Based on the context of the White Bear Lake City Council meeting (August 2022), here is the transcribed text with speaker identification and estimated timestamps. *** **[00:00] Unknown Speaker:** The benefit we had was that, you know, when they're dropping through the neighborhood, the kid would have known somebody else. Yeah, he'd gotten off and walked. Right, no, the bus—and then that neighborhood, that was it, back to Highway 61. Who knows? **[00:15] [Music]** **[00:24] Mayor:** All right, [the roll] will be noted, except Councilmember Edberg. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I trust everyone's had a chance to review the minutes of the regular City Council meeting from August 10th. If there aren't any corrections, I'd entertain a motion to approve. **[00:50] Councilmember:** So moved. **[00:52] Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes say "Aye." **[00:55] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:56] Mayor:** All those opposed? Motion carries, the minutes pass. Moving on to minutes of the City Council meeting work session on August 10th, 2022. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion. **[01:05] Councilmember:** So moved. **[01:06] Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes say "Aye." **[01:10] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:11] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, the minutes are approved. Item 2C: minutes of the City Council work session on August 16th. I’d entertain a motion to approve those. **[01:20] Councilmember:** So moved. **[01:21] Mayor:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say "Aye." **[01:23] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:24] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, and those minutes are approved. Item three: adoption of the agenda. Are there any additions or corrections to be made to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve. **[01:34] Councilmember:** Move to approve. **[01:35] Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of adopting the agenda say "Aye." **[01:38] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:39] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, we have an agenda. Moving on to item four: consent agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve that. **[01:44] Councilmember:** So moved. **[01:45] Mayor:** Motion and second. All those in favor for approving the consent agenda say "Aye." **[01:48] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:49] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, the consent agenda is adopted. Item five: visitors and presentations. The quarterly Sports Center report. Ms. Crawford? **[01:58] Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. In your packet is the quarterly Sports Center report. We have been busy this past spring hosting numerous hockey camps, learn-to-skate programs, and the 29th annual Skate Show, as well as a regional youth hockey tournament. The White Bear Lake Area Hockey Association opened the new hockey training center and is utilizing that. I think I have a couple of slides of that there. So, there we have the dry land and the RapidShot equipment; it's very impressive what we have there at the Sports Center. And one more slide, I think, on that—and then they also have kind of a mini rink on the left side. On the right side, we are in the process of installing solar panels on the roof of the Sports Center, so we've been busy working on that. Hopefully later this summer that should be complete. That is All Energy Concepts who is working on that project. Trane Corporation has also been busy upgrading the mechanical HVAC, roofing, lighting, and control systems at the Sports Center, so we should begin to see significant cost savings relatively soon with all that. For a year-to-date analysis of the Sports Center, sales are down by approximately $28,000 compared to this same time in 2021. The reason for that is everything was pushed back with COVID, so we saw a lot of revenue coming in 2021. But I'm happy to report that our usage in '22 is consistent and slightly up compared to 2019 pre-COVID. That is pretty consistent with many other communities in their sporting facilities; we're starting to see things be brought back to pre-COVID numbers, which is wonderful. We see a decrease—we've seen a slight decrease in the Boatworks Commons rentals. We've seen a slight, very slight increase in Armory rentals. One thing to note is for the Sports Center, under miscellaneous revenue, you'll see the miscellaneous there for 2021 year-to-date—we have about $26,000 there versus $573 for 2021 [at this time]. That is our LiveBarn subscription revenue, so that is much higher than we have seen in previous years. So, I just wanted to call that out, and with that, I can stand for any questions for this report. **[03:45] Mayor:** Thank you, Ms. Crawford. Council, any questions or comments on the Sports Center? All right, thank you very much for the report. We'll move on to item six: public hearings. The Wellhead Protection Plan Amendment. Mr. Kopas? **[03:58] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** All right, I will kick it off. So, the Wellhead Protection Plan is required with Minnesota state rules. It's required to be updated by the municipalities who have wells every 10 years. It is done in two parts. The first part is basically a modeling exercise that delineates the wellhead protection areas; that was completed a year ago and presented to Council in December of 2021. The second piece of this is called "Part Two" and really focuses on goals and strategies to protect our wells. It really looks at the area that our wells draw from and how to protect our wells from any kind of contamination. As part of this, a public hearing is required prior to submittal to the Minnesota Department of Health for their review and approval. With us tonight is Mark Sherrill from SEH, the consultant that the city hired to complete Part Two of the Wellhead Protection Plan. So, he will give a brief presentation before we hold the public hearing and before Council considers adopting the Wellhead Protection Plan and directing staff to submit to the Department of Health. With that, I have Mark Sherrill from SEH. **[05:05] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** Thanks for the introduction, and hi Mayor and hi Council. Like he said, I'm here to talk about the Wellhead Protection Plan. It's a program that was established in 1986 by an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act by the EPA. In Minnesota, it's operated out of the Source Water Protection Agency, which is a unit in the MDH. White Bear Lake had their last plan done in 2012, and that was their first plan, so this is their first amendment. Part One was completed in 2021 by WSP, and I'm with SEH—I'm a geologist—and we completed with the city the Part Two. Just to go over some key terms here: you can see there on the map that is kind of the end product of the Part One. That's the modeling effort that determined where the groundwater source that goes to your wells is coming from. The red line shows the one-year path line—that's where the water in the source water aquifer is coming to the wells. The blue line that extends farther out from the wells is the ten-year travel line. And then the yellow line, kind of everywhere that's not shaded in black, that's your Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), and that's kind of defined as the jurisdictional boundary of the wellhead protection area. Within that area, there's different vulnerabilities, and we'll see that map on the next slide. You can see different colors there—kind of a green, a yellow, and a red. That shows the three different vulnerabilities that you can have. A "low vulnerability" (green) is kind of directly over your wells; that means the vertical recharge time to the source water aquifer is anywhere from a period of decades to a century. The yellow area means the vertical recharge time is anywhere from years to several decades. And then you have just a small portion of "high vulnerability" (red), which is anywhere from a period of weeks to years. With that being established in Part One, the Part Two plan really establishes the potential contaminant sources that may be a threat to the source water aquifer. We're looking at things like Minnesota Pollution Control Agency items such as above-ground tanks, below-ground tanks, and even things like private wells. These are potential contaminant sources just because those are kind of conduits down into the source water aquifer. All of those things are required to be scoped. The MDH has a scoping notice that says these are all the things that you should include in your Part Two plan and inventory to see if they're threats to the city. Another big portion of the plan is the Inner Wellhead Management Zone survey. That's an even more stringent inventory, which is a 200-foot setback of potential contaminant sources from the wells. City of White Bear Lake is doing a great job; their inner well management zone surveys have met all the setbacks. There are some things that are almost always within the setbacks, such as utilities, and those are just good to know that they're there—not necessarily a contaminant source, but potential sources. The plan then has components like a contingency strategy, which is covered by the Water Supply Plan that was approved, and it has implementation strategies. Those are the steps that the city will take to implement the plan over the next 10 years. Those things include, for the most part, public education. There's a lot of grant funding that can go into helping address potential contaminant resources. One that the MDH pushes a lot is grant funding for the sealing of private wells. So, if there's an unused or abandoned well that a private citizen within the DWSMA would like to seal, they can apply for grant funding with MDH. That was a brief presentation as far as what Part Two covers. I’d be happy to answer any questions before you move into a public hearing. **[08:50] Mayor:** Council, any questions? Councilmember Walsh. **[08:52] Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick one on wells: we have very few left in the city, right? And we kind of know where those are. Are there any left that would fit in this definition or need a grant? **[09:05] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** There's always some that are out there. Most often, residents seal up unused wells. Most of them are currently used or at least known about, but it is definitely something that we can look at as we move forward—notifying those permittees. Oftentimes some of the older wells aren't even known about; they can just be something found on the property. They weren't—and I'm not sure of the year—but they weren't always registered prior to a certain year. A lot of old farm wells were not registered. As we find them on any of our projects, we definitely do seal those. But it's something we can look into as we move forward with these strategies to contact owners to see if they are interested in sealing those wells. **[09:50] Councilmember Jones:** Thank you. Follow up to that question: I mean, could we make that a requirement if they're not being used? **[10:00] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** Councilmember Jones, I would look towards our City Attorney. I'm not sure that that's a... I think it's more of a legal question. I don't know if our Attorney has anything to add to that. **[10:10] Troy Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. Honestly, I've never looked into that. I'm a little concerned that that area of regulation is so closely regulated by the Department of Health that we would have to make sure that there isn't some transition issue there that would prohibit us from getting into that. I know they already have all sorts of requirements regarding well closures. If that's something you would like to look at, we certainly can, but I don't have a ready answer. **[10:35] Mayor:** I guess if MDH thinks an uncapped well randomly within the city is not a safety hazard... so I'd kind of direct that question at Mr. Sherrill. **[10:45] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** I think all cities across the state have wells, and a lot of people like to keep the wells for irrigation. I know that MDH likes to advocate Best Management Practices of wells. I can't speak for the MDH, but I think they're supportive of people who want to keep their wells. But if there are unused, abandoned wells that are potential contaminant sources, they'd prefer people to seal those. **[11:08] Councilmember Jones:** And that's really what I'm kind of getting at, too. I mean, if we had a large geographic area near the lake that was 100% a community on all wells, does that present any threats to our drinking water? **[11:20] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** Yeah. Wells for low, moderate, and high [vulnerability] are—if they reach the source water aquifer—considered a potential contaminant source if they're improperly used. **[11:34] Mayor:** Thank you. Councilmember Hughes? **[11:36] Councilmember Hughes:** I have some dumb questions. Okay, so you have that color chart up there with the green, yellow, and the red. Why is that one—what makes that area a high vulnerability? Because of what's going on there? **[11:52] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** So, I didn't do the Part One, but I've done Part Ones in the past. Essentially, what that's saying is there's material that an aquifer is made up of—porous material, basically. You can think of like a really common one as a sandstone. There's pore spaces between that and that's where you're getting your water from. Most water is moving kind of laterally towards the wells within that aquifer that's buried, you know, 300 to 700 feet deep. Above that where your aquifer is, there's less porous material called confining layers, actually. So, areas where there's red, they've determined that there's less or not as sufficient confining layers, essentially. The water generally moves anywhere from 10 times slower than it does horizontally, so when there are more confining layers, it moves even slower. All that green area you see around the public water supply wells—there are really thick confining layers. Anything from the surface actually has a really hard time getting down to where you're actually pulling from. That's what that is referring to: how long it takes ground water from the ground to get in. **[13:00] Councilmember Hughes:** What you guys were looking at is just that time, right? Or are you looking at also the amount of water in that aquifer that supplies the water to the area? **[13:10] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** The Wellhead Protection Plan is really an inventory for protecting the source water aquifers. It accounts for both water quality and quantity. **[13:20] Councilmember Hughes:** So, what are you seeing in the quantity? Is there enough? **[13:24] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** That's a very tricky question, actually. There's been a lot of work about the USGS by the Met Council and by the DNR. The plan kind of looks at the work that has been done by others. I think it's still an ongoing task that's being worked on by the DNR. **[13:42] Councilmember Hughes:** So, you guys look to their information in building it? You don't create your own? **[13:45] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** Exactly. Especially in Part Two, we just look at existing information. **[13:48] Councilmember Hughes:** Have you looked at that stuff? I mean, I'm pretty stupid about that stuff. Does it kind of say there is or there isn't enough water? **[13:58] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** That's a very tricky question. But I think if you look at places across the country, they don't have nearly as much groundwater resources as Minnesota does. Especially within the Twin Cities basin, we're really blessed with a lot of water in comparison with other places. **[14:15] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** I'll add one thing to that. This plan really looks at contamination, not volume of water. We look towards the folks that Mr. Sherrill had mentioned—the DNR and Met Council—to look at the volume questions. This plan did not look at the volume side of our aquifer. **[14:35] Councilmember Hughes:** Do we need to? **[14:36] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** In a broader question, yes. We leave that more up to the—we also use their data, the regional planning. It's such a huge effort to do that modeling; no one city can do it alone. So, we look at those agencies to do that. **[14:55] Mayor:** If there were a huge problem that was known right now, would that be flagged under this? **[15:00] Paul Kopas (Public Works Director):** From a volume standpoint, no. This is really looking at the contamination aspect. For example, in that red area we’re talking about, we would not—from a zoning standpoint—put a gas station there because it's a high vulnerability. Those are the kind of things this plan looks at, not necessarily how much water we're pumping. That's under our appropriations permit, which is done through the DNR. **[15:25] Councilmember Hughes:** Okay, thank you. **[15:26] Councilmember Brainard:** The red area is in Washington County, if you can see the map? **[15:30] Mark Sherrill (SEH Consultant):** Yeah, I believe it's in Shoreview, actually. **[15:32] Councilmember Brainard:** Yeah, I think that's a good point. **[15:34] Mayor:** Just very quickly to get back to the question that was asked... **[15:38] Troy Gilchrist (City Attorney):** So, the statute on well sealing talks about a well or boring needing to be sealed if it's contaminated or may contribute to the spread of contamination. Or if it wasn't sealed properly and endangers ground water quality. Or if it's not in use and does not have a maintenance permit. And then all of the sealing has to be done by a licensed person. **[16:02] Mayor:** Anything else from the Council on this at this time? All right, thank you, Mr. Sherrill. Appreciate it. At this time, I will open it up for the public hearing. I have no names on my list, but if anybody wants to speak to this issue, now is your opportunity. State your name and address. Anybody at all? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Council. Council, do we have any more discussion on this? We have a resolution before us approving the second phase of the plan. What do we want to do? **[16:38] Councilmember:** [Motion to approve]. **[16:39] Councilmember:** Second. **[16:40] Mayor:** Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say "Aye." **[16:43] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[16:44] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries, the resolution passes. All right, item seven: unfinished business—nothing scheduled. Item eight: new business—nothing scheduled. And nine: discussion—nothing scheduled. Which brings us to communications from the City Manager. Ms. Crawford, what do you have for us? **[17:03] Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Just one event to share with you: we have a credentialed CPR class at the South Fire Station Tuesday, September 6th, from 5:00 to 8:00 PM. Registration is required; it is a first-come, first-serve basis, and there is a $60 fee for that. The link is on your screen if anybody wants to apply for that. Otherwise, events are slowing down as we get back to school time and gear up for fall. That's all I have tonight. **[17:35] Mayor:** Anyone on the Council have questions or comments for Ms. Crawford? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. **[17:42] Councilmember:** So moved. **[17:44] Mayor:** All those in favor say "Aye." **[17:45] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[17:46] Mayor:** We're adjourned. **[17:48] [Music]**