Agenda - Council - 05/31/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I i I I Metropolitan Council restrictions. (Ex. WW, p. 75 a~ prefatory Metropolitan (k~a%cil ..letter ) · 28. The .estimated co, ts of extendin~ sewer to the area will te c~n~ider- able. (bsts for the first phase only (from the ~astern edge of the proposed site to Sunfish lake Boulevard) were estimated to ex~eed ~SDO,000. ' (E~. JJJ, a cost ]~reakdown submitted by the city's consulting e~3ineers] included in Board Staff Final Comments). ~here are currently 1%o isetitions or informal requests for sewer service in th~s area. (E~. KK]{). Consequently, under the above-discussed assessment pOlicy~ if the city were to extend service into this area, tho waste processing facility would ~otentially have to pay this ~9. It would be exceptionally exl~ensive, if not economically prohibitive to attempt to extend sewer and water service to existing adjacent residential developments. A ccmbination of the soil and water conditions in the area ar~ Metropolitan O~uncil development policies have caused the city to require a "large lot" residential development pattern.. Metropolitan ODuncil policies adopted by the city lim/t homes to one per l0 acres. (Ex. WWi prefatory Coun- cil resolution and Metropolitan ODuncil letter). Local residents testified that the cost of extension of water and sewer to those areas '%~ould be just disasterous". (Afternoon Tr.; p. 72). Residential development is ccnse- quently extraordinarily dependent upon individual wells and contamination of groundwater would be a potentially very serious problem. 30. Approximately the northern one-third of the proposed site is within one mile of a receiving stream. (Ex. LIL). Because this area has never been proposed for sewer service and is mt within a mile of a receivin~ streaml it did not meet the "mandatory" requirement in the initial selection process and should have )0een excluded prior to the hearirg. 31. The southern two-thirds of the proposed site is within one mile of a receiving streaml the Mississippi River. It might be possiblel consequently, for a hazardous waste treatment facility to treat its own wastew~ter onsite and pipe it to the Mississippi River if it could get the necessary ~ermits from t~e Pollution Control ~genoy and the U.S. Environmental' Protection A~ency. It is extremely doubtful that a hazardous treatment facility would take this course of action, particularly at this site. As ir~icated in the attached M~morandum~ several existing processing companies would flatly reject such a course of action, preferrir~ the built-in regulatory control involved in public w~stewater treatment. At least one cc~lm~ny representative "worried about the image such a system would have with the public". (Ex. VU, p. 2). The area between th~s potential site and the river in this case is extensively developedl creating particularly difflcult right-of-way and easement acquisi- tion problems. ~he piping would also have ~o be Jacked under a railroad and a four-lane 'highw~yl considerably increasing ~ .potenti&l costs. The projected cost of Jacking the city sewer system under the railroad is ~13,500, i~nd under a two-lane county road is $38,5001 without o0nsidering engineering and other attendant costs. (~. JJJ). ~ne potential discharge would also be ul0etre~m of the Minneapolis and St. ~aul w~.ter intakes from the river. (Afternoon ~r., l~p. 98-99). ~e method of onsite treatment was not explored on the record, although Board Staff appeared to approve of "something like a lagoon system,