The URL can be used to link to this page

09-15-97 PHA i 1 OTSEGO vua[1: TOWNSHIP 10 A A " y At •1- A 1 A `r- - A • �A 4: "• 'Ih '1 �,r/ A i " 9•.Ih :1 "9' A' A f sf ~�: / WRIGHT V Q, MN " tl A A 15 15 A M A A A 13 A t " " 1 A, < 7 A ( A S 1 A A " A / IJA A A A A ,A •, A 4� A `, A.._--._ A -_ A A A A,• A A A Ys .\A A " i .5 Q JI 67th 1 ] r / E" A A aA A ZO 1 A A w 22 23 A 24 " y19 A N " An. A SCALE IN MILES a A_ _ • 4 A " A Q . A c::' • 22 A All1. J MAP WE: A y i A " SEPTEMBER 1989 " A A A 63"1 SI. A A j I �A A 2 • A " rA Ih A fl0U : " 7 " A 1 A A ` S ¢ MOI[: 1145 YAP IS FOR PCA/PRK yi A A Ay7"�A " A 771h ST A " •' R " A • " A , A • PUMMSES MOT R[ VS[10 MIICM /R[1C5[ A A ~ 27()MCASIICMCRIS ARC RCOUIRED. t+ Z7 ?� r•.lh Si 25 y; m A A 2G A 30 29 A n28 A dBASE MAP SOLME A " IG A V.110 IT COUITY A ' A A t 0 - A A 3'' A A 72Ad ST A Suri'EYOns OrrICE 7•_500 A A �^ 701n ^.f 70th ST inon T, 7(Ill' ,j J 122 ARA A A A Y A 6JIh '.t bC A b7 A �i A A �p \A� A A A T 34 A�//`4./A I a gt 32 n / 33 A 34 A a 35 r.au, sr °'.) A 1 I Si " J A A 3G A i1 ry A A o A `t-'•,.S�.I�`. A A... 1 G2Ad ST A A A TL_L'�, A A 1/r A A A Roth ST A a Agricultural ❑ Commercial Existing ❑ Rural Residential/Agricultural ❑ Public PREPARED BY: M Suburban Residential 12.5-5.0 act Semi -Public Land Use a Suburban Residential 11.0-2.5 ac) ❑ Vacant FNrti1W@St Associated Urban Residential 10-1.0 act Consultants, Inc. JIl .11� -1 �� Otsego, F, I R uls'��'�s P. Minnesota .6 0 SCALE 14 MILES a" DAM. SEPTEMBER 1969 *Oft TM MAP 8 MR PLAMM PWV4IW MY AM not a Oft W"M Pao" IWAV4WISNA"AR PROUPS& BASE MAP SOURCE wFeaHT COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE 7-25-U 36 —62nd S. C!Tf SF immediate Urban Service Area F-771 Urban/Rural t. -J. Long Range Urban Service Area PREPARED BY: Service Concept El Rural . Service Area o Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary FNrthwest (� Associated to be determined by Engineering Study consultants, Inc. :, .. 14L A-.�:. ..'�.'J. -- ::.: _� IS 15 13 is f" 11 926d ST Y 0 87th ST 22 1 23 5 24 X19 844F 85th ST x 83rd ST.. OM ST 80th ST 2 -X 77th ST nth sT 0 % x ST 25 30 2726 .LMh 70th ST 70th ST 3 70t4 -701A, 31,— 67th ST rp 179, g • 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 estn ST 95th ST 62nd ST o OCF 01 62nd ST 711, It t160th ST 60th ST .6 0 SCALE 14 MILES a" DAM. SEPTEMBER 1969 *Oft TM MAP 8 MR PLAMM PWV4IW MY AM not a Oft W"M Pao" IWAV4WISNA"AR PROUPS& BASE MAP SOURCE wFeaHT COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE 7-25-U 36 —62nd S. C!Tf SF immediate Urban Service Area F-771 Urban/Rural t. -J. Long Range Urban Service Area PREPARED BY: Service Concept El Rural . Service Area o Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary FNrthwest (� Associated to be determined by Engineering Study consultants, Inc. [T1 Sanitary Sewer ■ ■ M ■ Study -Area Boundary �. Sewer Service Area Service Concept �� f7 Ar:ended• by Resolution Pio. 94-70, 10- January 1994 �j Otsego, Minnesota 1 .5 0 1 SCALE IN MILES wr DATE: ,A, SEPTEMBER 1989 VA`i"LTA600-,3 MrKCtrXul W. MCC6[ KASIII(MC+TS ♦K M WnC9. BASE MAP SWr_E V.-IDGKi CCV1'.Y SU EYOnS OUCE 7•2S•!2 q \c �v 36 t Source: Hakanson Anderson Associates Inc. ® Gravity main Pox= Force main ,& Lift Station PREPARED BY: orthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Al Client City of Otsego Date: September 9. 1947 P.........i t..•- I -q. K:.0. P F PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SEWER and WATER FACILITIES CITY OF OTSEGO WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 2 Secure Treatment Plant Site 4 Submit Design Documents to MPCA 5 Receive MPCA Approval of Design D- 6 Receive Approval of Project Funding •repare •CA Coordination, & Public Comment Apply0 Draft NPDES Dischargee Permit 10 Issuance of Final Discharge Pem-dt 11 Bid Project & Open Bids 12 Award Construction Contract 1 3 Issue Notice to Proceed for Construction 14 Substantial • Completion Initiation • Operation 10 Final Completion of Construction OrderElIs 19 Approve Plans & Specs 20 Award Contract 1997 r _►.��+i1®1.i3•>•Wq�GTCT�luLi7i:�$�6II�_C� �I.�GT>•1.^Si1LTi!!i�•7[uCu�i�Rf4i>♦i11f �I1191L�l1�� I�'�i1J>I i SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM I Prepare Plans& Specifications 3 Bid &A%vard Project 4 Project Construction Easement./RONVAcquisiLion4 Project Construction �___ �a�t•�� aim POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM I Prepare Plans& Specifications -2 Easement Acquisition 3 Bid& Award Project I Prepare/Review Plat" & Specifications 3 Bid& Award Protect I''N,i! N W^e"** NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM - Revised TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht / Kevin Kielb / John Harwood / Andy MacArthur DATE: 11 September 1997 RE: Otsego - Sanitary Sewer Planning: Policies FILE NO: 176.08 - 96.19 As a result of discussions which took place at the 27 August City Council workshop meeting, we have revised the various "position statement" policies pertaining to sanitary sewer service. It is anticipated that these policies will be made available to the public as part of the forthcoming public information meeting scheduled for 15 September. While the following list of policies is certainly changeable, the implementation of such policies is strongly recommended to aid in the success of the sewer service effort. For reference purposes, the following policies have been categorized by topical heading. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES A. The sanitary sewer system shall not be extended to existing unsewered development except if such sewer is requested or petitioned by property owners. Public sewer may be extended as directed and ordered by the City Council after specific public hearings on any extension. B. Existing residences shall not pay any connection charges and that no assessments against property will be levied for sewer benefit until and unless their residences are physically connected to and actually served by a public sewer. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Exhibit C. To maintain the public health, existing septic systems shall be pumped a minimum of every two years. D. When directly available, sanitary sewer service hook up shall be provided to all developed commercial, industrial and institutional uses within the immediate urban service area (sanitary sewer district) which demonstrate a need for or specifically request such service. E. On-site septic systems shall be required to comply with MPCA 7080 Rules which establish minimum requirements for wastewater disposal (and imposed by Wright County) at time of property sale. F. In the event of failing on-site septic systems, the City shall consider mandatory connection to available municipal services. G. The City shall continue to monitor its ground water quality and construct additional monitoring wells as deemed necessary for such monitoring effort. II. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. Due to possible ground water contamination threats, future unsewered residential development, where allowed, shall be limited to one dwelling unit per ten acres of land or four dwelling units per forty acres of land. B. Sanitary sewer service shall be required of all new development approved after within the immediate urban service area (sanitary sewer district). C. Undeveloped land within the long range urban service area, which is guided for single family residential development, shall be platted in accordance with standards for sewered development and be partially deed restricted (in accord with unsewered density requirements) until such time as sanitary sewer service is available. D. Boundaries of the immediate urban service area (sanitary sewer district) shall be expanded in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. E. Urban growth (of lots 2.5 acres or less in size) shall be confined to the immediate urban service area (sanitary sewer district). F. The City shall periodically define the amount, type, and rate of growth which must be absorbed to accommodate sanitary sewer demands. 2 G. Economic service delivery shall be pursued through the promotion of concentrated development patterns within the sanitary sewer service district. H. The clustering of unsewered dwelling units shall be encouraged. Such clusters shall be connected to central sanitary sewer service when made available. Expansion of the service area or treatment plant capacity of the Darkenwald package treatment plant shall be subject to City approval. No City services (sanitary sewer and water) shall be extended to properties presently under the ownership of the Darkenwald family until the potential service capacity and area of the private package treatment plant is defined. J. Land use consumption and sanitary sewer system use shall be subject to periodic City review to determine the need for urban service area changes or expansions. K. Premature extensions of the City's sanitary sewer system and "leap frog" development shall be avoided, unless the costs of extending utilities through undeveloped property are funded by the developer. III. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES A. An advantageous tax base shall be pursued through the promotion of sewered commercial and industrial development. B. A minimum of 30 percent of any waste water treatment plant capacity shall be reserved for commercial or industrial development with a maximum of 60,000 gallons per day capacity reserved for the forthcoming 20 year planning period (based on initial plant capacity). C. The enhancement of tax base associated with commercial and industrial development shall be a community priority to reduce the tax burden on single family homes. D. An expansion of the City's employment base shall be encouraged. 3 IV. FINANCING POLICIES A. Sanitary sewer service shall be financed by those who receive such service. B. Risk of payment for non-users of sanitary sewer shall be reduced through utility phasing, the identification of potential user revenue sources, and the establishment of realistic growth expectations. C. Developers shall be responsible for costs associated with the extension of municipal utilities to new developments. D. Assessments associated with sanitary sewer service shall be imposed in accordance with the assessment rules of the City which establish financing methods for various City improvements, including, but not limited to trunk mains and laterals for sanitary sewer and water. PC- Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Kevin Kielb John Harwood 112 N INC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis / David Licht 8 September 1997 Otsego - Sanitary Sewer Planning Area: Building Permit Activity 176.08 - 96.19 As requested at the 27 August City Council meeting, we have assembled a summary of single family residential building activity of various surrounding communities. This information is provided in the following table. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT SUMMARY City 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 5 -Year Average Albertville 25 51 72 38 47 47 Buffalo _ 45 51 97 114 - 89 - 79 Big Lake 44 43 62 92 138 76 Dayton NA NA 24 18 11 18* Delano 19 24 41 51 58 39 Elk River 107 122 157 173 209 134 Monticello 50 73 108 105 115 90 Rogers 16 79 66 59 105 45 St. Michael 44 64 25 53 100** 57 Otsego 71 1 112 38 17 25 53 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 * Three year average Includes former Frankfort Township permits from September through December - .. „ -/.. 7r: r _.. ,.. ..re _ .P=-1eY .W,-.�w . .-r-::tr'�1'YNl.'.t.'C.":K=. ;r'^. t...:?i�'yuel'e'i'=:�-+'.:►''�a=;�'. On average, the City of Elk River has issued the greatest number of single family residential building permits in the 1992-1996 period, averaging 134 per year. The City of Dayton, on the other hand, has issued the -fewest number 66 64& permits in'the1994-s' 1996 period, averaging 18 permits per year (1992 and 1993 information unavailable). Hopefully, this comparative information will be of some aid in the City's consideration of possible sanitary sewer service. pc: Elaine Beatty/Judy Hudson Gary Groen Andrew MacArthur - John Harwood/Kevin Kielb Tom Roushar/Ted Field WA aFlf ANP 50�ENIN05 TO LAMGFiLL oy-PA55 DAR 5C�EN , ------------*--i CRIT f f , , , MTLRN `�-LY7GG , , L IMS , , , , LAMP 12I5F05AL OF 5LLva WA5TE 5LLVa ; ----------------------------------- 9-I. ce 5rC4 ACZ RAW 5E`NAGE 25CHAR6E rO CROW RIVC;R ACTIVATED SLUDGE ALTERNATIVE - FLOW SCHEMATIC DAYTON/OTSEGO, MINN. FIGURE NO. 2 FACILITIES PLAN 50302R02.DWC SEPTEMBER 1997 COMM. 50302 cA. W AeRAnON rANK5 FINAL CLARIFIERS TF CTION Bonestroo NDN Aosene "Anderlik & Associates Exhibit F --------------------- PfZOP�t2fY C 6.7 AC1� Stti;) 1 onoR coma 5Y5M., 1 _ 5002E m & ' alf BUILDING --�— i I 1 f 1 .J If 1 0WArON PMC1 E5 1 CONma 1 1 PUMP BUILDING 1 ! � WWI FINAL ' CLAUIER5 i LL�rizAvta�r i - PIWI CVGN - BUILDING � '• I � � 64-h; '- IVA 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 A1�A1ED 5LLVGI; rANK Ig ' SLLva sro�AG� 1 I uMs RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ON PROPOSED SITEAu Bonestroo Q FRosene DAYTON/OTSEGO, MINN. FIGURE NO. 5 And'erlik h Associates FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit G 50302R02.DWC SEPTEMBER 1997 COMM. 50302 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DAYTON/OTSEGO A. CAPITAL COSTS Item Cost, $ Screen/Grit Building 250,000 Odor control 30,000 Grit tank 40,000 Oxidation ditches 475,000 Final clarifiers (covered) 360,000 Sludge storage and treatment 360,000 Control/Pump Bldg 222,000 LTV Disinfection & Bldg 110,000 Site Piping 120,000 Sitework 60,000 Plant Outfall 60,000 Electrical 271,000 Emergency Generator 40,000 Contractor Expenses 120,000 Contingencies 174,000 Total Construction Cost $ 2,692,000 Egr, Legal, Fiscal, Admin $ 458,000 Land 50,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 3,200,000 B. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS Costs are O&M costs when plant is treating 300,000 gpd Item Cost, $/vr Labor 56,000 Power 15,000 Chemicals (Lime) 5,000 Sludge Hauling 22,000 Other 12,000 TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST $ 110,000 Note: Otsego portion of costs above is 2/3 of totals, or $2,133,000 of capital costs and $73,000 per year of O&M costs. Exhibit H ro 0 n z SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS CITY OF OTSEGO, SANITARY SEWER STUDY AREA West District Existing Design Area Resid. Comm/Ind Resid. Comm/lnd Units Inst Units Inst. West -1 41 74 West -2 112 163 West -3 212 310 West -4 74 74 West -5 156 275 West -6 148 263 SubToial 743 1159 North District Existing Design, Area Resid. Comm/Ind Resid. Commllnd Units Inst. Units Inst. North -1 131 217 North -2 216 35 438 270 North -3 32 80 North -4 24 21 45 X81 SubTotal 403 56 780 '651 East District Existing Design Area Resid. Comm/Ind Resid. Comm/Ind Units Inst. Units Inst. East -1 99 18 1463 558 East -2 10 4 695 141 East -3 _ _ _ - SubTotal 109 22 2158 699 South District Existing Desigr, Area Resid. Comm/Ind Resid. CommAnd Units Inst. Units Inst. South -1 66 60 66 255 SubTotal 66 60 66 255 1321 138 4163.. 1 ,, Total Existing 1459 Units ut %, V- Exhibit J arc IN r cu CITY OF OTSEGO SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM STUDY SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM OVERVIEW JUNE ,A7 Exhibit K Lt-(.7t.N� +j LIFT STATION GRAVITY SEWER FORCEMAIN SEWER DISTRICT Population Year.' . Slow.Growth . Strong Gr6- th 1995 6,116 6,110- ,1162000 2000 6,305 6,530 2010 72450 7,898 2015* 8,023 8,582 *extrapolated based upon 2000-2010 growth rate Based uoon the above table, the City population will increase by 1907 to 2,466 persons within twenty vears. The average, or medium, projected growth based on tHe above table is 2,18 7 oersons. Projected Commercial Growth Year Growth Ati erage Yearly 1995-2000 23.5 acres 4.7 ac/yr 2000-2010 46.0 acres 4.6 ac/yr 69.0 acres 4.6 ac/yr. J' Projected Industrial Growth Year Growth Average Yearlv 1993 -2000 26.4 acres 15.28 ac/yr 2000 - 2010 47.0 acres x.70 ac/y- T.0 acres 4.86 ac/yr (average) Exhibit L a In sununary, during the twenty year planning period the Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Service Area is projected to have system connections as follows, with year zero currently projected to be 1998. Year Increased Population Increased Residential Units Commercial /Industrial. ' Commercial /Industrial REC_ Equivalent_ Total new* REC's (cumulative) Zero 0 0 16 acre 64 units 79* 5 438 175 52 acre 208 units 398 10 875 350 88 acre 352 units 717 15 1,313 525 123 acre 492 units 1,032 20 1,750 700 159 acre 636 units 1,351 * includes existing institutional The Phase 1 sanitary sewer facilities are expected to provide service to 1,351 total residential equivalent connections within the twenty year sewer planning period. This represents 1,750 new people in 700 new residential dwelling units, service to existing commercial property and to 143 acres of newly developed commercial and industrial users for total commercial and industrial service to 636 residential equivalent connections. This total service to 1,351 REC's represents an average daily design flow to a wastewater treatment facility of 337,750 gallons per day. 1500 0 1500 3000 SCALE IN FEET LIFT STATION N-2 CITY OF OTSEGO SANITARY SEWER COULECTION SYSTEM STUDY PHASE I TRUNK SYSTEM JUNE 1997 FT STATION —74 L -----L77—STATION Exhibit N LEGEND PHASE i UFT STATION PHASE I SANITARY SEWER PHASE I FORCEMAIN PHASE I SFRVI('F APFA •� "•:��it'�<< �1�� v d�r1 G.� j; � i ).`.�.91� •� 1`'� �.,,. I l .r" �,- .�--;-T-; , .ti ;�-.,=;:Ic 1 ; Ti .tet—^-; �, `� ALTER KATE } io n FORCEKIAIN TO ELK`, RIVER L-4rJ Lir 11'F pie mow; I f ayM•�a' � L— r� � ButMcY NES � / .S. f ^ to !u 9:ith ,.T. 1 1 4 L.,y>rrslod, 3 HE 93ih1 ST FT Tf4li z G kz i l j I WTTTmtj z ELv` es ST x l i V— —i ,11� � I { t - a j_ j I Gj� I f i 1 In 31 ST It `.`\ • 1 i\ �`� '•`\ hcyw How ook SEND \ i t z I i FOROEM IN X TO + I ( ! '2nd ST. �J 5'—.. N. (4.E. 70th ST.) _ _ _L l I ' Exhibit O CITY OF OTSEGO SANITARY SEWER 0 1 500 3000 H a k a n s o n COLLECTION SYSTEM STUDY Anderson BASE SYSTEM SCALE IN FEET Assoc.,Inc. 0T60REX2.f)W( . - Trunk &.. Project `' Lateral Costs Sub=Trunk Total Cost" ^Cost -. Year 1; Base System Lift Station & Forcemain 0 1,395,000 1,395,000 Year 1; Gravity System County Road 39 area 291,400 125,600 417,000 85th Street area LUSOM 613.400 774,000 452,000 739,000 1,191,000 Year 5; North Parish Avenue 28,400 113,600 142,000 Quaday, County Road 42 to 72nd St 308,000 0 308,000 78th Street area, West of Quaday 14 00 416,000 730,000 650,400 529,600 1,180,000 Year 10; County Road 39 & County Road 42 526,000 234,200 760,200 78th Street, West Residential 356,600 88,400 445,000 Quaday to County Road 37 216,600 308,600 524,600 South District 246.600 2D2.1-U 449,000 1,349,100 833,300 2,182,400 Year 15; West 82nd Street _^ rea 171,000 407000 211,000 TH101 area to 65th Street 195.000 22,000? Lao 366,000 62,000 428,000 TOTALS 2,817,500 3,558,900 6,376,400 Exhibit P AREA BOUNDARY I SERVICE AREA STUDY AREA Exhibit • • CITY OF OTSEGO POTABLE WATER SYSTEM STUDY SUMMARY OF REPORT Residential Equivalent Unit (REC) = 300 GPD (1 20 gpcd x 2.5 persons per household) System Cost Table V Exhibit R �.i ?� 1�# ?�'h1.i- � �`�x•3%7i� llt Go zf s•��+ (�' 'i � Ll?:Y` 2i'� uY„a � 1t.6 "+i y�3Y►ea� sectionCos(�1997dollar`s)'s. 1998 • " 250,000 gallons storage tower • One well Two pumphouses $2,315,000 • Portion of distribution system 2003 One well • One pumphouse $1 - Portion of distribution ,374,000 system 2008 Portion of distribution $ 574,000 system 2013 Portion of distribution $486,000 system 2018 500,000 gallon storage tower $1,621,400 • Portion of distribution system TWENTY YEAR SYSTEM TOTAL $6,320,400 Exhibit R CA- ybL�Ad kX Llk� k2 " , -fC-) r titer-tL 0-""- 4'� ,v -e4 -Zt` L- Li ak-, kww Xb al� 6-Z/C 1"I'L Yi�IL O -Z-6 Exhibit W Z a. CITY OF OTSEGO PUBLIC HEARING ON WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING RE: SANITARY SEWER / WATER PROJECT SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 - 7PVI **AGENDA** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Call to Order - Introductions - Roll Call (Mayor Fournier) 2. Background Issues and Needs (D. Licht) 3. Decision- Making Process / Time Schedule ( D. Licht) 4. System Policies (D. Licht / J. Harwood) 5. System Plans: A. Sewer Treatment System (T. Field) B. Sewer Trunk System (J. Harwood) C. `Vater System (K. Kielb) 6. System Financing (J. Harwood / T. Truszinski) 7. Public Comment (See procedural requirements below) 8. Adjourn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- •►nE. F;• 1. The purpose of the public comment period is to receive position statements and questions from the public. The meeting is not for purposes of debate, but is to receive relevant public input in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. 2. Persons wishing to make comments must be recognized by the Mayor. 3. Comments will be received via microphone at the front of the Council Chambers. 4. State your name, address and telephone number. 5. Questions which cannot be immediately answered will be responded to by phone or mail. (Written comments will be received up to September 22, 1997 at 6PM) 6. Presentations shall be limited to three (3) minutes to allow all who wish to speak. (Once you have spoken, please allow others their turn, if time allows, you may speak again if you have new questions or information). (MAP PRINTED ON REVERSE SIDE) Exhibit Z DUAN OUAST QUEENS OUENROE QUIGLEY QUIN RACHELE RADiORD RAINTELL RANTER RAY.SLUNC RANDDLP-; RANKING RATHSJN R4W�MGS ?EAGOR CML ENGINEERING . LAND SURVEY . CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE . ENVIRONMENTAL . PLANNING & DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION KUuS1ST0 LTD esr. •e50 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 1997 TO: Richard Koppy: FROM. Richard'Krier RE: Requested Policy/Amendment Otsego Policy/Amendment i.) Within MPCA guidelines for discharge limits to the Mississippi River, sewer capacity of the Darkenwald wastewater treatment plant may be provided to lands east.of Highway 101 which are under the ownership of the Darkenwald family. Likewise, Darkenwald wastewater treatment plant capacity may be extended to lands west of Highway 101 and owned by the Darkenwald family upon demonstration of service capacity satisfactory to the MPCA. j.). The existing potable water supply system owned by the Dar kenwalds can be expanded to include all of the Darkenwald's family property both east and west of Highway 101. The expanded Darkenwald potable water supply system will be designed to Kmnesota Public Health Standards,, City Engineer's Association of Hlnnesota Utility Standards and American Water Works Association Standards. Offices: Hibbing • Minnetonka • St. Paul • Twin Ports N Exhibit X (612) 933-0972 • 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343-9123 • FAX (612) 933=1153 CML ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEY • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING & DESIGN • TRANSPORTATION KUUSISTO LTD M'emo To: Wally Odell, Darkenwald Real Estate From: Richard Koppy, PE, RLK-Kuusisto Ltd CC: John Darkenwald Date: September 15, 1997 Re: Otsego comparison of Infrastructure costs The following matrices compares the City's system cost of Sanitary Sewer, Waste Water Treatment Plant, and Water to the same costs for the Darkenwald proposed development. Using the Residential Equivalent Connection (REC) basis the two costs are compared on a per REC assessment basis. I have included a 30% overhead factor including contingencies for the Daricenwald costs. I am assuming that the City costs include the same factor. This assumption should be verified thru the City. Comparison Infrastructure Item City Project Dari(enwald Proiect ♦ Sanitary Sewer Collection System $6,376,000 $1,473,000 1) Total REC's 1,350 940 2) Cost per REC $4,720 $1,570 ♦ Waste Water Treatment Plant $3,900000 $1,144000 3) Total REC's 1,350 940 4) Cost per REC $2,890 $1,220 ♦ Water System $5,235,000 $2,150,000 5) Total REC's 1,350 940 6) Cost per REC $3,880 $2,290 0 Total Infrastructure Costs $15,511,000 $4,767,000 Total REC's 1,350 940 Cost per REC $11,490 $5,070 Exhibit Y 0 Page 1 Offices: Hibbing • Minnetonka • St. Paul • 'thin Ports (612) 933-0972 • 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343-9123 • FAX (612) 933-1153 Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. September 10, 1997 Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Otsego Utility System Financing Dear Elaine: 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-_t#) -- 0520 A question regarding financing of the Waste Water Treatment Facility, the sanitary sewer collection system and the potable water system was raised at the August 27, 1997 Council Workshop. The question was related to the financial burden the City tax -payers could face if development occurred at a rate less than the 80 equivalent connections per year. Through conversations with Gary Groen at the City, we have prepared a general overview of this issue: • The City portion of taxes generally accounts for 26-27% of the total tax burden levied against properties in Otsego. • The City operating budget, supported by general taxation, is approximately $ 806,000. • The first years payment on the projected bond sale is as follows: ► Waste Water Treatment Facility $224,000 ► Sanitary Sewer Collection System 172,360 ► Water System 231,875 TOTAL 5628.235 • A City tax could be levied to cover the deficit in income from connections if less than 80 Equivalent connections per year were seen. The amount of any tax would depend on the shortfall in connections and on the assessed valuation: Exhibit AA i nein e r; Landscape Architects Sur�Eryors Elaine Beatty, Clerk Page 2 September 10, 1997 The maximum percentage increase is proportional to the potential shortfall verses the City General Tax Receipts. On a sliding scale, the impact could be as follows: Approximate Actual Connections 80 60 40 20 0 Increase in Taxes 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% The percentage increases is an overall estimate only. Any tax may be influenced by tax law related to tax capacity and to a statutory maximum increase permitted in any year. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. n A. Harwood, PE cc: Kevin P. Kielb, PE Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Gary Groen, Finance Director kel ot709.eb Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. N W,.6#xeo** NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM - Revised T0: Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht / Kevin Kielb / John Harwood / Andy MacArthur DATE: 8 September 1997 RE: Otsego - Sanitary Sewer Planning - Informational Meeting Questions FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.10 At the City Council's request, we have collaboratively attempted to respond to the various questions recently submitted by Council person Wendel which relate to the City's sanitary sewer planning efforts. In addition to the various questions raised by Ms. Wendel, a number of additional questions have also been included which have been raised at previous meetings. The following is a listing of specific questions raised by Council person Wendel followed by a staff response. 1. How much will the sewer plant cost and how long do we have to pay for it? The sewer plant will cost 2.1 million dollars for initial construction. A 1.9 million dollar plant expansion will occur in about ten years. Each expense will be paid over 20 years. Connection fees collected from new developments and existing commercial/industrial properties are anticipated to generate enough money to pay off the loans. Exhibit BB 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 2. How much will the trunk lines from the sewer plant cost and who pays for them? We have estimated that the initial trunk costs for the base system will be 1.395 million dollars. These costs are paid for in the same manner as treatment plant costs. 3. How much do the lateral lines from the trunk lines cost and who pays for them? The cost depends on which properties will be served first. Part of the cost will be trunk, paid by connection charge, and part will be paid by the developer or by an assessment. Lateral lines will be paid for by future developers and existing commercial/industrial/institutional properties. Costs will vary depending upon the project. The sewer study identified one potential initial system as costing $1,191,000 of which $739,000 was trunk and $452,000 was lateral. 4. If the sewer line goes past my home and I don't want or need it, do I have to pay something for the lines anyway? If not, who pays for them? This is a policy decision that the City Council will have to make. The City has the authority to decide to defer some assessments or charges until the property is developed, or until the existing system is inadequate. The City Council has previously indicated that existing residences will not be forced to connect to the system. The proposed policy is that residential housing would pay for system costs at the time of hookup. A funding program is being established with project costs paid from a debt retirement fund. For new residential housing (i.e., new small lot subdivision plats), the connection charge would become due at the time of plat approval. This is similar to park fees, storm water impact fees, or like platting related fees. For existing housing, the connection charge would be paid at the time of connection. 5. Who pays if the developers that you are counting on change their minds and don't build? The planning of the City is based on assumptions and expectations of development. The income from development is projected to meet debt retirement needs. VA The City will borrow money from a State of Minnesota fund or will sell municipal bonds. With this debt, there will be the risk that the debt may have to be paid back through general funds. For this reason, the exhaustive analysis which we are presently engaged in is undertaken in order to provide a conservative and realistic projection of growth and development as the basis for a City Council decision. Nothing is without risk, it is simply a matter of making a good faith effort to reduce that risk as much as possible. 6. If I don't have the money to pay for the lines in front of my home, will it go on my taxes? If an amount is assessed against your property, you have a period of time, often a period of months but not less than 30 days, in which to pay off the entire assessment without interest. If you do not make full payment, the unpaid amount is placed as an additional item on your property tax bill and is amortized out over a period of years (usually 10, but it may be any other time period determined as reasonably by the City Council), at an annual interest rate which is also determined by the City Council. The charge could also theoretically be made part of the connection charges that you must pay at the time you hook up to the system. 7. How many years do we have to pay this system off? The entire system will be constructed over many years. Each time an improvement is made, bonds will be sold. Each bond sale will be paid off over a 20 year period. 8. Who are we borrowing the money from and what kind of interest do we have to pay? A portion of the debt is proposed to be low interest loans from the State revolving fund at approximately 4 percent interest. Some bonds may be general revenue or public improvement bonds. These would likely have a higher interest rate. The City fiscal and bond consultants will assist in developing the best bonding program. It is very possible that different portions of the proposed project, especially if it includes the proposed water system, may be paid from different sources including grants, loans, bonds or any combination thereof. The City has authority to issue bonds under Minnesota Statutes 429, if 20 percent or more of the project cost is assessed to benefitted properties. The City also has authority to bond for sewer and water works under Minnesota Statutes 444 without assessment for benefit. Minnesota Statutes 475.58 is the general law for municipal debt. The statute 3 requires a vote or referendum of the population to incur municipal debt. The statute also provides exceptions where referendum is not required. It is the responsibility of the Financial and Bond Consultants to determine the best combination of funding for the project and how the funding should be structured. 9. Who will be in charge of the sewer plant, Dayton or Otsego, or both together? The sewer plant could be owned and operated solely by the City of Otsego. The City could then enter into an agreement, if it so desired, with the City of Dayton (or St. Michael) for delivery of sewer service. The cities could also enter into a joint powers agreement under Minnesota Statutes 471. A joint agreement would set forth the terms of ownership, control, delivery of services, and any other relevant matter. It is also possible that the Cities of Otsego and Dayton could also establish a sanitary sewer district. 10. What if the majority of the people don't want the sewer, will we go ahead anyway? The authority of the City of Otsego, as established by State Statute, requires the City Council to make any decision ordering construction of a waste water treatment plant or associated sewer utility. State Statutes do not allow this decision to be made by a vote of the population. The decision whether or not to go ahead with the project is a Council decision that can be made either way, notwithstanding what the majority of people want, based upon the Council's informed decision as to what is in the best interests of the City as a whole. 11. Will my taxes go up once I get hooked up with sewer because my property will be worth more? A house with public sewer and water is likely more valuable than the equivalent house without to the extent that the value of the property increases because of the improvement to the extent that the increased valuation will increase taxes. 12. Who will pay for fixing the landscape that gets ruined when installing the lines? Restoration is a part of the project cost. All project costs, including restoration, are ultimately paid by the properties served. 51 13. Will the lines go down the middle of the road or on the side? Sewer and water lines will be located in right-of-way or easement to minimize total construction cost. The evaluation for least total cost will include review of road damage and the cost of restoration. The exact utility location is a final design decision. Depending on local conditions, it is at times best and least costly to install the lines under the road. At other times and locations, the best alignment may be in the road ditch or on an easement. 14. Will we be getting sewer and water at the same time? It is the current plan to make sewer and water available at the same time. 15. When do we have to hook up? A City policy is recommended whereby once public sewer is available, the residence will be connected. Commercial property should connect immediately. Connection to existing residences could be required either within an established number of years or could occur when any on-site septic tank or system problem develop. Once the City has a sewer and water system, everyone should plan on connecting someday. That someday may be quite far in the future. 16. If our well is bad but not the sewer, can we hook up just to the water? The City can adopt a policy of allowing only water hookup, or a policy of requiring both sewer and water hookup. 17. What happens if Dayton doesn't want to go along? Do they have to pay their share of the expense for the planning and engineering fees? There is an allocation of fees set forth in the original agreement between Otsego, Dayton, and Frankfort Township with the Bonestroo report. Each community paid its share of the treatment study. At this point, it appears that the plant will be a joint operation between the City of Otsego and the City of Dayton. The two cities will have to proceed to either form a separate entity, like a sewer district to own and run the plant, or to proceed under a joint powers agreement. At what point the joint powers entity will come into existence has not yet been decided at this time. It is possible to have one city own and run the plant and to guarantee to the other city a certain amount of capacity by contract, or the land can be acquired, and the plant 5 can be constructed and operated entirely by a joint powers entity. This agreement will set forth an equitable cost sharing arrangement between the two cities. 18. If sewer goes across my field and there are no homes there yet, will I be assessed for the entire line? Current planning is for costs to be incurred only upon connection. The City will request easements across open fields but is not planning to place costs against undeveloped property unless that property is served. Any assessment will be based upon the assessment ordinance and policy which is now being reviewed to consider current sewer planning, and whether your land is enrolled in the "green acre" or agricultural preserve program. The adopted assessment policy will be a City Council decision. Deferments can be granted if that appears to be equitable and they are granted in an even handed manner. Lands enrolled in the green acres program are allowed to defer assessments, while assessments upon lands enrolled in the agricultural preservation program cannot be levied due to "benefit" from sewer and water availability. 19. Who will pay if we don't have enough new development coming in each year? If bond payments cannot be made by anticipated fees, it is likely that any deficit would have to come out of the general fund as a general obligation of the City. 20. Will this plant ever go City-wide? It is not likely that sanitary sewer will ever be constructed or extended to serve the entire City. However, it may not be prudent to say that the plant will "never" provide service to the entire City. 21. Will there be two separate sewer plants, one in the eastern end and one in the western end? To date, there has been no formal policy direction in regard to accommodating development in the western portion of the community (as evidenced in the existing Comprehensive Plan). It is the strong recommendation of staff that development not be allowed in areas outside the immediate urban service area until such time as the financial solvency of the eastern sanitary sewer system can be A demonstrated. Subsequently, sewer service in the western portion of the City can be evaluated. 22. Will the Comprehensive Plan be changed to the western part can develop once they have sewer? There have been no formal direction has been given by the City Council as to whether the City's existing development policies in the western portion of the community should be changed. It is staff's recommendation that sanitary sewer service and related development densities not be allowed outside of the immediate urban service area until the financial solvency of the "east side" sanitary sewer service can be demonstrated. Until such time, staff recommends that a continuation of agricultural uses be encouraged in areas outside of the immediate urban service area. Ultimately, decisions regarding the allowance of development in the western portion of the City must be made by the City Council and should be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 23. If I live in the eastern part of the City but not in the sewer area yet and my system goes bad, can I put in a new septic system or will I be forced to hook up? Repair and reconstruction of existing septic tanks and drain fields will be controlled by policies that have yet to be fully adopted. The sewer system has been laid out and evaluated as if some day every residence in the sewer study area, which is the east portion of the City, will be hooked up to public sewer. Until the sewer is physically in place in front of a residence, some level of repair to failed systems must be permitted. Once a public sewer system is in place, septic tank and drain field repair or replacement should be prohibited. When on-site systems fail, connection to the public system should be required. If a property has a public sewer available, the property should not spend thousands of dollars maintaining or repairing a septic tank or drain field system. 24. If I have to hook up because of a bad system, and the line has to run past my neighbors, do they have to hook up or pay for the line even if they don't need it yet? Any future extension of sewer or water into a neighborhood will require specific public hearings with the official steps and actions required by Statute. The property owners and a future City Council will make decisions based on public need and on conditions existing at that future time. The bottom line is that some day every 7 property will be served and will pay its share of system costs. It could be that construciton of a sewer system will occur when most properties have gotten full use out of their original private, on-site system and are facing increasing costs to maintain or repair the aging system. At the time, the availability of public sewer may be of extreme value to the property. 25. Will water be installed at the same time? It is the current intention to install public water along with public sewer. The goal is to address the health and safety aspects of public utilities by making both sewer and water available. For new small lot developments, both sewer and water will be extended with platting. For the existing developed area within the City, both sewer and water are seen as being made available to meet a current or future need. 26. What will you charge monthly for water and sewer, a flat fee or will it be metered for the monthly cost? There will be monthly or quarterly user fees for sewer and water treatment. A rate structure has not yet been established. Normally, water is metered and sewage is not. Many communities establish a minimum charge per quarter and charge more than the minimum only for higher usage. The following is a listing of charges for sewer and water service in neighboring communities: City Sewer Charge Water Charge Rogers $1.15 per 1,000 gallons 95¢ per 1,000 gallons Elk River $2.82 per 1,000 gallons (based $44 per month plus $11.11 per Residential on avg. water consumption for 1,000 gallons Nov. -Mar.) Elk River Commercial Same as residential $7 to $85 per month depending on pipe diameter Albertville $39.20 per quarter (up to 15,000 $17.60 per month (up to 10,000 gallons) gallons)" * Joints Powers charge 0 27. Will only Old Town Dayton be in the sewer system? At this time, Dayton appears to consider Old Town Dayton as their primary service area. However, future expansion of the plant may be partially driven by Dayton's desire at some point to serve areas beyond the Old Town. The mechanism for making decisions regarding service areas and future expansion of the plant will be contained within an agreement between the two cities. 28. What if they want to expand their part of the sewer system, will they be able to do so? The proposed plant can be expanded to accommodate both Otsego and Dayton. The mechanism for expansion and cost sharing related to expansion will be set forth in the joint powers or other agreement between the two cities. 29. Who will own the sewer plant? At this point, it would appear that there will be joint ownership of the plant by both Otsego and Dayton. It is still possible for the cities to determine that Otsego would own the plant and that Dayton would receive capacity by contract. The terms and conditions of plant ownership, whether joint or otherwise, will be contained in an agreement between the City of Otsego and the City of Dayton. The issue of what entity owns the plant will have to be decided prior to submittal of the facility plan to MPCA. 30. How many years can you build new homes in the present sewer area before you run out of land and you have to expand to other areas of the City? The Phase I sanitary sewer service area is basically along the TH 101 corridor. There is "room" within the corridor, on currently undeveloped land, for an estimated 2,600 residential connections along with over 300 acres of commercial/industrial development. The 20 year projected growth of the City will fill in only about one- third of this development potential. 31. When will the City Hall have to hook up? The City Hall is not located within the sanitary sewer service area as identified in the sewer plan. It is unknown when City Hall would have to "hook up". Service to the City Hall would likely coincide with one of two events: 1) request for or need to ;'1 service nearby development (i.e., Bulow Estates); or 2) future inclusion of the City Hall property within the sanitary sewer service district. Such district inclusion would likely occur only after the eastern portion of the community has been fully developed. In this regard, it is anticipated that City Hall hook up would be more than 20 years away. The following is a listing of additional questions considered highly pertinent to this matter: A. Will the City Council confine development to the sanitary sewer service area? While the City Council has historically not been consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan (by allowing development outside of the "immediate urban service area"), it is believed by staff that development confinement is necessary so as not to dilute the community's housing market and the ability to finance sanitary sewer. B. What happens if sanitary sewer service is not provided? Should the City choose not to pursue sanitary sewer service to the community, it would be staff's recommendation to establish maximum development densities of four dwelling units per forty acres of land throughout the community. Regardless of whether such service is pursued, it is further staff's recommendation that mandatory septic tank pumping be required (i.e., every two years). If sanitary sewer (and water) is not pursued, the City can only expect to attract dry industries which typically do not contribute significantly to a community's tax base. Additionally, the rate of commercial/industrial development would likely be less than if sanitary sewer were provided. C. What impact will sanitary sewer service have upon property values? Based on input from area developers, raw law with sanitary sewer and water availability brings between $10,000 and $15,000 per acre. Conversely, land without such service brings approximately $3,000 to $6,000 per acre in today's marketplace. 10 Hopefully, the aforementioned will aid the City Council in their consideration of this matter. It is anticipated this material will be discussed at the forthcoming 19 August City Council workshop. pc: Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson 11 Hearing on plant goes 6 / Elk River Star News / Wednesday, 5eptemder 17, 199"1 smoothly sewer Continued from page 1 Otsego's public hearing and Initial construction of the informational meeting on a sewer plant proposed to be proposed wastewater treat- will cost $2.1 million. A menbuilt plant with the City of Dton went more smoothly Dayton $1 g million plant expansion I will occur in about 10 years. than Otsego officials ever expected. Each expense will be paid Only about 150 people attended and only 14 voiced over 20 years. Connection fees collected from new questions and concerns to the development and existing council and its professional commercial/industrial prop- staff.j erties are anticipated to gen - "The meeting was really erate enough money to pay to tame," said Council member off the loans, according Suzanne Ackerman, after Monday night's meeting. "I city officials. The facility will likely be . expected hundreds of people located on 10 acres currently here. I only wish more people, owned by Wayne Lahn, who who were here, would have owns a large farm off County spoken up." Anyone who still has com- Road 36. Lahn is opposed to the pur- ments and concerns can put chase. At least two of his rel- the family's them in writing. The Otsego City Council will accept writ- atives voiced opposition to the plant's pro- ten comments until Sept. 22 at posed location at the public 6 p.m. hearing. Next, the City of Dayton Sewer cont'd to page 6 will host its own public hear- ing and informational meet- ing on the project Sept. 22. Exhibit C 9-19-9�7 September 16, 1997 Mayor & City Council Members City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council; My name is Sue Donovan, I live at 17201 53`d St NE, which is on the south side of County Road 36 just south west of the proposed sewage treatment plant site. I would like to thank you for hearing your constituents concerns last night during the public hearing on the sewer and water proposal. I hope you will really take the time to listen to the opinions and concerns expressed. It was very obvious last night that the residents of Otsego are not behind this proposal and do not see the benefit in it. - T -hough -I -di -d publicly-address-two-vfmyconcerns, my -entire -list -of concerns regarding the.- proposed he-proposed sewer and water plan could not be covered in three minutes. Though the opinions I am expressing in writing are not unique, I believe it's important that you hear from as many residents as possible. Should the sewer and water proposals go through? It is my opinion that the city did not prove that there is a great enough need for us to take the risk at this time to build the sewer and water systems. The opinions expressed last night overwhelmingly showed disagreement with a need. Only one resident last night felt there was need for the system. When the city was asked the questions, --"Who are the primary customers of this system? Who has committed to hooking up to the system?" The answer was; "six businesses have indicated they want it and one developer has showed interest." Your plan calls for users to pay for the system. This "committed" customer base will not come close to covering the initial 6 million required for Phase I. The financing is also based on close to 200 hookups in the first year and 80 hookups per year ongoing. These are unrealistic projections based on the development history in Otsego. My fear is that you will have to utilize your fall back position and fund the project through the general fund. This is not an appropriate use for the general fund. This seems too great of a risk for the city when there are developers who have stated they are willing to bear the risk and responsibility for sewage treatment in their areas. Exhibit DD My last concern regarding the site location is definitely not the least important and it is regarding the ethical treatment of Wayne Lahn. You would be sending a very negative message to the other Otsego residents if you are willing to take property from him that he is not willing to give up, without doing an extensive and exhaustive search for other alternatives. Morally and ethically I believe you must continue the search for an appropriate site before you would take such an extreme measure. I believe there must be sites available for the sewage treatment plant that will have less of a negative impact on the residents in the area. They be more inconvenient or costly for the city but I believe that must be weighed against the resident's right to a solution that has minimized the negatives. There must be a viable site out there that does not place the plant in a location that is so visually obvious, so close to the road and basically smack dab in the middle of everyone's property. And a site where the owner is willing to sell the property in question. I think you owe it to the residents in the area to go back to the drawing board to find a site with less negative impact. In closing I would like to reiterate that the city did not make a convincing argument that the sewage and water systems are necessary and it was very obvious from the residents that spoke that it is not wanted by the majority. I think you have a responsibility to the residents of the City of Otsego to vote against this plan. Sincerely, Susan . Donov (612) 428-4890 r/s'fSfJi c _ ; s jc Li 2- _- I i� llo� Exhibit EE September 19, 1997 To The City Of Otsego, This letter is in regards to the city sewer and water in the City of Otsego. It is my opinion that the city is not ready for it. They certainly can not afford to put it in; especially when it t3 to be up to tlid peopi-a as to «'il'n and if they will hook tip to a city system (How and when will this really be paid for?). I feel that the developer's should put in their own systems that can be hooked up to a city system when the City can better afford to put in a system of its own. It is my opinion that the people of this city do not want this. Thank You. Exhibit FF ^.P.nrpm p.r 1 4_ o,44 i .. n I A t hp.. City t 1T l 1TCP.�(1� 1 n,s lever is In rezaras to me city sewer and water in me City oI 0nseeo. 1t is my opinion tear the city is not readv for it. inev certainiv can not anord to put it in; especiaiiy when it is to be up to the people as to omen and if they will 'nook up to a city system (How and when will this really be paid for?). I feel that the developer's should put in their own systems that can be hooked up to a city system when the City can better afford to put in a system of its own. It is my opinion that the people of this city do not want this. Thank You. Exhibit GG September 19, 1997 To The City Of Otsego, This letter is in regards to the city sewer and water in the City of Otsego. It is my opinion that the city is not ready for it. They certainly can not afford to put it in; especially when it is to be up to the people as to when and if they will hook up to a city system (How and when will this really be paid for?). I feel that the developer's should put in their own systems that can be hooked up to a city system when the City can better afford to put in a system of its own. It is my opinion that the people of this city do not want this. Thank You. RUSSELL GRENINGER 10247 95TH ST. NE MONTICELLO, MN 55362 Exhibit HH September 19, 1997 To The City Of Otsego, This letter is in regards to the city sewer and water in the City of Otsego. it is my opinion that the city is not ready for it. They certainly can not afford to put it in; especially when it is to be up to the people as to when and if they will hook up to a city system (How and when will this really be paid for?). I feel that the developer's should put in their own systems that can be hooked up to a city system when the City can better afford to put in a system of its own. It is my opinion that the people of this city do not want this. Thank You. Exhibit U Sr � L .:'J i b6 0 o � � a o QCT- CD tLL �yv �e L� O � O� �to ja4tzl a, Exhibit JJ 7 0 �Q RL, Sept. 22, 1997 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council: I want to express my support for the sewer and water plan that was presented at the meeting of 9/15/97. You and your staff did a great job and are to be commended. I have several reasons for supporting this plan. 1. Sewer and water are inevitable. It will come sooner or later weather we want it or not. The longer we wait the more it will cost. 2. If we want commercial/industrial development sewer and water are a must. We have already missed several opportunities, includ- ing, Menard's, Cub foods, and a hotel and resturant. There are also several developers who are waiting to see what happens. Including NASCAR, which I also support. 3. All the cities around us are growing by leaps and bounds. Look at what is happening in Rogers, Elk River, Monticello, Albertville, and St. Michael. We are stagnent. 4. If we don't have sewer and water soon, these other commun- ities will run out of room to develop and split us up into pieces. If you don't believe this, just look at Albertville, they already took a portion of Otsego. 5. I think it is completely asinine to continue building housing projects without sewer and water. The developers may say it costs too much, but the figures seem to me to be less than installing a private system. 6. My street and others in the city are in need of resurfacing. It also seems asinine to me to tear up the streets and not put in the lines. then in 5 to 10 years come back to tear up the streets to put in the lines. 7. There.are approximately 1850 homes in the city. Each and every one of these is dumping there waste into the ground. How do you feel about that? Personally it scares me to high heaven. Don't you feel that this is a disaster waiting to happen? many systems in the city have already failed. 8. Any new systems that are installed must be of the mound type. These are very expensive and, from what I have heard, have a relatively short lifespan. 9. My own system is working fine now. But is is old and could fail at any time. My well is already giving me problems which would cost about $1100 to fix or $4000 to replace. I would much rather pay this money to the city for a permanent solution. Exhibit KK Page 2 10. If you sell your home you must bring your system up to current code. This could lead to replacement of your system, which is very costly. If I were in this situation I world probably chose not to sell and rent the house out instead. Do you want a lot of rental property and transient citizens or would you rather have permanent citizens who own their own homes? 11. If you were to buy a new home -in this city, wouldn't you rather have a city system than a private one? In my opinion only people who want to complain show up at meet- ings and public hearings. Probably most people in the city either understand that sewer and water is inevitable or they are in support and did not attend the hearing. This is a very important issue for our city. As our city off- icials you need to set aside your political hats and personal ajenda's and do what is right for the community. Not what is popular and get votes. I think the people who don't want this are being shortsighted and selfish. they are not looking at the big picture. Thank you for listening to what I have said and I hope you will make the right decision. Sincerely, Steven L. Ackerman 8217 Packard Ave. Otsego, MN. -55330 (61 2 ) 241 -91 43 Wallace C. Odell P.O. Box 9 Elk River, MN 55330 To: City Council, City of Otsego Recd �7 Re: Public Hearing on Wastewaters Facilities Plan, Sept. 15, 1997 From: Wallace C. Odell 26 Cannon Drive Otsego, Mn 55330 I am a resident of Otsego, an employee of Darkenwald Inc., a real estate brokerage firm and a member of the Otsego Economic Development Authority Advisory Committee. My comments however reflect only my personal opinions based on my own knowledge acquired over a period of years and leavened by my personal experiences. At the public hearing I spoke to the issues of RISK to the City in proceeding with its proposed facility plan and COMPETITION from the communities surrounding Otsego with respect to commercial, industrial and residential development. I can summarize my comments on competition as follows: Commercial- Can not be forced. It will come only after the "rooftop" density develops. Residential -The costs of infrastructure is a vital component of the decision that residential developers must make. An experienced residential developer spoke to the non-competitive costs proposed by the Otsego plan when contrasted with the neighboring communities. INDUSTRIAL- All of the communities bordering Otsego offer a variety of incentives to industrial users. Otsego cannot compete -with respect to.financial incentives. Of greater -,significance is the fact that a major portion of the industrial guided lands in the proposed Phase I of the Sewer Plan are in either (or both) the Wild and Scenic River area or the Mississippi River Floodplain. Constraints dictated by zoning standards and poor soil conditions will prevent industrial development in those areas for years to come. Exhibit LL Over the last few years the City has followed a persistent plan of refusing to look at any alternatives to the proposed centralized system. In addition to the existing package plant in Riverbend, 3 separate private developments based on package plants for wastewater treatment have been proposed within the western area of the city. The city has ignored the fact that substantial development could occur with virtually no RISK to the city and has elected to proceed without any effort to explore the benefits that can be derived from the use of decentralized systems. I spoke at the public hearing on Congressional concerns for the problem of dealing with cost effective means to provide efficient wastewater treatment systems in the rural and -low density developing communities. Attached hereto are excerpts from the Environmental Protection Agency Response to Congress including portions of the Executive Summary, the Introduction (chapter 1) and a concise summary of the Analysis of Benefits (chapter 2) attached as Exhibit A. I also spoke of the legislative intent developed by the Minnesota Legislature and embodied in Chapter 471A of Minnesota Statues. The act is entitled "Capital Intensive Public Services; Private Suppliers" and is intended to encourage and facilitate the privatization of facilities for the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution, and the furnishing of potable water. The Legislature specifically found that private suppliers in appropriate circumstances could speed construction and be less costly and more efficient than municipally provided services. Portions of Chapter 471A are hereto attached as Exhibit B. One other item should be addressed. In making the case for the need for the centralized system, the various consultants have stressed the dangers to public health and the environment by the failures of existing on - site systems in the northwesterly, northerly and northeasterly portions of the city. The actual location chosen for the proposed centralized plant is as far as,1t could possibly be from the areas of highest risk.ands'till be within the City. The proposed location cannot possibly be cost effective in dealing with the current on site failures. The quickest, most efficient and cost - effective way to deal with these problems would be a thorough evaluation of and implementation of a variety of de -centralized wastewater systems throughout the city. These systems can be incorporated into a centralized system at such time as the economic development of the city makes a centralized system cost effective. 237 Response to Congress on Use. of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems WWBKGN93 USEPA Office of Water & Office of Wastewater Management EPA 832-R-97-OO1B April 1997 This product is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The contents of this product do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. .r.r.�. �...... . �. �.... ... .. _,.. _. ... 7 .. r!_.-......�rr..:�f.?•ti':r=� .:t+rf•:'. .•. Y; ri r�•�. •.• n �v' (,1 ..!•. rc •/ t• ♦ 'l - � JI hili• •�• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly in less densely populated areas. Small communities' wastewater needs are currently 10 percent of total wastewater demands. Decentralized systems serve approximately 25 percent of the U.S. population, and approximately 37 percent of new development. This document addresses the Congressional House Appropriations Committee's request that EPA report on: (1) the Agency's analysis of the benefits of decentralized wastewater system alternatives compared to current (i.e., centralized) systems; (2) the potential savings and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives; (3) the ability of the Agency to implement these alternatives within the current statutory and regulatory structure; and (4) the plans of the Agency, if any, to implement any such alternative measures using funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997. Also addressed in this response is the Committee's inquiry on the role of Rural Electric Cooperatives in upgrading rural. drinking water and wastewater facilities. BACKGROUND Well through the first half of this century, wastewater management entailed either centralized collection sewers with some type of treatment facility for the highly populated areas, or conventional onsite systems (or sometimes cesspools) for small towns, suburban and rural areas. With the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), P.L. 92-500 in October 1972, which contained a national policy to provide funding for publicly owned treatment works and a goal to restore our lakes and streams, most communities selected centralized systems which were eligible for funding by the federal government. The 1977 amendments to the CWA required communities to examine or consider alternatives to conventional systems, and provided a financial set-aside for such treatment systems to be built. Approximately 2,700 facilities utilizing innovative and/or alternative technologies were constructed through this grant program which ended in 1990. Incentive set-aside funding was not continued under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Given the billions of dollars in remaining needs for upgraded and new wastewater facilities (EPA, 1993), communities must look even closer at alternative technologies for meeting their needs. One area of concern is failing or obsolete wastewater systems in less densely populated areas. When these systems were first built, common practice was to install the. least costly solution, which was not necessarily the most appropriate solution for the conditions. For a 'tu variety of reasons, these systems are failing. Both centralized and decentralized system alternatives need to be considered in upgrading failing systems to provide the most appropriate and cost-effective solution to wastewater treatment problems. This document addresses the issues raised when considering decentralized treatment options. BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS Decentralized systems are appropriate for many types of communities and conditions. Cost-effectiveness is a primary consideration for selecting these systems and is summarized below. A list of some of the benefits of using decentralized systems follows: o Protects Public Health and the Environment. Properly managed decentralized wastewater systems can provide the treatment necessary to protect public health and meet water quality standards, just as well as centralized systems. Decentralized systems can be sited, designed, installed and operated to meet all federal and state required effluent standards. Effective advanced treatment units are available for additional nutrient removal and disinfection requirements. Also, these systems can help to promote better watershed management by avoiding the potentially large transfers of water from one watershed to another that can occur with centralized treatment. o Qvoropriate for Low Density Corn_m__unities. In small communities with low population densities, the most cost-effective option is often a decentralized system. o Appropriate for Varying Site Conditions. Decentralized systems are suitable for a variety of site conditions, including shallow water tables or bedrock, low -permeability soils, and small lot sizes. o Additional Benefits. Decentralized systems are suitable for ecologically sensitive areas (where advanced treatment, such as nutrient removal or disinfection is necessary). Since centralized systems require collection of wastewater for an entire community at substantial cost, decentralized systems, when properly installed, operated and maintained, can achieve significant cost savings while recharging local aquifers and providing other water reuse opportunities close to points of wastewater generation. POTENTIAL COSTS AND SAVINGS.: Decentralized onsite and cluster wastewater systems can be the most cost-effective option in areas where developing or extending centralized treatment is too expensive (e.g., rural areas, hilly terrain). Cost estimates on a national basis for all decentralized systems are difficult to develop due to the varying conditions of each community. The comparisons presented in this document suggest that decentralized systems are typically cost-effective in rural areas. For small communities and areas on the fringes of urban areas, both decentralized and centralized systems (or combinations) can be cost-effective, depending on the site conditions and distance to existing sewers. OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS Several barriers, listed below, inhibit the expanded use of decentralized wastewater systems. Suggested ways to overcome the barriers are also provided. The barriers and suggestions address a wide range of issues and apply to the various organizations associated with implementing decentralized systems. o tack of Knowledge and Public Misl&rception. The perception of some homeowners, realtors, and developers that centralized systems are better for property values and are more acceptable than decentralized systems, even if they are far more costly, makes it difficult to demonstrate that properly designed and managed decentralized systems can provide equal or more cost-effective service. Also, many regulators and wastewater engineers are not comfortable with decentralized systems due to a lack of knowledge. Decentralized systems, particularly the non -conventional types, are not included in most college and technical instructional programs. Overcomina the Bauer. Professional training and certification programs should include decentralized treatment systems. Educational materials for homeowners should explain proper operation and maintenance practices and the consequences -of failures. o Legislative and Regulatory Constraints. State enabling legislation that provides the necessary legal powers for carrying out important management functions may be absent, vague, or not clearly applicable to decentralized systems. Most importantly, in almost all states, legislative authority for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems is split between at least two state agencies. It is also common for legislative authority for decentralized systems to be split between state and local governments, resulting in further confusion regarding accountability and program coordination. Under these conditions, decentralized wastewater systems have not gained equal stature with centralized facilities for public health and environmental protection. Many states and localities also rely on inflexible and prescriptive regulatory codes for decentralized systems, and often allow only the use of conventional septic systems. Where alternative systems are approved, approval often involves a lengthy process. As a result, an onsite system that may be inadequate (because the system could not operate under the special site conditions) or a needlessly expensive centralized system or expansion may be selected. Overcoming the Barrier. States should be encouraged to develop or improve enabling legislation that allows the creation of management agencies and empowers new or existing organizations to carry out management functions for decentralized wastewater systems. Also, states should consider consolidating legal authority for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems under- a single state agency so that all wastewater - management options are reviewed more equitably. State and local regulatory codes should be revised to allow the selection of decentralized systems based on their ability to meet public health and environmental protection performance standards, just as centralized systems are now. The development and use of model codes can facilitate this process. o Lack of Management Erograms. Few communities have developed the necessary organizational structures to effectively manage decentralized wastewater systems, although such management programs are considered commonplace for centralized wastewater facilities and for other services (e.g., electric, telephone, water). Without such management, decentralized systems may not provide adequate treatment of wastewater. Overcoming the Barrier; Management programs should be developed on state, regional, or local levels, as appropriate, to ensure that decentralized wastewater systems are sited, designed, installed, operated, and maintained properly and that they continue to meet public health and water quality performance standards. Examples of possible management structures (see Appendix C) should be provided to municipalities (e.g., public ownership/private maintenance). Examples of successful attempts of implementing management programs should be highlighted (see Appendix E for case studies). o Liability and Engineering_Fees, Homeowners and developers are often unwilling to accept the responsibility and potential liability associated with unfamiliar systems such as those providing decentralized treatment. Also, engineers' fees are often based on a percentage of project cost and have little incentive for designing low cost systems. Overcoming the Barrier. Liability can be addressed within the context of a management plan which will prevent failures and develop mechanisms to cover failures. Engineering fees should not be based on project -cost for decentralized systems. o Financial Barriers, EPA's Construction Grants program, and now the Clean Water SRF. program, have been the major source of wastewater treatment facility funding. These programs are generally available only to public entities. Difficulties exist for privately - owned systems in obtaining public funds under current federal and state grant and loan programs. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This document addresses the Congressional House Appropriations Committee's request that EPA report on (1) the Agency's analysts of the benefits of decentralized wastewater system alternatives compared to current (i.e., centralized) systems; (2) the potential savings and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives; (3) the ability of the Agency to implement these alternatives within the current statutory and regulatory structure; and (Y) the plans of the Agency, if any, to implement any such alternative measures using funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997. Appendix F addresses the Committee's request to analyze the ability of rural electric cooperatives to upgrade facilities in rural areas. A separate response addresses privatization of municipal wastewater facilities, also requested by the Committee.. Responses to areas 1 through 4 are presented below. Following this Introduction is an analysis of the benefits of implementing decentralized treatment options (41 above). It focuses on the factors that influence the selection of a wastewater system in a community and the conditions under which a decentralized or centralized system would be the best option. This is followed by an analysis of the potential costs and savings (42 above) which examines comparative costs for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems using two hypothetical scenarios. Next, the document highlights barriers that inhibit the expanded use of decentralized systems and suggestions for overcoming the barriers. A section follows describing EPA's ability and plans to implement the findings (questions 93 and 94 above), with appendices supplementing the text. The House Appropriations Committee request highlighted several alternative approaches for managing wastewater, including: o Targeted upgrades of treatment systems failing at individual homes. o Innovative, high-performance technologies for pretreatment on lots characterized by shallow soils or other adverse conditions. o Small satellite treatment plants or leaching fields in high-density areas. o Detailed watershed planning to specify precise standards for sensitive versus non=sensitive zones. vpc o Maintenance, inspection, and water quality monitoring programs to detect failures in onsite systems. These approaches are discussed throughout this document, particularly in the "Analysis of Benefits" section. Targeted upgrades of failing onsite systems are discussed in a variety of contexts, including the section on "Lower Capital Costs for Low Density Communities", which discusses why decentralized systems are most applicable for upgrading failing systems in small, rural communities and in ecologically sensitive"areas. Examples of innovative or alternative technologies that provide additional treatment for—sites with shallow soils and a variety of other hydro geological conditions are given in the section "Adaptable to Varying Site Conditions" and many such systems are described in Appendix A, "Definitions and Descriptions of Wastewater Systems." Small satellite treatment plants or leach fields which have low cost collector sewers are referred to as "cluster systems" or "package plants" throughout this report. Watershed planning and standards for targeting ecologically sensitive areas are discussed in the section on "Additional Benefits" and in Appendix B under "Comprehensive Planning." Maintenance, inspection, and monitoring programs are described in several sections related to management systems and Appendix C on "Management Systems." SELECTED DEFINITIONS Appendix A provides detailed definitions of many terms used in this document. There are several terms which are used extensively throughout this document and are defined here as well as in Appendix A. o A decentralized system is an onsite or cluster wastewater system that is used to treat and dispose of relatively small volumes of wastewater, generally from individual or groups of dwellings and businesses that are located relatively close together. Onsite and cluster systems are also commonly used in combination. o An onsite system is a natural system or mechanical device used to collect, treat, and discharge or reclaim wastewater from an individual dwelling without the use of community -wide sewers or a centralized treatment facility. A conventional onsite system includes a septic tank and a leach field. Other alternative types of onsite systems include at -grade systems, mound systems, sand filters and small aerobic units. o A cluster system is a wastewater collection and treatment system where two or more dwellings, but less than an entire community, are served. The wastewater from several homes may be pretreated onsite by individual septic tanks or package plants before being transported through low cost, alternative technology sewers to a treatment unit that is relatively small compared to centralized systems. 2 HISTORY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Onsite wastewater systems have been used since the mid -1800s, with technological advances improving the systems from simple outhouses to cesspools, to septic tanks, to some of the more advanced treatment units available today. In the 1970s and 1980s, large Federal investments in the construction of wastewater facilities focused primarily on large, centralized collection and treatment systems rather than on decentralized systems. Federal funds for wastewater systems increased significantly in 1972, as authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later called the Clean Water Act). Municipalities used funds from the new Construction Grants program to build sewers and centralized treatment facilities to meet national standards for discharged pollutants (GAO, 1994). Between 1972 and 1990, the federal government spent more than $62 billion in this program for constructing or'upgrading treatment facilities (Lewis, 1986). The initial decision to install a particular system (i.e., hookup to a centralized system or use onsite systems) was primarily made in the private sector by the developer of a property, based on affordability or profitability. In small communities, developers often chose more affordable onsite systems which could be easily installed for each dwelling. Once installed, the onsite system was usually not examined again unless an emergency situation arose, with wastewater either backing up into backyards or streets even though in many cases, they were contributing to pollution of ground water and nearby surface waters. In most small communities, outdated state and local regulatory codes still promote the continued use of poorly maintained conventional onsite systems (a septic tank and leach field). In manyof these communities, these systems are providing adequate public health and environmental protection, but in many cases, they are not. The 1990 Census indicates that 25 million households use conventional onsite systems or cesspools. Data on the failure rate associated with these systems is limited; a national estimate is not available. However, during 1993 alone, a total of 90,632 failures were reported, according to a National Small Flows Clearinghouse survey of health departments across the country. Failure rates as high as 72 percent have been documented, such as in the Rouge River National Demonstration Project. Nationwide data show that failures of onsite wastewater systems are primarily due to improper siting (e.g., in low -permeability soils), improper design, poor installation practices, insufficient operation and maintenance of the systems, and lack of enforcement of codes. Some communities, such as Stinson Beach, CA (see Appendix E) and Warwick, RI, explored ways to prevent future failures, including managing decentralized systems to ensure that they were operated and maintained appropriately, and using alternative types of systems where site conditions made conventional onsite systems marginally applicable. During the 1970's, a number of state and local governments, including Gardiner, NY and Wood County, WV, with the support of the U.S. EPA Research and Development programs, experimented with different types of decentralized systems that could accommodate a variety of site and community conditions and meet environmental protection goals if properly operated and maintained. Subsequently, in the 1980's, the Innovative and Alternative (I&A) Technology and Small_ Community set -asides of -the Construction Grants program resulted in the construction of hundreds of small community technologies using centralized and decentralized approaches. Both programs provided some information on performance and costs of newer decentralized systems. Circumstances changed in 1990, when the federal Construction Grants and I&A programs were eliminated. These programs were replaced by the. Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, which provides communities with low'interest loans. These programs have only been able to meet a small portion of the total ,needs. 'EPA's 1992 Needs Survey estimated the nation's documented wastewater needs to be $137 billion, with an increase of 39 percent from 1990 to 1992 (EPA, 1993). Small community needs comprised approximately 10 percent (over $13 billion) of total unmet needs in 1992. Furthermore, EPA estimated that replacing failing septic systems with new centralized system sewers and treatment facilities accounted for 40 percent of the small community needs (EPA, 1993). Managed decentralized wastewater systems are viable, long-term alternatives to centralized wastewater facilities where cost-effective, particularly in small and rural communities. Decentralized systems already serve one-quarter of the population nationwide, and 50% of the population in some states. These systems merit serious consideration in any evaluation of wastewater management options for small and mid-sized communities and new development. In some cases, combinations of decentralized 4nd centralized arrangements will be useful to solve diverse conditions. _ 4 EXHIBIT "A" The EPA Response to Congress Analysis of Benefits (chapter 2) can be briefly summarized with the following statements: WASTEWATER SYSTEM GOALS If properly sited, designed, installed and managed over their service lives, decentralized wastewater systems can. and do, meet both public health and environmental protection goals in areas where centralized treatment is impractical or not cost-effective. This section discusses why a decentralized system is often the most feasible choice for small communities..." BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS ''For certain communities and site conditions, managed decentralized wastewater systems are the most technically appropriate and economical means for treating wastewater when compared to centralized treatment systems..." CONCLUSION Considering all possible options and their combinations is the best approach to managing wastewater needs to achieve the most cost-effective solution for a variety of site conditions and community goals." CHAPTER 471A CAPITAL INTENSIVE PUBLIC SERVICES; PRIVATE SUPPLIERS 471A.01 Public purpose findings The legislature finds that the privatization of facilities for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution, and the furnishing of potable water provides municipalities an opportunity under appropriate circumstances to provide those capital intensive public services in a manner- that will speed construction and is less costly and more efficient than the furnishing of those services through facilities exclusively owned and operated by municipalities. The legislature further finds that other law may create unnecessary and costly obstacles to the privatization of those capital intensive public services and that a comprehensive act is required to permit municipalities to enter into appropriate contractualr arrangements with private parties to facilitate the privatization of those capital intensive public services. 471A.12 Powers; additional and supplemental The powers conferred by sections 471A.01 to 471A.12 shall be liberally construed in order- to accomplish their- purposes and shall be in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any other- law or charter. If any other law or charter is inconsistent with sections 471A.01 to 471A.12, these sections are controlling as to service contracts entered into Linder sections 471A.01 to 471A.12. However, nothing in sections 471A.01 to 471A.12 limits or qualifies (1) any other law that a municipality must comply with to obtain any permit in connection with related facilities, (2) any performance standard or effluent limitations applicable to related facilities, or (3) the provisions of any law relating to conflict of interest. EXHIBIT (B) /t �e�cl �t 57 To Gt T 0—. ut�GU 1 t' •S l..=i1� cZ l S TYJ __ C.��5 • W4 `( GJ �V Cto ,2'v C: v c � 1 c'cc .. ... l _ II, C�e'tit�V l ,V stiff Y 2lG 1S CtvCS t. 1.0 A-) t-�c �icN�L i JU S i Uri t�( AJ C� s t -t 2-i o s- Teta L T Y L c wt T-5 so u t c-nF12,v ew I -j t o \ i Exhibit MM (22, 779 pbk-) A �Lt cj T- 0- L J Tt+ A) 6 G7 —(C Ct /ZZ �. i V",C�d C�-2--:Z 9-7 Date: September 22, 1997 From: George W. Yankoupe, PE To: Mayor Fournier and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Otsego. MN 55330 Subj: Response to City of Otsego'. Public Hearing on Wastewater Facilities Plan, Sept. -15. 1997 As a property owner and business owner in Otsego, I remain extremely concerned that all appropriate engineering options for the City's wastewater treatment have NOT been adequately explored. From the prospective of a registered Professional Civil Engineer with over twenty-five years of experience, Otsego should not, at this time, build a centralized wastewater treatment plan. Otsego should instead use multiple package plants to treat the sewage at the point of generation. Otsego has been blessed with watersheds that can accommodate package treatment plants in the west, central and eastern districts. The utilization of individual package plants will: (1) not unduly burden the taxpayer of Otsego; (2) permit development in an orderly manner where the marketplace dictates, rather than forcing development; (3) keep the treated effluent water within the watershed where it was generated; (4) permit more rapid growth of tax base in a logical, .systemic progression; (5) insure SAC and WAC charges will be competitive with surrounding communities; and (6) prevent Otsego from blundering into building a plant at the wrong part of the city. With regard to item #(6), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has moved into a direction of decentralization. Rather than one massive central plant, regional plants are accommodating sewage treatment for many sound engineering reasons. It has been suggested that Elk River may be designated as the regional plant for this area. If that becomes reality, Otsego will have put its force mains in the wrong direction and will have needlessly built a central plant. Exhibit NN Additionally, the area most suggested to have an immediate requirement for sewer services predicated on the potential failure of septic systems resulting in contaminated wells, is the extreme north end of Otsego. The suggested location for Otsego's treatment facility could not be location more remotely from the area with the greatest immediate potential for need. I feel that the advisors to Otsego,have pushed the City Council in only one direction -.that of,a premature central plant to be located in perhaps -the most illogical site in Otsego. When Otsego matures with sufficient, prudent development, the city should then consider the feasibility of a central plant. I sincerely urge you not to make a hasty decision. Please consider ALL options, including the decentralized approach of individual package plants, strategically placed to the benefit of all of Otsego's electorate. Sincerely, Ge r Yan dupe, PE September 22, 1997 Mayor and City Council Members City of Otsego, i\I=' esota Position Statement of the D & Y Family Limited Partnership At the recent Otsego Public Hearing on the Wastewater Facilities Plan on September 15, 1997, Richard Koppy, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. presented information on behalf of the D & Y Family Limited Partnership. This letter serves as an official addendum to Mr. Koppy's statements and should be added to the public record regarding the sanitary sewer, water and wastewater fac;Dies featured in the City's proposal as presented at the public hearing. The D & Y Family Limited Partnersl-yip owns more that 200 acres of property rear and contiguous to the intersection of County 42 and F-lighway 10 1. Over the period of the next few years, the land controlled by the partnership will be developed with a mixed usr involving commercial d:.velopnent and manufacured housing residential development. Infrastructure il-tcluding, but not limited to, wastewater treatment plant facilities, a sanitary sewage collection systern, storm sewer, a complete water system, streets, and other appurtenant facilities will be constructed as part of the development;., Our primary reason for speaking at the public hearing and filing this position statement is that the cost of the proposed project initiated by the City will not benefit the D & Y property to the degree of the potential special assessments that would be levied for these improvements. The D & Y Partnership would prefer to have a private infrastructure system developed for the entire D & Y property. Accordingly, amendments to the Otsego Sewer Planning Policies are being requested. Section H entitled Future Development Policies incorporates language in item I. that refers to the D & Y property. We are requesting that this section be revised to include the language shown on attachment 91. These revisions are meant to set a policy within the City to allow the Darkenwalds to develop their property at their financial risk using features available to them unique to their specific property ownership. As part of the development process, the partnership will meet the MPCA limitations on effluent standards into the Mississippi River, to the degree of utilization needed for the density of the development proposed. Additionally, all City regulations will be met for the design and construction of the infrastructure system. The D & Y property involves unique features that no other property in Otsego has available. These features include an existing waste water treatment plant with a NIPCA Exhibit 00 discharge permit into the NEssissippi River. Additionally, the property is served with two domestic water wells and a accompanying water distribution system. Because of the existence of these facilities, and the ability to expand the current system to meet the full developed condition of the site, a privatized infrastructure system is more cost effective than participating in the City's public infrastructure involving water and sanitary sewer systems. Attachment #2 compares the City project costs, taken from a June -July 1997 Eagineering study prepared for the City of Otsego, to the Darkenw-ald project costs expected to be completed in conjunction with the development project. Reviewing the comparison of the costs on a per residential equivalent connection basis, it is apparent that the D & Y property will not receive the same benefit that can be provided privately through the expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant and drinking water well system. The 2.3:1 disparity in benefit results primarily because of the existing private infrastructure on the D & Y property. We request that the policy amendments be approved by the City Council. T"re D & Y Partnership will cooperate with the City in any manner that is possible to facilitate improved development opportunides within the City of Otsego. Attachment #3, delivered to the City on August 20, 1997, refers to this public-private partnership opportunity. There is little doubt that such a partner ship would be to &,e benefit of both Parties, riv uxx Gilbert Darkeawald D & Y Fasrdly Limited Partnership attachments (3) 1) Requested Policy/Amendment Otsego revison dated 9!15/97 2) Otsego comparison of Infrastructure costs dated 9115/97 3) Memorandum dated 8114/97 regarding public-private partnership I CNL EI`�GMEER:NG . 1,M0 �Y • CON9TRUGTIGN u,LVAGEMENT PJLK- LA? 1,CAPE ASCHrrECTURE . QJwpC�MENUL • RAWNG G CeSKatq i TAAV9PORTA71pV KUUSiSTd LTD -�'olicyfAtnerd�rlf i.) NVlthin MPCA guidelines for discharge Inits to the Mississippi Rive:," sewer.capacity of the Darkenwald waste-xater treatment giant may tie pro�-ided to lands east.ef, 13ighway 101 wIlich are under the civnersEp of the Darkenwald family. Likewise, Darkenwald wastewater treatment plant capacity may be extended to lands west of Highway 101 and owned by -the Darkenwald fan*y upon detziotistration of service capacity safisfaccoryy to the MPCA. a , j.} The existing potable water supply system ownted by the DarT�--riwalds can be expanded to include all of the Darkeuwal&-s fa y property both east and west of Highway 101. The expanded Darkenwald potabte. water supply system will be designed to Mznesota Public Health Standards, City Engtrteees'A3sociation of'Mnnesota Utility Standards and An3erican Water Works Association Standards: Offlcea: Hibbing • Minitetod a SL Raul - Twin Pore (612) 933-0972 6110 Blue Gide Drive • Suite 100 Minnetonka, Mil 55343-9123 • FAX (612) 933=1153 FROM ; KLK Fy55Ct- [ PTES LFL; PK>E �a• ; bld yes 1153 Sep. Z.� lyyr, 'dQ.-4U-M F5 c%& CNGr4CEA 4 • IXND&SKY • CoNsTR-cTiON MAwv�iIENT lANDWAPt AACKTICTURE • EW5ACf#ADiTAL• • PLAM %Z a CESION • TRANSPOR--A N M-0 0 Too WaAy Cdelt, DarkermMd RIM:E3tate trona Pichatd Koppy, PE, RLK*ut� Ltd CC: John Darksnwald Dale September 15,1997 -M Irl Of l0ashugum w3ft .-m.fdk7Mrg m&6cas-=npares the Ci 0 system cwt'of Sanitary Sewer, Wase ll�f t Ptard, and water to the same cost3V the Darkwnid p 61 vNopr c tJt° I I Egwalerr CcuRdon (RPC) basis T* ben cosi are compared on a per i2€£ a rrPat 3 t have "ded a 30% owd*ad fads' mdu&V cu*nVneift tic r *4 Ste; flits. I •arn assuming that the City cosW i xk4e tate same NMC Tilts d##W�ej" y• CmPa xucWre_Rem C>P►t r+i ed� ed ♦ Sanitsry Sewer Coltecdon System 1} Total REC's 2) Cost per REC Sri, Talk $7 , 5 ♦ Wade Water Treatrrx PWA ;3,900,000 $1, ia44 3) Total RECD 1.360 4) Cosi per REG i2•t39t1'. $1=0 4 Water -System $5.235,000 $2,150.MO 5) Total RC -C's 1,35Q 6) Cast per REC 53.E o.. Total Infrastructutt Cods ;15,511,000 $4.787,000 Toter EEC's 1,350 940 Cast per REC $11,490 =b;t7'fQ 0 Page I Orf C= Hitting • Minnetonka • Sr. Pawl I'Wilk Pore (612) 931-0972 • 6110 Blue Cltcie Drive 0 Suita 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343.9123 • FAX (612) 933.1153 FRQ RLK ASSOCIATES L.Tr; Memo P�;GhE Na - : 612 933 1153 Aug. 20 1997 11: 46kl P2 RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Tot IVtayor Larry Fournier & Otsego City Council From: Richard L. Koppy, RLK-Kuusisto on behalf of the DarkLl"Nald ramify Date: August 14, 1997 Re: Otsego Public-Frivate partnership We have put together a sentence outline describing o�initiate development e areas Darac�v , s Family and the City of Otsego could work tog that will; enhance the Cites tax base, improve the infrastructure base, and achieve a public-private partnership designed to help the it iachieve e de an economical short ch to term and long term systems app providing The 225 acres of Darkermald property has been reviewed in concept form by the . It forms the basis of the padnership with the City. The City during the month of ,duty. as the following items are areas that could be jointly discussed with the City Darkenwald property moves forward through the development approval process. a Page 1 FROM : FLK ASSCCIATES LTD PHCNE hC. : 612 933 1153 Aug. 2e 1997 11:46AM P3 1) Waste Water Treatment Plant — Darkenweld's existing plant and discharge permit will form the basis of waste -water treatment for the 225 We Darkenwald multi -phase development. This could be used to treat and discharge wastewater for additional development land in the eastern area of the City through a plant expansion plan. Darkenwald could agree to a transitional plan whereby the Plant and related infrast-ucture are uttimately "nsferrad to the City of Otsego fcc public cwriership and operation In fact, the Darkenwald treatment plant, with its discharge permit into the Mississippi, could serve as a integral part of the City's wastewater treatment and discharge system in the Ic rQ term future when a centralized treatment plant is developed. it is understood that u le City desires a centralized plant operation for the entire City. However, a package plant arrangement in the short term whereby various areas of the City are handled in this manner until a centralized facility can be justified, makes economic sense. Through a pubiic-private arrangement, these package plants can be sized and situated so that they form a part of the interconneded sanitary sewsr collection system in the short term. In the long term, this same coileciion system, without major revisions or additions, could transmit sewage to the Citys ce Mo lazed plant Possibly, the Darkenwald waste -water discharge pe rmit the Mississippi River could be utilized for the ultimate discharge. 2) Sanitary Sewer collection system — A sewer collection system, including an appropriate lift station, is planned to be constructed Mth the Da *enwald development. The requirements of the design will be in accordance with City of Otsego sanitary sewer design standards. This system can replicate the system the City antidpates for the east -central area of the City so as to allow connection with other public sewer infrastructure in the future without any redundarx�es in the system design. 3) Water system — The Darkenwald development plan includes a water tower and "it construction that will provide a solid distribution and fire -fighting system fcf the 225 we development A closely coordinated design of the Darkenwald water system with the future plans for the City in this area would eliminate duplication and aid the City to their future plans for their water distribution system, including the provision for adequate water storage. Additionally, the water distribution system within the development that will serve the individual. properties will be designed according to acceptable City standards. In the future, the City could operate the water and sewer system with City maintenan e supply if so desired. (cf. Official Minnesota rules with respect o portion of Minnesota Rule 4720.5280 attached). • Page 2 2 FRCM : RUC ASSCCIATES LTD 4) $) 6) 7) 8) PHCNE t,C. : 512 933 1153 F,9. 29 1997 11:4790 P4 Stormwater treatment and discharge system — The Darkenwald development plan will include an elaborate stcmwader collection, treatment and discharge system. Close coordination with to City could allow the Darkerwald property to be appropriately designed to handle atormwater needs for contiguous land to the Dark9rMald site. It could help initiate the basis of a regionalized stormwater system for the City of Ctsego. Parkland — Darkenwald development plans could include parklands that can be integrated into the City's park system- Of specific interest would be a conveyance of a portion of Mississippi River frontage that would provide recreational access to the river. Highway 101 commercial and industrial property development — With a partnership between Darkenwald and the City, this land could be served with the appropriate infrastructure that coordinates with the Derkenwald development infrastructure to minimize ecanornic duplication. For example, a trunk sanitary sewer system could lead to the Darkenweld sewer lift station and, in the short tern, be treated within the Darkenwald treatment plant. Funding _ Where appropriate, collaboration on the funding of infrastructure could be enhanced through a public-private partnership using the proposed development as a basis for justifying the bonding and other funding applications. Methods of Cooperation - Wide latitude in choice of methods available under Chapter 471A of Minnesota Statutes - also tax increment can be used in various ways. Ultimate acquisition of sewer and water systems can take a variety, of forms, for example, "friendly' condemnation, long term bargain lease, installment sale, shared equity, joint venture, etc. . Page 3