Loading...
257373 � y ORIGINAL TO CITY CLCRK iJ�--YI�� CITY OF ST. PAUL couNCa fd e� z • . . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK F��E NO. CO CIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM PR�ENTED Bl' COMMISSIONE ATF . . � . . . ,�v9 WHEREAS, The Minnesota Poilution Control Agency held a pubiic hearing on Chapter 34 WPC 34 in the State Office Building on February 4,. 1972; and WHEREAS, The Chief Engineer of the City of St. Paut presented a statement at that hearing on behalf of the Public Works Department which is attached to this resolution which statement is agreed to by the St. Paul City Council ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of St. Paul approves this statement presented by the Chi�f Engineer of ���"' the City of St. Paul at the hearing on the proposed :Chapter -34 WPC 34 on February 4, 1972. � _ .� �.._ - - ..nv... „''.ct ._ .......r ..� � � ' FEB 10 1972 4 COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Councii 19— Yeas Naya Butler ppro F E g 1 1 197219` .�Ctarls�� Lr�-�..�--�_ � Levine Tn Favor Meredith � , Sprafka J Mayor��:,� ��� A gainat Mr. President, McCarty PUBLISHE FEB 919�2 �� �\TY p . a4 °o w � ��y, O � ,� �9 � ' e m � n �.. RICHARD A. SCHNARR C i T Y O F S A I N T P A U L GARY R. NORSTREM Chief Engineer . . Deputy Commissioner Capital of Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 234 City Hall & Court House 55102 !� �%`�`"��� i+ �' �? ROGER M. CONWAY Commissioner February 10, 1972 To the Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council St. Paul , Minnesota Gentlemen and Madam: On February 4, 1972, the undersigned became aware of a hearing on the rules for the administration of the Municipal Facilities Assis- tance Program and the Minnesota State Water Pollution Control Fund at the State Office Building, this hearing being held by the State of Minnesota Pollution Contro) Agency. Because of the timited time available for action by the Council , the attached statement was made on behalf of the St. Pau1 Public Works Department. It is our feeling that the statement would have more effect if it were approved by the entire City Council . We would, therefore, request the Council to approve the statement delivered at the hearing on February 4, 1972, which is attached to this letter. y u rs, c ar A. Schnarr Chief Engineer RAS:If att. 55 . ,�^ . - � � 57ATE"IENT BY: ����`�� t-� t RtCHARD A. SCNNARR, CHIEF ENGINEER JEPARTP1ENT CF PUBL I C WGRY.S CITY OF ST. PAU! PRESENTED AT A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED Ar1ENDMENTS OF CHAPTER >4, WPC 34 ON FEBRUARY 4, 1972. I want to thank the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for giving the St. Paul Public Works Department an opportunity to be heard at this hearing. The proposed Chapter 34 WPC 34 will have a tremendous impact on the Water Pollution Abatement Program for the City of St. Paut as well as on the 4later Pollution Abatement programs for the metropolitan area and the entire State of Minnesota. The City of St. Paul is under a jo'int federal and state conference recommendation to complete a Water Pollution Abatement program by 1979. This program will cost a minimum of $89,000,000 and could run as high as $375,000,000 depending �upon the abatement method that the city is permitted to use. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently requesting that the ctty sign a stipulation providing that the city complete the abatement program by 1g7g as provided above. In addition to these expenditures which, incidentally, do not include most of the local sewer construction required to alleviate under-capacity sewer construction in residential areas, St. Paul still faces the other problems shared by large cities such as housing, transportation, crime, air pollution and inadequate educational facilities. These problems also have very expensive solutions. Further to the multi-miltion dollar expenditure for water pollution abatement tF�at St. Paul must make on its own must be added St. Paul 's share of the Netro- poiitan Sewer Board's pollution abatement program and operating budget. For 1972 alone, St. Paul 's share came to $5,500,000 after reduction by the credits for buy-back of facilities. Even with the 85 to g0°/, state aid these expenditures � will be difficult to finance because of their magnitude. We, therefore, make the following comments concerning WPC 34: • (1) We agree with the specific requirement that all grants-in-aid be divided between the metropolitan area and the out-state areas on the basis of sewered population. (2) We agree that the Metropolttan Counci ) and its Sewer Board should determine objective criteria for determining priorities for grants in the metropolitan area. The criteria, of course, shou}d be sub- ject ta input by the various municipalities in the metropolitan area and to hearings and subsequent publication. (3) We urge the elimination of all provisions requiring the payback of unused grant monies which have been or will be reallocated to the metropolitan area. It is a known fact that grant monies from the federal government ar� irretrievably lost if not used within - the year that they are funded. The metropolitan area has a great , , , _ . � . �2 � „ . . . � � many problems, and it cannot be expected to function as a "5ank" for quaranteeine federal grants in future years to outstate communities �f �o are appaPently unprepared or unwilling to solve their pollution problems within any year in the same manner that the metropolitan communities are being required to do so by the Pollution Controt Agency. (4) A phrase used in tlie Chapter, "Ptio discharge of effluent" should be carefully reviewed. Even the unrealisitc legislation now pending in Washington is not that extreme; it has a goal of zero discharge of pollutants by 1985. The intent of the MPCA requirement of no discharge of effluent is not clear. St. Paul and other communities within the metropolifian area need all the heip they can get in order to provide for the pollution abatement being required by the state and federal governments and no administrative rules hindering an effective water pollution control program should be passed. I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to be heard. Richar N. Sc narr� . � �.��-��. STATEMENT BY: � d�"� �� RICHARD A. SCHNARR, CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF ST, PAUL PRESENTED AT A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF CHAPTER ;4, WPC 34 ON FEBRUARY 4, 1972. I want to thank the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for giving the St. Paul Pubiic Works Department an opportunity to be heard at this hearing. The proposed Chapter 34 WPC 34 will have a tremendous impact on the Water Pollution Abatement Program for the City of St. Paul as well as on the Water Poltution Abatement programs for the metropolitan area and the entire State of Minnesota. The City of St, Paul is under a joint federal and state conference recommendation to complete a Water Pollution Abatement program by 1979. This program will cost a minimum of $89,000,000 and could run as high as $375,000,000 depending upon the abatement method that the city is permitted to use. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently requesting that the city sign a stipulation providing that the city complete the abatement program by t979 as provided above. In addition to these expenditures which, incidentally, do not include most of the local sewer construction required to alleviate under-capacity sewer construction in residential areas, St. Paul still faces the other problems shared by large cities such as housing, transportation, crime, air pollution and inadequate educational facilities. These problems also have very expensive solutions. Further to the multi-million dollar expenditure for water pollution abatement that St. Paul must make on its own must be added St. Paul 's share of the Metro- politan Sewer Board's pollution abatement program and operating budget. For 1972 alone, St. Paul 's share came to $5,500,000 after reduction by the credits for buy-back of facilities. Even with the 85 to 90% state aid these expenditures will be difficult to finance because of their magnitude. We, therefore, make the following comments concerning WPC 3�+: (1) We agree with the specific requirement that all grants-in-aid be divided between the metropolitan area and the out-state areas on the basis of sewered population. (2) We agree that the Metropolitan Council and its Sewer Board should deterrnine objective criteria for determining priorities for grants in the metropolitan area. The criteria, of course, should be sub- ject to input by the various municipalities in the metropolitan area and to hearings and subsequent publication. (3) We urge the elimination of all provisions requiring the payback of unused grant monies which have been or will be reallocated to the metropolitan area. It is a known fact that grant monies from the federal government are irretrievably lost if not used within the year that they are funded, The metropotitan area has a great f .. , .. #2 1 • • . many problems, and it cannot be expected to function as a "bank" for guaranteeing federai grants in future years to outstate corr�nunities who are apparently unprepared or unwilting to solve their pollution problems within any year in the same manner that the metropolitan communities are being required to do so by the Pollution Control Agency. (4) A phrase used in the Chapter, "No discharge of effluent" should be carefully reviewed. Even the unrealisitc tegislation now pending in Washington is not that extreme; it has a goal of zero discharge of poltutants by 1985. The intent of the MPCA requirement of no discharge of effluent is not clear. St. Pau1 and other communities within the metropolitan area need all the heip they can get in order to provide for the pollution abatement being required by the state and federal governments and no administrative rules hindering an effective water pollution control program should be passed. I want to thank you again for giving me the opportunity to be heard, Richar . Sc narr o��,�,n,��� 25'73`73 . CITY OF ST. PAUL F�uNCa NO ' � , , V OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM PRC3ENTED!Y COMMISSIONER DAT� �, Thr Nin�sota h,t lntion Contrel A�r�► h�t� a prbl te hNrt�g on Chapt�� 3h MK 3�► �uu tM ftat� Ofti� Wt1�t� on F�Y'uarY M. 197�f �md MItREAi, Th� Cht�f E�t� of th� Ct ty ot �t. hul 'nsMt� � stat�nt at that t�w�ta� a� b�if ot tM �►11e 1b�ics O�p�rtw�nt whtah f: attach�� ri this nsolutien Nl+i�h stat�wrnt is a�n�d to br tlN tt. Paui Cttr Cou�il i IIOM. YMERfF01tE, �E IT �E�LVEO. Thit th� CoueMei 1 of tM Ci ty of ft. r+wi a�ows this stat�at 'nantw br tM Chl�f EMi�ar of tla C1 ty of it. �rl at th� I+M�i n� o� th� Pr�p�rl qwpt�� �► M►C 3�► on I��brwry 4, i 974. F�Eg 10 '�r� COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Co��cil 19—. Yeas Nays Butler F EB 11 1972 �� Approv� 19� Levine - n Favor Meredith �� Sprafka a _ A aainat 'PC�'dESCQ' Mr. Preaident, McCarty ��