HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 9017
Resolution No. 901
RESOLUTION. IN REGARD. TO THE CITY OF ORONO'S
COMPREHENSIVE. ,$EWER PLAN, SYSTEMS STATEMENT1
COMPREHENSIVE LAND'USE PLAN AND THE ORONO-
LAKE SEWER,INTERCEPTOR
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission are "charged with the responsib 1ity;
of. reviewing and approving the. Proposed Comprehensive --.Sewer
Plan of,the City of Orono, and the location, construcx-ion
capacity and future use of the proposed. Orono Interceptor;
and -
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is charged witb.,the
responsibility 'of reviewing the proposed Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.of the City of Orono under'th`e•Land Use Planning
Act;, and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono has expressed numerous'con-
cerns.about the interrelationship and impact o,f the-proposed-
Orono
he proposed -Orono I"n.t.er:ceptor upon the -City of Orono 's Comprehensive
Sewer Plan,: Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the future develop-'
ment.in the City of Orono, and the possible adverse;,affect
upon t.he�_health, safety and welfare of the`citizens'.of Orono;
and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council agrees with the -City
of Orono that the presence of a future Orono interceptor should
not adversely impact upon the intent and purposes and objectives
of the. Orono Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Comprehensive
Sewer Plan, the future development of the city, .and the health,
sa,�,"ktF3 tirE? of, .thc citi,zes of. the C'ityy;?f
.';.Yi THEREFORE".BE IT' RESOLVED BY T.HE CITY COUNCIL OF,
THE =CIIT- OP: ORONO AS';TOLLOWS
1.. ,The Metropolitan Urban Serv'ce Area be: Metropolitan
Sewer Sc ice "Region:, lines' {herein:aftex MUSA and. ;SSR;.l.ines)
and ths. ewerService.. Area of the `Orono -Dong Lake interceptor
(hereinafter Interceptor Sewer Service' Area lire) ,,'as pr,ev cushy „
promulgatedd .�b� the',Metropolitan,-.Cauneil and the'.Metr6politan
Waste: "ContruiCommission are inconsistent with"the City of.
Orono,'9 .e-xisting and proposed Comprehensive Land Use Flan and
the proposed Comprehehsiv Sewer Plan dated April, 1977
2 The, revised MUSA, M$SR and. Interceptor Sewer Service
Anew �° �,.Ls, as shown:, on Exhibit .A. attached hereto and.: incur
porn ed. jjere'.in, by reference are.: consistent` witYi the City of
00-
Orono's
existing and proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
proposed Comprehensive Sewer Plan dated April 1., 1977.
3. All lands within the City of Orono within the rural
service area as shown thereon, which are all lands outside of
the MUSA, MSS•R and Interceptor Sewer Service'Area lines, as -
shown on Exhibit A, will not be sewered at any time in the
future. These lands are to be'zoned and regulated so that
.they will be adequately and more economically served by private•
on-site septic systems.
4. These restrictions and the additional restrictions
as set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, proposed
-Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Zoning Code and amendments
thereto'in order to implement those plans, are necessary in
part for the following reasons:
A. The entire City of Orono lies w•i'thin the watershed
of Lake Minnetonka.
B. Lake Minnetonka is totally dependent upon the"..sur=
face water runoff from its watershed for replenishment and'
the water quality of Lake Minnetonka is directly related to "
the quality of surface water runoff within the watershed.
C. The quality of surface water runoff is adversely
.affected by any increase in the land use density and the
resulting impervious hard cover which limits the natural
purification process and which limits the removal of nutri-
ents from the surface water runoff, which nutrients pollute
Lake Minnetonka, the surface water recharge areas and the
other surface waters in the city. Moreover, in order to pay
for the extension of such expensive public sewer, a much
greater density of land use development would be necessitated,
which increase in land use density would result in the
above -noted adverse affects on the quality of the surface
water runoff. These adverse effects on the quality•of t`he
..surface water runoff are documented at length in the` Orono r•r'`'
Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the Pet•ropolitan ' {
.
Council on November'7, 1974, and adopted by the City of
Orono on -D_ecember 2, 1974, the Comprehensive .Sewer -, Plan" as
adopted in October; "19.77, and the .e:xhibits and reports 'incor-
porated therein-by=reference.
5. The "city has for years, along with other.:age.n,cies,
recognized th_e problems of. dense devel-opment and •the con -comm'
tant adverse affects -on the .quality. of `t•h.e surface .water ru�i;
off 'in this sort -of .watershed' and. has ' therefore.. impl::emen`ted
a comprehensive regulatory program of 'two ;and five acre .: '
minimum lot sizes and a thorough on-site septic system ordi-
nance pursuant to the standards and specifications promulgated
by the Pollution Control Agency and the Hennepin County Soil
and Water Conservation District, which on-site septic system
ordinance provides for mandatory pumping and inspection of all
on-site septic systems, stringent standards of maintenance and
construction, and provides for a method of repair and altera-
tion of nonconforming on-site septic systems. Moreover, the
City of Orono has hired additional personnel specifically to
administer and enforce these environmentally sound regulations.
6. In addition to and separate from the concerns of
the quality of surface water runoff, any greater density of
development in the rural service area as shown on Exhibit A
than is as found presently and as is provided for in the Com-
prehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Orono would necessitate
a premature, uneconomical and fiscally unsound increase in
capital improvements, such as to transportation, fire and
police services.
7. Before there should be any increase in density
beyond that which is already provided for in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code of the city for those areas
beyond the MSSR, MUSA and Interceptor Sewer Service Area lines
as shown in Exhibit A, in addition to the increase and availa-
bility of the .urban services, there will need to be adopted
and implemented an effective environmental protection program
along with the necessary public works, to among other things,
insure the purification of the surface water runoff prior to
its discharge into the marshes and creeks leading into Lake
Minnetonka.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Based upon the above findings of fact and contingent
upon the hereinafter set forth actions to be undertaken by the.
Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, the City Council of the City of Orono agrees on
behalf of the City of Orono as follows:
1. To support the construction of the proposed Orono
Interceptor as presently designed as shown in Addendum 3 to
the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Orono Interceptor
by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission dated November,
1977, and as shown in the design plans and specifications for
the Orono Interceptor dated and not
to -appeal the City of Orono's Systems Statement, as long as
the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission agree as follows:
-3-
C
-1.10 ..
A. To move the MUSA line now, to correspond with the
MUSA line as shown on Exhibit A.
B. To move the MSSR line now, to correspond with the
MSSR line as shown on Exhibit A.
C. To move the Interceptor Sewer Service line to
correspond with the Interceptor Sewer Service Area line as
shown on Exhibit A.
D. To amend the Orono Systems Statement to reflect
the move of the MUSA line, MSSR line and the Interceptor Sewer
Service Area line as shown on Exhibit A so that the new loca-
tion may be used as a basis for the completion of the City of
Orono's Comprehensive Land Use Plan in compliance with the
Land Use Planning Act. This amendment would be consistent
with the Orono Systems Statement proposed by Sandy Dean, the
staff consultant to the Metropolitan Council, dated May 10,
1977, and transmitted to the City of Orono on May 11, 1977.
E. To approve and adopt the April, 1977 Comprehen-
sive Sewer Plan as an interim plan until the final adoption
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan pursuant to the Land Use
Planning Act in 1980, and to use in the review of this plan
the Metropolitan Council Review proposed by Sandy Dean, dated
June 13, 1977, and transmitted to the City of Orono on June
15, 1977, attached hereto and incorporated hereby by reference
as Exhibit B.
F. To review the existing Systems Statement to con-
form with the above noted Systems Statement and Review of the
City of Orono's Interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan by Metropolitan
Council staff member Sandy Dean.
G. Agree that the ultimate design capacity,
expressed in flow, residential population and number of
residential dwelling units, of the Orono pumping station,
Long Lake pumping station and the Orono municipal pumping
stations of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor, as determined
in Addendum No. 3 of the Preliminary Engineering Report for
the Orono -Long Lake interceptor dated November, 1977, is as
follows:
(1) Orono Pumping Station total capacity:
a. Average daily flow
Peak factor
Peak flow
-4-
1.65 cfs - 1.07 MGD
3.3
2450 gpm
b. Capacity assigned to the City of Orono:
Residential 1.37 cfs - .89 MGD
Commercial .13 cfs - .08 MGD
TOTAL 1.50 cfs - .97 MGD
C. Orono Sewered Residential Population and
Dwelling Units:
Residential population (.89 . 115) 7,699
Residential dwelling units (7,699 . 3.2) 2,405
(2) Long Lake Pumping Station Total Capacity:
a. Average daily flow 1.00 cfs - .65 MGD
Peak factor 3.5
Peak flow 1600 gpm
b. Capacity Assigned to the City of Orono:
Residential .03 cfs - .019 MGD
Commercial/Ind. .07 cfs - .045 MGD
Schools .07 cfs - .045 MGD
TOTAL .17 cfs - .11 MGD
c. Orono Sewered Residential Population and
Dwelling Units:
Residential Population (.019 : 115) 165
Residential Dwelling Units (165 : 3.2) 52
(3) Orono Municipal Pumping Stations from Orono
Sewer Areas #7 and #8, Total Capacity:
a. Average daily flow .09 cfs - .06 MGD
b. Capacity assigned to the City of Orono:
Residential .09 cfs - .06 MGD
c. Orono Sewered Residential Population and
Dwelling Units:
Residential population (.06 : 115) 522
Residential Dwelling Units (522 . 3.2) 163
MIC
r]
0
• Summary
of Ultimate Design
Capacity Assigned
to the City
of Orono:
Residential,
Commercial and
Sewered
Sewered
Industrial Aver-
Residential
Residential
aye Daily Flow
Population
Dwelling
Units
Orono pumping
.97 MGD
7,699
2,406
units
station
Long Lake pumping
.11 MGD
165
52
units
station
Orono Municipal
.06 MGD
522
163
units
pumping stations
TOTAL
1.14 MGD
8,386
2,621
units
H. To allocate the total available sanitary sewer
capacity assigned to the City of Orono only to those areas
which are within the revised MUSA, MSSR and Interceptor Sewer
Service Area lines as shown on Exhibit A.
I. That the ultimate capacity of the Orono Long -Lake
Interceptor is 1.77 MGD. The portion of the total assigned
to the City of Orono is 1.14 MGD. Future planning will be
based on the Interceptor Sewer Service Area line to be shown
on Exhibit A and upon a flow of 115 gallons per capita per day
and 3.2 people per household.
2. The City of Orono understands from Mr. John Boland's
letter of March 31, 1978, that all of the above criteria are
acceptable to him and the staff of the Metropolitan Council
with the exception that the staff of the Metropolitan Council
recommends that there is no procedure available to move the
MSSR line, the MUSA line and the Interceptor Sewer Area line
until all of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans of the adjacent
municipalities are submitted and reviewed by 1980, pursuant
to the Land Use Planning Act. The staff has also stated that
it is premature to approve the Comprehensive Sewer Plan sub-
mitted by the City of Orono in October, 1976, as amended in
April, 1977, and on March 16, 1978, and that in lieu of
approval of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the staff will
recommend approval of a Interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan to
be submitted by the City of Orono based upon the criteria set
forth herein.
3. The City of Orono could appeal the Systems Statement
of June 23, 1977, as amended on March 31, 1978, and could
• -6-
• object to and take the appropriate actions to delay the con-
struction of the Orono Interceptor until such time as the
Systems Statement more accurately reflects the criteria set
forth herein, but such actions by the City of Orono would be
inconsistent with the City's long -stated desire to cooperate
with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission in developing land use plans which are consistent
with all agencies and which will insure that the interceptor
could be constructed to remove the points of pollution without
having the construction of the interceptor adversely affect
the environment of the area, the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of Orono, and which plans will insure that
the presence of the interceptor would not mandate a location
of the future MUSA, MSSR and Interceptor Sewer Service Area
lines which would include areas of the City of Orono which
should be in the General Rural Use Region of the Rural
Service area for the City of Orono as shown on Exhibit A.
•
4. Based upon the assurances of the staff of the
Metropolitan Council that the above objectives will be accom-
plished as soon as the necessary redrafting of documents can
be accomplished, and for the reasons set forth above, the City
of Orono will not appeal the Systems Statement and will grant
to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission the necessary
building permits, conditional use permits and variances from
the Zoning Code of the City of Orono to allow for the construc-
tion of the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, conditioned upon the
following:
A. The City of Orono is included in all preconstruc-
tion meetings.
B. The City of Orono must first approve any changes
in the construction methods or pipe location which changes
could or may tend to adversely affect the environment and land
use in the City of Orono.
C. The City of Orono shall stop the construction of
the pipe if the construction is in violation of the permits
issued, the ordinances of the City of Orono, the ordinances
and regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
Lake Minnehaha Conservation District, Department of Natural
Resources or any other agency having jurisdiction over the
construction of the pipe.
5. Attached to this resolution as Exhibit C and incor-
porated by reference, are copies of some of the documents
upon which the policies and statements set forth in this
resolution are based.
-7-
t
• This resolution was reviewed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Orono on the 17 day of April ,
1978, by a vote of 3_— ayes and p nays.
Councilmembers voting for approval: P4ayor Van Nest, Butler,
and Paurus
Councilmembers voting against approval: None
ATTEST:
Walter R. enson,
Clerk/A inistrator
C�
0
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
0
This resolution was reviewed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Orono on the 17 day of April ,
1978.
ATTEST:
Walter R.,/Benson,
Clerk/ inistrator
L
•
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
Mary C. Ptitler
Walter B. Massengale
rman W. Paur
C. P ul Pesek
i
Telephone 473-7357
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
April 17, 1978
Mr. John Boland, Chairman
Metropolitan Councilmembers
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Boland and Members of the Council:
On Thursday, April 20, 1978, the Physical Development Committee
of the Metropolitan Council will review the Systems Statement
for the City of Orono and the proposed Orono -Long Lake
• Interceptor. Both of these items have been reviewed at
length by the. City of Orono for the last several years and
after numerous discussions with the staffs of the Metropolitan
Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the City
of Orono believes that it is in the position to recommend
approval of the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor and not to appeal
the most recent Systems Statement, which decision is predi-
cated upon the general guidelines as set forth in a resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on April
17, 1978, a copy of which is included herein for your review.
This resolution sets forth the understanding between the City
of Orono and the staffs of the Metropolitan Council and the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and sets forth the repre-
sentations previously made upon which the City of Orono has
relied in its decision not to appeal the Systems Statement and
not to delay the construction of the Orono -Long Lake Intercep-
tor. The City of Orono would appreciate your reading the
enclosed resolution prior to the meeting next Thursday so that
you will be fully informed of the city's position and so that
there will be no misunderstandings in the future concerning
the agreements reached.
•
I,
`4
i
Mr. John Boland and
�. Metropolitan Councilmembers
April 17, 1978
Page Two
The resolution references a packet of documents (Exhibit C)
which are the underpinnings of the resolution; however,
because of the volume of the documents and because they are
not necessary for the understanding of the resolution, we
have not included copies of them but have provided copies
of them to the staff of the Metropolitan Council by separate
letter.
It is our understanding that a copy of this resolution and
exhibits attached thereto will be made a part of the official
record of the Metropolitan Council in regard to the Systems
Statement for the City of Orono and the Orono -Long Lake Inter-
ceptor.
At your meeting on Thursday, April 20, 1978, Mayor Van Nest of
the City of Orono will be present to review the contents of the
resolution with you and to answer any questions which you may
have.
On behalf of the City of Orono, we would like to thank you and
• your staff for having worked with the City Council in the past
in regard to these two items and to thank you at this time
for your anticipated cooperation in the future.
Very truly you ,
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
On behalf of the City Council
of the City of Orono
WBV:ss
Enclosure
cc: (Resolution enclosed without Exhibit C)
Senator George Pillsbury
Representative Robert Searles
Councilmembers of the City of Orono
Walter R. Benson, Clerk/Administrator
Bruce D. Malkerson, Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman
& Doty, City Attorney
James Olson, Boonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates,
City Engineer
Richard Dougherty, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
David Graven, Attorney for the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission
John Hoeft, Attorney for the Metropolitan Council
Robert Mezzanac, Metropolitan Council Staff Planner
Carl Burandt, Metropolitan Council Staff Planner
Douglas Hall, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
s
Documents attached to Resolution No. 1749/
adopted by the City Council of the.City of
Orono on April 17, 1978.
EXHIBIT C
• _7
PREFACE
During the past century, much of the lakeshore area now within the
Boundaries of Orono was subdivided and developed in a relatively haphazard
and unplanned fashion. Due to the lack of organized local governments
during much of the period, little if any, planning to protect and preserve
the quality of Lake Minnetonka was possible. The result has been pockets
of small narrow lots totally incapable of supporting on-site sewage
disposal systems. This led to lake pollution and public health problems
from septic effluents on lots and in the groundwater supplies which
problems have required Orono to complete three major municipal sewer
projects, including the construction of a central sewage treatment
plant.
In 1955, Orono was incorporated as a Village and the first attempts were
made at comprehensive planning and zoning. By 1965 the First Comprehensive
Zoning Code, which established the principle of protecting and preserving
Lake Minnetonka and the surrounding watershed and the groundwater supply,
was adopted.
In 1968, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in cooperation with the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, directed a study of Lake Minnetonka
•by the Harza Engineering Company to determine the causes of pollution to
the lake and to recommend a course of action. The Harza study completed
in 1971 found the cause of pollution to the lake was a high input of
nutrients, specifically phosporus. It further concluded that the single
largest source of nutrient input at that time was effluent from the
municipal sewage treatment plants, located within the Lake Minnetonka
Watershed. The second single largest source of nutrients was contained
in the storm water run-off from the watershed. Because Lake Minnetonka
is fed by neither spring nor river tributary system, its sole source of
replenishment comes from the storm water run-off of its own watershed.
The recommendations of the Harza Study were to construct a system of
metropolitan sewer interceptors, to -remove from the Minnetonka watershed
the effluent of the seven municipal sewage treatment plants. The study
also recommended that, because the storm water run-off could not be
removed from the watershed, that the natural system of marshes and
wetlands must be protected and preserved, as it is the only practical
method of filtering'and removing the ever increasing nutrient load to
the lake, the surrounding watershed, and the groundwater caused by
increased urbanization within the Lake's Watershed District.
The Harza Study, as well as several subsequent studies, has concluded
that the nutrient input to the lake will increase as the level of urbanization
increases. These studies show that greater land use density could raise
the level of nutrients as much as ten times unless the present zoning,
specifically the two to five acre minimum lot size in the Rural Service
Area of Orono, is maintained. Other studies show that Lake Minnetonka
has a slow 25 year "Flush -out" period second only to Lake Michigan in
our region, which requires careful and continuous attention to the
quality of the storm water run-off flowing into the lake.
1i
-t•
• Orono adopted a wetlands preservation ordinance in 1970 based in part on
the need to protect and preserve the wetlands as recommended by the
Harza .Study. The "Surface Water Management Plan" adopted in 1974,
.developed an over-all detailed plan and rationale for the protection and
preservation of the wetlands within Orono. A comprehensive guide plan
together with a new comprehensive zoning code was also adopted in 1974.
All of these plans and ordinances were developed with the protection and
preservation of Lake Minnetonka as one of the foremost guiding principles.
Based on the above studies and experience, Orono has determined that the
cost of Municipal Sewer Service Extention into the Rural Service Area
would create such an economic hardship on the land that massive rezoning
would be required in order to allow sufficient population to pay the
cost of sanitary sewers. Thus, it is Orono's contention that this
municipal sewer cost would create a spiral which would force present
land owners to subdivide and develop their land to a level of urbanization
that would create an even more intolerable nutrient load to the lake
than we have today.
In conclusion, Orono, when furnishing municipal services, must provide
them to be consistent with high environmental standards for the protection
and preservation of Lake Minnetonka; for future generations. Therefore,
guidance for future development policy for the unsewered areas of Orono Y
is to maintain present zoning ordinances, requiring lot sizes of not
less than two acres, which is recognized as the minimum capable of
sustaining on-site sewage disposal systems in the types of soils located
• in Orono. The lower level of urbanization resulting from this development
policy will minimize nutrient load to Lake Minnetonka, the surrounding
watersheds, and the groundwater supply through a more acceptable quality
storm water run-off. Experience indicates the following paradox:
The extension of expensive Municipal Sewer Services to reduce pollution
to Lake Minnetonka, the surrounding watersheds, and the groundwater
supply -generates higher levels of urbanization to pay for these services
and this urbanization in turn increases the pollution of Lake Minnetonka
to an even higher degree contributed by'storm water run-off. For these
reasons and other land use planning factors, Orono will not extend a
municipal sewer service to the Rural Service Area within the next 25
years.
iii
•
TO: City Attorney Bruce Nalkerson
FROM: ?-4ayor- Brad Van Nest
DATE: January 16, 1978
SUBJECT: Orono's Comprehensive Land Use Planning
At the request of the City Council, I have assembled all of the
information that I have in my possession concerning the history
of Orono's Comprehensive Planning as it relates to the following
issues:
1. Design of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor
2. The Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan -
3. The Metropolitan Council's Systems Statement
After getting all this information together, I find that the size
of this docurientation is over a foot and a half in height; and in
order to facilitate your review, I will attempt to highlight the ,J
-important issues in this memo.
1968: During the spring of 196-8, the Minnesota Pollution Control
issued a mandate that the sewage effluent from the seven waste
water treatment plants within the Lake riinnetoiika watershed district
shall'be removed totally from the watershed. A study was instituted
cooperation with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District entitled
The Harza Report.
1971: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission designed.the Orono -
Long Lake interceptor which was a large gravity system that not only
• removed the effluent from the Orono and Long Lake sewage plants, but
Cprovided a major collection system within the City of Orono to
facilitate its development to a projected population of in excess
of 35,000- people. Because federal funding was not available for thi
�-- Page 2
1974:
project, it was not constructed at that time.
The City completed its Comprehensive Land Use Plan using
input from the -citizens of Orono and technical information from
the Harza study and other engineering studies completed in the early
ComLand Use Plan showed a
1970's. The results of this Co
drastically reduced population level and a reduction in the need for
sanitary sewer extensions throughout rural Orono. The City at that
time located its urban and rural use areas that would.guide the
1 development of the City of Orono for the next 25 years period.
This Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted by the City Council and
the Metropolitan Council during the fall of 1974. The implementing
ordinances were drafted and adopted putting this ComprehensivE
zoning
Plan into force by January 1, 1975.
november 1975: During the fall of 1975, federal funding became availab:
to complete the Orono -Long Lake interceptor but the Metropolitan
on was instructed by the PCA that it must
Waste Control Commissi
distribute the environmental impact assessment as well as hold a
public hearing prior to the final approval of the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor as designed_ The City held many meetings during the'fal
of 1975 with the Waste Control Commission in an attempt to inform tY
that there had been many changes in the planning requirements for tY
City of Orono since the original design of the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor and that the interceptor, as presently designed, was not
consistent with the City Comprehensive Planning. The City did objec
L to the design of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor at the public hear:
d .
the waste Control Commission agreed to re-eval
held in November and
Page 3
its design, amend the environmental assessment, and to offer severa
new alternates to the existing engineering report from 1971.
June 1976: The addendum to the engineering report for the Orono -L
Lake interceptor was published showing four new alternate designs f
the interceptor as well as three of the old designs from the 1971
report. Alternate A was supported by the City in that the routing
was more conducive to serving the area of the City which was to be
in the urban service area and four small areas along the route of
the interceptor where prior development had created the need for
sewer connection. The City objected to the flows projected
by the addendum to the engineering report as well as the sewer serti
area it- ` proposed to serve.
August 1976: The Hetropolitan Council approved a staff report datee
July 27, 1976, which approved the addendum to the engineering repos
subject to the removal of Maple Plain, Independence Beach, Baker
Park, and -the area of the proposed Vo -Tech School from the designat
sewer service area. _
October 1976: The City of Orono adopted. a Comprehensive Sewer
Plan which was consitent with its Comprehensive Land Use Plan as
adopted in the fall of 1974. This plan clearly delineated the flow:
required from the City of Orono through the year 2000 and also sho%
the area of the City that was to be contained within the service
area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor.
l November 10, 1976: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission conducted a
public hearing on the addendum to the engineering report for the
Orono -Long Lake interceptor .
•
Page 4
The City found that alternate A in the addendum to the engineering
report best exemplified the position of the City in being consistent
with its Comprehensive Sewer Plan and its Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The City did point out that the flows and the designated service area
of the Orono -Long Lake -interceptor as shown in the adeendum to the
engineering report, were not consistent with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan of the City. It pointed ou;
that the designated sewer service area was not consistent with the
action taken by the Metropolitan Council in August 'of 1976 removing
Maple Plain and certain areas within the City of Medina.
November 26, 1976: The City received its preliminary Systems Statement
as required under the mandatory Land Planning Act. The City's
primary concern was the location of the M.U.S.A. line which was not
shown to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
From November 26 through March 11, the City held many meetings with
the Waste Control Commission staff and the Metropolitan Council staff
reviewing and proposing changes in the design of the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor, the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Metropolitan
Council's System Statement.
March 11, 1977: On this date, a meeting was held with the PCA, MWCC,
Metropolitan Council, and the City staff. This meeting was a
culmination of the negotiations that we had had since November of 197E
and final agreement was reached on the following items:
1. The flows for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor would-be reduced
to be consistent with the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
C2. Designated sewer service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor
would be reduced so that it would be consistent with the Orono
Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the direction of the Metropolitan
Council's action of August of 1976.
Page 5 0.
a 'J
• 3. The Metropolitan Council's staff would recommend changes to the
development framework moving the 2i.U.S.A. line so that it would
be consistent with Orono's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
It was further agreed by all present that the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission would draft a new addendum to the engineering
report for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor reflecting the reduction
in flows and the designated sewer service area for final approval
before the construction of the interceptor itself. The Metropolitan
Council staff agreed that it would further amend its review of the
Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Systems Statement reflecting
the change and the designated sewer service area of the interceptor
as well as the change in the M.U.S.A. line itself.
April, 1977: The -City revised and resubmitted its October 1976 Comprehensi
Sewer Plan in April, 1977. Changes were rased on requests of the
I-mCC and Metro Council staff made during.the review process, and as a
result ofour -final-agreement reached at the March 11, 1977 meeting. C
important change in the redraft, made at the request of the MWCC and
2ietro Council staff, was to modify the scope of our plan, from a
projection to the year 2000, to a projection to only 1990. All referenc
beyond 1990 were removed with the understanding that the interceptor
design was to only accommodate sewer flows from the sewer service area:
as defined on the sewer service area Haps #2 & #8 contained in the Oroi
Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Page 6
r`J
.ay 11, 1977:
The City received a revised Systems Statement from the
Metropolitan Council staff. The City agreed with*the proposed
Systems Statement with the exception that sewer service area 7 & 8
as delineated in the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan to be contained
in the rural service area rather than the urban service area. The
City's position was that with this change for areas 7 & 8 that the
proposed Systems Statement would then be consistent with the agreemen
reached on riarch 11, 1977. The City, again, had several meetings
with the staff of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the
Metropolitan Council discussing the exact positioning of the M:U.S.A.
line.
June 15, 197.7: The City received a copy of the Metropolitan Council's
60 staff review dated June 13, 1977, of the -City's - Comprehensive Sewer
Plan. The review recommended moving the M.U.S.A. line as well as
the designated sewer service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor
to be consistent with the City's comprehensive planning. The City
felt that this review was im_complete agreement with our meeting of
March 11 as well as being consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Sewer Plan and its Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
June 16, 1977: The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission drafted a mems
to the Metropolitan Council objecting to changing the designated
sewer service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor from what was
originally designated as early as 1971. Even though the population
projections for Orono had been reduced from in excess of 35,000 to
approximately 11,000 and the interceptor had been redesigned to
serve a much smaller area as well as much smaller flows, the Waste
Y Page 7
Control Commission felt that the designated sewer service area should
contain vast areas of Orono to which the interceptor would not be
sized to serve. It seemed that the primary concern here was the
payment of reserve capacity that was built into the Metro system
based on earlier projections of 35,000 people from the City of Orono.
June 23, 1977: The City received a drastically revised Systems Statemeni
adopted without the knowledge of the City that removed the recom-
mendation to change the designated sewer service area of the intercepi
as well as any changes to. the M.U.S.A. line within Orono. This
Systems Statement is totally unexceptable to the City and it negates
all the negotiations that the City has held with the Metropolian
( • ' Council staff since 1974.
June 24, 1977: A letter sent from the Metropolitan Council informing
us that the physicial development committee has delayed action on our
Comprehensive Sewer Plan review and rescheduling an appearance for
some later date. This later date was further cancelled and -we heard
nothing from Metropolitan Council until September of 1977.
September 8, 1977: The City received Addendum 2 to the Engineering Report
for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor. The addendum contained additior
flows and a designated sewer service area the same as the original
area established in 1971. This addendum even included flows and
designated sewer service area that was removed by the Metropolitan
Council itself in action in August of 1976. This addendum was not
in accordance with the agreement reached on March 11, 1977.
Page 8
September 9, 1977: The City received a letter from the Metropolitan Counc
staff informing them that a new staff member had been assigned to the
City and that he was enclosing a copy of the redrafted staff review
of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan for our review. This staff
recommendation completely changed the intent of the prior recom-
mendation removing any reference to changing.the M.U.S.A. line or
modifying the designated service area of the Orono -Long Lake intercep
from the original designation from 1971. .
October 20, 1977: The City in a letter to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission strongly objects to the information contained in the
Addendum 2 to the engineering report for the interceptor pointing
( out that this was not consistent with the Orono Comprehensive Land
• Use Plan, the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan
- - , or actions.;by the
Metropolitan Council in August -of 1976'and finally our agreement
reached on March 11, 1977-
'December
977..December 7, 1977: Received Addendum 3 to the engineering report for the
Orono-hong Lake interceptor which reduced the flows -for the intercepto
to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the
action taken in August 1976 by the Metropolitan Council. The City
found that while the flows were consistent with the City's desire
that the designated sewer service area had not been changed and
was still the same as the designated sewer service area in 1971
.based on population projections of in excess of 35,000 people.
Page 9
10
January 4, 1978: After the City objected again to Addendum 3, the City
received a letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
refusing to change the designated sewer service area even though
some of the areas had officially been removed by the Metropolitan
Council in August of 1976.
January 10, 1978: The City again restated its position in objecting to
the designated sewer service area of the Orono=Long*Lake interceptor
as proposed in Addendum 3 to the engineering report.
t •
C1
w1 METROPOLITA.'? CO►S1TC.L
'�•.- .• Suite 3CO :Metro Sq -.:are Bui:din;, Saint Paul, N
irresota 55101
29i-635?
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Physical Development Committee
FROM: Elaine Stanley, Envi=onmental Planning Staff -
.. i-
V{L..LhG�s Cil
July 27, 1976
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor,
Project 71-13, Referral File No. 769
Metropolitan Council Districts le and 12
I. Introduction
On June 15, 1976, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) submitted an Addendum. to e
Prelimiaary Ea^ineerin^ Report for the Orono -Lona Lake Interce^tor. The recommended project consists
" of c fcx2-ai-1`sq-3tem•that will phase out both the Orono and, Long Lake sewage treatment plants and
connect to a metropolitan interceptor in Wayzata; sewage will be treated at the MWCC Blue Lake plant.
The recommended facility has changed substantially from the one recommended in the onginai report -
and the N'WCC has requested Council review -of the change and comment on the status of the Council's
approval of the original project concept in relation to the present project concept. This project rias
beer. programmed for federal and state grants and so.the lvPCA is also awaiting the Courcil's attic,..
t II. Bac_ kzr_ curd
The Orono -Long Lake Interceptor was first initiated -as project 71-13 in the MetopoLtan Sewer Board's
1971 Capital Improvement Program and was approved 'in concept by the Metropolitan Council. The pnrci-
pal reason for the project was and remains the elimination of effluent dischar,ed to Lake hiin:�etonl:a
- by the local sewage treatment plants at Orono and Long Lake. The completion of this project will
leave one source discharging to the lake, namely the Maple Plain plant which discharges to Pointers
Creek which in turn discharges into Lake Minnetonka In early 1973 the M1NCC completed a
engineering report on the capacity,P preliminary
type -and route of the interceptor which recommended Alternate 1,
a gravity facility having the lowest annual costa Other alternates investigated had lower initial construc-
- • tion costs but were all or nearly all forcemain systems and provided for more limited amount of local service
" ..�';;.•` than the gravity facility. OnApril:19, 1974, the'Council adopted the following two recon merdations:
i. That the Sewer Board construct .an"interceptor sewer for Orono and Long Lake and discontinue
the operation of the :Orono and Long Lake Sewage Treatment Plants and that Alternate No. 1 of trams
Preliminary Engineering Report for interceptor service be provided in the place of these. two
sewage treatment" plants. -Alternate No. i calls' -for gravity interceptors throughOroro and
ung L- h e ane a ,pu.^:pirg station oral forcemain through Wayzata to the iffayzata interceptor.
2- 'That interim sewage flow capacity for Maple Plain and Lake Independence area be provided
_Jr. the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor until the
year. 2000.
J.
3. That theproject be recommended for approval rot federal and state grant application.
The plats and specifications 'forthe Orono -Long Lake project were approved by the Council
on June 27, 1974, Finally, on September 25, 1975, the Metropolitan Council adopted the
Waste Management Policy Plan which included the Orono -Long Lake project as an approved system
improvement ,)sroject recommended for construction- in '1976. .
However, despite the fact that the ;Orono -Lon; Lake project has received Council approval and tivzs certified for
federal and state grants for planning and construction, the project has not progressed to the
constructior. stage.. When the ,h-1WCC completed -its plans and specifications for the facility
_..
and th•_ right :)f way needed it requested approval .r:;m the of€ected units of ;o*ierrn+ent, rarrely the
cities of Orcnp and Long Laka.. Praviously, the nvo communities ••had•expressed their approvol.of
' Alternate 1 through letters and -resolutions urging action on the Environmental Assessment of the
facility. However,'ir: December 1975 as part of the public hearing held to meet federal requirements,
the city of Orono requested a re-evaluation of the project -on the basis of their recently adopted
comprehensive land use plan. The city felt the gravity facility was no longer consistent with the•
community's goals for environmental quality and controlled growth.. The city was concerned that
a gravity facility would unduly facilitate trunk connections contraryto local growth policy and
be less cost-effective, that resultant excessive urbanizatianwodld increase stormwater runoff
and require a higher level of municipal services, and that'the impact of both construction of the ".
and urbanization upon the wetlands prevalent in the city's-area'would be'negative. In
response to these concerns, the 1`fWCC submitted an amended environmental assessment and
subseq;rertiy the addendum to.the preliminary engineeringvepor: which is under review at this .
time.
1 III. Project Description
y,
The Addendum tothe Prelimihary Encineerino Report on'the Orono -Lona -Lake discussed the alternatives
y1 v- 'and cost estimates for the proposed facility only on the basis.of�nviroameiatalJmpact•and not considering
-
_the cost benefit any alternative ?a 2it!:e: "m ruiityr=•Q er, factors in the revised analysis inciude'u--
-.revised flows based on the population projections for the service area -from the Development Framework
';.,. and effect of alternatives •on possible future interceptors.from Maple Plain and Medina: Given this
analysis, .the•recommendarion is,for Alternate A withAlterna.te•C being equally,acceptable pending a
more detailed investigation of site and soil statability.':,Theses.alterrutiyes are shown -in Figure i..
":The recommended facility. now consists -of two lift stations and forcemai`n..'Alift station at -the Orono
,'.Treatment "plant would pump the sewage from this poi .t along `County Road `84,to County Road 51; then
east on County Road 51 to County. Road 15 and "iiortheasteri} -along County Road 15 to the existing
�` r* Wayzata pumping •station. -:Another lift station would p isouth .inm the Long Lake:plaat site along
`Orono Orchard Road -to County Road i5 where it .would c6naect to the previously described forcemaia,
;•:u:F, _ An advantage of this routing is the provision of lmmediate'accessibility.to the''sewer.in the developed'
: -areas of Orono along Lake:Minnet' jlka* however, ihe.lienpopin.County Hi ghw"ay'Departmert has indi-
' =
-sated that constrvctioa;along County Road `15 would clave, to.preserve the`drivina surface of tare roadwa
9 prdj7y
during the ect: _
Alternate C is recommended as a. possible variation because it appears to be equivalent ir, cost .to
Alterpate A"but-instead rovides'a short stretch Df
, ••�._ p gravity sewer from the Orono -Treatment, plant • to
County Rued 51 and then'"east nn County 3ioad: 51 for 18D0 ileal whetie a lift station would be constructed
to pump •the •flow to Wayzata .. The .,,ravity section would .allow' iirect connection for the homes a long •' :
Lake i+3innetonka •but would require' -piling for:the deeper line'.and'tbe acquisitiori'of a' lift station site. -
s, :blong the route of the_i•nterceptor instead -of at the existing,plant;.site. s.w
aith Alternate A.- :The MWCC
y< t •dates this altema� would require idditionai site analysis before verifying its potential. -'The
.estimated construction cost forAiterriaie k $3,600-,'383 arc& for -'Alternate C !s 53;.596,746.. -
y"'f iY Prolact Evaluation „
_Consistency with 'Waste Vianager•rentY6licv Plan and Development Framework
a - , ,f, "�':y�.:='�t.-.tea—':.: .� __'.�', • .% ; :..2c`".:' ..,- .. • ^z _� 7 .,. .-::._ _G. ` .: .• JL '_ _ . r �.�.' _- ..
"`- "As -discussed above,• this interceptor -is included in •the--' il,;S-Waste Management isoiicy Plan as a system
i e ` 4mprovement,•project=approved for construction. :Ir.;1976 The Orono=I6fig 'La ke fadility was also approved -in
Riie.3�iA'CC 197b'Capital'Smprovemetrt 8uc3get'and was programmed •oy the'iviinne'sota Pollution'Controi Age --icy
.w t S to 3eceive F1''I6 Federal and stale i#rat>} funds totalling lip to ,90% , the project -post -r• ;
r
-The Orono Long Lakeintefcepto; service a]ea was esta8lishei3r; fhe initia`S review of the' prelr nlnary•
`engineering tepoF[�=•?be`.service•area;progosed ti;ihe'Addendum is ba'si"cal;•y 6e' ie except for'reduction
cif.the•atea`in Meuira iasera an the°1v7edina.Comprehensive'Sewei'Plen (May 1974).`-'-Tbzee subaisuicts are
�i �, < dsirtiiied as'shown ori figure i.% ';-Subdistrict I3o.rl.comfirises:.most of•central;and western•Ororc; I?o; 3 .
comprises southeastern;[irono'to the',c#ty bviir arytvi'th;•Wayzata ,'$Obdistrict'i�To::2'is sesmented ;one
;part is corMiguous:.to`subdistricts=l•3nt3 3 a'nd'cuniprtses ihe' north ern'tier'of.Oronb`, 611 of the cut, f :
Lake., And a sma?l urea-ef less itiari-a square mile }n extreme. •souther;i'Mediria
l ledina portion includes "the 'Morningside -area and theL Site of the'recently propo sed Hennepin County
-Tech School. ",Thee would possibly -be served by an indicated proposed Medina interceptor connecting
'the- Ororo -bong Take- facility
The other part of subdistrict i.o. 2 includes the city of Maiple'Plain, a part of Morris Baker Par.: Reserve
and the Independence Beach Area of Medina.
-This seco-d separs.sd part of the subdistrict is presently served by t^e ?.taple Plain sewage treatment
plant and ;s shown connecting to the Orono -Long Lake line by a proposed f'a :re interceptor. :he
Council's Development Framework urban service area shows 1976-80 metropolitan sewer service for
only subdistrict No. 1, 3 and that part.of No. 2 within the northern boundary of Orono. Interceptor
service for Maple Plain, Independence Beach, and Medina is not shown. Rather, the Waste M✓ianage-
ment Policy Plan includes one study on the various options for serving the Maple Plain area now
shown as a rural town center; no study has been scheduled on the possibility of rrbviding metro-
politan interceptor service from Medina to the Orono -Long Lake facility.
Although the Addendum does include future flow calculations for the Maple Plain area and the Vo -Tech
school and the Medina Morningside area, these added flows would not require a larger forcemain facility
than does service to just Orono and Long Lake. Similarly, the capacity of the pump at tate lift station
planned at the Long Lake site will be sufficient just for the•Long Lake -Hort ,ern Orono flow but a larger
pump could be provided at the site if future facilities connect there. In forecasting future 50 -year
flows for all communities, the Addendum uses the population forecasts of the Development Framework.
B.'Cos-, `
Tha estimated cost of ;he recommended alternate is $3,600;383 which is close to the approved amount
- n of $3,620,000 shown- the W;iste Management Policy.Plan.' This alternate will cost abouE •$500,000
.less to construct than the previously approved facility but will cost about $20,000 more annually to
operate and maintain. The annual equivalent cost, incorporating both these factors and present wort:, .
;resoits.in nearly equal'costs:
The 1976 MWCC Capital Budget carried the Orono-Long'Lake Interceptor as a previously authorized
project with a total appropriation of'$4,258,600:This was commensurate with the original estimates
but is now in excess of anticipated costs .
V. Relationship to Local Plans
`The Orono Comprehensive Plan was•revie.wed by the Council in October 1974 and discussion during the
plan review revolved around Orono's expressed desire and intent to remain a low density residential
community. 'Both the Council .and the city agreed on the need to protect the area's natural resources,
especially lake Minnetonka, with strong development policies but, although the Orono plan was. revised
to reflect ultimate accommodation, of 'growth projected by the Council, the effect of its pro posed'development
....Policies seems likely to delay the projected growth. Thus although the interceptor is designed to accommodate
the growth projected by the Council,'the rate of utilization of the capacity may be slower depending upon
_ ',:how.Orono regulates development and provides local sewer facilities. These issues will come before the
;Council during the -review of Orono's comprehensive plan and ,sewer policy plan.under the provisions of the
=land Use Planning Act.
r <- e Council has not reviewed the comprehensive plans of Long Lake; Maple Plain, or Medina . the
comprehensive sewer - plan farMedlna he been submitted -but not reviewed by the Council; it does show
_ both the Morningside subdivision and the proposed Vo -Tech school receiving service through a future
'metropolitan facility. As noted such proposed facility is not now planned for study. The questiori'of
providing urban services to Medina as_part of the rural service area should and will be dealt with in the
"Council's review of Medina's compreliensive-plan' and sewer policy plan. in the meantime, the pollution l
problems in the Morningside area should be documented to'the MWCC,and if serious,access to the interceptor �'•"
in Orono should be through Oto no's Local collection system if the two communities can work out an agreement
,�� � ;1. W+abs r. -.ch "�;. x �•C � .,\ T .,a..r . ! �. t -3;4.. �. • � .
.Vh.:bonciusions
iY
:Upon re-evaluation based on new,commi"ty.plans and coasistency-with Development Framework,
':-•."'' '= ': the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is recommendin; two lift stations and a forcemain'.
Interceptor to serve Orono and LongLake.
Y j?he Orono -Long Lake.Interceptor is a inetropolitan facility that willphase out two }oral sewage treatment • .�;.. . .
lents that dischai a to Lake'. Minnetonka It is to provide service to the communities sof Orono and .y
g
' 16nq Lake as they Ile •within the urban service' area .' `The Addendum is consistent in.that .it shows this
+: - secsce but inconsistent in that it also includes Maple Plain,• Independence Beach, and Morris D. Baker .
Pairk Reserve within•the existing service area. These areas are presently served by the Maple Plain
4 °sewage treatment plant and will continue to be so until studies are completed and a plan approved that
is consistent with the status of Maple Plain as a rural town center within the rural service area. Simi-
larly, no part of Medina should be presently included in the facility service area except for those small
areas on the Medina -Orono boundary that may need sewers to alleviate on-site disposal problems; t -is
h to he ti The areas not t- be included in the present
does �t include the proposed s;._ of t.... Vo -_Tech school.
service 3ren of the facility are cross-hatc;".ed in Pig, :are I.
_ 3
Tha 1976 Capital bud;et does r.ct reflectthe lowerestimated c•.,,sts of the .nei., reoommerded alternate '
but should be revised to do o..
Recommendations
1. That the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission construct an interceptor sewer for Orono and
Long.Lake and discontinue the operation ol the Orono and Long Lake sewage treatment plants
and that Alternate A of the Addendum to the Preliminary 2naineerina Reeort be the facility•to.'be
'': ;'• '•:;
constructed. AlterrateA consists of lift stations at the Orono and Long Lake plant sites and
16" and 20" forcemain through Orono and Long Lake to e, pumpl�g station in Wayzata.'
•2. That Maple Plain ! the Independence Beach Area in Medina, and Morris' D..Baker Park Reserve
..shall not be included in the designated service area of -the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor pending
the outcome of programmed studies.
K� 3-. That the asdsting developed, area in the.Morningside subdivision iri Medina may included -in-
the .
-<- .the service area Af the interceptot•unly•1f a need 'is demorns.trated ,a-nd service through-lccal-lines
`'';""' •• to the metropoiitan facility is`arranged with Crono'and Long Lake.
' f 4 That the 1976 Capital Budget and -future budgets reflect the, lower
a Iterna to . cost of -the new recommended .
_
At
t
•
March 14, 1977
Tcli•pl,one 473.7357
CITY of 0ROAM
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Mr. Douglas Hall
Pollution. Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Dear Mr. Hall:
We have reviewed the final report on the facilities planning
for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as submitted to you by
the Metropolitan Waste -Control Commission during February, 1977.
�• As a result of that review, the City of Orono had three basic
concerns pertaining to this project.
The first concern is: what are the average daily flows that
will be used to design the Orono -Long Lake interceptor. Secondly:
what will be the sewer service area of this Metropolitan inter-
ceptor, and, thirdly: where will the rural/urban service line
be established.
At our meeting on Friday morning, Aiarch 11, 1977, with the
Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,
these three concerns have been resolved to the satisfaction of Orono
We are attaching the flows that were agreed upon to base the design
of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor. We are also attaching to this
letter a drawing showing the sewer service area resulting from
the construction of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as agreed
upon at our meeting of last Friday.
It is our understanding that these flows and sewer service area
which are consistent with the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan will
be interpreted by the Metropolitan Council so that the rural/urban
service line shown in the dvelopment framework will also be
consistent with the Orono Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. Douglas Nall
]arch 14, 1977
t . Page 2
The City of Orono wishes to express its appreciation to you and
to the PCA for its fine cooperation that has resulted in the final
agreement for the design of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor project.
i• -
iYou s truly
Brad V Nest
Orono Mayor
cc: Klaus Forester - Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Sandy Dean - Metropolitan Council
Elaine Stanley - Metropolitan Council
Enclosures
0
i
rn
A
U)
O
Ow
-
a
n
wo
O
O
O
H
O -
O
w
u 1
Ln
00
O
O
N
0
w
cn
U
O
W
W
N
>
U
' H
Cd 0
U)
co
Z
W
x
U Wx
n
4a
- H �
O
-
W
b
o
w •:z
-0 r-4
0
(L) 1--
(L)
P4
3
O
O
�s O
-
0
w
cn
•r4
- 3
z
-0
O
a
H
W
H
-rr O p 4-1
W
- cd
O x cU
C�
LLQ
O..
U4-3
3
U)
w
w
• �
A
r4
Oo
rn
O
O
Ln
O
r -i
n
O
O
O
O
H
O
O
O
u 1
Ln
00
O
O
N
0
N
r-
O '
O
O
N
O
tri
try
Cd 0
l O
co
r -i
n
4a
-
W
Q G
Ln
.- i
r -i
-
O
D
.--1
O
O,
O
n= $-,
O
N
O
0
0
0
a
H
Cd 0
4a
-
W
b
Q z
44
-0 r-4
(L) 1--
(L)
'b
3
O
�s O
-
p
•r4
Cd CL) r-4
O
o —4
u r
-
Q.
4-+ -
-rr O p 4-1
4-1
- cd
O x cU
r= -
O..
U4-3
Oii
41WE/3
-
U
p
1b
.W
a) E
E r r4
-
•�
N 44
U .
a
lca�41ch
N,
4.1 -
-0 J•! U
Q. O
r -r U
O C p 41 U)
a)
P N
r- )•+ •rr
oCda
co 4-1
-
r -
-a m u
'U
. b a
N
U(1)'0
H 3•c
'd -d a) 'O
Q
U O
• -d a) U
-
�O
0Qr1: G -t
P4
QC4 a)
O bD P
r 4 P.
" p er -
O
p cd
44 p
cd O
O(L)
ri O O r -r O
O (1) -
O O r -r
-
OD a.(1.
O U
cd " cd
O
4-)p
41 cd
I %--,a)
•G P
•rr r- P.. -r{ 4-t
r -r
p..Q cn
crn 0, G
r-4 P4 ,R:
U a
4-t a) U O
a) 4-1
a O
1.1
U) 41
" a) U )-I
a)
r-) r, U
-rr
CO )4 P
G
cn r -d p a) O
r -q
)-1 •rr
r -t ?4 4-3
Cd O U
J-- H
:3 ,o a r�
ro
N Na
a) cd
-
a a 3w
-d cd t1 0 O
cli
U to r—
cd 4-3U
)+ +) U
-rr O
r- H G O �4
H
f. " •
H 00
-
QR�.Cn
x�
H—H UO
H UO
�H7
Q)
-
U)
b0
G
4
cd
r
Q G
G G
ao
-
n= $-,
p
po
O
0
0
0
a
H
t•
VD
Mtl.nasGEa Pollution GanfiraiLA ORONO
March 17, 1977
Mr. Richard J. Dougherty
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: NPDES
Permit
Orono
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
and State Disposal System
Number MN0029882 -
- Long Lake Interceptor
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116, as amended,
and in accordance with the provisions of NPDES and State Disposal
System Permit Number MN0029882, approval of the Facilities Plan is
hereby granted, subject to the conditions attached, for the proposal
to construct and operate the Orono - Long Lake Interceptor and lift
stations in the Cities of Orono, Long Lake, and Wayzata, in Hennepin
County, which, when constructed, will discharge to the Blue Lake
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and to the Minnesota River.
The Facilities Plan and related information indicate that the treat-
ment system will consist of two (2) lift stations and 16 and 20 inch
diameter forcemain that will eliminate the existing Orono and Long
Lake WWTP's and convey the wastewater to the Wayzata lift station
and then to the Blue Lake WWTP.
The Agency, its officers, employees, and agents review and comment
upon facilities plans which provide the basis for this approval solely
for the limited purpose of determining whether there is reasonable
assurance that the system, when constructed, will comply with the
regulations and criteria of the Agency.
No construction shall begin until the permittee has submitted final
reports, plans, and specifications for the construction to the Director
(Attention: Compliance and Enforcement Section) and has received
written approval of the final reports, plans, and specifications in
accordance with the NPDES and State Disposal System Permit.
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Fergus Falls/Marshall/Rochester/Roseville
Equal Opponunity Employer
Mr. Richard Dougherty
Page 2
Hite 17 1977
t •
This approval shall not relieve the permittee from complying with
all conditions and requirements of the NPDES and State Disposal
System Permit and shall be retained by the permittee with the•permit.
Any questions regarding this approval should be directed to Gordon
E. Wegwart at 612/296-7309.
Sincerely,
Perry T.�JBeaton, P.E.
Chief, Facilities Section
Division of Water Quality
DATED: !'L' G /7, /177
T
Attachment
�• PTB/GEW:mlj
cc: (see attached list)
0
i0
Mr.Richard Dougherty
,ell
1977
Copies of Letter to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Permits Branch,
Chicago
;The Honorable Brad Van Nest,''Mayor, City of Orono
Orono City Council, c/o Mr. Walter R. Benson, Clerk - Administrator
The Honorable Patrick Farnand, Mayor, City of Long Lake
Long Lake City Council, c/o Mrs. Debbie Stinson, Clerk
McCombs - Knutson Associates, Incorporated; Consulting Engineers,
Minneapolis
Metropolitan Council, St. Paul
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
i• 1. The pump sizing and staging shall be re-evaluated in light of
current flow projections and relevant information shall be
provided as a supplement to the facilities plan.
C0
0
Mcl:T�- Ci'i'�: I F1
C
(•
350 METRO/OURRE BLDG.
7TH & ROBERT/TREEU
/A1nT PAUL Mn 55101
612 222.8423
March 22, 1977
Mr. Walter Benson
Clerk -Administrator
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mr. Benson:
This letter is to comment on our review of the preliminary Comprehensive
Sewer Plan (CSP) for your City. Your CSP has been reviewed on the basis
of the information that is necessary for preparing a satisfactory CSP.
This information is as follows:
1. The CSP delineates the Urban and Rural Service Areas in the City.
the CSP indicates that no extensions of sanitary sewers to serve
existing and/or new development in Areas 7 and 8 of the Urban Service
Area are intended prior to 1990 unless there is a documented pollution
problem in the area. Sanitary sewers should be installed in these
areas because; 1) the proposed Orono Interceptor traverses this area;
2) the MWCC-Rules and Regulations for the Metropolitan Disposal System
require that connections be made to the sanitary sewer system within
-two years of,its availability; and 3) this will avoid duplication of
costs to install on-site sewage disposal systems which will later be
phased out and connected to the sanitary sewer system.
2. -The CSP identifies a number of small developed areas of urban
density which are located in the rural area and are serviced by on-site
sewage disposal systems. It is stated that when pollution problems
occur in these areas the City will study and recommend a solution to
the -problem based on several alternates. The CSP identifies these
alternate solutions and places the installation of sanitary sewers as
the least likely alternate solution. The Commission believes that
this alternate should be considered first in the solution to these
problems.
3. Design information should include flow, capacity (or size and slope),
time period and population served of the proposed sewer facilities.
4. The location, type and capacity of
for public use, whether m-nicipally or
identified includin their appropriate
Elimination System ?NPDES) permit. In
upgrading or terminating these systems
are no such permits applicable, please
information.
all existing treatment facilities
privately owned, should be
National Pollution Discharge
addition, a timetable for
should be submitted. If there
indicate this in the additional
Mr. Walter Benson
• Clerk -Administrator
t City of Orono
March 22, 1977
Page Two
5. Present sewered population and number of sewer connections
together with a projected increase in sewer connections each
by year for the next five years should be provided.
6. The 'type, quantity, and strength of wastewater from industrial
.and institutional dischargers whose average daily flow exceeds
�N 50,000 gpd or contains toxic wastes should be identified. If there
are none, please indicate this.
^ 7. An ordinance adopting the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's
Rules and Regulations.
8. Minimum design standards for the control of inflow/infiltration
into the sewer system should be a requirement in your standard
specifications for sanitary sewer installation.
9. Ordinances controlling inflow/infiltration into the sewer system
for new and existing facilities, including design, construction,
and maintenance standards.
10. Ordinances controlling the development of flood plain, wetlands,
steep slopes, drainage ways, etc.
11. Platting maps should be furnished which indicates the location
of temporary and permanent on-site sewage disposal facilities.
12." An ordinance or ordinances should be provided which adopt.
minimum standards for the design, location, installation, operation,
maintenance and monitoring of on-site sewage disposal systems. The
ordinance should include but not be limited to the definition,
licensing requirements, permits, construction requirements, inspection,
maintenance, penalties, etc. associated with implementing a program
for on-site sewage disposal systems.
13. A monitoring procedure for on-site disposal systems should be
furnished. This should include a system of records with dates of
inspections, condition of facilities, maintenance program, disposal
and pumping schedule of septage from such facilities systems.
14. Copies of all reports or tests conducted to determine if surface
waters and groundwater show evidence of contamination from on-site
system in areas -of clustered development. In addition, if any reports
which study the effectiveness of on-site systems have been prepared,
they should be furnished on this additional necessary information.
• Mr. Walter Benson
Clerk -Administrator
City of Orono
March 22, 1977
Page Three
If you have any questions in regard to the information requested
in this review, please write to us. In addition, please furnish
the Commission with another copy of the CSP for submittal to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Very truly yours,
Bernard J. Hann ngton
Director of Engineering
BJH:DSB:bdw
cc: Metropolitan Council
• d4 0 0 NEW no
UUN 16 1977
hdo
• ��' �� VILLAGE OF
•RAN•
Area 612, 291-6359
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(0
•
June 15, 1977
Mr. Walter Benson, Administrator
City of Orono
Box 6 6
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Dear Dick:
I am enclosing two copies of the staff report on.Orono's Comprehensive Sewer
Plan. The report is scheduled to be discussed by the Council's Physical
Development Committee on June 23 atV.:30 p.m. Orono is welcome to be
represented at the meeting.
You may be puzzled by the last paragraph of Recommendation 4 on page 4.
It is necessary to permit the Waste Control Commission to provide sewer service
to the lakeshore development. The Commission is prohibited by Council policy
from providing service to development outside the Metropolitan Sewer Service
Region. In most places the MSSR is conterminus with the MUSA, but there are
a few exceptions. This will establish Orono as one of the exceptions and permit
the developments to be sewered while remaining -a part of the Rural Service Area.
Please call me if you have any questions.
ALD:emp
Enclosures
Sincerely,
Alexander L. Dean
Policy Planner
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County
I
. For Release 2:00 P.M.; 6/23/77
• METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55.101
.•1 � 291-6359
June 13, 1977
MEMORANDUM
TO: Physical Development Committee
FROM: Staff (Sandy Dean, Elaine Stanley, Karl Burandt)
SUBJECT: City of Orono Interim Comprehensive Sever Plan
District 16, File No. 3940
I, Review Authorit9
comprehensive
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission s(MW
ementswithhthezMWCCed o theiCouncil ew and amakes erecommendations sonethe
plans (CSP) pursuant to M.S. 473.06. By 8 articularly the Development Framework and the
consistency of CSF s with the Council's adopted policies, p
Waste Management Policy Plan.
I1. Background
Staff has held numerous meetings with Orono officials over the past six months at which various issues and
recommendations have beenan scusNestsed, debated,
and agreed
upon.
We wish
to thank
. the Orono officials, and
view
particularly Mayor
he
The City of Orono is lo0rono in
oaiticipated inuth central nnepin County planning effortsntotimprove theovatereof quality of Lakeke oM nne-
Since the late 1960's, P
thinks through phasing out sewage treatment plants that discharge to the lake and construct ng metropo tan
interceptors to convey sewage out of the Lake Minnetonka watershed to the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Construction of the Orono C• and ent ong Lakepinterceptors
lants whichdi 1978e effluey the nt into Control
Commmission will phase out two of the three remaining
by
he
974.
The first plans and specifications for the Orono
trceptor were approved to June,
l
The interceptor was planned as a gravity sewer with asubstantial serviceareathat included allofcentral
at this time, and was based on the assumption
and eastern Orono. Development Framework was being prepared
that the interceptor would be built as planned. This is the reason that the Framework map (attachment A
shows an addition to the MUSA In eastern Orono.
In August, 1974, the Orono Planning Commission completed the City's first comprehensivedeVelothent plan. -
It stressed rural or suburban living patterns and maintenance of the environmentaldependenceuality of for these objec-
tives
the lake and extensive wetland and marsh systems draining into it; g P
was placed upon a recent engineering study from which the City concluded that high or urban density
development would result in anmanaganthe City'sbly la8aniidentifledties of lantUrbanants tService Area omprising theonka due to csouths
n stormwater runoff. Consequently,P the rest of the City
vest corner of the City where there already was sever service and urban development; buildable land.
was to develop with on-site disposal systems on lots having a minimum of two acres of dry
As approved by the Council in June, 1974, the Orono interceptor would have provided sever availability to
extensive land areas planned by the City to remain D low density foan stfinite period. a reevaluation off project
viously supportive of the interceptor, the City, n December, 975,requested
on the basis of its recently
f adopted
comprehensive
tplan.
In n response
not to this
sewecavaiabItlithe7MsoCreadilytto
i
as alternative design p the share -of Smith Bay and Browns
ected to the sewer without forcing 8e
open land. The interceptor
was routed close to existing developmearsalongthe
of undeveloped land into urbani-
Bay so that they could be conn1976.
ration. This redesigned interceptor was approved by the Council n August,
tatement from the Council containing the Development
In November, 1976, Orono received a preliminary system s
Framework may which still showed the Metropolitan Urban Service Area encompass
in8 central and eastern Orono.
Since the system statement is incompatible with the City's comprehensive plan, Orono has requested that it
be changed. Concurrently, Orono has completed an interim comprehensive sever plan based on its 1974 proposes
pensive development plan. Therefore, staff suggests that this CSP review tell Orono how the Council amend -
to redefine the development
MUSn Orono. The City's system statement can be written to reflect this proposed
ment, andto the Framework
afinale formally
lsystem stamendedment later i 1 -
Development
year. This matter is urgent because the Council
by
is requiredissue
Development Framework considerations will be explained in the next section of this review. Part IV will
discuss waste management issues.
_ 2
III. Development Framework Issues
•The Development Framework map indicates that Orono is as urban fringe community (see Attachment A). The southern
part of Orono around Lake Minnetonka is shown as "planned urbanization, 1975" although actually only the south-
western part of the city has local sewer service. The northeastern section of the city around Long Lake and
Wayzata is designated "additions, 1976-1980", and the northwest is shown as a "general rural use region".
The northeast area is designated as an addition to the Urban Service Area because this was to have been part
of the service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as planned in 1974 when the land analysis for Develop-
ment Framework was done. The chronology of events in Part II indicates that sewer facilities planning got
ahead of land use planning in the Orono area, and was embodied in the Development Framework map. Now that
local land use planning has been done, there is need to bring metropolitan plans into line with it if legiti-
mate metropolitan interests and policies are not jeopardized by doing so.
A principle of Development Framework is that the Metropolitan Urban Service Area shall contain sufficient
land suitable for development to accommodate all urban development in the region through 1990 without creating
undue land price inflation. The land analysis in the Framework, particularly Table 6 on page 32, indicates
that there is ample land for development in the southwest Minneapolis sector even without the additional MUSA
in Orono. An area in Chanhassen which will be added to the MUSA by 1980 will be sufficient to make up any
deficit which might occur in the sector. Therefore, expanding the MUSA in Orono could be postponed until
about 1990 without upsetting the principles of the Framework. Therefore, to make the Framework compatible
with municipal planning, staff recommends that the Framework be amended by removing the addition to the MUSA
in Orono.
Orono's comprehensive plan, adopted'in 1974, contains policies favoring permanent low density development
throughout the city, except in the urban area in the southwest corner. Orono has concluded from engineering
studies that urbanization would lead to large amounts of polluting stormwater runoff which cannot all be fil-
tered by the natural wetland system, and that development on two -acre lots is essential to preserve the quality
of Lake Minnetonka. In 1974, the Council reviewed Orono's comprehensive plan and recommended the following:
"That Orono revise its plan to include consideration of development beyond its first stage plan
and commit itself to further investigation of controls and techniques to accommodate growth without
undue environmental hazard."
Since the MUSA will possibly have to continue to expand after 1990, and since Orono lies squarely in the path
of growth in the I-394 corridor, the City is a logical place to expect urban growth after 1990. The City
(&hould be aware of this and should also note that the staff's recommendation to alter the MUSA in Orono is
of necessarily an endorsement of permanent low density development in the City nor of 2 -acre lot sizes.
Additional investigation is needed of the relationship bete -en urban development in•.the Lake Minnetonka water-
shed and the water quality of the lake. Orono's comprehensive plan submitted pursuant to the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act should consider techniques for preserving the option of urban -density development sometime
in Orono's future.
IV. Waste Management Policy Plan
An interim comprehensive sewer plan must include at a minimum: (1) a schedule of extensions of the local
collection system over the next 3-5 years (including estimated number of connections and flow); (2) identi-
fication of. an interim service boundary; (3) an indication of how unsevered areas will develop and what
methods of waste disposal will be permitted; and (4) adoption of MWCC rules and regulations. The Orono CSP
deals with all of these items.
A. Local Collection System Extensions and Interim Service Area
In addition to the main sewered portion of the City in the southwestern corner, there are several
small pockets of development in Orono that are now sewered or shown in the CSP as potentially re-
ceiving service in the future. All of these are in the rural service area. The largest pocket in-
cludes the Hackberry Hills subdivision, the Orono Industrial Park, and Orono High School, all of
which presently receive service through the Long Lake system. The CSP indicates that service to
Hackberry Hills is temporary; it does not but should indicate the permanent service solution and
when this will be programmed. Other severed areas lie adjacent to Wayzata on the east and presently
receive service from Wayzata. The CSP states that there is capacity in the local sewers for more
flow than presently generated but that the 2 -acre minimum lot size makes it unlikely that capacity
will be used. The other area show for future sewer service is the Morningside area of Medina which
was included in the approved interceptor service area on a limited basis. The City has stated its
understanding that service to Medina must come through local lines and be negotiated between Medina,
Orono and Long Lake. The City has also indicated by resolution its opposition to the proposed Vo -
Tech school in Medina which was not approved by the Council for inclusion in the interceptor service
area.
The Orono CSP also identified 15 isolated areas of existing development presently served by on-site
disposal systems. The CSP indicates that, as a general policy, the City will implement one of the
following solutions when it determines there are pollution or sewage disposal problems in any of
the 15 areas.
(1) regulate future building to what can be satisfactorily handled by private, on-site disposal
systems;
L
— 3 —
• (2) strict enforcement of municipal ordinances pertaining to land development and sewage disposal
on present as well as future building;
(3) condemnation or redevelopment of problem properties where feasible;
(4) installation of central sewers.
The Council's and Commission's Alternative Waste Management Study will make recommendations next
year for handling existing sewage disposal problems in rural areas. This study may indicate other
alternatives available to Orono. -
Seven (7) of these unsewered areas are within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and
are adjacent to the Orono interceptor. The interceptor route was moved to this location so that
these developments could be readily sewered. The seven developments are lettered B, C, D, E, F, G,
and H on map 04 in Orono's CSP and are shown on Attachment B. The City and Council staff have agreed
that four of the areas should be severed within three years and that the other three areas will be
studied for potential sewer service. After considerable negotiation, the City has agreed to make
the following commitments in the CSP:
1. The City will design and construct a local collection system for areas C -D and G -H within three
years after the Orono interceptor is completed. Individual houses will be required to hook up
within two years thereafter, in accordance with MWCC rules and regulations.
2. The City will monitor water quality and conduct studies on the economic and environmental impact
of constructing local collection systems in areas B, E, and F. The findings and supporting data
from these studies, together with recommendations, will be included in Orono's final CSP, which
will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Each of these developments is located in the rural service area. Sewering them and assessing SAC
charges requires an exception to the general Council policy of permitting connections and levying
SAC only within the MUSA. Council staff believes that the public interest in improved lake water
quality is best served by sewering these lakeshore developments and warrants an exception to the
Council policy. The Council should therefore direct the MWCC to include areas B through H in the
Metropolitan Sewer Service Region at the time these individual areas are to receive sewer service
/• under the terms of Orono's approved CSP.
( B. On -Site Disposal
Orono proposes to control on-site sewage disposal in the unsewered areas of the City. The City has
regulations requiring permits to install on-site systems and has stated its intention to draft an
ordinance regulating the design, construction, maintenance, and monitoring of systems in conformance
with WPC -40 when it is promulgated or with its (the City's) own more stringent requirements. With
the CSP as presented; such an ordinance will be the heart of the wastewater planning for the City.
-rhe City has told staff that if will employ at`•least one full-time employee
wil will be responsible for administering the City regulations from initial site evaluation through
certification of completed construction to monitoring and maintenance; the City plans to finance
this through permit fees. In short, Orono is pursuing a regulatory system that the Council has re-
commended to other communities, and the City should be commended. As noted above, the implementation
of such strict on-site system controls is an essential part of wastewatar planning; it is especially
important in Orono where the buildable areas in the rural area are generally on heavy clay soils
in which on-site systems have a high incidence of failure due to clogging or poor absorption.
V. Conclusion
The Orono CSP is here reviewed as an interim plan. It highlights critical Development Framework and waste
management issues between the City and the Council. Based upon the redesign of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor,
a redefining of the MUSA that is consistent with Framework and City policies is needed. Staff concludes that
the City's proposal not to expand the MUSA in Orono before 1990 is consistent with the Framework analysis of
urban land demand. However, permanent low density development in Orono is not necessarily consistent with
Council policies. The City is advised to study this question in its comprehensive plan to be submitted pur-
suant to the Land Planning Act.
The City's waste management proposals for the sewer service area are in accordance with Council waste manage-
ment policies. Proposals for the rural service area are incomplete. The on-site sewage disposal regulatory
system is still being written; permanent sewer solutions to scattered developments next to Long Lake still
must be negotiated between the cities, and the CSP needs to be amended to include the City's commitment to
�• sewer and study scattered developments on Smith Bay and Browns Bay (areas B through H).
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area within Orono should be amended as shown on Attachment C. Orono's system
statement should be changed to advise the City of this recommended amendment to Development Framework.
- 4 -
f Before submitting its comprehensive plan for review pursuant to the Land Planning Act, Orono should re-
evaluate its rural development policy by documenting:
A. Potential pollution to Lake Minnetonka from alternate development densities and techniques;
b. Potential impact of I-394 and post -1990 development pressures on Orono's rural area.
3. Orono's CSP should indicate specifically how the development served by the Long Lake local collection
system will be served on a permanent basis.
4. Orono's CSP should be amended to provide for the following actions by the City:
collection system for areas C -D
nd G -H
th
ee
a, afteri
ithe Oronoeinttnerceptornisrcompleted. Individual houses and businesses awill bewrequired ryears
and to hook
up within two years thereafter, in accordance with MWCC rules and regulations.
b. The City will monitor water quality and conduct studies oonndthe eccoonohe fic and environmentalnd i data
are
-as constructing local collection systems in B, E,
from these studies, together with recommendations, will be included in Orono's final CSP prepared
pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
When the Waste Control Commission revises the Metropolitan Sewer Service Region (MSSR) to be the same
as the MUSA, the individual lakeshore developments approved for sewer service shall be included in the
MSSR for purposes of the Commission's cost allocation system, even though they are not in the MUSA.
The Council's Waste Management Policy Plan should be amended accordingly.
5. The City is commended for the direction it is taking in the regulation of on-site disposal systems and
should submit its revised regulations to the Council for review.
6. The City should adopt MWCC Rules and Regulations as part of its CSP-
( •
/khf
C7
- _ - Attachment A
Uiban Service Area I
LINWOOD
:.._Fully Developed Area "" "T""
t
I
lull's OAR GJIOY[ ----�
Planned Urbanization 1975 �" ---
Additions 1976-1980 w
t
ANOKA CO. COLUMBUS I
IIIIIIIII Additions 1981-1990 ►•DDTLa "'""" I I NEW fearaA
cDREfT LAKE I
®'
Freestanding Growth Centers � ►- :'�-';�..'°�
LAR[f ran
Rural Service Area «�S'" --cN.r :coon OanC: cuTL.r
x �- •[LAINg 7 IMAY
Commercial Agriculture -;a
R'��- `•
'
Regions N..DT[. -- :,
�•.� ' >•C[alac?or WASHINGTON CO.
^■all RGr[• _=xS`, ...[.. .�-T i _ -
&.[fur CORCORAN f•tV - YDRTI{" ,Y I: STILLWATER
General Rural Use OROOfd(YfA[_K: R� ('t �Z• +F T.yl(1C VNRC 11R
F -12N
=y •• '+�'-�•� IKIDLLT 3 i' -:t• �"rM? [[
GRANT
Regions D[..oR.. s- : 5B'�•--. �- ;:: _
g � HENNER]N C iuoittitit ,r:ar� •rcr. -, R'[,�„ Aa■u s j
-`:•r _3.;,, 3Gc3y: ;:t27U,c•; '�airc [ii.'� - uc"Ta- j:• _..
- _
® Rural Centersofctt
o s'� '� _ Lt, Sca •''�j. T l-'7. +a".
R['..• i i .. ..mss: ._Src f0
"��-'^��• rl DIM1® Tr WTMr�a• `�[ •�' •f r � �y -
•_r '• �-Xri" �:�:;�,:nD[[r[LLLY9' 'S.�c � �� , RATTOwN
• ;,+. :.i� .:•tt �'r�� ...• .., �• ��,,{�',.'.: i �x' �rituic000 , Q•a,� tact —
L.. �:j �: ?racy,; a' v:cAiciY„• •11h ::27r• I[Lr WEST
E-�.:'�. OK - '� ��S is ;'s• T• :c�.j:tit:{t:fir-�ti/i:: �'.•.:�:[:;: T7 � LaRELAND
T .�1�� - - •:Y::::::ti;:�:::;: ��2i rs,M, •,?c•,5;:: W)r;•:'.]i•T'
1 -- •' : Moir ' '.nRR[Towi► i'i7iiiodl .••::;.•.;.� ic;:}':::•;:. ' ;:�rperiii�4;tc;..-...;.•... Z f
ral[A-�..[q■RiR1i � � < _ r7 _ �•wz.'-•:[!•j�X:: itYi iibU
-R
-
fTC
.
t[ O
-
♦ERTD -RL
F
«OY
�v
•
xT
' WN •,WOOD
Irv!
•k
_MW
117
i-�
•r. • �-S'3• xA[K
P.P.ncacat
s
JLH
av
,K.Y� r�+'"` .riidyYs¢ ur,"ryltt.=■cRrai2�'y_
trAMT- - �• !� !n. _ :72z'' .';trucxra:_. _ t;_.'
•, `
-WAGON 'LAKETOMM _ee•-•'1.
�y[D[ML x. �• A: . 7� itOORi?iic?ci ::•`•: •�ii.g c■orc c
�•j�f 1 :^.x .X�?:� �.. Q. r'f '''Y M = RTT ait3. 'CIE
r -:::•CARVER -CD.L__::::% [ ...k -
-�., ...:` .^. :::•:'• max' ,.t?S�k►•'`•'� CO
CH
1 Ij.c . � .i-. - �uRTCR . ,►rYL, srnZ.L�• _�_
I:-• � :�� � ®aCOLOt "- r,•if•,tic � ��: 3[7a.L .� - Rof[r ouR .NININDER G-..
YOU� AME�RNJI, PENTON✓ Zt � �_ :��-� uii
?
_��� 'J�? t�`d, ,r-� _i?ouls•1 =J� oa ti r'- l+'a
'n!' 1• <9-:m'•1•NGS'C?' L 7' �l YERMR iON .-.k
'SAW
Li .+1LxHCO Te'l _1^"•�7� -_ _i; '�. � -•rr.^•. •_.� R►YEM
LAKEVILLE EMnRE� I �'ii•- a[ARS[W[ R I
'g'•'-?'—?a `'x�-`'-•�'4+T. ��• DCREER SnYMO LAR[ I CREDITr[R.ILL[O[
[-�,1•=i `.. c• RIVER ►A t x lyl Y
_ .,i• -_ ..Y:= SCO)T)T•:CD.S-� _ t�'Ih-'•_t qq�'`'�`�_�•=1==--_ _— '
ST:.UwwENCE, +OTXNN. �" •''':1T :i.t� :i�t.. _:.l,Y �_ i 7• �1.� .._s.' -Y.,. - . _...Y: --
�x �• * v=-.` 11-P--, r �< •.u,r' .:.1 •:.r'?•:'t+"r.Y�:t .':.Ctir'=�'• A + '
u[
XX + k �I� � t j �%� L! r � fiJ �. •J= E: Trace ..
:�«A■`rffoR' AI
�Lcl•_ �[;� -• £► '�-'I;C r:+,�H ♦ RQA{'�i� UISTtEROCi r rl LlE
'y.LARELC(7 ■E1LE ►tn"E.� xEIL N►. j, CEDaREY[[y-•'.JI[t •R 's x'�'�•`+-'•�•T4i: .. a,---.`x5j
• '::'•"'"`y^'�"'"=s -`^�•,-"r-.i.'•cr'3} •�-••� '="'l Baal'. .r�':4.. TF.ya' •:�� H"M►TON �1`- OoucLAS:•'vV".�
�=` 4 � � � o-s;•�l ��t .r �a •�..k' RR•' 'Gw� �" rY:-". i tt•:,:.Iii��-. ice".:•.....
' 'r- o- RRANDOC►N _"- U.il{
4 :;t:—���:1�'=_'-- • cr,�,� - •,tea �'.�+`a' -�
�mit• � �_:c�:�`.•--c c _:_ Y.. � 10 L 30 23 REENx `ItWI.TERFORO=
f/tY� MILES f
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN
1 fcRlRc rARR s VICTORIA 17 7ALGOa M[IOMn 21 1111■ uc[ �__ county Boundary
S oaoNo 10 RnanRfaAt[ if rExOOT► 2• ■u[Ntoos AN KA
rax■ETONu R[ur 11 iPRI.G LAR[ ►Aa[ v uvRAL1 27 IIA REAR ofo■o Municipal Boundary
• TDR[. SAT 12 Y. a. .0R. 20 ORE, CLOUD 25 OA TfORi
s EXCELS+•' 12 "+LET.1 :1 "`..�" 30 WILOAK IE
PRNIE –Township Boundary
{ CR[[ar000 1a COLYNRIA N[IaMTS S2 OEL1r000 70 Oa[ rARR "RIG"" -
7 •OOOI.ANR 1S LT. ARMOR? 27 .IRI Or RINa1 71 Ll at
RO 3rORLf
{ r[DICIN[ LANE 1. LAYKR►ALZ 24 MARTOM11M 32 ST. ■Aarf fpr,
Urban Service Area
Attachment B
Lakeshore Developments
B contains 10 on-site systems
C contains 82 on-site systems
D contains 15 on-site systems
E contains 12 on-site systems
F contains 4 on-site systems
G contains 26 on-site systems
H contains 23 on-site systems
est
Urban
Service Area
i:::•..
Fully Developed Area
•NTTO11
Cr•Y
Planned Urbanization, 1975
..
K Masm
Additions 1976-1980
IIIIIIIII
'
�I
- " Regions
Additions 1981-1990
r•Da•7
M[li Nlf
F ndin Growth Centers
BURNS i OAK GIIOVE
urftT •rwrn
re a
C[Ni[SV
Rural Service Area
GD
IIII I
1rINE1y
HASS•Nte
•NTTO11
Cr•Y
1 7/SING RK
2 Dt0M0
a rl[70M 17 FALCONM941,6 MtHMTS 25 SIR LAKE
10 w■1IMULL[ Ia rtMS°T. 26 WHIM MOOD NOK� county Boundary .
/.\R IB 11LTSAu ZB WHIT E a[AR
a 01".97DNR• B[ACII
Commercial Agriculture
>■c[2: rinr[ ■EAR
RE
'
�I
- " Regions
M•NOr[E
r•Da•7
M[li Nlf
t y
7 MOOK•NO
a ■[SIIH[LAGE
I
F-1General Rural Use
""r"n'
= "°"°""
"'I` =[ ,
Regions
HENNEPIN
C i
® Rural CentersIND
{l = -
D•1TT0
r
r[DIrA
lift
• IMLL7wOOD : w.TERTDIMM;:
:,•L' r. � ?ice:'-1�•._ I
IFACIUS
• A•iu ,r__ "d'•�F 'V
_ 1 .•0 Q CN•■ Q�
CJMDEM ^°[�. ';'•CON ••L•RETOMN
CARVE
J.
21CA"' EVEN
rOtMW I COLOGM �CWLCREIC� :•
To ERICA.
MaAG_ a ..•':? ..r•-"rte_*�a�r- •L'+lt:L`ar
SMAR«[[
RtIOE
URE
Attachment C
1
LINWOOD I
EAST ■[TII[L I
I
OKA CO. COLUMBUS I I
r•r UR[ I •[E NEW SCAMDH
FOREST l•RE I
� � I
'W4URP`i1 LARErILLE'
LAKE CREDIT I
RIVERemIL
fi.i°a. tF •S�e��.•.s••."i�;_':�L+:o EU RE RIIy��,,
ur•T-r C -t .Y_.
/t MILES 5 10 15• 20 25
iL•KE$ I
C[Ni[SV
MAY
GD
IIII I
1rINE1y
WASHINGTON CO.
/•
1\`
1 7/SING RK
2 Dt0M0
a rl[70M 17 FALCONM941,6 MtHMTS 25 SIR LAKE
10 w■1IMULL[ Ia rtMS°T. 26 WHIM MOOD NOK� county Boundary .
/.\R IB 11LTSAu ZB WHIT E a[AR
a 01".97DNR• B[ACII
I:.SIRLwA7ER
>■c[2: rinr[ ■EAR
RE
'
�I
[YFr.;
GRANT•:•-?
r•Da•7
M[li Nlf
t y
7 MOOK•NO
a ■[SIIH[LAGE
IM LAUOt"AL9 24 MANTON[M 32 R. ■AtT9 IOIrT
AJ ttt BAYTOWN
wEST
LARELAMD
L•..
A CO. I I I
w
ROf[YOYNT ,J1INING ER
OA r•-
•s4�1_�
YERMTL IOM'2�.�
►IRE_. !.'�• �, ".S•zli:
:lit ! �• IRSK
ST. C ■DIR
r - Am -
r. �-4
"- DENMARK
RAVEMMA
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN
/•
1\`
1 7/SING RK
2 Dt0M0
a rl[70M 17 FALCONM941,6 MtHMTS 25 SIR LAKE
10 w■1IMULL[ Ia rtMS°T. 26 WHIM MOOD NOK� county Boundary .
/.\R IB 11LTSAu ZB WHIT E a[AR
a 01".97DNR• B[ACII
11 SIRING VR[ ORONO Municipal Boundary
12 B. 1. MOST. 20 GREY CLOUD a t•TIOtT
• T'.KA BST
5 E■C6EIOt
17 IIILLT« 21 LAr01•u D OILL[RRK —Township Boundary
22 DELLM000 30 N[ 1.1R HEIGHTS CAMDEN —
M it[[N0000
74 COLUNSI• MEIMHTS
la n. ARTMONT 23 I1Mt SPRINGS al LlKELAND iMOtEI
7 MOOK•NO
a ■[SIIH[LAGE
IM LAUOt"AL9 24 MANTON[M 32 R. ■AtT9 IOIrT
ST. C ■DIR
r - Am -
r. �-4
"- DENMARK
RAVEMMA
METROP0 n
WArrE office Memorandum
conToesROL -
GP� DATE June 16, 1977
TQ; John Bol and, Chairman, Metropolitan Council 3?JDEX
Chief Administrator
FROM: R. J. Dougherty, N 7 1977
�OUN �Ib
Comments on the memorandum to the Physical Development
to �E��� � c?�����°��
sUBJECT• C _
Orono Interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan, date E`�
co of the subject memorandum was submitted to our staff
�n june la, 1977, a Py
-for review ew and corgnent. - should be amended
SA
as is
recommended in the subject memorandum thatueten Uthe oundary sho l as indicated
as shown on Attachment B to the memorandum. jsmall acreage
only the existing area of the City that
of existing s11 ac .. As
world encompass
indicated in the memorandum there are 15 isolate areasMUSA,Ahe von-site disposal
Level opment, that would be located of is i nelo000 feetof theshoreline and will l i e
s�stens. Seven of these areas are w tor. The location for this interceptor
adjacent to the proposed Orono he cons
was established to facilitate the construction of future sewers to these areas.
•� racticable, the MSSR
The !haste Management Policy Plan indicates that as soon as Pof the Urban"Service
perimeter should be made consistent with the outer
olicoie5d f the Metropolitan Council
the existing p
"Area. Once this is accomplished, policy of not
and Waste Control Commission. indicate that no SAC units shall be to building
permits issued.to areas outside of the Sewer utrvic otic
MSSR was
ed
assi7he early
Reserve Capacity to areas located outside
eiteratedeinathespol y
in_the early days of the Waste Control Commission w to deviate from this policy
of the SAC method_ ' It is felt_ that it woul d be wrong
at this point as proposed:
Since this area of Orono is within the sewer service area of our proposed Orono-
Interceptor, this area should be eligible for SAC charges to help retire
Long Lake P
the debt services on this interceptor.
as
Ii was also
indicated in the memorandum that several owithis three yearseafterethef1ec
as areas C, D, G and.H will be provided sewer service
rs -that
reas
interceptor is constructed. The Commission concese areas ttosbeashould
providedse sewer servic
provided sewer'service at an early date. For t the Waste Control Commission Act
and thus be billed by the Commission for sewer use,
indicates that•these areas must be incltided in the MSSR. s to the MUSA boundar
For these reasons,
the Commission objects to the proposed change
and that the MUSA be established consistbnteial descriptio ervice area
for the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor and identifiedy l
RJD:DSB:bdw
cc- A. C. Gnerre, Deputy Chief Administrator, MWCC
Sand Dean •1�x9�o�tan Counc
Olita�
4
IWO
a ¢
211W!N CIT
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-635:
June 24, 1977
Walter Benson, Administrator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mr. Benson:
The Metropolitan Council's Physical Development Committee has deferred for
l • one week its consideration of the Orono Interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
The Committee has instructed the staff to determine precedent for the action
recommended in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan review and to determine the
legal and practical ramifications of providing sewer service outside the Urban
Service Area.
The Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 P.M. on June 30 at the Council's
offices. We will notify you if there should be any change in the meeting time.
Due to the statutory deadline for issuing metropolitan system statements,
Orono's statement will have to be transmitted before the_ issues in the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan review are resolved. An amendment to the system
statement will be issued if necessary after the Comprehensive Sewer Plan has
been acted upon.
- Sincerely,
ohn Rutford
Referral Coordinator
JR:tv
File No. 3940
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising.
Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County O Washington Count}
f1,�TROPOL &
An
WAfTE
conTROC
commiffion
t •
September 8, 1977
Mr. Walter Benson, City Admn.
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, MWCC Project No. 71-13
Dear Mr. Benson:
We are herewith transmitting two (2) copies of Addendum No. 2
to the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Orono -Long Lake
Interceptor.
This addendum shows design flows which have been adjusted to
conform with the reduced urbanization projected by the Orono
Comprehensive Plan. The design capacities of both MWCC Lift
Stations have been reduced to conform with the revised flow
projections.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
ABern4aawrd-w-J. rrington
Director Engineering
BJH:WPM:bdw
Enclosure
350 METROJOUARE BLDG.
7TH & ROBERT frREET/
JAInT PAUL Mn 55101
612 222.8423
n
ADDENDUM No. 2
To
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Metropolitan Waste Control•Commission
August, 1977•
Prepared By
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
12805 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
(•
SEWAGE FLOW
Since the original Addendum to the Preliminary Engineering
Report for the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor was written in April
of 1976, the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan has been completed.
This plan has affected the design flows for the Metropolitan
Interceptor facilities.
Exhibit A is a revision of Table 10 from the Preliminary
Report Addendum. Flows from Orono have been revised to reflect
less urbanization and sewering as planned. by Orono and shown in
their comprehensive sewer plan. The table breaks the flows down
by pumping stations to which the flows are contributed.
The total average flows for 1995 from the revised table
are as follows:
Station Average Daily Flow cfs
Orono Metro 1.65
Long Lake Metro 1.42
Orono Municipal '09
For the Metropolitan pumping
stations, the design
flows
are
as follows:
Average Daily Flow
Peak Factor
Peak
Flow
Orono' 1.65 cfs 1.07 mgd
3.3
2450
gpm
Long Lake* 1.42 cf s .92 mgd
3.4
2200
gpm
-1-
0
ris
0
CA
m
C <
m
CL
o
n rWo
_
►v o
a
w PI
w n�
0
00
00
bEl
0
r,
0
o
0 o
m r 0w�
oo W
o
0 r
O
00 m
G
F 7r
p
g cp
cn r
•
t-4 to
rt rl
n
w o
Al
m �
w
n w
O
r
�
0
ris
0
CA
m
C <
m
CL
a
r
rr
m
n
w
rt
m
m
a
Cl) Hb�
a1 t-4
d lTJ
F-�
n o
O H
:3 n W
rt M m H
F4 C
G to
rr m
FA- a
00
a
rj
m
w
0,
o
n rWo
wm0"
.
w
rt
�
m r 0w�
oo W
o
eo
r wm
t-4 to
cn
Al
m �
n w
U)
m
n
7d <
m ►�
N
ti -m
IW
V
1n0OOO
a%Ot)
:1
m
w. w
w
r a
n
n
C')
� w
r
G a m
IC)
C) �
A
m m w
r000ON
OO W
r n
w w
r r
V
VLn
r *d
ISD
ON
00001,
000
W
n
r
r�
03 m
co
ow
o
w
rt
00000
0000
a
a H
w
n o
In o.
0%
K rr
ILn
%D
O r
r r
m w
o+
rOoO%0
0%0w
w r
m
N
O
O OOO
OOr
mC
w r N 0
O r W
w m
V
\O
�DOtoLnW
H C7 00
p
o
Q0m
la
0
r In O W VO
O N W
\�
%O
In
cn O
O O
0
A
Cl
O O V O V
O O O
N FL
fA
n
ht
fA
W
O
O O O O O
O O r
r
HO
V
O
VONNr
Orin
O R
\p
�D
O Ln N OD V
N W O
N 11)
r
a
e
00
a
r
rr
m
n
w
rt
m
m
a
Cl) Hb�
a1 t-4
d lTJ
F-�
n o
O H
:3 n W
rt M m H
F4 C
G to
rr m
FA- a
00
a
rj
m
w
0,
•
The flows represent a population equivalent in 1995 of
approximately 9,300 for Orono. This includes schools, commercial,
industrial and.residential use. The ultimate population of Orono
with the present zoning code is 13,870. Ito changes in flows
other than Orono's have been made.
Based on the pipe to be installed, there cannot be a large
increase in pumping capacity from the Orono or Long Lake
facilities.
PUMPING STATIONS
Station curves were prepared for the Orono and Long Lake
• pumping stations based on 16" lines from each station and a 20"
forcemain after the lines come together (Exhibits B and C).
Because the Orono station curve with a 16" forcemain rapidly
increases in bead loss with increasing pumping capability and the
Orono pumps would operate almost at shutoff of the Long Lake station
it was. determined that the Orono forcemain should be 18". Exhibit
D is a station curve using 18" forcemain from Orono to the 20"
combined line. This will provide the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission with a much more satisfactory operation for both the
Orono and Long Lake stations.
Exhibit E is a head loss curve for the 20 inch forcemain from
the confluence of the Orono and Long Lake branches to the Wayzata
pumping station.
-3-
In order to determine the pumping station conditions for the
Orono Station it is necessary to add the head losses shown in
Exhibit E to the 18" forcemain line from Orono (Exhibit D) to get
the system curve when Orono alone is operating (Orono 18" FM +
20" FM curve of Exhibit D). To determine the pumping condition
when both stations operate the head loss at 4600 gpm in the 20"
line must be added to the Orono head loss in the 18" line at 2400
gallons per minute.
Similar determinations are made for Long Lake (Exhibit C).
The pu��.p design conditions for the stations are then based
on 2200 gpm from the Long Lake Station and 2400 gpm from the
• Orono station. The head loss through the 20" line is 44 feet
at 4600 gpm. The total dynamic head for each station for pump
design is then:
Orono Long Lake
Flow
2400 gpm
2200 gpm
Static Head
36'
54'
Branch Loss
30'
18'
20" F.M. Loss
44'
44'
Total Dynamic Head
110'
116'
As can be seen on the curves, the pumps selected fit the
design condition very closely. With either station operating_
by itself with one pump running, approximately 2800 gpm will be
pumped. If both pumps operate at either station approximately
-4-
•
3400 gpm will be pumped.
(•
Since one pump is provided as standby,
it is not expected to operate two pumps at a time except for
testing and eventually when the stations approach design flows.
MM
0
NZ.
- - McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS M SITE PLANNERS
September 15, 1977
Dick Benson
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Subject: Orono - Long,Lake Interceptor
Gentlemen:
LZ-) L ! �
.i
Scr i4u
��-AGF �0;= ►i :`-:'_� _�
The decision that an 18" force main is required for the Orono
line was based on hydraulic problems in operating two pumping
stations that discharge into the same line. There is no greater
capacity for Orono designed into the 18" nipe.
When detailed design of the pumping stations was done, it
became apparent that the Orono station operating with a 16" forcemain
could cause the Long Lake station to lose the capability of u_umping
its design flow.
The 18" forcemain allows a selection of pumps which are
essentially the same for both stations. This means operating conditions
will be such that the overall system will act like a single pumping
station with two pumps and 100% standby.
The hydraulics of a system which includes two pumping stations
with long force mains discharging to a single force main is very complex.
These operating problems were not analyzed in the preliminary design
phase of this project.
An added benefit of the 18" forcemair- is that, instead of
125 or 150 horsepower motors that would be required for each of the
Orono pumps with the 16 line, 100 horsepower motors can be used. This
results in a substantial energy saving. Even with the 18" forcemain
the Orono station will be unable to handle more then the flows projected
in the report and approved by Orono.
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE 1612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET. HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
printed on recycled paper
`-Dick Benson
September 15, 1977
Page Two
•
If you have any questions, we will be pleased to discuss
them with you at your convenience.
KV:ts
CC:. Bill Moeller, MWCC
r
40
Very truly yours,
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
Karen VanAacken, P.E.
tiY2:1 on ictiy _'iD ,737E'
•
October 20, 1977
Telephone 473.7357
post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Mr. Bernard J. Harrington
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, i91CC Project #71-13
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The City of Orono is conducting a review of the Addendum #2 to the
Preliminary Engineering Report for the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor.
During the process of this review, several questions have arisen
which the City would like to have answered.
The Addendum #2 apparently is not consistent with the agreement
reached at a meeting with the P.C.A., Metropolitan Council,
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, and the City of Orono on
March 11, 1977. I am enclosing a copy of our confirming letter to
that meeting showing the City's three concerns with the Addendum #1
to the Preliminary Engineering Report that was dated February, 1977.
The flows as shown in Addendum #2 do not correspond. -to the flows
as agreed to in our meeting of March 11, 1977. I understand that
these flows are being revised downward and we are expecting a revised
Addendum #2 for our review.
The City•is.-unclear as to what the proposed sewer service area will
be for the interceptor as described.in Addendum #2. I am also
enclosing the map of the agreed on sewer service area at our meeting
on March 11, 1977. It was our understanding that this map would be
adopted as the official sewer service area map together with the
reduced flows in Addendum #2 to the engineering report.
Could you please advise us as to the present status of the revised
Addendum #2 and approximately when the City should receive a copy
for its review. The City would also like to know what sewer service
area map will be included with the reviewed Addendum #2.
Mr. Bernard
October 20,
Page 2
J. Harrington
1977
I am enclosing for your reference a copy of the Metropolitan
Council staff review of our interim Comprehensive Sewer Plan
dated June 13, 1977. This review was completed as a result
of the agreements reached at our joint meeting of March 11, 1977.
The City concurs with this review and is waiting for the revised
Addendum #2 of the Preliminary Engineering Report, together with
the final flows and sewer service map before making its final
recommendations to the Metropolitan Council_
I want to thank you for your coorporation in this matter and
hope that if you have any further questions, you will feel free
to contact us at your earliest convenience. .
Y rs tru
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
• Mr. Doug Hall- Pollution Control Agency
Mr. Jack Frost - Metropolitan Council Staff
Mr. Jim Daley - Metropolitan Council Member
Mr. Moe Dorton - Metropolitan Council Staff
;;�Tr��OLITAn
_t.:atTE
'QCITNOL
came, iff ion
350 mETROIOURRE BLDG.
7TH & ROBERTT REEV
/AInT PAUL mn 55101
612 222.8423
November 14, 1977
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
3295 Carman Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, MWCC Project No. 71-13
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
The Commission currently is in the process of revising Addendum No. 2
to the Preliminary Engineering Report, Orono -Long Lake Interceptor.
The revised addendum will show a reduced flow to the Long Lake Lift
Station to conform with the Metropolitan Council's direction to exclude
Maple Plain, the Independence Beach area of Medina and Morris D. Baker
Park Reserve from the designated service area for this facility. We
anticipate the revised addendum will be available for distribution in
approximately one week.
The service area for this facility was defined by the Metropolitan Council
in their August 12, 1976 action, approving the Addendum to the Preliminary
Engineering Report. This facility will have a design life of 20 years.
Therefore, the facility service area contains that land area which could
develop, or portions of which may require sewer service between 1990 and
2000.
The Commission recognizes the local government's responsibility to define
an interim sewer service area, applicable until 1990, in a comprehensive
sewer plan -prepared in accordance with the Waste Management Policy Plan.
This interim sewer service would not necessarily correspond to the
facility design service area due to the difference in the time periods.
The revised Addendum will be transmitted to you for your
as it is completed. 'If you have any further questions,
Mr. William Moeller, Staff Engineer, at this office.
Very truly yours,
a U •ter
B. J Harrington
Director of Engineering
BJH:WPM:hw
cc: Richard J. Dougherty, MWCC
Lyle Swanson, McCombs -Knutson
review as soon
please contact
-M_TRCPQLITrJI
•
350 METRO /OUARE BLDG.
7TH 6 ROBERT/TREET/
/AIf1T PAUL mn 55101
612 222.8423
December 7, 1977
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
3295 Carman Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, MWCC Project No. 71-13
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
We are herewith transmitting one copy of Addendum No. 3 to -the
Preliminary Engineering Report for the subject project for your
information. This Addendum shows revised flows tributary to the
proposed Long Lake Lift Station. In accordance with direction
from the Metropolitan Council in their action approving the
Preliminary Engineering Report dated August 12, 1976, the projected
flows from Maple Plain, Morris T. Baker Park Reserve and Independence
Beach area in Medina and proposed Vo -Tech School have been deleted.
The design year has been revised to 2000 to conform with standard
design life of 20 years.
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please call.
Very truly yours,
T
Bernard Harringt
Director f Engineering
BJH:WPM:bdw
Enclosure
L�
ADDENDUM NO. 3
TO
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
1]
November, 1977
Prepared By
McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc.
12805 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
•
• As requested, the flows shown in Addendum No. 2 to the
Preliminary Engineering Report for the Orono -Long Lake
Interceptor are further revised in this Addendum. The flows
from the City of Maple Plain and the Vo -Tech area, Independence
Beach area, and Baker Park in the City of Medina have been
deleted from the contributing areas of the Long Lake pumping
station..
The design year is revised to the year 2000 since
regulatory agency requirements are that a minimum twenty
year design period be used. Delays in the completion of the
project require that the design year be extended. The year
2000 is chosen because the system cannot be constructed and
operational before 1979.
A small increase in Long Lake flows is projected due to
further development and increased population in Long Lake in
the years 1995 to 2000. The increases are in keeping with
the population projections shown in the first Addendum to
the Report.
Exhibit B shows the projected average flows for .the
Orono and Long Lake pumping stations for the year 2000 from
the contributing areas. The total average flows are as
• follows:
Station Average Daily Flow (cfs)
Orono Metro 1.65
Long Lake Metro 1.00
Orono Municipal .09
For the Metropolitan Pumping Stations, the design flows
are as follows:
Average Daily Flow
Orono 1.65 cfs 1.07 mgd
Long Lake 1.00 cfs .65 mgd
Peak Factor Peak Flow
3.3 2450 gpm
3.5 1600 gpm
LJ
EXHIBIT B
Revision of Table 10 of Addendum to
Orono -Long Lake Preliminary Report
Contributing Areas and Flows for
Alternates A, B, C, and D
Average Year 2000 Flows (cfs)
Area
Served By
City that
Area is in
Residential
Comm/Ind
School
Total
Orono
Orono
1.37
.13
0
1.50
Metro
Mtka. Beach
.11
.02
0
.13
Pumping
Long Lake
.02
0
0
.02
Station
Long Lake
Orono
.03
.07
.07
.17
Metro
Medina
Pumping*
(Morningside)
.07
0
0
.07
Station
Long Lake
.42
.34
0
.76
Orono
Municipal
Orono
.09
0
0
.09
Stations*
*Orono Municipal stations are future
small pumping
stations -
which will
pump directly
into interceptor force main.
- Q 20/J 0
etT �r ST�i oN
t a N 16-&- k e
(;fit_ 17'Arro.v
0; f 6f
L;�7-5rod I 'VA -
?o � C.
Cis
F Q
101
tom t4r
�I'e
�-
�1cRy�Iv��iD�
,oz - ,0
a _ o
o ,
07 °s
�COe�-S- .loshgb ,o�e�5-•�L�S� Z'�yCfS— ��7rt�rD
b0ntC)
December 13, 1977
Telephone 473-7357
CITY of ORON10
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
lir. Bernard J. Harrington
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert'Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re:- Orono -Long Lake Interceptor, 1111CC Project No. 71-13
Dear Mr. Harrington:
Thank you for your letter of December 7, 1977 transmitting a copy
• of Addendum #3 to the Preliminary Engineering Report for the subject
project for our review. We also are in receipt of the revised
engineering specifications and drawings which are being reviewed by
the City at this time.
It would appear from preliminary review of the Addendum #3 that the
flows are now consistent with the agreement reached during our
meeting of lurch 11, 1977, with the PCA, Metropolitan Council, and
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
Before our review of the proposed interceptor.can be completed, we
must address the apparent inconsistency with the sewer service area
proposed by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for this
interceptor within the City of Orono. The proposed sewer service area
as shown -for Alternate A in the Addendum to the Preliminary Engineerinc_
Report is in conflict with the City of Orono's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, and Comprehensive Sewer Plan_ Because of this apparent conflict,
we have been unable fo.respond to the Systems Statement as prepared by
the Metropolitan Council. We have requested that the public hearing
process be kept open for the Systems Statement until such time as the
Orono -Long -Lake* interceptor has been finalized and complete -agreement
has been reached on its design and the sewer service area that it will
serve.
(•
,r
Mr. Bernard J. Harrington
- December 13, 1977
Page 2
•
Bernie, I have talked to you several times on the telephone on this
matter; the City feels strongly that it is imparative that we
address this matter of the sever service area soon, and for that
reason, I, again, request that the sewer service area be changed in
accordance with the agreement that was reached at our meeting of
March 11, 1977. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not
project any flows to the Orono -Long Lake interceptor other than those
projected in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan from sewer service areas
one through eight to the year 2000. The City has instituted policies
and ordinances to insure that any development occurring in the City
of Orono through the year 2000, outside of the sewer service areas one
through eight, will be served by on-site septic systems and not require
municipal sewage collection systems. It is, therefore, imparative
that the sewer service map for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor be
consistent with City planning.
The City would be pleased to meet with you at any convenient time
to discuss this matter. Thank you for your cooperation in this
matter. 1
YIU3* tI:a1J,
•
Brad Van Ne
Orono Havor
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
Mr. John Boland, Chairman Metropolitan Council
Mit'.- James Daley,- Metropolitan Council Member
Mir. Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Staff
Mir. Moe Dorton, Metropolitan Council Staff'
Mir. Bob Hazanec, Metropolitan Council Staff
Mir. Doug Hall, Pollution Control Agency
C:
D
January 4, 1978 JAN }ytb
VILLAGE 05 ORONO
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
P. 0. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
Thank you for your letter of December 13, 1977 regarding comments on
the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor (MWCC Project No. 71-13).
It is our understanding that you now concur with the provisions of
Addendum No. 3 to the Preliminary Engineering Report for the subject
project as stated in your letter. The Commission is proceding to obtain
the necessary approvals and permits for the subject project based on
the technical aspects provided in Addendum No. 3 to the Preliminary
Engineering Report.
Your letter also indicates a concern regarding an apparent inconsistency
between the sewer service area proposed for the interceptor and that
area shown in the preliminary Orono Comprehensive Land Use and Sewer
Plan. The Commission acknowledges that this difference in sewer service
areas results from the development of two time stages of projected sewer -
needs. The sewer service area proposed for the interceptor is established
consistent with the year 2000 needs and the area approved by the Metro-
politan Council on August 12, 1976.
It is through the process of comprehensive sewer planning that staged
interim sewer service areas should be expressed. Therefore, the City
should complete the preparation of a Comprehensive Land Use and Sewer
Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act and the Waste Management Policy Plan. The comprehensive sewer plan
should designate the areas where sewer service will be provided and
indicate the, time*schedule for providing service where metropolitan
facilities are available.
If you have any questions in this regard, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
4
Bernard J. Hpigton
Director ofing
BJH:RAO:bdw
350mETROfOURREBUX. cc: R. J. Dougherty, MWCC
7TH SROBERT lTREEU Metropolitan Council
lAInT PAUL 61/155101
612 222.8423
'{ n
•
Telephone 473-7357
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
;bF►'F
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
January 10, 1978
Mr. Bernard J. Harrington
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The City of Orono is in receipt of your letter of January 4, 1978
regarding the Orono -Long Lake interceptor project. After reviewing
your letter, it is apparent that we should restate some of the
facts as they relate to the City's position on the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor in the following areas:
1. The City does not concur with the provisions of the
Engineering Report in as much as the sewer service
area is incorrectly shown for the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor. The sewer service area map contained in
the Engineering Report still shows Maple Plain,
Independence Beach area in Medina, Morris T. Baker Park
Reserve, and the Vo -Tech School site as part of the
Orono -Long Lake interceptor designated service area.
These four areas were specifically excluded from the
sewer service area by action of the Metropolitan Council
in August of 1976.
2. In October of 1976, the City did complete its Comprehensive
Sewer Plan and presented it to the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission for your review and approval. Fourteen
months have now elapsed and vet the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission has not made a final determination on
our Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
3. We have had many meetings with the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission staff together with the Metropolitan
Council staff in regard to requested modifications to our
plan. These changes to the Comprehensive Plan were
culminated in an agreement reached in March of 1977 which
resulted in our amended plan dated April of 1977. Nine
months have elapsed since this amended plan has been
mr. Bernard J. Iiarrington
• January 10, 1978
Page 2
presented to the Iletropolitan Waste Control Commission
for your approval and yet no action has been taken.
4. The original Comprehensive Sewer Plan prepared by Orono
in October of 1976 projected the City's sewer needs
through the year 2000. The Iletropolitan Waste Control
Commission staff objected to any reference being made in
our Comprehensive Sewer Plan beyond the year 1990 and
we were requested by the Metropolitan Council staff to
so amend our plan as to remove any references beyond the
year 1990. The Orono -Long Lake interceptor is presently
designed to provide capacity as projected by the City
through the year 2000 for only that part of the City lying
in sewer service areas 1 through 8. The balance of the
City, which you are including in your sewer service area
map, is not included in a projected sewer area until at
least after the year 2000.
The inclusion of rural Orono into the sewer service area of the Orono -
Long Lake interceptor by the Waste Control Commission is in serious
(• conflict with the City's established land use planning for that area.
The results of this conflict mean that these lands will be included
in the urban service area by the. Metropolitan Council rather than
the rural service area as requested by the City's comprehensive
planning. The City views this as a major obstacle preventing the
statutory right of the City to plan its land use patterns within
the structure of its comprehensive land use planning.
4p
The City has requested several times in the past -four months to have
a meeting with you to resolve this issue. The City is willing to
negotiate this matter in order to alleviate any problems that the
Waste Control Commission may have with•reserve.capacity, originally
programmed for Orono, or any other concerns that the Waste Control
Commission may have. We feel that it is important that these
negotiations be culminated at an early time so there will be no
additional delays in the construction of the Orono -Long Lake intercept(
Until the sewer service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor has
been finally determined and acceptable to the City, we are unable to
respond to the System Statement prepared by the Metropolitan Council
dated June 23, 1977. Because of this inconsistency of the sewer servi
area, the public hearing process allowing the City to object to the
System Statement has been kept open until this issue has been
resolved. This is yet another reason why this inconsistency must
be resolved at an early date.
fir, Bernard J. Harrington
January f6, 1978
Page 3
As you know, the Orono -Long Lake interceptor was originally planned
in 1971 and the sewer service area was established at that time.
Since that time, the population projections for the City of Orono
have drastically been reduced requiring changes in the City's
comprehensive land use planning, a complete redesign of the inter-
ceptor itself, including rerouting of the interceptor to be consistent
with the City's planning. These changes that have occurred since
1971 require that the original sewer service area for this interceptor
also be changed so that it is consistent with the design of the
interceptor and the City's comprehensive planning.
The City would be pleased to meet with you at any convenient time
you desire to discuss this inconsistency and negotiate a satisfactory
alternative. The City has employed the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik and Associates to review the design of the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor. At the conclusion of their report, we will respond
with our comments to the information contained in the Engineering
Report for this project.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
c0 Yours truly,
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
BVN/as
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
Mr. John Boland, Chairman Metropolitan Council
Mr. James Daley, Metropolitan Council Member
Mr. Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Staff
Mr. Moe Dorton, Metropolitan Council Staff
Mr. Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council Staff
Mr. Doug Hall, Pollution Control Agency
r:
•
•
January 10, 1978
Telephone 4737357
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Air. John Boland, Chairman
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Revised Orono Systems Statement
Dear Mr. Boland:
We are in receipt of your letter of December 28, 1977 indicating
the revised forecasts made by the Metropolitan Council to the
year 1990. These forecasts on Page 2 indicate a total 1990 sewer
flow from the City of Orono not to exceed .58 million gallons per
day and the total number of person trips at approximately 44,000
per day.
To facilitate our evaluation of these revised forecasts, could you
please provide us a breakdown of the formula used to arrive at
these two figures? This information is -necessary for us to compare
these revised forecasts with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
the City.
As you know, the City has not yet received approval of our Comprehensive
Sewer Plan originally submitted in October of 1976 and revised after
negotiations with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission staff in April of 1977. Until our Comprehensive
Sewer Plan has been approved and the sewer service area of the Orono -
Long Lake interceptor is adjusted to be consistent with our
Comprehensive Sewer Plan, it is impossible for the City to respond
to the accuracy of the Systems Statement approved by the Metropolitan
Council on June 23, 1977_ The City requested an extension to the
60 day appeal period as provided in the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act. The City is presently at a standstill in the process of
restating our Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 1974 until such
time as these issues are resolved. We would be pleased to meet
with you or your staff at any convenient time to discuss these
inconsistencies in our planning process.
• Mr. John Boland
• January 10, 197£3 .
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly,
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
BVN/as
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
Por. Bob 14azanec, Metropolitan Council
Mr. Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council
•
t
•
January 16, 1978
Telephone 473"7357
CYNdYof ORONO
post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Representative Robert L. Searles
575 North Ferndale Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Subject: Metropolitan Council
Dear Bob:
In an attempt to keep you up to date on our dealings with the
Metropolitan Council and the Waste Control Commission, I am
enclosing a copy of a memo setting down the history of our
dealings on the Orono -Long Lake interceptor, the Orono Compre-
hensive Sewer Plan, and the Systems Statement from the Metropolitan
Council'.
The issue at hand is whether or not the City can successfully
negotiate with the Metropolitan Council to define where the
2s U S A line shall pass through its own area. We have attempted
in good faith for many months and just cannot seem to reach an
agreement by negotiation.
I think the most distressing thing to me is that on March 11, 1977,
we did reach an agreement that was satisfactory to the. City and
that after that date, the proposed Systems Statement and the
review of our. Comprehensive Sewer Plan were amended in accordance
with this agreement. On June 16, from an objection from Mr.. Doughert.
of the Waste Control Commission, all of this was changed, including
the staff member that we had been working with for the past nine
months. ' Since that time, we just have not gotten .any cooperation
or any information as to what is going on and why. Our Systems
Statement was summarily issued on June 23, not in accordance with
our negotiations, the review of our Comprehensive Sewer Plan was
modified in September to a position that the City could never
agree to, and even the design of the' -Orono -Long Lake, interceptor
shows a designated sewer service area that prevents the M.U.S.A. line
from being adjusted to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Planning.
Representative Robert L. Searles
January 16, 1978
Page 2
•
I hope that the Metropolitan Council will bring this issue to a
head soon by taking some action in this matter. This would allow
the City to state its case before them, and if we lose, to take
whatever appropriate action we may find possible.
I still feel that negotiations between the City and the Metropolitan
Council is extremely important and hope that somebody will be able
to resolve this inconsistency without the need for a lengthy and
expensive review procedures at a higher level.
If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel
free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Yo,uVs truly,
d -Van Nest
no Mayor
Enclosure
r�
0
•
(•
R
Telephone 473-7357
CATY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
_ On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
February 6, 1978
Mr. Bernard Harrington
Metropolitan waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Dear Bernie:
As a result of our meeting of last Thursday morning, I am enclosing
a revised drawing showing the City's position of the MUSA line
within Orono_ It was my understanding from our meeting that the
Waste Control Commission would not object to this MUSA line in
conjunction with the proposed Orono -Long Lake interceptor as
presently designed. If this is not -correct, we would like to
know of any of your objections -at the earliest possible date.
During the course of the meeting, it became apparent to us that,
in fact, the Orono -Long Lake interceptor pipe itself is designed
for some additional hydraulic capicity beyond that which the
present pump stations are designed for. The City would like to
know what that capicity is and what area within the City of Orono
it is intended to serve.
The City would request that it receive the above information together
with any objections you might have to our proposed location of
the MUSA line before the Physical Development Committee reviews
the final plans for the Orono -Long Lake interceptor to allow us
an opportunity to express our position and any concerns we might
have.
i
•
M
LJ
Isr. Bernard Barrington
February 6, 1978
Page 2
I was glad to learn that you feel funding will be available for
the interceptor and that construction could commence during this
construction year.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.
Y rs truly,
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
Mr. Doug Hall, Pollution Control Agency
John Boland, Metropolitan Council
Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council
Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council
Otto Bonestroo, City Engineer
Jim Olson, City Engineer
Karl'Burandt; Metropolitan Council
February 6, 1978
Telephone 473735'
CATY of 01RD'AjO
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offie=
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Representative Robert L. Searles
575 North Ferndale Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Dear Bob:
I attended a meeting Thursday morning at the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission with Bernie Harrington to discuss our concerns -
about the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as it relates to the MUSA
line and the City's Comprehensive Land Use Planning. Karl Burandt,
of the Metropolitan Council staff, was also present and informed
us that he was drafting a staff review of the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor to be presented to the Physical Development Committee
in the near future..
During the course of the meeting, it became clear that the intercepto
pipe itself had some additional hydraulic capicity that would allow_
for future expansion of the sewer service area within the City of -
Orono. The pump stations that are presently designed for the
interceptor will only handle the flows projected*by the City from
that part of our City which is presently sewered and which we intend.
to include in the urbran'service area, but the pipe itself could
handle additional flows if larger pumps were installed at a later
date. As you know, on June 13 of 1977, Sandy Dean of the Metropolit&
Council staff recommended to the Physical Development Committee that
the MUSA line within Orono be moved in accordance with our Comprehens.
Planning but that recommendation has been withdrawn because of the
objections of Mr. Dougherty of the Waste Control Commission in that
the MUSA line must be consistent with the Metropolitan sewer service
area.
The City's position has always been that the Orono -Long Lake intercep.
was brought in to Orono for purposes of removing the effluent from
:*the Orono and Long Lake sewer plants and not to provide a catalyst
forcing urbanization of.rural Orono to a level beyond which Lake
Minnetonka could tolerate from the standpoint of higher phosphorus
content of the storm water runoff.
Representative Robert L. Searles
February 6, 1978
Page 2
Before the City can endorse the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as
presently designed, the following question- must be answered by
the ?Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan 17aste Control Commission
in a method that the City can rely on:
Can Orono, in restating its Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
locate the MUSA line in such a way that the unseiaered portion
of the City will be in the rural service area, even though
the proposed Orono -Long Lake interceptor pipe itself, may
have additional hydraulic capicity beyond the pumping stations
presently designed to serve only that portion of Orono which
will lie within the urban service area and which is presently
sewered?
As you know, Bob, the City submitted its Comprehensive Sewer Plan
in October of 1976 and .negotiated'with the Metropolitan Council
until finally reaching an agreement in March of 1977, which resultec
in an acceptable Systems Statement and staff recommendation of the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan in June of 1977. Since that time, the
City has received no assurances from the Metropolitan Council staff
�• that we will be able to locate the MUSA line in accordance with our
Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1974. It seems to us that before
we go to. any expense of restating our Comprehensive Plan in accordar
with the Mandatory Land Planning Act,that our Comprehensive Sewer
Plan should be approved and a meaningful answer to the question
stated above .should be given by the Metropolitan Council. We feel -
strongly that the ground rules should be agreed on before the Orono -
Long Lake interceptor is -constructed so that we don't find out
that tYie.game is over once the interceptor is constructed and that
the fact that the interceptor -is in the ground dictates that all
of rural Orono must be in the urban service area of the Metropolitan
area.
I am enclosing a copy of a revised drawing showing the City's
location of the MUSA line as a result of our meeting of last Thursda
with Bernie Harrington and (Karl B urandt.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Y u s truly
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Otto Bonestroo, City Engineer
Jim Olson, City Engineer
Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council
•
A,
February 16, 1978
Telephone 473-7357
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Mr. John Boland
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Dear John:
The purpose of this letter is to review several issues with you
that need to be resolved prior to the final .approval of the Orono -
Long Lake interceptor -
1. Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Orono submitted its
Comprehensive Sewer Plan dated October 1976, and after
nine months of negotiations with the Metropolitan Council
staff, agreement was finally reached and our redrafted
Comprehensive Sewer Plan dated April 1977, was submitted.
Copies of this Phase .1 of our Comprehensive Sewer Plan
were presented to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,
Metropolitan Council, and the Pollution Control Agency.
'We- have had several meetings concerning the redrafted Plan,
but as yet, there has been -no approval or final determination
on its acceptance. The City feels that it is important that
this Plan.be .approved prior to the final approval of the
Orono -Long Lake interceptor.
2. Location of .the MUSA Line Within Orono. In order to restate
our Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was .approved in 1974,
under the conditions set forth in the Mandatory Land Planning
Act, Orono must have some commitment as to the general accept
ance by the Metropolitan Council of its position of the
I4USA Line within our City. On February 2, 1978, we attended
a meeting at the IIV?CC to discuss the Orono -Long Lake inter-
ceptor. The City agreed to revise the location of the MUSA
Line within Orono to satisfy objections raised by the MWCC
staff, which was done and submitted on February 7, 1978.
•
•
Mr. John
February
Page 2
Boland
16, 1978
As a result of that meeting, we have.requested the Metro-
politan Council staff and the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission staff to give, in writing, any objections
that they would have to the location of this MUSA Line
within Orono. To date, we have not received any reply
to these questions.
3. Revised Systems Statement- In December, you provided us
a copy with a revised Systems Statement showing a reduced
flow and traffic projection for the City; on January 10,
we requested,in writing,an explanation of how these figures
were arrived at. To date, we have received no information
pertaining to this revised Systems Statement. I point out
that our 60 day appeal period is practically up and it is
important that this information be provided to the City
at the earliest possible time.
4. Sewer Service Area of the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor. At
our meeting of two weeks ago with the Waste Control Commissiol
we learned, much to our surprise, that the Orono -Long Lake
interceptor had additional capacities beyond the flows shown
in Addendum 3 to the Engineering Report. The Waste Control
Commission could not tell us what this additional capacity
was, -but that they would give us that information together
with the areas within Orono that it was intended to serve.
To date, we have not received this information and -feel
strongly that we must have this information before final
approval is given to the Orono -Long Lake interceptor design_
We are enclosing copies of our letters requesting the information
referred to.above which we have not received_ The City would like
to have answers to these questions and a copy of the Metr6p.olitan
Council's staff review of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor in
sufficient time that we may review these documents prior to action
by the Physical Development Committee.
Thank you for your
Y s truly,
rad Van st
Orono Mayor
Enclosures
cooperation in this matter.
Ly
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council
Karl Burandt, Metropolitan Council Staff
Jim Mazanec, Metropolitan Council Staff
Bernard Harrington, Metropolitan Waste Control Staff
I.01 r `
t� i on
•
0
March 1, 1978
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
3295 Carman Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 6, 1978 and
our meeting of February 2, 1978.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed interim 1990 MUSA as shown
on your Map 1, "Urban - Rural Service Area" submitted with your letter
of February 6, 1978. Your plan has excluded the Wayzata Country Club
and the Chevy -Chase Development, however, according to our knowledge
these areas are already being provided sanitary sewer service through
the City of Wayzata. With the inclusion of these two areas, the
Commission has no objection to having the interim 1990 MUSA boundary
established as shown on said map. The Commission uses the term interim
1990 MUSA boundary since the exact location of the line will not be
established until after your Comprehensive Plan/Sewer Plan are prepared
in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Please refer
to our letter of March 22, 1977 regarding the information needed to
update your preliminary comprehensive sewer plan to the current require-
ments of a comprehensive plan.
If it is your intention to have this preliminary comprehensive sewer
plan reviewed and approved as an amendment to your original -Comprehensive
Sewer Plan (approved on November 7, 1973), please submit an adopted
revised plan which represents the City's current planning.
You asked the question during our meeting as to what parameters were
used in the design of the lift station and forcemain. The design of
the lift stations and forcemains are based on the following:
Current Desi4n - 20 Year Life
Orono Station (one pump and,one standby pump)
2400 gpm peak or 1.07 mgd average
101 feet of total dynamic head
18" Forcemain velocity = 3 feet per second
20" Forcemain velocity = 4 feet per second
Population Equivalent served by Lift Station
8500 Orono
600 Minnetonka Beach
500 Orono - Local Lift Station
350 METRO /OUARE BLDG.
7TH& ROBERTlTREETf
/RInT PAUL mn 55101
612 222.8423
n
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
• March 1, 1978
Page Two
Long Lake Station (one pump and one standby pump)
1600 gpm peak or .65 mgd average
99 feet of total dynamic head
16" Forcemain velocity = 2.6 feet per second
20" Forcemain velocity = 4 feet per second
Population Equivalent served by Lift Station
950 Orono
400 Medina -Morningside
4250 Long Lake
The design of the pumps include consideration's for a 20 -year life base
on current flows and population projections. We have used engineering
practices and operating experience to size the pumps at 100 horsepower
and to pump against approximately 100 feet of total dynamic head. We
know from experience that pumps in excess of 100 horsepower and heads
greater than 100 feet involve costly operation and maintenance.
The forcemains are directly related to the pump sizing and are designed
to minimize head loss and still provide adequate scouring velocity at
the design flows. The total dynamic head of i::)oroximately 100 feet in
the forcemain system is higher than average. The Commission owns and
operates 59 lift stations in which one-third of the facilities have
heads of 50 feet or less, one-third have heads between 50 and 90 feet
and the remaining third are considered high head lift stations with
heads greater than 90 feet.
In the design of the lift stations, space has been allocated for the
addition of a third pump. If it becomes necessary to install a third
pump in the future to provide a two -pump system with one pump as standby
the capacity of the Orono Station will be increased to 2800 gpm (about
a 17 percent increase) and the Long Lake Station will be increased to
1900 gpm (about a 19 percent increase).
The 16, 18 and 20 -inch forcemain system as proposed for the Orono -Long
Lake Interceptor represent a higher head than normal pumping situation,
but are considered to provide the most cost effective arrangement for
the design needs.
Enclosed is a map delineating the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor Service
Area as defined by the Metropolitan Council in the approval of the
Preliminary Engineering Report.
• Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
March 1, 1978
Page Three
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call.
Very truly yours,
y[-
4er
nard J. arrington
Director Engineering
BJH:CRP:DSB:WPM:bdw
Enclosure
cc: M. K. Dorton, Metropolitan Council
Doug Hall, MPCA
;• R. J. Dougherty, MWCC
March 7, 1978
Telephone 473-7357
�ll7l)You ORONO
Post Office Boa GG•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55333•;`lunicipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
11s. Barbara L. Lukermann
14etrpolitan V aste Control Com— ission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Ms. Lukermann:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1978 providing us information
pertaining to the request of Richard Neslund. The information contained
in your letter will be submitted to the City Council of Orono at its
next meeting for their discussion and action.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out to you that the
Orono Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1974 shows this area, for good
reason, to be in the two acre zone of the rural service area=within
the city -of Orono. There are inadequate roads servicing that general
area and we do not have the necessary fire and police protection
services -to allow for any denser development in this general area.
Moreover, these lands in that general area are environmentally sensitive
with steep slopes and marshes and any sort of dense development would
be adverse to them in the quality of the surface water runoff. It is
also•our understanding that Highway #12 is proposed to be extended
through this general area and it does not make good sense to have a
dense development in this area that would require the disruption of
all of these people because of the extension of a State highway.
This problem with the Neslund property demonstrates vividly the point
the City of Orono has made to the Waste Control Commission many times
in the past concerning the sewer service area of the Orono interceptor.
The sewer service area of the Orono interceptor, as shown on a recent
map provided by Mr. Harrington of your office, is totally inconsistent
with the Orono Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Orono Comprehensive
Sewer Plan in that the sewer area encompasses all of rural Orono, which
is not to receive sewer service for -at least the next twenty years.
r1
U
;,s. Barbara L. Lul:ermann
March 7', 1978
• Page 2
The purpose for the Orono interceptor was originally to move the
effluent from the Orono sewage treatment plant, which was polluting
Lake Minnetonka. The design of the interceptor went far beyond the
original intent and actually, was intended to force urbanization of
all of the City which would have a far greater polluting impact to
Lake Minnetonka than the original purpose for the interceptor in the
first place. The City has been unable to determine what the ultimate
design capacity of the force main is and how much of the City of
Orono it is intended to serve. We have asked these questions many
times and, as yet, we have not received a satisfactory answer, in
fact, it was only this past week that we received a map showing the
sewer service area of the -Orono interceptor as I. presently designed.
The City of Orono has always supported the original intent for the
Orono interceptor but cannot support the present design of the
interceptor if the sewer service area is to include all of rural Orono.
I have taken the liberty to attach to this letter some documentation
concerning the long history of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor and
the many inconsistencies in its design. The City of Orono would like
to cooperate with the Waste Control Commission to reach an agreeable
compromise that would allow the construction of the Orono interceptor
Isat the earliest possible date. We believe that this can be accomplished
and are willing to work toward that end.
I will be out of the City until March 22, but would be very pleased
to meet with you any time after that* at vour convenience. Representative
Robert L. Searles has meet with John Boland recently to discuss this
problem and I think that we could reach an agreeable solution so that
the 0 -ono interceptor could be constructed in a manner that would be
consistent with the City of Orono's comprehensive planning.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly
Brad Van Nest
Orono Mayor
cc: Representative Robert L_ Searles
Otto Bonestroo, City Engineer
Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney
Enclosures
Telephone 473.7357
91 P.-
jc\,,(DhT,A Y
V (Dif Q'-"
Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices
• � � � Hyl
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
1., D �J)
March 7, 1978
Por. Bernard J. Harrington
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Harrington:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 1, 1978.
We have instructed our City Engineer to make the modifications
•to 11j.- 1,"Urban-Rural Service Area" of the Orono Comprehensive
Sewer Plan dated April 1977 to include the Chevy Chase Sub-
division, the Ferndale Green Subdivision, and the Wayzata -Country
Club clubhouse within the urban service area of the City of Orono.
lie are pleased that the Waste Control Commission will concur with this
JIUSA line within the City of Orono as it is consistent with the Orono
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan
which is presently before you for review and approval. As soon as the
map has been amended and adopted by the City Council, we will submit
• it for your review.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the present status of
the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan
la that was 1977or1Theally sudmitted pensive
in
October of 1976 and amended inApril
Sewer Plan for the City of Orono was transmitted to the Waste Control
Commission, the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency in April of 1977. This amended plan was submitted in
response to the comments of your letter of P -larch 22, 1977 and the
agreement reached with the Waste Control Commission staff at our
meeting of March 11, 1977 with the PCA and the Metropolitan Council
staff. This amended Comprehensive Sewer Plan meets the requirements
for cisr Comprehensive Sewer Plan and has been before you for your
revi`w and approval for the past ten months. The Citv of Orono is at
ill in the process of restating its Comprehensive
a complete standst
Plan under the requirements of the Mandatory Land Planning Act until
.. such time as our Comprehensive Sewer Plan is adopted by the Naste
Control Commission and the location of the P1USA line within Orono is
agreed to, the size of the Orono interceptor service area has been
determined, and finally, an amendment to the Orono Systems Statement
by the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Bernard J. Ilarrington
- I4arch 7, 1978
Page 2
•
The Orono Council feels that ten months is a sufficient amount of
time for the Waste Control Commission to review a Comprehensive Plan
that has been submitted for approval, particularly in light of the
fact that the plan originally submitted in October of 1976 and for
the next five-month period, the City negotitated with the Metropolitan
Council staff and the Waste Control Commission staff to reach a final
agreement on this plan in I -larch of 1977; the plan was then amended
in April of 1977, and a favorable review% by the Metropolitan Council
staff was drafted and submitted to the Physicial Development Committee
in June of 1977. It was at this meeting that the Waste Control
Commission objected to changing the 14USA line within Orono, which
resulted in the review being tabled and no action has taken place
since that time. The City respectfully requests that the Waste
Control Commission continue the review process and grant us an approval
within the very near future.
During our meeting of February 2, 1978, it became clear to us that the
Orono interceptor had additional capacity beyond that which was shown
in the Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan and in Addendum #3 of the
Engineering Report. This was confirmed to us with a commitment that
we would be told what _hat capacity was and what area within the City
�. of Orono it was to serve. The information contained in your letter
of March 1,1978, shows the average flows only for the lift stations
•
which do reflect information from our Comprehensive Sewer Plan and
Addendum #3 to the Engineering Report. You have indicated that there -
is approximately an additional -seventeen percent increase in the
capacity of the interceptor in the event a third pump were to be installed
at the lift station.
We have submitted this information to our City Engineer for review and
recommendation but it appears to me that you have not responded to
our basic question of "is there any additional hydraulic capacity designed
into the force main of the Orono interceptor?" If there is additional
capacity beyond the -oresent lift station even with the addition of
a third pump, the City would like to know what that additional capacity
is and how you have arrived at the service area within the City of
Orono that it is to serve. In looking at the sewer service area map
provided with your letter of March 1, it becomes apparent that the
Orono interceptor is designed to serve all of Orono, including that
portion which is considered in the rural service area. Either you
have designed the force main to serve rural Orono or the sewer service
area map is incorrectly drawn including rural Orono, which is not to
be within the sewer service area. The City of Orono must have answers
to these questions before it can support the construction of the Orono
interceptor. The City feels it is entitled to this information and
it has repeatedly asked these questions which have not been adequately
answered.
I7r. Bernard J.
I7arch 7, 1978
Page 3
•
Harrington
The City would like to remind you that the reason that the Orono
interceptor was approved initially was to remove the effluent from
the Orono sewage treatment plant, not to urbanize the entire City. Since
the initial design of the interceptor, it becomes even more important
to clarify the sewer service area because of the decline in the
projected population of Orono and the apparent conflict between the
sewer service area and the IIUSA line within the City of Orono.
The City respectfully requests that the answers to these questions
be submitted at the earliest possible date so that our City Engineer
can review this information prior to the Metropolitan Council's final
approval of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor plans and specifications.
lie would be pleased to meet with -you to discuss'this.matter, if
necessary, at your convenience.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
U
LIV-e-'i
1
Brad Van
• Orono Mayor
cc: Representative Robert L. Searles
John Boland, Metropolitan Council
Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council
Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council Staff
Karl Burandt, Metropolitan Council Staff_
Douglas Hall, Pollution Control Agency
Otto Bonestroo, City Engineer
Jim Olson, City Engineer
Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney
4
D
Y. RJL A 91 P41 0, Q-`-2
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
c March 8, 1978
Mayor Brad Van Nest
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Van Nest:
This letter will pull together the information you have requested of several
people here at the Council. It addresses the questions you raised in your letters
to me, John Boland, and Karl Burandt dated February 6, 16 and 17.
In regard first to the revised Metropolitan Urban Service Area map you included
with your letters, Council staff estimates that the proposal would add about 600
acres of land in Orono to the existing area of service. The area on the map is
adequate in size and location for planned urban development to 1990, insofar as
staff is concerned.
This opinion rests on several major assumptions, however. It assumes that the map
establishes the proposed 1990 area of service and that local services will be
staged within it by five-year increments. It also asusmes that other aspects
of the City's comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to the Metropolitan band Plan-
ning Act will be consistent with Council policy and plans. Three of the more
important plan aspects are policies and implementation measures for maintaining
the rural character of the rural service area, an ordinance governing on-site
sewers, and plan compatibility with adjacent local governments. Another assump-
tion is that other municipalities in the same sector as Orono will propose com-
prehensive plans so that the cumulative amount of urban and rural service areas
will be in scale with forecast growth for the sector as a whole. Preliminary
indications from other municipalities in the sector, plus consideration of
Orono's proposed 1990 MUSA, indicate this probably will not be a problem. It
is impossible to say with absolute certainty at this time whether all of these
assumptions are correct because adequate information from comprehensive plans
will not be available until local governments have fulfilled the terms of the
Land Planning Act.
In regard to sewers, the 1990 sewer flow estimate recently sent to Orono was
calculated as follows. A.sewered population of 6900 people in 1990 generating
83 gallons per person per day was assumed. This results in .57 million gallons
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County
D" Mayor Brad Van Nest Uj 98909
March 8 1978
13 1?78
Page Two r,!�
Y11_LAG19 03 ORORQ
•per day of domestic sewer flow. Orono's industrial flow in 1976 of .01 million
gallons per day was added to the estimated 1990..domestic flow for the.total .58
million gallons per day.
This is an optimistic estimate of the maximum flow from Orono that could be
accommodated by the metropolitan sewer system in 1990. If the City produces less
flow, then it will have unused reserve capacity available. If the City exceeds the
1990 flow, then there may be a problem accommodating the excess flow in the
metro sewer system, and the Blue Lake Treatment Plant may need upgrading sooner
than planned. In effect, the 1990 sewer flow estimate represents the maximum
flow that the metro sewer system will be able to accommodate from Orono in 1990.
A lesser flow is acceptable from a sewer planning standpoint, but a greater flow
could be a problem which should be discussed with Council and Waste Control
Commission staff as early in your planning process as possible.
The plans and specifications for the Orono portions of the Orono -Long Lake In-
terceptor are discussed in a letter dated March 1, from Bernie Harrington of the
Waste Control Commission. It answers your questions about design capacities and
service areas.-
As
reas.
As you know, one of the purposes of the Land Planning Act is to establish local
staged growth plans to 1990 consistent with regional needs, plans, and policies.
Yet for economic and engineering reasons and to meet federal and state funding
criteria, many metro facilities are designed for useful lives beyond 1990. Although
the immediate task is to stage comprehensive plans to 1990, at some point it will
t •be necessary to plan for local growth beyond then. Planning.beyond 1990 is not
required by the Land Planning Act, but it is permissable.
The Council and Waste Control Commission assume sewer flows after 1990 will come
from beyond Orono's 1990 sewer area but within the area shown on the map accom-
panying Mr. Harrington's letter. Areas of service and rates of usage depend on
local determinations such as land use densities, local service timing and staging,
and other similar factors established through local comprehensive -plans. The
factors which determine sewer flows and service areas are established by each
city as discretionary development controls. Thus, the metro sewer system is
planned using assumptions about ultimate design flows and service areas, but its
usage can be modified, staged, and controlled by local plans. Interceptor
designs do not necessarily relate to treatment plant capacity, nor do they
necessarily take into account other matters which affect actual available capacity.
Metro systems statement sewer capacities should serve as the basic building block
for local determinations, not interceptor design capacities. The Land Planning
Act requires you to state the City's policies on matters contained in Orono's
system statement so that the Council can evaluate the ability of the metro
systems to provide the desired service and the effects of Orono's plans on others.
Turning to travel forecasts, the attached figure shows the generalized process
Council staff followed. The process uses a very complicated computer model which
I cannot even attempt to explain here. When you need to get into the details of
the model, please contact Steve Alderson (291-6337) of the transportation staff
with your questions.
What the model does in essence is convert demographic forecast data into a number
of trips generated, and the trips are then assigned to the Council's planned 1990
L JU. F.-:
Mayor Brad Van Nest " -tib ga
L5
March 8, 1978 )
Page Three
• transit and highway network. This enables the Council and--0de-:K5__to' -'sqate .Oi&
use of each system element and to anticipate future bottlenecks and needed improve-
ments. To do this, the Council has divided the Metropolitan Area into traffic
assignment zones (TAZ). Orono has five as shown on the enclosed map.
There are five especially important demographic variables used in the process:
total households, total population, total employment, retail employment, and service,
financial, insurance, and real estate employment. More than any other variables
they dictate the gross magnitude of trips which are produced or attracted by a
TAZ. Changes in any of these five variables will measurably affect trip making
characteristics of a zone, whereas large variations in other demographic variables
will have only a marginal effect. Thus, when the Council revised its forecasts
of total households, population, and employment last December, three of the
five critical variables were changed and resulted in the revised traffic fore-
casts for your system statement.
The attached copies of computer printouts show the demographic variables used to
make the traffic estimate sent in Orono's original system statement. They are
broken down by TAZ, and a decoding sheet is also included. Except for revised
figures for total households, population, and employment the variables are the
same for the updated 1990 traffic estimate of 44,000 person trips per day which
you recently received. The 44,000 figure assumes the forecasts of total households,
population, and employment enclosed with the December 28, 1977 letter, i.e., the
most current forecasts. At the present time Council transportation staff are re-
evaluating all the original assumptions in light of the new forecasts to determine
. if other variables should also be changed. If after reviewing this information
you feel the City can provide more accurate data, please contact Steve immediately
so it can be considered.
In conclusion, this information should allow us to clear the books on several
items currently pending between the City and the Metropolitan Council. First,
-I recommend that the Council review the Waste Control Commission's plans and speci-
fications for the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor as -soon as possible. We would like
to present a report to the Physical Development Committee on March 23. We
would mail it to you and the Committee on March 17. Second, I recommend the City
amend the interim comprehensive sewer plan previously submitted for Waste Control
Commission review to include the revised 1990 urban service area map which you
just sent us. Shortly thereafter the interim CSP review can be completed. I
emphasize interim CSP because the immediate objective is to plan service for the
three to five year period following construction of the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor,
leaving finalization of plans for the period to 1990 for the comprehensive•plau
Orono is preparing pursuant to the Land Planning Act. Third, if the City wants to
request a hearing on its Metropolitan system statement, you should file a request
according to the Planning Act by March 23. Since the Planning Act provides no
mechanism for extending the local system statement review period, it is imperative
for the City to make its decision by then. I believe that all the important infor-
mation on sewer flows, traffic generation, and growth forecasts has already been
sent to Orono and included in the system statement. If, however, there is a
need to amend metro system plans as a result of the above Council reviews, appro-
priate system plan amendments will be proposed.
Mayor Brad Van Nest
March 8, 1978
r Page Four
•Though lengthy, this letter should resolve a lot of questions and get us moving
again. I appreciate the time you and the other Orono officials have spent on
these matters. If these past efforts are any indication, I am confident we can
continue to work together in the best interests of both Orono and the region.
RCM:jg
C
(40
'D
t AR, 13 1978
VILLAGE OE ORONO
Very truly yours,
/,—V I
Robert C. Mazanec
Senior Planner
March 13, 1978
Telephone 473-7357
(0 T D. (G. L�T 0
(GErY (DT la
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
fir. Robert C. Mazanec
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Mazanec:
In response to your letter dated P -larch 8, 1978, I would like to make
the following comments:
Your letter dated March 8, 1978 was received today, March 13, 1978,
which discusses items_ referred to in a letter to Mr. B. J. Harrington:
dated March 7, 1978, which at this time, have not been clarified.
Bob, after our last discussion several weeks ago, we had agreed that
you would be forwarding to the City of Orono a reply to our many concerns
in sufficient time to allow our staff time to review your report to us
which includes information that has been documented over a period of
many years.. Now, you are asking us to reply within seven working days
to meet a deadline of March 23, 1978 to review a report to the Physical
Development Committee and also to meet a deadline of Pdarch 23, 1978 to -
request a hearing on our Metropolitan Systems Statement. The decisions
made today will set the pattern for future planning in the City of Orono
and certainly requires a reasonable time frame to allow for complete
staff review of your March 8 letter.
I believe our concerns as outlined in our letter to fir. Harrington, 'and
copied to you, are valid ones that should receive your attention. I
am enclosing another copy of that letter for your review.
I would appreciate your sincere consideration of deferring any action on
your recommendations to the Physical Development Committee on March 23,
and again as outlined previously to Mr. John Boland, we would want to
request an extension to the March 23 hearing deadline until we have
resolved our many concerns as previously outlined to you.
Very truly yours,
Walter efisbn
City inistrator
Enc sures
r
C�
350 METRO JOURRE BLDG.
7TH 6 ROBERT 1TREEU
IRU1T PRUL mn 55101
612 222.8423
/S
March 153, 1978
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
P. 0. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 1, 1978 and a
follow-up to previous correspondence regarding comprehensive sewer
planning and the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor (MWCC Project No. 71-13).
We will look forward to receipt of modifications to Map 1, "Urban -
Rural Service Area", which includes the areas identified in your
March 1, 1978 letter.- Upon receipt of this information and other
information herewith requested, we will forward a copy to the
Metropolitan Council and request their review and comments on the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) dated April, 1977. This CSP (Phase I:
1977-1990) will be considered an interim plan until such time as a
CSP is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act.
A review was made of your CSP and comments were made on the plan at
the June 17, 1977 meeting of the Metropolitan Council's Physical
Development Committee. Our comment at that meeting was that the CSP
showed a difference in the Urban Service Area and the Sewer Service
Area. This difference was not resolved until we received your letter
of February 6, 1978 stating that the City recognized that these areas
were synonomous. It is our understanding that the modified Map 1,
previously referred to in this letter, will confirm the agreement of
the two areas.
The CSP also indicates that the City will study and recommend solutions
to the sewage disposal problems in areas not having sewer service avail-
able. The CSP indicates that alternative solutions will be considered
with the installation of sanitary sewers having the lowest priority. It
is the intent of the Commission to recognize alternative waste manage-
ment systems in the rural areas as we are in the process of initiating
the "Alternative Waste Management Study" under our 201 Facility Planning.
This Study together with the Metropolitan Council's 208 Program will
recommend policies and procedures for on-site systems to be included
in an amendment to the Waste Management Policy Plan. A review and comments
on rural area sewage systems will be made following the development of
the above procedures. These policy and management procedures should be
a part of the CSP as prepared under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Mr. Brad Van Nest, Mayor
City of Orono
March 15, 1978
Page Two
The CSP indicates that the City will initiate whatever action is
necessary to provide adequate intercommunity sewer service in
the future. The intercommunity sewer service agreement between
your City and the City of Long Lake for the Hackberry Hills states
that some action will be required by Orono upon the completion of
the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor. We assume that the City of Orono
will follow through on any intercommunity sewer needs that are
necessary even though the interceptor (as a forcemain) will have a
different location than the previously proposed gravity sewer. Since
this action may require the installation of a local sewer within a
five year period, the CSP should be revised to include a description
and tentative time schedule for this improvement.
In response to your statements regarding the design of the Orono -
Long Lake Interceptor, we again state that the design parameters
(population served and time period) are as confirmed in our letter of
March 1, 1978. These design parameters are in accordance with the
existing and projected sewerage needs of the area. It is the
responsibility -of the Commission to provide facilities in accordance
with local and metropolitan planning and determine a prudent design
life for the facility which is acceptable to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission
believes that it has carried out its responsibility for the proper
design of this metropolitan interceptor.
Very truly yours,
Bernard a ringto
Directo f Engineering
BJH:RAO:bdw
cc: Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
City of Long Lake
R. J. Dougherty, MWCC
0",
March 20, 1978
Telephone 473-7357
Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
fir. John Boland
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Boland:
I would like to review with you our concerns to date with the
City of Orono's Systems Statement as it relates to Orono's
Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Orono -Long Lake.Interceptor.
Attachments to this letter include Mr. Bernard Harrington's
letters -df March 1, 1978 and March 15, 1978, and the City of
.Orono's response to Mr Harrington dated March 7, 1978,
fir. Robert C. Mazanec's letter to us dated March 8, 1978, and
our response to fir. Mazanec dated March 13, 1978.
_fir. Mazanec called me the morning.of March 14 after receiving
my letter and asked me what the City's concerns -were, at this
point in time. I reviewed with him our.problems in communicating,
our objections to a revised Systems Statement, that was drafted
.by Metropolitan staff without .our knowledge and.also our concerns
of not receiving -any comments to our Comprehensive Sewer Plan,
which has been before the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
for ten months. Our main concern at this time, is that we have
been trying our best through many meetings and mailings to Metro-
politan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission staff
as documented, to obtain as much information and data as possible
allowing us to make reasonable decisions in our planning process
and to abide by the Planning Act.
As discussed with Mr_ Mazanec, his letter dated March 81 1978,
received March 13, 1978, allows us to respond in seven working days
to meet a March 23, 1978 deadline to respond to the Physical
Development Committee and to request a hearing on the Systems
Statement. This deadline does not allow our staff time to review
Mr. Mazanec's letter or Mr. Harrington's letter dated March 15,
1978 received today, March 20, 1978. We were assured several months
Mr. John Boland
March 20, 1978
• Page 2
ago of our concerns with the approaching deadline that we would
not be put in a position of not being able to respond within a
reasonable time because of the 60 day appeal period termination_
Mr. Mazanec agreed to extend the deadline to meet with the Physical
Development Committee until Harch 30, 1978 and advised me to
request from you an extension of the March 23 deadline to request
a public hearing. We feel that the years it has taken to gather
comprehensive data, which.is just now being forwarded to us,
certainly justifies an extension to the public hearing deadline.
Please advise me as soon as possible of your decision in this
matter.
Yours truly,
Walte R. Benson
Cit Administrator
Enclosures
t
4
i •
March 23, 1978
t Telephone 473-7357
C�m�af ORIONTO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
fir. Bernard J. Harrington
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -
Dear Mr. Harrington:
This letter is in response to your letter of March 15, 19781
concerning the Orono -Long Lake interceptor as presently proposed
for the City of Orono.
The comments made -in the last paragraph of your letter of March 15
indicate that the Waste Control Commission has provided answers
to -questions raised by the City of Orono pertaining to the sewer
service area of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor. The Waste Control
Commission has not safisfactorily answered the question that the
City of Orono has raised concerning the future capacity of the
forcemain for that part of the sewer service area which lies out-
side of the proposed MUSA line and in the rural service area. The
information contained in your letter of March 1, 1978 does give us
the capacity of the lift stations which are designed to handle the
projected flow from that portion of Orono which lies within the
urban service area. We have compared the flows and population
equivalents for the lift stations contained in your letter of March 1.
with Addendum #3 of the Engineering Report and the Orono Comprehensive
Sewer Plan and they seem to be consistent. In other words, the
projected flows of'the lift station would seem to provide a reasonable
capacity for a twenty-year period for that part of the City of Orono
which lies within.the urban service area.
The question which the City has raised, which the Waste Control
Commission has not provided an answer, is what is the future capacity
and the population equivalents of the forcemain for that portion
of the sewer service area which lies within the rural service area
of the City of Orono. In other words, the City wishes to know what
level of urbanization has been projected by the Waste Control
Commission in the sizing of the forcemain to serve that portion of
the sewer service area that lies in the rural service area of our
City.
Mr. Bernard J. Harrington
March 23, 1978
• Page 2
During our meeting of February 2, 1978, you indicated to us that,
in fact, there was additional hydraulic capacity in the forcemain
to serve some future growth in the rural service area of our City
and the question that we must have answered before we can support
the present design of the Orono interceptor, is what that future
capacity is and how you arrived at it.
Either the forcemain was designed for additional flows from the
rural service area of our City or the sewer service area of the
interceptor is incorrectly shown on the map provided with your
letter of March 1, 1978.
The City would like to have the answer to this question in sufficient
time that it can be reviewed by our staff and Council before the
Metropolitan Council makes a final determination of the design and
specifications of the Orono -Long Lake interceptor.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Y rs trul ,
(� 0
Brad Van est
Orono Mayor
cc: Representative'Robert L. Searles
John Boland, Metropolitan Council
Jim Daley, Metropolitan Council -
Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council Staff
Douglas Hall, Pollution Control Agency
Barbara Lukermann, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Otto Bonestroo, City Engineer
Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney
IP
o.;tah
0
Ty! 0 t
March 311, 1978
The Honorable William B. Van Nest
Mayor, City of Orono
Orono, Minnesota
Dear Mayor Van Nest:
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh Street and Robert Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6453
Office of the Chairman
After our meeting of March 28, 1978, it was agreed that
our attorneys would meet and discuss legal issues regarding
the Long Lake Interceptor question and City of Orono's system
statement. That meeting was held on March 30, 1978, and the
purpose of this letter is to foi=mally state the agreement
reached at that time.
The following has been reported to me as conclusions
reached in that meeting and are agreeable to me:
• 1. Orono will submit an interim comprehensive sewer plan
identifying the sewer service area set forth on the map dated
March 17, 1978, used at the meeting, as an interim local sewer
service area covering the time period between now and 1980 or
whenever the Land Planning Act comprehensive plan is prepared
by Orono and approved by the Metropolitan Council, which ever
occurs first.
2. The MUSA line and the Metropolitan Sewer Service Region
line will at this time remain unchanged. After the Land Planning
Act comprehensive plan has been prepared by Orono and reviewed by
its adjacent governmental units and affected school districts,
the MUSA and MSSR may, as appropriate, be changed via the system
plan amendment process established by Minn. Stat. Sections 473.145
and 473.146.and the Waste Management Policy Plan.
3. Orono's ultimate sewer capacity in the Long Lake inter-
ceptor is 1.09 million gallons per day. Orono may plan for the
use of that capacity as it sees fit and may allocate the capacity
as it feels appropriate within the confines of the service area
designated in the interceptor design plans and specifications.
Following the meeting, staff has reviewed all drafts of the
Orono system statement. Accompanying this letter is a revision
of the Orono system statement which reflects the above agreed
• upon sewer capacity, and, I hope, reflects the agreement reached
at the meeting of March 30. As you may recall, the Metropolitan
Mayor of Orono
Page Two
• March 31, 1978
Council's population projections were amended in December... The
new population forecasts, which are lower, are not included in
the system statement, because the system plans have not been
formally amended yet. However, we recommend you use these new
figures in your local plans, because metropolitan plans will be
based on them in the future. These new forecasts are as follows:
Households Population Employment
1990 2800 9000 1000
2000 3400 11000 2500
New forecasts result in a 1990 sewer flow estimate of .58 mgd
(sewered population 6,900); .01 mgd industrial flow and a
traffic estimate of 44,000 person trips per day in 1990. These
figures are further explained in Bob Mazanec's letter of March
8, 1978.
By this letter Orono's request for an extension of time to
April 20, 1978, within which to appeal the system statement and
• for review of plans and specifications of the proposed Orono -
Long Lake interceptor is granted.
If you have any problems with the content of this letter,
please contact either John Hoeft or Robert Mazanec of the
Council staff.
Sincerely yours,
�V4-
henoland
Chairman
JB/cy
Encl.
cc: City Administrator Walter R. Benson
David Graven, Esq.
Richard Dougherty
Bruce Malkerson, Esq.
C7
11
t
s.
2335 ?[!. `%ush oA{Vuva.X 36
• St. poa, /ye a 55H3
pAone: 636-4600
April 10, 1978
Mr. Robert Mazanec
Senior Planner
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Our File No. 139
Dear Mr. Mazanec:
emq 9,94-ze�
Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.
Robert W. Rosene. P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E.
Robert D. Frigaard, P.E.
Richard E. Turner, P.E.
James C. Olson, P.E.
Lawrence F. Feldsien, P.E.
Glenn R. Cook, P.E.
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes, P.E.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E.
Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.
Donald C. Burgardt, P.E.
Kenneth R. Meister, P.E.
Charles A. Erickson
Leo M. Pawelsky
Harlan M. Olson
The letter dated March 31, 1978, from John Boland to Mayor VanNest
fairly represents the items discussed and the understandings reached
between the Mayor of Orono, the MWCC Staff and the Council Staff at
the meetings of March 27 and March 30 at the Metropolitan Council
offices.
The City of Orono's support of the Orono -Long Lake facility, prior to
actually relocating the MUSA line and the MSSR line is a policy ques-
tion to be resolved by the Orono City Council. The Orono Council will
be considering this matter in the very near future.
s
Our firm has been directed by the City of Orono to prepare an interim
CSP, to the year 1980, as discussed at the March 30 meeting. We under-
stand that your office will be forwarding a set of guidelines to use
in the preparation of the interim CSP. In order to assist in the
preparation of the interim CSP and to aid the City Council in the eval-
uation of the policy decision to support the Orono -Long Lake Interceptor,
we have been requested to seek clarification of several specific items,
as follows:
1) What is the correct amount of the ultimate capacity of the
Orono -Long Lake Interceptor?
The revised System Statement, Page 19, lists the
ultimate average daily flow at 1.71 MGD. Addendum No. 3, -
revised Table 10 of the Preliminary Engineering Report in-
dicates 1.77 MGD.
2) What is the correct amount of the Ultimate design flow
from Orono?
• The revised System Statement, Page 19, lists the
amount at 1.09 MGD. Addendum No. 3, revised Table 10,
indicates 1.14 MGD.
Page 1.
Mr. Robert Mazanec April 10, 1978
Senior Planner
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: Orono -Long Lake Interceptor
Our File No. 139
3) What the correct criteria used to determine the design capa-
city per capita for the Orono -Long Lake Facility?
The Orono Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Preliminary -
Engineering Report, Addendum No. 1, Page 11, dated April,
1976, indicated 115 gallons per capita per day.
Mr. Boland's letter of March 31, 1978, which referred
to Mr. Mazanec's letter dated March 8, 1978, indicates 83
gallons per capita per day.
The City of Orono intends to use 115 gpcpd and 3.2 people per unit when
preparing the interim CSP. A map showing the urban service area and
the rural service area which Orono also intends to use for the interim
CSP is attached.
• Your timely response to the above questions will be appreciated.
Very tru ly,,y-aurs ,
BONESTR0O,.ROSENE, ANDf'�4IK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
"/
James C. Olson /
.'City Engineer /
[ JCP :kf
Encl.
cc: Mayor Brad Van Nest
Mr. Walter Benson
Mr. John Heoft, Atty.
Mr. Bruce Malkerson, Atty-
a
Page 2.