Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Res 2022-84 JPA Watershed WMO LMRW
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2022-84 APPROVING THE RE -EXECUTION OF THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED WHEREAS, in 1985 the City of Mendota Heights entered into a joint powers agreement (JPA) with the Cities of South Saint Paul, Inver Grove Heights, West Saint Paul, St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and Lilydale establishing the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization; and WHEREAS, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization implements projects and programs in partnership with its member Cities, including Mendota Heights, to improve the water quality of the water resources within its boundary and provides a valuable forum for the member cities to evaluate and resolve drainage issues within the watershed; and WHEREAS, a Revised and Restated JPA was entered into by the Cities in 2001, which expired on December 31, 2011: and WHEREAS, an amendment to the revised and Restated JPA was approved by the Cities in 2011 which extended the term thereof to January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, a second amendment to the Revised and Restated JPA was approved by the Cities in 2011, which extended the term thereof to January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, a third amendment to the Revised and Restated JPA was approved by the Cities in 2014, which added additional land area within Mendota Heights to the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization; and WHEREAS, the current JPA is set to expire on January 1, 2023 and requires re - execution; and WHEREAS, the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization has combined and digitized the original JPA and amendments, clarified language with minor edits, and propose no changes to the current structure of the organization; and WHEREAS, the City representatives and legal councils of the seven Cities have reviewed and approved the proposed JPA; and WHEREAS, the City has been presented with the re -execution of the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Watershed Management Organization for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed; and NOW THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that Lou Council of the City of Mendota Heights hereby approves the aforesaid re -execution of the JPA and authorizes the proper City officials to execute, on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, the "Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization". Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights ttus 1 sc day of November, 2022, ATTEST BY Christ e i Clerk 1 I WO 11 :I JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") are Members of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization and have land Yhat drain surface water into the Mississippi River. This Agreement combines and replaces the following documents in their entirety: (i) the original Joint Powers Agreement that established a Watershed Management Organization for the Lower Mississippi River which became effective in 1985; (ii) the Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement executed by Member Cities in 2003; (iii) the Amendment to the Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement which was executed in 2011; (iv) the Second Amendment to the Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement which was executed in 2013; and (iv) the Third Amendment to the Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement that was executed in 2014. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. §§ 471.59 and 10313.201 - 10313.252. SECTION 1. NAME AND LEGAL BOUNDARY. The parties hereby establish the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, hereinafter referred to as the "WMO." The "Revised Legal Boundary Map of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization" is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide an organization to regulate the natural water storage and retention of the Lower Mississippi watershed to: A. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and ground water storage and retention systems; B. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; 22153bv7 C. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and ground water quality; D. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and ground water management; E. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; F. Promote ground water recharge; G. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; H. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water; and L Carry out all the duties and responsibilities in Minn. Stat. §§ 471.59 and 10313.201 - 10313.252. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS. 'Allowable Flow" means the rate and volume of flow, according to the design criteria set forth in this Agreement and the Watershed Management Plan, at which a Member community may discharge into the drainage system without financial obligation and at the rate and volume of surface water runoff from a tributary area under natural conditions, with a drainage system in place which has been designed and constructed according to the criteria stated herein, excluding diverted waters. Current topographic data that exists on the enactment date of this Agreement shall be used for the determination of the natural conditions and calculation of the allowable flow. WMO. 'Board" means the Board of Managers of the WMO. "Council" means the governing body of a governmental unit which is a Member of this 'Drainage Facilities" means any improvement constructed for the conveyance or storage of surface water. 221536v7 Drainage System' means the combination of drainage facilities required to safely control or convey runoff water from a major tributary drainage areaks) to a point of final discharge into a water body. Excessive Flow "means that rate and volume of flow, calculated according to the design criteria in the Watershed Management Plan, from a Member which is in excess of the allowable flow of that Member. "Governmental Unit" means any city. "Lower Mississippi River Watershed" or "Watershed" means the area contained within the "Legal Boundary Map of the Lower Mississippi River Water Management Organization" attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 'Manager" means the representative appointed to the Board by a Member. `Manager -Alternate or A[ternate Manager" means a person appointed to the Board by a Member to serve as a representative in the absence of the Manager. 'Member"means a governmental unit which enters into this Agreement. 'Natural Conditions" means the characteristics of the land on the date of enactment without regard to any urban development including structures, parking lots, or other artificial improvements. 'Rate of Flow" means the discharge of surface water runoff as a function of time which has been calculated according the design criteria identified in the Watershed Management Plan. The rate of flow shall apply to the design and construction of open channels and storm sewer conduits. 221536v7 "Volume of Flow "means the total discharge of all surface water runoff which has been calculated according to the design criteria identified in the Watershed Management Plan. The volume of runoff flow shall apply to the design and construction of detention facilities. "Watershed Management Organization"or "WMO"means the organization created by this Agreement the full name of which is "Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization." It shall be a public agency of its Members. "Watershed Management Plaa " or "Watershed Plan" means the current adopted 10 year Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan including any subsequent amendments created by and approved by the Board of Managers meeting the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 103B.231. SECTION 4. MEMBERSHIP AND WEIGHTED VOTING. The Membership of the WMO shall consist of the following governmental units, with each entitled to the following number of eligible weighted votes: Member Votes City of Inver Grove Heights 3 votes City of Lilydale 1 vote City of Mendota Heights 2 votes City of Saint Paul 2 votes City of South Saint Paul 2 votes City of Sunfish Lake 1 vote City of West Saint Paul 2 votes No change in governmental boundaries, structure, organizational status, or character shall affect the eligibility of any governmental unit listed above to be represented on the WMO, so long as such governmental unit continues to exist as a separate political subdivision. A majority of all eligible votes shall be sufficient for all matters, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. A majority vote of all Members, with each Member having one vote, shall be required for Section 7. A Member may not cast a split vote. Any Member that fails to contribute 4 221536v7 their share of the WMO annual administration fund or their allocation of a capital improvement cost, shall be declared ineligible for voting on all matters before the Board, until such contribution is made to the WMO. SECTION 5. ADVISORS. A. Technical Advisory Committee. The following governmental subdivisions or agencies shall be requested to appoint anon -voting advisory Member to the WMO: Member Cities, Dakota County, Ramsey County, and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. The advisory Members shall not be required to contribute funds for the operation of the WMO, except as provided in Minn. Star. § 103B.231, but may provide technical services. B. Citizen Advisory Committee. The WMO may establish a citizen advisory committee ("CAC") from the public at large to provide input on Watershed Management Plan revisions and other matters as deemed appropriate. The CAC shall be appointed by the WMO considering individuals nominated by each Member. The WMO will notify each Member of its intent to establish a CAC, will specify the purpose and duration of the CAC and, will request each Member to nominate candidates to be considered for appointment by the WMO. At the time of establishment of a CAC, the WMO will appoint a chair of the CAC, a board member liaison to the CAC, establish a time for submittal of any comments, and specify the support the WMO will provide to the CAC. C. Other Advisors. Each Member City may designate a non -voting staff advisory member to the WMO Board. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) shall designate a non -voting staff advisory member to the WMO Board. 221536v7 SECTION 6. BOARD OF MANAGERS. A. Appointment. The governing body of the WMO shall be its Board. Each Member shall be entitled to appoint one Manager and an Alternate Manager on the Board, consistent with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 103B.227. The Alternate Manager shall have the right to vote in the absence of their Manager representative. Vacancies in the office of Manager or Alternate Manager shall be filled for the remainder of the term by the Member which appointed or had the right to appoint the Manager. Manager vacancies shall be filled within ninety (90) days after they occur. B. Eligibility or Qualification. The Council of each Member shall determine the eligibility or qualification of its representative on the WMO. C. Term. The Managers shall not have a fixed term, but shall serve at the pleasure of the Member appointing such Manager to the Board. D. Compensation. Managers shall serve without compensation from the WMO, but this shall not prevent a Member from providing compensation for its Manager. E. Organizational Meeting. At the first meeting of the Board each year, the Board shall elect from its Managers a chair, a vice chair, asecretary/treasurer, and such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. The Board shall adopt rules of order and procedures governing its meetings and affairs as it deems appropriate. The rules of order and procedures may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a special meeting of the Board provided that at least ten (10) days' prior notice of the proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of the Board meetings is required to be sent. A majority vote of all eligible votes of the Members of the WMO shall be sufficient to adopt any proposed amendment to such rules of order and procedure. 221536v7 F. Annual Meeting Requirement. The Board shall meet at least annually, at times and places selected by the Board. If the Board changes its regularly established meeting place or time, it shall place a notice of the change on a bulletin board at least three (3) days in advance in the building where it was scheduled to meet. appropriate. G. Committees. The Board may establish committees as it deems H. Action. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, action by the Board shall require a majority vote of the Managers present with a minimum of four (4) Managers representing a quorum to take action and conduct business. Board: SECTION 7. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE WMO. The WMO, acting by its A. Shall prepare, adopt, and implement a Watershed Management Plan meeting the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 103B.231. B. Shall review and approve local water management plans as provided in Minn. Stat. § 103B.235. C. Shall exercise the authority of a watershed district under Minn. Stat. Chapter 103D to regulate the use and development of land in the watershed when one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The local government unit exercising planning and zoning authority over the land under Minn. Stat. §§ 366.10 to 366.19, 394.21 to 394.37, or 462,351 to 462,364 does not have a local water management plan approved and adopted in accordance with requirements of Minn. Stat. § 10313.235 or has not adopted the implementation program described in the plan. 2. An application to the local government unit for a permit for the use and development of land, requires an amendment to, or variance from, the adopted local water management plan or implementation program of the local unit. 221536v7 and powers. 3. The local government unit has authorized the WMO to require permits for the use and development of land. D. Shall adopt an annual work plan. E. May employ such persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its duties F. May contract for space and for material and supplies to carry on its activities either with a Member or elsewhere. and its duties. G. May acquire necessary personal and real property to carry out its powers H. May make necessary surveys or use other reliable surveys and data, and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which the WMO is organized. I. May cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized. May order any governmental unit to carry out the local water management plan which has been approved by the Board, or if the local unit of government fails to do so, in addition to other remedies, in its discretion, the Board may implement any required action or improvement in accordance with this Agreement. K. May acquire, operate, construct, and maintain the capital improvements delineated in the Watershed Management Plan adopted by the Board. L. May contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the WMO and its Board. M. May establish and maintain devices for acquit•ing and recording hydrological and water quality data within the watershed area of the WMO. zz�ssw� N. May enter upon private lands within or outside and adjacent to the legal boundary of the watershed with the consent of the landowner to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of the WMO. O. May provide any Member with technical data or any other information of which the WMO has knowledge which will assist the Member in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans within the WMO, or in other water resources related to the functions of the WMO. P. May provide legal and technical assistance in connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its Members and any other political subdivision, commission, board, corporation, individual, or agency relating to the planning or consttuction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters or relating to the powers and duties of the WMO. Q. May accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the WMO not currently needed for its operations. R. May collect money, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, from its Members and from any other source approved by the Board. S. May make contracts, incur expenses, and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and powers. T. Shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the WMO and shall make and file a report to its Members at least once each year including the following information: 1. The financial condition of the WMO; 2. The status of all WMO projects and work within the watershed; and 3. The business transacted by the WMO and other matters which affect the interests of the WMO. Copies of the report shall be transmitted to each Member by June 30 of each year. 221536v7 U. Shall make the WMO's books, reports, and records available for and open to inspection by its Members or the public at all reasonable times. V. May recommend changes in this Agreement to its Members. Any amendments shall require ratification by all parties to this Agreement. W. May exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein and as authorized by Minn. Stat. §§ 103B.201 through 103B.252. X. Must solicit proposals for all legal, engineering, auditing, and other technical services in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 103B.227, subd. 5. Y. Shall coordinate its planning activities with contiguous watershed management organizations and counties conducting water planning and implementation under Minn. Stat. Chapter 103B. Z. Shall designate one or more legal newspapers of general circulation which are published in the county(ies) in which the watershed is located. SECTION 8. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICERS OF THE BOARD. A. It shall be the duty of the Chair of the Board to: 1. Attend and preside at all meetings of the Board; 2. Assist in the preparation of meeting agendas and the annual work plan; 3. See that orders and resolutions of the Board are carried into effect; 4. Sign and execute documents as may be required for the Board's exercise of its powers, except as otherwise required by law; and 5. Perform such other duties applicable to the office as are necessary to fulfill the powers and duties of the Board as set forth in this Agreement, and as provided by law. B. It shall be the duty of the Vice Chair of the Board to: Perform the duties of the Chair in the Chair's absence; and 10 221536v7 2. Perform other duties as assigned from time to time by the Board. C. It shall be the duty of the Secretary/Treasurer of the Board to: 1. Keep and post a true and accurate record of the proceedings of all meetings of the Board; 2. Keep a record of all amendments, alterations and additions to this Agreement; 3. Prepare and process all correspondence; 4. Prepare and file all reports and statements as required by law and this Agreement; 5. Keep all financial accounts of the WMO, and prepare and present to the Board full and detailed financial statements of the WMO prior to its annual meeting; and 6. Perform other duties as assigned from time to time by the Board. The Board may delegate powers and duties of the Officers to WMO staff as necessary to accomplish the work of the WMO. SECTION 9. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. A. Capital Improvement Projects. All construction, reconstruction, extension, or maintenance of WMO improvements, including outlets, lift stations, dams, reservoirs, or appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer system ordered by the WMO which involve potential construction by and assessment against any Member or against privately or publicly owned land within the watershed shall adhere to the following procedures set forth in this section. The Board shall secure from its engineers or some other competent person a preliminary report advising it whether the proposed improvement is feasible, whether there are feasible alternatives, whether the proposed improvement shall best be made as proposed or in conjunction with some other improvement, a determination of the quantity and/or quality of storm and surface water contributed to the improvement by each Member, the estimated cost of the improvement(s), including maintenance, the estimated cost to each Member, and evaluating the consistency of the improvement with the Watershed Management Plan capital improvement section. The Board shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement. Notice of the 11 221536v7 hearing shall be mailed to the clerk of each affected Member and shall also be published in the Board's official newspaper(s). The notice shall be mailed not less than forty-five (45) days before the hearing, shall state the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated total cost, and the estimated cost to each Member. To order the improvement, a resolution setting forth the order shall require a favorable majority vote of all eligible votes of the Members of the WMO. The order shall describe the improvement, shall allocate in percentages the cost allocation among the Members, shall determine the method of financing, shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and shall designate the entity that will contract for the improvement. The Board shall not order and no engineer shall prepare plans and specification before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering the improvement. After the Board has ordered an improvement, it shall forward the preliminary report to all affected Members with an estimated time schedule for the construction of the improvement. The Board shall allow not less than 90 days, nor more than 270 days, for each Member to conduct hearings as provided by law or applicable charter requirements, to approve the construction and the method of financing of the improvement which the Member will use to pay its proportionate share of the costs of the improvement. If the WMO proposes to use Dakota County's and/or Ramsey County's bonding authority, or if the WMO proposes to certify all or any part of an improvement to Dakota and/or Ramsey County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with Minn. Star. § 10313.251, The Board may order advertising for bids upon receipt of notice from each Member which will be assessed that it has completed its hearing or determined its method of 12 221536v7 payment, or upon expiration of 270 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the Members, whichever occurs first. B. Appeal. Any Member aggrieved by the determination of the Board as to the financing of an improvement or allocation of the costs of an improvement shall have thirty (30) days after the WMO resolution ordering the improvement to appeal the determination to arbitration. The appeal shall be in writing requesting the arbitration and shall be addressed to the Board in c/o City of South St. Paul, 125 3rd Ave. N., South St. Paul, MN 55075. The determination of the Member's appeal shall be referred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three (3) persons: one to be appointed by the Board, one to be appointed by the appealing Member, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. In the event the two persons so selected do not appoint the third person within fifteen (15) days after their appointment, then the chief judge of the District Court of Dakota County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the third person to the Board of Arbitration. The third person selected shall not be a resident of any Member and if appointed by the chief judge, shall be a person knowledgeable in the subject matter of the dispute. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be divided equally between the WMO and the appealing Member. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter 572. Arbitration must be completed within the 270 day period provided for in paragraph A of this Section. C. Contracts for Improvements. The bidding and contracting of the work may be let by any Member or by the WMO as determined by the Board, in compliance with state statutes. Contracts and bidding procedures shall comply with all legal requirements. 13 221536v7 D. Supervision. All improvement contracts shall be supervised by the entity awarding the contract. A WMO representative shall also be authorized to observe and review the work in progress and the Members agree to cooperate with the WMO representative in accomplishing the WMO's purposes. Representatives of the WMO shall have the right to enter upon the place or places where the improvement work is in progress for the purpose of making reasonable tests and inspections. The WMO representative shall report to the Board on the progress of the work. E. Land Acquisition. The WMO shall not have the power of eminent domain. All easements or interest in land which are necessary for an improvement will be negotiated or condemned in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 117 by the Member where the land is located, and each Member agrees to acquire the necessary easement or right-of-way or partial or complete interest in land upon order of the Board to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. All reasonable costs of the acquisition, including attorney's and appraiser's fees, shall be a cost of the improvement, and shall be allocated according to the formula for allocating Capital Improvement cost in Section 10, paragraph G. If a Member determines it is in its best interest to acquire additional rights in lands for some other purposes, in conjunction with the taking of lands for the improvement, the costs of the acquisition of additional rights in lands will not be included in the improvement costs. The Board, in determining the amount of the improvement costs to be assessed to each Member, may take into consideration the land use for which the additional lands are being acquired and may credit the acquiring Member for the land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the other Members. Any credits may be applied to the cost allocation of the improvement, or the Board, if feasible and necessary, may defer the credits to a future improvement. 14 221536v7 Members may not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition to pond or drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of another Member within the WMO. SECTION 10. FINANCES. A. Disbursements. The WMO funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this Agreement in a manner determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies authorized to receive deposits of public monies to act as depositories for the WMO funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of WMO funds without approval by the Board and the signature of at least two (2) Board Members, one of whom shall be an officer. The Board may require the secretary/treasurer to file with the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The WMO shall pay the premium on said bond. B. Budget. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a general fund budget ('Budget") by a majority vote of all Members (with each Member having one vote) for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. The secretary/treasurer of the Board shall certify the Budget to the clerk of each Member, together with a statement of the proportion of the Budget to be provided by each Member, computed in accordance with Section 10, paragraph E. The council of each Member shall review the Budget, and the Board shall upon notice from any Member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the Budget, and may, upon notice to all Members of the time, date, place of and right to participate in the hearing and after a hearing, modify or amend the Budget, and then give notice to the Members of any and all modifications or amendments. Each Member agrees to provide the funds required by the Budget by February 15 of each year. 15 221536v7 If a Member fails to provide its share of the funds required by the Budget by February IS of each year, the unpaid balance of the funds shall accrue interest at a rate of eight percent (8°/u) per annum commencing the day following February 15 of the year in which the funds were due. The WMO may take whatever action, at law or in equity, it deems appropriate to collect any amounts due from a Member under this Agreement. The Member agrees to pay the cost of collection. C. Maintenance. The Board shall have the option of funding maintenance work through the Budget, or funding as a capital improvement in accordance with paragraph F of this Section. Maintenance costs that are associated with an improvement in the approved Capital Improvement Program shall be allocated according to the same formula as is applicable for allocating capital improvement costs as identified in Section 10, paragraph G. The Members affected by the improvement shall decide on the level of maintenance to be applied to the improvement. If the Members cannot agree, the Board shall make the determination. D. Tax Levy. If authorized by law, the WMO may levy a tax. The proceeds of any tax levied under this paragraph shall be expended only for the purposes authorized by law. The WMO may accumulate the proceeds of levies as an alternative to issuing bonds to finance improvements. E. General Fund. Each Member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: improvement projects, salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, insurance, bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. The funds may also be used for any other purpose authorized by this Agreement. The annual contribution by 16 221536v7 each Member shall be based fifty percent (50%) on taxable market value (for the preceding year) and fifty percent (50%) on area in accordance with the following formula: Annual Watershed Levy = L Taxable Market Value of a Member's Property in the Watershed = MV Taxable Market Value of All Property in the Watershed = TV Acres of Property a Member Has in the Watershed = A Total Acres in Watershed = TA Member Required Contribution = C %zLxMV+%zLxA=C TV TA F. CapitalImprovement. All capital improvements ordered by the Board must be included in the WMO's adopted capital improvement program. An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement ordered by the WMO. If ordered by the Board, each Member agrees to contribute to the funds its proportionate share of the engineering, legal, and administrative costs as determined by the amount to be assessed against each Member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each Member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the WMO for each improvement. Bach Member further agrees to pay its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board, under Section 10, paragraph G, H, or I. The Board or the Member awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the Member being billed agrees to pay its share of the costs within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement. The Board may also require payment from Members before awarding a contract based upon an engineer's estimate of cost. Billings will then be adjusted when actual costs are known. The Board or the Member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing Members of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary. 17 221536v7 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph F(1) above, of the Capital Improvements, the WMO may also fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan in accordance with Minn. Star. § 10313.251. The WMO and Dakota County and/or Ramsey County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with money provided by Dakota and/or Ramsey County pursuant to Minn. Star. § 10313.251, The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Dakota and/or Ramsey County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by the WMO and remitted to the county(ies) on or before October 1 of each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the WMO shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minn. Stat. § 103D.921. Mailed notice shall also be sent to the clerk of each Member at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. The WMO may also fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 103B.241. G. Capital Cost Allocation of Improvements in the Board's Watershed Management Plan. All capital improvement costs of improvements designated in the WMO's adopted watershed management plan for construction by the WMO pursuant to Section 10, paragraph F(1) of this Agreement shall be apportioned by the following methods or a combination of these methods: For improvements related to water quantity: a. A Member shall be responsible for the costs of construction of that portion of a drainage system that is located within its borders and that is necessary to accommodate its Allowable Flow and the Allowable Flow of all other tributary Members. b. A Member shall also be responsible for its share of construction costs of a drainage system, whether or not that system is located within its borders that is necessary to convey Excessive Flows originating within the Member's borders. c. Increased costs of construction incurred for acquisition of lands, easements and rights of way within natural watercourses shall be the obligation of the Member in 18 221536v7 which the land lies and shall not be apportioned to other Members to the extent that such costs exceed costs which would have been incurred if there had been no improvement on such lands, easements, or rights of way. d. Costs of construction shall include all costs associated with a WMO approved improvement (whether trunk sewer or natural conveyance) and whether or not actually constructed, including, but not limited to, costs for design, administration, construction supervision, legal fees, acquisition of lands and improvements and actual construction and maintenance costs. e. The WMO shall consider any grant money received or to be received by a Member for sanitary sewer/storm sewer separation or for the construction, reconstruction or replacement of storm sewer facilities before making cost allocations among Members and may consider the application of any grant proceeds toward the cost of the improvement before allocating costs between or among the Members involved, provided that such allocation would not violate the terms and conditions of the grant. £ For water quantity projects and maintenance, the cost sharing will be based on the cost allocation methods in the attached Exhibit "B" incorporated by reference and serving as a compilation of general examples of cost allocations -under this Agreement for hypothetical circumstances stated in the examples. g. Members may enter into individual joint powers agreements with one another for mutually agreed upon cost allocations for water quantity projects and maintenance as an alternative to those outlined in Exhibit "B". 2. For improvements related to water quality: a. For water quality projects and maintenance, the cost sharing will be based on the cost allocation methods in the attached Exhibit "C" incorporated by reference. b. Members may enter into individual joint powers agreements with one another for mutually agreed upon cost allocations for water quality projects and maintenance as an alternative to those outlined in Exhibit "C". c. Other cost sharing method approved by the Board. d. Pursuant to Minn. Star. § 103B.251. H. Capital Cost Allocation of Improvements Delineated in Local Watershed Management Plans. All capital improvement costs incurred by the WMO for 19 221536v7 improvements delineated in local watershed management plans that benefit only that Member, which the WMO undertakes because the Member fails to do so, shall be apportioned entirely to that Member. Other Cost Allocations. Members may enter into individual joint powers agreements with one another for mutually agreed upon cost allocations for capital improvement projects as an alternative to using the methods outlined in this agreement. SECTION 11. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The WMO shall not have the power to levy special assessments. All such assessments shall be levied by the Member within which the land is located. SECTION 12. DURATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the written agreement of a majority of the Members or pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103B.221. SECTION 13. DISSOLUTION. Upon dissolution of the WMO or termination of this Agreement, all property of the WMO shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall be distributed to the Members. Such distribution of WMO assets shall be made in proportion to the total contribution to the WMO required by the last annual Budget. SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect when all seven (7) Members file a certified copy of a resolution approving this Agreement and have executed this Agreement and filed the executed Agreement with the Board. All Members need not sign the same copy. SECTION 15. COUNTERPARTS. The parties may sign this Agreement in counterparts, each of which constitutes an original but all of which together constitute one instrument. 20 221536v7 SECTION 16. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The parties agree that the electronic signature of a party to this Agreement be valid as an original signature of such party and shall be effective to bind such party to this Agreement. The parties further agree that any document (including this Agreement and any attachments or exhibits to this Agreement) containing, or to which there is affixed, an electronic signature shall be deemed (i) to be "written" or "in writing," (ii) to have been signed, and (iii) to constitute a record established and maintained in the ordinary course of business and an original written when printed from electronic files. For purposes hereof, "electronic signature" also means a manually signed original signature that is then transmitted by any electronic means, including without limitation a faxed version of an original signature or an electronically scanned and transmitted version (e.g. via PDF) of an original signature. Any party's failure to produce the original signature of any electronically transmitted signature shall not affect the enforceability of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minn. Star. § 471.59, Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow. 21 221536v7 Approved by the City Council CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 20 By: Attest: 22 221536v7 Approved by the City Council CITY OF LILYDALE 20 By: Attest: 23 221536v7 Approved by the City Council 20� CITY OF MENDOTA FIEIGHTS By: 24 22133fiv7 Approved by the City Council CITY OF ST. PAUL 20 Approved as to Form: By: Assistant City Attorney By: Attest: By: Attest: By: Attest: 25 221536v7 Approved by the City Council CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL 20 By: Attest: 26 221536v7 Approved by the City Council CITY Or SUNFISH LAKE 20 By: Attest: 27 221536v7 Approved by the City Council CITY "r WEST ST. A 20 By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager 28 221536v7 EXHIBIT "A" JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A ST;PAUL Revised Legal Boundary �,. Map of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization y LILYDALE� k. t SOUTH r WEST STPAUL ST PAUL C MENDOTA MENDOTA SUNFISH HEIGHTS LAKE r, of 7 1 INVER GROVE y HEIGHTS i i -� Soursro: Esn HERS, OeLarme. tbCS,lntermap PCa IN=—� MIICS� NRCAN. ESn Japan, MET]. Esc Cl (JogKaWl Een ), 0 0.5 1 2 3 I Tm`rm, Mapmylnd4 ® GpenStreeMab 9MbIAtm and t GIS Low Communy 111 29 221536v7 EXHIBIT 'B" JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CO T ALLOCATION EXAMPLES FOR JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 10 IB % "`"* ,•�„ .,,� � � "-3...�. EXAMPLE KSCRIPTION A, Two Cities .11 B. Two Cities With Diversion In C. Two Cities Vith Diversion Dut p. Three Cities E. Added Ponding LEGEND Watershed Boundary __ �+----- Drainage Facility City Boundary Detention Pond Exhibit B Page i of B Diverted Area 30 221536v7 J0141T POWERS AGREEMENT .. J� f k''!! 7� ct�' ` > + 1`"• f r x� y EXAMPLE "A" - TWO CITIES . Project: Construct project (Segments"a' and"bl in City V to provide drainage for Cities 16 and #7 under fully developed conditions. ' Cost Allocation: y Qe6 project cost far "a°. GTt5: Cost share x Total jj City VM. Cost share Total project cost - [ QE'A x Total project cost } Where: QEa ' QT6 " QA6b . QE6 is the design flow rate from City #6 .which is in excess of the allowable flow rate :from City #6; QA6 is the allowable flow rate from City s"6, QT€ is the total design flow rate from City #6: QT is the total flow rate4 for which the project is designed in each Segment. ' City R6: Cost share for Segment"c" Zero dollar (no tributary flow). Exhibit B Page 2 of 9 31 221536v7 VP MIMI POWERS AGREEMENT �, .. i' 17,s-ac I cfs 4 'ti Q!j zsa4� tr,. z ts`c Ia�a k ��j EXAMPLE "A" - T140 CITIES Sample Calcu7at9ons Assume: City f6 - Area of Watershed'within City 46 = 175 acres Full development runoff (Q16) = CIA = 0.40 x 2.0"ih x 175 = 140 cfs Predevelopment runoff (QAs) = CIA = 0.15 x 2.0*lh x 175 52.5 cfs Then: Excess runoff (Qgb') (from formulae: Qt = 'Qt - QA ) ffi SM cfs 1{.,C#y #6 cost share for Segment wa" = 87.5 x project cost for "a" _ .63 x.Project cost for "aw, I 140 (From formulae: share ® Qe x Project cost) `Qt _ Note: Segment wa" ends at first point of entry into the system from City p7. Assumes' City 17 - Area of Watershed within City •f7 m 250 acres and all flows from city17 enter system.by way of Segment "c". . Full development runoff (Qi7} = CIA = .50x1.8x250 r 225 cfs Design flow for Segment "b" = Q7(ses, ws") + Q17 140 + 225 = 365 cfs g, City f6'has no east share obligation in Segment "c" when them is no tributary ftow from City R6. , (continued) Exhibit 8 Page 3 of 9 32 221536v7 JOINT POW£RS AGREEMENT ' Mm r 3,dkCiiy #6 cost share for Segment "b" = 87.5 x Project cost for "b" M4 Project cost of "b": (From formulae: Share Qea x Project cost) Note: City #6 can reduce the excess 'flow {Q,b) by detention Ponding even to the amount that the rate of flow from City 06 (QT6) is no greeter than the allowable flow rate (Q A6 ). Any reduction in the total rate from City #6 would be applied to the excess rate and thereby reduce the obligation of City #6 to share in the cost of constructing any conveyance system in City t7. SUMARV OF COSTS Segment "a". City #6: Cost share = 87'5 x Project cost for "a".. T40` City V: Cost share 52.5 x Project cost for "a". T4U Segnent "b". City a6: Cost share WaS x Project cast for "b". City #7: Cost share 277 Z x Project cost for "b". 5eg�aent "c": City_#6: Cost 'share zero dollar (no tributary. flow). City #7: .Cost share All of Project cost for "c". Exhibit 8 Page 4 of 9 33 221536v7 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT /� piv�•F� hex - z .+�. ,EXAMPLE "S" - TIdO CITIES H'ITM DIVERSION IN Pftject: Construct Trunk facility "to in City 42 only for Cities #2 and f3 under fully developed conditions. Cost Allochtion_ City $3: Cost share Qe3 x Total"project. cost, Aare: Q€3 w QT3 ` QA3 .And Q€3 is the design flow from City 93 as described in Example "A" plus all flows coming from the area diverted_ All facilities within- City #3 are constructed by City f3. Detention in'City 13 can reduce_QE3; QT and QA are as defined in Example Note: This case applies only where waters are diverted from one City to another City or from one major drainage district to another. Exhibit 8 . Page 5 of g 34 221536v7 JOINT ROWERS AGREEMENT , EKAiiPLE "C" —TWO CITIES WPTEi DPYEItSPDN DUT Rroject: Construct Trunk Segments "a% "b", "c" in City f1-under fully developed conditions. Cost Allocation: City f3: Cost share for Segment "a' Zero dollars. fall flows have been diverted away) Cost share for Segment "b" PE3 x Total project cost for "b". Where: QE3 is the excess flow from City 93 that is tributary to Segment "b" only,, City #3: Cost share for Segment'"c' _ QE3 x Total project cost for "c" Where: QE3 is the excess flow from City 03 that is tributary to Segment "c" calculated as QE3 tributary to "b" minus QA3 that would have been tributary to "a"had there been no diversion out, of the drainage district. Qr and QA are as defined in Example "A". Note: This case applies only where waters are diverted from one City to another, City, or from one major drainage district to another. Exhibit B Rage 6 of 9 35 221536v7 JO M POWERS AGREEMENT or a.. 7 EXAA{P(.E 'p" - 1HREC C77IES {Sea Exa,le "A" for QT, Qa and QE ) Project: .Construct Project (Segments "a".. Pb" and "cm) in City A to provide drainage for Cities #3, #4, and 15 under fully developed 'conditions. Cost Allocations: City 3: Cost share Segment "b". g Q" x Project cost for 'b`. Cost share Segment "a" = Zero dollars (no tributary flow)} Cost share Segment "c" - Qta x Project cost for "c". City #5 Cost share Segment "a" _ Q�s x Project cost for "a". Cost share Segment "b" = Zero dollars (no tributary flow). Cost share Segment "c" m QE5 x Project cost for "c". Where: QT is the total flow rate for which each respective Segment is designed_ Exhibit B Page 7 of 9 36 221536v7 JOINT POWERS AGREENENT (bl EXAMPLE "E" - ADDED PONDING (See Example "A" for definition of QT > QA and QC) Project: Construct Trunk'a', Detention Pond "b" and Outlet 'c" for cities 05 and #6 under -fully developed conditions. ;ost Allocation: ' City 95 (Trunk "a"): Cost share. = QE5 x Project cost. of Trunk 'a". Where: Q is the total flow rate in Trunk "a". City 35 (Pond "b"): Cost share VEs x Project cost of Pond "b". Where: 'VCs is the design Volume of runoff from City fS which is in e excess of the allowable Volume from City 6; VT is the total Volume used in the design of the detention pond. City f5 (Outlet "c"): Cost share QEs x Project cost of Outlet "c".' Where: QEs is reduced from Trunk "a" Inlet QCs by the ratio of 8utlet QT. , InIeT QT Inlet QT is the summation of all flows into the pond; Outlet QTis'the total flow rate out of the pond under design conditions. Mote: See Page g for sample calculations Exhibit 6 Page 8 of g 37 221536v7 JOINT POWERS -AGREEMENT 1 �, to . � ,9 4 r� �' r \ E?:AMPLE *E" - AOOEA PONOING Sample'calculation for City f5 cost share for Outlet "c": Assume: . QEs - 50 cfs QT Pond inflow in Segra,t "a" = 500 cfs QT Pond inflow from other areas 200 cfs , QT Pond inflow 700 cfs Qi }bnd Outlet "c" TOO efs And: _ QE5 (OUTLET) " QES'(IRLET) QT (OUTLET) QT (ISLET) City #5 cost share = QE5 (OUTLET) x Project cost of Outlet 'c T (OUTLET) . There QEs or Segment "c""). _ 1©0 x 54 7,i4 cfs City #5 cost share = 7,14 x Project cost of Outlet 'c" . Iof) Exh9bSt B Page g Of 9 38 221536v7 EXHIBIT "C" JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT I-MR1tJI�IO ]PA Exhibit C EXMIJU C The I-ower Ivfississippi River Waterslhed bfanagenten[ Organization (LMItWMO) has developed the following four water quality cost allocation methods: 1. Total Area 2. Effective impervious Area 3. Relative Pollutant Load 4. Allowable Pollutant Load A description of zach of these four methods is provided in this exhibit, iachtding applicable fonmilas, and criteria for when application of each method is appropriate. In addition, four hypothetical scenarios are presented to illustrate differences between the four cost allocation methods listed above. An alternative approach to the cost allocation methods listed above is also included, referred to as the "Cost for Equivalent Treatment" This cost allocation approach is described separately, as it nntst be assessed on a case -by -case basis and is intended for use only when the above methods are considered unacceptable to the INIRW 4t0 Board. Summary of Cost Allocation Methods Method l: Total Area Method The Total Area method allocates cost based on the fiactions of the total tributary area within each member city. This method does not account for the variation in polhitant loading from areas of differing land use (and imperviousness). Nor does this method account for water quality treatment that may already occur upstream of the proposed project (via natural systems or past best management practice (BMP) implementation such as Ponds or sedimentation basins). This is the simplest water quality cost allocation method presented, described by Equation 1: Areal Cost; = Equation 1 Areahas� ...where Cos4 =cost to member city i Area, =area withuh n,Pmher city i tributary to project Arerp,,,� =total area tributary to project The Total Area Method normally shotild not be used fm-grojects encompassing a wide range of land use aadior various levels of upsh'eam uratment (and therefore varying pollutant loads). The Total Area cost allocation method n most applicable when we uibu=y drainage areas from each menhher city contribute similar pollutant loads per unit area. This is liloely to occur when tributary watersheds have similar land use and levels of existing water quality treatment. Criteria for application of this method include: Page 1 of 16 39 221536v7 I VIRWM0 JPA Eslubit C Similar an uses across member cities' tributary areas • Similar levels of existing treatment (if applicable) across member cities tributary areas/land uses Method 2: Effective Impervious Area Method The Effective Irmlxrious Area 3fethod is similar to the Total Area Method in that casts are apportioned based on the fractions of tributary area vrithin each member city. However, the Effective Impervious Area Method is based on the fraction of impervious area (versus total area) within each member city, to accoutnt for variation in land use (and imperviousness) throughout the tributary area. The Effective Iatpetzious Area Method also accounts for existing upstream water quality treatment by applying a treatment effectiveness coefficient to areas already receiving treatment, in recognition that the pollutant Contribution from `•treated" areas uiil be less. The Effective Imperious Area Method is appea€ing because it accounts for differences in pollutant contribution from tributary areas both due to land use differences (via an assumed relationship between imperiousness and pollutant loading) and the presence of upstream treatment. In the Effective Iauperyious Afea Method, the cost is apportioned to each member city based on the fraction of that city's effective tributary area to the total effective tributary area. The effective tributary area inchxdes 10000 of the untreated impervious area and a fraction of the treated impervious, area. This method is described by the following formulas: Ar•eaPffectir=P:i Corti=Area ff Egaatiou?a P EC[IL'P:iOtIII Ar•eaPffsrii-ed = Arenun[reIItPd imp:i i' E * At'errrrected imp.,i Equation �-b ...where Cost, = cost to member city i .�•eta�,.�,,, = untreated imperious area plus fraction of treated, imperious =L•enp,,��,.�,„,�,r = snm of effective areas of each tributary member city = untreatedimpervious area within member city i tributary to project ll vaycalj�p = treated impervious area within member city i tributary to project E = SNIP treatment effectiveness (unitle s value from 0 to 1.0. OS proposed for total phosphorus) As shovru in Equation 2-b, the Effective Imperious Area Method incerparates treated m'eas using a ccefftcient to account for the treatrueut efficiency of existing Best 2v4anagemeuti Practtes (BZvfi's). Eor simplicity. a single coefficient of 0.5 is proposed. This vahte is based on total phosphoms removal gerformtance presented in Table L8 of the Afmnasofn Storrnwater Efnnual (MPCA, 2008). Other coefficients may be more applicable for specific pollutants. Impervious areas (both treated and untreated) are calculated by summing the imperious area for all tributary land uses. Impervious area for each land Page ? of 16 40 221536v7 LI IRW7MO JPA Exhibit C use is calculated based on the uibutay area and an assumed imperious fraction far tlse a veu land use (see Table I for example imperious fraction assumptions for a selection of land rues). �t•eatmp, = 2. rr,a,•er;,, Equatan 2-c ...where .4renxr,, = heated cr unheated ingteniou, area vithia member city i trbrtary to project Area,t = area within member city i of Lind use j tributary to project K = fraction of impen-iousness for land usej (twitless value from 0 to 1.0) The Effec€itY Inrperoiaus r1r'ea cost allocation method is most applicable cslren tributary arias are comprised of different land use types and existing water quality treatment MIN. This method simplifies canabilityy in treatment efficiency as order to limit method complexity. If no existing treatment BIAPs are iu-place, this method presents a relatively simple +.vay to account for variability in land use. Criteria for application of this method include: • Impervious areas are present in tributary watersheds • Varying land uses across tributary watersheds • Treatment BMPs are present in tributary areas Table t. Average impervious fraction of land use types Land Use Inrper�ious Fraction Natural/Park/Open 0.0 Low Density Residential 02 High Density Residential 0.4 institutione4 0.8 Highway 0-5 Commercial 0.8 industrial/Oft;ce 0.8 Fagg 3 of 16 41 221536v7 IfR%tihfO JPA Exhibit C Mefttad 8: Relative Pollutant Laad Method 3 —Relative Pollutant Laad allocates cast based on the fraction of the total golhutaat load to the project that is contributed by each member city. This method is more detailed than Method 2 (presented above) in that it estimates pollutant loading (pounds of pollutant per year) from land used and considers variable effectiveness of existing treatment. Alile a detailed nmoff model (e.g., PS) could be used to estimate Relative Pollutant Loading, use of a calculation based "simple" method is proposed to limit the level of computational effort recpured. The simple method, which is described in the Minnesota Stor mwater Manual, estimates maoff volume and pollutant concentrations based on imperviousness and land use, as described in the following formulas: Li Costa = — Equation 3-a Moral LN = wunrreared,t f I P+aarP,i,t Equation 3-b L�unrreared,t = 0.2(P)(R„)(C)(Rraa,,�nrreared,i) Egnaten 3-c Lb'exra,d,i=0.2.{P)(Rr)(C)CAreaaMa,j,i)CBb1Paa) Egiti<�tion3_d ...where Cost, =cost to member city i IT = annual load contributed by member city i (Ibs yr) Ia•waf = total annual load to the project (Ibsiyr) =annual load contributed from untreated areas of member city i (lbs Syr) lin„F y = annual load contributed from areas of member city i treated by BMP j (Ibs/T) P = annual precipitation (inches) mnoff coefficient (0.05 _ 0. 9*1) (unitless) I =average percent imperviousness of tributary area (unitless calve from 0 to 1.0) C = concentration of pollutant in runoff (03 mgiL for P in urban enitironments) untreated area uadhiu city i tributary to project (acres) .$renztsr,.,,, = area uvithin city i tributary to treatment BMP j (acres) B.UFp,,. = 1— B&IP treatment efficiency (unitless value from 0 to 1.0) Q2 = unit conversion factor based on the input parameters as shown above In the siutple method, ammtual precipitation (P), area, and a mnoff coefficient {R,) are multiplied to create a mnoff volurrre. That volumte is multipfied by au assumed poltutam concemratiom {C} to deteruuine the load (II). The mnoff coefficient is an area -weighted average based on imperviousness. The fraction of Page 4 of 16 42 221536v7 1ARWNIO JPA Exhibit C impen�iousness for each land use type is as desaibed in Nfethod 2 (see TaU@e I}: 37iem there is existing treatment within the tributary watershed. the pollutant removal is quantified by the removal efficiency of a given best mranagememt practice (R,rUP F). BMP removal efficiencies are derived from Table I S of the hfinnesota .Stor onvater Manual (NIPCA, 2008). The total load from a member city to the proposed project is the stun of the untreated load and the treated load from each BNfP. This method is more technical than area -based methods and requires detailed user inputs. This method accounts for varyirrg degrees of treatment. This method is identical to Method 2 (Impervious Area Method) if all BMP treatment efficiencies are the same. The benefit of this method is the calculation of animal load from each area, which may be required for grant reporting or demonstrating waste load allocation (WLA) compliance. Criteria € r application of this method include& • Varying land uses across tributary water beds • Significant treatment BMPs are present In tributary areas • Wide range in effectiveness of existing treatment Method 4: Allowable PaI@trtant Load Method 4 —Allocable Pollutant Laad, apportions cast for crater quttlity iurprocemtemts sirrtilar to the existing allocable flow method, but based on pollutant load rather than flow. In this method, an upstream member city's portion of the project cost is based on the percentage of the upstream city%s "excess' load relative to the total load to the project. Excess load is the total load from the upstream member city less am "allowable" load. Thus, the upstream city receives a credit for that allowable pollutant load. The credit is paid by the downstream city in which the project is located. The cost assigned to the city in which the project is located is based on the ratio of that city's total load (including the allowable pollutant loads from all upstream member cities) to the total load to the project. .he total load from areas tributary to the project is calculated using the simple method as described in Method 3 — ReLatice Pollutant Load. There are rmarty Kays that the "allowable' pollutant load could be defined. Allocable pollutant load is calculated by multiplying a member city's tributary area by an export coefficient (pollutant loading per mtiE area) coresgondiag to natural condition.. For simplicity, a single export coefficient is proposed for each pollutant. An export eoeffrcient of 0.13 Lgiha,"year (or 0.17 tbs+acre?year) is proposed for total phosphors generated from natural areas. This value represents a combination of forested, mixed, and idle land export coefficients summarized in the Review ofPubhshed &apoi, Co qfficfentr and Event LSean Con, entratton Data (Lin, 2004). Excess load is calculated as the difference between the total load and the allowable potlutvtt load. Tbis method is desaribed by the formulas shown below: Castap, t = �nxrass,up. i Equation 4-a �tatai 1 ercess,up. i= map. i— Wailawabte,ap, i Equation 4-b Page > of 16 43 221536d7 I. %M%NTTNIO3P.4 Exlubit C EN❑Howabte:uo. i = at UP. i) Equation d-c El carat —E wexceas,up.i torn 4-d Costsast = Costar❑t — z cost";, i = Equa v✓totat ...adzere Coster., =cast to upstream number cih i Cash,.,,; = cost to member city in which the project is located Tin., = annual total load to project (lbs, see Method 3 — Relative Pollutant Load) WP , = annual total load from upstream member city i tributary to project (lbs, we Method 3 — Relative Pollutant Load) TF,,,,,,,at,,„c. = aamiai allowable pollutant load from tip stream member city t tributary to project (lbs) T6;.,v.<., w, , = annual excess load from upstream member city i tributary to project (lbs) ,4reawp , = area within upstream member city i tributary to project (acres) C, = pollutant specific export coefficient (Ibslacre� yT, 0.1; propc wd. for total phosphorus) The allavvnUle pcllutant load calculation shown above is provided as a sierxple method applicable to most siri:ations. In some ca.es (e.g., T33DL waste load allocations} it may Ue usefitl to define ailawaUle pollutant load through other methods. Relative to Method 3 — Relative Pollutant Load Method 4 rewards member cities that have talmn steps to reduce their loading towards pre-detiel rpment levels. Criteria for application of this method are similar to Method 3 and include: • Varying land uses across tributary watersheds • Significant treatment 6MPs are present in tributary area. + Wide range in effectiveness of existing treatment Alternative Approach: Cax# far Equivafenf Preafinenf Cast far Egtrivaleat Treatment apportions The cost for water qualitq intprovemertts located daysrtsh'eam of a member city based an the cost to achieve the same level of heatment through other means. In thus method, an upstream city would contribute to a donustream city's water quality improvement project based on the cost of implementing other equally�ffective BbfPs, and the share of the improvement (or potmds of loading reduction) that they get credit for. This method implies that a pollutant reduction target Itas been established for each city (i.e., improving the quality of a doumstream lake requires a certain level of treatment tluoughout the watershed). Desired load reductions could be estimated using the simple method described in Method 3 (Relative Pollutant Load). This method could be considered when an upstream city believes the proposed downstream voter quality improvement project is tar expensive as a result of BMP selection and'ar other design factors, and a less Page b of ib 44 221536v7 Z2oBt� t f0 JPA Exhibit C expensive aptrn exists to achieve the expected results of the dowxustream project. However, this metuad is only applicable if the less expensive option is feasible and can be demonstrated to achieve similar results, trough comparison of estimated load reductions for the proposed project and the alternative, equivalent treatment. The inherent difficulty of the Cost for Equivalent Treatment approach is assessing an appropriate cost for equivalent treatment. The cost of achieving a given load reduction may vary based on many factors, including treatment location (i.e., upstream versus dou-nstream), further complicating fhe estimation of a cost for equivalent treatment. Given the munber of catiables involved, this cast allocation approach is less structured than the other methods. Ultintateiy, the cast far equivalent teafinetut allocation nsethad must be applied on acase-by-cast basis and should be limited to situations where other cost allocation methods are not applicable or acceptable to the LNfRW..4f0 Board. Method Comparison via Hypotheticak Scenarios Pour hypothetical scenarios involving three contributing cities were developed to illustrate the differences between cost allocation Methods 1 through 4 (lvfethod 7 — Cost of Equivalent Treatment must be considered on a case -by -care basis and cannot be evaluated in the hypothetical situations presented here).. Characteristics of the three contributing cities vvete varied to create the following four scenarios (see Pigur'e • Scenario 1— identical land use with no treatment + Scenario 2 — Different land use with no treatment • Scenario 3 — identical land use with varying levels of treatment • Scenario 4 — Different land use with varying levels of treatment For simplicity. all four scenarios include three contributing cities, with equal Land area contributions. The contributing areas include: • City A-10 acres located in member city A, upstream of the project • City B —10 acres located in member city B, upstream of the project • City C-10 acres located in member city C, in which the project is located Each scenario and the resulting relative cost distributions are summarized in the following sections. Page' of 16 45 221536v7 figure I. Sc hemaic of scenvios used to ewaluote coal dlocolion methods Scenario 3 Scenario 4 �. d,�e �:= rorknexmmr >ur rmpemmaf ;suAponuan rermvaq .; raa um ura 0 irmia zm "reamm ;90%imAaernmre) NDDVDdlte rem M oe<4L+rtial daM lXc O "Qpp u wp b hog dhr' ;zo%ir.:w,t Figure 1. Schematic of scenarios used to evaluate cost allocation methods Page 8 of 16 46 22153fiv7 LM WMO JPA Exhibit C Scenario 1 -Identical Land Use with Na Treatment Sceaazio 1 assumes instifitional laced use (50 percent impervious area) for all areas within each contributing city. All land within each contributing city is assumed to be untreated This scenario is illustrated in Figure 1. The relative cost breakdown behveen cities A, B, and C is illustrated for each of the four cost allocation methods in Figure 2_ Figure 2. Cosf allocaion results for Scenario 1 -Identical land use Costs are equally distributed amongst all cities accordiag to cost allocation Methods 1 through 3 in Scenario 1_ As each city's contributing azea has identical chazacterisiics, each has the same area, impervious area, and load, resulting in equivalent cost distribution for those methods. In Method 4 - Allowable Pollutant Load, upstream cities A and B receive a credit for an allowable pollutant load, reducing their relative cost fiom 33 percent of the total to 25 percent of the total. City C, as the host city, bears the cost for that credit; the cost to city C increases from 33 percent to 49 percent. Page 9 of 16 47 221536v7 LMRWMO IPA Exhibit C Scenario 2 - Dikerent an use with no treatment Scenario 2 assnmes a unique land use type for each contributing city. City A is classified as fow density residential land use (20 percent impervious). City B is classified as commercial land use (80 percent impervious). City C, the host city, is designated as institutional land use (50 percent impervious), as in Scenario L No treatment is assumed for any of the contributing area. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 1. The relative cost breakdown between cities A, B. and C is illustrated for each of the four cost allocation methods in Figure 3. (A96 Figure 3. ■ aty A(LPstmam city( 53% ■City a (Upstream pty) 51% sosc ■ray c (xo:t city( 46% a% 40% 33% 33% 33% 30% 20% is% 13% la% 0% Method I -Total Area Method 2-€ffecive Method3-Gelatin Method 4-Allowable ImpeNlous Afea Load Load Cost allocation results for Scenario 2 -Different land use In Scenario 2, the different land uses result in significantly different cost allocations for Method 2 - Effective Impervious Area as compared to bfethod 1 -Total area. Method 3 -Relative Follutant Load retums a cost allocation approximately equal to Method 2, as there is no treatment in any of the contributing areas. The small difference between Methods 2 and 3 is due to the nlnoff coefficient used in the simple method formula to calculate pollutant load. In Scenario 2, the load from city B is much greater than its allowable pollutant load, resulting in a smaller cost difference between Method 3 and Method 4 - Allowable Pollutant Load. Thus, the additional allowable pollutant load home by the host city (city C) is smaller than in Scenario 1. Page 10 of lti 48 221536v7 LIvIRVV,M0 JPA Exhibit C Scenario 3 - Similar an use with varying treatment Scenario 3 assumes the same land use as in Sceaaio 1, brit adds various levels of existing water quality treatment. City A has no treatment. In city B, half of the tributary- area is treated via a pond; the other half is treated by infiltration Half city C's contributing area is treated by a pond and the remaining half of the area is untreated. Pollutant removal efficiency is assumed to be SO percent for a pond and 100 percent for infiltration. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 1. The cost breakdown between cities A. B, and C is illustrated for each of the four cost allocation methods in Figure 4. figure 4. Cost allocation results for Scenario 3-ldenficai land use wRh heafinenT As with Sceaaios 1 and 2, Method 1-Total Area results is as equal cost allocation among each city. Ia Method 2 -Effective Lttpetvious Area, the cost to city A is increased due to the lack of existing treatment BMPs within its contributing area. City B has the lowest "effective" imperviousness because 100% of the contributing area receives some kind of treatment. The cost to city C is hi.g)ier than city B because only half of the area in cityC receives treatment. In Scenario 3, Method 3 -Relative Pollutant Load results in a reduced cost for city B relative to Method 2 because the average treatment efficiency for the two BMPs is greater than the overall efficiency assumed in method 2 (50% pollutant removal). The relative cost to city C between Method 2 and Method 3 is similar, as the assumed treatment efficiency in Method 2 is the same as the treatment efficiency of the single pond in Method 3. The relative cost to city A is similar between Methods 2 and 3 because there is no treatment in city A. Using Method 4- Allowable Pollutant Load, the cost assigned to city A decreases because city A gets a credit for the load expected under natural watershed conditions ("allowable' load). City B receives the same credit; the cost assigned to city B is minimal because the treatment present in city B reduces the total load to a value close to the allowable pollutant load. The cost to city C increases relative to the other methods, as city C must bear the cost of the allowable pollutant load credited to city A and city B. Page 11 of 16 49 221535v7 LbIIZNMO JPA maimutt C Scenario 4 —Different land use with varying ea men Scenario 4 is the most complex scenario and a scenario likely to occur in the LIv1RWM0. This scenario combines the differing land use types in Scenario 2 with the varying levels of existing water quality treatment of Scenario 3. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 1. The cost breakdown between cities A, B, aad C is illustrated for each of the four cost allocation methods in Figure 5. ea% Figure A (upstream CiM 71% 70% dtcity MOW81upstreamcityi ■ City C (ttnst clty) 50% 41% 40% 23% 33% 3a% 30% M 21f6 41% 20% 11fi 10% 0% Method l-Total Area Method 2-Effective Method3-Relative Method 4-Allowable Impervious Area Load Load 5. Cost allocation results for Scenario 4 — Different land use with treatment Met3tod 1—Total Area results in the same cost breakdown as dte other scenarios. Ia Method 2 — Effective Imperious Area, the lower imperviousness of city A reduces its cost share relative to Method 1_ For city B and city C. the costs are approximately the same, as the more intense land Ilse in city B is offset my more treatment. Like Scenario 3, the cost to city B is reduced in Method 3 —Relative Pollutant Load relative to Method 2 because the treatment efficiencies for the two BMPs in city B are greater than the assumed treatment efficiency in Method 2. As in Scenario 3, the reduction in relative cost to city B when moving from Method 2 to Method 3 results in increased relative costs to city A and city C. Method 4 — Allowable Pollutant Load, provides credit to city A and city B for their allowable pollutant loads. resulting in decreased relative costs to those cities and increased relative cost to city C as compared to the other methods. Page 12 of 16 50 221536v7 LNI R%rMO JPA Exhibit C Summary and Recommendations Several potential cost allocation methods are presented in this memorandum. The four scenarios described in this memo provide an opportunity to compare and contrast potential water quality project cost allocation methods. Table 2 includes a summary of the cost breakdown between the three hypothetical cities for all cost allocation methods and scenarios. The cost to each city as a fraction of the total project cost is also presented in Figure 6 for all methods and ail scenarios. The inputs used in these .scenarios are suntmarized in Table 3. Table 2.. Summary of cost al9ocaflan results for all methods and scenarios Method Cost to City A / B f C as Percent of Tatal Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Method 1-Total Area 33133/33 33/33/33 33/33/33 33/33/33 Method 2-Impervious Area 33133/33 13/53/33 44/22/33 21/41/38 Method 3 - Relative Pollutant Load 33/33/33 15 / 51 / 33 50 / 13 f 38 29 / 24 / 47 Method 4- Allowable Pollutant Load 25/25/49 9/45/46 4013/57 17/12/72 Method 2 -Total Area, 4fethod 3 -Relative Pollutant Laad, and Method 4 - AllotvaUle Pollutant Load all possess a wide range of applicability, as these methods account for differing land use and existing treatment in tributary watershed areas. Method 4 - Allowable Pollutant Load is unique among the cost allocation methods in that it applies all "allowable load" credit to the upstream cities,. resulting iu increased relative cost to city C'. This trend is apparent in each hypothetical scenario. This is most pronounced in Scenario 4, when city A and city B are contributing loading close to them allowable pollutant loads. This effect is masked somewhat in Scenario 2, when upstream city B is contributing load well in excess of its allowable pollutant load. Methods 2 and 3 provide similar results when treatment is not present (Scenarios 1 and 2), but deviate when treatment is present (Scenarios 3 and 4). Method 4 - Allowable Pollutant Load differs from all other methods in that that it gives upstream cities credit far the load expected under natural conditions. ShauPd the LhfRl%'IsiO uisfi to maintain this credit, Method 4 is recommended in all situations. If credit for allowable pollutant load is not deemed necessary, Methods 2 and 3 are recommended. when treatment is not present, Method 2 - Impervious Area is recommended. 'XX en treatment is present, Method 3 - Relative Pollutant Load is recommended. Selecting a Cost Allocation Method The applicability of each cost allocation method described herein varies according to the specifics ofthe proposed project. In genersl, use of the simplest method deemed appropriate and acceptable to the LMR`QVMO Board shall be used. Because of the additional effort associated with the Cost for Equivalent Treatment option, use of that allocation approach should be limited to instances when the affected member cities cannot agree to another cost allocation method. Page 13 of 16 51 221536v7 LZvIRWMO JPA Ja l wt C The following should noratally be used for method selection, but is not atandatory. • I#the tributary drainage areas from each member city are similar, consider Method 1(Total Area Method). • If the project cost is relatively low, consider Method 1 (Total Area Method) or Method 2 (Effective Impervious Area Method). • If treatment BMPs are present in upstream tributary areas, consider Method 2 (Effective Impervious Area Method), Method 3 (Relative Pollutant Load) or Method 4 (Allowable Pollutant Load). • If a quantitative calculation of pollutant load is required, consider Method 3 (Relative Pollutant Load) or Method 4 (Allowable Pollutant Load)_ • When a reduction in an upstream city's financial obligation for stormwater discharged to a downstream community is appropriate due to implementation of BMPs in the upstream tributary area, consider Method 4 (Allowable Pollutant Load). • If affected member cities are dissatisfied with all other methods, consider using the Cost for Equivalent Treatment allocation method. When the information and resources allow, calculation and comparison of all four methods are recommended as part of determin the most appropriate cost allocation. The LMRWMO Board may determine that the most appropriate cost allocation is based directly on one of the four methods identified herein, or it may be an average or combination of several different methods. Understanding the range of possible cost allocation scenarios will result in greater confidence is the ultimate cost allocation selected. Page 14 of 16 52 221536v7 D°M Mdret.g, mil Page: 15 not �1'!l�11�111�l11 I111■111■111■111 1111�111�1i1�111 liil■1l1�111■111 Illlilll�lll■111� I111�1 1■11l�111! S' seenmios I City C (hosq I City B (upstream) I City A (upstream) Scenario 1 -identical land use rrotreatment Scena - rio 2 rent land use treat e t Sc¢narl° 3 -identical land use - Wrying treatment 5[enario4 -different land use vary ingtreatment 53 211s3§.� S' seenmios I City C (hosq I City B (upstream) I City A (upstream) Scenario 1 -identical land use rrotreatment Scena - rio 2 rent land use treat e t Sc¢narl° 3 -identical land use - Wrying treatment 5[enario4 -different land use vary ingtreatment 53 211s3§.� Li3RR�10 7PA Exhrbit C Table 3. Summary of conhibvling area inputs for Scenarios 1 through 4 watershed Characteristic Scenario 1 Srenano 2 scenario 3 SCenaflo4 City A City B Chy C City A City B City C City A City 8 City C City A City 8 City C Total Area (acres) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Land Use Ins[ Inst Inst Res Core Inst Inst Inst Inst Res Com Inst Impervious Fraction 0.5 0.5 0,5 0.2 0,8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,2 0.8 0,5 Is there treatment? No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Untreated Area (acres) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 5 10 0 5 Area treated by BMP I(single pond) — — -- — -- — — 5 5 -- 5 BM P 1 Removal ERiciency — — — — — — 0.5 0.5 -- 0.5 0.5 Area treated by BMP 2I nfiltration) — — -- — -- — — 5 — — 5 — BMP 2 Removal Efficiency -- — -- — -- — — 1.0 — -- 1.0 — Page. 16 of 16 54 221536v]