Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes/Edina City Council/Iune 19,2007 <br /> Member Housh made a motion and Member Swenson seconded it closing the public <br /> hearing. <br /> Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Member Swenson made a motion to grant first reading and waive second reading for <br /> Ordinance No. 2007-12 amending Section 850 of the Edina City Code to require public <br /> hearing for certain matters by the Edina Planning Commission. Member Housh seconded <br /> the motion. <br /> Rollcall: <br /> Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland <br /> Motion carried. <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 2007-13 ADOPTED AMENDING SECTION 850.16 OF THE CITY <br /> CODE ON-SITE SEWERAGE RETENTION SYSTEMS Affidavits of publication were <br /> presented and placed on file. <br /> Engineer Houle reviewed the history of the Metropolitan Council's Sanitary Interceptor 1-RF- <br /> 491 which was built 54 years ago. He stated recent redevelopment pressures plus the inflow <br /> and infiltration problems has lead to the possibility of the interceptor becoming under <br /> capacity. For these reasons, in 2006 Edina amended its code to require on-site sewerage <br /> retention storage tanks for certain levels of re-development located on the 1-RF-491 <br /> interceptor. Mr. Houle reported that the Metropolitan Council has moved forward with an <br /> improvement project increasing the capacity of the 1-RF-491 interceptor which will begin <br /> construction in 2008. Mr. Houle stated that following re-construction of the interceptor the <br /> increased capacity of the interceptor will negate any need for on-site sewerage retention. He <br /> said the proposed changes would allow the City to collect a cash fee equal to the cost of <br /> constructing the storage tanks from developers. The fee would be held in a dedicated fund to <br /> pay for the cost of reducing inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. A credit <br /> against the fee would be given for any expenditures made to reduce inflow and infiltration <br /> on-site. <br /> Mr. Houle said he believed the proposed ordinance change would be positive because: <br /> • It would offer a tool to address I&I surcharge to Edina <br /> - (MCES surcharge has been proposed to be $528,500) <br /> • It would target I&I on private property <br /> - (MCES estimates 70% of I&I comes from private property) <br /> • An Ordinance would be easier to administer with cost in lieu of option; reduction in <br /> staff and consultant time to review plans of retention facilities. <br /> • Would eliminate unneeded on-site sanitary retention facilities and related <br /> maintenance issues. <br /> No one appeared to make public comment. <br /> Member Housh made a motion and Member Swenson seconded it closing the public <br /> hearing. <br /> Page 2 <br />