The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-04 UC Packetliwater T H E R RTHPL E M I N K h' 0 1 0 AGENDA UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 2021 8:00 AM I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 12th, 2021 Utilities Commission Meeting Minutes III. OPEN FORUM — the open forum allows the public to address the commission on subjects which are not a part of the meeting. Commission may take action, reply, or give direction to staff. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. IV. NEW BUSINESS 2. White Bear Lake Court Case Update- David Sienko- Levander Gillen Miller PA 3. Discussion on Late Payment Fee V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VI. DIRECTOR/SUPERINTENDENT UPDATE 4. Monthly Updates - gallons pumped VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURN 5. Next meeting date is December 9, 2021 i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING August 12, 2021 8:00 A.M. Utilities Superintendent Benson called the meeting to order at 8:18 a.m. Present: Vice Chair Hudak, Commissioners Hutter and Whitcomb, Councilmember Polehna Absent: Chairman Speedling, Commissioner Jensen Staff: Utilities Superintendent Benson, Public Works Director Sanders APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 8, 2021 meeting Motion by Commissioner Whitcomb, seconded by Vice Chair Hudak, to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. NEW BUSINESS Possible approval of Utilities 2022 Operating Budget Public Works Director Sanders provided the proposed 2022 operating budget for the Sanitary Sewer and Water Departments within the Utility division. The proposed budget for the Sewer Department is $3,801,456 ($2.175M is for Met Council waste charges) and the proposed Water Department budget is $1,729,240. Staff recommends that the Commission review and approve the proposed operating budget for the 2022 Utility Division. Vice Chair Hudak asked, when a budget is approved, are funds shifted within the total amount if unexpected situations arise? Mr. Sanders answered if line items change, for instance a watermain breaks, funds can be shifted somewhat depending on the nature of the necessary work. The proposed budget does not include a specific line item for Smart Controllers, but he believes there is enough funding in the miscellaneous category to develop some type of rebate program where a property owner buys and installs the Smart Controller and applies to the City for a rebate. Motion by Commissioner Whitcomb, seconded by Commissioner Hutter, to approve the 2022 Utilities budget as presented. All in favor. Update on Water Use Restrictions Ordinance Public Works Director Sanders provided a proposed City Code amendment related to water conservation, which: 1) updates the procedure in declaring an emergency when there is a water supply shortage; and 2) creates a watering restriction during the summer months and allows the Utilities Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council to implement water restrictions when warranted. The water restriction would limit watering of lawns to odd/even days and prohibit watering from 10 am to 6 pm each day from June 1 to October 1. Violation would be subject to an administrative fine, at the discretion of staff to administer. First offense would $25, afterwards fines would double within a 12-month period. Staff recommends the Commission review, discuss and approve. If approved, staff would bring the amendment to City Council for final adoption. Utilities Commission Meeting August 12, 2021 Commissioner Whitcomb asked about accommodations for watering of new sod, new trees and so on. Mr. Sanders replied that new construction can get a waiver to water new sod, and hand -watering new trees would be allowed. Vice Chair Hudak asked, regarding water shortages due to drought conditions, if the City has enough capacity should two pumps go down at the same time. Mr. Benson said the City is permitted by the DNR to use 865 million gallons a year. The City can pump up to 10.5 gallons per day. If the City reached capacity with largest pump out, restrictions could be enforced. If a pump is lost, the City could still maintain the needed supply. Mr. Sanders added that if one pump went down, reducing the capacity from 10 million to 8.5 million gallons per day, the Commission could consider imposing restrictions. There are two parts to the ordinance. One part implements water restrictions for the summer months every year. Additionally, whenever there is a water supply shortage, the Utilities Commission would decide on a recommendation to impose water restrictions. Usage has been up to around 4-5 million gallons per day with the current drought conditions, less than half max capacity. Commissioner Whitcomb said he wants to make sure the ordinance does not create a problem for staff to enforce, for people watering trees. It seems to have flexibility to cover that. Motion by Commissioner Whitcomb, seconded by Vice Chair Hudak, to recommend the Council approve the Water Use Restrictions Ordinance as proposed. All in favor. Meeting time Mr. Sanders asked if the Commission would like to consider changing to an evening meeting to accommodate Commissioners who work during the day. Vice Chair Hudak noted it was much easier to achieve a quorum when meetings were done via Zoom. Commissioner Hutter said she is open to changing the meeting time if it works better for others. Mr. Sanders said staff will bring this up next time there is a full quorum. White Bear Lake Lawsuit Councilmember Polehna asked the status of the White Bear Lake lawsuit. Mr. Sanders replied there are still some pending appeals and litigation. As long as that is happening there is no action that the City must take regarding any of the requirements that were imposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. DIRECTOR/SUPERINTENDENT UPDATE Discussion on summer water use Discussed above. Monthly Updates - gallons pumped Mr. Benson provided the monthly totals. June and July were up compared to previous years. The City is at 456 million gallons pumped for 2021, slightly under 2018 numbers. Commissioner Whitcomb asked how the permitted amount gets changed to reflect population growth. Mr. Benson replied that the City may apply to the DNR to have the permitted amount adjusted. The City is still under the permitted capacity so there has not been a need to adjust the amount. Page 2 of 3 Utilities Commission Meeting August 12, 2021 COMMISSIONER ITEMS There were no Commissioner items. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Benson noted the next meeting is September 9, 2021. Motion by Commissioner Whitcomb, seconded by Vice Chair Hudak, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9 a.m. ATTEST: Robert Benson, Utilities Superintendent Curt Hudak, Vice Chair Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM To: Utility Commission Members •6. From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works Date: November 1, 2021 Subject: White Beal Lake Court Case Update DISCUSSION David Sienko, from Levander, Gillen and Miller, PA. will be providing an update on the While Bear Lake Court Case. Mr. Sienko has provided three attachments for his update. I'flIDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Ecological and Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road- Box 25 St Paul, MN 55155-4025 October 21, 2021 Stillwater Tom McCarty 204 3rd St N Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Residential Irrigation Ban at White Bear Lake Trigger Elevation of 923.5 feet (MSL 1912) Permit No 1975-6207 Dear Tom McCarty: On August 30, 2017, the Ramsey County District Court issued a ruling requiring the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to amend all water appropriation permits within five miles of White Bear Lake to include a residential irrigation ban when the lake level reaches a trigger elevation of 923.5 feet (MSL 1912). In March 2018, the DNR amended the above -reference permit(s) to require you to institute a residential irrigation ban when DNR notifies you that the elevation of White Bear Lake has dropped below 923.5 feet (MSL 1912). The DNR recognizes that you have requested a contested case hearing, and that while the contested case is pending, this permit condition is not in effect. Minnesota has, however, been experiencing extensive drought conditions across the state, including within the five mile radius of White Bear Lake. Non -essential water uses, such as residential irrigation will leave less water to support domestic water supply and other higher priority water uses, as well as aquatic ecosystems and recreation. Thus, even though you are not currently required to implement the residential irrigation ban, the DNR is requesting, as a matter of comity, that you voluntarily implement this ban now that the lake elevation has dropped below 923.5 feet (MSL 1912) and leave it in place until the DNR notifies you that the lake elevation has rebounded to 924 feet (MSL 1912). Should you have any questions regarding this requirement, please contact me at (651) 259-5156 or randall.doneen@state.mn.us . Sincerely Randall Doneen Manager Conservation Assistance and Regulation Division Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1'1mitmesoTA OFFICE OF AOMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS PO gm 6462D PH {651] 341-79130 Sit Pad, MN 5516 -062D m September 27, 2021 Re: In the Matter of Amendments to Various Water Appropriation Permits OAH 8-2002-37733 Dear Parties: Enclosed and served upon you please find the FIFTH PREHEARING ORDER in the above -entitled matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 361-7874, michelle.severson@state.mn.us, or via facsimile at (651) 539-0310. Sincerely, LivlAdkaa,--uvatly0 MICHELLE SEVERSON Legal Assistant Enclosure cc: Docket Coordinator OAH 8-2002-37733 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES In the Matter of Amendments to Various Water FIFTH PREHEARING ORDER Appropriation Permits This consolidated matter came before Administrative Law Judge Eric L. Lipman on August 17, 2021, for an oral argument on the petitions for intervention from the White Bear Lake Rehabilitation Association and the White Bear Lake Homeowners Association. Stacey W. Person and Colin P. O'Donovan, Assistant Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Department). H. Alan Kantrud, H.A. Kantrud, P.A., appeared on behalf of the Dellwood Country Club, the Indian Hills Golf Club and the White Bear Yacht Club. Gary A. Van Cleve, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., appeared on behalf of the H.B. Fuller Company. David K. Snyder, Johnson Turner, appeared on behalf of the City of Hugo. James J. Thomson and Michelle E. Weinberg, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, appeared on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo. Jay T. Squires, Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., appeared on behalf of the City of Lino Lakes. David L. Sienko, Cassandra J. Bautista and Bridget McCauley Nason, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A., appeared on behalf of the City of Mahtomedi. Jared D. Shepherd and Leah C. Koch, Campbell Knutson, P.A., appeared on behalf of the City of North St. Paul. James J. Thomson and Michelle E. Weinberg, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, appeared on behalf of the City of Oakdale. Lisa L. Veith, Senior Assistant City Attorney, appeared on behalf of Saint Paul Regional Water Services. David L. Sienko and Korine L. Land, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A., appeared on behalf of the City of Stillwater. Caroline Bell Beckman and Mark F. Gaughan, Erickson, Bell, Beckman, & Quinn, P.A., appeared on behalf of the City of Vadnais Heights. Monte A. Mills and Faris A. Rashid, Greene Espel, PLLP, appeared on behalf of the City of White Bear Lake. Chad D. Lemmons, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A., appeared on behalf of White Bear Township. Gregory R. Merz, Lathrop GPM, appeared on behalf of Whirlpool Corporation. Richard D. Dworek, Chief Environmental and Real Estate Counsel, Arconic, Inc., appeared on behalf of Reynolds Metals Company. Michael R. Drysdale, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, and Karl A. Karg, Latham & Watkins, LLP, appeared on behalf of Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC. Richard B. Allyn and Shira T. Shapiro, Robins Kaplan, LLP, appeared on behalf of the White Bear Lake Rehabilitation Association (Rehabilitation Association). Byron R. Starns, Stinson, LLP, appeared on behalf of the White Bear Lake Homeowners Association (Homeowners Association). Based upon the contents of the hearing record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Homeowners Association's petition is GRANTED. 2. The Restoration Association's petition is GRANTED. Dated: September 27, 2021 ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge MEMORANDUM Factual Background 1. The Hydrology of White Bear Lake and Nearby Watersheds White Bear Lake is a large lake lying within Ramsey and Washington Counties. It is a closed -basin lake, meaning that it has no major natural surface water inlets or outlets, such as rivers or streams. The lake depends on groundwater and precipitation [165088/1] 2 for water. Because of this, and its relatively small watershed, there have been significant fluctuations in the water level of White Bear Lake over time.1 Two bedrock aquifers, commonly referenced together as the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer, are located below the lake. The lake and the aquifer are hydrologically connected, and the lake's water levels are affected by groundwater pumping, among other factors.2 Multiple high -capacity groundwater wells surround White Bear Lake, providing domestic water supply to area communities. Before extracting groundwater for municipal use, cities must first obtain a water appropriation permit from the Department. The Department has authorized the pumping of groundwater from the aquifer through groundwater appropriation permits. The Department is responsible for issuing and amending groundwater appropriation permits; ensuring that permittees comply with the terms of those permits; and taking remedial action whenever permitted activities negatively impact a natural resource.3 2. The State Court Litigation In April of 2013, the Restoration Association filed suit against the Department in the District Court for Ramsey County. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the groundwater appropriation permits issued by the Department. The complaint alleged that the Department had mismanaged the permit appropriation process. Specifically, the Restoration Association claimed that the Department had issued too many groundwater appropriation permits and that the pumping from high -capacity wells near the lake had resulted in harmful declines in lake -water elevations.4 The District Court declared that the Department, through its actions and inaction in relation to groundwater -appropriation permits in the Eastern Metro, had violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), multiple provisions of the state's water law, and the common-law public -trust doctrine. The District Court ordered injunctive relief that included requiring the Department to review and amend all groundwater appropriation permits within a five -mile radius of White Bear Lake. These injunctions affected the groundwater permits not only of the intervenors, but also of municipalities that were not parties to the state court litigation.5 On appeal, a panel of the court of appeals held that because the suit involved challenges to permits granted by the Department, the suit could only be brought under Minn. Stat. § 116B.10 (2020) — not the provision relied upon by the associations, Minn. Stat. § 116B.03 (2020). On the public -trust -doctrine claim, the panel held that the 1 White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Nat. Res., 928 N.W.2d 351, 355 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019) (White Bear Lake I), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 946 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2020). 2 Id. at 355-56. 3 Id. at 356. 4 5 Id. at 357-58. [165088/1] 3 doctrine did not extend so far as to impose a duty on the Department to manage the groundwater and the surface water level of the lake.6 The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review, reversed the decision of the panel in part, and remanded the matter to the appellate court for consideration of issues that were raised on appeal but that were not decided by the panel during the first appeal.' Following the remand, the appeals court panel affirmed the judgment of the District Court with regard to the remaining issues remanded to the panel, but required an amendment to a portion of the injunctions to make clear that the water appropriation permit holders had the right to a contested case hearing prior to the imposition of any permit amendments.8 3. The Filings in this Matter On May 20, 2021, the Rehabilitation Association and the Homeowners Association requested intervention as parties in the above -captioned matters. From the seventeen contested matters, seven parties objected to the May 20, 2021, petition. On June 4, 2021, the Rehabilitation Association and the Homeowners Association supplemented their earlier request by making a claim to intervention under Minnesota's Environmental Rights Act (MERA) — citing Minn. Stat. § 116B.09 (2020). On August 6, 2021, four parties submitted objections to this claim. The Department does not object to the intervention petitions of either the Rehabilitation Association or the Homeowners Association. part: Analysis The intervention rule of the Office of Administrative Hearings provides in relevant Any person not named in the notice of hearing who desires to intervene in a contested case as a party shall submit a timely written petition to intervene to the judge and shall serve the petition upon all existing parties and the agency.... The petition shall show how the petitioner's legal rights, duties, or privileges may be determined or affected by the contested case; shall show how the petitioner may be directly affected by the outcome or that petitioner's participation is authorized by statute, rule, or court decision; shall set forth the grounds and purposes for 6 Id. at 357-58 7 White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Nat. Res., 946 N.W.2d 373, 387 (Minn. 2020) (White Bear Lake II) 8 White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Nat. Res., A18-0750, 2020 WL 7690268, slip op. at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020) (unpublished) (White Bear Lake III). [165088/1] 4 which intervention is sought; and shall indicate petitioner's statutory right to intervene if one should exist.9 Both associations maintain that they satisfy the intervention rule because permit amendments might follow from the various contested cases, affecting their distinct economic and aesthetic interests. The Administrative Law Judge agrees. The permit holders and the members of the two associations are linked by the hydrology of a shared aquifer. What benefits accrue to the water appropriators under their permits may well impact the "legal rights, duties, or privileges" enjoyed by the associations,10 and their individual members, as to this same water. Moreover, to the extent that there is a legislative expectation that the Department will be "held accountable for ... ongoing conduct in managing groundwater appropriation,"11 that accountability cannot devolve to the permittees alone.12 The associations have established their rights to intervene under Minn. R. 1400.6200 (2021). The Administrative Law Judge does not reach the question of whether MERA also requires granting of the petitions for intervention. The procedural rule fully answers the question presented that is here, making interpretation of the statutory provisions unnecessary. E. L. L. 9 Minn. R. 1400.6200, subp. 1. 1° Id.; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975) ("Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members ... The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit ... So long as this can be established, and so long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court's jurisdiction"). 11 White Bear Lake II, 946 N.W.2d at 380. 12 In the Matter of the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted To Robert W. Hubbard By the City of Lakeland, OAH 3-2000-17810-2, 2007 WL 1600535, at *3 (Minn. Off. Admin. Hrgs. 2007) (intervention under rule 1400.6600 was appropriate where petitioners established that they had "a particular interest in protecting the environmental character of the St. Croix River Valley" and intended "to challenge the propriety" of determinations made by the Department); In the Matter of Limited Permit No. 99-1094 to William C. Young, OAH 12-2000-12817-2, 2000 WL 35498864, at *1 (Minn. Off. Admin. Hrgs. 2000) (Intervention by the Cass County Environmental Services Department was appropriate where the County's enforcement interests were distinct from the Department). [165088/1] 5 M1DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • Randall Doneen, Section Manager MN DNR Ecological and Water Resources • Jason Moeckel, Section Manager MN DNR Ecological and Water Resources White Bear Lake —Court Timeline • In November 2012, the White Bear Lake Restoration Association and the White Bear Lake Homeowners Association filed a suit in Ramsey County District Court alleging the DNR permitted too much groundwater use near White Bear Lake, causing the lake water levels to drop unacceptably. • 2017 District Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, the DNR appealed. • Supreme Court Ruling in July of 2020 • December 2020 Court of Appeals affirmed 6 of 7 issues in the District Court ruling and remanded for administrative proceedings Key Elements of Court Order • DNR is prohibited from issuing new permits or increases within 5 miles unless certain conditions are met • Residential irrigation ban at 923.5 lake elevation • Residential 75 gpd per capita water use and total 90 gpd • Requires public water suppliers to develop a contingency plan to shift their source of water from groundwater to surface water • No groundwater permits can be issued unless the DNR has sufficient hydrologic data to understand the impact on White Bear Lake and the Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer • LANK 10 set a collective annual withdrawal limit for White Bear Lake and adjust permits accordingly Implementation and Timing • 2018 DNR amended permits following the court order • 12 Communities and 5 other permit holders filed a request for a contested case hearing • Permit amendments are not active during the contested case process unless otherwise directed by court • E.g. Irrigation ban, contingency plan, per capita water use goals • DNR contacted the administrative law judge to resume the contested case process, which will take several months to a year. • L„LI ict ��u, L „ , L,.,u„ 1115 ,,,J„chly updates on the contested case process Circle Pines fhoraviefv. . • L Arden Hfls Permits and Wells w/in 5 Mile Area Lino Lakes North Oaks 0 Vadnais Heights Little Ca ada o Roseville Falcon Heights St. Paul • £I ^ 0 'Dellwood ae --�� White ISear.Lake{-1 Mahtomed E.� ri • (� •• BircYSGeo Village Gem Le e Wi lernie • North Saint Pa I Mapl woo 0 0 O ® Oakdale Landfall .7 Stillwater y. Oak Park Height Lek- Elmo 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Miles 5 Yr Annual Avg Groundwater Use Within 5 Miles of WBL Millions of Gallons 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 7,977 8,210 7,818 ...... 77118..... 7,224 ....... ......6,128 1988-92 1993-97 1998-02 2003-07 2008-12 2013-17 Yea rs Note: St. Paul Regional Water Services no longer relying on groundwater Last 10 Years of White Bear Lake Water Levels 925.0 924.0 $ 923.0 a, 7 3 922.0 1.v ea e3 921.0 920.0 919.0 Recorded Water Levels 2011-9-21 to 2021-9-21 v\, ti 01'L `L0"3 01P ti J i Jr White Bear 82016700 f , 1°10 ti011 Technical Analyses • The DNR used its groundwater model to analyze a variety of hypothetical scenarios as a way to help all parties understand the complex dynamics of groundwater pumping and lake levels. • There is a very important distance and water volume relationship that becomes apparent when viewing these results. • The various scenarios should be viewed like a sensitivity analysis to inform ongoing discussions. • These scenarios were not intended as specific solutions, but rather help understand key elements of the court order. Key Elements of the Court Order 3. The DNR is prohibited from issuing appropriation permits for new groundwater wells, or increasing appropriation amounts in existing groundwater permits, within a 5- mile radius of White Bear Lake until it has fully complied with the requirements of the above statutes. To that end, it shall: A) review all existing...permits within 5-mile radius, ...individually, and cumulatively, to ensure compliance with 103G.287, Subd. 5. B) in the event that any of the above permits do not comply with the sustainability standard set by statute, they will reopened and down -sized within 6 months... C) analyze the cumulative impact of these permits... of maximum rates authorized. Results to be published in a public newspaper.... Key Elements of the Court Order 4. For permits within a 5-mile radius of White Bear Lake, the DNR shall comply with all the applicable provisions of M.S. 103G.285, including: A) setting a collective annual witnarawal limit Tor vvnite Bear Lake; B) Setting a trigger elevation of 923.5 feet for implementation of the protected elevation; C) Preparing, enacting and enforcing a residential irrigation ban when the level of White Bear Lake is below 923.5 feet, to continue until the lake has reached an elevation of 924 feet... within 6 months.. D) Requiring that all existing permits include an enforceable plan to phase down per capita residential water use to 75 gallons per day and total per capita water use to 90 gallons per day. The enactment of this requirement will be completed no later than 1 year from the date of this order Collective Annual Withdrawal Limits Lake Stage, MSL 1912 (feet) 918 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Observed 0.4 ac-ft/ac Jan-08 Jan-10 -No Use -- - Protective Elevation Jan-12 Jan-14 Existing Permits 0.745 ac-ft/ac Jan-16 Jan-18 • MS 103G.285 limits (0.5 ac- ft/ac) • Existing use — 0.745 ac-ft/acre comparable withdrawal — 585 MGY • Protective Elevation - (0.4 ac- ft/ac) 314 MGY White Bear Lake — Results of Uniform % Reduction of All Permits Within 5 Miles Lake Stage, MSL 1912 (feet) 926 925 924 923 922 921 920 919 918 917 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 Observed No use —Existing Permits ---40% Reduction - - -Outlet Invert — - -Protective Elevation —25% -25% Reduction ® Existing, Apr -Nov ■ 40% Reduction, Apr -Nov ■ 25% Reduction, Apr -Nov • Existing Use — 44 permits w/5 mile radius 5.65 BGY • 60% - 3.39 BGY • Roughly eq. to 0.4 acre ft./ acre Average Per Capita Water Use 2005-2017 within 5-miles 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 • ■ ■ �o yes e& a�• ,�\� ,��• �oc ,��`� o� ,�� , o a �o� ��Q Oaf ��Q \tea ��0o ` ��te .k\,?:' ib. Yellow line is at 90 GPCD Per Capita Use Scenarios Lake Stage, MSL 1912 (feet) Observed 2040 Exist Pop, <= 90 gpcd 5mi 2040, <= 90 gpcd 5 mi Plus No Pumping, WBL 5-mi Plus - - - Outlet Invert 2040, <= 90 gpcd 5 mi Existing Permits — - - Protective Elevation Exist Pop, <= 90 gpcd 5mi Plus White Bear Lake — Results of Raising the Lake Outlet Elevation One Foot 927 926 925 924 v v N 923 11,1 922 al 921 v 920 J 919 918 917 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 Observed No use Existing Permits - - -Outlet Invert — -Protective Elevation ---Existing, Outlet Raise - - - Raised Oulet Key Elements of the Court Order 4E. Immediately amending all permits within 5-mile radius of White Bear Lake to require that within one year of the date of this order, permittees submit a contingency plan in their water supply plans for conversion to total or partial supply from surface water sources. This contingency plan will include a schedule for funding design, construction and conversion to surface water supply.... Whether any conversion would occur shall be determined by the DNR and the affected communities. 4F. Requiring that all groundwater permittees report annually to the DNR on collaborative efforts with other northeast metro communities to develop plans as described in (D), above. (D) refers to the per capita 75/90 goals White Bear Lake — Results of Using an Alternate Source of Water for Several Public Water Suppliers 927 926 925 924 w 923 922 921 920 a) J 919 918 917 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 —Observed —No use —Existing Permits - - - Outlet Invert — - Protective Elevation — --Remove 2 ---Remove 3 • Remove 2, Apr -Nov • Remove 3, Apr -Nov Key Elements of the Court Order 5. The DNR shall issue no groundwater appropriation permits unless it has sufficient hydrologic data to understand the impact, whether cumulative or otherwise, of those groundwater appropriations on White Bear Lake and the Prairie du Chien -Jordan Aquifer. 6. The DNR shall work with the Metropolitan Council to evaluate current conservation goals and update them as needed. 7. The DNR shall require that water supply plans include measurable conservation goals and shall evaluate compliance with water conservation requirements on all permits issued within the 5 mile radius of the lake. Should the individual community be out of compliance with those requirements, the DNR shall take appropriate action in downsizing that community's permit. 10. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action to monitor the DNR's compliance with the conditions imposed by this Order. Average Annual Volume of Water Use —Existing and Projected for 2040 Average Annual Volume (MGY) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1111 II 11 11 II II • aa\e ear ' a�� Oaf �osee' ee' �CQ far a�a>5 o•`r Ja • 2040 • Existing •• oar yes \O Belk �o� �o �o o a ooa`p��a �k\�0 �� Ar 2040 estimates are based on comprehensive plans and community projections and may not necessarily reflect ongoing efforts at water conservation White Bear Lake —Projected Lake Levels Under Average 2040 Water Use in North and East Metro Area Lake Stage, MSL 1912 (feet) 927 926 925 924 923 922 921 920 919 918 Jan-02 Jan-04 - Observed - 2040 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Jan-14 Jan-16 Jan-18 1\10 Pumping, WBL 5-mi Plus Existing Permits - - - Outlet Invert — • - Protective Elevation White Bear Lake — Projected Lake Levels Under Average 2040 Water Use in North and East Metro Area with Alternate Source for Several Communities Lake Stage, MSL 1912 (feet) Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 observed 2040 ---2040 Four Permits Off Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 No Pumping, WBL 5-mi Plus • • • • 2040 Oakdale & L. Elmo Off - - - Outlet Invert Jan-14 Jan-16 Existing Permits —2040 WBL & WBTN Off — • - Protective Elevation Jan-18 Relative Influence of Individual Permits on Lake Levels Under 2040 Water Use Projections - Top 15 Influencers All 5-mi Plus White Bear Lake White Bear Twp. N. Vadnais Heights North St. Paul Saputo Dairy Foods Circle Pines fhoraviefv. . • L Arden Hfls Permits and Wells w/in 5 Mile Area Lino Lakes North Oaks 0 Vadnais Heights Little Ca ada o Roseville Falcon Heights St. Paul • £I ^ 0 'Dellwood ae --�� White ISear.Lake{-1 Mahtomed E.� ri • (� •• BircYSGeo Village Gem Le e Wi lernie • North Saint Pa I Mapl woo 0 0 O ® Oakdale Landfall .7 Stillwater y. Oak Park Height Lek- Elmo 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Miles a Coon Rapids Ham Lake Blaine Fridley ENNEEF,N Minneapolis Blooming on Columbus f ANOKA RAM=E'i J hi& Bear Lake CH AGO W NGTON Forest Lake Littlel z Cana a Roseville Maplewood ter, I C St. Paul! k]akda Scandia Stillwater Woodbury Cottage Grove ASH INGTON DAKOTA Hastings North & East Metro GWMA Boundary County Boundary North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area East Metro Conceptual Water Supply Plan • DNR and PCA have published a conceptual water supply plan for safe and sustainable drinking water in the East Metro (3M Settlement) • Several of the community's water supplies are closely connected to the court order and the requirements • Some of the cities preferred water plans are in flux or may not be possible • Conceptual Plan provides flexibility to adjust as needed • Communities are anxious to start building the permanent infrastructure as soon as possible Stan rd �n :Saint Piee neje 2 Oak Grove Athens Oxford I1thel ♦�:, Stacy' Len Z Shafer Center City 1-I ra Franconia Questions, Discussion, Next Steps 3v . Anoka:'" ic5con Rep Brooklyn _a nis Ham Lake City/Twp. Boundaries Q Working Bndry- -- Designated Trout Stream Lake or Pond River Wetland St. Paul RWS Supplied Minneapolis Supplied 4 Jordan Ss. dkrumeua na Lakes Centerville VVhhe North Bea oaks Vadnais Heights Ramsey Saint Paul Rosemount Q -crest Lake � Scandla Newport �I�� Mahtomedi vyillemie• Lake Elmo Woodbury Empire Vermillion West Lakeland Denmark Marine on Saint Croix ak Park Heights Bayport Lakeland Lakeland Shares Lake Saint Croix Beach Saint Marys Point • Next Steps • East Metro Conceptual plan • Contested case hearings • Continued Outreach • Continued Implementation of Court Order • Private wells below the permit threshold • Ongoing Discussions • Regional solution to regional problem MEMORANDUM To: Utility Commission Members From: Shawn Sanders, Director of Public Works Date: November 1, 2021 Subject: Discussion on Utility Bill Late Payment Fees DISCUSSION With the merger of the Water Department into the City, the Finance Department has been working on combining the sewer and water billing into one billing statement. While going through the process of creating one billing statement, the issue of late payment fees has created a small conundrum. Under the current water department billing, late payments incur a $10 penalty and under the City utility billing which includes (sewer storm and signs and lighting billing), late payments incur a $25 penalty. With one billing statement, the finance department has recommended that the flat fee be eliminated and a late payment of 10% be charged on the balance. Once charged the late payment would then be divided equally and placed into the appropriate fund account. This new late payment would go into effect after the first of the year when the combined billing begins. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission consider, discuss late payments fees and approve the late payment fee recommended by the Finance department. ACTION REQUIRED If the Commission agrees with the recommendation they should pass a motion approving 10% fee utility billing late payments. January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 2015 2016 Gallons Pumped 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Monthly Totals Monthly Totals Monthly Totals Monthly Totals Monthly Totals Monthly Totals Monthly Totals 44996 45271 47827 54174 47578 43126 44488 42145 42187 42360 50969 42335 41409 39016 47375 44082 43799 55676 47276 43148 41908 50242 48484 45235 52580 45808 44003 41587 61822 65753 56415 77250 57949 61400 66124 68400 82031 84085 77502 78308 74342 112800 80989 99063 93342 89533 78536 81984 110149 97156 78478 75439 99896 78626 87645 93628 67282 56973 74893 67085 61054 71455 64168 53465 46825 49115 48481 50054 52576 49781 41445 40135 41620 43112 43786 41754 42465 49230 52404 46710 44426 42857 697782 698512 706534 762968 675736 685699 663649 DNR Permited Amount 865,000,000 MGY New Single Family Homes 2021 30 Permits 23 Have been turned on 7 are under two months old