The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022 05-17 CC PACKETCITY OF GEM LAKE Heritage Hall i 4200 Otter Lake Road j Gem Lake, MN 55110 65.1-747-27.90 9.21651-747-2795 (fax) - E-Mail cit @'gememlakemn.arg City Council.Meeting -May 17, 2022 Call to Order of City Couneil.Mleeting By Mayor Artig-Swomlcy at 7: P.M. Call of Roll Artig-Swomiey Cacioppo -Hynes-Amke' Johnson Lindner Others in Attendance: Sign-up:Sheet Agenda ■ Accept the Agenda for•tbe-May 17, 2022'CityCouncil -XCC - • Approve the Minutes from Alxil 19, 2022: City. CouncilMeeting Committee Repoirts oid Business •. Planning Cotfiniissiotr .• Newsletter ideas Now Business 4 Special Presentation: Joint Meeting — City Council and Planning.ComriiiWod: 2020 Comptdwngive Plan — Nate. Sparks. • Luther Cadillac Project —Project Update / Developers Agreement .• Gem Luke Infrastructure Issues o. Water Study — Justin Gese o Minnesota Department. of Health Water Gremlin. Report bi Stormwater Discharge and Pipeline License Update. —. Patrick Kelly o Septic System Education Campaign o Facilities.Reporf.Energy Consumption —J.im Lindner r Irdernal•Management o • League of Minnesota Cities Training • City Wide Clean Up Event May 21 Planning • Discussion. of County RoadECorridor Study.C..ontribution/•Pardcipatidn • Public Worksond White .Bear TownshipJPA.Amendment•/Working:ReIationship • Charitable Gambling Donations o Resolution #2022-0011 M1iy. 2022 Donation to Waite Bear Lake Area Food Shelf • Gem Lake Scholarship. Award o Resolution 112022-0012 Tahgwall Scholarship Award • . Beyond the Yellow Ribbon — Suburban Ramsey County Network o• resolution.#2022-M] 3 In Support. of Beyond the Yellow Ribbon • Proposed City of Gem Lake Facebook and Social Media Policy o Metropolko.Council Purple Line Update • Cothmunity Outreach:to.Other Cities and. Government Bodies • Claims • Monthly Financial Reports • Presentations from the Public, 2 minutes maximum • Open.ltems for Council Members to Bring Up Future-CQdacil Meetings. • Next City Council MeetinX TuOday June 21, 2022 { • Next City Council Workshop, -Monday June 1 O, 2022 -'CANCELED. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at City of Gem Lake City Council Meeting — April 19; 2022 Meeting. Minutes Mayor. Gretchen Artig=S.womlBy called the meeting to order at 7.00. p:m..Councilmembers .Len Cacioppo, Laurel. Amlee,Bien Johnson -and Jim Lindner were.prewnt. Also present:.City Attorney Patrick Kelly, Acting .City Clerk Melissa Lawrence, Building Official. Mike Johnson, Landform:Principal S.teye Sabraski,..Luther Auto Representative Linda McGinty; Ramsey County.Attorney John Choi, Ramsey -County representative Mark Haaset County Road. Corridor representative Tracy Shimek, and residents Jim: Wilson, Kathy .Rafferty and Cindy.Saruggs. April 19, 2022 Agenda A -notion was made by Councilmember Linder to accept the agenda, seconded by Councilmember Caioppo. Voice vote.taken, .a..11 voted. yes, motion .passes, agenda accepted. Minutes A motion was. made by Councilmember Lindner; seconded by Councilmember Amlee w approve the March 15, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes. Voice vote taken; four voted..yes; .Councilmember Cacioppo abstains, motion passes, minutes approved. A motion was made by Councilmember Lindner, s cohded by Councilmember Cacioppo to. accept Aie.Aprii 12, 2- 6A Planning Commission Meeti. ng Minutes. Voicavote taken, all voted :yes, motion,passes, minutes accepted. Committee Reports— Planning Commission Three public hearings were held to discuss the Luther Cadillac Project of 3516 Highway 61 which included a Valiance, CUP, .and Zoning:application..The Commission is recommending approval to the City Council based on the conditions 1br each -application recommended by City Planner Evan Monson. These conditions .can be found on the attached StaffReportfrom the City Planner. Some concerns that came no during.tht meeting involved the park dedication. fce and the amount thetwou1:41a collected from Luther..ArWher concern was that the construction vehicles needed a way to enter.the..property and want to use Hoffman Road -until a route offHighway 61 becomes available. The concern for this was the damage that it could cause to the public roadway, but Luther is:willing to make any repairs where necessary. Each of these issues is being. worked oa and will be resolved shortly. Old Business Mayor Artig-Swomley presented ideas for the next edition of the City.Newsletter to include pieccssuch as information on the Luther Cadillac project, septic education, the City clean-up, new public works relationship and the corridor study. New Business. Special Presentation: Ramsey County Attorney John. Choi Ramsey County Attorney John Choi gave a presentation.td'the Council and those inattendance on Public-Safd$-in Ramsey*County. It included information on adult and youth cases in regards to. motor vehicle thefts and aggravated. robbery cases and adult.cases, in regards to.simple =obbery:cases, possession.ofammo/firearm cases, and drugs -- 5's degmv.caws. It.also. included informadowon non-public safety tratffic stops. Ramsey County has formed a violence induction leadership.group which. was used towards: focused deterrence and a Carjacking &Auto Theft Team (CAT Team). Councilmember Cacioppo asked if -there was a standard for reporting violent:crimes to the FBI, to. which Mr. Choi replied -yes. Ife-also asked if it could.be known if the. amount of guns .being sold are being sold legally orillegally to which Mr. Choi replied that.more-gunshave been sold legally. His. last question was asking:if the carjackings that are happeningAre a ring or if they we-randpm.groups doing it. City ofGem Lake City Council Meeting M'mutaUnch 1•5, 2027 1.1 P a. g .e Councilmember Lindner asked About -the infot'matidh oaf the presentation wheie itshowed case referrals and charge rates, but wondered if there was a conviction •iate to which Mr. Choi replied there was, it just isn't represented on the report. Councilmember Johnson asked. how the officers. decide.to charge for drug cases and referrals to which Mr.. Choi. replied that be. leaves it up to tbq.offcers to come up with solutions or ways to approach it. Luther. Cadillac Project Luther Automotive it looking to build anew -dealership on a site. that straddles two municipalities. One.parcel for the site is located in Gem Lake at 3516 Highway 6.1, which is east of Highway 61 on the southeast sido of the city, while the other two adjacent parcels are located in Vadnais Heights. The Gem Lake portion of the prpject Would include. parking; landscaping, and a future` frontage mad with a cul-de-sac. The. portions ofthe site within Vadnos-Heights would have the showroom building and.parking.. The proposal requires. multiple zoning approvals. The use of the site is apermitted use within the city of Vadnais Heights; uses permitted in adjacent municipalities are able. to be.pettnitied in Gem Lake Aira•conditional use permit (CUP):.The project will also require variances to zoning requiretiients, ddd.to the setbacks ofthe parking facilities 'ftm the south lot line: The:south lot line is the municipal .boundary with VadnaisHt ights, The plat of the site also requires approval from the city. The project originally went through review and approval through the city in:2019. Some unexpected delays, and the COV117-:19 pandem'ic,. put the project on.hold. The city's approvals from 2019 have.since expired, so the applicant is now restarting the approval. process with the city. The applicant recently received approvals from the city.•of Vadnais Heights attheir March 1st -council meeting. The applicant has made some minor revisions to.the projeet•platis compared to thogtL that weie'approved in 2019,.tn6st of which are on the portion of the, site within Vadnais Heights. Conditional Use Perrbit for Luther Cadillac See attached staff report from City Planner Evan Monson Variance for Luther -Cadillac See attached staffreport from City Planner Evan Monson Zoning for Luther Cadillac ;See attached staffrepor•t from City Planner Evan. Uonson The Council .briefly discussed the project and Mayor.Artig-Swomley ttated-that the development agreement.is being finalized between the.City Attorney Patrick Kelly and LutherCadillac's Attorney,.which will address the park: dedication and entry location for -construction vehicles. Councilmember Lindner introduced a motion to approve the Variance based on'the four recom' Mendaiions suggested by .City Planner Evan•Monson,seconded by-Councilmember Cacioppo. Voic Vote taken'$ all voted•yeis, Motion, passes, Variance request is approved. (See'attached Staff Report) Councilmember Lindner;introduced a motion to approve the Conditional Use:Permit (CUP) based on.the five recommendations suggested by City.. Planner Evan. Monson, seconded by Councilmember Cacioppo. Voice vote taken, all voted yes, motion -passes, Conditional Use Permit is approved. (See attached: Staff Report) Councilrineniber Lindner introduced a.motion to approve th6Zoning Minor Subdivision Plat based on the two recommendations suggested -by City Planner Evan Morison, secondod by Councili nambee Cacioppo. Voice vote.. taken, all voted •yes, motion posses; zoning request is approved. (See attached Staff deport) CafGem6 ngCcl.Mi2 I•P•a g e' Gem Lake. Infrastructure Issues Water Study/Wel[: Situation Update City Engineer Justin Gese. submitted phase and it. will be discussed at•tW May':meeting. Mayor Artig- Swomleyshared that the MPCA that testing ofsome private wells -in Gem Lake will.be ongoing throughout the 2022 year. Stormwater Discharge:and Pipeline License Update — Patrick Kelly City Attorney Patrick Kelly and the railroad company were able to come to an agreement on theinsurance portlori of -the cotitractto allow it to fall under the City's current insurance .with the League of Minnesota Cities. Additiotial terms•are being adjusted and City Attorney is waiting on the railroad to:get back to -him Septic. Discussion Mayor Artig-Swomley discussed some of the concerns. regarding the current Annual Septic Maintenance Inspection process. Several residents were concerned that they were being told their inspection was satisfactory, but the inspector never actually got to look at the tank because: the access point was buried underground and not accessible at the time of the inspection. A tab will be created on the City's website page to include some information whathome.owners.should expect during the inspections and approximately when they would .take place: A handout from the University ofMinnesota Extension will also be published on the website. Also discussed was.the:two ordinanc¢s thatthe. City has on -septic information: MoyorArtig-Swornley suggested•that.*Ordinance•No. [08 and..Ordinance. No. *070Aould be combined into one, Councilmember Lindner introduced a.motion to combine the two Ordinances.into one by adding No. 108 into No. 6-M. seconded by Counciimember .Cacioppo. Voice vote taken, all voted. yes, motion passes; the two Ordinances will be combined•into one. Facilities Report Energy Consumption —Jain Lindner . Counciltriember Lindner asked to table this report until the May meeting. due to the. packed agenda for April. Mayor•Artig-Swomley agreedthatthis would be.a good idea. Councilmember Lindner. introduced a motion to:table this. discussion. until the May council:.meeting,seeonded by Councilmember Cacioppo. Voice vote taken, all voted.yes, motion passes, .report -is tabled. Internal Management Employee Rightfo Know: Chetnieals in.the Workplace -Jim Lindner CouncilmemborLindner wentover the research that he did and•the•cfftdotr:ofthe hazardous materials inventorylist. Councilmember Lindner wants to have a polity in place to make the City compliant and would like all -the paperwork to be -put into a 3=ring binder. Councilmember Lindner introduced a motion to apeept the.general compliance policy; seconded by Councilmember. Cacioppo. Voice: vote taken, all voted yes,•motJon.passes,.policy accepted,. City -Wide Clean Up Event May 21 Planning The City will be holding a city -.wide clean-up event dh Saturday May2I, 2022 from 9.:00 a.m. --Noon. The City will supply those who.cothe to participate with industrial strength garbage.bags. These trash bags can be dropped. off in the Heritage.Hall parking: lot :at the conclusion of the event. Atnoon.hotdogs, chips and: soda will be. served.to celebrate the conclusion of the event. The City is. also holding a "trash to treasure" event that day. Items that you have been looking to get rid -of can be -put at ihe-bottom of driveways with a "FREE" sign. It is the homeowner's responsibility to.bring the items backup;dt thb. end ofthe dtikifthey have not.been taken. This even will run from 9:00 a.m. —4:00 p.m. Diseussion of County Road E Corridor Study Tracy Stiimek,.County Road E. Corridor Study representative shared a little. about the study. LI.SC's Curridar Development Initiative (CD1)pMcess offers a.prowdye and interactive way for communities to guide -development (r along major corridors and.on.key opportunity:s[tes. This hands-on. experience allows participants to, 1, C'ityofGem Lake City Council Meeting Minutes March.I Si 2622 31 P a g e Better understand: the fadiam (financial,. landuse, design,:etc)-tliat inform development, Learn how:to Ieverage cotnmtinity goals and values through redevelopment and infrastructure investments, and Build community consensus to guide. future development for selected sites. The CDI process will facilitate a series of community workshops designed to build consensus around a County. Road E Cotxidor:Action Plan (Centerville Road to Century Avenue), to include recommended guidelines for the redevelopment of 3 — 5 key opportunity sites. The process wii11 be led by a Project Team.;. a: Citizen Advisory Group, grid 5- 6 community workshops that are open -to the public over -a &Ufmonth period. The study is. requesting that .Gem Lake- put$6,Q00 towards the. project. Gem Lake. City Counci l is-contorhbd:with the amount of money being requested As the city's budget and population is much smaller compared to VadnaisHeights and White Bear Lake. Mayor Artig Swomleyhod it coupla questions:that included when the motay.would.be.due, if it could,be: accepted iri the. following year when it.can.be.budgeted for or of the City can be presented with a different price point. Therepresentative the study that came to.speak will look into these questions and get back .to the Mayor -with. an answer. Councilmember Johnson iiittboduced a motion to touch back -on this topic when the:.requests of the.Counbiil can be answered,-t6do;ided byCouncilmernber Cacioppo. Voice: vote taken; all'voted yes,,motion:passes;`this'study will be revisited ouoe'the requests have bee.n.addressed, with.the.study group;.. Public Works :and White Bear Township. Rate Discussion Arate structure. was presented to the Mayor for White Bear Township Wtake overall Public Works duties for Gem Laker at. a cost of $80.00 per hour. Public Works Director Dale Reed will be the main point of conlackand the City will work with.Pat Christopherson of White Bear Township on the flow of services. Public Works is currently lodMng for summer help which will be used for this new relationship. Resolution.#2022-0010 was cPeated amending Resolution #2022-002. to: include.: the. rate.for'Publio Works. The motion for adoption of tbe*foregbing Resolution. was duly tit#toduced byCouncilmerttber Lindner and- seconded by CounciImember Cacioppo,.an4 upon vote being taken-thereon,:tlie.Resolutiott passed vyi*-a vote g0jm.favor and 0 against, Charitable.. Gambling Donations. Resolution #2022-006 April 2022 Donation to White Bear Lake .Area Food Shelf The Cityof Gem Lake requested..a donation in: the amount of $500.00 to the White Benr Lake Area Food Shell: The motion for.adoption of the:foregoing Resolution was duly introduced by .Councilmember Lindner and seconded by CouncilMember Cacioppo, and upon vote being taken thereon, the resolution passed with a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against: Resolutions #2022-007.April2022 Donation to Newtrax The City of Getty Ldke_'requested•a.ddnatiotn ih the amount of.$500.00 to Newtrax. The:motion for adoption -of the' foregoing Resolution was duly introduced by Counciimember Lindner and. sec . onded by Cgpncilniember Cacioppo, and upon vote being taken. thereon, the resolution passed with a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. GentLAke Scholarship Award litesolntion #2022-008 VarleyScholarship Award The City of Gem Lake received a. scholarship application-frQnra:soon to be. high school graduate resident OwenvVarley. The City Treasurer is. authorized to issue;a.check.to Saint John's University in tbe.amount of $1:,000, through the Gem Cake Scholarship .Program; which is fumded;by charitable gambling receipts. ' City of Gem Lae CaiuciI Meeting Minutes March 15, 20..22 4 l P a..g`e N The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution leas duly introduced by Councilmember Lindner and seconded by Councilmember Cacioppo, and upon vote being taken thereon; the resolution passed with a vote of 5 in favor and.-.0•4gainst. Discussion on Prevailing Wage — Patrick .Kelly City Attorney.Patrick Kelly feluthat it is in the City's best:interest to adopt a Resolution and Ordinance regarding prevailing wage, as detailed below. Resolution #2022-009 Prevailing Wage Rate/Ordinance No. 137. .It is.inthe.public interest that public buildings and other public works be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality of labor:reasonably available and. that..persons working. under contract on public works be cotnpettsated according to -the real value of the services they performAt is, therefore, the: policy of the City of Gem. Lake. that wages of. laborers, workers, and methahics on contracted projects finances.whole by the Gity.funds should 8e contpara6le to wages.paid for.similar work in the community as a whol0: The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced by Councilmember Lindner and seconded by Councilmember Cacioppo,. and upon vote being takeft thereon, the Resolution passed. with a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. Councilmember Lindner introduced a -motion for adoption of Ordinaircb.No. f37 on Prevailing Wage Rates for the City of G* M* t Lako;wconded by Councilmember Cacioppo: Voice vote taken, all voted yes, motion passes, Oxdinance No. 8.1 has been. adopted: Proposed Transition to Ctileridai' Year Licenses.f6r Contractor's, Dog and Chicken Licenses To stay consistent with other licenses granted by the City of Gem Lake.itwas suggested that all: City-licerises transition to -a calendar year license: The. current renewal forms being sent out to residents for.dog, chiokenAnd.golf cart licenses will havedanguage stating that this. renewal will be.gobd for 18 months, good until December3l, 2023. Councilmember Liridner introduced a motion to change all :licensing in the% City.of Gem Lake.to be. renewed each caiendar.year beginning for January 2024.renewals, seconded by.C.ouneilmember Cacioppg, Voice vote taken, all voted yes, tnofion.passes, all licensingt Gem Lake will fall on a calendar year time frame. Community Outreach to Other Cities and Government Bodies. City Attorney Patrick Kelly is working on sending out a letter to Vadnais Heights for water billing at the Villas of Gem Like. RCt,LQ is holding a workshop on May 13. on vyorkforcetrends, A presentation will be-available.and those that wish to attegd should -contact Councilmember Johnson: A workshop was he.ld.in early April on.mental. health from pandemic to pandemic. Claims. CbuncitnreinWr Lin tinei. made,a motioa.to-piiythe-bills, seconded by Cotiriailmember Cacioppo Voice vote taken, all voted*yes, motion passes, and.bift will be:paid. Monthly Financial Report Februaryfnancials were submitted for: review.Na.quesdons from City Council.. Presentations from the public, 2 minutes maximum Residents in attendance had no: comments or questions. Open•Items for Council Members :to: Bring Up. City Attorney Patrick.Kelly wanted to make sure that the motion that was brought. up earlier in.the .meeting included approval of Luther based ott the staff report. recommendations. Mayor.Artig-Swomley confirmed that itwas based on the recommendations; City 4 Gem. take City Cottoail MattngMmutes March' if 2622 5 l ii a s e Councilmember Lindner b'rought:up thrtats-td. other cities .C.ouficil Members and was curious if.Gem Lokb*should adopt an Ordinance to help. proteQt.eleeted officials. The Ordinance would dictate.i; ere-peoplo'can picket -and protest: Councilmember Lindnerwill.look into an Ordinance and .will bring to the:.nekt.meeting to*share. Councilmember Cacioppo informed the Council that. he. will .not be-ablet o. attend. the October 19, 2022 City Council. meeting; He will also -be attendinLie.meting.onghAprl 29, 2022. Mayor Artig-Swomiley reminded the Council.that.at t'he May meetinj it joint discussion with the Planning Commission will take place on the.Compreh6siv6-Plati and. that t3 Ramsey County Emergency Services Coordinator will be coming to speak at the. June :Council WetiM although no. representative has y0t*been confirmed as a speaker. She aiso:shared that.the laptops'*have arrived for Gem Lake and tharthe.City Clerk.is going:to work on putting.together a Facebook page for the -City to be able to more quickly address emergency situations and special events. Performance Review/Pay Discussion —Closed Meeting Council Only City Council asked the public to exit fora -closed meeting.. Once the public had left. Councilmember-Lin&er. introduced -a motion to open the closed session for a performance review/pay discussion t t 860 p:m.,;seconded by Councilmember CaeiQppo. Voice vote'taken, all voted yes, motionpas$m closed meeting isin session. Council discussed.;a.pay.raise for the Acting City Clerk Melissa Lawrence. Annual performance. was disoussed:and a raise was.suggested based on the last.year's performance and impending:graduation from college. Council suggested a,S5,00 raise to cover.the.WuRl raise and graduation, which would be retroactive back to April 1, 2022. Councilmember Lindner.'ilitroduceda motion to approve a wage increase for Acting City Clerk Melissa Lawrence retroactively to April 1, 2022, seconded by*Councilmember Cacioppo. Voice vote taken, *all voted yegi motion. passes, wage increase approved retroactively to April 1., 2022.: Councilmember Lindner introduced a motion to.close the closed session for performance review/pay discussion at 8;59 p.m., seconded by Councilmember.Cacinppa. Vbice.vote taken, all voted yes, motion passes. Future Council Meetings City. Council, Tuesday May 17,:2022, Workshop, -`Monday May 9, 2022 CANCELED. Adjournmoiat. Being there. no further business, following a motion from Councilmember Lindner,. seconded by Councilmember Cacioppo, the meeting adjotuod at 9:00 p.m. Respec f rlly submitted, Melissa Lawrence CityofGem Lake;CityCioimci Meeting Minute6 Match 15,=2 6,j P a g e* METROPOLITAN C.'0 U N C I L April 13, 2022 Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner City of Gem Lake 4150 Olson Memorial Hwy #320 Golden Valley, MN 55422 RE: City of Gem Lake 20.40 Comprehensive Plan — Complete for Review Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22063-1 Metropolitan Council District 11 Dear Nate Sparks: Thank.you for sending additional information regarding the City of Gem Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Metro politan.CounciI originally received the Ciity's 2040 Comprehensive Plan on December 24, 2020 and found it incomplete for review on February 3, 2021. The most recent submission of supplemental information was received by the Council on March 24, 2022. Council staff now finds the Plan complete for review. In accordance with state law, the Council has 120 days, or.by Friday; July 22, 2022, to complete its formal review of the Plan. Review.of the 2040 Plan is scheduled as follows: 1. Environment Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2. Community Development Committee (CDC) on Monday, May 16, 2022 3. Metropolitan Council on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 The Plan will be reviewed by the CDC, the Environment Committee; and then. the Metropolitan Council for final review, as indicated above. A copy of the draft report will be forwarded to you foryour information when the report is mailed out to the CDC. You and any other community representatives are invited to attend the CDC meeting in order to answer questions and help Council members understand the matter from the community's perspective. if you have any questions regarding the. review please. contact Jake Reilly, Principal Reviewer, at 65.1-6.02-18.22 orvia email at jake..reilly@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela, R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Melissa.Lawrence, Acting City Clerk Susan Vento, Metropolitan Council District 11 Jake Reilly.; Sector Representative/Principal.Reviewer Reviews:Coordinator N:iCommi)evfLPAlCommunitieslGemLakelLetterslGemLake 2022 2040 CPU Complete 22063.1.tfoo w.........._.._.-...._......._... _...:_........-_....•..,........._-..-..._......_....-..-.............-...--......................................-............._.-......._..._...._....._..............--...._....._•.......-.--..........-........_......._...-..... Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) MO Robert Street ,North; Saint Paul, MN 55 t 01.=18g5 P 651.662.1000 I F 651;6.02.1560 I TTY651.291,0904 me.tro.council.org An Equal Opportunity Employer I DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.FblA SINGLE-PHASE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP TFHS AGREEMENT, made and entered.into on the' 17 day of May , 2022,. by and between the CITY OF Gcm Lake, a: municipality of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter called the, CITY), and. The Luther Company, LLLP (hereinafter identified as the OWNER. and DEVELOPER). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER. has- applied. to tiie. *CITY fot approval. of the CONDITIONAL USE PHRMIT WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has applied to the CITY for approval of the DEVELOPMENT PLANS with the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; WHEREAS, in conjunction with the granting of these approvals, the CITY requires the. installation and/or availability public streets; and Public Utilities (Water); WHEREAS, under authority granted to it, including Minnesota Statutes chapters 412, .429, and*462, thc: COUNCIL has agreed to approve the CUP and DEVELOPMENT PLANS oil the. following. conditions: 1, That the 'DEVELOPER enter into this: DEV-FLOPMENT CONTRACT; which. contract def nes the work which the DEVELOPER undertakes to.. complete-, and ,_.... ,;2 .:..... The DEVELOPER shall provide an. irrevocable letter of credit, or cash deposit, in ths-amount.and with conditions satisfactory -to -the CITYk providing forthe-actual construction and instaila Qn of such improvements within the period specified by the CITY: 'Vie WUAS, the DEVELOPER has filed four (4) complete sets of the DEVELOPMENT FLANS with the CIT''Y; WHEREAS, the DEVELOPMENT PLANS have beep prepared by a registered Professional engineer and have been submitted to and approved by the CITY ENGINEER. NOW, THEREFORE, subject. to: the. terms and conditions of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and covenants of*the parties herein contained, the CITY, OWNER and DEVELOPER agree as follows; ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 TERMS, The following terms, unless elsewhere defined specifically in the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, shall have the following meanings as set forth below. L2 CITY. "CITY" means: the City of eem Lake, a Minnesota municipal corporation. 11 DEVELOPER. "DEVELOPER" means. The Luth".eCompany, LLLP a Minnesota liifnited-liability., limited pagnership. iA OWNER, "OWNER" means The. Luther Company., LLLP, a. Minnesota limited liability, limited partnership. 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. "CUP" means Conditional Use Permit ` approved by the City for the property .comprisingthe real property located in Clem Lake; Rwrisey County, Minnesota and legally described-iin Exhibit D1. S 1.6 DEVELOPMENT PLANS. "DEVELOPMENT PLANS" .means all the plans, drawings, specifications, and surveys identified and checked on the attached Exhibit D2, and. hereby incorpo, a*d by.reference and made apart of this DEVEWPMENT-CONTRACT.. 1.7. DEVELOPY[ENTtONTRACT. `DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT" means this contiract by -and among.the. CITY,bWNER, and DEVELOPER. M ' 1.8 COUNM. "COUNCIL" means-tlie.Council of the City of Gem: Lake. 1.9 CITY ENGINEER. ""CITY ENGINEER" means the CITY ENGINEER. of -the Pity -of GeriLalfa. 1.10 COUNTY. "COUNTY" means Ramsey County, Minnesota. 1A1 - OTHER - REGULATORY AGENCIES. "OTHER. RECI[JLATORY AGENCIES" means. and. includes, individually and collectively, the following: .a.) Minnesota Department of Transportation; b;) Ramsey County; c..) Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District; 4.) 1l el VQpolitan Council; and e.) City of Vadnais Heights 2 �' f.) any other regulatory or governmental agency or entity affected by, or having jurisdiction over the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS:. 1.12 UTILITY COMPANIES. "UTILITY COMPANIES" means.:and ind4des, jointiy and severally,. the Mowing: a.) utility companies; including electric, gas,. and cable; and b.) pipeline companies. 1.13 PRIOR EASEMENT HOLDERS. "PRIOR EASEM9NT I30LDERS means and hcludes, jointly and severally, all. holders of any easements ot'. other ptoperty interests which existed prior to -the grant or dedication of any public easements transferred pursuant to this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, 1.14. DEVELOPER iMPROVEMI;NTS. "DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS" means and includes, individually and colllectively, all the improvements identified in,Atilele 4 and on the attached. Exhibit..D3. 1.15 MY 1MOROVEMENTS. `UT'Y IMPROVEMENTS" means and includes, individually and collectively, all the irr►piovooht� identified iirt-this Agreement, of which there are none, L16. DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEN"T. -S. "D.EVELOPER. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS" moans and includes,. individually and collectively; all the. improvements identified and checked.on the attached Exhibit D3 that are further labeled"public". DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS are improvements to be constru4ted by the. DEVEWPER wjthfn public right-of-way or public easements and which are to be approved and later accepted by the CITY. DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS are part of DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. 1.17 DEVELOPER DEFAULT. "DEVELOPER DEFAULT" means and includes, ,jointly and- severally, any of the following or any combination thereof: a.) failure by the DEVELOPER to timely pay.the-CITY �y money required to be paid undef-the DEVELOPMENT' CON' T. .C'ls; .b.) failure by the DEVELOPER 'to timely construct -the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS according: to the DEVELOPMENT PLANS -and -the CITY Oaftdai* and. speoifiaatibns;. e J failure by the DEVELOPER to obserrre of perform ally inateriial covenant, condition,-obliggion, or agreement under Na. 08V ELOPMENT CONTRACT; d.) :breach of the DEVELOP)K WARRANTIES. 3 1.18 FORCE MA.IEURE. "FORCEMA.IEURP' means acts of God, including, but not Iimited'to floods, lee storms, blizzards, tornadoes, landslides, lightning, and earthquakes (but not including reasonably anticipated weather conditions for the geographic area), riots, insurrections, labor strikes or"work stoppages, unavailability of essential materials, war or civil disorder affecting the performance of work, blockades; power or.other utility failures, and fires or explosions, 1..19 DEVELOPER WARRANTIES. "DEVELOPER WARRANTIES" .means that the DEVELOPER hereby warrants and represents the foilotiving: A. :AUTHORITY. DEVELOPER has the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, and no approvals or consents of any persons are necessary in connection with the authority of DEVELOPER to enter into and perform its obligations under this. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. B. NO DEFAULT. DEVELOPER is.not. in default under any lease, contract or'agreement to which it is a party or by which it is bound which would affect performance udder this DEVELOPMENT CGNTRACI'. DEVELOPED is not a party to or bound by any mortgage, Iien, lease; agreement, instrument, order, Judgment, or decree which would prohibit the execution or performance of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT by DEVELOPER or prohibit any of the: transactions provided for in this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. C. PRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. DEVELOPER has complied with and is not in violation of applicable federal, state,. or local statutes, laws, and regulations including, without limitation, permits and licenses, and any applicable zoning, environmental, or other. law, ordinance; or regulation materially affecting the CUP and the. DEVELOPMENT PLANS and the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; and DEVELOPER is. not aware of.any threatened. claim of any such violation. CONTINUING CO1tiIPLIANCE WITH LAWS: DEVELOPER will comply with. all applicable. federal, state, and local statutes, laws,, and regulations including, without limitation, permits and licenses and any applicable zoning, environmental, or other law, ordinance, or regulation affecting the CUP and the DEVELOPMENT PLANS and the. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. E. NO LITIGATION. There is no suit, action, arbitration, or legal, administrative, or other proceeding or governmental 'investigation pending, or threatened against or affecting DEVELOPER or the CUP or the DEVELOPMENT PLANS or the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. DEVELOPER is not in default. with respect to any order, writ, injunction, or decree of any federal, state, focal, or foreign court, department, agency, or instrumentality with. respect to the CUP. F. FULL DISCLOSURE. None of the .representatives arid warranties made by DEVELOPER or made in any exhibit hereto or memorandum or writing furnished or to 4 be furnished by DEVELOPER contains any untrue statement.of material factor omit any material faetthetimission ofwhich. would..be-misleading. G. CUP.COMPLIANCE, To DEVELOPER'S knowledge, the.CUP and the DEVELOPMENT PT;ANS comply with all Cl1"I'', COUNTY, metropolitan, state, and federal laws -and regulations, includit►g but not limited to; subdivision ordinarices,.zoning ordinances; and environmental regulations. CUP compliance shall include compliance -with variances that have been granted by the CITY aspartbfthedevelopment approvr l process.. H. WARRANTY ON PROPER WORK AND MATEAL2 14. The DIEVELOPER warrants all work required to be performed by it tinder this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT against. defective material and faulty workmanship for a period of two. (2) years 4fter- its completion and acceptance *by the CITY. The' DEVELOPER shall be solely-cesponsible for all costs of.perfbrming repair Work required by the CITY within thirty. (39) day±s of -notification. All trees, grass, and sod shall: be. warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free for one year after planting. My. replacements shall be similarly warranted for one year from the time of planting. The warranty period for street and drainage and erosion control Improvements shall be fortwo (2) years after completion and acceptance by the City; the warranty for the street, drainage, and erosion control improvements shall also include the obligation of the MVELO.PER to repair and correct any damage to or deficiency with respect to such improvements.. I, OBTAINING PERMITS, The bEVELOPER. shall obtain in a timely ~ manner and pay for all required permits, licenses, acid approvals, and shall meet, in a timely Manner, all requ'irehients of all applicable,.local, state, and federal laws and regulations Whiob must *be obtained or met before the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS may be 1awMly cohstructed. 1.20. OWNER WARRANTIES. "OWNER WARRANTIES" means that the OWNER herebyVareants: and represents`the following: A. AUTHORITY. OWNER has the right. power, legal capacity, and authority - : to enteir ihto and j)er%rni its obligations. under this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, and no appTovpls .or conse* of any:persQns.are. necessary hi connection -with the authority of. OWNER .to. enter into . and perform its obligationis under this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. M NO DEFAULT. OWNER is -.not in default under any lease, contract, or agreement to which jt is a party or by which -it is liourid which Would -affect perfoftance` under tliis:.QEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. 0".. is not a party -to or. baund *by any mortgage; lien, lease, agreement, instrument,. order,. judgment, or decree. which would prohlbifthe execution or Performance of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT by OWNER or prohibit arty of the.trM* sactionsprovidedfor ip this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: C. PRESENT CONTLI NCE WITH LAWS, OWNER.has complied with and is not in YiQlation. of applicable federal, state, or* local statutes, laws; and regulations 5 including, without limitation, permits and licenses and. any applicable zoning, environmental, or other law, ordinance or regulation affecting the CUP and the DEVELOPMENT PLANS and the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; and OWNER is not aware of any pending or threatened claitn of any such violation. D. NO LITIGATION. There is no. suit, action, arbitration, or legal, administrative, or other proceeding, or governmental. investigation pending or threatened against or affecting OWNER or the CUP; OWNER is not in default with respect to any order; writ, injunction or decree of any federal, state, local, or foreign court, department, agency or instrumentality with respect to the CUP. E. FULL DISCLOSURE. None of the representatives and warranties made by OWNER.or made. in any exhibit hereto.or memorandurn or writing furnished or. to be furnished by OWNER or on its behalf contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit any material fact the omission of which would be misleading. F. FEE TITLE. OWNER.owns fee title to all the land in the CUP. 1.21 CITY WARRANTIES. "CITY WARRANTIES" means that the CITY hereby. warrants and represents as follows:_ A. ORGANIZATION. CITY is a. municipal corporation duly incorporated and validly existing in good standing the laws of the State of Minnesota: B: AUTHORITY. CITY has. the right; power; legal capacity, and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT and approve the CUP. 1,22 PROPERTY, PROPERTY means the property comprising the real property. located in Gent Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota and legally described on Exhibit D 1. 1.23 FORMAL NOTICE, "FORMAL NOTICE" means. notices given by one party to the other if in writing and if and when delivered or tendered either in. person or by depositing it in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, by certified mail; return receipt requested, with postage arid: postal charges prepaid, addressed as. follows; If to CITY; City of Gem Lake Attention: Mayor and City Clerk 4200 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, MN. 55110 With.a Copy to: Kelly & Lemmans, P.A. Attention: Patrick J. Kelly 2350 Wycliff Street, Suite 20.0 St.-P-aul., MN..551 `14 ITW OWNER: C. David Luther or DEVELOPPER The Luther Company LLLP 3701 Alabama Avenue St, Louis Park, MN 5541:6. W-jth a copy to; Linda McGinty, VP Real Estate The. Luther Company LLLP 3701 Alabama Avenue St. Louis Park, MN. 55416 or to such other address as the party addressed shall have previously designated by notice given -hi accordance with this Section. Notices shall be deemed tb have been duly giyen on the date -of service if served .personally on the party to wham notice is to be -*given, or on the third day after mailing if mailed as provided above, provided that.a notice nbt'given is above shall, if it is in writing, be deemed given if and when actually received by- a*party. ARTICLE 2 CUP APPROVAL 2.1. CUP APPROVAL. Subject to the terms and. donditiosis- oflhis DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT; the recitals abbye, and all other applicable City. Code provisions, including Chapter V of the City Code, the CITY hereby approves the recording:of the CUP. The DEVELOPMENT PLANS are. hereby approved -by the CITY, ART3ICLE-3 CITY DWROVERENTS 3.1 CITY IMPROVEMENTS. The CITY is not obligated to construct any CITY IMPROVEMENTS. ARTICLE 4 DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. The. DEVELOPER shall install,_ at its. own cost; the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS in accordance with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS, The-0EVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS shall be completed by the dates shown on Exhibit D3, except46 completion dates are extended by subsequent written action ohhe CITY ENGINEER.* F iluce of the CITY to promptly take action to enforce this. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT after expiration.oftime by which the DEVELOPER IMY[PROVEIkIENTS are to be completed steals not waive-or-release.any rights of the. CITY; the CITY --may take action -at any time thereafter, and the. terms of this contract shall be deemed to be automatically extended until such time as the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS�are completed to the CITY's satisfaction. 4.2. STREETS. The. DEVELOPER shall :grade the.public streets -and other lands;go tstabl'ishad in.the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. If the DEVELOPER does not perforir this work 7 t i according to the DEVELOPMENT PLANS,. dr within the tirne frame required, the CITY may i complete all work required of the DEVELOPER uhder.a CITY.contract,.The DEVELOPER shall be. financially responsible for payment for this CM. work within thirty days of written billing by the CITY. 4;3 GRniIJiYD MATTRLA,L, The DEVELOPER shall ensure that adequate and. suitable ground material shall exist in the.areas of public street and utility improvements and shall guarantee t11e rerrt4val, replacement or repair of substandard or unstable material. The cost of said removal, replacement, or repair is the responsibility of the DEVELOPER. 4.4 GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN AND EASEMENTS. The DEVELOPER shall construct drainage facilities' adequate to serve the CUP -in accordance with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The -OWNER. and DEVELOPER agree io grantto the CITY all necessary easements far the preservation of the drainage system, for drainage basins and for utility service. All such easements required by the CITY shall bt on the C(J :or -In writing, in rec0rdabl6f6rm,:9nd on the standard easement form of the CITY, and on such other terms and conditions as the .CITZ.y shall determine; such easements shall be delivered to the CITY contemporaneously with. execution of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. The grading of the Site shall. be eompieted in conforrnance with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. In the event that the DEVELOPER fails to complete the grading of the site in conforfnance with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS by. the stipulated. date, the. CITY -may declare the DEVELOPER in default pursuant to Article 14. 4.5 ACCESS. It is understood .that the only access to the CUP is from the existing driveway off Hoffman Road and that access via this drivewa is ' y necessary ry 'in order tp commence i .> P9 of the CUP and installation of the. entrance to the CUP in the location oftlighway 61 and Willow. .Lake Boulevard. Developer shall limit its use of Hoffman Road for consavction vehicles tq tlitial mobilization. of no more than 12 construction vehicles over a two-day peripd. Once the construction of the fiigl7way 61 and Willow Lake Boulevard entrance is tomplete,--eonambtion vehicles shall enter and. exit the. CUP from that entrance 0*. Personal vehicles. including picltup truelc*;•;.ay access the CUP from the *existing driveway off Hoffinaii Road throughout 'construction.of�the CUP. This driveway shalf be removed at the conclusion of construction and the. area.landscaped as shown on the approved plans. Developer will get.all apprpvais required from the Minnesota Department of Transporta4iontp use the existing driveway to access the CUP from Hoffman Road; and will not park vehicles on the -Highway ¢1 right -of --way, including the .driveway, once the CUP has been sufficiently graded to allow on -site parting. 4.6 BOULEVARD AND AREA RESTORATION The DEVELOPER shall seed or lay cultured sod: in all boulevards wiihin'30 days of the completion of street related:. improvements. a.nd:r stare all. other..*aress disturbed 'by the development grading operation in Accordance with the - approved erosion. control plan, over the entire CUP.. Upon request of the CITY EIyOINEEIt, the DEVELOPER shall .remove the silt fences after grading and construction have occurred. Ftuihermore, the DEVELOPER shall. malntain reasonable access to any occupied;buildinp within the CUP, including necessary street maintenance such -as,grad ing,:graveling,.patchinp -arid sriaw removal prior to permanent :street surfacing. The DEVELOPER' agrees to -perform- and assume. all responsibilities relating to snow removal and ice control, The City of Geno Lake is not. responsible for any. maintenance including sweeping, plowing, patching, seal coating, etc. unti I the City extends the road in the future. 4.7 VEGETATION, The DEVELOPER shall comply with CITY ordinances related to preservation of vegetation and trees and specifically shall exercise reasonable efforts in residential areas to save mature,: undiseased trees and vegetation on the subject land which do not have to be removed foe.. reasonable installation of buildings;. streets; utilities, or drainage improvements, construction. activities related thereto, or site grading: Prior to any excavation, the. DEVELOPER shall mark trees that are to be saved with a red band prior to any excavation, and protect such trees by snow fences or other suitable enclosures. All diseased trees shall be removed :according to CITY ordinance requirements. 4.8 LANDSCAPING. Site landscaping: shall be in accordance with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. Within one (1) year -after occupancy, each lot shall have been either seeded or sodded as shown on the DEVELOPMENT PLANS, 4.9 EROSION CONTROL. The DEVELOPER shall provide and follow a plan for erosion control in accord. with the: Best Management Practices (BMP) as delineated in the Minnesota Pollution.Control Agency handbook.titled "Water Quality in Urban Areas." Such plan shall be detailed on the DEVELOPMENT PLANS and shall be subject to approval. of the CITY ENGINEER. The DEVELOPER shall install and maintain such erosion control structures as are depicted on the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The DEVELOPER shalt be responsible for all damage caused as the result of grading and excavation within the CUP including, but not limited to. restoration of existing control structures and. clean-up of public right-of-way, until all lots are final graded and improvements are completed. As a portion of the erosion control plan, the DEVELOPER shall re -seed or sod. any disturbed. areas in accordance With the DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The CITY reserves the. right to perform any necessary erosion control or restoration as required, it these requirements are .not complied with. after FORMAL NOTICE by the CITY as stated . Article 1.4. The DEVELOPER shall be financially responsible. for payment for this .extra work. ARTICLE 5 PARK CONTRIBUTION RE, QUIREMENTS. 5.1 PARK CONTRIBUTION. In lieu of a Park Contribution, Developer will make a. one-time contribution. to the City in the amount of $15,000 to be used by the. City for open space. and trail purposes. ARTICLE 6 OTIMR PERMITS 6.1 PERMITS. The DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary approvals, permits, and licenses from the CITY; the OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES, the UTILITY COMPANIES, and the PRIOR EASEMENT HOLDERS, Major design requirements of any such entities shall.be determined prior to completion and incorporated into the DEVELOPMENT PLANS, All costs incurred to obtain said approvals, permits, and licenses; and also all fines or'penalties levied by any agency. -due to the failure of the DEVELOPER to obtain or comply with. conditions of such approvals; permits and licenses, shall be paid by the. DEVELOPER. Thel)EVELOPER shall defend and hold the CITY harmless from .any action initiated by the OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES, Ithe UTILITY COMPANIES and. the PRIOR EASEMENT HOLDERS resulting from such'fedluros ofthe DEVELOPER. ARTICLE 7 OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 7.1 MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS. Any additional requirements to approval of the CUP and. DEVELOPMENT PLANS: as specified by the COUNCIL --are incorporated herein,, asset forth in ExhibitD4. ARTICLE 8 DEVELOPER PUBLIC: IMPROVEMENTS 8.1 APPROVAL -OFCONTRACTORS AND ENGINEER. Any contractor or engineer preparing pjarls. and specifications selected.�y the DEVELOPER to design, construct, or install any DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS must be approved in writing by the CITY ENGINEER. D.J. Franz Co:, Inc construction company is hereby approved. &2 CONSTRUCTION. The construction; installation, materials, and equipment related to DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS shall be in accord with the DEVELOPMENT PLANS, The DEVELOPER shall cause the contractors to fiimish: the CITY' ENGINEER it written schedule of proposed operations,: subcontractors. and material suppliers, at Yeast seven *(7) days prior to commencement of construction work. The DEVELOPER shalt notlfy the CITY in writing, coordiirate, and hold -a pre -construction conference with all affected parties .at lease th... .,(3),days prior to starting construction of any DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 8.3. INSPECTION.. The. CITY ENGINEER or its designated representative, shall periodically inspect the wank installed by the DEVELOPER, its contractors; subcontractors, -or # agents. The DEVELOPER shall notify the CITY ENGINEER two (2) working days prior to the commencement_ of the laying of utility lines; subgrade -preparation; the laying. of gravel base for. street construction,. or any other improvement work which shall. be subsequently buried or covered- to -allow the CITY an. opporturii:ty to.inspect such improvement work. Upon receipt of"said notice, the. CITY shall have a reasonable time;. not to be less than three (a) working days, -to I . ot� the ` improvements. Failure to notify the CITY to. allow it to inspect said work shall resultintho CITY's .right pursuant to Article IS to withhold the release of any portion of the security amount resulting fmm-work being performed without the opportunity.for adequate CITY inspection. .8.4 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. The DEVELOPER shall fully and faithfully comply with all terms:of any and all contracts entered into by the DEVELOPER for the installation and construction of all of the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMOR-bVEMENTS, and the DEVELOPER shall obtain lien waivers. Within thirty.(30) days after 14 FORMAL NOTICE,*the DEVELOPER agrees to repair or replace, as directed by the CITY and at the DEVELOPER!i sole cost and expense, any work or materials relating to DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS that within the warranty periods of Sections :138(H) become defective in the opinion of`the.. CITY. 8:5 CITY ACCEPTANCE. The. DEVELOPER. shall give FORMAL NOTICE to the CITY within thirty (30) Mays. once. DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROV WENTS have been completed in accord with. this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, CITY ordinances, and the DEVELOPMENT PLANS, The CITY shall then inspect the. pEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS and notify the DEVELOPER of any DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS that do not so conform. Upon compliance with this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, CITY ordinances,. and the DEVELOPMENT PLANS,. the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS shall become the property of the CITY' upon FORMAL NOTICE of Acceptance by the CITY. After acceptance, the: DEVELOPEK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS become the property of the CITY, and the DEVELOPER shall -have no responsiibility with respect to maintenance of the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. except as prgVided`1n* Sections 1:.19 and 10.1. If the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. do. not. conform, FORMAL NOTICE shall. be .given to idw DEVELOPER of fife need for repair' or replacement or; in its discretion, the CITY. may proceed-uiider.Artiale 1-4. 8.6 ENGINEERING SUBMITTALS REQUIRED. One (1) copy, or .polye%xt film, of the detailed.record. plan "as built drawings. of.the DEVELOPER PUBLIC INIPROVEMEI TS shall be provided by the DEVELOPER in accord with CITY standards no later than.90 days after edmpletion and acceptance of the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. by the C.ITX`, unless otherwise approved in. writing by the CITY ENGINEER. In addition; fallowing items -must* be provided: a.. Two ties to all curb boxes and main -line gate valves. b. All hydrant gate valves:tied back to the hydrant. c. All ties shall be 100 feet or less: d. Top nut elevation of all hydrants. e. Rim and Inert elevations on all manholes and catch basins. f. Apron invert elevations on all.flared end structures. g. Water service locations. h. As built grading plan containing spot elevatioq�prepared and signed by a registered engineer or registered land surveyor, in. an electronic format{see item i}. .i. Final as -built 'information. shall be submitted in an electronic format compatible with the .CITY'S Geographic Infonriation System ( - IS). All informmttion must be on the Ramsey IT County coordiiriates system. Compatible -formats are AUTOCAD 2000 ,DWG or .D7XF fles.on wmpact disk. as=built drawings., shall also be scanned and stared as images -in .TIFF files on oornpact disk. In.addition, the DEVELOPER must provide mapping-.1ftforniation required by the CITY in. accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 ,and 7819,41000. Such mapping information and drawings shall certify the as -built location of any equipment installed underground, Further, the DEVELOPER -must provide drawings -and mapping as to thews -built depth, length, and location of.all.servloes and service laterals. Services include: 1:) those services provided. by a public'utllity as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 21613.42, siibdivisions.4 and 6; 2.J services of a telecomm. unications right-af way user, including transporting of voice ..or data.: information; 34 -services of a cable. communications systems as defined in Minnesota Statutes chapter 238; 4,) natural gas. 6r electric energy or telecommunications services. provided by the CITE; 5.) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes chapter 308A;. and 6.) water and: sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling; or heating services. Service lateral means an underground facility. -that is used ta-transmit, distribute, or furnish .. gas electricity, communications, or water from a cothmonsburce to id-*bnd-use customer, A service . • lateral i& also an. underground facility that is used: in the removal of wastewater from a customer's premises. ARTICLE 9 RESPONSIBUATY FOR COSTS 9:1 DEVELOPER 11 WROVEIVIENT CORT. B. The DEVELOPER shall pay for the DEVELOPER IMOkOVEMENTS; that is, all `costs of persons doing work or furnishing stalls,. tools; machinei-y, or riiaterlals,.or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all just claims for the same; and the CITY shall be under no obligation to pay -the contractor or any subcontractor. any sum whatsoever-dn account thereof, whether or not the CITY shall have approved the contract ox:subcoritract; 9 2. CITY MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, The. DEVELOPER. shal l reimburse the CITY for all engineering, administrative, legal, and. other expenses incurred or to be incurred by. the CITY in connection With this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT; and CUP approval and acceptance and authorization of improvements..Bills for such expenses. shah be detailed as to 12 provider, date, time committed, hourly rates, . etc., and such expenses shall be consistently and uniformly applied to DEVELOPER and other similar developers and projects; Bills not. paid within. thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent.(6%) per year. 93 ENFORCEMENT COSTS. The DEVELOPER shall pay. the CITY for costs incurred in the enforcement of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, including engineering and reasonable attorneys' fees, except that in the event of disputed matters; the prevailing.p arty shall. be reimbursed .by the losing .party for any and all costs. 9.4 TIME OF PAYMENT.. The DEVELOPER shall pay all bills from the CITY within thirty (30) days. after billing. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall bear interest at the rate.of eight percent (d%a) per year. ARTICLE 10 DEVELOPER WARRANTIES 10.1. STATEMENT OF DEVELOPER WARRANTIES. The DEVELOPER hereby makes and states the DEVELOPER WARRANTIES. ARTICLE 11 OWNER WARRANTIES 11.1 STATEMENT OF OWNER WARRANTIES. The OWNER Hereby makes and states the OWNER WARRANTIES. ARTICLE 11. CITY WARRANTIES 12.1 STATEMENT OF CITY WARRANTIES. The CITY hereby malces. and states the CITY WARRANTIES. .ARTICLE 13 INDEMN FICATION OF CITY 13.1 INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY. Provided the CITY is not in default under the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT or has negligently acted with respect to the particular. matter causing the claim, loss, or:damage, DEVELOPER shall indemnify, defend, and hold the CITY, its COUNCIL, agents, employees, attorneys, and representatives harmless against -arid in respect of any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, proceedings, losses,. Costs, expenses, obligations, .liabilities, damages; recoveries, and deficiencies.; including interest, penalties, and attorneys' fees, that the CITY incurs of suffers ("CLAIM"), which arise out of, result from or relate to: a,) breach by the DEVELOPER of the DEVELOPER WARRANTIES, 13 b.) all third.party Claims related to failure of the DEVELOPER to timely construct the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS according to the DEVELOPMENT PLANS -and the CITY ordinances, standards, and specification; ; c.). failure by the DEVELOPER to observe or perform any material covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part under this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT; d,} failure by the DEVELOPER to *pay contractors,. subcontmctor , .laborers;. or materialmen e.) failure by the DEVELOPER to pay for materials; f.) failure by the. DEVELOPER to obtain the necessary third party permits and authorizations to construct the DEVP5LOPER-IMPROVEMENTS; } g.) construction of the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; h.) all thiird. party Claims .related to. delays: in construction of the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; 0 all costs and liabilkites. arising .because building permits were issued prior to the completion and acceptance ofthe DEVELOPER I1vIPROVEMENTS. 13.2. NOTICE. Within a reasonable period of time after ft .CITY's receipt of actual notice of any matter diving rise to a'riglit of payment; against the CITY pursuant to Section 13.1 the CITY shall .givo the FORMAL NOTICE In reasonable detail toAie DEVELOPER. The DEVELOPER shall not be obligated. to make: any payment to the CITY for any such claim until the passagI of sixty {6U.) days from the date. of'its receipt of FORMAL NOTICE from -the CITY,. during which time tlto DEVELOPER shall havo the right to, cure or'. remedy the 'event.leading tq such claith 13.3 DEFEME OF CLAIM. Provided the. CITY is not in. DEFAULT under the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT -with respect to. the, particular matter causing the claim or dehiand, with respect tQ. alaim�or d�rrdassertod.against#he CITY by a third party of the ngtulre �cdvered by Sections 13.1 and -112 above, and provided that the CITY gives FORMAL ADVANCED NOTICE thereof, the -DEVELOPER will, nt its sole expense, provide. for the defense thereof with counsel of its own selection but approved by the CITY; the DEVELOPER will pay. all costs and eXpenses including -attorneys' fees incurred'in so defending against such claims, provided that the CITY -shall at all timcs:also have the. right to fully participate iri'the defense at -the CITVs expense. IF the DEVELOPER fails to defend, the CITY shall have the right, but hot��the-ohligation, to undertake thedefense of, *andto compromise or settle the claim or other.mattet, for -the -account of and at the risk ofthe 1XVE1a0PER. 14 ARTICLE 14 CITY REMEDIES UPON DEVELOPER DEFAULT 14.1 CITY REMEDIES. If a DEVELOPER -.DEFAULT occurs,. that is not caused by FORCL 1VMAJEURE, the CITY shall give. the DEVELOPER FORMAL NOTICE of the b.EVELOPER.DEFAULT and ..the DEVELOPER shall.have thirty (30) business:days to cure the DEVELOPER D>FAULT;.Ifthe.DBVEtOPER, afterFORMAL NOTICE to it by the CITY,:.does not cure the. DEVELOPER DEFAULT within sixty. (60) days; then the CITY -may avail itseii of anyremedy-afforded bylaW*and any ofthe.&Ilowing.remedies: a.) if the CITY reasonably+ de(ertnmes that the remedies in b.); and d.) of this Article 14 -a re irisuffi.bibgt, to protect the health and safety of the City; it may suspend any world improvement, -:or obligation to be performed by the CITY related.to theDEVELOPER DEFAULT;. b.) the CITY may collect on the irrevocable letter of credit or cash deposit pursuant to Article 15 hereof to the extent necessary to cure the DEVE5LO.PER.DEFA.ULT; 0 if the CITY reasonably determines that the remedies-in:b) and d:) of this Article 14 .am insufficient to protect the. health and safety of the CITY, it may suspend or deny building and. occupancy permits fair buildings-wiithin the CUP with respect to lots directly affected 1 y the DEVELOPER DEFAULT; d.) the CITY may, at its.. sole option, perform the work :or improvements to be Performed by the DEVELOPER,.in *hich case. the DEVELOPER shall tvitliin. thirty (34) days after written billing by the CITY reimburse the CITy_for any costs and expenses incurred by the CITY. In the alternative, the. CITY may in whale or in part, specially assess any o� tlse costs And expenses incurred by the C1TY; and the DEVELOPER -and OWNER hereby waive any and all procedural and subitantiye objections to the installation and canstruc#Ion of the work and improvements and the special. assessment resulting therefrom,:iocluding, but not limited to, notice and hearing requitw ient and=any claim that the special. assessments exceed benefit to :the CUP. 14:2 NO ADDITIONAL WAIVER IMPLIED BY ONE WAIVER. 1 n the -.event any agredhient-contained in this DEVELOPMENT. CONTRACT-is.breached.by the DEVELOPER and #hereafter waived in writing by fhe CITY; such waiver shall :be limited to the-paiioular breach so waived and shalt not be deemed to waive any other coneu#rerf4 .previous ar subsequent breach hereunder. All waivers by the CITY must be in writing. 14.3 NO REMEDY EXCLUSi1 VE: No remedy herein confan'ed upon or reserved to the CITY, the OVI�NER, or the DEVELOPER- shall be exclusive -of. anyoiher-available remedy or remedies, but,eaeli ar3d eyery Wp4 remedy -shall be cumulative.and:shall be .in addition to every other remedy given under the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT or now oi� hereafter exrSt;ing at law or. in equity or. by statute. No delay or omission to exercise .any right or power accruing*upon any default shall impair any such right or power.or shall be construed to: be a waiver thereQf,. but any such right-4nd.power maybe exercised filar tisane to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In ordei to entitle a party to exercise -any rernedy.avallable to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than the FORMAL NOTICE. 15 14.4 EMMRGENCY: Notwithstandi'ng the requirement. contalApd .in -$salon IM hereof relating :to EOIAIAL NOTICE to the DEVEL6PEIl; in case of 0 VELOPER DEFAULT and notwithstanding the requirement' contained jn :Section 14:1 *hereof relating to giving the .DEVELOPER a sixty (69) day period for cure the DEVELOPED DEFAULT; in.the event of an emergency as deterrnined*by the CITYENGINEER, resulting from ire DEVEL4PERDEFAULT, the CITY may perform the work. or improvement to be performed by the DEVEI;QPER -without: giving any notice or 'FORMAL NOTICE to the DEVELOPER :and without giving the. DEVELOPER the sixty (60) day period.to cure the DEVELOPER. DEFAULT.. in -such case, the DEVELOPER.shal3 within thirty (3Q) days after written Billing by the CITY reimburse the CITY for any and all costs: incurred by the CITY; In the-dlternative, the CITY may, in whole or in part, specially assess the costs and expenses incurred by the CITY; and the:DEVELOPERand OWNER hereby waive any. and all procedural and "substantive objections10 the installation and construction of the work and improvements and the special assessments resulting therefroin, including; but not limited to; notice and. hearing recluirements. and any clauri that. the special assessmeatg.exceed benefit to the CUP. The DEVELOPER and OWNER hereby waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes: section 429:08I solely with respect to such work .or improvements, ARTICLE 15 SECURITY DEPOSIT 15.1 SECURITY REQUIREMENT. Prior to release. of the CUP for recording, the j DEVELOPEP, shall deposit with the CITY an irrevocable letter of ctdit; cash deposit, surety bond or other security acceptable to the CITY fgr the amount stated in Exhibit D5. i All cost.estimates shall be ao6dptab!e to the DIRECTOR OF*CITY ENGINEER. The total ' seourit.y amount was calculated as shown -on -the attached Exhibit D5: The bank and form of the irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit, or -surety bond. shall be subject 16 approval by the City Finance Director -and. City Attorney and shail.eo*inue $6 be in full foree $nd.effect until released ' by the CI 'Y. The irrevocable letter of credit or surety bond shall be for a term ending at the end of the Warrantyperiod, u less earlier canceled b agreement of the arties. In the alternative, the i p , � y . gre p i letter of chit tray be for a one-year term provided it is automatically renewable far successive ; -one-yeas periods from the present or arty future expiration dates, and further provided that the ' ..irtevooablb-'letter,of.credit..states .Wat-ofileo sixty (64) days prior to the expiration date the bank. will notify the CITY thatif the bank -elects nofto-renew for an additional pe66l. The irrevocable letter of credit.or.surety bond shall secure compliance by the DEVELOPER with the terms.of this. DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. The CITY may draw down on the irrevocable letter of credit,. € -cash deposit, or surety bond: without any notice than that provided in Section 14... relating. s to a -*DEVELOPER DEFAULT,. for any of the following reasons; a.) a DEVELOPER DEFAULT; or b;) upon. the CITY receiving notice. tl*-the. irrevocable letter of creditvvill be allowed. to lapse before. t 2 024. 16 The CITY shall use. the letter of creQ-.proceeds or -cash depositproceeds.to reimburse the CITY for its costs and to cause the. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS listed on Exhibit. D5 to be constructed to the extent practicable; if the DIRECTOR OF CITY ENGINEER determines that such. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS listed on Exhibit D5 have been. constructed and after retaining ten percent (10%) of the proceeds for later distribution pursuant to Section 15:2, the. remaining proceeds shall be distributed to the DEVELOPER. Witb,-CITY approval, -the irrevocable letter -of credit or cash deposit.. may be reduced pursuatit-t6 Seoti:on 15.2 from time to tune as financial obligations are paid; 15.2 SECURITY RELEASE .AND SECURITY INCREASE; DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. Periodically, upon the DEVELOPER's vritten request and upon completion by .the. DEVELOPER and acceptance by* the CITY* of any specific DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS, ninety percent (90°/q} of that pRrtian of the irrevocable letter of credit or a cash .deposit coyering those specific completed inipmvements--only-shall be released; The final ten percent (109A) of that portion of the irrevocable le* of credit, or cash deposit, for* thae; specific completed Improvements shall.be:held until acceptance by -the CITY and:e4iration of the warranty period under Section t.19 hereof; in the alternative, 'the DEVELOPER may post a bond satisfactory to the CITY with respect to the final ten.perpeent (10°/a). If if is. determined by the CITY that the. DEVELOP 1ViLN'C PLANS were not strictly adhered-t6, or that work Wo done withoutCITY inspection, the CITY --may require, as a condition of accepfance,.tha{tkse DEVELOPER post:an irrevocable letter of credit,.or. cash deposlt.equal to 125% oftlie estirriated amount necessary to correctthe.dei iciency or to -protect against deficiencies arising thdrefroin. In the. -event that Work, which is concealed, was done without permitting CITY inspection; then the CLTY*may ; in the alternative; require the concealed condition to be exposed for inspection purposes. ARTICLE 16 YfIS CELLANEOUS 16.1 CITY' S DUMS, The tervs of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.shall not be considered.a.m:afrimiativcduty-upon.the CITYto complete any DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. 16.2 ADDITIONAL WROVEMENT& If the DEVELOPER requests the CITY io construct the DEVELOPER PUBLI C IMPROVEMENTS., the CITX,.at its optionr.may install and Construct the DEVELOPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS."In such case; the CITY, at its option;. may specially assess the cost who ly or in part therefore under Minnesota Statutes chapter 429, -or may4raw the irrevocable letter of creditor cash deposit. If the CITY specially assesses the cast of any portion thereof, then prior to the installation thereof the OWNER .and DEVELOPER by separate document stating a specific amount shall waive any and all procedural and substantive f objections to the installation of the.improvements and the special assessments,. frtcluding, but not limited to, notice. and hearing requirements and any claim that the special aEssessrnents exceed the benefit to the CUP. The OWNER and. DEVELOPER shall similarly waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes: section 429.081. in such event, the OWNER 17 and :DEVELOPER.:acknowledge that the berie£it from the improvements equal or exceed the amount of the special assessments. 16.3 NO THIRD -PARTY RECOURSE. Third parties shall have no recourse against the CITY under this. DEVEWPMENT CONTRACT. 16.4 VALIDITY. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT is -for any reason held* to* be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the.remaining portion of this DEVELOPMLNT CONTRACT. 16.5 RECOIRDING..The DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT and CUP shall be recorded with the COUNTY Recorder grid tbe-OWNER, and DEVELOPER shall provide and execute.any and.all documents necessary to implement the recording. 16.6 BINDING,.AGREEMENT. The parties mutually -recognize and agree that all terms and conditions of -this -recordable DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT -$MI. Mn with the land in. the CUP, and.shall be binding upon the successors iwd assigns of tha.OWNERand DEVELOPER. This DEVELOPMENT CONTP kCT shall also run.with and. be bindiq.upoir any after acquired i nterest of the OWN9R. andDEVEL.OPER hi the land made the subjr;et of the CUP. 16.7 CONTRACT ASSIGNMENT. The .DEVELOPER may not assign this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT without the written permission ofthe COUNCIL, which approval wHl not be unreasonably withheld. In such case, the third-parrty buyer will be required to accept and assume all contractual.. and financial responsibilities provided in this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Upon acoeptance and. assumpooh.of such requirements by. such thir&party buyer, i the DEVELOIPER`9- obligations. hereunder shalt terminate,, Absent approval of the Council, the DEVELOPS 's: obligations hereunder shall. continue iiii frill force and effect;. even if the. DEVELOPER sells one or:more lots, the entire CUP, or any part of -'it 16:8 AMENDMENT AND WAIVER. The parties hereto may by mutual written. .agreement amend this .DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT in any respect. Any party hereto may extend the time for the performance of any of the obligations of another, waive any inaccuracies. in represontations by another contained in. this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT :or in any document dejsyered _pmuotit heret.Q which. -inaccuracies would otherwise constitute a breach of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, Waive compliance by another with any of the covenants contained in this DEyELOPMI W.' CONTRACT,. waive -.performance. of any obligations by the other or waive.the fulfilimerit-of..anyeonditiori that is precodent to the performanee by the plwy.w waiving of any of its obligations under, this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Any, agreement on the part of any party for any such amendment, extension., or waiver must. be hi wriiing.'No waiver of any of the provisions of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT shall 'be deemed,. or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provisions, whether orfiot.similar, nor shall any waiver eonsdttita A continuing waiver. 1.6:9 GOVERNING LAV4r� This DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT shall be governed by and construed in acoordance with.the]aws of the State of Minnesota. 18 16.10 COt'YTERPARTS, This DEVELONOENT CONTRACT may be executed in any number of counterparts, each -of which shall be deemed an original but:all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, 16.11 HEADINGS. The subject.headings of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT are included for purposes of convenience only, and shall riot affect the construction of interpretation of any prits provisions. 1.6.12 INCONSISTENCY. If the DLVELOPMEN l' .PLANS .arc inconsistent with the words of this DEVELOP;1Ml: N'1' CONTRACT or if the obligation iinJ�ased hereutxder upon the DEVELOPER .are inconsistent, them that. provision or term which imposes a greater and more demanding obligation on the DEVELOPER with respect to the CUP.shall prevail. 16.13 ACCESS. The DEVELOPER hereby grants to the CITY, its. agents, employees, officcrs; and eonti tctors, a-licensc to enter the CUP to. perform all Work and inspections deemed appropriate by tile: CITY-doring tite installation of D13YELOPER IMPROVEMENTS. .IN WITNESS WHEItEOF, the parties have executed this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. CITY OF GEM LAKE OWNER AN D DEWELOPER; THE L.U`I HER CO%NIPANY, LLLP Lay' B_ r �lc� Its Mayor its E.,s�,,arjLC�r _ IJ1W- ' , Clerk l 4: STATE Or MINNESOTA } ss. C{OGITY OF &�_) Cht this 23 day of �Mall .__ _, before me a Notary Public within. and for said County, personally appeared� _�Vym1, and�{�LLSS,Qi,�`rtea(v to me personally known, who��' beitig each by me duly sworn, each did . ay that they arc respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of fL%�, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument,. and*that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk, acknowledged said instrument to be the fr& act and deed* of said municipality. MEtl55A 5 LA1YA=?drE t °rl Notary RUbik Minnesota My commiWon Expires Jan 31, 2026. STA'i'l OF MIND.) rSOTA } } ss, COUNTY OF Amyu4iY} } h-9, O'l N tart'. Public On this %nday of __ _ , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ti to me personally known, t�fio being by me duly sworn, did say t11at fie is the Qa 1� Of _W+-�Wlv_ i , the company named in the foregoing instrtqnent, and chat said instrument was signed OA behalf ofsaid company by authority e•f-the. Board of .� and said acknow]edged said instniment to be tiie free act and deed ofNl *company. 4ti KATHARINE G N UDING N6tary PubllaState of Minnesotai�lic My Commisaion Explres Januery3t, 2024 11II8iNSTRUNME,NT DRAFTED BY: AFTER RECORDING PLEASE R1 TURN.. TO: 1U',LLY AND LEMMOMS, P.A. 2350 WycliITS.treet; Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: 651-2 24-3781 Facsimile: 651-?23-8019 20 E:gMrr DI LEGALDPACAW-n0li OF PROPERTY 2.- Blocki. Luther *East Addition, Rams" Counjy, MN 21 EXHIBIT D2 LIST OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS DATE OF PLAN ELAa PREPAR ATIO PREPARED BY 1.) Site Plan 4/26/2022 Landform Professional Services, LLC 2-.) Gading Plan. 4/26/2022 Landform Professional Services, LLC 3) Erosion Control Plan 4/2612022 Landform Professional Services, LLC 4.) Utility Plan 4/26/2022 Landform Professional 15ervfces,. LLC 5.) Landscape Plan. 4/26/2022 Landform Professional Service$,. LLC. 22 EXHIBIT D3 DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS The items checked with an "X" below are the. -DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS The items checked with "PUBLIC" below ace those DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS that are DEVELOPER -PUBIC IMPROVEMENT'S. M1 rn 84 �FSIT X general site grading, drainage, and erosion control 7C PUBLIC street grading and.drainage. subdivision monuments X PUBLIC base course of bituminous pavement for streets X PUBLIC wear course of bituminous pavement for public streets X PUBLIC boulevard restoration X PUBLIC street signage X PUBLIC utilities (water and service lines) X storm watw ponds -• •• ....... tret.pres6trvation and replacement X concrete sidewalk X PUBLIC base course and wear course of bituminous pavement for trails X Lot landscaping 23 LrXHIBiT D4 WSCELLANEOUS REOUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE. CITY 1.) CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE CITY RELEASES THE CUP TO BE RECORDED. a.) Letter .of Credit. DEVELOPER inust'ptovide the letter of credit for the amount stated on Exhibit.D5,.of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.. b,). Inspection- Fee. Deposit: DEVELOPER. must provide to the City of f&m Lake the cash deposit fot inspection fees stated on Exhibit D5 of the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. �c.) Planning Fees. DEVELOPER must fully pay the City of Gem Lake for all planning, engine0ing review, and legal fees that have been incurred. 2.) SUBDIVISION EROSION CONTROL. DEVELOPER is responsible for erosion �oontrml throughouttlte CUP until final site stabilization. To: assute piroper erosion control, -ft DEVELOPER, in addition to the Letter of Credit for DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; shell post *acid the CITY *shol retain the Engineering Security Amount and the Escrow Rea insge referenced in Exhibit.W. 3.) CLEAN UP OF COI$TRUCTION DEBRIS ON STREETS AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. The security amount stated on Exhibit. DS shall include an appropriate amount as determined by the City Engineer to ass ure.that the'DEVELOPER removes any construction debris from streets. adjoining the CUP and from, private properties that adjoin the: CUP. i 24 EX]HIBTI D5 SECURITY CALCULATION. DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS I.) Site Grading, Drainage, and' $40,000 Frosiori .Control 2.) Waier:MWn Construction $ l 7,000 3,)'Streets. (concrete curb and gutter, $190,000 gravbl base,. and Viturninous pavemoni) 4.) Site: Latldscaping W,049 5.). Construction debris clean up S4;720 SUBTOTAL $286,769 DIIIJMTIRDr. 1.25 EQUALS $358461 Socarity Amount $358,461 25 Ei mmi 135 SECURITY CALCULATION (Confinuedj In addition to. the Security * Amount for. Developer. Improvements set forth above; °the DEVELOPER shall also deposit $5j000 in cash with the CITY (hereafter "Engineering Security f�mount") conternpoaniegusly Wilth execution of this DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. This .Etgineering .Security Amount shall be used t - pay the CITY for engineering :inspection fees at tkte CITY's standard rates charged for such °tasks; subject. to DEVELOPER confirmation of such tasks. Subject to the following paragraph, upon. satisfactory completion of.the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS, the CITY Shall return -to. the. DEVELOPER any -reinaining portion of'the Engineering Security Amount not 6tberwise-charged the.DEVELOP3�Rfor engineering inspection. performed by the CITY. Ten percent (10%) of this: Engineering.$ecurity Amount shall be retained by the CITY (hereafter referred to as escrow Rctainage) and this Escrow.Retainage shall be available to the ()ITY to pay for deficiencies and Pro€ilem$ related to-grading,..drainage; and erosion control, tree Fireservation, and landscaping on the lots in the PLAT in theevent:such-problems and deficiencies arise after the -CITY has accepted the DEVELOPER:IMPROVEMENTS.:The CITY may use the Escrow Retainage to correct any such. deficiencies or problems or to- protect against further deficiencies or problems if all the fallowing circumstances exist: a.) Deficiencies or problems have arisen with respect to grading, drainage, and erosion control; tree preservation, -or landscaping; and b,) The CITY hat -previously accepted the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS; and c,) 'The Lefter.of Credit for the DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS has expired or the Letter of Credit -for the DEVELOPERIMPROVEMENTS has been reduced to ten percent (10%) or Iess of its original amount. The CITY -shall return to the DEVELOPER any remaining Escrow.'R.etainage when al l the following events have occurred: a.) all of the lawn or vegetative ooverhis-been established, to the sole satisfaction of the CITY; on each of the individual lots fin t 6PL,AT. To the extent the engineering inspection charges or the .amQurit-needed to correct fhe deficiencies and problems relating to grading, drainage, erosion control, tree preservation, or landscaping exceed. the initially deposited $5,000 Engineering Security. Amount, the DEVELOPER is responsible for payment of such excess within thirty (30) flays after billing by the. CITY. 26. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Gremlin Public Health Assessment Draft for Public Comment - Summary 4/2.6/2a22 The draft Water Gremlin Public Health Assessment. (PHA) reviews ail available environmental data and any potential routes of exposure related to contamination from Water Gremlin operations: The.PHA process. helps identify appropriate public health actions and responds to community health concerns. The PHA. is not a "health study" and does not contain community -reported health information,. a review of medical records, or any medical screening. PHA Conclusions MDH reached seven main con cIusions.regarding potential exposures to contaminants: from Water Gremlin, The basis for each conclusion and:next steps are provided in the..PHA. The main conclusions are described below. MDH concluded that past trichloroethylene (TCE) air emissions may have harmed some people's health, It is possible that past exposures to. TCE in air near the facility may have been sufficient to increase the risk of health effects in a small number of the most exposed individuals. Pastor current.trans-.1,2-dichIoro ethylene and lead air emissions are not expected to harm people's health in the surrounding.corrirnunity. Exposure to lead mayhave. harmed the. health of Water Gremlin workers and their families. Chemicals in the indoor air at the Water Gremlin facility may be harming or may have harmed worker's health. Public Health Action Plan The PHA contains a six-poihtactian plan that describes steps M D H will take to protect the health of the community intoAhe:future..ln summary, M D H will continue to. review new data, information, or guidance an.d.will share info rrmation about any potential health concerns identified in the future with the community. MDH remains available to explore and discuss what efforts maybe feasible to help meet the goals and objectives of the community in absence.of a health study. WATER GREMILIN PHA DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CoM.MENT SUMMARY { Next Steps for PHA Completion The draft PICA is available for public comment for 45 days between April 26, 202.2 and June 9, 2022. Comments can be submitted I by email .at health.hazard state.mn.us. For other options to submit comments, .call 651-201-4897. MDH will review all comments. Changes or responses to comments will be reflected in the final version of the PHA. The draft PHA is on the. MDH Water Gremlin Site webpao (www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environmentlhazardous/sites/watergremlininc.htmlll. When the PHA is finalized, a GovDelivery notice will be sent and the final document posted. Minnesota Department of Health j Site Assessment and Cdhsultation Unit 625 Robert Street N. I PO Box 64975 St. Paul, M N 55.164-0975 Phone:651-201-4897 1 hiealth.hazard state. mn.Lis. www. hea It h.state. m h. us To. obtain. this information in a.0iffere.ntformat, call: 65i-201-4897. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Public Comment Draft of a Public .Health Assessment. for the Water Gremlin Facility WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Health April 26, 2022 Prepared Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. DEPARTMENT:OF.HEAi__TH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Division of Community Health. investigations Atlanta;.Georgia 30333 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT.: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Foreword This documentsummarizes public health concerns related to contaminationata site in Minnesota. It is based on a formal evaluation prepared by the Minnesota.Department of Health (MDH). For A. formal site evaluation, a number of steps are:necessary:. Evaluating exposure: MDH:scientis.ts.begin. by reviewing available information about environmental conditions at the site. The first task is to find out how much contamination is present and how people might. be exposed to it. Usually; MDH. does not collect its own .environmentaI sampling data.. Rather; MDH relies on information provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the USE nviro n.m enta I Protection Agency (EPA), other government agencies, private. businesses. and the. general. public. • Evaluating health effects, It there is. evidence that people are being exposed —or could be exposed —to haiardous substances; M D H scientists will take steps to determine whether that exposure could be harmfuI tohuman health...MDH's report focuses on public. health— that is, the health .1mpact.on the Community as a whole. The report is based on existing scientific information. Developing recommendations: In the evaluation report, MDH outlines its conclusions regarding any.potentia1 health threat posed by a site and offers recommendations for reducing or eliminating human exposure to pollutants. The role of MDH is primarily advisory. For that reason; theevaluation report will .typically recommend actions to betaken by other.agencies—including EPA and MP.M. If,. however, an immediate health threat. exists, MDH.wi[1 issue a public health.advisory.to. warn people..of the danger and.wiIt work to resolve the problem. Soliciting community input: The evaluation process is interactive. MDH starts by. soliciting and evaluating information from various government agencies; the individuals or organizations responsible for the site, and. community.members living near the. site -Any conclusions about.the site. are shared.with the individuals, groups, and organizations that provided:the information. Once an evaluation report has been prepared, M D H seeks fee dbackfrom the public, If you have.questions or comments about this report, we encourage you.to contact us. Minnesota ❑opartment..of Health I Site Assessment and .:Consultation 625. Robert: St. N. j PO Box 64975. J. St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-2.01-489.7 1 health.hazard@state:mn.us www. hea It h.state. m n. us To obtain this information in a different format, call: 6517201-4897. This publication -was made possible by Grant Number.5 NU61.Ts000i 7-02-0D. from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors. and do not necessarily.represent the official views of the.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or the Department of Health and Human Services. 2 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC: HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC coMMENT DRAFT Contents Foreword...... ........ ............................................. ...... ,.;...................... :..........:......:........................................:.2 Figures...... :......................... :.................... .......:...... ......... :...:.....:................................................................. 4 Tables............... ....:................. ......................... ......:..................... :....:.... :..................... :.:......... 4........... :....... 4 Purpose.., ....... ........................ ... ...... .................................................................................5 f. Summary ......................................................................................................................5 .............. ... .... .... A. Introduction and Background........................................................ ..................................................... .5 B. Conclusions........................................................................................ ...... ....... ................. .6 11. Air Emissions .......4.................... A. Past TCE Air Emissions ............ :................................... :.............................. .................................... 7 .B, 2019-2020 Air Emissions —trans4;2:-dichloroethylene (t-DCE)..:.....:.::.......::..:....:.:.:.................14 C. Lead and Particulate.Air Emissions .... .....................................................................................20 III. Remedial Investigation Data and.Interpretation .................... 21 A. Groundwater.................:..............:...............................................................................................22 B. Soil., .......... ....................................................26 C, Sub -Slab Soil. Vapor— Water Gremlin Facility ......... :.......... : D. Soil Vapor .................................................. :................ :....... :....... :............ :.....:,........... ....................... 3.0 E. Sediment.........................................:....................:..................:............:....:.......:.........................30 F. Surface Water ............................ ::.................................... ::.............. :.............. :............................ 32 G. Past Remedial Investigations and H istorical Actions=-1994-2004.................................... :........ 34 V. Drinking Water..............................................:........................:...........:............................................36 A.. Municipal Wa.ter.........................................................................................................................36 B. Private Wells ........ ...... ........... ......... ... .... ........ 36 VI. Worker and Worker Family Exposures ...... :.................................... .............. .................................... 39 A. Indoor Air —.Workplace Chemical Use and Vapor Intrusion ........................... :.:............... ...:...... 39 B. Lead and Take -Home Lead ................................................. :....:.::...... :....... :........ :.......................... 40 VII. Minnesota Public Health Data .............................................. :...........:............................................ 4.1 A. Cancer.: .................................................... ................................................................41 B.. Birth Defects ...................................................... ................................................. ... .....43 C. Community Blood Lead Levels.:.:........:.::...................................................:...............,.................44 VIII. Responding to Community Concerns..............:......................:.......::............................................46 A. Health.Study Requests ........ :...:............. :............... :........... .. ......................................................... 48 3 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC comMEN.T DRAFT B. Stress ..................... :....:.....:....................... :........ :.....:..:............. .................... ........ :........................ 48 C. Cumulative Risks...........................................:........:....................................:.:...I......a..................49 IX. Conclusions ........ ........ ::................. ...:............... ........................................................................ ..P...-50 X. Public Health. Action Plan ..............................................................................................It-,..............52 XI. References:. ........... ....................... ............ ............... ,............................... .................................._S3 Appendices.........,................................................:::........:t.......,:....:..:.::...........;.....................;.....:.........57 Appendix A —Water Greiniin Location Map .... ..:....................:....:.................:.......... :......:....... :......... 57 Appendix B - 2009-2018 TCE-In Air Maps., ... 4 ...... ........ ...... ... 58 Appendix C-Cancer Risk Assessment Calculation.... ...... :Y... ..............:........:.:..:.:...............................70 Appendix D -1,4-Dioxane in Private Wells —Gem lake and the White. Bear Area .............................72 Appendix E - Water Gremlin. Facility — TCE:in Indoor Air Notification ................. < ............................... 4 Appendix 1 -- Cancer Occurrence Report for -White Bear Township, White Bear Lake and Gem Lake Area Five Census Tracts, 2.007-2016.......... .................................................. ............... ....................... 75 Appendix.(Y- Community Health Studies and:EnVironmentai Contamination ............ ....... ................ $a Figures Figure 1: Estimated tons-df TCE emitted 2002-2018... ................................... :.........:....:....... Y............ .........8 Figure 2: Reported tons ofTCE-emitted.—Toxics Release Inventory1992-2001............ . ...... ::..:.....:............. 9 Figure 3: Map of the area potentially affected by TCE—distributed-in february 2019 ............................10 Figure 4: Locations of Air Monitors around the Water Gremlin FAclliity........ .............. : ...... :............. .:...:.:.17 Figure S: TCE in Groundwater Sampling Results.....:...........::..............:....::::.................:..................,.::.....1.24 Figure 6: 1,4-Dloxane WGroundwaterSarnpling Results:....:..................................................................... 25 Figure 7: Leapt in Soil Sampling. Results..::............:......:.:.:........................:..............:.:....:........................... 27 Figure 8: TCE.and t* DCE*in Sol[ Vapor SarpPling.Resuits....,.............. ............................ ..........:.:....:.........:..29 Figure-9: Lead-in Sediment Sampling Results .............. ..................... ............... .,...,......... :......:......:..........31 Figur..e 1b; Lead in Surface Water Sampling Results...........................................................................;33 Figure.11: 2020-202f Private Well Testing Results for 1)4-6Dloxane.............................................................38 Figure 12: . Study Area for the Cancer Occurrence Report...:............:........:..............................................:42 Figure 13: Zip Codes Where Blood Lead information -System Data was Evaluated ............ ........... .......... .:4S Tables Table 1: Understanding TCE Air Concentrations ......................................... ................................ •.•....... .....1i Table 2: t-D.CE Air Monitoring Results -on. Water Gremlin Property frorrf 3/1/19 to 8/22/19 Table 3: EDGE Air Mpnitoring Results on the Water Gremlin Property.......::.: Table 4: t-DCE Alr Monitoring Results at:Birch Lake Elementary.and.ColumOie-P.ark Priorto Shut -Down ofCoating LlheS(Ng/m3)........................ ......... ,:....... ......,.................. ......... ........ .................................. ......... is Table 5; E-DCE Air Monitoring Results at Birch Lake Elementary ........... ........... :................ ::........ ......... ....18 .Table 6: MbOlsk Assessment Adulce (RAA) fortrans-1,2-131chloroethylene...........:....:.....19 Table 7: Remedial Investigation Activitlet-2019=present:.............. ,..................... .........l............................; 1 Table3: Intrusion Screening Values forTC15-and t-DCE........................ :...:....,.,..::.:......... ....:...... ......... ....... 28 Table 9: Years of 1,4-dioxane sampling of municipal drinking water:..........................::.....:...........::...:....3ti WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC. HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Purpose The Minnesota.lie pa.rtment of Health`s (MDH) mission. is to protect, maintain,.and improve the health of all Minnesotans. MDH's goal is: to provide information people need to protect their health and to answer community questions about environmental contaminants and. health, To. meet.this goat, MDH .health assessors evaluate.. public health risks atsitesor facilities Where chemicals have been released into the environment. MDH.also evaluates environmental data and advises state and federal regulatory agencies and local governments on actions that can be taken to protect public health. The purpose of this Public Health. Assessment is to summarize and.1nterpret all the available environmental data from the Water Grem fin .investigations from 2019 to the preserit. This document describes hoW people may have been, or continue to be, exposed to chemicals from Water Gremlin and what that may mean for their health. Acknowledging and.addressing.comm unity concerns shared with M D H is another important aim: [, Summary A. Introduction and Background In January 20.19, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).discovered that the Water Gremlin. Company, located at 4400 Otter Lake Road in White: Bear Township (see map in Appendix A), was emitting significantly more trichloroethylene (TCE) into the air than allowed by their MPCA air permit. As a result, it was believed. that some people living.and working nearby were exposed to airborne TCE: concentrations above MDH':s health -based value for TCE inhalation. TCE use at the Water Gremlin facility .stopped in January 2019. MPCA requested M D H assistance. to evaluate health risks:and collaborate on community involvement act ivities..This document its part of that effort.and attempts to.. record and explain events and:findings most. relevant to understanding the potential implications of this site for the health of the: community that lives ;.works and plays. near the Water Gremlin facility: Water Gremlin began ma nufactu ring. lead fishing sinkers from a garage on family property in 1949; It expanded gradually, and by 1,964 occupied a 12,000 square foot facility. The currentfacility was built in stages over the years, with major expansions occurring in the 1970s andthe 1990s as the company diversified by adding custom lead parts man ufacturing. (We n ck, 20.19). Water Gremlin fabricates lead Metal products from purchased, refined lead. materials. Lead. acid battery terminal posts (BTPs) are currently a prim a ry product for the com pa ny (Wen ck, 2019). TCE was used at -a coating for the.BTPs, likely from 1992 up until January 2019..AnnuaI estimates. of..tons of TCE released in the coating process varied from 21 to.120 tons per year.. On March 1, 2019, MPCA.and Water. Ore m1in signed a Stipulation Agreement (MP.CA, 2019a) that provided information about thefacility's enforce ment.violations and. description of the accepted penalties stemming from the release discovered in January. It also outlined an. alternative operating scenario that allowed the company to resume coating operations using.trans-I,2-dichloroethylene {t DCE) as an alternative to TCE. The Stipulation Agreement required. Water Grem11n to:conduct an environmental investigation by sampling groundw.ater,:soil, soil vapor, sediment, surface water, and private. drinking. water wells. Municipal drinking.water and. private wells were also.sampled. Five .0it monitors were installed WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT surrounding the Water Gremlin facility and these continue to.sam.ple:the air for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including TCE and t-DCE. MDH summarized public health data from the M1nnesota.:Can.cer Reporting system, the Birth Defects Information System, and the Blood Lead Information System to respond to questions -about health. irnpacts.in the`surrounding community and the workers:at the facility. By analyzing this data, it was. discovered that some Water Gremlin Workers were inadvertently expos ing.their families.to take=home lead contamination from the workplace. M D H and many partners coordinated. and -co Ilaborated on .numerous community involvement and engagement activities. Other state agencies, county public health, local government, and community advocates contributed. Outreach activities included public meetings, office. hours, one-on-one outreach to contact affected community members and their families, and providing translated materials. in Hmong, Hispanic, Karen, and Somali. B. ConclusiOns M D H reached seven main. conclusions regarding potential exposures. to contaminants from Water Gremlin: The basis for eachconclusion is described at the end of this. Public Health Assessment, starting on page.50. 1. Past TCE air emissions may have harmed some people's health. 2. Past or current.t-DCE and lead ail- emissions are not' expected.to'harm people's health.. 3. Groundwater contamination is not expected. to harm people's health. 4.. Soilvaporcontamination is not a riskat properties near Water Gremlin. .5. Soil, sediment, and surface water contamination from Water Gremlin. doesnot pose a health risk in.the community. 5. Indoor air at the Water Gremlin facility maybe harming or may have harmed worker's health. 7. Indoor air at the Water Gremlin facility maybe. harming or may have harmed worker's stealth. 11. Air Emissions The primary way environmental contaminants leave the Water Gremlin facility is via air emissions. Past TCE emissions befo re.Ja n u a ry 2019 were. both above permitted levels and. expected: to have exceeded health -based values in ambient air surrounding the facility. Modeling of TCE emissions was done in February 2019 to.communicate to the. community the nature. of the release and potential dispersion to the surrounding neighboth nods. .1n March 2019, Water .Gremlin replaced TCE with t-I]CE and reduced total emissions. Since March 2019, air monitors measured levels of VOCs and lead. in air on Water Gramlin's %property. This section discusses the air emissions, both past and present, and provides an assessment of health risk. The TCE: and :t-DCE sections were first posted on the.M.DH website. in September2019 and May 2020, respectively: At the time ofthis writing,. the MPCA is continuing work to develop a new air permit for the Water Gremlin facility. The.purpose of the new permit is to limit emissions to meet environmental regulations and to be protective of human health. The permit review process includes. analysis of a.mblent air quality impacts from the facility including all sou rces.of lead emissions. MDH evaluation of amits ions.allowed by the new air permit is beyond the: scope of this health assessment. WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT A. Past TCE Air Emissions Water Gremlin TCE Use History Water Gremlin used TCE in,a product. coating process. According to a Water Gremlin air permit application, BTPs from die-cast machines were coated to provide an acid -resistant; leak -proof seal between -the BTPs and battery .cases. The coating solution, which contained TCE, was applied to BTPs by spraying or dipping (Braun; 1999), in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted in 1995; representatives of Water Gremlin:stated that the coatings had.bee nused since approximately 1985, and that the production of BTPs increased dramatically around 1990 (Braun, 19.55). The re po rt..cites 1992 installation dates for'four above ground storage .tan ks for TCE and mentions another solvent, 1,1,1- trich loroethane (1,1;.1-TCA),. was used prior to TCE (Braun,.1995). The U.S.. Environmenta[ Protection Age ncy.(EPA) Toxics Release Inventory Program data .(provided by Water Grem 11n) indicates that Water Gremlin switched from 1,1,1-TCA to TCE in 1992.(U.S, EPA, 2019a), It is assumed that the.1,1,1-TCA use also resulted in air emissions and potential exposures during the..time:of its use. Water Gremlin is subject to the federal Clean Air Act (through. revisions signed into law in 1990) as well as Minnesota air permitting rules. They submitted anair permit application to. MPCA in 1995 and referenced a.1995 due date for the.application.under the new federal and state air quality rules. In their permit application, Water Gremlin provided their 1994 actual TCE emissions as 119. tons/year. In 1999, they submitted.a new permit application; which stated: that they reduced TCE emissions through pollution .prevention efforts frorn.87 to in 1996 to 53 to in 1998. The purpose of the 1999. Application was to install additional coating machines. and air pollution control equipment to.capture And destroy at least 95% of theirTCE emissions. Water Gremlin received an MPCA air permit in July 2000, which required the installation of a catalytic oxidizer,;With enforceable operating conditions to d.e.stroy atleast 95% of the. TCE eni issions from `the: coating process. Although the catalytic. oxidizer was: installed in August .200O, the..company discovered that the equipment was not working in. November 2000 while attempting to conduct performance testing. They tried to fix it for a number of months,. but ultimately decided to replace it With a different type of control equipment. Rather than destroy TCE emissions,.Water Gremlin applied for an air permit amendment in 2001 to install a fluidized bed recovery system to recover the TCE. MPCA issued a new permit in April 2002 and required a reduction of emissions of at.least 95 percent. A removal efficiency of 98.8% was reported from the performance test conducted that month. But weeks .later, a breakdown was reported, followed by additional breakdowns that summer. In February 2003, the recovery system was rebuilt and put back into operation. According to MPCA records, Water GremI)n.reported multiple shutdowns and breakdowns of the pollution coMrolequipment over subsequent years. Water Gremlin disclosed permit violations to.MPCA in July 2018. MPCA:discovered .(MPCA,.2019) that Water Gremlin likely never met 95% control of emissions and were reusing the. recovered TCE. As a result, Water Gremlin greatly exceeded the intended. permit limit of 9.5 tons -of TCE emissions a year. MPCA requested that Water Grem Iin.shu.t .down operations that emitted TCE.on Jan u a ry. 14,2019 and. Water Gremlin agreed to voluntarily shut down that day. In February, Water Gremlin committed to permanently discontinuing the use of TCE and removed the. remaining TCE. from their facility. What Happens to TCE in the Air? When TICE is emitted as a gasintothe air, It: spreads out and mixes in all directions. It breaks down in a matter of days to weeks. Local weather conditions affect the speed and direction of TCE movement. WE WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT in air typically does not settle on the soil or surface water, and any that. does would evaporate back.!nto the air quickly: TCE in air would not affect garden.produce. Although TCE does not stay in the air at a location very long or build up over time, .the Water Gremlin facility regularly (typically Monday to Friday) emitted it into the air. Estimated Tons of TCE Emitted The MPCA estimated the total amount of TCE emitted to the air per year from 2002-2019 based.on records from. Water.Grem Ito (see Figure 1..below). The MPCA estimated these.annua1.totals... by calculating the difference between the amount.of liquid TCE purchased and the amount of TCE removed from the facility as waste for the year. Figure 1: Estimated tons of TCE emitted 2002-2018 Estimated tons of TCE emitted 200.2-20I 12❑ 100 so 71 71 65 62 60 4 I 37 ao 33 29 20 '02 `03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '16 `11 '12 120 Y The chart below.(Figure 2). provides the tons of TCE emitted as reported by Water Gremlin to the U.S.. EPA'sToxic Release Inventory (TRI) for the years 1992-2001..Water Gremlin's 1999 permit application, as discussed above, provides different values for the years.1994.(119 tons vs 100 tons 'in the TRI),1996 (87 tons vs loo tons in the TR1), and .1999 (53 tons vs 57 tons in the TRI). While the accuracy of these TRI data is uncertain, these%.annual emission estimates appear to be the best information available for estimating. TCE air emissions in the surrounding area forthis. earlier period of TCE use. 8.. WATER GREM•1.1-N PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Figure 2: Reported tons of TCE emitted — Tokics Relebse lhveritory 3991-2001 Reported tons of TCE emitted - Toxics Release Inventory 1992-2001 120 100 1DO 100 77 80 B5 $7 _.... 59 60 49 S5 40 31 . �2i { z0 �... 1992 2993 1994'1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Estimating Past TCE Air Concentrations — Air Dispersion Modeling Air quality dispersion modeling uses computersimulation to predict -the concentrations of an air pollutant at different locations and distances from a source. MPCA uses the AERMOD dispersion model, developed and recommended by the U.S. EPA, to estimate the levels of air pollutant3 emitted from emission sources. For pollutantsemitted through a stack, as occurs at Water Gremlin; AERMOD simulation considers the. emission rate, stack height, static diameter, and stack gas, temperature and velocity, as well as the effect of nearby buildings -a*nd..terrain, AERMOD also uses meteorological data {'+ such as temperature, wind directioh,.and Wind speed to caiculate.pollutant co ncentratlons-at various locations. MPCA Provided a map*of the area potentially affected by TCE in February 2019 (see Figure 1 below), The map was created*by MPCA to display AERIVIOD dispersion modeling based on the total amount*of TCE emitted by Water Gremlin in 2018. This year was chosen because TCE emissions were the highest compared to all other years. The area.inside the dotted Iine.shown on the map represents. loM-Ions Where estimated amounts of TICE in. outdoor alrwere predicted -to be above the MDH inhalation Health - Based Value (HBV) of 2 µg/rrt3 (mictdgrams•percubic meter). The HBV is an amount of a contaminant.in a rthat•is unlikely to lead to -health effects even -if sensitive members of the population are exposed to it -24-houlrs a day, 7 days a week, for up to -a lifetime. The map was intended to represent where estimated air concentrations could have been above MDH's HBV.for TCE for the purposes of inclusively notifying the community of the situation. The figure and its features were not intended to convey any information about the likelihood of actual health effects among people.l.iving.within the area labelled as "Area of concern for TCE exposure:" The highest TCE concentrations Were'predicted forlocations. nearest the release point, on the Water Gremlin facility property. Outside. the property boundary, at.thp location of the closest residence, the .highest annual average TCl�tdncentration (2018 TCE use data) -Was.estimated to be 59 µg/im3 and arnbunts were predicted to dedreasewith increasing distance froth the.fadlity. The majority of the shaded area.represented on the map above Indicates annual average TCE concentrations between 2 — 20-i, Wm3.• 9 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT Figure 3: Map of the area potentially affected by TCE— distributed in February 2019 The map above overestimates TCE air concentrations for many of the 'yea rs that Water Gremlin emitted it. If similar maps were created using.AERMOD predictions for earlier yea rs.when the total amounts of TCE.emitted were less (see charts on pages 879), the estimated amount of TCE in air would be lower than the 2018 modeled concentrations and the total affected area where. TCE exceeded the MDH HBV would be smaller. Modeling earlier years could estin}ate. how much TCE may have been present to outdoor air. at various locations near the facility overtime. The map above: underestimates TCE air concentrations for shorter periods of time. The TCE air concentrations estimated on the map above are annual averages, which means that there were times. throughout the .yea r when concentrations at. particular location we.. re higher (and other times when they Were: lower) than. the average. Daily variations are expected due largely. to variability in facility operations/TCE use and weather conditions (for example, both wind speed and direction). For periods of time, TCE air concentrations above the HBV extended beyond the outline in the above map.. The resuIts. fro m the dispersion modeling provide: the best information currently available for estimating .past annual averaged TCE air concentrations due to emissions from the. Water Gremlin facility. MDH collaborated with MPCA and ATSOR to create additional maps from Z.009-2018 to heIp.increase the understanding of the potential TCE air. concentrations overtime near Water Gremlin. These. maps can be found in Appendix B. 10 WATER G'REML:IN PUBLIC WEALTH Ns5ESS•MENT: P:U:B-1.11C CONfMENT'DRAFT TCE Exposure While air modeling can.estimate the TCE concentrations in outdoor air for specified times and locations, such estimafes-Will differfrom an individ.u.al's actual exposure to TCE (that Is, bow much TCE enters the body through breath1ng): The amount a. person breathed in would*be�.highly varlable, depending.on how much time they spent in different locations and what the TCE concentrations wereAuring-those times. In addition, -other factors -,such. as body size, breathing rate, type and1ievei of activitieg,..amount of time spent lndoors.vs outdoors, -etc. could all -influence how much TCE a person was exposed to. Estimated air coiiceritrations provide limited inforibation about real exposures individuals might have received. TCE is also commonly detected:at very low -concentrations in indoor and outdoor air. Most people are exposed to small amounts of TCE,typlcally at levels far below those known to affect health. Most TCE used in the U.& is. released'into the air by evaporation, primarily from degreasing operations (ATSDR, 2019). lt'is'also-still used as a spot cleanerat some dry cleaners: The Continual release of TCE from many small sources account for its detect.lon at very low levels in oudooralr at MPCA's metro area monitoring sites. People can also be exposed to TCE present -in products such As adhesives, paint removers; cleaneirs,.and varnishes. Understanding TCE Air Concentrations The following table provides additional context about the occurrence and potential risk at different TCE concentrations in air. Table 1: Understanding TCEAirConcentrations: 4 E,.;ca' 'en `ratio m. G ri 2017 average outdoor air concentration.atthe nearest MPCA air monitoring site (Harding All� High School] Average indoor air.concehtrati:ons in.three Twin Cities communities in 1999 0.5 - - ---I (Sexton,t a1.,.2004) 2 U.S. EPA (2011)/MDH Health -Based Value -poses little to no health risk. over A lifetime N20� Estimated 11h 100,p00 In cancer risk.over a.lifetirne 20 - A small risk of fetal heart.defects for pregnant women during the first eight weeks of ^30: (U,S. EPA..2D11,-based on a rodent study) [pregnancy Estimated 1 in 10,000 increased cancer risk over a lifetime 200 A small risk of kidney effects with continuous exposure over a long time (U.S. EPA, 2011; -200 based on a rodent study) Estimated 1 in 1,000 increased cancer risk over a lifetime 55;000 I small risk for decreased thymus weight (immune system effects) with continuous > 100,000 y exposure over a long time (U.S. EPA, 2011;: based on a rodent study) IAmerican Conference ofGovern menta1.Industrial Hygienists 8-hour worker standard _.._.-........ -116,900 Concentration at which. some. workers. experienced health effects in studies, including 270,000 fatigue;headache, eye irritation, and. an increase. in kidney cancer (U.S. EPA; 2014 11 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC. HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUSLIC C-QVI TENT DRAFT TCE Toxicity and Risk Assessment Risk assessment is a science -based tool that is used to -evaluate the potential effects of a chemical on human health. Riskassessment uses the best available scientific information, as well as professional judgment and policy, to estimate risks using standardized processes that allow estimates to be understood and compared, and..ultimately to help government agencies and the public mekeInformed- decisions about. preventing and reducing risks. To determine.a.safe-level of exposure to contaminants, scientists -frequently rely on animal.studies. In. these studies,ahlmals.fo. a laboratory (often rodents) are exposed to. large amounts of a chemical of interest. The amounts such anirnals-are. exposed to are converted to human equivalent concentrations; to account forthe differences between humans and animals In terms of size, weight,. and.respgnse.to chemical exposure. Because it is unclear how well short-term, high=exposure tests on animals predlet how people may respond to low levels of exposure over a longer period of time, scientists err on the side of caution. when determining a safe amount for people. This .is generally done by reducing the amounts shown*to cause an effect in study animals-bya.factor of*lato 6p.to3,000 when setting an amount intended to protect.people. Greater reductions are used when there is less certainty. This helps to increase confidence -that health effects wound be.extremely unlikely at the calculated safe amount, including among sensitive individuals such as children and pregnant women. The likelihood of health effects atthe.2018 modeled con centrations.(2=59 ltg/m3) is low: The potential effects of TCE exposure at these-concentration.s are an increased: riskV certain cancers (kidney, and possibly liver and non -Hodgkin's lymphoma), non -cancer effects to the immu ne-system. a.nd kidney, and a risk of Heart defects during fetal development. The risk:assessment basis and eVidericefor these. potential effects are described below.. Non -Cancer Effects In 2011, the'.U.S. -EPA: d eve loped a Safe inhalation value of 2 µg/m3 for a lifetime of exposure,.l�sed.on a review of*a lame number of studlesV animals and. hum ans exposed to TCE (U.S. EPA, 2011). MDH also conducted. a TCE review in.2013 and 201.8 and concurred with EPN9 inhalation value and the conclusions from their 2011 assessment, which -resulted in the M D H HBV of 2 µg/rtA. MDH afSo developeda•short- term HBV of 2*ltg/m3 thait.1s protective ofa24-hour exposure for pregnant -women in their first eight weeks of pregnancy. EPA concluded that at.a sufficient dose and exposure duration, TCE poses a potential human health hazard forloxlcityto the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive .system, and deve loping EPA narrowed down the studies to those considered critical effects — those showing effects at the -lowest levels —to develop a safe level that is protective-ofthei most sensitive health effects. The main effects observed at the lowest exposures involved:the.immune system, the developing fetus, and the kidneys. EPA reviewed all published studies available and chose two critical rodent situdles and -one supporting study as the basis for calculaflrio the safe Inhalation value. The selected studies are described below. • One critical study showed.ao-increased risk of.subtle Impattslo:the immune system,-the1hymus (a specialized organ of the. immune system) weighed less than normal and there was an�increase in markers -associated with autolmmune disease :after mice were exposed to TCE in drinking water: ■ Effect level.finding A small risk of immune:system effects may exist for people exposed.to TCE at -200. µg/m3 continuously over a. long time period. 12 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT The second critical study showed heart defects in rats whose mothers were exposed to TCE in drinking water during pregnancy. • Effect Ievel finding -- For women in the first eight weeks. of pregnancy exposed to TCE at -20 µg/m3, there may be a small risk of fetal heart defects. At this Ieve1,very few women ono more than 1 in 100) would have an.amount of TCE in their body that inight cause a fetal heart defect less than 1% of the time. • A third rodent study showing kidney toxicity was considered a supporting study. ■ Effect level finding -- A small. risk of kidney impacts, including toxic nephropathy and .increased kidney weights may exist for people exposed to TCE levels at or exceeding —80 µg/m3 continuously over a long time period. To be protective in accounting for uncertainty, EPA divided the effect .]eve Is from these two critical studies by uncertainty factors of 1.00.in the first tase and 10 in the second, to arrive:at the safe Inhalation value of 2 µg/m3. Note however; that exposure to arnaunts..of TC .greater than 2 µg/m3 does not mean health effects will, or are likely to, occur; although the risk of health effects increases as the amount;and duration of.TCE exposure increases. Other health effects have been shown to possibly occur at much greater exposures than the effect levels in the three studies. EPA chose for its evaluation — at amounts of TCE much greater than exposures that Were predicted to be possible.in the community due to the ern issiorig from Water Gremlin. Cancer Effects Occupational studies of high TCE exposure have shown an increased risk of kidney cancer in people. There is also evidence of an association between high levels of TCE exposure in people iand.mclentsj and non-Hodgkih's iymphorn:a and liver cancer. Less. evidence is found fo.r:an association between TCE exposure and some other types of cancers. According to EPA'.s.2011 assess ment.described above, breathing TCE at the following concentrations arid durations maytheoretically result in the following incremental cancer risks: • Breathing 2 µg/m3 TCE continuously for a lifetime is expected to result in no more than 1 additional cancer in 100,00.0 exposed: people; • Breath!rig 20 µg/m3. TCF continuously for a Ilfetime is expected to result. in no more than 1 additional cancer in 10,000 exposed people; and • 13reathing.200 µg/m3 TCE continuously for a.lifetime:is.expected to result in no more than 1 additional cancer in 1;000 exposed people Any such increase Is%un11kely to be. measurable compared to the background cancer rate that already exists from all causes, For comparison, recent estimates show nearly half (four or five people out of ten) of Minnesotans.will be diagnosed with cancer sometime. in their life. Cancer -- a group of many different diseases with many different .causes -- is much more common than people realize. For an example of how risk assessors calculate increased cancer risk based on environmental exposures,: see the calculation and explanation in Appendix C. Are.Some People at Greater Risk? Do I Need Medical Testing? MDH has stated that there is no need for people to go to the doctor solely because they live near Water Gremlin or did so in the past. TCE does not accumulate or stay in the. body for more than a few days. 13 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT after exposure stops. Also, there is no medical test to determine whether a person was exposed to TCE from Water Gremlin. The re.are.no recommendations for any in creasedscreening for cancer or other health effects, although people may wish to share. the fact that they were or may have been exposed to. TCE in air from this situation with the Ir.physicians. There is.a general lack of data demonstrating differences in health effects from TCE exposure based on factors such as age, gender,.genetics, race/ethniclty, preexisting health status. and lifestyle (IPA; 2011). It is. not known. whether children are rhore susceptible. than adults to the effects.of TCE. Babies born to women exposed to TCE during the first eight weeks of pregnancy (when the babys heart is forming) are considered the most sensitive. This is in part due to the post ibilitythat TCE exposures could have been considerably higher than:the annual averageconcentrations for shorter windows of time .and may have occurred at the same time fetal heart development occurred. Regardless, no changes in regular prenatal..care.are recommended as a result of T'CE.exposures, If the fetus developed normally there is no future risk. of ca.rdiac.defects. In addition to pregnant women and the developing fetus;. MDH considers infants and children, the elderly, and those with a compromised immuneSystem.generallyto be more sensitive to exposure to chemicals. What Happens to TCE in the. Body? Mostof the TCE people breathe jn will go into the bloodstream and ❑thee organs.. While some TCE is exhaled unchanged, much of the TCE that. enters the. body is metabolized, or chemically broken down, primarily In. liver. Other organs and tissues, especially kidneys, also. break down some TCE. Most of the TCE breakdown products leave the .body in the. urine within a day .(ATSDR, ?014). When the body absorbs more. TCE than it can break down quickly; some of the TCE or its. breakdown products can be stored in body fat fora brief period. However,:once. absorption stops, TCE and its breakdown products quickly leave the fat, The health concerns attributed to TCE.are generally due to the. breakdown products rather than TCE itself. B. 2019T2020 Air Emissions —trans-l:,2-dichforoethylene-DCE) After Water Gremlin was forced to stop TCE use in January 2019, they expressed interest 1n resuming coating operations with a product called Flu6oly W5 in place of TCE (NuGenTec,.2019). EluoSo1v is composed. primarily of t-DCE, and.its use in coating results in air emissions of t-ME from the facility.. What is trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (t-DCE)? t-DCE is. a.clear liquid that is highly flammable. and evaporates easily (it is categorized as a VOC).. It. is used as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing, as well as.a propellant. and. blowing agent (LJ.S. EPA; 2019b). It has recently.been used as an alternative to TCE.. Exposure occurs mainly by breathing it in at workplaces where t=DCE is made or used, What Happens to t-DCE in the Air? When t-DCE gas is continuously released into: the air there can be localized elevated. air concentrations.. Farther away from .the source, t-DCE mixes into the atmosphere by spreading out in all directions and becomes increasingly diluted. In the atmosphere, t-DCE is broken down.to half the initial amount after 14 wATE:R. GREMLIN. PUBLIC -HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT about five days (U:5. EPA, 2010.). t-DCE is not expected to settle on soil or surface water and would evaporate back into the air quickly. What Happens to t-DCE in the Body7 t-DCE is :a volatile, fat-soluble compound that is quickly taken: up through the lungs and gastrointestinal tract (ATSDR, 1996). While it is fat-soluble,.there is no solid data indicating accumulation in the liver, brain;. kidney, or other fat tissue.following exposure.:t-DCE.can be metabolized in the liver, as shown: by rodent studies. It is likely broken down into more water-soluble metabolites which are quickly removed by the kidneys (ATSDR, 1996; U:S..EPA; 2010). Some. studies show the body can eliminate t-DCE. by exhaling it (U.S. EPA, 2010). M D H Risk.Assessment Advice —January 2019 In January 2019; M.P(A requested that IVII)H develop a.site-specific air guidance. value that could be: used to determine a safe amount of t-DCE that Water Gremlin. could release into(the air. MDH derived a chronic inhalation value. of 70 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) as. Risk Assessment Advice (RAA), or an amount that is safe to breathe daily for up to a lifetime. The RAA was developed to be protective for immune system effects observed in mice exposed to t-DCE in drinking water. However, exposums.to t= DCE in amounts greater t.han70 µg/m3 does not me.a.n health effects are likely, especially if they only occur episodically and for less-than�Iifetime durations. As a general rule, the risk ofhealth.effects increases as the amount and duration of chemical exposures increase. MDH's RAA was unable to takeinto account the minor constituents of FluoSoly WS, hydrofluoroethers, because toxicological data are unavailable for them. Hydrofluoroethers are very persiste.rit.cheaticaIs that are added to make the FluoSoly mixture non-flammable. t-DCE Toxicology Studies and Risk. Assessment As noted earlier, risk assessment is a science -based tool used to evaluate the potential effects of a chemical -on human health. The paragraphs below describe the available t-DCE. toxicology studies and how air guidance values are developed. by dlfferentagencies from those studies. The U.S. EPA.comp.leted a review of t-DCE. in 2010 (U.S. EPA, 20.10). EPA describes -that a general overview of the. toxicity studies conducted indicates t-DCE displays "low toxicity." However, a lack of Information regarding the possible health effects from breath ing.t-DCE over long. periiods. is also noted. EPA concluded that there was insufficient Inhalation data to support deriving a safe air value for long- term (chronic) exposures. EPA.also states that there is."inadequate information to`assess the carcinogenic potential" of t=DCE based on the absence of .human or animaI cancer studies. Although there are no chronicstudies of t-DCE,.`several sub.chronic animal studies exist. Five studies' exposed rodents to t-DCE by .drinking water.orfood, and two exposed rodents by inhalation.(one. unpublished). Changes. in liver and kidney weight were the.main effects observed .(U.S EPA,:2010), The results of the two inhalation studies were inconsiste.nt,.A limitation to both was that exposures occurred. .intermittently (six and eight: hours/day) rather than continuously. With intermittent dosing,. exposure concentrations.should be adjusted to reflect a continuous expos ure%to use for calculating health risk values. The earliest study (Fruen.dtet al., 197!).showed an effect of fat accumulation in the liver and liver cells in rodents exposed to t-DCE at 794,000 µg/m3 [equivalent to 2a0 partsper m11.11!on (ppm)]. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (AMR) used this st.udy's results to develop acute and subchronic air values of 790 µg/m3 (dividing the effect level.noted above by an 15 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT uncertainty factor of 1,000) based on fat accumulation in liver cells (ATSDR, 1996). The unpublished subchro.nic rodent inhalation.study (l7u.Pont,.1998). did not.show any effects thought be to related to exposure to t-DCE, even at doses of 15,800,000 pem3. In their 2010 toxicological review, EPA determined there was enough information to derive a safe amountfor oral exposure tot-DCE. A subchronic.drinking water study:shewing immune suppression in rodents (5hopp et al., 1985) was used to derive an amount of t-DCE.that pep pie could.safely consume over a lifetime (0.02 milligram/kilogram-day). EPA applied an uncertainty factor of 3,0.00 to account for differe bees between animals and humans, variability among humans, use. of a subchronic study, and a lack of additional studies. In January; 2019,. MDH.used .this oral dose to derive a: chronic air guidance value, by converting the oral exposure to inhalation exposure to arrive atthe 70 ug/m3 site -specific RAA. fort=DCE use at Water Gremlin. MPCA Air Modeling As noted earlier, air quality dispersion.model! ng uses computer simulation to predict pollutant concentrations at d iff event: locations.and distances from a source.. MPCA. uses the AERMOD dispersion model, developed and recommended by the U.S. EPA,. to estimate the levels of air pollutants emitted from sou rces,. M PCA conducted air modeling of proposed Water Gremlin t-DCE emissions to back - calculate an annu.a.l emission rate that. would not result in long-term exceedances of the t-DCE inhalation RAA that MDH developed in January 2019. According to the MPCA's mode Iing,.92 tons of t-DCE could be emitted i.n:a Year without exceeding an annual average concentration of 70 µ9/m3 in air outs ide.of the property, Restart of Coating. Operations — March. 2019 Water Gremlin resumed coating operations using€-DCE in place of TCE;. on March 1, 2019 after.MPCA and Water Gremlin signed. a settlement agreement to resolve the company's a1r.quality violations. The agreement limited Water Grem1in's total VOC emissions to 90 to.ns.per year, calculated as.a 12�month rolling: sum, using a mass balance calculation that assumed all t-DCE used 1n operations was emitted to air, except any accounted for as liquid: waste leaving the facility, Based on the air modeling described above; this 90-ton-per-year limit prevents the annual average t-DCE levels from exceeding the. RAA of 70 µg/m3 in any locations where people -live. On August22, 2019, MPCA ordered Water Grerrrilin to suspend the operation of the coating lines because.t-DCE was:found in the soil vapor beneath the.company's production facility building (see section V: Remedial Investigation and Interpretation parts.C. and.D. for more about soil vapor). because of this suspension, t-DCE was only used for -slightly under six months in 2019. The coating lines.remained :shut down until January 21, 2020.. Use of the. coating lines was. phased back in slowly after the suspension, and some lines transitioned to a water -based coating: As a result, less t-DCE was used. in 2020 each month (through March) compared to monthly active coating operations in 2019: The one-year period of t-DCE use (from March 2019- March 2020) totaled 60tons. The 12-month rolling sum for emissions decreased in 2020.and fluctuates due to the varied amount of t-DCE used. Additional information: and.a chart.ofthe t-DCE emissions. as :a rolling sum is available on MPCA's website at Water Gremlin air monitoring (www.oca.state.mn.us/airLwatee- gremlin -air -monitoring). 16 WATER GREMLIN FU'BLI•C .HEALTH ASSESSMENT-. I*UBLIC C.OK4MENT DRAFT Air •Monitbringfor t-DCE - Data from• March 2019 to March 2021 The 2019 settlement agreement required Water Gremlin to conduct ambient airmonitoring.•F.ive-air monitors were placed on.:the.Water Gremlin property near the property boundaries (see Figure 4 below). Beginning on March 1, 2019, 24-hour samples were collected by Pace Analytical, an independent enytronmental laboratory, every three days;.and analyzed••for a standard list of VOCs. Lab results are reported directly to the: MPCA. Monitoring results have been highly variable; reflecting voriation-in.weathee (mainly wind,speed and -direction) and the.rate of t-DCE use at the facility. Figure 4: 4ocodons of Air Monitors around the Water. •Grerrfliii Fdcliity Note, The blue circles indicate wrrent. V.00 monitors, the graydreles are.the former lead monitor locations.. During the period from March 1 to August 22, 2019 when Fiuo$oly was used, t-DCE resuIts. ranged from not detected (shown by a :symbol: and a number which is the lowest level detectable) to 648 µg/MS as summarized in Table 2 below. Tdble 2: t-DCFAi'r Monitoring Results on Water Gremlin Property from 311119 to 8122119 (Pg/m3J ' 1 � F�{'S; •;.v::'�� kStivi'� �. y... -.. r-�'-.-Y�+�+�s-��' -;il�o "itiar ocal�pn; 't• -c-u -,�'- t ..,?� -�{Y�tf`•'�•'-^r�2asi�� '.ti•;r.��'x�LSfyvi'� .t�•,v:'�:u�ti "'�.:.. `,g!.�:«frFa:' nk�y-(v-i'i.�s"-'x ��•stt Yc �'••- :'fy(�cr'�s"-3,�„�-i cy-,,:�F.-,-�-r ";i°� .9'C'.�.^. .�5,.-'r., t,;� k. ti.�..? . •:. `R nk'.•h'._"s" -"ter^�ri k�`, .-'x� '` -•� ��'� - 7. �;�'.��.-:•L:, =✓y�i:,rc;. East ¢1.1 205 11 1 29 North �Northwest <1 208 .5 33 349 5 21^ South ---- West. ~_._. _ -cl.1 �1:1 ._.. 104 _..._.. 648 - 4 __.__._ 2-1 15 .._._...._ 86.-•-•----- * A median is the middle value of the results (approximately half the results are less than and half the results are greater than the. median). Whip the:monitors did.not detect any:t-DCE, MDH used the detection limit (rather than zero) when calculating the medlarrarid •averagi:•resulo.••This results•irrmedian and average •values that are biased high (overestimations). Air`Mcinitoring•at the five -monitors on the Water Gremlin property continued duririg.the time the coating.iines were shut down. Daring the shutdown period, low levels oft-DCE ranging from 1.2 to 5.6 µg/m3 were detected In•brily 16.samples out of 237 total individual.samples from 48 sampling days. Use of t-DCE resurood on-January'21,2020 at lower quantities than in 2019. Air monitoring results reflect tliis decilhe in use of t-WE that -started in 2020 (see Table 3. below). 17 WATER GREMLI-N PUBLIC.HEA.LTH ASOES'SMENT'' PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT Table 3; t-DCEA►r Monitoring Results. on the Water Gtemlln Property .:.,.... -... ............ East <0.6� 52.4 3..4� 8.3 North <0.6 93.2 1.8 11.1 Northwest Y _ <0.6 108 1.3 7.9 South -West,__�� _ -0.6` 50.5 172._ 1:4 1.5 6.8 14.4 When the.mQnitors did notdetect any t DCE, MDH used the detection limit (rather than zero) when calculating the median and average results. This results in median and average values that are biased high (overestimations). MPCA installed additional VOC monitors at Birch Lake Elementary School (north of Water Gremlin) and Columbia Park (northeast of Water Gremlin) to provide off -site air monitoring resuits*8t locations used by the community. These locations.-qre shown on the map in Appendix A. Two 24-hour samples were. collected at these monitors in August 2019*15efore.the t-DCE coating line shut down on August 22,.2019 (Table 4). Table 4: t-DCEAir Monitoring Resultsat Birch Lake Elementary and Columbia Park Prior to -Shut DoWn of Coating Lines.(ug/m3) Sampling continued through the end of November 2019, during the shut -down period, and yielded all nondetect.results. Sampling began again on April*$,2020 and continued -through August;31, 2010 (Table 5). The major ty of the results. were nondetect (<2.µg/m3) and the-mediahand:aVerage values' him. overestimations (see Table 5 footnote). Table.5., t-D:CE Air Monitoring Results at Birch take elementary M'pnitorlacation' Minimv_�rn Maximum Median,* l Average_ Birch Lake.Oementary 0.24 9.1 1 2 y2.9 Columbia Park _ I 0.04. Y 17 2.8 *Whenthe monitors did not detect any t-OCE, MDH used the. detection limit (rather than zero) when calculating the median and average: results. This results in median and average values that are biased high (overestimations). MDH Risk Assessment Advice —April 2020 In 2Q20;.MDH conducted a re-evaluation of t-DCE toxicity studies that tould be used to develop.an air guidance Value, because an improvement In -the modeling of the study data used16 dei:liie the 2019 RAA was discovered (California EPA, 2018). MDH, in consultation with the U.S: EPA, decided to use the improved study model data and updated. its chronic inhalation RAA*fort-DCEto 20 µg%m3. MDH also developed o-subchron'ic inhalation value for t-DCE of 200 µgjm3. A subcheonicduration is defined as a repeated exposure for greater than.30 days .an-d up to 109/6 of an. average human lifespan (eight years). ( 18 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT The 2020 RAA values are. based on the amount of t-DCE (approximately 50,000 pg/m3) where an immune system effect was observed. in. a subchronic-animal Study. Therefore,. it is expected that a. small risk of immune. system. effects m.ay exist for people exposed to t-DCE repeatedly at 50,000.µg/m3. The RAA is much lower than this to reflect uncertainties in the data and the .desire to develop a safe exposure level for the population, including vulnerable subgroups. Table 5 presents the MDH's 2019 and 2020 RAA vaIues.for t-DCE in air to. compare, and illustrate. the evo.lutio.n of, health -based values used to evaluate air monitoring results and communicate to the public . about potential for health risks due.to t-DCE emissions from the Water Gremlin facility. Table.6: MDH Risk Assessment Advice (RAA) for trans-1,2-Dlchloraethylene (,uglm3) -;'�.� s irr , _ ;'�� .'�� ii _r • .. t �, � • rr�k '. ' �, �I- y 3-I- �✓�. � � ;++,-�, ti 7•. cs� j r` ;z%;.�•.t • -s k'7A�k.63R�, �.,,�;��. �t'•. �� y - _ �.�. - �.� •� �' • �::.. �� y. .�:. d� :ts : " _. °:.e t . _�' °� a3[]y}� $ _ I I r'�"�•��L.•i-:,Ch��i: �1-� �rµi 1:�. �-'� -:�� 1, _ � i�. J'cj-V.'� Acute (up to.24 hours) _ _ w ND. ND. Short-term (> 24 hours to 30 days) ND ND 5ubchronic (>.30 days to 10% of a lifetime) ND 200 l Immune System Chronic:(> 10% of a lifetirne:to a lifetime) 70 I 20N Immune 5.ystem Cancer (lifetime) ND ND Nb = Not derived Other t-DCE Air Values EPA Screening Values .In September 2020, EPA published inhalation "scree ning'values" for t-D.CE.for chronic. and subchronit durations of 40 µg/m3 and 400 Wjm3, respectively (U.S.. EPA, 2020). EPA.determined once again that the data for t-DCE are insufficient to:support deriving a toxicity value und.ertheir guidelines, however they provided the screen 1 ng va Ives they developed to assist in risk.assessment. These screening values were derived using the .unpublished subchronic rodent study (Du Pont, 1998..) mentioned above. The health end polnt was determined to. be the immune system.. While there is wide agree mentthat .toxicity data needed to derive. a chronic air value for t-DCE is lacking, it is arguably helpful to have some value that limits air emissions, or provides some assessment of health risk, rather than no value at all. MDH's profess iona1judgment.about developing an inhalation value for t- DCE appears to generally be in line with decisions other states. have made. to address this chernica1. Occupational Values While occupational limits can provide context for ambient air concentrations, MDH believes that some of these values are not. protective of worker health over the long-term, and they certainly are. not adequate to protect the general populat"ion. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),. the. National Institute far Occupational Safety.and Health (NIOSH), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists all have adopted occupational criteria for.1,2-DCE (note this is a mixture of t-DCE.and cis-.1,2-DCE) of 200 parts per million in air over a workday -- equivalent.to 790,000 Vg/m3.. N10SH lists. symptoms of occupatio naI exposure. as irritation of the. eyes and respiratory system, as well as a central nervous system depression (N105H; 2019). These values are intended to allow workers to be able to. do their work.safely and.may not be.protective far all possible health effects. for long-term exposure. 19 WATER GREMLIN PUB.LI.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Water Gremlin t-OCE Air Emissions and Health The.outdoor a.ir surrounding the.Water Gremlin buildings and property is affected by use of t-DCE within the facility, Air concentrations measured at the five monitors on the Water Gremlin property are highly variable; based largely on weather and facility use. The t-DCE from Water Gremlin is expected. to. spread out in air surrounding.the facility similarly to the dispersion estimated for historical TCE eittiissions, although current use. of t-DCE is significantly lower than past. use.of TCE. In 2020, MDH developed:safe. inhalation values fort�DCE for two different exposure durations —chronic; for up to a lifetime of exposdre;.and subchronrc, :defined as repeated :exposure for greater than 30 days,. up to 10% of an..average lifetime ('"S years). The subchronic value was developed in response to community members' requests .for help understanding the potential risks .f..rom shorter duration exposu res. While recent exposure to t-DCE'from Water Grem [in is of a.subchronic.du.ration, the more .apppropriate and protective objective of controlling ongoing facility emissions; is to remain at or below the chton 1c.air guidance value of:20 µg/m'. This 1s particularly true in a.community where past emissions of TC£ were excessive. MDH does not expect health effects in the corn munity from Water Grem Iin's past or current emissions. of t-DCE. Given the available air monitoring:data on the Water Gremlin property, and what cars be estimated from modeling; there were times when a.ir concentratio ns.were .over the current chronic.RAA value (.20 µg/m3) beyond Water Grem lin's p roperty bou n da ry, and very limited times when air concentrations were over.the subchronic.KAA value (200 µe.m3) for a.short duration. However, neither the. chronic.nor subchronrc RAA were.exceeded for a length of time that. poses a potential health concern. The air monitoring results an the Water Grem[in property are also higher than actual exposures to. t-DCE (how much t=DCE enters the. body through breathing) experienced by people in the community. Are Some People at Greater Risk? MD.H generally considers women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, infants and. children, the elderly; and people living with chronic disease or a compromised immune system to be: more sensitive to exposure to chemicals. There is no information available regarding t-DCE exposure and effects to a developing human fetus .or smaIl:children. Based on the results of only one animal study, t-DCE is not currently expected to cause developmental effects. in people, but the information is too limited to draw this conclusion (U.S. EPA, 2010). MDH air guidance values are developed to. be protective of people who may be more susceptible. C. Lead and Particulate Air Emissions Water Gremlin manufactures.custom.lead batteryterrninaI posts, sinkers, a.nd ammunition components through a series. of operations including die casting, hot melt. molding, hot:melt extrusion, cold forming, coining, gravity casting, and coating (Wenck, 2019a). No primary lead production or smelting is done. Water Grem [in. melts lead bars.purehased from local recycling facilities: Pollution control equipment called electrostatic precipitators (brand name "Smog Hog) are used to remove airborne lean and particulate matter before air is exhausted buts ide the building. Emissions testing for lea d.and particulate matter was conducted 1n 1994:and total facility emissions Were .deterrh1ned to be 0.5 pound per year, an amount considered an. insignificant activity for permitting purposes. As a result, no regulatory controls for lead emissions were needed/:requ1red.. 99 WATER GREMLIN .PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT In November 2018, select Smog Wog control devices were tested for lead and particulate emissions to determine how well they were able to prevent contaminants from being released to the outdoor air. Results of the testing indicated that the averaged emissions were: well under regulatory. limits. for particulates enforced byhe.current air permit (Pace, 2019): Airborne lead results were not compared to any regulatory Iimit'because. the facility was not subject to any such standard at the time, The MPCA is currently drafting a new air permit far the facility in which the 2018 test results have: been evaluated and utilized.as part of the emission characterization for the. facility. Monitoring for lead in outdoor air.arourid the Water Gremlin facility began ih September 2019 to help answer questions about. .possible lead ex from'the community, and ended in January 2022. Sampling occurred every six. days. and results were. posted on the MPCA website at:Water Gremlin air monitoring(.www.pca,state.mn.us/air/water-gremlin-air_monitoring). Results were compared to the National Ambient Air Quality 5ta:rid ard .of 0.15 µg/m3 set by the. U.S. EPA to provide public health protection. Monitoring resuIts .indicate lea d.ernissions have remained well below the EPA standard at the sample locations since this testing began. It.is expected that alrborne read emissions deposit to the ground near Water Gremlin's facility, Section V. B provides more inforrhation on lead in soil.. III, Remedial Investigation Data and Interpretation The Stipulation Agreement for violations of the air quality permit required Water Gremlin to perform a remedial investigation that Included sampling groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, soil vapor, and. private wells on and near their property {MPCA, 2019a). The purpose was to determine where and how much contamination was present (Le.., to define the extent and magnitude of contamination) that may have been caused by Water Grem lin's activities at their property over the yea..rs.. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was`compieted in April 2019 to help identify potential areas of contamination.and help select initial sampling locations. The investigation began. in June 2019 and samples were analyzed for lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including TCE and t-DCE. Results were submitted to MPCA in a report at the end of July 2019 (Wenck, 2019), Additional data was collected as part of subsequent sampling events needed todefine the -extent. and magnitude of contamination in all environmental media (see Table 7 below). The remedial investigation i5 ongoing as of April 2022. Table: 7: Remedial Investigation Activities 2019-present . {_. .r•<:==kr-�. {': _.•�r''^�-'s';`•''=i-r='S- r.r _fir i_, j:� 5,7lr _ y- F E:�,.��.:,•'.:.�.::.- <?.>�.•E":.v.:3 _fir.-.a�;a--<.y:7-.'a;:7*r-i s;^ x<- ..-.nr� E,.,-• a tlo� ; .;zy - k .k 3': _ - stJ„" -' :.L=r^ S•d:`F .;YF ,.:(;: �-,.Z ,`^4� �-•,�e.Lw,�' 3:.. 3'. June:2019 Groundwater, surface water,. soil, sediment,%and:soiI vapor (Wenck; 2019) Aug 2019 Sub -slab. vapor at the Water Gremlin building,.soil vapor to edge of Water Gremlin 7 property, groundwater (Wenck; 2020) Sept 2019 Sub -slab, indoor, and outdoor air at the Water Gremlin building (We.nck, 202.0) oct 2019. Sub=slab, indoor air, groundwater and soil. within coating room footprint, additional __ 3 sub slab and indoor air in Water.Gremlin building; roof runoff water from Water Gremlin building downspouts; sediment and surface water; additional.scil vapor t (Wen.ck, 2020) i Dec 2019 Soil vapor, soil, groundwater, and sub -slab vapor (Wenck,.2020) Jan 2020 Soil vapor Menck, 2020) 21 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Results of the investigations from 2019to the present are organized below by environmental media - groundwater, soil, soil vapor,3ed€ment,. and surface water. Drinking water from both.public.and private wellis discussed in the following section. MDH uses the environmental data from these investigations to evaluate whether people may be exposed to contaminants and to make recommendations to protect public health if needed. A. Groundwater The:Water. Grerrilln-property is located in an area where approximately 200 feet of glacial deposits overliethe bedroek.The water table is encountered within these deposits�from the:surface-to.depths of 11.5 feet below the ground.surface (the water table Is the surface below wbich.all spaces, lin the glacial deposits and bedrock atef)led with water).. in. Most.places the water talile.ls at*the same: elevation as the nearby surface vyatert; The area around*the Water Gremlin north campus building is directly underlain by 5-10 feet -of recent fill from construction activities at the site overlying 15-30 feet of water=bearing, fine -sand and silty sand . that thins. to the south. Based on geologic and hydrologic-data.collected at the site,: the shallow sand unit likely does not extend beyond the property boundaries. As the sands are underlain WA-45-85 foot thick "Semi -confining" layer (meaning water-passesjhrough it only very slowly, if at all), the groundwater in the sands°may not be con#tected to deeper groundwater. This semi -confining layer consists ofthin layers ofsilt, siltysond, fine sand, clayey sand, and clay. The. southern part of the Water Gremlin north campus (near Lambert Creek) and the south campus are underlain by 30-40 feet of wetland and lake deposits of peat and silt .-and sandy clay, which in turn *overlie the semi -confining layer. 6el6w1he semi-confining.layer Is.a 30-100 footw#e*f-bearing sand unit referred to hereafter as -theburied sand *aquifer' (wenck, 2021; Minnesota. Geological.Survey, 1992). Below the glacial deposits described above, the uppermost bedrock formation below the northwest part of the Water Grenilin property is the St. Peter Sandstone, Which Is w derialn, In-tui"n,.bythe. Prairie du Chien group oflimestone and dolomite and followed by the Jordan 59ridstorie.TheSt. Peter Sandstone is not present below the glacial deposits below the southeast parts of the Water Gremlin property, so the Prairie du Chien is the first bedrock unit encountered*at this portion of the site. Municipal wells in the area (White Bear lake, White Bear township, Vadnais Heights.) -are over 350 feet deep and draw water from the iordan.Sandstone; some of the wells also draw water from the lower units of the Prairie du Chien group. Many private (residential) drinking water wells in this. area were Installed.before drilling records were consisteritlykept,.but the records that are: available suggest that. most -private wells are over 100 ft deep and draw waterfrohl the buried sand aquifer{ although there are some wells completed in the St. Peter .Sandstone.orpralfie du Chien grout} bedrock aquifers. The regional direction of groundwaterflow in the buried sand aquifer is generallytothe west.in this part of Ramsey County (Minnesota Geological Survey.,1992). However, on the local scale, groundwater flow 22 WATER GREMLIN PUB-LIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT directions may varyfrom the regional groundwaterflow direction, There. is little information regarding local grou ndwater flow directions in the area (if .the Water Gremlin property. Monitoring wells. in the. buried sand aquifer are needed to deterrnine the local flow direction in this important aquifer. Flow direction 1n the very shallow groundwater (less than 30 feet) is likely to be influenced by topography, nearby su rface waters, and precipitation. For example;. near Lambert Creek, the shallow groundwater may discharge into the creek part of the year and at other times surface water from the creek may flow outward into the: shallow glacial deposits. Since June 2019, there have been five phases of groundwater investigations on and near the Water Gremlin property: These have generally started at areas of known or suspected releases of site -related contaminants and expanded outward to define the horizontal and vertical extent:of the contamination and to evaluate potential releases to nearby surface waters. Investigations in 2019 and 2020 focused on shallow groundwater with borings 50.feet.below the groundsurface or less, although six borings were drilled deeper (70-100 feet deep) to sample water in the buried sand aquifer. In 2021, additional borings were drilled on and.;offthe Water Gremlin property to. evaluate the water quality in the. buried sand aquifer. The results of the first four investigations are described in detail in the site reports (Wenck, 2019b, 20201 2021) and summarized here. MPGA provided the analytical results of the 2021 investigation to MDH, but a site investigation report was not available at tiie time this document -was written. Trichlproethylene: As shown in Figure 5, TCE was detected at most of the boring locations on the north. campus property atconcentrations above.the M.D.H Health Risk. Limit (HRL) of0.4 pp (parts per billion, which is the.;same as micrograms per liter). A HRL represents an amount of a contarninarit that poses little or.no health risk to those'drinking the water daily for a lifetime, including sensitive or highly exposed people. The highest concentration detected.was.189 pp.b, with the greatest concentrations found beneath or near the. Water Gremlin plant building. TCE was not detected. in borings near the north side of Lambert Creek or in borings on the south campus...TCE also was not detected to the north, west, or northeast of the. Water Gremlin plant. This suggests. that TCE may have a somewhat limited extent in the shallow groundwater. TCE has not been detected to date in any samples collected from the buried sand.aquifer. 23 WATER.GR.EML.IN PUBLIC HEALTH XS"SESScMENT; RUBLIC OUMENT DRAFT Figure 5: TCE in Groundwater Sampling Results Vinyl chloride: When TCE breaks down in the environment it does so by losing chlorine atoms;.resulting in the breakdown products cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (c-DCE) and t=DCE, which then break down -further to vinyl chloride and finally to ethene. Over time; TCE concentrations will decrease as the concentrations of the other compounds increase, until they also breakdown over many.years. At five -locations vinyl* chloride exceeded the HRL of 0.2 ppb, with 20.1 ppb being the hiighestconcerrtration detected. vinyl chloride'14.of particular concern as-khas.an even lower HRL than TCE, was detected in multiple borings, and it may Increase in concentratlon overtime as TCE and DCF, at.the*site.degradec* Vinyl chloride was not detected in any samples collected from the buried sand aquifer. 1,4-Dioxanei 1.4-dioxane. is a stablilizer used in like 11,1-TCA and,. potentially, TCE.- As Figure-6 shows, 1,4-dioxane was detected in multiple borings on the Water Gremlin- property including the borings near Lambert Creek. Most of these .borings were shallow, .but. six were completed in the,buOed sand aquifer. 1;4-dioxane is extremely water soluble and often moves more quickly through aquifers than other contaminants, which may�ekplain why it was found in borings neafthe 6eek but notin borings closer tar the Water Gremlin plant. At 20 on- and near -site locations 1,446kane exceeded the HRL of 1 ppb, with 2$.5 ppb the highest concentration detected. That.sample was collected from GP-34 at 97-100 feet belowground level, near the northwest corner of the -south -campus building. In 2021, nine deep borings were drilled on- and off -site, with groundwater samples being collected from the upper sand, the semi -confining unit, and the buried sand aquifer as.the borings were. advanced. 1;4- 24 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUB.LI.0 COMMENT DRAFT { dioxane was detected in seven of these borings, primarily ih samples from the upper sand and semi - confining unit. However, the HRL was exceeded in four borings, three of wFilch had exceed ances In samples collected from the buried sand aquifer. The concentrations. in.the buried sand aquifer samples were generally low (0.32-2.4 ppb). It should be noted that the deep boring north (upgradient) of the Water Gremlin (G.P-37) plant also had multiple samples with detections of 1,4-dioxane including one from the base of the semi -Confining unit with a concentration of 9.7 ppb..While it appears there were. historic source$ for 1,4-d16xane at Water Gremlin, private well sampling i*sults (see section V-B) suggest there may bg.another source (or sources).9f.1,4-dioxane in the area; this* -is being investigated by MPCA: While it is. unlikely that Water Gremllh Is the source -of the 1;4.-dioxane contamination seen in the. private wells in Gem Lake based on the curreht deta, it is riot possible to state Water Gremlin did not contribute to the private well 1,4=dioxane contamination without.additional data collection. Other chemicals detected: Several other chemicals were detected during the groundwater investigations. These included chlorinated solvents and their breakdown products [1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), chloroethano, c-DCE, and t-DCE],..petroleum hydrocarbons [toluene and ethylbenzeng], other orgAhid hydrocarbons [acetone, p-iso.propyltoluene, chloroethane], and lead. Of these,. the only chemiCais that exceeded a HRL were-t DtE; which was detected ibove the HRL of-.9 ppb in two. samples (highest'concentration 51.9 ppb), and toluene that was detected above the HRGof 10.ppb In one -sample (101 ppb). Figure 6: 1,4-Droxone in Groundwater Sampling Results 25 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT r For niore.!nformation on thegroundwater in deeper aquifers used for drinking water, see section VI. (. Drinking Water, below. Flilweff The soils nearest the Water Gremlin facility contain fill materials from construction projects over time. Lead contaminated soii..south east. of the facility was removed from the property in 1995.1995 (see section. G..). Land.to the east andsouth of the facility are. wetland areas. Soil sample results from the Water Gremlin property are compared to:the MPCA'.s Industrial Soil Reference Values (SRVS..). SRVs are a. screening tool that may be used to evaluate potential human health. risks from. direct exposure to contaminated soil based on a specific land use category (MPCA, 2021). SRVs.are presented in parts per million (ppm) , which is the same as milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). In June 2019, a total of 54 soil samples were collected at various depths at 25 locations surrounding: the Water Gremlin facility and.artialyzed for lead and VOCs (Wenck, 2019b). Lead in soil exceeded the. Industrial SRV of 7.00 pp in four (719-982 ppm) of 3.0 samples analyzed. for lead (Wenck, 2019b). These four samples..were all located in the top foot of soil near the. southeast portion of the Water Gremlin facility (see Figurie 7). No VM were detected in soil samples With a single exception of trace. arnounts of TCE and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in on.e location at.a depth of 274 feet where a.lead exceedance was also found. In October 2019, sail samples were collected from two depths in seven locations under the: coating room floor (Wenck, 2.020) to investigate potential contamination suspected beneath:a portion of the Water Gremlin building. Samples at the seven locations 6-8 feet below the floor were analyzed for V.00s and none were detected. Lead was analyzed for in samples up to one foot deep under the floor and. ranged from 17.3-13,600 ppm. Three of these samples were above the Industrial 5RV for lead. The sample With the highest.lead result was also analyzed. for VOCs at the 0-1 foot.depth and. con tained.t-17CE and TCE (0.11-0.12 ppm.) at concentrations Well below the SRVs for these chemicals. In December 2019, additional soil samples were collected from. multiple depths at 10 interior locations and 11 exterior locations (Wenck, 2D20), The interior samples were taken beneath the facility floor at locations outside of the coating -rooms such as the gravity cast.room, shipping and receiving, main die cast area, and cold forming area: to see if there was evidence of any past release from use or storage. of lead and: VOCs in these areas. The exterior samples were placed onth6 northern perimeter of the property and to the south, .east and west of the June soil samples to define the extent of contamination (see Figure. 7). For lead at the interior.locations, only one of ten:sampies at a depth of 0-1 feet exceeded the Industrial 5RV at 1,060. porn. None of the 13 samples at the 11 exterior soil locations contained lead. .above the Indust:rial:SRV. Fourteen interiorsa.mpies were also analyzed for VOCs and none Were detected. Only 1 of 15 exterior samples detected VOCs - low levels.of ethyl benzene, toluene, and p- isopropyltoluene. MW WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Figure 7: Lead in Soil Sampling Results In June/July 2020, to -conclude the soil investigation,:18 soil samples were collected for analysis of VOCs .and 1A-dioxa6e`(Wehck, 2021). There wet6 no detections of VOCs or 1,4-diQxane in any of these samples.* 1'hree-samples collected in the upper foot of soils near the South Cafnpus building were analyzed&r lead -concentrations were at -natural background levels (5.7417.8 ppm). Lead is naturally :found lh*soll aV;0ound.15-20 ppm (ATSDR,*2Q19). to suinrriar�,--lead:in soil is above Industrial SRVs beneath the Water Gremlin main building and in four soli samples in the top foot of soil outsidethe.5outheast portion of the building,.Qnly.trace levels of VOCs-were detected in three soil samples.1,4-dibxahe was not detected in soil.. Lead is a very common soil gontaminant.due to Its widespread historical use in gasoline and paints. To provide some context for the concentrations found. at Water Gremlin, elevated lead in soil (in the hundreds of ppm) is often found near historically busy roadways from gasoline and near buildings or fences where lead -based paints may have chipped off. Lead does not degrade. It strongly adsorbs to soil, so very little Is expected to be` transpoited1hroygh runoffto surface water or leached to groundwater (ATSDR, 201.9). The soil on the WaterGrenilln property is remarkably low in lead given that the facility has been using lead for decades, although lead -contaminated soil was previously excavated.from.the property (see. section G. below) and numerous construction activities have occurred atthe site: The areas of soil contamination at Water Gremlin have been defined and are limited: toAheirown property. Given the low 27 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT levels.of lead present on the company's property, and the lack of access and rnovernent off=site that could.result in exposures, this. limited soil contamination from Water Gremlin does not represent a health risk to the comrnunity. C. Sub -Slab Soil Vapor —Water Gremlin Facility What is Vapor Intrusion? Volatile organic compounds are chemicals that easily evaporate into air. When chemicals evaporate from polluted soil :and from groundwater; they rise toward the ground surface. If these vapors -come into contact with a building, they may enter through cracks in the foundation,.around.pipes, or through a sump or drain system, and contaminate indoor air. This :process —when pollution moves from air spaces in soil to indoor air —is called vapor intrusion. If chernicaIs are present near .buildings, Vapor intrusion is investigated by collecting sub -slab samples by drilling small holes. through the foundation to sample soil va.por from Beneath the `build ing.: Intrusion Screening Values MDH and MPCA develop Intrusion Screening Values (ISVs), which are compared to indoor air or sub -slab soil vapor concentrations to help -determine when.actions may be needed to protect health. The ISVs represent an amount of a chemical measured in.micrograms per cubic meter, or µg/m3 that is safe.for people to breathe, A 33X ISV value Is an amount.of a chemical beneath a building that is not expected to result in indoor air amounts that exceed the ISV for that chemicaL.These values. are. designed to be protective for sensitive people, including children, pregnant women, and people. who already have health issues. There are two sets of ISVs—Residential and CommerciaVIndustrial—based largely on the amount of time people may spend at home (up to:24 hours a day, seven days:a week) or in the workplace (up to IQ hours per day, five days per week). Table.8 below provides the current:ISVs and 33X ISVs for TCE and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene: (t-DCE). Table 8: Intrusian Screening Values for TCE and t-DCE *ISVs for t-DCE.are based on the 2620. M D H Risk Assessm6nt.Advice. Vapor intrusion investigation and mitigation apt the Water Gremlin facility In June 2019, TCE was found in sub -slab soil vapor samples collected from beneath.Water Grem Iin's facility above 33X Industrial ISVs (up to 120,000 µg/m3) in 20 of 25 samples collected (Wenck, 2019). t- DCE was also found in soil vapor beneath:the building in every sample, with -many samples having very high concentrations up to 530,000 µg/m3:.High t-D.CE soil vapor concen.trations.beneath the. building (many located beneath the coating rooms).led to IVIPCA ordering. Water Gremlin to suspend operation of the. coating lines on August 22,2019. 29 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC CdMMgNT 611-APT On August23, 2019, 12-additional sub -slab samples were' collected beneath the Water Gremlin building in areas that were not pi evfously sampled to determine the. extent of the high vapor concentrations (Wenck, 2020). Only three-of�these additional sample locations had exceedances of. the Ind ustria.I..ISV for TCE (236 µg/m3 to 1,920 µg/m3) and one location had a vinyl chloride excee.dance at 22,10.0 p.g/m3. There were no exceeda aces for t-DCE or any other compounds in the August 2019.samples. Figure 8, shown below, is a map of the June and August2019-sub-slab soil vapor sampling results for TCE and t-DCE, This map also shows the exterior soil vapor results around the property discussed below in :section :D. Soil Vapor. Figure 8: TCE and t-DCE?n Sol/ Vapor Sampling Results To address the potential for vapor intrusion at the Water Gremlin facility, .a temporaryvapor mitigation system that include6 both a sub -slab depressurization system and a soil vapor extraction system was installed:and began operating by mid-September,(Wenck, 2020). The soil vapor extraction system was installed to remove deeper sources of volatile contamination beneath the building. The temporary systems:wera..replaced by a permanent system In -late. December'2020 (M. Ginsbach, MRCA - personal communication, March 4, 2021). Weekly sub -slab and indoor airsampiing began in January 2020 and continues to this day to help better understand the soil vapor contamination on the property. Sampling results have been somewhat variable over time, but generally indicate that the mitigation system.is. effective. 29 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT In July 2020 and March 2021, four sub -slab vapor sampies.were col.lected.beneath the Water .Grem iin South Campus building, as shown on the map above. Multiple VOCs Were detected in all four samples, but no results:were above Industrial 33X.ISVs. For more discussion of indoor air results and Water Gremlin worker exposure:from.vapor intrusion, see the section below titled Worker and Worker Family Exposures..— Indoor Air. D. Soil Vapor Because of the high concentrations of contaminants in sub -slab vapor beneath the Water Gremlin facility, additional soil vapor samples surrounding the facility were needed to. determine the extent of the vapor plume and ensure it was not migrating off -site. Four rounds of soil vapor sampling.covered both the MPCA-defined non -heating season (Sam pies collected. in August and October) and heating season (December and January.) (Wenck; 2020). In August.2019,15 soil vapor samples were collected on Water Gremlin property surrounding the facility to determine if vapor was traveling.off--site towards residential areas, Nine of the sampling locations did not detect TICE ort-DCE,.The other six samples had. levels well below the residential 33X ISVs (up to 11 µg/m3 for TCE and up to 12 µg/m3 fort=DCE) (Wenck, 2020)..These.low concentrations in soil vapor and the a.dditional.distance to the nearest homes indicate that people living in the. area. are hot. afFected by soil vapor from Water Gremlin. In october 2019, 8 additional soil vapor samples were. collected adjacent to the Water Gremlin building; mainly to. the east and South to complete sampling for soil vapor surrounding the building: Two sample l.ocatio.ns adjacent to the building's south side exceeded: a 33X ISV — one sample had TCE at 281 µg/m3; another had Vinyl chloride at 559 µg/m3 (Wenck, 2020}. In December 2019, a1123 soil vapor sample locations were resampled to collect data during the heating season per the MPGA's vapor intrusian:best management practices (Wenck, 2020)..t7DCE was. not detected in any of these samples. TCE was only detected in 3 samples, at.1.3, 1.5, and 455.}ig/m3. The 33X 15V exceedance.locations for TCE and.t-DCE for all of. the data are shown in Figure 8 above. Unexpectedly, the solvent tetrachIoroethylene, or PCE, was.detected 1n every sample and exceeded the Fes idential 33X ISV of 110 µg/m3 in 1.3 samples; up to.189 µg/m3. The PCE exceedances were theorized to be due to contamination in the sampling or lab equiprnent. Because. the December PCE. exceedances could.not be explained, 16 locations were resampled in. January 2020. There were no exceedances. of the 33X ISVs and. only five of the samples detected PCE, up to.H.7 µg/m3. Two other 33X ISV exceedances a.ccurred 1n December, one of naphthalene and one of ethyl b.enzene. Neither of these compounds were detected. in their January samples. The soil vapor data coIIected.surroundIng the Water Gremlin build1ng.demonstrates that the high concentrations of sub=soil vapor at Water Gremlin are not migrating off -site. Soil vapor contamination from Water Gremlin.does not cause a health risk in the community, E. Sediment Surface water bodies at the Water Gremlin property include.Lambert Creek; t h ree. sto rmwater retention ponds (east, west, and south), and wetlands. 5ediment8amOle results for lead taken from these features were compared to MPCA'sSedim.en.t Quality Targets (S.QTs). Level I SQTs are contaminant concentrations in ppin that. provide a high level of protection. for sediment -dwelling organisms. Level 1.1 a WATER GREMON PUBLIC HEALTH AsSES.5.MENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT { SQTs are contaminant concentrations -above which harmfdi effects on.sedlinent-dwelling organisms ire likely. Figure 9 shows .the locations and lead concentration;, of all the sediment.samples. Figure 9, Lead iri Sedlmentt*Strrripllrfg.R&tilts In June 2019, five sediment samples were Collected from Lambert Creek, two sediment samples from the eaststormwater pond inlets, and one.sediment sample at the east stormwater pond outlet,. No VO.Cs were detected in these sediments, but lead was found above the'MPCA's Level I SQT of 36 ppm in four of the fivesamples in Lambert Creek (up to 118 ppm). the -two stormwater pondinlet samples were-above.the Level II. SQT of 13.0 ppm for lead (at 215 and 1060 ppm) whife the stormwater outlet sarilple was at 71 ppm. In QctOber 2019, 14additional sediment samples were collected and analyzed for lead. Severn of those samples were -taken along the north bank of lambert Creek and. ranged from 3.1 i37*ppni:*Other sampleswere taken from creek inlets and stormwater pond discharge locations. The highest concentrations, 374.and 546 ppm, were. collected .between the east stormwaterpond discharge and Lampert Creels. In July 2020, five sediment samplesweee collected, one iftLambert.Creek, three from the west stormwater pond, and one from the.south stormwaterpotld. Lead in the Lambert Creek samplewas above the Level I SQT (at 86.1 ppm), but lower in the four stormwater pond samples (4.3 to 26 pptn), 31 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT In March. 2021, Water Gremlin submitted a proposed workplan that includes dredgiing the eastern stormwater.pond to rem ove.lead-impacted sediment and red uce..additiopal lead that.could ultimately affect. Lambert Creek.(Stantec, 2021). This work has not been completed as. of April 2022. Water.Gremlin operations have contributed to lead concentrations.! n sediments; particularly in samples nearest the facility to the east and southeast. There is expected to be little to no trespassing that would result in human exposure to the lead in these sediments. F. Surface Water As mentioned above, the Water. Gremlin. property contaIns.a portion of Lambert .Creek, three stormwater retention ponds, and wetlands. The east and.west retention ponds flow.into Lambert Creek.. SaMpies from these surface waters were tested for VOCs, lead, and 1,4=dioxane, Figure.10 shows the locations of the lead samples. In June 201% six surface water samples were collected from Lambert Creek and analyzed for VOCs and lead (Wenck, 2D19). No VOCs were .detected, but lead was found in three samples (up to.12.5 ppb); two of the samples exceeded..MPCA's Tier I. Surface Water Screening Criteria (SW Criteria) of 6.7 ppb. Accordingto the MPCA Surface. Water Pathway Evaluation User's Guide (MPCA, 2006) Tier 1 surface water risk. evaluation "...requires. the least level.of effort and the most conservative standards, guidelines and criteria. It is used to screen.out sites that are not of concern." If the:Tier,1 investigation identifies contaminants at levels above those standards, guidelines or criteria, additional investigation may be required depending on the magnitude and extent of the contamination. MPCA staff conducted surface water sampiing.for lead testing in water bodies located in the.communify and well outside Water Gremlin property bouridaries in September 2019. Lead was detected, but below Tier I.Stand.ards in Birch Lake; Columbia Park Pond, Goose Lake, Lambert Creek, and Rice Lake. Lead was not detected in White Bear Lake. In Octo4er2019, 14 additional surface water samples were collected and analyzed for lead .on the Water Gremlin property (Wenck, 2020). Eight samples were. fro m the.north bank of Lambert Creek;.six were from .tributaries to and wetlands that drain into Lambert Creek or discharge`from stormwater ponds. lead was detected. 1n every sample. Ten samples were below SW Criteria, ranging from 0.12 -1 ppb, and four exceeded the. criteria. Three of the samples that exceeded SW criteria -were collected from the stormwater discharge from the Water Gremlin facility, and lead ranged in concentration from 26.4 - 88.1 ppb. The fourth sample that. .was.above the SW 'Criteria, at 640 ppb, is. the easternmost (upstream) sample on the property and.was collected from a southern inlet to Lambert Creek, However, this. sample may not have been filtered to remove suspended. sediment, which is standard practice for surface water samples. Suspended sediments in wetland samples ca.n increase measured concentrations of metals, which.may account. for the very high.level of lead observed in this sample. The other,sample collected from this tributary, at a location downstream less: than 250 feet away, had only 0.68 ppb lead, which.casts. further doubt on the results for the potentially unfiltered sample collected from this location. M..PCA req u ested. testing for lead from the Water Gremlin facility roof stormwater runoff, to see if the runoff was a.sou rce'of lead contamination in the east .stormwater pond. Two downspout samples were. ca..]lected-du ring..a rain event in October 20i9.. The two results were 1.6 and 2.7 ppb lead.:Whiie these results show that small amounts of Iead.are coming off the:facility roof, they are expected amounts and illustrate the purpose.of a.stormwater collection system. 32 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH A.SSE.S.SMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT In July 2020, five samples were collected from Lambert Creek and the west stormwater pond (Wenck, 21121) and tested for lead and 1,4-dioxane. All haddetectable lead.. The.four samples from the. stormwater pond exceeded the SW criteria fo.r lead and ranged from 618 to 4,04.0 ppb. The samprefmm Llimbert Creek had 0.62 ppb lead. 1,4-dioxane was detected in the Lambert Creek sample at 0.35 ppb and in one of the stormwater pond samples, at 1.1 ppb. In October 20W0, M D H and MPCA staff .collected seven. surface water samples from Gem Lake, Rice Lake, and two unnamed ponds southwest of Rice Lake —all bodies of water beyond the Water Gremlin property boundaries. The samples were tested for 1,4-dioxane, which was. not detected. Figure l0: Lead in Surface Water Sampling. Results The shallow groundwater and Lambert Creek -are directly connected with one another. Based on water level observations from a monitoring. well and Lambert Creek, at.timesof high water the surface water In Lambert Creek may flow outward from the creek into the shallow groundwater. At other times the groundwater may be discharging to Lambert Creek. Infiltration of surface Water from the stormwater ponds and Lambert Creek is likely to only affect the. shallow groundwater aquifer; dye to the.presence of `the semi -confining layer between the shallow aquifer..and the buried sand aquifer. However, contaminants transported further downstream, where the semi -confining layer mey-not be present, could potentially infiltrate to deeper groundwater. 33 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH A-SSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT The limited mobility of lead in groundwater due to its strong.attraction to a wide range of soil and aquifer materials (Clausen, Bostick, and Korte, 2011), ina149 it unlikely to pose a risk to the buried sand aquifer.o. private :or public drinking water supply wells near the Water Gremlin facility oi'further downstream 1h the surface Water system. 1,4-Dioxane is extremely mobile in groundwater, so infiltration-frorh surface water to groundwater or transport through the surface water:system-theoretically could pose a .risk to riearby drinking watei^ supplies. However,1,4-dioxono was detected.tri only two of the surface Water -samples at concentrations just above the HRL of 1 ppb in the stormwater pond (at 1.1 ppb) and below. the HRL In Lambert Creek (0.35 ppb). These.concentrations would..be diluted as the water eit4e0 infiltrates. into *the groundwater ortravels downstream in the sirrface.water system before possibly reaching any source of -drinking water:1,4-Dioxane was not detected in samples collected from Alce Lake or Gem Lake; so It It unlikely that -surface water transport or infiitration of. 1,4-dioxane currently poses a risk to. publi.chealfh. Given the high mobility of 1,4-dioxane in water, it is impossible to evaluate whether past transport of dioxane in Lambert Creek surface water may have contaminated the*groundwater. Water'Gremlin operations have contributed to lead.concerttratioris above the surface=water criteria in stormwater ponds and othersurface.waters on the company's property. Samples frofn*the downstream .portions of Lambert Creek on the Water Gremlin property were below the surface watercAteria for lead, as were samples from nearby lakes. Based on these results, there is expected to be little.to.no human exposure to the lead in the surfacewater of the Creek or the noted lakes outside thtboundaries. of Wateir Grerlilln: property: Water Gremlin operations have. also contributed to low ievels-of.1,4-dioxane In stormwatgr ponds and other surface waters on their prbperty; but 1,4-dioxane-Was notdetected in nearby. lakes or wetiands: there is expected to be little to no human exposure to 1,4-dioxane in the sur-face:wateron the company's property. G. Past Remedial investigations and Historical Actions—1994-2004 Soil and groundwater contamination was investigated on the Water Gremlin property*ln the past: Soli contaminated with lead was excavated frornVthe property in 1995-1996. The groundwater on site was monitored for a number of -compounds found in the shallow aquifer from 1997-2004. This section has been iilcluded-for completeness and to acknowledge what is known about cQntam.inationfrorq the facility in the past. In*1994, Ramsey County Haiardous Waste staff conducted a routine site visit-atthe Water Gremlin facility.and observed sand spilled out of a 55-gallon drum in an outside drum- torage area near the southeast corner of the facility (Braun, 1994). The sand was analyzed and contained high concentrations of lead. As a result, Ramsey County requested that Water Gremlin test the surrounding sollsfor lead, Fourteen soil.samples were collected. in and around the drum storage area. Coficentfations of lead in soil at the depth of 0-6 inches ranged. from 32 to 4,200 ppm (Braun,1994). In 1995, Water Gremlin hired. Braun, an environmental consultant, to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (13raun,1995). Braun identified.four areas that may -contain contamination, listed below: • Areas of spilled, used:oil,.potentially contaminated with lead, were identified;Qn the:concrete floor and -cinder block-walls*ofthe.manufacturing building and on the gravel -paved exterior -areas berieath the lea d-melting pot exhaust -vents. 34 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT:. PUBLIC COMMENT. DRAFT Small areas of stained flooring. were observed.in the manufacturing building near the: coating operations and in thevicinity of drums of unused TCE,. • "..:€t is possible the leaks may have occurred in. buried piping (of the.above ground storage tank for fuel oll) .or the base, which could have impacted soil and groundwater." • "...The full.exte.ntof lead. soiI contamination was not .yet been determined. Th e. exa ct. sou rce of`the contamination also has not been identified:' Also in 1995, Braun.collected an additional 48 soil samples to the south.and southeast of the Water Gremlin building as part of:a Phase. I Environmental Site Assessment to determine the extent of lead contaminated lolls, Of. the 48 samples, seven contained lead concentrations above the clean-up criteria of 400 ppm.and those locations were identified for follow-up soil removal (Braun, 1996). By the fall of 1996, over 1,000 cubic yards of.contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of in a landfill. Eight cubic yards of contaminated so€1 remained on. site because it was located around Sulbsurface infrastructure and was covered during the next facility building expansion (MPCA, 1997). €n June 1997; MPCA determined that no further. action was needed to. address the: identified release of lead in the.soll. in 1997, sail,.surface.Water, and groundwater were sampled forVOCs.near the :Water Gremlin facility (Wenck, 2019a.)..Low levels of TCE were detected. in some soil samples; but no VOC.s w.ere:found in the surface water. Chlorinated solvents were found in the shallow groundwater (Wenck, 2019a). Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in. six locations in the shallow aquifer around the property between 1.997 and.1999: (Wenck,.2019a).. Solvent breakdown products and nonchlorinated and petroleum -based compounds were also found in the groundwater (Braun, 1998). Many of the contaminants in the shallow aquifer were above the.MDH HRU for drinking water. No VOC:s were detected in an additional monitoring.w.e.11 placed in the deeper buried glacial aquifer (Wenck, 2019a). 5ampies were collected to evaluate the potential for contamination to affect groundwater used for drinking water. The White.Bea rTowns hip Municipal Well #5,.which is greater than 400 feet deep in the Prairie du Chien and. lordan bedrock aquifers, was. sampled for VOCs in 1998 and:none were .detected (Braun, 1998.). A groundwater receptor survey was conducted and it was determined that all drinking water wells draw f om.either the buried glacial .aquifer or the bed rock. aqulife r, neither of which were found to be contaminated (Braun, 1598). Groundwater flow was shown to be flowing to thesouth at that time (Braun, 2004). Groundwatersampling was conducted until.2004 and concentrationsof groundwater contaminants declined over time. The data also suggested that contaminabon was limited to the shallow aquifer by a confining layer located below it. In 2004,..MPCA issued a No Further Action letter for the. identified release. to the groundwater because contaminants were below the HRLs, on thecondition that if .property use changed, theuse will need to be. reevaluated (MPCA, 2004). The No Further Action letter lists 20 compounds identified as released to the. groundwater:.acetone; benzene, ch lo roet h a n e, chloroform, 1,1-d€chloroethane, 1,2=d1chloroethane) 1,1-dichloroethylene, cis-1.2-dichloroethylene, trans-1,1-di6loroethylene, dichlorodifluorormethane; ethylbenzene,.methyl ethyl.ketone, methyl.. isobutyl ketone, tetrahydrofuran, toluene, 1,1,1=trich loroethane, trichloroethylene,. trichlorofluoromethan% vinyl chloride and xylenes. Oil WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT V. Drinking Water A. Municipal Water The source of drinking water for many people in the area around the Water Gremlin property is municipal wells operated by White Bear Lake (WBL), White .BearTownship (WBT), or Vadnais Heights. As described earlier, these municipal drinking water wellsAre over 350 feet deep and draw water from bedrock aquifers (the Prairie du Chien group. and Jordan Sandstone). They are not expected to be.: affected by shallow groundwater contamination. The thme.munic.ipa1, systems regularly test for VQCs (which includes TCE, and other compounds detected in shallow groundwater at the Water Gremlin property) to meet federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Data collected by MDH over 'the fast 25 years shows. TCE has never been detected in the m.unicipaI drinking water :in WBL, WBT, or Vadnais Heights. Water from mun'icipal.welIs fro m.aII three systems was tested for 1,4-dioxane in the years shown) n the tablebelow. 1,4-Dioxane. was not detected in any of theme IIs with the exception of Vadnais Heights in 2.021. The three: municipal wells tested in Vadnais Heights alf had detections of 1,4-dioxane. at. low concentrations {0:069, 0.078, and 0.46 ppb) in December 2021. These detectionsare. .below the MD.H HRL.and are not a health concern. The source of the Vadnais Heights well contamination has not:been identified. Table 9: Years of.1,4 dioxane sampling. of municipal drinking water White Bear Lake 2014,2015 White Bear Township 2014; 2015, 2020 Vadnais Heights 2013, 2014, 2021 Annual water quality reports far municipal drinking water systems, called .Consumer Confidence Reports, describe where drinking watercomes from and any regulated contaminants that are detected. They are available on the webpages for the municipalities: • White Mar -Lake Consumer Confidence Report (http://www.w h itebea rl a ke. ore/pu bicwo rks/page/consumer-confidence-re park) White Bear Township Water Quality Report (http://www.ci.white-bear-�towhi hib.mn.ut/416/Water- Quality-Report) • Vadnais Heights. Water Quality. Report. (https://cityyadnaisheiehts.com/499/Water-Quality-Report) B. Private Wells A number of residences in the area near Water Gremlin rely on private drinking water wells. Nearly all Gem Lake residents rely on private Wells.for their' drinking.water, as: their city does not own or operate a co m m u n ity .pu bl is wate r su pply. system.. In March 2019, to provide additional :reassurance to.a.rea residents, the ..Minnesota Department of Health (MD.H) sampled 13 Private wells that Were selected to represent groundwater near the Water Gremlin facility. -Water samples were analyzed at the MDH Public Health Laboratory for a standard list of 68. VQCs,'includIng TCE and itsbreakdown products, No contaminants were detected. in any of the wells 36 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT sampled: A map.showing the general locations of the wells sampled can be found at Water Grem1in.Public Health Assessment Series —Private Well Sam plin .(www.health.state.mn.us/communitie5/environrxient hazardous does sites ramse w rivatewell2. df Because 1,4-dioxane was discovered in the shallow, groundwater on the Water Gremlin property in December 2019, MDH collected. water samples from 11 private wells in.`late January and early February of 20M Three of the xi wells had detectable levels of 1,4-dioxane, although the concentrations found (between.0.06 and 0.12 p0b) were significantly less than the HRL of 1 ppb. In April 2020,the. MPCA required Water Gremlin to sample private wells. with in a one -mile radius of its facility. MPCA and MDH prioritized testing locations based on the results of the.sampling earlier in 20Z0, Water Grern[in's environmental consultant (Wenck).sent letters to 97 residents at the priority locations requesting access to.collect and test a well Water sample. Forty-four well owners provided access to sample in.August 2020. MDH staff. also.collected duplicate samples from eight homes at the same time to verify test results. These MDH-collected samples were analyzed at the M D H Public Health Laboratory. The samples:coIlected by Wenck were tested by Pace Analytical and those.. results were reported directly to MPCA. 1,4-Dioxane was detected in three more private:well samples at concentrations of 0.23, 0.8, and 0.95 ppb. These concentrations are also below the HRL. The results of the samples.collected by MDH staff from the eight homes analyzed at.the Public Health Lab reported the some results (all not detected) for those homes,as the lab used by Water Gremlin, Because of the detections.of 1,4-dioxane in private we.lis,.Water Gremlin was required to conduct additional private welIsampling.1n 2021. WaterGrem lin's environmental consultant.(Stantec, formerly Wenck) sent letters to 129 residents requesting permission to test their well. Letters were sent to homes beyond the one -mile radius along Goose Lake Rd where 1,4-dioxane was detected in 2020. Stantec. received permission to sample the water from 49 wells on 48 properties. Initial results of this sampling effort in. J.uly 2021 showed. eight wells had l,4-dioxane above the MDH HRL, ranging from 1,1 to 3 ppb. These results led MPCA.and MDH.to expa rid the scope of private well testing in Gem Lake. By February 2022, a total of 92 private wells have been tested; 21 wells exceeded the 1,4-dioxane HRL and in another two wells the concentration was.exactly 1 ppb (see Figure 11 for genera1.locations). MPCA and M D H sent results to all residents. All households that .had.1 ppb of 1,4- dioxane or higher in their water were contacted directly and are receiving bottled water from a state - provided vendor. It is unknown whether the 1,4=dioxane detected in the Gem Lake private wells is from Water Gremlin. Additional investigation is needed to determine the source(s), MPCA is requiring Water Gremlin to investigate how far 1,4-dioxan.e has spread offtheir property and MPCA is investigating other potential sources in the area for possible releases of 1,4-dioxarie or products that may contain it. Becausethe. sourcq of the.1,44oxane contamination is. unknown, MPCA created a separate webpage to comrnunic.ate:wit h Gem Lake residents about. the private well sampling located at..Protecting Gem Lake residents from contaminated drinking water htt s: www. ca.state.mn.us waste rotectin - em-lake- residents-contaminated-drinking-water). MDH and MPCA continue to.sample residential wells to identify and define the area where 1,4-dioxane concentrations are above the HRL in order to protect health and ensure Gem. Lake residents have a safe drinking water supply. 92FA WATER .GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Figure 11: 2020-2021 Prlvdte Well Testing Results for 1,4-0ioxone MDH 1,4-Dioxane Health Risk Limit MDH developed a Health Risk Limit of 1 ppb for 1,4-dioxane: in drinking water in 2013: The HRL represents an amount of a contaminant that poses*liftle:or no health risk to those.drinking the water daily fdra lifetime, l'ncluding,sensitive or highly expbsed people. L,4-Dioxane-is..coltsidered a likely human carcinogen, based on studies of ahimals exposed.to .vety h1gh:aMourit5. The HRL of 1 ppb is based on a negligible cancer risk of one -additional cancer in 100,000 people consuming the water fora lifetime. The highest concentrations detected* In -well water In -Gem Lake arejust above the HRLand present a low health risk. Most of the wells' results are less*than 1 ppb'and are. considered safe fdr household .use by MDH. Appendix D presents an information sheet developed for and shared.with*the commurllty about 1,4-dioxane exposure and health in Gem Lake. 38 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC .HEALTH A.55E5SMENT; PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Lead. in Drinking Water Community concerns were raised about the possibility of lead contamination in drinking water from Water Gremlin. Low levels of lead (u.p to 15 ppb) have been found in shallow groundwater ben eath.the Water Gremlin building, but this does not reach the. deeper aquifers used for drinking water. The highest concentration found is below: the federal action.leveI of 15 ppb. Lead has: not been detected in deeper water samples, including the samples to from:the buried:sarid aquifer, which is the aquifer used by most of the private wells in the area (Wenck, 2020). Lead is: not usually found in well water, although it may enter drinking water as it travels from the well through plumbing systems.. For .example, private weIIs. buiIt before 1995 may have submersible pumps that contain leaded -brass components. Lead can also enter drinking water as it passes through the house's plumbing and fixtures, particularly in homes built before 1986 when lead solder was still in use. Brass components. such as faucets, coolers, and valves may contain.small amounts of lead. Private well owners are responsible.for regularly testing their well's water if it is used -for cooking and drinking to make. sure it is safe. MDH recommends testing. a. home's water for lead at least once. For moreinformation about private well testing, please see.(WaterQua lity/WelI Testing/Well Disinfection (www. hea lth,stat.e. m n: us/communities/environment/water/we I Is/ovate rqua lity/index. htrri 1 ). All public watersystems follow standards set bythe .U.S. EPA for lead testing. This information about lead testing.ca.n be found in. the yearly Consumer Confidence Re.. port. In June 2019, the City of White Bear Lake began providing public service announcements about lead in.dr'inking water after 4.of 30. residences that were tested were found to exceed the .federaI action level for lead in drinking water. Theseresults are not related to the Water Gremlin site, General tips to avoid lead in drinking water are to let. the. water run.30-60 seconds before..using it for drinking and cooking, use cold water, and test your water for lead. for more. info, visit. Lead in Well Water.Svstems www.health.state.mn.us communities enviironment water wells vate rq ualit lead.html . VI. Worker and Worker Family Exposures A. Indoor Air — Workplace Chemical Use and Vapor Intrusion Workplaces in Minnesota that use chemicals are regulated by the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MN OSHA) under the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI). Workers protected under MN OSHA must be provided.right-to-know training on hazardous products and chemicals and methods to help control hazards in their workplace. MN OSHA. has regulatory air values that workplaces cannot exceed, which are called Permissible Exposure Limits (PE Ls). The MN..OSHA PELs for 8-hour exposures of TCE and t-DCE are. 270,000 µg/rn3 and 790,000 µg/m3, respectively: MDH believes that :these occupational values may not be adequately -,protective of worker health,. because they are outdated, are not intended to protect .the. most.sensitive workers and do not incorporate the most recent toxicological data. t-DCE con centrations.1n the facility's indoor.air are generally high and fluctuate significantly because of its current use in. prod uction. As described above (Section B. 2019-2020 Air Emiss ions —trans-1,2= dichloroethylene) toxicity data fort-DCE is 11mited; however, MDH has provided Risk Assessment Advice for ambient air based on the amount. of t-DCE.(approximately 50,000 µg/m3) .where an irnmune system W WATER GREMLIN PUBL.I.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT effect was observed in a subchronit animal study. Therefore; Water Gremlin workers exposed to t-DCE. repeatedly at concentrations measured at their facility maybe at risk of immune system effects. When.chemicaI expos ures.in the.workplace: occur because of vapor intrusion, cam mercfal/industrial ISVs are used to evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway, The commercial/industrial ISVs. for TCE arid..t-DCE.are 7 µg/m3 and 70 µg/m3;: respectively.. As discussed in.section V: Remedial Investigation and Interpretation; part C. above, weekly sub -slab and. indoor air sampling has.been conducted at the. Water Gremlin facility from.January 2020 tothe present. TCE was found in indoor air.overthe ISV of 7 µg/mB occasionally,. In January 2020; MDH mquested.that. Water Gremlin notify its employees of TCE in -indoor air, despite indications that the source was most likely from past TCE use in the facility rather than Vapor Intrusion. MDH provided notification language forthe companyto use (see Appendix E) and also provided the notification translated into Hmorig, Karen; and Somali at Water Gremlin's request. TCE concentrations 1n. indoor air within the Water Gremlin facility have decreased over time arid .most commonly are non -detector in the single digits below the ISV. of 7 µg/m3 (M. Ginsbach, personal. communication, November 8,1021). B. Lead and Take -Home Lead Lead poisoning may cause learning, behavior, and health pro blons<in young children: Exposure to lead before or during pregnancy has been linked to miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirths as well as poor braiwand nervous system development in infants. Early symptoms of lead poisoning among adults include fatigue, upset stomach or stomach cramps, poor appetite, irritability/nervousness/depression, headache, sleeplessness, metallic taste in. the mouth, reproductive problems, high blood pressure, lack of concentration, and muscle and/or join pain. During the manufacturing process, people who work at Water Gremlin maybe exposed to lead dust. Workers can bring lead dust on clothes, shoes, body, and personal items into homes. This is called take- home lead. DOLI is responsible for enforcing requirements regarding lea.d exposures to employees: There are a number of requirements that need to be met to assure that employees are not exposed to lead. greater than the OSHA PELs. The require ments.are also meant to:emure that lead is not leaving the facility where it, can put .employee family members at risk., MDH and DO.LI. took court action.1n late October 2019 to temporarily shut down Water Grem [in's lead casting operations due: to.12 cases of elevated blood lead levels (EBLs) in children of Water Gremlin employees: MDH and Ramsey County encouraged Water Gremlin employees to keep children away from work clothes and shoes and to clean entryways, closets, and vehicles. Free blood lead testing was provided to employees and.each member of their family, A majority of Water Gremlin workers tested had high blood lead levels. Through blood lead testing and additional efforts to identify.child ren of Water Gremlin employees in MDH's blood lead testing database; an additional 12 children of workers With EBLs were discovered, bringing the totalto 24 children. On November 22, 2019, a Ramsey County District .Court ordered. Water Gremlin to take additional measures to reduce lead .exposure%arid .prevent take-home' lead to protect the health. and safety of its workers and their families. These measures include routine: cleaning and testing of lead levels at the Water Gremlin facility, monthly refresher tra.i6ing in languages. understood by the:employees, lead wipe testing on. employees clothing, skin and hair upon exiting for the day, installing new..changing :and locker room facilities, and an employee vehicle cleaning program. As a result, data from 2019 to 2021 show that blood lead levels. in workers appear to be:de.clining. 40 WATER GRE.M..LI.N PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT In addition,. MDH provided a notice of potential residential lead contamination for current and former employees (within the last -two years) along with information on how. to.clean up lead dust.in a home and 'information on lead exposure during pregnancy and breastfeeding, The .Court ordered Water Gremlin to offer home lead testing, and if needed, home cleaning: Water.Grem [in appealed the residential testing and cleaning, but a ruling in 2020 upheld this requirem.e.nt. Stantec, on behalf of Water Gremlin, initiated contact in mid-2021 for nine. employees who requested this service. The. identities of the nine employees were withheld from Water Gremlin. Starting in.mtd-2021, MDH is receiving approximately $1.3 million per year in additional General Funds to conduct in=home lead risk assessments for all children in Minnesota with an elevated blood lead level above.5. micrograms of lead. per deciliter of blood (the .current CDC definition of.an elevated blood: lead level).. This is a significant.public health equity measure, as until now only children. living in M.i.nneapolis and Ramsey County.received th is. important service due to inadequate funds for case investigations outside those two jurisdictions: The new legislation permits this work for children up to age 18, as well as.provides.new.enforcement authority for caseswhere the lead exposure. originated outside.the home- -as in the Water Gremlin situation. VII. Minnesota Public Health Data MDH collects public health data on various diseases and conditions in order to provide Minnesotans with meaningful statistics on rates and trends across the state. This data can also inform health professionals and citizens about. risks and, when warranted, provide a more complete and accurate profile of health outcomes for communities having questions or concerns about disease rates in their area. Collecting this data is mandated by state law. Surveillance data for certain cancers, birth. defects; .and blood lead test results col lected.by MDH were of particular interest fo I lowing the discovery of a history of airborne. release of TCE.and other.issues at Water Gremlin. Several MDH programs responded to inquiries and concerns about various potential health outcomes among people who.live, or previously lived, near the facility. Findings from the Minnesota Cancer Reporting System, the Rirth Defects. In€ormation System; and the Blood Lead Information System evaluated to respond to community concerns are summarized below along with the limitations of each data analysis, More information on these programs and health statistics, and many others, can be found on the MN Public Health Data Access Portal htt s: dat8.web.health.stato-rhh:us web rindata . A. Cancer The Minnesota Cancer Reporting System (MCRS) completed a cancer occurrence report in March 2019 that analyzed cancer occurrence for the most recent 10-year period.for which complete data were available (2006-2017). The study area (see Figure 1Z below) was comprised of five census tracts surrounding the Water Gremlin facility. The geography represented by the tracts is larger thanthe area where annual average TCE. concentrations 1n outdoor air (based on reported total TCE emissions in 2018) were predicted to. be above the.M.DH health -based value .(HBV) of 2 µg/m3, but smaller groupings. of cancer occurrence and population were not available in the MCRS database for use. in the analysis. 41 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC: HEALTH ASSESSMENT-. PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT Figure 12: Study Area for the'Concer Ocettrrence. Report Study ce sus':`tracts:... a' [a••h- ,n Nvo f: r .�•Fsrl'+::� : ::lac. a r M _ U iN'dtCf.�CsPefilfu5 m� .:.....:...:.. �:'Tif:!r+•1 Qy� :;..A. r r aw Overall cancer rates in the study area were found to be virtually identicafto cancer'rates: in ti�a•seven- co.untyTwin Cities Metro area. For both genders combine.d;.970 cancers were diagnosed in residents living in the study area ovetthe 10-year period (200.6-2017),.compared to the expected.-number-ofa9y8 cancers: additionally, nbne.bf the cancers specifically analyzed4br in male or female residents of the five-census.tract study area showed significantly. greater cancer rates in the 10-year assessment period .compared to expected rates. This includes the three types of cancers (kidney, liver, and.non-Hodgkin lymphoma); most believed to be associated with TCE exposures. While'the concluslons•drawn from this data analysis provides some assurance that cancer rates in the study.area•are.6ot unusual for the study period, it is important to know that the MCR5 data have limitations, including those described below. WA WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH AsSE55MENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT ■ This analysis of cancer rates does not:speciifically:address potential health risks from environmental exposures to. TCE. Because TCE is commonly used; it is not unusual for people to frequently encounter small amounts of TCE'in air from many.s.ources. Cancersurveillance data by itself is not enough to establish the extent that an .environmental exposure m.ay be contributing to cancer .occurrence. The estimates of expected.cases are based only.on age and gender distribution of the -study area population. The rates do not accountfoethe many other risk.factors = such as family history, smoking.history, occupation, and diet —that affect whether cancer rates are high or low in a community at a point in time. The MCRS only collects information ❑n residence at the time of diagnosis, The location recorded for place of residence does not necessarily indicate an exposure.causing the.illness. also occurred. at or nearthat location. For example, .6 person diagnosed with cancer who previously lived near the Water Gremlin facility and left, would not be identified in the selected geographies if they moved. outside.the study area. Likewise, a person who moved into the area before a dlagnosis, may be counted as living in the.study area. This would contribute to the observed cancer rates, even though potential exposures to..many cancer risk factors likely occurred before living in the .studyarea. In addition, people may be exposed to hazards that affect their health at workplaces or other locations that are distant from their place.of residence. The full report, Cancer Occurrence Report for White Bear Township; White Bear Lake and Gem Lake Area Five'Census,Tracts, 2007.2016, is in Appendix F. M D H does not expect to see. meaningful changes in cancer patterns and trends in this community in the future; especially.ovei- the short term.. Nevertheless, M D H would consider a reanalysis of Minnesota Cancer Reporting System data at a later time (e.g.,1n 10 years). if the situation warrants and community interest remains high. B. Birth Defects TCE from the Water Gremlin facility was released i.n the southern part of zip code 55110: Because of Potential exposures to residents in this area and the. potential link between TCE and cardiac birth defects in animal studles, M D H reviewed available data from .the Minnesota Birth Defects Information System (B015). Since monitoring birth defects among babies born 1n Minnesota began in May200.5, the earliest available population=based:.data on Congenital heart defects is for babies born in :2006. For the: purposes of this evaluation, the mother's residence: in zip code. 55110 at the time she delivered her baby was chosen as a.proxy for possible exposure to TCE 1n air. This geography most closely corresponds to the area where people who were most:] 1 kely to be exposed regularly to airborne TCE dispersed from the Water Gremlin facility would live..5maIler geographical units were.not available in the BDIS for this analysis. The frequency of congenital heart defects diagnosed an.d re ported: for births. to mothers living in zip code 55110 were compared to the frequency of the same defects that occurred in other parts of the state from.the 2006 to 2019 birth cohorts. MDH conducted an analysis of the. 2006 to.20W birth cohorts in.201.9; the analysis was updated in 2021 to include births through 2019=-the period when pregnant women were potentially exposed to TCE from the Water Gremlin facility. The addition of 2018 and 2019 birth cohorts did not change the results -of the analysis, Based on the timeline. of reported TCE emissions: from the Water Gremlin facility, about 400 infants were born annually to women living in this area at the time of delivery for the 2006 to 2019 birth cohorts (recall that congenital he defects data were. not recorded before 2006). Of these, about 3 4.3 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH A5SE55MENT. PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT ihfants.per yearly cohort (range: 0-7) were diagnosed with congenital heart defects, These observed numbers do not appear different from expected numbers (range: 2-5) based on prevalence estimates available for Minnesota. The numbers of septai defects (affecting atria or ventricles) — the.most common congenital heart defects in Minnesota were consistent in babies born to residents in zip code 55110 over the 14 birth cohorts as compared to other parts of the state.. While the conclusions. drawn from this data analys.is..should provide some assurance that the number of congenital heart defects for the 2005 to.2019. birth cohorts in the 55110 zip code. is not unusual, it is important to know that the BD15 data also have limitations. • Minnesota.'s birth defects survelliance program is in an. early stage of development. It takes many years to.collect enough data to be able to identify trends i.n the occurrence of birth defects because they are relatively rare; and:therefore, small,.random changes can appear to have a significant effect on such rates. Inthe. shortterm. Unless the differences:.were large, it would be difficult to discern any differences. in occurrence from one location to another given the low numbers of congenital heart defects and the small population potentially exposed to. TCE from.the facility (in the southern.portion of zip code 55110). • The re are many possible sources of environmental exposures that could contributeAo.iiirth defects: risk and are unknown and unaccounted for. 1n a population group as large as the zip code 55110. • Residence witltiin a zip code is an. imprecise proxy for potential exposureto TCE from Water Gremlin and variability in exposures among pregnant women who lived 1nthe.55110 zip code would likely be. considerable (potentially ranging fromno exposure to the highest estimates predicted). • The origin of congenital heart defectsis complex and poorly understood: C. Community Blood Lead Levels Community members expressedconcern that lead from Water Grem] in's operations .could have been mishandled (including allegations of illegal. dumping on or off site). and asked whether the public may have been exposed to harmful ania.unts.of lead from the facility. MDH's.lea d.surveiI[ance..program was asked whether lead testing results compiledin the Blood Lead Information System (BL1S) database could. help address these concerns. MDH evaluated BLIS data for the 55110 zip code (see Figure..13 below). Because rnost lead exposure in Minnesota can be traced back to lead -based paint in older homes, M D H used the bordering zip codes of 55082, 55109, and 55115 for comparison because housing ages and median household incomes were .similar to.55110. MDH obtained data from B.LIS fo.r blood specimens drawn between January 1; 2000.and March 18, 2019 for residents of these four zip codes. An elevated. blood lead level (EBLL) was defined.as 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dQ or greater —the value currently used. bythe U.S. Centers. for Disease Control :and Prevention to identify children who have higher levels of exposure to lead than most children. EBLL rates :decreased in all four zip codes over time -For adults, the 55110 zip.co.de s..howed higher EBLL rates than the comparison zip codes. However, when known .employees of Water Gremlin were excluded from the analysis, there were. no sign if.'icant differences in EBLL between 55110 and the comparison zip codes. People known to be employees of'Water Gremlin were twice %as.Iikely to live in 55110 as the comparison area,.which accounts for this trend.: 44 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC: HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT .DRAFT Children under six yearsof age represented the majority of individuals tested in the data analyzed for this report. There.was nosignificant difference in children's EBLL rates between zip.code.55110 and the. comparison area. However, addresses -of 3.6% of children with a.n EBLL were matched to the address of a known Water Gremlin employee who also was tested for lead and had their place of work reported to the BLIS database. Ad iscussio n of take-home Lead and..the steps taken to prevent this from. occurring among Water Gremlin workers and their families is found in section.V]I. B. above: Figure 11 Zip Codes Where B106d.Leod Information System Data was Evaluated Woi-r Interpretation of theresults are limited for several reasons. • EBLL rates for an area are --a non-specific.measure. They must be combined with additional information, such as case manager interviews and.environmental sampling, to.be able to determine the most likely sources) of lea d.for the individuals with EBLLs. • Adult blood lead data. are very limited as most adults are not routinely tested for lead, and those who are donot represent the general adult population. • Eimployees.of a company Who have. received a blood lead .test are not necessarily representative of all.employees of that company. • MDHI receives test results but does not receive a roster of company employees who work with lead; so matching employee addresses to chi Idren's addresses is a rough approximation of.children who might be exposed to take-home.lead. • The reference level for EBLLs (.cutoff where a measurement.is defined as "elevated".) was lowered from 10 µg/dL to 5 µg/dL in 2012. This implies that tests. in 5 — 9,9 µg/dL range would likely: have gone unconfirmed prior to 2012 and not. recorded in MDH's blood .lead information system as elevated. LI6i WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC H.EA.LTH A.SS:ESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Ix. Responding to Community Concerns Over the course of three years, MDH staff coordinated and collaborated with many partners and stakeholders to engage community members that live near and are concerned about environmental releases from the Water Gremlin facility: These collaborations included state agencies (mainly the MPCA and Department of Labor and Industry),. county public health, city and #ownship government, and community advocates. ManychanneIs for communication were established arid used for various audiences and different topics. A general email address a.nd phone line were widely promoted as.a mechanism for the. public to contact MDH about this site. Calls a.nd.ema1Is were logged,.shared with partners as needed to develop responses, and used to identify topics of growingconcern to be addressed by communication:and outreach efforts.a.nd.produets. in a year's time starting on) anuary 31, 2019, MDH staff recorded 13.3 inquiries from individuals concerned about the site, Staff acid partners attended several, large community -wide meetings, met with selected audiences and, local officials on many occasions, and participated in regular meetings with an advocacy group (the Neighborhood Concerned. Citizens Group [NCCG]) over the course of.severa1 years thus. far. To.offer opportunities for community members to ask their questions.more.d1rectl.y and privately, MDH and MPCA staffheld a series of listening sessions at different. locations. in the area. Translated materials (in Hmong, Spanish, Karen, and Somali) were provided to ensure company employees.had access to understandable information. News media coverage and interviews with community members provided further examples of questions, comments, and concerns expressed by people who wanted to know if or believed.their health was affected in ways thatwere.or could. be attributable.to contaminants from the site. MDH also responded to questions.frorn health care providers about health effects of TCE inhalation and.the advisability of seeking testingfo.r patients. The following lists; organized by whether the issues.are addressed in the PHA document or beyond its scope, summarize the main categories of topics and gives examples of the questions, requests, and comments communitymembers .shared . A. Community Inquiries Topics addressed in. this document • Biological testing: How to -get tested to assess exposure to TCE; inquiries about and requests for community -level screening for such exposure, • Health studies: Requests for health effects surveil[ance in the surrounding community; requests for health studies to assess. the.consequences of site contaminants in the community; questions about the Minnesota Cancer Reporting System:data for the community. Health effects, Reports of symptoms or diagnosed health problems (various cancers,.skin irritation, asthma, etc.) --usually accompanied by questioningWhether effects could be caused by anything released from the.faciIity; requests for explanation of potential risk for and type of health effects possible for people living atspecific [ocations.during spec.ific:time periods; requests for information or'advice .about health concerns from and among former Water Gremlin employees or their family members. • Environmental ..contamination. Requests for more detailed accounting of how much TCE was released to air and when; requests forinformation about how much TCE (or tDCE) was present.in air at specific locations and times;. questions about potential impact of airborne TCE on the so![ and 46 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC. HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT garden produce and.cansumers; inquiries about potential-cantarnination of surface water bodies (131reh L.ake,. Birch. Lake Ponds, Goose..Lake, wetlands/ponds near Water Gremlin site, and a drainage ditch); allegations of past waste disposal by Water Gremlin or others into Birch lake and nearby wetlands,• calls for evidence to.demonstrate safety of dr"inking water (e.g., City of White Bear Lake public water system, White Bear Township public water system, or any private non community or residential wells nearby, and. even:the. potential for the drainage ditch to carry contanninants from Water Grem lin's property and affect drinking water in areas served by the Saint Paul Municipal water supply system). Environmental. testing: Questions a.bout private well testing and replies to access requests for permission to sample private wells. Topics outside this document's scope • Illness or death of pets • intent :to file complaints or re parthealth.effects • questions about seeking compensation for perceived. damages. • Distrust of .company's self -reporting of emissions and monitoring data results. • Safety of handIIng Water Gremlin..b.attery terminal pasts • Complaints about odors and requests for investigation Other topics and responses • Req ui reme nts `for disclosure.of Water Gremlin releases.in residential real estate transactions and questions about.safety.of nioving into specific locations in the area. • MDH response:. Because there. is no residual contarri1nationfro m. Water Grem lin's releases in the surrounding:residential neighborhoods; there is no need to disclose proximity to the company's property. Private well sampling results must be disclosed to prospective buyers. As is the case for any pro.perty.purchase decision, buyers are encouraged to educatethemselves about the .environment where they intend to locate. • Residential indoor air quaIitytesting. • MDH response:. No residual contamination from past releases of aIrborrie TCE should affect residential indoor air. MDH's web page, Guidelines for 5electing_an,IAQ.Consultant *i www.health.state:mn-us communities environment air mold selectin la .htrnl contain5 information:on indoor air quality considerations and testing, MDH recommends all Minnesotans test their homes for radon. Radon -is a colorless, odorless soil vapor that is produced from the natural.decay of uranium that. it .present in nearly all soils. When.inhaled, it gives off radioactive particles that can damage the cells of the lung and cause lung cancer. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in.no.n-smokers. Over 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.56 each year are. from radon. Radon is a common problem in Minnesota where.2 in S homes have .radon levels that pose asign ifica. nt Health risk. See the M D H website for more information about Radon Testing www.heaith.state.mn.us communities environment air/radon/radoniestresults.html. 5W1 WATER GREMLIN. PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT B. Health Study Requests M D H received many requests to conduct a "health study" that couId.determine whether exposures to TCE in air from Water Gremlin affected the health of people.who have lived near the facility. When. people refer to health studies they may mean different activities, including collecting self -reported health.inforrriatio.n, conducting medical screening or reviewing medical records, or conducting .biomonitoring.in community members. A health study may also refer to an epidemiological investigation designed to collect measures of exposure and health outcomes to determine if sufficient statistical evidence can be found to conclude an association, suggestiveof.a causal relationship, :exists betweeh.an exposure and an.effect. There :a re many reasons for wanting a health study -from documenting the health of the community,: to contributing to research about health effects of TCE, to support litigation, to: gaining information that will help address potential health concerns in the future, However, scientific health studies are often very challenging to conduct and often are disappointing because of their inability to identify a connection between.exposures and health outcomes. Major challenges to conducting a health study in the community surrounding the Water Gremlin property include the following:. The amountof TCE individuals were exposed to is unknown, in.part because historica l. data. on.air concentrations does not exist. Expos ures`were. also likely to be highly:va'riaole. depending on time. spent in different locations. TCE exposures maybe. too low to cause any observable health effects.for most if not all people who lived or were regularly near the Water Gremlin faciiity.:SIightly or moderately increased. rates.of health effects can be hard to "identify against the existing. backgrou nd rates of the same effects from all causes that affect the community. As described in the TCE Toxicity and Risk Assessment section. on page 12,.some ahirnaI studies show exposure to TCE in air may increase the risk.of: immune system and kidney effects, or heart defects in the developing fetus. However, it6ppea rs unlikely that exposures to TCE from Water Gremlin have occurred at levels sufficientto cause observable heaith.effects in the community or broader population of the area: Based on the mode led .estimates of TCE in'air from Water Gremlin, MDH expects that any increase in cancer is. un11kely to be recognized or measurable compared to the background rate of cancer tha# already.exists.from all causes. However, it is possible that past exposures to TCE. inair near the facility may have been sufficient to increase.the risk of health effects in a small number of the most exposed individuals. MDH staff were asked .to consider whether a health.study for the community near Water Gremlin is feasible, but concluded that a valid, scientificstudy is not possible given the. challenges. For more explanation of the challenges of health studies and two excellent resources for communities, please see Community Health Studies and Environmental Contamination in Appendix G. MDH is available to explore and discuss what efforts. may be feasible that help meet the goals and objectives .of the community. C. Stress When people learn the ir:comm unity's.water, soil, :or.air may not be. safe because of contamination from a nearby source, many difficult questions cah.surface. Is my health at risk? How can I protect myself and my loved ones? Is it safe .to stay in my home? Where can I get reliable information about what's happening? 48 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC .HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Community members living with environmental contamination may experience. chronic stress for various reasons (e.g., health concerns, uncertainty, and community conflict), which can .be compounded by feeling diismissed.., powerless, unheard,- or. unsupported. It's hard to wait for answers, especially if you don't know who to trust. And people may not agree about how to handle the situation; even among farriily and friends. Stress is a normal reaction. to environmental contamination; :it is not a. mental health disorder. However, chronic stress can pose physiological health risks on top of the health risks that may be associated with .expos ure to.contaminants (ATSDR., 2021). Resources A7SDR's online Community Stress. Resource Center (ww.w.atsdr.tdc.gov/stress/comMunity_merribers.htmi) was.created to acknowledge stress and worry related to environmental coritamination and offer ideas for managing stress. MDH's webpage offers an information sheet created for people in the community concerned about the Water Gremlin contamination: Coping, with the stress that environmental contamination can cause www.health.state,mn.us communities environment hazardous`docs steesscontsit6s. d . D. CumulativeRisks Cumulative risk assessment (CRA) is a concept that aims to consider the many factors, both chemical and non -chemical, that may. affect health in a community. At its, Mrn plest, CRA attempts. to add risks from.multiple environmental chemical exposures and includes all the exposure pathways (ingestion,. inhalation;. dermal,.etc.) in multiple media (drinking water, air, soil, etc.) from all sources (other facility emissions, naturally occurring contaminants, traffic emissions, etc.) over time. This approach of adding health risks of single chemicals may overestimate or underestimate risks, although risk assessment 'is intended to take into account that certain individuals or populations can be more sensitive to the effects of.ch.e:micais than others.. Real -world chemical mixtures are complex and data from either animal or human studies .on .combined effects of exposures to mixtures is.generally lacking.. A.multitude of other, non -chemical stressors can.also affect health. These factors caninclude noise, poor :nutritiion, stress, crime,. etc. Of particular importance are factors that make populations more vulnerable to contamination due to health disparities --such as lack of access to health care, poverty,: education :inequity, etc. The complexity of accounting for all th ese:. factors. makes it. difficult to.quantify.risk or create a single approach to assessing health risk. The U.S. EPA is.expected to release: an updated CRA guidance. document in the:coming.months. M D H staff will review this document and look for ways to incorporate its concepts to further.acknowledge all the factors that.may affect health in a community. This Public Health Assessrnent.reviews all the possible exposure pathways in all environmental media affected by known contamination from the Water Gremlin facility. Ongoing t-DCE air exposure adds additional risk to that from past TCE air exposures. Workers at Water Gremlin experienced high levels of solvent and lead exposures, and may also face health disparlties..FinMly, other chemical exposures from all sources people may encounter and non -chemical stressors that .could impact individuals' health also. are expected to. exist. within this community. 49 wATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH. ASS-ESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT xl. Conclusions MDH reached seven main conclusions regarding potential exposures to contaminants. from Water Gremlin, followed by next. step. s/recomme.ndations. Items: that MDH Will continue to address are described by the .Public Health Action Plan below. Conclusion 1: Past TCE air emissions may have harmed some people's health. Basis for Conclusion. l: It is possible that past :exposures to TCE 1n air near the facility m.ay have been sufficient to increase the risk of health effects in a small number of the most exposed individuals. However; TCE exposures may be too low to cause. any.observable health effects for most if not all people who lived or were regularly near the. Water Gremlin facility. The potential health effects of TCE exposure at the expected concentrations are an increased. risk of certain cancers (kidney, and possibly liver and non -Hodgkin's lymphoma), non -cancer effects to Ifnmune system and kidney, and a risk of heart defects.during fetal development. Increased cancer risk using a reasonable maximum exposure scenario.is.estimated to. be an additional 1.5 cases of cancer in:10,000 people (see Append ix C). MDH completed. an analysis of the data from the Minnesota Can.ce..r Reporting System and overall .cancer rates inthe Water Gremlin study area were virtually identical to cancer rates in the seven -county Twin Cities Metro area. M D H also evaluated congenital heart defects cases.from the.Birth Defects Information System and found that the observed numbers in the area surrounding Water Gremlin do not appear different from what is expected based -on prevalence estimates available for Minnesota:. Next Steps/Recommendations: MDH staff do not expect to see meaningful changes in cancer patterns and trends inthis community, especially over the short term. Nevertheless, due to the lag time between the time of highest TCE exposure and the possible occurrence of cancer, MDH would consider a. reanalysis of Minnesota Cancer Reporting System data in. the future: (e.g., 10 years) if the situation warrants it at that time and: community interest remains high. In response to questions. from community members and elected officials, MDH considered the: possibility of.co.nducting a health study to.add ress concerns about exposures to contamination from Water Gremlin but concluded that a scientifically valid health study is not feasible given the many challenges posed by such. efforts, especially when historical information necessary to estimate past exposures: does not exist. MDH.remains.ava.ilable to expfo.re and discuss what efforts may be feasible that may heIp.to meet the goals and objectives of the.community, Conclusion 23 Past orcurre.nt t-DCE and lead air emissions. are not expected to. harm people's health. Basis for Conclusion 2: The. outdoor air surrounding Water Gremlin is affected by use of t-DCE atthe facility: The t-DCE from Water Gremlin is expected to spread out in air surrounding the facility similarly to past TCE.emissions, although current use of t-DCE. is significantly lower than past use of TCE. Given the available air monitoring. data. from. sampling locations.on the Water Gremlin property, and what can be estimated from mode 11ng,.t-DCE.air concentrations were over the current chronic Risk Assessment Advice (RAA) value (20 µg/m3) beyond Water Grem 1iWs property boundary at times. In a very limited nurnber. of times. air concentrations were over the subchronIt RAA value.(WO µg/m3) for short durations. However, neitherthe chronic nor subchronic RAA were exceeded for a.length.of time that poses a health concern. Also; the air monitoring results represent locations on the Water Gremlin property.that are higher than actual exposures to.t-DCE (how much t-D.CE. enters the body through breathing) experienced by people in the community.. 5D WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT- PUBLIC COMMENT GRAFT Monitoring for lead in.outdoor air on the.Water Gremlin property began in September 2019.and indicates lead emissions are; and. have been, well below the National Ambient.Air quality Standard of O.i. µg/m5 set by the U.S,. EPA to protect public health. Lead emissions are expected to deposit to the ground :near WaterGrem[in's facility. MD.H's Blood Lead Information System (BLIS) database was queried and confirmed rates of elevated blood lead for children in zip code 55110 did not differ significantly from a comparison area, suggesting the Community was not exposed to harmful. amounts of lead from:. facility air emissions. Next Steps/Recommendations: MDH recommends that MPCA continue to closely evaluate air emissions from Water Grem lin's.facility and ensure adherence to the new.air permit when it is final. MDH will continue to monitor new toxicological information for t-DCE to ensure the MDH air Risk Assessment Advice is protective of public health. Conclus.ion.3: Groundwater contam1nation.is not. expected to harm people's health Basis for Conclusion 3: Municipal -drinking water in White Bear Lake and White Bear Township is not affected by Water.Gremlin groundwater contamination. 1;4-13ioxane was detected below the MDH HRL in m.u.nicipaI wells in Vadnais Heights, from an unknown source. There are private we] 1s in Gem Lake contaminated with 1;4-dioxane above.MDH's HRL, but the concentrations of 1,4-dioxane are low and not expected. to result in health effects. Households with wells with 1,4-dioxane concentrations. exceeding the HRL have been notified.and are provided bottledwaterto limit exposure, The source of the Gem Lake contamination is also unknown. Nex.t Steps/Recommendations: Water Gremlin is responsible foe defining the extent and magnitude of the groundwater contamination from releases or threatened releases from their facility. MDH recommends MPCA.continue to investigate the source of the 1,4-dioxa.ne groundwater contamination found in Gem Lake private wells and the. Vadnais Heights municipal wells. MPCA and MDH will continue to sample private.wells and provide bottled water ms .needed to well owners with contamination above the HRLfor 1,4-dioxane. Conclusion:4: Soil vapor contaminat"ion is nota risk at. properties.near Water Gremlin:. Basis. for Conclusion 4: TCE and t-DCE Were found at high levels in soil vapor.beneath th6 Water Gremlin facility and.a mitigation system was. installed to protect workers. Soil vapor sampling around the facility show that high levels of vapors are not migrating to neighboring homes. Conclusion 5: Soil, sediment, ands urface water contamination from Water Gremlin does not pose a. health risk to the community. Basis for Conclusion S: The areas of soil contamination at Water Gremlin have been defined and are limited to the. company's.property..Water Gremlin operations have contributed to lead concentrations in sediments, particularly in samples from wetlands nearest the facility to the east and southeast. There is expected to be little to no human exposure to the lead in these sediments: Water Gremlin operations have contributed to lead and 1;4-dioxane in stormwater porids.and other surface waters on the company's property, but there is expected. to be little to no human exposure to these surface water bodies. Currently, there is.not enough Ihformation:to determine whether past transport of 1,4-dioxane in surface water may have contaminated the groundwater. 51 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Next Steps/Recommendations: In Marc.h.2021, Water Gremlin submitted a proposed workplan that includes dredging the.eastecn.StormwaterPOW to remove lead -impacted sediment and reduce. additional lead that could. ultimately affect Lambert Creek. Conclusion 6: indoor air at the Water Gremlin' facility maybe harming or may have harmed worker's health. Basis for Conclusion 6: During the vapor intrusion investigation at the Water.Gremlin. facility ; TCE was found in. indoor air above the Minnesota commerclal/industrial Intrusion ScreeningUalue#SV) of 7* µg/m3. MDH reques..ted that Water Gremlin notify its employees ofTCE in indoor air, although data indicated the source was most likely from past Td use irrthe fdcllltw and not vaporIntrus on. MOH provided the notification in several languages. t-DC5 eoricentratioris in the facility's indoor air are generally high.:and fluctuate sfgrOcantly because:of. Its current use in -production. Water Gremlin. workers exposed tot-DCE repeatedly -at concentrations measured at their -facility may beat risk of immune system*effects. Next Steps/Recommendations: AS required under OSHA, MDH.recommends.that Water Grerrtilin.hotify its workers about.workplace hazards and protect the health and safety of its workforce. --- - - ---------------------- Conclusion. 7: Exposumto lead may have harmed the health -of Water Gremlin workers and their families. Basis for Conclusion 7: In 2019, MDH identified.24 children of Water Gremlin workers with elevated blood lead levels, defined as venous blood lead of.at least.5 Micrograms/deciliter. Next Steps/Recommendations: To protect the health and safety of Its workers and their families, a number of measures.. were required of Water Gremlin in orderto i`ed.uce employee lead exposure and .prevent taMAome.lead. MDH-will continue to review elevated. blood lead resultsfrom routine testing to ideritlfy results*that may be -related to Water Gremlin:in collaboration with local public health. departments.. New legislation passed in 2021 provides*MDH additional funding to conduct in -home lead risk assessments forell children in Minnesota with elevoted;blood lead levels and provides new 'enforcement authority.for cases where the lead exposure originated outside of the home, as in the Water Gremlin 41tuation.. If children of Water Gremlin. workers.are identified with elevated blood lead, MDH and local-publlc health will take appropriate actions to Investigate and mitigate lead hazards. Note: The majority of Water Gremlin workers who received blood lead tests in 2019 had high blood lead levels, though they appear to be declining. Assessment and control of worker lead blood lead levels. are. beytlnd the scope of the PHA and is a matter that is regulated- by the, Minnesota DepagMe.nt*of.Labor and Industry.. Xlt. Public Health Action Plan The bullets below are actions MDH will take to prntectthe health of the community intotliefuture. ■ MDH will review-any.additional site investigation*repofts completed as-Oai-t of the remedial investigation for Water Gremlin and will share -Information about any potentflalheaith corceitts:with the community -if Identifled in the future. 52 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COM-MENT DRAFT • M D H will continue to monitor new toxicological information to ensure MDH's t-DCE inhalation Risk. Assessment Advice is protective. • MDH may consider a reanalysis. of Minnesota Cancer Reporting System data or other data in the future (e.g.,10yea rs).ifthe situation warrants and.community interest remains high. • M D H remains available to. explore and discuss what efforts may be feasible that may help to meet the. goals and objectives of the community in absence of a health study. • In collaboration with local public health departmerits, MDH will continue. review: of elevated blood lead results from routine testing to identify results that may be connected to.Water Gremlin. New legislation enacted in 2021 provides. MD additional funding to conductin-home lead risk assessments for all children in Minnesota with elevated blood lead levels and provides new enforcement. authority for.cases where the lead exposure originates outside of the home. • MDH staff will review the upcoming US EPA cumulative risk assessment guidance.and look for ways to incorporate its concepts to further acknowledge all the factors that may .affect health in a .community. XIII. References ATSDR (2021). Co mrn u nity Stress Resource Center htts: .www.atsdr.cdc.gov/stress/ihdex. htm 0. Accessed on August.10, 2021. ATSDR (2019.):.Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene htt s: www.atsdr,cdc. ov tox rofiles t 19_df .:Atlanta, GA: U.S; Department.of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR (1996). Toxicological Profile for 1 2-dichloroethene ihttps://www;atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofilesAo87.pdf). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease. Registry. Accessed on April 14, 2020 at Toxicological Profile for 1,2-dichloroethene. Braun Intertec Corporation (1004). Additional Groundwater Monitoring.Assessment, Water Gremlin Company, 1610. Whitaker Avenue, White Bear Lake, Minnesota. Letter report to. Mr. David Zinschlag, Water Gremlin Company on May 6. 2004. Braun Intertec Corporation (1999)..Air Emission Permit Application for Major Amendment, Prepared for Water Gremlin Company. September22, 1999. Braun Intertec Corporation (1998). Environmenta1.Soil and. Grou ndwater Evaluation — Report 2, Water Gremlin Company, 1610 Wh ita ke.r Aven u e, White.Bear Lake,..Minnesota. Braun Intertec Corporation (1996). Phase Ii Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared. for Water Gremlin Company,. March 26, 1996, Braun Intertec Corporation :(1995). Phase.I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared for Water Gremlin Company, April 10, 1995. Braun Intertec Corporation (1994). Environmental Soils Evaluation. Prepared for Water Gremlin Company, November 28, 1994. California EPA (2018). Public Health Goals Cis- and Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene in Drinking Water (httris://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloadsLwatQrLchemicals/phh 12-dceO72018. df . Pesticide and 53 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Environmental Toxicology Branch Office. of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California [ Environmental Protection Agency. July 2018, Accessed on April 141:2020.. Clausen, JL, Bostick, B, and Ko.rte, N (2011). Migration. of Lead in Surface Water, Pore Water, and Groundwater with a. Focus on Firing. Ranges, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science a.nd.Tech.nology, 41:15,. pp 1397-1449. DuPont (1998), Trams lj2-Dichloroethylene: 90-day inhalation toxicity study in rats, dated December 1, 1998. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine. Laboratory ProjectIM. HL-19.98-00952. Freundt KJ, Liebaldt GP, Lieberwirth E.(1977). Toxicity Studies on Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene..Toxicology 7:141-153. MDEQ (2016)..lnitial Threshold Screening Level Memo htt : Www.de .stot6.mi;us a s downloads ATSL 156-60�5 156-60-5 annual ITSL. df . Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Interoffice Communication, January 20, 2016. Accessed on December 5,.2019. MPCA (2021). Soil Reference Value Technical Su ort Document (httos:l/www,pca.state.mmuslsitesldefaultlfiles/c-r1-05.0df1. Accessed on March 16, 2022. MPCA (2019a). State of Minnesota: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, In the Matter of Water:Grem] in Company Stipulation Agreement (https://wwW.Oca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/ag-ei6-Olb.pdf), March 1, 2019. Accessed on August 15, 2019 MPCA (2019b) Synthetic minor permit limits (httos://www.oca.state.mn.us/air/synthetic-minor-permit- limits . Accessed on August 22, 2019. MPCA (2019c) Maximizing the Flexibility of Your Air Permit (httbs:/Iwww.pca.state.mn.us/sites default files a 2-12_pdfl. Accessed. on August 22, 2019. MPCA (2007). Guidance for the Use and Apqljcation of Sediment Qualit Tar ets for the Protection of Sediment -Dwelling Organisms in Minnesota (htti s:1/www.gca:state.mn.us/sites/default/files/tdr-gl 04. d MPCA (2006). Working nraft Surface Water Pathway Evaluation Use r'.s:Guide (httos://www:oca.st,ite.mn.Us/sites/default/files/c-s4-Ol.-pM,. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Remediation Programs.. January 30,:2006. MPCA (2004). Water Gremlin Site, 1610 Whitaker Avenue, White Bear Lake, Minnesota; MPCA Project Number 32VP5540, Na Further Action Determination. Letter to Mr. David.Zinschlag, Water Gremlin Company on May14,.200.4. MPCA (2000). Letterto M.r. Pa.uI Moss from James E Robin, MPCA, RE: Comments on Water Gremlin Company's Draft Air Emission Permit. July 20, 2000:. MPCA (1997). Correspondence to.Douglas.A Johnson, Manager; Water Gremlin Company from James Warner, Division Manager, Ground Water and Solid Waste Division, June 20, 1997. Minnesota Geological Survey (1992). County Geological Atlas Series, Ramsey County,. Atlas C-7, University of Minnesota. NIOSH (2019). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (htti3s://vvww.cdc.gov/hibsh/npg/npgdol95,htmll Accessed on September ll, 2019. 54 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT:: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT NuGenT.ech (2019.). FluoSoly WS Heavy Duty CoId. Cleaning.Solvent and Carrier.Flu.id. Accessed at https:llw.ww.nugentec.com/fluosoly-ws-cold-cleaning-carrier-fluid on September 11, 2019, Pace Analytical (2019). Comprehensive Emissions Test Report. Water Gremlin Particulate and. Lead Compliance Testing, Testing Dates: Nov. 20-21 & 26-29, 2018. Report Rate: January 10, 2019. Sexton.K, Adgate JL, Ramachandran G, Pratt GC, Mongin SJ, Stock TH, Morandi.MT (2004). Comparison of Personal, indoor, and Outdoor Exposures. to Hazardous Air: PoIlutants in Three Urban Communities. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 38, No..2 p 4137430. Shopp GM; Sanders VM, White.KL, Munson AE (1985). HumoraI and Cell -Mediated Immune Status of Mice Exposed to tran$4,2-Dichloroethylene: Drug Chem. Tox., 8(5).$93-407.. Stantec (2021). DRAFT Additional Remedial Investigation Work Plan — Water Gremlin Company, White Bear Township. Prepared for:. Water Gremlin.. Prepared. by: Stantec Consulting Services; Inc.. March 24, 2021. U.S. EPA (2021), Risk Assessment Guidance (https://Www.6pa.gov/risk/`risk_assessmentguidance). Accessed on May 18, 2021, U:S. EPA (2020). Provisional Peer -Reviewed Toxicity Values for trans-1 2-Dichloroeth lene htt s: WWW.e a. ov rtv rovisiona{- eer-reviewed-toxicit -va I u es-mpp rtvs-assessments (CASRN 156-60-5). U.S. EPA Office of Research.and .Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, September 2020. Accessed. on November2, 2021. U.S, EPA.(2019b). Proposed Designation of trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (CASRN 156-60-5) as a High Priority:Substance for Risk Evaluation. August 22, 2019. Accessed on October 4, 2019. at Proposed Desi nation of trans71 2-Dichloroeth lene CASRN 156760-5 as a High Priority Substance for Risk Evaluation htt s: www.e a. ov sites roduction files 2015-0$ documents trans-12- dichloroeth lene 156-6075 high-prioritv proposeddesi nation 082319. df U.S. EPA (2019a). Toxic Release Inventory Explorer htt s: enviro.e a.gov/triexplorer/release fac rofile?TRI=5511OWTRGR161OW&TRILIB=TRI 1&FLD= &FLD=RELLBY&FLD=TSFDSP&OFFDISPD=&OTHDISPD=&ONDISPD=&OTHOFFD=&YEAR=2017 : Accessed on September 10, 2019.. U.S. EPA (2014). Memorandum: Removal. of the. trans 4,2-Dichloroethylene (CASRN 15.6=60-5) Provisional Peer -Reviewed. Toxicity Value (P0RTV) assessment fro m.the Electronic Library. From Scott WesseIkamper, Director, SuperFund Health RiskTech nica1.Support:Center.(STSC) EPA/ORDINCEA. June 17, 2014: Accesses! on March 17; 2022 at Memorandum: Removal of the trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene: CASRN 156-60-5 Provisional Peer -Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV1 assessment from the. Electronic Librar . htt s; archiVe:e a. ov ee ioh9 su` erfijhd web df removal memo. df U.S. EPA (2011). Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene in Support of.Summary Information on the Integrated Risk.lnformation System (IRIS). Sep:tember 2011. U.S. EPA (2010). Toxicological Review of cis-1,2.-Dichloroethylene and trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene In Support. of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk information System (IRIS). September 2010. Wenck (2021). Additional Supplemental Remedial Investigation Summary Report - Water Gremlin Company, White Bear Lake Township. Prepared for: Water Gremlin. Prepared by: Wenck Associates, Inc: March 2021. 55 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Wenck. (2020). Supplemental Remedial Investigation Surnm0N Report — Water Gremlin Company, White Bear Lake Township. Prepared for: Water. Gremlin. prepared by; Wenck Associates, Inc. Dated. February 2020, finalized in July2020. Wenck(2019b). Remedial Investigation Summary. -Water Gre.mlin.Company, White -Bear Lake Township. Prepared for'. Water Gremlin. Prepared by: Wenck.Associates, Inc. July 2019. Wenck (2019a). Phase l Environmental Site Assessment, Water.Gremlin Company, April.13, 2019. 56 Appendices Appendix A — Water Gremlin .Location Map. i, i 77 1w7.. ..J •- '�binw •.:.:..+.+;+.: . •, , is anwnrni .......... . S. f. b �.t i. , :r. r::,.... <' i::'bli '4.'::'.' t •.. ._. ' ter. •,� MJr r.?, ¢ .. z - .......:::.:. t y 4 3 x i ... ...... ... a ' ...:....: .. Y '.:. '......_.... Y >t �1T a •.l• rpiy. r: ii: 1 6. .. ... •..:.::: �: ....,,:.. � tut . ::: :::: ....:+;3': . � . , .•.+1. .f ,....:'..� S 1} :&,r• �:�"��: �': �.":�: .. . y ... a �.... .. ..... .:::. ..... � �:.'::.,:... ...:...:...... A , ..__-- .. .. .�........- .:..ram.....:••:: ..�.•...... �:.:. � �::::_:"-...:... ...xmn. • rr _ -�� .r. ..... a :.... .,. .:. .'..... .. ... .. .. ..... .:... .... . ...:...... -f ...a. :...... L,9end GNI Wt e . .......::.: :.:.......: ..-..;.:.:..:.:::...+:...�.:=..:.,. anr..Grin'la..... :.`-':':::;.:::::::-::;::..,..t::•.:-:::.:.r. ..,:.:,:,.:>:.:::•.:<:,._;;...:.::::,,:::::..s::.:::. '.'.;::::::;.: ...:.-:.::: , .....:•.:.;,..._......,E',.:: :':' ::_::::.-::: s.::.t_x�,! .. ... _ tWaFer Gremlin Pro a ': •Bounda::: l - ',•;::. .. ...•..:.:: �.. ..::. ..... .. .... '.. .•.��' �:: =::. �:::`':'.:� ��" NI•, In ' Appendix B - 2009-2018 TCE in Air Maps DEPARTMENT will OF HEALTH Water Gremlin HEALTH ASSESSMENT SERIES 12009-2018 TCE IN AIR MAPS Maps of estimates of TCE in air from the Water G. rem lia facility from 2009-2018, based on.MPCA air dispersion modeling data, are how available. The maps were created to provide:a better understanding of estimated annual average TCE concentrations over time. The 2018 map is very similar to the map distributed in February 2019. To see the original map and for information about TCE and health, go to the TCE Air Emissions and Health document found at www.health.state: mn.us/commu nities/environment/hazardous/dots/sites/ramsey/wgtceairerni sum.ndf. What do the maps show? The. maps show the range of.estimated annual average amounts of TCE in outdoor air at.different locations. These locations were predicted by air quality dispersion modeling to be above the M.DH inhalation Health -Based Value. (HBV) of-2 ggfm3 (micrograms per cubic meter). The HBV. is anamount, or concentration, of a contaminant in air that is unI!kely to. lead to health effects even if sensitive members of the population are exposed to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,. for .a.Iifetime. The .highest TCE amounts were. predicted to beon the Water Grem linproperty. The.. highest annual average concentration at a residential property was estimated and noted on each MP p: What is air quality dispersion modeling? Air quality dispersion modeling uses computer simulation to predict the amount of a pollutant in air at different locations and distances from a source. MPCA used the AERMO❑ dispersion model; developed and recommended. by the U.S. EPA, -to estimate the concentrations of air pollutants emitted from Water Gremlin. AERMOD simul.atio.n typ'i.cally considers the emis.s.ion rate,:stack height, stack diameter., and stack. gas temperature and velocity, as well as the effect of nearby buildings and terrain. AERMOD also uses meteorological data.such as temperature, wind. direction, and. wind speed. Why is the shape of the 2018 map slightly different on earlier versions? Meteorological data,. such as tern perature, wind direction, and Wind speed, are used in the model to calculate TCE concentrations at v..arious locations.. Most meteorological data comes from surface weather observation stations Atairports,.The meteorological data used to model.Water Gremlin emissions earlier this year was from the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. The updated map shows results when meteorological data from the Crystal, MN airport were used. The Crystal airport data are thought to represent conditions. near Water Gremlin better. Each 'map year uses meteorological data from the year of the map; with the exception that the 2417 and 2018.maps use 2016 data, which was the latest meteorological data. available at the time the modeling was conducted.,, WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMM-ENT DRAFT Were TCE air concentrations greater over shorter time periods? The map underestimates TCE air concentrations for shorter periods of time (e.g., monthly, daily). Because the TCE a.ir estimates are annual ay.e.rages, it is expected that there were times throughout the year when concentrations at a particular location were higher or lower than the annual..average. For example., dailyvariations are.expected: due:largely to variability in T.CE use and weather conditions like wind speed. and direction. For periods:of time, TCE air concentrations above the HBV extended beyond the outlined area shown in the maps. Minnesota Department of Health i Site Assessment and Consultation Unit Phone:.651-201-4897 1 Email- health.hanrd@state.mn.us www.health;state,mn.us To Obtain this information in a:different format, call: 651-201-4897 01/07/2020 59 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT f 2009 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount of TCE in air in micrograms per cubicmeter(µgiml) 4 Feet 2,OX ator above MDH's Health Based Value of 2 pgg/n' .1 - - 1 �+I Il64 . Nob-- The Fig hest "u:t avarage amarnt : a nrideMial prcperty wms =irri-ated tobei3'lgfm7 2 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC .HEALTH A- .SES.SME.N:T: PUB:LI..0 COMMENT DRAFT 2010 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TICE In Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount ofTa in air in micrograms per cubic meter (pglm') D Feet 2;OM It at or above MDH's KeaM Based Value of 2 µg/m' ! J ...: NaI The sw2. c..::.:YWv:..__..r..^.�1i 7!W:JV.. �h i{�3��i,'W'w�,iT.�:i �.1.•Lrr�A �® highest :a be 22 Kfsn3 k4l=.3 ►wscncw:reaus: aacmeu.bwox�:,rmianwwr.e 61 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 2011 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount of7CE in air in micrograms per cubic meter (pghW) 0 Net 2,000 * at orabove MI)H's Health Based Value of 2 pWm' ! ' N Notc3hr FigFct anaLn7 average arnarnt xt a triadrrsol property � estimsted to be 31 Nglm3 d. "*AM" 5.^4 J.t` 62 arrmcu.t�ruma'.: xrniwK�bnn� WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH .A.SSESSME.NT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 2012 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE In.Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount ofTCE in alr In micrograms per cubk meter (p9im') 0 Feet 2,000 atarabove MDKs Health Based Value of 2 µg/m3 ! NotcTheNq eA annual overage 3mount x a "sidemial property vas estimated to be29Kim3 i3o�f4'. `QtS� rlaCC ATG Y: t, 3 C . Xt�73 MMM MW MT000 VtWfin WATER :GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 2013 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount.ofTCE Fn air in micrograms per cubic meter {leg fm' 0 Feet 2,000 -I&- at or above MDFrs Health Based Value oft µgtm' N }�'�y�� Kp%-Thehigheoannu-laverageamunlatatetidtrtia3prc¢enywayetti�-.rdialx41F�fm3 ;vk�di WOOD 5 norttrwtrr. A1.1, 64 WATER G.R.EMLIN PUBLIC H••EALT.•H• A•SS.E-S.SM•ENT•: PUBLIC C.OMMEht D*kA•FT 2014 Estimated.Arihual AverageAmaunt ofTCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount of TCE in air in micrograms per cubit meter (pglm') tt Feet 2,000 * atcr abare ME7FYs Reakh Based Value of 2 µg/m' -- -- - -- ! N r: f. 2 to 4 4ADA ..:. . Nofa-ihc beg hest annual a rsgc as n at a rridcM ial properh•was ezEircu!cd in x» Nalin3 7 »virtue S:I% 6 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT 2015 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility A+nountofTCEinakinmiavgramsper cubkmeter(pg,m9 0 Feet ZOM at arahave h%Ws Heafth Based Value of 2 pglm' f{atc7tx kigtc-t �nnuzl avr-sc�rnewurt � � leader�ial Property wns e�in-et�dlnbe33pgfm3 �"M'da"a'1�" 8 raneenai:rz xO, 6 6 WZ X*1 I1wPQtg?azTA"ip1p Jump WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC: H.EAITH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 2016 Estimated Annual Average Amount of TCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amount of TCP Ina br in rnicroWmr. per cubit meter jp9hn3) 0 Feet 2.GW ator above mnws Health Based value of 2 µfilm' } ! xto4....:.-.:'r.''dtci8":;:;Ift NowThe Hghe l *mLW averzge arrnunt:t a redder6al property was e%:4mted to be 38 WO 6.jq.d5w g +aoa.7rprzRG r,��s 67 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT 2017 Estimated Annual }'overage Amount ofTCE in Air from the Water Gremlin Facility Amounto€WE In air in micrograms per cubic meter{pglm=} 0 Feet 2.1300 * at or above tdDH's Health Based Value of 2 pglm3 N MIX Notr7i�chighutsnnuelmr�eama�r�ts a'�e6dan!al�rcperhwasc�i uicd�ohr36yugfm3 �"` 10 El na�rrc�+rs �.•: M CST; ';': .: R i� ".'.'• `,,II.T'r ,a ..0 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSE.S.SM.ENT:: PUBLI'G .tbMM*ENT DRAFT 2018 lEstimated Annual Average. Amount of TCC in Air: from the dater Gremlin Fadfity AmountofT E in airin micrvgrrams percublc meter (VqW) 0 Feet 2,000 atwaboveMiDH'sHealth Based Value oft }ig(ml I i :•.>.:...a..:.,..: » ::;::. a..a. F:-,.;.«w;,....-,:�#.ti.sko S:A#=a-,�V18Cbl 'dti.: +� C.4r.Jf�. 1�® Holcihe higfrstsnntsstaVeragc an�aun! x a residcrul prr,Fer[ywa� c�i,^-.:tcd to bc54}cglm3 AO1ra 'b"G� 6:�.i8W 11 aa�s-scK irs arnc � drsz7r i s:� ni, i c x .. u.m,a rt �:. `.e 69 Appendix C - Cancer. Risk .Assessment Calculation Health assessors use a process called risk assessment to evaluate:potential effects. of chemicals on health.. Risk:assessments use the..best available scientific information, as well as.profess!anaI judgement. and policy, to estimate risks in a: consistent, standardized manner that is useful for decision making about rna.riaging risks. The paragraphs below describe the process M D H used to estimate cancer risk for a hypothetical, highly exposed resident of the area.near the Water Gremlin facility. Many of the inputs and processes M D H uses are adopted from widely followed guidance from the. U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 2021). In 2011, EPA derived an inhalation unit risk (IU.R) for TCE of 4..1E-06 (µg/m3)-T for three cancer types combined -by using the measured increase in human kidney cancer risk and adjusting for potential increased risk.of non_Hodgkin's lymphoma and. liver: cancer (EPA; 2011). An IUR.isa.n estimate of the increased cancer risk from inhalation.exposure to a concentration of 1 µg/m3 of a substance for a lifetime. For risk.assessment purposes, this means an estimated 4.1 cases of cancer might occur due. to this exposure if a million people -consistently breathe air.containing one. microgram of TCE per cubic meter of air for70 years. The EPA also recommends combining cancer IURs with age -dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) to account for greater early -life susceptibility for chemicals.that cause cancer by a mutation, whenever the toxicity values are calculated from studies that only involve exposures in adults. EPA developed ADAFs of. 10,.3, a.nd 1 for application to the age groups of 0-2 years, 2-16 years, and 16-70 years; respectively (EPA, 2005). For TCE, EPA recommends applying ADAFs only to the kidney cancer portion of the total cancer risk estimate, because only that tumor type had sufficient evidence to conclude that TCE induces cancer through a mutation (EPA, 2011). However,as'shown in the' calculation below, MDH takes an even more protective a pp roach. by. applying ADAFs to the full inhalation unit risk; not.just the k.iidney cancer portion. To estimate community health.ris.ks, risk assessors often calculate risk for what. is: called a "reasonable maximurt exposure" (RME) scenario.. For the purpose. of assess!hg exposure to TCE. in air surrounding the Water Gremlin facility; the RME scenario is: considered to last from birth to 27 years (the. amount: of time. Water Gremlin is thought.to have released TCE into the air; 199272018). The RM.E scenario also uses an exposure point concentration (EPC) of 34 µg/m3 to represent an amount.of TCE in the air that people breathed in this scenario; The EPC was calculated: by averaging the WE concentrations predicted at the highest residential location frorn.2009'through '2018 (as indicated on the. maps in Appendix 6). The cancer risk calculation is shown below for the RME.scenario assumptions described above. The partial risk estimates -are derived by multiplying the IU.R by the age -specific ADAFs, the estimated EPC, and exposure du.ration:adjustments (age group years divided by a.70 year lifetime. averaging time}.. The lifetime risk of 1.5&04 is the sum of the partial risks: Cancer Risk Calculation r :�!Yr,-'.�h. YS� �"'-.Fs�j •� Y',ri,-"1i.f.?�E'��'�;Y �;_nwi��: ��:�3= "«`'at�.c��.�..��•N� :� _ r:� a'. "� �-y+fx IN .ra�� L � "k�w �j �-' .!�. ��'��., 'u fi .` 'k �v"f�I,>�.'��£=, "�r, S7ri-Ro-`}'' �_r��T �i ..� �±,r, t1;2(r..,: fk�✓'�i' y�Y �7Z }= .3 � lL ci.'.� Y`G. 3-.`'. .� �' '.�i�.:`'�' ---� C: �u�/_�� i• •lam. TS..u, .�:',"h w,' "' i k ��) i ..F � ��5. T. �'y.�, .Y a- �3�stj+'►!j=�nt; x F.r - 6'� _ '�t �+5�`�"i� s' E.,; -�• ��aj.�� - �; t>„�� i�;- ] " � �-: ' .t �,;y u�j� �y��r��y�? ��- t�� -• '4> F, "-"� ;��.,��:�d . L i'ti?�•�i �,;�- � S� SY'r•iY....�... - ��; : , � f� �G 2�'3�,'r ].� S �i`y�:i" '�> >• SZ 0 to 2 years 4&50041 10. 34 2 years/70 years 3.98E=05 2 to <16 years 0.0000041 3 � 34 14 ye0rs/70 years 8.36E-05 I 16 to 27 years 0.0000041 1.. i 34 11 yea rsno years L21.19E-65 Lifetime Risk 5E-04 wATER.GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH AsS•lkS5MFNT: PU.BL.fC COMMENT DRAFT Using the assumptions just described, thOncreased cancer risk is estimated to be an additional 1.5 cases of cancer In-i0,dW people exposed in this hypothetical scenario. if such exposures were to occur; this cancer risk would exceed Minnesota's acceptable caricer risicievel of I additional cancercase in 100,000 exposed people, but would be indistinguishable from the lifetimebackground. rate In :Minnesota of i cancer case in every 2=3 people. 5ince.this calculation is forthe RME, the risk would be muah lower for the majority of plausible exposures (scenarios that involve'fewer: years of exposure, exposure to lowetTCE eonceiitratioris, etc.) among people who lived,. workedor_Q.therwise migh# have.spentttme in the area surrounding the Water Gremlin facility. 71 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Appendix D - 1,4-Dioxane in Private Wells -- Gem Labe and the White Bear Area 3 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1,4-Dioxane in Private Wells - Gem lake and the. White Bear Area 8/24/2021 MDFI'r3rinkir"`'water:` uidarice.. al What is 1A-dioxane? The main. use .of.l,4-dioxane was. as. a stabilizer for the chlorinated solvent 1,1,1-trich10roethane (often used for industrial, purposes).:1;4-dioxane can also be. an unintended, contaminant in the production of certain. products, includingsome. cleaners, detergents, adhesives, inks; automotive fluids, etc.. Groundwater contaminated with 1,4-d.ioxane..is largely caused by the historical use and..disposaI of chlorinated solvents. How can I be exposed to 1,4-dioxane7. Prinking contaminated water is the primary way.people are.exposed. Minor sources of exposure. are food prepared with contaminated water and incidental ingestion and inhalation of water vapor during showering. Absorption.through the skin is also thought to be insignificant. MOH Health Risk Limits Minnesota Department of I Health (MDH) uses Health Risk Limits (HRLs)"to protect people's health from drinking water contaminants. The table below shows three HRL values#or 1,4- dioxane set by MDH,.for differing time.frames and possible health endpoints theya.re based on. The 1,4-dioxane. HRL of 1 part.per billion (ppb) represents an amount of a. contaminant that poses little or no health. risk to those drinking the. water daily for a lifetime, including sensitive or highly exposed. people. M D H I Health Rislc Limits for 1,4-Dioxane: 10uratiori ::.`-< " HRL' h * n Health<Ercl of t Subchronic (>a0. days sap to 1.% of a lifetime) 300 Liver, kidney; and respiratory systems Chronic (>10%.of a lifetime) 100 Liver, kidney, and respiratorysystems Lifetime.10-70 years) 1 Cancer *HRLs are shown in 0nits of parts per billion (ppb). This is the same as micrograms. per liter (µg/L). WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH AS'&..ES:SMENT: PUBLIC. COMMENT DRAFT Potential Health Effects Concentrations detected in well water in Gem Lake are just.above the H R L of 1 ppb and present a very low health risk. Information about the health -effects of 1A.-dioxane comes mainly from studies of laboratory animals.1,4-Dioxane is considered a likely human carcinogen; based on studies of aniina.ls exposed to very high amounts. There. are currently no. human:studies that show a direct link between exposure to 1,4-dioxane: and cancer: The HRL of 1. ppb is based on a negligible cancer risk of one additional cancer in 100,000 people consuming the water on a daily basis for a lifetime.. Frequently Asked Questions Is there more cancer in Gem Lake because of this contamination? We would not expect to see an increase. in cancer in the community from the exposures found:..ln addition, MDH completed an analysis%of the data from the. Minnesota Cancer Reporting System in 2019 and overall cancer rates in the Water Gremlin study area (which encompassed Gem Lake) were. virtually identical to cancer rates in the seven -county Twin Cities. Metro area. Should I get tested for exposure to 1,4-dioxane? Should I see my doctor? 1,4-dioxane breaks down in the body and eliminated.quickly—on the order of hours to days. Tests to measure. 1,4-dioxane a metabolites are:not readily available to. physicians. MDH advises that.there is n.o need to go to the doctor solely because of: this: exposure in drinking. water.. There are no recommendations for any increased screening. for cancer or.other health effects. Is it okay for my dogs/cats to drink the well water? Dogs and catsare expected. to have similar health risksas people. Can I water my garden vegetables with rely well water? It is possible that plants watered With well water may be a very minor source of exposure, but this has not been well studied. Minnesota Department of Health f. Site Assessment and Consultation I www.health.state.mn.us. health.hazard@state.mn.us.1 651-201-4897 08/24/21 To obtain this information in a different format call; 65I-201-489Z 73 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESS.M.ENT:: PU.B.LIC COMMENT DRAFT Appendix E Water Gremlin Fad Iity -- TCE in Indoor Air Notification DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Gremlin Facility — TCE in Indoor Air Testing. in. January.2020 showed.that trichloroethylene (TCE) remains in the indoor air, likely from its past use. Levels of TCE in the chemical storage and coating areas are above the Minnesota Department of Health's. (MDH's) safe screening levels, especially for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant. Breathing TCE during the first trimester of pregnancy may inc.rease the risk of heart defects to the baby. if you are pregnant or may become pregnant, M D H recommends that you avoid spending time in the chemical storage.and coating.areas until levels of TCE in indoor air decline. While pregnant women are the most sensitive to effects of TCE exposure, other adults may also be affected by breathing TCE. In particular, high exposures over long periods of time could result in effects to the immurle system and kidneys. Where can I get more information? MDH Site Assessment and Consultation Unit Cali (651) 201-4897 Email health.hazard state.mn.us On the web at www.health state mn.us/divslehlhazardousltapicslvaOorintrusion:htmi 74 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Appendix F - Cancer Occurrence Report for White Bear Township, White Bear Lake and Gem Lake Area Five Census Tracts, 2007-2016 IMDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MINNESOTA CANCER. REPO.RTI.N.G SYSTEM Cancer Occurrence. WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP, WHITE BEAR LAKE AND GEM LAKE AREA FIVE CENSUS TRACTS, 2007-2016 03/28/2d19 Cancer Occurrence in White Bear Township, White Bear Lake and Gem lake area Minnesota Department.of Health Minnesota Cancer Reporting.System PO Box 64882 St. Paul, MN 55164-0822 651201-5900 health.mcrs0state. m ri.us www. health.state. mn. us To obtain this information in a different format; call. 651-201-59DO. Printed on recycled paper. 75 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC .HEALTH: ASSESSMENT Contents MainFinding:............... 6..................... .. ... . ........... ...............:.:.....:.................4 Areaof Analysis........................................................................................................................ ..... 4 Summary.................................................................................................. 5 Background. . ........................................ .... ... ............................................................. 5 Data Sources and Methods......... ........ ... ..... ..................... 5 Findings.............................. ............. ............... ............ ...................................... ........ 7 Strengthsand Limitations ...... ................................ .................................... ........... 7 Usefulness and Limitations of Community Cancer Rates in Addressing Envi ronmenta 1. Cancer Concerns..................................................................... ................... ...... ......................... 8 Table 1. Observed and Expected Cancer Incidence Among. Males..................................................10 Figure1. Cancer Rates Among Males...............................................4................. .......... ..11 Table 2. Observed and Expected Cancer Incidence Among Females.............................................12 Figure2. Cancer Rates Among Females.... . . .... .. .............................6.......................413 Figure 3. Estimate of U.S. cancer mortality attributable to various known risk factors ...............:: 14 76 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Main Finding. -A detailed study encorhpasSirig-teri years of cancer data firrnly-establishes that overall cancer Incidence rates in five censustracts in the White Bear Township, White Bear Lake acid Gem Lake area. are virtually identical to -cancer rates in the Twin Cities Metro area. Area of Analysis 17 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH. ASSESSMENT Summary There have been. cancer concerns among many White Bear Township, White Bear Lake,and Gem Lake area residents related to past releases of TrichIoroethylene (TCE) to the air by the Water Gremlin facility (see Mao location above). The purpose of this report is to provide a complete and accurate profile of cancer occurrence among residents living in the five census tracts surrounding th.e Water Gremlin facility. Data from the Minnesota Cancer Reporting System (MCRS) was used to compare cancer rates: among individuals living :in the census tracts. surrounding the facilityat the time of their diagnosis with cancer rates in the seven county Twin Cities: metropolitan area.during the most recent 10-year period for which complete data were available (20U-2016). Overall cancer rates inthe area of analysis were virtually identical to Metro -area rates. For both .genders combined, 97G cancers were: diagnosed over the 10=year period, compared to the .expected number of 978. Due to their smaller numbers and. greater variability. (over time or from one location to another), the rates of specific types of cancer at a corn munity (or even county) love are generally much less stable. or informative and permit few conclusions. No excesses or deficits of cancers were. observed in. the ten years of data. The number of residents in thestudy area currently living with: any history of cancer likely exceeds 940 individuals.. While environmental contaminants are the frequent focus of community cancer concerns, the primary determinants of cancer risk include smoking, obesity; diet, lack of exercise, LiV radiation, alcohol, viruses, genetics, reproductive history, medications, and occupation. Background The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).and.the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) have published documents describing the release ofTCE fro m the Water Gremlin facility and related: actions. They can be found at the following web sites. I11111Tep Water Gremlin trichloroethylene (TCE) Area of Concern I 11a Water Gremlin Site - Community concern LTCE� Data Sources and Methods The MCRS is Minnesota's statewide cancer registry (database) and has operated since 1988. It collects diagnostic and related data on all cancer diagnoses among. Minnesota residents. The data come from hospitals, clinics, and pathology laboratories and are carefully reviewed for 78 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC. HEALTH ASSE55:MENT completeness and accuracy. Independent audits estimate completeness of the MCRS at over 99%. Cancer cases for the five census tracts in the White Bear Township, White Bear lake and Gem Lake area were identified from the MCRS for the most recent 10-year period for which complete data were available: 2007-2016. Five census tracts (040301, 040302, 040502, 040503, 040504) were used to identify residents who received a.new diagnosis of cancer in that period and resided.near the Water Gremlin facility in the area of analysis. When examining cancer rates in.a community or county with a relatively small population, the preferred approach is to compare the actual "observed" number of newly occurring cancers to the estimated "expected" number (calculated with the assumption that the community had the same cancer rates as some larger comparison population). For this analysis, cancer rates for the seven -county Twin Cities. Metro area during 2007-2016 were used for comparison to the census tracts. The "expected" number of cancers was estimated by applying Metro area cancer rates (by age and gender) to the population of the five census tracts from the 2010 census. Eighteen age categories were used to estimate expected cancer cases separately for males and females. Only the age and.gender distributions of the population are taken into account. when determining "expected" cancers since these important risk factors alone are known. However, other significant determinants of cancer risk such as smoking history, medical history, family history, obesity,.diet, occupation, reproductive history; infectious agents (e.g, human papilloma. virus, hepatitis viruses), or other established risk factors are unknown and cannot betaken into account. For ease. of comparison, the observed number of cancers divided by the expected number gives an observed -to -expected ratio (also called.the Standardized Incidence Ratio). If the two numbers were identical (which only rarely happens), this ratio would be I.00: If there were twice as many cancers as expected, the ratio would be..2.00; if there were half as many cancers as expected, the ratio would be 0.50. For each: such ratio, a 95% confidence interval was calculated and is also shown in this report: The confidence intervals representa range in which the ratio is expected to be 95% of the time; this means there is a 5% chance that the ratio could be outside the range. The confidence intervals give an additional measure of the variability and uncertainty that is encountered when examining cancer rates in a.cornmunity and comparing them to expected ra tes. If a confidence interval does not encompass a value of 1.00, the ratio is considered "statistically significant" - meaning that the difference is less likely to be due to random chance. However, there is still. some further uncertainty that is not reflected in the confidence intervals which do not take into account random differences which can be expected whenever multiple comparisons are made (e.g., comparing a large number of different types of cancer) or the effects of errors in estimatingthe population of the community. This report provides information about total cancers for. males and for females, as well as.20 specific types of cancers amongm ales and:22 types of cancer among females (representing about. 93%,of the total cancer incidence far each gender). 79 WATER GREMLIN PUB11C HEALTH ASSESSMENT I�V Findings Cancer: incidence describes the rates and number of newly diagnosed cancers over a specified time period. Table 1 shows the observed and expected numbers of cases for all cancers combined and for the most frequent types of cancer among males in the five census tracts inthe area of analysis. The observed -to -expected ratios and statistical 959'a confidence intervals are also shown. Table 2 provides the same information for females. The same ratios a,nd confidence intervals are also shown graphically in Figure 1 and Fiau re: 2 for males and females, respectively. For all cancers combined overthe 10-year period 2007-2016, there Were no significant differences between the.observed and expected.. n u m bers of cancers (based on Metro.area rates) for males or for females. For males, there were 471 newly diagnosed cancers versus 478 expected cancers (ratio of 0.98.). For females, there Were 499 observed cancers compared to 500 expected cancers (ratio of 1.00). For both genders combined, there were 970 newly.diagnosed cancers over the 10=year time period, compared to the expected number of 978 for an overall ratio of 0199: In short, the overall cancer rate. In five census tracts in the area of analysis is virtually identical to the Metro area. rate. Strengths and Limitations The major strength of this analysis is the use of data from the MCRS to examine and compare cancer incidence rates, All newly diagnosed cancers among Minnesota residents are reported to the MCRS. MCRS data has been shown to meet the. highest standards of data completeness and accuracy. Examining rates of newly diagnosed cancers provides the, most detailed and complete profile of cancer occurrence among Minnesota residents statewide. Detailed population data (18 age categories'for each gender) for the requested census tracts were required to determine the expected.nurnber of new. can cers. Data from 2010 United States. Census were used to provide an approximate population distribution for the ten year time period. There are`fluctuations in populations.over time but the US census is the most accurate accountof the population. MCRS data are available at the census tract [eveI which correspond exactly with the population data. While this study provides a relatively clear picture of overall cancer.incidence among these residents living in the area of analysis, the picture is much less stable or informative for many specific types of cancer due to. the small numbers of cases at a community level. Thisproblem was partially overcame by aggregating cancer data over a ten year period. Finally; these.cancer.data represent the occurrence of cancer among people who lived in the community at the time of diagnosis (cancer incidence) during the period 2007-2016. However, the time period for the development of cancer (latency period) is typically several decades. Many cancers diagnosed today are possibly due to exposures and lifestyle experiences that began or occurred. many years ago. As in any community, there will be migration from one neighborhood to another as well as migration into and out of these communities over time. DIC WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Usefulness and Limitations of Community Cancer Rates in Addressing Environmental Cancer Concerns The MCRS is a vital tool for examining cancer rates and trends in Minnesota and MCRS data are extremely useful in facilitating epidemioiogic studies of specific cancers, quality of care studies,. evaluating screening and prevention programs, and many other purposes. While community cancer rates have a high degree. of statistical uncertainty and must be. interpreted cautiously, such data are also very useful in. addressing public concerns over cancer rates.in a county or a community by providing a more Complete and accurate profile of cancer occurrence. However, for many reasons, analyses of community cancer rates are rarely useful, in documenting potential cancer risks from low levels of environmental pollutants. Cancer is not a single disease. but a group of more than 100 different diseases. Cancers differ in their rates of occurrence, risk factors; treatment, and survivorship. Unfortunately, cancer is not.a rare disease, especially when considered in. terms of Iifetime'risk. Not including the most. common forms. of skin cancer, the average lifetime risk of developing some type of cancer (in situ or malignant). is approximately 44% among males and 41%.among females (National Cancer Institute. The Cancer Ciuery System). _ On average then, almost one in two people will have a diagnosis of cancer. during their lifetimes. For any individual, of course, the lifetime risk will be dependent on many personal factors such as smoking history, obesity, alcohol use, family history, and other risk factors. The time period for the development of cancer (latency period) is typically several decades, such that many cancers diagnosed today are due to exposures. and lifestyle experiences that began or occurred many years ago. Unfortunately, it is often.not possible to know when and to what extent newly identified contarnants would have created the potential for exposure in a community. Furthermore, due to the high. mobility of our population, rnany residents in a community may not reside there for more. than five years prior to their diagnosis of cancer. Thus, community cancer rates are frequently comprised of individuals who differ in their residential histories in the community, their personal risk factors for cancer, as well as in their potential exposures to environmental contaminants. While we have no control over risk factors. such as age, race, family history,. and .genetics, much of our cancer risk is strongly influenced by lifestyle factors that we can control. 5uch lifestyle risk factors include cigarette smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, ionizing and solar radiation, certain infectious agents (e.g., .hepatitis viruses), occupation, and physical inactivity (Figure 3). Those factors account about 60% of cancer deaths in the U.S.. Other lifestyle factors that increase risk include reproductive patterns, sexual behavior; and medications. However, even when no modifiable risk factors are known that can reduce the risk of developing a cancer, screening and early diagnosis.may prevent or reduce the risk of death. Sl WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT While little is known about the causes of some typesof.canper (e.g., brain tumors), for many types of cancer; specific risk factors have been identified. For some cancers, these known risk factors account for a significant proporti6ii of cancer occurrence (e.g., 85- 90% of lung cancer: is attributable -to smoking; 95%-of cervical cancer is due to the Human Npilloma Virus). Communities and counties can vary widely in terms of known risk factors for cancers contributing to the variability of cancer rates. While age and gender distributions in a. community can routinely be accounted for, lack of information about other known determinants. of cancer incidence (such as smoking histories) in a given population makes it diff€euitto.attribute any observed excess or deficit in cancer rates to a given cause. y Well -designed epidemiolpgical studies; In addition to -toxicological research, are necessary to answer questions about the extent to which an envirohmental.exposure may-be..contribufingto the occurrence -of cancers in human populations. Indeed, most known human carcinogens have been identified through epldemlologic studies of occupational groups. Cancer risks.are much more likely to be detected in the workplace rather than in a community settingsince (1) occupational exposures are generally much greater than community exposures; (2) it-is.frequently possible to estimate past exposures in a workplace.using industrial hygiene data, job histories, and other data; and (3) it is.usual.ly possible to identify:all the people who worked at a workplace fora. particular tlme period using personnel records. •: State and federal. regulatory standards. and guidelines are intended to limit. exposures to potential carcinogens to very low risks; for example, ohe additional cancer in 100,000 people with lifetime exposure. This level of cancer risk is purposefully many thousands of tittles lower than cancer risks that can be detected by epidemiologic studies. or examination of community cancer rates. 82 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HE.A.ITH A.S5tS.S--WNf Table 1. Observed and Expected Cancer Incidence Among Males - _ . __.. _.._ m....._......._...__._:...._ .. _ . __ - r...._........_..._, -....-._...__...._- j Observed to 95% bserved Expected Expected Confidence Cancer 'Cases 'Cases Ratio Interval of Ratio 4_._._............_.......w............. .w .._.w ._......... -- - ......... _.�r. .,,. . _....................................... r.........._-i All Cancers Combined. ' 471 l 1 ! 478: I -0.98 {4:90,1.17$} t i8ladder ? 4ji 35 ; 1.24 lzq I Wain 8 7 ; 1.12 ; (0.49, 2.21) j colorectal 39 ! 411 0:96 (0.68,1.31) f sophagus ? 6 7 ? 0.84 -(0.31,1.82) tPodgkin Lymphoma 43 1.37 (0.37, 3.51) _....__........:..... ............ _....... __ . Xidney 23 21.L12 (0.71,1.68) rynx 3 I 5 0.60 (0.12,1.76).1 eukehila 18 20 ; 0.89 (0-53,1.41) i Over 81 10 ' -0.80 (0.35, 1.58) 3 i �Ung 46 S7 Mill � (0-5911.07) I { AAelanoma I 26 32 r 011 0.53 1.19 ` �ultlple Myelome. ? 10 $ i .1.26 I (0.60, 2.32) €Non -Hodgkin Lymphoma 28 26 { 1.09 # 10.73,1.58) ;Oral 12 16 1 .0.73 (0 38;1.28) Pancreas ? 14 ' 13 ! 1.07 .(Q.591 7..80) prostate ] 7.8 '1(0.99,.1.37) j 5ok t1s S ue..�. 4 ` ^w 4 : 1.08 �.. (0.29, 2.76) Storriach_........_._....�..._..__.__.__. 7 .8 in..�......._-0:911 Testes 51 6 ; 0:91 ' (0 29, 2.12) r _. : _._.. 7-----__.5 i L26 � ....... {0:51� 2.6Q} ! 83 CANCER OCCURRENCE IN WHITE BEAR TOWN.SH1.P.,WHITE BEAR LAKE AND GEM LAKE -FIVE CENSUS TRACTS Figure.l, Cancer Rates Among Males LowerthanMetro< ------- >HigherthanMe.tro All Cancers Combined Urinary Bladder Brain Colorectal Esophagus Hodgkin. Lymphoma Kidney Larynx Leukemia Liver Lung Melanoma Multiple. Myeloma Non -Hodgkin Lymphoma Oral Pancreas Prostate 144 Soft tissue Stomach Testes Thyroid 0.01 0.10 1Aa 10.00 1 84 WATER GREMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Table:2. Observed and Expected Cancer Incidence Among Females. ,... __ _ _ ....._._.._.. �.._ _- ............. ? Observed to , Pbserved Ppected '; Expected Confidence Cancer uses :Bases Ratio Interval of Ratio_ Ail Cancers Combined r 499 1.O91;109) Bladder I _ _ $ Z21 0.67 (a.29,.1.32) Brain .4 ' 6 =s 0.67 (0.18,1.73) l breast 1.66 = 152 ': L09 � (0,93,1.27 .... -- - 5 1�.. _........ 0.92 _ . _ ... (0. 30, 2.15) Colonial 47. 4$ ; 1.051 (0.77,1.39) 1 .Esophagus. 1: 3.E 0:38 (0.01,2.15), ;Hodgkin Lymphoma 4 Z 1.74 (0.47, 4.4. 5) ;Kidney 7 I2 0.60 i (0.24, 1:23) ,Ki — ----- ...._ _..__.........._....._ _,..n._.... Larynx 3 1 .2.38 (0.49, •ti.9G) t 'Leukemia 13, 14.1 0.91 (fl.48,.1:55) _ l 2 5 0.41 (0.05, 1.49) P9 69 ; 65 1.07 Q.93,1.35} elanoma 29 25• 1:14 (0.76, 1:64) `.Multiple Myeloma 6 6 0.94 ` (0.35, 2.05) Pon -Hodgkin lymphoma l — 23••�_.w_.�.?? __-- 1:05 ;Oral E 5 = 8 0.59 (D.19,1:38) t Ovary # 12 ` 13 ; 0,93 (0.48, 1--62) - ancreas ! 18 13 1.00 (0.5% 1.70)] ft tissue _ __ _..._... _-__..._._. , t :1 _ 3 0.32 ; (OA1,1.81) I tomach _5...... .._.__.0.63 171 _ 0.60 (0.29,1.10) ! ..._ _ _...._.. _ _ _ ... _ ... 34 .1 _ 35 Q.98M._.. ? (0,6$,1.37) 85. CANCER O.CC.U.RRENC.E IN WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP,WHITE BEAR LAKE AND GEM LAKE -FIVE CENSUS TRACTS Figure 2. Cancer Rates Among Females Lowe.rthan Metro <------- > Higherthan Metro All Cancers Combined, Bladder Brain Breast Cervix Colorectal Esophagus Hodgkin Lymphoma Kidney Larynx Leukemia Liver Lung Melanoma Multiple:Myelorna. Non -Hodgkin. Lymphoma Oral Ovary Pancreas Soft tissu e Stomach Thyroid Uterus 0.01 040 1.00 M. 10.00 1 CANCER OCCURR.IE'NCE. IN WHITE BEAR TOWNS..H]P,WHITE BEAR. LAKE A.N.D GEM LAKE -FIVE CE.NS;US TRACTS Figure 3. Estimate -of U.S... cancer mortality .attr'ibutable to various known risk factors Tobacco Obesity f :may �� _., K, �1,•.'c .;;y . �`C�,r._ f,w��• �w�+,�<'�',d� f'x,>'f.. v_.jw1;ij;,,4.w�..I+.,,<.,.y Yw}-.+�.:. ^°�i'' Viruses ; Other Diet Medications Sedentary lifestyles S Reproductive factors Genetics Alcohol Occupation/Environment Sun/Radiation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 40% 35% Coldl(z GA, Wei EX Relative Contributions of Biologic and.;Sos1d7iind Physical.Fnvironmental.DetehmkWms of Conoer•A9orta1q. AnnUdlROvlew of Public Health,.2012,33:I37-15& 87 WATER G'R.EMLIN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT Appendix G - Community Health Studies and Environmental Contamination DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Community Health Studies and Environmental Contamination Comm unities.may.want or request health studies from their local ❑rstate.health departments in response: to news of environmental contamination and/or percelved high rates of disease. What is a health study? A health study is a.study that can potentially inform you and your community about health risks and outcomes that are related to:enviironmental exposures —Health studies look for evidence of a shared experience (exposure to a chemical) that is capable of causing a. disease of concern, Challenges to Conducting Health Studies Health studies -are not commonly carried out. They are only worthwhile if there is a strong possib.ility. that the study could find a link between exposure and. illness.. There are many challenges to conducting health studies; including, but not. limited to: Information needed is unavailable The amount of contaminants. people. are exposed to is hard.to know; exposures can be short-term -arid intermittent. Because surveillance data doesn't exist for most chronic diseases, it is difficult to determine the expected rate of health conditions for comparison to determine whether the. rate in a:particular.area is increased. HeaIfh. studies may be unable to produce results Environmental exposures are often too low to cause observable health effects. Elevated rates of health effects are very hard to identify unless very high exposures occurred., similarto occupational exposures. Diseases typically have multiple causes. Health studies are not able to identify or establish the cause of any individuals. illness: At best, they would only be able to find a correlation lassociationj between and exposure and an outcome -this is not the same as proof of cause and effect. A study that is unable to demonstratea link.between exposures and disease can be frustrating and disappointing and may be viewed as evidence of no 88 WATER GREMLIN. PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT relationship. ■ Diseases can take a longtime to develop Costs Any study would be very costly. It would require a large effort to develop the study design (identifying clear and. focused objectives), and collect and analyze: data, Alternatives to Health Studies Before pursuing a health study, the goal of t:he study should be clear. What do you want to. know and why do you want to know it? A health study may not help you r com m u n ity achieve its:goa1. There may be other ways that community members' efforts can makea difference in their community. Organizing community members'to make sure their voice is.: Beard on a variety of decision -making, educational, and pollution prevention opportunities may create a larger benefit. Resources Is a Health Study the Answer for Your Community? This health.study guide from the Boston University School of'Public Health is an excellent resource for community groups who think.that.some form of environmental health investigation orstudy may be useful in their community: Is a health study the answer for your community? A euide for making informed decisions htt s: Itiww.bu.edu s h files 2015 03 HSG Ch1to4 withcover 1-26-16. df From .Exposure to Ilin.ess: Community Health. Studies and Environmental Contamination This web.site from the California Department of.Public Health was created to share the experience and perspective of public.health.staff .dedicated to studying links between .environmental exposure to chemicals and health effects in California communities; Environmental Health investigations Branch (EHIB) htto://communitvhealthstudies.cdph.ca.gov/content/w.elcome.himl Minnesota Department of Ilealth Site Assessment and Consultation Unit 625 Robert Street N.. I PO Box 64975 1 St. Paul, MN.55164-0975 Phone: 651-201-4897 ortoll-free 1-800-657-3908 Email: health.hazard@state.mn.us I www.health.state.mn.us 05/13/2019 To obtain this- information in a. different form at, call: 651-201-4897. 89 MIMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGtrMCY WWW.pce.state,171mus e ( ................ ._ _ ........ _ .............................. _. ...._.. Compliance Iinspections for subsurface sewage treatment systems Learn about inspections For new and existi ng se ptic systems Subsurface sewage treatment system (55TS) compliance inspections are conducted for:. Newly installed systems — To determine. if the design and installation meet current rule requirements; and if the system will protect public health and: Min iinize:effects on groundwater: s Existing systems -- To determine whether the system is functioning properly to protect public health and groundwater. Existing.system inspections do.not check for.system size, .ho.rizontaI setbacks (i.e., property lines, wells, and buildings), estimated longevity, current usage; .or.past system abuse. Individuals conducting compliance inspections must be. certified by the Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency and either operate under an S.STS. inspection business license, or act:as a qualified employee of a local government. Compliance criteria Existing system inspection The main emphasis in. inspecting existing systems is if: 1) the 5STS is an imminent threat to.public health or safety (ITPHS), or 2) the system is failing to protect groundwater (FTPGW) by not adequately removing pathogenic organisms before reaching groundwater: Existing systems inust.also remain 1n coiripI!ance.with issued operating permits if applicable. ultimately, all existing systems.must meet the..provisions.specified in Minn. R.7080.1500..subp. 4. Systems. are considered imminent threats to public safety if they:. • Discharge sewage to the surface (e.g.; overflow pipes,:seepfng areas in the yard, connected to agricultural drain tile) • Chronically backup sewage into the connectedhomes o.r businesses • Are. unsafe (e.g.,. those with cracked tank.1ids or improper electrical wiring) Systems that fail to protect groundwater include: Seepage pits, cesspools; or other types of pits • Tanks that crack and.lea k below their operating depth • Inadequate layers -of suitable soil between the soil dispersal system and bedrock or periodically saturated soil (also called the season:al.water table) Other conditions besides those listed above may cause systems to fail compliance inspections. Existing system inspections also must check.for system failures. that could lead to theunsafe.conclitions, such as pluggedsoil treatment systems; electrical failures of pumps, switches, or.floats; and pipe problems. It's not .necessary to do soil borings to determine the depth ofsuitable soil if past soil.borings have been verified for accuracy..In older systems, th.e suitable soil depth was not always verified,. and some existing system Iinspections may reveal that the: depth of suitable soil has been inadequate since the system's installation.. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ; June 2019 1 wq-wwists439 BI-296-6300 1800-657-3864 or useyourpreferred relay service I Info•oca@-state_rnn.us ; Available in alternative formats. Existing systems that -are "t performing or being operated in accordance with their issued operating permit are also noncompliant. New system inspection For newSSTS construction, the system must: • Be designed to all applicable federal, state, and. local regulations, a.nd meet established setback distances • Prevent sewage or sewage effluent contact.with humans, insects, or vermin • Treat and disperse sewage safely, while avoiding physical injury or harm • Maintain an unsaturated zone in the soil between the soil dispersal system and the bedrock or seasonally saturated soil (also. called the :water table) during loading of effluent. All. n ewly co nstructed systems must have the soil's unsaturated zone .(also called thevertical separation distance) verified • Not be located in floodways. In addition, any replacement components for an existing.SSTS must meet new construction criteria, according to local:ordinances. Recording inspections and certifying compliance Inspectors must record all methods they use to determine system components or performance on'the MPCA compliance inspection form. Local governments may have additional farms, which can. be.attached'to the MPCA form. The inspector must submit the certificate of compliance (COC) .or notice of noncompliance (NON) to the system owner (or ❑wner's agent) and the local government unit within 15.business days after the inspection date. The. COC for a newly constructed system certifies that the:system complies with current state and. focal requirements. The COC for an exist!ng.system certifies cornpifance with minimal. public health a nd. groundwate r protection requirements,C.hanges in usage, such as increasing a building's occupancy, can changethe performance of a SST5 but not necessarily change the. compliance status.:A COC is.valid for three years for an existing system and five years for a newly constructed SSTS. Existing.systems,that are found to be. imminent threats to public health.or safety or failing to protect groundwater are given a NON and. a timeframe for upgrades,. repairs., or replacement. The timeframe for ITPHS systems is 10 moriths. maximum under state law, though local ordinances may dictate shorter tirneframes. The timeframe. for upgrading a FTPGW system is set by IocaI ordinances. When are inspections required? Existing systems Under state .law, an inspection must be conducted when.a bedroom. is added to a dwelling if the local unit of government regulates that activity. Local ordinances may specify other events that trigger inspections, such as when a property is sold or a. building permit is sought. A lending institution or a. prospective. buyer may also request a compliance.inspection. New systems. Compliance inspections for new or replacement systems. are required: .. For all new constructionAhd replacement of SSTS In designated shoreland areas, when, 6nybuilding permit or variance is requested. If the local government administers a perm it for bed room. additions (the system must be inspected before the permit is issued) Page 2'of 3 June.2019 1. wq-ww1.sts4-39. Existing system inspections vs. maintenance visits .::. If an 55T5 professional visits to check if a. septic tank needs to be pumped out, this routine maintenance. check. ',.. may be incorrectly termed an "inspection" and confused with a compliance inspection. There. can be overlap. between eAst'ing.system inspections and maintenance checks. For instance; if a tank is pumped out every three years and found to be watertight. below the operating depth,.1he system is checked for hydraulic and safety issues, and soil suitability has been previously verified, some information is already known to help determine systern compliance. More information Visit the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency web. site. at hUpjjLWww. pca.state.mn.us, Page 3 of 3 i June 20.19 1 wq-wwists4-39 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY viiww.pCa.S#dte.rCln.uS i Septic systems 101 Facts about subsurface' sewage treatment systems Subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), commonly known asseptic systems, are soil -based treatment systems used by homes:and.busihesses that are not cohnectedto municipal sewers. The systems treat and dispose of wastewater generated on -site. More'than 500,000 septic systems are in use in Minnesota, which includes 30%-of the state's households. Septic systems treat approximately 25% of wastewater generate0h the state. Wastewater contains sewage,.which includes bacteria, viruses; parasites, nutrients, and some chemicals: Correctly treating acid disposing of wastewater is critical to protecting public health and the environment. More than two-thirds of Minnesotans get.their-drinking-waterfrom groundwater, and poorly built for ill-Nrictiepi ig septic systems can contaminat.e.grouhdwatersand otheTwater. resources. When*constructed-and maintained. properly, septic systems are highly -effective at trea#ing-sewage and keeping Minnesota's groundwater, lakes, and rivers safe and clean. How septic systems work SSTS treat .sewage with a combination of biological, physical, and chemical processes. A system's design must.. account ftseveral"factors: • The amountof daily wastewater generated on -site • Using. gravityor a pump for distribution • The slte's soil conditions i The need for developing a biological layer (biomat) Atypical SSTS includes a septic tank and a soil -based treatment system where liquid waste can come in contact. WI th soils, The septic tank Sewage is piped from a home or business into a buried; watertight septic tank, Which Is-slzec!16 retain wastewater for 24 to 36 hours. The time allows the wastewaterto separatgAnto three layers,ln the tank: • solids sink to the bottom • Greases, fats, and soaps.fioat:t0 the top • The remaining liquid (effluent) flows out to the drainbeld for final treatment Baffles in the tank at the iolet-and outlet help prevent.the top and bottom layers from moving to the draiinfield, where they can clog distribution plpes.afiid cause. premature drainfield failure, Over time, these layers will accumulate, and must be pumped outof the tank -at regular Intervals. Anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that dbesn'tneed.oxygen) in thetank beglnthe.process of.greaking down organic. matter in the sewage. But microorganisms and pathogens remain. Research shows that effluent leaving.the septic tank contains high counts of bacteria (about 1,000,000 colonies per 100 mi) that must be.furthertreated in the soil. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I June 2019 1 wq-wwist51=10 651-296-6300 1 800-657-3864 or use your preferred relay service l Info. ocaPstate.mn.us Avaiiabie.ln alternative formats The drainfield/soil treatment system The effluent from themptic tank moves to the soil treatment system, such as.a mound, trench, or at=grade drainfield. A trained SSTS professional.must take soil types and other facto.rs into account when.designIng the correct type of septic system for a specific site.. The effluent moves either by gravity or using a pump; through distribution pipes in the -soil treatment system, and down through the distribution mediiam:to its base where the distribution medium meets the underlying soil. That's where.a sticky biological layer (biomat) forms. The biomat slows.. the infiltration of effluent into the underlying unsaturated soiil,.and further filters out pathogens and solids. The biomat can slow effluent movement to as much as 100 times less than its normal flow rate; this:helps maximize the contact time between the effIuent.and the surrounding soil particles. Soil particles are negatively charged. Through a process called adsorption, they attract.and hold the positively charged pathogens <1n the effluent. 0nce.held, the pathogens are easily available to theaerobic. bacteria inthe air pockets.between the soil particles. The aerobic bacteria,.which are much more efficient than th.e anaerobic bacteria in the septic tank; continue treatment. Other forms: of bacteria also begin to grow., producing slimy films over the soil particles; which act as.additional filters to "grab" pathogens. It is important to properly site the SSTS with the existing soil conditions to ensure maximum treatment occurs. If the site is not optimal for treatment (e.g:, it has :a: high .s.easonal.water table), it. won't offer effective soil treatment and the riskof contamination.increases.. SSTS regulations in Minnesota. The 1968 Minnesota Shoreland Act required septic systems to be evaluated and managed properly within .shoreland areas to -better control their impact on water quality. But the first state law specifically addressing septic systems wasn't enacted until 199.4: the Individual :Sewage Treat ment:Systems (ISTS) Act .(Minn. Stat. §.§ 11S.55 and 115.56). It requires all new construction and replacome nt'septic systems. to meet minimum standards. It also enacted a. system to upgrade failing existing SSTS before construction of an additional bed room, .a.nd methods to replace failing SSTS within certain timeframes. The 1994 act has been amended in recent years; with major.changes in 1996.and 2008. Regulations will continue to be amended as the SSTS. industry advances.. More information Visit the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website. at http://www.pca.state.mn.us. Page 2:of 2 June 20M 1 wq-ww)sts1-10 MMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONJAO.L AG£NCY www. pca . state.lr n. us Subsurface sewage treatme.ant systems well setbacks The distances required between water supply wells and septic systems .Subsurface -sewage treatment system (SSTS) well setbacks are the distances that must be maintained between septic.systems and water supply wells — including domestic w6lis, irrigation of other "nonpotable"water-supply wells,-ind.ustrial-supply wells, sandpoint/drivepoint.wells, and abanrdoned.but-unsealed wells. A setback -is- aiscf required between septic systems and water service pipes. Setbacks apply when: • Installing septic systems. • Installing water -supply. wells. • Repairing or modifying..septic systems, where the SSTS components that hold of disperse -sewage are being altered. Well!arid septic -systems on. neighboring properties are within setback distances. Setback distances vary,.depending on the -source of.co.n.tamination and the type of well. The Minnesota Departmerlt.of Health (MDH) regulates wells through Minn, Stat. §1031 and Minn. R. ch. 4.72S (Well Code), which specifies the setback -distances for SSTS. Setback distances are referred to as "isolation" distances in the Well Code. Plumbing rules from the MN Department of Labor and Industry require a ten -foot separation between any contamination source.:and a water service pipe, which is defined as the pipe from the water main or other 1?. source of water supply to the water -distributing system of a building. Common SSTS se.tback.distances See Minn R. ch. 4725 for a.cor plete-.Ilstof SSTS setbacks. Distances are expressed in feet. SSTS component Sensitive well' Water supply well' Community public well; Buried sewer pipe — untested,. —unapproved s0 50 50 Buried -sewer pipe —tested., approved 20 20 50 —Cesspool 150 75 75 Gray -water dispersal area 100 s0 so. —Holding tank 50 50 50 Leachin /see page pit, dry well 150 75 75 Privy 100 50 50 Septoe land ap iication site 100 so so. Septic tank 50. So 5o Sewage sump with a capacity of 100 gallons or more; including lift stations grinder. tanks, and other Rump tanks 50 s0 50 Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency June 2019. 1 wq-wwists4-36 651-296-6300 1 800-657-3864 or use your preferred relay service i Info.aca0state:mmus I Available in alternative formats SM component Sensitive well' Water supply we[12 Community public well' Sewage sump with a -� 100 oallodi -capacity,. lh-cgimpliance. With MN R. ch.4$154• 20 20 50 Subsurface dispersal.fields 100 So 50 Subsurface dispersal field,. system design fiow.> 10,000 d. 600 300 300 Subsurface dispersal field. serving a facility with infectious or pathololfital wastes 300 150. 150 watertightsand orpeat filter, or constructed wetland 50 so 50 Disposal area -for water treatment backwash 100 5o 50 16ften referred to as a `shallow' well. Does not have 50' or more of watertight casing or does not have watertight casing that penetrates ::10' or.mo're of a confining layer ''Includes Well' used to supply drinking water, lrrigation..Wells, wells supplying processing water, and drive point wells Vrovides.Water torl.5 or more year-round residences.or dwelling units 4Does.not apply to collector sewer, municipal levJe'r; sewer handling infectious or pathogenic' wastes, onto community public wells sinciudes.all Type IN soil dispersal systems Setbacksfrom abandoned septic systems and wells. Unless specified in the local ordinance, a setback distance is not required between a-prope.rly.-abandoned and sealed well acid a septidsystem. A setback is also not required between a properly abandoned septic.system and a new well. However, setbacks stiill.apply if the septic.system was abtabdohed without these. proper procedures: • Sept;ktank, holdingtank,.sewage sump, or other sewage tank has been -pumped out, disconnected, and filled with soil and rock,-is.4rushed and filled; or pumped out and completely excavated and removed. • Cesspool, seepage pit,, leaching pit, or dry well has been pumped and the entire structure*has been excavated and removed. • All subsurface dispersal field piping has been excavated and removed. • Any visibly contaminated soils or material within, beneath, and surrounding the structure are excavated and removed.. • Any Contaminated materials, soils, or other excavations have been disposed of in accordance with state and local requirements. Well setbacks for sewers Minn. R. 4125.4-45041se-speclfies setbacks. for the installation of a new buried sewer, arid the replacement of an existing buried. sewer. Sewer is defined as a pipe or conduit carrying.sewage, or into which sewage can back up, including floor drain and traps. Setback variances Local governments can't issyevariances for well setback distances. Only the :MDH .can issue variances, or.the MDH and a county or -city with a delegated well program. The MDH may grant.setback variances if equWlent. protection to*nearbywells can be provided through favorable site characteristics, special construction, or other conditions. Page 2 of 2 June>2019 I wq-wwists4-36. i MMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY www.pca.state.mn.us What to do with your septic system during a flood This factsheet is intended for property owners served. by subsurface sewage treatment systems (55T5 or septic systems) on what to do before, during and after a flood. Prevention what can I do.if I any in a flood prone area well in advance of flood?. • Have.a licensed plumber install a backflow preventer on the waste pipe leaving your home so sewage. cannot backup into your home. during a flood. A backflow preventer is. recommended as the. re is some concern a simple check valve may not close properly and sewage may still back-up into the. home.. • Ensure. all inspection.caps are.1n place. Threaded caps can be installed and pipes cut flush with the ground. Immediately prior What can I do immediately prior to a flooding event? • if the building sewer has a.backflow preventer; nothing further needs to be done. • If the backfiow preventer is a manual valve, ensure it is shut. • If the tank does not have a backflow preventer;. it may be desirable to pump the tank to remove the sewage, but the tank must be properly anchored. Pumping immediately prior to flooding is not mandatory. If pumped, some sewage so.lids .wi11 remain in the tank.and could mix with any floodwaters that enter the tank. It may be advantageous to block any lower level drains in the dwelling to prevent back up: • Make plans to minimize water use or flushing of toilets during the actu a 1. floodi ng event. During What should l do. during the flood if the system is covered with water? • Do not use the system. Turn off watersofteners to prevent them from regeneration. Turn off all the system's electric devices (pumps, alarms, etc.) • If you. are using water from a flooded well, it may be contaminated. Contact a well. professional or your county about. a water test, After Once the flood waters.remde, when can I.use my system again? Do not use the system until., The soil has adequately dried to allow sewage to be absorbed and not back-up. This may take several. weeks. You should try to. conserve.water until the system. is completely dry. • All tanks have been checked to see if.they contain floodwaters. If so, the tanks should. be pumped to keep the silt particles from entering the soil System, If the tanks have not been anchored, do not. pump until the water level in the soil is below the tank. Effluent screens (if any) are cleaned. aer3-16 March 2020 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. • 520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155A194 www:pca.state.mn.u.s 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • AvaIiable In alternative formats • The electrical system (if any) has been inspected. This includes electrical connections, pumps,:alarms; etc. If your system has an advanced treatment.device you should check with your licensed service provider before operation. • All tank maintenance hole openings: must be immediately secured, repaired, or replaced if the covers have been shifted; moved or lost in the flood. • Any obvious damage has been repaired. Now do I know if my system is damaged? Signs of damage include: • Settiing.of soil over theta nk or soil system. • Inabil'ity of the. system to.accept wastewater, indicated by sewage back-up.or surfacing on the ground. If you observe either of the above after flood waters recede, contact a SSTS professional. They canbe found :at: htt s: weba ca.state:rnn.us ssts business -search. What concerns are there: with clean-up activities and my septic system? The.home cleaning process will likely result in the discharge of high amounts of disinfectants and cleaners into the septic tank, It is best to pump the tanks (a second time if floodwaters were previously. pumped) to avoid discharging of these chemicals into the soil portion of the septic.system,. Do not dump floodwaters that have entered the: house .1nt.o a plurribing.fixture which discharges into the.-SSTS. Do not drive .vehitles.a.nd equipment over the system during clean-up or resto ration. activities. Do not set dumpsters or building materials over the system. Fence -off the system to protect it. What should 1 do .with my septic system soon -after the flood? Mood damaged SSTS o'octrical box Washed away SSTS in eroded stream bank • Inspect the vegetation over your septic tank/soil absorption field. • Repair erosion damage. and sod or reseed areas as necessary to provide proper cover. What:septic system work can I do:myself? + Du.e to the many hazards. in working with septic systems (disease transmission, poisonous: gasses; and electrical shock) it is strongly recommended that. all septic system work.be.conducted by a SSTS licensed business or licensed electrician for electrical work. If these professionals havedetermined there is no damage to your system, a homeowner may.re-sod or re -seed a damaged area. Where can I find information about maintaining my septic system? • Contact your county Environmental Services or Planning and Zoning Department for additional advice and assistance. A septic system owner's guide is available from the University of Minnesota. at; https://bookstores.umh:edu/product/book/septic system -owners -guide with more flooding information at: https://sep tic.umn.edu/septic-system-ownersimaintenance/sepfic-flood .. • You may als❑.call the M PCA at 8007657-3864 with any SSTS flood related questions. What to do With Your Septic System During a Flood • c-er3-16 • March 2020 M1MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Page 2 of 2 M11 MI N N ES.OTA POLLUTION CONT-RO'L AGENCY i www.pca.st:atemn.us. Septic system DO's and DON'Ts A quick reference guide to extend the life of your septic system A -properly constructed and maintained system can last a long time if you follow some common septic system DO% and DON'Ts: d DO conserve water and -fix leaks quickly. Installing high efflcldocy appliarlces;-such:as washers and Inw-flbw-tolfets, can extend the life of your system while leaky faucets can limit your system's.capaaity. If you have periods of high water usei talk to -a septic professlonal about Helping your system manage the spl(ces: DO have your septic tank routineiy.seNrced**as specified by a licensed professional. Do regularly check1he. condi on of your septic system and any access covers. Unsecured or unsafe lids can be. dangerous to children or pets; failing into.a septic.tank can be fatal, DO keep your.septic*tankcover actessible for Inspections and pumping,*Ygu.may wish to install septic tank riser%to akold having to disturb your lawn for. every er ainteriance event ✓ DO keep records of repairs;. pumping, Inspections; permits issued, and other SSTS maintenance activities. y DO. identify the location of your septic tank and drainfeld. A sketch or map allows easier .navigation to. septic system components. DO.divert .water sources such as roof.drains, house.footing drains, and sump pumps away from the septic -system— they shouldn'tflow into. the system or onto the ground.gver your system.: Excessive water can cause back-vo and - premature system 6111pre. DO call a licensed professional if you experience problems with your system, or if there are any signs of system failure: x DON'T flush the following items: • Lint.or clothing fibers • Diapers • Cigarette butts • Facial tissue • Condoms • Feminine by 6ne-products • U nused fhedications • Paint or solvents • Flammable material • Coffee grounds. • Cat litter w Cooking oils and grease • "Flushable." wipes or paper towels These items will shorten the life.ofyoui-systefivand may cause component failures or -sewage backups. ONLY human waste and toilet: pa per should ever be flushed: Minimize use of harsh cleaners, bleach, and antibacterial soaps: x DON'T drive. over or park anything above the.septic tank ordrainfield. This.can limitsystem life and cause.damage. x DON'T plant deep rooted plants over or near the .drairifleld. Roots from trees or shrubs may clog and daMage drain lines. Plant grass or'flowers instead (no vegetables), but don't fertilize, water,.or burn them. x .DON'T dig in:Qr bu)ld*anything-on top of your drai . ...; particularly playgrounds. x DON'T make or allow repairs to your septic system without obtaining therequired local permits:and professional assistance. x DON'T enter your septic tank. Working in•and around a septic tank is dangerous, and gases generated in the tank could be fatal. MlnnetbU.PAllution control Agency August 2018 1 wq-.wwists6.14 65129fi-6300 1 8d0 657-3864 or use your preferred relay service 1 lnfo.pcaPstate.mn.us Available in alternative formats CONTRACT FOR.ADMINISTRATIVE AND PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEM LAKE AND. TIC TOWN OF WHITE BEAR THIS: CONTRACT, made and*entered into this day of , 2022., .is.entered into by and between the. CITY OF.GEM LAKE ("City'%. a municipal .corporation under the laws: of the State of Minnesota; and the TOWN OF WHITE BEAR C T'ownship" },. an urban township under the laws of the State of.Minnesota. WITNESSETH; WHEREAS;1itis the- intention of the parties that the Township shall, upon request, respond to. administrative and public works requests by the City; and V11M- EAS, the Township has the capacity to provide response.to the requests of the City; and WHEREAS, the Township -and the City desire to enter into this relationsliip;:and WHEREAS, this relationship will address administrative and public works requests (� by the City that will assist the City in providing a response in administrative and public works; and NOW, THEREFORE,by it agmW-by and between the parties hereto: SECTION I Period of Contract A} 'This Contract shall have an initial term of one (1.) year and shall remain in full force and effect, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section*11 oftir s contract. It is expressly understood that the contract may be extended for an additional term of years by written agreement of the parties. The date of commencement.of this Conttact-shall be on -the:day that it is fin4y--Approved by the Town of White Bear Board and. Gem Lake City Council. SECTION II Termination A) Either party shall have the 0ghtto terminate this ConbAct in. the: event the other party is in substantial and continuhig default of this Contract, including nonpayment or underpayment of charges. The agn-defaulting party shall give the defaulting party written notice of the default. The defaulting party shall have 90 days from receipt of such notice to cure the default. In the: event the alleged defaulting.party disputes whether there is a default, it shall haye.90 days from receipt ofthc-default.notice to. initiate Anil. and binding` arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter-57ZB, except each party shall be responsible for. its own fees and costs and one-half of the arbitrator's fees and expenses. B) Either party shall have the right to terminate this Contract upomthe. occurrence of any of the following events: 1.) If federal or state laws, regulations or a finial judicial decisions substantially and adversely affect the rights, duties .or obligations ofeither party under this Contract. Jrrthe.event of such terinitiation, the terminating party shall give the other party as much noticeof such-canceflation as is reasonably possible consistent with the law,. regulation or. judicial decision. 2) Either party fails to zdinply with an -award pursuant to paragraph A) above:. 3) Either party may terminate with -or without cause provided the terminating party provides the non -terminating party with 90 days' written notice. SECTION III Financial Obligation of City of Gem Lake. A) The, City. shall pay the Township for administrative services (Accounting. Clerk/Receptionist, Building Inspector, Clerk -Treasures•,. Finance ArWyst.*and Officer, Para Legal Secretary, Planner, Secretary -Receptionists, accarding-to the parties'* agreement, the sum of $05.00 pet.hour, paid to the Township upon irivoice; The. Township's fees will be.reviewed by the parties annually. B) The City shall pay the Township for public works services (snow removal, street sweeping,..street patching [asphalt], street tree trimming, street sealcoating; asphalt trail, sanitary sewer (ine jetting, hydrant flushing, mowin' lain garden}; according to the parties' agreement, the sum of $80.00 er hour, paid xo the Township upon invoice. The Township's: fees will be reviewed by the parties annually: SECTION IV Best Efforts The: Township shall respond to the.requests by the City using. best practices and equipment that.are available:at the time of the request. There maybe an fficident. where. the Township cannot-prope.rly respond to the request. The Township will w&k. with the City to locate additional entities to respond to the request.. 3 I SECTION V Force Ma'eure. Neither party shall beheld rdp6iisf1ble. for-P . brformarice-of this Contract if the pArty's performance is prevented by. acts: or: events beyond the party?s reasonable control -iholudifig,but not-Jimited to: 'severe weather and *st6fms,' earthquakes, tornados,'dr other -natur4l -oceijr*refices, -strikes and other labor unrest,power failures, electrical power surgps or current*fluctuationsi nuclear or other -civil or military emergenciesj*o]i acts of legigli0ye, judicial, executive or -administrative authorities. .SECTION.V.1 Authority and Binding Effect. Both parties represent and warraritthat the individuals executing.this Contract on behalf of each of the parties have the full power and authority -to execute and perfOrth thYs Contract, and that -this Contractconstitutes. alegal, valid and*bincrmg obligation igation. enforceable in accordance with its terra.. SECTION VU Miscellaneous Provisions A) . Successors and Assigns. All terms, covenants, and conditions ofthig -Contract shall be binding upon, and inure to thOejaefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successots,.heitsj executors and assigns. This Contract- and the rights and obligations of any party hereunder shall, not be assignable excepi-with the written consent. -of the other party hereto,. which consent shall notbe unreasonably -withheld. B.) Notice Any -notice, request, demand, statemenVor consent required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be * h * i writing, shall be signed by or on behalf of the party giving notice, and shall be personally delivered or sent by express service, fax; certified or registered inail,return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the- Othek.pady to the respective address givqnherel . in. -.below: If to the Town of White Bear: If to the City Of Gein Lake: .Town Cl.erk 1281 Hammond ROW White: Bear Township, MN 55110 .Mayor 4200 Otter Lake*Road GftnLakc,.MN-55110 .3 Any such notice given.as. aforesaid.shall be conclusively deemed to have been. given. and received. on the day on which such notice -was delivered. Either party inay., from time to.time,. furnish in writing to the other party such notice of a chaiige-iil address or individual to whom such iiotides ate to -be. given. C) Severability This Contract is intended to be performed in accordance with, and only to the extent permitted. by,.all applicable.laws.,.ordinances, rules -and regulations. If any provision of this Contract, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall for any reason and to any extent, *ber invalid *or unenforceable, the remainder ofthis Contractand the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be of acted thereby but. gather shall be enforced to the extent permitted by law_ D) Waivers and- Amendments This Contract7nay be amended,. superseded, renewed or extended, and its terms or covenants hereof may be waived, only by.a written instrurnent:executed by the parties hereto, or in the case of awaiver,.4y the party waiving compliance. The failure -of any party at.any time or times to re quire.peci'ormance of -any provision hereof shall Who manner affect. its right -at a laicr time to enforce the some, No waiver -by any party of the breach of any term or covenant contained in this Contractor in any other such:instrument, whether by conduct or otherwiseJp any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be; or construed as,. a further or continuing waiver of atiy breach, or a waiver of the breach of any other term or covenant contained herein. E) Indemnification. Township agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, losses, damages, costs; expenses; including reasonable attorneys fees, suits, dennds and judgments of any nature, because of bodily injury to, or death of any person or persons and/or because of damages to property of others, including loss of use from aoyy cause whatsoever which may be asserted against the City on account of any act. or omission, including negligence of Township or Township's employees -or agents, in connection with Township's performance of this Contract. Township agrees to defend any action brought ag4inst City on any such matter, and to pay and satisfy any judgment entered thereof, together with all costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith. The City agrees to indemnifyandhold harmless the -Township, its agents, officers,. and employees from any and aif-claims, causes of action, liabilities, tosses. damages,. costs; expenses, including reasonable: attorney's fees, suits, demands and Judgments of any nature, because of bodily injury19, or death.of any person or persons and/or because: -of damages to property. This includes loss `of use from any -cause whatsoever,. which nay be asserted against the City of the Township on account of any act or omission, including -negligence -.of the City or any employee. associated with. the. 4 City in connection with the upkeep of the..site or other -provisions of this`contraet. The City agrees to -aid. in defending any action -brought against the Township.on any such matter and satisfy. -any judgment as itxelates to judgment. against the property. The Township will :carry General Liability .Insurance in the arnount.of $1.,000,000 .as well as the state mandated Worker's Comp Insurance. The Township -will riot'be resjwnsible for then worker's comp insurance for any City employee and expects that the City will cagy all Worker's Comp Insurance in the amount dictated by the State of Minnesota, The City agrees to.carry property insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 and would be listed as a co-insurt4on the Township's: General Liability Policy. The City --and.Township will exchadgo Certificates oflnsurance and name'each other as co -insureds on the policies. } Comimarts This "Contract may be executed in two or more:cQuntgrparts, each of which may be deemed an originaf but -together shall -e-orWitute. but One and. the same instrument. G} Venue The. parties. agree that this Contract shall be enforceable in Ramsey County, Minnesota,.and if legal addon is necessary to enforce it, exclusive venue shall lie in the Ramsey Count y., Minnesota;.District Court. City of Gem Lake Resolution No. .2022-001:6 dated April 10, 2622 is attached as Exhibit A. ITNE1N WSS WHEREOF, the patties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on * date's listed below. 04D OF AGREEMENT, SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE} 5 TOWN OF WHITE }SEAR CITY OF OEM LAKE Board Chair Town CIerk- DateQ Mayor c t Clerk . ? GZZ Date City of Gem Lake, MN Resolution No. 2022-0011 May 17, 2022 ARESOLVT.ION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER TO DISTRIBUTE A PORTION OF THE CHARITABLE GAMBLING FUNDS TO THE WHITE. BEAR LAKE:AREA FOOD SHELF. WHEREAS, the City of Gem Lake participates in .the distribution of charitable gambling funds: received from:the. Country Lounge WHEREAS,. the. City of Gem Lake distributes these funds W local 501(cX3) tax-exempt organizations WHEREAS, the City of Gem Lake City Council puggested a*donatiotrat theirAprif 1�9, J022 meeting in support of the White Bear Lake Area Food Shelf. NOW; THEREFORE BE 1T RESOL'V.ED, by the City of Gem Lake, Minnesota, the City .Treasurer is. authorized to send $.1,000..00 to support the White Bear Lake Area Food Shelf for the month of May 2022. The motion for adoption: of the foregoing Resollution was duly introduced-by.Counciltuember-Lindner and seconded by Councilmember Cacioppo, and upori vote being taken thereon, the resolution passed with:&vote of 5. in favor and 0 agmnst.. ATTEST 1, Melissa Lawrence, the duly qualified Actipg City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake;. County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a. true and accurate representation of action taken by The City Council of the City of.Gem Lake on the.date .first written. Xd4j" Z"4124 W May 1.7, 2022 Melissa Lawrence, Acting City:Clerk Date City. of Gem. Lake, MN Resolution No: 2022-0012 May 17, 2022 A RESOLUTION FUNDING THE GEM LAKE SCHOLARSHIP AND AWARDING THE SCHOLARSHIP TO WHEREAS, the City of Gem Lake participates in thadistributipn o€charitable gambling funds received from the Country Lounge WHEREAS, the City of Gem Lake distributes these funds to local 501(cx3) tax-exempt organizations and the City''s own. Scholarshipfund, vI ji REAs, the.City Qf Gem Lake created a.scholarship for the yeas �02g, WHEREAS; the City of Gem Lake awards, Jake Tangwall said scholarship in the. amount.of $1; 00.00, NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, thatthb City'Treasurer is authorized to send Cent4q College a check in the arnount of $1,000..00. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was.duly introduced by Councilinmbber L-inilner`and-secd>rded by Councilmember Cacioppo, and upon vote. being taken. thereon- the resolution. passed with a.vote.of 5 in favdr and 0 against. ATTEST I; Melissa Lawrence, the duly qualified Acting City Clerk of the.City of Gem Lake, County..of Ramsey; State:of ` Minnesota.; do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken. by $e City Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. May 1 �, 2022 Melissa Lawrence,. Acting City. Clerk pate City of Gem Lake, MN Resolution No. 2022-0013 Muyx7, =2 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF SHOREVIIEW COMMITMENT OF SUPPORT TO THE "SUBURBAN RAMSEY COUNTY BEYOND THE YELLOW RIBBON. NETWORK" UNITING THE CITIES OF SUBURBAN':RAMSEY COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF:$ERVICE MEMBERS, VETERANS AND MILI..TARY.FAMILIES' WHEREAS,'Beyond the=Yellow Ribbon. (BTYR). is a.nationally recognized organizatiottwhose purpose is to provide support and advocacy for active -duty service:members and their dependents, and disabled and retired veterans of the United States Armed Forces; and. WHEREAS, active and.retired service people and their dependents in the City of Gem Lake have beenin need of a. local chapter of BTYR to. provide the necessary programs for community support, trainin& services and resources; and WHEREAS; on May i7., 20LZthe citi",6fArden Wlls,.Palcon Heights, Gem Lake, Lauderdale, Little -Canada,. Maplewood, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, North S.t*Paul, Roseville, Shoreview,. Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake. and White Bear Lake Township formed the Suburban Ramsey County .Yellow Ribbon Network and were proclaimed. by the State. of Minnesota as "Yellow Ribbon Communities'% and WHEREAS, representatives of those- communities formed,a Steering Committee toresearch, compile and submit a comprehensive Action Plan describing available resources, plans, and goals for a BTYR group to serve. locally, Which iticiutled.plans to work with educational institution% -faith communities,. health care facilides,.and municipalities and other governmental units:; and WHEREAS, since 2p12, the Suburban Ramsey County Yellow Ribbon. Network has provided fiscal and physical support to individudl. service members, veterans and their families, identified community resources and. built: lasting relationships with local military leadership and Yellow. Ribbott Corporations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by -the Mayo. r:and City Cotntci€ of the City. of Gem Laketliat it hereby renews support to the Suburban County Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Network. by providing leadership support, conununity awargness:attd city representation.on;the BTYR Network Steering Committee; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that .the- City Council hereby designates the:City of Gem. Lake to be:a participating and.active member of the Suburban Ramsey County.BTYR Network, and.that the City of Gem Lake. will provide applicable supportta-.this chapter. The rnq ian:for adoption ofthe. -foregoing Resolution was duly introduced by Councilmember Linder and seconded liyCouncihnemberCacioppo; and upon vote being taken thereon, the.resolution passed with a vote of 5 .in favor and 0 against. ATTEST I, Melissa Lawrence, the.duly qualified Acting City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota,. do'hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the.City Council of the City.of Gem Lake on the date first written. Mal" Z""ce Wy 1fi zoaz Melissa Lawcepce, Acting City�Clerk Date City of Gem. Lake, Milinesota Social Media Policy Purpose Social networking in government serves* two -primary functions: to communicate:and.deliver messages directly to citizens and to encourage. citizen involvement,. interaction, and feedback.. Information which is distribtited-via..spacial networking trust be accurate, consistent, and timely and meet the information needs -of the City's-intended audience -social media. is used for social networking, and this policy seeks to ensure proper administration of the City of Gem Lakes social. media sites by its representatives. The City has limited eontrol of social me.dia:aecounts with. third. parties (i:e., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). At the. sametime, #here is a general expectation by the public that this City. have a social media presence by which to share information about current city projects. and: city business.. For municipal purposes,.the City's social. media accounts will be used for incidental; non -vital communication and general inf6nnation only. It is not the purpose of the city's social* ittedia accounts to be a medium for transactions of city business. The one exception is.irl the case of:a natural or man-made disaster., if it is determined by the City titatihe best means of communicating with the public is through the social media account( s). The City of Gem Lake wishes to establish a posittve.and nformativesocial media presence. City. representatives have the responsibility to.. use -the City's social niedisr.resources in an. efficient, effective, ethical, and lawful manner pursuant taAll existing City policies. .policy The City of Gem Lake will determine, at its discretion,.*bow Us web=based social media resources.. will be designed, implemented, and managed: as part of its overall communication and infonnatioh sharing strategy.. City -of Gbm Lake social xriedia accounts are considered. a Cityasset and administrator access to these accounts will be. securely administered* in accordance with the City's Computer Use Policy.. The City reserves the light. th-Aurdbft airy of its-- sooial media sites: or accotirits fot. any reason without notice: All social media websites created. and u(tiized.during the course and scope of an employee's performance of his/her job duties wiifbe-identified as belonging to the City of Lake, -including'a.link to the City'.s official webike. The City of Gem Lake does not create or maintain social media accounts:for its:elected officials. Scope This policy applies to any existing or proposed social* media.we.Wtes sponsored; established, registered, or authorized by the City of Gem Lake. The .City's social media(aacounts.are exclusively the following: 1. City of Gem Lake Facebook account at httpsl/www 6mbo.ok:com/CityofOemLikeMN. Tha-.Oity doEes.not create, collect, disseminate, or regulate pspofany other social media,,accourits, including the -personal accounts of its elected offcials.and*staf. Questions regarding the scope of this-policy-Aould be directed to the City Clerk. .De f nition Social media are internet and Mobile -based applications, websites, and functions, other than. email, for sharing and -diiscussing information, where users can post photos; video, comments, and Inks to other information to create content on any imaginable topic. This may be.referred to as "user -generated content" or `consumer -generated media." Social.media includes, but is not limited.to: • Social networking sites and apps such asTacebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Nextdoor • Blogs • Social news sites such as Reddit and Buzzfeed • Video and photo sharing sites and apps such as YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat; and Flickr • Wikis, or shared encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia • An:ever-emerging list of new web -based platforms generally regarded as social media or Having many of the same functions as those listed above As used in this.policy, "employees and agents" means all City representatives., including its employ"4iftid-.6ther agents of the city; such as independent contractors or councilmembers. "Social media managte,*trieans *any city employee or agent with administrator access who, when posting or responding to a. post, appears to be the City.social media account owner. Rules of Use City social media man*gers.are responsible for-.managirig City social media accowits.or websites. All approved sites will be clearly.marked:-asthe City of Gem Lake site and will be linked with the official City website (www:gemlakemn.com). No one. may establish social media accounts or websites on behalf oftheCity unless authorized -in accordance with this policy. The City's social media page.rrtust conspicuously display or link to a public notice that informs the public of the purpose of the social media presence and the terms on.e.agrees to in accessing, using, or posting to the City% social media page. Administration of all City -social media websites will .comply with.applicable laws, regulations,. and policies as well as proper business etiquette. City social media. accounts. -covered by thispolicy will not be.used by social media:managers for. private or personal .purposes or for the purpose of expressing private di personal views on personal, political,:or policy issues or to express personal views or concerns pertaining to City employment relations matters. No City.social media account-may`be used by the City or any social.media manager to disclose private or confidential information. No social media website should be used to disclose sensitive Wmination; iif.There. is any question as to. whether inforrrc 60 4 is -private, confidential; or sensitive, contaetthe City Clerk. Outside of situations of disaster,. no City social. media account will be used for transactions of city business. In the event a user initiates a request application, or question through social media that affects city business.or.requires another -city policy orprocessto be followed., follow up with that user byphone, email, .or other ehanriels. If continents are allowed, :in: the event* *of a question of general interest, a.response-may be. -given .in. ieomments,-thg initial post maybe edited, or a subsequent post -maybe created to include the information. City. of Gem Lake's. social media managers will not edit any posted comments. However; comments posted.by members ofthe public may be removed if they fall. into at least one of the following categories: Obscene or pornographic content Direct threats to persons or property • Material. asserted to violate the intellectual property of another .person • Private, personal information about.aperson published withouthislherconsent di- Information thatcomorogiises-a public safety security system. • Statutorily private, confidential, or nonpublic data • -Commercial promotions or spam • HyperlinkGs to rnated4fthat falls into one of the foregoing categories A member of the public whose. comment is removed may appeal.the removal of the comment and seek reconsideration of.its removal by contacting the City in writing vand explaining how the comment does norfall into one of the categories for removal. A written response should be provided as soon as .reasonably possible. A member of the public who disputes �c legality of any portion of this policymay dispute the particular portion in writing. The City -should acknowledge the claim promptly and; upon consultation of the .city.attorney,. respond to. the claim concerning legality of the .policy portion as soon as. reasonably possible under the circumstances. Data Ownership and Retention All. communications: or messages within social media accounts covered by'this policy composed, sent,. or received .on -city or personal equipment are the -property of the City aridwill be subject to the Minnesota Government Data. Practices Act. This law classifies certain information as available to the public upon request: As no -transactions of city business shall be.conducted through social media accounts (outside of -disasters), in accordance with the.City's :records retention .schedule, the City shall retain all social media messages only untie read. SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTICE. The purpose of the City .of Gem Luke's social media presence is to provide members of the community with infomution in more places and more ways than were traditionally available. All content of this site. is public.and is subject to disclosure pursuant to -the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Please be aware that. -anything. you Rost may survive deletion, whether by you or others. Do not post sensitive or personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers.. Following or "friending" persons or -organizations is not an endorsement by the City and is only. intended.as a. means of broadening communication. The -City is not: responsible for content found at links to third .parties, nor the views or opinions expressed by third -party comments. Please be advised that comments falling into the following category.or categories may be removed:. • Qbscene or pornographic content • Direct ttii�eats:to persons.or.property • Material asserted -to -violate the intellecdaal property of another person • Private,:personal:information about aperson published without. his/her consent • Information that endangers the public -by compromising a.public safety security system • Statutorily private, confidential, or nonpublic data • Commercial prm odons or spam • Hyperlinks to naterial that. falls into at leastone ofthe foregoing categories .Should your comment be iemovedby the City and you believe it does not fall into one of the above categories, contact the City Clerk. in. writing to explain .how the comment does not fall into. ,ene ofthese categories. -Sliduld you wish :to .challenge the legality of any portion of this notice or the City's social media policy, you may contact. the.City Clerk in writing and explain the basis for the challenge in detail. If you have any other questions about the City of Gem. Lake's social media. page, contact the City - Clerk. at-65 i-747-2790. By accessing, using, or posting to this City of Gem Luke's social media page, you acknowledge you have been: advised of the foregoing. Thanks for stopping by! METRO Today!s Topics ! • Welcome & introductions i • Corridor Management Committee Roles & Responsibilities • Project Overview • White Bear Lake City Council Resolution A Roadmap to Responding to the City's Resolution • Corridor Management Committee Discussion of Potential Paths Forward 1 I • Next Steps 2 (D METRO ► - Welcome and Introductions Charlie Zelle I CMC: Chair Victoria Reinhardt. I CMC Vice Chair ®METRO 13M Building the Regional Transit Network ®METRO 6�w.:� e�� 3_ • Transitway corridors are the spine of theregional , Downtown transit system Minneapolis i Purple ilne ORT Purple Line would be the ='. 8th regional project to be r� federally funded through I -- ETA's- discretionary, rigorous and j competitive Capital Investment G•rant Program Downtown Saint.Pauf L Long History of Planning for Purple Line Corridor Planning & Conceptual Engineering Phase (1998 -- 2017) — MnDOT Commuter Rail*System Plan (1998): Origin of Rush. Line — Rush Line Corridor Tcisk-Fomce (1999) Rush Line Transit Study (2001); Rusts Lin'e•Corridor Alternctives Analysis (2009) — Rush Line Policy Advisory Committee (2.014)- - Pre -Project Development Study (2014-2017) • 55 potential route segments arid.! bus/tail transit modes evaluated. -- Six Municipal Resolutions of Support for the Locally Preferred. Alternative (20i7.) • Environmental Analysis Phase (2018 -- 2021) — Five Municipal Resolutions of Support the Preliminary Design (15%) Plants. (2020) — Environmental Assessment (2021) and Findings of No Significant Impact (202i) 5 Public Engagement All Along the Way • Between 2014-2017, more than 5,000 people participated during the process leading to the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative • 197 meeting/events.in all corridor communities (2018-2021) — Pop-up events, open houses, virtua! meetings, vpO-on=one stakeholder meetm ih s,. Comun€ty Advisory Committee meetings, etc. Engaged with more than 9,400 people E Q) METRO CMC Role & Responsibilities Charlie Zelle I CMC Chair Project Committee Approach Project Development/ Engineering 0 0 METRO METRO 3 Corridor Management. Committee Charter • Advisory to Met Council and Ramsey County — Votes may be taken but are not binding an the Council or County Elected and appointed officials representing their governmental entity's diverse perspectives (not individual or personal perspectives) .Attend, meetings regularly, actively listen, participate in discussion, respect other viewpoints Regular meetings scheduled monthly.and canceled as needed. A minimum of quarterly meetings anticipated in 2022 and 2023 s rranK /Alarcon I uepuzy Project Manager 1METR4 Purple Line BRA` Overview • Serving the Northeast Metro: — Ramsey County, 6 municipalities — 51% BIPOC, 20% low-income, 12% zero car households • 15 mile long route with 11 dedicated guideway miles • 21 stations with 3 park -and -rides • 17 electric bus fleet • 6,90.0 Est. Daily Riders (2040) Purpose and Need i.6 .. V METRO p. - Qi.r+.e..— erirr. 6 Cw�eM... f� IwtbW YalxaMH f1 H. i.Ml alyd w A- Ily ,ah _. .. ® METRO •. Guided the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative in 2017 and fou.hdational to the einvironmentail review in 2020 Purpose — To provide transit servlce that satisfies tEie:long-term regional mobility and accessibiility needs for businesses and the travi6ling public and -supports sustainable development within the. coreidorareq. • Needs - Serving the•needs of people who rely on transit. - Meeting increasing demand for reliable, high -frequency transit. — Planning for. -sustainable growth and development. — Expanding n4ultimodal travel options. r.METRO Purple"Ciie'.<> g: :.'a'{tQl'tnyi�':14.ii::'I.F::=i::evi'ii+:•.:7::;w;,:�,{.::•:: ...:...:..:•n:•:::.; :„..:. ::•. •• ' __ .. o-.. •:: e..•o-t=s:::'t,i::�..;;:is:::�:i::i::i•:::'•-.:;.::::.::: ::::. .�:s:•:•:.� :':•+:' :+n:•.-::.a::•: �:: :::.:4::.::: .::: •: •. i.;:. ... Cost Estimate & Funding Approach • Cost estimate in the Environmental Assessment — Design 15% complete — $475 million Cost estimate at entry into Project Development - Design 25% complete — $445 million • Project Development Phase budget: $39.9 M — Combination of Ramsey County and Ramey County Regional. Railroad Authority funding 13 Overall Anticipated Funding ($44SM) ® METRO REMUESERVICE 14 AM (D METRO White Bear Lake City Council Resolution Bill Walsh j White Bear Lake City Councilmember White Bear Lake City Council Actions Prior City Council. voted. 3-2 in support of project requests: -- :Resolution of Support. (Locally Preferred Alternative.) on July 25, 2017 — Resolution of Support (Downtown Station Relocation) on February 26, 2019 -- Resolution of Support (Prelitninary. Design Plans). on April 14, 2020 — 2040 Comprehensive Plan Adoption (with Purple, Line) on June 8, 2021*'(5-0-vote). — Resolution of Municipal Consent (Highway Access.Chan9d) onOctober*12, 202.1 • November 2021 Elections:. New Mayor and City Couricilmernber - Resol0tion.of Opposition:.3-2 vote on March 8, 2022 "The City Coun'ril regdests that the Met Council modify the BRT Route so thafit-does not enter the furisdictiorial bodhdades.of the City of White Bear Lake and to take such other actions as -may be needed to accomplish the requested alteration of the BRT Route." A Roadmap to Responding to the City's Resolution Craig, Lamothe J Project Manager METRO Roadmap Overview I Met Council and Ramsey County received City of White Bear Lake's ! resolution and. heard their concerns about the BRT project i * In light of the resolution and in response to those concerns, the Council and I County have. developed potential BRT route modifications i • At this meeting, the Council and County are seeking a broader discussion among project partners about the potential paths forward • A recommendation on whether to proceed with modifying the BRT route would come at a future. meeting �e METRO Acknowledging White Bear Lake's Feedback. • Concern over the number of weekday BRT bus trips per day (8.9) Concern over the size of BRT buses (60 ft articulated vehicles) o Concerns over the disruption of station and dedicated lane infrastructure on existing roadways and adjacent businesses -- Conversion of two --way street segments to one: way, removal of on -street parking, modification of business accesses _J Potential BRT Route Modifications • Truncate the BRT Tine somewhere along County Road E between Highway 61 and Interstate 35E, and add a "Purple Line Connector" between Maplewood Mall and downtown White Bear Lake. DOO • Truncate the BRT .line at Maplewood Mall Transit Center, and add a "Purple Line Connector" between Maplewood Mall and downtown White Bear Lake Why Purple Line Connector? • why connecting bus service instead of BRT? -- Responsive to the City of White Bear Lake's concerns .about number of trips,. size of vehicles, loss of parking, changes to business access,. etc. — Still connects the northeast metro area to the METRO system — Remains consistent. with the Project's purpose and need —An incremental improvement to expanding. access to opportunities for people and businesses desiring expanded mobility options 21 What is Purple Line Connector? Q METRO A regular route bus connection between. Maplewood Mall Transit Center and downtown White Bear Lake — Service: 30-minute frequency during same span as Purple Line — Bus: size TBD (40' or shorter); electric propulsion (proposed) Minimal infrastructure: bus stop sign with possible shelter No station platforms or .Bu.siness.Access and. Transit .(BAT) lames • No real time signs, off board fare collection, heat,: safety/security features at stops • No reconstruction of Highway 61 near Whitaker Street • No associated Bruce Vento Regional Trail extension. improvements No sidewalk improvements for better access. to stops. "` Purple; Lire;:;=.: L1PA vs. Route Modifications: Considerations LPA vs. Route Modifications: Considerations Schedule Delay Uncertain delay stemming from actions of ar! �•. Trickle don deiaysternminn frorrm re;>`= unwiilin ro'ect partner o enin enwvironmental rocess Ejigibil! METRO Alternative 1A: End on Hwy 61 at CR E -1 . •t !MM • Keep -or eliminate Buerkle. Road Station, which is located in White Bear Lake but intended to ter -ye,, greater Buerkle Road business district 2� rt , ', l"TIF CANJ� 14 ••:. .,' ." Mall• :'. •. a r. 5mom hlmmawpurple Line Alternative 1113: End on 1-35•E at. CR E via CR. E ..Yi. ......! *� /r^�it �Center.35E.:Rar de.:,: *Change from Baseline ELements.to.. G9ns'tsiec:. i - y Keeh or:eliminate Buerkle Road Station, Which is located ih White Bear Lake but intended to L`""`"""A" ,�,'�'� HAPLE '. �'• WOOD serve greater Buerkle Road business district • 1-2 new station locations algpq Co Rd E o Pr.p—dSt.;—, ..1': Suz—study 4,eas �.. .a, . d76'?.:•..•.4s ''t •: . �� ® METRO IMM Alternative 1C: End on 1-35E at CR E via Willow Lake Blvd Elements to Consi-der: • Keep or eliminate Buerkle Road Station, Which is located in White Bear Lake but intended to serve:greater Buerkle Road business district • 1-2 nRW-$totion.locations along WiII9W bake. SoUlevard/Co Rd E 19 ab r — ❑ Y VA v5d • 'i i:' y.ir a y..: k t'+ :A..t rate-"•�...�::':::::':.'� ,,:�,.; x•?. �.>r. .5.'��:iuviiw000 stiiafi�..':�.: �:':� :.. �:.. �: AltemaY.ve 1C .• . •. i••k t s�•r .w ,'rt�"'+� i —Alt.mttn4lC II I f nn O rays osrd S ati] St.li-SW&,-Areu �!•:..Yt."..'+.+�'+..?,�+'�'�':'': `. ® METRO - Alternative 1 Purple Line Connector via White Bear Ave .Rou..te.length,` <.:4:9.mlies;;-. ''c_ s B ofP....::;;;;: .....;::.:;;.:':':::::: .6 stops::;. Weekday Ridershi 30 .i 'J4. I ,,:".'J•',..T.:', fi, 'v'<'.%. 'fit' Lo a'. a,,.sas tine Conecrvrwa:. � . oan—,jv:, m i4> VIETEMP-6—rple°Ciri6 Alternative 2: End at Maplewood Mall Transit Center ` _1 • Maplewood Mall • St. John's Hospital • Ramsey County Library • Maplewood Mall Transit Center • Birch Run Station Redevelopment I& METRO Alternative 2: End at Maplewood Mall via Beam. Ave .. ':SMPrrT: .. • Y F .�CJ t PEna ;s NE::::. _ �:. t N, FlanSents to Gan�id�, ... • . ,,,�,-; =__= <a'.> .::.. ':•L.:� • Location of the St. John's Boulevard station .} � �il'�`: •i�'::.`•,':!:, 1 yi liiiLE,G�A� �� _ „a.iNaplt+cad,. a ,.,:1�,.�yi :�i�:i Nall' j Routing between St. J(jhn's Boulevard .Station •"' :r N=a«Y��; and Maplewood Mall Transit -Center Station. _ � � d. :::: �•• . trs B R7 Aoutfrg'mdy a✓es 0. 0.75. �.�.�.. �:. METRO . Alternative 2 Purple Line Connector via Buerkle Rd P Alternative Comparison Summary ut"e Length: 5:2-Af j"i 7 0 r:. -�iL�sh6rte 5.TmL shorter:';; 0 k oi 1 stations 3 f6wp�.sa 5 ,.TotHi Stations*�-',, to 2:fewer.statio6s f6Wer stations :-;. ..... ... ..... . ........... ;;Weekday Ridership...... ..6j9 100 fewer„ 0 to 200 4�6or6 more1200.16. ... ..... . Eiders'd . .. .... 600 . ..... . .. ..... . ;.with Connecto . ......... riders X, *Change froff Odsel Ihe M Q) METRO CIVIC Discussion of Potential Paths Forward Charlie Zelle l CMC Chair Victoria Reinhardt l CMC Vice Chair Potential Outcomes METRO l} Revise the locally preferred alternative to reflect a new northern terminus station location along with BRT routing adjustments and a Purple. Line Connector to White Bear Lake -- CMC Recommendation to Met Council and Ramsey County - Corridor Partners pass Resolutions of Support for.Revised LPA - Met Council amends Revised. LPA into the Transportation Policy Plan KS- z} Validate the current local preferred alternative and preliminary design plans -CMC Recommendation to Met Council and Ramsey County METRO Evaluation, Feedback & Decision Timeline June; July 4/29 June0.u1.y August: June; :August . ....:...:.. . yr. Rae roa uthorit....:..; .......... q Y e During the June CMC meeting, will likely be seeking direction on the potential outcome to focus on 37 0 METRO %-.iuiy r-UnwUnc 1 ri VJCI.L IVIUI iuyei ® METRO C M C Look Ahead tune •. Rece+vesummar of stakeholder engagement' of alternat+ves . ..:. ..: :::.:.. . ..... ...... ��,� • r,rr. .f,r ,....:...........:.of'alferratives<,........., ..,.:...,.:...:..:.::Res.. +Ve..refinement.of.teci�n�cal.eva(uato...:..............�,.,..,.u.:..,_..,,.....::-_. >,C� _,t :tii-: 'c^?�., ............ .n .r.-.. .... .... .. ..�....� : ....... .... ... , ... : ' : ,?i �= 'Z?'•.'tii, %'ii,€y: 'z?'•.';Si.3.- "'>z7•€v:�=�. .z�.�. s h�.: :: •'�.: :. -�•=..-<...:...:.:::... ov de:'feedback:and direction. -to ra ect staff:':'+;::�:;� Future Meeting Format and Standing Time Recommendation: 2.00% Virtual Recommendation: 2nd Week of the Month — Next -meetings Week of June 13 —Subsequent meetings: Weeks of July 11, August 8, and September 12 METRO .,�;�w::u:+.�::.::;:..t.,}.;;$�:i:::wry;•:::,:>....•.......w.......� . ..._...._.........�;:::.•::::;:>.::•:.:.:.::<.::::.� ._,::: •:w::•:::•.. For more information: www.metrotransit.org/purple-line-Drdit! Facebook and twitter @PurplelineBRT Craig Lamothe Project Manager (651) 602-1978 cra i :la m othe @ m etrotra ns it: ors Frank Alarcon Deputy Project Manager (651) .602-1979 frank.alarcon @ metrotransit.o rg 4- ® METRO METRO Claims For Payment CITY OF GEM LAKE Gretchen Artig=5womley, Mayor Ben Johnson, Council Jim. Lindner, Council Len.Cacloppo, Council Laurel Arnlee, Council Torn. Kelly, Treasurer Period Ending: 5/17/2022 Signatures Approving Claims Date of Approval i Fund Totals T$Amount General Fund 34,680.11 Parks & Playgrounds 0.00 2004 Debt Service Fund 0,00 2006 Debt Service Fund 0.00 2015 pebt Service Fund 0.00 .2018 Debt Service. Fund. 0.00 Improvement Fund a,00 Scheunernan Road Improvements 0.00 Hoffman Road Improvements 0.00 Sewer Fund 4,327.93 Water Fund 3,618.64 Investment Trust Fund 0.00 Total All Funds 42,626.68 Claims for Payment Check Numbers 11825 through 11651 v 6/16122 at 10.-58:26.82 Page: 1 City of Gem Lake Check Register For.the Period From May 1, 2022 to May31, 2022 Filter Criteria includes: Report order is by Date, Check # I]ate Payee. Cash Account Amount 11798 5/19122 Melissa Lawrence 100-10100 1,661.79 11825 5117122 City of Roseville 100-1.0100 511.87 11.826 5/17122 City of White Bear La 100A 0100 I U43,83 11.827 5/17/22 CENTURY COLLEG 100-1.0100 1,000.00 11828 5117122 Gretchen Artig-Sworn 100-10.1.00 12.99 11829 5117122 Gilbert Mechanical C 100-10100 370.00 11830 5/17/22 GDO Law. 100-10100 50.00 11831 5117/22 CINTAS 100-10100 25,50. 11832 5/17122 Innovative Office 861 100-10100 151.28 11833 5/17/22 JAN-PRO CLEANIN 100-10100 225.00 11834 5117122 Kelly & Lemmons, PA 100-10100 5,106,72 11836 5/1.7122 LMC Insurance Trust 100-10100 .3,448.00 11 B36 5117122 VOID 100-10100 11837 5117/22 Melissa Lawrence 100-10100 33.52 11838 6/17/22 Metropolitart Council 100710100 3,548.93 11889 5/17122 Nykanen Inspections 100-10100 552.60 11840 5117/22 Gopher State One Ca 100A0100 4.05 11841 .5117122 Premier Banks 100-10100 60.86 11842 5117122 Ramsey County 100710100 2,332.00 11843 5/17/22 .SEH 1.00710100 31019.40 11844. 5/17/22 St. John's University 100-1.0100 1,000.00 11845 5117122 TKDA 100710100 1..336.47 11846 5117122 City of Vadnais Heigh 100=.10100 3,140.06 11847 5/17122 Waste Management 106-10.1.00 2,701.44 11848 5117/22 White Bear Township 100-10100 2,240.96 11849. .5117/22 White Bear Lake Em 100-10100 1,000.00 11850 5/17/22 Xcel Energy 100=10100 614.89 11851 5117/22 .City of White Bear La 100-10100 37.11 Total 44,288.47 �: .._ f`rLe�'- � � 1iSScx'S �iv1Cti✓� c IC_. uasi�a1 (D% 5116122 at 11:11:26.92 City of Gem Lake Check Register For the Period From.May 1, 2022 to May 31, 2022 Filter Criteria irid udes: Report order. is. by date. Check # Date Payee Cash Account Amount 11.798 &113/22 Melissa Lawrence 100-101'00 1,661.79 11825 5/17122 City of Roseville 100-10100 511,87 :11826. 6111122 city of White Bear La 100-10100. 10,043.83 11827 6/17/22 CENTURY COLLEG 100-10100 1,000.00 11828 511.7122. Gretchen Artig=Sworn 100-10100 12.99 11829 5117122 Gilbert Mechanical C 10D-101 DO 370.00 11830 5117/22 GOO Law 100-10100 :60.00 11831 5117/22 CINTAS 100-10100 25.50 11832 5/17122 Innovative Office Sal 100-1.0100 151.28 11833 5117122 JAN-PRO CL.EANIN 100-10100 225.00 11834 .5117122 Kelly & Lemmons, PA 100-.1.0.100 5.1.66.72 11835 511.7122 LMC I n su ra n ce Tru st 100-10100 3,44.8.00 11.836 5/17/22 VOID 100-10100 11837 5/17122 Melissa Lawrence 100-10100 33.57 11838 5/17122 Metropolitan Council 100-10100 3,548.93 11839 5117122 Nykanen Inspections. 100-10100 552.86 11840 5/17/22 Gopher State One Ca. 100-10100 4.05 11841 5/17122 Premier Banks 100�10.1.00. 60,86 11642 5/17122 Ramsey County I M10100 2,332.00 11843. 5/17/22 SEH 1.00-10TOO 3,019.40 11644 5M7122 St. John's University 100-1.0100 1:,060.00 11845 5/17/22 TKDA 100=10100 1,335.47 11846 5117122 City.of Vadna s Heigh 100=10100 3,140.06 11841 5117122 Waste: Management 100-10100 2,701.44 11848 5/17122. White Bear Township 100-101 O0 2,240.06 11849 5/17122 White Bear Lake Ern 160.-10100 1;000.00 11850 5117122 Xcei:Energy 100710100 614.89 11851 5/17122 City. of White.Bear La 100710100 37.11 Total 44;288A7 Page: 1 N N N fV iV N N N N. iV O Q1 C) -+ s D) :O 0) co i s s s s s s s W cm 000 .dd9=C3nO O O O d OOdC) 000000 00 C) C) QQ OC)OQ a:dd0 c'�1�� d d d OO-•O 000�0� 00 iD: .0 o.. 0 ' N s s N N N N N N .L .s M1) .' t .� N .•L N. i j iv .s O d C) O s•-� N) Ili s. A= N 0 N. OOd 0000 08 O8 C)-; 000 N s ..a s N (3l (.n .A A t0 N d N O N •s .a.. N ^.�, s .r.. s N (p Nip �] ip: N •-i •-�• •a 0000 O Q Q OO.p. O d O d OOOO 0 00 O 0 0 0� 0 C •- 0000 0.0.O:O 4 Q S71 1 c Q 0 4 O CD O CD (F) d C7 d d O d 0 O CD.? C7 O O O.d O W w (a is is W w. w co w w jis s N Ns 1 0 ib 003 O co . to co to 0 w to to O.M 0 N Ul C�. or- D -n. -n a)07 C) D G) D G) D.n 0 � D 0 c�.n � � D 0 D .ZI > N y 0 O.K. nD' .C] O m m Cl OE3.fn . ip O fA in u) �p .@ 4 .+ co) p. O O N N m C X c C n h 7 7' w C .C. tr C� ti C A M .` C: w C C fD C (D 7 N w Q1 LG ftl . 7 =V �• 7 :3.cn bi s f�A s.[q !n N O' N D M s Co Cl) v E (p m O D ID CD 0 OQ (D m, m.m w m 13- CA a).QQ�. dO w tip n.p y j o o 'g2 [n <<(o �.5 '< m m p- m -•-•,. �. C7 A ��. , � CD 0) Cr ID _. W" a' c* m n' Cr .fp m h [s' fp m y' CY — m y o'. M. %?a o .QCL ( i D. ro o N Nca W N N N N CD: `2 O 7 N N N N N s s 0 O 0 A [dam N N N co W N 0 Q R7 N N N W dW N -+ V C" :. w o D n ; V m CD cwp F F .03 p `! 4 .Zl N cWp `o a w.T X ..�N:w N m fo D2D��nrCtDz-<�-N DZ Cnnfn..cn:E !n SEn . z m O,.O Y CD m❑aar �K O M=x vNz. o rm z—� N NU) CD czzz;C CL) w000`�po� ---b c C ;u--A z -iD LL��rnNM A) LL _ Ci11 fD co 9) r' o r--. Cl) c° p 7 m. M IVcan n p 03 [ri) o cco ;� D =1 N) c(i) Zo n,m 3��- � F �:; r,mz to zz�'� z.0 c -° r''�r-r1. sv�m wy�W rn nj �qs �� s��, G)— c7 �� N a..� Q N. N: @cn V1:I} f1) U} N Uj.r m (�U1.D. N A. N m Z. rn ate , n ;;.0G) NNNNd r' C 3: N N C cn 1 0 z (0 Ms •-+ d d Ul w ih cn US N A to CS. d W W :A W O N •-•* W -N .A. A ip Ul W O 0 0 V O V N Ul O c Op O O Ctl O UI N O O O .O "Co tJ b. OD ? ca iD M U) W ,A O) 0 0 C)0 j s .P) � N 0 tit �F W lw N s w to ca w -� -1 A .N i La Gil W.s O r%) .W 52 A A O a a V ti d. V. N (h Ul. W Co Q d to O C) s i d DD N O co (o [p En at O O O s 0] A N Q -'1� .-1. W W O N a n •n O C 7 M C) PL r s] 0 U. w h c h tD t a n c is m N 0 v v N v 3 0 .5r W. 0 0 ro -r7 N o cr M S -0o "n 0 G7 m a N a 02) 0 w .s.> 3 r W s N N N t 1 � N �. 0 0 o o O C)P P 0 0 00 O.O. 0.0 O O 0.0 no on o 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 O 000 0 00� .vO CT] 00 00 W .N N 0 N.. N oN 0 N P .oN O�. N A N 4 N IV i •--+ N3 N 0 r+-} C)s. 01 0:.a 01 p W� 0.1..a1 O.W C)1 O s OOC) O" .0 ^� N N 0 to NCO. N.0 NC0 N O N 1 N.CO :CD N •�. .N..0) N (D N - s j. N N co' . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ova. n o O N .o.A wmA o �0 0. O � O o o o O. 'a � La oa2 0 o0 oQ o.o oN. 00P.9 o f 02F. o0 oaH 00 o 0 W N W W W. . 4) 6 C0.W �w. W 4f �a W :� w o. w 0a tb o CD 03 m 0D w 0 0 0 0 0 0 O s 4 .F+ w �N 1 W- .N 4 N N CD n m 00 D9 DXu D�u D-u Dcn Dm.G7lit Dcn Dr DM DOo m > 0 > 7p Dm o m ch M. C (D C 0 c C) C n C (D c t cn c C C 01 C 0 w o 0 o o. a r o n , m `n o r �_. o m o m (AI) .c N. N Cp (n (p N W to N V) _� [n 5;.(p N rn 7. U s �, N .CA Qo m a�i�� w vO a�iC) m� mID .y w22� v&�# mt m0 '� mm ImCD 4 �. w CD N N N . f0 0 N w � 0) . N �N �. 0.T Rl a7 S11 cs N a cr �. o Q: ff 0 v cr o- �' cu m o m o m CD .(Dm (Dco (D m N �o > > 0 a C1D CO pj -4V CJl �. j 1 '0 0 O -4 a�a V W wN N. 1 .L_1.. p Q 4 co cm w i o c CDN r r r. v0i 0 o 0 cn CD $i ca 0 N) toN N N 0 0 N al O N N. .m W W. Q � w o V a �� ma m-. mm mm m>nc zG rna m- N.r�. UY Off. 2� � 20b.� z�m 8-N-j � Z z 2z � WMZ �O (.z m aZ '- m� r. m r �o — m.o �N n mrnm -i aco mD- rn. .gym rn � np n.�.rn�. o. cn-no �.nO .DN m N. � N a m m {� m Fn c r (D 3 m 00> (OC� (D�r z y 2p c @ D .*m� �D C) o O z � � z�. ccoM "L] en f" �. co �. cn.w T 'C z G7 �. w Z11 "rnj'j. m GS '•' g O � VJcn..rn w -i � i71 cn G7. f!1 � CIJ 0 � m �.z � X 0 m m O M m 0 m 0 CS C z 5 Dm r C �z cn fn. r- n 0 p SA Dnm m D w 0 N � �: 0. O m N o ; z z cn N N N IZ! 0 N N � n. s s - NV Ul N: s CW1S. CWJi W V W w -! Do O O). co V V. O . b) V bo CD 0. .V w Co N N :0. w CJI 01 LTI W Ca A N O O rn !R.o w VO to N N O coo vi 0w0 cn v V i 7 O. C! m 0 9 r 0 0 W n 0 G i+ CA ri p fl D (A O 0 0 rr+ .0 '1 R Q. :r N lh O O d C C M w N ha 7 w m .+ m o C � Q sn N w a n C 0 m N 0 zr W CD a m -n rA ' D c rF O � , w � Fla �Q. a ❑ �0n a N 0 su aAom -3n3 a r4 •a r- 0 7G" CD [a s w c� LI, N N N. N N N N N 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 ooaa ao 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .00 0 a oa o0 �Q 0 0 0 a0 00 o n Q 0 00 0 .� N� N N.}�. A �s N N iV .�A N N .PP. � ._.+. 1 p s O s p�.s �. O N O N N N 0 1 0 1 D 1 .-ap.� O. N .p N N .UI 8 to N O N N N --• N CD N to N co to O to to N. co Na O O C5 1 0.1. 0 0 O 0 O.O O O O C] Co. C O 0 O O O O A 0 0 Ca o: Q 0Q 00 02C3 O ao 0 QQ o9 0o 0 0 0 4] Q 0Q 0 J ." a O Gi h O W N P4 t;J Cal � w w w O 0 V V .t7 O O N s W 0 O N W M " N D n a n D 0 0 a A G7 D •-I --n.;v D D p Y o C -0 0 -n D x �. = � pats o 8a. §mro� O.n. 0 a Cr N a: �� p ro m ❑ m ❑ -- to '° t tr ❑ — Cb ❑ ❑ ro n ci m c tb c N 90 N N C c H 5 EtC U! C i, �4,- �. O �-: � !f 1 U7 w ro sv m w * m: _: su mFY a a w W. ro N m N y ❑ ( bC77 w to m m y n+ y [D CD Q CS' 2 .6 U3 6 LD CT CD -3+. . i7' CS' !-. `C tT a' Z) � CD C1• CD 2• 0 rn ro [ti ro 2 O 0 ro ro ry gyp. [p m in CD SZ pJ �p a W. to (a1W 0 h O' [A 0 cz 0 C 7 7 N C' m C C o 0 0cn N cn cn.O N N N to N N O A N 'D rn 0 ; m m o� v z v vi �nmo o NtiCNOD :.z � 0 K0-Dnn0-00-0p�p-V m� O• o 0 0 z �. SX1MX H �. H -i. rnXmD z ❑..NNN 0 m CxC�C;.C70C22 y...� at D -�y -p o� 03 m m m r fri r= m r m r- y r ❑ ;m�.m ��. UM2ZM romp 0 N �K3M „�N�.ii�N to N.CD >cnG)cn o M p N N -i-n n. m z ff3mC ro G7Nom, wL»G)r ari 0 7 m ❑ r c o T� '� r @:�tnC3 pm p ❑ rnNmiurnNmNmN Io;U.� C-) ,� a rn z7�U °' M m.Dmm � �T-0-U-pro.-V`n-U`i7. ro j m [7 0:M.Cm �rn0 omom0ma -ti�'ti O m G7. mn z0 to 0 2 �v� n.�'v�-V�v � o 2C� z m — �.DM b C] iil—.Ill—m-m-171 �. a, i.tngtn cn n m �w.n �. �� m r C7 C7 f7. C7 e7 cn Q ,- D D D D D Z. z m C r a 0 C5 n D D D D D m m � -G ro 1 1 1 y 1 1 0 b, m Ul 1 A 1 "W: m 0)1 W OD Co 10 N N co y N O) -N W 00 1 O. O W 00 Co Q N N to --* tJ1 to A' O fo Cw1 .O 0 V O N 00 W LO O O O O 0 m O —0 CA Cl Ul CS1 W. N O O. N _.+. 1. W Ul O ,Opp i[70Y.. to W N W CND. W N OO O O W O N (3, O Iry O ta n, D 0 0 I rw MIP r 3 ro 0 0 a 0 3 w .;] v 4 O: N CY ❑ io 0] ro �. 0 0 Q, to 'n-00 '0M. d M . Q�N0 o 03 a �A3 r O w � P § $ � � �$ ) ( ■ � �m # N 2 L / + £ / 9 2 ¢ A n �� 2 2 § m 0 CD 13 /-n m k E0 7® E § < $ - m t ƒ • \r. L Q r-n n k �.�� ■ _. E0 \�ink rD c /2§� ( §2 D m 7 / � 2 ] q - g m ■ 2 A � � ba 0 m .� ./ �7 .» 2 E � .n / 2 � . Ah. CITY OF GEM LAKE CASI1 ANDTNVESTMENT.BALANCE STATEMENT As of 0.4/30/22. Fiscal Year: 2022 Cash and Investments Balance Balance Name of Fund. 4/1/2022 Receipts I. Disbursements 4/30/2022 General Fund $216;239.61 $22,7.92.91 $77AI0,43 $161;413.11 Parks and Playgrounds $43,740.30 $0.60 $0.00 $43,740:3.6 20.04 Debt Service Fund $0.00 $9.00. $0.00 $Q.00. 2006 Debt Serviee.Rind $0.00 $0.00. $0.00 $0.00 2007 Capital Iniproveiment Bonds S63,91L96 $0.00. $0.00 $63;911.96• 20181npr6vement Bonds $45:879.63 $0.00 $0.00 $45,879:63 Street Iinproveiiient $3.16,881.40 $20,000.00 $0.00 $336,881.40 Scheuneman Road Improvemetns $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Hoffman Road Improvements 1;0:00 $O.OQ $0:00 $Q:OQ Sewer.Enteiprise Fund. $471.,983,22 •$10,40$.3g $2,506.71 $47};885.83 Water Enterprise Fund ($8:7,843.80} :$2,462.03 $13,007.7:9 ($98,380:56) Investment Trust Fund $0.00 56.86.67 $0.06 $686.67 . $•1,070;792.40 $56,350.99.• $93133•.97 $1.,03.4,009.42 Premier Checking $441,3.1 .99 Premier CD's UBS..Investments $59 ,000.0Q UBS: Money Market $654.03' .$ I j034,00.9.42 $0.00 BALANCE OF GAMBLING FUNDS Balance Balance 4/1/2022 Receipts Disbursements . 4/30/2022 . .._._ _� Gambling Fund Balance $101361..64 $653.07 $1,000.00 $10,014,71 MATURE DATE PURCH DATE SANK)BROKER TYPE APRIL CASH & INVESTMENTS NAME Cusf # YIELD INT. RATE N DAYS AS OF 43012022 ACCRUED INTEREST INTEREST DATE PREMIER BANK CHK GENERAL FUND 6005690 0,054E 0.05% 30 $441,355,39 $18.39 Monthly U85 MMKT U13S BANK USA DEP 12669EN93 0,05% 0.05% 30 $654.03 $0.03 Monthly 4130124 430119 UBS CD COMENITY CAP BANK 20033AUSS 2,75% 2;75% 1826 $117,000.00 $1,608.75 Monthly 2112125 2NZ21'UBS. CD. TEXAS EXCHANGE BANK 8824ITKOI 0,50% 0.50% 1461 $245,000.00 S1,225.00 monthly 4114125 4113I22 UBS C❑ GOLDMAN SACHS 30149M41,14 2.65% 2.65% 1097 565,000.00 $2.252,50 Monthly B11129 11 wo UBS 66ND NY CITY TRANSITIONAL AUTH REV 6497iXEN4 2.02% 3.73% 2822 $145,000.00 $5,408.50 211 & 811 U4% 1.62%. 1,211 31.034,009:42 S.10,513.17 City.oWem Lake GENERALFUND Budgeted Statement df Revenues and Expendittetes For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2022 gurrMnl Cu�nth Curr Mnth 2022 YTD YTD 8tid¢et Aetna! Variance %Comoleta ,BudCI. AatUa1 Vkdande %Comte. REVENUES Properly Taxes Current Properly Taxes 3 38,350A7 S 0,00 38;350.17 0,00 5 460,202,00 S 0.0 460,202.00 0.00 Fiscal Disparity Taxes 893.83 0.00 Sum 0.00 10,726..00 0.00 10 726.00 0.00 Licenses and Permits General Business Licenses. 166.67 I,600.00 (1,433.33) 960.00 21000.00 2,200,00 (200.00) 110.00. On -Sale Liquor License 333.33 4.050.00 (3,716.67) 1121 S,00 4.000.00 4,050.00 (50.00) 101.25 Other Permits 900.00 30.00 70.00 30.00 1,200,00 305.00 895,00 25.42 Tobacco License 0.00 200.60 (200.00) 0.00 0.00 200.00 (2o0.00) 0.00 Charitable Gambling License 41.67 0100. 41.67 6.00 500.00 6.00 5D0.00 0.00 Contractor License 116.67 600.00 514,29 1,400.00 800.00 600.00 57.14 Building Permits 666.67 2,231.95 .(483.33) (1,565.18) 334,18 8.000.00 2,962,25 5;137.75 35.78 Plumbing Pennits 83.33 75.00 8.33 90.00 1,000.00 125,00 975.06. 12.50. mechanical Permits 150.00 925.00 (775.00) 616.67 1,800.00 9.75.00 82S.00 $4.17 Electrical Permits 66.67 655.00 (588.33) 982.50 800.00 607,60 192.40 73:93 NPDES Permit 8.33 0.00 8.33 0.00 100.00 0.00 100;00 CA Building Plan Review 0.00 416.73 (416.73) 0.00 0.00 416.73. (116;73) .040 Fire Marshall Inspection 208.33 0.00 208.33 D.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 Septic lnspectionFee 166.67 80.00 86.67 49.00 2.000.00 3,460.00 {1;460.00) 1.73.00 Stale Permit Charge 4.17 250.00 (245,83) 6,000,00 50.00 2705.1 (2201) 54.1,02, Sewer Contractor License 4.17 0.00 4.17 O.UO 50.00 D:DO 50:00 0.00 Rental Licensing 33.33 200.00 (166.67) 600.00 400.00 300.00 10D.00 75.0Q bog Licenses .12,50 0.00 12.50 0,00 150.00 0,00 150.00. 0.00 Intergovernmental Revenues :CountyGrants &,Aids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1I.94 (11.94) O,QO. :SCORE RcoyclingOmni 83.33 0.00 83.33 0.00 11000.00 0;00 1,000.00 0.00 C61eTV Cranchise:Fees. 500.00 0:00 500.00 0100 6,000.00 :9,809.70 (3,809..70) 163.56 SMALL CITIES AID 583.33 0.00 583.33 0.00 7;000,00 0.00 7,000.00 .0.00 Charges for Services Planning Fees 16.67 0.00 16.67 0.00 200.00 I.W,00 .(I,075.00) 637.50 Plan Review 250.00 0.00 250..00 0.00 3.000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00. Zoning Charges 0:00 10D.00 (100,00). 0.00 0.00 100.00 (100,00) 0.00 Investment Admin Charge 16.67 6.00 16.67 0.00 200,00 133.55 66.45 66.78 Credit Card Rebales 0,00. 107,24 (107.24) 0.00 0.00 123.83 (123.85) 0.00 Fines and rarfcils Fines 41,67 0,Do 41.67 0.00 500.00 265:00 235.00 $3.00 Miscellaneous Interest Eamings 416,67 0.06 416.67 0.00' 5;000.00 805.97 4.194.03 16.12 Miscellaneous 41.67 4.06 4,1,67 0.00 500.00 (0.02) 500.92 (0.00) Facility RuntaI 230A0 739,33.' (40.3.33) *J3 3,000.00 .4;037,6S (1,031A* 139:59 TotalReveaues 43,606.50 12;254.15: 31552M 28.10 523,278.00 33,134.73 490:1'43.27. b.33 EXPENDITURES City. Council Wages and Salaries 625.00 160,00 465,00 25.60 7,500,00 1,960.00 5,540.00 26.13 Employer Paid insurance 47.83 (717.76) 765;5.9 (),500;54) 574.00 (1,700,44) 2,274.44 (296.24) Adminstrelion 20:83. 0;00 20:83 0.00 250,00 0,00 250.00 0,00 Canfercnor Registrations 20.83. 00 20,83 0.00 250.00 240,00 10.00 96.00 Council Contingency 666;67 0.00 666.67 0.00 g,000.00 1.500,00 6,500.00 18.75 Elections opuatingSupplies 12.50 0.00. 1215a 0;0o 150,00 0.00 I50.00 0.00 Contracted Services 666.67. 0:00 666.61.. 0:00 8;000.00 6.00 8,000.00 0.00 Legal Notices 12.50 0.00 12.50. 0,00 .150.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 Repairs & Maint - Contractual 208.33 0.00 208.33 0,00 .2,500.00 0.00 2,500.0D 0.00 Financial Administration Auditing$erviaes 958.33: (500.00) 1,458,33: (52.17) 11,500.00 (500,00) 12,000.00 (4:35) Financial Services 2,58133 1.810.89 772.45 70.10 31,006.00 9.924.95 21;075.05 32.02 Credit Cord Fees 0.00 .6.0.53 (60.53) .0.00 0,00 150.07 (159.97) 0.00 W12/2022 at 12:10 PM City of Gem Lake GENERAL FUND Budgeted Statement pf Roverlues and Expenditures For the Pour Months Ending April 30, 2022 urr Ma I gurr Math Curr Mirth. 2022 M112 YTD 5ilket Actual Varian %Comeele Bni! a Achial Variance % Cmnylcte Computer Services 166.67 0.00 166.6.7 0.00 2,000.00. 1,856,99 143.01 92.85 Legal Services Prosecution 193.33 246.00 (62,67) 134.18 21200.00 246.00 1,954.00 11.18 Legxi 3,750,00 5,107.56 (1,357.56) 136.20 45,000,00 13,N1.53 31;798.47 29,34 Lcgal-Landlssucs 291.67 0:00 291.67 0:00 3,500,00. 0,00. 3,500.00 0.00 C1erWGeaeraI Government Wa&sand.Salories 2,383.33 5,991.64 (3,598.31) 250.98 29,600.00 15,317.76. 13,282.24 53.56 WkkersC.ompensation 0.00 0,0D 0.00 0.00 On 123:04 (123.00) 0.00 Weyer Paid insurance 182.33 2,708.93 (2,526.5.0) 1,485.65 2,189.00 1.559420. 628.80 71.26 PERA Contributions 178:75 460.62 (281.87) 257.69. .2,145.00 1;160,83 984,I7 .34.12 Health.lnsurance 1,500.00. 0.06 1,500.00 0.00 i8,000.00 0.00 18.000.09 b.00 Workers Coin Pensation 41.67 0.60 41.67 0.00 506.00 0,00 500,00 0.00 Office: Supplits 166.67 137.27 29.40 82.36 2,000.00 827,41 1;172.59. 41..37 Postage 120.83 0.00 120.83 0,00 1,450,0o 0,00 1,450.00 0.00 Professional Services 83.33 0,00 83.33 000 1,000.00 2.782.00 (.1,782,OM) 278.20 33.33 0.00 33:33 0.00 400.00 .0,00 400.00. 0.W .Administration Miscellaneous 16.67 265.00 (198.33) 1,230;04 200100 154.58 45.42 '77.9- Conference Registrations 125.00 0.00 125,00 0.00 1,500.00 20.00 1,480,00 1M. Wcti Site 10.0,00 494.99 (394.99) 494.99 1.,200.00 494.99 705,01 414- •Mitease 1Z50 21.I1 (8.61) 168:88 150.00 72.64 77.36 4L43• Recording Secretary 0.00 511:81 (51 i:87) 0.00 0.00 .2,287.99 (2,287,98). -0.00 Computer Services 416.67 0.00 416.67 0.00 5.600.ba 0,00 3;00000. 0.00 Legal Notice Publication 66.67 143.04 (76.37) 214.56 800100 253.76 546,24. 31.72 Newsletter/Public Relations 183.33 228.00 (44.61) 124.36 2;200:00 456.00 .1,744.00. 20.73 General Liability insurance 208,33 0.00. 208:33 0.00 2,500.60 357.00 2,143.00 14.28. Vehicle Insurance 8.33 0.0.0 8.33 0.00 100.00 19.75 90,25 19.75 Public Officials Liablilliy 0.50 0.00 :12.50 0.00 1500 6.00 i5Q40 0.00 Recycling Collection 766.67 675.36 .91.31 89.09 9.200.00 2.026.08 7,173.92 .22.02 League of N•SN Cities 83.33 0.00 93.33 0.00 1,000,00 763.00 237.00 76.30 RCLLG 29.17 0.00 29.17 0.00 350,00 0.00 350.00 0.00 Subscriptions 4.17 290,80 (295:63) 7;195.20 50.00 299M (249.86) 599.6..0 Planning and Zoning Professionul Services 4.17 0.00 4.17 O.UD 50.60 0,00 50,0D 0.00. Engineering I,6kO (1016.21). 2,b82.IS' (60.91) 20.000.00 5,343,75 14,6S6.2.5 26,72 Administration 251.67 'OAD .2910 0.00 3.,500.00 0,00 3,500,00 0.00 Zoning Administration 166.67 87&41 0M.74j* 525.85 2,000.00 1.771.56 21..8.44 88.58 NPDES Administration MOD 0.0.0 500.00 0.06 6,000.00 6.00 6,000.00 0.00 llcrilrrgc3rn11 Operating Supplies 25.00. ,O.OQ '25.00 0.00 300.00. 0,00 300.00 0.00 Proressional Services 250:06 •6.00 250.00• 0.00 3000.00 0.00 3,000.60 0,00 Contract Services 666.67 '433.50 233.17 65:03. 9,000.66 2,451.75. 5,548.25 30.65 Telephone 130.00 0.00 160,00 0.00 L1100.00 0,00 ij$00.00 0.00 Property insurance 125.0.0 0...00 125.00• 0.00 1,500.00 220.50 l Z79,50 14:70 Electric Service 395.83. 299.81 .96.02 75.74 4,750.00 M.43 3.887.57 18;16 Gas Service 125.0D 360.10 (235,10) 288.08 .11500.00 1,092.24 407,76 72,82 WaterlSewcl Utiiilies 100,00 .221.48 (121.48T z2I.48. 1,200,00: 221.4$ 978,52 18,d6 Repairs °&Maint- Contractual 208.33 0.00 208.3..3 0.00 2,500.00 0,00 2.500.00 0.00 Repnris & Maint - Building 066.67 195,00. 471.67 29.25 $1000.00 1,243.00 6.757,00 15.54. Police RcgularLaw Enforcement 7,600.00 7,598.83 1.17 .90.09 91,200,00 3005,32 60,804.6$ 33.33 Dispatch Costs 291.67 0.00 291.67 0,00 3;M,00 .0.06 3,500.00 0:00 Administration 25..00 OAD 25.OD 6.04 360.06 0.00 300.00 0.00 Fire Fire Services L99175 1.882.75 00 100.GO. 12.59..3.00 7,531,00 15.062.00 33,33 Fire Marshall Service 562.50 562.25 0.25 99.96. 6750.00 2:249:00 4, Poo 33.32 Animal Control Animal Removal 33.33 0.00 33.33 0.00 400.00. 0.00 400,00 0.00 Animal Enforcement 16.67 0.00 16.67 on :240.60 8).16 11.8,84 40.58 Building lnlmection WAGES & SALARIES 1,041.67 0.00 1,04I.67 0.00 12,500.00 0,00 12,5D100 0.00 IpICA CONTRIBUTIONS 79.58 0.00 79..58 0.00 955.00 0,00 .955.00 0.00 PERA CQWRIBUTIONS 78.17 0.00 78.17 0.00 938.00. 0:0D 938.00 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 15.42 0.00 15.42 0.00 1.95.00 0.00 185.00. 0.00 511=02 at 12:16.PM' Building Inspections Building Secretary Computer Services Office Equip R Furnishings Road Malntennnee Signs, Sign Repair Materials Engineering Engineering Street Lights ROW Maintenance Street Repairs Blvd Tree Trimming Dues & Suhscriptons Ice and Snow Removal Salt. and Sand . Repairs & Maint - Contractual S.now.Plovving Park Maintenance PARK MAINTENANCE -CONTRACTUAL OtherFinancing Uaca Operating Trnnsfers OUT Total Expenditures Excess Rev Over (Under) Exp dlyofClean Lake GENERALFUND Budgeted Statement of Revemm find Expenditures For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2022 QurrNfrill Curs Math Curr Ninth 2022 YTD Y1'D Bvdect AOW ria a °_/QComplete B, tut Acnifif Vnriancc . t Comulete 1,166.69 300,30 866,37 25.7.4 14;000.00 557.70 13,442.30 3.08 208.33 47.69 .161.24 22.60 2,500.00 251.13 2,24&97 10.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.A am 2,520.00 (2,520.00) Q.00 333.33 0.00 333.33 0.00 4,000.06 0.00 4,000.60 0.00 41.67 0.00 41.6.7 0.00 500.00 0,00. 500.,00 .0.00. 333,33 om 333.13 0,00 4,000.0a 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 4,716.43 (4,716.43) 0.00 0.00 3S6.90 (356.90) 0.00 83.33 0;00 83.33 0.60 1,003.00 214.92 785.08 2.1.49 66.6.7 0.60 66.67 0.00 800.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 1,290.00 0100 1,250.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 15.000.00 0.0.0 1,250,00 0.00 1,250.00 0,00 15,000,00 0.00 I5;000:00 .0.00 8.13 0,60 9.33 0:00 100.00 006 100.00 0.00 1,250.00 1.,448.25 (198.25) 115.86 15000.00 S,702.75 9,297.25. 3811A. 208.33 0.00 208:33 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 .2.500.00 0* 1,416,07 2,014.60 (597.33) 142.16 17,000.00 6,926.50 10073.50. 40c74 416.67 0.00 416.67 0.00 5,000.00 .0.00 5,000.00 0.00 1,666.67 20,000,00 (18,333.33) 1.200.06 20000.00 20,000.00 0.00. 100.00 43,606.50 57;974.73 (14268.23) 523.279,00 145957.87 377120.13. 27.87 S 0.00 (S 45,726.58) 45,720.58 0.00 S 0.00 (S 112,723,14) 112,723.14 0.00 5h 212622 at 12;1 a PM REVENVE Iaterest.Earnings Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Qdie,r.lmprovements Total Expenditures Excess Rev Over (Under) Exp City ofGem Lalee PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS FUND Budgeted StManentofRemmes and Expenditures For llte Fotir Months. Ending April 30. 2022 Curr MMh r . th Curr Mnth 2022 'j TD )MD B�deet AcBia a iance %Cammete. Budget Ac�. Variance °/NComofete $ 33.33 S 00. (33,33) P:00 S 400.00 $ 137..37 262:63 34,34 33:33 o.60 (33.33) d.do 400.06 137,37 262.63 X14 416.67 0.00 {416.61) 416.67 0.00 416.67 $ 38333 $ 0.00 383.33 ow 5;000.(a 0.00 5,00.0,00 0,00 0.00 5,000.00 00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00. $ 4.600:09) $ 137..37 (4;73737} (2199) 5112/2022 0! 11:57 AM City of Gem Lake 2007 DEBT SERVICE FUND IIudgew' d Siatetmat DtRevenues and Fxpendittlres F6r die pour My nths FWing A i1.30, 2022 urr Mnth Curr millb Cvrr Mnth YTD YTV IIudW Actual V r_ nnce n i "[o Complete �yQg�. cniti Vnriance °lo Complete REVCNUES Current Property Taxes $' 6,438.92 $ 0.00 (61438.92) 0.9 0 $ 77,267.00 $ 0.00 77;267.00 0.00 Fiscal Disparities 184.17 0.00 (184,17) 0.00. 2,210.00 6,00 2.210.00 0;00 InterestEamings 41.67 0.00. (4.1,67) 0.00 .500,00 198.35 301.65 39.67 Total Revenues 6 664,75 0.00 6.664.75 0.00 79,977.00 198.35 79,778.65. :0.25 EXPENDITURrS Principal .5,416.67 0.00 (5,416,67) 0:00 65,000;00 65,000.00 0.60 100.00 Interest 946.67 0:00 (946,67) 0,00 11.360.00 6,012.50 5,34730 5293 Fiscal Agent Fees 166,67 0.00 (166.67) 0.00 21000.0.0 0.60 2,000.00. Q,OQ Total Expenditures 6,530.00 0.00. (6,530.00) 0.00 78360,00 71012:50 7.347,50 9 b2 Suess Rev Over (under) Exp. $ 13.4.75 $ 0.00. (134.75j 0.00 $ 1,61746 ($ 70.814,15) 72,431.15 (4,379. 35) 5112/2022 at 11:59 AM City of Gan Lake. 20.18 DEBT SERVICE FUND Budgeted Statement orRevanres and.Expendittmes For Lire Four Months finding April 30. 2022 CtItT, Mnth Ctirr Mntl cyrr mnth 2022 Y19 l) Sttdset Actual. Variance %Com I id et AR ual Variance ° Complete REVENUES Current Property Taxes E.. 625:83 $ 0.00 (025,83) 0.00 $ 7.510.00. S 0.00 7.510.00 0.00 Fiscal Disparities 24,58 0.00 (24.58) 0,0D 295.00 0.(10 295.00 0.00 Current Special Assessments. 5,0.16,67 0.00 (5,016,67) 0,00 60;200.00 0.00 60.260.00 0.00 Interest Earnings 4.17 0.00 .(4,17) 0.00 50,00. 138:97 (88.97). 277.94 Total Revenues 3,6710 0.00 (5,671:25) 0.00. 68,055.00 138.97 67,516.03_ 0.20 EXPENDITURES Principal 3,333.33. 0.00 %3 .33) 0.99 40.000.00 40,000.00 0.00 100.00 Bond Interest 1,691.67 :000 (1;691.67) 0.06 2000:00 I0,450,00 9,850.00 51.48 Fiscal Agent Fees i00.00. Q.00 0.00 1.200.00 0,00 1,200.00 0.: ) Total Expenditures SJB.00 0.00 (s,125,00) 0.00 61,SO OO 5D,450.00 11.050:00 82.03 Rum. Over (Uttder).Exp S 54615 $ 0.00 {546.25) 0.00 S (i;555.00 50;311.03) 56,866.01 (7L'.52; 9 5l1212022.at 1211 PM City of Gem lake IMPROVEMENT FUND Budgeted Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Portlre Dour Months Ending April 30, 2022 Gorr Mnth Curr Mrith Curr Mttth 2027 YTE) YTQ Budgo AcAtial Variance. %Compete l3tift ctu 1 Vgrinnca 114Complete REVENUES Current Special Assessments $ 3,1.66,67 $ 0.00 (3,166.67) 0.00 $ 38,000.00 $. 0.00 38.000.00 0.00 InterestEumings 166.67 0.00. (16..6,67) 0.0.0 2.000.00 1,153.83 846.17 57.60 Transfers from Other Funds 1;666;67 20,000.00. 18,333.33 1,200,00 20,00.0.00 20,000.00 0.00. 100.00 Tolnl Revenues 5.000.00 20 000,60 15 000.00 400.00 60.000.00 21.153.83 38.846.17. 35.26 EXPENDITURES Engineering 933433 0AO (833.33) 0:00. 10000,00 0:00 10.000.00. 0.00 Construction 8,33133 0.00 (8,333.33) 0.00 100,000.00 93,2.47.63 6.752.31 93.?S Total Expenditures 9,166.67 0.00 (9,166.67) 0,00 110.000.00. 93,247.63 16.752.37 84.77 EXcess'Rev Over (Under) Exp ($ 4.166.67)_S _ 20,000;00 24,166.67 (480.00) ($.50,000,00) ($ 72,093.80) 22,093.30 144.19 6l12I2022 at 12:03 PM City of Gem Luke SEWFR ENTERPRISE FUND Budg0ed Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the: Four Months Ending April 30, 2022 Curr Mnth . Rtrr M nth C rrr Mntlti 2022 m YTD Budid Actug] -YQd trice 0/. Complete 13t_ 1 gc . &Wd V anee %Corfl&te REVENUES Local SAC $. 93.33 $ 0.00 (82:33) 0.00. $ 1,000,00.$ 0.00 1,000.00. 0.00 Residential Sewer Revenues 2,560.00 0,00 (2,500.00) 0.00 30,000.00 6;369.26 23.600.74 21.03 Commercial Sewer Revenues 2,666,67 0.00 (2,666.67) 0.00 32,600,00 6.100,00 23.900,09 25f31 Sewer Charges - Delinquent 166,67 0.06 (166.67). 0;00 2.000.00 0.00 2,000.00 .0.00 Sewer Late Charges 100.00 0.00 (100.00) 0.00. 1,200.06 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 Interest Earnings .166.61 0.00 (166.67) .0.00 2,000,60 1,482.78 517.22 14,14 Total Revenues. 5,683.33 0:00 {§;683,331 0.00 4&M.00 55;892.04. 52.307.96 21.30 EXPENDITURES Office Supplies 16,67 0.00 (16.67) 0,00 200.00 0.00. 200.00 0.00 Postage .20.83 0.00 (20.83) 0.00 256,00 0.00 250,00 0.00 Auditing Services 208.33 2,500.00 2,291.61 1,200..00 4500.00. 2,500.00 0.00 1000 Engineering 416.67 0.00 (416.67) 6.00 55000.00 0.00: 3,000.00 0.00 MCES Charges 3;55.0.00. 0.00 (3,550.00) 00 0 42;600:00 I I;369,60 31,iW.40 36.69 Locates 66.67 6.75 (59,92) mq 800.00 59.45 740:55 7.43 Financial Services 83.33 0.00 (83.33) •0.00 •1,000.00 0.00. 1,000,00 0.00 Computer Services 41.67 0.00 (41,67) (1.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 0,00 Watcr(SewerUlilitics 1,000.00 0.00 (1,00000) 0,00 12,OOU.00 8fi2,43. 11,137.57 7.19 Repairs & Maint - Contractual 416:67 0,00 (41'6.67) .0.00 j.DOD.00 0;00. 5000.00 13,09 Depreciation 1,375.00 0,00 (),373.00) 0,00 16,500.00 4.00 16,500,00 0,00 Sewer inspections 2,083,33 0.00 (2.MP.33) .0.00 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 6.00 Sewer Televise/Flushing 1;666.67 0,00 (i,666:67) 6,00 20,000:00 .0.00 20,000.00 0100 Total Expenditures 10,945;83 2,506.75 (9,439.08) 22.06 1311350.06 14;791.49 116,558.52 11.26 Excess Rev Over (Under) Exp {$ 5,262.50) (S 2;506.75) _2,755.75 47.63 63,150.60) $ 1,1.00.56 (64.250.56) (1,74) 511212022 at 12:00 PPA city omem Cake WAV- M ENTERPRISE Fi1ND Budgeted.Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Far the Four Mow hsEnding Apri1.30, 2022 Ste. Curr Mnt Curr Ninth 2922 YTD ,YTD s�Sis7! aritlnc plet BJLE ei Actual Varim.cc ta_QQMV]gg RF,VCX'UES Residential Water Revenues S 1,257.50:$ .0,60 (1,257.50) 0.0D $ 15,090.00 $ 3.62197 11,466,03 24.02 Interest Earni rigs 4.17 0.00 (4,17) 0;00 .5D.00 (235,09) 285:09 (470.18) Total Revenues 1261.67 0.00 (1,261.67) :0.00 15;140.00 3,388.88. 11,751.12 22.38 EXPENDITURES Auditing Services 208.33 2,500.00 2,291..67 1,200.00 2.500.00 2,56Q.00 0.00 100.00 Engineering 0,00 10,507.79. 10,56719 046 0.00 28.335,21 (24;335.21.) 0.00 Water/Sciver utilities 2.500.00 0.00 M500.00) 0,(0 36,000.00 2.05.06% 27.344.94 8.1l5 Repairs & Maint 291.67 0.00 (291:67) 0.00. 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 0;00 Depreciation 1.2.50.00 6.00 (1,250,00) 0.00 i3.000.00 0.06 .15,000.00: 0.00 Total Expenditures Excess Rev Over (Under) L•xp 4 250.00 13,007,79 2.7 57.79 2 988.33 4 13.007.79 10019.46 306.07._ _ 51.000.00 . 33,490.27 17.509.73 63 b7 435.29 {$ 35,860.00) ($:30;101.39) ($,756&.61) 03,94 SM2/2022 at 12:OB PM City of Gein Lake INVESTMENT TRUST FUND F3udgeted Slatement of Revenues and Rgvidifures Rorlhe Four Months Ending April 30, 2022 r Mnih Curr Mn Ili CurrM t i 2022 Y Y Budeet Actual V r� Wcomplcl iA ideet ct I V im . % Complete RE, VENUES BRerest Eamings 5 0.00 5 686.67 686.67 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 686.67 (686,67) 0.00 Total Riiwwea: 0,00. 686.67 686.67 0.00 0.00 686.67 (686,67) 0,00 .511212022 at 12109 PM CITY OF GEM LAKE Heritage Hall Af 4200 Otter Lake Road I Gem Lake, MN 55110 651-747-2790/92 1 651-747-2795 (fax) - E-mail city@gemlakemn.ory, Gem Lake City Council Meeting May 17, 2022 Sign in Sheet Name ec U�o1 14