The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-08-11 PACKET 05.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 8/11/2010 PREPARED BY Administration Ryan Schroeder ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive response to Ms. Kathy Lewandoski regarding 3M Cottage Grove issues, and the proposed Public Safety /City Hall building. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Letter from Ryan Schroeder. ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ❑ OTHER: ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS ? L City Administrator Date Document2 City of Cotta Grove Minnesota 7516 80th Street South / Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 -3195 w . cottage- grove.org July 23, 2010 Ms. Kathy Lewandoski 9043 75th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Ms. Lewandoski, 651- 458 -2800 Fax 651- 458 -2897 TDD 651A58 -2880 I have reviewed the tapes from the June 16, July 7 and July 21 meetings during which you provided several comments and questions for which I will attempt to provide a response. I apologize for any that I miss or for which I am unable to provide a full and complete response. Initially, you noted that you believe the City Council needs to provide more information regarding the 3M Incinerator to the community. As you know, this is specifically why a community meeting has been scheduled on August 4 at the Cottage Grove Middle School. There will be an open house starting at 6PM with the meeting commencing at 71 You should be able to receive answers to most of your questions regarding the 3M Incinerator at that meeting. However, I should also mention that since 3M first brought the issue to our attention about 18 months ago there has been significant public discourse and publicly held meetings and media reporting on all of the issues regarding the incinerator. Our recently created Environmental Commission has held a number of public meetings specifically to address the issue. Going forward that Commission may be a good avenue upon which you can seek additional discussion of environmental issues. You asked in a few different ways for who manages the process and environmental issues. The Mayor provided both a verbal response and has provided written responses that all permitting authority for environmental air and other emissions is held by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Any citizen or entity, including the City, can attempt to influence their decision - making, but ultimately the City has no actual regulatory authority over this or any other similar issue. The City has been having ongoing discussions with the PCA regarding issues such as those which you have raised. You also asked about monitoring. I believe you are aware that 3M is not required to conduct, or agree to ambient air monitoring. Monitoring is not a requirement of the MPCA and the City does not have the authority to require such monitoring. However, 3M voluntarily entered discussions with the City several months ago to work toward an air monitoring solution to City concerns regarding the Incinerator operations. We believe that ultimately there will be an air monitoring station constructed at or near the 3M Cottage Grove plant site. We also believe that air monitoring will reveal that air quality in Cottage Grove is as good or better than air quality in at least most of the Twin Cities metro area. You wondered why 3M is not required to filter municipal water. 3M has been required to provide water filtration for those persons on private wells that have PFC levels within wells that are above the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) determined Health Based Values (HBV). Those values are scientifically researched and determined by independent and government agencies and not by 3M or a political body. The City has a great level of confidence in the MDH regarding the quality and independence of that research and resulting determinations. Our municipal wells contain PFC levels well below the HBV levels which is why EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER there is not a requirement by the MDH for a filtration system on our wells. The water you are drinking has been determined by the MDH to be safe. A great resource for more information is at www. pca.state. m n. us /i ndex. ph p /waste /waste - and - cleanup /cleanup - programs -a nd- topics /topics /pe rflu orochem ica Is- pfc /pe rfl uorochem ica Is -pfcs. htm I You had asked about extraction wells. I may not be completely clear on the intent of your question but would state that 3M entered a consent agreement with the MPCA about two years ago that is intended to require implementation of soil excavation at both the 3M Woodbury site and the 3M Cottage Grove plant site to remove soil contamination. This is followed by construction of extraction wells to remove ground water contamination. 3M has been in the process of implementing those requirements under the guidance of the MPCA. The entire system plan will most likely be implemented during this next year with many facets of the plan already in place. 3M had also requested changes to the existing extraction system at the 3M Woodbury site. On June 29, 2010 the MPCA approved a portion of the 3M request for changes which results in a 25% reduction in ground water extraction. You had also requested information on how much property tax is paid by 3M. According to the City 2009 audit 3M is the entity with the greatest net tax capacity value within the community with a value of $573,954 in 2008. This equates to 1.93% of the total net tax capacity value within the community. For comparison purposes your home appears to have a tax capacity value of $1,808 for taxes payable in 2010. You had asked how hazardous waste will be transported. Our environmental consultant has adjudged that the change in the current operations permit as requested by 3M is the equivalent of roughly two truckloads of material per day. That level of impact is a relatively small amount of activity already represented on the 3M site and a de minimis amount of material compared to that already transported through the community via truck or rail At this most recent meeting you had asked a few questions regarding the need /wisdom of a new Public Safety /City Hall project at this time. There will be an increasing amount of communication to the public regarding this project. However, at this time I can suggest that the Council determined to go forward with this project now due to an expectation of low bid prices as opposed to what might be realized five or six years from now. The current building was constructed to provide facilities for a staff complement which was about half of our current staffing which is about half of what our 2040 staffing is anticipated to be. This building just cannot handle the requirements of this operation into the future and frankly, in the public safety area it is well beyond capacity currently. I should mention here that our staffing is currently among the lowest of cities to which we compare (7th lowest of 29 suburbs of similar population). We are projecting future staffing growth to continue our past trend of modest staffing levels compared to peer communities. Kathy, I would be very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss any of your concerns with you at anytime. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you be desirous of learning more about the reasons for decisions made by your city representatives. Thanks for the opportunity to respond to some of your concerns. Sincerely, Ryo R.Sch eder City Administrator