Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 1, 1999 BJyYW\ -II"" {'-1'1 -.' CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER I, 1999 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on September I, 1999, 7:08 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Don Jacobson, Julie Johnson Councilmembers absent: Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Also present: Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Planning, John Hinzman Planning Intern, Megan Barnett City Administrator, Richard Fursman FERC attorney, Fred Minnis FERC representative, Jeff Shenot Others PROPOSED PIPELINE CONSTRUCTIONINORTHERN NATURAL GAS Mr. Shenot stated they are here this evening at the request of the City. FERC is the lead agency in determining the project requested by Northern Natural Gas to install a pipeline to meet the winter heating needs of the local markets; Their group does not determine the need for the supply but reviews the environmental issues. They are not making any site visits this week but are available to discuss the issues in the environmental assessment document that was made available to the public. Northern Natural Gas has proposed to install a pipeline entirely within their existing right of way. Their agency tries to find ways to minimize all environmental impacts. Much of the controversy that has been generated is because of the residents' concerns. There are time lines that everyone must adhere to; but if there are unanswered questions as a result of any comments they receive, it is possible to extend the review period, though that is not anticipated. They are taking comments until September 13. Mr. Shenot pointed out the proposed route of Northern Natural Gas and the alternate route which was proposed by FERC which they feel is an environmentally preferable route and would reduce the total number of houses that would be affected. Nothing has been decided. The FERC alternate route is a hypothetical proposal, but they typically look for co-locating right-of-ways. In this case the proposed pipeline would be next to the electrical utility corridor. They use a standard distance of 50 feet as a safe distance for the company both during construction and for maintenance. Safety issues are not regulated by FERC but by the US Department of Transportation. The proposed plan is for a Class 3 pipeline entirely. which is to a higher standard in anticipation of future growth. Statistically there are very few pipeline accidents. There have been no incidents with the existing 8-inch pipe which has been in operation for 40 years. They have no reason to believe that pipeline . . .. - .. , ~1'1..:\....¡\ '¡c:T1 1'1'( I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September I. 1999 Page 2 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas. Continued) is unsafe. Mr. Shenot explained after receiving all comments, they will compile and summarize them and provide a finding to the Commission. The Commission will make the decision to either approve the project as proposed, approve part of it and require slight modifications or accept the Staff approved alternate route. Rarely does the Commission decision get appealed. Comments were then taken from the residents: Larry Whitman. 3736 171 st Circle NW - asked of those present to stand if they were opposed to the FERC alternate route. The majority of those present stood up. Mr. Whitman eXplained he is a member of a neighborhood group which may be affected by the FERC alternate pipeline proposal. In some cases the pipeline would cross through their land or their houses. He reviewed the time line of the request of Northern Natural Gas, notification of the landowners of the public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommendation by the P & Z that the existing route would be the preferable route, and the tabling of the request by the Andover City Council on April 6. On August 16 some of the land owners north of the existing pipeline route received an environmental assessment from FERC stating that was the environmentally preferable route. As residents, they have only until September I3, or only 29 days, to respond to Washington. The group along the existing route had over five months to respond to this issue. Andover did nothing to notifY them early in the process, feeling they have been blind sighted by this alternate proposal. The environmental assessment was vague and very unclear and the map was almost illegible. It is very unclear where the easement would be or how their properties would be affected. Where is the fairness and justice for them as land owners? Mr. Whitman stated in no way should a pipeline go through their neighborhood. He felt the City of Andover should be supporting the existing pipeline route. Those residents knew there was a pipeline easement, and 80 percent of them endorse that route. They are considering their rights concerning the FERC alternate route to correct this potential injustice. Carolyn Lindstrom. 2349 I 70th Lane NW - stated there are only 22 acres of wetlands in the existing right of way, of which only four are state protected. There are 39 acres of wetland that would be crossed in the FERC alternate route, 15.5 of which are state protected. Secondly, there is municipal sewer and water along the existing route, but there are private septic systems and wells along the FERC alternate route. She noted 112 drinking water supply wells would be destroyed, plus there are no alternate locations for over 100 residential septic systems. Thirdly, a state grant was awarded in the area for planting native plants for the habitat of the Monarch butterflies and for educational studies. If the pipeline is installed along the FERC alternate route, that habitat which was paid for by a grant will be completely destroyed. The fourth point is that there are many oak trees along the proposed FERC alternate route. The City has received over $30,000 in federal grants to help residents to control oak wilt and preserve those beautiful, large trees. Through the FERC alternate route, many more forest areas would be destroyed. It doesn't make sense to take money to save the trees, then destroy them by the pipeline. Construction through the oaks would also cause the oak wilt disease to spread again. Finally, Blanding turtles are an endangered species which reside along w -~ -------r--~- ~- -- ------- " ~"\ Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1. 1999 Page 3 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) the FERC alternate route. They expect the City of Andover and FERC to endorse the existing right of way route. Greg Edwards. 17180 Bittersweet Street NW - is against the FERC alternate route which would endanger the wetlands and threaten the endangered species. That route crosses 80 percent more wetlands which has species that are sensitive to their environment. The Blanding turtles are officially DNR endangered or threatened and are rarely seen, but the population in their area is doing well. They do not mate until their teens, have few young, do not wander far from one place and live to be over 60 years old. If construction took place during their breeding season, those turtles could be spread far away or destroyed. If the pipeline temporarily changes their habitat, it could disrupt the turtles' habitat. He would hate to see the pipeline go through this area and lose any of its wildlife. Christe Singleton. 3836 I7lst Circle NW - is against the FERC alternate route. They have researched the potential safety issue of putting a natural gas pipeline under a high voltage corridor. The problem was known for over 30 years but has only been recognized in the past 10 years. Pipelines in such corridors can be damaged and experience additional corrosion by the AC voltages. The AC voltage is a potential hazard for safety and corrosion. They feel the existing right of way should be used where this issue does not exist. Secondly, they question the impact of having three energy uses within the right of way. It is a serious safety hazard for those home owners. Finally, the FERC alternate route would mean Northern Natural Gas and the City would have to monitor 15 additional miles of line, which would be an additional cost and additional lines to leak or corrode. The originally proposed route is safer and more economically and environmentally sound to meet the needs of the entire area. Steve Florman. 3755 171 st Circle NW - has lived in Andover most of his life and is opposed to the proposed FERC alternate route. There would be over 100 families who would in some way be affected by this route. It is the position of their organization that the FERC alternate should be rejected and the line constructed on the existing easement. The power easement gives NSP the right to run power lines across his property. The Northern Natural Gas easement gives them the right to access their line and to construct an additional line. They have been extremely tolerant of encroachments on their easement noting the construction of a garage and a tennis court across that easement. Northern Natural Gas has the right to demolish them but has not done so because of concern for the residents. Preventing them from constructing a line within their own easement could be construed as a taking of their rights. People purchased along that easement knowing it was a pipeline easement. IfNSP wants to add another power line across the easement on his property, he would be obligated to permit it, though he wouldn't have to like it. Northern Natural Gas has no legal right to put a pipeline along the FERC alternate route, so they would have to negotiate with each family. Given the position of the neighbors, that would not be done in a timely manner. The environmental assessment states only 3 I houses would be affected along the FERC alternate route. He didn't know how this number was determined when the exact route has not been given. Northern , - . - -.-- - ~ _._.o_____ -.-0. -------r----~--- , -' Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1. 1999 Page 4 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas. Continued) Natural Gas has responded there are at least 57 houses within 50 feet of the corridor. The FERC alternate route is no longer rural. Homes are being constructed constantly without a pipeline easement. If there are trees within the existing easements that would be affected, they are encroachments. In contrast, there are a large number of oak trees along the FERC alternate route. No homes would be destroyed if the pipeline is constructed in the existing easements. There are a couple places along the proposed FERC alternate route where it would be impossible to image going through without homes being condemned. The easement would affect the front half of his home or half of the home across the street. They knew and accepted the restrictions of the power easement when they purchased their land. They didn't bargain on a pipeline which has many different restrictions. That would have a pennanent negative affect on their property values. About 200 new permanent easements would be needed on the FERC alternate route; only 30 temporary easements are needed on the existing right of way. Mr. Florman stated the residents are very concerned that the City will be unable to monitor or prevent violations on two easements, again pointing out to the errors made which allowed a garage and tennis court to be constructed within the existing easement. Also, digging is being allowed just a few feet from or in the existing easement just north of the Oak View Middle School. How, then, can the City monitor more than twice the amount of line? He asked that the City Council support the gas company's right to cross their easement and to approve the Resolution that has been tabled since April. The pipeline should go where it has always been intended -- along the existing easement. Chuck Stone. 17125 Woodbine Street NW - wasn't notified but would be affected. He is very much opposed and would like to see it go where it is supposed to go, that is in the existing easement. Mr. Shenot asked for a show of hands of those who had not been notified by FERC or the City. Approximately 69 residents rose their hands. Mr. Shenot eXplained in looking at the alternate route, sometimes they used one side of the NSP easement and sometimes the other. They did not count both sides but tried to pick the side with the fewest homes and used two-year old aerial maps to do so. That route was submitted to the county to attain the names of the land owners from the tax records. Those land owners were sent copies of this document. About 165 copies were sent out along the alternate route, but they did not include land owners adjacent to the route. They used the best available information given to them. Steve and Nicole Lindeen. 9101 I 78th Avenue NW. Ramsey - asked who will pay for their new well and septic system. Also, the wildlife can't be replaced. Bernie Baulof. 3823 171 st Circle NW - is opposed to the FERC alternate route for all of the reasons stated previously. Lon Lane. 17056 Aztec Street - had his house on the market and just pulled it off because of the pipeline even though he already purchased another one. How can he sell his house? When will this take place and who will make up the difference between what his house is worth now versus what it will be worth if the pipeline goes through? He is opposed to the FERC alternate route. - - . - -- - --" - ---~-- ---- ..----r-----.- -- ·. , I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September I, 1999 Page 5 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) Mark Nelson. works with NSP (825 Rice Street. St. Paul) - noted Northern Natural Gas serves many communities. They are in favor of the proposed route mostly because of the issue of timing. He read from Page 28 of the environmental assessment regarding the recommendation to construct the pipeline within the existing easement if the service is absolutely needed in 1999. He stated NSP will need this capacity for this heating season. Hollv Johnson. 3762 171 st Circle - opposed the FERClHolasek alternate routes. She asked who is Holasek. Teresa Kaplan. 3741 I 71st Circle NW - is opposed to the FERC alternate route. There is a spring- fed creek that runs across the street. Along it there are several nests of bull snakes. She understood they are protected by the State of Minnesota. That line would go through there and disrupt those homes. Bull snakes are very territorial. She asked about the time line of when this will be decided and when the line would be constructed if the alternate route were chosen. Mr. Minnis stated they do not know. They are taking each comment very seriously. Possibly further study will be done, so it is not possible to comment on the schedule. Lynn Forman 3755 171st Circle NW - found the information on the FERC web site very unnerving. Northern Natural Gas is saying because the line is not surveyed, they cannot guarantee exactly where the line would go through. If it goes through there, it would need to use the road as easement. She is concerned with another utility coming into her yard. If they had a choice, they would prefer the line to go on the other side. There is a very density established forest there. She runs a day care with seven children. The power line runs across the first 100 feet of her property. If this pipeline were to be put on her side of the street, it could end up coming through her children's play area. In measuring 50 feet from the NSP power line easement, the easement for the pipeline runs right to her children's bedroom and would be constructed right outside her front door. They accept that they can't put trees in the front because of the NSP easement, but the pipeline easement would mean they would lose the trees they do have in the front yard. She feels it is not ethical to force people to take multiple easements. It is an undue burden on a large number of people. Richard A Arndt. 230 I I 70th Lane - is opposed to the FERC alternate route and asked the Council to consider these people, reconsider its decision and support the existing pipeline route. Mayor McKelvey stated the Council has not made a decision, nor has it taken a position on a route. Mr. Arndt - did not receive notice of any sort, asking when he is going to receive one. Where are his rights? If the route is changed and goes on his land, when does he have the right to have a committee? Winslow Holasek. 1159 Andover Boulevard NW - felt no one on the existing line has said the pipeline should to on the alternate route. They have said the existing easement is not a good location. The alternate route was proposed by FERC and may be just as dense andcould have just -- -- . - -- -. -- -~-~ -~- _6_- -------r--- --~- ~- , I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1, 1999 Page 6 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) as many problems as the existing route. Probably the line doesn't belong in either place. He doesn't want to see someone else have the same problems as on the existing line. He understood that Northern Natural Gas had to prove a definite need, and he didn't know if that has been done. The truth is a majority of this gas does not go to Andover or Ramsey but to points west. He was told this line extends 75 miles west of Elk River where the majority of gas will be going. Ifit is needed, he felt alternate sources should be investigated. That could mean a competitive line or another pipeline. Possibly the line doesn't need to go through Andover at all but can go further north. He asked if all sources have been investigated. If it is proved there is a need and it can't come from alternate sources, possibly a 16-inch line from Canada or other lines can be used and Andover bypassed completely. He also understands the only alternates considered were along other easements. Mr. Holasek pointed out the table on Page 26 of the environmental assessment regarding the number of homes is incorrect. He stated there are 150 homes in the proposed route, 74 in the FERC alternate and 35 along his proposed route, and he agreed to provide the detailed information to Mr. Shenot. He also noted the original agreement for the gas line easement did not call for multiple lines, though the final papers did state "easements". He didn't think Northern Natural Gas has the rights to multiple lines on the easement. Mr. Carlberg noted the existing pipeline does have easements through there. Steve Sim!!eton. 3836 171 st Circle - is opposed to the pipeline. He stated hypothetically the pipeline has to be up and running by the First of November. There was a citizen's group formed but no one from the alternate route were ever notified. Are they going to be able to have some input? Diane Edwards. 17180 Bittersweet Street - is opposed to the FERC alternate route for those reasons stated. They purchased in the area because ofthe oaks. They do not have oak wilt now, but the construction will destroy the trees and may spread the disease. They live in Oakwood Estates. What will be left after the construction? Dennis Trainer. 2963 170th Lane - is opposed to the FERC alternate route. They did not receive the information. He doesn't understand why they only found out about this 10 days ago. If the neighbors hadn't informed him, he wouldn't know anything. Where is the due process? Patrick Ayers. 17132 Swallow Street - is opposed to the FERC alternate route. Northern Natural Gas continues to take the position of constructing the pipeline along the originally proposed route. He didn't understand the environmental argument that it would not be harmed with the construction of a new pipeline by destroying standing oaks and other environmental resources versus going through an area that is already cleared of any oaks and other trees. Ruth Hemin¡¡son. I 7181 Bittersweet Street NW - was not notified. She is opposed to the FERC alternate route. The concerns with the existing route goes to show how important it is and how the decision affects generations to come. That decision was made. She hoped since they weren't even notified, even though the time to file as an intervenor has passed, that they would be able to file for .. -. .. , Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1, 1999 Page 7 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) that intervenor status. Mr. Minnis stated they can always file for intervention. He suggested they write, stating their reasons for not intervening in a timely manner. Whether or not it is allowed is another matter. Sharon Zagaros. 903 I I 78th A venue. Ramsey - is extremely opposed to the alternate route. She checked early on to find out where the pipeline was going. She called the City of Ramsey and was told it is going south of them in the existing easement. Folks along that route did buy there homes knowing of the easement. It is not right to put this line on their land when they are already living under an NSP easement. How does FERC figure it will be more effective having the new pipeline when the existing one will remain? Will the existing pipeline be dug up or will it be allowed to rust and decay, contributing to more environmental problems? How will they be notified? Hit and miss in the same manner as this time? She did not feel this has been handled well. She'd like to know the exact reason the alternate has been proposed. Why would it be moved off the existing line? Paul Toman. 2685 17lst Avenue NW - asked who determines the Class. Why isn't there a Class 3 from one specific point to another? What is the operating pressure of this pipe? What type of disaster would occur if there is a rupture? Russ Mitchell. 2032 157th Lane - asked if the EPA response is a part of the record and were the alternate routes investigated? It seems that the need is for west of Andover. What other viable routes are being investigated? He doesn't see that explained in the environmental assessment. Mary Palkovich. representin¡; Minne¡;asco (PO 1165. Minneapolis) - explained Minnegasco filed formal comments in support of the original route by Northern Natural Gas. Minnegasco urges FERC to act as soon as possible. The capacity they contracted for in 1996 for this season is necessary for them to supply reliable gas service in this area. The State of Minnesota regulates them and reviews their purchases to be sure they aren't buying excess pockets of gas. Greg Branson. 174 I 5 Argon - has lived there two weeks and was surprised to hear about the proposed route. He was concerned that two-year-old aerial maps were used. They purchased the land because ofthe nice trees and the beauty of the area. The proposal would take out a row of trees plus those that screen him from the road. They took down as few trees as possible to build the house, and now the proposal is to take out the others. He realizes he can be compensated for the land, but he can't be compensated for the quality of life, which is what is being taken away from him. They also dug a well I Y:z months ago. Replacing it would require taking out the trees in front of his house, again taking away his screening. Tom Penna. 173 I 0 Chameleon Street NW. Ramsey - with the rapid growth in both Andover and Ramsey, adding another line through the alternate route will just increase the number of people affected. He is against the alternate route. .--. , I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1, 1999 Page 8 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) Byron Westlund. 33 I 8 I 67th Lane NW. representin~ Woodland Development - purchased 168 acres three years ago with an NSP easement across it, but no pipeline. It took a year to plat the property which was developed into 82 beautiful wooded lots. Many of the lots have been sold, but how does he sell the other lots given all of this? They are opposed to the alternate route. Please go back to the original. Don Schminkey. I 7058 Amon Street NW - has an NSP power line on his lot. They looked at the entire area and purchased that lot thinking the power line wasn't that big of an issue. The lot had a dry wetland, and he got approval for improving it. He spent about $ I 5,000 to improve the wetland. He wondered if that cost will be reimbursed if the gas line goes on his side of the power line. Mark Jones. 2127 I 67th Avenue NW - could be affected by the pipeline on the back of his property. He was told this proposal was given by the Andover Council. It is confusing, since the Mayor has said the Council had nothing to do with it. Why are they here if the route the company wants can be established? He was concerned that a decision was made on two-year-old maps. Andover is growing so fast that there could be as much as 50 percent more housing. He suggested they get accurate numbers before looking at this again. He also has a concern with who Winslow Holasek represents. Is he a resident? A developer? He has also heard that the easements may be more than 50 feet, depending on where the pipeline is put. He felt as though they are getting only half of the information. How can FERC come up with a proposal when they don't have all the paperwork? Mayor McKelvey thanked everyone for attending. He does not favor either route, preferring to see it placed outside of the City completely since most of the service area is to the west. He recited an incident 20 years ago when a valve on the existing line blew and everyone had to be evacuated for 3Y:. hours until someone could come to Andover to turn off the gas. His biggest concern is with safety. The City Council has had nothing to do with choosing a route and has not made any recommendation whatsoever. Nor has the Staff made any recommendation. It can issue a Special Use Permit; but even if the Council denies it, FERC can tell them to go ahead anyway. If the line is installed in the existing easement, he wants to see automatic shut-off valves along it; however, the City is not involved in that decision. The digging north of Oak View Middle School is being done on private property, not in the gas easement. Mr. Hinzman explained the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to the Council to approve the Special Use Permit for the installation of the pipeline in the existing easement. The City was not involved in creating an alternate route. Mr. Shenot then responded to the comments and questions of the residents. He explained they looked at alternate routes because of comments from 40 to 50 individuals and organizations on concerns with the proposed route and their requests to look at alternatives. This evening they have received input from the residents along the alternate route. There may be systems other than Northern Natural Gas that could be used, but at this point they have not investigated that totally. Regarding notification, if a house was within 50 feet of what would be the pipeline right of way, it " . ~ . - - . - -- ---" -- ~----- -- -- , I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1, 1999 Page 9 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) was counted. If property was crossed but the house wasn't within 50 feet, they were not notified, though he realized it does not mean they would not be affected. They used the best information available to them. They do not get involved with the negotiations for easements and rights of way. That is strictly between the land owner and the company. They can only tell the company what they can do while constructing the pipeline and what they can do while maintaining it. Right now nothing has happened. People can respond now. He would like to get a list of people who want to receive the environmental assessment document. A resident said they have made copies and distributed them to all affected home owners they know about. They have also mailed their comments to Washington. They will be petitioning for late intervening status as well. Mr. Shenot explained the reason the name "Elk River loop" was used is because that is the name give to them by the company. They do not authorize projects that would require someone's house to be vacated. In some cases the land owner may consent to something, but they would not want anyone to move or have any house condemned. Whether or not someone feels a house should be vacated because of the pipeline on their property is another issue, but there would be no pipeline going under someone' s house. They have very specific construction techniques and restrictions placed during construction to insure the safety of the residents during and after construction. With the exception of directly over the pipeline, which must be maintained in grass or low-lying vegetation for access, the other construction areas are restored to a condition comparable to pre- construction. The issue of oak trees was raised. There can be compensation, plus construction timed to be least disruptive to trees, turtles, bull snakes, etc. FERC would like to see the State or City request that of them. Normally if they cannot avoid impacting those by construction, they will require mitigation. The Minnesota DNR responded to the proposed route. He is expecting comments on the alternate routes. Northern Natural Gas has received approval for the proposed site from the DNR and other regulatory agencies. If the FERC alternate route is chosen, all permits must be obtained before beginning the project, plus compliance with local, state and federal agencies. Mr. Shenot was not surprised to hear from no one in favor of the routes. The question arose regarding Mr. Holasek. He was a land owner potentially affected along the proposed route. He filed written comments along with many others and provided a lot of information. If the residents don't provide FERC with information, they have to go on two-year-old maps. Hypothetically, if the Commission approves one of the alternate routes, it doesn't mean the company would be required to built there. That would be up to Northern Natural Gas. Further easements would be required by the company. In response to questions regarding vacation of houses and replacement of wells and septics, Mr. Shenot stated no houses would be vacated. Residents would be provided with services until such repairs could be made. Residents will not be ousted out of their houses. He also responded to a question of visually inspecting the alternate site. They did fly over it with a helicopter, but did not inspect on the ground other than from the public roads. They don't trespass. .. -. --- . - ". , I Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1. 1999 Page 10 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) Larry Whitman. 3736 I 71st Circle - stated FERC will be getting hundreds ofletters of information that are very detailed. Because they don' know exactly where the line will be going through, they are responding within an area of75 feet from the middle of the power pole plus another 50 feet of permanent gas line easement and 50 feet of temporary construction easement. He thanked Mr. Shenot and Mr. Minnis for talking with them this evening. Steve Florman. 3755 I 71st Circle NW - felt that someone dropped the ball on this because they were not informed until only recently. IfFERC makes the recommendation for the alternate route, did he understand correctly that Northern Natural Gas is under no obligation to follow it. Mr. Minnis stated the commission will authorize a particular project. The company has so many days in which to file an acceptance of that certificate. These comments and the others that come in will be reviewed before a recommendation is made to the Commission. The Commission can accept Staff's recommendation, reject it or modifY it. The standard for the Commission's decision is whether the proposed project is required by the public convenience and necessity. If the company accepts the certificate, they must then negotiate any easements if necessary and has the right to ask for eminent domain. At that point the commission has no further jurisdiction. The company may also file for a rehearing within 30 days of the Commission's decision, after which it would be resolved in court. A resident was concerned with Andover's building practices, noting the encroachments into the existing easements. They see developers meeting minimum standards away from these pipelines. They see the construction of senior housing that is practically right on top of it. They are concerned not just where the pipeline is placed but about the issue of encroachment and what Andover is doing when people do encroach. Keith Barnes. 2073 I 70th A venue - is opposed to the FERC alternate route, as it would go right through their septic system. That is the only place on his property that the system can be placed. A concern is once FERC gives the certificate, they essentially have no choice in the matter except to take what the company gives them. Gre!! ? Argon Street - noted the FERC staff recommendation has already been made to go with the alternate route. He also asked about how they find out when the Commission has all of the information and who appoints the commissioners. Mr. Shenot stated they have made a summary in their assessment. At this point the recommendation from the Staff has not been made to the Commission. They will revise whatever information they have based on the comments they receive, then make a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Minnis stated they don't know ifthere will be any revisions, but they will consider all of the comments. The end of the input date is September 13. The commissioners are presidential appointees with the advise and consent of the US Senate. There cannot be more than three of the same party and the terms are staggered. Christe Singleton. 3836 171 st Circle - noted on page 28 of the assessment on Staff's recommendation regarding the route. They have heard from NSP and Minnegasco that the demand .... . -- - . - --- - - --- - --- .. \ , Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September I, 1999 Page 11 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) for this gas is needed. To her that reads that the proposed route is the only reasonable one. Mr. Minnis stated FERC does not address the demand for the gas. Jerrv Hemingson - stated the FERC alternate route would go right through his property with the Blanding turtles. He wondered if the comments from the Minnesota DNR are only for the proposed route or for the alternate route as well. Mr. Shenot stated they did not analyze for species such as the Blanding turtles along the alternate route. That information would be coordinated with the Minnesota DNR. He stated the comments from the DNR and the US Fish and Wildlife division included the vicinity but not the specific area. They did indicate there are turtles in the existing route that could be mitigated with construction. Those construction techniques would be applied to the alternate route. Mr. Minnis noted those items are under a different jurisdiction. Dennis Werkmeister. Northern Natural Gas manager of right of way - noted the comments of the Mayor indicate that the safety devices actually operated properly, as that is exactly what was supposed to happen. That is a positive statement, and it happened 20 years ago. The safety issues are continually improving. They look at existing pipeline and replace as needed to keep the system operating without incident. There have not been any incidents in Andover except where those systems were operating properly. A comment was made at a previous meeting that a property owner didn't even know there was a pipeline in the back yard. That is how they try to operate, as they do not want to intrude on the residents' properties. Their business is driven by the customers. Minnegasco and Northern States Power have said they need additional volume in these locations. Before evaluating their system, they looked at different alternatives. The need and distribution is all done by computer modeling. Time is of the essence. Northern has been preparing this along the proposed route for some months. In responding to a question of whether or not the pipeline can be installed by November I, Mr. Werkmeister stated that will depend on a lot of issues, and he reviewed the procedure they must go through before the project can even begin. Theresa ? 2073 I 70th Avenue - asked if Northern has been able to look at the FERC alternate route, the problems and which side of the power line it would go on. How will the line cross over the high pressure petroleum line? Mr. Werkmeister stated they have looked at it but not in depth, because their position is to construct in the proposed route. There are construction methods that would allow them to go under that pipe, but he doesn't know much without further research. They have commented on all the routes and feel the existing route is the most appropriate. They have agreements with 75 percent of the people along the existing route. They feel they can construct on that route with a minimal environmental impact. Another resident stated she could not find all of the documents on the FERC web site. Mr. Minnis stated some documents may be provided and others may not be in the public site through the web. He suggested calling the secretary of the Commission. . - --- . - --- --- - - ·~, I -. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September I, 1999 Page 12 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) Steve Florman. 3755 171 st - stated the enforcement of the existing easement has been lax and encroachments have been permitted. Can they expect the same pattern to continue in the future? Mr. Werkmeister stated a lot of encroachment happened before his time. In the 1970s and 1980s, they tried not to interfere with properties any more than necessary. When the natural gas companies were deregulated under Order 636, many companies wanted to start constructing pipelines. Presently they are trying to control encroachments. Easements allow the property owner certain rights and the gas company certain rights and are always open to interpretation. Encroachments are also difficult to police because of the miles of pipelines and the speed at which things can happen. They do public education programs, sending each land owner along existing lines letters yearly to make them aware of the pipeline and their responsibilities as land owners. That has helped, plus the company is taking a stronger stand on what can be in the right of way. That started about 10 years ago. Regarding safety, Northern Natural Gas has offered to train local employees and safety personnel at their expense on what to do in an emergency situation. They follow safety construction standards set out by various federal agencies and mark the pipeline above ground to make people aware of its location. Jeanne Hykes. 16526 Hanson - already lives on an NSP power line and the REA line crosses through her property. This would make three utilities across the front of her property. How long would it take to secure all of the easements and complete construction? She has her house for sale and wants to be able to tell people that. Mr. Werkmeister stated there are a number of processes to go through before construction can begin. It could be months or a year. Winslow Holasek - noted a study was done in 1996 determining the need for this gas. Why wasn't this built sooner instead of waiting until 1999 when there is an emergency need. Because of the rush, there is not enough time to have the issue thoroughly investigated. He was also concerned that the 16-inch pipe is more than they need. The application says it could be a 12-inch line but they want the extra capacity. Mike Underwood. Northern Natural Gas - stated they starting evaluating the peek heating days in 1996 to evaluate what would be required for year 2000. Today they are looking at the peek need for years 2003 to 2004 to be sure they are prepared to provide this gas for the enormous amount of growth going on. They decided to look three years ahead, but during that process they also had to build pipeline for 1997 and 1998. They want to construct enough capacity so they do not have to disturb the residential area again to add to the line. Pat? . 836 I 54th Lane - is not directly affected by the FERC alternate route but is opposed to it. She felt the process is broken. She thought the analysis should have been done prior to the FERC alternate being proposed. If that was so, they wouldn't need to be here this evening. Mr. Werkmeister stated Northern has been and did an extensive review of the proposed route. They have answered FERC's questions along the FERC alternate route and have sent that information, but the more in depth study was done on the proposed route. Mr. Shenot didn't know if better infonnation ., -. -- - . ~ --- --- ~ --- '-'-'. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1. 1999 Page 13 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) was available. The company sent the most recent information available, as it would be to their advantage to do so. Mark Jones - stated FERC does not have a response from the DNR on the proposed site, only on the proposed route. Secondly, he seems something unethical in the City. He felt that someone who has property on the proposed site asking to find an alternate route is underhanded, unlawful and unethical. He asked if anyone associated with the City owns land along the proposed route. Mayor McKelvey stated he did. Mike McGrath. Minnesota official pipeline safety inspector - stated they inspect the natural gas pipelines throughout the State of Minnesota. If Northern constructs a pipeline, he will probably be the inspector on that project. He received a copy of the environmental assessment through their Environmental Quality Board. Julie? - owns two properties affected by this in two different neighborhoods. Her biggest concern is the high voltage cable causing the pipeline to decay, potentially causing problems in the future. Also, how capable are they to keep track of leakage and replace the lines. Mr. Underwood explained the high voltage will induce current on the pipeline and will cause it to decay. They are required to compensate for that by providing more protection so the high voltage does not compromise the safety of the pipeline. There are new scientific measures that they can make on the pipeline to determine the decay and then replace lines as needed. The existing 8-inch line, which is 40 years old, is in perfect condition. They will continue to use it as long as it meets the requirements. Mr. Werkmeister stated Northern is only responsible for the trunk pipe line. Minnegasco and NSP are the distributors bringing the gas to the homes. There is no such thing as a natural decay of a pipeline. If they find a portion of pipe not meeting code, it is mitigated properly. The pipes are made of high strength steel. Adam Kapland. 3741 I 71st Avenue - suggested the 8-inch pipeline be removed and a larger pipeline be installed along the existing route. It would be the least disruptive through the residential areas. Mr. Werkmeister explained the 8-inch line is in perfection condition, and there is no need to remove or replace it. It would also be more costly to do so as opposed to the proposal of an additional 16- inch line. Arnie Hendrickson. Minnegasco Company - stated the comments that the benefits of the proposed pipeline is more for those people further west of Andover is untrue. The natural gas pipeline system balances, and all communities draw from that same pipeline. Getting that new pipeline is critical to this winter's supply of gas. In 1996 they had a design day for -25 degrees for 24 hours. They had this situation three times in 1996. The pipeline was modeled to serve the greater area, including Andover. There is a risk of not having enough supply this winter, and that is why it is critical that at least a portion of the line gets built before this winter. ,- -- - . - --- ----- ._.- ----- - -, I Special Andover Ci'Y Council Meeting Minutes - September 1. 1999 Page 14 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) Mr. Carlberg asked if the FERC Staff recommends approval of the alternate route to the commission, will there be an opportunity for public input prior to the commission acting on the proposal. Mr. Shenot explained the commission may decide to certificate a route with conditions, such as those conditions listed on pages 28-36 in the environmental assessment. If there are any easement requirements by the agency, it will be made known to them. No certificate would be issued that would circumvent any environmental review. Regarding the issue of what happens to the pipeline in 30 to 50 years because of decay. At some point, everything needs to be replaced. The volume of gas is under federal jurisdiction. Replacing portions or lines, all lines or abandonment would be under federal jurisdiction. There will not be another environmental assessment, though there could be a supplemental assessment or document. Mr. Carlberg emphasized then there would be no further public comment. Mr. Minnis stated at some point the decision will be made, including whether or not there would be a supplemental. They are still in the process of analyzing these findings. The comments this evening have been very helpful and they will be taken seriously. He can't say what the next step will be. Mr. Carlberg asked for comments on the legal authority of the federal agencies versus local jurisdiction. Mr. Minnis stated the commission regulates the interstate transportation of gas, and he provided a brief history of the pipeline industry. The city cannot supersede the federal authority. Harold Sullivan. Prairie Road - noted there is a pipeline facility off Prairie Road. What feeds it? Mr. Werkmeister explained their pipeline starts in Texas to service this area. From that trunk, the pipelines branch and become smaller in diameter. An 8-inch line goes under the facility on Prairie Road and taps into it. Gas is metered and the distributors ofNSP or Minnegasco take over. This proposal is to lay a I 6-inch pipe parallel and adjacent to that 8-inch line and starts in May Township in Washington County. Winslow Holasek - questioned how a 20-inch trunk can supply an 8-inch line plus the new 16-inch line and a 20-inch line that goes out of there to Coon Rapids. Mr. Underwood stated the pressure and volume are regulated at each point of delivery. Mr. Werkmeister agreed that Northern Natural Gas would provide those detailed calculations to Mr. Holasek. Mr. Carlberg explained the City requires a Special Use Pennit for the pipeline. The application was made for the proposed route, and that is where the City's efforts were placed. A public hearing was held and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the construction in the existing right of way. The City Council tabled the item because of outstanding issues raised by the residents along the proposed route. The City became aware of the right to intervene and to get these items of concern to FERC. A task force of residents was created to explore this and to coordinate comments of people along the proposed route, which were provided to the City and forwarded to FERC. If the FERC commission selects the alternate route, the company would need to ask for a Special Use Permit for that location and a public hearing would be held. However, the local jurisdiction is .. - ~ -- - . - -,- --- -- -~- -~-- ----- ~, CC Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September I, 1999 Page 15 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas. Continued) irrelevant. A lot of study was done on the proposed route through the process. He asked the FERC representatives what is the process on the alternate route. Mr. Shenot again noted the certificate issued could contain conditions such as obtaining the Special Use Permit. Mr. Carlberg stated the City became aware of the alternate route when it received the environmental assessment and FERC asked for a map to get the names of property owners. Someone asked how often a certificate is reversed once it is issued. Mr. Minnis didn't know. They will look at all evidence and make a determination. Because of the City Statrs concern, they are here this evening to listen to comments. They are trying to look at everything. A resident stated they feel they are at a disadvantage because that task force to obtain comments did not include anyone from along the alternate route. Mr. Minnis stated the weight of the argument has little to do with the quantity but with the quality. Jerry? . 1565 I Osage - is on the proposed route. He related the sequence of events regarding Northern Natural Gas Company's request to install an additional pipeline in the existing easement. They applied to FERC and to the City for a Special Use Permit. People along that route objected because at the time Northern had not mentioned anything about an alternate route. They don't want to force the line onto someone else, but they felt other options had not been considered. That is why they filed for intervenor status. That alternate route was known before the resident task force. Mr. Minnis clarified the company filed a proposal, and the only request is for the proposed route. In their analysis, they want to make sure everything has been considered, and that is why they are here this evening. There is no conspiracy to give one group an advantage over another group. Some discussion continued with residents along the FERC alternate route arguing and expressing frustration that they were left out of the process in the beginning, that they are at a disadvantage because this was not known until a few days ago, that the City should have involved them much sooner in the process, and that they are not being afforded due process the way this is proceeding. They have been shut out. They should have been told, and they felt the Cit is to blame. Now they do not have time organize, research and respond and have missed the deadline to file for intervenor status. It is a matter of justice. Mr. Carlberg clarified the FERC alternate route came through the process, though he didn't remember exactly when the City first new about it. The item was tabled based on the proposed route with no endorsement on an alternate route. This alternate route was created by FERC and has not been reviewed by the City because it has not been proposed by either the City or the company. The task force was not appointed by the City. Mayor McKelvey acknowledged there may have been a mistake in speaking only to the original proposal. The Council's main concern was to bring up the safety measures. He purchased his property knowing the pipeline may go through it. He doesn't have a problem with the pipeline itself, just with some safety issues. Mr. Hinzman stated the first time the alternate route was shown was on the map with the environmental assessment, though it was mentioned when FERC staff was in .. -< - -- - -- ~\ Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 1, 1999 Page 16 (Proposed Pipeline Construction/Northern Natural Gas, Continued) town on June 6 when they looked at the route. Mr. Carlberg stated the City was not aware it could ask for intervenor status for the alternate route. The City saw no evidence that that could be done before the alternate route proposal. They were dealing with the proposed route and then FERC came up with the alternate routed. Mr. Shenot explained there is a certain time period in which to file for intervenor status based on when the company makes application. Mr. Minnis again suggested even though the time for filing has passed that the residents request an intervenor status quickly and explain why it wasn't done in a timely manner. Teresa Kaplan. 3741 I 71st Circle - asked who came up with the alternate route and who submitted it to FERC, the gas company or Andover. Mr. Carlberg replied neither, it is a FERC alternate route. Mr. Shenot explained the alternate route is an existing right of way, and they often look for alternate routes along existing utility easements for the potential of using them to reduce other environmental affects. They received many comments in looking for other places, but there are not many places left where residents will not be affected. The utility corridors are obvious ones to look at. They came out in June and visited the sites from the public roads because they cannot trespass. They put out a public notice, which is the normal procedure. After their visual inspection, they requested information from the company a couple weeks later. They received that infonnation from the company with aerial photos on July 7. A resident was confused about Northern Natural Gas Company's options if the commission selects the alternate route. Can they build on the proposed route anyway? Mr. Minnis explained the company cannot supersede federal authority. If the company choses to refuse the certificate for the alternate route, they would have to start the procedure all over with a request for another route. Some residents were concerned that the decision has already been made. Mr. Minnis explained the commission makes the decision. Staff only makes recommendations. Nothing has gone to the commission yet. The residents still have a right to comment, again suggesting everything said this evening be written and mailed to FERC for the record. He again expressed appreciation for the comments this evening. Motion by McKelvey, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 2-Yes, 3-Absent (Jacobson, Knight, Orttel) vote. The meeting adjourned at I 1:3 I p.m. Respectfully submitted, \\~C0?L arcella A. Peach Recording Secretary . - - _ --- -