The URL can be used to link to this page

85-853 WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L Council CANARV - L}EPARTMENT �� BLU'E - MAVOR File NO. � 1 � . Co n i,l Resolution Presented y ` Referred To ��`�7�--��- w ��S Committee: Date �� —�� Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the municipalities located in the Central Ramsey Watershed including Falcon Heights, Maplewood, Roseville and Saint Paul have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.59, to jointly and cooperatively, by agreement, exercise any powers common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the local governmental units located in the Southwest Ramsey Watershed including Falcon Heights, University of Min�esota, Minnesota State Fair Board and Saint Paul have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.59, to jointly and cooperatively, by agreement, exercise any powers common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the local governmental units located in the .Middle Mississippi Watershed including Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Minneapolis, Saint Anthony, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the University of Minnesota and Saint Paul have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 491.59, to jointly and cooperatively, by agreement, exercise any powers comnon to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the municipalities located in the Lower Mississippi Watershed including Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South Saint Paul, Sunfish Lake, West Saint Paul and Saint Paul have authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.59, to jointly and cooperatively, by agreement, exercise any powers common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of jointly and cooperatively developing plans and instituting programs to conserve soil and water resources through implementation of practices that effectively reduce or prevent erosion, sedimentation, siltation, pollution and flooding in order to protect and manage the natural resources of each of the four watersheds. COUNCILMEIV Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher Drew In Favor Masanz Nicosia schetbe� __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified P�ssed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mavor. Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By _ By WHITE - CiTV CLEFiK PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council /+, CANARV - pEPARTMENT File NO• ` � -�� BLtTE - MAVOR 1 Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul approves the four joint powers agreements to establish the Central Ramsey Watershed, Southwest Ramsey Watershed, Middle Mississippi Watershed and Lower Mississippi Watershed Organizations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor, Director of Finance and Management Services and Assistant City Attorney are authorized to sign said agreements on behalf of the City of Saint Paul . COUNCILM�N Requested by Department of: Yeas �dA/)1!� Nays ^�Fiileher � ofeN1 In Favor Masanz Nicosia scheibel � _ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date 'j�� 2 � � Form Approved City Atto y Certified Pas e b ouncil Se r , BY By 6lppro Mavor: Date `�U� 1 '� 1 85 Approved by or for Submission to Council _ �. By _ By �� ►� 2 9 i985 . . . � �>,'�= G � „�;r.,.,. � N�HITE — CITY CL�PtK . . . '* � � ; p . . � ,.c „1'��'. . . . PINK :.— FINANCE �: � GIT'� -OF S�AINT � PAITL. Cow�cil�. �� , CANAR'Y —IDEPARTML{JT � � � . � �F�IC �� NO. � �� BLUE. — MAVOR' � . � • �G'o n �l Resolution Presente By. � Referred To ��;� � � K ' � � � -� Committee: Date � � � Out of Committee By Date �s� t�er �t�lpttftits 2et�ts� ia tbe C�tral �.se�►i�s�.a ��c��ai� Ratco� �ti�hts, fi��«AOa, �0�►�31e a�i SaU�t ��rt �s a�or4�,1►� �a�i !0 lti�a Stat�e +�71.59. to �SO1�tly a�d c�att�nlY. b� a�t. ' a�arc#sa ayr pair�r�s cs� te tMe ce�'aetfag parttts; aAd .��. � �i�11S, tt� '#�a� ��ora�eatta� �tf�s� toc�tt�A !u tirt S�wtArltst ��r,�► �iat�d� i�C�rd1 falc�n Ne�'9MEs� �i��rsit,�► eK Mf�a�ta, M��e�l�ta Stale Fa�r Eoa�d �wd S�! �aMt.ha�re afthor"�t�r, p�t to �lt�e�ta Statrte 4�1.�, t� �+r1�tt� � �oMpar�atinsl,r. b�r a�nt, �aercf se � Oo�"s ca�eR �s tlie eaoat�sctt� p�1e�; a�d M�, tM locai �tal aaits toca�d 4� t�e Niddte Mfsslssippf � Ya�vsh� �c'l�1� falr.�n 1�ef�rts. Lau�dala, llf��is, Sa��rt 1�tbs�,yr� !!� M�l�e�tpa2#s tark aAd �nattoR �r+�, t�e i�tnrsit�► �! Mf�esota �d salut i►a�rl line �tt,�. �t �o !#ia�esarta sta�tt+e �.�, to �oialt� a� tt�a�l�ij►s ►j► �r'�tr �acsrCls�e aRy p�r's Ca�M� to t11! Ca�b'icti� � �� t�EREAS, ttl��e �lel�atttles l�ul�ei iA t�a La�r llfssiss'�prt Ya� l�ciwlly I�wr � Mei�ts. Lilydat�, Ma�o�ta, �Madrta pt#�ts. So�rtA S�tfat Pwi, S�flsb Lsiot Mest f�t ��ai aAd Ss1�tt �a�l haw a�t�1tJ'� P� � M1�ta S#atut� �71.54, ta ��tAtty a�d cooperati�►eiY. b!► a�t, axa�clse �Jt 0�'s ca■�ea ts �e ceatrac°tin� p�tfls; aad M�R�113, ths �arcias a� e•sis�s o� jo��tiy a� cospa�ati�si� �1o�t�q , plans aud tastitatt�g prog�►�is to e�re soit a� wt�r� �es � #�1ar�rEtati+a� afi p�ictices t�a# effecti�rely r� a� p�►aat �rasia�, �d1■�ut�1o�, sf'iLatt�, poi'lati�n aAQ tl+�dit�g f� o�da� fio prot�ct ar�A �yE t!� �ra1 re� s!` a�cb � tNe fo� �r�s. � , COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Y�s �_,, > �.� _ - Fl�eficlWr � Masanz = [n Favor�. •i Nkosia ` scheibe► _ Against BY � Tedssco -,,� Wilson � Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY . By , 4�w A►pproved by 1Aavor: Date JU� 2 � tg$5 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � gy $y � .� WHITE . �-^GT�F�.CLERK . � .; '.'. .:� . ..�._ ` � .. .. . : . - .� . :..... ••... . . . , '- ` �. �� . .��PINK - FINANCE (�I TY�� OF SA I NT PA�U L � Council - -� � � .. � ` � CANARY�♦ DEPARTMENT , . F�le NO. �� BLUE - MAVOR � � � : - Council Resolution -�,�_ � Presented By ` s ` Refer{ed '�'o� . '* Committee: Date " Out of Committee By Date T�FiNtE, � IT �Sat.�, tAtt tlre City a� S�f�t �i111 �ra3 t1�! f0� #Olnt p�rs a �ts ta �stablts� �re Ca�tra� Ra�sa�r �i��d, Saat�est Ra�r itat�r�, Mlddle Missi�slppt iistersh� a�d Ls� t�tissls�st�i �� 4�rg�ul�catle�s; a�d �E IT �t1RTtER �S�lYEO, t�at !�t �U�a`, 8irector df Ff�a�e a�i Ma��t Ssrttt�s aAd Assfstast C'i#;�r Jlt#�r �e a�lher�it�d te sf*e s��+� yr�w�rts � beAaif et' tbt C1t) oF Safat P�l. 5 M COUNCIL EN Requested by Departme�t of: , �;�a's ��r,� ',2��5�.� - . °`°'" " , � [n F�vor Masenz Nicosia scnetbet � Against BY Tedesco Wilson Form Approve by City Atto�ttey Adopted by Council: Date � y� I Y p Certified Pas e by ouncil Se ar By �` ' By, . t'"Jt � J; ,t'�', � '� A►pproved by Mavor: Date ��"� � � Approved by`M�yor for Submission to Council >: By BY � � Pub'�i c �Jorks __ DE PARTMENT ��_�� No �g g 7 Allen Lovejoy CONTACT � �a�_i��T��_ PHONE a `1 485 DATE ree� e e ASSIGN NUMBER FOR ROUTING ORDER Cli Al1 Locations for Si nature : 1 Department Director �� 3 Director of Management/Mayor � Fi�ance and Managemen ervices Director � City Clerk - Budget Director � �Fr.FivFn � � City Attorney WHAT WY LL B� AEtiIEi1E9�-BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose/ M�� 7 �� Rationale) • By sianing the four attached joint powers agreements, the City will be in com��TvT��N� provisions of Minnesota Statute 471 .59 which require metropolitan area local �overnmenta� units to cooperatively p�gn for the disposal of surface water runoff. COST/B�NEFIT, BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS ANTICIPATED: The ma�cimum anticipated annual administrative liability is $48,980 but it is likel_y the amount will be $25,00 to $35,000 per year. Personnel impacts wi11 be one-ha1f time of a civil engineer and on�-half time of a technician. Both administrative and personnel costs are funded through the sewer billincr procedure. Plajor benefits are non-quantifia6le at this time but deal with reducirnn the increase of stormwater flows into tF�e City. FINANCI'NG SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- ture not re- Total Amount of Transaction: quired if under $10,00Q) Fund�ing Source: Acti�vity Number: ATTACHNpENTS (List and Number Al1 Attachments) : 1 . Memo to City Council from Peqqy Reichert. 2. Program to meet requirements of the Surface �later �lanagement Act of 1982. 3. �latershed Area Map 4. Central Ramsey 4Jatershed Joint Powers Aareement 5. Southwest Ramsey 4latershed Joint Powers Aareement 6. Middle Mississippi 4Jatershed Joint Powers AQreement 7. Lower Mississippi Watershed Joint PoN�ers Aareement g, City Council Resolution DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW Yes No Council Resolution Required? Resolution Required? Yes No Yes �No Insurance Required? Insurance Sufficient? Yes No Yes No Insurance Attached: (SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS) Revised 12/84 R ��_�.�3 �� Tto, r ' �d : CITY OF SAINT PAUL . � ��i,�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT + 1° �� DIVISION OF PLANNING . � ,... 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612�2�-�'m MAYOR DATE: May 14, 1985 T0: Saint Paul City Council Members FROM: Peggy Reicher RE: Minnesota State Surface Water Management Act of 1982 INTRODUCTION In 1982, the State of Minnesota adopted Minnesota Statute 471.59 (a.k.a. Chapter 509, Surface Water Management Act) in response to intergovernmental disputes over the proper disposal/drainage of stormwater. In addition, Chapter 509 was adopted to meet surf ace water planning requirements of the Federal EPA. Chapter 509 requires each local government in the Metropolitan Area to develop plans in cooperation with neighboring communities. The attached materials contain the proposed approach to meeting our legal requirements. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW The basic requirement of Chapter 509 is that cities cooperatively develop plans for coordinating capital pro3ect construction related to surface water flows. Chapter 509 does not substitute for lake overflow studies, nor for the Combined Sewer Overflow correction requirements. However, the physical and fiscal relationships between Chapter 509 and CSO are very important as the city continues its sewer separation efforts. Chapter 509 requires plans be developed which preserve and use the natural water storage and retention (ponds, lakes, and streams), improve water quality in lakes and rivers, and prevent flooding/erosion. FINDINGS AND RECONMIENDATIONS After more than two years of negotiations with other local agencies, joint powers agreements have been drafted for four watershed areas. In each instance Planning, Public Works, and City Attorney staff inembers have reviewed the documents, working toward agreements which do not create an undue hardship for the City, and protect the City' s home rule as much as possible, while meeting the spirit and letter of Chapter 509. In order to understand the recomnendation one must understand the consequences of no action. The intent of Chapter 509 was to encourage cooperative ventures among comnunities through joint powers agreements. However, as a legal incentive, if such agreements are not signed by July 1, 1985, then the law requires that a Watershed District be established in accordance with Chapter 112. Such a district would be set up by the County in which the watershed is located. If more than one county is affected, then the counties must cooperatively establish the district. Such Watershed Districts would have much more power than joint powers agreements resulting in a loss of some local autonomy. )� . . , _, . ��'s"-�s� Page Two � Because the mandated alternative to �oint powers agreements unnecessarily em owers a semi-autonomous Board to act and in the s irit of� coo eration among t. Paul and its suburbs, joint powers agreements are recommended as pref erred alternatives for each of the four watershed areas. PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION The four joint powers agreements are attached for consideration. The agreements basically set out procedures for doing the watershed plans and do . not bind the city to any specific capital financing obligations. In another 18 to 24 months there will be plans for each watershed area for the City Council to consider, and those plans do have proposed capital projects. But for now the Council is only requested to adopt these four agreements. I anticipate that this matter will be on the City Council agenda before the end of May. Allen Lovejoy of my staff will be meeting with each of you over the next week or so to give you a more thorough briefing and answer any specific questions you may have. PR:ss - ��s��-� � April , 1985 THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL PROGRAM TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF _ THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1982 I. INTRODUCTION . In 1982 the State of Minnesota adopted Minnesota Statute 471.59 (a.k.a. Chapter 509, Surface Water Management Act) in response to intergovernmental disputes over the proper disposal/drainage of stormwater. The adoption of Chapter 509 in 1982 was precipitated by an impending Metropolitan Council Plan for surface water management, which was unpopular in many parts of the Metro area. As soon as Chapter 509 was adopted, the Metropolitan Council agreed to revise their plan to conform with the new law and subsequently submitted their plan to Federal EPA for approval . Although related, Chapter 509 does not substitute for lake overflow studies done by the Metropolitan Council , nor for the Combined Sewer Overflow correction requirements. Chapter 509, as well as the Metropolitan Council 's initial plan, was intended to meet surface water- planning requirements of EPA. Since EPA views CSO and surface water management as separate issues they have been treated separately locally. However, the physical and fiscal relationships between the two are very important as the city continues its sewer separation efforts. The approach proposed recognizes the interrelation between CSO and surface water and will use the city's recently-adopted Comprehensive Sewer Plan as the guide for capital improvements. The purposes of Chapter 509 are: to preserve and use the natural water storage and retention (ponds, lakes and streams) in order to reduce public expenditures; to improve water quality in natural water bodies; and to prevent flooding and erosion. The general approach prescribed in Chapter 509 and carried through in the joint powers agreements is for each community to establish its plan for stormwater and surface water discharge and to coordinate construction of improvements on an agreed- upon schedule. When such local plans and capital programs are difficult to coordinate and/or differences arise, Chapter 509 prescribes that the communities, through joint powers agreements, set up a structure for impartial decision-making. However, in the event that joint powers agreements cannot be formulated the law requires that a Watershed District be established by the local county. Such an alternative is not generally desired because the communities are forced to give up more authority than under typical joint powers agreements. This report proposes an organization for meeting Chapter 5U9 requirements. It divides Saint Paul into five areas defined by the - natural flow of water (see map on page 12) . - -1- _ ��3 �or most of the City such flows have been altered somewhat by sewer construction, so the boundaries of the areas have been based on actual sewer flows. Representatives from four of the five areas (Middle and Lower Mississippi , Central and Southwest Ramsey) have now negotiated draft joint powers agreements specifying the process for planning and implementing surface water management programs (draft joint powers/agre,ements attached) . The fifth area, Ramsey-Washington County Watershed District, was established in 1975 as a Watershed District under Chapter 112: Minnesota Watershed Act. II . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After more than two years of negotiations with other local agencies, joint powers agreements have been drafted for the four watershed areas (see attached agreements). In each instance Planning, Public Works and City Attorney staff inembers have reviewed the documents toward agreements which do not create an undue hardship for the City, and protect the City's home rule as much as possible, while meeting the spirit and letter of Chapter 509. � In three of the four proposed agreements the authority vested in the Board of Managers of the watershed is minimal -- substantially less than authority of the Ramsey-Washington Watershed Distrtct Board. The fourth agreement (Lower Mississippi ) vests a substantial amount of authority in the Board (see summary chart on page 9) . In order to understand the recommendation one must understand the consequences of no action. The intent of the architects of Chapter 509 was to encourage cooperative ventures among communities through joint• powers agreements. However, as an incentive, if such agreements are not signed by July 1, 1985, then the law requires that a Watershed District be established in accordance with Chapter 112. Such a district would be set up by the County in which the watershed is located. If more than one county is affected, then the counties must cooperatively establish the district. Watershed Districts have important powers and authority not usually included in joint powers agreements such as: o authority to construct improvements; o authority to regulate the use of water; o authority to assume control of drainage systems of the county or municipalities when su ordered by the district court; o ability to bond; o authority to levy ad valorem tax up to 1.66 mils; and o authority to assign benefit and assess capital costs to benefitting property. Because the mandated alternative to joint powers agreements = unnecessari y empowers a semi-autonomous Board to act, and in the spirit � - of cooperation among St. Paul and its suburbs, joint powers agreements are recommen ed as pre erre� a t't ernatives for each o the four waters ed areas. -2- � ��s3 III . CHAPTER 509: PURPOSE, REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTION OF PLANS Purposes There are two sets of purposes for Chapter 509: to� improve water quality and to meet specific Congressional requirements. The purposes as stated in the law are as follows: 1. Reduce to the greatest extent practical public capital expenses necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of stormwater runoff; 2. Improve water quality; 3. Prevent flooding and erosion; 4. Promote groundwater recharge; and 5. Protect fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. The other purposes of Chapter 509 relate to water quality goals mandated by Congress in the amended 1972 Clean Water Act. Two major causes of water pollution were addressed in the Cleanwater Act: inadequacy of sewage treatment facilities to purify sanitary sewage discharge (point- � source pollution) ; and urban and agricultural storm water and snow melt runoff (non-point source pollution) . Minnesota's Chapter 509 was intended to guide metropolitan municipalities' planning toward reducing non-point source pollution. In addition, the adoption of Chapter 509 was intended, in part to reduce the planning authority ordinarily held by the Metropolitan Council ; which it did. Requirements There are two basic requirements that must be met through either use of joint powers agreements (WMOs) or establishment of Watershed Districts. � First, a Watershed Management Plan must be done for each watershed in t�ie Metropolitan area by January 1, 1987. The Plan must extend through 1990 and beyond, if necessary, and shall include: o description of the physical environment; o description of the hydrologic system; 0 objectives and policies; o a management plan; o description of conflicts between the watershed plan and existing plans of the cities involved; o an implementation program consistent with the plan which includes a capital improvements program, standards and official local controls which will be used to carry out the plan; and o a procedure for amending the plan. s Perhaps the most important requirement is the capital improvement program which will commit the City to a financing schedule for public � improvement projects. -3- � ��'��d�3 Second, Local Water Management Plans must be done by each local governmental unit. These plans must include more detailed descriptions of the physical and hydrologic environment, a listing of local regulatory measures for water quality protection, and a local implementation program (Capital Improvement Program). Adoption of Plans The deadline for instituting joint powers agreements is July 1, 1985. After that date the county must set up a Watershed District in each watershed where joint powers agreements are not in effect, the exercise of the joint powers agreement will establish a Watershed Management Organization, with its own Board appointed by the member communities. When the joint powers agreements are signed the boundaries must be submitted to the Water Resources Board for their review and comment. Provided that such boundaries are acceptable, the planning process may commence. (City staff has counseled with the Department ofi Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council and the Water Resources Board in developing the proposed boundaries.) First the Watershed Plan is developed in conjunction with existing city plans and with the concurrence of staff. The draft plan is then submitted to the City for formal review. (The different joint powers agreements specify how many local governmental units must adopt the plan before it can be finally adopted by the WMO Board.) Once review and comment are complete, the WMO Board adopts the plan which is then submitted to Metropolitan Council for review and comment. Finally, the Pollution Control Agency and Department of Natural Resources review and comment before the plan becomes official . After the Watershed Plan is adopted, the city must complete the local water management plan, including any local plan amendments necessary. When complete and preliminarily approved by City Council , the plan is submitted to the WMO Board for reviewing consistency with the broader Watershed Plan. After their review, the City Council considers any suggested changes and adopts the plan. : -4- _ � �,��s� CHAPTER 509 PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS Joint Powers Agreement or Deadline 1/7/85 Watershed District WMO Prepares Watershed Plan Review and Comnent Local Governmental Units Ratify Deadline Watershed Plan 12/31/86 Metropolitan Council Review and Comment DNR & PCA Review and Comnent Local Governmental Units Prepare Local Water Manac�ement Plan Review and Corr�nent WMO Reviews all Local Water Management Plans Local Governmental Units Adopt Local Water Mana�ement Plan T -5- �� IV. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS - CONTENT AND APPROACH Since each watershed involves a different set of actors, the approach to each joint powers negotiations was different and so too are the proposed agreements themselves. 1. Central Ramsey County Watershed - Approach• St. Paul has long been in an adversartal role with Maplewood, Roseville and Falcon Heights, the other cities in this watershed. The approach favored by all communities was to create a very weak joint powers agreement recognizing that many projects in the area would become part of a larger CSO Abatement program. In addition, we tried to mend fences with those communities by offering to do a bit more than our share of administrative work. Roseville has been the most aygressive in getting a joint powers agreement adopted and their City Council on February 25 adopted the agreement attached to this report. - Major Projects• This watershed contains the most numerous and expensive project to be affected by a joint powers agreement. Separation of the Trout Brook area in St. Paul is likely to be very expensive and the suburban communities are concerned about their liability. Nevertheless, the agreement vests a fair amount of authority with St. Paul and emphasizes the need for cooperation among communitTes. At this point it is difficult to guess the timetable for Trout Brook improvements but it is likely that the city's own timetable for separation (10 - 15) years will be sufficient to meet the intent of the Central Ramsey WMO Plan. - Administ�ative Liabilities: Since St. Paul is by far the dominant community in the watershed (78.7% of the land area) the agreement calls out the city offices as the WMO offices. Since there will be no WMO staff, city offices will primarily be a dipository for mail and contact as a meeting place. In addition, the agreement prescribes that each city pay its share of administrative costs based on land area. Finally, the agreement calls out a maximum administrative budget of $20,000 for the first year. This will result in a maximum St. Paul liability of $15,740 for the first year's administrative budget plus some minor added administrative costs for running the office. -6- � d� �.��s� - conclus;on: The city yot a favorable WMO Board representative seheme (2 of 5} and voting formula for plan adoption and capital improvement approval . In exchange, the city accepts minor additional administrative duties. In addition, the spirit of the agreement is for cooperation and joint problem - solving -- a major improvement over previous negotiations. The administrative costs are equitably distributed based on land area, and are likely to be much less than if a Watershed District were established. 2. Southwest Ramsey County Watershed - Approach• This joint powers agreement is almost identical to the Central Ramsey one because St. Paul city staff was very instrumental in drafting both. However, the significant distinction here is that two of the agencies are not local communities: University of Minnesota, St. Paul Campus; and Minnesota State Fair Board. Two special issues arose out of their participation. First, there was the legal question concerning their ability to enter into joint powers agreements. The Attorney General 's office finally ruled that such agreements were legal . And second, the capital budgeting processes of the University and Fair Board cannot anticipate future capital financing because they have no ability to bond and are at the mercy of the legislature each year. Therefore, the agreement includes a veto authority clause on final orders for construction of projects specified in the CIP. Such a clause is a bit unusual but - understandable given the circumstances. - Major Projects• There are virtually no major inter-community projects in this watershed. The few that do exist primarily concern Falcon Heights and the Fairgrounds. - Administrative Liabilities: Again, since St. Paul contains the vast majority of land area (91.9%) the agreement calls for the city offices as the WMO offices. In addition, the City will pay the vast majority of the maximum $20,000 annual administrative budget ($18,380) . - Conclusion• Again, the city got a favorable WMO Board representative scheme (2 of 5) and voting formula for plan adoption. In addition, the annual administrative budget has a $20,000 cap so the city's liability cannot exceed 91.99'a of that. Since there are not major projects, _ this WMO will have a very short agenda -- especially after the Watershed Plan is adopted. -7- - �� 3. Middle Mississippi Watershed - Approach• This joint powers agreement is very similar to the previous two in that it sets up an organization with limited central authority. This watershed is also dominated by a single community, Minneapolis - which constitutes 93.69'a of the land area, whereas St. Paul constitutes only 1.5�. - Major Projects: Minneapolis has been interested in getting St. Paul to construct a � deep tunnel as part of their Bridal Veil Creek separation project. To date our Public Works Department has resisted because of its expense and minimal benefit to St. Paul . Minneapolis will likely push for the development of this project. However, having only 1 out of 7 votes, their.desires will not be very compelling. Development of the Watershed Plan will be critical in determining the future of the Bridal Veil Creek Project. - Administrative Liabilities: Since there is so little St. Paul land included in this watershed, St. Paul 's contribution will be a maximum of $300 per year. - Conclusion• The agreement vests only weak authority in the WMO Board and the city's annual financial obligation is minimal . The primary concern is the scheduling of the Bridal Veil Creek project. 4. Lower Mississippi River Watershed - Approach• By far the most complex and powerful agreement is this one with communities in northern Dakota County. Historically there has been substantial in-fighting among these eities and the fact that all could agree on such an important document is remarkable. In addition, this watershed contains the greatest amount of undeveloped land of all the joint powers watersheds. Therefore, the ayreement places much more authority in the hands of the WMO Board. In fact, this joint powers agreement is much more akin to a Watershed District than the other WMO agreements. City staff believes the accomplishment of a joint powers agreement will help substantially in settling future disputes among these communities. - Major Projects: r The one thing that should be particularly camforting to St. Paul is that no major projects are contemplated between the city and other Lower Mississippi Watershed communities. Therefore, this strong agreement will not likely impact St. Paul 's capital finances. -8- n 3 r 3 3 � tn �c-� J�p J�J. O W N � N � V1 O. � C � � . . Vf fD N d � N c't t/f C't � J.� � �. � � � � � l/1 N fD �G � �G Q+ N N (D -+ J� �� (/� � � � � � �J. �.J� � cu a-oo v cn v, i � � T� f') � F-� f-+ N N N Z Z "� �'tn \ � \ c+ C C O (D ct .A W W • � � �"� �� a w a c � � �rn �r -s -s -s -�-n o z o -s --� O N 3 r.�C 3 N � W 3� �G �c�f�c-�+. W Ui \ O 'G -�-i-i °,`° o �Iy �"' .�. C3'� .A r-� Z N"R � �G O O Z R=t .�"''7. N -n -+, v c 3 V ()'1 3 D � � �-�< -�o < o �•c�m �.�c� ►-r�n sL � r�,o e+ v-Q+ � � -+� sL � v�n cv � � � � D 1-��•O Qr ^h O � c+ F-+'-h � W O • f0 Z3 fD N F-+� O C 'G fD N -�• "S O OJ C'n CD N p C7 .�a c+ c cr c� �v-h � v� cn n-a w o W c+� n.� Q+ o -� cD cn • o-�a Q, o D ¢r -n 3 0� � C'fD �1-+-+•p� Ul fD -h Ll c-h oQ C 'S 'S V � J pi�II ^S 'T V N fy c+ V N ^S -S v .-p p �. r-� H C71-+'N �� < � n -+• fD O �• O W N -�(D O N O c+�• �° (D O �• O '� c+ 3 Z Z rn�.�co c� � o o�-r � Q, o-o � < o �� +.< � o v- .c < o -s -�. �. n ,.-, y O-�• fD � (D c+ O-j•N -S iL --h c+ � � O O�.f� �• pi O 6'►p�r O C fy 3 O O � c-t 4 N :G e+ fD ct �'N �•fD O G ct fD v► --�A+ O �C fD t-+N -h fD �--� G ta tn C7 -t �--� 3 �G "h N fD �G la �• fD W (D Ct Q' C.�.-�. � pi N lfl � C� Ai CTt fD � �....�. .pi t-+ .'� N w -a -s v, �-o- �• a,o c �,o � sv -s �-+ �-+,� sv -s � a rr �-r -n o � --�-i, z n o x o cu �v ru �-+- �-r Q, � c� cu �-r n.o -s x m • o � -Q v o o -s o � --i z _1�-h C) fD fD N Lv Sv W E/�T O W t� �T J•-�h J•pi Q-�p�T J. �O �-h O'�S �'-fi Z ►-� � ct N � a fD v'� "S W� -� (D ci' -+• � �• i1+ oQ � -fi O� Sv � t+ -+• C C7 C -+• t+ �.O O c+tn � 'S C N O O -� 0. � < . .-. -s o o cn c cn � ru o c -s .�.-+ ca `� ,�n �' a N 00 � -h p' ct �.-fi tn � p� N c+ � 1 fL � ci' -1 � G1 N _..+ ... O �'t o a aa.-nrn Q, 3 -nz -�,o � Q, � -+,z Q, � -nz � � c� c� --a � cu -�•o -� -cswoo o < �-op, 00 -aaoo � o a�+ -+, -s iu -a c.... -s -s c� < -p c�.-s -r, �..-s c 3 n v � -it � -h� O' -S O � '� 'S (D � O � 'C 'T O � '6 O fD --+ '�'1 �--a Z �--� -fD fD C O O '� � 'S n c+ O "S C "'S O "S C "5 c+ c+ --+ r-+ —1 —1 O G fD � -�"S < J• �fD O -h O < J.��p C �.J�p J.�'O Z �' f o � cu sy a Q, �+ Q, v, � .�. w e+ sy v� a e-r a rn � o c� v r -v -+ � ct -��C v• (� N � 'p J t� V• n _+cC V• c� tG Q A� Z O C -c+ � (D 'S c+ W O 'S � c+ C� � � 3 -s �.� �. � �� o- �. �. �, �. r--� � rn c� a o+ -�• a- c cu c v- v- o o z o � =ct c+ f') tD C� O 'S c+ fD fD 'S � G7 ,i7 N N fD ? p. �h � Q. �. � =y �•o. n a O N 3 C,7 � � � rn m 3 m -v�.sv a r-�•Q► 3 sy � a 3 c rr z a� v-e-r z o c� a.� or �-r z o c� 3 z 3 O � � n !-+� N (D � !D O fD O �'O O (D O -+•O "+f O O fD O -�•O �fi O D ►-� �f 'C D..Q N � d tL� 3 � � O •• � � � O •• -1� � � � O •• �-h G C/� N � CD 'S C V• 3 N C'f C QI C'1' �.� Q! C'�' 0.� -�•� f� !"1' 0.� 'd''�° ""� C7 fD 'S O lT�' �'Q 0.--+ �.{/1 J.V J.N �.V n J. �a.V J.V n �. 2 r7l � < C -S � • tD O fD p+ � � � c� � � � C� fD tn � � C� fD N O I" e'h O �p -�•fD fy n -h< e+ �O e+ O tG rh O N !D ta c+ O N � I- -h 3 --� �G N�- fD (D fD � fL � fD � Oi � f �• 3 � fy � � .�. �--� n G. fD L1-� C'P -+1---�-�N � X N � X N -+•p �• X N �•O -'i Z � o � w Q► �•a o �.c„ �.r,- �.r„ �.�-+� �+ � � a+ �•�+�-r � �-. m 3 e+ � c+cu � vc � v� � -s � <n � � s cflw � -s � m0 a v, n. cc.c. i w�w mv,coc m �ncac � acac s.nc �.I� V• � �V � � r � � � � n � � � r n � � � � fD t+N 1 tt N 1 � tIl 1 � � y N N O N G t 1 1 � c� w oo< � f-+v�E-s r a "'o c�w oo w � oo c�o c+o � � c�c+�0 3 � � v � .�.�o o cu ►-��.Q+ � i ' � sv o �o � i c� o o --a�--n a � o �-n a i .-, e+ .�o+ r+��.�.v► �,- < ►� a� c .�a+ .P� Q+ c rc �,. ,.� c .� c�. d G W -i N � �T cD cG r c+ fD cD 1 �c � �S 1 CD �S � f�� Oo O � � W O 1 -�.O ca (D N O G�.N �' ?'S 'S � N �7 f7 O d< N� d n -�• O 'S N C� O O "S N Vf tt 'S � p C7't►� c'1' -+•N i-1' O (D W -�• -+�� O O c+ -+•e-F 3 O+ �• O �• -t�{y �.O N �.fD � �' O �'fD t7 �N O tp O -� c+ O N Qr -�� p� "S c+ O � 'S e+ O O � fD C c tv c+� a c+� O m w v� c�c+ m cn � v► c.�.c.cc cn v, c�n.'< cn -�cn � o -1 � �+S a C�I' � -S V J.�- a V Q V J•V G CD �'h !� �J� �G � N � � � -h 'T7 -+• O �G c+ O � O �i- Z N �• �G f�D f�D (�0 � . � � = G�=��.�3 - Administrative Liabilities: Unlike the other agreements, this one has a more complex formula for calculating administrative fund liability. It combines assessed value with land area for a blended percentage. � The negotiating team thought this was most equitable because some communities, such as Inver Grove Neights, had large undeveloped areas which did not adversely contribute to stormwater flow. With a formula which effectively caps the administrative budget at $125,000 per year, the city's maximum liability would be $14,650 per year. - Conclusion- Although the authority of this agreement is quite broad, the city's liability is limited in that virtually all the sewers in this watershed are separated. Therefore, such a strong agreement should not be viewed as a major reduction in local antonomy. V. BUDGETARY IMPACTS 1. Gapital Budget• Anticipation of' the timing and allocation of capital costs are virtually impossible to anticipate until the planning phase is completed in late 1985. However, below is a listing of major projects which will be specifically affected by such planning. These are projects which might not otherwise be constructed at the time eventually prescribed by Watershed Plan, or perhaps not be constructed at all . PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST LIKELY CONTRIBUTION Bridal Veil $ 750,000 Qver 75� Creek Troutbrook $10,000,000 Unknown Lake Restoration $ 500,000 Over 35� (Como and McCarron's) The method for raising the capital funds is purely a local matter. None of the agreements anticipates the WMO to finance projects, although the Middle Mississippi WMO does have the authority to construct projects. It is anticipated that the vast majority of funds will come from Water Pollution Abatement Bonds and be reviewed through the Unified Capital Improvement Planning and Budgeting Process of the city. In addition, .it is not anticipated that completion of any projects will be required any sooner than they would be under the Comprehensive Sewer Plan schedule. � -10- - ��,��.�3 . 2. Administrative Budgets: The maximum anticipated annual administrative liability for the four WMOs is $48,980. However, it is likely in the first two years that planning and engineering consultant costs requir�ed for completion of the Watershed Plans could increase that figure by 50�. Thereafter, the annual costs would likely drop by up to 50% of the $48,980 maximum. Therefore, the long-term annual costs will p�obably level off at about $25,000 to $35,000 per year. In addition, approximately one-half time of a civil engineer and one-half time of a technician will be needed to do the staff work for the next few years. Their work will be to do local water management planning for the city as well as participate in development of the Watershed Plans. In I984 a funding activity was estab�ished to underwrite the city's administrative costs. . The ac�ivity (Watershed Management Organization, #22202) set as objectives: - to assist in the organization of the WMOs; and - to help work on Watershed Plans The Watershed Management Organization activity has been funded at $185,706 for 1985. � -11- L r � � � �,�` -_tX �� `>> � �� _� CITY OI` SAINT PAUL "' - '� OIr`I+`ICIC OI+' THI� CITY COIINCIL N�ss�cvua�ae . , y��=�'p°�- Date ; June 12 , 1985 . •1 Bl�Y O6 � -'— — :�'y. � �'.• . t -� �!� COMM (TTEE R�•E PORT . , = o hci l . � TO Saint PQU I City C u .,,_ FROM � Commirtee oh PUBLIC WORKS •� ; �J ;, � � C!� A I R, CHR�S NICOSIA C��'( � - , _.. _ , �_� The Public Works Committee at their meeting of June 12, 1985 took the '> following action: Hearinq Date 1 . 6/25/85 FINAL ORDER: Constructing a storm sewer and doing all work necessary to complete this project in the area bounded by: Beginning at the junction of Clear Ave. and Mpls. St. Paul Sub. RR. , go southwest along RR to St. Paul , Mpls 8 Omaha RR, then southwest along St. Paul , Mpls. & Omaha RR to White Bear Ave. , north on White Bear Ave. to north line of Jessamine Ave. , west along said NL approx. 132.84 feet; then north to north line of Lot 21 Edgars Addition then continuing west to east line of Kennard St. ; then north to approx. 150 feet north of NL of Maryland Ave. ; then east to west lane of Blk. 2, Gerardines Garden Lots; then north approx. 100 feet; then i east to White Bear Avenue; then north along White Bear Ave. to E. Iv Ave. ; tfien east along Ivy Ave. to Hazel Y St. ; then north along Hazel St. to Clear Ave. ; then east ; along Clear to point of beginning. ;Said project to be known as the HAZEL-MARYLAND STORM SEWER PROJECT. , Recommended approval . 2, 6/25/'8.5 FINAL ORDER: Constructing a storm sewer and doing a11 work necessary to complete this project in the area bounded on the southeast by Chicago, St. Paul , Mpls. and Omaha RR; on the west by Mpls. St. Paul Sub. RR; on the north by E. Cottage Ave. and on the east by McKnight Road. Said project to be known as the HAWTHORNE-RUTH i � STORM SEWER PROJECT. Recommended approval . 3, 5�2g��g5 FINAL ORDER: for construction/reconstruction of sidewalks on both sides of WALL STREET from E. 5th St. to E. 6th Street. : � Recommended approval with amendment that work not be done ` until next year, if necessary. 5:� , ..w. . ._,,. . .: ,; . , . � -,°��L�N�r to a 1 1 ow the Mayor to s i gn � ;� joint powers agreement to establish the Central Ramsey � Watershed, Southwest Ramsey Watershed, Middle � Mississippi Watershed and Lower Mississippi Watershed - 1 Organizations. 1 , 1 Recommended approval . a �1 5 . 6./18�85 �INAL ORDER: Tnstallation of a certain number :.j Q� l�us� sheltex�s by Ad Shelters, Inc, to provide j �lieltexs wi:tli adv�ertisement on the public rights- � of�•wa� in ��t . Paul . . � :� i Recommended approval . �� , . _ - ,'4 _ . . . . . . . . , . . . 7 r�.�.,. . � ' . � . ,� � � � .1� � . ' �' . . � . . . . . .. ' � � . - . . . � �/ . . ' • . . . . .. , . ' . . . . ' _ . . .. . �� . .� .. .. . . ' . . . - � ' ' . ''' . � . • . . . , . .. t . . . . .... . . .. . WMITE - CITV CIERK PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council �f/• GANARV - DEPARTMENT FIIe NO.. . �� "S� B';�i1 E =M A V O R PED — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Mayor, the Councll of the City of Saint Paul does hereby approve funding for the City�s Citizen Citizen Participation District Councils for the period of July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. Funds are to be provided from the City�s General Fund and the Community Development Block Grant Year XI Program in the amounts specified below: District General Fund CDBG Total 1 $23,018.00 $0.00 $23,018.00 2 $0.00 $27,132.00 $27,132.00 3 $0.00 $31 ,042.00 $31 ,042.00 4 $0.00 $30,526.00 $30,526.00 5 $0.00 $29,997.00 $29,997.00 6 $0.00 $31 ,165.00 $31 ,165.00 7 $0.00 $35,751 .00 $35,751 .00 8 $0.00 $35,897.00 $35,897.00 9 $0.00 $29,711 .00 $29,711 .00 10 $22,081 .00 $0.00 $22,081 .00 11 $0.00 $26,555.00 $26,555.00 12 $0.00 $29,040.00 $29,040.00 13: Snell/Hamline $0.00 $8,859.00 $8,859.00 Merriam Park $6,139.00 $4,351 .00 $10,490.00 Lex/Hamline $0.00 $9,129.00 $9,129.00 14 $22,019.00 $0.00 $22,019.00 15 $20,070.00 $0.00 $20,070.00 16 $19,939.00 $0.00 $19,939.00 17 $0.00 $29,231 .00 $29,231 .00 BONOING 8 INSURANCE $7,000.00 $7,000.00 ENS 8, TRAINING $0.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 --------------- --------------- --------------- TOTALS $113,266.00 $378,386.00 $491,652.00 COUIVC[LMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas F�etcher Nays Drew Plannin & Economic Deve ment Masanz [n Favor NiCOSia A , �,��,�� 9 �2� Schelbel Against �r"sy t�` Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date . , , Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY �" G' r� �� sy lapproved by iVlavor. Date Appro e by Mayor for Submis �n t Council `. By _ By