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