Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.17.85 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING TAX EQUALIZATION MEETING JUNE 17, 1985 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. June 3, 1985 b. June 10, 1985 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat and Preliminary P.U.D. Continued from previous meeting. b. 8:00 P.M. - Consider Vacating Various Utility and Drainage Easements 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Met Council - Public Hearing on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Ordinance Relating to Solid Waste Disposal b. Amending Refuse Collection Ordinance Relating to Tires 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Employee Assistance Program 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Discuss 1985/86 Goals and Priorities b. Designating July 5, 1985 as Floating Holiday 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve City Case for Police Officers Labor Agreement Arbitration Hearing b. Approve Addendum to Ambulance Service Agreement c. Approve SCDBG Drawdown Request 12. ADJOURN THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS - JUNE 17, 1985 DATE: JUNE 13, 1985 5a. Glenn Cook has received a set of plans and specifications for the plat and will be at the meeting to discuss the plat. b. Information sent previously. 6a. Notice of Public Hearing, proposed amendment and comments included. 7a&b These items concern the same issues. 9a. Memo enclosed. 10a. Memo enclosed. b. Memo enclosed. lla. Case enclosed. b. Addendum/Recommendation enclosed. c. Request enclosed. d. List enclosed. Larry ompson City Administrator LT/mh 410 - III AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 5 b NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: May 22, 1985 MEETING DATE: June 17, 1985 CATEGORY: Public Hearing SUBJECT: 8:00 P.M. - Consider Vacating Various Utility and Drainage Easements in Dakota County Estates. EXPLANATION: See attached. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Letter from Melchert/Block Associates/ Notice of Public Hearing - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration SIGNATOR CITY OF FARMINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota, on the 17th day of June , 19 85 , at 8:00 (p.m. ) ( xmx) in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota for the purpose of: considering the vacation of the following utility and drainage easements: East 5' of Lot 6, Block 5; West 5' of Lot 7, Block 5; East 5' of Lot 7, Block 5; West 5' of Outlot A abutting the east property line of Lot. 7, North 5' of 15'of easement on the south line of Outlot A all in Dakota County Estates, City of Farmington. All persons desiring to be heard, in person or in writing, will be heard at this time. Lary h - ' • on City Ad nistrato Submitted to the Dakota County Tribune this 24th day of May 19 85 for publication 1 times , the last of which being no later than the 30th day of May , 19 85 . • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ki STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SStlN- 3 1985 County of Dakota ) NANCY J. GUSTAFSON, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is an authorized ogent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as Dakota County Tribune,and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A)The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a legal PUBLIC NOTICE newspaper,as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02,331 A.07 and other applicable laws,as amended. CITYCS OF PUBHEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC Notice is hereby given that a Public Hear- ing earine will be held by the City Council of the Cit (B)The printed — at Farmington.Dakota County.Minnesota, j or:the 17th day of June,1985.at 8:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 225 Oak Street. Farmington. Minnesota for the purpose of: considering the vacation of the following utility and drainage easements:East 5'of Lot 6,Block 5:West 5- ot Lot 7,Block 5:East 5"of Lot 7,Block 5: «est 5'of Outlot A abutting the east property i:ne of Lot 7.North 5'of 15'of easement on the south line of Outlot A all in Dakota Coon- which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper,and was printed and published once ty Estates.City of•Farmington. All persons desiring to be heard,in person or in writing,will be heard at this time. LARRY THOMPSON each-week-for suceessire- weeks;it was City Administrator 825 first published on Thursday,the t 0 doy of 19 KS--- , and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday,the day of ,19 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z,both inclusive,which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: a bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz BY: t �'✓l.. TITLE:Secretory to(-2CPiu ssher / Subscribed and sworn to before -on\tthis(51)J& , day of 6 1 ,19 U J Notary Public - "� CAROL J. HAVERLAND it a NOTARYPUBUC-MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY My Commission Expires Dec.3,1989 + • • 1110 r 61985 REICHER/ BLOCH ASSOCIATES INC. 367 east kellogg blvd. st.paul, minnesota 55101 May 14, 1985 612.228.9564 Mr. Larry Thompson City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES Dear Mr. Thompson We have been advised by Mr. Ronald Francis of Dakota County Recorder' s Office that the City of Farmington must pass a resolution to vacate various utility and drainage easements that were shown on the final plat for Dakota County Estates ( 1st Addition) but were deleted or modified in the final plat of Dakota County Estates Second Addition. The following easements must be vacated: 1. East 5 ' of Lot 6 Blk 5 Dakota County Estates 2 . West 5 ' of Lot 7 Blk 5 Dakota County Estates 3 . East 5 ' of Lot 7 Blk 5 Dakota County Estates 4 . West 5 ' of Outlot A which abuts the east property line of Lot 7 Blk 5, Dakota County Estates 5. North 5 ' of 15 ' easement on the south property line of Outlot A, Dakota County Estates. Attached are copies of Blk 5 and Outlot A of the Dakota County Estates plat and the same area of the final plat for Dakota County Estates Second Addition. This requested action is merely a formality to delete easements which were shown on the smaller lots in Blk 5 . The final plat of the Second Addition shows the larger lots in the area of Emerald Circle. If there are questions regarding this matter please contact the under- signed. Please forward copies of the resolution to the letterhead address. Very truly yours, MELCHERT/BLOCK ASSOCIATES INC. /40°' William R. Block, P.E. cc : Jack Benedict, 20615 Akin Rd, Farmington, MN 55024 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING - SURVEYING • S 07L 11 y k. 1 r.1�iy-)-�s ...1o r (-ON +1.-1- o 'W I -3N _ 1 _. r Lei o. '. . • C.7 '2910 I W �' - - - - W o��v -y _ I I / / 1 1 �� r� " 51 , .c1-1 "''' `“--, ' y o� r- I `0 �i / I Pi) / /\,\. \' ':‘'`N a a�4? M f•; ? I '° /vim \ 0��i" - ,.�:o:5�'El- 2' , / r. - N Q- W x 4" AV N \ p pOH D f 0 �, %;'� / % I j= moi° .� " am ,, d _ — _ - ,- ---,�, : �8 f v �nl� GO/ I M ON) Y.._„,,) ' ((\<1/ ,. 4-1 A4C1 d .2.\1 0 **.:-.! '• , 0 I 1 !.:3. r ,,,. , ,,..,k 4; '-.N.:s.:• .,s\i .:4 1 Q / icj\ii ce4 V „ /CO. 1,• • '::.:. 1 -.• VN ,,,,,,,,.:4,t.,.-1.•,,,,,,•.: ''': . • -17\ '`� . ..' \cet . xf„,r 'N //rt„, —'' _. - - r Nh r. N - IZ) \ •;. ^ N Lr „. '`\'', F�z mc). ,/ ` 1 • •Fz•C>,,, . �</ R.. \� ' Vii. ,j 0 r '''04.1,467.,..',•' tn '4S _ l • • t e, ! '. • • .. of k ' `--_ i , (1..�3 '_ '.: r• 7-. h u, N ---------- -is,i JO if jni p4..,-4-'0-44111)5* - 4##,1 bo' P U. 0 .. oF. . _ • N. 0 2 -,- „„--7 ...s. ,..,'.3- ..i.--Y. __--/_.-Y / ' } r� / t •t nD , C .- f ... 41 .11 1 S133HS t J0 Z 133HS 4' t i I _ OZ 'N `h//1 `E/ NO/..Z.0.7,9 `{'4 /1N `l I _7'O '54 AIN .10 H.3/V 00 1SV3N117OS I. ' 0 ,, .. Lb '00/ 00.00/ 00'0E; \ 00'0F� v,.. 00 OF ! r 1 , 1 , I I r+— I tp . . I et ,,A ' TI o I o 1 � I ,,,r, , ,,, . . . , , , 1 ;� I,, ..*.i .. , ,, , I t o 0 1 , , N I i — oo•ooi — — I r 001 L 01 Z Iot. ° I to:° I I o t w ._ t. - - -3 00 0 of ,� i d 10-11(10 I IG. 6. o . i, I to to p IO • 00 OS k I° (o r- - - — $ �— — 00_00/ — — ; .. ( l /''1 .SE 8,906 8%V • • { '�?,0£Ess` s h /O V IO O I I oo � �\ V I0 0 p0 01 4 Tr 1 1: ) \ � / , ��6 I r 00 hi \ci O -- — — — - tn 4 / t I i4f„SE BrS.6811/ I — — — \ o 00'O ,fi N b �) n;� / I I Z 1 N0oto I g I ' I �4ti• L l.� I I� O O !lc ' \ Ti �, . 1 / ��� �wv 9 t I o ti 5 I o o f 9 1 1 ✓ �,.� I i of ,,t 0 oo , I I it ; tv • w _ s ;._I L -,- t I I s 11 C 1 c ' O ems./E „",;--0—•55,(/=V 00 YiL 0£ 0£ 0-0 - , O 8 R`i 1 1 , , GO•p • 0 • H F/ � ' I , ovo •006. ,_. 1 .'- ---0010/--- ! v. v „6ass2 = - - � s��7.z2 - O_- .• 8L 'ShZ i ( dw `V, �''' ;� i ') \ /� ff ,, ,� addr rf . . AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 60 0_i NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: June 10, 1985 MEETING DATE: June 17, 1985 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SUBJECT: Met Council - Public Hearing on Combined Sewer Overflow EXPLANATION: Met Council is seeking input relating to proposed amendment to the Water Resources Management Guide for imp1 menting CSO program. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Proposed Amendment/Comments - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME). DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson son Administration a%�a� SIGNATURE ` MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MET COUNCIL POLICY GUIDE - CSO DATE: JUNE 13, 1985 Attached, please find a Notice of Metro Council public hearing relating to Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) . The notice encourages comments from Local Units of Government: I would recommend the_ following comments be considered: //,'„)/ Tie C'; 1. The overall premise of the amendment is fund CSO improvements. The City of Farmington has for years be plagued by I/I problems which have caused a nsiderable finan al .burden on the City. ,..41-- r• k-ire ' ed . ,'loan-s--e a-. f'84- Millis very little attention has been"givtm'"Co this problem by the Met Council other than stating in its policies that cities should remove cost effective I/I, presumably on their own. 2. Based on the figures cited in the amendment, the financial "burden" which is stated to be too great for the cities to finance on their own is as follows: Minneapolis-$140/capita; St. Paul-$569/capita; South St. Paul-$424/capita. The City of Farmington has just refinanced its arena bonds and sold fire hall bonds equalling $225/capita, and is considering a storm sewer project which could equal $150/capita to $265/capita without assistance. In addition, Farmington I/I Sewer Rehab program will eventually add to the City's financial burden. 3. It appears the Met Council is proposing to convert existing sanitary sewer interceptors into storm sewers, and construct new sanitary sewers to replace them. Either new storm sewers should be con- structed to begin with, or if the sanitary sewers are converted, th'_ ,.entire cost of constructing the new interceptors should be bonze by the cities utilizing the storm sewers. 4. It seems that a great urgency is being placed on this problem, and that it developed "overnight". In reality, the cities (with the exception of Minneapolis) have been procrastinating with the hope that some agency would bail them out. 5. Page 11, paragraph 3 states that "the State benefits because State permits will be in compliance with EPA requirements. . .". This statement appears to be a case of "The tale wagging the dog." The MPCA could issue a discharge permit which would be in compliance with EPA regulations without Met Council, MWCC, Minneapolis, St. Paul or South St. Paul's consent or spending millions of dollars. The MPCA could set a 5 to 10 year deadline for compliance and prohibit new construction if there is noncompliance. It would be appreciated if you would review the amendment and note any comments you might have. 't..... .-------- Larr hompson City Administrator cc: file ol'tai • 04 O Metropolitan Council .04 % �� 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets ` ti' St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 0�'�� SPrw� Telephone (612) 291-6359 'IN CI1 June 5, 1985 JIi 1 6 as TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Amendments to Part 1 , Water Resources Management Development Guide, Sewage Treatement and Handling On Monday, July 8 the Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to receive public comments on proposed revisions to the Water Resources Management chapter of its Metropolitan Development Guide. The attached public hearing document includes the following: - Policy plan CSO amendment - System plan CSO amendments - CSO Technical Appendix We encourage you to review the document and to attend the hearing to offer your comments and reactions. If you wish to speak at the hearing, please contact Lucy Thompson at 291-6521 by Friday, July 5. Written comments may be sent to the Metropolitan Council, 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 , Attention: Chuck Ballentine. The Council will accept written comments until Monday, July 22. Your insights and observations about the CSO issue are valued by the Council as it works toward a resolution of this important environmental issue. Cordially, 40, ) # ,, Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Metropolitan Council Enc. LS4101 An Equal Opportunity.Employer • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TO PART 1 , WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE For a Public Hearing To Be Held: Monday, July 8, 1985 5:00 p.m. Metropolitan Council Chambers Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Tel . 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 June 1985 Publication No. 13-85-082 INTRODUCTION This document contains proposed amendments to Part 1 of the Metropolitan Council 's Water Resources Management Development Guide dealing with sewage treatment and handling. Only the text identified as amendments is proposed for inclusion in the guide. The amendments are proposed to comply with the terms of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits on combined sewer overflow (CSO) . CSO is the discharge of stormwater containing raw sewage into the Mississippi River from overflow points in sewers in Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul . The three cities have combined sanitary and storm sewers, which cannot handle the additional flow during rainfall or snowmelt. To deal with the problem, the amendments propose separation of the sanitary and storm sewers in the three cities on an accelerated, 10-year schedule. The amendments may need to be revised after the 1985 Minnesota Legislature takes action on funding proposals to pay for sewer separation programs. In addition, the federal Clean Water Act, which needs to be reauthorized in 1987, provides some money for CSO solutions, but the amount of available federal dollars is uncertain. For the time being, however, the CSO solution proposed in these amendments assume adequate federal funding. Without adequate state and federal funding, an accelerated sewer-separation program would place undue financial burdens on the three cities. As of 1982, Minneapolis had spent $85 million and St. Paul $68 million on sewer separation. Minneapolis has separated 87 percent of its sewers and St. Paul 40 percent. South St. Paul has separated 65 percent of its pipes at a cost of $3 million. Minneapolis needs to spend an additional $52 million; St. Paul , $154 million; and South St. Paul , $9 million to complete separation. Permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency call for the Council to revise its Water Resources Management Development Guide by September 15, 1985, to include a solution to the CSO problem. The Council intends to follow the tentative schedule indicated below in completing that revision: July 8, 1985 Public hearing before the Metropolitan Council on proposed plan amendment. July 22, 1985 Hearing record closes. Aug. 5, 1985 Hearing report available. Aug. 12, 1985 Council 's Metropolitan Systems Committee reviews final hearing report and approvals final amendment. Aug. 22, 1985 Metropolitan Council adopts final amendment. 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CHANGES TO "2. POLICIES" Insert the following on p. 12, between Policy 17 and "Land Application of Treatment Plant Effluent"; COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS Every year, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area discharges billions of gallons of stormwater containing domestic, industrial and commercial sewage into the Mississippi River. These discharges are called combined sewer overflow (CSO) . Combined sewer overflow happens because the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul , like most older American cities, began with only one set of pipes to carry both wastewater and stormwater. During dry weather, these pipes carry wastewater to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul for treatment and then discharge to the river. However, this combined system cannot handle the large extra flows that come from a rainfall or snowmelt. Automatic bypass gates in the sewer system divert the mixed wastewater and stormwater directly to the river. During an average year, about 4.6 billion gallons of this wastewater/stormwater mixture bypasses to the river through 87 overflow points in the three cities. Heavy rains also cause local street flooding and sewer backups in homes in some combined-sewer areas. The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage into any of the nation's waters. Rather, all sewage must receive treatment so that about 90 percent of the pollutants are removed prior to discharge into a water body. The combined sewer overflow discharges require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit acceptable to the federal government that includes a mandatory plan and program to end the discharge. Failure to comply with the terms of the permit means potential liability from possible enforcement actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) or the courts. The discharges can be eliminated by completing a storm and sanitary sewer separation program initiated by the cities many years ago, or by using one of two means for collecting, storing and treating all the combined stormwater and sewage. PREFERRED SOLUTION The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) prepared a facilities plan for CSO control that examines the three options for controlling combined sewer overflow: separation, storage and treatment, and a system of parallel sewer interceptors. The options were selected based on their ability to meet a set of objectives that include elimination of the discharges, cost to affected units of government, and environmental , social and technical impacts. 2 The facilities plan starts with the water quality standard basic premise that CSO must be eliminated as a source of noncompliance with the governing fecal coliform levels. Additionally, St. Paul , Minneapolis, and South St. Paul place high priority on eliminating both hydraulic problems (including basement and street flooding) and paying for excess volumes of combined sewage treated at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plan selects separation as the preferred means to eliminate the water quality problems caused by CSO as well as the hydraulic problems in the affected cities. Separation also generates related benefits for the cities and the suburbs, including extended life for the sanitary sewer systems, and increased reserve capacity of the sewer and treatment system. (See "Combined Sewer Overflow Technical Appendix" in the back of this document.) WATER QUALITY Control of combined sewer overflow also raises a question about water quality benefits: Will there be any water quality benefit resulting from total sewer separation? The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency addresses this concern in a report, The Water Quality Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows on the Mississippi River. The report notes that total separation will permanently remove the possibility of raw sewage reaching the river. Raw sewage represents the major source of fecal coliforms and associated pathogens. The elimination of fecal coliforms and associated pathogens marks a major step toward achieving swimmable conditions in the Metropolitan Area stretch of the Mississippi . Sewer separation also contributes to "aesthetics," (removing floating fecal matter from the river) . Elimination of raw sewage inflows will probably add to the resurgence of positive feelings about the river. The river is increasingly being viewed as a valuable resource around which living, working and recreation can center. Separation can only aid this positive perception. Separation of raw sewage will have additional positive, though minor, water quality benefits. The MPCA report shows that less than 10 percent of the total annual load of the 10 pollutants analyzed comes from CSO. CSO accounts for less than eight percent of six metals analyzed (copper, nickel , lead, zinc, cadmium and chromium) . With separation, some of the metal will be transported in raw sewage to the plant for treatment, while another increment will remain with the separated stormwater and run to the river. Elimination of CSO will also result in about a five percent reduction in the long-term summer biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load, and have little effect on sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in the river. CSO was also found to contribute less than one percent of the annual total suspended solids (TSS) load, and only two percent of the total phosphorus (TP) . These particular water quality issues are best addressed through watershed management organizations. The Council adopted Policies 51 and 52 in Part 2 of the Water Resources Management Development Guide directing watershed management organizations to deal with this type of water quality issue. These organizations have the authority to address such nonpoint pollution control matters as establishing settling ponds and recommending runoff reduction measures. 3 • The EPA's pending nonpoint NPDES permit scheme may also help define more particular nonpoint water quality standards. These standards will help facilitate long-range planning to eliminate nonpoint pollution. In summary, the elimination of raw sewage overflows into the river will benefit the river from the standpoint of fecal coliforms and associated pathogens. Additionally, the aesthetic perception of the river should improve. Other water quality parameters will improve, but to a very limited extent. Further water quality improvement should be addressed by watershed management organizations. FINANCING Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul began to separate their sewers some time ago. Minneapolis has separated all but 13 percent and St. Paul all but 40 percent. As of 1982, Minneapolis had spent $85 million, and St. Paul $68 million, on separation. South St. Paul has separated 65 percent of its pipes at a $3 million cost to the city. At current spending rates, it would take 20 to 45 years to complete the separation. An accelerated 10 year separation program requires federal and state financial assistance to handle the estimated $215 million cost: $154 million by the city of St. Paul , $52 million by the city of Minneapolis and $9 million by the city of South St. Paul . Any financing package must meet the dual objectives of maximizing the pace of CSO abatement while minimizing adverse acceleration costs to the affected cities. (See "Combined Sewer Overflow Technical Appendix".) Any financing package assumes federal funding of $8 million annually authorized by the governor from the federal construction grants fund. (At the governor's discretion, up to 20 percent or approximately $8 million annually of federal sewer funds may be designated for CSO projects.) The state of Minnesota would appropriate sufficient funds to cover 50 percent of the capital costs (an annual average of $6.75 million) to the three affected communities. The communities, in turn, would fund the remaining 50 percent ($6.75 million annually) from local sources. With this type of financing, CSO would be eliminated within 10 years. Policy 17.1 The Council will pursue the separation of combined sewers in order to: - eliminate the discharge of raw sewage and its associated pathogens into the river; - enhance the aesthetic character of the Mississippi River and improve its possibilities for recreational development; - eliminate local flooding caused by the combined system. The Council will also assist watershed management organizations to take measures beyond elimination of combined sewer overflow to reduce the loads of solids, organics, nutrients and toxicants to the river system. 4 CHANGES TO "3. SYSTEM PLAN" Delete lines 1-8, p. 51 , 1st paragraph, second column and add: During 1984, the MWCC prepared a combined sewer overflow (CSO) study plan update. The study plan update represents part of the process of reissuing NPDES permits by the EPA and MPCA addressing elimination of CSO to the Mississippi River from Minneapolis, St. Paul , and South St. Paul . The MWCC recommends sewer separation designed to achieve a control level appropriate for meeting receiving-water and beneficial-use criteria. Add to p. 52, second column, "1985-89 Period": The MWCC should include projects in its 1985-89 Development Program necessary to support the separation of sewers in Minneapolis, St. Paul , and South St. Paul . These are preliminary project descriptions and the MWCC should prepare detailed plans with alternatives and financing options as part of its Development Program. The projects should include: Troutbrook Interceptor - St. Paul 1-SP-220 and 1-SP-222 The city of St. Paul 's sewer plan has indicated that it is cost-effective to utilize the existing Troutbrook interceptor as a storm sewer and build a new sanitary interceptor parallel to the existing interceptor. The new interceptor will extend from the existing joint interceptor at LaFayette St. and Grove St. northerly along the railroad right-of-way, then westerly along Maryland Av. to Arundel Av. The total length of the interceptor is 3.4 miles. The estimated project cost is $6,315,000. 38th St. Interceptor - Minneapolis 1-Mn-341 The existing 38th St. interceptor will be divided into two conveyance systems. The lower portion will carry sanitary sewage in a seperate pipe and the upper portion will carry storm sewage. The modifications will extend along 38th St. from Edmund Blvd. to 29th Av. S. approximately 7,000 feet. The estimated cost of this facility is $1 ,200,000. Oak St. Interceptor - Minneapolis 1-Mn-302 The Oak St. interceptor extends through the East Bank of the University of Minnesota carrying combined sewage to the Minneapolis interceptor. The exact design for this facility has not been finalized and several alternatives will be examined in the Development Program. The estimated cost of this facility is $300,000. Regulator Modifications Many of the regulators that control the flow of combined sewage will require modifications. The regulators must be expanded to convey large amounts of sanitary sewage during peak periods to prevent overflows to the river. A preliminary assessment of the needs for regulator improvement identified 9 regulators in Minneapolis and 27 regulators in St. Paul needing improvement that are the responsibility of the MWCC. The estimated cost of these improvements is $4,700,000. 5 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TECHNICAL APPENDIX This technical appendix covers supporting material used by the Metropolitan Council in reaching conclusions about combined sewer overflow engineering solutions, water quality issues and financing options. REVIEW OF FACILITIES PLAN FOR CSO CONTROL The MWCC facilities plan for CSO control was prepared to evaluate three engineering solutions for eliminating raw sewage discharges into the Mississippi River. The three alternatives evaluated were chosen based on their ability to meet a set of objectives that includes elimination of the discharges, cost, and environmental , social and technical impacts. The basic premise of the facilities plan is that CSO must be eliminated as a source of noncompliance with the fecal coliform water quality standard. In addition to this, the three affected cities have noted as their top priority the elimination of hydraulic problems, which include basement and street flooding and paying for excess volumes of combined sewerage treated at the Metro Plant. An evaluation of the three alternatives has shown that separation is the desired means to eliminate the fecal coliform and hydraulic problems. The following discussion clarifies this conclusion. Separation involves physically disconnecting the sanitary sewage conveyance system from the runoff conveyance system. This separation would mean that raw sewage is still conveyed to the Metro Plant, but runoff water is entirely diverted to the river. Since raw sewage is by far the largest contributor of fecal coliform to the river (78 percent) , the fecal coliform violations would be substantially reduced. In addition to reducing the fecal coliform load, separation relieves the con- veyance system of much of the overload problem that results in raw sewage backup into basements and streets. Further regulator modifications and small conveyance system changes have to be done simultaneously to assure no overflow of sewage. Over the long term, costs of sewage treatment should be reduced for the three cities because the conveyance system will be taking only sanitary sewage to the Metro Plant; when these savings begin depends upon the financing plan ultimately settled upon for the separation. It should be noted that the separation plan would not totally eliminate the inflow of runoff water into the sanitary sewage system. Even after the proposed separation scheme is installed, there will be small , nonseparated areas and small areas of extraneous inflow (roof leaders, overland drainage) that will contribute volume to the sanitary sewage system. Some efforts have already begun to deal with extraneous inflows. St. Paul has started a process to encourage the disconnection of roof leaders. These inflows, however, have been included in the system design and consequently do not result in system overflow to the river. 6 The effects of the recommended separation plan are dramatic. Overflow from Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul will be totally eliminated under design conditions, which include the previously mentioned regulator and conveyance modifications. Additionally, volume overload will not occur in major interceptors and no additional storage volume will be required at the Metro Plant. Other benefits include a 40 percent reduction in peak flows into the Metro Plant and reclaimed interceptor capacity for future development. Negative impacts of sewer separation include disruption from construction (noise, street excavation, dust) and continued inflow of untreated separated urban runoff to the river. The total cost of the separation proposal is approximately $242 million, or approximately $21 .7 million annually. These costs are substantially lower than the other alternatives evaluated in the plan. The second alternative involves storing the combined sewage throughout the system, then pumping it back into the conveyance system for treatment at the Metro Plant. There are 40 locations for off-line storage and 12 for on-line storage. The storage would occur at or near overflow points--that is, adjacent to the river on the bluffs or in the floodplain. The maximum storage time provided would be three days to ensure minimal odor problems. When properly designed, this alternative would eliminate CSO, but would not eliminate hydraulic problems or reduce overall flows to the Metro Plant. This proposal , rather, holds onto all of the combined sewage volume and slowly feeds it back into the conveyance system, meaning that no long-term reduction in treatment costs or reclaimed interceptor capacity will likely occur. The storage alternative is the most disruptive and locally unacceptable alter- native examined. Construction of the 52 storage facilities would require 15 acres of river bluff and wetlands built in predominantly residential neighbor- hoods. Local flooding would continue because of overloading and capacity shortages. Other negative aspects of this alternative are potential odor problems and requirements for routine maintenance to remove settled material . On the positive side, this alternative would allow for the treatment of a limited volume of urban runoff. Also, some peak relief would occur at the Metro Plant on these occasions. The total cost of the storage-with-conveyance alternative is approximately $298 million, or $25.9 million annually. These costs are more expensive than those of the first alternative. The final alternative evaluated was parallel interception. Under this alterna- tive, relief interceptors would be built to divert overflows to the Metro Plant. All overflows would be intercepted and thus eliminated. The increased interception means that an additional 230 million gallons of storage would be required somewhere before or at the Metro Plant. An added benefit of this option is redundancy, which would allow for sewer maintenance on the existing system by diverting its flow to the parallel line. Parallel interception would not solve local flooding problems, and therefore is not favored by the three cities. The Metro Plant similarly would have to be enlarged to account for the added volume captured. 7 On the positive side, parallel interception is probably the least disruptive alternative. Urban runoff would be conveyed to the Metro Plant for treatment by a system that has very low operation and maintenance requirements. The biggest problem with the parallel interceptor system is its $493 million cost. This means an annual cost of $40.5 million. This is by far the most costly alternative and still does not solve local hydraulic problems. In summary, the MWCC's recommended plan appears to be the most desirable of the three alternatives evaluated. The separation scheme would eliminate CSO as a source of water quality violations for fecal coliform, and would solve local hydraulic problems. These results meet the needs of the Council , the MWCC and the three affected cities. The plan as proposed could be implemented under existing city and MWCC authority. WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW The MPCA report entitled The Water Quality Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows on the Mississippi River evaluates the role CSO plays in total river loading. The major issue addressed in MPCA's report is whether there will be any water quality benefit resulting from total sewer separation. The answer is yes for pathogens and aesthetics, and no for all other pollutants examined. Fecal coliform counts are used as an indicator for the presence of waterborne pathogens from human and animal intestinal sources. Such pathogens can include Salmonella, Pseudomonas aeruqinosa, Staphylococus auerus and intestinal virus. There have been numerous water quality violations of-the fecal coliform standard in the past. Total separation will permanently remove the possibility of raw sewage reaching the river. This raw sewage is the major source of fecal coliforms and associ- ated pathogens. MPCA's analysis shows that total separation would reduce the long-term summer violations just downstream of the Metro Plant 50 percent of the time. When frequency, severity and geographic extent of violation are all considered, the effects of separation would be a reduction in the long-term summer levels of fecal coliforms by 80 percent. Similar reduction in associated pathogens is assumed. MPCA states that ". . . the reduced probability of pathogens being present constitutes the major water quality benefit. . ." of separation. A related issue of the achievement of "swimmable" waters is also discussed. In short, MPCA reports that separation would go a long way toward achieving swim- mable conditions, but leaves some doubt that the region could reach this goal . The elimination of CSOs takes care of the raw sewage overflow problem, but separated stormwater continues to present problems with fecal coliform loading. However, few people use the river during runoff events and the severity of violations is greatly reduced by the elimination of raw sewage. In short, separation would be a big step toward achieving swimmable conditions. Another benefit from separation is "aesthetics." The MPCA report points out that perceptions about the cleanliness of the river creates a positive or negative feeling toward it. To date, the river has been largely viewed negatively, receiving raw sewage and runoff debris every time it rains. 8 Elimination of raw sewage inflows will probably reinforce positive feelings about the river currently being seen in the region. The river is increasingly being viewed as a valuable resource around which living, working and recreation can center. Separation can foster this positive feeling by eliminating floating fecal matter from the river. Separation of raw sewage will have additional positive, albeit minor, water quality benefits. The MPCA report shows that far less than 10 percent of the total annual load of the 10 pollutants analyzed comes from CSO. Separation would totally remove CSO as a source of these pollutants, but some would shift to the separated stormwater and Metro Plant. CSO accounts for less than eight percent of six metals analyzed (copper, nickel , lead, zinc, cadmium and chromium) . Typically, these metals are at toxic levels in the combined sewer system, but are diluted to nontoxic levels upon discharging to the river. They do, however, undoubtedly contribute to the longer-term chronic toxic levels seen in river water and sediments. Under a separation scheme, some of the metal will be transported in raw sewage to the plant for treatment, while another increment will remain associated with the separated urban runoff component and subsequently discharge to the river. CSO reduces the level of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the river. The discharge of oxygen-demanding substances into the river can result in a decrease of up to 3 mg/1 DO over a period of up to two days. CSO actually contributes less than five percent of the long-term summer biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load, and does not markedly affect sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in the river. The level of un-ionized ammonia resulting from CSO is very minor, contributing less than three percent of the long-term summer load. Primary un-ionized ammonia problems are associated with point sources. Two pollutants commonly associated with nonpoint sources of pollution are total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) . CSO was found to contribute less than one percent of the annual TSS load. The major sources for TSS to the river and eventually to Lake Pepin are areas of upland erosion in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. Similarly, the major sources of phosphorus to the river and hence Spring Lake and Lake Pepin are not at all related to CSO, which accounts for only two percent of the annual TP load to the river. The final pollutant evaluated by MPCA was PCBs. Little data exists for this pollutant, but it appears that less than one percent of the total river load comes from CSOs. In summary, the elimination of raw sewage overflows into the river will benefit the river from the standpoint of fecal coliforms and associated pathogens. Additionally, the perception of the river should improve. Other water quality parameters will improve, but to a very limited extent. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS For the three cities responsible for combined sewers overflows, abatement will require a substantial financial investment. Estimated costs for CSO abatement in 1984 dollars are $242 million: $27 million to be expended by the MWCC, $154 million by the city of St. Paul , $52 million by the city of Minneapolis and $9 million by the city of South St. Paul . 9 The affected cities are currently engaged in separating their combined sewers but at a slower pace than the ten-year schedule assumed in the Council legislative proposals. To accelerate from the present pace, in which abatement would be accomplished anywhere from 20 to 45 years, will cost the cities substantially more. The difference in cost between 10 years and 20 years for the cities' portion of CSO (a total of $215 million) is estimated in present- value terms at approximately $40 million (using a 10 percent discount rate) . At the present time the city of St. Paul is proposing to spend $1 .7 million annually on CSO abatement. If St. Paul were to fund its share of CSO abatement on a 10-year schedule with appropriations from its general fund, the city's annual payments would be $15.4 million, approximately eight times its proposed expenditure. Minneapolis would need to spend $5.2 million each year and South St. Paul $900,000 each year for 10 years. Historically, these cities have funded major sewer construction projects with general obligation bonds. The magnitude of the financing needed for CSO, particularly for the city of St. Paul , suggests that special legislation would be needed to allow the city to exceed its current bonded debt limits. In 1981 St. Paul 's total general obligation debt was $143 million; funding its share of CSO abatement would more than double its existing debt. South St. Paul faces a similar situation with CSO funding--tripling its existing general obligation debt. For the city of Minneapolis, CSO abatement needs are less dramatic; funding CSO abatement would increase the general obligation debt in Minneapolis approximately 18 percent. Several financing proposals have been prepared based on the need to provide assistance to the cities so that they can meet a 10-year time schedule. The objective of financial assistance is to maximize the pace of CSO abatement while minimizing the costs to the affected cities of acceleration. The financing proposals assume that some federal funding will be available for CSO abatement. At the governor's discretion, up to 20 percent (approximately $8 million) of federal construction grants can be allocated to CSO projects. If federal funding of $8 million annually were provided to the three cities and the remaining financing provided by general obligation bonds issued by the cities in proportion to the relative share of abatement costs, the cities would still have to pay substantial costs for abatement of CSO. For a typical homeowner in the city of St. Paul (with a $70,000 market-value house) , the effect of a combination of federal grants and local bonds for CSO would result in an increase in property taxes ranging from approximately $9 in the first year to $88 in the 10th through 20th years and then declining for the final ten years until the final bond issue is redeemed. Costs for comparable homes in South St. Paul would range from $10 to $101 , and in Minneapolis the costs would range from $2 to $14. Interest-free loans to the cities is another approach that, when coupled with federal grants of $8 million annually, provide more assistance to the cities. If the state of Minnesota appropriated sufficient funds to lend 50 percent of the capital costs (an annual average of $6.75 million) to the three affected communities, the cities in turn would have to fund the remaining 50 percent ($6.75 million) from local sources. The total capital costs remaining after $80 million in federal grants is accounted for, is $135 million. At the completion of construction, the cities would -repay the state loan without interest over a time period equal to the construction period, estimated at $6.75 million over the 10-year period following construction. 10 • Cost to the Cities: The cities would pay $67.5 million initially for the cities' 50 percent share, which has a present value of $41 .5 million. In addition to the costs the cities will incur during the 10-year construction phase, they will also have to repay the state loan at $6.75 million over the succeeding 10 years. The present value of the repayment is $16 million, making the total present-value cost to the cities $57.5 million. Cost to the State: The state will pay $6.75 million annually for 10 years to the cities for a total present value of $41 .5 million. The state also pays in opportunity costs for the federal funds that are directed toward the CSO abatement. The $8 million annually expended on CSO could have been used by the state for other water pollution projects. The present value of the foregone federal funds equals $49.2 million. Added to that is the $41 .5 million present value of the loans to the cities for a total present value of $90.7 million from which the $16 million present value of the cities' repayment to the state must be subtracted, bringing the total present value cost to the state to $74.7 million. With this proposal , CSO abatement is accomplished within 10 years. The cities' cost in present-value terms in reduced to $57.5 million, a savings over a 20- year program cost of approximately $34 million. Although the state assumes added costs of $74.7 million, the state benefits because state permits will be in compliance with EPA requirements and raw sewage no longer will be discharged to the Mississippi River in the Metropolitan Area. A second alternative would be to provide state grants to the cities in the amount of the loans proposed above. The grants would reduce the cities' cost by $16 million to a total present value cost of $41 .5 million after federal grants are accounted for. Costs to the state would increase by $16 million for a total present value cost to the state of $90.7 million in present value. The combined federal grant/state loan approach reduces substantially the cost to the owner of a $70,000 home from the cost incurred with a federal grant/city bonding program. With state loans, costs to a St. Paul homeowner will range from a low of $4 to a one-year high of $82 over the life of the bonds; for South St. Paul the cost will range from $5 to $102; and for Minneapolis from $1 to $19. Providing state grants rather than interest-free loans will both decrease the cost and shorten the number of years of payment from 30 to 20, assuming that the cities bond for both their initial costs and for the payback. Aside from meeting EPA requirements and eliminating raw sewage discharges into the Mississippi River within the Metropolitan Area, certain advantages accrue to the cities from the separation of combined sewers. These include the elimination of street flooding and sewer backups in basements, and the reduction in MWCC treatment costs because a lower volume of wastewater enters the regional system for treatment. Savings after separation is completed have been estimated as high as $700,000 annually for the city of St. Paul , the largest constributor of CSO to the metropolitan treatment system. Acceleration does have drawbacks, however. Because the pace of construction and financing is accelerated, St. Paul , in particular, will have difficulty, financially and in terms of manpower and planning, embarking on a badly needed street paving program that should be coordinated with the tearing up of streets for sewer separation. LS3371 11 • AGENDA REQUEST FORM i ITEM NO. / (k, NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: June 5, 1985 MEETING DATE: June 17, 1985 CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SUBJECT: Discuss 1985/86 Goals and Priorities EXPLANATION: As per Council directive. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Department Head Responses - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Department Heads SIGAA UR "4.-- r MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS SUBJECT: 1985/84 CITY GOALS AND PRIORITIES DATE: JUNE 13, 1985 . Based on input received by Department Heads and Council members, the following list of Goals and Priorities are submitted for consideration. 1. Southeast Storm Sewer Project. 2. Adoption of Storm Sewer Master Plan, including appropriate policies. 3. Establish the City's present and future storage/maintenance needs. 4. Designation of Farmington as a "Star City". 5. Completion and implementation of a Compensation Plan. 6. Study the feasibility of a Comprehensive Warning Siren system for the City. 7. Revise and update the City's development policy, such as assessment policy, storm water improvements, subdivision ordinance, M.S. 429 policy, etc. 8. Study City staffing needs. 9. Study various annexations. 10. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the repair, extension and financing of the system, including MWCC. 11. Establishment of an industrial park. 12. Comprehensive analysis of Liquor Store and future needs. 1 - fir, Please note that witthe exception of #1, the aforementioned items are not ranked according to priority. Also note that many of the items are presently underway. This list is being submitted for consideration as per directive of the City Council. / , - 21 4-t 7 I°7--Q 4-- &_,,____________ _ "1,171;e20,_______ ___ Larry ompson City Administrator LT/mh 4 ��� (�� n--- 1985/1986 CITY GOALS AND PRIORITIES August 14, 1985 GOAL: Complete Southeast Storm Sewer Project DESCRIPTION: Finance and construct storm sewer and ponding system in southeast Farmington, to alleviate periodical flooding, and to mitigate flooding in basements. STATUS: Feasibility reports completed, town meeting held, report being revised as per recommendations at town meeting. Various affected federal, state and local agencies notified. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Determine Responsibility - MnDot, County, Soil and Water Conservation District, Fair Board, Watershed Management Organization, Townships. 2. Method of Financing - Ad Valorem, M.S. 429, Service Districts, Special Taxing Districts, Combination. 3. "429" Process (If applicable) 4. Approve Plans and Specifications 5. Sell Improvement Bonds 6. Bidding process/Award Bid 7. Construction 8. Assessments (If applicable) NOTES: Because of the potential controversial nature of this project it is recommended that the council continue to hold informational meetings on the project. GOAL: Increase City Water Capacity DESCRIPTION: Due to increased growth the City (Water Board) should attempt to increase the City's peak water capacity through added wells, increased storage, connection to Lakeville's system for emergency backup, or a combination thereof. STATUS: City of Lakeville informally contacted and are studying feasibility. Feasibility report on deep wells completed. Water Board presently discussing the matter. 1 City Goals and Priorities Page 2 REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Determine present and future needs including contingen- cies. 2. Determine appropriate action 3. Determine financing, including rate study. 4. Execute joint powers agreement with Lakeville (If applicable) 5. Prepare Plans and Specifications 6. Negotiate purchase of property (If Applicable) 7. Sell Revenue Bonds 8. Bidding Process/Award Bids 9. Construction GOAL: Reforestation Program DESCRIPTION: Begin replacing Dutch Elm and Storm damaged trees with City nursery stock. STATUS: City trees are at a size where they may be transplanted, Water Board has agreed to allow additional nursery space at well house #4 site. Staff negotiating with nursery owners for tree moving costs. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Appropriate funds in 1986 budget for tree moving 2. Develop and approve policies: a. Where trees may be placed (boulevard; private, etc) b. Costs to property owners (boulevard vs private) c. Priority of placement (eg. by request, master plan, etc) 3. Acquire additional seedlings/saplings for future stock. City Goals and Priorities Page 3 GOAL: Joint City Ambulance Service DESCRIPTION: Replace present Ambulance Service with an ALS service provided jointly by the cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Farmington. STATUS: Joint Powers Agreement executed, Board has been appointed, ambulances purchased, 1985/1986 budget approved, advertise- ments for Director have been published, insurance agents presently looking at insurance packages, license applica- tion submitted. Proposal for volunteer EMT staffed BLS unit in Farmington drafted and will be submitted to Board. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Council ratification of an 85/86 budget. 2. Monitor operations of the Ambulance Board. 3. Submit quarterly payments to the Board. 4. Develop volunteer EMT's to staff BLS unit in Farmington. GOAL: Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan DESCRIPTION: Storm Sewer plan to be used as a guide for adopting and implementing development/improvement policies. STATUS: Financing secured (Met Council Planning Loan) . Study ordered. Study 90% completed. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Receive and review and approve report. 2. Adopt policies accordingly: a. Financing b. Development c. Construction 3. Revise Zoning/Subdivision ordinances accordingly City Goals and Priorities Page 4 GOAL: City Facilities Study DESCRIPTION: Study City's present' and future storage/maintenance/office facility needs. STATUS: Superficial study during assessment of old Fire Hall use. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Committee/Staff directed to conduct study 2. Inventory present equipment. 3. Determine staff requirements 4. Project additional equipment and staff 5. Determine needs and alternate solutions 6. Report to council 7. Develop implementation plan. GOAL: Comprehensive Development Policy DESCRIPTION: Adopt and implement overall development policy to guide future development/improvements. STATUS: Background information presently being compiled REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Determine city policies as they relate to: a. Assessment policies b. Storm water improvements (see above) c. Subdivision approval d. Subdivision improvements e. Public vs private financing f. City borrowing policy 2. Draft and approve policy manual including checklists, flow charts, and draft agreements. 3. Revise subdivision ordinance accordingly. City Goals and Priorities Page 5 GOAL: Orderly Annexation DESCRIPTION: Study the orderly annexation of certain sections of Castle Rock and Empire Townships STATUS: No action taken at this time REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Meet with Township officials to discuss intentions 2. Study needs 3. Develop orderly annexation plans 4. Initiate statutory procedures GOAL: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan DESCRIPTION: Develop and implement a master plan for the operations, repair, extension and financing of the Sanitary Sewer System. STATUS: Staff presently developing plans with MWCC staff to stabilize service fees. Quotes being received for rehab of pipes. Staff taking informal inventory of "probable" problem areas. REQUIRED Action: 1. Develop master plan for staged inspection and rehab of sewer lines. 2. Estimate rehab costs 3. Estimate annual operating costs 4. Determine projected operating/rehab costs, projected growth, and appropriate service rates City Goals and Priorities Page 6 GOAL: Liquor Store Study DESCRIPTION: Determine future needs of Liquor Store, including staff, location and space requirements STATUS: Informal staff study presently be compiled REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Accept staff report 2. Determine merits 3. Take appropriate action 9 ^ AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. IIE NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: June 5, 1985 MEETING DATE: June 17, 1985 CATEGORY: Consent Agenda SUBJECT: Approve Addendum to Ambulance Service Agreement EXPLANATION: Housekeeping language relating to tort claims exceeding insurance coverage. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Addendum/Explanation - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration G.M. Gorgos Attorney Stan Whittingham Police SIGNATU LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L.GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR.1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING VANCE B.GRANNIS,JR. THOMAS J.CAMPBELL 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A.FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L.GRANNIE,III ROGER N.KNUTSON 612-455-1661 THOMAS M.SCOTT GARY G.FUCHS MARY S.VUJOVICH THOMAS L.GRUNDHOEFER May 31 , 1985 DAVID L.HARMEYER Mr. G. M. Gorgos Attorney at Law 427 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Dear Mr. Gorgos : Enclosed for your review is the Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement to Provide Ambulance Service made by and among the City of Lakeville, the City of Apple Valley, and the City of Farmington. Very truly yours , GRANNIS , CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON Ro NAL s n srn Enclosure • AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE SERVICE Amendment made this day of , 1985, by and among the City of Lakeville, the City of Apple Valley, and the City of Farmington (collectively referred to as "Cities" ) . WHEREAS , the Cities have previously entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to provide ambulance service and the Cities desire to amend the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE , the parties agree as follows: 1 . Paragraph 10 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows : (A) . DEBT. The Cities shall be responsible for all debts, expenses, and liabilities, excluding debts, expenses, and liabilities incurred as a result of tort liability, incurred in the operation of the program prior to their withdrawl from this Agreement in accordance with the following formula: Individual City' s total contribution (excluding Public Resources) = percentage of liability Total contribution of all member Cities (excluding Public Resources) Contribution calculations shall be made as of the dates the debt or liability is incurred. (B) . TORT LIABILITY. To the extent there is no insurance coverage the Cities shall be liable for all debts, expenses, and liabilities incurred as a result of tort liability in accordance with the formula set forth in paragraph 10(a) of this Agreement. 2. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement is amended by adding thereto subparagraph C to read as follows: Each individual City agrees to maintain in force at least $2,000,000 in comprehensive general liability insurance. If any City is notified that its insurance is cancelled, they will immediately notify the other Cities in writing. If any City is unable to obtain or keep in force at least the minimum coverage required by this paragraph any City may withdraw from this Agreement after giving the other member Cities at least thirty (30) days written notice of withdrawl . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers pursuant to the authority granted by the attached Resolutions adopted by the respective Cities. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dated: Mayor Administrator CITY OF FARMINGTON Dated: Mayor Administrator CITY OF LAKEVILLE Dated: Mayor Administrator 411111111111 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS SUBJECT: AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT - INSURANCE COVERAGE DATE: JUNE 5, 1985 The Apple Valley city council raised a concern relating to tort liability claims exceeding the insurance coverage. Presently there is no language - in the contract relating to this type of liability, so therefore, the sharing of these costs could be arbitrarily set by the Court. It was Apple Vallley's contention that, since this is an unknown extent, the language should state that the liability be shared equally. Jerry Gorgos and I met with representatives of Apple Valley and Lakeville and successfully argued that the Ambulance Board offers services for individual citizens, not cities themselves, and therefore should be based a per capita basis. The attached addendum reflects that argument. Also, it was felt that in order to protect each city, if for any reason a city loses its comprehensive general liability insurance, the cities may withdraw from the agreement within 30 days. Based on discussions with Mr. Gorgos and representatives from the various cities, I would recommend the addendum be approved. z;i Larry ompson City dministrator LT/mh cc: file