Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 21, 2004 Work SessionCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706~3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn.us ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING to be held in the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS as follows: Mayor Atlienne Wyckoff Councilmembers Robert A. Williams Bruce Naw/'ocki Tammera Ericson Bruce Kelzenberg City Manager Walt Fehst Meeting of: Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Location of Meeting: Purpose of Meeting: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS WORK SESSION AGENDA 2. 3. 4. Industrial Park Redevelopment Project* Direction for Preparation of the 2005 Budget Update of Huset Park Plan (postponed to furore work session) Inflow/Infiltration Ordinance Review *Plmming and Zoning Commission and EDA members have been invited to attend this meeting regarding this item. The City of Colmnbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the achnission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accmmnodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Colmnbia Heights' services, progrmns, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Administrative Secretary at 706-3606 to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF' SERVICES CiTY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn. us COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mayor: Julienne Wyckoff Councilmembers: Bruce Nawrocki Bobby Williams Tammera Ericson Bruce Kelzenberg City Manager: Walter R. Fehst DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 16, 2004 City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and EDA Members Ellen Berkelhamer, City Planner Work Session Discussion on the Industrial Park Land Use Planning Process At the City Council Work Session on Monday, June 21, 2004, Community Development staff will make a presentation to the City Council, EDA and Planning Commission describing the upcoming planning and public financing process for the proposed Industrial Park redevelopment area. The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the main tasks included in the land use portion of the planning process. The City Council recently entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Schafer Richardson, a development company that proposes to redevelop the Industrial Park as a residential neighborhood with a small amount of commercial use. The Industrial Park is currently guided for Industrial Use in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned h'~dustrial. In order for the Schafer Richardson redevelopment to be accomplished, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance will have to be amended to allow residential uses and disallow industrial uses. The land use and zoning designation that the City will consider adopting for the area is Transit Oriented Mixed Use, the same designation applied to the Kmart property, which allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses in areas that are accessible to and provide linkages to transit. The developer must also go throu~5 the Site Plan Review process before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the platting process before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. During this time, design guidelines will be prepared by staff to be applied to the redevelopment area during the Site Plan Review process. Concurrent with all other steps, the City will prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project to determine whether the redevelopment project has significant environmental impacts. This will be done in accordance with state regulations. It is very important to note that all of these land use planning procedures are contingent upon the City Council entering into a final Development Agreement with Schafer Richardson. Although staff is beginning the land Use planning process now, no final actions will be taken until the Development Agreement is executed. With that caveat, the land use planning process that staff anticipates for this project is described on the following pages. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES ~,\('"nrnmnn;t~,! DPvelnnmenr\Tim\Mem¢3 C'C Planninq_Process.doc _ City Council Work Session Memo June 16, 2004 Page 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Land Use Planning Task Anticipated Meeting and/or Date P & Z Commission considers a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use from Industrial to Transit Oriented Mixed Use. Makes recommendation to City Council. P & Z Commission Pubhc Hearing July 7, 20041 Comprehensive Plan Amendment sent to the July 8, 2004 - July 18, 2004 Metropolitan Council for review. Process takes 10 days. City Council considers Comprehensive Plan City Council Meeting Amendment and votes on whether to approve the August 9, 20042 Amendment. REZONING PROCESS Land Use Planning Task Anticipated Meeting and/or Date P & Z Commission considers a Rezoning to change P & Z Commission Public Hearing district from Industrial to Transit Oriented Mixed July 7, 20041 Use. Makes recommendation to City Council. City Council considers Rezoning and votes on City Council Meeting whether to approve the Rezoning. August 9, 20042 City Council has the second reading of Rezoning. City Council Meeting Begin 30-day waiting per/od for new district to go August 23, 2004 into effect. End of30-days. Rezoning goes into effect. September 23, 2004 SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS Land Use Planning Task Anticipated Meeting and/or Date Developer submits application for Site Plan September 7 Review. P & Z Commission reviews the Site Plan and votes P & Z Commission Public Hearing on Site Plan approval. October 5~ Should the Planning Commission need additional time for testimony or discussion, additional meetings will be scheduled and the subsequent schedule would be extended. 2 If the City and developer have not executed the final Development Agreement by this date, this meeting would not occur at this time and the entire schedule would be extended. City Council Work Session Memo June 16, 2004 Page 3 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT PROCESS Land Use Planning Task Anticipated Meeting and/or Date Developer submits application for Preliminary Plat September 7 P & Z Commission considers the Preliminary Plat. P & Z Commission Public Hearing Makes recommendation to City Council. October 53 City Council considers the Preliminary Plat and City Council Meeting votes on whether to approve the Plat. October 253 Developer submits application for Final Plat The timing of the Final Plat is contingent upon the developer's ability to satisfy all conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET EAW Task Anticipated Date Community Development Staff and consultants June 14, 2004 - July 12, 2004 prepare EAW. CD Staff submits notice to the Environmental July 26, 2004 Quality Board (EQB) that EAW will be distributed to reviewing agencies. Notice of EAW is published in EQB Monitor for August 2, 2004 notification to all interested parties. The 30 day comment period begins. The 30 day comment period ends. Staff prepares September 1, 2004 responses to any comments received. September 13, 2004 City Council reviews comments and response to comments, determines if the project needs an EIS, and prepares its findings of fact. If a negative declaration is issued (meaning that an EIS is unnecessary), the EAW process is complete. City distributes notice of its decision to EQB. September 20, 2004 City decision is published in the EQB Monitor for September 27, 2004 the notification of all interested parties. 3 Should the Planning Commission and/or City Council need additional time for testimony or discussion, additional meetings will be scheduled and the subsequent schedule would be extended. I-- Z O_ 0 o Z LU 0 CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS DATE: JUNE 17, 2004 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR JULIENNE WYCKOFF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TAMI ERICSON BRUCE KELZENBERG BRUCE NAWROCKI BOBBY WILLIAMS WALT FEHST, CITY MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM ELRITE FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: BUDGET WORK SESSION OF JUNE 21, 2004 (Page 1 of 2) In preparation for the budget work session on June 21 st, I have attached the packet of information that was presented to the council at the work sess]on of June 7th and again at the City Council meeting of June 14th. Also attached is a spreadsheet showing the effect on the levy if we use some fund balance. The primary purpose of this memo is to provide more historic budget information. First, the purpose of presenting this resolution to the City Council was simply to gain direction in the preparation of the 2005 budget. This follows the same philosophy that was utilized last year. If we begin the process of preparing the budget with clear direction from the council regarding the goals and objectives of what services to include or eliminate, it makes the preparation of the budget much more efficient and saves a considerable amount of staff time as staff does not have to prepare budgets and recommendations that are not in line with the goals and objectives of the council. Once this preliminary proposed budget is prepared and presented to the council in August, the normal meetings with staff to review the goals, objectives, services and the costs related to them will be held. It should be noted that this process is due to major state legislative changes over past years that require a lengthier budget process. If we go back approximately 10 years, the budget process was much simpler and more streamlined. Prior to the state legislature's mandated Truth in Taxation process, the budget proposed by the City Manager was presented to the City Council at a meeting in August. It was then reviewed by staff with the City Council during the months of August and September and the final budget and levy was adopted and certified to the county auditor on or before October l0th. When the state legislature became involved in this process, it was lengthened greatly. We still submit a proposed budget to the City Council in August. However, we are required under the new legislation to adopt a preliminary proposed budget and levy and certify them to the county auditor on or before September 15th. The City Council then has until December 28~ to review and work with the proposed budget to adopt a final budget and a final levy to be certified to the county auditor on or before December 28th. The final levy cannot exceed the proposed levy but it can be for a lesser amount. As you can see, the new process is much longer and' involves the adoption of a proposed levy, which was not required under the previous legislature. This has also extended the budget process and review by the City Council from two months to 4-1/2 months. The good point of this new process is that it allows the council and residents to see exactly what effect the proposed levy will have on property tax statements before a final levy is adopted. It also allows residents to receive the proposed tax statement and attend the Truth in Taxation hearing with any concerns they may have in relationship to reducing services and Page Two the resulting levy. As you are aware, in past years we have had very few residents attend the Truth in Taxation hearing to discuss service needs and the resulting levy costs. In regard to alternatives, it was staff's intent that these would be discussed in more depth during the budget review process. As has been discussed in the past, there are several alternatives that could increase revenue or reduce expenses, which could reduce the overall levy paid by residents. Some of these alternatives are the implementation of a franchise fee, changing the management philosophy of Murzyn Hall so that it, at a minimum, is self-sustaining or generates revenue for the City. At the present time taxpayers are supplementing the operation of Murzyn Hall to the extent of approximately $100,000 per year. Another alternative that can be further reviewed is Parkview Villa. Currently residents are paying approximately $950,000 per year for the benefit of having Parkview Villa South operated as a low-rent housing unit. This alone is more than staWs proposed levy increase for the next two years. There are also several other alternatives such as upgrading the City's EMT service to provide full ambulance transportation to medical facilities that would generate additional revenue. However, further review and discussion of these items would only decrease the potential levy and not increase it. If we are concerned about alternatives that should be discussed before a preliminary proposed levy is set, we should look at cost increases. Some of the items to be looked at as alternatives in this area, which would increase the City levy, are bringing our Police Department back to full- strength at 26 officers or replacing some of the other 12 positions that have been eliminated or are being held vacant. These items would be alternatives that may necessitate increasing the proposed levy, which needs to be done prior to September 15th. After that time, we can only reduce the proposed levy. In summary, I think it is safe to say that all Division Heads feel the proposed "hold the line" budget is the minimum bare bones that we can operate with. This requires the absorption of all inflation into the current budget, which, in itself, will necessitate significant reductions of cun'ent expenses and/or services. One of the attached sheets demonstrates where our budget would be at with a meager 3% per year increase over the adopted 2003 budget. As you can see, by absorbing inflation into a "hold the line" budget, we in reality are reducing the budget by $1,722,380 in 2007. A good example of inflation is the cost of granting a 2% wage increase for 2004 and a 2% increase for 2005. This increase is definitely necessary to maintain our quality of staff. However, it will result in an additional budget expense of approximately $250,000 in 2005. In staff's budget proposal we are recommending that this be absorbed into the current budget through other reductions or generation of additional revenue. If we attempted to make this increase up in addition to the local government aid cut it would easily push our property tax increase to over 20%. Staff will be available at the work session to discuss concerns and ramifications of implementing a "hold the line" budget philosophy and the detriments that this will have on City services. In reality, realizing a major budget reduction in 2004 and holding the line for two additional years is a worst-case scenario. WE:sms 0406173 BUD C~ Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director Tom Johnson, Chief of Police Becky Loader, Library Director Bob Streetar, Community Development Director Charles Thompson, Fire Chief Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager CITY COUNCIL LETTER MEETING OF: JUNE 14, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AND oRIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER ORDINANCES FINANCE APPROVAL NO: ITEM: RESOLUTION PROVIDING 2005 BY: WILLIAM ELRITE BY: BUD GET PREPARATION GUIDELINES, ~~"~. ~~ ADOPTING A PROPOSED MAXIMUM DATE: MAY 27, 2004 BUDGET, AND SETTING THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM CITY LEVY FOR 2005 NO: The purpose of the attached resolution is to provide staff with guidance and direction in the preparation of the 2005 budget and to establish criteria for long-range budget planning as well as restrict property tax increases to residents of Columbia Heights. The three-year goal for budgets and property tax increases is that the budgets for 2005 and 2006 will be developed at the same level as the 2004 budget. The 2007 budget would be developed with a maximum inflationary growth factor of 3 percent. The result of this no budget growth plan means that for 2005 and 2006 the City levy would only increase by the amount of state aid reduction and for 2007 it would only increase by a 3% budget inflationary factor. In actual levy increase dollars, it is estimated that this long-range budget plan would result in a progressively smaller property tax increase for the next three years. For 2005 the increase in our property tax levy would be $544,726, for 2006 $338,380 and for 2007 $240,000. As you can see, the property tax increase goes down significantly each year and even for 2005, the property tax increase would be less than it was in 2004. The adoption of the attached resolution facilitates both budget preparation direction and certification of a proposed budget and levy. Last year this was done in the form of two separate resolutions. For efficiency and cost-effectiveness I have combined both of these resolutions into one. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2004-29 there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2004-29 being a resolution providing 2005 budget preparation guidelines, adopting a proposed maximum budget, and setting the proposed maximum city levy for 2005. WE:sms 0405272COUNCIL Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2004-29 RESOLUTION PROVIDING 2005 BUDGET PREPARATION GUIDELINES, ADOPTING A PROPOSED MAX]MUM BUDGET~ AND SETTING TILE, PROPOSED MAXIM~ CITY LEVY FOR 2005 WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota legislature has adopted legislation that significantly reduces state aid to the City of Columbia Heights; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City Council to maintain city services to residents without impairment from the state aid cuts; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City Council to maintain low property taxes on property in Columbia Heights; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is instructed to prepare the 2005 budget utilizing the same total level for tax-supported funds as the 2004 budget; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed budget for the City of Columbia Heights for the year 2005 is hereby set at the same level as the 2004 budget and is not exceed the following appropriations for each fund as listed below: General Fund $ 8,232,617 EDA $ 222,648 Library $ 631,271 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the only increase in the proposed property tax levy, collectible in 2005, upon the taxable property in the City of Columbia Heights shall be the amount of lost state aid and shall be set at the following amounts: 2004 Adopted Levy Estimated 2005 Aid Loss Proposed 2005 Levy $ 5,447,260 $ 544,726 $ 5,991,983 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the county auditor is authorized t° fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the year 2005 that is higher than the tax rate calculated for t_he city for taxes levied in 2003, collectible in 2004. ~ The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Anoka County, Minnesota. Passed this . day of ,2004 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Julienne Wyckoff CITY OF COL UMBIA HEIGHTS DATE: MAY 27, 2004 TO: WALT FEItST CITY MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM ELRITE FINANCE DIRECTOR PREPARATION OF THE 2005 CITY BUDGET At the present time it appears that our local government aid (LGA) will be reduced by an additional $544,726 in 2005. This is under the phase-in plan that the state legislature adopted in the 2003 legislative session. Under that plan our LGA will ultimately be reduced to $720,097 and will occur in 2006. This means that from the original certified LGA in 2003 to 2006 we will have lost a total of $1,931,902. To deal with this loss in aid I am recommending that the City deviate from the normal budget process and look at a longer-range budget goal to manage the state aid reductions, inflation, and property tax increases. I am recommending that the City look at freezing budgets for 2005 and 2006 at the 2004 level, with no increase in expenditures over and above the 2004 level for either 2005 or 2006. And, for 2007 looking at an inflationary, increase to the budget of 3%. This zero budget growth would necessitate levying in property taxes the aid cuts that the City will receive in 2005 and 2006. Under the current legislative phase-in plan this would be a $544,726 increase in our levy for 2005 and a levy increase of $338,380 for 2006. Neither of these years would see any growth in the budget. In 2007 we would be fully phased in under the state aid reduction plan and would not need a levy increase to make up for state aid reductions. In that year I propose a modest 3% inflationary increase to the budget that would result in a small property tax increase of approximately $240,000. I feel that a plan of this nature would be reasonable as it severely restricts budget growth and forces staff to absorb any inflationary costs into the current budgeting level for the next two years and then allows for only a modest inflationary increase in the third year. This plan would also insure that Columbia Heights retains its role of being the lowest or near lowest in property taxes on a median priced home in the metropolitan area. In addition to the above, I am recommending that the council continue the philosophy that was started last year. of adopting a resolution in June giving staff specific direction and guidance regarding the preparation of the 2005 budget. This was done last year and it makes it much easier for staff to develop a practical budget when they know up front what the guidelines and goals are. Based on this, I have prepared the attached draft council letter and draft resolution to establish a format that the council could adopt to give the staff guidance in preparing the 2005 budget with no increase. The bottom line of my recommendation is that it starts out with a property tax increase in 2005 that is about $85,000 less than the 2004 property tax increase, and then drops into a progressively lesser increase for the next two years while at the same time maintaining a "hold the line" budget for the first two of the three years. This plan ends up with a budget in the third year, 2007, which is still $500,000 less than the 2003 budget. WE:sms 0405271CM Attachments 'ct' 0 0 0 0 nl oo0 oo0 o4O, lO4 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 6/21/04 AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS Program: Surnp Ptnnp BY: K. Hansen~ BY: ITEM: Infiltration / Inflow Disconnect Ordinance DATE: 6/17/0 ~4k,~..~ DATE: Background: Over the last several decades, the City of Columbia Heights has experienced localized flooding from surface water and sanitary sewer system overload (backups). The last of these and one of the most severe was the severe rainfall event occurred the evening of June 24th and early morning of Jtme 25, 2003, measuring 5.47 inches of rain in a 3-hour period (exceeding a 100-year storm event). Several short term and long term remedial measm'es were identified by staffwith the last of these for consideration by the City Cotmcil to Develop an Illicit Discharge Elimination Program; focusing on a Sump Pump Disconnect Program. Analysis/Conclusions: The type of storm that have the greatest impact on our sanitary system are the high intensity / large peak, resulting in a short lag time to when backups occurred in this area, system inflow and to a lesser extent infiltration are the likely cause. Inflow and infiltration (I/I) is tmnecessary water that enters the sanitary sewer system, but can be completely separate in origin. Inflow is storm water rtmoff or any other surface water that flows through a direct connection to the sanitary system. This may occur as a result of connected downspouts, area drains, holes in the manhole covers, cross connections from the storm sewer, or connected sump ptnnps. Infiltration is groundwater that enters the sanitary collection system through cracked pipes, leaky joints and deteriorated manholes. A graph depicting the relationship of I/I to regular sanitary sewer system flow is attached as figure 1. To meet mandated federal requirements, the City conducted an I/I study in 1983. The study noted that 'many of the rainfall related problems associated with inflow occur in the Jackson Pond area,' and 'basements have backed up 7 times in the last three years and approximately 22 to 25 residents are affected by a 1-1/2 inch per horn' rain.' The study concluded that the City of Columbia Heights does not have a major I/I problem, and that 'the system is adequate to handle the peak-flow rates generated dm'lng the design stoma,' but that certain areas (5 of 15 sanitary zones) of the City may benefit from a flow reduction program. A flow reduction program was identified recommending comprehensive cleaning and televising, manhole lid/frame replacements, linings of sanitary sewer, and inflow reduction. The City of Columbia Heights has performed and continues to implement many of the recommendations of the 1983 report. Illicit Discharge Elimination Prom'am: An Illicit Discharge Elimination Program is an involved remediation measure, and can also be very expensive. The ultimate goal of this program would be to systematically eliminate to the public sanitary sewer system sources of illicit connections from private sources, such as sump pumps, fotmdation drains and leaking service lines. All of the physical remediation measures identified to date involve reducing or eliminating I/I in the public system. The MCES and the Rural Water Association have estimated that I/I in the private domain can account for up to 60 or 70 percent of the total I/I in a mmficipal system. The LMC has prepared a fact sheet related to an Illicit Discharge Program, a copy of which is attached from Ellen Longfellow, LMCIT Loss Control and Defense attorney. A recently completed sump pump disconnect program (Waseca) found that nearly 70% of the remahni~g I/I was from privately generated sources. The followh~g steps outline an approach to develop and COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 6/21/04 AGENDA SECTION: WORK SESSION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: Infiltration / Inflow Program: Stnnp Pnnap BY: K. Hansen BY: Disconnect Ordinance DATE: 6/17/04 DATE: implement such a program: a. Sump Pump Disconnect Ordinance b. Public Education c. Public Informational Meetings d. Advertising Campaign e. Training of City Staff, Local Plumbers, and Contractors f. Site Inspections, Disconnections, and Reinspections g. Enforcement h. Other Techniques (potentially smoke and dye testing of non-residential properties) Thefirst step in developing a program is the developing an ordinance that establishes the authority to perform inspections and also require property owners to physically disconnect any illegal connections fi'om the smfitmy sewer line. A review of commtmities that have implemented sump pump ordinances is attached for reference. Particular to a sump pump disconnect ordinance is any financial assistance that communities may offer for the physical disconnect when illegal connections are found, and a penalty clause after a reasonable amount of time is allowed and the disconnect has not been completed. An ordinance also establishes the authority for City personnel to perform the hfitial and follow-up inspections. Another consideration is if the program would be set up actively on a Citywide basis or focusing on specific areas previously identified, such as from the 1983 detailed study. A copy of the 5 areas identified to benefit from fitrther inflow reduction is attached. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. xxxx, there being ample copies available to the public. Recommended Motion: Move to set the second reading of Ordinance No. xxxx, being an Ordinance Establishing a Stnnp Pun~p Disconnect Program for July 12, 2004, at approximately 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers.. Attaclnnent: Sump Pmnp Disconnect Ordinance (drafi)a I/I flow graph (figure 1) LMC Fact Sheet Conununity Listing Sanitary Sewer I/I Zone Areas COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE #1472 (Effective ) BEING AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SURFACE DRAINAGE CONNECTIONS AND DISCHARGES INTO THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM The City of Columbia Heights does hereby establish City Code Section as follows: to read Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to implement regulations that will aid the City in limiting and reducing the inflow of rainwater ( or clear water) into the sanitary sewer system. The ordinance will be utilized to minimize the overflow problem resulting from the lack of capacity of the salfitary sewer system to handle large amounts of rainwater. Other sources of inflow and infiltration are discharges of water from rooftops; surface water, grotmdwater sump pumps, footing tiles, swimming pools, or other natural precipitation sources that may flow into the city sewer system and potentially cause flooding or overloading of the City's sewage system. When clear water is discharged into the sanitary sewer system it is treated at the sewage treatment plant. This results in added expenses for the City. The City of Columbia Heights, therefore, finds it in the best interest of the city to prohibit such discharges into the sanitary sewer system in order to protect and maintain the health and property of its residents. Definitions: Area Drain- is a receptacle designed to collect and convey surface or storm water to the drainage system. Clearwater- is any surface flow, runoff, and drainage that does not contain any hazardous substance or sewage. This includes, but is not limited to, NPDES permitted discharges, storm water and water from foundation and footing drains and basement sump ptm~ps. Combined Sewer- is a sewer that must handle flow of both sanitary wastewater and ston~a water in a single pipeline. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)- occm's when excessive amotmts of rainfall enter a sanitary sewer system. The result is a volume of rainwater and sanitary wastewater, which exceeds the system's capacity. Combined rainwater and sewage is forced to overflow into area streams and hvers tln'ough outfalls. Hazardous Substances- are materials which may canse or contribute to a substantial hazard to hmnan health, safety, property or the envirolm~ent based upon its quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious nature. These may include: (2) (3) Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil, or other flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas. Any waters containing toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, or gases in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, to injure or interfere with any sewage treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or create any hazard in the receiving waters or the wastewater treatment plant. Any waters or wastes having a pH lower than 5.5, or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, and persmmel of the wastewater works. Liquid Waste- means the discharge from any fixture, appliance, or appurtenance that does not receive fecal matter. Owner- shall mean the person who is listed as property owner or taxpayer by Anoka County. Runoff- precipitation and other surface drainage that is not infiltrated into or otherwise retained by the soil, concrete, asphalt, or other surface upon which it falls. Sanitary Sewer System- pipelines, pumping stations, force mains, and all other construction devices, and mechanical devices used for conveying sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. Storm Water- is m~y surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of water fi'om any form of natural precipitation. Compliance: Compliance with other Codes and Laws. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not release a person from any responsibility to comply with any other law or regulation, whether federal, state, or local. Conflict. h~ the event that the provisions of the chapter shall conflict with any Minnesota statue or any federal statute, the Mi~mesota statute or federal statute shall govern to the extent of any direct conflict Violations. Amy person who violated any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an ordinance violation and subject to punisl2nent and penalties identified elsewhere in this ordinance. Prohibited Discharges: Prohibited Discharges. No clear water fi'om any roof, surface, groundwater, sump pump, footing tile, swin2ning pool, other buildings or structures which require, because of infiltration of water into basements, crawl spaces, and the like, a sump pump discharge system shall have a permanently installed discharge line which shall not at any time discharge water into the sanitary sewer system. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged hazardous substances to any public sewers. Disconnection. Before July 1, 2004, any person having a yard drain, roof surface, tile, or swi~rnriing pool now connected and/or discharging into the sanitary sewer system shall be disconnected or removed. Any disconnects or openings in the smfitary sewer system shall be closed or repaired in an effective, workmanlike manner, as approved by the Public Works Director or his designated agent. Sump pumps shall not be connected to the salfitary sewer. Prior to the closing of the sale of a dwelling, the seller must request that the sump pumps and drain tiled be inspected by the City visually and/or by smoking to ensure that they are not connected in any manner to the sanitary sewer system. If the City determines that the sump pump or drain tile is illegally connected to the sanitary sewer system, the situation must be corrected before the trait is considered in compliance to be sold. Manner of Disconnection. The disconnection shall be accomplished by a complete and permanent method and performed in a competent manner. Any disconnection, plugging, capping, rerouting, altering, or modifying must be done is accordance with all applicable state and city building codes. A permanent installation shall be one which provides for year round discharge capability to either the outside of the dwelling, building, or structure, or is connected to city storm sewer or discharge through the curb and gutter to the street. It shall consist of a rigid discharge line, without valving or quick connections for altering the path of discharge, and if connected to the city storm sewer line, shall include a check valve and air gap located in a small diameter structure. Inspections: Inspection. Every person owning huproved real estate that discharges into the City of Colmnbia Heights sal~itary sewer system shall allow a city employee or a designated representative of the city to inspect the building to confirm that there is no sump pump or other prohibited discharges into the sanitary system. In lieu of having the city inspect their property before the sale of a dwelling, the property owner may funfish a certificate from a licensed plumber certifying that the property is in compliance with this section. gn~y person refusing to allow their property to be inspected or refusing to funfish a plumber's certificate within twenty-one (21) days of the date City employee(s) or their designated representatives are denied admittance to the property, shall innnediately become subject to the surcharge hereinafter provided for. Amy property found to violate this ordinance shall make the necessary changes to comply with ordinance and fi.mfish proof of the changes to the City. New Construction. All new dwellings that are pem~itted to install a sump pump after June 1, 2004, shall have a pump that is piped to the outside of the dwelling before a certificate of occupancy is issued. New homes will be required to have their sump pump system inspected within (30) days of occupancy and a certificate of compliance must be completed before the property owner may occupy the property. Incentive. There are a number of methods to dispose of sump pump effluent. Any property which has an existing illegal connection may apply for financial assistance by requesting a City inspector to verify the illegal connection, have the repair completion verified and submit a receipt for labor and/or materials (self help labor rate valued at $50). Upon verification of the corrective action and costs, the City will remit to the property owner the cost to correct the illegal connection to a maximum of $500 per installation. The property ow2~er may petition the City to abate the problem and assess the property owner's cost for the corrective work over a 1-year period. Tlfis incentive program is in effect until December 31, 2006. Surcharge. A surcharge of $100.00 per month is hereby imposed on every sewer bill mailed on an after July 1, 2004 to property owners who are not found to be in compliance with this section or who have refused to allow the city to inspect the property. The surcharge will be added to the property owner's utility billing until the property is found to be in compliance. Penalties. (a) Any person found to be violating any provision of this ordinance shall be served by the City with written notice stating the nature of the violation and providing a reasonable time limit for the satisfactory correction thereof. The offender shall, within the period of time stated in such notice, pennanently cease all violations. (b) h~ the event that the owner fails to correct the situation within the given time period, the City may correct it and collect all such costs together with reasonable attorney fees, or in the alternative, by certifying said costs of correction as any other special assessment upon the land from which said correction of said violation was made. Winter Discharge. The City Manager and his/her designee shall issue a permit to allow a property owner to discharge surface water into the sanitary sewer system. The permit shall authorize such discharge only from November 1st to March BOth of each year and a property owner is required to meet at least one of the following criteria in order to obtain a permit: 1. The freezing of the surface water discharge from sump pump or footing drain is causing a dangerous condition, such as ice buildup or flooding, on public or private property. 2. The property owner has demonstrated that there is a danger that the sump pump or footing drain pipes will freeze up and result in either failure or damage to sunqp pmnp unit of the footing drain and cause basement flooding. 3. The water being discharged fi'om the sump pump or footing drain cannot be readily discharged into a storn~ drain or other acceptable drainage system. Following ten days written notice alld all opportunity to be heard, the City Manager may require a property to discharge their sump pump into the sanitary sewer from November 1~t to March 30th, if surface water discharge is causing an icy condition on streets. Disclaimer. The City of Columbia Heights does not guarantee or imply that areas will be free from flooding or flood damages caused by inflow and infiltration. The City does not assume a specific duty as to individual property owners to enforce tlfis ordinance, but is enacting the ordinance as a general regulation. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the city or its offices or employees for any flood damage that may result from failure to comply with any portion of this ordinance or any administrative decisions made pursuant thereto, whatever the cause. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty days (30) after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered by: Second by: Roll Call: Attest: Mayor Julielme Wyckoff City of Columbia Heights, Milmesota Carole Blowers Secretary Pro Tern G:\PW\Public Works\City CouncilOrdinances\2004\Sump Pump Disconnect Ordinance.doc RAINFALL EVENT I ~ESTIMATED OR MEASURED ///,/ BYPASSED FLOW OR OVERFLOWS . I ]' ~-RECORDED ~EWA6E FLOW i NORMAL DRY WEATHER' /_.~\ ///--SEWAGE FLOW PATTERN INF OW V /RECORDED PRIOR TO MID NOON MID NOON MID O I A TIME IN DAYS FIGURE 1 GRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION OF INFILTRATION / INFLOW L/qC League of Minnesota ~iHes Cities promoting excellence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (612) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122 Fax: (612) 281-1299 ' TDD (612) 281-1290 Don't Get All Wet! Legal Issues Related to Inflow and Infiltration by Ellen A. Longfellow LMCIT Loss Control Attorney January, 1998 Introduction: Now that we have learned what infiltration and inflow are and how to eliminate the problems, let's discuss the legal issues involved in the problems and the solutions. I. Liability Issues if there is Inflow and Infiltration A. Act of God or Nature This defense can be a basis for the case to be dismissed if the city can show that the sole reason for the sewer backups or other problems was an extraordinary rainfall.. Extraordinary rainfall - Was it an mount of rain that the city should normally be expected to anticipate its system to handle? 100 year rainfall, 50 Year rainfall Source of water - Generally, a sanitary sewer system is supposed to be a closed system, how did the storm water get into the system? If storm water went into resident's basements and then into the floor drain or if the manhole covers were lifted to allow the storm water into the sanitary sewer system, there would be a good Act of God defense. If there is inflow and infiltration into the system that could be viewed as negligence then this defense would not be available. The Act of God defense only works by itself. B. Discretionary Immunity Under Minnesota Statute 466.03, subd. 6, the city could be dismissed if it can AN EOIIAL OPPORTIINIIq~r/A'~'¢II~Mt~q'IxrVp A(~rpTt~'NT 17~'/~ffD'f show that the reason why it has not corrected any inflow and infiltration problems is because of a discretionary decision which is defined as a policy decision made by weighing financial, social and/or political factors. For example, a city knows that its system is old and has cracks throughout the lines that allow storm water to get into the sanitary sewer system. The city has notice of the problem but it orders an engineering study to provide options for correcting the problem. The study says that the remedy is to replace all of the sewer lines and that it will cost 10 million dollars. The city does not have the money to do that so it corrects the worst lines with the money that it does have and then develops a long term plan to replace the sewer lines over a ten year period of time. If the city has documented the discretionary decisions in this process, it may be granted discretionary immunity. C. Negligence Standard Was the city negligent in regard to the storm water in the sanitary sewer system? Did it fail to exercise reasonable care? The factors to show negligence are: 1. Defect - Was there a defect in the system? Was there an inflow / infiltration problem? 2. Notice - Did the city have notice of the problem? Had there been prior problems? Had the city had similar rainfalls that caused-the same problems that would have indicated an inflow/infiltration problem? Had .the city ever had an engineering study done outlining inflow / infiltration problems? 3. Failure to correct the problem within a reasonable time: Had the city tried to correct the problem? Did it have a plan to fix it over aperiod °£time? 4. That failure caused the damages _. II. Administrative Liability for Inflow / Infiltration Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Generally, the PCA does not have the authority to regulate the condition of the sanitary sewer collection lines. If as a result of the condition of the sanitary sewer system, there are overflows of the wastewater facility or the lines into the environment, the PCA may impose frees, penalties or restrictions on furore construction. The PCA has this authority under Minnesota Rules 7001.1030 and 7050.0210 - .0211. For example, in Duluth, the PCA placed restrictions on any extensions of the city's sewer system until the inflow / infiltration problem was corrected. 2 III. Legal Authority for Cities to Inspect Private Property - Often sources of inflow into the city's system are illegal private connections of sump pumps or rain leaders into the city's sanitary sewer system. In order to identify the source of storm water, the city must inspect private property. The city can provide authority for such inspections in its sewer ordinance. If someone will not consent to such an inspection, the city will have to obtain a search warrant from a court. IV. Legal Authority to Pay for Remedies for Private Property In order for a city to make a valid expenditure, it must be: A. For a public purpose; The city must articulate that even though it is purchasing sump pumps for private citizens, it benefits the public as a whole by reducing the wastewater treatment costs and eliminating the storm water from the sanitary sewer system. B. Authorized by state statute. The City of Duluth obtained special legislation authorizing it to use grant money for sump pumps for private property owners. z FRIDLE¥ FRIDLE¥ I0 MINNEAPOLIS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - HILLTOP, MN BASE MAP SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FIGURE 12 COMMUNITY LEAST-COST ALTERNATIVES I ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C