Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-08 CCMPF' LE City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North March 4, 2008 7 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston, DeLapp, Johnson, Park, Smith D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City Council will do its business.) E. ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the City Council does its public business.) F. GROUND RULE: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council adopted for doing its public business.) G. APPROVE MINUTES: 1. Consider approval of February 19, 2008 minutes H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to speak to the City Council is treated the same way, meeting attendees wishing to address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for up to three minutes. I. CONSENT AGENDA: Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff and the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be removed at City Council's request. 2. Approve Resolution no. 2008-013 payment of claims. J. REGULAR AGENDA: 3 Conditional job offer to Steven Henjum, Ben Hall and GT Magnuson 4. Request to provide funding for the Lucy Winton Athletic Fields 5. Consider an application from Oakdale Gun Club amending its Conditional Use Permit, 10386 10th Street N.; Resolution No, 2008-014 6. Preliminary Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map 7. Direction on draft letter of response to the MPCA regarding remediation altematives at the Washington County Landfill 8 Authorize a training workshop on "How to Have More Effective Meetings" through a working knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.) • Mayor and Council Members • Administrator L. ADJOURN DR City of Lake Elmo City Council Meeting Minutes February 19, 2008 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Johnston, Council Members DeLapp, Johnson, Park and Smith Also Present: City Administrator Hoyt, Finance Director Bouthilet, and Attorney Amy Schmidt, Planning Director Klatt, Planner Matzek, and City Clerk Lumby. Approval of Agenda: MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved approval of the February 19, 2008 agenda as amended by adding Item 13. Newspaper article on Fury Motors; Item 14. Discuss public meeting format for February 28` . Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ORDER OF BUSINESS: APPROVE MINUTES: Consider approval of January 23, 2008 minutes: The minutes were approved by Council consensus. Consider approval of February 4, 2008 minutes: The minutes were approved by Council consensus. Consider approval of February 12, 2008 minutes: The minutes were approved by Council consensus. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue, asked that the Council expedite drafting the regulations for on and off site signs for seasonal sales and agricultural produce. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to change the wording under Consent Agenda: Items are placed on the consent agenda by city staff and the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Items #4 and #5 were moved to the regular agenda CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve Item #6 on the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 1 FT • Authorized Discover Crossing Letter of Credit Reduction in the financial security in the amount of $91,250 from the current amount of $153,750 to the proposed amount of $62,500 and to extend the security to November 1, 2008. REGULAR AGENDA: Approve Resolution no. 2008-011 payments of claims in the amount of S265,272.47 Council Member Smith asked that the Building Official and Fire Department use the public works facility for washing large vehicles rather than using the River City Co-op. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve Resolution no. 2008-011 payment of claims in the amount of $265,272.47. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Approve renewal of planning contract for Mainline services with MFRA on an as needed basis. Administrator Hoyt asked the City Council to consider approving planning services with Ben Gozola of McCombs Frank Roos (MFR) Associates on an as needed basis at $90 hourly rate. The cost of his work will come out of the consulting planning budget; and will be covered through developer fees when specific planning applications are reviewed and from reduced planning salaries during a portion of the leave of the planner. Council Member DeLapp said that the City needs to be more sensitive to costs. He felt that the in house planning staff was adequate to do the current planning tasks. MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to approve the renewal of the planning contract for planning services with MFRA on an as needed basis. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Mayor Johnston and Council Members Johnson, Smith, Park voted for the motion and Council Member DeLapp voted against the motion. Authorize the Mayor to sin the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims between the City and Kimberly Schaffel Anez MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims between the City and Kimberly Schaffel Anez. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Consider an Interim Use Permit (IUP) application from Common Ground Church to permit the keenine of Horses. Resolution No. 2008-012 Planner Kelli Matzek summarized a request from Common Ground Church, 10240 Stillwater Blvd. N., to allow the keeping of two horses as an interim use in the Public LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 2 Facilities zone.. The Planning Commission after a public hearing recommended approval of the requested Interim Use Permit. The IUP muss comply with conditions and is subject to renewal two years from the date of application. MOTION: Council Member Park moved to approve Resolution No. 08-012, A Resolution allowing the keeping of horses with an Interim Use Permit at 10240 Stillwater Blvd. N. with conditions. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Consider approval of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Park Plan Planner Kelli Matzek summarized the process for the Park Commission's review of the Park Plan. She explained that both the Park Commission and the Planning Commission, following a public hearing, unanimously approved the park plan. Park Planners, Rich Gray and Berry Farrington, from TKDA presented a summary of the Comprehensive Park for the City Council. The planners explained that the Comprehensive Park Plan can be used to review future location, dedication and development of parks in the future as the city grows. The City Council discussed the plan. The City Council asked that the staff review and make the following revisions to the park plan: 1) reference the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve in the plan, 2) remove the ballfields that show up as located on the public works building site, 3) note that ball fields can be located throughout the city rather than all together in the text, 4) change the name of the Lake Elmo Art Center park area to park area that is an addition to Lions Park and 5) review and incorporate materials submitted by Councilmember DeLapp as to park size and inconsistencies in the plan. MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to review Council member DeLapp's comments for accuracy and to have the staff make the recommended changes to the Comprehensive Park Plan and to return to the city council for approval of the document. Mayor Johnston seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Review the Plannine Commission 2008 Work Plan Planning Director Kyle Klatt reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed and approved a 2008 work plan and the Commission was requesting the City Council to comment on it, Council Member Smith pointed out that the sign code regulating seasonal signs had been discussed at previous Council and Planning Commission meetings and was near complete except for determining color and size of signs and, given this background work, she asked that the priority for the sign code be focused on the off site, seasonal and agricultural sales signs rather than tackling the entire sign code at once. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 3 MOTION: Mayor Johnston moved to accept the Planning Commission's 2008 Work Plan with a change in the priorities to reflect that the the sign ordinance regulating seasonal and temporary off site signs be the first priority for the commission. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to modify the agenda by moving Item #12 up for discussion. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. The Motion passed unanimously. Consider a request from the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to name the city's community celebration the "Lake Elmo Fall Festival" and to provide the Jaycee's funding for this event MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to authorize the name of "The Lake Elmo Fall Festival" as the name of the community celebration on September 5rh and 6'h and allocating the $8, 500 donation from the Jaycees incorporating a Volunteer Recognition event. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Review and revise a draft comment letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Aaencv (PCM regarding clean up options for the Washington County Landfill The City Council reviewed a draft comment letter which will be submitted on behalf of the City to the MPCA regarding clean up options for the Washington County Landfill. Mayor Johnston has appeared before committees in the House and Senate to testify in support of a cleanup plan. He said the legislators are pulled in so many directions through requests for funding that the City has to be sure to keep the PFC cleanup funding at the forefront. All council members endorsed a permanent solution to the contamination issues at the Washington County Landfill. There was strong support for this and some discussion about what the best approach to the legislature on this topic. This solution would be to remove the material from the landfill and dispose of it in a place that is better suited to retain contaminated waste and, perhaps, combining this option with a plasma burner. Resident Jim Blackford, 9765 45th Street N., reported on the history of the Washington County Landfill clean up and issues over time. Mr. Blackford asked that the City Council's letter be worded even more sternly and the City needed to demand a permanent solution funded by the Legislature and implement by the MPCA. MOTION: Council Member Johnson moved to table action on the wording of the letter which will be filed with the MPCA during the pubic comment period on the proposed remediation method until March 4th Council meeting in order for the Council to listen to comments at the February 21a public PCA meeting. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Mayor Johnston and Council Members Johnson, Smith and Park voted for the motion and Council Member DeLapp voted against the motion. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 4 Discuss the Village Onen House for the Alternative Urban Area wide Review The City Council asked that the Village Open I-Iouse have time for the participants to publicly express their opinions as well as to record them on paper. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Mayor and Council Members o Open House for the Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue Design Review Committee on February 26 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM at River Valley Christian Church, 5900 Lake Elmo Avenue Council Member DeLapp provided a Star Tribune newspaper article on Fury Motors and pointed out that the owner, Tom Leonard, talked about his thoughts on the reduction in dealerships. Council member DeLapp asked that council members receive copies of the article. Council member DeLapp wondered if there would be changes to the dealership as a result. Administrator: o Lake Elmo Village AUAR Open House, Thursday, February 28, Oakland Junior High School, 6:30-8:30 p.m., Open mike at 8:30 p.m. This portion of the meeting will be taped. o Minnesota Department of Health Community Meeting on PFC's Open House on March 12, Oakland Junior High School, 6:00 — 9:00 p.m. o Read and distributed a letter from Lakeview Health Systems about the negotiations for a future site for the Lakeview Hospital in the next ten or more years. The letter stated the Lakeview Hospital had no current plans for development and decline the offer to be part of the City's AUAR at this time, The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sharon Lumby, City Clerk LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2008 5 City Council Date: 03/04/08 CONSENT Item: 2 Resolution 2008-013 ITEM: Approve resolution No. 2008-013 approving disbursements in the amount of $285,903.70. SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $285,903.70 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-013 RESOLUTION APPROVING CLAIMS BE IT RESOLVED THAT Claim Numbers 447, 448, DD1571 through DD1583, 32231 through 32241, were used for Staff Payroll dated February 28, 2008; 32242 through 32285, in the total amount of $285,903.70 are hereby approved. ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 4th day of March, 2008. ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator Dean Johnston Mayor Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List User: administrator Printed: 02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM Invoice No Vendor:ACEHARD 56534 56996 Vendor:ACS 41 Vendor:ANCOM 46971 Vendor:ANDERNIC 2/25/08 Vendor: ARAM 629-6402421 629-6412057 Vendor:ASPENMI 79551 79655 Vendor:BATTYPL 32-146194 Description Ace Hardware Keys For City Hall Annex Hose Reel - Public Works Bldg. Check Total: Animal Control Services Animal Control Services 2/4 - 2/17 Check Total: ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Radio Charger Check Total: Nicholas Anderson Cable Operator -Planning Check Total: Aramark Linen City Hall Linen City Hall Check Total: Aspen Mills, Inc. Re -Patch Uniforms Uniform Pants Check Total: Batteries Plus Woodbury Portable Radio Batteries AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Amount Payment Date Acct Number 14.84 03/04/2008 57.47 03/04/2008 72.31 496.92 03/04/2008 496.92 Check Sequence: 1 101-410-1940-44010 101-430-3100-42230 Check Sequence: 2 101-420-2700-43150 Check Sequence: 3 85.00 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-43230 85.00 55.00 03/04/2008 55.00 48.11 03/04/2008 86.56 03/04/2008 134.67 78.29 03/04/2008 34.50 03/04/2008 112.79 Check Sequence: 4 101-410-1910-43620 Check Sequence: 5 101-410-1940-44010 101-410-1940-44010 Check Sequence: 6 101-420-2220-44170 101-420-2220-44170 Check Sequence: 7 105.44 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-43230 Reference ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 105.44 Vendor.BIFFS Biffs Inc. Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: No W346627 Portable Restrooms-Sunfish 77.26 03/04/2008 101-450-5200-44120 Check Total: 77.26 Vendor:BROOKINS Vincent Brookins Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: No 10/16 & 1/22 Sub. Cable Operator 110.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-43620 Check Total: 110.00 Vendor:CENCOLLE Century College Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: No 00290148 Training- 2 Firefighters 431.97 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-44370 Check Total: 431.97 Vendor:CONST Construction Book Express Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: No 1011013579 Building Office Caculator 77.90 03/04/2008 101-420-2400-44350 Check Total: 77.90 Vendor.EMAUTO EmergencyAutomotive Technology Inc. Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: No ST020108-1 Lens for Public Works Truck 71.89 03/04/2008 101-430-3100-42210 Check Total: 71.89 Vendor.EMERGAPP Emergency Apparatus Maint. Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: No 34736 Fire Vehicle Repair 4,312.94 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-44040 Check Total: 4,312.94 Vendor.F.I.R.E. Fire Instruction &Rescue Education Inc Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: No 05511 NIMS Training for Council & Staff 270.00 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-44370 Check Total: 270.00 Vendor.FXL FXL, Inc. Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: No March 08 Assessor's Services- March 2008 2,000.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1550-43100 Check Total: 2,000.00 Vendor:GWHIZ G-Whiz Lettering, Inc. Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: No 5124 City ID Lettering -Uniforms 40.47 03/04/2008 101-430-3100-44170 AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 40.47 Vendor:KDV Kern DeWenter Viere Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: No 77408 Financial Expertise-2007 Year -End 4,836.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1520-43150 Check Total: 4,836.00 Vendor.LAKESMEC Lakes Mechanical Services, Inc Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: No 9040 Thermal Expansion Tank-8367 26th St 388.00 03/04/2008 202-494-9400-46400 Check Total: 388.00 Vendor:McCarthy McCarthy Well Company Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: No 21901 Annual Well Pump Inspections 295.00 03/04/2008 601-494-9400-42270 Check Total: 295.00 Vendor.MENARDSO Menards - Oakdale Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: No 20070 Electrical Supplies -City Hall Annex 75.79 03/04/2008 101-410-1940-44010 20471 Door Locks - City Hall Annex 116.87 03/04/2008 101-410-1940-44010 21532 Air Supply Hose -Public Works 18.46 03/04/2008 101-430-3100-42230 22979 Drain Cleaner -Parks Shelter 5.31 03/04/2008 101-450-5200-42150 22992 Flat Drain Tape -Cleaning Drains 23.42 03/04/2008 101-450-5200-42400 Check Total: 239.85 Vendor.MENARDST Menards - Stillwater Check Sequence: 21 4680 Paint, Cleaning & Bldg Supplies -Fire 136.69 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-42230 4680 Small Tool Set 16.53 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-42400 5674 Heat Thermostat -Fire Dept. 18.07 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-42400 5694 Credit on Return -14.90 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-42400 5698 Heat Thermostat -Fire Dept. 15.80 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-42230 Check Total: 172.19 Vendor:MEYERSEW Meyer Sewer Service, Inc 46476 Pump Public Works Tanks Check Total: 350.00 03/04/2008 350.00 Check Sequence: 22 101-430-3100-44010 Vendor:MFAPC MFAPC Check Sequence: 23 Annual Dues 35.00 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-44330 Check Total: 35.00 ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Page 3 Invoice No Vendor:MNDOH 3/31/08 Description MN Department of Health 1st Quarter Water Supply Service Connect Check Total: Vendor:MODSPACE Modular Space Corporation 104484348 Modifications to City Hall Annex Check Total: Vendor:MORTON 498547 500389 Vendor.NAPA 538517 VendorNATREPRO 52514 52643 52925 Vendor:NEXTEL 761950227-059 761950227-059 761950227-059 761950227-059 761950227-059 761950227-059 VendorOFFICEMX 666686 666686 667633 667634 MORTON SALT Road Salt Road Salt Check Total: NAPA Auto Parts Antifreeze -Fire Dept. Check Total: National Reprographics, LLC Cd Duplication Cd Duplication Draft Park Plan Council Agenda Check Total: Nextel Communications Ce11 Phone Service -Administration Ce11 Phone Service -Fire Department Cell Phone Service -Bldg Department Cell Phone Service -Public Works Dept. Cell Phone Service -Parks Dept. Replace Cell Phone Public Works Check Total: OfficeMax Ofice Supplies -City Hall Ofice Supplies -Public Works Building Dept. File Cabinet Ofice Supplies -Public Works Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number 1,405.00 03/04/2008 1,405.00 Check Sequence: 24 601-494-9400-43820 Check Sequence: 25 3,342.26 03/04/2008 101-410-1940-44040 3,342.26 7,038.49 03/04/2008 1,450.73 03/04/2008 8,489.22 Check Sequence: 26 101-430-3100-42290 101-430-3100-42290 Check Sequence: 27 46.82 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-44040 46.82 3.20 03/04/2008 3.20 03/04/2008 289.59 03/04/2008 295.99 122.13 132.45 48.61 157.19 68.17 124.14 652.69 27.98 61.55 118.52 15.96 224.01 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 Check Sequence: 28 101-410-1910-42000 101-410-1910-42000 404-480-8000-43050 Check Sequence: 29 101-410-1940-43210 101-420-2220-43210 101-420-2400-43210 101430-3100-43210 101-450-5200-43210 101430-3100-43210 Check Sequence: 30 101-410-1320-42000 101-430-3100-42000 101-420-2400-42000 101-410-1320-42000 Reference ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Page 4 Invoice No Vendor:PITNEY Description Pitney Bowes Postage -Surface Water Bills Postage --Water Bills Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number Check Sequence: 31 500.00 03/04/2008 603-496-9500-43220 500.00 03/04/2008 601-494-9400-43220 1,000.00 Reference ACH Enabled: No Vendor:PRESS StevenPress Check Sequence: 32 ACH Enabled: No 02/19/08 Cable Operator-Coucnil 55.60 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-43620 Check Total: 55.60 Vendor:Rivertitvn RiverTown Newspaper Group Check Sequence: 33 ACH Enabled: No 50035963 Legal Notices 91.45 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-43510 Check Total: 91.45 Vendor:ROGERS Rogers Printing Services Check Sequence: 34 ACH Enabled: No 15386 Business Card Bldg Dept. 35.15 03/04/2008 101-420-2400-42000 15397 Newsletters - Open House Future Village 498.42 03/04/2008 101-410-1910-43020 Check Total: 533.57 Vendor:RUD DianePrince-Rud Check Sequence: 35 2-18-20-25-27-0 Cleaning Services -City HAIL 240.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1940-44010 2-18-20-25-27-0 Cleaning Services -Fire HAll 240.00 03/04/2008 101-20-2220-44010 2-18-20-25-27-0 Cleaning Supplies 25.35 03/04/2008 101-10-1940-42110 Check Total: 505.35 Vendor:SANDCRK Sand Creek Group, Ltd. 89237 Employee Assistance Program Contract Check Total: Vendor:SPRINT Sprint 0526076028-3 Phone Card Laptop -Fire Check Total: Check Sequence: 36 750.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-44330 750.00 Check Sequence: 37 49.24 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-43210 49.24 VendorSTILLMED Stillwater Medical Group Check Sequence: 38 12469 HepatitisB Vaccinations 48.00 03/04/2008 101-420-2220-43050 Check Total: 48.00 Vendor:USAMOB USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. R0318076B Pagers for Chief Officers 21.36 03/04/2008 Check Sequence: 39 101-420-2220-3210 ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Page 5 Invoice No Description Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number 21.36 Vendor:USPOST United States Postal Service Check Sequence: 40 Postage - AUAR Open House 300.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-43220 Check Total: 300.00 Vendor. VATA Vata Communications, Inc. Check Sequence: 41 2094 Phones for City Hall Annex 1,606.55 03/04/2008 101-410-1940-44040 Check Total: 1,606.55 VendorWAS-SHER Washington County 59412 Law Enforcement Services July - Dec. 07 Check Total: Vendor:WASHACC Washington County 59182 Truth n Taxation Notice Check Total: Vendor: WISC.DOR 600-0001718647 Wisconsin Department of Revenue Tax Registration Wisc. Payroll Tax Check Total: 211,324.91 03/04/2008 211,324.91 612.88 03/04/2008 612.88 Check Sequence: 42 101-420-2100-43150 Check Sequence: 43 101-410-1520-44300 Check Sequence: 44 10.00 03/04/2008 101-410-1320-44300 10.00 Total for Check Run: 246,135.50 Total Number of Checks: 44 Reference ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No ACH Enabled: No AP - Computer Check Proof List (02/28/2008 - 5:13 PM) Page 6 City Council Date:3/4/2008 REGULAR Item: 3 ITEM: Conditional job offer to Steven Henjum, Ben Hall and GT Magnuson SUBMITTED BY: Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Tom Bouthilet, HR/Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to offer conditional job offers to Steve Henjum, Ben Hall and GT Magnuson for firefighters in the department contingent on their passing physicals. They have met the requirements to this point (background check, attended three meetings, ability test and interview process). Upon successful completion of the physical they shall be placed on probation status with the fire department. This brings the number of probationary firefighters to 6; there are currently 25 firefighters (3 of which are probationary) on the department. Compensation is $7.04/call for probationary firefighters. Compensation for GT Magnuson a city employee is being reviewed to be sure that all requirements are met for serving in two roles. RECOMMENDATION Chief Malmquist recommends approval of the conditional job offers. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Motion to make conditional job offer to Steve Henjum, Ben Hall and GT Magnuson pending the outcome of their department physical and each will be placed on probationary status with the fire department if his physical is passed. ORDER OF BUSINESS: • Introduction • Report and introductions • Questions to presenter • Questions/comments from the Public, if any (up to 3 minutes) • Call for a motion • Discussion • Action Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Mayor and Council members Mayor facilitates Mayor and Council members Mayor and Council members City Council City Council Date: 3.4.08 REGULAR Motion (if desired) Item: 11 ITEM: Request to provide funding for the Lucy Bell Winton Athletic Fields REQUESTED BY: Steve Hobbs, Director of Be!win SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Parks Commission Keili Matzek, Planner Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Jerry Filla, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is being asked to provide an annual capital contribution of $12,136 per year for five years for a total of $ 60,680 to support a the Lucy Winton Bell Athletic Field Complex improvements. The facility serves communities in the Stillwater School District. The St. Croix Soccer Club, the St. Croix Valley Athletic Association and the municipalities within the Stillwater School District are being asked to participate in the project which will provide a new concession stand and a meeting room for $ 400,000. The facility serves over 70,000 visitors each year. Eights communities and Anderson Windows have pledged support for the project to date for a total of $180,000. The parks commission endorsed the idea on a 4 to 3 vote. If the city council chooses to support this facility, funding would need to come from the city's capital equipment fund or from the park fund. However, according to the city attorney, to use the park fund the city council will need to add the Lucy Winton Bell Ball fields as a Lake Elmo facility so park dedication funds from developers can be used for this purpose. The general fund is not used for capital projects. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The formula used by the Lucy Winton Bell Facility to derive the $12,136 is based upon $8/school age child according to the 2005 census of 1,517 school age children in Lake Elmo FINANCIAL INFORMATION The city is in the process of reconciling and finalizing its 2007 financial records and in revisiting the 2008 budget to determine if the anticipated revenue budgeted is realistic given the decline in building revenue. General fund The city's general fund does not include money for capital projects. The 2007 revenue in the general fund may be as much as $650,000 under what was anticipated for 2007. There is no reason to believe that 2008 will not present the same challenges. It is likely that the 2008 anticipated general fund revenue, which was reduced by $ 450,000 from 2007, will need to be reduced further to assure a balanced budget. In addition, the general fund budget includes money for park operations and is not planned to be used for capital projects. Capital projects should come from the capital funds. Capital eauipment fund balance. This city is getting its financial record keeping in order. The capital equipment fund balance is part of this process. The reduced revenue from building has required the city to eliminate capital fund transfers from the general fund to the capital fund. This means that there is no increase in the capital funds for new projects. Park fund The park fund revenue is derived from development fees that are paid in lieu of park land with new developments. The fund balance is being determined as part of our financial reconciliation project. It is estimated that the fund balance is around $300,000. The city has budgeted to spend $260,000 of this for park /trail projects in 2007. Additional funds through park dedication fees are unlikely in the near future given the status of the development market and the amount of available un-platted property so the park fund is not likely to grow. In addition, according to the city attorney, this revenue source is not available to any park capital project that is not recognized in the city's comprehensive park plan. The Lucy Winton Bell Athletic Fields are not in the city's comprehensive park plan. The city council could move to add theses fields to the park plan now so that the facility is eligible for current, or future, park funds. OPTIONS TO CONSIDER 1 Allocate some or all of the funding ($12.136) from the capital eauioment fund toward this expenditure. The city does not know the fund balance and, therefore, the impact this might have on other capital needs for the city in public works, public health and safety and infrastructure. 2 Amend the comprehensive park clan and dedicate some park funds for this purpose. This would impact the balance in the park fund, but there is about $40, 000 in the park fund that is not designated for 2008 expenditures. It would impact the ability of the city to fund future projects. 3 Approve a transfer from the aeneral fund to the parks fund for this purpose. The general fund is an operating fund and it is likely the anticipated 2008 revenue in the 2008 adopted budget is already optimistic given current economic conditions. This action would potentially jeopardize city services. 4 Add this reauest to the city's Iona ranee capital improvement planning process. This will allow the city to evaluate the reauest as part of future olannina activities and in the context of other city priorities as well as with an understandina of the funds available to serve all city capital needs — narks and other needs. This keeps the funding opportunity on the city's agenda as it plans for the future. It does not provide for funding for the facility. 5 Reauest that the Lucy Winton Bell Athletic Fields representatives ask to return to the city at a later time. The timing of this return should be done with the understanding that the funding request should be part of the city's budget process so it is evaluated and documented in the city's decision making on its future funding. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION (if motion is desired) Move to one of the options above OR thank the presenters and acknowledge the value of the facility to the St. Croix Valley. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDER OF BUSINESS • Introduction • Presentation • Questions to the presenter • Questions from the public to the council • Call for a motion or call for a motion to allow for Discussion • Discussion • Action, if any Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Steve Hobbs, Belwin Mayor and Councilmembers Mayor facilitates Mayor and Councilmembers Mayor and Councilmembers City Council City Council Date: 3/4/08 Regular Resolution No. 2008-14 Item: 5 ITEM: Consider an application from the Oakdale Gun Club to amend its Conditional Use Permit, 10386 North 101" Street REQUESTED BY: Oakdale Gun Club, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning 4 REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner Jerry Filla, City Attorney Planning Commission SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request to amend the Conditional Use Permit for the Oakdale Gun Club. A conditional use permit must be approved by the City Council if the applicant meets the criteria for granting such a permit as specified by City Code. Specifically, the Council is required to consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, the effect on utility and school capacities, the effect on property values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission found that the applicant's request met all of these criteria and unanimously recommended approval of the request (vote 9:0). The city is required to grant an amendment to a conditional use permit if the conditions in the ordinance are demonstrably met by the applicant. The amendment is requested to allow for the following changes to the property: • The construction of a building shell over an existing range that will provide additional noise abatement within the site. • A small expansion of an existing operations building to provide additional interior usable space. The changes to the property are requested in order to improve staging and coordination of the various activities and to provide noise abatement for apportion of the area that is currently outside and will be enclosed if this is approved. The planning commission approved the amendment to the conditional use permit and the staff recommends it. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Background. The Club presently operates under a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) approved by the city council in 1988. The use dates back many years and prior to the city adopting any land use regulations. Site situation. The site is situated between the Lake Elmo Park Reserve and 10th Street in the southern portion of the City. The club owns two parcels of land; the gun range is located on the 40-acre parcel which is zoned A — Agricultural. The applicant also owns an adjacent 22-acre parcel which is zoned RR — Rural Residential, The existing permit and proposed amendment is applicable only to the larger 40-acres parcel. A detailed conditional use analysis is included in the attached Staff report. Comments from abutting or nearby property owners. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the amendment request at its January 28, 2008 meeting. Two residents spoke at the hearing (from the same address) and submitted comments that have been attached to this memorandum. The Commission received testimony that activity on the site and noise levels have increased significantly in the past year or so. Comments from a neighbor across the road were received after the public hearing and echoed the concerns expressed at the hearing regarding an increase in activity and noise levels from the site. This neighbor will be asking address the City Council on this matter. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: Based on some of the comments received from the public regarding the Gun Club's conditional use permit amendment request, Staff has reviewed the issues concerning the ongoing operation of the facility with the City Attorney. Ultimately, the City must take action on the current application with findings specific to the requested site changes. The overall issues concerning whether or not the property is in compliance with applicable city, state, and other regulations as a whole should be considered as a separate matter from the current request in front of the Council. The City does not need to wait for changes to occur on the site before it can investigate the operation of the Club for compliance with the terms and requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, but its ability to take action is limited by State Statutes and the City's own requirements for existing and nonconforming uses. Please note the following should the Council decide to review the Oakdale Gun Club's operation for compliance with its conditional use permit. This review must be done in a distinct action from the city council's review of this request for an amendment: • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 87A provides certain protections for shooting ranges like the Oakdale Gun Club. Any action taken by the City would need to be compliant with the Shooting Range Protection Act, which permits the continued operation of a shooting range as long as it is in compliance with the State's performance standards. o This act specifically permits a range operator to improve the safety and sound conditions of the range in order to maintain and continue the operation of the range. The requested C.U.P. amendment has been requested for this exact purpose. • Evidence would need to be collected to support an argument that the Gun Club is not in compliance with its permit requirements. Since many of the concerns relate to noise from the facility, sound measurements documenting current noise levels from the site would be a minimum starting point. o The City Engineer has noted that collecting good information related to sound from the gun club facility would require some time and effort to address where sound levels should be monitored, when they are measured, and how the environmental variables affect any noise being generated at the facility. Since the State's performance standards are very technical in nature, an acoustical engineer (or other qualified sound expert) should be consulted to both determine whether or not existing noise levels potentially exceed the State's requirements and then to conduct any necessary follow-up studies prior to the City taking any action, Obtaining a cost estimate for these services would be useful for determining the scope of work and financial implications for obtaining useful noise data. o The City does have more discretion under the act to deal with safety issues; however, there has been no evidence generated or testimony received by the City indicating that any safety hazards exist on the site. ADDITIONAL DETAILS: • If approved by the City, the requested amendment to the C.U.P. would allow the proposed range enclosure and building addition to be constructed. No other changes are proposed to the other portions of the site that would affect the current operation of the facility. • As noted above, the City has the authority to enforce any existing ordinances or permits governing the activity on the gun club site, but must be careful to collect evidence and sound data before proceeding with any review of the overall conditional use permit currently in place on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Approval is recommended as follows because the request meets the requirements for amending a conditional use permit and has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission: 1. It is recommended hat the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit amendment request based on the following: a) That the amendment to the conditional use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. b) That it would not affect traffic or parking conditions. c) That the amendment to the conditional use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. d) That the amendment to the conditional use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. e) That the amendment to the conditional use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. With the following conditions: a) That the applicant provides additional screening along North 10th Street in the southeastern portion of the site. The location and types of plantings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester after review by the Planning Director. b) That prior to any future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit the applicant provide an updated site plan with an accurate depiction of all buildings, ranges, fences, driveways, and other site improvements for review by the City. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Motion: Motion to approve Resolution No. 2008-14 amending an existing conditional use permit for the Oakdale Gun Club at 10386 North 10th Street with conditions. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions from the Council Mayor & Council Members Questions/Comments from the applicant Mayor facilitates Questions/Comments from the public Mayor facilitates Call for a Motion (required for further discussion; does not imply approval of the motion Mayor facilitates Discussion Mayor facilitates Action on motion Council ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2008-14 2. Area map showing the location of the subject property; 3. Detailed staff report on the request. 4. Applicant's Project Narrative. 5. Applicant's Site Plan/Aerial Photograph of site. 6. Operations Building Addition — Architectural Drawings 7, Gun Range Building Shell —Architectural Drawings 8. Email from Warren and Tereasa Schmidt 9. Resolution No. 88-5 Granting a Conditional Use Permit to the Oakdale Gun Club 10. Letter from City Attorney 11. MN Shooting Range Protection Act FAQ Sheet CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-14 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OAKDALE GUN CLUB WHEREAS, the City of Latce Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Jerome Marah, 1681 Fremont Avenue, St, Paul, MN representing the Oakdale Gun Club ("Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") to amend the Conditional Use Permit for the Oakdale Gun Club; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018, Subd. (D); and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on January 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation as part of a memorandum to the City Council from Planning Director Kyle Klatt for its March 4, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 4, 2008 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit amendment is to allow the construction of a building shell over an existing target range and the small expansion of an existing operations building on the site. 4) That the proposed use will be located on property legally described as the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 29, Range 21 North, subject to easement. Commonly known as 10386 North 10th Street. 5) That the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 6) That the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit would not affect traffic or parking conditions. 7) That the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. 8) That the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 9) That the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1. Based on the foregoing, the Applicant's application for a amendment to a Conditional Use Permit is approved, provided the following conditions are met: a. That the applicant provides additional screening along North loth Street in the southeastern portion of the site. The location and types of plantings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester after review by the Planning Director. b. That prior to any future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit the applicant provide an updated site plan with an accurate depiction of all buildings, ranges, fences, driveways, and other site improvements for review by the City. Passed and duly adopted this 4111 day of March, 208 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor AT I EST: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Location Map T32N T3 IN DON 729N T28N RAN R21W R20W RI9W T32N TIN R22W R2IW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 1539 Scale in Feet This drawing is the result of a compilation and reprods sn of land records as tney appear m vadousWashington county Offices The drawing should te used ror reference purposes only. Washington count' is not responsible tar any inaccuracies_ 5our¢- W ashigkn county5uweyofs Office Phone (651) 4306875 Pan:aldata based on AS400 information current through: 000berai. 2007 Map panted: December 20.2007 City of Lalce Elmo Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Amendment Request To: City Council From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Meeting Date: 3/4/08 Applicant: Jerome A. Marah Owner: Oakdale Gun Club Location: 10386 North 10th Street Zoning: A - Agricultural Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from the Oakdale Gun Club to amend Summary: its existing Conditional Use Permit to allow the following: • The construction of a building shell over an existing range. • A small expansion of an existing operations building to provide additional interior usable space. A more detailed description of the changes requested by the Club is attached to this memorandum on a document submitted by the applicant. Property As noted in the documentation submitted by the applicant, the Oakdale Gun Club has Information: been in operation continuously on its present site since 1964, which predates the City's current Zoning Ordinance. The City's file on this property goes back to at least 1965; however, for the purposes of the present review, Staff will be focusing on actions taken by the City since 1982. It was at this point in time that the City of Lake Elmo conducted a more thorough review of the Gun Club operations, and it appears that this is when the current conditions of operation were adopted by the City. Between 1983 and 1997 the City reviewed the Gun Club operation as part of an annual review of conditional use permits that was presented to the City Council each year. Since 1997, it does not appear that the Council was presented information concerning existing Conditional Use Permits. Staffs assumption is that the review was conducted on an administrative basis. Starting in the mid 1980's, the City Council adopted a resolution that specified the conditions of approval for the Gun Club. After 1988, subsequent reviews and amendments to the C.U.P. have used the resolution adopted in this year (Resolution No. 88-5) as the basis for compliance. All amendments since then have technically amended this resolution as is relates to the continued operation of the Gun Club. A CUP Request; MIRMIage `Hous Planning ConnmissiOn Report; 9-24-07 summary of the more recent C.U.P. amendments for the Gun Club is as follows: • 1998 (Resolution 95-58) New caretaker residence, accessory garage, and accessory storage structure. • 2002 (Resolution not in file) Noise abatement cover for 25 ft. range. • 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-111) Storage structure addition. • 2006 (Resolution No. 2006-145) New storage building. The current use of the site includes a range operations building, several outdoor ranges of varying length, the caretaker's home, storage buildings, a covered shooting range (25 yards), an archery practice area, and other miscellaneous buildings. The actual use of the facility beyond target practice, includes training and other educational programs. The property owned by the club is divided into two larger tracts. The 22-acre eastern portion is not used for any formal range facilities while the 40-acre western parcel houses all of the formal range operations. Applicable Section 300.06 Administration. Codes: Subd 4. Conditional Use Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo. Section 300.07 Districts. Subd. 4 (A) Agricultural Zoning District. Specifies that "Commercial recreation of a rural nature, including outdoor target ranges" requires a conditional use permit. Section 1305 Target Ranges. Contains the City's requirements for the establishment and operation of a target range facility, including requirements for inspection, application, insurance, organization, construction, signage, hours of operation, supervision, and other regulations. Findings & General Site Overview She Data: Lot Size: 40 acres (active gun range property) Existing Use: Target range facility Existing Zoning: A — Agricultural Property Identification Number (PID): 26-029-21-34-0001 Application Review: CUP Review: The Oakdale Gun Club is a unique use in the City of Lake Elmo for a number of reasons, and most importantly from a land use perspective, it has been in operation S7t/.and Use\CUPi(akdale Gun ClublRep CC Oakdale Gun Club CUP Amend 2-19-O8.doc Page 2 CUP Request; TAIRitage `Thus Planning Commission Report; 9-24-07 Conditional Use Permit Criteria: since before the City adopted a Zoning Ordinance to regulate such uses. After reviewing the extensive file for this property, Staff suggested that the Planning Commission concentrate on the 1988 action by the City as a starting point for determining whether or not the proposed site changes are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit for the property. This is the general approach that was used to analyze the Club's C.U.P. amendments submitted since 1998. As with the previous amendments, Staff has determined that an amendment to the C.U.P. is required for the applicant to complete the work proposed. In accordance with Section 300.06, Subd. 4 (K) of the Zoning Ordinance, an amended conditional use may be administered in a manner similar to that required for a new permit. One of the proposed changes would be the construction of a building shell over an existing range. Even though this action would create additional interior shooting space, the overall impacts to the surrounding area should be minimal, and in some cases, may actually provide for additional mitigation of noise from the site beyond the present situation. The reason for the potential reduction in off -site impacts is explained in the applicant's project narrative, which notes that the new building will allow better staging of range time at the facility. Specifically, members that would not have otherwise been able to use the covered range because it is occupied will now have an alternative range that is covered. Providing an additional covered range should result in a smaller amount of exterior shooting time at the range, and hence, a decrease in overall noise from the site. The second part of the request is an addition to the existing operations building on the site. This addition is small enough that it should not have any noticeable impacts on adjacent property and should not result in any changes to the overall activity on the site. The eastern end of the building currently contains a covered patio, and the new addition would essentially fully enclose this space which is already being used by members. The changes proposed for the property are intended to help reduce the overall impacts from the property by enclosing and mitigating some of the shooting activity that presently takes place on the site. There are no other changes proposed at this time, although as the club continues to makes improvements to their property, it is very likely that the City be involve in additional reviews of this site. Reviewing this request requires that all general CUP criteria be examined. For these types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should not be permitted due to impacts that cannot be controlled by reasonable conditions. 1. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. In the early 1980's the City of Lake Elmo conducted an extensive review of the Oakdale Gun Club and developed a list of conditions that have been applied to this day to the present day. As recently as December of 2006 the City's building inspector S:'Land UselCUPIOakdale Can ClublRep CC Oakdale Curt Club CLIP Amend 2-19-08. dos Page 3 CUP Request; HAIRitage `Hors Planning Commission Report; 9-24-07 visited the site to check for compliance with the terms of the C.U.P. and found that the club was operating in accordance with the City's requirements. One of the key factors that Staff recommended be considered during the Planning Commission review is whether or not the proposed changes will create any external impacts beyond what presently occurs on the site. In this case, the covering of an existing range should reduce the overall impacts from the site by taking range activity that would otherwise be located outside (and with little noise abatement) and moving it into an enclosed building. The location of the range to be enclosed should also help further mitigate any impact to surrounding lands since it takes advantage of an existing earthen berm that will help reduce any sound that escapes from the site. Staff is suggesting that the applicant review the landscaping provided along 10th Street in the southeastern portion of the site, and recommends that additional vegetation be planted in this area to further minimize the visual impact of the covered range facility. For the purposes of the present review, Staff has not conducted an analysis of the current site operation and specifically how it compares to the past use of the property. As with any other conditional use, the City may review this permit for compliance with the terms of the C.U.P. (as noted in Resolution 88-5) or applicable City regulations at any time. If the Council believes that there has been a substantial increase in activity and usage of the gun club facility, it may want to consider taking such action separate from the current amendment request. Target ranges are subject to the provisions of MN Statutes Chapter 87A (Shooting Range Protection Act) as described by the City Attorney in his attached letter to the City. The small addition to the operations building will have no impacts on the surrounding lands. Staff finds that this criterion is satisfied. 2. Traffic & Parking conditions. The proposed site alterations will primarily result in changes to the scheduling and timing of various activities at the gun club. It is not anticipated that the covered range or building addition will result in additional traffic to the site; only minor changes internal to the site concerning where the traffic and parking will occur. The amount of traffic and parking associated with the proposed use will continue to be consistent with the existing operation. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. Effects on utility and school capacities. The building addition and new range building will have minimal impacts on the existing utilities at the site. There will be no changes to the utilities already established for the site. Staff finds this criterion is met. 4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands. The Club has been in operation since before the City regulated such uses through zoning, and likewise, the club has been located on this site since before many of the surrounding land uses were established. Furthermore, since the request is for an amendment to a C.U.P. and not a new use, the Planning Commission was asked consider the potential impacts associated with this change and not the overall impacts S: V.and Use ICi /PVOalcdale (run CluhlRep CC Oakdale (;ant Club CUP Amend 2-19-08. dnc Page 4 CUR Request; 11,4/Ritage 'nous Planning Commission Report; 9-24-07 Conditional Use Permit Conclusions: Resident Concerns: Additional Information: Conclusion: of the site. Since the site changes requested as part of the C.U.P. amendment are intended to reduce overall impacts from the site, Staff finds that this criterion is satisfied as well. 5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The property at 10386 North 10'h Street is currently utilized for a target range facility. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for public facility use in the future, but also provides for the continuation of existing uses until such time as the parcel is redeveloped. The City Code allows for such a use to be conditionally permitted on this site. Staff finds this criterion is met. Based on the above analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff recommended approval of the request by the Oakdale Gun Club to amend its Conditional Use Permit to construct a building shell over an existing range and expand its existing operations building at 10386 North 10`h Street, based on the following: 1. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions. 3. The use would have no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The proposed amendment would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When the City considered the last amendment to the applicant's C.U.P. in late 2006, one of the adjoining property owners expressed concern over the sound levels emanating from the site, especially during the summer months. This property owner will likely be speaking to the City Council meeting on this issue at the March 4th meeting. The residents of 3240 Lake Elmo Avenue spoke at the Planning Commission hearing and stated their concerns that the frequency of noise from the gun club has increased over the past year or so. These comments were also submitted in the form of an email that is attached to this report. Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the proposed conditional use permit. The applicant is seeking approval to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit that was issued to the Oakdale Gun Club to allow the following: • The construction of a building shell over an existing range. S: I1.and UsetCU/'IOakdalc Gun Clubdiep CC Oakdale Gun Club CUP Amend 1-19-03.doc Page 5 ('l1P Request; HRMil age 'Hems Planning Commission Report, 9-24-07 • A small expansion of an existing operations building to provide additional interior usable space. Council The City Council has the following options: Options: A) Approval of the conditional use permit request (with findings of fact); B) Deny of the conditional use permit request (with findings of fact); The 60-day review period for this application expired on 2-21-08 but has been extended another 60 days to provide additional time for the Council to complete its review. The new deadline for City action is April 21, 2008. Staff Rec: Staff recommended approval of the request to amend an existing conditional use permit for the Oakdale Gun Club at 10386 North 10"' Street based on the following: 1. The amendment to the conditional use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of surrounding lands. 2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for one year and no complaints were received. 3. The amendment to the conditional use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities. 4. The amendment to the conditional use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands. 5. The amendment to the conditional use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PlanningComm Rec: Denial Motion Template: Provided the following conditions are met 1. That the applicant continues to comply with the conditions of Resolution No. 88- 5, approving the master Conditional Use Permit for the site. 2. That the applicant provides additional screening along North 10`h Street in the southeastern portion of the site. The location and types of plantings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester after review by the Planning Director. 3. That prior to any future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit the applicant provide an updated site plan with an accurate depiction of all buildings, ranges, fences, driveways, and other site improvements for review by the City. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to amend an existing conditional use permit for the Oakdale Gun Club at 10386 North 10th Street based on the findings provided by Staff. To deny the request, the City Council may use the following motion as a guide: Move to deny the request by the Oakdale Gun Club to amend its existing S;\Land 1.ise1CUPIOalcdrde Gun C luhlRep CC Oakdale Gun Club (Jul' Amend 2-19-0$.doc Page 6 C.'LIP Request; IAJRuage 'Thus Planning Commission Report; 9-24-07 conditional use permit based on the findings of fact... (please site reasons for the recommendation) Approval To approve the request, the City Council may use the following motion as a guide: Motion Template: Move to approve the request by the Oakdale Gun Club to amend its existing conditional use permit based on the findings cited by staff in the report with conditions (and other as you deem appropriate) ...with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant provides additional screening along North 10th Street in the southeastern portion of the site. The location and types of plantings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester after review by the Planning Director. 2. That prior to any future amendments to the Conditional Use Permit the applicant provide an updated site plan with an accurate depiction of all buildings, ranges, fences, driveways, and other site improvements for review by the City. cc: Jerry Marah, Building Director Troy Dahlgren, Contractor Tom Tousignant S. tl cued U.se1C(IP\Oakdale Gin! Club4Rep CC Oakdale (fun Club CUP Amend 2-19-08. doc Page 7 City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment ] Zoning District Amendment ❑ Text Amendment ] Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit (C.17.P.) Variance * (See below) E. Minor Subdivision ] Lot Line Adjustment Li Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan Site & Building Plan Review APPLICANT: JEfCase 1'1,Yrlgin k I(p8l Er, w©&'iAO. (Name) (Mailing Address) TELEPHONEE• ( 1(— G U S (Horne) (Week) FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: (Name) (Horne) (Mailing Address) Fee $ Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01-10Lots O 1 1 — 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More Excavating & Grading Permit Appeal 1%f Pet et SI-37g_Zob44 (Mobile) (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) (Fax) PUD L 6V11A1', Salo fo (Zip) (Zip) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): JG cr.:r q 2 ( 3 q —coo ( SCam_T-- 2C 'Teem.°--o_749 17?.s,4.27 sct149 G, S' 2 / re, c'r S- C DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: r^% rt ,9 c_ 4 (a rq_-� �-e Q c4 3 Pc /t *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to nay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense. gnature of Applicant r2- 2l%20137 Date Signature of Applicant Date 1/22/2004 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 •651-777-55I0 • Fax 65I-777-9615 Oakdale Gun Club Proposed CUP Amendment 12/07 1. Completed Land Use Application Form (attached) 2. Written statements a. Contact Info Jerry Marah, Building Director 651-398-2064 Troy Dahlgren, Contractor 651-491-0106 Tom Tousignant 651-731-9724 b. Site Data (attachment A) c. History The Oakdale gun club was established in 1964 and has continuously occupied the property. In recent years, several improvements have been made to both enhance the sites appearance and improve safety. For example, the original farmhouse and barn have been replaced with a caretaker's residence. The addition of a storage building was the most recent improvement. The grounds and buildings have not only been maintained, but regularly updated with the analysis based on appearance, noise abatement, traffic patterns and community impact. d. Proposed use (i.) The addition of a noise abatement building shell over a little used existing range area allows the club to shift current activities and reduce overall noise levels. The proposed area has a natural draw in the terrain just east of the existing 25 yd range. This area also has hills on three sides which will serve as natural backstops (berms) and require minimal soil disturbance. There is little or no effect on open areas since the site is hilly and the proposed building footprint is a 34 x 40. The building will be constructed on fairly level ground between the hills. Additionally the terrain has a gentle natural slope and corresponding drainage is to the south. The proposed building would not change the drainage other than to collect the roof runoff. The proposed structure is well within the confines of the property and approximately 700 ft from 10th St. Minimal site preparation and vegetation removal is required and if appropriate the area will replanted. Overall there will be minimal impact on the surrounding areas and terrain. The archery range immediately to the east will remain undisturbed. 12/07 d. Proposed use (ii details) The primary use of the new enclosed area will be for Law Enforcement, DNR Hunter Safety, and club sponsored training. In addition, this range will help reduce the pressure on our 25 yd range. The actual shooting Length will be approximately 35 if which is ideal for the beginning shooters iu the Hunter Safety Program. The intent is to enclose and provide a fully covered range. This will supports the clubs position of continuously decreasing noise levels. Currently the clubs 25 yd range is the only fully covered range on the property. In 2007, the 25 yd range was used 31 times for MN DNR Hunter Safety courses, Each DNR class requires approx 4 hours of range time. The 25 yd range is used exclusively because it's the only area currently able to meet both safety and noise reduction requirements. Additional firearms training on the 25 yd range occurred 76 times in the past year, with each session requiring 2-4 hours of range time. Each time the 25 yd range is reserved and used for training, other shooters must relocate to an open range. In almost every case, the displaced shooter will be using a larger caliber thereby generating more noise. In essence, when the new covered range is in position, we have the potential of reducing overall noise levels during more than 400 hrs of range time (31 classes @ 4 hrs + 76 classes @ 3 hrs average = 442 hrs) e. Justification The health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the area will not be adversely impacted since the proposal will not increase the load on the facility, but rather redistribute the existing load in order to attain a greater level of noise abatement. Traffic flow, parking conditions, utilities and schools will not be affected since there in no increase in usage. 12/07 Oakdale Gun Club Proposed CUP Amendment 12/07 b. Site Data Oakdale Gun Club www.OakdaleGunClub.ory 10386 North 10rh St. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Parcel size # 1 (proposed site) 40 acres (1,742,400 sq. ft.) PID 26.029.21.34.0001 Parcel size 4'2 (adjacent to proposed site, East of) 22 acres (958,320 sq.ft.) PID 26.029.21,43. 0001 Attachment A. Oakdale Gun Club CUP Revision 12/07 d. proposed use (i.) Building Addition The 20 x 20 addition to the existing range operations building will increase the building size by approx 400 sq. ft. This will be open space similar to the existing floor plan. The additional area will allow for the addition of several more tables and chairs which will be used by the general public during open hours and members for various activities during non public hours. Uses during non public hours will essentially be but not limited to current uses i.e secondary meeting and/or classroom space, brass sorting etc. Future uses may include the addition of a portable pellet gun range for use by youth programs. In essence the additional space will allow the club more flexibility of use during all phases of operation both public and non public. There will be very little impact on the surrounding terrain and vegetation as this is existing open high ground. Drainage will not be affected other than to collect the roof runoff. e. Justification The health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the area will not be adversely impacted since the proposal will not increase the load on the facility. Traffic flow, parking conditions, utilities and schools will not be affected since there in no increase in usage. ;;•••• yr el' jw .?`!"a• . - Tr- Ir‘ " !rt - ' .0, -/-4? • _ .,• 7 150 ft , NN!®ACIIdHil Kra, i • 7.0' GI COWI: TO MATCH 008146 Imo' W AIMD. CG DOWT YIO FEW bflffi!. OIril AMC ACLEOS PER CODE E.a44u. YI IM lSTRUCTURAL FRAMING BAST ELEVATION (NEW) $GALE' I/4" • 1'4" WEST LEVATION (EXISTING) CODES: I) 1003 IH4TOIA 6TATt I NWOG COPE 2)20,0 NIABNT044. 0.12.01.12 CODE OINSIVOIA AI'FRAM'®Ilo) 81 AM AN caYF$IE MTNI6- MSS XI 6a LAIEW BMW/ GENERAL NOTES: u ltll ATDIIET TO MAIM EWBING CMOTNM coTIWLToiTO FED WM.. 1)1-410 ledMIG EAUWW. "- s•9E0wu1.61G• M1T OEµ. AP 4 MIL CCMATOB emu) MY IWIIMER WV TYPICAL 61PM TPOa NW IT MOCK 421MEP -BUAW I° %P4• HMO ETNINC M) 4 COMM* MUCH YEW FOO11YA. WALL OW FIXOR TO i0046l1 CanwWtioN to P.M AM comma • 61FFl6LMi 691lattpl p91+ E4MIG ENT NAIL. Pod PLAN VIEW SCALE: I/4" • I'-0' 1,102 NEW CattSTRICTIGN Eo' Fi. 0QISO UE1EV�ATION SCALE EXISTING BUILDING ( wee) o'F+- REVISED CON )ITIONS EXISTING MOM I NEW CONSTRICTION (646) N fac w %AMIN ws 1114.16 M. C*15000 SALTS PUS YAFORR AVION4OUa1 � 2 T�A1<"d Dell %MHO Dom TNORTWfLEVATION AI Fr Al 6:1/4° .V-et EXISTING BUILDGG qo' T. NEW CONSTRICTION (E - 2O'a. DORM FJMAVA1Ed6W 11G WJntl0I10M1PA1 W /FWR —s a Na0aGMPAT0 pom e'EP [g1IH ADA COMPLIANT ENTRY / EXIT CONCRETE PAD 5' X 5' 100)115 B. PATO pswrartCOWIN POIMOGAVAIE MON fla FOMIG A} Mg PATIO 1'Eia kECEiv tREL IM IN4RY o NOT • FOR CONSTRUCTION ENYlronmelNel Pro0roan, Inc. nsmesa nw.u.mrn. sot Raw%g%. 4HGS16116 Phone- Ietevodao Fa 762488-mf am* W<n60rt.m.5mn W• da. 6d wVClPV 6 Callent.0 mob PROJECT Mx, ro 61 V . *aft • ',sprains ett; Winos at PSI. or me mw4�ono d ym NW Yd6• n SUM boor d5 x=Pmm04 oAIE_ eGLF146)P1Q0 PRAM Welt aE0051.3Y. CAL MOM 6 1— F- U9 a 0 0 di antrum fiat mutt PLCAANal 4 MT ::� 42 r M ISO L L r r MMEye¢n sicN sPawec TELE. (240257 31333 Is FAX. WO -04n — es Isar a , L1110RIZa8•, DVSCRIP-110HoFCEtANCIS aoi+w1J aoaioueraosaa naaa+moiunvi If oo 1 ava ?E (zsz) %Vf SI s, V(aSX)g,&L al swans- ptisauv0Aivt SLO 11 $ cl s,rawasi zea teAema masanavauti arsu siroAtf 'isa um Iv3.ry 'wv Aaap n rcsaava wiurvi.rnaµn�nv v�'aw /,wensoas�Mm waevrc axano�a'ryewamsa gnrvrvsrvwy nawiawnTmeu-nvnaunasnwvoiavaweavit-ArvlianwHoiliwunaaxaanvnivuuaxi an4niau ie. lxaa9Mi vzaae�A nrexnnwnx Lgi 11 *rT r7- r1-1-r�� 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1IIIIII:1111111II f f f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 •i-1 1 1 1 A. .;a. J.<LJa.!J.��! I», L Je Ili 'lilt I 1 I III s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1--11 H1111111111111114.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ _I_LH. I_L1_I_±±JrL1_I_Ls± 3'JhMra44 NpLL{143s34 /.809ZIadUY1V 0 In 0In x 01 M i �rl s wawae oyvfi�r.v 'nv Agn 97Igan%nvmolsanvpvn irc ng Am rvM e mry namaswrngwa'm am wrcsgi�a mgg�yawesan 9s gxv grvnislnrlp a.ry svnga»v aanaamw maw �xo>e �mn>J .na wxi on�viawe arvv.aarli gs&�a�rvnaurvn gew.ig 9i sex amti Aagng xfxox nv SS SECTION J £a3 Page 2 of 2 651-770-1472 Original message from tsclnnidt3240@comcast.net: Oakdale Gun Club - Noise Abatement In the last year, it seems the gun range is noisier. They can now be heard shooting almost everyday starting at 8 am , even on Sunday. It is noisy enough to wake you with your windows closed. It continues throughout the day. On looking on , "The Gun Club's", web site, they are open to the public on many different days and times. They are open to the public on Saturdays and Sundays. In April, they will be starting at 7 am for (IHMSA Silhouette). We've seen many Police, County etc. offical cars in line waiting for the club to be opened up.We believe they are going for their rnandary gun practice. How can this be Non -Profit? We see they are asking for a remodeling permit. Perhaps, now is the time to discuss the need to spend some money on noise abatement. Many Gun Clubs shoot inside large culverts. Could this be possible? We have several questions. How is it decided if it is a non-profit organization? If their organization changes how does it become for profit? If this could be a for profit club, wouldn't they have to pay taxes? In the remodeling permit, will it look at safety issues? How do we know if it follows all safety issues. We would appreciate discussion on this matter. Thank You Warren and Tereasa Schmidt 3240 Lake Elmo Ave. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-777-3503 1/28/2008 RESOLUT1ON 8 -5 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION GRANTIWG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OAKDALE GUN CLUB FOR OUTDOOR TARGET RANGE IN THE AGRICULTURsA.L ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, Oakdale Gun Club has applied for.a. Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Target Range on SE1/4 of SW1/4 of Section 26,T29,R21, subject to easement, located at 10386 North loth Street in the City of Lake Elmo; and has submitted all required information and fees for the application for such permit; and, WHEREAS, Section 301.070 D.b. of the Municipal Code of Lake Elmo requires a Conditional Use Permit to operate an Outdoor Target Range in the City of Lake Elmo; and, WHEREAS, Section 1300 of the ZONING ORDINANCE of the Municipal Code of Lake Elmo sets forth the conditions under which said permit may he granted and such use permitted; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets or exceeds all the conditions set forth above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, THAT, the Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Target Range at 10386 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota is hereby granted to Oakdale Gun Club, subject to the following conditions: 1. Fencing a. Additional fencing, if any, along the north border (common border with County Park) to be accomplished per'agreement between Club and County Director of Planning. b. Fencing along east_and west borders to be accomplished if and when adjacent properties are developed to the extent that fencing is necessary. A determination as to when the adjacent properties are sufficiently developed to require fencing will be made at the time of pertn±t renewal in future years. 2. Weapons on the shotgun rango shall be limited to fine shot (46 shot) on the shotgun range.. 3.. There will be no e»pdnsicpn at the present location without ,an, , abatement to 4. The names of lead range officers and a schedule of. events with the officer in charge shall be provided to. the Washington County Sheriff. This Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed on an annual basis, and may be rescinded, after a 2 week notice and a public hearing, if the City Council finds that the public health, safety, or welfare is jeopardized. ADOPTED, this 5th day of January 1988, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elrtio, Washington County, Minnesota. 3Q gtta: Signed Arlyn "thrist, Mayor Attest: / /L e Tier, City Mary ue ner, g City Administrator Warren E. Peterson Jerome E Filia Daniel Witt Pram Glenn A. Bergman lobe Michael Miller Michael T. Oberle Steven Li. Bruns" Paul W. Fahning' Sonja R, Ortiz Amy K. L. Schmidt Beni. Rust Jared M. Goerlltz Kyle Klatt Planning Director City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 �,77ytt �P1fl�ERR7H-+i�r��^T7�, 77tt 7� F1V ?MC LL LL\�.1 Ili J L J1 J si L•', JAIL 1 4, Ili [di I. al ie February 28, 2008 RE: Shooting Range Regulations Kyle: Suite 800 55 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1718 (651) 291-8955 16511 228-1753 facsimile www.plb-pa.com (6511290-6907 hila(a?pf6•ua cottt The City has regulations which are applicable to target ranges (Lake Elmo Code 1305), nuisances (Lake Elmo Code 1335), and noise emissions (Lake Elmo Code 1370). All of these regulations were adopted prior to May of 2008. The Minnesota Shooting Range Protection Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 87A) became effective on May 28, 2005 and includes shooting range performance standards. Except as hereinafter provided, if a shooting range is in compliance with the State's performance standards, the City must permit shooting ranges to do the following (M.S. 87A.03, Subd. 1): 1. Operate the range and conduct activities involving the discharge of fi rearms. 2. Expand or increase its membership or opportunities for public participation related to primary activity as a shooting range, 3. Make those repairs or improvements desirable to meet or exceed requirements of shooting range standards. 4. Increase events and activities related to the primary activity as a shooting range. 5. Conduct shooting activities and discharge of fire arms daily between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. A local unit of government with zoning jurisdiction over a shooting range may extend the hours of operation by issuance of a special or conditional use permit. 6. Acquire additional land to be used for buffer zones or noise mitigation efforts or to otherwise comply with State Regulations. 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Kyle Klatt February 28, 2008 Page 2 If, on May 28, 2005, the City's shooting range standards relating to days and hours of operation were more restrictive than those adopted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 87A, the more restrictive local standards would apply. Lake Elmo standards permit the discharge of firearms daily between 8:00 a.m. and 1/2 hour before dusk. The State Regulations would allow discharge of firearms daily between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. In this case, the City's standard for time of discharge of firearm would apply because the standard was in effect on May 28, 2005 and is more restrictive. Future amendments to the City's Standard for shooting ranges must be consistent with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 87A. If you have any questions, please contact me. JPF/imt Minnesota's Shooting Range Protection Act FAQ Sheet, House Research Bill Summary, and 2005 Chapter 105 (Revised 09-21-2005) What is the intent of Chapter 87A? To provide shooting ranges with the ability to maintain their operating capacity, if local opposition to an existing shooting range facility arises. What types of facilities are intended to be covered or protected in Chapter 87A? Firearms and archery shooting facilities, to include licensed shooting preserves. Related to those types of facilities, what are the key elements that this law addresses? That shooting ranges are safely operating, meaning they keep all projectiles (i.e., bullets, pellets and arrows) within their facility boundaries, they keep sound levels generated on the range to an acceptable level, and they operate within a reasonable set of hours. If these are precepts are violated, the range has the opportunity to correct their problems within an acceptable time frame. Does Chapter 87A take precedence over existing local ordinances, rules, regulations, or operating restrictions for shooting ranges or preserves? No. Any pre-existing conditional use permit, special use permit, operating hours restrictions, covenants or other performance related requirements set in existence by local units of government with legal jurisdiction over a shooting range are to be maintained. In the meantime, if no pre-existing operating hours are in place for a range, they-arenowr based on -the State's Sound Rule (Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7030). Chapter 87A references "Performance Standards". What are these? Primarily, the Performance Standards refer to considerations that need to be taken to ensure the safe operation of a shooting range. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has produced a set of guidelines or recommendations for constructing and operating various shooting ranges. These are contained in the 1999 edition of The Range Source Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction. The NRA uses this document as a reference and teaching tool when they conduct their Range Development and Operations classes throughout the United States. Chapter 87A establishes that, until the DNR adopts permanent performance standards through formal rulemaking processes, this document will he an interim set of standards for safe range operations. This source book is available online from the NI.LA headquarters at www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/sourcebook.asm When will final Performance Standards be established by the DNR? DNR has been given the responsibility to formally adopt Shooting Range Performance Standards, using the expedited rulemalcing process, as defined in State statute. These Rules will take into account the interim performance standards, and any additional infonnation that is relevan Chapter 87A. Will all shooting ranges need to be built to the same level or degree? No. The performance standards are recommendations, and are site specific. In urban or suburban settings, more people can be affected by an operating shooting range. In these settings, where projectile containment is absolutely necessary, all safeguards necessary must be taken to ensure that all bullets shot on the range stay on the range property. This concept should be also used as the basis for any range that is built, but the number of required safeguards installed will likely be fewer in a more rural setting. Sound containment must also be installed that will make sure the range in compliance with Chapter 87A. These will also vary, based on the level of local population density. The Game and Fish Laws of Minnesota restrict the discharge of a firearm to 500 or more feet away from a residence while hunting, unless permission is granted to be closer. Does this standard apply under Chapter 87A? No. Shooting ranges and preserves are allowed to have bows and firearms discharged within their boundaries, provided that all projectiles remain on the shooting range. The difference here is that the Game and Fish laws refer only to hunting situations on private lands. Chapter 87A references a range operation becoming a nonconforming use. What does this mean? Local zoning definitions governing land uses are subject to change, due to land use changes such as residential development. if local zoning changes take place that make a shooting range a nonconforming use where it had previously been allowed to operate, the range operator has the ability to improve the safety and sound "conditions of the range, in order to maintain and continue the operation of the range. Should shooting range operators be concerned that a law pertaining to shooting ranges is now in effect? No, not at all. Shooting range operators in Minnesota are allowed to maintain the operation of their facilities, provided they are operated safely, conform to sound level standards, and maintain reasonable operating hours. Most shooting ranges are set in relatively rural and undeveloped land areas. Nothing in Chapter 87A will negatively affect these ranges. Instead, when other development occurs on adjacent land, the range will be given the opportunity to continue operating; and not be subject to closure due to that change. 2 If neighbors do live near a shooting range, there is now a defined process in place that will allow the range operators to determine if a problem does exist, and allow them to take steps to address those concerns. What Chapter 87A does is help the shooting range operation be a "good neighbor", taking into consideration the safety, sound, and operating hours in effect on a given shooting range. What does the "mitigation area" in Section 87A.04 intended to address? Sound or noise generated by a shooting range, and its impact on neighboring land use. By their very nature of use, shooting ranges generate sound. If a range has development (usually pertaining to one or more residence) within 750 feet of its perimeter, that was planned, approved and/or built before October 1, 2005, it is the range operator's responsibility to take steps to ensure that the sound levels reaching neighboring land be within the sound standard limits defined in Chapter 87A. After October 1, 2005, any new development within 750 feet of a shooting range's perimeter will be responsible to pre -plan and install its own sound mitigating devices to keep a range compliant with the sound standards. In the event that the sound coming off a shooting range is bothersome to a neighboring residence, ideally the range operators and neighbor would be willingto work together, both before and after October I, 2005, to minimize the sound levels arriving at the neighboring property. This can be achieved through a variety of means, including installing one or more sound berms, walls to deflect sound, one or more firing line enclosures, shooting tubes, and vegetative barriers that can further absorb and/or deflect sound. What is a brief explanation of the Noise Standard referenced in Chapter 87A? The noise level referenced in the shooting range law refers to measuring the sound level over an hour's time at a neighboring property that is receiving the sound generated at a range, to determine a "steady state" level of sound, which is referred to as the Leq(h). This steady state cannot exceed 63 decibels (dBA), and will include the sound generated by the range, along with all other sounds generated and recorded at that [sound] receiving location. Collectively, this will include gunshots, and all other ambient noise. Specific sound measurement methodology, including procedure, equipment, etc., is defined in Minnesota Rules, Section 7300.0060. What is an obvious activity that can be defined as a "clear and present danger" at a shooting range? As stated before, one of the main objectives of the Shooting Range Protection Act is to make sure all projectiles shot at a range stay on the property of the range. Any arrows, pellets, or bullets that leave a range's property could cause harm or injury to others not on the shooting range. This would at least constitute a trespass, and should not, under any circumstances, knowingly be allowed to take place. Whether or not a correctable danger exists could be an issue to be decided in a court of law. If one portion of a shooting range is deemed to be a safety hazard, does an entire shooting range have to close? Not unless a court finds that an entire range would pose a safety hazard, and can't be remedially improved or repaired. 3 ITEM: REQUESTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: City Council Date: 3/4/08 REGULA$ Item: INFORMATIONAL Preliminary Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map Planning Department Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning h t Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to review information related to the updated Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that has been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Washington County (including the City of Lake Elmo). The Flood Insurance Rate Maps and related study establish flood hazard levels for all portions of a community and must be adopted as part of a community's Floodplain Ordinance when they are updated. These maps are used to determine the need for flood insurance on individual properties, to help establish the cost of this insurance, and to provide a basis for management of flood prone areas within a given community. The City will ultimately be required to adopt these revised maps at the end of the federal review process, which is spelled our in much greater detail as part of the attached Staff report. The portion of this review that is of particular importance to the City is the appeals and comment period, which is likely to start relatively soon. All comments, protests, and appeals must come through the local zoning authority, so the City will need to play an active role in this process. Lake Elmo's flood zone maps were last updated in 1979, and the revised map reflects some fairly substantial changes within the community. In order to quantify the extent of these changes, the Planning Department conducted a study of each body of water identified on the Minnesota DNR's Public Waters Inventory to determine the extent of the flood zone changes around each water feature. Tabulated for each area were the following: • The number of lots that were affected by increases and decreases to flood hazard areas. • The number of homes (and other habitable structures) that were affected by increases and decreases to flood hazard areas. In summary, there will be a net change of approximately 350 being parcels added to flood hazard areas and a net reduction of 17 individual structures from flood hazard areas if the maps are adopted as submitted to the City. The Planning Commission has endorsed the idea of conducting a public meeting to help provide notice to affected land owners concerning the proposed map changes. Staff will be working with the Valley Branch Watershed district to set up a public meeting once notice is provided from FEMA concerning the timing of the public comment period. The previous reports sent to the Planning Commission on this matter are attached for consideration by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The attached information is being presented for informational purposes. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION No action is necessary from the Council on this item. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Report Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions to the presenter (3 minute maximum) Mayor and Councilmembers Questions from the public (3 minutes) Mayor facilitates Discussion Mayor and Councilmembers ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Report 2/11/08 2, Planning Commission Report 2/25/08 3. Lake Elmo Floodplain Map with Public Waters Inventory Labels 4. Preliminary FIRM Comparison Chart 5. Map Update Process (DNR) 6. FEMA Map Update Process and Timeline (DNR) 7. "How Do I Challenge What's Shown on the Preliminary FEMA Maps" Handout (DNR) 2 Planning Commission Date: 2/11 /08 Business Item Item: 6a ITEM: Consider process for review of updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps REQUESTED BY: Planning Department SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Keili Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Washington County has received a preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The study and FIRM maps update the existing flood information for the community, which has not been revised since the late 1970's. The area covered by the updated report and maps includes Lake Elmo; and will ultimately need to be incorporated by the City as an amendment to its Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Section 152 of the City Code). At this point in time, Staff would like to review the proposed FIRM and FIS with the Planning Commission at its meeting and discuss a general plan for any action the City should take relevant to the new study. One of the key parts of the City's review will be informing property owners about the proposed changes to the maps. Overall, there are several new flood areas shown on the map that have never been previously identified as such, and many existing flood zones have been modified in size (both larger and smaller). Staff has onfy_rec_ently been able to compare the old and new maps, and will present two maps for review by the Planning Commission at its meeting: 1) a comparison of the existing and proposed flood zones on the City's base map, and 2) and aerial photograph overlaid with the same flood information. BACKGROUND AND TIMING The City's Flood Plain Management Ordinance regulates the use of land within designated flood zones. These areas were delineated in the 1979 FIS and FIRM maps, and are referred to as the "official maps" in the Ordinance. The preliminary study reference above will ultimate revise these maps, and must be adopted by the City in its Flood Plain Ordinance within a certain amount of time before they become official, There is an appeal process available to the City and property owners for instances in which new or updated technical information is available that would alter the proposed flood boundaries. To date, the City has received the revised FIS and FIRM and the Minnesota DNR has conducted a public open house for public officials and the general public. Staff has also obtained the preliminary flood information electronically, used it to create maps that highlight the proposed changes, and sent general comments to FEMA regarding non -technical aspects of the map (i.e. road name corrections and other labeling errors). Over the next several months, the City can also expect the following to occur: • Community comments (non -technical) incorporated into FIS and FIRM. • Notice sent to the City of Lake Elmo regarding start of formal appeal process. • List of base flood elevations published in local paper twice. • On second publication date, 90-day statutory appeal period begins for new or modified base flood elevations. • Final preparation of FIS report and FIRM. • Letter of Final Determination sent by FEMA to Lake Elmo stating that maps will be effective in 6 months. • Adoption of Ordinance Amendments to reflect changes to the FIS report and FIRM, including reference to the new effective date (need to adopt before the maps become effective). • Printing and distribution of final FIS report and FIRM with copies to the City of Lake City 3 weeks before the effective date. • Revised report and maps become official. The entire process, starting with the submission of the preliminary FIS report and FIRM to the City in December of 2007, will take approximately 15 to 18 months. Please note that all comments and appeals will need to be submitted through the City of Lake Elmo for those flood areas under the City's jurisdiction. The DNR has provided the City with addition& information concerning the process for submitted comments, protests, and appeals, some of which is attached to this memorandum. Additionally, the local DNR office has offered some assistance to Staff concerning notification to property owners and review of the proposed maps. In the next few weeks, Staff will be working to more accurately identify the properties impacted by the proposed map changes, and will hopefully receive some additional guidance from the DNR to help provide accurate information to the general public. At a minimum, Staff would like to publish the new maps on the City's website along with the comparison maps produced internally to help property owners determine how they will be affected by the revised study and maps. Since the Planning Commission will be involved with any future amendments to the Flood Ordinance, Staff will welcome any feedback regarding the process from the Commission as well. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • Since the revised flood maps cover the entire City, it is not possible to provide the Planning Commission with a maplarge enough to depict the City on a discernable scale. Staff will present the attached floodplain comparison map (which contains both the 1979 and proposed 2008 data) at a scale that can be more easily read during the meeting on February 11'n Please note that on this map, the red areas represent the 2008 information, while the blue areas represent the current (1979) data). • Other information that has been attached to this packet includes: a summary of the map update process, a flowchart depicting the process and timeline, and an answer sheet concerning challenges to the maps — all of which have been provided by the Minnesota DNR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is not being asked to take any specific action relevant to the preliminary FIS report and FIRM at this time. Staff will welcome any comments or suggestions form the Commission for how to best inform the public about the proposed map changes. Within the next year, the Planning Commission will be asked to formally amend the Floodplain Ordinance to incorporate the new rnaps and study, ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Lake Elmo Floodplain Map with 1979 and 2008 data 2. DNR materials: o Map Update Process o FEMA Map Update Process and Timeline o How Do I Challenge What's Shown on the Preliminary FEMA Maps? Planning Commission Date: 2/25/08 Business Item Item: 5a ITEM: Review of Preliminary FEMA Flood Map Changes and Impacts REQUESTED BY: Planning Department SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a summary of the map changes included with the preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map that have bean prepared for Washington County. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, at which the Commission considered information regarding the role of the City in the FIS and FIRM review process, Staff has prepared a tabulation of the homes and properties that would be affected by the updated maps, calculating these changes for each of Lake Elmo's public waters as classified by the Minnesota DNR. This information should help the City identify the best manner In which to inform the general public and affected landowners about the revised maps. BACKGROUND AND TIMING The attached table attempts to quantify the impact of the proposed maps by identifying the number of parcels and homes included within the proposed flood zones around each water body and comparing these numbers to the current maps. The net difference is then provided as a means to gauge the net changes that are expected. Please note that the table focuses on the net changes only, not how each specific property is affected. In some cases, properties may have been added to a flood zone on one portion of a water feature and removed from another area around this same feature. In this example, the net change may have been zero, even though the status of individual properties has changed. Looking at the community as a whole, there will be approximately 360 more properties included in a flood zone than under the existing flood maps for Lake Elmo. On the other hand, the updated maps will, overall, reduce the number of homes in flood zones by approximately 18. The total number of properties affected in one way or another is around 375, with over 40 individual homes impacted by the changes as well. Given the large number of both homes and parcels affected, Staff is recommending that the City conduct a public meeting to share information with the general public. Given the significance of a primary structure being included within a flood zone, Staff would also recommending sending individual notices to those particular property owners. The purpose of this meeting could include the following objectives: • Provide notice to affected property and homeowners. • Present information concerning the impact of the proposed changes on property owners. • Coordinate the public review of information with the Valley Branch Watershed District (and other Watershed Districts to a lesser extent). • Describe the process for submitting comments to the updated maps. • Keep the Planning Commission and public informed about the status of the FIS Study and Preliminary FIRM. At a minimum Staff would like to include the DNR and Valley Branch Watershed District as participants in this meeting depending on their availability and willingness to attend. The Planning Commission suggested that the next City Newsletter include information on the updated FIRM and Staff will see that an update is included in the next publication. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • Please refer the previous Staff memorandum on this matter for additional information concerning the AS and FIRM update process. • The FEMA website at www.floodsmart.gov provides excellent information concerning flood hazards, flood insurance, and related matters. • Staff will be providing the Planning Commission with a map of Lake Elmo with the a DNR Public Waters Inventory Number for the various flood zones at its February 251h meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is not being asked to take any specific action relevant to the preliminary FIS report and FIRM at this time. Staff will again welcome any comments or suggestions form the Commission for how to best inform the public about the proposed map changes. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Preliminary FIRM Comparison Table 2. Public Waters Inventory Map (to be distributed at meeting) Lake Elmo Floodplain Map - With PWI Labels Legend Lake Elmo Parcels Flood Data a 2008 Data Fa 1979 Data Village Area Lake Elmo Boundary Lakes P&p created by MAU or; 1-2s.a City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Prelminmary FIRM Comparison 2-21-08 � I Public Water ID 82-370W 82-100W 82-373W 82-101P Wetland W of 101 P 82-103P 82-385W 82-386W 82-384W 82-387W 82-104P 82-368W 82-369W 82-99W 82-366W 82-367W 82-389W 82-105W 82-392W 82-484W 82-107P 82-316W 82-315W 82-313W 82-314W 82-390W 82-388W 82-391W 82-460W 82-462W 82-463W 82-110W 82-417W 82-418W 82-74P 82-112W 82-106P 82-414W 82-398W 82-108W 82-413W 82-412W 82-416W 82-419W Name Lake DeMontreville Lake Olson Deer Pond Crombie Pond Hedges Bog Hedges Pond Lake Jane Klawitter Pond Clear Lake Dirks Pond Berschens Pond Sunfish Lake Goetschel Pond Legion Pond Eden Park Pond Downs Lake Horseshoe Lake Rose Lake Lake Elmo Friedrich Pond PROPOSED CURRENT NET CHANGE Propeties In Houses in Properties in Houses in Flood Zone Flood Zone Flood Zone Flood Zone Parcels Houses 3 8 10 68 5 74 14 10 10 10 70 18 13 10 3 5 1 7 1 7 15 9 13 41 4 4 3 9 8 18 18 31 1 2 6 11 79 2 2 9 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 31 11 24 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 01 0 6 0 0 0 0 01 171 191 28 0 0 6 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 37 -10 1 -6 -1 0 50 0 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 6 -4 -6 0 18 4 0 13 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 13 0 0 35 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 0 8 3 6 1 -1 3 -1 -2 6 3 -6 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 17 -1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 9 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 82-111W 82-117W 82-113W Bus Park Pond 82-109P 82-116W 82-399W 82-400W Raleigh Creek Totals Margaret Lake Kramer Pond Goose Lake Eagle Point Lake Raleigh Creek NET CHANGES SUMMARY: Houses Added to Flood Zone Houses Removed from Flood Zone 1 Properties Added to Flood Zone Properties Removed from Flood Zone 1 1 0 17 1 0 16 01 10 4 01 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 28 2 34 7161 23 1 1 1 13 30 373 17 360 0 1 1 0 17 1 0 61 0 0 41 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 5 -6 -3 40 356 -17 :auto: Pre-Scoping .t, DNR Waters or FEMA will send letters and informationahpackets to, ,those communities that will' be funded for Flood Map Modernization in a currei y, faecal -year. TINS, letter kicks off the modernizationprocess with what are loiown a Fre'sces "in. Acubitles The u oSe*.of these .,^... S., F., pg P !P'. activities is to research and accumulate resowpcas'fhat will,conti'ribute to the maps update project.`,y Such activities include digital basg,rnap ;inventoriese nfapping needs assessnreiifs, and Letters. of Map Change collection. _ ell The digital base ;lirap'inventories•fnvolve obtaining the best available base map materials, such as-,- corporatejlimits, roaCis; rderial photography, stream centerlines, and topographic data. Mapping, needtassessmentS"include the collection of needs fronj,.FLMA's Mapping -Needs Update:Support'';., ,. """'Syste,,m, 4MNUSS). This system was,,developed to track and pflofjrize mapping needs identified b`y',. ,,- 'communities. DNR Waters will4erform-an° in-house nuippitt�g`eneeds *assessmeht.,by eon,j i1_ing= OM needs m community filer(Com•munityuAeelstance -iiisit Reports, corespondence;'effec:ve� flood map panels) ,and;'ail'� approximate:`(unnumbel'ed). ^A=Zone attalysi This aiialysi rnvolyes '- measuringdensiti'es of structures withid orhear ati approximate A -Zone/;:; , 1 ;;,; „ :.." The StudContractor. and 1 Waters will also use thl's'timerto�,compile`all`approved Letters of ,` ' Map Change (LOMCs), inching -Letters of Map Ameiidnient, Letters of Map Revision Based on, ° Fill, and Letters of Map Revision.,Trese LOMCs- vill be'adtitessed during Map Production, butt an accurate lisgis necessary so all areaddresseci in tlieprojecti: ,s ':Scoping Meeting .,. ¢ ;t ' The`hett stage ofthis p}'odess,ig' called the=Scoping Meetiing. This meeting presents an opportunity r for M1611 interesfe't1 parties to gather, ..finalize'therScope of project- j�and confirm project ,task s.assigninents. ThegScope of project formally identifies where nedyi flb id shindies will be condueted, , 1 their type, and%their Iimits. Invitedlto'thi's meeting are representatives from F1;MA, OTNR, the r" Regional Management Center RMC), '.',the Study Contractor )ift ;ChSed), and communities/ throughout the county ' t,l t being updated. , i , di , Mapping. needs play`,, -an integral rd1e, in the,�1coping Meeting as well. Because funding is limited for this;map%update, new flood studieS will be few. -However, the meeting provides an excellent opporhinity,for federal, state, and private entities to collect local mapping needs. Such needs will ', .be'docarifented and provided as impetus for future flood study''funding. , r id,, MO Production FFb11oveing the conclusion of the Scoptng.Meeting, entities involved: in tfitn p update begin their partnership roles in Map Production. This step of the update process invotives the' completion of r ajl"tasks identified kid assigned during the Scoping Meeting. For instatfce, the paper flood maps ,:will be digitally scanned and geo-registered during this phase. This is also the time when the er n ewly'efeat ,digital flood layers. will be fine tuned to fit the best available topographic data. If any -flood studies are performed; "thi's wodld be the phase for their completion and incorporation into th&new iitaps, Letters of Map Change (LOMRs) will also'i5eaddressed during this phase. Each FEMA-approved map ehan e will be handled ui tone of four ways: 1) incorporation into the new maps; 2) revalidation; 3) superseded; or 4)t case-by,4case review. Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) (not those based on fill, or LOMR='FS), will be incorporated into the new flood maps. Large-scale LOMR-Fs and Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs) may be incorporated into the new maps PAGE I OF 3 depending on their size. However, most LOMAs and LOMR-Fs will be revalidated since they are too small in scale to be represented on the maps. If a new study has been performed ra watercourse near any LOMCs, the LOMCs may be superseded or may need cas -h` -case review Digital maps created during this phase will be reviewed by FEMA so as to ensure that they meet the Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. For further information about these guidelines, click here (httn://www.fema.gov/nlan/nre'ent/fliih/dl cgs.shtm). Preliminary Maps Preliminary Maps and a preliminary Flood Insurance Study (HS) are released for public review when all''tasks have been completed, and the new digital flood maps have been printed: Each community will receive copies of the preliminary flood _maps, a preliminary' Flood Insuratter Study report, and a preliminary ,Suriimary of Map gAfexions -(SOMA)/ Thislast.-'do"cumetft„r summarizes what happened to all ofthe Letters of Map Change affeeted,by;,,th'e map uppdate: For further information, please see the description of Map Pr diktion.,,,. "' Once ar accuracy Preliminary and ar Maps are ars released, rc m dmt " offrctp s..ar@ encoura ed to revieiu' P' aps f"Preliminary Map Review "Checklist" speci 1ider Said ylfor local offirt, cials. This lis'will guide hem"" during their reviews; and if will provide them a way to document evidence for;anyiThsues they Piave with the'ne ' maps.:" FlpwM?ifik Information ®,pen Flouge> '=b Once the?' Preliminary Maps...4. e.released. and coniraungFies:'lia'vit,an opportunity tokeview.-4— x, FEMA will coordinate. a- Floodk Risk Information Qpen Ijouse. ,The Open, House iii"volyes,,two meetings: local official,meet'ihg and; public meeting. Federal and':state officialsrand the Study Contractor will meet witlf ommunity.officials'to'discuss the iew'm4ps, anyTssues' associated with them, and their:.-amp(ications,`;Once, this meeting' has-:,:concltl'ded, {liEMA ODNIi:'`' and r;i >.. ar communitylofficials'will have ''a oppgrtumty to answer puBheanqurrres regarding the preliminaryr maps. QueStieus,'gen� pally range livtopie from hood iiisiirhiice and building requirements Ito mitigation opportunities d 1440aiigesR; ,, Appeals PeriottlComanent Period After the anFlood %Risk Informdtion "Open House, 1IHMA will publish' the preliminary base flood BF.0s� elevations; ( the Federal Register. (enly if fi Es have changed); and they will notify the/' CEO o'f , each,',:coipmunity,.' regarding {krhisi`k publishing: Additionally; '1'EMA will post this `information; ri, localewspapers -twice in, a two -weds period. On the date of the secohd publicationpthe 90-day Appeals Period begins, and this IN when stakeholders may submit.'new flood. -data'`: appeals) or map corrections (protests) to their community floodplain officials for possible 'corporation into the new digital HRMs. At the end of Appeals Period, FEjlfA will "'=resolve alRllappeals and,protests to finalize the maps and the Flooalnsurance Study report. > ' a F f biFEs have not changed due to the map update, a 90-Day Appeals Period will not be held. sr, 30-Day Comment Period wilbbe held in its place, and this will still :provide citizens and community officials an opportunitg to;subrliit protests. rtr i Letter of Pint Determination g When the maps" are finalized, FEMIA,` will itsue the communities a Letter of Final Determination (LED), and'this initiates the mandatory update of their floodplain regulations. A community has six months from the LFD to update their flpdd damage reduction regulations. This timeframe l PAGE 2OF3 `5e.-r includes the ODNR review and approval time; so, they actually have less than six months for this update. If a community's floodplain regulations are not approved by DNR Waters and adopted by,, ,,,. _ the effective date of the maps, the community will be suspended from the IP. Pdtetnial consequences associated with suspension include flood insurance unavailability and s me`flis'aster assistance unavailability. Flood Mrips Effective r k' o Communities have six months from the date of the Lettbt^of-Final. Determination to update their 'flood damage reduction regulations to reflect the new maps. After this period, the new maps are ective,`and are the tools the communities must use;to implement their flopdplain regulations. Most flood insurance policies written on or after the' effective date will be based on the flood hazard data on the new maps. PF In terms of logistics, the map updategirocess takes • appvoxttnately 2:3 years��fi'rim the ittitia't" Pre- , Scoping Activities until the maps become effective€ This period of4time depends, in part; on the . types of studies conducted in a given county andu,wtle:: moMof,floodffain Iocatethwithin its -.," boundaries. N Y d FEN Man (Iodate Process and Ti Alie FEMA -1 to 2 years (or more) -6 to 12 months 6 MONTHS (NOTE: NO extensions) rN WatRars --, %- C. Strauss- 1/10/08 rev State Local How Do I Challenge What's Shown on the Preliminary FRIA Mans, Can what's shown on FEMA "Preliminary" Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) be changed before they become finalized? Yes and No. There are different levels of potential changes, and each level has different requirements for the type and format of supporting information needed. Also, the earlier the supporting information is submitted, the more likely the change can be made before the maps become final. Who can submit comments, protests or appeals? All comments, protests and appeals must come through the local unit of government that is the zoning authority, usually the city or the county (for unincorporated areas). What types of challenges can be made? Comments - Changes to street names, community boundaries, and other cosmetic or non-floodplain features are comments. Comments are usually incorporated into the final maps with minimal discussion. Protests — If data are available to show that the boundary of the floodplain should be drawn differently, that is submitted as a protest. For example, better topographic data may be available Whether protested areas are considered for incorporation into the final map depends on the size of the area, whether the area to be removed is contiguous with existing Zone X, the format of the data, etc. Digital data is more likely to be incorporated than paper data Paper data may be incorporated but is dependent on whether it can be converted into a useable digital format. In approximate A Zones, updated base flood elevations based on a technical study would be considered protests. The elevations will not be printed on the maps or in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS). In cases of new approximate A Zone analysis, the modeled A Zone information may be available for zoning/permitting decisions and for Letters of Map Amendments (LOMAs) or Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs). Appeals — Appeals are challenges to changes in base Flood elevation or floodway boundary in a detailed study area, or Zone AE. Challenges to changes in the base flood elevation require a high degree of supporting technical data that supports the appellants appeal. In most cases, a registered professional engineer must certify the supporting data. When can the comments, protests and/or appeals be submitted? Communities can begin submitting comments, protests and/or appeals immediately after the preliminary maps are distributed. To ensure consideration for incorporation of the change in time for the final map, they must be submitted before the end of the formal 90-day appeal period (if there are base flood elevation - BFE - changes) or 30-day comment period (if there are no BFE changes). What are the options if the challenge is too late? For protests, the better data can be submitted with a LOMA or LOMR-F request for the lot(s) of concern. For appeals, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) application can be submitted. A disadvantage of the LOMR-F or LOMR would be the inclusion of a possible application review fee for FEMA's contractor. Also, large scale LOMAs /LOMR-Fs and/or LOMRs do not physically change the FIRM panel or FIS report. They are a separate document. However, the LOMA/LOMR-F and/or LOMR become the official legal document for the applicable area identified. C Strauss - 1/10/08 rev PLACEHOLDER ON THE AGENDA DRAFTLETTER COMING LATER City Council Date: 3.4.08 REGULAR Item: 7 ITEM: Direction on draft letter of response to the MPCA regarding remediation alternatives at the Washington County Landfill SUBMITTED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to review material to Include in a letter to the PCA during the comment period on the proposed options for remediating contamination at the Washington County Landfill. A PCA public meeting on the options was held on February 21, 2008. The city council has discussed this topic at prior city council meetings and workshops. To date the city council's position has been to ask for a permanent solution including the 'truck and dig' option with or without a plasma burner. This position is based upon the city's and citizens' history with re-emerging contamination at the landfill, which is on a gravel pit and where garbage was dumped and in the water. If more review of a letter is needed, the city council may finalize its comments at its March 11, 2008 meeting. Legislation on this topic is in flux. A draft letter will be prepared after more is known about the legislative status of the bill. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to provide a letter of comment which clearly asks for a permanent solution at the Washington County Landfill and which recognizes the history of contamination and remediation solutions at the site. ORDER OF BUSINESS • Introduction • Update on legislation • Questions / comments o From the public • Call for a motion or Make a motion to discuss the topic • Give direction or take action ATACHMENTS: 1. Supporting Materials Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Mayor and Administrator Mayor facilitates Mayor and Council members City Council Rep. Julie Bunn Supporting Materials for February 26, 2008 Meeting of the Minnesota House of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Subject: Washington County Landfill Remedy Feasibility Assessment Washington County Landfill Lake Elmo, Minnesota Prepared for MPCA Closed Landfill Program SEH No. A-MNPCA0802.00 Effective Date: November 15, 2007 SEH Multidlsciplined. Single Source. Trusted solutions for more than 75 years. 1 e Washington County Landfill Remedy Feasibility Assessment Date: 11/15/07 Executive Summary (Continued) Plasma Torch This alternative involves excavating the waste material from the landfill and converting the waste onsite to gas and inert slag material using plasma torch technology. Prior to excavating waste the groundwater recovery and infiltration system would be shut down and the private well GAC treatment system program would be expanded. It is assumed that the void created by the waste excavation would be graded to minimize excessive slopes and the landfill cover soils would be re -placed and seeded. The preliminary projection of initial capital and long-term annual costs for this option are approximately $192,300,000 and $87,000 per year, respectively. Force Main This remedial alternative involves pumping groundwater and discharging the untreated water to a force main, which would discharge to a waste water treatment facility (MCES). This option would require the construction of more than three miles of new force main from the landfill to the nearest City of Oakdale sanitary sewer. Assuming continuous operation of the groundwater recovery system, the cumulative discharge to the Oakdale sanitary system and MCES treatment plant would be approximately 60 million gallons per year. The preliminary projection of initial capital and long-term annual costs for this option are approximately $7,300,000 and $450,000 per year, respectively. Pump and Treat On Site Supplemental treatment is required to remove PFCs to below the applicable HRLs from the recovered groundwater. This option includes treatment of contaminated groundwater by air stripping and iron removal followed by granular activated carbon (GAC) to remove PFC compounds prior to discharge directly to the southeast infiltration basin. The preliminary projection of initial capital and long-term annual costs for this option are approximately $5,800,000 and $700,000 per year, respectively. Dig and Truck This alternative would involve excavating the waste from the landfill and transporting and disposing of the waste off site at a licensed solid waste facility. Prior to excavating waste it is assumed that the groundwater recovery and infiltration system would be shut down and the private well GAC treatment system program would be expanded. It is assumed that the void created by the waste excavation would be graded to minimize excessive slopes and the landfill cover soils would be re -placed and seeded. The preliminary projection of initial capital and long-term annual costs for this option are approximately $66,800,000 and $87,000 per year, respectively. Dig and Line The alternative would involve moving waste and constructing a lined landfill at the current site. Waste from the existing landfill would be excavated and placed on site while the excavated area of the landfill is lined. The waste would then be placed back in the lined location. Prior to excavating waste it is assumed that the groundwater recovery and infiltration system would be shut down and the private well GAC 'treatment system program would be expanded. The preliminary projection of initial capital and long-term annual costs for this option are approximately $27,600,000 and $210,000 per year, respectively. A-MNPCA0802.00 Washington County Landfill Remedy Feasibility Assessment Date: 11/15/07 Remedy Feasibility Assessment Washington County Landfill Lake Elmo, Minnesota Prepared for: MPCA Closed Landfill Program Prepared by: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 418 West Superior Street, Suite 200 Duluth, Minnesota 55802-1512 A-MNPCA0802.00 MPCA Response to the East Metro 1'FC Oversight Group's February 8, 2008 Washington Co. Landfill Questions Plasma Gasification facilities found through literature search, Internet queries, and phone conversations Facility Location Kinuura, Japan Virginia Aberdeen, MD Taiwan Taiwan Romoland, California (Demo Plant) Hawaii Richland, Washington Japan — 20 to 25 systems operating 24/7 Georgia Czech Republic Yoshii, Japan (Pilot Facility) Mihama-Mikata, Japan Utashinai, Japan Ottawa, Canada (Pilot Facility) Puerto Rico (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) St. Lucie Co., Florida PROPOSED Type of Throughput Waste (tons per day) Incinerator ash US Army medical waste US Army Haz. Waste Haz. waste / organic solvents Incinerator ash Sewage sludge, fireworks, MSW Medical waste Low level radioactive waste Incinerator ash Tire scraps Cat.converters to reclaim platinum • MSW MSW7 sewage sludge MSW/ auto shredder waste `.MSW\ N Pharmaceutical 6-10 10 3 24 28 200 — 300 85 25 Activation Date 1995 1999 2004 2003 shut down 2004 refractory damage 1999 shut down 2001 bankruptcy tech problems at startup 1999 closed 2004 2002 2002 2007 v Source/Comments Foth & Van Dyke, 2004 Confidential Star Tech Env. Corp. 1/30/2008 Confidential Confidential Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, 2006/ reported to produce dioxins, Nox, VOCs Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, 2006 Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, 2006 Phoenix Solutions 2/1/2008 Phoenix Solutions 2/1/2008 Phoenix Solutions 2/1/2008 Foth & Van Dyke, 2004 Foth & Van Dyke, 2004 Foth & Van Dyke, 2004 Waste Mgmt.World, 2007 Star Tech, Env. Corp. 1/30/2008 USA Today, 2006 MPCA Gross Negligence Page 2 2/20/2008 4. In the 1980's, the MPCA found 3M hazardous wastes in dumps in Oakdale, Minnesota (only 3 miles from the Washington County Landfill). The MPCA never considered that these same 3M liquid and solid hazardous industrial wastes could be in the Washington County Landfill. Even as the MPCA required 3M to help pay for the cleanup of the Oakdale dump sites. nothing was done to see if the WCL had been impacted by these 3M hazardous wastes! 5. The MPCA never created a comprehensive list of the 3M hazardous wastes found in the Oakdale, Minnesota dumps in the 19801s. The MPCA never went back to 3M to require complete disclosure of all possible hazardous chemicals and compounds in the Oakdale dump sites. Because the MPCA did not do a complete job of research on the Oakdale dump sites, they were not aware of the PFC's that were there and they did not create any tests to help find these chemicals in the ground water near these Oakdale sites in the 1980's or even in the 1990's. The new water tests to find PFC's were not developed until around 2004, decades after they were initially needed. As a result of this failure by the MPCA to understand what they had found at the Oakdale dump sites. the PFC pollution coming from the WCL went undiscovered until 2004! 6, The Washington County Landfill started leaking hazardous chemicals into the ground water immediately from its inception in 1969 because of its totally inadequate design and location. It is hard to contain landfill wastes when large quantities of solid and liquid waste are under water and under the local water table! The MPCA let this contaminated plume of chemicals continue to spread into our Washington County ground water for almost 40 years before proposing a significant remediation action. The MPCA's "Dia and Line Proposal" that they put forward in 2007 was their first Proposal of this tube to put a physical barrier around this leaking WCL that has been leaking for 40 years! Gross Negligence by the MPCA Gross Negligence by the MPCA Gross Negligence by the MPCA MPCA Gross Negligence Page 4 2/20/2008 10. The MPCA paid out many hundreds of thousands of dollars to put a cap on the Washington County Landfill in the 1990's. The landfill never had a bottom or sides due to poor initial design by the MPCA, and still had the original permeable sand and gravel base that was partly underwater. After the can went on the landfill. the WCL continued to leak hazardous chemicals into the Washington County around water and all the money that was spent on this can was wasted! 11. The State of Minnesota/MPCA took full financial responsibility for the Washington County Landfill and gave 3M legal immunity from further legal action. Yet over a 40 year period, every time money has been needed to research our landfill problems, find out what types of hazardous wastes we are dealing with and develop a permanent solution to stop the pollution corning from the WCL, we hear that there is no money available from the State of Minnesota to fully understand or permanently fix this pollution problem! 12. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (contrary to their agency's name (Si duty to the citizens of Minnesota) have themselves become one of the largest polluters in the State of Minnesota (on a per square mile basis) due to their failure to contain the PFC contamination coming from the Washington County Landfill, for which they are solely responsible. This PFC and industrial chemical laden ground water pollution coming from the WCL has gone on for 40 years with no successful remediation by the MPCA. Why doesn't the MPCA have to follow the same State and Federal environmental pollution rules to which they hold business and individuals accountable? Are they responsible to actually keep the contents of the WCL within the boundaries of the WCL or do they only have to "try to slow the spread of Pollution"? Is the MPCA excused from doina its iob to properly maintain the WCL "if the money is not there"? t,( Gross Negligence by the MPCA Gross Negligence by the MPCA and State of Minnesota Government Gross Negligence by the MPCA MPCA Gross Negligence Page 6 2/20/2008 their private wells, have their property values diminished, and most importantly, suffer serious, permanent health consequences. Every sianificant decision the MPCA has made so far with respect to manaaina the Washington County Landfill over the last 40 years has been wrong. After a 40-year history of complete and utter failure, this is no time to accept their latest failed recommendation to "dig and line" the Washington County Landfill, which vet again is not a Permanent solution! The people of Lake Elmo and south Washington County deserve a permanent and final solution after suffering with this pollution problem of SW#1 for 40 years. We want the very first solid -waste landfill permitted by the State of Minnesota removed from Lake Elmo and plasma incinerated or moved to a landfill site designed for industrial, hazardous waste materials! Please don't tell us that there is no money for this! The State of Minnesota completely took on this WCL obligation without any reservations, and let all of the people who polluted the Washington County Landfill off the hook. The State of Minnesota is responsible for keepina us safe from this landfill ground water pollution no matter what the cost! If the State of Minnesota does not follow through on their good faith commitment to Lake Elmo and all of south Washinaton County to keep our water clean, then it is an outraaeous public policy failure for which the hiahest levels of Minnesota State Government are responsible! The real truth of the matter is that our generation is not paying the full current cost of our solid waste pollution. We are acting like we and our children will be the last generations living on this land and we can pollute with abandon and not be concerned with the future consequences. It is neither a Republican nor a Democrat ideal to pay our own way as we inhabit this earth. This is an important human (3 Washington County Sanitary Landfill SW-001 1998 Annual Report Five-year Review Report Forum held February 8, 1999 Report Completed by March 31, 1999 Project Leader: Ron Schwartz Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Engineer: Peter Tiffany Field Representative: Pat Hanson Closed Landfill Program Annual Report 3. Ground Water Remediation System Maintenance Summary A ground water remedlation system is in operation at the Washington County Landfill. The ground water remediation system includes 4 pumpout wells. Extensive work was conducted in order to attempt to get the ground water remediation system operative. Wells GC4 and GC2R have been primarily utilized since they are located within the rill area. With this configuration, no ground water would be drawn out from the fill area and off the landfill property. The pitless adapter in GC4 was repaired in February 1998 by Bergerson-uaswell. Forcemain and pitless adapter repairs were completed at GC-4. A pipe break was also repaired at GC4 in November 1998. 4. Ground Water Remediation Summary Ground water pumpout wells GC2R and GC4 were cycled on and off only during times of maintenance. 4,109,532 gallons were removed from the ground water in 1998 as compared to approximately 12,000 gallons removed from the ground water during 1997. The gradient control system did not operate from May 1996 until December 1997. Using concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) found in these pumpout wells, it was estimated that 22.58 pounds of VOCs were removed from the ground water in 1997. In 1998, approximately 10.5 pounds of VOCs were removed (as compared to 2,312 pounds removed by active gas extraction). A summary is included in Table 4. The site was developed on an old gravel mining operation that had several active pits. An aerial photograph taken of the site in 1969 (at the end of the site's life as a gravel.mining operation and the beginning of the site as a solid waste facility) shows several pits with ground water in them and garbage placed in ground water. Ground water remediation is challenging when the source may be below the garbage. Active gas extraction stabilizes waste above the water table and has little impact on waste in ground water. Graphs of total volatile organic compounds in the gradient control wells indicate several things (see Figures 7 and 8). First, the active gas extraction system and cover system do not directly impact the concentration of volatile organics in the gradient control wells. Indirectly, the link to rainfall is removed and the amount of leachate is reduced. When these graphs are compared to precipitation (both daily and monthly, Figure 17) there is no correlation between rainfall and the movement of contamination. In GC2R, there is an upward trend of .7 ��j January 31, 2008 Brad Moore, MPCA Commissioner Sincerely, Bill Hargis Mayor r C: Woodbury City Council City of Lake Elmo City of Oakdale City of Cottage Grove Governor Tim Pawlenty Senator Kathy Saltzman Representative Marsha Swails Representative Julie Bunn 3M CITY OF LAKE AELMO CITY OF LAKE ELMO February 25, 2008 Representative Julie Bunn 521 State Office Bldg. 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Washington County Landfill Discussion at the February 19, 2008 Council Meeting Dear Representative Bunn: First, and foremost, thanks to you and Senator Saltzman for your work on the remediation of the Washington County Landfill that is located in Lake Elmo. It is a significant public safety concern for our community and for current and future Washington County citizens. Second, I want to update you on the city council's actions since the February 13, 2008 letter that was sent by Mayor Johnston supporting funding for remediation at the landfill. At its February 19, 2008, city council meeting, the Lake Elmo City Council discussed its response to the Minnesota Pollution'Control Agency's proposals for remediating contamination at the Washington County Landfill. The discussion was extensive and comprehensive. The discussion focused on the importance of protecting the public health and safety of local drinking water by implementing the most comprehensive and permanent solution for the Washington County Landfill remediation. There have been recurring water quality issues with this landfill. The city council chose not to finalize its response to the PCA until its March 4 city council meeting, which follows the public information meeting held on February 21, 2008, by PCA at the OakLand Junior High School. This appears to have been a prudent decision by the city council because the information presented at the OakLand Junior High School was not always consistent with the prior information that the city had been provided. This updated data will be given to the city council for its March 4, 2008, meeting when the city council will finalize its response to the MPCA. We look forward to participating in the Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division Committee hearing at 8 AM on February 26, 2008. Sincerely, Susan Hoyt City Administrator C; Senator Kathy Saltzman Mayor and Councilmembers Jim Blackford, Resident ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: City Council Date: 3.4.08 REGULAR Item: 8 Authorize a training workshop on "How to Have More Effective Meetings" through a working knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Sharon. Lumby, City Clerk SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to authorize training on Parliamentary Procedure to be held at the workshop on April 8, 2008. The purpose of the request is to follow up on the City Council's on -going commitment to having more effective meetings that use the City Council and the public's time and money well. Using parliamentary procedure requires understanding on how to use these rules to address specific issues that arise at City Council meetings. It requires using an experienced expert in using the rules and explaining how to use them effectively. The City Council members, with the exception of Councilmember DeLapp, have not had parliamentary procedure training. Given this, City Clerk Sharon Lumby contacted the LMC about parliamentarians that do this training. Mr. Tom Gmeinder is a certified professional parliamentarian and is certified to teach parliamentary procedure. He is very experienced and is highly recommended expert in his field. He has been elected to the American College of Parliamentary Lawyers... in other words; he knows the ropes of parliamentary procedure and how to turn it into a working document rather than a think list of rules, which are difficult to apply. Mr. Gmeinder will prepare for the meeting by reviewing the City Council's order of business and gathering background to prepare for the meeting so he does not approach this as though 'one size fits all'. He also begins his presentations with a question session to get at the real questions on City Council member's minds rather than lecturing on a process without this. It Is recommended that the City Council invite the chairs and vice chairs of the planning commission and parks commission to participate in this training for a total of 9 officials. This should be a workable size group to ask questions and engage in discussion as well as learning. The city attorney and other staff should be included as observers to the training too. The cost of his service for the meeting preparation and meeting will be $895, which would be charged to the conference and training budget for the City Council and the administrative staff budget. This is a cost per participant of $ 60 for the session. The session will also be taped for use. BACKGROUND The City Council decided not to adopt a proposal recommended to make the meetings more efficient and more on point by adding to the City Council procedures a limit of 1 round robin after each question or discussion period unless the City Council approved level. During this discussion, it was suggested that learning how to effectively use parliamentary procedure. The council wanted to re -visit this discussion in April. This is a chance to follow up on the City Council's intent. SUGGESTED MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to authorize a workshop on "How to Have Effective Meetings" through a working knowledge of parliamentary procedure by contracting with Mr. Tom Gmeinder. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDER OF BUSINESS • Introduction/report Susan Hoyt, City Administrator • Questions to the presenter Mayor and Council members o (3 minutes) • Questions from the public Mayor facilitates • Call for a motion Mayor and Council members • Discussion Mayor and Council members • Action City Council ATTACHMENT: 1. Tom Gmeinder experience EXAMPLES OF SOME CLIENTS SERVED Minnesota Association of City Attorneys Education Minnesota Minnesota School Nutrition Association Willmsburg Homeowners Association Minnetonka School Board Metro State University City of North Branch, Minnesota Roseville Concerned Citizens League 2615 Park Avenue Homeowners Association Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative Immanuel Lutheran Church Minnesota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives Minnesota Milk Producers Association North Dakota Farm Bureau Airline Mechanics Fraternal Association Minnesota Area Relief Association Coalition Point of France Homeowners Association City of Northfield, Minnesota National Storytelling Association National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurses City of Champlin, Minnesota League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissioners Farmers Union Marketing & Processing Association North Central Chapter of American Ostrich Association Minnesota Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts North Oaks Home Owner's Association American Academy of Facial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Minnesota Realtor's Association Minneapolis Urban League Minnesota State Bar Association Wisconsin Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Michigan Pediatric Medical Association Minnesota Society of Association Executives Minnesota Association of City Attorneys City of Saint Paul, Minnesota March 1, 2008 Jeff Lewis, Pollution Control Program Administrator Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 529 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Subj: 30-bay Public Input on Perfluorochemical Water Contamination of Groundwater Washington County (Lake Jane) Landfill, Lake Elmo, Minnesota Dear Mr. Lewis: The dig/line, "band -aid" solution that has been proposed by the MPCA for the Washington County (Lake Jane) landfill as remediation for the current contamination is unacceptable. The only solution that is acceptable is a permanent solution to remove these contaminants from this landfill. The plasma incinerator is a practical solution that would be long-term cost effective. These landfills are "sleeping giants". Many more of them will become problematic, and a permanent solution is the responsibility of the individuals causing the pollution (in this case, 3M, who did not fully disclose to the MPCA what chemicals were in the landfill), or the MPCA that absolved the polluters from any responsibility. We are learning that toxic pollution will no longer be acceptable if we wish to live on this planet. Groundwater/drinking water is critical and has global impacts, and will become even more of an issue in the future, as global warming is now. We have no more water now than when the dinosaurs walked the earth. The same water just keeps cycling — evaporation, condensation, precipitation... over and over. The MPCA and our leaders need to make hard decisions that are the right decisions. They may not be the politically popular decisions. Our beautiful state of Minnesota has, over the last century or so, given us resources that have allowed us to create great wealth and good lives for ourselves. Unknowingly, some of these have been at a great cost. We need to assume the responsibility and inherent cost for our past decisions that have caused damage. This would be criminal to revisit upon our children's generation, especially when you consider the state of our economy given recent historical spending decisions. We need to pay user fees for what we use, MPCA from Judith Blackford, 3/1/08—page 2 of 3 and people need to understand that taxes are only user fees. We should call them user fees. Common sense tells you that you should pay taxes on resources that you use! This plasma incinerator will pay for itself by creating energy which can be resold, and also by cleaning up this mess. We cannot implement the dig and line method with a clean conscience. Our current and future citizens need your leadership and advocacy for a permanent solution. The Iroquois in their wisdom stated, "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." Some thought the Native Americans unintelligent in their practice of careful use of raw materials/mother earth. It was common sense. We have invented wonderful creations with our beautiful minds. We also need to use our minds as beautifully when it comes to care, compassion, responsibility, and debt repayment for the wellbeing of current and future generations. Do not allow the quick -fix, dig and line "plan" (which will last at best 50 yrs). "Experts" were wrong before in calculating what direction and how far this groundwater could go. These chemicals may yet infiltrate deeper groundwater layers. Then where will we go for our water? Previous band -aid trials have failed. Involve 3M or other business thinkers in building this plasma incinerator. Minnesota is known for its cutting edge inventions, human right's policies, education, preserved wild places, environmental leadership/products, and smart, strong, right thinking that initiates forever legacies which we cherish and are proud! Lead Minnesota again in right/cutting edge groundwater/landfill solutions! Thank voul Respectfully, Judith A. (Moris) Blackford, 9765-45th St. N.—Lake Elmo, MN 55042-9511 Copies to: Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Julie Bunn, Sen. Kathy Saltzman, City of Lake Elmo, City of Woodbury, Washington County Board of Commissioners, 3M Public Relations Please also read the next naael MPCA from Judith Blackford, 3/1/08—page 3 of 3 P.S. Mr. Lewis: Outside a recent meeting, you told my husband, Jim, that we should have known better than to build our home next to a landfill. My family has owned the property where we live for over 50 years. We owned our property long before this landfill was put near our property. We have lived in our home for 25 years. Our well was contaminated by your agency's "solution" of aerating the water. The MPCA allowed a landfill designated for residential waste to be contaminated with hazardous manufacturing waste. Was that even legal? Wouldn't a private citizen have been fined? In addition to having our water tested before we built, I also called about the safety of this landf ill. I was told that the MPCA had monitored everything that went into the landfill. "Monitored" and "Pollution Control" Agency —those words meant something to me 25 years ago. I believed you kept hazardous chemicals away from our home site. It's curious that you look at any person building a home in our community and now impacted by this serious situation as ignorant, but that you hold 3M and the MPCA—who created and allowed this, harmless! I'm sure that my neighbors and all existing, contaminated communities would be very angry to have heard your arrogant response — for vou were sneaking to each one of us! Eight (8) years ago I repeatedly begged Doug bay and Ingrid Verhagen of the MPCA to test our well water —to prudently use our residence as an eastern residential well test site. They refused saying $300 was too expensive for something they didn't need —they already had an eastern well on the landfill. Ingrid, an expert hydro geologist, told me by phone and in a letter that the water could never flow east, and our water would never be contaminated. Eiaht nears too late. vou tested our well water. and we all learned that the experts were wrono! We and numerous other residents and communities now have to drink bottled water. Ironically, I've been concerned about and studied nutrition and health issues for over 30 years. I've been a member of an organic, food co-op for 20+ years. We only buy organic produce, dairy, eggs, meats —we eat foods raised safely, and try for the most part to use health/beauty products that have safe ingredients. My children, now in their 20's, never even had a jar of baby food or formula. I took precautions —only the safest/best. We primarily drank well water with what we thought were all of its inherent good minerals and purity! I tried mv best to protect mv family! Letter To Governor Pawlenty March 3, 2008 Page I March 3, 2008 JAMES M. BLACKFORD 9765 - 45111 ST. NORTH LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 (651) 770-7856 Governor Tim Pawlenty 130 State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Governor Pawlenty: The Citizens of South Washington County need your assistance and support regarding a very important environmental issue. At a recent Governors Meeting, you challenged the Governors of other states to help keep the enviromnent clean by finding greener sources of energy for their states. The Citizens of South Washington County now need your environmental help on a local level to bring all branches of Minnesota Government together in order to implement a permanent solution to remove the ground water pollution in our area and improve the quality of the water we drink! This groundwater pollution exists in south Washington County because of the MPCA's failure (over a 40 year period of time) to properly plan, permit, and manage the Washington County Landfill (WCL) also known as Solid Waste Landfill # 1 (SW # 1) which is located in Lake Elmo, Mn. The MPCA permitted the first mixed municipal trash landfill in the State to be located in an unlined water filled gravel pit in a chain of lakes watershed. Today the MPCA has the dubious distinction of being one of the largest polluters in the State (on a square mile basis) because of their complete failure to keep Letter to Governor Pawlenty Page 2 March 3, 2008 the contents of the WCL within the confines of this unlined landfill. The MPCA's failure has resulted in the groundwater pollution of approximately 30 square miles of South Washington County and therefore thousands of people have had their dinking water tainted. I have attached a very large amount of documentation to this letter in order to give you a complete overview of just how bad the ground water pollution problem in South Washington County has become. Over the years, my wife and I have tried as much as we could to be sure we and our children were not drinking polluted water. However, we failed because the State of Minnesota (over a 40 year period of time) was grossly negligent in their actions regarding their permitting/monitoring of the WCL (see my seven page letter that is enclosed titled "Assessment of MPCA Actions, Findings of Gross negligence"). After 30 years of inaccurate water tests (or for part of the time being told by the State of Minnesota that they wouldn't test our water because there was no way our well could be polluted) we were finally told by the State of Minnesota in September 2006 that our well water was in fact polluted by PFC' S coming from the Washington County Landfill. Also, you should be aware that 3M Corporation did not disclose all of the information it had on PFC's in the 1970's and early 1980's to the MPCA at that time and therefore the MPCA says they did not start looking for PFC pollution in our water until 2004. I think it is inexcusable for the State of Minnesota to continue to hold 3M Company hairnless for the Washington County Landfill Pollution when 3M didn't tell the State everything it knew about PFC pollution at the time they received immunity. It is equally appalling to me that the State of Minnesota did not do its "due diligence" work once it discovered a large amount of 3M Company chemicals dumped Oakdale, Minnesota in the early 1980's and probe 3M to find out what all the various chemicals were. If the MPCA had identified the PFC's produced by 3M Company and dumped Oakdale when these dumps were partially cleaned up in the early 1980's, the ground water testing for PFC's and remediation process could've started decades sooner. Letter to Governor Pawlenty Page 3 March 3, 2008 But here we are, now suffering our 40th year of groundwater pollution in South Washington County because of MPCA mismanagement and still going begging for a permanent solution. After waiting 40 years. it is now time to dig up the Washington County Landfill and have all of its hazardous. industrial wastes removed from Lake Elmo. We prefer plasma incineration which will permanently dispose of the PFC's and other hazardous materials, but will accept the "dig and truck' option to a properly constructed hazardous waste landfill located outside our City. We do not support the "dig and line" option proposed by the MPCA because it leaves this hazardous waste dump in a bad geological location only a few feet above the local water table in Lake Elmo. In addition, this "dig and line" landfill solution is not permanent and would have to be redone in about forty years, just about when the bonds for the current lined landfill would be paid off. In addition, our Lake Elmo dump site was never permitted by the State to be a hazardous waste dump site and we would fight any proposal by the State to allow a hazardous waste dump in this location. Governor, when I asked the MPCA officials at a recent MPCA informational meeting in Lake Elmo on February 21s`, if they were responsible to keep the contents of the WCL within the boundaries of the WCL, they would not give me a yes or no answer. Their answer was that they were only responsible to try to do the best they could based on the condition of the landfill at the time they took it over as part of the closed landfill program. The MPCA has never had an expectation to really protect the citizens of South Washington County from groundwater pollution coming from the WCL. This is very bad public policy and it is wrong! Governor, you should know that we have another 107 unlined landfills that the MPCA is responsible for in the Minnesota closed landfill program. I am also very concerned about what is happening at these landfills and the people who live around them. There is one thing you can be sure about when it comes to managing an unlined landfill. Either it is leaking now, or it will start leaking at some time in the near future! Letter to Governor Pawlenty Page 4 March 3, 2008 Please do not value companies who pollute over the citizens who happen to live near the landfills in this State! When we do not make polluters pay for their pollution, many Minnesota citizens still pay the cost in a very disproportionate and unfair manner. This polluted ground water damages the health of our citizens, takes away our private wells, and further destroys our precious ground water resources for future generations. Please help us get a permanent solution to the ground water pollution problems in South Washington County! Sincerely, tcCM mes M. Blackford Attachments: Numerous documents covering the 40 year history of the Washington County Landfill (WCL) and permanent solution proposals: Section # 1 — 3M Company Articles/ Information Section # 2 — WCL Documents/Recommendations Section # 3 — Blackford Homestead Water Testing Information Section # 4 — WCL Public Notices Section # 5 — WCL Newspaper Articles/Water Quality Articles C: City of Lake Elmo City of Woodbury Senator Kathy Saltzman Representative Julie Bunn Washington County Commissioners Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3M Company renruary LUUO Permits Issued New Residential 3 New Commercial 0 Other Residential 16 Other Commercial 3 Total 22 Total Building Fees Collected J Summary Building Report Valuation $1,345,929.00 $509,747.00 $168,350.00 $2,024,026.00 $30,879.82 Summary Plumbing Report Plumbing 4 Total Plumbing Fees Collected I Summary HVAC Report HVAC 6 Total HVAC Fees Collected Summary Grand Total Fees Surcharge Fee Paid to State SAC Fees Paid to Met Council WAC Fees Paid to Oakdale Misc. Expenses Total Fees Retained Credit Fees to Bldg Credit Fees to Water )redit Fees to Sewer $85,600.00 $452.00 $83,142.00 $553.00 $31,884.82 $1,002.65 $0.00 $0.00 $30,882.17 $23,806.67 $7,000.00 $75.50 New Residential jNew Commercial v ear to uate Permits Issued Valuation 8 $4,038,214.00 0 $0.00 Other Residential 36 $678,116.00 Other Commercial 3 $168,350.00 Total 47 $4,884,680.00 ;Total Building Fees Collected `Plumbing $75,268.63 Summary Plumbing Report 9 $285,600.00 1 Total Plumbing Fees Collected ' $1,079.50 I Summary HVAC Report HVAC 15 $244,942.00 Total HVAC Fees Collected 1 $1,382.50 Summary Grand Total Fees $77,730.63 Surcharge Fee Paid to State SAC Fees Paid to Met Council WAC Fees Paid to Oakdale Misc. Expenses 7Total Fees Retained Credit Fees to Bldg Credit Fees to Water Credit Fees to Sewer $2,428.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75,302.26 $56,300.76 $18,700.00 $301.50 City of Lake Elmo Building Department Building Permit Detail Summary February 1, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Occupancy Class of Work: Remodel Permit # Description of Work 6284 Basement finish (includes plmg&htg) 6282 Remodel (including plmg&Htg) Totals for Class of Work: Remodel Totals for Occupancy: Occupancy B „ . Class of Work: Add Pertnit # 6291 interior buildout 6289 interior buildout Description of Work Totals for Class of Work: Add Class of Work: Remodel Permit # 6294 interior buildout Description of Work Totals for Class of Work: Remodel Friday, February 29, 2008 Date Issued 2/12/2008 2/7/2008 Number of Pennits = 2 Number of Permits 2 Date Issued 2/21/2008 2/20/2008 Number of Permits = 2 Date Issued 2/26/2008 Number of Permits = 1 Use of Building Single Family Dwelling Single Family Dwelling Valuation 15,000 100,875 Total Valuation = 115,875 Total Valuation Use of Building Office Building Commercial 115,875 Valuation 153,000 4,200 Total Valuation = 157,200 Use of Building Commercial Valuation 11,150 Total Valuation = 11,150 Pagel of 3 Totals for Occupancy: B Number of Permits = 3 Occupancy R-3 Class of Work: Add Permit # Description of Work 6292 addition & remodel (Incld plmg & hvac) 6298 Fireplace 6290 Remodel Total Valuation = 168,350 Date Issued Use of Building Valuation 2/22/2008 Single Family Dwelling 208,152 2/27/2008 Single Family Dwelling 4,000 2/21/2008 Single Family Dwelling 1,400 Totals for Class of Work: Add Number of Permits = 3 Total Valuation = 213,552 Class of Work: Remodel Permit # Description of Work Date Issued Use of Building Valuation 6296 alter 2/27/2008 Single Family Dwelling 7,312 6295 alter 2/27/2008 Single Family Dwelling 1,180 6297 Basement 2/27/2008 Single Family Dwelling 16,000 6280 Basement finish (includes plmg&htg) 2/7/2008 Single Family Dwelling 75,000 6279 Basement finish (includes plmg&htg) 2/7/2008 Single Family Dwelling 12,000 6293 Fireplace 2/25/2008 Single Family Dwelling 2,500 6277 Remodel (including plmg&Htg) 2/1/2008 Single Family Dwelling 11,250 6288 reroof 2/19/2008 Single Family Dwelling 44,858 Totals for Class of Work: Remodel Number of Permits = 8 Class of Work: New Permit # 6278 New House 6285 New House Description of Work Total Valuation = 170,100 Date Issued Use of Building Valuation 2/5/2008 Single Family Dwelling 500,000 2/14/2008 Single Family Dwelling 209,821 Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Class of Work: New Permit # Description of Work 6287 New House Totals for Class of Work: New Class of Work: Repair Permit # Description of Work 6281 fumace 6286 reroof Totals for Class of Work: Repair Totals for Occupancy: R-3 Occupancy R 1 Class of Work: Remodel Permit # 6283 Basement finish Description of Work Totals for Class of Work: Remodel Totals for Occupancy: R-1 Date Issued 2/19/2008 Number of Permits = 3 Use of Building Valuation Single Family Dwelling 636,108 Total Valuation = 1,345,929 Date Issued Use of Building Valuation 2/7/2008 Single Family Dwelling 3,500 2/15/2008 Single Family Dwelling 3,220 Number of Permits = 2 Number of Permits = 16 Date Issued Use of Building 2/12/2008 Single Family Dwelling Number of Permits = 1 Number of Permits = 1 Total Valuation = Total Valuation = Total Valuation = 6,720 Total Valuation = 1,736,301 Valuation 3,500 3,500 3,500 Grand Total of All Permits Issued: Number of Permits 22 Total Valuation = 2,024,026 Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 3 of 3 City of Lake Elmo Building Department Building Permit Detail Summary For Occupancy = R-I,R-3 And Class = New February 2, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Occupancy R-3 MAIM ,Igehritar=t.C.trattr/106141,1,1579a:/g4Et.,11.MIX7r4,1W1,,,,=i1 Class of Work: New Permit # Description of Work/Address Date Issued 6278 New House 2/5/2008 5853 Linden Tr. 6285 New House 2/14/2008 4654 Linden Tr 6287 New House 2119/2008 5658 57 th st. circle Totals for Class of Work: New Number of Permits = 3 Use of Building Single Family Dwelling Single Family Dwelling Single Family Dwelling Valuation 500,000 209,821 636,108 Total Valuation = 1,345,929 Totals for Occupancy: R 3 Number of Permits = 3 Total Valuation 1,345,929 Grand Total: Number of Permits 3 Total Valuation = 1,345,929 Friday, February 29, 2008 Page I of I City of Lake Elmo Building Department Plumbing Permit Detail Summary February 1, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 . . . . . . . . Permit if Description of Work Date Issued Valuation 6289 commercial plumbing alter 2/20/2008 4,200 6278 new resd plmg & sewer/septic 2/5/2008 40,000 6287 new resd plmg & sewer/septic 2/19/2008 40,000 6290 water heater install 2/21/2008 1,400 Total Number of Permits = 4 Total Valuation = 85,600 Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 1 of 1 ~~y of Lake Elmo Building H"»� �Summary �_- Detail February 1, 2008 Through February 29,J008 ^, Permit# Description of Work Date Issued Valuation 0207 H\6AC'nenidontia| 2/19/2008 30.000 0286 H\6AC'ronidonUu| 2/27/2008 7.312 6285 H\6AC'rooidondiu| 2/27/2000 1.180 6294 New Commercial 2/20/2000 11.150 0281 replace furnace 2/7/2008 3,500 Total Number of Permits = 6 Total Valuation= 83742 '- '---' =^~,~°°^,'=`~~,^.".=,,.a=`,,11`=,=`,^'.,.',—'a,, City of Lake Elmo Building Department Building Permit Fees February I, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Date Permit # Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review Other Investigation SAC Fee Sewer Fee WAC Fee Meter Sales Tax 2/1/2008 6277 $198.75 $5.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/5/2008 6278 $3,233.75 $250.00 $2,101.94 $50.50 $0.00 $0.00 $75.50 $3,500.00 $400.00 $0.00 2/7/2008 6279 $209.25 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/7/2008 6280 $818.75 $37.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/7/2008 6281 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/7/2008 6282 $998.65 $50.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/12/2008 6283 $90.25 $1.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/12/2008 6284 $251.25 $7.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/14/2008 6285 $1,608.75 $104.91 $1,045.69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/15/2008 6286 $86.33 $1.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/19/2008 6287 $3,880.26 $318.05 $2,522.17 $151.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 $400.00 $0.00 2/19/2008 6288 $591.82 $22.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/20/2008 6289 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/21/2008 6290 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/21/2008 6291 $1,290.55 $76.50 $838.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/22/2008 6292 $1,599.40 $104.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/25/2008 6293 $76.25 $1.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/26/2008 6294 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/27/2008 6295 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/27/2008 6296 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2/27/2008 6297 $265.25 $8.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cfl Friday, February 29, 2008 Paged oft City of Lake Elmo Building Department Building Permit Fees February 1, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Date Permit # Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review Other Investigation SAC Fee Sewer Fee WAC Fee Meter Sales Tax 2/27/2008 6298 $97.25 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals: $15,296.51 $997.65 .. Y'vJ.�:.�..: e... .—rpv ,..:.— ..r. ....... .. vx. ...a::—,r-min-<-in .. �«.✓.c ve..i<T.m. +'.Ji^%d $6,508.66 $201.50 $0.00 $0.00 $75.50 $7,000.00 $800.00 $0.00 Grand Total of Building Related Fees Collected $30,879.82 n w_r`"r11" wywm.. 7. Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 2 of 2 City of Lake Elmo Building Department Plumbing Permit Fees February I, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Date Permit # Permit Fee Surcharge 2/5/2008 6278 $125.00 2/19/2008 6287 $125.00 2/20/2008 6289 $150.00 2/21/2008 6290 $50.00 lilnA.,:,:plx: v_G:49^IIRtme:iz-n.a allSAMU(!tliMP.: of ^StNM Totals: $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $450.00 $2.00 t:Y!%i'::VIfreva i::nu...�!;:!iP!C :::N.."1V:il-:n::.::n:bll'w'[^"..a.e'ifievh,pt!!i!3.k:xiillii'.dl!M�TTiL:::R!RP:P.IN:^r ^Nf:YtiH:: `y-,4ritlp 4:t:U. pkiii:4G4i9!:iiA".H]:::.k�UwUF'IC4.IIIUU0.1:nli4U11IN 'JII:lii'1:'::!U41h9!II51I4n_'C LIIMUWIllthig::G1”1:11M: il!SRi Grand Total of Plumbing Fees Collected: $452.00 Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 1 of 1 City of Lake Elmo Building Department HVAC Permit Fees February 1, 2008 Through February 29, 2008 Date Permit # Permit Fee Surcharge 2/5/2008 6278 $125.00 $0.50 2/7/2008 6281 $50.00 $0.50 2/19/2008 6287 $125.00 $0.50 2/26/2008 6294 $150.00 $0.50 2/27/2008 6295 $50.00 $0.50 2/27/2008 6296 $50.00 $0.50 tVIS.9wae:rnxrru.::AIWMAS:MO".. rn:.:i110N.'"ra.'.1n1':Ur Y Totals: $550.00 $3.00 NtieaMlIrr'gUet.: w;i masx:+::.::.,o:s^rvW::,aNasw llat'Amdn;aeir... 1.11::.s.;u04iPPf .ar.:fla::n..rana Grand Total of HVAC Fees Collected:: $553,00 YG:8“.11auUY4:4..::"J4PUNN1'.Rd�wbrIN.:13:,:v.`avJRte.Z. atOWIL^.UH.:ngnt1k9nwNR!£4.iu1wa2=:.::'1dtr.AP:S..`NYira Friday, February 29, 2008 Page 1 of I