The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-02-04u c CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA February 4, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Adoption 4. Approval of January 21, 1992 Minutes. 5. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgment of the January Building Report. b. Approval to Classify Tax Forfeited Parcel 27-03500-011-27 as Conservation Land. ** c. Approval to Purchase 1992 Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. d. Adoption of RESOLIITION NO. 92-08, Resolution Designating the City of Mendota Heights as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for Administering the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. e. Approval of the List of Contractors. f. Approval of the List of Claims. * g. Approval to `�ncrease City Mileage Reimbursement Rate. � End of Consent Caleadar 6. Public Coamnents 7. Proclamatioa a. Proclamation of Ma.rch 1-8 as Volunteers of America Week. 8. IInfiaished aad New Busiaess a. Continued Discussion on FAA Part 150 Air Noise Mitigation Program. b. Discussion on ivy Falls Creek Drainage System Protection and Improvements and Discussion on Storm Water Utility Program Proposal. c. Discussion on St. Peter's Church/Pilot Knob Road Streets and Utilities - Feasibility Hearing - RESOLIITION N0. 92-09 - d. Discussion on MnDot Cooperative Agreement - Trunk Highway 13/I-35E - RESOLIITION NO. 92-10 C e. Discussion on Snow Plowing Policy. f. Re-Appointment of Planning and Parks Commissioners. g. Discussion on Council Meeting Schedule. � ' 9. Couacil Comments 10 . p,d j ourn m 4 ., r � S CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 4, 1992 T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ a SUBJECT: Add On Agenda for February 4th Council Meeting One item has been added to the consent calendar (5g)*. Item 5c (**) is being resubmitted due to an error. 3. Agenda Adoption It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda printed on green paper. 5c. Approval to Purchase 1992 Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. Please see corrected memo. The recommended low bid price is $12,539 not $12,839. 5g. AAproval to Increase Ci � Mileage Reimbursement Rate. Please see attached memo. .MTL:kkb . � 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 29, 1991 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tom Olund Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of 1992 Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer DISCUSSION• The 1992 Parks Department budget included $15,000 for the purchase of a Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. This vehicle is a small versatile two person vehicle which can be used to haul approxima.tely 1,600 pounds of equipment, ma.terial, etc and includes several attachments for grooming ball diamond infields, spreading fertilizers, applying liquid products etc. I have obtained three quotes and they are as follows: Cushman Motor Company, Inc. $12,539 Horst Distributing, Inc. 14,060 Reinders Turf Equipment 14,624 RECONIl�SENDATION • I recommend that Council award a purchase order to Cushman Motor Company, Inc. for a Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. ACTION REQIIIRED- If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing the preparation of a purchase order to Cushman Motor Company, Inc. for their low bid of $12,539. TJO:dfw M CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 4, 1992 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administr FROM: Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer �/ ' SUBJECT: Recommended Increase for City Mileage Reimbursement Rate The City policy is currently to reimburse 27.5 cents per mile for use of a personal vehicle on City business. We understand that the Internal Revenue Service has now increased the allowable reimbursement to 28�cents per mile, and are recommending that the City of Mendota Heights go to that level. There is actually very little use of personal vehicles for City business. The primary users are engineering technicians, with the costs being charged back to the projects. ACTION REQIIIRED If Council concurs with my recommendation, it should pass a motion increasing the City's mileage reimbursement rate to 28 cents per mile. LES:kkb Page No. 3203 January 21, 1992 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 21, 1992 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Koch and Smith. Councilmember Cummins had notified the Council that he would be late. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the �•� revised agenda for the meeting, revised to move items e and f of the consent calendar to the regular agenda. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the minutes of the January 7, 1992 regular meeting with correction. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 � CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Koch moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for December. b. Acknowledgment of the draft minutes of the January 14th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for December. d. Acknowledgment of a memo regarding a proposed TH 110/149 workshop. e. Authorization for city financial participation in the 1992 DNR helicopter deer survey at a cost not to exceed $350. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page No. 3204 January 21, 1992 f. Authorization for the issuance of a purchase order for $2,625 to Case Power and Equipment for a snow bucket for the new backhoe. g. Acknowledgment of a tabulation of bids received for a 3/4 ton truck for the Road and Bridge Department and authorization for the purchase of a 1992 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pick-up truck from Grossman Chevrolet for its low quote of $14,250. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 92-06, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO HIGHWAY 149) MSA PROJECT NO. 140-103-09 (IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 4)." i. Authorization for the sale of the old fire station property to the Tax Increment District for $140,000, and transfer of the proceeds to the Facilities Reserve fund to be amortized against future fire service contract billings. j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 21, 1992 and attached hereto. k. Approval of the list of claims dated January 21, 1992 and totalling $1,114,932.45. 1. Authorization to issue a purchase order to Quality Lincoln-Mercury for an unmarked squad car for the purchase price of $8,300 including trade in of a 1987 Cougar. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins arrived at 7:40 P.M. Council acknowledged and discussed a proposed amendment to the subdivision ordinance regarding final plat review. Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Ordinance No. 282, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 301," revised in Section 3.2(1) to add "except as set forth in Section 3.2(2)", and to stipulate in Section 3.2(2) �o �.�, � +� � ,�)r+av�M LEGISLATIVE POLICIES Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 3205 January 21, 1992 that the Zoning Administrator will determine whether there have been material changes from the preliminary plat and changing the word "may" to shall in the first sentence of the section. Council acknowledged and discussed a report from the City Administrator regarding Dakota County legislative policies for 1992. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the regional airport policy is contrary to the City's position on aircraft noise. He pointed out that since the City has recently asked the FAA and MAC for equitable distribution of air noise it could not now support section one of the policy recommendation. After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to adopt Resolution No. 92-07, "A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING 1992 LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ON ISSUES WHICH MAY AFFECT DAKOTA COUNTY," to support all of the policies except the regional airport policy, and to direct staff to attempt to amend paragraph one of the airport statement to remove the word "possible" from the first sentence and delete the second sentence or to oppose adoption of the policy statement if it is not amended. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. KENSINGTON PARK Park Commission Chair John Huber and Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander were present to review the Kensington Park concept design and to recommend preparation of final plans and specifications. Mr. Huber informed Council on discussions with Centex regarding acquisition of land and with NSP regarding burying, moving or raising the overhead power lines. He stated that the Park Commission felt that purchasing land from Centex is not a good solution to the soccer field problem and that the asking price of $35,000 is too great for the 23 foot wide strip of land. The options of burying the power cables or purchasing a lot from Centex were very expensive, and it was the Commission's opinion that the most prudent option is to budget funds to raise the power lines in the future if it is determined that the power lines impede use of the field. Page No. 3206 January 21, 1992 Mayor Mertensotto asked whether the second field can be moved further to the east if the NSP lines are raised in the future. Mr. Kullander responded that it can be moved at minimal cost. Mr. Kullander reviewed the proposed design for the comfort station. Mayor Mertensotto felt that there would be little utility in the _ small shelters, pointing out that they have no overhang. It was the consensus that the shelters should have overhangs similar to the buildings in the Mendakota and Sibley parks. Councilmember Smith felt that the child play area may be too close to the parking lot. Mr. Kullander responded that the proposed location is the only place the area would fit in the scheme of the park. He explained that berms and landscaping proposed to be provided between the play area and parking lot will provide an obstruction between the areas. It was the consensus that the play equipment should be placed in the center of the play area. Councilmember Blesener expressed concern over crea�ing a niche on the side of the comfort station for vending machines. She felt that the niche should be eliminated to provide more room inside the building for storage. Mr. Huber responded that the niche will mitigate the potential vandalism problem. Councilmember Cummins pointed out that the city has no liability with respect to damage to vending machines, and felt that vending machines would be well-used. There was discussion over dutch doors versus a roll down shutter in the concession/storage area. Mr. Kullander briefly reviewed the status of the referendum funds for Council. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith as to whether funds have been set aside for north Kensington park, Mr. Huber stated that the Commission consensus is to leave the park largely undeveloped until the community fills Page No. 3207 January 21, 1992 in around it. He stated that whether enough funding will be available will depend on what is done to the park. He informed Council that current thinking does not envision massive future improvement to the park - there is lots of intensity in the area and a quiet, passive space seems to be what is needed. After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to direct Station 19 Architects to prepare final plans for the three South Kensington Park structures including the vending alcove on the Comfort Station, replacing the dutch doors with a fold down door, and reversing the building plan to put the vending area on the north side of the comfort station, and providing overhangs on the two shelter buildings. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener moved to direct Station 19 Architects to prepare final plans and specifications for south and north Kensington Parks as recommended by the Park Commission and to direct that $25,000 of bond proceeds be reserved for raising the NSP power line in the future. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 AIR NOISE MITIGATION Council acknowledged a report from PART 150 PROGRAM Administrator Lawell regarding the Air Noise Mitigation Part 150 Program. Mr. Steve Vecchi, from the MAC, manager of the Part 150 Program, and Mr. Sheldon Strom, consultant for the sound insulation program were present for the discussion. Mr. Vecchi informed Council and the audience that MAC has been involved in the design process for the program for a year and has involved the noise affected cities in the decision making process by forming a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), consisting of representatives of Mendota Heights, Eagan, Richfield, Minneapolis and Bloomington. He explained that distribution of the funds is based on the FAA's five-year projected noise contour which is a 24 hour per day annual average. He then described the sound insulation program, purchase guarantee program and land acquisition program. He informed Page No. 3208 January 21, 1992 Council that 80% of the annual funding comes from the FAA and 20% from the MAC. The MAC must compete with other cities in its region for 14 to 18� of the annual $190 million FAA "pot." Northwest Airlines will pay most of what the MAC will contribute. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Vecchi stated that the use of money derived from the airline ticket tax is currently in a decision making process and that he does not know how much of that money will be annually dedicated to the Part 150 program. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether the City has an option to adopt one option one year and another the next year. He also asked if the Mendota Heights allocation for 1992 is only $227,600 out of the $4 million original Part 150 allocation. Mr. Vecchi stated that $227,600 is correct and that the PAC decided the allocation. He explained that the allocation formula decision by the PAC was unanimous except for Mendota Heights and Eagan. Mr. Vecchi explained that a system has been designed whereby communities can bank their allocation one year for use in another, and reviewed the sample documentation which depicted a system showed what would happen to the Mendota Heights 1992 allocation if it chooses to defer it for use in the future. He informed Council that the only drawback to the system would be if there were no FAA funding in the year subsequent to the deferral. Representatives of cities receiving allocations deferred (by other cities) would have to sign a memo of understanding stipulating that at the time a city would like to spend its deferred monies the deferred amount would be subtracted from the recipient city's annual allocation. Mayor Mertensotto asked how many homes in Mendota Heights are within the LDN 65 contour. Administrator Lawell responded that there are about 620 people in the contour, which includes the Lexington Heights apartment complex, all of the Furlong Addition, six homes on Pilot Knob some on Lexington Avenue near Wagon Wheel, and some on Rogers Road. Page No. 3209 January 21, 1992 Councilmember Blesener asked if the distribution formula is fixed or if there is potential for change if one community needs more money because of acquisition and another needs less because it is doing allocation. Mr. Vecchi responded that the PAC came up with the formula and intends it to be a hard and fast policy. He indicated however, that it may be possible to revisit the matter in the future after the program is implemented and its effectiveness can be evaluated. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith regarding the purchase guarantee program, Mr. Vecchi stated that it is theory at this point but he believes it is generally intended that a home owner could participate only after the city agrees to the program. An appraisal would be done to determine fair market value and after a specified period of time that the home would be on the market, the owner would be guaranteed the fair market price. If the home did not sell, the MAC would hold title to the property until someone subsequently purchased it. He cautioned that there would have to be a limit of five or six homes at a time, and that the PAC recommended that this be done on a house by house basis rather than program by program. Councilmember Smith asked whether sound insulation affects the marketability of the homes. Mr. Strom responded that in general people in other areas have been very pleased with the insulation program, which includes installation of air conditioning, and many feel it makes their homes more valuable to some extent. Councilmember Smith asked if it would be possible for MAC and the City to work out an appropriate use for acquired properties, for instance for park purposes. Mr. Vecchi responded that it is his intention that if the acquisition program were used, MAC and the City would work closely together and if the city wanted to acquire a parcel, it could buy the property back from the MAC. He pointed out that any money from the sale of a property would go back into the Part 150 pool, and stated that he would like the policy to be that the money would go back into the city's allocation. Page No. 3210 January 21, 1992 Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the LDN contour does not reflect homes in Mendota Heights which are substantially in excess of LDN 65 many hours during the day. He stated that no other airport has a cone-shaped 15 degree corridor and while funding based on the FAA's LDN contour may work on the west side of the river, it will not be effective for Mendota Heights. He stated that the MAC does not recognize that an allocation formula based on population within LDN 65 will only satisfy cities west of the river and does nothing for Mendota Heights. He felt that both the allocation formula and the use of the LDN 65 contour are inappropriate. Councilmember Cummins asked if LDN 65 is a federal mandate. Mr. Vecchi responded that the contour is limiting to all of the cities but it is the contour that the FAA uses to determine eligibility for the program. He stated that the MAC knows that some cities will ask for the acquisition program and that MAC might deal with acquisition differently. There may be other monies available in the future, such as the passenger facility charge, which will not be subject to the Part 150 distribution formula. He stated that he does not argue that Mendota Heights gets overflights more of the time. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the guideline were any home subjected to 85 decibels, there would be a ton� of houses in Mendota Heights that would be affected by the program, yet Mendota Heights is being asked to endorse the program based on the LDN contour. Councilmember Blesener asked if there is any potential for a land acquisition program where the city could use the land for park purposes in the interim (between MAC purchase and resale) or for long term use. Mr. Vecchi responded that he will look into the suggestion, but the FAA does not want the acquired land used for residential or multi- family use again. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Page No. 3211 January 21, 1992 Responding to a question from Mr. Joe Maegher, Mr. Vecchi stated that the LDN model is constantly changing to make sure it will always be current. He suggested that Council might wish to invite the head of the MAC noise monitoring program to a future meeting. Mr. Vecchi informed Council that he has until April to finish the design of the program and that he asks all of the cities to give MAC its priorities by January 29th if possible. Councilmember Blesener asked if anyone has considered how the fanned corridor during peak hours will affect the city's distribution and also the north end of the runway. Mr. Vecchi responded that all of the information would be inputted into the computer model and would be readjusted to the new flight tracks as operational changes occur. Administrator Lawell stated that one of the things staff has asked the MAC to do is to give the city the inputs that have gone into the computer model that determined the LDN 65 contour. Councilmember Blesener asked why the program doesn't start with people within LDN 75, then 70 and then 65 when the money is allocated. Mr. Strom responded that this was discussed by the PAC but some cities would receive nothing and some got everything. The PAC felt it was easiest to use the 65 LDN. He stated that any city can go back to the PAC at any time if it wishes to revisit the allocation formula. Councilmember Cummins stated that what Mendota Heights is being asked to do is to make a commitment on what the city will do with its share of the $4 million from the FAA. He did not think the City has the vote to change the allocation formula. He felt Council should recognize that the city has $227,000 to work with this year and decide if something will be done with the money or whether it should be banked. If the money were banked in 1992 there would be $455,000 available in 1993, which would be enough to do the insulation on all of the homes in the Furlong Addition. He suggested Council focus in on what to do with the money that has been allocated. � Page No. 3212 January 21, 1992 Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city is better off accepting the money that is available instead of banking it because the city doesn't control the flow of money in the future - there may be 35 to 40 homes that would qualify for sound insulation. Councilmember Blesener asked if it is the feeling of the neighborhood that the money should be spent for insulation or a long term buy-out program. She asked if the home-owners wish to try to preserve the Furlong neighborhood. She felt the primary question is whether the neighborhood should stay or be bought out. One resident suggested the city survey the Furlong neighborhood on what to due with the money. Mr. Bernie Biessener suggested that the city take the 1992 funding and do the insulation program. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the city look at the land acquisition program. Councilmember Cummins stated that if indeed the city is to go into the land acquisition process, it should not buy two or three homes a year, in which case it is possible that no acquisition would occur for five years or more. He asked what would happen if the Part 150 program loses federal funding by then. He felt that Council should look at the insulation program, which could be done quickly. He asked that staff get as much information as possible on the house count within LDN 65 as well as the minutes of the PAC meetings for discussion by Council on February 4th. Councilmember Blesener asked if the city can do a hybrid of all three options - if the city can manipulate all of the programs and move towards ultimate acquisition. Mr. Vecchi responded that money cannot be used for insulation of a property and then for acquisition later. Mr. Biessener asked if the city is in charge of land acquisition, including use of TIF funds, and if so whether relocation money would be included. Councilmember Blesener Page No. 3213 January 21, 1992 responded that relocation money is available through the MAC plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city could not be involved in an acquisition program using TIF unless someone submits a development proposal for the land. PAY EQUITY REPORT Council acknowledged and discussed a report from the City Administrator regarding submission of the City's Pay Equity Implementation Report to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the Pay Equity Implementation Report for submission to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TH 110/149 WORKSHOP Council discussed potential dates for a joint Council/Planning Commission workshop to discuss the T.H. 110/149 intersection and MSA ring-road route with Mn/DOT representatives. It was the consensus that the workshop be held at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, January 30th. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Blesener informed Council that she will be absent from the February 18th meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Blesener moved that the meeting be adjourned to 7:30 P.M. on January 30th for discussion of the T.H. 149/110 intersection. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk 0 MEMO Date: 1-23-92 T0: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for January 7992 CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE 91 BUILDING � � PERMITS: No. Valuation Fee Collected � No. Valuation Fee Collected � No. Valuation Pee Collected � � SFD 4 767,178.00 6,351.69 � � 3 487,904.00 4,257.01 APT 0 0 0 � � 0 0 0 TOHNHOUSE 1 85,230.00 957.23 � � 0 0 0 CONDO 0 0 0 � � 0 0 0 MISC. 2 10,240.00 153.00 � � 4 10,934.00 336.75 C/I 5 3,313,645.00 13,772.63 � � 4 47,417.00 768.90 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 12 4,176,293.00 21,228.55 � � 11 540,255.00 5,362.06 � � TRADE I I �ERMITS• I I � � Plunbing 10 395.00 � � 12 537.00 Water 3 15.00 � � 8 40.00 Sewer 4 70.00 � � 7 122.50 , Heat, AC, � � & Gas 73 841.50 � � 15 2,180.00 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 30 1,321.50 � � 42 2,879.50 .:u Licensinq: � � � � Contractor's � � Licenses 132 3,300.00 � � 169 4,225.00 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Total 174 4,176,293.00 25,850.05 � � 222 540,255.00 12,466.56 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Nac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 27, 1992 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Adminis r FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Property INFORMATION We have recently received the annual notification of tax forfeited lands from the County Auditor's Office. One parcel has been forfeited. Council must either classify the parcel for sale or request its transfer to the city. DISCUSSION The forfeited parcel, located adjacent to Roger's Lake Park, is entirely under water. Originally platted as part of the lots on which the Lexington Heights Apartments have been built, the subject lot was severed from the developable portion of the property when Mn/DOT acquired right-of-way for I-35E. At the time of the acquisition, all assessments against the original parcel were transferred to the Lexington Heights Addition. There are no assessments outstanding against the forfeited lot. Since the forfeited lot is not developable, it will not be returned to the tax rolls. Its acquisition by the City for expansion of the total area of Roger's Lake Park is the only reasonable use for the parcel. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that Council classify the tax forfeited parcel as conservation land and request that the property be transferred to city ownership. ACTION REOUIRED If Council concurs in the recommendation, it should pass a motion to classify tax forfeited parcel 27-03500-011-27 as conservation land and direct staff to request the appropriate forms for transfer of the parcel to city ownership. � -� ��. r : �'� ' i. ,, � '��1 T • ��; . Y �� .F. � �..�--_� ::�4. *,'Y}:. . , �..,-. � E �,1 + t�• .i{•' . .Y:� " . .. :rr y. �s�;$`:�i.:� � ' r. '+,.r�',t:•'�i.-f';`r ..'..-�,�,t,�."a•.1t:. :i.:',i. . . ' js' . . '.rf ' .!:�'. � -,l,p� }�-• F• .3'••'�tt��' I� j��f � , � ' . ' �r;ii f .. �'3 �„"?a 3 �. l.�.. � , ,, ��'f�� F.}� •?�j._:�.Si{• .,: ( (� /�{ i �t � r �: �1 .•I', ,r, -,,, !� �J + .d••.�'1•• ^�J ;.',± � Y:' . .r';�i;::. ;t 'n f:�: ..: ' � . �;'�•'.f �jl f•'�..��.:.:. ~ � /'� [�� y� .J� . �'.' �•:i � 1J,��L ,V� ' ''re. ll . f; ';. . I.`�- f � ... .' � .. ' ::'. } . . . • tL y r' � ' . .! c ' 7 � , a.E •+}}, ., •��r� , .'' " . J . ,+' 1�. . •:' ' f� .r� .f;; . ., , . " • ,: i:..'.�,```�,'i';��;�`�.�..�.4�`;,,.�.�.''.`�,xn,�-t,�`�;t . , ' `r' ��• .� , ..,, . ..�'��r ':4! � . . � .. .w.. . _ �..�.� .. _. �� -4!.! � i � � jj�'}',�� \ t `,1� � �� :%e. r .. • _ tT. . r.+'zv'•.Kl.. d t _ � \ A 'F.C'�t'�.��• ��'�Y, .s p"�'�T" f �. I � r� '�� _�;- �"��`�?�*%�'� �� . - �s�`,i� �` . „ .. �;��• 1.. � � � I -» . �....- .,..-��--�� ` , �� '� � � '�- p � ' I . ��`= ``,�"� t j`- t'� il�. � � � ir . 4 +r�,l - 1 � ' 4 ' .t � , -� . ( • 1. :.Y : L` nn�-�?... . . � � .r , . � . rF ^�j �}' �� } �t ` � ! /'l V ' . 1� ' ; ," 4 f I —� .�'N? 5� 9Qc� o° s�. � i � � : �z za� •.. � Qp-O�Z 04-102 Oq -01"L o0-OZ2 .'.. � ''"�? —i�b! j , o��I#�= � � �� :� � t -..o�,�-t .,._�...._�x....u�v...,._. . ,��' .� {.5��. � t� .�ti. ::...,-� 1 � � � pG i 0� Z1 vt j—iF/ -7cj qp�o'Li � i i i � . t ' y � �� 00-lll aQ-�-�ti ►Uc-oOl . �{ `j'�''', it�i > .-.f�..��•l,::%.j.� .��11. �+, .�.: .. _ -'f �� .i�i � :'FY ' T"S` � •:.E ��'��Z'. f � �?'' «'�i��'� •• ~ .,j �� °' � _:� :: J`. �'t . .�' y�,r;e.r �, '. �, k. ;'` {:,:. :�; ,` � .�i;:;r::•YfC.: � . �i �' � ' '; ;;F � 'i' Y,: .� ::. 1 � �'...,;.,.�•. i.,i ::ii� '•,�i � . '. � st : %�i'i:. � d��J�i+t�.i.4.+. ti�t r�:t�� M` ��', J�':'':��,�;'s :- f''s�;�' . r�:F' - ? �> :4 � •_r..! � '.y;�;; r',� 'i�. .�,Y.. �1�� ,..D' • �. f:x�r', / •. .. :�:�:;;,�;�t=: :�, j;:.;::;y? y�F � r '�;?:I;�... �:l <% �% :�4�z on-obo y.. .� � (j O - �' l. �' �,� .r� 00 - '� *? . ; ��.� o � oci _ ' :�4. bv � �' Qp 00-rc10 � OQ- � ' � o0 4u Q i . t\� ' � �� i 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 29, 1991 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tom Olund Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of 1992 Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster � and Groomer DISCUSSION• The 1992 Parks Department budget included $15,000 for the purchase of a Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. This vehicle is a small versatile two person vehicle which can be used to haul approximately 1,600 pounds of equipment, ma.terial, etc and includes several attachments for grooming ball diamond infields, spreading fertilizers, applying liquid products etc. I have obtained three quotes and they are as follows: Cushman Motor Company, Inc. $12,539 Horst Distributing, Inc. 14,060 Reinders Turf Equipment 14,624 RECONII�lENDATION - I recommend that Council award a purchase order to Cushman Motor Company, Inc. for a Cushman (4) Wheel Turf Truckster and Groomer. ACTION REQIIIRED- If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing the preparation of a purchase order to Cushman Motor Company, Inc. for their low bid of $12,539. TJO : dfw :; _� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1�s0 January 28, 1992 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adminis FROM: James E. Daniel Public Works SUBJECT: The Wetland servation Act of 1991 INTRODIICTION• The State of Minnesota passed a Wetland Conservation Act in 1991 that requires municipalities to designate a Local Government Unit (LGU) to administer the provisions of the act (see attached). DISCIISSION• Mendota Heights is located within three watershed ma.nagement organizations (WMOs); 1) Gun Club Lake WMO which encompasses most of Eagan, parts of Inver Grove Heights and the Industrial Park area of Mendota Heights; 2) Lower Mississippi River WMO which includes West St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, South St. Paul, Lilydale, St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and most of the residential areas of Mendota Heights and; 3) Lower Minnesota River Watershed District which includes five (5) counties along the Minnesota River and the area of Mendota Heights that drains through the City of Mendota. The Gun Club Lake and Lower Mississippi River organizations have both considered whether they desire to perform the duties of LGU and because these organizations do not have full-time staff, together with other reasons, decided to defer to the cities on administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. The Lower Minne- sota River Watershed District has decided to be an LGU in its area. Eagan, which also has a portion of its boundary within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District has decided to designate itself to be the LGU for their entire City which means there will be two (2) LGUs for the area within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District area. The main duty of the LGU as I now understand it, will be to administrate applications for filling or altering any wetlands. The State is conducting an LGU training course in February which I have registered to attend, after which I should know more about the requirements. I recommend that the City of Mendota Heights designate itself as the Local Goverment Unit (LGU) responsible for adminis- tering the provisions of the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act for the entire City. This will mean that there will be two LGUs for applicants within the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District area. ACTION REQIIIRED• If Council desires to implement the recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 92- , A RESOLII- TION Dl35IGNATING THE CITY OF MENDOTA HLIGHTS AS THE LOCAL GOVERN- MENT UNIT (LGII) FOR ADMINISTERING THFs WLTLAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1991. JED : df w ` City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLIITION NO. 92- A RESOLIITION DESIGNATING THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AS THis LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT (LGII) FOR ADMINISTLRING THE WETL1�fi�TD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1991 WSEREAS, Local Government Units (LGUs) must decide which LGU will administer the interim provisions of the Wetland Conserva- tion Act of 1991; and �1HEREAS, all neighboring communities to Mendota Heights are designating themselves as LGUs and the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization and Lower Mississippi River Watershed Ma.nagement Organization feel that the LGUs should be at the City level. NO� THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that Mendota Heights designates itself to be the Local Government Unit responsible for administering the provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of February, 1992. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk J ;. The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991: the interim Program The Mlnnesota Boarc/ of Water and Soll Resources (BWSR) ls the scete adminlstrative agency for the WeUend Conserva- tlon Act of 1991. Because we heve recelved so many questlons regerding the ect, errd �e lnierlm program beginning Jan. 1, 1992, the BWSR Js malling this documer�t tq meny of the organhedons end peop/e affected by the act. Arry further ques- tlons can be dlrected to the BWSR, 612-296-3767, or 1-800-652-9747. � The regulatory provisions of the Wetland Conservation Act take place in two phases. The first phase is an interim program prohibiting wetland afteration that begins Jan. 1,1992, and lasts through July 1,1993. After July 1� 1993, a permanent pragram begins. The programs provide exemptions and aiso allow landowners to "replace" wetiands through an approved replacement plan. So what exactly does the Wetland Conservation Act mean for local govemments and landowners? And when do their responsibilities begin? Between now and Jan. 1, 1992... • Local government units (LGUs) must decide which LGU will administer the interim provisions of the act. (BWSR is available to facilitate this discussion between LGUs.) Although soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) or any LGU with permitting authority can administer the interim provisions, the permanent program is more restrictive: only counties and cities can administer the permanent program in Greater Minnesota, and only cities, tovmships and water management organizations can administer the permanent program in the Metro Area. It seems logical to consider giving responsibility for the interim program to the LGU that will uttimately administer the permanent program. • The designated LGU should notify the BWSR that they have accepted responsibility for administering the act. If no LGU takes responsibility for the program, landowners with nonexempt wetlands will be prohibited from altering them. Moreover, since the BWSR will not assume local administration of the program, landowners will have no one to determine exemptions or approve replacement plans. •The BWSR will develop administrative guidelines for the iriterim program. After Nov. 11, 1991, a copy of the guidelines may be obtained from the BWSR (612-296-3767). The guidelines will be open �to written comment until Dec. 6, 1991. The comments and adoption of the. guidelines will be considered at the Dec. 18, 1991, meeting of the BWSR. After Jan. 1,1992... • After consultation with the Wetland Heritage Advisory Committee (a nine-member committee consisting of the commissioners of agriculture and natural resources� and seven others appointed by the governor), rule making for the permanent program will begin. .• • The BWSR will provide training to LGUs conceming the interim program. • The BWSR and LGUs will work together to let landowners know that they must get approval from the LGU before altering a wetland. � • The LGU must decide 'rf a wetland activity is exempt; 'rf it is, the LGU might want to consider issuing a°certficate of exemption." Although this certficate is not required, it will help the landowner quickly explain the wetland's status to enforcement officials. � � The commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for enforcement of the act. Atthough conservation officers are primarily responsible for this enforcement, other peace officers will assist the DNR. � • Exemptions include: = the proposed activity is in a wetland subject to federal farm program Swampbuster� require- ments; . � the wetland has a cropping history or was in `set aside" six of 10 years prior to Jan. 1, 1991; • the activity is in a wetland that was enrolled in the federal Conservation Reserve Program, was cropped six out of 10 years prior to enrollment, and has not been restored with public or private assistance; . • the activity is in a wetland that has received a commenced determination by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS); � • the activity is in a type 1 wetland on agricuttural land, except for bottomland hardwood type 1 wetlands; � � the activity is in a type 2 wetland that is two acres or less located on agricuttural land; � the activ'�ty is in a wetfand created solely as a resuft of beaver dam construction, or blockage of culverts through public or private roads; � = the activ'ity is necessary to repair and maintain public or private drainage systems, as long as wetlands that have been in existence for more than 20 years are not drained; • the activity is related to devAlopmAnt �r�jAc;ts and ditch (mprovement praJAct4 that havA recelved et least prellminary epproval wltf�ln flve years before Aug. 1. 1991; � certain activities related to Corp. of Engineer permits, forest management, aquacufture, wild rice production, and routine maintenance of highways, streets and utilities. • Landowners proposing nonexempt activities have these options: s The landowner and the LGU can agree that the landowner will replace the wetland within one year of the effective date of the rules governing the permanent program and that the replacement will abide by those n�les. (The rules will be effective about July 1,1993.) = The landowner can replace the wetland acre for acre (at a 2:1 ratio for non-agricultural wetlands and at a 1:1 ratio for agricuftural weUands) and type for type before or during the wetland activity. = If the replacement is required by a permitting authority other than the LGU, the LGU may defer to that replacement plan, providing that the replacement r•equirements are at least 1:1 (ag) and 2:1 (non-ag). • The LGU must establish a technical evaluation panel. The panel is responsible for making wetland delineations, resolving questions concerning exemptions and providing guidance on replacement plans. The LGU approves the replacement plans. By statute, this penel consists of a professional employee of the SWCD, a BWSR employee and an engineer from the LGU. (The panelists may add other members from the public or private sectors to provide edditional expertise.) • The legislature appropriated funds to SWCDs to serve as an information clearinghouse about the act and to provide training to local officials. PROPOSED INTE�IM PR�CESS Landowner (I.o.):Any Wetland Activity LGU Contacted � . Exempt Not Exempt Activity Replace ent Options Certification Future Replace Now Defer to � �f exemption Replacement (2:1 or 1:1) consistent 6ssued to I.o. > 7/1 /93 type for type local scheme �or specific �ite and a�ctivity. ��xemption cert. �� filed by LGU �� questions arise) I.o. t.o. agrees to � terms & LGU __ certifies proceeds with activity i.o. does �ot agree to ierms I.o. prohibited,from Commencing if Commenced, Enforcement Action LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL February 4, 1992 Masonry Licenses Eckert & Son Masonry, Inc. Moline, B.R.-Masonry, Inc. Excavating Licenses C& N Sewer & Water, Inc. Dasen Cont. Co., Inc. Imperial Developers, Inc. Marty Brothers Plymouth Plumbing, Inc. Schulties Plumbing Gas Piping Licenses DJ's Heating & A/C, Inc. Welter, Ray N.-Htg. Co. General Cont. Licenses Amerect, Inc. (Commercial) Kindy Const., Inc. (Framing) National Home Framers, Inc. (Framing) Twin City Fireplace Co. (Fireplace Installation) Western Steel Erection, Inc. (Steel Erection) Winsors Home Service (Framing) Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses DJ's Heating & A/C, Inc. Welter, Ray N.-Htg. Co. . Plaster/Stucco/Drywall License Custom Drywall, Inc. .r � ' . _ . . „ .. _., • . , ^ ' �'l?'�� .'�+ty��H�.G.+��,,r�::`2iht,,: '�T,f� �Y:�?•K�,�KZ > ;,+„;,,,;.�.i'.. ,�;�:;;4"«a;.•j: �FA`�,��,'.(�y"e�,�j..�,�'�'."�' �,�',�J i,�'?�� ±tet��t� •'�,��}(�2 �3'�.y� il;j"1". E k�t?, 2e'C�?� Y^J N�i ;3.�h�1.:;; :l;.KG'�Lt.:��rl,J L�,,t,,, c Z�:�,'tf{�yy 7. N;._.� � �� : v y�,,.. ., th�' _ � ;;� R ;� . �;r�L`��);.,:^4L+�t�"� ,, �:�t'�N'.: �'i �: t he.,i . . 0 February 4, 1992 TO: Magor and Citg CounciZ CLAIbLS LIST SUMMARY: Total.CZaimc Significant C2aimc Friedges Landscape MWCC Tracg FueZ UnusuaZ C2aims Park Const Feb service Gas s 97,503 11,763 43,526 4,693 i'; v�4'yix,,ii'�K.r '<:+h��'� ��'ari,'jk+�tc.,��.";�cQ,'ria� .•t�3� ':�:w<:'t�r^'.,.'°:i;'r2 ..:.,. 4�;; ' , (.�n,. ,,.,.�,',<t, tiY.ys �St�r:t. a�uo s�,�4; �l• � � yi?7" ;s,,. �A;�' °�:'�;.,tc^uN;,;`��4ft;' Y e: ` [p �•ti' i:;. . J.' " ' ' q � :;t:a`".J�. F v �� C`Y,,,�f.��:� „�x,' �i�i��.y,i`f�l;2 rv:� <,�.. �• r ,j... '`;ri ..�y.,K��;'� 'd:' ,%:��::;»!4•? w.�+,�'.+ ;Pi;l'�1;�:�;�,`�,c;�.,tf�, ;.,.,C�t'c�,5'. `��' .:I"'YF'v`�?;��"",`.';\`.'` .:t.:� "'�:x�^' �f•� � '!:'��-., t\: '��.� ;v� .SK• ��Lt.f. - ;� :'✓`12:_v�.♦ . � . , . . , . , _ , , '�.�S�::i` <: f;•�; :�„; , : �. � � ;..,:. `;. , . , ` • ;�'.r`:,=: , � ... . ' r' .. w •a: _. . . . , , � , , • •. • , . ..� ., . . . . , .v_• � . . ' - ' , - _ . ' .. . . , • . . , ; � . . . : ' .. ; , _ 5 ' _ .. . , ' t�.�. ` . , ' .` , ;i ,, � 1Jept 1u-Adm ueps �u-xoaas _�_ �. ___ .______.._ __._. _ _ .. ��" Z5-Engr 60-Ut.iZties '� i 31 Jan 2/9/92 Claims List 20-PoZice 70-Parks ��aqe 1 �ri 1:4k� PM Citv c�f Mer�dat� Heiohss 30-Fire $Q-P.lannin4 ; 40-CEO &5-RecgcZing Temo•-Ghenk-Niirnber-._.�__..... .__�.�,�_.._._..__.....__-.-- �,.....___ __.�___...____...�------�_ ._---._...r-__90�Ar �I TGiqC3. ��..�.�_,----c�,��k_..__..__.._.w__._._..__.__..n.____._._- -- --_--_____.___.�_..._.____ _..._.._..._____---_.�_�_ .._---.-----_...__r...--- �� s� N�unber Ver�dur Name Accc�u»t Cude Carnrner�ts � C�-AT-t�T ..-_,...._�_.----.___.____Q�1=4�-1Q�=�20-�Q�----_�_��._ __�Jar�.,svc___.___.._._.____. � $�._-1�ATi4T 01-421Q�-Q�5Q+-5@ Jan svc f I Ai&T Q11-4�i0-072t-7@ Jarr svc �a{---- 1-•F1TiC-T --------.---_...._.--2�1-421-QI-iL�SQ�-SO _._.__._..__._�_,_,_.-.�___-J�1Yh.Svc_ __.�.__.w_.__. t0� 1 A7&T Q�i-4210-@70-7Q� Jan svc �"� 1 Ai�T 15-4�#�1-�6@-6th .7ar� suc ''z' - - -- -•--_ j,3; �__......__.6�.- _..__._._-__. -- -� - _ ------�---------___.__,... ._....--------•------------ --�_.- --- _ _ ____. �'K� Tatals ierno Check Nurntse�^ i �17 Terno Check Nurnber .��___..___.. _` -- ------�---- -_�_._ _.._ _---.. ..__------._._.,.._--.----_.,.._�.___�----.-- 'a� —�--i-Arner-3-�ar�•-Natiural-Eear�k,-.—.--.�5=4��S�Q�m0-00� --.-----.i�e.._?8_bd,_.f.ee �— ,a , �.��0 4 � z� za --�"�otai•s��ma-C-heck-iVumber---- --� - ._.._ ._..�_. _ ��.._�. Iza ��rrt�o Check N�.�rnber 3 24 .�,.+� .. 3 I'� t . 4 w Arnattr,t � 5 6 6'1 7 t � S i.� a • 14.6� g so3� ' �3.0P3 � i�� t m-�2 7z� -~7 10..�.i3 - ia�"� IQi. �3 � ;s�.., �SG 8 i . �.`�7 7'7 , � ia r� . - , `$; � a � �0. Qy4'� — _...�_ —__.._ ^-..-- '___..„..____. _ 25. _. ._.____ . . .•26 , J Atlas Alarm Q�1-4335-310--5Q� svc call • .. ' 44.85 . 3a .- 3 Atlas Alarm Qr1-433.�i-31Q�-70 svc call 44. �J `, 35 �.-� z� ` -A#,�-�s--Rl�r-re ._._- �___—f'S=�4335.-.si0-6@ �v� ,-at.i � . 3& 28 �___..,... 37 38 '"` 24 134. 5� ag � 9 a0 ra33—C�re�k�—Aiurttbex� , , , ao 31 ' � � , ,. ' , , y . . , _ 47 y3 , Tema � Check ,Number � 4 � . , " .. " „ , _ , . .. .. - _ -` , , ` '.v , �� 43 � , aa ad 4 Citv Matc�r Suvolv # 01-433@-490-70 oarts �,8, gl a5 35 4 City Matar 5upply 15-43aQ�-49Q�-60 oarts �g. i� a�� as =6, '+� a' ' 4 City Matar. 8upol�v �: � ` Qi.-4330-49Q�-50 , , . " �" parts � ' ,. , . � l i4�.67 `` ,,' as 3 b �, . . . . " 61.�� , ' ' S°�..� �`39� . � ;G C1tV Matcar SuPpi'�r , „ �01-4330-49Q�==5@ .. .. �' . . .. Qarta � � • � '"�" ' <.� _. . a �„ , . :+ sz 4Q 4 City Matar �uoply ,15-4330-49m-6� narts �+3,g�, sa!t 41 -----»—• 65 '^J ••• 42 7 56 y 57 '63 Totals Ternp Check IUurnber �y ' � �4. � . w ` , , , � . , , . ' - • `� , , ' z� . t � '» ' se� , � ^ _ . ' , ' . .. . . . . '° . • � s " � � ' . s ' ., d 59 .�9 ., x. � " " � �t: , . , .. � ... ., -� � - � . ^ ' , � " 60 fil 47 62 /.' � 5 City af St Faul @i-43Q1�-@2Q�-20 Nav svc 13.@i� 63�-� �� pg 64 - 4$ .z-:: 5 , . . ` 9 „� " _, i , , , k < < > . . _ V; , � . - , , 13. 2+2t _ ' ... � ' ' ss � .sa ��'Totals 3emo Check IUumber � -5 „ .� . .� ` ` ' , • • ° f , . -� � ` � ., s� � 61 . , ;; . > q � . . .. , , . . . � £,5z ' 'i'ema Gheclt Number E, sa �o Q i ,, 63 7� y 64 _c �2 68 . , . . — _ , " ' , ' . ' ' . . ' .. .. . � > ,.7 . a . ., � ,.. ., ` x j 68 ' . , .. ..., , ' � ` " 5 , ,s � .. , ` ' . . .. .. - � .. , .> . >. - . � ; , � � �. . 7B �I , , : ,.� , � ;. ., o , ., , : � , . . M. � , ,. . . . � . � 7 � .. . . , ,. � ..,. , ..� , �� _,. , ; -- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- - — - - _ . _._ _ --- _—_---- — — 31 J�n . Clairns List F��oe � _- Fri 1:40 F'hi Citv c�f Mendc�ta Heiohts � ernp•-G-t�eek-Ni�mber-------- 6._._ __- ---- -- --- ---•- ----- -------•- . i: �Temo. `_� �` a, Gheek-- _____�___..__�__ _ _�_�..,_�_—..��---•---_-.--,--..�.�.__----- --------- -. -- • �5 N�_unber Vendor N�rne Rccaunt Cc�de Ccmmer�ts Arnount 6 � -�cymm-�e�-�ter -- — Q�L-4330=430=50---------...----- ---rors---- --- �4..bi0 ". e , ---- a 1� 234.60 _ �o. Tc�ta-i-s-�emo=Eheck-Number -----6 ----- - -------- ------ �,iil12 Terno Check Nurnber 7 73 _ —..� _,.__.._.`"" _. __.�._'__-._�__..._."_ _'. _._.�„'_.'�`._.__ _." _ _ _"_ "____ � �a� 7 Cooy Duplicatir�o F'rc�ducts 01-43@5-050-50 Jan cc�oies 8.45 16� ____.�.�_ �__'_ _�_".r.__._.___.__'_�__..��" ."_'�"�___'__�__'.��_'___ ____ 1 EI A.f1 J �� Tc�tals Temo Check N�unber 7 ,a ie' �rnp-Gheek-N�unbe�-- --�-----�.- .___ _-_--- ------------ ---- ' zo� � 21� 8 Crawford Doc�i^ �- Q�1-4335-31@-50 "_ rors 31. 5@ •• zz -Eraw•Ford-Dac�r-- ---Qid-433��.31-Q��-70 _�Y�__r-or-s---- --- �1-.50� 23 8 Crawfc�rd Daar 15-4335-31Q�-6Q rors 31.50 za-- ----- � �4-5ID I26 � Tc�tals Terno Cheek Nurnber A 8 y � � .� �� , ze �rna�h�-��;:�rnbe�-- J ------ . 29 -30 9 Dakat� Co��nty Charnber af Cornrn 21-4490-@00-0Q� svc directc�ries SQ�O.Q�Q� ai` .. 9 ' . " ' .. �_ 500. Q@ � 33 «:, ' Totals Ternp Check Number 9 � ' , '� . 34 Terno Check Nurnber 10 ~ 35 • 36 37 � . _ _ � �1�l�11=S��m-5m }�r cin,Xyal Ci+y cF�ara _��A A7 , _i 38 . __ .. , a . , , , ^ . .. ` ______ ' , - , 1.� � , • � ,. � . � >. • � . , . . ." as • . . . . . , • - .... • • . 338..97 � � . itinber :0 ` ° "� '''a, �-' 4Z Temo Check Number 11 43 . " 11�James Danielson � 05-4415-1@5-15 . . . ' Feb aliaw ` � - • , ' ii0.0@ • ' � �. -- . � ,. `, . , ' ' , .. , : . ------ � � Tatals Tema Check N��mber 11 47 ;� ' 9 .. . . , .. . , , , . , .. __, so " • 12 Dennis Delrncnt �` � � • � 01-4415-�2@-�0 ' � - Feb al law � , ` , 1�0. 00 � . 61 ` i 62 1 ` ' i�Q�. Q�Q� �� 63 Tatals Terno Check Nurnber 1� 4 64 66 --' s6 . �Terno Check Nurnher '• 13 , , , � • _ , , � �, �• ' � � ` ` � ' � ' x . - � '• . ` ° . >� . . , . � , -- ----- :� � ' • , _ . , . ; ~ . � . , , . . �-�- .� ;.-�-�--��.._..�_--�-__�__-.�.� ., , :.� . - , ,-. , • , : ,.- . :. . .. . . . _. , _ � . s , _ . . ' . � '�� • (-.7 '1f,,, . .__..... j4I 31 �dri 1 i Fri i :4Q+ F�M Temp. �a -----Gheck-- -�-----_�_,.__ 5 , 1Vusnber Ver,dar Narna 6 c5 �' � Tatal� Temo Check IVurnber .a 9 -- Temcr-GMe�k-Number-----•--- I' ° � j(" 14 F'aul Dreelarti 1�2�--.� _..�__—__.______ 14 Tat�ls 'Ferno Check }Vttraber� Claims List .___..____. Gity^�fTt9errdcta tieis�hts _--- -. -- . _�._----------..___ _..._.—..___.-.____.._.___ ___._ - --_... __ .._. ____.. .�..__. _._._..._._.___...------- �._,.�._.._ Rccaunt Code Ccrnrnents ia�. .__ �..___�_ . _ __ _� ..._ � _-. . . Q�1-433�-315-3� _ .._�------ ---___ __ exo reitab- -- _ . . ___ .____.____ 14 Terno Check N��mber 15 w ^ 1�5-�i�-st.+�ne-Cabir�e.tr-v-.Inc--. 01 �_4131.-�:-�0-.:yfl �_-.----�..._-----_._Feb Re._�a�rlcck_. ____ _ __ __...- _ #� � , ' • " ,-c��a�-s�--�"ernc�--C,t�ec�k-hlurnber---.._.___l�.__� ' __._._ _��r._�__.------��..�_.____ . ____----__._ __ �_.. .. _ - --_ - - - -- 1 � Raoe 3 � Acnc�unt 3�_ti4 3@. 24 78. Q+Q� . . 22 ~� 29 '23 iemo Gheck Ntirnber 16 30 � 35 ` 24 32 25 i6 Friedges Landscaoino � 0�-4460-@@Q�-Q�0 � � oymt 8 89-6I ^ � 11,"763.4� , ` a3 ^� 26 .< Y � __�..._____ " ' �5 Y„f 27 „ � � _ > > � .. __�_..�l.a.�i..�.,�,_Jt.s�t ��" ' 3G Ze Tatals Ternc+ Check Number �y` 16 � � � � � � ` � � 3a � 29 � 39 •. 3 ffl�'32i" — � 7 . 44 31 a � x • . • , .. , . � � o e • . � 47 ... 32 _. , s y ; , 42 (""` .: 17� Fue1 # Oi l Sv.., c � � : Q�i-430a=05@-5@ ` so1y� � _ , . . , 4 . "9: 8'� � aa kw� `a �e� 8� � �� e " . � �Q�1--1+30�--th-7�_.=.?sr� . . snlar ' , � 'a 17 Fuel Qi.l Sv c 15-43@5-@6@-60 solys �•8� 4g 36 " �___.. 46 � _— � 47 35 f� qg " Tatal� Temp, Check Number� 17�;, - > � - . , - � . .. R ` '. "' " „ , , .. . a9 4�38"�m. . ,;;f" ` .a ..^��i , .�+, � - �. � .. � .. ° ' . a . o �r � , ^�, y`�. . ., r � 'd. , . Stl:l +� r .F;c . ~ 39' i�..i:�crs—e-re.�h1;�#Iv23".� � �' '�" . _ ^ . . .. 52 40 ' 63 " 18 First Interstate B�nk Trustee Q�1-2071 Feb prern 196.76 ssr-1 as e Q.tl�4i32-4t�@-2fd FRh ss 43 ° 18 Firat Irr"tar�tate L�ank ?rustee @i-413�-@50-50 . _ � > Feb prem.�,�,, ,�� : . ° � .. 21": 08 ' . . s7 .,��; g � . . 59 �'"�') � 44 � 18 First I»terstate` Hank"Trustee • 01-4132--07¢�-70 ' ' � ,. Feb prem n� � . " ` , " . �5.57 � :< - • 69 q5a ' . ... .. . , .. - . , , ... e. . �„ .. " . 6 � 7� ' , s ^ , �:. �. . .�+� . , . w�l l ^'C. 8�/ A 62 .. . `� Tota15 Temo Check Number 18 6�~� ' 48 6 as - Ter�o Check• Nurnber` -, 19 . .�. • ' = v .. , . .. � , _ , , - ,> , „ � � ss } .� 's� . , , t' � . 66 �J 60 � ., "v, • " , .. , �,. t . . . .M , , . : M , ' , .. � . � a. g7 � 61 t� . ... � " , " , " . 58 52 — _ ^____ 68 �� 63 �� 19 • 95. 0Q'i » 64 72 66 + � ,. ' � . . . _, u . W ' � « . . - . _ , , ' • .K x V ^ , , , • ' • 74 ♦ - Tem�a Cheak Numtaer. <. PQ� • � 4 , • < . .. �s �' � , - ` . ` ° � � ' . . � , `,, , � � �j 2�D I F C I �1-44Q�0-i5�-30 mbr'sho dues 3Q�.+DQt �".� , _ . . . . . _ , - ' . i= � . � - ; .,. ;;-, . . ; � . • ' - ' "', ' . . • . , � � - .. . � ' �{ _ . .. - -- - .. _ , .. .. , .. . ' ' ' • . . . � _. . • . �' ' " ' ' ,(.�_ . . ..... . . . 31 Jar� 1 Clairns List Fri 1:40 RM Citv of Me»dc�ta Heiohts � rrtp-GFreck-hl�tmbet�---- -2@----- ------------------------- --__�� •.i s 3 Terno. � -heek --��_------- --- --- --- ---�- ------- 6 Numher Vendar Name Accc�mt Cade CCrnrnents 6 7 , __— ____ .�.___'—�___�'_� _"--_ ' 8 �Q� . 9 � Totals Terno Check Nurnber 20 , o+ —__�_� u_ _.�.� � Terno Check Nurnber �1 _ ,i� . 7z� ' 1 I--O--B - -_-�1-43¢�4�-11@=10----- - taner - --- f74� 21 I O S T. -�_ _ Q�1-43Q�Q�-030-3@ ------ -- -- taner -_.__,. .--- - 76� 21 I O S - 01-430Q�-04@-40 �— � toner i�B-S— ��-4e@Q�-32��-�;� ---t anen-�----- �� 21 I O S 15-4300-060-60 tc�ner � e --- 19ic _'__.�_" ___� �__�.�� ` Za� Totals Terno Check iVumber 21 zi ss � ems+-C-Meek-iVtxn�er—=�2— - ------ -- �. '23 24 �2 ICMA 01-44@4-110-1@ 9� dues 25 — '_._�___�.�___""�_.—__�_._ � .,26 ' �� 27 Totals Terno Check IVurnber 22 • ze — 29 Ternp Check Nivnber 23 .� 31 ; ^ . _ � ^� . -�-.1$—Da�r�1 1 _ 3z ,, 23 I'C M A. R T, , • �� Q+1-4134=110-10 i/10 payrc�ll _ 33 ' , . ` y , , ' T .. 34 Totals Terno Check Nurnber �3 35 36 37 ' , Raoe 4 Arncur�t JQ�. Q�Q� 35. 4@ 35. 40 23.�Q� 35. 40 aui�. 724. 00 ai '. - az %��F. Q�� 33 !34 � 35� � " �36 37 aa � 39 ao ' -- 94. 24 ' . at �i 42 � ^^^ ^^ ^ 43 � � . . 4 . a . ' • .. x � .. ` � � ,. - 'F' >. • . ' � ' - 24 Paul � Kaiser , ^ , . . 01 �=4268-15@=30 � . . Jan svc ` . . 1, 790. �5 ' ' " �.39 s`< ' .. . ' . • . . .. ' . ao - - - � ni reirnb " ` L.13 41 �F8 42 1. %�=i. J8 6 - ' Temp ..Checit Number . . a 25 • , . . , .� , ` - " ° ...< . - ' "' � , . . >. _ � 25 Knox Cornmercial Credit 01-43@5-Q�70-7Q� solvs �94.�6 a� -'� 25 Knox Cc�mrnercial Credit 01-462@-0�7@-70 splys 110.42 flf� •.......,:,�,-��v��,i r....-.za�"� �i=1i•�Qicd=OTQ�—vm GOl-VG 3] �O� a9 • 25 Knox Commercial•Creiiit 01-43@5-@30=30 �' : splys ' 454.39 so �S Knox Carnmercial Credit ` 01-4305-070-7Q+ •' solys s " f k6.71 ..61 ; <,. 't @�►3��-050-50 ` spla� � � 19 74 • � . 62 • • "� 53 1 JQ1 ` 64 773. Q�2 6s - rnber 85 ; sz 53 54 �" • 55 �-! 56 57 58 : ` 59 \.� 5� „Ternp Cherk Nurnber � e; V 26 ' • � � ° - � � - - , f . � ' - � -� . " ` - : i , 76' } . . � . .� 26 Knutsan Rubbish Service 08-4335-00Q�-Q�0 Jan svc 6Q�.06 �..,� � ` . ' . ' _ _ . . .' •- ; . . . . � � -• - ' - . `�`� :_ - � . .. - . _- _ ,. . ; . , � . ' _ _ � �}�„�. ' " ' " ' . ...�. ._ . _ -,r� JS �TcIY� .. Fri 1:4¢� Fhi �� --� - -- ___ �' � . 3 Terno. a Check ..._.-... S Nutnber Vendcr Narne t Claims List Gity of hlendata-Heinhts ---_..------..____..__.----- -. Raccunt Gade '..A._�____ _...�_.A.....--.Carnments._ ��2OE J ..._�..___.__.......�__....._.�.__ ._ _._�..„_� 4 �. 3 Araa�tnt � U� ,.� � s �� ._.... _._.__ _ _ — T 6Q�. Q�6 0 ,.�_ ` Tatals Terno Check Nurnber �6 - � ��i) � .._' _`_' _. ._..._____....._.. __ __.._...__.___..,.�� ..._.,. __ _._... ...____..,,.». ____ .,_..__"_ _......�..._r__...�»•--j=J Terno Check Number �7 _ � �, � . - ��c� ---�-."'�laamas...l�nuth- --,-----_._.-9.3�.4.41�_7_03-0Q� ._---__._---_..___. ___..mi.reirnb_._--_,___._.__.�___,—� il-.?�___...---------------t;°� 27 Thamas Knuth 81-4415-83@-00 rni reimb ��.W7 ` 27 l'h�rrtas K»uth 4�5-4415-#05-15 mi reirnb 3.3Q� �,Q! 3 � —=-��a�hc�mas--Kn��tka-.--.. �___�-_0�=4A15'105.-_1.:,_.___.___�_._._._,. _,,.....�Eeb allaw.____._..---•--_----__ _1_R�_Q!�! _ _�...�_�..r�� za ----- �;' � -- _�•; 3fcx8 47. k� zs .� r^}=1..�-Temo-Check_hiurnber ,...��.._.�7, �.^�. __^ __�_.-_.._._ .�-„_.___._..____..__,_,�..�.-.._ — � .� ° • � _ , ' - - , - zslt,... Terno Check Nurnber �8 , , z�!' 3 - za ____- ,- ^ ----- -------•--._...__.v.��__.�..,.__-�. ' _ 28 l. E � S Q�1-�Q�75 Feb due� �75_@�h �so:-. � -- 3i -�—i-$ . - . _..�_�..,.,.�_—._....._. _._...._.� ryG%J. QiQ� 32 Totals Terno Check Number �$ � 33 . . 34 f� ��. ` . , • • 35 �� x' ��-EtflC3—C`�F-'IE'C'�i{—Riltfqi3@t^�.... " . ^+Lj,— . ' ^ �. , "' -36 . _"'____...__._—._ ._.. 3J 29 4eague af Mn Cit3es Q�1-�€�74 Feb �rern 41@- 18 39�.+� �n � �. -�.-�,� "'r--G3#.a-es �,t-�x��-��0-�0 Eeb.�r�t 813.:�? 4a ^ . � . . • .. � . � _......---^- � . < , a, . , °m 5B � , ,< . . - � � ' , " 1. 2e3. 45 • . � • � � � �! �� ` .._�s _o _ r+.. 'c�t..�,�,it=--N�tmbBi^ - cry9-- ' - . - . . ., ... as 45 Terno Check Number 34� a� �� ' ' as ` _�' 30 M Thamas Lawel l �' � � s . r 01-441.5--110-10 . , a ,� ` Feb al lcw . . _ � � ` 175. 00 ' , - • 49 � , ; r� �., u .,. a � " . . . .. „ ' ' .. .. � , . .. ... y�„, 50 � ��;; > :.r. .�, �� r ', � . ..: ; . `r' ,. A ' .. . . e .� . . . ., ,. �_��... .. ` , 51 . . ' . x,.. , , . .. .., a. ' . ' b2 7ata1� Ternp Check Nurnberb 3Qt sa 54 .""� 65 " �„—Trc-n,r"•^Q—�f"k--�ittii _ _ _ . - 5fi �� . :. ; , � , k -0 .� . , �„ ,,, 51 ' 31 L�wsan �'raduets . � . � < ` +L�1-430.�'i-040-40 ` � ? . - '� ' solys' .- � „ T , "44. 8Qt ; � . ,., a , ' ss �� .a� : '7� - � l':. .. ' . , t .. . . , 6 s? '„44. 80 e� Totals Terno Check Number 31 63t-� ' 84 .:Temp Check Numher:.,;r.,• �•. 3�, , x n g .. e .. Y . . . .. _ �' �., , _ ... � . ,' : r.,� . ; se : 3�-k.eo�f � 8rcx - . . � . 4.�j.�.v�-z _ .,� ' , ` . , .. X� � ' � � 6s �i o _, 32 Leef �ras f�1-4335-31id-�fd 3anX svc Ic. 7Q� �$ �o � 3� Leef Brt�s 15-4335--31Q�-60 Jan svc 12. 63 �+ � �z , '' 96 h . :, k ` ._: . .. , z ` � .�,. � . � ` , � < , 38. �L+3 " . .� � „ � ,' j , �, ° . . " - Totals Ternp. Check Number� , 32 , ,. � � ,- „ : .. , .. < , . _. ,�`, , . , . , 7e`,. , , - . � � �"} !' _ � .., , . , . . .. ` _ - � _ �. . , ' - - � : � - . . - " . � � ' ' .. . ._ .,- ,` ' �. • - . ;r_ ...__� __ - - ---�---- -- - -_ � __._ j 31 Jan ., Cl�irns l.ist Gaoe 6 �' Fri 1n40 ��M City of Merfdat� Neiohts ,� �erna-GMeek-Nurnber ---�3- _ --------- , j 3 j Terno. ' Check- - --�— - -._..�__.___� �.-------_________._��__..� ._,. _v... ;61 �s Number Vendar Narne �---�.Y —__�.— Accourst Cc�de Cc<raments Amaunt g ;—�-��cc 3rr-ber�ef-i� - —Q/�+-1��+7h{-/� ^ —Feb - orern—__....__ 80..�h0 33 �incaln Renefit �LJ�'45�1��L�L��40 3�n Feb arera 343.Q+0 �g� 33 Li�,cuin Rer;efit Qsi-4f31 11�A 10 3�n Feb orern . SS6.Q�0 99 Tctals Terna Check 1Vurnber Terno Check N�vnber 34 ,s3 __._____� .._so l vs--- 34 �-co#�d�-T�emp -Gheck-N��rnber -- —,34..-- �.�._._._--- ��__- Temo Check Nurnber 35 35 hled Centers H P � Q�i-�074 ` � � Feb orern� 35 Med Cer�ters H�' 0�-413k-11�-iQ� Feb c�rarn --a�-Med-Ge�,ters--i�i-F rn1=4�,3d-=@2�-.:'.Qi --------_w_�_Feb._orecn--- 35 Med Cer�iers H P 01-4131-Q�40-40 Feb nrern 35 Med Cerrters N P Q��-4331-Q�50-5� Feb arern =--3-�5-h1ed-6errterss-H-r Qt�..=-��:i� �h7�=�-�if �`eb.-arern— 35 Med Centers M R @5-4131-105--15 Feb orem 35 Med Centers N F Ql8-411@-00@-4�Q� Feb arern ---Qo-Med--��rte�s--i� �� i�sr-��#=06Q=64a , `�<',�-4ar-ern.— < 315' . � ' < rnbe "c Ternp Check Nurnber 3B . 36 Metrc, �1rea Mgr�A�sn' . , . ' 01-44@Q�-.il¢�-1Q� � , 1/16 mtg . „�. . -- , - A .. < : � x: ,^.,"e : , .: ... �4 . . .; • - ' c ., � . ,-��- � . . : . ._,.. �. ._ _ . . . . _ . Totals Temp Check Number 36 fAbB..;^ o� �"��h 37�Metro Waste C�ntrol. �. � '15-4449-@6¢�-60 "• �/ � Feb svc =—=-'-o��e"fYQ-��55�£- �6Yt�il"E��- ��.9v�d� �£�3-SY 74 �,� �+�� ` T._.i- .. T ... T.-..tiii�'V1'tC�{itlEYi . �' . . . s, Temp , Check Number ' 3Li � r `„ -• 38 Milier F'rinting tt�l-�r3Q�0-31@-ifi envelc�nes 38 Miller Grintino 01-43@Q�-030-30 " ?n "":,,^n-{Sn�nt&ne �l=s�a@0-0�r@-=s►@ �� ... � ..,°' .�.$ fii1��ZE3" �i^lY3'�.lYt$ ;. ,,. .., ... ��.'�t}�w�Q{"�JQI—�JQt ' . �� .., , �o � . , ' ,,. F . � p ., � 6Qt9. Q�Q 3�4. 4� 2. 478. 3Q1 1. 39�. 60 �.�`�.�1�� J" JQI. �QI 1 w a�..Q��. uJ i�.3.7 � a 421. 30 S3%.J� ,� 1 '�.f7J1Zi 1 @. 036. 80 � a , ' 15. fAQ� t. � , ,. ----- . . ' `, � �,� � c , 46, 321. 08_, , 43. ��6. 0@ z�si.�• � zT zs zs so } 32 32 33 3a,,� 35 � 3G 37 38 � 34 ao a� �� az � � ' 4a , .. � as as ,^ a� �-� ae F 44 .. .. • SQ r� 52 53 sa f� � 65 '��. 56 57 68 r�••'y 69 �.l 54 61 � 62 ... } 63 �.... 64 66 � 66 � " 6e � i 61}. 5'""J 164. .�.r'S 1F4 '`i-''i , i�sj}. �J�J " -, j �..) . ., ' . ,�..� _ `�.\ .4.� ' . .. , _+� � � .. ` ' . . �'~-: -- - ' -•�� ' (. - � - - .< • _ "- - ' . � ... " _ _ _ _ - � . - . s . :�1 � - .. . ' ' . . • , . i • n . . . - � • • . ; ., . -_ . _ti`-^'•"� .: , ..:,. .. :� ::c'% . -- . . � „ . . . . -. `r, . . . � : , - . . . . _ � � r . _ , ..,. y 31 J�n 1 Clairns List Fri 1:40 F'M Citv c�f Mer�dc�ta Heiohts � - - �-T Ternn-Gheck--Nurnber—.-..-----38--- — « _,_.,--------.---.-- -- - -- . -- .; � - - -_— � Temo. �; �' ---Check_�_,._�._--•-- -•-- _____�._�__�._��_--------------- ' - -- - �.�. _-_._ -------- - -- - ----- 5� Nurnber Vendar Narne Rccc�unt Code Cc+rnrnents ,'ri---38--M31�er>-F�nir�t-ir,o --01-43¢��-�^�m_�� —!^. " ------ E�� 38 Miller Printino Q�5-43@@-1@5-15 �9j 38 Miller Printino 15-430@-06@-60 envelanes .�,---38--Mi13er-P�inti-r�n----- '�1--430Q�=1-1@=10 ------•-----••�-�discaunt- _ �; � 38 Miller F�rintir�o @1-430Q�-040-4Q� oerrnit fc,rrns i� 38 Miiler F'rintino 01-4300-@4@-4Q� discaur�t , z; - �__,�_ --- �r._��--�-�--- ---^---- •-�---- --------- '----• -- ------- -- - -' - - ---- - -- _�.__. �' 3: .:� 8Q� ,54� Totals Temo Check Nurnber 38 • i,si • �-' ' ------------ ------� � �'G; _ _'._...._ _..._______._...__,._'___ _'__._'____—'_"-` '�� Temo Check Nurnber 39 �e� ' ,s3-Mi-nn-�Ge�bl-��lar- Tele�-Ca _-�__.ihi-9�00�610_;�0 �___�______Feb_s.vc_ '�� 39 Minr� Cellular Tele Ca 01-42@@-61@-�0 Feb svc '21� 39 Mirrr� Cellular Tele Ca 01-42@0-610-30 Feb svc r-•}--��B-Mar�n--Ged-1--��lar-Tele--Ca- �_0.1�4�00�61.0..-.30 __.—_�Eeb_svc__,_ �"� 39 Minn Cellular Tele Cc� 01-420Q-610-20 Feb svc ?' �'3 Minn Cellular Tele Ca zG�— ___ -- � 01-421Q�-11Q+-10 Feb svc �?�I �34 - -�•-. —,. ''^_� Tatals Terno Check N�unber — 39 �� . )2e� Terno Check Nurnber 40 ` v ` 40 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-4131-11Q�-10 40 Minn Mutual -Life Ins . „ 01-4131-Q��0-2@ < -�--Ma-�+�r-Mit#.t�a�-L-�f��-�s' n��.,,_.,�.��_m�m �m 40 Minn Mutual Life Ins 08-4110-00@-0� 40 Minn Mutual Life Ins Q�1-�Q72 240 r .,. ' �r ' • ' � , • . - �x' Totals Temo Check Nurnber • . ,. 40 ; � , , �• Ternp Check Nurnber 41 Rage 7 Ama�int _—�fz4.�5.__._ 164. 55 164.70 — �3__Q�4cr 1�0. @Q+ � �.40cr 1.246.55 6. Q� 1 9. 9Q� 1 Q. 4� 11.46 5. 1 �1 47. 84 � �eb prem . ' '• ' 1.70 " . ' � - Feb prem � � ` � 3. 40 ' " -� , Fpt,_n�era" ' � 40 Feb orern 1.70 1/�4 payrc�ll 325.0Q� � . • •� ti • � _ `" . , . • � � � , 5�3.4� � .. - ,`_ .. ..-�•� �a 9 ` � � > • . _. . ` . , . � �"' 41' Minnesat� Eienefit Ass» , ,,` @1-4131-11Q�-10" ,' � 41.��Minnesc+t� Benefit;,Assn �. �5=4131-105-15 , =';�""'m=v:="===''va��,�^��-it flssn �=��a3-1-@20 20� . 41 Minnesuta E+enefit Assn @1-4131-0�0-5Q� 41 Minnesata L�enefit Assn 01-4131-070-70 e i.i rn;....��.,+��ne ef;-.-�+,-.-.ocsn 15��131-@60-6a ° �� 287.:� �. . ' . ` , ., .. `' ' r � -rr.a. ,�,.�.�-�--.�� •'rnr F3Gr .;F � . . �; i . . . . Temp Check N�unber 4� a� R,�'�42 Minn State,�FirexChief.s Assr� - Q+i-44Q�Q�-030-3Q� `' _ 'F� .. . . Tatals Ternp Check Nurnber 42 t• - ' - ..` . . � - FEb nrem, ; Febarem < . �eharem`' Feb prern Feb arern ��b�rern <. " >� �e , n � . " •• 151`.86" _. ' <. ' °' , .. a , 551.'86 ' " , 69�) � ' " • 60 �6�. 42 s' 62 :"� 372. 68 63 �• • , . „ � " y � . �, 12'7. 30 Cert FF I �. ' . _ - � °� 35. @0 , U ` � • . - � - `. .. .. , . ' � '.`, _ :e- , . ..'i; .. .: .. ' ' • . .. . � - ' .. .. _ . � �. __ .-' - — -- - - - - - _ _ � - - --__ �_ - - --- — - - - --- � 31 J�n . _ Clairns List Fr^i 1:4�5 F�M City cf Mendc�t� Heiohts --i Terno-Gheek•-N�am6er -- q3 -. _....____--._.- . -.----- -.,.....�_.._.��.��._._ � , • az i 3 Tema. Gheek-- -- ---- ---___�_..,..�_------------_._...___.._._�___._---_...._____. ... __-._..�.._�_....._____.......... (4 Nt�rnber Uersdor Narae � Accc�unt Gode Cc+rnrner�ts ;s G 7 � 3-M-i-r,r�esc�ta--�c+r�w�y �Q�1=4a�+i=-Qr3Q�-�.30----- ------r-�lcho--------.------- $ 43 Minnesc��a Canway Q�1-43Q�5-030-3� solys j98 "___..�.._�_�_ _..» • �_.��.....�'_ '_..._' ��_..... _� •1y� 7otals Terno Check Number 43 1� �+ -�-�--�'-ernp -Gheck--Nurnber.---�.____..__._. 4µ._. .__ ______� _.._ __ .---- ---___._.^ - ---...- ----_ _ _- __._-----. .-�,_�, i„, i4$ I�� 44 Minrc State REtireraerst Systern t�l-2Q�7,� _.A_�i.___.�--.-.-it�4 aayrc�23 �� '�� 44 '"'--- -- - 17 1a� Totais ierno Check Nurnbe�^.�..—`. _ __ �4 __ _.._.-. _��____... _-.----_..�-._.....— 20ITemp Check Nurnber 4� F27f--}-----4'�-Mi-r�rt=1lrban-Trfe-�Er,or-Gc�uncil--�1-44Q+0a�+dQ�=50- -- .-�_r-eor -_ IszI. 231 -- �241 4� I26i-�---T-c�i-a�1�s��emp-Eheck�-•iVurnber- !r�5_ � . .y� __. __._. �______.� S• ierna Check Nurnber 46 z9 46 Murr G'lbg Q�8-433.�,-OQ�Q�-@0 rors ' � �_ sr C N b 46 .'. �, F'aoe 8 Rrnaunt �.-/��— 5418_Q�� e� ��J. Q�Q} �35. Qti0 � i '"} M,} 3i�. QaQ� 8� • t 32 , 33 . 3A �"� � . 38 � 36 �%�. Q�� ea r. 32 Tc�tals Temp heck um er . � - �3 i; . 34 �—{S��ttift�i�`_a. t. � 3g 47 N�tl Volur�teer Fire Caurscil Q�i-44�4-030-3¢� 9� dues �5.�'� 36 a� � 47 ,�> - ��.� . � . - 25. Q�0 � � � Tot�1s Temp Check Number •' W < � , 47 . . . � , , � , . . . � 39 •. " ., , e .. ., ... 40 . 4� Terno Check Nurnber 48 aa e�i-��-G#�a^�..�,.�-s-n�Trup--�-, '��=1r1FQ�tF-QajtQ�-1t0 , raa�ctk�-rnt-g � p � ., . , ' , < °^ _`., ... - , > .. _� � as , a , 48 . . ,o n -, , < - • . �- • " . � � r_...... �4........a. n:tttnbe�-- h$ as • 47 � � Ternp Check Nurnber 49 s ` "' •` 49 Neutrar� ,Industries Inc ¢�1-4305-Q��0-20 . ' solys , t . . .-. . -. . ., , 50 ^ ' " • B1` . ., . ' ,. ` 62 'iatais 'iernp Check iVurnber 49 ' � ~ 63 � 64 15. �+Qt. ; � , 1�9. 5i .. . _ • � .. > �q c� . _ � 55 . ,. , .. , .. ,. . , � <. ... .,. 74 66 ., ...�; 50 IVarthwesterr� Agg4^egate ` . �1-44�1-A50-50 ". • � � � "`"� ` ice mel#�, .,..°- : ., 565.`15 , ' , P . , ."�� ,. .�.� 7 .�.iEr,.r'i. �.'r'!. � -} sra . �.) . _ � .�. - - • - .' . . _ -' _ .- � "�� .: , ..... .: : :. : :�. , -, : -. '.` .. 'r � ' 31 Jan . Claims �ist -1 Fri 1:42� FM Gitv c�f irier�data Heiohts �ernp-Gheek--N+rmber----------,�� . ___.--------.---._._—_.__.__._�___----. - --. -----...._ _.__.___._----. _..._ �.__ �� 13 � ��(AR. -Gheck ..._�....-----_._.__�..._ _ . ___...._..___.___ __..---.._.__...._.__ _.----_.._--.---_,____..___._ ....__.__ _.______ ��Y Number Vendor Narse Accourct Ccde Carnraents �6 7ct-�3�s--�-erop-6hecFc-Nurnber —_..__5Q�_._�_ _ .._,�___._____.._.�_ �_____��_ _,.. �� . fi Tema Gheck Nurnber 51 � .t0�� 51 Narthern State F+awer.� M.--^- 01-4211-300-5� -- ---�.- H_.___.. ___._ .-Jan svc �_'4 t9' �� .�.1�. ..,.._.�_..,,._.._........... ___�. _' " ' ' ..�__..._...�»....'__ . ,_ � . ...... ...........-..__ " �' � Tc,tals Terop Check Nurnber 51 � � �14' 'i5' G-,--T-ernr�-Gheck-Nurnber_.�-____._,- - ,�.---- .�___—____�.__----__.u----- -__.__..------_._._---._.___�_,..._._.__�_,_.._._.____��_. i�6� �"� � 5� 4akcreSt Ker�ne3s C�1-4��1-8�d0-9� Jan svc ,s ��-9a�c-r-es�--Ker�nel�------------- �__..._.__�1-4225=800-�0 ---.- ------__....._.Jar�_,.svc__----------- ,e . 's'0 f Q�4 ,. ' . . ;a' T�tal-� T-emp-Gheok--hli�rnber.-_.----- 52_��. . _ . _..._.____ _._ _.__.,.._- ---____ ._...�_.�_�� - �zz � i23 Teran Check Numbar 53 zc 1�E 53 Qllc�rn Aooliances �V ` Q�J.-433�t-440-�0 �—��_� ror� !_�___�� IZJ � �� , .�.. F'�oe 9 Amc�ur�t 376. 7�t z�-�u -srh - 3Q�fi. �SQ� 36. 5.�.� , .. .. '�G. Q.ci .. ' ' 1 �r.____ __.,,," .._ . ._. _ ._.. . _ . .. .. _ .._.. . .. . ,Zg� Totals Terno Check Nurnber 53 aa ��,�e�r�rnkber—� 4 31 , ' � .,. , . « '•,f � . az . ,�°, 54 Oxygen Service Ca . 01-43@5-050-5@ � , : svlys . • "' � 454.�3 - " ' , , . . ss .te-�c. ` �m, _�� :rn�,y.90-.�itIl � _ —�1��r 1o�t�, 7s2� �. 34 �4 Oxygen Service Ca 08-4335-Q�@0-QQ� act thru i/15 13.50' 35 ;,4 Oxyoen 5ervice Ca @1-43@�-@3Q�--30 act thru i/15 13.5f� 38 a� 216 � ' ., . • . , f . . � , , - 611. 93 . , - �3� � 7ota1� Temo Check Number " 54 " � • • " � � � � ' . � `' • . , � - � , ' . 5°�� 39 ' < .. > . . . . .. , . . ,�., 52 53 4° Temp Check Number JJ 54 ="� 41 55 ''"� 42 55 43 - ` , " . , .: _ . ' '____._... " ` , < �' � 57 �, � 6$ Y" � � , 55 ` . ' ' ++ .". `.y . < , a t . , ` � < 490. 48 ° . • 59 ` � a5 �. ..�-ni�-.'::�—o=��,.^..5.4"— :�iiifk �� . ' . � - , �... >r � " 6p y 46 . 61 47 62' j � Ternp Check Number 56 , 54 as ,< ; , .�,6 Rawer I�rake Entrp � ` •Q�1-4.s30-490-5�s., , , �, parts ,. . , _ . . -xi.42.66 , , . ss ...eo � , ' . . < � 66 � � 61 ��.�' 56 Pawer Brake Entrp' � ; @1-4330-490-�50 • ., >. . � parts �� y l ..�"a� ` � , 161.59 , . , . - � se� 52 11'}L v ., , .,,. ��lt. C� 7D '�6a Tot�ls Temo Check Number 56 » �- 64 ' 72 � 56 , Temp Check 1Uurnber x ' ' S7 `" " , . � a ' . . . - , . � " > 4 _ �a , . , � - . i .. .. x ' . 76 �", � , r � . .. . ., �� " . 7 � � �..' " . . � � �� . , „ ' ' , _ , ,. _ - . ` .� _.. , > . . ' . " % � 31 Jan 1 _ �ri 3:4Q� PI�1 -�ii L Ternp. -Gheek ' - Nurnber Vendcm Narne ---��9c�ad-Resc��2 57 Road Rescue 57 Road ftescue J7-^ Clairns List Citv c�f Mendata Fieinhts Rccaunt Cc�de _ _ ----- --- Cotarnerrts Qi,i•=43Q�5=Q�30=�3¢� �- ---soly.s _.._ �1-46:0-Q+2@-�CQ� Re souads thi-46iQ�-tD2&1-�t� tr�ade iri credit �L� Tatals Terno Gheck Nurnber 57 F�ane 1@ Rrncu�:t r. cm -__ --- -- �, Qr92. @@ h . 9�Qi. Q�tr�cr 1.:�83,08 �i4� Temo Check Nurnber 58 � 78 t� S9 * �:5� --58-3�.*hrr-E-Re-id-RrAssc�e------ —Q�1-44Q�Qr-¢�20-2Q�.-._ ._..--�_,.,..__.�__ Rear--Pr-idoer-- ..-_-__�:.k5.-OQ�. ,,, ... zo i ci -------- zi �8 22 x� t�€ 345. ftt� , a s 's +�a�-s-�'-erno-6heck-Nurnber-----•--�8---,....,.- .._-------.----__ �_. __—.._..,___�.__ __ za �g 25 'so Temo Check Nitrnber 59 � z6 � �Z? 4� 2t 28 22 �� S& T Office Rroducts �� Q�1-4300-03�2t-3�1 ^+� � solys � V�`� Y 16.48 29 z3 30 za 59 S& T£Iffice ��rc�duc�s fL}1-43QQt-Q34s-3� solys 8.8� sa � 5�-8-iF � O#'-�3-ce-F�rc+duc�s----••--Q�S=4304�=05Q�-50-...._.___.._.-•- ---------____..solys---_.__�A� _ �;,, 32 �8 � _____ 33 26 -- � • 34 �� 'f� 177 '^ sQ1. gE! 3S iJ zs ' �;-R--i-�-T-ettto-�hee�c-hlLirnber-----�8 - ` as 37 . 79 38 � ��4 Terno Gheck Nuraber 6Q� 39 aa '� , 60YSanitary Rr�+ducts Cu ' 08-4335-Q�00-00 - solys . , . � a69.10 ' x� a' , 32 . . , .{ 42 33 ' " 60 8anitar� Pre�ducts Ca Q�6-4335-�0�-VJO snlys • ,, 3Q�.6Q� �� 34 1 `� 45 , 35 '�iJ�. %Q� 46 � 36 Totals Terna Check Nurnber 6Q� 47 aa �'� Temo Check IVumber ��, . , 61 - F ' , .. , ., • as v 38 � ., . . R. . . 50 � . - �c , n ., , , a , , , .. .. ; �. . -, . , . ;,a .. . -.xz .. � : k . . . 39 .> . _ . T . _ . " tn-i�tc=��.s=-�.. _ . 7� _ . ,. . . " .. � ` .. " _.._ � _52 � 61 L E Shzuohnessy Jr 05-4�20-13�-15 Jat^i svc 186, 6.�,, 5a,.• 41 61 L E Shauohr�essy Jr i.�.�-4�C20-1�2-60 J�n svc . :�98. EQ� 65'�..� 42 m....-,�-,t�__�p.�., T... _� i h0"ifh.-. 9.�. T 58 c.=-raa.�v--l�.'S•r �A�L � ' 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 21-422�-132-00 ,. � ` . Jarr svc , � . > ' ' : ��3• 95 n . " • • 5� 58 �-- 45 ` 51'�L E Shau�hnessy Jr ' 14-4�2QM-132-@0 , '� Jan svc"° .. t , . li a39.75 ' so� � - � , 4S — ' _______..i 6i 62�-? a7 k27 4, 666, Q�0 63 �.. qg 64 18�---£�i£�k�-Fitiifl�3 , g -, ';�e - ,. _ .. . , > ; 85 . .. . . 6a`ry� ea ' Temp Check IVumber • ' - 6� � � � , x ' , �^ ' . � . � - - 6' " 61 . • . .. .. ,. 56 es 52 Aavid �orby h @i-449Q-Q�5@-5� exp reirnb 89.4� ss '; ea �� 62 Aavid Snrby �1-441Q�-050-50 cic+thino allawance 120.0� �+�-� � 64 72 b6 ii� < .. .. � - .• ` ,. . , iQl�. 1}�J � ., _ 74,r..' �'se . � Tota1� Temo �Check Nurnber'; ' 6� ' ' � < ' �' .,; • " • - _ .°` - < � ;' ' , . ,' . ., ° 7e�,.. � . � � � (_'. i " _ _i. _ _ ' , . . _ . - 1:;'..• _ , . ' ... -- , - . . . .. , . - . = M':i ��'� . ''>.' - ' - . . ' . . ' . ' . • . . .. . • _ . > . . , , : �>' - , . . . �<':-,. . . .. .. . � -I�_� . _ __.. . ---.- -. . 1 31 Jan 1 Clairns L.ist Raoe 11 --� Fri 1.4�+ PM Ci-ty af Mertdcta Heicshts �emr�--Gheek--Number-.-.-._ 6,� .—_. _._____-_.«____�____ - ------ --�._ _ _ __....._ .._ . _ __ _ _ � - - - ----.-__ .__�_.. ..� z �3 Terao. -�--Gheck---- --_.�____..___�.___..._�..------___---_._..,.--------.__---_.._. s� Niunber Vendor Na�ae Rccaunt Gcsde . ___._ ___�,. •-Curnrner4t5 . _.. _ _ .�._ _.._,_...v._------"Rrnc�ur�t $ , _a-apec��+arn ---k��r=4334�=k90�1,:,- ._.�---_r-___rrors.-- ---- -...._._.._..�_�.�_._....�.1�.SL�� ! 63 414. Q�Qf g�--;-ctal�--�'�emt�-Gheck�--N�irnber-...__..-_...�6„_...._._�..._..__�_.,-.��,._.___---_____ _.___.�___.__. _. __---....._---- ---__.__�_._.__. .,� ,o� _ � �,ai Terno Chack Nitrnber 64 - ._ � _ ._...___..._ -... ._ -- - � �_�._._._. �_.._.�_ _.__---. ._ __ ..-- - -. . _._ --- - _ .�_... _.---•---_____-.___.� �"� 64 Tracy Tripp Fue1S 01-S�iQ� oas 4.693.51 ,a�_ -------- ss; .6,4. _._._.,r_...�_.______.__. -----u..—___.._�._._...__=..__.------------• - -- 4�59:�..�1__.__ i'�! Tc�tals Terna Check Nurnber 64 � ��~�� '�i �'a �rno-Gtaeck-Number b5 - �____.._ .__.._�._..�-.___�._----•- -._. _____ ..__.--- - _._._ _..-�.....� i2° £,S U S We�t Cc�racn��rsic�tfc�ns Q�1-4�1@-Q�e4-�th Jart svc 111.64 ------�5-il-S-We�i-Gamrnunacat�ans---_--15=4zi.��Q160�.6fl -._.�..,.___.�__---___..__3ar�. svc - •--.-----_ �___..-----.v_�_....�74.71 �2 65 U S West Ccrtnrnunicatian� Q�1-4�iQ��Q�70-70 Jan svc 585.7�1 2a 65 U S West CCsFf![ttUYtlCci'G1GY15 01-421tc�-C�5L�-5�c7 Jarr svc 28.76 sa �-U-S-We�t-Ccmraursi-c�iaow�s-----09�4�10�Q�fA:aD.� -----_..__._ _._,__Jari_-svc ___---_._- -_----- 48. �� 25 65 U 8 We�t� Ccrnmunicatic�riz �1-4�10-11@-S0 J�r� svc ��•�'� 26 65 U�5 We�t CGiASAttYf2Cc�'F',iGYfS Q�2-4�1�-Q��Q+-��t Jan svc ,�9Q��.-8�4p 2i _ G� ! i C td '3 ..._.�. ...�..» �_.�..... � �:.LL.i }L.:�� e��arnraur�a.cataons-__. sdl -��1.0-td4�-w� _�_� _. _._.3ari .sxc _._.._ __.._._�_ �29 65 U S We�t Commur�icatiar�s @5-4210-1@5-15 Jar� svc 1��-7� 3p 6.�, U S We�t Carnrnur�icatiur�s 01-421Q�-03@-3Q� Jan svc 114.8� � 8a-* r�rarau�a�a��at-iar�s �f ��.iQt-fd::Qt�50 ____ ,7.ar�_sv�..W. __ , 35.7� t r> l �? 31 ' , 65 U 5 West Ccanrnunicat ians 01-4210--070-7� • Jar'� svc '��. 7� � . ` • " 32 ' . . , ; , _ 42 � , , _______. 43 � �� ' . . . , �: �'�'..� 45 34 7ota1� Ternn Check Niunher 65 35 , �� ..� 3fi �a.r.,�L--piLti'ArJ�Y` � � � 37 . :• - , . > � . - ' y , ' , . , , . . .. ,. , ,. 49 ;� � . , . ' � q . , ,,�, • ! • � ,� , ` 50/.",v� •� 66 U S. West , Cammunicatiarrs � 15-421�-Q�60-60 - , J�n svc � 35-7k , , „ � s+ �� 39 . ,. ' , . a ` � . � 52 46 3�. %�# 53 (7( 64 7' � �" ' Tatals Tem� Check Nurnber 66 55 '`•^ 42 58 q3• . . . ., „.> .-. ... , 57 Temp Check Number , 67 „ � - , • . , . `;< < � ss �� ' 45 . •. �' �.i ` �., u3 ,... II11�-80%Qi � FE%._CiECi ' . „ .. �. ' q , Y , . . 60 � . . , ., h _ . .. .. . _. � _ 6t 62 f.".' '•.47 67 204.50 s •.• 48 .-.+_��re be . . ea 49 � Y '� �� ' � � .� r •� _ ` . . > ` .. . 65 � ' ' � � 66!"'S fia ' Ternp Check Number ' 68 . V „ , � ' . ' . r . , F°� � � 67 �'"� 'b� `a .. � . ... ' . ^ '" 69 fi2 68 Western Lite Ir;s �+1-413�-th31-3Q� . Feb oreta Z�y.BQ� es � 63 ____» �� i ,__ 77 ^ 64 72 6fi -' . . . :. . „ , , ' , ' � _ 7 ss - Tc�tais Ternp Check h3urnber 68 ' r , . . . - ,. _ �a �•'�� 7 , - n. n n . .� ., , ^ ' . . , �b�� .� ' �� .,._,,._ .. _ �� _ . , ...._-_. , .__ _ ` . `. _ , ' , . �....��. ., ' .+ � , ' - ��`.� ` � - � . - . ' ' 'i.. . ' _ . ' .. ,� ' . . � ..��._��. �._`�_ ��.��.'_'��. '_ ._`_ _. ... �_.'_� _'-.�.��. __ '�� _� � ' .`�_� .. .� .�.�� __.�..��..___� .�� ^'7 � 7 31 J�n 1 . Clairns List F�aoe 12 Fri 1:41 RM City af Mendata Heiohts r _ �_� � mo-Gfieck-N�unber--- --•--6� -- ---• ------__-__------ ---- ----- ---- — , j2 Terno. . � 3 •� 3 -heck -._�_------- �.�,�---_-------------•-•-•- --------•-------------•------------ --- �a� a 6 Nurnber Vendar Narne Accc��nt Code Carnrnents , Arnaunt � t.� 6 � i-r+t-Fircfl-tf-Wei�r�s�ir�e-- A1--4��=-1�=8Q�- --- --•—Re--fientel-.-.______�____ —100.00 g � , y 9 69 1@0. Q0 �� Fcrt-�3-s T-emo-Ehecic-Number------69 �12 lio� _ _ �._.«------ --- ---------�_ _----------•--- • � ,.. ii� - 'is�•r� ;7z! - -- -- •--- — --------- ----- - -�._._ ._�__..__ _ ---- - - - - � — — - - - — -----_ _ —. -------- ;ic� t3� _ _ _"_.—_'_� —_;;7 ��I 6161 97. 503. 45 s ��SE Grand Tatal �' is. __�____.� �_�. MANUAL CAfiCKS'-----r.��__��.-- ----- - �� . �17 -----_—._ __.__� __� �z2! zs;' � isi 13443 265.16 Minn Benefit Jan prem adj Izal ,eI —"— --'-" 13444'—'-"--75.00-Govt'Trng�Service'--"-'-" "`Regr Frie1- - ' S' ' soi � Z3445 85. 00 " " �se� - � s�� " 13446 960.00 Paymaster Mtcn checkwriter �28 zz --� `--" �'�3447" 8";300.-00—Quality 7i.riboln---��-'-`P.-�D:`unmazke3-�i--`��`-- I2' ):a� Z3448 20.00 Regional Transit REgr Danie2son 3C� � �za _, 1'3449 3;784.63 State CapitoZ• C.iT. Z/24 pagroZl deductions �;i� �zs - ----- 13450 883:58 -`NOZWest" Bank ----- - -- -----n -- — a3 zs Z345I 451,112.89 Pr�dentiaZ Securities investment fand �34�'j �z� ," Z3452 8;203.62 PSRA 1/IO payroZl . ,. �36� za — 3�153—�3��—'�— �.-3%24 payrolZ fs�� se 13454 475.00 Dakota County Banlc " 13e1 so � 1"3455 14,435.61 " 1/24 w/h 39 � Iao 3i - „ � . 3456�—�;270:86—Coi�"REvenue -��2'4 szt ai � k, . ' � 13457 45,291.98 Pagro22 a/c Ix24 pagroZ2 �p az :-} ...32 " " 43'•• aa ., � ' 13458 710.00 St Cloud Fire Dept 3sict State iire convention - „ 34 45 35 46 —� 36 523,SI3.80 '47 '" aa 37 , , 49 ce� . � .. . • .• . G.T. 622,017.25 • . , soFl 39 ' � . , ` ' • . , _ -. ' . ' S1•" ' 52 40 53 41 54 : 42 55''•_+� 56 � ' � • - 57 . e ' ' ' . . �. • ', � . . , .. .. . ' . � 58 ,r ..` 45 , tl ` . , � .. 59 �_� ' 60 � 61 A7 62 � 63'•_� 64 49 « • 65 , 50 � ' ' „ � . ' • 66 ' 61 . � .. ' . 67 � " ' 68 62 69 , 63 70 r'� .. 54 77 ti—.% 72 66 73 � SG � . , . ? � . . 74 , -� � i , , x . . • ` .>. . • . . . , . . • 76 \. ,i . 7 _� �� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 4, 1992 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administr FROM: Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer �'% ' SUBJECT: Recommended Increase for City Mileage Reimbursement Rate The City policy is currently to reimburse 27.5 cents per mile for use of a personal vehicle on City business. We understand that the Internal Re�enue Service has now increased the allowable reimbursement to 28�cents per mile, and are recommending that the City of Mendota Heights go to that level. There is actually very little use of personal vehicles for City business. The primary users are engineering technicians, with the costs being charged back to the projects. ACTION REQIIIRED If Council concurs with my recommendation, it should pass a motion increasing the City's mileage reimbursement rate to 28 cents per mile. LES:kkb 9 0 _, � -: - �t�' �� T0: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO Mayor and City Council Tom Lawell, City Administ DISCIISSION January 30, 1992 Proclamation of March 1-8 as Volunteers of America Week � Attached is a letter of request from Mr. James E. Hogie, Jr., �President of Volunteers of America in Minnesota, requesting �consideration of proclaiming Ma.rch 1-8 as Volunteers of America 'Week within. Mendota Heights. The City has passed similar 'proclamations for the past several years. An appropriate proclama.tion has been developed and is attached for your consideration. 'ACTION REQIIIRED i Should the Council wish to declare March Volunteers of America Week within Mendota Heights, �proclamation should be adopted. � MTL:kkb i i 1-8, 1992 as the attached CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAROTA COIINTY, MINNESOTA PROCLAMI�TION DESIGNATING MARCH 1-8, 1992 AS VOLtTNTEERS OF AMERICA WEER WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America, a social service organization, is celebrating its 96th year of service to the people of Minnesota and the Nation; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is making a valuable contribution to the people of Minnesota by providing valuable services and care to those in need, including the elderly and our youth; and �1HEREAS, the volunteers have enriched the life of our community through their concern, commitment and generosity of spirit; and WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America is commemorating its 96th year of service and urges others to uphold the American philanthropic spirit through their commitments to help those in need. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor of the City of Mendota Heights, do hereby proclaim the week of March 1-8, 1992 as VOLUNTLERS OF AMERICA WEER within the City of Mendota Heights; and BE IT FIIRTBER RESOLVLD, that copies of this proclamation be transmitted to the Volunteers of America as evidence of our appreciation and esteem. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the City of Mendota Heights to be affixed this 4th day of February, 1992. Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor '� i February 5, 1992 Mr. James E. Hogie, Jr. President Volunteers of America 5905 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, NIlV 55422 'i Dear Mr. Hogie: Thank you for your recent letter describing the Volunteers of America Organization and your plans for celebrating all types of volunterism during the week of March 1-8, 1992. On February 4, 1992 the Mendota Heights City Council adopted the attached proclama.tion formally designating that week as Volunteers of America Week within the City of Mendota Heights. ' Once again, we are pleased to have been asked to recognize �this annual event. We hope that our designation will symbolically convey our appreciation to those who freely give of their time and �talent to the betterment of our community, state and nation. MTL:kkb � Attachment I Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Tom Lawell City Administrator � � : .� VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA 5905 Gdden Valley Road • Minneapolis, MN 55472 •(612)54fr3242 ' January 24, 1992 The Honorable Christine Koch City of Mendota Heights Council 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Honorable Koch: Volunteers of America Week is scheduled for March 1-8, 1992 which commemorates the founding af our organization on March 8, 1896. As one of Minnesota's and the nation's largest human service organizations, the Volunteers of America has been helping others for 96 years. Through the years, Volunteers of America has demonstrated it is a dynamic organization, able to keep up with the everchanging world around it. Now more than ever, we recognize the constant need for developing new and more creative ways to solve problems, meet community needs; and improve the overall quality of life for all members of our society.- We must continue forming partnerships, to bridge the gap between social service needs and private sector social responsibility. I hope you will recognize March 1-8, 1992 as Volunteers of America Week and ask that you join us in celebrating our 96th year of service. Your personal letter acknowledging our service to the people in the Mendota Heights community w�.11 be appreciated. � Your interest and support makes a significant impact on the success of our organization. And, as you know, our success is measured through the lives of those we touch. J�EH/dc Enclosures I Respectfully yours, -,.� � 'a2 ames E. Hogie, Jr. President P. S. Your congratulatory letter, along with other letters and/or I proclamations, will be duplicated and put into booklet form. A ; booklet commemorating our 96th birthday will be placed in the ' reception area of each of our programs. I . i S� ;. � � .t,. .�• t ` , . 1 . ' • . �� : . . . .. . . . . . . . :: i:ti, , ^ : .r r`�F :.�i.Y+; . �. ..,,,:',......:.. ... _`.' ..s' . ' - ,. s__ .. .....- - �. ' . ' .h .. .. �:i� _ �._._ ` �� v�Yv ' , ':�;.t 't,:`I " �;ti � . : i:;� '."5;.. " _ L , : tc" ,^•r:s-•y.��•:'✓'t:i.e" :.,�r��:�'- <. V „ � � t :. � �: • , y,�:',. ,,+, . •, � • a .. . �°�'.S 'i•.. :'.�.7i:: •.L �; �.� ' � � �� 3 .� , . - _ �Volu�nteers :.of� �Amer�ca::�..�:;�:�: ��:`::�::��:.. - a � D � : . . : � � � ' , . � . _ <:: � ,.� -,F;, : - . . , .i:.}S:r�.•'-4 : ; .. .-. =Mrnriesot�a� _ ��-� .�.:..:::� � �;::; � �.:: ,"_',;,:.,,•:r:.=.;,a��•,`', , - i ' , . . :i;�4�` ��.5 .'i�i�'�:i�, � � . �r: �*` ' l�� 2:�.: „'l � =I., :'r�*��r�:' vY'�" �i ' ,I , • " , � i�',';;t"r.:'.' :4. r :s�+�..i• :~3' . - D � .,. � '.�- • �. : "'::'.'s•.�.':,�; =a �.x"�'r _�..�'-,f.ni Ln ,��y.;. .., ,:._y .•'t,"°' �4=�"S��i'�'k�.�ti;•i:'; "��,?� , • :z.�`.rr:i'.i3. i �'%+�4�. �';•,�,.. . ;C,'1'; �"� � . .. 1 _ �,..e.�i;.^.. +--Y :.i2'.i�,r,y..J..:.: RL:c�.Al._:. $,..1Yr,. .. � �. ' � ;��. � •, ...;i'•�i,a `..y: �.�!';" ' e �, � .. F y. c : ...:'1' , • - , � . . . ; . . . .. ��.�� ;�a:.�r��.:_,.... -1991-1992.:.�;�.�.<r_;.: ,.,..w� -�;-n��.:,��:::-�:�;:r .. _ . . . :t_=��.. _ . , Ii ' ' " ' . . _ , ,. � ✓ ' • , . ... . - , . . i . • . . . . . ... . . _ ,. . . a c� ' . 1 • • ' yi .��• ^��1�>} �,—�.-,:��•i��s�.d1v�,: _ .•si...l: .' - _ •.t:'t•'�'�;2�'Sl'''>•-i:r,�:r^",'�.v:'i_'� ..'i:. - '� . .� ,,( C�! � - ' t' e :" C: � •�S'[.i. ' ..• i ., r: ,� ••.Yt: .A �„h.[w:�::4�i . . .. , • ' t . �.. .. .-:C•. Y . ... _ � :''t �J } .�ii 2'��r�i•. {� �t r �S'f��`'� :.Y4r5 � I-4!: � ~ 2Y.'�S [ •Y� . s •:r�:. . ,c� > .s� : �e.••:- • , � {'. ..r� : � �,'i�:s'-.,>�T-,; 4�z' �1x.�; :;'%�': r�,;�;� �'� ` -� ' � \ ` • ` ' � • , . . , . : : . + . >.. � , 'aSt.2', yYt��':'C�,3�ii:::�n�r ' � _' i. .. ;,j . _ C'/� - `�"•`�`1 � � , I . . ` . _ ' •'�'--�'^�� I ' Q y. ` • • i`:�:`^l�B: `, ,r. . I ��T. %,' '� ' ^ _ i. :� .� •1 .i�� . � 7:`�, : �i..P r `s �;,.� � �i.� 5�.,.'� �:: .• '�r' :,.:�:�� , ..:;� ��. F�r�rr ,�-.:r� .=�...��PROGRAM��SER`:V.ICES.._E�_:°>.:�:�-.��Y��.��:��:��,�.,.F�:�;::r��>:; :. � • � f' �. n:i. <i• . � �>r,�'- 'r:'-";y^f%fi.`�~�':i�,:�.]'„.�:i.;��. ,n �y;. .,3�;` 't:�'�`= 's`' t .'y �.:'i�; r. . . �>ii .D..r't.�. .. . .. ,u '' ' t`.;. - -��..„, .. . 'a` �-:}��n+:3 ?6:- � 1�Y�-• ..r;*:s.,:-:., 3:�,�,,iir'�r-,- t;•:4_ _ . ;z': ..?`s. �, `� e , , , . . . . �' � vt: _ �t-=�'i R x �isiri-?..��,y.. .:. , - - ..�.'-"'.;;-��.�;�-. Jdisabled adults. Telephone; �1-495 3344� ��;i�:.� :f. „�=� � . . .. � _ - t:_ ;: ,�•�=�. � , , . . ;l5..;;;��,y,,,.,,, �i , $` n � �,'��,i.��i �`y3'.�.. f, 't'hK X�: `. • . .. . � ... �.� . '- ��::f�•'}� • !`� . � . � � � ' ��w�� l . _ � . . _tf. � :'� ��:' �'l: ;lkp. •t :lz'��,..": �� ' . ' � .. .1�:�.:.�::'!: ��^f.�`i'.` • . � 1��' , . ''— • • 1 � . " • - • ♦. e ! 1 . .. �• ,� . � . c�`�,ti;"'�-i f n •^sX';.Y:�;v'`�'._(.. i?+`�.; � ._�-.!..-. 5�,�:�:�.r.r=� - _ :;::i`'t - •, ` ' .;,..-y:: ; . . ;�,�,'Fts�u'�` . ' ' ''. — - � �;_ .�� H • Y ! • �` . � . � I / � � . � , � .;M' ( �i,� �1?.�:�;:'u,�-.c ` i= , ir'.' .:i:i,i.t �.r: �°4� � s.4. _ — . �f.}.t'4. ��' "i' c ..`." "�.'- . ;;� .:j. c., �l, .�a`,.• :1_: ..» �v:�i�l � i ;rh . :F`v�i .t.. . c <�',3 ~: i�::;� '•(' •:� : J. . a s af'.'. ;�3' v�:":t r. '!.r' �,r.. . i' .`•�.' - �5;�' ;t.' '.'C_ 'ti"• '-.ro"'��A: . e : N�� .>'i;�. _ f !;':1,5' - ;:f'�•' F."�<:_'.; � ."('.,:. :i ^ " . ' . rJ, . i'{.;. . ' '`.i� � � , • , � .,'( 'S : . i�.A:' ". , ` �i • - v.i� ` '" \, 'L '\:�"' �� ', . • .+�.3.f` r �Ri:r N�?:..t•s �.t�i��i:.� , i'i�% )�+, i`_ t�.`IR -/y+� � . � .�Iw�i�'- � :{'' �-. .. 1Fi Z ,• � ,:N. +�t !.' .1�-::. :1:��_ . 'F �',� •!' •Y4 • �5'N' .� � '�~iis . � ' . . . '1 f �''�i .:a� n, .. �:%`"I,--,�. r <�;.';,,. i.:._ .65,�* :t•` '_ � +�:r'�µ ' . .,� r•t:.:, d.' .. . � ' :i:` : . � � J . ' ; II i .,.`� .t+�:.,�:Y"� � . . . „�\' . . , X'yf��.: '�1�� ' • � \Y= :f•.: •'... : • .r . �,4�� ,'y'�?� '�S: �!" � ��.''..`-� .'i.rs �,...•ti� . .• .• , • - .'�i . . • • ' �.+�n i 1::' t' ; .R `•� i�'' � � '^�� •b1` `•p� . .. . . . _ V 1• • ' i_:J?..: . '.(J'i�SL '. ��..M1.� �ti�w.w�'t!x"..:.Rfl �., .. • . : � . .. . ,' �� ' ", ��..�.�:.•', � , ; � �OLLTNr.�EER ��:�� .. =�:...: ...: : . .: : ..: �..z.- .1..._w .. ,..,.�:�.:.: :� . � . S � OF ��A1V�RICA�� °� : � . , , '::_ . :. was �founded �Marcli`S, :1896' � �.' in New York City. Less �than %ur. months later services were begun in 11Tinneapolis.1_ � �� ` �voLuiv�rE ' . . . : : . �, � .:. :.: . �..::_ - . � � , -.. , -� � -� � • � �• �� %�� ERS OF AMERICA, a national Christian hwnan .service� organization, � . -•.� �� , � ,,�.,;,; .. �:,;,has� a.;�5,year,_ history.�of, serving people�,in need;:;regardles.s of their race, color,or. ,. : ., - . ; , . .,_ .. .. . v„ ., ,,. , _ � . . . _ . :.,�.,�:, :_ .. . . . _ ,�_� '.�� creed: _It seeks„to develop p"rograms in areas �where hwman needs are not being met �� , � � by existing services. ; . � , � , � : - _ . . � . � � � . . , :. , �...^. . . � - _ - .- . � . - voLurrr =.�..s:: t. : - y��..... �:...�.. �. ; . . . . . EERS OF AIVIERICA'staff is�coIIipi�ised-`of�individuals who not only have;�-'�� . . � administrative and/or. �� professional 'social : work expertise, `but who also have'� a�' '� .. �.,wL.,�..• • . � . .,; commitment to�fhe Christian�mission. of �the organization;'tlie �reaching �aiid upliftinj� � _ . -- `'`�` `'�;=�toss:;E:; Ki r)...' fi"' �. 'F,� Kk�,ytkt��:;;iG''�� ::� ��'�' } •.'4 � .f. ' '.�', 'S.: _i='K'i'j�i� '"v ,rr, .`I.b=��fi��- '� "i,' "•li. S_KAi•�:'i'�?�y,A�ftt*r _, .'r'��a`,,�< r. .:4t.:.•y_y,.s.. �;i� ' �Y.i... ��7,yy5.,_.:.:.'rti:t•'�,i... . % t}':c��ii}?A^�.H 1'O . . �j '%- ��!`R �:i �;;i�.$'�� p:.. .�w�,,�.`.;•t"r. . o'; i ua r:c;o1"'�`i°�., � ��.�� :s' , .. '. . . , . . - �are located at `-w:..:: _ :�;_ ., _ _ .��,. .t . . . , , . . r , "� , , . . .. . �l; h, - ' �.� `° , , ;� ; - , . x . � �::�:�`' , . . . F `r' • �.�r, �� . y ,. ,;��;. `�''� .. ', •;�'� - .. . �F;.•' .. ,r>..... ' :M1,` • ' L ; 5905 Golden Valley,� Road, Minneapolis, MN 55422-4490 = � :.: -� �; � �:. , .. - � � � � � . - (612) 546-3242 � '. :_ . . . ' _, _ - . . � , ' , .. .. � .. � ; � ;t, , .� �. ;. � `,.��. : '' -� ' ', . :.,�. '. � ' . 4 � - ��.; . � - b � '31 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS �I T• , --- - - - - January 31, 1992 T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawel.l, City Administ a 0 SUBJECT: Part 150 Program - Continued Discussion INTRODIICTION On January 21, 1992 the City Council discussed with eligible residents the various options available to the City under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 150 Air Noise Mitigation Program. At that time, the Council continued this item to February 4th in order to allow for the preparation of additional background data. BACRGROUND On January 21st Council requested the following information be prepared: ' 1. Specific Housing Counts within LDN Contours 2. Map Showing Eligible Housing Units 3. Estima.ted Property Tax Impact of Acquisition Option 4. Policy Advisory Committee Minutes Each of these areas will be addressed below. Housing Count Data As Council is aware, the LDN 65 Noise Metric is being proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the FAA as the eligibility boundary for the Part 150 Program. The 1996 LDN Contour reviewed at the last Council meeting includes the following single family residential units. . LDN Contour Housing Count 75 0 70 44 - 65 21 TOTAL 65 , f ,s � For purposes of notifying eligible residents of the Program, MAC has been utilizing a mailing list which was purchased from a commercial entity specializing in such lists. Upon examination, our staff has found a number of errors in that mailing list, including eleven eligible households who were not shown on the initial list. These errors have now been corrected and mailed notice of the February 4th Council meeting has been sent to all 65 affected properties (see attached letters). Eligibilitv Map ; City Engineering staff has prepared the attached map which shows the location of each single family home within the eligibility boundaries. Property Tax Considerations � One of the concerns raised regarding the Property Acquisition Program involves the loss of taxable value in the community should a tax exempt entity hold title to the property over a number of years. Based on 1990 Dakota County property records, there are a total of 34 single family houses in the Furlong area bounded by Highway 55 on the west, Victory Avenue on the north and Lake LeMa.y on the east and south. In addition, there are eight separately described vacant parcels in this area. As of 1990, the total market value of property in the area was $2,599,600. With respect to property tax implications, the tax capacity attributable to this area was $39,033 in 1990. Expressed another way, if the area were to be completely acquired by a tax exempt entity, the total annual property tax loss to all taxing districts in the County (City, County, School District, etc.) would be approximately $39,000. Given that the City's share of each property tax bill is roughly 19 percent, the City would stand to lose approximately $7,400 in property tax revenue each year if the �property were to go tax exempt. Policy Advisory Committee Minutes � The Council requested the MAC to provide the City copies of the Part 150 PAC meeting minutes. The attached minutes were received this week. It is worth noting that the members of the PAC were not previously provided with copies of these minutes. I think you will also find that the minutes are quite abbreviated in light of the fact that each PAC meeting typically lasted three hours or more. j As noted in the last staff inemo on this subject, the procedure ;utilized in allocating the available Part 150 funds is basically 'unfair to Mendota Heights and Eagan. Our communities have the ifewest individuals within the LDN 65 boundary, and the greatest �concentration of aircraft overflights. Without question, the 'allocation formula is woefully inadequate to address the severity 'of our needs. The question thus becomes, how do we go about revising the funding allocation formula? As indicated by the MAC on January 21st, they have not yet finalized the specifics of the Part 150 process. The application being prepared must be approved by the MAC's Planning and Environment Committee, and must be approved by the full MAC Commission. Then, of course, the FAA will need to finally approve the 1992 funding request. If Council believes it practical the City to comtinue its opposition to are certainly avenues available to us. DISCIISSION and in the best interest of the described formula, there The MAC has asked the City to indicate how it intends to utilize Part 150 funds allocated to it on an annual basis. The programs available to us are again: 1. Sound Insulation Program 2. Purchase Assurance Program 3. Property Acquisition Program The Council may use any one or more programs in various combinations each year, and may select different combinations each year, if desired. The other four involved communities have all indicated they will be primarily focusing on the Sound Insulation Program within their Cities. Even the City of Richfield, which has long maintained a need to acquire the New Ford Town and Rich Acres residential areas, will be using their Part 150 funds to insulate other affected homes. Instead, they intend to pursue with the MAC other funds outside of the Part 150 Program to acquire New Ford Town and Rich Acres. Those Cities who are choosing sound insulation intend to primarily use a lottery system to determine program eligibility. In order to address the most impacted areas first, Minneapolis intends to allocate a majority of their funds to those within the LDN 70 Contour, and eligible homeowners will then be chosen by lottery within that Contour. Bloomington intends to determine program priority based on the physical distance each housing unit lies from the southern end of Runway 4/22. L. � r°�. s s ACTION REOIIIRED Council should discuss with those residents in attendance the program options available to the City. Based on that input, Council should address the following: i ( 1. How should the three available programs be utilized within ; Mendota Heights? 2. What type of priority system will be utilized to choose ' the order of program eligibility? � 3. Should the City consider the fund deferral option? 4. Should the City attempt to revise the fund allocation formula described by the MAC? MTL:kkb January 29, 1992 Dear Resident: You are invited to attend the Mendota Heights City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 4, 1992 at which the City Council will continue its discussion regarding the Federal Aviation Administration Part 150 Air Noise Mitigation Program. The meeting will be held at Mendota Heights City Hall and this item is scheduled to be heard at approximately 8:00 P.M. Hopefully you were able to•attend the Council's January 21, 1992 meeting at which time a presentation on this subj ect was given by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. At that meeting, approximately 15 out of 64 eligible households were represented. Based on the comments received that evening, the Council asked for additional information on the specific number and location of all eligible homes. This information will be available at the February 4th meeting. Given the importance of this issue to you and your neighbors, your attendance at the upcoming meeting is encouraged. If you are unable to attend, please feel free to write or call with your comments. Hope to see you on February 4th. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS �� Tom Lawell City Administrator MTL:kkb January 30, 1992 Dear Resident: ; At its upcoming meeting, the Mendota Heights City Council will be discussing the Federal Aviation Administration Part 150 Air Noise Mitigation Program. Due to your close proximity to Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, you are potentially eligible to voluntarilv participate in this Program. The City Council will be discussing this issue with eligible residents on Tuesday, February 4, 1992, beginning at 5:00 P.M. at Mendota Heights City Hall, and you are invited to attend. The "Part 150" Program is being administered by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is estima.ted by the MAC that the Program will be funded annually over a long term period, perhaps ten years or more, and that the City of Mendota Heights will annually receive a portion of the funds. The City Council must then decide how the funds are to be spent to best address the air noise issue in the community. The three noise mitigation options allowed under the Program include: 1. Residential Sound Insulation 2. Purchase Guarantee Program 3. Property Acquisition Program At its meeting held January 21, 1992, the City Council began its discussion of this issue with eligible residents. Unfortunately, your address was inadvertently left off the initial mailing list. Please accept my apology for this oversight. Attached, please find the ma.terial which was discussed at that meeting. � � To date, the City Council has not formally expressed its preference for any of the available options. Your input is important to the City Council as they address this issue. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to call with any questions or comments you may have. Hope to see you on February 4th. � f �� Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS C��l/� �CJ��- Tom Lawell City Administrator b � r MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILTIY IIVIPi.FMF.NTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY CONIlVIITTEE DECEIVIBER 12, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Jan Del Calzo for Steve Cramer, Larry Lee, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Bob Johnson, Scott Bunin, and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glen Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager Consultants: David Schlothauer-AvPlan, Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suzie Kleymeyer-AvPlan, Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Dick Arey-CEUE, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications. Chairman Bunin called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. and introduced the agenda items: 1. Distribudon of updated MSP Part 150 program definitions. 2. � Update on Sound Insulation program. 3. Update on Purchase Guarantee and Land Acquisition programs. 4. City-specific questions and discussion about program and priority decisions. Steve Vecchi introduced the 12-2-91 updated program sheets which were distributed to all members. A date correction was made to all program sheets which did not contain the 12-2-91 date which identifies the most recent version of changes and additions. During a discussion on how PAC members would make presentations to the City Council, staff offered to prepare information packets. MAC and CEUE staff will be available for these presentations to answer technical questions. Steve Vecchi reviewed the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program submittal handout. A revised and update of this original Part 150 will be submitted to the FAA in December or January. Ben Sharp reviewed the update items on the Sound Insulation Program. Changes were made to the the chart on page 1, Average Cost Projections: 10 dB $11,500-$22,500 and 5 dB 0-$11,500. On page two, the last two sentences of the second to the last paragraph were moved to the beginning of the last paragraph. The first bullet item on page 3 will read: Walls and ceilings of treated rooms would be repainted either "off-white" or with a paint provided by the homeowner. Ben Sharp reviewed two handouts on the Sound Insulation Program covering Proposed Criteria and Ventilation/Air-Conditioning. Ben pointed out that the map shows people complain more on the higher SEL (single event level) than repetidve average low noise level. It was found that it is cheaper to install and operate an air-conditioner, rather than a ventilation system, which provides both a health standazd as well as comfort standard. Sheldon Strom reviewed the Sound Insulation Program Implementation Procedures handout. In order to get all of this up-and-running and meet all FAA rules and reg�lations, we must begin now, especially on the contractor portion. An addidon was made to the last sentence of page 2 to read: Contractors on the pre-approved list can be chosen by the individual homeowner and would be assigned to implement modifications on individual homes on a rotating basis, without the need for the bidding process. Sheldon distributed and reviewed "Draft Sound Insulation Preimplementions Tasks" which contained 1991 timeline in weeks. Mona Shaw reported results of her phone call to the FAA in Washington. The FAA felt, wording in the Avigation Release was not strong enough, but FAA cannot require an easement, therefore, the FAA is not either approving or disapproving. Mona also reviewed the Purchase Guarantee Program questions which were asked at the previous PAC meeting. Purchase Guarantee is used for the purpose of continuing the land use for residential purpose. Hazdship programs were discussed and not recommended for the Sound Insulation program. Suzie Kleymeyer distributed and reviewed summaries of other airports for sound insulation and purchase guarantee programs. Members thanked staff for the requested information which they felt was very helpful to our current planning stage. Discussion took place on whether or not to add the Transaction Assitance Program to the updated version of the Part 150. MAC has no interest in this program and will not pursue. Chairman Bunin reminded members to be working on their multi-year methodology, and community areas. It was agreed the appropriate time to hold community meetings would be after the holidays. Technical help would be available to answer questions at any of the city council meetings. The next PAC meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 29, 1991 at noon. Lunch will be served. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IlVIPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY CONIlVIITrEE and C11Y CORE TF,AMS NOVEMBER 8, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following vodng members were in attendance: Jan Del Calzo for Steve Cramer, William Weaver, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Scott Bunin, and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glen Orcutt- FAA, Dean Larson-MnDot, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager Consultants: Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Dick Arey-CEUE, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications. CORE TEAM: Bloomington-John Nelson, Eve Semmekoth, Bob Sharlin. Richfield-Bob Collette. Mendota Heights-Kevin Batchelder. Chairman Bunin called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m. and introduced the agenda items: 1. Consensus and decision: Unresolved Part 150 Program definition issues, 2. Review of "typical" city administrative tasks for implementation of Sound Insulation, Purchase Guarantee and Land Acquisition programs, 3. Presentadon to PAC and City Core Team of the city-specific Part 150 program worksheets and city-specific yearly program % participation forecasts. 1. Steve Vecchi reviewed, and requested a concensus on the recommended addendums to the Sound Insulation and Purchase Guarantee programs. Sound Insulation Addendum The sentence regarding replastering was worded by John Nelson-Bloomington, to read: Surfaces modified or altered by sound insularion construction would be restored with a finish surface of similar materials comparable to the surface prior to construction. (For example, existing "sculptured" surfaces would be replastered.) It was suggested that the following sentence be added to the addendum: All applicable building pemuts must be obtained by the contractor or homeowner prior to sound insulation modification work. Purchase Guarantee Addendum The addendum was accepted. The cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield and Mendota Heights indicated no interest in the Purchase Guarantee program. The City of Eagan is interested in the Purchase Guazantee program for neighborhoods where there have been problems selling homes. 2. Steve Vecchi reviewed definitions and tasks for the Sound Insulation, Purchase Guarantee, and Land Acquisition programs. A discussion followed. The cities felt if they agree to sign- off on all these tasks, that it will cause liability on the cit}�s part. The question was raised regazding costs, and who pays for administrative staff for the city. It was also asked what level of involvement the FAA will have in program implementation after the funds are received. Relocation costs were discussed regarding the Land Acquisition program. Dean Larson, MnDOT will provide brochures covering relocation. MnDOT's expertise was requested to help clarify Fair Market Value for the Purchase Guarantee and Land Acquisition programs. 3. Two memos were distributed addressing City-Specific Part 150 Land Use Programs: 1. Area Selection and Prioritization, 2. Percentage Participation Forecast. A packet of information and forms to be completed was given to each PAC member. The forms were requested to be completed and submitted by January 15, 1992. The next PAC meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1991 at noon. Lunch will be served. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY IlVIPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY COMIVIl ITEE (PAC) � OGTOBER 9, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Me�opolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Jan Del Calzo for Steve Cramer, William Weaver, Bob Mood for Larry Lee, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Bob Johnson, Scott Bunin, and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager Consultants: Melissa Burn-Wyle Labs, David Schlothauer-AvPlan, Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suzie Kleymeir-AvPlan, Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications Co-Chairman, Bob Johnson, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Agenda items are as follows: (1) Review of 1992 MSP Part 150 pre-application to the FAA (2) Review of Workshop #1 (10/8/91 at Bloomington Kennedy High School), (3) Avigation Easement discussion - Tom Anderson. 1. A draft of the Preavvlication to FAA for Airaort Imvrovement Pro�tram Fundins� was distributed and reviewed by Sheldon Strom. This is the narrative version which describes the three land use programs as approved by the PAC. The Budget on page 8 was reviewed. If a strict timetable is kept, implementation could be done before April 1992 which would allow more time to spend the money. It is important to have a good track record for the first year. 2. Steve Vecchi reported that the format worked well at the first October Workshop for R.ichfield/Bloomington which was held at Kennedy High School. Approximately 80 people attended. Steve encouraged PAC members to attend the upcoming workshops. It was announced that on October 8th, the MAC P&E committee approved a work program to evaluate acquisition of New Ford Town/R.ich Acres, authority to enter into a joint powers agreement to complete the work program, and authority to execute necessary documents. 3. Tom Anderson, MAC General Counsel, addressed the committee on the legal definition of Avigation Easement. Generally, if there is a diminution of property due to aircraft noise, there has then been a"taking of propert}�' and the homeowners must be compensated. MAC has been involved in a lawsuit (Alevisos vs. MAC) for many yeazs which has been based on an "inverse" condemnation theory. Tom explained that to begin a condemnation process actually equates to purchasing an avigational easement. Currendy there are 50 plaintiffs still involved in this litigation that are requesting that MAC purchase avigation easements (through inverse condemnation). Tom Anderson expressed to the committee that he had three primary concerns as MAC Legal Counsel, regarding avigational easements: A. There is still a question on the "status" of the MAC vs. Alevisos litigation. The Part 150 program participation could include participants hom these SO active plaintiffs. B. What is the FAA's current position of requiring the signing of avigation easements prior to receieving Part 150 funds? The consultant team informed Tom and the committee that the current FAA handbook "recommends" easements (not requires). ' Mr. Anderson was still concerned being given lower priority in funding allocations from the FAA by an airport that "required" the signing of avigation easements. C. Tom was concerned if a Part 150 program without requiring easements, met Minnesota State requirements, due to the problem of giving public money without getting something in return. He expressed that MAC might have to identify both the Public and Private benefits of giving money to residents through the Part 150 program without receiving an easement in return. Comments: Melissa Burn informed members they have not experienced any problems in 3/4 of cities worked in with getting an easement when the resident wanted to participate in a program. Jon Hohenstein commented that if the MAC does not want the Avigation Easement, then the cities would just as soon drop it. Mona Shaw thought the Avigation Easement requirement was based more on Minnesota state law. The committee discussed the possibility of dealing with a"release" on both current and future litigation with MAC regarding diminution of property. ChaiYman Bunin moved to recommend draftinA a Release rather than an Avi�tation Easement, for anv liti�ation bv the current homeowner. An increase of 1.5 LDN decibels would ne�ate the Release. The motion was seconded bv Jon Hohenstein. A vote was taken, and the motion nassed. The next meeting will be both the PAC and Core Teams, to begin discussion on city-specific land use program selections and prioritization. The meeting date will be scheduled and a notice mailed when the consultants finish the next phase of information. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBIISIY IlVIPLEMENrATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY COMIVIlII�E (PAC) OG'I�OBER 2, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Steve Cramer, William Weaver, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Scott Bunin, and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager Consultants: Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communicadons � Chaiiman Bunin called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m., and introduced the agenda items: 1. continued discussion of concensus on the Purchase Guarantee Program, 2. Review of Educaiional Workshop format, 3. MSP 1992 Part 150 pre-application to FAA, and 4. Review of the Workshop questionai�e form. • 1. The Purchase Guarantee program addendum was distributed and reviewed by Steve Vecchi. He advised the cities to be awaze of the costs involved with purchase guarantee as listed under the fair market value, plus factors for the total program cost Recommendations included (1) insulation must be included in this program, (2) City will deterniine level of participation in the purchase guarantee program, and (3) put sound insulation cost back on the purchase price. The definition of fair market value will be determined before this program begins. During discussion, prices and totals on the addendum were corrected. Tom Lawell moved to approve the addendum as corrected, and subject to FAA information pending. Bill Weaver seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. A discussion followed regarding consultants/agents or a central agency for control, expertise and coordination of the sound insulation projects. 2. Steve Vecchi presented a brief overview of the October Public Information Workshop dates, format, work stations, and introduced the questionaire form which will be used to collect information from community residents. The information will be given to the city PAC members. 3. Steve Vecchi distributed and reviewed a report on $4 million 1992 Part 150 Funding allocadon scenario. Whatever monies aze applied for September 1991 must be spent by September 1992. Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Director Planning & Environment, relayed to MAC staff that working with a smaller amount of Part 150 funds ($4 million) for the first year would allow problems and "kinks" to be worked out of the system, and recommended thereafter applying for substantially larger amounts of funds when they can be spent faster and more efficiendy with the programs running smoothly. Sheldon Strom is preparing a draft of the FAA pre-application form. He requested a concensus on what program the cities are most interested in doing the first year. The concensus: Sound Insulation. Mendota Heights would like the ability to roll the funds over and hold for acquisition, or doing just one large project such as a school insulation. The pre- application draft will be presented at the next PAC meeting 10-9-91. Glen Orcutt distributed an FAA informational brochure, "Introduction to the Airport Improvement Program" which covers funding, eligibility, and the grant process. Steve Vecchi distributed and reviewed the matrix of a cost per home analysis on the Sound Insulation Program. He informed members that a meeting process is on-going with the FAA to get approval on the SEL concept 4. Members reviewed the workshop questionaire form. During discussion appropriate changes and corrections were made. The revised form will be used at the October Public Information Workshops. Chairman Bunin rescheduled the time of the October 9th PAC meeting to 10 a.m., instead of noon. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILIIY IIViPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY CONIlVIlTrEE (PAC) � SEPTEMBER 20, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Peggy Reichert for Steve Cramer, Allen Lovejoy, William Weaver, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Scott Bunin, Dick Keinz. Advisory: Glen Orcutt, FAA., Steve Vecchi, Project Manager. Consultants: Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suzie Kleymeyer-AvPlan, Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Dick Arey-CEUE, Pat Goodwin-Goodwin Communications. Chairman Bunin called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m., and introduced the agenda items: 1. Continued discussion and concensus on the method of allocation of yearly Part 150 funds between participating cities and 2. Conrinued discussion and concensus on Land Use Program matrix's. Sheldon Strom, CEUE, distributed and reviewed a report on "Options for Allocating Part 150 Funding". The report pointed out that the 1992 monies would not be enough to consider Purchase Programs. The fAA will begin working with the $4 million figure annually. They will commit to a program and then find sources for the funds to support them. Options - Entitlement Funds and Discretionary Funds (i.e. Adanta Airport). Each FAA Region competes for funds. This region covers a 4-state area: MN, WS, ND, SD. Because the Part 150 program is already in place, MSP is further ahead of other airports in this region, but will have competition 2 years down the line. It was pointed out that MAC needs to become more aggressive and apply for the largest amount of FAA funds as possible in order to deal with all the needs within the MSP Ldn 65. Bill Weaver brought up the need for multi-strategies for sources of funding. Allen Lovejoy presented a two-part motion as an interim project for the Part 150 FAA funds and MAC funds: (1) Majority of funding should toward sound insulation and not purchase programs, and (2) Base allocation should be 2% for each community. Mr. Lovejoy accepted a fiiendly amendment by Peggy Reichert to strike the first part of the motion regarding sound insulation. Tom Lawell moved, and Jon Hohenstein seconded, to amend the second part of the motion to a 5�/0 allocation. A vote was taken and failed 4 to 3. A vote was then taken on the the original amended motion and was passed S to 2. Steve Vecchi distributed and reviewed a Recommended Addendum to the Sound Insulation Program. An addition was added to the last paragraph which will be reflected in an updated report copy. The PAC meetings have been poorly attended and members aze leaving eazly. Chairman Bunin and Project Manager, Steve Vecchi, determined that our deadlines must be met, and that the Committee will proceed on with voting with, or without all cities attending the meeting. Also, previous agenda material will not be re-discussed if it was missed at previous meeting. Chairman Bunin scheduled PAC meeting #7 on Wednesday, October 2, and PAC meeting #8 on Wednesday, October 9. Both meeting will begin at noon. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Respectively Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILIIY IlVIPI.F.MFNTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY COIVIlVIITI�E (PAC) SF.PTF.MR� 11, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Peggy Reichert for Steve Cramer, William Weaver, Lazry Lee, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Scott Bunin, Dick Keinz. Advisory: Steve Vecchi, Project Manager and Jean Deighton, MAC staff. Consultants: Ben Sharp-Wyle Labs, Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suaie Kleymeyer-AvPlan, Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Dick Arey-CEUE, Pat Goodwin- Goodwin Communications. Chairman Bunin called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m. The agenda items include further discussion and decision-malting of the MSP Part 150 Land Use Program ma�ixes, and discussion and concensus of the general priority rules and yearly city dollar allocation methods to be used in the MSP Part 150 Land Use Program implementation. Steve Vecchi briefed the committee on MAC status with the FAA for 1992 Part 150 monies availability. The FAA district office will require submission of a detailed application for funds (due 8/31/91) and will want to know �where the $4 million is going to be spent in 1992. The funds aze at the FAA National level and will be applied for through the regional office. It is most important that the PAC get all the concensus issues cleared up as soon as possible in order to get the budget submitted. Steve informed members that the Part 150 is now in the process. of being updated. The 1996 preliminary contour must be resubmitted as part of this process. As of now, the 1992 contour is the only one �approved by the FAA. 1. SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM Ben Sharp reviewed the updated copy of the Sound Insulation Program. A discussion session followed. The question of whether or not the FAA would reunburse expenses for sound insulation if done ahead of time, was felt to be well-worth looking into. This would serve two purposes; take the pressure off where residents want sound insulation immediately, and, leverages money by doing the work now - reimburse later. � Members felt use of only one sound insulation contractor who cannot perform other remodeling work (in addition to the sound insulation), was too limited. William Weaver suggested eliminating extra costs through the program "application process" which is applied for by the homeowner. This would allow a way for the homeowner to introduce and anticipate additional remodeling. Ben Sharp reviewed di.fferent methods used in other cities on how contracdng was handled. Staff will prepaze an added statement on additional remodeling language. Issue of Concern #1: Concensus voted that there is no need for priority on this issue. The city can decide. Issue of Concern #2: Concensus Vote (modified b) - The homeowner can decide at any time and priority will then be given by the city after that. Issue of Concern #3: Concensus Vote (b) - The sponsor (MAC) contracts with an outside agency or firm. 2. LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM Mona Shaw reviewed the updated copy of the Land Acquisition Program. Additions were made to the second and third paragraphs of the program summary, which will appeaz in the updated copy and distributed at the next meeting. Issue of Concern #1: Concensus Vote (a) - Block by block. Issue of Concern #2: Concensus Vote (c) - No specific time frame is identified. Steve Vecchi reviewed five funding options. Variations of these options will be presented at the next meeting. The consultants will run scenarios for possible yeazly $ allocation methods using the 1990 census figures, to be presented at the next meeting. Chairman Bunin scheduled PAC meeting #6 for Friday, September 20th, 12 noon. Lunch will be served. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 �p.m. Respectively Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILTIY IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) � AUGUST 20, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room. The following voting members were in attendance: Steve Cramer (Gordon Wagoner-Alternate), Allen Lovejoy, Larry Lee, Byron Wallace, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Scott Bunin, Bob Johnson and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager and Jean Deighton- MAC Staff Consultants: Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Dick Arey-CEUE, Ben Sharp-Wyle Labs, Melissa Burn- Wyle Labs, Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suzie Kleymeyer-AvPlan, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications Chairman Bunin called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m. The agenda item is further discussion and concensus of the Land Use Program matrix's. Steve Vecchi reviewed the 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour map which was distributed to each member. He also announced the next series of educarional workshops which will be held October 8-10. Between now and the first week of October, the PAC needs to define each Land Use Program and come to a concensus on each strategy option. The committee determined that each program should again be reviewed and then opened for discussion for a concensus. Each program was then reviewed and discussed as follows: 1. LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM , Mendota Heights and Eagan questioned acquisition outside of the Ldn 75. Both cities requested affirmation of buy-outs beyond Ldn 75. Division of neighborhoods is not an issue and they are supportive of a definition of neighborhoods. St. Paul questioned long-term programs if MSP expands, and if monies used to purchase land for new runway expansion would be reimburs�d back to Part 150 funds. Glen Orcutt clarified that land purchased with Part 150 funds for runway expansion, would only be used for airport purposes. Issue of Concern #1: Concensus Vote (b) - Use of specific noise contour boundaries (Ldn 65) modified to account for neighborhoods based on redevelopment potential. Issue of Concern #2: Concensus Vote (Modified a) - Funding priority will be based on location within the contour and 2-years residency in the home before application is made. 2. SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM Issue of Concern #1: Issue of Concern #2: Concensus Vote (b) - Owners of all types of residential units inside the program boundaries would be eligible to participate. Issue of Concern #3: Concensus Vote (Modified b-d combined) - Based on block to block closest to the airport with city jurisdictional input. Issue of Concern #4: Concensus Vote (Modified a) - Eligible homeowners living between the 1996 Ldn 65 and 75 noise contour would not be required to contribute towazd the cost of the sound insulation treatment unless the eligible homeowner does not sign an avigational easement, they would pay 20% of the incurred cost. Issue of Concern #5: Concensus Vote (c) - Limited homeowner veto of treatments by selection of alternatives from a prepared list. Issue of Concern #6: Concensus Vote (Added New) - MAC will identify other funding sources and pay for installation of air-conditioning 100%. 3. PURCHASE GUARANTEE PROGRAM Issue of Concern #1: Concensus Vote (b) - Use of specific noise contour boundaries (Ldn 65) modified to account for neighborhoods based on redevelopment potential. Issue of Concern #2: Concensus Vote (a) - All owner occupied, single-family residential units would be eligible. Issue of Concern #3: Concensus Vote (Modified b) - Based on location within the noise contour and •on 2-year ownership with city jurisdictional input. Issue of Concern #4: Concensus Vote (a) - Prior to putting the house up for sale on the market. Issue of Concern #5: Concensus Vote (Modified a) - A set number of days (90-240 days) average within the community based on MLS, rounded to a whole month, adjusted as necessary based on the grant application period. 4. AVIGATION EASEMENT Issue of Concern #1: Concensus Vote (Modified a) - Current noise levels�plus 1-1/2 db (exterior) from the operation and maintenance of existing runways at MSP. Steve Vecchi opened discussion on MSP yearly Part 150 funds and distributed three different concepts for concensus of what could be done at MSP. It was decided to discuss these concepts at the next meeting. Chairman Bunin scheduled PAC Meeting #5 for Wednesday, September 11, at 12:00 noon. Lunch will be served. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILIIY IlVIPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) � JiJLY 31, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Comtnission, MASAC Room and called to order at 12:50 p.m. by Chairman Scott Bunin. The following voting members were in attendance: Steve Cramer (Gordon Wagoner-Alternate), Allen Lovejoy, Larry Lee, William Weaver, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, (Chauncey Case-Altemate), Scott Bunin, Bob Johnson and Dick Keinz. Advisory: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager and Jean Deighton-MAC Staff Consultants: Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Dick Arey-CEUE, Ben Sharp-Wyle Lab, Mona Shaw-AvPlan, Suzie Kleymeyer-AvPlan, Pat Goodwin, Goodwin Communications PRESENTATION OF LAND USE PROGR.AM MENU MATRIX Steve Vecchi introduced matrixes for the three main Land Use Programs (Sound Insulation, Land Acquisidon, Purchase Guarantee) as well as, the Avigation Easement supplement The MAC will be asked to reach a consensus on each of the basic land use program strategy options at the upcoming August 20th meeting. A report on each of the three programs and easement supplement was distributed to each committee member which included a summary explanation of the program, issues of concern, strategy options, and strategy option pro and con. Slide presentations were given on each of these reports as follows: Sound Insulation: Ben Sharp, Wyle Labs, reviewed sound insulation methods and basics of the program covering issues of concern, and strategy options. During discussion it was pointed out that each city would have to determine where to invest the program monies: residences, schools, churches, public buildings. Allen Lovejoy suggested that the individual participating residents "ability to pa}�' should also be an issue of concern. Staff will add this item to the list of issues. Larry Lee suggested that the Consultant Team include the experiences from other airports who have already initiated these land use programs at the August 20th meeting. The consultants will include recommendation on some of the matrix strategy options based on other airports experiences in order to assist the PAC in their decision-making process on August 20th. Land AcQuisition Prostram, Purchase Guarantee Prostrram and Avigation Easement: Mona Shaw, AvPlan, presented all the basic eligibility criteria on the three programs and covered issues of concern and s�ategy options. Steve Cramer suggested that for the sound insulation program, the avigation easement supplement requirement should be a policy issue that the PAC cazefully consider before making a final decision. Larry Lee questioned the history of avigation easements in other communities and the consultant team informed the PAC that they have been a required supplement to almost all land use programs at other airports. MSP LDN CONTOUR UPDATE Steve Vecchi reviewed noise modei input for the 1996 LDN Contour. It was rumored in Washington, D.C. that a August Z, 1991, is the deadline for cornpletion of the FAA National Noise Rule {Stage 2 restricdon, Stage 3°lo limits). The Consuitant Team wanted to deiay the running the INM computer model of Che MSP 1996 LDN noise contour until August 2nd so the final language can be incorporated. If the cieadline passes without action, it was decided that the 1996 LDN modei be run anyway using the draft FAA Noise Rule language. The new cantour will be reviewed at a Special Palicy Advisory Meeting to be held August 14th. Tom Lawell requested that the new naise cantour be run with, and without, the new Corridor Departure pracedure. UPDATE & DISCUSSION: PUBLIC EDUCATItJNAL WORKSHOPS (Au�ust 29. 2Q. 21) Mona Shaw reviewed and updated the comrnittee an the Educatianal Workshaps which will be heid August 19, 20, and 21, in Minneapolis, Richfield and Mendota Heights, respectively, from 6 p.m. ta 9 p.m. She reparted that a copy af the mailer was distributed ta approximately 15,000 homes in the "project study area", which is somewhat lazger thaC the 1996 Cantour. A media conference will be held August 14th at 11 a.m. A copy of the 6-part brachure mailers will be handed aut to the press, along wirh a gress packet. The press con€erence will also inciude a taur of the Demo Home. Larry Lee requestec� that Cable Television also be invited ta the media conference. Sheldon Strom informed the committee that a special area of hand-delivered mailers will be made to the cities of Eagan and Mendata Heights since these addresses are not in the data base being used far the ma�Iing list. ' UPDATE: DEMO Ht.�ME ACOUSTICAL MODIFICATI�N PROJEGT Ben Sharp reported that a contractor had been hired and construction� is 70% finished, with a compietion date targeted for Manday, August Sth. Mr. Sharp reviewed the three rooms which are being acoustically treated: Den, Living Room and Dining Room. During the tours of the Dema Home there wiil be F,.�hibits of Sound Insulatian, Noise Contour Maps, Windaw Exhibits and Audia Demonstrations. DE1VI0 HOME TOUR After adjounment of the rneeting, PAC members were given a guided Cour through the Demo Home. A notice was distributed to all members of a SPECIAL PAC meeting which will be held Wednesday, August 14, 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served. Evan Futterman, HNTB, will present the preliminary 1996 LDN 65 noise contour map. Chairman Bunin scheduled PAC Meeting #4 for Tuesday, August 20, at 12:00 noon. Lunch will be served. � Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMARY PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBIL�i'Y IlVIPLEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVISORY CON�VIITrEE (PAC) JLTNE 5, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Room and called .to order at 12:50 p.m. by Chairman Scott Bunin. The following voting members were in attendance: Gordon Wagoner (for Steve Cramer), Roger Ryan (for Allen Lovejoy), William Weaver, Jon Hohenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Chauncey Case, Scott Bunin, Bob Johnson and Dick Keinz. Advisorv: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager and Jean Deighton- MAC Staff Consultants: Sheldon Strom-CEUE, Ben Sharp-Wyle Lab, Mona Shaw-Aviation Planning, Patricia Goodwin, Goodwin Communications Finalization of Citv Core Team Rosters Chairman Bunin requested that each PAC member submit a name and address list to Jean Deighton, MAC, in order to finalize the Core membership roster and mailing lists. Review of Proiect Flow Chart Revision (5-7-91 draft) Steve Vecchi reviewed changes and additions to the flow chart. A simplified version of the flow chart was distributed to all members. The timeframe is still tentative but the implementation design plan should be completed by April 1992. The city of St. Paul was added to the flow chart as a Core Team member, even though they may not be eligible for funding. Dick Keinz commented on the good turn out at the 11:00 a.m. press conference today. The media asked positive questions and the interview went well. Patricia Goodwin, Goodwin Communications, was introduced as a new consultant team member and was thanked for a job well-done. The media statement released to the press was distributed to all PAC members. Finalization of Proiect Studv Area Boundaries Sheldon Strom reviewed the Project Study Area and requested agreement today from the committee on deciding the final project area. PAC members were asked for their input on any changes to the boundary lines. After a lengthy discussion which included requests from Mendota Heights, Bloomington, Met. Council and Richfield, to increase the project area, it was decided that a larger project area will help educate more of the public and open the line of communication to inform the public "why they would not" be included in the final eligibility area. In summary, whatever is agreed upon today as the project area, will be used through the flow chart process until the 1996 contour is completed. This committee will also work on "maintaining equity in the neighborhood" after the 1996 contour is completed. Noise Criteria Discussion Ben Sharp discussed noise cirteria within the eligibility area. To be eligible for FAA funding for sound insulation, a structure must generally lie between the DNL 65 and 75 dB contours, although exceptions are allowed in the interest of retaining neighborhood equity. � � The noise insulation criteria is stated as being at least 20 dB NLR (noise level reduction) for a DNL 65 dB exterior level, increasing commensurate with any increase in the exterior DNL. The minimum decrease in NLR for any eligible house is 5 dB. The wording in these statements, i.e., "at least 20 dB" and "a minimum decrease of 5 dB", indicate some degree of flexibility in the criteria. The results of citizen surveys show that people are more annoyed by the single-event noise rather than the overall average noise. Since homes in the MSP metropolitan area already have a higher dB indoor/outdoor attenuation due to a high level of thermal insulation and DNL is not necessarily a good prediction of single-event noise, an alternative noise metric, such as the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), may be more appropriate for determining the degree of sound insulation required. Land Use Menu Options Mona Shaw distributed and reviewed a Land Use Menu which covered Soundproofing programs (residential, human services, schools and churches), Acquisition/Redevelopment Programs, Purchase Guarantee Programs, Building Code Modification Programs, Rezoning Programs and Avigational Easement Packages. Mona is now working on a report of what is being done at other airports across the country. Upon completion, this package will •be distributed to all PAC members. Items not on the A�enda Ben Sharp reviewed plans for the Demo Home. The house is designed so visitors will be able to experience 4 different degrees of interior noise level reduction. Both real aircraft and simulated noise will be used for the demonstration. A copy of the demo home report is attached. Sheldon Strom presented statistics from the housing survey which included: - number of stories - window types - wall types - air conditioning The preliminary survey consisted of 25% of households in Bloomington, Minneapolis and Richfield. Blocks to be surveyed were selected at random. A copy of the survey report is attached. Wyle Lab will identify "types" of houses, and select 12 homes for detailed noise monitoring and analysis. . A lunch meeting was scheduled for PAC meeting #3 to be held Thursday, June 27th,12:00-2:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Following the meeting an Educational Workshop was presented to the PAC and Core Team members. Respectfully Submitted: � Jean Deighton, MAC Staff MEETING SUMMAR'i� PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBII.ITY IlVIP'LEMENTATION DESIGN POLICY ADVIS(JRY COMMTI'�rEE �PAC) � APRIL 24, 1991 The meeting was held at the General Office af the Metropolitan Airparts Commission, MASAC Room. The meetircg was called to arder at 2:10 p.m. by Steve Vecchi, Praject Manager. The follawing voting members were in attendance: Steve Cramer, Allen Lovejoy, William Weaver, Larry Lee, Jan Hahenstein, Tom Lawell, Carol Kummer, Scatt Bunin, Bob Johnsan and Dick Keinz. Advisarv: Glenn Orcutt-FAA, Steve Vecchi-MAC Project Manager and Jean Deighton-MAC Staff Cansultants: Sheldon Stram-CfiUE, Ben Sharp-Wyle Lab, David Schiothauer and Mona Shaw-Aviatian Plan�ring Assoc. 1. Intraduction An introductian and background presentation was giveri by the Part 150 Consultant Team, David Schiothauer, President of Aviatian Planning Associates, Inc., Mona Shaw, Project Manager-Aviation Planning Assaciates, Inc., Ben Sharp, Wyle Laboratories, and Sheldon Strom, CEUE (Center far Energy & Urban Enviranment). All vating me�tbers of the committee then infiraduced themselves. Scott Bunin, PAC Chaimian and Bob Johnsan, PAC �ce Chairman, will preside over the upcoming meetings. � The following material was distributed at the meeting to each committee member: Drafts of the PAC Membership Roster, Part 150 Land Use Implementation Design Tirnetable, Educational Workshop Stations descriprion and a flow chart showing the Part 15Q Land Use Implementation Workscape and tirnetabie. 2. Review of Proiect Workscove and Timetable Steve Vecchi, Project Manager, reviewed the project flow chart covering a timetable from April 1991 ta April 1992, FAA/MAC funding, and explained the PAC's advisory role which is to ensure proper oversight thraughout the implementadan design grocess. The follawing flaw chart itezns were explained: 1. FAA Part 150 Land Use Prograrn Options & Financing Mechanisms 2. Consultant Team Tasks 3. PAC advisory role in the project ' 4. Carnmunicadan and Mailer Plans 5. Educatianal Workshap Camgosition and Timing 6. Development of Final Land Use and Finance Program Menu 7. Demonstration Home - Upen House 8. Final MSP Master Implementadon Plan Steve Cramer and Bob Johnson brought to the Committee's attention that how project cammunication is presented to the public is very critical to both clarity and credibility of the Part 150 Land Use Implementation program. It was requested that any media distribution be first approved by the PRC, befare it is released. Steve Vecchi reiterated the duty of PAC members to communicate back to their cities and contribute all their city's issues, concerns and desires regarding the implementation of this project. The next step for PAC city members is to organize a city-specific CORE Team. There will be five CORE Teams which will represent the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Mendota Heights. Each CORE Team will consist of the following representatives: (1) PAC (leader), (2) Technical Rep., (3) Planning Rep., (4) Community Relations Rep. and (S) Administrative Rep. The CORE Teams wi�l assist in the coordination of public meetings, workshops and demons�ations and the development of final City Implementation Design plans. Time and date conflicts were discussed for the Educational Workshops which had been orig-inally scheduled for May 20-22. It was also felt that the Workshops were being held too soon and should be moved to late summer. It was agreed they would be held during the 8/19/91 - 8/21/91 dme period. During discussion of TASK #5, (Development of Land Use & Finance Program) David Schlothauer stressed the need for getting community feedback on these menu items. Concerns on how the resulting program would be monitored were brought up by Allen Lovejoy, and will be added to the flowchart menu. Completion of the "Demo Home" is expected July 1, 1991. The open house, staffed by CEUE, will be open to the public during the 7/19/91 - 8/19/91 period which will coincide with the 1991 Airport Days tours. The Final MSP Master Implementation Plan design -(TASK #8), anticipated to take 2 to 3 months, was reviewed as a key item. This is where the master prioritizing and phasing will take place considering all the individual city plans submitted by the CORE Teams. 3. FAA Eli�ibilitv Requirements Ben Sharp and Glen Orcutt reported that the FAA will pay up to 80% for eligible projects. The two areas which will determine eligibility are (1) Area (contour eligibility) and (2) Interior Noise Levels of Residential Homes. Committee members requested the FAA eligibility information be present in a printed report form. Mona Shaw will include this item in the next package which is now being put together. The FAA will be using the 1996/ 5-year LDN contour to determine area eligibility. The estimated date of completion for the 1996 contour is late July 1991. Sheldon Strom reviewed a designated STUDY AREA which was displayed on a map for committee members. The Study Area will act'as an"interim" geographical area for survey and research purposes until the completion of the 1996 Base Case LDN Contour. It is based on the 1989 contour and in no way establishes eligibility. It will be used only to establish a data base for the surveys, media mailers, educational workshops and public forums. 4. Educational Workshop Discussion Mona Shaw reviewed the 7-Station workshop handout. The workshops serve to inform the public and to educate ourselves as to the public's needs and wants. Therefore, the workshop works for both sides as an information collator. � Committee members questioned the timeframe of the workshops as being too early in the yearly process, where the public will start demanding immediate funding. Staff stressed the importance of educating the public early in the process as to the reality of a multi-year implementation program. The public needs to know right up front, that this is a lengthy federal process. The committee discussed several concerns regarding the workshops. Sheldon Strom then asked for any alternatives to holding the workshop in June. The suggestions were as follows: (1) Try the 7-station workshop on the CORE Team first, (2) Move the workshop date back to August which is closer to the Public Forums (3) Rename workshops to "Open House", (4) Complete TASK 5 so it is ready for the "Open House", (5) The mailer could include all three dates ("Open House", Public Forum and Communicadon Meeting). It was decided that first a special CORE Team and Media Educational "Open House" be held on June 5th between 2:30-5:00 p.m. The Public Educational "Open House" would be moved back to the August 19-21 period. 5. Citv "Core-Group" Formation A review of the Core Team formation was given earlier in the meeting. A deadline for appointment of Core Team representatives was set for June S. The next PAC meeting was scheduled for June 5th at 12:30 p.m. which will include lunch. Respectfully Submitted: Jean Deighton, MAC Staff I • %'J f� � `•u t MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS January 8, T0: Mayor, City Council, City Administ FROM: Klayton H. Eckles �� SUBJECT: Ivy Falls Creek Drainage System Protection and Improvements Project 8814 . � Storm Water Utility Program Proposal Project 9125 DISCUSSION The erosion problems of the Ivy Falls Creek Drainage system have been before the Council several times in the past. Once again this problem has come to the Council's attention, this time because resident Jack Brassard is very concerned about the erosion of his property, and wants the creek stabilized. Before doing repair on just a portion of the creek, the question of how the repair will tie into future projects must be addressed. In the past the creek erosion problem has never been resolved because the extreme cost to repair and protect the creek ma.de an improvement project unfeasible. This time there are other possible funding mechanisms which the Council can consider. Cost sharing with West St. Paul and implementation of a Storm Water Utility Program both offer promising alternatives to straight assessments. In light of the fact that BARR Engineering has done studies of the creek in conjunction with the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (WMO), and the time since the last study, it seemed prudent to prepare a completely new study of the creek situation. Attached is a copy of the Ivy Falls Creek Drainage System Improvement and Protection report. It discusses the history, present situation, possible solutions, estimated costs, and funding alternatives for the creek and possible improvement project. The funding source that holds the most promise is a Storm Water Utility Program. Such a program could be used to cover the majority of the creek improvement costs, and also provide revenue for other storm water projects and costs which are looming in the future. With the advent of WMO's and the concerns for the environment, storm sewer systems will require improvements and increased maintenance. Currently the city has no program in place that could finance these potentially costly projects. A Storm Water Utility Program, which works just like a sanitary sewer utility program, is the funding method being used and developed by many other cities in the metro area. Attached is a proposal for design and implementation of such a program. RECOMI�NDATIONS 1) Staff recommends Council review and discuss the Ivy Falls Creek Report then read and discuss the Storm Water Utility Program Proposal. 2) If Council wishes to pursue the creek repair issue further, the next step would be to get the affected pro�erties involved. At Council's direction Staff could notify the neighborhood of the situation, and call for an open public discussion or neighborhood meeting. 3) If either or both the creek issue and the storm utility issue are to be �ursued further, Staff will make any corrections, additions, or clarifications and can provide more detail on any aspect of the report that the Council may desire. ACTION REOUIRED If Council wishes implement Staff's recommendation, Council should read and discuss the reports, then pass a motion calling for a neighborhood meeting to discuss Ivy Falls Creek. The March 3rd Council meeting would allow sufficient time to prepare and notify the affected residents. 0 Ivy Falls Creek Drainage System Improvement and Protection Project 8814 Mendota Heights Minnesota January 26, 1992 By Klayton H. Eckles 1 � f A CONTENTS SUBJECT INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION History and Current Situations Possible Solutions Detention Basin Minimum Repair Modular (Gabion/Timber) Drops Full Scale Drop Structures High Flow Pipe/Low Flow Channel Cost Analysis Funding Sources and Mechanisms Cost Sharing Assessments General Obligation Fund Storm Water�Utility Combinations CONCLUSIONS PAGE 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 APPENDIXES 13 Appendix A- Maps of Creek and Drainage Area Map #1 - Project Area Map #2 - Drainage District Ma.p #3 - Phase I Construction Appendix B- Table of Alternatives Appendix C - Concept Drawings Drawing #1 - Gabion Drops Drawing #2 - Timber Drops Drawing #3 - High Flow Pipe/Low Flow Channel 2 � . ' INTRODUCTION The Ivy Creek Drainage system has suffered periodic erosion and property damage over the years. Most of the damage has occurred during large storms (100 year storm of 1977, and 1987 Super storm), but continual erosion is an ongoing problem. Because of the current erosion problems and the potential damage which could occur given another storm, Council directed Staff to prepare a feasibility report discussing the creek problem and possible solutions. Also Council directed Staff to prepare plans and specifications for repairs on two city culverts and the bank along Jack Brassard's home, which require immediate attention due to significant erosion. This report and possible this report Engineering, DISCUSSION examines the past history, the current condition, remedies for the creek problem. Information for comes from past feasibility reports, BARR. and Staff analysis. The body of this report will be broken down into the following sections: - History and Current - Possible Solutions - Cost Analysis - Funding sources and - Conclusions Situation mechanisms Historv and Current Situation In Appendix A, Map #1 shows the project area, and Map #2 shows the overall drainage area. The creek is actually a series of creeks which connect together before reaching Ivy Falls. The areas of concern are the Ivy Falls Creek Main Stem, the Ivy Hill Park Reach, and to a lesser extent the Ivy Falls First addition reach. Ivy Falls Creek Main stem, which runs from the falls up to Delaware Avenue, has been improved for much of its length. Mendota Heights and West St. Paul completed a joint repair project west of Delaware Avenue. Aft-er the 1977 storm a large scale improvement was undertaken which improved the creek through Somerset Golf Course and from Dodd road to Sylvandale Road. The section below Sylvandale is experiencing some serious problems in isolated areas. The Phase I creek improvement 3 I A project, which council ordered preparation of plans and specifications this year, includes the repair of the storm pipe under Sylvandale Road. Appendix A, Map #3 shows the pro�ect area of the proposed Phase I improvements. Note that this Phase of construction is currently on hold because of easement acquisition problems. The Ivy Hills Park reach is suffering the most and little has been done to repair and improve it. This section has very steep stream bed slope, and flows in a deep ravine with steep sides. The Phase I project currently being designed, addresses one of the most severe areas located along the Brassard Property, which requires immediate attention. Phase II construction would entail additional improvements to stabilize the banks and bed of the creek. The Ivy Falls First Addition does not have the large volumes of water the other two reaches have, but it still has some significant erosion problems. The repair and protection of this section of creek is not as pressing as the other two sections. The Ivy Creek drainage system is the ma.in drainage way for the north east corner of the city with over 600 acres draining into it. The continual "In Fill" development of this area means more hard surface area, which means more precipitation run off. The increase in run off will make the erosion problem grow progressively worse. Prior to this area developing, there were more low areas for ponding of precipitation and less imperious land, so water reached the creek in lesser quantities at lower velocities. High velocities and flow rates are the chief factors which create the erosion. The creek is particularl� vulnerable to erosion and bank failure because of the relatively steep slope of the creek bed. A typical creek might have a slope of 0.2' per 100 feet, whereas Ivy creek has up to 6' per 100 feet. This causes high velocities and greater turbulence. The entire creek system is almost devoid of holding ponds, which means the volume of water flowing in the creek is much greater during an intense storm. Holding ponds catch �recipitation, hold it back, and gradually empty excess water into the receiving system. Solutions to the erosion problem must address the issues of high velocity and excessive flow rates. Possible Solutions BARR Engineering completed two working papers that examined n � possible solutions to the problems in the creek. BARR's examination was limited to the Ivy Falls Creek reach and the Ivy Hills Park reach. The Ivy Falls First Addition reach was not included in the papers, but BARR's findings are equally valid for it too. In the first working paper BARR developed a list of nine possible solutions and briefly discussed each one. BARR then developed a table and qualitativel�r rated each option on constructability, safety, reliability/durability, effectiveness, aesthetics, and cost. A copy of this table is provided in Appendix B. BARR and Staff considered the options and deleted the ones that did not seem feasible. The "Do Nothing" option was deleted because it is obvious that at some point something must be done. The "Pipe" option, which would eliminate the creek entirely and pipe the water through the city, was also rejected. The Rip-Rap option was rejected because it wouldn't be able to handle the force of large storms. The Concrete Flume option was rejected�because of safety reasons. The remaining options, Detention Basins, Minimum Repair, Modular Drop Structures, Drop Structures, and High Flow Pipe/Low Flow Channel, were given more serious consideration in Working Paper II, where BAR.R did a cost comparison and life expectancy of each option. The list and discussion of alternatives considered in this study is given below in order of increasing cost: Alternative - Increase Capacity of Detention Basin The Detention Basin option is only feasible in one location. Ivy Hills Park has an existing pond where the holding capacity could be enlarged. BARR's findings show that this option is the most important one available, and it should be implemented no matter what other option is chosen. Enlarging the pond would involve clearing and transplanting some existing trees, raising the sides of the pond alon� Maple Park Drive, and reshaping some of the open space in the park to allow for storm water storage. The pond itself could be enlarged or remain as is, the important change would be in how much water would be held back in the open space of the park during large storms. It should be pointed out that normal storms would not be any different than the existing conditions, but on the extremely large storms of once in 25 or 100 years, the open space would be flooded for a few hours. This technique is widely used in other cities, and even in our own city storm water system. When the reshaping of the park is completed, some landscape 5 4 � enhancement could also be completed, and new trees could be planted. Perhaps excess fill could be used to create a sliding hill. To sum up, the storm water storage area would still be available for any type of open area use (i.e. picnics, frizbee, duck watching) and the pond could be altered in shape and size at our choosing. The cost to complete the detention area enlargement would be approximately $124,000 as estima.ted by BARR, not including extraordinar� landscaping such as trees, shrubs, sod, or special grading. BARR recommends that whatever the city does, the detention enlargement should be part of it. I agree with BARR. The larger detention area reduces the flows and construction costs for the rest of the creek. This option should be chosen no matter what other option is chosen. The remaining alternatives assume the enlarged holdinQ area is in place. If the pond were not enlarged then the cost of these other alternatives would be significantly increased. Alternative - Minimum Repair. This alternative consists of lowering culvert outlets or filling the eroded channel at the outlets, providing rip-rap and filter ma.terial at culvert outlets, and filling in along the channel. The minimum repair option is advantageous from a cost stand point, but only if the life of the improvement is ignored. BARR estimated the total cost of this option to be $321,000. The problem with this option is that BARR estimates it to have a 4 year life expectancy. In other words, the first significant storm would undo much of the improvements. Alternative - Modular Drop Structure (Gabion or Timber) This o�tion would consist of constructing a series of three foot high steps down the creek bed so that the water would pass over a series of small water falls on its way down the creek. Each waterfall reduces the steepness of the creek and the velocity of the water. This could be accomplished via Gabion drop structures (a gabion is basically a steel mesh basket of rocks), or timber drop structures (a timber wall constructed across the creek). Gabion drop structures have been used effectively in the upper reaches of the creek. Drawings #1 and #2 of Appendix C show these two options in place. Gabion drop structures for Ivy Falls reach and Ivy Hills Park reach would cost approximately $554,000. The Timber structure option would be slightly less expensive at around $520,000. I think the Timber structures would have a tendency to rot and 0 W lf deteriorate quickly with the constant flowing water, so I think gabions would be superior. BARR estimates the effective life of Modular Drop Structures at 25 years. Gabions�have been used successfully in other parts of the city. Ivy Falls Creek from Laura to Dodd has gabion protection. The Somerset Golf Course has areas with gabion protection. Gabions have an advantage in that limited amounts of heavy equipment are needed to install them. During the Super Storm there were a couple of structures which failed and had to be repaired. The failure occurred due to lack of erosion blankets under the gabions. Today's standards include blankets under all gabions, so this is much less likely to occur in the future. Alternative - Full Scale Drop Structures This alternative consists of placing a series of 10-foot high dams across the creek channel, and constructing "Stilling Basins" underneath each dam. This option has the advantages of creating temporary holding basins behind the dams, and a long life expectancy of 50 years. The problems with this design are that it requires substantial bank protection above the dam, the dams are difficult to construct, requiring heavy equipment, and the high dams suffer aesthetic and safety problems. BARR estimates the cost of this option at $1,148,000. Alternative - Piped Storn� Flow with Low Flow Channel This alternative would entail installation of a storm pipe underneath the creek bed which would carry the heavy�flows created by large storms, but would allow the creek bed to carry the every day flows. This system is the safest design and it maintains the natural qualities of the creek. Drawing #3 of Appendix C shows a typical section of the creek with this option in place. The major drawbacks of this option are the very difficult and disruptive construction, and the cost. This option would cost $1,267,000 to construct. The storm pipe would have a life expectancy'of 100 years and the natural creek would still require maintenance and repairs averaging a 25 year life expectancy. Cost Analysis Before getting further into the cost analysis the following points need to be stressed: 1) The above cost estimates all assume that the Detention Basin in I� Hills Park is constructed. 7 5 2) The cost estimates do not include the cost of easements or land acc�uisition necessary to complete the work. Nor do the estimates include repair and restoration of construction roads which may be necessary. Depending on how much cooperation we get from the surrounding property owners these items could be incidental or up to 10% of the project cost. 3) The estimates do not include the cost of repairing the Ivy Hills First Addition reach. I completed a separate estimate for the First Addition reach, and anticipate $204,000 to improve this segment. The costs presented for each alternative above are for construction of the initial project. Any �roject of this size with this many options should be examined based on the Net Present Cost of each improvement. That is, a cost comparison should be made based on the cost to construct, repair, and reconstruct each option over the years. To calculate this, the initial cost and estimated life of each project is used. Projects with short life spans will have higher Net Present Costs then ones with long life spans. BARR completed this analysis and the results are as follows: ALTERNATIVE LIFE Minimum Repair 4 yrs Gabion Drops 25 yrs Timber Drops 20 yrs Drop Structures 50 yrs Pipe & Channel 100/25 yrs INITIAL COST $321,000 $554,000 $sao,000 $1,148,000 $1,267,000 NET PRESENT COST $1,200,000 $810,000 $S�o,000 $1,300,000 $1,900,000 The initial cost shows the cost to construct the option the first time. The Net Present Cost shows the cost in today's dollars to build and maintain the option for 100 years. The Gabion Drop Structure option has the lowest Net Present Cost. As stated earlier, Gabions have been used successfully in the past, so this option looks very attractive. As mentioned above, Ivy Falls First Addition Reach was not included in the earlier estimates. This section of creek has significant erosion, but it doesn't have the high volumes of water that other sections have. This section suffers prima.rily from side slope failure, which would be very expensive to completely repair, and is more difficult to justify when only three homes are in the affected area. Some remedial measures were taken using gabions several years ago, but only about 10� of the channel is protected. To stabilize the channel and reduce the side slope erosion, 10 gabion drops with bank protection could be installed at a cost of about $204,000. � Assuming the Gabion option is c�osen, and assuming at some point all three reaches will be improved, the following table is provided as a summary of the anticipated costs (note that the cost of constructing Phase I has been broken out as a separate item) : ITEM Enlarge Capacity of Ivy Park Pond: Ivy Park Reach- Phase I: Ivy Park Reach- Phase II: Ivy Creek Main Stem- Phase I: Ivy Creek Main Stem- Phase II: Ivy Hills First Addition Reach: Possible Easements & Misc. (10�): Grand Total Fundinq Sources and Mechanisms COST $134,000 $75,000 $300,000 $25,000 $181,000 $204,000 $92,000 $1,011,000 There are four possible funding sources available to this project; cost sharing with West St. Paul, assessments, general fund, and creation of a storm water utility fund could all be used to fund this type of project. Funding Source- Cost sharing Since a very large area of West St. Paul drains into the creek system it stands to reason that West St. Paul should participate in the cost to repair and protect the creek. Appendix A contains a map showing the drainage area of the creek, including the portion in West St. Paul. The Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization was set up in part to assist in inter-community drainage issues. According to WMO criteria, West St. Paul is allowed to empty an amount of water into Mendota Heights equal to the amount that flowed into our city before anv development. Therefore all costs resulting from urban development in West St. Paul are that city's responsibility. BARR Engineering, the WMO consultant, has estimated the approximate proportion of West St. Paul responsibility. The findings are very disappointin� for our city. West St. Paul greatly benefits from the holding pond in the golf course that was constructed in 1978. If'the WMO had been in �lace at that time West St. Paul would have paid for the entire cost of constructing the pond. Instead Mendota Heights paid for it. There is no method available for Mendota Heights to recoup any of these past expenses. 0 After giving West St. Paul credit for its "allowable flow�� and credit for all detention basins which West St. Paul water passes through, the net effect is to reduce the West St. Paul level of participation to something around 8� of the construction costs (probably less). Assuming West St. Paul contributes approximately $50,000 there is still $952,000 which must be covered by city funds. Funding Source- Assessments Assessments could be used to capture the cost of the improvements. Assessments were used to cover the Ivy Falls creek im�rovements which were constructed back in 1978. In that pro�ect a high benefit area and a low benefit area were created. Those properties located directly adjacent to the creek who had the most to gain, were assessed $.25 per square foot of property. Those properties further upstream only contributed $.03 per square foot. If the assessment method was used to fund this project, those properties which paid assessments for the 1978 project would be exempt from any assessments under this pro�ect. The only problem with assessing the cost of the storm sewer is that it is difficult to prove benefit to those properties located upstream of the creek. Recent court cases have reinforced the idea that property can only be assessed up to the amount of the increase in ma.rket value of the property. It could prove difficult to show an increase in value on properties located 1/2 mile from the creek. For this reason it could �rove risky trying to assess all those properties which drain into the Ivy Creek system. In order to calculate a possible assessment rate the following assumptions and estimates were made: --West St. Paul contributes only $50,000. --Assessments are used to cover 100� of the rema.ining cost --A high/low benefit rate structure is used --17.5 acres of land qualifies as high benefit (see map #1) --220 acres of land qualifies as low benefit Map #2 of Appendix A shows the total drainage district and the area that would be assessable if a new project was completed (remember that areas previously assessed could not be assessed again). Given these assumptions, assessment rates for the two types of area were calculated as follows: BENEFITTING AR.EA ASSESSMENT R.ATE AVERAGE COST PER LOT High Benefit Low Benefit $.35 per sq. ft. $.08 per sq. ft. 10 $11,600 per lot $1,280 per lot One enhancement which I would recommend exploring further if assessments are to be used, would be to spread assessments in High Benefit areas based on area contributing and FRONTAGE ON THE CREEK. This would spread the costs based on frontage protected from erosion, as well as area contributing. If this alternative was chosen, a possible rate structure might be $0.15 per square foot of area (compared to $0.35 for just area assessment), and $25.00 per foot of creek frontage. Such a program would yield approximately the same revenue stream as an all area assessment. If assessments are to be used, this technique could be refined. Funding Source- General Fund Money Another option listed is that of using city General Fund money to cover a�ortion of the assessments. This option was used to a limited extent in the 1978 project. Given the size of the proposed project, this option is not feasible except perhaps as a cost r�duction method. The argument could be made that this project benefits a very significant portion of the city,�and therefore general city funds should be used. However, this is contrary to the city's standard assessment procedure. If this method was chosen as a partial funding method, the amount of participation could be any amount. One level of participation which would have some validity would be to fund the cost of handling the ALLOWABLE FLOW from West St. Paul. Remember that the allowable flow is the flow rate that West St. Paul can pass through our city without any penalty because it is considered the base flow before development. The approximate proportion of the project cost which goes to handle this Allowable Flow would be about $125,000. Funding Source- Storm Water Utility The forth option listed is the idea of creating a City-wide Storm Water Utility Program. This option is discussed in detail in a separate proposal. Briefly, a storm water utility program would treat storm water much like the sanitary sewer utility, with quarterly billings based on "usage" or impact on the system. The proposal suggests that the entire city be included in the utility program, with a goal of funding improvements, repairs, and maintenance to the existinq storm sewer system. - As it relates to this project, if�a Storm Water Utility was set up, there would be several different ways to ca�ture the cost of this project. The most obvious way of funding the �roject with this method would be to include the project cost in with all other costs for ma.intaining and operating the il storm sewer system, then set city-wide utility rates based on the amount of precipitation run-off for each property in the city. Therefore the creek improvement would be considered an over-all city storm sewer system improvement, and all properties of a given type would pay the same rate (with no extra charges to owners on the creek). Another possible scenario would be to charge those properties located along the creek a rate which would cover the benefit received as if the project was assessed. The result would be a quarterly utility charge to abutting properties in the range of $250 per guarter. This rate would be roughly equivalent to a $10,000 assessment. A utility program avoids the pitfalls of the assessment process. If the program is set up properly, then there is no basis for a legal challenge, and no need to formally substantiate market value benefit. Also properties which could not normally be assessed, like golf courses and cemeteries, can be included in a utility program. Fundin,g Source- Combinations The final option listed actually has ma.ny different possibilities. All or some of the different funding sources could be used together. The two that seem the most logical would be either General Fund/Assessments, or Storm Water Utility/Assessments. If the General Fund was used to cover the cost of handling West St. Paul's Allowable Flow, the cost to the city would be somewhere around $125,000. This would reduce the assessment rate to the 220 acres in the Low Benefit area down to a more acceptable rate of about $.055 from $.08. The High Benefit properties would still be assessed the $0.35 per square foot. The other combination of funding methods that seems attractive would be Storm Water Utility/Assessments. This combination would entail assessing the High Benefit area at the rate proposed earlier of $.35 per square foot. The Low Benefit properties would not be assessed at all. Instead the Storm Water Utility Fund would fund all additional costs and spread the costs city-wide, on the logic that this is a re�ional improvement. The rates proposed in the Storm Water Utility Program would then be applicable. CONCLUSION The Ivy Falls Creek drainage System has suffered serious erosion problems. In the future it can only get worse, and eventually a severe storm could cause extensive property damage. To solve this problem the flow rate and velocity 12 4 must be reduced, and the banks of the creek must be protected. The best solution appears to be a series of gabion structures in the creek bed for creek protection, and enlargement of the detention capacity of the pond in ivy Hill Park. This solution is estimated to cost $1,011,000 to construct. These costs can be recaptured via cost sharing, General Fund expenditures, Assessments, a Storm Water Utility Program, or a combination of these options. The best funding option a�pears to be the combination of Assessments and a Storm Water Utilitv Program. This funding method would involve assessing those properties directly adjacent to the creek for approxima.tely 25� of the project cost based on contributing area, creek frontage, or both. The remaining 75� would be covered by cost sharing with West St. Paul, and a city-wide Storm Water Utility Program. The details of a Storm Water Utility Program and its many benefits are discussed in a separate report entitled: "Storm Water Utility Program Proposal". 13 Alte_ rn�ti�� 1 Do Nothing 2 Minimum Repair 3 Pipe � Riprap 5 Gabion Drop Struciures 6 Concrete Flume 7 Drop Structures 8 Hlgh flow Pipe, Low Flow Channel 9 Detent(an Baains APPENDIX B TABLE OF ALTERNATIVES fACTORS Reliability/ Constructibliity Safety Ourabillty Eitectiveness Aesthetics Cost + — — — — 0 + 0 — 0 0 + 0 + + + — 0 0 0 0 + 0 — 0 0 0 + + + — — + + — 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + + + + — + 0 0 + + 0 ,�_ .t"'�s � };: , �, APFENDIX C CONCEPT DRAWING 1 GABION MODULAR DROP �TRUCTURES .,.�-.�.-�.^� .!-"`�,.. � . ' �s r= � �'"' K'' ,��` '�i ��7 , � � .. � � �� . _ a '^..,4� '� �� APPENDIX C CONCEPT DRAWING 2 TZMBER MODULAR DROP STRUCTURES 0 � "` � �' �� 1 �� ' � '� f ;`'. �� ` .,�,�; � a � r�� , . � J� � t r' �. �'�' �,^�",�h% �� ° " • ; . j t'!r 4 r Y �.. � � J{.� � '�/ �... ,� ' �„�•,/h�� i�' 1i: �'" r J' �� ' . . %�� .r%� 3. 1�, � �J , yJ ' ' r� •� , � � �/ �•� � � _�� i .,.., ""?:''r::��. � � 0 �1 r. �n,tf{ i. `�,p�L.. ,� �..� ` �"' - �y%�s---�/,- . r +'�iMy �, � y '�� . . j4 ) � _ / .,� . �, , s � � �a�y. � . - �� . . � �, 1 + ,1• w�' � 1� �Cr i �, � t�h � /, �y ,� � �'" '$ � ��. ��'ru�� (,� / i ` ' � �� : +, r ��'� 1 � ^ r -n —a.--..:, a v , ; ! ' �� 'q '• ' �,,,.-. � .� � ' , . . .-''�,; - —�" -- . ' r��'�� r ��3 � , .. ; r y� yA�.' •� %"'�'. �,`t ' '' .� . �4�, r r'�i � ,, �r t �(�� ' 1! � '� ' ' . ,•- t'1i', ! I�i , �c . �� j . ,� , r f � � � ` ,,t, �:� 1 • �� ,�� ; . Jls� r ,� � J�r .! t � � / / t . � /t,F �fi � � — t r� � �t }� ��,. `'� � _ . • /•.. �' ' i p.! y; f ( 1 �� t : �f��l` ' '%,f�'. .�;. � � '� • r ./' , .�'` , .yi tt'1��'� t t(h (� �� ` W.� � r t , / �Sr �; `r! . . ++ �f��'� XK {tt �f/7! �' ,�� , •� . • � � f ,� �� .+(�f / • . . +, .�;, t1` J �� I �. � `kY �. �/ j '/,' � A"f i� f � �''• ` �, , � �%�� , ' � � . A� 'r � ��X 1 !�'j/j�C��, ' � � f `� . � ` �, = j . ' . �� j, ' �� It1 ��1�(�1 �.,�. �' / 1i ' ' �; .� ' . `' f ". � . �( � / ?�/� '�� ' Il ( n� t y�a � �%�� %` "'f t' � . .:' ,% ; ." p �' �+ il .�` � riy � r � f�l 1/ - . „ � • � ' � .� L? � , j �� j f i �F' ,' • ; � - • f � .lf,�t:.. i I��u� ( �� i:•r,j,. �" ,. "� "�i; ; - ir ��}+S ';' :�' •j' Si14�� l�k�IJ� �I�y . l �� ' � • � � . % } � � b �� . �%�� l� t , •+' •� � #: . + . t i: ,•,"rt . �'� � � � ��/ A � ,� '.t. `,'e� � (,/,; � ac�� ..i� � � 1 ! � , ��tt�ii'��f � �il ; ��1.'. r ,�i . ,4, �1�� ;� J,� . �� rt � �ri� .f•; •E1 dr�1, . . ,:�'� .,.I, � . f� a. � � � � p' r�j r �.N�r� .�, �, „,, t , '� • ��y r � t �• %, �ir�., - ��, i.�; �� : ��:. �1 i�� K(�! , � 11�;� , ; �a r � ' �, ; l j �` ' �� ,� �� f: . f: � ' � ` , . / . ,/,�� ,�� ,. .�:�.��! , .. ~ ' i •;: •' �.:� •! I � F i � APPENDIX C C4NCEPT DRAWTNG 3 HIGH FLOW PIPEjLOW FLOW CHAIVNEL PROPOSAL FOR: . S T 0 R M W A T E R U T I L I T Y P R O G R A M City of Mendota Heights Minnesota February •1, 1992 By: Klayton H. Eckles CONTENTS Problem Definition Proposed Solution Program Implementation Appendixes I: Annual and Capital Improvement Expenses II: Rate Calculations � Page 2-3 Page 3-6 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8-9 STORM WATER UTILITY PROPOSAL PROBLEM DEFINITION Mendota Heights has a very extensive storm sewer system which includes storm pipe, holding ponds, drainage ways, creeks, drop structures, and dams. The total value of these public assets is well over $20,000,000. This system needs to be maintained, repaired and upgraded just like any other utility. With the advent of Watershed Management Organizations, it has become necessary for the city storm sewer system to meet higher quality and quantity standards. A city storm system must protect the public health and property, minimize erosion, and ma.intain the natural environment. The 1990's promise to be the decade of increased environmental protection. As a result, storm sewer systems will require significant enhancements. The city storm sewer sxstem has been constructed over the years in conjunction with development projects and rehabilitation projects. As the city reaches its full development potential, it is becoming evident that several portions of the city system do not meet today's standards, or are in need of improvement. The Water Management Plan currently being prepared by BARR En�ineering discusses several areas of the city that are in need of storm sewer improvement. Ivy Creek, Friendly Marsh, Ma.rie Creek, Interstate Valley Creek,�and the industrial park, are all areas which need some attention. Storm water quality is an area where Mendota Heights may need to make significant improvements. New State regulations could require improvements to existing holding ponds and creation of new ones, as well as other environmental projects. Mendota Heights has no method in place for funding these impending projects. The problem for Mendota Hei�hts will be how to fund the increasing cost of maintaining, repairing and improving the system. In the past, assessments have been used to cover the cost of storm sewer improvements. Often storm sewer improvements were part of new developments, so the question of who pa�s was not so difficult. Storm sewer improvement projects in developed areas will require public hearings and assessments based on benefit. Recent court decisions indicate that the city must demonstrate a benefit to all assessed property owners. This is increasingly difficult when dealing with properties on the upstream end of a storm sewer project. In 1978 the city was 2 4 challenged by 4 property owners in the Ivy Creek Stage I repair project; the city settled these challenges out of court. Showing benefit on storm pond im�rovements, silt basin construction, or enhancement of existing storm sewer pipe systems could be very trying, but necessary if assessments are to be used to cover the cost of future storm sewer improvements. Many cities facing these problems and the problem of an ever tightening budget, have developed new ways of addressing storm water issues. PROPOSED SOLUTION The solution that has worked exceptionally well for ma.ny cities is the creation of a Storm Water Utility Program. A Storm Water Utility allows cities to charge a"user fee" to finance storm sewer maintenance, reconstruction, and improvements. The concept is based on the idea that storm water disposal service is being provided by the city to convey storm water from individual parcels of property. A user fee can be charged for this service. Such a fee can be based on the size and type of property served. Thus, a large industrial or high density �arcel with high percentages of impervious surface area, which is putting the heaviest dema.nd on the system, would pay much greater proportion of the total cost. To better demonstrate some of the many benefits of a storm water utility, the following list is provided. 1) A utility is based on usage, so properties pay based on demand. 2) Tax exempt properties, which can not be assessed, CAN be included in a utility program. Thus cemeteries, schools, churches, golf courses, and other tax exempt parcels would all pay for their fair share. 3) Assessment hearings, and all of the difficulties associated with proving benefit, are eliminated. Instead the Council must hold a public hearing on the creation of the utility, then make sure the utility is run fairly and equitably. 4) The rates of the utility can be adjusted up or down based on the needs of the city. 5) The city storm sewer system has source of funding, which insures system. 3 a constant and reliable adequate upkeep of the 6) The fees for a storm water utility could be collected with the sanitary sewer billings, making for relatively easy implementation. 7) Taxes could be reduced because the utilitx would pick up the current costs of maintaining and repairing the system. Single familv home owners would see the greatest savinQs both as a result of the tax reductions and elimination of future tax increases. The inclusion of tax exempt properties and participation based on usage both have the effect of helping out single family home-owners. The disadvantages of a storm water utility are chiefly those associated with setting one up. First, the staff time involved in researching and preparing a utility would be significant. Approxima.tely 200 hours in staff time would be spent just in setting up the program. The cost to administer the utility program once it went into operation would be about $2,000 per year. The second major difficulty in the preparation process would be the public hearing and potential negative reaction. The extra costs to set u� and administer the program could be recaptured immediately via the program itself. The difficulties with negative �ublic response could be minimized by providing ample information to the public about the program. The potential tax benefits of this program could be stressed as well as the relatively modest cost to single family home-owners. To find out what the cost would be to the public, a study of the expected costs over the next 10 years was completed, and a formula for division of costs was developed. Appendix I shows the expected present and future annual expenses, and the expected capital improvement expenses over the next ten years. The result is that the city will need about $193,000 per year to cover the operation and improvement of the storm water system. This money could be raised via the general tax levy and a number of assessment hearing procedures, or it could be recaptured using a storm water utility. To see what the cost would be to individual properties of varying types, Appendix II was �repared. This Appendix deve�ops a formula for determining rates based on the impact each land use has on the storm sewer s�rstem. The Run Off Potential and the Base Charge are multiplied to give the quarterly rate for each type of land use. Rates are per acre or per unit, depending on what method makes more sense. The results of Appendix II calculations yield the following Run 4 ti- ✓ Off Potentials and quarterly rates: LAND TYPE RUN OFF POTENTIAL OUAR.TERLY RATE Undeveloped 0.0 Golf/Cemetery 1.0 Single family 3.0 Institutional 4.0 Multi-Family 8.0 Commercial 12 . 0 * The residential rate ** The Multi-Family rate acre 0.00 5.75 per acre 5.75 per unit* 23.00 per acre 5.75 per unit** 69.00 per acre assumes all lots are 1/3 acre assumes average of 8 units per Appendix II goes into detail on how these rates are determined, but the basic idea is that the greater the rate of storm water run off the higher the run off coefficient. The charge per acre is simply the ROP multiplied by $5.75 (the Base Charge). Since large single family parcels are essentially a homesite plus undeveloped land (which isn't charged anything), it was assumed that all single family lots are identical. Undeveloped land would not be charged anything in this plan. This is based on the idea that undeveloped land has never created a need for storm sewer im�rovements; before development storm sewer was nonexistent. This way of thinking is also very practical when setting up a billing system. So under this plan a home owner would pay $5.75 per quarter, and this amount would simply be shown on an extra line of the �3arterly sewer bill. A five acre industrial site would pay 45.00 each quarter. To get an idea how this proposal compares to other cities, the following table is presented: CITY Mendota Heights Richfield Bloomington S.F. Cem/golf Multi-F Institute Commerc. (per lot) (per ac) (per ac) (per ac) (per ac) 5.75 5.75 7.20 9.00 7.37 14.87 46.00* 23.00 69.00 (5.75/unit) 27.00 45.00 36.12 27.65 � Roseville 4.38 3.32 33.15 16.58 66.30 * This proposal assumes multi-family developments would be assessed on a per unit basis, but for comparison purposes 5 it was assumed that the average multi-family development has a density of 8 units per acre. Given the current development of the city, a utility program based on the above figures would yield approximately $195,000 in revenues to the city each year. The growth of the city would increase the yearly revenues, hopefullx resulting in no need to ever increase the proposed utility charges. The rate structure shown above is only one of ma.ny possibilities. For instance, if assessments were used to finance some of•the capital improvement projects, despite the difficulty in doing so, the yearly cost to maintain and operate the storm sewer system might be lowered from $193,000 to $150,000. This would drop the residential rate from $5.75 to $4.50, and the other rates by a proportional amount. The point is that a storm water utility program is flexible and adjustable, as long as the program is fair and justifiable. Given high cost of the Ivy Falls Creek �roject and the flexibility of this plan, one other option would be to use a higher rate structure for all the properties along the creek. Since these properties all receive significant benefit from a project im�roving the creek, and since the creek will be an ongoing maintenance problem, a higher utility charge could be justified. There are two ways this higher rate could be structured. 1) A somewhat higher rate (100-300� increase for instance) could be implemented for all properties immediately abutting the creek. Properties adjacent to the pro�ect that weren't assessed in previous creek projects could be assessed too. 2) Instead of assessing the properties along the creek where the proposed project takes place, these properties could partici ate in the utility program at a NNCH higher rate (up to �$300 per guarter). PROGR.AM IMPLEMENTATION If the Council wishes to proceed with this proposal or something similar, the next step would be program development and implementation. Bef�re implementing the program, it must be fully designed and developed, taking into account any changes the Council may desire. Once an acceptable program is designed, the public should be informed and educated about the program. Possible methods include brochures, press releases, announcements, CATV presentation, and a Public hearing. 0 Once the public ha� been informed, and public input gathered, final changes can be made, then Council would need to enact policie� ta implement �he �rogram. By Spring of 1993 the program could be in operatzon. Tmportant policy decisions would include rate structures, total revenue goals, non-payment penaltie�, and waivers or credits for on-site storm sewer improvements. 7 � . r � :�I�1� �_ • I 1 • • I I • ' V • � i' • • � :a I :� :�:�' :�I Present and Anticipated Future Annual Expenses ITEM Engineering/Admin. Ma.terials* P.W. Personnel* Street Sweeping* WMO Dues Water Quality Sampling* PRESENT EXPENSE $ 1,000 � 6,240 18,200 15,000 6,000 0 $46,440 ANTICIPATED FUTURE $ 4,000 10,000 25,000 20�000 6,000 3,000 $68,000 *It is anticipated that in the coming years these items will require great�r expenditures due to government regulations and higher maintenance costs. _.,. . Potential Capital Improvements to be Covered � Utilitv Program (Next 10 years) IMPROVEMENT � Ivy Creek Lexington/T.H. 13 Valley Creek Ma.rie Creek Friendly Ma.rsh Water Quality Improvements Wetland Enhance- ment PROBLEM Bank £rosion Flooded Apartments High Flows High Flows/Low Storage Low Storage Government Regulations Government Regulations COST $750,000* 50,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 $1,250,000 *Assumes assessments or other funding sources are used for every- thing over $750,000. If bonding is used to finance these improvement projects then the annual revenue needed from the Storm water Utility Fund would be approximately $1�5,000. The total revenue required from the utility would be as follows: Annual Upkeep and Maintenance - Annual Cost of Capital Improvement - TOTAL REQUIRED REVENUE - $ 68,000 125,000 $193,000 APPENDIX II RATE CALCIILATIONS Determining the storm water utility rate structure for various sizes and types of properties must include an analysis of the demand each type of property places on the storm sewer system. To do this the types and quantities of different land uses have to be tabulated. The various types of land use are categorized based on different storm water run off poten- tials. Here are the results: • 0 CATEGORY TYPE' Residential Single Family/less than 1 acre Single Family/more than 1 acre Townhomes/Condos (R1) TOTAL Golf/Cemetery Golf Courses(4) Cemeteries (3 ) TOTAL Institutional Schools(5) Churches(5) Multi-Family Commercial TOTAL R-3 Zoning� HR-PUD TOTAL Business Industrial TOTAL 4UANTITY �l/1/92) 2664 units 172 units 186 units 3022 units .. 308 acres 289 acres 597 acres 207 acres 34 acres 241 acres 386 units 100 units 486 units 112 acres 205 acres 317 acres� The next step is to determine the run off potential (ROP) for each type of property. The ROP is based on the run off coefficient (C) and the rainfall intensity index (i) for the type of land use. The run off coeffi- cient (C) determines how much water sinks into the ground and how much runs off into a storm system. It is' a function of the amount of hard surface. The rainfall intensity index (i) determines how fast the water runs into the storm system. It is a function of slopes, and type of land use. R.O.P. = C * i * 2.5 CATEGORY Single Family Cemetery/Golf Institutional _ -- Multi-Family Commercial C .3 .10 .35 .65 .8 i 4 4 4.4 5 6 . � . 3 1 4 8 12 1' � R T �. . � n After determining the run off potential (ROP) the formula for deter- mining the rate structure for each category can be developed. Various ba�e , charges can be tried until a formula is created which yields the desired quarterly revenue. �` RATE = ROP * Base Charge The base charge is multiplied by the ROP of each category to determine the correct rate. For determining the rate for single family units it is assumed that all single family lots in the City are 1/3 of an acre in size. This assumption is justified by the fact that large lots generally have signifi- cant portions which are undeveloped land. Undeveloped land doesn't contribute to the'need for storm sewer so it should not be chargedfor the utility. Multi-family parcels average approximately 8 units per acre. Since it is much easier to deal with number of units, the rate structure for multi- family should be converted to a per unit rate similar to the single family rate. The results of these conversions yield the following: � S.F. Rate = R.O.P. * Base Charge * Acres/Unit = 3 * Base Charge * 1/3 = Base Charge Multi-family Rate = R.O.P. * Base Charge * Acres/Unit = 8 * Base Charge * 1/8 = Base Charge As can be seen, the per unit cost for single and multi-family units works out to the Base Charge. The resulting rate structure will as fol- lows : -� CATEGORY Single Family Multi-Family Cemetery/Golf Institutional Business RATE 1 * Base Charge 1 * Base Charge 1 * Base Charge 4 * Base Charge 12 * Base Charge UNIT Per Unit Per Unit Per Acre Per Acre Per Acre Solving for the revenue requirements discussed in Appendix I, the base cha e works out to 5_75 .�r guarter_ The following table shows the predicted yearly revenue for various base charges. BASE CHAR.GE � $4.50 5.00 5.75 6.50 7.00 YEARLY REVENUE � $151,000 168,000 193,000 218,000 , 235,000 If, for instance, Council chooses not to reduce taxes by $43,000 and use the utility just to handle increased costs, then the price per quarter saould be only $4.50. ti ��:.' � � _ =�� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS January 29 , 1992 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administ FROM: James E. Danielson and Tom Knuth Public Works Director Senior Engineering Technician SUBJECT: St. Peter's Church/Pilot Knob Road •� Streets and Utilities - Feasibility Hearing . Job No. 8420B Improvement No. 84, Project No. 2B INTROD'UCTION• This feasibility report is an updated, revised version of a May 1991 report in which sanitary sewer and watermains to serve St. Peter's Church and the City of Mendota were discussed. Since Council received and approved that Ma.y 1991 report the staging of the Mendota Interchange project has changed considerably. Stage I construction of Highway 13 will now stop short of Highway 55 because of conflicts with the bridge over the railroad. Deleting this segment from Stage I will prevent the City from connecting the watermain and providing water service to St. Peter's Church as part of Stage I. The project has also been expan�led to include watermain and streets on Acacia Boulevard and storm sewer and streets on Pilot Knob Road from Mendota Heights Road to Acacia Boulevard. As a result of these additions•many more landowners are affected and assessments need to be considered for them (see attached map). DISCIISSION• The Stage I construction of the Mendota Interchange will still serve St. Peter's Church with a gravity sanitary sewer to Mendota, but the watermain installed will not be pressurized until Stage II construction completes a connection to active mains at Acacia Boulevard and Pilot Knob Road. St. Peter's Church can immediately hookup to sanitary sewer or wait until water is available, at their option. On Pilot Knob Road and Acacia Boulevard, Dakota County has decided to completely upgrade the streets and add storm sewer from Mendota Heights Road to Highway 55, with 45°s of these costs to be charged to the City. It is proposed to assess the City's share of the street costs to the abutting properties and assess a nominal storm sewer area charge to contributing drainage areas not previously assessed for storm sewer. Also, property on Acacia "��' Boulevard and Pilot Knob Road adjacent to new sanitary sewer and watermain would be assessed for those facilities. Because Mn/DOT intends to charge the City for a substantial portion of the trunk storm sewers, it is proposed that City Tax Increment Financing (T. I. F. ) funds pay for all costs not covered by �� .. ., .: .� � the area storm sewer assessments. That figure is not known at this time because negotiations with Mn/DOT over reducing the City's share are continuing. T.I.F. is also proposed to be used to pay for cemetery, other unassessable frontages, watermain oversizing, and storm sewer costs on previously assessed properties. The following chart shows the anticipated City cost split between T.I.F. and assessed properties. Also note that the City watermain project for Pilot Knob Road, north of Acacia Boulevard, will be postponed to Stage II. STAGTs I CONSTRIICTION COSTS - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SAAR'M'. Assessable T.I.F Total Sanitary 66,000 54,000 (Cemetery) 120,000 Water 72,000 96,000 (Cemetery, 168,000 Mendota +Oversizing) Storm 56,000 544,000* 600,000* Streets 150,000 10,000 160,000 TOTAL 354,000 694,000 1,048,000 * If Mn/DOT charges for storm sewer are reduced, these figures will be lower. Proposed assessment rates are $30.00 per front foot for streets (the same rate assessed to Pilot Knob Road property south of Mendota Heights Road on a previous project), $0.06 per square foot for storm sewer, $28.00 per front foot for watermains, and $22.00 per front foot for sanitary sewer with an additional trunk charge of $0.033 per square foot for all property served by the gravity line flowing into Mendota (see attached estimated assessment chart). Mn/DOT is currently negotiating with Soo Line Railroad to purchase their right-of-way in the area of the Mendota Interchange Project. The impact of this becoming a reality is that Mn/DOT would be able to eliminate several bridges and change street grades and storm sewer depths. These changes could lead to some reduction in the City's share of storm sewer costs. If Mn/DOT and Soo Line are able to come to an agreement, there would be many design changes and the letting of Stage I contracts would be delayed until August, thus pushing the completion of Stage I into 1993. Since T.I.F. is proposed to pay for a large percentage of the City's share of the project, costs to property owners are not expected to change. It is our intention to invite Mn/DOT to our March 18, 1992 Council meeting to provide us with an update on the overall Mendota Interchange Project. The feasibility hearing for this project will logically follow the presentation made by Mn/DOT. RECONIl�iENDATION • �. This project is feasible from both the technical and financial standpoint given the T.I.F. assistance. We recommend ordering the required public hearing and proceeding with the project. ACTION REQIIIRED- If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 92- , RESOLIITION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED STREETS �ND IITILITIES TO SERVE ST. PETER'S CHiTRCH AND PILOT RNOB ROAD (IMPROVEI�NT NO. 84, PROJECT NO. 2B) JED/TCK:dfw City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLIITION NO. 92- RESOLiTTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED STREETS AND IITILITIES TO SFsRVE ST. PETER'S CHIIRCH AND PILOT RNOB ROAD (IMPROVEMENT NO. 84, PROJECT NO. 2B) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted his report to the City Council with respect to the proposed construction of the following improvements to serve St. Peter's Church and Pilot Knob Road and adjacent areas, to-wit: The construction of an extension to the City's sanitary sewer system, including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and the acquisition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary of streets and easements in the areas hereinafter more particularly described. The construction appurtenances and easements, in and described. of a storm sewer system including incidentals thereto and the acquisition of for the area hereinafter more particularly The construction of an extension to the City's water distribution system including appurtenances and incidentals thereto, and the acquisition of easements, and the reconstruction where necessary of streets and easements in the area hereinafter more particularly described. The construction of street improvements consisting of the acquisition of easements and the grading, stabilization, drainage and bituminous surfacing, and the construction of concrete curbs and gutters on the streets to be situated in the area hereinafter more particularly described. WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota, and is more particularly described as follows: Properties abutting Pilot Knob Road and Acacia Boulevard (CSAH 31) from Mendota Heights Road north to Trunk Highway 55, together with properties north of Acacia Boulevard aubtting CR 31A then north to St. Peter's Church and the City of Mendota. WHEREAS, in said report said City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements. L�' ,� 1 • .� • �t, ,-y 1 . . ♦ NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the report of said City Engineer be and is hereby received. 2. That a public hearing on said improvements be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1992 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter, at the Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve in the City of Mendota Heights. 3. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney, be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare a notice of said hearing and to cause said notice to be published and ma.iled to the owners of the property situated within said area, all in accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of February, 1992. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk STAGE I CONSTRUCTION (PROJECT 8420B) 1. PILOT KNOB ROAD - SOUTH OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 13 PROPERTY �rintware iorthland Land Co. "effery Carlson �.L. Johnson :heldon Russel 'oto-Ma.rk �akota Business Plaza '. Bradner Smith [ichael Rreitz ;milie Burow SANITARY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 �0.00 $0.00 $0.00 WATER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STORM SEWER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 STREETS $2,910.00 $3,900.00 $3,240.00 $22,800.00 $11,700.00 $11,310.00 $13,800.00 $4,800.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 . PILOT KNOB R.D. & ACACIA BLVD. - NORTH OF FUTLTRE HIGHWAY 13 PROPERTY t�ndota Hts. Business Park II 'orthland Land �x1/DOT .cacia Cemetery �endota Hts. Business Fark I tary Hartz � & J. Franson ,< & J. Ranson 'e Franson/D. Perron �on Perron 'i�y of Mendota H�ights (TIF) SANITARY $0.00 $6,600.00 $840.00 $4,760.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 WATER $0.00 $9,200.00 $1,176.00 $6,�00.00 $0.00 +1�' , �,. .. . . TOTAL $2,910.00 $3,900.00 $3,240.00 $22,800.00 $11,700.00 $11,310.00 $13,800.00 $4,800.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 STORM STR.EETS TOTAL SEWER $0.00 $2,040.00 $2,040.0� $24,400.00 $28,950.00 $69,150.00 $0.00 $1,260.00 $3,276.00 So.00 $�,i4o.00 $is,600.00 $16,040.00 $18,360.00 $34,400.00 $2,800.00 $1,590.00 $2,800.00 $3,100.00 $2,500.00 $1,600.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 $1,600.00 $50,000.00 $544,000.00 'o HIGHWAY 13 - MENDOTA TO HIGHWAY 55 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 PROPERTY SANITAR.Y WATER STORM STREETS SEWER $9,390.00 $10,900.00 $6,800.00 $18,400.00 $1,600.00 $626,000.00 TOTAL 1nu�ch of St. Peter $49,000.00 $42,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $91,000.00 �.�� of Mendota Hts. $32,000.00 $43,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 (TIF) 'OT.��I, ASSESSABLE $66,000.00 $72,000.00 $56,000.00 $150,000.00 $344,000.0`' .'OT.t-�I, PROJECT $120,000.00 $168,000.00 $600,000.00 $160,000.00$1,048,000.00 r � � sr _ � ~ �� FROM: '� /i I IuI<I CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I�20 J nuary 31, 1992 Mayor, City Cou '1 and City Adminis James E. Danie Public Works D' tor SUBJECT: Snow Plowing Policy DISCiTSSION• After the Halloween Snow Storm, Council discussed the City's snowplowing methods with several residents. As a result of those discussions it was decided that the City should establish a formal written snow plowing policy. I have worked with Tom Olund, Public Works Superintendent and Dave Sorby, Street Depart- ment Leadperson, to draft the attached proposed policy for Council review and approval. In drafting this policy I first contacted our adjoining cities to try and obtain copies of their policies, none of them had any. We then contacted the League of Minnesota Cities and they furnished us with several policies that we used as a start- ing point for preparing ours. The Mayor also obtained a copy of the City of Oakdale's snowplowing policy. Oakdale is a community of similar size to Mendota Heights with approxima.tely the same number of miles of street and number of cul-de-sacs. The cities are similar in using four (4) main plow routes however, Oakdale devotes more resources to their snowplowing effort. For example, they have 8 more employees available for plowing, and they use two loarge front-end loaders to clear their cul-de-sacs. Based on our review of snowplow operations in other cities, there are a several ways to consider improving Mendota Heights' plowing response: 1. We should add another truck and plow that would be held in reserve. There are always mechanical problems that occur when plowing streets and now with four main line routes, the City only has four plowing rigs and no longer has a reserve plow. The two Ford trucks and plows are now 12 years old, we will budget for one replacement truck next year and then keep the existing one as a backup. " � • 2. Cul-de-sacs are best cleared by using loaders. We have been using 4 wheel drive pickups with plows mounted because they are the least expensive way to clear cul- de-sacs. They are also faster on the road than loaders and for a community as spread out as ours, we need to be able to get from one cul-de-sac to the next as quickly as possible. We will budget to add one loader in the 1993 budget at which time Council can decide if they desire to improve the City's cul-de-sac snow removal ability by adding a loader. RECONIl�2ENDATION • I recommend that the City adopt the policy. Snowplow equipment improvements during 1993 budget discussions. ACTION REQIIIRi3D • attached snowplowing will be considered Council needs to review and discuss the attached snowplowing policy and if they desire to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting the policy. JED : dfw � i � . I- II_ � � N_ � • i•a i� • :i• SNOW PLOWII�7G POLICY INTRODIICPION The City of Mendota Heights believes that it is in the best interest of the residents for the City of Mendota Heights to assume basic responsibility for controlling snow and ice on City streets. Reasona.ble ice and snow control is necessary for rou- tine travel and emergency services. The City will provide such control in a safe and cost effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel and environmental concerns. The City will use City employees and equipment. W�i WILL CITY START SNOW OR ICB CONTROL The Public Works Superintendent or his designated represen- tative will determine when to begin snow or ice control opera- tions. The criteria for that decision are: A. B. C. D. E. Snow removal of two (2) inches or more will begin as soon as possible after the snowfall ends. Drifting of snow that causes problems for travel. Removal of extraordinary snowfalls will be conducted in such a fashion as to restore City'mobility as soon as possible. Icy conditions which affect travel. Time of snowfall in relationship to heavy use of streets. HOW SNOW WILL B$ PLOW�? Snow will be plowed in a manner so as to minimize any traf- fic obstructions. The center of the roadway will be plowed first. The snow shall then be pushed from left to right. The discharge shall go onto the boulevard area of the street. When a plow goes on a bridge, the driver shall slow down so that snow does not go over the bridge if possible. In times of extreme snowfall, streets will not always immediately be able to be completely cleared of snow. Plowing of cul-de-sacs will start at the same time as the streets and be completed along with them. SNOW RSL�+�OVAL The Public Works Superintendent or the Road & Bridge Lead- person will determine when snow will be removed by truck from the area. Such snow removal will occur in areas where there is no room on the boulevard for snow storage and in areas where accumu- lated piles of snow create a hazardous condition. Snow removal operations will not commence until other snowplowing operations have been completed. Snow removal operations may also be delayed depending on weather conditions, personnel and budget availabili- ty. The snow will be removed and hauled to a snow storage area. The snow storage area will be located so as to minimize environ- mental problems. V_ • • • ' I� MCI:i1 1 ' • • S� M: ' ' ' • :i� The City has classified City streets based on the street function, traffic volume, and importance to the welfare of the community. Those streets classified as "snow plow routes" will be plowed first. These are high volume streets which connect ma.jor sections of the City and provide access for emergency fire, police�and medical services. The streets listed below will be plowed first. � A. Snow Plow Routes South of Highway 110 Mendota Heights Road Decorah Avenue Huber Drive Lake Drive Wagon Wheel Trail B. Snow Plow Routes North of Highway�110 (Middle Area Marie Avenue Freeway Road (Frontage Road) Victoria Curve C. Snow Plow Routes North of Highway 110 North Area Chippewa Avenue Sylvandale Road Maple Park Drive Emerson Avenue Other major roadways in the City are under the jurisdiction of either the State of Minnesota or Dakota County and are plowed in accordance with their specific snow removal policies. WORK SC'�IILl3 FOR SNOWPLOW OPF�RAT�ORS Work schedules for City maintenance employees assigned to operate snow removal equipment are in accordance with the most recent public works labor agreement. Snowplow operators are typically expected to work nine hour shifts. However, in severe snow emergencies, operators may be required to work in excess of nine hour shifts. To help insure safe operations of snow removal operators will take a fifteen minute break every two hours with a half hour meal break after four hours. :I�i• Snow and ice control operations may be delayed or suspended when weather conditions severely jeopardize the safety of City employees and equipment. Factors that may delay snow and ice control operations include severe_cold, significant winds and limited visibility. �. M 1 : M' 1� IM • Cl:i• M:I.a 1 � The Ca.ty wil]. use sand, sal�., and o�.her chemicals where hazardous i.ce and slippery condi�.ion� exist. The City is con- cerned abaut �he effect of such chemical.s on the environmen�. and for that reasan will attempt to limi� their use where passible. �: �� : /• " :i� /• The City wi11. no� remove snow from concrete sidewalks in the Cit�r. Bituminous pedways wi1.1 be cleared by City crews after al1 Ci�.y s�reets have been cleared. Priarity will be given to ped- ways which serve as prima.r�r walking routes to public schools. ..�.�a. �. �. The City accepts responsibility for structures which are obvious or are marked and which have been damaged by physically bea.ng �truck by a p�.ow blade, wing or other piece of equipment. Mailboxes, lights, etc. should be constructed well enaugh to withstand the impact af snow rolling off a plow or a wing. Damage resulting f'rom being s�ruck by snow is the responsibility af the residents. The City will repair, replace or reimburse the residen�� in. those instances where the City is responsible for.the damage. � The City will have the ap�.ion to repair or replace and will only � reimburse the cost of ma.terial.s in the instances where it is in the City's best interest. Lawns damaged by City equipment w311 , be repaired by sodding ar topdres�ing and seeding to match exist- ing lawn. Residents are encouraged to assis� wiGh lawn repairs. ' : �_�_.-_ �t_ ■ YY •_• • : �� Ci.Y4. The residents wi7.1 also have cer�.ain responsibi].ities . These include clearing their own driveways, area� far trash cans should be established at leas� eight (8) fee� fram curb l.ine, around ma.ilboxes, newspaper tubes, fire h�rdrants adjacent to their property. These areas should be cl.eared without depositing any snow into �he street. There also mus�. not be any large piles wha.ch obstruct vision of driveways. Trash cans must nat be placed on the street surfaces, The City will not clear private d.rzveways . Snow plowing can cause additional. snow to be deposi�ed in driveway approaches and around roadside obstacles. Operator� are instructed to attempt �.o minimize the�e instances. Residents shoul-d be aware they may ha�re to clear their driveways a second time a�ter their stree� has been plowed. � � . i�� =� � TO:` Mayor, Cit FROM: James E. SUBJECT: Mn/DO DISCIISSION• CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS • MEMO J nuary 31, 1992 y Cou '1 and City Administ a Danie ublic Works Director T Cooperative Agreement-Trunk Highway 13/I-35E Mn/DOT plans to widen and replace the Trunk Highway 13 Bridge over I-35E this summer. In conjunction with the bridge widening the Trunk Highway 13 approaches will be widened and improved, Victoria Road will be realigned and the on-off ramps to I-35E will be improved. As part of this project some of the City's utilities will be affected, watermain and sanitary sewer will need to be lowered on Victoria Road and watermain will need to be insulated or lowered along Trunk Highway 13. The State is required to fund the utility corrections on Victoria Road because those utilities are not within State right-of-way, however, the City's watermain along Trunk Highway 13 is there on permit. The permit requires that the City fund any alterations required for any reason. The City was faced with a similar situation when the Happy Hollow Bridge was replaced`further north on Trunk Highway 13. At that time the City had watermain and sanitary sewer hung on the bridge. We had to pay to relocate these utilities down the ravine. As a result of that experience we began a utility replacement fund to pay for these costs in the future. The attached agreement provides for the City to fund up to $16,925 of watermain insulation and alteration costs, there is an ample amount of money within the Utility Replacement Fund to cover the costs. RECONIl��lENDATION • I recommend that the City participate with the State in insulating the watermain along Trunk Highway 13 so that Trunk Highway 13 can be widened and improved this summer. Funding for the project to come from the City's Utility Reserve Fund. ACTION REQIIIRED: If Council desires to implement the recommendation they '�' should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 92- , RESOLIITION APPROVING NIl�T/DOT AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 69189, SP 1902-42, 1982- 112. JED : dfw i� .� . - � `r � ' City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLIITION NO. 92- RESOLIITION APPROVING 1�T/DOT AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 69189 SP 1902-42, 1982-112 WHEREAS, Mn/DOT requires City participation in improving Trunk Highway 13 at its intersection with I-35E by funding of certain watermain adjustments; and WHEREAS, the City desires to see the improvements completed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights approves Agency Agreement No. 69189 and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk rt ''*. � !1`�NNE�Tq �� ZO � a � f- � � FtiT �Q° OF TFtP'� 7anuary 23, 1992 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. 7ames Danielson Director of Public Works City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 In Reply Refer To: S.P. 1902-42, 1982-112 T.H. 13 at 35E in Mendota Heights Agency Agreement No. 69189 Dear Mr. Danielson: 297-1870 Room 715N Enclosed are copies of the Agreement that pmvide for the relocation of your facilities as you requested. According to our information you have watermain system that will be affected by trunk highway construction. The work will be done at the City's expense by the State's Contractor. Kindly execute and retum to this office all copies of the Agreement not later than February 28, 1992. ' Please attach a certified copy of the Council resolution approving and authorizing this Agreement to each copy of the documen� Subsequent to execution by the State, one copy will be returned to you. If you have any questions regarding the above referenced project, please contact Melvyn Howe at telephone number 296-8653. Sincerely, �,�, � L. M. Sandstrom, P.E. Utilities Agreements Engineer Enclosures: Agency Relocation Agreement An Equa/ Opuurrunin� Ern�l<�ver 1> :�� 5 N � 7 k.j Prepared by: Utilities Agreements Unit (Receivable) ($16,925.00) S.P. 1902-42 T.H. 13 at 35E City of Mendota Heights Agency Agreement No. 69189 AGENCY RELOCATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the State of Minnesota, acting by and through its Com�nissioner of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State," and the City of Mendota Heights, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the State is preparing plans and specifications and proposes to let a contract for the construction of Trunk Highway 13, said project being identified in the records of the State as S.P. 1902-42; and WHEREAS, certain utility facilities owned and operated. by the City are presendy located within the limits of the project and to which adjustment must be made to accomplish the construction of the trunk highway project; and WHEREAS, the City is not staffed or equipped. to perform such watermain work at this time, and a separate contract to be let by the City for the adjustment work construction would result in interference with the operations of the State's contractor and would not be in the best interest of the State, the City has requested that the Commissioner of Transportation act as its agent for the purpose of constructing said adjustment work; and r �# ' �� WHEREAS, the Commissioner has determined that including said watermain work in the State's construction contract would eliminate possible duplication of services and �' would facilitate coordination of activiries so as to generally simplify and expedite the supervision and construction of the trunk highway construction project and would be in the best interest of the State; and WHEREAS, State law requires a written agreement between the State and the City setting forth their separate responsibilities in accomplishing the agency watermain construction work; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: ARTICLE 1. - AGENCY APPOINTMENT AND CONSTRUCTTON PLANS The City in connection with the construction of the aforesaid portion of Trunk Highway 13 does hereby appoint the Commissioner of Transportation as its agent to prepare fmal plans and specifications, to advertise for bids, to award the contract and to construct said adjustment work in accordance with plans and specifications designated as State Project 1902- 42 which aze on file in the Office of the Commissioner of Transportation at Saint Paul, Minnesota. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, are comprehensive and detailed. plans for the watermain agency relocation work. Said plans and specifications are made a part hereof, with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. The watermain ajustment work is to be constructed in accordance with Exhibit A. PLAN CHANGES If a change in plan or character of work is required to complete the watermain -2- � � � � work satisfactorily, the City and the State or their authorized representatives shall agree to such change before entering into a supplement to the construction contract. ARTICLE 2. - AGENCY CONSTRUCTION The construction of said watermain work shall be under the supervision and direction of the State, but the work may be inspected periodically by the City's authorized representative. If the City believes the work has not been properly constructed or that the work is defective, the City shall inform the Field Engineer in writing of such defects. Any recommendations made by the City regarding the work performed under this Agreement are not binding on the State. The State shall have the exclusive right to determine whether the work has been satisfactorily performed by the State's contractor. All work shall be performed in substantial accordance with the approved plans, proposal and special provisions. The Field Engineer shall make a final inspection with an Engineer designated by the City, and the Field Engineer shall advise the City in writing when the work is accepted. When the State accepts the watermain work, it shall become the property of the City. Risk of loss of partial or complete watermain construction shall be on the State's contractor or the City as provided in Standard Specification 1716, Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition. The maintenance of said watermain and appurtenances thereto shall be performed by the City without cost or expense to the Staxe. ARTICLE 3. - AGENCY PAYMENT The actual cost of said work shall be deternuned on a contract unit price basis. -3- The City hereby authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation, as its agent, to pay the State's Contractor d.irectly for said work. Section A. Initial Pavment bv the Utility The City agrees to pay to the State, the full share of the costs of the watermain work construction as shown on Exhibit B, the pro rata percentage of 6 1/2% Design Engineering cost, and the pro rata. percentage of 8% Construction Engineeririg cost, included in said payment shall be the costs of any contract change orders which may be necessary to complete said adjustment work and the costs of any setdements of claims made with the State's contractor in connection with said watermain construction. It is estimated, for accounting purposes, that the payment by the City of its share of the cost of construction work to he performed by the State hereunder, the 8% percent Construction Engineering Cost and the 6 1/2% percent Design Engineering Cost share is the sum of ($16,925.00) as shown in the attached Exhibit B. The State shall, when a construction contract is awarded which includes the unit bid price for the watermain construction work to be performed hereunder, prepare a revised. Exhibit B based on the construction coniract unit bid price and submit a copy of said revised Exhibit B to the City. The City agrees to advance to the Commissioner an amount equal to the City's total cost share as set forth in said revised Exhibit B be it more or less than said sum of ($16,925.00) forthwith upon the execution of this agreement and upon receipt of a request from the State for such advancement of funds. Section B. Final Payment bv the Utility � � f l� Upan the completion and acceptance of the work pravided for in said contract by the State and the preparation by the State af a finai voucher computing and detezmining the amount due the contractor perfarming the work, the Cammissioner shall deternune and campute the amount due the Trunk Highway Fund af the State of Mi.nnesota from the City for the said watermain construction work as set forth hereunder. After the Commissioner determines the actual amount due £rom the City, the Com�nissioner shall apply on the payment thereof as much as may be necessary of the aforesaid funds ad.vanced. by the City. I£ the amount found due from the City, shall be less than the amount of the funds advanced, then, and in that event, the balance of said advanced funds shall be returned ta the �iry w�ithout interes� Ii the amount found due from the City shall exceed said amount of funds advanced, the City agrees to promptly pay to the State the difference between said amount faund due and said amaunt af funds advanced. ARTICLE 4. - AGENCY PAYMENT The actual cost of said installatian shall be determined on a contract unit price basis. The Ciry hereby autharizes the Cammissioner of Transporta.tion, as its agent, to pay the State's contractor di.recdy for said installation. Upan completion and acceptance of the work provided for in said contract by the Sta.te, and the preparation by the State of a final computation deterniining the amount due the contractor performing the work, the Comrrvissianer shall deterniin.e and compute the amount due the Trunk Highway Fund of the State of Minnesota hereunder from the City, It is further agreed that the aforesaid computation and detern�ination by the -S- Comtnissioner of Transportation of the amount due from the City hereunder sha11 be final, binding, and conclusive. It is further agreed that the acceptance by the State of the aforesaid completed work provided for in said plans, specifications, and special provisions to be performed under contract as aforesaid shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of said work. ARTTCLE 5. - ESTIlViATE Attached hereto marked Exhibit B and made a part hereof is the estimate of costs for the agency relocation portion of the State Project. ARTICLE 6. - FUTURE MAINTENANCE Upon completion of adjustments, the City shall thereafter maintain the utility systems at its own expense. Should any such maintenance require work on trunk highway right of way, the City shall first obtain a written permit from the proper authority, which application shall be acted. upon promptly and shall not be unreasonably refused. Said permit shall contain reasonable regulations relating to such maintenance. The City may open and disturb the surface of the trunk highway right of way without a permit only where an emergency exists that is dangerous to the life or safety of the public and requires immediate repair. The City upon knowledge of such emergency, shall immediately notify the Minnesota State PatroL The City shall take all necessary and reasonable safety measures to protect the traveling public, and shall cooperate fully with the State Patrol to that end. The Ciry in such event shall request a pernut from the proper authority not later than the second working day thereafter. � y 'r : ARTTCLE 7. - MISCELLANEOUS Indemnificarion The City will indemnify, save and hold hannless the State and all of its agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the performance or nonperformance of the inspection to be performed by the City and further agrees to defend at its own sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder by virtue of the performance or nonperformance of the inspection to be performed by the City. Utility Permit Within 90 days after the City's receipt of as built plans from the State for the construction herein described, the City shall submit to the State's Director, Agreements Services Section four copies of a pernut application, with the as built sketches for all the facilities within highway right of way. Approval bv Council. Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by resolution of the council and shall also receive the approval of such State officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation. -7- . y . . � • r � s S.P. 1902-42 Agreement No. 69189 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement by their duly authorized. officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto aff'ixed. CTTY OF By Mayor By ciry DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for Approval: District Engineer Director, Pre-Letting Services Section Approved as to form and execution: Special Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota. STATE OF MINNESOTA Commissioner of Transportation By Director, Office of Technical Support Approved: Commissioner of Administration By Authorized Signature Encumbered: - Commissioner of Finance By Authorized Signature � ♦� � 9 0 e Exhibit B Watermain insulation 4" � 609 SQ YDS Temporary Water Service (2) 1 Lump Sum Relocate Hydrant 1 each Adjust Hydrant 2 each Adjust Valve Box-Water 4 each Adjust C�rb Box 5 each Watermain Construction Estimated Cost COSt/Unit $ 18.Q0 550.00 95Q.Q0 400.00 ��o.ao 70.00 + 8% for construction engineering + 6�I2 for design engineering Total Estimated Cost Total � 10,962.Q0 550.00 950,00 800.Q0 1,170.OQ 350,00 $ 14,782,00 $ 2�143.Q0 $ 16,925.00 � � y� ��H��"� �► �.� � � �� i CITY dF rIENDOTA HEIGHTS tWRTER} G FILE N0. STAT[ON LOCATION ITEH SNPLfiCC• REMARKS S.P. 1982-4� T.H. 13 25�A0 TD 32+25 RT. 8" D.I.P. {lY 171 27*49 34' RT. HYDRiiNT AO�UST 173 27*54 SQ' RT, VAlVS DOX ADJUST 29+82 RT. VpLVE BOX ADJUST 24+B2 lT. CURII BOX (4" S�fiV CONiV) ADJUST ZO+9p RT. 1" COPPHR SERVICE (4) 31+02 t2T. 2^ COPPEi2 SERVICE tR} i 31+41 FtT. 1" COPPER SERVICE (R) I 32t35 RT. i" COPPEFt SERVIC£ (4y �,7g 33+Oq 34' F2T. HYDRHNT RELOCAT6 17b SS+yq 28' FiT. VRLVE HOX AD3USi 33+00 RT. CUR� BOX (1" COPPER) pDJUST 35*85 i2S, CtiRB 8DX {1` COPPER) ADJUST 36+50 LT. CURB BOX (1` COPPER) AD.7U5T 36+70 RT. CURB BOX iI" COPPER} ADJ[35T VICTORYA RD. 33+37 S2' RT. VR�VE HdX RDJUST 33+85 40' LT. VALVE BOX ADJUST 33+qg i4' tT. ?iYORANT FSUJUST 34+86 35' RT. VALVE HQX AD.7115T 55+35 TO 3b+3T 12' RT. 12" D.I.P. (23 36+15 12' RT. VpLVE BOX AD.7U5T 36+23 22' RT. TO 40' RT. 12" D.I.?. t2I 36+37 12' R7. VALVE BO% AUJUST 3b+37 TO 3ES+71 12' RT. TO 40'RT. B" C.I.P. (3) 37+03 12' R7. TO L7, 1" COPP6ft SERVICE C4) 38+qg RT. 1" COFPEi2 SERVTCE {4I S.P. 1982-112 7.H. 1",1 241 S8t43 58' RT. tiYDRA3VT LERVE AS IS 109 38+R0 54" R7. VALVE BQX ADJUST 18B 34+09 74' RT. 8" SENri �£RVE KS i5 OLD VICTORIA ROAD VIC. ftD 38t7i TO 39+20 44'RT. 70 9b' FtT_ 8" C.I.P. ('S} VIC. RD 38+99 71' RT. HYORHNT LEAVE p5 IS VIC. RD 42+61 28q' RT. 8" BEHD �ERVE AS IS (1) WATEft HAIN 70 BE INSULAT6�� SE� SHEET NO 33 FOR QETHIL. {2) t4WER INPLpCE PIPE TO ODTA(N 7.S FE£i fJF CBVGR WITH PROA45ED GRAAES. GHTE VALVES pN0 TEES ARE XNCIOENTRt TO THE L{IWERING �F TtiE PIPE. (3) REt7pVE INPVACE PIPE AND Fl1RNISH � INS7ALL 8" D.I.P. AT A 7.5 FEE.7 COVER WITH PROFOSffD GRRD65. (4) RECpNNECTION OF WATER SERVICE TO BE DONE HY THE CT7Y OF ST. PAUL WIiTER DEPRftTF1ENT. AOJU57HENT 70 THE CURB S70P ING1'DENTAL TO RECONNEC7ION. r' � ♦ a TABUl.AT10NS � e State �roi. i�a. ��2'42 (13=194) Sneei Ado. 15 of 133 Sheets i• � . t c SUBSURFACE DRAIN NOTES= (ll THE UP57REAM ENDS OF T►IE PERFORATED TUBING SHALL BE CAPPED AS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. (21 THE SUBSURFACE ORAINS SHA�L 8E PLACED TRANSVERSELY ACROSS THE SUBCUT AND LONGI7UDINALLY ALONG THE RIGHT EOCE OF THE SUBCUT. l3) THE SUBSURFACE DRAIN SYSTEM SHA�L CONNECT OIRECTLY TO C.B. 6(CATCH BASIN N0. SIX). (4) MINII�JM ORAIN GRAOE SHALL 8E 0.20%. (51 THE BOTTOM OF TNE TRENCH SHALL BE SHAPEO TO CRADLE THE LOwER 1i3 OF THE PIPE. (6) REOUIRED ELBOWS. TEES AND CAPS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BID PRICE FOR THE PERFORATED PIPE. (7) MODIFICATIONS TO INSETS A AND B MAY BE MADE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. (8) SEE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL SHEET FOR LAYOUT, SHEET N0. 8� � a > INSULATION DETAIL (I3 WB2REV STA. 25*40 TO STA.32«25) (RIGHT Of. C.L.) �-VAR.--� NOTE� 4" INSULATION SHALL MEET OR EXCEED VAI.UE FOR R=20. DOW BLUE STYROFOAM � 4° INSULATION��r� OR EOUIVALENT(HIGH COMP. 40-60). � ROCK TRENCH H20 � SAN. � ,` �� •� ., ,; • ; , � � , , ;, : � �r; ��- SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DETAILS INSULATION DETAIL � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 30, 1992 T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Re-Appointment of Planning and Parks Commissioners DISCIISSION January 31 is the annual expiration date for terms of some of the Planning and Parks Commissioners. The three year terms are overlapping so not every commission term expires in any given year. This year there are five terms that have expired and Council needs to consider reappointment. The Commissioners who are up for re- appointment are: PlanninQ Commission Ul tan Duggan -� � Sandra Krebsbach -- 2 Sharon Koll Parks Commission John Huber �' Z Mike Lundeen All five of the Commission members have indicated their desire to be re-appointed. ACTION REQIIIRED If Council so desires, they should pass a motion re-appointing Ultan Duggan, Sandra Krebsbach and Sharon Koll to the Planning Commission and John Huber and Mike Lundeen to the Parks and Recreation Commission, each for another term beginning February 1, 1992. MTL:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ME1"IO ' January 31, 1992 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Admini r FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Council Meeting Schedule INFORMATION Five of the regularly scheduled 1992 Council meetings conflict with scheduled election dates. The purpose of this memo is to inform Council of those dates and request direction on rescheduling. DISCUSSION Dates scheduled by state statute for 1992 election processes are as follow: Precinct Caucus March 3 Presidential Primary April 7 School District Election May 19 State Primary Election September 15 General and City Election November 3 Public bodies may not convene on the evening of the Precinct Caucus date. There is no alternative but to reschedule the Council meeting to another evening. It is suggested that the meeting be rescheduled for either Wednesday, March 4th or Thursday, March 5th. If these dates are not workable, the meeting could be scheduled for Tuesday, March 10th or the fifth Tuesday, March 31st. On election dates, Council is restricted only from convening before 8:00 P.M. In past years, Council has met at 8:00 P.M. on School District election dates. Neither City facilities nor City staff are involved in the School District election process. It is recommended that the May 19th meeting be rescheduled to convene at 8:00 P.M. on that date. The scheduling of Council meetings on the same dates as the other elections presents some logistical problems, however none of the problems are insurmountable. With respect to the Presidential Primary, City Hall currently serves as the polling place for Precinct 6, and will be used as the polling place for this election. Although the large conference room was largely inadequate for the 1990 elections, it should acceptably accommodate what I anticipate will be an extremely small turnout for the Presidential Primary. If Council chooses to conduct its meeting at 8:00 P.M., I will schedule the conference room for election use. Other options would be to reschedule the Council meeting to Wednesday, April 8th, or Thursday, April 9th. It should be acknowledged that all of the precincts are required to bring their election returns and materials to City Hall for final processing after their responsibilities are completed. While this may result in some congestion and noise in the lobby area during a Council meeting held on election night, staff and the judges would make every effort to minimize the impact. Consideration of the rescheduling of the meetings discussed above is of the highest priority, since all will occur in the relatively near future. Although it is not as necessary to consider rescheduling of the September and November meetings at this time, Council should be apprised of the conflict. If it is Council's desire to maintain its meeting schedule on those two dates (other than starting times), an early indication to staff would be appreciated. We are in the process of preparing a recommended election redistricting plan, which will include relocation of some of the polling places. At this time I do not anticipate recommending that City Hall be retained as a polling place. It will, however, remain the hub of activities after poll closing. In order to Mayor and Council calendars to the RECOMMENDATION facilitate the meeting schedule discussion, the members are requested to bring their personal meeting. I recommend that Council discuss the following potential dates and other alternatives suggested by Council members for the rescheduling of ineetings: Scheduled Meetinq Options March 3rd Wednesday, March 4th Thursday, March 5th Week of March 9th (any date) Tuesday, March 31st April 7th April 7th, 8:00 P.M. Wednesday, April 8th ' Thursday, April 9th Week of April 13th (any date) May 19th May 19th, 8:00 P.M. Wednesday, May 20th Thursday, May 21st Scheduled Meetina Options September 15th September 15th, 8:00 P.M. Wednesday, Sept. 16th • Thursday, Sept. 17th Tuesday, Sept. 28th November 3rd November 3rd, 8:00 P.M. Wednesday, November 4th Thursday, November 5th ACTION RE4UIRED Council should pass a motion to reschedule March, April and May meetings set forth above, and the September and November meetings if so desired, to dates and/or times most compatible with the schedules of the Mayor and Council members. 0