east of Halifax Avenue to the
west ROW line of France Avenue,
CL
15' sW.lk 1111 14' Shared Vehicle/ 14' Shared Vehicle/ ( 7' Parking ll
COBlvd a Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
42'
Figure 11 – 54u' Street East Segment Typical Section – from Halifax Avenue
to France Avenue
The recommended typical section in Figure 11 addresses the following
stakeholder needs, issues and concerns in conjunction with meeting
minimum State Aid and City design requirements:
• " Minimizes impact to adjacent ROW and calms traffic by using
MnDOT's minimum width design standards for shared vehicle and
bicycle lanes along with a dedicated parking lane
Results in no tree removals on either side of the street
• Improves safety for bicyclists by creating facilities that are consistent
throughout the corridor
• Avoids a significant construction schedule delay to relocate two (2)
overhead power/telephone/cable TV poles and removal of at least five
(5) trees by generally matching the proposed south edge of the new
concrete curb and gutter with the existing south edge of the existing
street
Page 17 of 23
South
7-7
56
Feasibility Study
54«' Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2413
Minimizes the number of pedestrian street crossings by adding a
sidewalk on the North side to support access to Arden ParK; the
corridor's primary pedestrian destination
Increases pedestrian sidewalk safety, as recommended by the ADA,
by installing a 1 -foot detectable warning strip of exposed aggregate
concrete between the concrete curb and the sidewalk
Staff will contact Metro Transit to ask about relocating the exist ng bus stop
on the south side of 5,P Street at Minnehaha Boulevard to the existing
sidewalk near the Edina Community Lutheran Church. Staff will also inquire
about ridership along 54`" Street and determine if bus stops can be
consolidated along the corridor. Small concrete bus stop pads may be placed
at proposed bus stops where no sidewalk exists.
As shown in Figure 12, the project will reduce the curb radii at the
intersections of Park Place and Minnehaha Boulevard. These reductions will
reduce turning vehicu'ar speeds, make vehicle turns more deliberate for
drivers and predictable for pedestrians, and decrease the amount of future
maintenance performed by the City at these intersections.
1
AND E�UTtfl
nut=RNK
1
1 -- ------ ---
<.. µ MZ '00 34TH ST
MN GRIN NMl— — ^'.
' - a W 54TH ST 0WIM o CM AV)
NWDKa10�" � \`\ I �`av,�
�H `�
Figure 12 — Proposed Geometric Configurations at Park Place and
Minnehaha Boulevard Intersections
Recreational Creek Use and Bridge
Most stakeholders who provided feedback strongly preferred maintaining the
rapids for recreational use. A number had questions about the purpose and
need for the above -water portion of the grade control structure. As of the date
Of this draft feasibility study, the MCWD was exploring the feasibility of
removing the structure while maintaining a form of rapids for recreational use.
Based on feedback receivea, stakeholders generally prefer creek landings
similar to the one shown in Figure 13. This natural type of landing is proposed
west of the bridge on both the north and south side of 541' Street. Exact
types, locations and configurations will be determined once the MCWD
completes their evaluation of the modifying the grade control structure.
Page 18 of 23
57
Feasibility Study
540h Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
Figure 13 — Possible Natural Creek Landing Type
Based on feedback received, stakeholders prefer a natural looking bridge that
they feel fits better into the neighborhood and complements the creek. A
conceptual level bridge is proposed as part of this study. The actual type of
bridge has not been determined. Staff recognizes several options exist
regarding bridge aesthetics and associated lighting and railing elements. Staff
is proposing,to gather additional stakeholder feedback on all these elements
during final design.
The bridge shown in Figure 14 is an arch structure with vertical sidewalls to
accommodate the water flow and recreational use of Minnehaha Creek. This
arch -type bridge was' generally preferred by stakeholders. It would span 42 -
feet of clear width and provide for a 10 -foot wide access bench along the
west side'; within the arch, The arch would be supported on piling. The bench
wall is oW caintilevered sheet piling. The concrete headwall, wingwalls, and
concrete railing base could incorporate a stone texture and coloring to match
the local limestone. An ornamental metal railing could be mounted on the
concrete traffic base at a safe height for pedestrians.
Figure 14 — 54'h Street Conceptual Bridge Looking North at
Minnehaha Creek
Page 19 of 23
58
Feasibility Study
54`h Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
This structure would carry two 17 -foot shared vehicle and bicycle lanes and a
6 -foot sidewalk on the north side as shown in Figure 15.
North South
CL
6' Sidewalk I ( 17' Shared Vehicle/ 1 17' Shared Vehicle/ 1 I
Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
41' --�
Figure 15 = 5414 Street Bridge Typical Section
The recommended typical section in Figure 15 addresses the following
stakeholder needs, issues and concerns in conjunction with meeting
minimum State Aid and City design requirements:
• Raises the bridge approximately 3 -feet to accommodate the access
bench underneath that will minimize the need for creek users to cross
5411 Street either to avoid the rapids or run them repeatedly
• Provides sufficiept width to accommodate future bridge needs
• Improves safety for bicyclists by creating facilities that are consistent
throughout the corridor
• Provides decorative knee -wall and railing for vehicle, pedestrian and
bicyclist safety
Sidewalksand Bicycle Facilities
See re , section of this Feasibi!ity Study for recommendations on sidewalks
and bicycle facilities for the project.
M
Liahtmo
Stakeholder feedback favored low impact downward -directed lights, which is
dons'istent with established City lighting standards. Staff is proposing to
gather additional stakeholder feedback on preferred light styles during final
design.
Public Utilities
Water Main
Since the existing trunk water main pipe is in satisfactory condition,
reconstruction is not proposed as part of the project. New trunk water main
pipe will be installed along 541' between Halifax Avenue and Park Place to
loop the water main systems. By installing these pipes, the City will improve
Page 20 of 23
59
Feasibility Study
64th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
system pressures and water quality. Pipe installation will occur by horizontal
directional boring to minimize the construction footprint and protect
Minnehaha Creek.
Sanitary Sewer
Since the sanitary sewer trunk and service pipes east of Halifax Avenue are
in satisfactory condition, no improvements are proposed. The Arden Park
Area has a 24 -inch diameter clay sanitary sewer trunk pipe that follows the
Minnehaha Creek corridor. This pipe may be part of a separate future City
infiltration and inflow reduction project that Would include manhole repair and
pipe lining by the cured -in -place -pipe (CIPP) method.
Storm Sewer
The project will install new concrete curb and gutter and a trunk storm sewer
pipe and inlet system meeting State Aid minimum design standards to
capture and convey stormwater. The project will install two (2) separate storm
sewer catch basin manholes with 3 -foot vertical sumps and screens that will
serve to catch sediment and debris from storm water runoff before it enters
Minnehaha Creek. Based on stakeholder feedback, rain' gardens are
generally supported by stakeholders to help treat storm water runoff before it
enters Minnehaha Creek. Staff will determine exact locations of rain gardens
near the creek once_.MCWD determines the creek's future configuration.
Installation of sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow the
property owners to. connect their. sump pump discharges directly into the
storm sewer system: ,,
Private Utilities
-The local gas utility, company, CenterPoint Energy, has indicated that they.
<: may upgrade or replace gas mains within the. project limits.] This work is not
part of the City's. project `but,will be coordinated to occur prior to the start of
const�`uction
The City will coordinate other private utility relocations or upgrades prior to
the startof construction.
Any,, damage to privately -owned pet containment and irrigation systems
caused by street and City utility reconstruction activities will be repaired by
the City.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
& EASEMENTS: ' Existing right-of-way on all streets in the project area is 60 -feet wide. No
;additional right-of-way or easements are anticipated to complete the
proposed improvements.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,000 and is
summarized in 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. Funding for the entire project will be from a combination
of special assessments and State Aid and City utility funds. The estimated
Page 21 of 23
t -
Feasibility Study
50 Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
roadway_ _construction cost, including the bridge, sidewalk, and lighting is
.roadway
and will be 80 percent funded by State Aid funds; with the
remainder funded by special assessments. New concrete curb and gutter is
included under the storm sewer fund, not under the roadway _ special
assessment. Utility improvements and repairs amount to $X,XXX,000 and
will be funded through their respective utility fund.
Table 1
Summary of Total Estimated Project Cost
ITEM ESTIMATED COST'
CITY
UTILITY MSARESIDENTS TOTAL COST
FUNDS
otai Ix,x�cx,x�c�c
Costs are given in 2014,dollars
?,MSA costs represent 80.% of total cost
a Resident costs represent,86% of total cost
ASSESSMENTS: The assessments are based' on the City's Special assessment policy, dated
August; 21, 2012: Based on the policy there are XX.XX residential equivalent
units (REU). The assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent
properties, see attached preliminary assessment roll in Exhibit 1 of Appendix
E: The methodologies for calculating the REU's for properties other than one
REU are described below:
s
Residential Corner Lots:
XXXX and XXXX 54th Street and XXXX and XXXX Halifax Lane, 0.33 REU =
<r(1;REU) x (1/3 side yard)
Churches:
Edina Community Lutheran Church:
X.XX+ REU's = (XXXX sf / 1000 so x (0.8 REU's per 1000 so / (X
accesses)
Christian Calvary Church
Page 22 of 23
61
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -416
October 21, 2013
XXX REU's = ()XXX sf / 1000 so x (0.8 REU's per 1000 so / (X
accesses)
The estimated assessment per REU is $XXXXX. A copy of the preliminary
assessment roll is included in Appendix E.
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
FEASIBILITY:
APPENDIX:
Public Design Component Workshop
August 19, 2013
Public Design Scenario Workshop
September 29, 2013
Public Design Feedback Session '
October 23, 2013
Edina Transportation Commis§ion Meeting
October 24, 2013
Receive Feasibility Report and Public Hearing
December 10, 2013
Bid Opening
March/April 2014
Award Contract
Spring 2014
Begin Construction
Spring 2014
Complete Construction
Fall 2014
Final Assessment Hearing
Fall 2015
Staff believes the construction of this project is necessary, cost effective and
feasible to improve the public infrastructure on 54"' Street between Wooddale
Avenue and France Avenue.
A:, Stakeholder Engagement Issues and Needs Gathering — June -July 2013
B. Stakeholder Feedback' Workshop on Design Components — August 19,
•2013
C. Stakeholder Feedback Session on Design Scenarios — September 30,
D, Existing Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Features
E.\`. Preliminary Assessment Roll
F.' City Comprehensive Plan Update
t;. Traffic and Crash Data
H. Existing Street Lights and Signs
1. 54`h Street Bridge MnDOT Structure Inventory Report
J. 54th Street Parking Study
K. Living Streets Policy
L. Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System Summary Report
M. Stakeholder Fe- edback Session o -n Design _Recommendations —October
23, 2013
Page 23 of 23
62
APPENDIX L
Envision Sustainable
Infrastructure Rating System
Summary Report
63
City of Edina: 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Area
Stormwater Plan: ENVISIONT' Evaluation
A
SEH
Ki �:
bl1.l
bgwrtw.mb «p WUY DILL
C112
,Stl11./•N PAW P" A#O*M Nddpdr,On+aa
QJU
DmWp W d MR, Nfd ambMI..
J 1�`
411
test. o.b* b.0 m.hJNy
QLA 2
NeNrldMIN MJWMebM
QUO
MW lellwo pelt.".
-
{Qti•
1* Pre" amrMwl:Y W*bllKv No
S ;, _:./NIS
P—n-1I0Ir dm med.•aftr•efWUtAerf
MZi
b.NwvfN••.dh.bNNY NI•ryMN NN M1wtlep
KUL
PNNIw MfI•dtend Glt.relmfeY.tle
oI1Li1
Ir••.Iw vLf..•dttol tbwrAre
J
DO Mbkfelt.
r.".
N
amvWe frtmod tNdilw rxm.arcl
tar
t tDll
ef••Y•eMlcdt•bIWnYlp•M r mkw.m
LI
L.ItbLN /IY.YWWdlh/Merf.p wenitYtl.m
- L!
►e•br alYbnwlPne•d lewnwxl
LLLA
Pralde lW dtb.XWel brvNnn.N
IDLI
Iw...Mro"d*reerLY>PPe+.eiWts
LUZ
Awn l.h shrom" nbp•den
1N.1
INYNtfar-m/wMl'lla(aR •Itiln.iM/N.le
LD!!
Addnrc•rtIWlrlrgWePen nrlgNtln
LNl!
bwpdmfdtfe
'LW9
wad'lf. .�
laird
AL I
1YAa M Prlledtd ."* w
NAL2
L21WIttN111.•W Pfea'tr7•e:PfMIN1
!
IM•ttPtl.dlWrbd.
1
WarmWmtad•It
l5
[Mnwete fwnlendlh
Li
F8&"*W;mWd 404441 INeY•ffr NP
LP
►root. fel deaedvco'e..+dmrYcf►!
L
L.dre •••glc.mfnrprlwf
.2
LA• NLeYNM• •eddy
Ml.i
Cwn•t•tNn.ed monll•r.'•wiY ryd•mf
l
Aelea MfhxltnwWdNq
.2
Mwe P•sf�PMWnae, ••ipWe
tit13
AN•l..•x11•f ryllMt
Fmm
Iwc•We a matdcnrllw fA. n»
IfltAt
NWli
Pmw••e Pfn btbad
NVf12
P.11d.w0ad.ad wrfs:. mr
NWL3
►.YfrY1pM•lwml.nd
WWld
AMd.00" 2e•I42Y
NVLS
Iwre•.e N.odplWn Iw.tM.f
-1AL6
A•YNf.wWLWe drMupnmlaYep tlpet
'NWL2
1wurv.tw• akv
NWLL
M.•Itrbnw w
NW2.2
PA#MPettldde ti k 11M.l hard.
NWlt
ple"m50K. tel a•YndwWtr r•nwM•fa•n
. 471
N.rww ywbrLbdWtnaty
•N"a
CrWWNma7.et Peds
,INA:
flm • d1mtb•dW%
NIA2•
Ndd.brw.thbd r lrwffr waw lr.Y.0
` 1-4 WAU0
4,— ueta•e na tr .etnl.
TOYAL
• TALI
N•dwe rs..hw pr —*lm
CLL2
1edutdrPW1.1-1*mhf Jt•.
GILL
AIN»WelrhMrtW
CL2.2
MMA Imp■.d.Y'nmrbll11h1
C143
Ir•Pw• ferlaed-le r0 edepl.bNlbf
- LUA
lrepuebrto.mu'" n+a^dt
CAP
Nbewl.Ned 1.4.I.ffwm
- Cf00
bwwea orteNedwdl f"'df w•fgt
Al
A
SEH
64
Contents
ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................... ....3
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................ 5
ProjectBackground................................................................................................................................................5
Purposeof this Report............................................................................................................................................5
TheENVISION'" Rating System...............................................................................................................................5
Methodology for Incorporating ENVISION"' into 54`I' Street Project....................................................................6
DefiningRelevant ENVISION', Credits...._ ................................ ........ ............................................................................................. ............... 6
Linking Credits to Key Issues for Component Workshop ............................ ....... ............ ......... ......... ........ .... ................... ............... ,..... ........ 7
Evaluating Alternative Scenarios...... ........................................................ ................ ............... ...................... r ....... 7
Evaluating Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................................................................................9
Results......................................................................................................................................................... .....9
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Strengths and Weaknesses: Applying ENVISION'" to 54"' Street Project........................................................... 13
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendices..............................................................................................................................................................14
-A
SEH
2
65
Executive Seminary
Staff and its consultant used ENVISION" to help analyze the 54" Street project. ENVISION'"' is a rating system for
infrastructure developed in joint collaboration between the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure at
the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure'
ENVISION"' was created to support transformational, collaborative approaches that promote sustainable
infrastructure development using a comprehensive, triple bottom line approach toward decision-making. It is
Intended to foster a necessary and dramatic improvement In the performance and resiliency of physical
infrastructure across the full economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
The rating system includes a total of 60 credits organized into five categories:
• Quality of Life: Goal is to improve the project's impact an the surrounding community
• Leadership: Goal is to strengthen collaboration, stakeholder involvement, and long-term planning
considerations
• Resource Allocation: Goal is to wisely manage materials, energy, and water resources used for project
• Natural World: Goal is to understand and minimize negative environmental impacts of project
• Climate and Risk: Goal is to minimize emissions and design for resilience - in both the short-term and long-
term
Within each credit, points are earned based on level of achievement obtained, with five levels of achievement
ranging from "improved" to "enhanced" to "superior" to "conserving" to "restorative."
The project was evaluated based on a set of 52 ENVISION'" credits which were determined to be most relevant
to the 54"'street reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan.
The ENVISION'" evaluation was conducted at three stages during the planning process. During the first stage,
the project team identified ENVISION' credits deemed most relevant to the critical issues identified through
stakeholder engagement including intercept surveys and door knocking.
During the second stage the project team used ENVISION'" to evaluate the alternative design scenarios for each
of the three project sections (West End, Middle Section, and East End). Results of this evaluation were presented
at the September 30"' final scenario workshop and are provided in the appendix.
Finally, ENVISION" was used by the project team to evaluate the preferred design alternative which is being
presented as part of this report. Results of this evaluation are summarized in the figure below and in the
appendix.
The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure is a not for profit education and research organization founded by
the American Public Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the American Council of
Engineering Companies
SEN 3
M
overall, the preferred alternative scored 235 points out of a possible 687 points. It should be noted that the
scores will increase substantially as the project moves from the feasibility phase to the detailed design and
construction phases. At this stage of the project there was no basis to assign points to a large number of the
credits available because decisions related to those credits have not yet been made.
As can be seen in the point summary, the project scored relatively high in the Quality of Life and Leadership
categories in particular. This reflects a number of factors including a very thorough stakeholder engagement
program, a holistic planning approach that pro -actively considered infrastructure integrat*on opportunities, and
the extensive efforts to design the project in a manner that will preserve community quality of life, promote
alternative transportation modes, and preserve cultural and natural resources.
150
200
166
150 -
a.+
Q
rs.
100
50
0
QL
Envision TM Scores
M Unachieved Points 0 Total Points Earned
144
107
LD RA
Credit Category
/A
SEH
188
NW
82
CR
H yWhails.10111
4
67
intlroduction
Project Backgromid
The City of Edina is working hard to protect the environment for future generations — through programs and
initiatives such as "Go Green Edina," the draft "Living Streets" Policy, the Edina "Emerald Energy Program" and
participation in Minnesota's "Green Step Cities" program.
The reconstruction of SA`h Street provides another opportunity for Edina to lead the way - by ensuring the
project is designed and built In a manner that maximizes the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the
project. To do so, the City is using ENVISION" - a sustainable Infrastructure rating system designed by the
institute for Sustainable Infrastructure".
The City has included sustainability evaluations in prior planning studies, and has used the three E's framework
which provides an analysis of how a project performs In terms of Equity, Environment, and the Economy. The
ENVISION'" analysis in this report is intended to provide the City with another option for conducting future
sustainability evaluations on a wide range of project types.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of applying the ENVISION"`" rating system to the 50,
Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Area Stormwater Management Plan. The report includes an overview of
how ENVISON"" was used at different stages throughout the project along with illustrative examples. It includes
a more detailed summary of the final results of applying ENVISION"" to the preferred alternative.
'rhe ENVISION T" Rating System
This unique new framework unites over900 sector specific systems into a comprehensive tool to evaluate and
rate the community, environmental, and economic benefits of infrastructure projects. It was developed jointly
by APWA, ACEC, and ASCE in partnership with Harvard University's Zofnass Program for Sustainable
infrastructure.
ENVISION"was created to support transformational, collaborative approaches that promote sustainable
infrastructure development using a comprehensive, triple bottom line approach toward decision-making. It is
intended to foster a necessary and dramatic improvement in the performance and resiliency of physical
Infrastructure across the full economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
The rating system includes a total of 60 credits organized into five categories: Quality of Life, Leadership,
Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk (Figure 1). Quality of Life credits are intended to
improve the project's impact on the surrounding community. Leadership credits are design to strengthen
collaboration, stakeholder involvement, and long-term planning considerations. Resource Allocation credits are
intended to promote the wise use of materials, energy, and water resources. Climate and Risk credits
encourage projects that minimize emissions and design for resiliency.
2 The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (1511 is a non-profit established by the American Public Works Association
(APWA), the American Society for Civil Englieers (ASCE), and the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
A
SEH
'i (IU,�LI l
Oi' LIFE I
Purpose, Community, Wellbeing
LEADERSHIP
Collaboration, Management, Planning
RESOURCE
ALLOCATIO14
Materials, Energy, Water
NATURAL
WORLD
Siting, Land & Water, Biodiversity
4,' t;LI�W�ttlt
Emission, Resilience
Figure 1 ENVISION Rating System
Within each credit, points are earned based on level of achievement obtained, with five levels of achievement
ranging from "improved" to "enhanced" to "superior" to "conserving" to "restorative,"
• Improved: Performance that is above conventional, but not by much. Encouraging, but mostly limited
improvement in sustainable performance.
• Enhanced: Sustainable performance that is on the right track but not particularly remarkable.
Indications that superior performance is within reach.
• Superior: Sustainable performance that is noteworthy, but falls slightly short of conserving. Point
scores are designed to provide incentives for achieving conserving or restorative performance.
• Conserving: Performance that has achieved essentially zero impact. May be combined with restorative
If restoration is not applicable.
• Restorative: highest level possible
Methodology for Incorporating ENVISION'" into 4411" Street PI'oject
ENVISION'"' was incorporated into the study in several different ways, each briefly described below,
I)efining Relevant ENVISION'" Credits
There are many different definitions of sustainability. One of the benefits of the ENVISIONT"' rating system is that
it can provide a clear framework for defining sustainability at the project level. At the onset of the project, the
project team including City staff reviewed the ENVISION"' credits and determined which were most applicable
to the project. The intent was to help ensure consistent and clear communications and stakeholder engagement
around sustainability. 52 of the 60 ENVISION'" credits were Identified as relevant to the project and summarized
into a single document (See Appendix for 541a Street ENVISION" Credit List). The document was made available
on the project website and shared with members of the project team.
-A
SEH
.•
Linking Credits to Key Issues for Component Workshop
Following a rigorous stakeholder engagement process that helped identify key planning issues such as safety,
aesthetics, creek issues, parking, signage, and traffic, the project team identified which ENVISION"" credits were
most relevant to those issues. This analysis was used to help prepare materials for the August 19t4 Design
Component Workshop. Figure 2 below shows one of the design component cards that were prepared for the
workshop. At the workshop participants also received a brief explanation of the ENVISION" rating system and
how it is being incorporated Into the project.
{ li&pdrnllp I TMA.
M1M1tM!r
REDUCE SPEED LIMIT TO 25MPH I
stale'.titin• a&*$ hlr isnim wed bile Ia Jilin
SPEED
LIMIT
25
t.arya
WrIS IADaR[M
• ty, p•d•aWnoo � •� -
� . bhytMU •r gtrNltY
r•• otaa oY dr•In •
YA,rh 1
+1..1rhx"I+r
hknLthrl
nv„r" Ihi"
d.f�n
la*�unr•r11
e.66nsc"
iv hE— vadum•,
+PPb: u%oro*t wrb"h•tw#w#into
'iMNPON YII�MMINttr(Iltptf PiMflwrlPrtr
pp �.
,4
Figure 2 Workshop Design Component Card
Evaluating Alternative Scenarios
Following the design component workshop, the project team developed multiple scenarios for each of the three
sections of the project: the West End, Middle Segment, and East End. Similar to the Design Component
Workshop, ENVISION'" was also incorporated into the September 30th Design Scenario open house. For each of
the three sections, ENVISION'" was used to rate the alternative scenarios against each other. The results were
summarized by credit category (Quality of Life, Leadership, etc...) and by total points scored and presented on
large poster boards, Figure 3 below illustrates the Total Score for the Middle Segment of the project.
A
SEH 7
70
Figure 3 Total ENVSION Score Middle Segment
Scenario #1 (raised bridge, retain whitewater features) outperformed Scenarios #2 (remove whitewater
features, maintain existing vertical geometry) in terms of overall scoring. Scenario #1 scored higher in terms of
quality of life — reflecting the extent to which stakeholders value the recreational and aesthetic qualit'es of the
existing rapids. Scenario #1 also scored higher in terms of climate and risk credits, because it provides greater
resiliency in the face of short-term hazards such as flooding. Scenario #2, on the other nand, scored higher in
terms of Its potential impact on the environment, with greater opportunities for improving aquatic biodiversity,
improving upstream water quality, and the overall ecological health of the creek.
Figure 4 shows a picture of two participants viewing the results of the analysis on one of the poster boards at
the open house.
Figure A Participants at Design Scenario
Open House
J_
SEN
8
Total Score rAddteseernent)
tom,
140
• QIrAA ri d H U
° NATUML wonto
YJ
RElUUItGk A:L41Ch I J N
b)
■ kkhDknhl,'
4U
QU&L11Y CA WE
20
U
Stan all* 41
U0113m)02
Figure 3 Total ENVSION Score Middle Segment
Scenario #1 (raised bridge, retain whitewater features) outperformed Scenarios #2 (remove whitewater
features, maintain existing vertical geometry) in terms of overall scoring. Scenario #1 scored higher in terms of
quality of life — reflecting the extent to which stakeholders value the recreational and aesthetic qualit'es of the
existing rapids. Scenario #1 also scored higher in terms of climate and risk credits, because it provides greater
resiliency in the face of short-term hazards such as flooding. Scenario #2, on the other nand, scored higher in
terms of Its potential impact on the environment, with greater opportunities for improving aquatic biodiversity,
improving upstream water quality, and the overall ecological health of the creek.
Figure 4 shows a picture of two participants viewing the results of the analysis on one of the poster boards at
the open house.
Figure A Participants at Design Scenario
Open House
J_
SEN
8
71
livalttating Preferred Alternative
Finally, ENVISION'" was used to rate the preferred alternative, which was developed to incorporate additional
feedback received at the design scenario workshop and subsequent on-line survey. For each credit, brief
comments were made to support the level of achievement given. In addition, opportunities for improving the
credit score were identified.
Results
Figure 5 presents a graphic summary of the total points achieved based on an evaluation of the preferred
alternative presented In the feasibility report. Overall, the preferred alternative scored 223 points out of a
possible 687 points. While the scoring shows a large number of unachieved points, it should be noted that the
ENVISION" rating system was designed to push the boundaries of project design and therefore it was
anticipated that most projects would not achieve anywhere close to a perfect score. For example, based on the
preliminary scaring, the 54`" Street project would be eligible for a Silver Award through the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure.
250
200
166
150
0
a.
100
5o
0
QL
Envision T" Scores
Unachleved Points ■ Total Points Earned
144
107
LD RA
Credit Category
188
Figure S Overall ENVISION Scvre Preferred Alternative
J'../►
SEH
NW
82
CR
Mobcharls.cool)
V
72
Table 1 below provides a breakdown of applicable points (reflecting total number of points available based on
which credits were deemed relevant to the project), actual points earned, Innovation points earned, total points
pursued, and percentage of available points.
Table l Summary of ENVISION Scoring for Preferred Alternative
InnoV0001I Percentage of Available
credit Categorr«iy�* Appll"blle Points Points PoMts Total Points Pursued Points
Total Workbook Points 1 667 1 223 1 12 1 235 1 320A
Overall, the preferred alternative scored 223 points out of a possible 687 points. It should be noted that the
scores will increase substantially as the project moves from the feasibility phase to the detailed design and
construction phases. At this stage of the project there was no basis to assign points to a large number of the
credits available because decisions related to those credits have not yet been made.
The preferred design scored highest in terms of quality of life credits (98 points), leadership (58 points), and
Natural World (65 points). It achieved fewer points for Climate & Risk (3 points) and Resource Allocation (3
points).
In terms of Quality of life, the preferred design scored well because it improves quality of life for the
neighborhood, encourages alternative modes of transportation, improves site accessibility, safety, and way
finding, and enhances public spaces. A summary of points achieved is shown in the table below.
Table 2 Quality of Life Credits
f]
1
Rol
QL1.1
Improve community quality of life
QL1.2
Stimulate sustainable growth and development
QL1.3
Develop local skills and capabilities
IN iii.® i ni
Q12.1
Enhance public health and safety
QL2.2
Minimize noise and vibration
..
QL2.3
Minimize light pollution
QL2.4
Improve community mobility and access
QL2.5
Encourage alternative modes of transportation
x
QL2.6
Improve site accessibility, safety and way finding
��sA l► Lc .
QUA
Preserve historic and cultural resources
QL3.2
Preserve views and local character
QL3.3
Enhance pub) is space
It'16),�t-jAt
QLO.Q
Innovate or exceed credit requirements
-A
SEH
f]
1
Rol
73
In terms of Leadership, the project scored well because of the City and project team's effective leadership and
commitment to the project, a robust stakeholder involvement process, and efforts to Improve Infrastructure
Integration (linking Arden Park and SO' street reconstruction project planning together for example). A
summary of points achieved is shown in the table below.
Tahle 3 Leadership Credits
tisY,;'fat
LD1.1
Provide effective leadership and commitment
17
LD1.2
Establish a sustainability management system NA
x
LD1.3
Foster collaboration and teamwork
4
LD1.4
Provide for stakeholder involvement
14
sat
35
LD2.1
Pursue by-product synergy opportunities
0
LD2.2
Improve infrastructure integration
16
'i
16
Q t ►' c. � `:
LD3.1
Plan for long-term monitoring and maintenance
f ;
LD3.2
Address conflicting regulations and policies
2
11 IV
LD3.3
Extend useful life
1
t
3
,LD0.0
Innovate orexceed creditre requirements
4
TOTAL
Sa
In terms of Climate and Risk the project scored low, reflecting the fact that while the design (in particular raising
the bridge) does helps the community prepare for long-term adaptability and short-term hazards associated
with changing climate conditions, it does not do so explicitly. Efforts such as minimizing pavement use helps
manage heat island effects however to improve the scoring in this category the City would need'to more
assessment of potential risks as part of the design phase of the project. A summary of points achieved Is shown
In the table below.
Table 4 Climate & Risk Credits
CRU Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
CR1.2 Reduce air pollutant emissions
CR2.1 Assess climate threat
CR2.2 Avoid traps and vulnerabilities
C112.3 Prepare for long-term adaptability
CR2.4 Prepare for short-term hazards
CR2.5 Manage heat island effects
CR0.0 Innovate or exceed credit requirements
TOTAL
-A
SEN
NA
NA
11
74
In terms of Natural World the project scored well, however at this stage of the project it is not possible to score
several of the credits. The project team and City are however addressing a number of these credits, especially
those related to the creek, and as the project moves forward there will be an opportunity to capture additional
points associated with factors such as; protecting surface water, preserving floodplain functions, and preventing
surface water contamination among several others. A summary of points achieved is shown In the table below.
i - . NW1.1
NW1.2
j N W1.3
N W1.4
NW1.5
NW1.6
'NW1.7
Table S Natural World Credits
Preserve prime habitat
Protect wetlands and surface water
Preserve prime farmland
Avoid adverse geology
Preserve floodplain functions
Avoid unsuitable development on steep slopes
Preserve greenfields
NW2.1 Manage storm water
NW2.2 Reduce pesticide and fertilizer impacts
NW2.3 Prevent surface and groundwater contamination
Preserve species biodiversity
NW3.2 Control invasive species
NW3.3 Restore disturbed soils
NW3.4 Maintain wetland and surface water functions
NW0.0 Innovate or exceed credit requirements 0
TOTAL 1 65
In terms of Resource Allocation, the project scored very low because at this stage there is no formal
commitment or design which will support sustainable procurement, use regional materials, divert waste from
landfills, reduce excavated materials taken off site, and other related factors. Addressing this category of credits
In the next phase of the project will significantly increase scoring. A summary of points achieved is shown in the
table below.
jA
SEH
12
Table 6 Resource Allocation Credits
RAM
Reduce net embodied energy
RA1.2
Support sustainable procurement practices
RA1.3
Use recycled materials
RAM
Use regional materials
RA1.5
Divert waste from landfills
RA1.6
Reduce excavated materials taken off site
RA1.7
Provide for deconstruction and recycling
RA2.1 Reduce energy consumption
RA2.2 Use renewable energy
RA2.3 Commission and monitor energy systems
RA3.1 Protect fresh water availability
RA3.2 Reduce potable water consumption
RAM Monitor water systems
RA0.0 Innovate or exceed credit requirements
TOTAL
A surnmary of how the preferred alternative scored against each credit, including notes related to strengths,
weaknesses, and opportunities for Improvement will be provided in the appendices of this report.
Discussion
Strengths and Weaknesses: Applying ENVISION'" to 54th Street Project
Busing as usual • Inexpensive • X's approach difficult to apply
• Easy to modify to infrastructure projects
• Developed In-house • Narrow focus
• Focus ,on aspects of sustainability • Stand alone tool
most relevant to City
ENVISION • Provides recognition • Complexity
• National standard allows for • Cost
benchmarking/comparisons • Steep learning curve
• Comprehensive triple bottom • Value proposition uncertain
decision-making tool
• ISI provides continual Improvement
• 3`d party verification
—A
SEH
75
13
Recommendations
Appendices
A
SEH
76
14
77
Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System:
Credits that Apply to these Edina Projects
,
I'ii :`i [ f)IrUtJ�
IH
._
Q11.1� Improve community quality of Iffe.
Improve the net quality of life of all communities affected by the project and mitigate negative impacts to communities.
Stimulate sustainable growth and development.
QL1.2 Support and stimulate sustainable growth and development, including improvements in job growth, capacity building,
productivity, business attractiveness and livability.
Enhance public health and safety.
0.12.1 Take into account the health and safety implications of using new materials, technologies or methodologies above and
beyond meeting regulatory requirements.
Minimize noise and vibration.
QL2.2 Minimize noise and vibration generated during construction and in the operation of the constructed works to maintain and
Improve community livability.
QL3.2
QL0.0
LOU
1.01.3
Minimize light pollution.
Prevent excessive glare, light at night, and light directed skyward to conserve energy and reduce obtrusive lighting and
excessive glare.
Improve community mobility and access.
Locate, design and construct the project in a way that eases traffic congestion, improves mobility and access, does not
promote urban sprawl, and otherwise improves community livability.
Encourage alternative modes of transportation.
Improve accessibility to non -motorized transportation and public transit. Promote alternative transportation and reduce
congestion.
Improve site accessibility, safety and vaayfinding.
Improve user accessibility, safety, and wayfinding of the site and surrounding areas.
Preserve historic and cultural resources.
Preserve or restore significant historical and cultural sites and related resources to preserve and enhance community
cultural resources.
Preserve views and local character.
Design the project in a way that maintains the local character of the community and does not have negative impacts on
community views.
Enhance public space.
Improve existing public space including parks, plazas, recreational facilities, or wildlife refuges to enhance community
livability.
INNOVATE OR EXCEED CREDIT REQUIREMENTS.
To reward exceptional performance beyond the expectations of the system as well as the application of Innovative methods
which advance the state of the art for sustainable infrastructure.
Provide effective leadership and commitment.
Provide effective leadership and commitment to achieve project sustainability goals.
Foster collaboration and teamwork.
Eliminate conflicting design elements, and optimize system by using integrated design and delivery methodologies and
collaborative processes.
Provide for stakeholder Involvement.
LD1.4 Establish sound and meaningful programs for stakeholder Identification, engagement and Involvement in project decision
LD2.1 JPursue by-product synergy opportunities.
Reduce waste, improve project performance and reduce project costs by identifying and pursuing opportunities to use
Page 1
78
Page 2
unwanted by-products or discarded materials and resources from nearby operations. i
Improve Infrastructure Integration.
LD2.2
Design the project to take into account the operational relationships among other elements of community infrastructure
which results in an overall improvement in infrastructure efficiency and effectiveness.
Plan for long-term monitoring and maintenance.
LD3.1
Put in place plans and sufficient resources to ensure as far as practical that ecological protection, mitigation and
enhancement measures are incorporated in the project and can be carried out.
Address conflicting regulations and policies.
LD3.2
Work with officials to Identify and address laws, standards, regulations or policies that may unintentionally create barriers
to implementing sustainable infrastructure.
Extend useful life.
LD3.3
Extend a project's useful life by designing the project in a way that results in a completed works that is more durable,
flexible and resilient.
INNOVATE OR EXCEED CREDIT REQUIREMENTS.
[LDO.0
To reward exceptional performance beyond the expectations of the system as well as the application of innovative
methods which advance the state of the art for sustainable infrastructure.
Edina: Resources Allocation — Applicable Credits
Use recycled materials.
RA1.3
Reduce the use of virgin materials and avoid sending useful materials to landfills by specifying reused materials, including
structures, and material with recycled content.
FRA1.4Use
regional materials.
Minimize transportation costs and impacts and retain regional benefits through specifying local sources.
Divert waste from landfills.
RA1.5
Reduce waste, and divert waste streams away from disposal to recycling and reuse.
Reduce excavated materials taken off site.
RA1.6
Minimize the movement of soils and other excavated materials off site to reduce transportation and environmental
impacts.
Provide for deconstruction and recycling.
RA1.7
Encourage future recycling, up -cycling, and reuse by designing for ease and efficiency in project disassembly or
deconstruction at the end of its useful life.
[RA2.1
Reduce energy consumption.
Conserve energy by reducing overall operation and maintenance energy consumption throughout the project life cycle.
RA2.2
Use renewable energy.
eet energy needs through renewable energy sources.
Protect fresh water availability.
[RA3.1
Reduce the negative net impact on fresh water availability, quantity and quality.
Reduce potable water consumption.
RA3.2
Reduce overall potable water consumption and encourage the use of greywater, recycled water, and stormwater to meet
water needs.
RA3.3
Monitor water systems.
Implement programs to monitor water systems performance during operations and their impacts on receiving waters.
INNOVATE OR EXCEED CREDIT REQUIREMENTS.
RAO.0
To reward exceptional performance beyond the expectations of the system as well as the application of innovative
methods which advance the state of the art for sustainable infrastructure.
Page 2
79
Preserve prime habitat.
NW1.1 Avoid placing the project —and the site compound/temporary works —on land that has been identified as of high
ecological value or as having species of high value.
Protect wetlands and surface water.
NW1.2 Protect, buffer, enhance and restore areas designated as wetlands, shorelines, and waterbodles by providing natural
buffer zones, vegetation and soil protection zones.
Avoid adverse geology.
NW1A Avoid development in adverse geologic formations and safeguard aquifers to reduce natural hazards risk and preserve
high quality groundwater resources.
Preserve floodplain functions.
NW1.5 Preserve floodplain functions by limiting development and development impacts to maintain water management
capacities and capabilities.
Avoid unsuitable development on steep slopes.
NW1.6 Protect steep slopes and hillsides from inappropriate and unsuitable development In order to avoid exposures and risks
from erosion and landslides, and other natural hazards.
Preserve greenfields.
NW1.7 Conserve undeveloped land by locating projects on previously developed greyfield sites and/or sites classified as
brownflelds.
N W2.1
NW2.2
NW2.3
Manage stormwater.
Minimize the impact of infrastructure on stormwater runoff quantity and quality.
Reduce pesticide and fertilizer Impacts.
Reduce non -point source pollution by reducing the quantity, toxicity, bioavailability and persistence of pesticides and
fertilizers, or by eliminating the need for the use of these materials.
Prevent surface and groundwater contamination.
Preserve fresh water resources by incorporating measures to prevent pollutants from contaminating surface and
groundwater and monitor Impacts over operations.
NW3.1 Preserve species blodiverslty.
Protect blodiversity by preserving and restoring species and habitats.
INW3.2] Control Invasive species.
Use appropriate non-invasive species and control or eliminate existing Invasive species.
NW3.3 Restore disturbed salts.
Restore soils disturbed during construction and previous development to bring back ecological and hydrological functions.
NW3 4 Maintain wetland and surface water functions.
Maintain and restore the ecosystem functions of streams, wetlands, waterbodies and their riparian areas.
INNOVATE OR EXCEED CREDIT REQUIREMENTS. —�
NW0.0 To reward exceptional performance beyond the expectations of the system and the application of Innovative methods
which advance the state of the art for sustainable infrastructure.
��l��l�,rric��/!��'1 �#�r �v�������� r+`�����i'�l�ij#� �l i� i►�Y jT`t !�`�,�� g <.�� � Y " d'
4 e
CR2.1 Assess climate threat.
Develop a comprehensive Climate Impact Assessment and Adaptation Plan.
Page 3
a
Page 4
CR2.2
Avoid traps and vulnerabilities.
Avoid traps and vulnerabilities that could create high, long-term costs and risks for the affected communities.
Prepare for long-term adaptability.
CR2.3
Prepare infrastructure systems to be resilient to the consequences of long-term climate change, perform adequately
under.altered climate conditions, or adapt to other long-term change scenarios.
Prepare for short-term hazards.
[CR2.4
Increase resilience and long-term recovery prospects of the project and site from natural and man-made short-term
hazards.
Manage heat Islands effects.
CR2.5
Minimize surfaces with a high solar reflectance index (SRI) to reduce localized heat accumulation and manage
microcli mates.
INNOVATE OR EXCEED CREDIT REQUIREMENTS.
CR0.0
To reward exceptional performance beyond the expectations of the system as well as the application of innovative
methods which advance the state of the art for sustainable infrastructure.
Page 4
81
Water System Demand and Capacity
Analysis
Water Treatment Plant No. S
Edina, Minnesota
SEH No. EDINA 125040
October 23, 2013
October 23, 2013
Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer
City of Edina
7450 Metro Boulevard
Edina, MN 55439
Dear Mr. Bintner:
RE: Water Treatment Plant No. 5
Water System Demand and Capacity
Analysis
Edina, Minnesota
SEH No. EDINA 125040
82
I am pleased to present to you the enclosed report on the results from our planning study for Water
Treatment Plant No. 5. We have reviewed current water system operations and facilities for this study,
from the perspective of evaluating the need for expanding water treatment plant capacity with the
construction of Water Treatment Plant No. 5. My meetings with you and Dave Goergen have been very
helpful in guiding this study, and providing a greater understanding of the goals and concerns of the Edina
Utilities Division, as they relate to water supply and distribution.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide water system engineering services to the City of
Edina. If you should have any questions on this report, I will be available to review it with you at your
convenience. Thanks.
Sincerely,
John D. Chlebeck, PE
Project Engineer
jdc
c:\projects\edina model\report\repott - edina water system demand and capacity analysis.docx
Water Treatment Plant No. 5
Water System Demand and Capacity Analysis
Edina, Minnesota
SEH No. EDINA 125040
October 23, 2013
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.
John D. Chlebeck, PE
Date: 10/22/13
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55110
Lic. No.: 47125
83
84
Executive Summary
The City of Edina is planning to begin construction on Water Treatment Plant No. 5 in 2017 per the
current capital improvement plan. The facility would provide iron and manganese removal for Wells 5
and 18, through oxidation and granular filtration. A site has been selected near the City's existing water
tower at 69th Street and France Avenue. This study was undertaken to evaluate the current timeline for
construction of Water Treatment Plant No. 5, along with the hydraulic impacts to the distribution system
of putting the planned facility online at the selected location.
This study evaluates current supply and treatment facility capacity in comparison with existing and
projected water system demands through 2030. In addition, impacts from the use of unfiltered wells such
as Wells 5 and 18 are considered. This includes a review of well water iron and manganese
concentrations in comparison with established regulatory guidelines for these naturally -occurring
chemicals in drinking water. The City's existing water distribution system computer hydraulic model was
used to evaluate the geographic extent of unfiltered water coming from Wells 5 and 18 during peak water
demand conditions.
Wells 5 and 18 both have iron and manganese concentrations that exceed the Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for these chemicals. Iron in the wells is relatively low compared with
other wells in Edina, but manganese is relatively high. The SMCLs are not enforceable regulations, but
recommended standards to avoid aesthetic concerns in the water distribution system. These aesthetic
concerns include taste and odor, discoloration, staining of laundry, and fouling of plumbing fixtures. In
addition, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has established Risk Assessment Advice for
manganese, which provides recommended maximum concentrations to avoid potential neurotoxicity
effects. Two values have been established by MDH, one for infants under one year of age, and a second
for the remainder of the population. The manganese levels for Wells 5 and 18 exceed the guideline for
infants according to water analysis from 2007.
The City's four existing water treatment plants provide a total treatment capacity of 9.66 million gallons
per day (MGD) for water supplied from eight wells. An additional ten wells provide water directly to
the distribution system without filtration, and are used as needed to meet peak water demands typically
encountered in the summer. By 2014, Wells 9 and 15 are expected to be connected to Water Treatment
Plant No. 6, which will increase treated water capacity to 13.75 MGD. The planned addition of Water
Treatment Plant No. 5 to provide treatment for Wells 5 and 18 will increase treated water capacity to
16.63 MGD.
Average daily demands on the Edina water system have ranged from 6.8 MGD to 8.2 MGD over the
previous ten years. Maximum daily demands have ranged from 13.1 MGD to 21.8 MGD over the same
period. Supply and treatment facilities are often sized to meet maximum daily demands, with peaks in
water usage over the course of a given day met by storage reserves. When the capacity of the City's
water treatment plants cannot meet the daily demand during peak water use periods, the City currently
utilizes unfiltered wells such as Wells 5 and 18 to make up the difference.
A review of daily pumping records for the City indicates that it is typical for the City to utilize unfiltered
wells to meet water demands approximately 120 days of the year. Population and associated water
demands are expected to increase in Edina through 2030 and beyond. The 2010 recorded population of
47,941 is projected to increase to 51,500 by 2030. The corresponding potential maximum daily demand
rate is projected to increase to 23.57 MGD by 2030. This is expected to increase the typical number of
days with demand exceeding treatment capacity to 140 days per year given the existing treatment
capacity. With the expansion of treatment capacity at Water Treatment Plant No. 6, and the planned
construction of Water Treatment Plant No. 5, this is expected to be reduced to approximately 5 days per
year.
85
Based on the analysis conducted for this study, it is recommended that the City maintain its current plan
to begin work on Water Treatment Plant No. 5 in 2017. During preliminary design for the water
treatment plant, the costs and benefits of increasing the capacity of Water Treatment Plant No. 5 should
also be considered. Adding filtration capacity that could accommodate future wells could be a cost
effective means to provide additional treated water capacity as water demands continue to increase, and
might allow the construction of Water Treatment Plant No. 7 to be delayed for a longer period of time
while continuing to meet water quality goals.
The chosen site for Water Treatment Plant No. 5 also appears to be a good location for the plant from a
hydraulic point of view. The water system hydraulic model indicates that the distribution system around
the proposed location is equipped to handle potential flow rates from the facility.
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Certification Page
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
86
Page
1.0
Background.............................................................................................................1
2.0
Water System Supply and Treatment Facilities....................................................
3
3.0
Iron and Manganese...............................................................................................
4
4.0
Water Demand Analysis.........................................................................................
6
4.1 Historical Water Demand..................................................................................6
4.2 Projected Water Demand.................................................................................
7
5.0
Filter Plant Capacity Evaluation.............................................................................
8
6.0
System Impacts from Pumping Wells 5 and 18 ...................................................12
7.0
Hydraulic Impacts of Water Treatment Plant No. 5 .............................................15
8.0
Cost Estimates......................................................................................................19
9.0
Conclusion............................................................................................................
20
List of Tables
Table 1 Existing Well and Water Treatment Capacities....................................................... 3
Table 2 Iron and Manganese Concentrations in Edina Wells ............................................... 5
Table 3 Planned Water Treatment Facilities........................................................................ 8
Table 4 Summary of Daily Pumping Data............................................................................ 9
Table 5 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Water Treatment Plant No. 5 ................................. 19
List of Figures
Figure 1 — Trends in Per Capita Demand and Demand Peaking ......................................... 6
Figure 2 —Water Demand Projections................................................................................. 7
Figure 3 — Daily Water Use (2010 - 2012)........................................................................... 9
Figure 4 — Projected Percentage of Days with Demand Exceeding Water Treatment Plant
Capacity............................................................................................... 10
Figure 5 — Projected Demands and Water Treatment Plant Capacity ................................ 11
Figure 6 — Geographic Extent of Water from Well 5 .......................................................... 13
Figure 7 — Geographic Extent of Water from Well 18 ......................................................... 14
Figure 8 — Distribution System Pressure Impacts of Water Treatment Plant No. 5 ............ 16
Figure 9 — Extended Period Simulation Results - Existing Average July Day .................... 17
Figure 10 — Extended Period Simulation Results - Average July Day with Water Treatment
PlantNo. 5........................................................................................... 18
87
Water System Demand and Capacity Analysis
Water Treatment Plant No. 5
Prepared for City of Edina
1.0 Background
The Edina municipal water system serves its customers, the residents and businesses of the
City of Edina, through a combination of wells located throughout the city. The water from
these wells varies in quality and chemical composition. The City has continued to add water
treatment capacity to the water system as economically feasible, to make continued
improvement to the quality of water supplied to its customers. The water treatment processes
at the City's four existing water treatment plants function to address aesthetic concerns such
as iron and manganese minerals from the well water, as well as health concerns such as those
posed by radium and vinyl chloride.
The City has been planning for some time to construct a fifth water treatment plant (Water
Treatment Plant No. 5) to provide filtration for the water supplied from Wells 5 and 18 in the
southeastern portion of the system. A site has been identified for this plant near the City's
existing water tower on 69h Street and France Avenue. Raw water transmission main has
been previously constructed, as it was convenient in conjunction with road improvements, to
bring water from Wells 5 and 18 to this planned site.
Wells 5 and 18 are currently used to provide water during peak summer demands. The wells
contain levels of iron and manganese that exceed the EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Levels for drinking water. Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels are recommended
values for water constituents that cause aesthetic concerns in drinking water. They are not
enforced, and are not based on health impacts.
Iron and manganese are naturally -occurring minerals that are commonly found in Minnesota
groundwater supplies. They are common sources of complaints from utility customers,
causing taste and odor, laundry staining, and fouling of plumbing fixtures. Complaints in
Edina have been kept to a minimum by limiting the use of Wells 5 and 18, along with other
unfiltered wells on the water system.
Water system operations staff maintain constant awareness of which wells are pumping, and
need to frequently shift the sequencing of wells in the controls system to minimize impact
from iron and manganese in the system. This has caused increased operational complexity
while limiting the use of existing well infrastructure. It has also put additional burden on
those wells that do pump to water treatment plants, causing some of these wells to be
operated continuously throughout the year. This causes shortened equipment life
expectancies, and reduces operational flexibility to regularly take equipment out of service
for maintenance.
M
Current projections indicate a strong demand for high density and mixed use redevelopment
in Edina over the next 20 years. Much of this redevelopment activity is expected in the
southeastern portion of the City, which is served by Wells 5 and 18. There is concern that
with planned growth, the accompanying increase in water demand will cause a need to utilize
Wells 5 and 18 more frequently. Therefore, it will be more difficult over time to maintain
system water quality through operational adjustments.
This study examines the City's current use of unfiltered well water and the potential impacts
within the distribution system. In addition, projected growth in water demand and water use
patterns are presented in order to quantify how the use of Wells 5 and 18 will increase and
how additional use will impact the water system and its customers. The study aims to clarify
the rationale used in deciding when to construct the planned Water Treatment Plant No. 5.
Additional distribution system hydraulic analysis was also conducted as part of this study to
further evaluate the current plan to construct Water Treatment Plant No. 5 at the 69h Street
and France Avenue site.
89
2.0 Water System Supply and Treatment Facilities
The City of Edina's water supply is provided by a network of wells and water treatment
plants that are distributed throughout the City. The wells provide groundwater from two
aquifer systems: the Prairie du Chien - Jordan system and the Mount Simon - Hinkley
system, with the majority of the City's water supply coming from the Prairie du Chien -
Jordan aquifer system.
Water is processed at four existing water treatment facilities. Plants 2, 3, and 4 are filtration
plants that are designed primarily for the removal of iron and manganese through oxidation
and granular filtration. Plant 6 is the most recent addition to the system. This plant was
designed to remove vinyl chloride that was impacting Well No. 7.
Vinyl chloride is a contaminant that entered the aquifer from activities at the land surface,
and a plume of the chemical was migrating into Edina from an unknown source in St. Louis
Park. The treatment process at Plant 6 includes air stripping which effectively removes vinyl
chloride from the water supply. The plant also contains facilities for radium removal, and
will be used to treat water from Wells 9 and 15 in the near future. These wells contain
radium from natural sources, and are currently on emergency reserve status.
A summary of well and treatment capacities follows in Table 1.
Table 1
Existing Well and Water Treatment Capacities
Water
Well
Well
Plant
Plant
Treatment
Depth
Aquifer
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Plant
Well ID
(ft)
System*
(gpm)
(gpm)
(MGD)
Well
500
OPCJ
720
2
1,680
2.42
Well
503
OPCJ
960
Well 10
1,001
CMSH
450
3
1,550
2.23
Well 11
403
OPG
1,100
Well 12
1,080
CMSH
900
4
1,800
2.59
Well 13
495
OPCJ
900
Well
448
OPCJ
1,000
6
1,680
2.42
Well?
547
OPG
680
Well
421
OPG
680
-a
Wells
443
OPCJ
1,000
a,
Well
472
OPG
825
LL
Well
1,130
CMSH
1,130
z
Well 15
405
OPG
2,000
>.
Well 16
381
OPG
1,000
v
Well 17
461
OPG
950
Well 18
446
OPCJ
1,000
Well 19
520
OPCJ
1,000
Well 20
467
OPG
1,000
Existing Filtered Water Total Capacity
6,710
9.66
*OPG: Prairie Du Chien - Jordan, CMSH: Mount Simon - Hinkley
Sl
3.0 Iron and Manganese
Both iron and manganese are minerals that are commonly found in ground water sources in
Minnesota. The EPA has set Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for both of
these minerals. SMCLs are established as guidelines to assist public water systems in
managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations such as taste, color, and odor.
These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL.
Therefore, these standards are not regulated or enforced by EPA or the Minnesota
Department of Health.
Iron and manganese are both common causes for customer complaints at water utilities in
Minnesota. Complaints are typically related to staining or fouling of plumbing fixtures.
Taste and odor can also be a concern with iron or manganese above the SMCL.
In addition to aesthetic issues, more recent research by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) indicates there may be potential health impacts due to the consumption of manganese
in water at high concentrations. In 2011, MDH began a review of recent human and animal
studies related to manganese exposure. Based on that review, a tiered manganese guidance
was issued for drinking water in 2012. This guidance established a Risk Assessment Advice
for manganese concentrations of less than 0.1 mg/L for infants less than one year of age, and
less than 0.3 mg/L for children greater than one year of age and adults.
Manganese is a known neurotoxin at high concentrations. MDH has established the Risk
Assessment Advice to protect populations from nervous system damage. The levels are not
regulated at the current time, but are recommendations for human consumption based on a
review of manganese exposure research. Additional information on MDH and EPA health
advisories related to manganese can be found on the MDH website:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/ wg /manganese.html
Table 2 lists the iron and manganese levels measured in Edina's wells in 2007, along with the
SMCL for each.
91
Table 2
Iron and Manganese Concentrations in Edina Wells
*Currently unfiltered
Table 2 indicates that all of the water sources in Edina have iron levels that exceed the
SMCL, and most have manganese levels that exceed the SMCL. Through the City's current
filtration processes, many of the problems that could result from these mineral concentrations
have been mitigated. However, current filtration capacities do not meet all water demand
conditions on the system.
Wells 5 and 18, for which treatment is planned with Water Treatment Plant No. 5, have
similar levels of iron and manganese as measured in 2007. Both wells are on the lower end
of the spectrum for iron levels, but have relatively high manganese levels.
Concentration m /L
Well No.
Iron
Manganese
SMCL
0.3
0.05
2
0.95
0.21
3*
0.65
0.072
4
0.71
0.048
5*
0.51
0.19
6
0.56
0.085
8*
0.53
0.28
10
0.82
0.021
11
0.56
0.054
12
4.0
0.086
13
0.68
0.052
15*
1.5
0.16
16*
0.5
0.04
17*
1.1
0.048
18*
0.53
0.18
19*
0.58
0.038
*Currently unfiltered
Table 2 indicates that all of the water sources in Edina have iron levels that exceed the
SMCL, and most have manganese levels that exceed the SMCL. Through the City's current
filtration processes, many of the problems that could result from these mineral concentrations
have been mitigated. However, current filtration capacities do not meet all water demand
conditions on the system.
Wells 5 and 18, for which treatment is planned with Water Treatment Plant No. 5, have
similar levels of iron and manganese as measured in 2007. Both wells are on the lower end
of the spectrum for iron levels, but have relatively high manganese levels.
92
4.0 Water Demand Analysis
4.1 Historical Water Demand
The City of Edina had a population of 47,941 in 2010, according to the US Census Bureau.
The total water use in 2010 was 2,478,000,000 gallons. This results in an average daily (AD)
demand rate of 7.61 million gallons per day (MGD). On a per capita basis, the water use in
Edina in 2010 averaged 142 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
Water demand comes not only from residential sources, but also from commercial, industrial,
and institutional land uses. However, where the relative proportion of these land uses
remains fairly constant, it is a sound assumption that the water use per capita will also remain
constant. Per capita water demand has ranged from 142 gpcd and 171 gpcd between 2003
and 2012. For future water use projections of AD demand, a value of 171 gpcd is used in this
study. This value is representative of the highest of the previous ten years. Using the highest
expected per capita demand is a common practice in utility infrastructure planning, to ensure
that future budgets are adequate to meet potential needs of the system.
Maximum daily (MD) demands, representing the highest daily water use on the system over a
given year, are often of greater interest to utility planners. This is because supply facilities
typically need to be able to meet MD demands reliably in order to provide continuous water
service. The per capita MD demand has ranged from 274 gpcd to 458 gpcd between 2003 to
2012. The fluctuation is typically correlated to climate parameters, such as precipitation and
temperature. This is due to the fact that the majority of peak water use serves lawn irrigation,
especially in suburban communities. For future water use projections of MD demand, a value
of 458 gpcd is used in this study.
The historic per capita water use for Edina over the last ten years is presented graphically in
Figure 1. There is a slight downward trend in per capita water use in Edina over the last ten
years. However, it is unclear if this is related to normal climate variation, or if it is indicative
of changes in water use behavior.
Figure 1 — Trends in Per Capita Demand and Demand Peaking
500.0
--*—AD Per Capita Water Use (gpd)
450.0 —a—MD Per Capita Water Use (gpd)
a 400.0
350.0
d
300.0
3
250.0
CL
A
U
200.0
a
150.0
100.0
'47777777���
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
4.2 Projected Water Demand
25.00
20.00
0
-o
15.00
C
M
E
d
ar
10.00
f0
3
5.00
93
The population of Edina is expected to increase to 51,500 by 2030, based on the City's most
current planning estimates. Based on the assumptions discussed previously of a constant per
capita average day demand of 171 gpcd and a per capita maximum day demand of 458 gpcd,
the potential maximum day demand rate is projected to increase to 23.57 MGD by 2030.
This is represented graphically, along with historical water demands of the previous ten years,
in Figure 2.
Figure 2 — Water Demand Projections
-------
-------------------------
--- Projected Average Day Demand (MGD)
--- Projected Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
--*---Average Day Demand - Historical (MGD)
—0— Maximum Day Demand - Historical (MGD)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
It should be noted that recently -released preliminary Metropolitan Council population projections show a
potential population for the City of Edina of 70,800 by 2040. This projected population growth is not
considered likely by City planners. It is mentioned here, however, as a possible outcome. If population was
to increase to that level by 2040 by a linear growth trajectory, the projected population for 2030 would be
62,953 rather than 51,500. This outcome could result in a maximum daily demand of 28.8 MGD as compared
to the 23.6 MGD projected in this study. It is recommended that these projections are revisited in five years
to reevaluate the population trajectory of the City.
94
5.0 Filter Plant Capacity Evaluation
The capacities of existing wells and water treatment plants were listed in Table 1. Future
planned water treatment plant capacities are presented in Table 3. The existing plant capacity
of 9.66 MGD will be increased by 2014 to 13.75 MGD with the addition of Wells 9 and 15 to
Water Treatment Plant No. 6. Water Treatment Plant No. 5 is currently in the City's capital
improvement plan for 2017, with an estimated start-up date of 2019. The total treatment
plant capacity with the addition of Plant 5 would be 16.63 MGD. With the future
construction of Plant 7, the total plant capacity would rise to 20.95 MGD.
Table 3
Planned Water Treatment Facilities
Water
Well
Well
Plant
Plant
Treatment
Depth
Aquifer
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Plant
Well ID
(ft)
System*
(gpm)
(gpm)
(MGD)
Well
500
OPCJ
720
2
1,680
2.42
Well
503
OPCJ
960
Well 10
1,001
CMSH
450
3
1,550
2.23
Well 11
403
OPCJ
1,100
Well 12
1,080
CMSH
900
4
1,800
2.59
Well 13
495
OPG
900
Well
448
OPCJ
1,000
Well
547
OPG
680
6
4,520
6.51
Well 9 (2014)
1,130
CMSH
840
Well 15 (2013)
405
OPCJ
2,000
Wells
443
OPG
1,000
5
2,000
2.88
Well 18
446
OPG
1,000
Well 16
381
OPG
1,000
7
Well 19
520
OPCJ
1,000
3,000
4.32
Well 20
467
OPCJ
1,000
Well
421
OPCJ
680
v
Z +;
Well
472
OPG
825
LL
Well 17
461
OPCJ
950
Planned Filtered Water Total Capacity
1 14,550
20.95
*OPCJ: Prairie Du Chien - Jordan, CMSH: Mount Simon - Hinkley
The maximum daily water use has fluctuated between 13.13 MGD and 21.77 MGD over the
previous ten years. With the existing water treatment capacity, a certain amount of water is
supplied from system wells such as Wells 5 and 18 during peak summer demands, which
provide unfiltered water to the system. The previous three years of daily pumping data from
all of the wells was analyzed to evaluate the frequency of use of unfiltered system wells.
Figure 3 shows a graph of the daily pumping data along with AD demand and MD demand
for each of the three years for which data were available. The current water treatment plant
capacity is shown for comparison.
95
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
CL v
6,000,000
4,000,000
3
2,000,000
0
Figure 3 — Daily Water Use (2010 - 2012)
•
•
._s
• •
•1 N -o
♦• •� ■ •
% •
O O
r-1 a--1
O
ei
O .-i .--1 -1 -q N
r -I ei r-1 ei r -I r -I
N
r-1
N
ei
\ \
\
\ \ \ \ \ \
00 U1 l0 N ei
\
01
\
n
ct
n
N
N \ \ N
O u1 00 a--1 M M
\
t0
\
C1
Exceeded
Exceeded Plant
AD Demand
MD Demand
Capita AD
Capita MD
Year
• 2010 Daily Water Use (gpd)
Capacity (%)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Demand (gpd)
• 2011 Daily Water Use (gpd)
2010
57
15.6%
6.789
• 2012 Daily Water Use (gpd)
141.6
273.9
2011
96 1
—0— Average Day Demand (gpd)
6.910
14.12
1 142.8
1 291.8
❑ Maximum Day Demand (gpd)
123 1
33.6%
7.614
17.08
—Current Filter Plant Capacity (gpd)
1 349.8
Filter Plant Capacity with Expanded Capacity of WTP 6
Filter Plant Capacity After Construction of WTP 5
Date
It is apparent in looking at Figure 3 that there are a number of days each year during which
unfiltered water is supplied from the system wells to meet peak demands. The number of
days each year in which demand exceeds plant capacity is clearly related to the maximum
daily demand and the level of peak season water usage. Table 4 lists the number of days
exceeding plant capacity, along with demand parameters for each of the three years.
Table 4
Summary of Daily Pumping Data
No. of Days
Percentage of
Demand
Days Demand
Estimated Per
Estimated Per
Exceeded
Exceeded Plant
AD Demand
MD Demand
Capita AD
Capita MD
Year
Plant Capacity
Capacity (%)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Demand (gpd)
Demand (gpd)
2010
57
15.6%
6.789
13.13
141.6
273.9
2011
96 1
26.3%
6.910
14.12
1 142.8
1 291.8
2012
123 1
33.6%
7.614
17.08
1 155.9
1 349.8
M
Of the three years for which daily pumping data were available, 2012 is viewed as a more
typical year - with a per capita MD demand closer to the 10 -year average of 360, and a per
capita AD demand closer to the 10 -year average of 154 gpd. For this reason, the daily
distribution of water demands for 2012 was used as a model for future years. The total daily
water demand for each day in 2012 was divided through by the average daily demand for the
year, thus producing a demand multiplier for each day of the year. These daily multipliers
can then be applied to future projected values of average daily demand in order to estimate
the number of days in future years that are expected to exceed the water treatment plant
capacity. The results are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 — Projected Percentage of Days with Demand Exceeding Water Treatment Plant
Capacity
25.00
20.00
v
C
ro
E
15.00
3
10.00
-----------------
/
( 1
----------------------------
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
M
25.0%0
0
d
20.0%
M
C
tU
15.0%
a
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Maximum Day Demand (MGD)
--f— Percentage of Days with Water Demand Greater than Treatment Plant Capacity - Historical (%)
— — — Percentage of Days with Water Demand Greater than Treatment Plant Capacity (%) -Treatment Plant Capacity with WTP 7 Added (20.95 MGD) -
Shown to Occur in 2024 Here for Illustrative Purposes Only
Percentage of Days with Water Demand Greater than Treatment Plant Capacity (%) - Treatment Plant Capacity with WTP 5 Added (16.63 MGD)
— — — Percentage of Days with Water Demand Greater than Treatment Plant Capacity (%) - Treatment Plant Capacity with Wells 9 and 15 to WTP 6
(13.75 MGD)
— — — Percentage of Days with Water Demand Greater than Treatment Plant Capacity (%) - Existing Treatment Plant Capacity (9.66 MGD)
The results of this analysis show that under a typical year such as 2012, with system water
demands projected to increase as previously discussed, and with the current water treatment
plant capacity of 9.66 MGD, the number of days in which water demands would exceed plant
capacity would increase from a current level of about 130 days per year (36% of days) to
approximately 140 days per year (38% of days). With the planned connection of Wells 9 and
15 to Water Treatment Plant No. 6, this is expected to drop to about 41 days in 2014 (11% of
days) and range up to 46 days by 2030 (13% of days). With the construction of Water
Treatment Plant No. 5 to provide iron and manganese removal for Wells 5 and 18, the days
97
with demand exceeding plant capacity drops further to about 5 days per year (1% of days).
The ultimate plan to construct Water Treatment Plant No. 7 for the treatment of Wells 16, 19,
and 20 would allow the City to meet nearly all demand conditions projected through 2030.
Figure 5 presents another perspective on the water treatment capacity. Many communities set
the goal of meeting maximum day demands with their water treatment plant capacity, thereby
allowing all water provided to the distribution system to be filtered.
Figure 6 — Projected Demands and Water Treatment Plant Capacity
30.00
c
R
25.00
Y
c
d
E
R
d
20.00
z
R�
3g
15.00
�
v
c f0
Q'
m
E
Go
0 10.00
E
d
Average Day Demand (MGD)
5.00
Day Demand (MGD)
3Maximum
Water Treatment Plant Capacity (MGD)
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Year
This chart shows the current water treatment plant capacity of 9.66 MGD, the planned
addition of Wells 9 and 15 in 2013 and 2014 respectively, the addition of Water Treatment
Plant No. 5 to filter Wells 5 and 18 in 2019, and the addition of Water Treatment Plant No. 7
to filter Wells 16, 19, and 20 in 2024. Water Treatment Plant No. 5 is currently on the City's
capital improvement plan for 2017, which could allow the plant to come online in 2019.
M
6.0 System Impacts from Pumping Wells 5 and 18
In order to gain an understanding of the geographic extent of impacts of the use of Wells 5
and 18 in the distribution system, the City's existing computer hydraulic model of the
distribution system was used to run a source trace analysis under a series of peak demand
days. The source trace calculates the amount of water at any node in the distribution system
model that comes from a given source of supply. In this case, the sources of supply tracked
were Wells 5 and 18. Figures 6 and 7 show the results of this analysis.
The geographic distribution of water from Wells 5 and 18 is dependent on system hydraulic
parameters such as the demands assigned geographically throughout the network, the
hydraulic properties of the well pumps, the pipe sizes in the water main network, and the
location of other supply or storage facilities. As water use fluctuates over the course of a day,
the distribution of water from these wells will expand and contract. The results presented
represent the maximum distribution over three days with maximum day demands on the
water system.
3�
E4,
�E
Legend
■ Well
a Water Storage Tank
% of Water from Well 5
• 0-10
•
11-20
•
21-30
31-40
•
41-50
• > 50
Water Tower
)II 18
ThN map NnaXNr Np.ry nmNed map nor•eurwY map oral'srW nluided[oMwed xoro. Tlb map N•mmpYNon of rawNa,Nfomwtlon, Aral debealhaned irom varbw aoucaafefW en MY map and N h M weal Nr rehrenbpurgeaaa any. SEH doge rot wnant Mal Ma Geographic Informtlion System(GIS) Dab wad to wam MN map m anan Ma, anal SEH doe no mpmaant MH
MS GIS Dab cenMwMMroNpatiorol, geotdtY,aany otlrrpwwuraetYMg axedYp nraanramarR of d'pbroe or dinctlonapratlebn in Me depiglon of peepnphN haWra. TM owr of MN map inN mladgr Mat SEH ahaY not M gabh for arty damage. which aha, ool 0 ft ar. aoosaa or wa of dab wovided.
3535 VADNAIS CENTERDR.
Pf0)BCL EDINA 125040
GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF WATER FROM WELL 5
ST. PAUL, MN 55110
PHONE: 0
Pllflt Date: 09/19/2013
WATER SYSTEM DEMAND
Figure
498215WO
FAX (651)190-2150
FAX (651)
WAITS 660J2S2o55
Map by: JDC
Protection: Hennepin County
Source: City of Edna InfoWeter
AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Water Treatment Plant No. 5
6
SEH
wwwsehinc.com
Edina, Minnesota
ThN map NnaXNr Np.ry nmNed map nor•eurwY map oral'srW nluided[oMwed xoro. Tlb map N•mmpYNon of rawNa,Nfomwtlon, Aral debealhaned irom varbw aoucaafefW en MY map and N h M weal Nr rehrenbpurgeaaa any. SEH doge rot wnant Mal Ma Geographic Informtlion System(GIS) Dab wad to wam MN map m anan Ma, anal SEH doe no mpmaant MH
MS GIS Dab cenMwMMroNpatiorol, geotdtY,aany otlrrpwwuraetYMg axedYp nraanramarR of d'pbroe or dinctlonapratlebn in Me depiglon of peepnphN haWra. TM owr of MN map inN mladgr Mat SEH ahaY not M gabh for arty damage. which aha, ool 0 ft ar. aoosaa or wa of dab wovided.
Legend
■ Well
a Water Storage Tank
% of Water from Well 18
• 0-10
•
11-20
•
21-30
31-40
•
41-50
• > 50
later Tower
18
Thi. map sro ra1."By—,ded �roprio��aurvay map ark w not inteid.M—uoro.Th, map i.•compbMn of—,d,. Mhmrtion, aM data Vathered aom—aorueb ont-map aM s to Eeu ferr,%MM purpow 1*. SEH doe, not —M tNu ft OeoprapNC lnlbmW Syabm(01S)DYa-1 to pet Oft map an arm Me, aM SEH does nol npnwent that
er GLS ne�—M used b roNroMro1. baddne. ar am Derr, prpoM na ..a —.W M dsi.roe or direction or—deion In the depceon of peopnphs feabree. TM—of mi. map aoMno Q. ert SEH "nM be forarty danrpea--.. of IM uaera—or—of data provided.
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.
Project: EDINA 125040
GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF WATER FROM WELL 18
ST. PAUL, MN 55110
Print Date: 09/19/2013
Figure
Map 6y: JDC
PONE:(651) 490.2000
H
WATER SYSTEM DEMAND AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
FAX (651) 490-2150
WATTS: 800-321-2055
Rejectors: Hennepin County
Source: City of Edina InfoWater
Water Treatment Plant No. 5
7
SEH
" .whin` m
Edina, Minnesota
Thi. map sro ra1."By—,ded �roprio��aurvay map ark w not inteid.M—uoro.Th, map i.•compbMn of—,d,. Mhmrtion, aM data Vathered aom—aorueb ont-map aM s to Eeu ferr,%MM purpow 1*. SEH doe, not —M tNu ft OeoprapNC lnlbmW Syabm(01S)DYa-1 to pet Oft map an arm Me, aM SEH does nol npnwent that
er GLS ne�—M used b roNroMro1. baddne. ar am Derr, prpoM na ..a —.W M dsi.roe or direction or—deion In the depceon of peopnphs feabree. TM—of mi. map aoMno Q. ert SEH "nM be forarty danrpea--.. of IM uaera—or—of data provided.
101
7.0 Hydraulic Impacts of Water Treatment Plant No. 5
Adding a new water treatment plant as planned, at the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of 69h Street and France Avenue, will change the hydraulic balance of the distribution system
to some degree. First, the distribution system will need to handle greater flow rates from the
location of the new water treatment plant. This tends to cause greater frictional energy losses
in the distribution system, and to increase pressures locally around the water treatment plant
location in order to overcome the greater frictional losses.
Second, with the addition of Water Treatment Plant No. 5, the City will want to utilize this
facility to a greater degree than current Wells 5 and 18 due to improved water quality. The
wells and plant high service pumps will be placed higher in the priority list for use. This
could create a concern due to the plant's proximity to the Southdale water tower. The water
produced by Water Treatment Plant No. 5 will tend to fill the Southdale tower quickly, which
could cause the other towers on the system to lag the Southdale tower.
The existing computer hydraulic model of the distribution system was used to evaluate the
hydraulic impacts of operating the new water treatment plant at the planned location. The
first concern of increased distribution system pressure is easily evaluated in a hydraulic
model. Pressures in the distribution system around Southdale were examined in the model
with the existing system and with the proposed system after Water Treatment Plant No. 5 is
added. Both scenarios were run with average day demands on the system, with water towers
at 2 feet below overflow, with the high service pumps at Water Treatment Plant No. 6
producing about 2600 gpm, and with Well 4 on at Water Treatment Plant No. 2. The new
water treatment plant was modeled as an input to the network of 2000 gpm at the intersection
of 69h Street and France Avenue. The comparison is shown in Figure 8, with pressures at
model nodes shown in psi.
Due to the proximity of the Southdale tower, the distribution system frictional losses are
minimized at the planned location for Water Treatment Plant No. 5. It can be seen in Figure
8 that pressures in the vicinity of the water treatment plant can be expected to increase around
1-2 psi with the additional pumping at that location.
Evaluation of the effect on hydraulic balance of the water towers on the distribution system is
a little more difficult as it depends on many factors such as the geographic distribution of
system demands and on the accuracy of pump controls. Most often, it is during peak demand
conditions that tower balance becomes a concern. This is because there is a greater amount
of water being moved through the distribution system from supply sources and storage
facilities to points of use. Under these conditions it becomes more difficult to push water
long distances, and towers tend to drain quickly during periods of the day when demands are
highest. Therefore it becomes difficult to keep some towers full without overflowing other
towers under these conditions.
102
Figure 8 — Distribution System Pressure Impacts of Water Treatment Plant No. 5
SOIOMOAIE
103
For the purposes of this analysis, a typical peak operation control scheme for the well and
water treatment plant high service pumps was obtained from the City. This was input into the
model to control pumps in an extended period simulation (EPS). The model was run for three
consecutive days, with average July water demand, to evaluate tower levels over time. Water
Treatment Plant No. 5 was placed in the pump sequencing as the last water treatment plant to
be run, but before any unfiltered wells were used to maintain water tower levels.
The comparative EPS results are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Due to the distribution of water
demand in the model, the Southdale tower is drawn down faster than the other towers during
peak demand periods. This is apparent in Figure 9. Because the Southdale tower is lagging
the other towers in the existing condition, the addition of Water Treatment Plant No. 5, and
the increased pumping at that location actually helps with tower balance. Figure 10 shows
the results of the EPS with the addition of Water Treatment Plant No. 5 to the model.
Figure 9 — Extended Period Simulation Results - Existing Average July Day
1,090.00
1,085.00
1,080.00
AT-
E 1,075.00
o --*—High School
j 1,070.00
-11—Gleason
d
W
1,065.00—�r—Southdale
eo
3 1,060.00 —0—Van Valkenburg
Y
C
A
H
1,055.00
1,050.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time of Simulation (hr)
104
Figure 10 — Extended Period Simulation Results - Average July Day with Water Treatment
Plant No. 5
1,090.00
1,085.00
1,080.00 "71V
j 1,075.00
c —4—High School
1,070.00
-(Gleason
W
1,065.00—t•Southdale
3 1,060.00 •Van Valkenburg
Y
C
M
H
1,055.00
1,050.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time of Simulation (hr)
105
8.0 Cost Estimates
An updated preliminary cost estimate is provided in Table 5 for Water Treatment Plant No. 5.
These costs are based on projects of similar scale and scope completed by SEH recently.
These preliminary numbers are conservative, with a high level of contingency due to
unknowns about the site and project -specific requirements. It is recommended that the City
review planned expenditures in the current capital improvement plan, as construction costs
for water treatment plants have increased significantly in the last two years.
Table 5
Preliminary Cost Estimate for Water Treatment Plant No. 5
Item
Cost
Estimate
Construction Cost Estimate (3 MGD Pressure Filter Plant)
$4,800,000
Contingency (20%)
$960,000
Engineering, Administrative, and Legal (20%)
$1,152,000
Total Estimated Project Cost
$6,912,000
106
9.0 Conclusion
Water system operations personnel have been successful in minimizing complaints on the
Edina water system. However, they have reported difficulty with current operations,
requiring constant vigilance in ensuring that the use of system wells, which are currently not
filtered, is minimized during the summer season. Examination of prior pumping records
shows that there are a significant number of days each year in which water system demands
exceed the capacity provided by the City's existing water treatment plants. In addition, the
wells that are currently sent to filtration plants are being over -utilized, limiting operational
flexibility, reliability, and equipment life expectancy.
The City of Edina has set a goal of continuing to improve on the existing water quality and
operational constraints through the expansion of water treatment plant capacity where it is
economically feasible, ultimately eliminating the need to pump unfiltered well water into the
distribution system under most demand conditions. With projected population and associated
water demand increases in Edina over the next 20 years, additional water treatment plant
capacity will be needed to meet this goal.
The current plan to add two additional wells to Water Treatment Plant 6 by 2014 will help the
City to reduce the number of days under which filtration capacity does not meet demand by
about 60%. Water Treatment Plant No. 5 has been planned for some time, to filter water
from Wells 5 and 18. This facility is on the current water utility capital improvement plan for
2017. The additional filtration capacity provided by Plant 5 will further reduce the need to
pump unfiltered water into the distribution system, providing filtration capacity to meet
approximately 99% of demand days.
Hydraulic analysis indicates that the planned location for Water Treatment Plant No. 5 will
allow the planned facility to pump greater than 2000 gpm to the distribution system without
negative impacts on system pressures or hydraulic balance. The proximity to the Southdale
water tower limits frictional backpressure at the proposed facility location. Modeling of
system operations with the new facility indicates that the proximity to the Southdale tower
will also help to keep that storage tank full during peak demands. Therefore, the proposed
location appears to be hydraulically feasible without significant distribution system
modifications.
Based on the results of this analysis, it seems as though the current plan to begin construction
in 2017 for Water Treatment Plant No. 5 is a sound course for the City to continue to make
progress on the improvement of water quality and system operations. While there has been
discussion about the construction of a future Water Treatment Plant No. 7, to provide
treatment for Wells 16, 19, and 20, a date has not been established for that facility.
During the feasibility study phase for Water Treatment Plant No. 5, consideration should also
be given to building additional treatment capacity into the plant - to expand treatment to other
future wells in the vicinity of the plant. While this study looked at water demand projections
through 2030, prior planning documents have indicated the potential for redevelopment
activities to continue to increase the population of the City of Edina beyond the values
considered here. The most recent preliminary population projections from the Metropolitan
Council also indicate a potentially higher rate of population increase in Edina.
With continued growth in the City, there will be additional needs for water treatment
capacity. This added capacity might be built more cost effectively in conjunction with Water
Treatment Plant No. 5 as opposed to additional facilities in the future. Additional capacity at
107
Plant 5 may also allow the City to delay the construction of Plant 7 further, while achieving
the same water quality results.
jdc