10.2 SR 07-01-2013 City of
Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 10.2
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Work Session July 1, 2013 Rebecca Haug, Environmental
Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Request for Proposal for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Suzanne Fischer,Director, COD
Permit REVIEWED BY
Cal Portner, City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize staff to proceed with a Request for Proposal to hire a consultant to complete the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit application for the City of Elk River.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In November of 2011, the City entered into a contract with Stantec to prepare a Feasibility Study to
analyze the current and future funding needs of the City's Stormwater Program. The City Council
reviewed the Study on July 2, 2012.
Since then,the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) reissued the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) for the effective date of August 1, 2013. The City of
Elk River is required to submit a permit application by December 1, 2013.
The revised permit includes several new mandated requirements which staff will review with the Council
in order for the city to effectively address them and meet permit requirements, a qualified consultant is
needed to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will also identify the
resources needed to implement and manage the city's Stormwater Program over a five-year period (2014
—2019). Once completed we will revisit the stormwater fee discussed last year and propose a plan for
implementation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding will come from the Surface Water Management Fund.We anticipated this as a 2014 budget item,
but due to the timing and importance of this plan, staff would like to complete it in 2013. Ongoing
funding for the Surface Water Management Fund will be reviewed later this year.
ATTACHMENTS
■ July 2, 2012 City Council Minutes
P O W E R E D BY
N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\7-01-2013\Final\x10.3 sr Stormwater Program£docx aAURE
City Council Minutes
Tut - lr?j
Page 3
• Councilrnember Gumphrex- asked if the neighboring residents had their questions ansv,-ered.
'1r. Barnhart stated their questions had been alsxx-ered as they were mainly- concerned -x-ith
what would be built on the vacant land portion of the propert, .
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER ZERWAS TO APPROVE REQUEST BY ROBERT
STUTTGEN FOR A LOT SPLIT, CASE NO. LS 12 -03, WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION:
1. THE SUBDIVISION DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
CITY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT (.DWG FILE) AS REQUIRED
BY CITY ORDINANCE AND LAND USE APPLICATION.
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
8.1 Visioning Update
�Ir. Barnhart presented the staff report.
Councilmember Gumphrey asked if the visioning tasks are staring current and completed in
a timely matter.
Mr. Barnhart stated he felt the visioning is staying on task but explained some of the goals
are ongoing, require a culture shift, or have a direct impact to the budget.
• Councilmember Motin asked if perhaps some of the goals should be considered as subtasks
to bigger goals. Mr. Barnhart agreed that at some point, the Council and staff could identify
subtasks.
Mr. Barnhart stated that the Council will discuss 2012/2014 goals and tasks at the August
worksession.
8.2 Storm Water Utility Fee
Mr. Femrite introduced Stan Hanson, P.E. a consultant from Stantec, who presented the
feasibility report via a PowerPoint presentation to the Council. The study outlined the city's
existing Storm Water Management program, and outlined the current and future funding of
the city's storm water program. Mr. Hanson explained that storm water regulations have
significantly increased in the past 10 years due to increased permitting regulations from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency WC-,k).
Mr. Hanson recommended to the city that in order to cover the increase in future storm
water cleanup costs and upkeep, that it create a Storm Water Utility Fee. This fee would be
charged to both residents and businesses. Mr. Hanson suggested charging this fee based
upon the amount of runoff generated from a property, thus the area of impervious surface
coincides to the volume of storm water generated from the property. The larger the
property's buildings and parking lots, the greater the volume of storm water, resulting in
increased cost to provide water quality treatment. By charging a monthly fee, there would be
• dedicated fund to assist in maintenance of these ponds. He then showed figures of other
Minnesota cities that charge a fee and what their fees were.
City Council Minutes Page 4
luIV -) -)nl
-----------------------------
Currently, the city funds the Storm Water L-tilin- with an annual S50,000 tax levv. However,
if a fee is not approved by the Council, the estirmated tax levy contribution needed to fund
the utility in 2012 ,�t-ill need to be increased to 5635,514 in order to create enough funds to
continue a storm water system that complies with regulations.
Councilmember Zer\vas was not in favor of charging a storm water utility- fee. He felt the
550,000 budgeted was sufficient for future pond maintenance. He noted his concerns about
adding another fee to a commercial unit, sating it ,vasn't realistic to burden commercials
businesses. He stated he Rill not support this fee.
Mayor Dietz asked when the cities on the survev started charging fees. Mr. Hanson stated
the bigger cities, like Minneapolis and St. Paul, had implemented a storm water utility- fee in
the 1980's but other cities have charged a fee more recently with the last 5 -10 rears ago.
Councilmember Motin stated he realized the need for obtaining additional funding due to
increased permitting requirements, but questioned having to raise the budget so much in
order to cover these improvements, and wondered if there were a different wav of
computing the fee each property owner would be required to par.
Councilmember Zerwas asked about inspection of the ponds and are there ponds that
currently need to be dredged.
Mr. Femrite said the inspections of the ponds were a visual inspection only; the contents of
the ponds would have to be tested to determine the quality of the contents. He stated based
on a visual inspection, approximately 20 -25% of the city's ponds need immediate action to
correct erosion or excavate sediment. •
Councilmember Zerwas felt uncomfortable with not knowing the condition of the ponds
and guessing at a budget amount based on assumptions without first inspecting and testing a
pond.
Mayor Dietz asked who would be charged a fee.
Mr. Femrite stated that based upon preliminary calculations, every property owner would be
required to pay the monthly fee with the exception of those commercial properties with their
own industrial storm water permit.
Councilmember Zerwas asked what the fee amount would be for the school district.
Mr. Femrite stated the school district's cost would be $30,000 a year
Councihmember Gumphrey asked what the process would be to start improving the 20 -
25% of ponds needing immediate improvements.
Mr. Femrite stated the city wouldn't be able to do any soil testing in -house and would have
to hire a consultant. He stated the testing will show what the contaminants are in the soil.
Mr. Femrite also commented on the fact that this preliminary report is before knowing if the
permitting regulations are to be increased. He stated that even if the city doesn't receive
further regulations, the surface water budget will be exhausted by 2014. He further stated •
that our current expenditures are much higher than the amount being put into the fund.
Citv Council Minutes Page 3
iul, 2 ''Ol n
Mayor Dietz agreed with Council nember Zenvas' comments and felt that this should be
something to be discussed during the upcoming budget talks.
Councilmember Gumphrey asked how long after the mandates are in place that the ponds
would need to be dredged.
Mr. Femrite stated the permit says that once you've inspected a pond and find it needs
improvements, you file a plan of action that would include a certain period of time to do the
needed' mprovements. This plan would need to be reviewed and approved by the - \'IPCA
before work would be completed.
Councilmember Gumphrey stated he would be comfortable waiting until the '_\IPCA
finalizes their permitting requirements and that consideration should also be taken during
next year's budget discussions in order to determine -,x-hat the city should do. He felt the city
should also look at different ways of charging businesses with their fee.
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GUMPHREY AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE STORM
WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION PASSED 3 -1. COUNCILMEMBER ZERWAS OPPOSED.
Councilmember Motin asked what staff's next steps would require.
Mr. Femrite stated if authorized by Council, staff would draft an ordinance and have it ready
for Council to review. A public hearing would be scheduled before the ordinance would
• then be adopted by the Council.
Councilmember _Motin asked when the fees would begin to be charged.
Mr. Hanson stated the start date of charging a fee could begin at any time.
Mayor Dietz expressed concerns with starting the fee on January 1 of 2013. He felt if a fee
was to be put in place, it should wait until after budget discussions took place.
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER ZERWAS TO CONTINUE THE MATTER OF THE
STORM WATER UTILITY FEE DISCUSSION FOR THREE MONTHS AND
UNTIL AFTER REGULATIONS FROM THE MPCA BECOME FINAL.
MOTION PASSED 4 -0.
8.3 Discuss Work Session Agendas
Mr. Portner discussed the July and August work session items. The Utility Incentive
Connection Plan discussion was moved to the August work session. Also added to August
was a discussion of Council goals.
Announcements
There were no announcements.
u
W- J7
Elk
River
t
� y
City Of
t
r
� ay
�•n
G
v
r
Elk
River _
.t
ly 11 2013 Work Sessi
-zar ne Fischer, Director, Community Operations & Development
ebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator -
r
P U J IIU J1
;i� f,. '•1 .:s:' �/ Y�JIr7 ...-,,,.,r.. � YY! i"I'J'iGi+`�.A.
Ek
Riven
o
Rain/melting snow flowing over impervious surfaces that
do not absorb water:
• i.e. building rooftops, driveways, streets, parking lots, construction
& industrial sites
Stormwater flows into :
• water body (streams, wetlands, rivers or lakes)
• treatment device (rain gardens, swales, bio-retention systems)
• storm sewer system (inlets, drains)
•
r
r
P U J IIU J1
;i� f,. '•1 .:s:'
.J
Stormwater Discharges .,.
`�lr
E
® _ Lk
i
to B�ird R
ver
Storm sewer systems are separate from sanitary sewer
systems
R"ic6n= ,
S p
P rap+r
Correct Connection
The runoff does not flow to a treatment plant
ell
r
�•1 �/ �..'"�w'Y�J�I/7�"'r...,ir �...-,,,,,r.. � YY,� i"I'J'iG�'R`�s11`.An
Ek
- River,
Pet waste #1 Lawn pesticides
Garbage Leaves & grass clippings ,
• Oil, grease & gasoline Bacteria }
• Construction sediment & Nutrients P & N
t
urban runoff Other chemicals
r
� ay
• Metal flakes from rusting Paints, cleaning products
vehicles & brakes •
Heavy metals from roof
• Road salt shingles
•
Agricultural herbicides
r
r
Irl J =
lr
Elk
Riven _
,E #
't
1' J J 11 I U J I
Elk
_ River,
o
1972 — Federal Clean Water Acts
1987 - Clean Water Act was amended ( Phase 1 )
}
1990's - Clean Water Act amended a ain ( Phase II g ) t
r
� ay
2003 - Elk River was designated as MS4 & required to
obtain an NPDES permit from MPCA
ell
•
r
;i f,. '•1 .:s:' �/ �w'.'Ylr7 ,,..,,,.,r.. � YY! i"I'J'iGi+`�.A.
lr
,Whatfs ahead
OL
Ek
River
May 2013 — MPCA Board a pp roved new permit
�
Aug. 1, 2013 — New permit goes into effect ..
}
Dec. 1, 2013 — City of Elk River permit due
t
— Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 'r
I ay
• Timelines established for six Minimum Control Measures
— Public Education, Public Participation, Good Housekeeping, Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination, Construction Site Runoff Controls, and Post Construction Runoff Controls
• Enforcement procedures established
• Maintenance for the City's stormwater system
ell
r
r
;i� f,. '•1 .:s:' �/ �w'.'Y��lr7 �,,..,,,.,r.. � YY! i"I'J'iGi+�`��.A.
Elk
Riven _
s
Municipal Annual Program Sq Miles Pop.
Andover $ 360,000 34.83 30,811
Champlin $ 325,000 8.80 23,418 }
Coon Rapids $ 11400,000 23.34 61,904 ,.
t
North Branch $ 270,000 36.00 10,131 ;r
Plymouth $ 31000,000 35.30 71,561 _
Ramsey $ 620,000 29.70 23,835 .
Rogers $ 448,000 5.00 81888
Average 1 $ 6,423,000
r
r
P� u u IIU 1
;i /•. '•1 .:s:' �/ �:::Y�JIr7 ,,..,,,.,r.. � YY! i"I'J'iGi+`�.A.
Efk
River
• Council approval for staff to proceed with an RFP to hire a
consultant to prepare and submit the permit application f •
Funding available from the surface water management fund
Staff anticipated hiring a consultant for the SWPPP in 2014
but due to the new application date of December 2013, staff
requests Council consideration to complete it this year
•
r
P U J IIU J1
;i� f,. '•1 .:s:' �/ �w'.'Y� lr7 ,,..,,,.,r.. � YY! i"I'J'iGi+`�.A.
W- J7
Elk
River
t
� y
City Of
t
r
� ay
�•n
G
v
r