Agenda - Council - 02/11/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

R~[DKR CO E~ SE~ ID:612-S25-6~50 FEB 05'9? 1~:04 ~o.002 P.O1 COUNTY OF ANOKA COMMUNITY HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Anoka Counvd Government Center (612) 422-7063 2100 3rd Ave., Room 360 PAX (612) 323-6150 Anoka, MN 55303-2264 January 24, 1997 Ra~qey City Council c/o Mayor Tom Oamec 15153 Nowthen Blvd. NW Ramsey, MN 55303 Dear Mayor Gamee: CO./DCpl. CO, q2'''na'~-'''j O~ ~ This correspondence is writlen on behalf of our loint Powers Wellhead Protection Harming Group as a result of it's meeting on January 23, 1997. The Group did commence the Pha.qe I work sefforth in the joint powers agreement (JPA). A request for statement of qualifications (SOQ) was sent out to possible consultants arid complete SOQ's were received from eleven consultants. During the course of reviewing these $OQ's, the Minnesota Department Health (MDH) advised the Group of changes In the wellhead protection program as a re.mit of the recent 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Re-authorization. One of these changes, which significantly change.n the public water suppliers responsibilities, is that the MDH must do the protection zone delineation. For this reason the JPA Group has recommended that we discontinue the consultant selection process. The MDH, in addition to advising tho JPA Group about changes in the wellh~acl protection program, presented a proposal for wellhead protection planning (copy enclosed). The proposal consisted of four parts; the first three relate to delineation of inner and outer wellhead protection zones and the fourth relates to wellhead protection management programs. This proposal e.qsentlalty place~ tho MDH in the "consultants" role. The activities under the MI)II proposal for the city are unchanged and the County would continue to serve a eoordinatlon function. Tho products that would be produced by tho MDH proposal would satisfy the wellhead protection planning requirements. There will be no out of pocket costs to the city for participation in and completion of parts I, 2, and 3 of the MDH proposal. The JPA Group review of the MDH proposal found it to be satisfactory and in the city's best interests and has recommend that parts 1, 2, and 3 of the MDH proposal, with no associated out of pocket costs for consultant, be accepted and the work authorized. I I I I I I I' I I i I The fourth part of the MDI-I proposal is not being recommended at this time, because the specifics of that part will be dependent on the outcome of parts I, 2. and 3. If there is any costs associated with part 4, it will be a very small amount. A recommendation concerning part 4 will be developed latter when the results of part 1, 2, and 3 are known. Authorization to commence the work on parts 1, 2, and 3 of the MDH proposal will not commit the city to any financial obligation for part 4. I I I Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer I