CCR2003068AMENDED
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
RESOLUTION #068-2003
'~ RESOLUTION OF CONCERN - MUSKEGO ENERGY CENTER
WHEREAS, On October 9, 2001 Muskego Energy Center LLC (MEC) submitted
conceptual plans for review by the Plan Commission, for a natural gas fired "peaking"
power plant, and
WHEREAS, Said plans included insufficient detail for the Plan Commission to render
an opinion on the project, and the Plan Commission deferred action pending receipt of
additional information, and
WHEREAS, Since October 18, 2001 MEC has not supplied the Plan Commission with
the information requested, and
WHEREAS, MEC had proceeded with application processes through the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) without receipt of local input from the governing
bodies of the City of Muskego, and
WHEREAS, Said PSC applications have resulted in the PSC's preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and
. WHEREAS, On page 5 of the DEIS, first paragraph, the Draft EIS states, "Throughout
the spring and summer of 2002, the company worked with the city's planning
department in the development of a detailed BSOP." We believe this a false and
misleadinQ statement. EI Paso has only submitted "conceptual" information for our
consideration, and the last review of BSOP requirements with EI Paso representatives
occurred December 4, 2001. Since that time, EI Paso has not worked with the City in
preparing BSOP information, and .
WHEREAS, On page 33 of the DEIS, the preliminary layout for the northern site
appears sketchy and therefore misleading. It does not illustrate the presence of the
75,000 gallon water storage facility, as referenced throughout the Draft EIS. This is a
critical operational component, and its absence does not permit the evaluation of its
abilities to serve as a source of fire protection, and
WHEREAS, On page 34 of the DEIS, the preliminary layout for the southern site
appears sketchy and misleading. It does not illustrate the presence of the 75,000
gallon water storage facility, as referenced throughout the Draft EIS. This is a critical
operational component, and its absence does not permit the evaluation of its abilities to
serve as a source of fire protection. Further, this site does not appear to be of
adequate size to accommodate the storage facility, and
.
WHEREAS, The City of Muskego has an approved Conservation Plan which identifies
the northern power plant site as a "View Shed" and candidate for maintaining green
space and the southern power plant site is located at a gateway creating a first
impression of Muskego; and
.~
.
..
Resolution #068-2003 Page 2
WHEREAS, On page 61 of the DEIS, the first paragraph under Compatibility With Local
Land Use Plans, states in part, "Waukesha County's 'build-out stage' development
plan, adopted in 1996, recommends rural density residential, other agricultural, and
open lands' for the currently undeveloped lands in this area. This statement is false
and misleadinq. The referenced County Plan is not the statutory Plan for Muskeqo.
Wisconsin Statute 59.69(3)(b) states, "The development plan shall include the Master
Plan of any city or village, that was adopted under s. 62.23(2) or (3) and the official
map, if any, of such city or village, that was adopted under s. 62.23(6) in the county,
without change." The Waukesha County Development Plan does not reflect the
Muskeqo 2010 Comprehensive Plan nor the Muskeqo 2010 Street System Plan without
change. As such, this section of the Draft EIS is incorrect. This same concern applies
to the southern site review found on page 103, and
WHEREAS, On page 63 of the DEIS, the first paragraph under Water or Wastewater
Utility, states "The power plant would not be connected to city of Muskego water or
sewer services." This statement is misleadinq. The City of Muskeqo Public Utilities
Committee has not vet made the determination. This same concern applies to the
southern site review found on page 96, and
WHEREAS, On page 63 of the DEIS, the last sentence under Fire Protection and
Emergency Services states, "...the power plant would be expected to have only a small
impact on the Muskego Volunteer Fire Company." This has not been determined to be
correct. EI Paso representatives have not promptly answered requests for information.
This assessment should consider manpower, training, and equipment needs, and
WHEREAS, On page 67 of the DEIS, the first sentence under Applicable Local
Ordinances states in part, "The city of Muskego noise ordinance sets limits for business
park districts, which would be applied to the proposed power plant." This is a false and
misleadinq statement. This site is not a business park and does not fall under the
business park ordinance. The noise emissions at the power plant site will be subject to
the BSOP. EI Paso has not yet submitted BSOP information, which makes the above
statement on noise limits meaningless. This concern also applies to the southern site
review on page 108, and
WHEREAS, On page 68 of the DEIS, Table 3-9, pertaining to noise is stated to appear
in the city of Muskego Noise Ordinance. This is a false and misleadinq statement.
There is no such ordinance in effect. This concern also applies to the southern site
review on page 109, and
WHEREAS, On page 73 of the DEIS, table' 3-14, comparing projected noise levels for
the Muskego Energy Center at the northern site compared to the city of Muskego noise
ordinance is meaningless as there is no such ordinance in effect. It is the Building Site
and Operation Plan that will control the allowable noise emissions, and
WHEREAS, On page 79 of the DEIS, the section Property Values states, "Commission
staff are reviewing existing studies of the effects of power plants on property values.
,~
.
.
Resolution #068-2003 Page 3
This review will be summarized in the final EIS. This is very troublesome as it does not
allow for review and comment prior to release of the final EIS. This concern also
applies to the southern site review on page 120.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That based on a lack of information from
Muskego Energy Center and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, the
Common Council hereby states its concern and stands in opposition to the construction
of the Muskego Energy Center by EI Paso Corporation on the Payne & Dolan property
west of Crowbar and north of Janesville Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk-Treasurer shall file this Resolution in her
office as part of the original City records, and shall file a copy of this Resolution with the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin as a part of the official public hearing record,
with copies to Governor James Doyle, State Senator Mary Lazich and State
Representative Scott Gunderson.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2003.
SPONSORED BY:
Ald. Rick Petfalski
Ald. Nancy Salentine
Ald. William Le Doux
Ald. Patrick Patterson
Ald. Eileen Madden
Ald. Eric Schroeder
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #068-2003 which
was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego.
rKM~ Cle Treasurer
.
.
.
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
RESOLUTION #068-2003
RESOLUTION OF CONCERN - MUSKEGO ENERGY CENTER
WHEREAS, On October 9, 2001 Muskego Energy Center LLC (MEC) submitted
conceptual plans for review by the Plan Commission, for a natural gas fired "peaking"
power plant, and
WHEREAS, Said plans included insufficient d!.tail for the Plan Commission to render
an opinion on the project, and the Plan Com, ission deîerred action pending receipt of
additional information, and " " ð
't"'
WH~REAS,. Since October 18, 2001 ME has\n9t~uPPlied the Plan Commission with
the Information requested, and ",5 l'(' '\ t.
WHEREAS, MEC had proceeded with pplicâtiori processes through the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin (PSCZw' hout,;r\\ì,"'ðeiPt of local input from the governing
bodies of the City of Muskego, and \~:J
WHEREAS, Said PSC apPlicat~'o s hav~'~},ulted in the PSC's preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statemen DElf~\~"d
WHEREAS, On page 5 of the' EIS, A~.Jt paragraph, the Draft EIS states, "Throughout
the spring and summer of. 2002, t~e company worked with the city's planning
department in the develop ent öf\a ldetailed BSOP." We believe this a false and
misleadinq statement. EI aso~~"> only submitted "conceptual" information for our
consideration, and the la revi~r' . f BSOP requirements with EI Paso representatives
occurred December 4, qo01. BI de that time, EI Paso has not worked with the City in
preparing BSOP infor ~tion, a~d
WHEREAS, On pa e 33 of th\ ÓEIS, the preliminary layout for the northern site
appears sketchy a therefore misleading. It does not illustrate the presence of the
75,000 gallon wat r storage facility, as referenced throughout the Draft EIS. This is a
critical operationa component, and its absence does not permit the evaluation of its
abilities to serve as a source of fire protection, and
WHEREAS, On page 34 of the DEIS, the preliminary layout for the southern site
appears sketchy and misleading. It does not illustrate the presence of the 75,000
gallon water storage facility, as referenced throughout the Draft EIS. This is a critical
operational component, and its absence does not permit the evaluation of its abilities to
serve as a source of fire protection. Further, this site does not appear to be of
adequate size to accommodate the storage facility, and
WHEREAS, On page 61 of the DEIS, the first paragraph under Compatibility With Local
Land Use Plans, states in part, "Waukesha County's 'build-out stage' development
plan, adopted in 1996, recommends rural density residential, other agricultural, and
open lands' for the currently undeveloped lands in this area. This statement is false
and misleadinq. The referenced Countv Plan is not the statutory Plan for Muskeqo.
.
.
.
Resolution #068-2003 Page 2
Wisconsin Statute 59.69(3)(b) states, "The development plan shall include the Master
Plan of any city or village, that was adopted under s. 62.23(2) or (3) and the official
map, if any, of such city or village, that was adopted under s. 62.23(6) in the county,
without change." The Waukesha County Development Plan does not reflect the
Muskeao 2010 Comprehensive Plan nor the Muskeao 2010 Street System Plan without
change. As such, this section of the Draft EIS is incorrect. This same concern applies
to the southern site review found on page 103, and
WHEREAS, On page 63 of the DEIS, the first paragraph under Water or Wastewater
Utility, states 'The power plant would not be connected to city of Muskego water or
sewer services." This statement is misleadina. The City of Muskeqo Public Utilities
Committee has not yet made the determination. This same concern applies to the
southern site review found on page 96, and
WHEREAS, On page 63 of the DEIS, the last sentence under Fire Protection and
Emergency Services states, "...the power plant would be expected to have only a small
impact on the Muskego Volunteer Fire Company." This has not been determined to be
correct. EI Paso representativès have not promptly answered requests for information.
This assessment should consider manpower, training, and equipment needs, and
WHEREAS, On page 67 of the DEIS, the first sentence under Applicable Local
Ordinances states in part, "The city of Muskego noise ordinance sets limits for business
park districts, which would be applied to the proposed power plant." This is a false and
misleadinq statement. This site is not a business park and does not fall under the
business park ordinance. The noise emissions at the power plant site will be subject to
the BSOP. EI Paso has not yet submitted BSOP information, which makes the above
statement on noise limits meaningless. This concern also applies to the southern site
review on page 108, and
WHEREAS, On page 68 of the DEIS, Table 3-9, pertaining to noise is stated to appear
in the city of Muskego Noise Ordinance. This is a false and misleadinq statement.
There is no such ordinance in effect. This concern also applies to the southern site
review on page 109, and
WHEREAS, On page 73 of the DEIS, table 3-14, comparing projected noise levels for
the Muskego Energy Center at the northern site compared to the city of Muskego noise
ordinance is meaningless as there is no such ordinance in effect. It is the Building Site
and Operation Plan that will control the allowable noise emissions, and
WHEREAS, On page 79 of the DEIS, the section Property Values states, "Commission
staff are reviewing existing studies of the effects of power plants on property values.
This review will be summarized in the final EIS. This is very troublesome as it does not
allow for review and comment prior to release of the final EIS. This concern also
applies to the southern site review on page 120.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That based on a lack of information from
Muskego Energy Center and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, the
.
.
.~
Resolution #068-2003 Page 3
Common Council hereby states its concern and objection to the siting of the gas turbine
"peaking" power plant within the City of Muskego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk-Treasurer shall file this Resolution in her
office as part of the original City records, and shall file a copy of this Resolution with the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin as a part of the official public hearing record,
with copies to Governor James Doyle, State Senator Mary Lazich and State
Representative Scott Gunderson.
DATED THIS DAY OF MARCH, 2003.
SPONSORED BY:
Ald. Rick Petfalski
Ald. Nancy Salentine
Ald. William Le Doux
Ald. Patrick Patterson
Ald. Eileen Madden
Ald. Eric Schroeder
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #068-2003 which
was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego.
Clerk-Treasurer