Loading...
260395 WHI7E - CITV CLERK 1 ((('''��� ■/ypR■^' PINK � - FINANCE COl1C1C11 ��x H `y� '� BLUERY - MAYORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL File NO. S,�P`� . ' Gouncil esolution � Presented By a Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, The City of St. Paul during 1972 was billed by the Metropolitan Sewer Board for a volume of flow which included all surface water entering into the Treatment Plant through St. Paul 's combined system as well as all infiltration entering sewers owned by the Metropolitan Sewer Board but located within the City Limits and WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Sewer Act, Chapter 449, 1969 Session Laws provides for adjustments to be made to sewage volume for surface water and for other reasons, and WHEREAS, The City of St. Paul is being billed for infiltration into sewers owned by the Metropolitan Sewer Board, although the City's flow contribution is only a portion of the total flow, and WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Sewer Board in the past two years has not made proper adjustment for these flows, therefore, be it hereby RESOLVED, That the City of St. Paul , acting through its Mayor, appeal the City's 1972 and previous years Metropolitan Sewer Board Cost Ailocations as provided in Section 8, Subdivision 2 and Subdivision 8 of the Metropolitan Sewer Act, and be it - .. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Sewer Board adopt as adjustments to the City's volume the estimate calculated by the City of St. Paul and continue to use these estimates until more complete data has developed, and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be sent by the Mayor to all merr�ers of the Metropolitan Sewer Board. COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt � Pub 1 i c Works Konopatzki In Favor Levine Meredith J Against BY Sprafka Daniel J. Dunford Tedesco Mme.President Butler �F C 2 9 1972 Form Approve y City Att y Adopted by Council: Date Cert' ied sed by Co ary BY By App v by r: Date �i � 3 Appr v by fo io to Council By BY PUBUgHED JAN 6197 ,�lrrcv.....r�;r_:..,,..r ---�.".�....a..K.>. �;.*�, .,x'`.,� >...,:�.: .�__. . .. ._ ... .. . . . . , �. . .. � .� ._. _.. .- '-..�_.._.. ..,...... _�...�.-s=,.w-.r�.._.,.... ...... � � .� - �`������ � . � GITY OF SAINT PALTL d�� OFI�'IGE OF TH E 1�IAYOI� . I=�+LEe�1!lE6�T�9c Yx�..;�rykQl`.i.i�sta�. �Y'�?_?fl+li OI tl 411IT}M�' -0. J.:IHIZIi\(lI? n. �iOFIG-1 tit.�ro a � December 29, 1972 Mr. Milton Honsey Chairman Metropolitan Sewer Board 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Honsey: This letter constitutes an official appeal on the City �f St. Paul 's �971 and 1972 Sewer Service Cost Allocations. Qur appeal is based on the f'callowing two categories� Surface `�Jater and lnfiltration. 6 . StJRFA�E WATER (STORP� RUNOFF, STREAMFLOW, A�dD LriKE OVERFL04JS) Dur�ng 1972 and also 1y7j , St. Pau1 tras been billed for its total flow to the Metro Treatment Plant including both sanitary sewage and surface water. This is not in accordance with the Metropolitan Sewer Act (Chapter 449, 1969 Session Laws) . According to Section A, Subdivision 2, municipalities will be bitled in proportion to the total volume estimated to be discharg e d, but adjusted as follows: The total volume wilt be decreased by any amount of surface water estimated by the Board to be discharged by a local government unit from a combined storm and sanitary sewer system. This has not been done. To date St. Paul has been charged at the full treatment rate for its surface flow. The volume of storm runoff can be estimated by comparing dry weather and wet weather days using meter and rain data. The volume of streamflow and lake overflows can be estimated by using data compiled by the City and by making additional measurements. Furthermore, the same section of the Sewer Act provides that those municipalities which discharge surface water to a Metropolitan Treatment Plant will be bilted for such surface water based on an equivalent volume of sanitary sewage flow. This equivalent volume is to be determined by the Board from available engineerinq data. It is our position that the Sewer Act requires that the equivalent volume of sanitary sewage be estimated for surface flow and that an adjustment be made on this basis. Until an estimate is made by the Sewer Board, St. Paul should not be charged for such surface water, or alternativety, some interim equivalent should be adopted until the Board determines that engineering data is available. Although the City of St. Paul has done some studies on combined and storm water quality, the Act specifically places the responsibility for determining surface water equivalent on the Sewer Board. �` ' � _ _ y �• •_ Preliminary estimates made by the City during 1_97?_ indicate that storm runoff contributes an equivalent loading of approximately 27� of the normal loading at the Treatment Plant based on ratios of storm to dry weather flow for Bod, Suspended Solids and Total Coliform. Similar calculations for lakes and streamflow indicate an equivalent loading of just under 25%, Other studies initiated by the City shor�� that the City's storm water contribution to the treatment plant is approximately 3.3 MGD, while streams and lakes generate about 5.5 MGD. The City, therefore, feels that a reduction, determined by applying an interim equivalent factor of 25q to 27� to its surface water volume (8.8 MGD total) , is justified, until a more permanent value can be determined. II . INFILTRATION The City of St. Paul also is appealing its 1971 and 1972 Bill based on the fact that the City has been billed for all infiltration entering into all Metropolitan Sewers within the City Limits, with the excep�ion of the Joint Interceptor. The City feels that all arguments and foctors that went into determining the need for an infiltration quantity to be applied to the Joint Interceptor are also applicable to all other Metropolitan Sewe�-s within St. Paul . Historicaliy, St. Paul has been given a reduction for infiltration entering the Joint Interceptor within St. Paul , because St. Paul daes not own this sewer. Therefore, it was considered proper that St. Paul should pay no more than its share based on volume, for infiltration within the Joint Interceptor. This argument must also apply td all Metropolitan Interceptors within the City limits. Section 8, Subdivision 8 of the Metropolitan Sewer Act clearly provides for this type of an adjustment. When the Metropolitan Sewer Board purchased the jointly-used interceptors within the City Limits, they did not reimburse the City based on construction costs but rather at a gratly depreciated price which was supposedly reflectinn their age and conditian. Therefore, by taw, the Metropolitan Sewer Board owns and is responsible for these depreciated sewers and for their operation. The Sewer Board bought aged sewers at a lo�,rer pricF and, therefore, must accept the responsibility for the problems connected with aged sewers. This, of course, includes the higher infiltration rates that are to be expected as sewers age. The fact that St. Paul uses these Metropolitan Sewers as collectors , is no more relevant in the case of these sewers than it is in the case of the Joint Interceptor. We feel that whether they are used as a collector or not is immaterial since they are not City sewers; they are owned by the Metropolitan Sewer Board and used by several municipalities. Data concerning infiltration rates for these sewers can be estimated using studies and figures based on local data and engineering references. For example, some reports have shown that 24 inch pipe may experience an infiltra- tion rate of 4,000 to 36,000 gallons per mile per day. Other studies have indicated ranqes of f rom 1240 to 240,000 gallans per mile per day. Another study showed infiltration rates of up to 1 ,400,000 gal )ons per mile per day. Computations based on the infi )tration factor used for the Joint Interc�ptor indicates that its infiltration rate is approximately 170,000 gallons per mile per day. The Public Works Staff has made ealculat,ions on Metro olit P an '� ..- .. . . . .. .. . . .. . r � _ � ` • 3. Sewers within St. Paul , excluding the Joint Interceptor, which indicate that the infiltration from these sewers constitutes an additional volume of flow to the treatment plant of approximately 2,000,0�0 gallons per day. This figure was estinated by using the same factor per ineh mile per day that was used on the Joint Intercept�r. lde urge that this value (2 MGD) be adopted as an interim value until more detailed estimates can be made. !Je understand that American Pipe Services has been hired by the Board to nake a study of infiltration into the P•letropolitan Sewer System. lJhen their study has been completed, the data can be used to modify the interim estimate. However, we feel it would be unfair to make St. Paul wait until this study is completed. tt is the City's cont�ntion that both of these appeals are justified. The Sewer Act provides for such adjustments and our estimates support these appeals. tJe urge that these estimates be used until more complete data is devE�1 oped by the 6oa rd. Yaurs very trul awrence D. Cohen �layor of St. Paul DJ Ul P.P/gh cc: Members of t4etropolitan Sewer Soard a2- � ° `� � 5 January 2, 1973 Metropolitan Sewer Board 350 Metro Square Building � St. Paul, Minn. Gentlemen: Enclosed are copies of a resolution of the St. Paul City Council, C.F. 260395, wherein the City actin� through the Ma.yor appeals St. Paul's 1972 and previous year's Metropolitan Sewer Board cost allocations. Please distribute copies oP this resolution to all members of the Metropolitan Sewer Board. Very truly yours, City Clerk ABO:ml �� � � � � JanuaxY 2� 1973 A4ayor Lawrence D. Cohen Deax Sir: Attached is a copy of a resolution oP the Council, C.F. 260395, adopted December 29, 1972, pertaining to an Appeal to the Metropolitan Sewer Board on cost allocations. Very truly yours, City Clerk ABO:ml