Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/12/12 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionAll$t. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES M I N N E S O T A CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 12, 2016 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harrrening), Public Works Superintendent, (Mr. Hanson), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Human Resources Director/Deputy City Manager (Ms. Deno), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Traffic Engineer (Mr. Iverson), Communications and Marketing Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guest: Charlie Nauen and David Zoll, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning — December 19, 2016 & January 9, 2017 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for December 19 and January 9. He noted 2017 Legislative priorities and issues that will be discussed, along with 2017 Connect the Park. 2. Reilly Superfund Site Update Mr. Hanson updated the council on the Reilly Superfund Site. It was noted that September, 2016, marked the 30`h anniversary of the Reilly Consent Decree and its associated Remedial Action Plan. In anticipation of this, the city retained a law firm in July, 2013, to represent the city as legal counsel to guide the city through the legal proceedings accompanying the 30 -year review of and potential revisions to the 1986 Consent Decree and associated Remedial Action Plan. The legal firm also retained the engineering firm Geosyntec to provide the technical support for the effort. Attorneys Charlie Nauen and David Zoll presented an update on the legal process and an explanation of the potential impacts associated with Vertellus, Inc. (formerly Reilly Industries) declaring bankruptcy. Mr. Nauen stated the ongoing work being led by Mr. Hanson and city staff has helped to form a good relationship with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Mr. Nauen said that the trust agreement associated with the bankruptcy will be finalized by January, 2017, and the decree update is expected to be finalized by September, 2017. Mr. Zoll stated the ground water in the upper aquifer is non -drinking water and not used for beneficial purposes. He continued there is no longer a contamination pathway to the lower aquifers now that the multi -aquifer wells have been corrected/sealed, so there is no need for pumping water in the upper aquifers; however, the water is being monitored, and money could be saved with no pumping. Mr. Zoll added that the lower aquifer is also being monitored and still has contaminants, which are pumped and treated in order to make sure the contaminants are kept from migrating. He Study Session Minutes -2- December 12, 2016 added that legal and technical teams are working on the standards and how the site is treated. The documents will incorporate the updated technical and scientific information which will be presented to district court. Mr. Hanson stated for clarification, the $20 million from the insurance policy is not only for the City of St. Louis Park, as it is the total of insurance policies over all 8 sites. Mr. Zoll stated that legal work currently being done with the trust agreement, the bankruptcy, and the insurance, will ensure the city is protected in the future. Mr. Hanson added there might be some compensation for the city for installing monitoring wells. Councilmember Miller stated he is concerned about pulling back on deep pumping, and the real risk could be expanse of the plume. Mr. Hanson stated any changes made to pumping in the deep aquifer was based on careful modeling and input from the EPA and will continue to be monitored. He added that any changes in modeling will be governed by the EPA to ensure changes do not negatively harm the plume. Councilmember Miller asked if St. Louis Park would be responsible for anything related to Vertellus' obligations. Mr. Nauen stated they are looking into this, and it is all part of the negotiations. Councilmember Sanger asked when the consent decree expires and what obligations the city has afterwards. She further asked if there were any caps in the original decree and if there are any provisions where the city might be held responsible for remedial action. Mr. Nauen stated the consent decree does not expire and that is why the city must go back to court to make changes over time. He added there are no caps in the agreement, and although Reilly is responsible for the plumes, it is still unknown what obligations Reilly may have after their bankruptcy. Councilmember Sanger also asked if Vertellus is out of business, if there is anything in the consent agreement stating the city would be responsible or if there would be joint liabilities. Mr. Nauen stated legal will work on this in the agreement. He continued the joint liability was divided between parties, and they continue to look out for the interests of City of St. Louis Park. Councilmember Hallfin asked about the water that is pumped, then dumped and wasted, and what happens to the water that is not used. Mr. Zoll stated this water is discharged and treated downstream. Half of the water goes to sanitary discharge, and the city pays for this. He added it is cleaned by the Met Council sanitary system and then ultimately goes into the Mississippi River. The other water is treated and discharged to Minnehaha Creek. Councilmember Mavity stated currently and for the last 30 years the city has been paying $500,000 per year to test the water, and technologies have changed in 30 years. She asked what will be done differently to ensure safe water. Mr. Hanson stated the city will treat the site as if it is brand new but with the advantage of 30 years of experience. He added this is the reason we ask agencies to let the city use updated standards, which allows the city to use the most stringent standards for testing. Study Session Minutes -3- December 12, 2016 Councilmember Mavity asked Mr. Hanson what he estimates the annual cost will be. Mr. Hanson stated he did not know but added he expects ongoing monitoring costs to increase. Councilmember Mavity asked if this testing is evidence based or best practice based on evidence and data. Mr. Zoll stated it is based on a site in Bemidji with the same contaminants. Councilmember Lindberg appreciated the comments, noting it is good to have clarity. He added it is important to make sure we do this good work to ensure the quality of our drinking water, adding that he has confidence in this process. Councilmember Brausen added he agrees with Councilmember Lindberg. He added he is not a scientist but knows ultimately the city has a responsibility for its citizens to have safe drinking water. Councilmember Brausen added that he trusts staff and the attorneys on this process. Mayor Spano added that making drinking water safe for St. Louis Park is our number one priority. He stated it is good to have new standards applied and mechanisms in place for a regular review process so that the city is at safe levels going forward. Mr. Zoll suggested that a regular or automatic review of the decree would be preferred especially if a new standard is adopted or if a standard is raised or lowered. Councilmember Sanger asked if the issues with the Reilly site are related to issues with Water Treatment Plant 44. Mr. Zoll stated there is no link between Water Treatment Plant #4 and the Reilly site. He added that regulators also recognize the contaminants are not tied to Water Treatment Plant #4. Mayor Spano noted he is pleased to hear the city has a better relationship with the EPA and MDH and that the city's number one priority is safe drinking water. He added it is good to know the regulators are partners with the city on this and that everyone is listening to each other. 3. Water Treatment Plant #4 Update Mr. Harmening presented the report, noting staff has been working on two major efforts associated with Water Treatment Plant #4 to ensure St. Louis Park continues to provide high quality, safe drinking water: 1) Although repeated testing by the MDH has confirmed the city's water is safe to drink and meets all drinking water standards, staff has partnered with the MDH to develop an interim solution to lower the VOC levels at Water Treatment Plant 44. 2) Staff has also partnered with the MPCA to design permanent upgrades to Water Treatment Plants #4 and #6, to ensure that identified contaminants can be treated down to published advisory levels. Although both designs are anticipated to be completed in June 2017, staff will provide council with an update on possible construction options for Water Treatment Plant #4 since as an active drinking water well there may be benefits to moving up the construction date. Mr. Harmening added that every municipal water system has contaminants in it, and the MDH reviews these to be sure the levels don't get too high. Mr. Harmening confirmed that Water Treatment Plant #4 levels have increased, and that is a concern. However, the city is working on Study Session Minutes -4- December 12, 2016 a short-term and a long-term solution to this problem. Testing is being conducted every other week at Water Treatment Plant #4, and the MDH is also testing to watch the VOC levels. Mr. Harmening added that TCE levels have recently increased at Water Treatment Plant 4 so the city is in conversation with the MDH about a long-term solution to take care of this. He added staff wanted to bring this issue to the council's attention and also note that it is being monitored closely. Mr. Harmening noted that costs for a permanent fix are now at $4.3-4.4 million. The city could pursue a bonding process and also speak with legislators in January. The plant could be upgraded with additional features at a later date, which would lower the initial upgrade costs. Councilmember Brausen asked about the levels of TCE, noting the MPCA shows 5.0 as the highest level allowed and that MDH suggests .4 be the highest level. He asked about this discrepancy. Mr. Hanson stated the MDH updates their standards more frequently than the EPA, and state agencies update standards specific to each of their states. He added this change occurred in 2013, so it is relatively recent. Councilmember Miller stated the staff report, which says the city's water is safe, is a relative term. The city has to be careful because the water doesn't meet all safety levels, and water safety is so important. Councilmember Miller added he is concerned about the message going out to the community on water safety and asked how soon the EPA will be able to find the responsible source of the VOC's. Mr. Hanson stated the standards are all being met, and the MDH has the authority to shut down the well if any standards are exceeded. He added the MPCA is working to find the responsible sources for the VOC problem, noting it is a heavily legal issue and very complicated. Councilmember Sanger asked what TCE's are and what harm they cause to humans. She also asked about interim solutions, and noted that many have asked why Water Treatment Plant #4 cannot be shut down and not used at all. She added water safety seems to be in the eye of the beholder, and people have different views of what is safe and what isn't. As long as the MDH has not shut down Water Treatment Plant #4, the council should be satisfied with that. Mr. Hanson responded to Councilmember Sanger's question about TCE's, explaining that VOC's are volatile organic compounds; are expected carcinogens, and are more impactful on the young. He noted that the last few months that the levels of VOC have gone up and, therefore, the frequency of testing has also gone up, in order that the council can make the most informed decisions. Councilmember Lindberg stated his concern is about perception versus the reality of whether the city's drinking water is safe or not. He added that the city pays highly qualified staff to ensure the health and safety of the water, and this is of the utmost importance. He stated the city needs to be careful with the language used on this issue, and he appreciates the staff report and information shared. He asked what staff s recommendation is. Councilmember Hallfin added that he drinks city water right out of the tap and will continue to do so. He noted there have been studies on bottled water, and many have contaminants to some degree, also. Councilmember Hallfin stated somehow these VOC contaminants end up in our city water. Now the city is stuck with a problem that was not of our doing. Mr. Hanson noted that with the many wells drilled, which were multi -aquifer, it is likely the contaminants were transferred from one aquifer to another. Study Session Minutes -5- December 12, 2016 Mr. Harmening stated staff recommends to either stay on the current path or continue with the short-term approach. Another option would be to shut down Water Treatment Plant #4, not because it is not safe, but because there is nothing more important than the trust of our community. The EPA and MPCA may require the city to pump and dump water. Mr. Harmening continued that the other option would be to get the permanent fix done and move on. He added this is a major well, and if it is shut down and there is a major fire event, the city would have to rely on other cities' water or only open Water Treatment Plant #4 in cases of extreme emergency. Councilmember Mavity stated this last option was not included in the staff report and comes as a surprise to her. She added the city needs to rely on its professional staff to hire good people to inform everyone. She asked if these three staff recommendations are equally safe and equal in cost. Councilmember Mavity added she has concerns about closing down Water Treatment Plant 44, noting she needs more information. She stated St. Louis Park has not studied other cities' water, so the idea that we might have to hook up to another community's water supply does not sound right. She does not want to rely on other communities. Mr. Harmening assured the council that the City of Minnetonka water is held to the same standards as St. Louis Park, and this would only be done in an emergency situation. He added that this option was brought up late as a possible way to build trust and to help alleviate concerns, Councilmember Miller stated he strongly believes that water quality is our 41 priority and would like to pursue the $4 million plan for permanent fixes. He added he is hopeful there will be some federal funding and strongly recommends the city shut down the plant and take the recommendation from staff. He noted if the council does not go with the permanent fix solution, they are saying we are still sending out sub -standard water to the community. We need to make this solution happen as quickly as possible. Councilmember Sanger stated she takes exception with Councilmember Miller's calling the city's water sub -standard. She noted if the MDH says our water is safe, we can keep drinking it. If the council shuts down Water Treatment Plant 44, we are sending a mixed message. She added the council needs to trust our staff of professionals and not second guess them. She added that many have said to her this is much ado about nothing, and she does not want to go to great lengths to shut down Water Treatment Plant #4 when there is no scientific evidence. Mr. Harmening stated he wants to make it clear that his suggestion to shut down Water Treatment Plant #4 is not because the city has sub -standard water. He noted his reason is to make sure we maintain the public trust. Councilmember Brausen stated he is not a scientist or engineer but feels the city's primary responsibility is to have safe drinking water. He added that he cares and also that his grandchildren drink this water. He stated the city must rely on scientific evidence and keep testing the water. He is comfortable relying on the city's professional staff and following staff recommendations on using temporary solutions. Councilmember Brausen stated the council has to be fiscally responsible. Also, there may be new contaminants later. We can never attain perfect water. He added there is no absolute guarantee the city will get the responsible companies to pay for clean-up, and it is the city's responsibility to do so. He stated he prefers to do the long-term fix in 2017. Study Session Minutes -6- December 12, 2016 Mr. Hanson added that this afternoon he had a design review with the agencies in preparation for the permanent fix. He stated the current levels of VOC's are expected to increase, so something will need to be done with a permanent fix. He also added the upgrades will only get more expensive over time due to inflation, so the sooner the plant can be built the better. Mayor Spano stated this conversation has been going on for a long time, and we want our city drinking water to be safe. He stated the interim fix has helped to ease the burden on taxpayers. However, he has a different view on it now and is in favor of the long-term fix. He noted the bonding bill from the state will be a questionable source of funding; however, he still would like to see this project done in an economical way. He advocates expediting the long-term solution, while not anticipating any funds from the state; continuing to monitor Water Treatment Plant #4; and continuing the discussion, especially if the studies still show contaminants and if legally we can shut that treatment plant down. It was the consensus of the council to move forward with the permanent fix and the building of the treatment plant. Councilmember Lindberg noted the preliminary levy is set and asked how the city would fund the project. Mr. Harmening answered that the city would finance it like all other capital projects - with water funds and issue GO revenue bonds, paid back by users of the system. He explained that the city's residents currently pay quarterly rates into the water and utility funds. These rates would be adjusted in order to finance the project, and there would be time to plan to do the financing beginning in 2018. Councilmember Sanger agreed with this plan and added staff will need to do a more robust job to inform residents about the current status of the city's water quality, and the facts and plans for the situation. She noted there is much misinformation in the community that needs to be addressed. 4. Connect the Park Gap Sidewalk Segments Mr. Sullivan stated that to ensure the city is being responsive to the momentum caused by the Connect the Park initiative and to keep the plan updated in light of community feedback, staff brings proposed plan amendments to the council on an annual basis. As a part of this process, staff has been directed to identify gap sidewalk segments and bring them forward for consideration as part of the annual Pavement Management and Connect the Park construction contracts. During the public process for the 2017 projects, a number of policy questions came up in the form of feedback from residents. Mr. Sullivan stated that staff would like the council to consider these questions prior to the next public input meeting. He noted this feedback is needed prior to the public hearing in 2017. Additionally, staff would like to be sure the policies are representative of the direction of the council. Ms. Heiser asked one of the questions about how staff should treat existing sidewalk sections with gaps if the council makes the decision not to construct the gap segments. Councilmember Miller stated the city is trying to build a network of sidewalks, so he is not sure why the city would not fill in the missing segments. Study Session Minutes -7- December 12, 2016 Councilmember Sanger stated she does not think this is a one size fits all situation. She added that some situations are related to public safety or traffic. Additionally, some of the existing sidewalk segments are small, and portions are being removed for utilities. If there is not a public safety issue, and the decision is made to not construct the gap, then the city should take out the whole sidewalk, unless there is a request from residents to leave it in. Councilmember Sanger added this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Sullivan agreed these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis Councilmember Sanger noted that tall retaining walls can also be an issue for consideration. She added that these areas can create a safety concern where there is a drop-off and nowhere to place shoveled snow. Councilmember Lindberg agreed with Councilmember Sanger that there are situations where the status quo option makes most sense, but there are other situations that should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Brausen stated there is no need for sidewalks on both sides of the street. This will also be a cost savings, especially now when the city will be spending money on a water treatment plant, as well. Councilmember Mavity stated staff is looking for guidelines or guidance here. She suggested the city trend toward walkability when there is a choice and move toward pedestrian safety whenever possible. She added in some situations there are cost or safety concerns where moving more toward walkability will not be the choice. Councilmember Hallfin agreed with Councilmember Brausen stating if there is a full sidewalk on the other side of the street, then it is not needed on both sides. He also agreed the city is building a system, but each project is situational. Councilmember Lindberg agreed with Councilmembers Brausen and Hallfin and stated if it makes sense and there is a synergy in making connections, then the gap should be filled. He added this can be reviewed during the upcoming visioning process as well. Mr. Harmening asked if it would be helpful if staff made a proposal to the council for all these blocks and segments versus going through the blocks matrix section by section. Councilmember Mavity stated that this would help council, especially for the upcoming study session in January. Councilmember Lindberg agreed and asked staff to come back with recommendations for council to review and decide upon. Ms. Heiser stated staff will put together recommendations for the individual sidewalk segments and bring them back to council with metrics for review. Councilmember Mavity said that when staff brings back the report, it would also be helpful to know if and when folks are expected to walk in the street versus on a sidewalk. 5. Boards and Commissions Annual Appointment Process Study Session Minutes -8- December 12, 2016 Ms. Deno discussed the plan for the annual appointment process of boards and commissions. All commissioners will complete new applications. The council will screen the applicants and tell staff who they would like to interview. Councilmember Sanger stated the interviews should not take place on Saturdays or at least not only on Saturdays. She preferred they be conducted over two Mondays, prior to study sessions. Councilmember Mavity asked staff to provide interview questions that are informative and more specific. She also suggested minimizing the number of people interviewed and asked that candidates bring more information about why they are the best candidate, such as if they possess unique assets, skills, or perspectives to bring to a commission. Councilmember Miller stated the scoring table also needs improvement and to be streamlined. He added there needs to be fewer data points on the scoring table. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the council needs to clearly establish and articulate expectations of our commission members. He added that the council also needs to establish an actual process by which real work plans are completed and to provide clarity on roles of boards and commissions. Councilmember Lindberg added commissions are advisory and useful; however, some of the benefits of the commissions have been lost because the council has not set expectations. Councilmember Brausen asked about Planning Commission and this application process. Ms. Deno noted the Planning Commission will be treated the same. Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Lindberg that the council needs to define the mission of each commission, the process in giving assignments, and how the commission reports back to the council. Councilmember Mavity asked how vacancies are handled and if applications are held by staff to refer back to if needed at a later date. She prefers a more automatic process for filling vacancies on commissions. Mayor Spano added it would be beneficial to have three alternates for each commission, so as to have commissioners in place to fill out a term, if needed. Ms. Deno stated staff would implement council's recommendations into the 2017 process and thanked the council for their input. 6. Vision Steering Committee Appointments Ms. McMonigal and Ms. Larson presented. They explained the Vision Steering Committee will serve as a liaison between the community and the council throughout the vision process. Steering Committee members are ideally visionary, entrepreneurial, and innovative in approaching the future. They are able to think outside the box, and positively about the future of St. Louis Park. The council asked that the Steering Committee include a diverse group of individuals representing a range of demographics and sectors in the city. Ms. McMonigal added that the Con m mications and Outreach Committee identified potential Steering Committee members, and the council also suggested additional potential members. Study Session Minutes -9- December 12, 2016 Invitations were sent asking individuals to submit a "Statement of Interest," and 23 statements were received. The council was presented with the list of names and affiliations of the applicants, as well as a map showing the neighborhoods/wards of the applicants. Ms. McMonigal stated that the Communications and Outreach Committee recommends that the Council choose nine members, with two members from each ward in order to provide a geographical distribution and representation of different areas within the community, plus one youth member. The applicants are evenly distributed by gender, and sectors represented include neighborhood leaders, schools, business owners, faith communities, recreation, health, arts, and multi -family housing. Many applicants have been volunteers for the city. Councilmember Hallfin asked to see the list of usual suspects, and if there is no list, he asked council and staff to stop referring to the term "list of usual subjects." He also noted there are many people across all four wards on the list, and staff should get suggestions on potential applicants from ward residents, as well. Councilmember Mavity stated the council needs to review the list, then take a step back and review again in order to create balance. Councilmember Sanger added it would be fine to pick two members from her ward; however, some of the strongest candidates do not live in her ward, so one person could come from her ward, and three from another ward. Councilmember Miller added he would like to present someone who is not from his ward Mayor Spann stated he is more interested in looking at the candidate's background and experience, and what folks are bringing to the table. He suggested that each councilmember weigh in on their preferred candidates, find those in common, and then add others. The councilmembers discussed each of their own choices for members of the Steering Committee. Each councilmember recommended people from their ward and others they preferred from the list of prospects presented by staff. The council agreed on the following members for the Vision Steering Committee: Lynette, Matt, Amaya, Justin, Rachel, Lisa, George, Julie, and Curt. Mayor Spano also noted he had met with Katherine Arnold, the chair of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), about the visioning process. Ms. Arnold noted the HRC feels they have not been part of the process to develop the Steering Committee. Councilmember Mavity stated that while the Steering Committee will be important to the visioning process, the HRC should be aware that their commission members can have an impact on this process by being facilitators and trainers. She added this process needs the HRC at the table to assist in having robust conversations. Mayor Spano agreed the HRC needs to be part of this process and added the council will meet with all of the city's commissions in January. Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) Study Session Minutes -10- December 12, 2016 Councilmember Mavity noted she recently attended the Allies of St. Louis Park meeting where great table conversations occurred about making sure people feel welcome to the city. She added that she read the city's preamble at the meeting, which speaks to the rights of citizens, noting it would be positive to add this to the city's website also. Councilmember Mavity also stated she would like to bring the resolution forward as soon as possible, making sure people feel welcome in the city. The council agreed to present it at the December 19th council meeting. Councilmember Hallfin, however, did not think the resolution should be brought forward at all. Councilmember Sanger added the charter commission should review the preamble as it relates to immigration. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 7. History of Housing Code Research and Zoning Amendments 2006-2016 8. Financial Management Policies Update 9. Follow up: Preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) 10. Public Art Programs/Contributions 11. Update on 4900 Excelsior Purchase and Redevelopment Contract 12. Wooddale Bridge Improvements C 4 l?,lis, Kenne y, City Clerk Spa ayor