The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-02-25 CC Packet CITY OF CENTERVILLE COUNCIL MEETING, CLOSED terviffe EXECUTIVE SESSION & JOINT COMMITTEE/COMMISSION WORK SESSION AGENDA Wednesday, February 25, 2015 — Set Agenda =Red 6:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter OPEN FORUM 6:30 P.M.: An opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items not on the current agenda. Items requiring Council action may be deferred to Staff or Boards and Commissions for research and future Council Agendas if appropriate. You will be limited to two (2) minutes and we ask that you conduct yourself in a professional, courteous manner and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by this policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. Persons wishing to speak will be required to complete a sign-up sheet and give it to the Mayor or a Staff person prior to 6:15 p.m. COUNCIL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. PUBLIC HEARING IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 11,2015 City Council Meeting Minutes (Pages 1-8) VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. City of Centerville February 12,2015 through February 25,2015 Claims (Check#29342-29356) (Page 9) 2. Centennial Fire District Claims through February 13,2015 (Check#6769-6789)w/Payroll Check#6761-6768 (Page 10) 3. Parks & Recreation Committee Request to Increase Music in the Parks Line Item Budget from $2,200 to $2,700 (Pages 11-15) 4. Res. #15-OXX—Approving ICMA Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust(457 Plan) (Page 16-17) 5. Authorize Staff to Advertise for Summer Seasonal/Public Works Positions (4) VIII. AWARDS/PRESENTATIONS/APPEARANCES IX. OLD BUSINESS 1. Review of Bids—2015 Street Improvement Project(Pages 18-20) 2. Res. #15-OXX—Relating to the Proffered Settlement Agreement by the White Bear Lake Restoration Association Relating to Regionalization of Municipal Drinking Water Supplies & Northeast Water Summit/Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Management Area Project(Pages 21-26) X. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request of Ms. Anna Marple, Tenant, 1965 South Robin Lane,for Deaf Child Signage (Page 27) 2. Res. #15-OXX—Supporting the Transfer of Firefighter Service Credits and Pension Assets from the Centennial Fire Relief Association to the City of Lino Lakes (Page 28) 3. Review & Comment—Met. Council Draft Water Resources Policy Plan (Pages 29- 124) XI. COUNCIL & ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Administrator Report 2. Council& Staff Reports XII. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION (Litigation) 1. Sheehy CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. 2015 CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING SESSION XIII. ADJOURNMENT *REMINDERS** Centerville Lions Annual Ice Fishing Contest w/EAA Young Eagles Airplane Rides (Lion Lynn Johnson Memorial)—February 21, 2015, 8:00 a.m. —4:00 p.m. (Centerville Lake in front of Anoka County Rice Creek Regional Park Beach) Planning& Zoning Commission Meeting—March 3, 2015, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) (P.H. CUP 6845-20th Avenue S. —Ultimate Martial Arts Studio Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting—March 4, 2015, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) City Council Meeting—March 11, 2015, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) City Council Meeting—March 25, 2015, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) (Information Meeting SWPPP/MS4 City Council Meeting—April 8, 2015, 6:30 p.m. (Council Chambers) City Council Meeting—April 22, 2015, 6:15 p.m. (Council Chambers) (Board of Appeal & Equalization) "hake Your Shamrock 5, 8K's &Kids 1/3K Walk/Runs - March 15, 2015, 7:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m./Kelly's .orner Sponsor(Around Centerville Lake and Out and Back) Fete des Lacs 5, 8K's & Kids Fun Run—July 25, 2015 (Around Centerville Lake and Out and Back) Out Run Homelessness, 5, 8K's & Kids Run/Walk—September 19, 2015 (Around Centerville Lake and Out and Back) CITY OF CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 11,2015 6:30 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled meeting of February 11, 2015 at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Wilharber Council Member Jeff Paar Council Member Steve King (Arrived @ 6:35 p.m.) Council Member D. Love Council Member Ben Fehrenbacher ABSENT: None. ' STAFF: City Administrator Mike Ericson - Legal Counsel Kurt Glaser City Engineer Mark Statz I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilharber called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. None. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Wilharber stated that there was a replacement page 6 of minutes, added Check #29333- 29341 w/voided Check #29329 & 29334, added page #118a and added X. New Business, Item #2. Purchase Agreement— 1737 Main Street. Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher to approve the Agenda with the above stated amendments. All in favor. Motion passed. V. Review of Bids—2015 Street Improvement Project Engineer Statz stated that a summary of bids was provided to Council this evening for their review. Engineer Statz also stated that seven (7) bidders participated, he felt that they were competitive bids and Valley Paving, Inc. was the apparent low bidder at $503,900.50. Engineer Statz stated that the bids exceeded anticipated amounts and that discussions should be had with 1 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 the Finance Director regarding budget and funding of this project prior to Council's consideration. Engineer Statz suggested that the Finance Director attend the next meeting to discuss this item. Mayor Wilharber stated that the City had received an email from Mr. Mike Steigauf, 7077 Eagle Trail,regarding the completed condition of the roadways that received mill and overlay last year, extremely high property taxes and concern that the property taxes do not pay for roadway maintenance. Mayor Wilharber questioned whether the City had ever worked with Valley Paving, Inc. in the past and Engineer Statz stated that he did not believe so but felt that they were a reputable firm. Council Member King questioned the addendums and Engineer Statz stated that often times clarifications to particular items are made and they are the addendums. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 28, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Wilharber provided Council Members with an opportunity to amend the presented minutes. Replacement page added date and closed session minutes. Motion by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Love, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2015 City Council Meeting as presented All in favor. Motion assed. VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. City of Centerville January 29, 2015 through February 11, 2015 Claims (Check #29315- 29331) & (Check#29332-29341) w/Voided Check#29329 &29334 2. Centennial Police Department Claims through January 23, 2015 (Check#10241-10257) 3. Successful Performance Review, Mr. Dan Schmitz/Building Inspection/Maintenance Technician 4. Agreement for Local Assessor Services by & Between the City of Centerville & Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA (February 27, 2015 —February 27, 2019 Services) 5. League of Minnesota Cities insurance Trust — Liability Coverage — Waiver Form (Tort Liability) Mayor Wilharber provided Council Members an opportunity to pull items from the Consent Agenda for additional discussion. Council Member Fehbrenbacher requested that Item#4 be pulled for additional discussion Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Paar to approve the Consent A enda Items#1 2 3 & 5 as Presented. All in favor. Motion passed. Council Member Fehrenbacher questioned whether this was just a contract extension, the past years work history along with fees being proposed. Page 2 of 8 2 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 Administrator Ericson stated that Mr. Tolzmann has provided the City with his services for the past several years', is well known for his services and work ethic and his fees have not increased for this contract. Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Paar to approve Item #4. Agreement for Local Assessor Services by & Between the City of Centerville & Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA (February 27, 2015 — February 27, 2019 Services) as presented. All in favor. Motion passed. VIII. AWARDS/PRESENTATIONS/APPEARANCES I. None. IX. OLD BUSINESS 1. Northeast Water Summit and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Management Area Project Administrator Ericson recapped a recent meeting of the Northeast Water Summit held in Hugo on January 29, 2015, he stated that he and the Mayor were in attendance along with many local elected and appointed officials, expressed the necessity for results of scientific study (to be completed in 2016) prior to ordering restrictions on ground water sources and possible major funding of water supplies to the north and east suburbs, inclusion of the League of Minnesota Cities lobbying efforts and involve Metro Cities. Administrator Ericson also stated that many believe that Metropolitan Council's reactions are extremely organized but so many different items are taking place in a very short period of time without funding considerations, alternative avenues for obtaining water resources, etc. rather than investing millions of dollars in piping to obtain water from the Mississippi and pumping to the northeast suburbs. Administrator Ericson reported that he, the Mayor and Council Member King were in attendance at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources meeting held in Shoreview on February 3,2015. Attorney Glaser stated that Representative Peter Fischer has already introduced a bill proposing adding increased surcharges, usage fees of private well owners and grant opportunities for communities within the north and east water management area. Attorney Glaser stated that this bill would provide an opportunity for elected officials to testify at hearings and allow shaping of the bill or any bills that may follow regarding the issue. Attorney Glaser also stated that Centerville is unique due to the location of the St. Paul Regional Water's pump house and how many options that have not been considered but could impact Centerville's budgets, taxes, recreation, shoreline, etc. and working with and taking the lead from Rep. Linda Runbeck. Administrator Ericson stated that included in the packet was the City of Hugo's resolution denying support for the settlement agreement, unification of northeast metro cities (I35W/E Coalition) and opposition to the implementation of the terms of the settlement agreement. Page 3 of 8 3 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 Motion by Council Member King, seconded by Council Member Paar to direct Staff to draft a similar resolution denying support for the settlement agreement- unification of northeast metro cities and opposition to the implementation of the terms of the settlement agreement similar to the City of Hugo's but very Centerville specific and bring back to Council for consideration at their next meeting. All in favor. Motion carried. Administrator Ericson stated that he will keep Council abreast of all issues pertaining to this matter. 2. Remote Meeting Attendance/Participation Administrator Ericson stated that remote meeting attendance is governed by State Statute, potential equipment costs for providing the services internally, needed free Skype accounts, and the City of Hugo's policy have been provided in the packet and staff is looking for direction regarding the matter. Lengthy discussed ensued regarding Council Member absences, in state or out of state usage, public notice, a location accessible to the public, etc. Council determined that at this point they are not interested in providing this service internally but would consider it in the future. X. NEW BUSINESS 1. Water Tower Subdivision/Plat—Direction of Whether or Not to Allocate Associated Park Dedication Fees to Parks &Rec. for this Subdivision Administrator Ericson stated that the former Administrator included language regarding park dedications fees in the amount of$4,100 to be paid prior to recording of the Water Tower Plat and Staff is questioning the necessity of paying itself, platting not due to new construction or a buildable lot and it being City owned property. Staff included City Code 153.15 pertaining to park dedication fees, Legal Counsel opinion regarding necessity to pay itself being City owned property and Council's minutes of November 12, 2014 approving of the platting and P & Z's Findings and Decision for review. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding City Code, the City paying itself, Parks and Recreation Committee's limited funding, Council's previous action to allocate $15,000 in the City's budget for Parks & Recreation and having the discussion at the goal setting session to follow the regularly scheduled meeting this evening. Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Paar to dismiss language contained in the Planning & Zoning Findings and Decision document approved by Council on November 12, 2014 regarding park dedication fees in the amount of $4,100 and not to allocate these fees associated with the platting of this City owned property. Council Member Love ave, Council Members Wilharber, Paar, King and Fehrenbacher nay. Motion failed. Page 4of8 4 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 Discussion ensued regarding Parks & Recreation's limited budget, the amount, if any, of the $15,000 allocated within the 2015 budget which may be provided to them and if the entire amount would be provided then the park dedication fees with this plat would not need to be allocated. Motion by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher to table the item to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. All in favor. Motion carried. 2. Purchase Agreement— 1737 Main Street Administrator Ericson stated that the City received an offer to purchase the house at 1737 Main Street in the amount of$90,000 and earnest money in the amount of$1,000 was received by the City's agent, Lou Suski. Administrator Ericson stated that the property was originally listed for $135,000 and then reduced to $125,000. Ms. Darlene Farley, potential purchaser 1737 Main Street, introduced herself to Council and stated that she desired to purchase the home, has met with the real estate agent on two occasions and has placed an offer to purchase the property and abutting parcel for $90,000. Ms. Farley presented Council with a listing of renovations she intended on completed with the residence and felt that the items would also reflect her offer price. Ms. Farley stated that her offer included the vacant parcel abutting the property also. Legal Counsel Glaser explained that the property has been vacant for a period of almost two (2) years. Legal Counsel Glaser stated that the property was previously zoned R-2 and then rezoned M-1 in 2006 making it a non-conforming structure as a residence. The City took ownership of the residence in 2009, leased it to an insurance agent in 2010 which met the zoning requirements and that commercial use ceased in April of 2013. Legal Counsel Glaser also stated that in order for the home to meet proper zoning requirements it and the entire block would need to be rezoned R-2 or M-2 which would involve the Planning& Zoning Commission's rezoning of the property, public hearings, a comprehensive plan amendment and restructuring of the downtown redevelopment plan along with Council's approval of same. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the City's acquisition of the property from the County, commercial uses of the property, property taxes acquired if owned by someone other than the City, confusion with the realtor regarding the property's zoning designation, potentials for non-conformities, setback issues, etc. Motion made by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Love to forward this item to Plannine & Zoning Commission for their perspective on the potential for rezoning of the property and abutting properties, effects on the downtown redevelopment plan, non-conformities, etc. All in favor. Motion carried. XI. COUNCIL &ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCEMENTS Administrator Ericson Page 5 of 8 5 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 a. City of Lino Lakes Correspondence — Administrator Ericson stated that the City is in receipt of a letter stating Lino Lake's intent to implement their own fire services as of January 1, 2016. Legal Counsel Glaser reviewed the amended Joint Powers Agreement that was approved previously and at the request of the City of Lino Lakes which stated that they desired to stay with the Fire District until January 30, 2016 rather than their current requested date. Legal Counsel Glaser stated that in 2016 the City of Lino Lakes may have several new members on the Council due to elections who may be unfamiliar with the previous Council's departure, may not desire that departure and may desire to remain with the current amended JPA or enter discussions to negotiate staying with the Centennial Fire District. Council Member Paar stated that the Fire Steering Committee would be holding a Special Meeting on February 26, 2015 to discuss the matter more indepth. Motion was made by Council Member King, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher to forward a letter to the City of Lino Lakes stating that the City has received their letter of intent and will not consider the request until subsequent to the Fire Steering Committee Special Meeting on February 26, 2015. All in favor. Motion carried. b. League of MN Cities Legislative Conference—Administrator Ericson reported that he would be attending the conference on March 4, 2015 and March 5, 2015 and that Staff would be happy to register any Council Member that desired to attend. Mayor Wilharber requested that Administrator Ericson bring back information to the Council from the sessions. C. Engineer Statz informed Council that he and staff recently had a meeting with representatives from Metropolitan Council and Anoka County regarding the replacement of the force main, concerns of the County completing the work on behalf of the Metropolitan Council and both of them entering into a Joint Powers Agreement for the work. d. Engineer Statz stated that discussions with the St. Paul Regional Water Commission continue regarding the replacement of their pipe, their willingness to complete the work but their concern for routine maintenance of the culvert, ditch, etc. Engineer Statz stated that St. Paul Regional Water is currently drafting an agreement for this item and upon its completion it would be forwarded to Legal Counsel and Council for consideration. e. Council Member King stated that he attended his first meeting of the Anoka County Fire Protection Council and was extremely impressed with the elected officials and Fire Chiefs that were active and in participation. Council Member King stated that the meeting involved housekeeping items, explanations of the purpose of the group, Committee reporting, radio training, hazardous materials, funding, training and Centerville's cost of twenty-five cents (.25) per person. Council Member King reported that he remains to have additional questions for the Council and would report those responses shortly to the Council. Page 6 of 8 6 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 Council Member King also stated that the Parks & Recreation Committee is requesting funding from the Council for capital improvement projects for 2015. Council stated that this item would be discussed during the 2015 Goal Setting Session. f. Council Member Fehrenbacher reported that he attending the Centennial Lakes Police Governing Board meeting and stated that due to a sergeant's relinquishment of that position and returning to a patrol officer, two 2) officers were promoted. Mr. Kris Carlson was promoted to Sergeant and Officer Bill Jacobsen was promoted to Detective. Council Member Fehrenbacher also reported that discussions were held regarding body cameras, standard annual items and incidents. Mayor Wilharber reported that Council Member Fehrenbacher was elected as the Chair of the Governing Board. g. Council Member Paar stated that he had attended a recent Fire Steering meeting, an additional Special Meeting was scheduled for February 26, 2015 to discuss Lino Lake's request and that he would report back to Council. h. Council Member Love stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission did not have a meeting but a meeting would be held in March. i. Mayor Wilharber reported that the Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf would be holding their 4t11 Annual Pasta Dinner on Saturday, March 21 at the Hugo American Legion. Mayor Wilharber stated that the Good Neighbor Food Shelf services Centerville and Hugo families that are in need. Mayor Wilharber also reported that Hennepin County recently banned e-cigs from all county owned property similar to their tobacco regulations. Mayor Wilharber recessed the regularly scheduled Council meeting to a scheduled Work Session following a five(5)minutes break at 8:20 p.m. COUNCIL WORKSESSION I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call PRESENT: Mayor Tom Wilharber Council Member Jeff Paar Council Member Steve King(Arrived @ 6:35 p.m.) Council Member D. Love Council Member Ben Fehrenbacher ABSENT: None. Page 7 of 8 7 City of Centerville Council Meeting Minutes February 11,2015 STAFF: City Administrator Mike Ericson Legal Counsel Kurt Glaser City Engineer Mark Statz II. 2015 CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING SESSION Administrator Ericson conducted a goal setting session with the City Council. He provided Council with a draft of 2015 City goals using six (6) categories and information consistent with the new City Administrator job description and profile. Good discussion was had with Council and Staff. Council directed staff to modify four (4) goals and provide a final draft for the February 25, 2015 Council meeting. Council directed Administrator Ericson to forward invitations to all Committee/Commission members. Mayor Wilharber re-opened the Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting at 9:10 p.m. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher to Adiourn the Rey-ularly Scheduled Council Meeting of February 11, 2015 at 9:11 p.m. All in favor. Motion passed. Transcribed by City Staff Member Teresa Bender, City Clerk and City Administrator Ericson Page 8 of 8 8 CITY OF CENTERVILLE 02/20/15 10:29 A� Page Check Detail - February 25, 2015 Check Date Check# Vender Name Comments Amount 2/25/2015 029342 ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TRUTH IN TAXATION $385.31 2/25/2015 029342 ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $2,104.86 2/25/2015 029342 ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS TIF $1,633.34 Check Nbr 029342 ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS $4,123.51 2/25/2015 029343 BRADLEY&DEIKE, P.A. LEGAL SERVICES FOR GEN.OBLIG. IMPROV REFUNDING BOND, Check Nbr 029343 BRADLEY&DEIKE. P.A. $4,750.00 2/25/2015 029344 CITY OF ROSEVILLE SOFTWARE LICENSE&NETWORK ACCESS $91.47 2/25/2015 029344 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SERVICE-FEB.2015 $63.63 2/25/2015 029344 CITY OF ROSEVILLE SOFTWARE LICENSE&NETWORK ACCESS $91.48 2/25/2015 029344 CITY OF ROSEVILLE IT SERVICE-FEB.2015 $63.62 Check Nbr 029344 CITY OF ROSEVILLE $310.20 2/25/2015 029345 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA ROAD SALT $4,060.53 2/25/2015 029345 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA ROAD SALT $3,994.19 Check Nbr 029345 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA $8,054.72 2/25/2015 029346 DELTA DENTAL MARCH 2015 DENTAL INSURANCE Check Nbr 029346 DELTA DENTAL $335.95 2/25/2015 029347 GRAINGER 2 BALLAST Check Nbr 029347 GRAINGER $53.67 2/25/2015 029348 HEALTH PARTNERS D. LARSON-COBRA HEALTH INS FOR JAN. FEB&MARCH $4,237.38 2/25/2015 029348 HEALTH PARTNERS MARCH 2015 HEALTH INSURANCE $3,416.54 Check Nbr 029348 HEALTH PARTNERS $7,653.92 2/25/2015 029349 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH INC JAN.2015 WATER TEST Check Nbr 029349 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH INC $38.00 2/25/2015 029350 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI SERV.THRU 11-12-14 THRU 2-11-15 Check Nbr 029350 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI $596.24 2/25/2015 029351 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MN CITIES STORMWATER COALITION CONTRUTIONS ,k Nbr 029351 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES $515.00 2/25/2015 029352 MET.COUNCIL ENV.SERV.(SDS) MARCH 2015 WASTE WATER SERVICES Check Nbr 029352 MET.COUNCIL ENV.SERV.(SDS) $16,186.92 2/25/2015 029353 PRESS PUBLICATIONS SUMMARY OF ORD 71 $50.64 2/25/2015 029353 PRESS PUBLICATIONS SUMMARY OF ORD 70(2ND) $63.30 Check Nbr 029353 PRESS PUBLICATIONS $113.94 2/25/2015 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE CHARGES THRU 2-09-15 $39.86 2/25/2015 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE CHARGES THRU 2-09-15 $119.60 2/25/2015 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE CHARGES THRU 2-09-15 $39.86 2/25/2015 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE CHARGES THRU 2-09-15 $39.86 2/25/2015 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS CELL PHONE CHARGES THRU 2-09-15 $39.86 Check Nbr 029354 VERIZION WIRELESS $279.04 2/25/2015 029355 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYCLE 4 FOOT AND 8 FOOT LAMP BULBS Check Nbr 029355 WASTE MANAGEMENT $186.00 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 1889 CENTER ST-SEWER LIFT-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $23.04 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 1737 MAIN ST-SERV THRU 2-5-15 $20.22 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 6970 LAMOTTE DR-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $387.14 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR-BALLFIELD LIGHTS-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $132.68 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 7300 MILL RD-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $233.44 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $157.03 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 1875 FOX RUN- PUMP-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $146.65 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY STREETS-SERV THRU 2-7-15 $2,242.08 2/25/2015 029356 XCEL ENERGY 7285 MAIN ST- SERV THRU 2-7-15 $46.24 Check Nbr 029356 XCEL ENERGY $3.388.52 Total checks$46,585.63 9 CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT Check Register-FIRE GL Page: 1 Check Issue Dates:2/1/2015-2/13/2015 Feb 13,2015 08:46AM Report Criteria: Report type: Summary GL Check Check Vendor Description Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Amount 02/15 02/13/2015 6769 10275 ALADTEC, INC EMP SCHEDULING SOFTWARE 1,495.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6770 10850 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY D MARCH BROADBAND 187.50 02/15 02/13/2015 6771 11565 ASPEN MILLS, INC UNIFORMS 287.10 02/15 02/13/2015 6772 30040 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC 3-PRO DOCK STATIONS 520.73 02/15 02/13/2015 6773 30480 CENTENNIAL UTILITIES JAN UTILITIES STATION 1 112.31 02/15 02/13/2015 6774 30490 CENTERPOINT ENERGY JAN STATION 2 GAS CHARGES 778.89 02/15 02/13/2015 6775 30575 CITY OF CIRCLE PINES REIMB EAP SERVICES 2015 1,414.67 02/15 02/13/2015 6776 40100 PAT DEVANEY SEPT-DEC CELL REIMS 250.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6777 60650 FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE S BLDG MTC-SPRAY PAINT/MISC 114.76 02/15 02/13/2015 6778 130450 METRO CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS 2015 DUES 100.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6779 130710 MN CHAPTER IAAI 2015 MEMBERSHIP DB 50.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6780 130850 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSO 2015 MEMBERSHIP PD/DB/GO 207.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6781 131470 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERV 2 GAS MONITOR/DETECTORS 1,047.69 02/15 02/13/2015 6782 150145 OFFICE MAX BLDG SUPPLIES 153.17 02/15 02/13/2015 6783 160050 PAETEC, INC JAN PHONES 160.09 02/15 02/13/2015 6784 160160 KATHY PEIL SEPT-DEC CELL PHONE REIMB 250.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6785 160493 PREMIUM WATERS, INC BOTTLED WATER 11.14 02/15 02/13/2015 6786 180600 CITY OF ROSEVILLE NET MOTION MOBILITY LICENS 1,138.20 02/15 02/13/2015 6787 190820 BENJAMIN J.STEPAN JAN EMS INSTRUCTOR HOURS 432.00 02/15 02/13/2015 6788 220200 VERIZON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 131.07 02/15 02/13/2015 6789 220250 VIKING TROPHIES, INC AWARDS/PLAQUES 97.00 Grand Totals: 8,938.32 Payroll Check#6761-6768 M=Manual Check,V=Void Check 10 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 4, 2015—6:30 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Parks & Recreation Committee of the City of Centerville held a scheduled meeting on February 4, 2015 at the City Hall location. Present: Chairperson Jon Grahek Vice Chairperson Kevin Waeghe Committee Member Kevin Amundsen Q Committee Member Chris BettingerO 0 Committee Member Brian Peterson D O Committee Member Charles Reinhardt O Committee Member Suzanne Seeley Also Present: Council Member, Steve King Public Works Director, Paul Palzer Linda Neudecker, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Grahek called the February 4,2015 Meeting of the Parks&Recreation Committee to order at 6:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Roll Call—see above II. SET AGENDA There were no additions to the agenda. III. APPEARANCES —Tom Lee Mr. Lee, Coordinator of Music in the Park, gave the Committee a report on the status of the event. Mr. Lee stated that there are nine (9) bands scheduled for each week from June 2 through July 28. Mr. Lee has requested that the Committee consider an increase in the budget from $2,200 to $2,700 to ensure that all expenses are covered. Mr. Lee stated that the committee approved the purchase of three (3) XLR cords in 2014, however, they have yet to be purchase and he intends on purchasing them prior to the event commencement. Mr. Lee estimated cost to be approximately $50. Mr. Lee reported that he may have an opportunity to obtain some rolling cases for the PA system/audio equipment at no cost. Mr. Lee is still exploring the option for a "Jam" in conjunction with the Music in the Park program, however he would need access to a stage, canopy and possibly provide concessions. Discussion ensued regarding fireworks and the distribution of flyers at the several water ski shows that will be taking place prior to the event. 1 11 Motion was made by Committee Member Peterson seconded by Committee Member Amundsen to recommend to the Citv Council to increase the P & R budget line item for Music In the Parks from $2,200.00 to $2,700. which would include the annual ASCAM fee. All in Favor. Motion carried. IV. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Motion was made by Committee Member Peterson seconded by Committee Member Bettinger to approve the January 7. 2015 minutes with the following correction: on nage 2 under V. Committee Business 3. last varaeraph chap e April 188th to A ril 18th. All in favor. Motion carried. V. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Music in the Park—Mr. Tom Lee See Appearances - above 2. Centennial Soccer Club—requesting use of Acorn & LaMotte ball fields A Park Facility Permit Application was received from Mr. Matt Koehn, contact person for the Centennial Soccer Club, requesting the use of the baseball, softball fields and facilities at Acorn Park (south area-open field) along with the Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park (fields 1, 2 & 11) from April 1 through July 31, 2015 and from August 1, 2015 through October 30, 2015; Mondays through Fridays from 5:00 p.m. until dark. Following discussion, it was determined to have staff forward a letter to Mr. Koehn requesting a definitive schedule with the dates, times and specific fields they desire to utilize. The uses of the majority of these fields have also been requested by the Centennial Lakes Little League (letter to also be sent to them) and there has not yet been a request from the football clubs/leagues. 3. Platting of 7087—20th Avenue South—Park Dedication Fees The committee received a memo from Staff explaining that Council would be discussing this matter. Staff explained to the Committee that previous Administrator Larson was under the impression that due to City Code Chapter 153.15B the committee would be receiving park dedication fees from this platting/subdivision. The memo explained that the platting/subdivision was necessitated by retaining property to maintain the water tower rather than a residential subdivision. City Staff obtained an opinion on the matter from Legal Counsel who stated that the City does not have to pay itself. The committee requested that the amount of park dedication fees potentially obtained from this platting/subdivision be forwarded to them via email along with Council Liaison King. Consensus of the Committee was to obtain information from Council on their action. 2 12 4. Centerville Lions 32nd Annual Fishing Contest—Lynn Johnson Memorial This event will be held on Saturday, February 21, 2015 from 11:00 am to 2:00 p.m. on Centerville Lake by the Anoka County Rice Creek Chain of Lakes beach. The Lions are looking for additional volunteers to help with this event. VI. UPDATES 1. Council Updates—Council Member Steve King Council Member King reported that Council has scheduled a Joint Work Session with Committee/Commission Members on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at approximately 7:00 p.m. to discussion 2015 goals. Council Member Steve King reported that Council recently appointed him to the Anoka County Fire Protection Council and that he attended a recent Northeast Metro Groundwater Management meeting sponsored by the DNR. Council Member King stated that he obtained a copy of the Area Plan. 2. Skate Nights/Bonfire Saturday, January 10, 2015—members of the committee reported that the event was well attended with approximately 100 individuals participating. Saturday, February 7, 2015—members of the committee reported that the event will be held in conjunction with the hayride, bonfire, refreshments, popcorn and hot cocoa. Committee Member Peterson inventoried the supplies and would purchase additional items if needed prior to the event. It was anticipated that the temperatures for the event would be in the high 20's/low 30's. The committee reported that The Citizen has publicized an article regarding the event and information has been included in the school's Friday Flash at the end of January. Committee Members noticed that the event information had been posted on the reader board in front of City Hall and volunteers would be posting flyers at various locations. Committee Member Grahek will obtain a check from Staff for same day payment for the Bunker Hills Stables (hayride). Committee Member Amundsen will coordinate with Mr. Tom Lee to pick up pallets to be used for the bonfire. It was discussed to contact the Citizen or another person to take photos of this event, as well as contacting North Metro TV to film it. Possibly these forms of promotion could be used during the Music in the Park events. 3 13 2. Purchase of Basketball Equipment—Mr. Paul Palzer Subsequent to lengthy discussions regarding this item, Mr. Palzer was authorized to purchase a rectangular, 42" x 72", polycarbonate/acrylic backboard and post which needs to be 10' tall. It will be installed in the spring but no later than May. VII. OTHER There were no updates regarding: * Request for the Festival of the Lakes regarding the number and location of portable toilets or date change. * Playground Fall Zone Material * P &R Committee Member Reappointments * Complete safety check of the rink area and repairs if deemed appropriate. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Items that have been completed will be removed; some remain open and additional items were added if necessary. A revised Action Item List, as of the February 4, 2015 meeting will be included with the minutes to be approved. Items that have been completed as of February 4, 2015 will be removed: These include item numbers: 14-026, 14-027, 14-028 14-029 14-030, 14-031, 15-002 15-004 Items that are to be deleted as of t ebruary 4, 2015 Nvill be removed: NONE Corrections/Revisions: 14-001: Assigned person—T Bender to develop letters for J. Grahek to sign&change date to: ASAP 14-012: Verify status with Staff 14-024: Correct spelling of Chominix to Chomonix 14-032: Change contact person from M. Ericson to T. Bender and change date from Jan.2015 to ASAP&notify P&R Committee Members&Council Member King via email. 15-003: add"see wording in Motion from 1-7-15 P&R meeting minutes" Items to be added are: 15-005: Letter to Centennial Soccer Club (see wording under on page 2 of the February minutes); T. Bender; ASAP 15-006a: Possible park dedication fees — 7087 — 20"' Avenue South Subdivision; T Bender; ASAP,&email response 15-006b: Provide current ordinance pertaining to Park Dedication Fees in the March packet; T. Bender,by March 4,2015 meeting 15-007: What do the Lions need for volunteers (positions)?; staff, ASAP —email to committee members 4 14 15-008: J. Graliek to check with T. Bender regarding obtaining a check for payment to Bunker Hills Stables; on February 5 or 6, 2015. 15-009: Send information on how to use the drop box(send link please);T. Bender; ASAP 15-010: Check with North Metro TV regarding covering future events such as the 5k & 8k Runs, Music in the Park,etc. TBD/TBD 15-011: Provide two (2) pocket folders (any color) for each committee member; L. Neudecker or T. Bender; ASAP Items that are priority items and need to be done ASAP are item numbers: Ola-01e, 02, 03 Change dates to Ongoing: NONE IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Committee Member Peterson, seconded by Committee Member Grahek to ad'ourn the meetin at 8:34 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried. Submitted by: Linda Neudecker, Secretary 5 15 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF CENTERVILLE Res.#15-0 Authorizing Adoption of ICMA Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust(457 Plan) WHEREAS, the Employer has employees rendering valuable services; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a deferred compensation plan for such employees serves the interests of the Employer by enabling it to provide reasonable retirement security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS, the Employer has determined that the establishment of a deferred compensation plan to be administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation serves the above objectives; and WHEREAS, the Employer desires that its deferred compensation plan be administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation, and that some or all of the funds held under such plan be invested in VantageTrust, a trust established by public employers for the collective investment of funds held under their retirement and deferred compensation plans; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Employer hereby adopts the deferred compensation plan (the"Plan") in the form of The ICMA Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust,referred to as Appendix A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employer hereby adopts the Declaration of Trust of VantageTrust, attached hereto as Appendix B, intending this adoption to be operative with respect to any retirement or deferred compensation plan subsequently established by the Employer, if the assets of the plan are to be invested in VantageTrust. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of this Plan shall be held in trust, with the Employer serving as trustee, for the exclusive benefit of the Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets shall not be diverted to any other purpose. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employer hereby agrees to serve as trustee under this Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator shall be the coordinator for this program; shall receive necessary reports, notices, etc. from ICMA Retirement Corporation or VantageTrust; shall cast, on behalf of the Employer, any required votes under VantageTrust; Administrative duties to carry out the plan may be assigned to the appropriate departments, and is authorized to execute all necessary agreements with ICMA Retirement Corporation incidental to the administration of the Plan. 16 I, Teresa Bender, Clerk of the City of Centerville, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, proposed by Council Member , seconded by Council Member of the City of Centerville was duly passed and adopted on February 25, 2015 at Council's regularly scheduled meeting. The vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Thomas Wilharber, Mayor Attest: Teresa Bender, City Clerk 17 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St.Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Sta Cite C Fax: (651) 636-1311 February 12, 2015 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55035-9794 Re: 2015 Thin Bituminous Overlay Project Project No. 193803042 Bid Results Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Bids were opened for the Project stated above on February 11, 2015. Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Bid Tabulation for your information and file. Copies will also be distributed to each Bidder once the Project has been awarded. There were a total of 7 Bids. The following summarizes the results of the Bids received: Contractor Total Base Bid Low Valley Paving, Inc. $503,900.50 #2 North Valley, Inc. $510,324.39 #3 Knife River Corp.-No. Central $514,505.50 #4 Hardrives, Inc. $515,774.90 #5 Midwest Asphalt Corporation $583,959.00 #6 Park Construction Company $595,517.75 #7 Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. $603,700.75 The low Bidder on the Project was Valley Paving, Inc.with a Total Base Bid Amount of$503,900.50. The city Finance Director will be on hand at the next city council meeting to discuss how these bids work within the ongoing pavement management program. These Bids have been reviewed and found to be in order. If the City Council wishes to award the Project to the low Bidder, then Valley Paving, Inc. should be awarded the Project on the Total Base Bid Amount of$503,900.50. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4709. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. 100� '-14. Mark. R. Statz, PE Enclosure Design with community in mind 18 Project Name: 2015 Thin Bituminous Overlay Project I hereby certify that this is an exact (30Sta ntec reproduction of bids received. City Project No.: Stantec Project No.: 193803042 loo i Bid Opening:Wednesday,February 11,2015 at 4 P.M.,CST Owner: City of Centerville„MN "" �� Mark R.Statz License No.42717 Bidder No.1 Bidder No.2 Bidder No.3 Bidder No.4 BID TABULATION Valley Paving,Inc. North Valley,Inc. Knife River Corporation-NC Hardrives,Inc. Item Num Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $7,800.00 $7,800.00 $3,743.00 $3,743.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $400.00 $400.00 $374.30 $374.30 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) SY 6500 $1.50 $9,750.00 $2.13 $13,845.00 $3.80 $24,700.00 $1.75 $11,375.00 4 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 105 $6.50 $682.50 $4.12 $432.60 $4.00 $420.00 $2.00 $210.00 5 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY 100 $31.00 $3,100.00 $19.25 $1,925.00 $4.00 $400.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 6 STREET SWEEPER WITH OPERATOR HR 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 $122.98 $1,229.80 $165.00 $1,650.00 $50.00 $500.00 7 AGGREGATE BASE,CLASS 5 TN 1600 $14.85 $23,760.00 $1297 $20,752.00 $12.00 $19,200.00 $9.00 $14,400.00 8 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 300 $2.20 $660.00 $3.05 $91500 $2.50 $750.00 $2.00 $600.00 9 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 575 $73.75 $42,406.25 $69.79 $40,12925 $70.00 $40,250.00 $71.00 $40,825.00 10 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 775 $66.85 $51,808.75 $63.90 $49,522.50 $64.00 $49,600.00 $65.00 $50,375.00 11 SAW AND SEAL LF 1200 $4.30 $5,160.00 $4.44 $5,328.00 $4.15 $4,980.00 $4.50 $5,400.00 12 FOUNDATION PREPARATION SY 6500 $0.47 $3,055.00 $0.42 $2,730.00 $0.35 $2,275.00 $1.00 $6,500.00 13 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 6 $530.00 $3,180.00 $267.36 $1,604.16 $325.00 $1,950.00 $405.00 $2,430.00 14 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING EA 9 $585.00 $5,265.00 $491.94 $4,427.46 $375.00 $3,375.00 $545.00 $4,905.00 15 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 350 $32.80 $11,480.00 $30.53 $10,685.50 $25.00 $8,750.00 $27.50 $9,625.00 16 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ( LF 200 $25.70 $5,140.00 $33.65 $6,730.00 $28.50 $5,700.00 $34.00 $6,800.00 17 PROTECTION OF CATCH BASIN EA 5 $60.00 1300.00 $251.32 $1.256.60 $175.00 S875.00 $54.00 $270.00 TOTAL PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA $175,197.50 $165,630.17 $174,375.00 $171,715.00 T PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS 18 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,881.86 $5,881.86 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 19 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $2,299.27 $2,299.27 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 20 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) SY 3700 $3.70 $13,690.00 $2.45 $9,065.00 $4.50 $16,650.00 $1.75 $6,475.00 21 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 5500 $0.01 $55.00 $2.13 $11,715.00 $1.75 $9,625.00 $0.10 $550.00 22 1"MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 25520 $0.80 $20,416.00 $0.80 $20,416.00 $1.40 $35,728.00 $2.20 $56,144.00 23 MILL BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION JOINT SY 90 $4.30 $387.00 $18.08 $1,627.20 $6.00 $540.00 $0.01 $0.90 24 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1125 $2.20 $2,475.00 $3.05 $3,431.25 $2.50 $2,812.50 $2.00 $2,250.00 25 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 1900 $70.95 $134,805.00 $69.79 $132,601.00 $69.00 $131,100.00 $72.00 $136,800,00 26 AGGREGATE BASE,CLASS 5 TN 200 $7.00 $1,400.00 $18.02 $3,604.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $9.00 $1,800.00 27 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE PATCHING(Y'LIFE SY 7400 $8.85 $65,490.00 $8.69 $64,306.00 $6.75 $49,950.00 $4.75 $35,150.00 (TYPE SP12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIXTURE(3.E)) 28 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 15 $150.00 $2,250.00 $267.36 $4,010.40 $325.00 $4,875.00 $275.00 $4,125,00 29 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING EA 46 $445.00 $20,470.00 $491.94 $22,629.24 $375.00 $17,250.00 $415.00 $19,090,00 30 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1500 $28.85 $43,275.00 $29.12 $43,680.00 $25.00 $37,500.00 $31.65 $47,475.00 31 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER(I LF 600 $22.90 $13.740.00 $32.38 119.428.00 $28.50 t17,100.00 $32.00 t19,200.00 TOTAL PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS $328,703.00 $344,694.22 $340,130.50 $344,059.90 BID SUMMARY TOTAL PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA $175,197.50 $165,630.17 $174,375.00 $171,715.00 TOTAL PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS 4328.703.00t344.694.22 4 44 .059.90 TOTAL BASE BID $503,900.50 $510,324.39 $514,505.50 $515,774.90 Contractor Name and Address.Valley Paving,Inc. North Valley,Inc. Knife River Corporation-No.Central Hardrives,Inc. 8800 13th Avenue East 20015 Iguana St.NW,Ste.100 4787 Shadow Wood Drive NE 14475 Quvam Drive Shakopee.MN 55379 Nowthen,MN 55330 Sauk RaDAS.MN 56379 Rogers.MN 55374 Phone:952-445-8615 763-274-2580 320-251-9472 764-428-8886 Fax 952-445-0355 763-274-2584 320-251-0011 763-428-8868 Email:brent2vallevoavina,com contactus�no�hvallevinc n tot dlobello�hardnvesinc com Signed By: Brent A.Carron Brad Schmidtbauer John F Quade Daniel LoBello Title:Vice President President President Projct Manager Bid Security:Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Addenda Acknowledged:1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 193803C P ® Stantec Bidder No.5 Bidder No.6 Bidder No.6 BID TABULATION Midwest Asphalt Corp Park Construction Co. Omann Brothers Paving,Inc. Item Num Item Units QtY Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,05400 $10,054.00 $500.00 $500.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) SY 6500 $2.00 $13,000.00 $240 $15,600.00 $4.40 $28,600.00 4 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 105 $4.00 $420.00 $330 $346.50 $1.50 $15750 5 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY 100 $25.00 $2,500.00 $2600 $2,600.00 $19.15 $1,915.00 6 STREET SWEEPER WITH OPERATOR HR 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 $120.00 $1,200.00 $140.00 $1,40000 7 AGGREGATE BASE,CLASS 5 TN 1600 $10.00 $16,000.00 $1760 $28,160.00 $13.50 $21,600.00 8 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 300 $2.00 $600.00 $3.05 $915.00 $2.75 $825.00 9 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 575 $73.00 $41,975.00 $72.60 $41,745.00 $77.00 $44,275.00 10 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 775 $66.00 $51,150.00 $6780 $52,545.00 $75.00 $58,125.00 11 SAW AND SEAL LF 1200 $5.50 $6,600.00 $3.00 $3,600.00 $4.28 $5,136.00 12 FOUNDATION PREPARATION SY 6500 $1.00 $6,500.00 $091 $5,915.00 $0.79 $5,135.00 13 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 $41700 $2,502.00 $150.00 $900.00 14 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING EA 9 $670.00 $6,030.00 $542.00 $4,878.00 $540.00 $4,860.00 15 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 350 $34.00 $11,900.00 $2740 $9,590.00 $31.67 $11,084.50 16 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ( LF 200 $45.00 $9,000.00 $2790 $5,580.00 $39.18 $7,836.00 17 PROTECTION OF CATCH BASIN EA 5 $150.00 Q50.00 $19900 095.00 $90.00 $450.00 TOTAL PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA $185,925.00 $196,225.50 $196,799.00 CD CV PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS 18 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $19,00000 $19,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 19 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $10,000.00 $101000.00 $2,150.00 $2,150.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 20 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) SY 3700 $2.50 $9,250.00 $0.69 $2,553.00 $5.47 $20,239.00 21 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 5500 $2.50 $13,750.00 $2.15 $11,825.00 $1.50 $8,250.00 22 1"MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 25520 $070 $17,864.00 $105 $26,796.00 $1.10 $28,072.00 23 MILL BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION JOINT SY 90 $5.00 $450.00 $6.15 $553.50 $10.00 $900.00 24 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1125 $2.00 $2,250.00 $3.05 $3,431.25 $2.75 $3,093.75 25 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(3,E) TN 1900 $70.00 $133,000.00 $72.70 $138,130.00 $77.00 $146,300.00 26 AGGREGATE BASE,CLASS 5 TN 200 $19.00 $3,800.00 $20.40 $4,080.00 $14.00 $2,800.00 27 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE PATCHING(Y'LIFT) SY 7400 $9.50 $70,300.00 $15.00 $111,000.00 $11.50 $85,100.00 frYPE SP12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIXTURE(3.E)) 28 ADJUST VALVE BOX EA 15 $250.00 $3,750.00 $438.00 $6,570.00 $150.00 $2,250.00 29 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING EA 46 $670.00 $30,820.00 $510.00 $23,460.00 $750.00 $34,500.00 30 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1500 $40.00 $60,000.00 $23.90 $35,850.00 $28.59 $42,885.00 31 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER(I LF 600 $48.00 t28,800.00 $22.20 113.320.00 $38.02 S22.812.00 TOTAL PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS $398,034.00 $398,718.75 $406,901.75 BID SUMMARY TOTAL PART 1-ROBIN LANE AREA $185,925.00 $196,799.00 $196,799.00 TOTAL PART 2-MILL AND OVERLAY AREAS $398,034.00 $398, 18.75 6 1.7 TOTAL BASE BID $583,959.00 $595,517.75 $603,700.75 Contractor Name and Address:Midwest Asphalt Corporation Park Construction Company Omann Brothers Paving,Inc. 6340 Industrial Drive,Ste.200 1481 81st Avenue NE 6551 LaBeaux Ave NE,PO Box 120 Eden Prairie.MN 55346 Minneapolis,MN 55432 Albertville,MN 55301 Phone:952-937-8033 763-786-9800 763-497-8259 Fax 952-937-6910 763-717-6238 763-497-8261 Email:ksticha(Mmldwestasphalt.net mchhstiansonaparkconstructionco.co Deving(Momanninc.com Signed By:Matthew].Timmers Michael Christianson Kelly Omann Title:Vice President Vice President President Bid Security: Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Addenda Acknowledged:1,2 1,2 1,2 193803042BT xlsm BT-2 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF CENTERVILLE RES. #15-0 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE PROFFERED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY THE WHITE BEAR LAKE RESTORATION ASSOCIATION RELATING TO REGIONALIZATION OF MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES WHEREAS, the White Bear Lake Restoration Association, launched a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Resources (DNR) asserting complaints about the water level in White Bear Lake and claiming that the DNR violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) and the Public Trust Doctrine among other allegations; and WHEREAS, the lawsuit contained claims, propounded by the Plaintiffs hired representatives, which asserted that by allowing thirteen local communities to use groundwater for their public water supply, including primarily drinking water, the DNR permitted too much groundwater to be used. This, the lawsuit claimed, affected recreational uses in White Bear Lake. Plaintiffs, and their hired representatives, thus demanded constriction of groundwater uses by neighboring Cities including suggesting in their written discovery responses that municipal water wells be terminated (in a manner to be determined by the DNR) because, claimed the Plaintiffs representatives, pumping of municipal drinking water resulted in a recent decline in water levels of White Bear Lake; and WHEREAS, DNR denied those allegations and responded by pointing out that the claimed recent reduction in water levels in White Bear Lake was • a cyclical decline which occurs at varying years over the long existence of the lake and then reverses; and • that it was related to climate patterns; and • that it was also (and more obviously) related to cessation of a long-standing practice of directly pumping water into the lake to maintain its levels; and • that, despite the claims of Plaintiffs paid experts, even independent studies were preliminary and did not plainly establish a link between drinking water pumping and the depth of water in White Bear Lake and that additional study and consideration was needed to understand this complex inquiry; and • that, ultimately, the entire matter was a complex inquiry, more aptly suited to be explored and resolved by dispassionate scientific inquiry, rather than to be determined by the claims of Plaintiff's paid advocates through lawsuits; and WHEREAS, well before the lawsuit, the City of Centerville encouraged and developed mechanisms for recapturing and conserving surface water and surface water runoff for use to replace or supplement ground water use; and WHEREAS, though the City of Centerville encouraged the DNR to contest the Plaintiffs claims vigorously,Plaintiffs and the DNR have agreed to a settlement which, among other things: 21 • the parties have agreed to a $623 million regional water supply project to serve 13 communities; and • the parties have agreed to a new revenue generating mechanism through taxation, fees, or other means to pay for operation of a new regional water supply project;and • the agreement creates a requirement to establish a protective elevation for White Bear Lake; and • the agreement requires the DNR to use their "best efforts"to enforce through appropriation permits new water use restrictions, conservation standards,and water rate structures; and • the agreement requires implementation of a groundwater management area plan; and WHEREAS,MN Statutes 103G.261 includes water allocation priorities, among them domestic water supply, agricultural irrigation, and power production. Non-essential uses are assigned the lowest priority, among which are recreational uses among others; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City of Centerville does not support the settlement agreement for the following reasons: • The entire predicate of the settlement agreement is speculative and premature. Current science does not support or guarantee that implementation of the settlement agreement will increase lake levels of White Bear Lake. • Extensive scientific study remains underway by the USGS and others concerning interaction between ground waters and surface waters, and adopting a complex and expensive regulatory framework which decreases availability and increases cost of municipal drinking water is not warranted. • The "Project" which proposes to supply 13 communities with surface water drawn from limited sources would require communities to connect to a regional water supply system as a mandate. The City opposes this approach, as it wishes to maintain local control over important decisions that impact its citizens. • There are alternatives that likely would be more feasible, effective, and less costly than the solutions outlined in the settlement. • The"Project"will considerably increase operating costs of the City's water utility. • Phase 2 communities do not benefit from the equitable cost sharing arrangements that Phase 1 communities benefit from. • The City opposes the creation of a new taxing district or other fee structure to pay for operation of a water supply system that does not serve the City. • The settlement concludes that all parties,including the DNR, agree that surface water should be the source of water for the northeast metro. The DNR's North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area planning process has not been complete and has not reached this conclusion. The agreement predetermines the outcome of the process, and 22 requires implementation of a plan without supporting facts or data or input from stakeholders. • The stated water conservation goals are arbitrary. • A protective elevation will be established for White Bear Lake that may impact appropriations and future appropriations of groundwater. • The settlement grants Plaintiffs a role in reviewing appropriation permits. Plaintiffs have already suggested that the remedy they demand includes placing restrictions on municipal drinking water wells and increasing the cost therefor. • The boundaries used to select the 13 communities that are impacted by the settlement were set arbitrarily without any basis in science or fact. Some of the wells serving municipal water supplies within the Phase 2 communities are located in aquifers other than the Prairie du Chien / Jordan aquifers, but they are still impacted by the settlement. Forest Lake's municipal water supply is currently drawn from the Mount Simon Aquifer. There has been no indication that utilization of the Mount Simon Aquifer has had any negative impact on any surface waters. • The Prairie du Chien / Jordan aquifer does not exist under all 13 communities that are subject to the agreement. Many other communities impact the aquifer,but are not made part of the communities subject to regionalization or restriction under the settlement agreement. • The economic impact of the settlement is profound, as it will negatively impact the region's growth, economic development potential, and will add significant financial burden to residential and commercial water users in the north and northeast metro. • The unique impact on the City of Centerville from this settlement includes the potential use of the Saint Paul Regional Water Service facilities located in Centerville to pump water out of Centerville Lake to serve the region's needs. The drawdown of Centerville Lake could have negative environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City supports the unification of all Northeast Metro Cities in active opposition to the implementation of the terms of the settlement agreement. Adopted by the Council this 25`h day of February, 2015. Thomas Wilharber, Mayor Attest: Teresa Bender, City Clerk 23 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road • Saint Paul,Minnesota • 551554037 Office of the Commissioner 651-259.5555 February 12,2014 An open letter to the citizens of the North and East Metro area: You've may have heard that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR)and others recently agreed to settle a lawsuit over low water levels on White Bear Lake. I'd like to take this opportunity to answer some of the questions you may have about that settlement and talk about a goal I know the state,local communities,and individual citizens all share-abundant,high quality water for future generations. First of all,let me provide a little background. Water in Minnesota is not owned by individuals,but rather is held in trust by the state for the benefit of all citizens. The DNR implements the state's water use permitting program and is responsible for ensuring that Minnesota's surface and groundwater will not be depleted. Through this program,communities obtain permits from the DNR to use groundwater, lakes,and rivers to provide citizens and businesses with water. The plaintiffs in the White Bear Lake case claim that the DNR has allowed communities in the North and East Metro area to use too much groundwater and that this in turn has caused declining water levels on White Bear Lake. While we disagree that overuse is the primary cause of low water levels on White Bear Lake,the DNR and other parties in this case worked diligently throughout 2014 to settle the case through negotiation.The settlement means we now can engage with all of those affected,including area communities and legislators,in seeking solutions,rather than trying the case with the plaintiffs and awaiting the court's ruling. I understand that this settlement came as a surprise to the communities that were not participating in the lawsuit,and many of you have questions and concerns. We need much more conversation,but I'd like to here address a few of the most common questions we've heard: "What does the settlement do?" The settlement calls for:1)developing a water supply from the Mississippi River for some area communities,2)increasing water conservation efforts,and 3) undertaking other water sustainability measures. The proposed change in water supply will require careful evaluation,broad community engagement,and significant state funding. For this reason,the settlement includes a three-year hold on the lawsuit. During this time,all parties to the settlement will work with communities,legislators,and others to see whether a broader agreement and funding package are possible. In short,the settlement is our chance to engage with the people of the North and East Metro to craft a solution that the plaintiffs will find acceptable and that will also address the communities'concerns and needs. "Who signed this settlement agreement?" In addition to the DNR,the two plaintiff organizations(White Bear Lake Restoration Association and White Bear Lake Homeowners Association),the City of White Bear Lake,and White Bear Township signed the agreement. It is binding only on those who signed it. DNR Inkorulion:651-296-6157 or 1-888-646-6367•TIY:651-296-5484 or 1-800-651-3929•FAX:651-296-4779•www.mndni.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10%POST-CDNSUMER WASTE 24 "What cities are potentially affected?" The settlement agreement calls for shifting the communities of Mahtomedi,North St.Paul,Shoreview,Vadnais Heights,White Bear Lake,and White Bear Township from groundwater to surface water for home and business use. Longer term,it also contemplates a similar shift for seven additional communities in the area(Centerville,Circle Pines,Columbus,Forest Lake,Hugo, Lexington,and Lino Lakes),but resolving the lawsuit does not require shifting those communities. The agreement also calls on the DNR to work with all 13 communities,as well as industry and private well owners,on water conservation. "The DNR says it doesn't believe that shifting communities to surface water will improve water levels on White Bear Lake,so why do it?" The relationship between White Bear Lake and the groundwater underneath it is complex and is not yet thoroughly understood. The DNR believes that low precipitation in White Bear's relatively small watershed is the primary cause of low lake levels in recent years. However,an ongoing study by the US Geological Survey,due to be completed in the fall of 2016,should provide additional insight. Regardless of the factors driving White Bear Lake levels,we are concerned that over-reliance on groundwater could threaten the region's aquifers,the surface waters that are connected to them,and the communities'economic vitality sometime in the future. By starting to work now on conservation and a more sustainable mix of water sources,we have the time to work with communities and the legislature to advance our collective goal of a reliable,long-term source of water for this vital part of the state. "How can the DNR and the plaintiffs force us to change our water system?" Simply put,we can't. We will need substantial concurrence from the communities,and that is why the settlement includes a three-year stay in the lawsuit. Since not all of the affected communities were parties to the lawsuit and settlement,the DNR was very careful to ensure that the agreement did not presume action by anyone who didn't sign it. We know that we are not the water system experts,and that every community has many factors that must be considered and addressed before embarking on a major change in how water is provided to its citizens and businesses.You can be assured that your leaders are being thoughtful and thorough in their approach to this issue. 1 like my water. Will it taste fishy'if we switch?" The settlement agreement specifically states that the communities should be able to mix surface and groundwater in the treatment process in order to address any taste issues,as well as to manage other water quality-related concerns. The St.Paul Regional Water Services does this same thing in its system,and it has proven to be very effective in addressing seasonal taste issues that are sometimes encountered with surface water supplies. "This sounds very expensive. Who is going to pay?" Yes,initial estimates to shift the six communities from surface water range between$160 million and$230 million. Clearly,these communities would need financial assistance,and state funds will be a top priority. While the DNR and the other parties can't force anyone to implement the terms of the settlement,some key concepts were included in the settlement agreement. Most importantly,the construction and operating costs of any new system need to be distributed equitably and should not put the communities making the switch at a competitive disadvantage with their neighbors. IYs also important to remember that these are initial estimates. It's possible that a more cost-effective option exists. In evaluating cost,it's also important to remember 2 25 that the cities will incur some cost to rehabilitate and maintain their current systems even with no change in source water. "Why not just pump water into White Bear Lake?" There are several reasons that transferring water directly into White Bear Lake would not be a good idea. Practically speaking,there is no guarantee that the lake would achieve and maintain the"desired"level. The lake was augmented for many years in the past and that didn't insulate it from significant water level fluctuations. Moreover,transferring water from the Mississippi River(or other source)to White Bear Lake would pose potential water quality and aquatic invasive species threats. Quite simply,in a world of finite resources,the water and money that would be needed to augment White Bear Lake could be better used to advance long-term water sustainability in the region. And finally,augmenting White Bear Lake could create expectations that the state will pay to augment other lakes where residents and others are concerned with water levels. "So what's next?" We are now working with the affected communities and the legislature to see if there is a way to implement the settlement and meet important community needs. Since signing,the agreement,the DNR has met with many community leaders. We understand that the communities that were not part of developing the agreement have important questions and vital perspectives. We further believe an essential next step is for the DNR,the communities,the Metropolitan Council,the plaintiffs, and others to share their data and insights about the water challenges facing the North and East Metro and the options for addressing them. Together,we can build a more complete picture and answer key questions about the best path forward. The legislature will require no less,and we demand this of ourselves. The DNR takes its mission to manage the state's waters very seriously. We also know that we can't be successful alone. We are committed to working with you and your community leaders to address these challenging issues. If you'd like more information on the settlement and the DNR's work in the North and East Metro,please visit the DNR website at www.mndnr.gov/awma/wbl. Sinc , (qTondwehr Commissioner Minnesota DNR 3 26 Teresa Bender From: Anna Marple <rnarple.a31@grnail.corn> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:42 PM To: Teresa Bender Subject: Deaf child signs Hello my name is Anna Marple and I am requesting deaf child sign's be put in at my new residence of 1965 Robin Lane south Centerville, Mn. I will be moving into this address as of March 1 st and I have a four year old daughter Who is profoundly Deaf. She can not hear if a car is coming or honking their horn. I need for any traffic to be alert before driving down our street to please slow down and cautious. Thank you very much for your consideration as to the signs are very important for my daughter Veronica. Sincerely, Anna Marple 507-848-7497 This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com 1 27 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA CITY OF CENTERVILLE Res.#15-0 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TRANSFER OF FIREFIGHTER SERVICE CREDITS AND PENSION ASSETS FROM THE CENTENNIAL FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION TO THE CITY OF LINO LAKES WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes has indicated it is withdrawing from the Centennial Fire District; and WHEREAS, the City of Centerville supports the Centennial Fire Relief Firefighters who wish to transfer their retirement benefits to the City of Lino Lakes and also desire to provide legislation for the transfer of their service credits and pension assets; and WHEREAS, a bill has been drafted on behalf of the Centennial Fire Relief Association that includes three(3) transfer dates for service credits and pension assets; and WHEREAS, the City of Centerville supports the passage of legislature for the Centennial Fire Relief Association that establishes transfer dates of pension assets, liabilities and pro-rata shares of any surplus or deficit for current or future members of the Centennial Fire Relief Association that obtains employment with the Lino Lakes Fire Department on or before December 31, 2017. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota that the city supports the fire pension legislation with transfer dates being January 30, 2016, January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018. For those members hired by the Lino Lakes Fire Department in 2015 transfers would occur shortly after January 30, 2016. For those members hired by Lino Lakes in 2016, transfer would occur on or shortly after January 1, 2017 and for those members hired by Lino Lakes in 2017 transfers would occur on or shortly after January 1, 2018. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council of Centerville directs the City Administrator to communicate the city's strong support for this legislation to it elected representatives. Adopted by the Council this 25th day of February, 2015. Thomas Wilharber, Mayor Attest: Teresa Bender,City Clerk 28 Draft Water Resources Policy Plan JANUARY, 2015 METROPOLITAN C O U N C I L 29 Contents The Role of the Council in Water Resources.............................................................. 1 ThriveIVISP 2040............................................................................................................3 ThriveOutcomes........................................................................................................................ 4 ThrivePrinciples ........................................................................................................................ 5 Response of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan to Thrive's Policy Direction....................... 5 Prosperityand Livability.......................................................................................................... 5 Equity..................................................................................................................................... 5 Sustainability and Stewardship............................................................................................... 6 Regional Growth Forecasts........................................................................................................ 7 CommunityDesignations........................................................................................................... 7 Metropolitan Urban Service Area............................................................................................ 7 RuralService Area................................................................................................................. 8 Local Comprehensive Plans......................................................................................................11 An Integrated Strategy for Water Resources............................................................ 12 Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach ............................13 Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies ................................................................15 Planningfor Regional Growth ...................................................................................................17 Servingthe Urban Area.........................................................................................................17 Servingthe Rural Area..........................................................................................................19 Use of Private Wastewater Systems......................................................................................20 Water Conservation and Reuse ................................................................................................21 Assessment of Regional Water Resources ...............................................................................22 Investment................................................................................................................................25 WastewaterServices ................................................................................................................28 Sustainability.........................................................................................................................28 Inflowand Infiltration..............................................................................................................28 Finance.................................................................................................................................30 WastewaterSystem Plan............................................................................................31 ExistingFacilities ......................................................................................................................31 Regional Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment System...................................................31 Non-Council Wastewater Treatment Plants...........................................................................33 Long-Term Wastewater Service Area .......................................................................................34 ConceptPlan.........................................................................................................................34 Long-Term Service Area of Existing Treatment Plants..........................................................34 Potential Future Wastewater Treatment Plants......................................................................35 Capital Improvement Program ..................................................................................................36 WastewaterFlow Projections................................................................................................36 Capital Improvement Plan.....................................................................................................37 Environmental Sustainability.....................................................................................................41 WastewaterReuse....................................................................................................................42 Regulatory Scenarios for Wastewater Treatment......................................................................43 Substantial Impacts and Substantial Departures from the Metropolitan Wastewater System Plan .................................................................................................................................................44 Appendices..................................................................................................................46 AppendixA—Wastewater.........................................................................................................46 Table A-1: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design ..................................................46 30 Table A-2. Wastewater Flow Variation Factors for Determining Infiltration/Inflow Mitigation Goals.....................................................................................................................................47 Table A-3. Community Forecasts of Sewered Population, Households, and Employment.....48 Table A-4. Community Wastewater Flow Projections............................................................56 Appendix B —Surface Water Management ...............................................................................64 Appendix B-1: Nonpoint Source Pollutants............................................................................64 Appendix B-2:Priority Lakes List...........................................................................................65 Appendix C - System Plan Requirements .................................................................................73 Appendix C-1: Wastewater System Plan Elements................................................................73 Appendix C-2:Local Surface Water Management Plan Elements..........................................75 Appendix C-3: Local Water Supply Plan Elements................................................................77 Appendix D —Summary of Policies and Implementation Strategies ..........................................79 Water Resources Policy Plan Overall Goal and Policy..........................................................79 Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach.........................79 Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies.............................................................79 Planning for Regional Growth................................................................................................80 Water Conservation and Reuse.............................................................................................82 Assessment of Regional Water Resources............................................................................83 Investment.............................................................................................................................84 WastewaterServices.............................................................................................................85 AppendixE —Definitions...........................................................................................................88 Appendix F —Map of Regional Wastewater System Long-Term Service Areas.........................93 List of Figures Figure 1. Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations...............................................................10 Figure 2. Communities Served by the Prairie du Chien Jordan Aquifer.....................................16 Figure 3. Priority Lakes and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System..........................24 Figure 4. Metropolitan Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013..........................................26 List of Tables Table 1. Regional System Wastewater Treatment Plants..........................................................32 Table 2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants .....................................................................33 Table 3. Planned Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity(million gallons per day)....................36 Table 4. Sewered Population and Employment Forecasts (thousands).....................................37 Table 5. Treatment Plant Flow Projections (million gallons per day)..........................................38 Table 6. Long-Term Capital Improvement Program ($ millions) ................................................39 Table 7. Estimated Replacement Value of Regional Wastewater System .................................41 31 2040 WATER RESOURCES POLICY PLAN SUSTAINING THE REGION'S WATERS, SUSTAINING THE REGION The Twin Cities metropolitan area enjoys a wealth of water resources. Our area boasts of 950 lakes and three major river systems—the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix. They provide valuable habitat, support natural ecosystems, and offer a wide variety of recreation opportunities. In addition to their natural features, our rivers serve as important waterways for transporting agricultural products and industrial goods. The region's extensive wetlands support our diverse plant and animal species, and filter pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff before it affects the soil and groundwater. A prolific groundwater system, in combination with surface water from the Mississippi River, supports our drinking water needs. Abundant, high-quality water plays a major role in advancing the region's economic prosperity, growth, and livability, and our region's infrastructure for water supply, stormwater and wastewater is crucial for managing this essential resource. Sustainability of our water resources is a high-priority issue as our region continues to grow and we put more demands on them. Compounding the situation, we find ourselves having to adapt to the effects of high-frequency and intense storms intermixed with periods of drought. Ensuring sustainable water resources requires a regional strategy that addresses a variety of needs and issues. The region's water resources must be managed and protected to meet our household, business and industrial needs; support aquatic habitat and wildlife; and provide aesthetic and recreational opportunities for all current residents and future generations. To achieve this goal, the Vater Resources Policy Plan directs its attention to both the quantity and quality of our water resources. It includes policies and strategies to ensure a sufficient, sustainable water supply and to manage surface water runoff and our wastewater systems to protect water quality. The Council has prepared this Policy Plan under state law(Minn. Stat. 473.145) directing it to prepare a metropolitan development guide that includes a plan for the region's wastewater collection and treatment system, along with supporting policies, goals, standards, and maps. The Policy Plan is also prepared in response to Minn. Stat. 473.157 requiring the Council to adopt a water resources plan and federal requirements for a regional management plan to address pollution from point sources (such as treatment plant discharges) and nonpoint sources (such as stormwater runoff). When adopted by the Council, this Policy Plan will replace the current plan adopted in May 2005 with amendments in 2006 and 2010. The Role of the Council in Water Resources A wide range of governmental organizations are responsible for planning, monitoring and managing water resources in the region—from the federal to the local level. The extensive list of water resource partners includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Departments of Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources, local governments, watershed and conservation organizations, municipal water suppliers, and the Metropolitan Council. All serve important roles and, together, make possible a broad front of cooperative, coordinated planning and action on behalf of water resources in the region. 1 32 The Metropolitan Council has roles and responsibilities that provide a unique regional perspective for planning and management, all aimed at protecting our region's valuable water resources. Through its world-class wastewater treatment system and surface water management and planning activities, the Council works to ensure there is adequate water quality to support economic development, the tourism industry, drinking water needs, and the quality of life for all residents of the region. The Council provides wastewater services to municipal and industrial customers in the region at highly competitive rates, fostering a favorable economic environment for growth and development. In addition, the Council promotes sustainable water resources through its planning and technical assistance for surface water and water supply. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. The Metropolitan Council owns and operates the regional wastewater collection and treatment system for the urbanized portion of the metro area (over 90% of the metropolitan area population). The Council operates and maintains approximately 610 miles of regional sewers that collect flows from over 5,000 miles of sewers owned by 108 communities and treats approximately 250 million gallons of wastewater daily at eight regional treatment plants. Water Quality Management Plans and Programs. The Council is designated as the areawide water quality planning agency under Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act. As part of this designation, the Council is responsible for ensuring that water quality management policies and programs are implemented in the metro area for point- and nonpoint-source pollution. As part of its responsibilities, the Council monitors and assesses the condition of area lakes, rivers and streams, provides technical assistance related to surface water management, and reviews local water management plans, watershed plans and local sanitary sewer plans to make sure they are consistent with Council policies and regional goals. Regional Water Supply Plan. The Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, adopted by the Council in 2010, serves as the framework for achieving a sustainable water supply that meets the needs of current and future generations. Responding to state legislation (Minn. Stat. 473.1565) and prepared in cooperation with a wide range of partner organizations, the Master Water Supply Plan lays an essential foundation of data, analysis and alternatives to establish a regional consensus and plan for action. The Council is currently updating the Master Water Supply Plan with the assistance of the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee, a 16-member group that includes local officials from within and outside the metro area and representatives of state agencies. The overall theme of this Policy Plan is to move the Council further toward integrating our roles in wastewater, water supply, and surface water planning, management and operation. The conventional approach considers one dimension of water at a time, but the usefulness of this approach has reached its limit. Meeting the challenges of water supply, water quality issues, and environmental stewardship needs strategies that look at the whole water picture and consider how efforts in one area could benefit the others. For example, an integrated approach would move beyond treating wastewater only to meet regulatory compliance, to viewing wastewater as a resource that could be available for reuse and reduce demand on groundwater. For the Council, it also means leading by example and working across Council divisions to promote water sustainability. The Council will work with partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region as we work together on solutions in order to promote a more 2 33 sustainable region. Only through cooperation and collaboration can the region expect to manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at: • Providing an adequate water supply for the region • Promoting and implementing best management practices aimed at protecting the quality and quantity of our resources • Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region • Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and, • Assessing and monitoring of lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately manage, protect and restore these valued resources. In another respect, integrating the Council's roles means that the Council will continue to provide high quality, affordable wastewater collection and treatment services to support economic growth and development in ways that protect our valued water and land resources. The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region as we work together on solutions in order to promote a more sustainable region. Issues and challenges include: • Sustainable and plentiful high quality water resources that provide a firm foundation for the region's future economic growth and prosperity, livability and high quality of life. • A growing economy that creates and provides jobs for the citizens of the region. • A good transportation system that fairly and equitably links citizens with job opportunities and affordable housing. • Natural and water resources that provide for recreational opportunities and that support a high quality of life. The Minnesota Legislature has charged the Council with providing regional direction for planning and management of our water resources to support the orderly and economical growth and development of the region. The Council's regional vision and perspective considers the interrelationships of land use, growth patterns, transportation and other regional services, and water resource protection. Managing and using the region's water resources wisely, will sustain the region now and in the future. Thrive MSP 2040 From its frontier origins, the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown, prospered, and emerged as one of the major metro areas in the nation. It's renowned for its high quality of life, strong economy and many assets: • A diverse and resilient economy • Vibrant arts, music and theatre communities, and professional sports teams • Rich cultural diversity • Abundant parks, recreational trails, conserved open space, fertile agricultural lands, and natural resources • Hundreds of lakes and three great rivers 3 34 • A tradition of shared civic action Today, the metro area is a thriving region of nearly three million people living in 186 communities across the seven counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The region has emerged as a great place to live, work and do business. As we plan for our next 30 years, key challenges lay ahead-constrained fiscal resources, new demands stemming from demographic shifts, emerging environmental challenges, and the increasing necessity of regional economic cooperation. To meet these challenges, the Metropolitan Council is responsible, under state law, for preparing a comprehensive development guide for the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Council's Thrive MSP 2040, adopted in May 2014, provides a framework for a shared vision for the future of the region over the next 30 years. Thrive establishes the policy foundation used by the Council to develop its regional systems and policy plans, as well as development policies and implementation strategies. Taken together, these constitute the comprehensive development guide that directs the orderly and economical development of the region. State statute specifies four metropolitan systems plans -for regional transportation, aviation, water resources, and regional parks. In addition to these statutory metropolitan systems plans, the Council has developed a housing policy plan. The Housing Policy Plan provides an expanded policy framework that the Council will use in reviewing the housing plan and housing implementation programs of comprehensive plans that local governments prepare under state law. Thrive Outcomes Thrive's regional vision includes five desired outcomes: stewardship, prosperity, equity, livability, and sustainability. These outcomes provide policy direction for this 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. Stewardship. Stewardship advances the Council's longstanding mission of orderly and economical development by responsibly managing the region's natural and financial resources, and making strategic investments in our region's future. Prosperity. Prosperity is fostered by investing in infrastructure and amenities that make our region competitive in attracting and retaining successful businesses, a talented workforce, and strong economic opportunities. Equity. Equity means connecting all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing, transportation, and recreation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities so that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of growth and change. Livability. Livability focuses on the quality of our residents' lives and experiences in the region, and how places and infrastructure create and enhance the quality of life that makes our region a great place to live. Sustainability. Sustainability seeks to protect our regional vitality for generations to come by preserving our capacity to maintain and support our region's well-being and productivity over the long term. 4 35 Thrive Principles Thrive identifies the principles of integration, collaboration, and accountability to carry out the Council's work. The three principles reflect the Council's efforts to integrate policy areas, support local governments and regional partners, and promote and implement the Thrive regional vision. Integration. Integration is the intentional combining of related activities to achieve more effective results, using multiple policy tools to address complex regional challenges and opportunities. Collaboration. Collaboration recognizes that shared efforts advance our region most effectively toward shared outcomes. Addressing the region's issues requires collaboration because no single entity has the capacity or authority to do the work alone. Accountability. For the Council, accountability includes a commitment to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of our policies and practices toward achieving shared outcomes and a willingness to adjust course to improve performance. Response of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan to Thrive's Policy Direction Prosperity and Livability Water resources have strategic importance in achieving economic growth, competitiveness, and high quality of life. The Council's regional strategy balances the demands of growth with protection and management of our lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater. The Council recognizes the need to coordinate decisions about water supply, surface water management, wastewater collection and treatment, land use, transportation, housing, and natural resources. Regional transportation and wastewater systems investments and services help shape growth patterns. Unplanned growth can put a strain on natural areas, availability and quality of groundwater, the cost of services and other resources. Maximizing the benefits of readily available wastewater treatment, water supply and stormwater infrastructure plays a key role in supporting the competitive position of the region. Accordingly, this Policy Plan includes policies and implementation strategies on growth that focus our wastewater system expansion on supporting the orderly and economic redevelopment in the urban area and urban centers, and development in the suburban, suburban edge, and emerging suburban edge. It also includes policies and implementation strategies that promote the livability of the region through access to adequate water supplies for drinking water and promoting the protection and restoration of our water resources for recreational use. Equity An important consideration of this Policy Plan is its impact on all populations in the region, including low-income populations, communities of color, persons with disabilities, and persons with limited English proficiency. Equity connects all residents to opportunity and creates viable housing and transportation options for people of all races, ethnicities, incomes and abilities so that all communities share the opportunities and challenges of growth and change. For our region to reach its full economic potential, all of our residents must be able to access opportunity that leads to success, prosperity, and a high quality of life. 5 36 This Policy Plan supports regional balance with policies and implementation strategies that provide for uniform rates in the region for all of our wastewater customers. The Council provides equal access to the affordable wastewater systems for customers within the metropolitan urban service area, and uniformly maintains all parts of the regional wastewater system infrastructure. Outreach to underrepresented communities is essential as the Council develops plans and implements future projects and other activities. This Policy Plan was prepared under the Council's Public Participation Plan and has built on the extensive outreach and engagement completed for Thrive MSP 2040, including targeted community engagement with historically underrepresented communities. This Policy Plan commits the Council to expanding on and fostering public engagement in its system planning and in project development. Sustainability and Stewardship Sustainable water resources means having adequate high-quality groundwater and surface water resources to support the region's growing water supply needs and the region's unique and intricate ecosystems. And it means managing our resources in a way that ensures availability of our water resources for current and future generations. The Minnesota State Legislature has defined sustainability as it relates to water supply: "Water is sustainable when the use does not harm ecosystems, degrade water quality or compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The Council is committed to collaborating with our partners, including federal, state, local and regional agencies and organizations, to promote the long-term sustainability of the region's water resources for surface and ground water quality and quantity and wastewater collection and treatment. To promote sufficient and high-quality ground and surface water, the Council will: • Promote water sustainability through the Water Resources Policy Plan,the wastewater system plan, the Master Water Supply Plan and through the review of local water supply plans, surface water management plans, and comprehensive sewer plans. • Practice a high level of environmental sustainability in our wastewater treatment system operations, leading by example in the sustainability of our operations in the following areas: - Energy conservation and renewable energy generation - Emissions reductions - Water conservation - Solid waste conservation and recycling • Collaborate with our partners to save dollars, share expertise and accomplish more. - Lead the Council's team to address climate change on a community level and environmental sustainability in all the Council's operations - Work with external partners on climate change and sustainability to learn from each other, develop and lead regionwide sustainability strategies • Promote the wise use of water at the community level through optimizing surface water and groundwater use, conservation, reuse, and aquifer recharge. • Collaborate with partners, including providing technical assistance to local governments about wastewater, water supply and surface water management. 6 37 • Plan for the long-term reliability, resiliency, security and cost-effectiveness of the region's water supplies. • Incorporate water sustainability considerations in all areas of Council policy and actions, including overall development patterns, water management, transportation, housing, and regional parks. • Identify subregional and local water sustainability solutions that balance regional needs and local objectives. Regional Growth Forecasts The pressures on the region's water resources will increase as our population and economy grow. During the last four decades, the region grew by over 975,000 people. Between 2010 and 2040 it is projected that the region will grow by over 824,000 residents and 391,400 households. 1970 2000 2010 2040 2010-2040 Projected Increase Population 1,874,600 2,642,062 2,849,567 3,675,660 824,093 Households 573,600 1,021,456 1,117,749 1,510,090 391,421 Jobs 779,000 1,606,263 1,543,872 2,102,090 550,508 Community Designations Thrive forecasts show that, over the next 30 years, growth and redevelopment will occur throughout the region, but with variations from area to area. The seven-county region contains a wide range of communities, from agricultural townships to densely developed downtown neighborhoods. Recognizing that one size does not fit all, the Council uses community designations to group communities with similar characteristics in order to implement regional policy at the local level through comprehensive plans (See Figure 1). Community designations fall within two main categories, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area. Metropolitan Urban Service Area The Metropolitan Urban Service Area constitutes about half of the land in the region, but accounts for more than 90% of the region's population. The Council supports the Metropolitan Urban Service Area through investments such as regional wastewater services, regional highways, transit service, the Regional Parks System, and programs that support redevelopment. Some of the region's most popular regional parks are located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, including Como Regional Park, Zoo and Conservatory; Minnehaha Regional Park; and Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. Trails including the Bruce Vento and the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail; connect people to regional parks and local amenities. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area is divided into five community designations: • Urban Center • Urban 38 • Suburban • Suburban Edge • Emerging Suburban Edge Urban Center communities include the largest, most centrally located and most economically diverse cities of the region. Urban centers are located in the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) and have a minimum average net density of 20 units/acre. Urban communities are adjacent to the Urban Center communities and have seen considerable development and growth along highways. Urban areas are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 10 units/acre. Suburban communities saw their primary era of development during the 1980s and early 1990s. Suburban communities also include places that were once resort destinations along Lake Minnetonka and White Bear Lake and along the St. Croix River. Suburban communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 5 units/acre. The Suburban Edge includes communities that have experienced significant residential growth beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the 2010s. At least 40% of the land in these communities is developed, but significant amounts of land remain for future development. Suburban Edge communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre. The Emerging Suburban Edge includes cities, townships and portions of both that are in early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. In the majority of these communities, less than 40% of the land has been developed. Parts of Emerging Suburban Edge communities are in the MUSA and all have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre. Rural Service Area About half of the land in the Twin Cities region is located in the Rural Service Area. This area includes a range of land uses, including cultivated farmland, vineyards, hobby farms, gravel mines, woodlands, small towns, scattered and clustered housing, open spaces, and significant expanses of the region's natural resources. Aside from the Regional Parks System, investments in regional service and infrastructure are limited in the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service Area is divided into four community designations: • Rural Center • Rural Residential • Diversified Rural • Agricultural The Rural Service Area contains some of the Regional Parks System's large park reserves, including Crow Hassan and Big Marine Park Reserves. In addition to providing passive recreation opportunities, the park reserves also preserve, maintain, and connect high quality or regionally important natural resources. The metropolitan system plans and policy plans seek to carefully integrate regional land use, housing, transportation, wastewater, water supply, surface water management, natural resources, and parks policies to achieve regional goals in each area and avoid working at cross-purposes. In this Policy Plan, the forecasts are used in the planning and capital improvement program processes to assess regional needs for wastewater treatment s 39 and water supply needs of the region in order to serve growth in a timely, efficient and cost effective manner. Rural Centers are local commercial, employment, and residential activity centers serving rural areas in the region. These small towns are surrounded by agricultural lands and serve as centers of commerce to those surrounding farm lands. The density is 3-5 units/acre. Diversified Rural communities are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses including very large-lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms, and agricultural uses. Located adjacent to the Emerging Edge Suburban communities, the Diversified Rural designation protects rural land for rural lifestyles today with the potential of becoming urbanized after 2040. Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40 acres. Rural Residential communities have residential patterns characterized by large lots and do not have plans to provide urban infrastructure. Maximum allowable density is 1 unit per-2.5 acres. Agricultural communities encompass areas with prime agricultural soils that are planned and zoned for long-term agriculture. Maximum allowable density is 1 unit/40 acres. 9 40 Figure 1. Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations Twin Cities Metropolitan Area ThriveMSP2040 I Community Designations M 0T U NOIC I L ANO - , _� t �• � h mm WASHINGTON ! U 1 w- RAMS£ < jyw, `.'.'�" •ern. �, I 9 i -CARVER• p - 6 s,Prvti _rte.� �� "� �� "� i 75 DAKOTA 1 m SCOTT T 0 5 10 15 ,p -- - - -..mr.+`T, 149 26,2011 Miss Community Designations Urban Service Areas Rural Service Areas Highways Urban Center Rural Center Interstate Highways Urban Diversified Rural -State,US Highways and County Roads Suburban Rural Residential County Boundaries Suburban Edge Agricuftural City and Township Boundaries Emerging Suburban Edge Lakes and Rivers Hanow,New Prague,Northialet and Rockford are outsde the Council's plennng authority 10 41 Local Comprehensive Plans The policy direction from Thrive MSP 2040 and the Council's system plans and policy plans — including this 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan—assist communities in developing their comprehensive plans. Under state law, each county, city and township in the metro area is required to review and if necessary amend its local comprehensive plan every 10 years to ensure that the local plan -and local fiscal devices and official controls - are consistent with the Council's metropolitan system plans (MN Statute 473.864). Following adoption of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan and the issuance of system statements, local communities have three years to amend their local comprehensive plans. Local comprehensive plans are reviewed by the Council based on three primary criteria. • Conformance with metropolitan system plans • Consistency with Council policies • Compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units When a plan meets these criteria, the Council authorizes it to be put into effect. If a plan does not meet the review standards, the Council can require the jurisdiction to modify its plan to reflect the Council's system plans. Conformance: Conformance is achieved if the local plan: • Accurately reflects the metropolitan system plans • Integrates public facilities plans • Addresses land use policies, plans for forecasted growth, meets density standards and maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional system. Consistency: Consistency is achieved if the local plan: • Addresses the community role for land use policies contained in Thrive • Addresses the linkage of local land uses and the metropolitan wastewater disposal system • Includes an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other specific actions that implement the comprehensive plan and ensure conformance with regional system plans • Addresses official controls and includes a capital improvement program (sewers, parks, transportation, and open space)that accommodates planned growth and development. Compatibility: Compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units is achieved if the local plan: • Adequately documents that it has addressed the concern (s)of all adjacent and affected jurisdictions based on comments or concerns from these entities. As local communities update their comprehensive plans, they are required to acknowledge and plan for wastewater facilities in order to conform to the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. 11 42 An Integrated Strategy for Water Resources The quality and quantity of water in the region's lakes, rivers and streams sustain the health of wildlife habitat and ecosystems while enhancing the quality of life for the region's residents. Individual lakes and streams are important to their host communities, providing opportunities for swimming, boating and fishing and enhancing the livability of the community. In addition, the region's lakes, streams, and wetlands together form a system that discharges into the region's major rivers (Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix), which provide drinking water for the urban core, recreational uses, and barge transportation that support the region's economy and quality of life. Plentiful, high-quality water is essential to achieving regional outcomes of stewardship, prosperity, equity, livability, and sustainability. The Council is committed to working with partners to protect, conserve, and utilize the surface and groundwater resources in the region. Achieving this goal requires that we consider how our activities in the individual areas of water supply, surface water management, and wastewater management and operations can support or reinforce each other. For example, the Council will: • Continue to implement our inflow and infiltration mitigation program, which preserves clear water, protects public health, and avoids pollution of our surface water. • Support water supply solutions that promote the wise use of water at the community level through conservation, reuse, aquifer recharge, and development of alternative approaches to groundwater and surface water use. • Promote treating stormwater on-site to support surface water needs while also allowing it to infiltrate into the groundwater. • Pursue opportunities for reusing wastewater to reduce the demand on our groundwater. Thrive MSP 2040 Water Sustainability Direction: The region's water resources are sustainable, supported by a regional strategy that balances growth and protection to improve and maintain the quality and quantity of water in our lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater. The Council will work with state, local and regional partners to provide for sustainable water resources through effective water supply, surface water, and wastewater planning and management. In response to this direction and input from our partners and stakeholders, the following water sustainability goal has been developed. Water Sustainability Goal: To protect, conserve and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region's quality of life. 12 43 Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach Focusing on the natural characteristics and functions of watersheds provides an essential tool for managing water resources. The watershed approach to water management is the concept of holistically managing our waters based on natural hydrologic boundaries in a defined geographic area. The Council's activities supporting watershed assessment and management provide value by targeting efforts to protect the region's natural environment, protect and improve recreational opportunities, offset impacts of wastewater treatment plant discharges, and protect drinking water supplies. The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, enacted in 1982, established comprehensive surface water management in the metro area, creating watershed management organizations and watershed districts with planning and management authorities. Currently, there are 33 watershed management organizations that are required to prepare and implement local watershed management plans to protect surface water resources in the seven- county metropolitan area. The organizations include watershed districts, watershed management organizations and county joint-powers organizations. These organizations use a holistic view and approach to managing the water resources and issues in their defined geographic areas. The watershed management programs required under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act are intended to: • Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems • Promote groundwater recharge • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, and • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. As part of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, all communities in the metro area are required to prepare local water management plans, often referred to as local surface water management plans or comprehensive water management plans in response to the watershed plans that they are part of. Minnesota Statutes requires local water plans to: • Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use • Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff • Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan • Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan • Identify regulated areas 13 44 • Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program. Local water plans also need to be consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 (Appendix C includes the local water plan requirements). Oversight of stormwater runoff from urbanized areas also happens at the state level. The municipal separate storm sewer systems or MS4 permit program is mandated by federal law and administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The primary goal of the MS4 permit program is to improve water quality by reducing the pollutants in stormwater that discharge into our lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers. All local public entities including watersheds organizations, cities and townships that own or operate municipal separate storm sewer systems such as curbs, ditches, culverts, stormwater ponds, and storm sewer pipes are required to get a permit that focuses on preventing and reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff on our lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers. This is in addition to local water plans that need to be prepared as part of the watershed management structure in Minnesota. More recently, the State of Minnesota adopted a watershed approach that includes how, when and where the organizations monitor, assess data, establish implementation strategies and implement water quality activities. With these data, the state is preparing watershed-based restoration and protection strategies for defined hydrologically based areas throughout the state of Minnesota. In the 2014 Impaired Waters list. there are over 630 lake. river and stream reacn mpal I rments it) metrothe metro area. The area impaired lakes. rivers anJ streams Contribute to impalrme!its outside the region -- LakePepinjust downstrearn amountsv,laters list for excessive of dov,,nstrearn the Gulf of • is impaired for once a great fishing resource. The Council also has responsibilities for surface water management, planning and assessment in the region. The Council is in a unique position, through its comprehensive planning, watershed management planning review, and federally designated areawide water quality agency roles and responsibilities, to provide a regional perspective on water issues that transcend community or watershed boundaries in the metro area. The Council works closely with state agency and local partners in using the "watershed approach" to water management in the metro area. The Council also works with watershed organizations on plan development, review and implementation, as well as with cities and townships on the review of their local water plans. Policy on Watershed Approach: The Council will work with our partners to develop and implement a regional watershed-based approach that addresses both watershed restoration (improving impaired waters) and protection (maintaining water quality in unimpaired waters). Implementation Strategies: • Work with the watershed management structure in the metro area on issues that transcend watershed organization boundaries in order to prepare water management 14 45 plans that promote the protection and restoration of local and regional water resources (lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater). • Through the review process for comprehensive plans, local water plans, and watershed management plans, make water resources management a critical part of land use decisions, planning protocols and procedures to ensure these plans are making progress toward achieving state and regional goals for protection and restoration of water resources. • Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on water issues and water management activities. • Facilitate discussions on regional water issues that transcend community or watershed organization boundaries. • Provide technical information to watershed organizations on practices to use and incorporate into their plans that protect water quality for our water supply sources. Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies A sustainable water supply is vital for future economic growth while ensuring quality of life for the citizens of the region. A sustainable water supply means managing our resources in a way that ensures its availability for current and future generations, including sufficient high-quality groundwater and surface water resources to support the region's growing needs and unique, intricate ecosystems. With over half of the state's population, the region's water sources support a wide range of demands. While State statute defines the highest priority use for water as domestic (household) water supply, other uses are also critical for the region's economical growth and development. Sustainable water supply management must consider water demand for agricultural irrigation, industrial processes, power production and other uses along with domestic needs. Public water supply is the largest consumptive use of water in the region, and it is the fastest growing. About 30% of public water supply demand is met by surface water; 70% by groundwater. This represents a shift from when most development occurred in and near the central cities and residents relied mostly on surface water. Reliance on wells increased as development began to occur further from the urban core. By the 1980s, groundwater use surpassed surface water use. This has put a strain on the aquifers, water-bearing porous soil or rock strata that yield significant amounts of water to wells, most notably the Prairie du Chien aquifer. After public water supply, industrial and agricultural water demands are the biggest. The top industrial uses are petroleum processing, agricultural processing and industrial process cooling water. Although annual agricultural water use is not as high as industrial water use, summer seasonal use is very large, particularly in areas with sandy soils such as Dakota County. Managing water sustainably requires thinking and action that is broader than community or even watershed boundaries; aquifers extend many miles across the metro area and are shared by thousands of individual users. For example, the Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer is shared by 83 communities in the metro area to supply municipal water demand (Figure 2). Other communities also rely on that aquifer to supply private water demand. 15 46 • 1 'I 1 � • 1 I. � I • o 1 r 7 7W ' 4, yy A ry�R 'h '� �x'3 t�,� ,��M1 ��t s, �+n" -q"• .-�.�kit e� Aquifers across the metro area are not all connected, though. Groundwater does not flow all the way from Anoka County to Dakota County and vice versa. The region can be roughly divided into six aquifer areas or subregions that have relatively similar aquifer characteristics. Considering groundwater through this subregional aquifer approach can help organize the Council's recommendations and decisions about water supply plan requirements and research investments —including the location, scope and timing of different activities. The Council has supported the development of subregional work groups that have focused on water supply limitations in those areas. Groundwater limitations have been and continue to be a main focus of these work groups. As the permitting agency for water withdrawals, the Department of Natural Resources is a key partner for the Council. The Council and DNR work closely on water supply issues, including the development and review of water supply plans and actions, as well as on planning for any designated groundwater management areas in the region. Policy on Sustainable Water Supplies: The Council shall support and plan for the sustainable use of water sources that focuses on the implications of increasing groundwater use including impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and ecological areas while ensuring that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the region's current population and projected growth. Implementation Strategies: • Collaborate with agency partners in developing and implementing Groundwater Management Areas, wellhead protection plans, review of water appropriation permits, and aquifer recharge projects. • Facilitate discussions on water supply issues that transcend community boundaries, through subregional work groups and on an ad hoc basis as needed. • In partnership with subregional work groups and relevant agencies, identify desired groundwater levels and other indicators for those subregional areas. • Provide technical assistance to local governments and other partners on water supply issues. • Promote water supply resiliency by identifying and pursuing options to increase surface water use, when economically feasible. Planning for Regional Growth The Council is responsible for providing direction on the planning for and management of our water resources in support of the orderly and economical growth and development of the region while taking into consideration the interrelationships of land use, growth patterns, transportation, water resources protection, and other regional services. With a growing population, more business and industry, and a changing environment, the long-range outlook for clean water is challenging. Adequate access to high quality water supplies, proper treatment and disposal of stormwater, and sustainable wastewater treatment options all need to be considered as we plan for growth in the region. Serving the Urban Area The Council's wastewater system, built and modified to serve regional growth and development, currently provides wastewater collection and treatment services to over 2.7 million people in 108 17 48 communities. The current system consists of seven wastewater treatment plants (Metropolitan, Empire, Seneca, St. Croix Valley, Eagles Point, Blue Lake, and Hastings) and one wastewater reclamation facility (East Bethel). The Council's updated wastewater system plan for the seven-county metro area includes a specific plan identifying how wastewater services will be provided to serve the region's projected 2040 growth, and a general plan to serve the region's growth well beyond 2040. Appendix F includes the long-term service area map for wastewater treatment plants owned and operated by the Council. To ensure adequate wastewater treatment plant capacity and high quality water resources that support ecosystem health, water supply needs and recreational uses, it is critical that regional planning occur in partnership with the cities, townships, watershed organizations, state agencies and other interested parties. Communities in the metro area are required to prepare comprehensive plans consistent with Council policy. The comprehensive plans have three chapters that take direction and guidance from the Water Resources Policy Plan: the comprehensive sewer plan, the local surface water plan, and the local water supply plan. Policy on Serving the Urban Area: The Council will use the Water Resources Policy Plan to support and plan for sustainable water resources that protect public health, provide recreational opportunities, maintain habitat and ecosystem health and ensure that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the orderly and economical development and redevelopment of the metro area long into the future. A community's comprehensive plan is expected to accommodate the forecasts and to meet the densities specified in the Council's Thrive MSP 2040 plan. A community's comprehensive plan must include: • A water supply plan that is consistent with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, the Department of Natural Resources plan requirements, and Council policy • A local surface water management plan that is consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 and Council policy and does not adversely impact the regional wastewater system, and • A comprehensive sewer plan that is consistent with the regional wastewater system plan. Inconsistencies between the local plans and the Council's plans may result in the Council's finding that the community's plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on, or contain a substantial departure from, the metropolitan system plan, thus requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. Implementation Strategies: • Update the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, which provides the framework for coordinated water supply planning. 1s 49 • Review local water supply plans to ensure consistency with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan. • Provide technical assistance to local units of government in developing local water supply plans and wellhead protection plans, and in reviewing water appropriation permits and aquifer recharge projects. • Review local surface water plans to ensure consistency with Council policy. • Provide a level of wastewater service commensurate with the needs of the growing metro area, and in an environmentally sound manner. • Provide sufficient capacity in the wastewater system to meet the growth projections and long-term service area needs identified in approved local comprehensive sewer plans. • Stage wastewater system improvements, when feasible, to reduce the financial risks associated with inherent uncertainty in growth forecasts. • Potentially implement early land acquisition and work closely with communities to preserve utility corridors when it is necessary to expand its facilities or locate new facilities needed to implement the wastewater system plan. • Efficiently use existing sewer investments in developing and redeveloping areas. • Preserve unsewered areas inside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for future development that can be sewered economically. • Extend wastewater service to suburban communities if the service area contains at least 1,000 developable acres. • Require that all communities currently served by the regional wastewater system remain in the system. • Acquire wastewater treatment plants from suburban communities outside the current service area, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan process, after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on the request. Serving the Rural Area Where rural centers are willing to expand to accommodate the increased growth as forecasted by the Council, they may want to have the Council involved in the possible acquisition, operation and improvement of the wastewater treatment plant located in that community. Policy on Serving the Rural Area: The Council will acquire wastewater treatment plants owned by Rural Centers, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan processes, and based upon criteria that ensures direct identifiable regional benefits after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on the request. Implementation Strategies: • Accept the wastewater service request only when the following criteria are met: - The community accepts the Council's growth forecasts, as well as preserves at least 1,000 developed or developable acres for growth through the land use planning authority 19 50 of the county or adjacent township(s) or through an orderly annexation agreement or similar mechanism to provide for staged, orderly growth in the surrounding area. - The community has adequate water supply. - The community has adequate transportation access. - The community lies within the long-term wastewater service area or other regional benefits would result, such as economic development unique to the rural area or preservation of high-value water resources. - There are feasible and economical options for siting and permitting an expanded wastewater treatment plant, or for extending interceptor service. - The Council has sought customer input, has conducted appropriate financial analysis, and has conducted a public hearing on the community's wastewater service request. • Require that, if the most economical and beneficial wastewater service option is to construct a regional interceptor to serve the community, the Council will not acquire the community's wastewater treatment plant, and the community will be responsible for decommissioning its treatment plant. • Not allow connections to the regional wastewater system outside the sewered rural community. The Council may construct capacity to serve the long-term needs of the rural and agricultural planning areas, but will not provide service until the Council, in consultation with the appropriate community, designates the area as a developing community and the community amends its comprehensive plan accordingly. • Preserve areas outside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for agricultural and rural uses, while protecting significant natural resources, supporting groundwater recharge, protecting source water quality, and allowing limited unsewered development. Use of Private Wastewater Systems There are more than 75,000 subsurface sewage treatment systems and many more community systems in the metro area. Cities and townships located within the rural area have allowed higher density development using community systems that are permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Both individual and community systems largely serve the parts of the region where wastewater collection and treatment is not available. The Council's intent is to work with communities to ensure that individual and community systems do not cause water quality problems. Policy on Private Wastewater Systems: Communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems within their communities are responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed, and regulated consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Implementation Strategies: • The Council will use its review authority for local comprehensive plans to ensure that communities fulfill their current and future obligations regarding subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater systems. 20 51 • The Council will continue to support State rules for subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater systems. • The Council will allow a community to connect a failing subsurface sewage treatment system or other private wastewater treatment system to the regional wastewater system at the community's expense. Water Conservation and Reuse Sustainable and plentiful high quality water resources provides a firm foundation for the region's future economic growth and prosperity, livability and high quality of life as long as we are good stewards and use our resources wisely. A growing economy that creates and provides jobs for the citizens of the region, a good transportation system that fairly and equitably links citizens with job opportunities and affordable housing, sustainable natural and water resources that provide for recreational opportunities and that support a high quality of life are all part of the region that the Council strives to foster and maintain. The overall theme of this Policy Plan is to move toward more sustainable water systems through integration of our roles in wastewater, water supply, and surface water planning, management and operation. On a Council level, integration means leading by example and working across Council divisions to promote water sustainability. In MCES, integration means that the Council will continue to provide high quality, affordable wastewater collection and treatment services in support of new development and redevelopment in a manner that protects our valued water resources for the long-term. For example, the Council will look toward ways to increase our water supply from groundwater resources through the reuse of wastewater in order to provide for recharge to our groundwater system, through our inflow and infiltration mitigation program which preserves clear water and avoids pollution of our surface water, by investigating the potential for water conservation or increasing use of surface water resources to offset demands being placed on the groundwater system, by promoting low impact development practices as a means for stormwater runoff management that has the added benefit of increasing recharge to our groundwater. The source of nearly all water in the metro area's aquifers is from infiltrated precipitation. The amount of direct precipitation that is able to infiltrate from the land surface area and move below the root zone is the maximum amount of water available to recharge the underlying aquifers. This amount is dependent upon the rate and duration of precipitation, the soil type and land cover, land use, topography, and evapotranspiration (water evaporated from soil surfaces and transpired by plants into the atmosphere). The portion of infiltration that moves from the unsaturated sediment below the root zone into the underlying aquifers (saturated zone) is considered aquifer recharge. Infiltration is similar, but considered different, than groundwater recharge. The most important distinction between infiltration and groundwater recharge is the time lag between infiltration of water past the root zone and recharge at the water table. 21 52 parkingAs pad of the expansion of the Council's Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2004-2007. the Council added a number of low impact development practices including a green (vegetated) roof on the reverse activated sludge building. two large infiltration basins within the plant area. a ral.ngarden at the plant entrance. vegetated swales, a prairie plant garden. and five permeable paver areas to reduce the stormwateron • ultimately to the VermillionDNR designated Trout Policy on Water Conservation and Reuse: The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region as we work together on solutions that include the use of water conservation, wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more sustainable region. Implementation Strategies: • Identify and pursue options to reuse treated wastewater to supplement groundwater and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, when economically feasible. • Promote water supply resiliency through the use of stormwater best management practices that minimize aquifer impacts and maximize groundwater recharge, where practical. • Promote water conservation measures, including tool development and outreach. • Encourage low impact development, land uses, and cooperative water use practices that minimize impacts on aquifers. • Investigate reusing treated wastewater, and when cost-effective, implement reuse. • Provide research and guidance on best management practices to use for effective surface water management. • In partnership with others, research and promote the development of innovative best management practices including low impact development technologies and agricultural best practices. • Install and monitor innovative nonpoint source pollution reduction practices at Council facilities and support economically feasible projects that demonstrate new technologies and their effectiveness. Assessment of Regional Water Resources The region's water resources must be sustainable for current and future generations. Sustainable water resources means providing adequate sources of drinking water and other sources of water needed for industry and agriculture, promoting sustainable management and operations of our wastewater treatment systems and providing for available and high quality water resources for fishing, swimming, and supporting our aquatic life and terrestrial habitat. Thrive MSP 2040 includes accountability as its third principle to measure success in implementing our policies and strategies. Accountability requires a commitment to monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of our programs and policies. In partnership with others in the 22 53 region, we will assess and evaluate the quality of the region's water resources and work to maintain and improve these resources. Some parts of the region expect to continue relying on groundwater as the main source of supply to meet future growth, while other areas lack ready access to productive aquifers to meet their water supply needs. Still others face the challenge of reconciling competing demands between using groundwater to supply their communities and protecting surface waters that rely on groundwater to maintain their integrity. Other concerns include aquifer contamination and the inevitability of occasional droughts. The region needs to evaluate all available water supply sources and, if feasible, minimize roadblocks to their use. The Council plays a role in monitoring and assessing our surface water resources as well. In the metro area, the Council plays a huge role in collecting water quality and flow data needed to assess the condition of these valued resources in order to measure success in meeting our goal of water sustainability. The Council works closely with state agencies, communities, and watershed organizations in the metro area to fill gaps in monitoring and assessments needed related to the condition of our area lakes, rivers and streams. For example, in partnership with others the Council monitors and assesses the condition of around 200 lakes a year, 21 stream sites, and 22 river sites. The Council's Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) was set tip to allow us to monitor the 950 lakes in the metro arear Monitoring is done in partnership others so that we can assess lake water quality over •- number of (Figureuses the data we collect from the CAMP prograrn to create and update out-Priority Lake Llst Priority Lake List helps us and our • focus our resources. Achieving the goal of water sustainability in the region will require partnerships and actions from the many entities involved in water management, water supply and use, and implementation today. The Council is committed to providing monitoring and assessment information and other technical assistance. The Council is also committed to providing leadership in discussions, decisions and implementation actions needed for sustainable water. Together, we can build on the successes of the region to achieve our water sustainability goal. Policy on Assessing and Protecting Regional Water Resources: The Council will continue to assess the condition of the region's lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers to evaluate impacts on regional water resources and measure success in achieving regional water goals. 23 54 Figure 3. Priority Lakes and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System 2014 Priority Lakes and i '. a i 1.The Regional Park System * , ; � j 1 41 rs., 1 9— .Lftw METROPOLITAN ryy+ co C O U N C L ANOKA! , awns j ° ar. O sTh',n � QrIIVM Tnrapw cm 1 I � If a�• Crnrrn wNwa HENNEPIN Ct 1 J mow' 1�.rs C: i • I 1 t '1 �.Jd1 .._ ! -- ,DA�baa.a7e-Cr_-_•*, - 'Lags !:.i._',I j O►.aio rGe.v.�s- '!`J.w Lolpsef` fir' '' aeafC ,+ rM RAMSEY ears +.r i IN+aha. a•^'wi rete ra" �' '! _ 1 PT!4v_..-- k c+ ws WASHINGTON] Cho ! •br aMpr:�.+m..,.no S A.4AI IN*--dkAW*,y+1' - -" - --_t- ' j- -- - -t-- --- /u.y a,r►ip swn i r '�NNw tars encryuu � V..�.p F i iM - CARVER. _ -. Cbr Us LOLA ! "'�+`• / d 1 Te... raper RIaW i ' ---•-i--• ---- ---'--_ Ilf1.r Y�_ --SIL IAC"'°"-•---------v l� -'- --.�, .-L- � c SCOTT DAKOTA! I t - - -- - ��• _ i 1► 1 i 1 D ca.e I I Cela' 1 ti i 0 25 5 L 10 15 20 , T` ayw'!;• - R41es � 2014 Priority Lakes Other Lakes and Major Rivers Regional Parks by Type Park Reserve Regional Park Special Recreation Feature QMetro Counties J Cities&Townships 24 55 Implementation Strategies: • With our partners, monitor the quality of regional lakes and rivers and quality and flow of regional streams. • Continue to assess and fill gaps in lake, stream, river, and groundwater data. • Assess and evaluate long-term water quality trends for the region's lakes, streams, and rivers and identify key issues to be addressed. • Maintain a regional database that contains water quality, quantity and other water related information collected as part of the Council's monitoring programs. • Investigate the need to develop and/or recommend water monitoring and assessment protocols, and other standard operating procedures for use by partners to move toward consistent regional approaches. • In partnership with others, complete technical studies to understand the region's long- term water supply availability and demand and to identify water sources for a specific community or subregional area. • Evaluate the potential for enhancement of aquifer recharge, including identification of high-potential areas for recharge. • Assess the use, capacity, quality and vulnerability of the local and subregional water supply systems and identify high-potential areas for recharge. • Convene stakeholders and collaborate with partners to identify water quality improvement implementation paths. Investment Beginning in early 2000, the Council began a major project to reduce phosphorus outputs from our wastewater treatment facilities. Excessive phosphorus causes algal blooms and causes nutrient problems in lakes that negatively affect the ecosystem health and limit recreational opportunities on our lakes and rivers. The Council has installed new technology at the wastewater treatment plants that allows them to capture and remove significant amounts of phosphorus before it enters the rivers (Figure 4). Pollution prevention is a key component to the Council's success in reducing adverse impacts on the region's water resources. Pollution prevention programs, such as the mercury reduction program jointly implemented with the Council and area dentists, have reduced the amount of mercury entering MCES wastewater treatment plants by half, thus reducing MCES emissions to rivers, the atmosphere, biosolids, and incinerator ash. The Council's permitting program for industrial waste discharges also reduces loadings of other metals and toxic chemical, and has contributed to our success in improving water quality in the region. Even with all of the hard work done to protect the region's water resources, some pollutants still make their way to area lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater systems from both 25 56 point and nonpoint sources. Point sources of pollution have identifiable points of entry into the water such as a discharge from a pipe from a wastewater treatment plant or manufacturing plant. Nonpoint sources of pollution are more diffuse and generally come from land areas that contribute pollutants when rain runs over the land or snow melts and washes away the pollutants. Nonpoint sources of pollution often pick up contaminants such as fertilizers from lawns and pesticides from farmland, eroded soil from stream and river banks or gas and oil from parking lots. Appendix B includes a list of common nonpoint source pollutants. Figure 4. Metropolitan Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013 _.-_--F25%of MetroPbot CD nverted Bio-P 7,51,E _ Metro Plant Effluent Total Phosphorus, 1998-2013 V 10 t? 1SO0000 J � R XOW.000 A11 of Metra Plant O I curvetted to&o P I � iI o SWOW ! t 0 The Council has made significant progress in reducing our contribution from our wastewater treatment plants given the technology we have today to reduce the pollutants of concern. Cities have come a long way with reducing nonpoint sources of pollution by using best management practices and low impact development practices to treat runoff from smaller urban sites and the new Agriculture Certification Program aims to reduce pollutants from farm fields but there is still a lot that can be done in this area. 26 57 Our goal with this Policy Plan is to look more broadly at opportunities and unintended consequences throughout the water cycle and across the region before making costly investments. In this way, the Council will identify the most valuable combination of actions. For example, the Council will investigate whether or not we can more efficiently and effectively reduce nonpoint source pollution instead of or to offset making costly upgrades to our wastewater treatment plants. The Investment Policy sets the stage for continuing to move forward in our infrastructure investments by balancing costs and benefits as we make decisions on the need to spend more on costly wastewater infrastructure improvements or offsetting some of those improvements by addressing nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition, regionally, it is very important to identify how communities could gain some economic and water resource efficiencies by sharing source, treatment and/or storage facilities. In collaboration with local and state partners, the Council will provide recommendations for the ongoing and long-term funding of capital investments. The Council is committed to work with our partners to develop strategies and criteria for funding regionally beneficial water supply infrastructure projects. treatedThe Cities of Burnsville and Savage have partnered to share a new water supply source - surface water frornQuarry, -• groundwaterpumping have reduced stress on the state-protected Savage Fen. Investment Policy. The Council will strive to maximize regional benefits from regional investments. Implementation Strategies: • Invest in nonpoint-source pollution control when the cost and long-term benefits are favorable compared to further upgrading wastewater treatment. • Consider pollutant trading or off-set opportunities with nonpoint-sources of pollution when cost-effective and environmentally beneficial. • Invest in wastewater reuse when justified by the benefits for supplementing groundwater and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, and by the benefits for maintaining water quality. • Potentially invest strategically to further the effectiveness of the region's nonpoint-source pollution prevention and control program and to ensure efficient investment to achieve regional water quality objectives. • Support cost-effective investments in water supply infrastructure to promote sustainable use and protect the region's water supplies by: - Developing criteria to identify water supply projects with regional benefit. - Promoting equitable cost-sharing structure(s)for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects. - Supporting cost-benefit analyses of alternative water supply options. - Identifying funding mechanisms for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects. 27 58 Wastewater Services Sustainability The Council owns and operates eight wastewater treatment plants, which process over 250 million gallons of wastewater each day. The Council works cooperatively with communities, regulatory agencies, and citizens of the region to help ensure that costly infrastructure can be efficiently built and operated in a sustainable manner. Wastewater Sustainability Policy. The Council will provide efficient, high-quality, and environmentally sustainable regional wastewater infrastructure and services. The Council shall conduct its regional wastewater system operations in a sustainable manner as is economically feasible. Sustainable operations relates not only to water resources but also to increasing energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, reducing air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid wastes. Implementation Strategies: • Implement and enforce Waste Discharge Rules for the regional wastewater system. • Preserve regional wastewater system assets of the Council through effective maintenance, condition and capacity assessment, and capital investment. • Accept septage, biosolids, leachate, and other hauled liquid waste at designated sites, provided that the waste can be efficiently and effectively processed. • Reuse treated wastewater to meet water needs within Council wastewater treatment facilities where economically feasible. • Provide industries with incentives to pretreat wastewater to reduce its strength and thus provide the most environmental and economical benefit for the region. • Generate energy from biosolids processing, utilize energy efficient processes and equipment, and reduce building energy use. • Pursue other renewable energy sources, such as solar power generation, thermal energy recovery, and new technologies -such as fuel cells - as they become proven and economical. • Stabilize and reduce the volume of biosolids through thermal processing or anaerobic digestion, and utilize the remaining solids as fertilizer and soil conditioner. • Improve sustainability of wastewater operations, when economically feasible. Inflow and Infiltration Inflow and infiltration are the ways that clear water makes its way into sanitary sewer pipes, takes up capacity, and are then treated, unnecessarily, at wastewater treatment plants. With inflow, clear water enters the wastewater system through rain leaders, storm sewer cross connections, sump pumps or foundation drains that are connected to sewer lines. Private 28 59 service laterals can also be a source of inflow. Factors that contribute to their susceptibility include; age, condition, pipe material, construction, soils, and water table elevation. In the case of infiltration, groundwater seeps into cracked or broken wastewater pipes. Infiltration is a steady contributor to the problem, causing water that should be filtering down and recharging the region's aquifers to end up in rivers and flow out of Minnesota. The addition of clear water into the local sewer systems creates multiple problems. First, the additional flow takes capacity that was built to accommodate new development and, in some cases, the additional flow exceeds the available sewer system capacity. When the capacity of the sewer is exceeded, the wastewater backs up into basements or spills out of a manhole causing water quality concerns. Second, the clear water that gets into the wastewater system is eventually treated and discharged into the rivers, hence lost to Minnesota. Moreover, the Council charges communities the same rate for its clear water as it does for sewage. Therefore, communities have a fiscal as well as a public policy reason for ensuring that the total system functions effectively and conforms to regulations. Minneapolis, St. Paul, and South St. Paul are communities originally constructed with combined (storm and sanitary) sewer systems. Because of this, these communities continue to face additional challenges in eliminating sources of inflow. Inflow is the biggest problem because during major rain events events it, a I uickly consumes pipe clear water to the wastewater system in 24 hoe normal daily flo,,%, from 1 homes. • extreme rain events. inflow - homes and businesses. Policy on Inflow and Infiltration: The Council will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive inflow and infiltration. The Council will establish inflow and infiltration goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the regional wastewater system. Communities that have excessive inflow and infiltration in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive inflow and infiltration within a reasonable time period. Implementation Strategies: • Maintain and rehabilitate Council interceptors to minimize inflow and infiltration. • Develop inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater system. 29 60 • Require all communities served by the regional wastewater system to include its inflow and infiltration mitigation program in its comprehensive sewer plan, including a program to mitigate sources of inflow and infiltration from private property. • Limit expansion of service within those communities where excessive inflow and infiltration jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow or backup occurring, or limits the capacity in the system to the point where the Council can no longer provide additional wastewater services. The Council will work with those communities on a case-by-case basis, based on the applicable regulatory requirements. • Potentially institute a wastewater rate demand charge for those communities that have not met their inflow and infiltration goal(s), if the community has not been implementing an effective inflow and infiltration reduction program as determined by the Council, or if regulations and/or regulatory permits require Council action to ensure regulatory compliance. The wastewater demand charge will include the cost of wastewater storage facilities and/or other improvements necessary to avoid overloading Council conveyance and treatment facilities, and the appropriate charges for use of capacity beyond the allowable amount of inflow and infiltration. • Work with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation. • Develop a program to assist communities with reducing inflow and infiltration from private property sources. Finance The Council uses a regional approach to setting municipal wastewater and industrial rates to optimize equity of costs across the region and support economic development. The Council's approach to rate design is based on a regional cost-of-service philosophy. Communities pay for the wastewater flow originating within their borders. New users pay for the capacity they demand through a sewer availability charge (SAC). Industries pay for the cost of treating their higher-strength discharges through a strength charge. Haulers pay for wastewater loads based on the cost of receiving and treating the loads. In other words, users are charged for the costs that the Council incurs to provide the specific services used. Material changes proposed to SAC or other fees, that may not be improvements to the cost of service basis, will be subject to a stakeholder process, a public hearing, and at least 3 months notice before implementation, including but not limited to the establishment of a task force or work group to make recommendation(s)to the Council. The Council will have final approval of any and all recommendations. Wastewater System Finance Policy. The Council will continue to implement regional wastewater service fees and charges based on regional cost of services and rules adopted by the Council. Implementation Strategies: • Metropolitan wastewater charges will be allocated among local government units based on volume of wastewater treated. 30 61 • Industrial wastewater strength charges will be based on actual or average discharge strength above domestic wastewater strength. • Load charges for septage, portable-toilet waste, holding-tank wastewater and out-of-region wastes will be uniform for each type of load, and based on the volume of the load, the average strength of the types of loads, and the costs of receiving facilities. • Sewer availability charges (SAC) will be uniform within the urban area based on capacity demand classes of customers and the SAC Procedure Manual. Sewer availability charges for a rural center will be based on the reserve capacity and debt service of facilities specific to the rural center. • Other fees recovering costs of specific services may be imposed, as approved by the Council. • Cost-sharing between the Council and a local governmental unit may be used when construction of regional wastewater facilities provides additional local benefits for an incremental increase in costs. • Facilities that are no longer a necessary part of the regional wastewater system will be conveyed to the benefiting local governmental unit, or will be abandoned or sold, pursuant to related statutes. • Seek customer input prior to, and give at least three months notice of, any material changes in the design of charges. • Continue efforts to work to simplify and improve SAC and to communicate to customers. Wastewater System Plan Existing Facilities Regional Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment System The Metropolitan Council provides wastewater collection and treatment services to 2.7 million people in 108 communities, which represents about 95% of the seven-county metropolitan area's population. The regional wastewater system includes eight wastewater treatment plants, 60 pump stations, and 610 miles of regional interceptors that convey flow from approximately 5,000 miles of local sewers to these treatment plants. The system treats approximately 250 million gallons per day of wastewater from homes, industries, and businesses. The long-term service area map (Appendix F) shows the location of all metropolitan interceptor sewers and wastewater treatment plants in the metro area. Table 1 presents information about the treatment plants. The Council works with more than 800 industrial clients to substantially reduce the amount of pollution entering the wastewater collection system. The Council also accepts septage from private subsurface sewage treatment systems, community and/or cluster systems, biosolids from municipal wastewater plants, and leachate from landfills throughout Minnesota, and other hauled industrial wastewater. Waste haulers pay for the cost of service through various wastewater fees established by the Council. 31 62 Table 1. Regional System Wastewater Treatment Plants Avg. Current Receiving Liquid Solids Treatment Design F�) Location Water Treatment Processing Plant Flow ( (mgd) Blue Lake 32 27 Shakopee Minnesota NH3, P AD, Drying, River Land Eagles Point 10 4.4 Cottage Mississippi NH3, P To Metro Grove River East Bethel 0.4 New East Bethel Ground TN, P To Metro Water Empire 24 10 Empire Mississippi NH3, P AD, Land River Hastings 2.3 1.6 Hastings Mississippi Secondary To Metro River Metropolitan 251 180 St. Paul Mississippi NH3, P Inc./Energy River St. Croix 4.5 3.0 Oak Park St. Croix P To Metro Valley Hts. River Seneca 34 24 Eagan Minnesota NH3, P Inc. River Total 358 250 Notes: NH3 = ammonia removal P = phosphorus removal TN = total nitrogen removal AD = anaerobic digestion Land = application to agricultural land Inc. = incineration Energy= energy recovery as steam and electricity for in-plant use Secondary = biological treatment to remove organics and suspended solids (used by all plants at a minimum) There are approximately 200 metering stations used to measure wastewater flow from the communities served by the Council. The flow meters are regularly calibrated and maintained to provide accurate measurements of wastewater flow rates and volumes from each community. Wastewater volume is used to allocate the primary wastewater service charges among the communities served. 32 63 Non-Council Wastewater Treatment Plants There are 15 wastewater treatment plants in the metro area that are municipally owned and operated (See Table 2). The Council plans to provide regional service as follows: 1. Rogers is a suburban community which owns and operates its own wastewater treatment plant. It is expected that Rogers will request that the Council acquire its wastewater treatment plant as the City continues to grow. 2. Loretto will be served by the Blue Lake Plant via the Maple Plain Interceptor by 2020, based on state regulatory requirements, i.e. elimination of their discharge as part of implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Independence. 3. The Council has a wastewater treatment plant acquisition agreement with the City of New Germany. Table 2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Treatment Design Design Receiving Water Effluent Plant Capacity, Capacity, Limits (2) gpd (1) gpd (1) Avg. Avg. Wet Dry Weather Weather Belle Plaine 840,000 400,000 Minnesota River B, P. S Bethel 37,500 31,000 Ground Water B, S Cologne 325,000 260,000(4) Ditch to Lake Benton B, P, S Greenfield 100,000 80,000(4) Crow River B, P, S Hamburg 63,000 50,400(4) Ditch to Bevens Creek B, S (to Minnesota) Hampton 101,000 80,800 Ditch to Vermillion River B, S Jordan 1,289,000 580,000 Sand Creek (to B, N, P, S Minnesota) Loretto 61,000 48,800(4) Slough to Spurzem B, P, S Creek Mayer(3) 435,000 320„000 Crow River B, N, P, S New Germany 52,000 41,600(4) Crow River B, S Norwood- 908,000 517,000 Ditch to Bevens Creek B, S Young (to Minnesota) America Rogers 1,602,000 1,103,000 Ditch to Crow River B, P, S St. Francis 540,000 432,000(4) Ground Water B, N, P, S Vermillion 54,000 43,200(4) Ditch to Vermillion River B, S Watertown 1,200,000 800,000 Crow River B, N, S Notes: 1. Flow as stated in NPDES Permits, except as described in note 4 2. Effluent Limits: B = Biochemical Oxygen Demand N =Ammonia Nitrogen P = Phosphorus S =Suspended Solids 3. Expansion proposed 4. Average flow estimated, based on maximum month flow times 0.8 33 64 Long-Term Wastewater Service Area Concept Plan The wastewater system plan includes a specific plan to serve the region's projected 2040 growth and a general plan to serve the region's growth far beyond 2040. The wastewater system plan has a longer planning horizon than local comprehensive plans because sewers have a long useful life. The Council is updating the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan to address the sustainability of water supply in the region, and has identified areas where groundwater aquifers may not have sufficient capacity to support long-term sewered development. The Regional Wastewater System Plan's long-term wastewater service area (Appendix F) is premised on successful development and implementation of sustainable water supply to support planned sewered development. The Council defines the long-term wastewater service areas based on: • The capacity of each treatment plant site, • The potential developable surface area that could be served by the plant, in addition to currently served areas, and • Using appropriate wastewater generation rates based on location, proximity to transit and major highways, and physical features of area. The developable area excludes lakes, rivers, wetlands, steep slopes, major highways, and parks. The area effectively available for future development is further reduced in areas where there are other significant natural resources or locations requiring more areas devoted to stormwater management, such as trout stream watersheds and/or tight soils (making infiltration of stormwater more difficult). For long-term wastewater service areas, communities shall address the staging of sewered development through 2040 as well as protection of the remaining long-term service areas for economical future sewered development in their local comprehensive plan updates, surface water management plans, and water supply plans. The regional wastewater system will be expanded as necessary to facilitate development in communities consistent with their approved comprehensive sewer plans. The long-term wastewater service area includes large "potential wastewater service areas" in Dakota and Scott Counties. The objective of this designation is to ensure low enough development density to enable future economical sewered development and preserve land for continued agricultural uses. In Carver County, the Council and the County have a memorandum of understanding whereby the County preserves low density in its agricultural area, consistent with the region's potential need for additional area for sewered development. Long-Term Service Area of Existing Treatment Plants Blue Lake. Previously wastewater service to Loretto, northwest Medina, and southwest Corcoran was planned through the Elm Creek Interceptor. The revised plan is to serve this area from the Blue Lake Plant via Maple Plain and the downstream interceptor system. Metropolitan. Three areas (northeast Andover, southeast Nowthen, and northeast Ramsey) have previously been identified as study areas for potential future wastewater service. These 34 65 areas can be served by the regional wastewater system. However, redevelopment of areas in closer proximity to transit and major highways within the Metropolitan Plant's service area has lower cost and much higher potential for wastewater generation that will utilize the plant and interceptor system's long-term capacity. Consequently, the above study areas have been omitted from the long-term wastewater service area to reserve capacity for those areas that are redeveloping. Eastern Hugo, which has previously been identified as a study area for potential future wastewater services, has also been omitted from the long-term wastewater service area. Studies are under way to determine the relationships among groundwater withdrawal for municipal water supply, groundwater recharge, and lake levels and then to develop a water sustainability plan for the northeast part of the region. St. Croix Valley. Previously, the wastewater system plan assumed a future plant expansion. The current regulatory trends indicate the likelihood of much more stringent future discharge permit limits. The additional facilities to meet these limits are likely to fully utilize the remaining capacity at this plant site. Consequently, no plant expansion is planned. A modest service area increase of approximately 1,000 acres should be adequate to utilize the remaining capacity. Given their proximity to Hwys. 36 and 5 and to adjacent sewered development, portions of Baytown and Grant are most viable potential long-term service area additions to the existing service area. Potential Future Wastewater Treatment Plants To support long-term sewered development of the region, five new wastewater treatment plants are envisioned in the northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest areas. These areas also face water supply challenges due to the absence of the Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer or demand that may cause excessive aquifer drawdown. Consequently, new wastewater treatment plants are proposed to be wastewater reclamation plants that produce treated water that is suitable for non-potable uses, such as toilet flushing and irrigation, which will reduce the water demand on the groundwater aquifers. In the northeast area, groundwater recharge with treated wastewater also appears feasible. Crow River. The Council and the City of Rogers have been working to locate a new wastewater reclamation plant in western Rogers. This plant will eventually serve Rogers, eastern Corcoran, and western Dayton, and provide long-term capacity relief for the Elm Creek Interceptor. Carver County. The potential wastewater generation for the long-term service area of the Blue Lake Plant could exceed the build-out capacity of the plant site sometime after 2040. One option to address this possibility is a service area revision that diverts wastewater from western communities to a new regional wastewater reclamation plant in Carver County. This new plant should be located so that it could serve development along the corridor between Chaska and Cologne. Scott County. The Scott County 2030 comprehensive plan, prepared in coordination with the regional wastewater system plan, designates portions of western Scott County for potential long-term sewered development. This area will be served by a future regional wastewater reclamation plant located in the Louisville Township area. This plant also could provide capacity relief for the Blue Lake Plant. 35 66 Northeast Area. The long-term northeast wastewater service area has the potential to generate wastewater flows that slightly exceed the capacity of the interceptors serving this area. Rather than constructing an extensive capacity relief interceptor system, a potentially feasible alternative is to construct a wastewater reclamation plant with groundwater recharge and wastewater reuse. Hastings.A new Hastings Plant is planned to replace the existing plant located near downtown. The new plant will be expandable, with a long-term service area that includes portions of Marshan, Nininger, and Vermillion townships. The plant site has been acquired. Table 3 summarizes the planned capacity of the regional wastewater treatment plants. Table 3. Planned Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity(million gallons per day) Plant Current Current Flow Planned Planned Capacity Capacity Capacity 2040 Long Term Blue Lake 32 27 40 50 Carver County - - - 10 Crow River - - 3 8 Eagles Point 10 4.4 10 20 East Bethel 0.4 new 1.2 2 Empire 24 10 24 50 Hastings 2.3 1.6 4 10 Metropolitan 251 180 251 280 New Germany - - 0.1 0.2 Seneca 34 24 34 40 St. Croix Valley 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 Scott County - - - 25 Total 358 250 372 500 Service Population - 2,700,000 3,400,000 6,000,000 Capital Improvement Program Wastewater Flow Projections Sewered population and employment forecasts, and the associated average wastewater flow projections, are shown in Tables 4 and 5 by wastewater treatment plant service area. (Forecasts and projections by community are found in Appendices A-3 and A-4). Wastewater flow projections are based on 60 gallons per day(gpd) per person and 15 gpd per employee from new development, and gradual reduction of wastewater flow from existing development, which reflects water conservation and reduction of inflow and infiltration. 36 67 Sanitary sewers are designed to handle daily and seasonal variations in generated wastewater flow. The Appendix also presents wastewater flow variation factors, which increase as average flow decreases. Appendix A-1 presents flow variation factors for sewer design.These factors reflect that sanitary sewers (local and regional) have been designed for average residential, commercial, and industrial flow of 100 gallons per capita per day. Currently actual average flow is approximately 85 gallons per capita per day. To establish infiltration and inflow mitigation goals, the design flow variation factors have been adjusted upward (divided by 0.85), which reflects available capacity for infiltration and inflow. These factors are presented in Appendix A- 2. Capital Improvement Plan This section of the system plan presents a capital improvement plan for the 2016-2040 period. The three objectives of the capital improvement plan are: • Preserve the infrastructure investment through rehabilitation/replacement. Note: Interceptor rehabilitation also reduces inflow and infiltration which recovers system capacity • Strategically expand the system capacity through treatment plant and interceptor expansions and interceptor extensions, and • Improve the quality of service by reusing wastewater, increasing system reliability, and conserving and generating energy Table 4. Sewered Population and Employment Forecasts(thousands) Wastewater Treatment Plant 2010 2040 2010 2040 Pop. Pop. Emp. Emp. Blue Lake 269.18 420.69 162.04 245.62 Crow River(Rogers) 0.00 15.09 0.00 11.79 Eagles Point 68.05 114.13 12.71 26.11 East Bethel 0.00 11.45 0.00 1.28 Empire 133.33 210.61 35.71 59.36 Hastings 22.17 30.10 8.60 11.40 Metropolitan 1,778.36 2,227.87 1,054.38 1,391.07 New Germany 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.09 St. Croix Valley 26.14 32.70 17.64 24.30 Seneca 242.99 292.84 178.38 239.13 Total 2,540.23 3,356.87 1,469.50 2,010.14 37 68 Table 5. Treatment Plant Flow Projections (million gallons per day) Wastewater Treatment 2010 2020 2030 2040 Plant Blue Lake 27.60 29.88 33.00 35.50 Crow River(Rogers) 0.00 0.00 1.71 1.88 Eagles Point 4.94 5.70 6.83 7.46 East Bethel 0.00 0.36 0.55 0.71 Empire 9.98 11.02 12.59 14.08 Hastings 1.49 1.51 1.64 1.87 Metropolitan 171.09 178.43 183.99 187.72 New Germany 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.11 St. Croix Valley 3.01 3.14 3.24 3.23 Seneca 22.66 23.93 24.43 24.53 Total 240.78 254.00 268.02 277.04 Table 6 presents a general description of projected capital improvement needs for the wastewater treatment plants and interceptor system. Capital cost estimates are presented using an inflation factor of 3%. For comparison, Table 7 presents the estimated current replacement value of the regional wastewater system. Total projected capital cost for 2016 to 2040 is estimated at $5 billion. On an annual spending basis, with adjustment for inflation, this equals the total level of spending from 1970 to 2015. Projected capital investment by type of infrastructure is 64% interceptors and 36% treatment. Investment by objective is approximately 80%for asset preservation, 10% for quality improvement, and 10% for growth. These costs exclude costs associated with potential future regulatory requirements, which are discussed later. Capital improvements for the regional wastewater system are primarily financed by Metropolitan Council wastewater bonds and Minnesota Public Facilities Authority loans. Bonds and loans are repaid using wastewater fees. 38 69 Table 6. Long-Term Capital Improvement Program ($millions) Project Name Purpose 2016- 2021- 2031- 2020 2030 2040 Interceptor System Anoka-Coon Rapids Improvements G, R 200 Bloomington Improvements G, R 5 30 Brooklyn Park LS Relocation R 100 Blue Lake System Rehabilitation R 70 70 100 North Area Rehabilitation R 70 60 100 Forcemain Rehabilitation R 40 100 Interceptor Rehabilitation R 10 60 100 Lift Station Rehabilitation R 10 100 150 Maple Plain LSIFM Rehabilitation R 20 Minneapolis Interceptor Rehabilitation R 20 100 100 Meter Improvements R 15 50 50 Minneapolis Interceptor 310/320 Diversion R 80 River Crossings Rehabilitation R 40 80 Seneca Int. System Rehabilitation R 50 20 Roseville Int. Rehabilitation R 40 St. Bonifacius LS/FM R 10 St. Paul Int. Rehabilitation R 100 100 Southeast Anoka County G 20 Waconia LS/FM R 10 Joint Interceptor Rehabilitation R 800 Sub-Total 450 1,130 1,500 2016- 2021- 2031- Project Name Purpose 2020 2030 2040 Treatment Plants Blue Lake Expansion (to 40 mgd) G, Q 100 Rehabilitation (Solids) R 50 Rehabilitation (Liquids) 50 Crow River WWRF G, Q, R 100 39 70 TABLE 6. (CONTD.) Eagles Point Rehabilitation R 30 East Bethel WWRF Expansion G 15 Empire Effluent Forcemain G 20 Solids Processing G, R 10 Rehabilitation R 80 Hastings G, Q, R 10 50 Metropolitan Rehabilitation R 70 130 300 Solids Processing G, Q 50 70 New Germany G, Q 5 Northeast Area WWRF G, Q 100 Seneca Solids Processing R 20 40 Rehabilitation R 70 30 St. Croix Valley Rehabilitation R 10 10 Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Q 500 Sub-Total 170 750 900 Total 620 1,880 2,500 Key G=Growth Q=Quality Improvement R=Rehabilitation/Replacement WWRF=Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Facilities mgd=million gallons per day 40 71 Table 7. Estimated Replacement Value of Regional Wastewater System Estimated Rephumnient Facility Quantity Value($ Millions) Pipelines 600 miles 3,000 Joint Interceptor 10 miles 400 Lift Stations 60 300 Meter Stations 200 100 Metropolitan Plant 1 1,200 Regional Plants 7 1,000 Total System 6,000 Environmental Sustainability Sustainability of the regional wastewater system includes: (1) water sustainability; (2) energy conservation and generation; (3) air emissions reduction; and (4)solid waste reuse and reduction. Water Sustainability. The Council has two interrelated objectives: (1) sustaining the region's water resources to provide water supply and water quality that supports the region's economic growth and quality of life; and (2) investing the region's financial and technical resources to maximize benefits. Water supply, stormwater treatment and reuse, and wastewater treatment and reuse should be part of an integrated system that is optimized to meet these regional objectives. Wastewater reuse has the potential to meet part of the region's water supply needs. Investing strategically to further the region's nonpoint source pollution prevention and control program's effectiveness also may have more benefits than investing to meet more stringent wastewater discharge limits. The Council's program for mitigating infiltration and inflow in public and private wastewater collection systems also contributes to water sustainability by avoiding water quality risks, and limiting the amount of clear water entering the system, which is then lost to the region when treated and discharged to rivers. Reducing infiltration and inflow also recovers system capacity, which improves efficiency. Solid Waste. The wastewater system plan continues to support the use of wastewater treatment biosolids for energy generation for in-plant uses. The Metropolitan Plant uses thermal processing that reduces the biosolids to a small volume of inert ash, while recovering energy that is converted to electricity and steam for in-plant uses. The beneficial use of ash for its value as a phosphorus fertilizer is also being pursued. The Blue Lake and Empire plants use 41 72 anaerobic digestion to reduce biosolids volume prior to its agricultural use and to produce biogas (methane)for in-plant uses. Energy. In addition to generating energy from processing biosolids, energy conservation has been, and continues to be, implemented through wastewater treatment process selection and performance optimization, installation of higher efficiency equipment and lighting, and reducing building energy use. Purchase of power from solar power generation facilities co-located at major treatment plants is also being pursued. Additional technologies, such as fuel cells, will be pursued as their capabilities and economics are proven. Wastewater Reuse Injecting highly treated wastewater into aquifers has potential to supplement groundwater and surface water as sources of water. Year-round reuse of wastewater could include recharging groundwater, industrial cooling, and use as nonpotable water. ("Potable" water is water suitable for drinking.) Seasonal possibilities include irrigation of agricultural land, golf courses, parks, and lawns. Each type of use has water quality requirements that may require additional wastewater treatment before it is distributed and used. Wastewater reuse challenges include: Groundwater Recharge. Groundwater recharge with treated wastewater is typically implemented in limited areas (sites). Few areas have high soil permeability allowing treated wastewater to seep into the groundwater and depth to groundwater that is shallow enough for it to disperse into the groundwater. Industrial and Irrigation Uses. Water softeners that are used to remove hardness from groundwater (which is the primary water source for communities outside the urban core) introduce high salt content into water/wastewater. The salt content makes the water undesirable for industrial uses (it corrodes cooling water systems) and irrigation uses (salt buildup can limit plant productivity). Wastewater treatment with reverse osmosis to remove salts is very costly, and requires a method -for example, evaporation, which is very expensive -to dispose of the brine. Metro area industries have generally been successful with their own water conservation and re- use programs. There are very few high-volume industrial users of reused wastewater. Wastewater uses for irrigation are highly dispersed and seasonal, and account for approximately 20% to 30% of total water use. Nonpotable Water. Potable water uses include drinking, bathing/showering, food preparation, dish washing, and clothes washing. Toilet flushing is a significant nonpotable water use, estimated at 20% of total water use. Implementing a nonpotable water use system would require separate water distribution and plumbing systems. Inherent challenges are cost, the typical development/financing process (and associated competition), regulatory requirements, institutional arrangements, and public perception. The Council will consider wastewater reuse as part of its regional planning for water supply. For example, wastewater reuse for toilet flushing and irrigation could reduce groundwater demand to serve growth. 42 73 Planning for wastewater reuse will also address key implementation challenges; including: (1) cost and financing of a reclaimed water distribution system; (2) integration of another water source into the municipal water systems across the region; (3) pricing protocol(s) that captures as much value as reasonably possible; and (4) streamlining the regulatory permitting process to move from a "one project, one customer, one permit" approach to a"systems" approach. In summary, the Council's preliminary plan for wastewater reuse is to: 1. Increase wastewater reuse within Council wastewater treatment facilities-that is, lead by example 2. Implement groundwater recharge and irrigation (for example, golf courses) in East Bethel as a demonstration project for the region 3. Pursue wastewater reuse for industrial cooling water, where feasible 4. Collaborate with the University of Minnesota to demonstrate wastewater reuse at UMore Park 5. Develop and implement a plan to address the key implementation challenges associated with a nonpotable water system for toilet flushing and irrigation uses, and 6. Integrate nonpotable water systems into plans for future regional wastewater reclamation facilities. Regulatory Scenarios for Wastewater Treatment The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency establishes water quality standards for surface waters (lakes and rivers) and discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants. Current discharge limits for the Council's treatment plants include 1 mg/I for phosphorus and seasonal limits on ammonia nitrogen and organics. Water quality has improved due to the reduced pollutant discharges from wastewater treatment plants. However, long-term water quality goals established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will require substantial reduction of pollution from urban stormwater, agricultural runoff, and streambank erosion. Federal law focuses compliance and enforcement authority on point sources of pollutant discharge - that is, wastewater treatment plants and urban stormwater systems. As a result, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may impose more stringent discharge limits on the Council and its customer communities. This section discusses the potential implications for the Council's wastewater treatment plants. Phosphorus.The Council's wastewater treatment plants currently average approximately 0.5 mg/i phosphorus and 250 million gallons per day flow. The Council has evaluated two regulatory scenarios. The first assumes that the Council's plants will have to meet a discharge limit of 0.3 mg/I phosphorus. This limit would require the plants to average approximately 0.2 mg/I phosphorus to ensure they comply with the limit. The second scenario assumes a discharge limit of 0.1 mg/I phosphorus, which is the limit of currently available wastewater treatment technology. The 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit has been discussed as part of the process of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to establish a limit on the Total Maximum Daily Load of phosphorus into Lake Pepin on the Mississippi River. However, the 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit equals the phosphorus water quality standard for the Mississippi River being considered by the 43 74 MPCA. Because the Minnesota River, which flows into the Mississippi River, already contains approximately 0.2 mg/I phosphorus, the Mississippi River will likely continue to fail to meet standards unless the Minnesota River quality improves significantly. As a regulatory consequence, wastewater treatment discharge could be required to meet the water quality standard as a discharge limit. Achieving compliance with a 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit requires additional facilities for chemical addition, pumping, filtration, and solids processing facilities. Estimated capital cost (current prices)for the Council's wastewater treatment plants is $400 million. Estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is an additional $15 million. Achieving compliance with a 0.1 mg/1 phosphorus limit requires investments for chemical addition, tertiary clarifiers, pumping, membrane filtration, and solids processing facilities. Estimated capital costs (current prices)for the Council's wastewater treatment plants are approximately$2 billion. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are approximately an additional $30 million. Total annual operation and maintenance costs, plus annual debt service on the capital, are estimated at approximately$45 million for 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit and $180 million for 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit. These potential costs would raise regional wastewater rates by 40% to 100%. Nitrogen. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is considering a water quality standard for nitrate nitrogen based on levels considered toxic for aquatic life. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with assistance and guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently developed a nutrient reduction strategy for the Mississippi River watershed to protect the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrate is a nutrient necessary for aquatic growth, but excessive amounts can lead to problems such as algae blooms, decreased oxygen levels, and fish kills. Currently, the Council's wastewater treatment plants meet seasonal effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, to meet a water quality standard for ammonia nitrogen based on toxicity for aquatic life. The wastewater treatment plants use biological treatment to convert ammonia to nitrate nitrogen, with average nitrate discharge of 15 to 20 mg/I. If the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopts a nitrate nitrogen standard, the Mississippi River will likely continue to fail to meet standards because the Minnesota River contributes most of the nitrate nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River. As a regulatory consequence, wastewater treatment plant discharges could be required to meet the water quality standard as a discharge limit. Meeting this standard would require major capital improvements to remove nitrate by a biological denitrification process. A small change in specific concentration limits of nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen would result in a correspondingly large change in costs. Changes to the biological treatment process would also affect the performance of treatment plants to remove phosphorus. Estimated capital costs are approximately $1.0 billion to meet a 10 mg/I total nitrogen limit and approximately$1.5 billion to meet a 5 mg/I total nitrogen limit. Substantial Impacts and Substantial Departures from the Metropolitan Wastewater System Plan Thrive MSP 2040 and the regional system plans comprise the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide, which is the region's plan to ensure orderly and economical development 44 75 and re-development of the region. Local comprehensive pians and plan amendments that have substantial impacts on -or contain substantial departures from -the metropolitan wastewater system plan affect how the Council constructs, operates, and maintains the regional wastewater system and can result in system inefficiencies if the nonconforming plans are allowed to be implemented. Substantial impact or departures may result either from over-utilization or under- utilization. Over-utilization occurs when local development will use more regional capacity than currently is available or planned. Under-utilization occurs when low-density development uses less than currently available or planned regional capacity. Under-utilization is likely to require additional infrastructure elsewhere in the region to accommodate household growth that would be reasonably expected in the local governmental unit. As permitted by Minnesota Statutes section 473.175, subdivision 1, the Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof that is inconsistent with the metropolitan system plan if the Council concludes that the local plan is more likely than not to have either a substantial impact on, or to contain a substantial departure from, the Council's adopted policy plans and capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service. Inconsistencies will provide the Council with grounds for requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. A substantial system impact occurs under various scenarios, including when: • The regional wastewater system was not designed to provide wastewater service for the proposed sewer service area; or • The projected flow from the sewer service area is greater than planned; or • The timing for the proposed growth is prior to implementation of a planned improvement to, and greater than what can be accommodated by, the regional wastewater system; or • The peak wet-weather flows from the local government unit exceeds its designed capacity within the regional wastewater system, and thus there is inadequate capacity to accommodate the planned growth for the local government unit or tributary local governmental units. A substantial departure occurs when: • A local governmental unit proposes forecasts for sewered development densities that are lower than Council density standards that are the basis for regional infrastructure planning purposes; or • When a local government unit proposes densities that exceed Council policy for unsewered areas that are within the long-term regional wastewater service area, thus precluding future economical sewered development. 45 76 MPCA. Because the Minnesota River, which flows into the Mississippi River, already contains approximately 0.2 mg/I phosphorus, the Mississippi River will likely continue to fail to meet standards unless the Minnesota River quality improves significantly. As a regulatory consequence, wastewater treatment discharge could be required to meet the water quality standard as a discharge limit. Achieving compliance with a 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit requires additional facilities for chemical addition, pumping, filtration, and solids processing facilities. Estimated capital cost (current prices)for the Council's wastewater treatment plants is $400 million. Estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is an additional $15 million. Achieving compliance with a 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit requires investments for chemical addition, tertiary clarifiers, pumping, membrane filtration, and solids processing facilities. Estimated capital costs (current prices)for the Council's wastewater treatment plants are approximately $2 billion. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are approximately an additional $30 million. Total annual operation and maintenance costs, plus annual debt service on the capital, are estimated at approximately$45 million for 0.3 mg/I phosphorus limit and $180 million for 0.1 mg/I phosphorus limit. These potential costs would raise regional wastewater rates by 40% to 100%. Nitrogen. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is considering a water quality standard for nitrate nitrogen based on levels considered toxic for aquatic life. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with assistance and guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently developed a nutrient reduction strategy for the Mississippi River watershed to protect the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrate is a nutrient necessary for aquatic growth, but excessive amounts can lead to problems such as algae blooms, decreased oxygen levels, and fish kills. Currently, the Council's wastewater treatment plants meet seasonal effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, to meet a water quality standard for ammonia nitrogen based on toxicity for aquatic life. The wastewater treatment plants use biological treatment to convert ammonia to nitrate nitrogen, with average nitrate discharge of 15 to 20 mg/I. If the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopts a nitrate nitrogen standard, the Mississippi River will likely continue to fail to meet standards because the Minnesota River contributes most of the nitrate nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River. As a regulatory consequence, wastewater treatment plant discharges could be required to meet the water quality standard as a discharge limit. Meeting this standard would require major capital improvements to remove nitrate by a biological denitrification process. A small change in specific concentration limits of nitrate nitrogen and total nitrogen would result in a correspondingly large change in costs. Changes to the biological treatment process would also affect the performance of treatment plants to remove phosphorus. Estimated capital costs are approximately $1.0 billion to meet a 10 mg/I total nitrogen limit and approximately $1.5 billion to meet a 5 mg/I total nitrogen limit. Substantial Impacts and Substantial Departures from the Metropolitan Wastewater System Plan Thrive MSP 2040 and the regional system plans comprise the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide, which is the region's plan to ensure orderly and economical development 44 75 and re-development of the region. Local comprehensive plans and pian amendments that have substantial impacts on - or contain substantial departures from -the metropolitan wastewater system plan affect how the Council constructs, operates, and maintains the regional wastewater system and can result in system inefficiencies if the nonconforming plans are allowed to be implemented. Substantial impact or departures may result either from over-utilization or under- utilization. Over-utilization occurs when local development will use more regional capacity than currently is available or planned. Under-utilization occurs when low-density development uses less than currently available or planned regional capacity. Under-utilization is likely to require additional infrastructure elsewhere in the region to accommodate household growth that would be reasonably expected in the local governmental unit. As permitted by Minnesota Statutes section 473.175, subdivision 1, the Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof that is inconsistent with the metropolitan system plan if the Council concludes that the local plan is more likely than not to have either a substantial impact on, or to contain a substantial departure from, the Council's adopted policy plans and capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service. Inconsistencies will provide the Council with grounds for requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. A substantial system impact occurs under various scenarios, including when: • The regional wastewater system was not designed to provide wastewater service for the proposed sewer service area; or • The projected flow from the sewer service area is greater than planned; or • The timing for the proposed growth is prior to implementation of a planned improvement to, and greater than what can be accommodated by, the regional wastewater system; or • The peak wet-weather flows from the local government unit exceeds its designed capacity within the regional wastewater system, and thus there is inadequate capacity to accommodate the planned growth for the local government unit or tributary local governmental units. A substantial departure occurs when: • A local governmental unit proposes forecasts for sewered development densities that are lower than Council density standards that are the basis for regional infrastructure planning purposes; or • When a local government unit proposes densities that exceed Council policy for unsewered areas that are within the long-term regional wastewater service area, thus precluding future economical sewered development. 45 76 Appendices Appendix A — Wastewater The actual inflow/infiltration goal will vary over time based on the average base flow for the community, which also changes over time. Table A-1: MCES Flow Variation Factors for Sewer Design Average Flow Peak Hourly Average Flow Peak Hourly (MGD) Flow Factor (MGD) Flow Factor 0.00-0.11 0.12-0.18 . 2.30 -28� 2.7 0.19-0.23 8 2 90 - ?.4Q 2.6 0.24-0.29 37 3.50 -4.1, 2 5 0.30-0.39 4 5.(9 2.4 0.40-0.4950- (-.39 2.3 0.50-0.64 } - 2.2 0.65-0.79 0.80-0.99 1.00- 1.19 1.20- 1.49ib 0 - 2 .99, i 8 1.50- 1.89 .et-3C 00 i 7 46 77 Table A-2. Wastewater Flow Variation Factors for Determining Infiltration/Inflow Mitigation Goals Average Flow Peak Hourly Average Flow Peak Hourly (MGD) Flow Factor (MGD) Flow Factor <0.1 4.5 2.5-3.0 3.2 0.1-0.2 44 3.0-3.5 3.1 0.2-0.3 4.3 3.5-4.0 30 0.3-0.4 4 2 4.0_4.5 29 0.4-0.5 4 1 4 5--5.0 2.8 0.5-0.6 A.C 5-G 2.7 0.6-0.7 ti 0 C-8 2 C- 0.7-0.8 0.7-0.8 3 8 8-10 2.5 0.8-1.0 0-12 2.4 1.0-1.2 3.G 12-1G2.3 1.2-1.5 5 1 --20 1.5-2.0 ? ; 20-30 2 1 2A-2.5 . .� 30 0 47 78 Table A-3. Community Forecasts of Sewered Population, Households, and Employment �olrlarirri�f�E", Households Employment 2M 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040 Blue Lake WWTP Carver 5,209 8,592 13,544 1,890 3,221 5,115 605 1,001 1,637 Chanhassen 24,630 29,617 36,198 9,381 11,438 13,998 13,983 15,305 17,398 Chaska 25,285 29,469 33,851 10,040 11,926 13,786 12,839 14,102 15,663 Corcoran (pt.) 47 46 60 18 18 24 15 10 12 Deephaven 3,790 3,865 3,900 1,370 1,390 1,400 820 820 820 Eden Prairie 69,129 78,610 83,108 27,746 31,699 33,372 59,097 67,935 69,771 Excelsior 2,330 2,390 2,600 1,170 1,190 1,300 2,200 2,200 2,200 `0 Greenfield 134 134 134 57 57 57 0 0 0 Greenwood 780 800 810 300 300 300 200 340 350 Hopkins (pt.) 538 564 547 252 258 247 202 179 161 Independence 950 1,111 1,357 338 447 553 157 178 194 Laketown Twp 651 326 0 140 70 0 77 38 0 Long Lake 1,890 1,940 2,100 810 910 1,000 1,560 1,860 1,930 Loretto 660 670 670 290 300 300 370 370 370 Maple Plain 1,980 2,190 2,300 850 950 1,000 1,740 1,740 1,750 Medina (pt.) 197 272 470 75 107 191 75 138 263 48 Minnetonka 55,900 60,600 63,000 24,600 26,600 27,500 55,700 61,700 63,200 Minnetonka Beach 570 610 610 210 220 220 210 250 250 Minnetrista 3,181 5,235 6,920 1,178 2,014 2,682 266 352 350 Mound 9,600 9,900 10,500 4,220 4,510 4,800 1,550 1,840 1,900 Orono 4,648 6,713 7,393 1,771 2,794 3,092 913 1,331 1,428 Prior Lake 25,500 31,300 39,300 10,000 12,500 15,700 9,400 10,700 12,900 Shakopee 34,265 48,830 55,981 12,567 18,230 20,924 20,236 27,000 31,784 Shorewood 7,400 7,400 7,400 2,820 2,940 3,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 Spring Park 1,950 2,120 2,200 1,000 1,070 1,100 650 690 700 o St. Bonifacius 2,210 2,200 2,200 880 890 900 480 500 500 Tonka Bay 1,490 1,500 1,500 630 670 680 440 540 570 Victoria 9,014 11,000 14,500 3,233 4,000 5,000 1,301 1,700 2,200 Waconia 12,900 16,700 22,100 4,970 6,700 8,900 7,200 8,300 10,200 Wayzata 4,270 4,670 4,900 2,070 2,210 2,300 5,300 5,800 5,900 Woodland 393 530 540 145 180 180 8 20 20 Totals 311,491 369,904 420,693 125,020 149,809 169,621 198,795 228,141 245,620 Crow River WWTP Rogers (pt.) 0 12,443 15,085 0 4,707 5,686 0 9,716 11,794 40 Eagles Point WWRP Cottage Grove 32,701 39,167 44,036 11,766 14,554 16,403 5,988 7,339 7,973 Lake Elmo (pt.) 3,497 8,198 12,281 1,338 3,248 4,810 1,145 1,900 2,240 Woodbury (pt.) 45,741 54,787 57,809 16,256 19,919 21,463 10,677 13,243 15,898 Totals 81,939 102,153 114,126 29,360 37,720 42,676 17,810 22,482 26,111 East Bethel WWTP East Bethel 5,905 8,868 11,453 2,314 3,597 4,672 712 1,096 1,275 Empire WWTP w Apple Valley(pt.) 52,081 58,228 60,728 20,788 23,584 24,531 16,619 18,478 18,973 Elko New Market 5,800 8,000 12,200 1,910 2,820 4,500 530 650 840 Empire Twp. 668 1,406 2,048 243 529 777 61 96 111 Farmington 19,937 23,153 28,592 7,341 8,773 10,956 4,815 5,537 6,758 Lakeville (pt.) 54,305 65,235 75,512 19,469 23,988 27,924 16,328 18,782 21,614 Rosemount 20,717 26,651 31,531 7,539 10,047 12,156 5,901 8,633 11,058 Totals 153,509 182,672 210,610 57,290 69,740 80,844 44,254 52,176 59,355 Hastings WWTP Hastings 23,100 25,900 30,100 9,600 11,000 12,900 9,200 10,000 11,400 50 Metropolitan WWTP Andover 23,431 24,568 30,955 7,638 9,051 11,615 3,922 4,403 5,292 Anoka 19,096 19,590 20,096 7,900 8,595 8,898 13,707 14,352 14,600 Arden Hills 10,848 12,784 13,499 3,530 4,375 4,600 14,705 17,899 18,399 Birchwood Village 860 850 840 360 360 360 20 30 30 Blaine 66,311 73,341 83,587 23,966 28,135 32,124 24,399 25,671 27,320 Brooklyn Center 31,000 32,900 34,700 11,800 12,800 13,600 12,900 13,900 15,400 Brooklyn Park 83,757 91,487 95,500 30,577 33,893 35,496 32,262 38,951 41,999 Centerville 3,990 4,100 4,200 1,400 1,520 1,700 500 500 500 OD Champlin 23,900 24,200 25,500 8,800 9,400 10,000 4,860 5,500 5,600 Circle Pines 5,100 5,200 5,300 2,150 2,250 2,300 1,160 1,400 1,450 Columbia Heights 20,000 20,600 21,700 8,400 8,800 9,300 4,540 4,790 5,300 Columbus 591 866 1,213 238 361 512 566 645 758 Coon Rapids 65,308 70,200 72,500 26,300 28,300 29,300 30,700 34,700 35,700 Corcoran (pt.) 2,851 5,746 7,234 1,071 2,243 2,865 586 1,025 1,343 Crystal 22,800 23,100 23,300 9,500 9,800 10,000 4,640 4,970 5,500 Dayton (pt.) 5,255 7,872 9,133 1,993 3,208 3,887 1,177 1,703 2,449 Edina (pt.) 49,402 51,370 52,886 21,332 22,221 22,831 49,250 51,084 53,974 5^ Falcon Heights 5,400 5,400 5,300 2,170 2,180 2,200 5,705 6,000 6,800 Forest Lake 15,759 18,571 22,332 6,545 7,872 9,531 6,271 7,031 8,117 Fridley 28,100 28,600 29,400 11,700 12,400 12,800 25,300 27,000 29,800 Gem Lake 500 560 588 210 237 249 560 630 640 Golden Valley 22,000 23,200 24,300 9,400 9,900 10,300 37,500 38,900 41,500 Hilltop 950 1,030 1,100 480 520 550 320 350 360 Hopkins (pt.) 19,082 20,032 21,052 9,010 9,346 9,753 12,523 13,301 13,839 Hugo 9,490 19,157 26,980 3,846 8,037 11,268 1,911 2,822 3,428 Inver Grove Heights (pt.) 32,186 36,841 41,638 13,507 15,611 17,635 10,078 11,199 12,345 00 w Lake Elmo (pt.) 438 615 911 172 253 376 204 166 162 Landfall 770 770 770 300 300 300 30 30 30 Lauderdale 2,450 2,430 2,400 1,160 1,180 1,200 690 830 1,000 Lexington 2,130 2,260 2,300 890 970 1,000 660 690 700 Lilydale 910 940 1,000 530 570 600 420 420 420 Lino Lakes 14,532 17,974 20,756 4,668 6,243 7,496 2,770 3,399 4,044 Little Canada 10,400 10,800 11,100 4,640 4,810 4,900 7,700 8,500 8,700 Mahtomedi 7,800 7,700 7,700 2,950 3,050 3,099 2,134 2,513 2,660 Maple Grove 60,986 76,000 84,800 22,904 29,400 32,999 35,521 43,100 49,500 52 Maplewood 41,200 44,800 47,900 16,700 18,400 19,700 32,000 33,700 36,600 Medicine Lake 400 400 400 170 170 170 60 100 100 Medina (pt.) 3,024 4,524 6,078 1,132 1,726 2,337 2,692 3,206 3,284 Mendota 270 290 320 110 120 130 280 300 300 Mendota Heights 12,100 13,000 13,400 4,820 5,200 5,300 12,600 14,200 14,400 Minneapolis* 424,700 449,500 466,400 184,200 195,600 202,700 324,000 334,500 356,000 Mounds View 12,400 12,500 13,100 5,100 5,200 5,500 6,900 7,200 8,200 New Brighton 23,000 24,600 26,000 9,800 10,600 11,200 11,200 12,100 13,500 New Hope 21,100 22,000 22,800 9,000 9,500 9,800 12,400 13,600 15,300 00 -0- Newport 3,730 4,230 4,600 1,630 1,910 2,100 1,990 1,960 2,000 North Oaks 1,786 1,894 1,933 720 805 828 493 517 517 North St. Paul 12,200 12,500 13,100 5,100 5,400 5,700 3,120 3,330 3,610 Oakdale 28,800 30,400 31,000 11,900 12,700 13,000 12,500 14,500 15,000 Osseo 2,660 2,900 3,100 1,270 1,400 1,500 2,130 2,280 2,530 Plymouth 71,431 81,600 87,796 29,102 33,100 35,495 53,534 59,400 66,497 Ramsey 12,726 19,201 21,544 4,432 7,292 8,481 4,356 5,770 6,496 Richfield 37,300 38,800 39,900 16,200 17,000 17,500 17,500 17,700 18,400 Robbinsdale 14,600 14,800 15,300 6,300 6,600 6,800 7,300 7,400 7,600 5? Rogers (pt.) 0 984 1,870 0 405 777 0 229 397 Roseville 35,100 35,900 38,700 15,100 15,600 17,000 39,700 41,300 44,100 Shoreview 26,200 27,200 27,500 10,800 11,200 11,300 13,300 15,200 15,500 South St. Paul 21,300 22,000 22,500 9,000 9,400 9,600 8,600 9,600 11,000 Spring Lake Park 6,590 6,840 7,020 2,930 3,110 3,200 3,360 3,700 3,770 St. Anthony 9,050 9,950 10,600 4,280 4,570 5,000 3,640 3,810 4,140 St. Louis Park 50,100 52,700 54,500 23,700 24,800 25,500 44,500 46,200 49,100 St. Paul 308,600 324,100 334,700 125,000 132,800 137,600 190,900 201,900 218,000 St. Paul Park 5,600 6,500 7,900 2,250 2,700 3,300 1,830 2,070 2,520 00 cn Vadnais Heights 13,200 14,100 14,500 5,700 6,100 6,300 10,200 12,100 12,600 West St. Paul 21,700 22,900 23,900 9,600 10,100 10,500 8,900 9,600 10,600 White Bear Lake 24,350 26,040 28,180 10,520 11,350 12,300 11,950 11,980 12,000 White Bear Twp. 11,084 11,776 11,998 4,482 4,783 4,899 3,553 4,528 4,780 Willernie 500 490 480 230 230 230 200 200 200 Woodbury (pt.) 22,602 23,270 22,278 8,858 9,167 8,813 12,155 12,186 12,369 Totals 1,947,786 2,104,344 2,227,866 802,173 877,229 930,203 1,208,034 1,294,771 1,391,067 New Germany WWTP New Germany 500 600 1400 200 250 600 60 70 90 54 Seneca WWTP Apple Valley(pt.) 4,219 4,672 4,872 1,712 1,916 1,969 681 622 527 Bloomington 87,300 91,200 95,400 38,400 40,100 41,900 100,600 105,800 111,000 Burnsville 62,900 65,400 66,700 25,900 27,100 27,700 39,300 43,100 44,100 Eagan 70,800 76,100 79,000 28,200 30,400 31,500 62,600 68,600 70,200 Edina (pt.) 398 430 414 168 179 169 2,150 2,116 2,126 Inver Grove Heights (pt.) 1,794 2,128 2,504 655 794 937 292 410 539 Lakeville (pt.) 4,952 5,300 5,747 1,720 1,848 1,972 1,094 1,112 1,135 Savage 33,900 36,700 38,200 11,600 13,400 14,300 8,123 9,184 9,499 00 a' Totals 266,262 281,929 292,838 108,354 115,736 120,448 214,840 230,944 239,125 St. Croix Valley WWTP Bayport 3,900 4,185 4,400 1,069 1,200 1,300 4,370 4,940 5,100 Oak Park Heights 5,100 5,600 5,800 2,240 2,490 2,600 6,000 7,300 7,500 Stillwater 20,000 21,700 22,500 8,300 9,100 9,500 10,700 11,500 11,700 Totals 29,000 31,485 32,700 11,609 12,790 13,400 21,070 23,740 24,300 Regional Totals 2,820,746 3,120,550 3,357,206 1,146,430 1,282,671 1,381,176 1,715,637 1,873,210 2,010,222 5F Table A-4. Community Wastewater Flow Projections _ AcWM Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2440 Flow {MGD) {MGD) (MGD) Andover 1.30 1.47 1.51 1.87 Anoka 1.70 1.82 1.81 1.79 Apple Valley 3.36 3.74 4.06 4.13 Arden Hills 0.89 0.98 1.12 1.15 Bayport 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.53 Birchwood 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 CO Blaine 3.80 4.55 4.88 5.40 V Bloomington 8.29 8.51 8.58 8.66 Brooklyn Center 2.70 2.70 2.75 2.80 Brooklyn Park 4.92 5.48 5.89 6.03 Burnsville 5.27 5.38 5.43 5.36 Carver 0.00 0.36 0.56 0.86 Centerville 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 Champlin 1.69 1.71 1.68 1.71 Chanhassen 2.08 2.30 2.56 2.92 56 com+ro ft, 2010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow (met)) (MGD) (MGD) Chaska 2.51 2.73 2.93 3.14 Circle Pines 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Columbia Heights 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.26 Columbus 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.10 Coon Rapids 5.30 5.48 5.68 5.67 Corcoran 0.00 0.18 0.36 0.46 Cottage Grove 2.03 2.11 2.45 2.69 Crystal 1.74 1.74 1.71 1.68 00 Dayton 0.05 0.27 0.43 0.52 Deephaven 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 Eagan 6.08 6.49 6.71 6.73 East Bethel 0.00 0.36 0.55 0.71 Eden Prairie 5.10 5.80 6.35 6.50 Edina 5.95 5.94 5.91 5.86 Elko New Market 0.00 0.33 0.45 0.70 Empire Township 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.16 5' Corm 010 Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow (MOD) (MOD) (MGD) Excelsior 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.23 Falcon Heights 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 Farmington 1.43 1.45 1.61 1.91 Forest Lake 1.64 1.70 1.83 2.03 Fridley 4.70 4.67 4.59 4.54 Gem Lake 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 Golden Valley 2.35 2.44 2.46 2.50 Co Greenfield 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 CD Greenwood 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 Hastings 1.49 1.51 1.64 1.87 Hilltop 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 Hopkins 1.58 1.68 1.71 1.73 Hugo 0.83 0.96 1.52 1.98 Independence 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 Inver Grove Heights 2.09 2.40 2.66 2.92 Lake Elmo 0.02 0.26 0.57 0.83 58 0 Ackial Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow (mm) (MOD) (MGD) (MGD) Laketown Township 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 Lakeville 4.02 4.58 5.17 5.74 Landfall 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Lauderdale 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 Lexington 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 Lilydale 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 Lino Lakes 0.99 1.10 1.29 1.44 CD Little Canada 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.18 0 Long Lake 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 Loretto 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 Mahtomedi 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.45 Maple Grove 5.23 5.30 6.16 6.63 Maple Plain 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 Maplewood 3.51 3.66 3.80 3.92 Medicine Lake 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Medina 0.31 0.37 0.47 0.56 59 Actual Flow 2024 Flow 2430 Flow 2440 flow (MOD) (MOD) (MGD) Mendota 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 Mendota Heights 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.37 Minneapolis 44.76 46.58 46.89 46.88 Minnetonka 5.41 5.79 6.00 6.01 Minnetonka Beach 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 Minnetrista 0.30 0.31 0.43 0.52 Mound 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Mounds View 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.07 .1 New Brighton 1.74 1.81 1.86 1.92 New Germany 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.11 New Hope 1.90 1.90 1.92 1.94 Newport 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 North Oaks 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 North St. Paul 1.02 1.04 1.03 1.04 Oak Park Heights 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.62 Oakdale 2.60 2.66 2.71 2.68 60 0 ArAusl Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow Orono 0.58 0.58 0.70 0.72 Osseo 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22 Plymouth 6.76 6.82 7.32 7.59 Prior Lake 1.62 1.76 2.08 2.54 Ramsey 0.78 0.88 1.27 1.39 Richfield 3.07 3.13 3.13 3.11 Robbinsdale 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.03 Rogers 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.99 N Rosemount 1.37 1.39 1.75 2.04 Roseville 3.37 3.43 3.40 3.51 Savage 2.00 2.53 2.65 2.69 Shakopee 3.55 3.62 4.49 4.88 Shoreview 2.37 2.39 2.41 2.36 Shorewood 0.95 0.93 0.90 0.88 South St. Paul 3.43 3.40 3.35 3.30 Spring Lake Park 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 61 2M Actual Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2040 Flow (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Spring Park 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 St. Anthony 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.84 St. Bonifacius 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 St. Louis Park 4.88 5.09 5.12 5.13 St. Paul 22.87 23.82 24.23 24.42 St. Paul Park 0.37 0.38 0.43 0.51 Stillwater 1.98 2.04 2.09 2.09 CD Tonka Bay 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 CA) Vadnais Heights 1.25 1.32 1.36 1.36 Victoria 0.61 0.74 0.85 1.05 Waconia 0.98 1.11 1.32 1.65 Wayzata 0.52 0.55 0.56 0.56 West St. Paul 2.05 2.14 2.16 2.17 White Bear Lake 2.52 2.48 2.51 2.56 White Bear Township 0.98 1.07 1.10 1.08 Willernie 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 62 Act",Flow 2020 Flow 2030 Flow 2840 Flow (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) Woodbury 4.60 5.06 5.55 5.57 Woodland 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 6? Appendix B — Surface Water Management Appendix B-1: Nonpoint Source Pollutants nsr Exernplaa of �! Nutrients: Animal waste, fertilizers, failing Algae growth, reduced clarity, other Nitrogen. septic systems problems associated with Phosphor ills eutrophication (oxygen deficit. release cf nutrients and metais iron sediments) Sediments: C onetructicn sites. other Incieased turbidity. iedUced clarit_t, Suspended and jisturhed and or non-vegetated lover dissolved oxygen, deposition of Deposited (Ends ciodino bankF, load sediments. smothering of aquatic sand;nc habitat including Spa\4,ning :,ices. sediment and toxicity tui botton-r- (J\velling organisms Oxygen deficit in rr ccr�rnc „�2af er [;adv, fish Fill Pathogens: animal ;;rs.c. `aif ic_ sirptic Hurnan health risks \ia diir't ina Eacterib, Vl;u1&e4 Sj�-tcigs \%ater sup lies. contz.inirl£ttd s�, imrnino b(-aches Hydrocarbons: Vii, induq_rial p:ccesses. aut^mobile 7oaicity of\YatEr column and and Cleage, PAiic and Fluid leaps; sedimE.nt, bioaccurrrulction in eUU2tir- (NapthalE.nrs, %"'aste oil specres and through food chair, Pyrenc:s) Metals: Lead. Irl !rStircll pr^,^EcF!(-s, normal wc-ar 1 oxicity of watei Column clic Copper, Cadmium" of auto br2ke linings and tiles sediment, bioaccumulation in aquatic. Zinc., hleicury-, r.utoMol,ile emissic)hs arci fluid species and through the food chain Chromium, leal.s, metal roofs fish kill Aluminum, others Pesticides: PCBs, Pesticides (herbicides, Toxicity of water column and Synthetic insecticides, fungicides, sediment, bioaccumulation in aquatic Chemicals rodenticides, etc.). industrial species and through the food chain, processes fish kill Chlorides Road salting and uncovered salt ' Toxicity of water column and storage sediment Trash and Debris Litter washed through storm drain ! Degradation of the beauty of surface networks waters. threat to wildlife sa 95 Appendix B-2: Priority Lakes List The Council's roles in managing the sustainability of the region's lakes can be summarized by the following points: • Work to maintain and improve the quality and availability of the region's water resources to support habitat and ecosystem health while providing for recreational opportunities, all of which are critical elements of our region's quality of life. • Collaborate and convene with state, regional, and local partners to protect, maintain, and enhance natural resources protection and the protection of the quality and quantity of the region's water resources and water supply. Need for a Priority Lakes List The Council performs a variety of specific roles in the management of the region's water resources, in partnership with watershed management organizations, local units of government, state and federal agencies, and other partners. Given that there 950 lakes in the Twin Cities metro area, the Council developed a Priority Lakes List in 2003 to focus its limited resources toward managing the sustainability of the region's lakes. These roles include: • Plan and implement the MCES lake-monitoring activities as conducted by MCES staff. (Note that the MCES Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program enrolls lakes that are outside the priority lakes list, in addition to lakes that are on the list.) • Perform lake assessments. • Provide monitoring data and lake assessment information so local partners can make effective management and planning decisions. • Promote protection of priority lakes by promoting effective surface water management by: - Asking local units of government to adopt local land uses and planning strategies to protect natural resources and minimize development impacts. - Reviewing local comprehensive plans, watershed management plans, local surface water management plans, environmental permits, water supply plans, local stormwater ordinances, and other environmental documents to ensure that local units of government are fulfilling their nonpoint-source reduction requirements. - Providing direction, guidance, and technical assistance on BMPs for stormwater management and land use strategies. • Strengthen protection of priority lakes by promoting wise use of water through a sustainable balance of surface water and groundwater use, conservation, reuse, aquifer recharge, and other practices. • Work in conjunction with the MPCA to develop TMDLs that reduce the effects of nonpoint-source pollution on the region's lakes. • Assist in the environmental review process to determine which lakes need to have a nutrient budget analysis completed if a lake is affected by a proposed project. ss 96 Priority Lakes List The Priority Lakes List provides useful information for the management of the region's lakes and their watersheds. The Priority Lake List: • Indicates the criteria for categorizing a lake as a Council Priority Lake. • Identifies basic lake characteristics that can influence the management of the lake and its watershed. This type of information can be used to rapidly assess, on a large scale, the appropriate management techniques and challenges for a lake and its watershed. For example, it can be useful in reviewing watershed and surface water management plans, or prioritizing limited funding for lake/watershed improvement projects. The lakes that were on the Priority Lakes List for the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan are included in the updated priority lakes list for the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, as well as 20 lakes that are new to the Priority Lakes List. For this Policy Plan, the reference "Spring Lake/ U.S. Lock and Dam#2 Pool" was changed to"Spring Lake" because Spring Lake is just a portion of the much larger Pool #2. Priority Lakes Criteria The lakes on the Priority Lakes List were chosen if they met at least one of the following criteria: • High regional recreational value which includes the requirement that the surface area of the lake must be at least 100 acres • Water supply lake • Good water quality • Special significance for wildlife habitat High Regional Recreational Value. A lake is considered to have high regional recreational value if: • The lake has a public boat access. • The lake has an adjacent park. • The lake has a surface area of at least 100 acres. Water Supply Lake. A lake is considered a water supply lake if it is listed as having a drinking- water beneficial use as defined in Minnesota Rule 7050 and it is identified as a drinking water source (principal or reserve) in a water management plan by a local unit of government. Good Water Quality. A lake is considered to have good water quality if the annual summer (May-September)trophic status indicators are relatively low, as follows: • Mean water clarity (Secchi transparency)greater than or equal to 3 meters. • Mean chlorophyll-a (trichromatic)concentration less than or equal to 10 ug/L. • Mean total phosphorus concentration less than or equal to 23 ug/L. Good water quality lakes are restricted to those with a surface area of 10 acres or larger. Wildlife Significance. The Council's recently updated comprehensive development guide, Thrive MSP 2040, discusses the importance of ecological resources, habitat, and a healthy natural environment. There are several lakes in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that have special significance for wildlife habitat, including some where wild rice grows. A lake is considered to have special significance for wildlife habitat if it meets at least one of the following conditions: ss 97 • Designated by the MnDNR as a Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Area (MW FRA). • Designated by the MnDNR as a Wildlife Lake. • Has an estimated coverage of wild rice per the MnDNR's Wild Rice Distribution and Abundance Inventory(2008). Basic Lake Characteristics for Management Decisions The basic lake characteristics are: • Lake surface area • Shallow lake status • Impaired water • Watershed area • Watershed area to lake surface area ratio Lake Surface Area. The lake surface area is the areal extent of the lake basin as given in the MCES Lakes and Rivers GIS layer (2005). Shallow Lakes. The Priority Lakes List uses the MnDNR definition of a shallow lake as one having a maximum depth of 15 feet or less. Whereas both shallow lakes and deeper lakes can benefit from improved watershed management, shallow lakes may require additional in-lake management strategies to address those issues that have a more pronounced effect on shallow lakes (for example, frequent internal cycling of nutrients, greater loading of nutrients, disturbance by bottom dwelling animals, and maintaining healthy aquatic plant populations). Impaired Water. The Priority Lakes List indicates whether a lake is listed as an impaired water because of a negatively affected beneficial use according to the 2014 Inventory of Impaired Waters of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). An impaired lake means it is not meeting water quality standards and beneficial use(s), as designated in Minnesota Rule 7050. Watershed Area. The watershed area of a priority lake is the total area of the lake basin itself and any upgradient basins as delineated in MnDNR's GIS layer"DNR Watersheds - DNR Level 08 -All Catchments." Watershed Area to Lake Surface Area Ratio. The ratio of the watershed area to lake surface area provides an indication of the potential relative stress put on a lake by runoff from the lake's watershed. The greater the ratio, the greater the stress applied to the lake from external loadings of pollutants. 67 98 Priority Lakes List Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio Centerville 20006 Anoka 472.8 Y Reserve R 1,640 3.5 Coon 20042 Anoka 1532.8 Y C (Hg) 6,297 4.1 Crooked 20084 Anoka 118.9 Y C (Hg) 469 3.9 East Twin 20133 Anoka 96.8 Y Y C (Hg) 443 4.6 20065 Anoka 337.1 Yes Wildlife 1,619 4.8 George 20091 Anoka 491.5 Y C (Hg) 1,853 3.8 Ham 20053 Anoka 180.5 Y C (Hg) 853 4.7 Linwood 20026 Anoka 570.3 Y R 7,122 12.5 20032 Anoka 87.9 Yes Wild rice 2,990 34.0 Martin 20034 Anoka 249.4 Y R 24,620 98.7 Otter 20003 Anoka 294.6 Y Reserve C (Hg) 1,505 5.1 co C° Peltier 20004 Anoka 573.4 Y R, C (Hg) 69,035 120.4 20130 Anoka 246.1 Yes Wild rice 616 2.5 Rice 20008 Anoka 370.2 Yes Y R 81,646 220.5 Round 20089 Anoka 263.5 Yes Y 1,573 6.0 20098 Anoka 41.2 Yes Wild rice 868 21.1 Ann 100012 Carver 116.3 Y C (Hg) 1,247 10.7 Auburn 100044 Carver 287.2 Y R 8,027 27.9 100225 Carver 13.9 Y 173 12.4 -10 100005 Carver 12.0 Y 33 2.8 Eagle 100121 Carver 179.9 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 1,840 10.2 Hydes 100088 Carver 219.4 Y R, C (Hg) 3,280 14.9 Lotus 100006 Carver 242.2 Y R, C (Hg) 1,369 5.7 Maria 100058 Carver 168.8 Yes Y R 479 2.8 Minnewashta 100009 Carver 686.0 Y C(Hg) 3,116 4.5 68 Priority Lakes List Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake Lake Name DNR ID Countyacres Lake Recreation Supply Quality, Significance Use acres Area ratio Parley 100042 Carver 255.9 Y R 12,857 50.2 Patterson 100086 Carver 234.3 Yes Y Wildlife 2,685 11.5 Piersons 100053 Carver 291.6 Y 1,178 4.0 Rice 100078 Carver 239.3 Yes Y 8,534 35.7 Riley 100002 Carver 295.4 Y R, C(Hg) 5,333 18.1 Steiger 100045 Carver 169.7 Y C (Hg) 819 4.8 Tiger 100108 Carver 385.6 Yes Y Waterfowl & 4,497 11.7 Wildlife Waconia 100059 Carver 3088.1 Y C(Hg) 10,751 3.5 Wasserman 100048 Carver 166.2 Y R, C (Hg) 2,878 17.3 Zumbra-Sunny 100041 Carver 225.4 Y C (Hg) 534 2.4 0 Byllesby 190006 Dakota 1368.5 Y R, C(Hg) 733,166 535.7 C) 190020 Dakota 241.5 Yes Wild rice R 1,487 6.2 Crystal 190027 Dakota 287.1 Y R, C(Hg) 4,006 14.0 190030 Dakota 80.2 Yes Y 213 2.7 Lac Lavon 190446 Dakota 67.0 Y C (Hg) 371 5.5 190042 Dakota 34.1 Y 3,553 104.2 Marion 190026 Dakota 573.1 Y C (Hg) 5,081 8.9 Orchard 190031 Dakota 236.0 Y C (Hg) 2,348 9.9 L TSS , C Spring Lake 1900005 Dakota 1839.0 Y (PCB, PFOS, 23,780,000 12,931 Hg) Bryant 270067 Hennepin 176.1 Y R, C(Hg) 5,567 31.6 Bush 270047 Hennepin 189.0 Y Y C (Hg) 1,241 6.6 Calhoun 270031 Hennepin 414.8 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 6,851 16.5 Hennepin 270039 168.4 Y P� C (Hg) 2,482 14.7 Christmas 270137 Hennepin 268.2 Y C (Hg) 741 2.8 69 Priority Lakes List Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio Dutch 270181 Hennepin 173.8 Y R 1,787 10.3 Eagle 27011011 Hennepin 294.2 Y R, C (Hg) 3,620 12.3 Fish 270118 Hennepin 234.8 Y R, C (Hg) 2,276 9.7 Harriet 270016 Hennepin 338.5 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 8,354 24.7 Independence 270176 Hennepin 834.1 Y R, C (Hg) 8,395 10.1 270040 Hennepin 114.0 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 3,225 28.3 Little Long 270179 Hennepin 85.6 Y C(Hg) 269 3.1 Long 270160 Hennepin 297.9 Y R, C (Hg) 6,841 23.0 Medicine 270104 Hennepin 922.3 Y R, C(Hg) 11,603 12.6 Minnetonka 270133 Hennepin 14185.0 Y R, C(Hg) 78,770 5.6 0 Mitchell 270070 Hennepin 114.4 Y R 1,405 12.3 Nokomis 270019 Hennepin 200.4 Y R, C (PCB, Hg) 2,942 14.7 Nordmyr 271045 Hennepin 108.4 Yes Y 21,117 194.8 (Normandale) Pike 27011012 Hennepin 57.4 Y R, C(Hg) 984 17.1 Rebecca 270192 Hennepin 265.6 Y R, C (Hg) 1,539 5.8 Staring 270078 Hennepin 163.2 Y R, C(Hg) 15,323 93.9 Weaver 270117 Hennepin 149.2 Y C(Hg) 489 3.3 Whaletail 270184 Hennepin 518.1 Y R, C(Hg) 2,333 4.5 Bald Eagle 620002 Ramsey 1044.0 Y Reserve R, C (Hg) 19,573 18.7 Charley 620062 Ramsey 35.2 Principal 129+ Miss. R. Deep 620018 Ramsey 71.6 Yes Principal 5,712 79.8 Gervais 620007 Ramsey 235.0 Y C (Hg) 16,622 70.7 Johanna 620078 Ramsey 210.6 Y C (PFOS, Hg) 3,645 17.3 Josephine 620057 Ramsey 114.1 Y C (Hg) 859 7.5 70 Priority Lakes List Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio Owasso 620056 Ramsey 371.2 Y CH ( g) 3,033 8.2 Phalen 620013 Ramsey 197.4 Y CH ( g) 21,186 107.3 Pleasant 620046 Ramsey 601.7 Principal R, C(Hg) 8,240 + Miss. R. Snail 620073 Ramsey 148.0 Y C (Hg) 1,050 7.1 Sucker 620028 Ramsey 61.7 Principal C(Hg) 8,857 + Miss. R. Turtle 620061 Ramsey 439.1 Y C (Hg) 778 1.8 Vadnais 620038 Ramsey 603.4 Principal R, C(Hg) 15,157 + Miss. R. , ty q} ; 620043 Ramsey 91.0 Yes Principal R 5,033 55.3 700088 Scott 150.5 Yes Wild rice 30,451 202.3 Cedar 700091 Scott 793.6 Yes Y R, C (Hg) 2,447 3.1 C) Cleary 700022 Scott 146.4 Yes Y R, C(Hg) 5,624 38.4 P" Fish 700069 Scott 175.9 Y R, C (Hg) 699 4.0 700087 Scott 274.3 Yes Wild rice 31,396 114.5 Lower Prior 700026 Scott 966.9 Y C (Hg) 18,904 19.6 O'Dowd 700095 Scott 317.9 Y R, C (Hg) 774 2.4 700098 Scott 319.0 Yes Waterfowl 907 2.8 700025 Scott 145.6 Yes Wild rice 1,102 7.6 Spring 700054 Scott 593.0 Y R, C (Hg) 12,431 21.0 Thole/Schneider 700120 Scott 161.3 Yes Y R, C(Hg) 1,797 11.1 Upper Prior 700072 Scott 387.4 Y R, C (Hg) 16,039 41.4 Battle Creek 820091 Washington 105.9 Yes Y L(Cl), C(Hg) 4,264 40.3 Big Carnelian 820049 Washington 451.6 Y Y C(Hg) 14,794 32.8 Big Marine 820052 Washington 1889.6 Y C (Hg) 7,669 4.1 Bone 820054 Washington 222.6 Y R, C(Hg) 10,027 45.0 820045 Washington 45.9 Y 2,500 54.5 71 Priority Lakes List Surface Good Impaired Watershed Watershed Area Shallow Water Water Wildlife Beneficial Area Area to Lake Lake Name DNR ID County acres Lake Recreation Supply Quality Significance Use acres Area ratio Clear 820163 Washington 429.2 Y C (Hg) 2,554 6.0 DeMontreville 820101 Washington 157.0 Y Y 4,294 27.4 Elmo 820106 Washington 294.3 Y Y C (PFOS, Hg) 14,573 49.5 Forest 820159 Washington 2282.9 Y C (PCB, Hg) 10,724 4.7 Jane 820104 Washington 152.7 Y Y 1,207 7.9 ' 820001 Washington 7800.0 Y R 4,961,920 636.1 Little Carnelian 820014 Washington 156.7 Y C (Hg) 16,233 103.6 820033 Washington 54.3 Y 2,393 44.1 Olson 820103 Washington 87.0 Yes Y 4,896 56.3 Oneka 820140 Washington 393.3 Yes Y 785 2,0 South Twin 820048 Washington 54.2 Y 1,244 23.0 w Square 820046 Washington 201.9 Y Y C (Hg) 806 4.0 Sylvan 820080 Washington 107.3 Y 691 6.4 820031 Washington 149.0 Yes Y 2,241 15.0 West Boot 820044 Washington 64.4 Y 317 4.9 White Bear 820167 Washington 2416.7 Y C (Hg) 7,629 3.2 Beneficial Use abbreviations:R=Aquatic Recreation,L=Aquatic Life;C=Aquatic Consumption. Poll utanUStressor abbreviations:Cl=Chloride;Hg=Mercury;PCB=Polychlorinated biphenyl;PFOS=Perfluorooctane sulfonate;TSS=Total suspended solids Miss.R.=The lake receives water from the Mississippi River via artificial inter-basin transfer in addition to water received from the lake's watershed. Green highlight=new priority lake. Orange highlight=Change from previous priority lakes list 72 Appendix C - System Plan Requirements The Council looks for provisions in a community's comprehensive plan that provides for wastewater service commensurate with the needs of expected future development. The Council's requirements for the wastewater, surface water and water supply sections of a comprehensive plan are listed below. Appendix C-1: Wastewater System Plan Elements Under state law, local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan element to their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs from the Council. Before any local government unit in the metro area may proceed with a sewer extension, the comprehensive sewer plan must be consistent with the Council's Wastewater System Plan and be approved by the Council. The required information in comprehensive sewer plan has been broader in scope than the information required for the comprehensive plan and has provided more detailed engineering information. To simplify this process and allow the Council to review and approve both documents simultaneously, the Council has combined the required elements of both plans into the following criteria: This section is divided into two parts: • Requirements for communities that are served by the Council's regional system, also known as the Metropolitan Disposal System. • Requirements for all other communities (and/or parts of communities) in the region. Requirements for Areas Served by the Regional System • Adopted community forecast of households and employment in 10-year increments to 2040, based on the Council's 2040 forecasts with any subsequent negotiated modifications. • A map or maps showing the following information: - The communities existing sanitary sewer system identifying lift stations, existing connections points to the metropolitan disposal system, and the future connection points for new growth if needed. - Intercommunity connections and any proposed changes in government boundaries based on orderly annexation agreements. - The location of all private and public wastewater treatment plants. - Each existing or future connection point to the metropolitan disposal system as a local sewer service district. • A table or tables that provide the following information: - Capacity and design flows for existing trunk sewers and lift stations. - Information on the number of existing and potential connections by local sewer service district, and projected flow volume in 10-year increments through 2040 and build-out. There is no preferred method for projecting interceptor flows. Communities may use the method that is most appropriate, and indicate methodology and assumptions used. - Proposed time schedule for the construction of new trunk sewer systems that require connections to the Metropolitan Disposal System. 73 104 - Accompanying information on the type and capacity of the treatment facilities, whether municipally or privately owned, as well as copies of their appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System (SDS) permit. • City goals, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive infiltration and inflow (1/1) in local sewer system, including: - Requirements and standards for minimizing inflow and infiltration and for the disconnection of illegal sump pump and foundation drain connections to the sanitary sewer system. To be included are copies of ordinances prohibiting the discharge of foundation drains and/or roof leaders to the sanitary disposal system as well as copies of ordinances requiring the disconnection of existing foundation drains, sump pumps and roof leaders from the sanitary disposal system. - Information on the extent, source and significance of existing 1/1 problems along with an analysis of costs for remediation. - Implementation plan including program strategy, priorities, scheduling, and financing mechanisms for eliminating and preventing excessive 1/1 from entering the system. Requirements for Areas Not Served by the Regional System • Adopted community forecast of households and employees in 10-year increments to 2040 (based on Council's 2040 forecasts with any subsequent negotiated modifications). • Description of community's management program for on-site sewage treatment to comply with MPCA 7080, and a copy of the community's current on-site ordinance. • Map showing the locations of existing public and private treatment systems, if any, including package treatment plants and group on-site systems. • Map identifying location of on-site sewage disposal systems. Location of known nonconforming systems or systems with known problems should be identified. • Description of conditions under which private, community treatment systems (for example, package treatment plants, community drainfields)would be allowed. Examples of such conditions should include allowable land uses, installation requirements, management requirements, and local government responsibilities. • Capacity of and existing flows to public and private treatment systems. • Brief description of the community's sewer system plan (proposed to 2040), including the following information: - Projected flows in 2020, 2030, and 2040. - Local objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive infiltration and inflow, including sump pumps and drain the in the local sewer system. - Proposed timing and financing of any expanded/new wastewater treatment facilities. - Copies of facility planning reports for the upgrading of the wastewater treatment plants. 74 105 - Map showing the service areas through 2040, staging plan if available, and any proposed changes in governmental boundaries affecting the community, including any areas designated for orderly annexation. Appendix C-2:Local Surface Water Management Plan Elements Background In 1995, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was amended to require that each city and township's comprehensive plan include a local water management plan. Local water management plans need to be consistent with the requirements in Minn. Stat. 10313.235, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. Local water management plans are reviewed by the Council as part of the local comprehensive planning process prior to their approval by the appropriate watershed organization(s) and adoption by the city or township. Local water management plans are crucial in helping the region meet the challenge of cost-effective protection and management of water quality and quantity. Local Water Plan Requirements Minnesota Rules Part 8410.0160 requires the local water management plans to address specific elements. If a community does not have a currently approved local water management plan as part of its 2018 comprehensive plan update, the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review. If a community has a plan that does not meet the requirements for local water management plans, the Council will likely find the plan to have an impact on our system, thus requiring a plan modification. In general, local water plans need to include a summary of the priorities and problems in the community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic actions to take to address the priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix the problems. The following list is an expansion of the requirements under Ch. 8410 and Minnesota Statute 10313.235. The list is intended to clarify, through additional detail, what communities should include in their local water management plans to ensure that their local water management plan is consistent with the requirements for local water plans and the Council's 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. 1. An executive summary that summarizes the highlights of the local water plan. 2. A summary of the appropriate water resource management-related agreements that have been entered into by the local community. 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. The community should be aware that not all WMO plans will contain the level of detail needed for the community and, in those instances, the community will need to provide additional information. In addition, the following must be defined in the plan: - Drainage areas - Volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff (runoff rates are recommended for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years. Communities with known flooding issues may want to require rate control for storms with other return frequencies such as 10, 25 or 100-year events) 75 106 4. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems. At a minimum, the plan should include: - A prioritized assessment of the problems related to water quality and quantity in the community. - A list of any impaired waters within their jurisdiction as shown on the current Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 303d Impaired Waters. - If a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy(WRAPS)or TMDL study has been completed for the community, the community should include implementation strategies, including funding mechanisms that will allow the community to carry out the recommendations and requirements from the WRAPS or TMDL specific to that community. More information on the MPCA's WRAPS and TMDL programs can be found on the MPCA's web site at www.pca.state.mn.us. - Communities with designated trout streams should identify actions in their plan to address the thermal pollution effects from development. - Communities with special waters, such as outstanding resource value waters, need to meet state requirements for development near these waters 5. A local implementation program/plan that includes prioritized nonstructural, programmatic and structural solutions to priority problems identified as part of the assessment completed for number 4, above. Local official controls must be enacted within six months of the approval of the local water plan. The program/plan must: - Include areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards or official controls established in the WMO plan(s) - Define water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards or official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include: ■ Information on the types of best management practices to be used to improve stormwater quality and quantity. (A five-year establishment period is recommended for native plantings and bioengineering practices). ■ The maintenance schedule for the best management practices. - Clearly define the responsibilities of the community from that of the WMO(s)for carrying out the implementation components - Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include: ■ An erosion and sediment control ordinance consistent with NPDES Construction Stormwater permit requirements and other applicable state requirements ■ Identify ways to control runoff rates so that land-altering activities do not increase peak stormwater flow from the site for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years. Communities with known flooding issues may want to require rate control for storms with other return frequencies (10-year, 25-year or 100-year) 7s 107 ■ Use of NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8 (Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States)to calculate precipitation amounts and stormwater runoff rates. ■ Consider adoption of the MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) performance goals and flexible treatment options. ■ For communities that do not adopt MIDS, the plan should use stormwater practices that promote infiltration/filtration and decrease impervious areas, such as with better site design and integrated stormwater management, where practical. - Include a table that briefly describes each component of the implementation program and clearly details the schedule, estimated cost, and funding sources for each component including annual budget totals - Include a table for a capital improvement program that sets forth by year, details of each contemplated capital improvement that includes the schedule, estimated cost, and funding source 6. A section titled "Amendments to Plan" that establishes the process by which amendments may be made. Appendix C-3: Local Water Supply Plan Elements For communities with public water supplies, prepare and implement local water supply plans consistent with the Council's Master Water Supply Plan and source water(wellhead) protection plans consistent with MN Rules part 4720. Minimum requirements for consistency include the following: 1. Complete all information in the DNR and Council water supply plan template. For communities without public water supply systems,just complete Part 4 — Items for Metropolitan Area Communities 2. Include extended public water supply demand projections for 2020, 2030, 2040 and ultimate (full build out)that are consistent with population forecasts in the community's system statement 3. Acknowledge issues identified in the community's water supply profile in Appendix 2 of the Master Water Supply Plan 4. Acknowledge alternative sources and potential partners to ensure identified potential water quality and quantity issues are adequately addressed 5. Outline actions to address identified issues, including: - Monitor water levels at municipal production wells (if community has a municipal water supply) and dedicated observation wells - Implement water conservation programs - Plan for water supply sources using one of these approaches: ■ Plan to use sources without identified issues to meet projected water demand ■ Demonstrate—through local monitoring and studies—that use of the proposed water supply source will not result in the issue(s) identified in the community's water supply profile ■ Develop and implement a management plan, including milestones and partners, that includes: • Aquifer testing results or a plan to conduct an aquifer test • Evaluation of geologic conditions • Identification of areas where domestic wells could be impacted • Schedule for measurement and analysis of water levels, pumping rates 77 108 Appendix D — Summary of Policies and Implementation Strategies Water Resources Policy Plan Overall Goal and Policy Thrive MSP 2040 Water Sustainability Direction: The region's water resources are sustainable, supported by a regional strategy that balances growth and protection to improve and maintain the quality and quantity of water in our lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater. The Council will work with state, local and regional partners to provide for sustainable water resources through effective water supply, surface water, and wastewater planning and management. Water Sustainability Goal: To protect, conserve and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region's quality of life. Working toward Sustainability using the Watershed Management Approach Policy on Watershed Approach: The Council will work with our partners to develop and implement a regional watershed-based approach that addresses both watershed restoration (improving impaired waters) and protection (maintaining water quality in unimpaired waters). Implementation Strategies: • Work with the watershed management structure in the metro area on issues that transcend watershed organization boundaries in order to prepare water management plans that promote the protection and restoration of local and regional water resources (lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and groundwater). • Through the review process for comprehensive plans, local water plans, and watershed management plans, make water resources management a critical part of land use decisions, planning protocols and procedures to ensure these plans are making progress toward achieving state and regional goals for protection and restoration of water resources. • Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on water issues and water management activities. • Facilitate discussions on regional water issues that transcend community or watershed organization boundaries. • Provide technical information to watershed organizations on practices to use and incorporate into their plans that protect water quality for our water supply sources Working toward Sustainability of our Water Supplies Policy on Sustainable Water Supplies: 79 110 The Council shall support and plan for the sustainable use of water sources that focuses on the implications of increasing groundwater use including impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and ecological areas while ensuring that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the region's current population and projected growth. Implementation Strategies: • Collaborate with agency partners in developing and implementing Groundwater Management Areas, wellhead protection plans, review of water appropriation permits, and aquifer recharge projects. • Work with subregional work groups to define how desired groundwater levels will be established for those areas. • Establish work groups for subregional areas and lead discussions to address water supply limitations. • Provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and other partners on groundwater issues. • Facilitate discussions on groundwater use issues that transcend community boundaries. Planning for Regional Growth Policy on Serving the Urban Area: The Council will use the Water Resources Policy Plan to support and plan for sustainable water resources that protect public health, provide recreational opportunities, maintain habitat and ecosystem health and ensure that supplies of potable water are sufficient for the orderly and economical development and redevelopment of the metro area long into the future. A community's comprehensive plan is expected to accommodate the forecasts and to meet the densities specified in the Council's Thrive MSP 2040 plan. A community's comprehensive plan must include: • A water supply plan that is consistent with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, the Department of Natural Resources plan requirements, and Council policy • A local surface water management plan that is consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 and Council policy and does not adversely impact the regional wastewater system, and • A comprehensive sewer plan that is consistent with the regional wastewater system plan. Inconsistencies between the local plans and the Council's plans may result in the Council's finding that the community's plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on, or contain a substantial departure from, the metropolitan system plan, thus requiring modifications to the local comprehensive plan. Implementation Strategies: • Update the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan, which provides the framework for coordinated water supply planning. so 111 • Review local water supply plans to ensure consistency with the Twin Cities metro area Master Water Supply Plan. • Provide technical assistance to local units of government in developing local water supply plans and wellhead protection plans, and in reviewing water appropriation permits and aquifer recharge projects. • Review local surface water plans to ensure consistency with Council policy. • Provide a level of wastewater service commensurate with the needs of the growing metro area, and in an environmentally sound manner. • Provide sufficient capacity in the wastewater system to meet the growth projections and long-term service area needs identified in approved local comprehensive sewer plans. • Stage wastewater system improvements, when feasible, to reduce the financial risks associated with inherent uncertainty in growth forecasts. • Potentially implement early land acquisition and work closely with communities to preserve utility corridors when it is necessary to expand its facilities or locate new facilities needed to implement the wastewater system plan. • Efficiently use existing sewer investments in developing and redeveloping areas. • Preserve unsewered areas inside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for future development that can be sewered economically. • Extend wastewater service to suburban communities if the service area contains at least 1,000 developable acres. • Require that all communities currently served by the regional wastewater system remain in the system. • Acquire wastewater treatment plants from suburban communities outside the current service area, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan process, after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on the request. Policy on Serving the Rural Area: The Council will acquire wastewater treatment plants owned by Rural Centers, based upon request through the comprehensive plan and comprehensive sewer plan processes, and based upon criteria that ensure direct identifiable regional benefits, after soliciting customer input and conducting a public hearing on the request. Implementation Strategies: • Accept the wastewater service request only when the following criteria are met: - The community accepts the Council's growth forecasts, as well as preserves at least 1,000 developed or developable acres for growth through the land use planning authority of the county or adjacent township(s) or through an orderly annexation agreement or similar mechanism to provide for staged, orderly growth in the surrounding area. - The community has adequate water supply. 81 112 - The community has adequate transportation access. - The community lies within the long-term wastewater service area or other regional benefits would result, such as economic development unique to the rural area or preservation of high-value water resources. - There are feasible and economical options for siting and permitting an expanded wastewater treatment plant, or for extending interceptor service. - The Council has sought customer input, has conducted appropriate financial analysis, and has conducted a public hearing on the community's wastewater service request. • Require that, if the most economical and beneficial wastewater service option is to construct a regional interceptor to serve the community, the Council will not acquire the community's wastewater treatment plant, and the community will be responsible for decommissioning its treatment plant. • Not allow connections to the regional wastewater system outside the sewered rural community. The Council may construct capacity to serve the long-term needs of the rural and agricultural planning areas, but will not provide service until the Council, in consultation with the appropriate community, designates the area as a developing community and the community amends its comprehensive plan accordingly. • Preserve areas outside the Long-Term Wastewater Service Area for agricultural and rural uses, while protecting significant natural resources, supporting groundwater recharge, and allowing limited unsewered development. Policy on Private Wastewater Systems: Communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems within their communities are responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed, and regulated consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Implementation Strategies: • The Council will use its review authority for local comprehensive plans to ensure that communities fulfill their current and future obligations regarding subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater systems. • The Council will continue to support State rules for subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater systems. • The Council will allow a community to connect a failing subsurface sewage treatment system or other private wastewater treatment system to the regional wastewater system at the community's expense. Water Conservation and Reuse Policy on Water Conservation and Reuse: 82 113 The Council will work with our partners to identify emerging issues and challenges for the region as we work together on solutions that include the use of water conservation, wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more sustainable region. Implementation Strategies: • Identify and pursue options to reuse treated wastewater to supplement groundwater and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, when economically feasible. • Promote water supply resiliency through the use of stormwater best management practices that minimize aquifer impacts and maximize groundwater recharge, where practical. • Promote water conservation measures, including tool development and outreach. • Encourage low impact development, land uses, and cooperative water use practices that minimize impacts on aquifers. • Investigate reusing treated wastewater, and when cost-effective, implement reuse. • Provide research and guidance on best management practices to use for effective surface water management. • In partnership with others, research and promote the development of innovative best management practices including low impact development technologies and agricultural best practices. • Install and monitor innovative nonpoint source pollution reduction practices at Council facilities and support economically feasible projects that demonstrate new technologies and their effectiveness. Assessment of Regional Water Resources Policy on Assessing and Protecting Regional Water Resources: The Council will continue to assess the condition of the region's lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers to evaluate impacts on regional water resources and measure success in achieving regional water goals. Implementation Strategies: • With our partners, monitor the quality of regional lakes and rivers and quality and flow of regional streams. • Continue to assess and fill gaps in lake, stream, river, and groundwater data. • Assess and evaluate long-term water quality trends for the region's lakes, streams, and rivers and identify key issues to be addressed. • Maintain a regional database that contains water quality, quantity and other water related information collected as part of the Council's monitoring program. 83 114 • Investigate the need to develop and/or recommend water monitoring and assessment protocols, and other standard operating procedures for use by partners to move toward consistent regional approaches. • In partnership with others, complete technical studies to understand the region's long- term water supply availability and demand and to identify water sources for a specific community or subregional area. • Evaluate the potential for enhancement of aquifer recharge, including identification of high-potential areas for recharge. • Assess the use, capacity, quality and vulnerability of the local and subregional water supply systems and identify high-potential areas for recharge. • Convene stakeholders and collaborate with partners to identify water quality improvement implementation paths. Investment Investment Policy: The Council will strive to maximize regional benefits from regional investments. Implementation Strategies: • Invest in nonpoint-source pollution control when the cost and long-term benefits are favorable compared to further upgrading wastewater treatment. • Consider pollutant trading or off-set opportunities with nonpoint-sources of pollution when cost-effective and environmentally beneficial. • Invest in wastewater reuse when justified by the benefits for supplementing groundwater and surface water as sources of water to support regional growth, and by the benefits for maintaining water quality. • Potentially invest strategically to further the effectiveness of the region's nonpoint-source pollution prevention and control program and to ensure efficient investment to achieve regional water quality objectives. • Support cost-effective investments in water supply infrastructure to promote sustainable use and protect the region's water supplies by: - Developing criteria to identify water supply projects with regional benefit. - Promoting equitable cost-sharing structure (s)for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects. - Supporting cost-benefit analyses of alternative water supply options. - Identifying funding mechanisms for regionally-beneficial water supply development projects. sa 115 Wastewater Services Wastewater Sustainability Policy: The Council will provide efficient, high-quality, and environmentally sustainable regional wastewater infrastructure and services. The Council shall conduct its regional wastewater system operations in a sustainable manner as is economically feasible. Sustainable operations relates not only to water resources but also to increasing energy efficiency and using renewable energy sources, reducing air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid wastes. Implementation Strategies: • Implement and enforce Waste Discharge Rules for the regional wastewater system. • Preserve regional wastewater system assets of the Council through effective maintenance, condition and capacity assessment, and capital investment. • Accept septage, biosolids, leachate, and other hauled liquid waste at designated sites, provided that the waste can be efficiently and effectively processed. • Reuse treated wastewater to meet water needs within Council wastewater treatment facilities where economically feasible. • Provide industries with incentives to pretreat wastewater to reduce its strength and thus provide the most environmental and economical benefit for the region. • Generate energy from biosolids processing, utilize energy efficient processes and equipment, and reduce building energy use. Pursue other renewable energy sources, such as solar power generation, thermal energy recovery, and new technologies-such as fuel cells - as they become proven and economical. • Stabilize and reduce the volume of biosolids through thermal processing or anaerobic digestion, and utilize the remaining solids as fertilizer and soil conditioner. • Improve sustainability of wastewater operations, when economically feasible. Policy on Inflow and Infiltration: The Council will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive inflow and infiltration. The Council will establish inflow and infiltration goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the regional wastewater system. Communities that have excessive inflow and infiltration in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive inflow and infiltration within a reasonable time period. Implementation Strategies: • Maintain and rehabilitate Council interceptors to minimize inflow and infiltration. • Develop inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater system. 85 116 • Require all communities served by the regional wastewater system to include its inflow and infiltration mitigation program in its comprehensive sewer plan, including a program to mitigate sources of inflow and infiltration from private property. • Limit expansion of service within those communities where excessive inflow and infiltration jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow or backup occurring, or limits the capacity in the system to the point where the Council can no longer provide additional wastewater services. The Council will work with those communities on a case-by-case basis, based on the applicable regulatory requirements. • Potentially institute a wastewater rate demand charge for those communities that have not met their inflow and infiltration goal(s), if the community has not been implementing an effective inflow and infiltration reduction program as determined by the Council, or if regulations and/or regulatory permits require Council action to ensure regulatory compliance. The wastewater demand charge will include the cost of wastewater storage facilities and/or other improvements necessary to avoid overloading Council conveyance and treatment facilities, and the appropriate charges for use of capacity beyond the allowable amount of inflow and infiltration. • Work with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage 1/1 mitigation. • Develop a program to assist communities with reducing inflow and infiltration from private property sources. Wastewater System f=inance Policy: The Council will continue to implement regional wastewater service fees and charges based on regional cost of services and rules adopted by the Council. Implementation Strategies: • Metropolitan wastewater charges will be allocated among local government units based on volume of wastewater treated. • Industrial wastewater strength charges will be based on actual or average discharge strength above domestic wastewater strength. • Load charges for septage, portable-toilet waste, holding-tank wastewater and out-of-region wastes will be uniform for each type of load, and based on the volume of the load, the average strength of the types of loads, and the costs of receiving facilities. • Sewer availability charges (SAC)will be uniform within the urban area based on capacity demand for classes of customers and the SAC Procedure Manual. Sewer availability charges for a rural center will be based on the reserve capacity and debt service of facilities specific to the rural center. • Other fees recovering costs of specific services may be imposed, as approved by the Council. • Cost-sharing between the Council and a local governmental unit may be used when construction of regional wastewater facilities provides additional local benefits for an incremental increase in costs. 86 117 • Facilities that are no longer a necessary part of the regional wastewater system will be conveyed to the benefiting local governmental unit, or will be abandoned or sold, pursuant to related statutes. • Seek customer input prior to, and give at least three months notice of, any material changes in the design of charges. • Continue efforts to work to simplify and improve SAC and to communicate to customers. 87 118 Appendix E— Definitions Agricultural Area: Communities that encompass areas with prime agricultural soils that are planned and zoned for long-term agriculture. Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40 acres. Aquifer: A saturated geologic formation that will yield a sufficient quantity of water to serve as a private or public water supply. Best management practices: A set of recommendations pertaining to the development and maintenance of varied land uses, aimed at limiting the effects of development, such as soil erosion and stormwater runoff, on the natural environment. See the Council's Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual for specific examples of Best Management Practices. Conservation: The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction or degradation. Density: The number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land. Design to average flow ratio: The design average flow is calculated as the product of the long- term service area times 800 gallons per acre per day. This value represents an annual average flow from a service area for long-term development. Design peak average flow: The design peak to average ratio is the ratio of the peak hour flow used for hydraulic design divided by the design average flow. Design peak hour flow: The design peak hour flow is calculated as the product of the design average flow times the MCES specified peak to average ratio. Developable land: Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas. Diversified Rural: Communities that are home to a variety of farm and nonfarm land uses including very large-lot residential, clustered housing, hobby farms, and agricultural uses. Located adjacent to the Emerging Edge Suburban communities, the Diversifies Rural designation protects rural land for rural lifestyles today with the potential of becoming urbanized after 2040. Maximum allowable density is 1-2.5 units for existing lots, and 1 unit/10 acres where possible. Emerging Suburban Edge: Cities, townships and portions of both that are in early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. In the majority of these communities, less than 40% of the land has been developed. Parts of Emerging Suburban Edge communities are in the MUSA and all have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre. Excessive III: a) 1/1 that results in the communities wet weather flows to be violation of the Metropolitan Council's established 1/1 goals for the community. b) III that causes the peak hourly flow to exceed the value determined by multiplying the average flow by the value of the peak to average ratio used by MCES to design interceptors and pump stations.c) 1/1 that exceeds 25 gallons per day per capita on a maximum monthly basis. 88 119 Forecast: In Thrive MPS 2040, a calculation of growth in population, households and jobs based on data about current conditions (for example, the 2010 Census) that is extrapolated into the future. Groundwater: The supply of freshwater under the surface in an aquifer or soil that forms a natural reservoir. (Compare with surface water.) Growth strategy: The Council's selection of an urban growth and development pattern for the region and the measures to implement it. Household: All the people who occupy a housing unit. Imminent threat to public health or safety: Situations with the potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten public health and safety. Infill: Development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, remained vacant, and/or is underused as a result of the continuing urban-development process. Infiltration: 1. The seepage of water from land surface down below the root zone. This water may move horizontally through the soil toward nearby streams, wetlands, and lakes —becoming baseflow. Or this water may move vertically down to recharge deeper regional aquifers. 2. The seepage of groundwater into sewer pipes through cracks or joints in the pipes. Inflow: Inflow is typically flow from a single point, such as discharge from sump pumps and foundation drains, or stormwater entering openings in the sewer access covers. Infrastructure: Fixed facilities, such as sewer lines and roadways; permanent structures. Integration: The incorporation of all planning aspects (for example, land use, transportation, housing, water resources, and natural resources) into decisions about development. Investments, regional investments: Investments made by the Metropolitan Council into regional infrastructure. Land planning act : (See Metropolitan Land Planning Act.) Land supply: Available amount of developable land. Local comprehensive plan: Plans for local land use and infrastructure. Counties, cities and townships are required to have their local comprehensive plans reviewed by the Metropolitan Council to ensure that they are consistent with metropolitan system plans. (Compare with comprehensive plan.) Local government: Municipal units of government, such as counties, cities and townships. MDS: Metropolitan Disposal System 89 120 Measured wet weather peak to average ratio: The observed peak-hour flow during wet weather divided by the target annual flow. Metropolitan Development Guide: The collection of regional plans that includes Thrive MSP 2040 and the policy plans for the regional systems: transportation, wastewater and water quality, regional parks and open space. Metropolitan Land Planning Act : Minnesota Statute 473 directing the Council to adopt long- range, comprehensive policy plans for transportation, airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space, and authorizing the Council to review the comprehensive plans of local governments. Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA): The area, in which the Metropolitan Council ensures that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided. Multifamily housing: Residential structure with two or more separate dwelling units. Nonurban land uses: Residential, commercial or industrial land uses that are not found in the urban area, and where urban services are unavailable. (Compare with urban land uses.) Observed peak-hour flow: The observed peak- hour flow is the highest flow rate over one hour duration during a 24-hour period that has been measured and reported. Observed peak-to-average ratio: The observed peak to average ratio is the observed peak hour flow divided by the annual average flow. On-site septic system: System for disposing and treating human and domestic waste at or near the location where the waste is generated, such as a septic tank and soil absorption system or other system, allowed by state and city when access to the municipal sewer system is not required of feasible. Open Space: Public and private land that is generally natural in character. It may support agricultural production, or provide outdoor recreational opportunities, or protect cultural and natural resources. It contains relatively few buildings or other human-made structures. Depending on the location and surrounding land use, open space can range in size from a small city plaza or neighborhood park of several hundred square feet, corridors linking neighborhoods of several acres to pasture, croplands or natural areas and parks covering thousands of acres. Ordinance: A law or regulation adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county. Policy Area: An area distinguished by its land use patterns, community needs and other factors, with its own set of specified policies and implementation strategies. Recharge: 1. Process by which water from rainfall, snowmelt or other sources seeps through the soil into the saturated zone. 2. The portion of infiltration that moves from the unsaturated sediment below the root zone into the underlying aquifers (saturated zone). 90 121 Recharge Area: An area where surface water from rainfall, snowmelt or other sources seeps through the soil into the saturated zone. Redevelopment: Any proposed expansion, addition, or major fagade change of an existing building, structure, or parking facility. Regional Infrastructure: Infrastructure pertaining to any of the Council's systems: wastewater, transportation, and parks and open space (See also regional systems.) Regional Systems: Systems for which the Metropolitan Council is the responsible planning and operating authority. They include wastewater services, transportation, parks and open space, and airports. (See also regional infrastructure.) Reinvestment: Investment intended to improve upon, remodel or replace existing infrastructure that has become out-dated and obsolete. Runoff: Rainfall or snowmelt that has not evaporated or infiltrated into the soil, but flows over the ground surface. Rural Centers: Local commercial, employment, and residential activity centers serving rural areas in the region. These small towns are surrounded by agricultural lands and serve as centers of commerce to those surrounding farm lands. The density is 3-5 units/acre. Rural Residential Area: Communities that have residential patterns characterized by large lots and do not have plans to provide urban infrastructure. Maximum allowable density is 4 units/40 acres. Septage: Solids and liquids removed during periodic maintenance of an individual sewage treatment system, or solids and liquids that are removed from toilet waste treatment devices such or a holding tank. Septic system: (See on-site septic treatment system.) Sewershed: The area that actually or could potentially contribute wastewater to a single point in the MCES interceptor system. Stormwater: Surplus surface water generated by rainfall that does not seep into the earth but flows overland to flowing or fixed bodies of water. (See also runoff.) Suburban area: Communities that saw their primary era of development during the 1980s and early 1990s. Suburban communities also include places that were once resort destinations along Lake Minnetonka and White Bear Lake and along the St. Croix River. Suburban communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 5 units/acre. Suburban Edge: Communities that have experienced significant residential growth beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the 2010s. At least 40% of the land in these communities is developed, but significant amounts of land remain for future development. Suburban Edge communities are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 3-5 units/acre. Surcharging: To fill beyond the capacity of the pipe; overflow. 91 122 Surface Water: Water on the earth's surface exposed to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes and creeks. (Compare with groundwater.) Sustainable Development: Development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. System Plans: Long-range comprehensive policy plans for transportation, airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space. System Statements: Statements sent to communities that include system plan information used to guide the preparation of the comprehensive plan. Urban area: Communities that are adjacent to the Urban Center communities and have seen considerable development and growth along highways. Urban areas are in the MUSA and have a minimum average net density of 10 units/acre. Urban Center: Communities that include the largest, most centrally located and most economically diverse cities of the region. Urban centers are in the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) and have a minimum average net density of 20 units/acre. Wastewater: Water carrying waste from domestic, commercial, or industrial facilities together with other waters that may inadvertently enter the sewer system through infiltration and inflow. Wastewater treatment plant: A facility designed for the collection, removal, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated within a service area. Wet-weather peak ratio: Average of three highest peak days divided by the average daily flow. 92 123 Appendix F- Map of Regional Wastewater System Long-Term Service Areas - - - - - - - Regional Wastewater System Long Term Service Areas i --- IL 1'11 -.....1 y- - _.._ ,...,_.`•�' Gaya.� � � -- 9 a • m•. 1t19i�fx�K 11�� 93 124 C enterviffe 'DtabkclicA 185,` 7North VED OF 10599 AMOUNT MetroTelecommunication Comm. $10,832.35 FOR: 2014 FF Franchise Fees Check# 12488 Surcharge N/A February 19,2015 BY Teresa Bender TC • , TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION February 19, 2015 Mr. Mike Ericson City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Dear Mike: Enclosed please find information regarding the 2014 franchise fee payments from Comcast (page 1, table 1)and received by the North Metro Telecommunications Commission on behalf of its member cities. In keeping with the Joint Powers Agreement, the NMTC has deducted its approved budget for 2015 in the amount of$777,160. The franchise fees retained by each member city are shown on page 1, table III. Supporting materials, on pages 2 through 29, consist of the categorical breakdown of earnings per city, per quarter, as provided by Comcast Corporation. If you have any questions regarding these funds, please feel free to contact me at 763-231- 2801 or harnson(@-northmetrotv.com, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Xrr,r r - 14eidi Amson North Metro Telecommunications Commission Enclosures 12520 Polk St. NE, Blaine, MN 55434. 763-780-8241 •fax 763-780-8242 Serving Blaine 0 Centerville 0 Circle Pines 0 Ham Lake 0 Lexington 0 Lino Lakes 0 Spring Lake Park DISBURSEMENT OF 2014 FRANCHISE FEES RETAINED BY CITIES TABI MEMBER 2015 FRANCHISE FEES CITIES COMMISSION RETAINED BY FRANCHISE FEES BUDGET CONTR CITIES TOTAL: 1,097,160 - 777,160 = 320,000 TABLE II 2014 TOTAL CITY REVENUE CABLE COMPANY SYSTEM� AS%OF CITY REVENUE BY CITY REVENUA-J SYSTEM REVENUE Blaine $11,712,908 – $21,943,157 = 53.37841% Centerville $742,800 – $21,943,157 = 3.38511% Circle Pines $1,086,097 – $21,943,157 = 4.94959% Ham Lake $3,058,382 – $21,943,157 = 13.93775% Lexington $387,222 - $21,943,157 = 1.76466% Lino Lakes $3,642,934 – $21,943,157 = 16.60169% Spring Lake Park $1,312,814 – $21,943,157 = 5.98279% TOTAL: $21,943,157 – $21,943,157 = 100.00000% TABLE III—� CITY REVENUE TOTAL FRANCHISE FEES AS%OF FRANCHISE RETAINED SYSTEM FEES RETAINED CITY BY CITIES REVENUE BY CITY Blaine $320,000 x 53.37841% _ $170,810.91 Centerville $320,000 x 3.38511% _ $10,832.35 Circle Pines $320,000 x 4.94959% _ $15,838.69 Ham Lake $320,000 x 13.93775% _ $44,600.80 Lexington $320,000 x 1.76466% _ $5,646.91 Lino Lakes $320,000 x 16.60169% _ $53,125.41 Spring Lake Park $320,000 x 5.98279% _ $19,144.92 TOTAL: $320,000 x 100.00000% _ $319,999.99 0 All amounts are rounded to nearest dollar. P. 1 2015 CITY FOCUS GOALS DESCRIPTION OF GOALS TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION 1 Economic Development- Business Retention & Growth a. Maintain active relationships with all businesses in Centerville allowing for open input of economic conditions, available City resources, future plans (i.e., expansion/relocation) b. Collaberate with Quad Area Chamber of Commerce, neighboring communities, Anoka County, etc. to assist in increased knowledge of projects affecting city. c. Maintain database of stock of commercial/industrial properties (MNPro, MetroMSP, DEED & Greater MSP) for potential suitors and market with real estate brokers d. Utilize financial advisor,bond counsel, DEED, Met. Council and all economic development tools (TIF, tax abatement, grants,) to attract new business to Centerville. e. Review use of EDA to promote Centerville's attributes (lakes, small town feel, transportation/easy access, internet/broadband availability, etc.) f. Review and update downtown redevelopment plan 2 Infrastructure a. CSAH21 - Work w/County and residents to complete successful reconstruction (financial and progress updates) 1b. Pavement management - continued funding and review c. Ensure existing systems (water, sewer, storm sewer, etc.) are in good working order and can be sustained through fees. d. Continue grant submissions for municipal connections. e. Storm Water Management policies and procedures. 3 Public Safety a. Centennial Fire District - work w/member cities b. CLPD Police Commission -work w/member cities 4 Comprehensive Plan Implementation 5 Water Conservation a. Storm Water Irrigation -monitor b. Water rate conservation structure c. Education, encouragement, incentives id. Collaboration on water supply-NE Water Summit&MN DNR 6 Parks & Recreation a. Identify and complete missing trail links b. Identify funding sources like grants &donations c. Council Budgeted$15,000 in 2015 d. Park Dedication Fees - Chapter 153.15 &Fee Schedule(Review). 2015 ONGOING PRIORITIES DESCRIPTION OF PRIORITY TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION 1 Maintain Quality Staff a. Continue training and education b. Establish internship program 1c. Adequate resources and equip. - including technology 2 Commission/Committee Collaboration a. Maintain communications and interaction between Council Members, Staff and Commission/Committee Members b. Training c. Recruit qualified citizens to serve and lead Commissions/Committees 3 Continue to Build Diverse and Stable Tax Base a. Pavement Management Program b. Collaberation with neighboring communities to continue sharing services 4 Community Outreach a. Re-establish newsletter,re-vamp website,Facebook,Twitter, establish cable t.v. show, Lions, establish Yellow Ribbon network, recreational & civic organizations b. Build relationship with civic organizations, (i.e. Lions, Religious) Hugo Business Association c. Build &maintain relationships with local businesses d. City bus tour w/Council, Commissions and Staff 5 Maintain Legislative Relationships a. League of MN Cities/Metro Cities b. County Commissioner, State Senator, State Representative& U.S. Congress & Senate 6 Build & Maintain Regional Partnerships a. 1-35W/E Coalition,Northeast Metro Water Summit, St. Paul Reg. Water, Metropolitan Council, School District, RCWD, State &Fed. Agencies PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS—5 YEAR PLAN AMOUNT/ TARGET FUNDS ESTIMATED YEAR PROJECT LOCATION RESERVED? COST COMMENTS 2014-2015 Basketball Court LaMotte Park Yes 3,800-4,500 Hockey Rink 2015 Irrigation Hidden Spring Park No 2015 Irrigation Acorn Creek Park No 2015 Irrigation Comer Stone Park No 2015 Irrigation McBride Park No 2015 DTinking Fountain LaMotte Park No 10,000 2015 Drinking Fountain Acorn Creek Park No 9,500 2015 Drinking Fountain McBride Park No 2015 Electrical Im rovements LaMotte Park No COMPLETED PROJECTS July,2014 Park Benches [d. . 2 Trailside Park alongtrail . 1 Eagle Park Tennis Court b tennis court . 1 "Motte Park Volleyball Court b volleyball court 1 LaMotte Park Pla ound by 1a ound S t.,2013 olle all Court-LaMotte Park October 1,2014