COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA August 29, :30 PM City Hall Council Chambers

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA August 29, :30 PM City Hall Council Chambers Committee of the Whole Meeting 1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding 2. Proposed 2012 Operating and Capital Budget Discussion 3. City Manager Reports Upon request, accommodations for individuals with disabilities, language barriers, or other needs to allow participation in City Council meetings will be provided. To arrange assistance, call the City Clerk s office at (voice) or 711 (TDD/TTY). Visit our website at

2

3 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 1 of 6 SUBJECT: Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor and City Council are asked to receive and discuss a proposal for the City of Moorhead s future flood mitigation strategy. BACKGROUND / KEY POINTS: Where have we been? On April 20, 2009, the Mayor and Council endorsed a flood recovery framework with the following objectives: to become less dependent on external resources that take time to secure and mobilize, and to construct permanent flood mitigation improvements that permit implementation/activation in a much shorter time and reduce the need to rely on large scale temporary measures. The initial focus of work immediately after the 2009 flood included acquisition of flood-prone property, construction of protective measures for the storm and sanitary sewer systems, and construction of levees in the most vulnerable areas of the City (i.e. those at highest risk and requiring the greatest deployment of temporary measures). With strong support from local State Legislators, the City Council, and DNR staff, in the two years since authorization of the DNR Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) grant to fund this work, in excess of $37M has been expended toward these objectives. Much of this support has been a direct result of performance. When funds have been made available, the City has delivered and met the DNR s performance expectations. What has changed? Very simply, an unprecedented three consecutive major flood events and the threat of a fourth flood event. With subsequent floods in 2010 and 2011, the City s flood risk reduction efforts have continued to evolve. Without question, many of the most recent projects would not have been possible two years ago. The success of this effort is directly related to a flexible, adaptive strategy tied to voluntary property acquisition (i.e. as additional properties are acquired, new projects are identified). Compared to 2009, flood risk has been greatly reduced. It has not, however, been eliminated. The City s emergency flood plan has become significantly more complex, as many more actions are required to activate permanent infrastructure improvements. More importantly, the City s emergency flood plan still relies on a significant deployment of temporary measures. While the City s adaptive strategy has proven effective, the continually changing list of acquisition requests and infrastructure projects has not provided an opportunity for a comprehensive evaluation of the endgame. With the threat of a fourth consecutive major flood -1- Agenda Item #1.

4 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 2 of 6 pending in 2012, the interest in voluntary acquisitions is very high (82 properties as of August 23, 2011). Riverfront property owners and citizens across the community have experienced flood fatigue. On a daily basis, staff fields numerous questions related to flood mitigation. Will the City continue to provide sandbags? How will they be filled? Where will they be filled? Where will they be stored? How will they be delivered? How can I protect my home now that my neighbor has been bought out? How do I get on the buyout list? What is the priority for buyouts? Can I build backyard protection? When will construction of this project be complete? To what level is this project constructed? What is the City s long-term vision and approach? The uncertainty, angst, emotion, and cost of the flood fight (both public and private) are taking a toll. The City s General Fund Reserve, the primary revenue source to execute the flood plan, has borne the financial brunt of repeated flood events: 2009 Flood $5.1M 2010 Flood $1.5M 2011 Flood $3.9M Cumulative cost before federal/ state reimbursements: $10.7M* *$5,419,326 reimbursed to date The cost of flood response (and the financial risk of future flood events) is significant, especially in an environment where the City has experienced significant LGA loss ($3M+ reduction in four years). A possibility exists for the City to one day experience a flood event that is not reimbursed in part by either FEMA or the State of Minnesota. Non-reimbursement of future flood expenses could be financially distressing to the General Fund and City operations. The recent allocation of additional FDR funding made available to the City provides an opportunity to pause and consider the City s vision for interim flood mitigation. With that goal, staff conducted a comprehensive review of remaining flood vulnerabilities. What is the flood risk reduction goal? According to USACE analyses, the 1% chance (100-year) flood stage is 42.4 feet. Therefore, the goal established for this analysis was to reduce flood risk at a stage of approximately 42.5 feet while minimizing, but not completely eliminating, the need to deploy temporary measures (sandbags and clay contingency levees). This goal is identical to the goal set by the City of Fargo. Without question, there is a cost associated with this level of risk reduction. While it is physically possible to achieve this goal, it must also be financially feasible and responsible. The timeframe for implementation must be considered as well. The City s primary source of funding (a DNR FDR grant) is dependent on legislative action. Although the terms of the current grant would allow the City to continue to receive future allocations for these interim measures, it could be several years before all of the necessary funding is secured. During this time, requests for funding assistance for the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Management (Diversion) Project will conflict with requests for interim improvements. With that project years into the Agenda Item # Agenda Item No. 1.

5 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 3 of 6 future, and given the on-going immediate flood risk, the proposed strategy provides the Mayor and Council with an opportunity to consider funding alternatives that overmatch or advance FDR grant allocations to expedite completion of the City s work to further reduce flood risk and bring a sense of closure to these interim efforts. What is the plan? The plan proposed for tonight s discussion includes seven phases: a Base Project and Projects A-F. The Base Project includes the previously identified, Mayor and Council-endorsed priority of voluntary acquisition of the lowest elevation, highest risk properties (those with a sandbag stage of 39 feet or lower) and all previously identified infrastructure projects that are under construction, in design, or in a planning stage. These infrastructure projects include: River s Edge Subdivision Levee (under construction) Bluestem Center for the Arts Levee (under construction) I-94 North & South Right-of-Way Flood & Drainage Improvements (under construction) Elevate Various Acquisition Lots & Construct Various Gate Structures (in design) 50 th Ave S Levee (in design) Wastewater Treatment Facility Outfall Gate Structure (in design) Elevate 43 rd Ave N (in design) Tessa Terrace Subdivision Levee (in planning) Rivershore Drive & I-94 North Flood Closure (in planning) 40 th Ave S Stormwater Pump Station (in planning) Through a comprehensive review of remaining flood risk throughout the City, staff identified five geographically-specific projects (Projects A-E) and a sixth Citywide effort (Project F) for properties outside the boundaries for Projects A-E. Projects A-E were identified and prioritized by considering: infrastructure and property acquisition completed to date, remaining flood risk to critical public infrastructure and properties both on and, in particular, off of the riverfront, temporary measures (sandbags and contingency levees) needed to protect each area and the time required to deploy these measures, efficiencies gained in future flood fight efforts (e.g. minimizing the geographic scope of emergency measure deployment) recognizing that complete elimination of temporary measures is not a practical objective. Project F is a catch-all effort for projects outside the boundaries of areas A-E. The attached maps identify the general area associated with Projects A-E and include a variety of additional information. Attachments 1-3 identify the areas associated with Projects A-E, the sandbag stage for all riverfront properties, and the area of the City potentially impacted by a 41 foot, 42 foot, and 43 foot flood crest, respectively (the area that would be affected without the deployment of temporary measures). Properties with a sandbag stage of 39 feet or lower represent priority acquisitions under the Base Project regardless of location. Agenda Item No Agenda Item #1.

6 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Attachment 4 identifies completed acquisitions and current voluntary requests for acquisition. Attachment 5 identifies the backyard mitigation project feasibility from the Preliminary Feasibility Analysis for a Riverfront Property Flood Mitigation Program Phase 1 Summary Report being conducted by Houston Engineering, Inc. Projects A-E are envisioned to include a combination of voluntary backyard levees (where feasible with a City cost-share program), voluntary acquisitions, and City infrastructure (e.g. levees, floodwalls, road raises, etc). To further develop each project, staff will need to work closely with each property owner to assess intent and feasibility. Staff strongly recommends that backyard mitigation be included in the menu of options, but only implemented on a voluntary basis through an appropriate costshare program. Project F is envisioned to include a combination of voluntary backyard levees (where feasible) and voluntary acquisitions. At this time, City infrastructure has not been identified as part of this project. Attachment 6 provides a summary of each phase of work, the estimated cost, the reductions in temporary measures, and the reductions in time needed to implement the temporary measures. The costs in Attachment 6 assume voluntary acquisition with no voluntary backyard mitigation. Additional issues to consider in association with Attachment 6 include: While the market value of property protected by each project individually is difficult to determine precisely, the estimated market value of all properties receiving the benefit of reduced flood risk from surface flooding is near $1B and the estimated market value of all properties receiving the benefit of reduced flood risk from sanitary sewer backup or loss of service exceeds $2B. The time to deploy temporary measures assumes favorable weather conditions. Adverse weather negatively impacts the effectiveness of temporary measures. The City s flood plan has become increasingly complex considering only the actions needed for the activation of permanent measures. The continued reliance on temporary measures greatly complicates implementation. Although the expertise to implement the current plan exists with current staff, over time, transfer of that knowledge and experience with staff turnover will be a challenge. Completion of all of the work included in the plan will greatly minimize, but not eliminate, the need for temporary measures. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: On August 10, 2011, City staff was notified that the recent allocation of up to $16.5M to the City for continued flood mitigation required an additional local match. The current FDR grant agreement limits the City s local share to two percent of the median household income multiplied by the number of households in the municipality. The current agreement includes a maximum local share, computed using 2000 Census data, of $8,124,146. The 2010 Census data is now available and will be used to update the maximum local share in the proposed amendment that will allow access to the new funding. Using the 2010 Census data, the new maximum local share will be $12,416,444 (an increase of Agenda Item # Agenda Item No. 1.

7 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 5 of 6 $4,292,298). DNR practice of updating the maximum local share with new Census data dates back to the 2000 Census and applies to all active FDR grant agreements. The new local share and grant allocation will make up to approximately $20.8M available for flood mitigation in Moorhead. For discussion purposes, staff has prepared a financing scenario which addresses the first three of five priority areas to complete all phases of the plan (Attachments 1 through 8). The financing plan includes a number of assumptions: The City would overmatch the DNR FDR grant requirement and/or advance future DNR FDR grant funds to complete the Base Project and Projects A-C. This work would begin immediately. An additional DNR FDR grant allocation will be requested. At a minimum, this request will reflect costs associated with Projects D-F (approximately $18.5M), but could also reflect funds advanced for the Projects A-C. The City would issue a G.O. Improvement Bond to fund the Base Project and Projects A- C. Debt service on this bond would be paid from a variety of sources including special assessments, general property tax levy, enterprise fund (stormwater, wastewater, and water) capital improvement transfers, and a dedication from annual Capital Improvement funds. Special assessments would be levied using a model and assessment district similar to that used in Given the volume of work to be completed relative to staff capacity, one year of street improvement projects (2013) would be deferred to future years. Therefore, the general property tax levy does not exceed that which would otherwise be levied for street projects. Rate increases would be required in the enterprise fund budgets. Variations in this financing scenario are possible subject to certain legal requirements (i.e. State Statute, City Charter, etc.). In deliberating the path forward, staff fully anticipates discussion of the sources of funds used to finance the phase or phases selected by the Council. VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Not Applicable Disclaimer: Voting requirements may be subject to changes in the law, parliamentary procedural matters, or other unforeseen issues. The City Attorney provides opinion on questions of voting requirements in accordance with the Moorhead City Code, Minnesota State Statues, and parliamentary procedure. Respectfully Submitted: Michael J. Redlinger City Manager Agenda Item No Agenda Item #1.

8 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Department: Prepared by: Engineering Robert A. Zimmerman, City Engineer Attachments: Attachment 1: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Attachment 2: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Attachment 3: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Attachment 4: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Attachment 5: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Backyard Mitigation Feasibility Attachment 6: Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Project Phases Attachment 7: Proposed Flood Mitigation: Base Project, A-C Cash Flow Analysis Attachment 8: Proposed Flood Mitigation: Base Project Cash Flow Analysis Agenda Item # Agenda Item No. 1.

9 S RIVER HAVEN RD S 7ST S INSTER 13 ST S 14 ST S 7 ST S HWY 75 S 10 ST S 11 ST S 9 ST S 11 ST S 12 ST S 19 ST S 22 ST S 8 ST S 20 ST S Attachment 1 Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Project C RIVER DR N FAIRWAYDR UNTRY CO CADDY AVE CLUB PKWY OAKPORT ST N 28 AVE N tu75 HWY 75 N. Legend Property Parcel Description Sandbag Stage Not Applicable 39 Feet and Below (Priority Acquisition) 40 Feet 41 Feet 42 Feet and Above Completed Property Buyouts Completed \ Contracted Permanent Levees Floodwalls Sanitary Sewer Service Area 41 Foot River Flood Stage Project E RIVERDRS R ELM ST S ELM ST 6 AVE S 1 ST S 8 AVE S 11 AVE S IVERDR S Project D 22AVE S S 3 ST 3 ST S BROOK VALLEY 15 AVE 14 AVE S AVE DALE AVE RIVERSHOREDRS 12 AVE S 16 AVE S 18 AVE S 5 ST S 6 ST S 13AVE N 7 AVE S 6 ST S BROOKDALE RD AVE N Project B 1AVEN 4 ST S 4 ST S 5 ST S 5 ST S DR S RIVE RSHORE RAMP EXIT 11 AVE N 7 ST S 8 ST N 7 ST S 8 ST S 1 8 ST N 8 ST S 9 ST N 10 AVE N 9 ST N 9 ST S 8 ST S 9 ST S 9 AVE N 3 AVE S 4 AVE S 9 ST S 24 AVE S RAMP 11 ST N CENTER AVE 10 AVE S EXIT 10 ST N HOLIDAY 10 ST N 3 AVE N 5 AVE S 1 11 ST S 11 ST S I ST N MAIN AVE 12 ST S 2 AVE S 14 AVE S 20 AVE S 22 AVE S DR 12 AVE N 11 AVE N 12 ST N 12 ST S 13 ST S 23AVE S 24 AVE S 14 ST N 14 ST S 25 AVE S 26 AVE S 27 AVE S 28 AVE S I AVE S 15 ST S 6 AVE S 9 AVE S 16 AVE S ST N 15 1/2 ST N 16 ST N 17 ST N 7 AVE N 16 ST S 16 ST S 17 ST S 18 AVE S 17ST S 15 AVE N 17 ST S 18 ST N 10 AVE N 2 AVE N 1 AVE S 18 ST S 29 AVE S 13 AVEN 18 ST N 4 AVE N MAIN AVE 19 ST S 19 STN 19 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 20 ST N CENTER AVE 18 ST S RAMP 19 ST S EXIT 1A HWY 21 STS 75 N 21 ST N tu10 HWY 10 E MAIN AVE HWY75 4 AVE S 12 AVE S 23 ST S 28 AVE S I 94 Project A 32 AVE S 8 ST S 17 ST S 34 AVE S RI VER OAKSPT 37 AVE S 2 STS 3 ST S 3 ST S 4ST S 44 AVE S 5 ST S 46 AVE S 41 AVE S 6 ST S 8 ST S 8 ST S tu75 10ST S 9 ST S 41 AVE S 44 AVE S 10 ST S 13 ST S 40 AVE S 44AVES 45 AVE S 15ST S 35 AVE S 36 AVE S JOHNSON DR S 45 AVE S 18 ST S 41 AVE S 42 AVE S 43 AVE S TESSADR DR 50 AVE SW WEST M 50 AVE S -7- Agenda Item # Miles

10 S RIVER HAVEN RD S 7ST S INSTER 13 ST S 14 ST S 7 ST S HWY 75 S 10 ST S 11 ST S 9 ST S 11 ST S 12 ST S 19 ST S 22 ST S 8 ST S 20 ST S Attachment 2 Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Project C RIVER DR N FAIRWAYDR UNTRY CO CADDY AVE CLUB PKWY OAKPORT ST N 28 AVE N tu75 HWY 75 N. Legend Property Parcel Description Sandbag Stage Not Applicable 39 Feet and Below (Priority Acquisition) 40 Feet 41 Feet 42 Feet and Above Completed Property Buyouts Completed \ Contracted Permanent Levees Floodwalls Sanitary Sewer Service Area 42 Foot River Flood Stage Project E RIVERDRS R ELM ST S ELM ST 6 AVE S 1 ST S 8 AVE S 11 AVE S IVERDR S Project D 22AVE S S 3 ST 3 ST S BROOK VALLEY 15 AVE 14 AVE S AVE DALE AVE RIVERSHOREDRS 12 AVE S 16 AVE S 18 AVE S 5 ST S 6 ST S 13AVE N 7 AVE S 6 ST S BROOKDALE RD AVE N Project B 1AVEN 4 ST S 4 ST S 5 ST S 5 ST S DR S RIVE RSHORE RAMP EXIT 11 AVE N 7 ST S 8 ST N 7 ST S 8 ST S 1 8 ST N 8 ST S 9 ST N 10 AVE N 9 ST N 9 ST S 8 ST S 9 ST S 9 AVE N 3 AVE S 4 AVE S 9 ST S 24 AVE S RAMP 11 ST N CENTER AVE 10 AVE S EXIT 10 ST N HOLIDAY 10 ST N 3 AVE N 5 AVE S 1 11 ST S 11 ST S I ST N MAIN AVE 12 ST S 2 AVE S 14 AVE S 20 AVE S 22 AVE S DR 12 AVE N 11 AVE N 12 ST N 12 ST S 13 ST S 23AVE S 24 AVE S 14 ST N 14 ST S 25 AVE S 26 AVE S 27 AVE S 28 AVE S I AVE S 15 ST S 6 AVE S 9 AVE S 16 AVE S ST N 15 1/2 ST N 16 ST N 17 ST N 7 AVE N 16 ST S 16 ST S 17 ST S 18 AVE S 17ST S 15 AVE N 17 ST S 18 ST N 10 AVE N 2 AVE N 1 AVE S 18 ST S 29 AVE S 13 AVEN 18 ST N 4 AVE N MAIN AVE 19 ST S 19 STN 19 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 20 ST N CENTER AVE 18 ST S RAMP 19 ST S EXIT 1A HWY 21 STS 75 N 21 ST N tu10 HWY 10 E MAIN AVE HWY75 4 AVE S 12 AVE S 23 ST S 28 AVE S I 94 Project A 32 AVE S 8 ST S 17 ST S 34 AVE S RI VER OAKSPT 37 AVE S 2 STS 3 ST S 3 ST S 4ST S 44 AVE S 5 ST S 46 AVE S 41 AVE S 6 ST S 8 ST S 8 ST S tu75 10ST S 9 ST S 41 AVE S 44 AVE S 10 ST S 13 ST S 40 AVE S 44AVES 45 AVE S 15ST S 35 AVE S 36 AVE S JOHNSON DR S 45 AVE S 18 ST S 41 AVE S 42 AVE S 43 AVE S TESSADR DR 50 AVE SW WEST M 50 AVE S Agenda Item # Miles

11 S RIVER HAVEN RD S 7ST S INSTER 13 ST S 14 ST S 7 ST S HWY 75 S 10 ST S 11 ST S 9 ST S 11 ST S 12 ST S 19 ST S 22 ST S 8 ST S 20 ST S Attachment 3 Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Project C RIVER DR N FAIRWAYDR UNTRY CO CADDY AVE CLUB PKWY OAKPORT ST N 28 AVE N tu75 HWY 75 N. Legend Property Parcel Description Sandbag Stage Not Applicable 39 Feet and Below (Priority Acquisition) 40 Feet 41 Feet 42 Feet and Above Completed Property Buyouts Completed \ Contracted Permanent Levees Floodwalls Sanitary Sewer Service Area 43 Foot River Flood Stage Project E RIVERDRS R ELM ST S ELM ST 6 AVE S 1 ST S 8 AVE S 11 AVE S IVERDR S Project D 22AVE S S 3 ST 3 ST S BROOK VALLEY 15 AVE 14 AVE S AVE DALE AVE RIVERSHOREDRS 12 AVE S 16 AVE S 18 AVE S 5 ST S 6 ST S 13AVE N 7 AVE S 6 ST S BROOKDALE RD AVE N Project B 1AVEN 4 ST S 4 ST S 5 ST S 5 ST S DR S RIVE RSHORE RAMP EXIT 11 AVE N 7 ST S 8 ST N 7 ST S 8 ST S 1 8 ST N 8 ST S 9 ST N 10 AVE N 9 ST N 9 ST S 8 ST S 9 ST S 9 AVE N 3 AVE S 4 AVE S 9 ST S 24 AVE S RAMP 11 ST N CENTER AVE 10 AVE S EXIT 10 ST N HOLIDAY 10 ST N 3 AVE N 5 AVE S 1 11 ST S 11 ST S I ST N MAIN AVE 12 ST S 2 AVE S 14 AVE S 20 AVE S 22 AVE S DR 12 AVE N 11 AVE N 12 ST N 12 ST S 13 ST S 23AVE S 24 AVE S 14 ST N 14 ST S 25 AVE S 26 AVE S 27 AVE S 28 AVE S I AVE S 15 ST S 6 AVE S 9 AVE S 16 AVE S ST N 15 1/2 ST N 16 ST N 17 ST N 7 AVE N 16 ST S 16 ST S 17 ST S 18 AVE S 17ST S 15 AVE N 17 ST S 18 ST N 10 AVE N 2 AVE N 1 AVE S 18 ST S 29 AVE S 13 AVEN 18 ST N 4 AVE N MAIN AVE 19 ST S 19 STN 19 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 20 ST N CENTER AVE 18 ST S RAMP 19 ST S EXIT 1A HWY 21 STS 75 N 21 ST N tu10 HWY 10 E MAIN AVE HWY75 4 AVE S 12 AVE S 23 ST S 28 AVE S I 94 Project A 32 AVE S 8 ST S 17 ST S 34 AVE S RI VER OAKSPT 37 AVE S 2 STS 3 ST S 3 ST S 4ST S 44 AVE S 5 ST S 46 AVE S 41 AVE S 6 ST S 8 ST S 8 ST S tu75 10ST S 9 ST S 41 AVE S 44 AVE S 10 ST S 13 ST S 40 AVE S 44AVES 45 AVE S 15ST S 35 AVE S 36 AVE S JOHNSON DR S 45 AVE S 18 ST S 41 AVE S 42 AVE S 43 AVE S TESSADR DR 50 AVE SW WEST M 50 AVE S -9- Agenda Item # Miles

12 S RIVER HAVEN RD S 7ST S INSTER 13 ST S 14 ST S 7 ST S HWY 75 S 10 ST S 11 ST S 9 ST S 11 ST S 12 ST S 19 ST S 22 ST S 8 ST S 20 ST S Attachment 4 Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Priority Property Acquisitions Project C RIVER DR N FAIRWAYDR UNTRY CO CADDY AVE CLUB PKWY OAKPORT ST N 28 AVE N tu75 HWY 75 N. Legend Property Parcel Description Voluntary Buyout Requests Completed Property Buyouts Completed \ Contracted Permanent Levees Floodwalls Sanitary Sewer Service Area 43 Foot River Flood Stage Project E RIVERDRS R ELM ST S ELM ST 6 AVE S 1 ST S 8 AVE S 11 AVE S IVERDR S Project D 22AVE S S 3 ST 3 ST S BROOK VALLEY 15 AVE 14 AVE S AVE DALE AVE RIVERSHOREDRS 12 AVE S 16 AVE S 18 AVE S 5 ST S 6 ST S 13AVE N 7 AVE S 6 ST S BROOKDALE RD AVE N Project B 1AVEN 4 ST S 4 ST S 5 ST S 5 ST S DR S RIVE RSHORE RAMP EXIT 11 AVE N 7 ST S 8 ST N 7 ST S 8 ST S 1 8 ST N 8 ST S 9 ST N 10 AVE N 9 ST N 9 ST S 8 ST S 9 ST S 9 AVE N 3 AVE S 4 AVE S 9 ST S 24 AVE S RAMP 11 ST N CENTER AVE 10 AVE S EXIT 10 ST N HOLIDAY 10 ST N 3 AVE N 5 AVE S 1 11 ST S 11 ST S I ST N MAIN AVE 12 ST S 2 AVE S 14 AVE S 20 AVE S 22 AVE S DR 12 AVE N 11 AVE N 12 ST N 12 ST S 13 ST S 23AVE S 24 AVE S 14 ST N 14 ST S 25 AVE S 26 AVE S 27 AVE S 28 AVE S I AVE S 15 ST S 6 AVE S 9 AVE S 16 AVE S ST N 15 1/2 ST N 16 ST N 17 ST N 7 AVE N 16 ST S 16 ST S 17 ST S 18 AVE S 17ST S 15 AVE N 17 ST S 18 ST N 10 AVE N 2 AVE N 1 AVE S 18 ST S 29 AVE S 13 AVEN 18 ST N 4 AVE N MAIN AVE 19 ST S 19 STN 19 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 20 ST N CENTER AVE 18 ST S RAMP 19 ST S EXIT 1A HWY 21 STS 75 N 21 ST N tu10 HWY 10 E MAIN AVE HWY75 4 AVE S 12 AVE S 23 ST S 28 AVE S I 94 Project A 32 AVE S 8 ST S 17 ST S 34 AVE S RI VER OAKSPT 37 AVE S 2 STS 3 ST S 3 ST S 4ST S 44 AVE S 5 ST S 46 AVE S 41 AVE S 6 ST S 8 ST S 8 ST S tu75 10ST S 9 ST S 41 AVE S 44 AVE S 10 ST S 13 ST S 40 AVE S 44AVES 45 AVE S 15ST S 35 AVE S 36 AVE S JOHNSON DR S 45 AVE S 18 ST S 41 AVE S 42 AVE S 43 AVE S TESSADR DR 50 AVE SW WEST M 50 AVE S Agenda Item # Miles

13 S RIVER HAVEN RD S 7ST S INSTER 13 ST S 14 ST S 7 ST S HWY 75 S 10 ST S 11 ST S 9 ST S 11 ST S 12 ST S 19 ST S 22 ST S 8 ST S 20 ST S Attachment 5 Proposed Future Flood Mitigation Projects and Backyard Mitigation Feasibility Project C RIVER DR N FAIRWAYDR UNTRY CO CADDY AVE CLUB PKWY OAKPORT ST N 28 AVE N tu75 HWY 75 N. Legend Houston Engineering's Feasibility Study for Riverfront Property Flood Mitigation Likely Feasible - 50 Maybe Feasible - 14 Unlikely Feasible Not Evaluated or Vacant - 3 Completed Property Buyouts Completed \ Contracted Permanent Levees Floodwalls Sanitary Sewer Service Area 43 Foot River Flood Stage Project E RIVERDRS R ELM ST S ELM ST 6 AVE S 1 ST S 8 AVE S 11 AVE S IVERDR S Project D 22AVE S S 3 ST 3 ST S BROOK VALLEY 15 AVE 14 AVE S AVE DALE AVE RIVERSHOREDRS 12 AVE S 16 AVE S 18 AVE S 5 ST S 6 ST S 13AVE N 7 AVE S 6 ST S BROOKDALE RD AVE N Project B 1AVEN 4 ST S 4 ST S 5 ST S 5 ST S DR S RIVE RSHORE RAMP EXIT 11 AVE N 7 ST S 8 ST N 7 ST S 8 ST S 1 8 ST N 8 ST S 9 ST N 10 AVE N 9 ST N 9 ST S 8 ST S 9 ST S 9 AVE N 3 AVE S 4 AVE S 9 ST S 24 AVE S RAMP 11 ST N CENTER AVE 10 AVE S EXIT 10 ST N HOLIDAY 10 ST N 3 AVE N 5 AVE S 1 11 ST S 11 ST S I ST N MAIN AVE 12 ST S 2 AVE S 14 AVE S 20 AVE S 22 AVE S DR 12 AVE N 11 AVE N 12 ST N 12 ST S 13 ST S 23AVE S 24 AVE S 14 ST N 14 ST S 25 AVE S 26 AVE S 27 AVE S 28 AVE S I AVE S 15 ST S 6 AVE S 9 AVE S 16 AVE S ST N 15 1/2 ST N 16 ST N 17 ST N 7 AVE N 16 ST S 16 ST S 17 ST S 18 AVE S 17ST S 15 AVE N 17 ST S 18 ST N 10 AVE N 2 AVE N 1 AVE S 18 ST S 29 AVE S 13 AVEN 18 ST N 4 AVE N MAIN AVE 19 ST S 19 STN 19 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 19 1/2 ST S 20 ST N CENTER AVE 18 ST S RAMP 19 ST S EXIT 1A HWY 21 STS 75 N 21 ST N tu10 HWY 10 E MAIN AVE HWY75 4 AVE S 12 AVE S 23 ST S 28 AVE S I 94 Project A 32 AVE S 8 ST S 17 ST S 34 AVE S RI VER OAKSPT 37 AVE S 2 STS 3 ST S 3 ST S 4ST S 44 AVE S 5 ST S 46 AVE S 41 AVE S 6 ST S 8 ST S 8 ST S tu75 10ST S 9 ST S 41 AVE S 44 AVE S 10 ST S 13 ST S 40 AVE S 44AVES 45 AVE S 15ST S 35 AVE S 36 AVE S JOHNSON DR S 45 AVE S 18 ST S 41 AVE S 42 AVE S 43 AVE S TESSADR DR 50 AVE SW WEST M 50 AVE S -11- Agenda Item # Miles

14 Agenda Item # Phase Projects included (see description below) Properties included Voluntary acquisition requests Backyard mitigation Likely or May Be Feasible Backyard mitigation Unlikely Feasible Sandbag reduction (top elevation of 45 feet river stage) Residual sandbag needs (top elevation of 45 feet river stage) Days to produce sandbags (85,000 bags/day) Days to deploy sandbags (360,000 bags/day) Estimated sandbag savings ($3 per bag) Contingency levee reduction, CY Residual contingency levee needs, CY Days to construct contingency levees (2 4,800 CY/crew/day) Estimated contingency levee savings Estimated total savings Properties outside the line of temporary protection measures Attachment 6 Phases Base Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F ,027,000 1,167,000 1,273,000 1,401,000 1,470,000 1,646,000 1,940,000 1,374,000 1,234,000 1,128,000 1,000, , , , $3,081,000 $3,501,000 $3,819,000 $4,203,000 $4,410,000 $4,938,000 $5,820,000 12,150 32,520 36,700 41,790 46,920 51,690 60,690 67,850 47,480 43,300 38,210 33,080 28,310 19, $425,250 $1,138,200 $1,284,500 $1,462,650 $1,642,200 $1,809,150 $2,124,150 $3,506,250 $4,639,200 $5,103,500 $5,665,650 $6,052,200 $6,747,150 $7,944, Uses of Funds Infrastructure Projects $5,305,000 $7,498,000 $8,431,000 $9,521,000 $10,375,000 $11,462,000 $11,762,000 Property Acquisition $13,298,000 $19,868,000 $22,364,000 $27,783,000 $29,976,000 $34,564,000 $43,781,000 Total $18,603,000 $27,366,000 $30,795,000 $37,304,000 $40,351,000 $46,026,000 $55,543,000 Sources of Funds DNR Flood Damage Reduction Grant $14,310,702 $16,500,000 $16,500,000 $16,500,000 $19,547,000 $25,222,000 $34,739,000 G.O. Improvement Bond $4,292,298 $10,866,000 $14,295,000 $20,804,000 $20,804,000 $20,804,000 $20,804,000 Total $18,603,000 $27,366,000 $30,795,000 $37,304,000 $40,351,000 $46,026,000 $55,543,000 Subsequent to Project F, the residual sandbag need (461,000) represents 52 properties. Of those, backyard mitigation is likely feasible for 31 and may be feasible for 4

15 ATTACHMENT 7 $20,805,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2012 FLOOD MITIGATION & ACQUISITION PROJECTS - BASE, A-C CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 8/26/2011 $20,805,000 Funding Sources Debt Service Yr-End Fiscal Year S/A Collections Special Cash Beginning Principal Interest Assessments Water WWT Storm CI Levy Total Principal Interest Total Balance 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,375 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,755, , ,250 1,633,125 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,734,200 1,130, ,125 1,801,125 1,566,200 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,713,400 1,135, ,812 1,777,812 1,501,788 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,692,600 1,145, ,312 1,759,312 1,435,076 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,671,800 1,150, ,625 1,735,625 1,371,251 1/1/ , , , , , , , ,000 1,651,000 1,160, ,750 1,716,750 1,305,501 1/1/ ,000 83, , , , , , ,000 1,630,200 1,170, ,625 1,697,625 1,238,076 1/1/ ,000 62, , , , , , ,000 1,609,400 1,175, ,437 1,667,437 1,180,039 1/1/ ,000 41, , , , , , ,000 1,588,600 1,195, ,962 1,645,962 1,122,677 1/1/ ,000 20, , , , , , ,000 1,567,800 1,220, ,700 1,628,700 1,061,777 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131,000 1,240, ,650 1,605, ,127 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131, , ,162 1,174, ,965 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131, , ,062 1,174, ,903 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131, , ,912 1,172, ,991 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131, , ,037 1,175, ,954 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131, , ,418 1,170, ,536 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131,000 1,010, ,268 1,173, ,268 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131,000 1,045, ,800 1,167, ,468 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131,000 1,090,000 80,100 1,170, ,368 1/1/ , , , , ,000 1,131,000 1,130,000 34,993 1,164, ,375 57,468 57, ,000 5, , Agenda Item #1. 4,160,000 1,144,000 5,304,000 2,646,000 3,780,000 4,200,000 8,457,468 4,500,000 28,887,468 20,805,000 8,082,468 28,887,468 Note Funding Sources - Water Fund 2% Capital transfer as authorized by City Charter Wastewater $1 rate increase Stormwater $1 rate increase

16 Agenda Item #1. $6,800,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2012 FLOOD MITIGATION & ACQUISITION PROJECTS - BASE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT 8 8/26/2011 $6,800,000 Funding Sources Debt Service Yr-End Fiscal Year S/A Collections Special CI and/or Cash Beginning Principal Interest Assessments Levy Total Principal Interest Total Balance -14-1/1/ /1/ ,000 68, , , , , , ,100 1/1/ ,000 61, , , , , , , ,750 1/1/ ,000 54, , , , , , , ,100 1/1/ ,000 47, , , , , , , ,150 1/1/ ,000 40, , , , , , , ,900 1/1/ ,000 34, , , , , , , ,350 1/1/ ,000 27, , , , , , , ,500 1/1/ ,000 20, , , , , , , ,050 1/1/ ,000 13, , , , , , , ,700 1/1/ ,000 6, , , , , , , ,450 1/1/ , , , , , ,300 1/1/ , , , , , ,050 1/1/ , , , , , ,700 1/1/ , , ,000 99, , ,250 1/1/ , , ,000 87, , ,913 1/1/ , , ,000 75, , ,900 1/1/ , , ,000 62, , ,638 1/1/ , , ,000 48, , ,763 1/1/ , , ,000 35, , ,488 1/1/ , , ,000 21, , , , , ,000 7, ,225-1,360, ,000 1,734,000 7,677,200 9,411,200 6,800,000 2,611,200 9,411,200

17 City of Moorhead Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding -15- Agenda Item #1. August 29, 2011

18 Agenda Item # Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding City Council & Public Information Presentation Slides & Video to Engineering Website Presentation Topics Review Interim Flood Mitigation Efforts Where We Are Today August 2011 Proposed Interim Flood Mitigation Plan Funding Plan & Recommendations

19 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding -17- Agenda Item #1. Objectives City Council direction will be requested Tonight is about: Interim Flood Mitigation Strategy Financing concepts to finish the job Tonight will not address: Micro-level project or acquisition detail Micro-level cost detail There will be time for specific project discussions and communication

20 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Interim Flood Mitigation Efforts -18- Goal #1: Less external resources Time to secure resources/personnel Mobilization time Goal #2: Reduce time to respond Permanent mitigation improvements reduce temporary resources

21 Improvements & Acquisitions -19- Agenda Item #1.

22 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Interim Flood Mitigation Efforts -20- Resource Alignment Technical Staff/Consultants Financial Administrative & Policy City Council Legislative Strategy A clear, coherent City strategy Performance and outcomes Noted by Legislators and DNR

23 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Where We Are Today -21- Agenda Item #1. Three major flood events in as many years A fatigued public, both riverfront and non- riverfront Significant investments of financial and temporary resources A strategy and plan needed for the next phase of interim work A path forward to the endgame

24 Agenda Item # , 2010 & 2011 Comparison -22- Forecast Crest % Chance 35.5 ft 38.6 ft 40.5 ft 10% Chance 38.5 ft 43.7 ft 44.4 ft Actual Crest ft ft ft Forecast drives resource decisions and protection levels Decisions in February

25 -23- Agenda Item #1.

26 Agenda Item #

27 -25- Agenda Item #1.

28 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding -26- Where We Are Today Financial risk and flood risk General Fund Reserves Cash Flow Account 3-year total: $10.7M A significant financial investment and threat to G.F. Reserves Flood Response Cost (M) ?? $5.1 $1.5 $3.9??? $10.7M

29 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Flood Mitigation Plan -27- Agenda Item #1. Citizens and City Council desire the next path forward Proposed Interim Flood Mitigation Plan Overview Technical Presentation: Projects & Acquisitions Financing Plan Presentation

30 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Base, A-C A C Projects Completed Projects Base, A-C A Projects Balance of D-F F Projects -28- $37M $37.3M $18.2M State City State City State City $ % $8.1 22% $ % $ % $ % Total Interim Flood Mitigation: $92.5 State: $63.6M (69%) City: $28.9M (31%)

31 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Flood Mitigation Plan -29- Agenda Item #1. Bob Zimmerman Technical Overview of Strategy Conclusion Slides Mayor & Council Discussion

32 Agenda Item #1. Current Sandbags 3,000,000 2,500, ,000,000 1,500, ,000, , River Stage (feet) Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8

33 Flood Risk Reduction Goal River stage 42.5 feet -31- Agenda Item #1. USACE 1% (100-year) event Crest Range feet Top of protection feet

34 Agenda Item #1. Comprehensive Analysis Considerations Completed acquisitions -32- Completed & planned infrastructure Remaining risk to critical public infrastructure Remaining risk to property on the river Remaining risk to property off of the river Temporary measures needed (sandbags & clay) Time to produce & deploy temporary measures Flood fight efficiencies

35 Base Project Voluntary priority acquisitions: sandbag stage 39 feet Planned infrastructure -33- Agenda Item #1. Project Construction River s s Edge Subdivision Levee 2011 Bluestem Center for the Arts Levee 2011 I-94 N&S Right-of of-way Improvements Design Elevate Buyout Lots & Construct Misc Gates th Ave S Levee 2012 WWTF Outfall Gate Structure 2012 Elevate 43 rd Ave N 2012 Planning Tessa Terrace Subdivision Levee 2012 Rivershore Dr & I-94 I N Flood Closure th Ave S Stormwater Pump Station 2012

36 Agenda Item # Prioritized Projects Projects A-EA Voluntary backyard mitigation Voluntary acquisition City infrastructure Levee, floodwall, road raise, etc Project F Voluntary backyard mitigation Voluntary acquisition

37 Base, A-F 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 0 Reduction in Sandbags Reduction in Sandbags ( foot crest) Base Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Current Sandbags -35- Agenda Item #1.

38 Sandbag Production & Deployment Sandbag Production & Deployment ( foot crest) Current Base Base, A 0 Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F Days to Produce Days to Deploy Days Agenda Item #

39 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Contingency Levees Contingency Levees ( foot crest) Base, A-F Base Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Current Volume (CY) Days Volume Days to Deploy -37- Agenda Item #1.

40 Agenda Item # Voluntary Acquisition Requests

41 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Acquisition process consistent with 2010 and 2011 buyouts -39- Agenda Item #1. 108% of 2010 Assessed EMV for Taxes Payable 2011 Equity Consistency Efficiency

42 Agenda Item #1. Backyard Mitigation Feasibility -40- Phase 1 Data Phase 2 Pending

43 -41- Agenda Item # Base Backyard Mitigation Feasibility Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F Priority Acquisition Unlikely Feasible Likely or May Be Feasible

44 Agenda Item #1. Estimated Sandbag & Clay Costs Single Event ( foot crest) $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000, $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Current Base Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F

45 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 Use of Funds Use of Funds Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F Infrastructure Projects Property Acquisition Base -43- Agenda Item #1.

46 Agenda Item #1. Source of Funds $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000, $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 Base Base, A Base, A-B Base, A-C Base, A-D Base, A-E Base, A-F DNR Flood Damage Reduction Grant G.O. Improvement Bond

47 Sources of Funds -45- Agenda Item #1. Source Special Assessment 1 SF Residential & Minimum (0.25 ac) 10 years, 5% interest Special Assessment 1 Maximum (5 ac) 10 years, 5% interest Water Fund Wastewater Fund Stormwater Fund Base $135 total $20 per year $2,697 total $404 per year N/A N/A N/A Base, A-CA $412 total $62 per year $8,248 total $1,237 per year 2% capital transfer $1 per month $1 per month Capital Improvement Fund $400,000 $375,000 Levy $225,000 1 Special Assessment district & model similar to 2009

48 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Overmatch/Advance Scenario Pros For the City Organization Time & risk reduction (flood & financial) -46- Reduced time to close the door on costly emergency measures More immediate reduction in risk to General Fund Reserves

49 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding -47- Agenda Item #1. Overmatch/Advance Scenario Pros For the City Organization Residential & Commercial marketing message Staff time gains with no additional positions (4-6 6 months)

50 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Overmatch/Advance Scenario Pros For the Citizens Riverfront Property Owner: -48- Defined community strategy for interim flood mitigation work Expedited property acquisitions (2 years)

51 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Overmatch/Advance Scenario Pros For the Citizens General Public: -49- Agenda Item #1. A A sense of closure and certainty Additional infrastructure projects/protection Residential & Commercial marketing message

52 Agenda Item # Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Overmatch/Advance Scenario Front-end cost Cons Special Assessments Stormwater Fees Wastewater Fees Water Fund Transfer Potential moratorium on future street improvement projects (tax levy offset)

53 Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Overmatch/Advance Scenario A A reduction of time & risk -51- Agenda Item #1. More timely acquisitions Less future flood risk Less General Fund Reserve exposure to repeated risk and loss

54 Agenda Item #1. Flood Mitigation Strategy: Plan, Priority & Funding Mayor & Council Policy Questions 1.Is Is it essential to the City Council to finish this work in a timely manner? Does Does front-end City cost reduce flood and financial risk to the public and the organization? 3.What What are the expectations of the public? City Goal: Reduce Time & Risk

55 Mayor and Council Communication August 29, 2011 Page 1 of 2 SUBJECT: Proposed 2012 Operating and Capital Budget Discussion RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor and City Council are asked to receive a presentation and update from staff on the Proposed 2012 Operating & Capital Budget for the City of Moorhead. No action is requested of the Mayor and City Council at this time. BACKGROUND / KEY POINTS: The City Manager and Finance Division staff will provide a presentation and update on the development of the Proposed 2012 Operating & Capital Budget. Mayor and City Council feedback will be requested as staff continues to develop the Proposed Budget document within City Council planning parameters. It is the practice of the City Manager and Finance Division staff to provide information to the Mayor and City Council on budget planning topics for the upcoming fiscal year in the summer preceding budget adoption. The budget adoption timeline is detailed below: August/September 2011: Review Proposed 2012 Operating & Capital Budget September 12, 2011: Adopt Proposed 2011 Tax Levy Payable 2012 and Proposed 2012 Operating & Capital Budget December 5, 2011: 2011 Truth in Taxation Presentation Tax Levy Payable 2012 and the 2012 Operating & Capital Budget December 12, 2011: Adopt 2012 Operating & Capital Budget, 2011 Tax Levy Payable in 2012, and Enterprise Fund Transfers FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Not Applicable VOTING REQUIREMENTS: Not Applicable Disclaimer: Voting requirements may be subject to changes in the law, parliamentary procedural matters, or other unforeseen issues. The City Attorney provides opinion on questions of voting requirements in accordance with the Moorhead City Code, Minnesota State Statues, and parliamentary procedure Agenda Item #2.

56 Mayor and Council Communication - August 29, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Respectfully Submitted: Michael J. Redlinger City Manager Department: Prepared by: Attachments: Administration Michael Redlinger, City Manager N/A Agenda Item # Agenda Item No. 2.

57 -55- Agenda Item #2.

58