Loading...
1988-06-210 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA REVISED AGENDA JUNE 21. 1988 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. - 2 *. 3 11 2. Roll Call. -;ej.I i V/.A_ * 3. Agenda Adoption. - X4 4 c-.. - 14 4. Approval of the June 4 Joint Meeting Minute, June 7 Pre -Council Minutes, June 7 Regular Minuteg, and June 14 Joint Meeting Minutes. - 14 5. Consent Calendar: ��- a. Approval of Partial Payment to The Joseph Company for new City Hall. b. Approval of Partial Payment to Thomas Electric for new City Hall. c. Approval of Partial Payment to Doody Mechanical for new City Hall. d. Acknowledgement of May Treasurer's Report. e. Approval of Leave of Absence. f. Acknowledgement of May Fire Dept. Report. g. Lexington Heights Fire Hydrant Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-33). h. Stratford Woods Improvements Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-34). i. Willow Springs Creek Realignment Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-35). j. Approval of the List of Contractor Licenses. k. Approval of the List of Claims. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Introductions. �l e a. Robyn Hu p k' Presentation on City Logo.' S 7. Public Com tints. A- 0-t . 8. Bid Award and Public Hearing: a. Sale ofyc„Im rovemer�tJonds. (Resolution No. 88- 36) . �/�✓✓�lo r * b. Herman Miller Office System Furniture Award. �-;;t W� -1" . Ir301 X64. 93. c. Liquor License Hearings for Mendakota, MGM an Somerset Country Club ,r 8:15 P.M. 9. Unfinished a"d New Business. a. Cri ca1 rea Vfrl'aVe for Bjorklund (Forse) . -6;,70.,7,,,s/ lh * b. PafksCommission Recommendation on Landscape Architect. '' -cl. - V Pfd7y2 c. Clarification of Council Pos't'on on Aircraft )V d.J. U g 11adey,}off pity Hayll Wallccovering. s i/V0 rSv d 4, • • ,._,I,,,:, ) ,,,i e�(� (�py�-�.i c -l /7 6/,Cr -c-4-2 Zt ,./[3- * e. Rel ase of TH 55 Area Property Appraisals. 0-x.,. f. Comments on ounty Solid Waste Plan. --A. Noise Corridor Issue. .00 ** ** g• Approval, of 188/89 Police Contract — h. Purchase ofPublic Works pickupp truck- /tin 10. Response to Council Comments. �~ 11. Council Comments. 12. Adjourn. - ?g,_.1 7rb.: /,i .�r� ,r,gh CITY VISION STATEMENT Mendota Heights is a high quality, family oriented residential community, with the feel of the country and the amenities of a city. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high-technology office and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. The mission of the Mendota Heights City government is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community and to plan, direct, and implement orderly growth. This is achieved by encouraging and fostering: - Community identity, citizen participation and open access to government decision making. - High quality, cost effective public service. - Conservative financial management and low tax rates. - Development and maintenance of parks, trails, and open spaces. - High standards of diversified housing stock with continued emphasis on single family homes. - Further development of well-designed commercial and office projects. The Mayor. and City Council, as the elected representatives of the people, supported by recommendations from the Parks and Planning Commissions, are responsible for establishing the policies necessary to carry out this mission. The staff of the City implement the policies established by the Council and provide direct services to the community, making the vision a reality. ADOPTED BY THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 3, 1986. TARGET ISSUES: 1987/88/89 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ADOPTED APRIL, 1987 TARGET ISSUE STATUS - 4/1/88 -------------------------------------------+--------------------------- - Become more active in issue I Council formulating - Resolve corridor issues with Eagan I position on corridor; will - Adopt noise attenuation ordinance I be presented to MASAC in I June. 1 TOP PRIORITY I , 1. Parks Development - Reassess program, priorities, I Referendum set for May 3. and direction - Secure location for athletic complex - Reschedule date for referendum 2. Southeast Area Plan Amendment I I - Adoption of noise ordinance I Plan approved by Met. - Complete Plan approval by Met. I Council. Centex sketch Council and adoption I plan and Phase I approved. - Consider parks implications I Awaiting ISP approval and - React to development proposals I outcome of parks - Construct public improvements I referendum. 3. City Hall - Bldg. Committee completes schematic Construction underway and plans I to be completed by - Architects draw up Pl. and Specs. 110/1/88. Monitor - Let for bid and construct I construction and plan - Arrange and approve financing I move. Interior design and - Consider policies for operation I phones being planned. - MOVE IN AND ENJOY! 4. 110/Dodd Area Redevelopment - Work with MnDot on 149 improvements Owners planning renovation - Work with Mendota Plaza new owners I and new tenants. City for redevelopment I considering community - Determine future of S. Plaza Dr. I retail market study. - Clean up entire area 5. Airport Noise I - Become more active in issue I Council formulating - Resolve corridor issues with Eagan I position on corridor; will - Adopt noise attenuation ordinance I be presented to MASAC in I June. 1 6. Hwy. 55 Corridor Study - City Planner completes background - Meet with neighbors and owners - Focus direction and policy - Identify funding sources - Implement preferred plan 7. Zoning Code Amendments - Planner completes background work - Workshop with P1. Comm. to discuss amendments and set policy - Draft ordinances, hold public hearings, and adopt revisions Preliminary study and plan alternatives completed. Area property appraisals and marketing efforts underway. Council/Pl. Commission direction given. Staff working on draft of new ordinance for public hearings and adoption. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HIGH PRIORITY I 8. Infrastructure Replacement Policy - Inventory existing status and establish replacement schedule - Adopt policy on standard for reconstruction - Set policy on City financial contribution - Continue to build sinking fund - Consider County turnback program 9. Street Lighting/Sidewalk Policy - Develop policy for new and existing neighborhoods - Adopt financing policy 10. Commissions - Clarify relationship to Council - Develop recruitment effort - Develop training program - Define Planner/Staff role - Hold periodic joint workshop 2 Inventory of existing facilities to be done by Public Works department during next few months. Program to be adressed with preparation of 1989 budget. Council has given direction. Staff needs to write resolution of policy Joint teambuilding workshop planned for June 4, 1988. I i 11. Financial Management - Review investment of idle funds - Review insurance coverages - Review external audit - Consider need for Council guidelines and goals - Role of Treasurer - What to do after Larry 12. Drainage Ditches and Holding Ponds - Review maintenance program and beef up as needed 13. MSA Street Program - Review and reconsider priorities 14. Economic Development - Consider need for more proactive City role in attracting desirable business - Structure City program To be done later in 1988 as time permits. Engineering department has begun background study. On-going with budget Will address as time allows. Couuncil may need to clarify its expectations and desires. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MODERATE PRIORITY 15. Sanitary Sewers - Work with MWCC to get accurate meter readings - Agree on temporary method of measurement - Decide on correction of identified I/I problem areas - Identify and react to other problem areas 16. Elections - Review needs and options - Review optiscan system - Review precinct boundaries - Lobby County for needs 3 New MWCC readings have alleviated much of problem. Continue to monitor and plan corrections as need is apparent. Optiscan equipment ordered and expected to be in place for Fall 188 primary and general elections. 17. Equipment Replacement - Inventory existing stock and establish replacement schedule - Establish reserve fund, weaning off equipment certificates - Include parks,equipment 18. Use of "Garron"•site - Focus on desired future use - Resolve conflict between Comp. Pl. and current zoning 19. Hwy. 110/Lexington Intersection - Redesign and upgrade of roadways - Redevelopment of existing use - Future commercial uses 20. City Image - Adopt slogan - Adopt logo - City Hall planned to reflect - Employee service 21. Recreation Program P.W. Superintendent to address during next year. Will be address in 1989 budget. To be addressed as part of Hwy. 55 study. Nothing happening. May be addressed as part of retail market study. Planned as part of Spring workshop with Commissions. Currently taking proposals from graphic artists. - Survey needs, present and future Currently under process by - Assess current program the Parks Commission. - Plan to meet future needs Look at alternatives later this year. -------------------------------------------+--------------------------- LOW PRIORITY 22. MAC Property Sale and Use - Review status of sale to United - Work with developer on use 23. City Code Codification - Determine need - Recodify existing ordinances 24. MIS Review - Review effectiveness of current uses - Consider additional applications 4 Sale completed last summer Hwy. 55 study for use Project begun. To be completed as time allows. Equipment included in 188 budget. 25. St. Paul Water Agreement - Reconsider City objectives - Negotiate and enter new agreement with St. Paul 26. Tax Increment District - Review and prioritize remaining projects - React to specific requests/proposals for TIF assistance - Schedule remaining projects and plan for termination of district 27. Council - Staff'- Commission Retreat - Study and anticipate the future - Plan and organize to react appropriately - Consider need for professional assistance I Future project as time allows. Final plan in place. React to requests/opportunities for use as they are presented. Teambuilding workshop scheduled for June 4. 28. Comparable Worth - Review City Administrator Program adopted during recommended program 11987. To be implemented - Adopt a program I in stages through 1989. - Begin implementation by 8/1/87 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOWER PRIORITY 29. House Moving Ordinance - Amend current ordinance to require developer's agreement with timetable 30. Snowplowing - Review current snowplowing procedures and determine whether to amend to increase efficiency 31. Relationship with Mendota/Lilydale - Identify impending issues - Review provision of services - Resolve,storm water runoff problems 5 Being addressed with zoning ordinances. Alternatives routes tried during 188. Will consider contract plowing in 88/89. Tends to be on-going discussion at budget time. Storm water part of WMO implementation. 32. Police Department - Review problem of high percentage of senior officers - Plan for future turnover 33. Fee Schedules - Review existing fee schedules (i.e. Parks dedication, Planning, etc.) - Modify as deemed appropriate 34. Cable Television - Cablecast of City meetings - Design in new City Hall - Plan City programming 35. Employee Benefits - Expansion of cafeteria plan - Review possibility of fitness plan Recent turnovers have resolved the issue. Dept. functioning well. To be done as part of adopting new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Included in detail planning for City Hall. City Treasurer seeking information. -------------------------------------------t--------------------------- BOTTOM PRIORITIES 36. RR Crossing in Industrial Park - Review status and decide when and if to build 37. CDBG Projects - Survey potential uses and implement 38. Intersection Obstructions - Review problem of obstructions from tree, bushes, etc. - Plan to remedy as necessary 39. Senior Citizens - Housing - Recreation - Transportation 40. Watershed Management Organizations T Project authorized; RR to install during next year. Excess funds available. Use as appropriate. To be done as part of ordinance recodification project. Address in future years as needed. Master plans being completed. 4 - Review status and effectiveness 41. Housing Policy - Maintenance of existing housing - Senior housing - Moderate cost housing 7 CDBG funding for rehabilitation available; address other housing issues in future as they become timely and important. .r\ To: F Re: MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mayor and City Council is Kevin Fra q_dl„� _y Administrator Add -On Agenda for June 21st June 21, 1988 Twolnew items are recommended for addition to this evening's agenda, and additional material is provided for three existing items. 3. Agenda Adoption It ils recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda attached and printed on blue paper. C. 8.b. Herman Miller Office System Furniture Award Attached is a letter from Office Pavilion, setting forth their bid on selected items of the CityJHall furniture. The bid for Herman Miller Action Office Encore on page two is the office system furniture available to the City under State of Minnesota contract. The bid amount is $30,266.43; Suzanne allowed $31,000 in her budget. To expedite delivery, it is recommended that Council award this portion of the bid this evening. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to award bid for City Hall Herman Miller Action Office Encore furniture to Office Pavilion under State of Minnesota contract, in the amount of $30,266.43. 9.b. Recommendation on Landscape Architect Please see attached memo. 9.e. Release of TH 55 Area Property Appraisals After researching relevant State statutes on relocation projects, City Attorney Hart and I recommend that the appraisal information be released in the following manner. Staff will send a form letter to the area residents advising them that the appraisals are completed, and that they may G come to City Offices to review the information. We cannot provide copies at this point. We will allow a month or so for everyone to review their appraisal, and for the neighborhoods to discuss the results among themselves. After that, we will schedule a follow up meeting with City officials to continue discussions, and if there stills seems to be general interest in moving, give individual property owners the opportunity to initiate negotiations with the City. 9.g. Approval of 1988/89 police contract Please see attached memo. 9.h. Purchase of Public Works pickup truck Please see attached memo. MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Fz�ty Administrator Re: Services of Landscape Architect A minority (Huber, Damberg, Leffert) of the Parks Commission and I met last eveninv to interview the three proposers for park landscaping services. Council has previously been provided copies of the proposals from Barton-Aschman, Damon Farber, and Jim Sanders, and hopefully has had an opportunity to review those. After completing the interviews there was a unanimous consensus to recommend that we retain Barton-Aschman for the work. Their proposed fee of $13,850 was the lowest submitted, and we suspect this is due, in part, to the fact that they are already highly familiar with our neighborhood parks from the previous work on the Park Needs Study. We were also favorably impressed with the presentation by Jim Sanders. His proposed work product and that of Barton- Aschman appeared highly similar. The decision was reached on the basis of the lower fee, and the fact that Barton-Aschman seemed to already have a more clearly defined set of objectives in mind for carrying out the project. You will recall that through a purely clerical error, the adopted 1988 Park Fund budget allocates only $3,000 for this project; $15,000 was the intended amount. Since these dollars are coming from the dedicated Park Development Fund, Council needs simply to appropriate the additional monies from the Fund balance. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion approving execution of an agreement with Barton- Aschman for a park landscaping master plan project per the terms of their proposal dated June 1, 1988, and appropriating an additional $10,850 from the Park Development Fund balance for the project. MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS To: Mayor and City Council ,n From: Kevin Fraze,� q y Administrator ,j v Re: 1988/89 Police Union Contract At the June 7th meeting, I suggested to Council an agreement that I felt could be reached with the police bargaining unit for a 1988/89 contract. Council authorized me to offer the package. The bargaining unit has now voted to accept the offer, and formal Council ratification of the contract is needed. Three provisions of the existing contract (1987) change under the proposal for a new two-year contract: INSURANCE The City's maximum insurance contribution increases $10 per month for 1988, and an additional $20 per month for 1989. UNIFORMS There is added a provision for an annual uniform cleaning and maintenance reimbursement of up to $175 per year. WAGES Monthly wage rates increase 3.5% for 1988, and another 3.5% for 1989. Attached are copies of those implement these changes. All remain the same as for 1987. RECOMMENDATION sections of the contract that other contract provisions I feel this is a fair contract settlement for both the City and the Union. It is also in line with settlements being reached by other metropolitan area suburbs. Adequate budgeted funds are available. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to approve a 1988/89 labor contract with the police officers bargaining unit, per the terms submitted by the City Administrator on June 21, 1988. 13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. ARTICLE XIV COURT TIME An employee who is required to appear in Court during his scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one- half (1 1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearances does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. ARTICLE XV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. ARTICLE XVI WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a nigher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE XVII INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred eighty-five dollars ($185.00) per employee per month during 1988, and up to a maximum of two hundred and five dollars ($205.00) per employee per month during 1989 toward health, life and long-term disability and dental insurance. ARTICLE XVIII STANDBY PAY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the rate of one hour's pay for each hour on standby. ARTICLE XIX UNIFORMS The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items. Each- employee ach_em to ee shall also receive a maximum_of one hundred seventy-five dollars a a rei_m emej3.t for cleanipa anal -maintenance of uniforms. — eim ursement shall be upon_pes,en .a. �,oaf,=o__receipts^for�cleariirig"'-ana� tenance- services and approval of the Chief. -- ARTICLE XX INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work the difference between the employee's regular insurance payments for a period not to exceed 0 of their duties for the for the EMPLOYER will be paid pay and Worker's'Compensation one hundred twenty (120) courses, institutes, etc., shall also be counted. The EMPLOYER shall determine which courses are job related. Disputes are grievable based on the criteria outlined in the award of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services Case No. 78 -PN -370-A. ARTICLE XXII WAIVER 22.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superceded. 22.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining.' All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waive the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred,to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE XXIII WAGE RATES (MONTHLY BASE RATE) 1988 1989 Start (1st six months) $ 2,106 $ 2,180 (2nd six months) 2,229 2,307 2nd year 2,409 2,494 3rd year 2,584 2,675 After 36 months of continuous employment 2,760 2,857 ARTICLE XXIV VACATIONS Time is accrued according to the following schedule: 0-5 years of service 10 days per year 6-10 years of service 15 days per year over 10 years of service one additional day per year, not to exceed 20 days Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year during PH V CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 21, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and City ator FROM: Tom Olund Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of Truck for Superintendent DISCUSSION: In 1987 money was budgeted for a new pickup that I would be driving. Because of the July "super storm" and the purchase of the new 33,000 G.V.W. dump truck, this truck was put on the back burner until the spring of 1988. Due to my being off for medical reasons the truck did not get purchased. We are now in dire need of the truck. With six part-time people there are not enough vehicles available. The truck that it will replace in the fall is a 1977 Chevrolet which is now being used for the repainting of fire hydrants. I have obtained three bids (see below) for vehicles that are immedi- ately available. Several other dealers were contacted but did not reply or could not find satisfactory truck. Pro Truck GMC $12,361.50 - 1,000.00 Rebate Valley Olds Pontiac, GMC Polar Chevrolet -011,3n1.DU 450.00 Paint $11,811.50 Total Color of truck is spice brown. $11,993.00 - not painted Dealer to retain rebate, No quote on painting. Color of truck is red. $11,997.00 + 650.00 Paint �1L,b4/.UU 1988 models are not available on a factory order. To place a factory order now for a 1989 model would mean the delivery date of September or October and the truck is needed as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the truck from Pro Truck be purchased for the amount of $11,361.50 and be financed from the general fund unappropriated balance. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation, they should authorize the transfer of funds and authorize the preparation of a purchase order in the amount of $11,361.50 payable to Pro Truck GMC. \. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JUNE 21. 1988 = 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Agenda Adoption. 4. Approval of the June 4 Joint Meeting Minutes, June 7 Pre - Council Minutes, June 7 Regular Minutes, and June 14 Joint Meeting Minutes. 5. Consent Calendar: a. Approval of Partial Payment to The Joseph Company for new City Hall. b. Approval of Partial Payment to Thomas Electric for new City Hall. C. Approval of Partial Payment to Doody Mechanical for new City Hall. d. Acknowledgement of May Treasurer's Report. e. Approval of Leave of Absence. f. Acknowledgement of May Fire Dept. Report. g. Lexington Heights Fire Hydrant Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-33). h. Stratford Woods Improvements Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-34). i. Willow Springs Creek Realignment Resolution Calling for Hearing. (Resolution No. 88-35). j. Approval of the List of Contractor Licenses. k. Approval of the List of Claims. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Introductions. a. Robyn Huspek's Presentation on City Logo. 7. Public Comments. 8. Bid Award and Public Hearing: a. Sale of Improvement Bonds. (Resolution No. 88-36). b. Herman Miller Office System Furniture Award. A. C. Liquor License Hearings for Mendakota, MGM, and Somerset Country Club - 8:15 P.M. 9. Unfinished and New Business. a. Critical Area Variance for Bjorklund (Forse). b. Parks Commission Recommendation on Landscape JA Architect. c. Clarification of Council Position on Aircraft Noise Corridor Issue. d. Upgrade of City Hall Wallcovering. e. Release of TH 55 Area Property Appraisals. 6A, f. Comments on County Solid Waste Plan. 0. Response to Council Comments. 11. Council Comments. Adjourn. Page No. 2345 June 4, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Joint Meeting Held Saturday, June 4, 1988 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Saturday, June 4, 1988, at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel, 1352 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, Hartmann and Witt, Planning Commissioners Morson, Duggan, Krebsbach, and McMonival. Henning, Burke and Anderson were absent. Parks Commissioners present included Stein, Leffert, Katz, Huber, Owens, and Lachenmayer. Damberg was absent. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Frazell, City Clerk Kathy Swanson, and team building consultant Don Salverda. Mayor Mertensotto and City Administrator Frazell offered some introductory and welcoming remarks. The remainder of the day was spent discussing and doing group activities on the following topics: 1. Rating of success and accomplishing City issues. 2. Individual problem solving styles. 3. Mutual expectations for the Council, staff and commissions. The day concluded with a brief discussion of the recently failed parks bond referendum, and what issues had to be addressed. Because of the shortness of the hour, it was agreed that a follow-up meeting between the Council and the Parks Commission would be necessary to further explore the topic. Meeting was adjourned at 4:40 P.M. ATTEST: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 2345 June 7, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Pre -Council Meeting Held Tuesday, June 7, 1988 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a pre -Council meeting was conducted at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. IVY FALLS CREEK Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of an informal discussion on Ivy Falls Creek drainage concerns. The following residents were present: Mr. & Mrs. Brassard, 1205 Ivy Falls Court, Mr. & Mrs. Lorentzsen, 675 Ivy Falls Court, Mr. & Mrs. Miller, 681 Ivy Falls Court, Mr. & Mrs. Carley, 1271 Sylvandale, Mr. & Mrs. Pedrolie, 1280 Sylvandale Road, Mr. & Mrs. Ostergren, 680 Maple Park Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Bute, 1200 Falls View Court and Mr. & Mrs. Miller, 715 Sylvandale Court. Public Works Director Danielson reviewed his informational report on the history of improvements to the Ivy Falls Creek in 1979, the impact of the 1987 "super storm" and existing condition of the creek. He also reviewed alternatives for repair and reconstruction of various areas of the creek. He informed the audience that last year Mr. Jack Brassard applied for a wetlands permit to do some corrective work in the portion of the creek which abuts his property. After considering the request and knowing of other problems in the creek, Council decided to conduct this informal discussion with the property owners, and directed staff to prepare the updated feasibility report discussed this evening. Council discussed the need for creek repairs with the property owners, and directed that staff copy the report to all of the residents present and prepare a more detailed report for further consideration. Council further directed that staff work with the Watershed District Engineers to Page No. 2346 June 7, 1988 determine whether a creek reconstruction project could be done as part of the watershed district jurisdiction. There being no further business to come before the Council, the Council adjourned to the regular meeting scheduled to convene at 7:30 P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 2346 June 7, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 7, 1988 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, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, Hartmann and Witt. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting as amended to move items 10c, d, e, f, k and o to the consent calendar. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the minutes of the May 17th meeting with correction. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent calendar, along with authorization for execution of all necessary documents contained therein. a. Adoption of Resolution No. 88-29, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 14," authorizing final payment of $6,935.39 to Lessard- Nyren Utilities, Inc., for the Lexington Heights Apartments hydrant installation project. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the May 24th Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for May. Page No. 2347 June 7, 1988 d. Acknowledgment of a letter from St. Paul Water and copy of a public notice of concern for lead in drinking water. e. Acknowledgment of a letter from Minneapolis Councilmember Steve Cramer and a memo from Administrator Frazell regarding the Highland Park runway use test. f. Authorization for staff to publish notices of June 21st hearings for renewal of the Somerset Country Club and Mendakota Country Club club liquor licenses. g. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the May 11th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated June 7th and attached hereto. i. Approval of the list of claims dated June 7, 1988 and totalling $201,670.57. j. Approval of the preliminary plat for the Pabst Addition as submitted and dated May 4, 1988. (Case No. 88-17, Pabst.) k. Approval of the division of Lots 17 and 18, Caroline's Lakeview Addition, authorizing the transfer of Parcel A from the westerly line of Lot 18 to Lot 17, and the transfer of Parcel B from Lot 17 to Lot 18, as described on a site/location survey dated April 19, 1981. (Case No. 88-18, Pabst) 1. Approval of a conditional use permit for Mr. Anthony Mancuso to allow construction of a detached garage 16 feet from the rear property line of a through lot located at 552 W. Annapolis, along with waiver of the hearing requirement and a reduction in application fee from $350 to $35. (Case No. 88-20, Mancuso.) m. Approval of a six foot variance from the established front yard setback to allow construction of a home 33 feet Page No. 2348 June 7, 1988 from the street right-of-way at 1081 Marie Avenue. (Case No. 88-21, Blesener.) n. Authorization for the publication of a notice of hearing for 8:15 P.M. on June 21st for consideration of a public hearing on an application for off -sale liquor license from MGM Liquors. o. Approval of a purchase order for Lakeville Excavating to complete parkland grading for the Victoria Highlands park property for $15,000, in accordance with their proposal dated May 24, 1988, on the condition that no lower quotation is received prior to noon on June 9th. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Jan Peyer, 606 Highway 13, stated that she would like to subdivide her property which abuts the Eugenia Street right-of-way but that the property is not large enough to divide unless the right-of-way is vacated. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that Ms. Peyer apply for a vacation of the right-of-way. Councilmember Cummins suggested that the application fee be waived. Mr. Wayne Schwanz, present for the discussion, stated that staff had been directed at a past meeting to report on whether the City needs to retain the right- of-way and asked when the report will be completed. Staff was directed to contact Ms. Peyer regarding vacation processing and to make a recommendation to Council relative to the suggested waiver of application fee. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC Council acknowledged responses from staff COMMENTS relative to concerns expressed by Mr. Virgil McQuay at past Council meetings over the need for a noise wall at the northwest quadrant of T.H. 110 and I -35E and sight Page No. 2349 June 7, 1988 obstructions at Victoria Road and Marie Avenue. With respect to the noise wall and the response from Mn/DOT, Mr. McQuay stated that his attorneys have been unable to find their records which should include a commitment from Mn/DOT on the wall and that he is at a loss as to how to proceed. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that staff should inform Mn/DOT of the noise impact, informing them that one developer in the area lost his land to tax forfeiture (Victoria Townhomes plat) and that one of the apparent reasons was the impact of the freeway noise on the property. He also suggested that Mr. McQuay contact the court to get information on the court transcript and file relating to Mr. McQuay's legal proceedings on the matter. Regarding the Victoria/Marie sight obstruction issue, Mr. McQuay suggested that striping the intersection might help. Public Works Director stated that the City can stripe Marie Avenue at the intersection and that he will contact Dakota County regarding striping on Victoria. Council directed that the Public Works crew remove the brush in the ditchline of Victoria Road. BID AWARD Council acknowledged a tabulation of bids VICTORIA HIGHLANDS received for public improvements to serve the Victoria Highlands Addition. It was Council consensus that the bids were so favorable that staff should prepare a change order to extend the bike trail to Trail Road. Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-30, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE VICTORIA HIGHLANDS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 7)," provided that the resolution be amended to reflect that all of the bids were accepted, awarding the contract to Page No. 2350 June 7, 1988 F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for their low bid of $463,565. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FEASIBILITY HEARING Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for CORNICK WATERMAIN the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed extension of the City's watermain to serve properties along Highway 13 from Lexington Avenue to the Mendota City limits. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Public Works Director Danielson stated that the financial feasibility of the project hinges on receipt of Dakota County HRA community development block grant (CDBG) funding assistance. He informed Council that there are two types of CDBG funding bases, the number of low income households and technical hardship, which requires a letter from the County Health Officer. He informed Council that staff has a letter from the Health Officer and that the HRA has submitted the letter to HUD and is awaiting a reply. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. The following property owners were present for the discussion: Mr. George Milliman, 1140 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mr. Tom Dinsmore, 1150 Sibley Memorial Highway, and Ms. Peggy O'Reilly, 1132 Sibley Memorial Highway. Mr. Dinsmore stated that he believes everyone affected by the project is in favor of it if block grant funding is available. Mr. Milliman concurred. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 8:10 P.M. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Witt moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-31, "RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATERMAIN EXTENSION TO SERVE 1176 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT Page No. 2351 June 7, 1988 NO. 6)," subject to receipt of HRA community development block grant funding. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING -- CASE NO. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for 88-19, C.G. REIN CO. the purpose of a public hearing on an application for conditional use permit for planned unit development from C.G. Rein Company for construction of 106 apartment units on Outlot A of the Mendakota Estates Addition. Mr. Ted Zinner, Vice President of the C.G. Rein Company, reviewed the preliminary development plan and renderings for a proposed 106 unit apartment complex to be located on Outlot A of Mendakota Estates, a 10.6 acre site located at Dodd Road and Mendakota Drive. Mr. Zinner stated that there are six buildings with living units and one building for amenities proposed and that considerable time has been spent on designing the complex to best utilize the site. He noted that there is a varied roof line to break up the buildings and to identify,with the rooflines of the homes in the Mendakota Estates, that the building exterior will be 80% brick and 20% cedar and that the buildings will be 42 feet in height from ground level to the top of the roofs. He stated that the property will be heavily landscaped and that the developer will dedicate 1.67 acres as a park dedication adjacent to the 9 acre green space south of Mendakota Drive. Councilmember Cummins stated that his initial reaction is that the proposed dedication is not valuable to the City as park land and that the City would not be acquiring anything of general use to the population of the community. Administrator Frazell stated that when the PUD for Mendakota Estates was approved, the 9 acre dedication was to be the entire dedication for the total property and that the City would have the right to take 2.8 acres of its choosing but without reducing the density of the property. Page No. 2352 June 7, 1988 Mr. Zinner stated that extensive landscaping is planned to screen Dodd Road from the site and also, the screening and berming of the commercial area across Dodd. Responding to a comment from Councilmember Cummins, Mr. Zinner stated that 12 to 20 foot trees will be planted on top of the berm and his firm will work with City staff and the planner to review and modify the landscaping plan as necessary. He described the mix of units and stated that the rentals will range from $700 to $1,600 per month, that there will be 157 underground parking stalls and 100 ground level spaces. He then reviewed a tenant profile and traffic study Councilmember Cummins pointed out that a member of the Planning Commission had raised a question about the access on Dodd not lining up with Hokah. He also asked whether it would not have been simpler to access onto Mendakota Drive so that the homes and apartments access Dodd from one street. Mayor Mertensotto agreed, suggesting that it would be more beneficial from a safety standpoint to bring the apartment traffic out to Mendakota Drive and to Dodd from there. Mr. Zinner responded that this had not been pursued because of anticipated traffic from Mendakota Country Club and because there is a strip of land between Mendakota Drive and the apartment property which is City park dedication. He stated that he could re- route the apartment traffic across the green space owned by the City but it would cut up the open space. The Council acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Dale Johnson, 2215 Dodd Road. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Dr. Ted Chao, 783 Hokah, also expressed concern over adding a driveway onto Dodd Road from the proposed complex, and agreed that traffic from the complex should be routed to Mendakota Drive. He also suggested that there would be a need for a semiphor to control speed on Dodd. Dr. Page No. 2353 June 7, 1988 Chao asked what the setback will be from the apartments to Dodd Road. Mr. Zinner responded that it is proposed to locate the closest building 50 feet from the right-of-way of Dodd, which is 20 feet from the roadway. Dr. Chao stated that when the issue of apartments was last discussed at a Council meeting he thought that people in the neighborhood would have some input into the design and that he was under the impression that the buildings would be placed way back on the site. Councilmember Blesener asked whether there is any way that the structures can be moved back. Mrs. Ann Spangler, 795 Hokah, stated that her concern is over traffic flow and asked whether there is going to be some type of widening of Dodd. She felt that traffic congestion without turning lanes is very dangerous. Mary Lou Johnson, 2215 Dodd Road, submitted a petition to the Council. She pointed out how difficult it is to make a turn from her driveway and expressed concern that most of the people living in the units will be driving south on Dodd. She stated that the neighbors would like the developers to put the buildings as far back from Dodd as possible and further stated that it would be less offensive to the neighbors and more attractive for prospective renters. With respect to the park dedication, Mrs. Johnson stated that the neighborhood would like to see the park run parallel and adjacent to Dodd to provide a buffer and more aesthetically pleasing area creating a greater sense of openness as well as a sense that the dedicated area belongs to the community. Mr. Dale Johnson stated that the Planning Commission asked the Rein Company to talk to the neighbors about placement of the buildings ,etc, and that his family was not contacted. He pointed out that the people who signed the petition live only in the area within 350 feet of the project and in Page No. 2354 June 7, 1988 the Friendly Hills First Addition. He felt that the building setback should be 140 feet from the centerline of Dodd. Councilmember Blesener asked whether the limits on the --drawings are the actual boundaries of the outlot as platted. She noted that if the drawings are correct, there is a 60' storm sewer easement over the westerly portion of the site and the NSP substation is next to that. She pointed out that the buildings could not in fact be moved further west unless the sewer line is moved. Mr. Johnson submitted a plan for an alternate design which would set the buildings back on the site. Mr. John Moy, 796 Hokah, suggested that often times apartments are unrented and end up as subsidized housing and high crime areas. Mr. Morris Friedman, 789 Hokah, suggested that there are so many restrictions on the property the developers are trying to squeeze in the maximum possible number of units. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the zoning of the land is R-1 and the developers are effectively asking for a rezoning - the use of the land is changing. Councilmember Cummins pointed out that the decision on zoning is moot, that the proposal is a PUD and Council made a decision to approve the use in principle at the time of platting of the Mendakota Estates. Councilmember Blesener stated that she feels the buildings being proposed present a high quality development but was concerned over impact of the traffic and the large scale structures across from and adjacent to residential areas. She felt that Council should take the opportunity to improve on the proposal as follows: increase the setback to 100 feet from Dodd to maintain the same setback of residences existing on Dodd Road and provide for additional right-of-way capability for Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2355 June 7, 1988 Dodd; and, traffic could better be handled by providing an easement over the park land to provide access to Dodd from Mendakota Drive and eliminate the proposed access point. Councilmember Cummins stated that he and Councilmember Blesener had vigorously opposed putting any multiple family use on the site two years ago and that he believes this is an excellent project if the access is changed and the buildings are moved back. He suggested that the proposal be referred to the Park Commission to look at the park issue. Mr. Zinner stated that one of the reasons to not move the complex back to the south and west corners is because of the NSP plant and pointed out that there are only three residences which look at the property now, the Moys, Spanglers and Johnsons. He indicated that one of the reasons this is an ideal situation for his company is because the site is buffered by a 125 foot NSP easement, there is already a setback maintained by the NSP location, and on the other side is the park space for buffering. He suggested that the study prepared by his consultants addresses traffic concerns and that as far as the suggestion to use Mendakota Drive, they would like to explore the possibility and come back with a plan for rerouting the apartment traffic down Mendakota Drive. Councilmember Witt felt that the steep pitch on the roofs is another good reason to move the buildings back. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Blesener moved that the hearing be closed at 9:11 P.M. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that as far as he is concerned, the proposal constitutes rezoning of the land and requires a four- fifths vote of the Council. Councilmember Cummins responded that a legal opinion had been received when Mendakota Estates was platted which Page No. 2356 June 7, 1988 indicated that rezoning was not required because the proposal was being processed as a planned unit development. After discussion, 'Councilmember Blesener moved to table a decision until July 5th, to refer the proposed plat to the Park Commission for input on what use the City might have for the land at Mendakota Drive and Dodd, and to ask the developer to revise the driveway access so that the driveway entrance/exit is at Mendakota Drive rather than Dodd Road, and to maintain a 100 foot building setback from the right-of-way of Dodd Road. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Council directed Attorney Hart to research his files and submit to Council the legal opinion prepared in response to the Mendakota Estates rezoning versus planned unit development question. RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:14 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 P.M. COPPERFIELD IV Mr. Dick Putnam presented and reviewed a revised preliminary plat for the proposed Copperfield Fourth Addition and reviewed concerns expressed by Council and the audience at the May 17th meeting. Mr. Putnam stated that in the revised cul-de- sac plan, the lots average 21,100 square feet. Mayor Mertensotto felt that the plat did not address the Council's concerns over the narrow width of the lots at the setback line. Mr. Putnam responded that all of the lots are over 100 feet wide at the building setback but not at the front property line because of the cul-de-sacs, and that rather than being minimum setbacks, many of the homes will be 50 feet from each other. He pointed out that these are much larger lots than in the other Copperfield subdivisions. Councilmember Cummins asked whether Mr. Putnam would have any problem with a fifteen foot sideyard setback requirement Page No. 2357 June 7, 1988 and 35 foot front yard setback. Mr. Putnam responded that if there is a tree on a lot and the homeowner wants to work around it, he could do so without getting a variance at a 10 foot setback but would probably need a variance at a 15 foot setback. He stated that he is not sure what Council - member Cummins is trying to accomplish since the lots are significantly larger than the lots around them and have much larger frontages. Mr. Putnam felt that requiring fifteen foot setbacks would create administrative problems that are unnecessary. He had no problem with the suggested 35 foot front yard setbacks. Councilmember Cummins responded that his concern is to not get the houses too close together and that from his perspective the plat is fine on the whole and that Mr. Putnam has done a good job of resolving his concerns and the residents concerns over traffic. He stated, however, that he would like to see a better resolution of spacing and cannot see that there would be a problem with fifteen foot setbacks. Councilmember Blesener stated during Zoning Ordinance revision discussions some time ago, she had proposed 15 foot setbacks and was not supported because the Planning Commission felt such setbacks would be unduly restrictive. She felt that if the setbacks are not appropriate City-wide it would be inappropriate to be more restrictive in this plat. In response to a question from Councilmember Hartmann, Mr. Putnam stated that the Fieldstone cul-de-sac is 1300 feet long from its intersection"with Copperfield Drive. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Dwyer, 558 Stone Road, stated that he is pleased with the compromise relative to traffic problems and that the cul-de-sac resolves his concern. Mr. Siebell, 2232 High Pointe, stated that Mr. Putnam has significantly mitigated his Page No. 2358 June 7, 1988 concerns but that he still does not like 17 lots and would like to know why access to Delaware isn't feasible. He complimented Mr. Putnam on his responsiveness to the neighbor's concerns. Councilmember Witt expressed her preference for looped streets, and felt that the neighbors' concerns over traffic could have been mitigated by reducing the number of lots. Councilmember Hartmann expressed concern over the long cul-de-sacs and felt that it is dangerous to set that kind of precedent if it is unnecessary. He stated that he would have preferred a through street and lot reduction as a better alternative. Councilmember Blesener stated that she cannot support a requirement for fifteen foot sideyard setbacks because she believes the Council would be .too restrictive but that she could support a 35 foot front yard setback requirement. Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Ordinance No. 256, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401," to rezone the Copperfield IV Addition from R -1A to R-1. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Witt Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-32, "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CASE 88-09, COPPERFIELD IV," subject to a requirement for sideyard setback minimums of 15 feet and 35 foot front yard setback minimums. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Blesener Witt Councilmember Hartmann moved approval for the preliminary plat for Copperfield Four dated June 2, 1988. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Blesener Witt Page No. 2359 June 7, 1988 CASE NO. 88-15, Mr. John Perron, 1940 South Lane, was PERRON present to request approval of the division of his property into two lots. Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Perron responding to a letter from Mr. Phillip Goldman in objection to the proposal and Planning Commission action recommending denial. Mr. Perron stated that he feels it is unfair to allow a house to be built on an 83 foot lot on North Freeway Road and deny his request to create an 85 foot lot. He stated that he wishes to divide the lot because it is very large and difficult to maintain and because of the cost of real estate taxes Administrator Frazell informed Council that the lot Mr. Perron is referring to was platted prior to Zoning Ordinance adoption and is therefore grandfathered in. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the lot was originally 225 feet wide and that some time in the past, forty feet of the lot was sold to an adjoining property owner. Councilmember Blesener stated that she feels that a lot containing more than an acre of land should be able to be divided and felt that the applicant should be given an opportunity to demonstrate how a home could be placed on the new lot and still maintain setbacks similar to those in the neighborhood. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that one of the problems is the steep slopes on the new proposed site which limit where a home could be placed. Mr. Perron responded that there are many styles of homes which could be built on the lot. Mrs. Perron stated that she and Mr. Perron had never been to a hearing before the Planning Commission hearing on their application and did not know what to do. She stated that they have talked to everyone in the neighborhood and all of the neighbors but Goldman support them. Page No. 2360 June 7, 1988 Councilmember Cummins pointed out that it appears that all of the lots on South Lane are approximately 200 feet in width. Mr. Phillip Goldman, present for the discussion, stated that basically the consensus of the Planning Commission was that no hardship was shown and that what Mr. Perron alleges as hardships are specifically excluded as hardship by state statute. Attorney Hart responded that economic hardship is excluded and that difficulty in maintenance is not a demonstrable hardship. Mr. James Wells, 1912 South Lane, stated that if there are ten foot setbacks, only 65 feet of frontage would be available to build a house on, and the homes being built in the City now are wider than 65 feet. He felt that no matter what is built on the lot it would not be conducive to the rest of the neighborhood. Councilmember Hartmann moved that discussion on the proposed lot division be continued to July 5th. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BRIDGEVIEW SHORES Council acknowledged the feasibility report for proposed improvements to serve the Bridgeview Shores Addition. After brief discussion, Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-33, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATER, STORM SEWERS AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 88, PROJECT NO. 1)," conditioned upon submission of an additional $3,000 engineering escrow by the developers. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BRIDGEVIEW SHORES Council acknowledged a memo from the Code WETLANDS PERMITS Enforcement Officer regarding the wetlands setbacks in Bridgeview Shores. Mr. Marlin Page No. 2361 June 7, 1988 Grant, President of Marvin Anderson Homes, stated that his firm has had to hold up construction of the model home at 2480 Mendota Heights Circle because when the City inspectors conducted a footing inspection it was discovered that the structure was not'located at the Council approved 75 foot setback from the wetlands. He explained that the topographic map which had been given them by the property sellers and which they had used in preparing their plat was in error.' He explained that there is less water area, and in most cases, the setbacks from the wetlands will be greater than Council had approved but that the setbacks for the lot on which the model home is located and one other lot are closer to the wetlands than Council approved. Mr. Cal Hedland, from Hedland Engineering, stated that after the problem with the model home was discovered, it became necessary to do an in-place field survey of the property. Mr. Hedland explained that there were 24 wetlands permits granted, and that as the result of the field survey, 4 of the permits are not needed, the setbacks have been increased on ten of the lots, eight are the same as Council granted, and two need closer setbacks. After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to amend the wetlands permits for the Bridgeview Shores addition to reduce the wetlands setback for Lot 3, Block 3 from 75 feet to 50 feet, and for Lot 4, Block 3, from 55 feet to 50 feet. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CURLEY TOT LOT Council acknowledged a report from the Public Works Director regarding a request from residents of Curley's Valley View Addition for development of a tot lot on a City lot located at the southeast corner of the Addition. Dr. Frank Pilney, a representative of the area residents, gave Council a history of the neighborhood's past efforts towards getting a tot lot. He stated there is no place in the area for the neighborhood Page No. 2362 June 7. 1988 children to play, there are many young families and no lots left except the one the City currently owns. He submitted a petition signed by 75 neighborhood residents requesting that the lot be developed as a tot lot. Dr. Pilney stated that when the neighborhood association came before the Park Commission with a similar request in 1975 the Commission said that the City would buy this lot for a trail and insinuated that the lot could be used as open space'and play area, but nothing materialized, and,they also recommended the purchase of Outlot A, a 700 by 100 foot parcel south of the homes on Cullen. He further stated that this idea was dropped in 1979 because the comprehensive plan indicated that the property would not meet the needs of the park plan. He pointed out that his area is surrounded by 35E, Lexington, Highway 110 and Wagon Wheel Trail and the area is landlocked: children can walk the path to Wagon Wheel Trail to get to Rogers Lake, but traffic on Wagon Wheel travels at high speed and none of the neighbors let their children use the path because of this traffic hazard. Dr. Pilney stated that because the neighborhood is landlocked, they are requesting utilization of the lot already owned by the City. He informed Council that the proposal for developing the lot has been reviewed by the Park Commission and they indicated it would cost about $14,000 to convert the lot and the residents will do the grunt work. Mr. David Ayers, 2121 Theresa, presented the proposal for developing the lot and indicated that the cost for materials and equipment would be approximately $14,000. He informed Council that the neighborhood would do all of the site preparation, including seeding and sodding, and would assemble all of the equipment, including an adult exercise station. Mr. Ayers stated that the Park Commission unanimously approved the proposal Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Park Commission should determine with the neighborhood what type of equipment is appropriate. Councilmember Blesener suggested that someone contact Mendota Page No. 2363 June 7, 1988 School for information on their recent installation of recreation equipment. Councilmember Witt stated that she does not want to expose the City to any liability in constructing a play area and will not support the request because it is City - owned property. She was concerned that the City would not only have liability exposure, it would also have maintenance costs. She suggested that the City could sell the lot to the neighborhood to develop. Dr. Pilney stated that the neighborhood feels that their area is not getting a service for its children that other neighborhoods receive. Mayor Mertensotto noted that while the Park Commission has recommended that the proposal be supported, they have not come up with anything definitive. He informed the audience that the Council will meet soon with the Park Commission and the Council will review the matter with the Commission and get back to neighborhood residents. MENDAKOTA EASEMENT Council acknowledged a report from Public Works Director Danielson regarding concerns of Mendakota Country Club over a City requirement for the granting of a drainage easement as a condition to the granting of a building permit for a new clubhouse. Representatives of the Club, present for the discussion, expressed concern over how much land area will be required and whose responsibility construction of a ponding area will be. Public Works Director Danielson stated that 5.7 acre feet is necessary as an easement, that the staff is concerned over protection of the Club's maintenance garage and that, since the Club doesn't know the exact location of the future facility, staff has no problem with delaying the easement receipt until the garage is planned. Mayor Mertensotto noted that the City is not asking the Club to construct a pond, only to grant the easement. Page No. 2364 June 7, 1988 Councilmember Blesener suggested that Mendakota could give the City an easement for one acre of property, which could be dug 5 feet deep when the facility is built. She also felt that there should be a time limit placed on submission of the easement and that staff and Mendakota should get together to work out the details. The Mendakota representatives indicated that they have no problem with granting an easement as long as the Club doesn't have to pay for constructing the holding pond and as long as the pond doesn't use up too much of the Club's property. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the request of Mendakota Country Club to delay submission of the drainage easement subject to City receipt of a signed agreement wherein Mendakota agrees it will provide the City with a one - acre holding pond easement with a location to be agreed to by'both parties. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDAKOTA DEVELOPMENT Mendakota representatives stated that Bream Homes would like to give Outlot C of Mendakota Estates to the Country Club. The representatives asked that Mendakota be released from the landscaping requirements on Outlot C that the Breams had agreed to. They indicated that even if the plantings are made there will be some question over who will maintain the area, and suggested that the best solution would be to waive the landscaping requirement, and Mendakota would probably seed and maintain the area so that it will look like Outlot B. Councilmember Blesener moved to delete the landscaping requirement on the northerly side of Mendakota Drive, Outlot C and the right-of-way, on the basis that the developer abandon the outlot and convey it to Mendakota. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2365 June 7, 1988 CITY HALL FURNITURE Suzanne Ilten was present to review the proposed City Hall furnishings schedule and budget with Council. She informed Council that the City Hall subcommittee had reviewed the furnishings master plan and prioritized furniture to arrive at an initial furnishing program. After reviewing the schedule, she asked that Council approve the preliminary budget of $105,662 and authorize her to get firm quotes from vendors. After brief discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to authorize consultant Suzanne Ilten to proceed with preparing formal specifications and soliciting quotes for City Hall furnishings. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 _ Nays: 0 HOUSE MOVING REQUEST Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator relative to a request from, Mr. Steve Patrick, 737 Mendota Heights Road, to move the Glewwe house from 720 Mendota Heights Road onto his property in advance of application for the platting of his property. Mr. Patrick, present for the discussion, stated that he will be before the Planning Commission and Council in July with a proposed plat for the division of his 6.5 acres. He informed Council that the problem is that the Glewwe home is owned by Centex and if the Centex Indirect Source Permit is granted this month Centex hopes to start grading in early July and the house must be moved promptly. Councilmember Blesener stated that what Council would be doing in considering a plat would be to create a residential area in what is in the Comprehensive Plan as high density, and that there will also be a noise mitigation problem. Councilmember Hartmann felt that Mr. Patrick is proposing something that he is not sure would be a good idea, and in essence would be creating a non -conforming use. Page No. 2366 June 7, 1988 Councilmember Cummins pointed out that Mr. Patrick would be asking to do what the existing zoning allows him to do and that non -conforming uses relate to zoning and not to the Comprehensive Plan. Administrator Frazell stated that the topography of Mr. Patrick's land is very much unlike the rest of the southeast area and that it might be possible, if Council wished to allow single family use, to buffer the property from the higher density. He also pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan sets maximum densities for property. Mayor Mertensotto and Councilmember Witt expressed concern that Opus is not going to come back with residential use on its property. After discussion, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for reports on consistency of the proposed residential use with the overall plan for the area. INSURANCE Council acknowledged a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding the availability of insurance coverages from the LMCIT for pollution and inverse condemnation liability. Council determined that the coverage should not be purchased. JOINT MEETING Council directed the City Administrator to set up a meeting with the Park Commission for 7:00 a.m. gn either June 14th or 16th. NEGOTIATIONS Council discussed and gave the City Administrator direction relative to negotiations on the Police labor contract. BIKE TRAIL Council acknowledged a memo from the Public Works Director relative to bike trail improvements at Lexington and T.H. 110. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Cummins Page No. 2367 June 7, 1988 moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 7, 1988 Concrete Licenses: Albrecht Masonry Charles D. Hess Company, Inc. Greystone Masonry, Inc. Hart Masonry, Inc. RJS Concrete, Inc. Excavating Licenses: Bauer & Reamer Corporation J & J Excavating J & J Charles & Sons Excavating Jacobson Excavating & Trucking, Inc. Kuper Excavating Company Macks Excavating Gas Piping Licenses: All Season Comfort American Burner Service, Inc. Paragon Heating & Air Conditioning General Contractor Licenses: Dennis Golla Construction Don Reinard Home Building & Remodeling Faircon Roofing Company Fireplace Construction Company Garlock - French Roofing Corp. Heaver Design & Construction, Inc. Jesco, Inc. Knights & Sons Construction Company Mary H. Anderson Construction Company Nick Heinen Construction Prestige Pool St. Charles Homes Shapes & Surfaces The Snelling Company Zimmerman Construction Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses: All Season Comfort, Inc. Apollo Heating & Ventilating Corp Central Air Conditioning & Heating Company Paragon Heating & Air Conditioning Page No. 2346 June 14, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Joint Meeting Held Tuesday, June 14, 1988 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the joint meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council and the Parks Commission was held on Tuesday morning, June 14, 1988, at 7:00 A.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, and Witt. Councilmember Hartmann had notified the Council that he would be absent. Members from the Parks Commission present were: Damberg, Huber, Stein, Lachenmayer, Katz. Commissioners Leffert and Owens were absent. Also present was City Administrator Kevin Frazell. LONG-RANGE Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to PARK PLAN order at 7:05 A.M. to continue discussion IMPROVEMENTS regarding long-range plans for park improvements. There was extensive discussion about the pros and cons of doing a community survey to determine why the previous bond referendum failed, and more importantly, what type of bond referendum the voters might be likely to support in the future. It was finally agreed that a subcommittee of Bev Lachenmayer, John Huber, Liz Witt and Jann Blesener should work with city staff to come up with a proposed survey, and survey methodology. Councilmember Cummins volunteered to run the survey past of the marketing people at his company, to get their reactions as to whether the questions being asked would elicit valid responses. There was also discussion about the park land in the southeast area of the City, and whether the City should attempt to acquire park land in addition to that contemplated to be dedicated by the Centex development under Sketch Plan A. The same subcommittee of Bev Lachenmayer, John Huber, Liz Witt and Jann Blesener was suggested to meet with developers Dick Putnam and Tom Boyce, to explore what alternatives might be available. Page No. 2346 June 14, 1988 CURLEY VALLEY There was a discussion about the VIEW TOT LOT Commission's previous recommendation that IMPROVEMENTS the City expend funds to upgrade the single family lot in Curley's Valley View Addition, which the neighborhood proposes for a community tot lot. Councilmember Witt expressed her extreme opposition to the proposal, indicating that she did not think the City should get into the business of operating small neighborhood tot lots. As an alternative, she suggested that the property be sold to the neighborhood association for a minimal cost, and that they be responsible for developing and maintaining the property. Other Parks Commissioners and Council members felt that ,the property should remain public, because it is often difficult for private associations to keep up the effort of maintenance. There was concern that it would ultimately become an eyesore, and that other people in the community riding by the bike trail would not realize it was a private development, so that it would be used for public enjoyment anyway. There was finally a general concensus that the City would offer to put $4-$5,040 into a tot lot structure on the land, with the understanding that the neighborhood Q association would be responsible for maintaining the property. It would however, remain in public ownership. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was declared adjourned by Mayor Mertensotto at 8:15 A.M. Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT PROJECT: NEW CITY HALL BUILDING (name, address) Lexington and State Highway 110 Mendota Heights, M. TO (Owner) City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Mn. 55120 ATTN: CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved ADDITIONS S DEDUCTIONS 5 in previous months by Owner — (00"'.m CONTRACT SUM TO DATE .......................$ TOTAL Subsequent ChangeOrders 665, 309.00 Number Approved (date) RETAINAGE ......................... G-1 416:76.-90 - 9,169.00 TOTALS Net change by Change Orders S --4' 493. & State of: Minnesota - _ County of: Mower The undersigned Contractor certifies that the Work covered by this Appli- cation for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by him for Work for which previous Certific es for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner,at the current payment shown herein is now due. By: ,U(561 Ina ordanct Architect: L By: This Company Date: 5/25/88 ARCHITECT: AIA DOCUMENT C702 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: CONTRACTOR: Lindberg Pierce, Inc. 1 PAGE ONE OF 3 PAGES The Joseph Company, Inc. CONTRACT FOR: New City Hall APPLICATION DATE: 5/25/88 APPLICATION NO: Seven (7 ) PERIOD FROM: 4/25/88 TO 5/25/88 Application is made for Payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet, AMA Document G702A, is attached. The present status of the account for this Contract is as follows: ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM ......................$ 1,054,000.00 Net change by Change Orders ...................$ - -4,-4�- (00"'.m CONTRACT SUM TO DATE .......................$ TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE ..........$ 665, 309.00 &(00 433 (Column G on G702A) 5 RETAINAGE ......................... $ or as noted in Column I on G702A TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE ........ $ 632,043.55 !02"7, 601, 3C LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT ........$ 517,535.30 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE ........................ $-- Subscribed and swcan to before Ame this 25th day of May , 19 88 Notary Public: f�� _,/.Z.c� My Commission expires: // December 1991 with th Co Tact and this Application for Payment the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount shown above. ❑ OWNER ►jt/�t7�plr6 A�t� / /j [:3ARCHITECT- //�� ` ❑ CONTRACTOR is not ntgatiabte s payable only to the payee named herein and its issuance, payment and acceptance are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner o❑r Contractor under their Contract - AIA DOCUMENT G71Q •- APPLICATION ANC! CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT • MARCH 1971 EDITION • AIA — V I: 0 1W71 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 173S NEW YORK AVE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20W6 MENDOTA EEIGRTS CITY HALL SCHEDULE OF VALUu-'S ZONTINUATION SHEET AIA DOCUMENT C702A PAGE Of 3 FACES MA Document G702, APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT, containing ZONTRACTOWS signed Certification is attached. APPLICATION NUMBER: 7 In tabulations below, amounts are stated to the nearest dollar. Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line items may apply. ARCHITECTS PROJECT NO: ITEM DESCRIPTIONOF WORK SCHEDULED COMPLETEDON STORED TOTAL COMPLETED AND &ALANa RETAINAGE Previous This No. VALUE MATERIALS STORED TO DATE TO FINISH A Q C Applications Application F G(D+E+F) H(C—G) I . . D E 01000 General Conditions 55,000.0C 35,270.00 3,946.00 39,216-00 15,784. 02200 Earthwork 1.43,250-00 1001000-00 6,000.00 106,000-00 37,250. '02411 Foundation DrAinSypt; 2,000. 1,000.06 1,000.00 11000. :02513 Bituminous Paving1 . 19,806-00 19,806. t2710 Vinyl coated fencing 11800.0c 11800. ,02800 Landscaping 24,000.00 24,000. '02900 Seeding 103300 Concrete & Reinf. 83,614-00 59,200...00 59,200.00 24,414. 103430 Precast Concr. Plank 32,000.00 32,000.00 32,000.00 103450 Poured Gyp.Underlayint 5,400.00 5,400. 104220 Unit Masonry. 185,400.00 152,680.00 29,720.00 182,400.00 3,000. 104420 Cut Stone 105120 Structural Steel 38,200.00 38,200.00 38,200.00 105500 Metal Fabrications 12,400.00 8,3060.00 2,000.00 10,360-00 2,040. *6150 Prefab Wd. Trusses 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 106151 Prefab Wd. Beams 81000.00 81000.00 8,000.00 06200 Carpentry 68,400.00 46,400.00 12,800.00 59,200-00 9,200. 06400 Millwork 51,000.00 51,000. 07100 Concrete Deck Coating 2t000.00 2,000. 107150 Dampproofing 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 107200 Bldg. Insulation 61000.00 6,000. 7300 Wd. Shingle Roofing 27,000.00 27,000.00 27,000.00 07640 Exterior Louvers 11800.00 1,610.QO 1,610-00 190. 07900 Caulking 1,600.00 1,600. 08110 Stl. Frames & Doors 24,600.00 15,900.00 6,000.00 21,900.00 2,700. 120 Aluminum Door, side lite & Window Frog. 17,000.00 17,000. 08200 Wood Doors 6,000.00 6,000. 08360 Overhead Garage Drs. 5,500.00 5,500. 08450 Clg. Access Panel 450.00 300.00 300.00 150. 08600 Clad Wood Windows 31,000.00 29,287.00 1,313.00 30,600.00 400. SUB TOTAL OR TOTAL 867,220 -CIO MA DOCUhUM GMA a CONTINUATION SHEET` e MAR IS" MMOL * AIA0 e - 0 nn n w #%Jc I I rM f's A@e-U%TTCT% 17M 14FW YntK AVT-- N -W_ WA44I?4CTnN- n Ir M9 r = �. `, IENIDOTA HEICITY HALL. - - • SCHEDULE OF VALUES CONTINLMATION SKEET AIA DOCUMENT C702A PACE 2 oP 2 PAGEs AIA Document 0702, APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT, containing CONMC17OR'S signed Certification is attached. APPUCATION NUMBER: 7 In tabulations below, amounts are stated to the nearest dollar. Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line items may apply. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: WORK I ITFJN QESCRIPT]ON Of VIOR>< SCHEDUIiD COMPLETED STORED 70TH! COMPUTEDFIS6 D QAtJ1NCE RETAINAGE No. VAWE Previous This AMTULIALS STORED TO DATE TO FINISH A a C ADpiFnria+s APDI�on F c(D+E+n H(C-Q i . D I E Am DOC UMOCT GMRA • COPMM ATOM SHM • /i ^MM ?Qt E =OK • AMM • - • ?M TM AMMW-4M INS TVM OF ARQIIRCM Wn NEW YORK AViw tLW.. wASKIN0CTOft Q C 29006 Brought Forward: 867,220. _J 3700 Finish Hardware 6,000. 6,000. 3800 Glass and Glazing 1,480. 1,480. 3250 Metal Frmg.&Gyp. Bd. 56,000. 6,800.00 6,800.00 49,200. 3330 Ceramic Sr Quarry Tile 14,000. 14,000. 9500 Acoustical Ceilings 12,000. 12,000. 9510 Fab.cover Acoust.Pnls 9650 Resilient Flooring 21,000.00 21,000. 9680 Carpet 9900 Finish Painting 24,000.00 24,000. 9950 Vinyl Wall Cover 0100 Porcelain Marke 800.00 680.00 680.00 120. 0120 Display Cases 5,200.00 5,200. 0180 Toilet Partitions 2,400.00 2,400. .0190 Precast Shwr.Receptrs 700.00 700.00 700.00 ,0230 Disappearing Stairs 400.00 400.00 400.00 .0350 Flagpole 2,000.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 400. .0430 Cast letters & plaque 500.00 500. .0440 Interior Plaque signs 11000.00 11000. .0450 Ill=inated Ext --Sign .2,600.00 t 2,600. .0500 Metall Lockers 6,000.00 6,000. .0522 Fire Ext. & cabinets_ 500.00 440.00 440.00 60. ,0800 Toilet Accessories 4,000.00 4,000. 0900 Coat Racks 300.00 300. 1380 Projection Screens 1,200.00 1,027.00 1,027.00 173. 1830 Dishwasher 700.00 700. 4200 Hydraulic Elevator } 24,000.00 18,b00.00 18,000.00 6,000. Change Order G-1 - 9,169.00 9,169. -- r er , - - 1,044, P3 I 1 S� (,O 3 , l7Q- SUB TOTAL OR TOTAL 544, 774.00 , '665•r-369 - % 1 5S4, i9e.- Am DOC UMOCT GMRA • COPMM ATOM SHM • /i ^MM ?Qt E =OK • AMM • - • ?M TM AMMW-4M INS TVM OF ARQIIRCM Wn NEW YORK AViw tLW.. wASKIN0CTOft Q C 29006 APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT AIA DOCUMENT C702 (Instructions on reverse side) tw-.l ort tx WAS ' TO (OWNER): CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROJECT: MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL APPLICATION NO: -04- Distribution to: MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN [I OWNER PERIODTO: 5-15-88 ❑ARCIIIIECT ' ❑ CONTRACTOR FROM (CONTRACTOR): ' • THOMAS ELECTRIC INC. VIA (ARCIIITECI): LINDBERG PIERCE INC. ARCHITECT'S ❑ Suite 710 PROJECT NO: ❑ 600 lst. Ave. North CONTRACT FOR: ELEC11RICAL Minneapolis, MN 55403 CONTRACT DATE: Application is made CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT Continuation Sheet,f AIA Document G703,or Payment, as yis attar w.`a connection with the Contact. t IIANC.F ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved in previous montlu; by Owner TOTAL_ ADDITIONS _ DEDUCTIONS 950.00 ; Approved this Month 2078.00 4. TOTAL COMPLETED dr STORED TO DATE............ Number Date Approved E-2 4-15-88 TOTALS 2078.00 950.00 Net (ham e by Change OiderS S1128.00 1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM ....................... $ 152.580.00 2. Net change by Change Orders ..................... $ 1,128.00 3. CONTRACT SUM TATE (Line 112) .............. $ 153,708.00 4. TOTAL COMPLETED dr STORED TO DATE............ $ 90.508.00 (Column G on G703) paid by the Contractor for Work for whi(It previous Certificates for Payment were S. RETAINAGE: a. 5 % of Completed Work $4525-00 9, BALANCE TO FINISH, PLUS RETAINAGE ............. S 67,725.00 (Column D + E on G703) herein is now due. b. % of Stored Material $ (Column F on G703) Stale of: MINNESOTA C q rafts Subscribed and sworn to before me this tlef y'I°tiblibig finesota, 88 Total Retainage (Line Sa+Sb or Total In Column I of G703) ..................... 4,525.00 S 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE ................... $ 85r983.00 The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of tate Contractor's knowledge, (line 4 less line S Total) ' 7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has beet) 40,297.00 completed in accordance with the Contract Documews. that all amounts have been PAYMENT (Line 6 from prior Certificate)......... S paid by the Contractor for Work for whi(It previous Certificates for Payment were 8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE .......................... $ 45,686.00 issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shuwn 9, BALANCE TO FINISH, PLUS RETAINAGE ............. S 67,725.00 herein is now due. (Line 3 less Line 6) 0 CONTRACTOR: Stale of: MINNESOTA C q rafts Subscribed and sworn to before me this tlef y'I°tiblibig finesota, 88 Notary Public: �7,,. Blue Earth County 8y: �r� �'� ^� r Q - Date: • Ma v 20, 1988 My Commission expires: 6h Comm. Exp' 9-9-92 ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT AMOUNT CERTIFIED ................................. s �f'��� (Attach explanation it amount certified differs from the amount apptted tact In accordance with the Contact Documents, based on on-site observatinns and the r data comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to life Owner that to the ARCI IITECT:� ;; J �� •�i belief Work has tL� � best of the Architect's knowledge, Information and the progressed as By: Date: i indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Cltn(ract Documents, and This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is payable only to the the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERT II'ILD. Contractor named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without / rr prejudice to any rights of tate Owner or Contractor under this Contract. A" UCKUMlttr GM • AM It'Al lt)N A.tiU C1 x 1 tt It At t f r 9 t'AUU N I • MAY 1'M 1 1 U1 t tt tN • AW ` a 1'41 )tit AA4111I M 1"'AMUlt Of A140111i('/s, 1711 ttlW 10th: "11,1I11, NW. wA111ttit-.10N, U.C. 2tMMtb CON MAenON SHEET AIA DOCUMENT G702A MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL Pace d Fag AIA Do=m mt GM APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT. c=taimimR . APPIdCATION NUMBER: COMPACTOR'S 4pud GertilScicatim is attached. . In tank" Wow. ae:eoar is are stow to the memst dollar. AACHITECI'S PRASELT NO: ' • Use Coh mm I cm Caesbwu where variable retiimut for line items may spplr. �yWORK rrEbf SCHMUt cn COMPT.ETED SPORED TMAL COMPLETED do BALANCE Na DESCRIPTION OF WORK VALUE Prr.iaus This MATERIALS STORED TO DATE TO FINISH RETAINAGE C Appp D tions Appli tion F G(D+E+F) H(C-G) I 4500.00 I:�• SWITCHGEAR _4069. 432. ' 14b8.00•� 1458.00 3032..00 - 5590.00 2.-• PANELBOARDS 4942. 648 1590.00 '7590.00 4000.00 6120.00. 3. FEEDER CONDUITS '4500. 1620. 5500.00 5500.00 620.00 25710.00 4. BRANCH CIR. CONDUITS 19410'. 6300. 11500.00 5000.00 16500.00 9210.00 3500.00' 5. FEEDER CONDUCTORS 2000. 1500. 3500,.00 7500.00 6. BRANCH CIR. CONDUCTORS 3500. 4000. 7500.00 40726.00: 7. INT. LIGHTING FIXTURES 34426. 6300. 30000.00 30000:00 10726.00 13274.00 EXT. LIGHTING FIXTURES 12500. 774. 10000.00 10000.00 3274.00' 16000.00 `.8.. i 9. f EMER.GEN & TRANSF.'SW. 15460. 540. 14000.00 14000.00 2000,.00 2760:00' 10.- IRING DEVICES 1500•.1260. 2760.00 9700.00 11. BOXES -OUTLETS -JUNCTION 4200. 5500» i 6000.00 1500.00 7500.00 2200.00 I & PULL . . 8000.00 2. FOUND SYSTEM 7000. 1000. , 8000.00 4100.00 90TOR DISCONNECTS ETC. 3400, 700, 4100.00 . 5100.00 14. 4ISCELLANEOUS.._ 3950.00 3950.00 1150.00 (950.00) 15. PHANGE ORDER (deduct) {950.00) 2;078.00 16. CHANGE ORDER (Sound) 2078.00 TOTAJ PROJECT 153708.00 SVE TOTAL OR TOTALS 42418.00 148090.00 90508.0( 1. 163200:00 1 DO6'U.4ENT G70M -- COWMATION SHEET -- MARal 1971 --TION -- AIA40 1971 . �E.11bimCAN INSTrr=Z OF ARCFII'I'F.t,'I5 IM NEW YORK AVE., I WASBLNGTON, D.C. 20clOd APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT AIA DOCUMENT G702 TO (Owner): ATTENTION: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROJECT: New City Ball Building 750 South Plaza Drive Lexington & State Hwy 110 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Mendota Heights, MN CONTRACT FOR: Mechanical Construction APPLICATION NO: 5 PERIOD FROM: 5-01-88 TO: 5-30-88 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: PAGE ONE OF PAGES Distribution to: ❑ OWNER M ARCHITECT ❑ CONTRACTOR 11 CONTRACT DATE: November 10, 1987 CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT Application is made for Payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract. Continuation Sheet, AIA Document G703, is attached. CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved in previous months by Owner 1 — - +TOTAL ADDITIONS 0.00 DEDUCTIONS ZDSO 2 "z—�v�r- v^: Approved this Month Lasa Number Date Approved TOTALS 0.00 �0 Net change by Change Orders4-2 t?"f3fl ) The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Docu- ments, that all amounts have been paid by him for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments. Eeceived .. from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due. CONTRACTOR: OODY MECHANICAL, INC. By: 5-12-88 � .�`� pate: ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT The present status of the account for this Contract is as follows: ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM ....................... $ 287, 447.00 TZ50 Net change by Change Orders .....................$ - 80+ Z94J 9XI? CONTRACT SUM TO DATE ........................ S ;►s ri TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE ........... $ (Column G on G703) RETAINAGE 5 % .. c c r or total in Column I on G703 $+ 20E. 75 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE .................. $ LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT ....... $ 83,832.75 74,376 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE ......................... $ ' ? 9 State of: Minnesota , County of: Anoka Subscribediw w r c i v f May 1988 Notary Publ My Commi - s: tl0�i�.MROSESOTA AMOUNT IAy C.otsiaaiots F�tpkalt 745'0$!- 74 {Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied for.) In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site obser- ARCHITE 4, A1Q fj'�t,�° /pc G C vations and the data comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that the Work has progressed to the point 4 s d D indicated; that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, gy; Date: 66 the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Docu- ments; and that the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT This Certificate is not negotiable. The AMOUNT CERTIFIED is pays le only to the Contractorbi CERTIFIED. named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract. AIA DOCUMENT 0702 • APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA* • Rt 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 0702-1978 CONTINUATION SHEET AIA DOCUMENT 6703 Pane 2 OF 2 AIA Document 6702, APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT, APPLICATION NUMBER: 5 containing Contractor's sinned Certification is attached. APPLICATION DATE: 5-12-88 In tabulations below,amounts are stated to the nearest dollar. PERIOD TO: 5-30-88 Use Column I on Contracts were variable'retainage for ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: # 2878 -Mendota Heights City Hall A B Lindberg Pierce, Inc. Architects C D E F G H I ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK SCHEDULED WORK COMPLETED MATERIALS TOTAL BALANCE NO VALUE FROM PREVIOUSTHIS PERIOD PRESENTLY COMPLETED % TO FINISH APPLICATION STORED AND STORED (G/C) (C-6) (D+E) (NOT IN TO DATE D OR E) (D+E+F) 1. BOND 2, SOO.00 2. 15010 -GENERAL PROVISIONS 2,361.00 3. 15160 -AIR/WTR TEST/BALANCE 1,250.00 4. 15180 -MECH SYS INSULATION 12,940.00 5. 15400 -PLUMBING, MATERIAL 24,000.00 6.a w, LABOR 20,000.00 7. 15400 -OUTSIDE UTILITIES 15,334.00 8. 15480 -LAWN IRRIGATION SYS 6,362.00 9. 15500 -AUTOMAT SPRINK. SYS 26,700.00 10. 15700 -LIQUID HEAT TRANSFER 9,000.00 750.00 - MATERIAL 28.000.00 11. 15700 - - LABOR 14,000.00 12. 15800 -AIR DISTRIBUTION 0.00 15,334.00 100.0% - MATERIAL 93,000.(KI 13. 15800 - " " - LABOR 19,000.00 14. 15850 -AUTOMAT TEMP CONTROL 22,000.00 RETAINAGE 5% 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.0% 0.00 125.00 21361.00 0.00 0.00 2,361.00 100.0% 0.00 118.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1,250.00 0.00 0.00 9,940.00 0.00 9,940.00 76.8% 3,000.()0 497.00 12,100.00 2,900.00 0.00 15,000.00 62.5% 9,000.00 750.00 12, 600.00r5-, 69@: e&*0 0.00i' 40046raeb 60 91.0% +t;B69. 003000 -ste. eo is0 15,334.00 0.00 0.00 15,334.00 100.0% 0.00 766.70 500.00 500.00 0.00 1,000.00 15.7% 5,36.00 50.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 15.0% 22,700.00 200.00 5,000.00 17,000.00 0.00 22,000.00 78.6% 6,000.00 1,100.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 11,000.00 78.6% 3,000.00 550.00 24,750.00 31,000.00 0.00 55,750.00 59.9% 37,250,00 2,787.50 9,000.00 �, 566.90 4 6 0.001100*444: e- 86.8% e, 590.90 sw Bes. eg 6 ro 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 2.3% 21, 500.00 25.00 15. C.O. # 1 - TO OFFSET ITEM #7 (2,850.00) (2,850.00) 0.00 16. C. 0. # 2 (50.00) (50.00) 0.00 TOTALS f t 54fiiR! 882'4^1" q2r94A.40 1-s♦,9j-j 89,235 787,24,o 0.00- (2,850.00)100.0% 0.00 (142.50) 0.00 (50.00)100.0% 0. (H) (2.50) 0.00 t?f, 185. 60.27 -113.362:96 -9; 559. e5 I"I5535 )IT1062 932&•25 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT, MAY, 1988 DAKOTA COUNTY STATE BANK Checking Account 5% Savings Account 5 1/2% Collateral - Bonds Gov't. Guar. CHEROKEE STATE BANK C.D. due 6-9-88 @ 6.13% Savings Cert. 8-29-88 @ 6.28% Collateral - Bonds Gov't. Guar. U.S. TREASURY BILLS July 31, 1988 $ 12,139.43 454.17 $ 12,593.60 360,000.00 100,000.00 $425,000.00 13,952.59 $438,952.59 900,000.00 100,000.00 6.70 (1mm) 1,001,744.51 $1,001,744.51 COLLATERAL $ 460,000.00 1,000,000.00 Value 5/30/88 est. U.S. Treasury Money Mkt. Fund (6.43) $ 350,000.00 ($359,710) GOVT, SECURITIES FUND, 10.7% $1,200,000.00 ($1,411,000) Repo. 6/2/88 (6.38) $ 125,000.00 .TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $3,128,290.70 Funds Available 12-31-87 $5,023,364.15 Funds Available 05/01-87 2,548,000.00 Increased balance primarily due to increases in G.F. TI District, Engineering Fund and unexpended bond funds. Rates, Money Market May 27 Bank 6.39 LES:madlr Fid. 6.67 6-8-88 4M 6.56 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 15, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, City r FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Leave of Absence Request, Kimberlee Blaeser INFORMATION The City's Personnel Code stipulates that employees may take unpaid leaves of absence upon approval of the City Council. I have received a request from Kim Blaeser for approval of a three- month maternity leave of absence, and am submitting this memo on Kim's behalf. Kim's baby is due on approximately July 25th, and she plans to work as long as possible. Kim has therefore requested a leave from approximately July 25th to approximately October 25th, actual dates to be determined by the baby. The requested leave is reasonable, and I certainly support the request. I have concern over office staffing, since the months Kim anticipates being gone are perhaps the busiest the office staff will experience this year, and anticipate that we will need to hire a temporary replacement. Since the leave will be unpaid, the budget will support a temporary person for the time Kim is gone. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that Council authorize a three-month unpaid leave for Kimberlee Blaeser along with authorization to replace Kim with a temporary employee during her absence. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs in the recommendation, it should pass a motion to authorize a three-month unpaid leave of absence for Kimberlee Blaeser along with authorization for staff to appoint a temporary replacement during her absence. HEMDOTA IHIGHTS EIRE DEPARTMENT MAY 1988 M04THLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 5;-081 THRU 88-105 NU i'l EB E R OF CA L L -3 2 -5' ARE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS disc. TOTALS TO DATE COIRIERCIAL $11) RRADENTIAL 1 T03013 VEHICLE FIRES 71 $5000 $1110, CONTPACT FIRES (ALL) $11,000 RE5CUE to MEDICAL ASSISTS 3 MONTHLY LOSS TOTALS MERE) 0 T A H rt-! IG .415 G P -, '_- �, ER R U*__ H �, t 1,1-j ".A L IUEEE f5 ALL fl RES, ALL AR110-5 57, {'00 $11600 HAZAVOL13 SITUATQ! 4 FIENA HTS ONLY STPUCTXONTEN03 $63100 FL' :C ALAPI I CR4 11% 4! E Iqirol. HT'_Y tll1,_ � itrlEi► W 1 hoo F&BE AWPI 1 - COIN 04 AL '-I EtNi_). HT.j:. T-OT�L LO*:...'_-� TCl L!Al -_ 04100 FALSE ALARI I - RE� EQ& E 14 BiLLPHIG FOR SERYICES WOD(NTENT 3 AGENiCY THIS MONTH TO DATE OTHEP TOTAL CALLS 2 F5 IlN/DOT $0 0W. EP $0 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS: TO DATE LAST YEAR CNR RP $0 OTHERS. I IENC)OTA, HEIGHTS I 8E 94 1547 I115,111DOTA 21 5 2 TOTALS: $547 SUNFISH LAKE 0 0 9 FIRE MARSEIAL'S TIME FOR MORTH Ll {_YCDALE '2 ! 2_1 3 1 'AS P E C T 10 !, l--, 26 OTHER 9 3 :75 1 N V E S 11 G A T 10 I 1 .5 TOTAL 2 C15. III R F - I P ECT! C I'l WURK PERFORMEE) HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 341 21 9.5 2304 I lEETI PIGS Cr:, 30!j- 2'92 •-4 D!'l I N __3 T P A Tf, CO'l J7 OFALS h:. 3 7 2 5 405 MEEKLY CLEAN-UP 52 304 =20 '_3 P E 1C 1.4 L P RQ � J! E C T 15 SPECIAL ACTIYITY 12 528 72 ADIIIHISTATIVE 139 675 598 TOTAL 715 FIRE flA RS HA L 75.5 -329 JIQ TOTALS 741.5 4696 430':. REMAR'r'-'.S: ':-,EE OTHER S -I DE FOR '3YINIOPSIS SYNOPSIS OF I`IONTHLT ruses The fire department resp-or-ded to 25:* cal l•= durir-g the month. Three srehirle fires resulted in trityl dollar value loss= of ',5000 for the month The ;.rintitiued dry '•yerather % 8s for our 6 grass fires during tfie rnoritr none of v%,hirh were e r -t ajor-. MONTHLY TRAINING The r;innthly training vao—s spent discussing thr Eco -L. -jt incident PFpreserdatives from Eco -lab were present to explain the facility, the matNr'i•; s on hand, and the procedures thely have for handling, erner-gGncy ituat.i•_is Q also discussed better crlmliricatlaln and coordinated effort= , hen our department responds to the facilitu it yvis a very inforrn_+ive meeting SPECIAL TRAINING Four- firefighters participated in ;a smoke ,drill sponsored by the Dakota Col_ntli Fire Chief=; that was hold in Ron-:,ernount. The drill 1esigned to enir- i;15i s ;arta tiro, t i ra r:rrper _;truc t tiral Ore rescue urocedures The dr -0l 'nos in•_t acted bu Certified Fire instructors under- dense _;rrioke i_ondition The drill lasted 6 hor_irs ending t+ her- structure ,*q a._: burned 'FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY YORK PFRFORMAqGE FOR MAY 1-998 ...................... ....................... ........... . .................. ........ ..................... ............................................ .................................... . .................. ....................... ................ ............. . ... ; ............... .......................... .................. .................................................... ........... :.CLEA;I:MOqTIILY: S 4LL- 3' ONTH FIMI E FIRE GEI(;OFFICERI RESCUE: ROOKIE RUSE . .................. .... ... .............. I ........ . ......... ............................ . . ....... I .......... ......................... .............. ...................... a..................,... ........... ................................... 21 CAL LS CALLS::ATTENDE UP DRILL ':MTG:: MTO I DRILL DRILL ACT. ....................... i ........... 7 ............................ ;.: ........... ...... ........................ ............. . ...................... ....................... ..................... :ADM ATT'D 2 2 2 21 Z A TT'D 2 2 4 ....................... ...................... ............. ................................................. ......................................... .............. ... .... ............. .......... ........... ; ........... ........... 105 i MON TI -I i YEAR S: I10URS :HRS.*' 11 1104URS 140UR5 MURS HOURS :MRS ..........I ..... .................... q... .... CHIPF John t1aczko . -- 48 -- 2 ,:.. I ....... .. 10 :: 467t, I :: ..... ............................. ...... ......... ............ 7g 3?, ASST. Bill Lerb 10 :: 41 ....................... .......... ........................................... .............. ................. ....................... ...... . - ....... ..... V., ................... I ........ 4 2 2 90 ..... ..... ...................... ....................... ............. ......... ... .. ............... 49 4 2 2 ............ .............. . ...... .. ........ ................. .............. .... . .... .. ............. ..................... 5 ........................... . .......... I ......... ................. ............. ................ .................... ... ....................... ....................... . ........... rn 4 C S . 4 ft. **­­**,­­­­ ................. ............ ............... .............. .......... .........................i.,.....«...............' .—.— ............. ............. ........... Pali] Dre-flan 12 4.9 4�-"' 2 ......................... * ............................................... ........................ ................................... �.: .............................. mike Co R!!�� ....... ............. .... .............. ...................... .................. .............. 4 G% 3 48 4 .................. ................. ......... .4 ...................... ............ ....... ........... ............... .................................. ........................ .................... ............. - ...... 2��;-dy Skierven 59TP. 2 .............. ................................. ............. ............ ......................... Ed ....... ....... .... ........ ....... ....... ..... I . 12 57% 2 ... .......... ...... ....... ...... . ......................... - ................... ................ ............ ..... ......... I ..... ht .... ... ........... ............ 10 5o 46 �,7, 2 ........................ ............. . ................. .......... ... ................ ................ . ..... ............. Jim Pe rren ........... .. ........ ........................ . .................. 11 56 5 3 TZ -2 2 ...................... ............. ........... ................... ........................... ........... ... . ..... ...... ............ . --- ................. .......... ... .......... T---* Ken %feisenburer-r .. ....... ............................. 1 10 4 5 43'v, 2 2 ................. ............ ............... ........ .......... ................. I ............. ...................... .......... .................. ................. ........... ........... ......................... ............ .. ...... ...................... ............... .............. .... ..... ...................... .......... . .............. ............... . ..................... ..................... ............................ ........ ................. ....... ; ........ __: ......... ........... ................ ...... ............... ..................... . ......... ,:APT T snik ........ 4077 I cl --iZ 2 2 ....... .... ................................. - - ------ Sill C'hi�l�r61-1 1 6177 2 .............. ....................... .............. ............. ......... ........... .......... ........... ................................. t-larr- 1�onn-)Ilq ................... . ...... .. ........... ..................... ................... ..................... 13: r-2 5977, 2 ........... .......... - ........ .................. ......................... ..... ....... ........... .................. ... .............. .............. ....... ............... Jnhn- .... P -1-e s. ��a - : . .. ............. 9. 5 G 3� 2 2 ........ ......... .... ................. ........... I ...... . .... ..... ..... ............ ......... .. - . . . .. ................... .... .. -:1s,ve Cat 15on o: 1:. f 4-�- "I : : .... I ..... : ... ............. ... .. ...... .... .. .......... .... ......... ..... .................. ............... ...... ........... .......... 2 41 3 77 r1k . L -'d I .......... !T� ............ .......... ................... ............................ 2 4 ............ ........................ j ............. ............... - ...... ............ ........... ........................ T '5 52*7 wr-3e Lover 2 2 2 ................................. �.: .................. ............. ................... ...... . .......... ......................... ........................ I ............ ................. ........... 2 2 flike M3rzcuilo . . L .................... . ........ ........... :. ....... ........... .................................... . . ..... ........ .................. ............. ................... ........................ ... ......... .......... .................... .................. ..................... ......................... .............. ... ................... ....... .. ... ................... . % ........... ............... 2 2 2 CAPT. Jeff Sttrift-iuc 1 '.1.:;':'...... i ... ........... ........... : ............�:- ............ ....... I ................................. ............. � : ........ ........ ........... Let r.!j Noack .2 3: 101 967 4 Nca�,,P Sr. 5� -5� 1 2 2 2 ... ....... ... ... ...... ........ . ........ ..................... ........... . ..................... .......... .... . ..... ........... ........... L Bmbert 9: 4 5 Lim h - ............ I .............. ..... ........ Gr-orqe Noack Jr. 13 .... ...... I .......................... ...... .............. .... .......... — ......... ...... .................... . .................. ....................... . . ............. ........ ........... 56 1 537, 2 2 .. ......................... . ...................... ........ -- ........... ............. ................... ......................... ............................................ Tvr-n Olund I ............ ...... ...... .............................................. ....... ................ ..................4........ .. ..................... . A: 5*7- .. ......................... ....... -lac.7 5 -2 .................... .................. ................. ......................t.........................................i.................. ...... 2 ... .......... ......... .... .. ...... ...1................ ...... .................. ...... ................. ...... ............. ...................... . .................. .......... T Eri,,k Schmidt 37C.A.l.a.a..n 5. 2.... .......1.9.. .... .......-.1 I . .... ....2........II......4 ............. ................... ...2.. ...................2 ..... ... o.�.n.aCrroeates i ,. 2 ...........................i ......... ....2...................!............... ........3 .......I............. ......... ......................................................................... ........... I ................... . .......... . ........... - ................................... ....... . ......... ............. ...... ............ . ........................................ ...... ............... ............ �,C APT. jamie Lett- - 31:t 5 E, 573' 4 2 2 .......... ... ....... — .......... ............... ........... .................... ......... ...................... ........................ .................................. ............... ? '......`T.. ................ ....... 1� .... .................. !Kert Noa :k .................... ................... .................... ........ ....................... ....................... ............... ...................... ............ ........................................ ...... .................. .................................... I ............ ...... ...... .............................................. ....... ................ ..................4........ .. ..................... . A: ij: ; s7 i 37-7, . ............. Jim I�iib .................. .......... . .............. ............. ...... ......... . ..................................... ....................... ..................... 10: 5- 4 51'7. 2 1 2 1 ........ .......... ................ ..................... .................. C ......................... I ...................... ................................................ ....................... ) ........... Randy ,cNamar 40 3 8 C71 2 ........ ....................... .................. .... .............. ................. -- ...................................... LI ................... .............. .............. Eri,,k Schmidt 2:: 3 7 C74, e'r* * r -o, , n** .1J...2 I ........................ .................q.......................1.............. ...................... ................. ..................... * 4- *2 4G 7, 2 2' 2 .. .............. .............. * ................. I .... ............... ........................................... ........ ................ ..... .............. .......... .......... ...... . ...... . .. .... .......................... .. ................. ............... ........... . ..................... ....................... ............ 23 6 5 1 TOTAL ATTENDED 27 ................................................... ................ ............. ....... ................. ................... ................ .............. ................ ................ . ---<......................a............. 46 1 10 12 10 12 TOTAL 1,11AN HOURS 54 44 ..................................... ................................ .................... .......... ........ .. ............. .............. ....................................... ....... ..................... .............. ................... ............ ......... - ......... . .... - ................... ........ .................. ............................. I .......... ............ I ......... .................. ........... - THIS I-IONTHLAST t1ONTH LAST YEAR: .............. ........ ............. ...... ...................... ................... I ................. ............q................... ............. ................................... ........... IU.51 )Xxx'i,:e��'Xxxx X WW"cl IAN X, XV11MV .................. ............... ................. 1 ........... ......................... .......... . ................ I .................... I ................ ...................... ............ AVE. t-1EN/RUN 14.7- 13.57 14.4-3...... 4.4-3 . . ....................... .............. ........... ..... I ..................... ........ ........................ ............. .......... I ........... ............... F6R YEAR 47 40 49.07 47.16 i+ 1E 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 10, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad% "s tr FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Fire Hydrant Installation Lexington Heights Addition Job No. 8627 Improvement No. 86, Project No. 14 nTQ011QqTnN- Construction of three fire hydrants to serve the Lexington Heights Apartment complex has been completed. The total project cost that should be assessed is $28,784.60. The original estimate of the project was $22,000, so there were some significant cost overruns. This resulted from a variety of factors ranging from difficulties working with the Owner, to unforseen field conditions. The attached proposed assessment roll shows that each of three lots should be assessed an equal amount of the $28,784.60 which is $9,595.00 per lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council order an assessment hearing on the above project. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LEXINGTON HEIGHTS HYDRANTS IMPROVEMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 4) City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LEXINGTON HEIGHTS HYDRANTS IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86 PROJECT NO. 4) WHEREAS, contracts have heretofore been let for the construction of the following described improvements: The construction of fire hydrants to serve Lexington Heights Apartments (which improvements have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement No. 86, Project No. 14) and WHEREAS, the construction of said improvements has been completed; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Direc- tor, was previously directed by the City Council to prepare the assessment roll for the above described improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment roll for the above described improvements has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a public hearing on said proposed assessment roll shall be held at the Mendota Heights City Hall at 750 South Plaza Drive, in the City of Mendota Heights, on Tuesday, July 19, 1988, at 8:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter. 2. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and attend to the publication and mailing of the necessary notices of said hearing, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of June, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ASSESSMENARIOD CITY OF MENDOTA GHTS ASSESSMENT RAT'Fire Hydrant Installation - 19 years ASSESSMENT ROLi, Fire Hydrants $9,595. der lot. Interest Rate - 8% LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION IMPROVEMENT NO. 86-14 JOB NO. 8627 ADOPTED: PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND SUBDIVISION LOT BLK. FIRE HYDRANT TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION NO. NO. ASSESSMENT 27-44925- Lexington Heights Association Lexington Heights Add. 1 1 $9,595.00 $9,595.00 010-01 Ltd. Partnership 2320 Lexington Avenue South Mendota Heights, MN 55120 27-44925- Lexington Heights Association Lexington Heights Add. 2 1 $9,595.00 $9,595.00 020-01 Ltd. Partnership 2320 Lexington Avenue South Mendota Heights, MN 55120 27-44925- Lexington Heights Association Lexington Heights Add. 3 1 $9,595.00 $9,595.00 030-01 Ltd. Partnership 2320 Lexington Avenue South Mendota Heights, MN 55120 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 10, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A �a�- FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets Stratford Woods Job No. 8626 Improvement No. 86, Project No. 13 DISCUSSION: The construction of utilities to serve the Stratford Woods plat has been completed. Attached is a copy of the proposed assessment roll for your review. The proposed assessment of $10,366.43 per lot is substantially less than the feasibility estimate which was $12,830. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council order a public hearing on the above assessment roll. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- , RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STRATFORD WOODS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 13) City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STRATFORD WOODS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86 PROJECT NO. 13) WHEREAS, contracts have heretofore been let for the construction of the following described improvements: The construction*of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street, curb and gutter improvements to serve Stratford Woods Subdivision (which improvements have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement No. 86, Project No. 13) and WHEREAS, the construction of said improvements has been completed; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Direc- tor, was previously directed by the City Council to prepare the assessment roll for the above described improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment roll for the above described improvements has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the'City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a public hearing on said proposed assessment roll shall be held at the Mendota Heights City Hall at 750 South Plaza Drive, in the City of Mendota Heights, on Tuesday, July 19, 1988, at 8:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter. 2. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and attend to the publication and mailing of the necessary notices of said hearing, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of June, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ASSESSMENT PERIOD Sanitary Sewers - 19 years Votermaioa - 19 years Storm Sewers - lO years Streets - lO years zmzEaaaT ourE; a% PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND NO. DESCRIPTION 27-72700- Terrence D. Dobie OlU-Ol 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, 80 55118 27-72700- Terrence B. Dobie 020-01 1886 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55II8 27-72700- Terrence R. Dobie 030-0I 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, M0 55I18 27-72700- Terrence B. Dobie 040-01 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, M0 55118 27-72700- Terrence R. Dobie 050-01 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-72700- Robert & Marla Powers 010-02 2325 Endicott Street St' Paul, M0 551I5 27-72700-Ierreoce D. Dobie 020-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-72700- Dennis & Rachel A. Costello 030-02 1923 Coventry Court Mendota Heights, 08 55118 27-72700- Terrence D. Dobie 040-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ASSESSMENT RATES ASSESSMENT DOLL Sanitary Sewer - $3,017.73 per lot SI8AIFUBD WOODS Wotermain - $3,200'64 per lot IMPROVEMENT NO. 86-13 Storm Sewer - $061'33 per lot JOB NO. 8626 Streets - $3,186.73 per Int ADOPTED: SUBDIVISION LOT DIJK SANITARY A6IED STORM STREETS TOTAL NO. NO. SEWERS MAINS SEWERS Stratford Woods l l $3,0I7.73 $3,200.04 $961'33 $3,186'73 $10,366.43 Stratford Wdods 2 l $2,017.73 *3,200.64 $961,33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 Stratford Woods 3 l $3,017.78 $3,200.64 $961,33 ¢3,186'73 $10,366.43 Stratford Woods 4 l $3,0I7.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3^I86.72 $10^366.43 Stratford Woods 5 l $3,017.73 *3,200,64 $061.33 *3,I86.73 *10,366.43 Stratford Woods l 2 $3,0I7.73 $3,200.64 $061.33 $3,186.73 *I0,366.43 Stratford Woods 2 2 $3,017.73 *3,200.64 $961.33 $3,I86.73 $10,366.43 Stratford Woods 3 2 $3,0I7.73 $3,200'64 $961'33 $3,I86.73 S10,366.43 Stratford Woods 4 2 $3,017.73 $2,200.64 $961'33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND SUBDIVISION NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 27-72700- Terrence R. Dobie Stratford Woods 050-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve 2 $3,017.73 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 27-72700- Terrence R. Dobie Stratford Woods 060-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-72700- r Terrence R. Dobie Stratford Woods 070-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-72700- Terrence R. Dobie Stratford Woods 080-02 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-72700- Angeline K. McDonald Stratford Woods 090-02 1925 Victoria Road South Mendota Heights, MN 55118 LOT BLK SANITARY WATER STORM STREETS TOTAL NO. NO. SEWERS MAINS SEWERS 5 2 $3,017.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 6 2 $3,017.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 7 2 $3,017.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 8 2 $3,017.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 9 2 $3,017.73 $3,200.64 $961.33 $3,186.73 $10,366.43 �74 \ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 10, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and CiAW4490 rator FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Creek Realignment Lot 2, Willow Springs Addition Job No.` 8315 Improvement No. 83, Project No. 6 nTQrTTQQTnM - The construction along the creek in Willow Springs Addition has been completed. The total project cost of $21,788,55 should now be assessed to Lot 2, Willow Springs Addition as per the attached assessment roll. Original estimates are not comparable because the design was changed, but one feasibility estimated $24,000 for a project of comparable size. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council order an assessment hearing on the above project. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 88- , RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOT 2,'WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION IMPROVEMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO. 83, PROJECT NO. 6) City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 88 - RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOT 2, WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS - (IMPROVEMENT NO. 83 PROJECT NO. 6) WHEREAS, contracts have heretofore been let for the construction of the following described improvements: The construction of creek alignment to serve Lot 2, Willow Springs Addition (which improvements have heretofore been known and designated as Improvement No. 83, Project No. 6) and WHEREAS, the construction of said improvements has been completed; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Direc- tor, was previously directed by the City Council to prepare the assessment roll for the above described improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment roll for the above described improvements has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a public hearing on said proposed assessment roll shall be held at the Mendota Heights City Hall at 750 South Plaza Drive, in the City of Mendota Heights, on Tuesday, July 19, 1988, at 8:15 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter. 2. That the City Clerk, with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and attend to the publication and mailing of the necessary notices of said hearing, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 21st day of June, 1988. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ASSESS. ' PERIOD Creek Realignment - 19 years INTEREST RATE: 8% CITY OF MENE HEIGHTS ASSESSMENT �wLL LOT 2, WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION IMPROVEMENT NO. 83-6 JOB NO. 8315 ADOPTED: PARCEL REPUTED OWNER AND SUBDIVISION LOT BLK. NO. DESCRIPTION NO. NO. 27-84300- Mickelson Homes, Inc. Willow Springs Addition 2 -- 020-00 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 CREEK REALIGNMENT $21,899.16 TOTAL $21,899.16 LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 21, 1988 General Contractors: Associated Roofing Croix Valley Roofing Custom Pools, Inc. E. Wolf Construction First Landmark Builders Kodiak Services . Lake Country Builders, Inc. Minnesota Package Products, Pacific Pool Peterson Maintenance Corporation X 17 Jun 1988 Fri 12:27 PM Temp Check Number 1 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name 1 Albinson 1 Albinson 1 Albinson 3 Totals Temp Check Number Temp Check Number 2 2 Arneson Fuel oil Service 2 Arneson Fuel Oil Service 4 Totals Temp Check Number Temp Check Number 3 3 AT&T 3 AT6T 6 Totals Temp Check Number Temp Check Number 4 4 B9J Auto Supply 4 BU Auto Supply 4 BEJ Auto Supply 4 BU Auto Supply 4 110 Auto Supply 4 B6J Auto Supply 4 BdJ Auto Supply 4 BbJ Auto Supply 4 UJ Auto Supply 4 BU Auto Supply 4 BV Auto Supply 4 BU Auto Supply 48 Totals Temp Check Number Temp Check Number 5 5 City Motor Supply 5 City Motor Supply 5 City Motor Supply 5 City Motor Supply 5 City Motor Supply 5 City Motor Supply Claims List 6/21/83 City of Mendota Heights UNL LU iIm',,,,, 15-Engr 20 -Police 30 -Fire 40 -CEO 60 -Utilities PagT&Parks 80 -Planning 90 -Animal Con Account Code Comments Amount 05-4300-105-15 mise splys 183.39 05-4305-105-15 mise sply 64.63 05-4300-105-15 mise splys 20.25 268.27 1 01-1210 no lead 1,898.00 01-1210 regular 959.00 2,857.00 2 01-4210-070-70 June Svc 8.83 01-4210-020-20 Jun sve 3.96 12.79 3 01-4305-030-30 oil filter 4.55 01-4305-030-30 gas/fuel filters 32.42 01-4305-050-50 oil filters 46.80 01-4305-020-20 mise splys 3.88 01-4305-050-50 " 7.70 01-4305-070-70 11.86 01-4305-020-20 34.68 01-4305-070-70 N7.46 01-4305-030-30 " 2.68 01-4305-050-50 Creeper 12.99 01-4305-070-70 13.00 15-4305-060-60 13.00 191.02 4 15-4330-490-60 Misc parts 32.51 01-4305-050-50 Misc splys 10.45 01-4305-070-70 10.45 15-4305-060-60 10.45 01-4330-490-70 Parts 501 86.82 01-4330-490-50 75.25 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Fri 12:27 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 5 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code 5 City Motor Supply 01-4305-020-20 5 City Motor Supply 01-4305-040-40 5 City Motor Supply 01-4305-070-70 45 Totals Temp Check Number 5 Temp Check Number 6 6 Copy Equip Co 01-4490-080-80 6 Copy Equip Co 01-4305-030-30 6 Copy Equip Co 22-4330-000-00 6 Copy Equip Co 01-4305-030-30 24 Totals Temp Check Number 6 Temp Check Number 7 7 Dahlgren Shardlow Uban 01-4221-135-80 7 Totals Temp Check Number 7 Temp Check Number 8 8 Kevin Frazell 01-4400-109-09 8 Totals Temp Check Number 8 Temp Check Number 9 9 ICMA RC 01-2072 9 ICMA RC 01-4134-110-10 18 Totals Temp Check Number 9 Temp Check Number 10 10 Richard Knutson Inc 88-4460-828-00 10 Totals Temp Check Number 18 Temp Check Number 11 11 Buy Kullander 05-4415-105-15 11 Totals Temp Check Number 11 Comments Mise parts b Re airport noise splys blueline print splys stn dog blueline print May retainer 6-4 wkshp 6-3b 6-17 payroll Pymt 3 85-3 Mileage reimb Page 2 Amount 16.95 12.51 28.36 283.75 28.62 27.27 12.06 5.80 73.75 1,408.00 1,409.00 344.88 344.88 237.72 156.94 394.66 96,405.81 96,405.81 25.34 25.34 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Page 3 Fri 12:28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 12 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 12 Lakeland Ford 01-4330-460-30 rprs 2281 148.87 12 148.87 Totals Temp Check Number 12 Temp Check Number 13 13 Langula Hdwe 01-4330-490-70 starter rope 1.50 13 Langula Hdwe 01-4305-070-70 spklr 24.58 26 26.08 Totals Temp Check Number 13 Temp Check Number 14 14 MA Associates 01-4305-030-30 Mise Ong splys 61.77 14 MA Associates 01-4305-050-50 61.77 14 MA Associates 01-4305-070-70 " 61.77 14 MA Associates 15-4305-060-60 61.77 56 247.08 Totals Temp Check Number 14 Temp Check Number 15 15 Mendota Hghts Rubbish 01-4280-310-50 May Svc 31.60 15 Mendota Hghts Rubbish 01-4280-310-70 31.65 15 Mendota Hghts Rubbish 15-4280-310-60 31.63 45 94.88 Totals Temp Check Number 15 Temp Check Number 16 16 Midwest Siren Service 07-4330-000-00 Jun mtcn 62.40 16 62.40 Totals Temp Check Number 16 Temp Check Number 17 17 Miller Printing 01-4300-110-10 annl rpt covers 237.00 17 Miller Printing 15-4305-060-60 swr insp cards 45.00 34 282.00 Totals Temp Check Number 17 Temp Check Number 18 18 Minn Dept of Revenue 01-4320-050-50 May fuel tax 50.60 18 50.60 Totals Temp Check Number 18 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Fri 12;28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 19 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code 19 Motor Parts Service 01-4330-490-70 19 Totals Temp Check Number 19 Temp Check Number 20 20 Northern States Power 01-4212-310-50 20 Northern States Power 15-4212-310-60 20 Northern States Power 01-4212-310-70 20 Northern States Power 15-4212-40040 20 Northern States Power 01-4211-420-50 20 Northern States Power 15-4211-40040 120 Totals Temp Check Number 20 Temp Check Number 21 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 05-4210-105-15 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 01-4210120-20 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 15-4210-060-60 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 01-4210-050-50 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 15-4210-060-60 21 Northwestern Bell Telephone 01-4210-070-70 126 Totals Temp Check Number 21 Temp Check Number 22 22 Oxygen Service Co. 01-4305-050-50 22 Totals Temp Check Number 22 Temp Check Number 23 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-2062 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-110-10 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-020-20 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-030-30 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-040-40 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-050-50 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 01-4134-070-70 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 15-4134-06040 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 05-4134-105-15 23 Public Empl Ret Assn 23-1145 230 Totals Temp Check Number 23 Comments rprs 309 Jun Svc e n A e A Jun svc A A p cyl activity 6-3 payroll Page 4 Amount 27.92 27.92 29.79 29.79 29.78 15.64 123.35 271.33 19.50 83.95 276.85 34.56 34.58 34.56 484.00 12.60 12.60 2,549.01 202.54 2,201.37 9.79 100.95 194.60 106.95 64.90 270.30 171.50 5, 862.91 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Page 5 Fri 12:28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 24 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 24 Snap On Tools 01-4330-490-70 rpr spklr 50.35 24 50.35 Totals Temp Check Number 24 Temp Check Number 25 25 Snyder Drug Stores 01-4305-030-30 mise splys 5.96 25 Snyder Drug Stores 01-4305-070-70 4.05 25 Snyder Drug Stores 01-4305-030-30 5.49 25 Snyder Drug Stores 05-4305-105-15 Heys 2.97 100 18.47 Totals Temp Check Number 25 Temp Check Number 26 26 Southview Chevrolet 01-4330-490-70 Parts 01 19.19 26 Southview Chevrolet 01-4330-490-70 Parts 309 5.12 52 24.31 Totals Temp Check Number 26 Temp Check Number 27 27 Sun Newspapers 49-4240-854-00 ad for bids 87-7 36.28 27 36.28 Totals Temp Check Number 27 Temp Check Number 28 28 1 O S 01-4330-490-20 Jun copier mtcn 92.80 28 92.80 Totals Temp Check Number 28 Temp Check Number 29 29 Banyon Data Systems 15-4330-490-60 software *ten 595.00 29 Banyon Data Systems 01-4330-490-10 1,190.00 58 1,785.00 Totals Temp Check Number 29 Temp Check Number 30 30 John Maczko 01-4400-030-30 State fire conv 842.55 30 John Maczko 01-4415-030-30 176.40 60 1,018.95 Totals Temp Check Number 30 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Page 6 Fri 12028 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 31 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 31 Barton Aschman Assoc 10-4220-000-00 Re bond issue 1,070.93 31 1,070.93 Totals Temp Check Number 31 Temp Check Number 32 32 William Lerbs 01-4400-030-30 State fire conv 30.91 32 William Lerbs 01-4415430-30 " 163.35 64 194.26 Totals Temp Check Number 32 Tear Check Number 33 33 Burke Engr Inc 08-4220-000-00 Re City Hall project 1,100.00 33 1,100.00 Totals Temp Check Number 33 Temp Check Number 34 34 Collins Electrical Const 31-4460439-00 Pymt 4 86-11 78,857.93 34 78,857.93 Totals Temp Check Number 34 Temp Check Number 35 35 Custom Fire Apparatus 01-4330-460-30 parts 7.36 35 7.36 Totals Temp Check Number 35 Temp heck Number 36 36 Communications Center. 01-4330-450-20 Radio rprs 49.50 36 49.50 Totals Temp Check Number 36 Temp Check Number 37 37 Gardner Hdwe 15-4330-490-60 97.04 37 Gardner Hdwe 15-4330-490-60 Hydrant painting 1,261.12 74 1,358.16 Totals Temp Check Number 37 Temp Check Number 38 38 Hdwe Hank 01-4305-050-50 Hose 11.66 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Page 7 Fri 12:28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 38 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 38 Hdwe Hank 01-4305-070-70 " 11.66 38 Hdwe Hank 15-4305-06040 11.67 114 34.99 Totals Temp Check Number 38 Temp Check Number 39 39 Human Resources Assoc 01-4490-110-10 Empl assisstance prog 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 01-4490420-20 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 01-4490-040-40 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 01-4490-050-50 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 01-4490-070-70 " 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 05-4490-105-15 40.00 39 Human Resources Assoc 15-4490-060-60 40.00 273 280.00 Totals Temp Check Number 39 Temp Check Number 40 40 Gen Comm' 01-4330-450-30 Radio rprs 122.07 40 122.07 Totals Temp Check Number 40 Temp Check Number 41 41 Independent Black Dirt Co 85-4460-829-00 Black dirt 85-4 40.00 41 40.00 Totals Temp Check Number, 41 Temp Check Number 42 42 Johns Stump Removal 01-4508-070-70 stump removal 117.00 42 117.00 Totals Temp Check Number 42 Temp Check Number 43 43 M C F O A 01-4404-110-10 1988 dues 15.00 43 15.00 Totals Temp Check Number 43 Temp Check Number 44 44 Pitney Bowes Credit Corp 01-4330-490-20 Dict eq 156.00 44 156.00 Totals Temp Check Number 44 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Fri 12:28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 45 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code 45 Proex 01-4305-030-30 45 Totals Temp Check Number 45 Temp Check Number 46 46 Polar Chev 01-4610420-20 46 Totals Temp Check Number 46 Temp Check Number 47 47 City of St Paul 01-4305-020-20 47 City of St Paul 01-4305-020-20 94 Totals Temp Check Number 47 ? Temp Check Number 48 48 Minn Women in Govt 01-4404-109-09 48 Totals Temp Check Number 48 Temp Check Number 49 49 P E R A 01-4131-110-10 49 P E R A 05-4131-105-15 49 P E R A 01-4131-020-20 49 P E R A 01-4131-040-40 196 Totals Temp Check Number 49 Temp Check Number 50 50 Tonson Corp 01-4490-050-50 50 Totals Temp Check Number 50 Temp Check Number 51 51 Reeds Sales 6 Svc 01-4330-460-30 51 Totals Temp Check Number 51 Temp Check Number 52 Comments film devlp Police squads impound lot Photo Svc May Annl dues Jun prem p tire disposal chg ignition 2293 Page 8 Amount 5.05 5.05 22,460.00 22,460.00 148.04 11.25 159.29 30.00 30.00 18.00 18.00 9.00 9.00 54.00 96.00 96.00 29.65 29.65 17 Jun 1988 Claims List Page Fri 12:28 PM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 52 .._p. . Check Number Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount 58 ULJ Urban Land Institute 01-4402-110-1N hndbk 59.50 52 59.50 Totals Temp Check Number 52 Temp Check Number 53 58 Elizabeth Witt 01-4400-109-09 LMC cunf expense 12.00 53 12.08 Totals Temp Check Number 53 2796 219,399.14 Grand Total MANUAL CHECKS:— 11747 15.00 ` 6/� ��t 8Ol�O� game -' 11748 15.00 o Anita MacZkO 1I749 I5.00 Jon Lerbs " / }]750 15.00 Jon St8nhau3 o ` }}751 30,00 No. Star Chapter ICBO 6/I0 meeting 11752 void 11753 ( 32,159^98 C1^x M.H.Payroll Acct 6/3 Net payroll ' 11764 5,919,06 PERA 5/20 Payroll 11755 }0,1}0.68 Dakota County Bank 6/3 FIT, FICA, MEDICARE / 11756 645.00 " 6/3 Payroll deductions 11757 3,699'52 3CCU » 1I768 2,15 Janice KVsChDer rfd FICA deducted ! }}759 5.02 Nancy Olson u - }}760 Lhry 11765 597,50 Election judged , 11767 2,733.20 Dakota COUOtv Bank FIT Fire payroll ' 11768 4,223,11 Commissioner of Revenue SIT 6/10 6/15 11769 22,546.39 City M.H. Payroll Acct Fire Payroll � 11770 30.00 Justin AVOdD 6/16 game ' ]}771 30.00 Jon SteUhdUg » 1I772 30.00 Jon Lerb0 11773 30,00 AnitZ M3cZl,0 x I1774 30.00 Pat Boland " ! ' 82,881.61 G.T. 302,280'75 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council unncil FROM: Kevin D.�z,� 1J y Administrator SUBJECT: Presentation/of Logo Alternatives Our Vraphic designer, Robyn Huspek, will be present at the Council meeting to discuss with Council her work on the logo. Attached is a copy of some alternatives she has produced. KDF:madlr attachment MN M-E-N•D-O•T�A X IH•E•I-G-H•T• Sl Iwil PAII CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 16, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council and Ci i atcr FROM: Larry Shaughnessy, Treasurer SUBJECT: 1988 Improvement Bond Sale HISTORY• Council authorized receipt of sealed bids until 7:30 P.M., June 21, for the sale of Improvement Bonds to finance the 1988 construction projects and the refunding of the balance of the 1982 Improvement Bonds in the amount of $775,000. ACTION REQUIRED: A tabulation of the bids received will be available at the meeting, and if in line with expectations, Council should adopt Resolution No. 88-_, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID ON SALE OF $2,525,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF". LES:madlr attachment The Council then proceeded to consider and discuss the bids, after which member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID ON SALE OF $2,525,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Bid. The bid of (the "Purchaser"), to purchase $2,525,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 of the City (the "Bonds", or individually a "Bond"), in accordance with the notice of bond sale, at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay therefor the sum of $ , plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby found, determined and declared to be the most favorable bid received and is hereby accepted, and the Bonds are hereby awarded to said bidder. The City Clerk is directed to retain the deposit of said bidder and to forthwith return to the unsuccessful bidders their good faith checks or drafts. 2. Title; Original Issue Date; Denominations; Maturities'. The Bonds shall be titled "General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988", shall be dated July 1, 1988 as the date of original issue and shall be issued forthwith on or after such date as fully registered bonds. The Bonds shall be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity. The Bonds shall mature on August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $ 50,000 1998 200,000 1990 75,000 1999 200,000 1991 200,000 2000 150,000 1992 200,000 2001 100,000 1993 200,000 2002 100,000 1994 200,000 2003 100,000 1995 200,000 2004 75,000 1996 200,000 2005 75,000 1997 200,000 3. Purpose. The Bonds shall provide funds to redeem the outstanding principal amount of the City's $1,350,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982 (the "Prior Bonds") on August 1, 1988 (the "Refunding") and to construct various improvements (the "Improvements" or "Project") in the City. The total cost of the Refunding and the Improvements, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Bonds. Work on the Improvements shall proceed with due diligence to completion. 4. Interest. The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing February 1, 1989, calculated on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years as follows: Maturity Interest Maturity Interest Year Rate Year Rate 1989 % 1998 % 1990 1999 1991 2000 1992 2001 1993 2002 1994 2003 1995 2004 1996 2005 1997 5. Redemption. All Bonds maturing in the years 1998 and thereafter shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on August 1, 1997, and on any Interest Payment Date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date shall be prepaid first; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Published notice of redemption shall in each case be given in accordance with law, and mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds. 3 To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar prior to giving notice of redemption shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to such Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City and Bond Registrar duly executed by the holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing) and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the holder of such Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds of the same series having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any authorized denomination or denominations, as requested by such holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. 6. Bond Registrar. , in , Minnesota, is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered holders (or record holders) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and paragraph 12 of this resolution. 7. Form of Bond. The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: 4 8. Execution; Temporary Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and Clerk and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, however, that the seal of the City may be a printed facsimile; and provided further that both of such signatures may be printed facsimiles and the corporate seal may be omitted on the Bonds as permitted by law. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either such officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of that officer who may act on behalf of such absent or disabled officer. In case either such officer whose signature or facsimile of .whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if he or she had remained in office until delivery. The City may elect to deliver, in lieu of printed definitive bonds, one or more typewritten temporary bonds in substantially the form set forth above, with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. The temporary bonds may be executed with photocopied facsimile signatures of the Mayor and Clerk. Such temporary bonds shall, upon the printing of the definitive bonds and the execution thereof, be exchanged therefor and cancelled. 9-. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on such Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City -on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue, which date)is July 1, 1988. The Certificate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. 10. Registration; Transfer; Exchange. The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond 13 Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 9) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any authorized denomination *or denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. At the option of the holder, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any authorized denomination or denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the holder making the exchange is entitled to receive. .All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this resolution shall be promptly cancelled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. All Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. 14 Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. 11. Rights Upon Transfer or Exchange. Each Bond delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. 12. Interest Payment; Record Date. Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered (the "Holder") on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the Holders not less than ten (10) days prior to the Special Record Date. 13. Treatment of Registered Owner. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest (subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 12 above) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. 14. Delivery; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the City Treasurer to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the proper application thereof. 15 15. (a) Refunding of Prior Bonds: From the proceeds received from the sale of the Bonds there shall be deposited in the Debt Service Account of the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982 Fund created by the resolution adopted by the City Council on April 20, 1982, the sum of $ , which sum is sufficient, together with all other funds on deposit in said account, to prepay all of the outstanding principal of and interest on the Prior Bonds on August 1, 1988; (b) Fund and Accounts: There is hereby created a special fund to be designated the "General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 Fund" (the "Fund") to be administered and maintained by the Treasurer as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be maintained in the manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund two (2) separate accounts, to be designated the "Construction Account" and "Debt Service Account", respectively. (i) Construction Account. To the Construction Account there shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, less (a) accrued interest received thereon, (b) any amount paid for the Bonds in excess of $2,500,500, (c) capitalized interest in the amount of $ (together with interest thereon and subject to such other adjustments as are appropriate to provide sufficient funds to pay interest due on the Bond on or before ) and (d) any sums deposited in the Debt Service Account for the Prior Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, and plus any special assessments levied with respect to the Improvements and collected prior to completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof. From the Construction Account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making the Improvements listed in paragraph 16 hereof, including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let and all other costs incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65; and the moneys in said account shall be used for no other purpose except as otherwise provided by law; provided that the proceeds of the Bonds may also be used to the extent necessary to pay interest on the Bonds'due prior to the anticipated date of commencement of the collection of taxes or special assessments herein levied or covenanted to be levied; and provided further that if upon completion of the Improvements there shall remain any unexpended balance in the Construction Account, the balance (other than any special assessments) may be transferred by the Council to the fund of any other improvement instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and provided further that any special assessments credited to the Construction Account shall only be applied towards payment of the costs of the Improvements upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council determining that the application of the special assessments for such purpose will not cause the City to no longer be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (ii) Debt Service Account. There are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall be credited to, the Debt Service Account: (a) all collections of special assessments herein covenanted to be levied with respect to the Improvements and either initially credited to the Construction Account and not already spent as permitted above and required to pay any principal and interest due on the Bonds or collected subsequent to the completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof; (b) all collections of special assessments previously levied, but not yet collected, in connection with the issuance of the Prior Bonds; (c) all accrued interest received upon delivery of the Bonds; (d) all funds paid for the Bonds in excess of $2,500,000; (e) capitalized interest in the amount of $ (together with interest earnings thereon and subject to such other adjustments as are appropriate to provide sufficient funds to pay interest due on the bonds on or before 1, 19_); M any funds remaining on deposit in the Debt Service Account established for the Prior Bonds after the same have been paid and discharged, (g) any collections of all taxes herein or hereafter levied for the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon; (h) all funds remaining in the Construction Account after completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof, not so transferred to the account of another improve- ment; W all investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service Account; and (j) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to the Debt Service Account. The Debt Service Account shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest and any premiums for redemption of the Bonds and any other general obligation bonds of the City hereafter issued by the City and made payable from said account as provided by law. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except (1) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for 17 the purpose for which the Bonds were issued and (2) in addition to the above in an amount not greater than the Iesser of five percent (5%) of the proceeds of the Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Construction Account or Debt Service Account (or any other City account which will be used to pay principal or interest to become due on the bonds payable therefrom) in excess of amounts which under then -applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bands to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). 16. Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent (200) of the cost to the City of each Improvement financed hereunder within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefited by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one (1) year after ordering each Improvement financed hereunder unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done all acts and things which may be necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. The special assessments have not heretofore been authorized, and accordingly, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 3, the special assessments are hereby RE authorized. Subject to such adjustments as are required by conditions in existence at the time the assessments are levied, the assessments are hereby authorized and it is hereby determined that the assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at a rate per annum not greater than the maximum permitted by law and not less than _ % per annum: Improvement Designation 87-5 Sibley Heights Addition 85-3 Northland Plaza Subdivision 86-13 Stratford Woods 87-2 Victoria Highlands 86-1 Southeast Mendota Heights Collection Amount Levy -Years Years At the time the assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then -current estimated col- lections of the assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. 17. Tax Levy; Coverage Test. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: 19 Year of Tax Year of Tax Levy Collection 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 %OO] 1989 lqqO 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2083 2004 The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assess- ments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent (5&) in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levies shall be icrepealabIe so long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475,61, Subdivision ]. Upon payment of the Prior Bonds, the taxes levied in paragraph 12 of the resolution of the City Council adopted April 20, 1982 authorizing the issuance of the Prior Bonds in the years 1988 through 1992 for collection in the years 1989 through 1993 shall be cancelled. 18- General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 20 19. Certificate of Registration. The Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, together with such other information as he or she shall require,"and to obtain the Auditor's certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the Auditor's Bond Register and that the tax levy for the Prior Bonds has been cancelled, and that the tax levy required by law has been made. 20. Records and Certificates. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the.City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed represen- tations of the City as to the facts recited therein. 21. Negative Covenant as to Use of Project. The City hereby covenants not to use the Project or to cause or permit it to -be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Project, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 22. Tax -Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Bonds, including without limitation (1) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (2) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and (3) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States if the Bonds (together with other obligations reasonably expected to be issued and outstanding at one time in this calendar year) exceed the small -issuer exception amount of $5,000,000. For purposes of qualifying for the small issuer exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements, the City hereby finds, determines and declares that (1) the Bonds are issued by a governmental unit with general taxing powers, (2) no Bond is a private activity bond, (3) ninety-five percent (95%) or more of the net proceeds of 21 the Bonds are to be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City), and (4) the aggregate face amount of all tax-exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all entities subordinate to, or treated as one issuer with, the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued and outstanding at one time is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, all within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code. 23. Designation of Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are issued after August 7, 1986; (b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (c*) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the, Code; (d) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as not being private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all entities subordinate to, or treated as one issuer with, the City) during this calendar year 1988 will not exceed $10,000,000; (e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during this calendar year 1988 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (f) the aggregate face amount of the Bonds does not exceed $10,000,000; and (g) the portion of the Bonds issued to refund the Prior Bonds is issued to refund, and not to "advance refund" the Prior Bonds within the meaning of Section 149(4)(5) of the Code, and for purposes of said Technical Corrections Act of 22 1988 such portion shall not be taken into account under the $10,000,000 issuance limit to the extent the amount of the Bonds does not exceed the outstanding amount of the Prior Bonds. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 24. Severability. If any section, paragraph or provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. 25. Hadjngs. Headings in this resolution are included for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after a full.discussion thereof and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I 23 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO TAX LEVY, REGISTRATION AND CANCELLATION I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of , 1988, there was filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution adopted on June 21, 1988 by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights of said County, authorizing the issuance of $2,525,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 of said City, and levying a tax for the payment thereof, together with full information regarding the obligations for which the tax was levied; and said obligations have been entered in my Bond Register and the tax levy required by law has been made. I further certify that the tax levy made for the bond to be refunded by the Bonds shall be cancelled to the extent and in the manner provided in the resolution. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the,County Auditor this _ day of County Auditor, (SEAL) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 16, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fr , Administrator SUBJECT: City Hall Office Systems Bid Award Our interior designer, Suzanne Ilten, has prepared the specifications for the city hall furniture. Most of the furniture will be ready for Council bid award at the meeting of July 5. You will recall that our major furniture expenditure will be approximately $31,000 for Herman Miller office systems. This is being purchased under a very favorable state contract. Because of the time lag in getting the systems manufactured and delivered, Suzanne has suggested that Council go ahead and authorize this purchase Tuesday evening. With the add-on materials Tuesday evening, I will have a list of the Herman Miller office system items being purchased, and the amount for the bid award. KDF:madlr C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 15, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, City i s for FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Liquor License Hearing, Mendakota Country Club As you are aware, we have received application from Mendakota Country Club for renewal of its Club Liquor License which will expire on June 30th. The liquor ordinance requires that public hearings be conducted on all new and renewal license applications, therefore a hearing has been scheduled for 8:15 P.M. on June 21st to receive public comments relative to license renewal. Staff has reviewed the renewal application and determined that all ordinance requirements have been met and all required documents have been submitted. The City has never experienced any problems with Mendakota's liquor operation, nor have there been any violations of the liquor ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Chief Delmont and I recommend approval of the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor License to Mendakota Country Club. ACTION REQUIRED Council should open the hearing and receive public comments, and if there are no adverse public comments and Council concurs in the staff recommendation, it should close the public hearing and move approval of the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor License to Mendakota Country Club. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO ! June 15, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, City A/ ✓ s for FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Liquor License Hearing, Somerset Country Club INFORMATION As you are aware, we have received application from Somerset Country Club for renewal of its Club Liquor License which will expire on June 30th. The liquor ordinance requires that public hearings be conducted on all new and renewal license applications, therefore a hearing has been scheduled for 8:15 P.M. on June 21st to receive public comments relative to license renewal. Staff has reviewed the renewal application and determined that all ordinance requirements have been met and all required documents have been submitted. The City has never experienced any problems with Somerset's liquor operation, nor have there been any violations of the liquor ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Chief Delmont and I recommend approval of the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor License to Somerset Country Club. ACTION REQUIRED Council should open the hearing and receive public comments, and if there are no adverse public comments and Council concurs in the staff recommendation, it should close the public hearing and move approval of the issuance of a renewal Club Liquor License to Somerset Country Club. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council, City A jWstor FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Liquor License Hearing, MGM Liquors INFORMATION June 15, 1988 As you are aware, we have received application from the LAMA Corporation, d.b.a. MGM Liquor Warehouse, for an off -sale liquor license for a facility to be located in the Mendota Plaza. A public hearing has been scheduled for 8:15 P.M. on June 21st to receive public comments relative to issuance of the requested license. Staff has reviewed the application and determined that all ordinance requirements have been met and all required documents have been submitted. The facility, as proposed in the building permit plans, meets the size and storage requirements of the Ordinance. Chief Delmont has found the applicants to be very cooperative and his investigation of the LAMA Corporation determined that it is financially solvent, it is an experienced liquor store operator, and there are no negative reports from communities in which the corporation's facilities have been licensed. Chief Delmont recommended that approval be granted, but that a number of conditions be required of the applicants. Council should discuss the conditions with the applicants and inform them that consideration of license approval will be subjet to the following conditions being met : 1. The space will be protected with central station bungler and hold-up alarms, and that the burglar alarm will be configured to include the protection of the ceiling of the store. 2. The Police Department will be kept currently advised on personnel information on each employee of the store. 3. That a "Part II Personal Information" form be completed and submitted for the on-site manager, who will be primarily responsible for the operation of the store and the trainina and direction of the emDlovees. 4. The Police Department will be allowed to make a crime prevention survey of the premises prior to the commencement of business. since this application is for a new license, action to approve or deny the application cannot be made until the next regular council meeting. ACTION REQUIRED Council should open the hearing and receive public comments, and, after all comments have been heard, Council should move to close the hearing and table action on the license application to the July 5th meeting. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 15, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code and City / ator Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: CAO Case No. 88-05, Bjorklund (Forse) Variance DISCUSSION• Bjorklund Construction Company, Inc., has met with staff and Planner Dahlgren to discuss the proposed development of a single family lot on Lot 9, Valley View Oaks, at 1247 Culligan Lane. The proposed placement of the home conforms to the standards of the Critical Area Ordinance, however, the proposed retaining wall will not be constructed out of native stone or wood as stipulated by the CAO. However, staff feels that the aesthetic quality of the Keystone modules is equivalent to those materials. In addition, the CAO requires 20 feet of separation for terracing or retaining walls. The retaining wall system is proposed to be constructed of earth - tome Keystone interlocking stone modules and will be spaced from 4 feet to 15 feet apart. The applicant has provided a letter of request for City Council consideration and signed letter of approval from adjacent neighbors (see attached). RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that City Council grant approval of a variance allowing the proposed retaining walls to be constructed of Keystone interlocking stone modules in an earth -tone color and also approve the spacing between retaining walls from the required 20 feet to an average spacing of 9.5 feet. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion of approval. PRB:madlr attachments BJORKLUND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 2311 Swan Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Phone: 452-3434 Residential and Commercial June 6, 1988 Mr. Howard Dahlgren, Planning Consultant City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: APPLICATION FOR RETAINING WALL VARIANCE LOT 9, VALLEY VIEW OAKS (CULLIGAN PROPERTY) Dear Mr. Dahlgren: We are requesting a variance for the two retaining walls that are to be built on the western edge of Lot 9, Valley View Oaks. These two walls will be 42 feet high at the highest spot and grad- ually flow back down to grade on each end. We propose to construct these walls out of Keystone interlocking stone modules with the rough texture and will have an earthstone appearance. The heavy textures and the deep shadows of the Keystone system create a pleasing appear- ance that blends and harmonizes with the home and landscaping. These walls will far outlast a wood wall system. The distance between these walls will vary from about 4 feet to 15 feet apart. Both terraces on top of these walls will be heavily landscaped. These two retaining walls are being proposed for construction to form the contours for the driveway and control the water runoff. This lot abuts the lots of Dr. Culligan and Dr. McCarthy which both have wood retaining walls with vertical planes less than 20 feet apart and over 12 feet in height. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, BJORKLUND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. �[ci� Richard Bjorklund, Jr., President RGB:db i June 7, 1988 City of Mendota Heights 750 So- Plaza Drive s Mendota Heights, MN 55120 j RR: RETAINING WALL VARIANCE LO`.l' 9, gVA11EY VIEV1 OAKS ` We have reviewed the landscape plans for;the,proposed home of Harry,and Polly I'orse on,Lot 9 of ValleylVidw Oaks Addition and ; find it to be an excellent addition to our, ii;eighborhood. The tuio walls proposed for the variance will, be an attractive! system and will blend in'greatly with the other heavily land-! scaped terrain. 1` arthy 1235 Cull' an Lane Lachenmayer 1253,Culligan Lane k Olson ' 1254' Culligan •Lane . i i i a X4'x- 11717 20-51h N.W Elk MN .5330 ph (612) 441.7373 I -,x CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 15, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D.Fr el Administrator SUBJECT: Parks Commission Recommendation Regarding Landscape Architect Council will recall that the adopted 1988 budget includes funds for the hiring of a landscape architect to design a master landscaping plan for each of the City parks. Staff sent out a Request For Proposal approximately six weeks ago, and three firms responded: Damon Farber Associates, Barton-Aschman, and Sanders & Associates. Council has previously received copies of the three proposals, and should bring those to the meeting. The Parks Commission reviewed the proposals at its meeting of Tuesday, June 14. The Commission decided to hold interviews with the proposers, which it will be doing on Monday evening, June 20. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to you as an add-on item with the agenda Tuesday evening. ACTION REQUIRED: To consider the recommendation of the Commission which will be provided Tuesday evening, and authorize staff to enter a contract for services with the successful firm. By some oversight, only $3,000 was appropriated in the park fund for this project, and obviously additional monies will have to be appropriated from fund balance. A specific recommendation on that action will also be provided Tuesday evening. KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 15, 1988 TO: Mayor, City Council, and MASAC Representative FROM: Kevin D. ��yv-�Iity Administrator SUBJECT: Clarification of Council Position on Mendota Heights/Eagan Aircraft Noise Corridor Issue At its meeting of May 17, Council passed the attached resolution setting forth its position on the Mendota Heights/ Eagan aircraft flight corridor issue. Council decided to state its acceptable corridor in terms of degrees of turn north and right from the two extended runway centerlines, and that provision is outlined in Section 1b of the resolution. Specifically, Council indicated that it wished to have planes turn no more than 10 degrees north from runway 11 left, and no more than 10 degrees south off runway 11 right. The problem with this position is that it provides only a 15 degree cone of separation. Council will recall that because of the ongoing change in magnetic headings, over time the planes will deviate up to 5 degrees from the specified heading. By allowing only 15 degrees, we have made no allowance for this deviation. When Eagan and Mendota Heights met at the MASAC offices a few months ago, we almost came to an agreement on alternative 2 which called for a straight out centerline on 11R, and up to a 15 degree turn to the left from 11L. Our agreement fell apart when Eagan insisted that the right centerline be the absolute southerly most flight pattern, and that all of the magnetic heading adjustment would have to go north to the Mendota Heights side. This meant that we would be accepting flights up to a 20 degree northerly turn, or right over the middle of Friendly Hills, Copperfield, etc. In response, the Mendota Heights Council took the position that flights should be allowed to go up to 5 degrees south of the 11R centerline. Staff is wondering whether the May 17 resolution misstates Councils intent. If it was your desire to follow through with previous discussions, the City position would be that planes departing 11L would be given a heading no more than 15 degrees north of extended runways centerline, and those departing runway 11R no further than five degrees south of extended runway centerline. The MASAC meeting is set for Tuesday, June 28, one week from this evening's Council meeting. We need Council to clarify this issue so that we can take an appropriate position at the MASAC meeting. For Council information, I am also attaching a copy of the City of Eagan position. ACTION REOUIRED: For Council to clarify the intent of its position on this issue. KDF:madlr attachments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-23 RESOLUTION CONCERNING MENDOTA HEIGHTS/EAGAN AIRCRAFT FLIGHT CORRIDOR 4HEREAS, the Cities of Mendota Heights and Eagan have historically supported the -Preferential Runway System at MSP, which results in 55+% of the departing air traffic coming over the two communities; and 4HEREAS, the two cities have planned land uses to be compatible with expected flight patterns along the 1-494 corridor; and 4HEREAS, during the past few years, air traffic has departed significantly from the historically acceptable corridor area, causing deleterious impacts on residential neighborhoods previously unaffected by the noise; and WHEREAS, Mendota Heights is eager to have the FAA control ower adopt new departure procedures which will -minimize ie noise impact on residential areas, and to the extent chat some impact is unavoidable, distribute the impact equitably between Mendota Heights and Eagan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are requested to support.and implement a revised departure procedure within the following guidelines: la. On simultaneous take -offs, all flights departing Runway 11L will maintain a runway centerline heading until the end of the runway; Runway 11R will maintain a runway heading until reaching the middle marker. 1b. On simultaneous take -offs, planes departing Runway 11L will be given a heading no more than 10 degrees north of extended runway centerline, and those departing on Runway 11R no further south than five degrees south of extended runway centerline. 2. on non -simultaneous take -offs, there will be no turns from the runway centerline on Runway 11L. 3. The FAA will install a localizes on the east side of the Minnesota Rive for Runway 11L as a guide for departure turns. 60 4. All planes will maintain assigned heading until they are four miles from the end of the runway or achieve an altitude of 3,000 feet above ground. 5. The FAA will take steps to better coordinate controllers for 11L and 11R, so as to minimize the amount of time the non -simultaneous departure procedures must be invoked. 6. The MAC and the FAA will provide semi-annual reports to the communities monitoring the effectiveness of the above outlined procedures, and provide the opportunity for reconsideration should the results prove unsatisfactory. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that'the Council does not wish to open up new areas of the community to aircraft noise impacts, and therefore, opposes the "Highland Park" departures on Runway 4 unless runway heading is maintained for a distance of four miles or 3,000 feet above ground level. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 10th day of May, 1988. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson I CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. MerteH-sotto Mayor r, IN.<.Illll-citu It� 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 VIC ELLISON EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mom PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN April 2 6,. 19 8 8 K. DAVID PAMELA MCCREAN THEODORE WACHTER Councli Members WALTER ROCKENSTEIN HEDG COAAddminishors METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL EUGENE VANOVERBEKE 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH City Clerk MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 Re: Mendota Heights -Eagan Corridor Study Recommendation Dear Mr. Rockenstein: In official action taken at its April 5, 1988 meeting, the Eagan City Council unanimously recommended corridor operational standards defined as Alternative 2 of the Joint Corridor Study modified to acknowledge the effect of magnetic variation. Briefly stated, this amounts to a compromise between Eagan's preferred Study Alternative 3 and what had been Mendota Heights preferred Alternative 2. As a baseline for this compromise, during simultaneous departures aircraft departing Runway 11R would be assigned a heading of the first five degree compass increment north of runway centerline. Aircraft departing Runway 11L would be issued a heading fifteen degrees north of the baseline. This would have the effect over time of centering on the traditional 105 degree corridor headings upon which the Metropolitan Council policy contours are based. As the cities are constrained to engage in preventive land use efforts in the area so descibed, it is most logical that operational noise impacts likewise be focused in this area. In addition, the two cities have endorsed the following: 1. That departure no turns should begin prior to the middle marker on 11R and the inner marker on 11L. 2. That non -simultaneous traffic should be focused at or about 105 degrees from 11R and 115 degrees from 11L to avoid virtually all residential areas. 3. That the FAA institute a coordinating controller during peak hour operations to allow non -simultaneous departure procedures when airspace is available. It is important that MASAC understand that the two cities have agreed on many of the issues including the need to focus traffic impacts at the middle of the noise compatible area. Unfortunately, the definition of that middle has proven more elusive than had been anticipated. The City of Eagan has offered THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY to compromise in the manner described in good faith and with the firm conviction that it serves the best interests of the region by sharing the burden equitably between the two cities. Neither can be completely noise free, but a procedure which whose impacts best approximate the traditional areas of planning controls will be best in the long run. Sincerely yours, Jon Hohenstein SME���Nu .,+rw U SittE .� Pptt 6-1 w0 O ;•r. EAC L � Tom" .mor .20 SUNFISH Lol •: •: •' .{{. w[ r. 19i0 Kp 269 tt..�����•• •,�•♦ •• •.':`: vY21!'.•.� sf INS 'TS ' •fit :�::�:`•`;:;..::: {::: � : �:•'r'r;.:; ..::::::.l YjE1t�'� pop IF :.•::. tee:•• ss ' • _ M • --frm �3• .jm ti �;, �L .: - - . �';:;:;. ;:::� ,� -•.,:::::match T /t h ti ,�V/A71OA f . �y.f CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. W ity SUBJECT: Upgrading of Vinyl Administrator Wallcovering in City Hall The City Hall as bid, includes a rather limited amount of vinyl wallcovering in the public lobby areas only. The specified covering is a stipple texture. The remainder of the building has painted sheet rock. Councilmember Blesener has raised the question as to whether we should upgrade the vinyl covering, and put it on all of the corridor areas, not only public, but through the office areas as well. The City Hall subcommittee discussed this in concept, and there was general agreement. However, we did not have cost figures at that time. The architects and interior designer have now calculated the cost for us. The expense of simply upgrading the existing stipple texture to a more material like fabric would be $650. The cost to extend this same material through the remaining corridor areas of the building would be an additional $10,200. At Tuesday evening's Council meeting, I will have the floor plan showing the additional areas that might be covered. Also, I will have samples of the stipple vinyl wallcovering as well as the more expensive material like fabric. ACTION REQUIRED: To decide whether Council is interested in making this change. It is imperative that the decision be made quickly, since the wallcovering has to be ordered soon. KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fr �I ity Administrator SUBJECT: Mulvi ill/Rogers Road Property Appraisals Our appraiser, Blake Davis, has now completed work on appraising all of the residential properties in the Mulvihill and Rogers Road neighborhoods. The next step in the process therefore, is to, in some manned release this information to the citizens, so that they can begin making up their minds whether they wish to have the City purchase their properties. There are State statutes under which relocation projects must be carried out, and City Attorney Tom Hart is reviewing those statutes to make sure we handle the matter properly. I will have a specific recommendation for Council at the meeting Tuesday evening. i KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO JUNE 17, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. jq�, City Administrator SUBJECT: Comments for Public Hearing on County Solid Waste Plan By State law, each metropolitan area county is mandated to come up with a solid waste plan for reducing reliance on land filling. A portion of the program must be accomplished by beefed up community recycling efforts, while some is handled by other technologies. Dakota County has adopted a master solid waste plan which calls for communities to reduce their solid waste stream by 15% by 1992. The County intends to rely upon voluntary citizen efforts through that date, but if the goal is not being achieved, mandatory source separation may have to be implemented. The State legislation mandates that all yard wastes must be separated from the flow stream by January 1, 1990. Also, the County is looking to the communities to adopt solid waste recycling programs during 1989 that can be put in place by January 1, 1990. In addition to the yard wastes, the plans must identify at least three other materials to be recycled (i.e., newspapers, glass, etc.). Under separate cover for the Council only, I have provided a copy of the recently passed resolution by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners setting forth their position on how the recycling programs will be operated. The Board is holding a public hearing on Tuesday, June 28, to receive input from citizens and communities regarding this resolution. I have also enclosed for the Council only, copies of the County's background working papers on the issue. You may read as much or as little of these as you like for Tuesday evening's meeting, but at your later leisure should probably read all of the material to familiarize yourself with this issue. As Council knows, Dick Lachenmayer serves as our representative on the recycling subcommittee. Dick feels that the County is headed in the right direction, given the statutory dictates under which it is operating. He has no suggestions for public hearing comments, and neither do I. ACTION REQUIREDI. Council should direct staff if it has comments it would like to have entered into the public hearing record. KDF:madlr attachments OFFICE OF THE DAKOTA COUNTY COUNTY BOARD (6121437-0418 UAKU I A L;UUN I Y L3UVthl\IIVltl\J I UUN I CrI MEMORANDUM 10W r1VVT. DD- MAO I 11NIU0, IV111414COVI 1A L)LAJOO TO: City and Township officials County Solid Waste Management Committee and Subcommitees Rural Solid Waste Implementation Committee FROM: Lyle D. Wray, County Administrator 1p�iwy DATE: May 18, 1988 SUBJECT: Review of County Board Policy Guidelines for Recycling As you are aware, Dakota County has been delegated the responsibility by the State Legislature to prepare a Recycling Implementation Strategy by December 1, 1988. The purpose of this strategy, which must also be approved by Metropolitan council, is to provide specific direction to communities and businesses in the County regarding the methods to be used toward meeting the recycling goals established in the approved Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan. At a minimum, the Recycling Implementation Strategy must accomplish four objectives: 0 Identification of at least three materials, plus yard waste, to be recycled; 0 Identification of responsible parties and recycling methods; 0 Identification of sources, methods, and levels of program funding; 0 Consistency with the County Solid Waste Master Plan In order to insure that a wide range of interests are represented in terms of providing input to the Strategy development process, earlier this year the County Board expanded the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC) to include subcommittees on AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 2 recycling, education, and collection. By working closely with these groups, the Rural Solid Waste Implementation Committee, and the cities and townships in Dakota County, the County believes that a workable Stratecry can be developed and approved to insure that our recycling goals will be met. In order to provide positive direction and leadership in the development of the Recycling Implementation Strategy, the County Board of Commissioners held a Policy Workshop on May 17 to review and discuss a number of issues. The objective of the workshop was to provide general policy guidance directly from the County Board to cities, townships, the SWMAC and its Subcommittees regarding critical issues relating to the development of a successful Strategy The result of the County Board Workshop was approval of the attached resolution, which details policy guidelines in the areas of policy development process, programs, community implementation, funding, and technical assistance. It is also the specific intent of the County Board that staff continue to work closely with the SWMAC, its Subcommittees, and cities and townships to review and further develop recommendations to the County Board. To accomplish this directive, meetings will be held over the next several weeks with all of you to discuss the attached policy guidelines, and to develop further input and recommendations for the County B6ard of Commissioners to consider. A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 28, at 9:00 A.M. in the County Board Room, Dakota County Government Center, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota at which time the County Board will consider approval of specific policies, based upon further input and recommendations. We look forward to your review and input to the attached policy guidelines over the next several weeks. If you have any questions, please feel free to call either myself or Tim Goodman, Solid Waste Program Manager, at 431-1158. Enclosures 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ' DATE May 17, 1988 RESOLUTION N0. 88-499 Motion by Commissioner Voss -Seconded by Commissioner Loeding WHEREAS, Dakota County is responsible for preparing a Recycling Implementation Strategy for the County, to include materials to be recycled; sources, methods and levels of required funding, and specific programs to'be implemented to meet the County's landfill abatement goals; and WHEREAS, the County Board of Commissioners recognizes that an aggressive approach to recycling will be required in order to meet or exceed its goal of fifteen (15) percent; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of Dakota County to demonstrate a strong commitment to businesses and communities in the County for recycling activities through technical and financial assistance to meet or exceed its abatement goals; and WHEREAS, the County Board has had an opportunity to review and discuss the appropriate programs and technical and financial requirements needed to meet or exceed the County's abatement goals. S NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approves the following policy direction for staff, consultants, and the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to work with the private and public sector toward development of a comprehensive Recycling Implementation Strategy for Dakota County: YES NO Harris X Harris Maher X Maher Voss X Voss Loeding X Loeding Streefland ABSENT Streefland State of Minnesota County of Dakota I. Norma B. Marsh, duly elected, qualified and acting County Auditor of the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Dakota County, Minnesota, at their session held on the 17th day of Dln.y 19_99 , now on file in my office, and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof. Witness my hand and official seal at Hastings, Minnesota, this g day of Y f� County Auditor Policy Development Process: The Recycling Implementation Strategy timeline and Policy Development Process, as shown on Exhibits A and B, dated and submitted May 17, 1988 are hereby approved. Targeted Community Programs The general County strategy will have the following components: Participation in recycling activities will be required for all cities/townships in the County. Initial residential recycling efforts will be voluntary for /residents, with the exception of yard waste, which by state law must•be separated by January 1, 1990. In the event the 15% goal is not attained by 1992 the County will mandate residential recycling. Commercial/Industrial recycling programs will be on a voluntary basis, with the exception of yard waste, which by state law must be separated by January 1, 1990. In the event the 15% goal is not attained by 1992 the County will mandate commercial/industrial recycling. The overall recycling program approach will be multi- faceted, to include a number of programs aimed at different situations, as indicated in Exhibit C, dated and submitted May 17, 1988. Cities and Townships will have the option of implementing a Targeted Community Program designed by the County or designing and implementing their own program provided it meets or exceeds recovery rates anticipated with the County designed program and is approved by Dakota County. Community Program Implementation: In order to meet the County Solid Waste Master Plan objectives and the abatement goals set forth -in the County Master Plan and Regional Policy Plan, the County Board approves the following policy: If a city or township chooses to have the County implement and operate programs for its community, or a city/township does not complete implementation of a program by January 1, 1990, the County will accept responsibility to implement and operate appropriate programs consistent with the County's abatement objectives. Program Funding: In order to insure that sources of funding are available to implement source separation programs consistent with the County Master plan, the County Board approves the following policy guidelines: Funding to 'cities/townships will be based upon performance in meeting targeted goals, established by the County. 7 The County will not reimburse a city or township for those costs it incurs in designing an alternate program. The County' will assess a city/township for costs to implement and operate programs if the city/township chooses not to do so, including the County's administrative, monitoring and public education costs. The County will fund implementation and operation costs incurred by cities/townships through performance-based funding. The recommended performance-based funding system will be brought back for County Board approval, as defined, following review and input by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and Subcommittees, based on Exhibit D, submitted May 17, 1988. Sources of long term funding of recycling programs will come from a combination of sources with priority being: 1) Landfill Surcharge Fee, and 2) Resource Recovery Facility ✓tipping fee. Consideration will also be given to a recycling assessment as part of a future potential source of funding. Technical Assistance In order to insure that an appropriate level of technical assistance is provided to communities, businesses and other appropriate parties to establish source separation programs consistent with the County Master Plan, the County Board approves the following policy guidelines, subject to further review and recommendation by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee: The County will provide technical assistance to cities/townships to implement and operate either County / designed or community designed programs but will not V provide technical assistance for design if a city or township chooses not to use the County design. -3- The County will provide limited technical assistance, as available, to private sector firms for designing and implementing (in-house).recycling programs. The County will, in cooperation with the city/township, provide technical assistance to private sector vendors for implementing community level programs. The County will provide limited technical assistance, as available, ' to other public sector entities (such as schools) .for designing, implementing, and operating recycling programs. Public education/ information programs will be a shared responsibility, with the County providing an overall educational program and cities/townships/private sector firms providing program -specific education campaigns. Monitoring of city/township programs will be the responsibility of the city or township. Monitoring of private sector recycling programs will be the responsibility of the city/township in which the business operates. All monitoring results will be reported to the County on forms developed and supplied by the County. Reporting. of recycling/abatement activity to the Metropolitan Council will be the repsonsibility of Dakota County. In the event the County accepts responsibility for implementing and operating a recycling program for cities/townships, the County shall bill the respective city/township for monitoring costs. ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners directs staff to work closely with the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, its subcommittees, and the cities/townships to further review and develop appropriate recommendations, and to present those recommendations to the County Board at a Public Hearing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing be scheduled for June 28, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room, Government Center, Hastings. -4- SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COUNTY BOARD PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING GROUP n URBAN CITIES* COUNTY STAFF RURAL AREAS** SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SWMAC SUBCOMMITTEE -► INPUT * Includes City Administrator's Group and Staff Working Group ** Includes Rural Solid Waste Implementation Group C7 EXHIBIT B PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY KEY: o = Begin Task x = Complete Task D = Draft Report (XI= firm Date I 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 TASK I I 1. Recycling Policy Workshop I x I 2. Development of Recycling I i a-----------------------------D---------x Implementation Strategy ( I I I I 3. Progress Report to Metropolitan I [XI Council j I I 4. Plan Distributed to Communities j 0---------x I 5. SUMAC Recommendation to I o ---------x County Board ( I I i 6. Dakota County Board Approval I o ---------x 7. Submit Recycling Implementation I o --[X] Strategy to Metropolitan Council I KEY: o = Begin Task x = Complete Task D = Draft Report (XI= firm Date I V I . C EXHIBIT C DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING PROGRAM CONCEPT Typical 1992 Estimated Recycling Households Program Rates (1) Served Curbside Collection 4-8% 89,000 Assumptions • voluntary • urban areas • weekly • minimum 50% participation rate 9 containers provided Drop Off Centers .5-1.5% 5,000 Assumptions • voluntary participation • rural areas served Yard Waste Collection 6-8% 89,000 Assumptions • mandatory separation • weekly collection • 6 months/year collection • 75-95% participation rate Commercial/Industrial Recycling 4-10% N/A Assumptions a voluntary participation 9 technical assistance • public education support POTENTIAL TOTAL RECYCLED WASTE: 14.5 - 27.5% (1) Represents abatement percentages of total waste stream beyond 1985 baseline EXHIBIT D PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING OPTIONS COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 1. Base Amount - Awarded for minimum performance, which shall be defined. 0 Dollar(s) per households in community or 0 Flat amount per community (communities categorized) or 0 Set percent of costs 2. Performance Funding 0 Bonus Point System 100 Points Maximum 1. Bonus points for residential .sector development o Meeting residential goal or o Specified level of participating households (must be defined) or o Type of program - curbside drop-off frequency containers 2. Bonus points for attaining overall abatement goal 3. Bonus points for initiating or coordinating commercial/industrial sector programs or Meeting commercial/industrial sector goal Breakout: points = % of eligible costs paid point % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid point % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid Less than points = Base Amount is A-T-Fund2 POLICY ISSUES DAKOTA COUNTY WORKSHOP ON RECYCLING POLICY MAY 17, 1988 ISSUE: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Legislative Provisions A. Recycling Implementation Strategy [Waste Management Act, Chapter 473.803 (1e)] 0 Identification of materials to be recycled 0 Identification of responsible parties and recycling methods 0 Identification of sources, methods and levels of program funding 0 Consistency with County Master Plan B. Landfill Surcharge (Waste Management Act 1988 Amendments) 0 Gives counties having a waste disposal facility within their jurisdictions the authority to raise fees at these facilities, provided such fees are used for landfill abatement purposes. . C. Waste Disposal Fee Regulation (Waste Management Act 1988 Amendments) 0 Provides the State with the authority to regulate fees at solid waste disposal facilities. D. Yard Waste Land Disposal Ban (Waste Management Act 1988 Amendments) 0 In the Metropolitan area, after January 1, 1990, the disposal of yard waste will be prohibited in landfills and resource recovery facilities. 2. Metropolitan Council Regional Policy Plan A. Abatement Schedule for Dakota County: Year: 1987 1988 1989 1990-2000 Attai ment Goal: (6%) (9%) (11%) (15%) B. If counties don't meet 1987 goal, they are "advised" to pass mandatory recycling ordinance by July 1, 1988. -1- 3. 4. Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan A, Abatement Schedule Year: 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992-2000 Attainment Goal: (2%) (4%) (6%) (9%) (12%) (15%) Documented (4.7%) Abatement V/ B. Communities must implement source separation programs consistent with County objectives by 1990. 1,1/C. Communities must meet source separation objectives (15%) by 1992. D. County role 0 Provision of technical and financial assistance to develop and implement programs 0 Strengthen commercial/industrial programs Resource Recovery Program A. Resource Recovery Facility Design 0 Facility design capacity presently will accommodate goals of 5% waste reduction and 15% recycling. 0 Future waste stream growth will be accommodated by increased emphasis on recycling prior to facility expansion. CONCLUSIONS: WKSP-4 0 Objectives of the County and Regional plans are compatible but the timetables for implementation differ. 0 County Master Plan has been "approved" by Metropolitan Council, but County "performance" is judged by the Regional Policy Plan abatement goals. 0 The Recycling Implementation Strategy must: be community specific identify three materials plus yard waste to be recycled identify sources, methods, and levels of program funding include a performance-based funding system be consistent with the County Master Plan address recycling in both the residential and commercial/industrial sectors 0 The Recycling Implementation Strategy is consistent and compatible with the Resource Recovery Facility Plan -2- a Waste generation figures from county solid waste master plans. b Metropolitan Council's solid waste policy plan goals. c Estimate is for residential source separation only, commercial/industrial figures were not included. -3- TABLE 1 REVISED 5-10-88 SOURCE SEPARATION --1987 COUNTY ANNUAL REPORTS 1987 WASTEa 1987b 1987 1987 1987 GENERATED COUNCIL SOURCE COUNTY COUNTY TONS/YEAR SOURCE SEPARA. % TONS/YEAR SEPARA. GOAL TONS GOAL % ANOKA 181,779 6% 10,906 3.8% 6,870 CARVER 27,654 6% 1,659 6.4% 1,781 DAKOTA 215,014 6% 12,900 4.7% 10,148 HENNEPIN 982,814 6% 58,969 6.9% 67,536 RAMSEY 461,800 9% 41,562 3.0% 13,910 SCOTT 42,344 6% 2,540 1.4% 581c WASHINGTON 89,255 6% 5,355 7.6% 6,807 METRO AREA 21000,660 6% 120,040 5.4% 107,633 a Waste generation figures from county solid waste master plans. b Metropolitan Council's solid waste policy plan goals. c Estimate is for residential source separation only, commercial/industrial figures were not included. -3- ISSUE: POLICY DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION POINTS 1. Process A. County Board Role 0 Provide broad policy direction o Approve final program and Recycling Implementation Strategy B. SWMAC and Subcommittee Role 0 Provide input, based upon County Board direction. 0 Assist County staff in preparation of detailed policy recommendations C. Communities Role 0 Provide ongoing input 2. Timeline A. Recycling Implementation Strategy must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 1, 1988. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that: 0 The policy development process, as shown on the Attachment 1, be approved by the County Board. 0 The Recycling Implementation Strategy timeline, as shown on Attachment 2, be approved by the County Board. WKSP-2 -4- ATTACHMENT 1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS COUNTY BOARD PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE STEERING GROUP URBAN CITIES* COUNTY STAFF RURAL AREAS** SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SWMAC SUBCOMMITTEE ATTACHMENT 2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY KEY: o = Begin Task x = Complete Task D = Draft Report (XI= Firm Date 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 a8 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 TASK 1. Recycling Policy Workshop x 2. �i Development of Recycling ( o ----------------------------- 0 ......... x Implementation Strategy 3. Progress Report to Metropolitan IXl Council { 4. Plan Distributed to Communities o ---------x 5. E SWMAC Recommendation to I o ---------x County Board Dakota County Board Approval o ---------x 7. Submit Recycling Implementation o --(X3 Strategy to Metropolitan Council j KEY: o = Begin Task x = Complete Task D = Draft Report (XI= Firm Date ISSUE: TARGETED COMMUNITY PROGRAMS DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Scenarios o Five alternative recycling programs have been conceptualized to compare recovery rates of each alternative to the County's goal, The table compares the various scenarios which were then used to develop preliminary cost estimates for a targeted scenario. DAKOTA COUNTY RECYCLING PROGRAM POTENTIAL SCENARIOS Recovery Rates vs. Abatement Tonnages * Recovery Percentages of Total Waste Stream, using 1985 as Baseline. + Based on 1992 Estimated Households in Dakota County. "Urban": Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Litydate, Mendota, Mendota Height, Rosemount, S. St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, W. St. Paul. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPICAL POTENTIAL ESTIMATED RECOVERY RECOVERY HOUSEHOLDS SCENARIOS -------------------------------------------------------•---.-..-------------------------------•----------- RATES* TONS SERVED+ ONE -------------•-•-------------------------------•-----------..-.-...-------------------------------------- Urban Residential Collection 4 to 8% 9,900 to 19,900 89,000 Rural Drop-off Centers 0.5 to 1.5% <2,500 5,000 Mandatory Yard Waste Separation 6 to 8% 14,900 to 19,900 89,000 Commercial Recycling 4 to 10% 10,000 to 24,900 NA POTENTIAL TOTAL HASTE REDUCTION •---------------------------•-----•-----....-.-.-.....--------•----------------------•------------------- 14.5 to 27.5% 37,400 to 64,700 TWO Urban/Rural Drop-off Centers <1 to 4% <2,500 to 10,000 94,000 Mandatory Yard Waste Separation 6 to 8% 14,900 to 19,900 89,000 Commercial Recycling 4 to 10% 10,000 to 24,900 NA POTENTIAL TOTAL WASTE REDUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <11 to 22% <27,400 to 54,800 THREE Urban Residential Collection 4 to 8% 9,900 to 19,900 89,000 Rural Drop-off Centers 0,5 to 1.5% <2,500 5,000 Mandatory Yard Waste Separation 6 to 8% 14,900 to 19,900 89,000 POTENTIAL TOTAL WASTE REDUCTION -----------------------------^ 11 to 17% 27,300 to 42,300 FOUR -•-----.-..-.-.-.-.....--------------.-.._----.-.-.-...--------------.-... Mandatory Yard Waste Separation 6 to 8% 14,900 to 19,900 89,000 Commercial Recycling 4 to 10% 10,000 to 24,900 NA POTENTIAL TOTAL WASTE REDUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 to 18% 24,900 to 40,300 FIVE Urban/Rural Drop-off Centers <1 to 4% <2,500 to 10,000 94,000 Mandatory Yard Waste Separation 6 to 8% 14,900 to 19,900 89,000 POTENTIAL TOTAL WASTE REDUCTION ...................•----------------------------------------------------------...-..--------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <7 to 12% <17,400 to 19,900 * Recovery Percentages of Total Waste Stream, using 1985 as Baseline. + Based on 1992 Estimated Households in Dakota County. "Urban": Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Litydate, Mendota, Mendota Height, Rosemount, S. St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, W. St. Paul. 2. Targeted Scenario Typical 1992 Estimated Recycling Households Program Rates (1) Served Curbside Collection 4-8% 89,000 Assumptions o voluntary o urban areas o weekly o minimum 50% participation rate o containers provided Drop Off Centers .5-1.5% 5,000 Assumptions o voluntary participation o rural areas served Yard Waste Collection 6-8% 89,000 Assumptions o mandatory separation o weekly collection o 6 months/year collection o 75-95% participation rate Commercial/Industrial Recycling 4-10% N/A Assumptions o voluntary participation o technical assistance o public education support POTENTIAL TOTAL RECYCLED WASTE: 14.5 - 27.5% (1) Represents abatement percentages of total waste stream beyond 1985 baseline MIM rnmri llqTnm. It is recommended, subject to further input from the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Subcommittees, that: o The general County strategy will be: Mandatory community participation Voluntary residential recycling (except yard waste) Voluntary commercial/industrial recycling (except yard waste) Mblti-faceted program approach o The County Board approve the Targeted Community Program concept as presented above. WKSP-3 ISSUE: ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Urban Residential Collection Cost Assumptions (Attached table) 0 Weekly 0 $40-45/ton net collection cost (average) 0 $30-40/ton revenue 0 Processing costs not included 2. Rural Drop Off Center Assumptions (Attached table) 0 Cost ranges cover 3 options: Unmanned center Manned center High-tech collection center (igloo) 0 $.40 - $1.20 per household per month 3. Yard Waste Collection Cost Assumptions (Attached table) 0 Weekly collection; ollection; 6 months/year 0 1 - 2 person crew @ $12.00/hour 0 Haul to compost site (within 10 miles) 0 $2.00/cubic yard tipping fee 4. Commercial/Industrial Assumptions (Attached table) 0 No direct County role 0 Public education campaign 0 Technical assistance support CONCLUSION: It is difficult to determine the exact level of funding necessary to implement and maintain a comprehensive multi -faceted recycling program due to the many variables which exist, a range of costs, based on certain assumptions, is estimated to be between $.8 and $2 million annually (*equivalent to $12 - $24/household/year) for implementing the Targeted Community Programs. As the Recycling Implementation Strategy is completed and programs are implemented, cost estimates can and will be refined. 1988 Dollars WKSP-9 ESTIMATED DAKOTA COUNTY TARGETED COMMUNITY RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS Typical Estimated Costs A Recovery Households $/Households Targeted Scenario Rates(1) Served (2) Per Month (3) Program Urban Residential Collection 4% to 8% -89,000 $0.25-$1.25 $267,000-: Rural Drop -Off Centers .5% to 1.5% 5,000 $0.40-$1.20 $25,01 Mandatory Yard Waste Ban Separation 6% to 8% 89,000 $0.45-$0.75 $480,601 Commercial/Industrial Recycling 4% to 10% N/A N/A POTENTIAL TOTAL WASTE REDUCTION: 14.5% - 27.5% RANGE: 0.73-$1.97 $822,000 - NOTES: 1. Recovery Percentages of Total Waste Stream 2. Based on 1992 Estimated Households 3. Net Costs Estimated in 1988 Dollars 4. Cost is for staff time and public education activities WKSP-9 ISSUE: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. The County requires that every community in the County have recycling programs operating by 1990 and that they meet the 1992 County recycling goal of 15%. 2. Once the County has completed the design of the Targeted Community Programs to be included in the Recycling Implementation Strategy, a community will have two implementation options (see attached chart): 0 A community may approve the County design and implement it within the timeline established in the County Master Plan (1990); 0 A community may choose to develop its own program, and implement it within the timeline established in the County Master Plan (1990), providing it meets or exceeds recovery rates anticipated with the County designed program and is approved by the County. 3. Dakota County has responsibility for insuring that the County's abatement goals are achieved and, if need be, will implement programs in communities. CONCLUSIONS: In order to meet the County Solid Waste Master Plan objectives and the abatement goals set forth in both the County Master Plan and the Regional Policy Plan, it is recommended, subject to further input from the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Subcommittees, that: 0 If a community chooses to have the County implement programs for VI/ the community, or a community does not complete implementation of a recycling program by 1990, the County will accept responsibility to implement the program. WKSP-5 -12- COMMUNITY DECISION SCENARIOS DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION (12/9/88) (3/39-------12/39) COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION COMMUNITY I --------------------------------------- PROGRAM TARGETED COMMUNITY PROGRAM OPERATIONS' (1/l/90-----) COMMUNITY OPERATIONS ------------------------------------------ COMMUNITY MUNITY TARGETED IMPLECOMMENTATION OPERATIONS COMMUNITY------------------------------------- --------------------------------- PROGRAMI COUNTY CONTINGENCY PLAN DESIGN I IMPLEMENTATION I OPERATIONS: TARGETED COMMUNITY PROGRAM (3/89-------12/89) TARGETED COMMUNITY . -A---------------------------- PROGRAM I COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION (1/1/9® ----- ) COUNTY OPERATIONS ISSUE: PROGRAM FUNDING DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Alternative Sources of Funding (See Attachment 1) o Landfill Surcharge (short term) o Facility Tipping Fee (long term) o Recycling Assessment (long-term) o Combination of Above (long-term) 2. County Role o Community Program/Funding Issues - Since the County has invested funds in designing targeted community programs, should it fund the costs of a community designing an alternate program? - Should the County directly assess a community that chooses not to implement a program for the costs that the County incurs to implement programs? o Private/Other Public Sector Program Funding Options. - County fund programs directly - County funds programs through communities; County requires community coordination of such activities. - County gives community option on private/other public sector. County funds directly if community does not 3. Funding Mechanism - Performance Based Funding (Attachments #2 and #3) o The Metropolitan Council requires the development of a performance based funding system as a condition for receiving the second distribution under the Local Recycling Development Grant. o A preliminary summary of performance based funding options has been developed and reviewed with the Recycling Subcommittee of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC). o The performance based funding options will be discussed with the SWMAC, and the community Solid Waste staff group -15- CONCLUSION: 0 Funding to communities will be based upon performance in meeting targeted goals, established by the County. 0 It is recommended, subject to further input from the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Subcommittees, that: The County should not reimburse a community for those costs it incurs in designing an alternate program. The County assess a community for costs to implement programs if the community chooses not to implement a program including the County's administrative costs. The County fund development and implementation costs incurred by communities through performance based funding. The recommended performance-based funding system be brought back for County Board approval, as refined, following review and input by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and Subcommittees. o - Sources of long term funding of recycling programs should come from a combination of the resource recovery facility--LipRing fee and an overall recycling assessment —froni—households and businesses. Sample Funding Scenarios: Estimated Additional Revenue Generated 1989 (Additional $.75/cu yd) Landfill Surcharge Fee ($1.00/cu yd) $116001000 /1,1,/ 4x -t/ Household Recycling Assessment ($2.00/HH) 175,000 Business Recycling Assessment (To be Determined) 9 5 1751000. $11 0,000 WKSP-7 1992 (Additional $.75/cu yd) r—andfill Surcharge Fee ($1.00/cu yd) $125,000 Facility Tipping Fee ($3.00/ton) 700,000 Household Recycling Assessment ($6/Household) 564,000 Business Recycling Assessment (To be Determined) 564,000 $1 T �53,000 I". ATTACHMENT 1 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS DAKOTA COUNTY Estimated Annual Basis For County Revenue Funding Source Fees Collected o Landfill Surcharge ($.25/cu/yd) * 1988 4,100,000 cu yd $5753,000 * 1990 3,850,000 cu yd 540,000 * 1992 300,000 cu yd 42,000 o Facility Tipping Fee * 1992 234,000 tons/year o Recycling Assessment * Households (1988) 87,000 households. * Households (1990) 91,000 households * Households (1992) 94,000 households * Businesses (Formula to be Determined) * Approximately $.14/cu yd to Dakota County WKSP-7 -17- ATTACHMENT 2 r DRAFT PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING OPTIONS 1. Community Programs - Base Amount - To be awarded for minimum performance which shall be defined. o Dollar(s) per households in community or o Flat amount per community (communities categorized) or o Set percent of costs (50% minimum) 2. Community Programs - Performance Funding - To be awarded based upon one or more of the following. o Dollars per participating household (participating household would need to be defined) or o Dollars per tons collected and recycled or o Percent of costs (percent dependent upon success in attaining goal) or o Bonus Point System 100 Points Maximum 1. Bonus points for residential sector development A -T -Fund o Meeting residential goal or o Specified level of participating households (must be defined) or o Type of program - curbside drop-off frequency containers 2. Bonus points for attaining goal 3. Bonus points for initiating or coordinating commercial/industrial sector programs Breakout: points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid points = % of eligible costs paid Less than points = Base Amount -18- EXAMPLE 1 1990 PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING I. Base Amount* b Awarded for implementing and operating targeted community program 0 50% of net operating costs 2. Performance Based Funding 0 Bonus Points System 100 points max Meeting residential goal of 7.5% abatement 30 points Attaining overall 15% abatement 50 points Initiating and/or coordinating 20 points commercial/industrial sector program o Breakout 100 points = 100% of eligible costs paid 80-90 points = 95% of eligible costs paid 70-80 points = 90% of eligible costs paid 60-70 points = 85% of eligible costs paid 50-60 points = 80% of eligible costs paid - Less than 50 points = Base amount of 50% A community that implemented and operated the County designed program or an equivalent community program, met its residential abatement goal, its overall abatement goal, and coordinated or initiated commercial industrial activities could be reimbursed for up to 100% of its eligible costs. Eligible costs might include net operating costs but not administrative costs. , -19- EXAMPLE 2 1990 PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING 1. Base Amount. o Awarded for implementing and operating targeted community program. o $2,000 per community. 2. Performance Based Funding o $30.00 per ton of material collected and recycled. A community that implemented the .County designed program or its own program and recycled 1000 tons would receive the base amount of $2,000 plus $30,000 dollars for performance. A -T -Fund -20- ISSUE: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DISCUSSION POINTS: 1. Technical assistance could be given in the following areas: 0 Design of programs 0 Implementation of programs 0 Operation of programs 0 Public education and information 0 Monitoring of recycling activity 2. County Role 0 The County's technical assistance role in community programs could range from limited assistance to a strong County role. I Community design/community implementation and operation County design/community implementation and operation County design/County implementation and operation 0 The County's technical assistance role in private/other public sector programs could range from limited assistance to moderate assistance. Private sector in-house program design, implementation, and operation (e.g. business) Private sector community level program implementation and operation (e.g. haulers, vendors) Other public sector program design, implementation, and operation (e.g. schools) CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the technical assistance policy be based upon the following concepts, and be subject to further input from the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Subcommittees The County will provide technical assistance to communities to implement and operate either County designed or Community designed programs but will not provide technical assistance for design if a community chooses not to use the County design. -21- 2. The County will provide limited technical assistance, as available, to private sector firms for designing and implementing (in-house) recycling programs. 3. The County will, in cooperation with the community, provide technical assistance to private sector vendors for implementing community level programs. 4. The County will provide limited technical assistance, as available, to other public sector areas for designing, implementing, and operating recycling programs. 5. Public education/information programs will be a shared responsibility, with the County providing an overall educational program and communities/private sector firms providing program specific education campaigns. 6. Monitoring of community programs should be the responsibility of communities. Monitoring of private sector in-house recycling programs should be the responsibility of the community in which the business operates. All monitoring results will be reported to the County on forms developed and supplied by the County. Reporting of recycling/abatement activity to the Metropolitan Council will be the responsibility of Dakota County. WKSP-8 SPA J, 11 a BACKGROUND SUMMARY FOR DAKOTA COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING PLAN MAY 12, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 BACKGROUND 1.3 SOLID WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS 1.3.1 Waste Stream Composition 1.3.2 Waste Stream Generation 1.3.3 Waste Stream Characterization 1.4 RECYCLING SYSTEMS 1.4.1 Residential 1.4.2 Commercial and Industrial 1.4.3 Yard Waste Composting 1.5 CURRENT RECYCLING PROGRAMS 1.5.1 Residential 1.5.2 Commercial and Industrial 1.5.3 Yard Waste Composting 1.6 RECYCLING EDUCATION 1.6.1 Public Input and Awareness 1.6.2 Public Information and Education 1.7 COMPATIBILITY WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY 1.8 SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES 1.3.1 DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE STREAM ANALYSES SUMMARIES 1.3.2 DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE COMPOSITION/GENERATION ANALYSES 1.3.3 DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS 1.3.4 DAKOTA COUNTY ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL RECYCLABLES 1.4.1 METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMS 1.5.1 RECYCLING FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS DIRECTORY -DAKOTA COUNTY 1.5.2 DAKOTA COUNTY VOLUNTARY RECYCLING COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 1.5.3 HYPOTHETICAL RECYCLING PROGRAM SPECTRUM 1.1 INTRODUCTION Background Summary for Dakota County's Comprehensive Recycling Plan (Background Summary) outlines the basic issues and options for Dakota County's Recycling Program, with an overview and evaluation of the potential waste reduction by recycling. The t * erm "recycling" may include a number of approaches to diverting some portion of the waste stream for reuse rather than disposal. The legisative requirement for each Metropolitan county to prepare and submit a Recycling Implementation Strategy defines the term recycling as "includes yard waste Composting and recycling that occurs at a waste facility through mechanical or hand separation of materials that are delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes." It is the purpose of this Background Summary to identify and evaluate the issues and options in determining the roles and responsibilities for additional source separation and/or recycling efforts in Dakota County, and assist the County in establishing policy on: 1. Cooperation with Dakota County communities and the role of recycling related to other landfill abatement programs pursued by the County. 2. Methods to increase participation•and the volumes of materials recovered in order to attain the 1992 recycling goal established in the Master Plan for 15% of the total waste stream to be recycled. 3. The schedule for implementation of the Recycling Program. 4. The future operating program for Dakota County. It is necessary to clarify statement number two. The 15% reduction of the total waste stream by recycling has been established as a goal over and .above 1985 recycling statistics, with 1985 being the base year for determining landfill abatement practices. This recycling goil is identified in the Master Plan and was approved November 5, 1987 by the Metropolitan Council. The Master Plan is currently being 're-evaluated with respect to the 15% recycling goal outlined by the County for 1992, and the regional policy goal for Dakota County of a 15% recycling goal by 1990. This regional policy goal is established in the "Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Plan" adopted in 1985, by the Metropolitan Council for the seven county metro area. 1089-01-1 - 1 - 5/12/88• Legislation requires the County to develop a Local Recycling Implementation Strategy by December 1, 1988. Strategy approval is based on a number of conditions: o Identification of materials to be recycled (residential and commercial/industrial) including a minimum :of yard waste and three additional materials. o Identification of methods for recycling materials and responsible parties. o Identification of funding needs to ensure the continuation of local recycling including; methods of raising and allocating such funds, permanent funding sources, and levels of local funding. In addition, this Strategy must include an outline of individual community programs and implementation schedules. In order to receive funding under the Local Recycling Development Grant, the Strategy must be consistent with the 1990 goals established in the regional policy. to: Dakota County has committed itself to pursing a recycling policy in order o Minimize the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilled. o Slow the utilization of existing landfill capacities o Minimize the increasing amount of MSW presently generated and that which will be generated in the future as the County population grows o Conserve natural resources o Minimize potential operation difficulties and waste processing costs incurred by maintenance requirements attributed to slagging and wear on machinery caused by glass and metals at the solid waste resource recovery facility o Comply with the Minnesota State Legislature requiring all counties in the Metropolitan area to establish programs whereby no unprocessed solid waste will be landfilled after 1990. o Comply with the Minnesota State Legislature's requirement that all counties in the metropolitan area are to submit a comprehensive recycling strategy plan by December 1, 1988. 1089-01-1 - 2 - 5/12/88 The Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan served as a guide to developing this Background Summary. The Master Plan, with its subsequent revisions, will continue to direct disposal alternatives for solid waste generated in the County. 1.2 BACKGROUND Dakota County has prepared a comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan in accordance with the Minnesota Waste Management Act (WMA) of 1980, Minnesota Statute 473.803, and the Metropolitan Council's "Solid Waste Management Devel.opment Guide/Policy Plan," adopted March, 1985. This Plan was prepared with assistance from the County's Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, and approved by the Metropolitan Council in November, 1987. Copies of the final draft were sent to townships and cities of Dakota County, the Minnesota Waste Management Board, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The following concepts and policies directing solid waste management in the County are established in the Master Plan: 1. The County shall support and.encourage community programs for source separation and/or recycling, and determine the feasibility of developing an Intermediate Processing Facility (IPF) for recyclables. Recycling programs play an integral role in a balanced comprehensive solid waste management plan. J2. The County shall establish a County -wide compost site, for the �A composting of yard wastes. The site would be available to citizens /r`'10," A and communities not currently operating a yard waste compost site �,�c• and as a centralized drop-off location for community or hauler yard waste collection programs. 3. A solid waste resource recovery facility with energy recovery will have the single largest effect on reducing the volume of waste to be landfilled in Dakota County. The County shall proceed with development of the resource recovery project, eliminating the landfilling of non -source separated MSW in Dakota County from which energy or materials can be recovered. 4. Waste reduction shall be encouraged through public education, with emphasis on consumer awareness of the consequences of their actions, and on informing citizens, public officials, and businesses of methods to reduce waste volumes. Many techniques of waste reduction require controls greater than the County jurisdiction and shall be 1089-01-1 - 3 - 5/12/88 supported whenever possible. Industry support and regional and state coordination are necessary for a comprehensive waste reduction effort. This document identifies the coordination of recycling options and alternatives with the overall waste management plan, thereby illustrating the immediate and long-term goals established for the program. 1.3 SOLID WASTE STREAM ANALYSES 1.3.1 Waste Stream Composition Paramount to the development of a comprehensive recycling implementation strategy for Dakota County, the composition of the waste generated in the County must be addressed. The waste stream is composed of a complicated and variable mixture of materials dependent upon many factors. The waste stream composition varies seasonally and with consumer disposal habits, thereby making it difficult to accurately assess. For the purpose of this study, a compilation of the -existing and most recent waste characterizations has been outlined. Figure 1.3.1 illustrates previous waste stream analyses performed in and around the surrounding metropolitan area, with most statistics originating from Hennepin County studies. Composition characteristics should be relatively consistent between Hennepin and Dakota Counties and applicable to the present waste stream conditions. Defining the composition of the solid waste stream is necessary for determining potential abatement by various strategies and the implementation of recycling programs. Overall results from the five composition studies show a general consistency in the estimated waste stream percentages. Factars which can influence and create discrepancies between one study and another include; time of study implementation, detail of material classification, and where and how the study was completed. The waste composition figures utilized for this Background Summary are consistent with the Master Plan (Figure 1.3.2). 1.3.2 Waste Stream Generation Waste generation statistics for the County are outlined in the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan, September, 1987 (Figure 1.3.2). The waste 1089-01-1 - 4 - 5/12/88 generation data is defined in three categories: residential, commercial and industrial*;' and the combined total waste stream. Based on per capita generation rates, these figures have been extrapolated to project disposal quantities through the year 2000. The projected generation rates utilized in the Master Plan were developed by the Dakota County Public Health Department in 1985 and are based upon per capita generation data. This information was almost identical to hauler survey results, which were based on reported disposal quantities. Therefore the established generation rates are consistent with identifying tonnages in which the 1985 recycling base line has been taken into consideration (material removed prior to disposal). It is noteworthy to mention that field data from a 1986 Waste Quantity Study for Dakota County, performed in the Summer and Fall of 1986, projected higher disposal rates (18%) than the per capita estimates for 1986. 1.3.3 Waste Stream Characterization By applying composition statistics to the generation figures, the result is a waste characterization analysis, identifying component percentages of the -total waste stream (Figure 1.3.3). This data is useful in establishing the potential recyclables that exist in the County waste stream, as well as a comparison to the actual quantities of material currently being recycled. Statistics for both 1986 and 1987 are presented in Figure 1.3.4, identifying estimated potential residential quantities and recycling program results. It is important to note that although most recycling programs address residential waste, some programs receive recyclables from businesses (i.e. cardboard) which creates a discrepancy in the actual percent recycled. Developing . a systematic structure by which to record all recycling statistics would result in a more accurate portrayal of actual recycling efforts. 1.4 RECYCLING SYSTEMS There are many recycling options and systems available to enhance or establish recycling programs. The system(s) used by a community reflect its particular characteristics, such as population density, the mix of commercial and residential sectors, collection methods and solid waste stream composi - 1089-01-1 5 5i 12 /1 88 tion. In areas where a variety of recycling opportunities presently exist, it is appropriate to implement a phased program in order to avoid negative responses from previously established recycling coordination. In addition, a combination of systems snould be developed in regions of a diverse nature, such as both uruan and rural communities, ailowing for• the most efficient means for• implementing a recycling program. How the program is designed and implemented will determine the abatement levels.which can be achieved from the recycling operations. Fundamental roles and responsibilities for residents in Dakota County are the same, but in order to most effectively attain recycling goals, variations in how these roles aria responsibilities are aeveloped are directly related to geographic location within the County. A recycling program designed for a densely populated urban area generaiiy will not be appropriate for a sparsely populated rural community. One of the biggest cnaiienges in establishing a comprenensive source separation and/or recycling program is determining the most effective and convenient means to remove recyclables from the waste stream and deliver them to a processing facility. the balance of this section will address eesidentiai recyciiny, comrner- ciai/industrial recycling, and composting. 1.4.1 Residential Residential waste may vary somewhat in volume according to income ana population aensity, but the composition is fairly consistent: newspapers, plastics, and glass and metal food and beverage containers often comprise more than half of household trash by weight and volume. These materials have the potential to be separated and diverted from the total solid waste stream by a number of recycling options including source separation with residential collections, drop-off centers, or buy-back centers. The most common materials recovered in residential recycling programs includes; paper, plastics, glass, metal (ferrous, non-ferrous, aluminum) and organics. Source separation systems operate by having the waste generator (in this case the residents) separate materials to be recycled from other refuse. This material can then be collected in several manners, such as residential collection, public drop-off centers, or buy-back centers. 1089-01-1 - 6 - 5/12/88 In a residential curbside collection program, residents separate the material(s) to be recycled and place them at the curb or alley for pick up. This program type is effective for urban areas and can be implemented through various methods: 0 Existing MSW collection service(s) 0 Contract with a private recycling business 0 Operator of an IPF owned by the County or private business The collected material(s) can either be taken directly to a buyer or stored until sufficient materials have been obtained to justify hauling to a market. The materials) collection can either be at the same time as regular waste collection or done as a separate collection. Collection done in con- junction with regularwaste collections commonly begin with one to three materials that would be stored in bins, separate from the mixed solid waste. A separate vehicle, specifically designed for multi -material collection programs with several storage areas or trailers with separate compartments for storage, would most likely be used for collections. With a single material, a packer or dump truck could be utilized with the recyclables collected in the packer body. Residential curbside collection programs have continually achieved the highest recycling rates and are considered to be instrumental to all future solid waste management plans. Recycling programs involving curbside collection of identified recyclables employ various methodologies and technologies based on individual community characteristics. It is difficult to accurately predict the recycling volumes a comprehensive recycling program might attain, even in communities with similar characteristics, due to the varying implementation approaches and community responses that exist. In the recycling business, there is no consistent method by which to measure the effectiveness of any given -program. Methods commonly employed to measure recycling program statistics involve participation levels, diversion rates, tons recycled, or various (residential, commercial, combined) waste stream reductions. The measurement of a program is often influenced by what portion of the program has been identified as the most significant factor. Regardless of what 1089-01-1 - 7 5/12/88 measuring. tactic is applied, the following list outlines the basic considerations necessary for implementation of curbside collection programs: o Community demographics 0 Number of households served and their density o Base year residential waste generated o Existing recycling programs and services o Type(s) of planned recycling services o Recycling program goals and funding sources o Identified recyclable material to be collected o Collection frequency and use of recycling containers o Anticipated participation rates o Public awareness and education program o Program monitoring and enforcement o Program incentives Figure 1.4.1 presents existing metropolitan area curbside collection programs, identifying many components previously mentioned. By observing this compilation of recycling collection programs, it is evident that various program components result in a variety 'of statistical outcomes. Collection program costs range from $.16 per month/household in Minneapolis, with a bi-monthly, no container or yard waste, 25% participation rate program to $.55 per month/household in Plymouth, with a weekly, collection box, yard waste included, 59% participation rate program. Drop-off centers include any, recycling operation to which the separated materials must be taken by the resident. At such centers, materials are stored until. shipped to a buyer, and in some cases are processed prior to shipment. The size of operations at a center will vary depending upon the number of materials processed and the volume of materials received. Recyclables typically received at a drop-off center include any combination of the following: glass, aluminum, ferrous metal, high grade paper, newspaper, corrugated, and oil. 1089-01-1 - 8 5/12/88 Drop-off centers receive materials by donation or "buy-back." An example of a simple voluntary program involving drop-off centers is one in which residents place their separated materials in large containers or dumpsters, typically in un -staffed or voluntarily staffed areas. These containers are then serviced by a recycling business or municipality. The voluntary approach offers communities a low cost method of diverting material from the waste disposal system. It is most suitable where the cost or logistics of curbside collection is prohibitive. The impact of such systems on the community's residential waste stream relies increasingly on public education and awareness of the recycling program. Drop-off recycling centers must be serviced regularly to ensure that collected materials are processed and marketed, and to maintain the safety and cleanliness of the neighborhood. An alternative to the drop-off (donation) centers is an operation that gives residents an economic incentive to recycle by reimbursing them for their materials. Such an operation is a buy-back center and typically concentrates on the more valuable recyclable materials. The recycling operations conducted by aluminum companies/beverage distributors is one example of a type of buy- back center. These centers can respond to the needs of some neighborhoods if conveniently located for access by voluntary groups and local residents. In some rural communities, there has been reported success with the use of mobile buy-back centers. With a mobile program, recycling vans and/or trailers are driven to designate4 locations in remote communities on scheduled days. Typically the programs are staffed, and material delivered by residents is weighed on portable scales. Mobile buy-back centers encourages resident participation in areas where curbside collection of recyclables is economical- ly prohibitive, and where residents would otherwise have to drive long dis- tances to a permanent buy-back center. In addition, program planners can maximize efficiency by arranging equipment and staffing schedules to suit individual community needs. The success of such a program depends on good publicity and consistent scheduling. Product quantity, quality, and intermediate processing all effect the markets which are likely to be available to various recycling programs. Small 1089-01-1 - 9 - 5/12/88 programs, with limited quantities and processing, will get minimal exposure to established markets and are hindered by•higher transportation costs associated with low volume operations. For these reasons, typical drop-off centers and buy-back centers have combined to offer both services, relying on steady volumes for the more valuable recyclables (aluminum) and large quantities for the less profitable materials (newspaper). In this way, residents can recycle at one location, as well as have the opportunity to use the buy-back service and receive payment for their recyclables. 1.4.2 Commercial and Industrial Materials from the commercial and industrial sectors can be separated for recycling by primary waste producers such as; office buildings, hospitals, department stores, restaurants, supermarkets and other retail and service outlets. Typical programs are in buildings with high concentrations of material(s). For example, restaurants generate glass beverage and food containers. Department stores' waste include large portions of corrugated and low grade cardboard, while office buildings generate high grade ledger and computer printout (CPO). These three principal items;* glass containers, corrugated cardboard, and office/computer paper can comprise more than 25% of the commercial and industrial waste stream. Commercial and industrial establishments are primarily motivated to recycle in order to stabilize, if not reduce, the costs paid for waste disposal. Glass containers are typical items in food related businesses and can often be separated from the waste stream for recycling. Generally, restaurants, bars, and various service outlets generate significant quantities of glass containers making it economically favorable to implement recycling programs. Factors such as glass color separation, cleanliness, and volumes generated influence the feasibility for collections and market development. Most glass recycling operations require little to no pre-processing and prefer the glass to be un -crushed. Recycling organizations, waste haulers, and independent brokers often offer the opportunity for businesses to participate in glass recycling programs. 1089-01-1 - 10 - 5/12/88 Corrugated material is one of the largest individual components of the commercial and industrial waste stream and is chiefly generated at businesses with high rates of product turnover/delivery (wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers). Corrugated material is most often recycled into lower grade cardboard products. In diverting corrugated from the waste stream, businesses with sufficient quantities commonly, implement baling (pre-processing) operations in order to handle their materials. In effect, this results in better quality products for marketing, as well as reduced disposal costs. Businesses generating lower volumes of corrugated, in•amounts that do not justify an in-house baling program, often establish collection programs with waste haulers at reduced rates. Corrugated's valuable use as a secondary fiber, its high percentage component of the waste stream, and its general convenience in removal from the waste stream, makes it one of the most economical resources to recycle and reduce commercial and industrial waste. Office/computer (high-grade waste) paper recycling offers a low-cost opportunity to reduce the waste stream. Desk -top programs have become increasingly more important in diverting high-grade fiber paper from the waste stream .for reuse as a wood pulp substitute. The success of most programs relies on the convenience in which employees can participate in the recycling program. Methods for paper separation usually involve a desk -top program, a central collection point, or a combination of the two. Once separated, there are various means by which to deliver the paper to its market; in-house employee(s) participation, waste haulers, or direct buyers. The economics of most programs are favorable due to the modest start-up costs for implementation. Designated containers, employee education, collection arrangements, and possibly a baler for large paper generators are the basic components for most programs. Depending on the extent of the program, participation, and material markets, it is common for programs to be incorporated into janitorial programs. 1.4.3 Yard Waste Composting Yard waste composting is a system by which large quantities of leaves and grass clippings and sometimes additional yard and garden wastes, generated and collected by both residential and commercial sectors, can be effectively 1089-01-1 - 11 - 5/12/88 diverted from disposal areas and rendered into a useable soil conditioner. One of the'most popular composting technologies is the windrow, which can be done on a small scale in backyards or at a central location(s). The windrow method involves building piles of organic matter (i.e. leaves and yard waste) in rows for composting. The general dimensions of a windrow pile are 25 feet wide at base, 10 to 12 feet high, and rows as long as possi- ble. Pile maintenance required includes periodic turning to ensure proper oxygen conditions to allow organic matter to compost. Turning should occur at least three or four times per year, with recommended turning times during April, July, September, and November. Piles also require watering during dry periods to ensure proper environmental conditions for the composting process. A pile 25 feet wide, 12 feet high,•and 145 feet long could require as much as 2,000 to 4,000 gallons of water. A concrete or asphalt pad with controlled drainage runoff may be neces- sary to facilitate material transfer and to.eliminate water leaching into the ground. Generally front-end loaders are used to turn the piles and municipal highway departments are commonly used for compost pile maintenance. Currently in Minnesota, a permit is not required to operate a "low" technology compost site (yard waste only), but a letter of notification is required by the MPCA for review and verification. If pending MPCA Rules are adopted, all commercial and public yard waste composting programs will require permits. Permits are currently required for co -composting operations which commonly include sludge material in their process. 1.5 CURRENT RECYCLING PROGRAMS Current recycling programs in Dakota County have been implemented through local municipalities, with funding assistance from the Community Landfill Abatement Program. Revenues for this funding program include a landfill surcharge fee and the Metropolitan Council's Landfill Abatement Grant Program. 1089-01-1 - 12 - 5/12/88 I 1.5.1 Residential Recycling Several municipalities have initiated programs to increase recycling efforts by implementing voluntary residential drop-off/buy-back centers. These recycling programs are organized through private recycling businesses, recycling organizations, and non-profit groups and are outlined in Figure 1.5.1 (pp. 1-6). There is a wide range in the make-up of these programs including; program promotion/awareness, extent of processing, types and quantities of recycled materials, and economics. The known recycling quantities for 1987 programs indicate that 1.4% of the total waste stream is being handled by the current residential recycling programs (Figure 1.5.2). Figure 1.5.2 illustrates voluntary residential recycling programs by communities, in relation to estimated households and populations for each community. By comparing households and populations to the volume of recyclables attained in each community program during 1987, approximate pounds per household and per population can be established. These statistics indicate the recycling activity in relation to the areas serviced by the recycling programs. In addition, comparisons between estimated households and populations having community recycling programs versus the estimated total County households and population indicate that 93% of the households and 91% of the population are located in areas where some type of recycling opportunity exists. The total tons of recyclables recovered by these programs in 1987 are compared to the estimated potential recyclables available. These figures suggest that in order to attain the anticipated 16% recycling goal by 1990, it will be necessary for greater recycling participation and development of a comprehensive recycling program. The following residential recycling scenario has been designed, utilizing figures outlined in the Master Plan, in order to identify the residential sector's contribution to the total solid waste stream. Five materials have been identified for this scenario, as common recyclables in multi -material recycling programs. 1089-01-1 - 13 - 5/12/88 POTENTIAL RECYCLABLE RESIDENTIAL WASTE (1988 tonnage estimates) 'Fraction of Waste Stream Tons NEWSPAPER 9,332 ALUMINUM 933 FERROUS 5,496 GLASS CONTAINERS 4,873 YARD WASTE 16,798 TOTAL 37,432 1988 estimated total waste stream - 220,682 tons 1988 estimated potential recyclable residential waste percentage of the total waste stream - 17% Program development of only residential recycling and yard waste composting, for the above recoverable materials, will not likely attain the 16% recycling goal. It would require just under a 90% recovery rate of all five materials in order to reach 15% reduction in the total waste stream. In comparing the same five item residential recycling option with a comprehensive recycling program, estimates can be established for the Dakota County region. Figure 1.5.3 illustrates this comparison in relation to 1987 known recycling results. Both "Residential" and "Comprehensive" recovery rates are based on effective and efficient recycling programs, representing high participation levels of the potential recycling rate spectrum. The estimated potential percentage reductions in the waste stream clearly indicate that in order to attain the 1990 recycling goal, it will be necessary, at a minimum, to implement a comprehensive recycling program for Dakota County. 1.5.2 Commercial/Industrial No compile d (past or present) recovery statistics on commercial or industrial recycling programs exist for Dakota County businesses. County 1089-01-1 - 14 - 5/12/88 staff are in the preliminary stages in identifying potential and current commercial/industrial recycling practices. A survey has been developed for area businesses to quantify and qualify commercial/industrial recycled or recyclable waste. Approximately 4,000 surveys have been mailed to County businesses for their responses. Initial results have indicated that 3.3% of the total waste stream is being recycled by•area businesses. There are two concerns with respect to commercial/industrial recycling statistics; the ability to establish 1985 Base Year figures and the willingness of the private sector to share recycling information. As stated in the previous section (1.5.1), a comprehensive recycling approach is essential for Dakota County in order to meet recycling goals, with efforts including the commercial/industrial sector of the waste stream. The 1988 generation figures for' Dakota County suggest that cardboard, office and mixed paper, and glass containers alone can make up nearly 40% of the commercial/ industrial waste stream (about 20% of the total waste stream for the County). 1.5.3 Yard Waste A few communities in Dakota County have established drop-off sites for their yard wastes: Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, and Inver Grove Heights. Yard waste is estimated to comprise 8.7% of the total waste stream generated in the County and is the largest single component of the residential waste stream at 16.2%. In assessing the percentage of the waste stream being diverted by existing compost programs (1987 figures), only 0.1% of the total waste stream is currently being addressed. As a significant constituent of the residential waste stream, yard waste and the development of yard waste composting programs play an important role in the County's ability to reach its recycling goals. A workshop was held for haulers in April, 1988 and included discussions on a large scale yard waste composting project. County plans include a proposed interim site(s) for immediate composting needs, with a permanent site co -located with the resource recovery project. Guidelines and site requirements have been approved, and negotiations leading to vendor selection and site development are currently being conducted. The Legislature has recently passed a yard waste ban on the land disposal of yard waste in the metro area, effective January 1, 1990. 1089-01-1 - 15 - 5/12/88 1.6 RECYCLING EDUCATION Recycling education encompasses a wide range of activities which together promote recycling efforts. An aggressive education and promotion program, involving long term education and immediate promotion, can foster a positive attitude in the communities on the various recycling elements adopted by the County. The effectiveness of promotion and education activities generally differs from one program to another, due to the available sources, motivation, and demographics of the individual community. Past successful recycling campaigns have combined both ingredients in establishing well -structured ongoing programs.. 1.6.1 Public Input and Awareness Public awareness of and support for a source separation and/or recycling program is a key link to its success. Comments and ideas from the public gained during development of the recycling program and ongoing information program will result in a higher participation rate and a more effective program. Specific public input and awareness strategies include: o' Holding public information sessions to answer questions and receive input from residents, haulers and representatives of commercial and industrial establishments. o Educating the communities with respect -to the benefits of the program, as well as the requirements for waste separation/collection and any penalties for violations. This can be accomplished through media coverage, mailings, posters, etc. o Preparing trial and full scale programs carefully by taking the concerns of all participants into account. o Developing a strong continuing public relations program that can effectively market the ideas and benefits of recycling to the County's residents. 1089-01-1 1 - 16 - 5/12/88 1.5.2 Public Information and Education An effective public education campaign utilizing a number of publicity tools is essential to ensure on-going public participation. It is common for programs to develop a gimmick of some sort by which to encourage and promote recycling. Examples include; "Garbage Busters", whereby a garbage patrol randomly chooses one address, per week or month, .out of a community in which to spot check their garbage. If recyclables are removed from the waste, resident are rewarded -with a cash prize. If recyclables are found in their waste, the prize is then added to the pot for the next spot check day. Other communities have developed district leaders, whereby a community is divided into sections and volunteer leaders assist in providing information on recycling. A well balanced publicity program should include the following types of activities: o Paid Advertising (print media, radio, television) o Public Service Advertising (through non-profit organizations) o Press Coverage (print media, radio, television) o Recycling Hotline (telephone number with recycling advice) o Recycling Brochure (information on how and why to recycle) o Public Participation Events (workshops, lectures, promotional events) o Citizen Survey (recycling attitudes, awareness, and interests) o Environmental Education Program (through local schools) A well planned public relations campaign should begin prior to start-up of a recycling program and continue on a regular basis as the program continues to operate. In addition to the above mentioned items, informational flyers at food distribution centers, in church bulletins, and as billing statement inserts, and local advertising on bank marquees and portable billboards offer opportunities to encourage recycling. Recycling education should be made general and not exclude existing recycling operations in Dakota County. The County's publicity program is essential to increasing public awareness of the need for source separation and other alternatives to landfilling of solid waste. 1089-01-1 - 17 - 5/12/88 1.7 COMPATIBILITY WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY A source separation and recycling program (including composting) and solid waste resource recovery project have been identified as part of the long-range waste management system. Solid waste resource recovery and recy- cling are compatible with each other by utilizing otherwise wasted resources. A source separation and recycling program can change the nature of the resulting waste stream both quantitatively and qualitatively. Reasonable knowledge of factors such as the tonnage available and the higher heating value, and composition of the waste is necessary for determining the design of a resource recovery facility. The impact that a source separation and recycling program has on a resource recovery facility depends on a number of factors, including: o The quantity and composition of the before -segregation waste stream o The quantity of materials expected to be segregated from the waste stream o The types of materials which will be separated from the waste stream o The type and efficiency of the process utilized Dakota County's solid waste management plan consists of various components and phases, with the recycling program playing a critical role in preparing the public for long range modifications in their disposal habits. No single processing method is viewed as a blanket solution to waste disposal dilemmas, and the County recycling program has been developed to work in conjunction with a resource recovery facility and yard waste composting project, as a conscientious approach to waste management. The existence of recoverable resources in waste provides the opportunity for recovery through recycling, composting, and incineration. 1089-01-1 - 18 - 5/12/88 e 1.8 SUMMARY In order to establish a comprehensive and successful recycling program it is necessary to establish the roles and responsibilities for local governments and the County. Community and County expectations in relation to State requirements must be consistent with each other when defining program content and responsibilities. It will be necessary for County staff to meet with communities to identify similar recycling needs and organize sessions in which specific recycling alternatives can be examined, prior to implementation of programs. Discussions should include the following types of issues: o Individual community recycling goals o Recycling program strategies o Required local government cooperative efforts o Recycling education/awareness responsibilities o Implementation barriers o Implementation schedules The responsibilities of solid waste management extend beyond the realm of County administration. Disposal changes and their alternatives can not be implemented without the coordination of the governing bodies and individual residents. The objective of Dakota County is to manage solid waste using a variety of proven waste management programs and establish a framework for responsible waste management for the future. 1089-01-1 - 19 - 5/12/88 FIGURE 1.3.1 TOTAL PM..Mrr OF ;r.S1E STREAH 100.00# 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.02% 84.05% 96.29% 99.42% 99.90% 100.00% 100.00% SOURCE OF IMPI' ,TIC11 FOR EACH YMY (1) From USM, Hetropolitan Council, Minnesota, 1980 (2) From Solid Waste Energy and Resource Rearrery Study for Olrnued CCounty, 1975 (3) From Hennepin County Waste Cacpnsition Study, 1984; Hidwest Reasearch Institute (hill), 1994 (4) From Ramsey/Washington RDF Acceptance Testing- HSW Composition Study, July, 1937 (5) FYm Hennepin County Comprehensive Recycling Study, 1985 (A) Coluan 2 figures represent volume percentages SU`1fARY OF DAKOTA CCUITY VASli CHARACrMMTICN STUDIES/ V„SIE STREAK AIC,LYSES-V-M ST JMK PFRCF2rMG'S (BY MQU) Dakota County Olssted County Dakota County Ra.sey/Washington DaY.ota County Resource Recovery Solid Waste Mgmt. Waste Stream Resource Recovery Solid Waste Hester IM Report: 10/82 Report: 07/84 Analysis: ll/94 Camp. Survey: 07/37 Plan: 09/37 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (A) RFS 00121 DIII M3331ED RFS. 03oi/DID CQ5110) ALL P =FL•R 33.00% 34.00': 44.10% 21.44% 37.05% 19.36% 23.67% 37.17% "24.00% 39.50: 32.20% (newspaper) 6.00% 6.30% 8.20% 8.19% 4.09% 9.00% 4.30% 6.60% (hoo)s/ma;s) 3.00% (office) 4.00% 3.80% 4.90% 3.70% (corrugated) 9.00% 14.50% 18.80% 3.99% 13.72% 4.20% 16.70% 10.80% (other) 11.00% 9.40% 12.20% 9.72% 19.42% 10.30% 18.50% 14.90% PL.",SPICS 3.70% 3.60% 7.00% 1.85% 9.W. RUBBER 1.90% 0.10% 0.20% LEATHER 0.10% 0.67% Tr7.= 1.40% 2.00% 1.30% 0.14% VOOD 3.60% 7.20% 10.00% 8.09% 11.24% 10.10% 9.10% 6.30% 9.20% 7.80% FOOD 16.60% 5.00% 3.00% 10.97% (res. /a=.) 13.80% (manufacrure) 2.80% YARD 1E.50% 7.70% 10.00% 14.47% 3.49% 9.20% 13.42% 16.20'% 1.90% 8.70% aim 0.00% 4.50% 2.90% 36.12% 31.02% 15.92% 33.72% 23.16% 35.40% 33.20% 34.20% SUB-TCTAL 79.40% 64.10% 73.50% 80.12% 92.80% 59.01% 75.69% 83.79% 81.90% 83.80% 82.90% A.LL IST;J.s 9.30% 6.90% 4.30% 5.92% 5.53% 20.78% 9.30% 6.60% 6.30% 6.00% 6.20% (Fe -appliance- 4.00% and Fe -can) 4.20% 5.30% 2.50% 5.15% 4.98% 5.37% 5.30% 5.00% 5.20% (A1 -scrap- 3.00% and Al -c --ns) 4.00% 0.50% 0.70% 0.65% 0.44% 1.10% 0.90% 0.80% 0.90% (other) 4.00% 1.10% 1.10% 0.12% 0.11% 0.13% 0.10% 0.20% 0.10% GLASS 9.90% 5.10% 2.90% 5.16% 3.10% 3.60% 4.31% 4.70% 2.90% 3.80% IIISC. 1.40% 23.90% 14.30% 8.79% 9.59% 4.26% 7.70% 4.72% 7.00% 7.30% 7.10% SUB-TOTA1 20.60% 35.90% 21.50% 19.97% 11.22% 25.04% 20.60% 15.63% 19.00% 16.20% 17.10% TOTAL PM..Mrr OF ;r.S1E STREAH 100.00# 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.02% 84.05% 96.29% 99.42% 99.90% 100.00% 100.00% SOURCE OF IMPI' ,TIC11 FOR EACH YMY (1) From USM, Hetropolitan Council, Minnesota, 1980 (2) From Solid Waste Energy and Resource Rearrery Study for Olrnued CCounty, 1975 (3) From Hennepin County Waste Cacpnsition Study, 1984; Hidwest Reasearch Institute (hill), 1994 (4) From Ramsey/Washington RDF Acceptance Testing- HSW Composition Study, July, 1937 (5) FYm Hennepin County Comprehensive Recycling Study, 1985 (A) Coluan 2 figures represent volume percentages FIGURE 1.3.2 WASTE COMPOSITION -- PERCENT OF 14ASTE STREAM -------------------------------------------- FRACTION OF COMMERCIAL/ WASTE STREAM RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL COMBINED ----------------------------------------------7----------------------- NEWSPAPER 9.0 4.3 6.6 CORRUGATED 4.2 16.7 10.8 MIXED PAPER 10.8 18.5 14.8 FERROUS (FE) 5.3 5.0 5.2 ALUMINUM 0.9 0.8 0.9 OTHER NON -FE METALS 0.1 0.2 0.1 GLASS CONTAINERS 4.7 2.9 3.8 YARD WASTE 16.2 1.9 8.7 WOOD WASTE 6.3 9.2 7.8 OTHER ORGANICS 35.4 33.2 34.2 OTHER INORGANICS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.0 7.3 7.2 SOURCE: DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN, SEPTEMBER 1987 WASTE GENERATION -- TONNAGE OF WASTE STREAM ------------------------------------------- *1991- 1995 558,479 678,544 1,237,019 *1996- 2000 593,545 773,878 1,367,423 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN, SEPTEMBER 1987 COMMERCIAL/ YEAR RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL COMBINED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1988 103,691 116,991 220,682 1989 105,591 120,810 .226,401 1990 107,491 124,304 231,795 *1991- 1995 558,479 678,544 1,237,019 *1996- 2000 593,545 773,878 1,367,423 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN, SEPTEMBER 1987 IGURE 1.3.3 Q:i(1f� L^Sir Cr_=.B=.C. J -71.:11M ; .0 SIS-nc's. DE2Trr-1, CCa•".''r.,CML, ADD CC -SEM) M'Zr.G S BY FRAC1TC11 C. 1i SiRMIl '"C _S 103,591 116,991 220,532 105,591 120,510 225,401 107,491 124,304 231,795 558,499 675,54 1,237,013 593,535 773,272 1,367,423 SCL CE: 1)i•.=. CCifi!C! SC•LM ilfSir :=S7ci FLUI,_�'3�'�9u�' 1927 11991 x1956 Cc 1933 1959 1990 -1995 'a_S?y S7?r)if P.ISD 1wrIL CC:P:r-.CLL ME -MED PELT-�.Ti'l l CC3�CDD CaBDm PZ:,Mu11TI.L CC?i![MCrL CCS BM P.PSD)FiiPL`.L CCi•7�C1:1 CC:MD© P. SDE1IT;.L CC--- 1, CC. - 9,332 5,031 1,363 9,503 5,195 14,598 9,674 5,345 15,019 50,253 29,177 79,440 53,;19 33,217 56,595 CCF. U,;;1:D 4,355 19,537 23,S92 4,435 20,175 24,610 4,515 20,759 25,274 23,450 113,317 136,767 24,929 129,233 154,167 Lim) PAPER 11,199 21,643 32,042 U.404 22,350 33,754 11,609 22,996 34,505 60,316 125,531 1£5,347 64,103 143,167 207,270 =--,F.CJS (F -n) 5,496 5,350 11,346 5,596 6,041 11,637 5,697 6,215 11,912 29,599 33,927 63,526 31,453 33,69.1 70,152 �iJ:Tau'r! 933 936 1,£59 950 966 1,916 567 994 1,961 5,026 5,423 10,454 5,342 6,191 11,533 G:= R 101 rz 104 234 33S 1G5 242 348 107 249 356 553 1,357 1,915 594 1,543 2,142 GI SS CCiA':MERS 4,373 3,393 3,2E6 4,963 3,503 3,466 5,052 3,605 8,657 26,249 19,613 45,926 27,597 22,442 50,339 1:9.D 47•STr 16,798 2,223 19,021 17,106 2,295 19,401 17,414 2,362 19,716 90,473 12,592 103,365 96,154 14,704 110,353 0 I. 6,533 10,163 17',296 6,652 11,115 17,767 6,172 11,436 18,208 35,134 62,426 91,610 37,393 11,157 103,550 U' CRG.tiac 36,210 35,241 75,651 37,435 10,109 71,594 33,160 41,269 79,429 193,359 225,277 423,536 210,703 255,927 467,535 O -i: --7R DL?GMICS 7,258 3,540 15,198 7,391 3,319 16,210 7,524 9,074 16,598' 39,093 49,534 32,627 41,548 55,493 98,041 '"C _S 103,591 116,991 220,532 105,591 120,510 225,401 107,491 124,304 231,795 558,499 675,54 1,237,013 593,535 773,272 1,367,423 SCL CE: 1)i•.=. CCifi!C! SC•LM ilfSir :=S7ci FLUI,_�'3�'�9u�' 1927 DAKOTA COMITY WASTE COIIPOSITIOPI/GEI•IERATIOII--RESIDEI.ITIAL TO1111AGES 1986 AHD 1981 ESTIIIATED RECYCLABLE QUANTITIES VS. ACTUAL RECYCLING EFFORTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTALS 51.2 51143 2095.9 52111 2461.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -'L ------------ DAKOTA ----------- DAKOTA COMITY SOLID IIASTE MASTER PLAIT, SEPTEMBER 1981 H•) DAKOTA COMITY PLAIIIIIIIG AIID PROGRAII 11AHAGEHENT (based on available 1986 and 1987 statistics) c m r w 1986 1987 FRACTION OF *PERCENT OF *ESTIMATED 1986 +TONS RECYCLED *ESTI1fATED 1987 +TOILS RECYCLED 11ASTE STREAH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASTE STREAH QUANTITIES IN 1986 QUANTITIES IN 1987 HEWSPAPER 9.0 8990 1517.7 9161 1295.2 CORRUGATED 4.2 4195 103.9 4275 541.4 IfIXED PAPER 10.8 10788 1.0 10994 14.9 FERROUS (FE) 5.3 5294 25.4 5395 4.6 ALUI1I111iff 0.9 899 44.7 916 89.8 OTHER 11011 FE 0.1 100 0.0 102 4.4 GLASS COIITAIIIERS 4.1 4695 125.2 4784 179.7 YARD WASTE 16.2 16182 212.0 16490 331.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTALS 51.2 51143 2095.9 52111 2461.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -'L ------------ DAKOTA ----------- DAKOTA COMITY SOLID IIASTE MASTER PLAIT, SEPTEMBER 1981 H•) DAKOTA COMITY PLAIIIIIIIG AIID PROGRAII 11AHAGEHENT (based on available 1986 and 1987 statistics) c m r w FIGURE 1.4.1 (1) Data will change as contracts are renewed. METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM Residential Waste Recyclables 0 ) Costs Per (1) 0 ) , Households Collection Participation Recycling Generated in Base Collected Waste Program Costs Household Cost/Ton C onnun i t y Served Frequency Containers Rate Contractor Year' (ions/Ho) {Tons/Ho.l Abatement Community (Per Menth) (Per %onth) Recycled • Comments Edina 6,000 Monthly None Provided 301. Municipality 1,669 118 7.11. Edina $1,390 $.23 $11.78 Fridley 7,000 Bi -Monthly None Provided 59S Supercycle 1,097 35 3.2% Fridley $1,400 $.20 $40.00 Cost does not include yard waste pickup Little Canada 4,000 Honthly Labeled Plastic 91. SuperCycle 293 11 3.8% Little Canada $1,025 $.25 $93.18 Buckets i Minneapolis 124,000 Bi -Monthly None Provided 251. SuperCycle 13,334 1,333 10.0% Minneapolis $28,000 $.16• $21.01 Cost doe-KERCs not include yard waste collected by city Plynouth 12,000 Weekly I Plastic 59I Supercycle 1,601 114 7.1% Plymouth $5,500 $.55 $48.25 Cost does not include Collection Boz , purchase of containers Richfield 11,000 Monthly Clone Provided 20-401. SuperCycle 1,376 172 12.5% Richfield $3,309 $.55 $19.24 Cost does not include yard MERC waste collected by city Volunteers St. Louis Park 12,000 Bi -Monthly 3 Stacking 401. Supercycle 1,582 297 18.8% St. Louis Park $5,500 $.45 $19.52 Cost does not include yard Plastic Bins waste pickup St. Paul 93,000 Monthly None Provided 10-401. SuperCycle 9,775 300 3.1i St. Paul $30,000 $.32 $100.00 Beeman Shorewood 1,674 Monthly (lone Provided 9% SuperCycle 178 6 3.41. Shorewood $602 $.35 $100.33 Cost includes pickup from drop off center Spring Lake Park 1,780 Monthly None Provided 161. SuperCycle 249 9 3.6% Spring Lake Park $600 $.33 $66.67 • Base year for Fridley, Little Canada, St. Paul, and Spring Lake Perk is 1985. All other communities have 1987 as their base year. '• This information was calculated from Recyclables Collected Figures and Program Cost figures. All other information from Jill Fisher, Project Planner, City of Minnetonka. SOURCE: Dakota County Planning and Program Management, May, 1988 (1) Data will change as contracts are renewed. FIGURE 1.5.1 DIRECTORY RECYCLING FM ':WITHIN DAKOTA COUNTY LOCATION/FACILITY CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Z Firestone Sores 7660 150th St. W. 432-9212 2. Goodwill- Industries attended Donation Site County Road 42 and Cedar Ave behind Rainbcw Foods 646-2591 3. MSO Recycle IGA 7645 W. IA Street 484-^373 CITY OF BURNSVILLE Z. Goodwill Industries attended Donation Site Hichway 13 at Menards 646-25:Z 2. Mary Mother of the Church 3333 Cliff Read 850-0045 - Kevin Chirpich 3. x'00 Recycle CUB Fccos 2500 West H'w . 12 4LT-wr.w73 - 4. MS.3 Recycla Country Sztcr_s 1`:01 P Basan z Ave. 40- �: -3 7 3 -.. �. 1urnsvill- Cc.,.~cst 127 ilo. Strc== ('Wear Burnsville Dodge) 850-4100 - 6c7 'Hula, CASTLE ROCK TOWL"HIP 0 MATERIALS Batteries Drop Off, Charge Per Battery Glass, Al Lminum and Steal Beverage Cans, Newspaper, Clothing, Household Material, Toys Drop Off Site Aluminum & Steel Beverage Cans, Plastic Pop Bottles, Buy Back for Aluminum Cans Glass, Aluminum and St=el Beverage Cans, Newspaper, Clothing, l;ouserold i'lateriai, Toys Paper. Drive As Ad-.ertis=r Only Aluminum Cans Buy Back VenG .-.c M-zc:,ine Aluminum and Steel C:.ver-:c-= Cans Plastic Pop co4..,es Buy Back for Al um. inu.m Yard and Garden 'paste, �s Orco Off ar.G Pick Up Sit= As Adv er t i s=g or y. l l fcr Permission Coe of^or 1 iso incs for chose[-. location CITY OF EAGAN l. Contract Recyclers, Inc. 2767 Highway 55 452-9749 - Dennis Oeslorin Hon., Thur., Fri., Sat. 9 A.M. - l P.M. Tue. 3 P.M. - 7 P.M. %. St, John Naumann Catholic Church 4030 Pilot Knob Road 454-2079 - Doris Wilkens 3. Barrel Reconditioner 3370 Nike Collins Drive 454~7380 - Terry Wulf Moo, thru Fri. 7 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. 4. ASD Recycle Rainbow 1276 Town CantEr 484-5373 ' 5. Mount Calvery Lutheran Church 3930 Rahn Road ' 454-2144 - Barbara McCulley 9 A.X - S P.M. G, Gooher SmelLina 333-5 Hwy. 149 454-33lO 7. Eacan Ccmcoscing Municipal Suildlng --810 Pilot Knob Road �4n�It E-413IcE T01.41-:S�l9 q FIGURE 1.5.1 (continued) S=e`nther listings for clus�sz location See other list-incs for closest - location Aluminum & Steel Beverage Cans Buy Back for Aluminum Cans Drop Off Site Paper Drop Anytime 30, 55 Gallon Orcms Aluminum & 3ICael 2e,erage C -=ns Plastic Pop Gottles, Euy Back for Aluminum Cans Aluminum Drop Anytime; Siass Paper Drop 2nd Sac. ol� Uont.�, 8attsries Drop Off, Oirectiuns At UfficE Yard and Garten 'Aaata, Sr-�sn Drop 0 -F -F ano Pic', Uo �s AdvsrtisEo SEe other list�ocs f'cr cl:ses: {oczticn See ot"'er lintincs for closz_s: location See ot�,er liszings fcr cicses: locacion ^ . GREEHVA TOWHSHIP FLAMP'TON TOWNSHIP CITY OF P.NiPTON CITY OF HASTINGS l, Hastings Composting Glendale Road 437-4l27 May and October Sat. lU A.# - 4 P.M or As Advertised CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGTS l. Salem United Methodist Church 5530 Babcock Trail 455-9313) ~ Ralph Korfager 2. 7---laven Store 7501 Concord Blvd 45l -O333 3. MSD Recycle Red Dw1 S%tore 6600 Cahill Avenue E. 434-5537] CITY OF LAKEVILLE ' l. �]l Saints Cat'�olic Sc*. -.col 209-50 'Hovland Ave. U. 469-1-131 Peter Noll 2^ Gocdwill Ind:striss att-2:d—ed . Donation Site Ccunt,7 '%c ---d 42 and Cad --=.r Avenue bsnino Rainocu Foods CITY OF LILYOAlc 3 FIGURE 1,5'1 (continued) See other listings fcr closEst location See other list-in§s for clossst location See o�her listings for closest- location Yard Waste Drop Off Site And Pick Up PaperDrop Ofif i Newspapers (for Jerry's Kids) Drop Of� Site Aluminum & Steel 2everags Cans, Plastic Pop Bottles Buy Back for Aluminum. Cans Pecer, [arditoard, Alun, inum & Steel C ---ns 5oring g Fal\ Drop Off As Advertised Giast, Aluninum'and Stss\ Cans, NenspaPer, Cloc�ir� Househo\d Xacsrial, Toys Drop Off Site See ot"er listings for c�csz-s-- locat�on ri4uwt i.o,i (continued) : M-ARSHAIt TO�A3 See other listings for cicsest -------�� --- locatiun CITY ' �See other listings for closest ------�����location CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS l. MIUM DOT Motor Oil 2229 Pilot Knob Rd. Drop Off Site, Directions At 297-4583 (N of 494) Office CrTY OF 3ee other listings for closest ---- location CITY F NE9 TRIER See other listings for closest-----��—�� location NI TO'IF-SHIP See other listings for clos-=st location RANOOLFH TOHUSHlP See other listings for closest location CITY OF N Sae other listings for clnsast location See other listings .for closEsz location CITY OF GOSEHOU[T l. Dakota County Motor Oil hxy Shoo I4300 Biscayne Ave. 4-23-2-2053 ' 2. Kout-son's Robbisn Aluminum Cans, Sorted class l�345 8isc-ayne Ave Usej Oil, Tires for a c:ar-ge . 4Z3-7-295 - Ja,�f Gehrte Ueuspaoer, CorrxgatEd, Mon, thru Fri 8 A.M. ~ 4 P.M. Drop Off Site Eac. 8 A.M. - 1:20 P.M. ]. Goodwill I:o:scries a��t=-rtei Glass, Aluminum and S�zei Donar-ion Sit--= Beverage C-ans, Usxspecer County Road A2 and Avenue Cln'Ching, Household kacEricl, tahind Rainbcx Fcmis Toys 646-2591-1 Drop Off 5i�a 4 i a SC IOTA TOVNSH I P CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL 1. 14SO Recycle Knowland's 225 13th Ave. S. 484-5373 2. First Presbyterian 535 201kh Ave. 11. 451-6223 3. Grace Lutheran Church 149 Eighth Avenue South 451-1035 - Rev. C. G. Songbusch CriY OF SU;IFISH LAKE VEP.-MILLIOM TOWNSHIP 1. St. John the Baptist Sc;lool 115 Main Street W. Vermillion, MN 55085 437-2644 - Sister Bernelle CITY OF VaMILLION 1. St. John tale Baptist School 115 Main Street W. Vermillion, Mil 55085 437-2544 - Sister Bernelle '3ATERFOR'J TOI.ViSHIP CITY OF VEST ST. PAIL 1. Brady Recyc1 int Eracy high Sc :poi 12CO Oak Dal :;ve. 4Si-0583 - Andrea Davis Xcn. t-ru Sun. 8 A.M. - 6 P—M. 2. 7-_ even Sores 1869 Oakdale Avenue 61 FIGURE 1.5.1 (continued) See ogler listings for closes: location Aluminum & Steel Beverace Cans, Plastic Poo Bottles Buy Back for Aluminum Aluminum (anytime), Paper Drop Off Site Paoer Drive As Adveriisad Aluminum Drop Off Site Ouring Business Hours See other listings for closest location Newsprint, White paper, Glass Aluminum and Steel Eeverace Cans Drop Off Any Time in Garage Eenind the Church Newsprint, White Facer, Glass Aluminum and Steel Beverace Cars Drop Off Any Time in Garage the Church See other listings for closes: location. 11-ispacer, , Cardbcar^ , V Ven i ass __- Aluminum Beverace cans Drop Off Site Newspacers (for Jerry's Kids) Drop Off Site 3., NS3 R-dr-ycle Country Club Market 1200 South Robert 4S4-5573 OTHER l. Minnesota Soft Drink 775 Rice Street, St. Paul 484-5373 - Tawnya Nelson Tue. thru Sat. 9 A.M. - 5 P.M. 2. Waldorf Corporation 2250 Wabash Ave, 5t, Paul 64l-4075 Non, thru Fri. O A.M. - 5 P.M. 3. Reynolds Aluminum 3I80 Spruce Street, Little Canada 4. Great Western Iron & Metal Company '21 Concord, 5t. Paul. 224-4877 - Jerry Bader S. American Recycling Co, 12420 Wyoming Avenue So, Savage 89O -U011 Hon. thru Fri. O A.H. - S P.N. Sat. 8:00 A.M. - l% P.M. 8. John Basco Batteries 8852 13th Ave' E. ' �hako~ee 445-Ol48 7. Loxell's Oil Removal H�nkatq 1----07-62.'--:-z278 8, ��M'DE Recycling 102 Secb ��., Chlaska I�3-�3�7 Thur. and Fri. 12 P.H. - ] P.X. Sat. 9 A.M. ~ 3 P.M. (continued) Aluminum & Steel 2 -aver -ace Ce:s, Plastic Pop Bottles Buy Back for Alutilinum Glass, Newspapers, Alcninun C --ns Corrugated Cardboard, Tin Cans only at 775 Rica St.. Newsprint, Corrugated Cardboard, Office Paper, Computer Paper, Print Shop Waste Aluminum Cans Aluminum, Lead Metal, Brass, Iron, Paper, Junk, Automobiles, Appliances - Compssitors must be removed if over lO yrs, old. Tires Batteries Oil (will pump) Aluminum, Copper, Brass-, .--=:=r Csrdboanz, Some Pluaticn, 7�rz-s Used Oil, Anything Gecow-. 11 ' SGUcCz: Oako�a C:unt? Planning and Program Uanagemenc; Oakuca County Public Health Department, July, 1987 Di • FIGURE 1.5.2' VOLUNTARY RESIDENTIAL RECYCYCLIIIG RESULTS (I11 TONS) OUTLINED BY DAKOTA COUNTY COI?2:UIIITY PROGRAMS IN 1987 HUMBER OF TOTAL TONS OF POUIIDS PER POUNDS PER COMI1UI1ITY PROGRAMS HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION RECYCLABLES-1987 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION (1) (2) (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *APPLE VALLEY 8913 27545 224.7 50.4 16.3 BURNSVILLE 14.824 40802 553.2 74.6 27.1 EAGAN 12827 34210 416.1 64.9 24.3 HASTINGS 4550 13368 123.5 54.3 18.5 +INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 6705 19151 71.1 21.2 7.4 *LAKEVILLE 5851 13437 46.0 15.7 5.0 +MEIIDOTA HEIGHTS 2763 8486 IIA 0.0 0.0 *ROSEMOUNT 2047 6495 645.1 630.3 193.6 +SOUTH ST. PAUL 7994 20371 NA 0.0 0.0 +WEST ST. PAUL 7920 17668 829.5 209.5 93.9 VERRILLION TUN AND CITY 475 1684 50.2 211.2 59.6 MSD RECYCLE -MOBIL% UNIT NA NA' 58.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 74869 208217 3017.5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED COUNTY TOTALS 80827 227689 215014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT OF COUIITY TOTAL 93.0 91% 1.4% (1) DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID 'BASTE MASTER PLAIT --average of 1980 U.S. Census and Metropolitan Ccunc-1 forecasr. (2) DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAIT --average of 1980 U.S. Census and Metropolitan Council fcrec_1sz (3) DAKCTA COUNTY PLANNING AND PROGRAM MANAGEIfENT (based on available 1987 statistics) (*! TRI -CITY PROGRAM (+) QUAD -CITY PROGRAM FIGURE 1.5.3 0 HYPOTHETICAL RECYCLING PROGRAM SPECTRUM --------------------------------------- (EXISTING) 1987 KNOWN ABATEMENT RESULTS ---------------------------------------- 1. Residential drop-off/buy-back programs 2. Residential yard waste composting programs RECOVERY RATES -------------- 2.9% .3% 3. Commercial/Industrial recycling programs 6.3% ------------7---------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM 4.7% ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (POTENTIAL) RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM RECOVERY RATES ----------------------------------------- -------------- 1. Large scale residential yard waste composting program 80% 2. Urban residential collection programs 30% (newspaper, aluminum, ferrous, glass) 3. 'Rural_ drop-off box programs 10% (newspaper, aluminum, ferrous, glass) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM 8.8% (POTENTIAL) COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING PROGRAM RECOVERY RATES -----------------------------=------------- -------------- 1. Large scale yard waste composting program 80% (Residential and Commercial/Industrial) 2. Commercial/Industrial office paper and 30% coorugated cardboard recycling programs 3. Residential and Commercial/Industrial recycling 30% programs (newspaper, aluminum, ferrous, glass) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM 15.8% Sources: Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan, September 1987 Note: Recovery Rates expressed in numbers 1., 2., and 3. of each program are in percentages of the individual waste streams.