Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-10 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 8/10/11 PREPARED BY Community Development Danette Parr ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meetings on May 11, 2011 and June 8, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meetings on May 11, 2011 and June 8, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ® ENVIRONMENTAL 7/13/11 REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ -�* 1T ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meetings on 5/11/11 & 6/8/11 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, May 11, 2011 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on May 11, 2011, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Barbara Gibson, Patrick Lynch, David Olson, Thaddeus Owen Members Absent: Rita Isker, Patrick McLoughlin Others Present: Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Vice Chair Owen opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. •. . �,. A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). None New Business 5.1 Public Safety /City Hall — Wold Architects Levitt stated that John McNamara, Wold Architects, will provide a presentation on the Public Safety /City Hall project and Bob Byerly, the City's Fire Chief, will talk about the facility. McNamara updated the Commission on the Public Safety /City Hall project relating to environ- mental issues and energy information. Owen asked if the final incentive dollar value will be de- termined by Xcel, noting that it should be in that $50,000 range. McNamara responded that the incentive would increase by 5 percent, on top of the $50,000. Owen asked what the price in- crease to the project cost is. McNamara responded that the incremental first cost will go up by about 13 percent because of the more expensive glazing and some of the daylighting control systems, but the payback is still in the 1.7 to 2 year range. McNamara continued his presentation, noting additional considerations that the Commission wanted Wold to follow up on included in -floor heat for the parking garage and an educational component for geothermal, such as replacing one of the air handlers in a public space with a Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 8 geothermal system. He stated that another suggestion was to put in an in -floor system (radiant heat) in the garage instead of unit heaters. He explained that code would require ventilation in that area, so a make -up air unit would still be needed; the energy usage would be about the same as using just the unit heaters. One of the positives with an in -floor system is that the ga- rage floor will dry faster. The additional cost to put a radiant system in the floor of the garage would be about $120,000. He asked for feedback from the Commission on which system to rec- ommend for the garage. Chase asked about drainage for the garage. McNamara stated that trench drains planned. Olson asked if the life of floor is extended by keeping it drier. McNamara responded no. McNamara summarized that there would not be a significant benefit to an in -floor heating system in the garage. It was asked if there was a cost per square foot relative to what the gas systems cost and what the radiant heat costs. McNamara responded that the budget has $10,000 for unit heaters, which would be by the garage doors. To put in the in -floor heating system, it would cost about $135,000. It was asked if there would be other heaters in the garage. McNamara responded that the make -up air unit is required because of the exhaust in the garage and the amount of energy that it would take to heat that amount of air. McNamara stated that another suggestion was to install a smaller geothermal system in the public space that could be highlighted for public education. However, the smaller system would require 51 wells instead of the 268 wells needed for the whole building. The cost for the well field to handle just that area would add about $98,000. Owen asked if there was an estimate on what the energy savings would be. McNamara responded not enough to see a payback. Chase noted that it would be virtually invisible and nobody would know it was there. McNamara responded a plaque could be placed on the wall. Owen asked if geothermal would be the most efficient alternative energy option instead of solar or wind. McNamara responded solar lighting that has a fairly inexpensive first cost could be in- stalled as site lighting. One idea is a system using the walls of the penthouse as a solar collector for an air -to -air heat exchanger that would heat the incoming air as it comes into the building. A perforated metal panel would be installed on the penthouse that would collect solar radiant energy to heat the air and that air would then rise through the chase into the building and be captured in the air handler. There would be a fairly limited first cost, about $40,000. This system would reduce energy costs but the payback period is 40 years. Chase asked if the penthouse would be visible. McNamara said it would be. It was asked if there are any potential mainten- ance issues with this apparatus. McNamara responded that it uses physics of heated air so there are not a lot of mechanics involved. Owen noted that it is a $40,000 cost that does not provide much net benefit in cost savings but it would be a demonstration project of an alterna- tive energy source. Owen asked if there are less expensive demonstration projects. McNamara responded using solar energy and LED lights for site lighting. LED lights are energy efficient, long lasting, and more affordable than they were in the past. A renewable energy component could be added for site lighting, such as on the parking lot lights and lighted bollards for walkway lighting. They do have some incremental first costs, but they are free from an energy perspective because they are not connected to the grid. This would be a good way to do a demonstration project of solar energy without adding significant first cost to the project. Owen asked if the LED light fixtures will be standard whether solar power is used or not. McNamara responded yes. Owen asked if there is a cost estimate. McNamara responded that it would depend on how many would be added. Owen asked Schroeder what the City would be comfortable spending. McNamara stated that they need to calculate see how many fixtures are needed and what the incremental costs Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 8 would be, noting that the number of fixtures needed would change if solar fixtures were used. Chase asked if the payback is 30 years regardless of the number of fixtures. McNamara re- sponded that the free energy would be free because they would not be connected to the build- ing's electric system. Chase asked if there any incentives for using solar fixtures. McNamara responded that they have not talked with Xcel about grant programs for solar fixtures. Levitt noted that LED fixtures are dimmable, which would help to reduce energy costs. She is inter- ested in the bollard lighting because it is visible versus the solar elements that are connected to the parking lot light poles. Chase asked for an estimate on the number of fixtures in the drop off area. Nelson responded that the site plan shows eight. Owen asked about the incremental cost for solar bollards. Nelson responded that a regular LED bollard is around $800 and with solar power it would be $1800. McNamara stated that the site lighting calculations have to be done before they can get the final total fixture count. Owen stated that the Commission would make a recommendation on this at the next meeting. Owen explained that the City Council is looking for a recommendation from the Environmental Commission on how to proceed. He asked for a discussion on the findings of fact in the staff memorandum. He wanted to add water runoff treatment and asked the City Engineer for feed- back on how to address that. Levitt stated that prior to the meeting she passed out information on grants from the Watershed District that are going to the City Council for acceptance. These grants are for projects related to the Public Safety /City Hall and the Ravine Parkway sites. She explained that storm water runoff is a very critical component for commercial and residential de- velopment. The City standards are directly related to the Watershed District's requirements for both water quality and rate control. The project layout meets all of the requirements of the Watershed District and the City. The Watershed District gives out these grants only to projects that go beyond their requirements. The first grant is for $71,750 to reduce the magnitude of run- off volume, the frequency of erosion, and concentrated flows into the ravine, as well as reducing sedimentation and associated nutrient loading into Ravine Lake. The second grant, in the amount of $84,085 for additional BMPs, is for the road project that will reduce the magnitude of the runoff volume and the sedimentation and associated nutrient loading into Ravine Lake. It was asked what a BMP is. Levitt responded Best Management Practice. She stated that the Commission discussed rain harvesting for drip line irrigation, interpretive opportunities, porous pavement, and native plantings. The pond for the roadway provides for additional phosphorous removal so the SWWD will provide funds for that. Owen asked if the City is going to implement the required practices for runoff as well as use these two grants to add additional features to capture and filter the runoff. Levitt responded that was correct. Owen asked if the City needs to present the actual practices that will be used. Levitt responded that she will provide all docu- mentation to the Watershed District in compliance with the grant. Olson asked if some of the money could be used to create an inventory of all things that were done and for plaques along the walkway explaining it. Levitt responded that interpretive signage could be reviewed with the budget. Olson asked about educational opportunities to promote sustainable practices, conservation, and wildlife habitat protection would be provided. Levitt re- sponded that use of the Watershed's grant has to be directly related to water quality improve- ments, but there may be other cost sharing opportunities for interpretive signs. Owen asked if Olson wants to include language on providing this education embedded in the recommenda- tions. Olson responded that he believes this is information that should be shared with the public. Schroeder stated that if it is the Commission's desire to provide educational signage, it could be looked at in the site design portion of the budget. There was further discussion on which areas should be highlighted including rain harvesting from roof runoff being used to water landscaping Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 4 of 8 instead of draining into the ravine. Owen asked what the best way is to ensure that this recom- mendation gets viewed. Levitt responded that it could be incorporated into the Commission's final recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will be taking action on June 1 and they will have all recommendations from all the Commissions at that time. Owen summarized that the Commission wants to would add a fourth recommendation to dis- cuss the best management practices and public educational component of those practices and a fifth recommendation to have Wold Architects continue looking at alternative energy schemes that can be used as demonstration projects. A motion was made and seconded to prove the three recommendations in the staff report plus add the two recommendations summarized by the Environmental Commission Chair above. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). 5.2 EAW 3M East Cove Sediment Removal Proiect Levitt stated that the Environmental Commission initially reviewed this project in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on April 13. She reported that the Planning Commission, at their April 25, 2011, meeting, recommended making a negative declaration on the EIS for this project and approved the conditional use permit for the grading component. She stated that several En- vironmental Commissioners toured the East Cove at 3M. During the tour, they viewed where sites D1, D2, and D9 had been excavated and restored. She displayed a map showing the loca- tion of the East Cove. She stated that Mark Gaetz from 3M could summarize again for the Commission the phasing of the project and Gary Krieger with the MPCA could also answer questions about the project. Owen asked 3M about comments in a letter sent during the open comment period on how they would address contamination below the current remediation design to keep it from either getting into groundwater or the river. Gaetz responded that the removal of the impacted sediments in the Cove is based upon previous detailed investigations within the cove area. During that inves- tigation, they identified the vertical and horizontal extents of the historic sediment deposits. Based on that, they will excavate to the survey point. He explained that the geology in that area consists of a very dense layer below the grainy layer. A critical component is the installation of additional groundwater extraction wells along the east boundaries of the property on the bluff above the river. These supplemental installations are designed to intercept groundwater that may have additional PFCs that were unreachable during the actual physical removal. Two wells are in place, and they are analyzing whether additional wells are needed. The groundwater will be extracted, used within the plant, directed to treatment by granular activated carbon, pre- treated, and discharged through the normal wastewater treatment process. Owen stated that he did not feel post - cleanup testing was adequately addressed. Gaetz re- sponded that they have a pending NPDES permit, which includes a discharge limit for PFCs from the site. The system that they are building will treat all of the water generated and used at the site to remove any PFCs that may remain. Owen asked if activated carbon is the current best management practice for removing those chemicals from wastewater. Gaetz responded yes, but as part of their approval process and compliance schedule it is a requirement to eva- luate all technologies. Levitt suggested that PCA explain the TMDL study they are doing on PFCs in that timeframe and how that work is progressing. Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 5 of 8 Gary Krieger, MPCA, the Project Manager for the Cottage Grove site, stated that his under- standing of the TMDL is to evaluate other potential sources for PFCs or other chemicals in Pool 2 and to provide surface water sediment testing in the Mississippi River. He added regarding the monitoring, under the consent order, 3M has to maintain a monitoring program. It was asked if it is an annual or monthly sampling. Krieger responded it would probably be quarterly; the plan has not been finalized but will be part of the overall long -term monitoring. There was a question if there is a target date for the finalization of the project. Krieger responded that the East Cove is the last of the excavation work that 3M will be doing at their three sites. Olson asked if Pool 2 was above the dam in Hastings. Krieger responded the segment of the river from Hastings to St. Paul. Bigham asked if this is the final step in the cleanup project. She also asked if there has been discussion on having the Department of Health, 3M, and the MPCA present to the citizens an overview and a timeline of the project. Krieger stated that has not been discussed but it is an option. He stated they could meet with the City Council and /or the Environmental Commission again or hold a public meeting to outline the project. Gaetz stated that throughout this process 3M identified timelines, schedules for all three sites, and submitted interim construction comple- tion reports to the MPCA when projects were finished. When the East Cove project is com- pleted, there will be one construction completion report for all the projects at 3M Cottage Grove. Chase asked if there is a benchmark or standard for the PFC value or quality of the water after the project is done. Gaetz responded that they know the PFCs currently in the water. The sedi- ments in the East Cove project come from over 60 years of manufacturing, but they discontin- ued manufacturing those materials in 2002. The new NPDES permit notes the PFC standards they will be required to meet. Chase asked if disturbing this area during the excavation and sediment removal would cause more PFCs to get into the River through the East Cove. Gaetz responded that the prevention of impacted sediments reaching the river will be assured through best management practices. One of the contractor's primary concerns is to make sure that no sediments leave that site. He then explained that analytical sampling related to sediment re- moval is not practical because by the time the results were back the project would be done. They are better served to use a physical project management process ensure material does not leave the site. Krieger added that their environmental consultant, who has oversaw 3M's other excavation work, will be on site at the East Cove during operations. Chase asked if there will be testing of PFC levels before, during, and after the project. Krieger stated that they will ensure the best job possible in maintaining and monitoring sediment control in the area of excavation so sediments are not released down the river. Bigham stated that the DNR is also involved. Krieger stated that there are permit requirements from numerous agencies, such as the DNR, and Corps of Engineers, for the dredging. Owen summarized that they have done the before testing and they are going to do some after testing, but they are not doing the testing during the project because of time constraints and the use of the best practices available throughout. Chase stated that for the future removal of that product this would be a great time to gather on the process of removing PFCs for future study. Olson asked if the Environmental Commission could use the Planning Commission's recom- mendation. Owen responded yes. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make a negative declaration that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared and to approve the conditional use permit to allow 3M to remove approximately 17,000 cubic yards of sediment containing PFCs from the East Cove at the 3M Cottage Grove plant and a portion of the sandbar at the Cove outlet. Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 6 of 8 A motion was made and seconded to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation on the EAW and conditional use permit for the 3M East Cove Sediment Removal Project. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). 5.3 Quarterly Air Monitoring Results Owen asked about a data point where there was a spike in one of the emitted chemicals and another one marked with an asterisk due to a lab error. Levitt reported that the sampling data is from October 11, 2010, through April 3, 2011. She explained the asterisk by the February 2 data on volatile compounds is due to a lab error that has not been able to be corrected to date, and but the lab is working to confirm it. She stated that a few items did spike. Methylethylketone and hexane spiked on December 28 and will continue to be monitored closely. She stated that air monitoring is not like water monitoring. Air monitoring is much more volatile than water monitor- ing. With air monitoring data, trend lines are established that would substantiate a concern. She then offered an explanation about the chemicals that spiked, noting that it is not a consistent pattern. Olson asked if the baseline is still being established. Levitt responded yes. Owen stated that it is his understanding that the City has funding for three years of data moni- toring, and 3M is currently not taking in outside waste for their incinerator. He requested that the City ensure that funding is available to capture trend lines when they start processing outside waste in the incinerator. The City should get a baseline of just 3M specific waste for a full year and then re- engage when outside waste comes in. Levitt responded that the City could pull back on the air monitoring data after recording baseline data for a year to preserve funding. Gibson asked if there is a timeline on when outside waste would come in. Levitt responded no. Chase asked if is there a correlation between the spike and the burn cycle in the kiln. Levitt responded that the City has not yet requested that data from 3M, and at this time she is not fa- miliar enough with the chemical that spiked to know if it is was due to the incinerator or if some- thing else triggered it. Gibson stated that the city should get a full year of baseline monitoring, and after that the air monitoring should be postponed until outside waste is brought in. Owen and Olson agreed. Chase stated that after we have a full year's data, it would be helpful to know when the incine- rator was operating because it is part of the larger facility at 3M. He also requested more infor- mation about a Freon that had spiked on a report when the consultant was here. Owen agreed, noting that while the levels are nowhere near the health limits, there is a pretty consistent trend of that chemical being emitted . Owen summarized the recommendation from the Commission to the City Council that the City continue air monitoring until October 11, 2011, so there would be a full year of baseline data, and then revisit the budget to ensure there is adequate funding for air monitoring when the out- side waste comes in. The Commission concurred. Chase stated that he has a chart he would like to submit to Levitt to email to everybody in regard to the burn cycles. Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 7 of 8 5.4 Election of Officers Owen stated the Chair Porett had to resign from the Commission due to outside commitments, so a new Chair needs to be elected. He asked Olsen to help direct the Commission in that effort. Olsen explained that the Chair of the Environmental Commission was unable to continue in that role do to work commitments and Vice Chair Owen was running the meeting this evening. He asked for input from the Commission on who he should recommend to the Council to be ap- pointed as Chair. He asked for nominations. It was noted that two Commissioners were absent and if this could be tabled to ensure the full Commission is aware. Olsen stated that he would like to move forward since there is a quorum. Bigham nominated Owen for Chair. Chase seconded. There were no other nominations. Olsen stated that by unanimous consent he would submit Owen's nomination for Chair to the City Council for approval. He asked if there were any nominations for Vice Chair. There was motion and second to nomi- nate Bigham for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously. Olsen stated that by unanimous consent the nomination for Vice Chair will stand as it does not need to be approved by the Council. 101NI IiTt 6.1 2011 -2013 Work Plan (Continued from 4/13/11 Meeting) Owen stated that Commissioners were asked to submit their thoughts on the Environmental Commission should be working on over the year. Those suggestions went to former Chair Porett and Owen does not have a copy. Olsen suggested continuing this discussion to the next meet- ing and he would contact Porett to get those work plan suggestions. Owen asked if the next meeting could be a workshop on the work plans. The Commission agreed. Olsen stated that once he receives the information, he will have staff distribute it to the group. 6.2 Environmental Commission 2011 Bylaws (second reading) Owen asked if there were any questions on Levitt's response to the questions the Commission had on the bylaws at the last meeting. Chase asked regarding membership if it was two con- secutive or three consecutive terms. There was discussion on how many terms and how long those terms are. Environmental Commissioners are eligible to serve three two -year terms and the language in the bylaws will be changed to reflect that. Chase asked to add the word "regular" under Attendance and Resignation: b) Absence from Meeting, where it says absence from three consecutive meetings or four meetings. He also asked to change the language to read "after 9:00 p.m." under Regular Meetings where it states that "the Environmental Commission may elect not to consider any item of new business on the agenda after 10:00 p.m." He noted that after new business, there are other items on the agenda and he would like to have business finished so the meeting can adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Chase made a motion to approve the 2011 Environmental Commission Bylaws with the changes discussed. Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Environmental Commission May 11, 2011 Minutes Page 8 of 8 6.3 Receive Information on Rain Gardens Levitt explained that she included in the packet the rain garden flyer that will be going out in the May 15 mailing of the Cottage Grove Reports. This is in response to the presentation by Angie Hong on rain gardens and is an opportunity to alert residents about financial opportunities for installing rain gardens on their properties. She stated that the one other item included in the packet was about a sustainability seminar. The City of Woodbury invited the Cities of Cottage Grove and Oakdale to a seminar, Sustain- able Development Solutions for the 21st Century, on May 18, at 10:00 a.m. at Woodbury City Hall. This invitation was extended to both the Environmental and Planning Commissions. There is no charge for this seminar. Olson asked if someone from this Commission should attend the seminar, noting that he cannot. Owen stated that he is planning to attend and that he would report back to the Commission. Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes of April 13 and 27, 2011 A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2011, and April 27, 2011, Environment Commission meetings. Motion passed unanimously. Reports City Council Update Olsen reported that the Public Works Department hosted an Arbor Day event a few weeks ago. Residents attending received information on a number of topics, including rain gardens, and a free Linden was given trees to the first 150 people. The City's annual clean up day for hazard- ous waste and appliances was held at Public Works last weekend. He stated that the City Council had a very productive joint meeting with the Woodbury City Council with dialogue on a number of topics, including sustainability and environmental issues. He encouraged the Com- mission to partner with the Woodbury Environmental Commission, which has been in place a longer than ours and they might have some good ideas for the work plan. It was asked if the Environmental Commission could be notified in advance of events such as Arbor Day and the clean -up day, to discuss ways the Commission might be able to help with. Olsen agreed. He asked when the volunteer tree planting is scheduled. Schroeder responded sometime in June. Olsen noted that is a weekday and staff will inform the Commission with the exact date. Response to Commission Inquiries None Environmental Commission Comments and Requests None A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, June 8, 2011 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on June 8, 2011, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Rita Isker, Patrick Lynch, David Olson Members Absent: Barbara Gibson, Patrick McLoughlin, Thaddeus Owen Others Present: Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Danette Parr, Economic Development Director Vice Chair Bigham opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Olson made a motion was made to approve the agenda. Chase seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Councilmember Olsen introduced Rosemary Palmer, who was just appointed to the Environmental Commission, and Danette Parr, the new Economic Development Director for the City. None D[:N:�tiTT�� 6.1 Environmental Commission Work Plan McLoughlin suggested the Commission explore wellhead protection plans and form subcommittees including a permit review subcommittee. Isker suggested that the Environmental Commission should increase their exposure and provide more public education. She asked if the Commission should review past and current dump sites in the City. Palmer asked about working with Washington County on similar goals. She stated that she struggled to find information on the Environmental Commission and suggested increasing the Environmental Commission June 8, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 3 information available on the City's website. She also thinks that the Commission should provide education to the public. Chase asked if 3M's long -term work plan included higher hazardous waste processing. He inquired about how the City is monitoring 3M or is that being done through state agencies. He would like to look at preventative measures. He suggested getting feedback from Woodbury and Oakdale on how they are dealing with PFCs. He would like a list of all hazardous materials on each property in the City. Bigham agreed about exploring wellhead protection plans. She suggested reviewing and evaluating hotspots in the community. She asked about the Commission being involved in flood management such as with the All Hazard Plan and the training process and reviewing it with the Public Safety Commission. She asked about the products being used by the Public Safety and Public Works Departments and if they look for more environmentally friendly products. She also suggested providing educational information in the Residents' Guide about recycling, hazardous waste, garbage collection and that the City should create a flier with advertising and possibly a business guide to provide information on energy programs. Olson asked about a vetting process to get a manageable size. McLoughlin explained that staff set the agenda for this workshop and the Commission can better set the agenda based on these discussions. Olson stated that he likes having subcommittees but is concerns with the additional time commitment that would be required. The Commission discussed suggestions for three entities in the City: Emitters, Citizens, and City Council. For Emitters, the Commission felt there should be exploration of permitting, hotspots or dumps, and infrastructure. For Citizens, the Commission wants to do more educational outreach. The Commission would like to work with the City Council on City policies such as ordinances and program implementation, products used by various City departments, and the GreenStep Cities program. There was a question if there are specialized groups in the community. It was noted that a budget was needed, possibly funded by a grant from Washington County. Levitt stated that she would review Washington County grant opportunities and expenditures. There should be historical research done and mapped. It was suggested that the City should work with EPA on how local communities can be organized. At next month's meeting, which will be another workshop, the Commission will prioritize the suggestions, decide what is realistic to take action on, and categorize the goals by either short- term or long -term. It was noted that events already exist, including tree planting day, Arbor Day, and spring clean -up, and the Commission does not need to reinvent the wheel on these issues. Reports City Council Update Olsen provided an update on financing options for the Public Safety /City Hall facility. He discussed the engineer's estimate, the timing of the project, and the project's status. He also updated the Commission on the splash pad that will be constructed at Highlands Park. The Commission asked if they could see the plans and what would happen with the City pool site. Environmental Commission June 8, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Response to Commission Inquiries None Environmental Commission Comments and Requests E- Packets It was decided that meeting packets should be e- mailed to the Commissioners. UT00 Isker made a motion to adjourn. Olson seconded. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.