The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.a. Update on Sewer Diversion AmendmentCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Update on Sewer Diversion AGENDA SECTION: Amendment DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT PREPARED BY: Lisa Freese Director AG"' IM #- A of Planning .3 ATTACffidENTS: Metropolitan Council Staff Report OVEDBY Letter from Lakeville; Apple Valley Submittal 7AP ti r J On Tuesday, I would like to take the opportunity to update the City Council on the progress regarding the Metropolitan Council's review of Rosemount's Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment regarding the sewer diversion to the Empire Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). The amendment is scheduled for action by the full Metropolitan Council on Thursday, October 22, 1992. The Metropolitan Council is required to take action by October 29 on the amendment application. During the last couple weeks Steve Jilk and I met individually with several members of the Metropolitan Council to reveiew the City's request and answered their questions regarding the MUSA expansion issues. Overall, I feel those individual contacts were very sucessful. On Monday, October 12 the Metropolitan and Commmunity Development Committee (MCDC) of the Metropolitan Council reviewed the request and recommended to the full Council approval of the amendment. Attached are copies of the MCDC committee staff report and excerpts from additional correspondance that was submitted by Lakeville and Apple Valley. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Requested. COUNCIL ACTION: 10-20-92.003 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE TWIN CITIES AREA Mears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th 5t. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359/TDD 291-0904/FAX 291-6550 DATE: October 6, 1992 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Steven Sehwanke, Research and Long Range Planning SUBJECT: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment Empire Plant Diversion and MUSA Expansion Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15468-3 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 INTRODUCTION The city of Rosemount is proposing to add 245 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The land will be designated medium density residential in the city's comprehensive plan. (See attachments 1 and 2). The city is also proposing to amend its Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan to allow the permanent diversion of wastewater flows from 767 acres in sections 31 and 32ofthe city. Approximately 522 acres of the proposed diversion is currently in the MUSA. The remaining 245 acres are from the proposed MUSA expansion. The flows are proposed to be diverted. from the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the Empire WWTP. (See attachment 3). REGIONAL POLICY ISSUES The plan amendment raises two major regional policy issues. The first is whether the 245 -acre MUSA expansion should be granted. The second is whether sanitary sewer flows should be diverted from the Rosemount WWTP to the Empire WWTP. Council staff is recommending that the city of Rosemount implement both actions. The city of Rosemount is one of two cities in the metropolitan area that uses a land bank system to identify available land for urban development. Rosemount's land bank system was established in 1986 and adjusted in 1989 to reflect the capacity constraints identified at the Rosemount WWTP. The city expects to define an urban service area as part of a major plan amendment to be submitted in early 1993. The size and location of the proposed urban service area will relate to available capacity at the Rosemount WWTP. The proposed diversion of sanitary sewer flows from the Rosemount WWTP to the Empire WWTP reduces the possibility of reaching capacity in the near -tem at the Rosemount WWTP. The proposed diversion also provides the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission with additional time to implement short- and long-term improvements at the Rosemount WWTP. These improvements are necessary to accommodate planned development activities that are consistent with Metropolitan Council forecasts in the Rosemount WWTP service area. The city of Rosemount has demonstrated a regional need for the 245 -acre MUSA expansion. The proposed MUSA expansion does not pose a potential system impact because sufficient capacity currently exists at the Empire WWTP to accommodate anticipated sanitary sewer flows and the proposed MUSA expansion does not result in a substantial departure from the Council's Wastewater Treatment and HandlinQ Policv Plan. The cities of Lakeville and Farmington have submitted letters opposing the proposed diversion to the Empire WWTP. They argue that the diversion will shorten the service life of the Empire WWTP and that it violates a 1989 "cooperative agreement" among the cities in the Empire WWTP service area and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The cities are concerned that sufficient capacity will not be available at the Empire WWTP to meet future service needs. The cities are correct in reference to the Empire WWTP's shortened service life as a result of the proposed diversion. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission estimates the proposed diversion will shorten the Empire WWTP's service life by approximately one year. Several facility studies are under way, however, to provide for the long-term sanitary sewer needs of the Empire service area. These studies should be complete by 1994. If the decision is made to expand the Empire WWTP to 12 MGD, this can be accomplished in approximately three to four years. The Empire WWTP has been pre -designed for an expansion to 12 MGD. AUTHORITY TO REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plan amendments to the Metropolitan Council for review (Minn Stat. 473.864, subd. 2, 1978). The Act also gives the Council the authority to establish guidelines governing the amendment review process (Minn. Stat. 473.854). The following material was submitted by the city of Rosemount in support of the proposed plan amendment: * City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 22, June 25, 1992; * City of Rosemount Supplemental Information, July 29, 1992; * City of Rosemount Storm Water Utility Policy, March, 17, 1992; * City of Rosemount Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Rosemount Trunk Sewer System, May 12, 1986; The Council also received an August 21, 1992 letter from Robert A. Erickson, City Administrator, city of Lakeville, a September 18, 1992 letter from Larry Thompson, City Administrator, city of Farmington, and a September 30, 1992 letter from Meg McMonigal, Planner, city of Apple Valley 2 regarding the proposed Rosemount plan amendment. to in the staff report. These letters are attached and responded The city of Rosemount submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on June 29, 1992. On July 13, 1992, the Chair determined that the amendment was incomplete for Council review. After receiving supplemental material from the city of Rosemount, the Chair determined on August 12, 1992 that the amendment was complete for Council review. The Council has taken. a 90 -day review of this plan amendment because of the potential impact on the metropolitan sanitary sewer system. The 90 -day review period concludes on October 29, 1992. FINDINGS 1. The city of Rosemount has demonstrated a regional need for the proposed 245 -acre Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion. 2. The capacity of the Rosemount WWTP is currently limited to less than its design capacity because of reduced efficiency at the plant during cold weather months. 3. This fall, the MWCC plans to implement an interim improvement to increase operating capacity during cold weather months at the Rosemount WWTP. A'permanent plant expansion is scheduled to be operational by mid-1997. 4. Future development in the Rosemount WWTP service area will be limited to available. capacity at the treatment facility. The MWCC will reevaluate capacity limits at the Rosemount WWTP once the interim improvements are implemented. 5. The city of Rosemount proposes to divert sanitary sewer flow from 767 acres to the Empire WWTP. This will reduce the Empire WWTP current service life by approximately one year. However, the proposed diversion will provide the MWCC with sufficient time to make long-term improvements at the Rosemount WWTP. 6. The Council and Commission are undertaking a metropolitan -wide assessment of future wastewater service needs. The centralization and decentralization (C/D) study will consider the need for and timing of expanded wastewater service in the Empire WWTP service area. This study will be completed by the spring of 1994. This will provide the Commission with sufficient time to program necessary improvements at the Empire WWTP to meet future wastewater service needs. 7. The Empire WWTP is affected by excessive inflow/infiltration (I11). Aggressive local programs to reduce excessive I/I may provide more capacity at the Empire WWTP. 8. Rosemount city officials have stated that another major comprehensive plan may soon be submitted. This would be an opportune time for the city to incorporate the Council's proposed interim water quality management strategy to manage nonpoint source pollution. 3 9. The city allows the discharge of untreated stormwater runoff directly into area wetlands. This policy does not protect wetlands from pollutants and sediments generated by urban development. 10. This plan amendment is not reviewed under the airport search area protection guidelines because the proposed MUSA expansion area is outside the Dakota County search area for a potential new airport. Future plan amendments, however, may be examined in the context of defined candidate airport sites and may be considered in light of the infrastructure needs and land use implications of a potential major airport in Dakota County. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council: Adopt the staff report and findings as stated above as part of these recommendations. 2. Inform the city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no plan modification is required, 3. Direct the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to amend its implementation plan in the Spring of 1994 to initiate a detailed planning and design study of expanded service to the Empire WWTP service area consistent with the Council's approval of the recommendations in the Centralization/Decentralization study. 4. Recommend that the city of Rosemount and other cities in the Empire WWTP service area evaluate the level of excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I) in their local sewer systems and adopt aggressive I/I reduction programs. S. Recommend that the city of Rosemount incorporate the Council's proposed interim water quality strategy to manage nonpoint source pollution in its forthcoming comprehensive plan update. 6. Recommend that the city adopt a policy requiring the presettling of stormwater runoff. 4 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework The purpose of the proposed plan amendment is twofold: 1) amend the city's sewer service plan element of its comprehensive plan to allow the diversion of wastewater flows from 767 acres located in sections 31 and 32 from the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the Empire WWTP; and 2) add approximately 245 acres designated as medium density residential to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The city is intentionally proposing to expand the MUSA in areas served by the Empire WWTP. Directing development to areas served by the Empire WWTP should reduce the demand for sanitary sewer service in the Rosemount WWTP service district. The city of Rosemount is located in the north -central part of Dakota County. It is bordered on the north by the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights, on the east by the Mississippi River and Nininger Township, on the south by Vermillion and Empire Townships and on the west by the city Apple Valley. Rosemount is part of the "developing" area of the region as defined in the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF). Approximately one-third of the city is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The remaining two-thirds of the city is part of the rural service area. Rosemount has started to experience noticeable residential development in recent years as the cities of Eagan, Apple Valley and Burnsville approach full development. Several large commercial and industrial facilities have either recently or are planned to locate in the city of Rosemount. The University of Minnesota Research Center and. the Koch refinery are also located in the city of Rosemount. Existing MUSA In 1986, the city of Rosemount amended its comprehensive plan to place 880 acres into an undesignated urban service area land bank. The reason for the land bank proposal was to give the city maximum flexibility to identify land for urban development. (See Referral File 11327-2). Rosemount has drawn or transferred acreage from the undesignated land bank on several occasions. In 1986, the Metropolitan Council allowed the city of Rosemount to divert sanitary sewer flows from approximately 110 acres from the Rosemount to the Empire WWTP. This area of Rosemount naturally flows to the Empire WWTP and eliminated the need to operate a lift station. The Metropolitan Council approved this proposed diversion. (See Referral File 11327-3). In June, 1989, the Metropolitan Council considered a plan amendment from the city that proposed to abolish the land bank system and establish a year 2000 urban service area. At the time of this proposed plan amendment, Rosemount had approximately 318 acres in its land bank. During the review of this plan amendment the Council identified capacity problems at the Rosemount WWTP. Because of the pending capacity problems, the Council directed Rosemount to prepare a land bank that would not exceed the Rosemount WWTP capacity of 0.72 MGD. Council staff estimated that the Rosemount land bank should be no larger than 600 acres and not exceed 1,000 housing units. (See Referral File No. 14815-1). 5 MUSA Expansion Request On June 25, 1992, the Metropolitan Council adopted an "interim policy" for reviewing local comprehensive plan amendments requesting an expansion to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). This interim policy will be used by the Metropolitan Council to review MUSA expansion requests until the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) and the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan, Part 1 are updated. These updates should be completed in 1994. The interim policy states that year 2000 MUSA expansion requests that are based on Council year 2000 forecasts, demonstrate a need for additional land in the urban service area and do not have a substantial impact on or departure from a metropolitan system plan will be approved by the Council. The Council will require local communities to modify any year 2000 MUSA expansion request that has a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system facilities and plans. The Council will require that a local community modify its comprehensive plan to reduce the MUSA expansion request to within planned facility and service capacity limits. Rosemount's request for a 245 -acre MUSA expansion is justified based on regional land supply and demand criteria. See the following table for details. Rosemount's current land supply for urban development is approximately 353 acres. The amount of land available for urban development is due in large part to the land bank system created by the city in 1986 and adjusted in 1989. The Council has calculated a regional need for approximately 1271 additional acres in Rosemount's year 2000 urban service area. The residential calculation is based on Council forecasts using the 1990 decennial census and assumes an average residential density of 2.2 units per acre. The commercial and industrial numbers are from the city's 1989 system statement. YEAR 2000 LAND SUPPLY AND DEMAND CITY OF ROSEMOUNT SEPTEMBER 1992 Residential demand (1992 - 2000) 811 acres Commercial demand (1992 - 2000) 20 acres Industrial demand (1992 - 2000) 80 acres Public (streets, parks, etc. (1992 - 2000) 172 acres TOTAL DEMAND 1,083 acres Five year overage 541 acres TOTAL DEMAND WITH OVERAGE 1,624 acres TOTAL SUPPLY OF URBAN LAND 353 acres DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR URBAN LAND 1,271 acres 6 Natural Resources (Carl Schenk) Sanitary Sewer Most of the city of Rosemount's urban service area is served by the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Approximately 110 acres in the southwest corner of the city is served by the Empire WWTP. This area of the city was diverted in 1986 and contributes approximately 0.026 -0.032 million gallons per day (MGD) to the Empire WWTP. The Empire WWTP also serves the cities of Lakeville, Farmington, most of Apple Valley and part of Empire Township. The Rosemount WWTP has a design capacity of 0.72 MGD. Current flows at the plant ranged from 0.637 MGD in the first quarter of 1992 to 0.612 in June and July, 1992. An estimated 0.1 MGD capacity remains which could provide service for 350 residential equivalent connections (RECs). At the current rate of city development (200 units or RECs a year) plus projects that have already been approved, the capacity of the plant could be reached in one to two years. Future city development may be limited if additional capacity is not available at that time. The Metropolitan Council has authorized the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to prepare a facility expansion plan for the Rosemount WWTP. This study will recommend a preferred design for expanding the plant's capacity. The Commission estimates that this study will be completed by April, 1993 with the plant expansion operating by mid-1997. The Rosemount WWTP has experienced some reduction in treatment efficiency during the winter months. This in turn affects the ability of the plant to handle increased flow volumes. These problems limit the capacity of the plant to less than its rated design capacity. The Commission is undertaking an interim measure to improve the treatment efficiency of the Rosemount plant. These improvements will result in the plant operating at or above its design capacity. The improvements will be implemented in the Fall, 1992, and evaluated in the Spring, 1993. Once the evaluation is complete, the Commission will evaluate the plant's ability to accommodate new development. Development in the Rosemount WWTP service area may be limited until the plant is expanded in 1997. Proposed Plan Amendment Because of the limited capacity available at the Rosemount WWTP, the city of Rosemount proposes to divert wastewater flows from a 522 -acre residential development in the existing MUSA and future development in a proposed 245 -acre MUSA addition to the Empire WWTP. This area of Rosemount naturally flows to the Empire WWTP. Flows from existing residential development are proposed to be diverted from the Rosemount to the Empire WWTP in two phases: 83 units immediately and another 457 units this fall or early spring for a total of 540 units. The flows would be conveyed via an existing local trunk sewer to the metropolitan interceptor (MSB -7203) to the Empire WWTP. This will provide capacity for an additional 0.148 - 0.180 MGD or 540 residential equivalency connections (RECs) at the Rosemount plant and extend its service life approximately two and one-half years, assuming the city's expected growth rate of approximately 200 units or RECs a year. 7 The city also proposes to divert future sanitary sewer flows from the proposed 245 -acre MUSA expansion to the Empire WWTP. The purpose is to direct some of the city's development pressures from the Rosemount to the Empire service area. Based on city projections, the MUSA addition will add an estimated 1050 new residential units by the year 2000 and another 100 new units by the year 2010. This would result in a total diversion to the Empire WWTP of 1800 residential units and total sanitary sewer flows of 0.475 and 0.609 MGD in the years 2000 and 2010, respectively. (See the following table). EMPIRE WWTP WAS'T'EWATER FLOWS SEPTEMBER 1992 (MGD) Design capacity all Current total flow 7.0 Current flows from Rosemount 0.026-0.032 Including diversion of 540 existing residences 0.174-0.212 Including proposed 245 -acre MUSA addition at year 2000 0.475 at year 2010 0.609 The diversion of flow from the existing 540 residential units to the Empire WWTP would provide additional capacity over the winter months while the MWCC constructs and evaluates the interim improvements at the Rosemount WWTP. The diversion of future flows from the proposed 245 - acre MUSA addition would allow the city to continue to develop until the construction of the. Rosemount WWTP expansion is completed in 1997. Adequate capacity exists at the Empire WWTP to accommodate the diversion of sanitary sewer flows from the 522 -acre existing MUSA and the proposed 245 -acre MUSA expansion. According to the MWCC, the flow at the Empire WWTP averaged 7.0 MGD as of July, 1992 compared to a design capacity of 9.0 MGD. The diversion of flows from the existing 522 acres currently in the MUSA and the proposed 245 acre MUSA expansion may shorten the service life of the Empire WWTP by approximately one year. The Commission estimates that additional capacity may be needed by the end of the decade, assuming the, diversion of flows from Rosemount and continued growth in the other' communities served by the Empire WWTP. A number of planning activities are underway or will be undertaken shortly by the Council and Commission to evaluate the need, timing and options for providing additional sanitary sewer service throughout the metropolitan system including the Empire WWTP service area. These' planning activities are listed below. D 1. Fall, 1992 - Council/MWCC revise wastewater flow projections for each community in the metropolitan sanitary sewer system. 2. Spring, 1993 —Completion of Phase I of MWCC Centralization/Decentralization Study. 3. December 31, 1993 - Completion of Phase II of the Central izationlDecentralization Study. 4. December, 1993 - Complete revision of the Council's Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. 5. Spring, 1994 - Complete revision of MWCC's Implementation Plan. The Council and Commission will complete revised wastewater flow projections for every community served by the metropolitan system this fall using the Council's new population projections for the years 2000 and 2020. The wastewater projections will be used in the MWCC's Centralization/Decentralization (C/D) study which will evaluate long-range service needs throughout the Metropolitan Area. Phase I of the CID study will evaluate future service needs, alternative service concepts and the effect of environmental constraints on future treatment capacity needs. Phase I will satisfy the requirements of a Systems Improvement Study (SIS) for the Empire WWTP service area which is the First step in planning for service improvements in the metropolitan system. Phase II of the C/D study will evaluate the alternative concepts recommended in Phase I and the costs associated with each concept in greater detail, including those for the Empire WWTP service area. At the completion of phase II, the Council will determine whether the Empire WWTP should be expanded or phased -out. During 1992 and 1993 the Council will be revising the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. The Framework will establish the Council's official population, household and employment projections for each community including those in the Empire WWTP service area. The results of the C/D study and the MDIF will be used to revise the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan and the Commission's Implementation Plan. (The current implementation plan is based on population and household projections prepared in 1985, and estimates that the Empire WWTP will require additional capacity in the 2003 - 2005 period.) The revised implementation plan will contain specific recommendations as to the need for expanded service and the timing of the necessary improvements for the Empire WWTP service area, including the initiation of detailed planning and design studies leading to the construction of the recommended facilities. The Commission estimates that it will take three to four years for the Empire WWTP to be expanded by 3 MGD for a total of 12 MGD. If the Council and Commission planning studies recommend that the Empire WWTP be expanded by 6 MGD for a total of 15 MGD, it will take additional time to complete the project. However, the construction can be phased so that 3 MGD can be provided within the three to four year period while the remainder of the project is constructed to provide the full 6 MGD. In the interim, the Council and Commission will monitor 9 the flow levels at the Empire WWTP to ensure that sufficient capacity is provided. in a timely manner. The capacity of the Empire WWTP is also affected by excessive inflow/infiltration (I/I). The MWCC's study, Systemwide Infiltration/Inflow Evaluation (1992), indicates that both Farmington and Rosemount have potentially excessive levels of groundwater infiltration. Local evaluations of the sources and implementation of aggressive programs to correct these problems could make additional capacity available at the Empire and the Rosemount WWTPs. The city of Farmington is currently implementing measures to reduce the flows in its local sanitary sewer system. Water Resources The city of Rosemount has adopted a stormwater management plan for the western part of the city. The city has also created a stormwater utility and an erosion control ordinance to manage development related activities. A goal of the city's stormwater management plan is to maximize water detention and minimize peak outflow discharges. The criteria for detention appear to address water quantity and volume but not water quality. The city will submit another major amendment to the Council in the near future. This is an opportune time for the city to incorporate the Council's nonpoint source reduction strategy. The city may wish to compare its current requirements with the Council's reduction strategy and amend its local ordinances accordingly. The Council is developing a model ordinance that the city may wish to consider. The plan amendment states that the city allows the direct drainage of stormwater runoff to wetlands. This practice will result in increased pollutant and sediment loads to wetlands from urban development. The city should reconsider this development practice and require presettling of stormwater runoff before discharge to wetlands, Aviation (Chauncey Case) The area proposed to be included in the MUSA expansion is outside the Dakota County search area for a potential major airport. As a result, this plan amendment is not reviewed under the search area protection guidelines. Although the proposed MUSA expansion area is outside the designated Dakota County airport search area, parts of the city may possibly be within a future airport buffer area. The site selected for the new airport may affect land use types and densities, and future MUSA line boundaries in the city of Rosemount. Conceptual regional infrastructure options for the new airport site will be defined as part of the major airport dual -track planning process. This airport infrastructure element may be completed in late 1992 or early 1993 as input to the major airport siting process and MDIF update. It could also affect the provision of regional facilities and services for the entire southeast part of the metropolitan area. Communities affected by this infrastructure planning activity will be included in the regional planning process. Future plan amendments submitted by the city will be examined in the context of defined candidate airport sites, related buffer areas and the capacity of necessary infrastructure to support a possible major airport. Future MUSA expansion requests may also be considered in light of the 10 infrastructure needs and land use implications of a potential major airport being located in Dakota County. Transportation (Jim Barton) The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the Council's Transportation Development Guide\Policy Plan. The city should continue its program of local collector streets to meet local traffic needs created by development activities. Comments from the Regional Transit Board are attached to this report. Correspondence Letter from Robert A. Erickson, City Administrator, city of Lakeville In his letter of August 21, 1992, Mr. Erickson states that the city of Lakeville is opposed to a "unilateral consideration of additional waste flows into the Empire facility." He states that the "Empire Treatment Plant will exceed capacities for present service areas relatively far in advance of programmed plant expansions" and that adding new service areas will only complicate matters. Mr. Erickson states that in 1989 "meetings and discussions were held regarding cooperative planning and capacity allocation for the Empire Treatment Plant." Mr. Erickson says that it was during these discussions that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and "involved" local governments reached a "cooperative agreement... dealing with the capacities and allocation assignments to the Empire Treatment Plant." Mr. Erickson requested that the Rosemount plan amendment be continued "until a comprehensive and coordinated need analysis and improvement program" for the Empire Treatment Plant can be completed. Letter from Larry Thompson, City Administrator, City of Farmington The letter from Mr. Thompson supports the letter from the city of Lakeville in opposing the diversion of flows from the Rosemount WWTP. Letter from Meg McMonigal, Planner, City of Apple Valley The letter from Ms. McMonigal states that the city of Apple Valley will not submit written comment at this time, but will appear at the October 12, 1992 Metropolitan and Community Development Committee to make a statement. Staff Response As stated earlier, the proposed diversion from the Rosemount to the Empire WWTP may shorten the service life of the Empire WWTP by approximately one year. A number of planning activities are or will he underway in the near future that will address the needs of the Empire service area. In the interim, the Council and Commission will monitor the level of flows at the Empire WWTP to ensure that additional service is provided in a timely manner. Mr Erickson refers to a 1989 "cooperative agreement" with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and cities in the Empire WWTP service area regarding "capacities and allocation assignments to the Empire Treatment Plant." Council staff is not aware of any such formal agreement binding the Council or the Commission to a formal capacity allocation process in the Empire WWTP service area. 12 City of Rosemount Regional Location Attachment 1 1 ST FRANCIS i LINWOOD EAST BETHEL BURNS OAK GROVE — 1 ANOKA CO. COLUMBUS RANS[T ANDOVER MANLIKE ) FOREST LAKE I hEw ahl,A 'OREST LAKE. 1 I N r—� I DAYTON C ERS CORCORAN I MAPLE GROVE OCKFORO I � HENNEPIN CO. ❑LORETTO 1 IMDEPEMOENCE YEOIXA , PLYMOUTH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL L MA _ O I f - -T- ATERTOw I I I MACE—R --- I( MINNETRISTA_-OLLYWOCD _TERrowN s0aomIFAC IUS rNE ERM•NT II VICTO RI CAMDEN I w.CON1A LAKETn,`I WACONIA CARVER CO. CMA$ YOUNG A NERICA NORN000 I C2 ICAR I COLOGNI. DAHLGREN DUNG AMERICA I BENTON LHA4IBURG CHASKA i __ YER I IAE'KSON SNAKOP[[ COON R""0f DSSEO BROOKLYN PARK SCERTfRNI OP EI [ 10 P=.J "LJ�� l GOLDEN VALLEY ST LOUIS PARK Iz, r EOINA LORD LAKES 17 FALCON HEIGHTS a R141N( 2 ORONO 10 ROBSINSDALE HUGO XI�NGTON CIRCLE PINES EYIEM 1 NORTH 27 2 IL ,MOUNDS SHOR. A VIEW 12 OL[T OAKS WMITEREAR NL NW IRRE6HTON VAOMAIS NEIGNIS 4 pia ARO[N 25 Q 14 MINS C ORONO Municipal Boundary S EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLENNI[ p IR A�Eh NAi L _ _ _� FCHANHASSEN11 SANG CREEK i SPRING LAKE I CREDIT 1 LAK[VILL[ Pip I MARC wAN 1 I CHASKA i __ YER I IAE'KSON SNAKOP[[ COON R""0f DSSEO BROOKLYN PARK SCERTfRNI OP EI [ 10 P=.J "LJ�� l GOLDEN VALLEY ST LOUIS PARK Iz, r EOINA 151 ® un c 10,[VILLE ANA04 At ST AIN UL 16 {7 RA MAPLEWOOD ) a II RAMSEY CO. SAINT PAUL MINNEAPOLIS I 19 NEST .� ST I /AUl 16 SOUTH RICHiIELD 41R►dRT MENDOTA ST. NEVI '12' HEIGHTS UM ,rrH PAUL I BLOOMINGTON ; BURNSVILLE SAVAGE Paton I LOUISVILLE LAKC I SPAR WASHINGTON CO I 'A T.ALw�TtA GRANT i 29 ST .ATE I I LAKE 9Ari^wN KOALL ELMO� -- -- -EST LAKELAN;, 2l UKEL ST CROIX BE WOODBURY AFTON IT JL COTTAGE GROVE Rosemount `;1 +GER HASTINGS -----�- LORD LAKES 17 FALCON HEIGHTS CENTERYILLE R141N( 2 ORONO 10 ROBSINSDALE HUGO XI�NGTON CIRCLE PINES EYIEM 1 NORTH 27 2 IL ,MOUNDS SHOR. A VIEW 12 OL[T OAKS WMITEREAR NL NW IRRE6HTON VAOMAIS NEIGNIS 4 pia ARO[N 25 Q 14 MINS C 151 ® un c 10,[VILLE ANA04 At ST AIN UL 16 {7 RA MAPLEWOOD ) a II RAMSEY CO. SAINT PAUL MINNEAPOLIS I 19 NEST .� ST I /AUl 16 SOUTH RICHiIELD 41R►dRT MENDOTA ST. NEVI '12' HEIGHTS UM ,rrH PAUL I BLOOMINGTON ; BURNSVILLE SAVAGE Paton I LOUISVILLE LAKC I SPAR WASHINGTON CO I 'A T.ALw�TtA GRANT i 29 ST .ATE I I LAKE 9Ari^wN KOALL ELMO� -- -- -EST LAKELAN;, 2l UKEL ST CROIX BE WOODBURY AFTON IT JL COTTAGE GROVE Rosemount `;1 +GER HASTINGS -----�- J 17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEN LAKE 2 ORONO 10 ROBSINSDALE 18 MENDOTA 1 1 SAN FRANCISCO 11 SPRING LAKE PARK 19 LILYDALE 27 WHITE BEAN 4 TONKA SAY 12 U. S. GOVT. ':N COCK C ORONO Municipal Boundary S EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLENNI[ p IR A�Eh NAi L _ _ _� 22 DELLWOOD 23 NNE SPRINGS SANG CREEK i SPRING LAKE I CREDIT 1 LAK[VILL[ Pip I MARC wAN 1 I RIVER .FARMING ERMiI LION I I St. LAWRENCE, SCOTT CO. JORDAN i I j I BELLE RAINE--- I NIA' MARKET I I ( F� I LJNEN TRIER—T ��- SLAKELEY I - BELLE PLAINE ( HELENA CEDAR LAKE I NANPTON i EUREKA CASTLE ROCK I MTES iL[ I ' NEWMARKET I I I I I HAMPTON 1 I RAN OL►N I ( I MILES 5 10 15 20 25 GREENVALE (WATERFORD I .� SCIOTA TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Political Boundaries, 1988 1 SIRING PARK 9 MOUND 17 FALCON HEIGHTS 25 GEN LAKE 2 ORONO 10 ROBSINSDALE 18 MENDOTA 26 BIRCHWOOD K AN A ��' County Boundary 3 MINNETOHKA BEACH 11 SPRING LAKE PARK 19 LILYDALE 27 WHITE BEAN 4 TONKA SAY 12 U. S. GOVT. 20 GREY CLOUD 28.RAYPORT ORONO Municipal Boundary S EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLENNI[ p 6 GREENWOOD 7 14 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 11 IT. ANTHONY 22 DELLWOOD 23 NNE SPRINGS 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 31 LAKELAND SHORES CAMDEN — TOWFISIiI Boundary p :000LAMD 8 MEDICINE LAKE 16 LA UDE ROALE 24 MANTOMEDI 32 ST. WANT'S POINT Attachment 2 1 ` 1201h SI, M. / / O �! rr r5 R•1 / r- .i.I5h Rr9Rct Re ST. J� 7 A. A. +' 12eM Ii�r6 1t DSNBUgr gm ST. $it 2012, ST r15x. R1ST- 9R s' y o dam. \ ��A RAT O l�OK' ST. :50-, ST. W. ... W � R- i i 7�U 24�r9 hist ST. R. 172 nrsNCt, Kgan 1110. R.I. t}2ro St. Laos City of RosemountA.rq Current 1990 MUSA UPPER ,5M ST. 3J � 176M ST. / 0µV1 L Ct. <F 1R. C" W t � 3 Ti rSN H.9R 7TZ2 42 d St. 9_ 20 ,v 28121 J"p 70+79 Q Cf, f SN Nr9R m. R• R P 144tH SI. j l1. 145- ,.. �Sr •° 1146th w St. u� r O i !.i 146m •• 1ORIN < • q i 1 , 0,. 14trh rSt, o ST. 147th i S1, @1 M i O n .qtr, 4 a _ � ,- l37 `n T' .0 144th r4, 5. 6. 149M J-1; 1 P1, m If. I� ISJrn 51. 17 UPPER 149th SI. r 101rEy ISOIn $L ¢ I r. Proposed MUSA Expansion 245 acres a • .�•i rrSR NOR UNIVERSITY a r9R • 4. 4`• :::::j •$fir., L Sls` 2. 144 r ,S 1. J. PP N 141 th St. .'• i�: 4. UPPEN Iftin 51. o • • • • •� M4T S. C111ILLE CT. c 6. Uiafl:LSTON AVE. CORNIII IR. �: tp• c. sr. .'.� i .4Ett IR. IM 14 Location of Rosemount and Empire Waste Water Treatment Plants Attachment 3 VERMILLI0R! I Verrhiili t riingto UNIVERSI i� OF INSET r? RESEARCH 1 e°o°e e°°°c • j , Proposed in re WWTP Ser ° Area I Area Proposed for Diversion 00°°yp0°p0 4p DO Existing MUSA Served by Empire WWTP to Empire WWTP °°`°°°"°`° °°` ep °°° p0°0 °O O°OyO� Existing MUSA Served by Rosemount WWTP 19 August 21, 1992 Mr. Steve Schwanke Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Rosemount MUSA Reallocation and Expansion Dear Mr. Schwanke: I am writing on behalf of the City of Lakeville concerning the City of Rosemount's request to reallocate sewer flows plus expand the MUSA area for sewage treatment at the MWCC Empire Plant. The City of Lakeville wishes to express its concern and opposition to this unilateral consideration of additional waste flows into the Empire facility. Growth management projections and programming conducted by the City of Lakeville indicates that the Empire Treatment Plant will exceed capacities for present service areas relatively far in advance of programmed plant expansions. Adding additional service areas and resulting waste flows to the Empire Plant will only serve to advance and compplicate the capacity problems. The attached NAC memorandum, dated August 20, 1992, is for reference and documentation on the capacity shortfalls. As part of the comprehensive planning which Lakeville is currently pursuing, it has been the City's intention to meet and coordinate with neighboring local units in order to determine future service needs. Once this basic task is completed, we then anticipated involving the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in an evaluation of the problems and formulating means to address evident capacity shortages. Our proposed cooperative approach to this matter is founded upon basic logic and courtesy, in that all users of the Empire Treatment Plant must be involved in future programming if the plant is in fact to provide adequate service. Moreover, based upon meetings and discussions held in 1989, it is our understanding that cooperative planning and capacity allocation for the Empire Treatment Plant was agreed upon by the MWCC and involved local units. City of Lakeville Mr. Steve Schwanke August 21, 1992 Page 2 It is the City of Lakeville's contention that the cooperative agreement established in 1989 is still a binding procedure on matters dealing with the capacities. and allocation assignments to the Empire Treatment Plant. We, therefore, respectfully request that the City of Rosemount's present application involving waste flow increases to the Empire Plant be held until a comprehensive and coordinated need analysis and improvement program can be undertaken by all concerned parties. The City of Lakeville stands ready to immediately pursue such a course of action with your agency, the MWCC, and the impacted local governmental units. p tf lly fitted, obert A. Erickson City Administrator RAE/cf PC: Keith Nelson, City Engineer Michael Sobota, Community & Economic Development Director James Robinette, Public Works/Environmental Resources Director David Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants Donald Bluhm, MWCC Larry Thompson, Farmington City Administrator Stephen Jilk, Rosemount City Administrator Thomas Melena, Apple Valley City Administrator Floyd Henry, Empire Township Clerk rf N No Associated Consultants, onsuitants, inc. Cj U R B A N PLANNING- D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE FILE NO: Robert Erickson/Michael Sobota/Keith Nelson Alan Brixius/David Licht 20 August 1992 Lakeville - Rosemount Empire MUSA Expansion 336.00 - 92.16 The City of Rosemount is requesting from the Metropolitan Council an expansion of MUSA within the Empire Waste Treatment Facility service area. This MUSA expansion will introduce approximately 522 acres of land into the Empire service area. With this expansion, 152 acres of existing residential development and 125 acres of non- residential development is intended to be diverted from the Rosemount Waste Treatment Plant to the Empire facility. The Empire Plant has a total flow capacity of 9.0 MGD and currently operates at an average daily flow of 7.5 MGD. This leaves 1.5 MGD of remaining capacity to serve the Empire MUSA until its next projected expansion in the year 2003. Due to the rapid growth occurring in Lakeville and other Dakota County communities, there is a concern. that the Empire Waste Treatment Plan lacks sufficient capacity to handle the development within its existing MUSA boundaries. The expansion of MUSA boundaries and division of sewer flows from the Rosemount Treatment Plant to the Empire Treatment Plant further burdens this facility. This reduces the available capacity to the other Empire MUSA communities and accelerates the need to re-evaluate the expansion plans of the Empire Plant. Currently Rosemount contributes between .026 and .032 MGD to the Empire Plant. With the proposed MUSA expansion and flow diversion, Rosemount will add between .148 and .180 MGD to the Empire Plant in 1992. By the year 2000, Rosemount is anticipated to consume approximately .443 MGD of the Empire treatment capacity to accommodate projected growth in the expanded MUSA. The following population and sewer flow analysis was conducted to determine the effect proposed Rosemount MUSA expansion will have on the capacity of the Empire Treatment plant. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 MWCC estimates that the Empire treatment plan operates at an average flow of 7.5 MGD. Table A uses the Metropolitan Council 1991 population figures as a base for generating per capita flow estimates. The 1991 estimated sewer population was derived by subtracting population served by other waste treatment facilities or on-site facilities. TABLE A EMPIRE TREATMENT PLANT CO UU2TT FLOWS Based on current average sewer flows at the Empire Plant, the Empire MUSA averages approximately 113 MGD per capita for the entire service area. It is important to note that this per capita average includes commercial, industrial and institutional flows as well as some inflow and infiltration contributions. The 113 per capita flow is higher than per capita flows of 92 MGD metered out of Lakeville and used in past flow estimates by the MWCC. They are, however, reflective of the actual flows currently being treated at the Empire Plant according to the MWCC. The 113 MGD is within the normally accepted range for estimating facility design capacity. Using the current per capita flows, Table B shows that projected sewer flows from growth within the Empire MUSA will exceed the facility's capacity before year 2000. 2 Estimated 1991 1991 Sewered Current Flow Using Population Population 113 MGD Per Capita Apple Valley 35,879 34,890 3.943 MGD Farmington 6,136 5,522 .624 MGD Lakeville 26,408 24,674 2.788 MGD Rosemount 9,129 295 .027 MGD Empire Twp. 1,356 630 .071 MGD 78,908 66,011 7.453 MGD Based on current average sewer flows at the Empire Plant, the Empire MUSA averages approximately 113 MGD per capita for the entire service area. It is important to note that this per capita average includes commercial, industrial and institutional flows as well as some inflow and infiltration contributions. The 113 per capita flow is higher than per capita flows of 92 MGD metered out of Lakeville and used in past flow estimates by the MWCC. They are, however, reflective of the actual flows currently being treated at the Empire Plant according to the MWCC. The 113 MGD is within the normally accepted range for estimating facility design capacity. Using the current per capita flows, Table B shows that projected sewer flows from growth within the Empire MUSA will exceed the facility's capacity before year 2000. 2 * The Rosemount sewered populations and sewer flows are reflective of the _growth projected with the MUSA expansion and flow diversion. Table C indicates that anticipated growth will increase sewer flow by .256 MGD annually. Using a straight line projection, the Empire Treatment Plant will exceed its 9.0 MGD capacity by 1998 with the Rosemount MUSA expansion. If the Rosemount MUSA expansion is not included in the Empire MUSA, the capacity life of the Empire Plant may be extended by approximately 1.7 years. TABLE C AVERAGE ANNUAL SEWER FLOW INCREASE AND CUMULATIVE TOTAL FOR EMPIRE MUSA INCLUDING THE ROSM40UNT EXPANSION TABLE B Cumulative EMPIRE TREATMENT PLANT Flow MGD Sewer Flow MGD PROJECTED 2000 SEWER FLOWS INCLUDING PROPOSED ROSEMOUNT MUSA EXPANSION 1992 2,263 Estimated Projected 1993 2000 2000 2000 Flows 1994 Estimate Sewered 113 MGD 1995 Population Population Per Capita Apple Valley 40,000 41,010 4.634 Farmington 7,550 7,000 ,791 Lakeville 41,000 38,000 4.294 Rosemount* 14,800 5,082 .574 Empire Twp. 1,500 690 .078 106,850 91,782 10.371 * The Rosemount sewered populations and sewer flows are reflective of the _growth projected with the MUSA expansion and flow diversion. Table C indicates that anticipated growth will increase sewer flow by .256 MGD annually. Using a straight line projection, the Empire Treatment Plant will exceed its 9.0 MGD capacity by 1998 with the Rosemount MUSA expansion. If the Rosemount MUSA expansion is not included in the Empire MUSA, the capacity life of the Empire Plant may be extended by approximately 1.7 years. TABLE C AVERAGE ANNUAL SEWER FLOW INCREASE AND CUMULATIVE TOTAL FOR EMPIRE MUSA INCLUDING THE ROSM40UNT EXPANSION 3 Sewer Cumulative Population Flow MGD Sewer Flow MGD 1991 7.453 1992 2,263 .256 7.679 1993 2,263 .256 7.905 1994 2,263 .256 8.131 1995 2,263 .256 8.357 1996 2,263 .256 8.583 1997 2,263 .256 8.809 1998 2,263 .256 9.035 3 CONCLUSION The current capacity of the Empire Plant is expected to be exceeded by 1998 if the Rosemount MUSA expansion and flow diversion is approved. The capacity life of the treatment plant could be extended by approximately 1.7 years if the Rosemount MUSA expansion is not allowed. Considering it takes 3 to 5 years to study, design and construct a waste treatment plant expansion MWCC should begin consideration of expanding the Empire Plant immediately. Past plant designs were based on the existing MUSA boundaries. As such, the available capacity should be reserved for the existing service area. Any MUSA expansion or diversion of sewer flows from other treatment facilities should only be considered with the plans for expanding the Empire Waste Treatment Plant by 1998. 4 Mr. Steve Schwanke Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Rosemount MUSA Reallocation & Expansion Dear Mr. Schwanke, September 18, 1992 This letter is in response to the request by the City of Rosemount's request to reallocate sewer flows plus expand the MUSA area for sewage treatment at the Empire Treatment Plant. The City of Farmington concurs with the position of the City of Lakeville in opposition to the request. As noted in the letter from Lakeville City Administrator Robert Erickson dated August 21, 1992, the design capacity of the Empire Treatment Plant is of great concern' to all jurisdictions which are served by the plant, and any efforts to increase MUSA allocations or projected design flows should be viewed in context of how design limitations are going to be addressed. The City also wishes to endorse Lakeville's position that a comprehensive and coordinated need analysis and improvement program can be undertaken by all concerned parties. ectfu itted, Larry Thompson City Administrator LT/js cc: TJK Steve Jilk, Rosemount City Administrator Thomas Malena, Apple Valley City Administrator Robert Erickson, Lakeville City Administrator Floyd Henry, Empire Township Clerk file 01 FaU*W 325 Oak ShM 0 FAU*fm WX 56024 0 (612) 463-7111 •0• Cityof apple 14200 Cedar Avenue S. Telephone (612) 431-8800 Va ey Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124-8545 September 30, 1992 Ms. Susan Anderson Metropolitan and Community Development Committee Metropolitan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Dear Ms. Anderson: This letter is to inform you that the City of Apple Valley will be present at the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee's meeting on October 12, 1992, when the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be heard. The City will not be sending a letter at this time, but would like to address the committee at that meeting. If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Welsch at 431-8878 or John Gretz at 431-8892. Sincerely, CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Meg J. McMonigal Community Development Department xc: T9M Melena, City Administrator leve Sehwanke, Metropolitan Council Craig Morris, Metropolitan Council Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council Home of the Minnesota Zoological Garden (Printed on Recycled Pacer) PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PROPOSED NEW RECOMMENDATION 3 That the Metropolitan Council direct the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to amend its 1992-2010 Implementation Plan to change the projected timing of the Empire Treatment Plant Expansion from the 2002-2010 time period to the 1997-2002 time period. This change is subject to the usual Implementation Plan review process. This means that when the Council reviews the Facility Plan for the Empire Treatment Plant Expansion, the Council will review that plan in light of the Council's Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework and Water Resources Management Development Guide>Policy Plan in effect at the time of the review and the results of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's Centralization/Decentralization study. 9 October 1992 Metropolitan and Community Development Committee Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Mears Park Center, 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: Rosemount - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written on behalf of the Lakeville City Council regarding the Rosemount Interim Comprehensive Plan amendment which is on your Committee's meeting agenda on 12 October 1992. We respectfully request your consideration of the points raised in this letter and the material provided as exhibits. our concerns with this matter rest on the position that a short term resolution of Rosemount's "expressed crisis" is contributing to and leaving unresolved a pending, more major and wide spread problem for the City of Lakeville as well as Apple Valley, Farmington, Empire Township and possibly Rosemount itself. The unilateral attention to the Rosemount issue without a simultaneous response to the impact on other affected communities is shortsighted and irresponsible. As will be explained, approval of the Rosemount amendment is seen as premature unless there is corresponding action addressing the more far reaching pending Empire Treatment Plant capacity problem which is clearly known to exist. BACKGROUND As you are undoubtedly aware, west central Dakota County has and is continuing to experience substantial growth and development. Moreover, this trend will continue into the long term future.. While the growth of the area has been long projected on the part of the involved local units, it has only been this year that a similar recognition has been acknowledged by your agency and its technical staff. (Exhibit A documents the differences in projections plus actual Census counts which have occurred.) City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue • P.O. Box 957 • Lakeville, MN 55044 • (612) 469-4431 • FAX 469-3815 Metropolitan and Community Development Committee 9 October 1992 Page Two t local Due to .the Metropolitan Cthe which ctance to Cis pactually projections and to take into account being experienced, the planning and implementation of regional systems, notably waste water treatment plants upon which the local units are dependent, has .fallen far short of their timeand capacity expectancies. In the case oit akeville Treatment n its neighboring cities which rely upon the p since the mid 1970's, the lack of regional foresight has lead to several crisis situations. In fact, during 1978 and 1979, Lakeville and others were confro bualdn a permits. metropolitan lThroughou moratorium being imposed on development Lakeville, Apple Valley, Rosemount, nearly twenty-year period, Farmington and Empire Township have constantly and continually been assured that monitoring and timely responses by P .agencies would be provided.. Unfortunately, rn 1ses" have continued to be encountered and the present Rosemount comprehensive Plan problem on the very Amendment request signals yet another major P near horizon. ISSUE AND RESOLUTION With regard to the Rosemount proposal e tod tthe Eid land re to eTeatment divert a portion of existing discharge Plant, the specific concern is that the current Met and litan Waste Control Commission, Wastewater Treatment an rams Control Plan 1992-2010 (page 117 - see Exhibit B) programs eriod the next expansion of the Empire Treatpmentment prateslant f an or reshe ulting between 2003 and 2005. Cu the MWCC and your discharge are, however, now acknowledged by agency staff to be at a level that requires t 9.n More d finhe al phase of Empire's expansion to be completed by proposed Rosemount MUSA expansion plus reallocation Em irestone sewer flow will shorten the life expectancy P additional year to 1998. these highly relevant ibit C for facts arelnot documentation.) We would noteto this revealed in full in your Council staff's •pos tion ise that this situation, the Metropolitan issue presents no .problems °1according Pose urrent schedule.ly contingent and resulting actions proceed questions the upon historical precedent, Lakeville seriously reality of such a prediction and confidence. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee 9 October 1992 Page Three exists for resolvingthe Alternatively,. a very basic answer .: the Empire Treatment Plant. concerns of the communities served by the it would be to simultaneously me the Empind the ire Facility vtoC1998 in completion of the fourth pcomprehensive Plan conjunction with the Rosemor staff'nt own admission, is not seen amendment. This action, by you as a major undertaking, nor is it seen as an infringement upon major policy and philosophic debates which ion Study, are tidy into the entralizat Orfield Study, the Centralizat ono/Dt Dual Track k Study. The hEmpire Review, or the Metropolitan Airport has been long targeted Plant's design and infrastructure capacity shold. This plant was designedrmodular for the 12 mgd threace easy expansion and most infrastructure is already in p 11 cost in for expansion from 9.0 mgd to 12.0 ,mo s at a includinglthe relatively Rosemount Waste comparison to other plant expsma anse ire improvement is Water Treatment Plant retrofit . As such, the I P lace viewed as an established commitment which will t which are irrespective of the major metropolitan questions currently being addressed. In summary, Lakeville's position is that if the, life expectancy of the Empire Plant is to be yet further reduced and jeopardized, some corresponding assurance needs to be provided by the Metropolitan Council that a longer range yet eminent crisis will be avoided. by Co ,planning". Moreover, simple terms, this is viewed as "p expected to regionally imposed standards, local communiiesiar the future. plan and make projections over 10 to 20 years Paralleling capital improvement programs and related text, it bond issues fall within the same time framMtroWolitan Councilithin this wouldtake1a difficult to understand why the P narrow, short sighted approach which leaves five communities in limbo and uncertain as to service being available in a 5 to .6 year horizon, Unless the Metropolitan Council can provide some keville cannot assurance of longer range service capability, already La underestimated agree to actions which will jeopardize requirements. LOCAL CREDIBILITY As noted above, Lakeville fully recognizes the current metropolitan ical ol agenda and appreciates the potential implication of phowever, concerns which will be debated. The MetroO and activities�of litan Clocal units. needs also to recognize the P Based upon assurances of of capital tints scheduledtan service tover Lakeville has $25,000,000 pextending 10 to 15 years and: the next five years with funding dependent upon "acknowledged" development and growth. These Metropolitan and Community Development Committee 9 October 1992 Page Four expenditures and services have been programmed through long term, continuing growth management efforts on the partof the City. Since its inception in 1968, Lakeville has been a leaderin community planning. Moreover, Lakeville- has constantly and continually planned and worked within the framework of regional requirements and restrictions, while continuing to progressively address advanced growth management at the local level. The recently, widely publicized Lakeville development "moratorium" was established as a "limited time out" to assess and evaluate development directions and their financial impact upon the character of community and quality of life being provided to residents. The resulting Growth Management Task Force Study, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, documents the work which the City has completed and the foundation which has been established for reviewing City development directions. and priorities as part of a pending Comprehensive Plan update (this will be the City's third major Comprehensive Plan update in 12 to 13 years). The Growth Management Task Force Study in March of 1992 additionally served as the basis for Lakeville identifying the Empire Treatment Plancapacityshortfall and prompted the City to begin programming what was, and will hopefully yet be, a cooperative effort at addressing this problem (see NAC letter attached as Exhibit E). Furthermore, Lakeville has been attentive to regional and inter- governmental servicing concerns. While undoubtedly self - benefiting, the City has aggressively taken action to correct sewer infiltration and in -flow problems (see Exhibit F). Other neighboring cities, notably Rosemount, have not undertaken such efforts (see Exhibit G, MWCC I&I Study Committee data). We should not be held hostage for plant expansion due to the existing I&I noted in your staff report. While it is understood that other local units may not be as advanced in corrective, cooperative actions or as progressive, Lakeville has demonstrated a responsible planning and implementation program. The above factors make questionable unilateral attention to the Rosemount Interim Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Approval of the Rosemount amendment constitutes rewarding of a reactionary development approach and penalizing_ a comprehensive proactive - growth management program. Moreover, as the agency charged with coordination of regional development and area -wide service, we believe the Metropolitan Council cannot give the unilateral, narrow focused approval of the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment' without attention to broader issues. To do so runs contrary to the role, responsibility, and charge of the Metropolitan Council. Metropolitan and 9 October 1992 Page Five Community Development Committee SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The manner and process in which this matter has been handled by the Metropolitan Council has unfortunately pitted City against City and the regional agencies against local units. Had proper planning and cooperation been undertaken within an adequate time framework, the relatively simple resolution as suggested above could have been pursued without argument and confrontation. The City of Lakeville is fully appreciative of its responsibilities as one of many metropolitan communities (see Growth Management Report, Exhibit D, pages 10 and 11) and has accepted and abides by commitments to cooperative working agreements such as that established in 1989 on the Empire Treatment Plant usage (see Exhibit H). Simultaneously, similar positions are expected of regional agencies and neighboring communities. In its action on the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment request, Lakeville therefore requests the Metropolitan Council to be responsive and to take action which is comprehensive and farsighted. Approving the Rosemount Amendment without corresponding action on the Empire Treatment Plant falls short of such an expectation. it is therefore respectfully requested that this matter be tabled by the committee until such time as the Council staff report addresses and takes into account all necessary considerations and implementation concerns. Respectfully yours, CITY OF LAKEVILLE Robert 21f T=� City Administrator pc: Mary Anderson Sharon Klump Mayor and City Council Keith Nelson Michael Sobota Roger Knutson David Licht Gloria Vierling, Commissioner, MWCC Lou Clark, Chairperson, MWCC Gordon Voss, Executive Director, MWCC CITY OF APPLE VALLEY -UNDEVELOPED LAND PLANNED USES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) A0013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS El Single Family Residential Low Density Residential E Medium Density Residential UM High Density Residential 0 Commercial "<'s Industrial 220 = TAZ Number Source: City Of Apple Valley Planning Department Miles 0 0.s 1 Map By: Insight Mapping & Demographics (10/92) October 12, 1992 Memo To: Dennis Welsch From: John Carpenter Subject: Vacant Land Allocation By TAZ The following is a breakout of current vacant land acreage by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). The analysis further breaks the acreage out by development type for purposes of projecting population and commercial/industrial square footage. Designated Gross Net Acreage Net Resid. Units Residential Pop. Per Pop. Sq. Footage Sq. Ft. TAZ Usage Acreage Conversion Acreage Per Acre (est.) Units (prof.) Unit est. m act Per Acre Imoa 210 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - Low Density 645 0.85 548 4.0 2,190 2.5 5,480 - - Med. Density 414 0.85 352 10.0 3,520 2.1 7,390 - Hi2h Density 70 0.85 60 18.0 1,070 1.8 1,930 - - Total 1,129 0.85 960 - 6,780 - 14,800 - Commercial 190 0.30 57 - - - 43,560 2,483,000 Industrial 120 0.30 36 - - - - 43,560 1,568,000 Total 310 0.30 93 - - - - 43,560 4,051,000 211 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - - Low Density 6 0.85 5 4.0 20 2.5 50 - - Med. Density 79 0.85 67 10.0 670 2.1 1,410 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.00 1.8 0 - - Total 85 0.85 72 - 690 - 1,460 - - Commercial 45 0.30 14 - - - 43,560 588,000 Industrial 42 0.30 13 - - - 43,560 549,000 Total 87 0.30 26 - - - - 43,560 1,137,000 212 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - - Low Density 4 0.85 3 4.0 10 2.5 30 - - Med. Density 55 0.85 47 10.0 470 2.1 990 - - High Density 24 0.85 20 18.0 370 1.8 670 - - Total 83 0.85 71 - 850 - 1,690 - - Commercial 85 0.30 26 - - - 43,560 1,111,000 Industrial 267 0.30 80 - - - - 43,560 3,489,000 Total 352 0.30 106 - - - - 43,560 4,600,000 Page Two Designated Gross Net Acreage Net Resid. Units Residential Pop. Per Pop. Sq. Footage Sq. Ft. TAZ Usage Acreage Conversion Acreage Per Acre (est.) Units (pros.) Unit est. imaact Per Acre Im2act 213 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - - Low Density 4 0.85 3 4.0 10 2.5 30 - Med. Density 0 0.85 0 10.0 0 2.1 0 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - - Total 4 0.85 3 - 10 - 30 - - Commercial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Total 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 214 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - Low Density 13 0.85 11 4.0 40 2.5 100 - - Med. Density 0 0.85 0 10.0 0 2.1 0 - High Density 11 0.85 9 18.0 170 1.8 310 - - Total 24 0.85 20 - 210 - 410 - Commercial 70 0.30 21 - - - - 43,560 915,000 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Total 70 0.30 21 - - - - 43,560 915,000 215 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - Low Density 23 0.85 20 4.0 80 2.5 200 - - Med. Density 33 0.85 28 10.0 280 2.1 590 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - Total 56 0.85 48 - 360 - 790 - - Commercial 0 0.30 0 _ - - - 43,560 0 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Total 0 0.30 0 - - - 43,560 0 Page Three Designated Gross Net Acreage Net Resid. Units Residential Pop. Per Pop. Sq. Footage Sq. Ft. TAZ Usage Acreage Conversion Acreage Per Acre (est.) Units (prod Unit est. Impact Per Acre Imnac# 216 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - - Low Density 5 0.85 4 4.0 20 2.5 50 - - Med. Density 29 0.85 25 10.0 250 2.1 530 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - - Total 34 0.85 29 - 270 - 580 - - Commercial 32 0.30 10 - - - - 43,560 418,000 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - 43,560 0 Total 32 0.30 10 - - - 43,560 418,000 217 Single Family 3 0.85 3 2.5 10 3.5 40 - - Low Density 15 0.85 13 4.0 50 2.5 130 - - Med. Density 20 0.85 17 10.0 170 2.1 360 - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - - Total 38 0.85 32 230 _ - 530 - - Commercial 3 0.30 1 - - - 43,560 39,000 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Total 3 0.30 1 - - - - 43,560 39,000 218 Single Family 0 0.85 0 2.5 0 3.5 0 - - Low Density 0 0.85 0 4.0 0 2.5 0 - - Med.. Density 0 0.85 0 10.0 0 2.1 0 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - Total 0 0.85 0 - 0 - 0 - - Commercial 23 , 0.30 7 - - - - 43,560 301,000 Industrial 0 ` 0.30 0 - - 43,560 0 Total 23 0.30 7 - - - - 43,560 301,000 Page Four Designated Gross Net Acreage Net Resid. Units Residential Pop. Per Pop. Sq. Footage Sq. Ft. TAZ Usage Acreage Conversion Acreage Per Acre (est.) Units (aroi.) Unit est Impact Per Acre Impact 219 Single Family 64 0.85 54 2.5 140 3.5 490 - - Low Density 88 0.85 75 4.0 300 2.5 750 - - Med. Density 0 0.85 0 10.0 0 2.1 0 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - - Total 152 0.85 129 - 440 - 1,240 Commercial 0 0.30 0 - - - 43,560 0 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Total 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 220 Single Family 96 0.85 82 2.5 200 3.5 700 - - Low Density 129 0.85 110 4.0 440 2.5 1,100 - - Med. Density 44 0.85 37 10.0 370 2.1 780 - - High Density 0 0.85 0 18.0 0 1.8 0 - - Total 269 0.85 229 - 1,010 - 2,580 - - Commercial 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 Industrial 0 0.30 0 - - - 43,560 0 Total 0 0.30 0 - - - - 43,560 0 All Single Family 163 0.85 139 2.5 350 3.5 1,230 - - Low Density 932 0.85 792 4.0 3,170 2.5 7,930 - - Med. Density 674 0.85 573 10.0 5,730 2.1 12,030 - - High Density 105 0.85 89 18.0 1,610 1.8 2,900 - - Total 1874 0.85 1,593 - 10,860 - 24,090 - Commercial 448 0.30 134 - - - - 43,560 5,854,000 Industrial 429 0.30 129 - - - 43,560 5,606,000 Total 877 0.30 263 - - - - 43,560 11,460,000