HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 [10] Oct 18
0.;1
o "--1; October 18, 1984
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the City Council of the City of st.
Joseph met in session on Thursday, October 18, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. I
Facilities Plan Hearing:
City Officials present were: Mike Loso, Mayor; Robert Johnson, City Clerk;
Herman Schneider, Councilman; Donald (Bud) Reber, Councilman; steven Dehler,
Councilman; Michael Husen, Councilman; Leo Sadlo, Treasurer; John Scherer,
City Attorney; Joseph Bettendorf, city Engineer.
Others Present were: Joe Bechtold, st. Joseph Township Supervisor; Norm
Scherer, st. Joseph Township Supervisor; Bernie Schloemer, st. Joseph Township
Supervisor; Marlyn Libbesmeier, st. Cloud Township Supervisor; Eugene Case,
st. Cloud Township Supervisor; Marcia Kuebelbeck; Don Landwehr; Vicki Landwehr;
Pat Zahler; Mike Fritz, College of st. Benedict; Robert G. Schunicht, College
of st. Benedict; Mary Foslid, st. Joseph Courier.
The facilities plan public hearing was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Loso.
Engineer Joseph Bettendorf presented addendum plan (sanitary sewer project)
information. A past history of the wastewater plant operation in st. Joseph
was reviewed. A series of related events were recalled beginning in 1964,
with an investigation of water pollution in the watab River to 1980, the time
the Pan interceptor was completed in st. Cloud.
Two proposals have been compared in terms of cost effectiveness based on a
facility designed to serve the current population of approximately 3,000 I
people, with enough reserve to handle a total design population of 6,000.
This will carry through the year 2005. The two proposals are as follows:
1. Upgrade the existing plant and discharge by force main to Sauk River.
2. Transport the raw wastewater to st. cloud via pump station.
Environmental aspects were examined and the st. Cloud alternative is considered
the least detrimental to the environment.
Questions discussed at the hearing were:
1. S. Dehler: Why is there such a big difference in the cost estimate
between the st. Cloud option and the Sauk River option?
J. Bettendorf: Because the st. Cloud option merely involves the pumping
of raw wastewater to the Metro System; this involves the
construction of a pump station and forcemain. The Sauk
River option requires the construction of a 0.6 MGD
treatment plant.
2. S. Dehler: what would be the impact or ramifications of a "do-nothing
option"?
J. Bettendorf: A do-nothing posture would likely result in MPCA denying
future sewer extension permits, along with legal action
to force compliànce with the established standards.
3. M. Kuebelbeck: You carried the analysis of only the Metro option all 1
the way through to user fees; why didn't you do this
with the Sauk River option, and if you did this what
would the numbers be?
l285
J. Bettendorf: On page 6 of your handout, we show a comparison of the
average annual equivalent cost for the two options.
Assuming these numbers hold up under MPCA review, it is
I here that the determination of which project is most cost
effective is made. since the grant structure remains
basically unchanged and the number of users is constant,
it follows that user costs would show up proportionately
higher.
4. J. Bechtold: Why not install a gravity system between st. Joseph and
waite Park; thereby allowing direct connections? The
original plan developed in the early 70's contained a
gravity interceptor, did it not? Is it possible to connect
to the forcemain?
J. Bettendorf: a. The original proposal developed in 1972 was in fact
based on a gravity interceptor. I'm not sure what the
exact cost was at the time, but I believe it was in excess
of 2 million dollars. This would make it approximately
5 million dollars at today's construction costs (exact
figures can be determined). Ground elevations would
certainly permit a gravity installation, but the vast
majority of the land along the route is undeveloped at
this time. The City of st. Joseph is proposing a 1.4
million dollar project with an estimated local share of
$760,000. If a gravity interceptor proposal were developed,
st. Joseph Township would have to cover the difference in
local cost.
I NOTE: The actual cost of the gravity proposal will be
researched.
b. Yes, it is technically possible to connect into one
forcemain with another forcemain and pump station. You
find this kind of arrangement around lakes where pressure
systems are freuently the only economical alternative.
I do not, however, know of any metropolitan systems that
are constructed in this way and do not recommend that
connections to a major forcemain be permitted. If they
were, the controls and pumping systems would increase in
cost and complexity, and the City would have to spend
more on power for every gallon of wastewater pumped.
5. N. Scherer: what alternatives do you see for st. Joseph Township?
J. Bettendorf: I believe you have some choices. First, with the proposed
expansion of st. Cloud's industrial park into st. Joseph
Township, a gravity line will most likely be installed
in the not-too-distant future. st. Joseph could approach
st. cloud directly regarding space in that gravity system.
second, depending on where you expect development to occur,
you could install your own forcemain along side of the
1 city's and connect directly into the waite Park Interceptor;
this would also require your negotiating a contract
directly with st. cloud. Finally, you could agree to
annexation of areas needing service to the nearest muni-
cipality.
10qG
_LbC_1 !
NOTE: The current draft agreement for contract services
between st, Cloud and the City of st. Joseph specifically
prohibits st. Joseph from providing contract service (or
subletting) to other users outside the municipality. st, I
Joseph has protested this provision, but to date no reply
has been received,
6. M. Libbesmeier: What is the estimate of cost for a pump station? Does a
gravity system eliminate a pump station?
J, Bettendorf: a. The pump station for this project will run just under
$100,00, including building modifications and a
portable generator,
b. If sufficient depth were provided, a gravity intercep-
tor could eliminate the pump station. In this case,
however, it is likely that a pump station would still
be necessary.
7. !II. Libbesmeier: How do 0 & M costs compare on gravity and forcemain install-
ations?
J, Bettendorf: The difference would not be significant. Both a gravity
interceptor and forcemain are, to some extent, self-cleaning.
If properly constructed, both should require minimal
maintenance,
8, D. Landwehr: Is the $331,000 paid to st, Cloud "up front" a windfall?
Assuming st. Cloud has calculated our share, will further I
review and examination of these costs be made?
J, Bettendorf: a. No, it is not a windfall, The $331,000 represents our
proportionate share of the local cost. st. Cloud has
"banked" this over the years.
b. Yes, further review will be made. In addition, MPCA
will be reviewing these costs in light of similar agree-
ments between st. Cloud and Sartell, Sauk Rapids and waite
Park,
9, S, Dehler: Are we buying into a depreciated plant? Aren't we paying
costs adjusted to present day dollars?
J, Bettendorf: Both the plant and interceptor costs have been developed
by st. cloud using a present worth formula that includes
depreciation, Whether the formula used is equitable or
not is yet to be verified,
10, S. Dehler: what about interceptor sizing? If we didn't purchase
expansion room now or go ahead with the project, would we
be able to hook-up to the st. Cloud system a year or two
from now?
J, Bettendorf: If we drop out of the st, Cloud hook-up now, st, cloud I
mayor may not make space available in the future. They
could take a position of wanting to keep the space for
their own growth and expansion, but with federal money
involved in the construction I suspect we could still buy
space,
1287
The hearing was closed by Mayor Loso at 8:07 p.m.
Council recessed at 8:08 p.m. - reconvened at 8:17 p.m.
I Letter of Intent: A letter of intent was presented for Council consideration and
approval. The request for a letter of intent was presented by Ed Merkling
on October 4, 1984 for a proposed plat called Rothfork Addition, Lots 1-2-3.
The letter of intent contains the following conditions:
1) Providing services of water and sanitary sewer from the City of
. st. Joseph to Rothfork Addition would be contingent upon the
Rothfork Addition real estate first being annexed to the City of
st. Joseph, and
2) The property owners requesüng the services of water and sanitary
sewer agree to pay on a prorata basis for the cost of construction
and installation of said services.
The plat had been approved by st. Joseph Township. stearns County required
City of st. Joseph approval of a letter of intent before granting County
approval. The stearns County requirement for lot size is 40,000 square feet.
The three lots of the proposed plat are 22,000 square feet each.
A motion was made by Reber seconded by schneider to approve the letter of
intent.
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None Motion carried.
I Park Planning: Parks Commission Chairperson, Donna Blanchette, appeared before
the Council and presented plans for a study and analysis of City Parks and
a request for expenditure of $450.00 to fund the project; The two students
from the Center for Community Studies, University of Minnesota, who will
conduct the study are Rick Nelson and John Klavins. The objectives listed
are:
1. To provide professional direction with the city's park development.
2. To analyize park usage.
3. To study how park usage can best serve the largest cross section
of the people.
4. To work with the members of the st. Joseph Parks Commission in
studying these objectives.
A motion was made by Reber seconded by Husen to approve the project and
expenditure of $450.00 from the Millstream Park Fund.
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None Motion carried.
Council Minutes: A motion was made by Schneider seconded by Reber to approve
Council minutes of October 4, 1984 as presented.
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None Motion carried.
Gambling License Application: A motion was made by schneider seconded by Reber to
approve the gambling license application of the st. Ben's Rugby Club.
I voting for motion: schneider, Reber, Loso, Husen.
Voting against motion: Dehler Motion carried.
Water Workshop: A motion was made by Husen seconded by schneider to approve the
attendance of Dick Taufen at the Central District Water Operators Workshop
in st. Cloud on October 31, 1984.
1288
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None l\lotion carried,
Legal Matters: Copies of the summons: James John Kacures vs City of st. Joseph, I
William Loesch and Robert Schwegel, wð.1S presented to Council members.
The Clinton Village easement matter was reviewed by Council and Attorney.
Action on the right-of-way obstructions survey was postponed,
Wendy Schoen parking site question tabled to next meeting,
Revenue Sharing Requirements: A motion was made by Schneider seconded by Reber to
appoint the City Clerk complaint coordinator and hereby provide a grievance
procedure whereby complaints from handicapped persons are submitted to the
Clerk's office for City Council review and resolution,
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None Motion carried.
Clinton Village Addition street Lighting: A motion was made by Dehler seconded by
Husen to approve installation of five street lights, at this time, in Clinton
Village Addition. (1) at entrance off County Road #2 and (4 ) on 6th Avenue
Northwest (at locations on electrical plan),
Ayes: Loso, Schneider, Reber, Dehler, Husen.
Nayes: None !\lotion carried.
The light locations are: 110 - 6th Ave. N, W.
122 - 6th Ave. N, \,\,
138 - 6th Ave. N. W.
701 Birch st. N. W. I
508 Ash st. N. W,
The lights will be 100 watt hi pressure sodium on stained wood poles. Cost:
$12.55 per month per unit x 5 = $62,75. Poles are back ordered - expect
shipment in 45 days, according to NSP. (Letter of request to NSP.)
Access Change on County $75: The cost of access change on County Road #75, pre-
viously requested for review and estimate, has been placed at between
$10,000 and $15,000 by County officials.
Adjournment: Adjournment occurred at 9:50 p.m.
I