9. Water Quality Policy Plan update i - ci ,
I A-
CITY OF
\ V CHANHASSEN
, t #
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Planning Commission
City Council
1 FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
DATE: February 11, 1988
ISUBJ: Water Resources Management Development Guide Amendment,
Sewage Treatment and Handling Policy Plan
III As some of you may or may not be aware, Chanhassen has teamed
Y
with Eden Prairie, Shakopee, Carver County, Minnetrista, Victoria
I and Waconia to form an umbrella group named the Southwest
Coalition of Communities to monitor Metropolitan Council policy
plan revisions . This effort began in 1986 with the revision of
I the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework ( the
Metropolitan Council' s "Comp Plan" ) . The coalition hired John
Boland ( former Metropolitan Council Chair and now a well-
1 respected public affairs consultant and lobbyist) to assist the
communities through the MDIF process . Mr. Boland meets with the
planners from each community on a regular basis and meets with
the local elected officials from each community on an as needed
I basis. It is generally agreed that his help enabled the coali-
tion to have an impact on the MDIF review process.
I The City Councils and County Board decided to retain Mr. Boland
to assist us in the review process for the water resources mana-
gement plan and the transportation policy plan (draft will be
released shortly) .
IREQUESTED ACTION
I The Metropolitan Council is revising certain portions of its
water resources management chapter to address four issue areas:
water quality, sanitary sewer service, fiscal/financial and
I institutional issues . This is brought to your attention at this
time so that you can have ample time in reading this lengthy
document and comment on it if you so desire.
I
I
tal
Don Ashworth, Planning Commission, City Council
February 11, 1988
Page 2
It is requested that you review the proposed comments below under '
"Major Issues" and determine if there are any other comments that
the southwest communities as a whole should add. Secondly,
Chanhassen may want to comment individually. '
Planning Commission
This has been placed on the February 17 Planning Commission '
agenda for discussion. We have attempted to summarize the major
issues to speed the review of this document. This will be on the
City Council agenda on February 22 . No action is required from
the Planning Commission unless the Planning Commission does feel
strongly on any issues . These issues will be/are being addressed
in certain parts of the current comprehensive plan update process
and will be addressed in more detail in the sewer chapter update
which has not yet been drafted.
City Council ,
This has been scheduled for the February 22 agenda under
Administrative Presentations . It is being sent to the Council at
this time so that you will have ample time to read it if you so
desire. City Council action on February 22 will be to add or
subtract from the comments presented by Boland.
1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES
The plan is organized into four primary sections: water quality, I
sanitary sewer services, institutional framework, and financial
management. The policies within the first two sections are of
most concern. Specifically: '
( See Policy 1 , 1 . While it is agreed that the point and
page 5 ) non-point sources of pollution should be
controlled, municipalities cannot be
expected to bear the entire burden. A
mojority of polluti on to the Minnesota
River is attributed to non-point source
pollution ( surface water runoff , soil ero-
sion, etc. ) from the entire watershed area
(Carver County and beyond) . Cities need
to be actively involved in the planning
process in controlling non-point source
pollution so that cities are paying their
fair share and are not penalized for a
problem that has a much broader scope than
cities in the southwest metropolitan area .
11
j 111" Don Ashworth, Planning Commission, City Council
February 11, 1988
' Page 3
' ( See Policy 5 ,
pages 14-16) 2 . Reducing infiltration/inflow is a
never-ending and a costly process . While
the southwest cities agree to control its
' respective I/I p roblem the MWCC should
take a lead role in controlling its I/I in
major metropolitan interceptors and
establish a means to control I/I in an
' equitable manner .
3 . It should be noted that Chanhassen has
' already exceeded its Metropolitan Council
projected 1990 sewered population -and will
exceed its projected year 2000 population
(page C-1) .
' 4 . The City of Chanhassen is surrounded on
all sides by sewer service areas (Eden
' Prairie on the east, Shorewood and
Excelsior on the north, Chaska and
Victoria on the west and Shakopee on the
' south) . Chaska, as a free-standing growth
community, has its own sewage treatment
plant. The plan poses the issue of
whether or not this plant should be elimi-
nated and sewage flow combined with the
treatment plant at Blue Lake. The plan
appears to state that Chaska should be
allowed to continue until load capacities
are met. Chanhassen has a rural service
area which forms a "hole in the donut" ,
' surrounded by sewered areas . The plan
discusses a horizon of 2010 . The question
remains : Can this area be accommodated by
the Blue Lake plant or the Chaska plant
' and will the Metropolitan Council
recognize this area to be served by sani-
tary sewer beyond the year 2010?
1
I
i
4' Ax I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
I