HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/30/2012I LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA II
5:30 P.M. MONDAY, JULY 30, 2012
LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET
The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City
according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the
City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times
indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input'at meetings.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVALS
a. Agenda
4. CONSENT
5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into
the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak
pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the
City Council.
8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
a. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Policy
b. Discussion with City Attorney regarding the City's Response to the MPCA about
the March 30 Sanitary Sewer Overflow
c. Fires at 1816 and 1818 Walnut Street
9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
a. Presentation by Roseville Superintendent John Thein and School Board Chair Kitty
Gogins
b. City Logo Design Discussion
c. 2013 Budget Discussion
12. WORK SESSION
Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In
consideration for the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this
portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to
limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines
that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be
continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the
public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the
subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not
to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person
having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the
presiding officer.
Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of
order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly
appreciated.
13. ADJOURNMENT
LAUDERDALE COUNCIL
ACTION FORM
Action Requested
Consent
Public Hearing
Discussion X
Action X
Resolution
Work Session
Meeting Date July 30, 2012
ITEM NUMBER Sanitary Sewer Policy
STAFF INITIAL t
APPROVED BY ADMIMSTRATOR
DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION:
I apologize. I forgot to ensure the Council passed the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency
Response Policy. That has to be submitted to the MPCA before the next Council meeting in
response to the Administrative Penalty Order. Let me know if you see a need for any cor-
rections.
OPTIONS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to adopt the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Policy.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF LAUDERDALE
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW EMGERGENCY RESPONSE POLICY
1. Procedure
It is the City's policy to respond to sewer backups and other system problems or failures 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. During normal business hours, all calls and reported problems will
be routed to City Hall. Administrative staff will then dispatch public works staff. Normal
business hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
At all times other than normal business hours, emergency calls will be routed to 911/ Ramsey
County Dispatch. They will report the incident to public works staff via a pager or city -issued
cell phones. The public works staff share the "on-call" hours and will develop an on-call
schedule.
2. Response
It is the goal of the department to provide an initial response within one hour, or as soon as
possible under the circumstances, of receiving report of a problem or an emergency call. The
time necessary to remedy a problem will vary depending on the number of calls, the nature and
seriousness of the problem, weather, and other factors that may impact the department's ability
to respond, find, and correct a reported problem.
When appropriate, a city employee will check the city's sanitary sewer main at the point of the
problem. Corrective action will be taken if the city's sanitary sewer main is found to be blocked
or obstructed.
When a blockage found in a sanitary sewer main is causing a backup into a private portion of the
system, the first priority will be to address the problem in the city's sanitary sewer main.
After a sanitary sewer backup is remedied, efforts to determine the cause of the blockage or
backup will be undertaken by those responding to the emergency. Written records of emergency
response will include information and documentation concerning the cause(s) or possible
cause(s) of the blockage or backup.
When investigation of a backup determines that the problem is within the private portion of the
sanitary sewer system, the sewer customer will be informed of possible corrective action they
may have to perform on their portion of the system.
3. Reporting
The State Duty Officer (1-800-422-0798 or 651-649-5451 in the metro) will be notified by city
staff when bypassing the city's sanitary sewer system or otherwise discharging sewage anywhere
other than to the city's sanitary sewer system.
The State Duty Officer must be notified within one hour or in so far as practical of discovery of
sewage being discharged anywhere other than to the city's sanitary sewer system.
4. Clean Up
City employees responding to a sewer emergency or back up will exercise professional judgment
in implementation of this policy. To that end, staff is authorized to contract for services to
address the sewer emergency and provide for any immediate clean up necessary to meet the
City's obligations under the law without prior City Council approval. Staff is also authorized to
contract with any outside company to address the source of the problem without prior City
Council approval.
The City is not responsible for performing cleanup, remediation, or repairs when sewage is
released inside of a business or home. The City is responsible for cleanup of sewage that flows
over land so as to prevent it from contaminating the waters of the state. City staff will act as
rapidly as possible to recover wastewater.
5. Right of Entry
City staff will not enter private property except as they determine it is necessary for purposes of
public safety, to prevent discharge of pollutants to water bodies, and to meet any other obligation
under law.
When practical, staff will ask owners or lessees of property to sign a waiver to permit entry onto
private property.
6. Insurance Claims
All sewer backup claims must be referred to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
(LMCIT) for determination of liability. City employees are instructed to not discuss or comment
on city liability for backups in the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Lauderdale on July 24, 2012.
Signed: Date:
Mayor Dains
PERMISSION TO ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WAIVER
I/We owner/lessee of
in the City of Lauderdale, do hereby grant the City, and any agents, employees, or others
as may be designated by the City of Lauderdale, permission to enter the above premises for
the purposes of public safety, to prevent discharge of pollutants to water bodies, and to
meet any other obligation under law. Even if you do not agree to this document, the City,
via its agents, employees and others may enter your property to perform work to repair or
eliminate a condition that poses an imminent threat to the public's safety, health, or
welfare.
I/We further agree to hold the City harmless from any and all property damages on the
above-described premises or other injury as may be caused by any entry permitted under
this waiver.
Owner/Lessee Signature:
Owner/Lessee Printed Name:
Date:
For City Use Only:
Staff Member
Date/Time Signature Collected:
Notes:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTACTS
State Duty Officer: 651-649-5451
Ramsey County Dispatch: 911 or 651.767.0640
County Area Supervisor Charlie Markham: 651.248.0032
City Staff and Officials:
Mayor Jeff Dains: 612-219-7929
City Administrator Heather Butkowski: 612-205-1208
Public Works Coordinator David Hinrichs: 612-296-4124
Public Works Maintenance Joe Hughes: 612-382-3548
City Engineer Darren Amundson: 651.604.4894 or 651.775.5623
Spill Management Advice:
Barr Engineering Company:
Sam Johnson 612-207-3538
Eric Lund 612-207-7187
Brian Sillanpaa 612-799-1683
Clean Up Contractors:
VEIT USA, Inc.
14000 Veit Place
Rogers, MN 55374
Brent Johnson: (763) 422-3867612-369-4510 or Gary Elmes 612-490-8681
Bay West, Inc.
5 Empire Drive
St. Paul, MN 55103
Contact: Pat Martin 651-291-3412
Sewer Contractors:
BevLor Utilities Inc.
Sonny Richert (o) 651-464-1035 or (c) 612-801-8145
McDonough's
Barb Deetz: 651-436-3370 or 612-333-3700
Municipal/Commercial Sewer Service
Jay: 651-489-5185
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal Inc.
Matt Loberg: 612-741-9357 or 888-876-8478
LAUDERDALE COUNCIL
ACTION FORM
Action Requested
Consent
Public Hearing
Discussion X
Action X
Resolution
Work Session
Meeting Date July 30, 2012
ITEM NUMBER Sewage Spill Response
Fffr/,
STAFF INITIAL
APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR
DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION:
At the last meeting, the Council voted to have the sewage spill matter heard before an ad-
ministrative law judge. I have been talking with the city attorney, Ron Batty, on how to pro-
ceed. He will be at the meeting to discuss the next steps with the Council.
I updated the letter you received in the last packet that I will be sending to my contact at the
MPCA.
OPTIONS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1�0 1
July 26, 2012
Adam Gulsvig,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Mr. Gulsvig,
CITY OF LAUDERDALE
LAUDERDALE CITY HALL
1891 WALNUT STREET
LAUDERDALE, MN 55113
651-792-7650
651-631-2066 FAx
I am writing in response to your letter dated July 6, 2012 regarding the Sanitary
Sewer Overflow (SSO) event in Lauderdale on March 30, 2012.
My response will consist of two sections. First, I will respond to the corrective
actions noted on page two of the Administrative Penalty Order (APO). The
second section of this letter will be in response to your Reconnaissance Inspection
Report.
Corrective Actions:
The City has long had the Minnesota Duty Officer's contact information
posted throughout Lauderdale City Hall and on laininated emergency
cards that are carried by staff, council members, and posted at the police
desk.
2. You have directed us to provide the local contact information for
residents, emergency responders, and others in the event of an
emergency situation. The City provides that information each quarter to
all residents and business owners within the City via the city newsletter.
The information in also on the City's phone system should someone call
City Hall after-hours. The City plans to leave this system in place and
add information to the city's website and cable access channel. (We
direct callers to call 9-1-1 / Ramsey County Dispatch. Dispatch
contacts the employee on duty). A copy of the newsletter is attached as
Appendix A.
3. You asked us to provide a copy of our Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Emergency Response Plan. The plan was modeled after the policy
prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities. The Policy is attached as
Appendix B.
4. You also asked for a copy of our Sanitary Sewer Operation and
Maintenance Plan. The plan was modeled after the policy prepared by
the League of Minnesota Cities. That Policy is attached as Appendix C.
Reconnaissance Inspection Report
The Reconnaissance Inspection took place on April 4, 2012 by Scot Sokola and
yourself. You noted that you met with representatives/from Twin City Die
Casting (TCDC) and Hawkins Chemical, Inc. (HC). `The City was not invited to
participate. After reviewing the report, I find this unfortunate as city staff would
have been able to provide you with information of the events as they occurred and
the cleanup efforts to that point. As we were unable to share that information
then, this letter will be the method through which the Lauderdale City Council and
city staff clarify the events of that evening for the record.
The City of Minneapolis received notice from TCDC staff at approximately 7:00
p.m. on March 30, 2012, of a sewer overflow. Minneapolis staff responded and
informed TCDC staff that the spill was not within Minneapolis. From my
conversations with Mike Burton,TCDC Corporate Facility Manager, he then
attempted to call the City of St. Paul., At 8:03 p:m. he called Ramsey County
Dispatch. In the -call to dispatch he noted that the spillhad occurred about 3 hours
prior and that the sewer was no longer backing up. Staff was paged at 8:08 p.m.
and responded to the page at, 8:29 p.m. Due to the time lapse in receiving
notification, city staff could not determine with certainty the amount of sewage
that had been released. Staff relied on information from TCDC and HC staff as
they witnessed the event.
As noted above, the City makes every effort to keep emergency contact
informationin the hands of our residential and business community. As city staff
has worked with Burton op another project, it is not clear to me why he didn't
contact the City of Lauderdale first. I assume Corrective Action #2 stems from
him not knowing whore to call. While the City will continue to do all it can to
keep information at co'hum pity members' fingertips, I do not feel the City is at
fault for mistakes made by TCDC staff.
Even though sewage was no longer spilling once on site, city staff began working
with Municipal/Commercial Sewer Service to clear the manhole to prevent a
reoccurrence of the blockage. As TCDC built a structure over the City's sewer
easement many years ago, the City does not have direct access to the manhole.
From downstream, city staff and the contractor attempted to use water to break
apart the roots. When this was not effective, the City contacted Northland
( / / girt ro n
.l die 9jew d in tfie ./Vletw
Mechanical. Their staff entered the manhole to cut the roots apart. Again, because
of our lack of access to the manhole, it took time for the contractor and staff to
carry the tripod and harness equipment down the embankment from TH280 and
over the railroad tracks. Ultimately, they were able to cut apart the roots the
morning of March 31. The contractor removed the roots that had caused the
backup in sections. Those were the roots you saw on site. From the time staff was
notified of the spill until the time the contractor cleared the roots was
approximately 20 hours.
You mentioned on page two of the Recon Report
MPCA staff was informed by represen
businesses that the roots were cut by't1
31, 2012. The SSO was contained- As,a
This notion indicates that routine opera
occurred in and around the manhole to
cause of the SSO.
Again, it is unfortunate that
notion that lack of routine op
as evidenced by a number of
the City's sanitary sewer ma
the past. The City, became
infiltration inspection. In th
proper covering, raised it to''
There, were no roots in the ar,
'DC's
indication of roots in the
within Lauderdale were
roots of this size or any,
televised the line servici
under TH280. That line
caused the overflow.
affected
e Regulated Party on March
result of the root cutting.
tion and maintenance had not
ration and was most likelv the
we were not able to meet with you that day. Your
eration and maintenance had not occurred is incorrect
recent' actions by the City. First, TCDC had replaced
Whole cover withr a storm sewer grate at some point in
ware of this late in 2008 during an inflow and
e`spring of 2009, the city replaced the grate with a
prevent further inflow and reconditioned the manhole.
ea around the manhole. Next, the sewer line running
is: televised in the summer of 2010. There was no
I., In the past two years, all residential city streets
ised by the City and Xcel Energy. There were no
ition issues evident. Finally, after the SSO the City
CDC which starts on Larpenteur Avenue and runs
did not show evidence of roots that could have
I believe it is important for the MPCA to understand that two outside entities send
flow through the city's system. First, Corval Group has a private line connecting
one of their buildings to the manhole before TCDC's. The City was unaware of
this old line until the reconstruction of the TH280 at Larpenteur Avenue Bridge in
2009. The City found evidence of roots in this line in 2010 when city staff worked
with the Corval Group to understand the cause of a backup within their building.
Additionally, the City of Roseville connected the Paper-Calmonson site
(Broadway and TH280) to Lauderdale's system in 2009 to eliminate a lift station
eit� of
J Pie hta" ire the .M.aw
at County Road B. The joint powers agreement requires each city to maintain
their system so we do not know the condition of their system.
I understand the finding that we did not notify the Duty Officer as prescribed by
law. Staff now understands that they must do this even if they know that another
entity has made the call. Staff knew that Hawkins' Chemical staff had called the
Duty Officer even before the City was aware of the spill. Staff understands the
process they must follow in notifying the Duty Officer.
After calling the Duty Officer on April 2, city
guidance on cleaning up the area around the
businesses felt the City should be doing more.
Public Works Coordinator, spoke to a i
Tuesday regarding his plan to rake and
manhole. When staff did not receive a'4
the area, John Marty, to see if he could
Later Tuesday afternoon he received c<
In hindsight, we understand that, the Ml
cleanup. We realize that each party int
will only determine thereafter if the, pla
wait for MPCA approval before be'2inu
Staff planned to b
adjuster asked to
showed the site to
left, they.began cl
As you know, the
remediated by the
before, they thoup
property (whether
backups occur. C
W
site:fitst; staff
staff. called the MPGA asking for
manhole as one of the affected
David Hinrichs, City of Lauderdale
of MPCA staff on Monday and
e the dried material around the
,ponse, staff asked the state senator for
1p the City get guidance Qn the cleanup.
irmation that this plan was acceptable.
A does not provide guidance on spill
develop a cleanup plan and the MPCA
ivas adequate. In the future, we will not
ning as.the City's insurance
that request. Public works staff
9:00 a.m. on April 4. After he
that MPCA staff was
;ected areas on the exterior of TCDC and HC had been
vners. 'As city staff had not experienced an overland spill
the laind owner was responsible for the cleanup on private
terio�` or; exterior) as is the case when residential basement
staff now understands that in the event of an emergency, city
staff may enter private „property, even without permission. The affected
businesses have been compensated for their cleanup efforts.
You noted that a rain event may have exacerbated the problem. Staff saw no
indication that any material from behind the building had entered the parking area
due to the rain. When wet, staff noticed some material along the railroad tracks
that had not been initially collected by the contracted cleaning companies.
The City received notice that the MPCA felt remediation efforts were
unacceptable at approximately 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 4. City staff met
with Veit, Inc. staff the evening of April 4 to prepare an action plan to have a
cleanup crew mobilized for the morning of April 5. All work was completed by
the end of the day on April 5, not April 6 as mentioned in your report.
The City Council has provided staff with the resources and tools to handle a
subsequent emergency in a manner that will be in step with MPCA expectations.
Nevertheless, the City still feels the MPCA could have' een more forthright in
communicating with the City, especially by meetingI`w th city staff when MPCA
staff was on-site. Additionally, the fine seems ex essive considering the City did
F
everything it could to remediate the situation once it received word from the
MPCA that its cleanup efforts were subpar. The Council also finds the fine
surprising as it simply means tax dollars from one government entity are being
transferred to another government entity. + If a fine must be levied; it seems the
MPCA and the City could find a use for
tax payers. ,
As you already know, the La
necessary for a review by an
this report with the other cor.
Sincerely,
H
C
the
would
to the
to file the documents
o ask that you include