2021.04.20 Work Session Packet (2nd)
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: April 16, 2021
City Council
Second Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Immediately following City Council meeting
Council Chambers/Zoom
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City
Charter, the second work session of the Crystal City Council was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2021
at ______ p.m. electronically via Zoom and in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141 Douglas
Drive, Crystal, Minnesota.
I. Attendance
Council members Staff
____ Adams ____ Norris
____ Banks ____ Therres
____ Budziszewski ____ Gilchrist
____ Cummings ____ Ray
____ Kiser ____ Revering
____ LaRoche ____ Sutter
____ Parsons ____ Serres
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items:
1. Storm sewer pipe lining project check-in.
2. 34th and Douglas potential opportunity.
3. Blue Line Extension update. *
4. City manager monthly check-in.
5. New business. *
6. Announcements. *
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
* Denotes no supporting information included in the packet.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763)
531-1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
Memorandum
DATE: April 20, 2021
TO: City Council
FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 2021 Storm pipe lining update
Background
At the December 15, 2020 Council meeting, the Council authorized the professional services for the storm
pipe rehabilitation project for the outlet of the pipe that runs along Bass Lake Road and connects with Upper
Twin Lake. This project is in response to a resident’s concern about the condition of the storm water pipe
outlet into Twin Lake, City staff inspected the outlet and identified some potential concerns that need to be
addressed.
Project budget
$250,000 is in the 2021 storm water utility long term plan for this project. The professional services contract
is for $57,834, leaving just over $192,000 for construction.
Pipe condition assessment
As part of the professional services, a pipe condition assessment was done by crews entering the pipe and
walking the last segment to inspect everything. Through this process issues with the pipe were identified
from the manhole at the intersection with Orchard Ave all the way to the outlet into Upper Twin Lake (where
the original issue was identified).
Project options
Option 1 would be to use the existing funding available ($190,000) and repair from the outlet to a point
roughly 160 feet upstream. This would address the outlet concerns and some of the issues along the pipe. It
would not address all of the areas of concern and potential sinkholes developing in the last section of pipe.
Option 2 would be to rehabilitate the entire last section of pipe (from the Orchard Ave manhole east 380 feet
to the Upper Twin Lake outlet). This would add an additional estimated $125,000 to the project cost.
However, once the project is done, then this entire segment would be done.
Additional funding
In 2021 the storm water long term plan has $200,000 in 2022 in starting to save for the flood control
replacement projects (anticipated to start around 2031). A portion of this could be used to fund the repairs
from the outlet to the first manhole upstream.
Council Action Requested
Council direction is requested on how to proceed with this project (Option 1 or 2). If Option 2 is selected,
then confirmation on the funding source is requested.
Memorandum
DATE: April 20, 2021
TO: City Council
FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 34th Ave and Douglas Drive N hypothetical concept
Background
In early April, Community Development Director John Sutter
mentioned that a property owner on the north side of 34th
Ave and east of Douglas Dr will soon begin marketing their
property as a medium-density residential development site.
This spurred an interesting conversation among City staff
about hypothetical development potential in this area. Staff
would like to get Council’s thoughts on this hypothetical
concept.
34th Ave between Douglas Dr and N. Branch of Bassett Creek
The street segment of 34th Ave between Douglas Drive and Bassett Creek is unique in the City in that the only City
underground utilities through this section of road are a water main and a short, dead end section of sanitary sewer
(see Figure). Basically, there is not a lot going on from the City infrastructure perspective. All of the driveway access
points to 34th are east of the creek.
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Item Number 5 on the attached “Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Flood Control Project (FCP)
Policies” document talks about how the Cities are responsible for the conveyance structure (pipe) underneath road
crossings. In the same document, Table 3 provided the estimated cost and timeline for replacement of all the Flood
Control Structures in the entire watershed (including Crystal). The estimated year of replacement for the 34th
structure is 2031 with an estimated cost of nearly $400,000. The total estimated City cost for replacement of all the
flood control structures is over $2,500,000.
Hypothetical concept
The hypothetical concept is that if the City removed the road portion of 34th Ave over the creek west to Douglas Drive,
then the cost of replacement ($400,000) of the 34th Ave flood structure would be shifted from the City to the
watershed. Couple this with the potential for theoretical redevelopment in the immediate area (potentially using
some of the 34th Ave right of way), and there is the potential for some unique opportunities in this area.
Potential factors needing further consideration
Many potential factors would need to be vetted. The quick list that came to mind includes: Vehicle access to the
neighborhood to the east; existing intersection visibility at 34th and Douglas; existing City-owned EDA lots in the area
of 34th and Douglas; pedestrian movements in the area; maintaining access to water main for future maintenance; and
changes in neighborhood traffic patterns.
BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (FCP) POLICIES
Approved by Commission at their May 19 and July 21, 2016 Meetings
(Based on recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee developed over several meetings: September and
November 2015; and January, February, and March 2016)
1. Inspections by the Commission
The Commission will continue an inspection and maintenance program for the FCP features.
The Bassett Creek Flood Control Project Operation and Maintenance Manual should be followed
but with increased frequency of some inspections:
• Annual inspection of all non-tunnel FCP features
• Inspection at least every 5 years of the double box culvert
• Inspection every 5 years of 3rd Avenue Deep Tunnel (in conjunction with City of Minneapolis I-
94 tunnel inspection)
• Inspection every 10 years of the 2nd Street Deep Tunnel
The Commission will continue to fully fund the FCP inspections (including the recommended more-
frequent tunnel inspections), unless the City of Minneapolis requests even more-frequent
inspections or more complicated (more expensive) inspections beyond the currently used National
Association of Sewer Service Companies’ (NASSCO) assessment and certification program.
The Commission will continue funding the FCP inspection costs through the Long Term
Maintenance Fund.
Table 1 shows the estimated 20-year costs following the new inspection frequencies. (Over 20
years, the total added cost of new tunnel inspections would be $55,000, or $2,750/year.)
2. Inspection Reports
The Commission Engineer will continue to submit annual inspection reports to cities regarding the
condition and maintenance/repair needs of the FCP features in their cities. Cities will formally
notify the Commission Engineer regarding their completed maintenance and repair actions on any
of the FCP project features. The Commission Engineer will include this information in the following
year’s inspection reports to the Commission and the letters sent to the cities (with copies sent to
the US Army Corps of Engineers). The letters sent to the cities must note that the cities are
required to report on their maintenance and repair actions. The inspection and reporting are
essential to ensure the Commission maintains its eligibility to receive federal funds to repair or
replace flood control project features in the event of a catastrophe.
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Crystal ● Golden Valley ● Medicine Lake ● Minneapolis ● Minnetonka ● New Hope ● Plymouth ● Robbinsdale ● St. Louis Park
www.bassettcreekwmo.org
The Commission will rely on the FCP inspection and maintenance program to identify when major
repairs, rehabilitation or replacement of features will be needed.
3. Maintenance Funding
The Commission will add the identified FCP major repairs, rehabilitation and replacement projects
to the BCWMC CIP and will fund the projects using the BCWMC’s ad valorem levy (via Hennepin
County). The Commission will need to amend the BCWMC plan to add these projects to the CIP and
to change (or add to) the funding mechanisms for project implementation.
The Commission will maintain the existing Flood Control Emergency Repair Fund and the Long-
Term Maintenance Fund as two separate funds.
4. Emergency Management
Member cities shall perform the initial response to an emergency with the FCP structures, as the
Commission is not set up to perform these emergency management and response services. The
Commission shall assist the cities in obtaining reimbursement for the emergency response, either
through Commission funds or grants (e.g., FEMA funding).
5. Flood Control Projects at Road Crossings
Member cities (or other road authority) where the FCP structures are located are responsible for
maintenance, repair and replacement of road crossings, and their corresponding conveyance
structures, that were installed as part of the FCP.
[This clarifies BCWMC policy (#23) in the 2015 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, which states
that these crossings will be “maintained” by the city where the structure is located. However,
policy #23 does not address significant rehabilitation or replacement. This clarification also aligns
with the intent of the original FCP—that the cities would be responsible for significant
rehabilitation or replacement of road crossings that were installed as part of the FCP because they
are primarily transportation-related.]
6. Routine vs. Major Maintenance and Repair
• The Commission requires that cities are responsible for routine maintenance and repair of the
FCP features (per Policy #24 in the 2015 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan). Table 2 shows
the routine maintenance and repairs.
• The Commission will reimburse cities (if requested) for maintenance and repairs that are over
$25,000, using funds from the Long-Term Maintenance Fund. Before receiving funding from the
Long-Term Maintenance Fund, the cities must perform regular, routine maintenance (reporting
of completed maintenance and repair actions are required as part of #2 above). This will help
prevent the situation wherein the Commission pays for maintenance work over $25,000
because the cities neglected routine maintenance for several years. Cities are expected to
inform the Commission in advance (e.g., two years) of their request for reimbursement.
• The Commission will consider adding maintenance and repair projects that are more than
$100,000 to the BCWMC CIP. Table 2 provides examples of maintenance and repairs that are
major or could be major.
[These policies regarding routine versus major maintenance/repair of the FCP features are
intended to clarify policy #24 of the 2015 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, which states that
routine maintenance and repair is the responsibility of the city where the FCP feature is located,
and Plan policy #20, which states that funding of major repair and maintenance is a BCWMC
responsibility.]
Additional information (from July 13, 2016 memo): Attached Table 3 provides estimated costs for
annual operation and maintenance, five-year operation and maintenance, significant rehabilitation
of structures, and replacement of structures. As Table 3 shows, the five year operation and
maintenance costs (in blue) over $25,000 could be $1,232,000; the significant rehabilitation of
structures costs (in blue) could be from $2,026,000 (without tunnel) to $14,800,000 (including the
tunnel); and the replacement of structures costs (in blue) could be from $8,100,00 (without tunnel)
to $142,740,000 (including the tunnel).
Table 1. Current and Recommended Flood Control Project Inspection Program
Item
Current/
Recommended
Inspection Cycle
Cost/Inspection1 20-Year Cost1
Current/Recommended
Annual inspection of the
FCP features, except
double box culvert and the
deep tunnel
Annually $10,000 $200,000/$200,000
Double box culvert
inspection (NASSCO)3 Every 5 years $32,000 $128,000/$128,000
Deep tunnel (2nd St. & 3rd
Ave.) inspection
(NAASCO)3
Every 20 years/
Every 10 years $45,000 $45,000/$90,000
Two additional 3rd Ave
deep tunnel inspections
(NASSCO)3,4
Not Applicable/
Every 5 years $5,000 $0/$10,0004
Total2 $373,000/$428,000
1 2016 dollars
2 Simple summation (annualized or present worth not calculated)
3 Tunnel condition inspection based on pipeline assessment and certification program developed
by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO)
4 3rd Avenue tunnel inspections assume two additional inspections that are combined with I-94
tunnel inspection (by Minneapolis); the I-94 tunnel inspection provides access to the 3rd Avenue
tunnel, therefore does not require separate mobilization.
Table 2 Routine vs. Major Maintenance and Repair Items
Item # Routine vs. Major Maintenance and Repairs –as Recommended by TAC1
Routine
1 Vegetation: removal of trees, removal of brush, chemical treatment of stumps,
control of noxious weeds, establish vegetation on bare areas.
2 Removal of debris: woody debris, riprap, trash from channel, inlets, culverts
3 Repair erosion; channels, inlet and outlet structures, culvert ends
4 Repair/replace riprap: on inlet and outlet ends of culverts, channels, banks
6 Remove sediment from channels, structures, culverts, etc.
10
Repair/maintain guard rails, hand rails and fencing: remove rust, prime and
paint, repair damaged rails and posts, replace rusted-out sections, repair
cables, replace posts, repair chain link fence
12 Repair concrete pipe: repair joints, tie-bolts, spalling, connection to culverts,
breakage
13 Repair/replace catch basins, manholes, casting assemblies, grates
14 Repair/maintain debris barrier: removal of debris, repair cables, replace poles
15 Repair/maintain tunnel inlet trash rack: repair/replace trash rack rods, loose or
broken, vandalized, bent
16 Street repairs: pavement, curb and gutter, cracks, depressions, settlement
Major
5 Repair/replace gabion baskets
7 Remove sediment/dredge ponds, basins, etc.
17 Tunnel repairs: concrete and other repairs to the new Bassett Creek tunnel
Could be major depending on extent
8 Repair scouring/undercutting at structures and culvert outlets
9 Repair concrete structures: cracking, spalling, breakage
11 Culverts/Bebo sections: joints, settlement, separation, concrete spalling, wing
walls –movement and breakage
1 Based on needed repairs identified during 2015 FCP inspection
Table 3 (Table 1 in September 2, 2015 memo to TAC)Summary of Annual/Periodic Operation and Maintenance Requirements & CostsBassett Creek Flood Control Project, MNBCWMC Responsibility(10)City Responsibility(10)City Responsibility per TAC Recommendation 7MinneapolisA Tunnel1 Phase 1 - Second Street Tunnel (Mn/DOT) $439,100 $5,030,4002029$61,944,7842 Phase 2 - 3rd Avenue Tunnel (BCWMC) $150,900 $1,728,4002040$12,378,8343 Phase 3 - Double Box Conduit and Inlet Structure$13,900 $524,600 $6,010,5002042$60,309,774$13,900 $1,114,600 $12,769,300 $134,633,400Golden ValleyB Golden Valley Country Club Embankment$1,500$1,800 $1,800$14,600N.A 2031 N.A.Golden Valley Country Club Control Structure$1,500$1,800 $1,800$14,600 $491,5212044$1,966,083C Hwy 55 Control Structure$1,500$1,800$14,600 $115,2952044$461,180D Wisconsin Avenue Control Structure$1,500$1,800$14,600 $108,5472037$434,189E Road Crossings1 Regent Avenue$700(8) (8)$123,9642031$495,8542 Noble Avenue$700(8) (8)$123,9642031$495,8543 Westbrook Road$700(8) (8)$217,9822043$871,929$8,100 $7,200 $3,600 $58,400 $1,181,270 $4,725,089CrystalF Edgewood Embankment and Control Structures$1,500$1,800 $4,400$14,600 $95,0392031$380,155G Markwood Channel & Culverts$1,500(8) (8)$61,9822031$247,927H Hwy 100 Control Structure & BC Park Pond$1,500$1,800 $1,800$117,100 $975,1802031$3,900,720I Road Crossings1 32nd Avenue $700(8) (8)$95,0392031$380,1552 Brunswick Avenue$700(8) (8)$95,0392031$380,1553 34th Avenue$700(8) (8)$95,0392031$380,1554 Georgia Avenue$700(8) (8)$78,5102031$314,0415 36th/Hampshire Avenue$700(8) (8)$157,0212031$628,0826 Douglas Drive$700(8) (8)$108,5472037$434,189$8,800 $3,500 $6,100 $131,700 $1,761,393 $7,045,580PlymouthJ Medicine Lake Outlet Structure$1,500$1,800 $1,800$115,8792046$463,515K Plymouth Creek Fish Barrier$1,500$1,800 $1,800$64,1422037$256,566$1,500 $1,800 $1,800 $180,020 $720,081 Total Bassett Creek Flood Control Project Costs $18,400 $12,500 $11,500 $13,900 $1,304,700 $15,900,000 $147,120,000$14,800,000 $142,740,000$1,100,000 $4,380,000(1) Inspection & report; Inspection at tunnel only includes inlet structure and approach channel (2)BCMWC Responsible for Maintenance. Work assumed to be performed by City and reimbursed by BCWMC.(3)BCMWC Responsible for Maintenance. Work assumed to be performed by City and reimbursed by BCWMC.(4) Five year inspection required for above-water portion of Bassett Creek Tunnel(5) General Maintenance includes: sediment removal, erosion repair, riprap replacement, sod & vegetation and other misc. maintenance items.Does not include gate at Wisconsin Ave. (Note: Bassett Creek Park Pond is assumed to be dredged every 10 years at cost of $230,000 assuming a type 1 material and $500,000 for a type 2 material that requires disposal in a landfill)Lowering the middle pool (if approved by Corps, Coast Guard, DNR etc.) could decrease dewatering costs up to $45,000.(6) Includes all items in 1-year and 5-year O &M repairs plus void fill in Minneapolis tunnels, partial structure demo and replacement, Wisconsin Avenue gate upgrades for construction costs in 2014. (assume one repair project per project feature in addition to 5-yr maintenance)(7) Assumes a 50 year life of project(8) Assumes City shall be responsible for maintenance of all road crossings and the Markwood channel modificatons and storm sewer components.(9) Cost includes total replacement of structure at the end of design life assuming 3% inflation and construction technology, means, and methods remain as they are today (2014).(10)5.1.1.3 Management of the BCWMC Trunk System and Flood Control Project...The BCWMC will finance major maintenance and repair of water level control and conveyance structures that were part of the original BCWMC Flood Control Project on the same basis as the original project. Newroad crossings of the creek that were installed as part of the project will be maintained by the city wherethe structure is located. Member cities are responsible for routine maintenance and repair of BCWMFlood Control Project structures located within each city; this includes the removal of debris, brush, and trees. The BCWMC will work with member cities to determine responsibilities for major rehabilitation anreplacement of the BCWMC Flood Control Project features and establish the associated funding mechanisms (see policy 22, Section 4.2.2)…End of Design LifeAnnual Inspection & Report (1)Debris Removal (2)Brushing & Tree Removal (3)Five-Year Inspection & Report (4)General Maintenance & Repairs (5)Estimated Year of Replacement (7)Replacement of Structure (9)Plymouth Subtotal:September 1, 2015 Annual Operation & Maintenance Five Year Operation & MaintenanceSignificant Rehabilitation of Structure (6)Minneapolis Subtotal:Golden Valley Subtotal:Crystal Subtotal:
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
CITY MANAGER WORK PLAN
MONTHLY CHECK IN – APRIL 2021
Objective 1 – Policy Facilitation – strategic planning for continued
implementation of Council priorities:
o Thriving Business Climate
▪ Open To Business assistance available
▪ Information on various business assistance programs provided
to CBA and other Crystal businesses
▪ Crystal now participating in MCES SAC deferral program
o Create Strong Neighborhoods
▪ Code enforcement – on-going
▪ Implementation of Master Parks System Plan improvements –
new play areas approved for Yunkers and Valley Place;
spring/summer programming in works for Becker Park, Becker
Park celebration May 22
▪ Home improvement loans/rebates available through CEE- on-
going
o Fiscally sound and stable policies and practices
▪ Long term financial planning on-going
o Build inclusive community so all feel welcome
▪ Just Deeds initiative launched for removing discriminatory
covenants from property titles
Objective 2 - Continue to invest in long term plan/saving for capital projects
o Monitoring fiscal impact of pandemic on budget
o Police station project in process
o Preliminary 2022 budget conversation with Council 4/8/21
Objective 3 - Coordinate community conversations regarding equity and
inclusion
o individual IDI conversations held as follow up to 3/11 work session,
summary presentation 5/4 and first community conversation tentatively
5/8
Objective 4 - Evaluate operational expectations in light of lessons learned from
pandemic adjustments
o Staff utilizing remote work and virtual meetings; finding creative ways
to continue to provide services
o Elected officials and public adjusting to virtual meetings and various
options for public comment and participation