2005-12-21 WAC Policy Variance
Date: December 21, 2005
To: Bob Derus
From: Larry R. Kruse
Re: WAC Variance
Bob,
Attached is a letter from Adam Nafstad outlining that MCES was recently challenged by
a new theater in White Bear Township. After further study of their water use, the theater
decided not to pursue it further. I visited with the Albertville Council and they continue to
be against very concerned about creating a variance policy, saying it is a slippery slope
and we will have many requesting it. I hope you don’t find our discussions adversarial,
rather I look at this as an opportunity for us all to learn more and build consensus about
this important issue. If the Board is intent on creating a variance procedure, I want to do
my best to contribute to that policy to satisfy the concerns of the Albertville council.
I received Chris Catlin’s letter first edited by you and then by Adam Nafstad. By the time
I received it, there were so many edits that it really made me wonder if we are all agree.
After having some time to think things through, I too have changed my opinion on some
of the bullet points we identified at the meeting. For me the following two paragraphs
characterize the meeting we had.
The City of Albertville, Hanover and St. Michael City Administrators, City Engineers and Joint
th
Water Board Staff met on December 7 to discuss the suggested variance procedure recently
brought forward by St. Michael regarding the theater. After a lengthy discussion, it was the
consensus of all that the Metropolitan Council Sewer Access Manual (MCES) is the industry
standard; is very accurate and is even a slightly conservative method of calculating maximum
potential WAC units. Those present agreed a mechanism or variance procedure should be in place
to supplement the MCSA Manual when a specific use is deemed to be extraordinarily off by a
factor of 3. The intended use of this variance procedure is anticipated to be rarely used with the
group suggesting that a variance might be used once every four years or more.
Staff has researched and reviewed water usage in a number of businesses to verify that the MCES
SAC Manual calculations are justified and reflect an adequate number of REU’s. The results
indicated that all were justified and reflected a conservative number of REU’s, thus indicating the
use of the variance will be minimal. Knowing that the MCES Manual will be used 99 plus percent
of the time, the following variance policy is recommended.
After much thought, I would like St. Michael to consider holding off another month on
this issue. As I understand, based on a motion already made, the Theater will qualify if
the Board creates a variance policy. In the mean time, I would like to offer the group the
following language for a variance policy. I still need to work with my council to get
them to agree a variance procedure is necessary.
Variance Policy:
1.The applicant shall submit a non-refundable $500 fee and a $1,000 escrow for
professional services to the JPWB for reviewing the application, developing a
report and recommendation.
2.The Joint Powers Engineer shall research at least three facilities that are
comparable in size, seats or other measurable means then submit a report and
recommendation explaining how the MESC manual does not adequately identify
the maximum potential usage of the facility to the City Administrator in which the
account is located. If the member City Administrator agrees a variance is
acceptable to the City, the recommendation is then forwarded onto the Joint
Water Board for Approval.
3.Once a variance is approved by the Board, the account will be regulated by this
methodology and not the MESC calculation.
4.The variance calculation for Residential Equivalent Units (REU’s) shall be based
on projected average annual daily water use in gallons per day multiplied by 3 and
divided by current REU rate, which is now 274 gallons per day.
4.5.The WAC fee shall be deemed “preliminary” for the duration of the use and shall
be reviewed on it’s third anniversary biannual for the first ten years to determine
any changes in REU’s, thereafter the review of REU’s shall be at the direction of
the Board. If the facility has an increase in water use above the amount
calculated, the REU’s shall be re-calculated and billed to the respective City. In
addition a $200 fee shall be applied to cover the cost of recalculation and related
communications. The charge for increased REU’s shall be at the prevailing rate.
Each respective City shall be responsible for prompt payment of the increased
REU’s and it is up to each respective City to collect from the account or pay it
themselves.
5.6.When a variance account is audited, there shall be NO credits given if the REU’s
isare less than previously calculated.
6.7.Existing accountsproperties are not eligible for variance consideration.
In closing, it is my hope that we can build consensus on this issue and not let it get to be
something bigger than it is.