| Price tag in the millions for Ham Lake sewer |
|
|
| Wednesday, 19 December 2007 | ||
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Staff writer If the city of Ham Lake wants sewer and water, it is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. After seeing the data, the general direction was to keep discussing a town center concept with housing, commercial and industrial development at the intersection of Highway 65 and Crosstown Boulevard, but to do a market study if the whole comprehensive planning task force and ultimately the Ham Lake City Council want to move in this direction. This discussion came up as part of the comprehensive plan update, which the Metropolitan Council must approve before the end of next year. The cost of three sewer and water options range from $30 million on the low-end to $75 million for the most ambitious option. A financing plan would not be finalized until the city council — the task force is serving in an advisory role — determines whether it even wants sewer and water. However, the task force has requested that only users would pay for the new infrastructure so citizens elsewhere in Ham Lake do not have to help build all of this. Justin Femrite, a project engineer with Bolton & Menk, Inc. in Ramsey, presented four options to the task force and other members of the public who attended a Dec. 11 meeting at Ham Lake City Hall. The council was also in attendance, so Mayor Paul Meunier called the meeting to order. Femrite cautioned the cost estimates do not include right of way costs and financial charges such as interest payments and are in 2007 dollars. The four options One option Femrite presented maintains the status quo and continues to only have septic and well systems in Ham Lake. This is the cheapest option because no additional infrastructure would have to be constructed. If the council ultimately decides it wants sewer and water, city staff would have to figure out how to pay for it and coordinate the installation of tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure. The necessary infrastructure for a sewer system includes a wastewater treatment plant, lift stations, trunk sewer lines, lateral service lines and service lines. Infrastructure for water systems include a water tower, wells and well houses, water treatment plant depending on quality of water coming from the wells, trunk water mains, lateral water mains and service lines to each property. The second option presented by Femrite develops 115 acres at the intersection of Highway 65 and Crosstown Boulevard. The upfront infrastructure costs of this option could range from $30 million to $35 million. The third option included 400 acres along and near Highway 65 identified in the 2005 RLK, Inc. engineering study on a sewer and water system conducted for the city. The cost of this option could range from $60 million to $70 million. The fourth option could cost from $66 million to $75 million and would include the same 400 acres, but would be more dense than the third option. “As the developer in the group, I say these numbers don’t scare me at all,” said Marty Harstad. “(Developers) are used to these numbers.” Harstad said the hook-up charges are not much different for septic systems than sewer and water. It’s just that the costs are spread out because sewer and water would allow for more dense development. The cost of a new septic and well system would range from a combined $22,000 to $30,000, Femrite estimated. The residential equivalent connection (REC) fee for the second option could range from $33,000 to $37,000, the third option could be $30,000 to $35,000 and the fourth option could be $22,000 to $25,000. One REC is equivalent to one housing unit, Femrite said. A higher-density commercial development could equal eight REC’s. The debate The sewer task force will bring back its findings to the rest of the comprehensive planning task force for further discussion before making a recommendation to the council. “I feel like we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said Loretta Turner, task force member. “I feel like in listening to the public last time, they felt we didn’t have enough information to make an informed decision. Now we have the information and I need to digest some of this.” Dan Petrik, of Northwest Associated Consultants which is working with the city on its comprehensive plan, said in order to keep the process moving some direction would be necessary. “That’s not to say we need to make a decision (tonight), but some thoughts and direction would be helpful,” he said. The sewer task force did generally support a mixed-use town center concept at Highway 65 and Crosstown Boulevard, but Dennice Gooley made a suggestion that a market study be conducted before they fully commit to sewer and water. “I feel we do need to do something for the businesses because of the failing septic systems and the high water table,” Turner said. “It doesn’t matter how far you live from it. It’s all connected.” Dan Krawiecki said they need to plan ahead. “You have to plan for the future because if land is eaten up, we’ll never achieve this,” he said. Femrite said the community character task force supported a town center. “But was higher density the direction of the whole group?” Kyle Lejonvarn asked. He was concerned about the density of the options. The task force has discussed a town center, but the direction has been to make it different than something found in Blaine, Maple Grove or many other suburban communities by keeping the density down. It appears that a dense development would be necessary to make a project economically feasible though. Femrite said in a phone interview that the second option would be similar to downtown Anoka. The third option would probably include something like a strip mall and a big box store. It would be more dense than the second option, but people would still have to drive from parking lot to parking lot. The fourth option would be the most dense and resemble a downtown area where people could easily walk from store to store once they get to the area. The buildings probably would be spread horizontally rather than vertically though because land prices are cheaper than they would be in the I-494 and I-694 corridor where many buildings in the suburbs go skyward. Bryce Pickart, an assistant general manager of environmental services for the Metropolitan Council, was at the Dec. 11 meeting. Pickart said in order for Ham Lake to hook up to the Met Council’s interceptor line at the East Bethel border (assuming East Bethel decides to add sewer and water), the Metropolitan Council would require 500,000 gallons of sewage per day to be pumped to new development. Sewer and water services could go to older development, but the Met Council would want to make sure that new economic development was there in order to justify its investment of serving additional properties. Pickart said Ham Lake would not have to work with the Met Council directly if it does not meet the 500,000 gallons of water per day requirement. It could help finance an upsizing of East Bethel’s pipes and get a discharge permit from the Met Council. If there were three housing units per acre, a development would need to be 625 acres to generate 500,000 gallons per day of sewage, he said. However, if Ham Lake’s plan shows a greater density, it would not need as much land, Pickart said. The system would be eventually funded by developers. When they build, they would pay a hook-up fee. How the project would be paid upfront has not been determined. It could be paid by the city bonding for the money and planning the payments based on when revenue is estimated to come in. If building slows, the city and its taxpayers would be responsible to pay the bills until the developers come. “If projections are not meeting expectations, the city would have to pick up the difference,” Petrik said. Eric Hagen is at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it |
||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|