The URL can be used to link to this page

255164 OR(61NAL TO CITY CL6RK _ i CITY OF ST. PAUL FoENCi� N � OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 4 COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM � PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONE DAT WHEREA the Metropolitan Sewer Board, in approving its 1972 budget, is considering alternative methods of allocati�.g costs to municipalities ; and WHEREAS, each of the proposed methods of allocation differ substantially in cost to the City of Saint Paul and seem to result in an inequitable application of the Metropolitan Sewer Act; and WBE REAS, all proposed plans are unacceptable to the Council of the City of Saint Paul for the above mentioned reasons, � Now, Therefore, be it RESOLVED� that the Metropolitan. Sewer Board form and implement a more equitable plan in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Metropolitan Sewer Act, but that if such plan is not fo rthcoming, the Board be urged to use the method outlined in Plan A. as its cost allocation method for 19'72; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED! that the Metropolitan Sewer Boa�rd ,_.___....�_. -.�. -�b� further urged to undertake the following : ' N 1) Begin studies on cost allocation proposals for � 1973 to include : 0 U � � a) detailed fiscal analysis of communities � ° requesting reduced payments due to finan- � n cial hardship. Q �ci b) establishment of a guideline as to what z �% constitutes a metropolitan. benefit be�ore ,.�j C' Q any are deelared. -� 2) Immediately initiate a sewer connection charge COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Counci� 19—. Yeas Nays Butler Carlson Approve� 19` Levine _In Favor Meredith Mayor Sprafka A gainst Tedesco ` , � � Mr. President, McCarty �� ORICINAL TO CITY CL6RK _ �, ; , CITY OF ST. PAUL FCOE NCIL N . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK � COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM � PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONEQ DATF Page 2. requirement against each new building start in communities utilizing deferred payments . These payments should be of sufficient amount to repay the deferred portion of the communi- ties bill during the current year. 3) .Analyze the effect of service area boundary changes and provide municipalities with the results . and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Sewer Board before their August 4, 1971 meeting . � � L' � O Q � liJ �� O rJ � r'`- O rL Q �.. O � U ` +' ' � L �n O Q ,i AU G 3 19�� A o oun i 19 1 COUNCILMEN d pted by the C c � Yeas Nays Butler � 1�' Carlson Levine Favor i�iwe�i�bh Sprafka - gainst Tedesco AV s Mr. President, McCarty �UBLISHED �� r - . _ ` i a . .o�„T�,�� 2551s4 a CITY OF ST. PAUL �uNCa NO • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM .. � �� COMMISSIONE� DA� � i i 'K��AS, ths Metropolitan SeMSr Hosrd, in appra�ing ! its i97Q 1sud6et* i• oonsiderins aiternsti ve atethods o! slloo��ins oosts to aunioipalities; snd �; i WB$BEAS, eaob oi .the propo�ed �ethods oi allooation i di�ier substaattallq ia co�t to the City oi Saint Paul j and �e�� to rssuit in an inequ�tabl• apglioation oi the i Metropolitsn 3eNer Aot; and i i�BEAS, all proposed plan� er� unaoaeptable to ths Counoil of the City oi Saint Paul ior th� above oontioned � reaoons, Nox, Theroiora, be it BE34LVED, that tbe Metropolitan SeMer Board tors and itpleoeat e oore equitable pla�n in a000rdanoe with the teror aard proviaions ot the Metropoli�en 3ewer Aot� but that !i suoh plan is not iorthoo�iag, tbe Board be urged to use tbe �ethod outlined in Plan A� �s its oost allo�ation sethod !or 19?8; aud be it fr ;.. FQRT�R RES�LVED, that th• Metropolitan Se�rsr Board be lurther urgod to w�dertake the iollowiag= i) Hegin •tudies on co�t allooation progosals tor i973 to invlude: s) detailed fiseal aaaly+rie of ocmtuaities requerting red�oed pay�nta dua to iinsn- oial hardsbip. b) aetablishment of a suideliae a� to tt4at oonetitutes a vstropolitea beneiit �sYore anq are deoiarsd. S) Iorediat�ly initiats s �eMer conn�o�iaa oharse COUNCII�EN Adopted by the Counc;� 19_ Yeae Naya Butler ��.�n Apprnv� 19� Levine Tn FBVOr lf�eredith Sprafka �� A��t . Tedesco Mr. President, McCarty � � i. DUFClCAT!TO lRIN7�1t �� '. . �t CITY OF ST. PAUL ��N�« No. �' • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOWTION—GENERAL FORM ��.� COMMISSIONEe DAM � i P8�6 �• � riquireaeat saal�ut esoh a�M buildins �tart , � 3n oo�nnities ntilisin� dei�rrad psyMat�. � �ese payRent• �hould De ot s�tliio�eat �aowst � to re pay the de isrred p4rti an o! tlro oo�a�si- tie� bill dqrins thi vurrent qear. 3 j Ansly�e tes eit�ot of ��rrlo• wren bouadas«y � ohea�s. and prorrid. �nioipsl#ti�a �ri.th ih• � r�snll�� { u;d b�► it - FIKALLY S�SOL4ED� tbat s oopy ot thir ra�oln�ioa b� sent to tha Metropolitaa� 8ewr Bc►ard betore th�ir Aqsas t k, l971 aseting. � I I I I , i � � AU G 3197� � COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Co�mc31 19— � ; Yeas Nays � } But�er AUG 41971% 1 Carlson Approved 19� ; t �°�e Tr Favor � 1 .��a�n—• � �� Sprafka A gA1118t Tedesco Mr. President, McCarty �� QYADRUlLICATR TO DQARTM6NT � � �Jy / � CITY OF ST. PAUL FOE NCIL NO . � t OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOLUTION--GENERAL FORM PRESENTED 6Y Roqe r M. Conw�ry COMMISSIONEQ DATE �� r �� r 1� �� il�� ; t�► t� ��r�l t�1��o�srrl is �ra�sii�rl� s1R�t�q �t �' fAll�. � o� tMNIS � a�!'" �I ta�atl� �t�l�ar �t�ri#� �s Mt1� �o► 'tM� ttt�► � � /�wl, � I�LR 1A IIII�� !I►� a1��It1M ��MI� 111M�M1 � MIM� �11 1MR �1�11�11 �li ��i 1 +�w► �r1" th� I�tno�rot t!� � �R. a�/ M�I�* «Iql , so iM►)tlld tlllu "�Al"'* i11MMr M t4� !A ��#1, Z• 1r , +��+�rwr� rr��h d►� . tMsr+s��n i� i t AQi�'0 'fA� tJ� #11�� r+� � wr�MM R+s t�w �i� it�r �rti�nrl +�rR11�i �s '�tarr A' +�s as� ,�i��rk�a� �R�! �Mr il7�2. aui 1! liMrtl�r' i��.11�R� Ylrt dw Mrt t I�u �rwr loraN tr� � �+i �rR�r tlrr 1'at ier{�a � t j lr�tN ,r�ilrr a� w�t ��earit�o� �!s fi� 1�'?'! ar t�t � � �� +iw�i t�i t��ri �► t� �r!" e��r!lt�s �"'MI��1� � � ir �rr► 11�1ai MN. M� �M!!#M�� rt i �rl 1iIwM �I1 R�II r11wR MIrM1�Ei� IM !�!1M �rt1� Mh�r �r +�trM l�rr,�t. , *� f�rNllaR+rtY 1wt�� t r�w' !�r dr�r rw�rir�rrr�rr�t �N M�IM iqir iw�fii � start 1� a�rre��1�► �i i�#� � �.� Mwr#�� arf Nrl'!'t+�1� a�rr�t r� l�rr iNhn'wi �eti� al' �! #i� i�i 1� �ii� tlwr �+ewrE �r. _� �.��ur aMr .� .�' �.r�►1�► �r +w.�yrr. .rw r�+r�rrr. .rr� ��.��t��rs �rltM 'tlr rwwiis. 1!lNi.Mll. 'll�i� r ar�qr �t tAis �rira►l�tiar M !r �r M�R�ra�/r11� Mr�N Mh�w 'Ewl�iw A�t �, 1�}'t w�#�. COUNCILMEN Adop d by the Counci 19— Yeas Naya " Butler , �n ii�l�r AAP�o� �9— Levine T*+ Favor Meredith ' Sprafka ��r Tedesco ABainst Mr. President, McCarty �� r � �1TY QO . ti,s` a'�i i y �� ,^C r�• 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 Mmnesota DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 234 City Hall d� Court House 55102 ROGER M. CONWAY Commissioner August 2, 1971 Honorable Charles P. McCarty, Mayor and Members of the City Council Gentlemen and Madam: 1 am hereby resubmitting a resolution and letter concerning cost allocation methods for the Metropolitan Sewer Board's 1972 budget. The facts concerning the various methods and their affect on St. Paul remain as described in the letter submitted by the Chief Engineer on July 23, 1971 . I strongly u�ge adoptio� of this resolution, and its presentation to the Metropolitan Sewer Board at its final budget meeting on Wednesday, 12:00 P.M. , August 4, 1971 . This will make St. Paul 's position on the presently considered cost allocation methods clear, and accomplish the immediate goal of discouraging new interpretations of the 1969 Metropolitan Sewer Act. Additional carxnents against the cost allocation methods or against the Sewer Act itself could appropriately be made by interested City officials at this August 4 meeting. Yours very tr ly, oger M. Conway Cortanissioner of Public Works RMC/DJD/TJE/ls O �ITY q� r /'��' i . 'L 4 .1 �ay.:ri�y^C . • ► RICHARD A. SCHNARR C I T Y �./ F S A I N � P A U L , GARY R. NORSTREM Chief Engineer . Deputy Commissioner Capifal of Minnesota DEPARYNIENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 234 Cify HaA & Court House 55102 ROGER M. CONWAY Commissioner August 2, 1971 Nonorabte Charles P. McCarty, Mayor and t4embers of the City Council Gentlemen and Madam: 1 arn hereby resubmitting a resolution and letter concerning cost allocation methods for the Metropolitan Sewer Board's 1972 budget. The facts concerning the various methods and their affect on St. Paul remain as described in the letter submitted by the Chief Engiri�er on July 23, 1971 . I strongly urge adoption of this resolution, and its presentation to the Metropolitan Sewer Board at its final budget meeting on Wednesday, 12:00 P.M. , August 4, )971 . This will make St. Paul 's position on the presently considered cost allocation methods clear, and accomplish the imme�iate goal of discouraging new interpretations of the 196q tletropolitan Sewer Act. Additional comments against the cast aliocation methods or against the Sewer Act itself could appropriately be made by interested City officials at this August 4 meeting. Yours very tr ly, r �' �� ti , �,�toger M+. Conway Commissior�er of Pubiic Works RMCIDJD/TJE/ls ��}��a� OR161NAL 70 CITY CLBRK � . • CITY OF ST. P�4UL HLE NCIt NO. � � OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK � COUNCiL RESOLUTI4N-GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY Roge r M. Conway COMMISSIONEa n,,TF WHEREAS, 7he Metropolitan Sewer Board must approve its 1972 budget, and WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Sewer Board is considering atternate methods of allocating costs to municipalities and WHEREAS, Each of these methods of ailocation differ substantially in cost to the City of St. Paul , and �, WNEREAS, Certain methods of allocation seem inequitable and do not follow the strict interpretation of the Metropolitan Sewer Act, and WHEREAS, One method, so called Plan "A", used as the method in 1971 , is in accordance with the Act, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the h1etropolitan Sewer Board be urged to cantinue using the method outlined as 'Plan A' as its cost allocation method for 1972, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Sewer Board be further u�ged to undertake the following: 1) Begin studies on cost allocation proposals for 1973 to include: a) detailed fiscal analysis of communities requesfiing reduced payments due to financial hardship. b) estabiishment of a guideline as to what constitutes a metropolitan benefit befar� any are declared. 2) Immediately initiate a sewer connection charge requirement against each new building; start in communities utilizing deferred payments. 7hese payments should be of sufficient amount to repay the deferred portion of the communi- ties bili during the current year. 3) Rnatyze the effect of service area boundary changes and provide municipalities with the results. RESOIVED, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Sewer Board before their August 4, 1971 meeting. COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19— Yeas Naya Butler k�t�Ql� Conway Approve� 19— Levine �n Favor Meredith Sprafka Mayor Tedesco A gainst Mr. President, McCarty �� .., � CtTr ,,� r`' F •'�\ , � -:''J •�.� . ; �-.`;.� + � � n �f A f�ICHARO R. SCHNARR G � � i �f � ,7 /''°i � �� P � � L GARY R. NOf2ST�FM Chicf Engineer . Deputy Comr.iissioncr Cid(31�'8� a� �S�i iG5f�1�1 [J�a�`Ji`[��K:�LU� �t t_C.�l�r��ia Cr7Qi'�h� 234 City Heli & Court Huu.e 551D2 ROGER M. CONWAY Commissioner ,July 23, i971 Hanor2:�ie Cha*Ies P. McCarty, Mayor �Rd i�!��b_�� f G i tY Coun�i 1 Rc�� 3%}7, C i ty Ho 1 t Re: Pletroaol i tan �ewer Boarci cost all�catian of 19;2 audget Gerit !er��n and i#a�a^�: . i��: tr��►:;c;;oiitrn �c�:er £o3rd is cc,nsiwerir�y !ts fy%2 �ad��;. =.�;�i�n + t �tar,s cr r:de�tir., �i4;�:r t�:e�n�sday, auly 28Lh. ! am asking the C:�ur.�i 1 to r:�ane a r�tc��:^�..r.c'�tic�r: todGy c�ncern;na this. Th� MSS prese�tly is c�nsioe�ir,;; three ,�lt_f�rn�;t� pian:; , t,.�, and C for� �aliocating cost-s thrcuyiraut the m��roualitar: �.;re�. The pi�.r;s ar�e mnt-ke�ly c;iff�rent i� th�ir Effect ar� the Cifiy, both rtaw �it� �s � pr�cedent far the future. Un�er al l 4i�ree pi��s i:he Ci ty's total bi I i is ieEs f;o:n iO7� , t b::lic�e the tot�l a,r,aunt� are ati close t� sv±�at can iawfuily be a'i ;oca�.ed ur�aer the N;etrcpoliian hct. 7he Total Charc�s are as f a:i c;�C . -- ..._.._._ Total Chara�s (7-6-71 revisio�j Plan ��A�� $6,0�1 ,5�+2.42 �lan ��s�� E,U47,C78.7b � pleri '�C" 6,256,$7i .00 i'h�;se fi�ur•es are rel4tiv�iy ;.losn ta each ather, but do nat refl�e,� the trup cos� to thc City. To determin� the attual r.ost we must bt-ea1; dcr,�n tt7is �oia1 Cl�.+rr;e i r�;.o t�.o ;��rts : i) �'i�e 3�e:L Char�e (or actu�1 char'gc: f�r �ervi cc) and � '1j`_t,t;� I;.?iC:i'tt.d Ch�'"r,�� (or mo��,�:�ie.nt �t�t�•�e t��[3 and rf:t�rrn�bie und.r.�• �,re�ent interpr�4;:ticn o;-� the�iaw. This t�reaEcdo:.m� is �,s fo) iows : �,,,..v, 1� _2_ ' Net Charges peferred Charges Tota) Charges Plan "A" $5,636,317.96 $415,564.46 $6,051 ,942.42 Plan "g" 5,893,8g0.98 153,187.78 6,047.0%8.76 Plan "G'' 6,165,Og1 .57 91 ,779.59 6,256,a71 . 16 Assuming the e�eferred charges will be �epaid to the City, the differences in cost (ignoring �nterest payments) are as follows: P�an "B" costs $257,513.02 more than Plan "A" Plan "�" costs $528,713.61 more than Plan "A" 7he great differences in these plans is due to the method of allocating the costs. An cxplanation of each pian follows: Plan "A" Curren� Cost Allocation Ftethod This is the same method used in the 1971 budget. While we are still appaaling the v�lurne of flo�•r �ttributed to St. Paul , we have no objection to this m�thod including deferred pay�ents. The law provides that St. Pa�l and other establi�hed c��nunities lend the MSB monies to ca��r costs incurred by relatively undevei��ied cor�n�nities who have limited financial resources. There is some question , however, �oncerning when these loa�s will be repaid. Plan "B" Metro•,�olitan Cost Equalizafii�� Method P la� "G" i s t►��sed on P lan "A" 4�i th a major cf�anga. S�ma of the costs attri b�te� to se^�� f the relatively undeveloped communities are paid for by other cor�;,;�un i t i es wi thout re�ayment. Th i s I�as been done because some ccm�mun i t i es re�i�i re ve ry i ong, expens i v� i nterc�ptors a��d therefore, pay att ext remz 1 y h i gh unit ccst for se�•rer servic�. This is considered an inequity to be remedied under the law (Sec. 8, Subd, E) , i n ti�i s plan, This i�terpretatic� �f the inaquity clause (Sec. 8, Subd. 8) , is stretched to the point of amending a major portian of the Act (Sec. 8, Sub:i. k) , ie. the sec�ion requiring ti-�at corr�unities pay for their own future n�eds (Reserve capacityl . Our interpretati�n �of Sec. 8, Subd. 4 is that eact� service area must b� charged th� costs of rhe reserved capacity for f�ture needs within that area. Qur interNretation of Sec. 8, Subdivision $ is that other means of allocating cost can b� a�ept�d if an inequ'stable charge is establishe:d following SEC. 8 Su�d, 1-7< Ho�.a�ver, wE feel it is inequitable for est�blished communities to subsidiz� the gro;�rth of unde��eloped communities , particularly without proven inability t� pay. We therefore feel that Plan "6" is unacceptable. _3_ � � , Plan "C" Metropotitan Cost Equalization Method Plan "C" is based on Pian "S", b�t with two substantial changes: (1) service area #,2, which is relatively undeveloped but contains St. Paul 's water supply lakes is incorporated into service area �11 , the area shared by St. Paul , Minneapolis and other established communities. (2) a substantial part of the Lake �"1innetonka area's sewe� costs are declared a metropolitan benefit and allocaCed to all Metroaolitan Cornmunities (ur�der Sec. 8, Subd. 5) through the following reasoning: Treatment Plants emptying into Lake Minnetonka would require about $25 ,000,000 worth of upgrading to meet MPCA requirements. Removing all effluents entirely from the lake by means of an interceptor sewer carrying flows to the Minnesota River would cost about $36,000,000. The Minnetonka communities should not have to bear the comptete burden of the extra $11 ,0OO,OCO, since removing all sanit�ry sewage from the lake gives recreational benefits to a11 tommunities in the Metropoli�an area. St. Paul 's costs sharply increase as a resuit of t�e above �changes. By com5ining service area #2 with service area #1 we share in interceptor costs in area i�2. This r�erging of service areas also provides that communities i� area �2 will pay far reserving capacity in the interceptors they use in area #l. ft is apFarent to us that this should be done under any plan and in fact is inequitablc to com;nunities i�t area #1 to do othervrise. There are alsa a few argurrwnts against accepting the Lake Minnetonka interceptor cost increase as a m�tropolitan benefit. When considering aiternative pians , design periods and resuits of alternatives should be similar. 7he design period of the int�rceptor is presumably a minimum of forty years, whilP treatment {�lant design perioos a�outd probably not exceed twenty years. Also the intetcepter � camalctely el irin�;tes sanitary wastes f rcm the lake whi le the Treazr+�nt Pla�-�t does not. furthermore, since Lake Minnetonl%a is surrounded by over 85� priv�tely oarned land, it can hardly be passed off as a ma�ropolitan recreational pdrk. There is some re�ional benefit h�re but not nearly the amount indicated. l�'c certainly •should not be against the idea of declaring metropolitan bene`its , � but ur.til some solid poliey of what might or will c;uaiify is seC oe�t, we again take the chance af "danati�g" money with no return apparent. Plan "D" Modified Plan "C" The FiSQ is currently worki�g on a metropolitan benefit approach similar to Plan "C" but based o�� Plan "A" rather than Plan "6". This woulci be an irnprovement of � course, but would still have drawbacks of "C". Conclusions - Recommend that �fS6: (1) Accept Plan "A", as the cost aliocation method for 1�72 Metropolitan Budget. (2) Start arork on proposals for 1973 to include: . w ' �j{� • � - a) Detailed fiscai anaiysis of communities requesting rEduced � payments due to financial hardships. This analysis would be to insure as positively as possible that only those tommunities financially unable to pay could have reduced pzym�nts. (annexation to a fiscalty responsible neighboring community shouid be considered) . b) Establish a guideline on what constitutes a metropolitan benefit, including serious reconsid�ration af the Minnetonka Interceptor with 1972 ad�ustment possible. (3) Confer with MSB pertaining to sewer service area boundaries, par±icularly the comt�ining of areas f�l and 2 and the possible inclusio� of So. St. Paul into area #�1 . (4) imm�d'sately initiate a sewer co�nection charge requirement against each new building start in com�nunities utilizing deferred payments. This connection charge would be of sufficient �.mount to repay tha deferred portion of the tommunities bill during the current year. u;'�ve�;y i ruly, - !,.,.o'`' � t� R�1 1� �_�',d � F R r k,;', , a,,!t >.�� , .�{��,.1.`vs a.�L.�b� Richard �. Schnerr Chief EnSinesr RASIGJDIK�►