Loading...
91-2166 �������l1� Council File # /�p�� � I� Green Sheet # RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By ` ' Referred To C i t e WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has agreed to accelerate its Sewer Separation Project and complete it within a ten-year time frame; and WHEREAS, the Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Project (CSO) has had a very positive environmental impact on the water quality in the Mississippi River; and WHEREAS, this agreement has been based upon a funding partnership originally established between the Federal, State and Local Government; and WHEREAS, because the federal government withdrew all financial support for this project, the City of Saint Paul and the State of Minnesota during the 1990 Legislative Session reaffirmed their commitment to the CSO program by establishing a 50/50 funding partnership; and WHEREAS, in 'order to complete `the project, State funding is critical; and WHEREAS, failure to complete progress within the ten-year time frame would place the joint permi.tees (the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, and the Gity of Saint Paul) in violation of the conditions under which the NPDES permit was issued by the State and therefore in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul requests that the State of Minnesota continue its level of funding of the CSO program as equal partners with the City. as Navs Absent Requested by Department of: zmon osw tz i on � acca ee � ettm n i nn e �- By: Adopted by Council: Date ��� 5 1991 Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption i ' "d by Counc'�1)Se retary BY: ,>� r . By. �i_. �- Approved by Mayor for Submission to Approved by M yor: Date r' � Council By: ,�.r��.����-t� sy: �����:����� �j�� 1 � �qi a��� � DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N� 15 74 8 city counci� 11/25/91 GREEN SHEET CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR O CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Long x4473 ASSIfiN �CITYATTORNEY �CITYCLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) NUMBER FOR ❑BUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICES DIR. ROUTING ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANn � TOTAL#OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Supporting the continuation of State of Minnesota fundinq for the City's sewer separation project. RECOMMENDA71oNS:Approve(A)or ReJect(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS I�AUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1• Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depertment7 _CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? _STi4FF — YES NO _DISTRICT CouRT — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVET YES NO Explaln all yes answers on separate sheet and attech to gresn sheet INITIATING PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,What,When,Where,Why): The City of St. Paul is in the middle of a sewer separation project that will allow it to meet State and Federal requirements of combined sewer overflow abatement. Continued funding at this time is essential if the City is to complete the project. ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: The City will work towards ensuring the continued funding of the sewer separation project to help ensure that it meet State and Federal requirements. DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: None. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: The City faces the possibility of funding for the project being eliminated and the project being terminated before the City meets State and Federal requirements. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) j� a NOTEt COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent rypes of documents: CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets/Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Ciry Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. Mayor/Assistant 5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. Ciry Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attomey 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write compiete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecUrequest supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET,SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the ciry's liabiliry for workers compensation claims,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATINQ PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Expiain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this projecUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When?For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inabllity to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pay? , . �9����� � BRIEFING PAPER COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ABATEMENT PROG�AM FUNDING BACKGRO�IND SFCTION � In 1985 the State of Minnesota with the assistance of the federal government established a financial program that was designed to assist the cities of Saint Paui, Minneapolis, and South Saint Paul in comp(eting their Combined Sewer Overfiow Abatement Program through sewer separation tivithin a ten year time frame. Initially, the ci�j'es, state, and the federai government, shared equally in the funding of this accelerated program. Currently, the City is completing the sixth year of construction and has met all of the requirements that were stipulated in the first five year NPDES Permit and has initiated the work required in the new permit for the remaining five years of the program. Since the original funding partnership agreement, the Federal Government has continued to reduce its commitment to the program and is no longer contributing any funds. STATUS The 1990 legislature continued its commitment to the CSO Program by providing funding in a form of grants to the City for the continuation of the program through 1992. As part of its commitment, the legislature agreed to pick up half of the ,costs of the federal shortfall in funds with the expectation that the City would pick up the remaining half. In addition, the legislature directed that the City of Saint Paul allocate the proceeds of the "clawback" funds to be used on the Sewer Separation Project. These monies were used in 1990 and 1991 to assist in making up the federal shortfall 2nd have been programed for use in the remaining years of the project. In order to complete the project within the constraints of the NPDES Permit, it will require a state p ogramfion of approximately $9,000,000 per year for the final three years..of the THE SAINT PA ll POSITII�N The City of Saint Paul supports the continuation of the legislative funding package established during the 1990 legislative session which called for a 50/50 split on the cost of the Sewer Separation Project. Should funding be not granted in this proportion then the City would be unable to complete the Combined Sewer Overilow Abatement Program in the time frame set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. jht % . _ ��ji-a/l�� ✓ T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Ini_ PAGE CSSP (Apprvd by Committee, 9/13/91} . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Property Tax Relief: Local Government Aid {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 5 Constitutional Dedication of Sales Tax {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 7 Fiscal Disparities {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 8 Polluted Lands {Approved by Council, 9/19/91) . . . . . . . 10 MELSA Funding {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 13 Housing Issues {Apprvd by Committee, 11/22/91} . . . . . . . 17 HRA Expansion of Powers {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 24 Substantial Support Metropolitan Parks/Como Park Dept Service {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 27 URAP {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Public Safety Issues {Apprvd by Committee; 11/22/91} . . . . 34 Maternal Child Health {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . 39 Parking Tag Income {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91) . . . . . 41 Housing Court {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . . . 43 Photo Cop {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . . . 45 . Metropolitan Transportation Trust Fund {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91) . 47 Immunization Transferability/Medical Records {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 49 Metropolitan State University {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 51 Presidential Primary Funding {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91} . 53 Cultural Tourism/Historical Preservation District {No recommendation, lack of quorum, 11/8/91) . 55 Monitor - Health Care Access {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . . . . 58 Ayd Mill Road {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91) . . . . . . . 60 Service Charge Definition Change {Apprvd by Committee, 10/18/91} . . 62