The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-02-26 CC Packet Special Meeting r e e IW . 01, r illwater ~ - -~ -- ~ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA J February 22, 1991 M E M 0 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, TUESDAY AFTERNOON, 4:30 P.M., FEBRUARY 26, 1991. This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, February 26, 1991 at 4:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 216 North Fourth St., Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the f 0 11 owi n g : 1. Possible purchase of Glacier Park Property. 2. Designation of EMS Delegates. '.. 3. Resolution approving Supervisory Personnel Salaries. 4. Any other business Council may wish to discuss. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 r ~ " if- .- e QtilJwte~ "::''''''CE'' .""so~ MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1991 SUBJECT: MEETING ON PURCHASE OF GLACIER PARK (RAILROAD LAND) On No v em b e r 2 7, 1990, the City Co u n c i 1 r e c e i v e d a presentation on the status of negotiations with the Glacier Park Company regarding the purchase of 6.2 acres of land in Downtown Stillwater. (See attached map.) Tom Thueson, Director of Development from Cub Foods attended the meeting and presented their view on remaining in Downtown Sti 11 water. The City had previously received a matching grant from the State Outdoor Recreation Program for $200,000 to purchase Mulberry Point. Since the November 27th meeting, a favorable City's appraisal on the land has come in, an environmental assessment has been reviewed for the site, a finance plan has been developed with CUB leasing the current land from the Ci ty and an offer price has been received from Glacier Park. Based on the purchase and sales agreement, the City of Stillwater has until March 15, 1991 to respond to the offer. At the meeting on Tuesday, Staff will present information of future use of the site, i.e. CUB, parking, park, financing arrangements, and soil correction costs. Based on this information, a purchase agreement with contingencies will be presented for Council approval. e CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 gab' Q~0V'l3.r..of'\ ',3->,-",,0 ,jIIIJ p",coz~~\~'23' NY"\ '0::::> NOJ.-lJ\\ \l;-\c;'1M -1'- ~ o o ;2.r';;:~;:! s; -;;; z ..l- N:3 Vf;:?,!7 v;3 ~"J"i '0 J- ~e raJ lm'UtH)1 W .'? \ /". S ;? \(.'J ~(\",,>- >- A~~ ~ \\ ~ ) \ '. -of t11frlVl a. ~ ~ I' '1?^-y r\A/l11 -JrJ ?'i!fLl 0 ;:: ~ -k! ~V~\Vl\M::; W .oJ'';? C(> ",,(1'1' )-"Z>v~ \'0. ~ '. ~ \ \ '-< ~ MAGNUSON & MOBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW e THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER, MN S508Z David T. Magnuson James I. Moberg Telephone: (612) 439-9464 Telecopier: (612) 439-5641 February 21, 1991 Mr. Wally Abrahamson, Mayor Stillwater City Council Mr. Nile Kriesel Mr. Steve Russell Ms. Diane Deblon Re: Appraisal Report City Sale to DNR RJ Kirchner's first appraisal for this site was based upon a site size of 2.95 acres, or 112,820 square feet. When the error was discovered in the legal description and then corrected, it was discovered that the site was actually 87,346 square feet. The difference in size, however, did not account for the total difference in appraised value. In the first appraisal he valued the site at fifty-five cents a square foot. In the second appraisal he valued the site at forty-four cents a square foot. I talked with RJ Kirchner. He indicated that he felt the smaller site would be worth less per square foot because it would be less adaptable to other uses. While all of this has not been very satisfactory, obligated to send this appraisal to the DNR since public record and must be disclosed in any event. glad to talk with any of you if you would care to we are it has become I would be call. Yours very truly, k David T. Magnuson 4It DTM/cS :-" ,,~ t-< ~") ()~ ... <'(,.-". <<.<8>" e STAFF REQUEST ITEM DEPARTMENT ____~~__ .. .~_____________ ME~TING DATE :::.~:....:~.:_::..:.:____ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline what the request is) Request the Council approval of Timothy J. Bell as delegate to the EMS Council. ________________________ ~~r &~ _____________________________~______ and George W. Ness as First alternate. ...........___ ...,.___________.. "V---....r____________ ----------------........... ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------~- ~----------------- --------------- ------------ ------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- -----------------------~~~-- --------------------------------------- FINANCIAL IMPACT (Briefly outline aS5.;Jciatad with this reql.1est and needed to fund the request) the costs, if any, that are the proposed source of the funds -------------------~-- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------~---------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED YES NO x SUBMITTED BY ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. CLERK A DAYS-PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BE ~L~ED ~N THE COUNCIL MATERIAL PACKET. --:f:::/?~ _ DATE ~:....7~~9.91.-__ ALL COUNCIL MINIMUM OF FIVE COUNCIL MEETING tit e RESOLUTION NO. 91-25 APPROVING SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL SALARIES FOR 1991 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater that the following salaries for the year, 1991, are hereby approved: Effective January 1, 1991 Nile L. Kriesel, City Coordinator Diane Deblon Finance Director $ 56,100 45,900 David Ma~ihorter Public Safety Director Donald Beberg Captain 53,040 49,224 Gordon Seim Fire Chief 45,900 Steve Russell Community Development Director David C. Junker Public Works Director 49,380 42,336 A 11 en Zepper Building Official George Di ethert Ass't. Public Workd Director 41,052 40,800 Robert Bielenberg Ice Arena Manager Mary Lou Johnson City C 1 e rk 33,660 34,680 James Stevensen Ass't. Fire Chief 39,720 Adopted by Council this 12th day of February, 1991. e MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK e PLAINTIFF '1 .statement of Cairn and Summons State of Minnesota Conciliation Court NO. r;;~-9/-~39 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON NAAE AI<<) AOORESS tWEANO~SS PLAINTIFF .2 va. va. NAME AHO AOORESS NAME AND AOORESS ~R.. DEFENDANT DEFENDANT '1 '2 I 'i~"c;;r: SItU W+~ tv. STATEMENT OF CLAIII I NOT WRITE IELOW THIS LINE ........ lUll MONS NOTICE OF HEARING e 'AlLURE TO APPEAR Name dPr~7'''7 M( (JAfllA.-fi.L Title ~ being duly sworn says" that he is the plaintiff above named; that the defendant is at least 18 years old; that the d;e~endant is nq; now in the Military Service; that the defendant is a resident of WItt;jJ)lHI,tlrJ~'u.j\,'T'<' County; and alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $ / =3 0, I 4 , plus $ ,,,,00 filing fee, totalling $ fi(h./tJ ' ,plus disbursements, by reason of the following facts: ~~}J N 0 l. t. to \) ~ ~'- L..o ~~ 'L, ~ (Z.,'M. J k'tJ C'~k: .{' ru:> JV'\ C(:.. yV D 0 IA- I <.::> +- L.... If\.! ~ 5 "f... P 'i: 12. AT f P L 0( <; ~ tv 'T, 12. <;.., ~m~M~a~~~ ~Cf SIGPMTURE: ~~ 'h1, C? . LEPHONE\ 7'7 i-55 { 7 THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT Yau are hereby summoned to appear at the bearing of the above entitled case at 1: 00 P. m., OIl Time March 13, 1991 .at WashinRton County Govt Center, 14900 61st St No,Stillwater ~. ~ ~: 2-22-91 Judge jm Cass Deputy Failure to the defendant to appear In Court may nlult la . default Judlmeat bela, entered .,.Ialt him. F.lIure or the plaintiff to appear ma, result ID dismissal of the actloD or a default JudameDt bela, entered In favor or tbe defendant on aD, couDter-clalm which hu been Interposed. NOTICES MAILED EXHIBIT "A" Form No",~l.M-aUIT CLAIM DEED Minnesota Unifonn Conveyancing Blanks (1978) r--Co-':p-o,:.litio';jQ7""Pa-m;er;~'---'------"" ,. I to Corporation or Partnership Miller-Davis Co,. Minneapolis i . I No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. ,19___ Coullty Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date: ,19_ (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The City of Stillwater , a Municipal the State of Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Housinq & Redevelopment Authority a Municipal Corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota Washinqton County, Minnesota, described as follows: Corporationnder the laws of Washinqton County , Grantee, , real property in All of Block 1, THE COTTAGES OF STILLWATER, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Titles, in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota. By this instrument the City of Stillwater hereby releases and forever discharges the real estate described herein from any charge, obligation or requirement contained in that certain Development Agreement dated March 3, 1983, filed December 3, 1984, as document number 67958, by and between the City of Stillwater, a municipal corporation and Paul D. Emerson and Ann E. Emerson, husband and wife, Developer. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. (if more space is needed, continue on back) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. ~A:ffix l)eed c'rax IIeri:' By Its Mayor By Its City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF VvASHINGTON } $, and and day of February Mary Lou Johnson City Clerk ,a Municipal Corporation ,on behalf of the City of Stillwater ,19.91- , . : The foregoing was acknowledged before me this by Wally Abrahamson the Mayor of the City of Stillwater under the laws of the State of Minnesota NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tax Statements for the real property described In this Instrument should be sent to (Include name and address at Grantee): THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (N AME AND ADDRESS): , e David T. Magnuson 324 South Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 MAGNUSON & MOBERG AITORNEYS AT LAW THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 David T. Magnuson James I. Moberg Hr. Nile Kriesel Stillwater City Coordinator 216 North Fourth street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Nile: e Telephone: (612) 439-9464 Telecopier: (612) 439-5641 February 21, 1991 The Housing and Rede~elopment Authority is having the same title problems with their property that The Cottages Phase III had. It involves the Emerson! Development Agreement that has been recorded as a memorial against all of the property in this plat. In order that the flaw be eliminated, it is necessary that we execute the enclosed Quit Clam Deed that releases the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's parcel. It would be helpful ~f this could be put on the agenda for quick action on Tuesday, F~bruary 26. I appreciate your help. DTM/cs Enclosure cc: Mary Lou Johnson Yours very truly, ~vtz David T. Magnuson {n q/~./ '(0' <(<.- . ~.:: ") e ., . e e ~ rfi1r~ MINNESOTA 1990 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-3898 Telephone (612) 296-6300 February 22, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Minnesota pollution Control Agency has approved the Findings of Fact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the proposed Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion, which conclude that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The decision for a Negative Declaration concludes the state environmental review process under the revised Environmental Quality Board rules, Minn. Rules pt. 4410.1700, subp. 7. This project can now proceed to permitting. Sincerely, Yl1.~ net M. Cain Acting Director Environmental Analysis Office Environmental Support Division JMC:bh Enclosure Regional Offices: Duluth' Brainerd. Detroit Lakes. Marshall. Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer . Printed on Recycled Paper . . e STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC~ In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Stillwater Yastewater Treatment Facility Expansion FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER The Metropolitan Yaste Control Commission is proposing to expand and upgrade the Stillwater Yastewater Treatment Facility (VYTF), close the Bayport VYTF, and route the wastewater to the expanded Stillwater facility. An Environmental Assessment Yorksheet (EAY) was prepared on the project by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff. Based on the EAY and comments or information received during the EAY comment period, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Nature of the Project The existing Stillwater VYTF can treat an average annual wastewater flow of 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd); the Bayport YVTF can treat 0.65 mgd of average annual flow. After expansion, the Stillwater VYTF will be able to treat 4.5 mgd of average annual flow to achieve established effluent quality standards, including 20 milligrams per liter (mg/l) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 24 mg/l total suspended solids (TSS), and 1 mg/l phosphorus. The facility will continue to discharge treated effluent to the St. Croix River. The expanded facility will include a preliminary treatment building that will house a mechanical bar screen, a vortex grit removal unit, and flow monitoring equipment. The building will also house odor control facilities and a sludge loadout station. The wastewater will flow by gravity from the preliminary treatment building to two new primary clarifiers. The primary clarifier effluent will flow to the existing rehabilitated aeration basin and two new aeration basins. From there, the wastewater will flow to two existing rehabilitated secondary clarifiers and two new secondary clarifiers. The secondary clarifier effluent will then be treated using ultra-violet disinfection equipment. The primary and waste activated sludge will be pumped to a new thickener building, which will include a gravity thickener and a sludge storage tank. The thickened sludge will be stored in a sludge storage tank at a concentration of approximately four percent solids. The sludge will be hauled to the Metropolitan Yaste Control Commission's (MYCC) St. Paul plant for treatment. e The new facilities will also include a new blower/chemical building and a new alum feed system for phosphorus removal. A new septage waste tank will receive septage from haulers. The existing ~._. . -4- due to project construction will be mitigated by the development of an acceptable wetlands mitigation plan by the MYCC and the u.s. 4It Army Corps of Engineers. 4. Ground Yatrr Appropriations (Dewatering). Significant ground water dewaitering will occur during the construction of the YVTF, roughly f~om May 1991 to November 1992. The project consultants estimate that roughly two mgd will be withdrawn from the site. The MYCC ill obtain a construction dewatering permit from the DNR to perfor~ this activity. Yater quality tests have determined that the ~round water is low in TSS and, therefore, can be discharge~ into the river. Drain tiles will be installed on site to facili~ate permanent dewatering. This should amount to roughly I 70,000 ga~lons per day. The close~t well to the treatment facility is at the Oak Park Heights Prison, located approximately 1500 feet to the south. The next closest well is located over 2000 feet away. Dewatering may have an impact on these local wells. Since the primary dewatering will only loccur during construction, the significant impacts should be I temporary. The permanent dewatering may also lower ~ocal wel~ water levels Qut not enough to cause significant lmpacts. I I 5. Erosion/Sedimentation. The following erosion control measures will be used during construction: 1) trenches will be backfilled immediately after pipe installation; 2) sediment barriers will be used where appropriate anu siltation fences or hay bales will surround the project area during construction; 3) disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as possible after completion of construction; 4) dust from wind erosion will be controlled by the applicati~n of water and/or chemical dust suppressants; and 5) the construct~on areas will be limited to minimize erosion and sedimentafion problems. Contouring, ditches, curbs, and gutters will control erosion problems ~esulting from surface water run-off. Adequate implementation of these procedures should minimize any erosion and sedimentation problems. 6. Surface/Storm Yater Run-off. The proposed project will slightly increase surface and storm water run-off as a result of the construct~on of buildings and streets, and the modification of vegetativ~ cover. The surface water from the project will be directed ~o the NSP storm water holding ponds, located to the southeast! of the site, by ditches, contouring, curbs, and gutters. After thel settling of eroded material, run-off eventually flows to the St. Ctoix River. Revegetation of the site after construction will also help reduce storm water run-off. 7. Dust/Noise/Odors. Construction machinery may cause temporary adverse d~st and noise impacts on a few residences and commercial ~ establish~ents near the project area (the distance to the nearest ... residentiial/commercial areas is 120 feet). Dust will be , " -5- . controlled by keeping exposed areas wetted down when necessary, and by repairing or reseeding disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction. Noise impacts will be minimized by requiring adequate mufflers on construction machinery engines and by restricting operations to daylight hours. The actual facility operation will not generate significant noise levels. A screening berm will be constructed between-the treatment plant and the adjacent apartment complex to reduce noise and visual impacts. Odors from the wastewater treatment plant will be minimized by covering the septage receiving tank, the influent barscreen and grit chamber, and the sludge storage and thickening facilities. The air from these covered facilities will be routed through a wet scrubber and activated carbon filter before being discharged to the atmosphere. 8. Vildlife Habitat. An initial site survey identified a possible nest of a red-shouldered hawk, a species of special concern. The DNR, u.s. Fish and Vildlife Service, and the Raptor Rehabilitation Center were contacted on this issue. A determination could not be made on the status of the nest and the type of bird that occupied it. The tree can be removed since the species could not be identified and the status of the nest is unknown. The removal will not take place during the breeding season. 9. MFCA Finding. The MPCA staff finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS 1. The proposed project is intended to provide wastewater treatment to an expanded service area and to meet the needs of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport, and Stillwater Township for the 20-year planning period. The proposed project is consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and land uses. 2. The MPCA staff finds that there are no related or anticipated future actions which could result in cumulative, adverse, environmental effects. C. THE EXTENT TO VHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Units of Government Permit or Approval Required e Federal: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit -6- State: e MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit MPCA NPDES Permit for Dewatering Discharge ONR Local: City of Oa~ Park Heights City of Oa\t Park Heights City of Oa~ Park Heights Construction Dewatering Permit Building Permi t Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit 2. The projec~ will be subject to regulatory control and possible further mi~igation of impacts through the MPCA process associated with the i~suance of a NPDES permit for the facility. , 3. Plans and specifications are subject to review and approval by the MPCA staff and construction activities will be inspected by the MPCA staff and the proposer's on-site inspector. After the facility begins operation, the M\lCC will submi t monitoring reports and the facility will be periodically inspected. 4. If NPDES permit conditions are not met, appropriate enforcement action will be initiated by the MPCA staff. 5. As a result of dewatering activities, the project will be subject to regulatory control by the DNR through the modification of a constructibn dewatering permit. I 6. As a result of wetlands alteration and the disposal of excavation material i~ the floodplain, the project will be subject to regulatory control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through the modification of a Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit. 7. As a result of construction activity, the project will be subject to regulatory control by the city of Oak Park Heights through the modification of a conditional use permit, a building permit, and a grading permit. 8. The MPCA staff finds that the permits and monitoring reports required by public regulatory authority will provide additional opportunity to mitigate the environmental effects of the project, if necessafY' ! e -7- . D. THE EXTENT TO YHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EIS'S PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. 1. The proposed Stillwater VYTF expansion utilizes proven wastewater treatment technology that has been frequently reviewed by the MPCA staff. Environmental review and permitting has occurred for similar facilities that have been successfully implemented elsewhere in Minnesota. 2. There are no elements of the project that pose .the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes. 3. The MPCA staff finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of environmental review, previous environmental studies, and permitting processes undertaken by the MPCA on similar projects. CONCLUSIONS 1. The EAY, the permit development process, the Jacility planning process, and responses prepared by MPCA staff to comments on the EAY, have generated information adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 2. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigative .measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards. 3. Based on the criteria established in Minn. Rules pt. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. 5. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ~xC_) Barbara Lindsey ims . Depu~y Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ~-/9-9/ e Date -8- REFERENCES AND COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED e 1. Environmental Asses~ment Worksheet (EAW), dated September 24, 1990. 2. Stillwater Wastewatbr Treatment Faci li ty Draft EA\T, dated June 1989. I 3. Stillwater I Treatment Facility Plan, dated November 1989. \lastewatler , , 4. Stillwater I Treatment Facili ty Permit File. \lastewatler i 5. Bayport Wastewater ~reatment Facility Permit File. 6. Letter from Anthon~ Andersen, National Park Service, dated March 6, 1990. 7. Letter from Dan McGuiness, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, dated April 20, 19~0. 8. Letter from Allen ~e, Metropolitan \Taste Control Commission, dated May 10, 1990. 9. Letter from Richard Tubesing, Project Manager, Donohue and Associates, dated May 15, 1990. 10. Letter from Allen qye, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, dated May 24, 1990. 11. Letter from Donohue, and Associates, dated July 25, 1990. I 12. Letter from Mark M~rtell, The Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota, dated August 16, 1~90. 13. Letter from Allen 9ye, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, dated November 29, 1990. i 14. Letter from Allen Dye, Metropolitan \Taste Control Commission, dated January 22, 1991. 15. The following comment letters were received: Mr. Roger Israel, Metropolitan Council, dated October 8, 1990. Mr. Anthony Andersen, National Park Service, dated October 11, 1990. I Mr. Dennis Gimmest~d, Minnesota Historical Society, dated October 26, 1990. i Mr. Isaac McCrary, \Department of Transportation, dated November 1, 1990. Mr. Thomas Balcom, [Department of Natural Resources, dated November 5, 1990. I e , .. -'<- -9- ~ COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1. Mr. Roger Israel, Metropolitan Council, October 8, 1990. COMMENT: The EAY is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. RESPONSE: No resp~nse necessary. 2. Mr. Anthony Anderson, National Park Service, October 11, 1990. COMMENT: The National Park Service has concerns about whether specific needs have been identified for the amount of wetland that has been proposed for filling. These concerns will be addressed through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application process. . RESPONSE: The MYCC will disturb as little wetland as is possible, roughly 0.5 acre. The MYCC will continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop an acceptable wetland mitigation plan. 3. Mr. Dennis Gimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society, October 26, 1990. COMMENT: There are no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the project area. RESPONSE: No response necessary. 4. Mr. Issac McCrary, Departm~nt of Transportation, November 1, 1990. COMMENT: Part of the project site lies under one of the corridor alternatives for the Stillwater/Houlton River Crossing Study. COMMENT: The EAY indicates that drainage from the expansion will be routed to the south into NSP's storm water holding ponds. If a southern alternate for the bridge is selected, Mn/DOT intends to construct drainage facilities and a storm water treatment pond south of the wastewater facility. The Mn/DOT Hydraulics Section would like to review the drainage plans. RESPONSE: The appropriate information relating the proposed Stillwater/Houlton River Crossing will be sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation by the MYCC. 5. Mr. Thomas Balcom, Department of Natural Resources, November 5, 1990. e COMMENT: A grit storage pile at the Metropolitan Yastewater Treatment Facility in St. Paul was implicated as a possible source of pathogens responsible for waterfowl mortality in recent years. The DNR strongly recommends that plans for the Stillwater plant include the immediate removal of the grit from the site. RESPONSE: There will be no grit storage at the Stillwater Yastewater Treatment Plant. ...,.->.. .. -10- COMMENT: A site inspection revealed what appears to be small coal particles on the site, possibly within the expansion area. This may contribute to surface and ground water contamination. Removal of the material may be advisable. e RESPONSE: The small particles of coal noted are actually coal ash that has been deposited by NSP. According to the latest site visit, it appears that very little, if an~, of these ash deposits are located on MWCC property. Any coal ash disco~ered on MWCC property will be dealt with through NSP. COMMENT: Although !fisheries impacts from this project are small, we suggest that mitig~tion for loss of some potential spawning habitat for northern pike in tqe seasonally flooded wetland be pursued. RESPONSE: The issJe of wetland mitigation is being addressed by the MPCA, MWCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers. COMMENTS: The DNR is also concerned about Wild and Scenic River Program impacts. The new ~uilding will be visible from the St. Croix River. Extensive plantings should therefore be required to provide screening. RESPONSE: The treatment plant will not be visible from the St. Croix River. The trees along the river and along the east side of the plant will not be disturbed by this project and will provide a visual buffer. COMME~~: An amendment to the St. Croix Ordinance would be required to allow the city of Oak Park Heights to list sewage treatment plants as a conditional use. RESPONSE: The MWCC will be required to obtain a conditional use permit. COMMENT: and from The DNR ~ssumes that the discharge water quality from the wells the facility will be handled and monitored by the MPCA. I i The wat~r quality permit conditions will be monitored. RESPONSE: e e e j'71erllcI to: Mayc<r a'(ld COl..mc i 1 From: City Coordinator Re: National Conference Attendance Da: February 22, 1991 I have reviewed the history of the past three years (1938, 1989, & 1990) regarding attendance of National conferences' by Departme~tal 5uper- visor's. A summary of my findings are as follows: Year atte'(lded 19';1 S u perv i sClr 1988 1989 1 '390 Est. Cc.st Ri2cl'.lest Nl Ie L. Kriesel N/A Nc.'(.e Mary Lou Johnson x $'350 " Dia'(IE Deble<n " " DaVE Mawhort et~ Gordy Seim " Chc<c JUl"lker x $600-700 GeClt~ge Diethert " " Tim Thc<msel"l N/A NlA N/A " Steve R1.lssell x $ B(~ Ql Al I el"l Zepper x x x -IE- Sl H.lCl yr. ,~, X Attended or request to attend * No cost for 1990 or 1991 (except City time off) The summary shows that there has been minimal attendancE of National or Out-of-State conferences'. Based on the past activity and the budget I would recommend that the Council approve Steve's request to attend the AICPA conference in New Orleans in March (23-23) and to also approve Allen's request to attend the lCBO conference in March (18-22i. /f!uvU