Loading...
270583 1 }��/� �'_" ��' WHITE - CITV CLER1( ' COUIICII � '/ �r�� � PINK - FINANCE �T CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PA ll L r �+� BLUE - MAYOR File NO. � ��� Council Resolution PAGE 2 of 2 Presented By . Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date addressed with individual sewer projects could any non-local money be eligible for financing a share of the costs, and WHEREAS, The Mayor and City Council are committed to solving the sewer back-up problems in the Thomas-Dale area in the most cost-efficient manner with total implementation taking four to five years because of orderly design and construction schedulinq and limited funding resources, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Department of Public Works is directed to perform further preliminary design analysis to determine the effect on utilities, Identified Treatment Areas, major arterial or collector streets and possible future maintenance problems, so that the City Council can decide which Alternative or combination of Alternatives is most appropriate in order that detailed construction plans can be prepared in time to start the first construction project in spring, 1979, and further RESOLVED, That the Mayor report to City Council in early March, 1978, the Public Works 5ewer Design Section staffing requirements needed to execute design in a timely manner, and further RESOLVED, That the Mayor present for Council consideration a total financing plan proposal for the sewer projects in the Thomas-Dale area that will be consistent with the City's adopted Debt Policy, and further RESOLVED, That the Mayor contact officials of the State Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regarding policy changes which would allow for state or federal funding of sewer projects like those to be constructed in the Thoma.s-Dale area, and that the Mayor report action recommendations to the Council which could support these efforts to secure non-local funding for the Thomas-Dale area sewers. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler � Hozza p [n Favor Hunt (� Levine __ Against BY — �R�vec�}ar Sylvester Tedesco �E� 1 5 1978 Form ved by,City Attorney Adopted by cil: Date — � Certi d Pa- by Council Secre�ary - ���-- App ��e by ;Vlayoc Dat 4 FEB 1 7 19 App ve by Mayor for Sut�mi si n o �oun ' By BY P�15�1:,.,;��r ��� 2 :� 1978 ___.__.--- - . . , .2 ? °�� _.__ - . r�,�,=��.,�_..\ �`�_ -�� . } .� "� Gzr� or• 5:�1.�z P��t-r. ��� �;.. ,..r,�:;--�- : �i'=e=�:`;i�":��._ OI'P'ICE O1�' TII1: �[Al`O1� `�f�.! �t:'- 34? C I1'Y fI.�I.i. #'t:_ "4��__ �y-� SAI\iT Y�LTL, tjI\\FSOT.� 0310� (6L") 29f3-4333 . GF:or3c� ��.Tr.t�:R February 15, 1978 I�I aYU Ic , MEMO TO: Council President Robert Sylvester Councilwoman Rosalie Butler Councilman David Hozza � Councilwoman Ruby Hunt : Councilman Leonard Levine Councilman Patrick Roedler Councilman Victor Tedesco FROM: Mayor George Latimer SUBJECT: St. Anthony Hill Sewer roject I am recommending that the City Couneil approve the completion of the design and construction of the St. Anthony Hill sewer � project. Attached is a council resolution which will implement my recommendation. Also attached is a report from the Department of Public Works. The report analyzes the consultant' s study prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. Generally, the Public �Vorks report concurs with OSM and the recommendation that a separated sewer system be constructed. The report does not, however, concur that ��lternative No. 4, as recommended in the consultant's report, be selected. Rather, the department recommends that further consideration be given to �lternative P7o. 3 contained in the OSM report. This further consid�ration would be taken during the design work as - preparation for constructing the sewer project. , Another attachment is a report prepared by the Planning Division on the possibilities of obtaining non-locaT funding far the sewer project. The report concludes that there is little � likelihood of obtaining other funding. While this possibility will be pursued, it should be clear that the City's cammitment to completing the sewer project will continue regardless of the ' func�ing source. I intend to contact the State Pollution Contral Agency, the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission about the possibilities of state or federal funding in support of the sewer project. Memo• to City Council -2- February 15, 1978 • In two weeks I expect to have a report for the Council considering the staffing rec�zirements to complete the sewer design and a tentative financing plan to finance the project. • Shortly thereafter I intend to have a comTnunity meeting to � present that information to the residents so that they will u��cl��rstan:� tY:e r.ature o:� t'rie ci-cy' s co < < i�m�nt -E:o the sewer relier program. . The first step toward implementation of the project will be approval• of the attached resolution and I respectfully request your favorable action. GL:lmp cc: Commissioner John Finley Commissioner Warren Schaber Representative Peggy Byrne Representative Thomas Osthoff . Senator Peter Stumpf , . Frogtown Forum - . William Johnson Richard Wheeler Kent Schoenberger Roy Bredahl Ken Da.ugan Richard Schroeder attachments � , , � '' 4`�.t= o.s�, CITY OF SA(NT PAUL ���� �? ;;:••»� o� DEPARTfvIENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � +� :K.�'" �E r'��� �c Daniel). Dunford,Director 234 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55142 George Latimer ' Mayor 612-298-4241 M E M O R A N D U M T0: George Latimer Mayor of the City of S�. Paul � k , FROM: ''�r�Richard L. Wheeler �f"'� � Acting Director of Public Works DATE: February 14, 1978 SUBJECT: St. Anthony Hill Sewer Relief System Study The Department of Public Works has reviewed the "St. Anthony Hi11 Sewer Relief System Study" prepared by Orr-ScheJen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. The Con- sultant was retained by the City of St. Paul to review the sewer system problems within the St. Anthony Nill area of the city and investigate various alternative relief inethods. A11 of the alternatives considered as feasible by the Consultant utilize the design method of a separated storm and sanitary sewer system with storm water conveyed to the Mississippi River. It is our engineering judgment that of the four feasible alternatives presented in the study, only Alternative No. 3 - New storm sewer system with two tunnel outlets and Alternative No. - New storm sewer system with two tunnel outlets and new trunk sanitary sewer, should be considered by the City as possible solutions to the surface flooding and sewer backups in the St. Anthony Hill area. Alternative No. 4 is the relief inethod recommended by the Consultant. These two alternatives would correct the serious sewer capacity problems in the area and both would be compatible with accepted engineering design practices utilized in other areas of the City. Basicalty, the design and construction of either alternative would achieve the same results; the elimination of sewer backups in the area and a storm sewer system capable of receiving the surface runoff from a five-year storm. In addition, the two alternatives are essentially the same in total design and construction costs. ���J . � , Mayor 6eorge Latimer -2- February 14, T978 The following construction staging and expenditures are based upon the cost in- formatiorr contained in the study. Although the study did not detail construction staging or costs for Alternative No. 3, we have prepared a probable estimate based on the totai cost presented in the study. Practical experience and relevant City funding information were used to determine the amount of construction that could be expected yearly. Alternate No. 3 - New Storm Sewer System with Two Tunnel Outlets . Construction Stage I St. Albans Storm Tunnel $ 3.5 - 4.0 Million Construction Stage II St. Albans Open-£ut Storm Sewers � $ 3.5 - 4.2 Million Construction Stage III Western Storm Tunnel " $ 5•0 - 5.3 Miltion Construction Stage IV Western Open-Cut Storm Sewers $ 3.� - 3•5 Million TOTAL 15.0 -17.0 Million Alternate No. 4 - New Storm Sewer System with Two Tunnel Outlets and � New Trunk Sanitary Sewer Construction State t (a) � Trunk Sanitary Sewer � Open-Cut Storm and Sanitary Sewers $ 4.2 Million Construction Stage I (b) Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Open-Cut Storm and Sanitary Sewers $ 4.2 Million Construction Stage ll St. Albans Storm Tunnel and Trunk Storm Sewer $ 4.g Million Construction Stage Itl Western Storm Tunnel $ 3.5 Millian TOTAL 1 . Million In Alternative No. 3 - New storm sewer with two tunnel outlets, the construction of the St. Albans and 4lestern Storm Tunnels would have minimal , if any, effect on the area. The eonstruction of the open-cut storm sewers in the street right-of-way would cause some disruption and inconvenience to the residents. However, storm sewer construction, due to the lesser depth of excavation, generalty creates less disruption than sanitary sewer construction. The construction of Stage i and 11 of Alternative No. 3 at an expenditure of, $8.2 Million, woutd accomplish the desired final results in over one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area. Therefore, a sizeable portion of the area would no longer have sewer backups and would have a storm sewer system capable of �eceiving the runoff from a five-year storm. The combined sewer � , � Mayor George Latimer -3- February 14, 1978 , system in the remaining one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area would have increased capacity due to the removal of the upstream storm runoff. The final two con- struction stages would completely solve the area's problems of under-capacity sewers. In Alternative No. 4 - New storm sewer with two tunrtel outtets and new trunk sanitary sewer, the construction of the St. Albans and smaller Western storm tunnels would have minimal , if any, effect on the area. It is our opinion tfiat considerable disruption of the area witl occur due to the construction of the new trunk sanitary see�er and other sanitary sewers. it is difficult, without preliminary design plans, to accurately determine to what extent this disruption would occur. It is general knowledge, however, that the construction of sanitary sewers cause considerable more disruption than the construction of storm sewers, especialiy in an urban area. The deeper excavation depth necessary for sanitary sewers may cause serious conflicts with existing utitities such as gas, telephone, water, etc. in the street right-of-way. The wider trench width creates greater disturbance and more extensive replacement of street surfacing, curbing and boulevards. Alternative No. 4 would result in the disruption of approximately 15� more resi- dential streets than Alternative No. 3. The construction of new sanitary lines would require the interruption and reconnection of all house sanitary services along the new line. Utilization of certain existing combined sewers is planned under this alternative. The rehabilitation proposed for these combined sewers is to be to a level that witl make the projected service life of these pipes equal to any new system con- structed. The majority of the sewer system within the St. Anthony Hill area is 50 to 90 years old and rehabilitation to the level of a new pipe may require the � complete replacement of these piPes. Without a careful rehabilitation project, the planned continued surcharging of old sewers may result in serious maintenance problems. The construction of Stage I (a) and I (b) of Alternative No. 4 at an expenditure of $8.4 Million would, at its completion, eliminate sewer backups and combined sewage surface flooding in the area. However, surface flooding would still continue at about the same frequency and intensity experienced presently. Stage 11 would provide the desired final results of elimination of sewer backups and a storm sewer system capable of receiv.ing the runoff from a five-year storm in approximately one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area. The final Stage Il con- struction wouid completely solve the area's problem of under-capacity sewers.. It has been suggested that a final benefit of the Consultant's recommended Alternative No. 4 is its potential for State and Federal funding as a replacement sanitary sewer. The Minnesota Pollution Contral Agency's criteria for the deter- mination of project priority under which Alternative No. 4 would be evaluated is the same criteria used by the Agency when the City requested funding for the St. Alban's Storm Tunnel in 1974. It is extremely doubtful that Alternative No. 4 would receive a priority high enough to receive funding. . . � ' Mayor George Latimer -4- February 14, 1978 , In conclusion, it may be necessary to perform further preliminary design anatysis of the two alternatives in regard to the effect on utilities, fntensified Treat- ment Areas, major arter_ial or collector streets and possible future maintenance problems. This could further establish that one alternative or a combination of both may fie the most cost effective and practical design method. As the prelimi- nary cost of Alternative No. 3 and the refined cost of Alternative No. 4 are approximately the same, it is recommended that the Department of Public Works be directed to initiate final design on a separated type sewer system for the St. Anthony Hill area. Said design considerations to include further refinements of the Consultant's feasible Alternative No. 3, so as to determine the best solution to meet the needs of both the City and the St. Anthony Hill residents. REB/ck , ,. � . .�•, _ CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 10, 1978 T0: Mayor George Latimer FROM: James J. Bellus � RE: Thomas-Dale Sewer Funding Assignment The Mayor's Office requested the Division of Planning to examine availability of funding for the Thomas-Dale Sewer Project from other than local sources. Ken Dzugan and Greg Haupt of the Oivision of Planning examined Metro Council policies, Minnesota Pollution Control policies, relevant portions of Title 40, Part 35 Code of Federal Re ulations (Clean Water Act and amendments) as we11 as partions of Public Law 95-217 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977). In summary, the findings are not encouraging. Under present Metra Council , state and federal policies and laws, it is extremely unlikely that the City of Saint Paul could qualify for any type of assistance for construction of � the sewer. The only current sources of federal funding for local sewage collection systems are the CDBG Pr�gram and the Farmers' Home Administration (grants to cities of under 5,000 population). FindTngs � l . Metro Council Metro Council policies on wastewater management are contained in the Develop- ment Guide chapter entitled Wastewater Management. Although the Guide does speak to the need for maintaining and replacing as necessary existing sewers in the Urban Service Area, the policies themselves pertain oniy to sewers and treatment plants owned by the Metropolitan Wastewater Control Commission (MWCC). Therefore, for example, policy 12A, which establishes priorities for metro sewer system capital investment, is applicable only to sewers owned by the MWCC. Policy 12A states that a Metro Council priority is: "Maintenance and replacement of the existing system when necessary to correct or avoid threats to health or public welfare or when necessary to sustain current levels of operating efficiency.° While on the face of it this policy would appear to support Saint Paul 's proposed Thomas-Dale facility, the Metro Council intends this policy to be applicable only to capital investment within its jurisdiction, i.e. , facilities of the MWCC. The Metro Council does not provide funds for improvement of local collection systems. ��,n w. 2. State and Federal State funds available for wastewater treatment facilities and sewers are provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These monies are allocated to the MPCA under provisions of the Clean Water Act Amend- ments of 1972. The purpose of the Act is to clean up the nation's waters, not to provide assistance to local governments which have a backlog of sewer projects. As a result, the Act states as first priority construction of wastewater treatment plants; as second priority, construction of inter= ceptor sewers which replace obsolete treatment plants; as third priority, wastewater collection systems. Furthermore, the Act establishes that states have responsibility for developing a priority list of projects to be funded. Pursuant to the Act the MPCA has issued guidelines on compliance with the Act. Its guidelines set four .categories in order of priority. First priority is sewage treatment and related major interceptors, interceptors to eliminate inadequate sewage treatment facility or an immediate health hazard. The second MPCA priority is for waste treatment works for munici- pal water treatment plants and power plants. Third priority under MPCA guidelines is interceptors, and fourth priority is sanitary sewer systems, sewer separation, etc. The MPCA funds all first priority projects before , proceeding to second priority projects. Then it funds all second priority _ projects before proceeding to third.priority, etc. As a matter of practice, the MPCA has yet to fund any fourth priority projects. ; Furthermore, it is unlikely that any such project would even be considered before the late Summer of 1979. This is because the joint MPCA-MWCC Combined Sewer Overflow Study (CSO) (required under provisions of the 1972 Act) will not be completed before that date, and MPCA is not funding any sewer separation or sanitary sewer projects until the study is completed. The reason is that any separation or sanitary projects are required to be cost effective and without the CSO cost effectiveness cannot be determined. However, in December 1977 Congress passed Public Law 95-217, the C1ean Water Act of 1977. While certain types af projects will be even less likely to receive funding under its provisions than under the 1972 Act, the new statute requires the administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to "submit to the Congress by October 1978 a report on the status of combined sewer overflow in municipal treatment works operations. " It appears that Congress' intent is to determine the s everity nationwide of combined sewer overflow problems, perhaps with the thought in mind of specifically addressing federal assistance to that need (Laws of 95th Congress-lst SESS. , 91 STAT. 1608). Nonetheless , the 1977 Clean Water Act as passed into law denies funding to projects of the Thomas-Dale type. In conclusion then, the present situation with �espect to state or federal funding of the Thomas-Dale sewer project is bleak. Alternatives Available 1 . Despite the planning staff's interpretation of state and federal regulations and policies, the Mayor Mas the option of applying for MPCA assistance in r • . � � . . funding the Thomas-Dale Sewer Rroject as a test of the applicability of these regulations and policies in this instance. 2. In view of the study required of the EPA administration by Cangress and in view of the local combined overflow study, the second alternative would be to defer a decision on the Thomas-Dale Sewer project unti] late 1979 when both the results of these two studies and congressional intentions are better known. . 3. The Mayor has tFre option, of course, of funding the project through local sources and proceeding as soon as desirable. However, present Federal regulations are such that onee construction is begun, no portion of the project could receive Federal assistance. 4. To get around this loss of reimbursibility problem and keep future options open, the project could be redesigned as several smaller projects, each independent of the others. Federal funding could be applied for later portions if changes in eligibility criteria are made by Congress after the EPA administrator makes his report and after the combined sewer over- flow study is complete. In this case the separate projects should be done with the least likely to be funded project first and the most likely to be funded last. This would require additional engineering work to separate projects. This could mean that the projects might not be done in the order which could pravide the quickest relief to residents. Also, a legal determination would have to be made on whether or not the projects designed were "legally" separate. If future projects become eligible it could mean up to 90� state and federal funds for eligible projects. It is anticipated � that $85 to $90 million dollars of federal water pollution control funds will be available to Minnesota in each of the next five fiscal years. � Z° s��3 =i� ;-�` GITI' OF S��I\'T P.1L"I.. .o �pgnn«i""� . 'A9 i5Rf40�E9�. . � mee�r�cg?;,� OFFIGE OF TF3E 1'I�YOR 342 GITY FIALL S�INT PALTL, i�TIN\ESOTA 5:310? (61,) 298—13=3 GEOIiGE I.ari.rFx February 15 r 197 8 Mn�o a �tEP�IO TO: Council President Robert Sylvester Councilwoman Rosalie Butler Councilman David Hozza Councilwoman Ruby Hunt " Councilman Leonard Levine Councilman Patrick Roedler Councilman Victor Tedesco FROM: Mayor George Latimer SUBJECT: St. Anthony Hill Sewer roject I am recammending that the City Council approve the completion of the design and eonstruction of the St. Anthony Hill sewer project. Attached is a council resolution which will implement my recommendation. - Also attached is a report from the Department of Public Works. The report analyzes the consultant' s study prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Assaciates , Inc. Generally, the Public Works report concurs with OSM and the recommendation _ that a separated sewer system be constructed. The report does not, however, concur that r'ilternative No. 4, as recommended in the consultant's report, be selected. Rather, �the department recommends that further consideration be given •to Alternative No. 3 contained in the OSM report. This further consideration would be taken during the design work as preparation for constructing the sewer project. Another attachment is a report prepared by the Planning Division on the possibilities of obtaining non-local funding for the sewer project. The report concludes that there is little likelihood of obtaining other funding. While this possibility will be pursued, it should be clear that the City' s commitment to completing the sewer project will continue regardless of the funding source. I intend to contact the State Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission about the possibilities of state or federal funding in support of the sewer project. ��O Memo to City Council -2- February 15, 1978 In two weeks I expect to have a report for the Council considering the staffing requirements to complete the sewer design and a tentative financing plan to finance the project. Shortly thereafter I intend to have a community meeting to � present that ,information to the residents so that they will understand the nature of the city' s commitment to the sewer relief progr am. The first step toward implementation af the project will be approval of the attached resolutian and I respectfully request your favorable action. GL:lmp cc : Commissioner John Finley Commissioner Warren Schaber Representative Peggy Byrne Representative Thomas Osthof f Senator Peter Stumpf F rogtown Forum William Johnson Richard Wheeler � Kent Schoenberger Roy Bredahl Ken Dz.ugan Richard Schroeder at tac hmen ts � , .� � • " �`�ttT o.s�+4 CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� �� -•i;;;�.'N. AE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � o • ; �,•• �� Daniel).Dunford,Director 234 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 George Latimer Mayor 612-298-424t M E M O R A M D U M T0: George Latimer Mayor of the City of S�. Paul FROM: �''".":rRichard L. Wheeler ii � 4 Acting Director of Public Works DATE: February 14, 1978 SUBJECT: St. Anthony Hill Se�ver Relief System Study The Department of Public Works has reviewed the "St. Anthony Hill Sewer Relief System Study" prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. The Con- sultant was retained by the City of 5t. Paul to review the sewer system problems within the St. Anthony Hill area of the city and investigate various alternative - relief inethods. Ali of the alternatives considered as feasible by the Consultant utilize the design method of a separated storm and sanitary sewer system with storm water conveyed to the Mississippi River. It is our engineering judgment that of the four feasible alternatives presented in the study, only Alternative No. 3 - New storm sewer system with two tunnel outlets and Alternative No. - New storm sewer system with two tunnel outlets and new trunk sanitary sewer, should be considered by the City as possible solutions to the surface flooding and sewer backups in the St. Anthony Nill area. Alternative No. 4 is the relief inethod recommended by the Consultant. These two alternatives would correct the serious sewer capacity problems in the area and both would be compatible with accepted engineering design practices utilized in other areas of the City. Basically, the design and construction of either alternative would achieve the same results; the elimination of sewer backups in the area and a storm sewer system capable of receiving the surface runoff from a five-year storm. In addition, the two alternatives are essentially the same in total design and construction costs. ��� � Mayor George Latimer -2- February 14, 1978 The following construction staging and expenditures are based upon the cost in- formation contained in the study. Although the study did not detail construction staging or costs for Alternative No. 3, we have prepared a probable estimate based on the total cost presented in the study. Practical experience and relevant City funding information were used to determine the amount of construction that couid be expected yearly. , S Alternate No. 3 - New Storm Sewer System with Two Tunnel Outiets Construction Stage I St. Albans Storm Tunnel $ 3.5 - 4.0 Million C�nstruction Stage II St. Albans Open-Cut Storm Sewers $ 3.5 - 4.2 Million Construction Stage III Western Storm Tunnel $ 5.0 - 5.3 Million Construction Stage IV Western Open-Cut Storm Sewers $ 3•� - 3•5 Million TOTAL 15.� -17.0 Million Alternate No. 4 - New Storm Sewer System with Two Tunnel Outlets and New Trunk Sanitary Sewer Construction State I (a) Trunk Sanitary Sewer � Open-Cut Storm and Sanitary Sewers $ 4.2 Million � Construction Stage I (b) Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Open-Cut Storm and Sanitary Sewers $ 4.2 Million Construetion Stage II St. Albans Storm Tunnel and Trunk Storm Sewer $ 4.9 Million Construction Stage III Western Storm Tunnel $ 3.5 Million TOTAL � . Million In Alternative No. 3 - New storm sewer with two tunnel outlets, the construction of the St. Albars and blestern Storm Tunnels would have minimal , if any, effect on the area. The construction of the open-cut storm sewers in the street right-of-way would cause some disruption and inconvenience to the residents. However, storm sewer construction, due to the lesser depth of excavation, generally creates less disruption than sanitary sewer canstruction. The construction of Stage i and il of Alternative No. 3 at an expenditure of $$.2 Million, would accomplish the desired final results in over one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area. Therefore, a sizeable portion of the area would no longer have sewer backups and woutd have a storm sewer system capabie of receiving the runoff from a five-year storm. The combined sewer . . � Mayor George Latimer -3- February 14, 1978 . � system in the remaining one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area would have increased capacity due to the removal of the upstream storm runoff. The final two con- struction stages would completely solve the area's problems of under-capacity sewers. In Alternative No. 4 - New storm sewer with two tunnel outlets and new trunk sanitary sewer, the canstruction of the St. A16ans and smaller Western storm tunnels would have minimal , if any, effect on the area. It is our opinion tfiat considerable disruption of the area will occur due to the construction of the new trunk sanitary sewer and other sanitary sewers. It is difficult, without pretiminary design plans, to accurately determine to what extent this disruption would oecur. It is general knowledge, however, that the construction of sanitary sewers cause considerable more disruption than the construction of storm sewers, especially in an urban area. The deeper excavation depth necessary for sanitary sewers may cause serious conflicts with existing utilities such as gas, telephone, water, etc. in the street right-of-way. The wider trench width creates greater disturbance and more extensive replacement of street surfacing, curbing and boulevards. Alternative No. 4 would result in the disruption of approximately 15� more resi- dential streets than Alternative No. 3. The construction of new sanitary lines would require the interruption and reconnection of all house sanitary services along the new line. Utilization of certain existing combined sewers is planned under this alternative. The rehabilitation proposed for these combined sewers is to be to a level that will make the projected service life of these pipes equal to any new system con- structed. The majority of the sewer system within the St. Anthany Hill area is 50 to 90 years old and rehabilitatiort to the level of a new pipe may require the complete replacement of these pipes. Without a careful rehabilitation project, the planned continued surcharging of old sewers may result in serious maintenance problems. The construction of Stage 1 (a) and I (b) of Alternative No. 4 at an expenditure of $8.4 Million would, at its completion, eliminate sewer backups and combined sewage surface flooding in the area. However, surface flooding would still continue at about the same frequency and intensity experienced presently. Stage II would provide the desired final results of elimination of sewer backups and a storm sewer system capable of receiving the runoff from a five-year storm in approximately one-half of the St. Anthony Hill area. The final Stage II con- struction would conpletely solve the area's problem of under-capacity sewers. It has been suggested that a final benefit of the Consultant's recommended Alternative No. 4 is its potential for State and Federal funding as a replacement sanitary sewer. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's criteria for the deter- mination of project priority under which Alternative No. 4 would be evaluated is the same criteria used by the Agency when the City requested funding for the St. Atban's Storm Tunnel in 1974. It is extremely doubtful that Alternative No. 4 would receive a priority high enough to receive funding. _ _ .� . ' Mayor George Latimer -4- February 14, 1978 In conclusion, it may be necessary to perform further preliminary design analysis of the two alternatives in regard to the effect on utilities, tntensified Treat- ment Areas, major arterial or collector streets and possible future maintenance problems. This could further establish that one alternative or a combination of both may be the most cost effective and practical design method. As the prelimi- nary cost of Alternative No. 3 and the refined cost of Alternative No. 4 are approximately the same, it is recommended that the Department of Public Works be directed to initiate final design on a separated type sewer system for the St. Anthony Hiil area. Said design considerations to include further refinements of the Consultant's feasible Alternative Plo. 3, so as to determine the best soiution to meet the needs of both the City and the St. Anthony Hill residents. REB/ck � GTY OF SAINT PAUL INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 10, 1978 ' T0: Mayor George Latimer � FROM: James J. Bellus �7 RE: Thomas-Dale Sewer Funding Assignment � The Mayor's Office requested the Division of Planning to examine availability of funding for the Thomas-Dale Sewer Project from other than local sources. Ken Dzugan and Greg Haupt of the Division of Planning examined Metro Council policies, Minnesota Pollution Control palicies, relevant portions of Tit1e 40, Part 35 Code of Federal Re ulations (Clean Water Act and amendments) as well as portions of Public Law 95-217 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 197.7). In summary, the findings are not encouraging. Under present Metro Council , state and federal policies and laws, it is extremely unlikely that the City of Saint Paul could qualify for any type of assistance for eonstruction of - the sewer. The only current sources of federal funding for local sewage collection systems are the CDBG Rrogram and the Farmers' Home Administration (grants to cities of under 5,000 population). Findings 1 . Metro Couneil Metro Council policies on wastewater manage�nent are contained in the Develop- ment Guide chapter entitled Wastewater Management. Although the Guide does speak to the need for maintaining and replacing as necessary existing sewers in the Urban Service Area, the policies themselves pertain only to sewers and treatment plants owned by the Metropolitan Wastewater Control Commission (MWCC). Therefore, for example, policy 12A, which establishes priorities for metro sewer system capital investment, is applicable only to sewers ` owned by the MWCC. Policy 12A states that a Metro Council priority is: "Maintenance and replacement of the existing system when necessary to correct or avoid threats to health or public welfare or when necessary to sustain current levels of operating efficiency." While on the face of it this policy would appear to support Saint Paul 's proposed Thomas-Dale facility, the Metro Council intends this policy to be applicable orrly to capital investment within its jurisdiction, i.e. , facilities of the MWCC. The Metro Council does not provide funds for improvement of local collection systems. �"�O __ . _ _ . _ . �'. ' . Z. State and Federal State funds available for wastewater treatment facilities and sewers are provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These monies are allocated to the MPCA under provisions of the Clean Water Act Amend- ments of 1972. The purpose of the Act is to clean up the nation's waters, not to provide assistance to local governments which have a backlog of sewer projects. As a result, the Act states as first priority construction of wastewater treatment plants; as second priority, construction of intery ceptor sewers which replace obsolete treatment plants; as third priority, wastewater collection systems. Furthermore, the Act establishes that states have responsibility for developing a priority list of projects to be funded. Pursuant to the Aet the MPCA has issued guidelines on compliance with the Act. Its guidelines set four categories in order of priority. First priority is sewage treatment and related major interceptors, interceptors to eliminate inadequate sewage treatment facility or an irr�nediate health hazard. The second MPCA priority is for waste treatment works for munici- pal water treatment plants and power plants. Third priority under MPCA guidelines is interceptors, and fourth priority is sanitary sewer systems, sewer separation, etc. The MPCA funds all first priority projects before _ proceeding to second priority projects. Then it funds all second priority projects before proceeding to third priority, etc. As a matter of practice, the MPCA has yet to fund any fourth priority projects. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any such project would even be considered before the late Summer of 1979. This is because the joint MPCA-MWCC � Combined Sewer Overflow Study (CSO) (required: under provisions of the 1972 Act) will not be completed before that date, and I�PCA is not funding any sewer separation or sanitary sewer projects until the study is completed. The reason is that any separation or sanitary projects are required to be cost effective and without the CSO cost effectiveness cannot be determined. However, in December 1977 Congress passed Public Law 95-217, the Clean Water Act of 1977. While certain types of projects will be even less likely to receive funding under its provisions than under the 1972 Act, the new statute requires the administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to "submit to the Congress by October 1978 a report on the status of combined sewer overflow in municipal treatment works operations." It appears that Congress' intent is to determine the severity nationwide of combined sewer overflow problems, perhaps with the thought in mind of specifically addressing federal assistance to that need (Laws of 95th Congress-lst SESS. , 91 STAT. 1608). Nonetheless , the 1977 Clean Water Act as passed into law denies funding to projects of the Thomas-Dale type. In conclusion then, the present situation with �espect to state ar federal funding of the Thomas-Dale sewer project is bleak. Alternatives Available 1 . Despite the planning staff's interpretation of state and federal regulations and policies, the Mayor has the option of applying for MPCA assistance in � � + funding the Thomas-Dale Sewer Project as a test of the applicability of these regulations and policies in this instance. 2. In view of the study required of the EPA administration by Congress and in view of the local combined overflow study, the second alternative would be to defer a decision on the Thomas-Dale Sewer project until late 1979 when both the results of these two studies and congressional ' intentions are better known. • 3. The Mayor has the option, of course, of funding the project through 1oca1 sources and proceeding as soon as desirable. However, present Federal regulations are such that once construction is begun, no portion of the project could receive Federal assistance. 4. To get around this loss of reimbursibility problem and keep future options open, the project could be redesigned as several smaller projects, each independent of the others. Federal funding could be applied for later portions if changes in eligibility criteria are made by Congress after the EPA administrator makes his report and after the combined sewer over- flow study is complete. In this case the separate projects should be done with the least likely to be funded project first and the most likely to be funded last. This would require additional engineering work to separate projects. This could mean that the projects might not be done in the order which could provide the quickest relief to residents. Also, a legal determination would have to be made on whether or not the projects designed were "legally" separate. If future projects become eligible it could mean up to 90% state and federal funds for eligible projects. It is anticipated " that �85 to $90 million dollars of federal water pollution control funds will be available to Minnesota in each of the next five fiscal years.