85-06-25 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1985
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Approve Minutes of June 11, 1985, Reconvened Board
of Review and Regular Meeting
PUBLI6~EARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for June
C~SE_~85-426: William H. Gilbertson, 5910 Hawthorne,
..... Lots 1 & 2, Block 10, The Highlands
Request: Front Yard Variance
CASE ~85-427: James E. Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd.,
Lot 8, Block 1, Shadywood Point
Request: Lot Width & Area Variance
CASE..~85-~28; Richard & Joan Ahmann, 2017 Arbor
Lane, Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist's
Ravenswood
Request: Variance to Recognize an Existing Non-
Conforming Setback
Pg. 1462-1492
Pg. 1493
Pg. 1494-1500
Pg. 1501-1507
Pg. 1508-1,517
CASE ~85-429: Harold R. Van Zanten, 2001 Lakeside
Lane, Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point
Request: Side Yard Variance & Recognize Non-Conforming
Setbacks Pg. 1518-1526
Beachwood Road Pond Report - John Cameron
Paisley Road Extension Report
Pg. 1527-1529
Pg. 1530-1539
Set Dates for City Council Boat Tour July 16th and Bus
Tour July 30th. Pg. 1540
10. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
11.
12.
13.
Request to Post No Parking Signs at Sunrise Landing
Review and Approve Black-Top Quotations to Repair
Watermain Break Repairs - Highland Blvd. and Hazelwood
Lane.
Buffalo Bituminous - $ 9,820.25
, Preferred Paving - $15,401.88
Set Date for Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment to
Allow Accessory Apartments
Suggested Date: July 23, 1985
Pg. 1541-1544
Pg. 1545-1546
Pg. 1547-1548
Page 1 460
16.
Ouestion of Sewer & SAC Unit Charges for Chapman Place
Request to Release, for Private Sale, Lots 13 & 14,
Block 20, and Lot 1, Block 20, Shadywood Point
Payment of Bills
INFORMATION/,MISCELLANEOUS
A. Alcohol in Parks News Article
B. Proposed New Ordinance Amendment to Cover Tonka
Building
C. Notice of Hearing at Planning Commission -
June 24, 1985
D. Industrial Revenue Bond Status Report for Balboa
E. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Agenda - June 20, 1985
Minutes - May 16th & May 23rd
F. Official Notice of Contel Phone Rate Increase
G. Notice of Burlington Northern Intent to Abandon
Railroad line thru Mound
H. News Clipping from Wall Street Journal
I. Letter from Hennepin County
J. Twin Cities Labor Market Information
Pg. 1554-1556
Pg. 1557-1570
Pg. 1571
Pg. 1572-1573
Pg. 1574
Pg. 1575-1581
Ke
Ce
Me
N.
O.
P.
0..
R.
S.
Pg. 1582-1597
Pg. 1598
Update on Sewer Allocation Between Westonka Area
Cities
Evaluation Report for Replacement of the Shorewood
II Interceptor (Lake Virginia/Lake Ann)
MWCC Budget Hearing Notice
Pg. 1599-1601
Pg. 1602
Pg. 1603
Pg. 1604-1607
Pg. 1608-1612
Pg. 1613-1636
Pg. 1637-1638
Solid Waste Resource Vendor Letter - Hennepin Cry. Pg. 1639
Tax Exempt Bond Meeting
Ehlers & Associates Newsletter
Letter from Met Council regarding Highway 7
Chamber Waves - June
Met Council Water Policy Statement
Pg. 1640-1641
Pg. 1642-1.643
Pg. 1644
Pg. 1645-1646
Pg. 1647-1652
Page 1 461
110
MINUTES
BOARD OF REVIEW
(continued from May 28, 1985)
AND
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 11, 1985
June 11, 1985
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review
reconvened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin'
County, Minnesota, at 5341Maywood Road in said City on June 11,
1985 at 6:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllzs
Jessen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith· Councllmember Gary
Paulsen arrived at 7:05 P.M. Also present were: City Manager
Jon Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith
RennerI'eldt and the following interested citizens: Chris
Terlinden, Alvin Gudvangen, Bill Dunkley, Nell Weber·
The Mayor reconvened the Board of Review· The Mayor explaxned
that at this meeting the Assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, will give
the Assessor's decisions as to the value of the property
questioned at the May 28, 1985, Board of Review. After the
decisions are given and approved by the Council, iI' the property
owner still feels that the value is too high, ne has the right to
appeal the decision to the County Board of Review.
PID ~15-117-2q 24 0007 - Duway,ne,,Terl~den
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this properuy
from $65,900 to $62,500.
PID #13-117-2q 24 0008....- Duwayne Terlinden
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property
from $59,600 to $53,500.
P,!D ~13-117-24 ~1.0013 - Alvin_Gudvangen
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property
from $87,900 to $77,900.
PID {18-117-23 23 0058 - Beatrice Amid.on
This person withdrew her request.
PID ~14-117-24..q2 0123 -_Gregory Bergquis~
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property
from $62,100 to $58,600.
,P,~D #23-117,24 41001Z,,- Punkle¥ Investments
The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this
property·
111
June 11, 1985
PID ~23-117-2q ql 0012 - GMG,, Ine, (M~ke Macklin)
The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this
property·
~ID....,.~13-117-24 42 0005 - Cater Manson
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property
from $139,900 to $129,400.
PID ~13-117-24 33 0036 -
34 0063
34 0015
34 0016
34 0042
34 0061
34 0064
34 0065
43 0055
43 0059
4~ 006~ - Balboa Minnesota Co.
The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this
property.
10.
PID ~23-117-24 11 00~1 -.Wes/onka Estates
No action was taken on this property.
PID ~2~-117-24 12 0018, 0019, '0020 - Nell Weber
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of PID #25-117-
24 12 0018 from $19,100 to 7,100. PID #'s 25-117-24 12 0019
and 0020, no reduction was recommended.
11.
PID ~24-117-24 11 0002 - Grae.e Gordon
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of this property
from $128,000 to $121,000.
12.
13.
PID ~19-,117-23 21 0036 - John Dzik
The Assessor recommended reducing the value of tnls property
from $199,800 t'o $192,000.
PID...~24-117-24 24 0029, aD4 00~0 - Ruth Gray
The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this
property.
14.
PID ~13-117-24 22 0112, and 0179 - Thomas Horton
The Assessor recommended no change in the value of this
property·
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-69
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT
ROLE AS PRESENTED AND CORRECTED
The vote was four in favor with Councilmember Paulsen abstaining
because he arrived late. Motion carried.
112
June 11, 1985
MOTION made by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember
Jessen to adjourn the Board of Review. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Mayor opened the regular Council Meeting at 7:30 P.M. and
welcomed the people in attendance.
The following persons were present: Bill Dunkley, Jonn Hubler,
Mark Donahoe, Sherri Winkelman, Ardell Ziebill, Phil & Eva Hasch,
Charlotte Sohns, Tom Sabin, Cherryl & Rich Lebra, Klm & Todd-
Yilek, Bonnie Lanns, G. Michael Jackson, Fred & Pat Guttormson,
Rick Rone, Gordon Swenson, Harlyn Craw~'ord, Scott & Christine
Brickley, Geoff & Robin Michael, Dwight & Irma Wood, Flo & John
Hurley, Audrey Evans, Suzanne & Steve Pauly, Dick & Connie Meyer,
Scott Panning, Gary Rocue, Bill Clark, Cheryl Grand, Nell &
Audrey Froeming, Bernard Lister.
The Mayor then asked that an additional item be placed at the end
of the Agenda regarding the Continental Telephone rate increase.
He then stated he would like to give his reasons for this
addition. He stated: "The statement about to be made is not
directed at any of the local people who work for Continental
Telephone Co. or live in the City of Mound. However, I find it
hard to envision the rational and the utter contemp Continental
Teelephone shows for the people .of the Mound area and this
exchange by asking for a 28% increase. If they had been granted
all the increases they have asked for in the last ten years, they
would have been given something around a 200% increase in rates.
I find it hard tp believe that a handfull of corporate executives
and stockholders can show such utter contempt and greed for the
people with a Mound telephone exchange. We have one of the
highest rates per capita for telephone services in the entire
State. What they are doing is taking our money and subsidizing
the their out-state exchanges. I have asked Continental on a
number of occasions to look mt Mound separately because of the
services we have and charge a fair and equitable rate witn a fair
and equitable return. They have ignored and continue to ignore
our pleas of them to treat us fairly and equitably. Therefore I
intend to ask the City Council for permission to write to the
Governor asking that either he or the State Legislature take
these facts into consideration and ask that Continental not be
able to serve this area."
MINUTES
The Minutes from the May 21, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were
presented for consideration.
Councilmember Smith stated that he would like some clarification
on Chapman Place which was added to the Agenda at the last
meeting. He stated he was not on the Council when Chapman.Place
was originally considered and therefore he could not compare the
original site plans with the three changes that were adopted. He
113
June 11, 1985
quoted the Minutes of May 21, 1985, and the three items that were
adopted. He then stated that at the Planning Commission Meeting
on June 10th there was a question as to whether anything else was
amended at the Council Meeting, specifically the deletion of the
three story atrium from the plans and also the moving of the
heating and air conditioning units from one unit in the basement
to individual units in each condo. He stated he would like the
assurance of the Staff that only the three items discussed at the
last meeting were adopted and not the items brought up at the
Planning Commission. The Building Inspector stated that the
atrium was eliminated when the Council approved a 29 unit
building instead of the originally proposed 35 unit building in
Resolution #84-204. The drawing that was attached to that
resolution was incorrect because it showed the atrium with 35
units and another drawing with the 29 units was never submitted
by the developer. The outside site plan that was attached to
that resolution was correct with only the 29 units. The atrlum
was deleted when the Council originally approved Resolution #84-
204. Councilmember Smith then asked if the same was true of the
heating and air conditioning units. The Building Inspector
stated that there were no mechanical plans submitted when the
original approval was given. S~n~h~r s~ated that
e~___--d~_ent at. th~_ !~_"-~~ mcctlng, the plans dated May 15, 1985,
labeled A-1 and _A-.Pd~are~ now incorporated~.[nto the resolution.
MOTION made by Counellmem-~'6r-~Pa--~l'~e~',' secoi~ded by ,
Couneilmember Peterson to approve the Minutes of the May 21,
1985, Regular Council Meeting, as submitted. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Couneilmember Jessen, seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to approve the the Minutes of the May
28, 1985, Board of Review, as submitted. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
,~UBLIC HEARING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINOR AUTO/
BOAT REPAIR BUSINESS. AT.. ~2.. LYNWOOD BLVD, CASE
~8~-~2~ -..STEVE PAULY
The City Planner stated that there are really 2 issues to a~dress
in this case. The Planning Commission dealt with both. One, is
that prior to considering the conditional use permit approval,
they had to interpret the zoning on whether it is considered a
minor or major repair facility. They voted 6 to 3 that it was a
minor repair facility. A minor repair facility is allowed in a
B-1 District with a Conditional Use Permit. The second issue is
that if it is found to be a minor repair facility, is it
appropriate for the downtown area. The Staff has some serious
reservations about allowing this facility in the downtown area
because of the present redevelopment efforts underway. Open
storage could be a problem and some of the other aspects of that
business.
114
June 11, 1985
The Planning Commission did find that the use proposed is
appropriate until August 31, 1985.
The applicant, Steve Pauly, stated that the Planning Commission
spent alot of time trying to differentiate between the boat
business and the auto repair business and they tried to define
major or minor repair rather than trying to define wna~ the
business is. The point he tried to make was whether or not this
type of business can be operated in the existing Tonka Building
with the potential of eventually moving directly across the
street from Bill Clark Oil where he would eventually like to
build a building. He was trying to get a feel for whether or not
he could move into the downtown area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak in favor of or against the granting
of the Conditional Use Permit for 5542 Lynwood Blvd.
KIM YELIK, 4861Edgewater Drive - delivered the following
statement: "We, respectfully suggest that Mr. Pauly's
application for a Conditional Use Perml~ be denied, penming
his written agreement to permanently cease illegal operations
on his rented property on Edgewater Drive. We feel this is
pertinent to the issue because, dispite his assurances at the
Planning Commission hearing, he has tied hls Lynwood Blvd.
operation to his operation on Edgewater. Since Mr. Pauly
took over the boat rental on Edgewater, he has, on a dally
basis, continued to bring additional business and services
from his LyDwood operation to the Edgewater operation. Mr.
Pauly has continued to violate the ordinances set by the City
of Mound, defying your authority to make and enforce the
ordinances of our City. We have no problems with his
operating the boat rental as is, but we won't allow his other
business to move into our neighborhood. I have been in
contact with Mr. Elam, complaining about these violations of
the City's ordinances. If you wish to hear them I can
expound on the issue, but I do understana the time
limitations. We are just tired of him bulldozing his way in,
making our lives miserable. Some of the violations have
stopped since my conversation with Mr. Elam. Mr. Pauly knows
all too well how to go about startlng a business here, yet he
did not take the proper steps in either establishment. Mr.
Pauly has violated at least 10 of the City's ordinances, as
we understand them. We feel that granting this Conditional
Use Per_mit is establishing a dangerous precedent. That is,
allowing a business to start and continue operating illegally
until the City notices it. We will receXve a signal from the
City Council that we may do as we please. You will be
telling us that the laws that you made are only worth the
paper they are written on. The private citizen is fined for
building without a permit, usually improving the property and
raising taxes, yet a business is aliowed to make money while
operating illegally and only receive a public reprimand
115
June 11, 1985
from the City. We don't think that is fair. In closing, if
you do grant him this permit we kindly request that you
remind Mr. Pauly that it is only for the Lynwood property.
Thank you."
Councilmember Paulsen asked Ms. Yilek to give an example of a
major complaint she has against Mr. Pauly. Ms. Yelik stated
that he is trailering his boats from Lynwood down Edgewater,
putting them in the lake, working on the engine, revving the
engine, speeding around the lake, pulling back in and working
on the engine some more, repeating the same all over again,
then pulling the boat out and leaving. He is parking
trailers and boats on the street, repairing boats, selling
gasoline, putting signs up and directly tying the business on
Lynwood with the business on Edgewater Drive.
The following persons spoke in favor of granting the Conditxonal
Use Permit to Mr. Pauly: Resident at 5540 Lynwood Blvd.,
Christine Brickley (Mound Superette), Resident at 4413 Lafayette
(Spring Park), Fred Guttormson (C & R Manufacturing), John Huber
(5816 Grandview Blvd.), Rick Rone (3018 Bluffs Lane), Richard
Meyer (Meyer's Mound Service), Phil Hasch (4810 Northern Road),
Bill Clark (Bill Clark Oil), William Brickley (Mound Superette).
Todd Yilek, 4861Edgewater Drive - stated that he is worried
that we will have more boat repair shops in downtown if this
is granted a Permit.
The Mayor closed' the public hearing and brought the matter bac~
to the City Council. He then stated that what the City Council
has to decide first is whether this operation is a major or minor
repair operation. In making a decision on the Planning Commission
recommendation, the Council must base their judgement on facts
and treat the applicant fairly and equitably based on those
facts.
Councilmember PaulSen asked Mr. Pauly to define major or minor
boat repair. Mr. Pauly stated that," the Planning Commission was
concerned about how things would look when people drove by. The
boat business cannot be compared with the car business. A boat
to be repaired is left to stand outside just like an automobile
but never takes on the characteristics of something that is fully
disassembled or being in chunks. As for what goes on inside a
building in repairing boats, it is difficult to say that a car
and boat end up to be the same thing because they are not". With
the existing building and property he can only store as many
boats inside as they can move around and also store only as many
outside as they have room for. They have no intention of causing
blight in the area. He stated he could not answer Councl£member
Paulsen's question on major or minor because it is a difficult
definition and it is very diffxcult to take that definition and
use it in a decision making process to determine whether or not
an engine which is partially disassembled as being the
June 11, 1985
determining factor as to whether or not you can operate a boat
repair business.
Mr. Pauly stated that if a rod went out on an engine, the engine
would be removed from the boat and sent to Minneapolis for
repair, then returned and reinstalled in the boat. Most of
their repairs are fast turnover, within a few days of bringing
the boat in for the repair. Average turnover repair time is 7
days.
Councilmember Jessen stated that she has two concerns:
1. Mr. Pauly rented the old Tonka garage and moved in and
started working before asking for the proper permits.
2. He moved into a B-1 district. If he had moved into a B-2
district, it would have been better because she wonders
if there wouldn't be a better use for this site with the
new Town Square going in.
Mr. Pauly stated that the period of time that transpired from the
changing of ownership of Chaska Marine to this building was a
short, fast, painful situation and along with that came the
responsibility, on his part of 7 employees and their families who
left Chaska Marine and came with him. Consequently his moving
into the building was not done to blatently move into an area
that was not zoned correctly, but to find an interim place. He
stated that he does not believe' that his moving into this
building has done anything to hinder the Town Square development,
if anything it has probably helped by making Mr. Bickmann move.
Mr. Pauly stated he now understands that the rules in Mound are
very different from what he was used to in Orono and Chaska. He
would just like permission to operate in this building until
August 31, 1985.
Councilmember Peterson asked Mr. Pauly if the storage of the
boats outside the building is on his own property. Mr. Pauly
stated yes, to his knowledge. Councilmember Peterson stated he
is in favor of encouraging business to come to Mound, but there
is a need to plan out a good location for the future. He hopes
we can work this out.
Mr. Pauly stated that he hope eventually to build a building,
which would be an assset to Mound, on Mr. Bickmann's property
across from Bill Clark Oil and behind the new Town Square. This
site would be the correct size for his operation.
MOTION' made by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation to consider Blue Lagoon Marina, at 55~2
Lynwood Blvd., a minor boat repair business.
DISCUSSION: Councilmember Smith asked if Mr. Pauly is doing
any repairs on boats at Martin & Son. Mr. Pauly responded
that during the first two weeks they did 7 different repairs,
but he has ceased that activity and will not do any more
117
June 11, 1985
until it is defined what repair he can do at Martin & Son and
whether they can repair boats on that site. That is a
different question and is not up tonight.
Councilmember Smith stated the Council will be monitoring the
operation if Mr. Pauley is permitted to operate in Mound
because of the complaints received from the residents on
Edgewater.
Mayor Polston asked if Mr. Pauly were granted a Conditional
use Permit tonight, would he use Martin & Son for testing
boats and repairing them. Mr. Pauley stated no, he would be
taking them to Surfside or Spring Park to test them and
because the building on Lynwood Blvd. is limited in size, a
23 ' boat would be the largest. Also the width of the garage
door (14') limits the size. Mayor Polston stated that he
cannot support this motion because he feels engine
replacement is major repair not minor and that is not allowed
in the B-1 zone. If Mr. Pauly could find a place in the B-2
district, it would be a different story.
Councilmember Paulsen stated he does not consider this a
major repair operation and feels cars and boats are
significantly different.
Councilmember Smith asked the City Attorney if granting this
Conditional Use Permit tonight and declaring it a minor
repair operation to last thru August of this year, would be
giving Mr. Pauly an argument to prevent the City from
declaring it an inappropriate use later. Meaning that it may
be appropriate now but if things change downtown it may be
inappropriate. The City Attorney stated that when the permit
expires you can take a look at the surrounding area to see if
the surrounding area has changed and it could be declared an
inappropriate use.
The City Manager"stated that Mr. Pauly's long-term goal is to
have this business adjacent to Town Square (behind on the
corner of Belmont and Lynwood) so the only change would be
Town Square's development because Bill Clark Oil is across
the street and Contel has their garage on the other corner
and they have not indicated any plans to move.
Councllmember Peterson asked if Mr. Pauly intended to do auto
repair. Mr. Pauly stated no.
Mr. Hasch stated that the previous use allowed semi-trucks in
the building to be overhauled which he feels is major. Boats
to him would be minor repair.
A roll call vote on the above motion was 3 in favor with
Jessen and Polston voting nay. Motion carried.
118
June 11, 1985
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~85-70
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR STEVE PAULY, DBA BLUE LAGOON
MARINA, 5542 LYNWOOD BLVD. UNTIL AUGUST
31, 1985, WITH CONDITIONS
Conditions listed below:
1. No boat repair or showing (testing) of boats at
Martin & Son on Edgewater Drive.
2. That this use is appropriate in the present downtown
area, but there is a pending change for downtown and
that may change the appropriateness of this business
in the downtown area.
3. No auto repair.
4. No blocking of the road with boats.
The City Manager stated that with Town Square still in
negotiations and a notice to vacate at least 90 days from
when negotiations are completed, he sees this coming back to
the Council for renewal. This may cause a 2 month overlap
between the time the building is torn down and when Mr. Pauly
could conceivably have plans and approval for a new building.
He then asked Mr. Pauly what' he intended to do with the
business during the two month overlap.
Mr. Pauly stated that he is using tonight as an indicator
for whether-he should proceed with plans for a new building
in Mound for this boat business. He feels he has received a
positive answer to his question. If the building is not done
and the Bickmann building were to come down, he does have an
alternative site.
Mayor Polston stated that he would like the record to show
that if when Mr. Pauly comes before the Council again for
renewal or issuance of a new Conditional Use Permit and the
Council feels that the business is an inappropriate use at
that time, that he does have an alternative site to move the
business.
Councilmember Paulsen asked the City Attorney if Mr. Pauly
comes before the Council again to either extend the
Conditional Use Permit or wants a new one, can the Council
add conditions? The City replied, yes.
Councilmember Paulsen asked what chemicals the applicant
would be using. Mr. Pauly stated, some spray paint, acetone,
toilet bowl cleaner. He assured the Council there would be
no major spray painting.
A roll call voted on Resolution #85-70 was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
?o
119
June 11, 1985
The City Manager explained that Mr. Pauly has also asked for a
sign variance for a directional sign on railroad property (the
former site of the Martin & Son sign) at the East entrance to
Mound. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-71
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
SIGN VARIANCE FOR STEVE PAULY AT THE
RAILROAD PROPERTY AT THE EAST ENTRANCE TO
MOUND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHORELINE
BLYD., PID ~13-117-24 ~4 0088
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER.ISSUANCE OF. OFF SALE BEER. LICENSE
~QR. CHRISTINE ~ W!LLIA~ BRIC.KLEY~ DBA. MOUND
SUPERETTE, 2222 COMMERCE BLYD,
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak in favor of or against this item. No
one responded. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Counctlmember Smith, seconded by Counctlmember
Paulsen to authorize the issuance of an Off Sale Bee License
to Christine and William Brtckley, dba Mound Superette, 2222
Commerce Blvd. starting July 1, 1985. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
.CIGARETTE LICENSE - MOUND SUPERSTTE
MOTION made by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember
Paulsen to authorize the issuance of a Cigarette License to
Christine & William Brickley, dba Mound Superette, 2222
Commerce Blvd.-The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. "~'
~UBLIC...HEARING.; TO ~ONSIDER REALLOCA~ING. UP TO $10,o00 OF CDBG
~UNDS...FROM pROJECT. ~4 {TONKA. pLANT. REUSE) TO
A NEW PROPOSED. PROJECT DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICAtiON
The City Manager explained that if these funds are not used by
June 30, 1985, they will be lost so he and Hennepin County have
put together a minimal downtown beautification plan, i.e. park
benches, trees, etc.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak in favor of or against this proposed
reallocation. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the
public hearing.
120
June 11, 1985
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-72
RESOLUTION REALLOCATING YEAR IX MOUND/
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS
Councilmember Jessen asked if part of this money could be
used to screen off the City's Lost Lake storage area along
County Road 15 in downtown Mound. The City Manager thought
this would be permissable.
Councilmember Smith urged that no parking spaces be taken
away from downtown to plant trees.
The vote on Resolution #85-72 was unanimously in favor.
carried.
Motion
~ONTINENTAL, TELEPHONE RATE INCREASE, ISSU~
The Mayor reiterated his feelings as expressed at the beginning
of the meeting.
An unidentified woman stated she is a 7 year resident and is
tired of the outrageous phone bills and poor service. She
suggested closing Contel down and having another phone
company come in.
TODD YILEK, 4861 Edgewater Drive, stated that in comparing
his bills with bills of Northwestern Bell customers, Contel
is charging over $180.00 per year more. He was in favor of
reducing the rates.
KIM YILEK, 4861 Edgewater Drive, stated that they have a
private line and are constantly in four way conversations
with someone on the Island.
JOHN HUBLER, 5816 Grandview Blvd., state he is a contractor
and is against the rate increase because we are already
paying too much. He.suggested finding a way to get rid of
Contel. He asked the following questions: Who do we contact
to get rid of Contel; are we at Contel's mercy because of
geographies? He suggested harrassing the phone company by
calling about every little problem you have with the phones.
ELLEN SCHOELER, asked if there has been any progress with
getting other towns in the Contel system to join in our
fight. The City Manager stated no, because the only
exchanges affected by the high rates are the Metro cities.
The City Attorney gave the history of Mound interventions in the
rate cases before the Public Utilities Commission. He stated
Contel has been asked numerous times for the breakout of line
access charges and extended area service (EAS) charges. They
121
June 11 , 1985
have never given us an answer so you still do not know how much
you are paying for these items. You are also not given the
opportunity to decide if you want EAS individually, it is
provided like it or not. There are 5 metro area exchanges. He
then pointed out to the public that they should call or write the
Public Utilities Commission and attend the public hearing on
September 12, 1985, that the PUC will be holding in Mound. The
thing the citizens have to point out to the PUC is that they are
being discriminated against unfairly being metro versus being in
a rural area.
The Mayor pointed out that the City spent $20,000 for the last
intervention and we still haven't gotten the total credit back.
The question is, do the citizens (taxpayers) of Mound want the
City Council to spent your money fighting the rate increase of
Contel? He also pointed out that the only way the City of Mound
can forever keep Contel from raising our rates is to convince the
State Legislature to decertify them, but that also causes some
other problems because Northwestern Bell just cannot come in and
take over due to the fact that it is a regulated monopoly.
The Mayor stated that at a time when everyone is being asked to
cut back on everything, he cannot understand how Contel can ask
for another huge rate increase.
The Mayor suggested putting a questionairre in the local
newspaper asking if the people support the City in using tax
dollars to enter, into another intervention. He also encouraged
any citizens who wished, to form a Citizen's Committee to collect
donations for this interventions.
Cheryl Grand, Public Relations person for Contel, stated that she
is not here to debate the proposed rate increase, but rather to
urge all those who are having problems with their phones to call
Contel and they will rectify their problems. Also she invited
everyone who is interested to come to the Contel office and read
the rate increase proposal.
MOTION was made by Councllmember Peterson, seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen to ask the City Attorney to develop a
report for them outlining the various options, possible costs
and the steps and strategies involved in another interven-
tion. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM, CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to make a
comment or suggestion to the City Council at this time. No one
responded.
APPROVAL ~ ACCEPTANCE OF ]98~_ CITY ANNUAL_FINANCIAL REPORT
The City Manager stated that the 1984 Annual Financial Report is
122
June 11, 1985
now completed and Finance Director Sharon Legg was present to
answer any questions.
The Council complimented Sharon for the fine job.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~85-73 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 198~
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
STORM SEWER PIPE - CAMBRIDGE LANE
The City Manager explained that this is a left over from the
1980 street project. At the ~time the streets were done the
an easement could not be obtained to do this part of the storm
sewer. Now ownership of that property has changed and the pipe
has collapsed. This project would be paid for our of the 1980
Street Project. The City Engineer has obtained three quotations
for the installation. They are as follows:
F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. $6,620.00
QRS, Inc. $7,260.00
Volk Trucking & Excavating $5,088.60
Widmer, Inc. $5,500.00
The Staff is recommending the Volk Trucking & Excavating be
approved with the l°w bid of $5,088.60.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Counellmember Peterson to approve the low quotation of Volk
Trucking & Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $5,088.60, for
the installation of the Cambridge Road storm sewer. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
RECONVEYING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 10 & 17, WHIPPLE BACK....TO
THE STATE......& REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD SELL THESE LANDS TO THE
CITY OF MOUND '
The City Manager explained that this is the next step to allow
Mr. Nell Weber access to Blocks 15 and 16 Whipple. We would
purchase certain porti'ons bf Blocks 10 and 11, Whipple and then
resell them to Mr. Weber so he will have access to his property
and can then subdivide.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION t85-74
RESOLUTION RECONVEYING PORTIONS OF CERTAIN
TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND
REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD SELL THESE
LANDS TO THE CITY OF MOUND
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
123
June 11, 1985
~TICE OF,,VARIANCE, HEARING..ON COUNTY ROAD
The City Manager reminded the Council that the State Highway
Dept. will hold a variance hearing on the County Road 15 project
on Friday, June 14, 1985, at 9:20 A.M. at the State
Transportation Building in St. Paul.
CONTINUATION OF TAPING FOR CABLE_cT.V,
The City Manager stated this is the fourth meeting that was
approved to be on Cable T.V. and now the proposal is being
resubmitted. He explained that the money for payment of taping
the Council Meetings, etc. comes from the Franchise Fee that Dow-
Sat Minnesota pays to the City each year. That Franchise Fee was
earmarked for public access. The cable company pays for all the
equipment and all the City pays for is the time a person spends
filming and editing and the tapes used. The $2,600 would cover
the rest of the 1985's Council Meetings and various other
projects as listed in the proposal.
MOTION made by Councilmember Smith, seconded by C~uncilmember
Paulsen to authorize payment of up to $2,600 at $5.50 per
hour, plus tapes, for the taping of City Council Meetings and
other various projects that are proposed on page 1394 of the
Council Packet for the remainder of 1985. The Council will
review at various times and retain the right to cancel at any
point. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT. TO SECTION 26.01 OF THE CITY..~O.DE
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE ~78
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26.01 OF THE CITY
CODE ADOPTING THE UPDATED MINNESOTA STATE
BUILDING CODE; PROVIDING FOR IT'S
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; REGULATING
'THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT,
ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING, REMOVAL,
DEMOLITION, CONVERSION, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT,
USE, .HEIGHT, AREA, AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL
BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~NO. pARKI,NG SIGNS FOR, NORTHERN ROAD
The City Manager reported that the Police Department has
recommended amending the parking ordinance to add no parking
signs on Northern Road at Sandy Land, and at Northern Road and
Edgewater Drive on the south side of the street. They feel'
this will eliminate the bottle-neck that is caused by people
parking on the short curved area of Northern Road.
123
June 11, 1985
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #q79 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 46.29,
SUBDIVISION (o) OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING
13, RELATING TO PARKING
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
RESUBMITTED LEASE FOR CITY TO STORE EQUIPMENT. IN. THE TONKA BLDG.
The City Manager explained that apparently when this lease was
originally submitted, Balboa's attorney had not shown it to them.
We now have it back from Balboa and some of the items changed.
Specifically Section 9, which would give Balboa the right to
tell the City who it can have for legal counsel in case of any
legal action and the City would pay all legal costs. The Council
agreed this Section would have to be deleted before it could be
approved.
No action was taken on this item.
AMENDING PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON BAKERY BUILDING - LYNWOOD BLVD,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The City Manager explained that we have received an amended
Purchase Agreement for the Bakery Building. The changes are that
Mr. Johnson will not receive rent on the building after the City
purchases it and cannot salvage personal property after the
building is sold to the City. Also amended was the price. It
was increased from $84,500.00 to $85,050.00.
Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~85-75 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
- FOR THE BAKERY BUILDING, LYNWOOD BLVD.
.... STREET IMPROVEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
MOTION~ made by Couneilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson to approve the payment of bills as
presented on the pre-list in the amount of $127,097.83, when
funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
June 11, 1985
125
MISCELLANEOUS/INFORMATION
A. Letter from City Engineer regarding League of Minnesota
Cities Conference.
B. Update and resolution of Bartlett Blvd. frost boils.
C. Update letter from C£ty Attorney on Dance Hall Permits.
D. News clipping from Mpls. Tribune regarding water.
E. Continental Telephone filing before the Public Utilities
Commission.
F. Mound "City Days" update.
G. Announcement on Met Council Chairman's Meeting - June 25,
1985.
H. Letter from Hennepin County regarding composting.
I. Proposed amendments to the League of Cities Cons~itution.
J. Met Council Review - May 24, 1985.
K. American Legion Gambling Report - May 1985.
L. List of Government Training Services Programs.
M. Waste-Line N~wsletter - May
N. Letter from Congressman Sikorski.
O. Invitation to hospitality suite - League of Minnesota Cities
Convention.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by
Councilmember Jessen to adjourn at 10:4§ P.M. The vote was
unanimously in £avor. Motion carried.
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
BILLS JUNE il, I~85
Batch 854054 .... Computer run dated 5/31/85
Batch 854055 .... Computer run dated 5/07/85
Batch 854062 .... Listed below
27,083.91
85,267.45
14,746.47
TOTAL BILLS
127,097.83
Air Comm June radio contract
Internatl Inst Mun Clk Memb thru June '86
Burlington Northern
I CMA
Metro Fi ne
Pi tney Bowes
Satellite Ind
Suburban Community
Saliterman LTD
Westonka Public Schl
Xerox
Assn Metro Munic
Mound Fire Relief
Wurst Pearson
Med Center Health
Gayle Burns
Lease thru 6/15
Dues thru June 86
June pager rent
Postg meter rent
June Serv
2nd Qtr serv
June liq store rent
Wtonka Senr center
June pymts-Xerox
85-86 Dues
June pension
June retainer
June hosp
mileage
164.00
60.00
533.33
266.03
35.40
59.25
240.00
943.25
1,070.63
4,5OO.OO
253.19
1,715.00
3,327.50
1,400.00
153.13
25.76
,.~
n
I
z
o
o
mtm m mi
rir r ri
~ ~ ~ . ~i, I'
I I I:l I Ill I Ill I Ill Ill I II
,, [, , , , , ,Il, ~I~, ,J,
II ',1 I I I / I~1 I I I I Ill
, , ~/
! ..
::.1.1,
,/, ,
Ill I
I~l I
Z
0
U
X
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
,,,,,,,,~g
0
ac~ -r
N
I'.1
W
U
e
e
~J
bJ
0
IU
=-
U.
W
~J
m
4.)
C~
v
.J
v
-r-
,0
CI
L'
f'n M r~
CD-(Gl
M
-,u-dO
O C~ CI~
O
O
-4.
(-)
-4
ldo
I" I'-
M
n
M
O
C~
M
C~
(/~
0
C~
n
c~
C)
c:)
)o
--,I
r,1
illllllll
IIIllllll
I I I I I I I I I
C:
{-~
0
Z
W
W
(/)
I
W
I
!
blt~J
ZZ
O0
O0
bJW
m.j
Z
! I
~T
I I
I J..
i
,0-4:1
0
IIIIIIIII
III111111
IIIIIlill
W
W
,,:(
W
0
0
w
W
W
Z
W
bJ
-,I
W
U
Z
' W
J
¢/1
U
U
W
J
6.
,0
0
W
bJ~J
wt~J
Nr~
Z
0
Z
W
I--
(~
0
i.j
h-
N
Id
h
0
I
h'
W
I--
.J
I.
W
t~
;"4
0
I
~0
N
I
!
U
Delinquent Water and Sewer 6-19-85
22 232 2208 O1
22 232 2355 91
22 232 2370 61
22 238 4915 51
22 238 4933 82
22 238 4949 41
22 238 5005 43
22 233 5019 31
22 259 5452 41
22 259 5463 12
22 259 5892 11
22 271 2925 72
22 280 5846 31
22 280 5910 71
22 301 2901 34
22 304 2926 41
22 304 2939 71
22 310 2630 91
22 310 3136 62
22 310 3160 63
22 310 3170 53
22 310 3198 61
22 316 2667 83
22 343 2066 73
22 343 2281 21
22 346 5667 21
22 367 5211 52
22 373 5001 82
22 388 5049 51
22 388 5061 O1
$ 73.42
118.50
85.88
88.78
106.18
104.03
247.54
118.43
81.02
65.23
158.22
204.17
91.61
76.90
143.75
124.88
129.20
138.94
143.42
25.17
139.67
82.78
95.29
93.88
110.38
127.00
93.19
189.00
135.54
129.95
$3521.95
Delinquent Water and Sewer
6-19-85
22 232 2208 O1 ~on Anderson
22 232 2355 91 Sandra Hanson
-22 232~,~n*~n 61-~Bruce Huggett
.22~°° ~9~, ~ Leanard Buehl
22 238 4933 82 Greg Mc Kee
22 238 4949 41 Roberta Seens
-22 235 5~. Mittelsteadt
22 233 5019 31 Ronald Hayes
22 259 5452 41 Paul Galles
2~2 259 546~3--r'z- Anita Watson
22 259 5892 11
22 271 2925 72
22 280 5§46 31
22 280 5910 71
22 301 2901 34
22 304 2926 41
~ ~_~=~~. ~oo~ 7~ Thomas Helget
22 310 2630 91 W. Lang
22 310 3136 62 Joseph Clark
22 310 3160 63 D Blackowiak
22 310 3170 53 Sherman Harris
22 310 3198 61
22 316 2667 83
22 343 2066 73
22 343 2281 21
22 346 5667 21
22 367 5211 52
22 373 5001 82
22 388 5049 51
22 388 5061 O1
Duane Raze
Occupant
G,M,G Ent
Michael Simar
D, Ka]iecher
Jay Gorton
June Mc Carthy
Eberha rt
Judith Marshik ~
John Royer
Robert Brown
R & H Partnership
Steve Arne ~
Kristin Barney
Randall Giese
73.42
118.50
106.18
104.03
118.43
81.02
91.61
76.90
143.75
124.88
138.94
143.42
25.17
139.67.
82.78
95.29
'2208 Fairview Ln.
2355 Falrvlew Ln.
Paid
Paid
4933 Edgewater,Dr.
4949 Edgewater Dr.
5005 Edgewater Dr. Paid
5019 Rosedale Rd.
5452 Bartlett Blvd.
Paid
$88.95 paid $69.27
$114.17 paid $90.00~
5846 Idlewood Rd.
5910 Idlewood Rd.
2901Hazelwood Ln.
2926 Dickens Ln.
2929 Dickens Ln. Paid
2630 Westedge Blvd.
3136 Wested;e Blvd.,
3160 Westedge Blvd.
3170 Westedge Blvd.
3198 Westedge Blvd.
2667 Halstead Ln.
$51 05 paid $42.83
127.00
93.19
135.54
129.95
2281 Commerce Blvd. Paid
5667 Bush Rd.
5211 Eden Rd
5001Woodridge Rd.$89.00 Paid $100~;0~
5049 Avon Dr.
5061 Avon Dr.
Dellnquent Water and Sewer
22 232 2208 O1
22 232 2355 91
22 232 2370 61
22 238 4915 51
~on Anderson
Sandra Hanson
Bruce Huggett
Leanard Buehl
22 238 4933 82 Greg Mc Ke6
22 238 4949 41
22 238 5005 43
22 233 5019 31
22 259 5452 41
Roberta Seens
F. Mittelsteadt
Ronald Hayes
Paul Galles
22 259 5463 12 Anita Watson
22 259 5892 11
22 271 2925 72
22 280 5~46 31
22 280 5910 71
22 301 2901 34
22 3O4 2926 41
22 304 2939 71
22 310 2630 91
22 310 3136 62
22 310 3160 63
22 310 3170 53
22 310 3198 61
Duane Raze
Occupant
G.M.G Ent
Michael Simar
D. Kaliecher
Jay Gorton
Thomas Helget
W. Lang
Joseph Clark
D Blackowiak
Sherman Harris
June Mc Carthy
22 316 2667 83' Eberhart
22 343 2066 73
22 343 2281 21
22 346 5667 21
22 367 5211 52
22 373 5001 82
22 388 5049 51
22 388 5061 O1
Judith Marshik
John Royer
Robert Brown
R & H Partnership
Steve Arne
Kristin Barney
Randall Giese
73.42
118.50
106.18
104.03
118.43
81.02
91.61
76.90
143.75
124.88
138.94
143.42
25.17
139.67.
82.78
95.29
127.00
93.19
135.54
129.95
'2208 Fairvi
2355 Fairvi
Paid
Paid
4933 Edgewa
4949 Edgewa
5005 Edgewa
5019 Roseda
5452 Bartle
Paid
$88.95 paid
$114.17 pal
5846 I dl ewo,
5910 I dl ewo,
2901 Hazelw,
2926 Dicken
2929 Dicken
2630 Wested.
3136 Wested.
3160 Wested,
C.A
118.50+
106.16+
104.05+
118o45+
81'02+
91.61+
76'90+
145'75+
124'86+
158.94+
145.42+
25,17+
159'~7+
82*78+
95°29+
127,00+
95.19+
155o5~+
129,9'5+
2149.69.
3170 Westedge Blvd.
3198 Westedge Blvd.
2667 Halstead Ln.
$51.05 paid ~42.83
2281 Commerce Blvd. Paid
5667 Bush Rd.
5211 Eden Rd
5001Woodridge Rd.$89.00 Paid $100.00
5049 Avon Dr.
5061 Avon Dr.
Case No. 85-426
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda of June 10, 1985:
Board of Appeals Applicant:
Case No. 85-42'6 William H. Gilbertson
Location: 5910 Hawthorne Road 5910 Hawthorne Road
Legal Desc.: Lots 1 & 2, Block 10, The Highlands Mound, MN. 55364
Request: Front yard variance Phone: 472-6393
Zoning District: R-2
The applicant is requesting a 6 foot+ front yard variance to allow the construction
of a one story bath and bedroom addition to the north side of his existing house.
He has located his property markers and would like the survey requirements waived.
The existing structure has 750 square feet of floor area within 13 feet 8 inches of
the front property line at the southeast corner.
The Zoning Ordinance requires 840 square feet minimum floor area. With the addition,
the dwelling would have ll30 square feet. The R-2 zoning district requires 20 foot
front yard on all three street frontages. The "Lot Line Front" is defined as "That
boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the
case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street."
Comments:
The 6 foot 2 inch variance from the 20 foot required front yard will not
effect the new addition to his home. The boulevard 12 feet 6 inches to
the curb line.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends granting the 6 foot 2 inch variance to the front
property line to allow the structure to be brought up to minimum
floor area due to the shape of the lot. The lot survey should be
submitted prior to the building permit issuance.
The abutting neighbor has been notified.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
Case No. 85-426 Front Yard Variance for 5910 Hawthorne Road
Lots 1 and 2, Block I0, The Highlands
Applicant, William Gilbertson, was absent due to the birth of his daughter.
The Building Official explained applicant is requesting to build a 16 X 24
foot bedroom and bath addition onto the existing house which has an existing
south side setback of 13 feet 8 inches to the property line. This is noncon-
forming as the front yard setback in R-2 requires 20 feet. There is another
12.6 feet of boulevard to the curb line. The proposed addition meets all set-
backs and will bring the house size from 750 square feet to over the minimum
requirement of 840 square feet bringing the house size into conformancy. The
Commission discussed the request briefly including roof on the addition.
Weiland moved and Steve Smith seconded the motion to accept the staff's re-
commendation recognizi.ng the existing non-conforming variance of 6 foot 2
inches. Survey is not being required as the property lines have been
located. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
This will be on the Council Agenda of June 25, 1985.
i CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION, TO PLANNING ~ ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Property: Lot ~/, ~' ~, .........
Case
Fee Paid ~i-~
Date Filed., ~-~lo-~
Block,
Addition The Highlands PID No. 23-117-24 42 00/~3
Owner's NameL,,L')i !!.~...,,,, .H, Day Phone No.Z/7~O--t~q_~
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation & Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~ ~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official.of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting,.or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Si .nature of Applicant Zb~'~.- //~~.~ Date, ~-~0 ' ~,~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date 6-I 0-85
I Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # 85-42~
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, ~s described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~X) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply wlth all are%height and bulk regulat'ions
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (,~.)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
D~ Which unique physical characte'rist[cs of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow (~) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardshiR described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~/) If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~') No ( )
I.f no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
'-' that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
'/./ Y, ...... , ..... t,, .........
I, Will granting of the variance be materially detrq;mental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case #85-426
RESOLUTION NO. 85-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR LOTS 1 AND 2
BLOCK 10, THE HIGHLANDS PID# 23-117-24 42 0043
WHEREAS, William H. Gilbertson, the owner of property described as
Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, The Highlands, PID# 23-117-24 42 0043, has applied
for a variance to allow the construction of a 380 sq. ft., 24 by 16 foot addition
to the dwelling with sideyard setbacks of between 9 to 13 feet to the west
property line; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure has a nonconforming 13.67foot
setback at the closest point to the front property line; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 20 foot setback to the front
property line and 6 foot setback to the sideyard for lots of record in the
R-2 zoning district and a minimum floor area of 840 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend the variance to recognize the existing structure setback
due to the shape of the lot and to allow the owner to bring the floor area
up to the minimum allowable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the variance as requested
and aforementioned to recognize the existing nonconforming setback at
5910 Hawthorne Road.
CASE NO. 85-427
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of June 10~ 1985:
Board of Ap eals
Case No. 85~27'-
Location: 2040 Shorewood Lane
Legal Desc.: Lot 8, Block l~ Shadywood Point
Request: Lot Width and Area Variance
Zoning Dist.: R-1
Applicant
James E. Bedeil
2625 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 472-1959
The applicant is requesting a lot size variance of 2663~ square feet and a lot
width variance of l0 feet to allow the lot to be developed as a building site.
The R-1 district requires a lot size of 10,000 square feet and a lot width of
60 feet. When Shadywood Point was annexed to Mound from Orono, it was picked
up into an R-1 Zoning District.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
PLEASE NOTE: An accessory building is on the property and no principal structure.
rand
Building Official
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
Case No. 85-427 Lot Width and Lot Size for Property at 2040 Shorewood Lane
Lot 8, Block !, Shadywood Point
James E. Bedell was present.
Mr. Bedell stated he has Lot 8, Block 1 of Shadywood Point which has 7,337
square feet in it and is asking for a variance to build a home. He needs a
from 50 to the 60 feet of lot width requirement and the 2,663 square foot lot
size variance. He explained that all of the lots in this block were platted at
50 feet width and at less than I0,000 square feet and of the 14 lots that are in
Block 1, Shadywood Point, there are 7 homes that are non-conforming and 3 homes
that are conforming. He reviewed criteria for granting variances and mentioned
that he did not feel granting the variance would confer any specia) privilege
that is denied by the ordinance to owners of other lands, etc. in the same dis-
trict. A good 65% of homes in this block are non-conforming by today's zoning
and most of them are valued at $150,OOO. He did not believe that as years go
by, these parcels would be combined to make them into conforming size because
of land costs--not feasible economically.
it was discussed that the variance was more than 26% of lot area. The Commission
has used no more than 10% of lot area as a guideline for granting lot size varic
ances in the past. Bedell stated the house he is planning is minimum size and
he would not be asking for any setback or side yard variances. It was brought
up that the last variance the Council granted was for 2700 square feet. A com-
ment was made that probably all of block should be turned to R-2. Weiland stated
that it was discussed when the Planning Commission drafted the 1981 Ordinance for
the area to be R-1.
Byrnes moved and Michael seconded a motion that the Commission recommend.
granting a lot size variance of 2,663 square feet as long as applicant meets
all setbacks. The vote was Meyer and Reese against; all others voted in favor.
Motion carried. "
This will be on the Council Agenda of June 25, 1985.
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Case No. ,,~'..~ -y,27
Fee Paid ~'
Date Filed... ~f--~ ~ -~>',5"'"
1. Street Address of Property 20~0 Shore%zood L~.~
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 8
Block 1
Add i t ion ,Sh~dywood Point
3. Owner's Name James E. Bedell
PID No. 1'8-1I?-2~-'~1 000~
Day Phone No. t+72-19~9
Address
2625 Wilshire Blvd.; Mound
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
.5. Type of Request:
(X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
(') Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
6, Present Zoning District ~- !
7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~8¢8~t ~0~
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning,
other zoning procedure for this property?
variance, or cond't~Vo u~e pe~'it or ' ~'
no If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide,Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for. the purpose of inspecting, or of
notices as may
removing such
Date ~ l~!~_ ~~-''
Planning Commission R co~mmen'~dat~n:
ng and
Date
Council Action:
Resoluti6n No.
Date
/J'dj
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, 'as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulat'ions
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If '~no", specify ,each non-conforming use:
D. Whlch unique physical characteristics of the, subject property prevent its
x~ reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
(X) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~L~_ If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any ot~er man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No(~/~)~ If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No, (~x~)
.I.f no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~:~ ~t~ [~'~
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
/\
Lo-~8 %/~ \
0
· Z
0
r~
' ' - - (]N,'IO%N JO All 9
/
/
o u~
).0
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case #85-427
RESOLUTION NO. 85-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE IN LOT WIDTH AND
AREA FOR LOT 8, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT PID#18-117-23-31 0002
(2040 Shorewood Lane)
WHEREAS, James E. Bedell~.owner of a vacant parcel of land
known as Lot 8, Block 1, Shadywood Point has applied for a variance in
lot size and width to allow construction of a single family home with
conforming setbacks; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 10,000 sq. ft. lot size
in the R-1 zoning district with a lot width of 60 feet; and
WHEREAS, the property described has a lot area of 7,337 sq. ft.±
and a lot width of 50 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend the lot width and size variance to afford the property
owner reasonable use of his property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the lot size variance
of 26 percent and the lot width variance of 10 feet for Lot 8, Block 1,
Shadywood Point (2040 8horewood Lane) to allow construction of a single
familyhome with conforming setbacks for lots of record.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
CASE NO. 85-42~
Planning Commission Agenda of June lO, 1985:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 85'42~
Location: 2Oi7 Arbor Lane
Legal Desc.: Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist's
Ravenswood
Request: Variance to recognize an existing
non-conforming setback
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant
Richard J. & Joan Ahmann
2017 Arbor Lane
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 472-7859
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recognize an existing
non-conforming side yard setback to allow structural repairs to be made to the
existing structure. Support beams, posts, and support footings are to be in-
stalled to prevent further sagging of the opening from the second story to the
first floor and foundation. The owner is requesting that a survey not be sub-
mitted at this time.
The Zoning Ordinance Section 23.404 that normal maintenance of a building to a
lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural
repairs which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming use. The repairs
being requested are defined as structural alteration under Section 23.302(107).
Comments:
The structure had a new foundation, porch in rear and entrance, front
porch remodeling and a new chimney in 1962. No survey was required.
The owner believes the home to be 4 ~ foot to the west property line.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request to afford the owner
reasonable use of his property with the understanding he is not
intensifying the non-conformancy.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
Jan Bertrand
Building Officlal
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985 - Page 3
e
Case No. 85-428 Variance recognizing an existing non-conforming setback at
2017 Arbor Lane - Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood
Richard Ahmann was present.
The Building Official explained that the applicant has submitted a drawing
and located the property lines rather'than submit a survey at this time.
In 1962, a new foundation was put under the home and the home ended up with
a non-conforming sideyard setback of approximately 3 feet. The applicant
wants to install support beams, posts and support footings to go through
from the second floor down to the basement. When the remodeling of the front
and rear porch was done in 1962, there was an opening made into a sun room/
porch that was not continuously supported. Ahmann stated that there had
been a fire in the house damaging just one truss and he wishes to replace it
also. Weiland questioned whether there was room on the lot to move the house
over. The Building Official stated a brand new basement was put under house
in 1962.
Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recommend approval with the
staff's recommendation recognizing the existing non-conforming setback.
The vote was all in favor except Ken Smith abstained. Motion carried.
Mr, Ahmann explained that his future plans include adding an attached garage
on the street front 20 feet from his property line and he wants to change
the roof line because the flat roof on part of the house tends to leak and
he would like to have a continuous roof.line from the peak down over the
proposed garage, He stated this is part of the reason he wants to be sure
the house is structurally sound, He is getting a survey. He stated parking
was also a problem on that street and by off setting the garage, he could
park one car next'to garage by his proposed new entry to his house, He
would also incorporate new siding and skylights. The offset garage would
also allow access down to the lake through the garage on the northeast side
of property; staggering garage also allows for a window for light into the
entry.
The Commission discussed width of garage and side yard setback on the northeast
side of the property and that they would not want to allow another variance for
the garage addition. ]The Building Official suggested that the Commission
might like to make a motion on this proposal subject to receipt of a survey.
Byrnes moved to approve .the plan concept presented (Exhibit A), subject to
survey of property and maintaining a 6 foot side yard and a 20 foot front
yard setback on addition. Motion was seconded by Weiland. The vote was
all in favor except Ken Smith abstained. Motion carried.
These will ~e on the Council Agenda of June 25, 1985.
Case No. 85-429 Side yard variance and recognizing existing non-conforming
setbacks at 2001 Lakeside Lane- Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point
Mr. & Mrs. Harold VanZanten were present.
The Building Official explained she forwarded this on to the Commission as
it was a little late in being filed. Basically it Is recognizing existing
CITY OF MOUND
Case NO.
Fee Paid ~'o. o
Date Filed
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following inforniation)
1. Street Address of Property r'?~ / ?.~r~' ~)C~ r'- Z6;:Ix ~ ~
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ Block
Addition ~~ ~ Z~.~ ~~o~/ PID No. ].~-/I 7-~.~
Day Phone No.
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Day Phone No.~/-~/'5~?-
Address
-5. Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property?/~.//.o~-~,,~. If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and'proviSe Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for. the purpose of inspecting,~or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Signature of Applicant~~--_~/~L~ Date
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
il Action:
Resolution No.
Date
/,5-/0
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (~)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( )
If 'lno", specify each non-conforming use:
D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (~) Other: Specify:
E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (.xx.) No ( )
'If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance bfmaterlally detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
I '11
ADDRESS /---~ Permit NO. ~[~"-i~'~
LEC~L
SIlE A~EA ~0~0 Sq. Ft. AREA OF S~lE OCCUPIED BY BUILDINGS~Sq. Ft.
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICA~
%his fo~ need not be used when plot plan~ drawn to scale of not les~ than
1"~20~ are filed with pe~it application. (Each building site must have a
separate plot plan.)
For new buildings provide the following info~ation: Elevation of existing
& adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturction and existing improve-
ments; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easement~, finish
contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer
service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service
lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of
each buildng and major portion thereof. To be completed by a registered
land surveyor.
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE
GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"=20'
I/We certify that the proposed construction will conform to the dimensions and uses shown above and that no changes will be made without
first obtaining approval,
'
.]
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
ThiS form need not be used~nen plot plans drawn to scala'of not less than
%"-20' are filed with permit application. (Each building ~tte must have a
separate pl0t plan.)
for new buildings provide the following information: Elevation of existing
& adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturCtton and existing improve.
ments~ sho~; building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, ~tntsh ....
contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation end sewer
service elevation. Show locmtion of water, sewer, gas and electrical service
lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of
emch butldn9 and ~Jor portion thereof. To be c~pleted by-a registered
land surveyor.
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE . GRAPH SQUARES'ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"m20'
IlWe cerlily 1hat the proposed conslruc~ion will ~ontorm to the dimensions mad uses shown above end that no c.hanges will be made without
first obtaining approval.
/Sly
SANOY
PiOPOSED RESOLUTION
Case #85-428
RESOLUTION NO. 85-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR LOT 3, SKARP AND
LINQUISTS RAVENSWOOD PID# 13-117-24 41 0002
(2017 Arbor Lane)
WHEREAS, Richard J. & Joan Ahmann, the owners of property
described as Lot 3, Skarp and Lindquists Ravenswood, PID# 13-117-24 41 0002,
has applied for a variance to allow structural alterations, an attached
23 by 24 foot, a roof line change; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 6 foot side yard for lots
of record in the R-2 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure has a setback to the side yard
of 3 feet±; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend thevariance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard
setback upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted
prior to the construction of the garage addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the variance to the existing
west side yard to allow structural alterations, a garage addition of
23 feet by 24 feet with a side yard of 6 feet to the east and 20 feet to
the street front property line, and a roof line change as shown on Exhibit A
upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted prior to
the building permit issuance of thegarage addition,for 2017 Arbor Lane.
CITY OF HOUND
Case No.
Fee PaJd#~o. o a
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property
2'. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Shadywood Point
Addition.
3. Owner's Name
Address
Date Filed
10
P ID No. 18-117-23 32 0022
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
· 5. Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District /~-/
7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~~~
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning~:~yar~ance, ~ conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~.~ .......... If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and~rovide Resolution No.(s) /~- /~<,.,/
Copies of ~r~vigus re~olutions, shall accompany present request. ~ ,
I certify that all of the above s. tatements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for~ the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law. ,
Signature of Applicant~__~ ~-~-(~,~ .... ~/////~T',~ ~~~ ~' ~ ~< Da t e .~/>/r--~/;/~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
1 Action:
Resoluti6n No.
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Iil. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to a~J use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area~height and bulk regulat'ions
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~ No (~)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use: '-~ ' ,
/-
D. Which iqu~ physlca~ characteristics o ' U_ ' ' ~ ~ ~
un f the subject p,vperty prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
(X) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No ~) If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~;>~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance p. eculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( )
I.f no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation.~ Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.) ~ ~/-;~~ ~_,~'~k
granting property
Will of the variance be materially detrimental to in th~
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
E o
/el c$ c r./../L
t
75 -179
5-13 -75
RESOLUTION NO. 75-179
RESOLUTION GRANTING SIDE YARD VARIANCE
(Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point)
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
the owner of Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point has requested a
variance of five feet to allow the removal of an existing un-
attached garage and the replacement of an attached double garage
with additional living space above the garage for bedroom area,
and
the Planning Commission has recommended a four-foot variance on
the northwest corner and a five-foot variance on the ~outhwest
corner and at no place more than a five-foot variance,
NO.~, THEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
MI~ES OTA:
That a four-foot variance on the northwest corner and a
five-foot variance on the southwest corner and at no place
more than a five-foot variance be granted for the new
garage addition~ provided Beachside Place not be used for
off street parking but that off-street parking be accommodated
on Lot 1~.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of May, 1975.
ON,~O~ .~0
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case #85-429
RESOLUTION NO. 85-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR LOT 13,
BLOCK 10, SHADYWOOD POINT PID# 18-117-23 32 0022
(2001 Lakeside Lane)
WHEREAS, Harold R. Van Zanten, the owner of property described
as Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point, PID# 18-117-23 32 0022, has applied
for a variance to allow the construction of a 20 by 25ft. 10in. deck and
porch addition to the dwelling with side yards of 6 feet and front yard
of 24 feet; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure has nonconforming setbacks of
5 feet and 18 feet to the front property lines on a corner lot; and
WHEREAS, the R-1 zoning district requires a 30 foot and
a 10 foot front yard setback for lots of record with a lot width
of 40 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commision has reviewed the request and
does recommend the variance to recognize the existing structure setback
to afford the owner reasonable use of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the variance as requested
and aforementioned to recognize the existing nonconforming setback at
2001 Lakeside Lane.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 1985
Case No. 85-429 Side yard variance and recognizing existing non-conforming
setbacks at 2001 Lakeside Lane - Lot 13, Block 10, Shadywood Point
Mr. & Mrs. Harold VanZanten were present.
The Building Official explained she forwarded this on to the Commission as
it was a little late in being filed. Basically it Is recognizing existing
non-conforming setbacks. A 1975 Resolution granted a variance to allow 5 to
6 foot setback from an unimproved road, beachside Place. The existing front
yard setback is also non-conforming. The present Zoning Ordinance definition
for a corner lot allows a 30 foot front yard setback on one side and lO foot
setback on other street due to lot width. Present front yard setback is 18
feet so the variance on north is 12 feet and other variance would be 5 feet on
west. They are asking to put on a deck that is conforming to all setbacks.
Mr. VanZanten stated the present deck is deteriorating.
The Commission questioned if the nonconforming storage shed was going to be
Moved and also who owns unkempt area next to this property. VanZanten stated
it Is City's access and he has mowed it and picked it up every year. He stated
be could move the shed, but asked if he could get a yariance for the shed as
it i~ on a concrete slab and it is not visible because of the wooded access.
Discussion followed. '
Weiland move~ a motion to recognize the existing variances on the property
and allow a 4 season porch and deck with the stipulation that there be no
enclosure of the deck portion and further that the storage shed be moved
to conform with setbacks. Michael seconded the motion.
After much discussion of the storage shed, including whether or not his
storage area could not be under the deck, it was thought this was a separate
issue and Michael withdrew his second.
Michael then moved a motion to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks'
except the accessory building. Ken Smith seconded the motion.' The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motl. on carried.
A motion was made and seconded to not recognize the nonconforming setback of
the accessory building and after f'ur't'her discussion, it was decided the motion
was not needed·
This item will be on the Council Agenda of June 25, 1985.
ECOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
AJne 18, 1985
Honorable Hayor and
Hembers of the City Council
City of ~ound
5341 Haywood Road
Hound, HN 55364
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
RE: Beachwood/Rosewood Storage Pond
File #7544
Dear Hayor & Council Hembers:
As requested, we have done a study of the problems associated with the
Beachwood/Rosewood storage pond and the overflow pipe to Lake Langdon. The
following are our findings.
History
The existing storm sewer system in Beachwood Road and Rosewood Lane, which
discharges into the pond in question, was constructed as part of the 1978
Street Improvements. There are also two catch basins located in Evergreen Road
which discharge into this same pond. From what we can determine, there was no
manmade overflow for this pond prior to 1978.
Rrior to the street construction drainage from this area was carried in
shallow ditches and culverts to the pond. The construction of curb and gutter,
bituminous surface and a storm sewer system added very little, if any
additional run off to the pond. Because of the impervious road surface and the
concrete curb and gutter the flows now reach the pond at a faster rate the
previous.
This area was the first portion of the 1978 street improvement project to
be constructed. Upon completion of the street in this area, a significant
difference was noted in the high water elevation of the pond after heavier
rains. To eliminate this problem a 12" overflow storm sewer was installed from
the existing catch basin in Beachwood through an easement on the Oohn's
property to Lake Langdon.
Present Conditions
The elevation of the pond should stay at a fairly constant level with this
overflow in working condition. There will be some rise in the water level
immediately following heavy rains and fast snow melt in the spring because of
the 12" size of the overflow, but the level should recede fairly fast. This
spring when there was a problem with a higher than previous water level the
system had not been cleaned and debris was restricting the flows through the
catch basins to the overflow pipe. Upon removal of the debris the water
receded to the elevation of the overflow pipe.
8eachwood/Rosewood
3une 18, 1985
Page Two
~Apond elevation of 966.7 was shot on, Iv l~, J.977 when field work was
done for Preparat~'Ofr~for the 1~7~ street improvements. The
elevation of the pond was recorded at 968.1 on Hay 16, 1978 when the survey
crew was at the site staking for the storm sewer construction. The elevation
of the catch basin where the overflow starts is at 968.8, which means the
present pond elevation is maintained at a level approximately 2 feet above what
was shot in Ouly of 1977 and approximately 9 inches above the elevation
recorded in Hay of 1978.
Elevations were also taken of the patios at the rear of the homes located
on Lot 6 and 7. The elevation of the patio on Lot 6, the Flugum property, 6101
Beachwood Road is 970.5 and the elevation of the patio on Lot 7, the Krest
property, 270~ Rosewood Lane is 970.8.
We have calculated the affects a major storm would have on the water level
of the pond. A 100 years storm would raise the level 2 feet with the present
overflow in place. A 100 year storm is one that has the chance of occuring
once in 100 years and amounts to approximately 6" of rain in a 24 hour period.
We did not take an elevation of the basement at 6101Beachwood, but I assume a
2 foot rise in the pond level would cause flooding of the basement. The other
home at 2709 Rosewood would probably be safe with the patio at 2 feet above the
maximum pond elevation. These assumptions of flooding conditions are based on
a 100 year storm occuring with the pond at its maximum elevation of 968.8. If
the storm were to occur after a dry spell where the level of the pond is below
the overflow elevation, then the maximum elevation reached would be somewhat
less than the 970.8 previously mentioned.
The high water level experienced this spring was due to a number of
circumstances. The water tower located on Evergreen Lane had been emptied into
the pond the afternoon prior to a heavy rain. The last upstream catch basin
where the overflow pipe leaves from was plugged with debris. This prevented
the overflow from functioning properly. As soon as the catch basin was cleared
the pond level receded.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The only sure method of maintaining a lower level in the pond and to assure
no flooding even in a 100 year storm would be to lower the overflow pipe. This
would involve relaying the pipe from the pond to a point on the Oohn property
where the gradebreaks and slopes steeply to Lake Langdon. We would estimate
this to cost approximately $19,000.00. In new subdivisions normally the
minimum basement elevations are set 2 feet above the high water elevation in
small ponds, which are determined from a l0 year storm. Some of these ponds do
not have any overflow pipes.
8eachwood/Rosewood
June 18, 1985
Rage Three
We would recommend that the City not spend the $19,000 necessary to
maintain a iower pond ievei. Our reasons for this conclusion are (i) the
present maintained ieveI is oniy 9" above the water ievei recorded in May, i978
before any street improvement work was started, (2) From the information we
have, this system has been in place for aimost 7 years with no previous
probIems and (3) a tighter maintenance program on the storm sewer system
running to the pond and the overfiow pipe to Lake Langdon shouId eiiminate a
reoccurance of this springs probiem.
I will be present at the council meeting on the evening of 3une 25th to
answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
McCO~S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
~o~hnOameron
$C:cah
McCoMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
, CONSULTING ENGINEERS [~ LAND SURVEYORS r~ PLANNERS
3une lC, 1~85
Oon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55Z~4
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
SUBOECT: Paisley Road Extension
File ~f7479
Dear Jon,
As requested, I have reviewed the latest proposal by ¥ince Forystek dated
Oune 3, 1985. The way I read his proposal, the city would stand the cost of
replacing the last ~0 feet of the existing street including engineering costs.
This would amount to approximately $4600.00. The remainder of the development
cost of approximately $24,200.00 would be paid 50~ in cash by the developer and
50~ assessed b~ck to the property. This means the city would have to finance
approximately $12,100.00. As we stated in our previous letter of May 6,1985,
we do not feel Mr. Forystek should be responsible for the expense of
reconstructing the existing portion of Raisley Road, but we do think he should
be responsible for the all engineering costs associated with this project.
One other item in Mr. Forystek's letter of Sune 3, does concern me. He
mentions that he would like to create 3 building sites from the property in
question, Lots 25, 26, 27, and the north ll5 feet of Lots 15 and 16, Block 8,
Rem broke. Mound's ordinance, chapter 22 which requlates the subdivision of
property, contains a number of requlations which would not be met by dividing
this property into 3 building sites. The two most obvious are the platting
requirements and the minimum lot width fronting on a public right-of-way.
The city has in the past usually waived the platting requirement when a
parcel is divided' into 2 building sites. In this case, depending on the
location of the new property lines and the legal descriptions of the new
parcels, we may recommend a replat of the property. The less than minimum lot
width would require a variance.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Sincerely,
MCCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc.
John Ca, erin
JC:tv
June 3, ! 985
don Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Mm/wood Road
Mound Minnesota 55364
Mr Elam,
In reference to the Paisley Road Project, I thought it might be
best to affirm my position on several points, and to create for
you a better understanding of my intentions.
In looking at the costs Involved for the street, water and sewer
Improvements, and the contour of the land as well as lt's shape, .
It would seem reasonable that I be allowed to divide the property'
Into three buildable 1ors. I am providing a sketch on which rye
shown how this might be done. If divided in this manner, some type
of varlance mlght be needed, 'and In order for me to proceed with
the project I would need some type of Indication as to whether
or not this would be granted.
The 60 foot section of street that would have to be removed and
replaced, as per John Cameron's Alternate 3, file '7479, is
something I don't feel to be my financial responsibility. The
existing drainage problem is of man made and natural origin, and
the construction of the cul-de-sac, that I am proposing will neither
affect or benefit from the regr~dlng. The possibility of reconstruction
of the road done In conjunction with the creation of the cul-de-sac
offers In Itself a savings.
The question of financing IS difficult and since no quldelines
exist I would like to state a plan that would be reasonable to me.
The estimated cost for the reconstruction of the 60 ~eet of
roadway Is $3,700.00 which amounts to 35.9~ of the total cost of
road construction for the project, as stated by John Cameron's
preliminary cost estimates.
/43/
If the bids can be received on the water and sewer seperatly from the
street, then, from the accepted bid for the street wdrk I would like the
City of Mound to assume 35.9%of that cost as well as 16% of the
engineering costs for the entire project. The remaining amounts which
would be 64.1% of the street costs, 84% of the engineering costs and the
entire cost of water and sewer Installation could be handled as follows.
I as the owner of the properties would pay for half of this cost up
front and the remaining amount would be paid for by the City of Mound
and assesed back to the property owner over an acceptable period of
time.
! am aware that a portion of the property will have to be donated
for the construction of the cul-de-sac. In order to simplify matters
surounding this fact it would be my intention to purchase the
property outright, provided a reasonable agreement can be reached
between the City of Hound and Myself.
The purpose of this letter is to provide an Instrument for which a
reasonable agreement can be derived. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Sin~cerely, · ~ ~~
Vincent D Forystek
ih
Enclosure
i McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hay 6, 1985
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Hr. Oon Elam
City Hanager
City of Hound
5341 Haywood Road
Hound, HN 55364
SUB3ECT: Paisley Road Extension
File ~! 747~
Dear Oon:
As requested we have done an additional study on the existing drainage
problems in the area of the proposed Paisley Road cul-de-sac and also the
portion of Inverness Road to the east which receives run off from the Paisley
right of way. We looked at a number of different solutions, but from an
economic standpoint we feel only one alternate is feasible.
Storm sewer could be extended to the proposed cul-de-sac from existing
mains at two different locations. Alternate No. i would cost approximately
$24,000.00 and involve extending storm sewer from the intersection of Drury
Lane and Raisley Road to the proposed cul-de-sac. This alternate will not
solve the problems on Inverness Lane and the same results can be accomplished
in a much less expensive way which will be discussed further on as alternate
NO. ~.
We also looked at extending the storm sewer from a main in Tuxedo Boulevard
up Sterling Road and Inverness Lane with the last section in the unimproved
right-of-way of Raisley Road. Catch basins would be installed in Inverness
Lane and also in the new cul-de-sac. Our estimated cost for this method would
be approximately $35,000.~0. Both this alternate and alternate No. i are very
expensive because of the street restoration required.
Alternate No. 3 would involve removing approximately the last 60 feet of
lnplace concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving of Raisley road and
reconstructing this section to drain westerly. By doing this the new
cul-de-sac could also be constructed to drain westerly, thus eliminating the
need for any new storm sewer in the proposed cul-de-sac. We have estimated
this reconstruction to cost approximately $3,700.00. Our previous estimate for
the cul-de-sac construction was $6,620.00 which would bring the total street
cost to approximately $10,320.00. As you can see this method is much cheaper
than the two previously mentioned.
The negative side of alternate No. 3 is that approximately one half to two
thirds of this hill will continue to drain overland easterly to Inverness
Lane. The yard which suffers the most from this run off, was graded into the
Mr. Oon Elam
May 6, 1985
Rage Two
hill and left much too flat with not enough slope away from the house. The
only way to solve their water problem would be to completely regrade the yard
on the west and north sides of the house. It may be possible to divert some of
the runoff from the hill and keep it in the unimproved R/W of Paisley by some
regrading at the same time sanitary sewer and watermain are extended.
In conclusion we would have the following recommendations:
Alternate No. 3 be considered as the method of handling run off from
the proposed cul-de-sac.
The cost of reconstructing 60 feet of Raisley Road, approximately
$3,700.00, will be paid for by the City.
Hr. Forystek, the developer of the 2 proposed building sites, should'
stand the cost of extending sewer and water from the mains in
Inverness Lane and construction of the cul-de-sac. See estimated cost
attached to our previous letter dated February 27, 1985.
If the City agrees to finance these costs and assess them to the
parcels owned by Mr. Forystek, the costs for engineering,
administration, legal, etc. should also be included.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCO~BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
OC:cah
cc: Vince Forystek
Oohn Cameron
~ TM. ~
"2~o
February 27, 1985
/McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINE[RS ~ LAND SURVEYORS £ PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 lndustria! Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Oon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 ~ay~ood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject: Paisley Road Extension
#7479
Dear Jon:
As requested we have prepared cost estimates for construction of a
cuZ-de-sac and extension of utilities to serve subject vacant property.
Enclosed are these estimates.
We have not done any field work therefore no elevations are available at
this time. I did visit the site and it appears an area has already been rough
graded where a cul-de-sac could be constructed. If this project goes any
further, the drainage in the area of the proposed cul-de-sac needs additional
study.
The attached cost estimates for utilities include main extensions within
the Paisley Road right-of-way from Inverness Lane to the proposed cul-de-sac.
This would be much cheaper than extending the water and sewer from where it
presently ends and have to replace approximately 200 feet of existing street.
Greg and I have discussed the different methods that could be used to serve
this property and have settled on the one estimated. We feel the water should
be a 5" main with a hydrant at the proposed cul-de-sac for fire protection. At
the present time the closest hydrant is at the intersection of Drury and
Paisley. The cost estimate for the. sewer shows an 8" line, which could be
reduced to 5" if desired. The cost savings would probably amount to only $500
to $500. The cost estimate also shows 2 manholes even though the length of the
extension would only require one new manhole at the proposed cul-de-sac.
Without elevations to show the ground profile it is impossible to determine if
one manhole would be sufficient.
Join Elam
FeSruary 27, 1985
Page Two
If you have any qusstions or need additional information, please Oo not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
W, oCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc.
oo:j
John Cameron
/435
City of Mound
February 25, 1985
#2113
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Paisley Road
Sewer
8" PVC Sewer 270"L.F. $ $ 13.00/LF $3,510.00
Manholes 2 EACH $ 950.O0/EA 1,900.00
8"x4" Wye 2 EACH ~ 70.O0/EA 140.00
4" sewer service 60 L.F. ~ 8.00/LF 480.00
Contingencies 600.00
EstimateO Construction Cost ...................................... $6,630.00
Water
6" watermain
Service ~roups
1" copper service pipe
Fittings
Hydrants
Gate valves
Contingencies
270 L.F. ~ $ lO.O0/LF $2,700.00
2 EACH ~ 80.O0/EA 160.00
80 L.F. $ 6.O0/LF 480.00
300 LBS. ~ 1.50/EA 450.00
i EACH ~ IO00.O0/EA 1,O00.O0
2 EACH ~ 350.O0/EA 700.00
550.00
Estimated Construction Cost ...................................... $6,040.00
Streets (70' Diameter Cul-de-Sac)
Grading ~ Lump Sum 800.00
Concrete curb & gutter 230 L.F. ~ 6.00/LF 1,380.00
Bituminous base 100 TON $ 28.00/TN 2,800.O0
Bituminous wear 40 TON ~ 26.00/TN 1,040.00
Contingencies 600.00
Estimated Construction Cost ...................................... $6,620.00
June 17, 1985
CITY of
MOUND
!i,~41 ,~:,Y\'/OOD ROAD
M,2, L~,ND ~,'j',;NEF, O'FP. 55364
ir5 i2) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER~
Next month I would like to organize two group tours, if you have interest.
One would be a boat tour of the City's Commons accesses and lakeshore
(we can use Del Rudolph's boat). The other would be a bus tour of the
City showing off the various projects, problems, etc.
We have never done this type of thing before, but I think it would be
informative and helpful to get the 'big picture' of City activities.
We can use the new Senior bus, and I will have the various applicable
Department Heads along with the Chairs of the Planning and Park Commissions.
We will need to set up official dates at the June 25th Council Meeting.
I would like to propose:
Tuesday: July 16th - Boat Tour
6:30 P.M' - Surfside Dock
Tuesday: July 3Oth - Bus Tour
6:30 P.M. - City Hall
JE:fc
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE June 14, 1985
TO: Jon Elam
FROM: Len Harrell
SUBJECT: Parking problem at the Sunrise Landing
I went over to 1754 Shorewood Lane and spoke with a Mr. Carl Anderson
regarding the problem he has been having with people parking in front of his
driveway access off of Sunrise Landing.
The solution would be to place two "No Parking" signs with arrows on either
side of the driveway access to Mr, Anderson's property. See diagram.
The opposite side of the landing access is aready posted "No Parking" and
the house being built on that side also has the driveway access off of Sunrise
Landing.
Adelaide Me Andersen
1536 East Mirmehaha Parkway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417
June 10, 1985
Jon Elam~ City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywoed Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Elam:
.I am the owner of preperty'a% 1754 Shorewood Lane. You
talked to m~ son Carl Anderson about pu~ing up no !~vt~ng sign on
Sun. se Landing~ bocau~e fha% is ',~he only ente~ance we hav~ to Shorewood
Lane, this ha,~ been our enterance for ever 2,0, yearn, when the road was
raised. Any help in this matter will be appreciated. A~y questions
call m~ son at 724-4549 or 472-4543 er write to the above address.
Sincerly
Adelaide M. lndersom
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC.
BLACKTOP CONTRACTORS
P. O. Box 126 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313
Plant 682-1271 Res. 682-1371
Minneapolis 339-5438
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
STREET q ~
CITY, STATE AND ZiP CODE
ARCHITECT
IDATE OF PLANS
PHONE ] DATE~
H q 0.- ~ ~.51' ~3 - 8S
JOB NAME
JOB LOCATION
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
]~ll~ ~]rgpal~r HEREBY TO FURNISH MATERIAL AND LABOR-COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SUM OF:
TERMS: PAYMENT UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. DOLLARS ($. .)
ALL MATERIAL IS GUARANTEED TO BE AS SPECIFIED. ALL WORK TO BE COMPLETED IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER
ACCORDING TO STANDARD PRACTICES. ANY ALTERATION OR DEVIATION FROM ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS INVOLVING
EXTRA COSTS WILL BE EXECUTED ONL~ UPON WRITTEN ORDERS, AND WILL BECOME AN EXTRA CtI~RGE OVER AND
ABOVE THE ESTIMATE. ALL AGREEMENTS CONTINGENT UPON STRIKES, ACCIDENTS OR DELAYS BE~/OND OUR
CONTROL. OWNER TO C:~RRY FIRE, TORNADO AND OTHER NECESSARY INSURANCE. OUR WORKERS ARE FULLY
COVERED BY WORKMEN S COMPENSATION INSURANCE.
AUTHORIZED ~I% c~ ~ , t~ NOTE: THIS PROPOSAL MAY BE
SIGNATURE~ ~~-~ WITHDRAWN BY US IF NOT ACCEPTED WITHIN DAYS.
a "~-~ttre,~tt~r oi B TilE ABOVE PRICES, SPECIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY AND ARE
HEREBY ACCEPTED. YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO THE WORK AS SPECIFIED. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE AS OUTLINED
ABOVE.
DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: SIGNATURE.
NOTICE
(A~ PERSONS OR COMPANIEs FURNISHING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THE IMPROVE~IENT OF REAL PROPERTY MAY
i~NFORCE A LIEN UPON THE IMPROVED LAND IF THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR TtIEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, EVEN IF SUCH
PARTIES HAVE NO DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER;
(B) MINNESOTA LAW PERMITS THE OWNER TO WITHOLD FROM HIS CONTRACTOR SO MUCH OF THE CONTRACT PRICE
!
AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF ALL OTHER LIEN CLAIMANTS, PAY DIRECTLY SUCH LIENS AND
DEDUCT THE COST THEREOF FROM THE CONTRACT PRICE, OR WITHOLD ~MOUNTS FROM HIS CONTRACTOR UNTIL
THE EXPIRATION OF 90 DAYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF SUCH IMPROVEMENT UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR FURNISi
ES TO THE OWNER WAIVERS OF CLAIMS FOR MECHANICS' LIENS SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO FURNISHED'ANY LABOR
OR MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO PROVIDED THE OWNER WITH TIMELY NOTICE.
BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC.
WE HAVE RECEIVED COPY OF THIS NOTICE
Proposal
Page No. of Pa§es
· 24 South Olive"
WACONIA, MN 55387
(612) 442-4262
(Metro) 448.7711
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
STREET
CiTY,STATE AND ZIP CODE
ARCHITECT IDATE OF PLANS
PHONE
L/-/2-1251
JOB NAME
JOB LOCATION
IJOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
NOTICE OF LIEN:
Persons or companies furnishing labor or materials for the improvement of real property may enforce a lien upon the
improved land if they are not paid for their contributions, even if such parties have no contractual relationship with the
owner. Minnesota law permits the owner to withhold from his contradors so much of the contract price as may be
necessary to meet the demands of all other lien claimants, pay directly such liens and deduct the cost thereof and the
contract price, or withhold amounts from his contractor until the expiration of ninety [90] days from the completion of
such improvements unless the contrador furnishes to the owner waivers of claims for mechanics lien signed by persons
who furnished any labor or material for the improvement and who provided the owner with timely notice.
The owner hereby waives all further' requirements of notice under Minnesota Statute 514.011.
We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Payment to be made as follows:
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, All work to be completed in a workman-
like manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above
specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and
will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent
upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado
~nd et necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Cam-
ion Insurance.
Signature ,/ _
Note: This proposal may be
withdrawn by us if not accepted within :====:=== day.~
:ptance of Proposal -The above prices, specifications
and conoitions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance
Signature
Signature
PROPOSAl AND ACCEPTANCE
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Case No.
Fee Paid ¢1~4/z~ (~ ~
Date Fi led ~/12/84
1. Street Address of Property 2521 ~¢_lshir~ Blvd, So. Mound }f.~f 55364
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Tract B
Block
Addition Reg,
PID No. 2~-~'17-2b
Owner's Name
Kevin Norwood
Day Phone No. 866-3025
Address 2521 W~lshire Blvd. So. Mound ~ 5536~
Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Sam~ as above
Address Same as above
Day Phone No.
Same as above
Type of Request:
*If other, specify:
( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
(X) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
Present Zoning District R-1
Existing Use(s) of Property Sin~ family
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? No If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted h'erewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspectlng,.?r of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Signature of Applicant /~~ ~. /~/j?.~_~~2 Date
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date 9-24-84
Council Action:
Motion made to decline to amend the Zoning Ordinance Resolution No.
to allow accessory apartments in the R-1 District· Vote was unanimously
in favor. Date 10-9-84
/5-47
Procedure for Zoning Amendments (2)
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections
III.An Amendment to the'Zoning Ordinance (Answer either A or B below)
A. It is requested that Section 23.60~o3 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended
as follows:
Zond_ug amendment to permit accessory a~artment as conditionaluses in the
R-1 zone,
Reason for Amendment:
Allow me to le~a~l~r rent a lower 3 bedroom apartment.
Amendment to Map:
it is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached
site plan be rezoned'from ........ to .
Address of Property:
Legal description of property (lot-, block, subdivision or metes and bounds)
Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Present Use of Prope![ty:
Reason for Amendment:
Note:
No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi-
nance or the.zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within
one year period following a denial of such request.
June 17, 1985
CITY of MOUND
5341 I'.'~AYWOOD ROAD
M, OUND. MINNESOTA 5536,4
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
RE: SEWER UNITS
The next dilemma with Chapman Place (Surfside) is the question regarding SAC
and sewer units. SAC stands for Sewer Availability Charge and is determined
on a formula'based on the daily sewer use of 275 gallons per day, per user.
A home has a single SAC charge of $425.00. In Surfside's case, as a restaurant,
it had a SAC allocation based on its seating capacity of 42.91 ~AC units (This
has not been confirmed by MWCC, but I presume it is correct).
SAC charges go directly to the Metro Waste Control Commission as a fund to
help finance future sewer capacity. It does not go to the City of Mound.
Because Surfside was torn down and a 28 unit housing project will go up in its
place, there now could be an excess of SAC units in the amount of about 15.
Unfortunately, the~e is no such thing as a credit back to the new user, but
the City does appear to be able to use these units when other projects come
along in the future. Also important if there ever was a sewer connection
freeze.
The City has what is called a sewer availability charge (cost $~.00 per unit).
This is to cover the capital cost of people who were not assessed unit charges
under the original sewer assessment program, and these funds go into the
Sewer Fund to help cover, future capital improvements that were originally
funded by those who were"assessed.
In the case of the Surfslde, it was originally assessed for a total of 10 units.
With the development of the. new project, an additional total of 18 units will
be required or an additional $4964.00.
Mr. Prokasky wants us to use the excess SAC units (which will go to other
builders) to help cover this increase in the City units, i.e. Other people
will pay the SAC Fee of $425.00, because we have a credit. Those funds
would not be required to be sent to MWCC (we don't know this for sure).
Instead those funds would be put in the Sewer Fund.
This is complex, in part, because Mr. Prokasky is mixing two completely
separate things together. It is also a way for him to save a couple of
thousand dollars and shift those costs on to others without hurting him.
OmETROPOLITRn
WR/TE
CONTROL
COMMISSION
Tw~ (Z~c~s Arecx
June 14, 1985
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Building Official
City of Mound.
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ms. Bertrand:
This letter is in reply to your letter of June 13, 1985, regarding the
determination of SAC credits for the Surfside Restaurant that was located
within the City of Mound.
The Commission has reviewed the calculations for SAC credits as submitted
with your letter and concurs with your determination of 43 SAC Units.
This credit can be taken at the time that the building permit for the
condominiums is i.ssued. Any remaining credit can be taken against permits
issued by the City at other sites. If you have any questions, please call.
Donald S. Bluhm
Staff Engineer
cc: S. Selby, MWCC
DSB:CLL
350 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesata 55101 6fl2-222-8423
Page 2
City Council
June 17, 1985
One problem I see with all of this is that the City would have to create
a new set of books to keep track of where and when the excess SAC units
were used. If would become quite confusing over time.
All of this may be moot. MWCC may not confirm the existence of the 42 plus
units (which incidentally were never paid for as such because they existed
when the SAC program began in the late 1960's) or can they be used or
exchanged, as such.
I would not mind some direction on this before we all go and spend alot of
time on it. He has paid the funds pending direction or the City's final
decision.
JE:fc
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager ~r~
Jan. Bertrand, Building Official
June 18, 1985
Deficient Sanitary Sewer Units
Chapman Place, 2670 Commerce Boulevard
In checking out the improvements consisting of sanitary sewer
plant, etc. for this property, we found that they were charged
with lO units and now, a 27 unit building is being constructed
on that site. This results in a 17 unit deficiency, making an
additional amount of $292. per unit due or $4,964.00.
Mr. Prokasky is protesting this additional charge. Attached is
a copy of the waiver we have asked him to sign. However, in
order to get the Building Permit, he has given us a check for
the total deficient units in the amount of $4,964.00.
He wishes to ask the City Council to waive payment for these
units at the next City Council meeting.
JB/ms
VILLAGE OF MOUND '. ~-
Mound, Minnesota
0.00 T
292' x
17' =
4964'00 T
WAIVER OF NOTICE OF HEARING~ HEARING,
AND APPFAL ON ASSESSMENT
'(Mound Sanitary Sewer Disoosal Plsnt
and Trunk Sewers)
%~ER~S, the Village Council of the Village of Mound did on May 26, 196h,
adopt a resolution ordering preparation of a proposed assessment
of all properties in the Village of Mound for the improvement
consisting of sanitary sewer disposal olant and sanitary sewer
, trunk mains, and ~
WHEREAS, the assessment roll so prepared and amended was adopted by the
Council on July.20, 196h and
Plat 61223 Parcel 510
was assessed for l0 'v unit(s) and
Plat 61223 Parcel 510
and should have been assessed for 27
unit (s), making a
deficiency of 17
AND WHEREAS, said ommission may be corrected by supplemental assessment
but undersigned desires to avoid the procedural costs thereof:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OWNER OF
Plat 61223 Parcel 510 2~-.117-24 14 0009
does hereby waive right to published and mailed notice of
assessment~ does waive hearing and appesl for and from said
assessment,, and does consent to an additional assessment of
17 unit(s) in the amount of $292.00 oer unit plus
~% interest from date of Resolution in Sept. as.his
share and benefit from said sewer improvement.
$4,964.00
Da ted
IN PRESENCE OF
Dc,Sc. ~ Owner.,
id- $ec.23, T.117, R.24
Parcei No. 300
Village of Mound
F06:f~j~ Unit Total
Res° M°D. Conml0 ind. Assessmen~
1210
1035
?to of P~rcel No. ~00
W. WoWohlmabe ~~'~b~
No~ 4'50
Irvin E. Uhliri
Parcel bio0 510 - CHAPMAN PLACE
Helmet Smilden
Parcel No. 550
R00. Uhlin ~
I. E0 Uh!in
Parcel No° 600
F° J. Otto &
N0 Geagan
Parcel No° 650
i. M. Speilacy, Jr°.
Parcel No~ 750
G. E? Ba'tdoz~f
Parcel ~;o, 805
C-;o E. Batdorf $
Mo A0 Sple'ttstaszeP
Parcei No° 810
G. E° Batdorf &
E. S. G~an§eP
90
5O
36O
I
1 292 o O0
1 292.°00
10 Z,gZO,O0
1 292.00
50 1
100 1
' q5q See Sheets ~A & 4B
0 See Sheets qA ~ qB
353 See Sheets qA ~ qB
a92oOO
292 o O0 ~
No. 850
Ro O~ Uh!in
50 '/- I
Parcel No, 900
Hr ~* Mrs G. DeVri.as
Parcel No~ 950
50 i
~_ W 0 Grinnel
Parcel No~ 1050
.~27:8
292.00
292. O0
P. l'i, David
Parcel No0 1100
}I. S0 Smith
105 1
loc
58~o0O
(..VVHILE YOU WERE AWAY~
FOR "~ ~ e:~' ~. '~ ~ DATE TIME P,M,
I RETURNEO
PHONE I I YOUR CALL .
, ~ H ~ ._ ~ _ ~ n _ · -,.. ¢ I! WILL CALL AGAIN
CITY of MOUND
June 11, 1985
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE AREAS OF ENCHANTED ROAD, HERON LANE
AND WOODLAND ROAD
FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER~
There are three lots (see attacked map) which are owned by the State
Land Office and are tax forfeit parcels. Over the years they seem to
be accumulating more and more debris, tree cuttings and brush, ~nd are
now to the point that they are becoming real neighborhood eyesores.
The City has received several complaints on them over the years, but
since they are not City land, there has not been an easy way to bill
for the high cost of the clean-up that would be necessary in order to
make the area look neat.
Th~s year, additional materials have been piled on Lots 13 and 14. Our
question to the neighborhood is, what do you want to happen to these lots?
It seems several people want them as dump sites. If that is the predom-
inant feeling, then we will leave them as such, but all of you will have
to live with the result. Others have said they want the.debris cut up
and removed and the weeds kept down.
If the City had its choice, it would like to see these lots sold and
returned to the tax roles with new homes on them. Since there are not
any proposed buyers at this point, that does not seem probable.
If a consensus could be developed on the neighborhood's goals for those
lots, the City would be happy to work with anyone.
Perhaps a neighborhood clean-up day could be held where the trash could
all be piled up and hauled away.. The City has a chipper which could
clean-up some of the green' materials.
If any of you have some ideas on this or would llke to host a neighborhood
get together to discuss it, I would be delighted to spend an evening
discussing any ideas you might have.
I hope to hear from you. My phone number is 472-1155.
Thank you for your interest.
JE:fc
An equa~ opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
//L~L~ ""'"' in the adm,ssion or access ,o, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
I
BILLS JUNE 25, 1985
Batch
Batch
Batch
854056---Computer run dated
854062---Computer run dated
854063---Computer run dated
6/]3/85
6/19/85
6/20/85
4,591.71
52,649.72
22,947.31
TOTAL BILLS
80,188.74
7
I ! I
CI
n
n
I
Id Id
n n
I.IbJ
.d..J
· eeeee
0,0 0~
('~ C)
C
I~1 I'1
0
m
W
I Iltl
I IIII
I ! ,I
C~ C~ C3 '~3
I I I I
I I I I
0
0
Id
Z
0
C}
wm. Iw
W WI'~
Ww~.m
'::~ :::) ;::~
WbJ
O0
Z
U
0
Z
W
in
N
'Z
u
W
bi
..I
L.~
~/~
.J
I,J
Z
z
~' I-,
u.. 0
w
u
C3
O, ..-I
~ M
'"'*
C~C)
~ !bi ~ Id WIU ~
~ bJId~!d~JWbJ
0 :.~z~ZZ
3:3:
I i
~'WbJ
I~1 W td
I
W
bJ
n
b,.I
I
Z
C)
_1
3::
~J
[lC
(.~
O.
W
Itl
l.-
rq
r'-~l
r,lr
nl.~l
t
C:
N
eeeeeeme
W
0
l
W
m
N
~J~
0
Z
I
4m
!
:**,J .]
~.J h!
Z
~J
Add to 23.640.3 Conditional Use
Planned Industrial Area subject to the requirements of 23.650.
Add the following sectlo~':
23.650 Planned Industrial Area (PIA)
23.650.1 Purpqse
The purpose of the Planned Industrial Area (PIA) is to facilitate the
conversion and division of obsolete or vacant industrial structures into
two or more separate uses in order to promote economical and efficient
land use, expand employment opportunities, improve levels of amenities
and/or encourage creative design.
23.650.2 Conditional Use Permit
Ail planned Industrial Areas shall be required to obtain one conditional
use permit for each industrial structure. Such permit shall identify
allowed uses, parking requirements, setbacks, other physical conditions
and special requirements.
23.650.3 Procedure.
Preliminary Review/Permit Issuance. The preliminary review phase
shall include an application for conditional use permit subject to
the requirements of 23.505. Additionally, the site plan (master
development plan) shall include the following:
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of owners, developer, and
designer: na_me of development, date, north point and scale.
Sufficient information on adjacent properties to indicate
r~lationshlps to the proposed development, including such
information as land divisions, land use, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, significant natural features or physical improvements
and drainage pattern.
Existing site conditions including contours at intervals sufficient
to indicate topographic conditions (generally two feet).
de
Treatment of transitional zones around the perimeter of the project
for protection of adjoining properties, including setbacks and
buffer areas, landscaping, fences or other screening, height
limitation or other provisions.
ee
f®
A narrative or graphic explanation of the planning and design
concepts and objectives the owner intends to follow in implementing
the proposed development, including a description of the character
of the proposed development~ the rationals behind the assumptions
and choices made; the compatibility with the surrounding area; and
design considerations for architecture, engineering, landscaping,
open space, etc.
A statement of intent with regard to sell.~ng or leasing all or
portions of the proposed development.
Proposed phasing timetable.
Final Review/Occupancy. Prior to the establishment of normal
operations, each use or business entity shall be required to obtain
a certificate of occupancy from the Building Of'ficial. Such a
request shall be made utilizing the appropriate application forms
and shall clearly describe the nature of the business, the total
number of employees broken down by shifts, maximum anticipated
number of employees broken down by shifts and any other information
requested by the Building Official.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING VARIOUS
PLASTIC PRODUCTS AT 5340 SHORELINE
BOULEVARD, PID i3-117-24 34 0066
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, July 11, 1985, at
7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hail, 5341Maywood Road, Mound~ Minne-
sota, a hearing wili be held to consider the application for a
Conditiona] Use Permit to manufacture various piastic products
at 5340 Shoreline Bou]evard and on pOrtion of site formerly used
by Tonka Toys legaiIy described as foliows:
Biocks 5 and 6 Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound and Lots lO
to i5 including L. P. Creviers Subdivision of Lot 36 Lafayette
Park and also the east 25 feet of Lot 36 and Subdivision No.
170 and that part of east 25 feet of southwest i/4 of southwest
I/4 lying north of said Lot 36 and south of a line parallel with
and 50 feet southerly from center line of Burlington Northern
Railroad Right-of-way including adjacent vacated street except
street. PID # 13-1~7-24 34 0066
All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard.
Francene C. C|ark,--City Clerk
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
Mound City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
June 25, 1985
Dear Council Members:
Attached, please find quotations for supplying the plant materials and
landscape timbers to implement the CBD landscaping plan. The City of
Mound will provide all labor for the project. As you will note, Otten
Brothers Nursery could not supply all of the items exactly as specified
so some substitutions have been proposed. The substitutions are of a
minor nature and do not affect a fair comparison.
Based upon the quotations received, I recommend that the City Council
approve the quotation from Otten Brothers Nursery in the amount of
$7749.60. All-plant material carries a one year guarantee.
In addition to the plant material and timbers, the City will need to
acquire signs to designate the newly created compact parking stalls in
CBD lot across from the House of Moy. Appropriate signs and poles will
cost ~139.20 from Earl F. Anderson and Associates, Inc.
~incerely,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS
R. Mark Koegler
City Planner
RMK/kh
CBD LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
qUOTATIONS
Nursery
Quanti~¥,
4
1
4
14
10
4
94
Species
Greenspire Linden
Colorado Blue Spruce
Spring Snow Crab
Red Splendor Crab
Marshalls Seedless Ash
Zabels IIoneysuckle
Landscape Timber~
Delivery Cost:
Size Desired
3" Cai B&B
I0' Ht B&B
2" Cai B&B
2" Cai B&B
3" Cal B&B
4' Ht B&B
6"xS"xS'
Not Included $
TOTAL COST
Size Avail
A~' pcm
Cost/Unit
gl,TO
Nursery
CBD LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
QUOTATIONS
Quantity
4
I0
4
94
Species
Greenspire Linden
Colorado Blue Spruce
Spring Snow Crab
Red Splendor Crab
Marshalls Seedless Ash
Zabels lloneysuckle
Landscape Timbers
Delivery Cost:
Size Desired Size Avail
3" Cal B&B
I0' .t B&B
2" Cal
9_" Cai B&B ~"
3" Cal B&B ~"
4' Ht ~s~
6"xS"xS'
Not Included $
TOTAL COST
Cost/Unit
~1o ~o
Gt, arantee :~ l ,~¢~o(
No
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW:
(RETURN TO THE CITY CLERK)
NAME
10.
ADDRESS
11.
12.
13. .
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
.... ntis View n
Version of beer- n-' psrks plan
By ~ im Adams
StaPf Writer ',.' ~....':
La, t-minute opposition t~) a plan that
would allow beer tn Mounds .View
clt~ parks has persuaded offlclats to
try~,a watered-down verstorc
Mounds View Mayor Jerry Llnke
sai,d he .expects an ordinance allow-
ing: the' possession' of limited
am,ounts of 3;2 beer during specified
ho'ars at two .city parks to win ap-
pr, oval this month. Mounds View now
do~'~ not permit alcohol in city parks.
Cc,uncil members gave preliminary
a~proval last month to the ordi-
~.'ance. But after getting phone calls
· ~.~om people against the measure
~nd a letter of opposition from Sun-
'/rise United Methodist Church, some
'< started having second thoughts.
When the measure came up May 28
for final approval, the council voted
.. 3-2 to table it. Council Member.Phyl-
lis Blanchard, who originally sup-
ported the ordinance, now says it has
~..loopholes .big enough to '~drive a
beer through."
Blanchard :. said she: changed' her
mind after getting a dozen phone
calls against it. She said the proposal
could create more problems by mak-
· ing drinking in the parks more so-
: cially acceptable.
Linke said that a more restrictive
version will be discussed Monday at
· a work session and that it could be
voted on the next week.
At the council's request, changes"
have been made to the proposed
ordinance, said Bruce Anderson, city
parks director. Key char~es are:
I Only 3.2-beer, wine or other alco--
holic drinks defined as nonlntoxicat-
in§ will be allowed in Sllv. er View
and City Hall parks, where most soft-
ball games are played. Under the
original proposal strong beer would
have been permitted.
I! No per~n can be in possession of
more than 72 ounces -- a six-pack.
· Drinking will be "~rmitted only
between 8 a.m. and 9 p..m.
· Any nonprofit group'~)r'club want-
ing to sell nonintoxicating beverages
must have dram shop insurance.
Linke said drinking would be banned
in the other 10 city parks, which are
more family oriented. He said some
residents have fears about permit-
ting alcohol consumption in parks
frequented by children.
Linke said beer drinking in parks
should be controlled by ordinance
rather than ignored.
Blanchard disagrees. "They can't
prove this (proposal) is more en-
forceable than what we got, which is
not enforced at all," she said. City
officials have said that issuing tick-
ets to softball players or others who.
drink beer in parks ts a lo.w
, Blanchard said the city couXd, pr~.
vent keg parties by '*saying n~ beer,
Just as well as we can by ch,ingi~g
the ordinance," to restri, c.t_.:th_e
amount of beer permitted.
"Eve~ybody'could walk in wlt~:~ ~i~-
pack, which adds.up to a kegg.eLreal
fast," she said.....: .... ;.-. *. ,.:
Linke said One result of the delay
that the ordinance could not go into
effect to permit a beer garden, at tile
city's Day-in-the-Park celebra, t!pn i,n
mid-July. The city's FesUviUes com-
mission had sought to have,a:.beer
garden and su~ested the ordinance
change, which was endorsed,J~y:~e
*city park and recreation beard.~ ~,-.
- Anderson said he surveyed 17 com-
munitios on their park rules> and
found that eight prohibited drl~.'kin&
while nine permitted noninto~caUng
beverages (which includes 3.2 J~eer).
Of the ciUes surveyed, only Minne-
tonka permitted intoxicating bever-
age~, such as strong beer, he.. said.
'Among the six cities neighboring
Mounds View, only Blaine and New
Brighton permit alcoholic bev. e.~ges,
he said
RamSey County permits no~lnWxi-
cating beverages In county..parks,
but Washington County doVe-.not.
Hennepln County pert/fits wine or
beer in cans or bottles. Anoka Coun-
ty allows any alcoholic beverage in
parks except Locke Park In Frtdley.
June 24, 1985
CITY of MOUND
:~341 MA'¥WOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(6!2} 472-i!55
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
ENCLOSED MATERIALS COVERING THE LAKE ANN VS LAKE VIRGINIA
SEWER CONFLICT
Once again we are going to need to become involved in a confusing sewer
conflict. Trying to keep the costs involved in expanding our Sewer
capacity problems down and not having it end up costing Mound residents
more than it should.
As you read the attached materials, you will soon see these are complex
questions with most answers taking the forms of estimates or they go
unanswered.
The bottom line is that the MWCC recommends the gravity sewer line (Lake
Ann) and the Metro Council Staff recommends the Lake Virginia Forcemain.
This conflict, let along the legal questions either choice will probably
face, could well delay even further the resolution of our capacity problems,
which if Mound continues to grow at the rate we are now could bring a lid
on new sewer connections by 1988/89.
If would be so nice if an answer could just be developed and implemented.
I will attend the June 24th Meeting and report back.
JE:fc
enc.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, ~linnesota 55101
MEETING NOTICE
METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS COMMITTEE
Monday, June 24, 1985
Room "E"
TENTATIVE AGENDA
Approval of Agenda.
Interchange Relocation on Proposed Hwy. 610 from Beard-
Xerxes to June-Noble, Referral No. 12481-1.
- Discussion
- Action Ann Braden
3. Brooklyn Park Preliminary Application for Right-of-Way
Reservation Act Loan, Referral No. 12634-1.
- Discussion
- Action
Ann Braden
Grant Applications for UMTA 16 {b) Funds for Purchase of
Vehicles for Transportation of Elderly and Handicapped
Persons, Referral File Nos. 12902-1, 12903-1, 12904-1,
12905-1, 12906-1, 12914-1, 12915-1, 12916-1, 12917-1, 12918-
1, 12919-1, 12920-1, 12921-1 12922-1, 12923-5, 12929-1,
12930-1~ 12931-1, 12932-1, 12934-1.
- Discussion
- Action
Karen Lyons
Acquisition and Development Grant Requests for Lake Elmo
Park Reserve and South Washington County Regional Park,
Washington County.
- Discussion
- Action
Florence Myslajek
6. Development Grant Amendment for Minneapolis Chain of Lakes
Regional Park, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
- Discussion
- Action
Florence Myslajek °
®
Public Hearing Report, Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board's Request to Reallocate Acquisition Funds for Central
Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park in the 1983-84
Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program~
' Discussion
- Action
Jack Mauritz
Agenda
Metropolitan Systems Committee
June 24, 1985
Page 2
8. Scoping Decision Document fo-r-~Anoka County-Blaine Airport,
Phase lA and Phase lB Development, Referral No. 12636-2.
- Discussion
- Action Steve Wilson
9. Policy Plan Amendment to Replace Shorewood Interceptor
(Lake Virginia and Lake Ann Interceptors).
- Discussion
- Action Carl Ohm
10. Adjourn.
Carol Flynn, Chair
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
June 19, 1985
Metropolitan Systems Committee
Carl Ohrn
SUBJECT: Materials Addressing the Policy Plan Amendment
to Replace the Shorewood Interceptor
(Lake Virginia/Lake Ann Alternatives)
Attached are three documents that have been prepared or revised that address
the policy plan amendment required to resolve the capacity problem of the
Shorewood interceptor. These documents are:
Sewer Policy Plan Amendment--Replacement of the Shorewood Interceptor.
This is a new memorandum that sets out the reasons a policy plan amendment
is needed, the alternatives that should be considered to address this
problem and a recommendation that provides for a public hearing on,he
policy plan amendment.
The staff report of June 12, 1985, has been revised based on additional
staff analysis and on comments provided by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission staff.
3. CounCil response'to MWCC staff memorandum (June 18, 1985).
Attachments
EPO95E-PHDEV1
METRO..POL ITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 19, 1985
Metropolitan Systems Committee
Marcel Jouseau and Carl Ohrn
Response to Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC)
Staff Conments on the Council's. Lake Virginia/
Lake Ann Interceptor Report, Dated June 12, 1985
In response to'the Council staff report of June 12, 1985, the MWCC staff has
raised a number of issues and concerns. This memorandum is an attempt to
address or answer those concerns. The committee should note that additional
concerns of a technical nature have been discussed with the MWCC staff and
changes to the June 12 memo have been made and are in the Systems Committee
packet for its meeting of June 24, 1985. The memo from the MWCC is attached to
this memo.
1. Forcemain Alternatives
The forcemain alternative presented by the staff in the June 12 memo
differs in only one respect with that presented by the MWCC a year ago.
The MWCC, in 1984, and the Council staff last week proposed the immediate
construction of the forcemain from the Lake Virginia lift station to the
Purgatory Creek'interceptor.
The MWCC proposed then to upgrade the Chanhassen lift station and
forcemain to 13 MGD by 1998. Council staff cannot justify upgrading the
lift station and forcemain to that capacity on the basis of the growth
forecasted, for the service area. Staff proposes to upgrade the lift
station to 5 MGD immediately, providing sufficient capacity well beyond
2010 if "clear water" inflow is removed.
2. Forecasts for the Service Area
The Council staff acknowledges that present forecasts do not extend to the
year 2026. The Council has prepared regional and local forecasts to the
year 2010. It is Council staff belief that the alternatives described in
the June 12 memo will accommodate growth in the service area. The Council
is charged with the responsibility of making regional and local level
projections for the purposes of planning and designing regional
facilities. The Council's forecasts include population, households and
employment. These forecasts were closely reviewed and considered in the
evaluation of the two alternatives. The Council believes that alternative
1, stage 1, is sufficient to meet the needs of service area communities,
excluding Eden Prairie, for a period of approximately 37 years. This
assumes that the communities in the service area are responsible to remove
inflow and infiltration which is excessive. The projections of year 2000
population for the eight service area communities and for Chanhassen are a
growth of approximately 5,100 people. This represents 1,930 households.
Stage 1 of alternative 1 provides capacity for a population of 33,000
persons or 12,489 households. This represents approximately six and one-
half times the projected growth over the 1985 to 2000 period. Given the
capacity is six and one-half times greater than the 15-year growth, it is
our assumption that this facility will accommodate the growth for the next
37 years in both households and employment.
3. Environmental Concerns
The statement on environmental concerns in the staff memorandum of
June 12, 1985, does not purport to be an EAW, and only a brief sketch of
potential problems is provided. Obviously, during the design process for
either interceptor, alignment studies should look at avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas. Additionally, during the environmental
assessment process and the design process, mitigative measures should be
considered to remedy environmental problems to the extent possible.
Finally, the environmental assessment work should evaluate the risk of
pollution due to system failure associated with whatever alternative.
4. Backup Capacity in the Shorewood Interceptor
The staff agrees with the MWCC's comment that the Shorewood interceptor
would not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the flows of the Lake
Virginia lift station as an emergency backup should the Lake Virginia
force main be inoperable. The text under environmental protection issues
has been changed to make this clear.
5. Peak Flow to Chanhassen Lift Station
Staff intent is to have inflow removed to reduce the peak flow to the lift
station to extend its service life. Staff recognizes the efforts that the
MWCC has undertaken to reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I) in the
metropolitan system, as well as to assist local governments to reduce the
I/I in the local system.
The removal of inflow, to the extent reasonable, and the upgrading of the
lift station to a capacity of 5 MGD would provide ample service to
Chanhassen well into the 21st century. The difference in the length of
the service period is essentially the result of the MWCC and Council staff
having different views on the rate of growth for the service area.
The growth in housing and employment in the Chanhassen lift station
service area is estimated to be about 1,800 units and 4,200 jobs between
1984 and 2010. By the year 2010, thelservice area will have an average
daily flow of about 1.3 MGD and a peak daily flow of about 4 MGD. This
assumes that inflow is reduced.
6. Need to do EAWs on the Alternatives
The Council°s legal staff is reviewing this issue to determine if it would
establish a precedent for doing environmental assessment worksheets on
policy plan amendments in the future. This material will be brought
before the committee at its June 24 meeting.
7. Increased Operating Cost Due to Forcemains
The Council staff acknowledges the increased cost to the commission of
operating forcemains and lift stations. These additional costs have been
entered into the analysis of the two alternatives. The cost analysis
illustrates that the additional operating cost for lift stations and the
forcemain would not make the gravity alternative cost effective in this
instance. Obviously, since alternative 1 only has one more lift station
than alternative 2, the impacts of additional operating cost would not
have much of an impact. The Council supports the attempts by the
commission to reduce its operating costs wherever possible. The Council
staff believes that capital costs must be compared with and considered at
the same time as operating costs. In the analysis of the Lake
Virginia/Lake Ann alternatives, it appears the operating cost difference
will never reach a point where the additional capital costs could be
recovered.
8. SAC Analysis
The Council staff has attempted to make a fair and realistic analysis of
the sewer area charge fund for improvements over the next five years. The
analysis did not only consider the two alternatives under consideration.
Council staff used the most recent estimate of the MWCC's development
program to project costs over the next five- to lO-year period.
9. Purgatory Creek Interceptor Capacity
MWCC staff stated that the capacity of the segment of the Purgatory Creek
interceptor between the connection of the proposed Lake Virginia forcemain
and the Chanhassen interceptor is sufficient to accommodate the flow from
the Lake Virginia forcemain for the next 40 years. Staff sees no problem
here since the service life of the Lake Virginia forcemain is about 40
years, after which the pipe would be "disconnected" and service to the
area would be provided through the Lake Ann Phase II interceptor.
Capacity would again be available in that segment of the Purgatory Creek
interceptor.
10. Riley Creek Interceptor
Irrespective of whether the Red Rock interceptor is built, the Riley Creek
interceptor will have to be built to service Chanhassen and the Bluff
Creek watershed. Staff anticipates that, based on current housing and
employment forecasts and the phasing of development in Chanhassen, the
Riley Creek interceptor will not be needed until about 40 years from now.
11. Evaluation of Local Needs
The MWCC staff correctly points out that alternative 2 would, in fact,
replace the need for some local trunk lines. A complete present value
analysis of this issue has not been undertaken since the detailed costs
of these local improvements and their timing are not available. In
addition, it is Council staff position that the impacts on the regional
system have to be identified and analyzed separately from those of the
local communities in this case. If and when the local costs and timing of
proposed local trunk sewers are available, Council staff will conduct the
same type of present value analysis that was conducted for the two
alternatives.
4
12. Potential Delay in Implementation of a Solution
The commission staff concern of delaying implementing of a solution due to
significant legal problems and local opposition is accepted. It is
Council staff belief that local opposition to an alternative should not be
the driving force for deciding an important regional issue. The decision
should be made based on Council policy, and that local opposition is
something that is probably going to exist under each alternative.
Selecting one alternative due to the threat of a lawsuit is an improper
criteria for use in a technical analysis.
13. Impact on Growth Management
Council staff believes the location of interceptors outside the metropoli-
tan urban service area (MUSA) has the potential of creating significant
problems for implementing Council growth management policies. While there
are interceptors that extend beyond the present MUSA established by the
Council in its Metropolitan Development Framework, this situation is not
without problems. A more prudent procedure is not to extend interceptors
beyond the MUSA or to limit such extensions as much as possible so as to
avoid potential problems of urban sprawl.
14. Optional Alternatives
The recommendations of the commission staff to use the alternatives as
described in the June 4, 1985 draft staff report are acknowledged. It is
Council staff belief that alternative 1 presented in the June 12 report
is more prudent and cost effective and will meet the regional needs.
The Council staff will not decide if two alternatives will be presented in
the public hearing for a policy plan amendment; this decision is made by
the Metropolitan Systems Committee and the Council.
CEO:emp
06.19.85
EPO95A, PHDEV1
COflTROL
commu',non
TO:
Carl Ohrn, Metropolitan Council
FROM:
C. R. Payne, Acting Director of Engineering
Office Memorandum
DATE: 6/18/85
SUBJECT:
MWCC Comments and Concerns about the June 12, 1984, Report on
Lake Virginia/Lake Ann Interceptor for the Metropolitan Systems Committee
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has reviewed the subject report and has several
concerns relating to it. A summary listing of these concerns is as follows:
The forcemain alternative presented does not reflect our earlier work. MWCC has not
endorsed, recommended, nor studies the forcemain alternative (Alt. No. 1) in the report.
Our previous work identified four different Lake Virginia Forcemain alternatives. The
alternative in the report was developed independently of MWCC recommendations.
The report fails to discuss our most recent recommendations for a Lake Virginia Forcemain
as detailed in the June 4 draft report.. We most recently recommended the most appropriate
forcemain alternative to be to: 1) build the Lake Virginia Lift Station, Forcemain #1
and Forcemain #2 in 1986; b) expand Chanhassen Lift Station to 13.0 MGD in 1998, and
c) build the Riley Creek Interceptor in 2018.
e
Growth forecasts used in this report do not extend past 2010 yet the project design period
goes to 2026. MWCC has the responsibility to provide for the interceptor service needs,
not to cause or hinder an area's development by building or not building an interceptor.
Our main concern is for the interceptor service needs of each community as defined
by the approved comprehensive Sewer Plans and Metropolitan Development Framework
Guidelines. In designing our interceptor facilities we must rely upon projected households
and employment, not population. Household equivalent amounts or residential equivalent
connections are the true measure of sewer needs.
e
The Environmental Impact ignores: a) the ability for alignment change to mitigate impacts,
b) the fact that gravity interceptors which are properly designed have minimal chance
of allowing sewage loss to nearby water courses, and c) that more severe environmental
impacts are often due to the method of construction. Either a gravity interceptor or
forcemain facility can be realigned in design to avoid problem areas. Avoiding wet areas
helps reduce construction costs and problems, as well. Our experience in interceptors
has shown that forcemains do have accidental breaks or failures causing raw sewage
discharges. Gravity interceptor have not had these problems.
The existence and conveyance of high wet weather sewage flows is a major problem
in the Lake Minnetonka area. We are limited to a capacity of 5000 gpm (7.2 MGD) in
the Shorewood Interceptor regardless of the improvements for the Excelsior Lift Station.
The existing system will not be able to completely handle the flows which come into
the Lake Virginia Lift Station. Therefore, the Shorewood System will not be able to serve
as an emergency backup under all flow conditions. The Shorewood II Interceptor will
not be replaced by the Lake Virginia Forcemain, it will be kept in operation.
Page 2
June 17, 1985
Carl Ohrn, Metropolitan Council
e
e
Be
e
10.
The peak flows to the Chanhassen Lift Station can be reduced by inflow removal but
not removed. Reduction of inflow sources will require several years and there are always
new sources and remaining old sources too costly to remove. Our policy is to work with
communities toward continual cost-effective removal of I/I. In the case of Chanhassen,
the lift station flows will exceed the present 3.2 MGD capacity by around 1995 and 5.0
MGD by 2000, regardless of cost effective removal of I/I in the localsystem.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should be prepared for both the gravity
alternative and a reliable/representative forcemain alternative. This can be done during
July of this year and will better solicit environmental concerns.' An EAW on only one
of the alternatives will serve to polarize environmental opposition and support instead
of resolving environmental concerns and issues.
MWCC would like to eliminate the construction of lift stations where possible so as to
provide more reliable interceptor service at less cost. Our current 1985 budget for interceptor
maintenance has 4.4 million dollars of which 2.0 million dollars (45%) is needed for Operation
and Maintenance on the 64 lift stations in the Metropolitan System. Most of our emergency
maintenance and capacity problems are at the lift stations we must now operate. The
current 1985 budget for interceptors is as follows:
Interceptor Administration
Interceptor Maintenance
Lift Station Maintenance
Metering Stations
Regulators
$0.30 Million
$0.89 Million
$2.00 Million
$0.94 Million
$0.37 Million
. Total: $4.4 Million
Reducing the number and power requirements of lift stations will serve to lower our
exposure to power cost increases and maintenance problems. Gravity interceptors provide
reliable Iow cost systems with far fewer maintenance problems and emergencies.
The analysis of the SAC Fund should be carried out using all the projects programmed
by MWCC for the next 4 - 6 years and not just this project. This project alone is not
a problem but it is one of many major projects with little or no grant money. A fair
and realistic approach is to evaluate SAC for the entire system and not target one project.
The Lake Ann gravity interceptor achieves the nbest long term use of the Purgatory
Creek Interceptor. Interceptor segments north of the present Chanhassen Interceptor
connection were sized without Lake Ann/Lake Virginia flow. Ample capacity exists
downstream for accommodating future Lake Virgina/Lake Ann flows.
The construction of the Red Rock Interceptor defers and eliminates the need to construct
the Riley Creek Interceptor. Eden Prairie will build a Red Rock Trunk facility if the
Interceptor is not built. A current local need can be coordianted with the Metro System
need for an interceptor.
Page 3
June 18, 1985
Carl Ohrn, Metropolitan Council
11.
12.
The cost analysis has no mention of increase to local sewer costs resulting from this
project. If local money is being considered from Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, then
an analysis of their sewer costs and benefits is appropriate as part of a complete report.
The sewer users who will pay for this project should know what MWCC and local cost
increases will occur.
Adoption of a forcemain alternative is very likely headed for significant legal problems
and local opposition which will delay construction for perhaps a year or more. No mention
is made in this report of such a critical problem. There exists little or no local community
support for the forcemain alternative, especially after local cost sharing discussions
for the gravity alternative.
13.
The location of interceptors outside of MUSA has not induced premature growth or
development as is inferred on the bottom of page 15. Interceptors in Rosemount, Forest
Lake, Hugo, Prior Lake, Lakeville and Empire Township have not yet posed a challenge
to the Metopolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA).
14.
There are various other concerns we find with the report, but can be resolved later.
The main point we see is that the Systems Committee may be acting prematurely to
decide an alternative based upon this report. We recommend the report to the committee
be changed to include alternatives as described in the June 4, 1985 draft staff report.
We also recommend that a decision on either forcemain or gravity should be done after
a public hearing.
The MWCC is in favor of the Lake Ann gravity alternative for various reasons, some of which
are mentioned herein. We are also greatly concerned over losing time towards design and
construction of facility. We basically contend that the controversy and problems of a forcemain
solution far outweight the higher cost of a gravity solution.
CRP:FJS:sma
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: June 19, 1985
TO:
Metropolitan Systems Committee
FROM:
Comprehensive Planning and Parks and Environmental Planning Depts.
(Carl Ohrn/Marcel Jouseau) '
SUBJECT: Sewer Policy Plan Amendment
Replacement of the Shorewood Interceptor
AUTHORITY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.146, requires the Metropolitan Council to adopt
or amend, as part of its development guide, long-range comprehensive policy
plans for each metropolitan commission. This amendment is proposed to revise
the Water Resource Management Development Guide/Policy Plan, Part 1. This
amendment will provide guidance to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(MWCC) in preparation of its development program.
BACKGROUND
During the period of 1982 to 1984, thee Council considered a forcemain inter-
ce tor to rovide additional sewer service to eight communities on the Western
sho~ of La~Minnet6nka. 'Because of the request by the cities of '~-~anhassen
and Eden Prairie for con§~deration of an alternative solution through a gravity
interceptor, the matter of service to the Lake Virginia lift station area was
referred back to staff for study (April 1984).
During the past year,. Council staff has examined this issue closely. Various
alternatives have been considered as a means to provide a connection from the
LakeVirginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The MWCC staff
has provided assistance in this effort. Staff has also been in contact with
the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to attempt to resolve three issues.
These are (1) ~n equitable comparison of a gravity and ~ f~or_cemain alternative;
( 2 ) ~e~e 1 o~j_O9 _-~-m~.a~_g_j_~a_l an~~g 1-~-6n-n-~l cost-s~l~a~l n~-~'~oP-~C~b~s;
and ~) addre~ u--n-F~~anage~nt
In early 1985, the cities of Waconia and Spring Park requested approval of
amendments to their comprehensive plans to provide additional 1990 sewage flow
allocations. Constraints in the metropolitan system suggested that until the
Lake Ann or Lake Virginia interceptor is built, additional allocation to these
two cities could be obtained only ~hrough reallocation of yet unused alloca-
tions to other cities in the service area. On May 9, 1985, the Council found
the requests to have an adverse impact on the system and directed the staff to'
prepare a policy Plan amendment to reallocate flows for 1990 if the city of
Minnetrista could not make available the unused Portion of its 1990 flow
allocation. (This policy plan amendment was reviewed by the Metropolitan
Systems Con~nittee at its June 17, 1985 meeting.)
Due to this capacity problem, the Council instructed staff to move ahead with a
p~licy~n amendment to address the__~long-term resolution of this ~roblem as
Chanhassen or Eden Prairie, the Council believes it is in the best interest of
all the cities in Service Area 4 to proceed with the policy plan amendment as
expeditiously as possible. To this end, staff prepared a report to the Council
Systems Committee on two alternatives that would resolve the long-term sewer
capacity problems of Service Area 4. (Staff report dated June 12, 1985.)
ANALYSIS
The MWCC currently serves the western Lake Minnetonka area communities of
~u~d, Shorewood, Minnetrista, Victoria, St. Bonifacius, Waconia, Spring Park
and Laketown with a wastewater lift station on the shore of Lake Virginia, in
Shorewood. The lift station pumps into the Shorewood interceptor which, in
turn, discharges into the Excelsior lift station. The sewage is then dis-
charged via Shorewood interceptor into the Purgatory Creek interceptor.
In the recent past, the Lake Virginia lift station has experienced peak flow
problems, in part resulting from the~Shorewood interceptor causing a bottleneck
and by some local inflow/infiltration (I/I) problems. Sewage has bubbled up at
manholds, and in~, during a heavy rain, sewage overflowed into Lake
Virginia. The present conditions will continue to exist until an interceptor
route is selected and the interceptor is built.
Staff has identified and analysed two alternatives to address this system
capacity problem. Alternative 1 is a forcemain which would extend from the
Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The interceptor
would be built in an easterly direction from the Lake Virginia lift station
(Figure 1). This alternative also includes upgrading the Lake Virginia lift
station and increasing the capacity of the Chanhassen lift station to a
capacity of 5 MGD.
This alternative requires all the cities served by this facility to address
problems of inflow and infiltration in new development. In the case of
Chanhassen, there is a significant inflow problem which causes a peak flow of
nine times the normal flow. Specific actions will be required by the city to
reduce this peaking problem to bring it in line with a normal peaking factor of
2.9 times normal flow. This will require existing and new development to
eliminate or greatly reduce inflow and infiltration.
These improvements will provide adequate capacity to the communities served by
these facilities for approximately 37 years, or until 2023. The staff report
to the Metropolitan Systems Committee dated June 12, 1985 (and revised June 19,
1985), includes a second stage to alternative I which would be needed in 2023.
Since stage I improvements would be adequate for such an extended length of
time, the stage 2 improvements will not be included in the proposed amendments
to the policy plan. The cost of alternative 1, stage 1 improvements in 1984
dollars is $5~,681~0.
The Lake Ann interceptor is the second alternative that could resolve the
capacity problems of the Shorewood interceptor. This facility has three major
improvements: (1) Rebuild the.Lake Virginia lift station and construct a
forcemain from the lift station along the northern border of Chanhassen to a
point at approximately Galvin Blvd.; (2) A gravity interceptor constructed in a
southeasterly direction to connect to the existing Lake Ann Phase 1 inter-
ceptor; (3) TheILake Ann Phase 1 interceptor would be connected to the
Purgatory'Creek interceptor by means of the Red Rock interceptor. This runs in
generally an easterly direction (Figure 1).
Alternative 2 would provide interceptor facilities in locations that could be
used by the cities of Chanhassen and Eden prairie instead of new local trunk
sewers. Additional capacity was provided in this alternative so such use. would
be possible. Eden Prairie is presently provided sewer service through MWCC's
Purgatory Creek interceptor. The cost of this alternative in 1984 dollars is
$12,723,000.
If this alternative is ultimately chosen to resolve the regional sewer capacity
t
Z
> ~~
Ii'
I
problem, the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie ~~ to share in
the cost of this facility. It should also be noted that such-~os~ sharing
would not allow the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to use this facility
unless permission is given by the MWCC. Such permission would be conditional
on the two cities meeting the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act.
FINDINGS
1. A relief solution is required to resolve t~e capacity problem that exists
in the Shorewood interceptor.
2. Additional sewer capacity is required immediately for several communities
in Service Area 4.
3. Addi..%ion sewer capacity is needed for Chanhassen sometime after 1995.
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have requested the Lake Ann gravity interceptor
be constructed to provide the opportunity of shared use and local cost
sharing.
5. Eden Prairie has direct access to the Purgatory Creek interceptor; thus,
the regional obligation for sewer service has been met.
e
Chanhassen has access to the regional sewer system through th~ Shorewood
interceptor and the Chanhassen lift station; thus, the regional obligation
for sewer service has been met.
Two alternatives have been analyzed which will resolve the immediate sewer
capacity problem at the Shorewood i'nterc~eptor. These are the Lake Virginia
forcemain and the Lake Ann gravity interceptor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council approve for the purpose of a public hearing Alternative 1,
Lake Virginia forcemain, and Alternative 2, Lake Ann gravity interceptor as
options to address the sewer capacity problems in Service Area 4.
e
That in accordance with adopted Metropolitan Council administrative
procedure No. I for policy plan amendment and with Minn. Stat. 473.146, the
Council send the proposed policy plan amendment to the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission for its review and comments.
3. That the Council hold a public hearing on the proposed plan amendment on
August 29, 1985.
CEO:jb
06.19:85
EPO95B-PHDEV1
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
TO:
FROM:
DATE: June 12, 1985
Revised June 19, 1985
Metropolitan Systems Committqe
Staffs of Comprehensive Planning, Parks and Environmental and
Planning Assistance Departments
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Alternatives for Replacement of the
Shorewood Interceptor (Lake Virginia and Lake Ann Interceptors)
INTRODUCTION
A. Problem Statement
The Water Resources Management chapter of the Metropolitan DeVelopment
Guide records the sewer capacity problem of the south Lake Minnetonka
area. The conlnunities of Victoria, Waconia, Minnetrista, Mound, St.
Bonifacius, Spring Park, a small part of Chanhassen and Laketown Twp. are
serviced through the Lake Virginia lift station and the Shorewood force
main interceptor. While the Lake Virginia pumping station has capacity to
handle existing flows, the Shorewood interceptor capacity is periodically
exceeded during peak flow conditions. A permanent relief facility is
required to redirect the flows from the Lake Virginia lift station and the
Shorewood interceptor. The relief facility must provide a connection
between the Lake Virginia lift station, where the capacity problem origin-
ates, and the Purgatory Creek interceptor, where there is ample capacity
for the Lake Virginia-Shorewood flow (see Figure 1).
The second aspect of this issue that needs to be considered at this time is
the request by the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie that the Council
consider routing the relief facility in a manner that provides for local
sewer service, thus eliminating the need to build some local facilities.
Under this situation, the cities would be willing to share in the cost of
this facility.
B. Scope of Report
This report presents data and analysis of a number of issues that are
involved in selecting an alternative that will address the problems noted
above. The following topics are covered in the remainder of the report:
1. History of the Problem.
2. Discussions with Local Government.
3. Forecasts, Regional- and City-Level.
4. Description and Service Capabilities of the two Alternatives.
5. Growth Management Issues.
6. Environmental Protection Issues.
7. Cost Comparisons.
8. Legal Feasibility and Policy Analysis of Cost-Sharing.
9. Findings and Conclusions.
HISTORY OF PROJECT
In 1970, the Metropolitan Sewer Board decided to build the Lake Virginia lift
station. This lift station provides service to the southern and western
Minnetonka Lake area communities, including Waconia. The lift station directs
flows to the Shorewood force main interceptor, which in turn, channels flows to
the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Shorewood interceptor was not designed to
provide the capacity to service the long-term future needs of this area. It
was acknowledged when the Lake Virginia lift station was built that eventually
a new facility would be needed to replace the Shorewood interceptor.
In the 1970s, the Lake Ann gravity interceptor was proposed to connect the Lake
Virginia lift station to the Purgatory interceptor, t At that time, growth rates
in the region were very high, and the need for a permanent solution was seen in
the relatively near future. In anticipation of the completed system, Phase I
of the system was built. This phase consisted of 3,445 feet of 66-inch pipe
and a lift station. Flows are channeled from the Chanhassen lift station to
the Purgatory Creek interceptor via the Chanhassen force main. These facil-
ities provided service to Chanhassen and had the added advantage of allowing
two small treatment facilities to be phased out, which was a major Council
sewer planning objective.
In 1976, the City of Chanhassen requested sewer service be provided to the city
via the Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase II. The city was informed that the
upstream Lake Ann interceptor Phases I! and III were not in the Council's
policy plan or the MWCC development program. The city proceeded to construct a
30-inch diameter trunk sewer along the proposed Lake Ann alignment to serve
local needs in an area south of Hwy. 5. This facility was completed in 1979.
Alternatives for redirecting the flows from the Lake Virginia lift station to
the Purgatory Creek interceptor were studied as part of the 201 water quality
study. A southwest facility planning study completed in June 1980 contained
specific recommendations for the Lake Ann gravity interceptor alternative.
During the preparation of the 201 study, Council staff worked with the MWCC and
its consultant to ensure that the concept of synchronization and in-pipe stor-
age was fully analyzed. This study did not analyze the force main alternative
as a separate option.
The extension to the Lake Ann interceptor is described in the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan amended in 1981. The policy plan calls for the MWCC to
include in its"1982-1986 development program additions to the Phase I Lake Ann
interceptor, consisting of approximately two and one-half miles of force main
and four miles of gravity sewer.
On March 10, 1983, amendments were adopted to the Water Resources Management
Policy Plan. These amendments originally included the replacement of the
Lake Ann force main and gravity interceptor with 20,000 feet of force main
which would connect the Lake Virginia force main directly to the Purgatory
Creek interceptor. The Council did not adopt this change as part of the policy
plan amendment. Staff was instructed to conduct further analysis of the alter-
natives. The analysis was to cover concerns raised by the cities of Chanhassen
and Eden Prairie and residents of the area.
In response to these concerns, Council staff prepared and presented a report to
the systems committee in April 1984. Specifically, the April report responded
to a number of environmental and operational concerns.
The report recorded the following findings and recommendations.
Recommended the Lake Virginia force main option be built that followed
an alignment along Chanhassen°s northern corporate limits directly
linking the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek inter-
ceptor.
o This facility was estimated to cost approximately $5.5 million.
The cost of the force main facility was $1.4 million less than the Lake
Ann gravity interceptor project described in the water quality policy
plan.
o A review of Eden Prairie's comprehensive plan did not substantiate the
needs for a Lake Ann gravity option.
o A force main option was environmentally preferable to the Lake Ann
interceptor Phase II.
The report was tabled pending the response to the cities of Chanhassen°s
and Eden Prairie's request that local cost participation in the Lake Ann
gravity interceptor be considered in evaluating the options.
DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Staff has discussed various aspects of the issues listed with the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie over the last year. These discussions involved
growth projections, urban ~erviced land needs, local sewer service needs, local
growth management aspects of the local comprehensive plans and methods of
assessing local costs of the regional system. ~s have been reached
on any of these issues.
Specifically, local and regional cost estimates contained in earlier papers
were reviewed in response to concerns and questions raised regarding options
for reducing the gravity alternative costs. The discussions tended to focus in
three general areas: (1) an equitable comparison of the gravity and force main
alternatives; (2) developing a means for evaluating local and regional cost-
sharing options; and (3) responding to local growth management issues raised by
the Council. The majority of time was spent in addressing items one and two.
A draft proposal was prepared, however, by the communities that oulined actions
to be undertaken in responding to the growth management issues. Much of the
work on evaluating the alternatives is reflected in this report.
The issue of local cost-sharing was the issue raised by the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie in response to the proposed policy plan amendment.
4
They requested an evaluation of the potential cost savings to the MWCC and
communities if local and regional service needs could be met by one facility.
They noted that construction of a regional gravity facility usually results in
local benefits by reducing the need for portions of local sewer trunks.
The commission and Council staffs evaluated a variety of cost-sharing pro-
cedures before selecting a "percentage of cost method." This method appears to
reflect more accurately the regional cost in providing local capacity.
Applying this method, a local cost-sharing amount was calculated to be
approximately $~.
A series of meetings was held where the staff recommended method of cost-
sharing was reviewed and financing options discussed with the cities. An
approach discussed at some length was the financing of local cost from the SAC
fund in a manner that would not deplete the fund in meeting regional debt
servicing needs and adding further costs to the system such as lost invest-
ment. These costs should not be transferred to the communities in the service
areas. The cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have not decided whether the
$2 million share plus interest over a 15-year term compares favorably to
conventional methods of financing local trunk extensions. The cost of local
trunk extensions was estimated to be approximately $4 million; $3 million is
Eden Prairie°s cost and $1 million for the Chanhassen trunk extension. It was
mutually agreed that further detailed negotiations on financing should not
proceed until the Council. decided wh~her a local co~t~sha~ng~.approach-seemed
feasible.
Progress was made in responding to the growth management i~sues raised. A
draft proposal was prepared by the City of Chanhassen in October based upon a
series of meetings with Council staff during the summer of 1984. Similar
discussions were held with Eden Prairie staff, but a specific p~oposal was not
drafted. The discussions centered on the city's revisions to its comprehensive
sewer plan to include timing and staging of its local sewer facilities.
Staffs of both communities did indicate that the growth management issues could
be resolved.
FORECASTS
A. Regional Forecasts
Although facility planning is based on city-level forecasts, the regional
forecasts are of critical importance. This is particularly true for longer-
range forecasts. The 40-year time frame used for the study of Lake
Virginia/Lake Ann service needs represents an extremely long-time horizon,
one which cannot (and should not) be forecasted with great certainty.
There are, however, important perspectives and insights that can be gained
through the regional forecasting process and are relevant to long-range
facility planning.
First of all, the regional forecasts can be made more accurately than the
city-level forecasts. A large region has much more stable and predictable
trends than any of its smaller parts (cities). It can be related to
national forecasts which provide an even more stable "control" or limit.
These regional figures also provide a control that limits the growth of
individual cities within the region. If the region grows only half as
fast, many of its cities will also have to grow half as fast; and if some
grow faster than the region, others will have to grow even slower.
From a city's perspective, it is hard to see why growth should slow down as
long as land is in plentiful supply and local policies support growth.
This is especially true for developing suburbs which see their locational
advantages improving over time.
Analysis of regional growth forces and trends, however, provides a differ-
ent perspective. Whereas local analysis views growth as being attracted
from a seemingly unlimited pool in response to their attractiveness,
regional analysis considers where this growth will come from. A brief
history of growth in the Twin Cities over the past several decades
illustrates this.
Table 1
TWIN CITIES REGIONAL FORECASTS
Population Household Employment
Percent ,Percent Percent
Number Change Number Change Number Change
1950 1,185,694 29% 346,563 31% ~a --
1960 1,525,297 23 452,276 27 na* --
1970 1,87¢,612 6 573,834 26 853,000 26%
1980 1,985,873 11 721,444 12 1,075,000 21
1990 2,160,000 5 845,000 8 1,300,000 8
2000 2,260,000 2 910,000 __ 1,400,000 ..
2010 2,305,000 na na
*Figures that are available are not directly comparable but would indicate
total employment for 1960 to be about 650,000.
In both the 1950s and the 1960s, the Twin Cities added over 300,000
people. About 100,000 in each decade was due to migration, largely young
adults from rural Minnesota and, to a lesser degree, from surrounding
states. The other 200,000 was the excess of births over deaths (natural
increase). This large natural increase was the result of the baby boom.
Households grew in relative proportion, about one household for every three
persons.
By the 1970s, the baby boom had not only ended, but fertility rates were at
their lowest point in history. These trends in the Twin Cities were not
unique, but followed national trends. Population growth in the 1970s was
just over !00,000. Migration resulted in losses of about 40,000 as the
rural to urban migration patterns that had been dominant nationwide for
most of the century were reversed.
Despite the drastic slowdown in population growth in the 1970s, households
and employment grew as fast as in the 1960s. More jobs and more households
were added than people because the huge baby boom generation reached adult-
hood, forming their own households and occupying jobs provided by the Twin
Cities' robust economy. Increased female participation also helped expand
the labor force.
The 1980s have continued this pattern, but the baby boom generation is
almost all housed and employed. Female participation rates are expected to
continue increasing into the 1990s, but will then be near their upper limit.
The past 20 years have seen fewer people born. No increase in fertility is
evident or anticipated. No significant in-migration to the Twin Cities has
been detected to date. The population growth in the 1980s is forecasted to
exceed the 1970s, but subsequent decades should see less and less growth.
This assumes no change in current demographic trends. The Council's fore-
cast model shows only 4~ulation growth from 2000 to 2__Oj~. Beyond
that point, there is no reason to expect any population growth at all.
And, unlike the past 15 years, there will probably be no "baby boomers"
needing to be housed and employed. That means very little new regional
development expansion. It means that future growth rates cannot simply be
extrap61ated, or that facilities can be built with the assumption that even
if they are overbuilt they will be needed sooner or later.
It would be foolish to argue that future changes in fertility or migration
patterns cannot occur that would alter present trends and render the
current forecast assumptions incorrect. But there is no basis for going
against the present trends, which clearly indicate slower growth nationwide
and in the Twin Cities. Perhaps the Twin Cities' strong economy will draw
people from elsewhere in the United States to fill jobs we cannot fill
locally. But this will be a period of nationwide labor force shortages.
Continued economic growth, even if it were assured, may not translate to
jobs {and in-migrants}, but could be supported by technology-based produc-
tivity increases. The present situation .regarding regional growth calls
for cautious planning of facilities and close monitoring of trends.
City-Level Forecasts
In 1978, the CounEil adopted forecasts as part of the Metropolitan Develop-
ment Framework (MDF). These forecasts were for population, households and
employment for the region and all of its cities and townships. They were
for 1980, 1990 and 2000. The forecasts were used in the "201" wastewater
treatment facilities planning work. Preliminary revisions to these fore-
casts have recently been completed. They will be included in the revised
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) after review and
comment by local units of government.
A comparison of the 1978 MDF forecasts with the preliminary revised MDIF
forecasts shows very little difference among cities in the Lake Virginia
service area (see Table 2). The revised forecasts are slightly higher,
although this differential is only 1,450 people (two percent) in the year
2000. The major differences are in Eden Prairie, which has been raised to
reflect its recent accelerated growth, and Chanhassen, which has been
lowered for the reverse reason.
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen provide good examples of the uncertainty
involved in making local forecasts. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Eden
Prairie was viewed as one of the highest, if not the highest, growth
potential suburbs. Its growth fell far short of expectations, resulting in
downward revisions. Now, the anticipated boom in Eden Prairie appears to
be under way and forecasts have had to be revised upward. Chanhassen'
provides another example. Its early forecasts were tied to high expecta-
tions for neighboring Eden Prairie as well as the new town "Jonathan" in
Chaska. It has fallen far short of these forecasts of the late 1960s and
early 1970s.
The other cities in the service area show smaller variations between the
two forecasts, most being lower in the recent revision. They accounted for
less than one-third of the year 2000 population in the entire service area.
Table 2
COMPARISON OF 1978 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FORECASTS
WITH 1985 MDIF FORECASTS
(used for "201" facilities planning*)
1980'* 1990 2000
Community 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF
Chanhassen 6,600 6,359 11,000 8,500 15,500 9,500
Eden Prairie 15,000 16,263 25,000 32,000 33,300 43,000
Laketown Twp. 1,900 2,424 1,900 2,600 2,000 2,700
Minnetrista 3,900 3,236 4,200 3,500 4,800 3,500
Mound 9,500 9,280 9,700 9,300 9,700 8,900
St. Bonifacius 900 857 1,000 1,100 1,050 1,200
Spring Park 1,650 1,465 1,700 1,500 1,700 1,400
Victoria 1,800 1,425 2,300 2,200 2,500 2,400
Waconia 2,800 2,638 3,200 3,100 3,800 3,200
TOTAL 44,050 43,947 60,000 63,800 74,350 75,800
*The forecasts used in "201" facilities planning were for sewered areas only;
however, to compare the old forecasts to the new ones, total figures are
shown in the table.
**The 1980 data contained in the 1978 MDF were forecasts. The 1985 MDIF data
for 1980 is from the 1980 census.
DESCRIPTION AND SERVICE CAPABILITIES OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVES
A. Description
This report identifies and analyzes two alternatives that can solve to
address the problems described above: alternative 1, Lake Virginia force
main, and alternative 2, Lake Ann gravity interceptor. These alternatives
are graphically presented in Figure 1. The Lake Virginia force main alter-
native includes improvements to the Lake Virginia lift station and construc-
tion of the Lake Virginia force main (with a capacity of 17.3 MGD), which
would connect the lift station to the Purgatory Creek gravity interceptor.
This would replace the Shorewood interceptor. Also included in this
alternative ts the reconstruction of th~sn~ta~ion to
i ncre~se ~Fo~ t~ ~GD tQ.. 5.0 M__QGD ~---T~ improve-
ments wou e construc e in 19 . o ad~reS~ the 'iJnger-range service
needs, a second stage of improvements would be required in 35 to' 40 years.
Included would be improvements to the Lake Virginia lift station to
increase capacity to 19.3 MGD; the force main would be replaced from the
lift station to a point approximately at Galvin Blvd. with a capability of
19.3 MGD; the Lake Ann gravity interceptor, Phase II would be constructed
with a capacity of 30.6 MGD and the Riley Creek gravity interceptor with a
capacity of 26.3 MGD would be built, providing a connection to the Purga-
tory Creek interceptor. The Chanhassen lift station would be phased out.
The analysis assumes these improvements would be made in 2023.
The second alternative is the Lake Ann gravity interceptor. This would
require the Lake Virginia lift station to be modified to increase the
capacity to 17.3 MGD. The Lake Virginia force main would run from the lift
station to a point approximately at Galvin Blvd., with a capacity of 17.3
MGD. The Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase II would connect the force
main to the existing Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase I. The Lake Ann
interceptor would have a capacity of 19.3 MGD.
Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase I would be connected to the'Purgatory
Creek interceptor by means of the Red Rock gravity interceptor. The
capacity would be 31.88 MGD for this interceptor. The Chanhassen lift
station and the Chanhassen force main would be phased out of use.
The design of the facilities was prepared assuming a 40-year time frame.
This was done to allow a comparative analysis of the two alternatives and
due to fact the force main segment of both options will have reached the
end of its useful life in 40 years and will need to be replaced. Since the
first stage of contruction of the Lake Virginia alternative would only have
capacity for approximately 37 years, the second stage of facilities is
required. Alternative 2, the Lake Ann gravity interceptor, would be able
to accommodate the flows for a 40-year period, but at the end of this time,
parts of the facility would have to be replaced add additional facilities
put in place.
The specific facilities--their timing, capacity and capital and operating
costs--are recorded in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE 1, LAKE VIRGINIA FORCE MAIN FACILITIES AND COSTS
Stage 1/1986 Proqram:
1. Construct Lake Virginia force main from Lake Virginia
lift station to Purgatory interceptor with a capacity
of 17.3 MGD average daily flow. The lift station
would have additional pumping and control systems added.
2. Increase Chanhassen pump station capacity to 5.0 MGD
average daily flow
Total Costs in 1984 Dollars
This system will last until 2023 at which time the force main
will reach its life expectancy. Stage 2 will then be built.
$5,448,000
193,000
$5,681,
Stag.e 2/2023 Pro9ram:
Replace the Lake Virginia force main and
increase capacity to 19.3 MGD average daily flow.
Improve Lake Virginia lift station.
$2,000,000
2. Build Lake Ann Phase II gravity interceptor
with a capacity of 19.3 MGD.
4,001,000
e
Construct Riley Creek interceptor with a capacity of
30.6 MGD, which includes oversizing service to'the
Bluff Creek watershed.
$8,211,000
Total Costs in 1984 dollars
$14,212,000
The annual operating and maintenance costs of these facilities
is $120,000 per year for the 40-year time period.
Table 4
ALTERNATIVE 2, LAKE ANN GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR FACILITIES AND COSTS
In 1986:
Lake Virginia force main at 17.3 MGD average daily
flow capacity. This will include additional pumping
and control systems for the Lake Virginia lift station.
$2,200,000
Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase II with a capacity
of 19.3 MGD.
4,001,000
Red Rock interceptor with a capacity of 31.88.
Total Costs in 1984 Dollars.
6~522,000
$12,723,000
Annual operation and maintenance costs of
these facilities is $86,000 ~er year for the
40-year period.
10
B. Service Capabilities
The two alternatives have some similar and some different characteristics.
This section will attempt to detail the similarities and the differences
between the alternatives with emphasis on their service capabilities.
Alternative 1, Lake Virginia force main, provides for present flows and
growth. Table 5 identifies the various facilities in alternative 1, stages
1 and 2 and alternative 2. In addition, the capacity of each facility has
been converted to the additional housing units and population that could be
served by the facility in addition to servicing the present flows. The
Lake Virginia force main will provide for the present normal and peak flow
from the southern and western Lake Minnetonka communities~and-~aconia. In
addition, this facility will provide for the addition o~'8,839~ew housing
units.' Regional projec~r th'ese---~ommu----nltles~-~-~-forec~st-tfi~ a~ition of
~~ople or 1~172 housing units by the yearl,~O0. Since this facility
will be uSa61e for 40 years, additional households will likely be added in
this area, but regional forecasts do not extend beyond 2000 with a high
degree of accuracy. The capacity of the force main will provide for over
seven times as many households as projected for the next 15 years.
The second facility that is included in alternative 1, stage 1, is the
increased capacity for the Chanhassen lift station. At present, this lift
station has a capacity of 3.2 MGD. This facility presently serves approx-
imately 2,400 housing units. The key capacity problem of the lift station
is the very high peak'flows that occasionally occur. Council staff
believes these peak flows are due to inflow ~hich result from roof leaders
and other surface water drains being connected to the sanitary sewer
system. By increasing the capacity of the lift station to 5.0 MGD, this
area of Chanhassen will have capacity available for existing sewer flows,
inflow and new grgwth for a number of years. With this alternative, the
Council would need to instruct Chanhassen to address the inflow question
during the next five to 10 years so that this facility could accommodate
the growth in household and/or employment-in this area over the next 30 to
35 years. If the inflow problem is corre~ted_~the increased capacity in
this facility will allow the addition of Q,650~jhousing units to be built in
this area of Chanhassen. Council forecast~or the 1985 to 2000 period
project 781 housing units and 2,800 employees to be added to this area.
(These employees equate to approximately 410 housing units.) The addition-
al capacity allows for three times the projected growth in households and
jobs.
Stage 2 of alternative 1 is projected to be needed in the year 2023 or 37
years from now. Stage 2 would include rebuilding and increasing the
capacity of the Lake Virginia lift station and force main {from the lift
station to approximately Gavin Blvd.} and building the Lake Ann gravity
interceptor Phase II to connect to the existing Phase 1, which is now in
place. In turn, this flow would be channeled to the Purgatory interceptor
via a new Riley Creek gravity interceptor. In total, stage 2 would provide
the capacity for 25,242 housing units over what exists today. This pro-
vides additional capacity over the stage I improvements for 12,753 new
households, or a population of 33,795. This capacity would be available to
serve the southwestern area of Chanhassen and the extreme southerly portion
of Eden Prairie. These areas include the Riley Creek and the Bluff Creek
subwatersheds.
11
12
Alternative 2, Lake Ann gravity interceptor, would connect the Lake
Virginia lift station via a force main to approximately Gavin Blvd. and
than a gravity interceptor (Lake Ann Phase II) to the existing Lake Ann
Phase I interceptor. The Lake Ann Phase I interceptor would be connected
to the Purgatory Creek interceptor by means of the new Red Rock gravity
int~r-cep~or. Basically, these facilities would provide sufficient capacity
foE 36,48~ new households, which equates to an inceased population of
96,6~.
This alternative would provide needed service to the western and southern
Lake Minnetonka communities, most of Chanhassen and a portion of Eden
Prairie. The extreme southwestern area of Chanhassen would not be served
by this facility. This would include the Riley Creek and Bluff Creek
subwater sheds. The extreme southern part of the Eden Prairie would not be
serviced through this facility.
This alternative allows local service in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to be
provided through the various regional facilities. It should be noted that
most of Eden Prairie is presently served by local trunk lines that tie into
the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Red Rock interceptor would replace
the need for a new local trunk line for a portion of the city.
The key factor this analysis points out is the difference in new households
that the two alternatives can accommodate. In 1986 or at the time the
alternative 1, stage 1, would be available for service, it would accommo-
date 12,489 additional households or a population of 33,095. When alterna-
tive 2 is available for service, it will accommodate 36,482 new households
or a population of 96,677. Since it is~difficult to prepare meaningful
projections'for a 40-year period, it is difficult to know if either level
of capacity is required by 2026.
Stage 1 of alternative 1 will serve the western and southern Lake
Minnetonka area communities and Chanhassen. Co~j~Q~ projections forecast
these communities will grow by 5,116 people or~,93__~households by 2000.
Stage 1 of )l er~ has the capacity to ser~almost 6.5 times this
growth. Thi~ does not include the se_.rvice demand for additional employ~ent.
Alternative 2 serves the same communities plus a small part of Eden
Prairie. Council 2000 forecasts project these communities will add 31,853
people or 12,000 households. It. should be noted these projections include
all of Eden Prairie. The present Eden Prairie trunk system will provide
capacity for most of this growth. If the capacity of alternative 2 is
compared to the total projec'tion for these communities including all of the
Eden Prairie, over three times the forecast can be serviced. Again,
employment is not considered in these projections.
The analysis of the capacity of the present urban service areas of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie (which is discussed in the growth management
section below) found that urban service land in Eden Prairie is capable of
satisfying the forecasts until at least 2004 if the higher forecasts are
used and 2012 if the lower forecasts are used. This means the forecasted
growth to 2000 of 26,737 can be accommodated in the present sewer service,
which does not include the Red Rock interceptor, which is part of Alterna-
tive 2. Therefore, this growth does not have to be met by alternative 2.
13
If the forecasted growth for Eden Prairie is subtracted from the capacity
alternative 2 needs to serve by the year 2000, it has approximately 19
times the capacity that is required to serve the remaining communities.
GROWTN MANAGEMENT ISSUES
A. Regional Growth--Demand for Service (long-term need)
Based on current growth forecasts, staff has estimated the long-term need
to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The need to expand
the MUSA has been looked at in several ways. Need has been estimated for
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen individually and for each of the two Develop-
ment Framework sectors in which these communities lie, Sectors 7 and 8.
Following standard Development Framework practice, the need to expand the
MUSA is estimated by calculating land demand generated by the Council's
growth forecasts and comparing that to the amount of vacant, developable
land available for development within planned urban service areas. The
process takes into account local comprehensive plan factors such as urban
service area timing and staging, land use types and densities, and environ-
mental controls. Regional factors such as the desire to maintain at least
a five-year excess supply of urban service land over demand and considera-
tion of individual communities in conjunction with nearby con~nunities,
i.e., sectors, are also taken into account.
This analysis indicates that, although the need to replace the Shorewood
interceptor is immediate, the need for a replacement that also expands the
MUSA is not demonstrated. The Lake Virginia force main alternative
provides ample capacity for growth in this pamt of the region within the
present MUSA. TJ~L~ke~lt~ernative woul_g]j_dsignifica~t_~j~l~and
~h~e MUSA. p~ema~ure]~. Based ~forecasts-Update'd as part of the c~rrent
MDIF re- -~isi~pr-6-~ess, the sectors to be served by the two interceptor
alternatives have enough urban service land within the present MUSA to
accommodate growth through the years 2008 (Sector 7, including Eden
Prairie) and 2037 (Sector 8, including Chanhassen). Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen, combined with the other eight communities in need of service
from this replacement facility, have enough land for growth ranging from
the year 2012 to beyond 2050. Chanhassen by itself has enough room within
the MUSA to accommodate its own growth beyond 2050. Eden Prairie has the
lesser supply of the two communities, with enough room for its own growth
within the present MUSA until 2012. These calculations are based on
continuing the local land consumption rate forecasted between 1990 and 2000
until the supply is exhausted.
The foregoing analysis uses revised MDF assumptions, but several of the
affected communities have argued that they are growing faster than the
revised MDF forecasts indicate. Eden Prairie, in particular, has conducted
a special census to calibrate Council forecasts more finely. Other commun-
ities have extended recent high growth rates indefinitely into the future.
Although Council staff is still looking at Eden Prairie°s special census to
determine if forecast increases are appropriate for them, staff feels that
simply extending recent, short-term activity is not supportable because the
trends will even out over the longer-term, i.e., two to three years of high
rates will eventually be offset by two to three years of lower rates.
Council staff has also looked at the adequacy of the MUSA assuming higher
growth rates. Although the higher forecasts reduce the length of time for
14
which the present MUSA would be adequate, the need to expand the MUSA still
only occurs after the year 2000, sometime before 2004 in Eden Prairie and
2030 in Chanhassen.
B. Regional Concerns--MDF Policies and Local Development Controls
MDF Policies 13 and 15b are the most applicable to analyzing these sewer
replacement alternatives. Policy 13 contains the basic Council commitment
to a pattern of urbanization that is efficient, orderly and economic for
the region as a whole. It provides for the expansion of metropolitan
systems in a way that accommodates growth forecasts by the Council but that
avoids premature urbanization of rural areas. Policy 13 sets the terms for
expanding the MUSA and requiring timing and staging of urban service areas
in local comprehensive plans. Policy 15b amplifies these themes in terms
of local planning responsibilities. It indicates that new lands should not
be opened for development by expansion of local urban services until
existing services are used to full capacity. It also establishes that all
public service investments must be consistent with local and metropolitan
development plans.
Based on these two policies, the critical element for managing growth and
urban services is the timing and staging of urban service areas. Regional
services are timed and staged as shown.by the MUSA. Expansion of the MUSA
at various points in time follows the principles of Policy 15b: expand the
MUSA and the regional facilities that serve it when the existing service
area and facilities are no longer adequate to accommodate forecasted
growth. Because regional facilities serve more than one community covering
major watersheds, they tend to be greatly oversized and underused in the
early years after being built. Thus, service area and facility timing and
staging need to be refined to a smaller scale and shorter term from the
gross scale and term of metropolitan service areas and facilities. Local
timing and staging in comprehensive plans consistent with the MDF provide
this refinement. The orderly and economic development of the region cannot
occur without a complementary network of regional and local growth manage-
ment systems. Neither regional control by itself nor local control by
itself is adequate.
Because the Lake Ann gravity alternative lies partly outside the present
MUSA and provides capacity for expansion well before there is a demon-
strated regional need, as indicated by Council forecasts, strong and
comprehensive local growth management programs are essential if that option
is chosen. Key parts of local growth management systems are not contained
in the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen (reviewed by the
Council in 1981 and 1982) or are in conflict with MDF policies. Problems
exist with the inconsistent local growth forecasts, with regional forcasts,
unreconciled land demand and supply figures, inadequate timing and staging
controls, rural density standards in excess of MDF guidelines, and on-site
sewer controls inconsistent with the management programs recommended by the
Council's Water Quality Management Policy Plan for the rural densities
included in the local plans.
It is questionable at best under the Lake Ann gravity alternative whether
the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) would provide adequate assurance
that premature development could be managed through the local plan review
mechanism given the lack of substantiated urban service area need and
inadequate growth management mechanisms. When regional facilities are
15
designed and built with excess capacity, as would be the case with the Lake
Ann gravity alternative, the fail-safe provisions of the MLPA to require a
local plan modification in the event of a premature development proposal
may not be enforceable based on past practices in similar situations. In
comprehensive plan reviews where excess regional system capacity was
available, impacts on metropolitan systems could not be demonstrated. The
Lake Virginia force main alternative avoids this issue entirely because of
its limited service area and capacity and because it is located well within
the existing local and regional urban service areas.
roan ~tive, the Lake Virginia force main alternative is ~he
prefe~red~_sOJ~Ltion. Th~ main-reaso~ 'is-t-h~ther~ ~a~ion for
Fn~t~ng in r~nal
~ppar'ent'Trom a re~io'nal S~an~6int to increase '~-F-~metropolitan
service capacity or the supply of land available for urban development.
Each of the two communities, as well as the MDF sectors as a whole, have an
adequate supply of vacant, developable land to accommodate growth fore-
casted beyond the year 2000. The Lake Virginia force main would provide
more than enough regional sewer capacity for 40 years even if local urban
service areas needed to be expanded during this time.
C. Potential Limitations to Area Growth due to
Transportation System Capacity
The current transportation problems in this subregion are characterized by
the lack of capacity in both the regional and local highway systems to meet
travel demands. The following summarizes the Condition of the three
highways serving the area.
Hwy. 7
Numerous capacity and safety problems for Hwy. 7 have been identified by
the Transportation Policy Plan and affected communities. Six con~nunities
traversed by the highway--Minnetonka, Shorewood, Greenwood, Excelsior,
Chanhassen and Deephaven--are discussing the need for a task force to
coordinate improvements and setting priorities. No funds are anticipated
for major reconstruction of this highway at present.
HWy. 5
Although Hwy. 5 is not part of the metropolitan system, it is an important
local highway in this subregion. The Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion is planning to widen the roadway between Interstate 494 and Hwy. 42 by
1990. This is an interim'low-cost step to increase capacity in the
corridor prior to construction of Hwy. 212. Hwy. 5 is not expected to
become part of the metropolitan highway system.
Highway 212
This highway is not expected to be built prior to the year 2000. The
communities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska have agreed to an
alignment. Some funds will be available for right-of-way acquisition.
Timing and funding appear to be issues not yet fully resolved.
Capacity problems of these three facilities raise three issues. First, the
lack of adequate regional and local capacity and the indefinite time frame
16
for improvement may define a problem which will inhibit the growth of this
area. While sewer service can be provided in a number of ways, needed
highway improvements are more difficult to provide due to the competition
for funds. If improvements are not made in the near future, the area's
growth may slow down and be lower than projected. It is difficult to say
this will happen, without reservation since individuals can make accommoda-
tions to increased congestion by changing their travel habits. It can be
stated that if highway improvements are not provided, capacity problems
will increase if the area°s population and employment increase.
The second issue involves regional priorities. There are limited monies
available for highway construction and reconstruction and a long list of
projects that need to be built. If this area continues to grow, the
priority for these improvements may be elevated to replace other projects.
Again, it is not possible to determine how this issue might play itself
out. The third issue is the coordination of metropolitan system invest-
ments. If highway facilities in this area will not be substantially
improved prior to 2000, should the Council be providing major sewer
improvements in advance of highway improvements?
ENVIRONTMENAL PROTECTION ISSUES ~
The major environmental concern due to the two alternatives is the'effect of
sewage spillage on the water resources of the area, specifically wetlands,
lakes and creeks. Both alternatives have the potential for environmental
impacts and both will require the preparation of an environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW), as the capacity of either interceptor exceeds the limit for
the mandatory EAW.
The force main alternative would traverse approximately 4,500 feet of wetlands,
whereas the gravity system would cross some 7,000 feet. Because of the
gradient required for the gravity system, the trenches would likely be deeper
and by necessity wider than for the force main interceptor. Thus the gravity
interceptor would likely affect a larger acreage of wetlands.
The force main would run at close proximity of five lakes (Galvin, Lucy,
Christmas, Lotus and Silver), in addition, to crossing a branch of Purgatory
Creek. A break in the force main at any point close to a lake would potential-
ly be a source of pollution to the lake. The physical characteristics of the
land and drainage system near the lakes would afford the possibility for
natural containment, though planned containment measures might be necessary,
especially near Christmas Lake. The creek crossing would not afford any
possibility for containment and a break would result in flow to the creek.
The gravity interceptor would also run close to five lakes {Harrison, Lucy,
Ann, Susan, and Rice Marsh} in addition to running contiguous to Riley Creek
for over 8,000 feet. Because of the land characteristics and the closeness of
the pipe to Riley Creek and Lake Susan, it would be extremely difficult to
contain and prevent sewage from flowing to the creek or Lake Susan.
Preliminary comments from the engineer for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District indicate that the force main route appears to present the least
potential ~or adverse environmental impacts from potential spillage.
Finally, it should be noted that in case of a break in the force main, alter-
native routing for a portion of the sewage would be available through the
17
existing force main from the Lake Virginia lift station, the Sh0rew0od
interceptor and the Excelsior lift station, providing some redundancy in the
system. The Shorewood interceptor does not have capacity to carry the peak
flows.
COST COMPARISONS
A.
Present Value Analysis
The two proposed alternatives provide essentially the same services for the
next 40 years in two entirely different ways.They have different operating
costs, different capital costs, and the staging of the capital improvements
is substantially different as well. Council staff has used a "present
value analysis" to compare them financially. Under the present value
analysis, all capital and operating costs for the two projects have been
discounted back to 1986 using a discount rate of four percent. The rate
was calculated assuming that current borrowing rates are around nine
percent and inflation is around five percent, thus the real rate of return
on money is four percent. In using this rate, it is assumed that either
there is no inflation over the period of analysis (40 years) or that all
capital and operating expenses increase at the same rate of inflation.
Table 6 below presents the total present value for each alternative. The
numbers represent what it would take today to build and operate the two
projects from 1986 through 2026. The Lake Virginia force main would be
built in two stages, and the Lake Ann gravity project would be built all at
once. he Lake Anon gravit~system is $5~1~2j_O.46~mQre expensive in terms of
with higher'O & M costs, the Lake Virginia alternative is the cheaper
solution. One of the reasons the Lake Virginia is this much cheaper is
that a large portion of c~ expB~_ar_q_~oned~for 37__~ears.
Also, because it has been essent~lly rebuilt in ~e 37th'year, it has
substantial salvage value in the 40th year, which must be taken into
account when calculating present value.
If the total present value costs were to be spread over the entire 40
years, annual costs can be calculated. Those are the equivalent annual
costs figures shown in Table 6. The Lake Ann system costs $260,299___more
annually than the Lake Virginia system.
The same information is presented for the alternative in which there is
local participation of $2 million. The figures used in that part of the
table assume that the local participation is Up front (in 1986). Lake Ann
is still more expensive, even with th_e__]~c~participation. If Chanhassen
and Eden Prairie were willing to pay~5,152,0~ the costs for the Lake
Ann gravity interceptor, then the pre§~n~ ia~e of the two alternatives
would be equal.
B. Service Area Costs
The above material discusses total costs. The information here discusses
the increased annual cost to the service area and to the region. Table 7
calculates the impact of the two projects on the annual household sewer
rates in Service Area 4. The rates are calculated for 100,000 gallons of
use--the figure typically used for a household. The increases are not
18
large for either of the alternatives, ranging from a 1.3 percent increase
over the current rates to a 3.3 percent increase. Who is paying for the
local benefit is perhaps a more important issue to discuss here than the
actual rate increases. If Chanhassen and Eden Prairie do not. pay up front
all of the differ~ncQ in metropolitan system ~.sts for ~Lake Ann gravity
I n~e'~~r~ceptor a 1 t e-rD~~.~-~-~ i~ ~W.c~ ~ar~--ef~6t~ ~iT
~i~'~ning clTffe~e onto Service Area 4 and~o
-ont'o'~"th~e~§'~%-~f'-t-h-~-r~]q-io~n,-~h respect to Service Area 4 costs, one way
'~der this point is to view the Lake Virginia force main alternative
rate increase as a base line cost. If the MWCC builds the Lake Virginia
force main, each household in Service Area 4 will have to pay an additional
$1.10 per year. If Chanhassen and ~den Prairie pay the difference in costs
between the two alternatives, then households in the service area will only
pay the_additional $1.10 per year they would have paid with the Lake
Virginia system. If the local governments pay $2 million, then an
additional $.90 ($1.10 + $.90 = $2.00) is being passed on to each household
in Service Area 4. If the MWCC pays for the entire Lake Ann system, then
-Kan additional $2.00 ($3.10 - 1.10) is being passed on to all households in
Service Area 4.
Table 6
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Present Value of:
Capital Cost
0 & M Costs
Total Present Value
Equivalent Annual*
Costs (Capital, 0&M)
Alternative 1
Lake Virginia
Force Main
$ 6,829,000
2,375,133
$ 9,204,133
Alternative 2
Lake Ann
Gravity
$12,654,000
1,702,179
$14,356,179
465,025 725,324
With Local Participation of $2 Million Paid in 1986:
Total Present Value $ 9~2~4,133 $12,_356,179
Equivalent Annual Cost 495,025 624,277
*The costs have been spread over 40 years at four percent.
19
Table 7
SERVICE AREA COSTS
(per 100,000 gallons)*
Alternative 1,
Lake Virginia
Force main
Alternative 2,
Lake Ann Gravity
Alternative 2,
Lake Ann Gravity with
Local Participation
Current
Rates Increase
$94.90 $1.10
94.90 3.10
94.90 2.00
*Average annual household use.
C. Sewer Area Charge (SAC) Fund
Payment on the debt service (principal and interest payments) of the
MWCC's outstanding indebtedness is financed from two sources. The share
that pays for the debt on currently used capacity is added to the annual
operating and maintenance expenses, and the total is allocated to those
local governments that are on the regional sewer system. The part of the
payments used to retire the debt on the reserve capacity is paid from the
SAC fund. The revenues to the SAC fund are received from a fee added to
building permits in the region. Currently, that one-time fee is
established Qt $425.
Without building and financing the improvements under consideration in
this report, the SAC fund is estimated to be in a small deficit position
($.2 million) at Dec. 31, 1990. This assumes the projects in the MWCC
development program for the period 1986 to 1990 would all be built at a
l~cal~.~gst o~_.$177.6 million (see Appendix 1). The addition of the Lake
V~n~a ~a-i~ern-at~e '~ould increase the deficit to $1.3 million,'and the
Lake Ann alternative would increase it to $2.7 million at that date (see
Table 8).
The Lake Virginia alternative is estimated to require $1.1 million from
the SAC fund for the years 1985 to 1990, and the Lake Ann alternative is
projected to require $2.5 million.
During the 19~9)__t~0__1_~995 period, a substantial deficit is projected for
the SAC fund. The revenues, at the same annual rate, total $20.6 million
for the five years. There is no other income or cash balance to carry
forward. This is due to the fact that the reserve funds will have been
spent by this time so there would be no interest income available to help
pay the deficits. Debt service payments required from the fund are
projected at $47 million, showing a net deficit of $26.4 million for the
future projects exclusive of the Lake Virginia and Lake Ann interceptors.
2O
SAC fund contributions toward the payment of the debt of the Lake Virginia
alternative are estimated at $1.4 million and the Lake Ann alternative at
$3 million during the 1991 to 1995 period. Therefore, if the Lake Virginia
alternative is chosen, the SAC fund deficit for these five years would be
$27.8 million. If the Lake Ann alternative were selected, the deficit
would be $29.4 million.
For the entire 1985 to 1995 period, the SAC fund deficit for existing and
planned projects is projected at $26.6 million. Constructing the Lake
Virginia alternative would place the deficit at $29.1 million. The Lake
Ann alternative would add $5.5 million of debt retirement cost for a total
fund deficit of $32.1 million.
The basis for the calculations is a SAC fund balance at Dec. 31, 1984 of
$19.5 million and receivables of $5.5 million, revenues from SAC permit
collections, interest income, and debt service payments. Council projec-
tions for increases in the number of households and in employment from 1984
to 2000 estimate that an average of 9,800 SAC permits will be collected
each year (22,648 permits were collected by the MWCC during 1984).
Inasmuch as one percent of the fee is retained by the collecting city or
township for administrative expenses, the estimated revenue to the SAC fund
for the 11 years is $45.35 million. The MWCC has the SAC fund. cash
invested in government obligations that will earn ~ percent interest for
1985. Individual rates range from 9.54 to 14.45 percent. Eleven percent
was used for all years in the Council's calculations for a total interest
income of $12.5 million. The permit revenues plus interest income, the
receivables and the 1984 year end balance will provide $82.8 million. The
estimated debt service of $109.4 million' will leave the aforementioned
deficit 'of $26.6 million.
21
Table 8
ESTIMATED SAC FUND
CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS
{dollars in millions}
Revenues {9,800 units per year}
Interest Income (11 percent)
Receivable~ Collected
Debt Service
Dec. 31, 1984 Balance
Balance at Dec. 31, 1990/1995
Alternative 1, Lake Virginia Debt Service
Balance Including Lake Virginia
1985 1985
to to
1990 1995
$ 24.7 $ 45.3
12.5 12.5
5.5 5.5
$ 42.7 $ 63.3
62.4 109.4
$(19.7) $(46.1)
19.5 .19.5
$ (.2) $(26.6)
1.1 2.5
$ (1.3) $(29.1)
Balance at Dec. 31, 1990/1995
Alternative 2, Lake Ann Debt Service
Balance Including Lake Ann
$ (.2) $(26.6)
$ 2.5 $ 5.5
$ (2.7) $(32.1)
LEGAL FEASIBILITY AND POLICY ANALYSIS OF COST-SHARING
Council staff has researched two legal issues surrounding the question of local
cost-sharing: {1) the legal feasibility of cost-sharing; and (2) the regional
control of sewer facilities if cost-sharing is undertaken. This analysis
focuses on the narrow question of regional control over a regional sewer facil-
ity if a local unit of government directly provides some of the money to build
the facility. This analysis does not cover the larger issue of growth manage-
ment. In addition, the potential policy ramifications have been discussed,
although the questions raised have not been answered.
A. Legal Feasibility of Cost-SharinQ
Under Minn. Stat. §429.021 (1984) (Local Improvements, Council Powers)
municipalities are empowered to acquire, develop, construct and maintain
22
storm and sanitary sewers and systems both within and without corporate
limits. More specifically, Minn. Stat. §429.031 (1984) provides that
before a municipality assesses "any portion of the cost of an improvement
to be made under a cooperative agreement with the state or another politi-
cal subdivision for sharing the cost of making such improvement, the
Council shall hold a public hearing..." The significance of the latter
statute is that it specifically contemplates a cost-sharing agreement to
construct improvements, including sanitary sewers and systems. It is
therefore clear under the referenced statutes that Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen have statutory authority to enter into a cost-sharing agreement
with MWCC to construct a gravity interceptor.
The authority of the MWCC to enter into such an agreement is also clear.
See Minn. Stat. §473.504 subd. 1 {all powers necessary or convenient);
subd. 3 {authority to enter into any contract necessary or proper); subd. 6
{authority to enter joint powers agreement); and subd. 12 {authority to
contract with any local unit for joint use of any facility owned by the
MWCC).
The specific form that a cost-sharing agreement could take has not yet been
worked out. The extent to which Eden Prairie and Chanhassen would finance
their portion of the cost of an interceptor through the sale of bonds,
special assessments, user charges or the ad valorem property tax has not
been determined. Neither has the question of the timing of the obligation
been determined. Payments could be made at the time the MWCC incurs con-
struction costs, deferred until the communities actually use the capacity,
or some other arrangement could be made. It may even be possible with the
concurrence of the MWCC to simply declare this a special situation, alter
the normal MWCC system of allocating costs, and allocate the increased
costs of the gravity interceptor over the forcemain directly to Eden
Prairie and Chanh~ssen as a surcharge. Statutory authority for such an
option exists under Minn. Stat. §473.517, subd. 8 (1984). If this option
were exercised, it would be prudent to obtain the approval of Eden Prairie
and Chanhassen to the proposed cost allocation formula and obtain a waiver
agreement from them waiving any rights to contest the allocation.
Other financing options may be possible. Legal staff is satisfied that
there are several ways in which a binding and enforceable cost-sharing
agreement could be made. Any commitment by the Council or MWCC to enter a
cost-sharing arrangement should be contingent on approval of the legal
staff that the agreement is binding and enforceable. With that caveat,
preliminary Council approval of a cost-sharing option could be made.
B. Regional Control of System
Currently, nearly all metropolitan interceptors are owned and operated by
the MWCC. See Minn. Stat. §§473.502, 473.504, subd. 9, and 473.511, subd.
i (1984). Allocation of sewer capacity to local units is established under
the Council's Water Resources Management Plan and enforced through the
local units' sewer policy plan and through the connection permitting
process. The concern is whether the Council or the MWCC would lose any
control over the metropolitan disposal system by accepting local cost-
sharing dollars.
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen are apparently willing to include language in
any cost-sharing agreement acknowledging that the cost-sharing contribution
23
they make gives them absolutely no control over the use of, or ownership
interest in, the interceptor. It is an accepted rule of law that a munici-
pality cannot impair its administrative, governmental, or legislative
powers by contract. See 13A Dunnell Minn. Digest 2d Municipal
Corporations §11.02 (3d. Ed. 1981). Since municipalities do not now have
power to control the operation or use of the interceptors, an agreement to
contribute construction money would not impair any existing power of the
municipality. Without going into the details of a possible agreement,
suffice it to say that so long as the agreement is properly drafted and
executed with proper consideration shown, there is no legal reason why such
an agreement should not be fully enforceable. Thus, from a legal stand-
point, a cost-sharing agreement should not in any way impair Council and
MWCC control over the metropolitan disposal system.
C. Policy-Ramifications of Cost-Sharinq
As with any Council action, the cost-sharing proposed by Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie will establish a precedent whether the Council wishes it to or
not. At this time, it can only be reported that such a precedent appears
to have far-reaching ramifications that cannot be identified or described
in detail without a significant a~ount of research and analysis.
In the Council's interim economic policies, cost-sharing was recommended
under certain circumstances. Since those policies were added to the MDF,
specific issues for the regional systems have not been explored in depth.
Staff believes such analysis is needed if cost-sharing is to be a benefit
to the region as a whole.
~e do know there are other situations that could involve such ~equests.
Soon after this analysis began, one community submitted a similar request.
There is no way of knowing at this time how many similar situations may
exist.
Cost-sharing may have ramifications for other Council systems, most notably
transportation or highway facilities. Communities have entered into agree-
ments with Mn/DOT to accelerate the timing of highway interchanges which is
allowed under the Council interchange review and approval process. Again,
there is no way of knowing how. many such situations might exist in the
future.
In the early 1970s, the Council came up with a definition of metropolitan
benefits to clarify this issue. This definition is incorporated into the
water management policy plan and has been used regularly since that time.
The Council has consistently rejected cost-sharing on the part of locals
for a regional facility.
Due to the uncertainty of the ramifications of this procedure, and due to
the fact the Water Resources Management Policy Plan has, in effect, defined
metropolitan benefit in such a way as to avoid confusion over this issue,
it is questionable if a change in Council policy should be made on the
basis of an individual case as opposed to a full analysis undertaken as
part of a policy plan revision. A complete analysis could ascertain other
potential situations where cost-sharing might be feasible and develop
criteria that would be used to define when and under what circumstance it
would be used. This may be a strategy to address reduced federal funding
of wastewater facilities.
24
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
There is an immediate need to replace the overloaded metropolitan force
main (Shorewood interceptor) to accommodate forecasted growth. Both
alternatives would address this problem and provide adequate ~rvice for a
40-year period.
2. There is no need to expand the MUSA in this part of the region until
sometime after the year 2000.
Although the need to expand the urban service occurs soonest in Eden
Prairie (in either the years 2004 or 2012 depending on which forecasts are
used), the need for a metropolitan facility to serve multicommunity needs
upstream of Eden Prairie does not occur, even with optimistic growth
assumptions, until well into the 21st century (2030).
4. 'Long-term forecasts (beyond 10 to 20 years) are very uncertain. This
suggests that flexibility should be maintained if possible when making
expensive investments that are based on long-term forecasts.
®
Regional forecasts project population and household growth will slow down
significantly in the periods 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. The total
regional population growth projected for 2000 to 2010 is 45,000.
The Lake Ann gravity alternative raises important growth management
issues. Because this alternative lies partly ouside the present MUSA and
provides capacity to expand the MUSA well before there is a demonstrated
regional need, strong and comprehensive local growth management programs
are essential if the gravity alternative is chosen.
It is questionable under the Lake Ann gravity alternative whether the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) would provide adequate assurance
that premature development and service area expansion could be managed
through the local plan review mechanism given the lack of substantiated
urban service area need and inadequate local growth management mechan-
isms. If excessive amounts of regional facility capacity are available,
impacts on metropolitan systems cannot be demonstrated.
Key elements of the local growth management systems are not covered in the
comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen reviewed by the Council
in 1981 and 1982. Of primary concern are urban service area timing and
staging, growth assumptions.and rural area density standards.
From a Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) perspective, the Lake
Virginia force main alternative is the preferred solution. It would solve
the immediate problem by providing enough regional sewer capacity for 40
years without expanding the MUSA prematurely. (Stage 2 of the Lake
Virginia alternative would be constructed outside of the present MUSA, but
this would not occur for 37 years.)
10.
Due to capacity and safety problems, major regional and local highways in
the service area do not meet the travel demands in the area. The lack of
funds will prevent major improvements from being made in the immediate
future. These capacity problems may restrict the projected growth in this
25
area. In addition, there is a need to coordinate the timing of metropoli-
tan transportation and sewer improvements so that comparable levels of
service for expected growth are provided.
11.
The Lake Virginia alternative will require that Chanhassen remove inflow
to the local and regional system within the next 10 to 15 years. This
will resolve the peak flow problem at the Chanhassen lift station.
12.
The communities in this area have known that the Lake Ann Phases II and
III have not been in the MWCC Development Program since 1976. Local
facilities were built in Chanhassen in 1978 to address local service needs
that might have been met by Lake Ann Phase II.
13.
Both alternatives have the potential for affecting water resources of the
area.- The force main route would appear to present the least amount of
problems.
14. An EAW will be required for either alternative.
15.
The existing force main from the Lake Virginia lift station, Shorewood
interceptor and the Excelsior lift station would provide alternative
routing of normal sewage flow should the new force main break or have
serious problems.
16.
17.
From a legal view, cost-sharing agreements can be structured to ensure
that the local units of governments will pay for their share of the cost
even if these are delayed to some future time. This assumes the agree-
ments'are properly written and executed.
The Lake Virginia alternative is the least cost alternative using a
present value analysis--taking into account both capital costs and
operating and maintenance costs.
18.
The Lake Virginia alternative is..still the least cost alternative even
with an initial, up-front contribution of $2 million from local govern-
ments. ~
19.
The Lake Virginia force main alternative will increase household rates
(based on 100,000 gallons per year) in Service Area 4 by $ 1.10 or 1.3
percent. The Lake Ann alternative will increase rates by $3.10 without
local participation and by $2.00 with $2 million of local paYticipation.
20.
If the interested local governments do not pay all of the difference in
costs between the two projects, then the additional costs will be picked
up by other communities in Service Area 4 and by the rest of the region.
21.
From a legal view, control of sewer facilities can be maintained by the
region even if local cost-sharing is provided. This also assumes the
agreements are properly written and executed.
22.
Local cost-sharing will establish a precedent in the region. All ramifi-
cations of such a precedent have not been identified or analyzed. Such
analysis would be more appropriately done in the revision to the Waste
Water Mana§ement Plan.
CEO:emp
06.19.85
EPO95H, PHDEV1
26
27
M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S I T C 0 M IVI I S S I 0 N
560-6th Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411-4398 612/349-7400
June 18, 1985
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Elam:
You are invited to a public hearing at the Ridgedale Center Ccmmunity
Room on Thursday, June 27, 1985, at 7:30 PM. The Metropolitan Transit
Ccmmission's staff proposals for the first phase of transit operations
on 1-394 will be presented. Your comments are welcome. It is important
to begin the implementation process now since construction'has begun and
will continue at an accelerated pace on US Highway 12/I-394 between
Wayzata and downtown Minneapolis. If you are unable to attend the
hearing but wish to give input or have questions, please telephone the
MTC Service Planning Unit at 349-7773.
Regardless of whether or not you can make the June 27th meeting, the
MTC wants to share our current thinking about bus service plans along
Hwy. 12 during the initial construction phases.
The construction will impact MTC Route %51-Mound service, operating on
Highway 12. Steady ridership growth will likely result from the
promotion of bus riding and ridesharing in the corridor. Deteriorating
Highway 12 traffic conditions will be a disadvantage to solo automobile
drivers and MTC local bus operations alike. The cost of operating a
local bus trip will increase due to the delays. Express buses, car and
vanpoolers will benefit from the interim Express lanes to be located in
the median of Highway 12 by early October. We predict that increasing
traffic congestion will be adding as much as seven extra minutes (15 to
20% more time) to Route %51 local bus one-way running time by this
fall. However, the express lanes will permit Route %51 express bus
schedule times to remain unchanged.
The MTC Ccmmission has already r~viewed and approved a timed-transfer
service plan for the 1-394 service phase-in. However, the complete
timed-transfer plan is quite expensive. Recognizing that bus operating
funds for 1-394 may be limited, M~C staff developed three lower cost
options. They are described in the following section along with the
full timed-transfer option. All of the options will be presented at the
public hearing.
-2-
OPTIONS FOR 1-394 PH%SE ONE SERVICE
MTC Route %51-Mound must change in the face of 1-394 construction and
the opening of interim express lanes. M~C express buses will no longer
be able to stop between County Road %73 and downtown Minneapolis due to
the design of the temporary express lanes. This will force the
elimination of fiv~ express stops in that segment of Highway 12. As a
result, about 38 daily express passengers will have to use local bus
service.
The four service options have been designed with several criteria in
mind:
Facilitating utilization of the interim express lanes;
Providing capacity to handle ridership growth recognizing that
the present Route %51 schedule can absorb more rush hour
passengers, but is experiencing weekend overloads;
Maintaining schedule reliability;
Providing for uncertain levels of funding for 1-394 bus
operations;
Maintaining compatibility with the already adopted plan; and
Developing a simpler route structure to facilitate public
acceptance of the service revisions.
Maps and a ccmparison chart for the options are attached.
Here are the proposed staff options:
OPTION ONE. Route %51-local service would be reduced slightly during
the off-peak on weekdays. Slower travel times would require the MTC to
provide fewer daily trips in order to contain costs. Peak period and
weekend service levels would not change, although minor route and
schedule changes would be required. Total operating costs would not
change from the present.
OPTION TWO. Route %51 service levels would not change from present
levels. Minor route and schedule changes would be required. Total
operating costs would increase slightly in order to accommodate the
slower travel times along Highway 12.
OPTION THREE. A simplified Route %51 would provide local service along
US Highway 12 between Wayzata, Ridgedale and downtown Minneapolis.
Route %51 would no longer serve Mound and other communities west of
Wayzata. These communities would be served by new Route %75 which would
operate express service during the peak periods via the express lanes on
Highway 12. Some Route %51 rush hour trips would be cut back to
Ridgedale and diverted to Shelard Plaza, General Mills and the Gambles
Development on Vernon Ave. During the off-peak times, Route #75 would
provide local service between Mound, Orono and Wayzata. Improved
connections between express and local buses at Wayzata would be provided
using timed-transfer techniques. This is a fairly low cost way to
introduce new service.
-3-
OPTION FOUR. Route %51 would be split into new Routes %75 and ~51 as
under option three. Route 951 local service ending at Ridgedale would
be extended into Shelard Plaza, General Mills and the Gambles
development on Vernon Ave. during the rush hours and most off-peak
hours. Longer Route #51 trips would continue to connect Wayzata,
Ridgedale and Minneapolis. The frequency of service would improve to
the levels described in the 1-394 Bus Service and Facility Plans under
the Full Timed-transfer Alternative (previously reviewed by the
C~mission). In many cases bus service would be double that of the
present.
The MTC Service Planning and Scheduling Section staff support the
implementation of option three this fall. Option three represents a
modest first step toward the goals set in the adopted plan for 1-394.
The ~imed-transfer concept would be introduced, weekend overloads would
be corrected, and significant rush hour ridership growth can be
accommodated. Two simple schedules would replace the present complex
one. Option three could probably be carried out if MTC funding is
reduced by state and federal authorities. This option can also be
easily upgraded as funding and ridership demand grow. Option three is
completely ccmpatible with the much more expensive full timed-transfer
plan represented in option four.
The concerns of MTC customers, staff and the testimony of the public
gathered at the hearing will be carefully considered in producing bus
service changes which must be made by October, 1985. We hope that
further service improvements will be possible after this first step.
Sincerely,
John Dillery
Trans it Planner
Service Planning & Scheduling Section
JD/kal/5229
Attachment
Highway 12 ·
MTC Present
Service Levels
ROUTE
AM
RUSH
HOURS
MID-
DAY
HOURS
PM
RUSH
HOURS
NIGHT
HOURS
SATURDAY
HOURS
SUNDAY
HOURS
S1-C
S1-K
S1-L
S1-M
S1-N
S1-P
S1-S
S1-T
S1-W
Total Si
Bu~
Every
One trip
1S-30 Min.
Two trips
90 Min.
One trip
1S-30 Min.
30 Min.
iS Min.
iS Min.
Bus
Every
T~o trips
Three trips
One trip
90-240 Min.
O~e trip
60-90 Min.
Every
One trip
$0 Min.
One trip
90 Min.
60 Min.
$0 Min.
60 Min.
1S Min.
iS Min.
Bus
Every
50-60 Min.
One trip
60 Min.
60 Min.
Bus
~very
Three trips
Four trips
.180 Min.
Four trips
90 Min.
Bus
Every
Four trips
Three trips
180 Min.
C-1
DOWNTOWN
MINNEAPOLIS
HENN~PIN AV,
2IVo
OPTION
ROUTE
1,2
ZONE
I SUBURBAN
FARE LIMITS
TURNERS CROSSROAD
GOLDEN VALLEY
CEDAR LAKE RD. FOOTBRIDGE
;PRUDENTIAL
FRANCE AVE.
MINNEAPOLIS
VERNON AVE. RT. 9
LOUISIANA AVE.
RT. 36
S,T. LOUIS PARK
NOTE : RIDGEDALE BYPASS =,,,,,,
BUSES FOLLOW THIS ROUTE.
RIDGEDALE LOCAL
SIGNS: 'LOCAL SERVICE'
FAR'~'~.;~4'I WINNETKA AVE. IiX HWY 12'~'"""~['=""'"--""='""~"~"~'!'"'~ /
ZONE ~ ~:~{~ ~¢ ,~so. SE.V. ~.~
1) NORTH SERVICE RD.
RIDGEDL DR
WAYZATA PARK & RIDE ~ 2) SOUTH SERVICE RO. ~ ' DL DR.
MIN~ETONKA ~[~ '";MCA
~ ~ RIDGEDALE CENTER ~ CENTER
N. HWY 101 ~
WAYZATA~
~.: WAYZATA~
BARleY
- ZONE
FERNDAI
ROAD
o
· WATERTOWN
RD.~"
LONG
LAKE ,-~'~ '
NAVARRE
SPRING
ORONO
"'1
TYRONE
ISLAND PARK
COMMERCE BLVD.
( ~ = ~'-> MOUND
NORTH
~ PARK AND RIDE
BUSES SIGNEO 'Limited Stop'
STOP ONLY AT STOPS MARKED: ~ ON US HWY. 12
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION
560~th Avenue North, Minneaoolis, Minnesota 55411-4398 $12/3494400
MTC 1-594
SERVICE LEVELS PROPOSED
UNDER OPTION
WEEKDAY
Proposed AM MID- PM
Route RUSH DAY RUSH NIGHT SATURDAY SUNDAY
HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus
Every: Every: Every: Every: Every: Every:
S.1-R Local 30~;- ~ 30~;~ ---- ---- ~
's:-~v Local 30 ~ ~o~ %0~;~ ~O~ ~0~ ~0~'~
M
R O
P
O L I TAN TR A N S I T
Avenue North, Minneaoolls, Minnesota $5411-4398
C 0 M M
I $
$ !
N
MTC 1-394
SERVICE LEVELS PROPOSED
UNDER OPTION
~EKDA¥
Proposed
Route
AM
RUSH
HOURS
DAY
HOURS
PM
RUSS
HOURS
NIGHT
HOURS
SATURDAY
HOURS
SUNDAY
HOURS
S1-R Local
5I-W Local
· . Every:.
Bus
Every:
Bus
Every-
Bus
Every:
Bus
Every:
S1-R,W Local
"30.J.
75-C Exp.
7S-K Exp.
7S-K Shuttle
7S-E Exp.
7S-S Exp.
75-S Shuttle
7S-T Exp.
7S-T Shuttle
Total 75
12.em;
120 /,
~0 ,~
/ I0 mt'n
60 .¢,'q
OPTION 3, 4 ~
2nd AV~. N.~ MINNEAPOLIS
~,. ',~f
MINNEAPOLIS
T.H. lO4~
TURNERS CROSSRD..~ ~
Route I VFRNON AVE.
GOLDEN VALLEY I ST. LOUIS PARK
~ LOUISIA NA~eA V .E_.~out e 36
~ CO. RD. 73 Route 71
RIDGEDALE ~ ~ ~ ~
~ PLYMOUTH
1-494
MINNETONKA
WAYZATA
ROUTE 51
PARK & RIDE LOT ~
OOWNTOWN
MINNEAPOLIS
nd AVE. N.
2'
AVE.
T.H. 100 ~
~ ,
i LOUISIANA AVE.
~ CO. RD, 18
~ CO. RD. 73
~ ~ ' Route 51
~ a MINNETONKA
Z ~ PLYMOUTH RD.
N. T. H. 101
WAYZATA PAR=S & RIDE]
WAYZATA [ TRANSFER CENTER
~ I~outes SlW - 71KS,7
FERNDALE
LONG LAKE
LONG
SMITH BAY ~.~.
J.
OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD.
ORONO ~
CO.
COMMERCE BLVD.
NORTH ~
SPRING PARK
TYRONE
!SLAND
PARK
ROUTE 75
OPTION 3, 4
PEAK PERIOD ONLY
EXPRESS ROUTE
LOCAL ROUTE ,llllll
PEAK & OFF PEAK PERIOD
LOCAL ROUTE ~
PARK & RIDE LOT
HWY. 12 BUS STOP
ROUTE 75 EXPRESS
cI
June 24, 1985
'CITY
of MOUND
5341 MAvWOOD RO,~D
MOUND /'.':itqNESOTA 55364
f612,, 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA)
Enclosed is an ICMA report regarding the FLSA and its applicable rules for
the City of Mound.
It may be appropriate to have ajoint"working session" in July for the Council
and all Department Heads to go over department by department, the implications
on this and their potential costs. Many departments do not pay overtime
because of the way they are structured or operate. Police, Public Works
and Fire are the ones most affected.
If after reading this material, you would like to go over it (1-2 hours
should do it), we can set a date at the July 9th Council Meeting.
JE:fc
Po S. I have underlined some of the appropriate or applicable points.
A product of the
Management Information Service,
which also features
!
7 ~.'"~' ;:2C, ~:'"~-~::-'--: ..... :': ..................
Electronic Staff Support
for local governments: . ,' . _ -.-j
FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT
Understanding
the Law
The recent U.S. Supreme Court
:' ruling in Garcia vs. San Antonio
imposes Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) requirements on local govern-
ments. Jurisdictions that ~ill have
to make adjustments to meet these
requirements include those with:
· Long shifts for police and fire
personnel
· Employees not in police and fire
but who work considerable
unpaid overtime
· Employees whose seasonal work-
loads are accommodated by
compensatory time
· Volunteer police and firefighters
who are paid a stipend that is less
than minimum wage.
The effective date for most of the
FLSA provisions probably will be
F.e..b~. Employees can file
suit to recover unpaid wages, an
amount equal to that in damages,
attorneys' fees, and court costs.
There are several steps local juris-
dictions should take to bring them-
selves into compliance with the law
and minimize their financial burden
under FLSA. This report describes'
compliance steps, answers key ques-
tions about the law, and includes
some of the regulations with which
local governments must comply.
Fair Labor
Standards Act
Understanding
the Law
This month's report was prepared by Gregg B.
Jackson. He is the Director of Research for
ICMA's Data and Information Services office.
CONSEQU£NCES OF NOT COMPLYING
WITH FLSA
On February 19, 1985, the United States Supreme Court
issued a decision in Garcia v. San Antonio that has major
consequences for cities and counties. The decision makes
state and local governments subject to the minimum
wage, overtime pay, and record keeping provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Most employees
are covered.
An employee who is covered under FLSA must be
paid a minimum wage of not less than $3.35 per hour,
and overtime pay of not ]ess than one and one-half times
his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, unless specifically exempt.
Local governments should be aware that FLSA
provides for the following:
· An employee may file suit to recover back wages
and an equal amount in damages, plus attorney's
fees and court costs.
· The Secretary of Labor may file suit on behalf of
employees for back wages and an equal amount in
damages.
· The Secretary may obtain a court injunction to
restrain any person from violating the law, includ-
ing unlawfully withholding proper minimum wage
and overtime pay.
· Employers who have willfully violated the'law
may face criminal penalties, including fines and
imprisonment.
* Employees who have filed complaints or provided
information during an investigation may not be
discriminated against or discharged for having
done so. If they are, they may file a suit or the
Secretary of Labor may file a suit on their behalf
for relief, including reinstatement to their jobs and
payment of wages lost plus monetary damages.
The statute of limitations is two years for 'unwillful"
violations and three years for "willful" ones.
There is an impression that FLSA poses problems
and
will
fire personnel. That is false. Other jurisdictions that
have to make major changes are those that:
Conduct their business with substantial amounts of
unpaid overtime
Handle seasonally variable workloads with com-
pensatory time "
· Have a considerable number of volunteer police or
firefighters who are paid a stipend that is greater
than their incidental expenses, but less than the
minimum wage.
Some local governments will be able to achieve full
compliance with limited rescheduling, bookkeeping
modifications, and overtime compensation payments.
Others, however, will have to make major scheduling
changes, hire new personnel, or have fewer on duty at
a given time in order to avoid substantial overtime
expenses, as well as revamp their timekeeping and pay
system for police and firefighters.
Local governments that are faced with the need for
these actions may be inclined to delay and await relief
from the Congress or the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL). For them to do this is a high stakes gamble. If
relief is not forthcoming, they could pay e heavy price.
There are some observers who have said the Supreme
Court decision raises more questions than it answers and
that its implications for local governments are quite
uncertain. The decision is indeed a radical reversal of the
court's own prior decision in National League of Cities
v. Usery, and such a reversal demonstrates how nothing
is certain under the American system of law. But other
observers warn that the main thrust of the Court's intent
is clear and that most of the provisions newly applicable
to cities and counties have long been applied to private
employers and federal agenci~. These observers suggest
that courts and the Department of Labor will be guided
by many existing interpretations and the large body of
existing case law, and will decide only a limited number
of novel issues when applying FLSA to state and local
governments.
This report has been written with the latter point of
2 Management Information Service
sions will apply. ,4. later section of the report recommends
several actions for municipal and county governments.
Those actions should help a jurisdiction come into com-
pliance with the major provisions of FLSA, allow it to
achieve quick compliance with subsequent court deci-
sions and DOL regulations, and minimize potential liabili-
ties under the Act.
BACI',GP. CUND
The Fair Labor' Standards Act was enacted in 1938. Its
advocates perceived it as a humane and progressive legis-
lative initiative. It was intended to protect workers from
exploitation, contribute to their well-being, and help dis-
tribute available employment through the work force. It
originally included provisions for a minimum wage,
overtime pay at the rate of time and one-half, child labor
restrictions, and record keeping requirements. It applied
only to private employers. The act has been amended
several times since 1938.
In 1966 the Act's coverage was expanded to include
certain public employees--those of schools, hospitals,
mass transit systems, and residential care facilities for the
sick, aged, and mentally ill. Twenty-eight states and a
school district filed suit to enjoin enforcement of FLSA as
it then applied to public schools and hospitals. In 1968 the
Supreme Court upheld the 1966 amendments in Mary-
land v. Wirtz 1392 U.S. 183].
The Education Amendments of 1972 amended FLSA.
Coverage was extended to employees of public and
private preschools.
In 1973 FLSA was amend'ed to cover almost all
federal, state, and local employees. The amendment,
however, was vetoed by President Nixon.
In the spring of 1974 FLSA was again amended to
include almost all federal, state, and local employees.
Special provisions for calculating police and fire employee
overtime were included, and the provisions were not to
take effect until January 1, 1975. On April 8, 1974, Presi-
dent Nixon signed the bill into law.
On December 20, 1974, after seven months of prepa-
ration and two administrative hearings, the Department
of Labor issued final regulations for the overtime com-
pensation of police, corrections staff, and fire personnel.
The regulations were scheduled to go into effect twelve
days later.
On December 12,1974, the National League of Cities,
the National Governors' Conference, eighteen states, and
several cities had filed a court action seeking to prevent
application of the police and fire overtime provisions. On
December 31, 1974, just four and one-half hours before
the effective date of these provisions, Chief Justice Burger
signed a stay order for all of the 1974 amendments affect-
ing state and local government employees.
On June 24, 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in
National League of Cities v. Usery that the 1974 amend-
ments to FLSA would not be applicable to state and local
employees engaged in "traditional governmental func-
tions." The court specified that such functions included
schools, hospitals, fire prevention, police protection,
sanitation, public health, and parks and recreation. The
decision was by a vote of 5 to 4. The court's rationale is
indicated by the following excerpts from the decision of
the majority:
Our examination of the effect of the 1974
amendments, as sought to be extended to the
States and their political subdivisions, satis-
fies us that both the minimum wage and maxi-
mum hour provisions will impermissibly
interfere with the integral governmental func-
tions of these bodies.
We hold that insofar as the challenged
amendments operate to directly displace the
States' freedom to structure integral operations
in areas of traditional governmental functions,
they are not within the authority granted Con-
gress by Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. [426 U.S. 833 (1976)]
On December 21,1979, the Department of Labor amended
Interpretative Bulletin 29 C.t:.R. '775 to specify the func-
tions that would be considered traditional and the ones
that would be considered nontraditional. It added to the
Supreme Court's list of traditional functions only libraries
and museums. Nontraditional functions were defined to
include alcoholic beverage stores, off-track betting.
corporations, local mass transit systems, generation and
distribution of electric power, provision of residential and
commercial telephone and telegraphic communications,
and a few other specified functions.
Over the following eight years, several suits were
filed contesting the application of FLSA to government
employees, especially transit workers. An appeal of three
consolidated cases again brought FLSA before the
Supreme Court. In one of the cases, Garcia, a transit
worker in San Antonio, Texas, sought to recover unpaid
overtime. Rather than decide the narrow issue of whether
mass transit is a traditional government function, the
court overturned its decision in National League of Cities
v. Usery and chose to allow FLSA, as amended through
1974 to apply without any restrictions to state and local
governments. The vote was again 5 to 4. The court's
rationale can be gleaned from the following excerpts
from the opinion of the majority.
Our examination of this "function" standard
applied in these and other cases over the last
eight years now persuades us that the attempt
to draw the boundaries of state regulatory
immunity in terms of "traditional governmental
function" is not only unworkable but is
inconsistent with established principles of
federalism and, indeed, with those ye.fy
federalism principles on which National League
of Cities purported to rest. That case, accord-
ingly, is overruled.
Fair Labor Standards Act 3
Insofar as the present cases are concerned,
then, we need go no further than to state that
we perceive nothing in the overtime and
minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA, as
applied to SA]VITA [San Antonio Metropolitan
Transit Authority] that is destructive of state
sovereignty or violative of any constitutional
provision. SAMTA faces nothing more than
the same minimum-wage and overtime obliga-
tions that hundreds of thousands of other
employers, public as well as private, have to
meet.
Of course, we continue to recognize that the
States occupy'a special and specific position
in our constitutional system and that the scope
of Congress' authority under the Commerce
Clause must reflect that position. But the prin-
cipal and basic limit on the federal commerce
power is that inherent in all congressional
action--the built-in restraints that our system
provides through state participation in federal
governmental action. The political process
ensures that laws that unduly burden the States
will not be promulgated. In the factual setting
of these cases the internal safeguards of the
political process have performed as intended.
In sum, in National League of Cities the
Court tried to repair what did not need repair.
We do not lightly overrule recent precedent.
We have not hesitated, however, when it has
become apparent that a prior decision has
departed from a proper understanding of con-
gressional power under the Commerce Clause.
See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100,
116-117 (1941). Due respect for the reach of
congressional power within the federal system.
mandates that we do so now.
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S.
833 (1976), is overruled. The judgment of the
District Court is reversed, and these cases are
remanded to that court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[53 USLW 4135 (Feb. 19, 1985)]
Local governments are now subject to the same provi-
sions imposed on them in the spring of 1974. In two
respects, however, the situation is more difficult. The
bulk of the 1974 amendments did not go into effect until
three weeks after the President signed the bill; the police
and fire overtime compensation provisions were not to
become effective until eight months thereafter. The
Supreme Court's recent decision appears to reinstate the
1974 amendments for all employees as of February 19,
1985, with no period for adjustments. The 1974 amend-
ments also provided that time and one-half initially
would have to be paid to police and fire employees only
after they worked the equivalent of 60 hours per week. It
stipulated, however, that the value would be reduced
over the subsequent years. It is currently just 42.75 hours
for police and 53 hours for fire personnel.
PROVISIONS OF FLSA MOST IMPO2TAHT
TO LOCAL GOVEP. F.~MENTS
The FLSA comprises many pages of statute (29 U.S.C.
Secs. 201-216), is accompanied by hundreds of pages of
regulations and interpretations issued by the Department
of Labor (most of 29 C.ER. Parts 511-800), and has been
the subject of hundreds of court decisions. This section
will summarize the major provisions thought to be most
important to local governments.
Effective Date
The effective date for FLSA compliance is probably
February 19, 1985. There are, however, at least two
caveats. Congress, when it amended the Act in 1974,
intended to give cities and counties some time to adjust to
the overtime compensation proyision for public safety
personnel (29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(k)(1)). Congress, the
courts, or the Department of Labor again might provide
a phase-in period, but they have not yet done so and they
may never do so. In addition, since the Department of
Labor issued interpretations on December 21, 1979,
declaring mass transit workers and a few other specified.
employees, to be engaged in nontraditional functions and
subject to FLSA as of the date of publication, it is plaus-
ible that the courts will declare the effective date of the
1974 amendments to be December 2!, 1979 for these
employees.
Covered Employees
Unlike the past eight years, most state and local govern-
ment employees are now subject to FLSA. There are
some exceptions, however, and they are important to
identify. ~Not covered are any elected officials, their per-
sonal staff', tl'~eir appointee~ serving at po~
~~ their-~o,unsel 6n constitutional and leg~
to t-~ civil servi~-l~WS-6f'2he state or local government
(29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(e)(2)(C)(i)).
'~ona fide" executive, ad. ministrati_.?e, and E.rofes-
S~ ificluding teachers, are exempt from
the minimum wage and overtime compensation provi-
sions (29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(1)).
* Executive personnel are defined as those who:
1) Are paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least
$250 per week; and
2) have primary duties that include:
a) managing a recognized organization depart-
ment or subdivision, and
b) regularly directing the work of two or more
employees (29 C.ER. Sec. 541.1).
· Administrative personnel are defined as those who:
4 Management Information Service
1) Are paid on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at
least $250 per week; and
2) have primary duties that include:
a) office or nonmanual work directly related
to management policies or general opera-
tions, or
b) administration of a school or educational
system or department thereof, and
3) whose work requires the exercise of discre-
tion and independent judgment (29 C.ER.
Sec. $41.2).
· Professional personnel are defined as those who:
1) Are paid on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at
least $250 p-el week; and
2) have primary duties that include:
a) work requiring advanced knowledge of the
type customarily acquired through pro-
longed specialized study (as distinguished
from a general academic education or
apprenticeship) or
b) teaching, and
3) work requiring the consistent exercise of dis-
cretion and judgment; or' invention, imagina-
tion or talent in a recognized field of artistic
endeavor (29 C.ER. Sec. 541.3).
A "salary" is a predetermined amount constituting
part or all of the employee's compensation, that is regu-
larly received in full for any week he or she works,
regardless of the quantity and quality of the work. There
are alternative definitions for exe .cutive, administrative,
and professional personnel that ~llow lower pay levels;
they include the duty and responsibility tests stated
above, as well as several additional tests (29 C.ER. Secs.
541.1-3). Medical school graduates serving as medical
interns or residents, and teachers in schools or educa-
tional institutions, are considered professionals by the
Department of Labor. So are registered nurses working in
medical facilities and receiving at least $170 per week.
Employees of seasonal recreational and amusement
establishments and organized camps also are exempt
from the minimum wage and overtime compensation
requirements of FLSA if the place of employment does
not operate for more than seven months in any calendar
year or where the receipts for any half of the previous
calendar year are one-third or less of the receipts for the
other half of the calendar year (29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(3)).
Police and fire departments with less than five
employees engaged in law ~nforcement or fire protection
activities are exempt from the overtime compensation
provisions of FLSA (29 U.S.C. Sec. 13(b)(20)).
Individuals who volunteer or donate their services,
usually on a part-time basis, for public service, religious,
or humanitarian objectives, and receive no pay other
than reimbursal for incidental expenses associated with
the volunteer time, are not considered an employee of the
organization to which they are volunteering their time.
Volunteer police and firefighters may also receive benefits
from a retirement fund, relief fund, workman's compen-
sation plan, life insurance policy, or health insurance
plan, without being considered employees of the police
or fire department (29 C.F.R. Sec. 553.11).
Jurisdictions that use volunteer police and fire per-
sonnel and pay them a modest stipend that exceeds the
volunteers' actual expenses will be out of compliance.
They mus~ either reduce the stipend to the level of the
vo-o 6nteers ir{cident~l-exPenses or ir(~r~a~e-it t~-~t the
_minimum wage. requirement.
Minimum Wage
The FLSA mandates that all covered employees receive
a minimum hourly wage, or $3.35 (29 U.S.C. Sec.
ZOO(a)(1)).
Most local governments probably now pay an hourly
wage equal to or greater than this amount. Local jurisdic-
tions, however, need to exercise caution if they pay some
employees at exactly this rate because of the manner in
which the hourly rate is computed. For instance, consider
the case of an employee who is paid a fixed amount each
week, $123.95, based on 37 hours at $3.35/hour. If the
employee occasionally works two extra hours one week
and takes the equivalent time off in a different week, the
employee, according to the FLSA provisions, will have
been paid less than minimum wage during the weeks he
or she worked the extra hours ($123.95 +39=$3.18).
There are special provisions allowing for the pay-
ment of subminimum wages to full-time students, appren-
tices, the handicapped, and a few others when specified
conditions are met.
Overtime
The FLSA mandates that employees who accumulate
more than a specified number of "hours worked" during
a given "workweek" or "work period" must be compen-
sated for the overtime hours at one and one-half times
their "regular rate." "Workweek," "work period," "hours
worked/' and "regular rate/' are key terms in the over-
time provisions of the Act. Each is given a specific
definition.
Workweek and Work Period. A workweek is a regularly
recurring set of seven consecutive days over which
'`hours worked" are to be totaled for determining the
number of overtime hours for which an employee must
be paid at the time and one-half rate.
The workweek may begin on any day of the week
and at any hour selected by the employer. It must end 168
hours later, and at that time the next workweek begins.
The workweek can begin on different days and at differ-
ent times for different employees or groups of employees.
Once an employee's workweek has been selected it must
remain fixed, but "permanent" changes are permitted (29
C.ER. Sec. 778.105). For hospital workers a "work
period" of 14 consecutive days may be established in
Fair Labor Standards Act 5
place of the workweek, and for police,, corrections, and
fire personnel, a "~~" of 7 to 28 days may be
established, if the l~-~e~-~ ~l~o~'~-eertain simple
procedures (29 U.S.C. Secs. 207(j) and (k)).
Hours Worked. Hours worked include all time that an
employee is required to be on duty, on the employer's
premises, or at a workplace for the employer, and all time
that the employee is suffered or permitted to work. This
includes time during which an cm_~l .. ey, gg, is~g~ ~qui~L~ed
r'~l'l-c:"~l~ngs, an-""'--"-d trmnmg""-~' :---. Also included ~s hme:':-~ an_
.'~_mp--']'oye~Voluntarily Work's before or a_f_tgr__~the regular
~v~~ if "suffered or pe-r.m_.itt_e~_" by t_he ..e.mployer,
even work done at 'home if the employer knows or has
reaso'~n to think work--~a~_'e_t, la.er.e. It includes time
spent on call near the employer's premises under condi-
tions preventing the employee from using the time effec-
tively for personal purposes, but usually does not include
merely remaining reachable by phone or beeper (29 C.F.R.
Sec. 785.12 & .17).
Hours worked also includes the time police spend in
court as part of their police responsibilities. It may
include time police spend on traffic or security duty for
Etj~vate parties, if arrang~-~ rh-~-6~
~ent, ev~ f-~-~y .-~e
Sec. 553.9). Sleeping and meal time while on duty are
considered hours worked unless the duty period extends
for more than 24 hours and other requirements are met
(29 C.F.R. Sec. $53.15). Also included are hours that an
employee works trading time with another (reciprocated
filling in for each other), unless the trading is done volun-
tarily by the employees and not at the request of the
employer, the trade is not made for reasons of the em-
ployer's operation, the employer maintains records of
all time traded by employees, and the time traded is
paid back within a twelve-month period (29 C.F.R.
Sec. 553.18).
Vacation and sick leave hours are not counted as
hours worked even though they are paid hours. Lunch
breaks where the employee is completely relieved of his
or her duties for at least 30_~unint~also are
not counted as hours worked (29 C.F.R. 785.19).
Regular Rate. The regular rate is the equivaleni hourly
rate at which the employee is actually paid for normal,
nonovertime hours. The Act does not require employers
to compensate their personnel on an hourly rate basis;
any basis including piece rate, commission, and salary is
permitted. But the equivalent hourly rate must be com-
puted over each workweek or work period for purposes of
determining overtime pay (29 C.ER. Secs. 778.108-109).
The regular rate is computed by including base pay,
merit pay, career incentives pay, longevity pay and all
other pay actually received (29 C.F.R. Secs. 778.108-109).
The regular rate does not include: gifts; pay for vacation
or sick leave; certain discretionary bonuses; employer
contributions to fringe benefits such as retirement plans
and insurance; extra compensation at a premium rate for
working overtime; extra compensation at a premium rate
for working Saturdays, Sundays and holidays--if the
premium rate is at least one and one-half times the rate
for nonovertime hours; extra compensation at a premium
rate for working hours outside the normal workday or
workweek--if the premium rate is at least one and one-
half times the normal rate and if this extra compensation
is specified in the applicable employment contract or
collective bargaining agreement (?-9 U.S.C. Sec. 207(d)).
These latter three "extra compensation" items are
important to identify because their amounts can be
credited toward the overtime compensation required to
be paid under FLSA (29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(h)).
If an employee is paid solely on the basis of a single
hourly rate, the hourly rate is his or her regular rate. If an
employee is paid solely on a weekly or biweekly basis,
his or her regular rate is computed by dividing the salary
by the number of hours which the salary is intended to
compensate (29 C.ER. Secs. 778.110 & 778.113).
Overtime for Regular Employees. All regular employees
must be assigned a workweek of 7 consecutive 24-hour
periods. Overtime compensation must be paid for hours
worked in excess of 40 during any assigned workweek
(29 U.W.C., Sec. 207(a)). The hours cannot be averaged
over two or more workweeks to determine overtime
hgurs, even if the employee is paid every two or more
weeks (29 C.ER. Sec. 778.104). If a regular employee'
works 45 hours one week and 35 hours the next, the
employer must pay one and one-half times the regular
rate for five hours of overtime in the first week..FLSA
does not prohibit compensatory time but it does re. uc~
the employer t6--pay r~ular employees at one and one-
ha'~-f~r rate for e~r~'iaour of
wo-'~'-~ in excess of 40 per week.
Overtime for Hospital Employees. Employees of a hos-
pital or institution primarily engaged in the ca~e of the
sick, aged, mentally ill or mentally defective may option-
ally have a work period of 14 consecutive days instead of
a seven-day workweek, if the employer and individual
employees so agree. Upon establishment of the agree-
ment, overtime compensation at the rate of time and one-
half must be paid for any hours over 80 in the 14 day
work period and for any hours over eight in a given
workday (29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(j)). Since regular employees
are not required to be paid overtime for hours in excess of
8 per day, but rather only for hours in excess of 40 per
week, the optional work period for hospital workers
provides the employer with both an advantage and a
disadvantage.
Overtime for Public Safety Employees. Section 207(k) of
FLSA allows special work periods and overtime thresh-
olds for publicly employed police, corrections, and fire
prevention personnel, if the local government establishes
an acceptable work period and notes in its records the
starting time and length of the period for each employee
6 Management Information Service
TABLE t--Overtime Threshold- Police,
Corrections, Fire.
Overtime Threshold
in Hours
Work Period Police and
[in days] Prison Staff Firefighters
28 t71.0 2'12.0
27 164.9 204.4
26 t58.8 196.9
25 152.7 t89.3
24 '- t46.6 t8t.7
23 140.5 174.t
22 134.4 t66.6
2`1 `128.3 '!59.0
20 t22.1 t51.4
t9 tt6.9 t43.9
18 109.9 `136.3
17 103.8 128.7
16 97.7 t2t.t
t5 9t.6 t13.6
t4 85.5 t06.0
`13 79.4 98.4
t2 73.3 90.8
t `1 67.2 83.3
t0 61.t 75.7
9 55.0 68. I
8 48.9 60.6
7 42.8 53.0
(29 C.F.R. Sec. 553.16). Otherwise, the overtime compen-
sation of these employees must be treated as it is for
regular employees.
Section 207(k) permits publicly employed police,
corrections, and fire personnel to have established work
periods of anywhere from 7 to 28 consecutive days, in-
stead of a seven-day workweek. It also permits an over-
time threshold for police and corrections staff equal to
the equivalent of 42.75 hours per week, and for fire per-
sonnel equal to the equivalent of 53 hours per week. The
statute specifies the eligible work period lengths and
directs the Department of Labor to determine the over-
time thresholds. The threshold values stated here are the
most recent ones issued by DOL. They were issued in
1983 but made effective retroactively to January 1, 1978.
Ail the special work periods and their respective overtime
thresholds are shown in Table 1.
Ambulance and rescue personnel who are an integral
part of the police or fire department, or who have special
training in the rescue of fire or accident victims and who
are regularly dispatched to fires and accidents, are eligible
for the special provisions (29 C.ER. Sec. 553.3 and .8).
Other ambulance and rescue persor~nel must be treated as
regular employees.
"Civilian" employees of police and fire departments
who perform support functions (e.g., parking checkers,
laboratory technicians, building guards, clerks, and
janitors) are not eligible for the special work periods and
overtime thresholds (29 C.F.R. Secs. 553.3-.4). Police or
fire personnel who spend more than 20 percent of their
work hours on activities unrelated to law enforcement or
fire protection, respectively, may not have their overtime
72 hrs. 48 hrs. 48 hrs. 72 hrs.
XOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXO
FIGURE `1--Seven-day work period, 24 hours on, 48 hours off schedule.
72 hrs. 72 hrs. 72 hrs.
X OO XO O X O O X OOXOOXOOXOOXOO
XOOXOOXO
FIGURE 2--Nine-day work period, 24 hours on, 48 hours off schedule.
Fair Labor Standards Act 7
compensation computed during the affected work period
by the special provisions (29 C.F.R. Sec. 553.5). The sec-
tion 207(k) provisions also do not apply to privately
employed fire, rescue and security personnel, even when
they are providing services under a contract with a local
government.
The work period that is selected can have a dramatic
affect on the number of overtime hours accumulated by
public safety personnel. Consider the most common fire
duty cycle in the country, which is 24 hours on and 48
hours off. Figure I shows the overtime consequences of a
seven-day work period for this duty cycle. Every third
period, the jurisdiction must pay 19 hours of overtime for
a given firefighter (72 hrs. -53 hrs. --19 hrs.). During the
other two weeks there is no accumulated overtime for
that firefighter. Over the course of a year, the jurisdiction
will pay about 329 hours of overtime per firefighter.
Figure 2 shows a nine-day work period for the same duty
cycle. In each period the jurisdiction will pay 3.9 hours of
overtime for a given firefighter (72-68.1=3.9), and over
the course of the year that will amount to about 158 hours.
This example shows that the selected work period
can substantially affect the number of overtime hours for
which employees under the 24/48 duty cycle must be
compensated under FLSA. The seven-day work period
results in more than twice as many overtime hours as the
nine-day work period.
In addition, Section 553.15(b) provides that police
and fire personnel who are on duty more than 24 hours
may have sleep and meal time excluded from their hours
worked if there is an expressed or implied agreement to
that effect between the employer and employee and if the
sleep time is at least five hours uninterrupted by a call to
duty and the meal times are at least 30 uninterrupted
minutes.
If a fire department were to extend its duty cycles to
24 hours and 2 minutes, with each shift overlapping the
other by one minute, it would appear to be allowed to
deduct qualifying sleep and meal time. This would permit
fire departments with the 24/48 duty cycle to reduce
their hours worked during a nine day work period from
72 to a number substantially below the 68.1 hour over-
time threshold.
The Department of Labor, however, is currently
indicating that it is unclear whether minute extensions of
a 24-hour duty shift will allow the deduction of sleep and
meal hours, or will be considered as an unacceptable
attempt to subvert the legislative intent of FLSA. The
Department has been asked to clarify this issue, but has
not set a date for doing so.
It should be noted that the above example provides
only an estimate of the overtime hours for which
employees must be reimbursed. It is inevitable that emer-
gencies and other circumstances will occasionally require
an employee to work more hours during a workweek or
work period than estimated. On the other hand, used
vacation leave and sick leave will reduce the hours
worked in certain workweeks or work periods.
Record Keeping
Employers subject to FLSA must keep records for each
employee indicating:
1. Name and identifying number
2. Home address
3. Date of birth, if under the age of 19
4. Sex, and occupation in which employed
5. Time and day on which his or her workweek or
work period begins, and length of the work period
6. Regular rate of pay for any workweek or work
period in which overtime is worked
7. Hours worked each day and each workweek or
work period
8. Total daily, weekly, or work period straight-time
earnings (includes one time, but not time and one-
half pay for overtime)
9. Overtime excess compensation (the 'qaalf time" or
more extra compensation for overtime)
3.0. Total additions to or deductions from wages paid
each pay period
11. Total wages paid each pay period
12. Date of payment and the pay period covered by
the payment (29 C.ER. Sec. 516.2).
The Department of Labor can require access to, or sub-
mission of, these records as well as any others it deter-
mines are necessary for its enforcement responsibilities.
The following actions will help local governments come
into compliance with the major provisions of the law and
allow them to minimize their financial burdens under the
statute. Other actions may also be advisable depending
on the circumstances of the individual city or county.
1. Seek experienced legal counsel to guide you fn achiev-
ing compliance.
FLSA is a complex web of statute, regulations, opinion
letters from the Secretary of Labor, and court decisions.
This report is a brief summary of just the major provi-
sions. Experienced legal counsel will be needed to achieve
compliance and avoid unnecessary expenditures.
Most of the provisions that are now applicable to
state and local governments have been applied to private
industry for decades. Attorneys with substantial prior
FLSA experience can be found.
Conduct an impact audit to identify the requirements
of FLSA that are not being met by your jurisdictlon's
current employment practices.
Check particularly the unpaid overtime worked by
regular employees; compensatory bme usei:t y~regular
8 Management Information Service
e,_mployees;_police, corrections, and fire duty schedul_..es;
and-reimbursement of-volunteer police and firefighters.
Jurisdictions should accurately determine which em-
ployees qualify as executives, administrators, profes-
sionals, teachers, or seasonal workers, and thus are
exempt from the overtime compensation provisions.
3. Carefully assess the labor relations consequences of
changes that you are considering.
Collective bargaining agreements should be reviewed.
Severability clauses in the agreements can be used to pre-
clude a contractual requirement that prevents coming
into compliance with FLSA. There will, however, almost
always be alternative ways for a jurisdiction to achieve
compliance, and the duty to bargain may preclude uni-
lateral implementation of some preferred options.
Direct_all31.9.~ nonexempt employees not to work
overtime unless they are specifically authorized to do
So, -~--d' enforce the directive.
Hours spent working before or after the regular workday,
even if at home, are generally counted as hours worked
for the purpose of computing overtime. This is so even if
the time is voluntary and at the employee's own initia-
tive, unless and 'until the employer has made a diligent
effort to prevent the work by directives, counseling, and
disciplinary action.
Unless compensatory time is used during the same
workweek or work period in which it is earned, the juris-
diction must pay one and one-half times the regular rate
for the hours worked in excess of 40.
Analyze the overtime consequences from alternative
police, corrections, and fire duty cycles using the 7 to
28 day work periods available under FLSA, select the
preferred duty cycles, and establish the optimum
work periods.
As illustrated above, considerable savings can be realized
by careful coordination of the duty cycles and work
periods. It will always be to the advantage of the local
government to establish work periods in accordance with
Sec. 207(k) of FLSA, even ff the declared period is seven
days. This is because the higher overtime thresholds are
only available when such work periods have been estab-
lished. When the employees' work schedules are less than
40 hours per week, the higher overtime thresholds will
still be useful, because they reduce costs from unexpected
overtime.
Modifying duty cycles of less ~han 28 days to reduce
a jurisdiction's overtime liability will require hiring more
personnel or having fewer personnel on duty at a given
time. Those jurisdictions, however, that have duty cycles
longer than the maximum allowed work period of 28 days
may be able to reduce their overtime solely by modifying
the duty cycle. This will be the case when some fractions
of a duty cycle have fewer hours than the overtime thresh-
old and other fractions of it have more hours than the
overtime threshold. Under these circumstances, revising
the duty cycle to be no more than 28 days in length, or
modifying it to have approximately equal hours in each
7 to 28 day period, can reduce the jurisdiction's overtime
burdens under FLSA.
Generally, the longer periods will be most useful in
minimizing the amount of overtime compensation that
must be paid. For the 24 on, 48 off fire duty cycle, work
periods of 9, 12, 15, 18, 24, and 27 days, give the same
estimated results. But the longer work periods provide
more time over which paid sick leave and vacation time
may reduce the compensable hours and extend the time
over which employees may use compensatory time earned
within a work period. '
It should be noted that pay periods are not required
to correspond with selected work periods. Bookkeeping,
of course, will be simplified if they do, but only two
eligible work periods, 7 and 14 days, correspond well
with popular pay periods.
Sometimes minor changes in a work schedule can be
difficult to implement because of administrative compli-
cations, employment contracts, 'collective bargaining
agreements, or employee resistance. In those cases, the
wisest and most financially prudent course of action may
be to retain the work schedule and pay the overtime
required by FLSA. This may not be as expensive as first
thought. The terms of employment that were used prior
to February 19, 1985 may have already required the juris-
diction to pay some of the overtime now mandated by
FLSA. In addition, the added overtime pay bestowed by
FLSA might be considered by the jurisdiction as an early
salary increase to be credited toward the next forthcom-
ing one. Many employees may resist this interpretation,
but there is nothing to prevent local officials from con-
sidering it in their deliberations or advancing it in their
negotiations.
Analyze whether it will be advisable to use a two-
week work period instead of a one-week period for
hospital and related personnel.
The overtime threshold is 40 hours for a One-week period
and 80 hours for a two-week period. For the reasons
stated earlier, the longer period is generally the more
favorable one. But under the two-week option for these
employees, overtime must be paid for every hour worked
over eight hours in a given day. Because of that, most
jurisdictions will probably be better off with the one-
week work period for these employees. An exception
would be at hospitals that have employees alternating
between weeks with six 8-hour days and weeks with four
8-hour days.
7. Bring your record-keeping procedures into compliance.
These procedures are required for all employees. The
records probably should be constructed retroactively to
February 19, 1985. Work periods of 7 to 28 days for
Fair Labor Standards Act 9
police, corrections, and fire personnel probably should
not be established retroactively.
8. Pay all overtime that clearly is owed under FLSA
from February 19, I955, and fund a reserve account
for amounts you consider debatable.
This will help the jurisdiction to meet its responsibilities
under the law, demonstrate its willingness to comply, and
also prevent payments that may be unnecessary. The
jurisdiction should diligently seek clarification of debat-
able issues for which it is reserving funds. It is not yet
clear how compensatory time accrued as of February 19,
1985 should be han. d. led.
9. Identify all employees who are making less than the
FLSA mandated minimum wage ($3.35 per hour) and
raise their pay to the minimum wage level.
Cafeteria workers, orderlies, and custodians are examples
of workers who might currently be receiving less than
$3.35 per hour, unless state or local laws mandate that
minimum wage.
QUESTIOHS AND ANSWEP. S
The new application of FLSA to state and local govern-
ments has raised many questions. A few of the ones asked
most frequently are addressed below.
Will there be a grace period to plan and implement
compliance with FLSA?
· Probably not. A gradual phase-in of successively
lower overtime thresholds was specified in the Act for
police, corrections, and fire personnel under Section
207(k), but the specified dates for the phase-in have
long since passed. The current threshold values were
determined by the Department of Labor just two years
ago. Representatives of local governments have urged
the Administration to provide a reasonable adjust-
ment period but no concrete results have appeared
yet. It is likely, however, that when courts deliberate
liquidated damages against local governments found
in noncompliance, they will take into consideration
whether the jurisdictions had been diligent in their
efforts to achieve compliance.
Will overtime pay under FLSA have to be provided
retroactively?
Almost certainly for all covered employees back
to February 19, 1985. For employees engaged in "tradi-
tional functions," retroactive overtime pay probably
will not have to be paid farther back than that. For
employees engaged in "nontraditional functions" it
may have to be paid as far back as three years from
the date of suit, but not beyond February 19, 1982.
3. Are collective bargaining agreements entered into
before the court's recent decision no longer valid if
they authorize overtime pay at less than time and one-
half or other benefits in lieu of overtime pay?
Probably only the part of an agreement that is
inconsistent with FLSA will be considered void, and
only if it is impossible to comply with both the agree-
ment and FLSA. Subsequent agreements, however,
should be fully congruent with the Act.
Does the Supreme Court's decision mean that FLSA
will override state laws that have more stringent pro-
visions with respect to minimum wage or overtime
compensation?
No, as long as those provisions allow full compli-
ance with FLSA. The Act explicitly indicates that the
statute and ensuing regulations do not justify non-
compliance with higher minimum wage or overtime
pay standards provided in other federal laws, state
laws, and local ordinances (29 U.S.C. Sec. 218(a)).
5. Does the court's decision in Garcia v. San Antonio
mean that judicial review is no longer available to
state and local governments in cases challenging fed-
eral intrusion into their affairs'/
Whether the federal government had a right to
impose the 1974 FLSA Amendments on state and local
governments was a maior issue of discussion in the
court's decision by both the majority and the dissent-
· ing minority. Given that the decision was by a 5 to 4
vote, this case should not be perceived as a definitive
sign that the court will no longer enforce the concept
of balanced federalism. In addition, just a few weeks
after its FLSA decision, the Supreme Court expanded
local government immunity from federal antitrust
laws in Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire.
These regulations are a real can of worms. What will
the Department of Labor do to help municipalities
achieve compliance?
The Department of Labor will provide technical
assistance and publications upon request.
When will the Department of Labor start enforcing
FLSA?
As of April 28, 1985, the Department of Labor
was not taking enforcement action against local juris-
dictions under FLSA. Employee complaints are being
held in abeyance, but inquiring employees are being
advised of their individual rights under Section 16(b)
of FLSA. The Supreme Court decision and the enforce-
ment policy to be followed by the Department in
applying FLSA to state and local governments are
under review. Public employers will be notified of the
policy after the review has been completed.
How will I know if the Department of Labor is con-
sidering a case against my jurisdiction regarding FLSA
compliance?
The first indication will usually be a request from
the Department of Labor (DOL) for certain records
Management Information Sendce
relevant to employees' work hours. Alternatively
there could be a visit by DOL officials. If the Depart-
ment of Labor intends to file suit against a jurisdiction
it must notify the jurisdiction of the alleged noncom-
pliance and allow it at least 30 days to convince DOL
the suit is not justified or to take corrective action.
9. What can be done to get this law changed'/
Congress made the law and only Congress can
change it. The Supreme Court, of course, could over-
rule its recent decision and again suspend the law as
unconstitutional, but this is unlikely, at least in the
near future. The Department of Labor is responsible
for promulgating .regulations under the Act and has
some limited discretion in how it interprets the appli-
cation of FLSA to cities and counties. The Supreme
Court expressly encouraged local jurisdictions to
assert their interests on this issue by resorting to the
political process.
The informed opinion in Washington suggests
that congress is unlikely to modify the law this year.
Some think local jurisdictions' best hope is to urge the
Administration to implement the law with due regard
for the problems it imposes on local governments.
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
29 C.ER. Section 500-899 (1984)
Government Printing Office
$14.00
Order No. 022-003-953366-3.
This includes all the regulations
under FLSA to date.
promulgated
U.S. Department of Labor
Wage and Hour Division
Walter Steinmann
or
John Frank
(202) 523-7043
The application of FLSA to private employers
has been handled by DOL area offices throughout the
country. Its application to local governments even-
tually also will be handled by those offices. But during
1985, local officials should direct their questions to
this Washington, D.C. office.
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act: Its Application to
State & Local Government Agencies.
Clemans, Nelson & Associates, Inc.
1889 Fountain Square Court
Suite 326
Columbus, Ohio 43224
(614) 268-2091
$5.00 for the report;
$5.00 for interpretive bulletins and sample forms.
This 117-page report provides an extensive discus-
sion of exempt employees and briefer coverage of
several other matters.
'O
Fair Labor Standards Act
Employment Relationship
Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act
[Provides Definitions of
Employee and Employer)
The Fair Labor Standards Act contains provi-
sions and standards concerning recordkeeping,
minimum wages, overtime pay and child labor.
These basic requirementr apply to employees
engaged in interstate commerce or in the produc-
tion of goods for interstate commerce and also to
employees in certain enterprises which are so
engaged. Federal employees are also subject to
the recordkeeping, minimum wage, overtime,
and child labor provisions of the Act. Employees.
of State and local government are subject to the
same provisions, unless they are engaged in tradi-
tional governmental activities, in which case they
are subject to the recordkeeping and child labor
requirements. The law provides some specific
exemptions from its requirements as to employees
employed by certain establishments and in cer-
tain occupations.
The Act is administered by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor's Wage and Flour Division with
respect to private employment, State and local
government employment, and Federal employees
of the Library of Congress, U.S. Postal Service,
Postal Rate Commission and the Tennessee Valley
Authority. The Office of Personnel Management
is responsible for administering the Act-with
regard to all other Federal employees.
For the Fair Labor Standards Act to apply to a
person engaged in work which is covered by the
Act, an employer-employee relationship must
exist. The purpose of this publication is to dis-
cuss in general terms the latter requirement.
If you have specific questions about the statu-
tory requirements, contact the W-FI Division's
nearest office. Give detailed information bearing
on your problem since coverage and exemptions
depend upon the facts in each case.
Stalutory Definitions
Employment relationship requires an "em-
ployer'' and an "employee" and the act or con-
dition of employment. The Act defines the terms
"employer," "employee," and "employ" as
follows:
"Employer" includes any person acting directly
or indirectly in the interest of an employer in
relation to an employee and includes a public
agency, but does not include any labor organiza-
tion (other than when acting as an employer), or
anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent
of such labor organization.--Section 3(d).
(I) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the term "employee" means any indi-
vidual employed by an employer.
(2) In the case of an individual employed by a
public agency such term means--
(A) any individual employed by the Gov-
ernment of the United States--
(i) as a civilian in the military depart-
ments (as defined in section 102 of
title 5, United States Code),
(ii) in any executive agency (as defined
in section 105 of such title),
(iii) in any unit of the legislative or
judicial branch of the Government
which has positions in the com-
petitive service,
(iv) in a nonappropriated fund instru-
mentality under the jurisdiction of
the Armed Forces, or
(v) in the Library of Congress;
(B) any individual employed by the United
States Postal Service or the Postal Rate
Commission; and
(C) any individual employed by a State,
political subdivision of a State, or an
interstate governmental agency, other
than such an individual-
(i) who is not subject to the civil
service laws of the State, political
subdivision, or agency which em-
ploys him; and
(ii) who- (l) holds a public elective office
of that State, political sub-
division, or agency,
(11) is selected by the holder of
such an office to be a member
of his personal staff,
(lit) is appointed by such an
officeholder to serve on a
policymaking level, or
(IV) who is an immediate adviser
to such an officeholder with
respect to the constitutional
or legal powers of his office.*
(3) For purposes of subsection (u), such term
does not include any individual employed
by an employer engaged in agriculture if
such individual is the parent, spouse, child,
or other member of the employer's imme-
diate family.
*On June 24, 1976, the Supreme Court, in the
case of National League of Cities v. Usery, ruled
that it was unconstitutional to apply the mini-
mum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act to State and local govern-
ment employees engaged in activities which are
an integral part of traditional government
services. The Court expressly found that school,
hospital, fire prevention, police protection, sani-
tation, public health, and parks and recreation
activities are among those to which the minimum
wage and overtime provismns do not apply.
However, it is the Department's position that the
decision effects no change in the application of
the child labor or recordkeeping provisions.
"Employ" includes to suffer or permit to
work.--Section 3(g).
Employment Relation Distinguished
from Common Law Concept
The courts have made it clear that the employ-
ment relationship under the Act is broader than
the traditional common law concept of master
and servant. The difference between the employ.
ment relationship under the Act and that under
the common law arises from the fact that the
term "employ" as defined in the Act includes
"to suffer or permit to work." The courts have
indicated that, while "to permit" requires a
more positive action than "to suffer," both terms
imply much less positive action than required by
the common law. Mere knowledge by an em-
ployer of work done for him by another is suffi-
cient to create the employment relationship
under the Act.
Test of the Employment Relation
The Supreme Court has said that there is "no
definition that solves all problems as to the limi-
tations of the employer-employee relationship"
under the Act; it has also said that determination
of the relation cannot be based on "isolated
factors" or upon a single characteristic or "tech-
nical concepts," but depends "upon the circum-
stances of the whole activity" including the
underlying "economic reality." In general an
employee, as distinguished from an independent
contractor who is engaged in a business of his
own, is one who "follows the usual path of an
employee" and is dependent on the business
which he serves. The factors which the Supreme
Court has considered significant, although no
single one is regarded as controlling, are:
1. the extent to which the services in question are
an integral part of the employer's business;
2. the permanency of the relationship;
3. the amount of the alleged contractor's invest-
ment in facilities and equipment;
4. the nature and degree of control by the
principal;
5. the alleged contractor's opportunities for
profit and loss; and
6. the amount of initiative, judgment, or fore-
sight in open market competition with others
required for the success of the claimed inde-
pendent enterprise.
Trainees
The Supreme Court has held that the words
"to suffer or permit to work," as used in the Act
to define "employ," do not make all persons
employees who, without any express or implied
compensation agreement, may work for their
own advantage on the premises of another.
Whether trainees or students are employees of an
employer under the Act will depend upon all of
the circumstances surrounding their activities on
the premises of the employer. If all of the follow-
ing criteria apply, the trainees or students are not
employees within the meaning, of the Act:
1. the training, even though it includes actual
operation of the facilities of the employer, is
similar to that which would be given in a
vocational school;
2. the training is for the benefit of the trainees or
students;
3. the trainees or students do not displace regu-
lar employees, but work under their close
observation;
4. the employer that pro¥ides the training
derives no immediate advantage from the
activities of the trainees or students; and on
Management Information Service
occasion his operations may actually
impeded;
5. the trainees or students are not necessarily
entitled to a job at the conclusion of the train-
ing period; and
6. the employer and the trainees or students
understand that the trainees or students are
not entitled to wages for the time spend in
training.
Effect of "Sale" on the Relationship
An employment relationship may exist between
the parties to a transaction which is nominally a
"sale." An employee is not converted into an
independent contractor by virtue of a fictitious
"sale" of the goods produced by him to an
employer, so long as the other indications of the
employment relationship e~ist. Homeworkers
who "sell" their products to a manufacturer are
his employees where the control exercised by him
over the homeworkers through his ability to
reject or refuse to "buy" the product is not
essentially different from the control ordinarily
exercised by a manufacturer over his employees
performing work for him at home on a piece rate
basis.
Franchise Agreements
The Act generally provides that a retail or
service establishment which is under independent
ownership would not lose its independent status
solely because it operates under a franchise
agreement. On the other hand, the franchised
establishment and its employees may, in certain
situations, be considered to be part of the fran-
chisor's business. This would be particularly rele-
vant in a situation where a franchise is in control
of the details of the day to day operations of the
establishment, but the franchisor retains control
over the basic aspects of the business. Where
such a situation exists, they would be considered
to be parts of a single business, and the em-
ployees of the franchised outlet would be consid-
ered to be employees of the franchisor.
Factors Which are not Material
There are certain factors which are immaterial
in determining whether there is an employment
relationship. Such facts as the place where the
work is performed, the absence of a formal
employment agreement and whether the alleged
independent contractor is licensed by the State or
local government are not considered to have a
bearing on determinations as to whether or not
there is an employment relationship. Similarly,
whether a worker is paid by the piece, by the job,
partly or entirely by tips, on a percentage basis,
by commissions or by any other method is imma-
terial. The Supreme Court has held that the time
or mode of compensation does noLcontrol the
determination of employee status. '
Effect of Employment Relationship
Once it is determined that one who is reputedly
an independent contractor is in fact an employee,
then all the employees of the so-called inde-
pendent contractor engaged in the work for the
principal employer likewise become the em-
ployees of the principal employer, who is respon-
sible for compliance with the Act. However, in
order to protect himself against the "hot goods"
prohibition of the Act, a manufacturer or pro-
ducer should undertake to see that even a true
independent contractor complies with the law.
Volunteer Services
The Act defines the term "employ" as includ-
ing "to suffer or permit to work." However, the
Supreme Court has made it clear that the Act was
not intended "to stamp all persons as employees
who, without any express or implied compensa-
tion agreement, might work for their own advan-
tage on the premises of another." In administer-
ing the Act, the Department follows this judicial
guidance in the case of individuals serving as
unpaid volunteers in various community services.
Individuals who volunteer or donate their ser-
vices, usually on a part-time basis, for public
service, religious or humanitarian objectives, not
as employees and without contemplation of pay,
are not considered as employees of the religious,
charitable and similar nonprofit corporations
which receive their services.
For example, members of civic organizations
may help out in a sheltered workshop; women's
organizations may send members or students into
hospitals or nursing homes to provide certain
personal services for the sick or the elderly;
mothers may assist in a school library or cafe-
teria as a public duty to maintain effective ser-
vices for their children; or fathers may drive a
school bus to carry a football team or band on a
trip. Similarly, individuals may volunteer to per-
form such tasks as driving vehicles or folding
bandages for the Red Cross, working with re-
tarded or handicapped children or disadvantaged
youth, helping in youth programs as camp coun-
selors, scoutmasters, den mothers, providing
child care assistance for needy working mothers,
soliciting contributions or participating in bene-
fit programs for such organizations and volun-
teering other services needed to carry out their
charitable, educational, or religious programs.
The fact that services are performed under such
circumstances is not sufficient to create an
employee-employer relationship.
Religious, Charitable or Nonprofit Organize.
tions. There is no special provision in the Act
which precludes an employee-employer relation-
ship between a religious, charitable, or nonprofit
organization and persons who perform work for
such an organization. For example, a church or
religious organization may operate an institution
of higher education and employ a regular staff
who do this work as a means of livelihood. In
such cases there is an employee-employer rela-
tionship, for purposes of the Act.
There are certain circumstances where an indi-
vidual who is a regular employee of a religious,
charitable or non-profit organization may donate
services as a volunteer and the time so spent is
not considered to be compensable "work." For
example, an office employee of a hospital may
volunteer to sit with a sick child or elderly person
during off-duty hours as an act of charity. The
Department will not consider that an employee-
employer relationship exists with respect to such
volunteer time between the establishment and the
volunteer or between the volunteer and the per-
son for whose benefit the service is performed.
However, this does not mean that a regular office
employee of a charitable organization, for exam-
ple, can volunteer services on an uncompensated
basis to handle correspondence in connection
with a special fund drive or to handle other work
arising from exigencies of the operations con-
ducted by the employer.
Members of Religious Orders. Persons such as
nuns, monks, priests, lay brothers, ministers,
deacons, and other members of religious orders
who serve pursuant to their religious obligations
in schools, hospitals and other institutions oper-
ated by the church or religious order are not con-
sidered to be "employees" within the meaning of
the law. However, the fact that such a person is a
member of a religious order does not preclude an
employee-employer relationship with a State or
secular institution.
Joint Employment
A single individual may stand in the relation of
an employee to two or more employers at the
same time under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
since there is nothing in the Act which prevents
an individual employed by one employer from
also entering into an employment relationship
with a different employer. A determination of
whether the employment by the employers is to
be considered joint employment or separate and
distinct employments for purposes of the Act
depends upon all the facts in the particular case.
If the facts establish that the employee is em-
ployed jointly by two or more employers, i.e.,
that employment by one employer is not com-
pletely disassociated from employment by the
other employer(s) all of the employee's work for
all of the joint employers during the workweek is
considered as one employment for purposes of
the Act. In this event, all joint employers are
responsible, both individually and jointly, for
compliance with all of the applicable provisions
of the Act, including the overtime provisions,
with respect to the entire employment for the
particular workweek. In discharging the joint
obligation each employer may, of course, take
credit toward minimum wage and overtime re-
quirements for all payments made to the em-
ployee by the other joint employer or employers.
Where the employee performs work which
simultaneously benefits two or more employers,
or works for two or more employers at different
times during the workweek, a joint employment
relationship generally will be considered to exist
in situations such as:
1. An arrangement between employers to share
an employee's services. For example, two
companies on the same or adjacent premises
arrange to employ a janitor or watchman to
perform work for both firms. Even though
each entity carries the employee on its payroll
for certain hours, such facts would indicate
that the employee is jointly employed by both
firms and both are responsible for compliance
with the monetary provisions of the Act for
all of the hours worked by the employee; or
2. Where one employer is acting directly or
indirectly in the interest of the other employer
(or employers) in relation to the employee.
For example, employees of a temporary help
company working on assignments in various
establishments are considered jointly em-
ployed by the temporary hel~ company and
the establishment in which they are employed.
In such a situation each individual company
where the employee is assigned is jointly
Fair Labor Standards Act t3
responsible with the temporary help company
for compliance with the minimum wage
requirements of the Act during the time the
employee is in a particular establishment. The
temporary help company would be considered
responsible for the payment of proper over-
time compensation to the employee since it is
through its act that the employee received the
assignment which caused the overtime to be
worked. Of course, if the employee worked in
excess of 40 hours in any workweek for any
one establishment, that employer would be
jointly responsible for the proper payment of
overtime as well as the proper minimum
wage; or
3. Where the employers are not completely dis-
associated with respect tcr the employment of
a particular employee and may be deemed to
share control of the employee, directly or in-
directly, by reasons of the fact that one em-
ployer controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with the other employer.
However, if all the relevant facts establish that
two or more employers are acting entirely inde-
pendently of each other and are completely dis-
associated with respect to the employment of a
particular employee, who during the same work-
week performs work for more than one employer,
each employer may disregard all work performed
by the employee for the other employer (or
employers) in determining his own responsibili-
ties under the Act.
APPENDIX B.
Definitions of Exempt Executives,
Administrators, Professionals,
and Teachers
Code of Federal Regulations (29 C.F.R. Sees. 541.0-~41.6)
PART 541--DEFINING, AND DELIMIT-
ING THE TERMS "ANY EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXEC-
UTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PRO-
FESSIONAL CAPACITY (INCLUDING
ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN THE
CAPACITY OF ACADEMIC ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE PERSONNEL OR TEACH-
ER IN ELEMENTARY OR SECOND-
ARY SCHOOLS), OR IN THE CA-
PACITY OF OUTSIDE SALESMAN"
Subpart A--General Regulations
§ 541.0 Terms used in regulations.
(a) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Wage and Hour Di-
vision, U.S. Department of Labor. The
Secretary of Labor has delegated to
the Administrator the functions
vested in him under section 13(a)(1) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
ih) "Act" means the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
§ 5.11.1 Executive.
The term "employee employed in a
bona fide executive * * * capacity" in
section 13(a) (1) of the Act shall mean
any employee:
(a) Whose primary duty consists of
the management of the enterprise in
which he is employed or of a custom-
arily recognized department of subdi-
vision thereof; and
(b) Who customarily and regularly
directs the work of two or more other
employees therein; and
(c) Who has the authority to hire or
fire other employees or whose sugges-
tions and recommendations as to the
hiring or firing and as to the advance-
ment and promotion or any other
change of status of other employees
will be given particular weight; and
(d) Who customarily and regularly
exercises discretionary powers; and
(e) Who does not devote more than
20 percent, or, in the case of an em-
ployee of a retail or service establish-
ment who does not devote as much as
40 percent, of his hours of work in the
workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely related to the per-
formance of the work described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this sec-
tion: Provided, That this paragraph
shall not apply in the case of an em-
ployee who is in sole charge of an in-
dependent establishment or a phys-
ically separated branch establishment,
or who owns at least a 20-percent in-
terest in the enterprise in which he is
employed; and
(f) Who is compensated for his serv-
ices on a salary basis at a rate of not
less than $155 per week (or $130 per
week, if employed by other than the
Federal Government in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, or American
Samoa), exclusive of board, lodging, or
other facilities: Provided, That an em-
ployee who is compensated on a salary
basis at a rate of not less than $250
per week (or $200 per week, if em-
ployed by other than the Federal Gov-
ernment in Puerto Rico, the Virgin
lands' or American Samoa), exclusive
of board, lodging, or other facilities,
and whose primary duty consists of
the management of the enterprise in
which the employee is employed or of
a customarily recognized department
or subdivision thereof, and includes
the customary and regular direction of
the work of two or more other employ-
ees therein, shall be deemed to meet
all the requirements of this section.
[38 PR 11390. May q. 1973. as amended at 40
FR 7092. Feb. 19, 1975]
Postponed Regulations: Paragraph (f) in
§ 541.1 was revised at 46 PR 3013, Jan. 13,
1981. In accordance with the President's
Memorandum of January 29, 1981 (46 PR
11227, Feb. 6, 1981). the effective date was
postponed indefinitely at 46 FR 11972, Feb.
12. 1981.
The text of paragraph (f) set forth above
remains in effect pending further action by
the issuing agency. The text of the post-
poned regulation appears below.
§ 541.1 Executive.
(f) Who is compensated for his services on
a salary basis at a rate of not less than $225
per week beginning February 13. 1981 and
$250 per week beginning February 13. 1983
(or $180 per week beginning February 13,
1981 and $200 per week beginning February
13, 1983. If employed by other than the Fed-
eral Government in Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, or American Samoa), exclusive of
board, lodging, or other facilities: Paovzo£n,
That an employee who is compensated on a
salary basts at a rate of not less than $320
per week beginning February 13. 1981 and
$345 per week beginning February 13, 1983
(or $260 per week beginning February 13,
1981 and $285 per week beginning 'February
13, 1983, if employed by other than the Fed-
eral Government in Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands or American Samoa), exclusive of
board, lodging, or other facilities, and whose
primary duty consists of the management of
the enterprise in which the employee is em-
ployed or of a customarily recognized de-
partment or subdivision thereof, and in-
cludes the customary and regular direction
of the work of two or more other employees
therein, shall be deemed to meet all the re-
quirements of this section.
§ 541.2 Administrative.
The term "employee employed in a
bona fide * * * administrative * * * ca-
pacity'' in section 13(a)(1) of the Act
shall mean any employee:
(a) Whose primary duty consists of
either:
(1) The performance of office or
nonmanual work directly related to
management policies or general busi-
ness operations of his employer or his
employer's customers, or
(2) The performance of functions in
the administration of a school system,
or educational establishment or insti-
tution, or of a department or subdivi-
sion thereof, in work directly related
to the academic instruction or training
carried on therein; and
(b) Who customarily and regularly
exercises, discretion and independent
judgment; and
(c)(1) Who regularly and directly as-
sists a proprietor, or an employee em-
ployed in a bona fide executive or ad-
ministrative capacity (as such tern~
are defined in the regulations of t.his
subpart), or
(2) Who performs under .only gener-
al supervision work along specialized
or technical lines re.quiring special
training, experience, or knowledge, or
(3) Who executes under only general
supervision special assign, merits and
tasks; and
'14 Management Information Service
(d) Whp does not devote, more than
20 percent, or, in the case of an em-
ployee of a retail or service establish-
ment who does not devote as much as
40 percent, of his hours worked in the
workweek to activities which are not
directly and closely refaced to 'the, 19er-
formance .of':the work..described, in.
paragraphs,.(a~ through lc) o~t~iS sec-
tion; and
(e)(l) Who.,is~ compensated fOr his
services on a salary or fee basis at a
rgte of not less than $155' per week
($130 p/~r week, if:empIoyed by' other
than the, Feder~. Governm.ent in
Puerto Rico,. the-Virgin Islands, or
American Samoa), exclffsive of board;
lodging, or other facilities, or
(2) Who, in the case of academ.ic ad-
ministrative personnel, is compensated
for services as required by paragraph
(e) (1) of this section, or on a salary
basis which is at least equal to the en-
trance salary for teachers in the
school system, educational establish-
ment, or institution by which em-
ployed: Provided, That an employee
who is compensated on a salary or fee
basis at a rate of not less than $250
per week ($200 per week if employed
by other than the Federal C~overn-
ment in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-
lands, or American Samoa), exclusive
of board, lodging, or other facilities,
and whose primary duty consists of
the performance of work described in
paragraph (a) of this section, which
includes work requiring the exercise .of
discretion and independent judgment,
shall be deemed to meet ail .the re-
quirements cd this. section.
[38 FR 11390, May 7, 1973, as amended at 40
FR 7092, Feb. 19, 19'/51
Postponed Regulatio~s: Paragraph (e) in
§ 541.2 was revised at-46 FR 3013, Jan. 13~i
1981. In accordance with the President's
Memorandum of January 29, 1981 (46 FR
11227, Feb. 6, 1981), the effective 'date wgs
postponed indefinitely at 46 FR 119'/2, Feb.
12, 1981.
The text of paragraph (e) set 'forth above
remains in effect pending further action by
the issuing agency. The text of the post-
poned regulation apoears below.
§ 541.2 Administrative.
(e) (1) Who is compensated for i~is services
on a salary or fee basis at a-rate of not less
than $225 per week beginning February
1981 .and $250 per week beginning Februar. y
13, I~83 ($180 per week beginning February
13, 1981 and $200 per week beginning Febru-
ary 13, 1983, if emvl.oyed by other than the
Fe~leral Governmd~t in PurrinG Rico, !he
Virgin Islands, or American Samoa), exclu'-
sire of board, lodging, or other facilities, or
(~) Who: l~ the case of a~ademle adminis-
trative personnel, is compensated for serv-
ices as required by paragraph (e)(l) of this
section, or on a salary basis which is at least
equal.to the entrance salary for teachers in
the school system, educational establish-
ment, or institution by which employed:
Provided, That an employee who is compen-
sated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not
less than $320 per week beginning February
13, 1981 and $345 per week beginning Febru-
ary 13, 1983 ($260 per week beginning Feb-
ruary 13. 1981 and $285 per week beginning
February 13, 1983, if employed by other
than the Federal Government in Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, or American
Samoa), exclusive of board, lodging, or
other facilities, and whose primary duty
consists of the performance of work de-
scribed in paragraph ia) of this section,
which includes work requiring the exercise
of discretion and independent judgment,
shall be deemed to meet all the require-
ments of this section.
§ 541.3 Professional.
The term "employee employed in a
bona fide * * * professional capacity"
in section 13(a) (1) of the Act shall
mean any employee:
(a) Whose primary duty consists of
the performance of:
(1) Work requiring knowledge of an
advance type in a field of science or
learning customarily acquired by a
prolonged course of specialized intel-
lectual instruction and study, as distin-
guished from a general academic edu-
cation and from an apprenticeship,
and from training in the performance
of routine mental, manual, or physical
processes, or
(2) Work that is original ~nd cre-
ative in character in a recognized field
of artistic endeavor (as opposed to
work which can be produced by a
person endowed with general manual
or intellectual ability and training),
and the result of which depends pri-
marily on the invention, imagination,
or talent of. the employee, or
(3) Teaching, tutoring, instructing,
or. lecturing in the activity of impart-
ing knowledge and who is employed
and engaged in this activity as a teach-
er in the school system or educational
establishment or institution by which
he is employed; and
(b) Whose work requires the consist-
ent exercise of discretion and judg-
ment in its performance; and
(c) Whose work is predominantly in-
tellectual and varied in character (as
opposed to routine mental, manual,
mechanical, or physical work) and is
of such character that the output pro-
duced or the result accomplished
cannot be standardized in relation to a
given period of time; and
(d) Who does not devote more than
20 percent of his hours worked in the
workweek to activities .which are not
an essential part of and necessarily in-
cident to the work described in para-
graphs (a) through (c) of this section;
and
(e) Who ts compensated for services
on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not
less than $170 per week ($150 per
week, if employed by other than the
Federal Government in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, or American
Samoa), exclusive of board, lodging, or
other facilities: Provided, That this
paragraph shall not apply in the case
of an employee who is the holder of a
valid license or certificate permiiting
the practice of law or medicine or any
of their branches and who is actually
engaged in the practice thereof, nor in
the case of an employee who is the
holder of the requisite academic
degree for the general practice of med-
icine and is engaged in an internship
or resident program pursuant to the
practice of medicine or any of its
branches, nor in the case of an em-
ployee employed and engaged as a
teacher as provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section: Provided further,
That an employee who is compensated
on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not
less than $250 per week (or $200 per
week, if employed by Other than the
Federal Government in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, or American
Samoa), exclusive of.board, lodging, or
other facilities, and whose primary
duty consists of the performance
either of work described in paragraph
(a) (1) or (3) of this section, which in-
cludes work requiring the consistent
exercise of discretion and judgment, or
of work requiring invention, imagina-
tion, or talent in a recognized field of
artistic endeavor, shall be deemed to
meet all of the requirements of this
section.
[38 FR 11390, May '/, 19'/3, as amended at 40
FR '/092, Feb. 19, 1975]
Postponed Regulations: Paragraph (e) in
§ 541.3 was revised at 46 FR 3014, Jan. 13,
1981. In accordance with the President's
Memorandum of January 29, 1981 (46 FR
11227, Feb. 6, 1981), the effective date was
postponed indefinitely at 46 FR 11972, Feb.
12, 1981.
The text of paragraph (e) set forth above
remains in effect pending further action by
the issuing agency. The text of the post-
poned regulation appears below.
§ 541.3 Professional.
(e) Who is compensated for services on a
salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than
$250 per week beginning February 13, 1981
and $280 per week beginning February 13,
1983 ($225 per week beginning February 13,
1981 and $250 per week beginning February
13, 1983 if employed by other than the Fed-
eral Government in Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands. or American Samoa). exclusive of
board, lodging, or other fac(Iii(es: Provided,
That this paragraph shall not apply in the
case of an employee who is the holder of a
valid license or certificate permitting the
practice of law or medicine or any of their
Fair Labor Standards Act '15
branches and who is actually engaged in the
practice thereof, nor in the case of an em-
ployee who is the holder of the requisite
academic degree for the general practice of
medicine and is engaged in an internship or
resident program pursuant to the practice
of medicine or any of its branches, nor in
the case of an employee employed and en-
gaged as a teacher as provided in paragraph
ia)(3) of this section: Provided further, That
an employee who is compensated on a
salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than
$320 per week beginning February 13, 1981
and $345 per week beginning February 13,
1983 (or $260 per week beginning February
13, 1981 and $285 per week beginning Febru-
ary 13, 1983 ii employed by other than the
Federal Government in-Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, or American Samoa), exclu-
sive of board, lodging, or other facilities,
and whose primary duty consists of the per-
formance either of work described in para-
graph (a) (1) or (3) of this section, which in-
cludes work requiring the consistent exer.
cise of discretion and judgment, or of work
requiring invention, imagination, or talent
in a recognized field of artistic endeavor,
shall be deemed to meet all of the require-
meats of this section.
§ 541.5 Outside salesman.
The term "employee employed * * *
in the capacity of outside salesman" in
section 13(a) (1) of the Act shall mean
any employee:
(a) Who is employed for the purpose
of and who is customarily and regular.
ly engaged away from hi.~ employer's
place or places of business in:
(1) Making sales within the meaning
of section 3(k) of the Act, or
(2) Obtaining orders or contracts for
services or for the use of facilities for
which a consideration will be paid by
the client or customer; and
(b) Whose hours of work of a nature
oLhar than that described in para-
graph (a) (1) or (2) of this section do
not exceed 20 percent of the hours
worked in the workweek by nonex-
empt employees of the employer: Pro-
rioted, That work performed incidental
to and in conjunction with the em-
ployee's own outside sales or solicits-
Lions, including incidental deliveries
and collections, shall not be regarded
~s nonexempt work,
§ 541.5b Equal pay provisions of sectio, n
6(d) of the act apply to executive, ad-
ministrative, and professional employ-
ees, and to outside salesmen.
Effective July 1, 1972, the Fair
Labor Standard~ Act was amended .to
include within the protection of the
equal pay provisions .those employees
exempt from the minimum wage and
overtime pay provisions as bona fide
executive, administrative, and profes-
sional employees (including any em-
ployee employed in the capacity of
academic administrative personnel or
teacher in elementary or secondary
schools), or in the capacity of outside
salesmen under section 13(a)(l) of the
act. Thus, for example, where an
exempt administrative employee and
another employee of the establish-
ment are performing substantially
"equal work," the sex discrimination
prohibitions of section 6(d) are appli-
cable with respect to any wage differ-
ential between those two employees.
§ 541.6 Petition for amendment o/' regula.
Lions.
Any person wishing a revision of any
of the terms of the foregoing regula-
tions may submit in writing to the Ad-
ministrator a petition setting forth the
changes desired and the reasons for
proposing them. If, upon inspection of
the petition, the administrator be-
lieves that reasonable cause for
amendment of the regulations is set
forth, the Administrator will either
schedule a hearing with due notice to
interested parties, or will make other
provision for affording interested par-
ties an opportunity to present their
views, either in support of or in oppo-
sition to the proposed changes. In de-
termining such future regulations,
separate treatment for different indus-
tries and for different classes of em-
ployees may be given consideration.
APPEHDIX C.
Overtime Compensation
Code of Federal Regulations
(29 C.F.R. Secs. 778.100-77:B.116 and 778.200)
PART 778--OVERTIME
COMPENSATION
Subpart B--The Overtime Pay
Requirements
INTRODUCTORY
§ 778.100 The maximum-hours provisions.
Section 7(a) of the Act deals with
maximum hours and overtime com-
pensation for employees who are
within the general coverage of the Act
and are not specifically exempt from
its overtime pay requirements. It pre-
scribes the maximum weekly hours of
work permitted for the employment of
such employees in any workweek with-
out extra compensation for overtime,
and a general overtime rate of pay not
less than one and one-half times the
employee's regular rate which the em-
ployee must receive for all hours
worked in any workweek in excess of
the applicable maximum hours. The
employment by an employer of an em-
ployee in any work subject to the Act
in any workweek brings these provi-
sions into operation. The employer is
prohibited from employing the em-
ployee in excess of the prescribed
maximum hours in such workweek
without paying him the required extra
compensation for the overtime hours
worked at a rate meeting the statutory
requirement.
§ 778.101 Maximum nonovertime hours.
As a general standard, section 7(a) of
the Act provides 40 hours as the maxi-
mum number that an employee sub-
ject to its provisions may work for a~
employer in any workweek without re-
ceiving additional compensation at not
less than the statutory rate for over-
time. Hours worked in excess of the
statutory maximum in any workweek
are overtime hours under the statute;
a workweek no longer than the pre-
scribed maximum is a nonovertime
workweek under the Act, to which the
pay requirements of section 6 (mini.
mum wage and equal pay) but not
those of section 7(a) are applicable.
[46 FI{ 7309, Jan: 23, 19811
9778.102 Application of overtime provi-
sions generally.
Since there is no absolute limitation
in the Act (apart from the child labor
provisions and regulations thereunder)
on the number o! hours that an em:
ployee may work in any workweek, he
may work as many hours a week as he
and his employer see fit, so long as the
required overtime compensation is
paid him for hours worked in excess of
the maximum workweek prescribed by
section 7(a). The Act does not general-
ly require, however, that an employee
be paid overtime compensation for
hours in excess of eight per day, or for
work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays
or regular days of rest. If no more
than the maximum number of hours
prescribed in the Act are actually
worked in the workweek, overtime
compensation pursuant to section 7(a)
need not be paid. Nothing in the Act,
however, will relieve an employer of
any obligation he may have assumed
by contract or of any obligation im-
posed by other Federal or State law to
limit overtime hours of work or to pay
premium rates for work in excess of a
daily standard or for work on Satur-
days, Sundays, holidays, or other peri-
ods outside of or in excess of the
normal or regular workweek or work-
day. (The effect of making such pay-
ments is discussed in §§778.201--
778.207 and 778.219.)
I46 FR 7309. Jan. 23, 1981]
§ 778.103 The workweek ns the basis for
applying' section 7(a).
If in any workweek an employee 'ks
covered by the Act and is not exempt
from its overtime pay requirements;
Management Information Service
the erdployer must total all the hours
worked by the employee for him in
that workweek (even though two or
more unrelated Job assignments may.
have been performed), and pay over-·
time compensation for each hour
worked in excess of the maximum
hours applicable under section 7(a). of
the Act. In the case of an employee
employed Joirrtly by two or more em-
ployers (see Part 791 of this chapter),
all hours worked by the .employee for
such employers during the workweek
must be totaled in determining the
number of hours to be compensated in
accordance with section.7(a). The prin-
ciples for determining what hours are
hours worked within the meaning of
the Act are discussed in Part 785 of
this chapter.
§ 778.104 Each workweek stands alone.
The Act takes a single workweek as
its standard and does not permit aver-
aging of hours over 2 or more weeks.
Thus, if an employee works 30 hours
one week and 50 hours the next, he
must receive overtime compensation
for the overtime hours worked beyond
the applicable maximum in. the second
week, even though the average
number of hours worked in the"2
weeks is 40. This is true regardless o!
whether the employee works on a
standard or swing-shift schedule and
regardless of whether he is paid on a
daily, weekly, biweekly, monthl~ or
other basis. The rule is also applicable
to pleceWorker~ and employees paid on
a commission basis, It is therefore nec-
essary to determine the hours worked
and the compensation earned by piece-
workers and commission employees on
a weekly basis.,
§ 778.105 Determining the workweek. '
An employee's workweek is a fixed
and regularly rec. urring period of 168
hours--seven consecutive 24-hour peri-
ods. It need not coincide with the cal-
endar week but may beginOn any day
and at any hour of the day, For pur-
poses of computing pay due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, a ,single
workweek may be established,.~or a
pla~, t .ur other .,establishment ,aa a
whole or different w, orkweeks may be
established for different~employees or
groups of employees. Once the begin-
nine time of an employee's warkweek
is established, it .remains fixed regard-
less of the schedule of hours worked
by him. The beginning, of :the work-
week may be changed if the change is
intended, to be permanent~ and is not
designed'to eyrie the overtime re-
qulrements of the Act. The proper
method of computing overtime pay in
a period in which a change in the time
of commencement of the workweek is
made, is discussed in 5§ 778.301 and
778.302.
§778.106 Time of payment.
There is no requirement in the Act
that overtime compensation be paid
weekly. The general rule is that over.
time co.mpensation earned in a par-
ticular workweek must be paid on the
regular pay day for the period in
which such workweek ends. When the
correct amount of overtime compensa-
tion cannot be determined until some
time alter the regular .pay period,
however, the requirements of the Act
will be satisfied if the employer pays
the exoess overtime compensation az
soon after the regular pay period az, is
practicable. Payment may not be de-
layed for a period longer than is rea-
sonably necessary for the employer to
compute and arrange for payment, of
the amount due and in no event may
payment be delayed beyond the next
l~ayd~y after sucl~ computation can be
made. Where retroactive wage in-
creases are made, retroactive overtime
compensatiop is due at the time the
increase is paid, , as discussed ' In
§ 778.303. l~or a. discussion of overtime
payments due becaus~ of increases by
way of bonuses, see § 778,209.
PRINCIPLES FOR COMPUTING OVERTIME
PAY BASED ON THE "REGULAR RATE"
§778.107 General standard for overtime
pay.
The general overtime pay standard
in section 7(a) requires that overtime
must be compensated at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regu-
lar' rate at which the employee is actu-
ally employed. The regular rate of pay
at which"the employee is employed
may in no event be less than the statu-
tory minimum. (The statutory mini-
mum is the specified minimum wage
applicable under section 6 of the Act,
except in the case of workers specially
provided for in section 14 and workers
in Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands. and
American Samoa who are covered by
wage orders issued pursuant to section
8 of the Act.) If the employee's regular
rate of pay is higher than the statuto.
ry minimum, his overtime compensa.
tion must be computed at a rate not
less than one and one-half times such
higher rate. Under certain conditions
prescribed in section 7 (f), (g). and (j),
the Act provides limited exceptions to
the application of the general stand-
ard of section 7(a) for computing over-
time pay based on the regular rate.
With respect to these, see 5§ 778.400'
through 778,421 and 778.601 and Part
548 of this chapter. The Act also pro-
vides, in section 7(b), ti). (k) and tm)
and in section 13, certain partial and
total exemptions from the application
of section 7(a) to certain employees
and under certain conditions. Regula-
tions and interpretations concerning
these exemptions are outside the
scope of this Part 778 and reference
should be made to other applicable
parts of this chapter.
t46 FR '/309, Jan. 23, 19811
§ 778.108 The "regular rate".
The "regular rate" of pay under the
Act cannot be left to a declaration by
the parties as to what is to be treated
az the regular rate for an employee; it
must be drawn from what happens
under the employment contract (Bay
Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S.
446). The Supreme Court has de-
scribed it as the hourly rate actually
paid the employee for the normal,
nonovertime workweek for which he is
employed--an "actual fact" (Walling v.
Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co.,
325 U.S. 419). Section 7(e) of the Act
requires inclusion in the "regular
rate" of "all remuneration for employ.
merit paid to, or on behalf of. the em-
ployee" except payments specifically
excluded by paragraphs (1) through
(7) of that subsection. (These seven
types of payments, which are set forth
in § 778.200 and discussed in ii 778.201
through 778.224, are hereafter re-
ferred to as "statutory exclusions.")
As stated by the Supreme Court in the
Youngerman-Reynolds case cited
above: "Once the parties have decided
upon the amount of wages and the
mode of payment the determination of
the regular rate becomes a matter of
mathematical computation, the result
of which is unaffected by any designa-
tion of a contrary 'regular rate' in the
wage contracts."
§778.109 The regular rate is an hourly
rate.
The "regular rate" under the Act is
a rate per hour. The Act does not re-
quire employers to compensate em-
ployees on an hourly rate basis; their
earnings may be determined on a
piece-rate, salary, commission, or
other basis, but in such case the over-
time compensation due to employees
must be computed on the basis of the
hourly rate derived therefrom and,
therefore, it is necessary to compute
the regular hourly rate of such em-
ployees during each workweek, with
certain statutory exceptions discussed
in 5§778.400--778.421. The regular
hourly rate of pay of an employee is
determined by dividing his total remu-
neration for employment (except stat-
utory exclusions) in any. workweek by
the total number of hours actually
worked by him in that workweek for
which such compensation was paid.
The following sections give some ex-
amples of the proper method of deter-
Fair Labor Standards Act '17
mining the regular rate of pay in par-
ticular instances: (The maximum
hours standard used in these examples
is 40 hours in a workweek).
§778.110 Hourly rate employee.
(a) Earnings at hourly rate exclu-
sively. If the employee is employed
solely on the basis of a single hourly
rate, the hourly rate .is his "regular
rate." For his overtime work he must
be paid, in addition to his straight
time .hourly earnings, a sum deter-
mined by multiplying bne-half, the
hourly rate by the number of hours
worked 'in excess 0f,4.0'in the' week.
Thus a $6 hourly rate will~ bring, for
an employee who'worl(s' 46 hours, a
total weehly w~ge of $294 (46 hours at
$6 plus 6 'at $3). In 'other'words, the
employee 'is - entitled' to be paid. an
amount equal to .$6 an hour for 40
hours and $9 an hour for the 6 hours
of overtime, or a-total of $294.
(b) Hourly rate and bonus. If the
employee receives, in. addition to his
earnings at the hourly rate, a produc-
tion bonus of $9.20, the regular hourly
rate of pay is $6.20 an hour (46 hours
at $6 yields $276;. the addition of the
$9.20 bonus makes.& total:of $285.20;
this total divided by 46 hours yields a.
rate of.$6.20). The employee is then
entitled to be paid a' total wage .of
$303.80 for 46 hours (46 hours at .$6.20
plus 6 hours at~$3.10, or 40 hot,rs.at
$6.20 plus 6 hours at $9.30).
[46 FR 7309, Jan. 23, 1981]
§ 7T8.111 Pieceworker.
(a3 Piece rates and supplements, gen-
erally. When an employee is employed
on a piece-rate basis, 'his 'regular
hourly 'rate of pay is computed by
adding' together his total earnings for
the workweek frbm piece rates and ali
other sources (such as production bo~
nuses) and any sums paid' for waiting
time or other hours Worked (~xCept
statutory exclusions): This sum is then
divided by .the ,number of hours
worked in the week for which such
compensation' was paid, to'yield the
pieceworker's "regular rate" for that
week. For his overtime work the piece-
worker is entitled to be paid, in addi-
tion to his total weekly earnings at
this regular rate for all hours worked,
a sum equivalent to one-half this regu-
lar rate of pay multiplied by the
number of hours worked in excess'of
40 in the week. (For an alternative
method of complying with the over-
time requirements of the Act as far as
pieceworkers are concerned, 'see
§778.418.) Only additional half-time
pay is required in such cases where
the employee ha~ .already received
straight-time compensation at piece
rates or by supplementary .payments
for .all hours worked. Thus,:if the:em-.
ployee 'has worked 50. hours. Shall has
earned '$245.50 at piece rates for 46
hours of productive work and in addi-
tion has been compensated at $5.00 an
hour for 4 hours of waiting time, his
total compensation, $265.50 must be
divided by his total hours of.work, 50,
to arrive at his regular hourly rate of
pa.y--§5.31. For:the 10 hours.of over-
time the em'ployee is entitled to. addi-
ttona]; compensation of $26.55 (10
hours at $2.655). For the week's work
he is thus entitled to a total of $292.05
(which' is equivalent to 40 :hours at
$5.3.1 plus ,10 overtime hoUrs at
$'/.965).
(b) P/eec rates with' rninim~Tn hourly
~uarantee: In. some' cases-an.employee
is hired on a Piece-rate bas'is coupled
with g 'minimum hourly' guaranty.
Where .the total piece-rate earnings
for the workweek fall short 'of the
amount that would be earned .for the
total hours of work at the guaranteed
rate, the employee is paid the differ.
ence. In such weeks the employee is in
fact paid at an hourly .rate 'and the
minimum hourly guaranty ~hich he
was' paid is his regular rate 'in that
week. In the example just given, if the
employee was guaranteed $5.50 an
hour for productive working time, he
would be paid $253 (46×$5.50) for the
4,6 hodrs of productive' work ('instead
of the $245.50 ear-ed at piece rates).
In a 'week' in which no waiting time
was'ihvol~ed, he Would be owed an ad-
ditional=§2.'/5 (half time)'for each of
the 6 overtime' hours worked, to bring
his total compensation Up to $26'9.50
(46 hours at $5.50 plus 6 hours at $2.'/5
or 40 hours at $5.50 plus 6 hours at
$8.25). If he is paid at a different ~ate
for waiting time, his regular rate is the
weighted'average of the 2 hourly
rates, as discussed in § '/78.115.
[46 FR 7309, Jan. 23,'1981]
§ 778.112 Day rates and job rates.
If the employee is paid a fiat sum
for a day's work or for doing a particu-
lar Job, without regard to the number
of hours worked in the day or at the
Job, and if he receives no other form
of compensation for services, his regu.
lar rate is determined by totaling all
the sums received at such day rates or
job rates in the workweek and dividing
by the total hours actually worked. He
is then entitled to extra half-time pay
at th,:s rate for all hours worked in
excel:.-', of 40 in the workweek.
§ 778.113 Salaried employees--general.
(a) Weekly salary. If the employee is
employed solely on a weekly salary
basis, his regular hourly rate of pay,
on which time and a half must be
paid, is computed by dividing the
salary by the number of hours which
the salary is intended to compensate.
If an employee is hired at a salary of
$182.70 and il it is understood that
this salary is compensation for a regu-
lar workweek of 35 hours, the employ-
ee's rqgular rate of pay is $182.70 di-
vided by 35 hours, or $5.22 an hour,
and when he works overtime he is en-
titled to receive $5.22 for each of the
first 40 hours and $7.83 (one and one-
half times $5.22) for each hour there-
after. If an employee is hired at a
salary, of $220.80 for a 40-hour week
his regulax rate is $5.52 an hour.
(b) Salary for periods other than
workweek. Where the salary covers a
period longer than a workweek, such
as a month, it must/be reduced to its
workweek equivalent. A monthly
salary is ~ubject to translation to its
equivalent weekly wage by multiplying
by 12 (the number of months) and di-
viding by'52 (the number of weeks). A
semimonthly salary is translated into
its equivalent .weekly wage by multi-
plying by 24 and dividing by 52. Once
the 'weekly wage is arrived at, the reg-
ular hourly r~.te of pay will be calcu-
lated as indicated above. The regular
rate of an employee who is paid a reg-
ular monthly salary of $1,040, or a reg-
ular semimonthly salary of $520 for 40
hours a week, is thus found to be $6
per hour. Under regulations of the A4-
ministrator, pursuant to the authority
given to him in section 7(g)(3) of the
Act, the parties may provide that the
regular rates shall be determined by
dividing the monthly salary by the
number of working days in the month
and then by the number of hours of
the normal or regular workday. Of
course, the resultant rate in such a
case must not be less than the statuto-
ry minimum wage.
[46 FR 7310, Jan. 23, 1981]
§778.114 Fixed salary for fluctuating
hours.
(a) An employee employed on a
salary basis may have hours of work
which fluctuate from week to week
and the salary may be paid him pursu-
ant to an understanding with his em-
ployer that he will receive such fixed
amount as straight time pay for what-
ever hours he is called upon to work in
a workweek, whether few or many.
Where there is a clear mutual under-
standing of the parties that the fixed
salary is compensation (apart from
overtime premiums) for the hours
worked each workweek, whatever their
number, rather than for working 40
hours or some other fixed weekly work
period, such a salary arrangement is
permitted by the Act if the amount of
the salary is sufficient to provide com-
pensation to the employee at a rate
not less than the applicable minimum
wage rate for every hour worked in
those workweeks in which the number
~18 Management Information Service
of hours he works is greatest, and if he
receives extra compensation, in addi-
tion to such salary, for all overtime
hours worked at a rate not less than
one-half his regular rate of pay. Since
the salary in such a situation is in-
tended to compensate the employee at
straight time rates for whatever hours
are worked in the workweek, the regu-
lar rate of the employee will vary from
week to week and is determined by di-
viding the number of hours worked in
the workweek into the amount of the
salary to obtain the applicable hourly
rate for the week. Payment for over-
time hours at one-haH such rate in ad-
dition to the salary satisfies the over-
time pay requirement because such
hours have already been compensated
at the straight time regular rate,
under the salary arrangement.
(b) The application of the principles
above stated may be illustrated by the
case of an employee whose hours of
work do not customarily follow a regu-
lar schedule but vary from week to
week, whose overtime work is never in
excess of 50 hours in a workweek, and
whose salary of $250 a week is paid
with the understanding that it consti-
tutes his cO~npensation, except for
overtime premiums, for whatever
hours are worked in the workweek. If
during the course of 4 weeks this em-
ployee works 40, 44, 50, and 48 hours,
his regular hourly rate of pay in each
of these weeks is approximately $6.25,
$5.68, $5, and $5.21, respectively. Stpce
the. employee has already received
straight-time compensation on a'
salary basis for all hours worked, only
additional half-time pay' is due. For
the first week the employee is entitled
to be paid $250; for the second week
$261.36 ($250 plus 4 hours at $2.84, or
40 hours at $5.68 plus 4 hours at
$8.52); for the third week $275 ($250
plus 10 hours at $2.50, or 40 hours at
$5 plus 10!hours at $7.50); for the
fourth week aplp~oximately ,$2'10.88
($250 plus 8 hours, at $2.61 or 40 hours
at $5.21 plus 8 hours at $.7.82).
(c) The "fluctuating workweek"
method of overtime payment .may not
be used unless the ~alary ls's(~fficient-
ly large to assure that no~ workweek
will be worked in which the. employ-
ee's average hourly earnings from the
salary fall below the minimum hourly
wage ~ate applicable under the Act,
and unless the employee clearly un-
derstands that the salary covers what:
ever hours the job may demand in a
particular workweek and the-emplbyer
pays the salary even though the work-
week is one in which a full schedule of
hours is not worked. Typically, such
salaries are paid to employees who do
not customarily work a regular sched~
ule of hours and are in arnount~
agreed on by 'the parties as affeq~ate
straight-time compensation for 10.ng
workweeks as well as short ones, under
the circumstances of the employment
as a whole. Where all the legal prereq-
uisites for use of the' "'fluctuating
workweek" method of overtime pay-
ment are present, the Act, in requiring
that "not less than" the prescribed
premium of 50 l~ercent for overtime
hours worked be paid, does not prohib-
it paying more. On the other hand,
where all the facts indicate that an
employee is being paid for his over-
time hours at a rate no greater than
that which he receives for nonover-
time hours, compliance with the Act
cannot be rested on any application of
the fluctuating workweek overtime
formula.
[33 PR 986, Jan. 26, 1968. as amended at 46
FR 7310, Jan. 23,19811
§778.115 Employees working at two or
more rates.
Where an employee in a single work-
week works at two or more different
types of work for which different non-
overtime rates of pay (of not less than
the applicable minimum wage) have
been established, his regular rate for
that week is the weighted average of
such rates. That is, his total earnings
(except statutory exclusions) are com-
puted to include his compensation
during the workweek from all such
rates, and are then divided .by the
total number of hours worked at. all
jobs. Certain statutory exceptions per-
mitring, alternative methods of com-
puting overtime pay .ir) such cases are
discussed in §§778.400 and 778.415
through 77,8.421.
§ 778.11~ Payments other than cash.
Where payments are made to em-
ployees in the :form df goods or facili-
ties which aye' regarded as part of
wages, the rea,%nable cost to the em-
ployer or the. fair value of such goods
or of furnishing such fa~ilities must be
included in the regular rate. (See'Part
53'1 of this chapter'for a discussion as
to the inclusion of~ goods and facilities
in wages'and the method 0f'determin~
ina reasonable co~t.) ~Vhere, for exam-
ple, an emplo~r:furnishes lodging to
his employees tn~ a~tdttion' to cash
:wages the reasonable'~ost or t-t~e' fair
valh~ of' the lodging (per week) must
be added tO'~he cash wages b~f~n'e the
regular rate is determined.
[46 FR 7310, Jan. 2~, 19811
Subpart C--Payments That May Be
Excluded From the "Regular Rate"
THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
§778.200 Provisions governing inclusion,
exclusion, and crediting of particular
payments.
(al Section ?(el. This subsection of
the Act provides as follows:
Az used in this section the "regular rate"
at which an employee is employed shall be
deemed to include all remuneration for em-
ployment paid to. or on behalf of, the em-
ployee, but shall not be deemed to include:
(1) Sums paid as gift~; payments in the
nature of gifts made at Christmas time or
on other special occasions, as a reward for
service, the ~mounts of which are not meas-
ured by or dependent on hours worked, pro-
duction, or efficiency; [discussed in
§ 778.2121.
i2) Payments made for occasional periods
when no work is performed due to vacation,
holiday, illness, failure of the employer to
provide sufficient work, or other similar
cause; reasonable payments for traveling ex-
penses, or other expenses, incurred by an
employee in the furtherance of his employ-
er's interests and properly reimbursable by
the employer; and other similar payments
to an employee which are not made as com-
pensatlon for his hours o! employment; [dis-
cussed in §§ '/78.216 through 778.2241.
(31 Sums paid in recognition of services
performed during a given period if either,
(al both the fact that payment is to be
made-and the amount of the payment are
determined at the sole discretion of the em-
ployer at or near the end of the period and
not pursuant to any prior contract, agree-
merit, or promise causing the employee to
expect such payments regularly; or (b) the
payments are made pursuant to a bona fide
profit-sharing plan or trust or bona fide
thrift or savings plan, meeting the require-
ments of the Secretary of Labor set forth in
appropriate regulations which he shall
issue, having due regard among other rele-
v. ant factors, to the extent to which the
amounts paid to the employee are deter-
mined without regard to hours of work, pro-
duct[on, or efficiency; or (c) the payments
are talent fees (as such talent fees are de-
fined and delimited by regulations of the
Secretary) paid to performers, including an-
nouncers, on radio and television programs;
[discussed in §§ 778.208 through 778.215 and
778.2251.
(4l Contributions irrevocably made by an
employer to a trustee or third person pursu-
ant to a bona fide plan for providing old-
age. retirement, life. accident, or health in.
surance or similar benefits for employees;
[discusied in §§ 778.214 and 778.2151.
(5) Extra compensation provided by a pre-
mium rate paid for certain hours worked by
the employee in any day or workweek be-
cause such hours are hours worked in excess
of eight in a day or in excess of the maxi-
mum workweek applicable to such employee
under subsection (al or in excess of the em-
ployee's normal working hours or regular
working hours, as the case may be; [dis-
cussed in §§ 778.201 and 778.202].
¢6) Extra compensation provided by a pre-
mium rate paid for work by the employee
on Saturdays, Sundays. holidays, or regular
days of rest. or on the sixth or seventh day
of the workweek, where such premium rate
is not less than one and one-half times, the
rate established in good faith for like work
performed in nonovertime hours on other
days; or [discussed in §§778.203, 778.205.
and '/78.206].
(7) Extra compensation provided by a pre-
mlum rate paid to thi employee, in pursu-
Fair Labor Standards Act
0
anco pt an applicable employment contract
or collective bargaining agreement, for work
outside of the hours established in good
faith by the contract or agreement as the
basic, normal, or regular workday (not ex-
ceeding eight hours) or workweek (not ex-
ceeding the maximum workweek applicable
to such employee under subsection (a)),
where such premium rate is not less than
one and one-half times the rate established
in good faith by the contract or agreement
for like work performed during such work-
day or workweek; [discussed in §§778.201
grid 778.2061.
(b) Section 7(h). This subsection of
the Act provides as follows:
Extra compensation paid as described in
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) of subsection (e)
shall be creditable toward Dvertime compen-
sation payable pursuant to this section.
(c) Only the statutory exclusions are
authorized. It is important to deter-
mine the scope of these exclusions,
since all remuneration for employ-
ment paid to employees which does
not fall within one of these seven ex-
clusionary clauses must be added into.
the total compensation received by the
employee before his regular hourly
rate of pay is determined.
AP?ENDIX D.
Special Provisions for Police,
Oorre¢lion$, and Fire Personnel
Code of Federal Regulations (29 C.ER. Part 553)
PART 553--EARPLOYEES OF PUBLIC
AGENCIES ENGAGED IN FIRE PRO-
TECTION OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING SECURITY
PERSONNEL IN CORRECTIONAL IN-
STITUTIONS)
Sec.
553.1 Statutory provisions.
553.2 Purpose and scope.
EMPLOYEES ENGA(~EO IN FIRE PROTECTION AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
SECURITY PERSONNEL IH CORRECTIONAL IN-
STITUTIONS)
553.3 Fire protection activities.
553.4 Law enforcement activities.
553.5 20 percent limitation on nonexempt
work,
553.6 Public agency employees engaged in
both fire protection and law enforce-
ment activities.
553.7 Employees attending training facill.
ties.
553.8 Ambulance and rescue service em-
ployees.
553.9 Fire protection or law enforcement
employees who perform unrelated work
for their own agency or for another
public agency or private employer.
553.10 Mutual aid.
553.11 Fire protection and law enforce-
ment volunteers.
RULES FOR DETERMININO THE TOUR or DUTY,
WORE PERIOD AND COMPENSABLE HOURS OF
WORE
553.12 General statement.
553.13 Tour of duty.
553.14 General rules for determining com-
pensable hours of work.
553.15 Sleeping and meal time as compen-
sable hours of work.
553.16 Work period.
553.17 Early relief.
553.18 Trading time.
553.19 Time off for excess hours or so-
called "comp time."
553.20 The "regular rate".
553.21 Records to be kept.
AUTHORITY: Sees. 1~19, 52 Stat. 1060, as
amended; 88 Stat. 60 (29 U.S.C. 201-219).
SOURCE: 39 FR 44142. Dec. 20, 1974, unless
otherwise noted.
{} 553,1 Statutory provisions.
(a) In extending coverage to certain
public agency employees, the Fair
Labor Standards Act (hereafter the
Act), by virtue of section 13(b)(20),
provided a complete overtime exemp-
tion for any employee of a public
agency who is engaged in fire protec-
tion or law enforcement activities (in-
cluding security personnel in correc-
tional institutions) during the period
between the effective date of the 1974
Amendments (May 1, 1974) to and
through December 31, 1974. Beginning
January I, 1975, however, this com-
plete overtime exemption may be
claimed only with respect to "any em-
ployee of a public agency who in any
workweek is employed in fire protec-
tion activities or any employee of a
public agency who in ax~y workweek is
employed in law enforcement activi-
ties (including security personnel in
correctional institutions), if the public
agency employs during the workweek
less than five employees in fire protec-
tion or law enforcement activities as
the case may be."
(b) Beginning January I, 1975,
public agencies not qualifying for the
complete overtime exemption provided
in section 13(b)(20) will be required to
pay overtime compensation to their
fire protection and law .enforcement
employees on a workweek basis as re;
quired by section 7(a) of the Act
unless they elect to take advantage of
the partial overtime exemption provid-
ed in section ~(k) which applies, not
on a workweek basis, but on a work
period basis, ~s follows:
* * * No public agency shall be deemed to
have violated subsection (a) with respect to
the employment o! any employee in fire
protection activities or any employee in law
enforcement activities (including security
personnel in correctional institutions) if:
(1) In a work period of 28 consecutive days
the employee receives for tours of duty
which in the aggregate exceed 240 hours; or
(2) In the case of such an employee to
whom a work period of at least 7 but less
than 28 days applies, in his work period the
employee receives for tours of duty which in
the aggregate exceed a number or hours
which bears the same ratio to the number
o! consecutive days in his work period as 240
hours bears to 28 days. compensation at a
rate of not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate at which he is employed.
lB) Effective January 1. 1976. section 7(k)
is amended by striking out "240 hours" each
place it occurs and inserting in lieu thereof
"232 hours".
(C) Effective January 1, 1977. such section
is amended by striking out "232" hours each
place it occurs and inserting in lieu thereof
"216 hours".
iD) Effective January 1. 1978, such section
is amended:
(i) By striking out "exceed 216 hours" in
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof
"exceed the lesser of (A) 216 hours, or (B)
the average number of hours (as determined
by the Secretary pursuant to section 6(c)(3)
of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of
1974) in tours of duty of employees engaged
in such activities in work periods of 28 con-
secutive days in calendar year 1975"; and
(ii) By striking out "as 216 hours bears to
28 days" In paragraph (2) and inserting in
lieu thereof "as 216 hours (or if lower, the
number or hours referred to in clause (B) of
paragraph (I) bears to 28 days * * *
(C) These statutory provisions, as is
apparent frora their terms, are limited
to public agencies and 'do not apply to
any private organization engaged in
furnishing fire protection' or law en-
forcement services, and this is so even
if the services are provided under con-
tract with a public agency.
(d) In determining whether a publi,c
agency qualifies for the section
13(b)(20) exemption after January 1,
1975, the fire protection and law en-
forcement activities are considered
separately. Thus, for example, if a
public agency employs less than five
employees in fire protection activities
but five or more employees' in law en-
forcement activities (incli~ding securi-
ty personnel in a correctional institu-
tion), it may claim the exemption [or
the fire protection employees but not
for the law enforcement employees.
No distinction is made between full-
time and part-time employees, and
both must be counted in determYning
whether the exemption applies. Bona
fide volunteers may be excluded. This
determination of the number of em-
ployees engaged in each of the two
named activities is made on a work-
week basis.
(e) In addition to the special exemp-
tions provided in sections ?(k) and
13(b)(20), which are the subject
matter of Part 53, the Act provides
other exemptions which, depending
upon the facts, may be claimed for cer-
tain employees in lieu of such special
exemptions. For example, section
13(a)(1) provides a complete exemp-
tion for any employee employed in a
bona fide executive, administrative or
professional capacity, as those terms
are defined and delimited 'in 29 CFR
Part 541, and that exemption may be
claimed for s.ny fire protection or law
20, Management Information Service
enforcement employee who meets all
of the tests specified in Part 541 relat-
ing to duties, responsibilities and
salary. Thus, although police captains
are clearly employees engaged in law
enforcement activities, they may also,
depending upon the facts, qualify for
the section 13(a)(1) exemption, in
which event the employing agency
may claim that exemption for such
employees in lieu of the section 7(k) or
13(b)(20) exemption. Similarly, certain
criminal investigative agents may
qualify as administrative employees, in
which event the employing agency
may elect which of the applicable ex-
emptions it will claim for such employ-
ees. In no event, however will the elec-
tion to take the section 13(a)(1) ex-
emption for an employee who qualifies
for it, result in excluding that employ-
ee from the count that must be made
under § 553.1(d) in determining wheth-
er the employer may claim for its
other employees the section 13(b) (20)
exemption.
§ 553.2 Purpose and scope.
The purpose of Part 553 is to define
the pertinent statutory terms used in
sections 7(k) and 13(b)(20) and to set
forth the rules by which the Adminis-
trator of the Wage and Hour Division
will determine the compensable hours
of work. tour of duty and work period
in applying the section 7(k) exemp-
tion.
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FIRE PROTEC-
TION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT/VI-
TIES (INCLUDING SECURITY PERSONNEL
IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS)
.ii 553.3 Fire protection activities.
ia) As used in section 7(k) and
13~b)(20) of the Act, the term "any
employee in fire protection activities"
refers to any employee (1) who is em-
ployed by an organized fire depart-
ment or fire protection district and
who, pursuant to the extent required
by State statute or local ordinance.
has been trained and has the legal au-
thority and responsibility to engage in
the prevention, control or extinguish-
ment of a fire of any type and (2) who
performs activities which are required
for. and directly concerned with the
prevention, control or extinguishment
of fires, including such incidental non-
firefighting functions as hbusekeep-
lng, equipment maintenance, lectur-
ing. attending community fire drills
and inspecting homes and schools for
fire hazards. The term would include
all such employees, regardless of their
status as "trainee," "probationary," or
"permanent" employee, or of their
particular specialty or job title (e.g.,
firefighter, engineer, hose or ladder
operator, fire specialist, fire inspector,
lieutenant, captain, inspector, fire
marshal, battalion chief, deputy chief,
or chief), and regardless of their as-
signment to support activities of the
type described in paragraph (d) of this
section, whether or not such assign-
ment is for training or familiarization
purposes, or for reasons of illness,
injury or infirmity. The term would
also include rescue and ambulance
service personnel if such personnel
form an integral part of the public
agency's fire protection activities. See
§ 553.7.
(b) The term "'any employee in fire
protection activities" also refers to em-
ployees who work for forest conserva-
tion agencies or other public agencies
charged with forest firefighting re-
sponsibilities, and who direct or
engage in (1) fire spotting or lookout
activities, or (2) fighting fires on the
fireline or from aircraft or (3) operat-
ing tank trucks, bulldozers and trac-
tors for the purpose of clearing fire
breaks. The term includes all persons
so engaged, regardless of their status
as full time or part time agency em-
ployees or as temporary or casual
workers employed for a particular fire
or for periods of high fire danger, in.
cluding those who have had no prior
training. It does not include such
agency employees as biologists and
office personnel who do not fight fires
on a regular basis, except, of course.
during those emergency situations
when they are called upon to spend
substantially all (i.e., 80 percent or
more) of their time during the applica.
hie work period in one or more of the
activities described in paragraph (b)
(1). (2) and (3) of this section. Addi-
tionally, for those persons who actual-
ly engage in these fire protection ac-
tivities, the simultaneous performance
of such related functions as house-
keeping, equipment maintenance.
tower repairs and/or the construction
of fire roads, would also be within the
section 7(k) or 13(b)(20) exemption.
(c) Not included in the term "em-
ployee in fire protection activities" are
the so-called "civilian" employees of a
fire department, fire district, or forest-
ry service who engage in such support
activities as those performed by dis-
patchers, alarm operators, apparatus
and equipment repair and mainte-
nance workers, camp cooks, clerks, ste-
nographers, etc.
§ 553.4 Law enforcement activities.
(a) As used in sections 7(k) and
13(b)(20) of the Act, the term "any
employee in law enforcement activi-
ties'' refers to any employee (1) who is
a uniformed or plainclothed member
of a body of officers and subordinates
who are empowered by statute or local
ordinance to enforce laws designed to
maintain public peace and order and
to protect both life and property from
accidental or willful injury, and to pre-
vent and detect crimes, (2) who has
the power of arrest, and (3) who is
presently undergoing or has under-
gone or will undergo on-the-job train-
ing and/or a course of instruction and
study which typically includes physi-
cal training, self-defense, firearm pro-
ficiency, criminal and civil law princi-
ples, investigative and law enforce-
ment techniques, community rela-
tions, medical aid and ethics.
Employees who meet these tests are
considered to be engaged in law en-
forcement activities regardless of their
rank, or of their status as "trainee,"
"probationary" or "permanent" em-
ployee, and regardless of their assign-
ment to duties incidental to the per-
formance of their law enforcement ac-
tivities such as equipment mainte-
nance, and lecturing, or to support ac-
tivities of the type described in para-
graph (f) of this section, whether or
not such assignment is for training or
familiarization purposes, or for rea-
sons of illness, injury or infirmity. The
term would also include rescue and
ambulance service personnel if such
personnel form an integral part of the
public agency's law enforcement ac-
tivities. See § 553.8.
(b) Typically, employees engaged in
law enforcement activities include city
police; district or local police; sheriffs,
under sheriffs or deputy sheriffs who
are regularly employed and paid as
such; court marshals or deputy mar-
shals; constables and deputy consta-
bles who are regularly employed and
paid as such; border control agents;
state troopers and highway patrol offi-
cers. Other agency employees not spe-
cifically mentioned may, depending
upon the particular facts and perti-
nent statutory provisions in that juris-
diction, meet the three tests described
above. If so, they will also qualify as
law enforcement officers. Such em-
ployees might include, for example,
fish and game wardens or criminal in-
vestigative agents assigned to the
office of a district attorney, an attor-
ney general, a solicitor general or any
other law enforcement agency con-
cerned with keeping public peace and
order and protecting life and property.
(c) Some of the law enforcement of-
ricers listed above, including but not
limited to certain sheriffs, will not be
covered by the Act if they are elected
officials and if they are not subject to
the civil service laws of their particu-
lar State or local jurisdiction. Section
3(e)(2)(C) of the Act excludes from its
definition of "employee" elected offi-
cials and their person;il staff under
the conditions therein prescribed. 29
U.S.C. 203(e)(2)(C). Such individuals,
therefore, need not be counted in de-
Fair Labor Standards Act 21
[0
retraining whether the public agency
in question has less than five employ-
ees engaged in law enforcement activi-
ties for purposes of claiming the sec-
tion 13(b)(20) exemption.
(d) Employees who do not meet each
of the three tests described above are
not engaged in "law enforcement ac-
tivities,'' az that term is used in sec-
tions 7(k) and 13(b)(20). Such employ-
ees would typically include (1) build-
ing inspectors (other than those de-
fined in § 553.3(a)), (2) health inspec-
tors, (3) animal control personnel, (4)
sanitarians, (5) civilian traffic employ-
ees who direct vehicular and pedestri-
an traffic at specified intersections or
other control point.s, (~) civilian park-
ing checkers who patrol assigned areas
for the purpose of discovering parking
violations and issuing appropriate
warnings or appearance notices, (7)
wage and hour compliance officers, (8)
equal employment opportunity com-
pliance officers, .(9) tax compkiance of-
ricers, (10) coal mining inspectors, and
(11) building guards whose primary
duty is.to protect the lives and proper-
ty of persons within the limited area
of the building.
(e) The term "any employee in law
enforcement activities" also includes,
by express reference, "security person.
riel in correctional institutions." A cor-
rectional institution is any govern.
merit facility maintained az part of a
penal system for the incarceration or
detention of persons suspected or.con.
victed of having breached the peace or
committed some other crime. Typical-
ly, such facilities incIude penitentia-
ries, prisons, prison farms, county, city
and village jails, precinct house lock-
ups and reformatories. Employees of
correctional institutions 'who qualify
as security personnel for purposes of
the section 7(k) exemption are those
who have responsibility for controlling
and maintaining custody of inmates
andof safeguarding them from other
inmates or for supervising such func-
tions, regardless of whether their
duties are performed inside the correc-
tional institution or outside the insti-
tution (as in the case of road gangs).
These employees are considered to be
engaged in law enforcement activities
regardless of their rank (e.g., warden,
assistant warden or guard) or of their
status as "trainee," "probat.ionary." or
"permanent" employee, and regardless
of their assignment to duties inciden-
tal to the performance of their law en-
forcement activities, or to support ac-
tivities of the type described in para-
graph (f) of this section, whether or
not such assignment is for training or
familiarization purposes or for reasons
of illness, injury or infirmity.
(f) Not inclu(Jed in the term "em-
ployee in law enforcement activities"
are the so-called "civilian" employees
of law enforcement agencies or correc-
tional institutions who engage in such
support activities as those performed
by dispatcher, radio operators, appara-
tus and equipment maintenance and
repair workers, janitors, clerks and ste-
nographers. Nor does the term include
employees in correctional institutions
who engage in building repair and
maintenance, culinary services, teach-
ing, or in psychological, medical and
paramedical services. This is so even
though such employees may, when
signed to correctional institutions,
come into regular contact with the in-
mates in the performance of their
duties.
§553.5 20 percent limitation on nonex-
empt work.
Employees engaged in fire protec-
tion or law enforcement activities, as
described in §§ 553.3 and 553.4, may
also engage in some nonexempt work
which is not performed as an incident
to or in conjunction with their fire-
fighting activities. For example, those
who work for forest conservation
agencies may, during slack periods,
plant trees and perform other conser-
ration activities. The performance of
such nonexempt work will not defeat
either the section 7(k) or 13(b) (20) ex-
eruption unless it exceeds 20 percent
of the total hours worked by the par-
ticular employee during the applicable
work period.
§ 553.6 Public agency employees engaged
in both fire protection and law enforce-
ment activities.
Some public agencies have employ-
ecs (sometimes referred to as public
safety officers) who engage in both
law enforcement activities and fire
protection activities, depending upon
the agency needs at the time. This
dual assignment would not defeat
either the section 7(k) or 13(b) (20) ex-
emption, provided that each of the ac-
tivities performed meets the appropri-
ate tests set forth in §§ 553.3(a), 553.4
(a) and (e). This is so regardless of
how the employees divide their time
between the two types of activities. If,
however, either the fire protection or
law enforcement activities do not meet
the tc:~ts of § 553.3(a) or § 553.4 (a) and
(e), and if such nonqualifying activi-
ties, :~tanding alone or in conjunction
with some other nonexempt activity,
exceed 20 percent of the employee's
total hours of work in the work period,
neither exemption would apply.
§553.7 Employees attending training fa-
cilities.
The attendance at a bona fide fire or
police academy or other training facili-
ty, when required by the employing
public agency, does not constitute eh-
gagement in exempt activities, unless
the employee in question meets all the
tests described in § 553.3(a) or
§ 553.4(a), as the case may be, in which
event such training or further training
would be incidental to, and thus part
of, the employee's fire protection or
law enforcement activities. Only the
time spent in actual training or re-
training constitutes compensable
hours of ~'ork. All other time, such az
that spent in studying and other per-
sonal pursuits, is not compensable
hours of work even in situations where
the employee is confined to campus or
to barracks 24 hours a day. See
§ 553.14. Attendance at training facili-
ties and schools, which is not required
but which may incidentally improve
the employee's performance of his or
her regular tasks or prepare the em-
ployee for further advancement, need
not be counted az working time even
though the public agency may pay for
all or part of such training.
§ 553.8 Ambulance and rescue service em.
ployees.
(a) Ambulance and rescue service
employees of a public agency other
than a fire protection or law enforce-
merit agency may be treated as em-
ployees engaged in fire protection or
law enforcement activities of the type
contemplated by sections 7(k) and
13(b)(20) if their services are substan-
tially related to firefighting or law eh-
forcement activities in that (1) the am-
bulance and rescue service employees
have received special training in the
rescue of fire and accident victims or
firefighters injured in the perform-
ance of their firefighting duties, and
(2) the ambulance and rescue service
employees are regularly dispatched to
fires, riots, natural disasters and acci-
dents.
(b) Ambulance and rescue service
employees of public agencies subject
to the Act .prior to the 1974 Amend-
merits do not come within the section
7(k) or section 13(b)(20) exemptions,
since it was not the purpose of those
Amendments to deny the Act's protec-
tion of previously covered employees.
This would include employees of
public agencies engaged in the oper-
ation of a hospital; an ins'titution pri-
marily engaged in the care of the sick,
the aged, the mentally ill or defective
who reside on the premises of such in-
stitutions; a school for mentally or
physically handicapped or gifted chil.
dren; an elementary or secondary
school; an institution of higher educa-
tion; a street, suburban, or interurban
electric railway; or local trolley or
motor bus carrier.
(c) Ambulance and rescue service
employees of private organizations do
not come within the section 7(k) or
22 Management Information Service
13(b)(20) exemptions even if their ac-
tivities are substantially related to the
fire protection and law enforcement
activities per. formed by a public
agency.
§ 553.9 Fire protection or law enforcement
employe~s who perform unrelated
work for their own agency or for
other public agency or private employ.
er.
(a) If an employee regularly engaged'
in exempt fire protection or law eh-
forcement activities also works for an-
other department or. agency of the
same State or political subdivision,
such employee will lose. the exemption
if the other work is unrelated to fire
protection or law enforcement activi-
ties. For example, if a city police offi-
cer also works as a clerk in the city
health department, which is clearly
nonexempt work, the city could not
claim the section 7(k) exemption for
such employee and would have to pay
overtime compensation for all hours
worked for the two agencies in excess
of 40 per week. See 29 CFR 778.117 for
an explanation of how overtime com-
pensation is computed in such a situs-
tion. If, however, such employee's
other job for the city is also exempt
work, as. {or example lifeguarding at a
seasonally operated city beach which
work is exempt from both the Act's
minimum wage and overtime provi-
slons by virtue of section 13(a)(3), the
city would be entitled to claim the
lesser of the two exemptions which. .in
the example given would be the sec-
tion 7(k) exemption, and it would have
to pay overtime compensation only for
the combined hours (if any) which are
in excess of the employee's tour of
duty.
(b) These same principles also apply
where the fire protection or law eh-
forcement employee works for another
public or private employer who, al-
though entirely separate from the em-
ployee's regular employer, is none the
less a joint employer with the fire pro-
tection or 'law enforcement agency.
Usually, of course, working for a sepa-
rate employer does not affect the em-
ployee's status as an employee
gaged in fire protection or law enforce-
ment activities or the employ, ing agen-
cy's right to claim.the section .7(k) or
13(b)(20) exemption. In some limited
circumstances, however, the relation.
ship between the fire protection or law
enforcement agency and the other em-
ployer is so closely related that they
must be treated as joint employers.
Such a joint employment relationship
exists where the work dohe by the em-
ployee simultaneously benefits both
employers and where it is done pursu-
ant to an arrangement between the
employers to share or interchange em-
ployees, or where one employer acts
directly or indirectly in the interest of
the other employer in relation to the
same employee, or where the employ.
ers are so closely associated that they
share control of the employee, directly
or indirectly. See 29 CFR Part 791.
(c) To illustrate, if a police officer in.
dependently finds after-hours employ.
ment as a repair mechanic in a gas sta-
tion or as a security guard in a depart-
ment store, there would be no joint
employment relationship between the
police department and the second em-
ployer. This would be so even if the
police officer wore his or her uniform
at the second job and even if the
police department engaged in such
"brokering" functions as maintaining
a list of officers available for extra
outside work and referring employ-
merit requests to such officers. Nor
would it matter whether the police de-
partment also established a wage scale
for such extra outside work and ap-
proved it so as to avoid any conflict of
interest problem. On the other hand,
if the second employer is required by
local ordinance or otherwise to hire a
police officer to control crowds at a
stadium or to direct traffic at a sports
arena or during a parade, such em-
ployment benefits both the police d,e.
partment and the second employer,
and. since both act in the interest of
the other, a joint employment rela-
tionship is created.
§ 553.10 Mutual aid.
If employees engaged in fire protec-
tion activities voluntarily respond to a
call for aid from a neighboring juris-
diction, they are volunteers in render-
ing such aid and their employer is not
required to compensate them for the
time spent in the neighboring jurisdic-
tion. See § 553.10. If, however, the em-
ployees respond to such a call because
their employer has a mutual aid agree-
merit with a neighboring jurisdiction
or if the employees are directed by
their agency to respond, all hours
worked by these employees in ten,let-
lng such aid must be added to their
regular hours of work for purposes of
the section 7(k) exemption.
§ 553.11 Fire protection and law enforce-
ment volunteers.
(a) Individuals who volunteer to per-
form fire protection or law enforce-
ment activities, usually on a part-time
basis and as a public service, are not
considered to be employees of the
public agency which receives their
services. Such individuals do not lose
their volunteer status because their
tuition may have been paid or they
may have been reimbursed for attend-
ing special classes or other training to
learn about fire protection or law en-
forcement or because they are reim-
bursed for approximate out-of-pocket
expenses incurred incidental to an-
swering a call or to the cost of replac-
ing clothing or other items of equip-
ment which may have been consumed
or damaged in responding to a call.
Nor is the volunteer status of such in.
dividuals lost where the only material
recognition afforded them is the hold.
lng of an annual party, the furnishing
of a uniform and related equipment.
or their inclusion in a retirement or
relief fund. a workman's compensation
plan or a life or health insurance pro-
gram. or the payment of a nominal
sum on a per call or other basis which
may either be retained, in whole or in
part, by the volunteer or donated to fi-
nance various social activities conduct.
ed .by or under the auspices of the
agency. Payments which average $2.50
per call will be considered nominal.
Payments in excess of this amount
may also qualify as nominal, depend.
lng upon the distances which must be
traveled and other expenses incurred
by the vounteer. For purposes of this
paragraph, it is not necessary for the
agency to maintain an exact record of
expenses.
(b) Where, however, individuals en-
gaged in fire protection or law enforce-
ment activities receive more than a
nominal amount or payment on a basis
which does not reasonably approxi-
mate the expenses incurred by them,
they are employees rather than volun-
teers and must be paid in accordance
with the Act's requirements.
(c) Volunteers engaged in fire pro-
tection or law enforcement activities
may include individuals who are em-
ployed in some other capacity by the
same public agency. For example, a ci-
vilian PBX operator of a public agency
engaged in law enforcement activities
may also be a volunteer member of the
local police reserve force. Similarly, an
employee of a village Department of
Parks and Recreation may serve as a
volunteer firefighter in his or her local
community.
(d) Police officers or firefighters of
one jurisdiction may engage in fire
protection or law enforcement activi.
ties on a voluntary basis for another
jurisdiction where there is no mutual
aid agreement or other relationship
between the two jurisdictions. Such
employees cannot, however, perform
fire protection or law enforcement ac-
tivities on a voluntary basis for their
own agency, although they can engage
in other activities not directly related
to these primary functions. For exam-
ple, a paramedic employed by'a city
fire department could '.volunteer to
give a course in first aid at the city
hospital and a police officer could vol-
unteer to counsel young juveniles who
Fair Labor Standards Act 23
are members of a boy's club or other
similar organizations.
RULES FOR DETERMINING THE TOUR OF
DUTY, WORK PERIOD AND COMPENSA-
BLE HOURS OF WORK
§ 553.12 General statement.
(a) In extending the Act's coverage
to public agency employees engaged in
fire protection and law enforcement
activities, Congress, recognizing the
uniqueness of these activities, estab-
lished section 7(k) which permits the
computation of hours worked on the
basis of a work period (which can be
longer than a workweek) and which
bases the overtime re~luirements on a
work period concept. In adding this
provision, Congress made it clear that
some adjustmen~ would have to be
made in the usual rules for determin-
lng compensable hours of work (Conf.
Rept. 93-953, p. 27) and where the em-
ployer elects section 7(k), these rules
must be used for purpose of both the
Act's minimum wage and overtime re-
quirements.
(b) If, however, any public agency
chooses not to claim the partial over-
time exemption provided in section
7(k), but elects to pay overtime com-.
pensation as required by section 7(a),
it need not concern itself with the
· 'tour of duty" or "work period" dis-
cussion which follows or with the spe-
cial rules relating to the determination
of what constitutes compensable hours
of work since, in that event, overtime
would be payable on a workweek ba~sis
and the regular method of computing
"hours worked" as set forth in 29 CFR
Part 785 would apply. Such an agency
would not. however, be able to take ad-
vantage of the special provisions of
Part 553 relating to the balancing of
hours over an entire work period, trad-
ing time and early relief.
§.353.13 Touc of duty.
The term "tour of duty," as used in
section 7(k), means the period during
which an employee is on duty. It may
be a scheduled or unscheduled period.
Scheduled periods refer to shifts, i.e.,
the period of time which .elapses be-
tween scheduled arrival and departure
times, or to scheduled periods outside
the shift, as in the case of a special
detail involving crowd control during a
parade or other such event~ Unsched-
uled periods refer to time spent in
court by police officers, time spent
handling emergency situations, or
time spent after a shift in order to
complete required work. When an em-
ployee actually works fewer hours
than those scheduled, the employee's
tour of duty is reduced accordingly.
Nothing in section 7(k)'precludes em-
ployers (acting pursuant to collective
bargaining agreements or in accord-
ance with their own authority) from
establishing new tours of duty for
their employees, provided, however,
that the change is intended to be per-
manent at the time that it is made.
§553.14 General rules for determining
compensable hours of work.
(a) Compensable hours of work gen-
erally include all of that time during
which an employee is on duty or on
the employer's premises or at a pre-
scribed workplace, as well as all other
time during which the employee is suf-
fered or permitted to work for the em-
ployer. Such hours thus include all
pre-shift and post-shift activities
which are an integral part of the em-
ployee's principal activity or which are
closely related and to its performance,
such as attending roll call, writing up
and completing reports or tickets, and
washing and re-racking fire hose. It
also includes time which an employee
spends in attending required training
classes. See § 553.7. Time spent away
from the employer's premises under
conditions so circumscribed that they
restrict the employee from effectively
using the time for personal pursuits,
also constitutes compensable hours of
work. For example, a police officer
who is required to remain at home
until summoned to testify in a pending
court case and who must be in a con-
stant state of instant readiness, is en-
gaged in compensable hours of work.
On the other hand. employees who are
confined to barracks while attending
police academies are not on duty
during those times when they are not
in class or at a training session since
they are free to use such time for per-
sonal pursuits. This would also be true
in a forest fire situation where em-
ployees, who have been relieved from
duty and transported away from the
fire line, are, for all practical purposes.
required to remain at the fire camp
because their homes are too far dis-
tant for commuting purposes. Also, a
police officer who has completed his
or her .tour of duty but who is given a
patrol car to drive home and use on
private business, is not working simply
because the radio must be left on so
that the officer can respond to emer-
gency calls. Of course, the time spent
in responding to such calls would be
compensable, exc. ept in those instances
where it is miniscule and cannot, as .an
administrative matter, be recorded for
payroll purposes.
(b) Additional examples of compen-
sable and noncompensable hours of
work are set forth in 29 CFR Part 785
which is fully applicable to employees
for whom the section 7(k) exemption
is claimed except to the extent that it
has been modified below in § 553.15.
§ 553.15 Sleeping and meal time as com-
pensable hours of work.
(a) Where the.employer has elected
to use the section 7(k) exemption,
sleep and meal time cannot be ex-
cluded from compensable hours of
work where (l) the employee is on
duty for less than 24 hours, which is
the general rule applicable to all em-
ployees (29 CFR 785.21) and (2) where
the employee is on duty for exactly 24
hours, which represents a departure
from 29 CFR
(b) Sleep and meal time may, howev-
er, be excluded in the case of fire pro.
tection or law enforcement employees
who are on duty for more than
hours, but only if there is an express
or implied agreement between the em-
ployer and the employee to exclude
such time. In the absence of any such
agreement, sleep and meal time will
constitute hours of work. If, on the
other hand, the agreement provides
for the exclusion of sleep time the
amount of sdch time shall, in no
event, exceed 8 hours, in a 24-hour
period, which is also the amount of
time permitted when the agreement
fails to specify the duration of sleep
time. If such sleep time is interrupted
by a call to duty. the interruption~
must be counted as hours worked, and
if the period is interrupted to such an
extent that the employee cannot get
reasonable night's sleep (which, for
enforcement purposes, means at least
5 hours), the entire time must be
counted as hours of work.
§ 553.16 Work period.
(a) As used in section 7(k), the term
"work period" refers to any estab-
lished and regularly recurring period
of work which, under the terms of the
Act and legislative history, cannot be
less than 7 consecutive days nor more
than 28 consecutive days. Except for
this limitation, the work period can be
of any length, and it need not coincide
with the pay period or with a particu.
lar day of the week or hour of the day.
Once the beginning time of an em-
ployee's work period is established,
however, it remains fixed regardless of
how many hours are worked within
that period. The beginning of the
work period, may, of course, be
changed, provided that the change is
intended to be permanent at the time
that it is made.
(b).An employer may have one work
period applicable to all of its employ-
ecs, or different work periods for dif-
ferent employees or groups of employ.
ecs. Prior approval from the Wage and
Hour Division is not required. The em-
ployer must, however, make some no-
tation in its records which shows the
24 Management information Service
work period for each employee and
which indicates the length of that
period and its starting time.
(c)'For those employees who have a
work period of at least 7 but less than
28 consecutive days, no overtime com-
pensation is required until the ratio
between the number of days in the
work period and the hours worked
during such work period exceeds the
ratio between a work period of 28 days
and 240 hours, at which point all addi-
tional hours are paid for at one and
one-half times the employee's regular
rate of pay.
Cd) The ratio of 240 hours to 28 days
is 8.57143 hours per-day (8.57 round-
ed). Accordingly, overtime compensa-.
tion at a rate of.not less than one and
one-half times the employee's regular
rate of pay must be paid during calen-
dar year .1975 for all hours worked in
excess of the following maximum
hours standards:
Work Period (days) hours
standard
25 ...~ .....................................................................
23 ................ ~ ...............................................................
22 ............................................................. : .......... : ........
21 ............................ ~ .......... : .......................................
19 ...................... .. ......................... : ...............................
240
231
223
214
2O6
197
189
171
163
154
146
.137
129
111
103
94
'86
77
69
§ 553.17. Early relief.
It"is a common practice among em-
ployees engaged in fire protection ac-
tivities to relieve employees on" the
previous shift or tour ,of duty'prior,to
the scheduled starting 'time.. Such
early relief may occur pursuar~t to em-
ployee agreement, either expressed or
implied. This practice will not have
the effect of increasing the number of
compensable hours of work where it is
voluntary on the part of the errrploy-
ecs and does not result, over a period
of time, in their failure to receive
proper compensation for all hours ac-
tually worked, On the other hand, if
the practice is required by the employ-
er the time involved must be added to
the employee's tour of duty and treat-
ed as compensable time.
§ 553.18 Trading time.
Another common practice or agree-
ment among employees engaged in fire
protection or law enforcement activi-
ties is that of substituting for one an-
other on regularly scheduled tours of
duty (or for some part thereof) in
order to permit an employee to absent
himself or herseg,from work to attend
to purely:personal pursuits. This prac-
tice is commonly referred to as "trad-
ing time." Although' the usual rules
for determining hours of work would
require that. the -additional hours
worke~.:by the! substituting employee
be 'counted in computing his or .her
total hours of work, the legislative, his-
tory makes it clear that Congress in-
tended the continued use of "trading
time ..... both within the tour of duty
cycle * * * and from one cycle to an-
other within, the calendar' or fiscal
year without the employer being sub-
ject to [additional] overtime compen-
sation by virtue of the volnntary trad-
ing of time by employees" (Congres-
sional Record, March 28, 1974, Page S
4692). Accordingly, the practice of
"trading time" will be.deemed to have
no effect on hours of work if the'fol-
lowing criteria are"rnet: (a) The trad-
lng of time is done voluntarily by the
employees participating in the pro-
gram and not at the behest' of the em-
ployer; (b) the reason for trading time
is due. not to the e~mployer's business
operations, but to the employee's
desire or need to attend to personal
matter; (c) a record is maintained by
the employer of all time traded by his
employees; (d) the period during
which time is traded and paid back
does not exceed 12 months.
§ 553.19 Time off for excess hours or so-
called "comp time."
(a) As a general rule, all overtime
hours must be paid for in cash and not
in time off. Section 7(k) creates a par-
tial exception to this general rule by
..allowing employers to balance the em-
ployee's hours over a work period.
which, as indicated in § 553.16, may be
longer than a workweek, and to pay
the overtime compensation required
by the Act only if the employee's
hours exceed the total number of
hours established by section ~(k) for
that particular work period. Thus, for
example, if the duration of the em-
ployee's work period is 28 consecutive
days. and he or she works 80 hours in
the first week, but only 60 in the
second week and 50 in each of the
next 2 weeks, no additional overtime
compensation would be required, since
the total number of hours worked does
not exceed 240. Of course, there might
be a State law requiring overtime com-
pensation at some earlier point (e.g.,
for any hours worked in excess of 40
in a week), but that obligation could
be met with "comp time," if comp time
is permissible under State law and if
the wages paid to the employee for all
hours worked during the entire 28-day
tour of duty equal at least the mini-
mum wage set forth in section 6(b) of
the Act (29 U.S.C. 206(b)). Similarly,
an employee whose work period is 1
week could be paid in *'comp time" for
all excess hours up to 60, provided
that comp time is a permissible form
of payment under State law and pro-
.vided, also, that the wages paid to the
employee equal at least the statutory
minimum wage. Such "comp time"
could be taken at any time authorized
by state law or local ordinance.
(b) If the employee in either of the
examples given above works more
than the stated number of hours for a
7-day or 28-day work period, overtime
compensation must be paid at one and
one-half times the employee's regular
rate. In computing the employee's reg-
ular rate, the cash equivalent of any
comp time must be included. See also
§ 553.20.
§ 553.20 The "regular rate".
The rules for computing an employ-
ee's "regular rate." for purposes of the
Act's overtime requirements, are set
forth in 29 CFR Part 778. These rules
are fully applicable~ to employees for
whom the section 7(k) exemption is
claimed, except that wherever the
word "workweek" is used the word
"work period" should be substituted.
§ 553.21 Records to be kept.
The recordkeeping requizements of
the Act are set forth in ,29 CFR Part
516. These requirements are applicable
to public agencies engaged in fire pro-
tection and law enforcement activities.
except that where section ?(k) is
claimed, the records for those employ-
ecs can be kept on a work period, in-
stead of a workweek, basis. In addi-
tion, the records must show, as indi-
cated in § 553.16(b), the work period
for each employee.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration
29 CFR Part 553
Fire Protection and Law Enforcement Employees
of Public Agencies; Study of Average Number of
Hours Worked
AGENCY: Employment Standards Administra-
tion, Labor.
ACTION: Rule-related notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor was
required by the Fair Labor Standards Amend-
ments of 1974 to conduct studies of the average
number of hours in tours of duty worked by fire
protection personnel and by law enforcement
personnel employed by public agencies. Under
the Act, the average number of hours worked by
such employees, if less than 216 hours in a 28-day
work period, determines the overtime standard
which applies to such employees, effective Jan-
uary 1, 1978. The Department designed and
initiated studies of the relevant governments,
including state and local governments. Before
the studies were completed, the Supreme Court
held in National League of Cities v. Usery,
426 U.S. 833 (1976), that firefighting and law
enforcement employees of state and local gov-
ernments (as well as certain other categories of
employees) could not constitutionally be covered
by the minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Depart-
ment finished the studies and based the overtime
hours standards solely on the-al.ara collected from
the federal government. This was challenged on
various grounds, and in Jones v. Donovan,
25 WH Cases 380 (D.D.C. 1981), off'd per
curiam. No. 81-1615 (D.C. Cir. March 2, 1982),
the Court ordered the Department to recompute
the overtime standards by including valid state
and local government data with the federal data.
The Department has now completed this recom-
putation and published the results in the Federal
Register, as required by the 1974 amendments.
DATE: The overtime standard required as a
result of the study took effect on January 1, 1978,
to the extent that it is less than 216 hours on a
work period of 28 consecutive days. The 216-
hour standard became effective by statute on
January 1, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willis J. Nordlund, Director, Division of Pro-
gram Development and Research, Employment
Standards Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone 202-
523-8493.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"
or "Act") requires that premium overtime wages
be paid after 40 hours in a workweek. However,
section 7(k) of the Act sets forth a partial over-
time exemption for fire protection and law
enforcement personnel (including security per-
sonnel in correctional institutions) who are em-
ployed by public agencies. Effective January I,
1978, section 7(k) provides as follows:
No public agency shall be deemed to have vio-
lated (the normal 40-hour overtime standard of
the Act) with respect to the employment of any
employee in fire protection activities or any
employee in law enforcement activities (including
security personnel in correctional institutions) if--
(1) In a work period of 28 consecut(ve days the
employee receives for tours of duty which in the
aggregate exceed the lesser of (A) 216 hours, or
(B) the average number of hours (as determined
by the Secretary pursuant to section 6(c)(3) of the
Fair labor Standards Amendments of 1974) in
tours of duty of employees engaged in such
activities in work periods of 28 consecutive days
in calendar year 1975; or
(21 In the case of such an employee to whom a
work period of at least 7 but less than 28 days
applies, in his work period the employee receives
for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed a
number of hours which bears the same ratio to
the number of consecutive days in his work
period as 216 hours (or if lower, the number of
hours referred to in clause (B) of paragraph (1)
bears to 28 days, compensation at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which he is employed.
The Study referred to in section 7(k) is described
in section 6(c)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1974:
The Secretary of Labor shall in the calendar
year beginning January I, 1976, conduct (A) a
study of the average number of hours in tours of
duty in work periods in the preceding calendar
year of employees (other than employees exempt
from section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 by section 13(b)(20) of such Act) of public
agencies who are employed in fire protection
activities, and (B) a study of the average number
of hours in tours of duty in work periods in the
preceding calendar year of employees (other than
employees exempt from section 7 of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 by section 13(b)(20)
of such Act) of public agencies who are employed
in law enforcement activities (including security
personnel in correctional institutions). The Sec-
retary shall publish the results of each such study
in the Federal Register.
When the study was originally designed, it
excluded those fire protection and law enforce-
ment personnel (including security personnel in
correctional institutions) who, as a result of the
section 13(b)(20) exemption, were not subject to
the special overtime standard in section 7(k).
During the time that the study was being
designed and initiated, the Supreme Court took
action which at first temporarily, and later per-
manently, prevented application of the special
section 7(k) overtime standard to many other fire
protection and law enforcement employees be-
sides those exempted by section 13(b)(20). Spe-
cifically, on December 31, 1974, the day before
the section 7(k) provisions became effective, the
Supreme Court stayed them, as well as regula-
tions which the Department of Labor had issued,
insofar as they applied to State and local govern-
ments. The stay order specifically enjoined
"enforcement by the Secretary of Labor or by
any other person in any Federal court" of the
provisions referred to above with respect to State
and local governments (see 419 U.S. 1321 (Dec.
31, 1974)). Later, in Notional League of Cities'
v. User. v. 426 U.S. 833 (1976), the Supreme Court
struck down as unconstitutional the application
of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime pro-
visions to State and local government employees
engaged in "traditional" government functions,
including firefighters and law enforcement per-
sonnel. As a result of the stay order and the 1976
decision by the Supreme Court, State and local
firefighters and law enforcement personnel were
never subject to section 7(k) (or any other over-
time provisions of the Act).
In light of this action by the Supreme Court,
the Department excluded from the computations
not only the hours of those employees exempt
from the section 7(k) overtime standard by rea-
son of section 13(b)(20), but also the hours of
rank and file employees of state and local gov-
ernment firefighting and law enforcement
agencies.
Fair Labor Standards Act 25
The data with respect to the remaining public
agency employees were published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 44, No. 237, Friday, December 7,
1979. Based on these data, the partial overtime
exemption for employees engaged in fire protec-
tion activities under section 7(k) was determined
to be 216 hours per work period of 28 consecutive
days in calendar year 1975. For employees en-
gaged in law enforcement activities, the average
was determined to be 186 hours per work period
of 28 consecutive days in calendar year 1975.
In Jones v. Donovan, 25 WH Cases 380
(D.D.C. 1981), aff'd per curiam, No. 80-1615
(D.C. Cir. March 2, 1982), the Court held that
the Department has erred in establishing thc
special overtime standards applicable to fire-
fighters and law enforcement personnel under
section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by
failing to take into consideration the hours
worked by state and local government employees
in these areas. The Court determined that, al-
though the Act's overtime pay standard may not
be applied to such state and local government
employees, the average number of hours these
employees work remains relevant in determining
the standard applicable to Federal employees.
The Court ordered the Department to recompute
the overtime standards by counting state and
local data along with the federal data, including
data obtained from the study of state and local
firefighting and law enforcement agencies and
any additional data provided by the plaintiffs
which the Department judged to be valid.
In accordance with the District Court's order, '
the Department has recomputed the average
work hours for public fire protection and law
enforcement employees and the results are as
follows: For employees engaged in fire protec-
tion activities, the average number of hours in
tours of duty in work periods of 28 consecutive
days in 1975 was 212 hours. Consequently, the
partial overtime exemption in section 7(k) for
such employees is changed from 216 hours to 212
hours in a work period of 28 consecutive days (or
a correspondingly lesser number of hours for a
shorter work period).
For employees engaged in law enforcement
activities (including security personnel in correc-
tional institutions), the average number of hours
in tours of duty in work periods of 28 consecu-
tive days was 171 hours. Consequently, the partial
overtime exemption in 7(k) for these employees is
changed from 186 hours to 171 hours in a work
period of 28 consecutive days (or a correspond-
ingly lesser number of hours for a shorter work
period).
As provided in section 6(e)(1)(D) of the Fair
Labor Standard Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-259, 88 Stat. 610), the effective date of these
changes is January 1, 1978. Where any Federal
employee is entitled to additional overtime com-
pensation as a result of the studies described
herein, such overtime compensation shall be paid
retroactively to January I, 1978. The Office of
Personnel Management has taken the position
that this means the first applicable work period
commencing on or after January. 1, 1978.
As a result of these studies, pertinent changes
will be made in 29 CFR Part 553 ("Employees of
Public Agencies Engaged in Fire Protection or
Law Enforcement Activities (Including Security
Personnel in Correctional Institutions)").
26 Management Information Service
Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 6th day
of September, 1983.
Robert B. Collyer,
Deputy Under Secretary.
William M. Otter,
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
Federal Register, Vol, 48, No. 375, Sept. 8, 1984, prises
APPENDIX E.
Record Keeping
Code of Federal Regulation (29 C.F.R. St'cs. $16.1-516.10]
PART 516--RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY
EMPLOYERS
INTRODUCTORY
516.1 Form of records; scope of regulations.
Subpart A--General Requirements
516.2 Employees subject to minimum wage
or minimum wage and overtime provi.
sion~; section 6 or sections 6 and '/ia) ot
the Act.
516.3 Bona fide executive, administrative,
and professional employees (including
academic administrative personnel and
teacher~ in elementary or secondary
schools), and outside sales employees az
referred to in section 13¢a) il) of the
Act--items required. ·.
516.4 Posting of notices.
516.5 I:~ecords to be preserved $ years.
516.6 l~.ecords to be preserved :~ years.
516.'/ Place for keeping records and their
availability for inspection.
516.8 Computations and report~.
516.9 Petitions for exceptions.
516.10 Amendment of regulations.
Chapter V~Wage and Hour Division
INTRODUCTORY
§.516.1 Form of records; scope of regula-
tions.
(a) Form of records. No particular
order or form of records is prescribed
by the regulations in this part. Howev-
er. every employer who is subject to
any of the provisions of the Fair LabPP
Standards Act ot 1938, as amended
(hereinafter referred .to aS-the "Act"),
is required to maintain records con-
raining the information and data re-
quired by the specific sections of this
part.
(b) Scope of regulations. (1) The reg-
ula. tions in this part axe divided into
two subparts. Subpart A. of. th!$ part
contains the requiremqnts applicable
to all employers employing covered
employees, including the general re-
quirements relating to the posti.'ng of
notices, the .preservation and location
of records, and similar general provi-
sions. This subpart also Contains the
requirements applicable to employers
of employees to whom both the mini-
mum'w.age pr0visj0.ns .of section 6 and
the overtime' pay PrOvisions of section
7(a)' of thee Act apply. ~ most covered
employees fall 'within this category,
employers, in most instances, will be
concerned princil~a.lly with the record-
keepihg requirements of Subpart A of
this Part. Secqi0n 516.3 thereof con-
tains the requirements relating to ex-
ecutive, administkative, and profes-
sional employees (including academic
administrative personnel' or teachers
in elementary or secondary schools),
and outside sales employ, ecs.
(2) Subpart B of this paxt deals with
the information and data which must
be kept with respect to employees
(other than executive, administrative,
etc., employees) who are subject to
any of the exemptions provided in the
Act, and with special provisiOns relat-
ing to such matters as deductions from
and additions to wages for "board.
lodging, or other facilities," industrial
homeworkers, employees dependent
upon tips as part of wages, and em-
ployees subject to more than one mini.
mum wage. The sections in Subpart B
of this part require the recording of
more, less, or different items of infor-
marion' or data than required under
the generally applicable recordkeeoing
requirements of Subpart A of this
part.
Subpart A--General Requirements
OMB Co~aOL No.: 1215-001'/. (47 FR 145.
Jan. 5, 1982)
§516.2 Employees subject to minimum
wage or minimum wage and overtime
provisions; section 6 or sections 6 and
7(a) of the Act.
(a) Items required. Every. employer
shall maintain and preserve payroll or
other records containing the following
information and data with respect to
each a~d every employee to whom sec-
tion '6 or both sections 6 and 7(a) of
the Act apply:
(1) Name in full, and on the same
record, the employee's identifying
symbol or number if such is used in
place of name on any time, work, or
payroll records. This shall be .the same
name as that used. for Social Security
record purposes,
¢2) Home address, including zip code,
(3) Date of birth, if under' 19,
(4)'Sex 'and occupation in which em-
plOyed (se!/may be indicated by use of
~he prefixes Mr., Mrs., or Miss),
(5) Time of day and day of week on
which the employee's workweek
begins. If the employee is part of a
work force or employed in or by an es-
tablishment all of whose workers have ~
a workweek beginning at the Same
time on the same day, a single nota-
tion of the time of the day and begin.
ning day of the workweek for the
whole workforce or establishment will
suffice. If, however, any employee or
group of employees has a workweek
beginning and ending at'a different
time, a separate notation shall then be
kept for that employee or group of
employees,
(6)(i) Regular hourly rate of pay for
any week when overtime is worked
and overtime excess compensation is
due under section 7(a) of the Act, (ii)
basis on which wages are paid (such az
"$2 hr."; "$16 day"; "$80 wk."; "$80
wk. plus 5 percent commission on sales
over $800 wk."), and (iii) the amount
and nature of each payment which,
pursuant to section 7(e) of the Act, is
excluded from the "regular rate"
(these records may be in the form of
vouchers or other payment data),
(7) Hours worked each workday and
total hours worked each workweek
(for purposes of this section, a "work-
day" shall be any consecutive 24
hours),
(8) Total daily or weekly straight-
time earnings or wages, that is, the
total earnings or wages due for hours
worked during the workday or work-
week, including all earnings or wages ~.~
due during any overtime worked, but
exclusive of overtime excess compen-
sation,
(9) Total overtime excess compensa-
tion for the workweek, that is, the
excess compensation for overtime
worked which amount is over and
above all straight-time earnings or
wages also earned during overtime
worked,
(10) Total additions to or deductions
from wages paid each pay period.
Every employer making additions to or
deductions from wages shall also
maintain, in individual employee ac-
counts, a record of the dates, amounts,
and nature of the items which make
up the total additions and deductions,
(11) Total wages paid each pay
period,
(12) Date of payment and the pay
period covered by payment.
(b) Records of retroactive payment
of wages. Every employer who makes
retroactive payment of wages or com-
pensation under 'the supervision of the
Administrator pursuant to section
16(c) of the Act, shall:
(1) Record and preserve, as an entry
on his payroll or other pay records,
the amount of such payment to each
employee, the period covered by such
payment, and the date 6f payment. ~
(2) Prepare a report of each such,
payment on the receipt form provided
or authorized by the Wage and Hour
Division, and (i) preserve a copy as
Fair Labor Standards Act 27
part of his records, (ii) deliver a copy
to the employee, and (iii) file the origi-
nal, which shall evidence payment by
the employer and receipt by the em-
ployee, with the Administrator or his
authorized representative within 10
days after payment is made.
(c) Employees working on fixed
schedules. With respect to employees
working on fixed schedules, an em-
ployer may maintain records showing
instead of the hours worked each day
and each week as required by para-
graph (a) (7) of this section, the sched-
ule of daily and weekly hours the em-
ployee normally works, and
(1) In weeks in which an employee
adheres to this $cl~e'dule, indicates by
check mark, statement, or other
method that such hours were in fact
actually worked by him, and
(2) In weeks in which more or less
than the scheduled hours are worked,
shows the exact number of hours
worked each day and each week.
§516.3 Bona fide executive, administra-
tive. and professional employees (in-
cluding academic administrative per-
sonnel and teachers in elementary or
secondary schools), and outside sales
employees as referred to in section
13(a) (1) of the Act--items required.
With respect to persons employed in
a bona fide executive, administrative,
or professional capacity (including em-
ployees employed in the capacity of
academic administrative personnel or
teachers in elementary or secondary
schools), or in the capacity of outside
salesman, as defined in Part 541 of
this chapter (pertaining to so-called
"white collar" employee exemptions),
employers shall maintain and preserve
records containing all the information
and data required by § 516.2(a) except
paragraphs (a) (6) through (10) there-
of, and, in addition thereto the basis
on which wages are paid in sufficient
detail to permit calculation for each
pay period of the employee's total re-
muneration for employment including
fringe benefits and prerequisites. (This
may be shown as "$725 mo .... $165
wk .... $1,200 mo. plus 2 percent com-
mission on gross sales.., on fee basis
per schedule No. 2" with appropriate
addenda such as "plus hospitalization
and insurance plan A," "benefit pack-
age B," "2 weeks' paid vacation," etc.)
[38 FR 7115, Mar. 16, 19731
§ 516.4 Posting of notices.
Every employer employing any em-
ployees who are (a) engaged in com-
merce or in the production of goods
for commerce or (b) employed in an
enterprise engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce,
and who are not specifically exempt
from both the minimum wage provi-
sions of section 6 and the overtime
provisions of section 7(a) of the Act,
shall post and keep posted such no-
tices pertaining to the applicability of
the Act, as shall be prescribed by the
Wage and Hour Division, in conspicu-
ous places in every establishment
where such employees are employed
so as to permit them to observe readily
a copy on the way to or from their
place of employment.
§ 516.5 Records to be preserved 3 years.
Each employer shall preserve for at
least 3 years:
(a) Payroll records. From the last
date of entry, all those payroll or
other records containing the employee
infbrmation and data required under
any of the applicable sections of this
part, and
(b) Certificates, agreements, plans,
notices, etc. From their last effective
date, all written:
(1) Collective bargaining agreements
relied upon for the exclusion of cer-
tain costs under section 3(m) of the
Act,
(2) Collective bargaining agree-
merits, under section 7(b)(1) or 7(b)(2)
of the Act, and any amendments or ad-
ditions thereto,
(3) Plans, trusts, employment con-
tracts, and collective bargaining agree-
merits under section 7(e) of the Act,
(4) Individual contracts or collective
bargaining agreements under section
7(f) of the Act. Where such contracts
or agreements are not in writing, a
written memorandum summarizing
the terms of each such contract or
agreement,
(5) Written agreements or memoran-
da summarizing the Terms of oral
agreements or understandings under
section 7(g) or 7(j) of the Act, and
(6) Certificates and notices listed or
named i.n any applicable section of
this part.
(c) Sales and purchase records. A
record of (1) total dollar volume of
sales or business, and (2) total volume
of goods purchased or received during
such periods (weekly, monthly, quar-
teriy, etc.) and in such form as the em-
ployer maintains in the ordinary
course of his business.
§ 51,6.6 Records to be preserved 2 years.
ia) Supplementary basic records:
Each employer required to maintain
records under this part shall preserve
for a period of at least 2 years.
(1) Basic employment and earnings
records. From the date of last entry,
all basic time and earning cards or
sheets of the employer on which are
entered the daily starting and stop-
ping time of individual employees, or
of separate work forces, or the individ-
ual employee's daily, weekly, or pay
period amounts of work accomplished
(for example, units produced) when
those amounts determine in 'whole or
in part the pay period earnings or
wages of those employees.
(2) Wage rate tables. From their last
effective date. all tables or schedules
of the employer which provide the
piece rates or other rates used in com-
puting straight-time earnings, wages,
or salary, or overtime excess computa-
tion, and
(3) Worktime schedule~. From their
last effective date. all schedules or
tables of the employer which establish
the hours and days of employment of
individual employees or of separate
work forces.
(b) Order. shipping, and billing
records: Each employer shall also pre-
serve for at least 2 years from the last
date of entry the originals or true
copies of any and all customer orders
or invoices received, incoming or out-
going shipping or deliverY records, az
well as all bills of lading and all bil-
lings to customers (not including indi-
vidual sales slips, cash register tapes
or the like) which the employer re-
tains or makes in the course of his
business or operations.
(c) Records of additions to or deduc-
tions from wages paid: Each employer
who makes additions to or deductions
from wages paid shall preserve for at
least 2 years from the date of last
entry.
(1) Those records of individual em-
ployee accounts referred to in
§ 516.2(a)(10),
(2) All employee purchase orders, or
assignments made by employees, all
copies of addition or deduction state-
merits furnished employees, and
(3) All records used by the employer
in determining the original cost. oper-
ating and maintenance cost. and de-
preciation and interest charges, if such
costs and charges are involved in the
additions to or deductions from wages
paid.
(d) Each employer shall preserve for
at least two years the records he
makes of the kind described in § 516.32
which explain the basis for payment
of any wage differential to employees
of the opposite sex in the same estab-
lishment.
§516.7 Place for keeping records and
their availability for inspection.
(a) Place of records. Each employer
shall keep the records required by the
regulations in this part safe and acces-
sible at the place or places of employ-
ment, or at one or more established
central recordkeeping offices where
such records are customarily main.
rained. Where the records are main.
28 Management Information Service
tained at a central recordkeeping
office, other than in the place or
places of employment, such records
shall be made available within '/2
hours following notice from the Ad-
ministrator or his duly authorized and
designated representative.
(b) Inspection o! records. All records
shall be open at any time to inspection
and transcription by the Administra-
tor or his duly authorized and desig-
nated representative.
§ 516.8 Computations and reports.
Each employer required to maintain
records under this part shah make
such extension, recomputation, or
transcription of his records and shall
submit to the Wage and Hour Division
such reports concerning persons em-
ployed and the wages, hours, and
other conditions and practices of em-
ployment set forth in his records as
the Administrator or his duly author-
ized and designated representative
may request in writing.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 1215-
0006)
[32 PR 9551, July 1. 1967, a~ amended at 49
FR 18294, Apr. 30, 1984]
§ 516.9 Petitions for exceptions.
(a) Submission of petitions for relief.
Any employer or group of employers
who, due to peculiar conditions under
which he or they must operate, desires
authority to maintain records in a
manner other than required in this
part, or to be relieved of preserving
certain records for the period specified
in the regulations in this part, may
submit a written petition to the Ad-
ministrator setting forth the authority
desired and the reasons therefor.
(b) Action on petitions. If, on review
of the petition and after completion of
any necessary investigation supple-
mentary thereto, the Administrator
shall find that the authority prayed
for, if granted, will not hamper or
interfere with enforcement of the pro-
visions of the Act or any regulation or
or. ders issued thereunder, he may then
grant such authority but limited by
such conditions as he may determine
are requisite, and subject to subse-
quent revocation. Where the authority
granted hereunder is sought to be re-
yoked for failure to comply with the
conditions determined by the Adminis-
trator to be requisite to its existence,
the employer or groups of employers
involved shall be notified in writing of
the facts constituting such failure and
afforded an opportunity to achieve or
demonstrate compliance.
(c) Cor~pli~nce after submission of
petition~4Th~ submission of a petition
or the dilay of the Administrator in
acting upbn such petition shall not re.
lieve any employer or group of em-
ployers from any obligations to
comply with all the requirements of
the regulations i~ this part applicable
to him or them. However, the 'Admin-
istrator shall give notice of the denial
of any petition with due promptness.
§ 516.10 Amendment of regulations.
(a) Petitions for revision of regula.
tions. Any person wishing a revision of
any. of the terms of the regulations in
this part with respect to records to be
kept by employers may submit to the
Administrator a written petition set-
ting forth the changes desired and the
reasons for proposing them.
(b) Action on such petitions. If upon
inspection of the petition the Adminis-
trator believes that reasonable
grounds are set forth for amendment
of the regulations in this part, the Ad-
ministrator shall either schedule a
hearing with due notice to interested
persons, or make other provisions for
affording interested persons an oppor-
tunity to present data, views, or argu-
ments relating to any proposed
changes.
"
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION
23.412.2(5), STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED
DEVELOP}~NT AREA (PDA) OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 24, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota, a hearing will be
held on the amendment of Section 23.412.2(5) of the Mound Zoning Code.
Section 23.412.2(5) presently reads in part, "All housing types included
as permitted uses in the residential district may be included in the
P~D.A." Under the proposed amendment, the section will read in part,
"All housing types included as permitted uses in the residential districts
may be included in the P.D.A," This change will permit a variety of
housing types in Planned Development Areas, subject to the density
restrictions of the underlying zoning district. For example, in the R-1
zone, a P.D.A. could include single family, two family, townhouse or
condominium units a't a maximum density of one unit' per 10,000 square feet
of lot area.
Ail persons appearing at said hearing will be given the opportunity
to be heard.
The Planning Commission
Publish in The Laker June lOi~ 1985
June 17, 1985
CITY of MOUND
~r~°", MAYV~OOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
F ROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER~..~
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS
A couple of weeks ago we had a staff meeting with the representatives from
Balboa regarding their plans for the former Tonka Building. It was, at
least for me, an exciting meeting since they shared some really positive
progress toward utilizing the facility and again generating a number of jobs
out of that site.
One area they sought assistance in was that of Industrial Revenue Bonds
(IDB's), for the purpose of remodellng the plant for these future users.
Because Mound has not used IDB's much in the past, the City is lumped
into an IDB user category called non-entitlement. In 1985, out of the State's
total allocation, 106.O million dollars went to non-entitlement cities.
Unforturnately, for us at least, it was fully committed by the end of March
and thus no authority could be made available to Mound.
On the other hand, a total of 406.0 million dollars was allocated to the 88
largest users of IDB's. Many of these cities do have excess allocations
and a great market for swapping allocations has now developed.
Balboa has verbally requested about 2.9 million dollars. Last week I wrote
to the 88 cities to see if it could be possible that someone might have an
excess allocation that ~ey would share with Mound if the project is fully
developed this year ....
Happily, it only took three days until I had received calls from Becker,
Cloquet and Brooklyn Center. saying they had excess IDB funding and would
consider sharing it with us. I expect we will hear from several other cities
as well.
What I think it all means is that the IDB problem is going to be behind us,
thus putting 'the problem into Balboa's lap and eliminating financing
availability as a concern. In the end, I think this is going to work out
pretty nice.
Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent out, plus an example of what an
IDB Sharing Agreement looks like.
JE:fc
enc.
/3-2,5-
CITY of MOUND
L~C ,~r,:C: LA!NNESOT,t,, 5,5364
,6 2! 472-~55
June ?, 1985
I don't know how else to start this letter except by.saying the
City of Mound needs your help.: Somehow, some way we need to come
up with about $2.9 million in available Industrial Revenue
Bonding Authority in the next 60-90 days.
Please let me explain. Mound, as most of you know, suffered a
severe economic 3olt at the end of 1983 when Tonka Toys decided
to move its operation to E1 Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico. 814
people lost their jobs (many after 20 years) and the City found
itself staring at.an empty 408,000 square foot building.
The City's ability to determine a long-term use and a re-
employment plan in the plant was handicapped by the fact that
Tonka decided to sell the facility to a southern California
developer and the two went through prolonged negotiations before
the sale was finally completed this past Spring.
Since then, the new-.owner, Balboa Minnesota Co. has tried to
develop a marketing pIan to encourage growing, smaller companies
to utilize the facility.
At this point, they appear to have been successful with eight or
nine separate companies ready, in one stage or another, to
consider lease agreements. Between these companies nearly 500
jobs could be created. The potential reuse of this facility is
very exciting' news to all of us.
As it is for every City in Minnesota, the outside push is how can
the City of Mound help in providing assistance to Balboa to
remodel the facility to meet the needs of the varied tenants.
That is where the $2.9 million comes in.
Balboa has put together construction plans and ideas that are the
Page 2
Mr. James Lacina
June 7, 1985
Balboa has put together construction plans and ideas that are tne
basis for this request. The problem is the cost of the financing
to remodel without IDB's just is not competitive and witnout i5
most interest will probably fade away. (The building's location
is not the greatest and it is 30 years old.)
Thus our request is to try and put together a number of tentative
committments from cities for $2.9 million in IDB assistance. We
realize these are part of your economic lifeblood, as it appears
to be for us. Because it seems very unlikely that any City could
or would, at this early date in the year, provide the entire
amount, we are trying to put together Joint Powers Agreements to
secure amounts of anything from $100,000 to $500,000.
It appears that many times small blocks of money often remain
which cannot be effectively used due to the minimum size required
to De financially effective with IDB's.
We have explored, with the State, the use of their IDB resources,
but they have declined to assist because in come cases, companies
that want to move into Mound are moving from other locations
within the Metropolitan area. State Economic Developmen~ Gran~
Funds are also not being provided for the same reason.
The discretionary IDB pot was explored, but all $106 million
available to non-entitlement cities in 1985 have now been fully
committed and to wait until 1986 would mean the sure loss of tne
great opportunities we appear to have before us.
The Mayor and myself would be willing to attend your City Council
meeting to discuss this if you feel it would be beneficial.
In conclusion, thank you for your consideration and I look
forward to nearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jon Elam
City Manager
JE:fc
CC:
David Hultquist
Greg Gustafson
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND
ALLOCATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into aso. f this ~6th' day of ........ March .... ,
1985, by and between the City of New Brighton, almunicipal corporation
in Ramsey County, Minnesota ("New'Brighton") and the City of Becket, a
municipal corporation in Sherburne County, Minnesota ("Becker"):
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual undertakings set forth herein, New
Brighton and Becker agree as follows:
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the powers granted to
New Brighton and Becker by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, and Laws
1984, Chapter 582 (collectively, "Act"). The purpose of this Agreement
is to enable New Brighton to issue its industrial development revenue
bonds ("Bonds") for.an approved project or projects pursuant to an
allocation made pursuant to the Act to Becker as an entitlement issuer
under the Act. ~
II.
As used in this Agreement, the terms
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
"entitlement issuer,"
"local issuer,"
"allocation,"
"bonds," and
"project"
have the meanings given them by the Act and by Minnesota Statutes,.
Chapter 474. The term "Authority" means the Minnesota Department of
Energy and Economic Development.
III.
1. Becket has received a final certified allocation as an en-
titlement issuer in the amount of $23,168,629.00. New Brighton is a
local issuer, and has received a ~final certified allocation in the
amount of $2,060,444.00.
2. New BriGhton anticipates granting preliminary approval for a
project or projects in the amount of $2,060,444.00.
3. New Brighton desires to use a portion of the Becker allocation
in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000.00, for eligible projects
intended to benefit New Brighton and its residents, as well as the
local economy.
4. Becker finds it is desirable and in its interests to make
available to New Brighton from Becker's unused allocation the sum of
$5,000,000.00.
IV.
1. In order to induce Becker to enter int° this Agreement, New
Brighton represents and agrees as follows:
a)
New Brighton has before it a proposal or proposals for
a project or projects requiring Bonds in an amount of
at least $5,000,000.00 in excesz of i~s allotment;
b)
New Brighton intends to issue Bonds for'said project or
projects prior to December. 31, 1985;
c)
d)
New Brighton will.deliver to Becker on or before August
15, 1985, or the Authority on or before ~eptember 1,
1985, the monetary deposit and notice of intent re-
quired by the Act in order to preserve the allocation
contemplated by this Agreement, or any portion thereof;
New Brighton will and hereby does indemnify BeCket for
all legal, administrative, and other costs and'expenses
associated with the transactions contemplated hereby,
and hereby releases and holds harmless Becker'from any
claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of the
transactions contemplated hereby;
-2-
e)
New Brighton will timely and promptly notify Backer of
all proceedings relating to the approval of a Droject
or projects and the issuance of Bonds therefor.
f)
g)
New Brighton agrees to give the City of Becket first
priority with respect to any excess allocation New
Brighton may have during the year .1986, and if such
allocations are continued, the years 1987, 1988, 1989,
and 1990. New Brighton further agrees to timely notify
Becker in writing in each of said years as to the
availability of an excess iallocation. The total amount
of excess allocation made available to Becker under
this provision shall not exceed $5,000,000.00, unless
modified by future agreement of the parties.
New Brighton agrees~.that, it will inform Becker. in
writing by August 15, 1985, of 'its intent to utilize
all or any portion of the allocation contemplated by
this Agreement.
New Brighton agrees that if the monetary deposit and
notice of intent required by paragraph l(c) above,
and/or the letter of intent required by paragraph l(g)
above, are not delivered in accordance with the pro-
visions of said paragraphs, Backer's allocation as-
signed to New Brighton hereunder Shall revert to
Becker, and New Brighton shall remain liable for all of
Becker's costs and disbursements as provided in para-
graph l(d) above.
i)
New Brighton agrees that any portion of the allocation
assigned to New Brighton hereunder not included in the
letter of intent to utilize required in paragraph l(g)
above, shall revert to Backer pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
2. In recognition of its undertakings under this Agreement,
Backer represents and agrees as follows:
a)
b)
Becker will promptly and timely submit to the Authority
all documents, deposits, and other papers necessary to
carry out the transaction contemplated hereby, provided
that Becker is given a reasonable amount of time, not
less than five (5) business days, to perform such
functions.
Becker represents that it has the necessary amounts of
uncommitted allocation to enable it to enter into this
Agreement;
c)
Backer will use its best efforts to inform New Brighton
of any modification of its allocation or of any other
facts coming to its attention which may materially
-3-
affect its ability to carry out and give effect to the
transaction contemplated hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREBY, New Brighton and Becker have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their, respective duly authorized officers
as of the date first written above. '
CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON
City Clerk
Attest:
~'~" ~lerk
City Man~er
CITY OF. BECKER
-4-
AGENDA
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
June 20, 1985
Wayzata City Hall
7:30 p.m.
Call to order; present, absent staff.
Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of May
16, 1985.
Reading and approval of minutes of special meeting of May
23, 1985.
Approval or amendment of June 20, 1985 agenda.
Hearing of permit applications:
A. 85-59 Minnetonka Moorings - maintenance
dredging of 1700 cubic yards of sediment, Sec. 34BC, Snug Harbor
Yacht Club, south shore of Gideons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of
Shorewood.
B. 85-70 James Cox - 77 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21DAC, Interlachen Channel,
Lake Minnetonka, .City of Tonka Bay.
C. 85-71 Milan McCarthy - 43 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26AC, Lower Lake - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Greenwood.
D. 85-72 James Perry - 55 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 5CC, Maxwell Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Orono.
E. 85-73 C.J. England - 60 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20CD, Upper Lake - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Orono.
F. 85-74 John Walker - 22 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion proection, Sec. 8CB, North Arm - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Orono.
G. 85-75 Mark Schultz - 40 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 13BAC, Harrison Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Mound.
H. 85-76 Kenneth E. Patz - 25 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 13BAC, Harrison Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Mound.
I. 85-77 Gary Benson - 150 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 31AAC, Smithtown Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Shorewood.
J. 85-78 Kenneth Hall - 110 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 31AAC, Smithtown Bay -
Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood.
K. 85-79 Gary A. Thompson - 59 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 28BD, Upper Lake - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay.
L. 85-80 John Packard - sand blanket, Sec. 26DAC,
St. Alban's Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Greenwood.
M. 85-81 Lawrence J. Gardner - 140 lineal feet of
rip rap.shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 8, North Arm - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Orono.
N. 85-82 Richard Duvick - "After-the-fact"
shoreline alteration consisting of wooden retaining wall,
dredging, floodplain fill, Sec. 26BDB, Priest Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista.
O. 85-83 John R. Yunger - "After-the-fact"
grading and drainage plan for a small retail development, Section
34BD, Shaughnessy Circle, City of Long Lake.
P. 85-84 Phil Eder Enterprises - "After-the-fact"
lake setback variance for an existing gazebo at Stonewings
restaurant, Sec. 35BB, Excelsior Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of
Excelsior.
Q. 85-85 . Gary E. Briggs - fill placement next to
DNR Wetland No. 741, Sec. 4CBA, south of Hwy 12 and east of
Holdridge Terrace, City of Wayzata.
R. 85-86 Gary E. Grenzer - fill placement to
approximately 40 feet from front property line, Sec. 32BAA, east
of the intersection of Dunkirk Lane and 12th Ave. No., City of
Plymouth.
S. 85-87 Housing Alliance, Inc. - grading and
drainage plan for a senior citizen residential housing facility,
Sec. 23AC, south of Hwy 7 and east of Shady Oak Road, City of
Minnetonka.
-2-
T. 85-88 Driftwood Shores Homeowners Assn. -
dredging to remove silt deposits, Sec. 13CA, Harrisons Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Mound.
U. 85-89 Carlson Properties, Inc. - grading and
drainage plan for Carlson Center project involving fill,
excavation and construction of stormwater ponds, City of
Minnetonka and Plymouth, various locations east of 1-494, west of
Parkers Lake Rd and north of Hwy 12.
V. 85-90 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission -
Maple Plain Interceptor - sanitary sewer, various locations
between Maple Plain and Long Lake, generally running along the
southern .ROW of Hwy 12.
W. 85-91 'City of Richfield - upgrading the east
Frontage Road of Hwy. 77 (Cedar Ave.), Sec. 25, east Frontage Road
of TH77, City of Richfield.
X. 85-92 W.M. "Gene" Tomlinson - grading and
drainage plan for "Long Lake West Industrial Park", Sec. 33AD,
south of Hwy 12 and west of Willow Dr., City of Long Lake.
Y. 85-93 James L. Jordan - 100 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24DC, Carsons Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Deephaven.
Z. 85-94 Chuck Larson - 80 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 27AC, Halsted Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City 0f Minnetrista.
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
May 16, 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, May 16, 1985, at the
St. Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Managers present:
Cochran, Lehman, Miller,
McWethy, Spensley, and Thomas
Manager absent:
Andre
Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Mahady and Macomber.
Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Spensley, that the
minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 1985 be approved as
distributed. Upon vote the motion carried.
Approval of Permit Applications
The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated
May 9, 1985 indicatingi'that the following applications comply with
the applicable standards of the District and recommending approval
on the terms and conditions as set forth in that written
memorandum.
84-120
Bob Pierce - grading and drainage plan for an
18-unit apartment building, Sec. 23ACA,
southwest corner of Co. Road 19 and Glen Road,
City of Shorewood.
85-44
85-45
85-46
85-48
85-50
85-52
85-54
8'5-61
85-62
85-63
85-64
R. F. Oorlog and J. Flatz - 100 lineal feet of
rip rap shoreline erosion protection along two
neighboring lots, Sec. 8BCC, North Arm - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Orono.
Sam Marfield - 50 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 9DBB,
Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono.
Paul Anderson - 80 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 22DDA,
Halsteds Bay - Lake Minnetonka, ~ity 0~_f Mound.
Thomas Sween - 135 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 16BBB,
Crystal Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono.
W. J. Gotschall - 130 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 6BD,
southeast shore of Smithtown Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Victoria.
City of Greenwood - 30 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 26DB,
Greenwood Circle, St. Albans Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Greenwood.
Denny Johns6n - 65 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 18B, West
Arm Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound.
Richard Ogle - 83 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21CAA,
Carmens Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono.
The'iLandings - 930 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BB,
Painters Creek - Lake Minnetonka, City of
MinnetriSta.
E. Allan Reay - 130 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BB,
Painters Creek - Lake Minnetonka, City of
Minnetrista.
Russell Fischer - 123 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BBB,
Painters Creek - Jennings Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista.
-2-
85-65
Jack E. West - 100 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 12BBB,
Painters Creek - Jennings Bay - Lake
Minnetonka, City of Minnetrista.
85-66
A. H. (Skip) Jewett - 100 lineal feet of rip
rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 20DBC,
Carmens Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Orono.
85-67 J.M. Weisman - 80 lineal feet of rip rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 24BDA, Cooks
Bay - Lake Minnetonka, ~it~.of Mound.
The Engineer advised the Managers that he recommended removal
of the conditions proposed in the written memorandum for Permits
85-52 and 85-67. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that
the foregoing applications be approved as recommended by the
Engineer, with deletion of conditions contained in the ~ritten
memorandum for Permits 85-52 and 85-67. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Super America Stations, Inc. - grading and drainage plan for the
construction of a gas station, Sec. 13CC, 5377 Shoreline
Boulevard, Lost Lake - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound 84-104
The Engineer reported that the grading and drainage plan
before the Board was for a new site 600' further west than the
site reviewed by the Board in June, 1984. The Engineer advised
that the new plan provides adequate erosion control measures and
recommended that the applicant be required to control peak
one-year discharge rates from the site and to provide for removal
of floatable materials with a permit to be issued upon receipt of
plans showing compliance with these conditions. The applicant was
present and indicated that these additional conditions were
acceptable to the applicant. It was moved by Miller, seconded by
Thomas, that the application be approved with the foregoing
conditions as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Knollwood West Partners - grading and drainage plan for the
redevelopment of a carwash site into retail and office space, Sec.
18DDC, southern edge of Knollwood Plaza north of Hwy. 7 and east
of Minnehaha Creek, City of St. Louis Park 85-58
The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and
drainage plan approval for redevelopment of a car wash site into
retail and office space. The Engineer advised the Managers that
the peak rate of discharge from the site is being reduced from
present conditions. The Engineer further advised the Managers
that the proposal involves filling approximately 0.05 feet of the
-3-
100-year flood plain and that this filling was needed to create a
positive drainage to the detention pond on the site. Roger Nelson
appeared on behalf of the applicant and advised the board that the
alternative to the small amount of filling proposed would be
construction of a retaining wall which he believed would create a
safety hazard at the site. The Engineer recommended approval of
the application with the condition that the weir be relocated from
the location proposed by the applicant. The Engineer explained
that relocation would provide for more complete water quality
treatment but that, as relocated, the weir would treat less than
all of the runoff fr6m the site. It was moved by Lehman, seconded
by Miller, that the application be approved as recommended by the
Engineer. Discussion then followed with respect to the
possibility of treating all of the runoff from the site.
Following discussion, Manager Lehman amended his motion to approve
the application on the condition that the pond be extended to the
weir and the paved surface be reduced to accommodate the expanded
pond. Manager Miller seconded the amended motion. Upon vote the
motion carried.
Harry E. Olson, Jr. - raise foundation of an existing cottage and
fill entire lot to a higher elevation, Sec. 18CD, West Arm Rd.
East, West Arm Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Spring Park. 85-55
The Engineer reviewed the proposal to fill a lot with an
existing cabin and raise the cabin elevation. The Engineer stated
that approximately ~05 acre-feet of fill would be placed below
.elevation 931.5 on'this lot. Mr. Harry Olson, the present owner
of the property, explained that the property was a family cabin
recently repurchased by the family and that higher grades had been
previously established on the adjacent properties to the east and
by a City drainage ditch to the west of the property, and that
those properties drained their surface water runoff onto this
property, rendering the present cabin unusable. The Managers
noted that this proposed filling below elevation 931.5 was
contrary to the District's requirement prohibiting filling below
that elevation but noted that this particular situation involved
an existing building which was being rendered unusable by the
surface water drainage patterns to which development adjacent to
the site had contributed. The Managers further noted that the
lowest elevation on the site at present was approximately 931.1
and that minimum filling of the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka was
proposed by the applicant. Managers noted that existing drainage
patterns constituted a unique and unusual hardship for Mr. Olson,
for which he was not responsible. Noting all of the foregoing
conditions, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the
application be approved subject to the condition that filling on
this site not exceed and be tied into the elevations on the
adjacent properties and that the filling not inhibit surface Water
drainage on other properties. Upon vote the motion carried.
-4-
It was then moved by Miller, seconded by Thomas, that the
Engineer review the history of adjacent property development
including any permit review which had been conducted by the
District and that the Engineer report back the findings of such
investigation at the next regular meeting.
Mr. Ken Adolph of Shoell and Madson was present on behalf of
Mr. Olson. Mr. Adolph stated that he was also the City Engineer
for the City of Spring Park. Mr. Adolph stated that it was his
view that it was not clear whether that fill w~s placed on the
adjacent properties below elevation 931.5. Mr. Adolph stated that
in no case had the city intentionally avoided permit requirements
of the District.
Robert and Adele Biernat - grading and drainage plan for Adele's
Frozen Custard, Sec. 35BDB, 800 Excelsior Blvd., City of Excelsior.
85-60
The Engineer reviewed the application for redevelopment of a
.43 acre site in Excelsior. The Engineer advised that the
original plan did not propose water quality control but that a
revised plan now proposed adequate water quality control using a
portion of the city right-of-way. The Engineer recommended
approval. The applicants appeared and reviewed the project with
the board. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Lehman, that the
application be approved as recommended by the Engineer with a
permit to issue upon staff receipt and approval of a revised plan
for water quality and calculation of storage volumes. Upon vote
the motion carried.
Citizen Inquiry
Chairman Cochran noted that Mr. and Mrs. vonLorenz from the
City of St. Louis Park"were present and that no other members of
the public were present'in connection with permit applications.
The Chairman called upon Mr. and Mrs. vonLorenz at this time.
Mr. and Mrs. vonLorenz inquired with respect to the District's
jurisdiction over existing catch basins on Meadowbrook Lane.
Mrs. vonLorenz stated that the city has cleaned the catch basins
but has not removed debris from the vicinity. Manager Thomas
requested the Engineer to review the site with the vonLorenzs to
determine the facts of the matter and to report back to the board
at the next regular meeting. The Managers thanked the vonLorenzs
for bringing this matter to the attention of the Board of Managers.
Robert Lund - 30 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion
protection and 8 lineal feet of large boulder steps, Sec. 24BDD,
Cooks Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. 85-47
The Engineer advised that the rip rap application'has been
revised by the applicant to keep the rip rap within five feet
-5-
waterward of the ordinary high water level and therefore meets
applicable District criteria. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by
Lehman, that the application be approved. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Our Lady of Grace Church - grading and drainage plan for an
addition to an existing church, Sec. 28DA, Eden Road west of Hwy.
100, City of Edina. 85-57
The Engineer reviewed the existing grading and drainage plan
for a proposed addition to Our Lady of Grace Church. The Engineer
explained that the applicant was first advised by the City of
Edina that no District permit was required and that after the
applicant became aware of the permit requirements, there was
uncertainty as to whether the project was located within the new
legal boundary of Nine Mile Creek or of Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District. The Engineer explained that the applicant, once aware
of permit requirements, has made significant efforts to.comply
with the District's requirements and that exhibits are
forthcoming. The Engineer further explained that there was
adequate space on the site to provide for on-site surface water
management as required by the District's regulations. The
Engineer further explained that because of these circumstances,
construction was scheduled to commence and recommended issuance of
a permit upon receipt of plans showing compliance with the
District's standards for on-site drainage control. It was moved
by Miller, seconded'by Lehman, that the permit be issued upon
receipt and approval by the Engineer of plans consistent with the
District's standards. Upon vote the motion carried.
Minnetonka Moorings - maintenance dredging of 1700 cubic yards-of
sediment, Sec. 34BC, Snug Harbor Yacht Club, south shore of
Gideons Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. 85-59
The Engineer reviewed the application for maintenance
dredging at the Snug Harbor Yacht Club. The Engineer advised the
Managers that revised exhibits had been prepared at the request of
the Engineer but that the exhibits do not yet meet District
standards. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Spensley, that the
application be tabled until adequate exhibits had been received by
the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
Frank Spartz - "after-the-fact' retaining wall shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 8AC, Bantas Point, Grays Bay, Lake Minnetonka,
City of Minnetonka. 85-14
The Engineer advised that a revised plan has been submitted
by the applicant showing a single set of sheet pile being driv. en
an unspecified distance from the existing shoreline. It was moved
by Miller, seconded by Spensley, that the application be
-6-
tabled until the applicant has complied with the prior action of
the board requiring the applicant to remove the sheet pile from
the bed of Lake Minnetonka. Upon vote the motion carried.
City of Mound- dredge channel and cove area, Sec. 13BAA, D~
Cove - Jenninqs Bay - Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound. ~85-~
The Engineer reviewed the application for channel dredging.
The Engineer explained that the applicant proposes dredging a 40
foot channel with an additional area near the docks measuring
180 x 40 feet. The Engineer explained that the'docking area has
25 docks, 20 of which are leased to the public by the city. The
Engineer further stated that the shoreline near the docking area
is in need of rip rap shoreline erosion protection. The Engineer
recommended redUcing the authorized width of dredging from 40 to
20 feet. The Engineer reviewed the District's rule on dredging
which authorizes dredging to obtain reasonable navigational access
to riparian lands in addition to maintenance of existing
channels. The Engineer recommended approval of the application
with the width modified to 20 feet and the requirement that the
applicant rip rap the adjacent shoreline area. It was moved by
Miller, seconded by Thomas, that the application be approved
subject to the foregoing conditions. .Upon vote the motion
carried, Managers Spensley and Miller voting in the negative.
City of Mound - maintenance dredging, Sec. 13CAD, Harrisons/B~-~
Lake Minnetonka, City of Mound.
The Engineer reviewed the~application of the City of Mound
for maintenance dredging on the south shore of Harrisons Bay. The
Engineer recommended the placement of rip rap at the adjacent
shoreline in connection with the project. It was moved by Mil~er,
seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as submitted
with the additional requirement that rip rap be placed at the
existing shoreline. Upon vote the motion carried.
Randy Asplund - 50 foot lake setback variance, Sec. 30, Upper Lake
- Lake Minnetonka, City of Shorewood. 85-49
The Engineer recommended approval of the application for a
variance from the District's setback requirement upon receipt of a
revised exhibit showing setback as measured from the ordinary
high-water mark from 929.4. It was moved by McWethy, seconded by
Miller, that the application be approved subject to the foregoing
condition. Upon vote the motion carried.
Marc Hanson - 180 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 21DDC, Minnehaha Creek east of Yosemite Ave. and
south of Vermont Street~ City of St. Louis Park. 85-53
The Engineer advised that the applicant has submitted revised
drawings as requested by the Engineer and recommended approval of
-7-
the proposed rip rap placement to correct existing erosion at this
location with 'a permit to issue upon receipt of a letter from the
applicant agreeing to use Class II or larger rip rap and
specifying the type and manufacturer of geotextile fabric that
will be used. The Engineer further recommended that the applicant
use Class III rip rap or a milder slope. It was moved by McWethy,
seconded by Miller, that the application be approved subject to
the foregoing conditions.. Upon vote the motion carried.
Church of the Holy Comforter - grading and drainage plan for a
church including a driveway and parking lot, Sec. 10CCB, directly
west of 1-494, north of County Rd. 16 and south of the BN railroad
tracks, City of Minnetonka. 85-56
The Engineer reviewed a grading and drainage plan for a
church on a 7.33 acre site in the City of Minnetonka. The
Engineer advised that the project is consistent with the City's
storm water management plan for rate control. The Engineer
further advised that quality is provided by a number of'downstream
wetlands prior to entering Minnehaha Creek. The Engineer
recommended approval of the project as submitted. It was moved by
Thomas, seconded by Miller, that the application be approved as
recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
J. F. Fleischhacker - 90 lineal feet of shoreline improvements
involving the excavation of the existing shoreline, Sec. 21 CAA,
The Narrows, Lafayette Bay/Upper Lake, Lake Minnetonka. 85-68
The Engineer reviewed the application for removal of some
existing rip rap and excavation within the 100-year floodplain of
Lake Minnetonka. The Engineer explained the applicant's concern
over the high lake levels and rapid erosion rate and stated that
excavation to an existing layer of sand beneath the applicant's
rip rap would provide adequate protection to the shoreline. The
Engineer further stated, that the applicant's neighbor has used
this method of shoreline improvement with favorable results. The
Engineer recommended approval as submitted. It was moved by
Thomas, seconded by Lehman, that the application be approved as
recommended by the Engineer.~ Upon vote the motion carried.
Roger Dehring - 200 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 28 BAD, southeast of Locke Point, Upper Lake,
Lake Minnetonka, City of Tonka Bay 85-69
The Engineer reviewed the application to rip rap 200 lineal
feet of shoreline on Upper Lake of Lake Minnetonka. The Engineer
advised that the application was consistent with existing District
standards and recommended approval. It was moved by Thomas,
seconded by Miller, that the application be approved as
recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
-8-
Treasurer's Report
Manager Cochran called upon Steve Stewart of Robert J. Lapic,
CPA, to present the monthly Treasurer's Report. Mr. Stewart
distributed the Treasurer's Report dated May 16, 1985, a copy of
which is attached hereto. Following review of the report, and the
funds available for investment, it was moved by Thomas, seconded
by McWethy, that the report be accepted and approved by the Board
and the bills be paid as set forth in that report and that the
available funds be i~vested at the highest available rate in
instruments authorized by law. Upon vote the motion carried.
Engineer's Report
The Engineer reported on his investigation of the Eastman
property and the Bay Center property as directed by the Board at
the last meeting. The Engineer reported that the drainage
facilities located on the north side of CSAH16 are in poor
condition and do not appear to be functioning as designed. It was
moved by Miller, seconded by Thomas, that the attorney and the
engineer investigate the permit conditions which were imposed in
connection with that permit and determine if the project is in
compliance with those conditions and if not, recommend action for
correction of this situation. Upon vote the motion carried.
The Engineer reported that with respect to the property lying
on the south side of CSAH16, in front of the Village Shopping
Center, the drainage facilities appear to be in better, but not
adequate, condition. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Thomas,
that the Attorney and the Engineer similarly investigate the
status of compliance and the existence of permit terms with
respect to these facilities that service the Village Shopping
Center and recommend aGt%on to the board at the next regular
meeting. Upon vote the motion carried.
The Engineer reported that batteries in Spring Park reported
to the board at the last regUlar meeting are being removed this
week and will be removed by the end of the week. Manager Miller
requested the staff to determine where the batteries are being
taken for disposal.
The Engineer requested direction from the board regarding the
scope of investigation which the board wanted the engineer to take
to inventory potential maintenance projects on Minnehaha Creek.
Following discussion, the board directed the engineer to develop a
list of likely projects with approximately one day's work and
report at the next regular meeting.
The Engineer reported that he and Manager McWethy and James
vonLorenz have visited the site of the proposed dredging requested
by the City of St. Louis Park be%ween Louisiana Avenue and
Excelsior Boulevard on Minnehaha Creek. Manager McWethy stated
that some sections of this reach of the Creek were narrowed to 8
to 10 feet because of existing cattail growth in that area.
Manager McWethy further stated that at present Creek flow rates
this entire reach is fully navigable by canoe.
Manager McWethy stated that he believed the board had a
continuing commitment to the City of St. Louis Park to take
corrective action in this area. However, given high water levels,
he thought it desirable to wait until the fall season and r~assess
the need for the project at that time.
The Engineer reported that he had been contacted by the City
of Shorewood planner with respect to the Board's position with
respect to setback reviews by the District. The board reviewed
the existing setback rule of the District noting that it had been
developed prior to adoption of setback requirements in many
municipalities. The board further noted that applicable statutory
provisions provide that District requirements regulating such
matters as setbacks apply only in the absence of municipal
ordinances on those subjects. The Managers expressed the view
that once a municipal ordinance is adopted that is consistent with
DNR approved shoreland standards setback variances should not be
referred to the Board of Managers for review.
The Engineer r. eminded the board that he has scheduled a
Managers lake tour for July 20, 1985 commencing at 2:00 p.m.
Lake Level and Creek Discharge
The Engineer reported that the lake level stood at 929.98 and
that discharge through the control structure remained at 175 cubic
feet per second.
Correspondence ·
Secretary Thomas noted receipt of correspondence from the
Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts noting a project tour
scheduled for July 28 and 29, 1985 in the St. Cloud, Minnesota
vicinity. Chairman Cochran noted receipt of a Notice of Public
Meeting from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
scheduled for May 21, 1985 commencing at 7:30 p.m. on the question
of public access on Lake Minnetonka.
Project CP-5
The Engineer reviewed and distributed Pay Estimate #4 in
connection with Project CP-5. The Engineer stated that Pay
Estimate #4 represented approximately 50% of the work on the
-10-
control structure for Project 5 and that approximately $115,000 of
the $189,000 project construction cost was now expended. The
Engineer requested approval by the Board of Pay Estimate #4 in the
amount of $5,518.94. It was moved by Miller, seconded by McWethy,
that Pay Request #4 be approved as recommended by the Engineer.
Upon vote the motion carried.
Permit Guidelines
The Engineer reviewed a memorandum dated May 16, 1985 in
which the Engineer recommended modification to four existing
permit guidelines previously adopted by the Board of Managers on
May 21, 1981 and further recommended the adoption of two
additional permit guidelines. The two additional guidelines would
address specific permit application requirements for residential
storm water management and for wetland alteration.
The Engineer reviewed the background of the proposed changes
as set forth in the written memorandum and briefly reviewed the
suggested modifications in the commercial, industrial and
institutional storm water management guideline. Following
preliminary review of that guideline, the Managers agreed that it
would be appropriate to further consider the recommended guideline
modifications and the new guidelines at a special meeting in order
to provide adequate time for the Managers' review of each
individual guideline.
The Managers directed that a special meeting be held on
Thursday, May 23, 1985 at the St. Louis Park City Hall, commencing
at 4:30 p.m. for this purpose and directed the Attorney to give
notice accordingly.
There being no additional business to come before the regular
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned
at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
0854n
John E. Thomas, Secretary
-11-
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
May 23, 1985
A special meeting of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran
on Thursday, May 23, 1985, at 4:45 p.m., in the St. Louis Park
City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Managers present:
Cochran, Lehman,
McWethy, and Spensley
Manager absent:
Andre, Miller and Thomas
Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Mahady and Macomber.
Chairman Cochran stated that the purpose of the special
meeting was to consider revisions to existing District permit
guidelines and to consider the adoption of additional guidelines.
The Managers then reviewed the proposed revisions to the
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Storm Water Management
Guideline. It was t~e sense of the Managers that the guideline
should be revised to eliminate a suggested automatic exception for
sites under one-half acre but to provide that small sites would be
reviewed by the District but recognizing that there is little
opportunity for rate control on small sites. The Managers also
requested that the provision dealing with flowage easements
clarify that such easements should run to the municipality in
which the project is located. The Managers also discussed the
need for assurance of implementation of on-site erosion control
measures and requested that the staff modify the language
suggested to provide for a cash deposit to assure performance of
not only erosion protection measures but remedial action if
failure of such measures occurs.
The Managers then reviewed the shoreline improvement
guideline revisions. The Managers suggested revisions in the
format of the guideline and clarification of the relationship
between this' guideline and other kinds of shoreline work not
covered by the guideline.
The Managers then reviewed the proposed dredging guideline
revisions noting that the guideline covered protected waters and
protected wetlands as defined by the Department of Natural
Resources and marsh areas within the District which are not
regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. The Managers
expressed the desire to have the staff develop guidelines and
criteria for this permit guideline similar to those which had been
prepared for the preceding guidelines.
The Managers then reviewed the floodplain alteration
guideline and discussed the relationship between the District's
floodplain regulatory authority and applicable municipal
ordinances. The Managers requested modification in the language
to more clearly state that relationship.
The Managers then reviewed the proposed additional guideline
dealing with residential storm water management. The Managers
suggested clarification of the cutoff for review of residential
projects to make it consistent with the existing
commercial/industrial storm water management guideline.
The Managers also reviewed a proposed guideline on wetland
alteration. The.Managers noted that one of the purposes that
should be stated in the guideline was the purpose of preservation
of wetlands as they affect and promote groundwater recharge.
The Managers requested the staff to incorporate the comments
and requests of the Board and to revise the guidelines for further
review by the Board.
There being no fhrther business to come before the special
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the special meeting adjourned
at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Albert L. Lehman
Acting Secretary
0912n
-2-
City Clerk/County Administrator
RATE INCREASE NOTICE
On April 19, 1985, Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc. (Contel)
filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission a request for increased
rates pursuant to Minnesota Statute 237.075. In accordance with this statute,
Contel will place interim rates into effect on June 1, 1985. The Public
Utilities Commission must decide by February 19, 1986 how much of an increase,
if any, will be approved. If an increase is ultimately approved by the
Commission and is something less than that placed into effect under interim
rates, the difference, plus interest at the prevailing prime rate, will be
refunded to customers in a manner to be determined by the Commission.
Contel's full proposed rates will generate approximately $7.3 million in
additional revenues, or an approximate 17 percent increase in gross annual
revenues. The Company's interim rates will generate approximately $2.36
million, a 5.6 percent increase in gross annual revenues. The summary below
describes the average percentage impact of the increases under the full
proposal and under interim rates. Individual rate changes may be slightly'
higher or lower.
Rate Increase Increase Under
Under Full Proposal Interim Rates
Basic Access Line Rate
36.8% 11.15%
The staff of the Department of Public Service is conducting an investigation of
Contel's books and records. Public hearings will be scheduled to hear testimony
and comments about the proposed increase. Counties, municipalities, and
individual customers will be notified if and when a hearing is scheduled in
their particular area.
Proposed rate schedules may be examined by the public during normal business
hours at the Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Building, 160
East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul and at the following Contel offices:
continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc.
3500 West 80th Street, Suite #500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
2365 Commerce Boulevard, Southwest
Mound, Minnesota 55364
702 Seventh Avenue
Two Harbors, Minnesota 55616
Municipalities, counties, corporations, groups and individual persons who wish
to intervene or testify in the case should contact the Administrative Law Judge
assigned:
Phyllis Reha
Office of Administrative Hearings
400 Summit Bank Building
310 South 4th Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
612/341-7611
CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC.
June 13, 1985
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone 296-1611
TO Ail Interested Parties
Re:
Notice of Intent to Abandon -- BN's Wayzata to Hutchinson,
in Hennepin, Carver, and McLeod Counties; ICC Docket No.
AB-6 (Sub-No. 247)
The Burlington Northern Company has notified the ICC that on or
about June 28, 1985, it intends to file an abandonment
application on this line. The proposed abandonment extends
from milepost 24.90 near Wayzata, to milepost 68.56 near
Hutchinson, a distance of 43.66 miles. The application will
include the followinq stations: Spring Park, Mound, St.
Bonifacius, Mayer, New Germany, Lester Prairie, Silver Lake,
Hu tc hin son.
BN indicates that the primary reason for the proposed
abandonment is that traffic is insufficient for a profitable
operation and the line needs extensive rehabilitation. Also,
BN indicates that it is currently negotiating with a shipper
authority for the transfer of the line after abandonment.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) will determine if rail
service should continue on the line. The Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Mn/DOT) will be participating in this
proceeding. If you have special comments regarding your
transportation needs or community's concern relating to this
abandonment, I would appreciate hearing from you by July 10,
1985. Please direct your comments to me as follows:
Isaac McCrary, Jr.
Mn/DOT Room 810
Tran spot ta ion Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Any interested person may file with the ICC written comments
concerning the proposed abandonment or protests to it.
Protests to the proposed abandonment must be in the form of a
verified statement, and at minimum contain the following:
Identification of protestant including his name, address,
and business.
An Equal Opportunit.v Emplo. ver
PaQe 2
All Interested Parties
June 13, 19.85
Statement of protestant's interest in the abandonment
proceeding~ whether protestant uses the involved service;
and if it does not, information on the group or public
interest it represents.
Soecific reason(s) for opposing the abandonment, includinq
information with respect to protestant's reliance on the
involved service, with allegations of fact supported by an
affidavit or personal knowledge of the facts.
Any rebuttal of information or material submitted by
a ppl ican t.
Request for oral hearing and reasons therefore, if
desired.
In addition, any commentor or protestant may provide a specific
statement of position and summary of evidence with regard to
any or all of the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Intent to offer financial assistance.
Environmental impact.
Impact on rural and community development.
Suitability of the properties for other public purpose.
Recommended' provisions for protection of the interest of
employees.
Written comments and protests will be considered by the ICC in
determining whether an investigation is needed to assist in
determining what disposition to make of the application. In
the event an investigation is conducted, then the commenting
party or protestant should be prepared to participate actively
in either oral hear{'ngs or via the submission of additional
material in the form of verified statements.
Written comments and Protests should indicate the proceeding
designation No. AB-6 (Sub. No. 247) and should be filed with
the Deputy Director, Section f Finace, Interstate Commerce
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423, no later than July 28,
1985. Interested persons may file a written comment or protest
with the Commission to become a party to the proceedinqs. A
copy of each written comment or protest should be served upon
the representative of the applicant: Peter M. Lee, Assistant
/ o0
Paqe 3
All Interested Parties
June 13, 1985
General Solicitor, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, 3800
Continental Plaza, 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. The
oriqinal and two copies of all comments or protests must be
filed with the Commission together with a certificate of
service.
If you have any further questions regarding this abandonment
proceedinq, feel free to write or call me.
Sincerely,
Isaac McCrary, Jr~
Rail Abandonment Coordinator
Rail Planninq and Proqram Development Section
.eagan s ,posa
Will Drive Many to Low. Tax Localities
By JO~.,~'N S. LUBMN
S~a.ffHeportcr of T~E WA~.L STREET
BALTIMORE - David Hash, an eco-
nomic-development official here, stops his
orange Sunbird in front o! two low-rise
brick plants in a city-owned industrial
park. One holds a printing company and
the other a maker of bottle-cap seals. To-
gether, they employ 305 people.
Both structures were built with the help
of $3.8 million in tax-exempt industrial rev-
enue bonds. The developer sought the
city's assistance in financing the specula-
tive construction, Mr. Hash recalls, be-
cause private lenders felt Baltimore "is a
risky market."
President Reagan's tax-overhaul plan
would kill the tax break for these and most
other municipal bonds. Mr. Reagan also.
wants to drop a rehabilitation investment
tax credit widely used here to renovate ag-
ing commercial and residential buildings.
In addition, his plan would repeal the fed-
eral deduction for state and local taxes. Al-
together, the three steps could boost fed-
eral revenues by nearly $50 billion a year
by 1990.
When the president speaks here at a
Flag Day ceremony today, civic leaders
may greet him with expressions of concern
about such changes. Older cities, espe-
cially those in the high-tax states of the
North and the Midwest, worry that the tax
plan would create clamor for lower local
taxes. Municipal officials also fear it would
drive affluent residents to lower-tax locali-
ties and crimp efforts to rejuvenate their
downtowp, s and ailing basic industries. The
Reagan. tax plan "puts thumbscrews to cit-
ies,'' asserts Joseph Sensenbrenner, mayor
of Madison, Wis.
Reagan administration aides reject the
older cities' criticism as unfounded. Four
in 10 Baltimore households have annual in-
comes under $10,000 and "probably all
would be off the tax rolls altogether," says
Mitchell Daniels, the White House director
of intergovernmental affairs. The tax plan
should ease demands on cities for local tax
cuts or more public' services, he insists.
Mr. Daniels also suspects pork-barrel
politics lie behind the outcry over the pos-
sible loss of municipal-bond exemptions
and rehabilitation tax credits. He contends
some big-city mayors fear losing favor
with politically powerful wealthy investors
who prima, rily benefit from such tax
breaks.
By contrast, mayors of prosperous, Iow-
iax cities in the Sun Belt welcome the tax
proposal. "I would consider us to be one of
the gainers," exults Tampa, Fla., mayor
Robert Martinez.
No one really knows.whether major cit-
ies' .gains ultimately will outweigh the
pains that the tax-overhaul plat~ would
bring. But a closer look at Baltimore does
reveal the plan's impact on many urban
dwellers' lives and livelihoods and the ra-
tionale behind some proposed trimming of
tax breaks.
On the rehabilitation tax credit, for ex-
ample, the administration wants to kill it
primarily because its use hasn't been lim-
ited to deteriorating areas. But in Balti-
more, "we are hitting the most abandoned
areas," insists William Pencek of the
Maryland Historical Trust, a state
agency.
Single-family homes account for more
than half of the city's 400 projects ap-
proved for a 25% historic rehabilitation tax
credit since 1976. Many involved vacant or
dilapidated row houses. In Rldgely's De-
light, a tiny neighborhood where baseball
player Babe Ruth was born, one renova-
tion effort meant an older woman ,got a
kitchen installed in her mid-19th century
row house for the first time.
Yet the credit also helps the. not-so-
needy. Six Flags Corp., a leading amuse-
ment park operator, will receive the break
for its $25 million conversion of an aban-
doned power-generating station into an in-
door entertainment complex along BaRi-
more's bustling Inner Harbor. The com-
pany would have proceeded without the
credit, a spokeswoman says..
The tax plan could alter the fortunes of
the affluent in other ways. The city's
budget director, Edward Gallagher, fears
increased suburban migration of middle-in-
come and upper-income residents because
they would lose the federal deduction for
their local property taxes, the state's high-
est.
"Those able to pay the taxes are going
to leave the city," he warns. "Those left
will be the poor." Mr. Gallagher doesn't
think the plan's tax reduction for the work-
ing poor "is' going to come close to offset-
ting" the heightened demands for public
services from a proportionately bigger
poor population.
Fran Gunther, a $21,000-a-year city mu-
seum manager, and her fiance want to buy
a house in Baltimore. Mr. Reagan's tax
plan has prompted them to widen their
search to the suburbs. "If I can't deduct
property taxes from my (federal) income
taxes," explains the lifelong Baltimore res-
ident, "it does make it that much more dif-
ficult to live in the city."
Those homeowners who remain likely
will clamor for property-tax relief because
of the loss of deductability. Pressure could
mount at an inopportune time for the city
as it grapples with another Reagan tax-
overhaul proposal: the elimination of tax
breaks for 61% of all municipal bonds. Af-
fected would be the $58 billion a year in
bonds issued by state and local govern-
ments that have some slight private use,
such as low-cost housing, student loans,
pollution control and economic develop-
merit. Localities' borrowing costs might
skyrocket 30%, according to one munici-
pal-securities trade group estimate.
Reagan aides say cities would come out
ahead because they could offer tax-exempt
bonds at lower rates to pay for their purely
governmental needs.
HENNEPIN
II
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av, South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
935-3381
TTY935-6433
June 17, 1985
Mr. John Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
VARIENCE HEARING
CSAH 15 FROM CSAH 110 TO CSAH 19
COUNTY PROJECT 8024
SAP 27-615-13
Dear Mr. Elam:
Thank you for your support at the Variance Hearing, Friday,
June 14, 1985. We appreciate your interest and involvement
in this project.
I will notify you of the decision of the Variance Committee
as soon as I receive it.
Sincerely,
Chief Design Engineer
BMP:mak
CC:
Commissioner E. F. Robb, Jr.
V. T. Genzlinger
H. O. Klossner
B. M. Polaczyk
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
TWIN
LABOR,
CITIES
MARKET
INFORMATION
LABOR FORCE CONDITIONS
NOTE TO READERS: Due to budget cuts,
the Regional Labor Market Information
Centers will no longer exist after this
sun~er. This will be the last issue
of "Twin Ci ti es Labor Market I nf~-rmati on":
The April labor force statistics for the
Twin Cities area continue to show the
same trend as the past three months.
Employment grew, but at a slower than
usual rate. The number of employed resi-
dents was up by 0.2 percent compared
to the average March-April change of 1.5
rcent. The number of unemployed resi-
continued to drop faster than usual,
down 9.4 percent compared to an average
decrease of 5.8 percent. These two trends
have combined to cause an unhsual situa-
VOL. 9 NO. 6 JUNE 1985
tion where the Twin Cities area labor
force has decreased in both March and
April for the first time since labor force
estimates were first made in 1970.
Recent national data has indicated that
the slowdown in employment growth is having
an adverse impact on new and reentrants
to the labor force. Reentrants, those
who worked full-time for at least two
weeks but have recently been out of the
labor force, made up 28.9 percent of the
unemployed in May 1985 compared to 25.6
percent a year ago. Among age groups,
only those 16-17 and 20-24 years old have
higher unemployment rates now than a year
ago.
LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES
(got Seasonally Adjusted)
AREA CI¥]LIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
APRILp MARCH. APRILa ,. APRILp MARCH~ APRILa ' kPRiL: HARC~"! ApR'IL. APRILp
1985 - 1985 K 198~ - 1985 - 1985 - 1984 - 1985 r 1985 K 1984 K 1985 - 1985 --=1984
Minneapolis- 1,260.5 1,263.2 1,056.9 1,207.6 1,204.8 1,026.4 52.9 $8.4 30.5 4.2 4.6 2.9
St. Paul MSA*
County:
Anoka 118,117 118,317 116,418 112,472 112,208 110,432 5,645 6,109 5,986 4.8 5.2 5.1
Carver 21,952 22,125 21,942 21,128 21,079 20,745 824 1,046 1,197 3.8 4.7 5.5
Chisago 15,842 16,017 15,734 14,775 14,740 14,507 1,067 1,277 1,227 6.7 B.0 7.8
Dakota 118,012 118,390 116,073 112,790 112,525 110,745 5,222 5,865 5,328 4.4 5.0 4.6
Hennepin 548,453 548,492 542,828 527,875 526,635 51B,306 20,578 21,857 24,522 3.8 4.0 4.5
Isantt 14,226 14,322 13,716 13,206 13,175 12,966 1,020 1,147 750 7.2 8.0 5.5
Ramsey 267,917 268,177 265,102 156,957 256,354 252,298 10,960 11,823 12,804 4.1 4.4 4.8
Scott 26,692 26,982 26,309 25,217 25,158 24,760 1,475 1,824 1,549 5.5 6.8 5.9
Washington 68,350 68,625 67,689 65,698 65,544 64,507 2,652 3,081 3,182 3.9 4.S 4.7
Wright 35,744 36,215 35,423 33,470 33,392 32,863 2,274 2,823 2,560 5.4 7.8 7.2
St. Croix, WI 25,159 25,568 25,552 23,977 23,982 24,280 1,182 1,586 1,272 4.7 6.2
Bloomington 47,549 47,547 47,126 45,956 45,848 45,123 1,593 1,699 2,003 3.4 .3.6 4.3
M~nneapolis 221,755 211,695 209,693 203,316 202,839 199,630 8,439 8,856 10,063 4.0 4.2 4.8
St. Paul 156,014 156,166 154,244 148,947 148,597 146,246 7,067 7,569 7,998 4.5 4.8 5.2
Minnesota* 2,217.9 2,194.0 2,208.0 2,091.4 2,050.9 2,060.4 126.5 143.1 147.6 5.7 6.5 6.7
United States* 114,325 114,394 112,153 106,175 105,768 103,628 8,150 8,625 8,525 7.1 7.5 7.6
P = Prelim(n)-~
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNINGS
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area
PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & EARNINGS~1/
EMPLOYMENT CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly
INDUSTRY !.000) FROM Earnings Earnings Hours
APRIL Month Year Month Year APRIL Year APRIL Year APRIL Year
1985 Ago Ago' Ago Ago 1985 A~o 1985 Ago 1985 Aqo
TOTAL NONAGRICULTURAL 1200.7 1189.7 1152.8 O.g 4.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX
MANUFACTURING 269.4 260.0 252.5 -0.2 2.7 428.67 425.36 10.69i 10.40 40.1 40.9
Durable Goods 165.5 166.3 162.1 -0.5 2.1 441.98 438.88 10.65 10.40 41.5 42.2
Lumber & Furniture 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.7 0.6 487.22 471.43 12.06 10.69 40.4 44.1
Stone, Clay & Glass 2.9 3.0 3.2 -3.8 -10.1 327.05 396.00 9.11 10.18 35.g 38.9
Primary Metals 4.3 4.3 4.7 -0.6 -7.8 384.67 388.67 9.07 9.06 42.4 42.9
Fabricated Metals 28.1 28.2 27.6 -0.4 2.0 477.15 479.68 11.47 11.26 41.6 42.6
Non-Electrical Machinery 74.3 74.8 70.5 -0.6 5.5 463.78 456.22 10.99 10.76 42.2 42.4
Office & Computing Equipment 39.1 39.7 36.9 -1.6 5.9 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Electrical Machinery 16.8 16.9 17.4 -0.6 -3.3 331.23 353.38 8.26 8.64 40.1 40.9
Transportation Equipment 4.1 4.2 3.9 -2.0 4.3 653.97 630.54 13.71 13.56 47.7 46.5
Scientific Instruments 23.8 23.8 24.2 0.1 -1.6 417.13 409.39 10.10 9.61 41.3 42.6
Miscellaneous 4.1 4.1 3.7 -O.S 10.1 3B5.23 316.89 9.28 9.08 38.6 34.9
Hondurable Goods 93.9 93.7 90.4 0.3 3.9 405.28 401.71 10.76 10.38 37.7 38.7
Food & Kindred Products 18.5 18.5 lB.4 0.1 1.0 381.91 385.62 9.62 9.43 32.7 40.9
Textiles & Apparel 2.1 2.2 2.6 -0.8 -17.6 214.47 259.54 6.46 6.83 33.2 38.0
Paper & Allied Products 26.2 26.2 25.2 -0.2 3.8 :441.93 430.12 11.39 10.78 38.8 39.9
Printing & Publishing 29.5 29.3 27.2 0.8 8.6 400.30 396.63 11.34 11.11 35.3 35.7
Chemical & Petroleum Products 8.2 8.2 8.1 0,6 1.7 ~474.28 483.69, 12.13 11.74 39.1 41.2
Rubber, Plastic, and Leather 9.4 9.3 9.0 0.4 4.6 ~367.63 353.53 9.10 8.95 39.3 39.5
NONMANUFACTURING 941.3 929.7 900.2 1.2 4.6 XX XX XX XX .I XX XX
CONSTRUCTION 43,2 39.8 37.6 8.S 14.9 ,621.38 564.90 16.57 16.14 37.$ 35.0
Building Construction 11.7 11.1 10.6 5.1 9.5 592.70 553.32 15.89 15.90 37.3 34.8
Highway & Heavy Construction 3,9 2.7 3.6 44.8 7.0 501.05 445.20 13.69 13.45 36.6 33.1
Special Trades Contracting '27,7 26.0 23.3 6.2 18.5 647.69 584.92 17.18 16.57 37.7 35.3
TRANSPORTATION 45.4 44.9 43.3 1.3 4.9 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Railroads 6.1 6.1 6.4 0.0 -4.8 XX XX XX XX X] XX
Trucking & Warehousing 16.3 16.2 15.2 0,9 7.4 400.14 427,53 12.35 12.25 32.4 34.9
PUBLIC UTILITIES & CO~. 22.7 . 22.5 21.9 0.3 3.4 511.84 498.72 13.26 12.69 38.6 39,3
TRADE 296.2 292.7 281.3 1.2 5.3 236.67 242,10 8.05 7.99 29.4 30.3
Retail Trade 218.5 215.1 206.2 1.6 6.0 189,70 190.02 7.00 6.86 27.1 27.7
General Merchandise Stores .36.1 36.7 33.6 -1.6 7.3 176.75 173.75 6.62 6,25 26,7 27.8
Food Stores 25.9 25.7 26.1 1.1 -0.5 241.97 251.64 8.49 8.53 28,5 29.5
Eating & Drinking Places 75.9 73.6 69.9 3.1 8.7 103.94 91.33 4.79 4,37 21.7 20.9
Specialty Merchandise2_/ 80.5 79.2 76.6 1.7 5.1 259.29 265.73 8.12 7,97 31,9 33.3
Wholesale Trade 77.8 77.6 7B.] 0.2 3.5 390.72 408.87 10.56 10.62 37.0 38.5
FINAJICE, IHS. & RE. AL ESTATE 81.3 80.8 79.5 0.6 2.2 321.40 324.60 8.71 8.61 36.9 37.7
Finance 34.3 34.2 34.3 0.5 0.1 335.24 343.16 9.21 9.20 36.4 37.3
Insurance 32.5 32.6 31.2 0.0 4.2 352.13 363.32 8.96 8.63 39.3 42.1
Real Estate 14.5 14.1 14.1 2.4 3.0 228.98 207.90 6.96 7.00 32.9 29.7
SERVICE & MISCELLANEOUS 292.4 289.0 278.1 1.2 5.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Lodging & Recreation 26.0 .25.3 24.9 2.7 4.4 152.52 158.33 6.57 6.55 23.2 24.2
Personal Services 14.1 13.7 13.B 3.1 5.1 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Business Services 69.7 68.6 63.0 1.6 10.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Repair Services 14.3 14.1 13.5 1.7 6.0 272.32 250.62 7.40 7.04 36.8 35.6
Health Services 74.8 74.7 74.4 0.1 0.5 252.97 247.40 8.24 8.33 30.7 29.7
Hospitals 27.0 27.0 29.6 0.0 -8.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Nursing Homes 20.9 21.0 20.5 -0.6 1.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Other Health 26.9 26.7 24.3 0.7 1o.7 xx xx xx I xx xx xx
Legal Services g.! g.1 8.3 0.1 g.6 442.73 447.60 12'23i ]2.00 36.2 37.3
Private Education 15.1 15.3 15.7 -1.2 -3.$
Other Services3_/ 64.4 64.4 60.3 0.0 6.9
GOVERNMENT 160.0 159.9 158.5 0.1 0.9
Federal 18.3 18.2 17.7 0.7 3.2
State 49.3 49.2 48.4 0.2 1.7
Local 92.4 92.5 92.3 -0.1 0.1
· * Less than .05
1../ Average earnings data are on a "gross" basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time
production or nonsupervtsory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro-
active pay, tips, payment in kind, and "fringe benefits" are excluded.
~_/ Includes Building Materials, Automotive, Apparel, Home Furnishings, Drug, Met1 Order and Miscellaneous
Retailing.
3_/ Includes Social Services, Membership Organizations, and Miscellaneous Services such as Engineering and
Accounting.
Source:--Current'Employ~nt Statistics Program {Figures rounded to nearest hundred).
// ~-- -~
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS
Twin Cities area establishments added
11,000 jobs to their payrolls in
For the second consecutive month,
however, employment gains were less than
normally would be expected. The manufac-
turing sector again registered a decrease
in employment. It was more broad-based
in April as 13 of the 18 industry groups
experienced cutbacks. The sharpest cut-
back occurred in nonelectrical machinery
due primarily to cost-cutting measures
by a major company.
Two additional industry sectors which
contributed to weaker than usual demand
for labor in April were trade and finance,
insurance, real estate. The retail trade
sector, predominantly general merchandise
stores, posted below normal employment
change for the third consecutive month.
The wholesale trade industry, which tends
to get overlooked in favor of its flashier
retail counterparts, had even weaker job
growth.
On the positive side, employment was up
than seasonally in the construction
.try, Low interest rates are a posi-
tive sign that construction activity
should be brisk in most of.1985. In
the transportation sector, there was
greater than usual hiring primarily be-
cause of expansion by the two locally-
based airlines.
C:~ARACTER1STICS OF THE I~U~D U~D~LO~£D
(Regullr ~e~efits Program}
~N~OL~S-ST. PA~
W~k E~ng 4/12/85
Percen~ C~nge
l~us~y and F~: Pe~cen~ Pe~en~ 11
~onal ~n~h Year of Long-Te~ Percent
At~c~nt ~ber Ago Ago Total Un~ployed W~en
To~I, All ]Mustrtes ~20,97~ -~.5 25.2 100.0 28.9 2e.4
~nst~ctton 5,401 -28.1 21.4 25.8 34.8 3.7
~nuf~c~rJng 6,946 -0.3 75.7 33.1 26.4 32.2
~rlb~e Goods 5,S22 2.1 108.8 26.3 28.4 2q.9
Nondu~ble Goods 1,424 -8.5 8.9 6.8 18.7 4].4
Trans., C~.,
Public Utilities 946 -]2.7 21.3 4.5 33.6 17.3
W~les~le Trade 1,574 -3.5 29.5 7.~ 25.9 77.1
Rata11 Trade 1,932 -2.9 -2.4 9.2 23.4
FJn., ~ns., end
~al Estate 717 -7.5 9.3 3.4 30.1 57.0
Se~1ces 2,6~4 -1.0 -7.9 12.7 23.8
Publlc ~Jn. 235 -28.6 -1.3 1.1 30.2 33.~
All Other 402 -46.8 3.3 1.9 63.7 11.4
Inf. ~t Available 153 - -
Total, M1 ~cupattons 20,970 -12.5 25.2 100.0 28.9 26.4
P~f., Tach., ~r. 2,968 3.0 13.1 14.2 ~5.8 36.5
Clerlcal 2,105 1.5 2.8 10.0 25.9 74.4
~les 765 3.2 5.8 3.6 25.0 29.2
Se~ce 1.040 0.3 :-15.0 5.0 23.6 40.2
Fa~., For., Ftsh. 231 -50.9 11.6 1.1 62.8 9.5
P~ess~ng 404 -8.8 ~1.3 1.9 28.5 14.1
~chJne Trades 1.927 -1.4 88.2 9.2 22.1 17.3
Be~rk 2,711 -4.1 77.1 12.9 29.0 46.7
St~ctur~l Work 5,602 -25.7 27.6 27.1 31.9 2.7
~scell~n~us 3,115 -19.6 19.2 14.9 33.2 13.6
~f, Not Avaflable 2o -
NO~: Pe~en~ges ~ mot ~tal ~ 1~.0 due ~ ~ndepe~ent
~ Long-Te~ un~ploy~ refers ~ u~plo~nt t~surance clatters whose
current s~11 ef un~plo~nt has lasted lS ~ks or longer.
Economic Indicators
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area
AVE. WEEKLY HOURS - MANLJFACTURIr4G
Initial U1 Clatms~./*
UI Claimants-RegularS/*
Avg Wkly Hours in Mfg,/*
Help Wanted Index~*
Residential Bldg Permtts~/*
Retail Sales (Mtlltons)~/*
Consumer Price Index~/
US Employment Cost Index?
Percent
LatestMonth Change
Available Year A~
Apr 2,!08 18.7
Apr 18,943 25.8
Apr 40.5 -1.9
Apr 75 5.6
Mar 1,554 **
Mar 1,358 14.3
Apr 3~9.2 2.5
Mar 125.5 4.8
Sources: 1/ WOES, 2/ The Conference Board, ~/ Metropolitan Council, ~/ U.S. Department of Coerce, and
~/ Bureau-of Labor Statistics,
* Denotes seasonally-adjusted data. ** Not reported as volatility of series renders it misleading.
THE ,]08 MARKET
The notion of two distinct economies in
Minnesota - a robust Twin Cities and
a sluggish outstate hinterland - has been
acknowledged for some time. Eventually,
one would expect continued rural hardships
to exert a drag on the metropolitan area
as 1) local suppliers of goods and ser-
vices for the region face reduced sales
and hence limit employment opportunities;
2) job seekers move to this area creating
more competition for available positions.
The following evidence shows that the
local labor market has not been hampered
by either of these posssibilities, at
least so far.
Data from the Employment and Earnings
Conditions section of this bulletin indi-
cates solid growth in most of the sectors
which serve the hinterland: transporta-
tion, wholesale trade, insurance, busi-
ness, legal and other services. Only
finance has not experienced yearly net'
employment gains.
It is more difficult to gauge the second
aforementioned effect as migration data
is not collected for recent periods.
Other sources suggest that workers are
flocking to the Twin Cities. First,
the level of wage and salary employment
throughout the Upper Midwest is actually
lower now than five years ago while the
rest of the nation has enjoyed a seven
percent increase. Of the si~ states,
which according to the last Census
supplied approximately half of all
migrants to the area, Michigan, Iowa and
Illinois (like out-state Minnesota) have
not yet reached their pre-recession peak
with Wisconsin and South Dakota barely
above it. In contrast, Minneapolis-St.
Paul MSA payroll employment is a whopping
ten percent higher. So it is no surprise
that our area has had labor force growth
above the national average while these
other states lag behind. The accompanying
graph shows the recent divergence in
annual labor force percent change between
the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area and
the rest of Minnesota. Labor force growth
tends to pick up once a recession is
over but this hasn't occurred outstate.
Based on 1985 population projections made
by the State Demography Unit and annual
labor force participation rates compiled
from the Current Population Survey, we
have calculated a rough breakdown of these
components of labor force change and hence
derived a net migration estimate. For
the five y~ar period ending in April 1985,
the results are as follows:
Labor force change
Unemployment change
Indigenous labor force growth
Participation rate change
Net migration
(Payroll employment change)
Mpl$-St. Paul Balance
MSA of State
9~',£oo ~
1,800 -8,000
36,000 17,800
34,800 16,800
130,700 27,300
With meager job creati6n the out-state
region has not been able to prevent out-
migration from happening, while the Twin
Cities have absorbed some in-comers.
Despite these flows, there has been no
documented increase in competition for'
jobs locally. Applicants per opening at
local Job Service offices for the January-
April period has in fact decreased from
6.7 in 1984 to 5.6 this year, while in
the rest of Minnesota it has gone from
13.2 to 23.1. It is rare for these ratios
to move in opposite directions suggesting
that even with some migration evident many
have thus far decided to remain outstate
increasing job competition there rather
than in the Twin Cities.
ANNUAL M, BOR FORCE PERCENT CHANGE
)/~q -9 4
June 17, 1985
CITY of MOUND
47;;_-1
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER ~
Enclosed is a report the Metropolitan Council dropped off last week
covering the sewage allocation system they are proposing. If implemented,
it would hurt Mound severely, since it reduces our sewer availability
and shifts it to Waconia, Spring Park and St. Bonifacius.
The seriousness of this cannot be underestimated.
They are presently reworking their analysis, since they were giving Mound
an estimated 1990.populatlon of 9300 instead of the 10,100 that had been
estimated earlier. "1985 population estimates were that Mound is already
at 9700 people, thus to say we were going down to 9300 is not very
realisitc.
I am estimating that some time in 1988 we will pass the 10,000 mark. I
think we will have 100 new housing units in the four years (1985-88).
In 1985 we will probably have 60 new units, i.e. Chapman Place 29, 25 new
single family and 6 plus units of townhouses and duplexes. 60 times
2.3 persons per unit equals about 135 new people.
I will keep on top of this and give you reports as things proceed.
JE:fc
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: June 12, 1985
TO: Metropolitan Systems Committee
FROM: Parks and Environmental Planning (Marcel Jou~u) ~"~
SUBJECT: Sewer Policy Plan Amendment
Allocation of Sewer Capacity
in the Lake Virginia Lift Station Service Area
AUTHORITY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.146, requires the Metropolitan Council to adopt
or amend, as part of its development guide, long-range comprehensive policy
plans for each metropolitan commission. This amendment is proposed to revise
flow allocations in the Water Resource Management Development Guide/Policy
Plan, Part 1, for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) to use in
its review of local requests for sewers.
BACKGROUND
During the period of 1982 to 1984, the CounCil considered a forcemain inter-
ceptor to provide additional sewer service to eight communities on the western
shores of Lake Minnetonka. Because of the request by the cities of Chanhassen
and Eden Prairie for consideration of an alternative solution through a gravity
interceptor, the matter of service to the Lake Virginia lift station area was
referred back to staff for study.
In early 1985, the cities of Waconia and Spring Park requested approval of
amendments to their comprehensive plans to provide additional 1990 sewage flow
allocations. Constraints in the metropolitan system suggested that until the
Lake Ann or Lake Virginia interceptor is built, additional allocation to these
two cities could be obtained only through reallocation of yet unused alloca-
tions to other cities in the service area. On May 9, 1985, the Council found
the requests to have an adverse impact on the system and directed the staff to
prepare a policy plan amendment to reallocate flows for 1990 if the city of
Minnetrista could not make available the unused portion of its 1990 flow
allocation.
ANALYSIS
The MWCC currently serves the western Lake Minnetonka area communities of
Mound, Shorewood, Minnetrista, Victoria, St. Bonifacius, Waconia, Spring Park
and Laketown with a wastewater lift station on the shore of Lake Virginia, in
Shorewood. The lift station pumps into the Shorewood interceptor which, in
turn, discharges into the Excelsior lift station. The sewage is then dis-
charged via Shorewood II interceptor into the Purgatory Creek interceptor.
2
In the recent past, the Lake Virginia lift station has experienced peak flow
problems, in part resulting from the Shorewood interceptor causing a bottle-
neck and by some local inflow/infiltration (I/I) problems. Sewage has bubbled
up at manholds, and in April 1985, during a heavy rain, sewage overflowed into
Lake Virginia. Relief is to be provided through either the Lake Virginia
forcemain interceptor or the Lake Ann gravity interceptor. But the present
conditions will continue to exist until an interceptor route is selected and
the interceptor is built.
In 1984, the actual average flow through the Lake Virginia lift station was
2.63 million gallons~per day (MGD) (Table 1). Through its actions on the
individual local sewer policy plans of the communities in the service area, the
Council has approved an average daily flow of 2.905 MGD for 1990 (Table 1).
This flow of 2.905 MGD for 1990 is the overall control for any local
reallocation of flow.
In the last several months, both the city of Waconia and the city of Spring
Park have requested additional flow allocations, stating that their present
flow was in excess or equivalent to that projected for 1990. On the other
hand, the city of Minnetrista has relatively substantial unused capacity. In
May of 1985, the Council recommended that Minnetrista defer the unneeded por-
tion of its 1990 allocation and make it available to meet the pressing needs in
other communities. While Minnetrista has responded to that recommendation,.the
local needs and the allocation Minnetrista is willing to defer do not match,
requiring the Council to reconsider flow allocations within the service area.
Table 1 shows both the 'original approved 1990 flow allocations (through local
policy plan approvals) and the new proposed 1990 flow allocations. The reallo-
cation is based on the Council's new housing and employment forecast for the
region and its minor civil divisions, for 1990. The 1990 growt~ forecasts for
housing and employme6t within the service area show a flow need for 2.926 MGD,
somewhat greater than the presently approved 1990 flow allocations of 2.905
MDG. In order to stay within the constraints of the allocation for the service
area and of the pumping problem, staff has used the flow needed to satisfy the
entire housing demand and allocated that to the communities, and the remaining
allocation has been distributed proportionally among the communities on the
basis of the employment distribution.
As noted in previous CoUn6'~l's discussions on sewer service to and the flow
allocation in the Lake Virginia service area, some communities have a demon-
strated I/I problem. Additional capacity for an individual community with this
problem could be obtained by eliminating the I/I problem while still staying
within the flow allocation.
It should also be noted that the peak flow pumpage problems of overflow and
spillage may be~prevented through management of the flows from the various
lift stations tributary to the Lake Virginia station. While this may be cumber-
some and require additional expenses in manpower and material on the part of
the Commission, it is imperative that spillage of sewage and contamination of
the environment do not cause a moratorium on development to be imposed while a
permanent solution is sought and implemented.
i
FINDINGS
In 1984, three communities--St. Bonifacius, Spring Park and Waconia--had
sewage flow at or exceeding their 1990 flow allocation.
®
Until a relief solution to the Lake Virginia lift station capacity is in
place, no additional flow capacity can be allocated to the lift station
service area.
0
The city of Minnetrista has responded to the Council's recommendation to
defer the unneeded portion of its 1990 flow allocation. However, the
proposal is not sufficient to meet the need of faster growing communities.
New regional housing and employment forecasts for 1990 suggest a pattern of
growth within the Lake Virginia lift station service area that can be used
to identify the sewage flow requirement of individual co,unities and
reallocate unused allocation.
in order to insure that spillage of sewage does not cause the imposition of
a moratorium on development, the MWCC should develop additional operating
procedures to manage sewage flow during peak flow periods from,the various
lift stations contributing to the Lake Virginia lift station.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council approve for the purpose.of a public hearing the proposed
1990 reallocation of sewage flow for the communities in the Lake Virginia
lift station service area, amending the Council's Sewage Treatment and
Handling Policy Plan.
That in accordance with adopted Metropolitan Council administrative
procedure No. 1 for policy plan amendment and with Minn. Stat. 473.146, the
Council send the proposed policy plan amendment to the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission for its review and comments.
3. That the Council hold a public hearing on the proposed plan amendment on
August 29, 1985.
MJ:jb
06.12.85
BJ2019-PHENV2
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 12, 1985
Metropolitan Systems Committee
Staffs of Comprehensive Planning, Parks and Environmental and
Planning Assistance Departments
Evaluation of Alternatives for Replacement of the
Shorewood II Interceptor (Lake Virginia and Lake Ann Interceeptors)
INTRODUCTION
A. Problem Statement
The Water Resources Management chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide records the sewer capacity problem of the south Lake Minnetonka
area. The communities of Victoria, Waconia, Minnetrista, Mound, St.
Bonifacius, Spring Park, a small part of Chanhassen and Laketown Twp. are
serviced through the Lake Virginia lift station and the Shorewood II force
main interceptor. While the Lake Virginia pumping station has capacity to
handle existing flows, the Shorewood interceptor capacity is periodically
exceeded during peak flow conditions. A permanent relief facility is
required to redirect the flows from the Lake Virginia lift station and the
Shorewood II interceptor. The relief facility must provide a connection
between the Lake Virginia lift station, where the capacity problem
originates, and the Purgatory Creek interceptor, where there is ample
capacity for the Lake Virginia-Shorewood II flow (see Figure 1).
The second aspect of this issue that needs to be considered at this time
is the request by the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie that the
Council consider routing the relief facility in a manner that provides for
local sewer service, thus eliminating the need to build some local
facilities. Under this situation, the cities would be willing to share in
the cost of this facility.
B. Scope of Repor.t
This report presents data and analysis of a number of issues that are
involved in selecting an alternative that will address the problems noted
above. The following topics are covered in the remainder of the report:
1. Historylof the Problem.
2. Discussions with Local Government.
3. Forecasts, Regional- and City-Level.
4. Description and Service Capabilities of the two Alternatives.
5. Growth Management Issues.
6. Environmental Protection Issues.
7. Cost Comparisons.
8. Legal Feasibility and Policy Analysis of Cost-Sharing.
9. Findings and Conclusions.
HISTORY OF PROJECT
In 1970, the Metropolitan Sewer Board decided to build the Lake Virginia lift
station. This lift station provides service to the southern and western
Minnetonka Lake area communities, including Waconia. The lift station directs
flows to the Shorewood II force main interceptor, which in turn, channels flows
to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Shorewood II interceptor was not
designed to provide the capacity to service the long-term future needs of this
area. It was acknowledged when the Lake Virginia lift station was built that
eventually a new facility would be needed to replace the Shorewood II
interceptor.
In the 1970s, the Lake Ann gravity interceptor was proposed to connect the Lake
Virginia lift station to the Purgatory interceptor. At that time, growth rates
in the region were very high, and the need for a permanent solution was seen in
the relatively near future. In anticipation of the completed system, Phase I
of the system was built. This phase consisted of 3,445 feet of 66-inch pipe
and a lift station. Flows are channeled from the Chanhassen lift station to
the Purgatory Creek interceptor via the Chanhassen force main. These
facilities provided service to Chanhassen and had the added advantage of
allowing two small treatment facilities to be phased out, which was a major
Council sewer planning objective.
In 1976, the City of C'hanhassen requested sewer service be provided to the city
via the Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase II. The city was informed that the
upstream Lake Ann interceptor Phases II and III were not in the Council's
policy plan or the MWCC development program. The city proceeded to construct a
30-inch diameter trunk sewer along the proposed Lake Ann alignment to serve
local needs in an area south of Hwy. 5. This facility was completed in 1979.
Alternatives for redirecti.Dg the flows from the Lake Virginia lift station to
the Purgatory Creek interceptor were studied as part of the 201 water quality
study. A southwest facility planning study completed in June 1980 contained
specific recommendations for the Lake Ann gravity interceptor alternative.
During the preparation of the 201 study, Council staff worked with the MWCC and
its consultant to ensure that the concept of synchronization and in-pipe
storage was fully analyzed. This study did not analyze the force main
alternative as a separate option.
The extension to the Lake Ann interceptor is described in the ~ater Resources
Management Policy Plan amended in 1981. The policy plan calls for the MWCC to
include in its 1982-1986 development program the addition to the Lake Ann
interceptor Phase I, consisting of approximately two and one-half miles of
force main and four miles of gravity sewer.
On March 10, 1983, amendments were adopted to the Water Resources Management
Policy Plan. These amendments originally included the replacement of the
Lake Ann force main and gravity interceptor with 20,000 feet of force main
which would connect the Lake Virginia force main directly to the Purgatory
Creek interceptor. The Council did not adopt this change as part of the policy
plan amendment. Staff was instructed to conduct further analysis of the
alternatives. The analysis was to cover concerns raised by the cities of
Chanhassaen and Eden Prairie and residents of the area.
In response to these concerns, Council staff prepared and presented a report to
the systems committee in April 1984. Specifically, the April report responded
to a number of environmental and operational concerns.
The report recorded the following findings and recommendations.
Recommended the Lake Virginia force main option be built that followed
an alignment along Chanhassen°s northern corporate limits directly
linking the Lake Virginia lift station to the Purgatory Creek
interceptor.
o This facility was estimated to cost approximately $5.5 million.
The cost of the force main facility was $1.4 million less than the Lake
Ann gravity interceptor project described in the water quality policy
plan.
o A review of Eden Prairie's comprehensive plan did not substantiate the
needs for a Lake Ann gravity option.
o A force main option was environmentally preferable to the Lake Ann
interceptor Phase II.
The report was tabled pending the response to the cities of Chanhassen's
and Eden Prairie's request that local cost participation in the Lake Ann
gravity interceptor be considered in evaluating the options.
DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Staff has discussed various aspects of the issues listed with the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie over the last year. These discussions involved
growth projections, urban serviced land needs, local sewer service needs, local
growth management aspects of the local comprehensive plans and methods of
assessing local costs of the regional system. No agreements have been reached
on any of these issues,
Specifically, local and regional, cost estimates contained in earlier papers
were reviewed in response to concerns and questions raised regarding options
for reducing the gravity alternative costs. The discussions tended to focus in
three general areas: (1) an equitable comparison of the gravity and force main
alternatives; (2) developing a means for evaluating local and regional cost-
sharing options; and (3) responding to'local growth management issues raised by
the Council. The majority of time was spent in addressing items one and two.
A draft proposal was prepared, however, by the communities that oulined actions
to be undertaken in responding to the growth management issues. Much of the
work on evaluating the alternatives is reflected in this report.
The issue of local cost-sharing was the issue raised by the cities of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie in response to the proposed policy plan amendment.
They requested an evaluation of the potential cost savings to the MWCC and
'. 5
communities if local and regional service needs could be met by one facility.
They noted that construction of a regional gravity facility usually results in
local benefits by reducing the need for portions of local sewer trunks.
The commission and Council staffs evaluated a variety of potential methods
before selecting a "percentage of cost method." This method appears to reflect
more accurately the regional cost in providing local capacity. Applying this
method, a local cost-sharing amount was calculated to be approximately $2
million.
A series of meetings were held where the staff recommended method of cost-
sharing was reviewed and financing options discussed with the cities. An
approach discussed at some length was the financing of local cost from the SAC
fund in a manner that would not deplete the fund in meeting regional debt
servicing needs and adding further costs to the system such as lost
investment. These costs should not be transferred to the.communities in the
service areas. The cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have not decided
whether the $2 million share plus interest over a 15-year term compares
favorably to conventional methods of financing local trunk extensions. The
cost of local trunk extensions was estimated to be approximately $4 million; $3
million is Eden Prairie's cost and $1 million for the Chanhassen trunk
extension. It was mutually agreed that further detailed negotiations on
financing should not proceed until the Council decided whether a local cost-
sharing approach seemed feasible.
FORECASTS
'A. Regional Forecasts
Although facility planning is b~sed on city-level forecasts, the regional
forecasts are of critical importance. This is particularly true for longe~-
range forecasts. The 40-year time frame used for the study of Lake
Virginia/Lake Ann service needs represents an extremely long-time horizon,
one which cannot (and should not) be forecasted with great certainty.
There are, however, important perspectives and insights that can be gained
through the regional forecasting process and are relevant to long-range
facility planning.
First of all, the regional forecasts can be made more accurately than the
city-level forecasts. A large region has much more stable and predictable
trends than any of its smaller parts (cities). It can be related to
national forecasts which provide an even more stable "control" or limit.
These regional figures also provide a control that limits the growth of
individual cities within the region. If the region grows only half as
fast, many of its cities will also have to grow half as fast; and if some
grow faster than the region, others will have to grow even slower.
From a city's perspective, it is hard to see why growth should slow down as
long as land is in plentiful supply and local policies support growth.
This is especially true for developing suburbs which see their locational
advantages improving over time.
Analysis of regional growth forces and trends, however, provides a
different perspective. Whereas local analysis views growth as being
attracted from a seemingly unlimited pool in response to their
attractiveness, regional analysis considers where this growth will come
? 17
6
from. A brief history of growth in the Twin Cities over the past several
decades illustrates this.
Table 1
TWIN CITIES REGIONAL FORECASTS
Population Household Employment .
Percent Percent Percent
Number Change Number Change Number Change
1950 1,185,694 29% 346,563 31% na --
1960 1,525,297 23 452,276 27 na* --
1970 1,874,612 6 573,834 26 852,000 26%
1980 1,985,873 11 .721,444 12 1,075,000 21
1990 2,160,000 5 845,000 8 1,300,000 8
2000 2,260,000 2 910,000 __ 1,400,000 ._
2010 2,305,000 na na
*Figures that are available are not directly comparable but would indicate
total employment for 1960 to be about 650,000.
In both the 1950s and the 1960s, the Twin Cities added over 300,000
people. About I00,000 in each decade was due to migration, largely young
adults from rural Minnesota and, to a lesser degree, from surrounding
states.. The other 200,000 was the excess of births over deaths (natural
increase). This large natural increase was the result of the baby boom.
Households grew in relative proportion, about one household for every three
persons.
By the 1970s, the baby boom had not only ended, ~ut fertility rates were at
their lowest point in history. These trends in the Twin Cities were not
unique, but followed national trends. Population growth in the 1970s was
just over 100,000. Migration resulted in losses of about 40,000 as the
rural to urban migration patterns that had been dominant nationwide for
most of the century were reversed.
Despite the drastic slowdown in population growth in the 1970s, households
and employment grew as fast as in the 1960s. More jobs and more households
were added than people because the huge baby boom generation reached
adulthood, forming their own households and occupying jobs provided by the
Twin Cities' robust economy. Increased female participation also helped
expand the labor force.
The 1980s have continued this pattern, but the baby boom generation is
almost all houeed and employed. Female participation rates are expected to
continue increasing into the 1990s, but will then be near their upper limit.
The past 20 years have seen fewer people born. No increase in fertility is
evident or anticipated. No significant in-migration to the Twin Cities has
been detected to date. The population growth in the 1980s is forecasted to
exceed the 1970s, but subsequent decades should see less and less growth.
This assumes no change in current demographic trends. The Council's
forecast model shows only 45,000 population growth from 2000 to 2010.
Beyond that point, there is no reason to expect any population growth at
all. And, unlike the past 15 years, there will probably be no "baby
boomers" needing to be housed and employed. That means very little new
regional development expansion. It means that future growth rates cannot
simply be extrapolated, or that facilities can be built with the assumption
that even if they are overbuilt they will be needed sooner or later.
It would be foolish to argue that future changes in fertility or migration
patterns cannot occur that would alter present trends and render the
current forecast assumptions incorrect. But there is no basis for going
against the present ~rends, which clearly indicate slower growth nationwide
and in the Twin Cities. Perhaps the Twin Cities' strong economy will draw
people from elsewhere in the United States to fill jobs we cannot fill
locally. But this will be a period of nationwide labor force shortages.
Continued economic growth, even if it were assured, may not translate to
jobs (and in-migrants), but could be supported by technology-based
productivity increases. The present situation regarding regional growth
calls for cautious planning of facilities and close monitoring of trends.
B. Ci. ty-Level Forecasts
In 1978, the Council adopted forecasts as part of the Metropolitan
Development Framework (MDF). These forecasts were for population,
households and employment for the region and all of its cities and
townships. They were for 1980, 1990 and 2000. The forecasts were used in
the "201" wastewater treatment facilities planning work. Preliminary
revisions to these forecasts have recently been completed. They will be
included in the revised Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
(MDIF) after review and coherent by local units of government.
A comparison of the 1978 MDF forecasts with the preliminary revised MDIF
forecasts shows very little difference among cities in the Lake Virginia
service area (see Table 2). The revised forecasts are slightly higher,
although this differential is only 1,450 people (two percent) in the year
2000. The major differences are in Eden Prairie, which has been raised to
reflect its recent accelerated growth, and Chanhassen, which has been
lowered for the reverse reason.
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen provide good examples of the uncertainty
involved in making local forecasts. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Eden
Prairie was viewed as one of the highest, if not the highest, growth
potential suburbs. Its growth fell far short of expectations, resulting in
downward revisions. Now, the anticipated boom in Eden Prairie appears to
be under way and forecasts have had to be revised upward. Chanhassen
provides another example. Its early forecasts were tied to high
expectations~for neighboring Eden Prairie as well as the new town
"Jonathan" in Chaska. It has fallen far short of these forecasts of the
late 1960s and early 1970s.
The other cities in the service area show smaller variations between the
two forecasts, most being lower ~n the recent revision. They accounted for
less than one-third of the year 2000 population in the entire service .area.
/w)?
8
Table 2
COMPARISON OF 1978 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK FORECASTS
WITH 1985 MDIF FORECASTS
(used for "201" facilities planning*)
1980'* 1990 2000
Community 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF 1978 MDF 1985 MDIF
Chanhassen 6,600 6,359 11,000 8,500 15,500 9,500
Eden Prairie 15,000 16,263 25,000 32,000 33,300 43,000
Laketown Twp. 1,900 2,424 1,900 2,600 2,000 2,700
Minnetrista 3,900 3,236 4,200 3,500 4,800 3,500
Mound 9,500 9,280 9,700 9,300 9,700 8,900
St. Bonifacius 900 857 1,000 1,100 1,050 1,200
Spring Park 1,650 1,465 1,700 1,500 1,700 1,400
Victoria 1,800 1,425 2,300 2,200 2,500 2,400
Waconia 2,800 2,638 3,200 3,100 3,800 3,200
TOTAL 44,050 43,947 60,000 63,800 74,350 75,800
*The forecasts used in "201" facilities planning were for sewered areas only;
however, to compare the old forecasts to the new ones, total figures are
shown in the table.
**The 1980 data contained in the 1978 MDF were forecasts. The 1985 MDIF data
for 1980 is from the 1980 census.
DESCRIPTION AND SERVICE CAPABILITIES OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVES
A. Description
This report identifies and analyzes two alternatives that can solve to
address the problems described above: Alternative 1, Lake Virginia force
main, and Alternative 2, Lake Ann gravity interceptor. These alternatives
are graphically presented in Figure 1. The Lake Virginia force main
alternative includes improvements to the Lake Virginia lift station and
construction of the Lake Virginia force main with a capacity of 17.3 MGD
which would connect the lift station to the Purgatory Creek gravity
interceptor. This would replace the Shorewood II interceptor. Also
included in this alternative is the reconstruction of the Chanhassen lift
station to increase the capacity from the present 3.2 MGD to 5.0 MGD.
These improvements would be constructed in 1986. To address the longer-
range service needs, a second stage of improvements would be required in 35
to 40 years. Included would be improvements to the Lake Virginia lift
station to increase capacity to 19.3 MGD; the force main would be replaced
from the lift .station to a point approximately at Galvin Blvd with a
capability of 15.3 MGD; the Lake Ann gravity interceptor, Phase II would be
constructed with a capacity of 19.3 MGD and the Riley Creek gravity
interceptor with a capacity of 26.3 MGD would be built, providing a
connection to the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Chanhassen lift station
would be phased out. The analysis assumes these improvements would be made
in 2023.
The second alternative is the Lake Ann gravity interceptor. This would
require the Lake Virginia lift station to be modified to increase the
capacity to 19.3 MGD. The Lake Virginia force main would run from the lift
station to a point approximately at Galvin Blvd., with a capacity of 17.3
MGD. The Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase II would connect the force
main to the existing Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase I. The Lake Ann
interceptor would have a capacity of 19.3 MGD.
Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phase I would be connected to the Purgatory
Creek interceptor by means of the Red Rock gravity interceptor. The
capacity would be 31.88 MGD for this interceptor. The Chanhassen lift
station and the Chanhassen force main would be phased out of use.
The design of the facilities was prepared assuming a 40-year time frame.
This was done to allow a comparative analysis of the two alternatives and
due to fact the force main segment of both options will have reached the
end of its useful life in 40 years and will need to be replaced. Since
the first stage of contruction of the Lake Virginia alternative would only
have capacity for approximately 37 years, the second stage of facilities is
required. Alternative 2, the Lake Ann gravity interceptor, would be able
to accommodate the flows for a 40-year period, but at the end oflthis time,
parts of the facility would have to be replaced and additional facilities
put in place.
The specific facilities--their timing, capacity and capital and operating
costs--are recorded in Tables 3 and 4.
10
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE 1, LAKE VIRGINIA FORCE MAIN FACILITIES AND COSTS
Stage 1/1986 Pro,ram:
Construct Lake Virginia force main from Lake Virginia
lift station to Purgatory interceptor with a capacity
of 17.3 MGD average daily flow. The lift station
would have additional pumping and control systems added.
$5,448,000
2. Increase Chanhassen pump station capacity to 5.0 MGD
average daily flow
193,000
Total Costs in 1985 Dollars
$5,681,000
This system will last until 2023 at which time the force main
will reach its life expectancy. Stage 2 will then be built.
Stage 2/2023 Prorg_c~_:
Replace the Lake Virginia force main and
increase capacity to 19.3 MGD average daily flow.
Improve Lake Virginia lift station.
$2,'000,000
2. Build Lake Ann Phases II and III gravity interceptor
with a capacity of 19.3 MGD.
1,900,000
Construct Riley Creek interceptor with a.capacity of
26.3 MGD, which includes oversizing service to the
Bluff Creek watershed.
Total Costs in 1985 dollars
$7 210 000
$11,110,000
The annual operating and maintenance costs of these facilities
is $120,000 per year for the 40-year time period.
Table 4
ALTERNATIVE 2, LAKE ANN GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR FACILITIES AND COSTS
In 1986:
Lake Virginia force main at 17.3 MGD average daily
flow capacity, this will include additional pumping
and control systems for the Lake Virginia lift station.
$4,301,000
Lake Ann gravity interceptor Phases II and II with
a capacity of 19.3 MGD.
1,900,000
Red Rock interceptor with a capacity of 31.88.
6 522 000
Total Costs in 1985 Dollars.
12 723 000
Annual operation and maintenance costs of
these facilities is $86,000 per year for the
40-year period.
11
B. Service Capabilities
The two alternatives have some similar and some different characteristics.
This section will attempt to detail the similarities and the differences
between the alternatives with emphasis on their service capabilities.
Alternative 1, Lake Virginia force main, provides for present flows and
growth. Table 5 identifies the various facilities in AlternatiVe 1,
Stages I and 2 and Alternative 2. In addition, the capacity of each
facility has been converted to the additional housing units and population
that could be served by the facility in addition to servicing the present
flows. The Lake Virginia force main will provide for the present normal
and peak flow from the southern and western Lake Minnetonka communities and
Waconia. In addition, this facility will provide for the addition of 8,839
new housing units. Regional projections for these communities forecast the
addition of 3,100 people or 1,172 housing units by the year 2000. Since
this facility will be usable for 40 years, additional households will
likely be added in this area, but regional forecasts do not extend beyond
2000 with a high degree of accuracy. The capacity of the force main will
provide for over seven times as many households as projected for the next
15 years.
The second facility that is included in Alternative 1, Stage 1, is the
increased capacity for the Chanhassen lift station. At present, this lift
'station has a capacity of 3.2 MGD. This facility presently serves
approximately 2,400 housing units. The key capacity problem of the lift
station is the.very high peak flows that occasionally occur. Council 'staff
believes these peak flows are due to inflow which result from roof leaders
and other surface water drains being connected to the sanitary sewer
system. By increasing the capacity of the lift station to 5.0 MGD, this
area of Chanhassen.will have capacity available for existing sewer f~ows,
inflow and new growth for a number of years. With this alternative, the
Council would need to instruct Chanhassen to address the inflow question
during the next five to 10 years so that this facility could accon~odate
the growth in household and/or employment in this area over the next 30 to
35 years. If the inflow problem is corrected, the increased capacity in
this facility will allow the addition of 3,650 housing units to be built in
this area of Chanhassen. Council forecasts for the 1985 to 2000 period
project 781 housing units and 2,800 employees to be added to this area.
(These employees equateto approximately 410 housing units.) The
additional capacity allows for three times the projected growth in
households and jobs.
Stage 2 of Alternative I is projected to be needed in the year 2023 or 37
years from now. Stage 2 would include rebuilding and increasing the
capacity of the Lake Virginia lift station and force main (from the lift
station to approximately Gavin Blvd.) and building the Lake Ann gravity
interceptor Phase II to connect to the existing Phase 1, which is now in
place. In turn, this flow would be channeled to the Purgatory interceptor
via a new Riley Creek gravity interceptor. In total, Stage 2 would provide
the capacity for 16,980 housing units over what exists today. This
provides additional capacity over the Stage 1 improvements for 4,491 new
households, or a population of 11,901. This capacity would be available to
serve the entire southwestern area of Chanhassen and the extreme southerly
portion of Eden Prairie. These areas include the Riley Creek and the Bluff
Creek subwatersheds
N
N
N
N
Alternative 2, Lake Ann gravity interceptor, would connect the Lake
Virginia lift station via a force main to approximately Gavin Blvd. and
than a gravity interceptor {Lake Ann Phase II) to the existing Lake Ann
Phase I interceptor. The Lake Ann Phase I interceptor would be connected
to the Purgatory Creek interceptor by means of the new Red Rock gravity
interceptor. From Table 5, it can be seen that these facilities in stage
two of Alternative 1. Basically, these facilities would provide sufficient
capacity for 36,482 new households, which equates to an inceased population
of 96,677.
This alternative would provide needed service to the western and southern
Lake Minnetonka communities, most of Chanhassen and a portion of Eden
Prairie. The extreme southwestern area of Chanhassen would not be served
by this facility. This would include the Riley Creek and Bluff Creek
subwater sheds. The extreme southern part of the Eden Prairie would not be
serviced through this facility.
This alternative allows local service in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to
be provided through the various regional facilities. It should be noted
that most of Eden Prairie is presently served by local trunk lines that tie
into the Purgatory Creek interceptor. The Red Rock interceptor would
replace the need for a new local trunk line for a portion of the city.
The key factor this analysis points out is the difference in new
households that the two alternatives can accommodate. In 1986 or at the
time the Alternative 1, Stage 1, would be available for service, it would
accommodate 12,489 additional households or a population of 33,095. When
Alternative 2 is available for service, it will accommodate 36,482 new
households or a population of 96,677. Since it is difficult to prepare
meaningful projections for a 40-year period, it i~ difficult to know if
either level of capacity is required by 2026.
Stage 1 of Alternative 1 will serve the western and southern Lake
Minnetonka area communities and Chanhassen. Council projections forecast
these communities will grow by 5,116 people or 1,930 households by 2000.
Stage 1 of Alternative 1 has the capacity to serve almost 6.5 times this
growth. This does not include the service demand for additional employment.
Alternative 2 serves the same communities plus a small part of Eden
Prairie. Council 2000'forecasts project these communities will add 31,853
people or 12,000 households. It should be noted these projections include
all of Eden Prairie. The present Eden Prairie trunk system will provide
capacity for most of this growth. If the capacity of Alternative 2 is
compared to the total projection for these communities including all of the
Eden Prairie, over three times the forecast can be serviced. Again,
employment is not considered in these projections.
The analysis-of the capacity of the present urban service areas of
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie {which is discussed in the growth management
section below} found that urban service land in Eden Prairie is capable of
satisfying the forecasts until at least 2004 if the higher forecasts are
used and 2012 if the lower forecasts are used. This means the forecasted
growth to 2000 of 26,737 can be accommodated in the present sewer service,
which does not include the Red Rock interceptor, which is part of
Alternative 2. Therefore, this growth does not have to be met by
Alternative 2.
14
If the forecasted growth for Eden Prairie is subtracted from the capacity
Alternative 2 needs to serve by the year 2000, it has approximately 19
times the capacity that is required to serve the remaining communities.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES
A. Re§ional Growth--Demand for Service (long-term need)
Based on current growth forecasts, staff has estimated the long-term need
to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The need to expand
the MUSA has been looked at in several ways. Need has been estimated for
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen individually and for each of the two Develop-
ment Framework sectors in which these communities lie, Sectors 7 and 8.
Following standard Development Framework pra6tice, the need to expand the
MUSA is estimated by calculating land demand generated by the Council's
growth forecasts and comparing that to the amount of vacant, developable
land available for development within planned urban service areas. The
process takes into account local comprehensive plan factors such as urban
service area timing and staging, land use types and densities, and
environmental controls. Regional factors such as the desire to maintain at
least a five-year excess supply of urban service land over demand and
consideration of individual communities in conjunction with nearby
communities, i.e., sectors, are also taken into account.
This analysis indicates that, although the need to replace the Shorewood
II interceptor is immediate, the need for a replacement that also expands
the MUSA is not demonstrated. The Lake Virginia force main alternative
provides ample capacity for growth in this part of the region within the
present MUSA. The Lake A~n gravity alternative would significantly expand
the MUSA prematurely. Based on forecasts updated as part of the current
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework revision process, the
sectors to be served by the two interceptor alternatives have enough urban
service land within the present MUSA to accommodate growth through the
years 2008 (Sector 7, including Eden Prairie) and 2037 (Sector 8, including
Chanhassen). Eden Prairie and ~hanhassen, combined with the other eight
communities in need of service from this replacement facility, have enough
land for growth ranging from the year 2012 to beyond 2050. Chanhassen by
itself has enough room within the MUSA to accommodate its own growth beyond
2050. Eden Prairie has the lesser supply of the two communities, with
enough room for its oWn growth within the present MUSA until 2012. These
calculations are based on continuing the local consumption rates forecasted
for 1990 and 2000 until the supply is exhausted.
The foregoing analysis uses revised MDF assumptions, but several of the
affected communities have argued that they are growing faster than the
revised MDF forecasts indicate. Eden Prairie, in particular, has conducted
a special census to calibrate Council forecasts more finely. Other
communities have extended recent high growth rates indefinitely into the
future. Although Council staff is still looking at Eden Prairie's special
census to determine if forecast increases are appropriate for them, staff
feels that simply extending recent, short-term activity is not supportable
because the trends will even out over the longer-term, i.e., two to three
years of high rates will eventually be offset by two to three years of
lower rates. Council staff has also looked at the adequacy of the MUSA
assuming higher growth rates. Although the higher forecasts reduce the
15
length of time for which the present MUSA would be adequate, the need to
expand the MUSA still only occurs after the year 2000, sometime before
2004 in Eden Prairie and 2030 in Chanhassen.
B. Regional concerns--MDF Policies and Local Development Controls
MDF Policies 13 and 15b are the most applicable to analyzing these sewer
replacement alternatives. Policy 13 contains the basic Council commitment
to a pattern of urbanization that is efficient, orderly and economic for
the region as a whole. It provides for the expansion of metropolitan
systems in a way that accommodates growth forecasts by the Council but that
avoids premature urbanization of rural areas. Policy 13 sets the terms for
expanding the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and requiring timing
and staging of urban service areas in local comprehensive plans. Policy
15b amplifies these themes in terms of local planning responsibilities. It
indicates that new lands should not be opened for development by expansion.
of local urban services until existing services are used to full capacity.
It also establishes that all public service investments must be consistent
with local and metropolitan development plans.
Based on these two policies, the critical element for managing growth and
urban services is the timing and staging of urban service areas. Regional
services are timed and staged as shown by the MUSA. Expansion of the MUSA
at various points in time follows the principles of Policy 15b: expand the
MUSA and the regional facilities that serve it when the existing service
area and facilities are no longer adequate to accommodate forecasted
growth. Because regional facilities serve more than one community covering
major watersheds, they tend to be greatly oversized and underused in the
early years after being built. Thus, service area and facility timing and
staging need to be-refined to a smaller scale and shorter term from the
gross scale and term of metropolitan service areas and facilities. Local
timing and staging in comprehensive plans consistent with the MDF provide
this refinement. The orderly and economic development of the region cannot
occur without a complementary network of regional and local growth
management systems. Neither regional coptrol by itself nor local control
by itself is adequate.
Because the Lake Ann gravity alternative lies partly outside the present
MUSA and provides capacity for expansion well before there is a
demonstrated regional need, as indicated by Council forecasts, strong and
comprehensive local growth management programs are essential if that option
is chosen. Key parts of local growth management systems are not contained
in the comprehensive plans'of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen (reviewed by the
Council in 1981 and 1982) or are in conflict with MDF policies. Problems
exist with the inconsistent local growth forecasts, with regional forcasts,
unreconciled~land demand and supply figures, inadequate timing and staging
controls, rural density standards in excess of'MDF guidelines, and on-site
sewer controls inconsistent with the management programs recommended by the
Council's Water Quality Management Policy Plan for the rural densities
included in the local plans.
It is questionable at best under the Lake Ann gravity alternative whether
the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) would provide adequate assurance
that premature development cou)d be managed through.the local plan review
mechanism given the lack of substantiated urban service area need and
16
inadequate growth management mechanisms. When regional facilities are
designed and built with excess capacity, as would be the case with the Lake
Ann gravity alternative, the fail-safe provisions of the MLPA to require a
local plan modification in the event of a premature development proposal
may not be enforceable based on past practices in similar situations. In
comprehensive plan reviews where excess regional system capacity was
available, impacts on metropolitan systems could not be demonstrated. The
Lake Virginia force main alternative avoids this issue entirely because of
its limited service area and capacity and because it is located well within
the existing local and regional urban service areas.
From an MDF perspective, the Lake Virginia force main alternative is the
preferred solution. The main reason is that there is no justification for
investing in regional facilities that would expand the MUSA. No need is
apparent from a regional standpoint to increase either the metropolitan'
service capacity or the supply of land available for urban development.
Each of the two communities, as well as the MDF sectors as a whole, have an
adequate supply of vacant, developable land to accommodate growth
forecasted beyond the year 2000. The Lake Virginia force main would
provide more than enough regional sewer capacity for 40 years even if local
urban service areas needed to be expanded during this time.
C. Potential Limitations to Are~ Growth due to
Transportation System Capacity
The current transportation problems in this subregion are characterized by
the lack of capacity in both the regional and local highway systems to meet
travel demands. The following summarizes the condition of the three
highways serving the area.
Numerous capacity and safety problems for Hwy. 7 have been identified by
the Trans ortation ~olic Plan and affected communities. Six communities
traversed by the highway--Min~etonka, Shorewood, Greenwood, Excelsior,
Chanhassen and Deephaven--are discussing the need for a task force to
coordinate improvements and setting priorities. No funds are anticipated
for major reconstruction of this highway at present.
Although Hwy. 5 is not part of the metropolitan system, it is an important
local highway in this subregion. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation is planning to widen the roadway between Interstate 494 and
Hwy. 42 by 1990. This is an interim low-cost step to increase capacity in
the corridor prior to construction of Hwy. 212. Hwy. 5 is not expected to
become part of the metropolitan highway system.
This highway is not expected to be built prior to the year 2000. The
communities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska have agreed to an
alignment. Some funds will be available for right-of-way acquisition.
Timing and funding appear to be issues not yet fully resolved.
17
Capacity problems of these three facilities raise three issues. First, the
lack of adequate regional and local capacity and the indefinite time frame
for improvement may define a problem which will inhibit the growth of this
area. While sewer service can be provided in a number of ways, needed
highway improvements are more difficult to provide due to the competition
for funds. If improvements are not made in the near future, the area's
growth may slow down and be lower than projected.~ It is difficult to say
this will happen without reservation since individuals can make
accon~odations to increased congestion by changing their travel habits. It
can be stated that if highway improvements are not provided, capacity
problems will increase if the area°s population and employment increase.
The second issue involves regional priorities. There are limited monies
available for highway construction and reconstruction and a long list of
projects that need to be built. If this area continues to grow, the .
priority for these improvements may be elevated to replace other projects.
Again, it is not possible to determine how this issue might play itself
out. The third issue is the coordination of metropolitan system
investments. If highway facilities in this area will not be substantially
improved prior to 2000, should the Council be providing major sewer
improvements in advance of highway improvements?
ENVIRONTMENAL PROTECTION ISSUES
The major environmental concern due to the two alternatives is the effect of
s6wage spillage on the water resources of the area, specifically wetlands,
lakes and creeks. Both alternatives have the potential for environmental
impacts and both will require the preparation of an environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW), as the. capacity-of either interceptor exceeds the limit for
the mandatory EAW.
The force main alternative would traverse approximately 4,500 feet'of wetlands,
whereas the gravity system would cross some 7,000 feet. Because of the
gradient required for the gravity system, the trenches would likely be deeper
and by necessity wider than for the force main interceptor. Thus the gravity
interceptor would likely affect a larger acreage of wetlands.
The force main would run at close proximity of five lakes (Galvin, Lucy,
Christmas, Lotus and SilveK), in addition, to crossing a branch of Purgatory
Creek. A break in the force main at any point close to a lake would
potentially be a source of pollution to the lake. The physical characteristics
of the land and drainage system near the lakes would afford the possibility for
natural containment, though planned containment measures might be necessary,
especially near Christmas Lake.. The creek crossing would not afford any
possibility for containment and a break would result in flow to the creek.
The gravity interceptor would also run close to five lakes (Harrison, Lucy,
Ann, Susan, and~Rice Marsh) in addition to running contiguous to Riley Creek
for over 8,000 feet. Because of the land characteristics and the closeness of
the pipe to Riley Creek and Lake Susan, it would be extremely difficult to
contain and prevent sewage from flowing to the creek or Lake Susan.
Preliminary comments from the engineer for the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District indicate that the force main route appears to present the least
potential for adverse environmental impacts from potential spillage.
18
Finally, it should be noted that in case of a break in the force main,
alternative routing of sewage would be available through the existing force
main from Lake Virginia station, the Shorewood II interceptor and the Excelsior
lift station, providing some redundancy in the system with normal peak-flow
conditions.
COST COMPARISONS
A. Present
The two proposed alternatives provide essentially the same services for the
next 40 years in two entirely different ways.They have different operating
costs, different capital costs, and the staging of the capital improvements
is substantially different as well. Council staff has used a "present
value analysis" to compare them financially. Under the present value
analysis, all capital and operating costs for the two projects have been
discounted back to 1986 using a discount rate of four percent. The rate
was calculated assuming that current borrowing rates are around nine
percent and inflation is around five percent, thus the real rate of return
on money is four percent. In using this rate, it is assumed that either
there is no inflation over the period of analysis (40 years) or that all
capital and operating expenses increase at the same rate of inflation.
Table 6 below presents the total present value for each alternative. The
numbers represent what it would take today to build and operate the two
projects from 1986 through 2026. The Lake Virginia force main would be
built in two stages, and the Lake Ann gravity project would be built all at
once. The Lake Ann gravity system is $ 5,285,046 more expensive in terms
of present value than the Lake Virginia force main. The present value
analysis includes both capital and operating (0 & M} costs. Thus, even
with higher 0 & M costs, the Lake Virginia alternative is the cheaper
solution. One of the reasons the Lake Virginia is this much cheaper is
that a large portion of capital expenditures are postponed for 37 years.
Also, because it has been essentially rebuilt in the 37th year, it has
substantial salvage value in the 40th year, which must be taken into
account when calculating present value.
If the total present value costs were to be spread over the entire 40
years, annual costs can be calculated. Those are the equivalent annual
costs figures shown in Table 6. The Lake Ann system costs $267,023 more
annually than the Lake Virginia system.
The same information is presented for the alternative in which there is
local participation of $2 million. The figures used in that part of the
table assume that the local participation is up front (in 1986). Lake Ann
is still more expensive, even with the local participation. If Chanhassen
and Eden Prairie were willing to pay $5,285,046 of the costs for the Lake
Ann gravity interceptor, then the present value of the two alternatives
would be equal.
B. Service Area Costs
The above material discusses total costs. The information here discusses
the increased annual cost to the service area and to the region. Table 7
calculates the impact of'the two projects on the annual household sewer
rates in Service Area 4. The rates are calculated for 100,000 gallons of
use--the figure typically used for a household. The increases are not
large for either of the alternatives, ranging from a 1.3 percent increase
over the current rates to a 3.3 percent increase. Who ~s paying for the
local benefit is perhaps a more important issue to discuss here than the
actual rate increases. If Chanhassen and Eden Prairie do not pay up front
all of the difference in metropolitan system costs for the Lake Ann gravity
interceptor alternative, then the Council and the MWCC are effectively
passing the remaining difference onto Service Area 4 and to some extent
onto the rest of the region, with respect to Service Area 4 costs, one way
to consider this point is to view the Lake Virginia force main alternative
rate increase as a base line cost. If the MWCC builds the Lake Virginia
force main, each household in Service Area 4 will have to pay an additional
$1.10 per year. If Chanhassen and Eden Prairie pay the difference in costs
between the two alternatives, then households in the service area will only
pay the additional $1.10 per year they would have.paid with t~e Lake
Virginia system. If the local governments pay $2 million, then an
additional $.90 ($1.10 + $.90: $2.00) is being passed on to each
household. If the MWCC pays for the entire Lake Ann system, then an
additional $2.00 ($3.10 - 1.10) is being passed on to all households in
Service Area 4.
C. Impact on SAC Fund To be added.)
Table 6
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Present Value. of:
Capital Cost
0 & M Costs
Total Present Value
Equivalent Annual~
Costs (Capital, 0&M)
Alternative 1
.Lake Virginia
Force Main
$ 6,696,000
2~375~133
$ 9,071,133
Alternative 2
Lake Ann
Gravity
$12,654,000
1~702~179
$14,356,179
458,301 725,324
With Local Participation of $2 Million Paid in 1986:
Total Present Value $ 9,071,133 $12,356,179
Equivalent Annual Cost 458,301 624,277
*The costs have been spread over 40 years at four percent.
20
Table 7
SERVICE AREA COSTS
(per 100,000 gallons)*
Alternative 1,
Lake Virginia
Force main
Alternative 2,
Alternative 2,
Lake Ann Gravity
Lake Ann Gravity with
Local Participation
Current
Rates Increase
$94.90 $1.10
94.90 3.10
94.90 2.00
*Average annual household use.
LEGAL FEASIBILITY AND POLICY ANALYSIS OF COST-SHARING
Council staff has researched two legal issues surrounding the question of local
cost-sharing: (1) the legal feasibility of cost-sharing; and (2) the regional
control of sewer facilities if cost-sharing is undertaken. This analysis
focuses on the narrow question of regional control over a regional sewer
facility if a local unit of government directly provides some of the money to
build the facility. Thi§ analysis does not cover the larger issue of growth
management. In addition, the potential policy ramifications have been
discussed, although the questions raised have not been answered.
A. Le al Feasibilit of Cost-Sharin~
Under Minn. Stat. §429.021 (1984) (Local Improvements, Council Powers)
municipalities are empowered to acquire, develop, construct and maintain
storm and sanitary sewers and systems both within and without corporate
limits. More specifically, Minn. Stat. §429.031 (1984) provides ~hat
before a municipality assesses "any portion of the cost of an improvement
to be made under a cooPerative agreement with the state or another
political subdivision for sharing the cost of making such improvement, the
Council shall hold a public hearing..." The significance of the latter
statute is that it specifically contemplates a cost-sharing agreement to
construct improvements, including sanitary sewers and systems. It is
therefore, clear under the referenced statutes that Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen have statutory authority to enter into a cost-sharing agreement
with MWCC to construct a gravity interceptor.
The authority of the MWCC to enter into such an agreement is also clear.
See Minn. Stat. §473.504 subd. i (all powers necessary or convenient);
subd. 3 (authority to enter into any contract necessary or proper); subd. 6
(authority to enter joint powers agreement); and subd. 12 (authority to
contract with any local unit for joint use of any facility owned by the
MWCC).
" 21
The specific form that a cost-sharing agreement could take has not yet
been worked out. The extent to which Eden Prairie and Chanhassen would
finance their portion of the cost of an interceptor through the sale of
bonds, special assessments, user charges or the ad valorem property tax has
not been determined. Neither has the question of the timing of the
obligation been determined. Payments could be made at the time the MWCC
incurs construction costs, deferred until the communities actually use the
capacity, or some other arrangement could be made. It may even be possible
with the concurrence of the MWCC to simply declare this a special
situation, alter the normal MWCC system of allocating costs, and allocate
the increased costs of the gravity interceptor over the forcemain directly
to Eden Prairie and Chanhassen as a surcharge. Statutory authority for
such an option exists under Minn. Stat. §473.517, subd. 8 (1984). If this
option were exercised, it would be prudent to obtain the approval of Eden
Prairie and Chanhassen to the proposed cost allocation formula and obtain a
waiver agreement from them waiving any rights to contest the allocation.
Other financing options may be possible. Legal staff is satisfied that
there are several ways in which a binding and enforceable cost-sharing
agreement could be made. Any commitment by the Council or MWCC to enter a
cost-sharing arrangement should be contingent on approval of the legal
· staff that the agreement is binding and enforceable. With that caveat,
preliminary Council approval of a cost-sharing option could be made.
B. Regional Control of System
Currently, nearly all metropolitan interceptors are owned and operated by
the MWCC. See Minn. Stat. §§473.502, 473.504, subd. 9, and 473.511, subd.
i (1984). Allocation Of sewer capacity to local units is established under
the Council's Water Resources Management Plan and enforced through the.
local units' sewer.policy plan and through the connection permitting
process. The concern is whether the Council or the MWCC would lose any
control over the metropolitan disposal system by accepting local cost-
sharing dollars.
Eden Prairie and Chanhassen are apparently willing to include language in
any cost-sharing agreement acknowledging that the cost-sharing contribution
they make gives them absolutely no control over the use of, or ownership
interest in, the interceptor. It is an accepted rule of law that a
municipality cannot impair its administrative, governmental, or legislative
powers by contract. See 13A Dunnell Minn. Digest 2d Municipal
Corporations §11.02 (3T. Ed. 1981). Since municipalities do not now have
power to control the operation or use of the interceptors, an agreement to
contribute construction money would'not impair any existing power of the
municipality. Without going into the details of a possible agreement,
suffice it to say that so long as the agreement is properly drafted and
executed with proper consideration shown, there is no legal reason why such
an agreement should not be fully enforceable. Thus, from a legal
standpoint, a cost-sharing agreement should not in any way impair Council
and MWCC control over the metropolitan disposal system.
C. Policy Ramifications of Cost-Sharinq
As with any Council action, the cost-sharing proposed by Chanhassen an~
Eden Prairie will establish a precedent whether the Council wishes it to
or not. At this time, it can only be reported that. such a precedent
22
appears to have far-reaching ramifications that cannot be identified or
described in detail without a significant amount of research and analysis.
In the Council's interim economic policies, cost-sharing was recommended
under certain circumstances. Since those policies were added to the MDF,
specific issues for the regional systems have not been explored in depth.
Staff believes such analysis is needed if cost-sharing is to be a benefit
to the region as a whole.
We do know there are other situatiOns that could involve such requests.
Soon after this analysis began, one community submitted a similar request.
There is no way of knowing at this time how many similar situations may
exist.
Cost-sharing may have ramifications for other Council systems, most notably
transportation or highway facilities. Communities have entered into
agreements with Mn/DOT to accelerate the timing of highway interchanges
which is allowed under the Council interchange review and approval
process. Again, there is no way of knowing how many such situations might
exist in the future.
In the early 1970s, the Council came up with a definition of metropolitan
benefits to clarify this issue. This definition is incorporated into the
water management policy plan and has been used regularly since that time.
The Council has consistently rejected cost-sharing on the part of locals
for a regional facility.
Due to the uncertainty of the ramifications of this procedure, and due to
the fact the Water Resources Management Policy Plan has, in effect, defined
metropolitan benefit in such a way as to avoid confusion over this issue,
it is questionable if a change in Council policy should be m~de on the
basis of an individual case as opposed to a full analysis undertaken as
part of a policy plan revision. A complete analysis could ascertain other
potential situations where cost-sharing might be feasible and develop
criteria that would be used to define when and under what circumstance it
would be used. This may be a strategy to address reduced federal funding
of wastewater facilities.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
There is an immediate need to replace the overloaded metropolitan force
main (Shorewood II interceptor) to accommodate forecasted growth. Both
alternatives would address this problem and provide adequate service for a
40-year period.
There is no need to expand the MUSA in this part of the region until
sometime after the year 2000.
Although the need to expand the urban service occurs soonest in Eden
Prairie (in either the years 2004 or 2012 depending on which forecasts are
used), the need for a metropolitan facility to serve multicommunity needs
upstream of Eden Prairie does not occur, even with optimistic growth
assumptions, until well into the 21st century (2030).
Long-term forecasts (beyond 10 to 20 years) are very uncertain. This
suggests that flexibility should be maintained if possible when making
expensive investments that are based on long-term forecasts.
23
Regional forecasts project population and household growth will slow down
significantly in the periods 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. The total
regional population growth projected for 2000 to 2010 is 45,000.
The Lake Ann gravity alternative raises important growth management
issues. Because this alternative lies partly ouside the present MUSA
and provides capacity to expand the MUSA well before there is a
demonstrated regional need, strong and comprehensive local growth
management programs are essential if the gravity alternative is chosen.
Key elements of the local growth management systems are not covered in the
comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen reviewed by the Council
in 1981 and 1982. Of primary concern are urban service area timing and
staging, growth assumptions and rural area density standards.
It is questionable under the Lake Ann gravity alternative whether the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) would provide adequate assurance that
premature development and service area expansion could be managed through
the local plan review mechanism 9iven the lack of substantiated urban
service area need and inadequate local growth maQagement mechanisms. If
excessive amounts of regional facility capacity are available, impacts on
metropolitan systems cannot be demonstrated.
From a Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) perspective, the Lake
Virginia force main alternative is the preferred solution. It would solve
the immediate problem by providing enough regional sewer c~pacity for 40
years without expanding the MUSA prematurely. (Stage 2 of the Lake
Virginia alternative would be constructed outside of the present MUSA, but
this would not occur for 37 years.)
Due to capacity ana safety problems, major regional and l'ocal highways in
the service area do not meet the travel demands in the area. The lack of
funds will prevent major improvements from being made in the immediate
future. These capacity problems may restrict the projected growth in this
area. In addition, there is a need to coordinate the timing of
metropolitan transportation and sewer improvements so that comparable
levels of service for expected 9rowth are provided.
The Lake Virginia alternative will require that Chanhassen remove inflow to
the local and regional'system within the next 10 to 15 years. This will
resolve the peak flow problem at the Chanhassen lift station.
The communities in this area'have known that the Lake Ann Phases II and III
have not been in the MWCC Development Program since 1976. Local facilities
were built in Chanhassen in 1978 to address local service needs that might
have been met by Lake Ann Phase II.
Both alternatives have the potential for affecting water resources of the
area. The force main route would appear to present the least amount of
problems.
An EAW will be required for either alternative.
The existing force main from the Lake Virginia lift station, Shorewood II
interceptor and the Excelsior lift station would provide alternative
24
routing of normal sewage flow should the new force main break or have
serious problems.
From a legal view, cost-sharing agreements can be structured to ensure that
the local units of governments will pay for their share of the cost even if
these are delayed to some future time. This assumes the agreements are
properly written and executed.
The Lake Virginia alternative is the least cost alternative using a present
value analysis--taking into account both capital costs and operating and
maintenance costs.
The Lake Virginia alternative is still the least cost alternative even with
an initial, up-front contribution of $2 million from local governments.
The Lake Virginia force main alternative will increase household rates
(based on 100,000 gallons per year) in Service Area 4 by $ 1.10 or 1.3
percent. The Lake Ann alternative will increase rates by $3.10 without
local participation and by $2.00 with $2 million of local participation.
If the interested local governments do not pay all of the difference in
costs between the two projects, then the additional costs will be picked up
by other communities in Service Area 4 and by the rest of the region.
From a legal view, control of sewer facilities can be maintained by the
region even if local cost-sharing is provided. This also assumes the
agreements are properly written and executed.
Local cost-sharing will establish a precedent in the region. All
ramifications of such a precedent have not been identified or analyzed.
Such analysis would be mor~ appropriately done in the revision to the Waste
Water Manaqement Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report does not contain recommendations. The Metropolitan Council needs
to consider this report and discuss it prior to determining what alternative it
will choose. In addition, the Council may want to discuss this report with the
MWCC and the communities involved. While Chanhassen and Eden Prairie are key
participants in this decision, the other communities in Service Area 4 will
also be affected and should be involved in the discussion.
There are two issues in the Lake .Ann alternative that need to be resolved with
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie if the Council selects that alternative. These are
the specific amount and timing of the local share of the costs and the
revisions required to local plans to conform to Council growth management
policies.
As noted above, either alternative will require an environmental assessment
worksheet to be completed. That analysis will help to determine if an
environmental impact statement is required for either of the projects. The
Council may want to direct the MWCC to complete the EAW on the preferred
alternative before an amendment is made to the Waste Water Management Plan.
CEO:emp
06.12.85
EPO95G, PHDEV1
COl'lT OI.
CO II/'/IOFI
June 13, 1985
TO CITY MAYORS:
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) will be conducting
public meetings on the proposed 1986 MWCC Program B'adget as per the
.~ttached schedule. The draft budget document kas been sent to your
city manager for information and review.
Anticipated expenditures for the administration, operation and main-
tenance of the Metropolitan Disposal System during 1986, total
$95,459,879. This amount represents a $5,207,373, or 5.77% increase
in propose~ e~xpenditures over the 1985 Budget. Over one-third of the
increase, or 2.06%, is due to balloon payments on debt service. That
schedule of debt srvice payment was established by Commission action
in 1971 and 1972 and now must be met.
Arriving at a 5.77% increase was a three-fold process. MWCC Prograi,
Managers prepared a draft Program Budget to meet their program objec-
tives and needs .for 1986. Department Directors reviewed these
requests and budgets were reduced by a joint decision of the
Department Director and Program Manager. These reduced draft Program
Budgets, when presented to the MWCC Staff'Budget Committee, totaled an
1.1.22% increase, or $10,037,884. The Staff Budget Committee met with
each Department Director and Program Manager and further reduced the
total increase to 5.77%, or $5,207,373.
We are pleased to present our preposed budget to you and look forward
to seeing you at one of the public meetings.
A public hearing on the proposed budget will be held August 20, i985,
at the regular MWCC Commission meeting.
Sincerely,
Peter E. Meintsma
Chairman
Attachments
PEM:RLB:pp
Enclosure
350 Metr~'Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55f Of
6~ 2-222-8423
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
222-8423
"Proposed 1986 Program Budget"
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) will be conducting
public meetings on the Proposed 1986 Program Budget. Meetings will
be held at the following locations in the six (6) service areas and
the public is invited to attend at the location most convenient for them.
June 20th - 7:30 AM
Lincoln Del
5201 Wayzata Blvd. (Hwy 12 & 100)
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
June 27th - 7:30 AM
Holiday Inn Maplewood
1780 East County Road "D"
Maplewood, MN 55110
(off 694 on White Bear Ave.)
July 10th - 7:00 P.M.
Coon Rapids'City Hall
1313 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
July llth - 7:30 AM
Benjamins
13050 Aldrich Ave. So.
Burnsville, MN 55335
July 17th - 7:30 AM
Woody's
7064 Point Douglas Road
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
July 18th - 7:30 AM
Ramada Renaissance
12201 Ridgedale Drive (Hwy 12 across from YMCA)
Minnetonka, MN 55343
A public hearing on the proposed budget will be held at the regular
MWCC Commission meeting August 20, 1985 at 2:00 P.M., 350 Metro Square
Building, St. Paul, MN 55101. For additional information, contact
Jean E. Bergal, Public Information Officer, 222-8423.
HENNEPIN
_i L
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
A-'1603 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0' 63
6'12-348-6846
June 13, 1985
To all municipalities in Hennepin County
Re: Solid Waste Resource Recovery Vendor Selection
Hennepin County plans to make an important decision in the June/July time
frame concerning the selection of a vendor (company) to implement a solid
waste resource recovery facility to serve Hennepin County.
An extensive process, including qualification of vendors and the preparation
and issuance of a Request For Proposals has been completed. In April, 1985
five companies submitted proposals to the county for the design, construction,
acceptance-testing, ownership and 20-year operation of a 1,000 TPD average
annual volume (365,000 TPY) resource recovery facility at the Greyhound site
in Minneapolis.
The proposals have been evaluated and reports are being finalized. I will
send to you on June 17, a copy of the reports.
The County Board Public Service Committee has scheduled meetings on June 20
at lO:O0 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., and on June 21 at 9:30 a.m., for consideration
of the reports. The next regularly scheduled Public Service Committee meet-
ing .is July 1 at lO:O0 a.m. All meetings are in the County Board Room on
the 24th floor of the Government Center.
Please do not hesitate to contact Warren Porter at 348-6848 or me if you
have any questions. "
PoE,
Di rector
c.c. Vern Genzlinger
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity cr'nployer
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS
qST NATIONAL-SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 (AREA CODE 612)
3une l, 1985
FILE:
Financial Specialists: EhIers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
lax exempt interest rates are trying to improve, but whenever the Bond Buyer Index drops a quarter of a
percent, the refunding issues and other offerings surface which inflate the supply. Coupled with massive
federal borrowings, the climate is not conducive to any big drops in interest rates. The Bond Buyer Index
will probably hover around 9 to 9.5%.
When do you need an independent financial advisor? Whenever a major capital improvement is being
considered, and very early. It must be recognized that even if an underwriter is involved in the private sale
of bonds, he is a principal, not a fiduciary or an agent of the issuer. He is seeking to buy bonds as cheap as
he can while your interest is in the highest price. Someone who knows the market, who does not buy bonds
and who does not provide consulting service to underwriters should be on the issuer's side.
How should advisors be paid? Well, and not on a contingent basis, at least in the preliminary stages. Is that
self-serving? Yes, but it also best serves the client. Sometimes a firm will quote a very low fiscal fee with
an eye on some other revenue source such as avenues to profitable negotiated bond sales, being appointed
registrar/paying agent, investment of bond proceeds, etc. The fiscal fee may be a minor consideration
compared with the other profits (your costs) not stated.
It pays to have a fee explicitly stated as opposed to one camouflaged as a "spread" or a "discount" or a
margin in the interest rate. Dollars expressed as percentage discounts or premiums in the marketing of
bonds, so-called "soft costs", are perhaps even more expensive than a dollar-quoted fee.
If possible, until the issuer decides to proceed with the project, the fiscal fee should not be contingent upon
the sale of the bonds. Many troubled financings are characterized by the fact that no one had any incentive
to recommend against the project. A true professional, whether an engineer, an underwriter, bond counsel
or fiscal advisor, would never recommend proceeding with an unwise project. But it must be recognized that
the incentives presented by a contingent fee predominate in favor of finding a way to do the project.
The independent financial advisor who is not dependent upon the "go", at least up to the go/no go decision,
can be the most valuable member of the team. This is especially true for revenue projects such as utilities,
electric generation, district heating, solid waste projects, tax increment projects and utility work. Any fee
that appears too good to be true, is: There may be hidden and potentially very expensive costs.
Once a project is decided upon, a contingent fee to carry out a bond sale is appropriate. It is a strong
incentive for good performance and a successful bond sale.
~:ro~itnrg~i~_~id, to seeinCj/~/at the convention, we are all
il
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square I uilding
Seventh and Robert Streets
~;t. Paul, Minnesota ~)101
Telephone (612) 291-6359
Jon Elam, Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Blvd
Mound. MN 55364
Dear Mr. Elam:
The Metropolitan Council, in conjunction with Mn/DOT and the cities of
Minnetonka, Shorewood, Deephaven, Greenwood, Excelsior, and Chanhassen,
recently initiated a corridor study for Highway 7 between Highway 101 and the
western corporate boundary of Chanhassen.
The communities immediately adjacent to the highway are particularly concerned
about access problems, congestion, accident rates and inadequate design of the
road. Because Highway 7 is a major arterial for many western Twin City
suburbs, we are requesting your input as well. The next meeting Cs scheduled
for June 20th in Minnetonka.
If you wish to participate in the study, or would like more information about
it, please call me at 291-6525.
Sincerely,
Ann Braden
Transportation Planner
AB:Sam
SM0012
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Luestonko oreo chomber o~ commerce
5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 · 472.6780
- :
OFFICERS
President: Steve Wood
President-Elect: Diane Thai!
Treasurer: Donna Quigley
Secretary: Roger Finnes
DIRECTORS:
Past-Pres.: Ted Koenecke
John Burger
Helen Daum
Pet Meisel
Carol Pitsch
Dan Regafl
Dave Simonson
George Stevens
JUNE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING
Guest Speaker:
Senator Gan Olson
will recap the 1985 State Legislative Session
Wed., June 19th- Gray Freshwater Biological Institute
11:30 Social - 12:00 Lunc_h~atered by Axel E, Bob's
Reservations are a must to the Chamber Office -
472-6780 by No6n~' June 18th - $5.50
President's Letter:
Ihope all of you took note of the publicity in our
local papers regarding the new Senior Citizen
van. However, funds are still needed! Please call
Don (Jlrick at 472-1600, ext. 241,242, to make
a donation.
Two jottings for your calendar: June ]gth the
General. Membership Meeting'will be at Gray
Freshwater Biological Institute. State Senator
Gan Olson will speak while we munch on box
lunches provided by Axel & Bob's. On August
5th we will hold our annual Golf Outing at Burl
C.C. There will be plenty of. activities for non-
golfers including a volleyball tournament, a
fried chicken dinner and a crazy auction that
evening. Contact Roger Finnes, 472-5968, to
make reservations early!
Police Report: Civil disobedience charges
were dropped against Ted Koenecke after he
was found tangled at the top of a fence at
Lafayette Club during Mpls. Police Chief Tony
Bouza's appearance there on Hay 21. Koenecke
protested he was only retrieving a lost golf ball.
Officers were convinced his story was genuine
after obtaining depositions from others in the
foursome as to his inadequacies as a golfer.
Steve Wood, President
Thank. YouH Thank. You. Ii Thank. You/!
to our wonderful pot lady, Audrey Schultz,
and her helpers from Larkspur Garden Club, Pat
Dill and B.J. Larson. Please remember to water
your pots, lots![
Donation
The Chamber has received a special donation
from Bob and Pat Albertson of Tonka Phones
of a number of items including Kerosin Heaters,
electric fishing motors and a generator. Great
items for door prizes, auctions, etc. Thanks to
the Albertsons!
GOLF OUTING
Mom, Aug. 5th, Burl (2.(2.
Mixed Volleyball Tournament
Golf, Dinner, Crazy Auction
(Alias the Ted & Chic'n Show)!
Roger Finnes (472.5968) is the chair for this
event. Steve Swanson (472-4989) is his co-chair
for golf. Please call them with foursome re-
. quests. Jean and Larry Brustad (471-7019 eves.)
and their Lollipop Dragon crew are chairing our
new event - the mixed volleyball tournament.
Please call them if you have a team or want to
be placed on one -- first come, first served
because space may be limited due to time!
Door prize and auction donations are
needed! Watch your July mail for your
golf/volleyball dinner registration form
and please return it by July 26. Thank you!!
The May General Membership Meeting was
a huge successl There were 180 people from 5
area chambers In attendance. Thanks to the
Wayzata Chamber for providing us with such a
marvelous speaker and to our Westonka mem.
bars who pitched in as hosts, ticket takers and
prize donors. Lafayette's lunch was luscious.
(Try saying that fast ten times.)
Remember the Camp Courage Wagon 'Train
will be camping on the Mound-Westonka High
.School grounds on Friday, June 21st. The
Northwest Tonka Lions, Mound Jaycees and
other area groups are working hard together to
make this a special stay for the Wagon Train
and a special evening celebration for Wes.
tonka--watch the newspapers for additional in.
formationl The Chamber will have its new
Westonka T-shirts available for sale that night
with $1.00 from the sale of each shirt donated
to Camp Courage. See you there!
June 14
June 21
June 21-23
June 22
July 13
July 17
July 18-20
July 25-27
July 26
Aug. 1-3
Aug. 5
1985 Extended Summer Westonka Chamber
CALENDAR
· Benefit Dance 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. for new Mound-
Westonka High School sign in the school courtyard. Music
by Mound-Westonka High School Jazz Band and New
Vintage. (Mary Campbell, 472-4133)
· Camp Courage Wagon Train at Mound-Westonka High
School Celebration, Frida. y evening. (Skip Johnson,
472-3136)
- Spastagen Days in St. Boni. Parade at 2 p.m. Sunda~/.
(Mick Segner, 446-1320)
- Mound Firemen's Annual Fish Fry, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
and dance 9 p.m.- 12 a.m. (472-2858)
· Mound City Day - Depot Park. (Harold Meeker,
472.6682)
-NO GENERA~MBERSHIP MEETING
-Crazy Days in, Spring Park.
-Crazy Days in Navarre.
-Reservations for GolffVolleyball Outing MCIST be in to
Roger Finnes at 472-5968.
-Crazy Days in Mound.
-Golf and Volleyball Outing replaces the August 21.
General Membership Meeting.
Chic'n Scratches:
Let's welcome Vladimer's Deli and its owner,
Vladlmer Gribovski, to Westonka. Kenny De-
Forest will be the manager at this location.
Congratulations on a couple of new arrivals: Doug
(Hardee.') and Joanne Swalboski's new son,
Joseph Adam, and Scott (Country Kitchen) and
Connie Price's new son, Joshua James. Is this a
trend in the industry?
Orono has a new City Administrator - Mark Bern-
harrison, Jori Gerhardson has done a great job of
introducing him around town.
Steve and Sue Pauley have opened the Blue
Lagoon Marina. It is currently located in what was
Martin & Sons boat rental and in downtown Mound,
Did you know that the Board of Directors is expec~-
tng;~ Well, sort of. Donna (State Bank of Mound)
Quigley, our Treasurer, and her husband Dave are
expecting their second child in the fall. I just love
these vicarious experiences!
Praise be to all the powers that be that Gerr7
Smith is already back to work part-time! He and
Donna and all his $-O-S crew have real spirit!
/
5600 Lynw, ood Blvd. ~ k
westonko area chamber O~ commerce
Bull< Rate
U,S. Postage
PAID
Mound, MN 55364
Permit 022
' Ci%Y of Mound
.,/b3"'~ ~LU 55364
!. Attn: Jori Elam
June 10, 1985
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6359
TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Public Officials
Attached is a copy of an issues paper on water resources prepared by
the Metropolitan Council to present and discuss issues related to
revision of its Part 3, Water Resources Management Guide chapter. The
Part 3 document addresses the occurrence of the water ~esource and
the ways in which it is used.
The. issues paper will be the subject of public meetings to be held
June 24 and June 25, 1985. The purpose of the meetings is to solicit
comments on the issues and to identify water-related topics that the
public thinks the Council should address. The public meetings will be
at the following locations, contingent upon Council approval June 13,
1985.
Monday, June 24, 1:30-3:30 p.m.
County Board Chambers
Carver County Courthouse
600 E. Fourth St.
Chaska
Tuesday, Jun~ 25, 9:30-11:30 a.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
300 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul
All interested persons are encouraged to attend the public meetings
and offer comments on Part 3. If you will be attending or would like
confirmation of the meeting dates, please contact Lucy Thompson at 291-
6521. Questions on the issues paper or on Part 3 of the Water
Resources Management Guide chapter should be directed to Gary Oberts
of the Council's Parks and Environmental Planning Department staff at
291-6484.
Sincerely,
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Water Availability and Use in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Part 3 of the Water Resources Management Development Guide
I~sues Pa~er
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Council is reviewing its Development Guide/Policy Plan for
water availability and use and plans to adopt a revised plan in late 1985. The
Council seeks comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the current Water
Resources Policy Plan and about new issues to be considered in the revision.
This issues paper is the first part of the public input process. The paper has
been prepared by the Council's Natural Resources Program staff to prompt dis-
cussion at two issues meetings to be held June 24, 1985 at the Carver County
Courthouse, Chaska {1:30-3:30} and June 25, 1985, at the Metropolitan Council
Chambers, 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul {9:30-11:30 a.m) contingency upon
Council approval June 13, 1985.
The Council has selected these issues as an indication of the most important m
water issues facing the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Council welcomes
comments that agree with, disagree with, or expand the issues presented here.
The issues meetings will also give people a chance to speak for or.against any
specific or general water-related topics they believe should be considered by
the Council.
Following the issues meetings, the Council will develop a draft policy plan to
be circulated for a public hearing, currently scheduled for Oct. 1985. After
the hearing, the Council will review and adopt a final revised policy plan.
BACKGROUND
In 1971, the Metropolitan Council was given the authority under Minn. Stat.,
Section 473B.06, subdivision 5, to prepare a comprehensive development guide
for the region. Such a guide is to include physical resources that have an.
impact on the entire seven-county area. This particular chapter is intended to
ensure proper use and protection of water and related resources within the
Council's program review and approval authorities. The first Water Resources
chapter was adopted in 1973. Another chapter, Protection of Open Space,
contained policies on water-related land resources and was adopted also in
1973. The revised Part 3 document will include policies in areas formerly
covered by both of these 1973 chapters.
ISSUE 1:
The water resources of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area provide a competitive
advantage in attracting commerce and people to the region. Are the resources
adequately protected and monitored to assure their long-term availability?
DISCUSSION:
Numerous federal, state and local regulatory programs are in place to assure
protection of clean, abundant water and related resources. Nevertheless,
instances of groundwater contamination appear frequently; development continues
in floodplain/shoreland areas; and the Metropolitan Area's lakes appear to be
growing progressively greener. The values placed on our regional water
resources do not seem to be reflected in effective regulatory efforts. Simi-
larly, long-term data programs on water quantity and quality were drastically
cut in the early 1980s when the state'experienced a fiscal crisis. These
programs have not been restored. This means that decisions on management of
water resources are being made with little or no continuous, long-term data
'that reflects the condition of the resource. Specific data needs include
identification and examination of potential groundwater contamination sites;
installation of adequate monitoring of water level and water quality in each of
the region's aquifers; and installation of monitoring stations for surface
water quantity and quality on secondary watersheds.
ISSUE 2:
A major drought of 1976 resulted in numerous situations of nearly disastrous
water shortages. Is the region prepared for a severe water shortage or
emergency contamination situation?
DISCUSSION:
During the sun, her of 1976, a drought condition led to record low flows on the
Mississippi River and extremely high demands on the groundwater system. The
City of Minneapolis came within one foot of a dry intake, or loss of water,
relying on St. Paul's voluntary curtailment of its river intake to 'avert dis-
aster. Many municipalities instituted water use restrictions because they
could not keep up with demand. Agriculture experienced devastating crop
losses. Water quality on the Mississippi River was extremely bad because there
was not enough water to adequately assimilate untreated sewage. Voluntary
restrictions on recreational boat locking restrictions kept lock operation at a
minimum. The Legislature reacted with the creation of a Water Planning Board
and a new use priority system.
Since 1976, precipitation and water levels have essentially returned to "nor-
mal'' and the lessons of 1976 are fading. No contingency plan is in place for
the Mississippi River; few municipalities have submitted watershortage plans to
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), as required by law; and
irrigation wells dot the agricultural countryside in numbers that might stress
the groundwater system. The Mississippi River and the groundwater of the Twin
Cities Basin must be relied upon to continue supplying water to the region
during periods of shortage~i, and emergencies, but little definitive action has
occurred to protect these vital resources.
Related questions that deserve exploration include:
- Should a regional system of water supplier pipeline interconnections be
developed for emergencies?
- Should Minneapolis be required within a certain time frame to find a ground-
water supply to supplement its less-than-24-hour surface water supply?
- Should MDNR be given a schedule for obtaining municipal water supply con-
tingency plans, with a final date beyond which legal action would be taken
against suppliers failing to comply?
- Should the issuance of permits for more irrigation wells be stopped until an
examination of "safe yield" can be done?
- Should the MDNR, U.S. Army COrps of Engineers and Metropolitan Council pre-
pare a plan for use of Mississippi River water so shortages can be handled
in other than a reactive manner?
ISSUE 3:
A myriad of federal, state, regional and local agencies are involved in water
related resources management. Do these agencies effectively incorporate
regional and local concerns in managing the water resources of the region?
DISCUSS ION:
Several state studies examining the institutional aspects of water management
have looked at the number of government agencies involved--approximimately 14--
and have concluded that no major changes are needed. These studies have gen-
erally concluded that separate agencies reviewing various components of overall
water management provide a healthy checks-and-balance approach. The studies
also call for a strengthened "state-local" approach to management, wherein the
state develops policy and the local units implement it.
Do the multitude of agencies really work as well as has been perceived? Regard-
ing public health threats from contaminants or a municipal supply shortage, the
answer would be yes. This is because authorities are clear in the~e two
areas. In less clearly defined problem areas and in planning, however, the
multiple-agency approach does not work well. For example, only recently has
the state put together a team to develop an overall comprehensive state ground-
water strategy. This is a need the Council recognized and asked for as early
as 1979. Also, the process for public participation in state policy develop-
ment is not well defined. Finally, the so-called "state-local" approach
focuses almost exclusively on the counties and continues to ignore regional
agencies, such as the Council, which can and have played major planning roles.
State water planning agencies have not responded to repeated attempts by the
Council to raise local and regional issues. Similarly, no mechanism currently
exists for regional and local units to participate in the state policymaking
effort, yet the state intends to have local units implement policy. How should
regional and local concerns be transmitted to policymakers?
ISSUE 4:
Each biennium, agencies within the region compete for limited funds to under-
take water management programs. Should a special fund be created to contine
Metropolitan Area water programs?
DISCUSSION:
State agencies seem to battle among themselves every biennium for funds from
the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). This source of funds
is available to state agencies or agencies cooperating with state agencies for
short-term studies. Competition for funds also exists within these agencies.
Regional and local units of government also have very limited funds, which put
constraints on the types of water management activities that can be under-
taken. As long as this uncertainty over funds exists, .long-term data collec-
tion and planning cannot be assured.
It is very difficult to call for methods of raising revenue for water manage-
ment programs, but perhaps the state should examine options for providing fund-
ing stability. Options include per-gallon water use fees, water and sewer
taxes, and dedicated annual state budget items. Such a reliable fund could
include a pass-through to regional and local agencies to implement some state-
developed policies. Is such a fund desirable or is competition for limited
funds a healthy way to fund the best projects?
ISSUE 5:
The major alternative to any water supply problem encountered in the region is
further planned development of the groundwater system. Should the Metropolitan
Council adopt a "nondegradation policy" that would prohibit the introduction of
any pollutant into the groundwater system?
DISCUSSION:
The water resources of the Metropolitan Area are perhaps its greatest attrac-
tion for commerce and people. In the event of any problem with provision of
water, the principal recourse would be further exploitation of groundwater. It
would seem to make sense, then, that all possible efforts should be taken to
prevent contamination of groundwater, and if it's found to be contaminated, to
in~nediately clean it up. The most direct way to prevent groundwater pollution
is a "nondegradation policy,"stating that no introduction of pollutants will be
allowed. This implies maximum preventive engineering at waste disposal sites,
elimination of sanitary waste systems that rely on sewage infiltration into the
ground, optimum density and design of septic systems, and better control of
chemical applications on farmland to name just a few examples.
This approach would also require reclaiming aquifers rather than abandoning or
circumventing them. In short, contaminated aquifers would need to be treated
rather than drilled through or left to spread unchecked. Similarly, continued
contamination of a site with documented pollution problems, such as an operat-
ing landfill requesting an expansion, would not be allowed unless the problem
is addressed. Is a nondegradationI approach reasonable or should some "con-
trolled degradation" be allowed and monitored? Should various types of opera-
tion that deal with hazardous material be prohibited, or should areas with
certain types of physical limitations be off limits to development that has a
high likelihood of generating pollution?
ISSUE 6:
Expensive water-related projects have often been undertaken with a minimum
amount of study to define need or potential benefits, or to determine local
financial impacts. Should the Council intervene in these projects when costs
or benefits of projects are unreasonable?
DISCUSSION:
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent recently on projects undertaken
without evaluation of their impact on the water system, likelihood of success
and overal.1 costs. Examples include lake restoration projects where large sums
of money have been poured into projects on lakes that are small, almost inac-
cessible to the public and suffering from problems not addressed by the pro-
posed "solution"; ditch re-establishment projects petitioned by a small group
of adjacent ditch landowners yet paid for largely by unsupportive watershed
citizens; and closed-basin lake drainage projects designed to alleviate
flooding on structures placed in the lakes' floodplain during periods of low
water. All too often projects relating to water are undertaken to ~rea~
symptoms rather than causes. The Council has often been involved in local
indebtedness discussions and has often been asked by local units or citizens to
get involved in stopping a locally opposed project.
Such local projects raise a number of issues. To what extent should the
Council intervene in local matters? If public funds are involved in a project
reviewed by the Council, what documentation should be provided and how can the
views of all interested parties be balanced? Should a statement of system
impact be required to justify a public expenditure? When should "regional
significance" be cited as a reason for intervention? Should the Council seek
legislative changes to regain watershed project review authorities in order to
assure public input?
SE2OOS-PHENV2
06.03.85
5