1997-02-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• COUNTY OF ANO COMMUNITY HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Anoka County Government Center (612) 422 -7063 2100 3M Ave., Room 360 FAX (612) 323 -6150 Anoka, MN 55303 -2264 January 24, 1997 Centerville City Council c/o Mayor Tom Wilharber 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 -9794 Dear Mayor Wilharber: This correspondence is written on behalf of our Joint Powers Wellhead Protection Planning Group as a result of it's meeting on January 23, 1997. The Group did commence the Phase I work setforth in the john powers agreement (JPA). A request for statement of qualifications (50Q) was sent out to possible consultants and complete SOQ's were received from eleven consultants. During the course of reviewing these SOQ's, the Minnesota Department Health (MDH) advised the Group of changes in the wellhead protection program as a result of the recent 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Re- authorization. One of these changes, which significantly changes 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 the JPA Group about changes in the wellhead 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 essentially places the MDH in the "consultants" role. The activities under the MDH proposal for the city are unchanged and the County would continue to serve a coordination function. The products that would be produced by the MDR 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 1, 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. The fourth part of the MDH proposal is not being recommended at this time, because the specifics of that part will be dependent on the outcome of parts 1, 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 MDR proposal will not commit the city to any financial obligation for part 4. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer