Loading...
IP #913August 24, 2015 City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive Crystal, MN 55422 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: Amendment Number 1 to Cooperative Project Agreement For Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study Between the Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope, Minnesota. Enclosed please find an original executed Amendment Number 1 to Cooperative Project Agreement for Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation study Between the Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for your records. We look forward to a successful project with you. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-593-8008. Sincerely, Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Enclosures C: Eric Eckman Public Works Specialist AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY AND NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA JULY 2015 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY WHEREAS, the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley and New Hope entered into a Cooperative Project Agreement for Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study in February 2014 ("Cooperative Agreement"), and WHEREAS, the three cities have determined that additional work is required beyond the original study scope to fully complete the subject study as outlined in Change Order #1 for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan from Barr Engineering Company dated June 3, 2015, a copy which is attached to this amendment as Exhibit 1. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope hereby agree as follows: 1. All terms of the Cooperative Agreement are ratified except as modified herein. 2. The not to exceed cost to perform the additional work is $15,500 which will be prorated to the cities consistent with the Cooperative Agreement, calculated as follows: 3. The person to whom notices are to be given is changed in Paragraph No. 9 of the Cooperative Agreement for Golden Valley to be: Director of Physical Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. Crystal 23% $3565.00 Golden Valley 49.5% $7672.50 New Hoe 27.5% $4262.50 Totals 100% $15,500.00 3. The person to whom notices are to be given is changed in Paragraph No. 9 of the Cooperative Agreement for Golden Valley to be: Director of Physical Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF CRYSTAL By: f li ger l STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this \ day of; >, !;;1- , 2015 by Anne Norris, City Manager of the City of Crystal, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. CHRISTINA MARIE SRRES t� Notary Public - Minnesota Nota Public Commission Expires ]an. 31, 2016 ry CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: TW6ralgb. Burt, it Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this N day of � G ; 2015 by Thomas D. Burt, City Manager of the City of Golden Valley a unicipal corporation, on behalf of the City. -(Qld,(6k 6�i I A& 4 - Notary Public JUDITH A. NALLY NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA ` My Commission Expires e January 31, 2020 Y i CITY OF NEW HOPE By: By: It's City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project A/ ?reement was acknowledged before me this day of G , 2015 by f�&t,61 l v` ikeri , and a A,L, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public City of New Hope Resolution 2015-12�i Resolution approving amendment number one to cooperative project agreement for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study among the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope (project no. 913) WHEREAS, homes located in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley, and the area around the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road in New Hope experience flooding during heavy rain events; and, WHEREAS, the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal contribute storm water runoff to the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds; and, WHEREAS, the city of Golden Valley solicited bids from an engineering firm to initiate a flood mitigation study for Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and the DeCola Ponds areas and the total cost of the study was $110,400; and, WHEREAS, New Hope's share of the cost of the study was $30,360 and was funded from the storm water fund; and WHEREAS, The 2014 cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council on February 24,2014; and WHEREAS, The 25% contingency was removed from the original study cost at the requ3est of the city of Crystal and language was added stating any additional costs would need to be approved by all three cities before the costs could be incurred; and WHEREAS, The cities have requested additional work be completed regarding cost share methods and financial implementation strategies and the cost for the additional scope of work is $15,500, and new Hope's share of the cost is $4,262.50; and WHEREAS, The additional scope of services is outlined in amendment number one to the agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That amendment number one to the 2014 cooperative agreement between the city of New Hope, the city of Golden Valley, and the city of Crystal for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study is approved. 3. That New Hope's additional share in the amount of $4,262.50 will be funded from the storm water fund. 4. The mayor and city manager (the "Officers") are authorized and directed to sign the same on behalf of the city. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minn sota, this 27th day of July, 2015. 4Attest: Mayor City Clerk resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants June 3, 2015 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Change Order #1 for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to continue to provide professional engineering services to the City. This letter presents the additional scope of work and budget in relation to the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area long term flood mitigation plan. This additional work was requested by the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal at the April 30, 2015 meeting, which included discussion of the potential cost -share methodologies and financial implementation strategies. Additional Scope of Work Task 1: Model & Summarize Alternative 2.5 As part of the original scope of work, we evaluated the following flood mitigation alternatives: • Alternative 1: do nothing (existing conditions) Alternative 2: acquisition and floodproofing of properties at -risk of flooding • Alternative 3: flood mitigation projects that maximize flood storage within the watershed followed acquisition or flood proofing of remaining properties at -risk of flooding, with the goal of achieving 18 inches of standing water at the low point on Medicine Lake Road. At the January 23, 2015 meeting, we presented the results of the flood mitigation and cost -benefit analyses. Staff from the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal agreed that the most likely scenario would be some combination of Alternatives 2 and 3 (referred to as Alternative 2.5). In Task 1, we will model the implementation of Alternative 2.5 using the XP-SWMM model. The proposed modeling would include modeling the various flood mitigation projects in up to four steps to estimate the cumulative impacts of implementing phases of the project. After each model run, we will summarize the number of remaining properties at -risk of flooding and the recommended mixture of acquisition and floodproofing. The modeling of the components of Alternative 2.5 will be performed in the order below: Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley June 3, 2015 Paae 2 1) Proposed storage as part of the Liberty Crossing development, including conveyance along Rhode Island, based on most current conceptual design, the expansion of storage in Pennsylvania Woods and DeCola Ponds B & C, and raising the natural overflow from DeCola Pond C to D 2) Development of flood storage at Rosalyn Court and additional storage in Yunker Park 3) Diversion of flows away from DeCola Pond F, including development of storage in the area around Isaacson Park', and development of storage around the SEA school. 4) Additional storage as needed to best achieve the goal of 18 inches (or less) of standing water at the low point on Medicine Lake Road We will develop the total project cost for each phase of implementation (including the flood storage costs and the property acquisition and floodproofing costs). We assume that we will not update the market values we used to develop the original acquisition costs. However, since the acquisitions would be voluntary, we will remove the relocation costs from the values originally developed for acquisitions (which reflected acquisition, relocation, and demolition). We assume that we will not revise the cost -benefit analysis for each of the implementation phases. Additionally, we assume we will model only the Atlas 14, 100 -year design storm event for the phases of Alternative 2.5, and we will not model the 10, 50, or 500 year design storm events. If the City would like us to evaluate and summarize other design storm events, there will be additional cost for those efforts. ' —We will work with the City of Golden Valley to determine the most feasible storage option in this area (e.g. purchase of industrial site and develop surface storage, subsurface or surface storage around the ballfields at Isaacson Park, storage along the railroad in Isaacson Park, etc.). We will also work with the City to determine if there is an opportunity to combine these efforts with a 2019 BCWMC water quality and flood control CIP project slated for this area. We assume this will require one (1) meeting with City of Golden Valley staff. Task 2: Further Develop the Cost -Share Scenarios In Task 2 we will further develop the cost -share scenarios as discussed at the April 30, 2015 meeting, with the focus on cost -share methods related to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity (based on the watershed contributing to DeCola Pond F) and "beneficiaries pay more." We assume we will use the net tax capacity information included in the Hennepin County parcel data we obtained in April 2014 at the start of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area long term flood mitigation project. The cost - share scenarios will be applied to the overall project cost for Alternative 2.5, and to example projects in each city (assumes three individual projects, one for each city). We will present the cost -share alternatives in up to three ways, as outlined below: 1) 100% of costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept (i.e. 0% of project costs using beneficiaries pay more approach) 2) A large percentage (e.g. 80%) of the costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept and the remaining percentage (e.g. 20%) of costs will be applied using the beneficiaries pay more approach. In this scenario, the beneficiaries would be those property owners in the entire DeCola Ponds watershed (area upstream of DeCola Pond F). The cities would need to create an overlay or taxing district for this area. 3) A large percentage (e.g. 80%) of the costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept and the remaining percentage (e.g. 20%) of costs will be applied using the beneficiaries pay more approach. In this scenario, the fraction of the project that would be paid by the beneficiaries would be equally split between the entire watershed and the direct beneficiaries (i.e., those property owners in the identified flood inundation areas). C\Users\ioliver\Cesktop\Med LakeWinnetka LongTerm FloodMitigatlonPlan Letter Contract June 2015 dou Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden valley June 3, 2015 Paae 3 The exact percentages used in cost -share scenarios 2 and 3 above would depend on how many years the cities would allow property owners to pay off their debt, and what are reasonable costs for a homeowner to pay. Our analysis will show broad -brush results for the analysis (i.e., The X properties in the watershed would have an average increase in utilities or taxes of $Y per year for Z years.). However, the cities will need to figure out if a stormwater utility or property taxes would be used to charge the beneficiaries. Task 3: Prepare Memo Summarizing Results In Task 3, we will develop a memo summarizing the results of the analysis performed in Tasks 1 and 2 outlined above. The information in this memorandum will will be incorporated into the final project report. Task 4: Additional Meeting with cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal Task 4 assumes preparation for and attendance at one (1) meeting with the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal to present and discuss the results of the work completed in this additional scope of work. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with Tasks 1— 4 described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, which assumes we receive authorization to proceed from the City by June 15, 2015. Task Description of Task Amount Estimated Completion Additional Scope of Work Tasks 1-4: Model & Summarize Alternative 2.5, Further $ 15,500 i July 2015: Develop the Cost -Share Scenarios, Prepare complete Memo Summarizing Results, and Additional analysis meeting with Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, • August 2015: and Crystal meeting with the three cities If you agree with the proposed scope and budget change, please sign both copies of this letter and return one to us. Please call Karen Chandler (952)832-2813 or me (952)832-2781 with questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Barr Engineering Co. By Leonard J. Kremer Its Vice President C\Users\joliver\Desktop\Med LakeWinnetka,ongTermFloodMitigatlonPlan_letter Contract June 2015.dorx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley June 3, 2015 Paae 4 Accepted this 9day of4kC1/ City of Golden Valley By 9 Thomas D. Burt Its City Manager C\Users\jolrver\Desktop\Med LakewinnetkalongTermFlood Mitigation Plan_Lerler Contract lune 2015.docx cleaRequest for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Ordinances & City Manager July 27, 2015 Resolutions Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 1 By: Kirk McDonald 10.3 Resolution approving amendment number one to cooperative project agreement for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and 'Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study among the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope (project no. 913) Requested Action Staff is recommending the Council approve the attached resolution approving amendment number one to the 2014 cooperative agreement for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study among the cities of New Hope, Golden Valley and Crystal. The Council approved the original agreement at the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting. This amendment approves an additional scope of services to better define cost share/financial implementation strategies for a total cost of $15,500; New Hope's share would be $4,262.50 and be funded from the storm water fund. Policy/Past Practice The city has participated in cooperative studies with neighboring cities in the past, and the flooding in the area of Winnetka avenue and Medicine Lake Road during heavy rain events has been a concern to the city over the past years. Background The City Council approved a cooperative agreement for this study at the February 24, 2014, Council Meeting and the total cost was $110,400, with New Hope's share being $30,360, funded from the storm water fund. As the Council will recall, at that time, the 25% contingency was removed from the original study cost at the request of Crystal, and language was added stating any additional costs would need to be approved by all three cities before the costs could be incurred. The three cities have been working with Barr Engineering on the study for the past year and are now discussing possible cost share methods and financial implementation strategies, and have requested additional work be completed in this area. Barr Engineering has presented the attached amendment to the agreement to perform the additional work. The cost for the additional scope of work is $15,500 and New Hope's share (27.5%) is $4,262.50. As the Council will recall, the cost share formula for the Phase II study mirrors the cost share formula used by the Commission to assess annual BCWMC costs, but determined on the basis of the contributing sub-watershed (50% ,r Motion by zl( _� t Second by To: Vo i tLt I:/RFA/CityManager/2015/Q&R-ApproveCoopAmendIP913 072715 Request for Action, Page 2 July 27, 2015 based on the net tax capacity of all a member city's properties within the boundaries of the contributing sub - watershed and 50% based on the total area of a member city within the boundaries of the contributing sub - watershed). Staff is recommending the additional cost be funded from the storm water fund, similar to the original study. After the study is completed, a presentation will be made to all three city councils at a joint council meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the amendment to the agreement. Attachments Resolution Cooperative agreement amendment Barr Engineering correspondence January 23, 2015 Barr presentation to city staff 2014 agreement City of New Hope Resolution 2015-12�i Resolution approving amendment number one to cooperative project agreement for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study among the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope (project no. 913) WHEREAS, homes located in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley, and the area around the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road in New Hope experience flooding during heavy rain events; and, WHEREAS, the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal contribute storm water runoff to the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds; and, WHEREAS, the city of Golden Valley solicited bids from an engineering firm to initiate a flood mitigation study for Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and the DeCola Ponds areas and the total cost of the study was $110,400; and, WHEREAS, New Hope's share of the cost of the study was $30,360 and was funded from the storm water fund; and WHEREAS, The 2014 cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council on February 24,2014; and WHEREAS, The 25% contingency was removed from the original study cost at the requ3est of the city of Crystal and language was added stating any additional costs would need to be approved by all three cities before the costs could be incurred; and WHEREAS, The cities have requested additional work be completed regarding cost share methods and financial implementation strategies and the cost for the additional scope of work is $15,500, and new Hope's share of the cost is $4,262.50; and WHEREAS, The additional scope of services is outlined in amendment number one to the agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That amendment number one to the 2014 cooperative agreement between the city of New Hope, the city of Golden Valley, and the city of Crystal for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study is approved. 3. That New Hope's additional share in the amount of $4,262.50 will be funded from the storm water fund. 4. The mayor and city manager (the "Officers') are authorized and directed to sign the same on behalf of the city. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 27th day of July, 2015. Attest: Mayor City Clerk AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY AND NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA JULY 2015 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY WHEREAS, the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley and New Hope entered into a Cooperative Project Agreement for Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study in February 2014 ("Cooperative Agreement"), and WHEREAS, the three cities have determined that additional work is required beyond the original study scope to fully complete the subject study as outlined in Change Order #1 for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan from Barr Engineering Company dated June 3, 2015, a copy which is attached to this amendment as Exhibit 1. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope hereby agree as follows: 1. All terms of the Cooperative Agreement are ratified except as modified herein. 2. The not to exceed cost to perform the additional work is $15,500 which will be prorated to the cities consistent with the Cooperative Agreement, calculated as follows: 3. The person to whom notices are to be given is changed in Paragraph No. 9 of the Cooperative Agreement for Golden Valley to be: Director of Physical Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. Crystal 23% $3565.00 Golden Valley 49.5% $7672.50 New Hope 27.5% $4262.50 Totals 100% $15,500.00 3. The person to whom notices are to be given is changed in Paragraph No. 9 of the Cooperative Agreement for Golden Valley to be: Director of Physical Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Thomas D. Burt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015 by Thomas D. Burt, City Manager of the City of Golden Valley a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public CITY OF CRYSTAL It's City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015 by Anne Norris, City Manager of the City of Crystal, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants June 3, 2015 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Change Order #1 for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to continue to provide professional engineering services to the City. This letter presents the additional scope of work and budget in relation to the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area long term flood mitigation plan. This additional work was requested by the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal at the April 30, 2015 meeting, which included discussion of the potential cost -share methodologies and financial implementation strategies. Additional Scope of Work Task 1: Model & Summarize Alternative 2.5 As part of the original scope of work, we evaluated the following flood mitigation alternatives: Alternative 1: do nothing (existing conditions) Alternative 2: acquisition and floodproofing of properties at -risk of flooding Alternative 3: flood mitigation projects that maximize flood storage within the watershed followed acquisition or flood proofing of remaining properties at -risk of flooding, with the goal of achieving 18 inches of standing water at the low point on Medicine Lake Road. At the January 23, 2015 meeting, we presented the results of the flood mitigation and cost -benefit analyses. Staff from the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal agreed that the most likely scenario would be some combination of Alternatives 2 and 3 (referred to as Alternative 2.5). In Task 1, we will model the implementation of Alternative 2.5 using the XP-SWMM model. The proposed modeling would include modeling the various flood mitigation projects in up to four steps to estimate the cumulative impacts of implementing phases of the project. After each model run, we will summarize the number of remaining properties at -risk of flooding and the recommended mixture of acquisition and floodproofing. The modeling of the components of Alternative 2.5 will be performed in the order below: Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley June 3, 2015 Page 2 1) Proposed storage as part of the Liberty Crossing development, including conveyance along Rhode Island, based on most current conceptual design, the expansion of storage in Pennsylvania Woods and DeCola Ponds B & C, and raising the natural overflow from DeCola Pond C to D 2) Development of flood storage at Rosalyn Court and additional storage in Yunker Park 3) Diversion of flows away from DeCola Pond F, including development of storage in the area around Isaacson Park', and development of storage around the SEA school. 4) Additional storage as needed to best achieve the goal of 18 inches (or less) of standing water at the low point on Medicine Lake Road We will develop the total project cost for each phase of implementation (including the flood storage costs and the property acquisition and floodproofing costs). We assume that we will not update the market values we used to develop the original acquisition costs. However, since the acquisitions would be voluntary, we will remove the relocation costs from the values originally developed for acquisitions (which reflected acquisition, relocation, and demolition). We assume that we will not revise the cost -benefit analysis for each of the implementation phases. Additionally, we assume we will model only the Atlas 14, 100 -year design storm event for the phases of Alternative 2.5, and we will not model the 10, 50, or 500 year design storm events. If the City would like us to evaluate and summarize other design storm events, there will be additional cost for those efforts. —We will work with the City of Golden Valley to determine the most feasible storage option in this area (e.g. purchase of industrial site and develop surface storage, subsurface or surface storage around the ballfields at Isaacson Park, storage along the railroad in Isaacson Park, etc.). We will also work with the City to determine if there is an opportunity to combine these efforts with a 2019 BCWMC water quality and flood control CIP project slated for this area. We assume this will require one (1) meeting with City of Golden Valley staff. Task 2: Further Develop the Cost -Share Scenarios In Task 2 we will further develop the cost -share scenarios as discussed at the April 30, 2015 meeting, with the focus on cost -share methods related to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity (based on the watershed contributing to DeCola Pond F) and "beneficiaries pay more." We assume we will use the net tax capacity information included in the Hennepin County parcel data we obtained in April 2014 at the start of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area long term flood mitigation project. The cost - share scenarios will be applied to the overall project cost for Alternative 2.5, and to example projects in each city (assumes three individual projects, one for each city). We will present the cost -share alternatives in up to three ways, as outlined below: 1) 100% of costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept (i.e. 0% of project costs using beneficiaries pay more approach) 2) A large percentage (e.g. 80%) of the costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept and the remaining percentage (e.g. 20%) of costs will be applied using the beneficiaries pay more approach. In this scenario, the beneficiaries would be those property owners in the entire DeCola Ponds watershed (area upstream of DeCola Pond F). The cities would need to create an overlay or taxing district for this area. 3) A large percentage (e.g. 80%) of the costs will be shared according to 50% watershed area/50% tax capacity concept and the remaining percentage (e.g. 20%) of costs will be applied using the beneficiaries pay more approach. In this scenario, the fraction of the project that would be paid by the beneficiaries would be equally split between the entire watershed and the direct beneficiaries (i.e., those property owners in the identified flood inundation areas). C\Users\kincdonald\Apl,Data\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\TKR5SLSR\Med LakeWinnetkaLongTermFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract June 2015.dou Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley June 3, 2015 Paae 3 The exact percentages used in cost -share scenarios 2 and 3 above would depend on how many years the cities would allow property owners to pay off their debt, and what are reasonable costs for a homeowner to pay. Our analysis will show broad -brush results for the analysis (i.e., The X properties in the watershed would have an average increase in utilities or taxes of $Y per year for Z years.). However, the cities will need to figure out if a stormwater utility or property taxes would be used to charge the beneficiaries. Task 3: Prepare Memo Summarizing Results In Task 3, we will develop a memo summarizing the results of the analysis performed in Tasks 1 and 2 outlined above. The information in this memorandum will will be incorporated into the final project report. Task 4: Additional Meeting with cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal Task 4 assumes preparation for and attendance at one (1) meeting with the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal to present and discuss the results of the work completed in this additional scope of work. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with Tasks 1— 4 described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, which assumes we receive authorization to proceed from the City by June 15, 2015. Task Description of Task Amount Estimated Com letion Additional Scope of Work Tasks 1-4: Model & Summarize Alternative 2.5, Further $ 15,500 • July 2015: Develop the Cost -Share Scenarios, Prepare complete Memo Summarizing Results, and Additional analysis meeting with Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, • August 2015: and Crystal meeting with the three cities If you agree with the proposed scope and budget change, please sign both copies of this letter and return one to us. Please call Karen Chandler (952)832-2813 or me (952)832-2781 with questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Barr Engineering Co. A Leonard J. Kremer Its Vice President CAUsers\knicdonald'VAppDataALocal\Microsoft\Windotas\Temporary Internet FilesVContentOutlook\TKRSSLSR\Med LakeWinnelka LongTermFloodMitigationPlan_Leetter Contract June 2015.docx t Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley June 3, 2015 Page 4 Accepted this _ day of , 2013 City of Golden Valley By Thomas D. Burt Its City Manager C\Users\kmcdonald\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windornvs\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\TKRSSLSR\MedLakeWinnetkaLonyTerniFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract June 2015.docx Review of the Flood Mitigation Alternatives and Cost -Benefit Analysis Len Kremer, Karen Chandler, & Jennifer Koehler Barr Engineering Co. January 23, 2015 • Review watershed and at -risk properties — Flood proofed properties — Flood insurance claims and policies • Highlight the three flood mitigation alternatives • Discuss the FEMA Benefit -Cost Analysis • Detailed review of flood mitigation and benefit -cost analysis for three alternatives • Discuss project phasing • Next steps 1/23/2015 1 41 Properties were Identified to be .—j'. ` J At -Risk During the 100 -year Event Ll �♦� �__ f ��. hw.wjrpn.rn I � e..,rM.awMDM[h+, CM "L_ - tM dMTM klrriGw.anMnW - 97 I l - •.' ct v.rourwot <,. �' . - twd+wr�d�..�.ew+..s..�ry At -Risk Properties' _ r • Commcrcfalflndusinal - -- f A1Ndlamily Resldemial Strgle Family Rewd— ial 1/23/2015 2 41-39 Properties were Identified to be At -Risk During the 100 -year Event _;' u..�.°w. +r' wawarwa.,.awAbsrwa i 1 � Em MXs Cw-a A1"Risk Properties" i Commidauinduslnal �-a • Mulwamdy Rc dcmwl Seglo Family R-AaMial { i • Based on information from the MnDNR Number of Current Flood 11 policy holders Insurance Policy Owners - DeCola Ponds A, D, E, & F 1/23/2015 0 • Alternative 1: Do Nothing/Existing Conditions • Alternative 2: Flood Proofing and Acquisition Only - Targeting at -risk properties • Alternative 3: Flood Mitigation Projects, followed by Flood Proofing and Acquisition — Reduce flooding in Medicine Lake Road to 18" at the low point — Maximize reductions at all key flood locations for the 100 -year event — Remaining at -risk properties • FEMA Benefit -Cost Analysis Protocol & Software (BCA Tool 5.0) — Intended to make it easier for users and reviewers to conduct/review projects addressing a range of natural disasters — Damage -Frequency Assessment (DFA) module to evaluate flood mitigation alternatives — Used to evaluate projects for FEMA funding • Benefit:Cost Ratio > 1.0 — FEMA typically prefers acquisition 1/23/2015 4 • Necessary Information: — Mitigation type (Acquisition, Elevation, Relocation, Flood proofing, Drainage Improvements) —ALL anticipated project costs (e.g. easements, permitting, E&D, construction, maintenance) — Project Useful Life — Loss of function (e.g. roads service, utility service) BEFORE and AFTER mitigation — Damages BEFORE and AFTER mitigation Flood Proofing 30 -years (FEMA Guidance) Acquisition 100 -years (FEMA Guidance) Flood Mitigation Projects 80 -years (National Cooperative (Constructed detention) Highway Research Program Report 792) 1/23/2015 5 Calculation of the Benefit -Cost Ratio Benefit = Total Damages BEFORE Mitigation — Total Damages AFTER Mitigation Cost = Total Mitigation Project Cost • No floodproofing, acquisitions, or projects 1/23/2015 0 At -Risk Properties - No Mitigation 39 Flood Proofed Property 0 Acquired Property 0 Not At -Risk (Within V of Flooding) 2 Not At -Risk 2 Total Number of Properties 43 1/23/2015 7 Estimated Damages and Costs Estimated Benefits • Flood damages based on N/A default FEMA curves (for single family residential) • Flood damages based on interviews (for multi -family & commercial) • Loss of use of Medicine Lake Road — 2011 daily average traffic counts — Period during which flooding is greater than 18" 1/23/2015 0 -'! • Annualized Damages Before Mitigation = $529,593 • Annualized Damages After Mitigation = $529,593 Alternative 1—Existing $0 $0 0 Conditions (Do Nothing) Benefit= Damages BEFORE — Damages AFTER Cost = Total Cost of proposed mitigation projects For FEMA grants, look for a benefit -cost ratio greater than 1.0 1/23/2015 �7 Property I Summary of Impacts At -Risk Properties -No Mitigation 0 Flood Proofed Property 19 Acquired Property 20 Not At -Risk (Within 1' of Flooding) 2 Not At -Risk 2 Total Number of Properties 43 1/23/2015 KC Estimated Damages & Costs • Flood damages • Loss of use of Medicine Lake Road - Period during which flooding is greater than 18° • Flood proofing costs • Acquisition, relocation, demolition costs -'%q;- A teawl" 2 Aw-"� F.wx.O • NOI N FLsi 5.�..aY»nec �_+ uu�cwxar ©" 3W 150 C 3M feet FW. M[w.hw t Law-. MOPGw✓i l•• •C Mglk� !!l F.N ibOC VyFlp ^Y• Car i i4wnHr,: w.. rens Estimated Benefits • Reduction in flood damages • Open green space (due to acquisition) 1/23/2015 11 • Flood proofing costs based on depth of flooding 0 ft $15,000 1 ft $30,000 3 ft $90,000 6 ft $180,000 • Acquisition, Relocation, and Demolition costs (based on assessment by real estate appraiser and interviews with tenants) • Loss in Annual Tax Revenue = $120,625 • Annualized Damages Before Mitigation = $520,433 • Annualized Damages After Mitigation = $16,125 Alternative 2 — Flood $6,800,000 $12,300,000 0.6 Proofing and Acquisition Only Benefit = Damages BEFORE — Damages AFTER Cost = Total Cost of proposed mitigation projects For FEMA grants, look for a benefit -cost ratio greater than 1.0 1/23/2015 12 • Flood mitigation projects — Subsurface storage — Dry detention — Expanded storage • Flood proofing: Flood depths < 3 ft • Acquisition: Flood depths > 3 ft 1/23/2015 13 1/23/2015 14 At -Risk Properties - No Mitigation 0 Flood Proofed Property 11 Acquired Property 1 Not At -Risk (Within 1' of Flooding) 8 Not At -Risk 23 Total Number of Properties 43 1/23/2015 15 4540 - s Alt 1 Existing Conditions 35 J- ________, Alt 2 Flood Proofing/Acquisition 30 I ---- - Alt 3 Flood Mitigation/Flood proofing/Acquisition m I 'C 25 ----- -- -- - af CL a 20 -- d E 10- z5 --- - -- -- - - 0 At Risk, no Mitigation Acquisition Flood Proofing No Flood Risk (but within 1' No Flood Risk (>S' of 106 of 100 -year) year) 1/23/2015 16 AIMnu1M 7 j r 4 } • "At R.T. ,Ihm 1'i } y�- � :r. • Not AtPov qr ae', r.4r^ooa 'Y C. �s 7 "..P o�co a I r aero : r i MrlK1:e1MC ROarlw�A,f '. UA*—v- crew ia^ CCW^C.f. Nar lops 4540 - s Alt 1 Existing Conditions 35 J- ________, Alt 2 Flood Proofing/Acquisition 30 I ---- - Alt 3 Flood Mitigation/Flood proofing/Acquisition m I 'C 25 ----- -- -- - af CL a 20 -- d E 10- z5 --- - -- -- - - 0 At Risk, no Mitigation Acquisition Flood Proofing No Flood Risk (but within 1' No Flood Risk (>S' of 106 of 100 -year) year) 1/23/2015 16 Estimated Costs • Cost of Flood Mitigation Projects • Flood proofing costs • Acquisition, relocation, demolition costs Estimated Benefits • Reduction in flood damages • Open green space (due to acquisition) • Represents total mitigation project cost — Planning, Engineering and Design, Permitting — Easements — Construction (Contingency) and Construction Oversight • Costs have made the assumption that contamination is NOT an issue • Estimated cost accuracy range based on ASTM E 2516-06 based on 10-15% design — Range reflects -20% to +40% of opinion of cost 1/23/2015 FWi _7,,; Yunker Park $864,000 - $1,512,000 Robbinsdale Spanish Immersion School $3,346,000 - $5,855,000 CVS Pharmacy $4,874,000 — $8,529,000 Rosalyn Court $493,000 — $863,000 Industrial Site $400,000 - $700,000 VFW Site $1,729,000 - $3,026,000 Pennsylvania Woods Expansion $1,784,000 — $3,121,000 Expansion of DeCola Ponds B&C, raise overflow from C to D $840,000 — $1,470,000 Isaacson Park $1,536,000 — $2,688,000 SEA School $1,701,000 —$2,977,000 Hampshire Park $1,304,000 — $2,282,000 Honeywell Pond $282,000 — $493,000 Road Reconstruction $492,000 - $860,000 Total Cost $19,645,000 - $27,359,000 Total Cost of Flood Mitigation Storage: $241550y000 • Easement coordination and purchase: 7% of Total Project Cost ($1,650,000) • E&D, Permitting, Construction Oversight: 27% of Total Project Cost ($6,650,000) • Construction Costs: 66% of Total Project Cost ($16,250,000) 1/23/2015 18 Yunker Park Robbinsdale Spanish Immersion School CVS Pharmacy Rosalyn Court Industrial Site VFW Site Pennsylvania Woods Expansion Expansion of DeCola Ponds 6&C, raise overflow from C to D Isaacson Park SEA School Hampshire Park Honeywell Pond Road Reconstruction Total Cost $864,000 - $1,512,000 $3,346,000 - $5,855,000 $4,874,000 — $1,512,000 $493,000 — $863,000 $400,000 - $700,000 $1,729,000 - $3,026,000 $1,784,000 — $3,121,000 $840,000 — $1,470,000 $1,536,000 — $2,688,000 $1,701,000 — $2,977,000 $1,304,000 — $2,282,000 $282,000 — $493,000 $492,000 - $860,000 $19,645,000 - $27,359,000 Yunker Park 5.3 Robbinsdale Spanish Immersion School 3.2 CVS Pharmacy 4.5 Rosalyn Court 3.7 Industrial Site 1.2 VFW Site 0.4 Pennsylvania Woods Expansion 5.6 Expansion of DeCola Ponds B&C, raise overflow from C to D 11.9 Isaacson Park 4.1 SEA School 8.3 Hampshire Park 6.4 Honeywell Pond 3.1 Road Reconstruction 0.5 Total Storage 58.3 • Loss in Annual Tax Revenue = $6,415 • Annualized Damages Before Mitigation =$469,078 • Annualized Damages After Mitigation = $690 Alternative 3 — Flood $6,300,000 $27,500,000 Mitigation Projects eenett = Damages BEFORE — Damages AFTER Cost = Total Cost of proposed mitigation projects 0.2 For FEMA grants, look for a benefit -cost ratio greater than 1.0 Alternative 1— Existing Conditions (Do Nothing) Alternative 2 — Flood Proofing and Acquisition Only Alternative 3 — Flood Mitigation Projects $0 $0 0 $6,800,000 $12,300,000 0.6 $6,300,000 $27,500,000 0.2 1/23/2015 19 • Select alternative to proceed with for development of financial implementation strategies • Development of financial implementation strategies • Meeting to discuss and select implementation strategy 1/23/2015 20 • Target most critical storage areas —VFW, Rosalyn, Pennsylvania Woods, DeCola B&C, SEA School, Isaacson • Upstream to downstream • Incorporate as opportunities arise • Full optimization (Out of Scope) 1/23/2015 21 COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY AND NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA DATE 2014 COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY This AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2014 by and between the CITY OF CRYSTAL, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Crystal"), the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Golden Valley"), and the CITY OF NEW HOPE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("New Hope") (collectively hereinafter, "the Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Minnesota statute § 471.59, et. seq., authorizes cities to enter into cooperative project agreements; and WHEREAS, The Cities each contribute storm water runoff to the following areas: 1. DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road, east of Winnetka Avenue, and north of Duluth Street ("DeCola Ponds Area"); and 2. Medicine Lake Road, located in the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope, between Winnetka Avenue North and Rhode Island Avenue North ("Medicine Lake Road Area"); and WHEREAS, Crystal and New Hope contribute storm water runoff to Terra Linda Drive and Rosalyn Court, located in New Hope in the northeast quadrant of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North ("Terra Linda Area"); and WHEREAS, the DeCola Ponds Area, the Medicine Lake Road Area, Terra Linda Drive Area are all prone to significant flooding during heavy rainfall events; with a history of property damage resulting from this flooding; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope completed a Report for Terra Linda Drive, Rosalyn Court and Medicine Lake Road — Local Flood Improvement Project, dated July 2006 and revised in November 2006, to investigate flood mitigation measures. New Hope has since implemented measures from this report to begin addressing flooding issues in these areas; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley has completed the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study, prepared by Barr Engineering Company and dated April 2012 ("Phase 1 Study") to investigate the cause of the flooding in these areas that includes a recommendation to further study flood mitigation measures within the contributing watershed to the flood -prone areas to reduce flood -related property damage; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to work cooperatively to determine the most cost-effective measures to minimize flood damages. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope hereby agree as follows: 1. Golden Valley will be the lead City, including contract administration and coordination among the Cities, for the preparation of the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study ("Phase 2 Study"). 2. Golden Valley has obtained a proposal for professional engineering services to perform the Phase 2 Study from Barr Engineering Company dated December 19, 2013. A copy of the Phase 2 Study proposal is attached to this agreement as Exhibit 1. 3. The not to exceed cost to perform the Phase 2 Study is $110,400. a. The Cities agree to prorate the costs of the Phase 2 Study with 50% of the cost prorated based upon the net tax capacity of properties within the contributing watershed and 50% based upon the total area within each city in the contributing watershed. Cost participation is calculated as follows: city Percent Area in Square Feet Percents e Crystal 6,050,932 23% Golden Valley 12,954,918 49% New Hoe 7,342,403 28% Totals 26,348,253 00% 1006/0- city Property Count Tax Capacity Percent Tax Ca aci Crystal 403 $787,326 23% Golden Valle 392 $1,725,389 50% New Hoe 392 $942,304 27% Totals 1,187 $3,455,019 100% b. The cities agree that any additional costs for work deemed necessary not included in December 19, 2013 Barr proposal will be prorated among the cities based upon a negotiated split prior to commencement of the extra work. Combined Crystal 23% $25,392 Golden Valley 49.5% $54,648 New Hoe 27.5% $30,360 Totals 100% $110,400 b. The cities agree that any additional costs for work deemed necessary not included in December 19, 2013 Barr proposal will be prorated among the cities based upon a negotiated split prior to commencement of the extra work. c. Participation in this study by the cities does not set a precedent for cost participation for any capital improvement projects deemed feasible for flood mitigation as part of the study. Cost participation for these improvements will be determined on a project -specific basis prior to implementation of the projects. 4. Payment. Partial payments will be made by the City of Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company on a monthly basis for work completed. The Cities of Crystal and New Hope shall, within 30 days of receipt of invoice, submit partial payment to the City of Golden Valley in the amount so invoiced. 5. Authorized Agents. The City of Crystal's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Tom Mathisen, City Engineer/Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. The Authorized Agent's current address and telephone number is: 4141 Douglas Drive, Crystal, MN, 55422; 763.531.1160. The City of Golden Valley's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, or her successor or assign. Her current address and telephone number is: 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN, 55427; 763.593.8035. The City of New Hope's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. His current address and telephone number is: 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN, 55428; 763.592.6766. 6. Successor and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that neither Crystal, Golden Valley, nor New Hope shall have the right to assign its rights, obligations, and interests in or under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto. 7. Amendment, Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification, or waiver of any condition, provision, or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound, or its duly authorized representative(s). Any waiver by a party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence described therein, and shall not affect the rights of any other party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the future. 8. Saving Provision. If any provision of this Agreement shall be found invalid or unenforceable with respect to any entity or in any jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and such provisions found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall not be affected as to their enforcement or lawfulness as to any other entity or in any other jurisdiction, and to such extent the terms and provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. 9. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Crystal: City Engineer/Director of Public Works City of Crystal 4141 Doug! --s Dr i%,re Crystal, MN 55422 If to Golden Valley: Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 If to New Hope Director of Public Works City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 10. Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the earlier of (a) termination by mutual consent of the Cities, or (b) 60 days after completion of the Phase 2 Study as demonstrated by final payment by Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Shepard M. Harris, Mayor By: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014 by Shepard M. Harris and Thomas D. Burt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Golden Valley a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public CITY OF CRYSTAL It's Mayor By: It's City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014 by , and , respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Crystal, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public CITY OF NEW HOPE By: It s Mayor By: It's City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) rd The foregoing Cooperative Project A reement was acknowledged before me this day of 2015 by�-b and respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public w"!`r • ` •ME i ��� resourceful. naturally. BARRengineering and environmental consultants December 19, 2013 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Agreement for Medicine lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Lo ng Term Flood Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional engineering services to the City. We will do our best to justify your expression of confidence in us. This letter, together with our Standard Terms (attached), sets forth the Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Barr Engineering Company regarding the project to develop a long term flood mitigation plan for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area. The cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal recommended the development of a such a plan upon completion of the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study. This letter presents the scope of professional consulting services we will provide for your project, including the proposed work tasks, the cost estimate, and the schedule for the completion of the proposed work. Included in the scope are two major phases—an initial assessment and selection of alternatives phase (Phase 1), and a cost -benefit analysis of flood mitigation alternatives phase (Phase 2). Proposed Work Tasks Introduction The following is our proposed approach for exploring additional flood mitigation measures in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area; this area includes the DeCola Pond system located immediately downstream. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Working with a broad group of city stakeholders will be an important part of developing feasible solutions, because of the unique challenges associated with flood mitigation across municipal boundaries, and the need to retrofit existing development and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. We anticipate that the stakeholders would include the city councils, planning commissions, city managers, planners and engineers from each of the three affected cities and that they will be involved in this process. The process as outlined in this scope does not include any public involvement with the exception of the joint city council meeting at the end of the project. We anticipate completing this project in two phases. The first phase or "initial assessment" is structured around gathering information on flood -prone properties. This information will be used in assessing and prioritizing alternative courses of action, which will be the focus of phase two_ The following paragraphs provide the details of the work tasks associated with each phase and the attached table provides a detailed cost estimate for the work. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.borr.com Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Paae 2 Phase 1: initial Assessment and Selection of Alternatives The goal of the initial assessment is to gather enough information to establish basic cost and risk information for evaluating alternative solutions to flooding problems in the project area. This phase will provide project stakeholders with a sense of the available alternatives and their relative effectiveness. This phase includes five tasks: 1. Identify the cost to acquire all flood -prone properties (defined as properties located within the 100 -year floodplain of DeCola Ponds and the Medicine Lake Road area low point). In this step, we will update the existing conditions XP-SWMM model for the study area to reflect the Atlas 14 100 -year precipitation depths, using the nested storm distribution developed from Atlas 14. Based on the revised modeling and resulting 100 -year floodplain mapping, we will identify properties subject to flood risk and estimate the cost to acquire these properties. This will include an estimate of the market value and business/homeowner relocation costs. The relocation costs include locating new properties for displaced property owners, financing costs associated with acquiring the new properties, moving expenses, and other incidental costs associated with relocation. This step will require interviews with businesses to assess unique costs associated with each business. We will estimate residential acquisition costs using established methods and formulas. Additionally, we will estimate the cost to each city associated with lost property tax revenue and the cost to each business in lost revenue. This information will serve as a benchmark for comparing all alternatives to be considered in phase two. A subconsultant with experience in estimating relocation costs and an understanding of flood damages would be part of the project team. The subconsultant is a former Corps of Engineers, economics section employee (costs for this subconsultant are included as expenses). 2. Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for flood -prone properties. This will include a survey of all flood -prone properties (see definition in task 1) and assess their risk of damage for the 10-, 50-, and 100 -year flood events. This flood stage damage assessment will require a survey of the low floor and low opening elevations for all flood -prone properties (approximately 40 — 45 properties). Damage to residential properties will be determined based on published information and damage to commercial/industrial properties will be based on interviews. This information will be used to assess the benefit to properties and impact on assessed value, as part of a cost - benefit analysis of various alternatives to be considered in phase two. Note: city staff could perform the survey, which would reduce the estimated cost of this task by $6, 000. 3. Model the impact of potential reductions in impervious surface on flooding. Impervious surface reduction is one alternative that should be considered either alone or as part of a suite of strategies. This analysis will illustrate the relationship between impervious surface reduction and the effect on flooding (runoff volume reduction) for different storm events. We will also develop examples of reasonable reductions in impervious surface. 4. Prepare a technical memo summarizing the results of tasks 1 - 3. The memo will discuss the implications of different types of flood management alternatives and help set the stage for the next task (brainstorming session). 5. Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives. In this task, we plan to have two (2) meetings with project stakeholders, including public works, planning, and economic development staff from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal. The first meeting will be a presentation to all city staff of the original DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study, the conclusions from that study, the results of the revised XP-SWMM modeling (based on Atlas -14 modeling completed in Phase 1, Task 1), and the results from the flood damage assessment, to provide all city staff with the same background information for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. A second meeting will be held to WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\201 I \P 118,11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTenr&loodMitigationPlan_Lotter Contract_Dec2D 13.docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 3 brainstorm a list of potential flood mitigation alternatives. As part of the brainstorming process, stakeholders would help evaluate the ideas for physical, political and cost feasibility. An outcome of this meeting will be a list of two (2) or three (3) flood mitigation alternatives to assess further, including a cost -benefit analysis to be completed in the next phase. The selected flood mitigation alternatives could include a combination of ideas. It will be important that the flood mitigation alternatives be as specific as possible (e.g., potential pond locations, narrow streets by X amount in Y neighborhood). Potential flood mitigation ideas could include: a. Acquisition or structural floodproofing of flood prone properties b. Acquisition of land by city and construction of mitigation measures i. Greenway/trail system with absorption capacity, including tree trenches ii. Ponds iii. Underground storage c. New mitigation measures on existing public land/ROW i. Ponds ii. Underground storage iii. Impervious surface reduction -distributed stormwater treatment facilities (Narrowed streets and/or with infiltration in ROW) d. New mitigation measures on private land that could be implemented through change in public policy (e.g, acquisition of easements, economic development incentives, stormwater utility incentives, requirements at point of property sales, etc.) i. Ponds, underground storage, etc. ii. Impervious surface reduction (Reduction of parking spaces -zoning implications) iii. Green roofs iv. Tree trenches After the brainstorming session, we will provide the stakeholders with a summary of the selected alternatives. Phase 2: Conduct a Cost -Benefit Analysis of the Recommended Flood Mitigation Alternatives In this phase, efforts will be focused on evaluating the two (2) to three (3) flood mitigation alternatives selected by the project stakeholders. 1. Assess flood mitigation alternatives for flood damage reduction. In this step, Barr will revise the XP-SWMM model to estimate the flood reduction impact of each flood mitigation alternative. 2. Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives. In this step, Barr will quantify the costs and benefits provided by each flood mitigation alternative. Two types of benefits will be considered: 1) benefits to the city from increases in property taxes based on higher property values and 2) benefits to property owners due to reduced flood risk and flood costs. a. Property tax benefits would be estimated for specific properties by estimating the additional property value for properties with reduced flooding risk due to implementation of the selected flood mitigation alternatives. The flooding potential will be compared for WABusincss Unilsl1VR\ProposalsV0l l\PI 18.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Term Plait\McdLakcWinnctkeLongTcnnf7oodMitigationPlan_Lctter Contra ct_D cc2013.docx Mr. Jett Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 4 the 10-, 50-, and 100 -year storm events. The additional property tax value would be estimated for the increased assessed value and projected for 30 to 40 years. The future value of these future incremental increases in property taxes would be represented in terms of net present value (NPV). NPV would be compared to cost estimates for completing the needed mitigation projects to achieve the reduced flooding potential to assess the overall value of each project. City stakeholders would provide assumptions for level of property tax increases over the evaluation period. A real estate appraisal firm with experience in evaluating industrial, commercial and residential properties would be part of the project team to estimate market values of properties before and after mitigation efforts (costs for this subconsultant are included as expenses). b. Barr will develop detailed cost estimates for implementing each alternative, which could include land and/or easement acquisition costs, project construction costs, and operating and maintenance costs. Other costs such as economic development incentives, regulatory and administrative costs would be developed in consultation with stakeholders. c. Benefits to property owners will be estimated using the flood damage assessment (completed in Phase I Task 2) and refined for the level of flood protection provided by each alternative. A subconsultant with experience in estimating relocation costs and an understanding of flood damages would be part of the project team. The subconsultant is a former Corps of Engineers, economics section employee (costs are included as expenses). Upon completion of this task, we recommend revisiting the scope and cost estimate for the remaining tasks, because the work required for these tasks (especially task 3) depends greatly on the outcome of the previous work tasks. This purpose of this "revisiting" is to review the scope and ensure that any proposed scope changes won't cause the project to go over -budget. If proposed scope changes will cause the project to go over -budget, our work on the project will cease until a new budget is agreed to and approved. Develop strategies for financial implementation. In this step, Barr will outline approaches for the cities to use to finance implementation of the flood mitigation alternatives. We will explore methods for financing project costs, including approaches for allocating costs to beneficiaries and between the cities. One approach might be to define beneficiary value in terms of acre-feet of flooding reduced, where value is directly related to proximity to the flood zone. In this approach, costs could be attributed to beneficiaries based on zones. Here, a greater portion of costs would be allocated to properties in zones closest to flooded areas. Another approach would be to assign a higher priority to implementing projects that have the highest cost to benefit ratio. Barr will also outline the structure and function of a commission, made up of members of all three cities, which would oversee the implementation of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. The commission would likely decide 1) how much each city should contribute to the plan implementation, 2) when projects should be implemented, and 3) how to payout the commission's funds for project implementation. The commission may be similar to the existing Joint Water Commission. This task includes one (1) meeting with staff from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal to discuss the strategies for financial implementation and the function of the commission that would oversee the implementation of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. This meeting would include city staff from public works and city managers and other staff as appropriate (e.g. planners, economic development staff). W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2011\Pllg.11 City ofG olden Valley DeCole Long Term Plai)\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTcmF]oodMitigatiorkplan—Lefter Contract_Dec2011 docx Mr. �'erT uuver, rt City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 5 4. Prepare draft report and recommendations. In this step, Ban will prepare a draft project report summarizing all work, including stakeholder deliberations and decisions. The report will include a recommended implementation program, including project financing, cost allocation methods and proposed schedule for improvements. Recommendations will be developed in consultation with city stakeholders. 5. Meeting with project stakeholders. In this step, we will discuss the draft report and recommendations with the project stakeholders. This meeting would include city staff from public works and city managers and other staff as appropriate (e.g_ planners, economic development staff) from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal. 6. Final report and recommendations. In this step, we will revise the report based on the comments heard at the stakeholder meeting. We will then meet again with stakeholders to discuss the upcoming presentation of the final report to the joint city council meeting. We will present the final report to the three city councils at a single joint meeting for their review and approval. Following city council approval (or acceptance), we will produce the final report (10 hard copies and electronic format) and provide the stakeholders with electronic project "close-out" files. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with each task for Phases 1 and 2 as described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, and is based on a March 15, 2014 start date. Task Description of Task Amount Estimated Completion P�iafe 1 InHcl aisessrirenf and selectioriiof+iilFera�lvt ; _ ,, �.. =� the cost to acquire all flood -prone $ 16,200 June 2014 Task 1:Identify ro erties Task 2: Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for $ 12,100 July 2014 flood -prone properties Task 3: Model the impact of potential reductions in $ 3,600 June 2014 impervious surface on flooding Task 4: Prepare technical memo summarizing the results $ 3,900 August 2014 of Tasks 1-3 Task 5: Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives 9,800 Se tember 2014 Phase 1 Total $ 45,500 September 2014 As noted earlier in this document, we recommend revisiting the scope and cost estimate for the remainder of the project upon the completion of Task 2 under Phase 2, because there is a high likelihood that the project scope could change at that time. This purpose of this "revisiting" is to review the scope and ensure that any proposed scope changes won't cause the project to go over -budget. If proposed scope changes W:\BusinessUnits\WRTroposals\201 I\P1 18.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLskeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMitigadonPlan_Letter Contract Dec2013.docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page b will cause the project to go over -budget, our work on the project will cease until a new budget is agreed to and approved. This Agreement will be effective for the duration of the services, unless earlier terminated by either the City or us. We will commence work upon receipt of a copy of this letter signed by your authorized City representative. We will inform you of our progress through periodic e-mail updates, telephone calls, invoice details, and other communications. For the services provided, you will pay us according to the attached Standard Terms. We will bill the city monthly. The cost of the services will not exceed $110,400 without prior approval by the city. We understand you or your designees have the authority to direct us. We will direct communications to you at the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road. Direction should be provided to Karen Chandler at Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55435. During the term of this Agreement, we will maintain the following insu, ance coverages: Worker Compensation Statutory Employer Liability $50Ok per claim/$500k aggregate Commercial General Liability $1 M per claim/$2M aggregate, combined single limit Automobile $1M combined single limit Umbrella/excess policy as to above coverages $1 OM aggregate Professional Liability (claims -made) $5M per claim/$5M annual aggregate If this Agreement is satisfactory, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided, and return it to us. Sincerely yours, Barr Engineering Co. By Leonard J. Kremer Its Vice President Accepted this _ day of 2013 City of Golden Valley By Thomas D. Burt Its City Manager WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\201 I\P118,11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Ten) Plan\MedLakeWinnetkoLongTennFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contra ct_Dec2013 . docx Request for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager February 24, 2014 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager By: Kirk McDonald 6.8 Resolution approving the 2014 cooperative project agreement among the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study (project no. 913) Requested Action Staff is recommending the Council approve the attached resolution approving the 2014 cooperative agreement that sets forth the cost share distribution for the phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road flood mitigation study among the cities of New Hope, Golden Valley and Crystal. The Council discussed this matter at the February 18 Council Work Session and was supportive of proceeding with the cooperative study. The city of Crystal approved this revised agreement at their February 18 Council Meeting. Policy/Past Practice The city has participated in cooperative studies with neighboring cities in the past, and the flooding in the area of Winnetka avenue and Medicine Lake Road during heavy rain events has been a concern to the city over the past years. Background The City Council approved a cooperative agreement for this study at the July 23, 2012 Council Meeting and the total cost for the study at that time was $116,000. The cost share among the cities was based on the area of each city that is tributary to the DeCola Ponds and the Medicine Lake Road area, New Hope's cost was $31,784, Crystal's cost was $26,216, and Golden Valley's cost was $58,000. The Council agreed New Hope's cost for the study would be paid from the storm water fund. The city of Crystal objected to the agreement, and over the past year and a half, a number of meetings were conducted to try and resolve this issue so the study could proceed. The cities of Golden Valley and New Hope both sent letters to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission requesting their assistance, and a dispute resolution committee consisting of three commissioners was formed. In August and September of 2013 the dispute resolution committee met with representatives of all three cities to discuss concerns and met with the Crystal City Council in October of 2013. Based on the feedback received at all the meetings, the dispute resolution committee compiled a summary and recommendation which was presented to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission at their November 2013 meeting, and the commission approved the recommendations. The recommendations included the following: Motion. by �4 Second by To: I:/RFA/CityManager/2014/Q&R-ApproveCoopIP913 022414 Request for Action, Page 2 February 24, 2014 The cost share formula for the Phase II study should mirror the cost share formula used by the Commission to assess annual BCWMC costs, but determined on the basis of the contributing sub -watershed (50% based on the net tax capacity of all a member city's properties within the boundaries of the contributing sub -watershed and 50% based on the total area of a member city within the boundaries of the contributing sub -watershed); 2. Include language in the agreement for the Phase II study stating clearly that participation in the Phase II study does not set a precedent for cost sharing or obligate any city to participate in future studies or projects identified in the Phase II recommendations; and, 3. Remove the 25 percent contingency from the proposal for the study and include language that any additional costs, associated with items outside of the initial scope of work, would need to be negotiated among the three cities before the costs could be incurred. The attached 2014 agreement has been revised to incorporate the recommendations of the commission. The total cost of the study has been reduced to $110,400, and New Hope's cost has been reduced to $30,360. Staff recommends the study be funded from the storm water utility fund. Staff recommends approval of the resolution Attachments Resolution Revised 2014 agreement City of New Hope Resolution 2014- 33 Resolution approving the 2014 cooperative project agreement among the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study (project No. 913) WHEREAS, homes located in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley, and the area around the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road in New Hope experience flooding during heavy rain events; and, WHEREAS, the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal contribute storm water runoff to the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds; and, WHEREAS, the city of Golden Valley solicited bids from an engineering firm in 2012 to initiate a flood mitigation study for Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and the DeCola Ponds areas and the total cost of the study was $116,000; and, WHEREAS, the cost share for the study was based on the area of each city that is tributary to the area and New Hope's cost was $31,784; and WHEREAS, the city of New Hope approved the cooperative agreement (resolution no. 2012-109) along with Golden Valley, but the city of Crystal objected to the agreement and cost share formula; and WHEREAS, the cities have now mutually reached an agreement on the cost share formula do the terms of the agreement; and WHEREAS, the total revised cost of the agreement is $110,400 and New Hope's share of the cost is $30,360; and WHEREAS, a 2014 cooperative agreement has been prepared between the city of Golden Valley, the city of New Hope, and the city of Crystal setting forth the scope, terms, and conditions for sharing the cost of the study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the 2014 cooperative agreement between the city of New Hope, the city of Golden Valley, and the city of Crystal for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study is approved. 3. That New Hope's share in the amount of $30,360 will be funded from the storm water fund. 4. The mayor and city manager (the "Officers") are authorized and directed to sign the same on behalf of the city. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Mi nesota, this 24th day of February, 2014. J Ma r Attest:-'/�F'T"1 e City Clerk COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY AND NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 2014 COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY This AGREEMENT is made this day of 2014 by and between the CITY OF CRYSTAL, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Crystal'), the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Golden Valley"), and the CITY OF NEW HOPE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("New Hope") (collectively hereinafter, "the Cities„). RECITALS WHEREAS, Minnesota statute § 471.59, et, seq., authorizes cities to enter into cooperative project agreements; and WHEREAS, The Cities each contribute storm water runoff to the following areas: 1. DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road, east of Winnetka Avenue, and north of Duluth Street ("DeCola Ponds Area"); and 2. Medicine Lake Road, located in the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope, between Winnetka Avenue North and Rhode Island Avenue North ("Medicine Lake Road Area"); and WHEREAS, Crystal and New Hope contribute storm water runoff to Terra Linda Drive and Rosalyn Court, located in New Hope in the northeast quadrant of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North ("Terra Linda Area"); and WHEREAS, the DeCola Ponds Area, the Medicine Lake Road Area, Terra Linda Drive Area are all prone to significant flooding during heavy rainfall events; with a history of property damage resulting from this flooding; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope completed a Report for Terra Linda Drive, Rosalyn Court and Medicine Lake Road — Local Flood Improvement Project, dated July 2006 and revised in November 2006, to investigate flood mitigation measures. New Hope has since implemented measures from this report to begin addressing flooding issues in these areas; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley has completed the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study, prepared by Barr Engineering Company and dated April 2012 ("Phase 1 Study") to investigate the cause of the flooding in these areas that includes a recommendation to further study flood mitigation measures within the contributing watershed to the flood -prone areas to reduce flood -related property damage; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to work cooperatively to determine the most cost-effective measures to minimize flood damages. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope hereby agree as follows: 1. Golden Valley will be the lead City, including contract administration and coordination among the Cities, for the preparation of the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study ("Phase 2 Study"). 2. Golden Valley has obtained a proposal for professional engineering services to perform the Phase 2 Study from Barr Engineering Company dated December 19, 2013. A copy of the Phase 2 Study proposal is attached to this agreement as Exhibit 1. 3. The not to exceed cost to perform the Phase 2 Study is $110,400. a. The Cities agree to prorate the costs of the Phase 2 Study with 50% of the cost prorated based upon the net tax capacity of properties within the contributing watershed and 50% based upon the total area within each city in the contributing watershed. Cost participation is calculated as follows: City Area in Square Feet Percentage Crystal 6,050,932 23% Golden Valley 12,954,918 49% New Hoe 7,342,403 28% Totals 26,348,253 100% city Property Count Tax Capacity Percent Tax Capacity Crystal 403 $787,326 23% Golden Valle 392 $1,725,389 50% New Hoe 392 $942,304 27% Totals 1,187 $3,455,019 100% b. The cities agree that any additional costs for work deemed necessary not included in December 19, 2013 Barr proposal will be prorated among the cities based upon a negotiated split prior to commencement of the extra work. Combined Crystal 23% $25,392 Golden Valley 49.5% $54,648 New Hoe 27.5% $30,360 Totals 100% $110,400 b. The cities agree that any additional costs for work deemed necessary not included in December 19, 2013 Barr proposal will be prorated among the cities based upon a negotiated split prior to commencement of the extra work. c. Participation in this study by the cities does not set a precedent for cost participation for any capital improvement projects deemed feasible for flood mitigation as part of the study. Cost participation for these improvements will be determined on a project -specific basis prior to implementation of the projects. 4. Payment. Partial payments will be made by the City of Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company on a monthly basis for work completed. The Cities of Crystal and New Hope shall, within 30 days of receipt of invoice, submit partial payment to the City of Golden Valley in the amount so invoiced. 5. Authorized Agents. The City of Crystal's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Tom Mathisen, City Engineer/Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. The Authorized Agent's current address and telephone number is: 4141 Douglas Drive, Crystal, MN, 55422; 763.531.1160. The City of Golden Valley's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, or her successor or assign. Her current address and telephone number is: 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN, 55427; 763.593.8035. The City of New Hope's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. His current address and telephone number is: 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN, 55428; 763.592.6766. 6. Successor and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that neither Crystal, Golden Valley, nor New Hope shall have the right to assign its rights, obligations, and interests in or under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto. 7. Amendment, Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification, or waiver of any condition, provision, or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound, or its duly authorized representative(s). Any waiver by a party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence described therein, and shall not affect the rights of any other party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the future. 8. Saving Provision. If any provision of this Agreement shall be found invalid or unenforceable with respect to any entity or in any jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and such provisions found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall not be affected as to their enforcement or lawfulness as to any other entity or in any other jurisdiction, and to such extent the terms and provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. 9. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Crystal: City Engineer/Director of Public Works City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive Crystal, MN 55422 If to Golden Valley: Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 If to New Hope Director of Public Works City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 10. Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the earlier of (a) termination by mutual consent of the Cities, or (b) 60 days after completion of the Phase 2 Study as demonstrated by final payment by Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company. CITY OF CRYSTAL By: C` Ji dams, Mayor Anne Norris, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The fore oing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of7YJ�JW 1', 2014 by Jim Adams and Anne Norris, respectively the - f the Mayor and City Manage City of Crystal, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. CHRISTINA MARIE SERRES Y' Notary Public- Minnesota g ;... •� Commission Expiros )an. 31, 2016 Notary Public IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By: She and M. Harr " is,- Maor By: Thomas D. Burt, City M*er STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) T eo ng Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of "/I,%_ _, 2014 by Shepard M. Harris and Thomas D. Burt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Golden Valley a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public A' LY A r, Y jLnGOTA CITY OF NEW ROPE By:tl.{: Mayor By: , City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss - COUNTY ss.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project A reement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014 by / •tG�i )4ej-r(,e er , and irk fijc1. tgr9aL , respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public =PC�IEiVESGTAan. 31, 2095 resourceful. naturally. BARB engineering and environmental consultants December 19, 2013 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Revisions to Proposal for Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Pian Dear Mr. Oliver: Attached is Barr's revised proposal to develop a long tenn flood mitigation plan for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area. The proposal supersedes our April 11, 2013 proposal and includes the following changes: • Additional subtask to update the existing conditions XP-SWMM model for the study area to reflect the Atlas 14 100 -year precipitation depths, using the nested storm distribution developed from Atlas 14. • Removal of the contingency from the cost estimate (and the scope). • Updated cost estimate to reflect changes to Barr staff and Barr billing rates. • Updated schedule. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2781 (or lkremer(dbarr.com) or Karen Chandler at 952-832-2813 (or kchandler(cLbarr.com). Sincerely, Leonard J. Kremer, P.E. Vice President Senior Civil Engineer Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 452.832.2600 www.barr.com resourceful. naturally. gARR engineering and environmental consultants December 19, 2013 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Agreement for Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional engineering services to the City. We will do our best to justify your expression of confidence in us. This letter, together with our Standard Terms (attached), sets forth the Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Barr Engineering Company regarding the project to develop a long term flood mitigation plan for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area. The cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal recommended the development of a such a plan upon completion of the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study. This letter presents the scope of professional consulting services we will provide for your project, including the proposed work tasks, the cost estimate, and the schedule for the completion of the proposed work. Included in the scope are two major phases—an initial assessment and selection of alternatives phase (Phase 1), and a cost -benefit analysis of flood mitigation alternatives phase (Phase 2). Proposed Work Tasks Introduction The following is our proposed approach for exploring additional flood mitigation measures in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area; this area includes the DeCola Pond system located immediately downstream. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Working with a broad group of city stakeholders will be an important part of developing feasible solutions, because of the unique challenges associated with flood mitigation across municipal boundaries, and the need to retrofit existing development and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. We anticipate that the stakeholders would include the city councils, planning commissions, city managers, planners and engineers from each of the three affected cities and that they will be involved in this process. The process as outlined in this scope does not include any public involvement with the exception of the joint city council meeting at the end of the project. We anticipate completing this project in two phases. The first phase or "initial assessment' is structured around gathering information on flood -prone properties. This information will be used in assessing and prioritizing alternative courses of action, which will be the focus of phase two. The following paragraphs provide the details of the work tasks associated with each phase and the attached table provides a detailed cost estimate for the work. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 2 Phase 1: Initial Assessment and Selection of Alternatives The goal of the initial assessment is to gather enough information to establish basic cost and risk information for evaluating alternative solutions to flooding problems in the project area. This phase will provide project stakeholders with a sense of the available alternatives and their relative effectiveness. This phase includes five tasks: 1. Identify the cost to acquire all flood -prone properties (defined as properties located within the 100 -year floodplain of DeCola Ponds and the Medicine Lake Road area low point). In this step, we will update the existing conditions XP-SWMM model for the study area to reflect the Atlas 14 100 -year precipitation depths, using the nested storm distribution developed from Atlas 14. Based on the revised modeling and resulting 100 -year floodplain mapping, we will identify properties subject to flood risk and estimate the cost to acquire these properties. This will include an estimate of the market value and business/homeowner relocation costs. The relocation costs include locating new properties for displaced property owners, financing costs associated with acquiring the new properties, moving expenses, and other incidental costs associated with relocation. This step will require interviews with businesses to assess unique costs associated with each business. We will estimate residential acquisition costs using established methods and formulas. Additionally, we will estimate the cost to each city associated with lost property tax revenue and the cost to each business in lost revenue. This information will serve as a benchmark for comparing all alternatives to be considered in phase two. A subconsultant with experience in estimating relocation costs and an understanding of flood damages would be part of the project team. The subconsultant is a former Corps of Engineers, economics section employee (costs for this subconsultant are included as expenses). 2. Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for flood prone properties. This will include a survey of all flood -prone properties (see definition in task 1) and assess their risk of damage for the 10-, 50-, and 100 -year flood events. This flood stage damage assessment will require a survey of the low floor and low opening elevations for all flood -prone properties (approximately 40 — 45 properties). Damage to residential properties will be determined based on published information and damage to commercial/industrial properties will be based on interviews. This information will be used to assess the benefit to properties and impact on assessed value, as part of a cost - benefit analysis of various alternatives to be considered in phase two. Note: city staff could perform the survey, which would reduce the estimated cost of this task by $6, 000. 3. Model the impact of potential reductions in impervious surface on flooding. Impervious surface reduction is one alternative that should be considered either alone or as part of a suite of strategies. This analysis will illustrate the relationship between impervious surface reduction and the effect on flooding (runoff volume reduction) for different storm events. We will also develop examples of reasonable reductions in impervious surface. 4. Prepare a technical memo summarizing the results of tasks 1 - 3. The memo will discuss the implications of different types of flood management alternatives and help set the stage for the next task (brainstorming session). 5. Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives. In this task, we plan to have two (2) meetings with project stakeholders, including public works, planning, and economic development staff from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal. The first meeting will be a presentation to all city staff of the original DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study, the conclusions from that study, the results of the revised XP-SWMM modeling (based on Atlas -14 modeling completed in Phase 1, Task 1), and the results from the flood damage assessment, to provide all city staff with the same background information for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. A second meeting will be held to WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\201 I\PI 18.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract_Dec20l3.docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Pam 3 brainstorm a list of potential flood mitigation alternatives. As part of the brainstorming process, stakeholders would help evaluate the ideas for physical, political and cost feasibility. An outcome of this meeting will be a list of two (2) or three (3) flood mitigation alternatives to assess further, including a cost -benefit analysis to be completed in the next phase. The selected flood mitigation alternatives could include a combination of ideas. It will be important that the flood mitigation alternatives be as specific as possible (e.g., potential pond locations, narrow streets by X amount in Y neighborhood). Potential flood mitigation ideas could include: a. Acquisition or structural floodproofrng of flood prone properties b. Acquisition of land by city and construction of mitigation measures i. Greenway/trail system with absorption capacity, including tree trenches ii. Ponds iii. Underground storage c. New mitigation measures on existing public land/ROW i. Ponds ii. Underground storage iii. Impervious surface reduction -distributed stormwater treatment facilities (Narrowed streets and/or with infiltration in ROW) d. New mitigation measures on private land that could be implemented through change in public policy (e.g. acquisition of easements, economic development incentives, stormwater utility incentives, requirements at point of property sales, etc.) i. Ponds, underground storage, etc. ii. Impervious surface reduction (Reduction of parking spaces -zoning implications) iii. Green roofs iv. Tree trenches After the brainstorming session, we will provide the stakeholders with a summary of the selected alternatives. Phase 2: Conduct a Cost -Benefit Analysis of the Recommended Flood Mitigation Alternatives In this phase, efforts will be focused on evaluating the two (2) to three (3) flood mitigation alternatives selected by the project stakeholders. 1. Assess flood mitigation alternatives for flood damage reduction. In this step, Barr will revise the XP-SWMM model to estimate the flood reduction impact of each flood mitigation alternative. 2. Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives. In this step, Barr will quantify the costs and benefits provided by each flood mitigation alternative. Two types of benefits will be considered: 1) benefits to the city from increases in property taxes based on higher property values and 2) benefits to property owners due to reduced flood risk and flood costs. a. Property tax benefits would be estimated for specific properties by estimating the additional property value for properties with reduced flooding risk due to implementation of the selected flood mitigation alternatives. The flooding potential will be compared for WABusiness Uni1s\WR\Proposals\20] 1\PI 18.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract Dec2013.docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 4 the 10-, 50-, and 100 -year storm events. The additional property tax value would be estimated for the increased assessed value and projected for 30 to 40 years. The future value of these future incremental increases in property taxes would be represented in terms of net present value (NPV). NPV would be compared to cost estimates for completing the needed mitigation projects to achieve the reduced flooding potential to assess the overall value of each project. City stakeholders would provide assumptions for level of property tax increases over the evaluation period. A real estate appraisal firm with experience in evaluating industrial, commercial and residential properties would be part of the project team to estimate market values of properties before and after mitigation efforts (costs for this subconsultant are included as expenses). b. Barr will develop detailed cost estimates for implementing each alternative, which could include land and/or easement acquisition costs, project construction costs, and operating and maintenance costs. Other costs such as economic development incentives, regulatory and administrative costs would be developed in consultation with stakeholders. c. Benefits to property owners will be estimated using the flood damage assessment (completed in Phase 1 Task 2) and refined for the level of flood protection provided by each alternative. A subconsultant with experience in estimating relocation costs and an understanding of flood damages would be part of the project team. The subconsultant is a former Corps of Engineers, economics section employee (costs are included as expenses). Upon completion of this task, we recommend revisiting the scope and cost estimate for the remaining tasks, because the work required for these tasks (especially task 3) depends greatly on the outcome of the previous work tasks. This purpose of this "revisiting" is to review the scope and ensure that any proposed scope changes won't cause the project to go over -budget. If proposed scope changes will cause the project to go over -budget, our work on the project will cease until a new budget is agreed to and approved. Develop strategies for financial implementation. In this step, Barr will outline approaches for the cities to use to finance implementation of the flood mitigation alternatives. We will explore methods for financing project costs, including approaches for allocating costs to beneficiaries and between the cities. One approach might be to define beneficiary value in terms of acre-feet of flooding reduced, where value is directly related to proximity to the flood zone. In this approach, costs could be attributed to beneficiaries based on zones. Here, a greater portion of costs would be allocated to properties in zones closest to flooded areas. Another approach would be to assign a higher priority to implementing projects that have the highest cost to benefit ratio. Barr will also outline the structure and function of a commission, made up of members of all three cities, which would oversee the implementation of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. The commission would likely decide 1) how much each city should contribute to the plan implementation, 2) when projects should be implemented, and 3) how to payout the commission's funds for project implementation. The commission may be similar to the existing Joint Water Commission. This task includes one (1) meeting with staff from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal to discuss the strategies for financial implementation and the function of the commission that would oversee the implementation of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. This meeting would include city staff from public works and city managers and other staff as appropriate (e.g. planners, economic development staff). WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\20l 1\P 118.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract_ Dec20l3.docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley December 19, 2013 Page 5 4. Prepare draft report and recommendations. In this step, Ban will prepare a draft project report summarizing all work, including stakeholder deliberations and decisions. The report will include a recommended implementation program, including project financing, cost allocation methods and proposed schedule for improvements. Recommendations will be developed in consultation with city stakeholders. 5. Meeting with project stakeholders. In this step, we will discuss the draft report and recommendations with the project stakeholders. This meeting would include city staff from public works and city managers and other staff as appropriate (e.g. planners, economic development staff) from the Cities of Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal. 6. Final report and recommendations. In this step, we will revise the report based on the comments heard at the stakeholder meeting. We will then meet again with stakeholders to discuss the upcoming presentation of the final report to the joint city council meeting. We will present the final report to the three city councils at a single joint meeting for their review and approval. Following city council approval (or acceptance), we will produce the final report (10 hard copies and electronic format) and provide the stakeholders with electronic project "close-out" files. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with each task for Phases 1 and 2 as described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, and is based on a March 15, 2014 start date. Task T Description of Task Amount I aced Com Estimated F pletion Phase 1 - InlNal assessment and selection of alternatives Task 1: Identify the cost to acquire all flood -prone ro erties $ 16,200 June 2014 Task 2: Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for flood -pr ne properties $ 12,100 July 2014 Task 3: Model the impact of potential reductions in impervious surface on flooding $ 3,600 June 2014 Task 4: Prepare technical memo summarizing the results of Tasks 1-3 $ 3,900 August 2014 Task 5: 1 Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives $ 9,800 September 2014 Phase 1 Total $ 45,500 —September 2014 Phase 2: Conduct a Cost -Benefit Analysis of the t2ecmtnmended Flood AA tion AVernativs Task 1: Assess flood mitigation alternatives for flood damage reduction $ 3,600 October 2014 Task 2: Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives $ 30,400 December 2014 Task 3: Develop strategies for financial implementation 8,400 January 2015 Task 4: 1 Pre are draft report and recommendations 6,900 January 2015 Task 5: Meeting with project stakeholders $ 5,000 February 2015 Task 6: Final report and recommendations $ 10,600 March 2015 Phase 2 Total $ 64,900 March 2015 Total Phase 1 and Phase 2 Cost $ 110,400 As noted earlier in this document, we recommend revisiting the scope and cost estimate for the remainder of the project upon the completion of Task 2 under Phase 2, because there is a high likelihood that the project scope could change at that time. This purpose of this "revisiting" is to review the scope and ensure that any proposed scope changes won't cause the project to go over -budget. If proposed scope changes W:\Business Uni1s\WR\Proposals\2011\PI 18.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLakeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMiligationPlan_Letter Contract_Dec2013. docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Volley December 19, 2013 Poae 6 will cause the project to go over -budget, our work on the project will cease until a new budget is agreed to and approved. This Agreement will be effective for the duration of the services, unless earlier terminated by either the City or us. We will commence work upon receipt of a copy of this letter signed by your authorized City representative. We will inform you of our progress through periodic e-mail updates, telephone calls, invoice details, and other communications. For the services provided, you will pay us according to the attached Standard Terms. We will bill the city monthly. The cost of the services will not exceed $110,400 without prior approval by the city. We understand you or your designees have the authority to direct us. We will direct communications to you at the City of Golden Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road. Direction should be provided to Karen Chandler at Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55435. During the term of this Agreement, we will maintain the following insurance coverages: Worker Compensation Statutory Employer Liability $500k per claim/$500k aggregate Commercial General Liability $1M per claim/$2M aggregate, combined single limit Automobile $1M combined single limit Umbrella/excess policy as to above coverages $ l OM aggregate Professional Liability (claims -made) $5M per claim/$5M annual aggregate If this Agreement is satisfactory, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided, and return it to us. Sincerely yours, Barr Engineering Co. J By Leonard J. Kremer Its Vice President Accepted this _ day of , 2013 City of Golden Valley By Thomas D. Burt Its City Manager WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\2011\1`I 18,11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\McdLakeWinnetkaLongTennFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contract _Dec20l 3. docx Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Volley December 19, 2013 Poae 7 Attachments Standard Terms—Professional Services Fee Schedule Figure 1 — Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Study Area Detailed cost estimate spreadsheet WABusiness Units\WR\Proposals\2011\P118.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Tenn Plan\MedLskeWinnetkaLongTermFloodMitigationPlan_Letter Contra ct_Dec2013. docx STANDARD TERMS -PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Our Agreement with you consists of the accompanying letter or other authorization, Work Orders, and these Standard Terms — Professional Services. Section 1: Our Responsibilities water. If you are requesting that we provide services that 1.1 We will provide the professional services ("Services") include this risk, you agree to hold us harmless from described in this Agreement. We will use that degree of such contamination claims, damages, and expenses, care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar including reasonable attorneys' fees, unless the loss is circumstances by reputable members of our profession caused by our negligence. practicing in the same locality. 2.6 You agree to make disclosures required by law. If we are 1.2 We will select the means, methods, techniques, required by law or legal process to make such disclosures, you agree to hold us harmless and sequences, or procedures used in providing our indemnify us from related claims and costs, including Services. If you direct us to deviate from our selections, reasonable attorneys' fees. you agree to hold us harmless from claims, damages, and expenses arising out of your direction. Section 3: Reports and Records 1.3 We will acquire all licenses applicable to our Services 3.1 We will retain analytical data relating to the Services for and we will comply with applicable law. seven years and financial data for three years. 1.4 Our duties do not include supervising your contractors or 3.2 commenting on, supervising, or providing the means and methods of their work unless we accept any such duty in writing. We will not be responsible for the failure of your contractors to perform in accordance with their undertakings. 1.5 We will provide a health and safety program for our employees, but we will not be responsible for contractor, job, or site health or safety unless we accept that duty in writing. 1.6 Estimates of our fees or other project costs will be based 3.3 on information available to us and on our experience and knowledge. Such estimates are an exercise of our professional judgment and are not guaranteed or warranted. Actual costs may vary. You should add a contingency. 1.7 The information you provide to us will be maintained in confidence except as required by law. Section 2: Your Responsibilities 2.1 You will provide access to property as required. 2.2 You will provide us with prior reports, specifications, plans, changes in plans, and information about the project which may affect the delivery of our Services. You will hold us harmless from claims, damages, and related expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, involving information not timely called to our attention or not correctly shown on documents you furnished to us. 2.3 You agree to provide us with emergency procedure information and information on contamination and dangerous or hazardous substances or processes we may encounter in performing the Services. 2.4 You agree to hold us harmless as to any claim that we are an owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning of any law governing the handling, treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous or hazardous materials. 2.5 Site remediation services may involve risk of contamination of previously uncontaminated air, soil, or Monitoring wells are your property and you are responsible for their permitting, maintenance and abandonment unless we accept that duty in writing. Samples remaining after tests are conducted and field and laboratory equipment that cannot be adequately cleansed of contaminants are your property. They will be discarded or returned to you, at our discretion, unless within 15 days of the report date you give written direction to store or transfer the materials at your expense. Our reports, notes, calculations, and other documents, and our computer software and data are instruments of our Services, and they remain our property, subject to a license to you for your use in the related project for the purposes disclosed to us. You may not use or transfer our reports to others for a purpose for which they were not prepared without our written approval. You agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from claims, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of any unauthorized transfer or use. 3.4 Because electronic documents may be modified intentionally or inadvertently, you agree that we will not be liable for damages resulting from change in an electronic document occurring after we transmit it to you. In case of any difference or ambiguity between an electronic and a paper document, the paper document shall govern. When accepting document transfer in electronic media format, you accept exclusive risk relating to long-term capability, usability, or readability of documents, software application packages, operating systems, and computer hardware. 3.5 If you do not pay for the Services in full as agreed, we may retain reports and work not yet delivered to you and you agree to return to us our reports and other work in your possession or under your control. You agree not to use or rely upon our work for any purpose until it is paid for in full. Section 4: Compensation 4.1 You will pay for the Services as agreed upon or according to our then current fee schedules if there is no Documentl Ver. 05118110 other written agreement as to price. An estimated cost is not a firm figure unless stated as such and you should allow for a contingency in addition to estimated costs. 4.2 You agree to notify us of billing disputes within 15 days and to pay undisputed portions of invoices within 30 days of invoice date. For balances not paid under these terms, you agree to pay interest on unpaid balances beginning 10 days after invoice date at the rate of 1.5% per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law. 4.3 If you direct us to invoice another, we will do so, but you agree to be responsible for our compensation unless you provide us with that person's written acceptance of the terms of our Agreement and we agree to extend credit to that person. 4.4 You agree to compensate us in accordance with our fee schedule if we are asked or required to respond to legal process arising out of a proceeding to which we are not a party. 4.5 If we are delayed by factors beyond our control, or if the project conditions or the scope of work change, or if the standards change, we will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation. 4.6 In consideration of our providing insurance to cover claims made by you, you hereby waive any right of offset as to payment otherwise due us. Section 5: Disputes, Damage, and Risk Allocation 5.1 Each of us will exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes without litigation. Such efforts will include a meeting attended by each party's representative empowered to resolve the dispute. Disputes (except collections) will be submitted to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. 5.2 We will not be liable for special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, including but not limited to those arising from delay, loss of use, loss of profits or revenue, loss of financing commitments or fees, or the cost of capital. Each of us waives against the other and its subcontractors, agents, and employees all rights to recover for losses covered by our respective property/casualty or auto insurance policies. 5.3 We will not be liable for damages unless you have notified us of your claim within 30 days of the date of your discovery of it and unless you have given us an opportunity to investigate and to recommend ways of mitigating damages, and unless suit is commenced within two years of the earlier of the date of injury or loss and the date of completion of the Services. 5.4 For you to obtain the benefit of a fee which includes a reasonable allowance for risks, you agree that our aggregate liability will not exceed the fee paid for our services or $50,000, whichever is greater, and you agree to indemnify us from all liability to others in excess of that amount. If you are unwilling to accept this allocation of risk, we will increase our aggregate liability to $100,000 provided that, within 10 days of the date of our Agreement, you provide payment in an amount that will increase our fees by 10%, but not less than $500, to compensate us for the greater risk undertaken. This increased fee is not the purchase of insurance. 5.5 If you fail to pay us within 60 days following invoice date, we may consider the default a total breach of our Agreement and, at our option, we may terminate all of our duties without liability to you or to others. 5.6 If we are involved in legal action to collect our compensation, you agree to pay our collection expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 5.7 The law of the state in which the project site is located will govern all disputes. Each of us waives trial by jury. No employee acting within the scope of employment shall have any individual liability for his or her acts or omissions and you agree not to make any claim against individual employees. Section 6: Indemnification 6.1 Each of us will indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against demands, damages, and expenses to the comparative extent they are caused by the negligent acts, omissions, or breach of contract of the indemnifying party or of those others for whom the indemnifying party is legally responsible. 6.2 To the extent that may be necessary to indemnify either of us under Section 6.1, you and we expressly waive, in favor of the other only, any immunity or exemption from liability that exists under any worker compensation law. Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions 7.1 We will provide a certificate of insurance to you upon request. Any claim as an Additional Insured shall be limited to losses caused by our sole negligence. 7.2 This Agreement is our entire agreement, and it supersedes prior agreements. Only a writing signed by both of us making specific reference to the provision modified may modify it. 7.3 Neither of us will assign this Agreement without the written approval of the other. No other person has any rights under this Agreement. 7.4 A writing may terminate this Agreement. We will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation if our work is terminated prior to completion as well as our fees and expenses on the basis agreed upon through the effective date of termination. 7.5 We will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, affectional preference, disability, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local human -rights commission, or status as a specially disabled, Vietnam -era, or other eligible veteran. We will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are considered, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to those factors. Our actions will include, but are not limited to notifications, hiring, promotion or employment upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoffs or terminations, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship. End of Standard Terms Oocumentl Ver. 05118/10 BBA■.R. R Fee Schedule -2014 Rev. 01/01/14 Rate* Description (U.S. dollars) Principal......................................................................................................................................... $120-230 Consultant/Advisor......................................................................................................................... $155-220 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist III......................................................................................................$125-150 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist II.........................................................................................................$95-120 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist I............................................................................................................$65-90 TechnicianIII..................................................................................................................................$125-150 TechnicianII.....................................................................................................................................$95-120 TechnicianI........................................................................................................................................$50-90 SupportPersonnel II........................................................................................................................$95-170 SupportPersonnel I........................................................................................................................... $50-90 Rates for litigation support services will include a 30% surcharge. A ten percent (10%) markup will be added to subcontracts for professional support and construction services to cover overhead and insurance surcharge expenses. Invoices are payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Any amount not paid within 30 days shall bear interest from the date 10 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18 percent per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable law. Reimbursable expenses including, but not limited to, the actual and reasonable costs of transportation, meals, lodging, parking costs, postage, and shipping charges will be billed at actual cost. Materials and supplies charges, printing charges, and equipment rental charges will be billed in accordance with Barr's standard rate schedules. Mileage will be billed at the IRS -allowable rate. Principal category includes consultants, advisors, engineers, scientists, and specialists who are officers of the company. Consultant/Advisor category includes experienced personnel in a variety of fields. These professionals typically have advanced background in their areas of practice and include engineers, engineering specialists, scientists, related technical professionals, and professionals in complementary service areas such as communications and public affairs. Engineer/Scientist/Specialist categories include registered professionals and professionals in training (e.g. engineers, geologists, and landscape architects), and graduates of engineering and science degree programs. Technician category includes CADD operators, construction observers, cost estimators, data management technicians, designers, drafters, engineering technicians, interns, safety technicians, surveyors, and water, air, and waste samplers. Support Personnel category includes information management, project accounting, report production, word processing, and other project support personnel. *Rates do not include sales tax on services that may be required in some jurisdictions. = Subwatersheds ® Municipality Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Study Area 3 750 Feet 1 1 E) Figure 1 Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Study Area Table 1. Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan - Estimated Hours and Costs Work Task Estimated Timeline Subtasks Expenses Total Hours Total Cost Phase 1: Initial assessment and)selection of.altematives March/April 2014 Update XP-SWMM to run Atlas 14 (100 year) event, using the nested distribution - Revised inundation mapping 42 $4,000 April 2014 Identify properties subject to flood risk. 6 $600 Task 1: Identify the cost to acquire all flood -prone properties May 2014 Estimate cost to acquire residential properties (market value, relocation cost, & lost tax revenue). Formulas used for estimation. (Expenses are subconsultant costs). $600 30 $4,400 May/lune 2014 Estimate cost to acquire commercial properties (market value, relocation cost, & lost tax and business revenue). Includes 3 interviews with local businesses. (Expenses are subconsultant costs). $3,300 29 $7,300 Subtotal $3,900 107 $16,200 June 2014 Survey of all flood prone properties - Low floor & low opening (40-4S properties). $600 67 $7,400 Task 2: Assess the flooding risk and July 2014 Determine damage (for 10-50-100 year events) to residential properties based on published information. 25 $3,100 associated costs for flood -prone properties July 2014 Determine damage (for 10-50-100 year events) to commercial properties based on interviews. 12 $1,600 Subtotal $600 1 104 $12,100 Task 3: Model the impact of potential May/June 2014 Estimate impact of impervious reduction (0-25%) using existing conditions XP-SWMM model (10-50-100 year events). 18 $1,800 reductions in impervious surface on flooding May/June 2014 Develop examples of reasonable impervious reductions in the DeCola watershed (road width reduction, redevelopment areas, etc.). 18 $1,800 Subtotal $0 36 $3,600 July/August 2014 Develop technical memo summarizing results of Tasks 1-3. 17 $1,900 Task 4: Prepare technical memo summarizing the results of tasks 1-3 August 2014 Review/edit technical memo summarizing results. 7 $1,100 July/August 2014 Develop figures for technical memo (assume 2 figures). 10 $900 Subtotal $0 34 $3,900 September 2014 Meeting to summarize DeCola ponds study and introduce project to public works, planning, and economic development staff (and any other appropriate city staff) of the Cities of Crystal, New Hope, and Golden Valley- Include discussion related to Atlas 14 $40 18 $2,000 Task 5: Brainstorm potential flood September 2014 Internal meeting to brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives before meeting with stakeholders including discussion with city staff at the Cities of Crystal, New Hope, and Golden Valley (including conversations with city staff, review of city CIPS, and redevelopment initiatives) 24 $3,100 mitigation alternatives September 2014 Preparation for brainstorming meeting to identify potential flood mitigation alternatives. 14 $1,600 September 2014 Meeting with including city staff from Golden Valley, New Hope, and Crystal including public works, planning, and economic development staff (and any other appropriate city staff) to brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives and develop 2-3 flood mitigation alternatives to assess further (Phase 2). $40 12 $1,800 September 2014 ISummarize alternatives selected at meeting with City staff 8 $1,200 Subtotal $40 76 $9,600 Total Hours for Phase 1- DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plani 357 0 Total Cost for Phase 1- DeCola Long Term flood Mitigation Plani $4,540 $45,500 W:laualness U11WWR%Pfopssab120111P118.11 Clty of Golden Valby D.Cms Lone Tsrm PIanlDsCola Phs ,lWmpup LTFMP_CastE timsk D,mmbar2013.xism Table 1. Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan - Estimated Hours and Costs Work Task Estimated Timeline Subtasks Expenses TotalTotal Hours Cost Phase 2: Conduct a cost -benefit analysis of the recommended flood mitigation alternatives Task 1: Assess flood mitigation October 2014 Evaluate the 2-3 flood mitigation alternatives using the existing conditions XP-SWMM model to estimate impact on flood reduction (10-50-100 year events). S4 $3,100 alternatives for flood damage reduction October 2014 Summarize flood mitigation alternative results (10-50-100 year events). 12 $500 Subtotal $0 66 $3,600 Task 2: Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives November/December 2014 Estimate property tax benefits for specific properties by estimating the additional property value for properties with reduced flooding risk (10-50-100 year events) - 30-40 year projection using assumptions for level of property tax increases. (Expenses are subconsultant costs). $17,000 21 $19,800 November/December 2014 Develop detailed cost estimates for implementation of each alternative (land/easement acquisition, project construction costs, O&M costs, & potentially, economic development incentives, regulatory and adminstrative 60 costs). $6,200 November/December 2014 Develop benefits (increases in property value and reduced flood damage costs) to property owners using the flood stage assessment. (Expenses are subconsultant costs). $3,500 8 $4,500 Subtotal $20,500 89 $30,400 December 2014/January 2015 Outline approaches for the cities to use to finance implementation of flood mitigation alternatives. 36 $4,500 Task 3: Develop strategies for financial December 2014/January 2015 Develop the outline for the structure and function of "commission" overseeing the implementation of the DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. 16 $2,200 implementation January 2015 Meeting with City Staff to discuss financial implementation strategies $40 12 $1,700 Subtotal $40 64 $8,400 December 2014/January 2015 Develop draft report summarizing all work including stakeholder deliberations and decisions and include a recommended implementation program. 38 $3,700 Task 4: Prepare draft report and recommendations January 2015 Review/edit draft report. SO $1,500 December 2014/January 2015 Develop figures for draft report (assume 6 figures). 20 $1,700 Subtotal $0 68 $6,900 February 2015 Preparation for meeting to discuss draft report. 30 $3,100 Task S: Meeting with project stakeholders February 2015 1st meeting with project stakeholders to discuss draft report and recommendations. $40 12 $1,800 Subtotal $40 42 $5,000 February/March 2015 Edits to draft report based on meeting with project stakeholders. 33 $3,300 March 2015 2nd meeting with project stakeholders to discuss draft report and recommendations. 12 $1,800 March 2015 Prepare for presentation of final report to joint City Councils. 21 $2,600 Task 6: Final report and recommendations March 2015 Meeting with joint City Councils to present final report (review and approval). $40 6 $1,000 March 2015 Compile and produce final report (assume 10 hard copies) and provide electronic "close-out" files to stakeholders. $250 17 Subtotal $290 89 Total Hours for Phase 2 - DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan 418 K$64,900 Total Cost for Phase 2- DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan $20,870 Total Hours - DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan 775Total Cost - DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan $25,410 W:\Business Unify%WR%Pfoposet$12011%P11 B.11 City of Goltlen Valley DeCola Long Term PIanlDeCola_Phasel Wrapup_LTFMP_CastEs[imate_December2013.a1sm February 27, 2014 Ms. Sue Virnig Ms. Anne Norris City of Golden Valley City of Crystal 7800 Golden Valley Road 4141 Douglas Drive Golden Valley, MN 55427 Crystal, MN 55422 Subject: Executed signature page of Phase 2 DeCola Pond agreement Enclosed is New Hope's executed signature page for the Cooperative Project Agreement for Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study. The New Hope City Council approved the agreement at its meeting of February 24, 2014. Please furnish an executed signature page from your city to my attention after Council action. Thank you. Sincerely, Valerie Leone, CMC City Clerk Enc. cc: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North • New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 • www. ci.new-hope.mn.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 • Police (non -emergency): 763-531-5170 • Public Works: 763-592-6777 • TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 • Police Fax: 763-531-5174 • Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776 City of olden T v .ll eV March 27, 2014 Kirk McDonald, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: Cooperative Project Agreement Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study Dear Mr. McDonald: Enclosed for your file, please find one fully -executed Cooperative Agreement for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study between the Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley and New Hope. If you have any questions, please contact me at 763.593.8084. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer Enclosure C: Tom Burt, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works G:\PROJECTS\DeCola Ponds Phase 2 Study(14-13)\Corres\TransmitCoopAgmt_NewHope.docx 76a -533-P u()C, %::?-5:3-8"i 09 763--593-3968 COUNCIL VIPRequest for Action Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Works July 23, 2012 Consent Item No. By: Guy Johnson, Director By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager 6.9 Resolution approving a cooperative project agreement between the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study (project No. 913) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that the Council pass a resolution approving a cooperative agreement that sets forth the cost/share distribution for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study. BACKGROUND The homes located in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley; the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road; and the Terra Linda Drive area in New Hope experience flooding during heavy rain events. The cities of Crystal and New Hope contribute storm water runoff to the Terra Linda Drive area. This storm water runoff, along with storm water runoff from Golden Valley, contributes to the flooding in the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds. The Terra Linda Drive area, the Rosalyn Court complex, and the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road have experienced substantial flooding during very heavy rain events over the years. In May of 2006 these areas were again flooded due to an extremely heavy rain event over a few hours. The city of New Hope initiated a review of the storm water runoff issues in these areas and completed a report that included possible options to help alleviate the flooding. In 2008, New Hope awarded a contract for the construction of a concrete Swale between Terra Linda Drive and Rosalyn Court. The concrete swale helped alleviate the amount of storm water backup on Terra Linda Drive and the property damage in the Terra Linda Drive/Rosalyn Court area. MOTION SECOND BY BY TO: 2 — Q l I:KFA\F`ubworKs\2011\913 Golden valley Flood Mitigation Study Cooperative Agreement Request for Action July 23, 2012 Page 2 The city of Golden Valley completed an initial DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study with Barr Engineering. Because the cities of New Hope and Crystal contribute storm water runoff to these areas, the city of Golden Valley is requesting that they take part in the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study by Barr Engineering with the city of Golden Valley. Golden Valley would be taking the lead and will be coordinating the work with Barr Engineering. Golden Valley has obtained a bid of $116,000 from Barr Engineering for the study. Barr Engineering has been the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's consultant engineering firm for many years and is very familiar with the storm water runoff issues in this area. The cost sharing agreement between the three cities would be based on the percentage of area in each city that is tributary to DeCola Ponds and the Medicine Lake Road area. Staff is recommending that the city of New Hope takes part in the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study by Barr Engineering with the cities of Golden Valley and Crystal. The study will include an initial assessment, prioritize courses of action, and conduct a cost benefit analysis. The city of Crystal will be acting on the agreement in early August. Although New Hope's efforts in 2008 did help alleviate the amount of storm water backup on Terra Linda Drive and the property damage in the Terra Linda Drive/Rosalyn Court area, there is still significant flooding and some property damage especially in the area of Rosalyn Court during some storm events. The cost for the study is $116,000. Based on the area of each city that is tributary to DeCola Ponds and the Medicine Lake Road area, New Hope's cost would be $31,784. The city of Crystal's cost would be $26,216, and the city of Golden Valley's cost would be $58,000. The city of New Hope's allocation of $31,784 would be funded through the city's storm water fund. ATTACHMENTS Copies of the agreement, resolution, and Barr Engineering's bid are attached. City of New Hope Resolution No. 12 — 109 Resolution approving a cooperative project agreement between the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study (project No. 913) WHEREAS, homes located in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley, and the area around the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue North and Medicine Lake Road in New Hope experience flooding during heavy rain events; and, WHEREAS, the cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal contribute storm water runoff to the area around the intersection of Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and in the vicinity of the DeCola Ponds; and, WHEREAS, the city of Golden Valley has solicited bids from an engineering firm to initiate a flood mitigation study for Rhode Island and Medicine Lake Road and the DeCola Ponds areas; and, WHEREAS, a cooperative agreement has been prepared between the city of Golden Valley, the city of New Hope, and the city of Crystal setting forth the scope, terms, and conditions for sharing the cost of the study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota: 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 2. That the cooperative agreement between the city of New Hope, the city of Golden Valley, and the city of Crystal for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study is approved. 3. The mayor and city manager (the "Officers") are authorized and directed to sign the same on behalf of the city. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of July, 2012. LAttest: 'l:e - City Clerk Mayor COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY AND NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA JULY XX, 2012 COOPERATIVE PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 DeCOLA PONDS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AREA FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY This AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2012 by and between the CITY OF CRYSTAL, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Crystal'), the CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Golden Valley"), and the CITY OF NEW HOPE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("New Hope") (collectively hereinafter, "the Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Minnesota statute § 471.59, et. seq., authorizes cities to enter into cooperative project agreements; and WHEREAS, The Cities each contribute storm water runoff to the following areas: 1. DeCola Ponds, located south of Medicine Lake Road, east of Winnetka Avenue, and north of Duluth Street ("DeCola Ponds Area"); and 2. Medicine Lake Road, located in the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope, between Winnetka Avenue North and Rhode Island Avenue North ("Medicine Lake Road Area"); and WHEREAS, Crystal and New Hope contribute storm water runoff to Terra Linda Drive and Rosalyn Court, located in New Hope in the northeast quadrant of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue North ("Terra Linda Area"); and WHEREAS, the DeCola Ponds Area, the Medicine Lake Road Area, Terra Linda Drive Area are all prone to significant flooding during heavy rainfall events; with a history of property damage resulting from this flooding; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope completed a Report for Terra Linda Drive, Rosalyn Court and Medicine Lake Road — Local Flood Improvement Project, dated July 2006 and revised in November 2006, to investigate flood mitigation measures. New Hope has since implemented measures from this report to begin addressing flooding issues in these areas; and WHEREAS, Golden Valley has completed the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study, prepared by Barr Engineering Company and dated April 2012 ("Phase 1 Study") to investigate the cause of the flooding in these areas that includes a recommendation to further study flood mitigation measures within the contributing watershed to the flood -prone areas to reduce flood -related property damage; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to work cooperatively to determine the most cost-effective measures to minimize flood damages. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope hereby agree as follows: 1. Golden Valley will be the lead City, including contract administration and coordination among the Cities, for the preparation of the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Area Flood Mitigation Study ("Phase 2 Study"). 2. Golden Valley has obtained a proposal for professional engineering services to perform the Phase 2 Study from Barr Engineering Company dated July 17, 2012. A copy of the Phase 2 Study proposal is attached to this agreement as Exhibit 1. 3. The not to exceed cost to perform the Phase 2 Study is $116,000. The Cities agree to prorate the costs of the Phase 2 Study based upon the area within each City that is tributary to the low point on Medicine Lake Road, with the following cost participation: Crystal (139 acres) = $26,216.00 Golden Valley (308 acres) _ $58,000.00 New Hope (169 acres) = $31,784.00 4. Payment. Partial payments will be made by the City of Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company on a monthly basis for work completed. The Cities of Crystal and New Hope shall, within 30 days of receipt of invoice, submit partial payment to the City of Golden Valley in the amount so invoiced. 5. Authorized Agents. The City of Crystal's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Tom Mathisen, City Engineer/Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. The Authorized Agent's current address and telephone number is: 4141 Douglas Drive, Crystal, MN, 55422; 763.531.1160. The City of Golden Valley's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, or her successor or assign. Her current address and telephone number is: 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN, 55427; 763.593.8035. The City of New Hope's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement is Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, or his successor or assign. His current address and telephone number is: 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN, 55428; 763.592.6777. 6. Successor and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that neither Crystal, Golden Valley, nor New Hope shall have the right to assign its rights, obligations, and interests in or under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto. 7. Amendment, Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification, or waiver of any condition, provision, or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound, or its duly authorized representative(s). Any waiver by a party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence described therein, and shall not affect the rights of any other party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the future. 8. Savinq Provision. If any provision of this Agreement shall be found invalid or unenforceable with respect to any entity or in any jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and such provisions found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall not be affected as to their enforcement or lawfulness as to any other entity or in any other jurisdiction, and to such extent the terms and provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. 9. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Crystal: City Engineer/Director of Public Works City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Drive Crystal, MN 55422 If to Golden Valley: Director of Public Works City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 If to New Hope Director of Public Works City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 10. Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the earlier of (a) termination by mutual consent of the Cities, or (b) 60 days after completion of the Phase 2 Study as demonstrated by final payment by Golden Valley to Barr Engineering Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Thomas D. Burt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012 by Shepard M. Harris and Thomas D. Burt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Golden Valley a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public CITY OF CRYSTAL By: It's Mayor By: It's City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2012 by , and , respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Crystal, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public CITY OF NEW HOPE It's Mayor 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) It's City Manager The foregoing Cooperative Project Agreement was acknowledged before me this 2 day of , 2012 by ea t-1; tf� e� , and respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. r Notary Public `l '`�I � , • 111 llll\�! Exhibit 1 resourceful. naturally.ARR engineering and environmental consultants July 17, 2012 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Agreement for Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Oliver: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional engineering services to the City. We will do our best to justify your expression of confidence in us. This letter, together with our Standard Terms (attached), sets forth the Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Barr Engineering Company regarding the project to develop a long term flood mitigation plan for the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area. The cities of Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal recommended the development of a such a plan upon completion of the DeCola Ponds Area Flood Mitigation Study. This letter presents the scope of professional consulting services we will provide for your project, including the proposed work tasks, the cost estimate, and the schedule for the completion of the proposed work. Included in the scope are two major phases—an initial assessment and selection of alternatives phase (Phase 1), and a cost -benefit analysis of flood mitigation alternatives phase (Phase 2). Proposed Work Tasks Introduction The following is our proposed approach for exploring additional flood mitigation measures in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area; this area includes the DeCola Pond system located immediately downstream. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Working with a broad group of city stakeholders will be an important part of developing feasible solutions, because of the unique challenges associated with flood mitigation across municipal boundaries, and the need to retrofit existing development and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities. We anticipate that the stakeholders would include the city councils, planning commissions, city managers, planners and engineers from each of the three affected cities and that they will be involved in this process. We anticipate completing this project in two phases. The first phase or "initial assessment' is structured around gathering information on flood -prone properties. This information will be used in assessing and prioritizing alternative courses of action, which will be the focus of phase two. The following paragraphs provide the details of the work tasks associated with each phase and the attached table provides a detailed cost estimate for the work. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley July 17, 2012 Page 5 5. Meeting with project stakeholders. In this step, we will discuss the draft report and recommendations with the project stakeholders. Final report and recommendations. In this step, we will revise the report based on the comments heard at the stakeholder meeting. We will then meet again with stakeholders to discuss the revised report, recommendations and the upcoming presentation to the joint city council meeting. We will present the final report to the three city councils at a single joint meeting for their review and approval. Following city council approval (or acceptance), we will produce the final report (10 hard copies and electronic format) and provide the stakeholders with electronic project "close-ouf' files. Estimated Cost and Schedule The table below describes the estimated costs associated with each task for Phases 1 and 2 as described above in the scope of services. Assumptions associated with these costs are included in the above text. The table below also includes the estimated schedule for the services, and is based on an August 2012 start date. Task Description of Task Amount Estimated Completion Phase 1 -In ffal assessment and selection of attemativea Task 1: Identify the cost to acquire all flood -prone properties $ 9,500 September 2012 Task 2: Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for flood -prone properties $ 10,200 October 2012 Task 3: Model the impact of potential reductions in impervious surface on flooding $ 3,900 September 2012 Task 4: Prepare technical memo summarizing the results of Tasks 1-3 $ 3,400 November 2012 Task 5: Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives 5,000 December 2012 Phase 1 Total $ 32,000 December 2012 Phase.2. Conduct aiC6d-Benefit Anal sls 6t tfie 1tec6tinittended Flood M btksn Aitereiaf nest Task 1: Assess flood mitigation alternatives for flood Boma - e reduction $ 7,800 January 2013 Task 2: Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives $ 27,900 March 2013 Task 3: Develop strafe ies for financial implementation 6,000 Aril 2013 Task 4: 1 Prepare draft report and recommendations 6,100 Aril 2013 Task 5: Meeting with project stakeholders 4,400 May 2013 Task 6: Final report and recommendations 8,700 July 2013 Phase 2 Total $ 61,000 Ju 2013 Total Phase 1 and Phase 2 As noted earlier in. this document, we recommend revisiting the scope and cost estimate for the remainder of the project upon the completion of Task 2 under Phase 2, because there is a high likelihood that the project scope and total project cost could change at that time. To budget for this uncertainty we recommend that the project budget include a contingency of 25%, to allow for future project scope and budget changes. Based on the total estimated cost of $93,000, a 25% contingency ($23,000) would bring the potential total cost to $116,000. This Agreement will be effective for the duration of the services, unless earlier terminated by either the City or us. We will commence work upon receipt of a copy of this letter signed by your authorized City W;Susiness Units WR\Proposals\201 IT118.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola long Term Plan\Proposal to Golden ValleyV-c ter Contract_2012 July.doex Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley July 17, 2012 Page 3 i. Greenway/trail system with absorption capacity, including tree trenches ii. Ponds iii. Underground storage c. New mitigation measures on existing public land/ROW i. Ponds ii. Underground storage iii. Impervious surface reduction -distributed stormwater treatment facilities (Narrowed streets and/or with infiltration in ROW) d. New mitigation measures on private land that could be implemented through change in public policy (e.g. acquisition of easements, economic development incentives, stormwater utility incentives, requirements at point of property sales, etc.) i. Ponds, underground storage, etc. ii. Impervious surface reduction (Reduction of parking spaces -zoning implications) iii. Green roofs iv. Tree trenches After the brainstorming session, we will provide the stakeholders with a summary of the selected alternatives. Phase 2: Conduct a Cost -Benefit Analysis of the Recommended Flood Mitigation Alternatives In this phase, efforts will be focused on evaluating the two (2) to three (3) flood mitigation alternatives selected by the project stakeholders. 1. Assess flood mitig@tion alternatives for flood damage reduction. In this step, Barr will revise the XP SWMM model to estimate the flood reduction impact of each flood mitigation alternative. 2. Complete a cost -benefit analysis for the flood mitigation alternatives. In this step, Barr will quantify the costs and benefits provided by each flood mitigation alternative. Two types of benefits will be considered: 1) benefits to the city from increases in property taxes based on higher property values and 2) benefits to property owners due to reduced flood risk and flood costs. a. Property tax benefits would be estimated for specific properties by estimating the additional property value for properties with reduced flooding risk due to implementation of the selected flood mitigation alternatives. The flooding potential will be compared for the 10-, 50-, and 100 -year storm events. The additional property tax value would be estimated for the increased assessed value and projected for 30 to 40 years. The future value of these future incremental increases in property taxes would be represented in terms of net present value (NPV). NPV would be compared to cost estimates for completing the needed mitigation projects to achieve the reduced flooding potential to assess the overall value of each project. City stakeholders would provide assumptions for level of property tax increases over the evaluation period. A real estate appraisal firm with experience in evaluating industrial, commercial and residential properties would be part of the project team to estimate WABusiness Units\WRTroposals\2011\P116.11 City of Golden Valley DeCola Long Term PlanTroposal to Golden Valley1Letter Contract_ 2012_luly.docx �.r }`� , � _� '� 3Yi � � rpt- ; sy ���� �� - �� �� • - .�� � _- ;s < �'��. 14, aA �`S1� �' � ,� °d � •� jpw •."�w"` � 1 r �� � `� • ' F,�yt^ N^ �i"3" c+'� t t -�5�`� 1' '� .. floc ftft? Ar v i ,,� e _,, gy - _ ,, g ,t F �C ,a �,�,., S it '1 ak t � i`�+r i� 'gY���p�,q` 7•` '�p'S X. i°��t`��3YDt4 x' �.. c ' � � � ` 0. F+ i .. g�• �� � iP+, a $* A� 'M��� vt � . Move 61, y(({' Y ' �r t b6 i.kj s1r 'q t r 1+c91rj:Dndq ' '... 'ti 4 .,,.-%'4 .. Kik k Y t x $rv9t ,.: vL'-t" •.art^„ ,d i� #`a i ,�'y::r�„ '"', _ '°y Y °,"ry'a```` „r - a-F� ' 't , rt ..,,,'. `7`.a.;A• n_.� . �"e�z�� �,� 0 3� I ISI 710 Feet e Figure 1 Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Study Area Subwatersheds ® Municipality Lake Road & -Medicine Winnetka Avenue Study Area 0 3� I ISI 710 Feet e Figure 1 Medicine Lake Road & Winnetka Avenue Study Area Table 1. Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Tenn Flood Mitigation Plan - Estimated Hours and Costs Work Task Estimated Timeline subtasks Expenses ouurs Total Cost Ho Estimate property tax benefits for specific properties by estimating the February/Manth 2013 additional property value for properties with reduced flooding risk (30-50-100 $15000 18 $17,100 year events) - 30-40 year projection using assumptions for level of property tax Increases. (Expenses are subconsultant costs). Task 2: Complete a cost -benefit Develop detailed cost estimates for implementation of each alternative analysis for the flood mitigation February/March 2013 (land/easement acquisition, project construction costs, O&M costs, & 62 $7,000 alternatives potentially, economic development Incentives, regulatory and adminstrative costs). Develop benefits (increases in property value and reduced flood damage costs) February/Mamh 2013 to property owners using the flood stage assessment. (Expenses are $3,000 7 $3,800 subconsultant costs). Subtotal W,000 87 527,900 March/April 2013 Outline approaches for the cities to use to finance Implementation of flood 36 $4,100 mitigation alternatives. March/Aprll 2013 Develop the outline for the structure and function of "commission" overseeing 16 $11900 Task 3: Develop strategies for financial implementation the implementation of the DeCoia Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan. Subtotal $0 52 $6,000 March/April 2013 DeVelop draft report summarising all work including stakeholder deliberations 34 $3,500 and decisions and include a recommended Implementation program. Task 4: Prepare draft report and April 2013 Review/edit draft report 10 $1,300 recommendations March/April 2013 Develop figures for draft report (assume 6 figures). 17 $1,300 Subtotal $0 Q $6,100 May 2013 Preparation for meeting to discuss draft report. 30 $3,200 Task 5: Meeting with project May 2013 1st meeting with project stakeholders to discuss draft report and $35 9 $1,300 stakeholders recommendations. Subtotal $35 39 $4,400 May/June 2013 Edits to draft report based on meeting with project stakeholders. 27 52,600 June 2013 2nd meeting with project stakeholders to discuss draft report and 9 $1,200 recommendations. July 2013 Prepare for presentation of final report to joint City Councils. 21 $2,300 Task 6: Final report and July 2013 Meeting with joint City Councils to present final report (review and approval). $35 6 $900 recommendations July 2013 Compile and produce final report (assume 10 hard copies) and provide "close-out" $250 17 $1,700 electronic files to stakeholders. Subtotal sns 80 $8,700 Total Hours for Phase 2 - DeCola Lott Term Flood Mitigation Plan 389 0 Total Cost for Phase 2- Detola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan $18,320 $61,OD0 % o Flours >.. Tf+tal Gant='IyaObt�°iart�lternt FAQ Rfl6tljfir P7mn $tt;39S $�'3,0tK1 We recommend that the project budget include consideration for a contingency of 25% Table 1. Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Arca Long Tenn Flood Mitigation Pian - Estimated Hours and Costs Work Task Estlmated Tlmellne Subtasks Expenses Total Hours cost Phase 1: Initial assessment and selection of adGarmtathras August 2012 Identify properties subject to flood risk. 6 $700 Estimate cost to acquire residential properties (marketvalue, relocation cost, August 2012 & lost tax revenue), Formulas used for estimatation. (Expenses are $500 26 $3,300 Task 1: Identity the cost to acquire all subconsultant costs). flood -prone Parties Estimate cost to acquire commercial properties (market value, relocation cost, August/September 2012 & lost tax and business revenue). Includes 3 Interviews with local businesses. $3,000 20 $5,400 (Expenses are subconsultant costs). Subtotal $31500 52 $4,500 August/September 2012 Survey of all flood prone properties - Low floor & low opening (30-35 properties). $500 52 $51600 October 2012 Determine damage (for 10-50-100 year events) to residential properties based on published information. 25 $3,000 Task 2: Assess the flooding risk and associated costs for flood -prone properties October 2012 Determine damage (for 10-50-100 year events) to commercial properties based on interviews. 13 $1,600 Subto I $500 90 $101200 Task 3: Model the Impact of potential August/September 2012 Estimate impact of impervious reduction (0-25%) using existing conditions XP SWMM model (10 -SO -100 year events). 20 $2,200 reductions In Impervious surface on flooding August/September 2012 Develop examples of reasonable impervious reductions in the DeCola watershed (road width reduction, redevelopment areas, etc.). 18 $1,800 Subtotal $0 38 $3,900 October/November 2012 Develop technical memo summarizing results of Tasks 1-3. 17 $1,700 Task 4: Prepare technical memo November 2012 Review/edit technical memo summarizing results, 6 $SOD October/November 2012 Develop figures for technical memo (assume 2 figures). 11 $900 summarizing the results of tasks 1-3 Subtotal $0 34 $3AW December 2012 Internal meeting to brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives before meeting with stakeholders. 12 $1,500 December 2012 Preparation for brainstorming meeting to identify potential flood mitigation alternatives. 12 $1,200 Task S. Brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives December 2012 Meeting with project stakeholders to brainstorm potential flood mitigation alternatives and develop 2-3 flood mitigation alternatives to assess further $35 9 $1,300 (Phase 2). December 2012 Summarize alternatives selected. 6 $1000 Subtotal $35 41 $5.000 Total Hours for Phase 1- DeCola tong Term Flood Mitigation Plan 255 0 Total Cost for Phase 1- DeCola Long Term Flood Mitigation Plan $4,035 $32.000 Phm 2: Conduct a coat -benefit anakftofthe na denimencled f18ed ziiltlgattbn atEatalorvtives Task 1: Assess flood mitigation January 2013 Evaluate the 2-3 flood mitigation alternatives using the existing conditions XP- SWMM model to estimate Impact an flood reduction (10-50-100 year events). 58 $6,500 January 2013 Summarize flood mitigation alternative results 10-50-100 ga ( year events), 12 $1,300 alternatives for flood damage reduction Subtotal 1 $0 L 70 1 $7,800 STANDARD TERMS -PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Our Agreement with you consists of the accompanying letter or other authorization, Work Orders, and these Standard Terms — Professional Services. Section 1: Our Responsibilities water. If you are requesting that we provide services that 1.1 We will provide the professional services ("Services") include this risk, you agree to hold us harmless from described In this Agreement. We will use that degree of such contamination claims, damages, and expenses, care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar including reasonable attorneys' fees, unless the loss is circumstances by reputable members of our profession caused by our negligence. practicing In the same locality. 2.6 You agree to make disclosures required by law. If we are 1.2 We will select the means, methods, techniques, required by law or legal process to make such sequences, or procedures used in providing our disclosures, you agree to hold us harmless and Services. If you direct us to deviate from our selections, indemnify us from related claims and costs, including you agree to hold us harmless from claims, damages, reasonable attorneys fees. and expenses arising out of your direction. Section 3: Reports and Records 1.3 We will acquire all licenses applicable to our Services 3.1 We will retain analytical data relating to the Services for and we will comply with applicable law. seven years and financial data for three years. 1.4 Our duties do not include supervising your contractors or 3.2 commenting on, supervising, or providing the means and methods of their work unless we accept any such duty in writing. We will not be responsible for the failure of your contractors to perform in accordance with their undertakings. 1.5 We will provide a health and safety program for our employees, but we will not be responsible for contractor, job, or site, health or safety unless we accept that duty in writing. 1.6 Estimates of our fees or other project costs will be based 3.3 on Information available to us and on our experience and knowledge. Such estimates are an exercise of our professional judgment and are not guaranteed or warranted. Actual costs may vary. You should add a contingency. 1.7 The information you provide to us will be maintained In confidence except as required by law. Section 2: Your Responslbllkles 2.1 You will provide access to property as required. 2.2 You will provide us with prior reports, specifications, plans, changes in plans, and information about the project which may affect the delivery of our Services. You will hold us harmless from claims, damages, and related expenses, Including reasonable attorneys' fees, involving Information not timely called to our attention or not correctly shown on documents you furnished to us. 2.3 You agree to provide us with emergency procedure information and information on contamination and dangerous or hazardous substances or processes we may encounter in performing the Services. 2.4 You agree to hold us harmless as to any claim that we are an owner, operator, generator, transporter, treater, storer, or a disposal facility within the meaning of any law governing the handling, treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous or hazardous materials. 2.5 Site remediation services may involve risk of contamination of previously uncontaminated air, soil, or Monitoring wells are your property and you are responsible for their permitting, maintenance and abandonment unless we accept that duty In writing. Samples remaining after tests are conducted and field and laboratory equipment that cannot be adequately cleansed of contaminants are your property. They will be discarded or returned to you, at our discretion, unless within 15 days of the report date you give written direction to store or transfer the materials at your expense. Our reports, notes, calculations, and other documents, and our computer software and data are instruments of our Services, and they remain our property, subject to a license to you for your use in the related project for the purposes disclosed to us. You may not use or transfer our reports to others for a purpose for which they were not prepared without our written approval. You agree to indemnify and hold us harmless from claims, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of any unauthorized transfer or use. 3.4 Because electronic documents may be modified intentionally or inadvertently, you agree that we will not be liable for damages resulting from change in an electronic document occurring after we transmit it to you. In case of any difference or ambiguity between an electronic and a paper document, the paper document shall govern. When accepting document transfer in electronic media format, you accept exclusive risk relating to long-term capability, usability, or readability of documents, software application packages, operating systems, and computer hardware. 3.5 If you do not pay for the Services in full as agreed, we may retain reports and work not yet delivered to you and you agree to return to us our reports and other work in your possession or under your control. You agree not to use or rely upon our work for any purpose until it is paid for in full. Section 4: Compensation 4.1 You will pay for the Services as agreed upon or according to our then current fee schedules if there is no Documentl Ver. 05/18/10 other written agreement as to price. An estimated cost is not a firm figure unless stated as such and you should allow for a contingency In addition to estimated costs. 4.2 You agree to notify us of billing disputes within 15 days and to pay undisputed portions of Invoices within 30 days of invoice date. For balances not paid under these terms, you agree to pay interest on unpaid balances beginning 10 days after invoice date at the rate of 1.5% per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law. 4.3 If you direct us to invoice another, we will do so, but you agree to be responsible for our compensation unless you provide us with that person's written acceptance of the terms of our Agreement and we agree to extend credit to that person. 4.4 You agree to compensate us in accordance with our fee schedule If we are asked or required to respond to legal process arising out of a proceeding to which we are not a party. 4.5 If we are delayed by factors beyond our control, or if the project conditions or the scope of work change, or if the standards change, we will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation. 4.6 In consideration of our providing insurance to cover claims made by you, you hereby waive any right of offset as to payment otherwise due us. Section 5: Disputes, Damage, and Risk Allocation 5.1 Each of us will exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes without litigation. Such efforts will include a meeting attended by each party's representative empowered to resolve the dispute. Disputes (except oollections) will be submitted to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. 5.2 We will not be liable for special, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages, Including but not limited to those arising from delay, loss of use, loss of profits or revenue, loss of financing commitments or fees, or the cost of capital. Each of us waives against the other and Its subcontractors, agents, and employees all rights to recover for losses covered by our respective property/casualty or auto Insurance policies. 5.3 We will not be liable for damages unless you have notified us of your claim within 30 days of the date of your discovery of it and unless you have given us an opportunity to investigate and to recommend ways of mitigating damages, and unless suit is commenced within two years of the earlier of the date of injury or loss and the date of completion of the Services. 5.4 For you to obtain the benefit of a fee which Includes a reasonable allowance for risks, you agree that our aggregate liability will not exceed the fee paid for our services or $50,000, whichever is greater, and you agree to indemnify us from all liability to others in excess of that amount. If you are unwilling to accept this allocation of risk, we will increase our aggregate liability to $100,000 provided that, within 10 days of the date of our Agreement, you provide payment in an amount that will increase our fees by 10%, but not less than $5D0, to compensate us for the greater risk undertaken. This increased fee is not the purchase of insurance. 5.5 If you fail to pay us within 60 days following invoice date, we may consider the default a total breach of our Agreement and, at our option, we may terminate all of our duties without liability to you or to others. 5.6 If we are involved in legal action to collect our compensation, you agree to pay our collection expenses, including reasonable attomeys' fees. 5.7 The law of the state In which the project site is located will govem all disputes. Each of us waives trial by jury. No employee acting within the scope of employment shall have any individual liability for his or her acts or omissions and you agree not to make any claim against individual employees. Section 6: Indemnification 6.1 Each of us will Indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against demands, damages, and expenses to the comparative extent they are caused by the negligent acts, omissions, or breach of contract of the indemnifying party or of those others for whom the indemnifying party is legally responsible. 6.2 To the extent that may be necessary to indemnify either of us under Section 6.1, you and we expressly waive, In favor of the other only, any immunity or exemption from liability that exists under any worker compensation law. Section 7: Miscellaneous Provisions 7.1 We will provide a certificate of insurance to you upon request. Any claim as an Additional Insured shall be limited to losses caused by our sole negligence. 7.2 This Agreement is our entire agreement, and it supersedes prior agreements. Only a writing signed by both of us making specific reference to the provision modified may modify it 7.3 Neither of us will assign this Agreement without the written approval of the other. No other person has any Fights under this Agreement. 7.4 A writing may terminate this Agreement We will receive an equitable adjustment of our compensation if our work Is terminated prior to completion as well as our fees and expenses on the basis agreed upon through the effective date of termination. 7.5 We will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, affectional preference, disability, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local human -rights commission, or status as a specialty disabled, Vietnam -era, or other eligible veteran. We will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are considered, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to those factors. Our actions will include, but are not limited to notifications, hiring, promotion or employment upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoffs or terminations, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship. End of Standard Terms Oocumentl Ver. 05/18110 Fee Schedule -2012 Rev. 01/01/12 Rate* Description (U.S. dollars) Principal............................................................................................................... ..... $120-230 ..................... Consultant/Advisor.........................................................................................................................$155-220 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist III......................................................................................................$125-150 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist II .......................................................... ............................................... $95-120 Engineer/Scientist/Specialist I............................................................................................................$65-90 TechnicianIII ... ............................................................................................................................... $125-150 TechnicianIl .................................................. ................................................................................... $95-120 TechnicianI........................................................................................................................................ $50-90 SupportPersonnel II........................................................................................................................$95-170 Support Personnel I....................................................................................... ...$50-90 ................................. Rates for litigation support services will include a 30% surcharge. A ten percent (10%) markup will be added to subcontracts for professional support and construction services to cover overhead and insurance surcharge expenses. Invoices are payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Any amount not paid within 30 days shall bear interest from the date 10 days after the date of the invoice at a rate equal to the lesser of 18 percent per annum or the highest rate allowed by applicable law. Reimbursable expenses including, but not limited to, the actual and reasonable costs of transportation, meals, lodging, parking costs, postage, and shipping charges will be billed at actual cost. Materials and supplies charges, printing charges, and equipment rental charges will be billed in accordance with Bari's standard rate schedules. Mileage will be billed at the IRS -allowable rate. Principal category includes consultants, advisors, engineers, scientists, and specialists who are officers of the company. Consultant/Advisor category includes experienced personnel in a variety of fields. These professionals typically have advanced background in their areas of practice and include engineers, engineering specialists, scientists, related technical professionals, and professionals in complementary service areas such as communications and public affairs. Eng ineer/Scientist/S pecia list categories include registered professionals and professionals in training (e.g. engineers, geologists, and landscape architects), and graduates of engineering and science degree programs. Technician category includes CADD operators, construction observers, cost estimators, data management technicians, designers, drafters, engineering technicians, Interns, safety technicians, surveyors, and water, air, and waste samplers. Support Personnel category includes information management, project accounting, report production, word processing, and other project support personnel. `Rates do not Include sales tax on services that may be required in some jurisdictions. eR2 July 27, 2012 Ms. Pat Schutrop City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Pat: Enclosed are three copies of the cooperative project agreement between the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and New Hope for the Phase 2 DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road Flood Mitigation Study. The agreement was approved by the city on July 23. If the project is approved by Crystal and Golden Valley, please return one fully executed copy to my attention. Thank you. Sincerely, Valerie Leone, CMC City Clerk Enc. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North • New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 • www. ci.new-hope.mn.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 • Police (non -emergency): 763-531-5170 • Public Works: 763-592-6777 • TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 • Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776