09-13-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 -2- 3. OTHER BUDGET CONCERNS: D. Clean -Up Days - The Council unanimously agreed that Clean -Up Days serve a very important purpose by keeping the boulevards and backyards free of waste and debris. Whittaker explained that the City lost money on the last Clean -Up bays; and, that the City probably would not generate enough revenue through fees to pay for Clean-up Days in the future. He went on to explain that part of the reason the fees did not pay for the Clean -Up Day was that the Tri-Lakes Association was given the prividedge of dumping without charge. The Council agreed that in the future the Tri- Lakes Association should pay the dump charges as other residents do. The Council agreed that expenses for two Clean -Up Days should be put in the 1983 Budget; and, that the City Administrator should estimate the approximate revenue those two Clean -Up Days would generate and show that as a revenue in the 1983 Budget. Whittaker estimated that the expenses would run about $3,000 and the revenue may run $1,000. E. Intern - Whittaker explained that in addition to the Waste/ Energy —Plant project, the City will be involved in the 201 Construction Grants Program and in development of three surface water management plans for the three watersheds in the City. He explained that these additional projects would severly tax his time and make it difficult for him to adequately perform the other jobs now expected of him. Mottaz said he felt the intern would be essential. Morgan asked how long the intern would be necessary and how it would be financed. It was explained that the City hoped Washington County would finance the estimated cost along with the Engineering Feasibility Studies on the Waste/Energy Plant, for a total of $90,000. Mottaz explained that 2/3 of this cost would come from Ramsey County and 1/3 from Washington County. Novak expressed her concern that the City would be changing its philosophy; and, would in effect be doing the planning for a party that wants to develop property. In response, Whittaker said that we had asked the County to provide these review costs, as they are the developer of the Waste/Energy Plant. Several Council people felt that we should not show this expense in the Budget. We should just handle it as a pass -through cost as we do with other subdivisions. Eder suggested that the City establish a Waste Management District if the Counties will not pay these costs and that these costs be assessed against all the people in the Waste Management District. Mottaz indicated that the whole County would benefit from this project; therefore, the whole County should pay the cost of the study. Morgan indicated that; in these difficult times, the City might not be able to afford an intern. He suggested that it might be good management to cut costs in order to pay for the intern. He said if the project is not financed by the County, the City should not do the studies. Mottaz said the City cannot afford to ignore this project. He said the project will have a significant impact on the City; and, the City must plan for it whether or not our costs are reimbursed. He compared this project to the earlier City cost and related to the 3M development proposal and the Dayton -Hudson development proposal. Novak and Morgan questioned whether or not the City had paid for any of the reviews related to those two projects. Eder said that we not only have to be concerned about the plant itself, but all of the adjacent area. He said the plans should include all of Section 32 so that we do not have random piecemeal development in this area. He felt that somehow the City must control this project and its impacts. Morgan said he felt the City Administrator should have more time, at this time, to handle these projects because many major projects the City had lined up several years aqo are now completed_