Recently, the Planning Commission held a Special Meeting with representatives from the Metropolitan Council (Patrick Boylan, Community Development; Kyle Colvin, Environmental Services; Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, District 16)and invited the Board to attend in a joint meeting. This meeting was reported on this site earlier.
This posting is to inform you of the communication that came from the Met Council to the Eureka Town Board as a follow-up clarification of what was discussed at that meeting. Key policies and planning requirements are referenced. Emphases are mine.
"Generally,
extending wastewater service to the Township is
problematic as Eureka and other portions of Dakota County are not scheduled to receive regional sewer service until
after the year 2040 and sanitary sewer extension is not consistent with the Township's existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update."
Yours Truly would add that this scheduled year of receiving sewer service has been "bumped out" in ten-year increments before.
"The
Council's Thrive MSP 2040 policies state that:
*
Forecasted population growth to 2040 suggests minimal need to expand the wastewater system's geographic footprint beyond that negotiated between the Council and local governements and reflected in 2030 local comprehensive plans (p. 21) and
*The Council discourages urban levels of development in rural areas to reduce development pressure on agricultural lands and to avoid the premature demand for expansion of metropolitan systems and other urban public services. (p.110)"
The document goes on to say:
"If the airport is served through a direct connection to the interceptor, the Council will expect land to be set aside for future development as described below. If additional property in the Township is to receive service, the comprehensive plan must reflect that, which will require a comprehensive plan amendment for both land use and Tier II components including long-term sewer service area." (I point out that this is not doable in the current updating, as budgeted and timed, but would have to come after it. The Planning Commission received no such directive from the Board.)
"Furthermore, to serve [even just] AirLake Airport, Council policy requires that the Township identify at least 1,000 acres developable acres (not including the airport area) for future development in a long term service area. This development must include land set aside to accommodate the region's growth (residential land) and not just for industrial development."
As stated at the meeting, this would entail Eureka's changing
from an agricultural to an urban township, which would include a number of requirements such as affordable housing from which the Township is currently exempt. The Council would expect a
density of three residences per acre of land in those developable acres, it was said.
Again from the communication:
"The Township needs to state basic information about flow, rate, existing service to the site, connection location, etc.:
Extent of proposed services detailing:
*Existing service to site (administration building)
*Future service area and uses
*Employment changes
*Commercial development
*Industrial development
*Hangars
Water
*Source(s)
*Quantity
Wastewater characteristics around:
*Domestic uses
*Industrial uses
*Daily volume figures (initial and long term)
Other wastewater details include:
1. Wastewater characteristics (Ph, solids, industrial type wastes, etc.)
2. Anticipated connection locations
3. Proposed direct interceptor connections
4. Timing or schedule of connections"
NOW, for the finishing touch....
"As was noted by Council Member Wulff when she and Council staff attended the March 29, 2016, Eureka Planning Commission meeting, there is the risk that other Council Members
may not support an expansion of MUSA given the adopted
Thrive policy considerations -
the outcome is not guaranteed. Providing the above information does not guarantee extension of regional sanitary sewer as the Council may find that opening additional land for development is
not needed at this time in the region."
Providing the "above information" would come at
significant cost to the Township- the dollar figure involved is something the Board is currently exploring. For example,
engineering studies would be necessary and the whole process, including those studies, would take a fair amount of time. Remember, no matter how much money Eureka may have to spend to provide this report to the Council, the answer may still be "no." In fact, many have expressed the opinion that it WILL be "no."
The citizens at the Annual Meeting asked the Board to [at least] look into the possibility of providing sewer and water to the airport, to try to still keep it in the Township. Given the above additional information, what are your thoughts now?
The other thing about annexation of the airport is not simply the loss of the 452
airport acres to Lakeville, but the "domino" effect that could be predicted among those properties that would then be bordering Lakeville. If those properties were annexed, there then could be yet a new ring of properties to go to Lakeville. Or, like the old shampoo commercial, "And so on, and so on, and so on..."
PERHAPS THE
REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE THE WAYS THAT EUREKA COULD BEST DEFEND ITS BORDERS? There are examples of other communities that have used different approaches. I think an in-depth look at these strategies is warranted.
