Loading...
96-1017 , , , . � � ?"��,� � � E � ' �� Council File # � �O ���� � , ESOLUTION Green sheet # ��i�� CITY PAUL, MINNESOTA �3 Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 1 W��►S�The Mayor pursuant to Section 10.07.1 of the Charter of the City of Saint Paul,does certify that 2 there are available for appropriation total revenues in excess of those estimated in the 1995 budget;and 3 4 W���Council File 277510, dated October 1, 1981, did establish certain Special Fund Policies;and 5 6 W�REA�Council�le 281141, dated November 10, 1983,did establish that Sewer Availability Charge 7 (SAC) revenue in excess of expenses should be used for sewer construction projects; and 8 9 W�REA� SAC revenues in excess of expenses were received in 1993, 1994 and 1995;and 10 11 W HERF.�►$ Additional spending authority is required to transfer this amount to the Capital Projects Fund; 12 and 13 14 W�REA�The Mayor recommends that the following additions be made to the 1996 budget: 15 16 FinancinP Plan Current Bud�et Chanee 13evised Budget 17 260 Sewer Service Enterprise Fund 18 22209 SAC Program 19 9910 Unreserved Retained Earnings $0 $800,689 $800,689 20 All other Financing the Same �;41.550.070 $Q $41,550,070 21 Total Financing Plan $41,550,070 $800,689 $42,350,759 � 23 Spending Plan Current Bud�et Chanee Revised Bud�et 2� 260 Sewer Service Enterprise Fund 25 22217-0565 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $1,247,930 $800,689 $2,048,619 26 All other Spending the Same $40,302�140 $Q �40.302,140 27 Total Spending Plan $41,550,070 $800,689 $42,350,759 � 29 Now,therefore,be it RESOLVEq That the City Council adopts the above additions to the 1996 budge�: � ��31 ,.�,� � � Yeas Nays Absent Requested by Department of: Blakey �— BQStrom r��Pr�� Pub1iC WOrkS Harris ,j�qa rr3 �� Rettman � �G / _ Thune By: r '�•���� Adopted by Council: Date ��' olq Form App ed by City torney Adoption Certified by Council Secretary " By: By: ` Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved By Mayor: Date � (�r Council sy: ��(L � � / u`- l� By: ��N��►,� 32133��i'7 �` �,��� ,�ig� GRE�N SHE T No. qd1T TE NRIAUDAT CONTACT PER80N 6 PMONE DEPAR'ILAENT D � CITY WUNCq. Jce M�ller,266-6149 �� mr�rroa�r � cmr c�ac MUST 8E ON COUI�IL NDA BY(DAT'� � �BUIXiET DIRE �g FNrANCE ACCOUNTWO '�J MAYOR(�R A3318 Q Adhdqt Mwp�r 1 /g TOTAL�OF SIGNATURE PAGL'S � tcuP nu�ocnnoNS r��w►nr�l QseNba M6a���''�T"�E� �ra��cuES�o Approve Re�lution transfexring excess Sewer Availability Charge(SAC7 revenues to the 1996 Capital Projects Fund(C96)for sevv�r repair c�nstruction. �EHD�7i0HS�v►�+UU a�lRl PERSOMAL BERVK�CONTRACTS MtJ3�AIV�IIrER THE FOI.L�pYIBI�� _PLANNN�Ki COMMISSION_CIVIL 86RVICE COMMISSION �. Hes u,ts per�m�aver worked under a oar�acx'�r u�a de�,enrt A$a�`�m� = 2. �,n� �����n�sary�,�� AUG 14 ��" _o�4Ta�7 cow�c�L _ s. Does chia peraoNflrm poasess a sk�not nom�ly poaees+ed by c�,rr�c ary employee? su�oRrswHwwcaunrc�.oe,�cnvE� vES No �AYOR'S OF��CE Explain all yas answ�n on pp�nb�hwt and attach to gnm shwt INITIATMKi PROBLEM.ISSUE.OPPORTUNiTY(WHO.WHAT.WFIEN.WHERE,WH�: Since the 1996 Budget was adoptad,additi�al spending need.c have arisen.This praposal is in accordance with Council File 281141,adapted November 10,1983,which states that SAC revenues in excess of SAC expenses should be used for sewer construction projects. Funding is needed for additianal sewer repair ProJects to be car►pleted in 1996. These projects are Bridal Vail Creek($100,00Q); Howe11/Montreal($165,SOQ);KellogglS�Pet,er(�40,U00);Ashland/Syn�cate and Meadota(585,000);Irvine($60,000);Atlantic($40,000), and Princewn Shaft($277,588.23). ADVANTA(iES IF APPROVED: Excess Sewer Availability Chazge(SAC�receipts will be able w be used for sewer construction in accordance with City Council direction. The transfer of remaining SAC cash can be accomplished within the 1996 City Council adopted budge,t. o�snovarrnc�s��wPnaovEO: �� None. �`rOiYtldl Rese�mCh C�F1U�' AUG � 4 1996 AUu 15 1996 C�� ��� .._____—� __� __�... �.�a RN�y DISAOVANTMiE3 IF NOT APPROVED: The identified sewer projects will eitl�noE be constructed or wiIl be defe�red. It will be more di�icult to comply with the intent of Council Fik 281141 because the fimds will not be spxifically identified in the Sewer Ut�ity Fund. �.. - / �R�`� TOTALAMOl�1TOFTRANSACf10N= RO(Z,6R9 .l�ST/REVENt�BUDQETED(dRCLEONE) YE8 Mo ���gp�p� 260-22209-9410 ACTIVITY NUMBER Spendin8 ir► 22217-0565 FINANCW.N�FORMATION:(EXPLAII� . ��^ Io'� Interdepartmental Memorandum CTTY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO: Bruce Beese FROM: Joe Mueller DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: SAC Funding Transfer to Capital Projects The following is a list of additional repair projects including cost estimates that the SAC transfer will be used to finance. Bridal Vail Creek $100,000.00 Original estimates for this project were $100,000.00 and that amount of money was funded. It now appears that the City's share will be $200,000.00; therefore, additional funding is necessary. This project is a combined effort with Saint Paul. Minneapolis and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as participants. The project would reestablish drainage from the northwestern part of Saint Paul to Bridal Vail Creek in Minneapolis. The existing drainage system is a ditch section that has silted in and no longer functions adequately. To compound the problem, the ditch section flows through contaminated soil and some of the contaminants are transmitted to the water as it flows through the ditch. The new system will provide a piping system to convey the stormwater through the contaminated site. The agreement between the EPA, Minneapolis and Saint Paul is that the EPA pay all material costs and Minneapolis and Saint Paul �hare equally the labor costs. Howell / Montreal $165,500.00 This was a 1995 CSSP project. Initially, there was over $500,000.00 in repairs identified. The 1995 Major Sewer Repair Fund had only $345,000.00 remaining. This will cover the funding of the 3dditional repair work that has been completed. Kellogg /St. Peter $40,000.00 While constructing the 7th / Cedar CSSP, the contractor discovered the following areas that needed immediate repairs: • The sanitary sewer on Cedar between 9th and 10th was severely cracked and needed to be replaced. This was actually discovered during sewer maintenance television inspection that was completed after the contract was awarded. . . � . . I . Bruce Beese � �O-' �d 7 July 2, 1996 Page: 2 • The lower 6' to 8' of brick lining of the shaft located at Kellogg and St. Peter had blown out with the brick laying in the bottom of the shaft and sandstone exposed in the lower portion of the shaft. • In the same shaft approximately 30' from the surface, there is a large void adjacent to the shaft. The void is located in an area where a drill hole and drift used to enter the shaft. Ashland / Syndicate and Mendota $85,000.00 These are two locations that sewer maintenance identified, during routine maintenance work, as sanitary connections to sewers that once were combined but now are storm only. They were reported to MPCA as required and we indicated we would reconnect them to a sanitary sewer. Irvine $60,000.00 This was a 1995 - 96 CSSP project. N inspections done in 1986 indicated existing sewers were in fair condition. Once CSSP construction began and the sewers were exposed, further detailed inspection of these existing sewers revealed cracked and broken pipe in several areas. We had the sewers TV'd again and replaced areas of cracked or broken pipe. Bi(�ptj� $40,000.00 This project is not a sewer repair project but relates to a petition for new sanitary and storm sewers. Costs for these types of projects are typically assessed against benefited properties. If a project has assessable property but the property receives no benefit, a portion of the project is funded with city aid. In most cases, this city aid is in the form of Public Improvement Aid (PIA). Because we received several petitions during 1996, the PIA fund, which is used primarily for sidewalk construction,has been used up. We plan to use sewer service fund money on this project to provide for the appropriate city aid. Princeton Shaft $277,588.23 While checking diversion structures the week of May 20th, Inflow and Infiltration personnel ide�tified severe erosion problems with the Princeton shaft (located at Princeton and Mississippi River Boulevard). We have been aware of erosion problems at this shaft in the past and have identified it as in need of repair or replacement for some time. Larry �ueth, Con�truction Engineer, and Joe Mueller, Sewer Design Engineer, scheduled a more detailed inspection of the shaft on May 22nd, 1996. This is the first time we have been able to inspect the shaft from the surface to the bottom. This was possible due to the recent construction of an access manhole directly over the shaft. In the past, the only inspection that could be done was by an offset manhole. The inspection identified a large void in the radius portion of the shaft. The brick lining was . . • . , .. . - - Bruce Beese � �, - � b r� July 2, 1996 Page 3 missing in this portion and it appears that a large void back underneath the radius has been created. This area was investigated and was found to be in a stable condition.. Further down the shaft where the water would hit the opposite side of the shaft� there was another significant void. This void was created in what appears to be the Decorah Shale formation. While this formation should not be considered solid rock, it does offer limited stability for short periods of time. Still further down the shaft there were unlined areas that appeared to be eroded. At the bottom of the shaft the granite block invert was intact but the sides were blown out and the exposed sandrock and glenwood shale was eroded away to the point there was a significant void at the bottom of the shaft. The bottom of the shaft is different than most of our stormwater dropshafts in that is was a 90 degree sweep to the outlet instead of a large chamber. It appeared that as the sweep entered the outlet there was considerable loss of diameter between the downward shaft and the outlet. It also appeared that this constriction may be causing considerable turbulence up in the shaft area and may have caused the void area in the bottom of and in the shaft itself. The outlet to the river was also inspected. From previous inspection reports of river outlets, we knew there were erosion problems at the river. The outlet was brick lined from the invert to springline and was in good condition unti150 feet from the river. At this point, the invert was eroded under where the lining had been. The sandrock erosion got progressively worse as you followed the outlet to the river. At about 30 feet from the river you could no longer see sandrock but only the river. After discussion, it was determined that while the shaft and outlet were eroded that it would probably remain stable until the fall. Repairs and/or a new shaft and outlet would have to be done this fall and winter. This would be a better time to do the work because the existing flows would be low and easier to handle. Presently, we are trying to determine whether the existing shaft can be salvaged and repaired or whether a new shaft should be constructed. In either case, we will utilize the existing outlet and repair it. Regardless of what we do with the shaft (repair or new) the cost will be about the same. A similar structure on Bates/McLean cost $700,000 and adding the cost of repairing the outlet, relining the outlet with RCP and constructing new RCP on the surface to the shaft, the estimate is $1,000,000. The following funding is b�ing requested: $277,588.23 from the SAC monies; $722,411.77 from the Annual Major Sewer Repair Fund. TOTAL $800,688.23