PROCEEDINGS OF THE MURRAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

MURRAY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER – SLAYTON, MINNESOTA

AUGUST 6, 2002 – 9:00 A.M.

Pursuant to notice, the Murray County Board of Commissioners convened with the following members present:  Commissioners Alfred Gertsema, Steve Johnson, Gaylen Jensen, Kevin Anderson and William J. Sauer.  Also present Gary D. Spaeth, Auditor/Treasurer, Robert Klingle, Administrative Assistant and Paul Malone, County Attorney.

The meeting opened by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the agenda.  Several items were added.

County Revenue Fund                                       34,803.78      

County Road & Bridge Fund                             17,125.23

County Building Fund                                       18,877.37

County Parks Fund                                                 464.50

End-O-Line Park Fund                                        6,258.57

Tri-County Recycling Fund                                     274.61

County Ditch Fund                                                 724.80

SCORE                                                                 231.42      

Sunrise Terrace                                                   6,019.53      

            Total                                                                 84,884.81

Commissioner Gaylen Jensen inquired as to what the decision had been on which department would get the 1990 Ford Pickup transferred from the Highway Department.  His understanding is that it would be used at the Tri-County Recycling Center rather than in the County’s Motor Pool.  Gary Spaeth will check the records and with Jon Bloemendaal to clarify what was decided.

Roger Albertson, Office of the State Auditor, met with the Board to exit the audit of the 2001 Murray County Financial Statements.  He handed Gary Spaeth a draft of a single audit reporting form off the Internet which will need to be filed as soon as possible.  He also distributed an excerpt from a July 17, 2002 Investigative Report of the Minnesota Attorney General on the City of Brooklyn Park referring to Paragraph VI.  Employee Events.   Roger indicated that the Murray County Board’s recent practice of paying for part of employee events that are primarily socialâ€� in nature and for the sole benefit of County Employees is not within its authority to allow.  Also disallowed would be the sending of flowers to an employee that is sick or in the event of a death.  When asked if a presentation of a plaque at retirement is an appropriate practice he indicated that would be an allowable practice. 

Gary Spaeth presented a letter of representations to the Board dated August 6, 2002 from the State Auditor for the audit of the County financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Jim Reinert and Dick Kottom, and Doug Busch from RACOM met with the Board to discuss the console for the Sheriff’s office dispatchers.  Jim presented a handout and reviewed the cost and budget figures for the console, including add-onsâ€� that will be purchased by the negotiated quote process.  He requested that September 3, 2002 be set for the bid letting for the console, which has a projected completion date of November 15, 2002.

Michelle Miranowski met with the Board with a proposed MnDOT Transportation resolution.

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-08-06-02

RESOLVED, that Murray County enter into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide public transportation service in Murray County.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that Murray County agrees to provide a local share of 35% percent of the total operating cost and 20% of the total capital costs.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that Murray County authorizes the Murray County Auditor/Treasurer and the Chairperson to the Murray County Board of Commissioners to execute the aforementioned Agreement and any amendments thereto.

Jon Bloemendaal met with the Board to present the 2001 Agricultural Inspectors Report for signature by the Chairman.

Brian Kletscher, Redwood County Commissioner; Jon Mitchell, Redwood County Environmental Director;  Steven Krinkle, City of Lamberton Economic Development Coordinator; and Leonard Runck, Red Rock Central Technology Director met with the Board to give a presentation on a waste to energy facility being proposed in the City of Lamberton.  Four other individuals including State Senator Jim Vickerman; Annette Bair, SWRDC; and Jon Blomendaal; were also present.  They presented information on daily tonnage the facility would use and a regional map of tons of garbage produced by county and flow patterns.  The tipping fees are projected at $50.00-52.00.  The facility is projected to employ 25 at $8.00 - $17.00 per hour. 

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-08-06-03

A Resolution in Support of a Waste to Energy

Garbage Burning Facility for Southwest/South Central Minnesota.

WHEREAS, Murray County is located in Southwest Minnesota, and

WHEREAS, Murray County currently sends garbage to a landfill in Minnesota, and

WHEREAS, Murray County understands that garbage buried in a landfill carries a liability currently and into the future, and

WHEREAS, Redwood County is seeking support from counties in Southwest/South Central Minnesota for a Waste to Energy Garbage Burning Facility at Lamberton, Minnesota.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Murray County is interested in pursuing the potential of a Waste to Energy Garbage Burning Facility to be located in Lamberton, Minnesota.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this project has merit and should continue to be pursued by Redwood County.

An Order to Deny a Petition Requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet

 For the Proposed Bonnstetter Feedlot Expansion

MURRAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT

In the Matter of Denying a Petition Requesting                           FINDINGS OF FACT,

An Environmental Assessment                                                   CONCLUSION OF LAW,

Worksheet (EAW) for the Proposed                                                     AND ORDER

Bonnstetter Feedlot Expansion

1.      On June 21, 2002 the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) forwarded a petition which it had received requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the project described in the petition, which is commonly known as the Chad Bonnstetter project.

2.      The EQB determined that the petition complied with EQB’s requirements for a valid petition and that Murray County was the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to decide whether an EAW was needed.

3.      The petition contends that the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.  The potential effects listed in the petition include concern for water, air and the health of people and animals.  In addition, the petition raises concerns about ground water depletion, road degradation, effect on neighboring property values, increased levels of noise and dust, and potential development and escape into the environment of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

4.      The proposed expansion requests approval to increase the number of permitted animal units (AU) by 680 AU.  The preparation of an EAW on this project is discretionary, rather than mandatory, because the project does not fit within any of the mandatory EAW categories in EQB rules, nor is it exempted.

5.      The Murray County Board of Commissioners must order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioner, proposer and other persons, or otherwise known to the Murray County Board of Commissioners demonstrates that because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.  The Board must deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

6.      The Board considered the potential surface water and groundwater contamination in the form of excess levels of nitrates, phosphorous, and coliform bacteria.  The petitioners felt past flooding was proof of the fact that flooding could exacerbate this problem.  The Board felt that the proposed project would have no further potential for significant environmental effects over the existing feedlot.  MPCA regulations state that this facility has to have an engineered pit with a perimeter tile around the base of the pit, which the project would have.  The perimeter tile will ground surface for one hundred (100) feet to allow for monitoring of any problems originating from the pit.   The tile will help to minimize water pressure on the outside walls of the pit when the pit is empty.  In addition, the special conditions placed by the Board of Commissioners require that any dead livestock shall be rendered or composted.  If composted, a state approved composting plan must be followed.  If rendered, they shall be stored in an insulated and cooled building until picked up by the rendering truck.  Finally, the proposed project is not in a flood plain.

7.      The Board considered the potential degradation of air quality in the form of excessive levels of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and offensive odors, which would negatively impact the health of the neighboring residence, some of whom suffer from asthma.  The Board concluded that there are many existing trees around the site and that special conditions imposed by the Board for the conditional use permit require trees to be planted in accordance with plans from the Soil and Water Conservation District or Extension Service to help to control the odor.  The Board took notice of the fact that the project owners intend to remodel the existing home on the site and live on the site.  In addition, number six of the special conditions for the conditional use permit required the project owner to work together with the Ellsborough Lutheran Church so as to schedule the pumping of the pit to not coincide with special events of the church.  The Board took note of the fact that this is a rural, agricultural area and acknowledged that there is always going to be some odor with such a project.  The Board concluded that in this specific setting, with the conditions required, there was not sufficient evidence to show that the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

8.      The Board also considered the potential degradation of surface and groundwater from the land application of manure upon lands in the area that include buried and abandoned wells, which have not been capped or closed.  However, there was no specific evidence presented to the Board including proof of any buried or abandoned wells, which have not been capped or closed.  In addition, the project owners represented to the Board’s satisfaction that a Manure Management Plan would be followed that required the manure to be applied in agronomic rates.

9.      The petitioner’s expressed a concern that cumulative impacts from air and water in the area would occur and pointed out that a number of families living in the area are between one and two miles of existing hog confinement facilities.  The Board took note of the fact that there are no other existing animal feedlots in the section proposed for the project.  The Board concluded that this is not a concentrated area of livestock and that the petitioners had not proved to the board here that there may be any potential for significant environmental effects.

10.  The petition raised the issue of whether or not there might be a potential depletion of groundwater because of the substantial needs of the proposed facility.  The Board took it’s own note of the fact that they were familiar with and knowledgeable of several wells in the area and were not aware of any lack of groundwater that would be exacerbated by the needs of the proposed facility.  In addition, there is an existing well on the site.

11.  The petitioners raised the issue of the potential for road degradation beyond contemplation by the township and county.  The Board felt this was solely an issue that was to be dealt with by the Planning and Zoning Board and County Board under the conditional use permit and does not believe that this is really an environmental issue and thus saw no potential for significant environmental effects.

12.  The petitioners raised the issue of possible negative impacts upon the environment that will cause decreases in neighboring property values by the blight caused by the proposed feedlot.  The Board felt this was merely a restatement of other environmental issues that were raised independently in other parts of the petition and have been dealt with by the Board in these Findings.

13.  The Board considered the potential increase levels of noise and dust from the proposed project. The Board concluded that none of the neighbors were so close as to really be effected by noise and dust levels.  In addition, the trees surrounding the site will help to minimize noise and dust levels.  Finally, the Board concluded that with a modern confinement building there would not be the banging of feeder lids on the outdoor PAX feeders as with an outdoor facility.  The Board did not feel that any possible increase levels of noise and dust may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

14.  The petition raised the potential for development and escape into the environment of antibiotic resistant bacteria from the manure pits that may contain drug laden manure from the animals receiving pharmaceutical drugs in the feed or by other methods in a therapeutic or subtherapeutic level in order to sustain the health of the animals in the unnatural confined setting or as a growth hormonal treatment.  The Board takes note of the fact that in the proposed facility the pit is a concrete engineered pit and that there is a perimeter tile around the pit to allow for monitoring other groundwater for the pit.  The Board felt this issue was purely speculative and could find no evidence that the proposed project may have potential for significant environmental effects in regard to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.      Based on the Findings of Fact and the evidence in the record, there is no indication that the proposed Bonnstetter Feedlot Expansion may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

2.      An EAW is not necessary to determine whether the Bonnstetter Feedlot Expansion has the potential for significant environmental effects.

ORDER

Based on the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law, the Murray County Board of Commissioners hereby denies the petition requesting preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the proposed Bonnstetter Feedlot expansion.

Karen Onken presented Conditional Use Permit No. 1113 for the City of Currie to upgrade and enlarge its wastewater treatment facility in SW1/4 Section 15, Murray Township.   Mayor James Jens and Clerk Lynn Nicks from the City of Currie were also present.  The Board received the Minutes from the July 22, 2002 public hearing on this Permit, which included the Findings of the Planning Commission.   

Karen brought a recommendation from the Planning Commission to waive an after-the-fact permit fee of $300.00.  She also had provided the Board with an explanation for the actions of the Commission and that there had not been a request made by the City of Currie for the fee to be waived.

Mayor Jens made the request to waive the after-the-fact permit fee of $300.

It was moved by Gaylen Jensen, seconded by Alfred Gertsema, and passed to deny a request to waive the after-the-fact permit fee of $300.00 for the City of Currie.  Commissioner Steve Johnson voted nay.

The meeting adjourned at 3:09 p.m.