The URL can be used to link to this page

85-09-24 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING. 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2~, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS .~ PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for September Pg. 2578 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Special'Assessments CBD Assessment Role, Levy #9908 Unpaid Tree Removal Charges (8 years), Levy #9903 Unpaid Tree Removal Charges (5 years), Levy #9904 Unpaid Garbage Removal Charges, Levy #9906 Unpaid Weed & Grass Cutting Charges, Levy #9907 Unpaid Harzard Removal Charges, Levy #9905- Unpaid Delinquent Utility Bills, Levy #9998 Deferred & Supplemental Assessment Upon Waiver: Pg. 2579-2583 Pg. 2584-2585 Pg. 25 86-25 87 Pg. 2588-2589 Pg. 2590-2591 Pg. 2592-2593 Pg. 2594-2595 a. Supp. Sewer #3180, Levy #9900 Pg. 2596-2597 b. Supp. Sewer & Water, Levy #9914 Pg. 2598-2599 c. Supp. Sewer #3388, Levy #9901 Pg. 2600-2601 d. Supp. Water #3397, Levy #9902 Pg. 2602-2603 Request for Extention of Conditional Use Permit for~~'~~ 5542 Lynwood blvd. (Blue Lagoon Marina) Steve Pauly? Pg. 2604 '~ Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Reschedule Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, ~ October 8, to Monday, October 7, 1985 because ®f School Referendum being held on October 8. set Date for Bid Opening: Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Improve-~ ment - Suggested Date: October 4, 1985, at 10:00 A.M. Pg. 2605-2606 Request from Minnetrista for: a. Sewer & Water Extension (County Road 15 at Dutch Lake); b. Sewer & Water Service and Joint Street Improvement (County Road 15 & Westedge Blvd.) Pg. 2607-2608 Pg. 2609-2611 9. Letter from Curt Pearson Regarding Lost Lake Land Sale Pg. 2612-2613 10. Letter from Earl E. Wilson wanting to donate lots to City - Will have letter from John Cameron regarding this at meeting. Pg. 2614-2622 Page 2576 11. 12. 13. Set Date for Bid Opening for CBD $n0w Removal Fall Clean-Up (Suggested Date: Payment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. October 7, 1985 Letter from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. Regarding Public Works Building Site-Plan Update B. Articles from Nation's Cities Regarding F.L.S.A. C. Article on Smail Business Incubators Letter from Hennepin County Regarding Incubators D. Met Council Publication Re: Fiscal Disparities E. Letter Regarding Railroad in Mound F. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Agenda & Minutes G. Invitation from WAFTA to the City Council to Attend Their Open House on September 28, 1985. H. School District Minutes I. Metro Waste Management Board Publication FORESITE J. Publication from Hennepin County Dept. of Environ- ment & Energy K. Metro Council - WASTELINE L. Park Commission Minutes - S~ptember 5, 1985. M. Planning Commission Minutes r September 9, 1985 Pg. 2623-2639 Pg. 2640 Pg. 2641-2647 Pg. 2648-2652 Pg. 2653 Pg. 2654-2671 Pg. 2672 Pg. 2673-2688 Pg. 2689 Pg. 2790-2692 Pg. 2693-2698 Pg. 2699-2700 Pg. 2701-2701 Pg. 2703-2704 Pg. 2705-2709 Page 2577 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 October 1, 1985 Mr. Earl E. Wilson 7675 Sh~borne Drive Loomis, California 95650 Sub: Lots 4, 5, and southwesterly ½ lot 3, Block 10, Woodland Point PID # 13-117-24-12-0176. Dear Mr. Wilson: On September 24, 1985, the City Council considered your proposal to donate the above property to the City °f Mound. Since the City is not interested in obtaining more land for parks (we already have 27), they decided they did not want tO accept these . lots. The.City Attorney also pointed out that the State Land Department is the owner and therefore these must be tax forfiet lots which, you are purchasing on a contract from them. These are Iow lots and not build- able unless some work is done on drainage and filling. Sorry we cannot help. Sincerely, Fran Clark Acting City Manager An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. 22 2322208 01 22 232 2301 32 22 .232 2370 22 238 4875 12 22 238 4924 72 22 238 4925 41 22 '238 4957 71 22 238 5020 31 22 259 4949 Ol 22:259' 5259 31 22 259 6O70 31 22 259 6339 22 22 262 3037 91 22 265 3053 91 22 280 5846 31' 22 280 5883 61 22 286 5971 61 22 286 6040 91 · 22 292 6033 21 22 295 3185 61 22 295 3186 41 22 298 2965 62 22 310 2676 Z1 22 310 3108 51 22 310 6211 41 22 319 6709 81 22 321 3005 03 22 337 6137 41 22 343' 2066 73 22 343 2606 O1 22 346 5667 21 22 355 5579 O1 22 364 2571 21 22 373 5001 82 22 373 5063 81 22 404 5241 31 22 404 5533 31 ~; ',... ~'i: Water .... Eon Anderson $109.17 Tom $imon 77..50 Fay Cooper Pd. $50.OO Anthony Brinatte i~&;a.~,OO* Lonnie Gudvangen. Doc Bosma ?~ ~-0.oo Geo Baker Elma Jensen H. G. Mi l'ler T.: Grudnowski Pd.$68.17 Perry Ames Doris 'Ferri ] John Richards M, Amundson G.M.G.Ent. Don Horner Gary Schmidt Peter Solstad Pd.'$100.O0 Todd Warner L.D.CI ifford L.D.C1 i fford Ron Anderson Robert La Bresh Gary Hejna James Ericlson Riley Harrison * Hugh Armstrong Tom Linder Pd. '$60. O0 Judith Marshik Pd. $50.00 95.12 90.95 ~° 02 75.55 ~7 165.06 117.42 109.71 128.4O 120.32 Pd. $1'20.40 ' ~ 92.74 ~48.03 70.24 59.83 93.14 274.O6 91.92 68.49 54.81 174.21 G.W. Ent. 72.46' Robert Brown 125.12 T. Helget Pd. $70.07 ~n C. Evans Pd. $50.00 Steve Arne Pd. $1'00.00 ~05'.55 Colan Kelly Pd. '$15.00 1~.~6 Bill Alexander 165.43 Centurt Auto Pd. $273.95 ~,~.~ n~_ 2208 Fairview Ln. 2301 Fairview. Ln. 2370 Fairview Ln. 4875 Edgewater Dr. 4924 Edgewater Dr. 4925 Edgewater Dr. 4957 Edgewater Dr. 5020 Edgewater Dr. 4949 Bartlett Blvd. 5259 Bartlett Blvd. 6070 Bartlett Blvd. 6339 Bartlet~ Blvd. 3037 Highland Blvd. 3053 Bryant Ln. 5846 ldlewood Rd. 5883 Idlewood Rd. 5971 Hawthorne Rd. 6040 Hawthorne Rd. 6033 Cherrywood Rd. 3185 Priest Ln. 3185 Priest Ln. 2965 Oaklawn 26.76 Westedge Blvd. 3108 Westedge Blvd. 6211Westedge Blvd. 6709 Halstead Ave. 134.23 :. 3005 Bluffs Dr. 1~'~ 6137 Beachwood Rd "--~ 206~ Commerce Blvd. 2606 Commerce Blvd. 5667 Bush Rd. . . 5579 Auditors Rd. 2571 Lakewood Ln. 5001Woodridge Rd. 5063 Woodridge Rd. 5241 Shoreline Blvd~ 5533 Shoreline Bl~d. *=Made arrangements 22 232 2208 O1 22 232 2301 32 22 232 2370 81 22 238 4875 12 22 238 4924 72 22 238 4925 41 22 238 4957 71 22 238 5020 31 22 259 4949 Ol 22 259 5259 31 22 259 6070 31 22 259 6339 22 22 262 3037 91 22 265 3053 91 22 280 5846 31 22 280 5883 61 22 286 5971 61 22 286 6040 91 22 292 6033 21 22 295 3185 61 22 295 3186 41 22 298 2965 62 22 310 2676 21 22 310 3108 51 22 310 6211 41 22 319 67o9 81 22 321 3005 03 22 337 6137 41 22 343 2066 73 22 343 2606 Ol 22 346 5667 21 22 355 5579 O1 22 364 2571 21 22 373 5001 82 22 373 5063 81 22 404 5241 31 22 404 5533 31 Delinquent Water an~ Sewer 77. ~0 134.16 121.43 95.12 lO7.OO 90.95 63.02 75.55 68.17 165.06 117.42 109.71 128.40 120 32 120 40 92 74 348 O3 7O.24 59 83 93 14 274.06 91 92 68 49 54.81 174.21 134.23 133.98 96.22 72.46 125.12 7O.O7 108.o8 206.65 173.96 165.43 273.95 9-18-85 $4591.00 O0 °°°~"o~o~o~ o o~o oo ooo o~o ooo o~o~.u~oooo~ .~ i 00' 6Z'6§Z ~['9L 6E'~OL 9E'L~ ~0' ffL~ 96' ,6 L9' z~ O6' tfi' zo ~L' LL6 90: 00~ Lg' ~ 6~'~L~ tg'96~t ~0'999 t~' 69' 6 t' L~9t 00' 6~' Lt L ~9' L~ 0~'6~ ~L'9~ ~' ~o ~ t' 66'~tfit 60' ~6~ 00' L~' tO'~E9t 0~' 09~ ~6' 08' 899 EZ' 688- 9L' ,gLE- og' .900 EE IrE' §06~;~ 09' fizz- 00' ~1.- O0'.L~ L- oL' t9t- 00' 09~- oo' ooo I.- 00' gL,- t9' gE 6z' ,E'91. 6g't~ot 9g' Lt gO', Lt~ t 96' b6 tS' ~g 06' 9~ gA' ~66 90' 00~ gg' L9' ~ t9'~6~ gO'~R9 L~' 69'L~ 6L'/~9L 9~' 00~ t 6fi'LtL ~0' gE' L6g gL' 9~ , t' gOg. 66'~tgt 60'g6~ Or tit L~' ~E' 966E O~'09gt fi6' /~LIO O~ ~MV~7 J, NnGqV £1q-~ E900 g£ ~900 gg 6~00 £g ,riO0 gg ,Z-LtL-Et g~00'gE 0c500 Eg L, 00EE ,Z-ALt-Et SE00 ,~ ,g-Ltt-~t gg ~g-ZLL-gL g. O0 EE ,g-Ltt-Et .900 EE /ZOO EE ~9,00 ,, LtO0 EE 9tO0 EE tirO0 EE .~-Ltt-Et tt0O EE ,z-LtL-EL 9000 EE ,Z-ltL-EL LOOO gE ,Z-Lit-Et 9000 gE ,Z-LtL-EL §00o gE ,~-Ztt-gt ,000 EE ,Z-LtL-EL 9000 .. ,000 ,, gO00 9900 tO00 gE ,E-Ltt-Et uo!~o!$!~u~pi Lqaadoa8 4. 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. CITY OF MOUND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT JULY 1, 1984 - JUNE 30, 1985 SALARIES (weekly parking lot sweeping, patching, repairs, install and take down Christ- mas lights) RAILROAD LEASE (driveway entrance by Koenig Building and large lot across frpm House of Moy ELECTRICITY FOR CHRISTMAS~LIGHTS & BULBS GARBAGE COLLECTION SNOW PLOWING & REMOVAL ENGINEERING COSTS (2 yrs) (design, plans and specifications parking lot repair & seal coating plan) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MAINTENANCE MATERIALS WEED TRIMMING' CHRISTMAS.BULBS. LEGAL NOTICES & POSTAGE PARKING LOT LEASES TOTAL LESS 25% OF SNOW REMOVAL COSTS 1983 PARKING LOT PROGRAM $8,397.74 1984 PARKING LOT PROGRAM $2,464.00 1984/85 CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS $5,145.00 5 YEARS 5 YEARS 3 YEARS $ 3,805.51 6,399.96 62.39 150.00 7,758.75 '529.00 253.58 72.54 160.00 5.89 25.66 , $23,957.68 1 ;929.69 $22,017.99 = $ 1,679.55 = $ 492.80 = $ 1,715.00 $25,905.34 RESOLUTION NO. 85- September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,905.34 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT7 AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% LEV][ ~9908 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as re- quired by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following 'improvement, to wit: "CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FRoM JULY 1,. 1984 TO JUNE 30, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound: Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof'(Exhibit A), is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against.the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable in one annual installment to be payable on the first' Monday of January, 1986. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 1986.' The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged; and he may until. November 15, following the date of this resolution pay to the City Treasurer the whole of the assessment with interest accrued to December 31, of the year following the date of assessment. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun¢ilmember and seconded by Councilmember . September 24, 1985 The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,775.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY $9903 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for tree removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the tree removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS LEVY 13-117-24 43 0044. 18-117-23 3~ 0002 23-117-24 13 0032 Tree Removal Tree Removal Tree Removal 650.00 8 9903 975.00 8 9903 1,150.00 8 9903 Such installments 'shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the a. doption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31', 1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the: City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest to December 31 of September 24, 1985 the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and ~excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $390.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #9904 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for tree removal; and WHEREAS, pursuaht to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for tree removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against-the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the tree removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID 24-117-24 43 0049 IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS LEVY Tree Removal 390.00 5 9904 Such installments .ghall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the fi~'st installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, .1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. September 24, 1985 The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 450.00 !TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY ~9906 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessm'ents for garbage removal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City' Council has.met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for ggrbage removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the garbage removal in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID '" AMOUNT LEVY ~ 13-117,24 14 0023 450.00 9906 The garbage removal assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payable on the first Monday of January in 1986. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the. date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1986. The owner of any property as assessed may, a~ any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following the date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire September~24, 1985 assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. ® The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of ~this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the ne. gative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID WEED & GRASS CUTTING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $123.36 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY 99907 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of the City Code and M. innesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for weed and grass cutting; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for weed and grass cutting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found t.o be benefited by the weed and grass cutting in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID AMOUNT LEVY 13-117-24 14 0019 23-117-24 23 0039 24-117-24 44 0060 25-117-24 21 0118 29.40 9907 16;76 9907 36.10 9907 41 .10 9907 123.36 The weed and grass cutting assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payable on the first Monday of January in 1986. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1986. The owner of any property as assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following September 24, 1985 the date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to b~ extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over i~n the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HARZARD REMOVAL CHARGES ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $~30.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY ~9905 WHEREAS, ~he City Council, pursuant to Section 27.10 of ~the City Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 has the power to levy assessments for removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards fro~-private property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by Law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessments as listed below, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special a-ssessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to. be benefited by the removal or elim~ination of public health or safety hazards from private property in the amount of the assessment levied against it. PID .AMOUNT LEVY 12-117~24 43 0062 430.00 9905 The public health or safety hazard removal or elimination assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, to be payabie on the first Monday of January in 1986. To the installment shall be added interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution until December 31, 1986. The owner of any property as assessed may, at any time within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, and no interest shall be charged; and may until November 15 following the date of this resolution pay the whole of the assessment with interest to December 31 of the year following the date of assessment. After November 15 following September 24, 1985 the date of the assessment, to the annual installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which the annual installment is payable. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 24, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 3,724.94 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNT~ AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% LEVY ~9998 WHEREAS, the followir~g sewer and water service charges are unpaid and past due: IDENTIFICATION' AMOUNT LEVY ~ 13-117-24 12 0118 418.90 13-117-24 14 0019 387.45 9998 9998 19-117-23 31 0059 19-117-23 33 0063 22-117-24 43 0007 23-117-24 31 0031 24-117-24 11 0012 159.50 9998 216.47 9998 1,6-98.60 9998 274.06 9998 96.81 9998 24-117r24 44. 0081 25-117-24 21 0077 25-117-24 21 0098 30-117-23 22 0083 115.25 9998 144.83 9998 94.95 9998 118.12 9998 3,724.94 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 permits unpaid service charges to be certified to the County Auditor for paymen~ with taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the' City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: That the foregoing charges be herewith certified to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection with the 1986 taxes. Charges shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of adoption of the resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Couneilmember . ,. September 24, 1R85 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,374.30 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD.OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% LEVY ~9998 WHEREAS, the followir~g sewer and water service charges .are unpaid and past due: ~ IDENTIFICATION' AMOUNT LEVY ~ 13-117-2'4 12 0096 13-117-24 12 0118 13~117-24 14 0019 13-117'24 43 0131 19-117-23 31 0059 19-117-23 33 0063 22-117-24 43 0007 23-117-24 31 0031 23-117-24 42 0074 24-117-24 11 0012 24-117-24 4~ 0097 24-117.-..24 44. 0081 25-117~24 21 '0077 25-117-24 21 0098 30-117-23 22 0083 163.88 9998 418.90 9998 387.45 9998 191-.69 ..'9998 159.50 9998 216.47 9998 1,6.98.60 9998 274.06 9998 178.29 9998 96.81 9998 115.50 9998 115.25 9998 144.83 9998 94.95 9998 118.12 9998 4,374.30 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 permits unpaid.service charges to be certified to the County Audi.tot for payment with taxes. '" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the:City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: That the foregoing charges be herewith certified to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection with the 1986 taxes. Charges shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of adoption of the resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . September 24, 1985 The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: 'City Clerk September 24, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY ~9900 - $1,751.99 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the foilowing assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments.have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under ~haper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter .described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated a-nd that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: ?ID LEVY NO, IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 13-117-24 11 0020 13-117-24 32 0162 13-117-24 34 0034 13-.117-24 34 0035 13-117-24 34 0036 13-117-24 34 0037 25-117-24 11 0011 9900 Supp. Sewer 3180 1 292.00 9900 Supp. Sewer 3180 1 194.66 9900 Supp. Sewer 3180 1 292.00 9900 Supp. Sewer 31 80 1 292.00 9900 Supp. Sewer 3180 1 292.00 9900 Supp. Sewer 31 80 1 292.00 9900' Supp. Sewer 31 80 1 97.33 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be'added September 24, 1985 interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent' and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk September 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY ~9914 - $6,100.00 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy 'deferred assessments'; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine 'that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount e.qual to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID 19-117-23 24 0054 LEVY NO. IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 9427 Supp. Sewer & Water 9 6,100.00 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no September 24, 1985 interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified dupli'cate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember · The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor At,es't: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY'~9901 - $361.60 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy 'deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount ~qual to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: pID 13-117-'24 aa 0020 19-117-23 32 0119 ~ IMPROVEMENT ~EARS AMOUNT 9901 Supp. Sewer 3388 5 180.80 9901 Supp. Sewer 3388 5 180.80 Such installments shall be payable, as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any prOperty so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment September 24, 1985 on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest .shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The ~lerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY ~9902 - $97.~0 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429., (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the p'ower to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby: Pursuant to its authority under Chaper 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine 'that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount e.qual to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: PID 19-117-23 32 0119 ~ IMPROVEMENT YEARS AMOUNT 9902 Supp. Water 3397 5 97.40 Such installments shall be payable as follows: The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1986 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1986. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment September 24, 1985 on such property, to the City Treasurer, and no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time prior to November 15 of each year, pay to the City Treasurer, the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and 'such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foreging resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: The following Councilmembers were absent and excused: Mayor Attest: City Clerk "STEVE PAULY, 4850 Edgewater Drive · Mound, MN 55364 Marina 472~1220 · Service 472-7307 September 12, 1985 Fran Clark Mound City Clerk Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Blue Lagoon ~rina Dear Fran, As per our phone conversation, I am making a formal request to extend our C.U.P. on the Lynwood Property. Just prior to our last council meeting appearance I was told by Randy Bickman, that he had come to terms with Bierbaum and we.would have to move by October 1st, Thus my request for a September 25th extension. Shortly after that council meeting I was i~formed by Mr. Bickman the proposed sale didn't close and the building was going to go thru' condemnation with the proposed take over by H.R.A. on approximately November 15th. As you know we have purchased the Widmer/Cox property in Spring Park. Fritz Widmer is building a new complex in St. Boni with a proposed move out of the Spring Pa~k building approximately November lOth. We would like to stay at the Lynwood address until November 15, 1985, to enable us time to clean up and paint at Widmers. Also, at the time of this writing, our negotiationm with Paul Sherbet for the 1986 season 'have all but gone aground. We will be .closing the boat rental .n September 22, 1985 for the season. Yours truly, Steve Pa ly, Pres. Blue Lagoon Marina Advertisement For Bids Safety Improvement (Street Widening, Guardrail & Berm) Tuxedo Boulevard MSAP 145-01-05 Mound, Minnesota #~724 Sealed bids will be received, publicly opened and read aloud at lO:O0 AM, Friday, October 4, 1985 at the Mound City Hall for safety improvements on Tuxedo Boulevard. Approximate quantities consist of 102 lineal feet of laminated wood guardrail, 340 CYD common borrow, 37 tons of bituminous surfacing llO lineal feet of bituminous curb, and related work. The bids will be considered by the City Council of the City of Mound at their ~peclal meeting at 7:30 RM, Honday, October 7, 1985. All Proposals shall be addressed to: Fran CLark, City Clerk City of Mound 5421Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and shall be on the form included in the specifications and made a part of the contract documents. Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard, Rlymouth, Minnesota 55441. Rlans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $20.00. The full amount.of the deposit for one set will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner, upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid~ No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City Of Mound reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, Minnesota ATTEST: Fran Clark City Clerk Robert Polston, Mayor Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Sept 15, 1985 William McCombs Mound City Engineer McComb$ - Knutson Assoc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Minneapolis, MN. 55441 Phone..612-296-9875 In reply refer to: S.A.P. 145-101-05 CITY OF MOUND Dear Mr. McCombs: We are sending to you under separate cover a set of reduced sized prints and the original plan for the ab ve referenced project. This plan has been approved and you are now authorized to advance the status of this project. Sincerely, Deivert D. Oftedaht State Aid Plans & Spec. Engr. cc: W. M. Crawford - C.E. Weichselbaum, Dist. 5 File - 420 DDO:me An Equal Oppor~unity Emptoyer 7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 W · MINNETRISTA, MINNESOTA 55364 · 446-1660 September 13,1985 TO: Honorable Mayor & Mound Councilmembers FROM: City of Minnetrista Planning Department MEETING DATE: September 23, 1985 REQUEST: SEWER & WATER EXTENSION LOCATION: County Road' 15 at Dutch Lake specific Request Provision of sanitary sewer and water service for 10 resi- dential units in the City of Minnetrista. ~ Proposal MNS Associates is proposing a 10 lot residential subdivision on County Road 15. The property is bounded on the south by the County road, on the east by the Mound corporate limits and on the north by Dutch Lake. Minimum lot size would be in excess of 20,000 square feet. The Minnetrista City Council has given conceptual approval of the rezoning from the existing 3 acre lot size to the pro- posed 1/2 acre lot size. The action was contingent upon per- mission from the City of Mound for the extension of sanitary sewer service. If it is Mound's pleasure to extend service to the proposed subdivision, the 10 R.E.C.s will be charged against Minne~ tri~ta's sewer capacity allocation. The billing for both water and sanitary services would be from the City of Mound, though Minnetrista would be responsible for maintenance of both service extensions. Presently, Mound sewer and water facilities exist in both the Walnut and Maple Street dead- ends. Elevations exist which would allow for extension of both sewer lines. The Minnetrista Planning Department originally thought it in the public good to continue.either Walnut or Maple Street through the proposed subdivision in Minnetrista. However, upon inspection of the site, it became apparent that without a major engineering project, the elevation relief would prohibit such a project. WDT:bjs McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS September 23, 1985 Fran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 553~4 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBSECT: Minnetrista Request for Sewer and Water Service to Rroposed Rlat - County Road 15 to Dutch Lake MKA File 7699 Dear Fran: As requested, we have reviewed the sparse information available on this project and would recommend that formal action not be taken at this time. It appears that sanitary sewer could be extended from any of four mains at the west corporate limits of Mound. The two most readily available connections are located at the end of Maple Road and Walnut Road, but both of those mains run to the City's lift station at Clover Rark. We would rather see the extension come from the main located in County Road 15 since this line runs directly to a M.W.C.C. main along the Burlington Northern Railroad. The problem is that without topography and proposed street elevations, it is very difficult to determine whether this main is deep enough to serve the proposed development. The fourth possibility for sewer service would be to extend the main in Westedge Boulevard. The watermain should be extended from the main in County Road 15 and possibly looped through the project to the main at the end of Maple Road. We would like more time for ourselves and Rublic Works to study the different possibilities for the watermain extension. We had also originally suggested that either Walnut Road or Naple Road be extended to this proposed plat, but after a site inspection, it does not appear that the Maple Road extension would be at all feasible. There are presently two potential building sites which do not have access because Walnut Road is not improved far enough to the west. Again, topography is the main reason Walnut Road ends at its present location. We wish to hold our recommendation on extending Walnut Road until more information is available, such as topography and proposed elevations for the new street in Minnetrista. US. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Sincerely, McC~4BS-KNUT~N AS~IATES, INC. $C :cah ~/3ohn Cameron cc: Bill Turnblad, City of Ninnetrista DUTCH 5~ .LAKE 101,5 I 1655 ] ICl 1~?.5 10 R OAD 91.5 50 31, C ou~v-r,y 4. ~o,~5 MNS ASSOCIATES ~. n- o 0 o z 0 7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 W · MINNETRISTA, MINNESOTA 55364 · 446-1660 September 13, 1985 TO: Honorable Mayor & Mound Councilmembers FROM: City of Minnetrista Planning Department MEETING DATE: September 24, 1985 REQUEST: sEWER & WATER SERVICE JOINT STREET IMPROVEMENT 'PROJECT LOCATION: County Road 15 and Westedge Road Specific Request 1) The provision of sanitary sewer and water service for 22 residential units in City. of Minnetrista. 2) Joint project with City of Minnetrista tO improve a portion of Westedge Road. ~roposal The firm of Wirtanen, Clark & Larsen, based in Minneapolis and Mesa, Arizona, are proposing a 22 lot residential sub- division for the 18.5 acre parcel bounded by County Road 15 on the north, Westedge Road on the east and Woodedge Road on the south. Minimum lot size would be in excess of 20,000 square feet'S- ~ ~ The Minnetrista City Council has given preliminary plat ap- proval and conceptual approval of a rezoning from the present 3 acre lot size to the requested, i/2 acre lot size. The action was contingent upon permission from the City of Mound to extend sanitary sewer. If it is Mound's pleasure to extend service to the proposed subdivision, the 22 residential sewer connections will be charged against Minnetrista's sewer capacity allocation. The billing for both water and sanitary services would be from the City of Mound, though Minnetrista would be respon-] sible for maintenance of both service extensions. Presently, Mound's sanitary sewer line runs south from County Road 15 Page 2 Memo to City of Mound Re: Joln% ~ewer & Wa%er September 13, 1985 past the entire length of the proposed subdivision. The 10 inch water main does not exist across the entire length, however, and will'necessitate extension. Financial respon- sibility for that extension has not yet been determined. In addition, to. the~sewer~and water improvements, the Minne- trista Planning Department is recommending improvement of that portion of Westedge Road which fronts on the proposed subdivision. Since that public right-of-way has a multi- jurisdictiOnal status, any improvements on the street would need to be a joint venture. If the Mound Council is interested in the improvement project, it may simplify the process if only one contract were let, rather than one from each City. Alternative Courses of Action 1) Deny request by the City of Minnetrista for extension of Mound sanitary sewer and water services. Such action would result in a denial by the Minnetrista Council of the proposed subdivision by Wirtanen, Clark & Larsen; hence, no action is necessary on the request for a joint street improvement project. 2) Approve request by the City of Minnetrista for extension of Mound sanitary sewer and water services 'to the proposed residential subdivision. The 22 R.E.C.s would be charged against Minnetrista's sewer capacity allotment. The City of Minnetrista would be responsible for the maintenance of both the sanitary sewer and water extensions. Billing for services would be by the City of Mound. · .A. SuCh approval would inci~ude a joint street improvement project for Westedge Road from County Road 15 to Woodedge Road. B. Such approval would not include a joint street improvement project for Westedge " Road from County Road 15 to Woodedge Road. Minnetrista Planning Department Request Minnetrista staff suggests alternative #2a. WDT:bjs WIRTANEN, CLARK & LARSEN COUNTY ROAD 15 WOOD EDGE ROAD . · McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS m LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS September 23, 1985 Fran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUB3ECT: Minnetrista Request for Sewer and Water Service to Proposed Plat County Road 15 and Westedge Boulevard MKA File 7699 Dear Fran: As requested, we have reviewed the material received from Minnetrista on the above proposed plat and have the following comments and recommendations. We would concur with the suggestion of the Minnetrista staff to proceeO with Alternative 2A, subject to the addition of the following conditions (l_~) the existing 10" watermain in the Westedge Blvd. be extendeO south to WooOedge Road at the expense of the developers of the Minnetrista project; ~ the final construction plans for the total project be approved by the City of Mound Staff; (3)_the water meters be the responsibility of the City of MounO; (4) before approval is granted on a street improvement project for Westedge Boulevard, additional information such as cost, design, etc., be submitted for review. We have discussed this proposal with Public Works and have not received any negative reaction. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3ohn Cameron OC:cah cc: Bill Turnblad City of Minnetrista prinN d on ~ec¥cied n{~per A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JOSEPH E. HAMILTON, P.A. JAMES D. LARSON, P.A. THOMAS ~-. UNDERWOOD, P.A. I=~OGER J. FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA September 12, 1985 (51=') 3 ~,8- 4200 'FLs. Fran Clark Acting City ~imnager -City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, ~q 55364 Re: Lost Lake T~nd Sale Dear ~an: At the Council meeting on September ].1, 1985, the City Council received two proposals for the acquisition of city lands located south of Shoreline Boulevard and known as the Lost Lake site. The City Council adopted a resolution ordering myself as City Attorney and, I presume, you as City Staff, to proceed as quickly as possible with the court case and also to negotiate with the parties who have made offers and any and all others ~o may have an interest in this property. I tried to indicate to the City Council that I thought negotiations .at this point were a bit premature since we don't know what the court is going to rule or even when we can get before a judge. I hate to spend city f~nds in negotiating a sale which might have to be altered as a result of the court decision. I do believe at this time'we should be assembling data so that we know what we ~Lll have to sell if we are successful before the court and what' we want to retain. I am presuming that certain wetland areas and other lands which are undevel0pable will stay in the city's c~gner- ship. I am therefore of the opinion, Fran, tbmt we oug~t to have John Cameron take a look at this and get a layout as to just ~hat lands can be divided off for development, and. then get a survey of those lands, along with a breakdown on the' sq~mre footage, frontage, etc. I think this is where we should start at this time so that when we eventually meet with Balboa and Sycks groups, we will have the kind of information that we are going to need to protect the adjacent public ownership and the public interest. I also welcome any suggestions from either yourself or John C~neron and am sending a copy of this letter to John with the hope that the two WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Ms. Fran Clark Acting City Manager September 12, 1985 Page Two of you can work on this matter. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP/ej cc: John Cameron, City Engineer Mccombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSO'CIAfES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS September 20, 198~ Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Fran Clark Acting Manage~ City of Hound 5341May~ood Road Hound, HN 55364 SUBOECT: Lots 4, 5 and South 1/2 of Lot 3 Block lC, Woodland Point MKA File #6456 Dear Fran: As requested, we are writing this memo regarding a request by the Owner of the above property to donate subject property to the City of Hound. This property is unbuildable in its present condition for two reasons, (1) fill would be required and (2) a 15" C.H.R. from Eagle Lane discharges into a ditch which runs through'this property. Attached is a sketch showing the approximate location of this ditch. We also prepared a preliminary engineering report in 1982 proposing 3 alternatives for the solution of the drainage 'problems in Block lC. A public hearing was held and the project voted down. The owner of this parcel evidently cannot justify the expense of correcting the drainage problem and filling the lots to make them buildable therefore he has offered to give the property to the City. We see no reason for the City to accept this property, unless they have definite plans for its use, such as a neighborhood park. The property is a mess at this time, since it has been used as a dumping area. If you need additional information or have any questions, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. meron~~~ JC: cah printed on recycled paper THIS STUB MUST ACCOMPANY SEC'OND HALF PAYMENT. Pay on or before October 15, 1985 to avoid penalty. 2ND HALF Please read reverse side for payment information. PAY STUB 1985 TAXPAYER OR AGENT MUNIC MTG CODE WEST SUBURBAN BLDRS INC 85 C / 0 D L M y E R S & C 0 L T D PROPERW ADDRESS 4033 BROOKSIDE AVE S MPLS MN 55416 LOAN NUMBER IPROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO,, '" ' 241171312017600000000000002996624117131201768 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-O066 Office Hours - 8 to 5 - Monday - Friday Phone 348-3011 OWNER OR ASSESSED NAME STATE LAND DEPT 198,5 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT TAXPAYER'S COPY TAXPAYER OR AGENT WEST SUBURBAN BLDRS INC C/O D L MYERS & CO LTD 4033 BROOKSIDE AVE S MPLS MN 55416 1. AMOUNT OF TAX QUALIFYING FOR FORM M-1PR 2, CREDITS WHICH REDUCE YOUR TAX: STATE SCHOOL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT STATE PAID HOMESTEAD CREDIT TOTAL CREDITS (TO LINE 9) DELINQUENT TAX If this box is checked, you owe de- linquent taxes and may not apply for the Property Tax Refund until those taxes are paid, or you enter into a con- fession of judgment to pay those taxes. VALUE INFORMATION: Market value of new improvements Total market value of parcel Total assessed value of parcel 8,200 3,280 ADDITION WOODLAND POINT LOT BLOCK 01 O ACRES LOTS 4 5 AND S I/2 OF LOT 3 PROPERTY ADDRESS MTG CODE LOAN NO. This property description may not be a full legal description, use only for tax purposes. ITEMIZED STATEMENT: 3. STATE* 0 · O0 4. COUNTY 95.97 5. C~TY 56.52 6. SCHOOL DISTRICT 168.06 7. OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS 1 7 · 2 0 8. TAX BEFORE CREDITS 3 3 7.75 9, LESS CREDITS WHICH REDUCE YOUR TAX lO. TAX AFTER CREDITS 3 3 7.75 11. ADD SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PRINCIPAL 1 7 7 · 9 9 INTEREST 83.5 8 One half. Of thi~tax second'half is'dUe on oct°b6r 15 (:l'a~ 6~,'$10'6r'le~:~t"b~: paid I~y Ma~,';15-1;~i~5'.) . State law requires that you be advised that: * THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REDUCES YOUR PROPERTY TAX BY PAYING CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. PLEASE READ BACK OF FORM FOR PENALTY AND PAYMENT INFORMATI£ TO McCOMBS.KNUTSON ASSOCIATES INC. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. PLYMOUTH, MN 55441' (612) 559-3700 ATTENTION WE /~RE SENDING YOU ~ Attached [] Under separate cover via f [] Shop drawings I-I Prints '[] Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] ,the following items: [] Samples [] Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections' 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Returns__ copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] For approval For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ·LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Pa~k Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 &oril ~0, 1R82 Mr. 0on Elam City Manager City Of Mound 5~41Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Drainage Problems Block 10, Woodland Point Between Eagle Lane & Dove Lane File #6456 Dear 3on: As requested, we have reviewed the drainage problems in Block 10, Woodland Point, between Eagle and Dove, with emphasis on Lots 4 and 5.' As shown on the ttached drawing, a culvert under Eagle Lane empties into a small ditch which anders tnrough a number, of lots before it reaches a culvert under Dove Lane. When Eagle Lane was improved in 1975, the minimum storm sewers were constructed to savecosts, since only a few scattered streets were included in the project and it was not possible to provide areawide storm sewers. For this reason, the culvert under Eagle Lane at the lot line between Lots 3 and 4 remained in place, with openings left in the hew curb to direct the water through this culvert. The small ditch which flows through Block lO is evidently a waterway that has existed for manyyears. The paving and curb and gutter on Eagle added very little additional water to this natural drainage way. We hav~ looked at three different alternatives for rerouting the water to make Lots 4 and 5 buildable. Alternate No. i would consist of extending the culvert under Eagle to the rear lot line of Lot 4 and redoing the ditch from that point to the south until it intersects the existing ditch. A new catch basin would also have to be built in the gutter line at the west end of the existing culvert in Eagle. Alternate No. 2 would carry Alternate No. i a step further. The storm sewer pipe would be extended along the rear lot lines to approximately the line between 17 and 18 and then angle southwest and connect to the existing culvert under Dove Lane. A catch basin would have to be built at this location also. This would make not only Lots 4 and 5 buildable, but also the remaining lots in tlock l0 usable with fill aoded in the low area. There are a number of large tees that would have to be removed in order to construct either Alternates No. i or No. 2, the cost of which is not included in the attached estimate. Easements would also have to be obtained for both of these alternatives. Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Eagan printed on recycled paper Hr. 3on Elam April 30, 1982 Page Two Alternate No. 3 involves constructing a storm sewer in the street south to Oennings Road and connecting to the eXisting storm sewer at that point. This method would be costly because of the restoration of the street. SUGARY · Even though Alternate N~. 1 is by far the least expensive, we do not feel it would be the most economical in the long run. In order to make the remaining vacant lots buildable, the storm sewer would have to be extended to Dove Lane as suggested in Alternate No. 2. This would require additional expense and more easements. We do not feel'that the City of Hound should bear the full cost of improving the drainage through this area since this has always been a natural drainage way and the property owners will receive substantial financial benefits by oOtaining some buildable lots. Traditionally, this type of work is done by the property owners themselves. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, i~COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OC:lr Enclosure John Cameron COST ESTIMATES STORM SEWER - BLOCK 10, WOODLAND POINT ALTERNATE NO. i qUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST Catc~ Basin 1 Each Curb Repair 15" R.C.R. 70 L.F. 15" 90°'Bend .1 Each 15" Reinforced Concrete Apron i Each Ditching * TOTAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. i $800.O0/EA LUMP SUN 20. O0/LF 200.O0/EA 250.O0/EA LUMP SUN $ 800.00 300.00 1,400.00 200.00 250.00 ... 250.00 $ 3,200.00 ALTERNATE NO. 2 Catch Basin 2Each $800.O0/EA $ 1,600.00 OManhole 2 Each 900. O0/EA 1,800.00 Curd Repair LUNR SUN 300.00 15" R.C.R. 280 L.F. 20.O0/LF 5,600.00 Restoration .._ LUMP SUN 400.00 * TOTAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 2 $ 9,700.00 ALTERNATE NO. 3 Catch Basin Manhole 15" R.C.P.. Curb RepaCr Street Restoration 8it. 1 Each 2 Each 390 L.F. 125 TON TOTAL ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 3 $~O0.O0/EA 900. O0/EA 20.O0/LF LUMP SUM 30.O0/TN $ 800.00 1,800.00' 7,800.00 300.00 3,750.00 $14,450.00 * Tree Removal Not Included 4UU feet .. 24 6 ? . 24 '1 lo ,,-2i ,812 17 'o ""7 6 BILLS ....... SEPTEMBER 24,.1985 Batch 854091 on computer run dated 9/18/85 Batch 854092 on computer run dated 9/19/85 Bills listed below 91,466.76 42,270.12 6,087.57. Total Bills 139,824.45 Ray Allen Mfg Harness, Sleeve. for dog Armenian Cultural Org deposit refund Contel Stephen Grand McCombs 'Knutson PDQ Food Stores Greg Skinner Mtonka Sportsman Sept telephone School expenses August engineering exp August gasoline Adva nc'e-AWWA Conf Memb-G ra nd 82.10 50.00 1,148.28 12.68' 3,069.00 1,365.51 335.00 25.00 ~i.~0 --'3 CJ 0 C,~ :D L) ~ 0 ,')/ ,,T U .2= M I'q I'"1 P1 ~ I'q M M M 0 0 ~ ~-4 O'7 M --4 M I- Z N I bJ I c~ I ~J ~.j ! I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I .I U 0 0 0 INJ UN f~. q-- (NJ f~ ~N ~0 0 U N I ,4' I I ! 0 W o (J I- U w ~J W .? 0 ',,4' ,4' 0 0 N h-- I i i I I ! , I . I I , I , · 4' ,,4' ~ ,~ ,4' ,.~ ,4' I I . I I i I I I " I I I I L,J I~1 I-- I.-- I.- F"- )..- (/) (/') (/} {/'} (~j ::) ::) :3 ::3 Z Z Z Z ~ iL Ii. ~.. ti. W W Z Z I I I W W 0 Ld m,I Z 0 0 0 C:) o 0 CO · I ~ G~ 0 W (:3 NNNN~NNNN Z 0 ~, 0 t~ n ~3 ),,, t~ N ! ti. Z I N NN N --z. -3~ Cc-. 1.4 '0 -.I IIIIII I I I I I ~NN~ IIIIII NN N~ I i I I OO I I O Z (:3 rt- hi Id 0 Z 0 ! I ¥ v Iillllll U 0 L~ I,- 0 e~ ! IA, U U ,,J Z ~INN t NNNNNNNN 33;= r~l'~ N C C:) I-- ! N John Frane~ finance director for Eden Prairie, said the act is "getting in and messing up an agreed-upon contract."' "This kind' of .act doesn't necessarily help us manage our. resources better,,'-said Sharon Klumpp,- assistant to the city: -- manager for St. Louis P~irk," · "It's added a burden," She said,.. because of problems in schedul' ing. and because of "disrupted- personal:, lives'~'.~[ o~ ·city SnoWplow 'drivers in st.. Louis Park were allowed t° ac' cumulate th_eir.:'overtim~:, in:' comp. time: .During the s .umme.r when the workload was lighter~'. they would take paid time off .for., fishing- trips,'. City Manager -James Brimeyer told the St.. , Louis Park City Council. Under the act~ the drivers must be paid time-and-a-half for. their over: '." "From the perspective Of Citj/ employees, elimination;'ef the · . .optign_..tg_~_e.qPm~n?,_a. tory time · .. is seen as a..major loss, par- ticularly since paid time off is .perceived as a desirable benefit,", states a position paper gent by the City of St. Louis Park to a_i, congressional, delegation, Department qf Labor. secretary, and Vice President ..George . aty e ipioY re ot the on-. ly ones .to. ]ose~ 'raxpa~,ers··.~l] 'lose because thore will be im creased costs' without increased ' service, according to IOumpP. St. Louis Park's position paper states, "The city must now ad- dress an unanticipated increase in overtime COSTS. Our revised. 1985 budget estimates that Over; time expenses will be 33 percent higher tha~ the expenditure ]eve] approved...prior to the U.S. ' Supreme Court ruling. In 1986, it is estimated that overtime costs will exceed the 1985 adopted · penditure level by more than 60 percent." Iaumpp 'aid'it win st. Louis Park $90,000 mOr~ to fun/t the same amount of service. Johnson estimated an additional $20,000 cost to Minnetonka. ""It will. ha~ a very, very big "impact,' said Frank Bryles, assistant to the city manager in Plymouth. '!'Historically. we've . budgeted $5,000 to $10,00~ [or overtime. This. year. We've budgeted $40,000." : .E~fect on '~:~ ........ :-:' police dep~i:tments . · "Undoubtedl~,~:- public safely employees, are the. most · fected," said Bryles. "Them us- ed' to be eomp time· They would.. ~get theirovertime hours and ex-. change 'it 'with time off. That. .: would aI16w theTM to.go'for per- :~ sonal business~ to the doctor, Vden/ist, etq.." .That wOuid `ave -vacation time for Vacations, he ~: .,Public: safety employees lik-' · ed comp time. They did not feel : abused," he commented: ..... -. In' Minnetonka, "police are "paid the same amount no matter - how many hours they work," ex- ,. pla:ned Johnson. "They end up ow-ing..the city' time &t the end of -- the. year~ We have them (makl ~p) work at holiday time when' · it's the busiest:" Under the ~ officers will b6-ga_~_id: overtime' <'during those holidaYS.;' :~':' (Police~ administration' in Louis. Park will have .to v?rk with tWo work schedules. zCivilian' d)spatchers musf now !~ wbrk .a seven-day week, though'. . offiCem are' working a nine-day rotating schedule, i' '..~; .... '~ . ' EileCt' On timfighiers ' ~ ;iV.o. ltm~r f'n'efig~ters will'not. . escape the act. When:volunteer fn-efighters employed by' Eden :Prairie Complete '40 'hours of !,. Wo.rk during the .Week at their '. regular position and then fight a fire on the weekend, Eden ,(Prairie may be required to' pay ov'artime, according to Frane. -He said some-cities are tak~.ng- -. steps to prevent city employees ' from' ~being'-. volunteer Plymouth is such a city. Ws .initial reaction is to not let firefighters be city empl°Yees, according to Bry]es. The reason is two-fold, he explained. One is the added cost of overtime: The ~other is the .issue of morale: If 'one firefighter i~ getting paid his. regular wage. and the person next to him is making time and a half to fight .the same fire. it "could. cause problems, he~`aid. ;..' Plymouth has also issued a memo to city employees stating, :. "yOU may not come in early or · stay late," said Bryles, "We bad a lot o~ employees who &c~ Now they may not be at their station more than seven minutes be/ore · or eight minutes after, unless :- : authorized~ It makeS' you - parano~id from an. employer!s · standpoint. That'S not.the work ethic I learnc:q....: ... ~ ::.-: , C ties contact ; WashingtOn Li:%i, . ;C; :L,: Louis -Park ~s not the 0nly ·eity. to :eonta'et;. officials '-in" , Washingtor~-D.C. to change the. F'aig Labor;..Standards Act.'. · Bruyles' end .Plymouth City ;~Manager have been :!in close' '-contact with Ronald:Alvarado, ~pecial assist~int to the president ' for governmenh'il affairs (Rep.) Bill FrenZel," Bryles said. The.Plymouth City Council '.Ires also suppOrted_a resolution i 'sent to Congress-supporting a "change in the.'aet-' Y-:' ; .. -. ! ::director': for Wayzata,. ~aid his' community... Will ' 'trY to '.resehedule time to minimize ; 'overtime costs.,....But never.-.'_ 'theleSS,. the act "takes a~,ay .'. some of the flexibility,,'-he said..' .' 'The Wayzata. City Council "sent :;'bUt a letter asking to support the "~Urrent::bill .to exempt citY: :'.government (from the Fair 'Labor Standards ACt),'' he said. Johnson `aid Minnetonka's Ct-. ty Council has adopted a. resoluz.' tion which: it sent to_ its senators ' and .representatiVes .:in .Washington., '?. -?...~' : :. ! ,.-Their-goal ::is to exempt city: . employc~ from the Fair Labor- Standards Act; which.would keep the federal government .'. from "messing" with how local ggvernments, manage their :i employees: It will ·free up ' Scheduling flexibility, return :compensatory time and ~ eliminate the extra costs, for - overtime. ' i:'~. - If the' Fair ·Labor standards ':Act .remains-in effect, it will. carry stiff penalties for violators. ' An employee may receive up to two years back pay --and the city may be fined up to $10,000.. convicted of a second violation, a city employer may' be sentenced~p to six months in prison. Said Bruylep., "It's got some teeth to it." league of minnesota oities September 19, 1985 To: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks From: Joel Jamnik~ Legislative Counsel Re: Possible Congressional Action on Fair Labor Standards Legislation Immediate action is requested regarding lobbying our Congressional Delegation regarding passage of interim legislation that will provide cities relief from enforcement actions of the Department of Labor, which are scheduled to begin October 1. The interim measure is an amendment which will be offered by Representative John Porteer the week of september 23 to the Appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 1986. The amendment, if adopted, would prohibit the Department of Labor from bringing enforcement actions against cities prior to March 31, 1986 and would also prevent the Department from inposing retroactive liability for. failure to comply with the FLSA prior to March 31, 1986. Unless immediate action is taken to pass this amendment, the Department of Labor will be required under law to take action on the more than 600 complaints against states and localities now pending at the Department of Labor. There has been an excellent response to the League's earlier Action Alert requesting passage of resolutions supporting S. 1570, which would provide permanent relief to cities. Passage of this interim measure in the House will go a long way in promoting final passage on S. 1570, in fact this initial vote is viewed by many as being a test vote on S. 1570. According to NLC, the major problems facing passage of legislation in the House are: (1) the Education and Labor committee is dominated by members who tend to be pro-union; (2) the perception on the part of key House members that cities have failed to properly document the cost impact of the Garoia decision; (3) a view that, in certain cases, city employees are "abused" or "exploited", and; (4) an unwillingness to recognize the adverse impact of the FLSA on the collective bargaining process. Again, the interim measure will'be acted on the week of September 23-27. Immediate action is required. City officials should CALL their Representatives and urge support of the Porteer amendment to the Dsp_avtment of Labor Appropriations Bill. ',wo wt,,v~l'a~y ov~l~Ue ~U, SC. paUl, m,nnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600 Washington phone numbers of Minnesota~ Congressmen are~ Tim Penny Vin Weber Bill Frenzel Bruce Vento Martin Sabo Gerry Sikorski Arian Stangeland James Oberstar First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Sixth District Seventh District Eighth District 202-225-2472 202-225-2331 202-225-2871 202-225-6631 202-225-4755 202-225-2271 202-225-2165 202-225-6211 league of minnesota oities September 19, 1985 To: From: Re: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel Possible Congressional Action to Regulate Storm Water Discharges Recent d~velopments regarding the wastewater treatment construction grant program and the charging of fees for pollution permits have been subjects of prior Action Alerts. I would like to thank you for your concern and prompt responses to these past action alerts. I also sincerely wish I did not have to send the following action alert to you, but once again we are faced with a proposal that could severely impact Minnesota's cities. As bizarre as it may sound, the following' is actually under consideration. The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a permit and control pollution levels entering the waters of the United States from every manmade discharge point. So far, the EPA has concentrated on the the big pollution problems, which include municipal sewage systems and waste water generated by industrial processes. Now, in response to a federal court ruling, EPA has said it will require storm water collection systems to obtain a permit similar to those issued to waste treatment facilities and major industrial plants, even though by EPA's own estimate the overwhelming majority of storm systems are relatively a minor pollution concern and deserve low priority attention. Given the limited resources available for water pollution cleanup and the enormous number of separate storm water permits required, doggedly pursuing a policy of requiring permit applications and issuing cleanup requirements for storm water discharges threatens to make a mockery of the Clean Water Act itself. 183universiCyavenueeasC, sC. paul, minnesoCa 55101 (61 2) 227-5600 EPA estimates that there are more than one million separate storm water discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas. EPA has given municipal agencies two years to complete a complex and expensive permit application for each discharse point which includes detailed · sampling and laboratory test procedures. The cost of merely completing the applications easily could exceed $8.5 billion; or $1 billion more than the Federal Government plans to contribute to water pollution treatment facilities construction over the next three years. The enormity of the problem for cities across the nation strains credibility. Kansas City, Missouri's, waste treatment system requires just 12 permits, and annual monitoring costs $160,000. The city estimates it will need to apply for 20~000 storm water permits, at a cost of more than $90 millionl The cost impact will vary for each of Minnesota's cities, depending on how many identifiable storm sewer discharge points there are in the community. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would issue the permits. There is the possibility of issuing one or several permits to cover all the cities in the state, as well as modifying, the proposal to mitigate the consequences of requiring permits but no League staff member is confident that the EPA regulations can be written to ensure that Minnesota's cities will not be faced with another expensive federal regulatory system. Cities should also know that the issuance of regulatory permits is the first step to requiring "best management practices" or treatment of storm water discharges to eliminate any possible pollution. ~Cities contemplating separation of their storm and sanitary sewer systems may want to ask their Congressmen whether the systems should be separated or whether the city should seek federal funds to increase their treatment facility so that all storm water can be treated. I know it is difficult to take such an absurd proposal seriously. Many potentially affected parties whom I have talked to have thought the proposal totally insane and were amused to think, that Congress might actually do something so damaging to the goals of the Clean Water Act. I am afraid, however, that unless city officials speak up, and loudly, that there is a very real possibility that Congress will allow the permitting to begin. It seems clear to League staff that the best solution to this problem is to admit that the proposal to permit, regulate, monitor and/or treat storm sewer discharges is not feasible at this time. The costs and difficulties of applying the permit process to intermittent storm water discharges are only now coming into focus. Congress must be requested to act to ensure that the letter of the Clean Water Act does not overwhelm the spirit of the law -- to clean up the waters of the United States effectively, efficiently and in a manner which addresses the highest priority pollution control needs first. What City Officials Should Do Congress is currently completing work on a revision of the Clean Water Act. House and Senate members are meeting in Conference Committee to put the finishing touches on a bill. Minnesota is lucky to have three members of our Congressional delegation on the Conference Committee: Senator Dave Durenberger, Representative James Oberstar, and Representative Arlan Stangeland. Call or write Senator Durenberger and Representatives Oberstar and Stangeland and ask them to suspend the permit requirements for separate municipal storm sewers pending a better understanding of the task, the need and the best approaches to controlling the storm water discharges that need to be controlled. It makes little sense to start taking money out of the.pockets of city residents if we don't know the extent of the problem or its solution. City officials should also ask that our Conferees continue to push hard for Minnesota"s fair' share of waste water treatment construction grant funds. There is a proposal to change the allocation formula which would result in Minnesota losing millions of dollars in grant funds to other states. Addresses and phone numbers of our Conferees are: Senator D~ve Durenberger 353 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-3244 Representative Arlan Stangeland 1519 Longworth Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-2165 Representative James Oberstar 2351Rayburn Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 °~ 202-225-6211 FAIR LABCR STAf:DARD$ ACT tmpact an Salt Lake City Corporatlon POLI CE F IRE 1984-85 General Fund & Enterprise Fun~ Buagets $ 19,39~,346 1~,725,614 Increase $ 152,811 .68 1,196,S82 8.13 · DEVELOPt;IENT SERVICES..~', .... '1,994,159 52,565 2.64 AIRPORT .~r._.,...-:;:/. '.......~1,676,800 PUBL I C UT I L ! T I ES - ~8,065,819 PUBLIC W6RKS - -' !4,468,195 108,075 1.36 271,439 .65 115,968 .30 159,554 .96 TOTAL Oepts. $141,439,110 $2,066,92~ 1.46% TOTAL CITY '- . $152,624.,496 $2,066,924 1.35~ The rate for school crossing guards, most of whom are retirees, is purposely set 1ow--$285 per month for about 100 hours of work--so that Social Security payments received by these employees will"not be affected by this additional income. TEe current rate averages $2.85 per hour; FLSA requires at least the mini- mum wage of $3.35 per hour. ..! The additional annual cost to' the city would be $39,000. · .: Fire Department The city would spend about $962,000 more for the fire department because of Almost $700,000 of that would go to 224 active-duty firefighters. Firefigh_t_e_rs.. CUrrently Work 56 hours per work week. Under FLSA three of those hours would have to be compensated at time and one-' half instead of giving comp time. In.th.e communications division, wher~ dispatchers work 12-hour shifts, the ad- ditional cost for Overtime would be $4,600 annully. ". F~refighters working extra shifts to fill in for ill or vacationing employees would be paid an additonal $222,300 annually. Other comp time that would have to paid at time and one-half would cost the dW almost $41,000..' :' --""... - Parks & ~,~cr~ation Department The db/ would pay almost $89,000 more to parks and recreation employees, and "would incGr substantial costs for unemployment insurance" under FLSA: - Most of the 17 workers at the golf course would be layed off in the winter instead of using compensatory time they have accrued because of working long hours in the summer. Maintenance, recreation, cemetery and office workers would also get paid over- time instead of getting time off in the winter. Many o~ them would be layed off in the winter and would collect unem- ployment benefits, an additional cost to the dty. . Airport Authority" The db/would pay $206,000 more per year for airport security. Currently off- duty police officers contract with the dty at $1 !.75 per hour to provide this service. Under FLSA, the city would have to pay time and one-half for it. Airport maintenance workers accrue an average of 16 hours of comp time per year per employee. The cost to pay time and one-half for that would be $10,500 annually. During the construction season, em- ployees in the engineering division may accrue up to 200 hours of comp time, to be taken in winter. Under FLSA time ahd one-half would have to be paid and some employees would have to be layed off in "the' winte/;." Un'emploYment insurance costs would rise as a result, and the dry wou. ld pay $24,000 in overtime. ~ The' airport authority· ~eimburses the · 'ci.ty~for,the, cost of its crash fir~ rescue: '~unit, a fully .staffEd .i'~firp0rt:. f t re stati0n'~- The cost to the authority would go.up because c~f having to 'pay Overtime in-. stead 0f giVing comp time;?i. ..i: ::i .:~i~ Department of Public Utilities This department already pays employ-. ees for most of their overtime worked, so,- the fiscal impact .for this department' would be less perCentagewise ·than for ' others--S95,551 annually. -- In both the sewer and water divisions, employees work 48 hours every other week and 36 hours every other week. During the week employees worked 48 hours, the city would have to pay them overtime for eight hours. Three employees in water production work extra hours in the summer and take comp time in the winter. They would instead be Paid Overtime for extra sum- mer hours and would be layed off in the' winter. Public Works Department This department would spend an addid tional $115,000 annually' under FLSA. Public Works emplouyees work extra hours in winter to'remove snow and in summer when repairing streets. Presently this department "uses comp time.as a'~,i~'~o keep the high Overtime costs as low as possible," the report stated. Streets and sanitation workers would receive $80,900 more for about 8,200 overtime hours. The employees of the transportation engineering division would be paid for an additional 2,000 hours in overtime at a cost of about $20,000. In the Engineering division,. 2,500 overtime hours will cost $14,000. Administrative Services Department FLSA will cost this department more than $40,000 annually. The fadlity services division generally pays overtime already, unless the em- ployee requests comp time. FL~A re. moves that option for employees and would cost that divison $5,700 per year. Employees in the city recorder's office get comp time when they attend dty coundl meetings and other afterwork events. The .additional cost for overtime will be $1,700. The data processing division "gives a significant number of comp time hours to employees," which now will cost the dty about $20,000 annually. Employees in animal control would receive about $1,600 in overtime. Employees in fleet management can take comp time instead of receiving over- time pay, if they request it. They would loose that option, and paying the addi- tional overtime will cost the city $10,000. Developmental Services Employees in this department receive comp time for attending night meetings with dtizens and the council to discuss planning, zoning, building inspection and other property development issues. The cost to the dry for overtime would be $43,300, a "significant impact" for the department of only 60 employees, the report noted.El Senators hear costly FLSA creates by Cynthia Pols Mayor Frands X. FlahertY'0f warWick,. R.I., testified on behalf of NLC before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee fast Week and highlighted the problems .Which the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is creating fordries with col- lective bargaining agreements. .Mayor Flaherty was i0ined at.the ~vit- ness. table by Daniel Silva and Thoma Nye, president and .vice-president spectively of Warwick's i po!ice, union. who expressed the union's opposition to the FLSA's interferen, ce with the employ-: ees' right to ne, gofiate through the collec- tive bargaining process. Silva, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Local No. 7, stated, "If the Garcia case remains intact, it will only destroy years of hard work put into nego- tiations. . · "... a Supreme Court. derision has taken away from unions as well as munidpalities the right to negotiate fairly betwee~ themselves," Silva added. Also testifying before the committee was William Brock, the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL), who an- nounced Reagan Administration support for 5.1570, a bill sponsored by Sens. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), chairman of the labor subco, mmi~ge, and Pete Wilson(R-.Calif..). that 'would exempt states and localities" ~rom the overtime provisions of the FLSA and exclude individuals who provide ser- vice for state and locaI government on a volunteer basis from the FLSA. Brock announced the Administration's support for 5.1570 (which now has 32 -,. cosr~onsors), stating that the "Adminis- tratiofl has endorsed $.1570 because it is a good approach to 'resolving the con- cerns" of state and local government. 'Mayor Flaherty stated that the FLSA will cost Warwick, a city of about 87,000, at least $600,000 a year. The primary impact of the FLSA in Warwick is on the Warwick, R.t. Mayor Francis Flaherty "The ultimate losers Will be the taxpayers.,' Labor Sec. Bill Brock "Administration supports ... S.1570." .. operation .o~the police any ~.'. ~ep.a:~t.:.:.:-...? changes m. comI?uter programs'and caus,.d.. '-~-~,~'i'-'.[' men=' where.:~cgsts :..will" in'cre'.age-'-:' .by~i':~ '. lng :'.a~.wide i'ange of. a~mirdb~r.ative prob~::.i'~.~:.:--'..:.!.!i- $330,000.-,Th6 city also may:be forced'm.,':.--;';-:., lems.~:,~.~:: ~.,~,b.~ ;;75 t~ !~-.,~.~-~, :':::'.~ ;.,~ ,;,,~-:.,.~-..;: :_ '. '-!.;, · disband_the! poll66' 'reservb:',fofi/e~which:':;?-.7~.:~:.:.'t. Ma or. Flahe ' tesfified;.,':It is' impor;.'~ '-'-.:.---:.'"'-;' - ......................... ...... y . rty .......... ..... :. provide~-_es_~t, ed !2,000 'h°~.,:;of.';'.' .. ~ tan..t to-'no{e .that:'coml~nsatiori arfan~;e';',kr:; ' ..~ "V01untee~;'~, .eFsra~c,e$'~ tg-,' ~e,-.' .co. mmum.ty..?.' .':- men~ (~g;J,0,~ge ..~v?,~ty. ~,n. ~ ~ ..nc..eo.ti,e.e,~e= . such as helping to'search for lost chfl.' d~n:!;~l?' bonfires);:' ctrrlp..t~ne, plans,:, and ~ work~}..-~'.:. · and directing traffic at church~ ~.',d'cbh~k'y';z ": ~C. hedUles.~.e generally matters fo/' nego-~<.;:'.: ':.~ '.. '~{ : munity eventsl..~:~,~,f 7.;.-..::~- ~'-Q~")~;-i;: '~,~.~.1;;.~...--~: :.3.." tiation .bet~een"the -employer.and "t.h~t . - Additiohally;;." the::; effect'::~)~ "th~',.iFi~:!` '~ b~gaii(ing unit Whic~ represents the erfi-~ regul~ifi0h~;~hich'.. define' ma~r'i' ~pe~al.:=. ":" pl0yees:'.-' ::t.:~t c ::.::-:: >: ~. ::?~:'.~:.'.;.;~'~. :':':~"-'-'.'"~/ · detail arrangements as j0irit empIOyment..~ ::: .... ;.Mayor. Flaherty Called' for immediate;';::?-' relationships will be to curta~ ~e ability>' :-. '. Cohgresslo'nal, approv~il- of S.1570;;'He;~ '. :'!.'~':.~ · assignments with ~econd employe.~'dur;,(;..' "'cOuld ~ontinue to rie§6tiate ove;r-, work' ( .i';"-"". :";-~ '. mg to special detail work Rave tradit~on-.~..C.:.' :',?He. concluded by;stating th'at the 'f. fail~":?,:: '..'.-:~: · lng agree~'~enb: pr~:)vide off: ernplo-yee~=~ .'.' '~' e-'rn~)io~nent gra~cices 'ar~, terr~na~ed= · with the bption o[ taking,'comPt~t0ry z "'. :'~:'significantly altered, and.suggesting tha~ -~ time off'.m Heu of overtime pay,:Under~...... ,the'ultimate losers will be the taxpay~:='- the FLSA/this practice must be..·tern~.~'~.-;~i::i: e~s.= if.legtslation ts. not enacted,E3 -. . by both the:dty and its, employees, and.is i~'. " ' for citie~ ~to USe longevity, pr°ductivity;. ". ' educational, and incentivb bonus~S~/h':i i' Warwick, nondiscretionary' bonuses ~of~," this nature are required~ by the ctllective :' bargaining' agreement- and: have' worked out over the years,in a"~nner'~: . satisfactory, t6 both the city~'.arid 9~'~.m_'.-.::! duded in the hou'fly regu~lar i-~'t'e~. '-"the' base on Which bvert~me, pay ~ ~loal~e~l;~;ii In certain circumstances, the pa '.yment .oC ;: the res~ular rate will have"to"l:~ 'ret~r6ai:~'<...._ tivel¥ r~calculated, Moreover,':' the '~'xis~.:~..-.' nondiscrefionarybonu~es means that the ~... ',: Local police union president Dan Silva computation of the regular rate will h'ak,~L :' "destroy(s)..· work put into negotiations." to be made on an individualized basis:for':.'- - each 'employee;: :nece'ssitating: majtk.7. '.,: l$ill-woUld deny funds to DOL to enforce IFL,.%A , · Rep..'John E. Porter (R-IILi'haS an: nounced plans i0'bfferah'amendmefii tO an appropriations bill that would pro- hibit the Department 'of Labor. (DOL) from enfordng the Fai~ Labor Standards Act (FLSA) againsf stat~ and lOCalities until March 31, 1986. ' .... '-i :. :. - ~. ' __£...T._he_ ..pr. ppoSa_l ..,-woul~_,diig6} DOL from taking action to impose retro- active liability under the FLSA on dties · for the period prior to March 31, 1986; While the legislation would not preclude employees from filing lawsuits against dries, it Would preclude DOL from taking action on behalf of employees to recover back'~ay '~ind d~ge~"~g~-~-l~' n~)~--~;-~- · ment of overtime compensation during the period between the Feb. '19~ .1985 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority derision and March 31, 1986. Immediate Congressional action on the Porter amendment is essential be- cause DOL is scheduled to begin enforce- ment activities against dries on Oct. 15, 1985 and plans to impose liability on .... dries retroactively to Apffl__l.5,__li)85._ _ DOL is the primary' enforcer' of the FLSA and, consequently, the Porter amendment would go a long way to- wards providing titles with interim relief .from liability under the FLSA. The amendment is limited in scope to DOL enforcement actions because, under the House rules, it is not possible to include substantive legislation in an appropria- t'ions bill. · NLC ExeCUtive Director Alan Beals said, "dty offidais should contact mem- bers of the House Appropriations Com- mittee to urge their support for the Porter amendment. " ' ' "While the 'Pi)rtei amendment does not address all the problems ~adn'g dries under the FLSA, ir'will pr0Cide badly needed interim' relief and provide Con- gress with additional time to enact com- prehensive legislation," Beals continued. "If this interim measure is not enacted; dries are unlikely to obtain Congres- sional relief from the Garcia derision," Beals concluded. - The 'Porter amendrn~nt is. expected to be offered in the House APpropriations Committee as an amendment to the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1986 for the Departments of Labor} Health and Humiin Services, and Education. early next week. Under the amendment, DOL vCc~fi~;be Proh{bi}~l from rising.federal fun'ds to enforc~'fhe'Ga'rda dedsi6h'until March 31, 1986. In announdng the proposal in a Sept. 11 letter to all members of the Appropria- tions Committee, Rep. Porter described the purpose of the proposed amendment as "to provide additional time for au- thorizing committees" to deal with the Garcia derision. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources has completed hear- ines and is exVected to take action on oula ex.-: empt cities form the overtime provisions of the FLSA (S.1570) shortly. The House Education and Labor Com- mittee has yet to take action of any sort on the matter although immediately after the Porter proposal was announced, Rep. Austin Murphy (D-Pa.), chairman of the labor standards subcommittee of the House Education and Labor C6mmittee, decided to schedule hearings on Garcia for Sept. 24 , .. . The House ApproPriations Committee is chaired by. REP., Jamie .Whitten (Dr Mis~.)i'Other key members.°f the com- mittee'in'clude Rei~. William Natcher (D- Ky.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and educa- tion and Rep. Silvio Conte (R-Mass.), ranking Republican on both the commit- tee and the subcommittee. The Senate Appropriations Committtee is expected to take up the House measure almost immediately after the House completes action (prompt Senate action is expected because fiscal year 1986 begins on Oct. 1, 1985). Key members of the Senate Appropriations committee include Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.), chairman of the full committee; Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), chair- man of the subcommitttee on labor, health and human s~rvices and educar tion; Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.), rank- ing Democrat on the full committee; and Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. "- Just as a traditional incubator provides a warm, nuturing environment to protect the delicate life of a newborn child, the business incubator creates a unique envi- ronment to nurture small, fragile, start- up businesses, to aid them in becoming established, viable companies. Features Business incubators Vary greatly in size, location, and in how they were indi- vidually developed. They may be associ- ated with a university, ci.ty, county~ dustry, or set up by'a for-profit corporation. Incubators often are created in old factory buildings, Warehouses, closed schools, or storefronts renovated with industrial revenue bonds, federal funds, lOcal appropriations;' or privates.. money. Some seek new manufacturing enterprises, while others .prefer to aid fledgling high-tech firms or service__com- panies. The incubators generally have several factors in common: a unique environ- ment which offers below-market rent rates, flexible lease periods and spaces, and on-site business expertise at little or no cost provided by an experienced busi- ness staff. Another key characteristic is that of shared support services, such as telephone answering, photocopying, computer or data .processing Capabilities, conference rooms, printing services, of- fice furnishings, libraries, and secretarial support. · ~- Some offer assistance in obtaining fi- nancing through tie-ins with venture capitalists. Providing these facilities and services at an affordable cost ameliorates the very high initial costs of starting a business and enables entrepreneurs to put their scarce resources into product or service development. Many incubators have adopted a "graduation policy". · which requires firms to leave the fadlity after a specified time, typically ranging from one to five years. The expectation is that the companies would have grown to be too large for the incubator fadlities and/or be finandally capable of seeking their independence. The hope of the incubator efforts is that concentrating on a few buSinesses will increase their chanCes of survival. The housing of a number of small busi- nesses in one location enables entrepre- neurs to benefit from one another's pres- ence, sharing their ideas and experienceg as well as fadlities and services. In Bur, falo, New York's 'industrial incubator, one firm makes parts for another's as- sembly operation. Similarly, Chicago's Fulton-Carroll Center for Industry has five or six tenants that buy and sell from each other. With these advantages, the risks to lenders and investors are re- duced, enabhng small businesses to ob- tain the capital they need to survive their first few years in business. Organization and Operation The efforts of several different types of organizations have given rise to the development of small business incu- bators. The main sponsors include the public sector, non-profit agencies, uni- versities, and for-profit corporations. In addition, some incubators have come about through joint ventures among these, sponsoring organizations. Perhaps' the best count to date of incubators pres- ently in business is contained in a June, 1985, Small Business Administration re- port which lists 77 facilities in 25 states. Public SectOr Efforts Creating employers and, tl~us, creating jobs is the primary objective of publicly sponsored business incubators. Their or- ganization and management are under- taken by economic development depart- merits, urban renewal authorities, and regional planning and 'development commissions. One example of a public s~ctor incu- bator is the J. B. Blood Building located in Lynn, Mass. This industrial incubator was one of the projects undertaken by the city's Economic DeVelopment Indus- trial Corporation to begin revitalizing the city's economy following a major fire which destroyed much of Lynn's income producing physical plant in 1981. Ten- ants may rent spaces ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 square feet for a 5-year, nonre- newable term. A private firm manages the building while EDIC provides busi- ness management and financing assis- tance. Within the facility is the state- funded employment training program, geared toward training for incubator ten- ants' employee needs. A day care center is also being developed which will sell slots to incubator bussinesses and em- ployees. The Lynn Municipal F'mance Corporation administers the SBA 503 long-term Iow-interest development loans, a shared risk mortgage program, and the SBA 7a Guaranty Program ava. il- able to qualified tenants. Other locations of publicly sponsored incubators include Buffalo, N.Y.; Ches- ter, Pa.; Bradley, Ill.; Kankakee, m.; Me- dia, Pa.; Akron, Ohio;' and St. Paul, Minn. · Non-Profit Agency Efforts - '- Industrial development associations of private industry, chambers of commerce, Or community-based organizatioi~s~wi~i;~'l ]:~d corn~unityshPPorr and a. ~uc~e~s~!, .tiff ..rE...fi'estate devei.opment .ba. ckg~6~, d':-"3 are tylSical non-profit agencies that hive!- launched': Small./bt~siness - M f0f n°ni rofit get d~Ye~opment-ina pa~c~d.~ ar indU~.tria~_. area or neighborhood, j2/?..~.-.'.-i ~' >'~-/:.:.:-/:!~,2~ .] . agency-develoPed incubator is · cago>m. The Indus'trial Council of North==.] :wes '.Chi gO:.'open ttis facmty-in:' '"verytdepreS~ed neighborhood in - bet, 1980, in an effort-tO :cr~are:' sr~all.i '~'are~.;S.':.residents: Since m~-%-s~,en firms::] have'graduated anda her increase of ~obs has been re~l~.ed..About half of th~ ' iobs:'~at~ 'Were. lo&~skill~ and: th~ · other half are-"semi-$kill~i. Twenty:five':' I oc vy 0:000 :. · 97-year:old building purchased and ovated through the help of a. $1.7 million. EDA' grant. While there is no set gradua:~ tion policy, . healthier companies face highhr rents in this incubator, thus help-. ing to'~ubsidize start-ups. The center is" currently sell-sustaining. ,-~.!: ,.: .::,': Other examples of non-profit 'agency-' .facilities indude centers opera'ting in."' Goldsboro, NC; Binghamton, NY; Ben-. nington, VT, and Waterbury, CT~' :. ;' · Unig,~rsities :. .:~ ....... - The goal of university-related, incu;~ bators is to transfer the findings of basic' · .research and development into new: products and technolc~ies.-:Many busi-' nesses in university incubators are.spin~- offs of'academic research projects. Other, nev~ firms are attracted to university in-: cubators because 'they are often the: source of innovations in the _biomedical fielcls, .computers, .and robotics. The ad- vantages of being on or near a university~ c2. mpus include access to library hdlitie% access to state-of-the art technical think- lng .and equipment, a creative envirom ment, potential employment' as a leco turer, and proximity to undergraduates, who form a pool of cheap and technically skilled labor,. ., ..:. :. · ,; ~ ~: ::.: ': .... - . -. On.e of the oldest universit3; incubators is the University City Science Center in Philadelphia. This 1.2 million'squdre foot complex is 0wried by a consortium of 28. universities in the DelaWare. Valley.- ~ Since. its. 1963 Opening, .it. has created. more than 2,500 jobs, about one-fourth of which are held by.neighborhood resi-. .dents..The city views the center ~s part its urban develo ment pr°gram, w ' the univ' p _ __ _ hie..: ersities see it as part of their outrg, ach actMties...The $45 million cost' · of the facility has lx/en contributed by. the~ .. eonso.rtium members. The. State Indus-:. trial Development Authorityand the City: Industrial .Development Corporation have assisted the center in selling several 16,500 square f.OOt condomirdum units in a 1 O-unit building. The 75 tenants are not subject to a stated graduation l~licy. A rent escalation policy reflects increases necessary to cover actual costs..-.. ,...':,' Other university-sponsored incuba{'~r: projec~ include those in AthenS;'Ohio; Pittsburvok;' Troy, N.Y.i Atlarita; New ;Ha-' yen, Conn.;~ and' the Biotechnolo~.~! Development Center in Chicago. --':. -- -- -.. tFor-Proflt Corporations - .~,;.,:.,~.:'..: .. ;~ ~:!{~i'~.:i: Private corporations establish bhsir~ ;..'-::.incubators for tWo.. 'main' 'masons:. the · )~! 'chafiCe t0 ~nak~:a profit and th~ chance to )?.i~ k°'gtEi.'but~'to the commtinity. One major' :':7: i' rc, or'has cont/ol Data Corpora:`.' tion, which .has developed its Business. (-i'. and;Technblogy. Centers i~' at' least 18 ~,...The BTC is &~mbined with a business ':~ ksSistam:e-office and a seed dapital fur~d ';.'::i,.fli~..Whht CDC.:ca!ls its Job Creation Net- ~:..:.: work. Each center has an on-site man-:'~ : ~;.! a~r Who dan evaluhte a company's busi: · ::!'.hess plan and offer on-going assistance;:. i!i~?' CDC. has.. alS0 established 'at netWoi'k' ;-; C-'-?a&06s its ae,ters to volume-bU ,ink :~iI..I. '_di._sC6.' unts and Provide a built-in market ~ 'i for tenants products'and serVia, es.' . ;: '' About half of the 18 centers are owned ,: and operated by CDC, while the rest are -:! ,...licensed to commmunities,, which .pay .: the firm for. its expertise in getting them 'i' !! started, as well as an annual maintenance . ..-fee for continuing support. BTCs hre ~ur~- :i ".i renfly operating in San Antonio, Charles- '"tOn,. S.C.; Toledo, Ohio; pueblo, Colo~; South Bend, Ind.; Minneapolis, .St. Pa..ul, . ':":'~nd Bemidgi, Minn.-.; , . . .: :." . ·'.Managers O{ ·various· incubator proiects, while admitting that many of th.ese f. adlities have. been in existence .. only. a short period, of time, are willing to share their experiences and les~ons with · other groups interested in su~ ventures... -' 'In the area of project planning, incu-~. c - ba.t6r sponsors, or developers must work : .out spedfic details beforehand, must set a. '::;. 'goal for .the incubator, and must tailor We ~ goals.,.to, th6..p.a.rticular community 'in 'k .which. it.. ~ be located. Planners must "' k0ow.the nature of the logal industry and .... the .. needs ; of those, businesses. In this. '"-~-' waF markets for new firms can be identi, .: fled.: A study of the skills of the local "labor force should be included in the. - Planning phase.. When considering the c: - incubator project, planners must evaluate~ .. ' ':' the pool of potential entrepreneurs. Most c' important, the center's planners should '- .remember that the.major goal should ".". In selecting the building Site, care must' · be taken In the initial selection of the ':' building. The cost of renovating an old -' e. "structure should be' weighed against the price of building a new one..The building -..-: should be designed to'keep overhead..'' costi dowh' for "the develop~'~and thei } .; ';t. imants:Flem"ole space ~ a'miist':-a corn- better accommodate'businesses' needs. Support services should meet the needs. of particular tenants so they will be self- ~ . Perhaps the 'rn~ c~i't~al '~lement' to' - '-the success of the incubator is the man- ager. The center manager will have to fill · . m. any roles, serving as mother hen fo .. new..businesses, prOvidin'g business as: sistance, and acting as a hard-nosed real estate agent. The manager must be credi- ble, fair, and firm with tenants, espedally . those who are'faring business failure. A. manager, must have good busines~ ex- perience to effectively 'direct the incu- ' bator. He or she will evaluate the poten- tial tenants, help determine if there is a market for their products, and assist en- trepreneurs in the .development of their business plans. The' manager will also help the sponsoring organization in developing explidt, but flexible, lease ar- rangements, selecting a mix of new lind · established businesses roi- inciibatSr oc- cupancy, and. fostering the spirit of co- .operation ind sense of community devel- .' oped within the center, as a way of holding and attracting .valuable busi- .The Benefits of .'I:ncubators For the entrepreneur, a business incu- bator offers a variety of benefits: low-er- than-market rate rental of space, shared ~_ services, and training in business know- how, espedally in such areas as financ- · ing, marketing,' tactical and strategic planning, and business plan preparation. Businesspeople gain access to profes: sional experts, such as accountants and lawyers, and to a network Of other ehtre,- preneurs and business connections;' . There are also a number of. benefits to be gained by the community: ~ , § Transforms underutilized or Vacant building into a center of productiv~ty:~,.i .." § Increases employment opportunities, ' · § Increases the community's tax base.": :: § ShOws that the co .mm ty is.tang. · .'§ Helps a Commu~ t,o. diVersify :its.': · Despite the ."incubate)r fever,! .~l~i~ seems t0be sweeping: through ~h'e'~a-- tion, there are several ~x)tential problems which must be Considered as Well. ,iAn' ' §wm ,or solve ail an ,' c tv seco-'. § Must not be viewed °_nly as a way to. § Must contain a com.'Patible mix" of § Needs' dty assistance 'in locating graduating businesses within the dty.:7~' - Business incubators seem to have a certain appeal to many developers. The concept has attracted many .because the facilities are relatively Small, ~et they hold much promise. They seem sort of"" logical and obvious, like any good idea once it is articulated. The number of incu:': bators..has increased rapidly in the p~st few years.' .This gJxSwth 'should be ex- pected to continue-for, the foreseeable Alexander, Laurence A. "Incubating 'k~.' Downtown Businesses." Downt6wn Idea E~ch'ange, July 1, 1985, pp. 2-3. zen Action,Developing an Organiza- tlon Crucial for Local Economic Devel- opment.'' National Civic Review 74 (June 1985}:. 287-291. Birch, David L The Job Generation "Process. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Pro-- gram on Neighborhood and Regional Change,'i979. ' ' ' Campbell, Candac,e.t.,"Business Inca. batom Creating'Hatcheries for New Business, Jobs." Western City, April 1985, pp. 3-4 Demuth, Je~ry. "What Can'.Incu~' bators Offert" 'Venture, Novembei 1984, pp. 78-84. "·" ' .' Linowes,'i Lisa."~'Lending a Hand to Small Busin~ss~si" PAS.Memo: March 1985, pb'..l~4; .... ' ' Nelton, Sharon. "Incubators for Baby Businesses." Nation's Business, No- vember 1984,' pp. 40-42. "Small Business Incubators." Work- shop held as part of the National League of Cities' 60th Annual Congress of 'Cities, Indianapolis, November 30, 1984. (Recording) .. Smilon, Raymond W., and Gill~ Mi- chael Jr. The New Business Incubator: -£inking Talent, TeF. hnolo£v,' Ca~..ital' tute for Constructive Capitalism, Uni- versity of Texas'at Austin, 1984. Temali, Mihailo, and Campbell, Candace. Business Incubator Profiles: A National Survey. Minneapolis, MN: 'Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Pub- lic Affairs, University of Minnesota, July 1984. Toon, John. "Hatching Jobs, Eco- nomic Growth." American. City '& County, May 1985, p. 80. "- '" ' ;-' Trei chler, "David.' :I-L)-' '~nd ' Treichl'er, Karen L.'"'I~stitu~ionh'li~ing E~t.~P/e~ neurship~. BrOome' County's' Incubatoi."' NCUED Cbmriienta. ry,.-J'~n~- uary 1980, PP.-20-23. ": '~ '':''' U.S. Small Business Administration. Office of Private Sector Initiatives. 'In: cubatbrs'for.Small Bu~inessi' Washlng-~ ton~. DC:"The Administration,. June 1985. ' ...... ' -Small Business Incubator Sample In- formation Package. Washington, DC: The Administration, n.d. Small Business Incubators: 'Nezo Di- rection~" in -Econotflic' Development. Washington, DC:'The Administration, March 1985.~ '~ '";"'~- ~''''- c~.:,: :,:. Verd/am 1~'~1 H. and R'obe~, james s. Small Business Incubation: Successful Models from .Abroad. Washington, DC: Council for Internatiofial Urban Liai-. son; 19S4.-:!": ~;; ~''' :..;c .-.:' HENNEPIN iL OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT C-2353 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota ,55487-0533 (612) 348-6418 September 6, 1985 Ms. Fran Clark, City' Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Fran; Accompanyi~ng ils a copy of F[ennepi. n County'"s letter to the Match Institution decling the. F~UD/SBA Techni'cal Ass]i]s%ance Grant. As indicated in l~he letter the. county is st~ll interestec] in the possibility of a business incubator i.n the Moun(]/Westonka area and is' keeping open the option of a grant from the third fundfng cycle of the RUD/SBA program. If you have any q.uesti'ons, please contact me at 348-5859. Senior Planner cf e.ncl os,ute HENNEPIN COUNTY on equc~l oppodunity employer Publication No. 01-85-090 1984 CHANGES TO FISCAL DISPARITIES TAX BASE May 1985 This report presents the most recent information on property tax base changes from the fiscal disparities law (tax base sharing). The information is limited to the changes in tax base. The fiscal disparities law reserves 40 percent of the growth in the Metropolitan Area°s commercial-industrial (C-I) property tax base and redistributes this shared base among all taxing jurisdictions. For taxes payable in 1985, the shared tax base increased 20 percent to almost $1.3 billion, more than one-quarter of all taxable C-I property in the area. This is based on growth between 1971 and 1983. The followin9 table summarizes the growth in the shared tax base since 1975. RATIO OF SHARED BASE TO TOTAL VALUATION Total Metropolitan Tax Commercial-Industrial Total C-I Tax Base Payable Assessed Value in Shared Pool Year (in millions) (in millions) 1975 $2','044 $137 1976 2,161 188 1977 2,122 175 1978 2,192 201 1979 2,337 258 1980 2,503 328 1981 2,809 . 454 1982 3,406 691 1983 3,889 884 1984 4,276 1,056 I985 4,835 1,264 Source' Percent of Total C-I Value in Shared Pool 6.7% 8.7 8.2 9.2 11;0 13.1 16.2 20.3 22.8 24.7 26.1 Citizens League, Minnesota Journal (November 20, 1984). One effect of the law is to lessen the differences in C-I tax base among cities. Cities'with little or no C-I tax base growth receive some benefit from C-I growth in the entire Area. The Citizens League estimates that among cities over 9,000 population, the ratio between the city with the highest per capita C-I valuation and the lowest would be almost 15 to one without base sharing. With base sharing, this ratio drops to four to one. Developing suburbs experiencing rapid growth have been the primary "losers" under the program (that is, they receive less growth C-I tax base than if there were no'. base sharing). The attached tables present 'summary information on tax base sharing for taxes payable in 1985. The first table compares the cities with the largest growth in C-I development. (as measured by tax base changes) between 1976 and 1983 versus the period between 1971 and 1976. The column on the right ranks the amount of growth in ¢-I assessed value from largest to smallest (largest :1). During the two periods, the ranking of individual cities changed considerably as development activity shifted among cities. For example, of the top 10 cities in the f.irst period (1971-1976), only six remain in the top 10 during the second period (1976-1983)--Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Maplewood. MinneapoliS and St. Paul had the largest improvements in rank as each experienced significant new 'downtown development. Only three other cities in the top 25 in the 1971-1976 moved up in rank--New Hope, St. Louis Park and Roseville. Maple Grove, Arden Hills and Shoreview, not in the top 25 earlier, were 24th, 16th and 20th, respectively. Meanwhile, four cities dropped more than five places--COon Rapids, Fridley, Maplewood and Shakopee. One c)ty in the top 10 earlier, Inver Grove Heights, dropped from the list. The last part of the report provides informat-ion'on tax base shifts for all cities and townships. The first three data columns are actual dollar amounts for contribution, distribution and net change {distribution minus contribu- tion). The last three columns are per household computations (the first three columns divided by 1983 households). Note that cities split .between two counties (e.g., Chanhassen} are listed in two pieces. No total was computed for the two parts of these cities. However, only one such city, St. Anthony, has significant population and C-I assessed value located in both counties. For tax~s payable in 1985, Minneapolis and St. Paul accounted for 30 percent of the shared tax base. Minneapolis contributed more than it received back, a net difference of $22 million in assessed valuation. This positioned it in the lowest quartile of cities (151st out of 192) in terms of per household net gain or loss. St. Paul received back more than it contributed, but it also ranked in the bottom half of cities (130th). Keep in mind that these are tax base changes, not tax levy changes. Many of the small communities which are large per capita gainers of tax base have low tax rates. The tax revenues moving to these places are a small portion of total revenue shifts under the base sharing program even though the shifts in tax base are relatively large. At any point in time, growth is concentrated in particular areas. Consequently, a larger number of places gain on balance than lose. .For taxes payable in 1985, 146 of the 192 communities received back more than they contributed. Each of the seven counties had more places gaining than losing. On a total county basis Hennepin County alone lost tax base. The largest reduction in tax base occurred in Minnetonka. It has about $36 million less tax base than it would without base sharing. Other large net losers are Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth and Roseville. The city with the largest gain is St. Paul, which receives about $41 million in tax base. Other large gainers are Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park, Richfield, South St. Paul and Blaine. If one adjusts for city size and looks at per household net change, Rogers has the largest net loss followed by Gem Lake, Eden Prairie, and Arden Hills. The largest per household net gains are in Landfall, New Trier, Rockford and Lexington. Anoka County Blaine Coon Rapids Fridley Carver County Chaska Dakota County Burnsville Eagan Inver Grove Hts. West St. Paul Hennepin County Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Eden Prairie Edina Golden Valley Hopkins Maple Grove Minneapolis Minnetonka New Hope Plymouth St. Louis Park Ramsey County Arden Hills Maplewood New Brighton Roseville St. Paul Shoreview Scott County Shakopee Washington County Cottage Grove CITIES WITH LARGEST GROWTH IN COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL ASSESSED VALUE 1971-1976. Growth Rank 1976-1983 Growth Rank $10,771,560 16 10,561,900 17 23,422,715 5 26,435,123 19 20,524,393 23 51,165,895 12 5,284,013 23 17,323,302 11 18,574,355 9 17,782,430 10 5,892,685 22 66,716,448 11 50,575,895 14 41,445,385 i 141,456,228 3 12,140,650 14 43,876,798 15 10,868,715 15 30,798,285 18 18,740,662 8 82,989,480 8 31,520,960 2 84,562,865 7 16,599,337 13 50,741,968 13 6,184,360 20 21,048,110 21 .... 20,185,958 24 .... 594,070,730 1 28,541,830 4 106,302,883 4 8,703,290 18 36,485,263 17 23,115,985 6 90,786,343 6 84,111,175 19 79,517,100 9 30,127,190 3 6,108,385 21 16,721,.987 12 5,145,610 25 41,679,420 16 73,463,410 10 20,737,733 22 102,622,058 5 360,855,538 2 25,657,905 20 18,983,660 7 18,719,395 25 5,235,265 24 GK:emp 05.31.85 EP770Y, PHDEV2 CONTRIBUTION ~Ng DISTRIBUTION PER ," . ~TFO(E$ PAYABLE 1985 At,~OKA. O:~RVER OAJ(OTA HE~H. RA~4$='~' $COl'I' HOUSEHOLD' I~--1 OISTRIBUTIOH1 ~ C0~;TRIBUTION ' HEllO AV. * TOTAL TAX BASE .L'HA~IGE IN EACH COUNTY DIVIDED BY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS Itl THE' COUNT~ CONTRit~UTION AND DISTRIBUTION PER · . (TA~XE$ PAYABLE I.~85 BY COUNTY) HOUSEHOLD 2, $2bb3 $772 $1881 I $222~1 {1779 $1743 F~ $158g $929 t I i i i ~-~ DISTRIBUTION ~ CONTRIBUTION $1BOB $I M.~TRO AV. *L~EiGHTl~ AVERAGE OF PER HOU$~"HOL~ DATA FOR ALL CO~,UNITIE~ , , , z m 077~ Z Z Z Z METROPOLITAN CouNrcIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 612-291-6359 DATE: TO: FROM: August 29, 1985 Committee of the Whole Research Department (Gene Knaff) SUBJECT: Briefing on the Fiscal Disparities Program 55101 ABSTRACT The fiscal disparities program redistributes a portion of the increases in the region's commercial-industrial tax base among all cities in the region. Each city may tax its distributed share of that tax base as it taxes property in its own jurisdiction. None of the tax money that is generated from the tax base sharing program is earmarked or restricted in anyway. Purposes: to give all communities access to the tax benefits of new development in the region, no matter where it is located; to lessen competition for tax base among cities. Mechanics: Each community contributes 40 percent of its growth in commercial- industrial tax base to a metropolitan pool. The pooled tax base is redistributed among all communities on the basis of population and wealth (measured by total taxable real property). The Minnesota Legislat'ure authorized tax base sharing in 1971 when it passed the fiscal disparites law, officially called the Metropolitan Revenue Distribution Act. A legal challenge delayed its implementation until 1975. The program operates only in the seven-county metropolitan area. No special exemptions have been allowed since the law was passed. If anything, more recent legislative action has tried to remove exemptions rather than to .increase them. HISTORY Tax base sharing was advanced in the late 1960s in an environment of concern about high property taxes and tax base differences. In Minnesota, as in most states, the primary local revenue source to support public services is the property tax. One primary cause of fiscal disparities at the local level is the uneven distribution of property tax base. This produces wide differences in tax rates Differences in tax rates were often unrelated to the level of services. This, in turn, reflected the concentration of commercial-industrial development in certain areas. The result is that a given level of public expenditures in the city with low taxable wealth requires a higher tax rate than in a wealthier community. People were well aware of the potential tax base embodied in new development, particularly large commercial-industrial developments. It was obvious that the location of powerplants, large shopping centers and industrial parks would be limited to a~few suburban communities. Moreover, the region is one economic unit. Much ofthe tax revenue generated by thes~ developments is actually paid by shoppers and businesses residing in other communities. Some new suburban communities enjoyed the windfall of extensive commercial and industrial development, while others had to rely largely on residences for their tax base. 'Over time, with establishment of major shopping centers, the disparities intensified. In addition, public investment decisions by their very nature had the effect of favoring one community over another. For example, the decision on where to build freeway interchanges. The idea for tax base sharing originated in a Citizens League study committee formed to discuss the problem of fiscal disparities. The league examined many options. One was creating a single metropolitan government. A second was a metropolitan tax on.all property with revenue redistributed to local governments by formula. Another was to tax all commercial-industrial property at a single rate and redistribute the revenue by formula. The Council was deeply committed to the problems of metropolitan finance. One concern was that the existing local fiscal stwucture would make it difficult to implement its development plans. In 1970 the Council completed a lengthy study of fiscal disparities and was one of several groups that submitted a proposal to provide additional fiscal resources for local .governments. The Minnesota Legislature enacted the fiscal disparities program in 1971, but a legal challenge delayed its implementation until 1975. The challenge was raised almost immediately after passage by a law suit charging that it violated uniformity provisions of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court declared the statute unconstitutional, but this decision was subsequently 6everse~ by the Minnesota Supreme Court. MECHANICS Tax base shar'ing enables all local governments ~n a metropolitan area to share in the growth in commercial-industnial tax base no matter where the growth occurs. Each city experiencing business development contributes a portion of the resulting tax base growth to an areawide pool. The pool is redistributed to all local governments on a formula basis. One distin- guishing feature of this approach is that it shares tax base, not revenues. The program was designed to operate within the existing property tax administrative structure and to preServe the decision-making, authority of local governments. Simply stated, it shares 40 percent of the growth of commercial~industrial tax base among all taxing jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. Growth is calculated as the difference in commercial- industrial tax base between the current year and 1971. Growth includes all changes in valuation, new development as well as appreciation and inflationary increases in existing property. The shared growth is contributed to the areawide pool. The pool is redistributed to all jurisdictions on the basis of two factors: (1) population, and (2) fiscal capacity (as measured by the per capita market value of all real property). The distribution is inversely related to fisaai capacity. In other words, the per capita distribution is larger if the fiscal capacity measure is below the metrowide average. While redistribution of tax base is the basic function of tax base sharing, the revenue implications are what is most meaningful to local governments. The tax base received by each city from the pool generates sam~ ~moun~ of revenue for the city that would be produced by an equal amount of local tax base taxed at that city's current rate. In other words, it is like a building in that city. The value of the building (in this case, the distribution'share) times the city tax rate produces tax revenue for the city. Who pays this "distribution tax"? Commercial-industrial property. The tax statement going to a business is computed using two tax rates--the areawide rate and the local rate. A portion of the value of the business property is taxed at the areawide rate and the remainder at the local rate. One- interesting sidelight of this is that business property may actually be taxed at a lower overall rate. If the areawide rate is less than the local rate, as is the case in the central cities and some older suburbs, the overall tax rate will be lower with tax base shoring. This process works to lessen the differences in business tax rates across the metropolitan area. The revenue side of tax base sharing iS quite complicated due to the many overlapping taxing jurisdictions in Minnesota. All property is located in a city or town. However, several layers of taxing jurisdictions provide services available to that property. All these jurisdictions--counties, cities/towns, school districts, special districts--benefit from tax base sharing. These jurisdictions tax the distribution share assigned to the underlying city or town. The fiscal disparities program is administered with the existing property tax system, a county function in Minnesota. The seven county auditors in the metropolitan area woWk together to do the computations necessary to incorporate the base sharing and the revenue shifts into the system~ Here are the essential features of the metropolitan tax base sharing program: 1. Forty percent of the annual increase '(after 1971) in the assessed value of commercial and industrial property i~ placed in a metropolitan "pool." 2. A formula based on population and fiscal "capacity" (per capita market value of all taxable property) is applied. 3. E~ch community is assigned a share of the metropolitan pool, which it taxes as it does property within its boundaries. PROGRAM RESULTS Tax base sharing, is a long-term program. Its effects will occur gradually as the areawide base and the areawide tax levy grow. Furthermore, it involves a relatively small part of the total tax base. Only growth in commercial- industrial tax base is shared., not growth in total tax base. Only 40 percent of such growth is shared. Experience indicates that the Minnesota program is meeting its primary objective, to share commercial-industrial tax base growth. For taxes payable in 1985, the areawide pool was $1.26 billion or 26 percent of the region's commercial-industrial tax base. This was based on growth between 1971 and 1983. The Citizens League estimates that among cities over 9,000 population, the ratio between the city with the highest per capita commerial-industrial valuation and the lowest would be almost 15 to one without base sharing. With base sharing, this ratio falls to four to one.* The program, by its nature, must result in gainers and losers even though no city is losing any existing tax base, only a portion of its growth. Communities with current commercial-industrial development are "losing," that is, keeping less than they would without tax base sharing. The largest "gainers" are co~nunities with no commercial-industrial growth, increasing population and relatively low existing tax base. Growth tends to be concentrated in a few places at any point in time. For · example, the top 10 contributors this year account for over 60 percent of the areawide pool. Since the beginning of the program, its effects have changed somewhat as the region's development patterns change. A number of communities have switched from.being net contributors to net recipients and vice versa. The most notable switch is Minneapolis, having become a net contributor for the first time last year. Table 1, taken from the Minnesota Journal, shows how tax base sharing changes the per capita com~nercial-industrial tax base in cities with population over 9,000. The first column gives the total commerciol- industrial valuation per capita after sharing; the second, the per capita growth since 1971 with sharing; and the third column, the per capita growth since 1971 if there were no sharing. The communities, that rank highest in per capita valuation tend to be the ones with the most growth. Tax .base sharing has' not been without its critics. Some feel that it has a detrimental effect on new development by raising tax rates in areas most attractive to business. The actual effect of tax base sharing on development is uncertain, however. There is no conclusive evidence that it has a significant positive or negative eff6ct on business development patterns. Tax base sharing-only indirectly addresses competition among communities for new tax base. It influences tax rates and fiscal returns from commercial- industrial property. Over time it will tend to diminish tax rate differentials on commercial-industrial property across the region. However, this will not necessarily stimulat~ more efficient development patterns. Recent theoretical studies indicate that tax rates and other fiscal factors are relatively minor factors in business locational decisions. From a local government perspective, it would seem that tax base sharing encourages local governments to be much more selective in approving new development projects. It reduces fiscal benefits of new development. The larger the percentage shared, the greater the disincentive for commercial- industrial development. For example, under fiscal disparities, a city retains 60 percent o( the new tax base (plus its distribution share). The city's net profit, so to speak, has been reduced by one-third. However, *Citizens League, Minnesota Journal (Nov. 29, 1984). Table ! PER CAPITA COMMERCIAL.iNDUSTRIAL VALUATION 1984 1971-84 1971-84 1984 Total Growth Growth Total With With If No With Sharing Sharing Sharing Sharing Andover $1,098 $ 992 $ 352 Maplewood . $4298 Anoka 2.080 1,366 1,054 Minneapolis 3.043 Apple Valley 1,067 809 382 Minnetonka 2.788 Blaine 1,701 1,512 1.084 Mound 1,125 BloomingtOn 3,108 1,748 2,174 Mounds View 1,538 Brooklyn Center 2,530 1,859 1,928 New Brighton 1,678 Brooklyn Park 1.439 1.157 747 New Hope 2,375 Burnsville 2.752 1,227 '1,588 North Saint Paul 1,526 Champlin 1,059 930 229 Oakdale 1,131 Chaska 2.097 1,601 1,504 Plymouth 2,757 Columbia Heights 1,504 1,140 681 Ramsey 1,324 Coon Rapids 1,460 1,196 702 Richfield 1.423 Cottage Grove 1,566 895 439 Robbinsdale 1,267 Crystal 1,448 1,127 632 Roseville 3,856 Eagan 2.632 1,282 1,847 Saint Anthony 2,667 Eden Prairie 3,718 2.311 3,852 Saint Louis Park 3,075 Edina 3.425 1,916 2,625 Saint Paul 2.606 Fridley 3,199 2.109 2,503 Shakopee 3.157 Golden Valley 4,024 2,350 '.3.156 Shoreview 1,553 ings 1,635 1201 745 South Saint Paul 1,562 ins 2,917 1,580 1,751 Stillwater 1,539 r Grove Heights 2,105 1,618 1,667 West Saint Paul 1,751 Lakeville 1,562 1,145 963 White Bear Lake 1,382 Maple Grove 1,266 820 621 Woodbury 1,781 1971-84 Growth With Sharing $2.633 1,839 2,381 754 1,390 1,353 1.889 1.263 890 1.890 1,094 977 966 2.529 1,759 1,886 1,666 2,392 1,391 1,192 1.118 1.276 1,154 1,093 1971-84 Growth If No Sharing $3,561 1.900 3259 255 798 1,112 2,001 740 212 2,668 538 493 470 3.353 · , 1.917 2240 1,510 3297 1,386 450 796 1,144 707 1,322. Source: Citizens League, Minnesota Journal (Nov. 20, 1984). cities do generally appear to view business development'.as generating tax benefits. It is also apparent that cities value business development for nonfiscal reasons. Other critics question the equity of sharing. By reducing the tax benefit to the city, sharing may shift the costs of servicing business development to residential property. The Minnesota program has been criticized for not including measures of need and pther causes of fiscal disparities. In addition, a minimum distribution rewards wealthy bedroom suburbs for keeping out business development. The redistributive aspect is highly controversial, setting up a conflict between property-rich and property-poor jurisdictions. In summary, tax base sharing is achieving the objective of redistributing the fiscal benefits of commercial-industrial growth. However, its long-term nature makes it difficult to evaluate fully. The shared base grows slowly and its effects will occur gradually. There is no evidence that indicates what influence tax base sharing may have on development patterns. The complexity of location decisions suggest that other factors will generally be more influential. EXEMPTIONS There are a number of exemptions allowed in the legislation. These exemptions relate to laws originally enacted prior to 1971. In addition, laws that exempt property from property taxation or defer property taxes may shield property from tax base sharing. The Metropolitan Revenue Distribution Act exempts the tax increment financing authorized under two specific laws and for the city of South St. Paul. The exemption for South St. Paul related to its designation as depressed area by the U.S. Department of Commerce after the packing plants moved out. The exemption that has been publicized recently relates to tax increment districts. The original law exempted commercial-industrial development in Housing and Redevelopment Authority.(HRA) tax increment districts. HRA districts require a finding of blight before they can be establish6d. The legislation authorizing tax increment financing in HRA districts also preceded the fiscal disparities law. The relationship between tax increment financing and fiscal disparities has been subject to controversy since the fiscal disparities law was enacted. When 1.eg~slation was passed in 1974 that allowed tax increment financing in other non-HRA districts, it did not allow an exemption from the fiscal disparities program. The rationale for disallowing any exemption was that these development districts did not require a finding of blight. In 1979, the legislature again looked at the relationship between fiscal disparities and tax increment financing and the distinction between HRA districts and non-HRA districts. This time the legislature decided to disallow any exemption in either district in the future. However, it did allow existing districts to remain exemp~ until the district expired. It is estimated that approximate)y 5.5 percent of the total commercial- industrial growth in the metropolitan area, including all tax increment districts, is in exempt HRA districts. Information on cities with such districts in 1984 is given in Table 2. Chanhassen Waconia Shakopee St..Paul Minneapolis Table 2 IMPACT OF TAX INCREMENT EXEMPTION ON FISCAL DISPARITIES CONTRIBUTION Percent of Amount of C~I Potential Percent of Regional Actual C°ntri- Value in TIF Disparity Local Base Disparit~ bution for Districts that Base Tax Exempt Base Tax Payable 1984 is Exempt (1 + 2) (2/3) Exempt '1,352,528 '1,548,000 2,900,528 53.1% 0.1% 142,166 616,491 758,657 81.3 -- 11,408,440 2,876,246 14,284,686 20.1 0.3 102,802,233 16,097,350 118,899,583 13.5 1.4 203,731,017 29,394,92~ 233,125,938 12.6 2.6 Robbinsdale 2,622,585 438,037 3,060,622 14.3 -- Hopkins 9,487,084 1,373,085 10,860,169 12.6 0.1 Edina 41,755,200 873,909 42,629,109 2.1 -- Richfield 4,917,826 580,290 5,498,116 10.6 -- St. Louis Park 31,711,970 1,474,492' 33,186,462 4.4 0.1 Wayzata 3,220,774 29,566 3,250,340 0.9 -- Minnetonka 43,903,106 340,141 44,243,247 0.8 -- .Golden Valley 24,469,839 2,008,961 26,478,800 0.8 0.2 Columbia Heights 5,178,793 173,475 5,352,268 3.2 -- Fridley 27,102,595 46,885 27,149,480 0.2 -- Farmington 1~461,871 281,766 1,743,63~ 16.2 -- Hastings 3,581,449' 514,938 4,096,387 12.6 -- Rosemount 4,415,379 247,115 4,662,494 5.3 -- South St. Paul 0 2,934,841 2,934,841 100.0 0.3 METROPOLITAN AREA TOTAL 1,055,942,640 61,850,509 1,117,793,149 5.5% Source: Based on information on page 1'9 of the RePort on the Fiscal Disparities Act °(Febuary1985) prepared by a committee of suburban municipalities. IMPACT OF BLOOMINGTON EXEMPTION What happens if the Triple Five project or some portion of it is. exempted from a fiscal disparities contribution? If Bloomington does not share its increased tax base, then its own base is higher than it would be under fiscal disparities. Cities in the rest of the metropolitan area would, consequently, have less tax base available than if Triple Five were not exempt. Tax rates (taxes) in these cities would be marginally higher than if the Triple Five pFoperty were not exempt. The net effect in this example is that tax burdens in the rest of the metropolitan area are higher. In this sense, tax burdens that might remain in Bloomington are shifted to other metropolitan taxpayers. If the Triple Five project is not exempt, there is a savings in property taxes paid in other communities. Bloomington is proposing to exempt the entire Airport South area from a fiscal disparities contribution. This the part of Bloomington south of 1-494 and east of Cedar Avenue, which is.900 acres in size and is much larger than the Triple Five project alone. It Currently includes properties such as the Control Data complex, Appletree Square, Metro Office Park and several hotels. Today, this area is contributing about $22 million to the fiscal disparities pool. Under the proposal 40 percent of commercial-industrial growth since 1971 {fiscal disparities contribution} would be reserved for financing.Bloomington's subsidy to the Triple Five project. Bloomington' estimates that this will grow to $125 million at completion of the Triple Five project. This proposal is the key element in Bloomington's financing plan. The Bloomington proposal would capture this valuation and place it in special status. It would be exempt from property taxation by other jurisdictions, such as the county and school districts, and exempt from taxation through the fiscal disparities mechanism. Instead, the areawide mill rate determined under fiscal disparities would be applied to this valuation and the revenue generated placed in a special Tax Pool. The assessed value of the Triple Five project will be approximately $250 million at completion. Forty percent of this ($100 million) would be reserved and receive the areawide mill rate, generating about $10 million per year.. Table 3 shows how cities with populations above 9,000 would be affected if $100 million were available in the areawide pool. If Bloomington's proposal goes through, these con~nunities would not receive the additional tax base and would lose $22 million of existing shared ba-se. This is based on the share of these communities for taxes payable in 1985. The difference between the total for these communities and $100 million represents the amount going to smaller cities and Bloomington's 1985 share. The entire Airport South area would involve a significantly larger amount. Assuming the estimate of the contribution from this aKea growing to $150 million, each city's share in Table 3 would be .1.5 times larger. Summing up, the Bloomington proposal would exempt the entire Airport South area from a fiscal disparities contribution--that is, 40 percent of the growth in commercial-industrial assessed value since 1971. This amount will Table 3 DISTRIBUTION PER $100 MILLION OF (cities over 9,000) POOLED Name Share of 1985 Region's Distrlbut(on Population Share Andover 0.5% 0.7% Anoka 0.8 0.9 Apple Valley 1.2 1.3 Blaine 1.6 2.3 Bloomington 4.1 3.0 Brooklyn Center 1.5 1.6 Brooklyn Park 2.4 2.9 Burnsville 1.9 1.6 Champlin 0.5 0.7 Chaska 0.4 0.6 Columbia Heights 0.9 1.1 Coon Rapids 2.0 2.6 Cottage Grove 1.0 1.1 Crystal 1.2 1.4 Eagan 1.3 1.0 Eden Prairie 1.0 0.6 Edina 2.2 1.1 Fridley 1.4 1.4 Golden Valley 1.1 0.7 Hastings 0.6 0.7 Hopkins 0.7 0.7 Inver Grove Hts. 0.9 1.0 Lakeville 0.8 0.8 Maple Grove 1.3 1.2 Maplewood 1.4 1.2 Minneapolis 17.7 17.1 Minnetonka 2.0 1.4 Mound 0.5 0.5 Mounds View 0.6 Q.9 New Brighton 1.1 1.3 New Hope 1.1 1.2 North St. Paul 0.6 0.8 Oakdale 0.6 0.8 Plymouth 1.8 1.3 Ramsey 0.5 0.7 Richfield 1.8 1.9 Robbinsdale 0.7 0.7 Roseville 1.7 1.4 Shakopee 0.5 0.4 Shoreview 1.0 0.9 South St. Paul 1.0 1.2 St. Anthony 0.4 0.3 St. Louis Park 2.1 1.6 St. Paul 13.1 14.9 Stillwater 0.6 0.7 West St. Paul 0.9 0.8 White Bear Lake 1.1 1.3 Woodbury 0.6 0.4 *Overstates the share Bloomington would receive Triple Five project is built. BASE Share of $100 Million $ 655,746 943,552 1,321,855 2,300,545 2,966,311' 1,604,491 2,902,006 1,566,516 665,308 568,771 1,081,404 2,578,125 1,144,839 1,403,043 1,005,500 629,256 1,133,653 1,435,870 701,064 708,705 655,883 987,016 848,959 1,178,833 1,213,331 17,060,953 1,425,347 472,805 934,493 1,297,774 1,226,690 787,742 823,452 1,322,198 718,335 1,857,501 732,473 1,445,593 417,399 916,924 1,223,762 333,421 1,586,968 14,904,117 674,962 835,004 1,303,348 436,020 if the grow from $22 million in 1986 to $125 million in 1991 a~-the completion of the Triple Five project. Tax base of $125 million would generate annual revenue of about $12.5 million, based on an areawide mill rate of 100 mills. It is not clear how tong the area would be exempt, presumably at least for the life of the tax.increment district (up to 25 years). TAX BASE SHARING AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING While tax base sharing is primarily aimed at fiscal problems, it does support regional planning.objectives. Regional planning aims at making the region a better place to live and do business for all residents. With sharing older areas in need of redevelopment can receive additional resources to finance redevelopment costs. Regional proposals to use land for parks or to preserve land for other environmental resources can be more palatable to local communities where these facilities are located because they share in other communities' development. Similarly, tax base sharing may reinforce efforts.to promote more orderly growth in developing communities. Tax base sharing can spread the fiscal benefits of business development attracted by such regional facilities as airports, freeways and freeway interchanges, a zoo or a sports stadium to communities not fortunate enough to have them. Cities are,endowed with different attributes for attracting business development. This attractiveness may result directly from public investments such a~. highways and sewers. Consequently, the fiscal benefits of business development result, in-part, from regional investments. Other cities that.do not have these locational advantages do not have to try to attract development at any cost. - Summing up, the law can help support regional planning objectives. It allows the Council to treat the region as a whole and not worry about giving something to everyone. To the extent that Council policies help or hinder development in particular cities, it provides a way to spread around the fiscal benefits of development. GK:emp 08.29.85' GKOIOA-PROTX3 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone 612-296-1611 August 26, 1985 To: Re: Ail Interested Parties BN Abandonment Between Wayzata and Hutchinson, in Hennepin, Carver, and McLeod Counties; ICC Docket No. AB-6 (Sub. No. 247) The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) recently issued a Certificate and Decision permitting the abandonment of this rail line. The aban- donment becomes effective on September 11, 1985. Mn/DOT has received notification that a private investor has negotiated the transfer of the line from BN. Apparently, service will continue on the line. If you have any questions about this proceeding, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Isaac McCrary, Jr. Rail Abandonment Coordinator Rail Planning and Program Development Sec. RAILROAD NOW OWNED BY: DAKOTA, INC. P. O. Box 306 Millbank, South Dakota 57252 Jerry Ross - 604-432-9218 A n Equal Opportunity Employer AGENDA MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT September 19, 1985 St. Louis Park City Ball 7:30 p.m. Call to order; present, .absent staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of August 22, 1985. Approval or a~endment of September 19, 1985 agenda. Public Hearing/1986 Budget. ~earing of permit applications: A. 84-59 Rodney S. Wallace - rip rap 270 feet of shoreline for erosion control and remove existing wooden seal wall, Sec. 26DAC, north shore' of St. Albans Bay at Weeks Road, City of Greenwood. B. 85-43 Michael J. Gorra - maintenance dredging of existing channel and dock area in Black Lake and 65 lineal fee~ of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 19BBB, Black Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Spring Park. C. 85-114 Matthew J. Levitt - replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall, Sec. 28BDC, Upper Lake - Lake · Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. D. 85-115 Edward M. Arundel - wooden retaining wall shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 28BDC, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. E. 85-125 Warren A. Ortenblad - grading and drainage plan for a residential and elderly care facility called Twin Birch Villa, Sec. 18CD, 4523 Shoreline Drive, south of Twin Birch Health Care Center, City of Spring Park. F. 85-130 Ed McDonald - 209 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 8DD, Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. G. 85-131 Larry Hewes - 150 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection and the reconstruction of 35 lineal feet of a wooden retaining wall in a channel area, Sec. 21DA, Lafayette Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. H. 85-132 Robert H. Powell - 130 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20CA, Carmans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. I. 85-133 Mike Elwell - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 23DD, Excelsior Bay - Lake Minnetonka, city of Deephaven. J. 85-134 David Dunlap - 200 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 16BB, Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. K. Kurt Carlson - 80 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20DCA, Carmans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, city of Orono. L. 85-136 Margaret Nissen - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26DBD, St. Albans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Greenwood. M. 85-137 City of GreenwoOd - 125 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26DB, St. Albans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Greenwood. N. 85-138 Joseph Kiser - 90 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 35DD, Christmas Lake, City of Shorewood. O. 85-139 city of Minnetonka - replacement of existing bridge with a precast concrete box culvert, Sec. 8ACB, Bantas Point Road,o.City of Minnetonka. P. 85-140 Robert H. Sevey - grading and drainage plan for an office building, Sec. 16CD, 15350 Minnetonka Blvd., City of Minnetonka. Q. 85-141 Tomark Development Co. - grading and drainage plan for a 2.5 acre commercial development, Sec. 12CC, NW quadrant of Cedar Lake Road, City of Minnetonka. R. 85-142 Dave..Johnson - grading and drainage plan for a 3.8 acre commercial development, Sec. 29CCB, SE quadrant of Hwy 101 and Co. Rd. 6, City of PlymoUth. S. 85-143 HOS Properties - grading and drainage plan for a.new radiation therapy unit at Fairview-Southdale Hospital, Sec. 29BC, Fairview-Southdale Hospital, City of Edina. T. 85-144 Plocher-Geske - grading and drainage plan for "Red C~edar Cove", an 18-unit townhouse development, City of Chanhassen. U. 85-145 City of Medina - road improvements and culvert replacements, Sec. 23CA/CD, Tamarack Drive and Co. Rd. 24, DNR Wetland H-473W, City of Medina. .~ -2- V. 85-146 Craig Winters· - road improvements including the placement of culverts to provide access to two future home sites, Sec. 30DB, South Katrina Marsh - DNR Wetlands 916W, City of Orono. W. 85-147 PHD Properties - grading and drainage plan for two apartment buildings, Sec. 12CD, south of Greenbriar Rd. about 1/4 mile east of Co. Rd. 73, City of Minnetonka. X. 85-148 Minneapolis Federation for Jewish Serv. - grading and drainage plan for an elderly housing facility, Sec. 18CD, NE of Co. Rd. 18 and Hwy 7 south of 36th St. and west of railroad corridor, City of St. Louis Park. Y. 85-149 Jerry Koosman - sea plane ramp, Sec. 22BC, Pierson Lake - Carver County, Laketown Township. Z. 85-150 Gerald Toberman - grading and drainage plan for an addition to the Tonka Bay Marina, Sec. 26BCA, Tonka Bay Marina, City of Tonka Bay. 1. 85-151 Don Myron - grading and drainage plan for Oakdale West, Third Addition, a three-unit residential development, Sec. 29BC, North of 19th Avenue North and East of State Hwy 10, City of Plymouth. 2. Rainbow Builders, Inc., Attention~Fred Byron - after-the-fact grading and drainage plan for a twenty-two unit townhouse development, Sec. 15, BBD, Parkway Court and Luverne Avenue South, City of Minneapolis. Public Hearing/Proposed Rule L (8:30 p.m.) Report of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Andre. B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer. C. Attorney's Report -Mr. Macomber. Unfinished Business. New Business. 9. Adjournment. 0783n -3- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT August 22, 1985 The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha~Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday, August 22, 1985, at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata, Minnesota. Managers present: Andre, Cochran, Lehman, Miller, Spensley, and Thomas Managers absent: McWethy Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Macomber, and Blatz. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Miller, seconded by Andre, that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 18, 1985 be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried. Approval of Permit Applications The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated August 12~ 1985 setting forth those permits which comply with the applicable standards of the District and recommending approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in the written memorandum. ~hairman Cochran stated that he thought Permits'85-114 and 85-115 would be appropriate for discussion. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Thomas, that 85-114 and 85-115 be removed from the recommended consent agenda. Upon vote the motion carried. It was then moved by Spensley, seconded by Miller, that the following applications be-approved on the terms and conditions as set forth in the written memorandum. 82-74 Jack Overman -- shoreline erosion protection, approximately 78 lineal feet of rip rap, 5109 Wooddale at Minnehaha Creek, City of Edina. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, Page 2 1985 85-109 Lee Webster -- 150 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 34BBD, Gideon$ Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. 85-110 George Hand - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 22CB, Echo Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. 85-111 Richard Ogle - 100 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection,'.Sec. 21CAA, Carmans Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. 85-112 Channel Town Associationi c/o Ed Lynch - 50 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection in a lagoon area in Lost Lake, Sec. 24BC, Lost Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. 85-113 Floyd C. Thorsen - 175 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection in a channel area, Sec. 27BCA, Halsted Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista. 85-123 .John~and Kitty Pillsbury - fill and compensating excavation within the 100-year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, Sec. llC, Brackett's Point - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. 85-124 Don Hill - 156 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline 'erosion protection, Sec. 8BDB, Grays Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetonka. Upon vote the motion carried. Tablinq of Permit Application ThE Managers noted that all required exhibits have not been received on application 85-117. UPon motion duly made and seconded, the application was~ tabled pending receipt of all required exhibits. Warren A. Ortenblad - grading and drainage plan for a residential and elderly care facility called Twin Birch Villa, Sec. 18CD, 4523 Shoreline Drive, south of Twin Birch Health Care Center, City of Spring Park. 85-125 The Engineer explained that the project consists of a 10-acre parcel which had been before the Board in March of 1984, and an Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 3 adjoining parcel to the east which the applicant is purchasing but has not yet taken title. The Engineer explained that the Board tabled the application for the 10-acre parcel in 1984, requiring submission of revised plans showing rate control pursuant to District requirements, or in lieu of rate control, providing an additional 6,000 cubic feet of floodplain storage capacity. The Engineer explained that revised exhibits were not submitted by the applicant. The Engineer further explai.ned that the present plan is conceptual in nature as to the property to the east. The applicant proposes either to provide detention facilities on the eastern parcel adequate for the entire developed site, or to enlarge an existing detention pond off County Road 15 which lies below the 100-year flood elevation of Black Lake to provide additional floodplain storage capacity. The Engineer. advised the Board that in his opinion, either option was acceptable and recommended approval of the application subject to the condition that.the applicant submit final plans conforming with the March 1984 conditions for final review and approval by the Board within six months. Manager Cochran questioned the advantage of adding additional storage capacity at the existing off-site detention pond. The Engineer explained that the Board had concluded in 1984 that there might b~ a greater overall public benefit in securing additional flood storage capacity below the flood elevation of Black Lake, rather than by requiring rate control requirements, given the proximity of the site to Black Lake. Manager Andre 'inquired whether the off-site pond could be dedicated to the City. Gerald Sunde, P.E. appeared on behalf of the applicant and explained that the applicant would be willing to dedicate the pond to a governmental agency if a governmental agency would accept it in order to provide the continuing maintenance. The Managers expressed a preference for the on-site detention facilities to provide rate control for the entire development and a concern about the adequacy of additional flood storage capacity off site. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded bY Miller, that the application be tabled and that the applicant be requested to supply additional information on the alternative drainage proposals. Upon vote the motion carried. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, c/o Dennis Ryan - construct an underpass under West Lake Street at the channel between Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles for pedestrians and bicycles, Sec. 33CC, West Lake Street and East Calhoun Pky., City of Minneapolis. 85-116 The Engineer reviewed the application of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 4 path in and along the channel connecting Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles. The Engineer explained that this would involve placing approximately 800 Cubic yards of fill below the normal water level of the lakes. The Engineer noted that the project will provide an overall public benefit by eliminating a safety hazard at this crossing, that the chain of lakes are historically "water poor" and further, that the surrounding land that could potentially be affected is almost entirely owned by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Dennis Ryan, director of engineering of the Park and Recreation Board, appeared and reviewed the project with the Managers. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Spensley, that the application be approved as' recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for the Fox Run 2nd and 3rd Additions of the Vicksburg West Property, Sec. 29A, DNR Wetland 613W (Plymouth Pond GL-P14), City o.~ Plymouth. 85-118 The Engineer reviewed the grading and drainage plan for second and third additions to the Fox Run development in the City of Plymouth. The Engineer advised the BQard that the plans for phases 2 and 3 are consistent with the overall concept plan approved for the project by the Board in 1981. Richard Sathre, P.E. appeared on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the project with the.Managers. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Naegele, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for "Ridgepoint", a retail/commercial development, Sec. 3ACC, north side of Wayzata Blvd. adjacent to Sears Imported Autos and Morrie's Mazda, City of Minnetonka. 85.-119 ~he~Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval of a four acre site in the City of Minnetonka north of Wayzata Boulevard. Richard Sathre, P.E. appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Engineer stated that the property drains to an existing pond behind Ridgehaven Mall and that the plan as submitted meets all applicable District criteria. The Engineer noted that the applicant proposes additional on-site storage in conformity with District requirements. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 5 . James H. Binger - maintenance dredging of an existing channel and the excavation of 9,000 square feet of wetland for the construction of a docking area, Sec. 8ADC, existing channel system connected to Grays Bank - Lake Minnetonka, City of Minnetonka. 85-126 The Engineer reviewed the application for maintenance dredging of an existing'channel in a channel-lagoon system in a backwater area of Gray's Bay, and to construct a docking facility for twelve boats. Clifford Reep, consultant for the applicant, appeared on behalf of the application. The Engineer explained that the channel is approximately 1,200 feet in length and approximately 35-50 feet wide, and that an average of approximately 1.25 feet of silt is proposed to be removed from the channel. .The~engineer advised that the proposed docking facility would remove approximately 8,000 square feet of wetland and such action would have no measurable impact on water quality. The E~gineer explained that the docking proposal is subject to jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and ~ the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and that those approvals have not yet been obtained. The Board discussed the dredging proposal, concluding that this is a pre-existing channel and appears to meet applicable District standards for dredging. The District also noted that it has no jurisdiCtion over placement of docks in Lake Minnetonka. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that conceptual approval of the project be granted subject to the applicant's receipt of DNR and LMCD approvals of the docking facility, further, that final plans for the project be submitted to the Board for approval prior to commencement of construction. Upon vote.the motion carried. Joe Durda and Joan Anthony - maintenance dredging of an existing channel and lagoon, removal of 224 lineal feet of deteriorating wooden' seawall and replace with 114 feet of steel sheetpile and 617 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 9CCA, existing lagoon connected to Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono. 85-127 The Engineer reviewed the application for maintenance dredging of an existing channel and lagoon. The Engineer stated that the project involves replacement of a deteriorating seawall on both sides of the lagoon with metal sheet pile on one side and rip rap shoreline erosion protection on the other. The Engineer recommended approval subject to receipt of a letter from Joan Anthony stating she is aware and in favor of the project and approval by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. It was Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 6 moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas, that the application be 'approved subject to the foregoing conditions. Upon vote the motion carried.. Richard Duvick - After-the-fact shoreline alteration. 85-82 Chairman Cochran noted that Mr. Richard Duvick was present at the request of the Board and that no other members of the public were present in connection with permit applications. Manager Cochran requested that the Boa'rd consider the Duvick matter at this time. The Engineer reviewed the.history of this matter, indicating issuance of a 1980 permit folloWed by shoreline protection work in 1981 without a District permit. The Board had then tabled an after-the-fact application for the 1981 work on the basis that the work was not in conformance with District construction criteria. The Engineer explained that the 1981 work was extended in 1985, again without a permit from the District, and that permit application 85-82 was an after-the-fact application. In June, the Board denied that after-the-fact application on the basis that the exhibits did not-meet District cr. iteria.,~nd requested -~ Mr. Duvick to attend the next regular Board meeting, at w~ich time the Board would consider the question of remedial action. Mr. Duvick stated that the work-he had done on both occasions improved the condition of the shoreline. He stated that the shoreline had been eroding badly and that the placement of the wooden retaining wall had significantly reduced the erosion at the property. Mr. Duvick further stated that in his view, the retaining wall was sound and it was not in risk of failure as suggested by the Engineer. The Board discussed the alternatives available to it. The Attorney indicated that the Board could order the seawall to be removed, which did not appear to be a practica'l remedy'under these circumstances. The Attorney also noted that violation of a rule of the District constitutes a misdemeanor subject to criminal prosecution. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the District grant a permit to Mr. Duvick for the retaining wall and require that any future action taken to repair or maintain the wall be done by separate permit application, and noting that action in violation of a District rule is a misdemeanor. Manager Spensley stated he would not favor the motion as posed by Manager Andre, on the basis that he would prefer to have the District continue to be involved by permit in the remedy of the present situation. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 7 . In response to questions from Manager Thomas, Mr. Duvick stated that he would be willing to submit as-built plans to the District to demonstrate compliance with appropriate construction criteria, and further stated that he would be willing to make necessary modifications to the wall to meet applicable District requirements. Manager Thomas stated that he believed it would be appropriate to require the applicant to submit as-built plans of the retaining wall to determine whether the retaining wall asLbuilt complies with applicable District construction criteria, since there appears to be a dispute between the Engineer and Mr. Duvick on that issue. It was then moved by Manager Spensley that the pending motion of Mr. Andre be amended to grant the permit, but only upon submission to the District of as-built plans showing compliance with District standards, such plans to be accepted by the Board. The amendment was seconded by Manager Lehman, and upon vote the amendment to the pending motion carried. Thereafter, a question was called on the pending motion as amended, and upon vote the amended motion carried. Louis Derner - grading and drainage plan for a 5-lot single family residential development, Sec. 23CDC, wetland adjacent to Priest Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. 77-12~ The Engineer reviewed the application for extension of permit 77-126 for a five-lot single family housing development in Mound. The Engineer advised' the Board that the 1977 permit had expired. The Engineer recommended issuance of a new permit subject to conditions numbered 1 and 2 in his written memorandum. It was moved by Spensley, seconded by Lehman, that a new permit be issued for the project subject to conditions numbered 1 and 2 in the Engineer's written memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried. MN/DOT DiJtrict 5 - grading and surfacing of a new street and installation of a small storm sewer, Sec. 31BCD, 25-1/2 Street, east of Hwy 100 between Beth E1 Synagogue and Benilde High School, City o'f St. Louis Park. 85-120 The Engineer reviewed Plans for construction of 25-1/2 Street and accompanying storm sewer between Beth E1 Synagogue and Benilde High School in St. Louis Park. The Engineer advised that the drainage would be discharged to a detention pond being constructed as a part of construction on the Benilde site under permit 84-162. The Engineer further advised that due to flat topography, the system is designed to run full for a 2-year event and to surcharge and pond in the street for a 10-year event. The Engineer recommended approval with the condition that MN/DOT acquire all necessary drainage and ponding easements and meet all requirements of the City of St. Louis Park. It was moved by Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, Page 8 1985 Spensley, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing conditions. Upon vote the motion carried. Shorewood Oaks Development Co.-- grading and drainage plan for a 73-1ot single family home develOpment, Sec. 32DC, east of Strawberry Lane and north of Hwy 7, City of Shorewood. 85-121 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval for a 73-1ot single family home development in Shorewood. The Engineer advised that storm water would be collected and directed to a large city park lying north of the site for .detention, and.that the park is part of the City's storm water comprehensive plan and is designated for ponding. The City engineer had performed an analysis of the 100-year event for this ponding.facility and determined that the 100-year level for the pond would be 969, well below any house elevation. The Engineer recommended approval subject to a receipt for detail for .a weir to be located at the outlet and documentation from the City that the developer has the approval to use the City park for a storm water holding facility. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer, with the modification that the weir should be desig~ to skim runoff ~ resulting from 'a 10'0-year 'storm event from the entire subwatershed. Upon vote the motion carried. First Minnetonka City Bank - grading and drainage plan for the construction of a new bank facility, Sec. 23AA, North of Hwy 7, · west of Hwy 73, southern part of the existing Lunds parking lot, City of Minnetonka. 85-122 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and drainage plan approval for construction of a new bank facility on the southern part of the Lunds parking lot in Minnetonka adjacent to Highway 7 west of County 73. The Engineer advised that the' proposed'plan will reduce the hard surface coverage from existing conditions and that the applicant has met water quality requirements of the District... The Engineer recommended approval upon receipt of a revised plan showing the invert elevation of the catch basin within the baffled weir. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing condition. Upon vote the motion carried. Vlad Kopesky - grading and drainage plan and preliminary plat for a five-lot subdivision, Sec. llDCB, intersection of Mayflower Ave. and Orchard Ave. W., City of Minnetonka. 85-128 The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and' drainage plan approval of a 5-lot single family home development Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 9 in the City of Minnetonka. The Engineer advised that the plan is consistent with the City storm water management plan. It was Spensley, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. The Matarese, Inc. - alteration of existing parking lot, Sec. 35CAB, Hanson House par.king lot, City of Long Lake. 85-129 The Engineer reviewed t~e ~pplication for reconfiguration of an existing parking lot at the Hanson House restaurant property on Highway 12. The Engineer indicated that a revised plan has now been submitted as requested by the Engineer, and recommended approval of the application as submitted. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Matthew J. Levitt - replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall, Sec. 28BDC, Upper Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay. 85-114 and Edward M. Arundel - replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall, Sec. 28BDC, ~pper Lake -_Lake. Minneto~ka, City of Tonka Bay. 85-115 The Engineer reviewed the above permit applications, noting that 85-114 involved replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall and that 85-115 involved construction of a new wooden retaining wall on the immediately adjacent property. The Managers noted that these two properties were on the main lake and that it had been the policy of the Board not to authorize placement of vertical retaining walls on the main lake because of their inability'to dissipate energy from wave action and because they eliminate natural appearance of shoreline, but rather to provide for rip rap treatment of shoreline erosion protection in such casesJ The Managers discussed the prior actions and.pOlicies of the Board with respect to placement of wooden retaining walls. From plans submitted, it was not clear whether the walls in question were to be placed above or below the normal ordinary high lake elevation, nor did the applications describe the extent of erosion which needed to be corrected at these sites. Following discussion, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by Andre, that the Engineer request both applicants to submit additional information on site conditions and proposed elevations to the Engineer and that the Engineer then make modified recommendations in light of such information. Upon vote the motion carried. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 10 Administrative Fund Report The Treasurer reviewed the monthly Administrative Fund report dated August 22, 1985, a copy o.f which .is attached. The Treasurer reviewed the bills proposed for payment and noted that a proposed final payment was recommended to Julian M. Johnson Construction Co. on the Cascade Lane project in the City of Edina, and that a sixth payment was recommended to Crossings Inc., the contractor on the CP-5.project. The Treasurer stated that it appeared that it would be necessary to make a transfer from one of the District's other funds at the September meeting in the approximate amount of $10,000 to pay the remaining costs of the CP-5 project. Following review of the bills and the funds available for investment, it was moved by Spensley, seconded by Lehman that the Treasurer's report dated August 22, 1985 be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. Proposed 1986 Budget/Authorization for Public Hearing The Managers reviewed the need to hold a public hearing on its proposed budget for 1986 at its September meeting. The Attorney advised°the Board that ~ Notice of Hearing needed to be approved by the Board at this meeting to be published prior to the public hearing. The Managers discussed the probable amounts of the levies for the three active District funds. Following discussion it'was moved by Andre, seconded by Miller, that the Secretary be authorized and directed to execute and publish a Notice of Hearing of a public hearing to be held Thursday, September 19, 1985 at the St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, commencing at 7:30 p.m., on the proposed budgets for the Administrative Fund, the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund, and the Water Management Fund, further, that the proposed amounts to be levied for said Funds are as follows: Administrative Fund - $125,000; Water · Maintenance and Repair Fund - $15,000; Water Management Planning Fund - $70,000. Upon vote the motion carried. The Board discussed the status of its Data Acquisition Fund and the District's need to have adequate cash balances on hand in advance of the commencement of any calendar year because of the delay in receipt of tax settlements from the Counties. The Board directed the staff and the Treasurer to meet to explore the various methods which could appropriately be used by the District to provide such funds on a regular basis to the District in advance of receipt of tax settlements. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 11 Possibility of Lengthening Effective Canoeing Season on Minnehaha Creek The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated August 19, 1985 summarizing a preliminary study performed by the District's Engineer of the feasibility of lengthening the weekend canoeing season by modifying the discharge rates at the Grays Bay control structure. The memorandum concluded that modifying the flow rate would appear to be feasible at higher base flows in the range of 30-40 cfs, but that where flows .are in the 12 cfs range, it would not appear to be effective to modify the discharge through the control structure. The Engineer advised that the present operating plan contains sufficient flexibility for the Board to make these kinds of occasional adjustments. Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy The Engineer distributed a.memorandum to the Board dated August 21, 1985 noting that the current headwaters control structure management policy and operating procedures for the period March 1, 1983 through March 1, 1986 will need to be renewed and a request submitted to the DNR to that effect by January 1, 1986. The Enginee~ briefly reviewed changes which have been made in the management policy since its adoption in 1978, and recommended that the District request the DNR to renew the document without modification. The Board indicated it would review the document and consider the matter at a subsequent meeting. Proposed Chanqes to Minnetonka Zoning Ordinance The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated August 19, 1985 summarizing changes proposed to be made in the ordinances of the City of Minnetonka regulating planned unit developments, wetlands, flood plain districts, and shoreland districts. Chapter 509 Plan Schedule The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated August 21, 1985 identifying the primary tasks and anticipated completion dates with respect to the Chapter 509 Plan. The Engineer noted that the schedule called for preparation of a first draft of the plan by approximately November 15, 1985. pay Requests The Engineer distributed a proposed Pay Request #4 for Julian M. Johnson Construction Co. in the amount of $2,803.30. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, Page 12 1985 Engineer.stated that this represented an overage for additional rock excavation performed by the contractor to remove the rock under the bridge to the appropriate grade. It was .moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the approved Pay Request #4 as 'recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. The Engineer then distributed proposed Pay Request #6 to Crossings Inc. in the amount of $14,438.10. The Engineer stated that this pay estimate represented completion of Project No. 7 and that the overall project is now approximately 98% complete. The Engineer.recommended approval of the pay request. It was moved by Andre, seconded by Spensley that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Pay Estimate #6 on behalf of the Board. Upon vote the motion carried. Flood Plain Management Workshop The.Engineer distributed notification from the Department of Natural Resources of a flood plain management workshop for local officials, to be held September 17, 1985. City of Victoria Request to Water Resources Board The Board was advised that the City of Victoria had requested the Water Resources Board to add to the legal boundaries of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that portion of the City of Victoria in the southwest quarter of Section 18, Township 116, Range 23. This would result in all of the property in the City of Victoria being included in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Engineer advised the Board that some of the property does drain to the District but that some of it does not. The Managers stated that they believed the request was appropriate for the administrative convenience of the City of Victoria. I't was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman that the District advise the Water Resources Board that.it favors the request of the City of Victoria to add this proper~y to the District's boundary. Upon vote the motion carried. Proposed Rule Lo Creating a Fee Schedule in Certain Cases The Managers reviewed a revised Proposed Rule L prepared by the Attorney, incorporating the changes requested by the Board at the last regular meeting. The Managers discussed whether, in light of the pending plan to revise the District's rules during the fall months, it would be appropriate to wait to adopt proposed Rule L at the same time. Manager Spensley expressed the view that it would be best to adopt Rule L separately and as soon as Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrct Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1985 Page 13 ' possible, since it would give the District the ability to recover expenses associated with permit violations and work done without a permit, and that this rule should not be delayed pending revision of the other rules of the District. It was moved by Spensley, seconded by Thomas, that the District hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 19, 1985 at the St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, commencing at 8:30 p.m., concerning the proposed Rule L and that the Secretary be authorized and directed to execute and publish a Notice of Hearing as provided by law. Notice of Claim - Project CP-5 The Attorney reviewed correspondence received from Wendy E. Weil, P.A. asserting a claim against the district in connection with work done in Project CP-5. The Attorney advised the Board that copies of the claim had been sent to the District's and the contractor's liability carriers. The Engineer briefly reviewed the facts of the matter for the Board. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John E. Thomas Secretary 1478n Sfll3~'dlNO8 'J.S Nr~ld 3qd¥1AI 311=IIYUd N.'. N/V~O.L~I3.LYAA ON f'lOIAl 3)t'~1 9NOq ¥11:JOJ. Ol^ kl3~VIAI ~OlSq3OX3 N3$SVHN AIN30¥3v 9NINIYEI.I. 3BI-I vaEIY NEI3J. S3~ VI, AVAt. z ~?o --Outgoing Board Chairman looks back at Board's histoi-.y (see page two)-- ~~INNESOTA ASTE ~:,~"~'~ ANAGEMENT BOARD ~ Volume Five, Number Eight September, 1985 Meetings, wOrkshops to explain Landfill rules, solid waste grants The Minnesota Pollution control Agency (PCA) and the Waste Manage- ment Board have embarked on "a fishing expedition" according to the PCA's Solid Waste Unit supervisor, Ed Meyer. However, this "expedition" will have little to do with stalking the mighty Min- nesota walleye. Rather, the group of solid waste rules and grants experts from the two agencies has been stumping the state during August and September, ex- plaining and presenting new landfill rules -- and help in developing alternatives to landfills -- to local officials, landfill opera- tors and others who will be affected by the PCA's solid waste rule revisions. "The fishing expedition is a way to get feedback on our proposed rules," said Meyer. Significant changes have been made in the PCA's regulatory approach to solid waste landfill siting and regarding the responsibilities of landfill operators ir~ properly closing and monitoring landfills after they reach capacity. These rule changes, Meyer said, will affect everyo, ne from the landfill operator, to the county commissioner,' all the way down to the householder. The presentations, however, include assistance in solving or avoiding some of the problems associated with the opera- tion of solid waste landfills. The Waste Management Board's new $15 million Capital Assistance Program offers grants to local governments to help fund alterna- tives to landfills, such as waste-to-energy systems, composting, recycling and other facilities. The Board is also planning a series of workshops in October and November for IN THIS ISSUE · Collecting household hazard- ous wastes · Company evaluates market for hazardous waste facility · Meeting andevents local officials, dealing with specific issues and problems often encountered by local governments engaged in planning landfill abatement projects. The forum for presentations on the new landfill rules was a series of meetings held at the PCA offices in Roseville on August 13 and 14, and'in six other Minnesota communities during August and Septem- ber including: Owatonna on August 21, Marshall on August 22, Thief River Falls on August 28, Fergus Fails on August 29, St. Cloud on September 11 and on Sep- tember 12 in Grand Rapids. The sessions in Grand Rapids will be co-sponsored by various community groups with an inter- continued on page six Waste treatment firm sizes up market in Minnesota The Envirite Corporation, a Pennsylva- nia company that treats inorganic hazard- ous waste and renders it non-hazardous, has proposed to build and operate a $4 million treatment facility in Minnesota. The company, however, would require a heavy measure of s, tate funding assist- ance to keep treatment prices at a reason- able level for industry. Envirite's proposal is the result of a $ 50,000 market study for such a facility to treat inorganic wastes from metal pla- ters, circuit board manufacturers and electronics firms in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. The study was assisted by a $25,000 grant from the Waste Management Board. The additional $25,000 was pro- vided by Envirite, which operates treat- ment facilities in Pennsylvania, Connecti- cut, Ohio, and Illinois. The inorganic waste stream studied by Envirite represents approximately 50 per- cent of the 123,000 tons of hazardous waste estimated by Waste Management Board to be generated annually in Minne- sota. Large volumes of inorganic wastes from Twin cities businesses are currently being sewered. New federal and local reg- ulations prohibit the discharge of such metals to the sewer, and many Minnesota companies are looking for new treatment methods. Envirite, in its report delivered to the Waste Management Board in July, esti- mates that the total volume of wastewa- ter contaminated with hazardous wastes in the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota) is continued on page three Geoffrey Stengel (light), Envihte's President, and B'.',l Noward, Director of Market Development, dress the Board July 25. For..___esit___~e In.__~tervie._____~w: R_..obert Dun_____~.n IA/! tired Board Chairman looks back state's progross in i, On July 23 Robert Dunn, who served as Chairman of the Waste Management Board since its creation in 1980, an- nounced his resignation, effective Sep- tember 1. At an August 6 news confer- ence Dunn commented further on his retirement, and recommended that the Legislature take two actions: · reinstate the process of selecting a site for a hazardous waste disposal facil- ity, placed under a moratorium by the Legislature in 1984, with the final site-- to be selected by the Waste Management Board-- held in reserve; and · provide an "incentive package," fi- nanced by a small levy on industrial prop- erty valuation, to eliminate or reduce property taxes for residents living near such a facility, Dunn spoke with Foresite about the Board's history, his new proposal, and the future of waste management in Minne- sota: Q. You've often said that Minnesota has received praise from other states and the federal government for its efforts, un- the Waste Management Board, to tage solid and hazardous wastes. ~t types of feedback have you re: ceived? A. At the time our process started in 1980, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were the locations of most of the hazard- ous waste disposal facilities Minnesota used. There was a feeling that it was "about time Minnesota began to do something about its hazardous waste problems," particulaHy from Illinois, which remains one of the main areas where we utilize facilities. There was a skeptical feeling that we would accom- plish anything, but at least we'd make a major effort to attempt to do something. What has attracted the most attention nationwide has been the commitment the Legislature made in 1980 in providing the authority, creating the whole process, and laying out the goals which articulated the purposes of the process--namely, to promote waste reduction, treatment, re- cycling and other alternatives to disposal, and to use land-disposal only as a last re- sort. In most states, the people charged with solving the hazardous waste problem.say there's no way their Legislatures would'ye gone.as far as Minnesota has in providing them the tools to do the job. At the same time, many of them feel that their business community wouldn't have supported any such state authority. Of course, the business community in Min- nesota was very instrumental in 1979 and 1980 in getting this process going. I think the comprehensiveness of our Haz- ardous Waste.Management Plan was an- other thing many people felt was unique and is a forerunner for the way things ought to be. Our extensive public participation pro- gram, with many public meetings and hearings on siting proposals and waste is- sues, was something that attracted a lot of attention. It was recognized as a major undertaking in an area where public par- ticipation has been recogn, ized as very im- portant. Another thing that's attracted national attention has been what we've done in the waste reduction programs, to help in waste minimizat, ion through technical as- sistance, grants to companies, and awards given in recognition of achieve- merit in waste management. That whole approach to reducing waste has been sin- gled out bY groups such as the National Academy of Sciences as being the best kind of approach. We are seen as the lead- "Our waste reduction approach was seen as the best" ers in this effort. Q, When you first took this job, what sort of picture did you have of it? Some people may not realize your previous in- volvement in developing waste manage- ment legislation, and what that indicated to you about the responsibilities of Board Chairman. A. I was a member of the original in- terim committee appointed in the 1978 legislative session to examine the solid and hazardous waste issue. It was a pro- tracted study through two different legis- lative interims, culminating in the Waste Management Act of 1980, of which I was an author and even a member of the con- ference committee that hashed out the fi- hal details. I don't think being chairman is an ira- possible job, contrary to what some have said. It's a very exacting and difficult job, but not impossible. I've found the past "1 found it'satisfying-- the job's not impossible" five years to be extremely challenging and even fascinating. Governor Quie, when he appointed me, told me that this could be the most interesting experience of my life. It may be that it was -- it ranks near the top. I found it demanding, challenging and satisfying, because we have made a lot of advances. We have done a lot of good things, and you don't expect to cure all the ills in as complex a situation as this in a very short time. Q. Looking at the Board's five year his- tory, what are you proudest of, and what would you like to have done differently? A. I'm.most proud of the fact that we were able to persevere in spite of an al- most total lack of understanding by most everyone who watched the proc- ess. We stuck by the basic concepts that inaugurated the whole process and have started to bring into being a system that will follow the basic objectives of waste reduction, recycling, treatment, and- only when there's no other recourse-- disposal. The biggest regret is that, in spite of our best efforts, it was very difficult to con- vince the public of our whole process-of emphasizing reduction, rbcycling and treatment--and to convince them that was really what the Board was all about. Because of the lack of understanding and the emotional reaction to the terrible haz- ardous waste site problems of the past t management the public just couldn't understand those were our priorities. Q, What caused the lack of understand- ing? Has it improved, and what are the prospects for the public's understanding of the solid and hazardous waste prob- lems in the future;? A. The reason the misunderstanding of the Board's approach came about was the design of the process itself. In order to attract attention to the hazardous waste planning issues, we were required to set out to do our siting--both of hazardous waste processing and disposal facili- ties-as a means get the public to partici- pate in preparing the hazardous waste management plan, the state's overall haz- ardous waste policy. That approach got their attention, but, at the same time, it created the percep- tion of siting as being the basic thing we were trying to do. It was sort of a Catch- 22: if you did one without the other it wouldn't work. Q. You often emphasize that the Board's first task is the development of a comprehensive hazardous waste man- agement system, yet your new proposals deal with the resumption of the hazard- ous waste disposal siting process. Isn't there a risk that this proposal will focus so much attention on hazardous waste dis- posal that it will overshadow the work on alternatives to disposal? A. That risk is there, but one of the _ things that I've suggested, of course, is that we go ahead with and complete the siting process, but that we not make any commitment abOut the kind of facility that would be developed there, that we remain open-minded and spend time now and in the foreseeable future in becoming informed and monitoring the develop- ment of technologies for processing, waste minimization, and for disposal. It's entirely possible that even though we may have a site "banked" or held in reserve, we may never need to develop it or build any kind of disposal facility. If the technologies for waste reduction, recy- cling and treatment advance to the point where some people think they may go-- to treat all wastes so that nothing hazard- ous would have to be disposed of--that would be the best outcome of all. In the meantime, since we aren't certain that can happen and we aren't certain just what kind of a use the site might be put to, we want to make it very clear we ha- ven't even decided that the state will build a disposal facility. But we should conclude that the state needs to pursue the siting process, so that if that time comes there will be a properly-chosen site for whatever contingency. "There's a basic misunderstanding by business people" Q. In your five years as Chairman you've seen .many changes in the field of solid and hazardous waste management. What changes have been, to you, most significant? ' A. The most. significant change would be the advancement and the better ac- ceptance of the concept of waste reduc- tion or minimization. Industry is beginning to recognize that the best thing they can do, because of their exposure, liability and costs, is reduce the amount of waste they generate. Q. If you could talk directly to any busi- ness or industry leaders in Minnesota about the hazardous waste issue, what would you tell them? - A. I think there's still a basic misunder- standing on the part of business about how you must manage hazardous wastes. I think a lot of business people are hoping for an easy and lower-cost method of disposing of their wastes, and I think we still have to reeducate many to realize that can never happen. There've been certain companies, and certain individuals within companies, who are aware of waste minimization, re- cycling, treatment, and yet, there are a lot,. of people in the business world who don'~ understand it. They say it takes at least (continued from page one) approximately 12 billion gallons per year. Most of this total is generated in the Twin Cities and discharged into its sewer sys- tern. Envirite anticipates the largest, most concentrated market for its services will develop within the Twin Cities metropoli- tan area as companies stop discharging wastes into the sewer. Envirite also found that "no environ- mentally effective" treatment services are presently available within the Upper Midwest region. The closest facility is an Envirite plant in the Chicago area. Envirite estimates that the target mar- ket share for a Minnesota facility would be 14.4 million gallons per year, consist- ing of 2.8 million gallons of manifested wastes and 11.6 million gallons per year of presently sewered wastes. The com- pany believes there is only enough waste for one Upper Midwest treatment plant. Envirite's survey also indicated that the majority of inorganic wastes are pro- duced in small quantities and managed in drums. Minnesota generators managing their waste in this way encounter high costs for transporting waste out of state for treatment. This high cost of transpor- ration represents what Envirite calls a "window of opportunity" for a commer- cial treatment facility located in the Twin Cities metro area because many busi- nesses pay more than $.2 per gallon for liquid waste transportation and disposal services, and more than $170 per ton for solids management services at out-of- state facilities, Envirite projects their inorganic treat- ment prices would be $.29 per gallon for liquids -- and $100 per ton for solids -- if state funding assistance could be assured to keep prices down. Envirite officials rec- ommend that Minnesota contribute half the capital cost for siting, permitting and building a $4 million Envirite inorganic waste treatment facility in the Twin Cities metro area. At the Board's July 25 meeting in St. Paul Envirite President Geoffrey Stengel emphasized that the company's request for state assistance stemmed from a de sire to keep treatment prices down for Minnesota hazardous waste generators. "We have the resources to invest 100 percent in the cost of this project," Stengel said. "If Envirite is to invest all of one generation to promote basic change in attitudes, and we're trying to do it in a lot less time than that. is the biggest challenge facing incoming chairman of the Waste Management Board, and what is the big- gest challenge facing Minnesota in man- aging solid and hazardous wastes? A. The challenge for the chairman, I think, is to keep the momentum moving ahead on the programs the Board has al- ready established., and not to let anything develop that would prevent those from being expanded. I refer to the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, the col- lection and transportation system we've established for hazardous waste, the haz- ardous waste reduction grants to com- panies, and the development of hazard- ous waste processing facilities. The biggest challenge in waste man- agement facing the state, in my mind, is the horrendous task of redesigning our solid waste disposal system. It's been carried on in a way that has to be changed, and it reaches into every corner of the state. That's the major, monumen- tal challenge, to turn that system around. We've started some .new facilities here in the past five years that have some promise. But as we knew in 1980, they were demonstrations of ways to address )lid waste problem. The problem is despite the new $15 million. capital assistance program the Legisla- ture expanded, which can only deal with a tiny piece of the whole problem. Q. How do you view the use of a citizen board to carry out the responsibility of de- signing the state's proper management of hazardous waste, including the siting of new facilities? When the Legislature in 1980 first created the Board it discussed other options, including a board of state agency heads or technical experts, giving the Legislature the responsibility, or just "The state's biggest challenge is solid waste" leaving waste management to the "free market," an approach taken in other states. A. A citizen Board is still the better op- tion. It's not perfect, but in Minnesota-- where we have a relatively small market for hazardous waste management, where we have disadvantages of geographical location, there are many things working against a free .market approach. (I also question whether such an approach would be appropriate, because the objec- tives companies have in siting or develop- nic hazardous waste' treatment facility that money, the result is, at least prelimi- narily, a price of from maybe 50 to 75 cents a gallon to generators, which may not be attractive and may in fact encour- age continued sewering of wastes. "To the extent the $4-5 million is Iow- -ered, it's not earning more money for En- virite--it's lowering the price to genera- tors," he added. "We're scared ourselves of the liabilities of landfilling" Envirite Market Development Director Bill Howard told the Board that the com- pany will likely apply for an additional grant this fall under the second Board pro- gram of grants to companies for hazard- iraste processing facility studies. irite, he said, will probably conduct ibility study to better determine the level of state assistance needed by the firm, and on the issue of whether the company can dispose of the residuals from its treatment process in Minnesota as non-hazardous wastes. Disposal of such non-h;~zardous resid- uals, in fact, is a key to the operation by the company of its treatment process-- and could figure prominently !n the estab- lishment of a Minnesota Envirite facility. Such a facility, the corporation states, would produce non-hazardous and dewa- tered sludges that would not require dis- posal in a hazardous waste disposal facil- ity. "We only process liquid or solid inor- ganic chemical wastes which we can de- list," Stengel said. "De-listing" refers to certifying that a hazardous waste has been rendered non-hazardous, and thus removed from the "list" of hazardous wastes. "If we cannot de-list a waste we do not take in that kind of material, because we are too scared, ourselves, of the long- term liabilities of landfilling," Stengel commented. "Envirite has not in the past, and does not today, and hopes not in the future to landfill hazardous wastes, if we can possibly avoid it." "What we would propose," Howard added, "would be to, one, qualify the ma- terial through co-disposal requirements" lng facilities are less public-directed than they should be.) In Minnesota the free market approach certainly would not have worked..We've had to go way be- yond even what lawmakers first envi- sioned, in providing not only sites for haz- ardous waste processing facilities, but in encouraging companies in many other ways-- in financially assisting them. That wasn't even contemplated in 1980. The question of whether the Board should be a citizen Board, a board of agency heads, or a board of technical ex- perts, is maybe less clear. When you bal- ance the fact that this is not only a techni- cai and scientific kind of a problem, but also a social and political problem, then a citizen board seems to be the best way to do it. Q, What did you like most about this job? A, The thing that attracted me most to this job was the sense of the importance of what we were trying to do. The feeling that here was probably the major environ- mental concern of this decade, with no apparent solution, and one which cried out for some kind of system and solution. To be able to participate in a meaningful way, where what happened could really have a major impact, was what attracted me to it to begin with--the challenge and importance of finding something to pro- vide an answer to this problem of hazard- ous waste. [] [which would allow it to be "co-dis- posed" with other non-hazardous wastes] "and then, two, work out an ar- rangement with a sanitary landfill to de- sign, construct and operate a special cell, or monocell, for our product." In additional comments on the firm's need for state help, the officials said that such assistance might include help in sit- lng a facili.ty, Perhaps a Iow-interest loan, or a direct state grant. The exact type of funding assistance needed, however, would be determined through additional studies. [] Foreslte is published by the Minnesota Waste Management Board. Board members include William Walker, Chairman. Park Rapids; Laurence Hunter, Vice Chairman, Hastings; Keith Kui- tars, Clerks Grove; William Kirchner, Richfield; Milton Knoll, Maplewood; Louise Kuderllng, Bloomington; Mary Robinson, Delano; Allan Eids, Hitterdsi; Ernest Lurid, Gheen. Address inquiries to Waste Management Board, 7323 58th Avenue North, Crystal MN 55428:{612) 536-0816 (outstats 1-800-652-9747). Tom Johnson. Assistant to the Chairman Pstdck HiHgoyen, Information Officer Ke~n Johnson, Deputy Information Officer Mary Bensman. Assistant Information Officer Household Hazardous Wastes head household waste collections Increasing public concern has surfaced in recent years about the potential dan- gers household hazardous chemicals · pose to human health and the environ- ment -- especially, when they are tossed into the trash, sewers or on the ground. The interest has focused on th~ risk of groundwater contamination posed by the disposal of household hazardous wastes--including building and painting chemicals, motor oils, household clean- ers and pesticides--in landfills. Approaches taken around the country to deal with the problem have ranged from Florida's statewide "Amnesty Days" waste collections, to smaller neighborhood collection efforts, to the establishment of facilities to handle spe- cific household wastes, such as Minneso- ta's motor oil recycling centers. The question of how best to collect and manage household hazardous wastes, however, still is unresolved. A special two-year pilot collection project to begin this fall and to be conducted by the Pollu- tion Control Agency 'is designed to pro- vide some ansv~ers. Funded by $150,000 from the Minne- sola Legislative Commission on Minne- sota Resources (LCMR), PCA staff, work- lng with local volunteers, will conduct special one-time collections in several Minnesota communities this fall and next spring, to sample the effectiveness of such a collection in communities of vari- ous sizes and locales. Citizens of the pilot collection com- munities will be notified of the dates, times and locations of the collections in their area, and will also be given specific instructions about which types of hazard- ous wastes will be collected and how to transport those wastes. At each collection site, state and local officials will oversee the collection of the waste, with the materials to be eventually transported' .to permitted hazardous waste facilities by a licensed waste trans- porter. In addition, an on-site survey, will be conducted to determine attitudes about the use and disposal of household chemical products. Volunteers in each community are ex- pected to play an important role in con- ducting the collections. For example, Io- cai leaders will distribute information on the collection and are being provided with a variety of public education materials. Among those materials are items being developed by the Waste Management Board with the help of a $25,000 grant from'the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The materials currently include a brochure and slide show and give an over- view of the nature and extent of the household hazardous waste problem as HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DO'S AND DONT'S Try to give leftovers to neighbors, busi- nesses or organizations who will use them. Recycle used motor oil and batteries. Purchase only the amount needed for the job. Dispose of chemical solids in original con- tainer. Keep chemical wastes out of reach of chil- dren and pets. Use non-hazardous alternatives whenever possible. Do not dispose of liquid chemicals, banned pesticides, batteries or motor oil in the trash. Do not bury containers or leftover chemi- cals in your yard or garden. Do not burn containers of leftover chemi- cals. Never reuse any pesticide of chemical con- tainers for other purposes. Do not use storm sewers for chemical waste disposal. Do not mix chemical wastes together. well as general guidelines for proper man- agement of household hazardous wastes. Susan Ridgley of the PCA -- an orga- nizer of a similar project conducted in Se- attle, Washington -- is coordinating the pilot collections. She has been working closely with participating communities, which include Duluth and Winona, to help them organize their volunteer system and believes, to be most effective, the most visible part of the collection projects should come from within each commu- nity. Gene Mossing, Winona County's Solid Waste Officer, agrees. "You need to have local people and local involvement on a one-to-one basis for this to work. Espe- cially in the rural areas." Winona's collection will include the en- tire county, with one urban and two rural collection areas. "The element.of trust is important. You trust neighbors more than outsiders and more than a regulatory agency, such as the PCA." Mossing said. The volunteer effort in Winona will be spearheaded by the local chapter of the League of Woman Voters, other chapters .. of which have been involved in household hazardous waste collection projects in Massachusetts and other states. The Winona chapter will provide coordinators for staffing, public education, site man- agement and reuse, recycling possibili- ties. St. Mary's College sociology depart- ment has offered its services for research and survey needs associated with the project. Mossing said the volunteer network for the project will be expanded as needed and may include a door-to..-door campaign prior to the collection day. The volunteer structure is much the same for Duluth's collection project, ac- cording to Western Lake Superior Sani- tary District Planner, Steve Knight. "We are working with the League of Woman voters, the Issac Walton League and the Duluth Audobon Society," said Knight. "We won't need many volunteers at the site because of the number of people on our staff interested and willing to be there. Additional volunteers will be used to conduct off-site surveys," Knight said. He said that Duluth, a city of approxi- mately 40,000 households, will rely on newspaper, radio and TV coverage to promote the collection and informatior sent with local utility bills. Increasing awareness of the potential dangers of improperly disposed house- continued on page six MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS (continued from page one) est in solid waste management. follow-up session to further dis- any issues brought up during the tings will be held at the PCA's Ro- seville office on September 25. Sug- gested changes will be incorporated into the revised rules and, after approval by the PCA Board, the Rules will be pre- sented for a public hearing. The 'rules are expected to be adopted by mid-July 1986. Each meeting for public officials, land- fill operators and solid waste profession- als was preceded the night before by a meeting for the general public intended to increase community awareness on solid waste landfill problems. Meyer said the sessions were intended to allow the pub- lic to give more informed feedback on these issues to their local officials. "It is the type of forum designed to help develop grassroots support," Meyer said. The MPCA's solid waste rule revisions cover a range of issues, including: permit- ting, demolition debris land disposal, composting and recycling facilities, refuse-derived-fuel processing, storage standards, transfer facilities, mixed mu- nicipal land disposal, and site selection, location and evaluation. Meyer said, "A lot of people don't new rules for landfills. The re- are going to require more money, more planning and more emphasis on al- ternatives to landfills. Environmental pro- tection at solid waste facilities is gener- ally being tightened up and rules will become more stringent." The most significant questions and concerns come from the changes in two specific areas: the Certificate of Need process required for a local government to receive a permit to add landfill space, and financial assurance provisions that mandate landfill operators to assure funds are available to pay for closure and post-closure of landfills and environmen- tal problems caused by closed landfills, Meyer said. "People will be surprised that it will be SO important," Meyer said, The financial assurance rule will mean, Meyer said, that landfill operators must begin to "salt money away. This will mean heftier landfill fees in the near fu- ture, could make bigger financial prob- lems for operators and will eventually in- crease the household garbage bill," Meyer said. The MPCA will conduct additional workshops and make guidance manuals available in the future to lead local offi- cials through the new permitting process. "The manual will tell them what we need during the landfill process and what the county officials will need to do." Meyer explained. For more information on the PCA Solid Waste Rules, contact Ed Meyer at (612) 296-7785. For information on the Board's Capital Assistance Program, call Ed Welsch at (612) 536-0816 (outstate 1-800-652-9747). [] MEETINGS AND EVENTS September 6: Hazardous Waste Man- agement Planning Council, 9 a.m., Waste Management Board offices, Crystal September 13, 27: Solid Waste Man- agement Advisory Council, 1 p.m., Board offices, Crystal. September 6: Waste Education Roundtable. 1:30 p.m., Room 300-North, State Office Building, St. Paul. Some meetings subject to change. For further informa- tion contact the Board offices: (612) 536-0816 loutsiOe Twin cities metro area 1-800-652-9747) ~~ Minnesota Waste Management Board 7323 58th Avenue North ~ Crystal, Minnesota. 55428 ---- BOARD ~ HOUSEHOLD (continued from page five) hold hazardous chemicals and encourag- ing the use of non-hazardous alternative~ is an important component of the PCA's pilot study and the development of mate- rials by the Waste Management Board. Recommendations that both the study and public education be implemented originated in a report prepared by a citi- zen's Household Hazardous Waste Task Force, organized in 1984 by the Waste Management Board. The idea to form the Task Force to look at the impacts of small quart(tit(es of chemical wastes in the household gar- bage originated with the Board's Hazard- ous Waste Management Planning coun- cil, a group representing government, industry and citizens that advises the Board on hazardous waste issues. The Task Force studied the issue in Min- nesota and other states, and recom- mended that the Legislature provide the authority and funds to conduct a field study of the problem. The LCMR awarded the funds for the two-year program in June, 1985. For more information on the pilot col- lection studies, contact Susan Ridgley or Steve Lee at the Minnesota Pollution Con- trol Agency (612) 296-7740. To obtain copies of the brochure or re- serve the slide presentation contact Mary' Bensman or Patrick Hirigoyen at the Waste Management Board (612) 536- 0816 or toll-free, 1-800-652-9747. [] BULK RATE U. S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT No. 171 ST. PAUL, MN. City Clerk 5341Maywood Road Mound, HN 55364 special report I-Ien_nepin County Solid W&ste Disposal l ecovery Board signs resource-recovery contract Greyhound plant The Hennepin County Board approved a contract Aug. 6 with Hennepin Energy Resource Co., a limited partnership formed by Blount Energy Resource Corp., for the construction and operation of a resource-recovery facility at the Greyhound site near downtown Minneapolis. County staff and technical, financial and legal advisers recommended that the Blount proposal was in the best interests of the county The recommendation was made after a detailed analysis of costs, revenues, technology, risks and financing provisions of each of the five firms' proposals submitted to the county. The contract is for construction of the facility, which will cost about $70 million, and a 20-year period of operation. Renewal periods may extend the contract by five-year intervals to 35 years. Negotiations between the county and Blount, a world-wide construction firm based in Montgomery, Ala., with $850 million in sales annually, began in early July. The County Board June 20 selected Blount for contract negotiations. If plans go according to schedule, construction will begin next summer, with the plant fully operational in 1989. This is an artist's sketch of the 1,000-ton-per-day energy-recovery facility that will be constructed by Hennepin Energy Resource Co. at the Greyhound site in Minneapolis. Blount will construct a 1,000-ton-per-day mass-burn facility, in which unprocessed solid waste is burned in boilers to produce steam and/or electricity. A total of 365,000 tons of garbage and trash is to be burned in the plant annually, with ferrous metal to be recovered after the waste is burned. The four other companies which submitted proposals were American REF-FUEL Co., of Houston; Dravo Corp./ Gibbs & Hill, Inc., of New York; Northern States Power Co., of Minneapolis, with National Ecology, Inc.; and Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., of Paramus, N.J. NSP was the only firm which proposed a refuse-derived fuel, or RDF, system, in which waste would be processed into a fuel before being burned. Hennepin sold $134.5 million in temporary general obligation bonds in late 1984 for a resource-recovery plant at the Greyhound site. The county plans to refund the general obligation bonds with long-term, tax-exempt bonds guaranteed by the project, and not by the county. BIount's proposed financing plan includes tax- exempt revenue bonds for approximately 75 percent of the plant's capital cost and vendor equity for the remaining cost of the plant. Blount will pay off the bonds with revenue from the facility, including tipping fees (money paid to dump solid waste) and income from the sale of steam and electricity The facility will be built on the 14.5-acre Greyhound site, which is bounded by 6th Avenue North and 7th Street North, and 5th Street North and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Following a lengthy dispute with the City of Minneapolis, the county in June received city approval to locate the plant at the Greyhound site, which is in an industrially zoned area. Purchase agreements between Hennepin and Greyhound Lines, Inc., and the county and Burlington Northern for parcels of land in the site were approved by the County Board this summer. Greyhound Lines sold the county a 3.94- acre parcel, including a bus-repair garage. Terms of the purchase agreement permit Greyhound Lines to lease the property from the county through Feb. 28, 1986. Hennepin purchased 8.14 acres of land just west of the Greyhound bus garage from Burlington Northern. 986Llsnen¥ ~lueo ~uouru.~o.~oo £ogI-V ~eu~ ~p 3ueuruoJp~u,w $o o, ue~-uq,~daCI ,~unoo s~. deux.~eH specia report state legislation affects aste-management plans Unprocessed solid waste cannot be disposed of at landfills in the Twin Cities metropolitan area beginning Jan. 1, 1990. Instead, the waste must be recycled, composted, converted into fuel or burned in resource-recovery facilities. The only materials that will be allowed in landfills are ash from waste-to-energy plants, those items that can't be recycled and some excess waste during peak generation periods. The restriction on disposal was one of the laws passed by the Minnesota Legislature during its 1985 session that directly ' affects solid-waste management in Hennepin County. In effect, the new legislation states that the metropolitan area's solid waste that is not processed at a resource-recovery facility won't be accepted at area landfills the end of 1989. The Legislature gave the county authority to adopt a mandatory source-separation ordinance. The ordinance would require the mandatory separation of recyclable and compostable items by generators-- households and businesses--before trash collection. If the county adopts such an ordinance, it applies th'all cities in the county that have failed to meet local abatement-performance standards, which would be set by the county.. Another law says that the county's solid waste master plan must include landfill- abatement objectives, both for the county and cities within the county The Legislature enacted a law giving cities $4 for each ton off recyclable materials collected and recycled from households. This is in addition to 1984 legislation which provides 50 cents per household per year to cities with landfill-abatement and resource-recovery activities. The money is available through the Metropolitan Council's landfill-abatement fund. To receive these funds, cities must provide adequate documentation of recycling expenses. And, a new law gives cities permission to levy taxes beyond the norma! limits to pay for the costs of implementing waste- reduction and source-separation programs. County helps fund city recycling, compost programs The Hennepin County Board has established a policy of providing funds to municipalities for source-separation and recycling programs. Eligible activities include curbside or alley collection of recyclables, recycling drop-off centers, recycling redemption centers, yard-waste composting and co-composting, separate collection and composting of yard waste, and programs for the recovery of commercial and industrial wastes, such as office paper and cardboard. The county will make grants for 50 percent of documented expenses which apply direct!y to a recycling project or for an amount not to exceed 25 cents per household per community, per year, for project expenses, whichever is greater. The number of households is based on current Metropolitan Council estimates. For example, the board voted July 23 to provide the City of Minneapolis with $40,783 to help fund the city's recycling program during the next year. The grant represents a funding rate of 25 cents for each Minneapolis household. Hennepin also has approved funding for programs in Champlin, Excelsior and Mound. Funds for the grants come primarily from the county's landfill surcharge tax. For more information about the grant program, contact Dave Winter, Department of Environment and Energy senior planner, at 348-4491. WASTEL NE ... the shape of things in solid waste 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/291-6464 August 1985 IssueNo. 9 Editor: Joan Steinmann SELLING RECYCLING TO THE PUBLIC - MAGIC? What does it take to get people to recycle? It's a crucial question for any governmental agency or private group that's starting up a recycling program: if publicity doesn't reach out to inform people and spur them to participate, all the other efforts associated with such a program are wasted. What makes for a successful publicity campaign? Speakers at one o{ the panels at the June "New Roles in Recycling and Composting" conference in St. Paul offered a number of answers, "Repetition, reinforcement and persistence are all-important, said Regina Desvernine, who represented Holt & Ross, Inc., the public relations firm that put together the first statewide recycling campaign, in New Jersey. "Start with a common theme-then everything one organization does can reinforce what the others are doing," said Desverine. "And don't let recycling problems overwhelm you." New Jersey's theme was magic, and Mr. R.E. Cycle (William Romer), the campaign's traveling magician, performed while Desvernine spoke. His character and the magic theme are known throughout the state, not only because of his performances but through their appearance in newspapers, on grocery bags and in a massive billboard project. One difficulty for the New Jersey campaign was reaching the local level. "We had to sell seven and a half million people on recycling, but the hard part was selling the local governments," said Desvernine. Persisting with a memorable, attractive campaign paid off. "What local or county official can resist a picture of himself in the newspaper? What child can resist magic? And businesses love community relations projects." Still, maintaining awareness and participation must be an ongoing effort, said Desvernine. "Our job is to continue to promote, promote, promote." Char Iten, Delano city council member and one of the initiators of the recycling program that now serves Delano, Greenfield and Independence, emphasized the importance of reaching children through the elementary schools and enlisting the help of volunteer organizations. WVe started the recycling program because Hennepin County threatened to site a 'mega-dump' near us," said lien. A local women's group made large, simple posters illustrating the landfill problem and how to recycle, and showed them to kids at school. Eventually, 18 organizations joined with the women's group to take brochures from door to door when the program began to offer curb-side pickup of recyclables. A local grocery printed recycling information on its bags. The program was honored with a $12,000 award from Sears Roebuck & Co. .qY l "Counties and municipalities need to take a larger role in public education about recycling, along with the companies that provide the service," said Colleen Halpine, a solid waste planner for Ramsey County. She spoke about the county's efforts to promote both recycling and composting. To publicize composting, the county had how-to brochures distributed to every household, placed notices in local news- letters and in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch, and put together brief, clear public service announcements for radio and television. For recycling, the county also produ.ced a 24-minute videotape to be aired on cable television, and hired a half-time staff person to concentrate on publicity. Bernie Beerman, of Beerman Services, stressed high-quality service as the key to making promotion of a recycling program effective. Beerman Services picks up recyclables from several Twin Cities Area communities and runs a drop-off site., "Dependability is very important in promotion," said Beerman. "Remember you're competing with a highly dependable solid waste collection industry." For example, if stops are missed in a curbside pickup program, "have a back-up system, such as a drop-off site." Beerman also recommended providing effective, complete instructions for recycling and maintaining good relations with customers. "When you distribute information, it has to be very specific," he said. "Spell it out, for instance, if material must be sorted. People won't always ask questions if they don't understand." But even so, Beerman advises against arguing with people if they don't follow instructions perfectly. "The customer is always right," he said. "Pick it up even if it isn't properly sorted. Don't leave stuff behind." Aisc, problems with customers can be turned to a program's advantage. "You can turn complainers into promoters of your program," by responding politely and constructively, Beerman said. 'qf they bother to call, it means they care and they can help." Finally, "Don't forget 'thank you'," said Beerman. NEW COMMITTEE TO HELP GET OUT THE WORD ON RECYCLING, RESOURCE RECOVERY Letting people know about landfill abatement programs and encouraging them to participate is especially important in the Twin Cities Area, because a new state law and the Metro- politan Council's solid waste policy plan call for an end to land disposal of unprocessed trash in 1990. Now a new interagency steering committee set up by the Council is working on a plan to improve publicity about efforts to reu{e and recover resources from trash in the region. ' ' The Solid Waste Public Education Steering Committee- uding members from such diverse agencies as the Council, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the League of Women Voters and Jacobson's Sanitary Service-is one of the first attempts to pull together all the various government agencies and private organizations that are marketing abatement programs or simply providing information about solid waste management. The need to coordinate the efforts of these groups has grown acute as many new recycling and composting projects spring up around the region. Through the committee, which was called for in the Council's solid waste plan, the groups can share ideas and resources, find out about existing publicity tools and use them where possible-instead of Creating new ones for each new program. After studying the various programs that promote recycling and resource recovery, the committee will decide whether a unified regional publicity campaign is necessary, and what role each agency should play, It will establish a permanent regional clearinghouse for information about solid waste management and develop strategies for reaching specific segments of the population, The committee will also explore different ways of funding publicity efforts, and help decide which criteria the Council should use when giving out grants and loans for public education on landfill abatement, The committee is expected to release its recommendations for public comment around the end of September, COMPOSTERS SWAP TRADE SECRE'TS Leaves, grass clippings and other yard w~ste make up a fifth of all trash going to Twin Cities landfills, but composting looks like a promising way to deal with the high volume of this organic material produced annually in the Twin Cities Area. To explore its possibilities and problems, representatives of existing composting programs-and people interested in starting new ones-met in July at a forum sponsored by the Metropolitan Council.. .. Many speakers at the forum underscored the problem of marketing the compost. In most cases, that means giving it away now, but' ~he need to find takers of the compost is growing as the supply increases. Publicizing the fact that the compost is available and making it easy for people to get it are keys to the problem, most speakers agreed. "There's no problem getting rid of compost if a city is willing to deliver it," said Mike Banwart, a planner in Hennepin County's Environment and Energy Department. He noted that Minneapolis, which delivers compost within a 25-mile radius, couldn't keep up with the demand for it. Composting programs in the Metropolitan Area vary widely. Some use no special equipment, and don't water or turn the compost to promote decomposition. Some control the :cess to drop-off sites to discourage dumping of noncompost- wastes or have their employees monitor the dumping. A number of operations turn the compost piles regularly and shred the yard waste for better consistency (Hennepin County uses a S95,000 shredding machine}. Costs vary also. In Ramsey County alone, costs per ton of yar waste composted range from $12 to $100. Many of these variations reflect differences in the needs and character of different parts of the Twin Cities Area. In rural areas, Washington County emphasizes backyard composting, said county ple'~'~er Zach Hansen, but the county also set up centralized sit~? to serve more densely populated areas. Washington County's Forest Lake composting site now receives lake weeds, solving a local disposal problem and supplying "moisture that helps the breakdown process," Hansen said. Yet discussion at the meeting did suggest that centralization and pooling of resources could benefit composting efforts. One possibility is sharing expensive equipment that's used only intermittently. Another is consolidating composting operations at "mega-sites." Rick Hlavka, a solid waste planner in Ramsey County's Public Health Department, said a 100-acre site could receive county yard waste in the future. Specific subjects-such as finding sites for composting, publicity for programs and the problem of lead in compost- will be topics of discussion at smaller meetings during the next few months. If you're interested in attending or getting more information about composting in the area, call Grant Scholen, of the Council's staff, at 291-6549. REPORTS AVAILABLE PROFILING RECYCLING, COMPOSTING PROGRAMS Want to start a community recycling or composting project? Interested in what programs are already operating in the Twin Cities Area7 Two reports put together by the Metropolitan Council's solid waste assistance team can help you out. Each is a collection of profiles of selected Twin Cities Area recycling and composting programs, providing basic information about organization, financing, staffing, hours and type of services. The reports give an overview of current "low-tech" landfill abatement activities in the area. .Although not every recycling or composting program in the region is included, the reports offer a good introduction to the bigger ones-and many of the small ones as well. The emphasis is on programs affiliated with local governments. To get copies of Profiles of Selected Metropofitan Area Recycling Programs (pub. no. 12-85-069) or Profiles of Selected Metropolitan Area Leaf Composting Programs (pub. no. 12-85-070), call team Coordinator Jim Uttley at 291-6361. WILL TOMORROW'S FUEL BE AS CLOSE AS YOUR TRASH CAN? Today's time machine, as suggested by the hit summer movie Back to the Future, is a plutonium guzzler, but 30 years hence all it will need to run is mixed municipal solid waste. The mad scientist who invents the device can travel back through the decades to 1985 and then give his newly made friends a return trip to 2015. There's no need to worry about procuring plutonium to fuel this trip: the scientist simply thrusts some stuff from the garbage can-banana skin, beer bottle, etc.- into a neat little unit on top of the machine, artd they all blast back to the future. With a little ingenuity, who knows what uses technology may eventually find for trash? Printed on recycled paper. MINOTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF September 5, 1985 Present were:. Chairman Andy .Gearhart; Commissioners Art Andersen, Nancy Clough, Robin Michael;, Linda Panetta and. Lowell Swenson; Ex-Officio Member Toni Case; Acting City Manager Fran Clark; Park Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Commissioner Cathy Bailey was-absent and excused and Commissioners Cheryl Burns and Delores Maas were absent. Also present was Jim Horan of Horan Associates. MINUTES The minutes of.the Park Commission meeting.of August 7, 1985 were presented, for consideration. Clough moved and,Andersen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August.7, 1985 Park Commlssion meeting as presented. The vote was unani- mously in favor. Chairman Andy Gearhart. repo~ted that. the Park Commi§sion has.-been invi~ed.by'Marl.ene Newton, Presideat of the PTO' for Grandview School; to. the dedication of the Nature Trai'l'and Exercise Cou'r~e'.on-Satbrday afternoon, September 14, 1985, between 4:30 P.M. and 5:30 P.M.; Jim Horan was present to review what was to.be done to the depot bui.ldi'~g and to ta.lk.about color,selection.and material~selection. He brought samples of the draPery, carpet and vinyl materials. He stated ~he exterior of the building where raw wood is exposed now will be painted the same color'as building is now. On the inside, they will re-spray the.ceiling and. paint.the walls; floor will become new carpet; wainscot will be carpeted.also. The two'bathrooms will get new:vinyl flooring. He showed the samples and advised. Commission of his recommendations... Walls would be an off white and top strip of wainscot, tri.m around windows, etc. would be a shade of brown with a little rust in it. He also recommended putting a wood frame around the bulletin boards if they are to stay and lowering the plaque-and_move it over to miss the light switch. These items are not in the bid; he'wi]l not.charge for doing this. The commission discussed the pai. nt to':be used on the Walls. It was decided ~o use a semi-gloss..paint in the off'white so,.walls-could be washed easier. The Commission looked at the books of samples and discussed colo~s and various combinations of the draperies~ carpeting and also the vinyl patterns. After considerable.discussion, the Commission took a consensus on the materials. It was decided to go with the Architect's recommendations which were: Floor covering: University stripe - Brown # 53725 (strips to.go crossway of building).. Wainscotting:. Wheatfield #.53318 Draperies: .. Pattern is Columbia and Color Brick (Will be ready mad;) Floor covering for bathrooms: Armstrong Brigantine Vinyl Cor]on Flooring # 86375 -Clough asked i.f there ~re plans for electrical and plumbing work? Horan reported both the electrical and plumbing servlce~are quite good. The main electrical ser- vice is more t'han adequate for a hot'water heater. He thought possibly an addi- tional circuit could be added in the kitchen area. Cost would be about $1OO. · Commission concurred.to have an extra circuit put in kitchen area at Cupboard level. Park Commission Minutes September 5, 1985 - Pag someone questi.°ned what wobJd'be done on the stairway'.. Ho'ran stated the stairs will not. be carpeted, but wi. ll. be painted down and.around the corner. Horan sta'ted we've covered everything in the bid except the sign (no bid was gotten on this. item). Discussed present sign and new proposed sign brief'ly. Michael will talk with her.husband about a sign and.see what they could come.up, with. Horan said the carpet, will be'about'4.weeks.to'delivery; they won't start work until just ahead of getting' the carpeting. Th'e Park Director noted that once the improvements are in, they.will make a check list and do a,,more thOrough, job~Of Checki.ng after rentals'to see that everything is-in good order. The Commissioners welcomed Toni .Case Who has been away for. some time. Fackler aisc.reported they have'picked a spot. for the-volley ball court between the parking l'ot and the beach, iAll.timbers-.are stocked downstairs and the court will be.done w~en.the Street Department. has'time. Also the donor increased'the .cont'ribution $200. Discussed brief.ly having a dedication and placing a plaque with'donor's name on it. Adjournment Swenson moved and Michael~seconded a motion'to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. All were in favor, so meeting~was adjourned. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF September 9, 1985 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representa'tive Steve Smith; Acting City Manager Fran Clark; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Phil and Eva Hasch,. Klm and Todd Yilek, Cheryl and Rick Libra, Dorothy L. Davis, Donald' L. Davis, Roger and Gail Rager, Audrey. Froeming Bonnie Lanns, Dwight Gustafson and Douglas Klint. MINUTES' The minutes o.f the Planning Commission 'mee.ti~g of August 12, 1985 were 'presented for consideration'. Reese asked'that on Page 5, in'the motion under Item 7, streamline should have a d added. .Ken Smith moved and Meyer seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the--August 12, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 85-441 Conditional'Use Permit for 4850 Edgewater Drive Lots 19, 20, 21 & 22, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32 Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood Douglas Klint was present. The Chair noted that this is a public hearing. Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report on the request which is to install a ~0,OOO gallon underground gaso- line storage, tank with a pipe system and dispenser unit on the end of dock to replace the existing 500 gallon above ground storage tank now on the property. This is presently a nonconforming'grandfather use. Nonconformities are allowed to remain essentially.an unchanged condition with the ultimate intent of the ordinance to convert to a conforming use. Two of the provisions of the Code are directly applicable.to this c~se. Item 1 states "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon.the effective dat~ of this.'.chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date." There is another provision that states "Once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in a more restric- tive nonconforming use, it. shall not return to a less restrictive nonconforming use." The staff feels that the proposal as it has been submitted directly contra- dicts the first proVision--It specifically increases fuel capacity from 500 to 10,000 gallons.; would be inconsistent with use of the property at it'-s preseht size. Additional, dispensing at'the end of the dock compared to the existing on land dispensing location is inconsistent with the existing operation of facility. In .looking at proposal, it does have some merit---specifically within the public safety issues. The existing above ground tank is a potential fire hazard and replacement wi'th a new underground tank would eliminate that hazard and provide benefit 'to the marina and surrounding area. He stated, in order to prevent expan- sion of the nonconforming, use, the applicant could replace tank with a new under- ground 500 gallon tank with a land based dispensing unit and it would be somewhat consistent with what is there right now. In conclusion, he stated since only boat storage is under a conditional use permit, the City may find it advisable to prepare a permit for the entire site. He is suggesting the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a conditional use permit for the entire property including a catalog'of existing uses and the installation of a new 500 gallon underground ~l storage tank with a land based dispensing unit. (This would alleviate inter- pretation of how the property can be used.) 705- Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1985 - Page 2' The Planni'ng Commission questioned how gas was dispensed now?.How many trucks would have to come to fill a 500 gallon tank? how many gallons were sOld a season and the number of loads needed to supply that amount. They discussed the hazard'§ of the existing manner of dispensing gas. Applicant Douglas Klint stated the reason for. going to a bigger tank was to eliminate the number of refuelings. He commented there are two danger points anytime you have fuel sa'les: 1) when fuel is transferred from tanker into holding tank and 2) from the holding tank into the boat. He thought safest alternative would be to'have a dock based.dispensing unit with tank large enough so.they don't have to come to fill tank on a weekly basis; for instance a 10,000 gallon tank fi]ted 2 times a summer, rather than twice a week for a 500 gallon tank. He doesn't anticipate increasing gas sales more than a small amount over the next few years. Commission had questions on amount of traffic going through channel and seeing the gas pump and what would be done about con- gestion caused by their stopping for refueling? and how much sales marina has had in the past? Klint stated he'd like to respond to staff's recommendation; he likes the alternative recommendation-to prepare a 'conditional use permit that takes into consideration'the.historlcal uses of property instead of having it being grandfathered in as. it has been; have it stated in the permit. He doesn't want to have any on going issues and he wants to meet with the'staff to work out suitable language for conditional use permit that would cover the historical uses and any other considerations. The Chair opened the public hearing. The following persons responded: TODD-YILEK read a prepared statement opposing any expansion (copy on file in the City office). BONNIE LANNS concerned.about traffic and people backing into their dock. PHIL HASCH concerned abou( the safety of underground tank and leakage; stated there should.be a ~afety vault. KlM YILEK concerned about leaking underground storage tank and whether there was evidence of financial r6Sponsibility for taking corrective action to compensate third parties for injury or damage from sudden release of'gas. MRS. DONALD DAVIS concerned about tanker trucks using street and not being abl.e to pass them; also number of fillings required. Chair then closed the public hearing. Thal suggested perhaps Planning'Commission would like to go along with idea of making a real Conditional..Use statement on this property and thought applicant might like to withdraw'at this time so Council doesn't hear and we could try to draw it up and get something set. Klint would not like'to withdraw, but would like to meet with staff. The Planning Commission discussed the matter. Klint stated he'd like this public hearing to.be the hear- ing before this body; doesn!t 'see any reason to have this rescheduled; he liked staff recommendation to prepare Conditional Use Permit for entire property which would include catalog of existing uses which he understands would comtemplate the installation' of an underground storage tank--the size of the tank really goes to the issues of how many times tank is to be filled. Reese stated he feels we owe it to the owners of the Blue Lagoon Marina and to the neighbors to resolve this for once and for a11; to have unending litigation is ridiculous. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1985 - Page 3 Byrnes moved.and Weiland seconded a motion that the Planning Commission recom- mend denying the request for a 10,000 gallon tank with gas dispensing at the end of the dock. It was questioned if that was a proper motion. Koegler believes action should be deferred rather'than denied as they can't make reapplication for a year ex- cept under certain conditions. Reese mOved and S. Smith Seconded a motion to table. The vote was:' Jensen, Reese, S. Smith and Thal in favor. Opposed were: Byrnes, Meyer, Michael, K. Smith and Weiland. 'Motion lost 5 to 4. The Vote on~.motion to'deny was:. Reese opposed; all others in favor. Motion carries~. Byrnes moved and Weiland seconded a motion regbmmending that the Planning Com- mission direct staff to prepare.a conditional use permit for the entire prop- erty including a catalog of existing.uses'and the installation of a new 500 gallon underground storage tank with a land based dispensing'unit. The Planning Commission.discussed'thins motion at l~ngth. Reese 6bjects to motion procedurally; thinks we should talk and make trade offs if these two groups could get together. S. Smith would like Chair to give applicant the opportunity to withdraw his application because he is facing a vote that could grant a 500 gallon undergro'un'd tank. ./' Klint would like Co amend his request from 10,000 gallon tank to a.l,500 gallon tank. The Chair advised we're still lOoking at the 500 gallon tank. After furthe'r discussion, a vote was taken which was later cancelled because there was still'more questions and dlscussion. Commission asked for def. inition/c'larification on "land based dispensing unit" and "dispensing gas on dock". Koegler advised that condi- tional use permit language does mention that permits can be written even for uses that technically do not meet.all the conditions of the ordinance. After further discussion, Koegler stated that he had verified his recommendation with the City Attorney who had whole heartedly agreed with it in terms of getting entire use under one permit. That determination would be the City Council's. The conditional use permit is first reviewed by this body and then Jan, himself and all interested parties would sit down and make attempt to come up with a conditional use permit that would cover all of the grandfathered uses. He stated another possibility is, prior to spending staff time and so forth, the Planning Commission might want to send this to the Council to get their concurrende with this action before we under- take a permit and let City Council decide if it's proper to look at a permit for entire property and give us some direction first. Ultimately, the City Council must pass on any action. Reese stated he can't recommend stcongly enough on getting together and find common groUnd or t.here will be unending litigation. This will cost a lot of money. Ch~ir stated that sooner or later,~it will come down to issue of law. 'She thinks request is a valid one. City Council can spend money now putting this together or we can deal with it piece meal. Byrnes called the question. The vote was: Byrnes, Michael, K. Smith, Thal, Weiland and Jensen in favor; Meyer, Reese and S. Smith opposed. Motion carries. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1985 - Page 4 Case No..85~442 Public Hearing on Zoning Amendment of Conditional Use Provisions to allow Consignment/Gift Shop by Conditional Use ~:rmit . Lots 12 & 13, Block 2, Dreamwood (5098 Three Points Boulevard) Applicants, Roger and ~ail Rager, were.present Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report. The applicant is requesting'that the City of Mound amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow consignment shops in the B-3 zone either as permitted uses or'as a conditional use. The applicants' intent is to operate a combined restaurant and consignment craft shop at~.5098 Three Points Boulevard. Koegler stated that in previous cases, the City has amended the ordinance when it has. been demonstrated that an error was made either in the drawing of the map or the compil.ing of the text. Every possible use cannot be cataloged. He'stated that] the bottom li.ne was, are uses consistent? If the Planning]Commission finds that consignment shops are neighborhood businesses, it is recommended the proposed zonlng ordinance ~mendment allowing consignment shops as condit, ional uses in th6 Bz3-~one'be approved~ The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment'and the kind of items that would be covered in'the definition. ~lt was thought that "new" should be added, Rager stated that it would never be a hardware, clothing 'store, etc. Just craft items and boutique type items. The Chair opened the public hearing. Dwight Gustafson and Phil Hasch'spoke in favor of Rager's having a consignment shop if the amendment were approved. As no others wished to spea~, the Chair closed the public hearing. K. Smith moved and Reese seconded the motion to find that consignment shop is a neighborhood business and recommend the.motion to "amend Section 23.302 of the Mound Zoning'Code to'establish the following definition: Consignment shops - smal! scale retail shops'selling new goods on.consignment. Goods shall be limited to hand made craft items consisting of clothing, soft goods and/or furniture accessories. Section 23.635.3 of the Mound Zoning Code is amended to include consignment shops as a conditional use." The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carries. InformatiOnal/DiscusSion 1. Discussed briefly that Minnetrlsta is rezoning some.parcels on the west end of Mound to 20,000 sq. ft. residential lots and will be coming to the. City of Mound for permission to connect'to sewer and water to service this area. 2. The Work Session topic for September 23, 1985 meeting will.be "Potential Re- zoning of ShadyWood Point". A.dj ou rnmen t Reese moved and Meyer seconded a motion to.adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. favor and meeting was adjourned. All in .At this point, the Staff asked that the meeting be reconvened because Mr. and Mrs. R.ager are asking the Plannihg Commission for a conditional use permit for consignment shop so that if the amendment_qn consionm~nt shops by conditional..use permit in the Planning Commission Minutes. September 9, 1985 - Page 5 B-3 is in place, they will not have to bring their request back to this body to be .reviewed.-'They are asking the'Planning Commission to consider the conditions. After a brief'discussion, the followi.ng motion was made: K. Smith moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend that they approve the conditional use permit, for consignment/gift shop providing that they meet the City Ordinances on parking and signage. The vote was unanimously in favor. Adjournment Ken Smith moved'and Meye~· s~c0nded a motion to adjourn the reconvened meeting at 9:30 P.M. All were in favor, so meeting was adjourned. Elizabeth Jensen, Chair Attest: [ McCOM,BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIA'i-ES, I September 20, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Fran Clark Acting Manage~ City of Mound 5341May~ood Road ~ound, MN 55364 SUBOECT: Lots 4, 5 and South 1/2 of Lot 3 Block 10, Woodland Point MKA File #6456 Dear Fran: As requested, we are writing this memo regarding a request by the O~ner of the above property to donate subject property to the City of Mound. Ibis property is unbuildable in its present condition for two reasons, (1) fill would be required and (2) a 15" C.M.R. from Eagle Lane discharges into a ditch which runs through' this property. Attached is a sketch showing the approximate location of this ditch. We also prepared a preliminary engineering report in 1982 proposing 3 alternatives for the solution of the drainage 'problems in Block 10. A public hearing was held and the project voted down. The owner of this parcel evidently cannot justify the expense of correcting the drainage problem and filling the lots to make them buildable therefore he has offered to give the property to the City. We see no reason for the City to accept this property, unless they have definite plans for its use, such as a neighborhood park. The property is a mess at this time, since it has been used as a dumping area. If you need additional information or have any questions, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Ooh~nCameron~~-'~'~ OC: cab printed on recycled paper league of minnesota cities September 19, 1985 To: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks From: Joel Jamnik; Legislative Counsel Re: Possible Congressional Action on Fair Labor Standards Legislation Immediate action is requested regarding lobbylng our Congressional Delegation regarding passage of interim legislation that will provide cities relief from enforcement actions of the Department of Labor, which are scheduled to begin October 1. The interim measure is an amendment which will be offered by Representative John Porteer the week of september 23 to the Appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 1986. The amendment, if adopted, would prohibit the Department of Labor from bringing enforcement actions against cities prior to March 31, 1986 and would also prevent the Department from inpostng retroactive liability for. failure to comply with the FLSA prior to March 31, 1986. Unless immediate action is taken to pass this amendment, the Department of Labor will be required under law to take action on the more than 600 complaints against states and localities now pending at the Department of Labor. There has been an excellent response to the League's earlier Action Alert requesting passage of resolutions supporting S. 1570, which would provide permanent relief to cities. Passage of this interim measure in the House will go a long way in promoting final passage on S. 1570, in fact this initial vote is viewed by many as being a test vote on S. 1570. According to NLC, the major problems facing passage of legislation in the House are: (1) the Education and Labor committee is dominated by members who tend to be pro-union; (2) the perception on the part of key House members that cities have failed to properly document the cost impact of the Garcia decision; (3) a view that, in certain cases, city employees are "abused" or "exploited", and; (4) an unwillingness to recognize the adverse impact of the FLSA on the collective bargaining process. Again, the interim measure will'be acted on the week of September 23-27. Immediate action is required. City officials should CALL their Representatives and ur6e support of the Porteer amendment to the D~Dartment of Labor Appropriations Bill. '0~ U~IiV~[I~IWy dV~IlU~ eWsc, sc,¢aU,, minnesota 551 01 (~1 2]227-5600 Washington phone Tim Penny Vin Weber Bill Frenzel Bruce Vento Martin Sabo Gerry Sikorski Arian Stangeland James Oberstar numbers of Minnesota's First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Sixth District Seventh District Eighth District Congressmen are~ 202-225-2472 202-225-2331 202-225-2871 202-225-6631 202-225-4755 202-225-2271 202-225-2165 202-225-6211 John Franc, finance director for Eden Prairie, said the act is "getting in and messing up an agreed-upon contract." "This kind' of act doesn't necessarily heli~ us manage our. resources better,'" said Sharon Klumpp,-assistant to city: manager for St. Louis Pfirk. "It's added a burden," she said, because of problems in schedul- ing. and because of "disrupted · personal lives'!.~ of ·city employees. .:'/'::; ; "-~ ~:~.:~ '- Snowplow driver~ in st.. LoUis' Park were allowed to .ac-. cumulate their" overtime, in' comp'time~.During the summer when the workload was lighter~' they would take paid time off for.~ fishing-' trips,'. City Manager James Brimeyer told the St.. , Louis Park City Council. Under the act~ the drivers must be paid time-and-a-haft for. their over-' time in the winter; ..... --" "From the perspective Of city employees, elimination'of the _ .optiqn_:.t_o_._us_e_¢pmPensatory time _ is seen as a .ma~or- ticularly since paid time off is .perceived as a desirable benefit,", states a position paper Sent by the city of st. Louis Park to a .congressional delegation, Dep,~rtrnent o.f Labor. secretary, and Vice President George The cost of .o¥_ertime · City employees are not the on- · ly ones-to lose. Taxpayers".'Will'- lose because there will be in-. creased costs' without increased service, according to Klumpp. ' St. Louis Park's position paper states, ~'The city must now ad- dress an unanticipated increase in overtime costs. Our revised. 1985 budget estimates that over- time expenses will be 33 percent higher than the expenditure[ level approved...prior to the U.S. ' Supreme Court ruling. In 1986, it is estimated that overtime costs will exceed .the 1985 adopted ex.- ' penditure level b~ more than 60 percent." . . Klumpp said it w~ll c~st St. Louis Park $90,000 mot6 to fund the same amount of service. Johnson estimated an ad~tior~l $20,000 cost to Minnetonka. "It will.have a very, very big "impact," said Frank Bryles, assistant to the city manager in Plymouth. !'Historically, ~we've budgeted ~,000 to $10,00~ for overtime. This. year..we've budgeted $40,000." - .EffeCt on" ........ .police departments "Undoubtedw;:' public safe~y employees, are the_ most af- . fected," said Bryles. "There us- ed' to be comp time. They would. ~get their overtime hours and ex-.. change it 'with time off. That. would'all6w them to.go for per- :-sonal btminess~ to the doctor, ?'dentist,. etc." -That wOUld, save -va6ation time for vacations, he ' said..:-;~.-- '-.~-~-L. ~ ...'- -..:.: .... "PubliC: safe~ employees Ilk-' .'ed comp time. They did not feel · abused," he commented. "' In' Minnetonka, "police are "paid the same amount no matter ' how many hours they work," ex- plained Johnson. "The~ end up '~.owing~the city time at the end of ' the. year. We have them (mak4 ~p) work at holiday time when it's the busiest:" Under the act. .o_ffic__e~.. _ _ _w~l!..~ ...be~_-pg!d: overtime ".-during those holidaysd ~. · ::.--~ .~ Police .. administration in -St.- Louis Park will have .to work with two work schedules. .~ Civilian' dispat~ehers mus~'-now ~:w0rk a semen-day week, though'. . officers are' working a nine-day rotating schedul.e.' . ' ' Effect' on firefighters '~ :(~Volun'.teer fn'efighters will'~ot · escape the .act: When:volunteer firefighters employed by' Eden Prairie complete 40'hours of ~, Work during the. Week at their regular position and then fight a fire on the weekend, Eden :(Prairie may be required to pay 'overtime, aecordifig to Frane. - : He said some: cities are taking- - steps to prevent .city employees 'from .being. volunteer : fireqghters.' ' Plymouth is such a city. it's initial reaction is to not let. firefighters be ci~ employees, according to Bryles. The reason is two-fold, he explained. One the added cost of overtime: The other is the issue of morale: If 'one firefighter i~ getting paid his regular wage. and the person next to him is making time and a half to fight .the same ru-e. it ' could cause problems, he-said. ' Plymouth has also issued a memo to city employees stating, :. "you may not come in early or · stay late," said Bryles. "We had a lot of employee~ who dld. Now they may not be at their station more than seven minutes before -or eight minutes after, unless :- ~-authorized~ It makeS' you parano.id from an. employer, s - standpoint. That's not.the work." Louis Park not only .' ' city. to ~conta'ct' Officials'- in '.:: , Washington,-D.C. to change the Faff Labo~:.Standards Act.'. Bruyles and .Plymouth City. .'Manager have been '.'in close' ·-contact with Ronald.Alvarado, Special. assistant to the president for governmental affairs and (Rep.) Bill Frenzel," Bryles - . said..The.Plymouth City Council 'has also suP~rted_a resoluti~)n: '.Sent to Congress-..supporting a- "., RUss.:..VanGompel,".. finance - :~ direCt6~;: for Wayzata, ~a~d his" community...will 'try to '.reschedule time to minimize ~ 'overtime"'cosf~s. But nev'er.-.: ' 'theless,: the ac{~' '"'takes aWaY . some of the flexibility,"-he said. .~.'The Wayzata City. Council "sent: ::"out a letter asking to s.upport the "~:urrent::bill.. to exempt city ' '.government. (from the Fair 'Labor Standards Act)," he said. Johnson said Minnetonka's Ci- . .. ty Council l'ms adopted a. resolu-:.' . tion which~ it sent to. its senators : and representatives :in ..-Their.. goal ~is. to exempt city: employees from the Fa~ Labor. - Standards Act; .which. Would ' keep the'federal government ' from "messing" with how local g.overnments, manage their ~i employees~ It will ·free up ' Scheduling flexibility, return :compensatory time and · eliminate the extra costs, for ' If the'Fai~ 'Labor Standards ':Act remains, in effect, it will carry stiff penalties for violators. ' An employee may receive up to two years back pay ~and the city may be fined up to $10,000.. convicted of a second violation, a city employer may' be sentenced ~p to six months in prison. Said Bruyl~, "It's got some teeth to it." league of minnesota cities September 19, 1985 To: From: Re: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel Possible Congressional Action to Regulate Storm Water Discharges Recent dsvelopments regarding the wastewater treatment construction grant program and the charging of fees for pollution permits have been subjects of prior Action Alerts. I would like to thank you for your concern and prompt responses to these past action alerts. I also sincerely wish I did not have to send the following action alert to you, but once again we are faced with a proposal that could severely impact Minnesota's cities. As bizarre as it may sound, the following. is actually under consideration. The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a permit and control pollution levels entering the waters of the United States from every manmade discharge point. So far, the EPA has concentrated on the the big pollution problems, which include municipal sewage systems and waste water generated by industrial processes. Now, in response to a federal court ruling, EPA has said it will require storm water collection systems to obtain a permit similar to those issued to waste treatment facilities and major industrial plants, even though by EPA's own estimate the overwhelming majority of storm systems are relatively a minor pollution concern and deserve low priority attention. Given the limited resources available for water pollution cleanup and the enormous number of separate storm water permits required, doggedly pursuing a policy of requiring permit applications and issuing cleanup requirements for storm water discharges threatens to make a mockery of the Clean Water Act itself. 1 83univereiCyavenueeesC, sC. paul, minnesoCa 55101 (61 2) 227-5600 EPA estimates that there are more than one million separate storm water discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas. EPA has given municipal agencies two years to complete a complex and expensive permit application for each discharge point which includes detailed · sampling and laboratory test procedures. The cost of merely completing the applications easily could exceed $8.5 billion; or $1 billion more than the Federal Government plans te contribute to water pollution treatment facilities construction over the next three years. The enormity of the problem for cities across the nation strains credibility. Kansas City, Missouri's, waste treatment system requires just 12 permits, and annual monitoring costs $160,000. The city estimates it will need to apply for 20~000 storm water permits, at a cost of more than $90 million~ The cost impact will vary for each of Minnesota's cities, depending on how many identifiable storm sewer discharge points there are in the community. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would issue the permits. There is the possibility of issuing one or several permits to cover all the cities in the state, as well as modifying, the proposal to mitigate the consequences of requiring permits but no League staff member is confident that the EPA regulations can be written to ensure that Minnesota's cities will not be faced with another expensive federal regulatory system. Cities should also know that the issuance of regulatory permits is the first step to requiring "best management practices" or treatment of storm water discharges to eliminate any possible pollution. Cities contemplating separation of their storm and sanitary sewer systems may want to ask their Congressmen whether the systems should be separated or whether the city should seek federal funds to increase their treatment facility so that all storm water can be treated. I know it is difficult to take such an absurd proposal seriously. Many potentially affected parties whom I have talked to have thought the proposal totally insane and were amused to think, that Congress might actually do something so damaging to the goals of the Clean Water Act. I am afraid, however, that unless city officials speak up, and loudly, that there is a very real possibility that Congress will allow the permitting to begin. It seems clear to League staff that the best solution to this problem is to admit that the proposal to permit, regulate, monitor and/or treat storm sewer discharges is not feasible at this time. The costs and difficulties of applying the permit process to intermittent storm water discharges are only now coming into focus. Congress must be requested to act to ensure that the letter of the Clean Water Act does not overwhelm the spirit of the law -- to clean up the waters of the United States effectively, efficiently and in a manner which addresses the highest priority pollution control needs first. ~hat City Officials Should Do Congress is currently completing work on a revision of the Clean Water Act. House and Senate members are meeting in Conference Committee to put the finishing touches on a bill. Minnesota is lucky to have three members of our Congressional delegation on the Conference Committee: Senator Dave Durenberger, Representative James Oberstar, and Representative Arian Stangeland. Call or write Senator Durenberger and Representatives Oberstar and Stangeland and ask them to suspend the permit requirements for separate municipal storm sewers pending a better understanding of the task, the need and the best approaches to controlling the storm water discharges that need to be controlled. It makes little sense to start taking money out of the~pockets of city residents if we don't know the extent of the problem or its solution. City officials should also ask that our Conferees continue to push hard for Minnesota"s fair share of waste water treatment construction grant funds. There is a proposal to change the allocation formula which would result in Minnesota losing millions of dollars in grant funds to other states. Addresses and phone numbers of our Conferees are: Senator D~ve Durenberger 353 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-3244 Representative Arlan Stangeland 1519 Longworth Office Buiiding Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-2165 Representative James Oberstar 2351Rayburn Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 "~202-225-6211 September 20, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Fran Clark Acting Manager City of Mound 5341May~ood Road SUBOECT: Lots 4, 5 and South 1/2 of Lot ~ Block 10, Woodland Point HKA File #6456 Dear Fran: As requested, we are writing this memo regarding a request by the O~ner of the above property to donate subject property to the City of Hound. This property is unbuildable in its present condition for two reasons, (1) fill would be required and (2) a 15" C.M.R. from Eagle Lane discharges into a ditch which runs through'this property. Attached is a sketch showing the approximate location of this ditch. We also prepared a preliminary engineering report in 1982 proposing 3 alternatives for the solution of the drainage'problems in Block 10. A public hearing was held and the project voted down. The owner oft his parcel evidently cannot justify the expense of correcting the drainage problem and filling the lots to make them buildable therefore he has offered to give the property to the City. We see no reason for the City to accept this property, unless they have definite plans for its use, such as a neighborhood park. The property is a mess at this time, since it has been used as a dumping area. If you need additional information or have any questions, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCTATES, INC. Ooh~nCameron~'~ JC: cah printed on recycled paper league September 19, 1985 To: From: Re: of minnesota Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel oities Possible Congressional Action on Fair Labor Standards Legislation Immediate action is requested regarding lobbying our Congressional Delegation regarding passage of interim legislation that will provide cities relief from enforcement actions of the Department of Labor, which are scheduled to begin October 1. The interim measure is an amendment which will be offered by Representative John Porteer the week of september 23 to the Appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 1986. The amendment, if adopted, would prohibit the Department of Labor from bringing enforcement actions against cities prior to March 31, 1986 and would also prevent the Department from inposing retroactive liability for failure to comply with the FLSA prior to March 31, 1986. Unless immediate action is taken to pass this amendment, the Department of Labor will be required under law to take action on the more than 600 complaints against states and localities now pending at the Department of Labor. There has been an excellent response to the League's earlier Action Alert requesting passage of resolutions supporting S. 1570, which would provide permanent relief to cities. Passage of this interim measure in the House will go a long way in promoting final passage on S. 1570, in fact this initial vote is viewed by many as being a test vote on S. 1570. According to NLC, the major problems facing passage of legislation in the House are: (1) the Education and Labor committee is dominated by members who tend to be pro-union; (2) the perception on the part of key House members that cities have failed to properly document the cost impact of the Garoia decision; (3) a view that, in certain cases, city employees are "abused" or "exploited", and; (4) an unwillingness to recognize the adverse impact of the FLSA on the oolleotive bargaining process. Again, the interim measure will be acted on the week of September 23-27. Immediate action is required. C..ity officials should CALL their Representatives an~ .urse ..support of the Porteer amendment to the Department of Labor Appropriations Bill. ~uCu,,,v~,.=,uyo'VW,',o~u&~C, su. paui',mlnnesota55101 [G12) 227-5600 Washington phone numbers of Minnesota's Congressmen are: Tim Penny Vin Weber Bill Frenzel Bruce Yento Martin Sabo Gerry Sikorski Arlan Stangeland James Oberstar First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Sixth District Seventh District Eighth District 202-225-2472 202-225-2331 202-225-2871 2o2-225-6631 202-225-4755 202-225-2271 2o2-225-2165 2o2-225-6211 .'"i '.o~ :',-'~ ': ' :~''TL':::iI · I: "~ '2~ ' ,:'.: ~-' ~ :.'~-;~1' .,...;.. ,.. :-'? . ~ ... ~. ~'~ "~4'~ i', '~ ':. "~:..';.'.'~'.,. . .. :.. - : ~ ~ - ".: . '- ~' ' r ~.'. , [?:'.-' .' ~ . ,.'~L- ~.~ . . . · .. '. ~.':?. John Frane, finance director1 for Eden Prairie, said the act is I , "getting in and messing up an] agreed-upon contract."· "This kind' of act doesn't neceksarily hel~ us manage our. resources better,'" said Sharon Klumpp,-assistant to the city manager for St. Louis Pfirk. "It's added a burden," She said,. because of problems in schedul- ' ing and because of "disrupted · personal hves ,..~ of .' city employees.;.'. ~.;_ ~,~..~::: .' ': ~..<~-.' - ' Snowplow 'drivers in st._ Louis-. Park were allowed to .ac-. cumulate th. cfr." overtime, in' comp_ time: .During the s .ur_nmer when the workload was lighter~- they would take paid time off for, fishing- trips,'. City Manager James Brimeyer told the St.. -Louis Park City Council. Under the act~ the drivers must be paid time-and-a-half for their over: time in the winter. - ~:"'. "From the perspective of city employees, elimination" of the optiqn~..tp_~_e_c_ompensa' torY_t.'_m~_e is seen as a .major loss, par- ticularly since paid time off is .perceived as a desirable benefit,"~ states a position paper ~ent by the City of St. Louis Park to a~congressional delegation, Department o.f Labor. secretary, and Vice President George .-. Bushy. ' : The ¢o$t o! overt[me' "' ~ City empioYe~s ~-re not the-Di¥~' Iy ones to lose. Taxpa~,ers :will' lose because there will be in- creased costs without increased service, according to KlumPP. ~ St. Louis Park's position paper states, :'The city must now ad- dress an unanticipated increase in overtime costs. Our revised 1985 budget estimates that over; time expenses will be 33 percent higher than the expenditure level approved...prior to the U.S. ' Supreme Court ruling. In lS86, it is estimated that overtime costs will exceed the 1985 adopted e'4.- ' penditure level by more than 60 percent." .. Klumpp Said. it wal C~st St. Louis Park $90,000 mor~ to fund the same amount of service. Johnson estimated an additional S20,000 cost to Minnetonka. ""It will. ha~ a very, very big "impact,' said Frank Bryles, assistant to the city manager in 'Plymouth ,Historically, we've . budgeted $5,000 to $10,000 for overtime. This· year We've budgeted $40,000." : EffeCt on .... police departments · "undoubtedI~,~~' public safe/7 employees..are the_ most al- . fectod," said Bryles. "There us- ed' to be comp time. They would -'f.. get their.overtime hours and ex-.- change 'it 'with. time off. That. would-' allow them to .go fOr per- :,sonal bminess', to the doctor, ~'dentist,. etq.." -That would- save -vacation time for Vacations, he ."Publiel Safety' employee~ likL' ed comp time. They did not feel ~ abused," he commented: In' Minnetonka, "police are "paid the same amount no matter - how many hours they work," ex- ,. plained Johnson. "They end up owing,~e city time fit the end of "the. year. We have them (makl ~p) work at holiday time when' it's the busiest:" Under the act, · officers will be paid. overtime ":'during those holidaYS/ ~i. ~:~'-i'Police· administration' in 'St.- Louis. Park will have .to Work with two work schedules. , CiVilian' ~spatcbers must-- now !~w0rk a seven-day week, though'. officers are working a nine-day rotating schedul.e.' , - ' - EffeCt' on firefighters ' '- ~; ~:]Volun'teer f'n-efighters will hot. · escape the .act. When:volunteer' fh-efighters employed by' Eden :'Prairie complete 40 hours of !, Work during the. week at their ' regular position and then fight a fire on the weekend, Eden ~ Prairie may be required to pay ov'~rfime, according to Frane.': -He said some-cities are ta~ng- -~ steps to prevent .city employees 'from .being. volunteer. Plymouth is such a ciry. it's .initial reaction is to not let, firefighters be city empl°Yees, · according to Bryles. The reason is two-fold, he explained. One is the added cost of overtime: The other is the issue of morale. If :one firefightfir i§ getting paid his. regular wage and the person next to him is l;naking time and a half to fight.the same fn'e. it * could cause problems, he~saicL · Plymouth has also issued a memo to city employees stating, .' :. "you may not come in early or · stay late," said Bryles. "We had a lot d employe~ who && Now they may not be at their station more than seven minutes before '.or eight minut~ after, unless : authorized~ It makes' you standl~int. That's not.thO work. Louis Park i~'~ot the only...' · city. to 'eont/ct' officials'- in '.:: Washington,-D.C. to change the Fai~ Labor'.Standards ACt.. Bruyles' a~d .Plymouth City. 'Manager 'have been ','in close' -contact with Ronald'Alvarado, ."'[ Special. assistant to the president. for governmental affairs and.. (Rep.)' Bill FrenZel," Bryles said. The Plymouth City Council 'has also 'suppOrted_a resolufi6n '.sAnt to Congress-SUpporting a- "., Russ.:..VanGompel& finance · (.direCt6ki: for Wayzata, /ald his community..- Will ' 'try to '.reschedule time to minimize ~ Overtime'Cosis. BUt never-.. theless,, the aci' '"'takes a~,aY . some of the flexibility,"-he said..'-' .~ ~The wa3;v, ata City. Council "sent :::'out a letter asking to s.upport the "~urrent~:: bill. to exempt, city" ".government. (from the Fair 'Labor Standards Act)," he said. ' Johnson said Minnetonka's Cf: . ty Council has adopted a resolu;..- tion which~ it sent to_ its senators and representati~/es. :in · ~ Their.. goal ~:is to exempt city - . employees from the Fair Labor: · Standards Act; which. Would ' keep the:federal government from "messing" with how local gpvernments, manage their :i employees: It will .free up ' Scheduling flexibilitY, return :¢o.mpensatory time and · eliminate the extra costs, for - If the' Fair"Labor standards ::Act remains-in effect, it will -carry stiff penalties for violators, ' An employee may receive up to two years back pay -and the city may be fined up to $10,000.. convicted of a second violation, a city employer may' be sentenced~ap to six months in prison. Said Bruyl~, "It's got some teeth to it." league of minnesota oities September 19, 1985 To~ From: Re: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel Possible Congressional Action to Regulate Storm Water Discharges Recent d~velopments regarding the wastewater treatment construction grant program and the charging of fees for pollution permits have been subjects of prior Action Alerts. I would like to thank you for your concern and prompt responses to these past action alerts. I also sincerely wish I did not have to send the following action alert to you, but once again we are faced with a proposal that could severely impact Minnesota's cities. As bizarre as it may sound, the following' is actually under consideration. The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to issue a permit and control pollution levels entering the waters of the United States from every manmade discharge point. So far, the EPA has concentrated on the the big pollution problems, which include municipal sewage systems and waste water generated by industrial processes. Now, in response to a federal court ruling, EPA has said it will require storm water collection systems to obtain a permit similar to those issued to waste treatment facilities and major industrial plants, even though by EPA's own estimate the overwhelming majority of storm systems are relatively a minor pollution concern and deserve low priority attention. Given the limited resources available for water pollution cleanup and the enormous number of separate storm water permits required, doggedly pursuing a policy of requiring permit applications and issuing cleanup requirements for storm water discharges threatens to make a mockery of the Clean Water Act itself. 1 83universiCyavenueeasC, sC. paul, minnesoca 55101 (612) 227-5600 EPA estimates that there are more than one million separate storm water discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas. EPA has given municipal agencies two years to complete a complex and expensive permit application for each discharge point which includes detailed · sampling and laboratory test procgdures. The cost of merely completing the applications easily could exceed $8.5 billion; or $1 billion more than the Federal Government plans to contribute to water pollution treatment facilities construction over the next three years. The enormity of the problem for cities across the nation strains credibility. Kansas City, Missouri's, waste treatment system requires just 12 permits, and annual monitoring costs $160,000. The city estimates it will need to apply for 20;000 storm water permits, at a cost of more than $90 millionl The cost impact will wary for each of Minnesota's cities, depending on how many identifiable storm sewer discharge points there are in the community. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would issue the permits. There is the possibility of issuing one or several permits to cover all the cities in the state, as well as modifying, the proposal to mitigate the consequences of requiring permits but no League staff member is confident that the EPA regulations can be written to ensure that Minnesota's cities will not be faced with another expensive federal regulatory system. Cities should also know that the issuance of regulatory permits is the first step to requiring "best management practices" or treatment of storm water discharges to eliminate any possible pollution. Ci~ies contemplating separation of their storm and sanitary sewer systems may want to ask their Congressmen whether the systems should be separated or whether the city should seek federal funds to increase their treatment facility so that all storm water can be treated. I know it is difficult to take such an absurd proposal seriously. Many potentially affected parties whom I have talked to have thought the proposal totally insane and were amused to think, that Congress might actually do something so damaging to the goals of the Clean Water Act. I am afraid, however, that unless city officials speak up, and loudly, that there is a very real possibility that Congress will allow the permitting to begin. It seems clear to League staff that the best solution to this problem is to admit that the proposal to permit, regulate, monitor and/or treat storm sewer discharges is not feasible at this time. The costs and difficulties of applying the permit process to intermittent storm water discharges are only now coming into focus. Congress must be requested to act to ensure that the letter of the Clean Water Act does not overwhelm the spirit of the law -- to clean up the waters of the United States effectively, efficiently and in a manner which addresses the highest priority pollution control needs first. What City Officials Should Do Congress is currently completing work on a revision of the Clean Water Act. House and Senate members are meeting in Conference Committee to put the finishing touches on a bill. Minnesota is lucky to have three members of our Congressional delegation on the Conference Committee: Senator Dave Durenberger, Representative James Oberstar, and Representative Arian Stangeland. Call or write Senator Durenberger and Representatives Oberstar and Stangeland and ask them to suspend the permit requirements for separate municipal storm sewers pending a better understanding of the task, the need and the best approaches to controlling the storm water discharges that need to be controlled. It makes little sense to start taking money out of the pockets of city residents if we don't know the extent of the problem or its solution. City o~ficials should also ask that our Conferees continue to push hard for Minnesota"s fair share of waste water treatment construction grant funds. There is a proposal to change the allocation formula which would result in Minnesota losing millions of dollars in grant funds to other states. Addresses and phone numbers of our Conferees are: Senator D~ve Durenberger 353 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-3244 Representative Arlan Stangeland 1519 Longworth Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-2165 Representative James Oberstar 2351Rayburn Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 ~ 202-225-6211 CITY of MOUND August 23, 1985 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY After months of waiting around, Balboa finally developed a space proposal for the City Public Works use in the Old Tonka Building. The details of the proposal are attached, but basically it is fo'r 19,489 square feet at $2.50 per square foot or an annual rent of $48,722.58 per year. ~ Since it would be on waht is called a triple net lease, taxes ($7,795.60), Utilities ($6,000 est.) and commons maintenance ($2,000) would be on top of that.-Together they would add up to a total of $64,518.80 per year, with an annual cost of living increase built in each year, not to exceed 6%. As a first year incentive, Balboa would allow us a $2.00 per square foot cash allowance ($39,445.16), plus four months free rent. These incentives would only come into play if the City signed a ten year lease. I have tried to price this out to arrive at a ten year total cost using an average increase of 4% per year. That comes to a total of $745,166.98, after you subtract the cash advance, leaving a net average annual cost of 574,516.70. Perhaps though, worst of all, is that we will noti:have anything to show for all that money at the end of ten years. As you recall, last year we did a public works building study. In the end that got delayed because we did not have any costs on Tonka and the site location was controversial. The first part of that question has now been answered.with the figures from Balboa. The need for the facility has never been more evident. With the Anderson Building's removal in late Winter, the City will be left with five stalls in the Island Park facility and a million dollars plus.; worth of equipment sitting outside, including Christmas decorations, etc. The need is to reactivate our planning process for a new facility and relatively quickly. No matter where we have a site, we will still have to have a referendum because it would be funded by G.O. Bonds. ~"'J / An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities, Page 2 City Council August 23, 1985 There are a couple Of positive notes on all of this. The estimated cost from'the Engineers for a new facility was $477,360. I have priced it out similarly as I did on the Tonka Building, i.e. $2.50 per square foot, etc. with a 4% inflation rate built-in. That total comes to $651~550.99 or a yearly average of $65,155.00. Since we already own the land, it would be built on, that would be a savings~of more than 10% or $80,000.00. Figured on an actual basis, the building would be financed by the sale of $500,000 in Bonds. I would propose a term of 15 years. Today's interest rate on that issue could be around 8%, but for safety I have figured 8.5%. Roughly speaking, that would mean an average annual cost of $54,585.00. or a total 15 year cost of $818,772. At the present time, the Building Fund has a total of $5,327.00. !In addition, it will receive $80,000 from the sale of the lot in the northwest corner of the Town Square development site. Finally, if over the next several years the Lost Lake site could be sold, from estimates we have that should be worth another $1OO,O00 which can be earmarked for the Public Works Building. These funds could, of course, go to help pay the rent on the Tonka building, but it would not be a ~very wise investment it would seem to me. If this scenario does turn out like I would expect, the price would mean paying off from special levies a total cost of $~70,OOO, plus interest. The public works bui. lding need is one of the greatest unresolved issues the City faces. It must be dealt with or the Community will be stuck storing valuable equipment outside. Lost Lake will not be able to be sold because there will not be any known location to store City stock piles for street sealing rock, construction supplies, etc. It will not be easy getting people to understand this issue. The annual Cost on taxes-will not be alot, but it will equal close to one mill ($54,000) annually. Out of a total levy in 1985 of $$6.5 million, it comes to less than a 1% increase and as the City grows it will become less. MN55364 Re: Proposal - City Works Fac. Unit 4 - Tonka~est Deal We are pleased ~e to provide the following proposal for.you~ significant facility requirement. The location of the facility is o~ County Road 15 in Mound (the old Tonka Corpora- tion plant). In this proposal you facility and financial information. In addition, we provide cash allowances for the City to minimize your financial exposure during your relocation efforts. Should you require additional allowances please contact us to negotiate same. The proposed area in Unit 4 cOnsiSts of 20,789 square feet of 35' clear warehouse area. Immediately adjacent to the facility is a car park area for 82 vehicles. In the future additional car parks will be provided to the north of Unit 4, across the railroad tracks. We look forward to discussing in further detail this proposal and the specifics within it. Please feel free to call upon me should any questions arise during your review of this proposal. Yours very truly, ~'~' S.R. ANDERSON INC. Anderson President ~.~ /kr BROKERS & DEVELOPERS OF CORPORATE REAL ................... City West Btk~iness Cente~; 6567 City West Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55344 (612) 944-2053 TONKAWEST BUSINESS CENTER SPECIALLY PREPARED FOR F MOUND 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Zoning - I-II Lot Size - 566,2 Age of Facility -.20 plus years Gross Sq. Ft. Facility - 408,000 Elevations of Fa~llit~ ~'~Varies Address of Facility - 5340 Shoreline Drive Warehouse sq. ft. Warehouse Depth Warehouse Width ft. Bay Sizing - 20' x 60' Typical Clear Ceiling Height - 35'0" Trackage - None provided FLOOR l) WALL- l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) PARKING 1) Allowed Traffic - Paved Area a) Light duty parking - 82 vehicles (shared parking) b) Heavy duty parking - No outside vehicle storage LANDSCAPING 1) Lawn Sprinklers - Per plan 2) Number of plantings - to code 3) Site sodded - per site plan 4) Tie rail berming - None 5) Site elevations - Slight variations for landscape purposes only.~ Floor load capacity ~ ~60 lbs. per sq. ft. Metal Insulated ~anel? / Garage door openings L two Size - 10' in width- 10' in height Man-door openings - 2 (including entry) Ventilation openings - None provided Window Openings - per plan Construction type - Metal panel exterior Page 2 WAREHOUSE - Interior and Exterior Finishes 1) Interior Ceiling - Painted metal (white) i a .... 2) Interior floor - Cement, . pp±lca~lon brock-white seal 3) Exterior wall - painted metal fascia Interior wall - Metal block plan) SPRINKLERS :~':~' i. 1) Type - we 2) Amount - to group HEATING Z) Ordinary hazard specifications Amount - Gas fired Unit heaters- capability to 68 degrees (standard code) 2) Thermostats location and area serviced - 1 for entire warehouse area.' CONDITIONING .1) Amount - None provided in warehouse area PLUMBING l) 2) Amount of baths - per plan in warehouse area, to occupancy code Amount of drinking fountains - None provided in warehouse area ELECTRICAL 1) Lighting provided - 15 foot candles, typical fluorescent lighting. 2) Outlets provided - none - see Financial Section. 3) Location of service - Main service panel - north eleva- tion 4) Size of service provided - 800 amp 3 phase 277./480, not distributed UTILITIES Gas a) Where meter ed - per plan b) Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self metered ~. ELECTRIC a) Where meters are located - per plan b) Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self metered WATER a) b) Where meter is located - per plan How services - self tenant metered 2 ESPECIALLY PREPARED FOR ~THE CITY OF MOUND The following business terms are applicable to this proposal. ~ Lease Term . . . .The term~of the Lease is ten years, commencing on the earlier of the following dates: (1) the date ten days following the Architect's Certificate of Sustantial Completion or (2) the day The city of Mound first occupies any part of the building. The anticipated commencement date is October 1, 1985. An annual C.P.I. increase (not to exceed 6%) will be added to the base lease cost. Option to Renew . An option to renew for two'(2) five year lease terms will be included in the lease. These options to renew shall be at the rent as set forth below and the rent as adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI for all urban consumers for the Minneapolis/ St. Paul areas) from October 1, 1985 to Sept- ember 30, 2005. These increases shall not exceed 6% annually, and shall be on a compounded basis. Annual.Rent . . · Warehouse Area (in Unit 4) Total Sq. Ft. (20,789) 20,789 $2.50 $2.50/N/N/N (avg. cost psf) Annual Cost Monthly Cost $51,972.50 $ 4,331.05 For e~ch exp ~ ~ above base ~Uilding standards, and that certain improvement allowance listed herein calculate the dOlla~ amount required amortize~at the pre~ailing interest over the lease term. and rate Operating Costs and Real Estate Taxes ...... . The rent noted above is net of all expenses relating to the operation, use, and occupancy of the building and related facilities by its te- nants including expenses in connection with the parking lot, atriums, bathrooms and other common facilities. We have not estimated these costs, but expect them to be competitive with other suburban office/warehouse projects. Leasehold Improvements . We have included in this proposal our addendum for the completion of the warehouse areas on the floor and the premises in addition to the brief base building summary contained on preceding pages. We have included in this proposal an allowance for carpeting of $10.00 per square yard including installation on a direct glue down basis for an open floor plan applicable to floors in the office premises to receive carpeting. Leasehold Allowance . An allowance of $2.00 psf. is included for those items required by The City of Mound to customize this facility for its specific operating requirements, and for those costs related to its relocation. THE CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY IN CLOSING ..... ~ ~ ~ .., Should the City of Mound require ~mprovements in addition to those or the dollar amount allowance as d proposal of this section, Anderson Associates would be pleased to negotiate on your behalf an increase in base rent according to the terms discussed in the financial section of this proposal. A complete facility fit plan will be presented upon request. We look forward to continuing leasehold improvement discussions with the City of Mound staff. We at Anderson Associates are pleased to have the opportunity to present to the City of Mound this facility proposal. We feel it would provide a fine solution to your current requirements for space due to your current and future requirements. In addition to the attractive financial package discussed within this proposal, we feel that this new facility will fulfill your working requirements. we look forward to discussing in detail this proposal with you and the members of your staff~ Should you have any questions, please contact Scott R. Anderson at (612) 944-2053. CITY of MOUND August 23, 1985 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1156 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY After months of waiting around, Balboa finally developed a space proposal for the City Public Works use in the Old Tonka Building. The details of the proposal are attached, but basically it is f~r 19,489 square feet at $2.50 per square foot or an annual rent of $48,722.58 per year. ' Since it would be on waht is called a triple net lease, taxes ($7,795.60)~ Utilities ($6,000 est.) and commons maintenance ($2,000) would be on top of that. Together they would add up to a total of $64,518.80 per year, with an annual cost of living increase built in each year, not to exceed 6%. As a first year incentive, Balboa would allow us a $2.00 per square foot cash allowance ($39,445.16), plus fOur months free rent. These incentives would only come into play if the City signed a ten year lease. I have tried to price this out to arrive at a ten year total cost using an average increase of 4% per year. That comes to a total of $745,166.98, after you subtract the cash advance, leaving a net average annual cost of $74,516.70. Perhaps though, worst of all, is that we will not~:have anything to show for all that money at the end of ten years. As you recall, last year we did a public works building study. In the end that got delayed because we did not have any costs on Tonka and the site location was controversial. The first part of that question has now been answered with the figures from Balboa. The need for the facility has never been more evident. With the Anderson Building's removal in late Winter, the City will be left with five stalls in the Island Park facility and a million dollars.plus.; worth of equipment sitting outside, including Christmas decorations, etc. The need is to reactivate our planning process for a new facility and relatively quickly. No matter where we have a site, we will still have to have a referendum because it would be funded by G.O. Bonds. ~"1 / An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. Page 2 City Council August 23, 1985 There are a couple Of positive notes on all of this. The estimated cost from'the Engineers for a new facility was $477,360. I have priced it out similarly as I did on the Tonka Building, i.e. $2.50 per square foot, etc. with a 4% inflation rate built-in. That total comes to $6.51.~.~0.~99 or a yearly average of $65,155.00. Since we already own the land. it would be built on, that would be a savings'of more than 10% or $80,000.00. Figured on an actual basis, the building would be financed by the sale of $500,000 in Bonds. I would propose a term of 15 years. Today's interest rate on that issue could be around 8%, but for safety I have figured 8.5%. Roughly speaking, that would mean an average annual cost of $54,585.00.. or a total 15 year cost of $818,Z~2. At the present time, the Building Fund has a total of $5,327.00. !In addition, it will receive $80,000 from the sale of the lot in the northwest corner of the Town Square development site. Finally, if over the next several years the Lost Lake site could be sold, from estimates we have that should be worth another $100,000 which can be earmarked for the Public Works Building. These funds could, of course, go to help pay the rent on the Tonka building, but it would not be a~very wise investment it would seem to me. If this scenario does turn out like I would expect, the price would mean paying off from special levies a total cost of $270,000, plus interest. The public works bui. lding need is one of the greatest unresolved issues the City faces. It must be dealt with or the Community will be stuck storing valuable equipment outside. Lost Lake will not be able to be sold because there will not be any known location to. store City stock piles for street sealing rock, construction supplies, etc. It will not be easy getting people to understand this issue. The annual cost on taxes will not be alot, but it will equal close to one mill ($54,000) annually. Out of a total levy in 1985 of $$6.5 million, it comes to less than a 1% increase and as the City grows it will become less. Re: Proposal Fac: Unit 4- TonkaWest Business Center Dear-Mr. ~ We are ~ to haVe oppo~ provide the following proposal for your significant facilityrequirement. The location of the facility is on County Road 15 in Mound (the old Tonka Corpora- tion plant). . In this proposal you will find facility and financial information. In addition, we provide cash allowances for the City to minimize your financial exposure during your relocation efforts. Should you require additional allowances ~e contact us to negotiate same. The proposed area consists of 20,789 square feet of 35' clear warehouse area. ImmediatelY adjacent to the facility is a car park area for 82 vehicles. In the future additional car parks will be provided to the north of Unit 4, across the railroad tracks. We look forward to discussing in further detail this proposal and the specifics within it. Please feel free to call upon me should any questions arise during your review of this proposal. Yours very S.R. ANDERSON INC. Scott R. AnderSon President /kr BROKERS & DEVELOPERS OF CORPORATE REAL ESTATE City West Business Center; 6567 City West Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55344 (612) 944-2053 1) ,-2) 3) 4) 5) 6) TONKAWEST BUSINESS CENTER SPECIALLY PREPARED FOR ~TY OF MOUND Zoning - I-II Lot Size - 566,280 s( Age of Facility - 20 ~ years Gross Sq. Ft. Facility·- 408,000 Elevations of Faci . lity - Varies Address of Facility - 5340 Shoreline Drive Warehouse sq. ft. - 20~9'sq. ft. Warehouse Depth Warehouse Width Bay Sizing - 20' x 60' Typical Clear Ceiling Height - 35'0" Trackage - None provided PARKING 1) Allowed Traffic - Paved Area a) Light duty parking - 82 vehicles (shared parking) b) Heavy duty parking - No outside vehicle storage LANDSCAPING 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Lawn Sprinklers - Per plan' Number of plantings - to code Site sodded - per site plan Tie rail berming - None Site elevations - Slight variations for landscape purposes only.- FLOOR 1) Floor load capacity - 400 lbs. per sq. ft. WALL- Metal Insulated Panel l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Garage door openings - two Size - 10' in width- 10' in height Man-door openings - 2 (including entry) Ventilation openings - None provided Window Openings - per plan Construction type - Metal panel exterior Page 2 i ~ iX WAREHOUSE - Interior and Exterior Finishes. Interior Ceiling - paintedmetal (white) 2) Interior floor - Cement, l~application brock-white seal Exterior wall - painted metal, fascia Interior wall-'- el~or block (see plan) ROOF SPRI 1)' 2) me deck roof group3 ordinarY hazard specifications HEATING 1) Amount - Gas fired unit heaters- capability to 68 degrees (standard code) 2) Thermostats location and area serviced - 1 for entire warehouse area. AIR CONDITIONING !) Amount - None proVided in warehouse area 1) 2) Amount of baths - per plan in warehouse area, to occupancy code ~ Amount of drinking fountains - None provided in warehouse area ELECTRICAL 1) Lighting provided - 15 foot candles, typical fluorescent lighting. 2) Outlets provided - none - see Financial Section. 3) Location of service - Main service panel - north eleva- '' tion 4) Size of service provided -7800 amp 3 phase 277/480, not distributed UTILITIES Gas a) Where meter is located - per plan b)~ Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self f'? metered ELECTRIC a) WATER a) b) Where meters are located - per plan Where area meter services - entire tenant area - self metered Where meter is located - per plan How services - self tenant metered ESPECIALLY PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF MOUND The following business terms are applicable to this proposal. Lease Term . · . .The term of the Lease is ten years, commencing on the earlier of the following dates: (1) the date ten days following the Architect's Certificate of Sustantial Completion or (2) the day The City of Mound first occupies any part of the building. The anticipated commencement date is October 1, 1985. An annual C.P.I. increase (not to exceed 6%) will be added to the base lease cost. option to Renew . An option to renew for two (2) five year lease terms will be included in the lease. These options to renew shall be at the rent as set forth below and the rent as adjusted by thechange in the Consumer Price Index (CPI for all- urban ~onsumers for the Minneapolis/ St. Paul areas) from October 1, 1985 to Sept- ember 30, 2005. These increases shall not exceed 6% annually, and shall be on a compounded basis. Annual.Rent · · · Warehouse Area (in Unit 4) Total Sq. Ft. (20,789) 20,789 $2.50 $ 2.50/N/N/N (avg. cost psf) Annual Cost Monthly Cost $51,972.50 $ 4,331.05 Required Additional Leasehold ', Operating Costs and Real Estate Taxes ...... Leasehold Improvements . . Leasehold Allowance . . . · . expenditure above base ~ building standards, and that certain improvement allowance listed herein ~ calcUlate the dollar amount required and amortize a~ the prevailing interest rate · The rent noted above is net of all expenses relating to the operation, use, and occupancy of the building and related facilities by its te- nants including expenses in connection with the parking lot, atriums, bathrooms and other common facilities. We have not estimated these costs, but expect them to be competitive with other suburban office/warehouse projects. We have included in this proposal our addendum for the completion of the warehouse areas on the floor and the premises in addition to the brief base building summary contained on preceding pages. We have included in this proposal an allowance for carpeting of $10.00 pem square yard including installation on a direct glue down basis for an open floor plan applicable to floors in the office premises to receive carpeting. An allowance of $2.00 psf. is included for those items required by The City of Mound to customize this facility for its specific operating requirements, and for those costs related to its relocation, THE CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY IN CLOSING. Should the Ci of Mound menti0~ed on preceeding page in in addition to those addition to the dollar, amount financial proposal of this section, Anderson Associates would be pleased to negotiate on your behalf an increase in base rent according to the terms discussed in the financial section of this l. A complete facility fit plan will be presented upon request. We look forward to continuing leasehold improvement discussions with the City of Mound staff. We at Anderson Associates are pleased to have the opportunity to present to the City of Mound this facility proposal. We feel it would provide a fine solution to your current requirements for space due to your current and future requirements. In addition to the attractive financial package discussed within this proposal, we feel that this new facility will fulfill your working requirements. We look forward to discussing in detail this proposal with you and the members of your staff. Should you have any questions, please contact Scott R. Anderson at (612) 944-2053.