The URL can be used to link to this page

275881 WHITE - GTY CLERK � � PINK - FINANCE CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY O F SA I N T PA U L COUtIC1I .�, BLUE - MAYOR File N�. ��v�� Co il olution Presented By ' Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, The City of Saint Paul is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353, to carry on comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improve- ment of the City; and WHEREAS, The Council of the City of Saint Paul may, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 3, adopt or amend a comprehensive plan or portion thereof after a recommenda- tion by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Each municipality in the State of Minnesota is also required to prepare a comprehensive sewer plan; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, on July 25, 1980, in sub- stantial part, recommended adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as part of the City comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, The following action by the Council of the City of Saint Paul is not an implicit adoption of a comprehensive plan of 1963 or other portions thereof recommended by the Planning Commission; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby adopt the Comprehensive Sewer Plan (a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A) , subject to such review by the Metropolitan Council as may be required by law. COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine In FavOr Maddox McMahon B snowaiter Against y Tedesco w NQV 4 �98� Form Ap r ed by Ci Att Ado d by Council: Date ertified Pass y C , cret�ry BY Ap d by 1Aayor. Date 6 �98� Ap y Mayor for Sub '1 B BY �'� 1980 �tt��;s:,�� ;s�.;J 1 5 � �. � COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAtJ � � �,,�� t��..>�.:._.... , � HEARING DRAFT � JULY 1980 I l � � � � � � I � l 1 � COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION PLANNING DIVISION � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL ANNEX 25 WEST FOURTH STREET 1 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 , � � D D 1 1 :, PURPOSE The Comprehensive Sewer Plan states the general direction for St. Pau1 in the maintenance and rehabilitatian of the - sewer system. In addition, the Plan makes recarenenda- � tions on those regional sewer issues for which the city must work with State and Federal wast�+rater ager►cies. � MAIN ISSUES 1 .MAINTAINING SEWERS The sewer system suffers from deterioration in much the same way� as streets and parks, yet sewers are rarely the � topic of public discussion. St. Paul needs to begin : seriously discussing the maintenance and rehabititation of sewers. The useful life of r�st sewer pipes is 70 to 100 years. Today, over 3j4ths of the sewers are at least � 50 years old, and some are over lU0 years old. The city needs to find out the current condition of a11 the sewers and then pian a systematic rehabi�itation program, , In addition, the city has varfious areas where the sewer system has insufficient capacity for the sewage. In �. these areas, when sewag� volume is high, streets and basements flood from sewer backups. The city needs to clearly define the problem areas, and the� correct them. � . Finally, intensive redevelopment in certafn areas of the city causes increased sewage which can resu�t in sewer capacity problems. St. Paul must evaluate sewer capacity � before redevelopment is undertaken and �udge the value of the redevelop�nt against tl�e cast of needed sewer system improvements. ' . 2.EXPANDING THE SYSTEM TO UNSEWERED ARfAS The city needs to make sewers available ta vacant lands for additional development. The only signiffcant area f that is not totally sewered is the Highwood portfon af the Battle Creek district. Some developments have been postponed for years in Highwood because there was no way ' af disposing sewage. Other developments have relied an : septic systems for sewage disposal. The city shoaid � sewer Highwood and prevent the need for additional septic , tank systems. : 3.REDUCING FEES FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEWAGE St. Paul pays fees for the treatment of sewage based on � the volume of sewage. In the past ten years the treat- ment costs have risen steadily. One reason St. Paui`s � costs are so h i gh i s that i ts sewers carry l arge vo1 umes � , ' DIVIS[C1N OF PLANNtNG • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMiC DEVELOPMEtJT • CITY OF SAlNT PAtJ! CI'FY HALL ANNEX • 25 WEST FOURTH STREET, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 • TELEPHONE:612-298-415� � ._.�,..__�__...__�_.�__.r..�..,�.�......��._...._..._.;--____-__.,ti....._._.�... _ -. . � �,: < of stormwater, which does not have to be treated. Qne avenue for reducing treatment costs would be to get the � regional sewer agency (Metropolitan Waste Control Comnis- : sion) to give St. Raul a reduced treatment fee because of all the stor¢mwater. Howevery tQ date the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has shown little interest in ' pursuing treatment fee discussions. The other major avenue woul d be to remove as� much storn�water from the - sewage flow as possfible, thereby reducing volume a�d the total treatment costs. This, St. Paul can do without the approval of any regional, state or federal agency, but it is extremely expensive. 4.PAYING FOR NEEDEQ SEWER PROJECTS The key to maintaining and improving the sewer system is a sound fiscal plan. Both operating and capitaf budget- ing priorities should be considered. In ger�eral, the • very highest priority projects need g�aranteed (set- aside) funding. The priorities should be considered in : � the project list developed by the annual Capital ImprQVe.� rr�nt Budget process. � :�-�-r KEY POLICY RECONNMENDATIONS 1.Inspect the sewer system for structural integrity, and identify those sectians in greatest need of repair. 2.A11ocate sufficient operatzng funds for personnel to do inspections, inventory, and preliminary engineering for rehabilitation of the enti.re system. - 3.Develop a ponding scheme that investigates all appro- priate areas of the city. _ 4.For major redevelopment proposals, conduct special lang- range capacity ana]yses. Judge the public benefit of redevelopment against the public costs of needed sewer , improvements. 5.Prohibit the subdivision or parceling af land on lots where sewers are not available. : 6.Complete the sanitary and stormaater sewer system in Highwood by 1990. 7.Work with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste � Control Comnission in devising a sewage treatment fee : structure that takes into account St. Raul 's highly diluted sewage. - � . �: � � � � . 8.Pursue alternatives to the cost allocation system that � would distribute burden of stormwater treatment in an equitable manner to all contributing camwnities. j 9.Construct relief sewers from lakes for overflows when it becomes cost-effective, and �hare construction costs of the relief sewers among all comnunities contributing to lake overflows. � lO.Fund sewer projects based on the following Sewer Plan tnp pri ori ti es. � First---Personnel and equipment sufficient to maintain an ongoing inspection and inventory program. � Second--Emergency repairs. Third---Rehabilitation programs. Fourth--Correction of sewer backups and localized flood- . ing. � : Fifth---Construction or reconstruction of sewers to serve new development or redeveloprr�nt. Sixth---Projects that will reduce treatment costs. � ' � � � � � � 1 � � . � � 1 ! TABLE OF CONTENTS � � 'NTRODUCTION � � RP SE JOR ISS ES 3 PLAN OR NI T ON B CK ROUND 4 � . SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 6 � 1. REHABILI ATION OF THE SYSTE 6 1 .2 REDUCI G L CALIZED FL DING 8 1 .3 ENSURING CAPACITY FOR LAND USE REDEVELOPMEN 3 j 2 0 SYSTEM EXPANSION 6 � 3.0 SYSTEM COSTS 8 3.1 E ISING MORE EQUItABIE TREAT ENT FEES 8 � 3.� D CING SEWAGE VOLUMES � 0 SYSTEM FINANCING 2 � � 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 5.1 C PITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 25 .2 STU I S IS ED IN PRIORITY OR � 5. P 0 S ISTED IN PRIORI Y R 6 5. 0 FICIAL CONTROLS � (LISTED IP� PRIORITY ORDER) IC GES IO S OT E S 7 j5.6 RESPO SIBIIITIES AND DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES ?� i i � � � I ; LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS � � FIGURE � PAGE TITLE 1 •1 �p Areas of Separated Storm Sewers � �'2 11 Preliminary Ponding Area Scheme 2 1 �� Predominantly Undeveloped Areas of Highwood 5 1 29 Recomnendation Responsibilities � 5'? 30 Recorr�nended Departmental Priorities for Sewers � � � l i � l � � �. ! � i .,� � IINTRODUCTION � � PURP SE It is a ine t ing to cut a ri on in ront o a i rary, a fine thing to be there for the dedication of a new � hospital . It is a far less popular kind of a thing to be there for a sewer being rep1aced." - Robert Wagner, Deputy Mayor of New York City. � Comments like this one are typical of the frustration felt by elected official , budget offices, planning agen- cies and commissions, and pub1ic works agencies all over � the country. In the last few years large cities, parti- cularly older comnunities, have experienced rapidly increasing problems with their existing sewer systems. � Some large cities, such as New York, have spent most of their attention and money on treating highly visible urban problems: unemployment, deteriorating educational systems; crime; and even street paving needs. However, i the sewer system is rarely the focus of concern, unless it breaks down or some pollution control agency requires that it be improved. � New York is not alone in its struggle to adequately main- tain essential public services. Chicago, Washington, � Cleveland, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit and San Francisco are also showing signs of physical decay. Since many of St. Paul 's streets and sewers are almost as old as those in the cities mentioned above, we also should be looking � at possible decay in our physical plant. For example, sewer pipes that have a reliably useful life of between 70 and 100 years have not been replaced in some areas of i St. Paul since they were built in the 1860s. The $50,000,000 spent by the city on sewers in the past 25 years has been concentrated on correcting capacity �pro- � blems, localized flooding and sewer backups in the exist- ing system. Little of that $50,000,000 has been spent. for systematically replacing the existing system. With the continued cutbacks of federal funds to cities, their � capability to increase spending on local sewer projects is diminishing: � i � i � � , , � . � MAJOR ISSUES Some very difficu t dec�sions await in t e near future: How can we avoid breakdowns of the sewer system? How � much should we spend for maintenance of the system? Can we afford to expand our system while localized flooding occurs in many parts of the city? And, can we save enough in sewage treatment fees to justify certain � costly sewer projects? This plan investigates issues in four basic areas and sets direction for city actions and - commitments, so the city can deal with those questions. � The four issue areas are: -Maintenance and rehabilitation of our aging sewer system; � -Sewer service construction for newly developing areas; -Reduction/stabi1ization of sewage treatment costs to St. Paul ; and -Needed fiscal commitments for maintenance of the system. � Our first concern is to maintain and update the existing sewer system; a process which will be expensive and � ongoing. The city's comnitment to the sewer system must be increased, lest we allow the system to fail . Our second major concern is that the demands for sewer system � improvements wi11 increase, as new development and increased density in St. Paul requires new and expanded sewer lines. The third issue area is the constant increase in city spending for sewage treatment fees. The � treatment rates have increased independently of the volume of sewage flow. And fourth, we need to devise a method for paying for sewer programs in the future. � St. Paul is currently financially unprepared to meet the challenge of maintaining a sound sewer system, and needs a clear direction for future spending programs. � The issues covered in this plan are not new. They have been discussed by city staff and City Council for some time. However, the issues have persisted because they � are not simple, nor are their solutions inexpensive. The policies and programs of this plan do not "solve" the problems. Rather, they put forth the commitment to deal � fu11y with these issues, and map a course of long term program responsibilities. The issues and directions of this plan should not be � viewed lightly or ignored. The "you-can-pay-me-now, or you-can-pay-me-later" syndrome, where costs rise astro- � nomically over time, definitely pertains to sewers. A � swift and strong commitment to long-range sewer programs may well prevent some of the enormous fiscal problems that are being faced by other American cities. In short, � the tough decisions must be made now and not put off. 2 � , � � PL N RGANIZ TION is plan focuses around discussion of t e four issues � mentioned above. The first Chapter (1 .0) deals with maintenance of the sewer system to assure continued uninterrupted sewer service. Chapter 2.0 deals with the expansion of the sewer system to areas not presently , served by sewers. The third issue area discusses the fees paid by the city for sewage treatment and how those fees might be reduced. The last issue � - area deals with financing of sewer system maintenance and expansion, and the payment of treatment fees. A final chapter outlines a basic implementation strategy for � carrying out policies of the plan. The Sewer Plan has been prepared, along with a background appendix, to meet not only the requirements for a Sewer � Policy Plan, but also basic requirements for a Comprehen- sive Sewer Plan. The Sewer Policy Plan is required of each metropolitan community by the Metropolitan Land � Planning Act. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is required by a 1969 state law which asks each city to detail the current conditions and future capacities needed to � accommodate anticipated growth. The more detailed aspects of current conditions and projected growth areas are included in the appended background report. � � � ' � " � I I 1 i � • � � BACKGROUND St. Pau s sewer system ates � ac to t e m - 00 s. � Extension of the basic system corresponded to the develop- ment of the city. Many sewers in the system are 100 years � old or older. In the original system, both sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff were carried in a si�ngle pipe (combined sewer) and discharged without treatment to the ' river. As early as 1900, City Engineers began to question the capacity of the system to accomnodate the rapidly ex- panding city. Impending capacity problems and increased concerns over � pollution of the Mississippi River forced the need for major sewer construction during the 1920's and 30's. In � 1933, St. Paul and Minneapolis formed the Minneapolis-St. _ Paul San�9�tary District to treat the sewage from both cities and ad�acent suburbs. Sanitary sewage was diverted from river discharges to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treat- � ment Plant. As St. Paul became more densely developed, sewage capacity � problems became increasingly apparent. The ma�or problem was that combined sewers backed up into homes, businesses and streets. In the mid-1950's using the severe flooding � and sewer backups as the main basis for action, the city embarked on a lo�g-range program of relief sewers con- struction. In some cases, the relief sewers were recon- nected to the combined sewers where capacity was adequate. � In other cases, stormwater was separated from the combined sewers. Since 1955, St. Paul has spent about $2,000,000 per year for storm sewer construction, and as yet, only 30 percent of the city is separated. � In 1970 control over metropolitan sewage collection and � treatment was shifted to a regional agency, now designated as the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). The MWCC, during the past 10 years, has undertaken a massive program of upgrading and extending sewage facilities in � the 7-county metropolitan area. They have established many of the general policies and program directions that the metropolitan municipalities must follow. � Today much of St. Paul 's stormwater is conveyed through combined sewers to the treatment plant. During heavy rain � storms combined sewage exceeds the capacity of the sewers and considerable volume overflows to the Mississippi River untreated. Currently, the MWCC is conducting a major study into combined sewer overlows to the river. By � i 4 � � � � � constructing more storm sewers and/or storing and treating the combined sewage, the MWCC hopes to improve the quality � of the Mississippi River. Although the MWCC is responsible for the overall metropolitan � plan, the individual cities are in general , responsible for local problems. Therefore, St. Paul must take care to coordinate its sewer system program with the proposed � - MWCC plan for abatement of river pollution. St. Paul could remove much of the combined sewage volume by completely separating the sewer system, but that would cost many times the $50,000,000 already spent since 1955. It is � unlikely that the City would have the resources to complete separation in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the pro- gram proposed in this Plan recomnends storm sewer con- � struction in areas of high priority where separation is the feasible solution. And in areas where storm sewer construction is not feasible, different methods of con- I struction are recommended to alleviate combined sewer overflows and sewer backups. � � � � 1 � � . � � � 5 :� 1 .0 SYSTEM MAINTENANCE , l � � � The sewer system suffers from deterioration in much the same way as streets and parks, yet sewers are rarely the � topic of poiicy discussion. Part of the reason for a lack of public attention is that their deterioration is not as visible nor evident as for streets and parks until a sewer backs up or collapses. When backups or collapses � occur it is sometimes too 1ate to repair the sewer pipes; often they must be replaced. Sewer rehabilitation should - be treated simi1arly to streets: with preventative main- � tenance, repair of problem areas, and accomnodation to urban growth. The three sections below deal with these considerations in an effort to maintain good sewers. � 1 .1 REH BILIT t is genera1 y accepte t at t e use u i e o sewer OF THE SYSTEM pipes is between 70 and 100 years. Beyond this range, � there is increased danger of collapse due to deteriora- tion of the pipes. Collapsing sewers cause loss of sewer service and potential health hazards. A very large por- � tion, approximately 3/4ths, of St. Paul 's sewers are already over 50 years old. Yet we have not begun to replace these sewers except on an err�rgency basis. � Now is the time �o take note of our situation and begin to actively prevent the major emergency project costs that most certainly lie ahead. We should begin by � imnediately initiating an ongoing inspection of all sewer pipes in the city and identify all piping in need of repair. This inspection and inventory will require � hiring permanent technical staff and purchasing proper inspection equipment. The initial inspection and inven- tory should be done in the next four years. Results of the jnspection and inventory should be used to map a � long-range p1anning and capital budget strategy. In additjon, ongoing inspection will be needed to identify problems as they develop. We must then make a major � comnitment to rehabilitate, or replace where necessary, all sewer pipes in need of repair. Rehabilitation will require additional engineering staff as well as capital � budget funds. � . � � 6 � � � � = , A specific concern in the maintenance of the sewer system is the discharge of waste that may be harmful to the , � sewer structure or maintenance personnel. In most cases this type of discharge originates with industries in the city. To protect the sewer systems and the general public the city must develop and adopt an adequate and � enforceable industrial waste discharge ordinance. The ordinance should regulate waste discharges and perhaps prohibit disposal of certain wastes into the sewer systems. � The major hurdle in insuring long-term reliable sewer service is the recognition that all sewer pipes will have � to be rehabilitated some day, and that we ought to start this program irr�nediately. Before St. Paul can get to that point, however, we must develop competent and ade- � quately funded inspection and inventory capabilities. POI.ICY 1 SYSTEMATICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY INSPECT THE SEWER SYSTEM � FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, AND IDENTIFY THOSE SECTIONS IN GREATEST NEED OF REPAIR. � POLICY 2 �-'-_� BASED ON THE IP�ITIAL INSPECTION AND INUENTORY, DEVELOP A LONG-TERM PROGRAM BASED ON THE NEED FOR SYSTEM REPAIR AND � THE CITY'S FINANCING CAPABILITIES. POLICY 3 ALLOCATE SUFFICIENT OPERATING FUNDS FOR PERSONNEL TO DO � I.NSPECTIONS, INVENTORY, AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR REHABILITATION OF THE ENTIRE .SYSTEM. � POLICY 4 DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE FOR CONTROL OF DISCHARGES TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. � � � � � � 7 � � � . R DUCING Localized flooding of stormwater and sewage into streets LOCALIZED FLOODING and homes has plagued the city for years. The main cause � of flooding is the insufficient capacity of many combined sewers to drain major rain storms. Generally, all neigh- borhoods served by combined sewers are susceptible to � localized flooding, yet certain areas are definitely worse than others. Since the 1950s the city has made great strides in alleviating the worst problem areas. Continued efforts will be needed in the future to � alleviate the remaining problems. Following ,is a list of potential techniques for reducing localized flooding. A.SEWER SEPARATION � Separate sewers can be constructed for stormwater and sanitary sewage. 6Jhen separation is done in an area � served by combined sewers (Figure 1 .1 ), a set of storm sewer pipes is installed leaving the old piping exclusive- ly for sanitary sewage. The technology is effective and reliable, but it is expensive to construct. Because of � the expense, in some areas , the city must consider alter- nate or supplemental methods for relieving flooding. B.PONDING � Ponds, or holding areas , are used to retard �the rapid flow of water from heavy storms, and to prevent storm- � water from flooding existing sewers. Rainwater fills the ponds from local storm sewers during and shortly after the storm. When the sewer pipe flow has returned to a � normal level , the stormwater is gradually released into � the sewer system over a period of hours or days. � In response to the continued problems of localized flood- � � ing, the Pub7ic Works Department developed a preliminary ponding program that recommends ponds as part of the natural drainage system. Ponds are recommended for areas � where flooding is a problem and where ponding is practi- cal . A preliminary ponding scheme showing potential feasible locations is shown in Figure 1 .2. Since there is incomplete data for much of the city, the preliminary � � scheme will be substantially broadened when the data base j is completed. Ponding is not as expensive as separation, � but it uses land that could also be used for development. � � � � 8 � , � � � � C.HOLDING TANKS _ Holding tanks operate like ponding areas except that they are underground and can relieve sewers even after storm water has entered the pipes, thus eliminating the need ' for local storm sewers. When the pipes approach capacity, sewage is bled from the pipes into the holding ta�ks. As long as the pipes are near capacity, sewage will continue � to spill over into the tanks. Holding tanks are most practical in relieving major sewer pipes. The technology becomes much more expensive when adapted to low capacity sewers in localized flooding areas. The major drawbacks � of holding tanks are the high expense of construction and the high expense of contjnuing treatment of stormwater. � D.OTHER METHODS Other, less drastic methods can be used to decrease localized flooding. Ordinances can restrict the percen- � tage of impervious ground coverage of new development. Groundwater recharge areas (where rainfall seeps through the soil to the natural water table)can be preserved. Large developments can be required to construct on-site � ponding or to protect recharge areas. Sorr� flooding can be attributed to under capacity or clogged sewer drains, and routine maintenance can prevent flooding. But, , probably the single most direct method of reducing capa- city problems in combined sewers would be to enact an ordinance to disconnect all rainleaders (downspouts) � between roof gutters and the sewers. E.COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) The Combined Sewer Overflow Study being coordinated by � the MWCC investigates the untreated sewage discharge to the river caused by insufficient sewer capacity. This study emphasizes the effects of the overflows on the � water quality in the Mississippi River. The CSO study is expected to propose a combination ef inethods for relief of the overflow p.roblem: sewer separation; ponding; and storage facilities (holding tanks). One of the key � elements in the study is determination of the level of pollution caused by stormwater. The current draft of the study concludes that after the first major spring rains � have washed the winter's residue from the streets, the pollution levels from stormwater discharges are rela- tively small and need not be treated. � � � 9 , � IGURE 1 .1 AREAS OF SEPARATED STORM SEWERS � •:'.:•:�: '�::�:::��:; L41PENiEIA hE. __ — '..•.�[�:':*�"'•:::'� < :•�':•:•• : • 3 � y1 ... iY:f'L �i ,. ��{:;: � R :... ..... ?:�!: :9t'. �if:�$:. W'.:�:�: .r.•.. � �y. ' w uarura+ w�. �I� :.R�BL�iDtOli: , � - It :::::::::::�; �i .�}IqNM �NEELC �.•�\'::•:�•::�. ' � ��. .�(..:�� .��••:�:.J�� R N� NE X : ;;;,�:;:.:i:::i:��iii � � '" !:� �'�CY1iAD��?:::: .. ,•:YY MMrLMJO 3 MuN 1�� d,!�:�: �: '.::':.'.�. '... '. ' .�:: .... ... • :' �� N ':::'::':::•::.. :: '::::::::::::. .. 4 '�.�..:. ...�..__ �:::......:•.:::?:•:.. ' ..............�:: LRM �VE H .��'� .�. �•:�:: {� � �'�:` � ..��'' PERGE � �� ....'� .;�t 1 f � Wu[� `°i� � "t � 5. G45E 5. � 5, on neq 'h, G ,c� �:t. � Y �'�: ..�UI�e � � E �m 51 � � � ~ �' k IS�� . � � •:u::•: MIINEINN� W � . Z �� .. � . �� p � � :::.: �:� ... . ... � ...:':�. .: _ .:::•. . 2 � ::'::i' ' .k. ::.M.': ....... . . w � .. �.::::::::. N �:: : ' '::::.. ..::.. . . .:::�:::•::�: '�:::::::::: w ....... . :,-..:�: . � :i:Y:�C � E YU ST .:: .. .... .y::.. ...::..•... �. }:•:i:i . . .... .. � . ......... . . .;.. .:;....;. . �. :.:�:i:l:•:•:•::':::::• ::.., •i:::ii:' �:•::;;�:;::;:;'::�:;;': � •}::I�W:•:'} :�:�::R':��::�:�::�:::� ...� �i::::: . � :.� • '-"��' :•:::::: .. . . . .:::: �.::. '':... z ' ... .. i':9(:; .�� ..... .. w '� ..... ......... .......... ....... .. •�.. i MM94iLS�ii:iii::i`vi}+i' ••;�BLqHg�•y,E•�� •:::::: •:::::. ::::: �:''::•::' •::':::: •:::::' ...... .. •:.:;., . ..:....... .:::'::::•: :::::.:::' .. . :::v:::. ' ::::.: •:::•:::. ::�:::. ...::::':::�::. . . ..::... ��'�:•:: ':� •:::::::.:�::::. ... ..... ]�....... :::•::i'•:•::: �::. . ..::::::. :::::. :::::::.::•:::�:•::�:::v... �:::: I S :........ ...::. � SEl6Y:•i: ••• �__.- . + 2 ... l�ii:<�:•i: . . . .' '. . :. � v:::. .. '�' � �ro . . P ip :'::i;:;:.:::�:::•:':�::•::�::•: � \ S••.:: . ........ ..... .... '�ky � ..:;��<�'>.tc°tjj�:i .i \ � �A"'•:4t�i`;::;i>:;':?`t�: �::�;i i� i 1 ° wr.e.. .i;i;�;i;i: �i?•.�_::._. . :.•'�k:::.:�:r.;;�>:�>:� `��,.:>: � 4 � �... 'y' / s a � � � �.' ...2:^.�': � � �� ' � :..�'}[ .:.:. -. �. � .::.::::, . _ . . .>:•::;:};: � : ��::•:::: . . ....... :;.. ... >: ::::: d'�u�::>�� 's .' ��Y`� �% ;;��> � l 8 � ro � ��'.: ;•:.::: . , , � ::•:::: . . a .. .., �c ' :r�4."' � :..::�»: . ..;.;;. ';%;��' i .� . :: ,�. . . �' '_ __ �:: io�+^ .. ' � : ...: � � J' � �� ,�, ,.;�::r:.:. � :: `�::�.;<:::::� c��. �� 1 a , 8�, .....: �:; � "F :;8'�<:':: ' ;6�.. . " � � � 4 , .. ... . :::s;:> �.:.;•. � � ::.:: W;:: `?. ..� .:. W ;.:;. :. �::Y'. � i;;.:. ;.�: :•.., Ir� I � �C � } � . .. ;� ; ' � � �:;':::: , :?::>� �:�<:�::i. :`':. , , _�-r-1 t a ti . ;•' �: � j /�4P •::�:'i�ti._ 4 .. '� O �,y �. POpD � auwr � �'�'i�:ncwra .� i � ry �-'---�W:�.. '. :� ��::�ii?�E ,i.r -�-- I 1� � '�'.�l :.:�::. � _'_ '\� . .. �. . , ... .i} � / \^ ' . .:,}:.b:.:: I �/ � .....�.. '•' \.`ti 1 � '-:-a � •:�l� � �/ .'�'•�v�l . . � I W �\ ^ M(x+taE�L NE. {; Ai j �`I ,� � � �-. E� � �� tUl"fil S2W2T'2C1 dY'2dS ��.\ � , � �1 we � � � �. °;: `�� with combined outlets �.�, a � � � .� � �� ',� '�,,� ' `;� � ;. � �� %�� Storm sewered areas "�� ;�,,�. ' '"' !i � with separated outlets :o\ '' "" ' 1. �. = , ', .. '� � ;�� Areas with no separated �` :; . `� ; �� —�'� storm sewers , `'�--i--- , _,,.%'�� '� e 't �a�l '�rrpartment of 1'ublic Works �' r� ��—`-��' � � � � � 10 � 1 � � FIGURE 1 .2 PRELIMINARY PONDING AREA SCHEME � .rtw - -- � 't ` i F � 2 I / � 1_" ' __ _'.'. W _' � \ - - � -` _ / •, �_ __ — . " � � '' "' -__ . _'_ __ _ [ rM �� as / _ '-�_ — � � v � -- _ "' �y-�.\\` --.r-- i _ � l � - _ _�� , , \ � - � ��.� ,,, _�. - ��\ ��:� � _ . . �, �`�`� '�� .; ' _;`-. �� d `\ � � �Lr . \��, \� r.�. 1 � �._' ' _ _ .. " ` f-.•' ,� �\ ._ ._' __��G�. x. ._..• / _ -- ` 1 Z - 3 - +anR.. � — tu _; �. _� � 1 � 1'� �' - �.� , I, � � � .��.• "t Paul Uepartment ot Publir.Murks � �� .•x+�� .. 1 raaprehar;t�e poliry fur tbr pondinq of storm water. ra..�--�a��. � Fyril; 1916 . . � � � � I I „ � � Regardless of the conclusions drawn from the CSO study, � St. Paul will have to coordinate the sewer program with MWCC's plans to reduce or eliminate pollution from over- � flows. The city would like to see improvements in Mississippi River quality as well as reducing localized flooding. One me�hod to improve both river quality and reduce localized flooding would be to separate sewers in j critical areas. Separation in these areas could reduce volume in the sewers carrying sanitary sewage and reduce ` the likelihood that those sewers would overflow. At the � same time, the city would commit to do more street sweep- ing at crucial times of the year and prevent winter's residue from reaching the rjver via the newly constructed � storm sewers. Because the city and the MWCC have different criteria for selecting the most effective areas for sewer separation, l St. Paul will continue to work with MWCC toward a reason- able compromise. POLICY 5 � DEFINE ALL AREAS WHERE LOCALIZED FLOODING POTENTIAL IS HIGH. DEFINE ALL EXISTING AREAS OF LOCALIZED FLOODING. � POLICY 6 DEVELOP AN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ALLEVIATE ALL MAJOR LOCALIZED FLOODING HAZARDS. EMPLOY THE MOST COST-EFFEC- � TIVE SOLUTION USING ONE OR A COMBINATION OF TECHNIQUES. POLICY 7 � PROTECT FROM BEING DEVELOPED THE PONDING SITES INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR THE PONDING OF STORMWATER, 197G. GATHER D TA FOR THAT PORTION OF THE CI Y N T � �RED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY AND DEVELOP A PONDING SCHEME FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. POLICY 8 � DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A STORMWATER RUNOFF AND EROSION MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOP- MENT. � POLICY 9 REVISE THE BUILDING CODE TO REQUIRE THE DISCONNECTION OF � RAINLEADERS FROM SEWERS. DEVELOP AN EDUCATIONAL CAM- PAIGN AIMED AT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE CHANGE. MONITOR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE FOR THE POSSIBLE NECESSITY OF A SURCHARGE TO ENCOURAGE DISCONNECTIONS. � POLICY 10 CONTINUE THE INCREASED LEVEL OF STREET SWEEPING, ESPE- � CIALLY IN SPRING AND FALL. 12 � , � � POLICY 11 � CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION AND METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TOWARD A COMPREHEN- SIVE COST-EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION TO COMBINED SEWER OVER- FLOWS WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER � QUALITY AND REDUCE LOCALIZED FLOODING IN ST. PAUL. � 1 .3 ENS RING CAPACITY ecause of t e o an sometimes frag e nature o our �FUR LAND USE REDEVELOPMENT sewer system, additional large developments that take place in St. Paul have implications for sewer service. � Redevelopment or infill development in urban areas with combined sewer service may exacerbate capacity problems and can cause flooding. It is crucial that all redevelop- ment areas be carefully studied so they do not cause � � sewer capacity problems. At the same time that many of our sewers are already over- � capacity, the city needs to reinforce the local fiscal situation by encouraging additional construction of tax- able land uses. In addition, the local economy needs � more job opportunities and the housing market needs more dwelling units. In short, we must use the vacant avail- able land in the city for development, and we must also redevelop at higher intensity in certain areas where � vacant land is not available. Currently, when a development project is proposed, its � individual effect upon public services, including sewers, is estimated. In ger�eral , projects are not opposed because of burdens on the system unless the increased � flow will directly cause a system failure. Redevelopment is not denied when it is part of a cumulative effect which will eventually cause problems. However, major redevelopment areas need to be evaluated for the cumula- � tive impact of several projects over time. Without this broader view the last major development that pushes the sewer system to the limit could be held accountable for a � disproportionate part of the problem. The city is at a crossroads in many parts of the urban � area. The sewers are at or over capacity and their limi- tations could discourage major additional redevelopment. However, the limited sewer capacities need not be an obstacle to redevelopment. The first step in accomnodat- ing redevelopment is to define the major sites where development will likely occur. The Land Use and Housing Plans, for example, suggest that downtown should be sub- i � � 13 � � t9a11 redevelo ed in the next n � Y p te years with increased intensities. The Energy Park area is another likely redevelopment site where sewage flow will increase in the � next ten years. The Land Use Plan details those areas that are most likely to redevelop. The second step in accorr�nodating redevelopment is to � review each of those redevelopment areas for its sewer capacity. An impact analysis of project development � should be done, and estimates of additional sewer capa- city should be projected to 10 to 20 years. Costs for necessary improvements to the system within each area should also be estimated for the 10 to 20 year period. � In certain areas where there is the certainty of future development, or where sewer capacity is very high, this estimating process may be easy. However, in complex � areas, such as downtown, sewer improvement and redevelop- ment projections will be more difficult. Third, after the areas for substantial redevelopment have � been designated and projections have been made, the city must devise a workable financing mechanism for making sewer improvements. Since the city has very limited 1 discretionary general funds to improve sewers, we must seek new directians in sewer project funding. Specifi- cally, the benefiting property owners should help pay for � a portion of the construction costs. Special assessments would be levied against benefiting property owners. General1y, the city should look more critically at the � relative costs and benefits associated with redevelopment. We may find that infrastructure improvement costs may make a development undesirable. The city must evaluate the benefits from a redevelopment project against the � costs of repairing and maintaining the city's services. Aside from the areas where capacity limitations may � impact redevelopment, there are a few small residential areas that are still unserved. Most of these areas are in the West Seventh area, where excavation into bedrock makes sewer construction expensive. Serving five or six � very old homes may not justify the expense of new sewer construction. However, if an entire block should be redevleoped, sanitary sewer should be provided. � . � � 14 , ' � � , � Regardless of the projects under revi�v or the process used for ensuring capacity for development, one deficiency persists in making sound decisions; complete and current information on the existing sewer system. The most � critical area for which we need information is the down- town. If we are in fact going to add thousands of new residences and tens of thousands of new square feet for � office use, the sewer system ought to be reliable for the life of that new construction. Because of the age of downtown's sewers, and the burden that may soon be placed � on them, a hard and long look at the adequacy of CBD sewers should be done in the immediate future. POLICY 12 � REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO THE ADEQUACY OF SEWER CAPACITY FOR All SITE PLAN REVIEWS. � POLICY 13 FOR MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OR CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, CONDUCT SPECIAL LONG-RANGE CAPACITY ANALYSES, BEGINNING WITH DOWNTOWN. � POLICY 14 INVESTIGATE AN EQUITABLE ASSESSMENT SCHEME FOR PARTIAL I PAYMENT OF SEWER REPLACEMENT OR MAJOR REPAIR PROJECTS BY BENEFITIN� PROPERTY OWNERS. , POLICY 15 JUDGE, IN PART, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGAINST THE PUBLIC COST OF NEEDED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. � POLICY 16 IN THOSE DEVELOPED AREAS SERVED BY PRIVATE ON—SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, PROVIDE CENTRAL SANITARY SEWERS IN � CUNJUNCTION 4dITH REDEUFLOPMENT UF THE ENTIRE BLUCK FA(;� . � � � � � 15 X A ION � 2.0 SYSTEM E P NS � � St. Paul has very little undeveloped land area. The only remaining urbanizing area is the Highwood portion of the � Battle Creek District (Figure 2.1 ). Since many of the areas in Highwood do not have sewers available, much of the new development has relied upon septic systems. Continued development of houses reliant on se�tic tanks � raises the potential of a malfunctioning system causing sewage overflows that could drain to other properties. In response to these issues the city has worked with � Highwood citizens to develop a plan for future streets and sewers. Because of the past constraints on develop- ment and the potential threat of environmental problems, � the sewer system should be completed in Highwood. Almost all of the rest of the vacant sites in St. Paul have sewers available. Many homes used septic tanks � before the sewers were constructed, and some owners of those homes have decided to continue using their existing adequate septic tanks rather than spend the money to hook � up to the sewer. In the city today there are about 400 operating septic tanks. Septic systems have been known to leak, and often times the odor becomes a problem. � Becau�e of the potential nuisances of septic systems, new construction reliant on septic tanks should be discour- aged, and additional parceling of land in unsewered areas should be prohibited. � POLICY 17 PROHIBIT THE SUBDIVISION OR PARCELING OF LAND ON LOTS � WHERE SEWERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. DISCOURAGE THE CONSTRUC- TION OF HOUSES AT URBAN DENSITIES (LESS THAN ONE ACRE) UNLESS SEWERS ARE AVAILABLE. PHASE UUT SEPTIC SYSTEMS WHERE SEWERS ARE AVAILABLE. , POLICY 19 COMPLETE SANITARY AND STORMWATER SEWER SYSTEM IN HIGHWOOD, � BY 1990. POLICY 20 �. PHASE OUT SEf'TIC TANKS AFTER SEWERS ARE MADE AVAILABLE IN NEWLY DEVELOPING AREAS. PHASE 21 � USE AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF STATE REGULATION WPC-40 FOR THE REGULATION OF ON-SITE SEPTIG TANKS. � � 16 � � � ' FIGURE 2.1 PREDOMINATELY UNDEVELOPED AREAS OF HIGHWOOD � �� LONER AFTON i� �' i' i' 1 � .... ,. ,,��, i� BuRL'�`�, .. ��...�::,;. . LONDIN LANE � � :..,o�� v ` ' 6'n e TOTEM �'�. ��' TOWN � �°� MAILAND RD, ,�� :� �9n �1 ♦` �S \ N`1� . � •� � ....�......... HILLWOOD DR, �O.: ...�R(/� ... :,,j'`��p �:�� Predominantly Undeveloped � ° '��.. ... „U �;,,�.� '��'�� • •� 'f1�i :� �� :_;��••'�l� BURLINGTON - -^��':`::' " ::•i��ii ::x{�: :i:�R.i � 's..•.��:. '{. MATTERHORN PIGS EYE ,� � �:� ..•. •::::::: NILUAMTELt LAKE SPRINGSIDE, 1 °°� •..�..°". W... ;::,:';''•' . >`�� . �.'•:�`::�: � � _ �a�;:;•: •'.$y;.�, .;;q�:::• ' - VALLEV VIEW � �� .. HIGHW0011 1j4: 1 �.. ��Q�� :�H::::::-:�::: n�_rx��n � . ..:. ::::. , _ � �:: � ��,_.�:��',�'�:•:��'�.� OGDEN AvE. � ' ;�:;:;:,.. :..,.... '� . � DOUGLYN LA, 1 SNONSHOE LH. ,1�' � BOXW009 AVF. � ,"� .. �� `•;:`•�>:� '.si;i;i:iiii;; �;.� ;"�� MARILLAC lA. � ,�� CARVER �� „ , ,� . N :� :� �� --•--�° �� •�•--,�=;� GREENLANll ��`----'' �' Mc6UIRE �` •--•' �� ',�. ::?�, ;� '� � ;�� ':t•:"•"��' ',i � '�4� ''`�� ;� `� '1 `� �� 1 Q, ::;:Y � .`� BAILEY 1'�; �`=ii � • 9� :�i �� \ � �:�� :� :.�� I � �_ � , �7 3.0 SYSTEM COSTS . I � In the past ten years, sewage. treatment costs to St. Paul � have risen steadily, even though the volume of sewage has decreased. The rise in fees can be attributed primarily � to higher operating costs and costs for improvements to the regional waste treatment facilities. The drop in sewage volume can be mainly attributed to the efforts of , a few large industrial sewer users who have diverted clean water flows away from combined sewers into the city's stormwater sewer system. If no city action is ' taken, the fee rates for treatment will continue to rise, � , and the cost to the city will escalate. However, the city can potentially lower costs by getting the fee system adjusted, or by reducing the amount of sewage that � must be treated. 3.1 DE ISING M R t. au pays fees for t e treatment o sewage to t e � , QUITABLE TREATMENT FEES Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The sewage is processed through two treatment phases: primary and secon- dary. The size of the fee is based primarily on the ` volume of sewage treated. For St. Paul ' s combined sewer system, however, stormwater comprises a significant por- tion of the total sewage volume. As a result, St. Paul � is charged proportionally more for sewage treatment than a city of similar size with separated sewers. Because of �he diluted nature of St. Paul 's sewage, the city � believes that fees should be reduced accordingly. Another factor in St. Paul 's treatment costs, is the large amount of overflow from Beaver, Como and Phalen , Lakes. Stormwater originating in other comnunities flows through these lakes and into St. Paul 's combined sewers, and is treated at the Pig's Eye facility. Because of � '�etropolitan Waste Control Comnission assessment policy, St. Paul is assessed for treatment of all the lake over- flow from the three lakes. We believe that a more � equitable assessment policy should be developed and instituted which shares treatment costs among all contri- buting communities. POLICY 22 � , WORK WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND MWCC IN DEVISING A SEWAGE TREATMENT FEE STRUCTURE THAT TAKE6 INTO ACCOUNT � ST. PAUL'S HIGHLY DILUTED SEWAGE. POLICY 23 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, MWCC AND � AFFECTED MUNICIPALITIES, PURSUE ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXIST- ING COST ALLOCATION SYSTEM THAT WOULD DISTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF STORMWATER TREATMENT IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER � AMONG ALL CONTRIBUTING COMMUNITIES TO LAKE OVERFLOWS. 18 , � � � 3.2 REDUCING SEWAG V L ES The most effective method for re ucing sewage treatment costs would be to separate all storniwater from the sewage � flow and pay only for treatment of the sanitary sewage. Following is a discussion of four main sour.ces of non- sanitary sewage in the combined system and their fiscal � impact on the city. The following information was taken from the citizen task force report: Sewaqe Rate Struc- tures for the City of St. Paul , January 1978. ' � A.STORM RUNOFF Storm runoff enters the combined system through street drains and direct rainleader connections. As recomnended � in previous sections, the storniwater should be kept out of the sanitary sewers by separating sewers and disconnect- ing rainleaders where feasible. In 1975, treatment costs to the city for 2,518 million gallons per year (MGY) of � stormwater runoff was $890,818. This is the largest - source of non-sanitary flow. � B.OVERLAND FLOW Overland flow is that rainwater which falls in adjoining cities and flows via natural and man-made waterways � across the city's boundaries. The largest of these water- ways is Trout Brook which collects rainwater from up- stream communities, travels into St. Paul as a natural � waterway, and then is channeled into a combined sewer flowing to the treatment plant. Total overland flow averages nearly 1 ,300 MGY. Treatment cost to the city for this in 1975 was $452,485. Because of high construc- � tion costs, waterways such as Trout Brook have not been channeled into separate storniwater sewers. However, at some time the future fees may be so high that construc- ' tion of a separate stormwater sewer will be cost-effec- tive. � C.LAKE OVERFLOW iINFLOW� All na�ural bodies of water have a natural or man-made capacity. When this capacity is reached excess water overflows the lake basin. In St. Paul , Lake Phalen, , Beaver Lake, and Como Lake all overflow occasionally to the combined sewer system and end up being treated at the regional plant. These flows average over 1 ,100 MGY, � costing the city $402,955 to treat in 1975. Correction of this problem could be accomplished by building a separate stormwater sewer to take lake overflows directly � to the river. Preliminary findings developed in 1977 suggest that only Beaver Lake overflow separation woul�! be cost-effective ip the near future. For both Como and Phalen the cost �f treating the overf1ows would riot � , 19 � � � � justify separation. However, we must continue to monitor this situation so that if construction projects should � become cost-effective, the city could seriously consider them. D.MISCELLANEOUS FLOWS ` Miscellaneous flows include infiltration and clearwater discharge. Infiltration is the seepage of groundwater � into the sewers at pipe joints and openings caused by pipe failure. Groundwater can collect by natural means or come from defective water mains. In 1975, it was estimated that 940 million gallons of infiltration � entered the sewers and was treated at a cost of $349,535. To meet federal Environmental Protection Agendy standards, the MWCC is conducting an Infiltration/Inflow assessment � to identify and eliminate these flows from the sewers. The city should monitor the study and use the results to reduce seepage volumes. In addition, the city's inspec- tion and inventory function should locate sources of � jnfiltration, and faulty pipes should be repaired. Clearwater discharges are clean water byproducts of � certain industrial and comnercial establishments. Such discharges include air conditionjng water and cooling water for certain industrial processes. Many establish- , ments have already removed clearwater flows from sewers, but the city should investigate pote.ntial future reduc- tions from construction of more storm sewers serving businesses with clearwater flows. To reduce metered � volumes of sewage treated, the city should eliminate non- sanitary flow from the greatment process. Unfortunately, removal of this flow may require large and expensive , capital projects. St. Paul should determine which projects to undertake by comparing the cost of treatment versus the cost of project construction. � St. Paul must cooperate with other agencies and businesses to reduce the treatment flow. We must cooperate with: � the MWCC on the Infiltration/Inflow Assessment; the Ramsey-Washjngton Regional Watershed District and muni- cipalities to control inflow; individual businesses to � identify removable clearwater discharges and council them on removal techniques; and finally the Metropolitan Council , MWCC and nearby municipalities toward equitable � assessment policies for payment of regional sewer projects in St. Paul . - ' 20 , � � � POLICY 24 � PERIODICALLY ASSESS THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF CONSTRUCT- ING RELIEF SEWERS FROM LAKE OVERFLOWS TO THE RIVER. IF IT SHOULD BECOME COST-EFFECTIVE TO CONSTRUCT RELIEF SEWERS RATHER THAN PAY TREATMENT FEES, BUILD THE SEWER , � � AND SHARE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS A��NG ALL CONTRIBUTING CONIMUNITIES. ENCOURAGE THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE A LAKE OVERFLOW MONITORING � - PROGRAM FOR PHALEN, BEAVER AND COMO LAKES. POLICY 25 . � INITIATE AN INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY TO COORDINATE WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S REGIONAL STUDY. POLICY 26 , ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO REMOVE CLEARWATER DISCHARGES FRUM THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. � � � � � � � � 1 � 1 21 �.0 SYSTEM FINANCING , � . � The key to maintaining and improving the sewer system is a sound fiscal plan. Both the operating and capital � hudgeting priorities should reflect the overall objec- �ives of this plan. In general , the very highest priorities should be funded by set-aside funds to assure that the program does not falter. , The following priority list should act as guidelines for , preparing CIB proposals and programming an implementation � strategy. The priority categories should not be viewed as rigid or mutually exclusive. Projects in the lower categories need not await completion of all projects in the high priority categories. In any sing1e year pro- � �ects from all categories could be funded. However, the � high priority projects should generally take precedence over lower priority projects. � A. INFORMATION GATHERING--FIRST PRIORITY In the development of a comprehensive approach to sewer � projects, the city must know which sewers need repair, to what extent repairs are needed, and which repairs are needed most urgently. Because no major inspection program now exists, the city should start an inspecti�n � and inventory program to locate: -Structura1 needs; -Sources of inflow and infiltration; and � -Future service needs. Personnel for the inspection of sewers should be funded � as a specific operating budget item. B.EMERGENCY REPAIR FUNDS--SECOND PRIORITY As will happen in even the most comprehensive of programs, � emergencies will arise unexpectedly. When this happens, funds must be available to do what is necessary to preserve public health and safety. The city presently � has such a sewer repair fund as part of the capital budget. This budget should only be used for emergency projects. If the annual allotment is not entirely used, it should accumulate in preparation for any major � failures that occur in subsequent years. The emergency repair fund should be a set-aside capital budget item. � � � 22 � � � , C.EXISTING SEWER MAINTENANCE--THIRD PRIORITY � Although there is much we have to learn about the sewer system before a detailed capital program can be developed, the city must increase rehabilitation and redevelopment , to maintain existing services. We must anticipate the deterioration of sewer pipes and replace or repair them before they malfunction. In addition, projects should be undertaken where problems have already arisen, such as � " areas of localized flooding. Funds for rehabilitation and replacement should come from discretionary capital budget funds initially. However, when needs for sewer � repairs are adequately assessed an ongoing set-aside funding policy should be instituted. D.CORRECTION OF SEWER BACKUPS AND LOCALIZED FLOODING-- ' FOURTH PRIORITY Sewer backups and localized flooding have plagued certain areas of the city for years. In order to deliver ade- � quate and reliable sewer service, St. Paul must correct the worst areas. Presently, about 20� of the costs for relief sewer construction are paid by direct beneficiaries and 80% by the entire city. This assessment practice should be continued, and the portion of the costs paid by direct beneficiaries should increase to 25%. � E.SERVING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT--FIFTH PRIORITY New development or redevelopment can create capacity problems for existing sewers. The sewer system should be , upgraded to accomnodate such development. In areas of new development, such as Highwood, sewer construction costs should be borne by property owners served. Sewer � reconstruction costs in areas of redevelopment, such as downtown, should be borne, in part, by property owners served by the sewers. Projects to accommodate construc- � tion/reconstruction should be funded on the same ratio used for relief sewer construction. F.SEPARATION--SIXTH PRIORITY , Certain capital projects can save the city money in the long run and should be instituted when they become cost- effective. Fees can be reduced by eliminating stormwater � from the treatment stream via separation. Most small separation projects should be funded on the same ratio used for relief s+ewer construction. However, some pro- � jects are very large, multi-year capital items, such as a separate storm sewer system for Phalen or Beaver Lake overflows. Since some of these projects stem from regional waste disposal problems, the city should try to � share the expenses with contributing comnunities. , 23 � � POLICY 27 � AS THE FIRST PRIORITY, ALLOCATE GUARANTEED FUNDS FROM THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT SUFFICIENT � TO MAINTAIN AN ONGOING INSPECTION AND INVENTORY PROGRAM. POLICY 28 ' AS THE SECOND PRIORITY, CONTINUE THE EMERGENCY REPAIR FUND AND ENSURE SUFFICIENT LEVELS FOR MOST MAJOR EMER- , GENCIES. � POLICY 29 AS THE THIRD PRIORITY, FUND A SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR SEWERS. � INITIALLY FUND PROJECTS ON A DISCRETIONARY BASIS UNTIL A � SYSTEMATIC REHABILITATION PROGRAM HgS BEEN DEVELOPED. THEN A LONG RANGE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT MUST BE MADE WITH � THE ANNUAL FUNDS BEING SET-ASIDE. POLICY 30 � AS THE FOURTH PRIORITY, CORRECT SEWER BACKUP AND LOCALIZED FLOODING PROBLEM AREAS. ASSESS BENEFITING PROPERTY OWNERS 25% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS. POLICY 31 � AS THE FIFTH PRIORITY, USE DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDS TO PAY FOR PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT/ � REDEVELOPMENT. BENEFITING PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD PAY 25� OF THE RECONSTRUCTION COSTS. BENEFITING PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD C P Y FOR 100% OF NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS. � POLICY 32 AS TME SIXTH PRIORITY, USE DISCRETIONARY CAPITAL BUDGET � FUNDS' TO PAY FOR MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WILL SAVE THE CITY TREATMENT COSTS. EX?ENSES SHOULD BE SHARED WITH ALL COMMUNITIES CONTRIBUTING TO THE WASTEWATER FLOW. � � �. � � 24 , � 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY � � - , This chapter is divided into six sections that outline major actions to be taken in the next ten years. The � categories were chasen to easily assign responsibilities rather than to correspond to the issue areas of the plan. The final s�ction charts the responsible agencies for � implementing each recommendation. Not all of the necessary actions are listed here. Ongoing inspection and inventory, changes in funding levels, and new tech- nologies will continuaily redirect the recommendation tstrategy. This, then, is only the first step in implemen- ting the plan. � 5. CAPITAL The CIP for sewers will be included in our overall CIP IMPROVEP9ENTS PROGRAM for the City of St. Paul . The sewer projects will be � prograr�ned in accord with the priorities of this plan as well as the priorities of the entire Comprehensive Plan. The sewer CIP should conform to the following priorities: � FIRST -Personnel and equipment sufficient to maintain an ongoing inspection and inventory program. SECOPJD -Emergency repairs. � TNIRD -Rehabilitation and-�eplacement program. FOURTH -Correction of sewer backsups and localized flood- ing. � FIFTH -Construct or reconstruct sewers to serve new development or redevelopment. SIXTH -Projects (usually separation) that will reduce treatment costs. � _ _ 5.2 STUDIES LISTED l .Analyze cost-benefits for stormwater sewers to relieve � IN PRIORITY ORDER) Beaver, Como and Phalen Lakes, and Trout Brook. 2.Investigate inflow and infiltration to develop ways to � reduce sewage flow. 3.Investigate the capacity of downtown sewers given the � redevelopment plans and proposals. If warranted, redesign downtown sewers. � � � 1 -25- � � � 5.3 PROGRAMS LISTED 1 .Inspection and inventory programs for: IN PRIORITY ORDER) a.Condition of sewers. � b. Inflow/infiltration. c.Actual and potentTal sites of localized flooding. 2.Create a coordinating mechanism among Public Works and � PlannYng and Economic Development for the review of development projects and their affects on the sewer � system capacitTes. 3.Complete data requirements for doing a citywide ponding � program, specifTCally, purchase of topography maps for all areas of the cTty. 4.Continue to implement the comprehensive ponding program , adhering to the following provfsions: -Design ponds as part of the natural drainage system; -AvoTd disrupting existing structures, mature trees, and � steep slopes; -When suitable sites are available, locate ponds where they can be used as green open space as well as ponding i� areas; ' -Maintain the aesthetics of ponds, and when ;suitable sites are avallable, eoordTnate their development with recreational open space plans of the District, City, � Ramsey County and Metropolitan Council ; -Design ponds with the capacity to settle solids be�Fore discharge Tnto natural watercourses; and � -Prepare a policy map detailing desirable ponding sites and be consistent with proposals of the CSO study. 5.Develop criteria for the disposition of public lands in � regard to the parcel 's .relative significance for storm- water ponding or recharge. 6.Tncrease spring and autumn street sweeping. � � � � � � -26- � � , � 5.4 OF CI L C . ontinue to expan on state po icy - as t e oca (I.ISTED IN governing provision to address: � PRIORITY ORDER) -Periodic inspection and maintenance including a report- ing procedure by private licensed inspectors; -Remedial action for those who continue to use on-site � systems in disrepair; -Funding the administration of the ordinance; -Appeal , variance and enforcement procedures; and � . -A map that outlines areas with soil conditions that prohibit the construction or continued use of on-site systems. � 2.Revise the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit subdivision or parce1 approval on unsewered land. I 3.Revise the Building Code including provisions for: -Disconnection of rain1eaders that empty into combined sewers; -Prohibition of new construction of rainleaders that ' empty into combjned sewers; -Conservation of water including tap and shower flow restrictions, and low volume toilets. � 4.Develop a storniwater runoff and erosion ordinance. The ordinance should be part of the site plan review � p"rocess. It should be part of both Zoning and Subdivi- sion Ordinances. 5.Develop an Industrial Waste Ordinance for control of � discharges to the sewer system. � 5.5 POLICY SUGGESTIONS . Imned ately study and make recommen ations to t e +U OTHER AGENCIES Metropolitan Waste Control Comnission on: -Combined Sewer Overflow Study; � -Lake Overflows; -Sewage Treatment Fees; and -Sewer Availability Charge. � 2.Recommend to the Metropolitan Council and MWCC that ti�e city be actively involved in the development of rate structures fnr sewage treatment fees. � � � ' Z� � � i � � 1 5.6 RESPONSIBILI IES ND o owing are two charts that set out responsi ilit es DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES and priorities according to the Sewer Plan. Figure .C�:� � , outlines departmenta1 responsibilities for each recommen- . dation. �igure 5.2 suggests priorities within each departmen for the recomnendations of the Plan. Overall priorities are the same as those for the CIP. , 1 � � � � � � � � � � , , 28 � � z ' � f W U • � Z O � � Z W W C.) F- t/') a' � �--� ►-� �L U O LL � i � W � � a o � o s 3 ozs z cn � � N 0 � ¢ J Y J p F- � m . 0 �' r+ >- �-' d a d m � a FIGURE 5.1 RECON9NENDATION RESPONSIBILITIES ' Studies 5.2.'�Relief sewer design for lake overflows X � 5.2.2 Investigate inflow/infiltration/or X reduced flows 5.2.3 Downtown sewer design X X , X iPrograms 5.3.1 Inspection and inventory X 5.3.2 Design review X X � 5.3.3 Data requirements for ponding X 5.3.4 Ponding program X X 5.3.5 Public lands and pondfng X X X 5.3<6 Street sweeping X ' Official Controls 5.4.1 Stormwater ordinance X X X � 5.4.2 Septic tank provisions X ''� 5.4.3 Unsewered land ordinance X � 5.4.4 Building code revisions X � 5.4.5 Industrial Waste Ordinance X � Polic Su estions to Other A encies 5.5. MWCC fees X X 5.5.2 City's participation in rate X X developments , � , i � 1 ! -29- � , ' FIGURE 5.2 RECOMMENDED DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES FOR SEWERS � A. PUBLIC WORKS � 1 . Inspection and inventory (5.3.1 ) 2. Design review (5.3.3) � 3. MWCC fees (5.5.1 ) 4. Stormwater Ordinance (5.4.4) 5. Relief sewer design for lake overflows (5.2.2) 6. Investigate inflow and infiltration for reduced flows (5.2.3) � 7. City's participation in rate developments (5.5,2) 8. Downtown sewer design (5.2.1) • 9. Industrial Waste Ordinance (5.4.5) ' 10. Data requirements for ponding (5.3.2) 11 . Ponding program (5.3.4) 12. Public lands and ponding (5.3.5) � 13. Street sweeping (5.3.6) B. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l . Design review (5.3.3) ' 2. Ponding program (5.3.4) 3. Public lands and ponding (5.3.5) 4. Downtown sewer design (5.2.1 ) .� 5. Unsewered land ordinance (5.4.2) 6. Stormwater ordinance (5.4.4) • C. PARKS ANO RECREATION DIVISION ' 1 . Public lands and pondfng (5.3.5) 2. Stormwater ordinance (5.4.4) D. BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT � 1 . Septic tanks provisions (5.4.2) 2. Building Code revisions (5.4.4) � E. MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 . MWCC fees (5.5.1 ) � 2. City's participation in rate developments (5.5.2) F. PORT AUTHORITY 1 . Downtown sewer design (5.2.1 ) , ; _ ., � ' -30- � � CREDITS ' � ST. PAUL PL NNING CO ISSI L z n erson avi anegran ' Clark Armstead *Joseph Levy *James Bryan David McDonell **Carolyn Cochrane *Jane Nelson Thomas FitzGibbon Joseph Pangal � Sam Grais John Schmidt Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle Sur�ners *Sister Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor ' *David Hyduke *Adolf Tobler Nelsene Karns Robert Van Hoef , **Chairman, Public Syste� Comnittee *Merr�er, Publ i c Systems Comni ttee ' ADMINISTRATION AND Gary Stout, Director of Planning and Economic Development NULICY DIRECTION James J. Bellus, AICP, Planning Administrator Peggy Reichert, Principal Planner ' Dan Dunford, Manager of Sewers and Utilities Division RFSEARCH AND PLANNING A1 en ovejoy, P anner-in-C arge � Roger Puchreiter, Civil Engineer IV Faith Douglass , Intern ' ;RAPHICS Dorys Buehrer � � � -'� � � ' � , � � � i 4��tT� �.� CITY OF SAINT PAUL . . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ��^� o , a � ��u�mi�� , • v � nu tW u Q _ � �� A 347 CITY HALL SAINT PAUL. MINNESOT,A -SSIOZ GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR Council President Ron Maddox and Members of the City Council City Hall , Seventh Floor Saint Paul , MN 55102 Re: Transmittal of the Comprehensive �ewer Plan to the City CouncT7 Dear Council President Maddox and Members of the City Council : On July 25, 1980, after holdTng a public hearing, the Planning Commission certified the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is required by the Metropolitan Land P1annTng Act, and must be adopted by the City Council before comTng into le�a1 effect. "CertificatTOn" by the Planning Commission represents their recornmendation to the Mayor and the City Council that the Plan should be adopted. I am distributing to you copies of the Plan for review preparatory to your publTC hearing, The Comprehensive Sewer Plan has already undergone extensive review. The Planning and Public Works staffs have worked closely together in the development of this plan. It was also circulated to al� Planning DistrTCts, City Departments and key staff inembers for review and comment. This plan sets the direction for, a major ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance program for the city sewer system. There are important issues raised by the Comprehensive Sewer Plan related to the City's old and deteriorating sewer system, the fees St. Paul pays for sewage treatment, and the affect of major new developments on the sewer capacities. T bel7eve this plan deserves your close , attention. Sincerely, � • �L�� Georg atimer Mayor . GL/JJB/dmm _" cc: James J. Bellus w� � _,_ _ ... _. .:_..... city of saint pau{ '''�� planning commiss�on resolutio� file numb�r 80-23 date Ju1y 25, 1980 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul City Council initiated a 40 Acre Study to amend chapters 60 and 64 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code at their regular meeting April 17, 1980; and WHEREAS, the Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commissian reviewed the suggested ordinance arrrendments and has recommended them to the Pianning Corrmission for approval ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes #4�2.257(5) the Planning Commission - did hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments at its regular meeting on July 25, 1980; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissian has determined: . l . That the number of real estate descriptions affected by the . ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical , - 2. - That a -survey of an area in excess of.40 acr.es has been made_,__ _ __ _ " 3. That a determination has bee� made that the amendments to this ordinance proposed are related to the overall needs of the conmunity, to existing land use, and to a plan for future Tand use, and 4. That pursuant to State Statutes proper notice of the hearing has been given in the Pianeer Press and Dispatch on July 4, July 11 , and July 18, 1980: ' NOW, TNEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recammends approval of th� zoning code text amendments attached hereto as proposed in the 40 Acre Study and directs the Planning Administrator to fora�ard the study and this � reso7utian to the Mayor and City Council for their review and action. moved by Cochrane ` . secor�ied by Summers in favor �6 against�. . . _ _ _ _�-_--- - -_. _ _ _______ _._ __ _ ___ , ---._ __ .__....___�--___-- , , , i d �1 , �. � +. , , �I .. , . , � . . - . . � � � . ,�I. � _ . � _ ' . . ' . . + �� . . . . . . � . .. . .�'I,. _ - . . . . . . . � . . � . . . . . , ��'� - �. � � ' . , ! ' . . .. � I � � . . ' . � I f . . , . . . .. . � �� . .. . � . � . . � � . . , � . . . � . . � � . . . . .1� ', .. . � : � . . . . . _ I . " . . , . . . . � ` , A .. � ' . �' . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . , . ... . . . . . �� . „4: - . . ,.. . • i. . .• � . ' .�. , ' . . , . . . . 1 . . ... . . . . ,� .. � . � ' � �, i' ... . , . ,_. ' , . . �'� . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . `_ � . . . ' . . . /. . ,. � .. � . . � • � . . . . j. �� . . . . � , �� . . . . r _ . � � / �� . . � . � � . . � . � . � . . . . � . . � � . . . . ' ' . � � � . ' _ - � :i � . . 1 t ' � � . � � . � � ..r ... ' i . , ' . .• � � . .. . .` . . . a . . � ' .. ' . � .. . '� y . ��l��" gf '�� , , � t . • , , i , . ,: , � , � CaunciLa�ci Yiotoar Td�edcc � , ; C�tairme.n,, Public;i�torks ('�i�t+l� � . - ' '�th T+'Zopr, E"S.ty H�11 , � '. � � , _ � %:; " Dea�r Coun�iLnan' �'e�laeeo! � � �x _ ' ��.i Thee;CitY Cout�c�l taday"referre�t to the �b11e WQr��t Com�.Ltes ;or } ` � c�sid�ra�ivn a�sd recommende'�ic�n, a 're�vlutton �o�ti�inE; tMe � � ' c�a�reh��si��a ��r� plan aa rece ndfd' �y � �ia�aif�� f.seima : , ' , ; , ai part �'if 4be City Comprebrns3ve�lam. ' � �'��ry�I��,y yro�r�, � i , _� _ . . .. . „ . . .� - . . �� . � � . . . � � . . . . ., F �. . . . '' . . . i . � . . . . . . _ . . � . . � , . � � ; � � � • � � � � ' � ' - ��. . .. ' . �1 � , � � . `.i � �ie',� � , " r' . � Cs�ty :'Cli�rk �; , � � ' � � ,� . . � . � - �: , . • ; ' Attacb. . , , � 1 , ' - 1`\�� 1 lIBQ#1� � � - . . . � . � . cEZ . Mr. Heliis, Pl.mn�n� A�bdnil�tra#Ar � . , ', ' Mr., 1�Ye�u►rt1, Director a! l�b2:#��, i�rkt ` . . � , � I . . . .. . . . . . .. . � . . �� i .. � . . _. . . . �h . . . .. . r , . . � � 1. . . . - . . � . . (�' . � . . ,� . . � .. . . .� .�� . . . � . � .. . . � . � � : .. . ' � . . , . ' �; . . . .., . � � - . . � .. � . . . � . . . .. . . � ' . ' � "� . � ' . � � . � . � . ��. � ' . � .. : , .. , . . . . ., -� ' . . . - . • . � � � . �.t �"`Ti. `' � 1' ' � ` � � � ' , , ' � � C �r� ;\ , r . ' . ' . v'.`.� � .. .1 t$'� �� / ,/ , . ' � � � , , X � , �r - . . _ . . . , .. . . . , . . . . . . . - .. e f� . . . � . . � .. . . - � . � .. � �. � S' c;� . . . . . .� � . _ ., � . . � � � ,. . . , . . A' �� `. . . . ��. . . . .. . . . �. .. .� . . '�1 �� ti . . .' � . � . . . . . � � � t t i'� ' i ... , � - - . +. .. . , . ../. . L . � ; . �' � � , �C ': r. �t.,.,:.-.�,.-'. ��` �'ITY O�i �.A,�T�. ��'E'il.,�Pi _- - ,.:�� 1�?"�'�' � - �;�.� . ; ' lti! �'" � OFF'IC� L)F T�L GL'_L't' Cfl��CtL " r�r �� \ ; « t~ � '�1 �U ' ��i,ii3,�� -' i' "�^"';�� - - �'� � � E7a t e ; October 15, 1980 '. -L t'"t - _ .. . .�`^`:-+� fi C � �s"l �� T� � �` i � � � � TO : �ain� Pdul �ifiy Council . �-, _ - ��10 � • CO1`T1�1'i��'�y O�1 PUBLIC WORKS - victor J. Tedesco ; choiFinan, m�kes ifte foiiov�iing � � repori' on C.F. � Qrdinance . _ � .Resolafiion _ ' . . - � Ofher� - � � �� COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN � The Committee at its October lOth meeting recommended that the plan be forwarded•to the City Council for their approval. - - - C1TY ��lLt SEti'ENTH FL002 S�1ItiT PALR., MI\'ti*ESrJTrl S�tt�:. . " �'3 __� ' � � i'i, , ' ' � , ; , � . _ . . , , , . , _ � , , � , .1 � . . . � .. . ,. . . .. - � ; � . - � � . . , � �j. � - . � . ' , . . � �- • . ' .. � _ , . �� -�i �TT.q�, s� . , � � , �C=t�"� . . _ . �r , � . � . , . �s�� . � � :. � � w�; � ' � , � � , , - ; ��.ina� ��' ��l: , ► . ; ; , ; i��t �T�C! JA '�i'#'�� t�ts'o�t�c! �Ti�i ��',tto� 1"�► �,�'s�lt��t++�a �Z '�teT '�►��.R`' � � �'J �'�SSS1 � io � t� 8o�s� �d � � P��' � • �; u'�td �N►�'g w►��'�'J � �`�'��_'�r�'4n'�►�'� ��P'�� - � OQ6t. i�� '�►�'t �i �� 3�`�� '��1 �`�� aiL .' � , , , � � , , i �� _ ; . ; • .� :� .� . tl _ , - ;. � ;��yyr��t��da � � � . y, . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . - .��'�^^�1/ � . � . . . � . . � �- . ' • - �. � � J �. . ' '/ . . - . . .. ' . .. � .:.�. �I: . . . � . � . • .. . � � . . � ' . . . . ��. .. . . i �. 1 . . _ � �, , . . .. \ ' ' E�Qbt �TZ ��0 � ' I . ,r � ` r .'. � , , .. ' � f � " ' ' . , , , r � � : . , � � . I �1 .��r � . , , . �_ �i ' � � , _ i � . , , • �