Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11.08.2017 City Council Meeting PacketMEDINA AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 8, 2017 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Meeting Rules of Conduct: • Fill out and turn in white comment card • Give name and address • Indicate if representing a group • Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the October 17, 2017 Special Council Meeting B. Minutes of the October 17, 2017 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Pay Voucher No. 9 for Tower Drive Improvement Project B. Approve 2018 Prosecution Legal Rates with Tallen and Baertschi C. Reschedule November 21, 2017 City Council Meeting to November 16, 2017 at 7 p.m. D. Resolution of Local Government Unit Authorizing Filing of Application and Execution of Grant Agreement to Complete Ball Field Improvements Under the Provisions of the Hennepin County Youth Baseball and Softball Facility Grant Program E. Resolution Appointing Todd A. Geske as the City of Medina Building Official VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Hamel Fire Department Contract Update Request B. Closed Landfill -Restricted District — Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Amendment 1. Ordinance Regarding Regulations of the Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District and the Sanitary Landfill Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code a) Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary 2. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Woodlake Landfill to Closed Landfill -Restricted a) Resolution Authorizing Publication of the Ordinance by Title and Summary C. Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District —Public Hearing 1. Ordinance Establishing the Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS ADJOURN Posted 11/3/2017 Page 1 of l MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: November 2, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2017 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Final Pay Voucher No. 9 for Tower Drive Improvement Project — Attached is the final pay request from Astech Corp. for the Tower Drive project. The total cost for this work was $2,132,814.20. This is $127,080.36 over the original contract quote due to soil remediation expenses to remove asbestos and other materials buried on the site. Half of the soil remediation costs were covered by a Hennepin County grant. Staff recommends approval. See attached pay request. B. Approve 2018 Prosecution Legal Rates with Tallen and Baertschi — Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen is recommending a 2.5% increase for 2018 (attorney time at $137 per hour) and adjustments in 2019 and 2020 equal to the cost -of -living adjustment that the City gives to its staff. All other terms of the agreement will remain the same. Staff recommends approval. See attached letter. C. Reschedule November 21, 2017 City Council Meeting to November 16, 2017 at 7 p.m. — City Council discussed and recommended at the October 17, 2017 meeting moving the November 21' meeting to November 16th due to concerns about having a quorum present. Staff recommends approval. See attached memo. D. Resolution of Local Government Unit Authorizing Filing of Application and Execution of Grant Agreement to Complete Ball Field Improvements Under the Provisions of the Hennepin County Youth Baseball and Softball Facility Grant Program — Safety upgrades are needed at the Little League baseball field in Hamel Legion Park. The City's main concern is with the ballfield lights that are 30+ years old. The existing electrical work is a safety hazard and the system needs to be replaced. The Park Commission has recommended budgeting matching funds to help get these lights replaced. The total project for the lights and other needed safety improvements will cost around $200,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to apply for the maximum award amount from the Twins Community Fund Grant in the amount of $100,000. See attached memo and resolution. E. Resolution Appointing Todd A. Geske as the City of Medina Building Official — Loren Kohnen, the City of Medina building official, has indicated that he intends to semi -retire after 41 years of serving as the building official at Metro West Inspection Services and 38 years with the City of Medina. Todd A. Geske of Metro West Inspection Services, Inc. has been certified as qualified for designation as a building official and staff recommends appointment of Todd A. Geske as building official. See attached resolution. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Hamel Fire Department Contract Update Request — The Hamel Fire Department wishes to modify the Contract for Fire Protection Services with the City of Medina that became effective on January 1, 2017. These modifications extend the contract term to five (5) years, provide for a minimum of two (2) years notice on termination for convenience and restate the earliest date that a party can initiate a termination for convenience (December 31, 2020). Staff is requesting Council discussion and policy direction on this request. See attached memo and contract. Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the modified Contract for Fire Protection Services with the Hamel Fire Department effective January 1, 2018 B. Closed Landfill -Restricted District — Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Amendment — The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake Landfill in the western portion of the City as part of its Closed Landfill Program. The Landfill is located north of Hamel Road and west of Tomahawk Trail. Waste has not been accepted at the landfill since 1993 and the MPCA began management in 2000. Minnesota state law requires that the local municipality enact land use and zoning regulations which are consistent with the Closed Landfill Use Plan established by the MPCA for the Landfill. The MPCA is also required to provide to the City information "related to a description of activities that will be or have been taken on the property...and a reasonably accurate description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility." State law requires that the City then "shall incorporate that information in any land use plan that includes the affected property and shall notify any person who applies for a permit related to development of the affected property of the existence of the information and, on request, provide a copy of the information." Staff will present this information at the meeting. See attached report. 2 Recommended Motion # 1: Move to adopt Ordinance Regarding Regulations of the Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District and the Sanitary Landfill Zoning District; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code Recommended Motion # 2: Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary Recommended Motion # 3: Move to adopt Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Woodlake Landfill to Closed Landfill -Restricted Recommended Motion # 4: Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary C. Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District — Public Hearing — the City's practice is to establish Storm Sewer Improvement Taxing Districts over development sites as a "back-up plan" if the owner's association does not maintain stormwater improvements. The City has taken this step in all recent residential subdivisions and recommends taking this action with the Lunski Nelson Addition. See attached memo and ordinance. X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 004350E-004378E for $113,334.09, order check numbers 046497-046589 for $356,366.99, and payroll EFT 508221-508278 for $97,327.07. • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List 3 SPECIAL MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2017 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on October 17, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Mitchell presided. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Anderson, Pederson, Martin, Cousineau, and Mitchell. Members absent: Also present: Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup, City Planner Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Police Chief Ed Belland, City Engineer Jim Stremel and City Administrator Scott Johnson. II. Solid Waste Management Ordinance Discussion Gallup provided the City Council with background information on the ordinance, walked through the policy questions for discussion and provided two language options for discussion. Belland also discussed enforcement challenges with the large variety of neighborhoods and budget implications for enforcement of the current ordinance. Staff was directed by the City Council to consider different options for language and to bring the item back to a future meeting for further discussion. III. IT Discussion with Council (Mike Brocco) Gallup provided the City Council with information regarding providing the City Council packets electronically, requested feedback on providing tablets for Council Members, and requested discussion on what items could be provided electronically only. The City Council directed staff to not provide tablets to Council Members unless requested because Council Members prefer to use their own electronic devices. Also, Council requested paper copies of the agenda, city administrator report, new business, and old business be provided. The rest of the packet could be provided electronically. IV. Chippewa Road Street and Watermain Extension Stremel provided the City Council with preliminary project costs, maps and other information on a street and watermain loop project to connect Chippewa Road between Arrowhead Drive and Mohawk Drive. Stremel informed the City Council that there could be a cost savings with building the watermain and road at the same time because the watermain would not need to be as deep. Mark of Excellence Homes informed staff prior to the meeting that they would build the street and watermain connections if their two concept plans (located north and south of the future Chippewa Road extension) are ultimately approved. Medina would need to pay for any wetland mitigation costs with the road connection. Both concepts will be reviewed at the October 17th City Council Meeting. Council discussed wetland impacts, using existing right of way for a watermain only project, if the road connection was necessary, if alternatives were available (Hamel Road to Pioneer Trail) for a road rerouting connection, and concerns with seasonal weight limits on Hamel Road and Pioneer Trail. Staff spoke in favor of the extension to loop the watermain and extend the road to allow for rerouting of traffic during accidents, Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 October 17, 2017 responding to future senior housing projects, and providing a direct link for residents with a frontage road connection off Highway 55. IV. ADJOURN Mayor Mitchell adjourned the Work Session at 6:57 p.m. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 2 October 17, 2017 1 DRAFT 2 3 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2017 4 5 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on October 17, 2017 at 6 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Mitchell presided. 7 8 I. ROLL CALL 9 10 Members present: Anderson, Cousineau, Pederson, Martin, and Mitchell. 11 12 Members absent: None. 13 14 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Andrew Biggerstaff, City 15 Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planner Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, 16 and Chief of Police Ed Belland. 17 18 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 19 20 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 21 The agenda was approved as presented. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:00 p.m.) 24 25 A. Approval of the October 3, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 26 Mitchell noted that Martin submitted written corrections. 27 28 It was noted on page four, line 32, it should state, "He stated that, globally, he would al -se 29 want the solar equipment for residential projects to remain for residential use 30 consumption." 31 32 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Anderson, to approve the October 3, 2017 regular 33 City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 34 35 B. Approval of the October 11, 2017 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 36 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the October 11, 2017 special 37 City Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 38 39 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:03 p.m.) 40 41 A. Resolution No. 2017-80 Certifying Delinquent Storm Water Utility Charges 42 to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2018 43 B. Resolution No. 2017-81 Certifying Delinquent Utility Charges to the 44 Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2018 45 C. Resolution No. 2017-82 Certifying Delinquent City Charges for Services to 46 the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2018 47 D. Resolution No. 2017-83 Accepting Public Utilities Within the AutoMotorPlex 48 Development 49 E. Ordinance No. 618 Establishing a Conservation Design -Planned Unit 50 Dea opmcntc istr G 4or deho tt_ake4tatu-r_pfeseiye_a„ _Arnei did g_ e 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 October 17, 2017 F. Resolution No. 2017-84 Authorizing Publication of the CD-PUD "School 2 Lake Nature Preserve" Ordinance No. 618 by Title and Summary 3 G Re s o-l-uti-on-N-e , 04-7-83-Gfa n ti�g-Prefix i-n-a- -;ppfeva-1-ef-a-P-1-at-a-n-d 4 (Irantinry nnnreya-1 ef- DI lD Gen- ral Dlan of D-eyelopmonl fer a 5 6 Preserve 7 H. Ordinance No. 619 Regarding Solar Equipment; Amending Chapter 8 of the 8 City Code 9 I. Resolution No. 2017-86 Authorizing Publication of Solar Equipment to Ordinance No. 619 by Title and Summary 11 J. Resolution No. 2017-87 Granting Conditional Use Permit Approval to JEGM 12 Revocable Trust for Accessory Structures in Excess of 5,000 Square Feet 13 at 2705 Willow Drive 14 K. Resolution No. 2017-88 Granting Conditional Use Permit Approval to JEGM 15 Revocable Trust for Installation of Solar Equipment at 2705 Willow Drive 16 Mitchell noted that he is opposed to items E and G and therefore would like those items 17 pulled from the Consent Agenda in order to vote separately. 18 19 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 20 passed unanimously. 21 22 E. Ordinance No. 618 Establishing a Conservation Design -Planned Unit 23 Development District for "School Lake Nature Preserve" and Amending the 24 Official Zoning Map 25 Mitchell stated that he feels that the property could be developed adequately under the 26 current zoning and is therefore concerned with the doubling of the density. 27 28 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Ordinance No. 618 establishing 29 a Conservation Design -Planned Unit Development District for "School Lake Nature 30 Preserve" and amending the official zoning map. Motion passed 4-1 (Mitchell 31 opposed). 32 33 G. Resolution No. 2017-85 Granting Preliminary Approval of a Plat and 34 Granting Approval of a PUD General Plan of Development for a 35 Conservation Design Subdivision to be Known as School Lake Nature 36 Preserve 37 Moved by Cousineau, seconded by Martin, to adopt Resolution No. 2017-85 granting 38 preliminary approval of a Plat and granting approval of a PUD General Plan of 39 Development for a Conservation Design Subdivision to be known as School Lake Nature 40 Preserve. Motion passed 4-1 (Mitchell opposed). 41 42 VI. COMMENTS (7:07 p.m.) 43 44 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 45 There were none. 46 47 B. Park Commission 48 Scherer stated that the October meeting has been canceled and therefore he had 49 nothing further to report. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 October 17, 2017 1 C. Planning Commission 2 Planning Commissioner Murrin reported that the Commission met the previous week to 3 consider an application from Mark of Excellence Homes. She stated that the 4 Commission reviewed the two applications that the Council will review as tonight as two 5 separate requests during the September and October meetings. She stated that the 6 Planning Commission did not feel that the applicant would meet the requirements for the 7 jump ahead. She noted that the Commission discussed the benefit of the applicant 8 contributing to the watermain and the construction of the Chippewa Road extension but 9 then weighed those benefits against the additional residential growth that the applicant is to requesting. She stated that if the parcel that requires rezoning was rezoned to 11 residential, from business, the staging should then be delayed to 2025. She stated that 12 the Commission did not recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment 13 and instead requested that the Steering Committee review the southern parcel to 14 determine if business would be the best designation for the parcel. She stated that the 15 Commission also discussed the ordinance for the landfill zoning, noting that the 16 discussion was continued for three consecutive meetings. She noted that a 17 representative from the PCA was present at the meeting to provide additional input on 18 the methane gas and groundwater areas of concern. She stated that the Commission 19 recommended approval of the ordinance as proposed without the setback with a vote of 20 3-2. She stated that the Commission recommended unanimous approval of the 21 rezoning of the landfill to the closed landfill/restricted designation. 22 23 Martin referenced the Chippewa Road extension and asked for more information on the 24 discussion of the need. 25 26 Murrin noted that the bigger issue was about the desire to maintain greenspace. She 27 stated that there was discussion on which residents would use the road and who would 28 absorb the cost for construction. She stated that the consensus was that the road 29 should be built in the future when it is needed. 30 31 VII. PRESENTATIONS 32 33 A. Wayzata Public Schools — Special Election Questions (7:14 p.m.) 34 Jim Westrum, Wayzata Public Schools, stated that on November 7th there is an election 35 for the School District. He noted that the election will have three candidates for open 36 positions on the School Board and will also include three questions regarding an 37 operating levy, construction referendum, and technology levy. He stated that School 38 Districts are required to seek voter approval and have a ten-year lifespan, noting that the 39 operating and technology levies were last approved in 2009 and therefore this approval 40 is being requested prior to the expiration of those levies. He stated that the bond 41 referendum is requested for the construction of a standalone building and other 42 construction projects which also require voter approval. He played a short video that 43 explains the need for the additional funds. 44 45 Pederson asked where the new elementary school would be constructed. 46 47 Westrum replied that the School District acquired property north of Hwy 55 near 101 in 48 Plymouth, noting that a small sliver of the parcel is located in Medina. 49 50 Mitchell stated that he is interested in the operating levy comparison and may contact 51 Westrum to gain additional input. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 October 17, 2017 1 2 Westrum stated that each School District receives the same amount per student from 3 the State and the operating levies help to make the difference that the schools need to 4 operate. 5 6 Mitchell stated that he has been impressed by the reputation of the Wayzata School 7 District in the past 50 years, noting that there were problems prior to that and 8 acknowledged that the school worked hard to repair that reputation. 9 10 Pederson stated that there seems to be different rumors that the Wayzata School District 11 cannot handle more students and asked for the response of the School District. 12 13 Westrum stated that in 2014 the School District received approval from the voters to 14 expand the high school and build a new elementary school in 2014 and provided 15 statistics on the number of students that the different school levels can handle. He 16 stated that there is adequate space at the secondary level but they would have 17 challenges meeting the projections if the referendum in November is not approved. He 18 stated that the School District also reviews the Comprehensive Plans of the cities and 19 uses those projections for planning. He stated that they appreciate the slowed growth 20 approach that Medina has taken which will help to level off the growth until the time the 21 School District attendance also slows and decreases. 22 23 VIII. NEW BUSINESS 24 25 A. Mark of Excellence Homes — Weston Woods — Planned Unit Development 26 Concept Plan Review — 1952 Chippewa Road (7:26 p.m.) 27 Johnson noted that items A and B are related to each other. 28 29 Pederson noted that he will be recusing himself because of a recommendation from the 30 City Attorney. He stated that he does not believe he has a conflict of interest but would 31 follow the recommendation of the City Attorney and recused himself. 32 33 Mitchell asked the reason for the believed conflict of interest. 34 35 Biggerstaff replied that Pederson owns property near the proposed development site 36 and has made comments publicly regarding the proposed development which would 37 lead a person to believe there is a relationship between the two. 38 39 Mitchell stated that he is very much opposed to this conflict of interest. He stated that 40 Pederson owns property north of the northern development. He acknowledged that 41 Pederson attended the Planning Commission meeting and made general comments. He 42 stated that he would support the recommendation of the City Attorney but urged counsel 43 to dig deeper on their recommendations in the future. 44 45 Biggerstaff replied that the perceived conflict is the common law conflict for non- 46 monetary issues. 47 48 Pederson noted that at the Planning Commission meeting he made the comment that he 49 would not want surface water shed onto his property from the subject property. He 50 noted that the developer made the comment regarding the density, and perhaps Batty 51 was confused about that. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 October 17, 2017 1 2 Finke stated that there are two separate applications and reports for developments from 3 the same developer. He stated that this item is a PUD concept review for a 94-unit 4 twinhome development. He stated that the second request is for the parcel to the south 5 and includes 48 lots. He stated that the subject property for this request is guided for 6 low density residential and is available for development in the 2016 staging period. He 7 stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan also guides the property as low density 8 residential development but delays development until the 2025 staging period. He 9 stated that the applicant proposes the PUD to allow for the twinhome construction, to noting that there is not a zoning district in the City that would allow for twinhomes at this 11 low of a density. He noted that the draft Comprehensive Plan allows for twinhomes 12 within the low density residential land use. He displayed the subject site and reviewed 13 the adjacent land uses including the Wealshire project, Polaris, Bridgewater, and rural 14 residential property. He displayed the concept plan with the 94 twinhomes that would 15 access from Mohawk Drive. He reviewed the criteria that are used to determine if a 16 request would meet the objectives of a PUD. He stated that the draft Comprehensive 17 Plan proposed a change for the property, noting that the draft plan will be effective early 18 in 2018 and therefore the Council should consider the direction the draft plan provides in 19 order not to disrupt the planning process. He noted that the City can enact a moratorium 20 if that is deemed necessary to protect the planning process. He stated that the visions, 21 goals, and land use chapters of the existing and draft Comprehensive Plan were 22 included for the Council to review. He stated that the property is guided similarly in both 23 versions of the plan but the timing would be different as the draft plan delays 24 development until 2025, while the property has been available for development under 25 the existing plan for the past decade. He noted that the standards are a bit different for 26 twinhomes and advised that information was included in the Council packet. He stated 27 that the wetland delineation is pending and there are not a lot of treed areas on the site. 28 He stated that there are a number of infrastructure improvements planned for this area in 29 the draft Comprehensive Plan. 30 31 He stated that all access would be provided from Mohawk Drive and discussed concerns 32 with transportation in this area and the need for the Chippewa Road extension. He 33 stated that the City has identified a need to loop the watermain between Mohawk and 34 Arrowhead Drive. He stated that this site is in an important location to provide the 35 infrastructure improvements. He noted that the applicant proposed to provide a 36 watermain loop in this area as part of the application. He stated that the Park 37 Commission has identified a need for a park in this area and noted that if the twinhome 38 development moves forward it would be a lowered priority for site selection for a park. 39 He stated that the City has a great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD request. He 40 stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and did not find that this 41 proposal met the criteria for a PUD and therefore did not provide supportive comments 42 for the project to move forward as a PUD. He stated that the Commission 43 recommended that the density be lowered closer to two units per acre which would 44 follow the R-1 district. 45 46 Martin asked for the PUD criteria to be posted. 47 48 Finke displayed the criteria. 49 50 Mitchell suggested that Finke move on to the second presentation. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 October 17, 2017 l Anderson asked if Pederson could then rejoin the discussion for the second 2 presentation. 3 4 Biggerstaff stated that perhaps the Council should finish the discussion on the first item 5 and then Pederson could rejoin the Council for the discussion of the second item. 6 7 Martin stated that it makes sense to follow the advice of legal counsel and finish the 8 discussion of this item before Pederson returns to the Council to hear the second 9 presentation. 10 11 Kate Nore, 4412 Bluebell Trail South, stated that her family moved to Medina one year 12 ago and the main reason for that move was to enjoy the greenspace. She stated that 13 her family prefers the greenspace over the ability to drive to Target faster. She stated 14 that the updated growth plans were developed for the Comprehensive Plan and asked 15 that the Council follow those plans rather than bending to allow another development. 16 She referenced traffic and infrastructure, noting that additional traffic would use 17 Arrowhead to access Highway 55. She stated that with other infrastructure investments 18 and projects already planned, she was unsure that allowing this development would 19 align with those timelines and noted that allowing this development might also open that 20 door for other requests. 21 22 Chris Hillberg stated that he shares the concerns with additional traffic that would be 23 using Arrowhead, noting the number of accidents on that roadway. He stated that 24 Arrowhead was not designed for the level of traffic that it currently handles. He urged 25 the City to consider the Bridgewater development plans which specifically addresses the 26 safety concerns with Arrowhead. He stated that they do not want to be the next CR 116, 27 and believes that would happen to Arrowhead if this additional development was 28 allowed. He stated that cars speed along Meander which provide additional safety 29 concerns. He referenced the proposed development and urged the Council to follow the 30 recommendation of the Planning Commission. He stated that Medina has a strong 31 interest in slowing growth, noting that many elected officials were elected on the platform 32 of slowing growth and urged the Council to follow the plan to delay development of this 33 site until 2025. He asked that the Council follow what the voters have been asking for in 34 terms of slowing growth and follow the draft Comprehensive Plan staging. 35 36 Martin asked how the Council would review a request that is in the current staging period 37 of the existing Comprehensive Plan but delayed in the draft Comprehensive Plan. She 38 noted that this is a PUD request and therefore the request would have to meet those 39 criteria but asked for general input if this were a typical residential development. 40 41 Biggerstaff explained that because this is a PUD the Council has the broadest range of 42 discretion. He stated that if the Council received an application for a permitted or 43 allowable use, the discretion would be more curbed and the Council would have to apply 44 the current code. He stated that the PUD is a special tool that allows the Council to 45 sidestep the traditional zoning related items to allow for a more innovative development. 46 47 Martin stated that a lot of attention has been paid to future land use. She stated that she 48 chaired the Steering Committee and is familiar with the desire to slow residential growth. 49 She stated that the focus tonight is on whether a PUD is appropriate for this site 50 considering what the applicant is proposing. She clarified that the question tonight 51 would be whether this request meets the criteria for a PUD. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6 October 17, 2017 1 2 Cousineau asked under which Comprehensive Plan the Council should review this 3 request. 4 5 Martin noted that if the request does not meet the standards for a PUD, the Council 6 would then not have to determine which version of the plan to review the request. She 7 stated that she does not believe that the request would meet the PUD criteria. 8 9 Cousineau agreed that she does not believe the request meets the PUD criteria. 10 11 Mitchell stated that if this is a PUD, it would be a stretch to say this meets the criteria. 12 13 Martin noted that if a PUD is not appropriate, then the discussion would not even need to 14 continue. 15 16 Anderson agreed that he also struggles to see how this would fit as a PUD. 17 18 Mitchell asked what would occur if the applicant were to bring this request back as a 19 regular residential development without a PUD. 20 21 Finke stated that it would determine when the request is received and the timing of 22 review. He noted that the City is anticipating a submission to the Metropolitan Council in 23 November, which would then provide the Met Council with 120 days to review. He noted 24 that the City would then need to provide a plan to make the draft plan effective, which 25 could take four months. 26 27 Johnson clarified that if the review were to come back under the draft plan, although the 28 site would remain residential, the staging would be delayed until 2025. 29 30 Mitchell stated that it seems that the City has seen a number of these development 31 requests that have a timing issue because of the Comprehensive Plan process. He 32 stated that the request would not meet the PUD criteria and if the plan is changed, the 33 timing would then not work because of the change in staging that will occur under the 34 draft Comprehensive Plan. 35 36 Martin stated that when she looks at the standards for approving a PUD, she does not 37 see that this development would achieve anything above what would be achieved under 38 normal development. She stated that she is not seeing innovative stormwater 39 management or preservation of open space. She did not feel that this development 40 would meet the vision of the draft Comprehensive Plan as this would call for single- 41 family homes. 42 43 Cousineau stated that this product is a 28-year-old product and therefore is not an 44 innovative product either. 45 46 Anderson asked if the Council owes the applicant a review of the second proposal and 47 confirmed the consensus of the Council to review the second proposal. 48 49 Finke stated that perhaps the applicant would like the opportunity to speak. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7 October 17, 2017 1 Mark Smith, applicant, stated that the main reason they chose the PUD is that 2 twinhomes did not quite fit the zoning code. He stated that the site is 40 acres with a 3 density that would almost meet the density of single-family homes. He stated that he 4 does believe that the site meets some of the PUD criteria, noting that he was not aware 5 that he would need to meet all nine criteria. He stated that one association would be 6 used which means that lawncare and snow removal would be done by one company and 7 not each homeowner doing lawncare on different days. He stated that if both projects 8 were approved he would be able to provide the watermain loop and the extension of 9 Chippewa Road. He stated that there is also a park proposed for the south portion and to trails would also be provided that would allow neighboring developments to walk through 11 the development and utilize the park. He stated that he has found success with 12 twinhomes, which allows more space between the units than typical townhomes. 13 14 B. Mark of Excellence Homes — Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned 15 Unit Development Concept Plan — East of Mohawk Drive and North of 16 Highway 55 (8:05 p.m.) 17 Pederson rejoined the Council. 18 19 Finke stated that the applicant has requested an amendment to the current 20 Comprehensive Plan to change the designation from mixed -use to low density 21 residential. He stated that the applicant also submitted a PUD concept plan for a 48-lot 22 single-family residential development with a seven -acre park. He stated that the 23 property is currently zoned mixed -use and the draft plan identifies a change in 24 designation to business. He stated that the PUD allows for a smaller single-family 25 product that would have narrower lots that still meet the minimum lot size. He stated 26 that the PUD would allow for the narrow lots that would accommodate the seven -acre 27 park site. He displayed both the previous concept and this concept together with the 28 seven -acre park site. He stated that the park would be a relatively flat, active park. He 29 stated that the Planning Commission expressed concern with the level of tree removal, 30 but the applicant replied that they would be open to leaving the treed area if the City 31 desires, which would shrink the active portion of the park. He stated that the applicant 32 has applied for an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan to change the land 33 use from mixed -use to low density residential. He explained that mixed -use would 34 include a portion of residential and some other use, noting that the residential property 35 would have a higher ratio of density. He stated that he is not sure how the Metropolitan 36 Council would respond to a request to lower the density of the current Comprehensive 37 Plan, especially because the density that has already occurred in the past ten years has 38 been lower density. He stated that the property is staged for development today and 39 would remain in that staging under the draft plan, but would be guided for business 40 under the draft plan. He stated that the density range would fall below the proposed 41 density for the existing Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Council should first 42 consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment and then consider the PUD concept. He 43 provided information on the proposed development, which would have a density ratio of 44 2.2 units per acre. He stated that there is a wooded area to the west of the large 45 wetland, noting that the concept would call for the removal of the wooded area and 46 would then call for substantial tree replacement. He stated that the applicant has stated 47 that they would be open to leaving the higher quality wooded area in place in conjunction 48 with the park property in return for park dedication credit. He stated that if both 49 proposals are approved the applicant would fund the extension of the Chippewa Road 50 and the watermain connection. He stated that the Park Commission reviewed this 51 request and did support having an active park in this area. He stated that the Park Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8 October 17, 2017 l Commission saw this as an opportunity to preserve the wooded area on this site and 2 then take two smaller neighborhood parks in nearby developments. He stated that the 3 City has the greatest level of discretion when considering a Comprehensive Plan 4 Amendment and a great amount of discretion when considering a PUD request, which 5 would be subsequent should the Council agree with the Comprehensive Plan 6 amendment. He stated that staff does have concern with submitting a Comprehensive 7 Plan amendment while the draft plan is under review. He stated that if the City agrees 8 with the amendment, staff would suggest amending the draft plan rather than amending 9 the existing plan. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing of the to Comprehensive Plan amendment the previous week and unanimously recommended 11 denial of the request. He stated that the Commission recommended that the Steering 12 Committee review the parcel as part of their wrap up to determine if the business 13 designation would be the best fit for the parcel. He noted that the Steering Committee is 14 scheduled to meet on October 26tn 15 16 Martin asked for the location of the commercial property on the southern five acres of the 17 site. 18 19 Finke identified the property lines, identifying the commercial property, and noting that 20 the remainder of the site is mixed -use. 21 22 Martin stated that the site is primarily guided for mixed -use and asked the ratio that is 23 supposed to be non-residential. 24 25 Finke stated that there is not a ratio for non-residential. He explained that at least 50 26 percent of the net property is required to be residential while there is not a requirement 27 for a minimum of the other type of development, nor what that development should be 28 other than non-residential. He stated that there is less buildable property east of the 29 wetland. He noted that the park property would complicate the math as well. 30 31 Anderson asked if the applicant is proposing to fund the entire cost of the Chippewa 32 Road extension less the wetland mitigation. 33 34 Finke stated that the applicant would look for the City to handle the permitting and to 35 handle the wetland mitigation if that is required through financial means. He stated that 36 the applicant would fund the street portion and not the trail portion of the roadway 37 project. 38 39 Bill Griffith, land use attorney representing the applicant, stated that there are a lot of 40 moving parts with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and PUD and therefore it becomes 41 a timing of development question. He stated that it would come down to whether there 42 is an issue with the timing of development that prevents this from moving forward or 43 whether the City views the infrastructure as a benefit and would want to see this move 44 forward in some form. He noted that the infrastructure improvements (the road 45 extension and watermain) and park would provide public benefits. He noted that the 46 details can be worked out in the process but the big question is whether the Council 47 would like to consider the current timeframe to work in partnership to secure this critical 48 infrastructure. He stated that they can pack their bags and move on or they can 49 continue to work with the City to provide these critical infrastructure improvements. He 50 hoped that his comments helped to provide clarity as they would like to work with the 51 City to provide those infrastructure improvements. Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9 October 17, 2017 1 2 Martin stated that the improvements are valuable improvements and asked if the 3 developer's commitment to those improvements would be dependent on both the north 4 and south developments. 5 6 Griffith replied that the commitments would be dependent on both developments 7 because you cannot do the road without projects on the north and south. He stated that 8 you would also need the development density to make the proforma work. He stated 9 that what that development looks like ultimately can be worked out but noted that the to north and south would be essential. 11 12 Tim Cavanaugh, current owner of the southern property, stated that they have come 13 before the Council with other proposals and there have been issues. He stated that the 14 City wants lower density and that is what is being proposed. He stated that he has paid 15 for sewer that has not been utilized. He stated that he is paying a premium in property 16 taxes and believes that this is the highest and best use given the topography. He stated 17 that the land is not well suited for business because it is not contiguous and because of 18 the wetlands and creek. He noted that while those elements would be assets in a 19 residential development, they would be challenges for a business development. He 20 stated that this proposal attempts to preserve trees, provide park land, and provide low- 21 density housing that would be an asset to the community. 22 23 Mitchell stated that there is an issue with timing and the different Comprehensive Plan 24 and the current designation of mixed -use and proposed designation of business. 25 26 Anderson stated that the Steering Committee did discuss this parcel. He stated that he 27 feels quite strongly that the Council needs to adopt an attitude and spirit of the draft 28 Comprehensive Plan and would be reluctant to amend the current plan. He stated that 29 to amend the current plan, the Metropolitan Council would not look favorably because of 30 the lower density requested. 31 32 Martin stated that the City was not asked to add significant residential development to 33 the City and therefore there is a thought that this is an opportunity to keep the residential 34 development low. She stated that the thinking of this property was for a business 35 campus, that would not clog the residential use of Highway 55 and adjacent 36 intersections, as business traffic would not interfere with the direction of residential traffic 37 during peak times. 38 39 Cousineau stated that it would be hard to make a significant switch to the designation for 40 the property when the Steering Committee worked so hard for the past 18 months. 41 42 Martin stated that it would be very awkward to request to amend the current plan in a 43 manner contrary to the draft plan that is currently being reviewed. She stated that it 44 would make the City look disjointed, confused, and minimize the ability to sell the draft 45 plan they are currently reviewing. 46 47 Anderson noted that it would also be grossly unfair to allow this request when the 48 Council has denied the past three or four requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan 49 this past year. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10 October 17, 2017 l Mitchell stated that there were residential developments planned for this property in the 2 past that did not come to fruition. He stated that this request would help with the 3 infrastructure, noting that if you have both sides of the road you can build the road. He 4 stated that he could imagine a way to work this out. 5 6 Cousineau stated that not everyone necessarily wants that to occur, noting that the 7 residents are not all sad that the previous residential development did not work. She 8 stated that the Steering Committee mapped out the development in pieces with staging. 9 to Martin agreed that the Steering Committee ensured that there would not be a lot of 11 development coming on at one time. 12 13 Anderson agreed that they reviewed the staging three times to ensure that everything 14 would work smoothly. 15 16 Finke stated that this property is staged for imminent development in both versions of 17 the plan, while the northern property is in delayed staging. He stated that this parcel is a 18 land use question and not a timing question. 19 20 Mitchell asked if the business use would prohibit or hurt this application. 21 22 Finke replied that the draft plan identifies this parcel for business use. He identified 23 examples of mixed -use development that has moved forward with only the residential 24 component. 25 26 Martin stated that she struggles with the business portion of this development. 27 28 Pederson stated that he walked the property and does not believe that this would be 29 suitable for business. He noted that most businesses would need an access from the 30 highway and this parcel would only have right-in/right-out access. He stated that the 3] City would get a park and a road that is needed for public safety. He stated that the City 32 also needs the watermain and believes that the City needs to work it out. He stated that 33 he does not like the product but believes that this needs a second look. He stated that 34 this will be developed eventually and if the City can work out the timelines for the project, 35 it would help. He stated that he does not want to look in the future at a $4,000,000 bond 36 for the road. He noted that the City would also get the park in addition to the 37 infrastructure. 38 39 Martin stated that she also had concern "looking the gift horse in the mouth" but noted 40 that if regional planning is supposed to have a purpose she would have difficulty forgoing 41 that. 42 43 Pederson stated that the Council is stewards of public funds and this is a great 44 opportunity. 45 46 Martin commented that the previous residential developer was not willing to do the entire 47 road. 48 49 Mitchell asked the posture of the application and what the Council should do tonight. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 11 October 17, 2017 l Johnson stated that no action is required tonight other than the Comprehensive Plan 2 amendment. 3 4 Finke explained that the formal request is to change the future land use in the current 5 Comprehensive Plan. 6 7 Griffiths stated that they are willing to continue the application to provide additional time. 8 He stated that they prefer to work with the City. He stated that if they can fit the 9 development more into the existing zoning requirements, they would be willing to look at to that. He asked that this be continued, noting that they can extend timelines as nothing 11 says this has to be done tonight. He stated that the real offer is to take the comments 12 tonight and work with City staff to see if they can work it out. 13 14 Mitchell stated that if the applicant had a mixed -use component the discussion would 15 then be over. 16 17 Finke stated that the density range would also need to be met which would be difficult 18 with the proposed density. 19 20 Mitchell suggested that the developer come to the October 26th Steering Committee 21 meeting, or submit a letter. 22 23 Martin noted that would not be an appropriate forum for the developer to make a pitch. 24 25 Mitchell stated that there are serious issues that need to be resolved. 26 27 Martin noted that the intent of the October 26th meeting is to address specific comments 28 the Metropolitan Council provided for the draft plan. 29 30 Mitchell noted that this is an interesting plan that needs to be considered. 31 32 Martin noted that would not be for the Steering Committee to consider. 33 34 Johnson noted that the item could be tabled but noted that if there is no interest in the 35 Comprehensive Plan amendment, action could occur that tonight. 36 37 Mitchell noted that if the request is tabled, the applicant could then come back with 38 mixed -use and would not need the amendment. 39 40 Cousineau stated that the issue appears to be whether business would be the 41 appropriate use. 42 43 Mitchell stated that he would prefer to table this to determine if a compromise can be 44 worked out. 45 46 Johnson asked if an extension would be needed. 47 48 Finke stated that there is sufficient time at this point but noted that the Council could 49 request and extension if needed. 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 12 October 17, 2017 1 Griffith confirmed that there is time left for review but noted that they would provide an 2 extension as well. 3 4 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to table the request. Motion passed 5 unanimously. 6 7 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:52 p.m.) 8 Johnson stated that the November 7tn meeting has been moved to November 8tn 9 because of the School District elections. He noted that on November 21 st, two to Councilmembers will not be able to attend and received permission to reschedule the 11 Council Meeting to November 16tn 12 13 Pederson noted that he still would not be able to attend on the 16tn but confirmed that he 14 would be okay with the Council changing the date. 15 16 Johnson stated that he would then put the request on the Consent Agenda for the next 17 meeting to change the meeting date from November 21st to November 16tn 18 19 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:54 p.m.) 20 Anderson thanked staff for coordinating the business tours, noting that he continues to 21 be struck by the high quality of businesses that the City has in the community. 22 23 Pederson agreed and believed that the businesses appreciate that the Council is willing 24 to go out and visit them. He stated that he attended the Hamel Fire open house and 25 found it to be an excellent demonstration that they completed with battery operated tools 26 to cut open a vehicle. He stated that the City is lucky to have the fire departments that 27 they have. 28 29 Martin stated that if you do not have the back of the volunteers, there is nothing that 30 motivates them. She used the example of Sonoma, California, in which the volunteers 31 went out to fight the fire by hand with axes. She stated that you do not get that 32 motivation from volunteers without the support of the community. 33 34 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:57 p.m.) 35 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the bills, EFT 004333E- 36 004349E for $47,853.30, order check numbers 046417-046496 for $272,409.28, and 37 payroll EFT 508190-508220 for $48,741.58. Motion passed unanimously. 38 39 XII. ADJOURN 40 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. 41 Motion passed unanimously. 42 43 44 45 Bob Mitchell, Mayor 46 Attest: 47 48 49 Scott Johnson, City Administrator Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 13 October 17, 2017 WSB CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project 02065-73 - Tower Drive Improvement Project Final Pay Voucher No. 9 Contractor: Astech Corp. PO Box 1025 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Contract Amounts Original Contract Contract Changes Revised Contract Work Certified To Date Base Bid Items Backsheet Change Order Supplemental Agreement Work Order Material On Hand Total 02065-73 Work Certified This Pay Voucher $1,997,319.20 $135,495.00 $2,132,814.20 $1,823,162.17 $0.00 $127,080.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,950,242.53 Contract No. Vendor No. For Period: 7/15/2016 - 12/5/2016 Warrant # Date Funds Encumbered Original Additional Total $1,997,319.20 N/A $1,997,319.20 $56,626.00 Work Certified To Date $1,950,242.53 Less Amount Retained $0.00 Less Previous Payments $1,798,935.70 Amount Paid This Pay Voucher Percent Retained: 0% $151,306.83 Total Amount Paid To Date $1,950,242.53 Amount Paid This Fine Pay Voucher $151,306.83 hereby certify that a Final Examination has been made of the noted Contract, that the Contract has been completed, that the enti e amount of Work Shown in this Final Voucher has been performed and the Total Value of the Work Performed in accordance with, and pursuant to, the terms of the Contract is as shown in this Final Voucher. Approved By County/City/Project Engineer Approved By Astech Corp. September 20, 2017 Date City of Medina -� - r Date Contra • nary nbrenner, vice Presiders Date /b-30-ao/7 Page 1 02065-73 Payment Summary CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 No. From Date To Date Work Certified Amount Retained Amount Paid Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher 1 05/11/2015 05/31/2015 $75,668.86 $3,783.44 $71,885.42 2 06/01/2015 07/07/2015 $323,978.17 $16,198.91 $307,779.26 3 07/08/2015 08/06/2015 $372,762.97 $18,638.15 $354,124.82 4 08/07/2015 09/04/2015 $460,998.69 $23,049.93 $437,948.76 5 09/05/2015 10/05/2015 $230,138.41 $11,506.93 $218,631.48 6 10/06/2015 11 /12/2015 $230,081.37 $11,504.06 $218, 577.31 7 11/13/2015 03/07/2016 $77,826.80 $3,891.34 $73,935.46 8 03/08/2016 07/14/2016 $122,161.26 $6,108.07 $116,053.19 9 07/15/2016 12/05/2016 $56,626.00 ($94,680.83) $151,306.83 Totals: $1,950,242.53 $0.00 $1,950,242.53 02065-73 Funding Category Report Funding Work Less Less Amount Paid Total Category Certified Amount Previous This Amount Paid No. To Date Retained Payments Pay Voucher To Date 001 449,812.62 0.00 412,487.74 37,324.88 449,812.62 002 581,542.09 0.00 538,511.43 43,030.66 581,542.09 003 493,101.07 0.00 447,386.37 45,714.70 493,101.07 004 425,786.75 0.00 400,550.16 25,236.59 425,786.75 Totals: $1,950,242.53 $0.00 $1,798,935.70 $151,306.83 $1,950,242.53 02065-73 Funding Source Report Accounting Funding This Contract Encumbered Contractor No. Source Pay Voucher Amount To Date To Date 01 MSA/Local Roadway 37,324.88 505,081.58 505,081.58 449,812.62 02 MSA/Local Storm Sewer 43,030.66 573,861.94 463,349.58 581,542.09 03 Local 45,714.70 469,731.54 469,731.54 493,101.07 04 Local 25,236.59 559,156.50 559,156.50 425,786.75 Amount Paid Revised Funds Paid To Totals: $151,306.83 $2,107,831.56 $1,997,319.20 $1,950,242.53 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 02065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date SCHEDULE A - BASE BID 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $19,324.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $19,324.00 2 2101.501 CLEARING ACRE $3,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $3,500.00 3 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $90.00 40 0 $0.00 39 $3,510.00 4 2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE $1,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,500.00 5 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $70.00 40 0 $0.00 31 $2,170.00 6 2103-505 DISCONNECT SEWER SERVICE EACH $130.00 19 0 $0.00 13 $1,690.00 7 2103'507 DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE EACH $130.00 33 0 $0.00 18 $2,340.00 8 2104'501 REMOVE WATER MAIN L F $3.00 1890 0 $0.00 2215 $6,645.00 9 2104'501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) L F $6.50 2074 0 $0.00 1840 $11,960.00 10 2104'501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY) L F $1.00 1061 0 $0.00 1047 $1,047.00 11 2104'501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT $2.50 890 0 $0.00 609.5 $1,523.75 12 2104'505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y $2.50 125 0 $0.00 90 $225.00 13 2104'505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y $3.00 1500 0 $0.00 1185.01 $3,555.03 14 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y $2.50 500 0 $0.00 576.91 $1,442.28 15 2104'509 REMOVE MANHOLE EACH $426.00 5 0 $0.00 5 $2,130.00 16 2104'509 REMOVE CASTING EACH $80.00 8 0 $0.00 6 $480.00 17 2104'509 REMOVE GATE VALVE &BOX EACH $130.00 16 0 $0.00 15 $1,950.00 18 2104'509 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH $660.00 5 0 $0.00 6 $3,960.00 19 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH $320.00 20 0 $0.00 20 $6,400.00 20 2104'509 REMOVE SIGN TYPE C EACH $25.00 19 0 $0.00 15 $375.00 21 2104'511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F $7.00 43 0 $0.00 25 $175.00 22 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL LIN FT $3.00 1020 0 $0.00 1145 $3,435.00 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 ucuoa-t s rrotect material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date DEPTH) 23 2104.521 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE FT $32.00 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 24 2104'523 SALVAGE HYDRANT EACH $700.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 25 2104.523 SALVAGE MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH $17.00 30 0 $0.00 31 $527.00 26 2104'601 REMOVE & REPLACE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER L F $19.00 100 206 $3,914.00 206 $3,914.00 27 2105'501 COMMON EXCAVATION EXCAVATION (P) Y $8.25 7765 0 $0.00 7765 $64,061.25 28 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION EXCAVATION (EV) Y $925 800 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 29 2105.511 CHANNEL AND POND EXCAVATION C Y $9.25 19150 283 $2,617.75 19433 $179,755.25 30 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) C Y $10.00 1815 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 31 2105'523 COMMON BORROW (CV) C Y $15.00 1300 324.68 $4,870.20 1307.04 $19,605.60 32 2105'604 GEOTE FABRIC FABRIC TILE TYPE V S Y $2.50 12000 412 $1,030.00 8893.5 $22,233.75 33 2105'607 HAUL & DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL C Y $30.00 2600 0 $0.00 2665 $79,950.00 34 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION PREPARATION $150.00 23 0 $0.00 23 $3,450.00 35 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR $120.00 45 7 $840.00 103 $12,360.00 36 2130.501 WATER MGAL $17.00 100 0 $0.00 213 $3,621.00 37 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON $17.00 2500 0 $0.00 5955.9 $101,250.30 38 2215'501 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y $1.00 10310 0 $0.00 9584.7 $9,584.70 39 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (2.0") S Y $3.00 1755 0 $0.00 2412 $7,236.00 40 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $3.00 600 0 $0.00 1175 $3,525.00 41 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B) TON $66.00 1355 0 $0.00 1287.61 $84,982.26 42 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR TON $64.00 2275 0 $0.00 1976.81 $126,515.84 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 0Z065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date COURSE MIX (3,B) 43 2360.503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) 3.0" THICK SQ YD $20.00 110 0 $0.00 83.3 $1,666.00 44 2360.503 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) 2.0" THICK SQ YD $17.50 2225 0 $0.00 1215.4 $21,269.50 45 2360.503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) 2.0" THICK S Y $17.50 2225 58.1 $1,016.75 1213.4 $21,234.50 46 2411.618 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL S F $26.63 540 0 $0.00 132 $3,515.16 47 2501.515 24" RC PIPE APRON EACH $852.00 4 0 $0.00 4 $3,408.00 48 2501.515 36" RC PIPE APRON EACH $100.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $100.00 49 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 24" PIPE APRON EACH $530.00 2 0 $0.00 2 $1,060.00 50 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 36" PIPE APRON EACH $1,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,000.00 51 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN L F $11.00 1100 0 $0.00 1103 $12,133.00 52 2502.541 6" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN L F $15.00 550 430 $6,450.00 880 $13,200.00 53 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT $48.00 20 0 $0.00 17 $816.00 54 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT $41.00 1712 0 $0.00 1718 $70,438.00 55 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V FT $42.00 307 0 $0.00 307 $12,894.00 56 2503.541 21" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III FT $44.00 476 0 $0.00 478 $21,032.00 57 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III FT $48.00 76 0 $0.00 104 $4,992.00 58 2503.541 30" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III FT $53.00 360 0 $0.00 365 $19,345.00 59 2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN LIN $77.00 24 0 $0.00 24 $1,848.00 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 02065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date 3006 CLASS III FT 60 2503.601 SANITARY SEWER BYPASS PUMPING 1 LUMP SUM $3,800.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 61 2503.601 SANITARY SEWER BYPASS PUMPING 2 LUMP SUM $3,800.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 62 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH $1,600.00 2 0 $0.00 3 $4,800.00 63 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH $1,000.00 2 0 $0.00 2 $2,000.00 64 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH $180.00 15 0 $0.00 12 $2,160.00 65 2503.602 PVC WYE EACH $800.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 66 2503.602 8"X4" PVC WYE EACH $426.00 3 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 67 2503.602 8"X6" PVC WYE EACH $426.00 12 0 $0.00 15 $6,390.00 68 2503.602 REPAIR MANHOLE INVERT EACH $530.00 4 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 69 2503.602 CHIMNEY SEALS (EXTERNAL) EACH $213.00 54 0 $0.00 55 $11,715.00 70 2503.602 CHIMNEY SEAL (INTERNAL) EACH $260.00 9 0 $0.00 10 $2,600.00 71 2503.602 LATERAL CONNECTION HAT EACH $2,000.00 11 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 72 2503.603 4" PVC PIPE SEWER L F $26.00 120 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 73 2503.603 6" PVC PIPE SEWER L F $30.00 360 0 $0.00 361 $10,830.00 74 2503.603 8" PVC PIPE SEWER L F $48.00 1047 0 $0.00 1065 $51,120.00 75 2503.603 LINING SEWER PIPE 8" L F $36.00 795 0 $0.00 826 $29,736.00 76 2503.603 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER L F $1.50 1047 370 $555.00 1435 $2,152.50 77 2503.603 LINING SEWER SERVICE L F $21.30 220 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 78 2504.601 TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM 1 LUMP SUM $10,400.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $10,400.00 79 2504.601 TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM 2 LUMP SUM $5,400.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $5,400.00 80 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER EACH $1,300.00 8 0 $0.00 10 $13,000.00 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 02065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date MAIN 81 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH $160.00 30 0 $0.00 18 $2,880.00 82 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH $4,260.00 6 0 $0.00 5 $21,300.00 83 2504.602 RELOCATE HYDRANT & VALVE EACH $1,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,000.00 84 2504'602 ADJUST GATE VALVE &BOX EACH $250.00 10 10 $2,500.00 10 $2,500.00 85 2504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH $250.00 28 0 $0.00 18 $4,500.00 86 2504.602 1.5" CORPORATION STOP EACH $370.00 2 0 $0.00 2 $740.00 87 2504.602 BOX TE VALVE & EACH $1,800.00 24 0 $0.00 11 $19,800.00 88 2504.602 8 GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $2,300.00 3 0 $0.00 4 $9,200.00 89 2504.602 10" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $3,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $3,000.00 90 2504'602 12" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH $3,800.00 3 0 $0.00 5 $19,000.00 91 2504.602 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH $300.00 28 0 $0.00 18 $5,400.00 92 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP & BOX EACH $300.00 2 0 $0.00 2 $600.00 93 2504'602 CURB BOX CASTING CASTING EACH $150.0 8 0 $0.00 4 $600.00 94 2504'603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE L F $21.00 1000 0 $0.00 684 $14,364.00 95 2504'603 TYPECOPPER PIPE 1'COPPER L F $30.00 50 0 $0.00 61 $1,830.00 96 2504'603 6" WATER MAIN- DUCT IRON CL 52 LIN FT • $40.00 105 0 $0.00 117 $4,680.00 97 2504.603 6" PVC WATERMAIN WATERMAIN F $30.00 585 0 $0.00 553 $16,590.00 98 2504.603 8 PVC WATERMAIN WATERMAIN F $30.00 50 0 $0.00 68 $2,040.00 99 2504.603 10" PVC WATERMAIN WATERMAIN F $35.00 40 0 $0.00 31 $1,085.00 100 2504'603 12" PVC WATERMAIN L F $40.00 1780 0 $0.00 1807 $72,280.00 101 2504.604 4" INSULATION S Y $37.00 120 0 $0.00 107.25 $3,968.25 102 2504'608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB $6.00 14000 0 $0.00 4998 $29,988.00 103 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LUM SUMP $5,300.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $5,300.00 CONSTRUCT CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 ULUbS-ti Frolect Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date 104 2506.501 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT $300.00 158.42 0 $0.00 151.04 $45,312.00 105 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 LIN FT $420.00 31.9 0 $0.00 45.14 $18,958.80 106 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 72-4020 LIN FT $700.00 5.74 0 $0.00 5.9 $4,130.00 107 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL EACH $1,800.00 12 0 $0.00 12 $21,600.00 108 2506.511 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLES LIN FT $450.00 20 0 $0.00 6.5 $2,925.00 109 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $600.00 54 0 $0.00 46 $27,600.00 110 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH $400.00 9 9 $3,600.00 9 $3,600.00 111 2506.602 INSTALL MANHOLE EACH $2,500.00 5 0 $0.00 4 $10,000.00 112 2506.602 SEWER SERVICE CLEAN OUT EACH $250.00 3 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 113 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III C Y $75.00 120 36 $2,700.00 156 $11,700.00 114 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS IV C Y $80.00 30 0 $0.00 20 $1,600.00 115 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK S F $3.50 7000 322 $1,127.00 7448 $26,068.00 116 2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK S F $4.50 2500 66 $297.00 1518 $6,831.00 117 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F $14.50 5500 380.5 $5,517.25 4620 $66,990.00 118 2531.507 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $68.00 144 108.1 $7,350.80 274 $18,632.00 119 2531.601 ADA COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR LS $2,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $2,000.00 120 2531.604 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD $57.50 145 19.1 $1,098.25 532.8 $30,636.00 121 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F $53.50 60 0 $0.00 80 $4,280.00 122 2540.602 INSTALL MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH $35.00 30 0 $0.00 35 $1,225.00 123 2540.602 MAIL BOX EACH $47.00 10 10 $470.00 10 $470.00 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 Final Pay Voucher No. 9 02065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date 124 2540.602 MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY) EACH $28.00 66 0 $0.00 65 $1,820.00 125 2545'523 3" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT L F $5.50 1300 0 $0.00 1300 $7,150.00 126 2563'601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $5,200.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $5,200.00 127 2564'531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F $23.00 104.25 0 $0.00 10425 $2,397.75 128 2564.536 INSTALL SIGN PANEL TYPE SPECIAL EACH $220.00 4 0 $0.00 4 $880.00 129 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN EACH $1,100.00 21 0 $0.00 21 $23,100.00 130 2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 10' HT B&B TREE $530.00 8 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 131 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2" CAL BR TREE $390.00 8 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 132 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT $2.00 7500 1800 $3,600.00 3767 $7,534.00 133 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH $140.00 50 25 $3,500.00 45 $6,300.00 134 2573'533 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F $4.25 400 0 $0.00 471 $2,001.75 135 2573.533 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F $5.25 400 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 136 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS $500.00 1 0.5 $250.00 1 $500.00 137 2574'508 1 FERTILIZER TYPE LB $1.00 450 0 $0.00 260 $260.00 138 2574'508 3ERTILIZER TYPE LB $1.25 200 0 $0.00 159 $198.75 139 2574.525 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW C Y $20.00 1250 148 $2,960.00 526 $10,520.00 140 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE $800.00 4.5 2.89 $2,312.00 5.78 $4,624.00 141 2575'502 SEED MIXTURE 25-131 LB $2.00 440 0 $0.00 286 $572.00 142 2575'502 SEED MIXTURE 33-261 LB $22.50 24 0 $0.00 19.6 $441.00 143 2575'502 SEED MIXTURE 35-241 LB $7.00 30 0 $0.00 37.6 $263.20 144 2575'505 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y $4.50 5300 0 $0.00 5734.1 $25,803.45 145 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 3 TON $350.00 3.5 0 $0.00 3.7 $1,295.00 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Project No. 02065-73 02065-73 Project Material Status Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract Quantity Quantity This Pay Voucher Amount This Pay Voucher Quantity To Date Amount To Date 146 2575'523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 4 S Y $1.50 4000 0 $0.00 4991 $7,486.50 147 2575.525 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT CATEGORY 3 S Y $1.50 300 0 $0.00 156.7 $235.05 148 2582'502 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -PAINT L F $1.00 2000 0 $0.00 1945 $1,945.00 149 2582.502 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW- PAINT L F $1.00 1130 0 $0.00 1268 $1,268.00 150 2582'502 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -EPDXY L F $1.00 2000 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 151 2582.502 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW- EPDXY L F $1.00 1130 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 Totals For Section SCHEDULE A - BASE BID: $58,576.00 $1,823,162.17 Change Order 1 152 2105'607 HAUL &DISPOSE OF ACM TON $47.00 4500 0 $0.00 4894 $230,018.00 153 2123'514 345KHOE - CAT . HOUR $150.00 5 0 $0.00 5 $750.00 154 2503'603 GNRL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD (10% < $50,000) LUMP SUM $5,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $5,000.00 155 2503'603 GNRL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD (2% > $50,000) LUMP SUM $3,600.36 1 0 $0.00 1 $3,600.36 156 2105.511 CHANNEL AND POND EXCAVATION C Y ($9.25) 3496 0 $0.00 3496 ($32,338.00) 157 2105.607 HAUL & DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL C Y ($30.00) 2600 65 ($1,950.00) 2665 ($79,950.00) Totals For Change Order 1: ($1,950.00) $127,080.36 Project Totals: $56,626.00 $1,950,242.53 02065-73 Contract Changes No. Type Date Explanation Estimated Amount Amount Paid To Date CO1 Change Order 6/11/2015 Change Order No. 1 (see change order document for detailed description) $110,512.36 $127,080.36 Contract Change Totals: $110,512.36 $127,080.36 TALLEN and BAERTSCHI Attorneys at Law 920 Second Avenue South Suite 1540 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2224 STEVEN M. TALLEN PAUL D. BAERTSCHI FACSIMILE (612) 349-3995 TELEPHONE (612) 349-3900 October 23, 2017 Mr. Scott Johnson City Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Calendar Years 2018, 2019, 2020 Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Johnson: It is approaching the time when I have presented my proposal for prosecution services to the council for approval. As you may recall, I did not ask for an increase for calendar year 2017. The current rate is $133.50 per hour for attorney time, and $75 per hour for legal assistant time. What I am proposing for the next three years would be a three-year agreement with an initial cost -of -living adjustment of approximately 2 'A% to bring the attorney time in at $137 per hour, and the legal assistant time at $76.75 per hour. In addition, I propose an adjustment on January 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020 equal to the cost -of -living adjustment that the City gives to its staff. I propose all other terms of our agreement remain the same. Traditionally I have tried to make an appearance before the council sometime either at the end of the year or the beginning of the new year to ask for reappointment, discuss any prosecution issues council members or the mayor may have, and to discuss the proposed agreement. In the past there have been years when the council was simply too busy and did not -leant to spend their time with an appearance by me. `J4'e have discussed this on the telephone and you indicated that you thought no appearance would be necessary this year, so we have not planned one yet. However, you did state that you would speak with the council members, and if there was interest in having me appear, you would give me a call and we would schedule that. 2018 will mark my 32nd year as prosecuting attorney for the City of Medina. I hope that you, the council, and of course the police officers and command staff are happy with my performance. If there are any concerns, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss that with whomever has those concerns. Thank you for your continued support. Steven M. Tallen Medina Prosecuting Atto).ney SMT/mw cc: Chief Ed Belland Agenda Item # 5C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE: October 20, 2017 SUBJ: Reschedule November 21, 2017 City Council Meeting to November 16, 2017 Background A majority of the City Council may not be able to attend the scheduled City Council meeting on November 21, 2017. Staff recommended at the October 17, 2017 City Council meeting that the November 21st meeting be rescheduled for Thursday, November 16, 2017 to complete any Council business prior to the week of Thanksgiving. Staff was directed at the October 17th meeting to reschedule the November 21, 2017 to November 16, 2017. Staff recommends the following action. Council Action: A motion to reschedule the November 21, 2017 City Council meeting to Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 7:00 PM. Agenda Item # 5D MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 2, 2017 MEETING: November 8, 2017 City Council SUBJ: Twins Community Fund Grant Application Staff met with the Hamel Athletic Club on October 25, 2017 to discuss some safety issues and upgrades needed to the Little League baseball field in Hamel Legion Park. The City's main concern is with the ballfield lights that are 30+ years old. The existing electrical work is a safety hazard and the system needs to be replaced. The Park Commission has recommended budgeting matching funds to help get these lights replaced. The total project for the lights and other needed safety improvements will cost around $200,000. Staff recommends applying for the maximum award amount from the Twins Community Fund Grant in the amount of $100,000. The Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) can now contribute $50,000 to the project and the City can contribute the remaining $50,000 out of Park Dedication Funds. HAC recently received $45,000 in restitution from Mr. Leuthner's sentencing (past HAC president) and will be receiving another $5,000 from Eric Vargas who plead guilty of theft by swindle. Staff recommends approval of the resolution supporting the grant application. Project Summary for Grant Application: The City of Medina would like to address some major safety hazards and create a premier Little League field by completing ball field improvements ("the Project") at our existing aging Little League Field, in Hamel Legion Park in the City of Medina at 3200 Mill Drive, Medina, MN 55340. The Project consists of installing new state-of-the-art ball field lights, installing a new outfield fence at 200 feet, creating a warning track along the outfield fence, creating a 2-system bullpen area, removing the existing dugouts and replacing them with covered dugouts, and installing a six-foot fence along the baseball field to the north to create a walkway between fields. The City is collaborating with the Hamel Athletic Club on the Project, who currently conducts their youth baseball program at the Hamel Legion Park ball fields and has been experiencing an increase in youth participants the past few years. The Hamel Athletic Club's Little League program is in Division I, which the division is also experiencing growth with an increased need for up-to-date fields that meet Little League International's regulations to host tournaments. Our field currently does not meet Little League International's regulation standards, but this Project would bring us into compliance. The installation of new lights will provide a much -needed safety element as the existing lights are over 30 years old with missing bulbs and outdated electrical hazards. The new lights will also provide additional availability to the Hamel Athletic Club for their programming as well as for other existing and prospective youth programs. A new outfield fence at 200 feet is needed to comply with Little League field sizes. The installation of a warning track is an essential safety need to warn kids that are running for a ball that they are nearing the fence. The existing field is grid locked between residential homes and another field, which leaves no room for kids to safely warm up. By bringing in the outfield fence line and installing a six-foot tall fence at the field to the north, we could create a safe walkway between fields and room to install a 2-system bullpen area with mounds at 45 feet and 60 feet to serve both fields. The City is hopeful to receive this grant funding to address an aging field, improve safety for the players, and give us the ability to host future Little League tournaments. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO.2017- A RESOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE BALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Twins Community Fund, via the Hennepin County Youth Baseball and Softball Facility Grant Program, provides financial support to youth baseball and softball programs located in Hennepin County, and WHEREAS, the City of Medina as a local government unit (hereinafter LGU) in partnership with the Hamel Athletic Club (hereinafter HAC), a 501c3 youth baseball association, desires to complete ball field improvements to address an aging field and safety hazards in Hamel Legion Park. These ball field improvements will include installing new ball field lights, installing a new outfield fence at 200 feet, creating a warning track along the outfield fence, creating a 2-system bullpen area, removing and replacing existing dugout areas with covered dugouts, and installing a six-foot fence along the baseball field to the north to create a walkway between fields (hereinafter PROJECT) with the intended outcome to increase the recreational activities at Hamel Legion Park by allowing ball programs to run later into the evening and to meet Little League field regulation standards to host tournaments at this field. (LGU): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina I. The estimated total cost of developing PROJECT shall be around $200,000 and LGU is requesting $100,000 from the Hennepin County Youth Baseball and Softball Facility Grant Program; and the LGU and HAC will jointly assume responsibility for a match requirement of $100,000. II. LGU agrees to own, assume one hundred (100) percent of operation costs for PROJECT, and will operate PROJECT for its intended purpose for the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 30 years. III. LGU agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with the Twins Community Fund for the specific purpose of constructing ball field improvements. IV. That the City Administrator (authorized representative) and/or Mayor of the City of Medina (LGU) are authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as official liaison or its authorized representative. Dated: November 8, 2017. Resolution No. 2017- November 8, 2017 Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017 2 November 8, 2017 Agenda Item # 5E Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-## APPOINTING TODD A. GESKE AS THE CITY OF MEDINA BUILDING OFFICIAL WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute §326B.133 requires that each municipality shall designate a building official to administer the [state building] code; and WHEREAS, Loren Kohnen, the City of Medina building official, has indicated that he intends to semi -retire after 41 years of serving as the building official at Metro West Inspection Services and 38 years with the City of Medina; and WHEREAS, Todd A. Geske of Metro West Inspection Services, Inc. has been certified as qualified for designation as a building official by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Medina hereby appoints Todd A. Geske as building official, pursuant to §326B.133. Dated: November 8, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-## November 8, 2017 Hamel Volunteer Fire D epartment 92 Hamel Road • Hamel, MN • 55340 September 28, 2017 TO: Kathleen Martin, Medina City Council Public Safety Liaison Ed Belland, Medina Police Chief, Public Safety Director SUBJECT: Follow -Up to Fire Advisory Board Meeting of September 26, 2017 This memo and attachment are being sent as requested by Medina's Fire Advisory Board Representatives. As discussed at the subject meeting, the Fire Advisory Board wishes to make modifications to the Contract for Fire Protection Services that became effective on January 1, 2017. The desire is for these modifications to effectively extend the contract term to five (5) years, provide for a minimum of two (2) years notice on termination for convenience and restate the earliest date that a party can initiate a termination for convenience. As agreed, Hamel Fire submits this memo as a summary rationale for the modifications. Also, as requested and agreed, the attached "mark-up" represents the specific language modifications to support the aforementioned changes. CONTRACT TERM: The term of the current Agreement is two (2) years. Such a short term represents an undue burden to both parties by requiring a biennial review of the terms. This effort is not productive or effective for either organization. Moreover, the short term creates hurdles for the Hamel Fire Department in two areas. Specifically, those areas are financing and recruiting. Related to financing, Medina has avoided large, lump -sum capital outlays for rolling stock because Hamel Fire has been able to leverage attractive financing for the most recent truck purchase. Financing groups responded that a short, two-year term did not demonstrate sufficient commitment from Medina to the Hamel Fire Department to give them confidence in Hamel as a borrower. They were expecting a longer contract term, with a minimum of five (5) years and preferably ten (10). Through significant efforts, Hamel was able to overcome a number of obstacles and secure financing for the 2017 purchase. However, there is no guarantee that the same result will occur with the 2018, 2019 and 2020 planned apparatus purchases. Without financing, Medina will be required to provide lump -sum capital outlays in excess of four to five times the currently planned capital outlay over the next several years. Related to recruiting, when learning that Hamel Fire is an independent service provider, under contract to Medina, recruits invariably ask about the term of that contract. Since they are asked to make a significant personal sacrifice to join it is reasonable for them to ask about the contract as they see that representing Medina's commitment to the Department. Even losing one prospective member due to this uncertainty would be difficult. In our latest recruit group of three, two of the applicants had very serious concerns about the term. While ultimately all three were convinced to sign-up, there is no guarantee we will have the same outcome in the future. TERMINATION for CONVENIENCE A termination for convenience notification period of one year for a service as critical as fire protection is too short. In the eyes of third parties (such as financing entities) it compounds the problem already presented by a short contract term. More importantly, an effective termination transition plan, which would include migration of Sewece Vejene seq service delivery, negotiation of asset disposition (including required sales of assets (rolling stock, real estate, etc.) would be virtually impossible to accomplish in twelve months. INITIAL DATE for NOTICE of TERMINATION for CONVENIENCE The Hamel Fire Department and Medina are continuing to make investments in a number of different areas (equipment, people, training, facilities) that will require time to see the full benefit from. For that reason, the intent of the parties is that the Agreement will survive for at least one full contract term. To support that, the earliest date that a termination for convenience notice can be submitted by either party will be restated, considering a two (2) year notification period, to enable at least one single five (5) year term. We believe this rationale represents what was discussed and agreed to in the meeting on September 26th. The attachment reflects the mark-ups to represent these modifications in a new Agreement. Please contact us after reviewing this information so we can plan the next steps of bringing this effort to a successful close. As always, thank you for your support. Jeff Ruchti Fire Chief Hamel Fire Department Phone: 612.719.6999 Email: Jeff.Ruchti@hamelfire.org Agenda Item tt 5C AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRACT, effective as of January 1, 20182-04-7, by and between the City of Medina, a municipal corporation of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Medina), and the Hamel Volunteer Fire Department, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation of Hennepin County, State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Hamel VFD). WHEREAS, Hamel VFD has the facilities and equipment and is willing and able to provide fire protection service to Medina; and WHEREAS, Medina desires to have fire protection service furnished by Hamel VFD; and WHEREAS, Hamel VFD and Medina entered into a contract for fire protection dated December 20, 2013September 14, 2016, which contract recently automatically extended from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and this Amended and Restated Contract amends and supersedes the said December 20, 2013 September 14, 2016 contract. NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants herein contained the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions Administrative Expenses - Those expenses not directly related to the provision of Hamel VFD services, building or equipment maintenance, and personnel education and training. Administrative Expenses include, but are not limited to, insurance, taxes, accountant fees, office supplies, computer expenses, health and safety programs and labor costs associated with department administration. Annual Fire Services Capital Budget - The calendar year capital budget of Hamel VFD. The Annual Fire Services Capital Budget includes major equipment items and major repairs/rehabilitation of the Fire Station. Annual Fire Services Operating Budget - The calendar year operating budget of Hamel VFD. The Annual Fire Services Operating Budget incorporates all costs of operations including, but not limited to, the costs of the on -going operation and maintenance of the fire station, administrative expenses and annual contributions to the Hamel Volunteer Fire Relief Association Retirement Fund. City Fire Service Area - The area within a Contracted City provided fire protection by Hamel VFD under this contract and shown in Exhibit A of this Agreement. Contracted City(ies) —Any city which is a party to this Agreement for purposes of apportioning costs of services. At the effective date hereof the Contracting City(ies) is Medina. Emergency Management Services - Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD as 1 identified in the respective emergency operations plan of each Contracted City on file with the Hamel VFD. Emergency Medical Services - Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD directed at the provision of treatment to patients, including first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, First Responder and Basic Life Support prior to the arrival of Advanced Life Support and/or transport to a hospital or other health care facility. Fire Advisory Board — The Fire Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Advisory Board") will be comprised of the Fire Chief of the Hamel VFD and the Public Safety Director and other designated representative(s) of each Contracted City. Fire Fighting Services - Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD directed at rescue, fire suppression, property conservation or special operations involving individuals, buildings or property that are involved in a fire or other emergency situation. Fire Prevention Services - Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD directed at fire cause investigation and determination, pre -fire planning and inspection, hazard identification and elimination, public education, and other activities with the goal of proactively improving the safety of life and property. Hazardous Materials Response Services - Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD directed at the identification, isolation, mitigation and/or removal of hazardous materials. A hazardous material is defined as any substance that presents an unusual danger to persons due to properties of toxicity, chemical reactivity or decomposition, corrosiveness, explosion or detonation, etiological hazards or similar properties. Municipal Share - The portion of the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget that will be funded by service fees paid by the Contracted Cities. Rescue Services- Functions that shall be performed by Hamel VFD directed at locating endangered persons at an emergency incident, removing those persons from danger, treating the injured, and preparing for transport to an appropriate health care facility. Total Fire Service Area - The sum of the City Fire Service Area for all of the Contracted Cities. 2. Services to be Rendered During the term of this Agreement, Hamel VFD shall furnish all the F ire F ighting Services, Fire Prevention Services, Emergency Management Services, Rescue Services, Emergency Medical Services, Hazardous Materials Response Services, necessary building plan reviews and related fire protection services to the Contracted Cities for the Total Fire Service Area outlined in red on the attached map marked Exhibit A 2 (hereinafter referred to as the " Total Fire Service Area"). All of said Total Fire Service Area is located within the corporate limits of the Contracted Cities. 3. Level of Service A. Hamel VFD shall endeavor to provide the services listed in Section 2 of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, protecting and saving life and property from destruction by fire in the City Fire Service Area of a Contracted City. In the event of two or more fire calls received within the same time frame, Hamel VFD shall respond to the call that involves a higher threat to life, safety and property. If comparable calls are received within the same time frame, the call first received shall have priority and the following calls shall be answered as soon as possible. Hamel VFD will furnish sufficient staff to each call to safely, legally and effectively operate all necessary vehicles and equipment and provide all necessary services. Hamel VFD will arrange for fire service and protection through mutual aid contracts as needed. B. Mutual Aid - Hamel VFD shall respond to a fire service call in one of the districts of a Contracted City if service is requested by a fire department having primary responsibility in that portion of the Contracted City; provided that such service shall be furnished as soon as reasonably possible, without jeopardizing Hamel VFD's service to the Total Fire Service Area. C. Hamel VFD shall regularly train all fire fighters in areas including, but not limited to, modern firefighting techniques and methods, HAZMAT response, and terrorism response which are applicable to the level of service required by this contract for a Contracted City. D. Desirable Performance and Service Measures 1 Hamel VFD shall have a minimum of four (4) fire fighters at each fire call. 2. Hamel VFD shall respond to each fire call within ten minutes of dispatch. 3. Health and Wellness (programs, selection, training) a. Hamel VFD shall conduct SCBA fit testing on an annual basis, as required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). b. Hamel VFD shall require each fire fighter to receive a physical examination every two years. 4. The following information shall be reported to the Advisory Board: a. Quarterly Minimum Reporting: i. Quarterly Calls ii. Quarterly Complaints iii. Quarterly Budget and Expenditures b. Annual Minimum Reporting: i. Statistics of all calls ii. Pension Obligations, including annual reports iii. Response times iv. Fire Equipment Certification for State Fire Aid Payable 3 v. Community Involvement and Outreach vi. Certification of Service Areas Protected (pertaining to Hamel Fire Relief Association) vii. Balance Sheet listing all Hamel VFD Assets and Liabilities viii. Compliance against the "Minimum Position Qualifications" described in Exhibit B of this Agreement for the current Hamel VFD roster. 5. Hamel VFD shall use National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards as a reference regarding fire protection, fire prevention, public life safety education, fire suppression, volunteer/professional qualifications, training, professional clothing and equipment, apparatus, and hazardous materials. 6. Hamel VFD shall use National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards as a reference regarding the ongoing maintenance, inspection and upkeep for all equipment used in delivering the services listed in Section 2 of this Agreement. 7. Hamel VFD shall comply with all OSHA rules and regulations. 8. Hamel VFD shall use an accounting style reasonably accepted by the Contracted Cities. 9. Hamel VFD shall implement a process for the handling of complaints related to the services listed in Section 2. The process will follow the framework described in Exhibit C of this Agreement. 4. Command Responsibility Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Fire Chief of Hamel VFD or their designee shall have the sole and exclusive right and responsibility to prescribe the manner and method of giving the alarm for fire within the Total Fire Service Area and to prescribe the manner and method of responding to calls and rendering the services contemplated. The said Fire Chief or designee shall immediately upon arriving at the scene of any alarm or fire emergency have the sole and exclusive responsibility and authority to direct and control any and all firefighting and the emergency operations at such scene or scenes. The highest ranking official, with the highest level of certification, shall have command responsibility for medical emergencies. 5. Volunteer Fire Fighters of Hamel VFD Personnel assigned to provide fire protection services in a Con t r acted City shall be volunteer firefighters of Hamel VFD. Hamel VFD shall assume all obligations with regard to Worker's Compensation, Fire Fighter's Relief Association, withholding tax, insurance, etc. for said volunteer firefighters. The cost of such obligations shall be a part of the costs attributed to the operation of Hamel VFD and will be included in the Annual Fire Services Op erating Budget package. 6. Insurance and Indemnification Hamel VFD shall indemnify and hold harmless each Contracted City, their officers, agents, representatives, and employees, from and against all damages, claims, losses, costs or expenses including reasonable attorney fees, which may be asserted against a 4 Contracted City, or for which they may be held liable, arising from any act, omission, or negligence of Hamel VFD, its agents, employees and firefighters while engaged in the performance of services under this Agreement and as defined in Section 2. Hamel VFD shall maintain liability insurance for these purposes in an amount no less than $2,000,000.00 listing each Contracted City as a named insured. Hamel VFD shall annually provide a certificate of insurance to each Contracted City. The cost of such insurance shall be a part of the costs attributed to the operation of Hamel VFD and will be included in the Annual F ire Services Operating Budget. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as waiving the statutory liability limits of any city which is a party to this Agreement. 7. Liability Insurance Hamel VFD shall carry liability insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 listing itself and each Contracted City as a named insured against any and all claims by Hamel VFD firefighters for personal injury sustained while performing services under this Agreement. The amount of the insurance coverage shall be reviewed annually and if determined to be inadequate the amount of the coverage shall be adjusted accordingly. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as waiving the statutory liability limits of any city which is a party to this Agreement. 8. Hamel VFD Operational Responsibility Hamel VFD shall be responsible for managing the operation of Hamel VFD, and for managing the on -going operation and maintenance of the Hamel VFD Fire Station. This includes carrying hazard insurance on the Fire Station and its contents. The costs related to the operation of Hamel VFD, including the on -going operation and maintenance of the Fire Station, shall be included in the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget. 9. Budget Package Hamel VFD's annual operating expenditures shall be controlled through the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget. This budget will become the official Annual Fire Services Operating Budget upon ratification by the Contracted Cities. When the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget is approved, the expenditures may not exceed the level set in the budget without the approval of all parties to the contract except as provided in Section 13 and Section 15 of this Agreement. If during the term of this Agreement, a Contracted City or Hamel VFD chooses not to approve a proposed Annual Fire Services Operating Budget, the Annual Fire Service Operating Budget increase shall be limited to the average of the most recently approved annual General Fund Expenditure Budget increases of the Contracted Cities, until a new Annual Fire Services Operating Budget is approved by the Contracted Cities and Hamel VFD. The Annual Fire Services Capital Budget must be approved annually by the Contracted Cities and Hamel VFD and is not subject to any automatic average annual increase. 5 9.1 Budget Process By June 1st of each year during which this Agreement remains in effect, Hamel VFD shall provide an Annual Fire Services Operating Budget and an Annual Fire Services Capital Budget covering the costs related to the provision of fire protection for the next year. The budgets provided to the Contracted Cities must have been presented to the Advisory Board prior to May 1st for discussion and review. Although it is expected that the operating and capital budgets, which are provided to the Contracted Cities by Hamel VFD, will have the consensus support of the Advisory Board, that is not a requirement since each Contracted City has the opportunity for final ratification or rejection. 10. Term of this Agreement This Agreement covers the initial period of January 1, 2014 2018 through December 31, 2-04-52022. A Contract Year covers the period January 1 through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracted Cities and shall be renewed automatically for successive 25-year terms unless terminated pursuant to Section 20 of the Agreement. 11. Special Fire Funds In order to facilitate the accounting and reporting of all fire funds associated with the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget, the following will be used: Special Equipment Fund - shall refer to monies set aside for the purpose of acquiring new or refurbished equipment as needed by Hamel VFD to continue to provide the desired level of service. Special Reserve Fund - shall refer to monies set aside for the purpose of emergency repairs and replacements of equipment and supplies required by Hamel VFD to continue to provide the desired level of service. The minimum value of the Special Reserve Fund shall be established at $55,000. This amount will be reviewed annually and revised upward as determined necessary. In the event the fund balance drops below the required minimum balance, an Annual Fire Services Operating Budget line item shall be established to amortize the deficit. 12. Capital Expenditures Capital expenditures include the acquisition, refurbishment and/or upgrade of equipment and significant maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation to the fire station. 6 Equipment to be considered Major Equipment include "rolling stock" and significant equipment assets required for performing the fire department mission in the Total Fire Service Area. To qualify as Major Equipment, such assets will typically have an initial purchase value, or other costs, of at least $5,000. Station maintenance, repair or rehabilitation considered as Major Maintenance will have costs of at least $5,000. Hamel VFD shall prepare a 10-year Major Equipment investment and replacement plan, and a 10-year plan for Major Maintenance. These 10-year plans will be the basis for the preparation of an Annual Fire Services Capital Budget. Neither the approval nor lack of disapproval of the 10-year plans by the Contracted Cities creates any obligation for final approval or funding of any specific capital expenditure. The 10-year plans will be reviewed and updated annually through the Annual Fire Services Capital Budget approval process. The current 10-year plan will be described in Exhibit D of this Agreement. During the annual budget process provided by Section 9 of this Agreement, Hamel VFD will review the planned capital expenditures, including Major Equipment and Major Maintenance, with the Advisory Board. Hamel VFD and the Advisory Board will negotiate the acquisition method and ownership shares for each item. In addition, Hamel VFD and the Advisory Board will agree on legal ownership (hereinafter referred to as Titling) for vehicles acquired in accordance with the provisions of this Section 12. Without regard to acquisition method, ownership allocation or Titling, Hamel VFD, in its reasonable discretion, will determine the use, maintenance and upkeep for all equipment used in the provisioning of services. Ongoing operational, maintenance, insurance and administrative costs associated with Major Equipment and Major Maintenance will be incorporated into the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget. The final approval of capital expenditures is done in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement. When a Contracted City approves the Annual Fire Services Capital Budget, it is also agreeing to pay its share of the cost of capital expenditures included in the Annual Fire Services Capital Budget, up to the budgeted amount (hereinafter referred to as the "Capital Share"). Hamel VFD shall pay any share of capital expenditures as negotiated and determined available and necessary by the Fire Board. All plans and specifications for major equipment or facilities shall be annually approved by the Contracted Cities Payments for capital expenditure funding by the Contracted Cities to Hamel VFD will be done in accordance with Section 17 of this Agreement. Hamel VFD will place capital funding payments into the Special Equipment Fund. Utilization of these funds will only be done in accordance with the Annual Fire Service Capital Budget. Purchases funded through the Special Equipment Fund will adhere to considerations consistent with the purchasing policies of the Contracted Cities as described in Exhibit E of this Agreement. 7 Major Equipment and/or Major Maintenance funded in accordance with this section will be listed in Exhibit F of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Asset Exhibit"). The following information shall be recorded for each item: i. Item Description ii. Original Cost iii. Purchase Date iv. Ownership Shares/Allocation 12.1. Disposition of Assets Upon Termination In the event that this Agreement is terminated as provided in Section 20 of this Agreement: 1. For any asset on the Asset Exhibit (Major Asset) reflecting 100% ownership by a single party, that party is entitled to take physical possession of that asset. For vehicles, this includes receipt of a title indicating sole ownership by that party. 2. Hamel VFD has the right to purchase a Contracted City's ownership share of a Major Asset for cash at the current market value pro-rata to the original amount funded by the Contracted City, or based on the average historical allocation by all Contracted Cities. Hamel VFD has up to thirty (30) days after the termination to exercise this right. 3. In the event Hamel VFD does not exercise its right to acquire full ownership of any Major Asset, the Contracted City with the largest ownership share shall then have the right to purchase full ownership of that Major Asset for cash at the current market value pro-rata to the original amount funded by the other Contracted Cities and Hamel VFD. The Contracted Cities have sixty (60) days after termination to exercise this right. 4. Any Major Asset not acquired 100% by a party through this process will be sold, and the proceeds of the sale divided between the parties pro-rata to the ownership allocation from the Asset Exhibit. 5. Any cash balance remaining in the Special Equipment Fund will be distributed to each Contracted City pro-rata to the original amounts contributed. All assets on the Asset Exhibit will be covered by this terminating procedure. Any other physical assets in the possession of Hamel VFD which are not listed on the Asset Exhibit will be considered the sole property of the Hamel VFD. 13. Un-Budgeted/Emergency Expenditures Un-budgeted equipment repair, maintenance or replacement, building repair, supply replacement or other emergency expenditures exceeding 2% of the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget and having a potential negative impact on the operational capabilities and/or safety of Hamel VFD will be accommodated through the Special Reserve Fund. Notification of the use of the Special Reserve Fund will be provided to the Advisory Board within 14 days, including a detailed explanation of the need. Any subsequent reimbursement or refund associated with an un-budgeted or emergency expenditure contemplated in this section will be credited back to the Special Reserve Fund. 8 14. Annual Audit of Actual Costs The Contracted Cities understand and agree that it is impossible to project with complete accuracy the actual costs of labor and equipment, as well as the service to be required by the Contracted Cities, for the forthcoming contract year and thereby agree to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated cost of service as set forth above to the actual costs incurred by Hamel VFD. On or before April 30th of each year, Hamel VFD will tabulate the actual cost of the fire department budget for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contracted Cities a summary of the actual costs. The actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in either a surplus or deficit with respect to that year's Annual F ire S e ry ices Operating Budget. The Advisory B o a r d shall recommend allocation or financing of any surplus or deficit that exists at the end of the fiscal year. It is expected that expenditures will remain within the Annual Operating Budget amounts and will only exceed such budget amounts as provided in Section 13 and Section 15 of this Agreement. The Contracted Cities reserve the right to request an independent audit of Hamel VFD, at a cost to be funded by requesting Contracted City, provided the frequency is not more than biennially. 15. Non -forecasted Expenditures Notice of the need for a non -forecasted expenditure in the amount of $5,000 or more shall be given in writing to the A d v i s o r y Bo a r d prior to actual expenditures for such items. The Advisory Board shall thereafter have 21 days in which to approve or disapprove the same in writing and if there is no response which disapproves the expenditure, it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shall be included in the Annual Fire S e ry ices Operating Budget as if ratified originally. 16. Cost Sharing Formula Each Contracted City will be responsible for a portion of the Municipal Share (hereinafter referred to as the Budget Share). The Budget Share for the initial Contracted City shall be 100% of the Municipal Share. At such time as there is more than one Contracted City, the sum of all Budget Shares shall be 100% of the Municipal Share. The determination of the Budget Share for each Contracted City will be based upon a formula which will be agreed to by all parties. 17. Contract Payments The Budget Share and the Capital Share of the Contracted Cities shall be paid in equal quarterly installments on January 31, April 30, July 31 and October 31 of the next contract year by the Contracted Cities to Hamel VFD. The invoices will contain details for both elements of payment. 9 Budget) Budget) The amounts payable by the Contracted City in 2014 2018 are as follows: Budget Share: $169;400238,000 (from the 2014 2018 Annual Fire Services Operating Capital Share: $ 60700073,000 (from the 2014 2018 Annual Fire Services Capital Hamel VFD agrees to provide the Contracted Cities with reasonably detailed information relating to the actual expenditures against the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget upon request and on a quarterly basis and agrees to make pertinent records available to the Contracted Cities for inspection for the purpose of determining the basis for the allocation of costs to fire protection. 18. Arbitration If a Contracted City is aggrieved by the determination of Hamel VFD as to the allocation of the actual costs of the prior years' service, the Contracted City may appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of Hamel VFD's audit. Said appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to Hamel VFD asking for arbitration by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; one to be appointed by Hamel VFD, one to be appointed by the appealing City, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. The name of each arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of written notice of appointment of either of the first two arbitrators', the Chief Judge of the District Court of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of any Contracted City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected shall not be a resident of any Contracted City, and shall be a city manager or administrator. The arbitrator's expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration shall be binding on both parties. 19. Fire Advisory B o a r d Role The Fire Advisory B o and shall meet no less than two times per year, with regular meetings scheduled in March and July for the purpose of reviewing operational performances, setting goals and providing strategic planning. Any Contracted City or Hamel VFD may call meetings in addition to the regular meetings. This group shall discuss and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding the provision of fire service, and to periodically review budget updates. The Fire Advisory Board shall have the specific task of reviewing Hamel VFD's operating and capital budget proposals for the next calendar year and arriving at a consensus annual Fire Services Operating Budget and Fire Services Capital Budget according to the 10 timeframes established in Section 9.1 of this Agreement. Advisory Board members are responsible for presenting the operating and capital budgets to the City Council of their respective Contracted City for approval. The Advisory Board shall receive a complete copy of the Hamel Fire Relief Association's Pension Plan Audit as filed with the State Auditor, verifying that the pension fund's integrity is being maintained. 20. Termination of this Agreement This Agreement shall be terminable only as follows: 1. For convenience, any party may choose to terminate this Agreement for any reason provided that such termination is preceded by a minimum of a ene-two (-12) year written notice. In no event shall a parry issue a termination notice earlier than December 31, 2-04-42020. 2. For cause, if a party breaches their obligations under this Agreement in a material respect and the breach is not substantially cured within a ninety (90) day cure period which begins when written notice is served. 3. By mutual written agreement of the Contracted Cities and Hamel VFD who are covered by this Agreement. 21. Provision to adjust City Fire Service Area During the term of this Agreement, a Contracted City may request that its City Fire Service Area be reduced or increased in size. Such a request of less than five percent of the City Fire Service Area must be made in writing prior to May 1 of the Contract Year to allow time for preparing the Annual Fire Services Operating Budget for the succeeding Contract Year. In the event that a Contracted City proposes an increase of more than five percent to its City Fire Service Area, Hamel VFD shall have the right to limit the increase to assure that coverage at the service level provided under this Agreement can be achieved by the Department. Such a request of more than five percent must be made one year prior to the desired effective date of the change. The service area shall not be increased to the extent that it requires the purchase of additional equipment unless all parties to the contract agree. In the event that a Contracted City wishes to decrease and/or alter the location by less than five percent of its City Fire Service Area it may do so by specifying those changes in writing by May 1 of the year prior to the Contract Year in which such change is to be effective. In the event that a Contracted City wishes to decrease and/or alter the location by more than five percent of its City Fire Service Area, it may do so by specifying those changes in writing 3 months prior to the desired effective date of the change. 22. New Contracted Cities The Contracted Cities and Hamel VFD will negotiate in good faith to add a new Contracted City as a party to this Agreement. Addition of a new Contracted City to this Agreement requires approval from City Council of each currently Contracted City, which will not be unreasonably withheld. 11 The Budget Share and a cost sharing formula will also be mutually agreed to by all parties. In addition, the parties will undertake actions to ensure that capital contributions made by a Contracted City prior to this event are considered when determining the capital contribution/outlay amount required by the new Contracted City to become party to this Agreement. Hamel VFD will not enter into any other agreement to provide services similar to those described in Section 2 of this Agreement without the approval of City Council from each Contracted City. 23. Legal Compliance This Agreement is governed by the laws of Minnesota. All parties to this Agreement shall comply with all applicable statutory requirements. This Contract replaces any existing contracts and agreements between the parties and is approved by the Contracted Cities and Hamel Volunteer Fire Department on the date first written above. CITY OF MEDINA MAYOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE CHIEF ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 12 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT A: CITY FIRE SERVCIE AREA Version: October 18, 2017 Long Lake FD MEDINA Fire District Map Legend Hamel FD Long Lake F❑ Loretto F❑ Maple Plain FD Map Date; August 22. 2013 District 60.1ndaries verified by Public Safety Director 8021/413 Exhibit A: City Fire Service Area Page 1 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT B: MINIMUM POSITION QUALIFICATIONS Version: October 18, 2017 Probationary Firefighters I ✓ GED ✓ Background Check ✓ Successful Interview Process Probationary Firefighters II ✓ Probationary Firefighter I plus ... ✓ Firefighter I & Hazmat Operations Firefighters ✓ Probationary Firefighter II plus ... ✓ Firefighter II ✓ First Responder Certified Drivers/Engineers ✓ Probationary Firefighter II plus ... ✓ Completion of Department Driver Qualification Program ✓ Completion of Department Pump Operator Program Fire Lieutenants/Captains ✓ Firefighter plus ... ✓ NIMS 100 & 200 ✓ Blue Card On -Line Certification Program Fire Chiefs ✓ Fire Lieutenant/Captains plus ... ✓ NIMS 700 ✓ ICS 300 & 400 or MN State equivalent (for Fire Chief only) NOTE: Qualifications based on current versions of Hamel VFD job descriptions Exhibit B: Minimum Position Qualifications Page 1 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT C: COMPLAINT PROCESS FRAMEWORK Version: October 18, 2017 1. Hamel VFD will implement a process to receive and investigate complaints against the Department and/or its personnel related to the delivery of the services listed in Section 2 of the Agreement 2. The scope of the policy will include the receipt, recording, investigation and disposition of a complaint against the Department. 3. Anyone who is not a member of Hamel VFD may file a complaint by contacting the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief will make a determination regarding the need for a formal investigation. 4. For complaints not warranting a formal investigation, the complainant will be notified of the decision and the basis for it. 5. For complaints warranting a formal investigation: A. The Fire Chief, at their discretion, may delegate investigation responsibility. B. Upon completion of the investigation, the Fire Chief will review the investigation results and determine what, if any, corrective actions, procedure changes, response protocols, etc. need to be taken. While the Fire Chief may seek input from other parties regarding the complaint or its investigation, any corrective actions will be decided on solely by the Fire Chief and, as appropriate, Hamel VFD's Board of Directors. C. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the complainant will be provided with an appropriate summary of the investigation results and corrective actions. No personnel related actions contemplated or taken as a result of the investigation will be shared outside the Department. 6. All complaints, even those not formally investigated, will be recorded. As prescribed in Section 3 of the Agreement, Hamel VFD will provide reporting of complaints to the Contracted Cities on both a quarterly and annual basis. Exhibit C: Complaint Process Framework Page 1 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT D: 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Version: October 18, 2017 I HFD 2018 Capital Plan Equipment Capital Cast 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Ongoing PPE Replament 12,000 10,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12 , 000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Thermal Imaging Camera 5,000 Hose - 1.75" & 2" 6,000 Ranger Vehicle 25,000 AEDs 6,000 Duty Officer Vehicle 15,000 Engine 12 Replacement 289,000 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 Command Vehicle Replacement 50,000 50,000 Utility 12 Replacement 50,000 50,000 Tanker 12 Replacement 195,000 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 22,424 Utility 11 Replacement 250,000 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 21,620 Rescue 11 Replacement 225,000 19,458 19,458 19,458 19,458 19,458 Engine 11 Replacement 500,000 43,241 Tanker 11 Replacement 27'5,000 CAPITAL STARTING BALANCE 103,500 94,000 69,076 83,532 97,988 112,443 126,899 121,897 116,894 111,891 106,889 PROJECTED ANNUAL CONSUMPTION 89,500 113,924 85,544 85,544 85,544 85,544 105,003 105,003 105,003 105,003 148,244 ANNUAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS 80,000 89,000 104,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 110,004 PLANNED CAPITAL CARRYOVER 94,000 69,076 83,532 97,988 112,443 126,899 121,897 116,894 111,891 106,889 68,645 ACTUAL CAPITAL CARRYOVER SOURCE OF CAPITAL DETAILS: CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION: MEDINA 73,000 73,000 75,006 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 85,000 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION: HFD 7,000 16,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 OTHER CAPITAL: DONATION OTHER CAPITAL: FUNDRAISING OTHER CAPITAL: GRANTS OTHER CAPITAL: MISC CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION: TOTAL 80,000 89,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 /00,000 1170,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 110,000 Exhibit D: 10-Year Capital Plan Page 1 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT E: CAPITAL PURCHASING PROVISIONS Version: October 18, 2017 Hamel VFD will follow the provisions outlined below when funding purchases through the Special Equipment Fund. Generally, the following thresholds will apply: 1. For purchases over $100,000 — sealed bids, solicited by public notice and subject to any particular specific requirements related to a Contracted City as jointly agreed to by the parties. 2. For purchases between $25,000 to $100,000 — sealed bids or direct negotiation, with two or more quotations whenever possible. 3. For purchases of $25,000 or less — open market or quotations — if done by quotation, more than one quotation will be pursued when practicable. Hamel VFD retains the sole responsibility selecting the supplier, vendor or manufacturer regardless of which of the above considerations was employed. If sealed bids were solicited, Hamel VFD will document rationale for the selection which will be filed with the bid and specifications as outlined below in this Exhibit E. Through a Contracted City, Hamel VFD may contract for the purchase of supplies, materials, or equipment by utilizing contracts that are available through the state's cooperative purchasing venture. For purchases over $25,000, Hamel VFD will consider the availability, price and quality of supplies, materials, or equipment available through the state's cooperative purchasing venture before purchasing through another source. At Hamel VFD's discretion, when reasonable and practicable, specifications for sealed bids will be written so as not to be exclusive of certain manufacturers or equipment types. If sealed bids are solicited, the request should be published at least once in the official City newspaper with notice published at least ten days in advance of the last date for submission of bids. No member of the City Council shall be directly or indirectly interested in any contract made by Hamel VFD. Specifications for purchases over $100,000 will include a requirement for a performance and/or payment bond when reasonable and practicable. Bids and quotations should be kept on file for at least a year after receipt. Exhibit E: Capital Purchasing Provisions Page 1 ATTACHMENT to the AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION EXHIBIT F: ASSETS Version: October 18, 2017 Ownership Shares/Allocation Hamel VFD City of Medina Equipment Description Acquisition Date Original Cost ($k) Apparatus « 198/I f Engine 1985 157 684 9444 rd 2006 341 • 2006 Spartan Engine 27% 73% • 2007 Pierce Tanker 2007 179 23% 77% • 2008 Ford Light Rescue 2008 79 23% 77% • 2014 Ranger UTV & Trailer 2014 36.6 76% 24% « 2002 Pickup 2015 al 444 fj;G% • 2017 Tahoe Command Truck 2017 44.5 61% 39% • 2017 Rosenbauer Engine 2016 400 7%1 93%1 Thermal Imagers • Scott Attack Eagle 2014 6 16% 84% • Scott X190 2017 5.6 0% 100% Fire Hose • 1,300' 1 %" (Red & Blue) 2014 3.9 0% 100% • 150' 2 %" (Orange) 2014 .5 0% 100% PPE • (4) Sets of Bunker Pants/Coats 2015 8.9 55% 45% • (2) Sets of Bunker Pants/Coats 2015 4.3 0% 100% • (4) Sets of Bunker Pants/Coats 2016 8.2 0% 100% • (4) Helmets (Red) 2016 1.0 0% 100% • (3) Sets of Bunker Pants/Coats 2017 6.2 0% 100% Durable Medical Devices 2014 15 50% 50% • LUCAS Compression System 2015 5.6 0% 100% • (3) Lifepak 1000 Defibrillators Fireground Tools • Genesis(Battery) Extrication Tools 2017 29.5 0% 100% (Cutter, Spreader, Ram, Airbags) NOTES: 1 Reflects projected ownership shares at completion of financing period in 2027 Exhibit F: Assets Page 1 Hamel Volunteer Fire Depart. MN Ch. 317A Non-profit corporation Date Medina's contract with Hamel is dated 1-1-16 Term The initial term is 2 years from 1-1-16 to 12-31-17 Renewal The term is automatically renewed for successive 2 year terms. Termination w/o Cause Either party may give a 1 year or more advance written notice of termination. Notice must be given on or before 12-31-16. The contract is for 2 years from 1- 1-16 to 12-31-17. Within the 2016 to 2017 term, either party may still terminate on 1 year's advance written notice. Termination w/ Cause The contract may be terminated for cause. Budget/Allocation By June 1st, the Hamel Volunteer Fire Dept. gives Medina: 1) An operating budget for the next year; 2) A capital budget for the next year. Medina Council ratifies "the budgets proposed." Recent Budgets 2014: General $169,400 Capital $60,000 2015: General $196,115 Capital $60,000 2016: General $202,215 Capital $70,000 2017: General $221,000 Capital $73,000 2018: General $238,000 Capital $73,000 If costs shared 50% allocated to market valuation 50% allocated to call hours spent in fire service area *In 2009 the equation changed from 70% Market Value, 30% Call Hours Budget History w/Corcoran: For 2011: Corcoran: $41,722.08 Medina: $132,931.92 For 2012: Corcoran: $47,647.07 Medina: $135,739.63 For 2013: Corcoran: $49,421.79 Medina: $143,134.25 Loretto Volunteer Fire Depart. MN Ch. 317A Non-profit Corporation Date Medina's contract with Loretto is dated 1-1-13 Term The initial term is 3 years from 1-1-13 to 12-31-15 Renewal The term is automatically renewed for successive 3 year terms. Termination w/o Cause Either party may give a 1 year or more advance written notice of termination. No such notice was given on or before 12-31-14, so the contract is renewed for 3 years from 1-1-15 to 12-31-17. Within the 2015 to 2017 term, either party may still terminate on 1 year's advance written notice. Termination w/ Cause The contract may be terminated for cause at least (90) days prior to date of termination. Budget/Allocation The cost of Contracted Services to the Cities shall be determined by formula for each calendar year during the term of the Agreement, using the Cost Allocation Data described in Exhibit D of the contract. Estimated market value of all properties that are not tax-exempt within the Fire Service Area will determine 50% of the cost, and average usage of Contracted Services over the three (3) most recent calendar years will determine 50% of the cost allocated to each Contracting City. The source of estimated market value shall be amounts compiled by the office of the Hennepin County Assessor and provided to the Department by the Contracting Cities prior to July 1 of each year during the term of this Agreement and any extended or renewal term. Percent Breakdown of Budget by City Greenfield Corcoran Independence Medina Loretto Medina's Recent Budget Shares 16% 38.7% 13.9% 24.5% 6.9% 2013: $96,537 (includes Capital) 2014: General $83,266 2015: General $80,575 2016: General $79,978.87 2017: General $86,393.33 2018: General $71,380.21 Capital $17,839 Capital $18,000 Capital $22,600.50 Capital $21,315 Capital $28,290 Maple Plain Fire Depart. City Department Date Medina's contract with Maple Plain is dated 9-19-17 Term The initial term is 2 years from 1-1-18 to 12-31-19 Renewal The term is automatically renewed for successive 2 year terms. Termination w/o Cause Medina or Maple Plain may choose to terminate its participation in the Agreement provided that such termination be effective on January 1 of the subsequent year preceded by a minimum six-month written notice. Termination w/ Cause Immediate termination may occur for breach of contract following written notice. Budget/Allocation The base compensation for the budget is an annual amount equal to the previous year's Base Compensation plus the year's annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) percent increase for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metro area as published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, but not less than a 2% increase and not to exceed a S% increase. Plus, an hourly rate equal to $160.00 for each call hour serviced in Medina by Maple Plain which exceeds 100 call hours in each calendar year. Medina's Recent Budget Shares 2013: $5,135 2014: $5,238 2015: $5,342 2016: $5,502 2017: $5,667 2018: $5,837 Long Lake Fire Depart. City Department Date Medina's contract with Long Lake is dated 10-15-02 Term The initial term is 20 years from 1-1-02 to 12-31-20 Renewal The term is automatically renewed for successive 5 year terms. Termination w/o Cause For breach of contract. By mutual agreement of all cities covered by the agreement. City of Medina may terminate its participation in this Agreement without cause, subject to providing a twenty-four month notice of termination. This agreement may be renegotiated or terminated by the cities to enable participation in a fire district or similar organizational arrangement. Termination w/ Cause For "Good Cause" by any city that desires to terminate its participation in the Agreement provided that such termination is preceded by a minimum of 36 months notice. "Good Cause" shall mean, but is not limited to, a pattern of inadequate service quality; including inadequate response to call, inadequate training, and inadequate handling of calls; and/or a pattern of budget overruns. Budget/Allocation Each of the Contracting Cities receiving fire services from the Long Lake Fire Department shall pay a share of the costs of the Annual Fire Services Operating and Capital Budgets. The City's Budget Share will be based upon a formula, which takes into account the Market Value of the protected property and the fire department staff resources utilized to protect the property. The objective is to fairly allocate "insurance" type costs and "effort and variable" type costs. The Contracting Cities have agreed that 70% of the share allocation will be based upon Market Value and 30% upon fire departments hours expended on calls to the City Fire Service Area. Percent Breakdown of Budget by City Long Lake 11% Medina 6% Orono 83% Medina's Recent Budget Shares 2013: $24,420 2014: General $24,220 2015: General $24,977 2016: General $25,263 2017: General $26,111 2018: General $26,894 Capital $5,248 (actual collected) Capital $6,000 (actual collected) Capital $7,000 (actual collected) Capital $6,000 Capital $6,000 Agenda Item # 7B MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 1, 2017 MEETING: November 8, 2017 City Council SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Amendment — Closed Landfill -Restricted District Background The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake Landfill in the western portion of the City as part of its Closed Landfill Program. The Landfill is located north of Hamel Road and west of Tomahawk Trail. Waste has not been accepted at the landfill since 1993 and the MPCA began management in 2000. A fuller summary of the history of the Landfill can be found in the attached Closed Landfill Land Use Plan from the MPCA. Minnesota state law requires that the local municipality enact land use and zoning regulations which are consistent with the Closed Landfill Use Plan established by the MPCA for the Landfill. The MPCA is also required to provide to the City information "related to a description of activities that will be or have been taken on the property...and a reasonably accurate description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility." State law requires that the City then "shall incorporate that information in any land use plan that includes the affected property and shall notify any person who applies for a permit related to development of the affected property of the existence of the information and, on request, provide a copy of the information." The Woodlake Closed Landfill Plan identifies a Groundwater Area of Concern and Methane Gas Area of Concern which extend off of the Woodlake Landfill site and onto neighboring properties. The attached ordinance is intended to meet these state requirements related to the use of the landfill property and the notification of properties affected by the Areas of Concern. The Woodlake Closed Landfill Use Plan from the MPCA is also attached for reference. The MPCA recommends that the City enact an overlay district or setback for property within the Methane Gas Area of Concern. Methane gas controls are in place in Woodlake Landfill, but if these measures fail, there is a chance that methane gas may migrate into the Methane Gas Area of Concern. Methane gas can become explosive in confined spaces such as basements when mixed in air. At least one representative from the MPCA has indicated that they intend to be present at the meeting to answer any questions. Closed Landfill Restricted Page 1 of 6 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Ordinance Summary The attached ordinance includes two primary sections. The first section deletes the existing regulations for and Sanitary Landfill District, which were in place back when an active landfill was permitted on the property. The second section establishes the Closed Landfill -Restricted (CLR) zoning district and regulations for the Woodlake Landfill. The second section of the ordinance creates regulations for the Closed Landfill -Restricted (CLR) to apply to the Woodlake Landfill site. The ordinance utilizes the MPCA's template ordinance, which is meant to address the mandates within the Land Use Plan for the Landfill. The City would then be able to rezone the property into the CLR district after adoption. An ordinance which would effectuate the rezoning is attached. The only permitted use within the CLR district are the management of the closed landfill. Solar equipment is permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. These uses are identified by the MPCA in the land use plan. The draft ordinance establishes setback and design standards which are consistent with the Rural Public/Semi-Public zoning district. Staff believes these standards provided a good framework since they are intended to apply to quasi -commercial operations within the rural area. The ordinance also references the Closed Landfill Plan and the Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) and Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) which have been identified by the MPCA and states that staff will notify any applicant for development of the information. The City Attorney believes that including this reference meets the requirements of state law that the City "shall incorporate that information in any land use plan that includes the affected property and shall notify any person who applies for a permit related to development of the affected property of the existence of the information and, on request, provide a copy of the information." The draft ordinance does not include additional setbacks from the MGAOC as suggested by the MPCA. The Planning Commission discussed the setback at its hearings and recommended to not include the additional setback on a 3-2 vote. Areas of Concern As noted above, the MPCA identifies a Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) and Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) within the Woodlake Landfill Closed Landfill Plan. The MPCA recommends that the City consider an increased setback for properties adjacent to the Landfill that would prohibit the construction of structures within the Methane Gas Area of Concern. The MPCA has identified the area within 200 feet of the buried waste on the landfill within the MGAOC. The MPCA's Use Plan states: "The MGAOC is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill waste footprint where the presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be impacted or precluded by subsurface migration of methane gas. Methane gas is an odorless gas produced when municipal solid waste decomposes, and can be explosive in confined spaces such as basements when mixed in air. The MGAOC is used to inform the public about the risks to current and future land owners regarding certain uses they may want to consider. A portion of the MGAOC extends off the [Landfill] on to adjacent Closed Landfill Restricted Page 2 of 6 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting property to the north... Currently, methane gas is controlled at the Landfill but migration of methane off the property is possible, especially under frozen conditions and if the active gas extraction system were to unforeseeably shut down." The following map shows the MPCA's MGAOC in yellow. The GWAOC is defined by the MPCA as "the area of land surrounding a landfill where the presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted or precluded by contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow direction to change thereby impacting the user or others nearby. The GWAOC is used to inform the public about the current and potential risks to users of groundwater contaminated by the landfill." Minnesota Rules prohibit installation of a drinking water well within 300 feet of the landfill and the Department of Health has the authority to place special conditions upon any well within the GWAOC. The MPCA does not recommend any additional requirements by the City. The map at top of the following page identifies MPCA's GWAOC in blue. Property owners raised concern during the public hearings at the Planning Commission related to the potential impact on property values of the areas of concern and requested that the City try to minimize any such impacts. The City Attorney has questioned whether it was the best course of action for the City to enforce a set back on behalf of the MPCA. Closed Landfill Restricted Page 3 of 6 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held hearings on the proposed ordinance and rezoning at their August 8, September 12, and October 10 meetings. Minutes from these meetings are attached for reference. At the August 8 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the City's zoning code to address these requirements. Staff had presented an overlay district as recommended by the MPCA for discussion. Adjacent property owners within the MPCA's published Areas of Concern urged the Planning Commission to consider alternatives to the overlay district that would minimize potential impacts to property values. The Planning Commission directed staff to evaluate alternatives and present an ordinance which would meet minimum requirements but minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties. Staff removed the overlay district from the ordinance and incorporated a reference to the MPCA's Areas of Concern within the Closed Landfill -Restricted ordinance. At the September 12 meeting, speakers at the Public Hearing asked more questions about the MPCA's areas of concern so the Planning Commission requested some additional information. Closed Landfill Restricted Page 4 of 6 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting The Planning Commission recommended that the MPCA be present at the October 10 meeting for more information. The Planning Commission continued the hearing at the October 10 meeting and heard additional information from the MPCA. Two Commissioners believed the City should enact a setback to prevent construction of structures within the MGAOC. Three Commissioners recommended adopting the ordinance without a setback requirement, which is the version attached. Various questions through the process related to what the City is required to include in the ordinance. A letter from the City Attorney is attached which discusses this matter. Potential Actions When the City Council has completed review of the zoning ordinance and the rezoning ordinance, the following actions would be in order: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance Regarding Regulations of the Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District 2. Motion to adopt the resolutions authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary 3. Motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance Rezoning Woodlake Landfill to the Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District 4. Motion to adopt the resolutions authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary Attachments 1. Map Identifying Property to be rezoned to CLR District 2. Draft Ordinance regarding the CLR District 3. Resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and summary 4. Draft Ordinance rezoning property to the CLR zoning district 5. Resolution authorizing publication of the rezoning ordinance by title and summary 6. City Attorney memo dated 11/2/2017 7. Woodlake Landfill Closed Landfill Land Use Plan (from MPCA) 8. Additional information from MPCA re: GWAOC 9. Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Planning Commission minutes 10. Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Planning Commission minutes 11. Excerpt from draft 10/10/2017 Planning Commission minutes 12. Letter from P. Chamberlain dated 9/11/2017 13. Letter from City of Loretto dated 8/4/2017 Closed Landfill Restricted Page 5 of 6 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting LI.OZ laquuapas :91A0 era Nl of pauom aq of Pasodo.id - II14Puel a�lalPooM - pue6ai luauipuowv 6uiuoz pasodwd palDPIsal-I10puel paso10 5g AVMHOIH eauapuaciapur pauleuun �4 C /Od hlNfloc. a'd0a 1,1Nr103 /II 3NJlNMDl Agenda Item # 7B 1 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REGULATIONS OF THE CLOSED LANDFILL -RESTRICTED ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SANITARY LANDFILL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows-; SECTION I. Section 827.09 et. Seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the existing stricken language in its entirety. SANITARY LANDFILL ZONING DISTRICTw'",) Section 827.09. Sanitary Landfill Purpose. The Sanitary Landfill (SL) District is an area exclusively established to accommodate the use of land for the development and operation of sanitary landfills. Since this type of land use is so unique to the ecological setting of Medina and the provision of public services such as transportation so demanding, a special district delineation is called for. Within any district zoned SL in Medina, an extensive set of performance standards must be met through the application of a conditional use permit. Section 827.11. Conditional Use Sanitary Landfills. Within the Sanitary Landfill District, no landfill shallbe established or operated without a Conditional Use Permit. Said Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a one year period, after which a permit renewal shall be required. The City Council may also require a performance bond, cash escrow, or letter of credit from the landowner or operator, 4o guarantee conformance with these regulations. Section 827.13. Information Required. The following information shall be provided by the persons requesting the permit: Subd. 1. Name and address of person requesting the permit. Subd. 2. The exact legal property description and acreage of area to be used. Subd. 3. The following maps of the entire site and to include all areas within five hundred (500) feet of the site. All maps shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet unless otherwise stated below: (a) Map A Existing conditions to include: Contour lines at five (5) foot intervals. Existing vegetation. Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE Existing drainage and permanent water areas. Existing structures. Existing wells. Existing roadways and easements. (b) Map B Proposed operations to include: Structures to be erected. Location of earthwork and fill operation to be mined showing depth of proposed excavation. Location of refuse disposal deposits showing maximum height of deposits. Location of machinery to be used in the mining operation. Location of storage of mined materials, showing height of storage deposits. Location of vehicle parking. Location of storage of explosives. Erosion and sediment control structures. Location of proposed roadways and easements. Type and capacity of equipment to be used. (c) Map C End use plan to include: (5) foot intervals. Location and species of vegetation to be replanted. Location and nature of any structures to be erected in relation to the end use Subd. 5. A plan for dust and noise control. Subd. 6. A full and adequate description of all phases of the proposed operation to include an estimate of duration of the operation. Subd. 7. A plan for fire nuisance and vermin control. Subd. 8. Any other information requested by the Planning Commission or City Council Subd. 9. Estimated daily or weekly volume of garbage and other waste. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Subd.10. A plan or the submittal of assurances to the City from private or public sources satisfactorily addressing the issue of long term liability after landfill closure for the monitoring and protection of environmental quality. Subd. 11. A plan or submittal of assurances to the City from private or public sources satisfactorily addressing the issue of long term roadway maintenance during the operations tenure on those routes providing primary landfill site access. Section 827.15. Renewal of Permits. All property ownersand residents with one thousand (1000) feet of the operation shall be notified of the annual conditional permit renewal request. Section 827.17. Use Restriction. The following regulations shall be observed by any person to whom a permit is issued by the City for the operation of a sanitary landfill. These regulations shall govern the operation of all City approved sanitary landfills and any failure to observe these regulations shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation of the permit by the Council. Subd.1. All garbage and other refuse accepted by the landfill permit holder shall be thoroughly compacted by equipment of a size and weight capable of producing a downward or ground pressure of at least five (5) pounds per square inch. Such equipment shall have sufficient weight and capacity to carry out all necessary operations to the satisfaction of the Subd. 2. Mixed refuse material shall be spread out on the working face of the landfill so that the depth does not exceed a maximum depth of two (2') feet prior to its compaction. Subd. 3. The areas shall be continually policed to prevent fire and the blowing of papers; shall well as when wind conditions warrant it through the day, with sufficient material to prevent blowing papers and unsightly conditions. The size of the active face on which refuse is being currently deposited shall be kept to a minimum. Subd. 4. Cover material will consist of earth, loam, clay, sand or a mixture of at least fifty percent (50%) earth and other inert materials, such as ashes, cinders or gravel. A minimum depth of twelve inches (12") of compacted cover and final spr ud cover material shall be be covered at the end of each day's operation, or as otherwise directed by the Administrator. Subd. 5. When the landfill has been brought up to two feet (2') below the desired finished grade, it shall be covered with at least twenty four inches (24") of compacted cover material graded and seeded in such a manner as to prevent erosion. Subd. 6. Where the "trench system" of sanitary landfill is used, successive parallel trenches Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Subd. 7. All garbage and refuse material existing on the site at the time the permit is issued any other form, shall be collected, compacted, and or with inert material at least two feet (2') in depth at the finished grade. This cover operation shall be completed within fifteen (15) working days after the issuance of a special permit for the sanitary landfill. Subd. 8. The permittee or operator shall erect such temporary or permanent fences or take other measures as may be necessary to reasonably control blowing of paper and other materials from the landfill. Subd. 9. Any material salvaged from the landfill must be handled and stored in such a manner as to prevent rodent harborage and permit proper operation of the landfill. Such salvaged material must be removed to a location at least two hundred feet (200').from the working surface so as not to interfere with the compacting and covering. All salvaged material must be completely removed from the site every twenty four (24) hours unless provision is made for temporary storage within an enclosed, roofed and rodent proof structure approved by the Administrator. Subd. 10. Burning of any materials deposited in landfill is expressly prohibited. Subd.11. Adequate fire fighting equipment shall be available at all times on the site or the operator shall furnish the Inspector with proof of a fire fighting agreement between the operator and the local fire district. Subd. 12. No fill shall be placed in streambeds or other areas where streams would be obstructed or where erosion by the stream would remove cover material. There shall be no seepage or drainage of any material from the fill of such a nature as would constitute an odor nuisance, or health hazard, or pollute any water course. ubd , z, he-„o, mit fielder sha1 p -, vide an access road, approved by the Administrator that is passable in, all types of weather conditions to the dumping site. Subd. 14. The license holder shall also provide an auxiliary fill site available and ready for use be reached because of said weather conditions. The permit holder shall also take precautions to eliminate excess dust in dry weather. Subd. 15. Insects and rodents on the site shall be controlled and exterminated as directed by the Inspector. Subd.17. All those provisions of Section 735, Mining and Land Rehabilitation, shall be Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE followed in the development, operation and restoration of a sanitary landfill use. Section 827.19. Total Area Limitation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section, no permit shall be issued and no rezoning applications shall be approved for the construction or operation of sanitary landfills or the expansion or modification of such facilities if the amount of land comprising the proposed, expanded or modified landfill when added to land comprising all other existing and closed landfills, whether or not operated under permit from the City, shall exceed one hundred ninety (190) acres. In calculating the amount of land in such landfills, all of the following shall be included: Subd. 1. All land which has actually been used for sanit landfill purposes whether or not zoned for such use, and Subd. 2. All land either currently or previously zoned sanitary landfill (SL) including all wetlands, buffer acres, setback acres, internal roads and any other land in SL zones but not actually used for the placement of refuse. Section 827.20. Fees. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 115A,921, the permit holder shall pay quarterly to the city a fee of fifteen (15) cents per cubic yard or equivalent weight of solid waste accepted and disposed of on the landfill site. The revenue derived from the fee shall be placed in the general fund for purposes of mitigating and compensating the city for the risks, costs, and other adverse affects of the sanitary landfill. Waste residue from energy and resource recovery facilities at which solid waste is processed for the purpose of extracting, reducing, converting to energy, or otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse shall be exempt from one half of the fee if reduced the verification procedures of Minn Stat., Section 473.843, Subdivision 1, paragraph (c) hundred (600) pounds of solid waste shall be considered the equivalent of one cubic yard. Section 827.21. Time Limitation. No rezoning shall be approved and no conditional use permit for sanitary landfill shall be granted for a period exceeding twelve (12) years. At the expiration of said period the zoning on the sanitary landfill site shall revert to its previous zoning classification or such other zoning classifications as may be determined by the City Council in the manner provided in this Code for rezoning of land. The applicant shall agree to the limitations provided in this section 827.21 by contract duly executed by authorized representatives of the applicant in a form s. tisf et fy t the City, r,,, nei Section 827.23. Severability. Paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of Sections 827.09 through 827.23 inclusive are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this section shall be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections. Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE SECTION II. New Section 827.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is hereby added to replace the deleted language as follows: CLOSED LANDFILL -RESTRICTED (CLR) ZONING DISTRICT Section 827.09. Closed Landfill Restricted Subd. 1. Purpose. The Closed Landfill -Restricted (CLR) District is intended to apply to former landfills that are qualified to be under the Closed Landfill Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The purpose of the district is to limit uses of land within the closed landfill, both actively filled and related lands, to minimal uses in order to protect the land from human activity where response action systems are in place and, at the same time, are protective of human health and safety. This district shall only apply to the closed landfill's Land Management Area, the limits of which are defined by the MPCA. This district shall apply whether the landfill is in public (MPCA, County, City, Township), Indian tribal, or private ownership. Subd. 2. Applicability. For purposes of this ordinance, the Land Management Area for the Woodlake Landfill, a qualified facility under the MPCA's Closed Landfill Program, encompasses the whole Woodlake Landfill and is legally described as: That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as beginning at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly, along the east line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to a point distant 100.00 feet southerly from the northeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the north line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 96.00 feet westerly from said northeast corner; thence westerly, along said north line, to the northwest corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence southerly along the west line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the southwest corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence easterly, along the south line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the place of beginning which lies westerly of the center line on Tomahawk Trail; and The North % of the West % of the Northwest'/ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, subject to mineral reservations of record; and The South % of the West % of the Northwest'/ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23 subject to mineral reservations of record; and That part of the West % of the Northeast'/ of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said West %; thence South along the West line of said West % distant 1830 feet to the center line of the Township road; thence bearing North 33 degrees 35 minutes East Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE from said West line 1000 feet along said center line; thence deflecting to the right 14 degrees 20 minutes along said center line 1036.4 feet to the East line of said West %; thence North along said East line 290 feet to the North line of said West'/z; thence West along said North line 1330 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO, the Southeast'/ of the Southeast'/ of the Southwest'/ of Section S, Township 118, Range 23.; and The Northeast'/ of the Northwest'/; and the Northwest % of the Southeast'/ of the Northwest'/; and the South % of the Northeast'/ of the Southeast'/ of the Northwest %, except road; and the North / of the Northeast'/ of the Southeast % of the Northwest'/; all in Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and ALSO the West 60 feet of Government Lot 1 (Southwest %), Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, lying North of Hamel, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 194.1837 acres, more or less. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. The following use is permitted within the CLR District: Closed Landfill management. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses allowed in this district include outdoor equipment or small buildings used in concert with gas extraction systems, other response action systems, monitoring wells or any other equipment designed to protect, monitor or otherwise ensure the integrity of the landfill monitoring or improvement systems. Fences and gates shall apply under these provisions. Subd. 5. Conditional Uses. (a) The following conditional use is permitted within the CLR District: Solar Equipment, subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2 of City Code Section 828.09. (b) The Conditional uses noted herein shall only be permitted if they do not damage the integrity of the Land Management Area and that continue to protect any person from hazards associated with the landfill. (c) Any application for a conditional use must be approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA and the City of Medina. Such approved use shall not disturb or threaten to disturb, the integrity of the landfill cover, liners, any other components of any containment system, the function of any monitoring system that exists upon the described property, or other areas of the Land Management Area that the Commissioner of the MPCA deems necessary for future response actions. Subd. 6. Prohibited Uses and Structures. All other uses and structures not specifically allowed as permitted uses, conditional uses, or that cannot be considered as accessory uses, shall be prohibited in the CLR District. Subd. 7. General Regulations. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: (a) Minimum Yard Requirements Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE (i) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 75 feet (ii) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 75 feet (iii) Minimum Side Yard Setback: 75 feet (b) Building Design (i) Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 35 feet. In the case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system, the maximum building height shall be 30 feet. (ii) Exterior Building Materials (1) Primary exterior building materials shall consist of the following materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, fiber cement lap siding, copper, glass, decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre -cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance. (2) A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal or vinyl if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. (3) Exterior materials shall not include galvanized/unfinished steel or galvalum/unfinished aluminum. (c) Outdoor Lighting. The preservation of natural darkness is a high priority within the rural area of the City. Lighting shall be limited to the amount necessary for public safety. Unless otherwise specified herein, outdoor lighting shall abide by the requirements specified in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Section 829. Lighting shall abide by the following requirements: (i) Lighting levels at property lines and 25 feet inside of the property lines shall be limited to 0.0 foot-candle. (ii) The City shall require active measures to be implemented to limit the intensity of lighting and also the amount of time which extensive lighting, such as parking lot lighting, is utilized. These measures may include, but are not limited to: shorter light poles, separately controlled lighting zones, lighting controls based on occupancy instead of timers, and lighting curfews. (iii) Parking and walkway lighting fixtures shall utilize full cut-off luminaries with no more than 10 percent of light output above the horizontal plane through the light source. (iv) Landscape and architectural lighting shall be aimed directly at the area of focus. Spill light shall be minimized through the use of narrow distribution luminaries and control devices such as louvers, refractors, barn doors, and glare shields. Subd. 8. Methane Gas Area of Concern and Groundwater Area of Concern. (a) Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 4(b) requires the City to incorporate information related to the Woodlake Landfill into its land use plan and to incorporate information related to associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration. The MPCA has identified a Methane Gas Area of Concern and a Groundwater Area of Concern within the Woodlake Landfill Closed Land Use Plan, which is incorporated herein, as Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE may be amended by the MPCA from time to time. These areas extend off of the Land Management Area and onto nearby lands. (i) The MPCA has determined that, within the Groundwater Area of Concern, the presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted by contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow direction to change thereby impacting the user or others nearby. (ii) The MPCA has determined that, within the Methane Gas Area of Concern, the presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be impacted by subsurface migration of methane gas. (b) Notification and Provision of Information. (i) The Zoning Administrator shall notify persons applying for a permit to develop property within the Methane Gas Area of Concern or the Groundwater Area of Concern that information is available related to the Woodlake Landfill and associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration. (ii) The Zoning Administrator shall provide copies of such information upon request. Subd. 9. Amendments. Any amendment to this ordinance must be approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA and the City of Medina. SECTION IIII. Sections 827.13 through 827.23 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina are hereby reserved for potential future use as follows: Section 827.13 — 827.23. RESERVED SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the day of , 2017. Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE Agenda Item # 7B 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance regarding regulations of the Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District and Sanitary Landfill Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is nine pages in length; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, regarding regulations of the Closed Landfill -Restricted and Sanitary Landfill Zoning Districts. The ordinance establishes the Close -Landfill Restricted zoning district to regulate the use of Woodlake Landfill consistent with MN Pollution Control Agency requirements. The ordinance deletes regulations related to the Sanitary Landfill Zoning District, which previously applied to the Landfill. The full text of Ordinance No. ### is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2017-## November 8, 2017 Dated: November 8, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-## 2 November 8, 2017 Agenda Item # 7B2 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE WOODLAKE LANDFILL TO CLOSED LANDFILL -RESTRICTED THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Medina is hereby amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from SL, Sanitary Landfill to CLR, Closed Landfill -Restricted as displayed on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A: That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as beginning at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly, along the east line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to a point distant 100.00 feet southerly from the northeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the north line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 96.00 feet westerly from said northeast corner; thence westerly, along said north line, to the northwest corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence southerly along the west line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the southwest corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence easterly, along the south line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the place of beginning which lies westerly of the center line on Tomahawk Trail; and The North 1/2 of the West 1/ of the Northwest 1/ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, subject to mineral reservations of record; and The South %2 of the West 1/ of the Northwest 1/ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23 subject to mineral reservations of record; and That part of the West %Z of the Northeast 1/ of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said West %; thence South along the West line of said West % distant 1830 feet to the center line of the Township road; thence bearing North 33 degrees 35 minutes East from said West line 1000 feet along said center line; thence deflecting to the right 14 degrees 20 minutes along said center line 1036.4 feet to the East line of said West %; thence North along said East line 290 feet to the North line of said West %; thence West along said North line 1330 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO, the Southeast 1/ of the Southeast 1/ of the Southwest 1/ of Section 5, Township 118, Range 23.; and Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE The Northeast'/ of the Northwest'/; and the Northwest'/ of the Southeast'/ of the Northwest'/; and the South % of the Northeast 1/ of the Southeast'/ of the Northwest 1/a, except road; and the North-1/2 of the Northeast'/ of the Southeast'/ of the Northwest'/; all in Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and ALSO the West 60 feet of Government Lot 1 (Southwest '/), Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, lying North of Hamel, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 194.1837 acres, more or less. Section 2. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to publish the ordinance and make the changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in zoning classification. Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the Medina City Hall. Sg #g# Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Attest: By: Adopted by the Medina City Council this day of 2017. Jodi M. Ga Published in the Crow R Cl CITY OF MEDINA By: Bob Mitchell, Mayor s on this day of , 2017. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE EXHIBIT A Map Displaying Property Rezoned to Closed Landfill -Restricted LOCATION OF WOODLAKE LANDFILL (PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO CLR) COUNTY ROAD meevemclen HIGHWA •5 CHI jPEV A sP aem COUNTY RCW0 24 Karr Ordinance No. ### DATE 3 CHIPPE r AVAJO HACKANORE CkE YENNE Agenda Item # 7B2 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone Woodlake Landfill to Closed Landfill - Restricted zoning district; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is two pages in length and contains a map; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone Woodlake Landfill to Closed Landfill -Restricted (CLR) zoning district. The ordinance rezones PIDs 08-118-23-21-0003 and 05-118-23-34- 0002 to the CLR zoning district. The full text of Ordinance No. ### is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2017-## November 8, 2017 Dated: November 8, 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor ATTEST: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2017-## 2 November 8, 2017 Kennedy IL-Gravenel CHARTERED Ronald H. Batty 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9262 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax rbatty@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ron Batty, city attorney Date: November 2, 2017 Re: Woodlake Landfill Zoning Amendment The city of Medina (the "City") is considering a proposed zoning ordinance amendment (the "Ordinance") related to the Woodlake Landfill property (the "Landfill"). The Landfill was closed in accordance with Minnesota law and is now owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (the "MPCA"). The City planning commission recently recommended approval of the Ordinance on a 3-2 vote. During the commission's review and consideration of the Ordinance (over several meetings), some owners of abutting properties raised concerns related to the Ordinance and its impact on their properties. This memorandum discusses the closed landfill program generally, the scope of the City's authority related to this matter, and the potential effect of the Ordinance on abutting properties. I. The Closed Landfill Program The Closed Landfill Program (the "Program") was authorized by the 1994 Landfill Cleanup Act.1 The overarching goal of the Program is to provide a mechanism for the effective management of landfills as an alternative to Superfund cleanup. Under the Program, the MPCA has an ongoing statutory authority to manage up to 112 closed, state -permitted, mixed municipal solid waste landfills in order to mitigate the risks to the public and the environment. The MPCA ' Minnesota Statutes, Section 115B.39 et seq. 1 508454v3 AMB ME230-1PZ is charged with "managing the risks associated with human exposure to landfill contaminants and methane gas, and mitigating the degradation of groundwater and surface water."2 Pursuant to the Program, the commissioner of the MPCA is required to develop a land use plan for each qualified facility.3 Following development of such a plan by the commissioner, all local land use plans must be consistent with the MPCA land use plan.4 The commissioner is also required to "provide the affected local government units, to be available as public information ..., a description of the real property described in the [permit for a qualified facility] and a reasonably accurate description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility."5 A local government which receives such information "shall incorporate that information in any land use plan that includes the affected property and shall notify any person who applies for a permit related to development of the affected property of the existence of the information and, on request, provide a copy of the information" received from the commissioner.6 II. The City's Authority A majority of the activity related to operation of a closed landfill is conducted by the MPCA. In fact, the MPCA is solely responsible for determining the "areas of concern" related to the potential movement of hazardous substances. With regard to the Landfill, the MPCA has identified areas of concern relating to methane gas and contaminated groundwater and has notified the City of the same. The City has no authority to ignore or otherwise alter such boundaries. The City's sole statutory obligation is to provide such information to individuals who apply for permits for development of the affected area. The City must also maintain the information provided by the MPCA as public information and make it available upon request. If there are questions or disagreements about the boundaries of a particular area of concern, those matters should be directed to the MPCA because it is the agency responsible for designating such boundaries. The City exercises no authority in the drawing of those lines and it lacks any authority to alter them. The City simply acts as a conduit for passing the information along to interested parties, pursuant to the City's statutory obligation to do so. III. Effect of the Proposed Ordinance As noted above, the City has a statutory obligation to provide the information related to the Landfill to any person who applies for a permit for development within the MPCA's identified 2 For more information, visit the MPCA's Closed Landfill Program website at https://wvvvv.pca.state.mn.us/waste/closed-landfill-program 3 Minnesota Statutes, Section 115B.412, subd. 9. 4 Id. 5 Minnesota Statutes, Section 115B.412, subd. 4. 6 Minnesota Statutes, Section 115B.412, subd. 2. 2 508454v3 AMB ME230-1PZ area of concern. The City must also maintain the information received from the commissioner and make it available to the general public upon request. These obligations exist regardless of whether the City adopts an ordinance on this topic. The primary goal of the proposed Ordinance is to develop a mechanism to ensure that the City meets its statutory obligations. The majority of the Ordinance replaces the Sanitary Landfill zoning district, which regulated the Landfill while in operation, with new provisions related to the closed Landfill. That portion of the Ordinance applies exclusively to the land within the Landfill. An earlier version of the Ordinance also included an overlay district which affected parts of the 17 parcels on which the MPCA has identified areas of concern. The owners of some of these parcels objected to the creation of the overlay district as stigmatizing and that provision has been deleted. The current version of the Ordinance contains a short and simple notation of the existence of the MPCA areas of concern and the City's obligation to provide information regarding those areas. This appears to be the least intrusive way to address this matter. Without codifying these obligations, it becomes more likely that an application may be processed without ensuring compliance with these obligations. Including these requirements in the City's code provides a safeguard against inadvertent noncompliance. IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the City's authority with respect to the proper delineation of the areas of concern is extremely limited. The City is legally obligated to maintain and make available certain information developed by the MPCA. By codifying these obligations, the City simply seeks to increase the likelihood of compliance with these obligations in the future. 3 508454v3 AMB ME230-1PZ FINAL CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN WOODLAKE LANDFILL MAY 20, 2013 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2 GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN 2 CURRENT ZONING FOR THE LMA 3 STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY 4 MPCA'S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA 4 DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS 5 DISCLAIMER 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: MINN. STAT. §§ 115B.412, SUBD. 4 AND 9 APPENDIX B: SITE LOCATION MAP-WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX C: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX D: GWAOC - CLP GROUNDWATER AREA OF CONCERN - WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX E: MGAOC- CLP METHANE GAS AREA OF CONCERN - WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX F: CLOSED LANDFILL MANAGEMENT USE - WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX G: SOLAR ENERGY FARM USE - WOODLAKE LANDFILL APPENDIX H: CLOSED LANDFILL RESTRICTED ZONING ORDINANCE TEMPLATE CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN WOODLAKE LANDFILL INTRODUCTION In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Landfill Cleanup Act (LCA) (Minn. Stat. 115B.39 - 1156.45) which created the Closed Landfill Program (CLP). Under the CLP, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for the cleanup and long term care of 112 closed, municipal, solid waste landfills throughout the State. The mission of the CLP is to manage the risk to public health and the environment that is associated with these landfills. Landfill gas migration and groundwater contamination can be serious issues at some landfills. These problems can pose a threat to the health and safety of those living or occupying land nearby. In addition, chemicals leaching from landfills can degrade groundwater and surface water resources surrounding them. The MPCA addresses the risk to public health and the environment at the closed landfills by undertaking cleanup actions, operating and maintaining remediation systems (engineered covers, gas -collection and groundwater -treatment systems) and by monitoring groundwater, surface water, and landfill gas. The risk to public health and safety is also mitigated by implementing land -use controls that minimize public exposure to landfill hazards and protect the state's response action equipment. In other words, future use of land at and around closed landfills needs to be planned carefully and responsibly. Minnesota Statutes 1156.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for each of these landfills and for local government units (LGUs) to make their local land use plans consistent with the MPCA's plan for the site. Minnesota Statutes 1156.412, Subd. 4 requires the MPCA to provide LGUs certain information about the landfill and for LGUs to incorporate this information in to their local land use planning. These statutes are provided in Appendix A. The MPCA considers these statutory requirements, when put together, as a Closed Landfill Use Plan (CLUP). The purpose, then, for preparing a CLUP for each landfill is to: protect the integrity of the landfill's remediation and monitoring systems; protect human health and public safety at each landfill; and accommodate local government needs and desires for land use at the qualified facility with consideration for health and safety requirements. To meet the requirements of subdivision 9 of the statute, LGUs that have land -use authority must make their land -use plans for the landfill consistent with the MPCA's plan for future use of, and obligations for, the facility. One way to accomplish this is for LGUs to make certain that their land -use designations and/or zoning ordinances are compatible with the MPCA's future responsibilities and uses for the Land Management Area. To meet the requirements of subdivision 4 of the statute, LGUs must consider the information about the landfill's contamination and methane gas migration in its land -use planning and also make this information available to those that want to develop the affected property. Also, LGUs may wish to adopt certain land -use controls in order to better protect public health and safety. 1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Woodlake Landfill is located in the City of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota . A landfill's Land Management Area (LMA) includes the property described in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement between the MPCA and the landfill owner/operator, and may include adjacent property that contains waste, adjacent buffer property (land acquired for the purpose of restricting use by the public due to landfill gas or groundwater concerns), and adjacent property where response action equipment is located. At a minimum, the LMA will be comprised of the property in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement. In addition, the LMA is the property that is subject to Minnesota Statutes 1158.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA that requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for the landfill and with which the LGU's land use plan must be consistent. The LMA for the Woodlake Landfill consists of about 194 acres described in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement and is shown in Appendix B and legally described in Appendix C. The Landfill began accepting municipal solid waste (MSW) in about 1946. The Landfill received a permit to accept MSW in 1971 and ceased accepting waste in 1993. The combined waste footprint of the two MSW cells is approximately 67 acres. The MPCA took over responsibility for the Landfill in 2000 when the MPCA and Landfill owner signed the Landfill Cleanup Agreement and the MPCA issued the Notice of Compliance for the Landfill. The property is currently owned by the MPCA. GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN Groundwater Area of Concern The Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill where the presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted or precluded by contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow direction to change thereby impacting the user or others nearby. The GWAOC is used to inform the public about the current and potential risks to users of groundwater contaminated by the landfill. In most circumstances this area is not equidistant around the site. The GWAOC is shown in Appendix D. The groundwater area of concern around Woodlake Landfill covers 517 acres. It is defined by both surface water features and groundwater features. There are 58 monitoring wells at the site. The site has both an unlined and lined cell. Flow beneath the unlined cell is currently flowing to the northeast in sand seams within the till aquifer. There is discharge from Phase 1(the unlined area) to a wetland to the north. A buried sand aquifer is found 80 feet below ground surface and is protected by the unfractured part of the till. The area of concern does not extend beyond the railroad to the north since two buried sand monitoring wells installed in 2010 at the north side of the site have detections of arsenic below half of the drinking water standard and indicate flow in the buried sand is to the west. A buried sand drinking water well is at the west boundary of the site with similar concentrations of arsenic. The area of concern includes buffer to the west of 560 feet, 358 feet on the south and 1,665 feet to the east because adjacent parcels are populated. 2 Methane Gas Area of Concern The Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill waste footprint where the presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be impacted or precluded by subsurface migration of methane gas. Methane gas is an odorless gas produced when municipal solid waste decomposes, and can be explosive in confined spaces such as basements when mixed in air. The MGAOC is used to inform the public about the risks to current and future land owners regarding certain uses they may want to consider. The MGAOC is shown in Appendix E. Soils in the vicinity of the Woodlake Landfill are generally poorly drained foams, clay loams, and muck. Depth to the groundwater table is approximately 5 to 125 feet below ground surface around the perimeter of the fill. The landfill waste footprint is about 67 acres total between the unlined cells (Phase 1) and the lined cell (Phase 2). The two areas combined contain approximately 3,700,000 cubic yards of waste. The closest enclosed structure off the property is approximately 550 feet south of the waste footprint. A low permeability geosynthetic cover system was completed by the MPCA in 2007 on Phase 1 and in 2008 on Phase 2 using general obligations bonds. An active gas extraction system with 34 vertical gas extraction wells connected to an enclosed blower/flare unit was installed in 2007 on Phase 1. An additional 16 vertical gas extraction wells were installed on Phase 2 and connected to the same flare. There are 15 gas monitoring probes located around the perimeter of the waste footprint. A nest of three gas probes on the south side of Phase 1 had readings of methane greater than the lower explosive limit, prompting the installation of nine passive gas vents along the southwest boundary of Phase 1. The nested gas probes have gone to non -detectable methane concentrations following the installation of the gas vents. A gas probe on the north center side of Phase 2 has begun to have methane readings above the lower explosive limit following the Phase 2 cover completion. The remaining gas monitoring probes routinely have zero percent methane measured in them, indicating that there likely is no gas migrating off the property. Based on the proximity of occupied buildings adjacent to the Landfill, the low permeable soils in the area, the large mass of waste present in the Landfill, the potential for an extended shutdown of the gas extraction system due to unforeseen circumstances, and recognizing the potential for gas to migrate under seasonal low permeable (frozen) conditions, the MGAOC extends 200 feet beyond the waste footprint. It is important to note that these Areas of Concern can change over time. Therefore, updated information will be provided to the County when the existing information becomes obsolete or misleading. CURRENT ZONING FOR THE LMA The LMA for the Woodlake Landfill is zoned Sanitary Landfill District (SL). This district is an area exclusively established to accommodate the use of land for the development and operation of sanitary landfills. Since this type of land is so unique to the ecological setting of the City of Medina (the "City") 3 and the provision of public services such as transportation so demanding, a special district delineation is called for. Within any district zoned SL in Medina, an extensive set of performance standards must be met through the application of a conditional use permit. Conditional uses: Within the Sanitary Landfill District, no landfill shall be established or operated without a Conditional Use Permit. Said Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a one year period, after which a permit renewal shall be required. The City Council may also require a performance bond, cash escrow, or letter of credit from the landowner or operator, to guarantee conformance with these regulations. STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY The MPCA used proceeds from the sale of State general obligation bonds for capital costs of environmental response actions that MPCA undertook at the Landfill. As a result of this expenditure of State bond proceeds, the publicly owned property where the environmental response actions were taken became "State Bond Financed Property" as that term is defined by Minn. Stat. § 16A.695. As the owner of this State Bond Financed Property, the MPCA is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and any orders or rules adopted by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) under that statute. Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the MMB Commissioner's Third Amended Order Relating to the Use and Sale of State Bond Financed Property (the Order) impose certain requirements on any sale, mortgage, or other disposition of State Bond Financed Property, or any lease or contract for the use or management of the property entered into by the MPCA Commissioner. The statutory requirements include, but are not limited to, obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of MMB before the MPCA Commissioner enters into any such transaction (sale, lease, etc.) with respect to the property. In order to assure that the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the Order are carried out with respect to all State Bond Financed Property, the MMB Commissioner requires that a Declaration be recorded on the property records indicating that any sale of the property may be subject to the MMB Commissioner's approval. Such Declarations, pertaining to the LMA property were signed by the MPCA and filed with the Hennepin County Recorder on March 3, 2011 as document numbers A9630772, A9630773, A9630774, and A9630775. MPCA'S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA The MPCA's first and foremost responsibility regarding the Landfill is to manage the risk to public health and safety. It does this by taking response actions, maintaining the Landfill, and working with local governments to assure land use is commensurate with landfill conditions and MPCA's obligations on the LMA, as well as the conditions on the affected land off the LMA. Therefore, land uses associated with the MPCA's obligation to protect public health and safety take precedence over other possible land uses. The MPCA has identified land uses for the LMA. It has done so by considering the methane gas and groundwater areas of concern, the types and locations of response actions and associated equipment, 4 the amount of the LMA occupied by landfill waste, and local land -use desires. The land uses on the LMA that are acceptable to the MPCA are: Closed Landfill Management; and Solar Energy Farm. Appendices F & G show where these uses would be allowed within the LMA. Closed Landfill Management is the use associated with the MPCA's responsibility and obligation to take necessary response actions on the property as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 115B.39-43. DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS Land Uses on the LMA Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 9 requires all local land -use plans be consistent with the MPCA's land -use plan for the LMA. The MPCA's future obligations for the LMA conflict with the current local land -use plan; specifically the City's Sanitary Landfill District for this property. The MPCA believes that most of the uses within the current zoning for the LMA are not compatible with the MPCA's future responsibilities for the site as well as the risks associated with the Landfill. As a result, the MPCA recommends that the City adopt a new zoning district and ordinance for the LMA. The MPCA recommends the City adopt a zoning district called Closed Landfill Restricted (CLR) with an ordinance similar in form to the one included in Appendix H. The new zoning, however, should reflect the land uses identified above — Closed Landfill Management and Solar Energy Farm — and in Appendices F and G. The MPCA recommends that "Closed Landfill Management" be included as a permitted use for the entire LMA while "Solar Energy Farm" be included as a conditional use (conditioned upon location). Affected Property off the LMA Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 4(b) requires local units of government to incorporate information about the landfill and associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration into any land -use plans and to notify persons applying for a permit to develop affected property of the existence of this information and, on request, to provide them with the information. Certain land -use controls pertinent to groundwater use and well construction within the GWAOC currently exist to protect public health and safety. First, Minn. Rules Chapter 4725.4450, subp. 1 requires that a water supply well cannot be constructed within 300 feet of the Landfill. Second, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has the authority to approve the construction of drinking water wells. Therefore, the information pertaining to the GWAOC will be provided to MDH to assist them with their authority for approving the construction of potential new wells near the Landfill. A portion of the MGAOC extends off the LMA on to adjacent property to the north of the LMA. Currently, methane gas is controlled at the Landfill but migration of methane off the property is 5 possible, especially under frozen conditions and if the active gas extraction system were to unforeseeably shut down. Therefore, the MPCA recommends that the City of Medina implement a land use management tool, such as setbacks or an overlay, in order to address the MGAOC. DISCLAIMER The MPCA makes no representations or warranties to the user of the accuracy, currency, suitability, or reliability of the data presented in this report. Any recommendations made by the MPCA in this report are based solely on the data it has, or its contractors have, collected, and only from data collected at specific locations and times. Other sources of contamination or methane, unknown to the MPCA, could exist off the LMA property. The MPCA recommends that any person interested in developing property near the Landfill first consult with an environmental consulting or engineering firm, and/or an environmental attorney, regarding the possible risks associated with the Landfill. 6 Appendix B: Site Location Map - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL Creekview La Summit Ave Crestview La Hillview La Loretto Stun J 3 d Albert St i Maple St *9� Chippewa Rd is, 1 r —•. IN(SE o` 3 m 3 Y DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. Created 2/14/2013 Meters o 280 560 840 1:20,000 Feet 0 68o 1,36o 2,o4o Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Site Features Waste Footprint Land Management Area r Designates the property that L J is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. ANOKA WRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN CARVER SCOTT 1 Appendix D: CLP Groundwater Area of Concern [GWAOC] - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. Created 2/14/2013 Meters o i4o 280 420 1:10,000 Feet 0 340 68o i,ozo Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen r— —1 L J Site Features Monitoring Well Waste Footprint Land Management Area Designates the property that is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Groundwater Plume j Approximate area of the sub- terranean contaminated groundwater plume. Groundwater Area of Concern 0) An area where the groundwater may be affected by landfill contamination. ANOKA WRIGHT • HENNEPIN CARVER SCOTT 1 Appendix E: CLP Methane Gas Area of Concern [MGAOC] - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL bins-" ono ao19tato�S o o &. oiglibR DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. 0 Meters � Created 2/14/2013 i3o 26o 390 1:10,000 Feet o 450 900 1,350 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Site Features Eli Gas Probe r— L CJ Waste Footprint Land Management Area Designates the property that is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Methane Area of Concern Area surrounding the landfill that may be impacted by subsurface migration of methane gas. STEARNS KANDIYOHI MEEKER Appendix F: Closed Landfill Management Use - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. Created 2/14/2013 Meters o i4o 280 420 1:10,000 Feet 0 340 68o i,ozo Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Site Features Waste Footprint Land Management Area r —1 Designates the property that L J is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Closed Landfill Management Use ANOKA WRIGHT • HENNEPIN CARVER SCOTT 1 Appendix G: Solar Energy Farm Use - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. Created 2/14/2013 Meters o i4o 280 420 1:10,000 Feet 0 340 68o i,ozo Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Site Features Waste Footprint Land Management Area r —1 Designates the property that L J is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Solar Energy Farm Use ANOKA WRIGHT • HENNEPIN CARVER SCOTT 1 Dusty Finke From: Umholtz, Mark (MPCA) <mark.umholtz@state.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:51 PM To: Dusty Finke Cc: Ruotsinoja, Shawn (MPCA) Subject: RE: Medina Closed Landfill -Restricted Attachments: Woodlake Mn Map.pdf Hi Dusty, I have one map (attached. I assume everyone has seen the map showing the GWAOC) showing the distribution of the metal Manganese (Mn) in 2017 to illustrate the extent and complexity of the groundwater contamination. The health risk limit (HRL) for Mn was establishing by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in 2013 as 100 micrograms per litter (ug/I) for infants and 300 ug/I for children and adults. The HRL is the upper limit that it is safe to consume, even for sensitive populations. I can use this to show how we establish the Groundwater Area of Concern (AOC) at the Woodlake Closed Landfill. Below is a summary of relevant information: There is radial flow around both the unlined cell on the southwest and the lined cell on the northeast. This is due in part to the cover shedding precipitation in all directions like the roof does on your house. We see there is still impacted water from the landfill going into the wetlands north of the unlined cell and likely to the east of the lined cell. Also, the city of Loretto discharges their wastewater to the wetland on the northwest side of the site. That wetland then drains to the southeast, between the two landfill cells and into the wetlands on the east side of the landfill. The Mn is not likely coming directly from the landfill or the wastewater but the water that comes from the landfill and waste water can strip Mn from the soil and transport it with the groundwater and the surface water. Because of these factors the northern GWAOC encompasses the wetland system as does the eastern GWAOC. We have also documented the presence of a chemical know as 1,4 dioxane in several monitoring wells. 1,4 dioxane was given a HRL of 1 ug/I by the MDH in 2013. We are beginning to investigate the extent of that as it was first detected last winter when the MDH developed an analytical method to detect it. There was not an analytical method widely available prior to last year. Additional evaluation of the GWAOC can be done by collecting and evaluating the following information: We will sample all of our monitoring wells and do more sampling of the wetlands and more sampling of residential wells. The discharge from the City of Loretto wastewater treatment pond also has an effect on Mn concentrations so we will collect water samples from the wetland just after the discharge from that wastewater treatment area. Historically concentrations from the wastewater discharge have showed Mn concentrations in the thousands of ug/I. The eastern boundary of the GWAOC could be pulled in if we collect sufficient information to determine it is appropriate to do so. The west boundary could be pulled in but again it would depend on what we found in the monitoring wells that are along Tomahawk Trail. We will work with residents who live near the landfill to collect groundwater samples from their water wells. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional information, Mark Umholtz Hydrogeologist Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Closed Landfill Program 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2308 1 d7 � = � M } o '2 ®\ R � . « q -k �' - I \ /~ ©\c 7 » — - . J . _. a u) » f . 5 / / 0�\\ d« 2 u) k �* \ \�\Q .7 2.. \ 2 / - % 3 � m >/ z E - o -'COIAa,/ � • c \ a =, \ 0.7 _ v 0z U \� \ co >. 7 /�/ � k \ \ k>>Lc' Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Meeting Minutes Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning — Closed Landfill/Restricted District and Closed Landfill/Area of Concern Overlay District Finke stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake Landfill in Medina. He stated that the MPCA developed the Minnesota Closed Landfill Program and the City is required by statute to adopt an ordinance therein. He stated that the closed land use plan also extends to nearby properties in regard to the groundwater and methane gas areas of concern. He stated that the draft ordinance attempts to achieve the two items required by statute. He stated that the historical regulations will be deleted, as the landfill is no longer operating and the regulations will be replaced with the closed landfill regulations. He stated that the overlay district would extend over the properties where groundwater and methane areas of concern lie within. He noted that a setback is also proposed within the MPCA plan which would apply to methane areas of concern. He stated that potential language is included in the ordinance for the discussion of the Commission, noting that while the requirement is not specified under statute, it is recommended by the MPCA. He highlighted the areas of concern as mapped by staff for potential inclusion within the overlay district. He noted that the areas of concern can change over time and by being more inclusive, would avoid the City from constantly amending the map. He stated that some residents have stated they would like the areas of concern mapped as designated by the MPCA and not be more inclusive at this time. He stated that the groundwater area of concern is broader and covers more areas than the methane gas area of concern. He stated that the closed landfill/restricted would outline two permitted uses, including management of the closed landfill and solar. He noted that solar equipment would be a permitted use within the district. He stated that in regard to the overlay district for the areas of concern, the draft ordinance is more extensive than it would need to be by law. He explained that it would be easier to remove items the City desires, rather than attempt to add needed items. He stated that the setback for the methane gas area of concern has been included as recommended by the MPCA for discussion purposes. He stated that there are only two smaller areas of the site that would encompass the methane area of concern and therefore that setback can apply only to those areas. He noted that another option would be not to include the setback in the ordinance and simply provide notification. He reviewed the groundwater areas of concern and the options for identifying those boundaries, to be more restrictive or less restrictive. He noted that the request would include three different actions. Reid asked why this is coming up now, as the landfill has been there for years. Finke replied that the City met with the MPCA when the closed land use plan was put out in 2013 and the City is therefore requested to adopt the regulations in order to be consistent, noting that the City simply had not done so yet. White opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Chamberlain spoke as legal counsel for Richard Burk, stating that he prepared a letter which was sent ahead of time. He stated that his concern would be expanding the area of concern to his client's property east of the landfill. He stated that the property is 200 acres in size and has an assessed value of over $11,000,000 and his concern would be that identifying the area as an area of concern for groundwater or methane gas would impact the value. He stated that the landfill closed in 1993 and the MPCA has taken over management as of 2000. He stated that there is not a situation where there has been a history of methane gas or groundwater contamination on his client's property. He stated that obviously everyone supports the regulations on the landfill area, but they should not negatively impact the neighboring property owners. He stated that there are already regulations on where wells can be dug to ensure clean well water. He noted that when his client purchased his property there was a phase one and phase two environmental assessment done to ensure there was not groundwater contamination. He did not want his client's property designated with a problem that it does not have. He stated that there is no harm to limit 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Meeting Minutes the restrictions to the landfill area itself, but there would be damage to the overlay areas on the adjoining properties. Kevin O'Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that he is concerned with property values. He stated that the City would be saying his property has a potential for a problem, even though the overlay area only extends five to ten feet on the northwest boundary. He stated that he already has concerns with property values because of the lack of broadband services and now the City would be designating the property as impaired when it is not. He stated that the homeowners have been paying property taxes on an assessed value and if the property is labeled as impaired, the value should have been less for the past four years that the City has delayed action on this adoption. He stated that the area of concern should be limited to the actual areas and not extended past. Mr. Leuer stated that he lives immediately north of the landfill. He asked the Commission to remember that throughout history land has been forfeited by encroachment followed by insurption. He viewed this overlay as an encroachment. He stated that he has several questions to the MPCA representative present. He asked the number of closed landfills within Hennepin County. Shawn Ruotsinoja, MPCA, stated that there are three. Mr. Leuer asked how the other landfills have dealt with the areas of concern for groundwater and methane gas. Ruotsinoja replied that the other municipalities have adopted the regulations, but did not believe that the other municipalities have adopted an overlay district thus far. He noted that there are areas of concern in the other landfills as well. Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill has extensive monitoring equipment. He asked and it was confirmed that routine chemical monitoring has occurred. Ruotsinoja stated that the results are public information and it was explained how that information can be accessed. Mr. Leuer asked the last time the surrounding private wells were monitored. Ruotsinoja replied that the last time would have been around 2006 or 2007. Mr. Leuer asked why repeat sampling of private wells is not being done with the overlay request. Ruotsinoja explained that the overlay is not really a requirement of the MPCA and the areas of concern are provided to the health department. He noted that the department of health establishes a special well construction area (SWCA) and if someone wants to create a well that would trigger notification, a special review would be made to determine if a well could be drilled in that area. He stated that there are two chemicals of concern that have been identified in the past few years and provided additional details. He stated that this happens from time to time when new methodology is developed, new information arises and different things are detected. Mr. Leuer asked what they would need to do in order to get the private wells sampled. Ruotsinoja explained that the hydrologist would look at the well locations and determine which wells should be sampled. He stated that if someone has a well that they would like sampled which is in close proximity to the landfill, that could be requested from the hydrologist. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Meeting Minutes Mr. Leuer stated that there is a history of regularly sampling the groundwater wells in the perimeter when the landfill was operating, and then once it closed that did not continue. Ruotsinoja stated that there is still sampling within the landfill wells and noted that the hydrologist can expand that sampling area. White asked the resident to limit his questions to the Planning Commission that would be relevant to the request tonight and noted that he could speak with the representative from the MPCA later in a one on one setting. Mr. Leuer stated that he would like sampling to occur on the ring of wells outside the landfill. He asked how the area of concern was determined, noting that the boundary to the west is significantly less and the southeasterly boundary jogs. He stated that it seemed like jury lines were arbitrarily laid down based on property owners. Ruotsinoja stated that he is not the person that drew the boundary. He stated that the boundary to the west is less because groundwater flowage generally goes to the north and east. He agreed that the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. He stated that the hatched line identifies contamination and the area of concern extends to areas that could have concern depending on the use or pattern of flow. He noted that the hydrologist would have additional information on the boundaries. Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill is 194 acres and the area of concern is 517 acres, meaning that the area of concern would be over twice the size of the landfill. He stated that this is a significant increase in the stigma of the landfill. He noted that of the eight private landowners in the overlay district, four of them have wells. He stated that some of the property owners have paid special assessments and were credited for the overlay and setback areas that would result in unbuildable lots. He stated that people have been taxed based on future use that the City would then restrict. He stated that the City of Medina collected a tipping fee from 1985 to 1993, which was one of the City's biggest revenue resources. He stated that the value of the properties in the overlay district would be impacted by the stigma of the land use and would carry additional restrictions; therefore the County assessor should be made aware of the values. He recommended the Planning Commission table this and instead suggest a joint meeting with the Commission, City Council and overlay landowners to discuss land subdivisions financed by the City. He did not believe that the burden of the overlay district should become the burden of the overlay landowners. Ralph Miller, 3622 Hamel Road, stated that he owns the property south of the landfill and the overlay would impact 30 percent of his property. White closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Reid stated that she was bothered by the fact that within the staff report or MPCA document there is no talk of the impact on the value of these properties, as this overlay would impact the property values. She stated that it makes it look like there is a problem before they know there is a problem and would take dollars out of the pockets of landowners, particularly when there has not been a problem identified. She stated that the overlay seems to be taking a hammer to a tack and would be too impactful. DesLauriers stated that the overlay is just one option. Reid stated that she would support the least restrictive option. 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Meeting Minutes DesLauriers referenced a statement from Mr. Chamberlain's letter which states that the City would need to compensate property owners for loss of property value in response to the closed landfill program. Finke noted that the City Attorney has not had a chance to respond to the letter, as it was received after 4:00 p.m. today. Nester asked what the overlay would accomplish. Finke replied that it would depend on if there are restrictions in the overlay. He stated that, as recommended, it would simply act as a notification area if the setback is removed. He stated that ultimately the overlay would provide notification and would not include restrictions. Nester stated that is seems then that the area of concern is something set by the MPCA. Reid stated that the overlay is not required though. She asked if the notification would be given to property owners when they come in for permits. Finke stated that he knows the information and the requirement is to provide the information to the specific property owners. He stated that this action would formalize the map which identifies the properties within the areas of concern. Reid asked if the property owner would be required to disclose this information for potential buyers. Finke stated that he is unsure if that is a requirement. Reid asked if this could be added as a review item for permit reviews and staff would be reminded to notify property owners in that manner. Finke stated that it could be formalized in other ways. He stated that the requirement is to notify the property owners upon receipt from the MPCA. Mr. Leuer stated that there is already a restriction that is not on any other property in the same underlying classification, because there is a 300 foot well setback. He stated that therefore the encroachment exists, but is not formalized. He believed that this method would bring the whole lot into the encroachment. Tammy O'Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that residents have been paying on a higher property tax value and the impacted property owners should have then been paying a lesser property value if their property is identified as contaminated. She stated that the City has known about this for years and simply has not taken action until now. White asked if there is a timeline for this. Finke stated that there is no timeline requiring the City to come into compliance within a specific timeframe and therefore action does not need to be taken tonight. White stated that she feels that she does not have a good enough understanding to have an opinion. She acknowledged that there are statutes that the City needs to take action on, but other items that could be adjusted. She stated that the map would not be changed, because the areas of concern are identified by the MPCA. She stated that it seems the size of the setbacks could be lowered or removed. She stated that she would support not having the setback. She stated that still would not change anything for the property owners and their respective property values. She was unsure what the resolve would be for that concern. 4 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 8/8/2017 Meeting Minutes Finke provided another tool recommended by the MPCA within the closed land use plan that would accomplish the need to notify property owners without adopting an overlay district. He stated that he would need further details from the City Attorney. Reid stated that there seems to be a more practical way to provide notification without adding the additional items that would impact property values. She asked for more analysis on how property values would be least burdened, but still accomplish the required notification. DesLauriers agreed that this is not ready to move forward. He stated that perhaps a work session would be a good setting. Finke stated that he did provide alternate methods of providing that notification that can be discussed at the next meeting. He noted that essentially every decision the Commission makes can impact property values. Finke stated that he would talk to the City Assessor in an attempt to gather additional information. Reid stated that she believes the notification can be part of the building permit process, similar to floodplain designation. Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to table the request to the September 12, 2017 meeting, and direct staff to develop alternatives to the overlay. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and Muffin) 5 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes (Continued Hearing) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 9 Related to Land Use Regulations Pertaining to the Sanitary Landfill and Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District Finke stated that this began at the meeting the previous month regarding the proposed land use and adding the landfill to the new land use. He stated that the overlay district is no longer included, consistent with the comments from the Planning Commission and members of the public. He stated that staff found other ways to comply with the State regulations without putting further restriction on the properties surrounding the landfill. He stated that there are certain requirements of the State for the closed landfills and which apply to the cities in which they lie. He reviewed the notification that is required to be provided by the City when a permit for development is submitted with the methane gas area of concern and the groundwater area of control. He stated that City staff proposed to delete the existing designation Sanitary Landfill and then established a Closed Landfill -Restricted land use. He identified the location of the site and groundwater and methane gas areas of concern as identified by the MPCA. He stated that the Closed Landfill -Restricted land use description is short, as it only applies to this property and the only allowed use would be solar, noting that those areas are identified in yellow. He stated that there was concern raised over the setbacks suggested by the MPCA and as a result those setbacks have been removed. He stated that, as directed, staff completed the actions that would be necessary to meet the requirements without going beyond. Murrin referenced the suggested setback from the MPCA and asked if the City would be at risk in the future if those properties are sold and something comes up in the areas of concern. Finke replied that staff is providing the necessary notification. He stated that the ordinance references the areas of concern for methane gas and groundwater and requires notification, but does not exclude activities. Murrin asked if there is any liability if the property is sold and the next property owner is not aware of the area of concern. Finke replied that he would not be able to speak to that, but noted that the recommendation of the MPCA, that the City chose not to follow, would come up in discussion. White reopened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Chamberlain, spoke as legal representation for Mr. Burke and stated that when he was present last month, the unanimous concern was what was being done to property owners and land values that would be impacted. He discussed the practicality of meeting the minimum requirements while not impacting property values. He stated that the MPCA has limited the concern to the Woodlake site and have succeeded in not having pollution spread to the outside properties. He stated that the monitoring wells have also shown that the contamination is not being spread to the groundwater outside this property. He stated that his client has a lot of land and if a stigma is put on that property without reason for doing that, it would impact the property value. He stated that the representative from the MPCA did not have a strong feeling towards what would be impacted in the area of concern. He noted that Medina can say the area of concern is on the landfill property itself and will limit the land use itself rather than spilling onto the adjacent properties without good reasoning. He stated that the areas of concern would impact property value of the property owners and would also impact the City's tax capacity. He asked why a groundwater area of concern should spill onto his client's property. He recognized the changes the City Planner has made to the ordinance, but stated that if the area of concern is still identified on the property of residents, that still has an impact. He stated that the statement regarding the area of concern will impact property values for adjacent residents. He believed that the area of concern should be limited to the landfill itself and not adjacent properties. He asked that the City limit the areas of concern to the 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes Woodlake landfill itself and not go beyond that, noting that would be consistent with the requirements of the State without impacting property values. Murrin asked if Mr. Chamberlain's client owned his property while the landfill was in use. Mr. Chamberlain stated that the landfill was last used in 1993 and his client purchased his property after the landfill was closed. Leonard Leuer, 3625 Chippewa Road, stated that his family has owned the property immediately north of the landfill prior to the landfill being a landfill. He stated that he will identify additional actions the Commission should consider. He stated that the proposed zoning amendment has abandoned the landfill overlay concept, which would have been an undesirable identification for 15 parcels of land, 13 of which are privately owned. He stated that the proposed amendment has not removed the area of concern designation which encompasses an area 2.7 times bigger than the landfill and encroaches on privately owned land. He provided historical information on an unnamed creek which exists between the original landfill property and the expansion that occurred. He noted that when the private wells were tested there were no issues of contamination identified. He provided additional background information on continued monitoring that occurred by the MPCA. He identified the private wells which are close to the area of concern for groundwater. He stated that there have been three government agencies which collected fees from the landfill, noting that the private landowners in the area of concern have not collected fees from the landfill. He stated that the Commission should recommend that the first ring of the off -premise wells be monitored and compared to previous well samples with an eye towards trends and that the private land in the area of concern should be purchased by one of the governmental agencies that collected fees from the landfill rather than putting that devaluation on the private property owners. Kevin O'Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that he is confused with the area of concern which is based on arbitrary numbers from the MPCA. He stated that as he has measured and is 288 feet from the Closed Landfill designation. He stated that 4,901 square feet of his property is in the area of concern. He stated that the MPCA makes no representation to the reliability and accuracy in their report. He stated that the MPCA will not stand behind their data, but then wants this designation. He stated that his well is at the opposite end of the little corner that was arbitrarily included in the area of concern and therefore he wants his property removed. White closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. White asked and received confirmation that there are two separate actions before the Commission tonight, the first creating the zoning district and the second to add the Woodlake property to the land use designation. Murrin asked if it would be unprecedented for the City to modify an MPCA suggested area of concern. Finke stated that there is no authorization for the City to modify that area of concern, as he has reviewed and the City Attorney has determined. He noted that it is not unprecedented for the MPCA to change the boundaries of the areas of concern. Murrin asked if the City could ask for additional information on how the areas of concern were developed. She stated that she wants to abide by what the MPCA is telling the City, but would also like more information on why that is being recommended. Finke confirmed that more information can be asked for. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes Murrin stated that she would also like to know how other cities are handling this, whether they are rubberstamping what is being said or pushing back. Finke stated that regardless of whether the City adopts this, he still has to notify people of this under State law. He noted that this would formalize the process for staff to follow the State law. He stated that staff is obligated to notify a property owner upon any permits or subdivisions. Murrin stated that she would like more information on why the MPCA is advising of this, to confirm that it makes sense for the City and landowners. She asked if the areas of concern impact property value. She asked if there is history or data that shows that changing the zoning has an impact on property values. Finke stated that he would argue that the existence of the landfill and areas of concern would impact the property values rather than the City adopting this ordinance itself. Murrin stated that it is kind of like stating the obvious because people see the landfill location and can determine that there could be concern. White stated that there was a consensus at the last meeting that the setbacks would not be adopted as recommended by the MPCA, as that could limit the property owners beyond what is necessary. Murrin stated that perhaps the City could push back and ask if the area of concern has to be so large. Finke stated that could be done, but asked if there is any reason to change the zoning designation from a landfill that can be operated to one that cannot be. He stated that the areas of concern are outside of this ordinance and can be changed outside of the ordinance. Reid stated that this seems like a solution in search of a problem. She stated that the City should do the least it can do. Finke stated that if a property transaction is pending, he has an obligation by State law to give this information, but the ordinance does not tell him to do that. He confirmed that the ordinance follows the minimum that is required under State law. He stated that the only question seems to be the definition of the effected property. He reviewed the definition given by the MPCA which is related to the facility and the notification that is required. He stated that it is being suggested that the affected property is only the landfill, but the City Attorney has stated that is not the case. He stated that he can provide more information, but that will be highly technical. He stated that the City can ask for all that information and hold up action on the ordinance, but until the MPCA changes something, the areas of concern are in their report and the Statute specifies what must be done. Murrin asked if there is support to ask the MPCA to shrink the area of concern. She stated that she would want to know why that area would be a problem before this is signed into ordinance. Finke confirmed that the land has already been designated. White asked if that information can be asked for outside of this and if this action can continue to move forward. She believed that the actions should occur today and staff can always gather the additional information. Murrin stated that she would prefer to wait to determine if the area of concern should be shrunk, and if that occurs perhaps the setbacks would be necessary. She did not believe that the City has enough information to make the best decision. 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes Finke stated that everyone else is skeptical that the setbacks would be necessary and Murrin appears to be saying the opposite. He noted that there is no deadline for the City to take action on the ordinance. Reid stated that she did not think the current property values would be impacted but perhaps it could impact property values for future subdivision opportunities. Finke stated that there is a setback for wells from this property outside of the groundwater area of concern separate of this ordinance. Motion by Murrin, seconded by Amic, to continue the hearing contingent on receiving additional information from the MPCA with an attempt to shrink the area of concern. Motion carries with a vote of 5-1 (Nester opposed). (Absent: Albers) Finke stated that he will intend to bring the item forward to the next meeting contingent on the ability to receive the information back from the MPCA in that timeframe. (Continued Hearing) 4000 Hamel Road — Rezoning of Woodlake Landfill from Sanitary Landfill to Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District No action. 4 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes (Continued Hearing) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 Related to Land Use Regulations Pertaining to the Sanitary Landfill and Closed Landfill -Restricted Zoning District Finke stated that this is the same ordinance that was in the packet the past month, which regulates the Woodlake Landfill to allow for management of a closed landfill and would allow for solar equipment. He stated that the proposed ordinance does not include any setbacks above those outlined in statute, in order to reduce any potential impacts from the neighboring property owners. He stated that a representative is present from the PCA tonight as requested by the Commission and noted that a report from the City Attorney was also included specifying that this ordinance would meet the statutory requirements and would not go above the requirements. Murrin referenced the setback and design standards and asked how that complies with what is recommended from the PCA. Finke stated that those standards apply to the landfill property and there are not design standards from the PCA for the site, as long that is consistent with the closed landfill plan. Murrin stated that the overlay district has been removed and asked how that relates to the recommendation from the PCA. Finke stated that the written plan included that as a tool, but the follow-up statements do not seem to be consistent. Murrin asked for information on how this area of concern would be relayed to potential property owners and asked if the City is following the recommendation of the PCA to ensure that the City does not face liability in the future. Finke stated that this would meet the statutory requirements, but noted that the PCA did recommend that the City consider setbacks or overlays in regard to the methane gas area of concern. Murrin confirmed that the PCA recommends the overlay district and the City is not proposing to include that in the draft ordinance. She stated that the PCA is recommending an overlay for the area of concern and setbacks, and asked for the reasoning for that recommendation. Finke introduced the members of the PCA that were present, Shawn Ruotsinoja and Mark Umholtz. Shawn Ruotsinoja, PCA, stated that information was included in the report from a now retired land manager. He stated that the setbacks were proposed for the methane gas area of concern and an overlay for the groundwater area of concern. He stated that personally he would not recommend an overlay for that purpose and noted that it is not required. He stated that the PCA sees this as a team effort between the land use plan from the PCA and the regulations of the municipalities. He stated that they would recommend a setback from the land waste for the distance of 200 feet and would not use the overlay. He explained the process that is used for permitted drinking wells within the area of concern to determine the best course of action. He noted that because the groundwater is already being regulated, the overlay would be redundant. He stated that the information is already in existence and therefore the overlay is not needed to convey that information. Murrin asked, if as written, the ordinance would then allow building within the setback area. Finke stated that the direction from the Commission was to minimize the impact the ordinance would have on neighboring properties and therefore the setback was removed. He confirmed that as proposed, 1 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes the ordinance would allow construction within the setback. He stated that the City would provide notification of the risks within the area of concern. Ruotsinoja stated that the PCA recommends the setback, but the City has the authority to make the decision. He stated that if someone was allowed to build a structure within the setback area, and something bad happened, that person would most likely sue. Murrin stated that if the setback is put in place the City would then be safe from liability. DesLauriers stated that most of the setbacks are within the landfill itself, and asked if the setback is necessary. Ruotsinoja confirmed there are only two areas which exceed the landfill boundaries. White asked if the area of concern would change in the future. Ruotsinoja confirmed that the MPA does take readings on occasion and stated that they are not finding explosive limits within those readings, but the policy of the PCA is not to shrink the setback less than 200 feet from the waste as methane gas is very fickle. He noted that sometimes the setback exceeds 200 feet. White asked and received confirmation that the City would be notified if the setback is changed in the future. Reid asked if the amount of methane decreases over time. Ruotsinoja stated that they would expect the methane levels to decrease over time as the waste decomposes, which leaves less waste. Reid asked if a decrease has been seen for this site. Ruotsinoja stated that the flare is monitored daily, but was unsure of the measurements. He noted that there is a landfill that closed in 1975 which is still producing a lot of methane gas. He noted that there is another site where the flare cannot even be maintained constant and is just turned on sporadically. Reid stated that it seems that the PCA does accurate monitoring and would alert the City to any problem, and therefore it would be a remote possibility that anything bad would happen. Ruotsinoja provided an example of an explosion which occurred nearby a closed landfill in the past. He stated that if people are going to build near the landfill, the PCA feels that the structures should remain 200 feet away from the waste. He provided additional input on the potential for solar energy and noted that if that decision is made, it would be through the PCA. He provided additional information on the groundwater area of concern as identified on the map. He stated that although the report mentions holding that area in an overlay, he does not recommend that the City do anything other than share the information with the public because the Department of Health is already regulating that aspect. Murrin asked and received confirmation that the City would not be held liable if they do nothing further with the overlay district for the groundwater area of concern as long as the information is shared with the residents. She asked if Ruotsinoja could send an email to Finke with that recommendation not to follow the overlay district so that the City has that in writing. White thanked Ruotsinoja for sharing that information with the Commission. 2 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes White reopened the public hearing. Paul Chamberlain, representing Richard Burke, stated that they have been present now three times for the discussion, noting that the driving force is the stigma that would be placed on surrounding properties for groundwater and/or methane gas areas of concern. He noted that negatively impacting property values would not help the City with its tax base and would not help the adjacent property owners. He stated that there is no groundwater contamination from the lined portion and the contamination is contained within the landfill property. He stated that if there is a legitimate concern, people should be aware of that, but otherwise there is no reason to put an unneeded stigma on the property. Reid stated that the City has no control over the area of concern, as that is determined by the PCA. Chamberlain stated that there is no mention in the statue for the area of the concern. He stated that the affected area is the landfill, and the other adjacent properties would not be affected area. Reid stated that the Commission has diminished the language to the extent possible and asked what else Mr. Chamberlain is looking for. Chamberlain stated that there is more that can be done, noting that would put the City at odds as the area of concern is identified by the PCA. He stated that the landowner will not sit still while someone puts an area of concern on their property. Reid asked what Mr. Chamberlain wants the Commission to do. Chamberlain stated that he would like subdivision 8 of ordinance 827.09 deleted. Reid stated that the City is simply notifying property owners that pull a building permit. Chamberlain stated that the results of the methane gas testing are tamer, but asked what the concern is. He stated that the gas probes routinely have zero percent readings and no gas migrating off the property. He stated that there is a pretty remote chance that anything would happen. He stated that their main concern is the groundwater area of concern. He stated that the goal stated by staff is that the ordinance would have no impact on any property other than the landfill. He asked if the City would stand up and not pass the language, because they do not think it is right. He indicated that as stated by the PCA, someone applying for a well would need to go through the Health Department, which would then check the necessary information anyway. He acknowledged that he is asking for a strong position from the Commission and the City. Reid stated that it is a State statute and the City Attorney has stated that the City is required to do the minimum notification. Chamberlain stated that the common interest should be the driving force, as the City should want to do what is right, notifying people of a problem if that arises and notify people of the area without stigmatizing the property. Amic asked concerning the damage that has been done at this point in terms of stigmatizing. Chamberlain stated that nothing has been stigmatized at this point. He noted that before his client purchased his property, he conducted a Phase I environmental assessment of the property to ensure there 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes were no contamination issues. He was unsure if there would be a negative impact because of the groundwater area of concern, but noted that would be a factor in the marketability. Amic asked how long ago the property owner purchased the property. Chamberlain believed the transaction occurred in 1994. Amic referenced the methane gas area of concern and asked what would be cut off from the area of concern in a perfect world. Chamberlain replied that he would be fine with the setback included in the landfill boundary. Amic referenced the northern portion that exceeds the landfill boundary and asked the amount of acreage. It was unknown, but believed to be small. Amic noted that perhaps the landowner could give that property to the landfill and therefore the setback would be completely within the landfill boundaries. Craig Todd, real estate agent, stated that the City, State and County received beneficial gain from the landfill while the adjoining property owners did not receive financial gain. He stated that the methane gas and water quality are strong concerns. He stated that trying to place a value on the overlay impacts would be unknown. He stated that the methane gas will migrate and travel as will the water quality issues. He referenced a specific property that would be almost entirely consumed by the areas of concern and therefore a structure could not be built that would meet setbacks. He stated that the PCA and the City do have responsibility, and the seller would need to disclose that information to a potential seller. He asked if the City could return to the PCA and demand the organization purchase the property because of the problem that they created. He stated that the PCA benefited from the landfill and would benefit from the solar array, but the specific property owner has received zero benefit. He stated that land is the resident's retirement and the land cannot be sold as it is right now with the areas of concern. White closed the public hearing. Muffin asked if someone can build within the groundwater area of concern. Finke stated that there are no building regulations within the draft ordinance. He noted that the Department of Health would have their own regulations for well drilling. Murrin stated that it is her interpretation that the groundwater area of concern then does not need to be identified because the Department of Health has authority. She asked what then is changing. Finke stated that the ordinance simply acknowledges that the law exists that formally states that the City will follow the law. He stated that as the zoning administrator he would follow the law either way. He noted that there is a difference of opinion between the City Attorney and Mr. Chamberlain. Reid left the meeting. Muffin stated that this area is already identified, the area is not being changed, and the ordinance is simply stating that the City will follow the law. She stated that anyone purchasing property nearby can see there is a landfill nearby and would know there could be concerns in that area. She stated that she would have a hard time agreeing that the value of the land would decrease when the area is already identified. She stated that the City does not have control over the boundaries of the areas of concern. 4 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes White referenced page two, noting that the action before the Commission tonight is simply to adopt the zoning district and how the ordinance would be adopted. She reviewed the potential actions the Commission could take tonight. Murrin believed that the 200-foot setback should be enacted because of the liability issues that could arise from not accepting that setback. Finke provided clarification on the setback recommended by the PCA. He stated that if a setback is adopted, an overlay may be a better tool. He stated that regardless of the tool, the City would have to figure out how a setback could be enacted if that is desired. White stated that she would agree with the 200-foot setbacks in those areas. Amic asked the minimum effort that the City could do at this time. White stated that she would not be comfortable with the bare minimum. Finke asked the position of the Commission as to whether the City should ask the PCA to review the boundaries for the groundwater areas of concern. Mark Umholtz, PCA, stated that the contamination is a moving target over time and provided additional details. Amic noted that the City is providing the notification and if someone builds on that area, that would be the liability of that property owner. Nester asked what would happen if the area of concern is expanded and the City language states 200 feet, noting that it would be difficult to expand that area further in the future. White noted the difficulty in enforcement. Finke agreed that it is easier to map a specific distance. Muffin asked how the ordinance currently addresses the overlay district. Finke replied that currently there is no overlay district and therefore the decision would be whether or not to include the setback. Motion by Murrin to recommend approval of the ordinance with the addition of the setback for the Methane Gas Area of Concern. Motion failed for lack of second. DesLauriers stated that he would agree with Amic to support the ordinance including the bare minimum requirements. Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. Motion by Murrin, seconded by Nester, to amend the motion to include 200-foot setback for the Methane Gas Area of Concern. Motion amendment failed with a vote of 2-3 (Amic, White and DesLauriers opposed). (Absent: Albers and Reid) Motion carries with a vote of 3-2 (Muffin and Nester opposed). (Absent: Albers and Reid) 5 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes Murrin stated that she remains opposed as she is concerned that the City could incur liability from not having setbacks. Nester agreed that she would support the 200-foot setback. Finke stated that he intends to present this item to the City Council on November 8th, noting that the deadline to submit information in the packet is November 1st White thanked the residents and members from the PCA that attended the meeting to provide their input. (Continued Hearing) 4000 Hamel Road — Rezoning of Woodlake Landfill to the Closed Landfill - Restricted Zoning District Finke stated that the recommendation just approved by the Commission deletes the existing landfill regulations and replaces that with the closed landfill/restricted and therefore the second action before the Commission now would be to rezone the landfill property to the new zoning designation. Murrin asked if the difference of opinion on the setback would impact this decision. Finke stated that it would seem those differences of opinions would be separate from this rezoning request. White continued the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. No comments. White closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. Murrin asked if anything else would be changed other than the name. Finke stated that the ordinance will drastically change the use of the property. He explained what is allowed under the existing ordinance and noted that under the new zoning district the only action that would be allowed is to manage the existing wastes and perhaps install solar panels. Murrin asked and received confirmation that the landfill has not been open since 1994. Finke explained that the City received the closed landfill plan from the PCA in 2013 and has now gotten around to changing the zoning. White noted that from a practical standpoint, nothing is changing. Motion by Murrin, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend adoption of the ordinance rezoning the Woodlake Landfill to the Closed Landfill -Restricted District. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers) 6 PAUL W. CHAMBERLAIN CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM RYAN R. !KUHLMANN Attorney at Law MEG TURNER, Legal Assistant 1907 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 130 Wayzata, MN 55391 952/473-8444 • Fax 952/473-3501 E-mail: paul@bulldoglaw.com Sent via email to dusty.finke@medinamn.gov September 11, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke, City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Concerns of Affected Property Owners in Regarding: Revised Proposed Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Amendment for Former Woodlake Landfill — Concerns Regarding Groundwater Area of Concern and Methane Gas Area of Concern (Agenda Items 6 and 7 at September 12, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing) Dear Mr. Finke: As you may know from the August 8, 2017 public hearing regarding this matter, we represent City of Medina resident Richard Burke, whose property neighbors the former Woodlake Landfill property. I am writing in regard to your Memorandum to the Planning Commission of August 31, 2017 ("Memorandum"), the revised proposed city ordinance creating a Closed Landfill -Restricted (CLR) District for the former Woodlake Landfill property ("Landfill"), and the documents attached to the Memorandum. The primary purpose of this letter is to advise you of the potential negative impacts to our client's property resulting from the boundaries of the Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) and the Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) described in the revised proposed ordinance creating the CLR District. The Memorandum makes the following statement regarding the revisions made to the revised version of the proposed CLR District ordinance since the public hearing held on August 8: "At this point, the ordinance as proposed has no effect on property except for the Woodlake Landfill property. As a result, this version of the ordinance would appear to have minimized any potential or perceived impact on adjacent property." (Memorandum at 2). The GWAOC and the MGAOC as designated in the revised, proposed ordinance include portions of our client's property, and also extend onto other properties neighboring the Landfill. The boundaries and scope of the GWAOC are shown in blue shading on Appendix D to the Final Closed Landfill Use Plan (FUP) for the former Woodlake Landfill (attached to the Memorandum). (FUP at Appendix D). 1 Attached as Exhibit 1 to this letter is a copy of FUP Appendix D, on which we have outlined the boundaries of our client's property in red. As you can see, the GWAOC includes and impacts a substantial portion of our client's property. The GWAOC also impacts other neighboring property owners to the Northwest, West, South, and Southeast of the Woodlake Landfill Land Management Area (LMA). The boundaries of the LMA appear to be the same as the boundaries of the Landfill property. The boundaries and scope of the MGAOC are shown on Appendix E to the FUP. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this letter is a copy of Appendix E, which also shows our client's property boundaries outlined in red. Because the MGAOC extends to the Southeast past Tomahawk Trail, the MGAOC also includes and affects portions of our client's property, as well as portions of neighboring properties to the South and Southeast of the LMA. We understand the City of Medina ("City") ordinance must comply with the relevant closed landfill statutes and the rules implemented by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and also protect the public from hazards associated with the former Landfill. However, there minimal or no groundwater pollution problems associated with the former Landfill, and concerns regarding methane gas were effectively mitigated through existing technology installed at the Landfill site. Therefore, the Commission should limit the boundaries and scope of GWAOC and MGAOC to the LMA (i.e., the Landfill property only), and exclude privately owned property neighboring the former landfill. The revised version of the proposed ordinance requires the City to notify any person who is improving or developing property located within the GWAOC and MGAOC. The properties included within the GWAOC and MGAOC and subject to the notification requirement will suffer a reduction in value, as compared to properties that are outside the GWAOC and MGAOC. The diminution in value may be avoided, however, by limiting the boundaries of the GWAOC and MGAOC to the boundaries of the LMA, only. Limiting the scope of the GWAOC and MGAOC allows the City to comply with the relevant statutes and MPCA rules, while preserving the property values of these City residents and taxpayers. According to the FUP, there appears to be no compelling reason to include these privately -owned properties in the GWAOC or MGAOC. First, the MPCA has fully covered the waste -containing areas of the Landfill site with a geosynthetic cover, has installed extensive groundwater monitoring wells, as well as both active and passive methane gas extraction and mitigation technology. (FUP at 2-3). As for the Ground Water Area of Concern (GWAOC), the FUP indicates there is no groundwater contamination from the lined portion of the former Landfill, and minimal to non-existent groundwater contamination from the unlined portion. The minor groundwater pollution that has previously occurred is confined to the Landfill property, and is not migrating despite underground flows to the north-east and to the west of the unlined part of the former Landfill. (FUP at 2). Moreover, the monitoring wells in these areas of natural ground water flow show no contamination. Id. Accordingly, there are few, if any, reasons to include neighboring properties within the GWAOC, where there is no public harm or concern to be addressed or mitigated by including neighboring properties within the GWAOC. Because the negative impact to neighboring property values is potentially significant, and the benefit from including these properties within the GWAOC has no real public benefit, we urge the Commission to limit the boundaries of the GWAOC to match the boundaries of the Landfill property (LMA). 2 Similarly, there is no identifiable hazard, harm, or other problem addressed by including neighboring properties within the Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) boundaries. The MPCA has installed both passive and active methane gas extraction mitigation technology at the Landfill site. As a result of these measures, gas probes on the Landfill "... [R]outinely have zero percent methane measured in them, indicating that there likely is no gas migrating off the [Landfill] property." (FUP at 3). Thus, it appears that the methane gas problem has been adequately addressed and resolved. According to the FUP, if the methane gas mitigation system were to suffer an extended shutdown during a time when the surrounding ground is frozen, then methane could, possibly, migrate. While such a "perfect storm" of events could happen, their actual occurrence is unlikely and a very remote possibility. And, if such an event were to occur, it would be far more effective to simply notify the potentially affected people, instead of imposing the proposed MGAOC restrictions on privately owned property, just to guard against the extremely remote chances of a deep -winter malfunction of the gas extraction system possibly allowing methane migration. The City and its residents are fortunate that there is little cause for concern over groundwater pollution and methane migration from the former Landfill. Neighbors of the Landfill property are unlikely to suffer any effects from the former Landfill, so it makes little sense to include their properties within the GWAOC and MGAOC. Given the lack of any real public harm, the remoteness of any migration of groundwater pollution or methane migration, and the potential significant costs to the City, we urge the Commission and City officials to re-examine the revised, proposed ordinance and to limit the boundaries of the GWAOC and MGAOC to the boundaries of the former Landfill property. Limiting these boundaries balances the City's need to protect the public from likely harm (and comply with the relevant statutes and MPCA rules), but also makes economic sense for the city and the affected property owners, and avoid liability to the property owners for diminution of their property values as described with legal authority and detail in our August 8. 2017 letter. "Option 1" from the list of options proposed in the Memorandum is the least restrictive, whereby the City will not "require setbacks on adjoining properties from the Woodlake Landfill property" and instead "Provide notification only." (Memorandum at 2). However, even this least restrictive option will still negatively affect the property values of our client and the Landfill's other neighboring property owners. Accordingly, we urge the Commission to further amend the revised ordinance to limit the GWAOC and MGAOC to only the former Landfill property, and to adopt the revised, proposed ordinance as the second-best option. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have prior to the hearing. Yours very truly, Paul W. Chamberlain Paul W. Chamberlain Attachments 3 Appendix D: CLP Groundwater Area of Concern [GWAOC] - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. Created 2/14/2013 Meters o i4o 280 420 1:10,000 Feet 0 340 68o i,ozo Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen r— —1 L J Site Features Monitoring Well Waste Footprint Land Management Area Designates the property that is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Groundwater Plume j Approximate area of the sub- terranean contaminated groundwater plume. Groundwater Area of Concern 0) An area where the groundwater may be affected by landfill contamination. ANOKA WRIGHT • HENNEPIN CARVER SCOTT 1 Appendix E: CLP Methane Gas Area of Concern [MGAOC] - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL bins-" ono ao19tato�S o o &. oiglibR DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources. 0 Meters � Created 2/14/2013 i3o 26o 390 1:10,000 Feet o 450 900 1,350 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Site Contacts Land Manager: Tom Newman Engineer: Peter Tiffany Hydrogeologist: Ingrid Verhagen Site Features Eli Gas Probe r— L CJ Waste Footprint Land Management Area Designates the property that is under the responsibility and control of the MPCA. Methane Area of Concern Area surrounding the landfill that may be impacted by subsurface migration of methane gas. STEARNS KANDIYOHI MEEKER Dusty Finke From: Mary Schneider <mschneider@ci.loretto.mn.us> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 9:20 AM To: Dusty Finke Cc: Jeff Leuer; Bob Kirmis; Kent Torve (ktorve@wenck.com) Subject: RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance RE Area of Concern Overlay District Dusty, Thank you for your response. Based on that additional information, I have revised our comments as follows: The City of Loretto has received notice of the City of Medina's forthcoming consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would establish the following: 1. A Closed Landfill — Restricted (CLR) zoning district 2. A Closed Landfill Area of Concern (CL-AOC) overlay district Thank you for providing the City of Loretto with an opportunity to provide comment on the proposed amendment. As you are aware, the City of Loretto's sewage treatment ponding site lies within the boundaries of the proposed overlay district. In this regard, adoption of the overlay district amendment, as currently proposed, would impose various development restrictions upon the property. As part of the City of Loretto's ongoing plans to connect to the Metropolitan Council's regional wastewater treatment system, a number of structural improvements to the City's ponding site are anticipated. These include, but may not be limited to, the construction of a lift station and an operations building. All forthcoming construction activities upon the site will be subject to applicable Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. With the preceding improvements in mind, the City of Loretto formally requests that no additional structural limitations be imposed upon the City's 15.6-acre City sewer pond site (PID 0711823110001) as a result of the proposed zoning amendments. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the City of Loretto's comments in this matter. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Mary K. Schneider City Cleric Treasurer City of Loretto 279 N. Medina Street, Suite 260 P.O. BOX 207 Loretto, MN 55357 Population: 644 Phone: 763-479-4305 1 Agenda Item # 7C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 2, 2017 MEETING: November 8, 2017 City Council SUBJ: Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District — Public Hearing Background The City's practice is to require that owners' associations maintain stormwater improvements within developments. This is formalized through an agreement that is recorded against each property. The City has drafted such an agreement for Lunski assisted living/office project and it is attached to the development agreement. Additionally, the City's practice is to establish Storm Sewer Improvement Taxing District over development sites as a "back-up plan" if the owner's association does not maintain stormwater improvements. The City has taken this step in all recent residential subdivisions. Prior to considering the establishment of such a district, the City Council is required to hold a Public Hearing. Notice of this public hearing was published for the November 8, 2017 meeting. The intent was to hold the hearing at the same time as the final plat was reviewed for the Lunski Nelson Addition, but because of the need to publish notice for the hearing, staff had to try to anticipate which meeting the final plat would be reviewed. Unfortunately, the materials submitted by the applicant were not yet prepared for review. Staff recommends that the City Council hold the hearing on the Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District, but delay taking action on the ordinance until action is taken on the final plat. Staff Recommendation Following the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: Motion to table the ordinance establishing the Lunski Nelson Addition storm sewer improvement tax district. Attachment 1. Ordinance establishing Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Lunski Nelson Addition Page 1 of 1 November 8, 2017 Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District City Council Meeting CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE LUNSKI NELSON ADDITION STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT TAX DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Background: Findings. 1.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 444.16 — 444.21 (the "Act") to establish a storm sewer improvement tax district in connection with the development of the Lunski Nelson Addition (the "District") to acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain and otherwise improve storm sewer systems and related facilities within the District and to acquire, construct, maintain and improve stormwater holding areas and ponds outside of the District which are for the benefit of the District in accordance with the Act and to levy a tax on all taxable property within the District to finance such activities. k#hkkkkk.,. 1.02. It is found and deteli'iined that it is in the best interests of Medina and its storm water management program that the District be established. The District shall be comprised of the land legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section II. Establishment: Authorizations. 2.01. The Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District is hereby established. The City shall have all powers and authority conferred by the Act in the operation and financing of the activities of the District. 2.02. The boundaries of the District include all property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and are depicted in the map on Exhibit B, attached hereto. 2.03. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the Auditor and Recorder of Hennepin County. Section III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication and the recording of the plat of Lunski Nelson Addition in Hennepin County. Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE Adopted by the City Council of the City of Medina this day of , 2017. Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on this d m.' , 2017. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE EXHIBIT A Legal Description of property contained within boundaries of Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Lots 1-3, Block 1, and OudotA, Lunski Nelson Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Ordinance No. ### A-1 DATE EXHIBIT B Map of Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Location of Lunski Nelson Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District HACKAMORE RO LOST NORSE R8 KATRINKA Rp PAWNEE R( HAMEL RD ELACK.FWF'fRL Ordinance No. ### B-1 DATE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 2, 2017 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates — November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Lunski Final Plat — Lunski, Inc. has applied for final approval of the subdivision related to the development of 80 units of mixed senior housing and 24,000 s.f. of office north of Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. Staff is reviewing documents and will present when complete, potentially at the November 16 meeting. B) Crosby Lot Combination and CUP Amendment — David and Kitty Crosby have requested a lot combination of their property at 2402 Hamel Road and the adjacent 33 acres. The applicants have also requested an amendment to the recently adopted CUP for a 2nd home on the 2402 Hamel Road property so that the CUP will apply to the entirety of the combined parcel. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing at the November 14 meeting and the Council may review on December 5. C) Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan — 1952 Chippewa Road — Mark of Excellence Homes has requested review of a PUD concept plan for the development of 94 twinhomes on 80 acres (-30 buildable) east of Mohawk Drive, and north of Chippewa Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 12. The Park Commission reviewed the concept on September 20. The City Council reviewed the concept on October 17 and tabled the request of the applicant. Staff awaits additional information from the applicant. D) Mark Smith Concept Plan and PUD Concept Plan — NE corner of Highway 55 and Mohawk Drive — Mark Smith of Mark of Excellence Homes has also requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan related to a 48-lot subdivision immediately south of the Weston Woods project. The project also proposes a 7 acre City Park. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing at the October 10 meeting. The City Council reviewed the concept on October 17 and tabled at the request of the applicant. Staff awaits additional information from the applicant. E) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD — Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a PUD General Plan of development and preliminary plat for a conservation design subdivision to include 6 lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76 buildable). The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the June 13 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The applicant has adjusted plans in light of recent City Council direction to include a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres in rural CD-PUD projects. The City Council adopted an ordinance and resolution of approval at the October 17 meeting. Staff will await a final plat application F) JEGMRevoc Trust Solar Text Amendment and CUP — 2705 Willow Drive — The JEGM Revocable Trust has requested that the City consider amending its zoning code to increase the maximum footprint of ground mounted solar panels permitted on a rural property from 2500 square feet to 4000 square feet. The applicant has also requested a conditional use permit for construction of a 4000 square foot ground mounted solar array, a 2304 square foot greenhouse and 360 square foot warming shed. The Council adopted an ordinance and resolutions of approval on October 17. Staff is working with the applicant on the various permit applications and the project will be closed. G) Reserve of Medina Second Addition — Toll Brothers has requested approval of the second phase of the Reserve of Medina project. The City Council adopted approval documents on September 19. Staff will work with the developer related to the conditions of approval. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting H) Johnson ADU CUP, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery — The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. I) Woods of Medina — This preliminary plat has been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application J) Hamel Road Thirty Two, Hamel Haven subdivisions — These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded Other Proiects A) Comprehensive Plan — The Steering Committee met on Thursday, October 26 at 7:00 a.m. and completed their review of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has incorporated their requested changes and will present to the City Council on November 8 and the Planning Commission on November 14. B) Closed Landfill regulations — staff has drafted an ordinance related to the Woodlake Landfill as required by the MPCA in connection with the state's closed landfill program. The MPCA has recommended that the ordinance include a setback related to the Methane Gas Area of Concern that they have identified extending onto some adjacent property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the ordinance at the August 8 meeting and tabled the ordinance. The Planning Commission has reviewed at the August 8, September 12, and October 10 meeting. Neighboring property owners have raised concerns related to the impact of the ordinance on their property values. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance on a 3-2 vote which does not include setbacks for the Methane Gas Area of Concern. Two Commissioners recommended that the ordinance should include additional setbacks. Staff intends to present the ordinance to the City Council at the November 8 meeting. C) Small Cellular Antennae ordinance — Planning staff will be coordinating amendments to the City's right-of-way ordinance related to recent changes to state law which mandate the City to permit cell phone companies to attach small antennas to City street posts. Staff intends to present the ordinance at the December 5 meeting. D) Elm Creek Watershed TAC— staff attended a Technical Advisory Committee meeting at Elm Creek watershed. The Committee was discussing the district's abstraction (volume control) requirements and had requested city feedback. Specifically, the watershed is considering increasing the requirement for filtration from 1.1" to either 1.65" or 2.2" because it is the least effective means of abstraction. E) Forest Management Plans — staff met with WSB's natural resource specialist and walked three of the city -owned woodlands (property within the Reserve of Medina, Villas at Medina Country Club, and the Enclave). The intent is to prepare a plan to prioritize more active management of the woodlands. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 November 8, 2017 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 600 Clydesdale Trail Medina, MN 55340.9790 p: 763.473.9209 f: 763.473-8858 non -emergency: 763.525.6210 Emergency 9-1-1 TO: Mayor Robert Mitchell and City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 3, 2017 RE: Department Updates Out of Town I will be out of town November 5th through November 9th to deal with my father's estate in Florida. Sergeant Nelson will attend the November 7th Medina City Council meeting. He has been briefed on the proposed Hamel Fire Contract updates. West Metro Drug Taskforce Meeting On October 12th, we held our third quarterly meeting of the West Metro Drug Tasks Force. It was reported that the taskforce is running under budget for 2017. The taskforce continues to be very busy. They have had some very successful local cases with large amounts of drugs seized. They continue to work meth and heroin cases in a joint effort to slow the opioid epidemic in our area. Over the last year, we had three experienced agents return to their respective agencies. Currently, we have a young team. The 2018 budget has been approved. We are expecting the cities to receive a reimbursement in 2018. Lake Area Emergency Management Meeting On October 25th, we held our monthly Lakes Area Emergency Management meeting. We are currently working with Pastor Dan Carlson to assist our current chaplains for the Lake Area Emergency Management Group. We are working with the public works directors in the area on their roles in emergency management. A meeting with all of Hennepin County's public works directors is scheduled for later this year. We have started to see special events permits related to the 2018 Super Bowl. We are working on plans to assist each other with these events. Severe Weather Sirens On October 26th, I attended a meeting at Hennepin County Public Works on the status of the current outdoor warning sirens. A plan is being developed to upgrade the sirens in 2020 or 2021. This upgrade could impact our CIP for those years; I will monitor the project and plan appropriately. Building Update Within the last few weeks, we had a wasp infestation in the sally port and evidence garage. We had Adam's Pest Control out to spray. The spraying seems to have the wasps under control for the time being. We will be looking at purchasing some electronic bug zappers for the garages in the future. We had a Siemens Fire Control inspector out to do our annual inspecting of the fire system. The system was tested and working properly. A week after the inspection, we had a pull station that was tripped inadvertently. The system worked properly. The pull station was reset without incident. Patrol by Sergeant Nelson Patrol Activities For the dates of September 28 to October 31, 2017, our officers issued 105 citations and 302 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 10 traffic accidents, 27 medicals, 13 alarms and seven DWIs. On October 2861, Officer Boecker responded to a possible intoxicated driver who was involved in an accident in the Holiday Gas Station parking lot. The female driver was found to be extremely intoxicated and was arrested. After the legal test was completed, she was found to be almost four times the legal limit. On October 23rd, Officer McGill took an attempted burglary report at 3121 Pizza. Owners found that the back door to the business had been tampered with in an apparent attempt to break in. Video surveillance shows a suspect that attempted to get in but was scared off by Officers Scharf and Gregory the previous evening when they located an occupied vehicle behind Martha Burns Swim School. They did ID the driver that night. All information has been forwarded to the investigator. On October 21nd, Officer McKinley stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. During the stop, it was discovered that the male had lied and given him a false name and date of birth of an alias. The driver was arrested and transported to Hennepin County Jail. On October 21nd, Officer Hall responded to a report of an erratic driver. The vehicle was located and after speaking with the driver, he was arrested for possession of heroin. On October 18th, Officer McKinley was dispatched to a residential burglary. Caller reported that someone had entered his residence through an unlocked service door and stole some jars of change from the residence. Nothing else was reported missing. Case was forwarded to Investigations. On October 18th, Officers Scharf and Gregory responded to an accident on County Road 19 and Perkinsville Road. The driver missed the curve and drove off the roadway. The driver was found to be intoxicated and was arrested. On October l lth, I responded to a traffic complaint of a person who was sleeping at a red light. The vehicle was located and the driver was found to be under the influence. After investigation, the driver admitted to having methamphetamines in his vehicle. The driver was arrested for possession of controlled substance. The case was turned over to the West Metro Drug Task Force for follow up. Investigations by Investigator Kevin Boecker Investigated two vulnerable adult reports pertaining to the same victim. Our office has responded to several calls involving the same reported victim and deemed the cases a civil dispute. After receiving the vulnerable adult reports, I was able to interview the alleged victim. The reports were found unfounded; however, a possible financial exploitation case was possibly uncovered. Family members were urged to contact law enforcement in another jurisdiction which they did. Suspect was identified in an attempted burglary case of local business. Patrol officers checking on suspicious vehicle possibly interrupted a business burglary. I am working on locating to interview the suspect. Suspects were identified in a theft from one of our liquor stores. Investigation revealed that one of the suspects had hit the same liquor store two other times. Photos were obtained from US Bank in relation to fraudulent check investigation. A possible suspect has been identified and am trying to locate the suspect to interview. There are currently 15 open cases assigned to Investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: November 1, 2017 MEETING: November 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • The County Rd. 116 /55 project continues to move along. The goal for the County is to get the whistle -less crossing completed this fall. Curb is being poured Friday, November 3rd and paving will follow. There will be some remaining work for the spring, but the goal is to get the intersection up and running • The City Clydesdale Trail project is on hold waiting for some warmer temps to put down the overlay. The curb work is done, as well as all the patching. I have my doubts about whether it will get warm enough to install the wear course and I would rather wait until spring to get a good surface. The contractor will hold the pricing if this is the case. • We are currently patching around Manholes and valves in the street so the snow plow will not hit them. • The trucks and plows have all had their DOT inspections and will be set up for snow removal. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • The watermain on the 116 project is complete. The sewer lining will commence when the County is done with their portion of the street project. The sewer lining will likely be done in late November or December if the weather stays reasonable to work in. I really have had no control of our timing on this; it is all delayed because of the road project. • The water tower rehab project is moving along, but is behind schedule. Weather has had an impact on the project, but it's just not moving as fast as was expected. It is very likely that the project will be finished in the spring. My main concern is to get the tower up and running with the wintry weather coming and watermain break season upon us. They have installed heaters to get the paint to cure. The cure period is up to 14 days and then disinfection, so we are still some time away from getting the tower in service. WSB and I have been in constant communication with the contractor and are pushing them as hard as we can. • Public works has also done some culvert maintenance in the Wild Meadows development this week. PARKS/TRAILS " Public works has been trimming trees along the trails. This has been a week-long task and more must be done. " As the weather turns, we will start flooding rinks and clearing snow in the parks. " There are many dead elms in Harriet's Woods that need to be removed in the Lennar addition. " Dusty and I are working with WSB to come up with a plan for our nature areas that makes sense moving forward. These areas will need maintenance and a budget to keep them up. Page 2 of 2 ORDER CHECKS OCTOBER 18, 2017 - NOVEMBER 8, 2017 046497 AFFORDABLE EGRESS WINDOWS $1,000.00 046498 BROLIN, CRAIG & ERICA $500.00 046499 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. $1,790.14 046500 D.J. KRANZ CO. INC. $10,000.00 046501 DONALD DYKHOFF $1,000.00 046502 FRAGODT, BRIAN & KIM $500.00 046503 GLORY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURC $250.00 046504 HOVEIDA, BAHMAN/REBECCA $39.35 046505 LEMKE, ALISON $500.00 046506 NELSON, JEFF & ANNA $150.00 046507 PINE TAR ACADEMY $500.00 046508 RAVINA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN $250.00 046509 SINGH, MADHWI $150.00 046510 TOLL BROS, INC $6,000.00 046511 WE CAN RIDE, INC $2,000.00 046512 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO $6,320.50 046513 BANERJEE, PIYALI $650.00 046514 DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES $10,000.00 046515 DHALIWAL, NAVNEET $250.00 046516 FARMER, GRANT/KATLIN $4.20 046517 GPRS $50.00 046518 LEN BUSCH ROSES $150.00 046519 LUTZ, ROBERT $49.45 046520 RENGASAMY, NARASIMMAN $250.00 046521 PRADEEP SINHA $200.00 046522 WASICK, TERESA $150.00 046523 WILLEY, SUSIE $150.00 046524 AGRE, CAROLINE $150.00 046525 AUDI, MAYA $250.00 046526 EDARA, GOPALAKRISHNA $440.00 046527 GANESAN, SRINIVASAN $250.00 046528 HOVEIDA, BAHMAN/REBECCA $190.65 046529 JSR CONSULTING MANAGEMENT $150.00 046530 PRASAD, ABHAY $500.00 046531 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELEC $500.00 046532 A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC $262.91 046533 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC $111.24 046534 ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM $50.00 046535 ALLSTAR ELECTRIC $1,363.54 046536 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN' $237.50 046537 ASPHALT SURFACE TECH CORP $151,306.82 046538 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE $4,325.93 046539 BERGERSON CASWELL INC. $45.00 046540 BIFFS INC $685.28 046541 BUMPS AUTO & MARINE $200.00 046542 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES $646.09 046543 CORE & MAIN LP $3,569.93 046544 CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT CO $24.55 046545 DESIGNING NATURE, INC. $1,127.00 046546 DIAMOND MOWERS INC. $510.44 046547 DITTER INC $3,555.90 046548 DOBOS $328.86 046549 DPC INDUSTRIES INC $285.48 046550 EARL F ANDERSEN INC $2,070.80 046551 ECM PUBLISHERS INC $94.98 046552 ESS BROS. & SONS, INC. $1,225.00 046553 GDS, LLC $946.00 046554 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $349.65 046555 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF $217.23 046556 HENN CTY RESIDENT/REAL ESTATE $45.00 046557 HENRYS WATERWORKS INC $245.53 046558 INTL CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSN_ $554.78 046559 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC $101.97 046560 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED $18,665.51 046561 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR $392.00 046562 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES $77.00 046563 MADISON NATIONAL LIFE $706.43 046564 MARCO INC $30.97 046565 MEDTOX LABS $49.93 046566 METRO ALARM CONTRACTORS INC $553.50 046567 METRO WEST INSPECTION $345.00 046568 MORE BELIEF LLC $4,700.00 046569 MORRIS ELECTRONICS INC. $240.00 046570 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC $202.29 046571 NORTHERN ESCROW, INC. $16,152.47 046572 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN $200.00 046573 OFFICE DEPOT $319.43 046574 PLEAA $80.00 046575 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC $7,713.30 046576 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC $185.00 046577 SAMS LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC $300.00 046578 SCHMIDT CURB COMPANY INC $43,295.00 046579 SEDGWICK, ELIZABETH $2,876.45 046580 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC $110.02 046581 STREICHER'S $465.91 046582 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC $544.48 046583 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL $617.40 046584 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI $3,337.59 046585 TEGRETE CORP $1,314.00 046586 TIMESAVER OFFSITE $665.25 046587 TITAN MACHINERY $934.85 046588 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $1,025.51 046589 WSB & ASSOCIATES $30,496.00 Total Checks $356,366.99 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS OCTOBER 18, 2017 — NOVEMBER 8, 2017 004350E PR PERA $14,752.01 004351E PR FED/FICA $16,327.07 004352E PR MN Deferred Comp $3 220.00 004353E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA $3,393.15 004354E SELECT ACCOUNT $746.07 004355E CITY OF MEDINA $20.00 004356E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC $219.90 004357E AFLAC $394.88 004358E SELECT ACCOUNT $22.20 004359E VOID $0.00 004360E VOID $0.00 004361E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE $3,325.13 004362E MINNESOTA, STATE OF $1,735.00 004363E PR PERA $15,372.16 004364E PR FED/FICA $17,558.88 004365E PR MN Deferred Comp $6,420.00 004366E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA $3,454.19 004367E SELECT ACCOUNT $746.07 004368E CITY OF MEDINA $20.00 004369E SELECT ACCOUNT $687.53 004370E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. $4,753.00 004371E DELTA DENTAL $2,581.85 004372E KONICA MINOLTA $168.48 004373E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC $355.80 004374E SELECT ACCOUNT $383.36 004375E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES $80.30 004376E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN $2,058.36 004377E XCEL ENERGY $13,200.52 004378E VERIZON WIRELESS $1 338.18 Total Electronic Checks $113,334.09 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT OCTOBER 18, 2017 & NOVEMBER 1, 2017 0508221 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L $1,445.32 0508222 BARNHART, ERIN A. $2,099.88 0508223 BELLAND, EDGAR J $2,570.18 0508224 BOECKER, KEVIN D. $2,713.35 0508225 CONVERSE, KEITH A $2,147.06 0508226 DINGMANN, IVAN W $1,793.98 0508227 ENDE, JOSEPH $1,456.49 0508228 FINKE, DUSTIN D. $2,178.55 SOFTWARE ISSUE SOFTWARE ISSUE 0508229 GALLUP, JODI M $1,752.05 0508230 GLEASON, JOHN M. $2,000.36 0508231 GREGORY, THOMAS $2,088.95 0508232 HALL, DAVID M. $2,020.74 0508233 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S $2,033.70 0508234 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. $2,230.19 0508235 KIESER, NICHOLAS $435.87 0508236 KLAERS, ANNE M $1,190.45 0508237 LANE, LINDA $1,492.97 0508238 LEUER, GREGORY J. $2,034.28 0508239 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R $1,725.34 0508240 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D $1,665.18 0508241 NELSON, JASON $2,413.33 0508242 PETERSON, DEBRA A $1,684.69 0508243 REINKING, DEREK M $1,591.50 0508244 SCHARF, ANDREW $1,484.04 0508245 SCHERER, STEVEN T. $2,289.30 0508246 VIEAU, CECILIA M. $1,092.62 0508247 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L $1,332.97 0508248 ANDERSON, JOHN G $230.87 0508249 BARNHART, ERIN A. $2,031.93 0508250 BELLAND, EDGAR J $2,570.17 0508251 BOECKER, KEVIN D. $2,456.44 0508252 CONVERSE, KEITH A $2,207.91 0508253 COUSINEAU, LORIE K. $230.87 0508254 DINGMANN, IVAN W $2,424.78 0508255 ENDE, JOSEPH $1,456.50 0508256 FINKE, DUSTIN D. $2,178.54 0508257 GALLUP, JODI M $1,752.05 0508258 GLEASON, JOHN M. $1,779.60 0508259 GREGORY, THOMAS $2,011.87 0508260 HALL, DAVID M. $2,088.03 0508261 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S $2,001.80 0508262 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. $2,230.19 0508263 KIESER, NICHOLAS $435.87 0508264 KLAERS, ANNE M $1,154.57 0508265 LANE, LINDA $1,492.96 0508266 LEUER, GREGORY J. $2,164.66 0508267 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M $230.87 0508268 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R $1,597.76 0508269 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D $1,704.17 0508270 MITCHELL, ROBERT G. $327.07 0508271 NELSON, JASON $2,450.63 0508272 PEDERSON, JEFF $221.92 0508273 PETERSON, DEBRA A. $1,684.69 0508274 REINKING, DEREK M $1,632.81 0508275 ROBBINS, MELISSA $716.63 0508276 SCHARF, ANDREW $1,449.93 0508277 SCHERER, STEVEN T. $2,289.29 0508278 VIEAU, CECILIA M. $1,158.35 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $97,327.07