HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. North Central Sanitary Sewer StudyAiepes jo l.uawdolanap ayj ylinn p91e10osse sIsoo ui uolledioped Aj!O ailnbaa AlaNll
pinonn siyl ajnlnl ayj ul junowaso�j ay} olul ue6e3 woaJ 9OIAa9s James Aael!ues 10
uolsuajxa ayl COI uebe310 40 ayl yllnn luaw99a6y saannod }ulor a jo juawdolanap ayj
sl uoljoe aol pepuawwooaa sl ley} wall quo ayl - Aj!O qyj 10 eaae slyj o} James Aiepues
10 uolsua}xe ayj aol paysllgelsa uaaq sey leyl aullawll ou sI aaayl `anoge ayj uo pasee
•swalsAs James pellej leuoilippe jo uoljejuawn000 •E
•Apedoid pado19n9pun jo l.uewdolanaa •Z
•eowas James Aiepes jol uol}llad aaunno Apedoid • L
:saouaaan000 6uinnolloj ayj jo quo jo linsai a se pepualxe aq IIInn aolAaas James
Aiepes leyl paledlol}ue sl jr `jayje�j •eaae slyl of papue xe aq eowas James Aae }rues
}eyl awg slyj le popuawwooai l.ou sI 1! `yons sy •swalsAs 6ulllej aq of paaaplsuoo aie
eaae Apn }s ay} ulylinn swa}sAs ayj jo %£ ueyl ssel leyl peupiel.ap uaaq sey jI `,S1S1
jo u011lpuoo ayj uo uollewao}ui Aj!O pue s}uawwoo lueplsaj uo pase8 •peleldwoo
seen (S1SO swelsAs juaw}eaal. James IenplAlpul 6ulIsixa JO nnalAaa a IJodai ayj jo ped sy
•saloliod
pue seal uolloauuoo `sa6aeyo eaae Nunal Apo }ueuno uo paseq pajelnoleo senuanaa
pajewllse pue buiolad 170OZ jdallaa of palepdn uaaq aney sIsoo palewlIs3 •anuany
uoaNy 6uole eaae Apn }s ayl of pappe eaae leuollIppe alepoww000e of pepuedxe pue
pannalAaa ajann sluawu6lle James Nunil, pasodoad •:podai ayj aol slseq a se pasn seen
ApnjS.iemeS AiepeS Jeiluao ypoN L661 ayl `:podaa I}eip p9yue:4e ayj 6uljedaid ul
•palaldwoo Alsnoingad ApnjS jemeo Ajel!ueS leilua0 YVON 1-66k
ayl a}epdn o} seen laodai s yl }o Ieo6 ay1 •I.iwil Aj!O ayj ol; q:pou 6ulpualxe pue anuany
UOJW 10 Isem `gg �jO jo q:pou `peoU ppoo }o Isee Allejaua6 eaae ue `junowasoU jo
eaay lea}ua0 WON ayj 01 Jannas AJe}lues 10 uolsuaIxa pue COI paaU ayj nnalAaa of laodai
e jo uollexedaid ayl pazljoylrne ilounoo Aj!O ayl `EOOZ `L aagolop uO :punoi6>ioea
•I.unoweso�j Iealu90 WON aol Bowes James Aiepes ainin3 :enssl
uolssnosla :N011.abr a3aN3WW033N
:AS Q3AONddV
sesuodsa�j pue sl.uawwoo jaunno A:pedoad
`Apnl.S jameS AaepeS Ieil.ua0 4PON 4eaa :S1N3WH3V11H
V VCIN30V
aa9ul6u3 APO `• `Jalz}oa8 'r nnaJpuy :AS a 3NVd3Nd
uolssnosla
:NOI1�3S VG N30V
ApnjS jameS AaepeS lealua0 WON :W31.1 vaN3E)V
VOOZ `tiff Iladv :NOISS3S NNOM - 1IaNno3 Am
N0113V NO=l Auvww s 3Aano3X3 ;
1NnomsoN :jO Alla
! sewer within the City of Eagan to ensure capacity for the northern area of Rosemount in
the future.
Several items have been identified for discussion with the Council regarding current and
future City policies that will guide the extension of sanitary sewer service to this area.
The general policy items for Council discussion and consideration are as follows:
1. The current City assessment policy includes language that requires a petition
from at least 50% of the property owners within a project area for the City
Council to consider an improvement project. While the Council has the
discretion to take action to initiate a project with a petition from less than this
percentage of property owners, the policy does provide some general guidance
for use by City staff and property owners when administering property owner
petitions. State statute stipulates that when a petition is received from at least
35 % of property owners, a simple majority Council vote is required to initiate a
project. A petition with less than 35% of property owners or a Council initiated
project requires a super majority Council vote. Staff has identified as a goal to
review and update the current assessment policy which can include a review of
this language and further discussion and consideration by Council as it pertains
to future sewer service needs in this area of the City.
2. Current City practices for developing properties is the requirement for orderly
development, essentially not allowing "leap frog" development. In the past, the
City has been successful implementing this practice resulting in the collection of
trunk fees as properties develop. Future demands for sanitary sewer service
within the study area may require the extension of service through or past
undeveloped properties. While this is not an immediate issue to address, there
may be a need in the future to address and establish a policy for the assessment
of trunk fees to undeveloped properties.
3. Through the preparation of the report, it was determined that less than 3% of the
existing ISTS' are failing. As this is a small percentage, the initiation of project is
not recommended at this time. However, in the future, additional failing systems
may be documented. The policy question for consideration is the establishment
of a threshold which the number of failed systems creates a health, safety and
environmental issue which a project should be initiated for.
4. The City currently has a trunk fee policy for the assessment of trunk sewer and
water charges to properties. The policy as outlined in the report stipulates that
properties currently developed with ISTS' and individual wells are not charged
the City's trunk area charges when sewer and water service is extended. The
impact of this policy has been incorporated into the review of estimated trunk fee
revenues for the study area. Based on this review, it appears that sufficient
revenues will be generated to support the current policy.
The anticipated schedule for the completion of this report is as follows:
■ Utility Commission Review Draft Report April 12, 2004
■ City Council Review Draft Report April 14, 2004
■ 2 " Public Informational Meeting April 29, 2004
■ City Council Adopt Final Report June 1, 2004
Summary: Dave Hutton with WSB & Associates, Inc. will be in attendance at the
meeting to provide an overview of the report. Staff is requesting Council comments and
direction on the recommendations contained within the report.
I
1. COMMENTS:
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen
As a resident of Rosemount and a homeowner in the north central sewer study area, I feel
that expanding city sewer north of Connemara Trail is a bad idea. Rosemount was founded
on a farming community and has a nice small town feel while offering the same luxuries and
amenities as all the larger suburbs. One of the nicest things about Rosemount is you have
definite transition from one community to the next with the small acreage homes and the
little bit of farmland that is left on the north side of town. I feel that if City sewer is added to
the north central area we will overdevelop. Our northern border and our community will
grow into our neighbors to the point that we will lose our individuality. I'm not saying this
area can't be further developed, but if we keep this area off city sewer and keep the lot sizes
to a two -acre minimum, it will be very beneficial to the community. One way this would
benefit the community would be by the cash flow it would generate. A septic system needs
to be maintained, pumped, inspected and replaced all of which generate cash flow for the
community. If all the houses are on city sewer, these jobs are lost. Another way it will
generate an income is through tax revenue. A person who builds an acreage is more likely
to spend more money building a bigger house and outbuildings. Putting it in a higher tax
bracket that will bring in the same if not more money than two or more city lot houses. All
the while maintaining our rural setting. Finally I think city sewer should not be added to this
area because it is already partially developed. Roads are in place and to put in city sewer
you'll have to tear up and redo what is already there. Adding more cost to the project.
Money that would be better spent installing sewer and developing a road structure south and
east of town where there's more room to work with so we don't grow into our neighboring
communities.
Thank you.
Response:
At this time it is not proposed to expand sanitary sewers into this area. The City is only
planning for it now, so at such time as sewers are requested, it can be expanded into the
area in an orderly fashion. The City will only expand sanitary sewer into these areas to
address a health and safety issue or by request of the landowners, which can come in two
ways: 1) Homeowners seeking an alternative to septic systems; and 2) Landowners wishing
to develop their property. If and when sewers are expanded into this area, the total
infrastructure will be looked at, including roads and watermain.
t
2. COMMENTS:
Our area primarily consists of small acreage parcels and would not need a central sewerage
system. Many area homeowners have recently been forced by the Met Council to update
their systems at great expense, and also to have them inspected regularly at owners'
expense. To have a central system installed at this time or for many years to come would be
a total waste of taxpayers' money, not to mention asinine and absurd!
Response:
Sanitary sewers would only be extended into areas at such time as they are requested by the
property owners.
3. COMMENTS:
I am really disappointed over this sewer study. My house is 9 years old. We built this house
and hired Bauer Remer to install our septic system. Below are dates that we have had our
system pumped, as you'll see, we are faithful about this and feel it's important to maintain
proper function and keep our system in working order.
Since our sanitation man (Bob Friemuth) has kept track of septic pumping, these are the
dates that we have hired and had him come out.
September 4, 1997; September 10, 1998; August 24, 1999; May 1,2001; November 19,
2002; and May 30, 2003.
I feel our house is too new to be bringing on city sewer, it would impact us in a high
financial burden. We have not had our septic system fail and as far as larger parcels to be
developed - there cannot be in our area — we all own 5+ acres and everything's built.
I feel we should be exempt from this, and I hope you can understand and see why.
Response:
Sanitary sewers are not proposed to be extended to this area now. The City is preparing a
long range plan for potential future sewer needs. Sewers would only be extended at such
time as the public and landowners request it.
4. COMMENTS:
In June 1996, we installed a new septic system, including a new drain field. Since then we
have maintained this system in compliance with the city ordinance. We are not in favor of
city sewer service on our property.
Response:
Sanitary sewers are not proposed to be extended to this area now. The City is preparing a
long range plan for potential future sewer needs. Sewers would only be extended at such
time as the public and landowners request it.
5. We should go ahead with project on 120 will probably go to Egan leaving less people to pay
if delayed.
Response:
No comment.
6. COMMENTS:
1. There should be no need for a study in the area of our house because all the septic
systems have been replaced or determined to be functional. Also, all septic systems
are required by the City to be pumped every three years so the City should already
have an accurate record of the status of each septic system.
Response:
Not all systems are functional according to property records. Some are failed. Not
all property owners are submitting records of their regular pumping of their system,
so the City does not know the condition of every system. Just because a system is
pumped, does not ensure a compliant system. Most older septic tanks do not have a
concrete bottom, which are now considered failed systems by current state laws,
even if they are pumped regularly. Without a concrete bottom, septic water leaks
into the groundwater eventually.
2. There are no large amounts of land to develop in our area The area is zoned Rural
Residential with low density housing. If property is rezoned in our area to split up
some of the 5 -acre pieces for development, then the City and the developers should
pay for the cost of city sewer instead of the existing residents in the area who already
have spent large amount of money to upgrade their septic systems to comply with
City rules.
r
Response:
Developers do pay the full cost of city sewer extensions. Unless the landowners
decide to sell their property to developers, the rural residential areas will probably
not develop.
3. When we upgraded our septic system a few years ago to comply with new rules, I
asked if the City was ever planning to put City sewer in our area. The answer was
with the low density housing in our area and with the lakes and protected wetlands, it
would be costly to bring in city sewer. Therefore, we went ahead with the upgrade
because we did not want to pay large amount of money to upgrade then a few years
later pay a large amount of money for city sewer.
Response:
The City is not currently planning on extending sewers now. However, it is
appropriate to plan to slightly upsize the downstream pipes just in case sewers are
ever requested in this area.
4. A year ago the City requested that we change one of our property lines to allow
neighboring property to be split into to pieces, the property line change added to the
amount of frontage on the highway. I asked the City again if there were any plans
for city sewer in our area. They said they did not plan to bring city sewer in our area
for a long time. _I asked because with increased frontage, it would cost us more for
city sewer. We agreed to comply with the property line change because we thought
we would not have to consider an additional cost for more frontage for city sewer.
Response:
Again, the City was correct. There are no immediate plans to extend sewer into this
area. But it is only prudent to prepare long range plans for the potential of sewer
for this area.
7. COMMENTS:
I would like to be on the notification/mailing list.
Response:
We will add your name to the list.
8. COMMENTS:
ID #3401000001025 says "no- working system" I have my rules and reg to upgrade and still
"no- working system
Is this of concern?
Thanks.
Response:
We will verify the records at City Hall and correct the chart.
9. COMMENTS:
Charge the cost of the improvement as a utility not an assessment so it can be transferred
from one owner to the next. So the improvement payment stays on the property for the life
of the loan.
Response:
A portion of the sewer pipes considered oversizing or trunk costs will be included in the
monthly sewer bills because they benefit the entire area, but the local sewer costs will be by
direct assessments to the benefited property owners. Assessments also run with the property
and can be transferred from one owner to the next.
10. COMMENTS:
I think as long as a rural lot of 2 -1/2 acres or more that has a working septic system should
not be forced into paying for a sanitary sewer. I also think Dave did a good job presenting
the information tonight.
Response:
Sanitary sewers are not proposed to be extended to this area now. The City is preparing a
long range plan for potential future sewer needs. Sewers would only be extended at such
time as the public and landowners request it.
t
11. COMMENTS:
You all should leave the rural lots be. That means we keep our septic and well and our
gravel road (Dodd Blvd.)
If we wanted city sewer, city water, paved roads and sidewalks, we would have stayed in the
cities.
If you had to pay for all the hook -up you all wouldn't be in a rush.
Response:
Sanitary sewers are not proposed to be extended to this area now. The City is preparing a
long range plan for potential future sewer needs. Sewers would only be extended at such
time as the public and landowners request it.
12. COMMENTS:
I would like to know my options about sewer. We have an old system and I would like to
upgrade in the near future because we are looking at moving. Is it better to upgrade with a
holding tank? If possible, or do we wait to see if a sewer line is coming to our area?
Thanks
Response:
It is not recommended to use a holding tank unless that is your only option because they
need to be pumped out frequently (monthly or so depending on the size of the tank, which
can get quite costly). Talk to a septic system installer or City Building Inspector to see if
you have room on your property for another septic system or mound system. Depending on
the cost of those, you may want to consider requesting city sewer. The study will give
further guidance on the estimated time frame for sewer to be extended to your area.
13. COMMENTS:
We live in the neighborhood of 124, 125 & Blanca Ave. We live in a small rural
neighborhood with less than 25 homes. It is my understanding from personal discussions
with neighbors that a majority of homeowners do not want city sewer and water. Many of
the residents have spent thousands of dollars to update their personal septic and wells. My
husband and I personally have just put in a $9,000 water well and had a new septic installed
in 1999. I am unable to pay any monetary assessments that may be associated with bringing
city /sewer and water to my neighborhood.
Response:
If your septic systems work fine and your neighborhood does not request city sewers, it will
not be installed.
I
14. COMMENTS:
Parcel #180,181,187
Initially in favor of extending sewer. Need additional information as it becomes available.
Response:
No response required.
15. COMMENTS:
Where in Eagan is the trunk line at the northern end of Rosemount. How large is that trunk
line — are they upsizing it to cover northern Rosemount. How would assessments be
established?
Response:
Further details on the capacity for Eagan to upsize their line will be part of the study
results, along with the location of their line and area served. If they are willing to install a
larger pipe, the City of Rosemount may be asked to pay for the oversizing. At such time as
northern Rosemount requests a utilities line, those oversizing costs will be factored into the
overall assessments.
16. COMMENTS:
The Stonebridge Addition consists of large lots, mostly over 5 acres. Our septic systems are
inspected every two years and no major problems have been found.
We do not want, or need, a sewer system.
We are located on the far northeast corner of the proposed project and could easily be
deleted.
We view our inclusion to be an attempt to further spread the cost of the project,
Response:
This is only a Comprehensive Planning document to guide the City in the future. There will
be no costs to the property owners until such time as sewers are actually needed, requested
and installed.
1
17. COMMENTS:
Our current system was recently upgraded to code a couple of years ago prior to an addition.
Prior to that time we did not experience any problems with the system since installation in
1997; we have owned the home since 1983. We have kept up and will continue the required
pumping and inspections of tanks and drain field, and do not require any changes to our
system in the near future /at least the next 15 years. I believe the additional acreage we own
can accommodate a new system and drain field if needed.
My neighbor and I agree that the information provided us was inadequate for us to
comment, but to ask the questions:
1. Why was only one block into the Dodd Road area considered; coming over Hwy. 3
from such a great distance from the east?
2 Why wouldn't the units west of Dodd be included, 130 through Charleston Way
and Crt?
3. Are we to pick up the development tab for the other areas currently not in
development? West of south 38 and north of Connemara, and the newer
developments east of the new church to Akron?
4. Do the developers pay for these assessments as the cost to the homeowners?
5. What is the ongoing footage rate?
6. Is the plan to curb and gutter Dodd Road part of this sewer study?
7. What does the sewer grid system look like today, and does it match up with the
needs of and for future city expansion.
8. If the continued expansion of 42 continues to 52 and 55, why not extend the survey
to that area as well.
I plan to monitor this project with interest and dialogue.
Thank you.
Response:
1. The initial extent of the study area was somewhat arbitrary using Dodd Road as a
general guide. The final study area will be based on specific topography on what
drains to east of TH3.
2. Those areas do not drain into the general study area east of TH3.
3. Developments pay entirely for their cost and often can help subsidize costs of
existing homeowners.
4. Developers do pay assessments the same as homeowners.
S. No assessment rates have been established.
6 Curb and gutter or other improvements to Dodd Blvd. are not part of this study.
7. Existing sewers have been installed with the need for future sewer needs.
8. That area will be the subject of a separate study for sewer, water and local roads.
l
18. COMMENTS:
If Dodd Blvd. is out of alignment. Sewer and mains, water and storm. Should not be
installed on private property.
Response:
Any sewer, water or storm improvements would be on public property or the City would
acquire additional land as necessary in the form of easements. Property owners would be
compensated accordingly.
19. COMMENTS:
I am concerned that we are being forced to develop our acreage before we want to consider
such a change in our lifestyle.
The request for easement along Biscayne has not been very impressive. We have basically
been told the City will offer no compensation and will do whatever they choose to do.
Is this process any different?
Are we developing too fast in Rosemount.
Response:
The study is for the long -term planning of the City's sewer needs. Sewer will be extended as
necessary to address health and safety issues or at the request of property owners.
20. COMMENTS:
Had new septic system installed a couple years ago. If sewer is extended, "Do we have to
hook up ?" Is it required?
Response:
Once sewers are installed into an area, hookups are required. The City will generally
install sewers into your area as the need arises and will work with the homeowners on the
timing of the sewer and funding alternatives.
21. COMMENTS:
To the City of Rosemount:
I received your letter Monday and I am still in shock! I also read the Rosemount paper on
Sunday and I see where Mayor Droste is ready for the 21" century. Well, I beg to differ
with you. I don't think you guys are ready for yesterday! If you guys can't communicate
with people on a one -on -one basis and understand, how in the hell are you going to
communicate and understand people staring at a computer screen?
Where in the world is this coming from, you ask? Well, allow me to enlighten you AGAIN!
Have you gone back and listened to the tapes from the meetings that were held from the
130 " /128 Street blacktopping project? No you didn't! I know that because the question
was asked several times during the course of the meetings by several residents, me being
one of them, when the project is underway, will there be sewer, water, gas and electric be
put in at that same time? The answer was NO. Another question was, after the project is
done for a year or two is the City going to comeback and dig up the streets again to put in
sewer, water, gas and electric or any one of those utilities? The answer was NO — When the
meetings were held when the gas company wanted to put in the gas lines from the RR tracts
on 1301 Street east through the Jay Simon Addition, questions from the residents were
asked again about the installation of sewer, water and electric being put in the same time.
The answer was NO from the City. When the City held its meeting to explain the 20 -year
plan for Rosemount, the question was asked, "As these new additions will be traveling north
to meet up with the Inver Grove city limits, will city sewer, water and underground electric
be installed in the existing neighborhoods that do not have these utilities ?" The answer was,
"In the short term, no. In the long term, no. The City has no plans to disrupt the existing
neighborhoods as the developments move north to install these utilities." So does this mean
no to you? It means NO to me! So why are you sending out your stupid questionnaire,
wasting the taxpayers' money on an issue that should not be addressed? The answer should
be pretty plain, NO! If the City spent as much time, money and energy making sure that the
existing residents were using biodegradable products in their septic systems instead of trying
to scam the long -time residents that built this City, maybe these residents would not be
having so much of a problem.
So tell me, why is there no mention of water and underground electric in your
questionnaire? I guess that will be dealt with another year, after everything is done from the
sewer project! That way it will cost more money and your contractor buddies will be able to
stay in business another year and you can get another kickback of some sort! You see, that's
the problem with common sense, it's not very common any more!
So, my answer is NO, STAY OUT, LEAVE US EXISTING RESIDENTS ALONE!
However, I am of the opinion that you are of the opinion, don't confuse me with the facts,
my mind is already made up.
Response:
This study is being prepared to address the long -term service needs for the North Central
area of the City. At this time, sewer is not planned to be extended to this area but may be
extended in the future to address health and septic issues or at the request of property
owners.
aa�oN