The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-06-09 Council Agenda Packet CITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. Corcoran City Council Agenda June 9, 2016 - 7:00pm 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations a. Introduction – Zoe Kesselring, Seasonal Recreation Coordinator 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of May 26, 2016 Council Meeting* b. Parks and Trails Commission Resignation – Rachel Tessmer* c. Resolution 2016-49 - Approving Temporary Charitable Gambling License* 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)* b. All Other Financial Claims* 8. Staff Reports / Memos / Commissions a. Financial Performance Report* b. Hazardous Building Removal Update* 9. Planning Business a. Request for Amended Phase 5 Grading Plan – U.S. Home Corporation* 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business a. Petition Submittal – Sundance Road* b. Sub-Watershed Assessment Discussion* 12. Unscheduled Items 13. 2016 Council Schedule* 14. Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 6/02/16 7/07/16 8/14/16 9/01/16 10/6/16 Keefe LaFave Hank Thomas Guenthner Parks and Trails Commission 6/21/16 7/19/16 8/16/16 9/20/16 10/18/16 Keefe Hank Thomas Guenthner LaFave 15. Adjournment OPEN FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date tmg �,__ I u n& l ,'lib 11 Name — Address Phone �] (; -113 �/ p b- -70 Z 4 ! 9 5�1 - - 1 4 `�2� �� -- Ole- u. -1C.1 / 92�z,) Page 1 of 1 Im 9 April 1, 2016 Ms. Stacey M. Jenson Regulatory Branch St. Paul District Corps of Engineers 180 Fifth Street East Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101 -1678 Dear Corps of Engineers, I wanted to confirm that I am in receipt of the Public Notice documents pertaining to the Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Bank Proposal - Ravinia Wetland Bank (2015- 01460 -MMJ) dated March 14, 2016. I am the owner of a 7 -acre property to the southeast of the proposed wetland bank (PID 36 119 -23 -44 -009). My property does and will be receiving all the downstream water flow from the Ravinia Wetland Bank as described "where Wetland 9 drains through a 12 -15 culvert beneath a field road before flowing offsite." I am writing to you to request that I would like to be notified of all future correspondence and meetings associated with the proposed Ravinia Wetland Bank project. I also would like to be involved with the appropriate parties at public hearings to confirm some of the following concerns and questions that I have regarding the Ravinia Wetland Bank and the proposed Phase 6A and 7 of the proposed Ravinia Residential Development: * Since all of the downstream water flows come through my property and fills my pond on our property, is there any potential that water flow will increase significantly or reduce significantly with the newly developed Ravinia Wetland Bank? * Is there any potential that my pond could dry up given the development of the Ravinia Wetland Bank? * If there are heavy rainfalls, the water flowing onto my property through the current area of the Ravinia Wetland Bank, will sometimes almost come over the height of the bridge and driveway of my property. Will the proposed Ravinia Wetland Bank project help this situation? * Currently, if there are rains of more than 2 -4 inches, my property in the backyard near my house receives heavy runoff of fertilizer, manure and topsoil from the land northeast of the proposed wetland bank. In 2014, during at least 6 heavy rainfalls, I had to shovel and pressure -wash over 3 inches of thick dirt, manure, fertilizer and top -soil coming from the neighboring property from my driveway, patio area and even inside my pool. At least two times a year, I encounter this situation after heavy rains since I bought the property in 1999. I have many stunning pictures and videos that can support this claim if you are interested. I have voiced my concerns to the City of Corcoran numerous times at City Council meetings and to the owner of the property, with no help or concern. Since I have never been in any conversations with U.S. Home Corporation and I have do not have any current interest in selling our property, how can I get confirmation that this situation will not continue as Phase 6A and 7 of the Ravinia Residential project is built directly to the west of my property? I see my property has been "ghost plotted" as the Ravinia development was planned and approved with the City of Corcoran as though it will just be part of future phase of the U.S. Home Corporation /Ravinia development. Since we do not intend to sell our property, what discussions /plans need to happen to ensure that future heavy run -off from the Ravinia Phase 6A and 7 projects does not come directly into my backyard? I hope you will consider some of my questions and concerns as you plan, discuss and approve the Ravinia Wetland Bank project. I can be reached at 612 - 388 -8753 should you have any questions of me directly. Thank you for your willingness to listen to me and my concerns. Best regards, Greg S. Hoglund 19220 Hackamore Road Corcoran, MN 55340 CITY OF CORC'ORM, 9525 CAIN ROAD, CO C.ORA.N, HM 5534 PHONE: 420 -2288 February i2, 1992 Mr, James Naucshuitz 10300 Sundance Road Rogers, HN 55374 Dear Jim, Per our conversation, I an enclosing a Copy of the proposed plans for the realignment and improvement of E_ndancp Road.. The plan illustrates the _following: -The existing right -of -way is designated by the yellow line. -The existing road is designated by the dashed lines. -The proposed road is designated by the shaded area. -The proposed additional right -of -way is designated by the orange line. -The location of a proposed 12" culvert on the northwestern edge of the cul -de -sac. I:n speaking with the design engineer, he indicated that the coordination of relocating the mailboxes and siting of the ne7 mailboxes could be established per the preference of the homeowners, subject to postal approval, '11 be calling you next week to see if you have any questions and to coordinate a meeting to discuss the dedication of the additional right -of -way. if you have any immediate questions or concerns, please call me at 420 -2288 ;Tues. v Thurs.) or at 428 -2253 (Hon., Wed., a Fri.). Sir.r_erely, Gary J A tel Y City Planner J .,'M'js 2nclosure CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes May 26 , 2016 - 7:00pm The Corcoran City Council met on May 26, 2016, at City Hall in Corcoran, MN. Present were Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Hank, Councilor Keefe, Councilor LaFave, and Councilor Thomas. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, and City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:03pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Guenthner invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Agenda Approval City Administrator Martens asked that Item 11a.Solar Workshop Follow Up and 12b.Ordinance Update of Allow Minor Subdivisions be added to the agenda. Councilor Keefe asked that Item 11b.Paving Project Update be added to the agenda. MOTION: made by Hank, seconded by Thomas to approve the agenda as amended. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 4.Open Forum Phillip Bongaarts, 19949 Larkin Road, addressed the Council relating to the road alignment proposed in the Southeast Design Guidelines. Mr. Bongaarts specifically is concerned that he was unaware of the proposed County Road 10 and County Road 50 realignments and concerned about the process for communicating these plans to residents. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, addressed the Council on concerns related to video recording City Council meetings and the proposed market study of downtown. Mr. Hoglund specifically is concerned with the length of time it is taking for video recording to begin and is concerned for the need of a market study. Lee Selisky, 21000 Greenview Court, addressed the Council on concerns about the communications. Mr. Selisky specifically is concerned with not being able to find Ordinance 2011- 261 on the website and had not received an email response from the City. 5.Presentations No presentations were heard. 6.Consent Agenda a.Draft Minutes of May 12, 2016 Council Meeting b.Assessing Contract c.Resolution Approving Tobacco, Beer and Liquor Licenses 2016-40 d.Resolution Accepting Corcoran Soccer Association Donation 2016-41 Councilor Keefe asked that Item 6a. be considered separately as he was not at the May12th meeting. Mayor Guenthner noted that the Council has been advised that Councilors who are not at a meeting may vote on meeting minutes. Councilor Thomas asked that Item d. be considered separately. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve the consent agenda consisting of Items 6a., 6b., and 6c. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Mayor Guenthner read aloud Resolution Accepting Corcoran Soccer Association Donation 2016-41. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Hank to approve the Item 6d. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 6a. 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve the escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) b. All Other Financial Claims MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to approve all other claims as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Planning Project Update; report received. b. Code Compliance Report; report received. 9. Public Hearing a. Potential Assessment for Dust Control in 2016 City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the proposed costs and that the neighborhood roads will be receiving a greater subsidy due to favorable bids. Mayor Guenthner called the public hearing to order. Gail Marie, 9825 Sundance Road, addressed the Council inquiring if a different chemical was used and noted that the conditions of their road seemed to be rougher last year compared to previous years. Wendell Brainerd, 9901 Lily Pond Lane addressed the Council on the Lily Pond Lane petition that was submitted to the City Council. Mr. Brainerd noted that the petition has signatures from all but two of the residents on the street, the need for dust control on this cul de sac is not needed and the amount of chemical that had been used in recent years seemed excessive. Judith Herwig, 9410 Fox Valley Drive addressed the Council on discontinuing dust control on Fox Valley Drive and confirmed that a petition would need to be submitted Lavern Skutley, 9405 Fox Valley Drive, addressed the Council on how dust control makes the road greasy and they would like to discontinue dust control. Gail Marie, 9825 Sundance Road, addressed the Council clarifying that she would like to go back to the previous chemical used for dust control. MOTION: made by Hank, seconded by LaFave to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) City Administrator Martens noted the pervious history of the chemical noting that the calcium chloride has been used in recent years and noted that the roads would be graded and rolled before the application of dust control. City Administrator Martens provided an overview of discontinuation process noting that in previous years the City allowed discontinuation of dust control by petition by a certain date with more than 50 percent of the homeowners petitioning. Council discussed the removal of roads from through a petition for discontinuation of dust control treatments. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Hank to approve Resolution 2016-42 Ordering Improvement of Dust Control Treatments to be Applied in 2016 with the following additional language: “The City Council received and accepted a petition from residents on Lily Pond Lane of more than 50% of the residents requesting removal and has removed the Lily Pond Lane from the project. The Clerk shall remove Fox Valley Drive or any other cul-de-sac from the improvement project if a petition asking for removal is received by the Clerk no later than June 3, 2016 with more than 50% of the properties requesting removal.” Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Council further discussed the discontinuation process, noting that one possible solution would be to accept homeowners’ petitions for removal unless staff identifies a need for dust control treatments for maintenance needs. Mayor Guenthner recessed the meeting at 7:55pm Mayor Guenthner reconvened the meeting at 7:59pm 10. Planning Business a. City Initiated Ordinance Amendment to the Private Drive Ordinance (City file 16-003) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting that a building rights should be reviewed. Council discussed the paving requirement, building rights related to pavement and the appropriate length of the paved apron. City Administrator Martens noted that the average apron on gravel roads in Corcoran is 71 feet. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Ordinance 2016-317 with a required 75 foot paved apron if entering off of a paved road. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Thomas to approve Summary Ordinance 2016-318. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve Resolution 2016-43 Finding of Facts. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) b. Corcoran Southeast Plan and Design Guidelines Update (City file 15-021) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting that process included a community advisory team, the plans outline that downtown would have a new Town Center with the existing downtown core and reconfirmed the County Road 10 and Country Road 50 realignments. Councilor LaFave addressed the concerns brought up at open forum noting the multiple methods of communication related to the project including community workshops, newsletter articles, and website updates. Council discussed the plan, the need for a planning visions and confirmed the realignment stemmed from a 2001 plan. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve Ordinance 2016-319 Amending Section 1040.130 of Chapter 10 of the City Code. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Resolution 2016-44 – Finding of Facts. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve Ordinance 2016-320 – Amending Apendix A of Chapter 10 of the City Code. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve Resolution 2016-45 – Finding of Facts. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Ordinance 2016-321 – Amending the Text of Chapter 10 of the City Code. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve Resolution 2016-46 –Finding of Facts. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to approve Summary Ordinance 2016-322. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) c. Sign Ordinance Update City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the amendment was due to a clerical error. At the public hearing the topic of dynamic signs in the institutional zoning district was discussed and was to be included in the ordinance but was not in the final language adopted. MOTION: made by Hank, seconded by Keefe to approve Ordinance 2016-323. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Hank to approve Resolution 2016-47 –Findings of Fact. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Hank to approve Summary Ordinance 2016-324. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) d.Sketch Plan for Roalstad Property (city file 16-014) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the requirements for an Open Space and Preservation plat has been met. Council discussed a need for street connectivity, public/private trails, preserving the trees, and the responsibility of paving to the property line. Paul Otto of Otto Associates and Devin of Keller Williams answered questions relating to the plans location of lots. 11.Unfinished Business a. Solar Workshop Follow Up City Administrator Martens asked for feedback on the next steps indicating an ordinance could be drafted a presented at the second meeting in June. Council discussed allocating staff time to this project, concerns with the layout and the need for accessory solar as part of the ordinance. Per Council consensus, staff was directed to bring forward a draft ordinance. b. Paving Project Update Councilor Keefe asked to City Administrator Martens provided an update to council on a timeline to review the assessment policy. City Administrator Martens noted he would recommend looking at the assessment policy in July. City Administrator Martens noted he would provide staff project updates quarterly. 12.New Business a. Corcoran Southeast District Market Analysis City Administrator Martens presented the report noting that there is a cost share funding opportunity for a market analysis which would assist the City in better understanding the possibilities of downtown, and the timeliness of the project with water and sewer being available. Council discussed their thoughts on the project. MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Thomas to proceed with a downtown market study using long range planning funds to pay for City costs. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) b. Minor Subdivision Ordinance Amendment City Administrator Martens presented the discussion topic noting that the current ordinance requires a preliminary plat, final plat, and public hearing. This process typically costs approximately $3,700.00 in its current form. An ordinance update would allow an administrative procedure that could streamline the process. Council discussed a change such as this would be more user- friendly. Per consensus, Council directed staff to bring forward an ordinance update to allow for minor-subdivisions. 13.Unscheduled Items No unscheduled were presented. 14.2016 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the Council schedule. Mayor Guenthner asked that the work session be held in the Council Chambers to allow for additional audience space. 15.Council Liaison Calendar The Council liaison calendar was not reviewed, but was available in the Council Packet. 16.Adjournment MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Hank to adjourn. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 9:57pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Council Meeting: June 9, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Parks and Trails Commission Resignation – Rachel Tessmer Action Required: Approval Summary: Parks and Trails Commission member Rachel Tessmer has submitted her resignation from the Parks and Trails Commission. Rachel has served on the commission from September 24, 2009 and her service is much appreciated. Due to the previously approved ordinance amendment to the structure of the Parks and Trails Commission, no new member is needed and the commission size will be seven members. The seven member commission is now small enough to use the Council chambers for meetings which will begin in June. Financial/Budget: N/A Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Council Action: Accept the resignation of Rachel Tessmer from the Parks and Trails Commission. Attachments: 1. Resignation Letter – Rachel Tessmer 2. Resolution 2016-48 Honoring Departing Commissioner Rachel Tessmer City of Corcoran June 9, 2016 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016-48 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION HONORING DEPARTING COMMISSIONER RACHEL TESSMER WHEREAS, Rachel Tessmer is a long standing active community member of the City of Corcoran whose service included serving as a Planning Commission alternate for 2006 and a member of the Land Use Committee in 2008; and WHEREAS, Rachel Tessmer was appointed as a Parks and Trails Commissioner on September 24, 2009; and WHEREAS, Rachel Tessmer was successfully re-appointed for two additional terms on February 23, 2012 and March 20, 2015; and WHEREAS, during her tenure on the Parks and Trails Commission, Rachel reviewed various development plans, took part in planning the future park system and City as a whole, and reviewed the parks budget and staffing plan; and WHEREAS, Rachel Tessmer has elected to end her service on the Parks and Trails Commission effective June 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran recognizes the time, energy, dedication, and leadership provided by Rachel Tessmer. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Corcoran, that the City Council hereby honors Rachel Tessmer for her distinguished service to the City of Corcoran. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Guenthner, Ken Guenthner, Ken Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Hank, Pat Hank, Pat Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 9th day of June, 2016. ___________________________________ Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise– City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran June 9, 2016 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2016-49 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHARITABLE GAMBLING IN THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Corcoran that the following Charitable Gambling License is granted effective for the dates as indicated, to the following Licensee, provided appropriate application and insurance documents are submitted and satisfactory background check completed by the Corcoran Police Department. LICENSEE LICENSE LICENSE EFFECTIVE DATE Hope Chest for Breast Cancer BreastFest 2016 Organization located at 3850 Shoreline Drive South, Wayzata, MN 55391 Charitable Gambling September 17, 2016 (One day license) Event located at 20439 County Road 10, Corcoran, MN VOTING AYE VOTING NAY Guenthner, Ken Guenthner, Ken Hank, Pat Hank, Pat Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 9th day of June, 2016. ________________________________ Ken Guenthner - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator 6c. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Council Meeting: June 9, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Financial Performance Report Action Required: None – Informational Summary: Attached to this report is the updated Financial Performance Report through May 2016 which shows an anticipated surplus of $80,599. The majority of the surplus is from a deferred assessment for the 1990 Hackamore Road Improvement Project in the amount of $67,329.71. Later on in the year staff will ask the Council if this revenue should be transferred to another fund. Financial/Budget: The 2016 budget includes a $10,000 transfer to reserves. Any surplus would be added to the reserves unless reallocated for a different purpose. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility, and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: N/A Recommendation N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: 1. Financial Performance Report CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 1 of 5 2016 Variance Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS REVENUE Other General Government R 100-41900-31100 General Property Taxes 2,852,755.61 3,074,300.00 0.00 3,074,300.00 100.00%3,074,300.00 0.00 R 100-41900-31810 Cable Franchise Fee 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 100.00%40,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-32110 Liquor License Fee 18,500.00 18,250.00 13,890.00 4,360.00 23.89%18,250.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33402 Homestead Credit 19,604.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33420 Ag Preserve Credit 25,553.65 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.00%5,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33421 PERA State Aid 1,845.00 1,845.00 0.00 1,845.00 100.00%1,845.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 10,908.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34000 Charges for Services 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34103 Zoning/Land Use Appl Fee 15,870.00 12,000.00 18,235.00 -6,235.00 -51.96%19,000.00 7,000.00 R 100-41900-34105 Copies/Maps 57.25 150.00 15.50 134.50 89.67%150.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34107 Special Assessment Search 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00%50.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34108 TIF Administration 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 100.00%8,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34405 Clean Up Day Income 1,803.00 675.00 2,592.00 -1,917.00 -284.00%2,592.00 1,917.00 R 100-41900-36100 Special Assessments 0.00 0.00 67,329.71 -67,329.71 0.00%67,329.00 67,329.00 R 100-41900-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 13,754.75 2,500.00 1,992.80 507.20 20.29%2,500.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36210 Interest Earnings 1,030.14 2,000.00 121.75 1,878.25 93.91%2,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36220 Other Rents and Royalties 9,840.00 9,840.00 10,080.00 -240.00 -2.44%10,800.00 960.00 R 100-41900-36230 Donations 768.29 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 2,972,300.34$ 3,175,610.00$ 114,256.76$ 3,252,816.00$ 77,206.00$ City Hall Operations R 100-41941-34101 Facility Rental 7,835.00 6,000.00 2,517.50 3,482.50 58.04%6,000.00 0.00 R 100-41941-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 152.32 1,000.00 -4.00 1,004.00 100.40%1,000.00 0.00 7,987.32$ 7,000.00$ 2,513.50$ 7,000.00$ -$ Police R 100-42100-33423 Police Aid 55,164.61 45,000.00 0.00 45,000.00 100.00%45,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-33424 Police POST Board Train Reimb 3,664.98 3,700.00 0.00 3,700.00 100.00%3,700.00 0.00 R 100-42100-33620 Other County Grants/Aid 9,047.31 10,000.00 3,743.75 6,256.25 62.56%10,000.00 0.00 Pass through to fund - (100-42100-111 and 100-42101-111) R 100-42100-34200 Police Permits 3,152.50 2,000.00 900.00 1,100.00 55.00%2,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-34201 Police Serviced Charges 7,585.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 100.00%7,500.00 0.00 Pass through to fund - (100-42100-111 and 100-42101-111) R 100-42100-34202 Police Reports/Fees 783.00 1,000.00 312.00 688.00 68.80%1,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-35101 Fines 39,509.94 45,000.00 17,982.00 27,018.00 60.04%45,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 118,907.34$ 114,200.00$ 22,937.75$ 114,200.00$ -$ Building Inspection R 100-42400-32210 Bldg/Plan Review Fees 301,660.97$ 190,000.00$ 150,326.70$ 39,673.30$ 20.88%190,000.00$ -$ Public Works R 100-43100-33418 Muni State Aid St Maintenance 122,524.20 120,000.00 66,736.80 53,263.20 44.39%124,600.00 4,600.00 R 100-43100-34300 Public Works Permits/Fees 2,840.00 3,000.00 900.00 2,100.00 70.00%3,000.00 0.00 R 100-43100-34301 Dust Control 52,591.44 57,500.00 0.62 57,499.38 100.00%57,500.00 0.00 R 100-43100-36100 Special Assessments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-43100-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 10,491.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 188,447.38$ #180,500.00$ 67,637.42$ 185,100.00$ 4,600.00$ Ice & Snow Removal R 100-43125-36200 Ice & Snow Removal/Miscellaneous Rev 21,742.72$ 8,000.00$ 9,453.12$ (1,453.12)$ -18.16%9,453.00$ 1,453.00$ Recycling R 100-43232-33610 County Recycling Grant 8,419.50 14,500.00 -0.50 14,500.50 100.00%14,500.00 0.00 R 100-43232-34400 Recycling 57,841.57 -69.50 69.50 0.00%0.00 0.00 66,261.07$ 14,500.00$ (70.00)$ 14,500.00$ -$ Parks R 100-45200-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 38,315.85 37,302.00 34,044.20 3,257.80 8.73%34,044.20 -3,257.80 NW Trails Grant R 100-45200-34101 Facility Rental 5,088.14 6,000.00 2,062.00 3,938.00 65.63%6,000.00 0.00 R 100-45200-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,107.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-45200-36230 Donations 5,829.36 0.00 1,950.00 -1,950.00 0.00%1,950.00 1,950.00 R 100-45200-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 50,341.06$ 43,302.00$ 38,056.20$ 41,994.20$ (1,307.80)$ Transfers to/from Other Funds R 100-49360-39200 Transfer from Other Fund -$ 61,901.00$ -$ 61,901.00 100.00%61,901.00$ 0.00 Total Revenue 3,727,648$ 3,795,013$ 405,111$ 3,876,964$ 81,951.20$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 2 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS EXPENSE City Council E 100-41100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)6,600.00 6,600.00 0.00 6,600.00 100.00%6,600.00 0.00 E 100-41100-122 FICA 409.20 409.00 0.00 409.00 100.00%409.00 0.00 E 100-41100-126 Medicare 95.70 96.00 0.00 96.00 100.00%96.00 0.00 E 100-41100-208 Training and Instruction 315.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 66.00 75.00 197.00 -122.00 -162.67%197.00 122.00 7,485.90$ 8,180.00$ 197.00$ 8,302.00$ 122.00$ Newspaper/Newsletter/Website E 100-41130-351 Newsletter Expenses 5,751.82 6,000.00 2,828.71 3,171.29 52.85%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-41130-354 Web Site 750.00 1,500.00 250.00 1,250.00 83.33%1,500.00 0.00 6,501.82$ 7,500.00$ 3,078.71$ 7,500.00$ -$ City Administrator E 100-41300-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)93,414.17 99,757.00 38,745.21 61,011.79 61.16%99,757.00 0.00 E 100-41300-121 PERA 7,018.81 7,482.00 2,905.87 4,576.13 61.16%7,482.00 0.00 E 100-41300-122 FICA 5,762.37 6,185.00 2,401.37 3,783.63 61.17%6,185.00 0.00 E 100-41300-126 Medicare 1,348.75 1,446.00 561.56 884.44 61.16%1,446.00 0.00 E 100-41300-131 Employer Paid Health 16,562.03 17,643.00 7,863.09 9,779.91 55.43%17,643.00 0.00 E 100-41300-208 Training and Instruction 3,872.52 4,000.00 720.00 3,280.00 82.00%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-41300-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)574.75 700.00 239.64 460.36 65.77%700.00 0.00 E 100-41300-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 506.00 600.00 547.00 53.00 8.83%547.00 -53.00 E 100-41300-433 Dues and Memberships 1,752.20 1,000.00 164.71 835.29 83.53%1,000.00 0.00 130,811.60$ 138,813.00$ 54,148.45$ 138,760.00$ (53.00)$ Clerk/Admin E 100-41400-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)133,639.13 168,640.00 63,753.17 104,886.83 62.20%168,640.00 0.00 E 100-41400-110 Overtime 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41400-121 PERA 9,284.68 12,723.00 4,781.19 7,941.81 62.42%12,723.00 0.00 E 100-41400-122 FICA 7,600.66 10,518.00 4,197.25 6,320.75 60.09%10,518.00 0.00 E 100-41400-126 Medicare 1,778.54 2,460.00 981.62 1,478.38 60.10%2,460.00 0.00 E 100-41400-131 Employer Paid Health 35,788.94 52,928.00 18,667.54 34,260.46 64.73%52,928.00 0.00 E 100-41400-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)11,039.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41400-208 Training and Instruction 125.00 4,000.00 475.00 3,525.00 88.13%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-41400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)150.53 750.00 96.95 653.05 87.07%750.00 0.00 E 100-41400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)27.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41400-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 1,012.00 1,400.00 2,147.00 -747.00 -53.36%2,147.00 747.00 E 100-41400-433 Dues and Memberships 340.00 500.00 70.00 430.00 86.00%500.00 0.00 200,785.93$ 254,919.00$ 95,169.72$ 255,666.00$ 747.00$ Elections E 100-41410-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)153.56$ 7,000.00$ 1,228.80$ 5,771.20$ 82.45%7,000.00$ -$ Auditor/Treasurer E 100-41540-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)23,961.50$ 26,000.00$ 18,510.00$ 7,490.00$ 28.81%26,000.00$ -$ Assessor E 100-41550-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)1,112.28 1,000.00 40.98 959.02 95.90%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41550-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)56,098.68 59,000.00 18,932.64 40,067.36 67.91%58,000.00 -1,000.00 57,210.96$ 60,000.00$ 18,973.62$ 59,000.00$ (1,000.00)$ Attorney E 100-41600-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL) 18,541.05$ 31,000.00$ 10,930.83$ 20,069.17$ 64.74%31,000.00$ -$ Other General Government E 100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,031.92 4,600.00 4,820.26 -220.26 -4.79%4,850.00 250.00 Purchased Wetland Buffer signs E 100-41900-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)7,269.50 5,000.00 1,229.27 3,770.73 75.41%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-41900-360 Insurance (GENERAL)67,770.00 68,000.00 63,182.00 4,818.00 7.09%63,182.00 -4,818.00 E 100-41900-433 Dues and Memberships 25,976.30 27,000.00 9,718.73 17,281.27 64.00%27,000.00 0.00 ECW,Metro Cities,NWHHSC,Community Media,LMC,I94 Chamber, Home Free E 100-41900-700 Transfers 25,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00%60,000.00 0.00 E 100-41900-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 129,047.72$ 164,600.00$ 78,950.26$ 160,032.00$ (4,568.00)$ Planning & Zoning E 100-41910-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)612.11 1,000.00 55.42 944.58 94.46%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)60,586.92 65,200.00 12,014.46 53,185.54 81.57%65,200.00 0.00 61,199.03$ 66,200.00$ 12,069.88$ 66,200.00$ -$ Code Enforcement E 100-41920-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)53,394.60 59,550.00 23,022.92 36,527.08 61.34%59,550.00 0.00 E 100-41920-110 Overtime 191.78 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41920-121 PERA 4,018.97 4,541.00 1,726.70 2,814.30 61.98%4,541.00 0.00 E 100-41920-122 FICA 3,668.60 3,754.00 1,570.47 2,183.53 58.17%3,754.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 3 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-41920-126 Medicare 857.98 878.00 367.24 510.76 58.17%878.00 0.00 E 100-41920-131 Employer Paid Health 7,484.06 17,643.00 3,687.04 13,955.96 79.10%17,643.00 0.00 E 100-41920-208 Training and Instruction 565.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 100.00%750.00 0.00 E 100-41920-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)984.20 1,000.00 159.86 840.14 84.01%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41920-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 506.00 417.00 547.00 -130.00 -31.18%547.00 130.00 E 100-41920-417 Uniforms 250.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 100.00%250.00 0.00 E 100-41920-433 Dues and Memberships 0.00 100.00 80.00 20.00 20.00%100.00 0.00 71,921.19$ 89,883.00$ 31,161.23$ 90,013.00$ 130.00$ City Hall Operations E 100-41941-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)3,070.13 6,000.00 2,056.78 3,943.22 65.72%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-201 Postage/Shipping 2,246.03 3,000.00 128.85 2,871.15 95.71%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-207 Computer Supplies 2,763.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)12,245.27 17,000.00 4,997.21 12,002.79 70.60%17,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)12,082.71 9,000.00 3,731.75 5,268.25 58.54%9,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-321 Telephone 2,050.69 2,500.00 760.37 1,739.63 69.59%2,500.00 0.00 E 100-41941-352 General Notices and Pub Info 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 100.00%25.00 0.00 E 100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)12,139.67 15,500.00 5,258.40 10,241.60 66.07%15,500.00 0.00 E 100-41941-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL)11,820.53 12,000.00 3,027.43 8,972.57 74.77%12,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-430 Misc. Banking Charge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-520 Buildings and Structures 4,290.00 5,000.00 442.21 4,557.79 91.16%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-810 Refunds/Reimbursements -1,149.76 0.00 180.00 -180.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 61,558.92$ 70,025.00$ 20,583.00$ 70,025.00$ -$ IT (Info Technology) E 100-41951-207 Computer Supplies 22,833.26 25,550.00 16,058.75 9,491.25 37.15%25,550.00 0.00 E 100-41951-210 Operating Supplies 2,553.56 1,500.00 105.00 1,395.00 93.00%1,500.00 0.00 E 100-41951-300 Professional Srvs 23,459.36 21,500.00 9,450.00 12,050.00 56.05%21,500.00 0.00 E 100-41951-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 5,935.80 6,500.00 1,754.03 4,745.97 73.01%6,500.00 0.00 54,781.98$ 55,050.00$ 27,367.78$ 55,050.00$ -$ Police E 100-42100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)480,621.41 552,886.00 181,130.30 371,755.70 67.24%537,886.00 -15,000.00 E 100-42100-110 Overtime 15,341.08 10,450.00 4,121.92 6,328.08 60.56%10,450.00 0.00 E 100-42100-111 Overtime Events/Grants 3,792.60 12,000.00 330.00 11,670.00 97.25%12,000.00 0.00 Pass thru revenue 100-42100-33620, 100-42100-34201 E 100-42100-121 PERA 72,754.59 89,568.00 29,615.65 59,952.35 66.94%87,568.00 -2,000.00 E 100-42100-126 Medicare 6,672.64 8,168.00 2,793.51 5,374.49 65.80%8,018.00 -150.00 E 100-42100-131 Employer Paid Health 114,084.87 123,498.00 54,436.69 69,061.31 55.92%123,498.00 0.00 E 100-42100-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)5,966.57 5,000.00 2,109.38 2,890.62 57.81%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-201 Postage/Shipping 426.72 250.00 0.00 250.00 100.00%250.00 0.00 E 100-42100-208 Training and Instruction 11,313.63 16,800.00 10,124.51 6,675.49 39.74%16,800.00 0.00 E 100-42100-209 Police Reserves 3,134.44 3,500.00 1,227.00 2,273.00 64.94%3,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)11,510.10 9,000.00 6,460.08 2,539.92 28.22%9,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-212 Motor Fuels 23,306.61 32,000.00 3,876.14 28,123.86 87.89%32,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-218 Investigations 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 100.00%350.00 0.00 E 100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)6,441.72 8,000.00 1,027.29 6,972.71 87.16%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-223 Building Repair Supplies 3,701.43 3,500.00 888.93 2,611.07 74.60%3,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)1,753.10 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 100.00%1,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-301 Prisoner 1,625.81 8,000.00 3,731.69 4,268.31 53.35%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-304 Legal Fees 25,840.19 27,500.00 5,722.42 21,777.58 79.19%27,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-321 Telephone 6,782.51 7,200.00 2,090.24 5,109.76 70.97%7,200.00 0.00 E 100-42100-323 Radio Units 15,961.55 16,900.00 4,734.96 12,165.04 71.98%16,900.00 0.00 E 100-42100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 24,916.00 25,000.00 31,225.56 -6,225.56 -24.90%31,226.00 6,226.00 E 100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)3,529.00 4,000.00 217.45 3,782.55 94.56%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-417 Uniforms 9,998.82 11,000.00 7,420.89 3,579.11 32.54%11,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-433 Dues and Memberships 1,705.00 1,500.00 1,545.00 -45.00 -3.00%1,545.00 45.00 E 100-42100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements -15,468.56 0.00 -828.54 828.54 0.00%-828.54 -828.54 835,711.83$ 977,570.00$ 354,001.07$ 965,862.46$ (11,707.54)$ Part Time Officers E 100-42101-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)123,036.10 61,000.00 33,448.76 27,551.24 45.17%73,000.00 12,000.00 E 100-42101-111 Overtime Events/Grants 13,612.50 5,000.00 1,842.50 3,157.50 63.15%5,000.00 0.00 Contractural events/Safe and Sober events. Budgeted 100-42100-111 E 100-42101-121 PERA 5,182.95 1,100.00 2,458.18 -1,358.18 -123.47%2,600.00 1,500.00 E 100-42101-122 FICA 6,744.36 3,000.00 1,247.32 1,752.68 58.42%3,300.00 300.00 E 100-42101-126 Medicare 2,041.24 890.00 511.78 378.22 42.50%1,140.00 250.00 E 100-42101-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)3,101.84 0.00 191.91 -3,101.84 0.00%192.00 192.00 153,718.99$ 70,990.00$ 39,700.45$ 85,232.00$ 14,242.00$ Police Admin E 100-42102-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)47,661.92 50,237.00 19,681.62 30,555.38 60.82%50,237.00 0.00 E 100-42102-110 Overtime 333.89 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00%500.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 4 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-42102-121 PERA 3,599.68 3,805.00 1,457.61 2,347.39 61.69%3,805.00 0.00 E 100-42102-122 FICA 3,203.60 3,146.00 1,322.41 1,823.59 57.97%3,146.00 0.00 E 100-42102-126 Medicare 749.21 736.00 309.23 426.77 57.99%736.00 0.00 E 100-42102-131 Employer Paid Health 6,509.18 17,643.00 7,297.05 10,345.95 58.64%17,643.00 0.00 62,057.48$ 76,067.00$ 30,067.92$ 76,067.00$ -$ Fire E 100-42200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)274,693.50$ 281,000.00$ 127,807.85$ 153,192.15$ 54.52%281,000.00$ 0.00 Building Inspection E 100-42400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)51,001.13 74,000.00 1,372.15 72,627.85 98.15%74,000.00 0.00 E 100-42400-437 Surcharges 9,681.75 11,000.00 0.00 11,000.00 100.00%11,000.00 0.00 60,682.88$ 85,000.00$ 1,372.15$ 85,000.00$ -$ Public Works E 100-43100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)269,635.51 305,571.00 117,683.82 187,887.18 61.49%305,571.00 0.00 E 100-43100-110 Overtime 16,317.79 20,000.00 6,183.44 13,816.56 69.08%20,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-121 PERA 21,323.76 24,418.00 9,290.05 15,127.95 61.95%24,418.00 0.00 E 100-43100-122 FICA 16,056.93 20,185.00 6,927.02 13,257.98 65.68%20,185.00 0.00 E 100-43100-126 Medicare 3,752.45 4,721.00 1,620.07 3,100.93 65.68%4,721.00 0.00 E 100-43100-131 Employer Paid Health 69,313.39 88,213.00 38,049.50 50,163.50 56.87%88,213.00 0.00 E 100-43100-208 Training and Instruction 2,245.25 4,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 50.00%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)25,458.66 25,000.00 5,473.69 19,526.31 78.11%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-212 Motor Fuels 32,859.86 38,000.00 3,857.02 34,142.98 89.85%38,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)20,503.02 25,000.00 6,343.47 18,656.53 74.63%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-222 Seal Coating 55,659.75 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00%60,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-223 Building Repair Supplies 6,622.45 6,500.00 2,492.00 4,008.00 61.66%6,500.00 0.00 E 100-43100-225 Landscape/Ditch Materials 9,749.99 10,000.00 3,271.74 6,728.26 67.28%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials 6,068.54 6,000.00 249.50 5,750.50 95.84%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-227 Crack Filling 8,880.00 10,000.00 3,511.20 6,488.80 64.89%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-228 Dust Control 107,768.21 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 100.00%115,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-229 Culverts 9,982.51 10,000.00 2,699.20 7,300.80 73.01%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-232 Gravel 117,219.05 130,000.00 68,695.99 61,304.01 47.16%130,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-233 Asphalt Maint/Patching 147,566.19 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 100.00%150,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)2,126.85 2,100.00 0.00 2,100.00 100.00%2,100.00 0.00 E 100-43100-321 Telephone 8,035.73 8,000.00 3,062.34 4,937.66 61.72%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 18,873.00 19,000.00 22,271.00 -3,271.00 -17.22%22,271.00 3,271.00 E 100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)16,479.01 28,000.00 6,546.65 21,453.35 76.62%28,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-381 Street/Signal Lights 2,245.54 4,000.00 929.53 3,070.47 76.76%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-417 Uniforms 7,977.92 7,000.00 2,298.23 4,701.77 67.17%7,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 1,400.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 1,004,121.39$ 1,120,708.00$ 313,455.46$ 1,123,979.00$ 3,271.00$ Ice & Snow Removal E 100-43125-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)48,666.48$ 30,000.00$ 26,794.99$ 3,205.01$ 10.68%30,000.00$ -$ Engineeering E 100-43170-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)41,379.80$ 47,500.00$ 16,813.45$ 30,686.55$ 64.60%47,500.00$ -$ Recycling E 100-43232-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,032.62 - 962.00 -962.00 0.00%962.00 962.00 E 100-43232-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)68,482.23 6,000.00 (3,716.68) 9,716.68 161.94%6,000.00 0.00 71,514.85$ 6,000.00$ (2,754.68)$ 6,962.00$ 962.00$ Parks E 100-45200-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)23,830.39 40,182.00 2,296.32 37,885.68 94.29%40,182.00 0.00 E 100-45200-110 Overtime 375.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-45200-122 FICA 1,500.77 2,491.00 142.38 2,348.62 94.28%2,491.00 0.00 E 100-45200-126 Medicare 350.98 583.00 33.30 549.70 94.29%583.00 0.00 E 100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)13,599.80 15,500.00 5,439.41 10,060.59 64.91%15,500.00 0.00 E 100-45200-221 Maintenance Projects 15,108.26 15,000.00 1,824.26 13,175.74 87.84%15,000.00 0.00 E 100-45200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)470.26 0.00 621.66 -621.66 0.00%622.00 622.00 E 100-45200-321 Telephone 653.94 700.00 220.63 479.37 68.48%700.00 0.00 E 100-45200-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 2,053.00 2,250.00 4,093.00 -1,843.00 -81.91%4,093.00 1,843.00 E 100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)4,640.30 7,000.00 1,558.11 5,441.89 77.74%7,000.00 0.00 E 100-45200-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 38,315.85 37,302.00 34,044.20 3,257.80 8.73%34,044.20 -3,257.80 NW Trails Grant E 100-45200-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 100,898.55$ 121,008.00$ 50,273.27$ 70,734.73$ 120,215.20$ (792.80)$ Transfers to/from Other Funds E 100-49360-720 Operating Transfers - - 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 #-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Expense 3,477,407$ 3,795,013$ 1,329,901$ 3,796,366$ 1,353$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 5 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS GENERAL FUND TOTALS Total Revenue 3,727,648$ 3,795,013$ 405,111$ 3,876,964$ 81,951$ Total Expense 3,477,407$ 3,795,013$ 1,329,901$ 3,796,366$ 1,353$ Total Revenue - Total Expense 250,241$ -$ (924,790)$ 80,599$ -$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 1 of 5 2016 Variance Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS REVENUE Other General Government R 100-41900-31100 General Property Taxes 2,852,755.61 3,074,300.00 0.00 3,074,300.00 100.00%3,074,300.00 0.00 R 100-41900-31810 Cable Franchise Fee 0.00 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 100.00%40,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-32110 Liquor License Fee 18,500.00 18,250.00 13,890.00 4,360.00 23.89%18,250.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33402 Homestead Credit 19,604.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33420 Ag Preserve Credit 25,553.65 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.00%5,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33421 PERA State Aid 1,845.00 1,845.00 0.00 1,845.00 100.00%1,845.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 10,908.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34000 Charges for Services 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34103 Zoning/Land Use Appl Fee 15,870.00 12,000.00 18,235.00 -6,235.00 -51.96%19,000.00 7,000.00 R 100-41900-34105 Copies/Maps 57.25 150.00 15.50 134.50 89.67%150.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34107 Special Assessment Search 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00%50.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34108 TIF Administration 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 100.00%8,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34405 Clean Up Day Income 1,803.00 675.00 2,592.00 -1,917.00 -284.00%2,592.00 1,917.00 R 100-41900-36100 Special Assessments 0.00 0.00 67,329.71 -67,329.71 0.00%67,329.00 67,329.00 R 100-41900-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 13,754.75 2,500.00 1,992.80 507.20 20.29%2,500.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36210 Interest Earnings 1,030.14 2,000.00 121.75 1,878.25 93.91%2,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36220 Other Rents and Royalties 9,840.00 9,840.00 10,080.00 -240.00 -2.44%10,800.00 960.00 R 100-41900-36230 Donations 768.29 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 2,972,300.34$ 3,175,610.00$ 114,256.76$ 3,252,816.00$ 77,206.00$ City Hall Operations R 100-41941-34101 Facility Rental 7,835.00 6,000.00 2,517.50 3,482.50 58.04%6,000.00 0.00 R 100-41941-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 152.32 1,000.00 -4.00 1,004.00 100.40%1,000.00 0.00 7,987.32$ 7,000.00$ 2,513.50$ 7,000.00$ -$ Police R 100-42100-33423 Police Aid 55,164.61 45,000.00 0.00 45,000.00 100.00%45,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-33424 Police POST Board Train Reimb 3,664.98 3,700.00 0.00 3,700.00 100.00%3,700.00 0.00 R 100-42100-33620 Other County Grants/Aid 9,047.31 10,000.00 3,743.75 6,256.25 62.56%10,000.00 0.00 Pass through to fund - (100-42100-111 and 100-42101-111) R 100-42100-34200 Police Permits 3,152.50 2,000.00 900.00 1,100.00 55.00%2,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-34201 Police Serviced Charges 7,585.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 100.00%7,500.00 0.00 Pass through to fund - (100-42100-111 and 100-42101-111) R 100-42100-34202 Police Reports/Fees 783.00 1,000.00 312.00 688.00 68.80%1,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-35101 Fines 39,509.94 45,000.00 17,982.00 27,018.00 60.04%45,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 118,907.34$ 114,200.00$ 22,937.75$ 114,200.00$ -$ Building Inspection R 100-42400-32210 Bldg/Plan Review Fees 301,660.97$ 190,000.00$ 150,326.70$ 39,673.30$ 20.88%190,000.00$ -$ Public Works R 100-43100-33418 Muni State Aid St Maintenance 122,524.20 120,000.00 66,736.80 53,263.20 44.39%124,600.00 4,600.00 R 100-43100-34300 Public Works Permits/Fees 2,840.00 3,000.00 900.00 2,100.00 70.00%3,000.00 0.00 R 100-43100-34301 Dust Control 52,591.44 57,500.00 0.62 57,499.38 100.00%57,500.00 0.00 R 100-43100-36100 Special Assessments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-43100-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 10,491.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 188,447.38$ #180,500.00$ 67,637.42$ 185,100.00$ 4,600.00$ Ice & Snow Removal R 100-43125-36200 Ice & Snow Removal/Miscellaneous Rev 21,742.72$ 8,000.00$ 9,453.12$ (1,453.12)$ -18.16%9,453.00$ 1,453.00$ Recycling R 100-43232-33610 County Recycling Grant 8,419.50 14,500.00 -0.50 14,500.50 100.00%14,500.00 0.00 R 100-43232-34400 Recycling 57,841.57 -69.50 69.50 0.00%0.00 0.00 66,261.07$ 14,500.00$ (70.00)$ 14,500.00$ -$ Parks R 100-45200-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 38,315.85 37,302.00 34,044.20 3,257.80 8.73%34,044.20 -3,257.80 NW Trails Grant R 100-45200-34101 Facility Rental 5,088.14 6,000.00 2,062.00 3,938.00 65.63%6,000.00 0.00 R 100-45200-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,107.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-45200-36230 Donations 5,829.36 0.00 1,950.00 -1,950.00 0.00%1,950.00 1,950.00 R 100-45200-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 50,341.06$ 43,302.00$ 38,056.20$ 41,994.20$ (1,307.80)$ Transfers to/from Other Funds R 100-49360-39200 Transfer from Other Fund -$ 61,901.00$ -$ 61,901.00 100.00%61,901.00$ 0.00 Total Revenue 3,727,648$ 3,795,013$ 405,111$ 3,876,964$ 81,951.20$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 2 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS EXPENSE City Council E 100-41100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)6,600.00 6,600.00 0.00 6,600.00 100.00%6,600.00 0.00 E 100-41100-122 FICA 409.20 409.00 0.00 409.00 100.00%409.00 0.00 E 100-41100-126 Medicare 95.70 96.00 0.00 96.00 100.00%96.00 0.00 E 100-41100-208 Training and Instruction 315.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 66.00 75.00 197.00 -122.00 -162.67%197.00 122.00 7,485.90$ 8,180.00$ 197.00$ 8,302.00$ 122.00$ Newspaper/Newsletter/Website E 100-41130-351 Newsletter Expenses 5,751.82 6,000.00 2,828.71 3,171.29 52.85%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-41130-354 Web Site 750.00 1,500.00 250.00 1,250.00 83.33%1,500.00 0.00 6,501.82$ 7,500.00$ 3,078.71$ 7,500.00$ -$ City Administrator E 100-41300-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)93,414.17 99,757.00 38,745.21 61,011.79 61.16%99,757.00 0.00 E 100-41300-121 PERA 7,018.81 7,482.00 2,905.87 4,576.13 61.16%7,482.00 0.00 E 100-41300-122 FICA 5,762.37 6,185.00 2,401.37 3,783.63 61.17%6,185.00 0.00 E 100-41300-126 Medicare 1,348.75 1,446.00 561.56 884.44 61.16%1,446.00 0.00 E 100-41300-131 Employer Paid Health 16,562.03 17,643.00 7,863.09 9,779.91 55.43%17,643.00 0.00 E 100-41300-208 Training and Instruction 3,872.52 4,000.00 720.00 3,280.00 82.00%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-41300-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)574.75 700.00 239.64 460.36 65.77%700.00 0.00 E 100-41300-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 506.00 600.00 547.00 53.00 8.83%547.00 -53.00 E 100-41300-433 Dues and Memberships 1,752.20 1,000.00 164.71 835.29 83.53%1,000.00 0.00 130,811.60$ 138,813.00$ 54,148.45$ 138,760.00$ (53.00)$ Clerk/Admin E 100-41400-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)133,639.13 168,640.00 63,753.17 104,886.83 62.20%168,640.00 0.00 E 100-41400-110 Overtime 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41400-121 PERA 9,284.68 12,723.00 4,781.19 7,941.81 62.42%12,723.00 0.00 E 100-41400-122 FICA 7,600.66 10,518.00 4,197.25 6,320.75 60.09%10,518.00 0.00 E 100-41400-126 Medicare 1,778.54 2,460.00 981.62 1,478.38 60.10%2,460.00 0.00 E 100-41400-131 Employer Paid Health 35,788.94 52,928.00 18,667.54 34,260.46 64.73%52,928.00 0.00 E 100-41400-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)11,039.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41400-208 Training and Instruction 125.00 4,000.00 475.00 3,525.00 88.13%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-41400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)150.53 750.00 96.95 653.05 87.07%750.00 0.00 E 100-41400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)27.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41400-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 1,012.00 1,400.00 2,147.00 -747.00 -53.36%2,147.00 747.00 E 100-41400-433 Dues and Memberships 340.00 500.00 70.00 430.00 86.00%500.00 0.00 200,785.93$ 254,919.00$ 95,169.72$ 255,666.00$ 747.00$ Elections E 100-41410-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)153.56$ 7,000.00$ 1,228.80$ 5,771.20$ 82.45%7,000.00$ -$ Auditor/Treasurer E 100-41540-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)23,961.50$ 26,000.00$ 18,510.00$ 7,490.00$ 28.81%26,000.00$ -$ Assessor E 100-41550-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)1,112.28 1,000.00 40.98 959.02 95.90%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41550-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)56,098.68 59,000.00 18,932.64 40,067.36 67.91%58,000.00 -1,000.00 57,210.96$ 60,000.00$ 18,973.62$ 59,000.00$ (1,000.00)$ Attorney E 100-41600-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL) 18,541.05$ 31,000.00$ 10,930.83$ 20,069.17$ 64.74%31,000.00$ -$ Other General Government E 100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,031.92 4,600.00 4,820.26 -220.26 -4.79%4,850.00 250.00 Purchased Wetland Buffer signs E 100-41900-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)7,269.50 5,000.00 1,229.27 3,770.73 75.41%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-41900-360 Insurance (GENERAL)67,770.00 68,000.00 63,182.00 4,818.00 7.09%63,182.00 -4,818.00 E 100-41900-433 Dues and Memberships 25,976.30 27,000.00 9,718.73 17,281.27 64.00%27,000.00 0.00 ECW,Metro Cities,NWHHSC,Community Media,LMC,I94 Chamber, Home Free E 100-41900-700 Transfers 25,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00%60,000.00 0.00 E 100-41900-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 129,047.72$ 164,600.00$ 78,950.26$ 160,032.00$ (4,568.00)$ Planning & Zoning E 100-41910-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)612.11 1,000.00 55.42 944.58 94.46%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)60,586.92 65,200.00 12,014.46 53,185.54 81.57%65,200.00 0.00 61,199.03$ 66,200.00$ 12,069.88$ 66,200.00$ -$ Code Enforcement E 100-41920-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)53,394.60 59,550.00 23,022.92 36,527.08 61.34%59,550.00 0.00 E 100-41920-110 Overtime 191.78 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41920-121 PERA 4,018.97 4,541.00 1,726.70 2,814.30 61.98%4,541.00 0.00 E 100-41920-122 FICA 3,668.60 3,754.00 1,570.47 2,183.53 58.17%3,754.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 3 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-41920-126 Medicare 857.98 878.00 367.24 510.76 58.17%878.00 0.00 E 100-41920-131 Employer Paid Health 7,484.06 17,643.00 3,687.04 13,955.96 79.10%17,643.00 0.00 E 100-41920-208 Training and Instruction 565.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 100.00%750.00 0.00 E 100-41920-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)984.20 1,000.00 159.86 840.14 84.01%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41920-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 506.00 417.00 547.00 -130.00 -31.18%547.00 130.00 E 100-41920-417 Uniforms 250.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 100.00%250.00 0.00 E 100-41920-433 Dues and Memberships 0.00 100.00 80.00 20.00 20.00%100.00 0.00 71,921.19$ 89,883.00$ 31,161.23$ 90,013.00$ 130.00$ City Hall Operations E 100-41941-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)3,070.13 6,000.00 2,056.78 3,943.22 65.72%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-201 Postage/Shipping 2,246.03 3,000.00 128.85 2,871.15 95.71%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-207 Computer Supplies 2,763.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)12,245.27 17,000.00 4,997.21 12,002.79 70.60%17,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)12,082.71 9,000.00 3,731.75 5,268.25 58.54%9,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-321 Telephone 2,050.69 2,500.00 760.37 1,739.63 69.59%2,500.00 0.00 E 100-41941-352 General Notices and Pub Info 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 100.00%25.00 0.00 E 100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)12,139.67 15,500.00 5,258.40 10,241.60 66.07%15,500.00 0.00 E 100-41941-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL)11,820.53 12,000.00 3,027.43 8,972.57 74.77%12,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-430 Misc. Banking Charge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-520 Buildings and Structures 4,290.00 5,000.00 442.21 4,557.79 91.16%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-810 Refunds/Reimbursements -1,149.76 0.00 180.00 -180.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 61,558.92$ 70,025.00$ 20,583.00$ 70,025.00$ -$ IT (Info Technology) E 100-41951-207 Computer Supplies 22,833.26 25,550.00 16,058.75 9,491.25 37.15%25,550.00 0.00 E 100-41951-210 Operating Supplies 2,553.56 1,500.00 105.00 1,395.00 93.00%1,500.00 0.00 E 100-41951-300 Professional Srvs 23,459.36 21,500.00 9,450.00 12,050.00 56.05%21,500.00 0.00 E 100-41951-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 5,935.80 6,500.00 1,754.03 4,745.97 73.01%6,500.00 0.00 54,781.98$ 55,050.00$ 27,367.78$ 55,050.00$ -$ Police E 100-42100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)480,621.41 552,886.00 181,130.30 371,755.70 67.24%537,886.00 -15,000.00 E 100-42100-110 Overtime 15,341.08 10,450.00 4,121.92 6,328.08 60.56%10,450.00 0.00 E 100-42100-111 Overtime Events/Grants 3,792.60 12,000.00 330.00 11,670.00 97.25%12,000.00 0.00 Pass thru revenue 100-42100-33620, 100-42100-34201 E 100-42100-121 PERA 72,754.59 89,568.00 29,615.65 59,952.35 66.94%87,568.00 -2,000.00 E 100-42100-126 Medicare 6,672.64 8,168.00 2,793.51 5,374.49 65.80%8,018.00 -150.00 E 100-42100-131 Employer Paid Health 114,084.87 123,498.00 54,436.69 69,061.31 55.92%123,498.00 0.00 E 100-42100-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)5,966.57 5,000.00 2,109.38 2,890.62 57.81%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-201 Postage/Shipping 426.72 250.00 0.00 250.00 100.00%250.00 0.00 E 100-42100-208 Training and Instruction 11,313.63 16,800.00 10,124.51 6,675.49 39.74%16,800.00 0.00 E 100-42100-209 Police Reserves 3,134.44 3,500.00 1,227.00 2,273.00 64.94%3,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)11,510.10 9,000.00 6,460.08 2,539.92 28.22%9,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-212 Motor Fuels 23,306.61 32,000.00 3,876.14 28,123.86 87.89%32,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-218 Investigations 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 100.00%350.00 0.00 E 100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)6,441.72 8,000.00 1,027.29 6,972.71 87.16%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-223 Building Repair Supplies 3,701.43 3,500.00 888.93 2,611.07 74.60%3,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)1,753.10 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 100.00%1,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-301 Prisoner 1,625.81 8,000.00 3,731.69 4,268.31 53.35%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-304 Legal Fees 25,840.19 27,500.00 5,722.42 21,777.58 79.19%27,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-321 Telephone 6,782.51 7,200.00 2,090.24 5,109.76 70.97%7,200.00 0.00 E 100-42100-323 Radio Units 15,961.55 16,900.00 4,734.96 12,165.04 71.98%16,900.00 0.00 E 100-42100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 24,916.00 25,000.00 31,225.56 -6,225.56 -24.90%31,226.00 6,226.00 E 100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)3,529.00 4,000.00 217.45 3,782.55 94.56%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-417 Uniforms 9,998.82 11,000.00 7,420.89 3,579.11 32.54%11,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-433 Dues and Memberships 1,705.00 1,500.00 1,545.00 -45.00 -3.00%1,545.00 45.00 E 100-42100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements -15,468.56 0.00 -828.54 828.54 0.00%-828.54 -828.54 835,711.83$ 977,570.00$ 354,001.07$ 965,862.46$ (11,707.54)$ Part Time Officers E 100-42101-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)123,036.10 61,000.00 33,448.76 27,551.24 45.17%73,000.00 12,000.00 E 100-42101-111 Overtime Events/Grants 13,612.50 5,000.00 1,842.50 3,157.50 63.15%5,000.00 0.00 Contractural events/Safe and Sober events. Budgeted 100-42100-111 E 100-42101-121 PERA 5,182.95 1,100.00 2,458.18 -1,358.18 -123.47%2,600.00 1,500.00 E 100-42101-122 FICA 6,744.36 3,000.00 1,247.32 1,752.68 58.42%3,300.00 300.00 E 100-42101-126 Medicare 2,041.24 890.00 511.78 378.22 42.50%1,140.00 250.00 E 100-42101-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)3,101.84 0.00 191.91 -3,101.84 0.00%192.00 192.00 153,718.99$ 70,990.00$ 39,700.45$ 85,232.00$ 14,242.00$ Police Admin E 100-42102-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)47,661.92 50,237.00 19,681.62 30,555.38 60.82%50,237.00 0.00 E 100-42102-110 Overtime 333.89 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00%500.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 4 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-42102-121 PERA 3,599.68 3,805.00 1,457.61 2,347.39 61.69%3,805.00 0.00 E 100-42102-122 FICA 3,203.60 3,146.00 1,322.41 1,823.59 57.97%3,146.00 0.00 E 100-42102-126 Medicare 749.21 736.00 309.23 426.77 57.99%736.00 0.00 E 100-42102-131 Employer Paid Health 6,509.18 17,643.00 7,297.05 10,345.95 58.64%17,643.00 0.00 62,057.48$ 76,067.00$ 30,067.92$ 76,067.00$ -$ Fire E 100-42200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)274,693.50$ 281,000.00$ 127,807.85$ 153,192.15$ 54.52%281,000.00$ 0.00 Building Inspection E 100-42400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)51,001.13 74,000.00 1,372.15 72,627.85 98.15%74,000.00 0.00 E 100-42400-437 Surcharges 9,681.75 11,000.00 0.00 11,000.00 100.00%11,000.00 0.00 60,682.88$ 85,000.00$ 1,372.15$ 85,000.00$ -$ Public Works E 100-43100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)269,635.51 305,571.00 117,683.82 187,887.18 61.49%305,571.00 0.00 E 100-43100-110 Overtime 16,317.79 20,000.00 6,183.44 13,816.56 69.08%20,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-121 PERA 21,323.76 24,418.00 9,290.05 15,127.95 61.95%24,418.00 0.00 E 100-43100-122 FICA 16,056.93 20,185.00 6,927.02 13,257.98 65.68%20,185.00 0.00 E 100-43100-126 Medicare 3,752.45 4,721.00 1,620.07 3,100.93 65.68%4,721.00 0.00 E 100-43100-131 Employer Paid Health 69,313.39 88,213.00 38,049.50 50,163.50 56.87%88,213.00 0.00 E 100-43100-208 Training and Instruction 2,245.25 4,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 50.00%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)25,458.66 25,000.00 5,473.69 19,526.31 78.11%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-212 Motor Fuels 32,859.86 38,000.00 3,857.02 34,142.98 89.85%38,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)20,503.02 25,000.00 6,343.47 18,656.53 74.63%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-222 Seal Coating 55,659.75 60,000.00 0.00 60,000.00 100.00%60,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-223 Building Repair Supplies 6,622.45 6,500.00 2,492.00 4,008.00 61.66%6,500.00 0.00 E 100-43100-225 Landscape/Ditch Materials 9,749.99 10,000.00 3,271.74 6,728.26 67.28%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials 6,068.54 6,000.00 249.50 5,750.50 95.84%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-227 Crack Filling 8,880.00 10,000.00 3,511.20 6,488.80 64.89%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-228 Dust Control 107,768.21 115,000.00 0.00 115,000.00 100.00%115,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-229 Culverts 9,982.51 10,000.00 2,699.20 7,300.80 73.01%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-232 Gravel 117,219.05 130,000.00 68,695.99 61,304.01 47.16%130,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-233 Asphalt Maint/Patching 147,566.19 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 100.00%150,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)2,126.85 2,100.00 0.00 2,100.00 100.00%2,100.00 0.00 E 100-43100-321 Telephone 8,035.73 8,000.00 3,062.34 4,937.66 61.72%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 18,873.00 19,000.00 22,271.00 -3,271.00 -17.22%22,271.00 3,271.00 E 100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)16,479.01 28,000.00 6,546.65 21,453.35 76.62%28,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-381 Street/Signal Lights 2,245.54 4,000.00 929.53 3,070.47 76.76%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-417 Uniforms 7,977.92 7,000.00 2,298.23 4,701.77 67.17%7,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 1,400.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 1,004,121.39$ 1,120,708.00$ 313,455.46$ 1,123,979.00$ 3,271.00$ Ice & Snow Removal E 100-43125-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)48,666.48$ 30,000.00$ 26,794.99$ 3,205.01$ 10.68%30,000.00$ -$ Engineeering E 100-43170-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)41,379.80$ 47,500.00$ 16,813.45$ 30,686.55$ 64.60%47,500.00$ -$ Recycling E 100-43232-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,032.62 - 962.00 -962.00 0.00%962.00 962.00 E 100-43232-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)68,482.23 6,000.00 (3,716.68) 9,716.68 161.94%6,000.00 0.00 71,514.85$ 6,000.00$ (2,754.68)$ 6,962.00$ 962.00$ Parks E 100-45200-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)23,830.39 40,182.00 2,296.32 37,885.68 94.29%40,182.00 0.00 E 100-45200-110 Overtime 375.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-45200-122 FICA 1,500.77 2,491.00 142.38 2,348.62 94.28%2,491.00 0.00 E 100-45200-126 Medicare 350.98 583.00 33.30 549.70 94.29%583.00 0.00 E 100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)13,599.80 15,500.00 5,439.41 10,060.59 64.91%15,500.00 0.00 E 100-45200-221 Maintenance Projects 15,108.26 15,000.00 1,824.26 13,175.74 87.84%15,000.00 0.00 E 100-45200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)470.26 0.00 621.66 -621.66 0.00%622.00 622.00 E 100-45200-321 Telephone 653.94 700.00 220.63 479.37 68.48%700.00 0.00 E 100-45200-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 2,053.00 2,250.00 4,093.00 -1,843.00 -81.91%4,093.00 1,843.00 E 100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)4,640.30 7,000.00 1,558.11 5,441.89 77.74%7,000.00 0.00 E 100-45200-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 38,315.85 37,302.00 34,044.20 3,257.80 8.73%34,044.20 -3,257.80 NW Trails Grant E 100-45200-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 100,898.55$ 121,008.00$ 50,273.27$ 70,734.73$ 120,215.20$ (792.80)$ Transfers to/from Other Funds E 100-49360-720 Operating Transfers - - 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 #-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Expense 3,477,407$ 3,795,013$ 1,329,901$ 3,796,366$ 1,353$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2016 8a. 5 of 5 Account Description 2015 Actual 2016 Budget 2016 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS GENERAL FUND TOTALS Total Revenue 3,727,648$ 3,795,013$ 405,111$ 3,876,964$ 81,951$ Total Expense 3,477,407$ 3,795,013$ 1,329,901$ 3,796,366$ 1,353$ Total Revenue - Total Expense 250,241$ -$ (924,790)$ 80,599$ -$ STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8b. Council Meeting: June 9, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Hazardous Building Removal Update Action Required: None - Informational Summary: On January 14, 2016 the Council approved a resolution declaring the building located at 20112 County Road 10 as hazardous and to be removed within 120 days. That deadline expired on May 13th and the building is still in place. The City Attorney was initially directed to proceed with the enforcement order in Hennepin County District Court as stated in the approved resolution, however recently staff has been made aware of a plan for the owner to initiate the removal. A follow-up conversation is scheduled for Monday, June 27th, if adequate progress has not been made staff will re-initiate the enforcement order. The ultimate goal is that this structure be removed no later than the end of September. If an enforcement order is used it is anticipated that this process will take approximately three months. The removal the costs incurred would be assessed back to the property. Financial/Budget: If the owner moves forward with the removal there are very limited costs to the City in staff time. If the City moves forward with the removal, the costs of the removal and additional attorney costs will be initially paid for by the City and assessed to the property which would be paid back at some point in the future. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. Options: N/A Recommendation: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform D ATE: June 2, 2016 for the June 9, 2016 City Council Meeting RE: Request for Amended Phase 5 Grading Plan for U.S. Home Corporation (dba Lennar) for “Ravinia” (City File 16-015) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:N/A 1.Application Request The applicant has submitted a request to amend the approved grading plan limits. 2.Analysis of Request On September 11, 2014, the City Council approved an amended grading plan that allowed Lennar to rough grade land that was in Phases 2-4 of the project, in addition to grading that was approved in phase I. This allowed them to balance the site materials and be able to work during the summer season to prepare for coming phases. They are now requesting approval to allow grading to extend beyond the approved grading limits to include the 40-acre property adjacent to Hackamore. 3.Recommendation Move to approve the amended rough grading plan as requested by Lennar. No other changes to the prior approvals is granted and no additional work (including street, utility or building construction) shall be allowed until the conditions of approval have been met. Attachments a.Plat Phasing Plan b.Requested Grading Plan Expansion Agenda Item: 9a. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11a. Council Meeting: June 9, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Petition Submittal – Sundance Road Action Required: Direction Summary: The City has received a petition from Trish Krueger asking the City to complete a study of the costs to pave Sundance Road. Attached to this report is the petition which appears to include 13 of the 21 properties with access to Sundance Road. Staff requests direction from the Council on what action should be taken. Financial/Budget: The completion of a study would require engaging the City Engineer to review conditions and create a feasibility study. The costs of this work are unknown at this time. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. TREATING THE CITIZEN AS OUR CUSTOMER We believe that citizens are our customers and should be treated with courtesy, respect, and deserve the best services we can provide. Options: 1. Accept the petition and direct staff to proceed with a feasibility study on the costs to pave Sundance Road. 2. Accept the petition and direct staff to table the discussion until the completion of an updated assessment policy. 3. Accept the petition and decline taking further action. Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling action on the petition until the completion of the updated assessment policy. This will allow for a more comprehensive approach to how the City approaches funding of local street improvements. It is anticipated that staff will have a recommended policy for review by late July or early August. Page 2 Council Action: Consider a motion to accept the petition and direct staff to table the discussion until the completion of an updated assessment policy. Attachments: 1. Petition Submittal STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: June 9, 2016 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Sub-Watershed Assessment Discussion Action Required: Direction Summary: Elm Creek Watershed Commissioner Jonathan Bottema has informed the City of an opportunity to complete a sub-watershed assessment through funding from various resources. A recent meeting to learn more about the opportunity was held on May 18th and resulted in the following questions and answers: • What is a sub-watershed assessment? o It is a focused study on a particular small watershed within the City, typically in an area with higher potential phosphorous. They are helpful to identify potential projects that could reduce phosphorous in that watershed. Other impairments such as e-coli and dissolved oxygen would also be incorporated into the study. o Attached to this report is sub-watershed assessment completed for Dance Hall Creek for the City of Greenfield. • Why would we want to complete a sub-watershed assessment? o In the years ahead several documents will be completed including a total maximum daily load (TMDL) that will likely require the City of Corcoran to reduce phosphorous in the City. The sub-watershed assessment provides information on what projects could be completed along with the reduction of phosphorous it would achieve and the cost. Essentially it would help the City better understand the return on investment when choosing projects. o Having the information in hand also would increase the likelihood of receiving funding for projects as the City would have accurate data which would show anticipated reduction in phosphorous through a project. • Who would conduct the sub-watershed assessment? o Staff from Hennepin County would take the lead on the project. The City would want to be intimately involved with any outreach to property owners. • How is a location for the assessment selected? o It is recommended to use information from the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) report which shows potential phosphorous loading rate by sub-watershed as modeled for the TMDL. Areas that show the highest potential phosphorous loading should be considered. • What happens if the assessment finds areas of high phosphorous? Do we need to take action based upon what we find? o There is no requirement to act on the findings and it may not be even possible. The City of Corcoran owns a small amount of land so it is likely that areas where possible projects exist will be on private property. Taking on projects in these locations would require permission and/or partnership with the property owners. Page 2 • How will the land owners react whose land is within the sub-watershed area being studied? o Unsure. It is possible that there could be negative reactions from property owners who don’t want people studying their property or who are concerned that they will be required to complete improvements. • How much does it cost? o It is likely that the assessment would cost around $20,000 which would be funded through grants and the watershed budget. The City of Corcoran may be responsible for some in-kind work and/or a small monetary contribution. • What is the timeframe? o It is estimated that the study would take one year to complete. • If the City would like to complete an assessment, what are the next steps? o City staff would work with Hennepin County to develop a scope that would include a recommended project location and a work plan. This proposal would require the approval of the City Council. It is requested that the City Council review the information provided in the report and direct staff on whether there is sufficient interest to develop a scope of work for a sub- watershed assessment. Financial/Budget: The anticipated cost of a sub-watershed assessment is $20,000 of which most or all would be funded through grant funds or the watershed. Some in-kind service or small monetary contribution may be required. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: 1. Direct staff to work with Hennepin County to develop a scope of work for a sub- watershed assessment to be completed. 2. Take no action and decline the opportunity to complete a sub-watershed assessment. 3. Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation: Staff recommends moving forward with developing a scope of work for a sub-watershed assessment. If completed it would help the City understand how phosphorous could be Page 3 reduced if required to do so in the future. It also would allow for accurate data to be obtained for the City instead of assumptions that have been used in previous documents. Council Action: Consider a motion to direct staff to work with Hennepin County to develop a scope of work for a sub-watershed assessment to be completed. Attachments: 1. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retrofit Assessment Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retrofit Assessment Hennepin County Public Works Environmental Services Prepared for the City of Greenﬁeld October 2014 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 2 Contents ExecuƟve summary 3 Document organizaƟon 4 Basic conclusions 4 Recommended projects 5 AnalyƟcal process and elements 8 Project proﬁles Buffer strips 12 Grassed waterways 16 Gully stabilizaƟon 19 Water and sediment control basins 22 Wetland restoraƟon 24 Livestock best management pracƟces 26 Pond excavaƟon and maintenance 36 Hydrologic restoraƟons 41 Appendix 44 References 66 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 3 Executive summary Lake Sarah is on the Minnesota PolluƟon Control Agency’s (MPCA) 303(d) list of impaired waters for aquaƟc recreaƟon (swimming). As shown by the Hennepin County lake grades, water quality in Lake Sarah has been poor since monitoring began in the 1980s. The primary cause of impairment is phosphorous, which originate from two main sources – watershed runoff and in‐lake loading. The Lake Sarah Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) study idenƟﬁed the Dance Hall Creek Watershed as a major source of phosphorous, contribuƟng 975 pounds (46 percent) of phosphorus per year to Lake Sarah. A stormwater retroﬁt analysis, which idenƟﬁes and prioriƟzes retroﬁt projects by performance and cost‐effecƟveness, was conducted within the Dance Hall Creek Watershed. This analysis helps maximize the value of each dollar spent. The results recommend cost‐effecƟve best management pracƟces (BMPs) that will reduce phosphorus loads into Lake Sarah by 50 percent or more to achieve the goal for the 2011 TMDL study. The results of this assessment are based on the modeling of various stormwater treatment BMPs within the Dance Hall Creek Watershed. Conceptual drawings and/or photos have been incorporated in this report to provide a beƩer understanding of each BMP and approach for implementaƟon. More detailed, site‐speciﬁc designs will need to be prepared for each BMP selected prior to implementaƟon. Most projects will require addiƟonal study and/or engineered plans. For all the recommended projects, partnerships with commiƩed and willing landowners are essenƟal. The process used to select the recommended BMPs considered a combinaƟon of factors, including potenƟal to reduce the target pollutant (phosphorous), the project type and associated cost‐beneﬁt analysis, and the locaƟon of the project within the watershed. AddiƟonal factors that should be considered prior to prioriƟzing the recommended BMPs include project costs, available funding, economics of scale, landowner willingness, and short‐ versus long‐term impacts on property values and public infrastructure. Selection of the subwatershed Lake Sarah was idenƟﬁed as a priority resource in the Pioneer‐Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission’s 2nd GeneraƟon Watershed Management Plan. A TMDL study and associated implementaƟon plan was completed for Lake Sarah in 2011. The TMDL’s implementaƟon plan was developed with a great deal of technical advisory and public involvement and includes projects that will reduce nutrient loads to the lake. AnƟcipated nutrient reducƟons are included for each of the projects. The TMDL study determined that the Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed contributed 46 percent of the annual external phosphorus loads to Lake Sarah. Because of this signiﬁcant contribuƟon, this subwatershed was chosen for addiƟonal analysis through cooperaƟve efforts of the City of Greenﬁeld, the former Hennepin ConservaƟon District, Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Metropolitan AssociaƟon of ConservaƟon Districts. Figure 1: Lake grades for Lake Sarah Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 4 Document organization This document presents a brief overview of the processes involved to develop the project rankings and selecƟons. The technical aspect of the subwatershed assessment process and supporƟng model results are presented in the appendices. The majority of the report focuses on the projects, including their rankings based on cost per pound of nutrient reducƟon and project proﬁles. Basic conclusions This study, which used site‐speciﬁc observaƟons and measurements, new topographic data (2‐foot contour LiDAR data), and current land use and modeling processes, supports the ﬁndings from previous studies that show a direct correlaƟon between land use, land management and phosphorus transport to the amount of pollutants discharging from the Dance Hall Creek system to Lake Sarah. The amount of pollutants, in this case phosphorous, reaching Lake Sarah would be greatly reduced by maintaining land cover or implemenƟng BMPs that keep stormwater on‐site or slow stormwater leaving a site The implementaƟon of any land pracƟces that keeps rainfall on the land instead of running off and prevents nutrients that are either aƩached to soil or dissolved in the runoff water from reaching the creek system will beneﬁts the water quality of Lake Sarah. In addiƟon, disturbances of the land from development, soil exposure, agricultural, livestock and other man‐made acƟviƟes add to the problem and must be properly managed. The cost/beneﬁt relaƟonship of puƫng these pracƟces into place is highly dependent upon how severe the land disturbance is and how close the pracƟce is to Dance Hall Creek and more speciﬁcally Lake Sarah. Figure 2 shows an example of a high runoff season and the phosphorous loads at various locaƟons in the Dance Hall Creek Watershed. Table 1 shows the anƟcipated total phosphorus (TP) reducƟon at the locaƟon that the pracƟce is implemented and downstream at the lake, total suspended solids (TSS) reducƟon, stormwater volume reducƟon, total project cost and cost per pound of TP removed. The cost effecƟveness and nutrient reducƟons for some conceptual pracƟces were generalized. For example, not every livestock facility was modeled due to the speciﬁc site and management techniques each facility uses. However, the concept of on‐site compost systems to treat manure generated by the number of livestock was evaluated, and a delivery raƟo of nutrients to Lake Sarah was determined based on distance to the creek and lake. An average load reducƟon and cost/beneﬁt analysis can then be esƟmated to locate livestock faciliƟes that warrant addiƟonal study. If the landowner is interested in such a study, the exact nutrient reducƟons would be analyzed on a site‐by‐site basis. Figure 2: Dance Hall Creek Watershed nutrient loads (pounds per year of phosphorus) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 5 Recommended projects Table 1: Dance Hall Creek retrofit projects and rankings Project rank Retroﬁt type Project ID Total P reducƟon P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost EsƟmated cost (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐yr maintenance ) (lb‐TP/year for 10 years) 1 Grassed waterway (1,375 total feet) Field 4/5‐1 41.6 0.8 29.2 58,400 N/A $10,750 $37 2 Grassed waterway (2,365 total feet) Field 1‐1 62.6 0.7 43.8 87,600 N/A $17,500 $40 3 Grassed waterway (1,175 total feet) Field 1‐2 31.1 0.7 21.8 43,600 N/A $9,500 $44 4 Exclusion fence Livestock 2a 11.5 1.0 11.5 N/A N/A $5,375 $47 5 Tile intake alternaƟves Field 5‐2 42 0.1 4.2 8,400 N/A $2,400 $57 6 Exclusion fence Livestock 7c 48 0.4 19.2 N/A N/A $12,650 $66 7 Buffer Field 4/5‐1 32.6 0.9 29.3 58600 N/A $19,530 $67 8 Grassed waterway (1,625 total feet) Field 1‐7 43 0.4 17.3 34,525 N/A $12,243 $71 9 Grassed waterway (1,050 total feet) Field 1‐3 28 0.4 11.2 22,400 N/A $8,505 $76 10 Exclusion fence Livestock 7b 55.4 1 55.4 N/A N/A $42,750 $78 11 Prescribed grazing Livestock 7a 1 1 1 N/A N/A $800 $80 12 Grassed waterway (525 total feet) Field 1‐5 14 0.4 5.6 11,200 N/A $5,100 $91 13 Buffer Field 2/3/‐1 26.8 0.6 16.1 32,200 N/A $15,295 $95 14 Buffer Field 1‐2a 12.8 0.9 11.2 23,000 N/A $11,210 $100 15 Buffer Field 1‐2 27.6 0.6 16.6 33,200 N/A $17,830 $107 16 Nutrient management system Livestock 7b 17.5 1 17.5 N/A N/A $19,200 $110 17 Hydrologic restoraƟon Pond 1 100 1 100 N/A $223,500 (20 YRS) $112 18 Buffer Field 1‐6 32 0.4 12.8 26,700 N/A $14,450 $113 19 Clean water diversion Livestock 7b 16.5 0.75 12.4 N/A N/A $15,000 $121 20 Buffer Field 5‐4 69.0 0.2 13.8 27,600 N/A $17,830 129 21 Grassed waterway (225 total feet) Field 1‐6 6 0.4 2.4 4,800 N/A $3,150 $131 22 Hydrologic restoraƟon Pond 5 ‐‐ 1 29 $76,000 (20 Years) $131 23 Field 1‐7 W&SCB + 2 waterways (850') Field 1‐7 42 0.4 16.8 33,600 N/A $22,580 $134 PDR ImplemenƟng the top 23‐ranked projects would achieve the phosphorous reducƟon goals at a total cost of $583,148. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 6 Table 1: Dance Hall Creek retrofit projects and rankings (continued) Project rank Retroﬁt type Project ID Total P reducƟon PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost EsƟmated cost (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐yr maintenance ) (lb‐TP/year for 10 years) 24 Hydrologic restoration Pond 2 90 1 91 $253,500 (20 Years) $139 25 Hydrologic restoration Ponds 1&2 -- 1 169 $477,000 (20 Years) $141 26 Pond excavation Pond 2a 6.8 0.9 6.1 33,000 N/A $10,500 $172 27 Buffer Field 3-2 8.7 0.5 4.4 8,800 N/A $7,690 $175 28 Buffer 3-4 east 22.9 0.3 6.9 13,800 N/A $12,195 $177 29 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 6a 4 1 4 N/A N/A $7,375 $185 30 Water and sediment control basin Field 1-7 19.5 0.4 7.8 15,600 N/A $15,375 $197 31 Buffer Field 2-2a 5.8 0.9 5.2 8,800 N/A $10,355 $200 32 Manure storage system/compost bin Livestock 7a 5 1 5 N/A N/A $10,600 $212 33 Buffer Field 1-1 11.75 0.6 7.1 14,200 N/A $15,295 $215 34 Manure storage system/compost bin Livestock 5a 6 0.5 3 N/A N/A $7,375 $245 35 Manure storage system/compost bin Livestock 3b 3 1 3 N/A N/A $7,375 $247 36 Livestock exclusion fencing Livestock 3b 1 1 1 N/A N/A $2,500 $250 37 Buffer Field 1-5 12.25 0.4 4.9 5,800 N/A $12,350 $252 38 Pond scour protection Pond 1a 2 1 2 4,000 N/A $6,000 $300 39 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1a 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 40 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1b 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 41 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1c 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 42 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1d 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 43 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1e 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 44 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1f 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 45 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 1g 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 46 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 2b 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 7 Table 1: Dance Hall Creek retrofit projects and rankings (continued) Project rank Retroﬁt type Project ID Total P reducƟon PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost EsƟmated cost (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐yr maintenance ) (lb‐TP/year for 10 years) 47 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 3a 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 48 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 3c 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 49 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 3d 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 50 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 3f 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 51 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 3h 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 52 Manure storage system//compost bin Livestock 6b 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 53 Manure storage system/compost bin Livestock 2a 2.0 1.0 2.0 N/A N/A $7,375 $370 54 Buffer Field 5-3 13.7 0.2 2.74 27,540 N/A $10,225 $373 55 Hydrologic restoration Ponds 3&4 -- 1 40 $337,000 (20 Years) $421 56 Buffer Field 3-8 8.7 0.2 1.7 3,400 N/A $7,690 $452 57 Pond excavation Pond 1a 3.5 1.0 3.5 7,000 N/A $52,400 $1,497 58 Pond excavation Pond 3a 2 0.3 0.6 4,000 N/A N/A $13,800 59 Gully stabilization GS1 10.1 0.3 3.0 20,190 N/A $93,000 $3,100 60 Gully stabilization GS3 10.1 0.3 3.0 20,190 N/A $93,000 $3,100 61 Pond excavation Pond 7b 2.2 0.3 0.7 N/A N/A $23,000 $3,285 62 Gully stabilization GS2 2.6 0.3 0.8 5,100 N/A $27,500 $3,400 63 Wetland restoration WR2 21.6 0.1 2.16 4,400 2.7 $86,500 $4,005 64 Gully stabilization GS4 9 0.2 1.8 18,000 N/A $84,000 $4,665 65 Wetland restoration WR3 24.3 0.1 2.4 4,800 7.7 $134,500 $5,605 66 Gully stabilization GS5 5 0.1 0.5 N/A N/A $29,000 $5,800 67 Wetland restoration WR1 3.8 0.1 0.38 760 1.2 $49,000 $12,895 68 Pond excavation Pond 7a 0.2 0.1 0.02 N/A N/A $17,500 $87,500 69 Manure storage system//concrete tank Livestock 7b 2 1 2 N/A N/A $75,000 N/A Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 8 Analytical process and elements The purpose of subwatershed assessments through stormwater retroﬁt analysis is to improve water quality, increase groundwater recharge and reduce stormwater runoff volumes. The analysis idenƟﬁes opportuniƟes and develops conceptual designs for BMPs for areas that are contribuƟng the largest pollutant loads to the receiving water body. The subwatershed assessment process took the following steps: 1. IdenƟfy and prioriƟze subwatersheds that contribute the greatest to water quality degradaƟon of high‐ priority water resources. 2. Map BMP retroﬁt potenƟal within neighbourhoods of the highest priority sub watersheds uƟlizing the “Urban Stormwater Retroﬁt PracƟces” manual (August, 2007). 3. Design retroﬁts, primarily involving ponds, wetland restoraƟon, vegetated buffers, water ﬂow controls, vegetaƟve swales and management techniques for rural residenƟal runoff, livestock and Ɵllable land. 4. Calculate pollutant removal uƟlizing Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), Source Loading and Management Model for Windows (WinnSLAMM), Board of Water and Soil Resources PolluƟon ReducƟon Model, Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon Version 2 (RUSLE2) and Minnesota Feedlot Assessment Runoff Model (MinnFARM). 5. Manage installaƟon based on landowners’ willingness and funding availability. The subwatershed retroﬁt analysis process is a tool that helps to idenƟfy and prioriƟze BMPs based on performance and cost/beneﬁt. The process for the Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Analysis involved scoping, desktop analysis, ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, modeling, cost esƟmaƟng, and project ranking and selecƟon. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 9 Target elements The main element considered in this analysis was phosphorous, the target pollutant for Lake Sarah. Volume of water and total suspended solid controls were analyzed as secondary elements as they can affect phosphorous loads. Priority elements analyzed DescripƟon Total phosphorous Secondary: Total Suspended Solids and volume of water Phosphorus is an essenƟal nutrient for plants, animals and humans. Under natural condiƟons, phosphorus (P) is typically scarce in water. However, changes in pre‐seƩlement land use acƟviƟes have resulted in excessive loading of phosphorus into many freshwater systems. This can cause water polluƟon by promoƟng excessive algae growth, parƟcularly in lakes. Total Phosphorus is a combinaƟon of parƟculate phosphorus, which is bound to sediment and organic materials, and dissolved phosphorus, which is phosphorus in soluƟon available for plant growth. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are very small parƟcles remaining dispersed in a liquid due to turbulent mixing that can create turbid or cloudy condiƟons. Reducing TSS will reduce parƟculate phosphorus loads to Lake Sarah. Volume of water: Higher runoff volumes and velociƟes can carry greater amounts of TSS and dissolved phosphorus to Lake Sarah. ReducƟons in volume will reduce total phosphorus loads to Lake Sarah. Cost Each retroﬁt pracƟce has been analyzed for the annual cost per pound of phosphorous load reducƟon into Lake Sarah. Cost includes installaƟon, annual maintenance, life expectancy, design and project oversight. Watershed locaƟon All projects have been analyzed to determine how much they would reduce the phosphorous load into Lake Sarah. The modeling esƟmates the amount of phosphorous that actually enters the lake by mulƟplying the modeled phosphorous load at the edge‐of‐ﬁeld by a phosphorous delivery raƟo. The phosphorous delivery raƟo was determined by using maps that show the project locaƟon in the watershed, distance to Lake Sarah, aerial photographs, topography, type of phosphorus (soluble vs. parƟculate) and ﬂow paths. Each project was assigned a number from 0.1 to 1.0, with 0.1 having a lower nutrient reducƟon beneﬁt that 1.0. Table 2: Priority elements analyzed in Dance Hall Creek subwatershed assessment Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 10 Potential project types The retroﬁt analysis considered various stormwater and erosion/sediment control BMPs. Table 3 describes these BMPs and how their beneﬁts were analyzed. Project type DescripƟon Modeling methods Vegetated buffer strip A strip or area of herbaceous vegetaƟon situated between cropland, grazing land or disturbed land and environmentally sensiƟve areas. RUSLE 2/ BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟon EsƟmator Grassed waterway A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions and established with suitable vegetaƟon for the stable conveyance of runoff. BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟon EsƟmator Gully stabilizaƟon CorrecƟve acƟons on acƟve gully erosion with rock rip rap, check dams or other stabilizaƟon measures and vegetaƟon for the stable conveyance of channelized ﬂows. BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟon EsƟmator Water and sediment control basin An earth embankment or a combinaƟon ridge and channel generally constructed across the slope and minor watercourses to form a sediment trap and water detenƟon basin. RUSLE 2/ BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟon EsƟmator Wetland restoraƟon Restoring hydrology to cropland areas that have been parƟally or completely drained. SWAT/NURP Livestock best management pracƟces RestricƟng livestock access to criƟcal or sensiƟve areas through the use of fencing or other restricƟve forms of animal exclusion. Analyzing manure storage needs for livestock faciliƟes. Analyzing the potenƟal use of compost, stacking slabs, and storage tanks for type and length of MinnFARM/modeled average phosphorus yields/ RUSLE2 Pond enhancement Restoring or enhancing an urban pond to minimum design standards to restore nutrient and sediment removal efficiency. SWAT/NURP Hydrologic restoraƟon CreaƟng new regional or local ponds to capture and treat runoff. SWAT/NURP Table 3: Potential project types for Dance Hall Creek subwatershed assessment Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 11 Project profiles Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 12 Buffer strips Buffer strips, someƟmes referred to as ﬁlter strips, are areas of vegetaƟon situated between a potenƟal source of polluƟon and a body of water that receives runoff, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Runoff may carry sediment, organic maƩer, plant nutrients and pesƟcides that are either bound to the sediment or dissolved in the water. A properly designed and operaƟng buffer strip protects water quality by reducing the amount of sediment, organic maƩer, nutrients and pesƟcides in the runoff at the edge of the ﬁeld before the runoff enters the body of water. Buffer strips are oŌen constructed along the boundaries of cropland and streams, lakes, ponds or wetlands. This not only helps remove pollutants from the runoff but also serves as habitat for wildlife and provides an area for ﬁeld turn rows and haymaking. In some instances, a buffer strip could be used as pasture as long as livestock are fenced out of the stream or lake. Buffer strips also prevent erosion because the vegetaƟon covers an area of soil that otherwise might have a high erosion potenƟal. Buffer strips are oŌen used in conjuncƟon with other agricultural and land best management pracƟces, such as contour plowing, pest scouƟng, conservaƟon Ɵllage, crop rotaƟons, strip cropping, soil tesƟng, and proper nutrient and pest management. Most ﬁeld research supports the use of buffer strips with widths ranging from 10 to 40 feet depending on the receiving water and amount of ﬂows it is designed to intercept. Buffer strips are proposed in areas where acƟve agricultural acƟviƟes are occurring near a body of water or wetland. The beneﬁts of the buffer strip will vary greatly depending on many variables, including whether the water ﬂowing over it is in a channelized or sheet type of ﬂow, the slope of the land, the type of vegetaƟon in the strip, the width of the strip, the distance to the stream or wetland, and the distance to Lake Sarah. The cost/beneﬁts of buffer strips are esƟmated based on the pollutant reducƟons, which is determined by the width of the ﬁlter strip, pollutant reducƟon, life span, crop loss, design and promoƟon costs, and maintenance costs. The expected life span of a buffer strip is 10 to 20 years. The life span is determined by the amount of soil or sediment that the grass in the ﬁlter strip traps. Eventually the cropland at the edge of the ﬁlter strip and the ﬁlter strip itself needs to be re‐established to allow for the water to ﬂow into and through it as intended. If upland erosion is not controlled, the lifespan of the ﬁlter strip is greatly reduced. To help remove nutrients during the lifespan of the buffer strip, we encourage harvesƟng the hay in the buffer strip at least once per year. HarvesƟng should be done aŌer August to protect nesƟng birds. Figure 4 and 5: Examples of design and operation of vegetated buffer strips Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 13 Dance Hall Creek vegetated buffer analysis parameters Buffer width The standard vegetated buffer width used in this report is 35 feet wide, which provides the necessary beneﬁts with good representaƟve costs. Buffer length and area Buffer lengths are established based on the sensiƟvity of the water resources being protected. Buffer area is determined by mulƟplying the buffer length by 35 feet (the standard buffer width) and converted to acres. Phosphorus reducƟons The phosphorus reducƟon that will be provided by a buffer strip is esƟmated by using the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) PolluƟon ReducƟons Calculator for Filter Strips (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLINK/index.html), is calculated in pounds and is measured at the edge of the ﬁeld using the following input parameters: Soil type: Silt was used for all sites Area: Measured in acres draining into and through the buffer Average soil loss: Measured in tons per acre of the contribuƟng area Average ﬁeld soil loss: Determined for each site using the USDA, NRCS Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon (RUSLE2). RUSLE2 uses the following input parameters: Speciﬁc slope length: Measured from top of slope to where the water channelizes (LS factor) Speciﬁc slope steepness: Measured from 2‐foot topographic maps of Hennepin County LiDAR informaƟon (LS factor) Site‐speciﬁc soil: From the Hennepin County Soil Survey (k factor) Crop rotaƟon and Ɵllage history: Based on review of aerial photos from 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2012 (c factor) ExisƟng conservaƟon pracƟce: Based on aerial photographic reviews (p factor) Regional climate condiƟons for Hennepin County Phosphorus delivery raƟo Some of the phosphorous reducƟon beneﬁts from the buffer strips will be diminished depending on the distance between the buffer strip and Lake Sarah. The vegetated buffers were further analyzed to determine the reducƟon of phosphorus that would reach Lake Sarah, which is the phosphorous delivery raƟo (PDR). The PDR was esƟmated for each site by considering the locaƟon and distance of the buffer strip from Lake Sarah, ﬂow restricƟons, aerial photographs, topography and the type of nutrient available for transport (soluble versus parƟculate). Each buffer site was assigned a PDR ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 with 0.1 having a lowest delivery raƟo (10% from the ﬁeld edge) and 1.0 having the highest delivery raƟo (100% from the ﬁeld edge) to Lake Sarah. The phosphorus load that actually reaches Lake Sarah was esƟmated by mulƟplying phosphorus reducƟon at the edge of the ﬁeld and the PDR. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 14 Cost basis for vegetated buffers ConstrucƟon costs are esƟmated at $350 per acre of buffer area and include seedbed preparaƟon, ferƟlizer and planƟng. Maintenance costs are esƟmated at $100 per acre of buffer area and are ﬁgured for the complete lifespans of the pracƟce (10 years). Maintenance costs cover weed suppression and reseeding where needed. Crop producƟon losses are esƟmated at $800 per acre of buffer area. The largest cost associated with vegetated buffers is the losses incurred from taking cropland out of producƟon. Although this will vary based on type of crop, land producƟvity and crop pricing, this report uses a standard of $800 in crop producƟon losses per acre per year, totaling $8,000 per acre over 10 years. Design, easement and oversight costs are esƟmated as a lump sum of $6,000 per buffer and is largely for easement development and recording. Dance Hall Creek speciﬁc buffer assumpƟons Buffer width = 35 feet Buffer length: varies Project lifespan = 10 years Cost (esƟmated by the Metropolitan AssociaƟon of ConservaƟon Districts’ BMP Cost EsƟmator): ConstrucƟon cost = $350/acre 10‐year maintenance cost = $100/acre 1‐year producƟon cost lost = $800/acre Design, easement and oversight costs = $6,000 lump sum Nutrient and sediment reducƟons: EsƟmated by BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟons Calculator for Filter Strips Soil: Assumed as silt with average bulk density of 85 lbs/cu.Ō. Table 4 shows the esƟmated phosphorus reducƟon entering Lake Sarah from the ﬁelds analyzed and the associated cost for the life span of the project due to the implementaƟon of buffer strips. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 15 Table 4: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed buffer strips Field ID Buffer Area up‐ stream of buffer Total 10‐ year cost Average soil loss from contribuƟng ﬁeld P reducƟon Phosphorus reduced to Lake Sarah Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of pracƟce Length Area (Ō) (acres) (acres) ($) (tons/acre) (lbs/year) (lbs/year) ($/lbs) 1‐2a 750 0.60 6.9 11,250 4.8 12.80 0.9 11.2 100 2‐2a 630 0.51 2.3 10,355 5.1 5.80 0.9 5.2 200 5‐4 1,750 1.40 20.0 17,830 11.0 69.00 0.2 13.8 129 1‐1 1,400 1.10 7.6 15,295 4.0 11.75 0.6 7.1 215 1‐2 1,760 1.40 12.8 17,830 6.1 27.60 0.6 16.6 107 1‐5 925 0.75 4.6 12,350 8.0 12.25 0.4 4.9 252 3‐2 250 0.20 1.7 7,690 18.0 8.70 0.5 4.4 175 3‐8 230 0.20 2.9 7,690 9.2 8.70 0.2 1.7 452 1‐6 1,175 1.00 7.4 14,450 14.3 32.00 0.4 12.8 113 3‐4e 875 0.7 10.0 12,195 6.1 22.9 0.3 6.9 177 5‐3 600 0.5 3.6 10,225 12 13.7 0.2 2.74 373 PDR Figure 6: Location of proposed buffer strips Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 16 Grassed waterways Grassed waterways are constructed, graded channels that are seeded to grass or other suitable vegetaƟon. Grassed waterways are designed to slow the ﬂow of water, conveying it to a stable a stable outlet at a non‐erosive velocity. Grassed waterways signiﬁcantly reduce gully erosion by protecƟng the soil from concentrated ﬂows. The vegetaƟon may also act as a ﬁlter, absorbing some of the chemicals and nutrients in runoff water, and provide cover for small birds and animals. In the construcƟon of grassed waterways, a natural drainage is graded and shaped to form a smooth, bowl‐shaped channel and is seeded with sod‐forming grasses. Runoff ﬂows across the grass rather than eroding the soil and forming a larger gully. An outlet is oŌen installed at the base of the drainage to stabilize the waterway and prevent a new gully from forming. The expected lifespan of a grassed waterway is 10 to 20 years. The lifespan is determined by the amount of sediment that the grass in the waterway traps. Eventually the cropland at the edge of the grass and the waterway itself will need to be re‐excavated to allow for the water to ﬂow into and down the waterway. If upland erosion is not controlled, the lifespan of the waterway is greatly reduced. Example of well‐funcƟoning grassed waterway. Example of gully erosion that is commonly observed in this watershed. Example of channelized erosion in cropland where a waterway or water and sediment control basin would be recommended. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 17 Dance Hall Creek grassed waterway analysis parameters Grassed waterway siƟng Areas that would beneﬁt from a grassed waterway were determined by in‐ﬁeld site observaƟons, topographic informaƟon (LiDAR) and analysis of aerial photographs. Visual evidence was gathered by observaƟons of the sites in the spring of 2014 during and aŌer runoff‐generaƟng rainfall events. Topographic evidence was based on LiDAR indicators, including incised topographic seƫngs and well‐deﬁned drainage areas leading to water collecƟon ﬂowage areas. In areas that could not be observed in the ﬁeld, photographic evidence of erosion scars in cropland for two out of four years, along with the LiDAR indicators menƟoned above, were used. Phosphorus reducƟons The phosphorus reducƟon that will be provided by a waterway is esƟmated using the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) PolluƟon ReducƟons Calculator for Gully StabilizaƟon (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLINK/ index.html), is calculated in pounds and is measured at the edge of the ﬁeld using the following input parameters: Soil type: Silt was used for all sites Soil loss (volume) per year: For all waterways, it was assumed that the channel erosion consisted of a 3‐ inch deep and 5‐foot wide triangular shape (0.625 cubic foot per foot of waterway) on an annual basis. Gully (waterway) condiƟon: It was assumed that the sediment from the waterway would fan out before entering the receiving waters; therefore, they were considered to be non‐channelized for the purpose of the model. Distance to receiving surface water, calculated in feet to main ditch or wetland (receiving water). This varies from site to site but was determined from measurements between the waterway and the receiving ditch system. For the purpose of the model inputs, there was no ﬁlter/buffer strip upstream of waterway installaƟon. Phosphorus delivery raƟo The phosphorus delivery raƟo is built into the gully stabilizaƟon program that incorporates items b and c above. No addiƟonal reducƟons to Lake Sarah were assumed beyond what the program calculated. Cost basis for grassed waterways ConstrucƟon costs were esƟmated at $4 per foot of waterway and include excavaƟon and distribuƟon of the material on‐site, seeding and mulching. Maintenance costs were esƟmated at $0.25 per year per foot of waterway and include repair, reseeding and weed controls. The lifespan of vegetated waterways is a minimum of 10 years. Design and oversight costs were esƟmated as a lump sum of $1,680 per project site and include surveying, design, staking and construcƟon inspecƟon. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 18 Table 5: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed grassed waterways Figure 7: Location of proposed grassed waterway projects Field ID Total length of waterways Total 10‐ year cost P reducƟon Distance to surface water (ditch system) Phosphorus reduced to Lake Sarah Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for the life span of the pracƟce (Ō) ($) (lbs/year) (Ō) (lbs/year) ($/lbs) 1‐1 2,365 17,500 18.7 350 18.7 94 1‐2a 1,450 11,105 14.9 100 14.9 75 4 & 5‐1 1,375 10,750 14.1 100 14.1 76 1‐3 1,050 8,505 9.1 800 9.1 94 1‐5 525 5,100 3.1 1,350 3.1 165 1‐6 225 3,150 1.9 250 1.9 166 1‐7 1,625 12,243 10.3 1,000 10.3 120 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 19 Gully stabilization Gullies are a speciﬁc form of severe erosion typically caused by concentrated water ﬂow on erosive soils. Concentrated water ﬂow may begin as minor sheet ﬂow that produces rills and eventually results in major gully formaƟon. Gullies can have major impacts on an area by taking land out of producƟon, lowering the groundwater table and acƟng as a major source of sediment. Once formed, gullies typically get deeper and wider unƟl they reach a resistant material. Gullies oŌen form at the outlet of culverts due to the concentrated ﬂows and relaƟvely fast water velociƟes. StabilizaƟon of gullies typically requires reducing the volume and the velocity of water ﬂowing through the gully. This can be achieved by reﬁlling the gully and building dikes or small check dams at speciﬁc intervals along the gully. Reshaping and stabilizing long and steep banks may also be needed. Typical gully stabilizaƟon structures are constructed of rock, gabions or vegetaƟve barriers. Biotechnical methods offer a combinaƟon of physical structures along with vegetaƟve measures for physical protecƟon as well as addiƟonal long‐term root support and aestheƟcs. Example of gully formaƟon in a farm ﬁeld. Side View Key check structure into the na‐ Ɵve soil at the base of the gully. Add scour protecƟon at the base of each structure. Front View Key check structure into the na‐ Ɵve side banks. Maintain a “U” or “V” shape over the top of the structure. Figure 8: Example of construction of a gully stabilization project Dance Hall Creek gully stabilization analysis parameters Gully locaƟons Gully erosion sites in the Dance Hall Creek Watershed that would beneﬁt from gully stabilizaƟon projects were deter‐ mined by in‐ﬁeld site observaƟons, topographic informaƟon (LiDAR) and analysis of aerial photographs. Visual evi‐ dence was gathered during observaƟons in the spring of 2014. Topographic evidence was based on LiDAR indicators, including incised topographic seƫngs and well‐deﬁned drainage areas leading to water collecƟon ﬂowage areas. In are‐ as we could not observed in the ﬁeld, photographic evidence of erosion scars, sediment fans and the LiDAR indicators menƟoned above were used. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 20 Phosphorus reducƟons The phosphorus reducƟon that would be achieved through gully stabilizaƟon projects is esƟmated using the BWSR PolluƟon ReducƟons Calculator for Gully StabilizaƟon (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLINK/index.html), is calculated in pounds and is measured at the boƩom of the gully using the following input parameters: Soil type: Silt with an average bulk density of 85 lbs/cubic foot was used for all sites Soil volume voided per year (cubic feet): Based on the severity of erosion occurring within the speciﬁc gully. These were based on the Rapid Assessment Point Method (Inventory and EvaluaƟon of Erosion and Sediment for Illinois by R.D. Windhorn, December, 2000.) Two disƟnct gully formaƟons were observed within the watershed: Slight yearly recession rate: Generally described as a gully with some bare banks but where acƟve erosion in not readily apparent. Some rills and minimal tree root exposure are evident. Slight recession rates vary from 1/2 to 3/4 inch per year along the weƩed perimeter of the gully. The annual average slight gully recession rate was assumed to be 5/8 inch (0.05 feet) per year. Moderate yearly recession rate: Generally described as a gully with predominantly bare banks with some rills and vegetaƟve overhang. Some exposed tree roots are evident. Moderate recession rates vary from ¾ inch to 3 ½ inches per year along the weƩed perimeter of the gully. The annual average moderate gully recession rate was assumed to be 1 inch (0.083 feet) per year. Gully condiƟons: Assumed to be channelized with no ﬁlter/buffer strips upstream. WeƩed perimeter of the gully: Assumed to be 5 feet for all gullies. Assumed to have rectangular shape, 2‐ foot boƩom, and 1.5‐foot verƟcal side banks. Phosphorus delivery raƟo Some of the phosphorous reducƟon beneﬁts from the gully stabilizaƟon projects will be diminished depending on the distance between the gully and Lake Sarah. The gully stabilizaƟon projects were analyzed to determine the reducƟon of phosphorus reaching Lake Sarah, which is the phosphorous deliver raƟo (PDR). The PDR was esƟmated for each site by considering the locaƟon and distance of the gully from Lake Sarah, ﬂow restricƟons, ﬂow route, topography and the type of nutrient available for transport (parƟculate in the case of sediment from gully erosion). Each gully was assigned a PDR between 0.1 to 1.0 with 0.1 having a lowest delivery raƟo and 1.0 having the highest delivery raƟo to Lake Sarah. The phosphorous load that actually reaches Lake Sarah was esƟmated by mulƟplying the phosphorus reducƟon at the boƩom of the gully and the PDR. Cost basis for gully stabilizaƟon ConstrucƟon costs were esƟmated at $90 per linear foot for moderate recession rate gully controls and $50 per linear foot for slight recession rate gully controls. Moderate recession rate projects would generally consist of clearing, grubbing, shaping, installing riprap‐lined channels, construcƟng check dams and compleƟng restoraƟon work. Projects with slight recession rate gullies usually involve construcƟng check dams, minimal placing of riprap and more restoring vegetaƟon. Design and oversight costs were esƟmated at a $5,000 lump sum per gully site and include scoping work, survey, staking, design and construcƟon inspecƟon. Maintenance costs were assumed to be a $250 lump sum per year per gully site and include repair work, restoraƟon work and other erosion and vegetaƟon control. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 21 Table 6: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed gully stabilization projects Gully site ID Total length of gully Recession rate P reducƟon Total 10‐year cost P reduced to Lake Sarah Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (Ō) (Ō3/year) (lbs/yr) ($) (lbs/yr) ($/lbs) GS1 950 Moderate 16.75 $93,000 0.3 5.0 $1,860 GS2 400 Slight 4.25 $27,500 0.3 1.3 $2,115 GS3 950 Moderate 16.75 $93,000 0.3 5.0 $1,860 GS4 850 Moderate 15.00 $84,000 0.2 3.0 $2,800 GS5 430 Slight 4.60 $29,000 0.1 0.5 $5,800 PDR Figure 9: Location of proposed gully stabilization projects Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 22 Water and sediment control basins Water and sediment control basins are a series of small embankments built perpendicular to concentrated ﬂow paths on cropland. Sediment‐ laden runoff entering the basin is stored and then slowly released through an underground outlet. The sediment seƩles out in the basin. Water and sediment control basins are commonly built in a parallel series crossing the watercourse in several places in order to trap runoff and sediment while prevenƟng the watercourse from becoming a gully. The basins can be designed to be farmed. The intakes that meter the water out are typically a plasƟc perforated stand pipe about 4 feet high. Water and sediment control basin specific site analysis Field 1‐7 Drainage area above and below basin = 6.5 acres Soil loss reducƟon = 19.5 tons/year Before average soil loss in ﬁeld (measurement 1 and 2) = 6.6 tons/ac/yr = 42.25 t/year (Based on RUSLE) Average soil loss above and below basin aŌer install = 3.5 tons/ac/yr=22.75. (Based on RUSLE2) Per BWSR guidance, assume 1 pound of phosphorus per ton of soil loss = 19.5 lbs of phosphorus reducƟon Cost is based on Metropolitan AssociaƟon of ConservaƟon Districts BMP cost esƟmator for water and sediment control basin 0‐10 acre drainage area Field 1‐4 Drainage area above basin = 11.3 acres Soil loss reducƟon = 0 tons/year. No soil reducƟon because exisƟng off‐site grass areas act as buffer. Before average soil loss in ﬁeld = 3.8 tons/ac/year Average soil loss above and below basin aŌer install = 3.8 tons/acre per year Example of a typical water and sediment control basin layout. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 23 Table 7: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed water and sediment control basins Figure 10: Location of proposed water and sediment control basins Field ID Total area of protecƟon above and below W&SCB Total 10‐year cost P reducƟon P reduced to Lake Sarah Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (acres) ($) (lbs/year) (lbs/year) ($/lb) 1‐7 6.5 $15,375 19.5 0.4 7.8 $197 1‐4 11.3 $14,478 0 N/A N/A N/A PDR Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 24 Wetland restoration and enhancement Wetland restoraƟons involve reestablishing or repairing the hydrology, plants and soils of a former or degraded wetland to as close to the original natural condiƟon as possible. These are wetlands that have been drained, farmed or otherwise modiﬁed. Restoring wetlands has numerous environmental beneﬁts, especially to store water and absorb nutrients. The PondNet model was the primary tool used to analyze the proposed wetland projects. Wetland restoration analysis parameters Lifespan was assumed to be 10 years. Cost assumpƟons InstallaƟon = $7,500 lump sum Easement = $20,000/acre Design and administraƟon = $15,000 lump sum Maintenance = $10,000 over 10‐year lifespan Example of wetland restoraƟon project. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 25 Wetland ID Total area of wetland Avg. pool elevaƟon and depth Structure Volume of storage PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (acres) (feet) (acre‐feet) (lbs/yr) ($/lbs) WR/HR 1 1.2 1034.0‐2.0 Box weir 2.4 0.1 0.25 $1,290 WR/HR 2 2.7 1026‐1.0 Box weir 2.7 0.1 2.16 $4,005 WR/HR 3 5.1 1025 Water control 7.65 0.1 2.43 $5,534 P reducƟon 3.8 21.6 24.3 (lbs/yr) Table 8: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed wetland restorations Figure 11: Location of proposed wetland restorations Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 26 Livestock best management practices The Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed has both producƟon and non‐producƟon livestock faciliƟes, which differ in the numbers and needs of the animals as wells as the management pracƟces and goals. A primary disƟncƟon is that producƟon animals are raised for commercial purposes for meat and milk while non‐producƟon animals are raised primarily for hobby. Table 8 characterizes the similariƟes and differences between producƟon and non‐producƟon livestock faciliƟes. Each livestock facility is unique in its needs and requirements, and each producer or landowner may have different operaƟonal procedures and expectaƟons from their operaƟon. To understand the needs and objecƟves of producers, a detailed analysis of the faciliƟes must be conducted in cooperaƟon with the producer before speciﬁc projects are implemented. This would be done by surveying and interviewing the producers and then following up with a site invesƟgaƟon before. MinnFARM, RUSLE2 and BWSR water polluƟon calculators were used to model the nutrient loads to Dance Hall Creek and Lake Sarah from livestock faciliƟes based on the site condiƟons, ﬁeld observaƟons, topography and aerial photo analysis. It was assumed that non‐producƟon livestock faciliƟes (i.e., horses) would not have a managed manure storage or disposal system. Manure storage primarily consisted of onsite stacking with no protecƟons. However, disposal of manure may occur if the opportunity arose. ProducƟon faciliƟes (i.e., dairy, beef) were assumed to have managed, short‐term (1 or 2 month) storage and disposal systems. It was further assumed that manure, crop and land nutrient needs were analyzed infrequently by the landowner (every 4 or more years). Table 9: Parameters for livestock facilities Facility parameters ProducƟon livestock Non‐producƟon livestock Livestock health needs Animal nutriƟon  Animal housing  Animal type/size/ locaƟon of facility  CriƟcal natural resource issues Wetlands  Streams  Lakes  Floodplains  Pasture management  Area available  Food and nutrient requirements  Supplemental food/ forage  Timing and rotaƟon  Manure storage and disposal  Storage slab/pit  Manure spreading  Length of storage  Compost facility  Scrape and haul services  Nutrient management  Manure tesƟng  Cropland soil tesƟng  Crop ferƟlity requirements  ApplicaƟon/spreading requirements  ApplicaƟon/spreading Ɵming  Nutrient management  Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 27 Dance Hall Creek livestock facility analysis parameters Non‐producƟon faciliƟes Unless otherwise noted, phosphorus and costs associated with non‐producƟon faciliƟes are assumed as follows. Phosphorus assumpƟons: Pasture management and exclusion fencing is adequate for each site based on aerial photo analysis. Storage of waste materials, although uncontrolled, occurs on upland areas with minimal potenƟal of surface water contaminaƟon. An average of 2 lbs of phosphorus reducƟon entering Lake Sarah per site per year was assumed based on standard export models for phosphorus loads from uncontrolled storage faciliƟes. Compost bins were assumed to be the method of controlling nutrient loads from the exisƟng non‐producƟon faciliƟes. Compost bins were assumed to decrease phosphorus exports to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs. per year per facility unless otherwise noted. Cost assumpƟons for compost storage facility: Compost bin material and construcƟon costs = $4,500 Yearly compost bin maintenance cost = $ 250 Design and oversight (5 hours at $75/hour) = $ 375 Total = $7,375 ProducƟon faciliƟes The watershed contains three larger producƟon faciliƟes. One facility was not analyzed because pasture, storage and nutrient management appeared to be adequate. The facility is located on the far eastern edge of the watershed outside of the City of Greenﬁeld and the legal boundary of the Pioneer‐Sarah Creek Watershed and has a very low phosphorus delivery. The other two faciliƟes were analyzed separately using MinnFARM, RUSLE2 and standard model export coefficients. Based on these export coefficients, it was assumed that producƟon pastures would export about 2 pounds per acre of phosphorus per year. Refer to Figure 12 for the locaƟons of the livestock faciliƟes; Example of a compost bin for non‐producƟon or small site livestock facility. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 28 Table 10: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed livestock projects Project ID Retroﬁt type P reducƟon PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (refer to catchment proﬁle pages for addiƟonal detail) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐year maintenance) ($/lbs) Livestock 2a Exclusion fence 11.5 1.0 11.5 N/A N/A $5,375 $47 Livestock 7c Exclusion fence 48 0.4 19.2 N/A N/A $12,650 $66 Livestock 7b Exclusion fence 55.4 1 55.4 N/A N/A $42,750 $78 Livestock 7a Prescribed grazing 1 1 1 N/A N/A $800 $80 Livestock 7b Nutrient management system 17.5 1 17.5 N/A N/A $19,200 $110 Livestock 7b Clean water diversion 16.5 0.75 12.4 N/A N/A $15,000 $121 Livestock 6a Manure storage system/compost bin 4 1 4 N/A N/A $7,375 $185 Livestock 7a Compost bin/storage for 10‐15 horses 5 1 5 N/A N/A $10,600 $212 Livestock 5a Compost bin for 4 or less horses 6 0.5 3 N/A N/A $7,375 $245 Livestock 3b Manure storage system/compost bin 3 1 3 N/A N/A $7,375 $247 Figure 12: Location of proposed livestock management projects Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 29 Table 10: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed livestock projects Project ID Retroﬁt type P reducƟon PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (refer to catchment proﬁle pages for addiƟonal detail) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐year maintenance) ($/lbs) Livestock 3b Livestock exclusion fencing 1 1 1 N/A N/A $2,500 $250 Livestock 1a Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1b Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1c Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1d Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1e Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1f Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 1g Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 2b Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 3a Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 3c Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 3d Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 3f Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 3h Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 6b Manure storage system/compost bin 2 1 2 N/A N/A $7,375 $369 Livestock 2a Manure storage system/compost bin 2.0 1.0 2.0 N/A N/A $7,375 $370 Livestock 7b Manure storage system/concrete tank 2 1 2 N/A N/A $75,000 N/A Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 30 Dance Hall Creek livestock facility individual site analysis Area 1 livestock sites Livestock facility site 1a was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with three horses based on of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1b was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with three horses in 2012 and ﬁve horses in 2006 and 2011 based on of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1c was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with four horses in 2012 and six to 10 horses in 2006, 2008 and 2011 based on of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1d was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with three horses based on of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1e was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with four horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1f was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with two horses based on aerial of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 1g was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with no animals but evidence of livestock from trails near barn based on of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 31 Area 2 livestock sites Livestock facility site 2a was not considered a typical non‐producƟon facility because current and pasture and manure handling appears to be limited and current pasture/paddocks are within a ﬂoodplain and wetlands. The facility has two horses based on review of aerial photos. The site has two main sources of phosphorus: 1. Yearly ﬂushing of livestock waste nutrients due to the ﬂooding of the creek adjacent to the paddock/pasture area. According to the University of Minnesota Extension Service, two horses would yield about 100 pounds of phosphorus load per year. It was assumed that 10% of that load (10 pounds of phosphorous per year) would reach Lake Sarah. 2. Yearly ﬂushing from ﬂooding also causes erosion scour and transfers nutrients into the creek system. About 3.4 acres of paddock area would be affected by erosion. This would result in 0.45 tons per acre of soil loss (RUSLE2 analysis) or a total of 1.53 tons soil loss per year. One ton of soil loss is equivalent to 1 pound of phosphorus per year, resulƟng in 1.53 pounds of phosphorus per year from this site. Recommended BMP controls are: Exclusion fencing around the paddock and pasture areas from the wetland and ﬂoodplain of the creek. Compost bin for the manure storage system Cost assumpƟons for Livestock site 2a: Exclusion fencing from wetland and ﬂoodplain areas: InstallaƟon cost: 1,000 feet @ $2.50/Ō. = $2,500 Design and oversight: 5 hours @ $75/hr. = $375 Maintenance: 0.25/Ō./yr = $250/year ($2,500 for 10 years) Total cost for exclusion fence = $5,375 ComposƟng storage facility (typical) = $7,375 Livestock facility site 2b was considered to be a typical non‐producƟon facility with one to three horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 32 Area 3 livestock sites Livestock facility site 3a was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with one horse based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 3b was not considered a typical non‐producƟon facility because manure is currently stacked in a wetland so was not analyzed with different assumpƟons. The facility has one horse based on review of aerial photos. Recommended BMP controls are: ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 3 lbs/year. Installing exclusion fencing around the wetland. Fencing out 0.5 acres of wetland would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 1 lb/year. Cost assumpƟons for livestock site 3b: Exclusion fencing from wetland: InstallaƟon cost: 445 Ō @ $2.50/Ō = $1,113 Design and oversight: 5 hours @ $75/hr = $375 Maintenance: 0.25/Ō./yr = $111/year ($1,110 for 10 years) Total cost for exclusion fence = $2,600 ComposƟng storage facility (typical) = $7,375 Livestock facility 3c was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with one or two horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 3d was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with two horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 3e had no horses horse based on review of aerial photos. Livestock facility site 3f was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with one or two horse based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 3g had no horses based on review of aerial photos. Livestock facility site 3h was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with two horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Livestock facility site 3i was a producƟon facility but was non evaluated. Livestock facility 3j had no horses based on review of aerial photos. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 33 Area 4 livestock sites This area had no apparent livestock faciliƟes. Area 5 livestock sites Livestock facility site 5a was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with three horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Area 6 livestock sites Livestock facility site 6a was not considered a typical non‐producƟon facility because manure is currently stacked in a wetland so was analyzed with different assumpƟons. The facility has ﬁve horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 4 lbs/year because it would both properly dispose of manure and eliminate the exisƟng manure pile. Livestock facility site 6b was considered a typical non‐producƟon facility with ﬁve horses based on review of aerial photos. ImplemenƟng a compost bin BMP would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 2 lbs/year. Area 7 livestock sites Livestock facility site 7a was not considered a typical non‐producƟon facility because current pasture and manure handling appears to be very limited. The facility has 11 animal units and four acres of pasture appears to be over‐grazed based on review of aerial photos. Manure is stock piled adjacent to a wetland/ stream area. The MinnFARM model esƟmates a yield of 1 lb of soluble phosphorus per year from the feedlot. Recommended BMPs are: Properly storing manure with a larger compost bin and beƩer manure storage locaƟon would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 4 lbs/year. ConverƟng 4 acres of pasture to prescribed grazing would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 1 lb/year. Cost assumpƟons for livestock site 7a: Compost bin and storage facility: Compost bin and storage facility = $6,000 Design and oversight: 8 hours @ $75/hr = $600 Maintenance: $400/year ($4,000 for 10 years) Total cost for compost bin and storage facility = $10,600 Prescribed grazing Plan development and installaƟon: $200/ac = $800 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 34 Livestock facility site 7b was considered a producƟon facility with 80 animal units according to MPCA permit. It was assumed that this site had limited manure storage adequate for less than one month, limited nutrient management and excessive feedlot erosion. It was assumed that manure is spread over 70 acres of cropland and exisƟng manure spreading is based on transportaƟon Ɵme, ﬁeld condiƟons and cropping convenience and Ɵme between applicaƟons, but not so much on soil nutrient needs. The site has three main sources of phosphorus: 1. Feedlot erosion: Soil loss prior to the BMP was esƟmated at 55 tons per acre (RUSLE2), and soil loss aŌer the BMP was esƟmated at 33 tons per acre (RUSLE2). Total soil loss reducƟon would be 22 tons per acre. Using BWSR standard of 1 ton soil loss yielding 1 pound of total phosphorus, implemenƟng feedlot BMPs would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 22 lbs/year. 2. Pasturing in wetland: The site currently has 27 acres of pasture in wetlands under with a total annual phosphorous load of 54 pounds. Using exclusion fencing to remove 27 acres of wetland from pasturing would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 54 lbs/year. 3. Nutrient and storage management on 70 acres of cropland: Average soil loss in the ﬁelds where manure was spread was assumed to be 2.4 to 3.2 tons per acre per year (RUSLE2). Nutrient and storage management would not reduce soil loss but would reduce soluble phosphorous by 0.25 lbs/acre annually . This would result in a total phosphorous reducƟon to Lake Sarah of 17.5 lbs/year from 70 acres of cropland. A storage system is essenƟal to prevent winter spreading of manure and associated spring runoff. Beneﬁts of storage system improvements were not analyzed as part of this report. Recommended BMPs for site 7b: Feedlot clean water diversion system Livestock exclusion fence Storage system and nutrient management plan Cost assumpƟons for livestock site 7b: Feedlot clean water diversion system = $14,072.50 Underground pipe system from wooded/grove area: 12” HDPE pipe: 325 feet @ $15/Ō = $4,875 Oversight and design = $1,000 Maintenance: $0.10/Ō/yr = $325 for 10‐year lifespan Total = $6,200 Berm that is 75 feet long: ConstrucƟon: $10/Ō = $750 Oversight and design = $500 Maintenance: $0.25/Ō./yr. = $187.50 Total = $1,437.50 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 35 Diversion and waterway outlet from feedlot to east of pole shed. 325 feet of diversion and 125 feet of waterway: ConstrucƟon of 325‐foot diversion: $7/Ō = $2,275 Design and oversight of diversion = $850 Maintenance of diversion: $0.50/Ō./yr = $1,625 for 10‐year lifespan Total for diversion = $4,750 ConstrucƟon of 125‐foot waterway: $4/Ō = $500 Design and oversight of waterway = $560 Maintenance of waterway: $0.50/Ō./yr.= $625 Total for waterway = $1,685 Total for diversion and waterway = $6,435 Livestock exclusion fence ConstrucƟon of 8,400 feet of fencing: $2.50/Ō. = $21,000 Design and oversight: 10 hours @ $75/hr.= $750 Maintenance: $0.25/Ō/yr. = $21,000 Total cost for livestock exclusion fence = $42,750 Storage system and nutrient management plan Storage system for 80 animal units for 6 months. Assume 28,800 cubic feet of concrete tank. Total cost = $75,000 ‐ $100,000 Nutrient management plan for 70 acres of cropland. Crop consultant charge: $4,800/yr. for the ﬁrst 2 years = $9,600 Crop consultant charge: $1,200/yr for the remaining 8 years = $9,600 Total cost = $19,200 Total cost for storage system and nutrient management plan = $94,200 ‐ $119,200 Livestock facility site 7c was considered a producƟon facility with 15 animal units based on review of aerial photos. Assume a yield of 2 lbs/acre of phosphorus per year from the pasture. Installing 2,425 feet of fencing to exclude livestock from 24 acres of wetland would reduce phosphorous to Lake Sarah by 48 lbs/ year. Cost assumpƟons for site 7c: ConstrucƟon cost for 2,425 feet of fence: $2.50/Ō = $6,062.50 Oversight and design: 7 hours @ 75/hr = $525 Maintenance: $0.25/Ō/yr = $6,062.50 Total cost = $12,650 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 36 Project ID Retroﬁt type P reducƟon PDR P reducƟon to Lake Sarah TSS reducƟon Volume reducƟon Total project cost Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for lifespan of the pracƟce (refer to catchment proﬁle pages for addiƟonal detail) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (lb/yr) (ac‐Ō/yr) (includes 10‐year maintenance) ($/lbs) Pond 1a Pond 1a scour protecƟon 2 1.0 2 4,000 N/A $6,000 $300 Pond 1a Pond excavaƟon 3.5 1.0 3.5 7,000 N/A $52,400 $1,497 Pond 3a Pond excavaƟon 2 0.3 0.6 4,000 N/A $13,800 $2,300 Pond 7b Pond excavaƟon 2.2 0.3 0.7 N/A N/A $23,000 $3,285 Pond 7a Pond excavaƟon 0.2 0.1 0.02 N/A N/A $19,200 $87,500 Pond excavation and maintenance In the rural residenƟal areas of the Dance Hall Creek Watershed, stormwater is conveyed to ponds through road ditches, culverts and storm sewer pipes. The receiving ponds were sized to achieve predeﬁned water quality goals and are designed with controlled ouƞlows to manage discharge rates. Water discharging from ponds ﬂows through wetlands and/or stream channels before entering Lake Sarah. In undeveloped areas or areas developed prior to the establishment of ponding requirements, generally no ponding occurs except in exisƟng wetland and depressed areas. This reports analyzes opportuniƟes to reduce phosphorus through new ponding or wetland restoraƟons. It also examines opportuniƟes to improve maintenance of or enhance exisƟng stormwater ponds to reduce downstream pollutants. Before and aŌer nutrient loads associated with pond excavaƟons and maintenance were analyzed using the SWAT and NURP models. Figure 13: Location of proposed pond excavation and maintenance Table 11: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed pond projects Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 37 Pond excavation and maintenance site specific information Pond 1a AssumpƟons: Surface area = 0.73 acres Mean average depth = 1.5 feet Volume = 47,700 cubic feet Wet pond To meet wet pond volume requirement: Surface area = 0.73 acres Excavate to a mean depth of 3.3 feet Volume at 3.3 feet depth = 104,950 cu Ō Volume of excavaƟon = 57,250 cu Ō (2,120 cu yd) Assume MPCA level 1 dredge material (suitable for reuse on residenƟal property) Assume replacement of outlet control structure Cost assumpƟons: TesƟng of pond sediments = $2,000 ExcavaƟon: $20.00/cu yd = $42,400 RestoraƟon and erosion controls = $5,000 Outlet control structure modiﬁcaƟons = $3,000 w/ NURP pond, $6,000 without Totals = $52,400 Scour Scour occurs at outlet pipe to pond. Assume scour and re‐suspension of soil materials at scour point to be approximately 2 lbs. of phosphorus per year (4,000 lbs soil displacement). Phosphorus reducƟons ExcavaƟon: 6.4 lbs pre‐excavaƟon ‐ 4.9 lbs post‐excavaƟon = 1.5 lb/year Scour/re‐suspension = 2 lbs/year Channel Scour at outlet to Pond 1a. Pond 1a Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 38 Pond 2a AssumpƟons Surface area = 0.45 acres Mean average depth = 0.5 feet Volume = 9,800 cu. Ō. (363 cu. yd.) To meet wet pond requirements: Surface area = 0.45 acres Excavate to a mean depth of 3.3 feet Volume at 3.3 feet depth = 64,650 cu. Ō. (2,395 cu. yd.) Volume of excavaƟon = 54,850 cu Ō (2,032 cu yd) ExisƟng wetland‐ type 1 or type 2. ExcavaƟon is permissible per MN WCA. Assume waste soil material on site. Costs MPCA tesƟng of material not necessary (level 1 material) ExcavaƟon costs: $3.5/cu yd = $7,112 RestoraƟon = $750 lump sum OperaƟon and maintenance: $250/year = $2500 for 10‐year lifespan Total cost = $10,500 Phosphorus reducƟon: 25 lbs/yr pre‐excavaƟon ‐ 18.2 lbs/yr post‐excavaƟon = 6.8 lbs/yr Pond 7a AssumpƟons Surface area = 0.25 acres Mean average depth = 1.5 feet Volume = 16,335 cu. Ō. To meet wet pond requirements: Surface area = 0.25 acres Excavate to a mean depth of 3.3 feet Volume at 3.3 feet depth = 635,950 cu. Ō. (2,395 cu. yd.) Volume of excavaƟon = 19,615 cu Ō (725 cu yd) Assume MPCA level 1 dredge material (suitable for reuse on residenƟal property) Assume no replacement of outlet control structure Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 39 Costs TesƟng of pond sediment = $2,000 ExcavaƟon $20.00/c.y. = $14,500 RestoraƟon and erosion controls = $1,000 Total = $17,500 Phosphorus reducƟon: 0.7 lbs/yr pre‐excavaƟon ‐ 0.5 lbs/yr post‐excavaƟon = 0.2 lbs/yr Pond 7b AssumpƟons Surface area = 0.20 acres Mean average depth = 2.0 feet Volume = 17,425 cu. Ō. To meet wet pond requirements Surface area = 0.20 acres Excavate to a mean depth of 5 feet Volume at 5‐foot depth = 43,560 cu. Ō. Volume of excavaƟon = 26,135 cu Ō (1,810 cu yd) Assume MPCA level 1 dredge material (suitable for reuse on residenƟal property) Assume no replacement of outlet control structure Costs TesƟng of pond sediment—$2,000 ExcavaƟon $20/cu yd = $20,000 RestoraƟon and erosion control = $1,000 lump sum Total cost = $23,000 Phosphorus reducƟon: 9.1 lbs/yr pre‐excavaƟon ‐ 6.9 lbs/yr post‐excavaƟon = 2.2 lbs/yr Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 40 Pond 3a AssumpƟons Surface area = 0.40 acres Mean average depth = 0.5 feet Volume = 8,712 cu. Ō. (323 cu yd) To meet wet pond requirements: Surface area = 0.40 acres Excavate to a mean depth of 3.3 feet Volume at 3.3 feet depth = 57,500 cu. Ō. (2,130 cu. yd.) Volume of excavaƟon = 48,800 cu Ō (1,810 cu yd) ExisƟng wetland type 1 or type 2. ExcavaƟon is permissible per MN WCA. Assume waste soil material on site Costs MPCA tesƟng of material not necessary (level 1 material) ExcavaƟon $5/cu yd = $9,050 Berm removal, add 0.1 acre forebay and riprap overﬂow into pond = $1,500 RestoraƟon = $750 lump sum OperaƟon and maintenance: $250/year = $2,500 for 10‐year lifespan Total cost = $13,800 Phosphorus reducƟon: 4.3 lbs/yr pre‐excavaƟon ‐ 2.3 lbs/yr post‐excavaƟon = 2.0 lbs/yr Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 41 Hydrologic restorations The hydrologic system in most of the Dance Hall Creek Watershed has been altered by ditching and channelizing. Based on review of historic aerial photos, these altered condiƟon were created years ago. Most of these changes were made to improve drainage of water from the land in order to prevent ﬂooding and increase crop producƟon on marginal land. These pracƟces are currently one of the major contributors to the poor quality of the water that drains to Lake Sarah from the Dance Hall Creek Watershed. 1957 2004 AddiƟonally, recent monitoring shows that parƟally drained wetlands with organics soils can become large sources of phosphorous due to biochemical processes. This impact has been observed more in organic‐soil wetlands with frequent wet and dry cycles. Managing wetland hydrology to maintain saturated condiƟons can reduce phosphorous discharge. Current water management pracƟces put greater emphasis on holding water on the landscape long enough to encourage inﬁltraƟon, increase nutrient uptake, capture sediment and control discharge rates. Restoring hydrologic systems provides numerous beneﬁts such as providing wildlife habitat, ﬂoodwater retenƟon, groundwater recharge. RestoraƟons in the Dance Hall Creek Watershed typically involve plugging ditches and/or installing structures to control water levels. Depending on the site condiƟons, restoraƟons can be straight‐forward in both engineering and determining outcomes. Some may be more complex depending on the number of landowners that need to be involved. Leadership from the City of Greenﬁeld is needed to accomplish these large restoraƟon products as most of the wetland restoraƟons idenƟﬁed would take farmland or pastureland out of producƟon. Although this provides addiƟonal water quality beneﬁts, they cannot be accomplished without buy‐in from and appropriate compensaƟon to the property owner. Direct discussions with the landowners to idenƟfy their interest level and determine the necessary compensaƟon are needed before moving forward with detailed engineering. Hennepin County staff is available to provide the technical informaƟon for these discussions to ensure that everyone clearly understands the decisions being made and the vision for the land aŌer restoraƟon. The Dance Hall Creek Watershed has the space and condiƟons to incorporate restoraƟons while involving a relaƟvely limited number of property owners. AddiƟonally, the extreme precipitaƟon and water levels observed in 2014 gave landowners a vision of what condiƟons may be like in the future. Example of a hydrologic restoraƟon. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 42 Costs for restoraƟons can be variable and were esƟmated assuming a 20‐year lifespan. Cost esƟmates for each restoraƟon are assumed to be: Easement costs = $5,000 Project design and construcƟon oversight = $10,000 Easement administraƟon, coordinaƟon, outreach and project coordinaƟon = $6,000 InspecƟon and maintenance costs = $500/yr Structural installaƟon = $25,000 The restoraƟons idenƟﬁed can provide a funding mechanism and incenƟve by earning wetland credits. The Board of Water and Soil Resources currently pays around $10,000 per acre for wetland credits to offset impacts due to road projects or to add to the private sector wetland bank in which wetland credits typically sell for $0.75‐$1.25/sq. Ō. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 43 Pond ID Area Volume of storage Soils Area of watershed draining to pond Misc. P reducƟon Cost of P reducƟon to Lake Sarah for pracƟce lifespan (acres) (ac‐Ō) (acres) (lbs/yr) ($/lbs) 1 30 60 Organic 2,564 Hwy 55 100 $112 2 31 62 Organic & loam 1,884 Channel erosion not included 90 $139 1 & 2 61 122 Organic & loam 2,564 * $141 3 & 4 37 74 Organic & loam 244 Would require livestock removal, not included in TP reducƟon * $421 5 30 60 Organic 261 DNR land * $131 Cost esƟmate (20 yr lifespan) $223,500 $253,500 $477,000 $337,000 $76,000 P reducƟon to Lake Sarah (lbs/yr) 100 (10%) 91 (9%) 169 (17%) 40 (4%) 29 (3%) Table 12: Phosphorous reduction to Lake Sarah and associated costs of proposed hydrologic restorations Figure 14: Location of proposed hydrologic restorations Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 44 Appendix Modeling methods The following informaƟon describes each water quality model applied in this analysis and the inputs used to run the model. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to model runoff from the Dance Hall Creek subwatershed draining to Lake Sarah. SWAT is a parƟally physically based and parƟally empirically based watershed model (Neitsch et al., 2005) developed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (SWAT is currently supported by the Blacklands Research and Extension Center at Texas A&M University). The SWAT model runs on a daily Ɵme step and is intended to model large agricultural watersheds. The model has been calibrated and validated to many watersheds in the United States and around the world (Gassman, 2007). The release used for this project was ArcSWAT2012 for ArcGIS version 10.1. All SWAT modeling and ﬁeld assessments were conducted by Three Rivers Park District staff during the Lake Sarah TMDL and Hennepin County staff during the Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Assessment. The SWAT model simulates the hydrologic cycle accounƟng for the following processes: precipitaƟon, overland runoff, inﬁltraƟon, percolaƟon through one or more soil layers, evaporaƟon, plant transpiraƟon, interacƟon with the shallow aquifer,and loss to a deep aquifer (Arnold et al., 1998). Water is delivered to the stream as overland runoff, lateral ﬂow and groundwater ﬂow and is routed through deﬁned stream channels to the watershed outlet. SWAT also models off‐ channel, surface‐water bodies such as wetlands and ponds and on‐channel bodies such as reservoirs. Sediment export from uplands is calculated in SWAT with the Modiﬁed Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon (MUSLE; Williams, 1975). Factors that control sediment export predicted by the MUSLE are surface runoff, peak ﬂow, soil erodibility, biomass and residue present, cropping pracƟces, slope length, and percentage of coarse fragments (i.e., stones) of soil. SimulaƟon of phosphorus and nitrogen cycles in SWAT uses inputs of inorganic ferƟlizer, organic ferƟlizer, plant residue, and, for nitrogen, rainwater. Nitrogen is parƟƟoned between ﬁve mineral and organic pools within the soil and is transferred between and out of these pools through export, decay, mineralizaƟon, nitriﬁcaƟon and denitriﬁcaƟon, volaƟlizaƟon, and plant uptake. Similarly, SWAT models ﬁve soil phosphorus pools with transfer between and out of these pools through export, decay, mineralizaƟon, immobilizaƟon and plant uptake. Nitrogen and phosphorus are exported via overland runoff, lateral ﬂow and groundwater ﬂow to the stream channel, though they are only tracked through overland runoff and lateral ﬂow. In the stream reaches, in‐stream nutrient processes can be simulated with the imbedded QUAL2E submodel, or the nutrients can be delivered to the reach outlet unprocessed. Given the channelized nature of most streams and that the primary driver of nutrient dynamics throughout the Dance Hall Creek subwatershed is wetland processing, in‐stream process subrouƟnes were not uƟlized in this analysis. Plant growth is modeled directly in SWAT based on simpliﬁed crop growth equaƟons from the Erosion ProducƟvity‐Impact Calculator (EPIC) with controlling inputs including temperature, solar radiaƟon, nutrient availability, and water. SWAT spaƟal inputs SpaƟal inputs for the Dance Hall Creek SWAT model included digital elevaƟon, land use and soils. All data for the Dance Hall Creek watershed were projected into the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15 with the North American Datum, 1983. The Dance Hall Creek watershed and sub‐basins were delineated from the Hennepin County 2 Foot contour intervals derived from the spring 2012 Minnesota DNR LIDAR digital elevaƟon model (DEM). This delineaƟon was updated with water rouƟng informaƟon from the Greenﬁeld department of public works and ﬁeld observaƟons. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) soil data were downloaded from the US Department of Agriculture‐Natural Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 45 Resources ConservaƟon Service (USDA‐NRCS) Soil Data Mart website. These data are organized by county and are the most detailed available for the watershed. The SSURGO dataset included 61 soils in the Dance Hall Creek watershed. Land use input for the model was generated from the 2014 Hennepin County parcel dataset, which includes land use as it relates to the tax code. These land uses were updated and subdivided using 2012 high‐resoluƟon Hennepin County aerial photographs and ﬁeld observaƟons. The resulƟng land use dataset was converted to a grid. Sub‐basins in the Dance Hall Creek subwatershed were reﬁned using ﬁeld observaƟons and known locaƟons of stream channels, culverts and ponds. The ﬁnal sub‐basin conﬁguraƟon included seven sub‐basins ranging from from 21 to 330 hectares. The watershed had 132 HRUs. Agriculture The major land use in the Dance Hall Creek Watershed is agriculture. The majority of producers grow corn (for grain), soybeans and occasionally wheat in rotaƟon. There are also several farms that grow corn (for grain), soybeans, alfalfa and corn (for silage) for a mix of grain crops and animal consumpƟon. Hay and alfalfa are grown on other ﬁelds throughout the watershed for animal consumpƟon. The number of animal units in the subwatershed was based on survey results used in the Three River Park District’s Lake Sarah Watershed Total Daily Maximum Load model. The 2008 survey found that 38 parcels within the subwatershed had farm animals, the majority of which were horses (33). Seven parcels had caƩle and three had goats. These totals include several parcels that had more than one type of animal. There were 129 horses, 103 caƩle, four goats and a donkey observed. Manure from the goats and donkey were not included in the watershed model. Most animal operaƟons in the Lake Sarah watershed are hobby horse farms with between one and 11 horses. The majority of these operaƟons include a small, dirt feedlot and an area of associated pasture. Manure on small horse farms is not collected from the pasture. Manure is collected out of the barn and occasionally scraped from the feedlot and stockpiled. Stockpiled manure was not modeled directly in SWAT; rather, half of the manure from each operaƟon was applied to the feedlot and the other half to the pasture. The feedlot manure was assumed to include both the dirt feedlot and the manure stockpile. In the three operaƟons without obvious pastures, the enƟre quanƟty of manure was applied to the feedlot. The conƟnuous ferƟlizaƟon funcƟon in SWAT applied manure to the landscape daily. The speciﬁc manure management acƟviƟes of the dairy and beef producers are unknown. For modeling purposes, the Three Rivers Park District assumed that 50 percent of the manure from these operaƟons was collected based on a herd size of fewer than 25 animals (Powell et al., 2005). The collected manure was applied to nearby agricultural ﬁelds. Solid manure and bedding applicaƟon to agricultural ﬁelds was observed in the watershed from February to April 2009. The remaining uncollected manure was assumed to remain – half to each the pasture and the feedlot associated with the operaƟon. ResidenƟal and urban land uses A variety of urban and residenƟal land uses are present in the Dance Hall Creek watershed. The percentage of impervious area in each of the land uses guided how the land use type was represented in the SWAT model. Wetlands Wetlands exert a large inﬂuence in the Dance Hall Creek watershed by detaining water and seƩling out nutrients. Because wetlands cannot be explicitly modeled in SWAT, on‐channel wetlands were modeled as “reservoirs.” Each “reservoir” was assigned to a sub‐basin and individually parameterized according to the normal surface area/volume (which corresponds to bank‐full condiƟons) and the emergency surface area/volume (which correspond with maximum ﬂooded condiƟons) to match the monitored hydrograph and water quality data. Each wetland was parameterized with a number of days to return to the normal pool volume aŌer exceeding the emergency pool volume. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 46 CalibraƟon Using the Curve Number method, SWAT is a daily Ɵme step model and precipitaƟon is input as daily values. PrecipitaƟon, as recorded by the cooperaƟve observer staƟon at Rockford, is recorded as an 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. day. Streamﬂow is averaged as a midnight to midnight day. The SWAT model(s) was calibrated to monitored phosphorus concentraƟons. CalibraƟon parameters that affect landscape phosphorus export were set to the same value. The Three Rivers Park District TMDL SWAT model lowered the USLE P factor to reduce landscape phosphorus loads to expected quanƟƟes. Other parameters altered were the phosphorus soil parƟƟoning coefficient and the width of vegetated ﬁeld edges. The phosphorus sorpƟon coefficient and the soil labile phosphorus concentraƟon were calculated based on soil parameters in the Lake Sarah watershed (Vadas and White, unpublished). The phosphorus concentraƟon in the groundwater was set to 50 μg/L, which corresponds to observaƟons of regional surﬁcial Quaternary groundwater reported by MPCA (1999). Finally, wetlands were assumed to seƩle phosphorus from August to May and release phosphorus in June and July based on inspecƟon of the monitoring data by Three Rivers Park District. Final land use phosphorus exports are consistent with corresponding literature esƟmates (see land use‐modeled average phosphorus yields table). Model validaƟon The Three Rivers Park District SWAT model developed for the Lake Sarah TMDL was calibrated to two years of monitoring data for the two largest inputs into the stream, the east and west tributaries. The calibrated parameters were used for BMP models in the Dance Hall Creek sub‐basin as this watershed shares very similar land use, soils and topographic characterisƟcs. The parameters used in the model validaƟon by the Three Rivers Park District are noted in Appendix Table 2. Land use Modeled average phosphorous yields lbs/acre Agriculture Row crop agriculture 0.71 ‐ 1.87 Forage crops 0.16 ‐ 0.33 Horse and caƩle feedlots 0.47 ‐ 8.83 Horse and caƩle pasture 0.18 ‐ 0.98 Developed Low and medium density residenƟal 0.61 ‐ 0.94 Commercial and industrial 0.82 ‐ 0.96 County and state highways 0.53 ‐ 0.74 Forest 0.04 ‐ 0.05 Wetland 0.15 ‐ 0.19 Undeveloped Appendix Table 1: Modeled average phosphorous yields Average annual phosphorus exports from different land use types in the SWAT model. Reported values represent the range of averages predicted by SWAT across different soil types and topography throughout the Dance Hall Creek watershed. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 47 Value Parameter DescripƟon Units Default value ExplanaƟon File 3 SMTMP Snow melt base temperature C 1 Used to delay snowpack melƟng .bsn 2 SMFMX Melt factor for snow on June 21 mmH2O/ C‐day 4.5 Used to slow snow melƟng .bsn 2.5 SMFMN Melt factor for snow on December 21 mmH2O/ C‐day 4.5 Used to slow snow melƟng .bsn 0.25 TIMP Snow pack temperature lag factor 1 Used to delay snowpack melƟng .bsn Priestly‐ Taylor IPET PET method ‐ SelecƟon of potenƟal evapotranspiraƟon method .bsn 0.92 ESCO Soil evaporaƟon compensaƟon factor 0.95 Adjusts soil evaporaƟon .bsn 1 SURLAG Surface runoff lag Ɵme days 4 Increased surface runoff travel Ɵme to stream .bsn 0.0001 SPCON Linear parameter for calculaƟng the maximum amount of sediment that can be re‐entrained during channel sediment rouƟng 0.0001 No channel erosion or deposiƟon .bsn 1.5 SPEXP Exponent parameter for calculaƟng sediment re‐ entrained in channel sediment rouƟng 1 No channel erosion or deposiƟon .bsn 0.23 PWP Phosphorous sorpƟon coefficient 0.4 Changed parƟƟoning between soluble and parƟculate phosphorous export .bsn 0 IWQ In‐stream water quality 1 = model in‐ stream water quality In‐stream water quality was not modeled .bsn 15 GW_DELAY Groundwater delay Days 30 Used to calibrate baseﬂow response .gw 0.99 ALPHA_BF Base ﬂow alpha factor Days 0.048 Used to calibrate stormﬂow recession .gw 0.05 GWSOLP ConcentraƟon of soluble phosphorous in groundwater mg P / L 0 Adjusted to literature value .gw Default— 10% CN2 IniƟal SCS curve number II value Adjusted to increase inﬁltraƟon .mgt .025 USLE_P USLE support pracƟce factor varies Adjusted to decrease phosphorous .mgt 0.1 for roadways FILTERW Width of edge of ﬁeld ﬁlter strip meters 0 Adjusted to match roadside swale phosphorous trapping .mgt 2 IURBAN Urban simulaƟon code; 1‐ USGS, 2—build up/wash off 1 Changed method to build up / wash off .mgt Varies USLE_C Minimum CUSLE varies Increased CUSLE for alfalfa and brome to increase phosphorous loss to literature values crop.dat Appendix Table 2: Dance Hall Creek SWAT input parameters Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 48 Buffer strip analysis Buffer strips were analyzed using the Board of Water and Soil Resources’ PolluƟon ReducƟon Calculator for Filter Strips (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLINK/indes.html). ExisƟng condiƟons were modeled uƟlizing the USDA, NRCS Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon (RUSLE2). Input parameters and assumpƟons used for the BWSR Calculator for Filter Strips: Parameters for the ﬁlter strip area (buffer): Pre‐exisƟng soil loss in ﬁlter strip area = 1.0 tons/acre Post‐construcƟon soil loss in ﬁlter strip area = 0.027 tons/acre Soil type = Silt (85 lbs/cu.Ō.) Buffer width = 35 feet Filter strip area is variable (Length of ﬁlter strip x 35’ buffer width) Parameters for upland runoff treatment. Filter strip watershed areas are variable for each site. Surface area drainage across the ﬁlter strip was measured from two‐foot (2’) topographic data (LiDAR) overlaid on aerial photographs of the areas being analyzes. Areas are measured in acres. Upland soil loss before treatment is based on the average soil loss within the contribuƟng area leading to the ﬁlter strip. Average soil loss was esƟmated using the USDA NRCS RUSLE2 program on all farm ﬁelds within the watershed. Where ﬁlter strips are located, the average soil loss from the upland surface area from the contribuƟng ﬁeld area draining to the ﬁlter strip was used. Filter strip funcƟon as designed (yes or no input in the BWSR Calculator for Filter Strips) was considered yes on all ﬁlter strips. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 49 Grassed waterway and gully stabilization analysis The esƟmates for reducƟons in soil loss, sediment and aƩached phosphorus delivery for gully stabilizaƟon and grassed waterways are based on esƟmaƟon of soil volume voided per year. The esƟmate assumes that once the pracƟce is in place, the stabilized condiƟon controls gully erosion. Soil loss reducƟon from the pracƟce is equal to soil erosion before the project was put in place. A sediment delivery raƟo (SDR) is assigned based on characterisƟcs of ﬂow from the gully or waterway and is applied to esƟmate sediment reducƟon. Sediment‐aƩached phosphorus reducƟon is esƟmated from the sediment reducƟon, default phosphorus content of 1.0 pound. of phosphorus per 1 ton of soil and a correcƟon for soil texture. The inputs and assumpƟons used for this calculator (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/pracƟces/ polluƟon_reducƟon.html) were as follows: Soil type = silt for all sites Soil volume voided per year (cubic feet): For all waterways, a 3‐inch deep gully in a 5‐foot wide parabolic shape (0.625 cubic foot per foot of waterway) formed every year was assumed. Number of years to form the gully: yearly occurrence was assumed Gully condiƟon: assumed that the gully fans out before entering the receiving water. For the calculator, the input is non‐channelized. Distance to receiving surface water (feet to main ditch or wetland) measured along the route the water takes to get to the receiving water. Presence of a ﬁlter strip before waterway insƟllaƟon (in all cases there were no ﬁlter strips) Water and sediment control basins The Water and Sediment Control Basin for ﬁeld 1‐7 was analyzed based on the USDA NRCS RUSLE2 calculator (hƩp://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Index.htm) The exisƟng condiƟons were measured using LiDAR topographic informaƟon to determine the average length and steepness of slope where the water and sediment basin would be placed. The Soil Survey for Hennepin County was used to determine the soil type in the ﬁeld being analyzed. Crop management for ﬁeld 1‐7 was assumed as a corn‐soybean rotaƟon based on historic aerial photographic analysis for the years 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2012. Cropping direcƟons were straight row, non ‐contoured. The water and sediment control basin was posiƟoned in the middle of the slope for this analysis. Wetland restoration and enhancement and pond excavation and maintenance. These sites were analyzed uƟlizing the NaƟonal Urban Runoff Program, Design CalculaƟons for Wet DetenƟon Ponds developed by Wm. Walker (www.wwwalker.net/pdf/spwudes.pdf). This program esƟmates nutrient loads from exisƟng ponds and wetlands based on the land use (% impervious area and phosphorus concentraƟon), watershed area and average mean pond depth. Surface area was measured from 2012 aerial photographs. Impervious areas for agriculture watershed were adjusted to 25% impervious area to account for an average phosphorus load of 1.0 pound per acre based on average nutrient loads produced from agriculture producƟon ﬁelds from research and the Elm Creek WMC and Pioneer‐Sarah Creek WMC water quality standards (hƩp://elmcreekwatershed.org/ﬁles/342.pdf, hƩp://pioneersarahcreek.org/ﬁles/455.pdf, www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view‐document.html?gid=3977, www.ars.usda.gov/research/publicaƟons/publicaƟons.htm?SEQ_NO_115=280936). Pre‐construcƟon average mean depth was measured by photographic and in‐ﬁeld evidence of emergent vegetaƟon or lack thereof (caƩails: 2 feet, sedges: 6 inches, reed canary grass: less than 6 inches, open water: 3 feet or greater). Watershed areas varied for each pond/wetland area but were based on LiDAR topographic delineaƟons. Post‐construcƟon average mean depth for the NURP program input was 3.3 feet for pond maintenance and excavaƟon and outlet elevaƟons on wetland restoraƟons Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 50 and enhancements. For pond maintenance and excavaƟon, 3.3 feet average mean depth is recommended for the greatest pollutant (phosphorus) removal efficiency based on research and development of the PondNet (NURP) program by Walker used in this sub watershed assessment. Livestock We uƟlized a variety of programs for our analysis of soil loss and nutrient loads for the livestock secƟon of this report. RUSLE2 (Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon) In the case of sites 2a erosion scour and 7b feedlot erosion, the Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon (RUSLE 2) was used as the basis for soil loss and load reducƟons before and aŌer BMP implementaƟon within the feedlots. The exisƟng condiƟons were measured using LiDAR topographic informaƟon to determine the average length and steepness of slope. The Soil Survey for Hennepin County was used to determine the soil type in the ﬁeld being analyzed. Base management in RUSLE 2 on both sites was considered single year rotaƟon of forage, pasture, conƟnuously grazed with severe overuse and a low pasture yield. A supporƟng pracƟce of a diversion in the post development RUSLE 2 analysis, placed in the middle of the slope was considered on site 7b. For post BMP site 2a erosion scour, the BMP pasture exclusion fencing and stable vegetaƟon condiƟons with no scour and no phosphorus loads was assumed for the RUSLE 2 analysis Nutrient and storage management analysis for pre‐BMP nutrient loss on the cropland areas where manure disposal occurs from site 7b used RUSLE2. The disposal area for manure within the Dance Hall Creek Watershed was assumed to be 70 acres. Our analysis used a 6‐year crop rotaƟon of: corn, soybeans, small grain, alfalfa, alfalfa, alfalfa, before and aŌer nutrient management occurred on this cropland. AŌer‐BMP analysis for nutrient management on 70 acres used parameters for RUSLE2 as the exisƟng inputs but uƟlized the recent Sauk River nutrient management program results that showed an average reducƟon in phosphorus loads to the Sauk River of 0.25 lbs/ac. per acre of cropland nutrient management enrolled in their program. MinnFARM (Minnesota Feedlot Annualized Runoff Model) The MinnFARM model was used for livestock site 7a to determine feedlot runoff. MinnFARM was developed to calculate the annual pollutant loading from a feedlot in Minnesota. The model is based in part on algorithms from the Feedlot EvaluaƟon Model (1982) model developed by the Agricultural Research Service for prioriƟzing feedlot polluƟon potenƟal based on a single 25‐year, 24‐hour event. MinnFARM esƟmates annual pollutant loadings for COD, phosphorus, nitrogen, BOD and fecal coliforms at the end of a deﬁned treatment area. For livestock site 7a the following input parameters were used in determining annual pollutant loads from this feedlot. Total feedlot area = 0.60 acres Roof area = 0.10 acres Total area 2 = 0.82 acres Total buffer area = 0.77 acres Total area 3 = 5.51 acres RaƟo of buffer to feedlot area (includes Area 2) = 0.54 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 51 For all pastureland nutrient assumpƟons for exclusion fencing, an average phosphorus load of 2.0 pounds per acre of phosphorus export was used as the base average nutrient load produced on pastureland. This amount of load was based on research into studies idenƟfying nutrient loads from various sources (www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view‐ document.html?gid=3977, www.ars.usda.gov/research/publicaƟons/publicaƟons.htm?SEQ_NO_115=280936) and the loads the Pioneer‐Sarah Creek and Elm Creek watersheds water quality standard for pasture areas (hƩp:// elmcreekwatershed.org/ﬁles/342.pdf, hƩp://pioneersarahcreek.org/ﬁles/455.pdf, www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/ view‐document.html?gid=3977, www.ars.usda.gov/research/publicaƟons/publicaƟons.htm?SEQ_NO_115=280936) Cropland RUSLE2 The Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon was used on all cropland within the Dance Hall Creek Watershed. This in turn was incorporated into various other models (to determine before and aŌer nutrient loads; the exisƟng condiƟons were measured using LiDAR topographic informaƟon to determine the average length and steepness of slope). The Soil Survey for Hennepin County was used to determine the soil type in the ﬁeld being analyzed. Appendix Table 1 lists the ﬁeld idenƟﬁers and input parameters used for each measurement in each ﬁeld. Crop abbreviaƟons used were: c for corn, sb for soybean, sg for small grain and h for hay. Climate locaƟon parameters for the program were from the NRCS Climate database website (hƩp:// fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/NRCS_Climate_Database.htm). Minnesota, Hennepin County averages were used. Base crop management parameters used Climate Management Zone 4 from the NRCS Climate Database (hƩp:// fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Program.htm). General crop management used convenƟonal Ɵllage and an average 150 bushels per acre for corn. Mulch Ɵllage and 45 bushels per acre was used for soybeans. The following map corresponds to the preceding table that lists the ﬁeld idenƟﬁers and input parameters used for each measurement in each ﬁeld. Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 53 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used Farm ﬁeld ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 04/05‐01 001 110 10 9 5.8 41 lester 002 135 11 8 5.5 41 lester 003 113 12 11 7.8 41 lester 004 140 8 6 4.1 41 lester 005 150 12 8 5.7 41 lester 006 140 16 11 6.4 40 angus 007 240 7 3 2.3 35 lerdahl 37.6 30 c‐sb 01‐01 001 180 6 3 1.6 40 angus 002 165 6 4 2.1 40 angus 003 185 5 3 1.6 40 angus 004 90 13 14 8.7 36 Hamel 005 140 12 9 5.5 36 Hamel 006 110 12 11 7.8 41 lester 007 150 8 5 2.6 40 angus 008 170 10 6 3.2 40 angus 009 125 13 10 5.3 24 Glenco 010 200 8 4 2.6 36 Hamel 41 33 c‐sb 01‐02 001 140 8 6 4.1 41 lester 002 125 16 13 11 41 lester 003 120 20 17 14 41 lester 004 120 12 10 7 41 lester 005 170 20 12 10 41 lester 006 150 12 8 5.7 41 lester 007 165 13 8 5.2 25 LeSeuer 008 160 11 7 5 41 lester 009 150 12 8 5.7 35 lerdahl 010 130 12 9 6.1 41 lester 011 90 3 3 1.7 36 Hamel 012 175 11 6 4.4 41 lester 013 105 8 8 5 41 lester 014 140 15 11 8.6 41 lester 015 90 7 8 4.8 41 lester 016 110 7 6 3.8 41 lester Line ID (actual ﬁeld 2) 017 150 13 9 6.4 41 lester (actual ﬁeld 2) 018 150 20 13 11 41 lester (actual ﬁeld 2) 019 165 14 8 5.8 41 lester (actual ﬁeld 2) 020 120 17 14 11 41 lester (actual ﬁeld 2) 021 120 10 8 5.3 22 lester (actual ﬁeld 2) 022 170 10 6 3.8 36 Hamel 63 c‐sb 145.4 01‐03 1 200 23 12 8.3 41 lester Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 54 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used (continued) Farm ﬁeld ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 2 90 13 14 10 41 lester 3 160 12 8 5.8 41 lester 4 150 23 15 14 41 lester 5 200 12 6 4.5 41 lester 6 100 6 6 3.7 41 lester 22 c‐sb 46.3 01‐04 1 230 7 3 2.3 41 lester 2 160 9 6 3.7 36 Hamel 3 140 11 8 5.5 41 lester 11.5 11 c‐sb 01‐05 1 210 17 8 6.3 41 lester 2 100 11 11 7.5 41 lester 3 140 18 13 11 41 lester 4 330 26 8 7.4 41 lester 5 120 16 13 10 41 lester 6 130 12 9 6.1 41 lester 48.3 20 c‐sb 01‐06 1 130 18 14 12 41 lester 2 160 21 13 11 41 lester 3 90 7 8 9.1 41 lester 4 110 18 16 13 41 lester 45.1 10 c‐sb 01‐07 1 150 14 9 6.4 41 lester 2 110 11 10 6.8 41 lester 3 160 21 13 11 41 lester 4 170 5 3 2.1 41 lester 5 150 12 8 5.9 41 lester 6 140 9 6 4.1 41 lester 7 100 8 8 4.3 44 nessel 8 90 6 7 4.9 44 nessel 45.5 25 c‐sb 01‐08 1 160 15 9 4.1 41 lester 4.1 5.8 c‐sb‐sg‐h 01‐09 1 130 18 14 10 36 Hamel 2 190 11 6 3.3 40 angus Line ID 3 150 8 5 3.5 35 lerdahl 16.8 7.4 c‐sb 01/02‐1 1 170 13 8 3.7 44 nessel 2 200 14 7 2.5 36 Hamel 3 190 19 10 3.3 37 angus 4 180 13 7 2.5 41 lester 5 220 16 7 2.6 41 lester 6 170 15 9 3.2 41 lester Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 55 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used (continued) Farm ﬁeld ID Line ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 7 230 20 9 3.4 36 Hamel 8 270 36 13 6.2 41 lester 27.4 28 c‐sb‐sg (z4‐ use ww aŌ. Sb ) 02/03‐1 1 140 24 17 15 41 lester 2 210 35 17 18 41 lester 3 150 20 13 11 41 lester 4 100 8 8 5 41 lester 5 120 14 12 9.1 41 lester 58.1 10 c‐sb 02‐01 see ﬁeld 1‐2 02‐2 1 130 13 10 7.2 41 lester 2 110 9 8 5.1 41 lester 3 120 7 6 3.9 41 lester 16.2 6.3 c‐sb 2/6‐1 2/6‐2 1 180 10 6 1.8 37 angus 2 130 6 5 1.4 37 angus 3 170 8 5 1.5 37 angus 4 150 8 5 1.9 41 lester 5 150 8 5 1.4 37 angus 6 130 8 6 1.7 37 angus 7 120 18 15 6.8 41 lester 16.5 10 c‐sb‐sg‐h‐h‐h 2/6‐3 1 140 18 13 5.9 41 lester 2 180 8 4 1.2 37 angus 3 110 11 10 3.8 41 lester 4 130 14 11 4 36 hamel 5 190 7 4 1.4 36 hamel 6 120 8 7 1.9 37 angus 18.2 18 c‐sb‐sg‐h‐h‐h 2‐4 1 110 5 5 1.8 41 lester 2 130 8 6 4.5 36 hamel 3 130 8 6 1.9 41 lester 3 140 10 7 2.7 41 lester 5 160 12 8 2.8 25 Le Sueur 6 150 18 12 5.4 41 lester Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 56 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used (continued) Farm ﬁeld ID Line ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 19.1 15 c‐sb‐sg‐h‐h‐h 2‐5 pasture? 03‐01 1 160 5 3 2.2 26 shore‐ wood 2 130 6 5 3.4 26 shore‐ wood 3 130 8 6 3.9 37 angus 4 140 10 7 6.7 44 nessel 5 210 10 5 3.4 37 angus 6 130 12 9 7.2 22 lester 7 140 8 6 3.6 37 angus 30.4 25 c‐sb 03‐02 1 150 10 7 5.8 22 lester 2 150 9 6 4.9 22 lester 3 130 5 4 2.4 37 angus 4 180 13 7 7.3 44 nessel 5 140 11 8 4.9 37 angus 6 150 6 4 3.3 22 lester buffer1 160 29 18 18 22 lester 28.8 03‐03 1 120 7 6 4.6 41 lester 130 4 3 1.8 37 angus 120 6 5 2.9 37 angus 84.7 18 c‐sb 03‐04west 1 200 9 5 4.5 35 lerdal 2 170 8 5 3.2 37 angus 3 170 5 3 2.6 35 lerdal 10.3 14 c‐sb 03‐04east 1 140 5 4 3.2 35 lerdal 2 160 14 9 7.8 41 lester 3 130 10 8 6.4 41 lester 4 160 9 6 3.8 37 angus 5 110 12 11 9.2 41 lester 6 140 12 9 7.4 41 lester 7 140 10 7 5.7 41 lester 43.5 20 c‐sb 03‐05 1 110 7 6 3.8 22 lester 2 100 4 4 2.5 22 lester 3 90 6 7 3.7 36 hamel 4 90 12 13 9.1 22 lester 19.1 5.5 c‐sb Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 57 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used (continued) Farm ﬁeld ID Line ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 03‐06 1 170 10 6 5.1 44 nessel 2 150 10 7 4.9 22 lester 3 100 8 8 5 22 lester 4 100 8 8 5 22 lester 20 15 c‐sb 03‐07 1 110 8 7 2.4 22 lester 2 150 16 11 4.6 22 lester 3 120 7 6 2.1 22 lester 4 110 10 9 3.1 22 lester 12.2 6.7 c‐sb‐sg 03‐08 1 140 7 5 4.2 22 lester 2 170 10 6 5.3 22 lester 3 140 18 13 13 22 lester 4 130 9 7 6.8 44 nessel 29.3 7.3 c‐sb 05‐01 1 180 10 6 4.1 40 angus 2 180 6 3 2.7 35 lerdal 3 220 6 3 3.3 40 angus 10.1 22 c‐sb 05‐02 1 225 12 5 3.6 40 angus 2 250 14 6 6 22 lester 3 230 16 7 7 41 lester 4 210 10 5 4.1 23 cordova 20.7 27 c‐sb 05‐03 1 130 16 12 12 22 lester 2 160 9 6 5.3 35 lerdal 16 c‐sb 17.3 05‐04 1 190 13 7 5.7 36 hamel 2 170 18 11 11 41 lester 3 140 23 16 18 41 lester 4 150 15 10 9.3 41 lester 44 23 c‐sb 05‐05 1 140 15 11 11 41 lester 2 130 12 9 7.6 41 lester 18.6 3.5 c‐sb 7/3‐1 1 150 13 9 3.4 41 lester 2 90 11 12 4.4 41 lester 3 90 16 18 7.4 41 lester 4 100 15 15 6.1 41 lester 5 80 12 15 5.7 41 lester 6 130 20 15 5.9 36 hamel 7 90 10 11 4 22 lester Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 58 Appendix Table 3: Field identifiers and input parameters used (continued) Farm ﬁeld ID Line ID Length Fall Average slope RUSLE2 soil Loss Soil Field size Crop rotaƟon (Ō.) (Ō.) (%) (acres) 8 80 6 8 2.6 22 lester 39.5 9.4 c‐sb‐sg 7‐2 1 110 12 11 5 41 lester 2 120 12 10 4.5 41 lester 3 80 6 8 3 41 lester 4 170 22 13 7.4 41 lester 5 110 6 5 1.8 36 hamel 21.7 7.8 c‐sb‐sg‐h‐h‐h 7‐3 1 110 7 6 1.9 40 angus 2 100 6 6 2.8 44 nessel 3 100 6 6 2.4 41 lester 4 80 6 8 3 41 lester 3.1 c‐sb‐sg‐h‐h‐h 10.1 537.8 Lvst7b 1 80 9 11 43 22 lester 2 100 12 12 55 41 lester with diversion 2 100 11 11 33 Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 59 Project budget estimates Unless otherwise menƟoned in the individual pracƟce, this secƟon includes the tables used to calculate the cost esƟmates for the pracƟces in this report. BMP ID IniƟal construcƟon cost Contracted maintenance cost O & M term Design cost for average site InstallaƟon cost for average site Size of proposed BMP Total installaƟon cost 10‐year cost ($/unit) ($/unit) (yr) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) (user‐ entered) (includes design & 1‐ yr mainte‐ nance) (includes installaƟon & 10 yrs mainte‐ nance) Contour buffer strips CBS $500.00 $10.00 10 $560.00 $280.00 10 $5,940.00 $6,840.00 Contour farming (AC) CF $25.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 $280.00 10 $1,090.00 $1,090.00 Cover crop CC $25.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 $280.00 40 $1,840.00 $18,400.00 Diversions (LF) D $7.00 $0.25 10 $560.00 $280.00 500 $4,465.00 $5,590.00 Filter strip FS $500.00 $10.00 10 $1,120.00 $560.00 10 $6,780.00 $7,680.00 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 0 to 10 GSS $9,250.00 $100.00 10 $925.00 $462.50 1 $10,737.50 $11,637.50 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 10 to 20 GSS $15,000.00 $150.00 10 $1,500.00 $750.00 1 $17,400.00 $18,750.00 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 20 to 40 GSS $28,125.00 $200.00 15 $2,812.50 $1,406.25 1 $32,543.75 $34,343.75 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 40 to 80 GSS $37,500.00 $250.00 10 $3,750.00 $1,875.00 1 $43,375.00 $45,625.00 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 80 to 250 GSS $56,250.00 $300.00 10 $5,625.00 $2,812.50 1 $64,987.50 $67,687.50 Appendix Table 4: Project budget estimates — rural Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 60 BMP ID IniƟal construcƟon cost Contracted maintenance cost O & M term Design cost for average site InstallaƟon cost for average site Size of proposed BMP Total installaƟon cost 10‐year cost ($/unit) ($/unit) (yr) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) (user‐ entered) (includes design & 1‐ yr mainte‐ nance) (includes installaƟon & 10 yrs mainte‐ nance) Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of 250 to 500 GSS $112,500.00 $350.00 10 $11,250.00 $5,625.00 1 $129,725.00 $132,875.00 Grade stabilizaƟon structure, drainage area of greater than 500 acres GSS $150,000.00 $400.00 10 $15,000.00 $7,500.00 1 $172,900.00 $176,500.00 Grassed waterway (LF) GW $4.00 $0.25 10 $1,120.00 $560.00 1,000 $5,930.00 $8,180.00 Nutrient management NM $11.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 $280.00 10 $950.00 $950.00 Nutrient management NM $3,375.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 $280.00 1 $4,215.00 $4,215.00 Prescribed grazing (AC) PG $93.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 10 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 Residue management (AC) RM $58.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 1 $898.00 $898.00 RestoraƟon and management of declining habitats (AC) RMD H $1,500.00 $500.00 10 $1,120.00 10 $21,680.00 $66,680.00 Streambank and shoreline protecƟon (SF) SSP $7.00 $0.25 n/a $2,240.00 1,000 $10,610.00 $12,860.00 Stripcropping (AC) Strip $98.00 ‐ 10 $560.00 10 $1,820.00 $1,820.00 Terrace (LF) Ter $8.00 $0.25 10 $1,120.00 1,000 $9,930.00 $12,180.00 Water and sediment control basin, drainage area of 0 to 10 SB $12,500.00 $100.00 10 $1,250.00 1 $14,475.00 $15,375.00 Appendix Table 4: Project budget estimates — rural (continued) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 61 BMP ID IniƟal construcƟon cost Contracted maintenance cost O & M term Design cost for average site InstallaƟon cost for average site Size of proposed BMP Total installaƟon cost 10‐year cost ($/unit) ($/unit) (yr) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) (user‐ entered) (includes design & 1‐ yr mainte‐ nance) (includes installaƟon & 10 yrs mainte‐ nance) Water and sediment control basin, drainage area of 10 to 20 acres (NO) SB $11,250.00 $150.00 n/a $1,125.00 1 $13,087.50 $14,437.50 Water and sediment control basin, drainage area of 20 to 40 acres (NO) SB $16,875.00 $200.00 6 $1,687.50 1 $19,606.25 $21,406.25 Wetland creaƟon (AC) WetC $7,000.00 $45.00 6 $2,800.00 10 $74,650.00 $78,700.00 Wetland enhancement (AC) WetE $3,000.00 $45.00 8 $2,800.00 10 $34,650.00 $38,700.00 Wetland restoraƟon (AC) WetR $3,000.00 $45.00 $2,800.00 10 $34,650.00 $38,700.00 Windbreak , per foot of single row, planted (LF) Wind $2.00 ‐ $60.00 1,000 $2,840.00 $2,840.00 SepƟc ﬁx (NO) Sep $15,000.00 ‐ ‐ 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Feedlot ﬁx, pit, ﬁrst 500,000 CF of storage (CF) FF $1.55 $0.01 $11,200.00 500,000 $795,050.00 $824,300.00 Feedlot ﬁx, pit, addiƟonal above 500,000 CF of storage (CF) FF $1.13 $0.01 $11,200.00 500,000 $585,050.00 $614,300.00 Feedlot ﬁx, treatment swale (SF) FF $4.00 $0.25 $2,800.00 1,000 $8,450.00 $10,700.00 Feedlot ﬁx, relocaƟon (NO) FF $50,000.00 ‐ $11,200.00 1 $66,800.00 $66,800.00 Appendix Table 4: Project budget estimates — rural (continued) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 62 BMP ID DescripƟon Material/ labor Unit Annual maintenance cost Design cost InstallaƟon oversight cost Promo & admin O & M term (installaƟo n) (contracted) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) Rain leader disconnect rain garden BRS Simple (residenƟal, some commercial) $7.56 Square Foot $0.25/Ō2 $280/ 100 Ō2 $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 InﬁltraƟon basin, turf BRT amended soils with under‐drains $15.10 Square Foot $2,000/acre $1,120/ acre $210 3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 BioretenƟon, simple BR (no engineered soils or under‐drains, but w/curb cuts and forebays) $14.20 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $840/ 1,000 Ō2 $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 BioretenƟon, moderately complex BR (incl. engineered soils, under‐drains, curb cuts, forebays but no retaining walls) $17.01 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $1,120/ 1,000 Ō2 $420 (6 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 BioretenƟon, complex BR (as MCB but with 1.5 ‐2.5 Ō parƟal perimeter walls) $21.50 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $1,400/ 1,000Ō2 $420 (6 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 BioretenƟon, highly comples BR (as CB but with parƟal perimeter 2.5 ‐5 Ō walls or shorter, complete perimeter walls) $23.50 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $1,400/ 1,000Ō2 $420 (6 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Curb‐cut simple cut or with apron $80.00 Linear Foot min. 10% const. costs Impervious cover conversion DeP $21.71 Square Foot $500/acre $1,120/ acre $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Grass/gravel permeable Pavement PP (sand base) $18.95 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 40% above construcƟon $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Permeable asphalt PP (granite base) $10.80 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 40% above construcƟon $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Permeable concrete PP (granite base) $15.00 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. 10 Appendix Table 5: Project budget estimates — urban Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 63 BMP ID DescripƟon Material/ labor Unit Annual maintenance cost Design cost InstallaƟon oversight cost Promo & admin O & M term (installaƟo n) (contracted) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) Permeable pavers PP (granite base) $35.75 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Extended detenƟon PP (12.98)* (CU‐ FT^0.75) Cubic Foot $1,000/acre $2,800/acre $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Pond retroﬁts PR $4.54 Square Foot $500/acre 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Pond excavaƟon, MPCA dredge class, level 1 PE $32.40 Cubic Yard min. 10% const. costs Pond excavaƟon, MPCA dredge class, level 2 material PE $43.20 Cubic Yard min. 10% const. costs Pond excavaƟon, MPCA dredge class, level 3 material PE $64.80 Cubic Yard min. 10% const. costs Stormwater wetland Wet C (4,800)* (D.A.acres ^0.484) $1,000/acre $2,800/ acre $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Wet pond P (277.89)* (CU‐ FT^0.553) Cubic Foot $1,000/acre $2,800/ acre $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Perimeter sand ﬁlter SF $259.20 Linear Foot min. 10% const. costs Structural sand ﬁlter SF (including peat, compost, iron amendments, or similar) $22.04 Square Foot $250/ 25 ln Ō $300/25 ln Ō $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Appendix Table 5: Project budget estimates — urban (continued) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 64 BMP ID DescripƟon Material/ labor Unit Annual maintenance cost Design cost InstallaƟon oversight cost Promo & admin O & M term (installaƟo n) (contracted) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) Underground sand ﬁlter SF $99.08 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Rain barrels RE Does not include pump or distribuƟon $25.00 Cubic Foot $25 N/A $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Cisterns RE Does not include pump or distribuƟon $16.00 Cubic Foot $100 N/A $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Dry swale DS $7.13 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $280/ 100 Ō2 $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Water quality swale WS $15.01 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 $1,120/ 1,000 Ō2 $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 French drain/dry well $15.00 Cubic Foot $100 20% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Lakeshore restoraƟon, simple Lrest average 25' buffer width, no shoreline toe protecƟon, no emergents $75.00 Linear Foot $0.75/Ō2 10% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Lakeshore restoraƟon, moderate Lrest average 25' buffer width with minimal bioengineering, some emergent planƟngs $100.00 Linear Foot $0.75/Ō2 10% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Lakeshore restoraƟon, complex Lrest average 25' buffer with emergent planƟngs extensive hard armoring or bioengineering for : steep slopes, high erosion potenƟal, ice heave protecƟon, long fetch $190.00 Linear Foot $0.75/Ō2 10% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Stormwater planter, commercial/ ultra urban SP Usually a stormwater disconnect BMP $35.86 Square Foot $0.75/Ō2 20% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Appendix Table 5: Project budget estimates — urban (continued) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 65 BMP ID DescripƟon Material/ labor Unit Annual maintenance cost Design cost InstallaƟon oversight cost Promo & admin O & M term (installaƟo n) (contracted) ($70/hr) ($70/hr) Stormwater tree pits, ultra urban, linear projects STP 6' x 12 ' pit with concete vault (central corridor project ‐ st. paul) $10,000 Each $0.75/Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Extensive green roof, ultra urban GR less than 6" in soil media depth project speciﬁc ‐ structural, roof membran e considera Ɵons needed Square Foot $500/ 1,000 Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Intensive green roof, ultra urban GR 6" or greater in soil media depth project speciﬁc ‐ structural, roof membran e considera Ɵons needed Square Foot $750/ 1,000 Ō2 40% above const. $210 (3 visits) min. 10% const. costs 10 Stormwater reuse RE look for ponds collecƟng large drainage areas (>100 acres?) near greenspace with exisƟng irrigaƟon distribuƟon or can be retroﬁƩed for irrigaƟon distribuƟon) Appendix Table 5: Project budget estimates — urban (continued) Dance Hall Creek Subwatershed Stormwater Retroﬁt Analysis 66 References Best Management PracƟces ConstrucƟon Costs, Maintenance Costs and Land Requirements, BARR Engineering, Prepared for MN PolluƟon Control Agency, June 2011. Board of Water and Soil Resources PolluƟon ReducƟon EsƟmator, MicrosoŌ Excel Version, 2010. Center for Watershed ProtecƟon & Chesapeake Stormwater Network, Runoff ReducƟon Methods, Appendices A to G, April 2008. Centers for Watershed ProtecƟon, Urban Subwatershed RestoraƟon Manual, August 2007. Fact sheet, Ohio State University Extension, Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 590 Woody Hayes Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43210 Lake Sarah Nutrient TMDL, Three Rivers Park District, January 2011 Lake Sarah Nutrient TMDL ImplementaƟon Plan, 2011, Three Rivers Park District, Minnesota PolluƟon Control Agency Minnesota Department of Agriculture, The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota, September 2012. Minnesota Feedlot Annualized Runoff Model (MinnFARM) Version 2.1, October 2008, University of Minnesota Extension ‐ Manure Management and Air Quality EducaƟon and Research. Minnesota PolluƟon Control Agency, Best Management PracƟces ConstrucƟon Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Land Requirements, June 2011. Minnesota PolluƟon Control Agency, Minnesota Stormwater Manual PONDNET, Flow and Phosphorus RouƟng in Pond Networks, William W. Walker, March 1989. Storm Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA‐ARS) and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, 2014. USDA Agriculture Research Service Revised Universal Soil Loss EquaƟon (RUSLE2) April 2010. Vegetated ﬁlter strip image, University of Florida, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering