Loading...
07/17/1990 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JULY 179 1990 5:15 P.M. I. STATUS UPDATE ON SENECA DEWATERING PERMIT MEDIATION SESSIONS II. OTHER BUSINESS III. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 159 1990 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JULY 179 1990 At the last regular City Council meeting held on July 10, 1990, an executive session was held and it was determined that a special City Council meeting would be held at 5:15 p.m. on July 17 for the purpose of receiving an update on the mediation sessions that are ongoing regarding the dewatering permits to be considered for the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project. Mike Dougherty of the City Attorney's office has provided a memo, which is enclosed on pages through that discusses the status of the mediation sessions to date and the type of direction the staff will need prior to the final session which is scheduled for July 25, It was determined at the executive session that all participants, including the Chamber of Commerce representative and community representatives, be present for the meeting. In light of the regular City Council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m., a light dinner will be served to the City Councilmembers. IS_I Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator JUL 16 '90 15:48 1W9 U L, 1 X E M o R A N D U M TO: Tom Hedges FROM: Michael G. Dougherty RE: Seneca Mediation our File No.: 206-7756 DATE: July 16, 1990 In preparation for the City Council meeting on July 17, 1990, 1 thought it would be appropriate to address some of the concerns which have risen in the mediation process. Issue No. 1. Qne Permit versus Two. Presently the DNR is processing a request by the MWCC for a permanent water appropriation permit for the existing Seneca plant. In contrast, the DNR has indicated that a second permit will be required for the new portion of the facility presently under construction. As you may recall, state law requires that a permittee cannot exceed an average of two million gallons of water per day on a 30 day average, without prior legislative approval. If in fact two permits instead of one were issued for the waste water treatment plant, in effect the MWCC would have the right to appropriate on average four million gallons of water per day without legislative approval. I made a suggestion in the mediation, which was endorsed by the DNR, that for purposes of determining the total amount of water appropriated at the Seneca plant, that both permits be aggregated together and capped at two million gallons per day. The MWCC is not agreeable to that position which in turn has infuriated the residents and the chamber of commerce. The residents feel that they made an agreement with the MWCC and the DNR back in January and February at the state legislature, that in return for allowing the MWCC to have uncontested and unlimited water appropriation during construction, that the MWCC agreed that they would not exceed the two million gallons during operation of the plant after construction. Subsequently, the residents believe that the MWCC's position with respect to the two permits violates their JUL 16 '90 l5: a-.� s'iH-, Issue No. 2 earlier agreement made in connection with the legislation. The DNR insists that they are mandated bylatotoheafact to issue two permits for the facility, due that there are two different sources of water appropriations which are not interconnected. At best, However, it is this may be a debateable issue. generally acknowledged that the agency responsible for interpreting its rules would be given ial deference by a court or administrative law judge in any contested issue regarding the interpretation. It needs to be pointed out that the County which also authorizes installation of wells, concurs with the DNR's interpretation of the one versus two permit issue. T tal Amours of Water A ro riation. Despite the issue of one versus two permits, there is a significant question as to whether or not the cap of two million gallons per day should be imposed upon the.Seneca plant. While the mediation session certainly cannot change the law or advocate a violation of the law, there was evidence presented to the mediation table by the DNR that suggested that keeping within the legal limits may enthen ifve stherMWCCgweresallowedttoon the exceed calcareous f, the legal limit. It is important to keep in mind that the two million gallon per day limit is actually calculated in terms of a thirty (30) day average. That being so, the DNR contends that to allow the MWCC to dewater at a rate of 1.9 million gallons per day for a continuous thirty (3o) days, would be significantly worse then if the Mwcc were to dewater to a point where they exceed the two million gallon average, but were to cut back the dewatering process to a bear minimum when not required. The reason this is important, is that there are six of clarifier tanks within the Seneca plant, and each the clarifiers will be routinely maintenanced once a year. The maintenance requires that dewatering occur so that the area around the clarifier would be relieved of any outside hydrostatic pressure against the empty tants. The dewatering may also occur, should there be an emergency situation that would require one of the tanks to need to be emptied. 3 -2- 61 table As a general proposal, the -mediation asound means has discussed the following proposal compromising the issues: that two permits be issued by the DNR, but that the NIwcc would only be allowed to appropriate one million gallons of water per day with respect to the existing plant and two million gallons per day at the new plant. To exceed the three million gallons per day cap would require approval by the round table. By law, to exceed the two million gallon per day at either pumping site would require legislative approval. Presently, talks concerning the three million gallon compromise have stalled, partly in response to the chamber's and resident's concern over the exceeding of two million gallons per day at the plant as previously agreed and further, the MWCC has not agreed to accept anything less than the four million gallons per day. I believe the three million gallon per day compromise could be accomplished if both parties can show that there has been a little give and take. To keep the dewatering discussion in perspective, it should be kept in mind that the following premises are accurate: 1. That the best time to dewater and therefore maintain the tanks would be in late fall and winter to assure that there is little or no affect on the calcareous fen; however, 2. During late fall and early winter is when the aquifers recharge and thus more water would be needed to be appropriated to maintain the tanks. 3. It takes a minimum of 10 days to dewater to a point where the MwCC can clean a tank and another week or so to actually clean the tank. since this topic is difficult to grasp in a narrative sense, I will be available at the council meeting to discuss this issue and provide additional information. Issue No. 3 Proposal by the Chamber of Commerce that would allow the City of Eagan the right to inspect the Seneca plant operations and maintenance conditions. One of the concerns which I have noted to the chamber and the residents in dealing with such a proposal is the need to enumerate what standards and criteria we are inspecting against. If we are to have the power to review the Seneca plant in light of our City Code, that JUL lb '9Lt lb:_(Ll IH_ -- is certainly something that We can quantify, however, if we are being requested to deal with health conditions or environmental matters which arer nderth e jurisdiction of another agency, am we would want to be stepping into the respective shoes of those agencies. As a matter of fact, when the issue was originally raised, the attorney for the be Metropolitan Council • thought Wanted hat ito Laked the t wou appropriate that if the City responsibility of inspecting the plant for maintenance and operation conditions, that the City should also be named as a co-permitee on the Seneca plant operation. While that may be more of a veiled threat then anything else, the impact of being named as a co-permitee would be such that the City could be found responsible should any violations be levied against the Seneca plant. That certainly would not be in the best interest of the City. I view our ability to investigate the Seneca plant being appropriate if the purpose is to assess Eagan City Code violations. In that regard, we have standards that we can address as well as the appropriate personnel for investigating and identifying violations. if there are other items of concern which inspections would give the City more security, those items should be enumerated and set forth so that there is some criteria of measurement should any violations be identified. As noted in the Memo from Judge Reha, a report on the city's inspection process and what it is that they are going to be looking at, is to be accomplished and put in writing prior to the next mediation session scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, 1990. 6