Loading...
246814 ORIGINAL TO CITY CLERK • ' /js�!1�� CITY OF ST. PAUL couNCa r'� i` '� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK F��E NO. COUNCI�.-� LUTION—GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY ,��\J COMMISSIONE DATF WHEREAS the Metropotitan Council , pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473B.06 Subsection 5, has prepared the Sanitary Sewers Policies, System Plan, Program as the first section of the Metropolitan Guide, and WHEREAS said Sanitary Sewers section of the Metropotitan Guide will be presented for public hearing on December 29, 1969, at 7:30 P.M. at the Metropolitan Council offices; and WHEREAS the City of Saint Paul through its Public Works Department has reviewed said section; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED That the Council of the City of Saint Paul, does hereby concur in the statement attached hereto, regarding said Sanitary Sewers section of the Metropolitan Guide, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pubtic Works Department through its Chief Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to present said statement to the Metropolitan Council at the appropriate public hearing. OEC � � ��59 COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19_. Yeas Nays Carlson � t• Dalglish Approve� ��'�' � ���� 19— Meredith � Tn Favor Peterson ' Sprafku v Mayor A gainst Tedesco PUBLISHED J/�N 3191� Mr. President, Byrne �O � . . STATEMENT ON THE .���►� METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE �4 ON SANITARY SEWERS BY THE CITY OF SRINT PAUL We have reviewed the Sanitary Sewers section of the Metropolitan Development Guide which we presume has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 4738.06 Subdivision 5. Our revlew has been made in the light of its impact bn Minneapolis, Saint Paul , and their suburbs, and the entire metropolitan area. We have reviewed our concerns about this proposed section with representatives of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District and are 1n full accord with them. Our comments, which follow, will be made in two parts in the same sequence as they appear in the proposed sewer section: (1) Policies and (2) Plans. PART I LONG RANGE POLICIES We are generally in accord with the overall intent and scope of the twenty seven policies listed under this section. However, there are several comments we would like to make which would modify and reinforce the general policy statements and assure the most advantageous resuits to the entire metropolitan area. (1) Policy 4 - Oesiqn and Operate Treatment Plants and Outfalls in Accord with Uses Desiqnated for the Affected Reaches of the Maior Rivers (see . Fiqure 1 - Desiqnated Uses) . Since Minneapolis, St. Pau1 � and a number of suburban communittes are dependent upon the Mississippi River, and more particularly the upper basin above the St. Anthony Falls dam, for their water supply and since this demand will greatly increase in the future due to limitations of the area's ground water supply, it is. imperative that we preserve the Upper Mississippi River as a prime source of future water supply for the major part of the metropolitan area. I� accordance with this statement, we request that Figure 1 - -1- Designated Uses, be changed to provide water of domestic water supply quality down to the St. Anthony Falls dam; also that no new pollution be introduced into the St. Anthony pool . In this regard, we oppose the possible instatlation of a treatment works of the North Suburban Service Area with an effluent discharge near the Soo Line bridge in North Minneapolis when adequate interceptor capacity can be provided through • the Minneapolis system. (2) Policy 20 - Phase Interceptor Extension to Promote Orderly Land Development, interceptor sewer extensions should not be used to promote development of fringe communities to the detriment of present cities and viltages. Extreme care and foresight must be exercised in order for this type of policy not to be misused. (3) Policy 25 - Locate and Desiqn Treatment Works Functionally and Esthetically Compatible with the Adiacent Environment and with the Proposed Development. We are in favor of strengthening and enforcement of this policy and feel that the possible location of a new treatment works in the vicinity of North Minneapolis does not accord with this policy. PART II SYSTEM PLAN � We are in general accord with the System Plan as presented. As a result of previousi� conducted extensive investigations by the Sanitary District in conjunction with Minneapolis and St. Paul , it was concluded that a system similar to the one presented in the Guide was an advantageous one. However, we are extremely concerned about certain areas of the System Plan which have not been resolved, and which are designated by question marks in Figures 3 and 4 of the Sanitary Sewers section, and most particularly about the question mark in Figure 3 regarding a treatment plant on the north side of Minneapolis near Fridley. Various references throughout the proposed Sanitary Sewers section of the Guide indicate that further studies will indicate a need for a treatment works at Fridley to serve the north suburban areas. -2- . ', . . ' We in St. Paul object to the location of a maJor treatment works in the upper basin as considered for the north suburban sewer area. As stated above, the location of a piant in this area is, we believe, in conflict with Policy 25, and may be detrimental to the continued and increased use of the river by both Minneapolis and St. Paul for water supply for themselves and the suburban communities. In addition, engineering investigations have been conducted which clearly indicate the availability of feasibie alternatives to a Fridley treatment plant for the north suburban communities. It is our opinion that the system plan as shown on Figures 3 and 4 is not in sufficient detail to comply with the Metropolitan Sewer Act, Section b, Comprehensive Plan. This section of the Act provides that 'The plan shall include the general location of needed interceptors and treatment works, a description of the areas to be served by various interceptors and treatment works. a long range capital improvement program, and such other details as the Councit shall deem appropr.iate". In Figure 4 the sewer routes are designated as sewer corridors, which are so general that no meaningful evaluatio� can be made as to the impact of implementing the plan; in addition, Figure 4 does not differentiate between existing and new interceptors. The proposed Sanitary Sewer Section of the Development Guide contains no long range capital improvements program which should be included in the plan as indicated in the Act. To summarize then, we in St. Paul agree with the general policies statements; we feel that the plan in some areas may be in conflict with these policies and be detrimental to St. Paul and that the system ptan lacks sufficient detail to comply with the requirements of the Act. . Richard A. Schnarr ' Chief Engineer Harry E. Mar�haU ,�aTS �:,,. • Albert B. Olson City Clerk and �°�` �[ '�l Counci,l Recorder Commisaioner of Registrafrimt ��` � - .�=� 5 �?r ;^ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK '_J,�,�� ac�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� BUREAU OF RECORDS 886 City Hall St.Paul,Minnesota 5510� Aovenber 18, 1969 Hom. Robert F. Peterson Co�r. ot' Public Works B�.ilding Hesr Sir: � She City Conncil referred tc yc�.e tbe attached booklet of the Metrapolitari Ce��ncii entitled I�"rROPOLI2Alt ��IISIAPA�'t �UZ�E - 3A1�ITARY 8� - Pclicies, Srste� Plan, Prc�gr�. �e tru1,T yvurs, _ �j� City C k �,� A6 �� . = R STATEMENT ON THE ";ETROPOLITAN DEVELOPMEN7 GUIDE sew��s sy a1�I SAN I TARY S�Ef�iH-EE""C'F THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL We have reviewed the Sanitary Sewers section of the Metropolitan Development Guide, which we presume has. been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 4736.06 Subdivision 5. Our review has been made in the light of its impact on Minneapolis, Saint Paul and their suburbs, and the entire metropolitan area. We have reviewed our concerns about this proposed section with representatives of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District and are in full accord with them. Our comments, which follow, will be made in two parts in the same sequence as they appear in the proposed sewer section: (1) Policies and (2) Plans. PART I LONG RANGE POLI CI ES We are generally in accord with the overall intent and scope of the twenty �seven policies listed under this section. However, there are several comments we would like to make which would modify and reinforce the generat policy statements and assure the most advantageous results to the entire metropolitan area. (1) Policy 4 - Desian and Operate Treatment Plants and Outfalls in Accord with Uses Desiqnated for the Affected Reaches of the Maior Rivers (see Fiaure 1 - Desiqnated Uses) . Since Minneapolis, St. Paul , and a number of suburban communities are dependent upon the Mississippi River and more particularly the upper basin above the St, Anthony Falls dam, for their water supply and since this demand will greatly increase in the future due to limitations of the area's ground water supply, it is imperative that we preserve the Upper Mississippi River as a prime source of future water supply for the major part of the metropolitan area. In accordance with this statement� we request that Figure 1 - � • Designated Uses, be changed to provide water of domestic water supply quality down to the St. Anthony Falls dam; also that no new pollution be introduced into the St. Anthony pool . In this regard, we oppose the possible installation of a treatment works of the North Suburban Service Area with an effluent discharge near the Soo Line bridge in North Minneapolis when adequate interceptor capacity can be provided through the Minneapolis system. (2) Policy 20 - Phase Interceptor Extension to Promote Orderly Land Development. Interceptor sewer extensions should not be used to promote development of fringe communities to the .detriment of present cities and villages. Extreme care and foresight must be exercised in order for this type of policy not to be misused. (3) Policy 25 - Locate and Desian Treatment Works Functionally and Esthetically Compatible with the Adjacent Environment and with the Proposed Development_ We are in favor of strengthening and enforcement of this policy and feel that the possible location of a new treatment works in the vicinity of North Minneapolis does not accord with this policy. PART 11 SYSTEM PLAN � We are in general accord with the System Plan as presented. As a result of previousl� conducted extensive investigations by the Sanitary District in conjunction with Minneapolis and St. Paut , it was concluded that a system similar to the one p�esented in the Guide was an advantageous one. . Nowever, we are extremely concerned about certain areas of the System Plan which have not been resolved, and which are designated by question marks in Figures 3 and 4 of the Sanitary Sewers section, and most particularly about the question ma°rk in Figure 3 regarding a treatment plant on the north side of Minneapolis near Fridley. Various references throughout the proposed Sanitary Sewers section of the Guide � indicate that further studies will indicate a need for a treatment works at Fridley to serve the north suburban areas. _2_ �i We in St. Paul object to the location of a major treatment works 1n the upper basin as considered for the north suburban sewer area. As stated above, the location of a plant in this area is, we believe, in conflict with Policy 25, and may be detrimental to the continued and increased use of the river by both Minneapolis and St. Paul for water supply for themselves and the suburban communities. In addition, engineering investigations have been conducted which ciearly indicate the availability of feasible alternatives to a Fridley treatment plant for the north suburban communities. It is our opinion that the system plan as shown on Figures 3 and 4 is not in sufficient detail to comply with the Metropolitan Sewer Act, Section 6, Comprehensive Plan. . This section of the Act provides that "7he plan shall include the generai location of needed interceptors and treatment works, a description of the areas to be served by various interceptors and treatment works� a long range capital improvement program, and such other details as the Council shall deem appropriate". In Figure 4 the sewer routes are designated as sewer corridors, which are so general that no meaningful evaluation can be made as to the impact of implementing the plan; in addition, Figure 4 does not differentiate between existing and new � interceptors. The proposed Sanitary Sewer Section of the Development Guide contains no long range capitat improvements program which should be included in the plan as indicated in the Act. To summarize then, we in St. Paul agree with the general policies statements; we feel that the plan in some areas may be in conflict with these policies and be detrimental to St. Paul and that the system plan lacks sufficient detail to comply with the requirements of the Act. Richard A. Schnarr ' Chief Engineer DUPLICAT6 TO PRINTER ' � ���(�� CITY OF ST. PAUL NLENC�� NO. � * OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER -DATF WM�R�1S the �tropoilt�n Councii, purs��n� tc� Mt�n��sQta St�tute� 4738.05 Sub��,ction 5► �a� prapar�d the Sanit�ry Seant�r�r Pc�1 ici�esr Syst+e� Pia�, Prcagr+� as the f1 rsx s�ectton ofi �ha M�s�ra�a11 tmn Gu1 de, ar+d MH�RfiAS s�id S+�nit�ry �+e�srs s�ct�ar� of the l+�tropal�tan Guids wt11 bs prsser3te�d for �ubt 1c ha�r'ir�c� �n t�►+r.�er 2�. 19b9, st 7.30 P.N. �� th� Metropol i Csn C+wr�ci� af f i c��, �nd IJHEREAS ths Ci ty o� S�►�nt #��►�� thrc�ugh i ts Pdbi i c Works Q�aartms�� hs�s r.vt+�rvad sald s�ction; naae, �h�rc��'c�re, be it RE5ALV�� Th�t th�e C��iD o� th� Ctty of S�irt Pa�ctl dc�s� her�►by carr►cur Tn tfi• stetea�snfi att�ched here�o, regardtng �atd �anitary Se�w��a� s�cttur� o�F th� Metropvlitmn Gu�d�, �nd b� tt �URTH�R id�S�il,ilEiY th�t tho Pubd3c Wtrrt�a #��par'tm�n� t4hrcwgh tts Chie+�F �r+qtnear ts h�reby �utharia�act and dtrac��d to �resent �ate! �t�t�t to ths Matro�alitan Coun�i 1 a�t the �pp�oprt�ate pubt ic h�rtng. ; �, , �,��� < _ ,.. �. COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19— Yeas Nays � Carlson Dalglish �"� Approved 19— Meredith �n Favor Peteraon � Mayor Sprafku �-� A gainat Tedesco Mr. President, Byrne O