Loading...
8. Discuss rural area development, 2 1/2 min acre lot size 1 CITYOF 1 -00 114 CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 DATE: December 5, 1990 1 SUBJ: Rural Area Policies /2k Acre Minimum Lot Size ' As the Planning Commission is probably aware, the Metropolitan Council is considering policy changes concerning rural areas which by definition are those areas located outside the MUSA line. In ' previous packets I have presented copies of preliminary drafts of materials presented by the Metro Council on this issue. There are a number of potential issues affecting Chanhassen directly from these policy changes. My written comments to the Metro Council on these changes is attached to this memo. In addition to discussing these policies at the Planning Commission ' meeting, I wish to also discuss the rural area minimum lot size. As you are aware, the City has a requirement that minimum lot size in the rural area be 21 acres. This requirement was adopted by the City as a result of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. Some would ' argue that the agreement and conditions were imposed upon the City by the Metropolitan Council. Staff has no argument with the rural area density of 1 unit per 10 acres however it is computed by the Metro Council. From my experience and from data that was collected during the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that the City must take reasonable precautions on preventing premature development in the rural areas. Premature development of these areas leads to significant environmental problems as well as making it difficult to expand the community and extend urban services when it is necessary to do so. Our recent dealings with neighborhoods ' such as Timberwood or Sun Ridge Court bring these problems to mind. However, I, and I believe several Planning Commissioners, have felt that the 21/2 acre minimum lot size requirement is a problem. Two ' and one -half acre lots tend to gobble up large tracts of land to support relatively few households. It results in development patterns such as Timberwood that are difficult to provide services ' to if it becomes necessary to do so or to route services around since assessing these properties may be difficult, if not politically impossible. This is not to infer that somebody who 1 1 11 Rural Area Policies December 5, 1990 Page 2 ' desires to live on a 2 acre lot should be prevented from doing so, only that institutionalizing the 2 acre minimum in .the ordinance is probably not an ideal thing to do. However, since this requirement was imposed upon us by the Metro Council, there has been relatively little thought given to this standard. However, as I indicated to the Planning Commission last month in a meeting with Metro Council Staff, I was informed that the Metro Council now supports a 1 acre minimum lot size in these areas although they still uphold the 1 per 10 acre density rule. I was further informed, and am frankly somewhat upset to find, that the Metro 1 Council appears to have changed this standard from 21 acres to 1 acre at virtually the same time they were requiring the City of Chanhassen to adhere to it in 1986. In any event, it is clear that we probably have flexibility to lower our minimum lot size if we choose to do so. I would like to throw this out for discussion purposes. I believe it would be in the City's best interest and probably the property owner's best interest in these areas to allow ' for these smaller lot sizes. At the same time, the Metro Council is insisting that cities adopt high standards of design and maintenance for on -site sewer systems and this is an understandable ' requirement since this is an environmental concern associated with these systems. The City of Chanhassen adopted these standards in 1986, thus, we are probably in conformance with any new policies that the Metro Council would be creating at the present time. We believe, however, that it might be useful to look into the possibility of allowing 1 acre lots with a community based on -site disposal system rather than individual drainfields. If properly designed, the community based system should have an improved potential for being better maintained, would facilitate inspection ' by the city and ultimately would facilitate the expansion of city utilities to serve the area at such time that this becomes necessary since it would simply be a matter of disconnecting the pipes from the community drainfield and connecting them into city ' lines. Should the Planning Commission be interested in pursuing this matter further, you should be aware that the 21 acre standard is not only in our ordinance, it is in the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. This is a contract that was entered into by the City and Metro Council and is a contract that would have to be amended if this standard is to be revised. I have requested the City Attorney to draft a contract amendment and this is included in the packet of materials attached to this memo. Staff is seeking your direction in these matters. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE 1 The Planning Commission considered this item at their meeting on December 12th. The Commissioners were unanimously interested in 1 1 Rural Area Policies December 5, 1990 Page 3 pursuing revising the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement such that the city would have the flexibility to reduce rural lot area sizes down to one acre. They believed that it would give flexibility in developing these areas that is not presently the case. At the same, this development could more easily be fit into future expansions of the MUSA line. Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to submit the proposed contract amendment language to the Metropolitan Council. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to submit the proposed contract amendment language to the Metropolitan Council for approval. r 1 Manager's Comments: In discussing the options presented above, it 1 is important for the Council to keep in mind that the overall density remains the same in either proposal, i.e. one dwelling unit for each ten acres of land (four units per 40 acres). The only question is whether those four home sites should be allowed to be clustered as four 1 acre lots with the remaining 36 acres undevelopable or be allowed to exist as four 21 acre lots with the remaining 30 acres then being undevelopable. The concept of requiring a community septic system for these types of developments has merits in regards to maintenance /inspection activity /minimal efforts to reconnect to a municipal system if such were ever - available. However, based on my own experiences of living with a septic system, the thought of a community septic system instinctively scares me. If it is your septic system, you pay the price if your consumption is too high,, you use the wrong types of household detergents /bowl cleaners /etc. or if you improperly dispose of diapers, etc. A four lot subdivision consisting of a family of ten, an amateur photo finishing retiree, and two yuppie couples represents a potential time bomb. Unfortunately, with the municipal system being two miles away, the City Council could be left trying to find a solution to an unsolvable problem. Before proceeding with the community system, additional research should be completed. This office agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation that the pros and cons of a community system should reasonably be explored. Given my own bias, 1 am not anticipating that making changes will be warranted. 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN '3 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 7 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 i i December 3, 1990 ' Mr. Carl Ohrn Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Carl: Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I was unable to attend any of the public meetings on the proposed Council Policies for Rural Service Areas. Working with our local association of southwestern communities, John Boland has presented you with some documentation that in part covers the position of the City of Chanhassen. However, I believe it would be valuable fdr me to convey to you i directly our reactions to the proposed policy changes. My comments follow the outline of proposed changes presented in Table 6 of your report. Preservation of Agriculture The City of Chanhassen does not have any major issues with ag preservation, however, we believe that the Ag Preserve Policy should reflect the location of parcels in transition areas where these occur. For example, the City of Chanhassen still retains a ' fair amount of agricultural land in the southern part of our city. Much of this land is leased while being held for development and we have only approximately 3 to 4 active farmers working the ' community. Some of the acreage in this area is listed as ag preserves. However, in our community this area is surrounded on four sides by urbanized development and in all probability this ' will ultimately be converted to urban uses. As you are probably aware by now, the City of Chanhassen is working on a complete redraft of our Comprehensive Plan that will expand the MUSA line by approximately 2,600 acres since we are virtually out of developable land within the MUSA at the present time. i 1 1 Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 2 Lot Size Under the 1986 Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement, the City of Chanhassen was required to adopt 1 per 10 acre density zoning, improve regulations for on -site sewers,and was also required to adopt 211 acre minimum lot sizes. It came as quite a surprise when you indicated to me in a meeting in Chanhassen two months ago that the Council had deleted the 21/2 acre lot size standard approximately at the same time as the City of Chanhassen was required to adhere to it. The City of Chanhassen has had considerable problems stemming from the 2 acre minimum. We in no way object to the 1 per 10 acre density in the rural area, but the 21 acre lot size minimum has create a series of rural subdivisions that make it extraordinarily difficult to transition these areas to urban development. They become virtual black holes where it is almost impossible to extend city utilities since it is difficult to assess costs back to properties that have just spent considerable sums of money on installing private utilities. We are, therefore, gratified to read that no minimum lot size is being proposed and that performance standards based on on -site disposal are being shown in place of establishing a minimum. I would anticipate that the City of Chanhassen will be coming back to the Metro Council shortly with the goal of revising that portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement that stipulated 2 acre minimums for our community. We would anticipate trying to promote further clustering of such development that is allowed to take place within the 1 per 10 acre guideline in our transition area. On -Site Sewage Disposal Systems 1 As I noted earlier, Chanhassen has adopted and has been enforcing for the last 3 years current standards for development of on -site utilities. Your proposed guidelines would require communities to "certify" compliance prior to approving local plan amendments. I would clarification as to what this certification entails since we would like to minimize the need for expanded administrative procedures or bureaucracy. Another possibly more important issue of on -site sewage disposal systems is that in transition areas such as those found in Chanhassen, it may be more reasonable to consider the use of a community based private disposal system using a common drainfield and other facilities. We believe that if these facilities are designed and maintained appropriately, that they provide a better opportunity for maintenance at a higher standard and facilitate inspection when this is required. We also believe that most importantly these sorts of systems would lend themselves to conversion to city public sanitary sewer at such time as these are available. We would ask that you consider looking into standards that may be applied for such systems and make this option available. 1 1 Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 3 Transition Areas ' We are gratified that the Metro Council is considering the adoption of a Transition Area Policy. We believe that the undeveloped portions of Chanhassen represent an ideal area for this designation. Our undeveloped areas are surrounded by urbanization on all four sides and is currently served by or will be bisected by four lane Highways. We are concerned, however, that while the concept of transition areas has been proposed that there are no specific guidelines for them. In particular, we note concerns that we have had along with other, units of government in this area ' regarding Council policies relative to highway improvements through what we believe will be termed the transition area. Concerns raised by the Metro Council regarding extensions of Highway 5 and construction of Highway 212 through the transition area, in spite of the fact that we are planning for these to be developed and the fact that there is ample demand for the roadways, brings these issues to the forefront. We also note that our mass transit has ' been hampered by an inability to site a park and ride facility at the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This area is currently located outside of the MUSA although we are proposing that this be ' brought into the MUSA line. Metro Council policy currently prohibits the expenditure of funds for transit improvements outside the MUSA line, in spite of the fact that Highways 5 and 41 are highly traveled and would be an ideal spot to intercept trips ' coming from Chaska, Waconia and points west. We would appreciate the opportunity to interact with you and your staff further regarding the transition areas, should an opportunity arise. Density /Clustering ' As noted earlier, the City of Chanhassen has already adopted the 1 per 10 acre density guidelines and has no problems in continuing enforcement of them. We believe that this policy is of great use in protecting the transition areas from premature development. However, the proposed ways in which density is to be calculated are unwieldy and I believe inappropriate for transition areas and for areas such as those found around Chanhassen. Options ' A and B would require the analysis to include substantial tracts of property that are in all likelihood not owned by the person applying for a subdivision. In Chanhassen, the agricultural property has generally been subdivided into considerably smaller tracts then are found further out in the rural areas. In essence, the proposal you have offered constitutes a de facto transfer of development rights whereby the City would, by approving a subdivision for Landowner A, thereby precluding Landowner B who happens to be within the 160 acre or 640 acre tract from any development without any knowledge on their part. I believe this is ' inherently unfair and should be avoided. Again, we do not oppose the densities that you are proposing, in fact the reverse is true. 1 Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 4 , We are merely concerned with the methods you are proposing for computing them. We would like to be able to continue with policies that have already been developed and in use since 1987. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revised policies. We look forward to working with you on this and related matters. We will be in contact with you and your staff shortly regarding the release of the conditions from the 1986 Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement relative to minimum lot area requirements. Sincerely, Paul K auss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v cc: Planning Commission City Council 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. ■ Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson (612) 456 -9539 Thomas M. Scott Fax (612) 456-9542 Gard G. Fuchs • James R. Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Gregory D. Lewis Dennis J. Unger November 30, 19 9 0 ' Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement r Dear Paul: II Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find proposed First Amendment to Sewer Facility Agreement in the above matter. very ours, ' C. PBELL, KNU SON, SCOTT • FUCHS, - .A. r � Ro.- N. Kn -son ' RNK:srn Enclosure r 1 i RECEIVED DEC 0 4 1990 , r.1TY 0t CHANh SEN i Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 i FIRST AMENDMENT TO , SEWER FACILITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into b and between the � Y METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (hereinafter "the Council "), the METROPOLITAN 1 WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (hereinafter "the Commission "), and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN (hereinafter "the City "). 1 WHEREAS, the Council, the Commission, and the City have previously entered into a contract entitled "Sewer Facility Agreement" dated March 19, 1986 (hereinafter "the Contract "); and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate 1 exercise of each of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, hereby agree as follows: Section 6.1(A)3 of the Contract is amended to read as follows: 1 A provision applicable to any future subdivisions designating rural service density standards of one residential unit per ten (10) acres in general rural areas and one unit per forty (40) acres in agricultural rural areas subject to variances as may be permitted by law. The parties recognize that this provision may include elements to address unconstitutional takings, hardships, and unique circumstances. The City agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by the Council and prior to August 1, 1986, the above described comprehensive plan amendments. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, no use of the facility as a trunk sewer shall be permitted until the City has submitted 1 and the Council has accepted the above described plan amendments. IN WITNESS ' ITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of , 19 • 1 1 1 1 1 Approved as to form METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BY: Its Chairperson AND Its Executive Director 11 Approved as to form METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION BY: Its Chairperson 1 AND Its Chief Administrator CITY OF CHANHASSEN I BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor AND Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 1 1 11' 1 -2- Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 1990 - Page 15 Batzli: If they had had to go through the process, you know the formal review process, would we have had an opportunity to comment on that? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Is it clear that that interceptor is not going to occur? ' Krauss: It's still I think on the Metro Waste books but everybody tells you that it's dead. Metro Waste is going through a study or wants to initiate a study as to what to do with the Chaska sewage treatment plant. II The alternatives include enlarging it, which is a problem since it's in the flood plain. It gets innundated. Or eliminate it and if they eliminate i they need to have a Metro Interceptor taking this stuff, the sewage to Blu Lake. We've been telling that if you do, whichever alternative you choose, we need to be considered. Our future needs to be taken into account. The Chaska plant is kind of unique. The Chaska plant is an old municipal plan and it was designed to serve Chaska and Metro Waste bought it with regiona dollars, our dollars. They've improved it with our dollars. The regional dollars and we have no access to it because all the lines leading to the II Chaska plant are municipal Chaska lines. Now on the other side of town, Eden Prairie's proposing to do the same situation. To do the same thing. Conrad: Anything else on that? , Krauss: No. I'll keep you posted. I expect that this is not the end of it. ' Conrad: I agree with what you're saying. RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT, 2 1/2 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. 1 Krauss: In some of the meetings I've been at in the last few months, in talking to Metro Council staff, it became clear that the 2 1/2 acre rural II lot size that we adhere to is no longer required by the Metro Council. They do require that we maintain the 1 per 10 acre density zoning that we've been enforcing since 1986 and I don't have a problem with that frankly. I mean we discussed rural area development long enough that that" 1 per 10 zoning seems to make sense for future development for less impact on agricultural areas and everything else. I was a little bit taken back to find out that the Metro Council apparently changed their policy on this 11 2 1/2 acre zoning at the same time they were requiring us to adhere to it in the Lake Ann agreement. Be that as it may, it's kind of water over the dam and if in fact their policy is different today, I believe that we havell the option of going with 1 acre lots in the rural'area. I asked our city attorney about that. It's a little bit unusual because not only do you have to consider an amendment to zoning ordinance but we actually have to II have a contract amended between the City and the Metro Council, which is the Lake Ann agreement. I asked Roger to prepare a contract amendment that would take care of that and he's done that. I think this is kind of a two, step process. I think we have to first know that we have the ability or the flexibility to change the contract and either concurrently or after that you have to consider whether or not you want to and what kind of standards you might apply. I've discussed this with Commissioner Erhart II and he rightfully points out that when you consider 1 acre lots relatively to 2 1/2 acre lots, that other standards may be different as well. You may II Planning Commission Meeting . December 12, 1990 - Page 16 II want to look at different front yard setbacks, different sideyard, you know those sorts of standards should be looked at comprehensively If you'd II like us to follow up on this, I think the way in which to do it is to direct us to ask the City Council to direct me to submit this contract amendment to the Metro Council and first see if we can get the flexibility II to take action. If you feel strongly enough about it. I guess we talked about the 1 acre lots for a moment. I think you know, we've all been through the process where we've seen first hand the difficulties we have . with situations such as Timberwood and Sunridge Court and Lake Lucy Highlands. That's not necessarily to mean that these are bad places to live. I mean anything but. They're highly attractive environments but what happens when you mandate a 2 1/2 acre standard, you chew up inordinate II amounts of ground for very small gain. I mean 1 household on 2 1/2 acres. Now if somebody truly wants a 2 1/2 acre lot, that's their right but we're mandating that that's the minimum lot size right now and once we I institutionalize that, you've seen the problems that we have when we need to bring services around and through these areas because these people have their own roads, their own on -site sewer and water and basically you're faced with dead heading everything past them or assessing them for future I benefit. It makes it difficult to develop comprehensive road systems. One of the things that we'd like to look into, and I know Commissioner Erhart raised this at a meeting, regional meeting with the Metro Council, is that II when you come down to smaller lot sizes, the 1 acre lot sizes, you have the potential to develop a community based on site sewage system. We have one of those right now over by Minnewashta. Now I'm not aware if that one was built correctly or not or functions properly or not but if we designed this to a high standard, what you basically have is you have the system terminating in a drainfieid and if one day we need to provide services, you just cut out the drainfield and tap it into the sewer main that's the II City's so I think it gives you a lot of flexibility to bring utilities in in the future that we don't have in developments such as Timberwood. So I guess from my point of view I would advocate that we do follow up and look I further at these one acre lots and if you wish, we'll submit that contract amendment to the Metro Council and see what they say. I have no idea how they're going to receive this. I'm not even sure of the administrative II procedure to go through at this point because Chanhassen was singled out for some very unusual treatment with that agreement. But it's a contract and like any other contract it can be changed. I Conrad: Tim is the official rural expert. Do you feel comfortable looking at the 1 acre lots? I Erhart: Oh yeah. I think this is a real important thing given the experience we've had here in the last year with the Comp Plan... I did bring a copy of the...Met Council. I've been following this a little bit and attended one of their meetings. The turn about is unbelieveable II compared to what we were faced with back in 1985 or 1986 when we got first involved with that. You know.statements like...agriculture preservation... I think Paul's correct. The first step is to...long term goal, first step II is to see if we can get the contract changed and then proceed to get as much flexibility as we can and then go back and tailor this thing to what our needs and desires are here. II Conrad: Anybody with a different opinion? II • Planning Commission Meeting • December 12, 1990 - Page 17 1 Emmings: I agree completely. Ellson: I do too and I like the idea of the community sewer thing too. 1 Emmings: This could be one of the most significant things we do for how the southern part of the city develops and give us an opportunity to look at whether or not we're interested in agricultural preservation...and also 11 the idea of clustering in this. I don't know to what extent we can use any kind of cluster development. Maybe you can't. 1 Krauss: They do encourage cluster development but the context that's referred to in that report that Tim's got, if you're out by a cornfield in Young America someplace and they talk about clustering, if you've got 360 acres or old section or whatever it is. We can explore that further. can ask them. I think, you know 1 acre relative to 2/1 2 acres, I mean that's clustering in itself in that context. It may be preferable to do them even tighter than that but you can't do them tighter than that 9 time out of 10 if•you go with individual... - Erhart: I think it's important to understand that their policy on that is" a zoning policy. Other than that one contract, it doesn't really state how we have to execute that policy. We really aren't required to follow their approach and the fact that our approach is .more tailored to our situation I with smaller parcels, I don't think anybody at Met Council objected to that. To our approach. Krauss: In terms of clustering? The 1 per 10? No, they don't. Erhart: Their approach is more tailored to out in western Carver County. ..II Krauss: Well one of the most significant things in that policy statement though is they finally, for the first time, recognized situations that we have really typlified in Chanhassen in that for the first time they came ull with this transition area designation which we clearly are. I mean we're surrounded on 4 sides by urban development. They recognize now that there's some difference in the way you manage land that you expect at some point to either go urban or be pressured to go urban than you do with prim farmland if your primary motivation is long term preservation. You may want to allow some residential development but that's the accessory use, and it's a real major change for them. It's a very major departure. Unfortunately they don't tell you very much about the transition area. What the standards are going to be or anything else but at least they came up with the idea. I did prepare written comments to the Metro Council on 11 that and basically gave them a pat on the back for doing that and I asked them to try to develop some more definition for that area because we've had problems with Metro Council on construction of TH 212 and TH 5 simply because they went outside the MUSA line. They didn't recognize the fact II that there was traffic on the roads anyway or the fact that Chanhassen was likely to bring these areas into the MUSA line. That's the reason why TH 5 is ending at CR 17 in the improvements. That's the reason why Metro Council staff was opposing the construction of 4 lane, 212 through Chanhassen. They actually at one point advocated that it go from 4 lanes i Eden Prairie to 2 lanes in Chanhassen at TH 101 and go back to 4 lanes again in Chaska. Now presumably with the transition area recognition we'll' have a lot better time of it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 1990 - Page 18 Batzli: Why does the proposed amendment that Roger's drafted not include a 1 acre minimum? It just includes the 1 per 10 density. Krauss: Well I think maybe we can define that further. Maybe we should. You point out a good point. I think Roger just rewrote that paragraph deleting the offending sentence. Batzli: Would they accept it without any minimum lot size in there? Krauss: Probably not. Erhart: If you read this, they're advocating no restrictions on minimum lot size whatsoever and suggesting performance standard. If they do, it its referenced however that in good soils, and independent septic systems, that 1 acre is probably the sensitive minimum site. r Emmings: To get two septic sites. Batzli: So realty on one acre they say you can get 2 sites. Krauss: Well it depends on the soil. It really depends on the individual situations. They've also asked communities to develop and adopt high standards of design and inspection for on site sewers. Fortunately we did that several years ago so we can go to them and say look, we've performed and we'd like you to recognize that. Erhart: They say in this...minimum lot size should be determined by performance standards. Current Council indicate that the minimum should be determined by the standard... Conrad: Okay. How much time do you have to put, how much energy do you need to put into something like this Paul? 1 Krauss: Beats me. I've never done it before. I don't know how they're going to deal with it. i Conrad: We tell you to do stuff and then yet we never know how it affects other things you do. I think it's, I heard Steve say it was important to him and Tim says it's important but I never know. Are we saying spend a month of your life. Krauss: Well clearly if it became a major problem. I'm going to work with ' you on this anyway. What I need to do is get this on the City Council agenda because they're the ones that entered into the contract and get their authorization to proceed. I'll shift it over to Carl Loren I believe at the Metro Council and he and I can meet and discuss how we need to proceed on this. If it's simply a matter of their attorney changing the contract for them and changing it for the Council, that's great but I've found that nothing's ever that simple at the Metro Council. Emmings: A question. Let's say Timberwood, I'll use Timberwood as an example where you've got a rural subdivision with 2 1/2 acres. If we change the ordinance can those people come back in and subdivide? 11 Planning Commission Meeting • II December 12, 1990 - Page 19 1 Krauss: They probably could. As a matter of fact Timberwood, Al Klingelhutz has told me several times that Timberwood was designed to do that. Emmings: Yeah, and there's a lot of empty lots over there still so it'd be very easy to do because nothing's built. That's something else we'll have to take into consideration. Krauss: But that is an implication. If you moved into a 2 1/2 acre lot II neighborhood, would you be upset to find 1 acre lots next door? Emmings: So there are covenants for the preservation as a whole that prevent further subdivision? Krauss: I doubt it. Emmings: Is there anything like that? Erhart: Timberwood has... Olsen: I know when we were working with a couple of people who specifically located their homes so it could be subdivided. Batzli: We probably need a blending ordinance. Conrad: Let's go, if we're all done on that issue, let's go back to the one we started with earlier tonight. Tim, before you came in we had a lana� owner present a map to shift our MUSA line. No, not necessarily our MUSA line but a boundary for a potential one of our zones a little bit south. I guess we should send some kind of signal. Paul, you weren't II comfortable with moving it? I guess I, well I'll open it up. What's the commission's pleasure on this one? Ellson: I think if we had known this in the beginning. I think we , • arbitrarily have a line there and if we had known this in the beginning, that could have just as easily have been the line as this one and I think it sort of makes sense because I don't think people want to build right on top of a pipeline. It just seems funny that we're going to take, well this arbitrary one holds more weight than this one. I don't have a problem necessarily moving it. I can understand the fact that we've already presented it and that may be Steve's idea that if the proper thing comes i or whatever but I have a hard time saying absolutely no because we didn't have a real good reason for where it is. Emmings: Well there was a little bit of a reason. It wasn't completely arbitrary. , Ellson: No, but I'm saying if we knew this plus the fact that we thought there was a couple little elms there would we have made the decision different probably? That's my opinion. 1 Batzli: I guess I would feel more comfortable recommending that it be moved south if our city people spoke with the William's Pipeline people directly and knew that they would allow berming and plantings and things II like that. Because if in fact they don't and this is just going to be an 1 -. , . Y • . , •. . . . _ , SEWER FACILITY AGREEMENT 2 4 ';- ' THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the METROPOLITAN 1 COUNCIL (hereinafter "the Council "), the METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (hereinafter "the Commission "), and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN (hereinafter "the 1 City ") . • WHEREAS, the Council and Commission, following review and analysis, have included in the Commis 1986 -1990 Development Program plans for the construction of a gravity interceptor sewer along the Lake,Ann - Red Rock Lake route as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and - made -a- pares - ---- -- 1 hereof, to convey sewage from the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek interceptor; and II _ WHEREAS, the decision to build the Lake Ann interceptor was in part based on representations by the City that if that portion of the interceptor lying within the boundaries of the City and north of T.H.5 (hereinafter "the II Facility ") would simultaneously serve as a Commission interceptor and a local trunk sewer for the City, the City would pay for a portion of the project costs of the Facility over and above its SAC charge cost contribution and the City would further agree to make necessary amendments to its comprehensive plan, I T''., comprehensive sewer plan and official controls to ensure the avoidance of • .•j premature growth or urbanization in accordance with Council policies; and _ WHEREAS, the Council, the Commission and the City have agreed that the . Facility can be designed and used simultaneously as a Commission interceptor sewer and a local trunk sewer for the City; , 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate exercise of each of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS • ' 1.1) Council and Commission - Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.146, the Council has adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the Metropolitan area. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.311 authorizes the Commission to acquire, construct, equip, maintain and operate all interceptors and treatment works needed to implement the Council's II Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. - • 1.2) Lake Ann Interceptor. Chanhassen Segment - The Council and 1 Commission have determined that the Facility is necessary for and shall be . constructed pursuant to the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan and the .....) Commission's 1986 -1990 Development Program. This work is to be undertaken - . pursuant to the Commission's Project No. 82-53. II 1• _ II • 1.3) City Sewer - The City has planned the construction of a trunk sewer 11 along the general route of the Facility. The City has determined that the joint use of a single sewer pipe to be constructed, owned, and operated by the Commission will satisfy certain sewer service needs of the City. The City agrees that it will conduct ail proceedings necessary under law and ordinance so as to authorize it to participate in the cost of the construction of the Facility. 1 1.4) Construction - The interceptor and trunk sewer can be constructed as a single pipe and the design of the Facility and its construction can best be undertaken by the Commission. - SECTION 2. .11 FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY 2.1) Plans and Specifications - The Commission has retained a consulting 1 engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the Facility. The plans and specifications for the Facility shall include adequate designed capacity to enable the City's use of the Facility as specified in this Agreement for trunk sewer purposes, as well as use of the Facility as a Commission interceptor. The Commission shall design the Facility to provide capacity for saturated development of the land within the City tributary to the Facility. This capacity shall be determined an or before Commission approval of the plans and specifications for the Facility. Specifically, the Facility shall, at a minimum, be designed with 3.3 million gallons per day ( "MGD ") peak capacity for City trunk sewer use. The Commission agrees to allow the City to review and comment on the plans and specifications for the Facility so as to insure that adequate trunk sewer capacity is provided. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Commission shall be solely responsible for approving plans and specifications for the Facility. 2.2) Contract Administration - Except as hereinafter provided, the Facility construction contract shall be exclusively administered by the Commission, and the Commission agrees to cause the construction project to be completed in accordance with the design plans and the conforming construction contract. The Commission shall provide a resident engineer to supervise the performance of the work, but the City may inspect the materials for, and construction of, the Facility at any time, and may request the Commission to require the contractor to perform any part of the contract in accordance with its terms, and to enforce any provision of the contract necessary to obtain such performance. The Commission retains sole authority to determine whether contractor performance is consistent with the terms of the contract. SECTION 3. 1 • PROJECT FINANCING 3.1) Project Costs - The City agrees to pay the Commission the sum of Four Hundred Eighty -two Thousand Dollars (5482,000), together with interest at the rate of nine percent (5) per annum on the outstanding balance, as its r • ° 2 1 . . t II share of the cost of constructing the Facility. Interest shall begin to accrue as of the date the Commission awards the contract for construction of the r Facility. This obligation shall be paid in twenty -one (21) installments pursuant to the debt service schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. The first installment shall be in the amount of $43,380.00, representing interest accrued to the date of such payment. The remaining payments shall be paid in 20 equal installments of $52,801.40 annually for twenty (20) years. The City may pay the outstanding principal balance at any time. If it does so, it will pay interest on the outstanding principal balance pro rata from the previous installment date to date of such payment. This obligation shall constitute a charge payable to the Commission under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.521. . 3.2) Installment Dates - The first installment payment shall be due to the Commission on the date one year following Commission award of the contract for construction of the Facility. All subsequent payments shall be made on or before the anniversary date of the first payment. Payments shall be credited to the reduction of the principal amount in accordance with Exhibit B. 3.3) Connection Charge - The City may, to the extent allowed by law, establish a connection charge in order to provide money for payment of all or a portion of its monetary obligations under this Agreement. Failure of the City to institute a connection charge for any reason whatsoever shall not relieve it of the obligation to make payments under this Agreement. 3.4) Acceleration of Payments - If any default is made in the payment of _ any installment, the Commission may at its option and upon thirty (30) days r-� written notice to the City, elect and declare that the entire unpaid principal amount payable by the terms of this Agreement shall become immediately due and payable, and such debt may thereupon be collected by suit or other Legal proceedings. The City shall have thirty (30) days from delivery of notice to cure the default. 3.$) Confession of Judgment - The City hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney at law to appear for it in any court of record in the State of Minnesota on default of payment of any installment due pursuant to this Agreement and thereupon to waive issuance and service of process, to confess . judgment against the City and in favor of the Commission for the principal sum of this obligation, together with interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees, and to release all errors and waive all right of appeal. Prior to entering a default judgment, however, the Commission shall give the City thirty (30) days advance written notice of its intention to do so. r SECTION 4. ' OWNERSHIP AND USE 4.1) OWNERSHIP OF THE FACILITY - The'Commission shall be the sole owner of the Facility and shall be responsible for its operation, maintenance, - r repair, and reconstruction. The Commission shall operate and.maintain the Facility in good, working order, and shall preserve and maintain that portion of the capacity_ of the Facility as described herein for use by the City as a II • II 3 • r • • . . .. .. • • trunk sewer. The Commission shalt not be responsible for construction, 1 operation, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of any connection to the Facility which is not constructed by the Commission as part of Commission • Project 82 -53. - • •4.2) City Use - The City shall be authorized to make use of the Facility . as a trunk sewer for a minimum of 3.3 MGD peak capacity at such locations as may be authorized by the Commission - {which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld), consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the design•plans for the Facility when areas tributary to the Facility are brought within the City's urban service area. The City shall apply for a connection permit for all direct connections to the Facility and shall comply with the Commission's technical and engineering requirements for such connection. All costs of such connections shall be paid by the City. • 4.3) Indemnification - The City agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its employees, or agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, attributable to any claims regarding n of the trunk sewer capacity in the Facility. • ese g9r! (1 /" ,( 114 • ' SECTION • RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 5.1) Duties of City - The City shall assist the Commission in acquiring . 1 the necessary property acquisitions, rights of entry and other property interests or permits n_.:ded for construction of the Facility and that portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor lying within the boundaries of the City. Such assistance shall include: A. Conveyance to the Commission without charge, of all easements now owned or hereinafter acquired by the City along the final route of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor. • B. Conveyance to the Commission, without charge, of any easements located on property owned by the City which are determined necessary by the Commission for construction of the Facility or the Lake Ann Interceptor. • 1 .C. Approval and authorization for use, without charge, of public rights of way within the City along the final route of the Facility and the Lake Ann interceptor. D. Cooperation with the Commission in acquiring easements or other property interevts from governmental subdivisions, business entities and private individuals determined necessary by the Commission for construction of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor. 3.2) Public Purpose The City stipulates and agrees that construction of the Facility is for a public purpose and that acquisition of property therefore is necessary and authorized by law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1984, Chapter 117. 1 • . 4 1 1 47 47 SECTION 6 • LAND USE PLANNING AND CONTROL 6.1) Grow h Control t Co t of - In accordance with the Council's Metropolitan Dever) opment Framework and applicable policy plans, the City agrees to use its best efforts to prevent the premature urbanization of areas outside the year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Are. Specifically, the City agrees that it shall do and perform the following on or before August 1, 1986: (A) Submit to the Council for review an adopted comprehensive plan or such comprehensive plan amendments as may be necessary to comply with the following provisions of this Agreement. Amendments to the City's Comprehensive plan shall be submitted to the Council for review and acceptance pOrsuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act following approval by the City's planning commission and after consideration but I before final approval by the City's governing body. Provisions of the City's comprehensive plan which have been previously adopted by the City and accepted by the Council shall not be subject to Council review and acceptance hereunder except as may be necessary to enforce the following three listed provisions: a provision designating a year 2000 urban service area containing • no more than 2440 acres of vacant developable land which includes platted lots and undeveloped portions of certain large industrial holdings, but does not include lakes, streams, or other waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, areas with exposed bedrock, lands in Agricultural Preserves, public or privately owned park, open space and recreational areas, or facilities including golf courses, streets, highways and other lands used for public utilities. 2. a provision that the City will not exceed the Council's preliminary year 2000 sewer flow allocation of 1.3 MGD annual average flow or such final sewer flow allocation as may result from revisions to the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework; and a provision applicable to any future subdivisions designating rural service density standards of one residential unit per ten (10) acres in general rural areas and one unit per forty (40) acres in agricultural rural areas, both with minimum lot sizes greater than 2.5 acres, subject to variances as may be permitted by law. The parties recognize that this provision may include elements to address unconstitutional takings, hardships and • unique circumstances. - The City agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by the Council and prior to August 1, 1986 the above- described comprehensive plan amendments. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, no use of the Facility as a trunk sewer shall be permitted until the City has submitted and the Council has accepted the above - described plan•amendments. 5 (B) Following Council review and Commission approval, the City shall adopt , 11 a comprehensive sewer plan consistent with the City's comprehensive plan as amended pursuant to this Agreement and containing within it: If **in,' .ti lf'.' a description of adopted on -site sewage disposal ordinance provisions consistent with. applicable requirements set forth in, the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan including Policies '42 through 47 and Procedure 10; and 2. a policy, ordinance and administrative program to reduce stormwater inflow in the sewer system consistent with the Commission's policies. (C) Transmit a description and analysis of the difference between the 1 City's land use plan and its zoning ordinance provisions with respect to items A(1 through 3) above and a method approved and adopted by the City for reconciling the two which is acceptably to.the Council, . if different from one another with respect to land use types, densities, and urban service timing and staging. The City further agrees that by May 1, 1987, it shall repeai or appropriately amend any .II official control or fiscal device that is in conflict with Items A(1 through 3) above of its comprehensive plan. 6:2) Modification - it is understood that the City may in the future, -- following compliance with the provisions of 5.1, amend its comprehensive plan ,and /or comprehensive sewer plan including those provisions relating to its urban and rural service areas and sewer flow allocation, subject to Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Minn.. Stat. Sec. 473.855 and Sec. 473.175 and Commission approval of comprehensive sewer plan • amer.:.ents pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513. • SECTION 7 SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT . 7.1) Limitations on City's Richt to Use - It is expressly agreed that in 1 the event that the City commits a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement, the Council or Commission may, following formal consideration during which the City shall be given an opportunity to state its position, delay or limit the City's right to use the Facility for trunk sewer purposes or take such other action as may be appropriate, provided, however, the Council or Commission shall not disconnect any connection by the City to the Facility for which a connection permit has previously been granted pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Prior to any such delay or limitation, the City shall be given a reasonable time which shall not be less than ninety (90) days after notice in writing of the claimed violation, to achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to remove or modify the liability of the City under Section 3 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 7.1, the City shall have the right to initiate such action or actions that the City shall deem appropriate requesting a judicial determination of whether a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement has occurred and if so, whether the delay or 1 6 1 . - . s limitation on the City's right to use the facility for trunk sewer purposes as imposed by the Council Commission or any other action taken by the Council il `:I l or Commission is appropriate and equitable under the circumstances. 7.2) Design of Facility - Upon any breach of this Agreement • ' II the Council and Commission may determine to design the Facility wi capacity for the City, renegotiate the level of cost sharing with the City, and /or take such other action as may be appropriate with respect to the design of the Facility. II 7.3) Fact Stipulations - To assist in the enforcement of Section 6 of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree and stipulate to the following II findings of fact: (01) The City has received from the Council an amendment to the Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide. The Guide II is a metropolitan systems plan within the meaning cf;dinn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 and Sec. 473.175. II (02) An amendment to the City's present comprehensive plan is necessary under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 to ensure conformity with metropolitan system plans. _ II (03) The City's present comprehensive plan with respect to the matters specified in Section 6.1(A) of this Agreement constitutes a substantial departure within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 from but not limited to, the allocated sewer capacity for II 7) the City listed in the Water Resources Management Development Guide and Policy Numbers 8 and 9 thereof. II (04) Any amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that does not ' comply with the provisions of Section 6 of this Agreement likewise constitutes a substantial departure from the Water II Resources Management Development Guide within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175. , II The parties hereto have entered this agreement in express reliance on the above- stated facts and the parties shall be estopped from denying or contesting the truth of said facts. It is expressly agreed that if the City fails to perform the tasks specified in Section 6 of this Agreement, the Council may obtain a II court order.under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 requiring the City to perform those actions specified in Section 6 of this Agreement. No action or Inaction by the City pursuant to any order, judgment or decree of any court, governmental or administrative agency shall constitute a violation on the part of the City of any provision of this Agreement, provided that if the City cannot meet its obligations pursuant to Section 3 because of such order, judgment, or decree, the Council and Commission shall have no obligation to provide trunk sewer II service to the City under this Agreement. 7.4) City's Remedies - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the II Council or Commission - violates any of the provisions of this agreement, the City may, in addition to any other remedy at law, seek specific performance of this Agreement. 1 7 I. . a 4 • IN WI S WH REOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on thel day of Q%t , 1986; - 7 A proved as to form METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1 Asti. avfUd B / ` - ' ! /Al__ Its: Chair- erson, and 1 _ By: Ak d . /� k.. fR-t rio. Its: Executive Director - METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL II COMMISSION • Ai/ / / //! pr�ved u 0 orm AIM. ; / ' , �s ;1r - BY: I,f/.[ / / iC `- - . %Li � i Mark D. Thompson Its: Cha T _ rpecaon and Lc'' Counsel, M.W.C.C./ By: t'> � �1r '��.rt , ei/ Its: Chief Admir <7 • r v' . �ts: Ma or and I/ — (0.2.1-56Z) Br: II Its: City Manager /Clerk • .II • 11 II II - 1.- 1 • III 8 1 . ., r 1 C li STATE OF MINNESOTA) . ) SS. - COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing Sewer Facility Agreement wa signed and sworr before me on 7 (o, 1 4I 6 by �itv,r,r.e - rfliv12GC.C> and Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen. dil '�'- , 1 Notary P bl c STATE OF MINNESOTA) _ NOTARY P • �N�T - --, CARVER COUNTY SS . My ceArrimlen worm 10.1641 COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) II The foregoin Sewer Facilij.)1 Agreement was signed and swogrn to beforq•N me on i 9 j /96G by /iv 6 ri 1.341.34 � +u0. and (.-OU 1S 7, (cc r.e 4� S' Chairperson and Chief Administrator, respectively, of the Metropolitan Waste • Control Commission. 4 Notary lic STATE OF MINNESOTA) , I ftf.f.) SS. ? my ,.cr.::1:::.cn exa:res t: i, i9 :7 COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The orego i ng Sewer Fac i l� i ty 'Agraemen ywasy i g e and : rn to before 2 me on /1, L/-e< /61, / by - /•f.I'7Y✓7/1 ,4- x .c f/ Ot an- . i�G�,p'!1 Chairperson and Executive Director, respectively, of Metropolitan Council 1 .. .a ils m /il4•. / �0 . Notary Public LOA20A II - NOTA &Y e �tzitfirre ��ca�roaec i ' . 1 'P11C M!�'ti'.i j iv> tIt P: Y COUNTY 3 1:sy commission Yixpetea Nov. 29.1986 - 1 II • r- 1 1 9 . • • • : .. . 1 1. .... , • • :•■• ..p..i .4.7•••••• • ' : 0...... o .... ..... ......... -... ■ ;. - •• ...■".••• 2 . f • /........" ..• 3 • : c..r.:: • 1 , I-N.:. . • ,„„t..,",...„ ....... ....-..... ;In • : •c- 0 II • 9 • . • • - t.„ • _..,•' -- .......; ••• •- • r -• •• • , • ,' • va-- ''. • .. . .. I i • ' ' 4,,•■•;..4. ! . _____ ,o• i' .• .7. .■.' . .. R. • • V. . VI ' . ....I ‘.9 1 a . . . . . . a.. . ... :. ...! ..... .. \ : t• .• .. , .. ................. i ..= . rr ..- tg • • ::.., 1 •• 11•■• . ... . . LI ... • •,...: • •••M• : . , _ ' V / %•i :/' In .... to . I' i.r. • , ,,.. ,........ • .t . • -.. .1, ''...• .....4 • 1'• , -. -7-. N. r :- t •-• .•-• ?....•:, . . _...4.4.77. ... a ,...; • i • i •Ste7; x ... a.: 7.•'•••........•••• • '' . st••••• a Z.1 / IP • 1 •• - . • ' / 1 ...- . ..:••••1 rr e . . - / ...4 . ..„, ......,.• •••..".. .."‘. N■ 1......5„,, - -•-• .0.„, • I . ..... , 1 I . • .. 1 ‘‘.,/■...... ' roc ''... .. ...,.... 't •I. • .... . . .. • i . ! C i ??; ... • to • •• • i • • lt, ■• ow ••••or ..... ...7........,..„....__. t _:;. . ... ........ c...: 4...._.. _ :s :.--e7c, • . , i .--"'"' • . , 2 - '.: ..... ....-...••••••; ' , : .., ...,2 *..---..... , s 1 .4.4 • t ; i ILI / •• •••■• ..0 .n. - .. • .; t . ••... ..,.... i i LI: . . ...• .1• ? / '`..e! r! ' 1........"•••=s. . s 40 i • . • • ‘ t S I■ti •• ,., .17 . P 1 aftaw...••••••■ ., 4t .1 I ,.. • ‘• t ''. 1 .' 1 ".•■■• r ••• g • 1..• 1 e i \ ' ard••••• . ••••• •••••••.„ . .- 0 •••• ,, I. mi.... • A •• X t • • - • ...••• ' •• • 7" ‘..,... rt:fts,".. t . . • ••:-. • ,. 0 _ ' . " -...•••• • . ....." • s :••■•s"...• . t • . I • : - s• •ita. .. i - 9.. Lt."... ;.... .... ,__.r. • • •L.:•••• ............. - ..••■•■..1. +7'i 4 iron .. 9 - ..,.. ..' • • • f , •• ii Um. tn.. •`' 4 . - ••••• .. • -•;'. •••• .....T..•• • •a•' • 7 •••• ., •7 1• ••••• 1: 7•7 . .77' . •••••:., on 1.1).4 • • ••• .... . . 1 ■ ..".....: ••• 7.7 •9■■•■•■• • t •• •■,.... •Ir • ••••••••••■• =.......: 4 1 ••••••• ••• .• • ...,, . • q / i' t •• : „.• . 4••■ . t . ,,,‘, .., t . ...• i. • • ...••■• i - I " .,S1, • OP •.• .• 4.• '"•• •••• 4. Z~ . • 49.4 .••••• ••:4 • • ••••• 7.,4 ..;;;•. - ... . ,, ••• • , . s....•■ • • ......:r - ••••...... c „. < 1 . s ' ......• --..., ,....z.... - - .. . 4 r.... ! !.., -7.. . . • ur, 1 :. . ....• . . .. .0c•' "••■■.; - • 7 q;.. ... .. NN V.t ' . . . ; = it . . fl• 4 ... 5 4.:••• .1. •:::■.r."••••••• ! . ......„ =Jam... . : 'moo I C i ,, ___ a= . t ••• '•: • ' , • i ..1 • m • ' • . ' ... ....■•••.....a......,:".: ...• . , ! ....... %M i / " b • ••■■•. '‘ 0 ../.• ... •.: • i . , • o• . •••.• ......., . , , , . ., - V:5 IC I n - : L...........--:-.., 7 .c (....) , ...,„..„....,.... • .. ..... 4 _. . • .,...., ....... - I ----, ... 14- , (..... . . .. . ,:•; : --___;,.. • r -• ...... . 1..• on i i ; ! _ .i...1.-• • N 1 1-2 = ; t . I . • -7"••• : . It... - :•"' ■••••••••• • 4 .144 . . ••• 4. j v. Z ...VIP • . P ••• \ ., ..0 ...."=•11( - • J . • . v, .. • .4r,,,. ,,,,-;:-..; • . . , . . M. . . . • .... r ••••••• • , ) • • 4 c' . 0 Om 11. • .N • -. • ••• . . „,, 51 N. sf : I 1-.1:: • "4.■•: : •••••■.•••••• ...... .. • . .." . : a. ...m '••T 1 ..., ... tr., •41. IA .., ■••• .......+ ...,.2! . .... uj ... ./. - ;„., i i • ;.. .... . - i =.,............„. : • ''''''. ..0 t• "r ...P. \ ......": ..:: 2 17 ...;•• ' : L.. ........... - „....., --....: .:.t. , - =-; :, .7:, •••:.• - . L. ...." • ••• `. Irr. \111.• .,.......■ • , • •••/ i ; % • r : I ... „.. 1 .7......., ...... • . ... .. -...-. .z . ....„." ■•••• :.,..._ . .16. = ,•' \ t 4 .. a : i !Ci;"7:"'. IMil • •••••■ / •',. „,■••.,„, : •" ...... '.'"'""..• ••■■•••••••••••■•__ ,••••••••/: di .0 .1:: • 2.....- . r7. - • • . • - • ..z • : : ••-,•■•• ••' . - I . ■• e' • 'N%L . A --.;.. ; ....... s ,.....*-11. ....r • t.i.. .! ....., ..•■•••• -.T. e••••.- .. ..• • • = - ; 0 r!.• c."FC- . ;■•••••.1 ••■ .,, I . „ .m... .. .. do.. ••• - __, • - .-•••••!••••••:„•%:•.,•!•••• •• : ...• f % i ...,%•• - ' \ :I • •••• 1•• . > !..7"•;% ., a - ---- - - - - .- - - .4,44 .,....-:=-:--..„--..........,--..,-- -----,--,--......-:-.: -;:-..- :,..., ..... AMIN ii. .....,.■ ......., ;..;,..?:......./.. .. ,......7........... ‘ . .. ' .. • •••••. l a :**• 1 \ •... \..... ... :2 ,--__ Z I ...,.. I - ' i I. ........,......"~.. ... "T .... ... ...mg .g; /km. . • .: ‘.......... 4 .:.: il i ;,. 'I:1,, .... Ns ........ V! 1............... ' ,. ,,,, ! ),4 ••• .4,. ''..,.. t •••• ,...:.; .. 4.4.... ' 7 • . . C ::: 4" • ..„".• ...* ....:7 ...", . . •-... a: I i• • 4. r _ :. • - i . ... • t •• "' .... :4%. .... Ics.• _ .:••.:. : .:./ •:-..;* .„... • ...... ..i ••••••.= .. 4 r....a. . ,...... • I ./;/••■•■ L., e 1 • •G ■ 1 I 4 ... . . • . .,... I c • .Pr...f -i .... ..;^. . .. ''' •-• • • .... ......„‘„ , A , 1 . -...... - : .." .7.••••..... ''''t -- ( ' . ::s. - ' i " !.. . V 'I ! ••• . • , < i . • .. .,...,-;- ........_ „__.... • PJ. r• / ?..-"? fat ' ..1-\ r• ; C. • ?? I ta •■• • i i •,•, • • ...." I . 4 .....--...., t - -- •Li. 1 Si I \`.. •• .. • ... "...,......... • I ... ;,,,,;1„..: •.,,,, ....I • • 1 . c.,•• • ) :21 'r 4 •'•• •%.' ...■ ••••••••'"- : :. ....: ."=„.......;;c••• a 1 • a ; Li ... ,,,,..,‘,-....- :,,. . , _ -: • 7 i 7 ='' .. ..) I •••. ••••••"'"" '. ..7= . i .......,;,..„ ..... y : r .e v .... ,., . • ,_ ... • _ .... •..L.., • . ,• ,,,••, , ( .. v. • =i . .:.:.i LI ..--z-•••.i..,---... .tt 1... . , :., ,... - I -!.............: -.1.-_.,:„.,_:.., • 2 1.--'. • ..-a.r. ; to• ‘ ../ . ..,'" ..• I\ .••• -, • _ - C.7 --••••••...... .. -4, r '; i " I - i i %. = i .....• - : •-- ' • ' .-• : t ..... ,.., .... 'NI . t 'ff, • i e 4,0 . 1.... .........:.. ..... 1 ... 1 \ roo-p, r .; i .... i es t ..c + .... . . . sr..... 1 - Mo l / . c ..... 2 • 1 • ,-------, , ....--- ,,,, • , , . • i 2 .;-; • • ......A.- I - . , . • :.-. r . • . • • r. . I s •• . , F• i - f ‘...1.1. • . • 1 . - • . •"..,.::: ic - -:. • .7.s.r... , r ila i*...\ - 4 7' • se 7 . . „ . s 1 • • ,...• \ • 1 'NG • • ..„,.... -••• ft .0. 4 ••f..0 : • ••0 . . . t i • 'k •' . . • 14: “ • , < I •■•••■ ■,....", •- , _IL...., '-•-• ....-- ..... I ....., 1 , ..... - . -••• ..., ..\„.„,.. ....... ?••• ••••■................... 1 :1'77- I • ‹... It; ,•,c ,-,.. .• i i - :- ....• - . • • „ , , r'"..;.. : - : / UNI • , . . •\... , . . .1 1 ...., •.,....... • ......__„ 1 : ./ .7:. . "•••■• . r...7 •• ;••• '7. ., ..04 (110 7 1 .. - . ..•••■•••• •• If l• f = I r_ .., • . ''......... . 1 • ....LX.a 3 ---- ut ,., . , .1' • • • • . ., . . . . . - . , : OM • • . •••16 e • I .% 1 .! Z .; I . I ••• ..... I ri< / • ': ••• f • • ..• .. .. • ............ .• a. - M . . .,... . . C • Z". . . .• . = 4 ■••••?..... • 1 i i • 1 Sal •• 11111. a , •r !" '''....." 7 r LP a Li • I • , . ... s..2 1 - . .........) ; % - • -. . • ean • pp •.,••• 4 0,444 i , C•15 1 .11 .. < . ‘ e • . _V 1...•••••■••■••■••■■••..r." • • . MIMI I 0. ,,.. • . s I s e 4. -.` • . • ! ...- if= - i . . • ' • ..,-.. e I . . • 4 7 . , /- L • 1 . ,•• • • . ...••■•. 4.. P. • . .., • . . .... • , ems ...tau . , . .. ......._ . _. ! . _3' % ......:er . ., i ir! . 2 4 s i .......11....... . .• ... 1 s 4- • • • v g • N • .... t • t . ...4 - i 2 • • .. ile. • ., i . ..... 1 ■••■• • • .40 ••••■. :..r.................t. i 1 .0 t : • .• C ; .1b •■• .0. • ..■ > . • e- - .; < , . • _ .. . / • - • - & li..... re : 1 . - - t •Cf I .- , in . :: ''' ,..71 ' I '' • .) ,.,,, „, '" . • ., 1 . a■www. i ... . ..... 7"........., 1 . ". .1 .... ..' a i e ...... - . • ism • . I . ..m." . ■ . .t, • I f . ••••S• - , • ;■ ?•••• ' • e- - • , ! "........................■.....................L.....................r/ •• • - \\):\\.../ • 4 4! • • Q V 1 • „ ....... .....-..... 1 ..-......... • i J . 41••■ 1 t •• , I . • „.....■••■•••••: • • s. r •• / ••••4 eV . • • :c , 4 • • it. fan .°, . 7'. • l 4 I• roc? I • N. / • :: . ' , ....... t t• . te.....,.........r,: `qr./ . ll 1 t j• • • • 1 41 • •• ,. • - . „A. ..... 7 s i • • • • ...• S : \N4\72• 4: ' .. r .: ...../. „••••• • 111 • I EXHIBIT 8 II DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE $482,000 20 years 9% $52,801.40 II Principle Interest • 1. 0.00 $ 43,380.00 $ 43,380.00 II 2. $ 9,421.40 43,380.00 52,801.40 3. 10,269.33 42,532.07 52,801.40 4. 11,193.57 41,607.83 52,801.40 5. 12,200.99 40,600.41 52,801.40 I 6. 13,299.08 39,502.32 52,801.40 7. 14,495.99 38,305.41 52,801.40 8. 15,800.63 37,000.77 52,801.40 II 9. 17,222.69 35,578.71 52,801.40 10. 18,772.73 34,028.67 52,801.40 11. 20,462.28 32,339.12 52,801.40 II 12. 22,303.88 30,497.52 52,801.40 13. 24,311.23 28,490.17 52,801.40 14. 26,499.24 26,302.16 52,801.40 15. 28,884.17 23,917.23 52,801.40 II 16. 31,483.75 21,317.65 52,801.40 17. 34,3 17.29 18,484.11 52,801.40 18. 37,405.84 15,395.56 52,801.40 II 19. 40,772.37 12,029.03 52,801.40 20. 44,441.88 8,359.52 52,801.40 21. 48.441.66 4. 52.801.40 $482,000.00 $617,408.00 S1,099,408.00 II y t i. (deal II f II 1 1 . II • II LOA22 4 -CHLGL1 1 - f'-+ , _:1 , i s1 4 , ` - y a . 4 r . i:_` t s ` Yn 3, -, r "; - -s'- v sa % ; Z i'.'. w � ' .3 _ - � t '� "'` x ,. v, . `k.: ., .r S rty�r�s� '. ta. _. .! 1 ,•. i � t A ,* Yiva tom*.. ',E ` 1 �1' %, -:,'; - _ + r: `'� il!- a � o- y v� r tL r 4t ;L nor t � ` ski. '. u , -,,I , _ :,.. i ;.- + r • .j `t'E. ; 7 =R ) - : . a r 1 �. i � , yam r g , .'. - '- 3t f y' - ., e4. t w [• ;'t { C 4 a ..�� ,0 ;4 a .;;t ' 4. uph s Win 4 7, tai — ! _ } 3 ,,r ,iF "v' '1, " ' 3` 1 y 3 it, �, L4 cS .' f%A` -1s - 7 4 'x.. �y # c A "Y .r , ; 14 . .'-.. � ..,. 'r 2 'T' ,� ,`j¢. _� • ^ t Y t +A g r : at I ", � * ' T .` E v - 1 i :.q•e . - "` +` 'o' t i- g _ - ' - (: 1 ". -, + "*.. -. T ' F'.�" -1_ S - ,_,P tYr Lt ""• 4s,. '� • ' `={: 43 ` e . *? ' ' ' ` - -' t - 7 . - 4 Q O d -.E. w REVISED li PLANNING FOR ON -SITE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE RURAL AREA ,,,, , ,, The Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 requires every local The government in the Seven - County Metropolitan Area to prepare a comprehensive plan that includes a sewer policy plan. II The sewer policy plan must establish standards and conditions under which the installation of private and public sewer systems will be permitted, and identify areas that are not suitable for II on -site sewage disposal systems. This planning brief explains what'wxa.E communities with on -site 1 sewage systems have to include in their sewer policy plans. It also tells how rural communities with areas identified as having pollution problems resulting from on -site system failures can II go about correcting those problems. In particular, this planning brief: 1. Reviews policies related to on -site systems that are II contained in the Metropolitan Council's 208 Areawide Plan /Development Guide for Water Quality Management. 1 2. Reviews on -site system guidelines contained in Procedure 10 of the Council's water quality plan. These guidelines must be followed by local governments in preparing their sewer plans. 3. Discusses the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's 201 I Alternative Waste Management Study of rural areas,which • identified on -site pollution problems. 4. Outlines the 201 grant process by which those rural II communities identified as having pollution problems can obtain funds to evaluate, design and construct alternative waste treatment systems. 1 • 5. Discusses other funds available to construct municipal collection systems. 1 In preparing their sewer plans, rural communities must also adopt the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's regulation II WPC -40, which governs the design and installation of on -site systems. 1 II II I ` The 201 grants process and planning under the Metropolitan g P Land Planning Act are to run concurrently. That is, a rural 1 community may be involved in the 201 grant process to correct its pollution problems, but it is still responsible for preparing a sewer plan along with the rest of its local comprehensive plan. . ON -SITE POLICIES Rural communities should refer to Policy 44B of the Council's water quality plan in preparing their, sewer plans. Policy 44B contains four provisions regarding the use and overall admini- stration of local on -site sewage systems. They are: 44B 1. COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL PORTIONS OF COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AND BE PROTECTED THROUGH THEIR COMPRE- HENSIVE PLANS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER 40 ACRES BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FOR THAT PORTION OF A CITY OR TOWNSHIP WHERE THESE TWO CONDITIONS PREVAIL, WPC -40 SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND FOLLOWED BUT IT WILL NOT BE NECESSARY TO INCLUDE POST - INSTALLATION INSPECTION OR MAINTENANCE IN THE ON -SITE PROGRAMS. C 2. GENERAL RURAL USE PORTIONS OF COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AND PROTECTED THROUGH THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRES BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN FOR GENERAL RURAL USE LANDS. FOR THAT PORTION OF A CITY OR TOWNSHIP WHERE THESE TWO CONDITIONS PREVAIL, WPC -40 SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND FOLLOWED BUT IT WILL NOT BE NECESSARY TO INCLUDE POST - INSTALLATION INSPECTION II • OR MAINTENANCE IN THE ON -SITE PROGRAMS. 3. IN ANY CITY OR TOWNSHIP WITH LANDS WHERE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR CORCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND IS BETWEEN • ONE UNIT PER 5 ACRES AND ONE UNIT PER 40 ACRES AND ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR GENERAL RURAL USE LAND IS BETWEEN ONE UNIT PER 5 ACRES AND ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRES, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL BE EXPECTED TO ADDRESS EACH OF THE ON -SITE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES. IF THE CITY OR TOWNSHIP BELIEVES THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT ONE OR MORE OF THE GUIDELINES, THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTAN- TIATION THAT NONIMPLEMENTATION WILL NOT AVERSELY IMPACT PUBLIC HEALTH, GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND /OR METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS. ' 4. ANY CITY OR TOWNSHIP THAT ALLOWS ON -SITE SYSTEMS TO BE USED IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT EXCEED ONE UNIT PER 5 ACRES WILL BE EXPECTED TO INCLUDE ALL ELEMENTS OF THE 1 ( ON -SITE SYSTEM GUIDELINES IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (SEWER POLICY ELEMENT). 2 • PROCEDURE 10 REQUIREMENTS The Council's water quality plan also states that local sewer plans should contain ordinances and administrative and enforce- ment procedures that would adequately ensure trouble -free on -site sewage disposal in rural communities. 1 To accomplish this, the water quality plan directs local governments to follow requirements listed in Section e of Procedure 10- -Local Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. The requirements are: 1. On -site system plans and ordinances shall contain appropriate design; composition, construction, location, siting and use requirements relating to all standard and /or alternative systems that may be installed. 1.1 Alternative Systems. On -site system ordinances that permit the use of alternative systems shall contain specific standards applicable to such permitted I/ alternative systems. 1.2 On -site system plans and ordinances should generally prohibit the installation of standard on -site systems in: a) Areas where problems are likely to occur because of soil constraints or other geologic or hydrologic characteristics; b) Low swampy areas or areas subject to recurrent ' flooding; c) Areas where the highest known groundwater table, bedrock or impervious soil conditions are within three feet of the bottom of a system. 2. On -site system ordinances shall contain application and , review procedures and requirements for the issuance of on -site system permits. Such requirements should provide for the receipt of a permit to install an on -site system prior to, or in conjunction with, the issuance of a building permit. Application and installation require- ments should provide for the transmission of adequate system and site information and a review procedure to ensure compliance with the ordinance. 2.1 Ordinances shall require that applications contain a description of the site's characteristics, including a soils and subsurface evaluation based on borings, percolation tests, and a description of the proposed system. 3 • 1 2.2 Subdivision (or other) ordinances should provide for the approval of preliminary plats only following a deter- mination that the soils in the platted area are generally suitable for the installation of on -site systems consistent with the on -site system ordinance requirements. 2.3 Separate site testing should be performed in connection with all on -site system applications. On -site system ordinances should contain installation, inspection and acceptance procedures that require that all new installa- tions, modifications or repairs be inspected and approved prior to covering the system. Final system approval should be given only where a system has been installed consistent with the ordinance requirements and any specific conditions contained in the installation permit. 3. Local units of government should adopt on -site system ordinances and controls that contain inspection and maintenance requirements where necessary and consistent with Policy 44, and should help to ensure that system owners receive appropriate education and technical assistance with system operation and maintenance. 3.1 Inspection. On -site systems should be inspected on a regular basis, where necessary and consistent with Policy 44. I Inspection should check the sludge and scum accumulation C in a septic tank or appropriate equivalent, if any, in an alternative system. Inspection should occur no less than ,_1 biannually. 3.2 Maintenance. Where necessary and consistent with Policy 44 and procedure 3.1, local governments should require maintenance of a septic tank when inspection reveals that sludge reaches a point 12 inches below the bottom of the outlet baffle and /or the scum reaches a point 3 inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle. Maintenance requirements for alternative systems should be established in the ordinance or at the time of installation permit approval. 4. Recordkeeping. All local programs should rovide for recordkeeping relating to the design and location of new and /or renovated on -site systems. System owners or their agents should be required to submit a final description of the system as installed to the local government. The description should include such information as: site address; location and layout of system on the site; type, size and design of system installed; type of building served; and results of the site suitability analysis (percolation test and /or soil borings). 5. Remedial Action. Programs should include measures to I identify the location of systems creating nuisances and /or endangering public health and /or endangering the safety of 4 1 1 any domestic water supply, and /or polluting or contaminating Z- any water of the state. 5.1 The local on -site system ordinance should include provisions for correcting, replacing or terminating the use of any system identified in 5 above. 5.2 Ordinances should require that existing systems comply with 1 the new on -site system standards in situations where work other than maintenance is being proposed for an existing system. 6. Authorized Metropolitan Area counties and /or local units of government should collectively and cooperatively establish programs and standards for licensing system installers, pumpers, haulers,site evaluators and maintainers operating within their jurisdiction. Licenses shall be issued only to those who meet training and knowledge requirements as evidenced by the satisfactory completion of a certification program. 6.1 Consistent with Policy' 44, programs and controls should establish appropriate requirements and measures applicable to installers, pumpers and haulers which ensure satisfactory performance, liability coverage and compliance with local ordinances. 6.2 Consistent with Policy 44, work records should be obtained on a regular basis by each local unit of government from licensed pumpers, haulers and maintenance operators regarding their activities in the local jurisdiction as a condition of licensing. 1 7. Local on -site systems management and control programs shall be adequately staffed and funded. Administrative powers, responsibilities and rights shall be specified in local 1 ordinances. 7.1 Administrative powers which should be specified in ordinances 1 include those relating to: performance of investigatory review, site inspection, permit analysis, inspection, and the issuance of orders relating to enforcement activities. 1 The table on page 6 indicates the on -site system guidelines local governments should use in preparing their sewer plans. 201 STUDY The Council's water quality plan directs the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) to examine rural housing clusters using on -site systems to determine if pollution problems exist, and to recommend alternative ways of managing those problems. In addition, the plan directs each municipality with housing 5 r 1 - M ^ - M I NM M NM no = I I En EN NE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ON -SITE SYSTEMS 1 and 2* 3 4 4.1 5 6 6.1 6.2 7 • Class of Use Installation Inspection Permit Data Correct Existin Ordinance Work and Density Requirements Requirements Information Collection Problems License Compliance Records Personnel Corns. Agriculture X X X X X 1/40 Comm. Agriculture X 0 X 0 X X 1/40 - 1/5 0 0 X General Rural X X X X 1 /10 - X General Rural X 0 X 0 X X 1 /10 - 1/5 0 0 X Other 1/5 or greater X X X X X X X X X * ■ Guideline numbers X s Must be addressed in sewer policy plane Blank - Does not need to be addressed in sewer policy plans 0 ■ Sewer policy plan should substantiate that guideline is not necessary to protect public health, groundwater • quality and /or metro systems Source: 208 Areawide Plan /Development Guide on Water Quality Management 1 clusters having pollution problems to address those problems in its sewer plan, and to specify in detail how its regulatory IF systems for on -site sewage disposal will be implemented and enforced. During the 201 Alternative Waste Management Study, the MWCC 1 attempted to identify the location and severity of on -site pollution problems by contacting rural municipalities, the Soil Conservation Service, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the State Health Department and other pertinent sources. In July, the MWCC notified rural municipalities of those residential areas identified as having pollution problems. The MWCC also recommended to those municipalities a number of alternatives for handling the problems, and cost ranges of each alternative. (See map for municipalities identified in 201 study.) The results of the 201 study were sent concurrently to the m which placed the areas of communities with o list of municipal pollution problems on a p projects that are eligible for state and federal funding. The,MPCA and the MWCC can add to that list if and when pollution problems become evident in other areas. Communities on the municipal projects list be notified by 1 the MPCA when they may proceed through the 201 grant process to correct their pollution problems. 201 GRANT PROCESS !! There are three steps in the 201 grant process. Step I In Step I, a rural community should apply to the MPCA for funds to 1 conduct a detailed evaluation and financial analysis of each alternative recommended by the MWCC. Step 1 201 funding is provided 75 percent from the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA), 15 percent from the MPCA, and 10 percent from the rural community. Upon receiving Step Z funding, a community hould evaluate then select one or more of the alternative systems recommended by the MWCC. A municipality may also choose to evaluate alterna- tives that were not recommended by the MWCC. Those alternatives must be similarly studied, and must be demonstrated to be cost effective and environmentally sound. • Once a rural community has chosen an alternative solution, and the MPCA has determined that the alternative is appropriate, the community should proceed to Step II of the 201 grant process. Step II In Step II, a rural community should apply for funds for the design and specifications of the alternative system selected in Step I. 1 7 1 1 • r 11T.naren 1 ( °li ism •f�T 1 3 1 0 .0 a ,�[ 3111 I " - pll im i � ��rxc>se�3 r�� v { Cf h.� ( 1 141131 I lur 11 E� cew 11.15. LINO IA c I i •IAIrL 1 I MNI.O .. I1.3210030.1 11CL[ 1544! W ASM I � t gftOfa/ 1* OY D7 3wOHYlt■ / t • f • � YIl• 27 �f '` /OPTS 410111 NEII►lE I1� r• &4r u OAKS • «ITR P �� f 00[1. TN ir...N:41 /// 10/116510/ - // a i c sT C ls fHwl 2 C - . •.Alt ■1.w is wlllsl II 1 '; wont t 0 m__ - - ,p) J• urlu so' e ►I � ,�G HR Ill 1103(.11.1.[ rA►l[rooO I OAiO W f 1[I Ori LA[ 1181&45 `{� •aT LIT C I % //M RAMST CO. ��� 11"3 . ?�'� ' •IR"L10r11 tT LOY } 1 waT[ ■TO ! "!" �� :� / /- Wr*/Yle g ■ iIi- 1050 o I � wrfluroLI• M 9 I11pL" qrf 11 OM ACP7 // �• 1 � f7 1�I� .' '��� �1• fT "r �I �I .I (� 1 t lu/ 1 • 5/16NTf YR,ItI •y1AYl CA «C1N 11 111 i t i 1 L I �� I I' [0 511 T I 7 A L 5 . � ICV(! yp� I� I INYO OPOY1 j ' ii I 4M/ 4416"13 comae awes � ,- 20 1 1] a%' t 1 f (. DAKOTA CO. 7y •ij OaaGR EN mamma I (1 I .fi, ' - �, , :' - III I YOUNG arCRICA } 11111 0 .ILI[ ,2‘ �/ YRl t/.&4 ULM ■O7LrOYNT NI «INGE" L " � — _ __ rill' � 5a1T1R6t l� I __ j SAN FRANCISCO 408 r 1 .COC[: . } r .(R«ILLON I SANO CREEK &4N.ILLt 1— I ^ ( IRAYENNA 1 [«N11E } I , I MARS... I SCO I.111111$1.011 I .[15.111011 I ' I ST LL I*, u" I I I 1 I I OEIIE PL.'S" i ili i it I Nab►TO" ff••��J t N/ rafR[T tY RtMA i GlTI[ ROCK I .µ� 1 t• I «a«no5 ooucus IfiflJ�ffJ� _ I I 1 1 !(1 I/ "1165 ! . . 20 y I I O /ttw.yt I waT(RF01 1 10 E ��i_ lOrs- ���� �_ 11111111 OR COMMUNITIES WITH ON-TE SYSTEMS THAT HAVE FAILED ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE NEAR FUTURE 1 1515.1 5851 11 .00.0 211 FILO.. 1111•IIT1 22 sty LA[[ • 2 10 Po441RsSAl[ U ■3.0111 ri PuCKu000 111 C 3 •1«[tTORRa WC. J1 SPRING LA[[ 111[ 11 1.0. 22 '•.IT( OI** KA — County 8ounoary • 10/19 MAT 12 Y. 7. *055. 12 Nh 05517 11. YO .^■ S PO■ 1 13CLL7102 U 15P 35 •11.&4!"3[ Municipal Boundary O 6tt[R•o0O 56 CO►11Otl *CUM 22 OLLI 70 Oat Pisa glirn 7 IS 11. 2! n■l f►fl■■/ 71 IARtL1■011110033 leALL -- Township Boundary • 1951C1■1 LAt[ 14 I81144!00&4 24 58«1055[05 2t 3T. safari POINT . 1 . -...• 3 1 1 Step II funding is provided in the following manner: If 1. If a conventional waste management system is proposed, Y P P 75 percent funding is available from the EPA and 15 percent from the MPCA. Ten percent must be paid by the rural community. 2. If an alternative and /or innovative system is proposed, 85 percent funding is available from the EPA,and nine percent from the MPCA. Six percent must be funded by the rural community. When Step II is completed, a community should proceed to Step III. • Step III In Step III, a community should apply for funds for t Pp y or the construc- tion of the proposed waste treatment facility. Step III funding is provided in the following manner: 1. If a conventional waste management system is proposed, 75 percent funding is available from the EPA and 15 percent from the MPCA. Ten percent must be paid by the rural community. 2. If an alternative and /or innovative system is proposed, 85 !! percent funding is available from the EPA, and nine percent from the MPCA. Six percent must be funded by the rural ' community. When construction is completed, the facility will be owned and operated by the rural community. It will not be considered part of the metropolitan waste management system. OTHER FUNDS AVAILABLE 1 The 201 grants are available to fund the evaluation, design and specifications, and construction of waate ticeatnnent ayatens. The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) also has funds available for t communities that need to build conventional local municipal collection systems in addition to waste treatment facilities. The FmHA provides grants and long -term low interest (five percent) loans. Eligible municipalities may receive loans for up to 100 percent of the construction costs of a collection system, or grants for up to 50 percent of the costs. A grant and a loan could be combined to cover the total construction costs. Eligibility for the FmHA grants or loans will be determined by the income level of a city's population, the indebtedness of a city, and the cost of a proposed local municipal collection system. 1 9 1 11 C A community using FmHA funds to construct a local collection system would then be responsible for funding its alternative waste treatment facility with local dollars. 1 FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information regarding the 201 grant process of FmHA grants and loans, contact: Gordon Wegwert, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 296 -7309 ' John Harrington, Metropolitan Council, 291 -6324 John Tomaselli, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 222 -8423 Dick Reinhardt, Farmers Home Administration, 725 -5842 1 1 1 I( 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 L Revised November 1979 Publication No. 07 -79 -069 10 r WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MN W/12/81 11111 ir • 1 Council policy is not to provide metropolitan built at local rather than metropolitan 1 services in the Rural Service Area and to require . expense." - Iocal units of government to solve their own local pollution problems. To do so in the case of This position is supported by the general Develop-' private commercial and residential treatment ment Framework policy that metropolitan urban facilities, local units of government must assume services, including sewers, will not be provided some responsibility in the regulatory system, just to the Rural Service Area. as the local government is responsible for I approving land uses and issuing building permits In addition, the 1975 Waste Management Policy for those developments requiring sewer services. Plan contained policies providing fora management The decision on land use should be directly related and control program for on -site systems. The to responsibility for potential water pollution on -site policies contained in the Waste Management I problems within the local government's jurisdiction. Policy Plan describe generally the necessary elements of an effective local ordinancing program. In 1980 the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Further, in a set of procedures adopted with the Waste Control Commission and Minnesota 1975 Waste Management Policy Plan, the Pollution Control Agency reached agreement on a Metropolitan Council established guidelines for process for reviewing proposed NPDES permits the content of local comprehensive sewer policy and SDS permit programs. plans, including provisions dealing with on -site sewer systems. Policies _ The 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act 37. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency establishes a system of coordinated land planning should issue National Pollution Discharge involving the Metropolitan Council and local units Elimination System permits and /or State of government within the Seven - County Region. Disposal System permits only for facilities By virtue of this statute, the Metropolitan Council serving development consistent with a local plays a major role in overseeing how land use I land use plan approved by the Metropolitan planning affects construction of on -site systems Council and /or a comprehensive sewer plan in the Metropolitan Area. approved by the Metropolitan Waste Control I Commission. The 1980 agreement on the Furthermore, under Section 208 of the federal review process involving the three agencies Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92 -500), should be implemented and monitored for the Metropolitan Council must adopt and ensure effectiveness. implementation of a 20 year staged water quality management plan. Federal water quality management guidelines require that an effective ON -SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS management structure be established to implement Section 208 planning activities. All aspects of I The Metropolitan Council's interest in he proper implementation are to be addressed, including functioning of on -site waste treatment facilities is engineering, construction, operation and closely linked to the issue of the premature maintenance, monitoring, enforcement and extension of metropolitan sewer service should financing. I on -site systems fail. On this matter, the Council has established the following guidelines in support Finally, the Council is concerned about the proper of the Rural Service Area policies: functioning of on -site systems from the perspective I of potential metropolitan significance. Rules and The Council will support the adoption and Regulations for the Review of Matters Alleged to enforcement of state and local health and Be of Metropolitan Significance (effective January safety regulations for on -site disposal systems 16, 1978) states as one standard for determining for nonfarm development in the Metropolitan metropolitan significance the "construction of any Area. Pollution problems which result from failure to enforce adequate health and safety *Development Framework Guide chapter standards will be solved by local facilities (DF/2/78). p. 49B. 1 20 I WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT WI 1 ( W/12/81 till 1 I public sewer facility in conflict with an approved regional mechanisms are not oriented toward local comprehensive sewer plan or a metropolitan enforcement or implementation, but rather sewer plan." A widespread, unanticipated failure of toward review and comment on local actions I on -site systems could necessitate the construction and providing assistance. of a public facility meeting that standard. — Most management and control activity has been On -site systems have been widely used in the and continues to be performed by local govern - Metropolitan Area. A substantial proportion of mental units and individual system owners. recent residential construction has occurred in the Rural Service Area. It is estimated that over — Existing local management and control programs 60,000 units are in use in the Metropolitan Area are extremely varied in scope, degree of involve- I at present, and data indicates that about 12 percent ment and content. Questions exist about the of all new homes built in the Metropolitan Area adequacy of local administrative capabilities, from 1970 through 1979 rely on on -site systems local ordinance provisions and financial resources 1 for waste disposal. The percentage has declined necessary to carry out a management and since the mid- 1970s. control program in a cost - effective fashion. Despite the widespread use of on -site systems in — Management and control of on -site systems are, I the Metropolitan Area, relatively few studies have to a degree, oriented toward dealing with crisis investigated the impacts of on site systems in this or problem situations, with attention given such ii C Region. General information is available on systems primarily when problems occur. technical engineering and design of such systems, suitable soil and hydrological conditions for on -site — Although federal, state and regional involvement I systems, how and why systems fail, and the long- is increasing in management and control and short -term effects of system failure on water programs (as evidenced by WPC 40 and Section quality. This information is beginning to be used in 208 of the Clean Water Act amendments), there I the Metropolitan Area in a systematic manner. is still uncertainty about what specific responsi- Additional analysis, planning and program bilities the various levels of government should development should relate this general information have. There also is a need to establish adequate I to the specific conditions in the Metropolitan — enforcement standards for this Region. Area, to the incidence and pattern of on -site system use, and to the adequacy of local on -site The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the Metro - system management and control programs. politan Significance regulations, and Section 208 I of the Clean Water Act amendments are a help - In the past, local units have typically allowed and ful basis to define an adequate on -site system supervised the installation of on -site systems with management and control program for local little, if any, guidance. Frequently, an informal governmental units. The Land Planning Act also I review and approval of installation occurs as establishes mechanisms for local- metropolitan part of the building permit issuance process. Local coordination. supervision, in part, has been based on the model I local code for on -site systems first published by — The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the State Department of Health in 1960. (MPCA) is the lead state agency in dealing with on -site systems. The Minnesota Department of More recent studies and reports confirm the Health also has authority for on -site systems I following findings: as they affect drinking water quality. The MPCA has adopted the first statewide regulations for — Nearly every level of government involved has on -site systems. This represents a significant legal ability to implement a more comprehensive step forward in establishing technical and design L• management and control program than exists standards for such systems and in coordinating now. state agency efforts involving the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the state building — For a variety of reasons (primarily because of code, the Department of Health, etc., in I the traditional local role of exercising police the Region. The regulations, however, directly power over on -site systems), existing state and Control only larger -scale on -site facilities or 21 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 1 W/12/81 likill 1 limited geographic areas, such as shorelines, Policies 1 leaving the regulation of most on - site systems up to the local governmental units. 38. The on -site system management and control analysis, • program for the Metropolitan Area should be ' Following extensive study and anal y the MPCA designed to protect and promote water adopted a regulation governing a sizable share of all quality and protect and promote the health, on - site systems. This regulation, WPC 40 (6 MCAR safety, and welfare of all Metropolitan Area 48040), became effective on August 21, 1978. It residents. 1 applies only to large -scale systems and state facility installations. The provisions will be used by the 39. The on - site system management and control DNR in determining the adequacy of local program for the Metropolitan Area should be ordinances and programs for shorelands and cost - effective, simple, understandable 1 floodplains. Nevertheless, most on -site system and sufficiently uniform to ensure simple and installations are still not regulated by the State of consistent administration throughout the Minnesota. However, the MPCA and others Metropolitan Area. recommend that WPC 40 be used as a model for a 1 local program of on - site system. management and 40. The on -site system management and control control. program for the Metropolitan Area should a promote public and private activities designed 1 WPC 40 provides an excellent solution to a large to provide for the appropriate utilization of part of the management and control program needs such systems, minimize the risk of problems involving on -site systems throughout the state. resulting from the use of such systems, and WPC 40 establishes technical and design require- correct existing on -site system - related Problems. ments for new on -site systems, both standard and alternative types, and their installation. Phases of a Local On -site Management Program 1 It does not, however, provide a total solution to the needs either within the Metropolitan Area or Planning or Preinstallation Phase elsewhere. The regulation does not deal with existing on -site systems, including recertification The first step in developing an effective local 1 13T II yiern i NOf7 Offifprovi_de �'fhe""'--- management program is to relate the use of on - site monitoring, maintenance or inspection of w systems to a community's general land use plan .sy_stems, or establish provisions foI local prot,Tram and development program, includir g.demity a driii iistration enforcement , rernedra"T actions; nf.�ieu Communities are responsible for 1 •plenmrig, is important t at any man ent developing a comprehensive development plan and control program for any part of the state be under the requirements of the Metropolitan Land consistent with the provisions of WPC 40. Planning Act. A community's land use plan and 1 Although duplication might be possible, it would land use controls should address the issue of what be inappropriate and impractical legally to have role on -site systems should plan in a community's on -site requirements that vary substantially from future development. those contained in WPC 40. 1 Rural areas that have and intend to continue rural An examination of the past history of on -site . development densities (that is, a range of one unit systems reveals that failures can and do happen. per 10 acres to one per 40 acres) will not be The existing metropolitan -wide management expected to have as stringent a program covering 1 structure for on -site systems is perhaps best operation, maintenance and postinstallation described as loose and uncoordinated, although inspection as rural areas having or proposing urban there are some exceptions. This combination gives or urban -like development densities (that is, a the public poor assurance that pollution or public range of one unit per 2% to one per five acres). All health hazards caused by on -site systems will not communities are expected to adopt the require - ��r occur in the future. ments of WPC 40 for new installation regardless ity s ,- -' - of deveTopment densee a e I 22 , WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IMP 1 ( . W/12/81 itill 1 - I Table 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING ON -SITE SYSTEMS 1 and 2 3 4 4.1 5 6 6.1 6.2 7 I Rural Service Correcting Area Sector and Installation Inspection Permit Data Existing Ordinance Work Development Density Requirements Requirements Recordkeeping Collection Problems Licensing Compliance Records Personnel Commercial I Agriculture X X X X X 1 unit /40 acres Commercial Agriculture X O X 0 X X O O X I 1 unit /40 acres - 1 unit /5 acres General Rural X X X X X 1 unit /10 acres 111 General Rural 1 unit /10 acres - X 0 X O X X O O X 1 unit /5 acres Other 1 unit /5 acres X X X X X X X X X C or greater X = Local sewer policy plans must contain guidelines noted 0 = If local sewer policy plan does not contain guidelines noted, it should substantiate that the guideline is not necessary to protect public health, groundwater quality and /or metropolitan systems. I NOTE. Numbers in column headings refer to on -site management guidelines contained in Procedure No. 10 under "Management Program" section of this document. I The Metropolitan Land Planning Act provides that systems will occur in an area, the Council must the comprehensive plan must include a sewer determine whether such a failure could have an policy plan th "to the extent practicable" impact on the metropolitan wastewater treatment id areas not sultab efor privele sjisTems' - his system. I ,47-.4,, includes map's thatident7fy Tga enera y sul ab le f� , _\ and unsuitable for the installation on-site '- . sys tems.Tdeally; the" map should theee aareas: Installation or Construction Phase where standard and alternative systems are I permissible ;.where only alternative systems are A major cause of on -site system failures can be acceptable; and where o slue "systems not attributed to improper construction or installation. permissible For a system to function adequately, it must be I The general description of areas where on -site designed and installed with the site conditions and potential use given consideration. For example, systems are permissible does not eliminate the need a system that will operate well in the sandy soils of to evaluate each proposed installation as it is Anoka County may be a disaster in the clay soil I proposed. However, an examination of the soils, of west Hennepin or Carver counties. Likewise, a depth to groundwater and bedrock, other environ- system designed for a small one- or two- person mental constraints, proposed zoning densities, household may be severely taxed if it serves a proposed types of development, and the family of five or six. IIIL community's proposed on -site management program permits a reasonable judgment about Ordinances should reflect standards for appropriate whether on -site system problems will generally location, siting, design, construction and use 1 occur. If there is a probability or significant requirements for on site systems where such possibility that a widespread failure of on site systems are permitted. 23 1 -... _ _ ....... WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 1 W/12/81 all 1 1 Through WPC 40, the MPCA regulates on -site maintained. A real problem is that the condition, systems on a statewide basis by providing technical even the physical location of many of the older 1 engineering standards for the location, design and systems, is not known. installation of on -site systems. The MPCA has not made these regulations mandatory for local units Whether older systems need to be upgraded 1 of government except in connection with such depends largely on whether problems are occurring. programs as DNR's shoreland and floodplain The probability that older on -site systems abutting ordinances and for facilities requiring licenses from shorelands are causing surface water problems was or regulated by the State of Minnesota. At a deemed significant enough by the state DNR to 1 minimum, the system component, sizing, construc- establish a requirement that systems within areas tion and design requirements set forth in WPC 40 subject to the Shoreland Zoning Act be upgraded should be mandatory for local units of government to current standards. Upgrading of nonconforming in the Metropolitan Area and are to be reflected systems is required by DNR whether or not there 1 in local ordinances. is absolute proof of pollution from on -site systems. Implementation of DNR's requirements has been Ordinances should contain an jnstallatinn perr71jt delegated to local units of government responsible system to be administered individually or jointly by for shoreland zoning. While shoreland zoning 1 several local units. The permit system should be provisions have been adopted throughout the adequate to ensure proper sitin and site evalua ' n, Metropolitan Area, enforcement of these upgrading installation, inspection anri rP djseepin2. f the requirements is proving to be a slow and difficult use c on -site systems is allowed on land that process. Nevertheless, the legal requirement exists could cause problems for standard systems Iocal for upgrading systems within shorelands to current ordinances should provide for the installation standards. of alternative systems and identi y suc systems. 1 The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's 201 study regarding on -site systems is intended to Operation and Maintenance Phase evaluate septic tank system problem areas in the Rural Service Area, define "system failure,' and I An adequate program for operating and maintain- develop alternatives for the various categories of ing on -site disposal systems is essential for on -site systems needing rehabilitation or replacement. system management. A properly installed system Without question, better documentation, analysis can give effective service for many years as long as and technical recommendations regarding system 1 it is pumped before the system becomes clogged, failure are needed and beneficial, but system the drainfield area is checked periodically and failure and correction have been, and will continue the users do not insert materials or wastewater to be, a matter involving both judgment and 1 volumes the system was never meant to treat. technical analysis. While more information in making these judgments is desirable, there is a For exam n tic tank was es need to develop adequate remedies now for dealing is a re atrvelyjaexpensivg,p mp�e ure, with systems when they do fail. 1 compared to the costs_Qf rphi replacing damaged systems:`fihere are several communities Enforcement provisions should be incorporated in in the Metropolitan Area that have initiated a the local code or ordinance regulating on-site preventive approach to system maintenance. systems. Provisions should include authority to 1 issue cease-and-desist orders against use of failing systems, specify fines and penalties for violations, Remedial Action Phase and provide for orders to correct defective systems. There are about 60,000 on -site disposal systems in Administration of an On- 1 i use in the Metropolitan Area, and more are coming Ste Management Program Ir . on the scene every week. Existing systems range In addition to the requirements already described, from the most innovative type of disposal system there are several general administrative needs of to the old- fashioned cesspool. Some have been local on -site system management. These include carefully installed and properly maintained; others additional resources in the form of money. were primith to begin with and are poorly personnel afld procedures. 1 24 1 1 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 1 ( W/12/81 dia 1 I Guidelines for the detailed management structure, postinstallation inspection or mainten- regulatory provisions of ordinances and other ance in the on -site program. provisions needed in the sewer policy plan element . I of a local comprehensive plan are spelled out in b. General Rural Use portions of communi- another section of the Development Guide, ties should be designated and protected "Management Program." Local units of govern- through their comprehensive plans. It is ment should refer to that section when developing recommended that a maximum develop- ' their plan and program for on -site systems. ment density of one unit per 10 acres be established in the plan for General Rural Policies Use lands. In those areas designated as General Rural Use in local comprehensive I 41. Local governmental units shall establish com- plans and having a maximum allowable prehensive and coordinated on -site system development density of one unit per 10 management and control programs consistent acres, regulation WPC 40 should be with local authority and requirements con- adopted and followed, but it will not be I tained in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act necessary to include postinstallation and other applicable state and federal law and inspection or maintenance in the on -site regulations. All on -site waste treatment programs. . I systems shall be regulated throughout the Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Land c. In any city or township where the allow - Planning Act and local comprehensive plans able density for Commercial Agriculture prepared pursuant thereto shall serve as the land is between one unit per five acres I primary mechanism for instituting the local and one unit per 40 acres and the allow - on site system management and control able density for General Rural Use land is program. between one unit per five acres and one unit per 10 acres, the comprehensive I 42. Provisions for local on -site system control plan will be expected to address each of requirements for technical engineering, the on -site policies and guidelines in this location, construction and installation document. If the city or township believes inspection should be uniform throughout the that it is unnecessary to implement one or I Metropolitan Area. more of the guidelines, the community should demonstrate that there will not be 43. Postinstallation inspection, maintenance, adverse impacts on public health, ground- ' remedial action and administration activities water quality and /or metropolitan should be consistent with the pattern and systems. intensity of development within the community, and generally consistent with d. Any city or township that allows on -site I the Metropolitan Council's Development Framework. systems to be used in new developments that exceed one unit per five acres in density will be expected to include all a. Commercial Agriculture portions of com- elements of this document's on -site system I munities should be designated and be pro- guidelines in its comprehensive plan tested through their comprehensive plans. (sewer policy element). It is recommended that a maximum I development density of one unit per 40 44. Consistent with Policy 43, local on -site system acres be established in the plan for Com- management and control programs should mercial Agriculture lands. In those areas contain provisions that include, but are not designated as Commercial Agriculture in limited to: the planning and preinstallation lic . local comprehensive plans, and having a phase; application review; installation and maximum allowable development density construction; operation and maintenance of one unit per 40 acres, regulation responsibility; remedial action; administration WPC 40 should be adopted and followed, and enforcement. 1 but it will not be necessary to include 25 I WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT t W W/12/81 dig (I 1 45. Local units permitting the use of on -site sys- commission should determine whether I tems should evaluate the suitability of lands and at what point septage can be accom- within their jurisdiction for such systems and .. modated in the metropolitan wastewater reflect these considerations in their land use treatment system. If it can be accom- plans and official controls. Local compre- modated, the commission shall establish I hensive plans shall, to the extent practicable, receiving points and procedures for such - identify and map areas not generally suitable septage. Also, alternative methods for the for the installation of on -site systems within disposal of septage generated throughout I local jurisdictions. Comprehensive plans the Metropolitan Area should be devel- should also identify soil types generally oped by the commission in cooperation suitable for each type of on -site system to with local units of government, and be allowed within the jurisdiction. Educational should be submitted to the Council as efforts should be undertaken to advise part of a commission development potential users of on -site systems of soils program. - suitability and limitations with respect to on -site systems. c. Authorized Metropolitan Area communi- ' ties and /or local units of government 46. Local costs of management and control pro- should collectively and cooperatively grams should be borne by the owners and establish supervisory or regulatory pro- users of on -site systems. grams governing on -site system pumpers and haulers within the Metropolitan Area. 47. The following nonlocal program is recom- mended: d. In cooperation with the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution a. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Control Agency should continue to pro - and the Minnesota Department of Health vide a coordinated educational program should coordinate research programs and designed to assist local governments in I groundwater monitoring to provide infor- the administration and enforcement of mation on the relationship between on- on -site system ordinances. Educational site systems and surface and groundwater efforts should be directed in part toward quality. system owners, advising them of good ' practices regarding inspection, checking b. The Minnesota Department of Natural and maintenance of on -site systems. Resources should increase its efforts to accelerate local implementation of shore- e. In cooperation with the Minnesota I lands and floodplain requirements in the Department of Administration and the Metropolitan Area. state building inspector, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency should estab- ' 48. The following program of assistance to cities fish a certification program for local and townships is recommended: governmental on -site system administra- tors, inspectors, site evaluators and a. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- installers.* ' sion should assist local governmental units on request in connection with on -site f. The Metropolitan Waste Control Com- system management and control. The mission shall prepare a program describing: commission should also identify and I collect data and source materials regarding — The extent to which it will provide for suitable and unsuitable areas for on -site review of local on -site system permit systems using existing information and applications in the following areas: resources to the maximum extent possible. subdivisions; industrial and commercial It Agency systems proposed for dense concentra- b. The Minnesota Pollution Control A 9 y tions of on -site systems; alternative should establish mandatory standards governing the disposal of septage. The *Minn. Stat., sec. 16.861. I 26 1 WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT en 1 ( , W/12/81 MO 1 I systems; installations in areas identified been issued by the local government that as existing or potential troublespots; conditions are generally suitable for on- installations for which a variance is site systems. I requested; installations in rural towns experiencing problems in staffing and b. The Metropolitan Council should study funding of on -site system management the need for enabling legislation author - and control programs. izing locally administered on -site system I certification at the point of sale of the — The conditions, if any, under which the main residential, commercial or industrial Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- unit. sion will perform such reviews; the I extent and purpose(s) of such reviews (for example, to determine conform- 50. The following nonlocal involvement in fund - ing is recommended: ance with comprehensive sewer plans, technical adequacy); and how the pro- State and /or metropolitan funds should be I posed program will be coordinated with used for additional state, metropolitan or the activities of the Minnesota Pollution local activity and assistance. Funds should be Control Agency and the metropolitan granted to local governments to pay for a I counties. portion of the following activities associated with new management and control program C 49. The following nonlocal program of enforce- requirements: training programs and educa- ment- related activities is recommended: tional activities; start-up costs, including plan I and ordinance development; inspector and a. The Metropolitan Council should study administrator training; identification and the need for enabling legislation that pro- location of existing on -site systems; and hibits plat filing until certification has recordkeeping. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ir- 1 27 1 ....,. SEWER FACILITY AGREEMENT II G -t ,a73 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (hereinafter the Council "), the METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (hereinafter "the Commission "), and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN (hereinafter "the ' City ") . WHEREAS, the Council and Commission, following review and analysis, have r included in the Commis'sion's 1986 -1990 Development Program plans for the construction of a gravity interceptor sewer along the Lake,Ann - Red Rock Lake route as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and- made••a -par -t - - - - -- hereof, to convey sewage from the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek interceptor; and - WHEREAS, the decision to build the Lake Ann interceptor was in part based on representations by the City that if that portion of the i nterceptor lying within the boundaries of the City and north of T.H.5 (hereinafter "the Facility ") would simultaneously serve as a Commission interceptor and a local trunk sewer for the City, the City would pay for a portion of the project costs of the Facility over and above its SAC charge cost contribution and the City would further agree to make necessary amendments to its comprehensive plan, r ` comprehensive sewer plan and official controls to ensure the avoidance of • t premature growth or urbanization in accordance with Council policies; and WHEREAS, the Council, the Commission and the City have agreed that the Facility can be designed and used simultaneously as a Commission interceptor sewer and a local trunk sewer for the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate exercise of 1 each of their powers, and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS ' 1.1) Council and Commission - Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.146, the Council has adopted a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the Metropolitan area. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.511 authorizes the Commission to acquire, construct, equip, maintain and operate all interceptors and treatment works needed to implement the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. 1.2) Lake Ann Interceptor. Chanhassen Seament - The Council and Commission have determined that the Facility is necessary for and shall be constructed pursuant to the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan and the Commission's 1986 -1990 Development Program. This work is to be undertaken pursuant to the Commission's Project No. 82-53. 1 1 1 • 1 - i ■ 1.3) City Sewer The City has planned the construction of a trunk sewer along the general route of the Facility. The City has determined that the ' - joint use of a single sewer pipe to be constructed, owned, and operated by the Commission will satisfy certain sewer service needs of the City. The City agrees that it will conduct all proceedings necessary under law and ordinance so as to authorize it to participate in the cost of the construction of the Facility. 1.4) Construction - The interceptor and•trunk sewer can be constructed as a single pipe and the design of the Facility and its construction can best be undertaken by the Commission. - • SECTION 2. FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY 2.1) Plans and Specifications - The Commission has retained a consulting engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the Facility. The plans and specifications for the Facility shall include adequate designed capacity to enable the City's use of the Facility as specified in this Agreement for trunk sewer purposes, as well as use of the Facility as a Commission interceptor. The Commission shall design the Facility to provide capacity for saturated development of the land within the City tributary to the Facility. This capacity shall be determined on or before Commission approval _ of the plans and specifications for the Facility. Specifically, the Facility ' • • shall, at a minimum, be designed with 3.3 million gallons per day ( "MGD ") peak capacity for City trunk sewer use. The Commission agrees to allow the City to review and comment on the plans and specifications for the Facility so as to insure that adequate trunk sewer capacity is provided. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Commission shall be solely responsible for approving plans and specifications for the Facility. 2.2) Contract Administration - Except as hereinafter provided, the Facility construction contract shall be exclusively administered by the Commission, and the Commission agrees to cause the construction project to be completed in accordance with the design plans and the conforming construction contract. The Commission shall provide a resident engineer to supervise the performance of the work, but the City may inspect the materials for, and construction of, the Facility at any time, and may request the Commission to require the contractor to perform any part of the contract in accordance with its terms, and to enforce any provision of the contract necessary tc obtain - such performance. The Commission retains sole authority to determine whether 1 contractor performance is consistent with the terms of the contrast. SECTION 3. PROJECT FINANCING - 3.1) Project Costs The City agrees to pay the Commission the sum of Four Hundred Eighty -two Thousand Dollars ($482,000), together with interest at the rate of nine percent V) per annum on the outstanding balance, as its 1 2 • share of the cost of constructing the Facility. Interest shall begin to accrue as of the date the Commission awards the contract for construction of the Facility. This obligation shall be paid in twenty -one (21) installments pursuant to the debt service schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. The first installment shall be in the amount of $ representing interest accrued to the date of such payment. The remaining payments shall be paid in 20 equal installments of $52,801.40 annually for twenty (20) years. The City may pay the outstanding principal balance at any time. If it does so, it will pay interest on the outstanding principal balance pro rata from the previous installment date to date of such payment. This obligation shall constitute a charge payable to the Commission under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.521. 3.2) Installment Dates - The first installment payment shall be due 1 to the Commission on the date one year following Commission award of the contract for construction of the Facility. All subsequent payments shall be made on or before the anniversary date of the first payment. Payments shall be credited to the reduction of the principal amount in accordance with Exhibit B. 3.3) Connection Charge - The City may, to the extent allowed by law, establish a connection charge in order to provide money for payment of all or a portion of its monetary obligations under this Agreement. Failure of the City to institute a connection charge for any reason whatsoever shall not relieve it of the obligation to make payments under this Agreement. ' 3.4) Acceleration of Payments - If any default is made in the payment of . any installment, thA Commission may at its option and upon thirty (30) days :-^-� written notice to the City, elect and declare that the entire unpaid principal amount payable by the terms of this Agreement shall become immediately due and payable, and such debt may thereupon be collected by suit or other Legal = proceedings. The City shall have thirty (30) days from delivery of notice to cure the default. 3.5) Confession of Judament - The City hereby authorizes and empowers any attorney at law to appear for it in any court of record in the State of 11 Minnesota on default of payment of any installment due pursuant to this Agreement and thereupon to waive issuance and service of process, to confess judgment against the City and in favor of the Commission for the principal sum( of this obligation, together with interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees, and to release all errors and waive all right of appeal. Prior to entering a default judgment, however, the Commission shall give the City thirty (30) days advance written notice of its intention to do so. SECTION 4. , OWNERSHIP AND USE 1 4.1) OWNERSHIP OF THE FACILITY - The'Commission shall be the sole owner of the Facility and shall be responsible for its operation, maintenance, - repair, and reconstruction. The Commission shall operate and maintain the Facility in good, working order, and shall preserve and maintain that portion - of the capacity_of the Facility as described herein for use by the City as a • 1 3 1 I I trunk sewer. The Commission shalt not be responsible for construction, operation, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of any connection to the II Facility which is not constructed by the Commission as part of Commission Project 82 -53. '4.2) City Use - The City shall be authorized to make use of the,Facility . as a trunk sewer for a minimum of 3.3 MGD peak capacity at such locations as may be authorized by the Commission •(which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld), consistent with the provisions of the City's 1 Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the design-plans for the Facility when areas tributary to the Facility are brought within the City's urban service area. The City shall apply for a connection permit for all direct connections to the Facility and shall comply with the Commission's II technical and engineering requirements for such connection. All costs of such connections shall be paid by the City. I 4.3) Indemnfication - The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Commission, its employees, or agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, attributable to any claims II regarding of the trunk sewer capacity in the Facility. frzise. )1 If+i ltr5 „t 41 1 SECTION 5 _ RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION II 5.1) Duties of City - The City shall assist the Commission in acquiring • the necessary property acquisitions, rights of entry and other property interests or permits n_::ded for construction of the Facility and that portion II of the Lake Ann Interceptor lying within the boundaries of the City. Such assistance shall include: 1 A. Conveyance to the Commission without charge, of all easements now owned or hereinafter acquired by the City along the final route of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor. B. Conveyance to the Commission, without charge, of any easements located ert own on property owned by the City which are determined necessary by the Commission for construction of the Facility or the Lake Ann II Interceptor. • .C. Approval and authorization for use, without charge, of public rights of way within the City along the final route of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor. D. Cooperation with the Commission in acquiring easements or other property interests from governmental subdivisions, business entities and private individuals determined necessary by the Commission for construction of the Facility and the Lake Ann Interceptor. 5.2) Public Purpose The City stipulates and agrees that construction of the Facility is for a public purpose and that acquisition of property therefore is necessary and authorized by law pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1984, Chapter 117. 4 • 4 SECTION 6 1 LAND USE PLANNING AND CONTROL ' 6.1) Growth Control - In accordance with the Council's Metropolitan Devel opment Framework and applicable policy plans, the City agrees to use its best efforts to prevent the premature urbanization of areas outside the year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Are. Specifically, the City agrees that it shall do and perform the following on or before August 1, 1986: (A) Submit to the Council for review an adopted comprehensive plan or such 1 comprehensive plan amendments as may be necessary to comply with the following provisions of this Agreement. Amendments to the City's Comprehensive plan shall be submitted to the Council for review and acceptance pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act following approval by the City's planning commission and after consideration but before final approval by the City's governing body. Provisions of the City's comprehensive plan which have been previously adopted by the City and accepted by the Council shall not be subject to Council review and acceptance hereunder except as may be necessary to enforce the following three listed provisions: a provision designating a year 2000 urban service area containing no more than 2440 acres of vacant developable land which includes platted lots and undeveloped portions of certain large industrial holdings, but does not include lakes, streams, or other waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, areas with exposed bedrock, :�- lands in Agricultural Preserves, public or privately owned park, open space and recreational areas, or facilities including golf courses, streets, highways and other lands used for public utilities. 1 2. a provision that the City will not exceed the Council's - / preliminary year 2000 sewer flow allocation of 1.3 MGD annual V average flow or such final sewer flow allocation as may result from revisions to the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework; and a provision applicable to any future subdivisions designating 11 rural service density standards of one residential unit per ten (10) acres in general rural areas and one unit per forty (40) acres in agricultural rural areas, both with minimum lot sizes greater than 2.3 acres, subject to variances as may be permitted by law. The parties recognize that this provision may include elements to address unconstitutional takings, hardships and unique circumstances. The City agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by the Council and prior to August 1, 1986 the above- described comprehensive plan amendments. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, no use of the Facility as a trunk sewer shall be permitted until the City has submitted and the Council has accepted the above - described plan•amendments. 5 (8) Following Council review and Commission approval, the City shall adopt a comprehensive sewer plan consistent with the City's comprehensive plan as amended pursuant to this Agreement and containing within it: e' � � '�: ' .ti ,.• }'. • a description of adopted on -site sewage disposal ordinance provisions consistent with. applicable requirements set forth in 1 the Council's Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan including Policies 42 through 47 and Procedure 10; and 2. a policy, ordinance and administrative program to reduce stormwater inflow in the sewer system consistent with the Commission's policies. ' (C) Transmit a description and analysis of the difference between the City's land use plan and its zoning ordinance provisions with respect to items A(1 through 3) above and a method approved and adopted by ' the City for reconciling the two which is acceptabl; to- the Council, if different from one another with respect to land use types, densities, and urban service timing and staging. The City further • 1 agrees that by May 1, 1987, it shall • repeal or appropriately amend any official control or fiscal device that is in conflict with items A(1 through 3) above of its comprehensive plan. 11 6:2) Modification - It is understood that the City may in the future, following compliance with the provisions of 6.1, amend its comprehensive plan ,and /or comprehensive sewer plan including those provisions relating to its II . urban and rural service areas and sewer flow allocation, subject to Council approval of comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Minn.- Stat. Sec. 473.856 and Sec. 473.175 and Commission approval of comprehensive sewer plan amer.:.aents pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513. • SECTION 7 SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ' 7.1) Limitations on City's Richt to Use - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the City commits a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement, the Council or Commission may, following formal ' consideration during which the City shall be given an opportunity to state its position, delay or limit the City's right to use the Facility for trunk sewer purposes or take such other action as may be appropriate, provided, however, the Council or Commission shall not disconnect any connection by the City to the Facility for which a connection permit has previously been granted pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Prior to any such delay or limitation, the City shall be given a reasonable time which shall not be less than ninety (90) days after notice in writing of the claimed violation, to achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to remove or modify the liability of the City under Section 3 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 7.1, the City shall have the right to initiate such action or actions that the City shall deem appropriate requesting a judicial determination of whether a material breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement has occurred and if so, whether the delay or • • 6 > ` ■ A. limitation on the City's right to use the facility for trunk sewer purposes as II imposed by the Councilor Commission or any other action taken by the Council or Commission is appropriate and equitable under the circumstances. II 7.2) Design of Facility Upon any breach of this Agreement b the Council and Commission may determine to design the Facility wi capacity for the City, renegotiate the level of cost sharing with the City, II and /or take such other action as may be appropriate with respect to the design of the Facility. 7.3) Fact Stipulations - To assist in the enforcement of Section 6 of II this Agreement, the parties hereto agree and stipulate to the following findings of fact: ' II (01) The City has received from the Council an amendment to the Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide. The Guide is a metropolitan systems plan within the meaning of : tinn. Stat. , • Sec. 473.856 and Sec. 473.175. II (02) An amendment to the City's present comprehensive plan is II necessary under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.856 to ensure conformity with metropolitan system plans. -_ (03) The City's present comprehensive plan with respect to the matters specified in Section 6.1(A) of this Agreement constitutes a II substantial departure within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sec. . 473.175 from but not limited to, the allocated sewer capacity for �. the City listed in the Water Resources Management Development II Guide and Policy Numbers 8 and 9 thereof. . (04) Any amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that does not comply with the provisions of Section 6 of this Agreement likewise constitutes a substantial departure from the Water Resources Management Development Guide within the meaning of I/ Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175. . The parties hereto have entered this agreement in express reliance on the above - stated facts and the parties shall be estopped from denying or contesting the II truth of said facts. It is expressly agreed that if the City fails to perform the tasks specified in Section 6 of this Agreement, the Council may obtain a court order -under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 requiring the City to perform those actions specified in Section 6 of this Agreement. No action or inaction by the II City pursuant to any order, judgment or decree of any court, governmental or administrative agency shall constitute a violation on the part of the City of any provision of this Agreement, provided that if the City cannot meet its II obligations pursuant to Section 3 because of such order, judgment, or decree, the Council and Commission shall have no obligation to provide trunk sewer service to the City under this Agreement. 1 7.4) City's Remedies - It is expressly agreed that in the event that the Council or Commission violates any of the provisions of this agreement, the City may, in addition to any other remedy at law, seek specific performance of II _ this Agreement. II 7 II II IN WIT S H REOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the/ day of W t , , 19 A- proved as to form METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ;a j' a IA By: !_ L i ' 1_ _ I ∎IL_ il - Its: Chair- erson, and c ?-014 , By: A 0r 6o., 1 . . Its: Executive Director • METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL ' COMMISSION • A" r 9v ed as o orm - �► . / /��. /�� /' r ,'fL%- BY: 017 ` _ " . /Lid /li� I lMark D. Thompson Its: Chaff rperson and II Leon! Counsel, M.W.C.C. BY: . -> <`u -% I1 /izr e e Its: ChiefAdministra r CITY ANHASSEN ' ... ( t s: Mayor, and . ..._ By: /.. (0 11 Its: City ManageriClerk 1 . _ II . - 1 1 - - e 1 II 8 II • . STATE OF MINNESOTA) 1 ) SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) T II he foregoing Sewer Facility Agreement wa signed and swor to before me on `�tc%C (a / ?I :277 -by / - and J Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen. II Notary P bl c II � %-'` ` _ KAREN J. E 44, RDT . STATE OF MINNESOTA) ..w. �T CARVE e R COUNTY T� SS . ' .� ay cormwxion expires 104041 II COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing Sewer Facili Agreement was signed and swqrn to befor 1 9 9 g 9 me on q , /9�� by /�v � ' r c vc �u a and L.-0(.41S 1 tic r-R- 4v% t ,11 Chairperson and Chief Administrator, respectively, of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. II Notary P tic 1 Z . 1 ��: RY S.� ."�i STATE OF MINNESOTA) ='" , r, .ST:.: ; -_:- �, `,'I; hi. %::,vol CCAJNTY ; ) SS. tJ,y ,.cr;:...;en exp::es 1'�y 7, i9 :7 1 �- COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) II The Sewer Facitity/Agreemen was sig of and s :rn to before _ / me on �"Ze" -/ / Q , /' /,MY!' Ws-0 /v r' `�'J • Lit ' an- 7 /, / are' 1 Chairperson and Executive Director, respectively, of Metropolitan Council II ----. , 4 f /icy II Notary Publi LOA20A r r f_ 1 _ e&ii tiae War. /ouec II ' \(.:41.7.;,/ , NOTA i Uf11C - MIt:Y=:OTA A MJ1"Y CO i \y Lcrlmirion expi$CJ Nov. 29, 1986 1 . —. 1 • 1 9 • 1 1 . . r 1/4 i 6 •••.......... : r : , _.....,' .• .... , ...., • " >7 .... 7 '., 3 i.e• ' C. ... ■Bin........... • t ./ .....■.... AT............ . / r • - "....0 • 1 , ..._ • - 4.--->-/N--_ - -- - .. • -...; • __,, --:-.., „ -.....„..- •,1 . r a ' :.____'• i:•• I. -- ...... -., -•• -..). _ ...,,...-••• - •C'-: -.... ..., - ' .:"•,•;-\:>,•••"...... " IP- .".. 4 .... ow...". • • 7 .. 1 :7:7 . '... .:. ..:. / \ : , ..... : 1 ;""'”.■ i -• . *ftot t , / 1 , ... -• = -..: • „ ..,• : ,,, = . .7-- ,,.... , .........--. . , .— ... i . i : IIIII - -.. ... i .. •••• ;11 rr y • ... .04, ....., ... :;,. - .4 .1. . . .... .. z • ..... . .... , ••■• , row"... --•••• .."..>'..- -.. ...• e"N 4 - :;.". :24 l' f l>V":' 7... "1111 .. 1....7 ' 1 , s ... 1 ■■•■■•• A :". . '; - ..... .. ',qt. ....m.o. id.,... „4: •!/: / , ....„......1 r - s 4:::',••',..--`'' t - :ti . ..• .........„ t „.. : • - ' ; I •;....-fX, • t Z. ;: t '-'''''''" i . . • 2 • : . ••■-i' iri • •,.•74.,...; _ 8 . tr:t • V• • I LI i i c It ........,-.. - : . .3 • , ...., ,,,,.. . . 1: : = t • t • • --I i t • 1 ••■■■-- , 1 I ! . , .....:. .....:A 1 \ ... . :I i .... .,. . i x -, A. • .1: ' ,....... ... ..-- • • o ....: g 0 . :•." •••.. ....... • r•1641.„.0 t7.7.."."."'...4...'• • '....: .L....... TO•• ••••••• • *'•• , „.„.. ........ ...7......... t !, f .1 tr• •.„ o. • ... ••• <,;.O.r. • .b.Y.• . 1 i • g s• a. r ,..■.;.. .4:- • ' l am......... „e f ... *U..,........._ . ...I's . . .-7,....... 4• 6fm. . ' / -• aM. • .. • • ...•1 • .../••• ... of o' 'N....Tr ••• -••••••"•• • * i ‘ •,....... .11, 11 ,,,m...... ,.... ,...... .; ..2... ... , • _ ...goo - 1 • .‘6.• * PS I ...." • I .• V j ••! ., ... 6 ; O • ... * o ••• ...; •••••. •••• •••••- .. • 6; • - '‘. a Craw 7 ...-' ---..,,, ,...1. ••• ..., - - ......„ I, ......., • 10, L ..... • -c7.<7.7 ..0 - -1 _ " „tr.?' Su 1 t-- - : ';'••■,..... - ill . .........„......._,_,, -.,,:- _ . •••••• •••■•:•••••=.•-• ...-,-•,' ---•••••• • , ;;; ,,_„ ••= .......................• ;..;% .1 ..; ' ; ..b...% :' ..T. ... . ••.. : tr: ' 1 T••• •': ' • T !:......■ ,,, j :••• ,. . . 0 t '."•• K....■€' .•'••• "• • • I , •••••, ....• . •• :4•• I i : 0 5 t 11 I I r; ›.. .... --. - 1 ...................\ " - . :.,.. ..] .. c r • Co) ,,, .... .. --- :..-...,;?:-.-:-. •••. . : - .., . ,... Po. i • ; 1! 7 2:f : :'.4.: ••■•• • ........ Oft .0 . . 47,4••■•1(.4,;......L.: .0 .... • f ..■ • J 1 .,.., ... . . , ... .,••■• .._ . ,..:.. .... ... , , ; , . "'°......"""'""•• ••........... 's . '....: : '' • • '•••• """; ADAM ...• . •1 ■ . M (:) ! ‘‘ ..1 mt . = ...........,,,........., i ; 6 1 L.. % ‘.., OM \ 2 . i 1 i .. •• • .... • Se. . ••• \•..... I: ••• • . al ••• 2 = ILI ..,......_ • .L. 4 MA.. . •••,... ....r. rr: _ . •• . . • . •. ......: = • - ••••• •••••••■•■•••' I ••• . • •• : / •••• •■••••• - - a. .• .... . ...... .....1 ,.; i 7.. ....../. -- e Li 2- - = .. s • L--4-.. V.' r•-;;....-- 1".111 I • .... a... .m.. •■•• .....• • ■■• .r b. -. _ 4 " C.1r... 47- ' •: : %., . ........i....;„, ••••••r: ........-..„4, .; ;;„..-• 1 a ; ....... ...._,_•._;,,„:.- ••, = • - •••r•-•-.. ;••••••••, ---....,_.J. ,... tzt : - ' • ; - 'e -\ ... s-t• ) •• a; • .t...., _,..... '._i .......,,, t. ........11 ......... ' \. . .........• : \\ . ••■••"....7.; ' --• - - ' ": .. '..",.'''''.. i.. " ' .A.:. 5,.....: • '. .... i *. ! 1 I : I t' > 't . - - ...... •••••• - -- - ..9 /IQ( fp 1 .."••■•■•■• 'own.. • . •••■21 ••..................... ....■...■ •••...:.%••• ... MEE • • • • - : - --,_ ‘-...'• 1 1 .• if .: :. r: .p Z __ _ i 111 t■ - . 6.... ;\...., ,.... ......... :: ....HE ‘,......... ...."'7 '........P17... 6 - 1" r■ ' '8., •-_,..,,,,..... 77 . t 1 iL.. . ....+•,"-- t ... r e, . • _ 4 i . • ••••••Z\ • ;I ••• 1 -- • , . --,,:. , •• 1■1 P•..g /- ... .... ....--- 1 .....- :N. %.-. ....-_ : 1.- "S : :: • ---,- ,:.,"..1%, 1 ... ; • _,_7- • -....= 0 • • • • ■••• • It I • • e 1 ...... ,. pm. ..... • . ..., 42 ...• f ‘ , ... • • ,...o , ...' 2 -.. 1 1 .; . . 1 f • 6 ,6 ••■•• ...r ...‘ I V l ,•• ... Z ....••••• • .... 1" J.. ....r t Ii " I " 1.. • S i e . .. • N... I -• .. l'• N -.- t I •• i • • 1 - ,-. r. 1 --:;!- -• 1 ..... - -• : , , ..---.7....... -.. „. _ t•-__••• .1 . "'" •rN ....,,----/"'" - i .0.1",,..-••• \ - I • • •• • . C:.F../....% -.....1 4.1.. '. I Co . 4..--... - .. * - • •• - . --•■-•1- f •---71 ' -- A -.),, ;,.. : ... .7.21;„ : -., - .„. ...:"•••••.-•/"7":", ,:•,,,..... --. -,_,- -. ....... -,.., . • 2: . : w .. ;:,/,-."-- - i vt . 1 . • • r " r 1, • .....■. ....., -...., • .... ..... -/".":":- •-) , :- ; —....., I i ,' 1 • • c• - = i : ,..... - --- - i.:-.. ::_...::.•:.--;_, -.-. ;-f • c.r: .....:-...A---- .... " „...., - , , '\ I- • , .11. . i ..-ar, ...: . L. i:•••■•••• . g o , k • _ -... ...." I r: - !: * ! 1 t •- ..6.. t .. , .•-ts i !„ - _ ,. . , .., ..... -- ; .,••-,_............... =. . . .1..:_,• . .. I -..........• ; *-...-• •,,..,,,, I '' . .a. 4. • / • e .....• . t X I t. • '' - • NJ I 1 ,. . •••••••••••••„ s 'arc. - - ,.... .....- . tz-...•■•••■••■■•••-• , •,X. ,. / . . r5 I - ..':%A .1 :i r 'l l " 1.. • . tc, •,--, - ,,,.......... t • - \--Air' 1 .-- • <.-..,:, ^ .; . t I , . , • .:-..rz: r . \ • r I I ,, st. i . ' f' , - ...mom. 1 cul -\. ' ' r % •-• -.:. . I • \ 111 , 0 7 ;■=•.‘ - I:I . -. ..••• "S . -0 ..: I • .0, t ,c; --' . . • - • r"... .. . = , ,,,-, jk... .....- ..... ,,,,. ...,, 4. •• • 1 44. 44......... la. < ' • • 1•S ..„.... . ".... ..o•ft...,..................t I • I I 1 1 Z7 ......., , „....., ... „,... :,,,...,. . III ...... :: _ / . . .... th „ . .. /.. ,..... ..•• Im • : . 'Sr . -...- " ....... ■ S . ....... 11EN •. • . • „A" : • •-•,...- - .. , - • . : / = . .,--., ,..w .._.. - .:1 ,- ,---- 1 : "/.....\:-....... . 1-- 4-.... - -:. i t i . • . . .... r••• 1 1.0 1 tt .. i• r a< I , 4. -I..' • ..... - :: .......,;. I • :: -.- • • • • • • = • . . .„■ . . •■•■ • ... , il - : r 1 1 - -..- , .........e._• : i I CD . • . t • .;.,...int; • ........•••••••1 • < , j....1 . 141.N\ . \ • -. '"i'• •••..."''''' t •-•••••• • ,: %,,1 I ; ... - • 1.1.1. . t•••■ 0: .„ CO•N 1.„..................... ..,...,,.... .. 6 . •If :/••• i .,. I. ,••••■ 7. 4•• . ... • 1 ... • . •• ...... ..8 • . 1 I L 1 • 1,2 . f.. ... • „ I •••1 to tt -. t ': •••: I ; ".. 7 I . :. , .. _ :. . -. n . ••••.. --..... if t 1 Cr -........ . ., ; ...., . tan. .,:'..•:, ,..:. , ,.. , oo.0 ■ .::: ........ Z •••••• -••••••• ••••• ••••• .• .•• .. %MO .....;,.. g 1 f • i T .. 47 ), 4 ,m. ,..4.' . 1 - •n. , \ '• -. 1 , . T •.... I • V a i I 1 6 1 •••• I ; .. ... • T‹ • r.°..../.:*"...11 . t • „ • 4.0 • ..; , < r .. I. la 2 ';-. tt • / t .t! . ,, . 7 in . ., , I ,:. • - I .....41 •• s••• , t 6 . ft ... ...'.."••‘..... .1 L4 %.'. ? L' •••• .1 l f . ..1.5 • er i o ‘ mmfmmoor 6. , I • • ..t4 ' . „...........-..............-..................-..-.:-.....-.............-::/ • a ,• :••• • , a-- -• i • • • • ..i -.../. • ......... - ' • --...._ - \- ••• • • zt . • r / 4 ; . ■ r ,■.. ..... ...■.! . ; *. .. , 'k..1 -..... 1.... / • . '4. ..g ••• • /V • • • • •• I t , .=.1.• . ... .1. . - • - 4 • ...: . ....:. ..• • . ....• -- , ,, . - ......r ....../.. -= / / %. - -- . .... • ). • EXHIBIT B DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE 1 S482,000 20 years 9% 552,801.40 Principle Interest 1 1. 0.00 $ 43,380.00 S 43,380.00 II 2. S 9,421.40 43,380.00 52,801.40 3. 10,269.33 42,532.07 52,801.40 4. 11,193.57 41,607.83 52,801.40 5. 12,200.99 40,600.41 52,801.40 I 6. 13,299.08 39,502.32 52,801.40 7. 14,495.99 38,305.41 52,801.40 8. 15,800.63 37,000.77 52,801.40 II 9. 17,222.69 35,578.71 52,801.40 10. 18,772.73 34,028.67 52,801.40 11. 20,462.28 32,339.12 52,801.40 II 12. 22,303.88 30,497.52 52,801.40 13. 24,311.23 28,490.17 52,801.40 14. 26,499.24 26,302.16 52,801.40 15. 28,884.17 23,917.23 52,801.40 II 16. 31,483.75 21,317.65 52,801.40 17. 34,317.29 18,484.11 52,801.40- 18. 37,405.84 15,395.56 52,801.40 19. 40,772.37 12,029.03 52,801.40 20. 44,441.88 8,359.52 52,801.40 21. 48.441.66 4,359.74 52.801.40 $482,000.00 S617,408.00 S1,099,408.00 II II ---,Vt." II it 1 1 1 . - 1 Vr v+ .L.. 7E . • II II• y • V v