HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-91 CCMDATE APPROVED: 3-19-91
DATE ISSUED; 3-29-91
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 5, 1991
Mayor Johnson called the City Council meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in
the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Hunt, Dick
Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineers Bohrer and Prew, City
Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner.
1. AGENDA
Add: 7G. Old Village Drainage Update
M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to approve the March 5, 1991 City
Council agenda as amended. (Motion carried 5-0).
2. MINUTES: February 21, 1991
M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to approve the February 21, 1991 City
Council minutes as amended. (Motion carried 4-0-1: Abstain: Hunt).
3. CLAIMS
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to approve the March 5, 1991 Claims #94501
thru #94551 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0).
4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES
5. State Senator Gary Laidig and State Representative
Harriet McPherson
The Council asked the Senator and Representaive to keep the Council
up-to-date on proposals in bill form, and they would appreciate having
an informal meeting to submit their input or concerns.
In regard to the $500 million buffer set aside to handle emergencies,
Councilman Mottaz explained the state figures that 5400 million of
that they have to use for daily operation which leaves 5100 million to
use for emergency situations. Councilman Mottaz asked, "Don't you feel
that instead of placing cities in very difficult situations where they
have to make major cuts and changes, that this is an emergency
situation that we have built up this buffer?" McPherson answered if
the reductions are going to be so severe that they result in
curtailment of services that are vital or layoffs of employees, then
the use of that budget reserve is a "hot" item. It will be difficult
to defend keeping $100 million in the budget reserve, but we should
wait until we see what the April forecast is before we ask a
committment on 5100-150 million.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 2
Senator Laidig asked the Council what their feelings are on removal of
levy limits. Mayor Johnson and Councilman Williams indicated they
would be in favor of removing Levy limits. Representative McPherson
pointed out that Governor Carl.son's proposal is to do away with the
tax capacity formula and go back to the mill rate.
McPherson reported she has been working with Rita Conlin and Tedi
Carlson on proposed legislation that will prohibit siting landfills
over deep flow recharge areas. Laidig indicated there was a very good
chance there may be legislation to repeal the inventory site.
6. REAPP REPORT:
A. Contract with Colle and McVoy
City Attorney Filla submitted the amended draft of the public
relations contract with Colley and McVoy. Attachment A was now
included with this contract and that attachment included a line item
for the lobbying efforts of Pat Forciea.
M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to award the Public Relations Service
Agreement in regard to the Lake Elmo Regional Landfill to Colle &
McVoy Public Relations in the total amount of $57,000.00, recognizing
that such amount includes costs already incurred and authorized by
prior City Council action; authorizing the Mayor and City
Administrator to execute the Agreement; directing that the City
Administrator be designated as the City's contact representative; and
authorizing Colle & McVoy to subcontract with Pat Forciea to provide
lobbying services within the contract limits, said lobbying services
to be provided.at a fee of $50.00 per hour and a monthly cap of
$3,250.00 plus approved expenses. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. Update
Rita Conlin reported there will be a Task Force Meeting on Thursday,
March 21st at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Chris Naylor, Colle & P7cVoy,
will present the public education video and press kit to the Council
at the March 19th Council meeting.
7. PLANNING/LAND USE & ZONING:
A.. PUBLIC HEARING: Philip and Mary Zimmer
Variance to rear setback
Mayor Johnson opened up the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. in the City
Council chambers. The public hearing notice was published in the
February 13, 1991 St. Croix Valley Press and-adjoininq property owners
were notified.
Philip Zimmer is requesting a variance to the rear setback for the
purpose of constructing a 12 x 14: addition on the west side of the
house. The applicant submitted a drawing showing the existing house is
40 feet from the back lot line. The reasons they are going to the
west is because it is impossible to go to another direction because of
the layout of the house. where the house is placed on the lot is the
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 3
only location because the water table is high and the land falls very
quickly. It is wooded behind the house and will not interfere with the
neighbors to the west. The property owners abutting this property
have no problem with this request and have signed the sketch plan.
Mayor Johnson closed the pubic hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Councilman Williams asked the Zimmers for their hardship. Mr. Zimmer
stated they positioned the house so they could have proper drainage
for a septic system and drainfield without having a lift station.
This forced us to build at the 40' setback. The south side of the
house has a solarium and would not fit in architecturally. On the
north is the garage and the east has the living room and bedroom.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to deny the request of Philip Zimmer for
a variance to the rear yard setback at 4850 Jasper Avenue N. based on
there was no demonstrated physical hardship. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Bituminous Overlay Improvement of
Hytrail Avenue from Highlands Trail --North to _
59th Street North
Mayor Johnson opened up the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. in the City
Council chambers. The Public Hearing notice was published in the St.
Croix Valey Press on February 13th and 20th and all affected property
owners were notified.
City Engineer Tom Prew reported Hytrail Avenue was originally paved in
1978 or earlier. It received seal coats in 1982 and 1986. Despite
this maintenance, Hytrail Avenue pavement is in poor condition and is
probably due to a weak subgrade. To provide additional pavement
strength, improve crown drainage, and to seal off the cracks, an 1
1/2" bituminous overlay is recommended.
The estimated cost of the overlay is $19,500. It is proposed. that
each lot which benefits from the improvement will be assessed..
Benefitting property is every developed or buildable parcel which
abutts the street. The method of assessment is proposed. to be the unit
method. A preliminary assessment was $1,220 per unit. Corner lots
will receive a one-half unit assessment.
The project was initiated by the City Council; therefore, ordering the
project will require a four -fifths majority vote.
Andrew Rolling, 5710 Hytrail Avenue N., believed Derrick Land shared
at least part of the responsibility for the need to resurface their
street because they were allowed to place fill on four lots. If the
Derrick Land lots prove to be unbuildable, will the dirt that was
brought in have to be removed. He also felt the Cable Company was
responsible for breaking up the road when they installed their cable.
Jim Yarusso, 5620 Highlands Trail N., shared the concern of trucks
removing the dirt and causing damage to the road. He asked if crack
filling will be done before the overlay.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE, 4
Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
City Attorney, Jerry Filla, reported that the Derrick Land case has
been sent back to trial court on the issues, but he has not received a
date for the hearing. He will be meeting with Derrick Land this
Wednesday to discuss a proposal that they may be allowed to retest the
lots. If they can establish, according to the City Engineer's
satisfaction that the lots are buildable, they be allowed to construct
homes. One of the conditions attached to the grading permit was, if
the tests were performed and indicated they were not buildable,
Derrick Land would remove the dirt that they trucked in. Filla will
report back at the March 19th Council meeting.
If the resolution to the Derrick matter is hauling the fill away,
Bohrer stated this could be done by having him cross his own lots to
get to Highlands Trail. If the final outcome is that the four lots
are buildable, two lots front Highland and two front Hytrail, it
wouldn't have any more or less construction traffic than any other
homes that were built in that area.
Councilman Hunt stated if you let the road go too long, you force
complete reconstruction and end up with much more expensive
reconstruction.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to adopt Resolution No. 91-9 Orderinn the
Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the
Bituminous Patching and Overlay of Hytrail Avenue N., from Highl.ands
Trail North to 59th Street North. (Motion carried 5-0).
C. PUBLIC HEARING: Bituminous Overlay Improvement of
Legion Avenue from 20th Street to the North Junction
of Legion Lane
Mayor Johnson opened up the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. in the City
Council chambers. The public hearing notice was published on February
13th and 20th in the St. Croix Valley Press and. all affected property
owners were notified.
Tom Prew reported Legion Avenue was constructed about 1976 as part of
the Eden Park development. It was seal coated in 1984 and it was
patched extensively in 1989. This project was proposed in 1990, but
it was decided to wait until construction within Packard Park 3rd
Addition was complete. The proposed improvement is to overlay the
street wth a 1 1/2" thick bituminous overlay to strengthen the entire
surface and seal off the cracks. Gravel will be added to the shoulder
and all driveways will be matched.
The estimated project cost is $21,050.00 and it is proposed that each
parcel which benefits from the improvement be assessed. Benefitting
property is every parcel which abuts the street or gains primary
access from the street. Corner lots which were recently assessed for
street improvement on one side will receive a one-half assessment on
Legion Avenue. Lots that have double frontage, but are not corner
lots, will be reviewed individually to see if the property benefits
from the second frontage. In this case, Lots 3 and 4, Packard. Park
2nd Addition have secondary frontage to Legion Avenue. But since the
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 5
buildable part of these lots is anpro�,inately 30 feet higher than the
road, Lots 3 and 4 are considered not benefitted. The method of
assessment is proposed to be the Unit Method ($1,754.00 per unit).
This project was initiated by the City Council, therefore, ordering
the project will require a four -fifths majority vote.
Linda and Bob Stone, 2390 Legion Lane, questioned why they were being
assessed one unit when they have a corner lot. They would like to see
lots asssessed in Packadr Park because of the damage done to the road
by the large trucks delivering building materials. They were opposed
to gravel shoulders because of the safety factor.
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Avenue, explained they met with the Council
on May 1, 1990 when it was noted. by Councilman Hunt that the city
should get more information from the VBWD on the water project that
will be by the street and Councilman Graves suggested waiting until
Packard Park was complete and VBWD developed their plan.. Ann asked
the following:
--Has VBWD been contacted, if so what information have they
given the City on future plans for redirecting water and
what do the plans include regarding reconstruction of
the street.
--Who will pay for the street when we have the 100 year flood
and 5' of water on the street. If we have the flood in
2 years, will we pay again or will VBWD take care of it OR
will the City take care of it since the City allowed the
street to be put in under flood plain level.
--Was totally opposed to placing gravel on the shoulder
because this is a rural residential neighborhood.
--$1,000 is a much more reasonable amount to pay because
the City has funds to draw from.
Debra Wilfong, 2229 Legion Avenue N., opposed the project and felt
Lots 2 and 3 should be added, because they do draw benefit from the
road. She indicated $1,754 is out of line and asked to be shown how
her property will actually increase by this value. She voiced her
concern on what happens to the road in terms of flooding because this
is a flood plain area.
John Leslie, 11546 20th St. N., stated when they put the road in it
was a hardship to him because it took from him a buildable lot and
made a non- buildable lot under the new ordinances He —was opposed -to the gravel shoulders because of the safety factor.
Jean Durand, 11332 20th St. N., stated the road will not improve or
increase the value of their land. Most of the land to the West of
Legion Avenue is unbuild.able because of water problems created by
projects that were ,put in. The acreage is a water storage area for
24th Street, Downs Lake overflow, and Legion Avenue from the north.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PACE 6
There is no access to her property from Legion Avenue. She just paid
for 20th Street a year ago. Packard Park has used this road over the
last several years hauling equipment and building materials.
John Herber, 2329 Legion Avenue, asked if there will be any guarantees
that there will not be heavy traffic so we are not doing this in 2
years. What portion is Packard Park going to be assessed because the
damage is done. He was opposed to gravel shoulders and would like to
see the drainage issue resolved. Tom Prew advised. the Council that
gravel shoulders could be replaced. with earth shoulders.
Dave Bucheck, 2301 Legion Avenue, felt there was a unique situation
here and deserved special consideration by the Council because there
are very few lots on the western side and it pulls an extra burden on
the people on the other side of the street. There have been no other
streets in the city that have been assessed over 51,000 per home
owner. The City can make some contribution to the cost of the project
because of its unique situation..
Jim Mcleod, 2543 Lake Elmo Avenue, pointed out this issue of high
assessments were only going to get worse with large frontages and the
Council better be prepared for the same arguments for large lots. He
also felt a precedent had been started based on past actions on
assessments in the Lake Jane area.
Scott Johnson, 2320 Legion Avenue, opposed the project for the same
reasons as stated by the other residents of Legion Avenue.
Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Larry Bohrer explained the Watershed plan for Downs Lake is to
eventually build an outlet. They have stated, even if the outlet is
made, it does not change this high level the water could reach in the
100 year flood. As an engineer he asks the question, "Do we allow the
block to deteriorate because of the possibility of a couple 100 ft.
going under water?" Two things are definitely happening: street
deterioration is continuing and construction costs are rising.
Russ Kirby, VBWD, agreed with the City Engineer that there are no
plans to change the culvert under Legion Avenue. The plans are
restricted to providing an outlet to Downs Lake which would not change
the 100 year flood elevation.
M/S/F Williams/Dick Johnson - to adopt Resolution No. 91-10 Ordering
the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the
Bituminous Patching and Overlay of Legion Avenue from 20th Street to
the North Junction of Legion Lane and, to include in this plan
elimination of gravel shoulders. (Motion failed 3-2: Hunt: He
questioned. if some of the Durand land was assessable or not, with such
a large assessment he would have a better feeling for alternate
methodd to finance it, with such strong oppositon the city may have
difficulty in court proving benefit by this amount of money, Mottaz:
He was not satisfied that the two lots in Packard Park do not benefit
from this project, he would like to have answers to the questions that
were raised tonight befroe a decision is made).
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 7
MIS/ Hunt/Mottaz - to direct Council members Hunt and. Mottaz to meet
with the affected residents in an effort to work out an agreement to
improve the road..
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to amend the motion to include Council members
Hunt and Mottaz will report back with a proposal to the Council at the
April 16th meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Hunt/Mottaz - to direct Council members Hunt and Mottaz to meet
with the affected residents in an effort to work out an agreement to
improve the road and will report back to the Council with a proposal
at the April 16th Council meeting: (Motion carried 5-0).
D. Update on Drainage Problem
Mike Ziniel, 3265 Kraft Circle
At the February 19th meeting, the Council directed the Building
Official and Maintenance Foreman to investigate the ponding problem on
Mike Ziniel's driveway at 3265 Kraft Circle. Jim McNamara and Dan
Olinger visited the site and reported the .ponding of water on Mr.
Ziniel's property appeared to be due to a natural low area or
depression mainly in the driveway area of this property and the
neighboring property to the north. They were not aware of any city
related projects in the area that would have caused. the ponding
problem.
Mike Ziniel indicated it was not his doing that caused. the ponding
problem on his property and asked that the City Engineer visit his
site so he could talk to him. Because of the budget constraints, the
Council made the following motion.
M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to direct the Building Official and
Maintenance Foreman to visit Mike Ziniel, 3265 Kraft Circle on
Wedndesay morning and report back to the Council at the March 19th
Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
E. Ordinance proposed by APAC on behalf of Cimarron Park
Glen Shoemaker and Floyd Olson, members of APAC, representing Cimarron
Park requested the City adopt an ordinance which is intended to
provide relocation costs and/or compensation should the Park be closed
or converted to another use.
APAC provided similar ordinance that were adoptd in Bloomington and
Hopkins as well as an opinion from the Attorney General's office and a
copy of the legislation enabling a local unit of government to adopt
such an ordinance.
The Council received a letter fron Dan Krawczyk, Property Manager of
Cimarron Park, requesting the city give strong consideration to the
proposed ordinance because similar ordinances that were adopted in
Bloomington and Hopkins have yet to be tested through the legal
process.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 8
The Council indicated they were in favor of such an ordinance, but
requested the City Attorney make the ordinance applicable to the City
of Lake Elmo.
M/S/P Mottaz/Dick Johnson - to request the city attorney prepare an
ordinance applicable to the city of Lake Elmo for the April 2nd
Council meeting. (Motion carried 5-0).
F. Other
8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT:
A. SW-1 Watermain Project
Tom Prew reported the plans and specifications for the SW-1 Watermain
Project are now complete and ready for Council review and approval.
To keep this project on schedule, they would like to advertise for
bids in both the St. Croix Valley Press and the Construction Bulletin
the weeks of March 11 and 18, 1991. Bids would be open on April 5,
1991.
At a previous meeting, the Council promised to bring the -plan -and
specifications for resident's review before Council approval. If
there are any changes to these plans as a result of Council action,
Tom Prew explained this can be handled through the addendum process.
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to authorize the City Engineer to advertise for
bids on the plans as presented on 3-5-91, with the understanding that
any changes to these plans as a result of Council_ action will be
handled through the addendum process. (Motion carried 5-0).
M/S/P Williams/Hunt - to direct the
property owners of the availability
and of a public information meeting
3-6 p.m, at which time residents may
Engineer. (Motion carried 5-0).
B. Old Village Drainage Update
City staff to notify the abutting
of the plans at the City Office
to be held on Tuesday, March 12th,
ask questions of the City
Tom Prew presented a letter from Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering,
regarding the city's request to divert water to Sunfish Lake. The
Sunfish Lake residents will be notified of the City's request and
invited to the March 19th Council meeting.
9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
City Attorney Jerry Fil.la made the
Derrick Land on Wednesday (3-6-91),
and waiting for a hearing date, the
because her attorney lost his voice
continued to March 28, Pretrial for
March 19th.
following report: Ile will meet with
Judge Cass appeal has been filed
Jamie Olson trial was continued
and could not speak. This was
LuAnn HanseN is scheduled for
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 9
10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
A. Mayor's Report
Mayor Johnson will submit his information on a proposed Economic
Development Board. This item will be discussed at the March 19th
meeting.
The City Administrator has instructed the Department Heads to pass
through her all purchase requests.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to support the efforts of the City
Administrator to reduce costs in the City's operation. (Motion
carried 5-0).
B. Councilman Hunt
Councilman Hunt reported the City should look into how, services could
be charged for such as street lights. The Planning Commission should
look at impact fees commensurate with developments to help pay for
these type of services. A reminder that the VBWD questionnaire should
be filled out by the Council and the City. A suggestion for the
potential for a consent agenda to streamline and speed up our Council
meetings. Councilman Hunt will contact the staff and Councilman
Mottaz to set up a Budget Committee meeting for next week.
C. Councilman Johnson
(1) Parks Department
Councilman Johnson met with the City Administrator to investigate the
issues raised by the Council on this subject and reported the results
in his memo dated February 28, 1991.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Mottaz - to direct the City Administrator to
establish a separate Parks and Recreation Department with a Supervisor
that will report directly to the City Administrator. (Motion_ carried
4-1 Williams: He did not see an advantage of a separate Parks Dept at
this time. He has become aware of a problem between the Parks
Commission and the Maintenance Foreman regarding priorities of
personnel and parks related work and did not see a separate department
as the best way of solving this problem.)
(2) Maintenance Advisory Committee
The proposal for a Maintenance Advisory Committee was made at the
January 19th Council meeting at which time it was requested that more
information be provided for the need for this committee. In view of
the budget constraints that we are facing, Councilman Johnson felt it
was more urgent than ever to have a group of knowledgeable citizens
advising this council on equipment purchases and giving recommendation
to cost saving measures. In his memo, dated February 28, 1991,
Johnson outlined his reasons for creating this committee and
recommended plan for implementation. This outline was developed in
discussion with the City Administrator.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 PAGE 10
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to set up a Maintenance Advisory Commission
consisting of 5 members; contingent on Councilman Johnson being the
laision between this committee and the council and developing a more
detailed mission statement and scope of responsibility. (Motion
carried 5-0).
D. Councilman Mottaz
M/No Second Mottaz/No Second - to adjourn the City Council meeting.
E. Councilman Williams
(1) Roberts Rules of Order (Cont.)
Councilman Williams distributed information on motions to the City
Council on the correct use of motions "to table", "to postpone
consid.eratoon" and "to adjourn". He also urged the Council members to
avoid improper interruption of any member when that member
legitimately has the floor.
11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Charitable Gambling License Renewal: Lake Elmo Jaycees
The Lake Elmo Jaycees are requesting a .renewal of an existing
charitable gambling license.
M/-SAP Hunt/D.iak-Johnson - to direct the staff to prepare a resolution
renewing the Lake Elmo Jaycees Charitable Gambling License. (Motion
carried 5-0).
B. RFP for Organized Collection
The Council received the final draft of the Request for Proposals for
solid waste collection from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Discussion on the RFP was postponed.
C.' Clean-up Days
The City sponsors a yearly clean-up day which is usually held on the
2nd weekend in May from 8:00 a..m. to noon. This would be Saturday,
Play 12 which is the "Opening Weekend of Fishing" and "Mothers Day
weekend". The City Administrator will poll the Council as to their
recommendation.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Plottaz - to adjourn the City Council meeting at
11:15 p.m. (Motion carried 5-0).
------------
Resolution 91-9 Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and
Specs for Bituminous Patching and Overlay of Hytrail Avenue N., from
Highlands Trail North to 59th Street N.
CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED AT MARCH 5, 1991 LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING
(all claims are within budget unless otherwise noted)
94501
T,A.Schifsky - 15th Street final pmt, (approved 1/5 mtg) $
1,058.24
94502
MN Dept, of Revenue - Jan, State withholding
947.00
94503
U of M - Clerk's Conference
210.00
94504
Sunwood Inn - Clerk's Conference
186.00
94505
Frank Langer - Assessor
1,200.00
94506
Carl Blondin - legal retainer
900.00
94507
League of MN Cities - Feb. hospitalization
2,399,48
94508
Allied Group Insurance Trust
86.86
94509
Minn. Benefit Assn,
155.69
94510
City of West St. Paul - Munici-Pals Dues
5.00
94511
Washington County - 1991 Tax Rolls
119.00
94512
General Office Products - Office supplies
134.50
94513
American Linen Supply - Office bldg maint
32.86
94514
Stillwater Gazette - 1 year subscription to paper
85.00
94515
D.C,Hey - Copy machine maintenance
171.47
94516
AT & T - Fire Dept. $ 16.68
Maint. Dept, 25.83
42.51
94517
AT & T - Maint. Dept. long distance
4.48
94518
US West - Office $ 225.36
Fire Dept. 89.12
Maint. Dept. 54.46
Parks Dept, 15083
384.77
94519
Northern States Power - Of icy- $ 193.59
Fire Dept. 441;55
Maint. Dept. 232.73
Street Lites 816.06
Parks Dept. 393.89
Water Fund 332.52
Sewer Fund 57.45
2,467.79
94520
Michael Smith - January Animal Control-OTTicer
530.00
94521
City of North St. Paul - January Animal Control Vehicle
165.00
94522
Government Training"Service - Planning Seminar (Rob Enes)
64.00
94523
TMT Recycling - February
3,202.65
94524
1st Winner on Recycling lottery
25.00
94525
Communications Specialists - Fire Dept. radio service
146.45
94526
Lawn -Boy - Fire Dept, equipment repair
23.50
94527
North St. Paul Plg. & Htg, - Fire Dept. bldg repairs
48.00
94528
Uniforms Unlimited - Fire Dept, clothing allowance
169.20
94529
State Fire School - STC - 5 firemen to fire school
425.00
94530
Vern's GTC Auto Parts - Maint. Dept. equip, repairs
6.98
94531
H & L Mesabi, Inc, - Maint. Dept. equip, repairs
723.00
94532
Truck Utilities Mfg. Co, - Maint, Dept. equip. repairs
22.00
94533
Pioneer Rim & Wheel Co, - Maint. Dept. equip. repairs
29.86
94534
Routson Motors - Maint. Dept, equip. repairs
24.00
94535
Weber Electric - Maint. Dept. equip. repairs
49.75
94536
Thompson Hardware - Maint, Dept, supplies
123.92
94537
F.H. Bathke - Maint. Dept. supplies
6.56
94538
thru
94551
March 8th payroll
10,633.53
Total $ 27,009.05
CITY Of S
LAKE
ELM0
City ®f Lake Elan® 777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA MEMO FOR MARCH 5, 1991
1. DPRA:
Attached is a progress report from DPRA for EIS review regarding
the proposed dump.
2. Comprehensive Plan:
Attached is a letter from Mary Anderson, Chair of the Met. Council
indicating approval of our Comp. Plan. As indicated by Mike Black
at the last meeting, and as stated in the letter, this approval
excludes our policy opposing the proposed landfill in the park.
3. Highway 5 Discharge Outlet:
Attached is the most recent report submitted by Wenck Associates,
Inc. to Washington County. Please note that because the sample
results exceeded the NPDES prevention level, testing will be done
once a week rather than once a month. I feel that we must closely
watch the levels of contaminents that are leaving the site, and
I will keep you posted as the information becomes available.
4. MSA Funds
Attached is a memo from MN/DOT regarding MSA Fund Balances. This
memo reinforces our City Engineer's past comments that if the City
does not proceed with some sort of MSA project, it will indeed
loose the funding.
FEB 2 2 1991
% E-1500 First National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612-227-6500 Fax 612-227 5522
February 21, 1991
Ms. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Subject: EIS Review for Proposed Landfill Site in Lake Elmo
Dear Mary:
Enclosed is a progress report and invoice for professional services from
November 26, 1990 through January 25, 1991. In the enclosed table, I have
estimated our project expenditures (in hours) by contract task as well as
estimated the project team's expected requirements to complete the EIS review.
With this invoice, 51% of the budgeted hours and 45% of the dollars have been
expended.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Lough
Vice President
CJL/sa
Encl.
cc: 5175.001
200 Research Drive P.O. Box 727 Manhattan. Kansas 66502 Telephone 913-539-3565 Fax 913-539-5353 Telex 704314
Other offices: Washington. D.C., St. Paul. Chicago, Denver Dallas, Kansas City, Oak Rides, Kisumu, Ki
PROGRESS REPORT
Project: EIS Review for Proposed Landfill Site G in Lake Elmo
Project #: 5175.001
Date: February 21, 1991
Reporting Period: 11/26/90 - 1/25/91
Activities Undertaken During the Reporting Period
During the reporting period (November 26 to January 25) DPRA reviewed the
"Engineering Design Concept Technical Memorandum", November 1990, to obtain
values for the input parameters to DPRA's Municipal Landfill Failure and
Release Model. DPRA also began reviewing the literature to determine
"typical" municipal landfill leachate constituents for use in landfill
release and groundwater modelling. Subcontractor labor and expenses for
September, October and November are included on this invoice. During that
period, Geraghty and Miller staff continued their modelling analysis of Site
G, initially using a single layer analytic element model.
Activities Anticipated Next Month
During the next reporting period, DPRA will identify "typical" organic and
inorganic leachate constituents, their concentrations, and how those con-
centrations change over time. This will be incorporated in our source term
model to assess constituent release rates and concentration profiles for input
in Geraghty and Miller's groundwater model. Fletcher Driscoll will provide
expert testimony on Site G hydrogeologic conditions through a video being
produced on the Lake Elmo landfill siting process.
Changes in Personnel and Schedule
No changes in personnel are anticipated. A project meeting with Kelton Barr
of Geraghty & Miller is scheduled for Monday, February 25, 1991 to discuss
progress on the groundwater modelling task.
E-1500 First National Bank Building. St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612-227 6500 Fax 612-227.5522
INVOICE
Ms. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator Date: February 15, 1991
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North Invoice Number: 5176.001 VR10
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
DPRA Project Number: 5175.001
Subject: EIS Review for Proposed Landfill Site G in Lake Elmo
Professional Services from
11/26/90 through
1/25/91:
CURRENT
CUMULATIVE
REMAINING
Hour Dsr o lars
Hours of ars
Hours
Dollars
1. DPRA (Labor
o Professional
20.5 1,250.53
335.0 21,848.51
347.0
19,613.49
o Clerical/Accounting
3.5 173.29
47.0 1,552.27
-2.0
0.73
24.0 1,423.82
382.0 23,400.78
345.0
19,614.22
2. Geraghty & Miller
Subcontract Labor
and 'Expenses*
9.0 952.40
222.5 18,068.84
240.5
30,766.16
3. Other Direct Costs
o Computer/Word Proc.
o Copies
to Telephone/Postage
to Mileage, Misc.
4. Totals**
12.00 63.50
- 41.88
10.50
46.60
T 4
33.0_ 2,388.22 604.5 41,633.10 585.5 50,217.90
Total Amount Due This Invoice . . .
$ 2,388.22
* This represents work completed from September 1 - December 1, 1990.
** Based on a budget (excluding contingency) of $91,850.00
200 Research Drive P0. Box 727 Manhattan. Kansas 66502 Telephone 913-539-3565 Fax 913-539-5353 Telex 704314
Other offices: Washington. D.C.. St. Paul, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Kansas City. Oak Ridge. Kisumu, Kenya
CUMULATIVE AND EXPECTED EXPENDITURES FOR SITE G EIS REVIEW
Contract Task
A. Data Collection and Visual Site Inspection
B. Data Logging and Data Reduction
C(1). Data Analysis and Interpretation
C(2). Data Analysis and Interpretation
D. Review Rejected Sites Located Within County
E. Review and Prepare a Response to Weston's
comments on Site G EIS
F. Computer Modeling - Groundwater
G. Computer Modeling - Air Emissions**
H. Reporting of Results and Project
Management/Administration
I. Meetings, Presentations, and Expert
Testimony
Totals
Percent
-HOURS-
Budget Expended* Remaining Expected
12
12
0
0
56
70
-14
30
117
120
-3
30
136
4
132
80
48
50
-2
0
56
16
40
40
339
161.5
177.5
150
52
0
52
50
180
107
73
90
194
64
130
120
1190
604.5
585.5
590
51%
49%
* Reflects DPRA's billings through January 1991 and Geraghty & Miller's billings through
November 1990.
**This task has been placed on indefinite hold until further notice.
ff6 2 1 1991
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 Fast Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359
February 19, 1991
Ms. Mary Kueffner
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
RE: City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive plan Amendment Review
Complete Update of Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15238-1
Dear Ms. Kueffner:
At its meeting on February 14, 1991, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Lake Elmo's
comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the Metropolitan
and Community Development Committee, Referral Report No. 91-13. A copy of this report is
attached.
The Council approved the following recommendations contained in the above report:
1. That the Council adopt the staff report and findings as stated above as part of
these recommendations.
2. That the Metropolitan Council approve the 1990-2010 Comprehensive Plan for
Lake Elmo with the exception of the city's policy in opposition to the potential
landfill in Lake Elmo Park Reserve, since this is inconsistent with the Council's
Solid Waste Poliev Plan and Minn. Stat. 473.811 and 473.823.
Sincerely,
f G_
Mary E. derson
Chair
MEA:ly
Attachment
cc: R.A. Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council Staff
Metropolitan Council Meeting of February 14, 1991 Business Item: B-4
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth St., St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612/291-6359
REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Referral Report 91-13
DATE: February 14, 1991
B
TO: Metropolitan Council
SUBJECT: City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Complete Update of Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15238-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 16
At its meeting on February 7, 1991, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee
discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of the City of Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The major plan amendment represents a complete update of the
1979 Comprehensive Plan for the years 1990 to 2010, The plan concentrates on two objectives: 1)
To reflect accurately the city of Lake Elmo's current policies regarding planning, land use, zoning and
development; and 2) To provide a basis for guiding Lake Elmo into the 1990's and beyond.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Richard Thompson, Council staff (ext. 6457) presented the report and answered questions from the
Committee.
Mike Black, planning consultant for the city, reaffirmed the city's position opposing the development
of a landfill in Lake Elmo Park Reserve. He also stated that the city would be willing to explore
airport zoning around that portion of Lake Elmo Airport that affects the city.
Steve Korhel, a resident of Lake Elmo, presented concerns about the plan. His concerns centered
on the procedures for adopting the plan and proposed land use districts, especially the Residential
Estate District.
Richard Johnson, a city council member, requested that the committee delete finding 8 and
recommendation 2 dealing with the city's policy opposing placement of a landfill in the Lake Elmo
Park Reserve. -
Following discussion, the following findings and recommedations were adopted:
FINDINGS
1. The policy of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan of allowing a density of three units
per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres per unit is not consistent with the
Council's rural area policies.
2. Changes in language and additional information requested by the staff with regard to
on -site septic systems and clustered systems are satisfactory.
3. Adequate capacity exists in the WONE Interceptor to serve the wastewater flows as
shown in the plan, provided the approved flows from the city of Oakdale are not
increased.
4. The plan's transportation goals and policies are consistent with those of the Council.
5. The Aviation text of the plan does not indicate if the runway safety zoning and
airspace hazard zoning over the entire community is covered under a joint
MAC/Community zoning board. If the joint board is operative, it should be
referenced in the system text, goals and policies and implementation section.
6. If a joint zoning board has not been established or an airport zoning ordinance
implemented, the city and MAC should create a joint zoning board. This is important
in 1991 since the airport comprehensive plan is being prepared by MAC.
7. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan properly identifies the location of the Lake .:
Elmo Park Reserve. However, the plan does not accept the possibility of a landfill
in the park. The city should recognize that state law may have precedence over local
and Council policies.
8. The plan contains a policy opposing construction of a landfill in the Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve. This is inconsistent with Council policy.
9. The plan provides a thorough summary and analysis of the current housing stock in
Lake Elmo.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Council adopt the staff report and findings as stated above as part of these
recommendations.
2. That the Metropolitan Council approve the 1990--2010 Comprehensive Plan for Lake
Elmo with the exception of the city's policy in opposition to the potential landfill in
Lake Elmo Park Reserve, since this is inconsistent with the Council's Solid Waste - - -
PolicPlan and Minn. Stat. 473.811 and 473.823,
Respectfully submitted,
Gertrude Ulrich, Chair
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359[MD 291-0904
DATE: February 1, 1991
TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee
FROM: Richard Thompson, Research and Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Complete Update of Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15238-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 16
INTRODUCTION
The city of Lake Elmo has submitted a complete update of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan for the
years 1990 to 2010 as a major plan amendment. The planning effort concentrated on two
objectives: 1) To reflect accurately the city of Lake Elmo's current policies regarding planning,
land use, zoning and development; and 2) To provide a basis for guiding Lake Elmo into the
1990's and beyond.
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 requires that amendments to local
comprehensive plans be prepared, submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and adopted
in the same manner as the original plans (Minn. Stat. 473.864, subd. 2, 1978). Guidelines adopted
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.864 for reviewing proposed amendments provide a 90-day review
period for amendments potentially affecting one or more of the metropolitan systems; and a 60-
day review period for amendments that do not have a potential impact on metropolitan systems.
The city of Lake Elmo initially submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on
September 28, 1990. That initial amendment was deemed incomplete whereupon the city
submitted additional information on November 21, 1990. On December 5, 1990, the Chair
determined that the amendment presented a potential impact on the metropolitan sewer system.
Therefore, the 90-day review period applies and will conclude on February 25, 1991.
Documents submitted in support of this plan amendment included:
1. Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, 1990--2010.
2. R�jed pages 45-50 of the plan (Changes requested at meeting of October 25,
ANALYSIS
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK
The plan contains a discussion of future population, households and employment for the city of
Lake Elmo. The Metropolitan Council forecasts a population of 6,200 in 1990 (final census
counts for Lake Elmo in 1990 are 5,903 people) and a population of 6,600 in 2000. The plan
states, however, that "if the number of new residents per year remains stable, the population will
be close to 7,500 by the year 2000." The city's plan forecasts a population of 8,210 in 2010.
The Metropolitan Council forecasts 2,100 households for the city of Lake Elmo in 1990. (The
preliminary 1990 census indicates there were 1,967 households in Lake Elmo in 1990). The city's
plan indicates 2,095 households in 1990 and 2,551 households in 2000. The Metropolitan Council
forecasts fewer households (2,300) in 2000. The city's plan forecasts 2,800 households in 2010.
The plan records 1990 employment of 970 in Lake Elmo, while the Metropolitan Council
forecasts 1,400. Both the Council and the plan forecast 1,500 employment in 2000, while the plan
forecasts employment of 1,800 in 2010.
The plan states (p. 22) that "People move to Lake Elmo because the community offers an
alternative to standardized suburban communities. Lake Elmo offers a wide variety of lifestyles... "
The plan indicates that "further development at one house or business per 1.5 acres is inconsistent
with regional planning policies and is inconsistent with Lake Elmo's desire to maintain an
attractive, uncrowed atmosphere." It also states that "the Metro Council's recommendation of
one house per 10 acres seems overly restrictive, especially in light of existing development
densities of nearby communities." The plan goes on to settle on a compromise density of 3 units
per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. This is inconsistent with the Metropolitan
Council's rural area policy of 1/10 on a 40 acre basis.
NATURAL RESOURCES (Frost)
Sanitary sewer is available only in two small -portions of Lake Elmo. Approximately one square
mile located in the southwest comer of Lake Elmo is inside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA) and is served by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission WONE Interceptor. (A
substantial portion of this land has been annexed to Oakdale). The other system is a privately
owned and operated collection system and treatment plant serving Cimarron, a mobile home park.
The remaining residences and businesses rely on private on -site septic systems, some with joint
drainfields designed under the 201 program.
After the initial submission, the natural resources staff had concerns about several areas that were
not addressed in the plan. The plan needed additional information on private wastewater systems,
group on -site systems, and policies on infiltration and inflow. Subsequent to the initial review, the
staff met with representatives of the city and outlined specific needs. Following the meeting the
city submitted specific information which analyzed individual on -site and cluster septic systems and
packaged treatment plants and goals and policies for individual on -site and cluster septic systems
and packaged treatment plants. The city also submitted maps showing the Tri-lakes Area Off -site
and Cluster Septic Systems as well as the Old Village Area Off -site and Cluster Septic Systems.
In reference to the individual on -site and cluster septic systems and packaged treatment plants,
the plan states that the city participated in the 201 program to correct private septic systems. It
states: "Over 100 residences and businesses received new individual systems or were connected to
new cluster systems." The plan further states that "A dedicated area of 20,000 square feet of land
suitable for an on -site trench system is required for each new residential lot in the city." The plan
also quotes city codes (Section 707.050) which lay out requirements for cluster septic systems.
In the Goals and Policies section of the plan, the plan states the policy "to require that the design
and construction of any public sanitary sewer eliminate excessive infiltration and inflow and be in
compliance with current acceptable engineering standards and those set by the Minnesota PCA."
The goal in regard to "Individual On -site and Cluster Septic Systems and Packaged Treatment
Plants" is "to allow properly designed cluster treatment systems for multiple properties only where
existing individual systems have failed." and "to prohibit private package treatment systems for new
development." Under the policies section, the plan states: "To assure proper functioning of on -
site individual systems by requiring proper site location, system design, installation, inspection, and
maintainence of each system." The staff of the Natural Resources Division is satisfied with the
changes as proposed by the city.
There will be no regional impact from flows aB projected in the plan since there is adequate
capacity in the WONE Interceptor to serve the wastewater flows as shown, provided the approved
flows from the city of Oakdale are not increased.
TRANSPORTATION (Braden)
The city's transportation goals and policies are consistent with those of the Council. However,
Lake Elmo's population/household forecasts are higher than those of the Council. Distribution of
population/households/employment by TAZ is different than that of the Council, in part because
the city uses higher numbers but also because the proportionate distribution is different. The
Council has no information indicating that the city responded to the Council's request to review
TAZ distributions.
The functional classification of the city does not match that adopted by the Transportation
Advisory Board. Specifically, the city shows several roads identified as collectors that are
designated minor arterials on the TAB map. If the city wishes to change the designation of some
of these roads, it should submit a.request to the Transportation Advisory Board to make any
other necessary changes to classification of specific roadways.
The city of Lake Elmo should be aware that the city of Woodbury is proposing an extension of
Bielenberg Drive as a minor arterial (connection to Helmo Avenue) into Lake Elmo.
The plan describes existing transit service, but it does not elaborate on potential needs such as
services for the elderly/disabled. The city should add information to its publictransitdiscussion.
Additional comments regarding transit from the Metropolitan Transit Board are contained in
Attachment A.
AIRPORTS (Case) r
The Lake Elmo amendment appears to cover the main points dealing with land use compatibility
between the community and the Lake Elmo airport. This is accomplished through control of
future land uses in the airport runway approaches by recognizing the land use safety zones of
MnDOT Aeronautics, and density controls on development outside the MUSA. However, the
Aviation text on page 34 of the Plan does not indicate if the runway safety zoning and airspace
hazard zoning over the entire community is covered under a joint MAC/Community zoning board.
I£ the joint board is operative, it should be referenced in the system text, goals and policies, and
implementation section.
These matters were likely addressed in the original comprehensive plan, but should be repeated in
the revised plan to ensure the control of airspace obstructions, public airport investments and
safety of both aircraft operations and persons on the ground. In the event that a joint zoning
board has not been established or an airport zoning ordinance implemented, all effort on the part
of the Community and the MAC should be undertaken to put both into effect. This is especially
important in 1991 since the Lake Elmo airport comprehensive plan is being prepared by MAC
and any changes taken into account.
PARKS (Stefferud)
The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan properly identifies the regional park reserve. The plan,
however, states on page 39: "Washington County has proposed to the Metropolitan Council that
a landfill occupy 300 acres on the western border within the park [Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve]. The city of Lake Elmo continues to oppose this landfill." /
While the Council does not suggest that any part of the regional park reserve be automatically
converted to any other use, the city should be aware that state law regarding the siting of solid
waste facilities precludes exempting any land from the search areas for sites for solid waste
facilities. The Council also has responsibilities for siting or providing for a number of regional
services. For these reasons, the Parks and Open Space Plan contains a policy allowing for park
land conversion when a higher public interest is served. The Council would take into
consideration Lake Elmo's views and views of any other interested parties before making a
determination about whether to convert some parkland to another use; however, the final
determination is to be made by the Council.
Policy 21: The conversion of regional recreation open space areas to other uses shall be allowed
only when it is in the public interest and no alternative exists. Such a conversion shall be
allowed only upon joint agreement under terms developed jointly by the implementing agency
and the Metropolitan Council.
Application of policy 21 directs the Council to consider whether there is an alternative site for the
landfill outside Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. If no such alternative exists, then the Council
and Washington County (the park implementing agency in this case) would have to jointly
develop and agree on terms for converting part of the park reserve to a landfill. Such terms
would need to address protecting the rest of the park reserve and its visitors from any potential
negative impacts of the landfill. Once those terms were developed and agreed upon, the Council
would then have the basis for removing the restrictive covenant on that portion of the park
reserve hosting the landfill.
SOLID WASTE (Smith)
The comprehensive plan states on page 41 the city's policy of "continuing to resist the
construction of a landfill in the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve." This policy is preceded by
text on pages 38-40 that describes the city's efforts to oppose the candidate site.
This policy is inconsistent with the Landfill Development Schedule in the Solid Waste
Management Development Guide/Policy Plan that directs Washington County to develop 2,494
acre-feet of landfill capacity by 1993.
Moreover, Guide criterion 4a states:
Solid waste facilities should be compatible, to the extent possible, with Council land use
policies. The Council will consider county and local comprehensive land use plans.. Lack
of compatibility with land use policies and plans shall not preclude Council approval of a
waste facility, if waste management policy considerations must take precedence.
The text of the Guide states:
Waste facilities rarely meet local land use planning requirements. Override of local vetoes
may be necessary in some circumstances. The Waste Management Act gives counties the
authority to override local vetoes to establish waste processing and land disposal facilities
(Minn. Stat., sec 473.811, subd. 4a and sec. 473.823, subd. 5) The Council must approve
the override.
The city should revise its plan to delete its policy opposing the landfill.
HOUSING (Dougherty)
The plan amendment provides a thorough summary and analysis of the current housing stock in
Lake Elmo. It notes that 71 percent of the current housing stock of 2,037 units are single family,
25 percent are manufactured housing units and 4 percent are a combination of multifamily and
townhouse units. Ninety one percent of the homes in Lake Elmo are owner -occupied.
The plan identifies the existing mix of residential land uses and the potential land available for
housing, as well as the density proposed for each.
The official controls in Lake Elmo permit the construction of a range of housing sizes and types.
Because the city wants to maintain its rural character, lot sizes have been established based on the
need to keep further development at a low rural density and avoid the need for extension of
urban services. The community feels lot sizes of at least 2-1/2 acres are desirable in order to
achieve these environmental goals.
The plan notes that Cimmaron manufactured housing park is an exception to the zoning
ordinance, as it was permitted prior to the current zoning ordinance. The park provides the city
with low and modest cost housing and makes up nearly 25 percent of the housing units in the city.
The park occupies nearly 200 acres and has about 500 occupied manufactured housing units, and
its own water and sewer system.
The city's Rural Residential category permits housing on land with at least 10 acres and allows
cluster development of up to four housing per 40 acres on lots of 5-7 acres each, a policy
consistent with Council policies established for the rural area. Another classification is being
proposed that would allow three units per 10 acres. This density is not consistent with current
Council policies for the rural area.
Goals and policies identified in the plan state the importance of restricting residential
development to densities that will avoid the extension of services outside the presently defined
MUSA boundary. In support of this, the city proposes that there be no more R-1 zoning (1.5
acres per house) allowed in the city. However, establishing a new zoning category for residential
development with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres per unit and maximum density of 3 units per 10
acres is contrary to Council policies.
Additional housing policies indicate that urban residential development at medium to high density
will be permitted only in areas within the MUSA and served with central sewer and other
necessary public services and utilities.
As the plan notes that nearly 60 percent of the city's housing units were built between 1960 and
1980, they may soon be reaching an age where they need some maintenance. The city may want
to identify goals and policies that would address property and code enforcement to encourage
this.
FINDINGS
1. The policy of the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan of allowing a density of three
units per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres per unit is not consistent
with the Council's rural area policies.
2. Changes in language and additional information requested by the staff with regard
to on -site septic systems and clustered systems are satisfactory.
3. Adequate capacity exists in the WONE Interceptor to serve the wastewater flows
as shown in the plan, provided the approved flows from the city of Oakdale are
not increased.
4. The plan's transportation goals and policies are consistent with those of the
Council.
5. The Aviation text of the plan does not indicate if the runway safety zoning and
airspace hazard zoning over the entire community is covered under a joint
MAC/Community zoning board. If the joint board is operative, it should be
referenced in the system text, goals and policies and implementation section.
6. If a joint zoning board has not been established or an airport zoning ordinance
implemented, the city and MAC should create a joint zoning board. This is
important in 1991 since the airport comprehensive plan is being prepared by MAC.
7. The Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan properly identifies the location of the Lake
Elmo Park Reserve. However, the plan does not accept the possibility of a landfill
in the park. The city should recognize that state law may have precedence over
local and Council policies.
8. The plan contains a policy opposing construction of a landfill in the Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve. This is inconsistent with Council policy.
9. The plan provides a thorough summary and analysis of the current housing stock
in Lake Elmo.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Council adopt the staff report and findings as stated above as part of
these recommendations.
2. That the Metropolitan Council approve the 1990--2010 Comprehensive Plan for
Lake Elmo with the exception of the city's policy in opposition to the potential
landfill in Lake Elmo Park Reserve, since this is inconsistent with the Council's
Solid Waste Policy Plan and Minn. Stat. 473.811 and 473.823.
ATTACHMENT A
REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 68101
612/292.8789
DATE: October8, 1990
TO: Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council
FROM: Garneth Peterson, Regional Transit Board
SUBJECT: Lake Elmo Comp. Plan Amendment /�
The Regional Transit Board has no major comments on the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan. We would suggest that they add some additional information to their public transit
discussion. The plan should state that special transportation for'elderly and disabled
persons In Lake Elmo Is provided by Metro Mobility, with additional transportation
service provided by the Human Services, Inc. 'Transporter" of Washington County.
Because of the low population density In Lake Elmo, these services are an Important
addition to the regular route and express service currently supplied by MTC.
F£B 2 6 1991
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
GOVERNMENT CENTER
14900 61ST STREET NORTH, P.O. SOX 6 • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 5508220008
Office (612) 430-6665 Facsimile Machine (612) 430-6730
February 22, 1991
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 LaVerne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Ms. Kueffner:
Mary Luth
Public Health Director
Rose Green -
Office Manager
Doug Ryan
Environment/Land Use
Division Manager
Karen Zeleznak
Community Health
Division Manager
Enclosed please find the January sampling report on the Highway 5
discharge outlet. The attached letter from Wenck Associates
explains that the Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs) are newly
established for this months sampling. The sample results
exceeded the NPDES prevention level for total phenols. Weekly
sampling at the Highway 5 outfall is.being conducted, and I will
advise you of the results.
Samples continue to be collected and analyzed on a monthly basis
at the Highway 5 outlet. Feel free to call me if you have any
questions about these results.
Sincerely,
�0 6 9a Yi
Doug Ryan
Environment and Land Use Division Manager
cc: Mary Luth, Public Health Director
Richard Ragan, Ramsey County Environmental Health
Paul Josephson, Wenck Associates, Inc.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
'rioted on Recycled Paper
. . .. ■
{I{I / % ■
* sw—%■ .
WencK Associates, ,mac
February 15, 1991
Mr. Doug Ryan, Environment and
Consulting Engineers Land Use Division Manager
(612) 479.42GO Washington County Public Health Department
14900 North 61st Street, P.O. Box 6
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Washington County Sanitary Landfill No. 1
Dear Mr. Ryan:
The laboratory results of the offsite discharge of water from gradient control well
GC1 are enclosed. Water samples were collected at the Highway 5 outfall on
January 28, 1991.
Along with the results, the NPDES Preventative Levels and the Minnesota
Department of Health Recommended Allowable Limits (RALs) are listed. The
listed RALs are newly established (January 1991) and therefore supersede those
referred to in the past. Of the parameters analyzed, only total phenols exceeded
preventative level. Due to this exceedance, weekly sampling at the Highway 5
outfall has commenced and will continue for three weeks as per the NPDES
permit. You will be advised of these results when the analyses are complete.
Samples will continue to be collected and analyzed on a monthly basis at the
Highway 5 outfall for volatile organic compounds, total phenols and total lead.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Christopher D. Mosentine, P.E.
Geological Engineer
CDM/cah
Enclosure
cc: Dick Ragan, Ramsey County
Dave Douglas, MPCA
Regulatory Compliance Section. Division of Water Quality, MPCA
aCG °,creel Cree, =r
`dao;e''ar V,Pj 5 59
WASHINGTON COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL NO.1
Laboratory Analytical Results
(Concentrations, ug/L)
HWY 5
RAL
Parameter
28—Jan-91
NPDES
Jan-91
Laboratory
ARC
Vinyl chloride
<0.02
2.2
0.1
cis —1,2—Dichloroethylene
BPQL<0.1
299
70.
trans-1,2—Dichioroethylene
BPQL<0.1
299
70
Trichloroethylene
<0.02
82
30
Tetrachloroethylene .
<0.008
6
7
Chloroethane
<0.02
--
--
1,1—Dichloroethane
BPQL<0.1
--
70
1,2—Dichioroethane
<0.01
95
4,
1,2—Dichloropropane
BPQL<0.1
95
5
Benzene
<0.2
25
10
Toluene
<03
45
1000
Ethylbenzene
<0.5
117
700
Totalxylene
<2.5
28
10000
Total phenols
9
7
--
Other Parameters
Ethyl ether BPQL<10 1000
Tetrahydrofuran 3.0 -- 100
Total Lead* 3 63* 20
Note: HWY 5 is the Tri—Lakes Outlet at Highway 5.
NPDES is the Preventative Level specified in the NPDES permit.
RAL is the Recommended Allowable Limit for drinking water.
BPQL = Below Practical Quantitation Limit (the compound detected at a
concentration above the Method Detection Limit but below the PQL).
* = Preventative Level not specified in NPDES permit; calculated
based on hardness of Eagle Point Lake.
FEB 2 d 1991
0\NNESOr9
O 2
Minnesota Department of Transportation
a �?
p�
r Transportation Building, St. Paw. MN 55155
Ftiyq
OF T R7
February 21, 1991 (612) 296-1662
In reply refer to:
Notice of Unencumbered Construction Fund Balance
Dear 9, ,
The present Screening Board Directive states that whenever a
municipality's construction fund balance available as of
September 1, of the current year, not including the current
year's allotment, exceeds $300,000 or two times their annual
construction allotment (whichever is greater), shall receive
an adjustment to their money needs.
Our records show that as of February 1, 1991 you have a balance
of $ ,3---4g, 970 available for construction, not
including the 1991 allotment. Recent project submittals for /99/
payment were not deducted from the construction fund balance.
According to the guidelines set forth by the Screening Board
Resolution, you have an excess balance of $ .3 - .Z7 U
This excess must be reduced by September 1, 1991 to avoid an
adjustment to the money needs.
Any excess above the specified limits will result in
$ (�,.S�C9 loss of money needs. The effect of this
loss r the 1992 apportionment,based on the 1991 apportionment,
will be approximatley S`/7z5
/�i99a, i,cov� cYo�'f,Oion�edu��rh'6n�
A copy of this notice was also sent to the Municipal clerk when
Consulting Engineer is retained.
If there are any questions regarding your fund balance, please
feel free to call -me at the above number.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Straus
Municipal State Aid Needs Manager
rY,,�e °�c'
a
.In ty;wi Opp. .. , E."t . r,
Municipality
------------
Albert Lea
Alexandria
Andover
Anoka
Apple Valley
Arden Hills
Austin
Bemidji
Blaine
Bloomington
Brainerd
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Buffalo
Burnsville
Champlin
Chanhassen
Chaska
Chisholm
Cloquet
Columbia Heights
Coon Rapids
Corcoran
Cottage Grove
Crookston
Crystal
Detroit Lakes
TENTATIVE EXCESS
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
ADJUSTMENT
The guidelines setforth in the
resolution wilt affect the city's apportionment the following
year by approximately the•
amount of (F) if
the balance is not reduced to the
allowable balance (C) by September 1,1991.
See attached resolution -
(A)
(a)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(2xB)
*++
Balance
1991
Amount
(B-C)
(Negative)
Estimated
Cot umn e
As Of (-)
Construction (_) Available
(-) Allowable
(_) Excess
Adjustment Of
Loss Of 1992
Divided By
02-01-91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allotment
02-01-91
Balance
Balance
Needs
Apportionment
Column A
$1,617,977
$546,195
$1,071,782
$1,092,390
($20,608)
s0
s0
1.96
538,239
281,413
256,826
562,826
(306,000)
0
0
0.91
620,593
419,084
201,509
838,168
(636,659)
0
0
0.48
715,197
341,799
373,398
683,598
(310,200)
0
0
1.09
1,009,260
822,681
186,579
1,645,362
(1,458,783,
0
0
0.23
238,550
184,508
54,042
369,016
(314,974)
0
0
0-29
2,349,351
823,818
1,525,533
1,647,636
(122,103)
0
0
1.85
1,117,041
411,327
705,714
822,654
(116,940).
0
0
1.72
1,535,212
855,880
679,332
1,711,760
(1,032,428)
0
0
0.79
4,414,457
2,225,659
2,188,798
4,451,318
(2,262.520)
0
0
0.98
784,768
274,137
510,631
548,274
(37,643)
0
0
1.86
2,368,335
829,821
1,538,514
1,659,642
(121,128)
0
0
1.85
3,986,854
1,078,848
2,908,006
2,157,696
750,310
5,816,012
186,752
2.70
737,816
217,738
520,078
435,476
84,602
1,040,156
33,399
2.39
1,130,685
870,653
260,032
1,741,306
(1,481,274)
0
0
0.30
728,357
270,805
457,552
541,610
(84,058)
0
0
1.69
434,217
260,563
173,654.
521,126
(347,472)
0
0
0.67
886,109
261,227
624,882
522,454
102,428
1,249,764
40,130
2.39
283,776
212,379
71,397
424,758
(353,361)
0
0
0.34
1,449,951
379,056
1,070,895
758,112
312,783
2,141,790
68, 773
2.83
1,067,648
393,589
674,059
787,178
(113,119)
0
0
1.71
1,517,073
927,385
589,6BB
1,854,770
(1,265,082)
0
0
0.64
197,840
197,839
1
395,678
(395,677)
0
0
0.00
760,285
652,488
107,797
1,304,976
(1,197,179)
0
0
0.17
966,373
312,541
653,832
625,082
28,750
1,307,664
41,989
2.09
1,909,960
539,769
1,370,191
1,079,538
290,653
2,740,382
87,994
2.54
531,504
216,699
314,805
433,398
(118,593)
0
0
1.45
(A) , r
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
..
(2x8)
.**
Balance
1991
Amount
*
(B-C)
(Negative)
Estimated
Column B
As Of (-)
Construction (_)
Available
(-) Allowable (_)
Excess
Adjustment Of
Loss Of 1992
Divided By
Municipality
02-01-91
Allotment
02-01-91
Balance
Balance
Needs
Apportionment
Column A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_------------------------
Duluth
$3,262,136
$2,529,263
S732,873
$5,058,526
($4,325,653)
$0
s0
0.29
Eagan
932,833,
917,604 1
15,229
1,835,208
(1,819,979)
0
0
0.02
East Bethel -
148,772.
178,618
(29,a46)
357,236
(387,082)
0
0
-0.17
East Grand Forks
297,269
223,666
73,603
447,332
(373,729)
0
0
0.33
Eden Prairie
2,730,061
1,019,870
1,710,191
2,039,740
(329,549)
O
0
1.68
Edina
2,911,521
1,125,380
1,786;141
2,250,760
(464,619)
0
0
1.59
Elk River
379,074
346,706
32,368
693,412
(661,044)
0
0
0.09
Eveleth
0
176,169
(176,169)
352,338
(528,507)
0
0
-1.00
Fairmont
1,477,382
537,198
940,184
1,074,396
(134,212)
0
0
1.75
Falcon Heights
375,959
92,894
283,065
300,000
(16,935)
0
0
3.05
Faribault
875,900
413,851
462,049
827,702
(365,653)
0
0
1.12
Farmington
297,067
263,361
33,706
526,722
(493,016)
0
0
0.13
Fergus Falls
1,135,842
396,636 1
739,2D6
793,272
(54,066)
0
0
1.86
Forest Lake
269,926
119560 1
150,366
300,000
(149,634)
0
0
1.26
Fridley
2,270,303
558:833 1
1,711,470
1,117,666
593,8D4
3,422,940
109,911
3-06
Golden Valley
1,848,406
771,053
1,077,353
1,542,106
(464,753)
0
0
1.40
Grand Rapids
460,171
287,687
172,484
575,374
(402,890)
0
0
0.60
Ham Lake
616,664
193,136
423,533
386,272
37,261
847,066
27,199
2.19
Hastings
682,152
321,054
361,098
642,108
(281,010)
0
0
1.12
Hermantown
1,102,406
114,498
987,908
300,000
687,908
2,963,724
95,165
8.63
Hibbing
899,153
743,800
155,353
1,487,600
(1,332,247)
0
0
0.21
Hopkins
681,162
384,590
296,572
769,180
(472,608)
0 -
0
0.77
Hutchinson
734,487
274,992
459,495
549,984
(90,489)
0
0
1-67
International,Falls
1,012,981
252,386
760,595
504,772 -
255,823
1,521,190
48,845
3.01
Inver Grove Heights
636,370
382,379
253,991
764,758
(510,767)
0
0
0.66
Lake Elmo
454,677
121,407
333,270
300,000
33,270
666,540
21,403
2.75
Lakeville
483,062
727,348
(244,286)
1,454,696
(1,698,982)
0
0
-034
Lino Lakes
912,591
298,721
613,870
597,442
16,428
1,227,740
16,428 **
2.05
Litchfield
770,588
185,868
584,720
371,736
212,984
1,169,440
37,551
3.15
L ittI eer- ada
336,639
75,758
260,881
300,000
(39,119)
0
0 ,.-?
3.44,-4_
(A)
(a)
(C)
(D)
Balance
1991
Amount
(B-C)
As Of (-)
Construction (_)
Available (-)
Allowable (_>
Excess
Municipality
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-01-91
Allotment
02-01-91
Balance
Balance
Little Falls
$676,738
$316,053
$360,685
$632,106
(E271,421)
Mankato
983,000
848,932
134,068
1,697,864
(1,563,796)
Maple Grove
874,502
759,888
114,614
1,519,T76
(1,405,162)
Maplewood
2,555,498
512,672
2,042,826
1,025,344
1,017,482
Marshall
623,252
269,195
354,057
538,390
(184,333)
Mendota Heights
730,709
214,481
516,228
428,962
87,266
Minneapolis
23,914,506
8,144,140
15,770,366
16,268,280
(517,914)
Minnetonka
4,228,257
1,165,247
3,063,010
2,330,494
732,516
Montevideo
429,149
173,373
255,776
346,746
(90,970)
Moorhead
2,280,826
786,243
1,494,583
1,572,486
(77,903)
Morris
271,478
149,579
121,899
300,000
(178,101)
Mound
650,007
191,960
458,047
383,920
74,127
Mounds View
805,587
240,824
564,763
481,648
83,115
New Brighton
919,532
391,624
527,908
783,248.
(255,340)
New Hope
258,19T
449,329
(191,132)
898,658
(1,089,790)
New Ulm
884,260
373,303
510,957
746,606
(235,649)
Northfield
1,324,145
373,574
950,571
74T,148
203,423
North Mankato
479,357
233,988
245,369
467,976
(222,607)
North St. Paul
363,216
260,282
102,934
520,564
(417,630)
Oakdale
485,126
276,761
208,365
553,522
(345,157)
Orono
857,167
199,986
657,181
399,972
257,209
Otsego
344,397
344,398
0
688,796
(688,796)
Owatonna
1,685,224
593,673
1,091,551
1,187,346
(95,795)
Plymouth
2,915,323
965,239
1,950,084
1,930,478
19,606
Prior Lake
674,007
325,215
348,792
650,430
(301,638)
Ramey
551,516
417,438
134,078
834,876
(700,798)
Red Wing
1,283,998
484,257
799,741
968,514
(168,T73)
Redwood Falls
286,757
122,654
164,103
300,000
(135,897)
Richfield
2,571,009
726,887
1,844,122
1,453,T74
390,348
Robbinsdale
1,090,258
337,218
753,040
674,436
78,604
(E)
(F)
(G)
(2xB)
•:+
...
(Negative)
Estimated
Column B
Adjustment Of
Loss Of 1992
Divided By
Needs
Apportionment
Cot u n A
----------------------------------------------
EO
90
1.14
0
0
0.16
0
0
0.15
4,085,652
131,190
3.98
0
0
1.32
1,032,456
33,152
2.41
0
0
1.94
6,126,020
196,707
2.63
0
0
1.48
0
0
1.90
0
0
0.81
916,094
29,416
2.39
1,129,526
36,269
2.35
0
0
1.35
0
0
-0.43
0
0
1.37
1,901,142
61,046
2.54
0
0
1.05
0
0
0.40
0
0
0.75
1,314,362
42,204
3.29
0
0
0.00
0
0
1.84
3,900,168
19,606 **
2.02
0
0
1.07
0
0
0.32
0
0
1.65
0
0
1.34
3,688,244
118,430
2.54
1,506,080
48,360
2.23
(A)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
,.
(2xB)
rrr
Balance
1991
Amount
`
(B-C)
(Negative)
Estimated
Column B
As Of (-)
Construction
(_) Available
(-) Allowable (_)
Excess
Adjustment Of
Loss Of 1992
Divided By
Municipality
02-01-91
Allotment
02-01-91
Balance
Balance
Needs
Apportionment
Column A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------`---------_--____-_____-_-_-_--------___-___-_-------________________-_-______________
Rochester
$5,265,940
$1,817,135
$3,448,805
$3,634,270
($185,465)
So
s0
1.90
Rosemount
311,355
305,704
5,651
611,408
(605,757)
0
0
0.02
Roseville
1,483,800
779,103
704,697
1,558,206
(853,509)
0
0
0.90
St. Anthony
541,678
139,897
401,781
300,000
101,781
803,562
25,802
2.87
St. Cloud
2,385,764
927,122
1.458,642
1,854,244
(395,602)
0
D
1.57
St. Louis Park
3,673,027
699,082
2,973,945
1,398,164
1,575,781
8,921,835
286,480
4.25
St. Paul
23,392,858
6,238,171
17,154,687
-12,476,342
4,678,345
34,309,374
1,101,674
2.75
St. Peter
226,642
226,641
1
453,282
(453,281)
0
0
0.00
Sauk Rapids
673,757
198,940
474,817
397,880
76,937
949,634
30,493
2.39
Savage
580,584
275,950
304,634
551,900
(247,266)
0
0
1.10
Shakopee
1,123,568
375,174
748,394
750,348
(1,954)
0
0
1.99
Shoreview
856,042
367,942
488,100
735,884
(247,784)
0
0
1.33
Shorewood
385,594�
251,395
134,199
502,790
(368,591)
0
0
0.53
South. St. Paul
840,340
431,T40
408,600
863,480
(454,8BO)
0
0
0.95
Spring Lake Park
604,128
89,434
514,694
300,000
214,694
1,544,082
49,580
5.76
Stillwater
1,425,843
349,705
1,076,138
699,410
376,728
2,152,276
69,110
3.08
Thief River falls
390,101
343,286
46,815
686,572
(639,757)
0
0
0.14
Vadnais Heights
537,792
131,860
405,932
300,000
105,932
811,864
26,069
3.08
Virginia
288,422
254,251
34,171
508,502
(474,331)
0
0
0.13
Waseca
594,136
164,886
429,250
329,772
99.478
858,500
27,566
2.60
Nest St. Paul
1,146,430
416,957
729,473
833,914
(104,441)
0
0
1.75
White gear Lake
1,588,788
444,838
1,143,950
889,676
254,274
2,287,900
73,464
2.57
Willmar
1,065,682
408,666
657,016
817,332
(160,316)
0
0
1.61
Winona
1,231,994
502,230
729,764
1,004,460
(274,696)
0
0
1.45
Woodbury
2,548,271
796,067
1,752,204
1,592,134
160,070
3,504,408
112,527
2.20
Worthington
944,468
303,049
641,419
606,098
35,321
1,282,838
35,321 **
2.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$172,996,989
$66,729,825
$106,267,165
$134,144,568
($27,877,403)
$109,140,425
$3,370,005
1.59
` The allowable balance in (C) is
two times the construction allotment
or $300,000 (whichever
is greater.)
a
** The initial adjustment loss in
apportionment in
(F) cannot exceed excess balance in CD ).
-
**` Ba/--bn the
1991 apportionment
$1000 of money
needs = $32.11
��
'
trDEPARTMENT
n �STATE OF
METRO WATERS,
PHONENO. 772-7910
March 1, 1991
MAR q.1991
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN 55106
FILE NO.
Ms. Mary Kueffner
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
RE: VARIANCE REQUESTS AND SHORELAND PERMITS
Dear Ms. Kueffner:
Ad: R h 1991
Metro Region Waters has reviewed the information submitted for
several variances and shoreland permits. Our comments follow:
Joseph Kieslina
The plan attached in his permit application is the one which was
agreed to at the February 13th meeting between Joe and John Stine,
Regional Hydrologist. We have no objection to the issuance of
permits for this project. We recommend that a restriction be
recorded which would prevent future owners from continuing to
obtain more deck on the lake -side of his structure.
Lohmar
The Lohmars are proposing to construct a deck on the rear of the
structure, construct a deck and lattice work near the shore and put
in significant landscaping. The deck on the north site meets the
structure setback. Your ordinance does not specifically address
landscaping. The terracing may require a grading and filling
permit. It appears to us that the new cedar deck and lattice shade
would be considered a structure which would be subject to the 75'
setback requirement.
There is not enough topography information on the plan to determine
if the ground level at the structure is above the 100 year flood
elevation. The drawing erroneously states that the "high flood
mark elevation" is 888.01. The 100 year flood elevation is 889.01.
The plan also states that the munimum basement elevation is 891.011
so we assume that the ground surface must be above 889.01. Since
the additions are not closer than the existing structure, we would
not object so long as hardship can be demonstrated. We would
recommend that some additional tree plantings be placed on the
lakeside since the structure's visibility will be nearly doubled.
Again, your ordinance does not give any guidance for landscaping
proposals. A grading and filling permit will probably be
necessary.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ms. Mary Kueffner
March 1, 1991
Page 2
In general, the Department recommends the use of native species for
plantings rather than ornamentals to enhance and maintain natural
looking shorelines. However, there is no regulatory basis for
implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to review these
proposals. If you have any questions, please contact me at 772-
7910. Please send us copies of the minutes of the hearings, and
the City council's action, once it is final.
Sincerely,
� p
Molly �y Shodeen
Area Hydrologist
cc: Jim McNamara
t LUUt,-D t t-ut-t �,vurv�,iL.H� ivy+
'_`larch 5, 1991
Meeting Date
=V DSECTION ReAPP REPORT 6A. I
F ENi: Contract with Co11e McVoy
on►cc,Na7 ►;aC-
EY:
APPROVED' FCR
ACENC A EY: i
Attached is the final draft of the public relations contract with
Colle McVoy. Attachment A is now included with this contract, and
that attachment includes a line item for the lobbying efforts of Pat
Forcia.
Assuming the council finds this contract acceptable, the following
motion is offered for your consideration.
Motion , Second to approve. the.Public
Relations SErvice Agreement with Colle McVoy in an amount not to
exceed $57,000.00, including all lobbying efforts, and to authorize
the mayor and city administrator to sign said agreement on behalf of
the City of Lake Elmo.
PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICE AGREEMENT
I. Parties. This Agreement is entered into by and between the
City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (herein
"City") and Colle and McVoy Public Relations, a Minnesota
corporation (herein "Agency").
II. Terms and Conditions. In consideration of the mutual
undertakings herein expressed, the City and Agency agree as
follows:
A. Effective Date. This contract shall be effective January
1, 1991.
B. Agency Responsibilities.
1. Advise City's Council on public relations aspect of
City's strategy in regard to the proposed Lake Elmo .
Regional Park Landfill.
2. Develop for approval and implementation a program
designed to achieve City's goals and objectives.
3. Provide professional staff services as may be
required to assist the City in carrying out its
goals and objectives.
4. Present information at City Council meetings as
requested.
5. Advise the City's Council prior to entering into
uncancelable contracts for services or materials in
excess of $2,000.00.
C. City Responsibilities.
1. Assist Agency in making City's public relations
more effective by providing information which is
mutually deemed to be pertinent to the Agency's
work on City's behalf.
2. Cooperate in expediting approvals of Agency's work
in City's hands so that deadlines may be met at
minimum costs to City. Agency will exercise its
best efforts to anticipate regular meeting dates
for the City's Council when Council approval is
required.
3. Authorize Agency to purchase materials and services
as required to produce public relations on the
City's behalf and within the guidelines of the
approved estimated budget.
1
D.
VO
4. Designate a City Contact Representative who shall
be kept informed of Agency's efforts.
5. Promptly pay Agency for services rendered.
Compensation. Agency agrees to provide professional
services at the following hourly rates:
1. Interns 35.00
2. Clerical 50.00
3. Account Coordinator 65.00
4. Assistant Account Executive 75.00
5. Account Executive 85.00
6. Senior Account Executive 95.00
7. Department Head 150.00
Total fees for materials and services purchased, and
costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement shall not
exceed $57,000.00 without consent of the City's Council.
Estimated Budget. A detailed estimated budget is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. All
services and materials purchased by Agency shall be
billed to City at cost. Any proposed changes in
estimated budget line items shall be presented to the
City Council for review. The estimated budget includes
the Agency's anticipated costs for professional services
and anticipated costs in the following categories:
1. Purchased materials and services.
a. Typesetting and keylining.
b. Films, negatives.
C. Photostats.-
d. Engravings.
e. Photographs.
f. Radio and television PSAs, recordings talent
and reuse fees.
Note: The Agency agreed to donate creative time to
produce a public service announcement (PSA). (For
out-of-pocket costs, such as recording fees and
editing, the Agency would seek reduced rates from
2
C
A
vendors. The City will be responsible for out-of-
pocket costs associated with the productions of a
PSA.)
g. Purchased artwork.
h. Printing, letter services, etc.
i. Stylists, prop -hunters, set designers, etc.
j. Purchased computer information services.
k. Lobbyist as approved by the City's Council.
2. Miscellaneous costs.
a. Shipping costs (express and postage).
b. Long distance telephone and telegraph charges
used in connection with materials common in
the production of collateral and sales
promotion.
C. Travel costs on City's behalf - such trips to
be at City's request or authorized by City.
Travel costs include all normal travel costs
such as transportation, lodging, food, taxis,
etc. It also includes entertainment related
solely to City's customers, prospects or
distribution factors.
d. Sales tax when applicable.
e. Payroll taxes and union dues for talent.
f. Photocopies.
g. Clipping services.
h. Facsimile costs.
3. Computer information services. Agency uses
computers, advanced mathematical technology and
data processing equipment for administrative data
processing, public relations and communications
planning.
As a general principle, the use of computers and
associated technology for administrative
operations, media analysis, etc. are part of normal
Agency services.
Unusually expensive analysis, special requested
non -routine projects, customer planning analyses
3
and the purchase of special source material are not
considered part of normal Agency services. Each.
project will be analyzed separately and a
determination made in advance as to cost and
billing.
4. Audio-visual services. Agency provides audio-
visual production services for City. For the
development and/or production of specific audio-
visual materials in sound, slide, film or videotape
form, charges are billed on either a project or per
job basis based on appropriate hourly rate for
staff time, plus out-of-pocket costs for facilities
and materials.
5. Research. All research, as required to provide
this service, is described herein.
F. Monthly Pilling and Payment Terms. Agency shall provide
City with a monthly billing statement. The City shall
invoices within 30 days. A late payment charge of 1.5
percent per month shall be assessed on all amounts due
and payable 60 days after date of invoice.
G. Monthly Progress Reports. Agency shall provide a monthly
progess report which illustrates the estimated budget
line items and the amounts expended to date for each
budget category.
H. General Understanding Relating to Agency Services.
1. City's right to cancel work in progress. City
reserves the right to modify, revise, or cancel any
public relations plans, schedules or work. Agency
will take proper steps immediately upon
instructions from City to effect such changes.
City agrees to indemnify Agency for all costs and
liabilities attributable to such modifications,
revision or cancellation and any expenses incurred
according to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
2. Nature of public relations._ Agency shall not be
required at any time to cause the publication of
any announcement or article, or to prepare any
material of any nature which Agency regards as
misleading, deceptive or opposed to public
interest, nor to undertake any campaign which in
Agency's opinion is prejudicial to City's or
Agency's interests.
Agency operates by and adheres to the Code of
Professional Standards for the practice of public
relations as adopted by the Public Relations
Society of America (PRSA).
3. Liability. Agency endeavors to use every
reasona]le precaution to safeguard public relations
matter in Agency's possession which belongx to-X'
City, but are not.liable for its loss, damage or
destruction, except when it is established that
loss, damage or destruction is due to Agency's
negligence. Any costs City incurs as a result of
Agency's negligence will be reimbursed to City by
Agency.
Agency will not disclose any proprietary
information about City or release any document
without prior approval from City.
Agency agrees to exercise judgment in the
preparation and placing of all publicity for City,
with a view to avoiding any claims, proceedings or
suits being made or instituted against City or
Agency. It is mutually agreed, however, that City
will indemnify Agency against any loss which Agency
may incur as a result of any claim, proceeding or
suit, based upon any publicity which Agency has
prepared for City, which was approved by City
before being published unless such loss arises out
of Agency's own negligence or failure to discharge
Agency's duties.
I. Right to Examine Records. During the life of this
Agreement, all contracts, papers, correspondence, copy,
accounts, orders or other matters pertaining to City's
business and under Agency's control are open to City's
examination at any time during Agency's regular business
hours.
J. Ownership of Materials. All materials produced by Agency
as a result of this Agreement shall be the property of _
the City and may not be used or distributed, except in
furtherence of the requirements of this Agreement,
without prior consent of the City.
K. Termination of Contract. This Agreement shall continue
in force until terminated by either party. Notice of
termination shall be sent by registered mail to the
principal place of business of the party to whom such
notice is addressed and shall be effective upon receipt.
In the event of termination by the City, the City shall
be responsible for all professional services rendered and
for all costs incurred by the Agency, including uncancel-
able contracts made by the Agency on behalf of the City,
up to the effective date of termination. The Agency
5
shall submit a final invoice to the City within 30 days
of completion of Agency's obligations pursuant to this
Agreement or within 60 days of termination pursuant to
this section.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this
day of , 1991.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Pursuant to Council
authorization granted
the day of
, 1991.
Dated:
L\113591-2.ACT
2/20/91
J
Mayor
City Administrator
COLLE AND MCVOY PUBLIC RELATIONS
Title
i
C
02/28/1991 01:08 COLLE/McVOYX OF-400-K.KK,K 02501241 P.02
BUDGET
"Exhibit A"
♦ Public Relations Services
(The costs listed below reflect more of a counselor role for Colle & McVoy, with
the City of Lake Elmo and REAPP helping to implement various tactics. This
budget provides a menu of public relations services from which the Lake Elmo
group could select tactics. It includes estimates which could vary significantly
depending on the course that Lake Elmo and REAPP want to go. Although the
costs could vary within each tactic slightly, Colle & McVoy's services will n
exceed the total listed on page 44.)
Strategy: Research
Tactic #1: Quantitative Survey
Tactic #2: Technical Review
Strategy: Support Materials
Tactic#1: Target list
Tactic #2: Press kit -style information packet
Polder
Press release
Five fact sheets
Community Action Guide
Membership brochure
Tactic #3: Public Education Video
(Same footage to be used in the PSA spot)
Tactic #4: Poster and Flyer
Tactic #5: Monthly Newsletter
Strategy: Sponsors
Tactic #1: Target list/followup
Tactic #2: Establish tax-exempt fund
Strategy: Coalitions
Tactic #1: Develop resource network (REAPP)
Identify spokespersons
Develop presentation materials
Arrange presentation training
$ 200
$ 200
$ 500
$ 2,000
$10,000
$1,500
$1,000
$ 500
$ 500
$1,000
42
02i28/1991 01:09
BUDGET (CONT'D.)
COLLE MoVOYX I_IF-400 -6***
02501241 P.03
Tactic #2: REAPP solicits support groups $1,000
Target list
Letter campaign to groups
Speakers bureau
Strategy: Media Relations
Tactic #1: Press kit (same as above)
$
-0-
Tactic #2: Letters to editor
$
1,000
Edit, coordinate, disseminate
Tactic #3: News release series
$
2 ,000
Write, disseminate, follow-up
Tactic #4: Talk shows
$
1,500
Write pitch letters, follow-up, coordinate
Tactic #5: Two media tours
$
11000
Washington County
Twin Cities
Strategy: Ongoing Communications Activities
Tactic #1:
Letter -writing campaign
$
500
Tactic #2:
Phone tree
$
300
Tactic #3:
Petition signatures
$
300
Tactic #4:
School children
$
300
Strategy: Time Spent Managing Lobbyist's Activities
Tactic #1:
Target list
$
500
Tactic #2
Obtain letters of support
$
500
Tactic #3:
Solicit townships and municipalities
$
500
Tactic #4:
Lobby constituents
$
500
Strategy: Special Events
Tactic #1: Two demonstrations
Tactic #2: Five public hearings
Tactic #3: Six public forums
$ 3,000
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
43
02/28/1991 01:09 COLLE/McVOYX OF-400 ***-s 02501241 P.04
BUDGET (CONT'D.)
Item
FPa
Strategy: PSA Effort
Tactic #1: TV spot (Creative time donated. Includes
productioncost only) $ 6,475
PSA scripts written/placed $ 700
Tactic #2: Print ad $ 2,500
Strategy: Presentation
Tactic #1 Develop materials $ 500
Tactic #2: Arrange training 00
SUB TOTAL:
♦ Out -of -Pocket Expenses
TOTAL (Colle & McVoy)
♦ Pat Forsiea to Provide Lobbyist Services
TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM
$42,975
$ 2,025
$45,000
$12,000
$57,000
sm
REU'UE-�i1 E-(Jh UUUNUIL.AU t 1UP4
4e:ting Cats March 5, 1991
cV CA S EC-T1CN
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
11A
C F "14 :, i t :`4 C-
CEc-An►'.IENT.
' BY:
'E'.1 : AFFRCV ECFCn �
Charitable Gambling License Renewal aCii=;y0�, 6'f:
Lake Elmo Jaycees
Attached is a request for a renewal of an existing charitable gambling
license from the Lake Elmo Jaycees.
If the Council has no problem with this request, its action -is to"do
nothing. If there is opposition to the request, the Council must by
resolution, notify the Department of Revenue - Gaming Division.with-in
30 days of the date which the application was filed.
LG202
(11/14/90)
Minnesota Lcwfal Gambling
Lease Agreement
(6/L. ) 7%1'7
Name of Legal Owner of Gambling Premise Address City2ip Code Phone
Name and Aoor ss of eased 11ramises Acdress sty/Zip ooe
- . ,.v 4f.vr ///99 , -S—el IV —I
Name of Organization Leasing the Premises (lessee) License Number, if known
,e�.4RZ- 5%. o
f=czirib2zng Aciznztx�
The lawful gambling activity which the organization will conduct is (check all that apply):
= bingo = raffles = paddlewheels C,'4 pull -tabs �cn tipboards
Rent Information (see Rules 7860.0090, Subp 3)
Class A and C premise permits:
Rent for bingo and all other gambling activities conducted
during that bingo occasion may not exceed:
$200 for up to 6,000 square feet;
$300 far up to 12,000 square feet; and
$400 for more than 12,000 square feet.
I Rent to be oaid oer bingo occasion $ 1
Class IS and D premise permits:
Rent for gambling activities not including bingo
may not exceed $24 per square foot per month,
with a maximum of $600 per month.
Rent to be cad eer month SS
Rent may not be based on a percentage of receipts, profits from lawful gambling, or on the number of
participants attending a bingo occasion.
An organization may not pay rent to itself or to any of Its affiliates for space used for the conduct of lawful gambling.
Attach a sketch which identifies the location of the leased premises when a portion of a building is the leased premises.
That sketch must include the dimensions of the leased premises.
The lease will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on J'A.V 1 19 9/ . and will end at 12:00 a.m. on - c�7/
19, for a period of one year.
The bingo occasions will be held:
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (a.m./p.m.) an (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (am./p.m.) on (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (a.m./p.m.) on (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (am./p.m.) on (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (a.m./p.m.) on (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (a.mdp.m.) on (days of week)
from (hours) (a.m./p.m.) to (a.m./p.m.) on (days of week)
By agreeing to the terms of this lease, it is mutually agreed that:
aWhen leasing from a licensed bingo hall, the lessor must be legal owner of the property.
• The owner of the property or the lessor may not manage gambling at the premises.
• The lessor of the premises, his or her immediate family, and any agents or employees of the lessee may not
participate as players in the conduct of lawful gambling on the leased premises.
• The lessor and the lessee do not have a direct or indirect financial Interest in the distribution or manufacture
of gambling equipment.
• The lessor of the premises will allow the Board or agents of the Board, the Commissioner of Public Safety or
agents of the commissioner, or the Commissioner of Revenue or agents of the commissioner, and law
enforcement personnel to inspect the premises at any reasonable time, and permit the organization to
conduct lawful gambling at the premises according to the terms of this lease. The lessor may not impose any
conditions on the organization regarding distributors of gambling equipment, services, or the use of profits.
• The organization must obtain a license and a premise permit from the Gambling Control Board. The
organization will be responsible for complying with the laws and rules of lawful gambling.
• The organization must have, at the gambling premises, a current inventory of gambling equipment, a sketch with
dimensions of the premises available for review, and a clear physical separation or divider between the lessee's
gambling equipment -and the lessor's business equipment.
• The organization will be responsible for ensuring that the lessor's business activities are not conducted on the
leased premises.
• If the lease is cancelled priorto the termination date of this lease, each party agrees to notify the Gambling
Control Board explaining the reasons for the cancellation. The lease shall be terminated immediately for any
gambling, liquor, prostitution or tax evasion violations occurring on the premises,
\ • The lessor of the premises shall provide the lessee access to the licensed premises during any time reasonable
and necessary to conduct lawful gambling on the premises and as agreed upon in this lease.
• (Write in any other conditions or restrictions that will be included as part of the lease. Attach additional sheets if
necessary)
This lease is the total and only agreement between the lessor and the organization conducting lawful gambling activities.
There is no other agreement and no other consideration required between the parties as to the lawful gambling and other
matters related to this lease. (Any changes in this lease must be submitted to the Gambling Control Board within 10 days
A copy of this lease and sketch with dimensions must be submitted with the premise permit application renewal or when
changes occur to:
Department of Gaming - Gambling Control Division
Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd Floor
1711 W. County Road B
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
LG214
(I1ft4M)
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit Application - Part 1
cusiness Hcaress of urganizaaon - street or P. O Box (Do not use address of gambling manager)
)!�o ;36x / 9g
Name of chief executive officer (cannot be gambling
Address of chief executive officer - Street or P. O. Box
Class of Premise Permit
Fee
❑
Class A— Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull -tabs
$200
Class B — Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tlpboards, Pull -tabs
$125
❑
Class C— Bingo only
$100
❑
Class D — Raffles only
$75
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
FEE
CHECK
INITIALS
DATE
The class of premise permit
must be reflected by class of
the organization license.
k
Bingo Occasions
If class A or C, fill in days and beginning and ending hours of bingo occasions:
No more than seven bingo occasions may be conducted by an organization per week.
Day Beginning/Ending Hours Day Beginning/Ending Hours Day Beginning /Ending Hours
to to to
to .._ to T to
to
Status of Premise Permit - check one:
❑ New premise — Fill in base organization premise permit number
.Renewal of existing premise permit — Fill in complete premise permit number L7z—
❑ Previously expired premise permit— Fill incomplete premise permit number
LG214
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit Application - Part 2
:....wx+._y.>:a>Yh"D+>::x;;>..•.w:q.:nxavz»�.'Syn:.a:,:�:i.ux»ix..:.._.Y:&ya,::�.y:.y>:.S�.:S:::fiY:"x.V'.^>Y'v:S<»r. _,_..... n >::yg•.gws>::%s..y'^>:' .. .. 1
CurntzfngPrean�ses Iiz}`orma;tiiarc <t � � .' � :; _ '°
Name of establishment where gambling will be conducted Street Address (do not use a post office box number)
--;�7.",/ �O, " IiAJ-,e nJ ///`i4 S. u.o-rc� X-.s 4WX-
Is the premises located within city limits? Ayes ❑ no
City and County where gambling premises is located OR Township and County where gambling premises is located if outside of city limits
Name and Address of Legal Owner of Premises city
Does the organization own the building where the gambling will be conducted? ❑ YES
state
NOTE: Organizations may not pay themselves rent if they own the building or have a holding company. A letter must be sub-
mitted showing rent payments as zero from gambling funds If the organization's holding company owns the premises. The
letter must be signed by the chief executive officer.)
If NO, attach the following:
Rent:
. a copy of the lease with terms for one year.
' a copy of a sketch of the floor plan with dimensions, showing what portion is being leased.
A lease and sketch are not required for Class D applicantions.
For gambling with bingo $
Total square footage leased
For gambling without bingo $ �ac5` Total square footage leased 3
Address of storage space of gambling equipment
Address Citj State Zip code
///P 9 .fT/cC4l�>ci2 iS Wd-- 4F4,Pr6, C1'1
Number
ii</Gs` 394-t ct- .61
Name, address, and title of persons authorized to sign checks and makedeposits and withdrawals.
Name
�.� Address Tile
�o� �r S/.� ✓S°�r,�.a �T �J.ai/Tn..K�-on �.cJ s3'iif' G�J�I.�✓,45.,,�
�U' duo.! iC u�Ft, / S7Q/ l-./<� i/.rs,�r.� TeP �A,�� �<.•e� .r.,,v ssa v�
LG214
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Premise Permit Application - Part 3
feknorzteclgement <.
Gambling Site Authorization
I hearby consent that local law enforcement officers, the board or agents of the board, or the commissioner of revenue or
public safety, or agents of the commissioners, may enter the premises to enforce the law.
Bank Records Information
The board is authorized to inspect the bank records of the gambling account whenever necessary to fulfill
requirements of current gambling rules and law.
I declare that:
have read this application and all information submitted to the board;
All information is true, accurate and complete;
All other required information has been fully disclosed;
I am the chief executive officer of the organization;
assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree, if licensed,
to abide by those laws and rules, Including amendments to them;
A membership list of the organization will be available within seven days after it Is requested by the board;
Any changes in application Information will be submitted to the board and local government within 10
days of the change; and
A termination plan will be submitted to the board within 15 days of the termination of all premise permits.
Failure to provide required information or providing false information may result in the denial or revocation of the
license.
1. The city *must sign If the gambling premises is located within city limits.
2. The county "AND township" must sign if the gambling premises Is located within a township.
3. The local government (city or county) must pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application.
4. A copy of the resolution approving the application must be attached to the application.
S. Applications which are denied by the local governing body should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Division.
Township: By signature below, the township acknowledges that the organization Is applying for a premises permit within
township limits.
City" or County" Township"
person
Refer to the
application
2—zs
for the required attachments
of person receiving
Is township: 0 Organized ❑ Unorganized
Mail to: Department of Gaming
Gambling Control Division
Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd Floor
1711 W. County Road B
Roseville, MN 55113
❑ Unincorporated
T�iN �oi•�r 7 uPz;v
l i
i
I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL.ACTION
Muting Date March 5, 1991
�EVc.. SECTION IVC: 10FIGiNA71,
DE?ARTMEN T
City Administrators Report 11B.
EY:
EM : APPRCVE:,)' FCn^
RFP for Organized Collection. AC ENCA EY: i
Attached is the final draft of the Request for Proposals for solid waste
collection from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The committee is looking
for comments from the City Council.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR ORGANIZED GARBAGE, REFUSE,
RECYCLABLE AND YARD WASTE COLLECTION
BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Elmo (the City) is issueing a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for. Refuse Collection firms to provide an organized refuse
collection program, including recycling and yard waste, within the
City of Lake Elmo.
The objective of organized collection is to:
1. Achieve recycling abatement goals.
2. Minimize the amount of truck traffic on city streets
by using one hauler.
3. Provide best overall cost to residents.
4. Provide weekly pickup on a selected day which will
result in cleaner appearing city.
5. Be prepared for seemingly inevitable mandatory source
separation ordinance which may occur at the discretion
of the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County and/or the
state of Minnesota.
6. To offer uniform volume base fees that will result
in the waste generator paying for the waste generated.
SPECIFICATIONS
I. DEFINITION OF TERMS
"Additional collection service" shall include all items that are
collected in excess of the maximum volume allowed for a dwelling
unit.
"Cart" means a 90, 60, or 30-gallon receptacle used to contain
garbage and refuse.
"Compost" means (yard waste) organic material consisting of grass
clippings, and leaves but excluding pine cones, apples, vege-
tables, twigs, branches or refuse of any kind.
"Yard Waste receptacle" means a plastic lawn/leaf bag of a type
available commercially, paper biodegradable bags, or a permanent
can which is identified as containing compost. Receptacle is not
to exceed 30 pounds.
"Dwelling unit" means a separate dwelling place with a kitchen or
area for the preparation of food.
"Garbage" means animal and vegetable waste resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking, service and consumption of food.
"Recyclables" are reusable or reprocessable materials approved
and agreed to by the parties hereto. Recyclables may include
such items as newsprint, corrugated and ledger paper, glass, f
plastics, tin cans, aluminum, batteries, tires, and other metal
goods. Recyclables specifically exclude refuse and compost.
"Recycling container" means a container supplied to the dwelling
unit to place recyclable material in for collection.
"Refuse" is solid waste from residences and City Offices that is
the result of normal operation, including garbage and rubbish and
specifically excluding compost, recyclables, and toxic and
hazardous waste. Refuse further excludes industrial, commercial,
agricultural, and construction garbage or rubbish and wastes.
"Rubbish" is inorganic solid waste, including ashes, consisting
of both combustible and noncumbustible wastes, such as wood,
bedding, crockery, and other nonreusable waste. Rubbish also
includes nonrecyclable types of glass, paper, cardboard, and
metal cans.
"Toxic and hazardous wastes" are waste materials including but
not limited to poisons, strongly acid or caustic materials,
radioactive materials, flammable or explosive materials, and
similar harmful chemicals and wastes which require special
handling and-must_be disposed of in a manner to conserve the
environment and protect the public health and safety.
"Volume -based" refuse and garbage collection means the maximum
limit of garbage and refuse a dwelling unit is permitted to
dispose under the base refuse rate.
"White goods" are large household items including refrigerators,
stoves, dishwashers, washers and dryers, water heaters, carpeting
and padding, mattresses, chairs, couches, tables and other such .
items of furniture_ which are too large for one person to pick up.
II. SCOPE OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION
A. Collection Service
1. Garbage and Refuse Collection
a) All occupants of residential properties shall be required
by ordinance to keep garbage or refuse in:
1) A cart container of 90 gallons or a limit of three
(3) containers not to exceed 90 gallons total.
2) A cart container of 60 gallons or a limit of two (2)
containers not to exceed 60 gallons total.
3) A cart container of 30 gallons or a limit of one (1)
container not to exceed 30 gallons.
b) Garbage and refuse collection shall not include toxic and
hazardous waste.
c) The Proposal shall indicate how service will be provided
for the collection and disposal of debris from all City -
owned or leased facilities, properties, and parks.
d) The Proposal shall indicate the place and method of
disposal of such garbage and refuse. The selected
Contractor will be required to provide a bi-annual weight
report to the City.
e) Garbage and refuse containers shall be placed at the curb
on collection day, in a location easily accessible to
motor vehicle pick-up. Containers must be placed
properly for pick-up prior to 7:00 a.m. and cannot
continue past 8:00 p.m. on the day of collection to
insure service.
f) The Proposal shall indicate that selected contractor will
dispose of all such refuse and garbage at a disposal site
approved by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
g) The Proposal shall indicate that selected contractor will
maintain landfill/processing facility receipts from
equipment carrying Lake Elmo refuse exclusively. Such
receipts shall be made available for inspection by the
City Administrator or an authorized representative.
h) Garbage and refuse in excess of the designated volume -
base per dwelling unit will be subject to additional
collection service charges and will be billed by the
selected contractor. Collection service for white goods
and large items must have prior arrangements with the
selected contractor for collection.
i) The City retains the option to initiate a spring "clean-
up" day during the term of this contract.. If this option
is exercised, the City shall designate a Saturday in May
as a spring clean-up day. Refuse shall be delivered to a
drop-off site that shall be designated by the City. The
collection equipment use and labor shall be of no
additional charge to the dwelling units within the City.
The dumping charge at the landfill/processing facility
will be the City's responsibility. It shall be the
City's responsibility to notify residents of the
designated clean-up day.
2. Compost Collection
a) Yard Waste collections shall take place on a designated
collection day, inclusive, with a schedule consistent with
that of the refuse collection. The collection point will
be made fromt the opposite side of the driveway from the
garbage and refuse receptacles. Daily service hours shall
not begin prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue past 8:00 p.m.
3.
The City retains the option to maintain its existing
compost site during the term of this contract. If this
option is exercised, the City shall designate the days and
hours that said compost site shall be open at this time,
use of the compost site by City residents shall be at no
additional charge to residents, and maintenance of the
compost site facility will be the City's responsibility.
b) The Proposal shall indicate how collection of all compost
from residential properties at least once a week during
the months agreed to by the City and selected contractor
will occur.
c) All occupant or resident properties who wish to
participate in the yard waste collection program shall
place yard waste, Christmas trees, storm damage tree
limbs in biodegradable paper, bags or a can which is
identified as yard waste.
d) The Proposal shall indicate that the selected contractor
will deliver the yard waste materials to a Washington
County approved site, or a site mutually agreed upon by
the City and the selected Contractor. The Contractor
shall not mix other types of refuse or inorganic materials
with the yard waste or take any action so as to make the
yard waste material unacceptable to the operators of the
Washington County compost site.
e) In the event Washington County begins to charge a fee for
disposing yard waste materials at the County compost site,
the City shall endeavor to find an alternative site.
Should a mutually agreed to alternative site not be found,
the Contract shall be subject to renegotiation upon
written -request by either -the City or-Contractor-.-
f) In the event Washington County closes its compost site and
an alternative site cannot be mutually agreed to by the
City and the Contractor, the Contractor shall collect all
yard waste for disposal and the contract shall be subject
to renegotiation, upon written request by either the City
or Contractor.
Recycling Collection
a) Recycling collection shall take place on a designated
collection day for each dwelling unit, as determined by
the City. Recycling collection shall be the same day
as refuse collection. Daily service hours shall not
begin prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue past 8:00 p.m.
W
b) All occupant or resident properties will be mandated to
participate in the recycling program and will be supplied
recycling containers, provided by the City for the
recyclable materials agreed upon by the City and the
Contractor.
c) Collection will be from the curbside. At a minimum,
collection must be for newspaper, glass containers,
aluminum and steel cans, tin cans, cardboard, certain
plastics as agreed upon by the City and Contractor, and
car batteries. If mutually agreed upon, other materials
can be added. This may include items such as agreed upon
by the City and the selected contractor.
d) The Proposal shall indicate that selected contractor will
deliver the recyclable materials to a recycling market
mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. The .:
Contractor shall not mix other types of refuse or
inorganic materials with the recyclables or take any
action so as to make the recyclable material unacceptable
to the operators of the recycling center.
e) Contractor must provide monthly reports for all materials
collected. The required information includes original
truck scale tickets or market receipts, showing the name
of the contractor and the market, the date of delivery to
market, and the net weight and type of material.
Service Schedule
1. All collection service shall be conducted between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Monday through
Friday, except when an emergency shall exist, at which
time the Contractor shall notify the City of such
emergency conditions. With City approval, the Contractor
may perform collection services on Saturday when a holiday
falls on a weekday.
2. Collections shall be done during Monday through Friday
(both inclusive) in accordance with a schedule of
pick-ups to be established by the Contractor and submitted
in writing to the City Administrator for prior approval.
The schedule shall include the areas in which pick-up will
be made each day of the week and how many vehicles will be
used in the area. Each dwelling unit shall have its
refuse collected a minimum of once a week.
a) The Contractor may request a change in the day of pick-up
by requesting such change in writing to the City at least
thirty (30) days from the proposed date the requested
change is to take effect. A change shall be effected only
upon authorization from the City and twenty-one (21) day
notice to the residents.
b) The Contractor shall bear all costs involved in notifying
residents of approved schedule changes.
c) The Contractor may request a change in the route schedule
by requesting such change in writing to the City at least
thirty (30) days from the proposed date the requested
change is to take effect. A route change shall be
effected only upon authorization from the City.
3. The Contractor shall not be required to make regular
collections on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day or Christmas day;
provided, that the routes are collected reasonably in
advance thereof or thereafter in the opinion of the City
Administrator, and the week's schedule shall be completed
regardless of the holiday. It shall be the Contractor's
responsibility to notify residents of any changes in the
collection schedule as a result of said holidays.
4. The City reserves the right to improve any street which
may prevent the contractor from traveling his/her
accustomed route or routes for collection. The Contractor
shall contact the Public Works Department prior to each
construction season to determine areas of conflict and
possible alternate routes or solutions. No additional
compensation will be made for this interference.
C. Performance of Collection
1. Equipment
a) The Contractor shall make all collections of garbage,
refuse, compost, and recyclables in water -tight metal
receptacles or vehicles with closed tops so constructed
that their contents will not leak, spill, or scatter
therefrom. Should any garbage, refuse, compost, or
recyclables be dumped or spilled in collecting or
transporting, it shall be immediately cleaned up. A
broom and shovel in good usable condition should be
placed and maintained on each vehicle for this purpose.
Receptacles and vehicles shall be kept clean and as free
from all offensive odors as possible and shall not be
allowed to stand in any street, or other place longer than
is reasonably necessary to collect garbage and refuse.
b) All vehicles shall be painted and marked uniformly and
' shall have the hauler's name and telephone number
prominently displayed in letters of a contrasting color,
at least three (3) inches high, on each side of the
vehicle.
c) The Contractor shall keep all equipment used in the
performance of the work in good operating condition and
in a clean, sanitary condition, shall thoroughly disinfect
each vehicle at least once a week unless the same has not
been used since the last disinfection thereof, and shall
thoroughly inspect each vehicle as necessary. They shall
be equipped to meet all Federal, State, County, and
municipal regulations concerning vehicles used on public
roads and maintained to meet these standards. Equipment
is subject to periodic inspection by the City.
d) Description of Vehicles. The Contractor shall furnish the
City with a written description of all vehicles and equip-
ment to be used within the City of Lake Elmo and in the
performance of this Contract and shall advise the City in
writing of any withdrawl of a part of such equipment or of
any change therin within one (1) week of the time of
making such change.
e) Safety Equipment. Each collection vehicle shall have a
flashing light warning system, fire extinguisher, and
f proper back-up alarms as approved by the City.
2. Personnel Requirements
a) There shall be no limitation on the size of the hauler's
collection crew so long as they are sufficient to fulfill
the requirements of the specifications and contract.
b) Contractor's employees shall handle all containers with
reasonable care to avoid damage, replace the containers
in an upright position on the boulevard adjoining the --
curb, and dispose of any contents which may be spilled
in the appropriate manner. Contractor's employees will
also report to the Contractor any violations of
regulations as they observe in the performance of their
work. Employees shall be sober at all times, in the
performance of their duties, be of a presentable
appearance, perform work in a neat and quiet manner, and
at all times be courteous to the public.
3. Supervision
a) A full-time superintendent of collections shall be
employed by the Contractor, and shall be the representa-
tive of the Contractor under this Contract. The Super-
intendent shall be on the job within the City during
normal hours of collection operations and shall maintain
proper schedules for collection. The Superintendent
shall have supervisory duties which shall include
servicing of complaints.
b) All services to be performed for the City by the Contract-
or pursuant to the terms of this Contract shall be super-
vised by such employee, agent, or officer of the City as
the City Administrator shall designate. The designated
inspector may have access to all of the Contractor's Lake
Elmo records and equipment at reasonable times.
4. Complaints
a) The Contractor shall establish and maintain, in a loca-
tion approved by the City, an office with continuous
supervision, for accepting complaints and customer calls.
The office shall be in service during the hours of 8:00
a.m, to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays,
and as specified in the Contract._ A phone,_message
recorder shall be operative during all non -office hours.
Address and telephone number of such office and any r
changes shall be given to the City in writing.
b) Whenever the City or a resident notifies the Contractor of
a location which has not received scheduled service, the
Contractor is required to service such location no later
than the following working day from the time of complaint.
A record of all complaints and action taken thereon shall
be_kept_by_the Contractor and reported monthly to the
City. All complaints shall be answered by the Contractor --
courteously and promptly.
5. Legal Compliance
a) The Contractor shall comply with all Ordinances, includ-
ing weight restrictions, of the City and the laws and
regulations of the State of Minnesota the County of
Washington, and its agencies relating to sanitation
and collection of garbage and refuse in effect during
the term of the Contract.
b) The Contractor shall report all violations of ordinances
pertaining to garbage and refuse collection and disposal
for enforcement purposes including all unsanitary and
filthy conditions to the Solid Waste Coordinator.
r`
6. Safety
a) The Contractor shall provide and maintain all sanitary
and safety accommodations for the use and protection of
its employees as may be necessary to provide for their
health and welfare and comply with Federal, State, County,
and local codes and regulations, as well as those of other
bodies and tribunals having jurisdiction. Employee safety
and sanitation facility regulations are set forth in
Minnesota Statutes 182 and in the Department of Labor and
Industry's Labor Safety Code (LISC 73-75).
D. Payment Method
1. The Contractor will maintain its own billing system,
according to the rates set forth in attachment A, for
collection of garbage, refuse, compost, and recyclables.
The Contractor will offer a volume -based fee and will show
that fee on attachment A.
2. There shall be a senior citizens rate established at a
rate lower than the base dwelling unit price. The senior
citizen rate will be established in attachment A.
3. The City or the Contractor may initiate adjustments as
follows:
a) on January 1st of each year of the Contract, either party
may request adjustments to the contract's base rates on
the basis of increases or decreases in the private trans-
portation CPI for the preceeding 12 months. Such changes
shall be effective April 1st of the year requested.
b) The tipping fee identified in Attachment A shall increase
or decrease corresponding with the percent of increase or
decrease at the landfill/processing facility. Either
party may initiate an adjustment in the tipping rate upon
a 15 day notice due to a 10% or more aggregate increase
or decrease in the landfill/processing facility charges.
Adjustments.may also be made upon the basis of a decrease
in the amount of solid waste generated due- to the abate-
ment of solid waste generated or the exclusion of recycl-
able materials from the solid waste stream upon mutual
agreement of both parties. The tipping -fee rate as of
January, 1991 is per ton.
7. The base dwelling unit price will be established in
attachment A of this Contract.
B. Additional collection services. Charges for pick-up of
additional items and for additional service shall be made
directly to the resident owner by the Contractor at a
rate approved by the City Administrator. The additional
collection service price will be established in Attach-
ment B of this Contract.
E. Performance of Contract
1... The Contractor shall keep complete and accurate records
in accordance with generally accepted accounting prac-
tices.
a) The Contractor shall be responsible for all billing,
including additional collection services to the dwelling
unit. Billings past due for sixty (60) days may be sub-
mitted to the City for collection. The Contractor must
provide evidence to the accuracy of the delinquent pay-
ment.
2. The Contractor shall supply all labor, material and equip-
ment necessary for the carrying out of the contract.
3. During the entire period of the Contract, the Contractor
shall maintain, at its cost and expense, and file with
the City, policies or certificatesof Workers' Compensa-
tion and Liability Insurance. Minimum insurance policy
coverage requirements are $300,000 bodily injury per
person, $500,000 aggregate per occurrence, and $100,000
property damage. All policies evidencing insurance
required by this Paragraph shall name the City and the
Contractor as named insureds, and shall insure the City r
and the Contractor by reasons of any act or omission, in-
cluding negligence, of the Contractor or of the Contract-
or's employees or agents in connection with the perfor-
mance of this Contract, including claims arising out of
the use of or operation of any vehicles used by the Con-
tractor or the Contractor's employees or agents in perfor-
ming this Contract. Such policies shall be in form and
content satisfactory to the City Attorney, and shall be
-filed-with the City Clerk -A certificate showing -that
the Contractor has in effect the aforesaid insurance
covering both the Contractor and the City shall be filed
with the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the execu-
tion of the Contract, and yearly thereafter, at least
thirty (30) days prior to the date of the expiration of
said policies of insurance for each year of the Contract.
All of the foregoing policies shall be issued by an
insurance company or companies licensed to do business in
the State of Minnesota and authorized to assume the risks
covered thereby. Memorandum policies and receipts for the
payment of premiums shall be filed with the City showing
payment of premiums for at least one year in advance and
on each renewal date provided therein.
4. Performance Bond: The Contractor shall execute and
deliver to the City a performance bond in the sum of
( $50,000 conditioned upon the faithful performance of the
Contract. In addition, to further protect the City in
the event the Contractor fails to properly perform under
the Contract, the Contractor shall pledge to the City all
receivables collected. This Contract shall not become
effective until such bond has been delivered to the City
in form acceptable to the City Attorney, and has been
accepted by the City. Such bond shall be filed with the
City Clerk within ten (10) days from the execution of a
Contract and shall remain in effect until the expiration
of this Contract.
In the event the Contractor fails to properly perform
under this Contract, the City may take whatever action is
necessary to secure substitute garbage and refuse collec-
tion for the remainder of the Contract term, and may use
the proceeds of the bond to pay for the difference between
the rates provided by the Contract and the actual cost of
such substitute service subject to Section IV.E.10.(a).
5. Indemnification: The Contractor agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and empolyees
from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities,
losses, damages, costs, expenses including reasonable
attorneys' fees, suits, demands and judgements of any
nature, because of bodily injury to, or death of, any
person or persons and/or because of damages to property
of the Contractor or others, including loss of use from
any cause whatsoever, which may be asserted against the
City on account of any act or omission, including
negligence, of the Contractor, or the Contractor's
employees or agents in connection with the Contractor's
performance of this Contract. The Contractor agrees to
defend any action brought against the City on any such
matters, and to pay and satisfy any judgement entered
thereon together with all costs and expenses incurred in
connection therewith. The City shall in no way be liable
for any claims or charges incurred by the Contractor in
the performance of this Contract.
6. Guaranty of non Discrimination: The Contractor agrees
that during the life of the Contract, the Contractor will
not, within.the State of Minnesota, discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race,
color, creed, national origin or ancestry, or sex, and
will include a similar provision in all sub -contracts
entered into for the performance thereof. The Contract
may be cancelled or terminated by the City, and all money
due or to become due may be forfeited for a second or
subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this
Paragraph. This Paragraph is inserted in the Contract to
comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 181.59.
7. a) The Contractor will not make or create, or suffer to
be made or created, any total or partial sale, assign-
ment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or \.
transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect
to this Agreement or any part thereof or any interest
therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the
same, without the prior written approval of the City,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
b) The City shall be entitled to require, except as
otherwise provided in this Agreement, as conditions
to any such approval that:
1) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifica-
tions and financial responsibility, as reasonably
determined by the City, necessary and adequate to
fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement
by Contractor; and
2) The Transfer does not create an anti-trust situ-
ation in the local refuse hauling industry that is
contrary to the public interest of the residents of
Lake Elmo; and
3) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing
satifactory to the City for itself and their
successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit
of the City, have expressly assumed all of the obliga-
tions of service under this Agreement and agreed to
be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to
which service is subject. It is the intent of this I
Section IV.E.8, together with other provisions of this
Agreement, that (to the fullest extent permitted by
law and equity and excepting only in the manner and
--to the -extent specifically provided -otherwise -in- this --
Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to,
ownership or any part thereof, or any interest there-
in, however, consummated or occurring, whether volun-
tary or involuntary, shall operate, legally or prac-
tically, to deprive or limit the City of or with
repect to any rights or remedies or controls provided
in or resulting from this Agreement; and
4) There shall be submitted to the City for review
all instruments and other legal documents involved in
affecting such transfer, and if approved by the City,
its approval shall be indicated to the Contractor in
writing. The proposed transferee shall submit to the
City for review all bonds, insurance policies and any
and all other documents required by this Agreement,
and if approved by the City, its approval shall be
indicated to the proposed transferee in writing.
8. Payment of Subcontractors and Employees: The contractor
shall promptly pay all persons doing work or furnishing
skills, tools, machinery, or materials or insurance
premiums or equipment or supplies and all just claims for
such work, material, equipment, insurance and supplies in
and above the performance of this Contract.
9. Termination
a) If the City determines that the Contractor is in
breach of the Contract, a written notice will be sent
to the Contractor allowing him thirty (30),days to
comply. Failure by the Contractor to comply with the
Contract by the end of the thirty (30) day period,
the City will terminate the Contract by legal remedy.
b) Upon failure of the Contractor to fulfill any of the
provisions of the Contract, the City Administrator
shall be authorized to.hire such labor and equipment,
or assign City employees and equipment, as may be
necessary to do such work and the cost of such"
expenses thereof may be charged and collected from
the Contractor, or collected by recourse to the
Contractor's bond or financial guarantee instrument
submitted subject to Section IV.E.10.(a).
10. This Request for Proposal with Attachments A and B,
( incorporated herein by reference, is the entire Request
for Proposal. No modification of this Request for.
Proposal shall be valid or effective, unless made in
writing and signed by the parties hereto.
SPECIFICATIONS
ATTACHMENT A
During the period of the contract, the base dwelling unit price for
refuse, garbage, compost, and recyclables will be charged to each
dwelling unit the following rate for each dwelling unit of pick-up
service:
Refuse and garbage collection 90 gallon
Yard Waste collection $
Recycling collection (weekly) $
6% sales tax $
Total dwelling unit rate $
Senior citizen rate/30 gallon or Senior $
container(refuse, recycling, compost) (doorside)
60 gallon 30 gallon
(curbside)
ATTACHMENT B
Charges for Additional
Items
(Based on Curb -side Pick-up)
ITEM
CHARGE
1.
Bundled brush (not to exceed 30 lbs.--
$
per bundle
3 feet long and 3 inches in diameter)
2.
Auto car seat - single
$
Auto car seat - bench
$
Truck tire
$
Car tire
$
3.
Appliances (washers, dryers, stoves,
$
per item
dishwashers, hot water heaters)
4.
Mattress or box spring
$
per item
5.
Carpet and/or pad
$
per sq.yd.
(over 3 x 4
ft.)
Cement laundry tub
$
7.
Chair (lazy -boy style)
$
8.
Couch
$
9.
Hide -a -bid
$
10.
Freezer
$
11.
Freezer with spoiled food
$
12.
Refrigerator
$
13.
Refrigerator with spoiled food
$
14.
Portable television
$
15.
Console television
$
16.
Bathtub
$
17.
Garbage (over 30, 60, or 90 gallon limit)
$
18.
Lead acid batteries (not to exceed one
NO CHARGE
battery per service day pick-up per
residential unit)
19. Used motor oil (not to exceed one gallon $
per service day pick-up per residential
unit)
Items 1-16 must be pre -scheduled with contractor so as to provide proper
equipment and manpower with payment attached to said item(s).
Item 17 (contractor -billed extras) will be assessed an additional $
per billing to cover administrative and billing costs incurred by the
contractor.
Charges for Additional Service
(pick-up from other than curb -side)
Senior Citizen (30 gallon): $ curbside $ doorside
Collection Service: $ per month (doorside service)
Additional Items: $ per 30 gallons (doorside service)
All Proposals shall be submitted, in a sealed envelope by p.m. on
to:
Mary Kueffner, Administrator /
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
HECEIVED
FEB 2 2 1991
❑ ENGLFHORN
IL4rLEY_
L� IIEDRERG
U HENDRICKSON
February 21, 1991
2�11r,m nu C w"waS OE�
ACC' NTING ❑ LIMARY
Mr. Thomas
TKDA
2500 American National Bank Building
St. Paul, MN 55101-1893
RE: City of Lake Elmo's Request to Divert Water to Sunfish Lake
Dear Mr. Prew:
The Board of Managers discussed your February 12, 1991 letter detailing
the City of Lake Elmo's request to divert water from the Downs Lake watershed
to Sunfish Lake at their February 14, 1991 meeting. Based upon past
experience, the Managers are sensitive to the concerns of Sunfish Lake
residents.. Therefore, the Managers asked that I write to you explaining
their concerns, which are as follows:
1. The District's Rules and Regulations require that a special method
be used for determining the flood elevation on landlocked basins.
This method uses a 100-year wet year as the basis for flood level
computation and is described on page 8 of the District's Rules and
Regulations. This method was used to determine the existing flood
elevation of 900, based upon a drainage area of 518 acres and
assuming 10% impervious surface. It appears that the 100-year
flood level would increase at least two feet, to Elevation 902 or
higher, if the 189-acre area is diverted into Sunfish Lake. This
new flood level assumes that the diverted area would only be 10%
impervious (it is likely that it would be more). Of course, if the
City chooses to use a more sophisticated analysis of long-term
water level fluctuations, we would gladly review your results.
2. The City of Lake Elmo should be prepared to obtain agreement from
the residents of Sunfish Lake to the increase of their flood level;
the approval of all Sunfish Lake residents would have to be
obtained before such a diversion would be allowed. The most formal
method of doing this would be to purchase easements from the
Sunfish Lake residents. -Other less formal arrangements might be
reached, The Managers would be willing to have both the City of
Lake Elmo and the Sunfish Lake residents attend a Managers meeting
to discuss the proposed diversion.
ALLEN DORNFELD RUSSELL KIRBY GORDON C. MOOSBRUGGER RAY BRENNER WILLIAM ROHRER
VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538
Mr. Thomas D. Prew February 21, 1991 Page 2
3. The proposed diversion is in conflict or possible conflict with two
of the District's rules. Section V, Subd. 3D. of the District's
Rules and Regulations states that:
"(2) Alterations which will unnecessarily impact the waters of the
District will not be permitted."
The City of Lake Elmo should address the feasibility of
possible alternatives to this project to show that theproposed
diversion is not unnecessarily impacting Sunfish Lake. In addition
to the increased flood level impacts, the water quality impacts of
the diversion would need to be studied.
and:
"(3) Alterations not in conformance with the Water Management Plan
for the District and State policies will not be permitted."
The proposed diversion is not in conformance with the
District's Water Management Plan. Therefore, it appears that the
plan might have to be amended to include the proposed diversion
before such a diversion could be allowed.
If the City wishes to pursue this diversion project, the Managers need
the above concerns addressed before giving it further consideration.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 897-5503.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Chandler
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineers for the District
KLG/mis
c: Managers
Ray Marshall
Ray Swanson
Mary Kueffner
A:\PREW.LTR
MAR 01 '91 09:17 T.K.D.A. & ASSOC.
P.2
N
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
wA. ..ii++..UUww
AND ASSOCIATES, INOORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
2590AMOPICAN NATIONALSANKSUILDINO
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA55101,1893
0121292-4400
Match 1, 1991
FAX 01212024033
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Re: Approval of Plans,
Authorization of Advertisement for Bids
SW-1 Watemnai-n Project
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Commission No. 9821
Dear Council Members:
The plans and specifications for the referenced project are now complete and ready for your
review and approval.
To keep this project on schedule, we would like to advertise for bids in both die St. Croix Valley
Press and the Construction Bulletin the weeks of March 11 and 18, 1991. We would open bids
on April 5, 1991.
Action Requested;,
1. City Council approval of Plans and Specifications.
2. Authorize City Engineer to Advertise for Bids.
Sincerely,
j 1 /
LDB/mha
Enclosures
cc: Doug Ryan, Washington County Public Health
MRR 05 191 12:15 PETERSON,FRRNKE,RIRC 632 P02
Moved by
Seconded by
Awarding Public Relations Service Agreement in regard to the Lake Elmo Regional Landfill to Colle & MCVoy Public Relations in the
total amount of $57,000.00, recognizing that such amount includes
costs already incurred and authorized by prior City Council action,-
authorizing
the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the
Agreement; directing that the City Administrator be designated as
the city's contact representative, and authorizing Colle & Movoy to
subcontract with Pat Forsjea to provide lobbying services within
the contraot limits, said lobbying services to be provided at a tee
Of $80.00 per hour and a monthly cap Of $3,250.00 plus approved
expenses.
C\J\NOTION.LE
MAR 04 191 13:16
,I
PETERSOH,FRANKE,RIRC
628 P03
s
EXHIBIT A
ESTIMATED BUDGET
ITEM FEE
Strategy: Research
Tactic #1: Quantitative Survey
Tactic #2: Technical Review
Strategy: Support Materials
20a.00
200.00
Tactic
#1:
Target List
500.00
Tactic
#2:
Press kit -style information packet
Folder
Press Release
Five fact shoots
Community Action Guide
Membership brochure
2,000.00
Tactic
#3:
Public Education Video
10,000.00
(Same footage to be used in the PSA
spot)
Tactic
#4:
Poster and Flyer
1,500.00
Tactic
#5:
Monthly Newsletter
1,000.00
Strategy: Sponsors
Tactic #1: Target list/follow-up
Tactic #2: Establish tax-exempt fund
Strategy: Coalitions
Tactic #1: Develop resource network (REAPP)
Identify spokespersons
Develop presentation materials
Arrange presentation training
Tactic #2: REAPP solicits support groups
Target list
Letter campaign to groups
Speakers bureau
1
500.00
500.00,
1,000.00
1,000.00
cr�oun,hRRNkE,RIRC
n
N
Strategy: Media Relations
Tactic #1r Press kit (same as above)
Tactic #2, Letters to editor
Tactic #3: Edit, coordinate, disseminate 1
ews release series
Tacti Write, disseminate, follow-up 2,,
c #4; Talk shows
Tactic #5: Write pitch letters, follow-u i F
Two media tours p. coordinate
Washington County l,C
a
Twin Cities
Strategy: ongoing in Co"nuniaations Activities
Tactic #l: Letter -writing campaign
Tactic #2: Phone tree
Tactic #3: Petition signatures 5t
Tactic #4; School children, 3C
3C
3C
Strategy: Lobbyist Effort
Tactic #l; Coordination of Lobbying activities
and conducting Lobbying activities
z,0o
Tactic not included within Tactic #2 below
#2• Professional Lobbying services to
Include the following; 12,000
a) D19velop a plan to convince Washington
County Board of Commissioners to pass
Resolution supporting Position p
- - - - - City of Lake Elmo and c the
clear that Washington to make it
take whatever g County will
Prevent a action necessary to
landfill from being sited
in the Lake Elmo Park Reserve,
b) DevelOp a plan for
gency legislators and
a -staff members to view landfill
site and hold in
Meetings formational meetings.
will • be scheduled
Coordination with support of in
local
legislators,
f:
2
ITEM FEE
c) Develop a list of environmental
groups that should be contacted for
support. Schedule and conduct
information meetings with support
organizations.
d) Develop a plan for inviting Metro-
politan Council members and Metro-
politan Council staff to view
landfill site.
e) Schedule and conduct meetings with
MFCA Commissioner and staff to
promote position of City of Lake
Elmo,
f) Schedule and conduct a meeting with
Washington County Attorney regarding
the manner in which the County
Attorney's Office may be of assis-
tance in promoting the position of
the City of Lake Elmo.
g) Develop a plan for establishing a
presence at Washington County area
community events to gain support for
the position of the City of Lake
Elmo.
h) Develop a plan for implementing a
direct mail/phone effort in an
attempt to solicit support for the
Position of the City of Lake Elmo and
to encourage residents of the City to
lobby appropriate City/County/State
officials.
Strategy: Special Events
Tactic #1: Two demonstrations 3,000.00
Tactic #2; Five public hearings 1,000.00
Tactic #3: Six public forums 1,000.00
3
626 P06
t
I TE(K t
r'
Strategy: PSA Effort
Tactic #1: TV Spot (creative time donated.
Includes production cost only)
Tactic #2: Print
Scripts written/placed 6,475
tint ad 700
2,500
Strategy: Presentation
Tactic #1: novelcp materials
Tactic #2: Arrange training
i 500.
$US -TOTAL: 500.
Out -of -Pocket Expanses $ 54,975.i
TOTAL COST OF PROGRAM 2,025.E
$ 57,000.0
C\J\LANgpLLL.RYN
4
10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Lake Elmo City Council will meet in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 5, 1991, to consider making the following improvements,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111.
Hytrail Avenue from Highlands Trail north to 59th Street North
Bituminous Overlay
Legion Avenue from 20th Street to the north junction of Legion Lane
Bituminous Overlay
The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements is the
property which abuts said streets or is benefitted by said
improvements. The estimated cost of all of the improvements is
$40,550. Such persons as desire to be heard, with reference to
the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting.
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
Published in the St. Croix Valley Press on February 13, 1991 and
on February 20, 1991.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 91-9
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BITUMINOUS PATCHING AND OVERLAY
OF HYTRAIL AVENUE N., FROM HIGHLANDS TRAIL NORTH TO 59TH STREET NORTH
WHEREAS, the action of the City Council on February 5th, 1991
fixed a date for a council hearing of the proposed improvement of
Hytrail Avenue N., from Highlands Trail North to 59th Street North;
and
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice
of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 5th day of
March 1991, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard theron,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota;
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
Council resolution adopted 5th day of March, 1991.
2. Tom Prew, of TKDA, is hereby designated as the engineer
for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for mailing of such improvement.
ADOPTED by the Council this 5th day of. March, 1991.
Dave Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Lake Elmo City Council will meet in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 5, 1991, to consider making the following improvements,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111:
Hytrail Avenue from Highlands Trail north to 59th Street North
Bituminous Overlay
Legion Avenue from 20th Street to the north junction of Legion Lane
Bituminous Overlay
The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements is the
property which abuts said streets or is benefitted by.said
improvements. The estimated cost of all of the improvements is
$40,550. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to
the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting.
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
Published in the St. Croix Valley Press on February 13, 1991 and
on February 20, 1991.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 91-9
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BITUMINOUS PATCHING AND OVERLAY
OF HYTRAIL AVENUE N., FROM HIGHLANDS TRAIL NORTH TO 59TH STREET NORTH
WHEREAS, the action of the City Council on February 5th, 1991
fixed a date for a council hearing of the proposed improvement of
Hytrail Avenue N., from Highlands Trail North to 59th Street North;
and
WHEREAS, ten .days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice
of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 5th day of
March 1991, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard theron,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota;
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
Council resolution adopted 5th day of March, 1991.
2. Tom Prew, of TKDA, is hereby designated as the engineer
for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for mailing of such improvement.
ADOPTED by the Council this 5th day of March, 1991.
Dave Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
State of Minnesota
City of Lake Elmo
Sharon-Lumby being first duly sworn, deposes
and says:
I am a United States citizen. over 18 years of age, and
a resident of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
On February 20, 19 91 acting on behalf of the said
city, I deposited in the United States post office at
Lake Elmo, Minnesota, copies of the attached public heari,g
notice for Hytra;l Avenue enclosed in sealed
bituminous overlay
envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed
to the following persons at the addresses appearing
t opposite their respective names:
Name Address
See attached
There is delivery service by United States mail between the
place of mailing and the places so addressed.
Signature -�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of_,
19-24,
i o tary Public
Derrick Land Co.
2460 Hwy 100 S.
Minneapolis, MN 55416
37161-2200,2250,2300
Bance, Gary & Donna
5771 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2350
Lescarbeau, Joel & Debra
5791 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
37161-2400
Grayden, Mark & Kathryn
5811 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2450
Novosad, Williams & Miriam
5831 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2500
Yarusso, James & Marlene
5620 Highlands Trail N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2600
Prokop, Phillip & Joyce
5690 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2700
Rolling, Andrew & Ellen
5710 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042---
37161-2750
Nelson, Kenneth & Joan
5730 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2800
Kloek, Donald & Lynn
8190 Lake Jane Trail N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2850
Haugen, John & Suzanne
5770 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2900
Welle, Arvin & Mary
5790 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-2950
Koziara, Robert & Karen
5810 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-3000
Lindall, Scott
5830 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-3050
Thompson, Thomas & Joan
5850 Hytrail Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37161-3100
FE3 05 191 08: 16 T.K.D.A. & ASSOC.
P.
FEASIBILITY REPORT
HYTRAIL AVENUE
HIGHLANDS TRAIL NORTH TO
59TH STREET NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
JANUARY $0,1991
COMM. NO.9150-011
T DA AND A KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND 88001AT53, INCORPORATEA19
D
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2600AMERIOANNATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 66101
612/21iZ-4400
PAX $12/222•0083
FEB 05 '91 06:16 T.K.D.R. & RSSOC.
P.3
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 23, 1991
FEASIBILITY REPORT
HYTRAIL AVENUE
HIGHLANDS TRAIL NORTH TO 59TH STREET NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
COMMISSION NO.9150.011
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
Registration No. 19621
9150-011
FEB 05 '91 C8:17 T.K.D.R. & ASSOC.
F.4
HYTRAIL AVENUE
HIGHLANDS TRAIL NORTH TO 50TH STREET NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
Introduction
Hytrall Avenue was originally paved In 1978 or earlier. It received seal coats in 1982
and 1986. Despite this maintenance, Hytrall Avenue pavement Is in poor condition.
This Is probably due to a weak subgrade. The pavement Is extensively cracked but the
broken pieces have not yet come loose, To provide additional pavement strength,
Improve crown drainage, and to seal off the cracks, an overlay is recommended.
Proposed Improvement
It is recommended that a 1-1/2" bituminous overlay be constructed. Driveways would
be matched In. Since there Is bituminous curb on this street, shouldering work will not
be necessary.
Feasibility
The project 1s feasible and should best be made as proposed.
Initlatlon
The project was Initiated by the City Council; therefore, ordering the project will require
a four -fifths majority vote.
Assessments
The estimated cost of the overlay Is $19,500. it is proposed that each lot which benefits
from the improvement will be assessed. Senefitting property is every developed or
buildable parcel which abuts the street. The method of assessment Is proposed to be
the unit method. Corner lots will receive a one-half unit assessment.
-1. 9150-011
FEB 05 '91 08:18 T.K.D.R. & ASSOC,
P.5
Alternate No. i
Under this alternative, 100% of the cost would be assessed against the benefltting
property. There are 13.1/2 benefitted lots resulting In a unit assessment rate of $1,445
per lot. The three lots awned by Derrick Land Company are considered unbulidable for
the purpose of this assessment,
Alternate No. 2
Under this alternative, City participatlon would be used to limit the unit assessment to
$1,000 per lot. This amount has been the historical upper limit of assessments for this
type of work. Under this proposal $13,500 would be recovered by assessment (13-1/2
lots at $1,000 each) and City participation would be $6,000.
Justification for City Participation
Prior to 1980 many of the City streets would have been classified as In "poor" condition.
Through the use of MSA construction funds, MSA maintenance funds, Overlay
Assessments, budgeted patch and overlay funds, and budgeted seal coat funds, all the
City streets can now be classified "good" or "fair". The first streets that were overlaid
were the older, narrower streets through small lot subdivisions. Typical assessments
were $400 - $700 per lot. As the newer subdivision streets needed overlays, the
assessments approached $1,000 per lot because of the wider streets and fewer (larger)
tots over which to spread the cost. In the case of Hytrail Avenue, three of the Derrick
lots are considered unbuildable.
For the past several years, the City budget has provided $26,000 for patching and
overlays, This is generally work that Is contracted out because it Is too large for the
Maintenance Department to handle but smaller than full blocks of work which would be
assessed, because of the concentrated effort over the past years to Improve streets,
we are starting to "catch up" with the needs. It Is believed that there were some unused
Patch and Overlay funds from last year and the full 125400 may not be needed this
year elther. It is also believed that $1,000 per lot may be the threshold assessment that
It exceeded, strong property owner objection may stall the successful overlay program
the City has started.
-2. 9150-011
FES 05 '91 08: 18 T.K.D.R. & RSSOC. P.E
Preliminary Assessment Roll
All Lots - DsMontrev111e Highlands 3rd Addition
Pro Asessm
Aftern Alternate
2
2
Unbulldable
••
$0.00
$0.00
2
3
Unbulldable
--
0.00
0.00
2
4
Unbulldable
0.00
0.00
2
6
Banco-
1
1,446.00
1,000.00
2
6
Lescarbeau -
1
1,446.00
1,000.00
2
7
Graydon -
1
1,446.00
10000.00
2
8
Novosad-
1
1,445.00
10000.00
3
1
Yarusso -
1/2
715.00
500.00
3
3
Prokop-
1
1,445.00
1,000.00
3
4
Rolling-
1
1,445.00
1,000.00
3
5
Nelson-
1
1,445.00
1,000.00
3
6
Kloek -
1
1,446.00
1,000.00
3
7
Haugen-
1
1,445,00
1,000.00
3
a
Wells-
1
1,446.00
1,000.00
3
9
Kozlara'
1
1,446.00
1,000.00
3
3
10
11
Undall -
Thornnsor
1
1
1,445,00
1446 0
1,000.00
1.000.00
Total 13.1/2$19,500.00 $13,600,00
City Participation 0.00 0,000.00
$19,500.00 $19,500.00
� O JA_J/ e_'t, O eA'_ 1 G� Lt7
-3- 9150-011
FEE 05 191 08:19 T.K.D.R. & RSS'OC.
P.7
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Hytrail Avenue
Highlands Trail North to 59th Street North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Commission No. 9150-091
Item Unit
O : o •1 • IN 30too ••• ♦•
Subtotal $16,405.00
+ 10% Contingencies
Subtotal $17,000.00
+ 15% Engineering, Legal, Administration 2.500.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $19,500.00
�. 41Fn-ni1
FEB 05 191 0a;19 T.K.D.A. hR ASSOC. .1` P.8
k
`/� tk t 'h'••" �.• �� PnRx i 59th ST ' N.
' A ! ♦ 1 v oa d CO. I �'a..dment :Qu
,sea�esbQ" }iy Nb SQQ",J.T'O>3'✓ ,r�44k � � 4F^`.. ....•
ti ..... .�, 11 'YIG,�iY • F a �=�J N.fJ�._ � .•�s9l.. •. _; .
crj
101
p.
,• �, ` <( 0w 4$ Sio. da fQQ roJkw -'+ sa.rr
/ «ilr. •y I F '. iY54u:• ry SSo � �i. - ,.
,'.ti. ,•�q$r' J/`Q' I 1, i"'.. � ` ,•.' � R 4r' � •ti.,+ r f
i� !! ::�. `� ',• � � , .� ,,�,,. }•f r ?ARK 2.
�; �i, v.r� ,,^;• �•:1:!'�'l. v' L�l..'Y �'�' J•, �• t' ., ,, y,�^� •7G Yt � � uiti. ,•
s.l : '•^ I,. �1." ••t:• 4 Lr s�.M, r,• . 7�+V;u1 J 'r�:1, `�i�.. r +li' \ :•1 P^...'^ '
�, •,""((}} ((�� �.�: •;�� , T..,..,.,._. ;o;:•r•. �. FIGURE.
eLl
.,4..,,+ 1991 OVERLAY
�. ,• • ' ',y � ,:�+•� ���� � .a° HYTRAIL NORTH
LAKE ELMO
COMM. NO.9150-011
s.
oh
OVERLAY.......PAC ®
=:
FRONTAGE
' 1199l�
;. ASSESSAS LE
M0NT•Ri: VILl.F F
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Lake Elmo City Council will meet in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 5, 1991, to consider making the following improvements,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111:
Hytrail Avenue from Highlands Trail north to 59th Street North
Bituminous Overlay
Legion Avenue from 20th Street to the north junction of Legion Lane
Bituminous Overlay
The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements is the
property which abuts said streets or is benefitted by, said
improvements. The estimated cost of all of the improvements is
$40,550. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to
the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting.
Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
Published in the St. Croix Valley Press on February 13, 1991 and
on February 20, 1991.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
RESOLUTION NO. 91-10
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS.FOR THE BITUMINOUS PATCHING AND OVERLAY
OF LEGION AVENUE FROM 20TH STREET TO THE NORTH JUNCTION OF LEGION LANE
WHEREAS, the action of the City Council on February 5th, 1991
fixed a date for a council hearing of the proposed improvement of
Legion Avenue from 20th Street to the North Junction of Legion Lane;
and
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice
of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 5th day of
March 1991, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard theron,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota;
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
Council resolution adopted 5th day of March, 1991.
2. Tom Prew, of TKDA, is hereby designated as the engineer
for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications for mailing of such improvement.
ADOPTED by the Council this 5th day of March, 1991.
Dave Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Kueffner, City Administrator
i
State of Minnesota
City of Lake Elmo
Sharon•Lumby
and says:
,being first duly sworn, deposes
I am a United States citizen. over 18 years of age, and
a resident of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
On February 20, 1991 acting on behalf of the said
city, I deposited in the United States post office at
Lake Elmo, Minnesota, copies of the attached public hearing
notices for Legion Avenue , enclosed in sealed
bituminous ov rla
envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed
to the following persons at the addresses appearing
opposite their respective names:
Name Address
See attached
There is delivery service by United States mail betraeen the
place of mailing and the places so addressed.
Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19 Q4.
Yro Cary FLTblic
Bieraugel, Vernon B. & Barbara
2075 Legion Lane
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-3350
Ritzer, Robert J.&Marlene E.
2110 Legion Lane
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-3550
City of Lake Elmo
Park
Wilfong, Debra L.&Lienert C.L.
2229 Legion Avenue N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-3900
Voge, Kent S.&Linda K.
2257 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-3950
Bucheck, David J.&Ann M.
2301 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-4000
Sandmann Douglas A.&Lorilee
2329 N. Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-4050
Mattison, Donald W.&Fay A.
2359 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN_55042
37180-4100
Stone, Earl R.&Linda L.
2390 Legion Lane
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37180-4150
Peltier, Gene M.&Ann E
10376 Hudson Blvd.
Lake Elmo, DIN 55042
37591-2150
Johnson, Scott T.
2320 Legion Avenue
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37591-2150
Durand, Peter J.&Bernadine J.
Mary Jean L.E.
-- 11332 20th St. -
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37024-0460
Durand, Peter J.&Bernadine J.
Mary Jean L.E.
11332 20th St..
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37024-3200
Leslie, John H.
11546 20th St. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
37024-2700
FEE 05 191 05:20 T.K.D.A. & ASSOC.
P.9
I
FEASIBILITY REPORT
LEGION AVENUE
20TH STREET TO
LEGION LANE (No JCT.)
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 30,1091
comm. No. 9150-011
TOKINGLTz,DUVALL, ANDERA T1DA AND ASSOOTATS&, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2600AMERICANNATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 58101
8121292.4400 - FAX 812/292.0003
FEE 05 '91 08: 21 T.K.D.R. & ASSOC.
P.10 -
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS
FEAS1131LITY REPORT FOR
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
LEGION AVENUE
20TH STREET TO LEGION LANE (N. JCT-)
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
COMMISSION NO.9150-011
JANUARY 30, 1991
I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Larry .13 er, P.E.
Registration No. 12120
1. 9150-011
FES O5 '91 03.21 T.K.D.A. & ASSOC. P.11
LEGION AVENUE
20TH STREET TO LEGION LANE (N. JCT.)
LAKE ELMO, MiNNESOTA
Introduction
Legion Avenue was constructed about 1976 as part of the Eden Park development. it
was seal coated In 1984 and it was patched extensively In 1989, There are other areas
of "alligator" cracking but have not yet come loose. In one area there Is Insufficient
crown In the road and water does not drain off the surface, This project was proposed
in 1990, but it was decided to wait until construction within Packard park 3rd Addition
was complete.
Proposed Improvement
It is planned to overlay the street with a 1-1/2" thick bituminous overlay to strengthen
the entire surface and seal off the cracks. A 1.1/2" overlay was chosen Instead of a 2"
overlay because Legion Avenue has very little rutting compared to other streets and no
leveling is required. Gravel will be added to the shoulders and all driveways will be
matched. 11
A Feasibility
The project is feasible and should best be made as proposed.
Initiation
This project was initiated by the City Council, therefore ordering the project will require a
four -fifths majority vote.
Assessments
The estimated project cost Is $21,050.00. It Is proposed that each parcel with benefits
from the improvement be assessed. Senefitting property is every parcel which abuts
the street or gains primary access from the street. Corner lots which were recently
assessed for street improvements on one side will receive a one-half assessment on
Legion Avenue. Lots that have double frontage, but are not corner lots, will be reviewed
Individually to see if the property benefits from the second frontage. In this particular
case, Lots $ and 4, Packard Park 2nd Addition, have secondary frontage on Legion
Avenue. But since the buildable part of these lots is approximately 30 feet higher than
the road, Lots $ and 4 are considered not benefltted. The method of assessment Is
proposed to be the Unit Method. The City owns one lot designated "Park" on the plat
and Is charged one unit.
-2- 9150-011
FEB 05 191 08:22 T.K.D.R. & ASSOC. P.12
I
4
Alternate No.1
Under this alternative,100% of the cost would be assessed against benefitting property.
There are 12 benefitting lots resulting in a unit assessment rate of $1,754 per lot.
Alternate No. 2
Under this alternative, City participation would be used to limit the unit assessment to
$1,000, Under this proposal, $11,000 would be recovered by assessment and City
participation would be $10,050. City participation would be taken from the Patch and
Overlay Budget.
Preliminary Assessment Role
Alternate Alternate
Leslie
1/2
1
;00(f.uu
$1,764.00
�;jMW.W
1,000.00
Mayer
1
$1,754.00
1,000.00
Ritzer
1
$1,764.00
1,000.0 ,
Cit k}
y (Par
1
$1,764,00
1,000.0�
Wilfong
1
$1 754,00
1,000.00
Voge
1
$1,754,00
1,000.00
Bucheck
1
$1,754.OQ
1,000.00 1
1
$1,754.00
1,000.00
attison
Mattison
M
1
$1,754,00
1,000.00
Stang
1
$1,754.00
1,000.00
S:Johnson-
1
$1,754,00
1,50000.00 .
P. Durand
1/2
P. Durand
12
$11,006.00
Total
City Participation
$2110A 0
-3-
9150-011
FEB 05 191 05:22 T.K.D.R. & RSSOC. P.13
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Legion Avenue - 20th Street to Legion Lane (N. Jot.)
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
Commission No. 9150.091
Item Unit
o. Description Price Amount __
1 4" Depth Patching 33.0 SY
10.00 330.00
2 Tack Coat 300.0 GA
1.50 450.00
3 1-1/2" Overlay (2341) 500.0 TN
30.00 15,000.00
he
$16,680.00 -
+ 10% Contingencies
1,620.00
Subtotal
$18,300.00
+ 15% Engineering, Legal, Administration
2,750.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$21,050.00
-4-
9150-011
FEB 05 '91 08123 T.K.D.R. & ASSOC. P.14
CEN. OF
SEC, 24
0430
Pu/Rnae PAR
47
\� Igo/ �.1 J.\oe' �I °T NG 4 f11 ••
mnrrn.N .� 4
QvtxGe K,
{� n
v.
p�RAND .F ■i N � 1 .. ..
0460
% A, R
rk�j -
w4ro 1
U410N LA CIA.4 N, Ig Lrk
■S CnY 47 y °
Leavy,„ fa N y
3200 "M PJ%6P.
II ` p1V°R Np lip l I
ptfeF ■
pu RNW° u944,04•w• v+ 1 Np
+ I!
L6'+ti` I
276E 2700
............
ST—
----2O 1h
- - - - - - - -g 1/4 COR, -
SFC.24 e
AN ORDINAI4E PROVIDING NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING,
PRIOR TO CLOSURE OR CONVERSION OF USE OF MANUFACTURED
HOME PARKS, REQUIRING PARK OWNERS TO PAY REASONABLE
RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS AND REQUIRING
BUYERS TO PAY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO DISPLACED
RESIDENTS
PURPOSE
In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the
closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City
Council finds that the public health, safety, and general welfare
will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents
of such parks. The purpose of this Article is to require park
owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and
purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional .
compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 327C.095
DEFINITIONS
The following words and terms when used in this Article
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
CLOSURE STATEMENT -a written statement prepared by the park
owner clearly stating the manufactured home park is closing,
addressing availability, location and potential costs of adequate
replacement housing within a 25 mile radius of the park that is
closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured
homes located in the park. The closure statement shall also
contain detailed information as to the availability, location and
potential costs of other manufactured home parks within a 25 mile
radius of the manufactured home park that is being closed.
DISPLACED RESIDENT -a resident of an owner -occupied
manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park,
including the members of the resident's household, as of the date
the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning
Commission.
LOT -an area within a manufactured home park, designed or
used for the accommodation of a manufactured Lome.
MANUFACTURED HO?fE-a structure, not affixed to or part of
real estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the
traveling mode, is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet
or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more
square feet , and which is built on a permanent chassis and
designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent
foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes
the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems.
contained in it.
1
7/311ocated,
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK -any site, lot, field, or tract of
and upon which two or more occupied manufactured homes are
either free of charge or for compensation, and includes
any building, structure, tent, vehicle or enclosure used or
intended for use as part of the equipment of the manufactured
home park. Manufactured home park does not include facilities
which are open only during three or fewer seasons of the year.
PARK OWNER -the owner of a manufactured home park and any
person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or
management of a park.
PERSON -any individual, corporation, firm, partnership,
incorporated and unincorporated association, or an other legal or
commercial entity.
NOTICE OF CLOSING
If a manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in
whole or part to another use or terminated as a use of the
property, the park owner shall, at least nine months.prior to the
closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide
a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured
home and to the City's Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for
the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating
what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents
and the park owner. Before a park closing and a condition
thereof, the City Council shall require the payment of relocation
costs and additional compensation to displaced residents.
PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS
Within a reasonable time after service of the closure
statement on a displaced resident by the park owner, such
displaced resident shall'obtain and submit to the park owner
adequate written estimate(s) or proposal(s) for relocation costs
from a contractor or contractors qualified to relocate
manufactured homes. In the alternative, a displaced resident may
.submit to the park owner written evidence establishing that the
displaced resident's manufactured home cannot be relocated within
a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed.
After receiving such estimate(s), proposal(s) or written
evidence, the owner shall be entitled to obtain one additional
estimate or proposal from a qualified relocation contractor and
requite that the relocation services be performed by the lowest
responsible bidder. The park owner shall pay the relocation costs
actually incurred to relocate each displaced resident's
manufactured home. "Relocation Costs" means the reasonable cost
of relocating a manufactured home to another manufactured home
park located within a 25 mile radius of the manufactured home
-
park at which the park closingoccur-and-shall- - -
is to include and �-
be
limited to:
a) The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced
resident's manufactured home and personal property,
including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving
and reassembling any attached or unattached
appurtenances which were not acquired after service of
the closure statement on the displaced resident, such as
porches, decks, skirting, awnings,. -sheds, and utility
hookup charges.
b) The cost of insurance, while the manufactured home is
being moved, for the replacement value of the
manufactured home.
c) The cost of repairs or modifications as are necessary in
order to take down, move and set up the manufactured
home in the new manufactured home park.
If a displaced resident cannot relocate the manufactured
home to another manufactured home park within a 25 mile radius of
the manufactured home park that is being closed, such displaced
resident shall have the option to elect to receive an amount
equal to the average relocation costs paid to displaced residents
who do relocate their manufactured homes within 25 miles. This
option shall be exercised by giving written notice of such
election to the park owner. Upon receipt of such notice, the park
owner shall be required to pay the displaced resident an amount
equal to the average relocation costs paid to displaced residents
who do relocate their manufactured homes within 25 miles. A
displaced resident compensated under this subdivision shall,
retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible
for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park.
The park owner shall make the relocation payments required
by this Article at such time as the manufactured home for which
such park owner may make direct payment to the person performing
relocation services, but, upon proof of payment of relocation
costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced
resident directly for relocation costs.
PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
A displaced resident who cannot relocate a manufactured home
within a 25 mile radius of the manufactured home park that is
being closed and who does not elect to be compensated by the
average relocation cost option is entitled to additional
compensation in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of
the park closing. Such additional compensation shall be paid by
the person purchasing or otherwise acquiring the manufactured
home park from the park owner. A displaced resident shall
exercise the entitlement to receive additional compensation by
serving written notice on the park owner that the displaced
tzt
resident is prepared to tender title to the manufactured home.
The additional compensation due the displaced resident upon .
transfer of title to the manufactured home shall be an amount
equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as
stated in the most recent personal property tax statement for the
manufactured home. Such additional compensation shall be paid to
the displaced resident no later than 30 days prior to the park
closing. As a condition of receiving such additional
compensation, the displaced resident shall transfer title to the
manufactured home to the person paying the additional
compensation free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. The
City Council may require that an escrow account, in an amount.
sufficient to pay the additional compensation required by this
Section, be established by the person required to pay the
additional compensation.
VERIFICATION OF RELOCATION COSTS
As a condition of its liability to pay relocation costs, the
park owner shall be entitled to receive adequate documentation of
relocation costs, including costs of proposals, invoices,
estimates and contracts for relocation services, from the
displaced resident.
PENALTIES
V' lation of any provision of this Article shall be a
Violation
misdemeanor.
Any provisions of this Ordinance may be enforced by
injunction or other appropriate civil remedy.
Approval of any application for a building permit,
rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, or variance
in conjunction with a park closing shall be conditioned
upon the requires of this Ordinance for payment of
relocation and additional compensation having -been
satisfied.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III
ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF MNNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ST. PAUL 55155
December 8, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. David Ornstein
City Attorney
City of Bloomington
2215 W. old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431-3096
Dear Mr. Ornstein:
ADDRESS REPLY TO:
52$ PARK STREET
S 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55103
TELEPHONE:
Medicaid Fraud (612) 297-1048
Solicitor General (612) 297-1050
This letter is in response to your November 11 1989, letter
to Attorney General Humphrey. In your letter, you explain that
Minnesota Statutes 9 327C.095 (1988) authorizes a municipality to
adopt an ordinance requiring payment of compensation to residents
of a manufactured home park if that park is closed or converted
to another use. The statute permits a municipality to require
the owner of a manufactured home park to pay the reasonable
relocation costs incurred by a manufactured home owner. Further,
the statute permits a municipality to require that other parties
involved in the park closing pay additional compensation to the
residents.
Out of concern about the financial impact on residents of
actual and potential closings of manufactured home parks in
Bloomington, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 89-57
pursuant to the authority granted by Minn. Stat. S 327C.095. The
ordinance requires park owners to pay reasonable relocation costs
to residents if the park is closed or converted to another use.
The ordinance also requires the purchaser of a park to pay to a
resident the estimated market value of their home, as determined
by the City Assessor and the resident's most recent property tax
statement, if the resident cannot relocate within a 25 mile
radius and tenders title to the home to the park purchaser.
Finally, the ordinance provides that the total compensation paid
to displaced residents may not exceed twenty percent of the
purchase price of the park.
Based on these facts, you ask the following questions:
1. Whether Minn. Stat. 5 327C.095 (1988), which
authorizes a municipality to require owners of
manufactured home parks to pay displaced residents
reasonable relocation costs and to require other parties
to pay additional compensation to such displaced
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
80S
residents, violates the taking clauses of the Minnesota
and United States Constitutions.
2. Whether Minn. Stat. 9 327C.095 (1988). violates the
equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution.
3. Whether Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 (1988) authorizes a
municipality to require a party other than the park
owner to pay to a resident of the park the estimated
market value of the manufactured home if the resident
cannot relocate to another park and has tendered title.
to the home.
4. Whether an ordinance such as Bloomington City
ordinance No. 89-57 violates the taking clauses of the
Minnesota and United States Constitutions.
As you have previously discussed with Assistant Attorney General
Ken Raschke, this office does not generally opine as to the
constitutionality of statutes and ordinances. Op. Atty. Gen.
629-a, May 9, 1975; See Minn. Stat. S 555.11 (1988). However, I
hope that the following discussion may be helpful to you.
I. THE TAKING CLAUSES.
Minn. Stat. S 327C.095, subd. 4, provides in part:
Before any change in use or cessation of operation
and as a condition of the -change, the governing body may -
require a payment by the park owner to be made to the
displaced resident for their reasonable relocation
costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to
another manufactured home park within a 25 mile radius
of the park that is being closed, the resident is
entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of
relocation costs awarded to other residents.
The governing body of the municipality may also
require that other parties, including the municipality,
involved in the park closing provide additional
compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse
financial impact of the park closing upon the residents.
You have asked whether Minn. Stat.
(1988), violates the taking clauses of
States Constitutions. As noted above,
§ 327C.095, subd. 4
the Minnesota and United
this office does not
Mr. Ornstein
Page 3
generally render
state statutes.
will provide you
opinions regarding the constitutionality of
However, I hope that the following discussion
some guidance on the taking clauses.
Generally, the government may regulate land to a great
extent, and only if the regulation goes beyond certain limits,
will it be considered a compensable taking. Pennsylvania Co. v.
Mahon, 260 U.S. 39�1 413 (1922). A land use regulation does not
constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitutionl or under Minnesota Constitution,
art. I, S 13,2 if it "substantially advance[s] legitimate state
interests" and does not "den[y] an owner economically viable use
of his land." Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825,
107 S. Ct. 3141,.3146 (1987), citing Akins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S
255, 260, 100 S. Ct. 2130 (1980); Parranto Bros. v. City of New
Brighton, 425 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
The question of whether a regulation constitutes a
compensable taking involves a balancing of public and private
interests and an inquiry into the facts of each case. Connolly
v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 224, 106 S. Ct.
1018, 1026 (1986); Parranto Bros., 425 N.W.2d at 590-91, citing
Acrins, 447 U.S. 260-61. Minnesota courts and federal courts
generally have applied the following three factors in making such
an inquiry: (1) the character of the governmental action; (2) the
economic impact of the regulation; and (3) the extent to which
the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed
expectations. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Citv,
438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 2659 (1978).
1/ The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that "nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."
2/ Minnesota Constitution art. I, § 13, provides that "private
property shall not be taken, destroyed, or damaged for public
use without just compensation therefore, first paid or
secured."
3/ A taking claim under the federal constitution would not be
ripe for adjudication until available state remedies have
been exhausted. Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank,
473 U.S. 172 (1985). Minnesota courts do, however, rely upon
federal case law in analyzing taking claims pursuant to the
Minnesota Constitution.
. Ornstein
ge 4
A. The Character of the Governmental Action.
Since McShane v Cites of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn.
1980), Minnesota courts have tended to analyze the character of
the governmental action on a three -tiered basis. In the McShane
case, the court recognized, first, a distinction between activity
which constitutes a physical invasion by governmental activity
and land use regulation by the government. 292 N.W.2d at 257.
Here, there is no actual physical invasion of park owners'
property by the government.
Next, the court made a further distinction in the character `
of the governmental action by dividing land use regulations into
two categories. Relying on Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S.
365, 47 S.Ct. 114 (1926), the court acknowledged that almost all
land use regulations would be found not to constitute a
compensable taking unless they deprived the landowner of all
reasonable uses of the property. McShane, 292 N.W.2d at 257.
Hence, landuserestrictions have repeatedly been upheld against
taking challenges although there had been a significant
diminution in the value of the property as a result of the
regulation. Id. These types of cases involve land -use
regulations which effect a comprehensive plan, or offer a
reciprocal benefit and burden to all. Id. The court termed
these "arbitration" regulations. Id. at 258.
The McShane court distinguished arbitration regulations from
what it termed "enterprise" regulations. 292 N.W.2d at 258.
Where a regulation is found to benefit a governmental enterprise,
such as the municipal airport in McShane, -the appropriate___
analysis is more beneficial to the landowner. With enterprise
regulations, "[i]n essence, the public has appropriated an
easement. In such cases, . . . the burden on the landowners is
grossly disproportionate to the burden he should be expected to
bear as an ordinary citizen, and the use of regulation to take
his property rights is, in.effect, a shortcut to avoid
compensation." Id. Consequently, in such cases, a property
owner is entitled to compensation where the property has suffered
a measurable and substantial diminution in market value. Id. at
258-59.
Only where a case involves a regulation which clearly
benefits a government enterprise, such as the municipal airport
in McShane, do Minnesota courts apply the enterprise function
standard. Generally, Minnesota courts conclude that land -use
regulations serve arbitration functions and find no taking unless
all reasonable uses of the property have thereby been precluded.
Mr. Ornstein
Page 5
See, e.g_, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc v City of Afton, 323
N.W.2d 757 (1982) (regulation by zoning ordinance does not
constitute taking unless it deprives all reasonable uses);
Parranto Bros., 425 N.W.2d at 592 (rezoning considered an
arbitration function); Larson v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d
902, 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (denial of rezoning request serves
an arbitration function); Carl Bolander & Sons. Inc. v.
Minneapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826, 829 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (denial of
building permit in historical district serves arbitration
function even where property scheduled to be acquired by city for
park development).
The United States Supreme Court in the Connolly case found
that the regulation at issue served as a safeguard to the pension
participants ,by requiring a withdrawing employer to fund its
share of the plan obligations incurred during its association
with the plan." 106 S. Ct. at 1026. Thisdid not indicate'a
taking since the program adjusted "the benefits and burdens of
economic life to promote the common good . " Id. As the
court cautioned, "it cannot be said that the Taking Clause is
violated whenever legislation requires one person to use his or
her assets for the benefit of another." 106 S. Ct. at 1025.
Furthermore, "Legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not
unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations
. . . This is true even though the effect of the legislation
is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts." Id.,
quoting Usery v Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct.
2882 (1976).
However, not all regulations are easily classified as
exclusively "enterprise" or exclusively "arbitration." Pratt v.
State Department of Natural Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767, 773
(Minn. 1981). In Pratt, regulations prohibiting the use of -_
mechanical wild rice pickers in public waters, as applied to
plaintiff's property, were held to serve a combination of the
enterprise and arbitration. functions. Id. at 774. One section
of the regulations stated explicitly that the prohibition was an
alternative to government financial assistance and was enacted to
discharge a moral obligation to the Indians. Id. at 773. The
court believed this to be indicative of an enterprise function.
Id. The court also found, however, that the regulations served a
conservation function, constituting arbitration among competing
harvesters. Id. The court found neither the arbitration nor the
enterprise function to be predominate, but noted that both were
prominent. It then concluded that where an enterprise function
is at least prominent, a taking occurs if there is a substantial
and measurable diminution of property value. Id. at 774.
Ornstein
ge 6
In the present case, it is clear that Minn. Stat. S 327C.095
es not involve actual physical invasion by the government.
However, it may not be as clear whether the statute serves an
arbitration or enterprise function. It could be argued that the
statute serves an arbitration function, in that it arbitrates
among the ways in which a landowner uses property. A court could
find that the monetary payments to homeowners, here, like the
monetary payments to pension plans in Connolly, readjust the
rights and burdens of economic life without serving a government
enterprise. On the other hand, as in Pratt, it could be argued
that the government is requiring a private party to shoulder a
burden more properly placed upon the government welfare _
enterprise.
B. The Economic Impact of the Regulation.
The next factor in a taking analysis is the economic impact -
of the regulation upon the property. As explained above,
depending upon the character of the governmental action, a
different level of economic impact is necessary before the courts
will find that a taking has occurred. If a regulation serves an
arbitration function, a property owner will be entitled to
compensation only if the property is thereby denied of all
reasonable uses. McShane, 292 N.W.2d at 258, citing Penn
Central, 98 S. Ct. 2646. Where land use regulations serve an
enterprise function, ,[t]here must be compensation to land owners
whose property has suffered a substantial and measurable decline
in market value as a result of the regulations." McShane, 282
N.W.2d at 258-59.
The standard of denial of all reasonable uses is a difficult
standard for a property owner to meet. Numerous uses have been
considered "reasonable" by the courts. Particularly where an
existing use may be continued, courts generally refuse to find
that a taking has occurred. Penn Central, 98 S. Ct. 2646. Where
a regulation creates a situation such that the property is not
suitable for any of the primary uses allowed, but secondary uses
remain which are not unreasonable, courts generally will find
that the owner has not proved denial of all reasonable uses.
Larson, 387 N.W.2d at 908.
It could be argued that the park owners have not been denied
any uses of their property by imposition of Minn. Stat.
S 327C.095. If, however, as a result of the statute, the park
owners are so burdened as to not be able to convert the property
to another use, there could be an argument made that they had
been denied all reasonable uses. On the other hand, that
Mr. Ornstein
Page 7
argument might
home park also
fail unless the existing use as a manufactured
is unreasonable. It appears that this factor
would depend upon
uses are available
what is reasonable
another situation.
the circumstances. It would depend upon what
for the property in question. Furthermore,
in one situation may not be reasonable in
If, on the.other hand, a court should find that the statute
serves an enterprise function, or a combination arbitration -
enterprise function as in the Pratt case, a park owner would have
to show that the property has suffered a substantial and
measurable diminution in market value because of the statute.
However, often a regulation will vastly decrease the worth of a
piece of property by prohibiting even the most valuable use of
it. Courts consistently have said that this does not necessarily
give rise to a compensable taking. E.g., Euclid v. Ambler
Realty, 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926) (75% diminution in
value found not to constitute a taking); Hadacheck v. Sebastian,
239 U.S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 133 (1915) (diminution in value from
$800,000 to $60,000 upheld).4 Mere diminution in value, by
itself, cannot establish a taking. Andrus v. Allard, 444.U.S.
51, 100 S. Ct. 318 (1979); Penn Central, 98 S. Ct. at 2663. The
other factors in the analysis play a role as well.
In Connolly, the regulation at issue completely deprived a
participating employer of "whatever amount of money it is
obligated to pay to fulfill its statutory liability." 475 U.S.
at 225. The court noted, however, that the assessment was made
because of the relationship between the employer and the pension
plan in which it had voluntarily participated. The court gave
significance to the fact that the act had numerous provisions
which moderated and mitigated the economic impact upon the
individual property owner. Id. Also, giving yet another
indication that such analysis depends upon the circumstances of a
given case, the court noted that there was no showing that "the
/ The Minnesota courts repeatedly have upheld land -use
regulations claimed to be unconstitutional takings where the
property value has declined substantially as a result of the
regulations. McShane, 292 N.W.2d 257, citing State. by
Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 1979); Holoway v.
City of Pioestone, 269 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1978); Beck v. City
of St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 231 N.W.2d 919 (1975); Connor v.
Township of Chanhassen, 249 Minn. 205, 81 N.W.2d 789 (1957);
Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312, 24 N.W.2d
244 (1946).
7. Ornstein
Lge 8
.thdrawal liability
out of proportion.
L. at 226.
C.
actually imposed on an employer will always
to its experience with the plan ."
The third factor in analyzing a taking challenge, is the
effect of the regulation on the property owners distinct
investment -backed expectations. These expectations must be
reasonable. Connollv, 106 S. Ct. at 1027. The Supreme Court
also has noted that "perhaps because of its vary uncertainty, the
interest in anticipated gains has traditionally been viewed as
less -compelling than other property -related interests." Andrus,
100 S. Ct. at 327.
The Connollv case is particularly instructive on this point
because it too involved direct monetary payments. In analyzing
this factor of the taking test, the court noted that pension
plans had been regulated for quite some time, giving notice to
employers that their involvement with the plans were subject to
restrictions. 106 S. Ct. at 1027. "Those who do business in
the regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is
buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative
end." Id. at 1027, quoting FHA v The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S.
84, 91, 79 S. Ct. 141 (1958). Depending upon how long a park
owner has been in the business, and how long relative to that
time manufactured home parks have been regulated, it may be
argued that a park owner either had notice or did not have notice
that the field was -regulated and -could be subject -to-further
regulations. Analysis of this factor also depends upon the
actual investment -backed expectations held by a park owner when
purchasing the property or entering the field of park operation.
D. Conclusion.
Analysis of these three factors demonstrates the extensively
ad hoc nature of regulatory taking analysis. The above -cited
cases indicate that it is generally difficult for a property
owner to prove that a regulatory taking has occurred. This may
be particularly true as to the regulation of housing conditions,
regarding which the United States Supreme Court has cautioned
that "States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in
general and the landlord -tenant relationship in particular
without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such
regulation entails." Loretto v.-Teleprompter Manhattan CATV
Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 440, 102 S. Ct. 3164 (1982); See also
S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 849 (1988)
t relationships are not per -se
1, the ad hoc factual
inquiries engaged in by the courts make it difficult to predict
whether a court would uphold Minn. Stat. S 327C.095. The
particular circumstances involved would be important to the
analysis.
II. EQUAL PROTECTION.
Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 is a general economic regulation. In
the area of business legislation, courts generally are more
deferential to the judgment of the legislature. The statute does
not touch upon fundamental rights or suspect classifications.
Consequently, the standard of review applicable to this case
under the equal protection clause would be the rational
relationship test. Pennell, 108 S. Ct. at 858. The inquiry
becomes whether the legislative classification (here, assumedly
between mobile home park owners and other landlords) is
rationally related to achievement of legitimate government
purposes. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S.,456,
101 S. Ct. 715, 723 (1981).
- In Pennell, the Supreme Court found that a rent control
statute served the legitimate state interest of protecting
tenants. 108 S.Ct. at 858. Specifically, such statutes were
intended to protect, among other things, "persons with relatively
fixed and limited incomes, consumers, wage earners . . . from
undue impairment of their standard of living." Id., quoting
Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 513 n.9, 64 S. Ct. 641, 646
n.9 (1944). The court decided that it was rational for the rent
control law to treat some landlords differently, based on whether
or not they had hardship tenants, when the legitimate purpose of
the law was to protect hardship tenants. Id. at 859.
The mobile home park owners would have the burden of showing
that "the legislative facts on which the classification is
apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by
the governmental decision -maker." Clover Leaf Creamery, 101 S.
Ct. at 724, quoting Vance V. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 99 S.
Ct., 939, 950 (1979). They also would have to establish the
statute's unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v.
City of Owatonna, 439 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Minn. Ct. App.-.1989).
Of course, the inquiry would depend on the facts behind the
statute. Clearly, its purpose is essential to the analysis. If,
as in Pennell, Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 is designed to protect
r. Ornstein
age 10
tenants in a hardship position, the purpose may be found
legitimate. If the facts upon which the classification is based
could reasonably be believed to be true by the legislators, a
court would defer to the legislature in its choice of
classification. Finally, the classification of manufactured home
park owners may arguably be rationally related to the purpose of
the statute, if that purpose is to protect manufactured home
owners in a hardship position.
III. THE BLOOMINGTON ORDINANCE
You inquire whether the provisions of the Bloomington
ordinance are within the authority provided by Minn. Stat
S 327C.095, subd. 4. For the following reasons, we conclude
that, on its face, the ordinance is within the scope of authority
of the statute. Words and phrases in statutes and ordinances
should be construed according to their common and approved usage.
Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (1988); Standafer v. First Nat'l Bank of
Minneapolis, 236 Minn. 123, 52 N.W.2d 718.(1952). The provision
for additional compensation refers to other parties. This
provision falls after the provision for relocation costs from the
park owner. This indicates that the additional compensation may
be required only of someone other than the park owner..
Next, the party paying such additional compensation must be
involved in the park closing. Logically, the purchaser of a
manufactured home park who plans to convert its use is involved
with the park closing.
The reference to additional compensation comes after the
provision for reasonable relocation costs in the preceding
paragraphs. Therefore, it follows from the common usage of the
term additional that this refers to compensation beyond
relocation costs.
The purpose of the provision for additional compensation is
stated in the text of subdivision 4. That purpose is "to
mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon
the residents." Minn. Stat. § 327C.095, subd. 4.
Each of the above points is arguably clear from the express
language of the statute. What is not expressly clear from this.
provision is how far beyond reasonable relocation costs the
additional compensation may go, keeping in mind its expressly
stated purpose. In other words, the real question here is
whether the requirement in the ordinance that the purchaser of a
)rnstein
11
pay the estimated market value of manufactured homes to
ain owners exceeds the authority of the statute.
Ordinances, like statutes, are presumed valid. They are not
to be overturned unless clearly invalid. City of St. Paul v.
Kekedakis, 293 Minn. 334, 199 N.W.2d 151, 153 (1972). Keeping
that in mind, the "lack of explicit statement in the statute may
hinder, but does not prevent, ascertainment of the meaning.
Often, . . . a statute speaks as plainly by inference and by
means of the purposes which underlie it as in any other manner."
State by Ervin v. Goodman, 206 Minn. 203, 207-08, 288 N.W. 157
(1939). A statutory requirement encompasses "all such -
incidental, collateral, and subsidiary consequences as may be
fairly and logically inferred from its terms." Id. at 208. This
rule of construction is applicable to the interpretation of the
scope of authority granted in Minn. Stat. 5 327C.095.
The statute is broad in its grant of authority to
municipalities to require "additional compensation." Given this
broad authority, the ordinance provision requiring park
purchasers to pay to homeowners the estimated market value of
their homes in limited circumstances may be fairly and logically
inferred from the terms of the statute. That the ordinance
provides a cap on total compensation to homeowners of twenty
percent of the purchase price of a park appears to reflect the
mitigation purpose of the statute rather than an allowance for a
windfall to homeowners. Consequently, it is fair to say that the
ordinance, on its face, falls within the scope of authority of
the statute.
It is possible, however, that in its application to a given
set of circumstances, the ordinance may not be a reasonable _
exercise of the express purpose of the additional compensation
provision of the statute.
Finally, you ask whether the city ordinance passed pursuant
to Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 violates the taking provisions of the
Minnesota and United States Constitutions.5 The same ad hoc
factual inquiry as I described above with respect to the statute
would apply to the ordinance as well. Therefore, as with the
question of the statute's constitutionality under the taking
clause, I am unable to give a concrete opinion as to whether the
5/ As I indicated with respect to the statute, a claim under the
federal constitution would likely be premature until state
remedies are exhausted. Williamson, 473 U.S. 172.
1. Ornstein
.ge 12
dinance passes constitutional muster. I again suggest that you
e the cases cited above to assist you with this issue.
I hope the information and suggestions. with which I have
provided you are of assistance.
Sin'pprely,
SARA H. JONES%l
Special Assistant.
Attorney General
(612) 297-1136
SHJ:gpr
cc: Bob Hoffman
Vtee Roderick
i
C' I
327C.07 MANUFACNRED HOME PARK r.OT ]Utn 8 7703
(a) If the home contains a solid fuel burning stove or fireplace, installation in con-
formance the department of homing and urban development Manufactured Home
Standa(d) Support systems as required by the state building code.
Following installation of the safety Antares required under this subdivision, the
home must be inspected by a state certified building official. The official may charge
a reasonable fee, not to exceed $50, for the inspection. The homeowner shall give the
park owner a certificate of inspection certifying that the home safety features required
under this subdivision have been installed. This subdivision does not impose any duty
or obligation upon a broker, dealer, lender, or park owner to monitor completion of
any repairs required, nor does it impose liability on any broker, dealer, tender, or park
owner for any injury or claim of whatever nature, which may arise as a result of the
failure of the buyer of the home to comply with the home safety features required
herein. Failure to comply with the requirements of this subdivision is a park role viola-
tion for purposes -of section 327C09.
History. 1981 c 526 art 2 s 7,• 1983 c106 s 2-4,1984 c 406s 2,3t 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986
c 3 an i s 36, 1987 c 384 art I s 32
327C.08 REMOVAL AFTER REPOSSESSION.
A secured party who repossesses a manufactured home located in a park and then
removes the home from the lot owes the park owner rent for the period beginning when
the secured party accepts voluntary repossession or takes an action pursuant to sections
327.61 to 327-67 and ending on the last day of the calendar month in which the home
is removed. The secured party does not awe the park ownerany lot rent or other charges
which accrued prior to the time the seared party accepted voluntary repossession or
took action pursuant to sections 327.61 to 327..67, if.* -
(a) Within seven days after accepting voluntary repossession or taking action pur-
suant to sections 327.61 to 327.67, the secured party notifies the park owner in writing
that the home is being repossessed;
(b) During a proceeding for repossession pursuant to sections 327.61 to 327.67 or
chapter 565, the seemed party Days each month's lot rent as the rent becomes due; and
(c) Within seven days of accepting voluntary repossession or obtaining a court
order for repossession, the secured party removes the home from the park.
If the secured party fauns to meet any of these conditions, the secured party shall
also be liable to the park owner for all overdue rent, not to exceed three months and
not including late fees or othercharges, owed to the park owner on account of the home.
This section does not affect any liability or obligation which a secured party may
have to a park owner who pursuant to a writ of restitution has removed a home from
a lot and stored the home.
History. 1981 c 526 art 2 s 8
327C09 TERMINATION.
Subdivision 1. Came required. A park owner may recover possession of land upon
which a manufactured home is situated only for a reason specified in this section or sec-
tion 327C.095.
. Subd. 2. Nonpayment of rent or utlIf les. The park owner gives ten days written
notice to the resident and to any party holding a security interest in the resident's home
known to the park owner that a periodic rental or utilities payment owed to the park
owaeris overdue, and neitherthe resident northe secured party cures the default within
ten days of receiving the notice.
Subd. 3. Violations of law. The resident fails to comply with a local ordinance,
state law or state rule relating to manufactured homes within the time the ordinance,
state law orstate rule provides or, if no time is provided, within a reasonable time^'r
the resident has received written notice of noncompliance.
1709 MANUFACRIRED HOME PARx I REN AU 327C.095
Subd. 4. Rule violations. The resident fails to comply with a rule within 30 days
after receiving written notice of the alleged noncompliance, except the 30-day notice
requirement does not apply to nonpayment of rent. Loud noise anted by residents,
guests, or ;heir equipment is a rule violation. After written notice has been provided
for two prior incidents, laud noise is a violation of subdivision 5.
E Subd. 5. Endangerment; substantial annoyance. The resident acts in the park in a
manner which endangers other residents or park personnel, causes substantial damage .
to the park premises or substantially annoys other residents, and has received 30 days
written notice to vacate, except the park owner may require the resident to vacate
immediately if the resident violates this subdivision a second or subsequent time after
receipt of the notice- To be effective, the notice must specify the time, date, and nature
of the alleged annoyance, damage, or endangerment. A park owner seeking to evict pur-
suant to this subdivision need not produce evidence of a criminal conviction, even if
the alleged misconduct constitutes a criminal offense.
Subd. 6. Repeated serious violations. The resident has repeatedly committed seri.
ous violations of the rental agreement or provisions of a local ordinance or state law
or state rule relating to manufactured homes, and the park owner has given the resident
written notice of the violations and has given the resident a written warning that any
future serious violation will be treated as came for eviction as provided in this subdivi-
sion, and within six months of receiving the warning the resident commits a serious vic-
lation of any park rule or any provision of a local ordinance or state law or state rule
relating to manufactured homes-
Subd. 7. Material misstatement in application. The resident's application for ten-
ancy contained a material misstatement which induced the park owner to approve the
applicant as a resident, and the park owner discovers and acts upon the misstatement
within one year of the time the resident began paying rent-
Subd. 8. Improvements. The park owner has specific plans to make improvements
to the park premises which will substantially benefit the health and safety of the resi-
dents or have been ordered by a government agency, and which necessitate removal of
the resident's manufactured home from the park. The park owner must give the resi-
dent 90 days written notice. If another lot is available in the park, the park owner must
allow the resident to relocate the home to that lot unless the home, because of its size
or local ordinance, is not compatible with that lot.
Subd. 9. (Repealed, 1987 c 179 s 12]
History. 1982 c 526 art 2 s 9; 1987 c 179 s 6-8
327C.095 PARK ULMEZZ
Subdivision 1. Conversion of use; minimum notice. At least nine months before the
conversion of all or a portion of a manufactured home park to another use, or before
closure of a manufactured home park or cessation of use of the land as a manufactured
home park, the park owner must prepare a closure statement and provide a copy to the
local planning agency and a copy to a resident of each manufactured home. A resident
may not be required to vacate until 60 days after the conclusion of the public hearing
required under subdivision 4. If a lot is available in another section of the park that
will continue to be operated as a park, the park owner must allow the resident to relo-
cate the home to that lot unless the home, because of its size or local ordinance, is not
3 compatible with that at.
Subd. 2. Notice of hearing; proposed change In land use. If the planned conversion
or cessation of operation requires a variance or zoning change, the municipality must
mail a notice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured
home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing. The park
owner shall provide the municipality with a list of the names and addresses of at least
one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time application is made
for a variance or zoning change.
Subd. 3. Closure statement. Upon receipt of the closure stater 'n m the park
327C.N5 MA FAC MIRED HOME PARK LOT RET'I'AIS 7710
owner, the local planning agency shall submit the closure statement to the governing
body of the municipality and request the governing body to schedule a public hearing.
The municipality must mail a notice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident
of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the pub-
lic hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality with a list of the names and
addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time
the closure statement is submitted to the local planning agency.
Subd. 5. Park conversions. If the planned cessation of operation is for the purpose
of converting the part of the Dark occupied by the resident to a condominium pursuant
to chapter 515A, the provisions of section 515A.4-110, except paragraph (a), shall
apply. The nine -month notice required by this section shall state that the cessation is
for the purpose of conversion and shall set forth the rights conferred by this subdivision
and section 515A.4.110, paragraph (b). Not less than 120 days before the end of the
nine months, the park owner shall serve upon the resident a form of purchase agree.
ment setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by section 515A.4-I 10, paragraph (b).
Service of that form shall operate as the notice described by section 515A.4-110, para-
graph (a).
History: 1987 c 179 s 10
327C.10 DEFENSES TO EVICTION.
Subdivision 1. Nonpayment of rent. In any action to recover possession for failure
to pay rent, it shall be a defense that the sum allegedly due contains a charge which vio-
lates section 327C.03,, or that the park owner has injured the defendant by failing to
comply with section 504.18.
Subd. 2. Nonpayment of rent increase. In any action to recover possession for fail-
ure to pay a rent increase, it shall be a defense that the park owner.
(a) failed to comply with the provisions of section 327C.06, subdivision 1 or 3i
(b) increased the rent in violation of section 327C.06, subdivision 2.
Subd. 3. Rule violations. In any action to recover possession for the violation of
a park rule, it shall be a defense that the mle allegedly violated is unreasonable.
Subd. 4. Retaliatory conduct In any action to recover possession it shall be a
defense that the park owner has violated section 327C.12.
History: 1982 c 526 art 2 s 10
327C.II EVICTION PROCEEDINGS.
Subdivision 1. Right of redemption. The right of redemption, as expressed in sec-
tion 504.02 and the common taw, is available to a resident from whom a park owner
seeks to recover possession for nonpayment of rent, but no resident may exercise that
right more than twice in any 12-month period; provided, that a resident may exercise
the right of redemption more than twice in any 12-month period by paying the park
owner's actual reasonable attorney's fees as part of each additional exercise of that right
during the 12-month period.
f`
7711 MAN AC RED HOME PARE LOT RENFAIS 327C.14
Subd. 2. Waiver by accepting rent. A park owner who gives a resident a notice as
provided in section 327C.09, subdivision 3, 4, 6, or 8, or 327C.095, does not waive the
notice by afterwards accepting rent. Acceptance of rent for a period after the expiration
of a final notice to quit waives that notice unless the parties agree in writing after service
of the notice that the notice continues in effect.
Subd. 3. Writ of restitution stayed. The issuance of writ of restitution, other than
a conditional writ, shall be stayed for a reasonable, period not to exceed seven days to
allow the resident to arrange to remove the resident's home from the lot.
Subd. 4.. Conditional writ. Where the interests ofjustice require the court may issue
a conditional writ of restitution, which orders the resident and all those in the resident's
household to stop residing in the park within a reasonable period not to exceed seven
days, but which allows the resident's home to remain on the lot for 60 days for the pur-
pose of an in park sale, as provided in section 327C.07. The writ shall also direct the
park owner to notify any party holding a security interest in the resident's home and
known to the park owner, of the provisions of the writ. If the court issues a conditional
writ, the resident may keep the home on the lot for 60 days for an in park sale if.
(a) neither the resident nor members of the resident's household. reside in the park;
(b) the resident complies with all rules relating to home and lot maintenance, and
(c) the resident pays on time all rent and utility charges owed to the park owner.
If the resident fails to meet any of these conditions, the park owner may, on three days
written notice to the resident, move the mum for an order making the writ of restitution
unconditional. Sixty-one days after the issuance of a conditional writ, the writ shall
become absolute without further court action.
History: 1982 c 526 an 2 s I1; 1986 c 444: 1987 c 179 s 9
327C.12 RETALIATORY CONDUCT PROHIBITED.
A park owner may not increase rent, decrease services, alter an existing rental
agreement or seek to recover possession or threaten such action in whole or in pan as
a penalty for a resident's:
(a) good faith complaint to the park owner or to a government agency or official;
or
(b) good faith attempt to exercise rights or remedies pursuant to state or federal
law. In any proceeding in which retaliatory conduct is alleged, the burden of proving
otherwise shall be on the park owner if the owner's challenged action began within 90
days after the resident engaged in any of the activities protected by this section. If the
challenged action began more than 90 days after the resident engaged in the protected
activity, the party claiming retaliation must make a prima facie case. The park owner
must then prove otherwise.
History: 1982 c 526 art 1 s 12; 1986 c 444
327C.13 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
No park ownershall prohibit or adopt any rule prohibiting residents or other per-
sons from peacefully organizing, assembling, canvassing, lea(letting or otherwise exer-
cising within,the park their right of free expression for noncommercial purposes. A park
owner may adopt and enforce miles that set reasonable limits as to time, place and man-
ner.
History: 1982 c 526 art 1 s 13
327C.14 RIGHT OF ACCESS.
Subdivision 1. To the home. A park owner has no right of access to a manufactured
home located within the park unless access is necessary to prevent damage to the park
Premises or to respond to an emergency.
Subd. 2. To the lot. A park owner may come onto a manufactured home lot in
order to inspect the lot, make necessary or agreed upon repairs or improvements, sup-
AYA(C
FEB 1 9 199f
AR 11Wtb AR1Aw1'f(.w CCUo
2395 University Avenue West, Suite 202 St. Paul, MN 55114 (612) 644-5525
February 14, 1991
Ms. Mary Kueffner
City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Dear Ms. Kueffner,
Here are the copies of the Hopkins and Bloomington Park Closing Ordinances
{ that I promised you. I will contact you before March 5th with details of
our presentation. In the meantime, feel free to contact me with any questions
you might have about our plans.
Sincerely,
Glenn Shoemaker
Park Organizer
An Organization of Mobile Home Residents
ORDINANCE NO. 89 — 57
AN ORDINANCK PROVIDING NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING, PRIOR TO
CLOSURE OF 1ANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, REQUIRING PARK OWNERS
TO PAY REASONABLE RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS
AND REQUIRING BUYERS TO PAY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS
The City Council of the City of Bloomington hereby ordains:
Section 1. That Section 15 of the City Code in hereby amended to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 15
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
ARTICLE IV. MANUFACTURED HOME.PARK CLOSINGS
SEC, 15.69. PURPOSE.
In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by
conversion of manufactured home parks,. the City Council finds
health, saf.etand general welfare will be promoted by requiri
to displaced residents of such parks. The put
park owners to pay displaced residents reasonz
purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay a
to the authority granted under Minnesota Statt
SEC. 15.70. DEFINITIONS.
The following words and terms when used i
following meanings unless the context clearly
Closure statement — a statement prepared
the park l.s_ closing, addressing the availabili
of adequate replacement housing within a 25 mi
closing and the probable relocation costs of t
the park.
Displaced.resident __ a resident of an owr
rents a lot in a manufactured home park, inclu
household, as •f the date the park owner subml
City's Planning Commission.
osure or
he public
pensation
ose of this Article Is to requi
le relocation costs and
ditional compensation, pursuant
es. Section 327C.095.
n this Article shall have the
indicates otherwise:
by the park owner clearl __st_nt.inp,
ty, location and potential cnr.i•;
le radius of the park that i
he manufactured homes located in
er-occupied manufactured home who
ding the members of the resident's
is a closure statement to the
Lot — an area within a manufactured (tome park, designed or used for the
accommodation of _a manufactured home.
Manufactured home - a structure, not affixed to or part of real estate,
trausportable in one more sections, which in the tra
_�ej I nX mode, is 8 body feet
or more In wi.dLh or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is
320 or more square feet
to be used as a dwellin
to the required utiliti
and electrical svateme
two or more occupied manu
for compensation, and ine
enclosure used or intende
hom�ark. This definiti
during three or fewer sea
1'a rk_ h
owner -_ the _owl,
behnlf of te owner lu th
I which Is built
h or without a
ind includes the
ned in it.
- any site, lot
tured homes are
es any building
or use as part
does not inelud
Le Cann - any individual, c
unincorporated association or a.
SEC. 15.71. NOTICE OF CLOSING.
If_a manufactured home earl
another use or terminated as a t
least nine months prior to the ,
of use, provide a copy of a clo:
home and to the Citv's Planninu
a n_u_t a
on or
is to
EC. 15.72_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
The Planning Commission shall_submit the
�. Councilandrequest the City Council. to ached
shall mail a notice at least ten _days prior C
of each manufactured home in the ark stating
henrfnr. _The._ park owner slim-1 provide the Ci
nddresne.s of nt lonsr otte resident of each ma
time the closure statement is subwitted to th
S-EC_.15.73. PUBLIC IIEARINC.
rmanent chassis_an_d dnslpn,,,l
t foundation when conncr, .•,I
g, heating, air conditio111jjg
f land upon which
ree of charge or
vehicle or -
f the manufa_ctu_r_crl
are open only
park and any person acting nn
of a pork_
rtnership, incorpornted_ n_nrl
mmercial entity.
o_nverted in whole or part to
the park owner shall nt
to another use or termination
resident of each manufactured
osure statement to the City
a public hearing. The C I I
he public hearing to a re^,ideni
e time, place and pur our. of the
with a list of the nn_me-s nod
actured home in the perk nt the
lanning Commission.
A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of
n.vtewl the closure statement and evaluatin
lg what impact the Park closing may
have on the dis Iaced residents and the
-'- p --- — - -- park owne;•
ShC. 15.74 _ PAYHF-Wr OF Rh.L01CA'I'I0N ,COSTS _
After service of the closure rtnl.ement by -the park owner nnri ttpnn
submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or othe_r_veriftcn_ton of
reloc,l lot, expenses, the park owner_ nhall p y t_o_ Chap. dis laced resident. the
rensooa tle cost of relocating the m.vntf actured homy. to another mnnufncl:u rr •I h.nn•
pjtrk luc_n Cad .withltt n 7S tulle rnriins of I'Ite park that is being closed,_ c_on_vert,,d
Co _another use or ceasing uperntion. Rensonable relocations costs shall
Lnclude. — -- ---- -- ----
(A) The-netunl cxtettaes incurred in moving the_ �isptlaced renldenr._',,
manufactured home and personal property, including the [easoneble cos[ of
dissembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances, nuch an
Porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of
closure or conversion of the park,. and uti— lity 'rhook-up' charges.
(B) The cost of _insurance for the replacement value of the property
being_miwed_
(C) The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order
to move the manufactured home.
SEC. 15.75. PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
(A) If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a 25
mile radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance,
the resident is entitled to additioncompensation to be paid by the purchaser
al
of the park in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park
closing If the resident tenders the title to the manufactured home, the
additional compensation shall be in an amount equal to the estimated market
value of the manufactured home as determined by the City Assessor and as
resorted on the resident's most recent property tax statement. The purchaser
a hall pay such compensation into an escrow account established by the park -
owner, for distribution upon transfer o£ title to the home. Such compensatto_n
shall be Paid to the displaced residents no lacer .than [hirty (30) dais prroro
the cl_t
osinof the park or its conversion to another use.
T (E) If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a 25
mile radius of the pack which is Ueing closed or some other agreed upon distance,
and the _resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the
resident is entt_tl_e_d to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation
costs awarded_ to other residents in thepark.
((:). The total compensation to be paid t_o_d_isplaced residents by the
pork owner and purchaser of the park shall not exceed twenty percent of the
purr_hase )rice of the park_ —
SEC. 15.76. VERIFICATION OF COSTS.
The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost
estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the park owner for approval as
a condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. If the
park owner refuses to pay the contractor other verified costs estimate, the
p_nrk owner shnll .arrange for relocating the manufactured home and pay the _
relocation costs identified to Section 15.74 of this Article.
ti I(C. I9.77. P[;NA1,TY.
(a) Vi.olntin_n of ally provision of this Article shall be a mir:demrn
(b) AiV provisions of this Article m� Ue enforced by in unction or_��
npprocr ate civil remedy. -- i---
(c) 'Iho (dty shall not np2rnve. an apriicat lon_f_or a buildIng-ermlt,
rezoning S hnttiny„,coh
nditional use permit or variance in con�uncion with retiso,
of manuL: t_ured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable
relocation cnsts and the purchaser of the park has provided additional f
comnensation in accordance with the requirements of the Article.
ORDINANCE NO. 90-678
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING,
PRIOR TO CLOSURE OR CONVERSION OF USE OF
MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, REQUIRING PARK OWNERS
TO PAY REASONABLE RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED
RESIDENTS AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN DISPLACED,RESIDENTS
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Hopkins:
Section 1. The Hopkins City Code of 1986 is hereby
amended by adding Sections 445,01-445.17- which read as
follows:
Section 445 - Manufactured Home Park Closings
Section 445.01. Purpose. In view of the unusual nature of
the problems presented by the closure or conversion of
manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the
public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by
requiring compensation to displaced residents of such parks.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to require park owners to
pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and
purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay displaced
residents additional compensation, pursuant to the authority
granted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095.
Section 445.03 Definitions. The following words and phrases
when used in this Ordinance shall have the following
meanings:
Subd. 1. "Closure Statement" means a written statement
prepared by the park owner clearly stating the manufactured
home park is closing, addressing the availability, location
and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a
25 mile' radius of the manufactured home park that is closing
and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes
located in the manufactured home park. The Closure Statement
shall also contain detailed information as to the
availability, location and potential costs of other
manufactured home parks located within a 25 mile radius of
the manufactured home park that is being closed.
Subd. 2. "Displaced Resident" means an owner of
manufactured home located on a lot in a manufactured home
park within the City who rents such lot and occupies such
manufactured home as his or her principal residence as of the
date the City's Planning Agency receives a copy of a Closure
Statement pursuant to the Statute and who will be displaced
by the park closing.
Subd. 3. "Lot" means an area within a manufactured
home park, designed or used for the accommodation of a
manufactured home.
Subd. 4. "Manufactured Home" means a structure, not
affixed to or part of real estate, transportable in one or
more sections, which in the traveling mode is 8 body feet or
more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when
erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is
built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a
dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, and includes the
plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical system
contained in it.
Subd. 5. "Manufactured Home Park" means any site, lot,
field or tract of land upon which two or more occupied
manufactured homes are located, either free of charge or for
compensation, and includes any building, structure, tent,
vehicle or enclosure used or intended for use as part of the
equipment of the manufactured home park. Manufactured home
park does not include facilities which are open only during
three or fewer seasons of the year.
Subd. 6. "Park Closing" means the conversion of all or
a portion of a manufactured home park to another use, closure
of all or a portion of a manufactured home park or cessation
of use of all or a. portion of the land comprising a
manufactured home park as a manufactured home park.
Subd. 7. "Park Owner" means the owner of a
manufactured home park.
Subd. 8. "Person" means any individual, corporation,
firm, partnership, - incorporated -and- - unincorporated
association or any other legal or commercial entity..
Subd. 9. "Relocation Costs" means the reasonable cost
of relocating a manufactured home to another manufactured
home park located within a 25 mile radius of the manufactured
home park at which the park closing is to occur and shall
include and be limited to:
a) The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced
resident's manufactured home and personal property,
including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving
and reassembling any attached appurtenances which were
not acquired after service of the closure statement on
the displaced resident, such as porches, decks,
skirting and awnings, and utility hookup charges.
b. The cost of insurance, while the manufactured home is
being moved, for the replacement value of the
manufactured home.
C
c. The cost of such repairs or modifications as are
necessary in order to take down, move and set up the
manufactured home in the name manufactured home park.
Subd. 10. "The Statute"
Section 327.0095, as amended.
Section 445.05.
means Minnesota Statutes
n. 1C6bb 11111e
park closing, the park owner shall
statement and serve a copy thereof on
Agency by certified or registered mail
address:
Zoning Administrator
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Statement; Public
(9) months before a
prepare a closure
the City's Planning
at the following
The Planning Agency shall submit a copy of the closure
statement to the City Council and request the City Council to
hold a public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the park
owner shall provide the City Council with such additional
information as the Council may request in order to assess the
impact of the park closing. No later than sixty (60) days
after the date of service of the closure statement on the
Zoning Administrator, the City Council shall conduct the
public hearing required by the Statute for the purpose of
reviewing the closure statement and determining what impact
the manufactured home park closing may have on the displaced
residents and the park owner. In addition, before a park
closing and as a condition thereof, the City Council shall
require the payment of relocation costs and additional
compensationto displaced residents as provided in Section
445.07 and 445.09 of this Ordinance.
Section 445.07. Payment of Relocation Costs.
Subd. 1. Within a reasonable time after service of the
closure statement .on a displaced resident by the park owner,
such displaced resident shall obtain and submit to the park
owner adequate written estimate(s) or proposal(s) for
relocation costs from a contractor or contractors qualified
to relocate manufactured homes. In the alternative, a
displaced resident may submit to the park owner written
evidence establishing that the displaced resident's
manufactured home cannot be relocated within a 25 mile radius
of the park that is being closed. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 445.15, Subd. 1 of this Ordinance,
failure by a displaced resident to provide the estimate(s),
proposal(s) or other written evidence to the park owner
required by this section shall not be a misdemeanor. After
receiving such estimate(s), proposal(s) or written evidence
of fifteen (15) days, be entitled to obtain one additional
estimate or proposal from a qualified relocation contractor
and require that the relocation services be performed by the
lowest responsible bidder. The park owner shall pay the
relocation costs actually incurred to relocate each displaced
resident's manufactured home subject to the limitations
stated in Subd. 3 of this Section.
Subd. 2. If a displaced resident cannot relocate the
manufactured home to another manufactured home park within a
25 mile radius of the manufactured home park that is being
closed, such displaced resident shall have the option to
elect to receive an amount equal to the average relocation
costs paid to displaced residents who do relocate their
manufactured homes within 25 miles. This option shall be
exercised by giving written notice of such election to the
park owner. Upon receipt of such notice, the park owner
shall be required to pay the displaced resident an amount
equal to the average relocation costs paid to displaced
residents who do relocate their manufactured homes within 25
miles. A displaced resident compensated under this
subdivision shall retain title to the manufactured home and
shall be responsible for its prompt removal from the
manufactured home park.
Subd. 3. The total amount of relocation costs payable
to a displaced resident under this Section shall not exceed
$2,500.00 for a single section manufactured home and
$4,000.00 for a double section manufactured home. These
amounts shall be increased on January l of each year
commencing January 1, 1992 based upon the change in the
Consumer Price Index, Minneapolis -St. Paul, for all urban
consumers ("CPI-U") as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The amount of
increase shall be equal to the percentage of increase in the
CPI-U on the-date_of adjustment over the CPT-U in effect on
January 1 of the preceding year.
Subd. 4 The park owner shall make the payments required
by this Section at such time as the manufactured home for
which such park owner may make direct payment to the person
performing relocation services, but, upon proof of payment of
relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the
displaced resident directly for relocation costs.
Section 445.09. Payment of Additional Compensation. A
displaced resident who cannot relocate a manufactured home
within a 25 mile radius of the manufactured home park that is
being closed and who does not elect to be compensated under
Subd. 2 of Section 445.07 of this Ordinance is entitled to
additional compensation in order to mitigate the adverse
financial impact of the park closing. Such additional
compensation shall be paid by the person purchasing or
otherwise acquiring the manufactured home park from the park
owner and by such other persons as the City Council shall
deem appropriate. A displaced resident shall exercise the
entitlement to receive additional compensation under this
Section by serving written notice on the park owner that the
displaced resident is prepared to tender the title to the
manufactured home. The additional compensation due the
displaced resident upon transfer of title to the manufactured
home shall be an amount equal to the estimated market value
of the manufactured home as stated in the most recent
personal property tax statement for the manufactured home.
Such additional compensation shall be paid to the displaced
resident no later than thirty (30) days prior to the park
closing. As a condition of receiving such additional
compensation, the displaced resident shall transfer title to
the manufactured home to the person paying the additional
compensation free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.
The City Council may require that an escrow account, in an
amount sufficient to pay the additional compensation required
by this Section, be established by the person required to pay
the additional compensation.
Section 445.11. Limitation of Relocation Costs and
Additional Compensation. The total amount of relocation
costs and additional compensation to be paid to displaced
residents pursuant to Sections 445.07 and 445.09 of this
Ordinance shall not exceed the greater of twenty percent
(20%) of the estimated market value of the manufactured home
park, as stated in the real property tax statement for the
year in which the closure statement is served on the Zoning
Administrator, or twenty percent (20%) of the sale price of
the manufactured home park. In the event the total of the
relocation costs and additional compensation payable to
displaced residents under Sections 445.07 and 445.09 of this
Ordinance exceeds this limitation, the relocation costs or
additional compensation payable to each displaced resident
shall be decreased proportionately so that the total of
relocation costs and additional compensation does not exceed
the limitation stated in this Section.
Section 445.13. Verification of Relocation Costs. As a
condition of its liability to pay relocation costs, the park
owner shall be entitled to receive adequate documentation of
relocation costs, including costs of proposals, invoices,
estimates and contracts for relocation services, from the
displaced resident.
Section 445.15. Penalties.
Subd. 1. Violation of any provision of Sections
445.01-445.13 of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. The provisions of this Ordinance may be
enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy.
Subd. 3. Approval of any application for a building
permit, rezoning, platting, subdivision, conditional use
Permit, special use permit or variance in conjunction with a
park closing shall be conditioned upon the requires of this
Ordinance for payment of location costs and additional
compensation having been satisfied.
Section 445.17 Intent of Ordinance.
Subd. 1 This Ordinance does not supercede the
Statute. Park owners shall comply with all of the
requirements of the Statute and of this Ordinance.
Subd. 2. This Ordinance is intended to entitle only
displaced residents to receive payment of relocation costs
and additional compensation. Owners of manufactured homes
who are not displaced residents are not entitled to such
payments.
Subd. 3. This Ordinance shall not be interpreted to
require payment or relocation costs or additional
compensation by the City.
.y
Adopted this day of 1990.
Approved this S day of /"/lam 1990.
First reading: April 17, 1990
Second reading: May 1, 1990
Date of Publication: May 16, 1990
Date Ordinance is Effective: June 4, 1990
NHD
March 5, 1991
To the Honorable Members of Lake Elmo City Council,
I am writing you in regards to a proposed ordinance being brought before
you concerning park closings. I am unable to attend this meeting due to
another commitment and was not made aware of the council meetings agenda
until Monday, March 4, 1991, when I received the agenda.
The ordinance before you is similar to ordinances adopted by the cities
of Bloomington and Hopkins. There are some major differences in the
situation before you today, one being the parks in question in these
cities are presently for sale and are prime commercial development
parcel's. Secondly being that to my knowledge the cities are in favor
of a change in the use of the properties.
There is law presently within 327c dealing with these issues that enable
the municipality to involve themselves with potential park closing at
that time. Cimarron is not for sale now or is it forseen to be in the
near future, and the owners believe it is presently at its highest and
best use in value.
I am asking that the city give strong consideration to the proposed
ordinance as similar ordinances in Bloomington and Hopkins have yet to
be tested through the legal process, and are more immediate situations.
There is presently a proposed law which is expected to pass this year
that deals with the issue of residents right to purchase a park in a
sale that would result in the closing or conversion of a manufactured
home park.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely/
(Mnl iel J. Krawczyk
Property Manager
Cimarron Park
DJK/macm
i A Newman, Herfurth & Durand Property Management Company
3010 Plaza VII Tower, 45 South 7th Street. Minneapolis, MN 55402-1607
^ 612 349-6900
i Yn.og✓.'
HLUUt I �-Uh UUUNl.,lL-llL. ! 1UP4
Aeeting Date March
ING: GF iGj,4A 7 1 f
c`; 0;. S E TiON CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 10A-E DE?;=.AT'.1E:`1T�
SY:
A. . Mayor's Report FaROVS�' FCR
B. Councilman Hunt AAPPRG A BY'
C. Councilman Johnson
(1) Parks Department (attached)
(2) Maintenance Advisory Committee (attached)
D. Councilman Mottaz
E. Councilman Williams
(1) Roberts Pules of Order (Cont.)
February 28, 1991
To: Mayor and City Council
Lake Elmo, MN
From: Dick Johnson
Re: Parks and Recreation Department
In response to the,Council's request for more information on
the subject, I have met with the City Administrator and I
report here on the results of further consideration and
investigation of the issues raised by Council. To wit:
-- to direct the City Administrator to contact interested
renters and ask them if the City uses the garage, would they
still be interested in renting the remainder of the building?
The City Administrator contacted the two interested
renters and they advised they want the entire building.
Not interested in part of the building.
-- to direct staff (Maintenance Dept., City Admin., Parks
Commission) to look at the current way they are doing things
and see if some administrative shuffling of time could devote
more staff resources to the parks without creating a formal
department.
The City Administrator has reviewed and shares my
opinion that it is not a matter of shuffling of time -- that
would change nothing. It is a matter of administrative
restructuring to improve operations, communications and
reporting.
-- to obtain an idea of what this would cost the city to set
up this department in terms of replacing Mike, (if he gets
the job) salary expected for administrative position,
assuming we set up this department in 1992, what figure would
have to be put in the budget?
Mike would not need to be replaced. He would continue to
have much the same duties as he does now, only priorities
would change. Parks maintenance would probably receive a
higher priority. Better parks maintenance would result.
Salary would not change. According to the League of Minn
Cities Salary Survey, the recommended salary for a Parks
Supervisor appears to be slightly less than the current rate
for a heavy equipment operator (Mike's current position).
approx.$2,212/month vs. $2229/month
Budget cost: Tools $1,000
Phone 500
Utilities 1,200
Maintenance 600
Truck
$3 , 200
*The need for a Parks truck is a separate issue;
independent of whether or not there is a Parks Dept.
Also, the $500 for building maintenance would be a cost
to the City either way.
There would be a loss of revenue to the City by not
renting the building -- could range from $6,000 to 8,400.
However, our Attorney has advised, the City must begin paying
taxes on the property if we rent it. Estimated taxes on an
assessed valuation of $130,000 is $4,277. So, renting is less
attractive then may seem.
-- to consider the option of Parks dept. being a division
within the Public Works dept.
That's basically what it is now. I see no administrative
improvement in response to the needs of our Park system or r
our Parks Commission with this suggested option.
I urge the Council to reconsider this matter favorably.
February 28. 1991
To: Mayor and City Council
Lake Elmo, MN
From: Dick Johnson
Re: Maintenance Advisory Committee
The proposal for the subject committee was made at the
January 19th meeting of the council at which time it was
requested by Councilman Williams that more information be
provided to the Council for the need for this committee. In
view of the budget constraints that we are facing, it seems
more urgent than ever to have a group of knowledgeable
citizens advising this council on equipment purchases and
giving us recommendations on cost saving measures. I
therefore recommend adoption of a motion to establish a
Maintenance Advisory Committee.
I have outlined below the reasons for creating this committee
and a recommended plan for implementation. This outline was
developed in discussions with the City Administrator and
represent both our views on the matter.
JUSTIFICATION
1. Help provide inventory control, develop fixed asset
list and provide annual audit of inventory.
2. Provide expert advise on heavy equipment
specifications and purchase for trucks, fire
equipment and other CIP.
3. Citizen participation. Reduced citizen criticism of
City purchases.
4. Cost Reduction/Tax Savings through well-advised
capital purchases.
5. Provide creative suggestions on improved operation
savings.
a. Preventive Maintenance
b. Lubrication schedules
c. Improved efficiency
d. In-house repairs
e. Expand suppliers list (other bidders)
f. Lower cost supplies, etc.
ORGANIZATION
1. Suggested Committee Membership:
3 to 5 Citizen Members
1 Fire Dept. Member (Chief or rep.)
1 Staff Member (Maintenance Foreman)
1 Council Member (Liaison)
2. Frequency of meetings:
Monthly to start/ as needed thereafter when
major purchases are considered or when
audits are needed (once a year).
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Council motion to establish Maintenance Advisory
Committee.
2. Request resident volunteers in next newsletter (due
to be issued 3/15 or before).
3. Appoint members and set agenda.
Suggested motion: "Move to establish a Lake Elmo
Maintenance Advisory Committee consisting of five
citizen members, one representative from the Lake
Elmo Fire Department, one representative from the
Public Works Department and one City Council liaison
representative. Also move to direct the City
Administrator to request volunteers for citizen
committee members in the next Newsletter."