HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1992/09/08 SEPTEM SER 8, 199
COUNGI W R SE SIGN
1 . -Environmental Quality Task Force Presentation Regarding Findings
From Garbage and Recycling Study
2. Request from Charter Commission for Legal Services Funding
3. Banking Services Proposal of Western Bank
4. Franchise Fee Update
5. Discussion of Issues - Survey Results
6. Consideration of Street Light Petition
7. Discussion Regarding Tree Planting Projects and Policies
8. Consideration of Council Chambers Logo
9. 1993 Budget, Proposed 1993 Property Tax Levy and Setting the Date for
A Public Hearing on the 1993 Budget
10. Discussion Regarding Establishment of an Economic Development
Authority (Information to be provided at the meeting.)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 1
�M�IoD�S
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-359WS
AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date: 9-3-92
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Environmental Quality Task Force Presentation Regarding Findings From
Garbage and Recycling Study
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY:
On July 14, 1992, the City Council requested that the
Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) conduct a study of the
city's options with respect to garbage and recycling collection.
Attached are their recommendations. for the city, which touch on
four areas: Waste Reduction and Reuse, Recycling, Composting,
and Garbage Disposal. Several members of the EQTF will be in
attendance at the Work Session to present the recommendation to
the Council.
Please note that if the Council wishes to adopt the EQTF's
recommendations in full, there are some time limitations if there
is to be a city-wide recycling program on line by January 1993 .
These limitations will be more fully explained at the work
session if deemed appropriate by the Council. In terms the
city's timeline with respect to organized collection of garbage,
the city now has a minimum of 90 days in which to "discuss
possible collection arrangements with all licensed collectors
• operating in the city who have expressed interest" , if indeed the
Council is still interested in pursuing the idea.
Staff—is—looking—for—direction from the—Council—regarding_c arbage _.
and recycling issues.
CitaX CLOIL1).6-
Carla Asleson
Recycling Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION;
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RECYCLING AND GARBAGE SYSTEMS
Submitted by the Environmental Quality Task Force
Mounds View, Minnesota
September 8, 1992
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report was prepared by the Mounds View Environmental Quality
Task Force (EQTF) in response to a request from the City Council
to investigate the City's options with respect to garbage and
recycling collection within municipal limits. Using the Waste
Management Goals as defined by the City Council and the hierarchy
of waste disposal as defined by Ramsey County, the EQTF met
weekly through the months of July and August 1992 to prepare this
report. Meetings included input from interested residents, local
trash and recycling companies, and interested business persons .
The major recommendations of the Environmental Quality Task Force
are as follows:
GARBAGE: Continue to allow residents to choose their own
hauler, but designate only one day per week in which pick-
ups may be done. This pick-up day would be the same for all
haulers in the City. The City should not attempt to
standardize pick-up services, such as requiring collection
of appliances or furniture. They should, however, clarify
the City Code to require at least three volume based garbage
rates and emphasize the availability of these rates to
residents .
RECYCLING: After determining an appropriate funding
mechanism, the City should contract with one recycling
company to do weekly City-wide pick-up of recycling on the
same day as garbage. Recycling must be made available to
all residents regardless of their housing type; businesses
must be encouraged to recycle all types of materials, as
well.
Rationale for these and other recommendations are included in the
report that follows this summary.
Member-s_of the_Envir_onmental_Ouality Task_Force
Muriel Brainard
Linda Hansohn
Inga Kellner
Gerald Kluthe
Richard Oman
Josey Warren
City Council Liaison
Pat Rickaby
Staff Liaison
Carla Asleson
INTRODUCTION
Waste Management Goals as Determined by State, County and City
Minnesota State Statutes and Ramsey County have adopted as a goal
the following hierarchy of waste management practice (listed in
order of preference) for dealing with solid waste:
1. Waste Reduction and Reuse;
2 . Waste Recycling;
3 . Composting of yard waste and food waste;
4 . Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste
composting or incineration; and
-5-. Land-disposal
The City of Mounds View, in Resolution No. 4239, established the
following goals for the City:
1. Standardization of garbage and recycling services;
2 . Improvement of recycling participation;
3 . Reduction of street wear, air pollution, and noise
pollution, caused to a certain extent by multiple trucks
operating on the same streets;
4 . Reporting of timely and accurate data regarding garbage and
recycling to County and State Offices; and
5. Compliance with all applicable State Laws regarding garbage
and recycling within the City
With these goals in mind, the Mounds View Environmental Quality
Task Force (EQTF) examined the following garbage systems:
Open Hauling
Zone Hauling (Non-Organized)
Consortium Contract Hauling
Municipal Garbage Collection
Single Hauler Contract Collection
These systems are explained in detail in Appendix A.
were studied:
Organized Recycling (Contract with Single Recycler)
Integrated Recycling (Garbage Hauler Responsible for Recycling)
WASTE REDUCTION AND REUSE
The most preferred methods of managing solid waste is by
encouraging people to reduce the amount of garbage they generate
(by changing their shopping habits) and to reuse materials rather
than throwing them in the trash. Reduction and reuse are the
most economically and environmentally sound methods of solid
waste management, because they eliminate the need to dispose of
materials at a sites away from the waste generator, such as
recycling facilities, compost sites, incinerators, and landfills.
Public education is the key to getting people to change their
shopping and disposal habits. It is the opinion of the EQTF that
_- ==positive educationcampaignspromoting waste reduction and reuse - -_-
would, in the long run, be more beneficial than enacting waste
reduction ordinances. Creative education efforts, such as public
presentations, should be pursued.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The City should work toward educating residents on how to
reduce the amount of waste they generate and on how to
arrange for the reuse of items that they personally no
longer use. Modes of communication that might be used
toward this end include the use of cable television, the
City Newsletter, and joint efforts with Ramsey County and
neighboring cities.
2. The City should encourage businesses to market and sell
returnable items, such as milk jugs and soda bottles, so
that these items do not end up in either the recycling bins
or in the trash.
RECYCLING
After waste reduction and reuse, the next preferred method of
waste disposal is to recycle materials back into their original
form or into another material. In Mounds View, curbside
recycling is provided by garbage haulers to all single family and
duplex residences as a part of garbage service. Recycling at
mobile home parks, apartments, and businesses is contracted
separately from garbage, although all garbage haulers are
required to offer it to these customers. Pick-up of grass and
leaf clippings is provided by the haulers at an additional cost
during two eight-week periods each year.
When compared to other cities in Ramsey County, Mounds- View-has a
very low rate of recycling participation in terms of the amount
of collected material. For example, Mounds View collected 6.91
pounds of recyclables per person per month during the second half
of 1991; during this same period, the City of Shoreview collected
13 .58 pounds/person/month (the County average was 9.97
pounds/person/month) . This low rate, along with the State of
Minnesota's goal for 1996 that 50% of all discarded waste be
recycled, shows a need for the City to find ways to improve
recycling participation.
The EQTF compared two types of recycling collection methods,
noting each method's relationship to the City's waste management
goals and the costs and benefits of each system to City
residents. These comparisons are noted in Appendix B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recycling System for Single Family Homes and Duplexes
All of the members of the EQTF feel that the current method
of recycling pick-up should be changed so that a recycling
contract is negotiated and one recycling company would do
recycling collection for single family homes and duplexes.
Those cities that -have-a-one-hauler/same-day/-city-wide
recycling system tend to have better recycling participation
rates than those which leave recycling to the trash haulers.
This program could be funded in one of the following ways:
a. In agreement with Ramsey County, placement of a
"Recycling Fee" on County Property Taxes;
b. Creation of a Recycling Utility; households would
be charged this fee on their quarterly utility
bill; or
c. Substantially raise the cost of hauler license
fees and use the extra money to fund the recycling
program.
Regardless of the billing system used, the City would need
to collect between $20. 00 and $30.00 per year for recycling
services, including pick-up of materials, administration,
and public education.
2. Recycling System for Apartment Buildings
The EQTF recommends that the City Council see to it that ALL
apartment buildings in the City have a recycling program
provided. Smaller apartment buildings are able to do
curbside recycling in much the same way as single family
homes, i.e. with green recycling bins. However, larger
apartment buildings need to use a centralized collection
container, such as a dumpster.
The preferred method of getting all apartments to have a
recycling program is to include these types of buildings in
the city-wide program with single family homes and duplexes.
Funding for apartment buildings may be obtained in the same
manner as for the single family/duplex program. An
alternative method would be to change the current City code
to require that an apartment building owner provide a
recycling program to its tenants and to exempt recycling
dumpsters from the City's dumpster enclosure ordinance.
3 . Recycling System for Mobile Homes
The Task Force also' stresses the importance of having
curbside pick-up available to residents of mobile home
parks. Currently, two of the three mobile home parks in the
City offer residents curbside service and the other offers a
centralized drop-off area.
From the standpoint of pick-ups, mobile homes can be
serviced in the same way as single family/duplex units.
However, if the City chooses to use the Ramsey County
Property Tax method to fund the pick-ups, mobile home parks
cannot be required to participate in the City's program.
They can, however, choose to contract separately with the
City for service.
4. Day and Number of Recycling Pick-Ups
It was deemed absolutely essential that recycling be picked
up on the same day as garbage and that recycling day be the
same day for every type of living unit in the City. The
rationale behind this decision was that people will be more
likely to remember to put out their bins if they only have
to remember one pick-up day for both garbage and recycling.
The EQTF also felt that, while likely to be more expensive
than bi-weekly service, weekly collection of recyclable
materials must be provided. Again, it was felt that by
setting up the system so that garbage and recycling could be
put out at the same time, residents would be more likely to
set out their bins.
5. Business Recycling
Business recycling differs from residential recycling in
that there are many specialized types of materials that can
be recycled. In discussions with local businesses, it was
learned that everything from hazardous waste to animal fat
to scrap metal has a market for recycling. The EQTF
believes strongly that businesses should recycle everything
that they possibly can in order to divert the materials from
the waste stream. However, because of the unique recycling
needs of area businesses and because the City does not
require individual households to recycle, the EQTF does not
recommend mandatory recycling for businesses. It does
recommend that the City encourage businesses to recycle and
to work with the Mounds View Business Association toward
this purpose.
6. Yard Waste (that which is not composted at home) and Tree
Waste
For the time being, the EQTF recommends that the present
yard and tree waste system (where haulers provide separate
pick-up) be left in place. The current system is user-fee
based; it requires that haulers offer curbside pick-up, but
residents are charged extra for the service. This system
encourages residents to leave their grass clippings on the
lawn rather than bagging them for curbside disposal; those
that feel they must dispose of the materials have the option
of using one of the County Compost Sites at no charge.
The possibility of contracting for a single hauler of yard
and tree waste was discussed by the EQTF. Benefits of such
a system would include the possibility of being able to
require the use of reusable containers (rather than plastic
bags) for yard waste, the ability to arrange for tree waste
chipping, and the elimination of some of the trucks which
collect yard waste. However, the EQTF recommends that a
decision be made about the City's garbage and recycling
system—before—changingtheyard and—tree—waste policies.
COMPOSTING OF YARD WASTE AND FOOD WASTE
Composting is the process that converts yard and food waste into
an organic soil amendment or mulch through a decomposition
process. Two ways in which residents can compost at home is by
leaving their grass clippings on the lawn (rather than bagging
them) or by keeping a home compost pile of organic materials.
Again, public education on this subject is the best way to
encourage composting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 The City should, as a part of an overall solid waste
education program, inform residents as to the benefits and
the process of home composting.
2 . More detail should be added to the current provisions in the
code relating to composting, particularly with regard to
placement of compost piles and materials allowed in a
compost pile.
GARBAGE
The least preferred method (on a household level) of disposal of
materials is throwing them into the garbage. However, not all
materials are able to be recycled, so some things will end up on
the garbage truck.
The City of Mounds View has seven haulers currently licensed to
service single family residential homes, with nine additional
haulers that service apartment complexes, mobile home parks, and
commercial businesses (see Appendix C) . There has been some
concern regarding the number of companies licensed to operate in
the City. Specifically, the issues of noise and air pollution,
street wear (from multiple trucks using smaller -streets) and City
administrative time spent tracking multiple haulers were
discussed by the EQTF.
In response to these concerns, the EQTF studied five types of
garbage systems that the City could implement and weighed each
system's costs and benefits to City residents. These comparisons
are outlined in Appendix D.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Garbage Collection System
The EQTF unanimously recommends that the City change its
garbage system to a non-organized, zone method of
collection. This system would require that all haulers
complete collection at residential, apartment buildings, and
mobile homes on one day each week (for example, everyone's
garbage would be collected on Tuesday) . On that same day,
the contracted City recycler would collect recyclable
materials.
The EQTF reached this recommendation after studying the five
collection systems noted in Appendix D. Their primary
rationale for choosing-this-particular system was that it
standardizes collection (both garbage and recycling) by
offering pick-up on only one day a week while still allowing
residents to choose the hauler that best fits their
particular service needs. Of the five methods examined, the
only other method that allowed residents the freedom to
choose their own hauler was the current, open collection
system. It was the opinion of the EQTF that "competition
brings quality" and that allowing residents to choose their
own hauler was of great importance in any recommended
system.
Costs for pick-up are currently determined by the haulers
and would continue to be so under the zone system. The EQTF
does acknowledge that the costs of collection may be
initially less under organized systems (such as single
hauler and consortium arrangements) for some services and
for some residents. However, if the City went to one of
these organized systems, there would be some residents that
would have to pay more than they did under the current open
system, particularly those who currently use the bag rate
system. In addition, there was a concern that hauler rates
would cease to be competitive over the long term and that
the quality of services provided would suffer without on-
going market competition among haulers.
Street wear and pollution from garbage trucks may not be
reduced with the implementation of a zone system. Freedom
of choice among haulers was deemed a more important concern
to the EQTF than the street wear and pollution issues.
However, the assumption of the zone system is that it would
be set up in conjunction with a single recycling collection;
with only one recycling truck going down each street, some
of the truck traffic will be reduced. It is also assumed
that as recycling participation increases, the weight of
individual garbage trucks will decrease - thus alleviating
some of the road wear caused now by garbage trucks.
2 . Required Services and Separately Managed Wastes
The issue of whether to require that haulers offer
particular services, such as garage-side pick-up, or
collection of certain items, like appliances and furniture,
was discussed by the EQTF. It was determined that, for the
most part, it would be best to leave these issues for the
market to determine; residents who require such specialized
services would be free to choose another hauler under the
EQTF's recommended non-organized zone hauling. Although the
market would determine the offering of these services, the
EQTF does recommend that the rates for these services be
disclosed to the City on license application forms, so that
the City can direct inquiring residents to haulers that
provide specialized services.
In additionIt is-the-recommendation-of—the EQTFthatthe
current City code be changed to require each hauler to offer
at least three volume based rate containers in their fee
schedule and to encourage haulers to offer a bag rate as a
service.
3 . Reporting of Amount of Garbage Collected
Currently, haulers are required to report to the City only
the amount of recyclable materials that they collect -
garbage tonnages are not reported to the City. County-wide
figures on the amount of garbage collected are available
(since all Ramsey County garbage must be taken to Newport)
but these figures are not available on a City basis. This
data would be necessary to determine the effectiveness of
waste reduction education efforts.
The EQTF recommends that the City investigate ways of
obtaining these garbage tonnages. Some haulers have a
concern in that they have a limited number of pick-ups in
the City and collect in other cities before taking their
trash to Newport, thereby making the tonnages for Mounds
View inaccurate. Further investigation on the topic would
need to take place.
Appendix A
EXPLANATION OF GARBAGE HAULING SYSTEMS
OPEN HAULING
This is the method that is currently used in Mounds View. Residents choose their own hauler and that
hauler can pick up on any day of the week. Billing is done by individual haulers.
ZONING METHOD (NON-ORGANIZED)
A zoning method allows residents to choose their hauler, but requires that haulers pick up materials on
a specific day. The same number of trucks would travel on the streets, but all traffic would pass
through on one day of the week. Billing is done by individual haulers.
BID CONTRACT BY DISTRICT/ORGANIZED CONSORTIUM HAULING
Organized consortium hauling is an association of all haulers licensed in a particular city. A single
contract is negotiated between the city and the hauler consortium which specifies charge and service
levels. Routes are either redesigned to reflect the number of accounts each hauler had under the open
hauling system or divided equally among all haulers. Residents and businesses are assigned the hauler
designated to serve their street or district. Billing can be done by either the city or by the individual
haulers. Service levels and costs are consistent throughout the city since there is only one contract.
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION
Municipal Collection would give the City the responsibility for collection of garbage and recycling.
Private haulers would no longer operate within the city; the city would purchase its own trucks and
containers for residents and/or businesses. Billing would be done through the city utility system.
BID CONTRACT-ONE HAULER
In this system, the city establishes guidelines for service at all residential and/or commercial
establishments:Contracts are either sent out for bids or are negotiated with-the--hauler-s.—One-hauler
then services the entire city. Billing can be done by either the city or the hauler.
Appendix B
RECYCLING OPTIONS
Recycling Separate From Garbage Recycling Collected by Haulers
(Organized Recycling) with Garbage (Current System)
Standardization of • Everyone in city would have same • Recycling day is dependent upon
Recycling Services pick up day which hauler is used
• Same materials collected at each • Same materials collected at each
household household (per Ordinance, after
• Material separation method same September 1)
for each households • Material separation methods
differ by hauler _
Improvement of • Contract and billing method • Many multiple family complexes
Recycling Participation could be constructed such that do not have recycling available to
multiple family homes could be tenants;would need to pass
included in the city program ordinance to make this available
• If hauler is paid by weight, there • Haulers do not have an incentive
is an incentive for haulers to work to take recyclables, as they
with city to improve participation represent an added cost to them
(especially plastics)
Reduction of Street This method would result in only Street wear and pollution resulting
Wear, Noise Pollution, one recycling truck going down each from multiple recycling trucks will
and Air Pollution street, resulting in some reduction continue at current levels
of pollution and street wear
Reporting of Accurate There would likely be an increase in Accuracy of recycling tonnage
Recycling Data tonnage accuracy (after the city is reports and time needed to prepare
collected, materials are weighed them will continue at current levels
separately) and reporting would be
simplified since only one company
would need to submit reports to the
city
Costs to City and • Households would be charged a • Recycling costs are hidden in
Residents new fee on their taxes for recycling; garbage fees; residents don't know
garbage fees will-n--otgo—down-by a -that-recycling costs money
like amount • Enforcement of the various
hauler recycling programs is
difficult - city doesn't always know
if haulers are abiding the code
unless they get a complaint
• Types of recycling programs
differ by hauler (co-mingled vs.
source separated programs) More
difficult to do city wide education
• More difficult to do "pilot"
programs - add experimental
materials to collection list
Appendix B, cont.
Recycling Separate From Garbage Recycling Collected by Haulers
(Organized Recycling) with Garbage (Current System)
Benefits to City and • Recycling fee would show • Recycling is now on the same
Residents residents that recycling isn't free - day as garbage; easier to remember
that while it's good for the to put items on the curb only one
environment, it costs money just day a week
like garbage collection • Garbage haulers are currently
• More city/hauler education efforts subsidizing the costs of recycling in
would be possible since program their garbage fees. Residents enjoy
would be standardized and the city a lower overall disposal rate;
would only have to coordinate with recycling costs are hidden in
one hauling company garbage fees.
• City would have morecontrol
over the enforcement of recycling
since there would be a contract to
follow rather than just the city code
• More likelihood of being able to
start innovative pilot programs in
the future
Appendix C
LICENSED GARBAGE HAULERS
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
Revised 12-10-91
Hauler Mailing Address Phone Type(s) of Buildings
Number Serviced
Aagard Sanitation, Inc. 875 North Prior Avenue 645-1388 Multiple Family
St. Paul, MN 55104 Commercial
Ace Solid Waste Management 3118 162nd Lane NW 427-3110 Residential
Anoka, MN 55304 Mobile Homes
Becker's Sanitation 19447 Baugh Street NW 441-1509 Residential
Elk River, MN 55330
BFI Action Disposal 4325 East 66th Street 455-8634 Multiple Family
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 Commercial
Gallagher's Services, Inc. 1691 91st Avenue NE 784-4709 Multiple Family
Blaine, MN 55434 Mobile Homes
Commercial
Larry's Quality Sanitation 17210 Driscoll Street NW 441-4090 Residential
Anoka, MN 55303
Nitti Disposal, Inc. 3291 Terminal Drive 451-1421 Commercial
Eagan, MN 55121
Peterson Brothers Sanitation 740 Industry Avenue 427-1688 Mobile Homes
Anoka, MN 55433
Ray Anderson and Sons 930 Duluth Street 774-2550 Construction Dumpster
St. Paul, MN 55106 Boxes
Twin City Sanitation, Inc. 279 Meadowood Lane 483-1221 Residential
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Multiple Family
Commercial
Vasko Rubbish Removal 920 Atlantic Street 774-0916 Multiple Family
St. Paul, MN 55106 Commercial
Walter's Rubbish, Inc. P.O. Box 34128 780-8464 Multiple Family
Blaine, MN 55434 —Commercial
WasteCo, Inc. 95 West Ivy 227-6394 Commercial
St. Paul, MN 55117
Waste Management of Blaine 10050 Naples Street NE 784-8349 Residential
Blaine, MN 55434 Multiple Family
Mobile Homes
Commercial
Wildwood Sanitation Box 176 459-7926 Residential
Newport, MN 55055 Multiple Family
Commercial
Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. 8661 Rendova Street 784-2104 Residential
P.O. Box 39 Multiple Family
Circle Pines, MN 55104 Mobile Homes
Commercial
Appendix D
GARBAGE OPTIONS
Open Hauling (Current System) Zone System (Open Hauling, with
pick-ups required on a certain day)
Standardization of Garbage services that are offered Garbage services that are offered
Garbage Services are determined by the hauler. City are determined by the hauler. City
does not require pick-up of does not require pick-up of
particular items (except yard waste). particular items (except yard
Would need to pass ordinance in waste). Would need to pass
order to mandate pick-up of items ordinance in order to mandate
such as couches, appliances, and pick-up of items such as couches,
brush. Garbage days are appliances, and brush. In a zone
determined by hauler. system, city would also mandate a
particular pick-up day.
Reduction in Street Because multiple trucks utilize city Multiple trucks would still use the
Wear, Noise Pollution, streets, street wear, noise pollution, city streets; no improvement on
and Air Pollution and air pollution is a concern to the street wear or air pollution. Noise
City Council from garbage trucks would be
concentrated to one day per week
Reporting of Timely While the city does not need to See open hauling.
and Accurate Data report garbage tonnages to the
county and state, this data would
prove helpful if the city wished to
implement a Waste Reduction
program. At this time, haulers do
not provide this data.
Compliance with State The letter of this law was satisfied See open hauling
Law which holds cities when the Council passed an
responsible for knowing ordinance that requires garbage
how waste is being pick-ups. However, enforcement of
disposed the ordinance could be time
consuming; there is not sufficient
city staff to track every household.
Costs_t&Residents_and— • V_ariationin_service levels; not all See costs of open hauling PLUS
the City haulers provide appliance pick-up or
bag rates, for example • Possible increases in garbage fees
• Street wear and pollution from if this system is implemented;
multiple trucks running down the haulers have indicated that their
same streets costs may rise if their routes must
• Administration costs - time spent be changed
in licensing and coordinating • Noise of all trucks on the same
multiple haulers and tracking day could be an annoyance to some
complaints about those who do not
have a hauler
Appendix D, cont.
Open Hauling (Current System) Zone System (Open Hauling, with
pick-ups required on a certain day)
Benefits to Residents • Freedom of choice in hauler See benefits of open hauling PLUS:
and the City selection
• "Competition brings quality" • Noise from trucks would only
idea;theoretically, competition annoy people once per week
drives down costs and brings up • If combined with organized
service quality recycling, all pick-ups (garbage and
• Bag rate currently offered by one recycling) could be done on the
hauler is the lowest rate available same day
anywhere;bid contract may not be
able to match this rate
• License fees are a source of
revenue
Appendix D, cont.
Consortium Hauling Municipal Hauling
Standardization of By contract, all haulers in a The city would provide the same
Garbage Services consortium would provide the same service levels and costs to all
services at a uniform cost. residents
Reduction in Street Duplication in pick-up would be Duplication in pick-up would be
Wear, Noise Pollution, eliminated. One truck would eliminated. One truck would
and Air Pollution service each street, resulting in a service each street, resulting in a
reduction in street wear and reduction in street wear and
pollution pollution
Reporting of Timely One report on garbage tonnage Since the city would be doing the
and Accurate Data could be a requirement of the pick-ups, reports on garbage
consortium contract tonnages would be readily available
if the city-wished_to embark on a
waste reduction program
Compliance with State This system would require that All residents would use the city's
Law which holds cities residents use a particular hauler, system; thus the city would be able
responsible for knowing and thus the city would know that to document compliance
how waste is being every household has a hauler
disposed
Costs to Residents and • Service to residents would be • High liability risks with city doing
the City solely on the basis of the contract; actual hauling
no incentive for haulers to go • High initial start up costs (over
"above and beyond" $100,000 per truck). May be
• Residents would not have a difficult to maximize use of
choice in which hauler services their equipment in a small city
home • A new city bureaucracy would be
• Administratively, this system formed - from administration to
would require the most time - must garbage employees - that would
hold multiple haulers accountable to need to be funded
a contract • Loss of license fees
• Potential liability?
Benefits to Residents • Street wear reduction since • Load limits on streets could be
and the City duplication of service on a given self-enforced; no need to weigh
street is eliminated garbage trucks in the Spring
• Pollution would be reduced • Potential for innovative programs
somewhat —(Farmhrgton's weight-based-fees,
• Multiple haulers would still be for example)
allowed to operate in the city
Appendix D, cont.
Single Hauler Contract
Standardization of All households would be offered
Garbage Services the same services
Reduction in Street One truck would go down each
Wear, Noise Pollution, street, resulting in a reduction in
and Air Pollution street wear. The number of trucks
needed to service the city would
also decrease, reducing the
pollution problem
Reporting of Timely This system would allow for
and Accurate Data accurate reports on the amount of
garbage generated in the city
Compliance with State If all households were serviced by a
Law which holds cities single hauler, the city would have
responsible for knowing the means to know where all
how waste is being garbage was being taken/disposed
disposed
Costs to Residents and • Residents would have no
the City recourse if they didn't like the city's
hauler
• After bidding process is over,
there is no competition among
hauler to provide quality service
• Loss of license fees
• Potential to drive out small
haulers, leading to potentially
higher bids in future years
• Liability issues for the city?
Benefits to Residents • Reduction in street wear, and
and the City pollution
• Every resident would have a
hauler and a means to dispose of
problem materials
• Data collection would be
simplified
`Standarid ation of-services
offered - residents would be more
aware of volume based rates
Note: It was determined by the EQTF that recycling issues should be considered seperately from
garbage. Therefore, although"improvement in recycling participation"was determined by the City
Council to be a waste management goal, it is not considered here.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 2.
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-360WS
OUNDS
Report Date: 9-3-92
nilir
AGENDA SESSION DATE Sept emhPr R, 1 992
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Request from Charter Commission for Legal Services Funding
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY`
Len Burgers, Chair of the Charter Commission will be present at the
meeting Tuesday to request that the Council provide funding for an
attorney to review the Charter and advise the Commission.
(:::„.\
,l°
f
..,<4-96--e--1A-c.)-
Sam_an l`ia Orduno, City Administrator
RECOMMENDATION;
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 3.
'VS
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-361WS
° AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date: 9-3-92
DISPOSITION
Item Description: BANKING SERVICES PROPOSALS
Administrator's Review/Recommendation: 4:/,5
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
Pursuant to Council direction given at a recent Work Session I meet
with representatives of Western Bank to negotiate a Banking Services
Proposal. Attached please find a worksheet comparing their revised
proposal with the proposals that were previously submitted. The
revised proposal of Western Bank is $296.60 per month. That is $202
per month less than their original proposal. In comparison to present
bank charges of $356.97 per month from Firstar Bank the Western Bank
proposal is $60. 37 per month less. The lowest proposal originally
received was $237.35 from the Spring Lake Park State Bank. That
proposal is $59.25 per month less than the proposal of Western Bank.
Western Bank is closer to the City Hall than the Spring Lake Park
State Bank. As such, a case could be made that the difference in the
monthly fee between Spring Lake Park State Bank and Western Bank would
be more than offset by the increased costs the City would incur as a
result of the increased travel time and travel expense of banking at
First State Bank of Spring Lake Park compared to banking at Western
Bank.
One of the General Conditions of the City's Request for Proposals for
Banking Services states, "Selection will be based upon the best value
—tithe Citp. Criteria—includes, but is-not--l- mi-ted-to, services -
offered, their cost, and qualifications of key employees who will
manage the City's relationship with the Bank. " It appears that a
strong case could be made that Western Bank will provide the best
value in banking services to the City of Mounds View.
Staff awaits Council direction in the selection of a bank to provide
banking services to the City.
RECOMMENDATION; c-X"`'s-st--s
Donald Br ger, Fin e Director
Lock Zero Payroll Employee Mileage
Total Box Account Balance Sweep Direct Banking Nearest from
Fees Service Reconciliation Accounts Account Deposit Services Location City Hall
$498.60 25 mo + not curently $25/mo maint N/A
'per: one acc't Hwy 10 & 0.6 mi
$0.20/item provided fee 6payroll + per employeeRed Oak Dr
(.185/item checking;
iskette: free;no int;
$12/payroll+ no nun bal;
+$0. 255/item buy own chks
O
savings:
free;
no min bal;
$237.35 N/A yes N/A available; NJA now bank bro- near Hwy 10 ?
not actively s/b in 1993 chure not & Hwy 65
offered clear
$406.5365(mo + yes $25/mo saint $300.00/mo yes-pricing checking: University 6.8 mi
$0. 20/item fee info not in freeino int;& Osborne Rd
proposal no min bal;
buy own chks
(1st order
free)
$444.89 190/mo + yes $35/mo saint $100/mo $25 + checking: Silver Lk Rd 8.0 mi
.25/item fee +$0.06/item free; int; & Palmer Dr
no min bal;
buy own chks
(1st order
free)
$416.0390/mo + yes $50/mo saint not $13/mo + checking: Northtown 7.0 mi
$.26/item fee mentioned $0.09/item frreffi; int;
nin buy own chks
(1st order
free)
$356:97 ? ? ? ? ? ? Silver_Lk-Rd_8.0_Ili
& Palmer Dr
$296.60 25/mo + not curently $25/mo saint N/A aper: one acc't Hwy 10 & 0.6 mi
50.20/item provided fee 6 ppayyroll + p2r employeeRed Oak Dr
0.185/item checking;
isket e: free;no int;
$12/payroll+ no min bal;
+$0.025/item buy own chks
savings:
free;
no min bal;
Checks Deposited Account
Deposit Checks Stop Return Inconing Outgoing Maintenance
Bank Local Transit Fee Paid Payments Itens Wires Wires Fee
Western $188.55 $3.60 $3.30 $63.15 $57.00 $14.00 $100.00 $45.00 $24.00
Spring Lk Pk $150.84 $3.36 $0.00 $63.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20.00
Marquette $163.41 $5.28 $9.90 $58.94 $45.00 $8.00 $50.00 $27.00 $39.00
Norwest $155.87 $5.28 $8.80 $58.94 $60.00 $12.00 $80.00 $24.00 $40.00
First Bank $163.41 $5.28 $9.90 $58.94 $51.00 $12.00 $60.00 $28.50 $27.00
Firstar $150:84 $4:80 $6.60------$54„43 $36.00 $12.00 $50.00 $30.00 $12_._00
Western(revised) $188.55 $3.60 $3.30 $63.15 $0.00 $14.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24.00
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 5.
11171DS
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 97-3h3WS
Uw° AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date: 9-3-92
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Discussion of Issues — Survey Results
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
Attached please find the summary and response sheet of the recent Issues
Survey which was conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. This item is placed
on the Agenda for general discussion and more specifically to address the
issue of the new Police Department facility and possible referendum.
411111111
. antha Orduno, Ci Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 6.
1111iDUNDS
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-364WS
AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date: 9-3-
92
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Consideration of Street Light Petition
Administrator's Review/Recommendation: )(yel-'"
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARYa
The City has received a street light petition from residents on the 7400
block of Knollwood Drive to install a new street light.
This petition request has met all of the criteria of the City's Streetlight
Installation Policy such as obtaining the necessary signatures and
complying with required distance between existing street lights. I have
also discussed the logistics of installing a new light with NSP and the
various options available to the City. It is recommended to install a
street light on either the south property line of 7452 Knollwood or the
south property line of 7434 Knollwood.
NSP has quoted the following for underground installation:
The power pole NSP would auger from is located on the property line behind
7452 and 7434 Knollwood. NSP has run a cost analysis and has estimated
that burying the cable at south 7452 Knollwood would cost about $371 and
burying the cable at south 7434 Knollwood cost about $556 .
Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant--
REC OMMENDATION:
Motion to authorize City Staff to proceed with the most cost effective option of burying
the cable underground (south 7452 Knollwood) at a cost not to exceed $400 to be funded
from the Street Light Utility Fund, Account #770-4121-705.
STREET LIGHT PETITION
le, the undersigned, do hereby a ress our posit'on in re d to the request that
L street light be installed at 1L
}
.:2)
1QA 5
TAME (Print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE AGREE/DISAGREE
L.5-A/e ra �M i 1 f e r• 151.6" /c14'1 // d
.D(.koa--- ryee7f 7-V6i - /v6LccaiaoD"be, cls
ci4eivi
3. `,-k-eiv� okS Ack_P .t ;n _--. 52-.N__ G,1 62e_c___-
+ R
5 .0 P(//n//e.P(//n//e. e� � 795 �'j/A///wool)
e /7,rt��ce
qtv
5 l rn& L-- areu,s L.4
ac /' i „)`f o- x ata �..oo C '�y' v9e,
B. _ 4P-1)--P, 7q/"a` l 0fZ 4414 4-yviz
11. el\ Swey,s,r 0 71 16,,011&odd
12 . 5 kie r Coo— t3 13S tel(w cedc7. v < .2.177-e, Li2.,,_ C.c-c J-< a
'111,3- ° e A c�:t�` �'
,
15 .
16.
17 .
18.
19 .
20 .
7624 -. MO TWO < &k 't1i
TS14 .. . 7"4 7619 Mei 291
7•04 a'-: 74040 Mil AIM
res �1� =
.... _rte
- -- _ Pf
-. -_ ma v.
-- - - — e ,1111141.11:1 rice3 'g
• .
4E1
=11
ISM : •
El
EWo N„ ,, 011. „,, „.. . .
O A!
el.Lcid,_
i -
:,..; 17, L.
tA :Pt • M rai,11111)
7462 MI* t 'tiro
7440
? 17: 0
1, -Itti
.3. v 7... ilie - ummapi. .!
1'430 7431 =Ell ;•r ..
4; Lfillagil
?300 3a2 ” 13+02 - n u n
...,.,r• H ___ __
e'1
-,.til -� _
,...........
rim 713 • Fi. 111111-
" a—m-VIIILI ni A. szz
ii , . i I i IR - 1.13 :11E11G 7310 riti"VIA . . .
0 n
1:i 1 :{ 7. 21 : i
lt,:2 .4 2 Z 2 o �_
4 I 7214 ry
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 7_
nrlorOUNnS
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-365W5
OLW9-3-92
AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date:
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Discussion Regarding Tree Planting Projects and Policies
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
Councilmember Quick has expressed concern regarding the lack of funds for the
purchase of larger trees in the Forestry budget. The issue of purchase of larger trees for
special projects such as shading bleacher areas has been discussed with the Parks and
Recreation Commission, who were unanimously in agreement with the idea. The
Commission has been satisfied with the smaller tree planting policy, but would encourage
movement of larger trees in the parks for needs such as bleacher shade.
Discussion of Councilmember Quick's concerns and suggestions will be on the agenda at
the Work Session on Tuesday, September 8, 1992.
,,frary aarion, Director
Parks, ' ecreation and Forestry Department
RECOMMENDATION;
MEMO TO: MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS
• PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIONERS
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARKS, RECREATION & FORESTRY
DATE: AUGUST 18, 1992
SUBJECT: TREE PLANTING PROJECTS & POLICIES
Councilmember Quick has suggested that the City of Mounds View
look into the feasibility of planting large trees, perhaps 6" in
trunk diameter or larger rather than 2" trunk diameter trees.
-Usually the City plants the -smaller -2"_ trunk diameter tree rather
than the larger trees because of cost. Five smaller trees can be
planted for the same cost of planting one larger tree. Larger
trees offer instant shade, but the growth of larger trees is
retarded because of the shock of transplanting. Smaller trees
tend to grow more quickly and eventually catch up to the larger
transplanted trees. Smaller trees are more susceptible to
vandalism. Smaller trees are planted in a long term plan, large
trees are planted in a short term plan. A combination of both
small and large trees offers both long term and short term
planting.
Councilmember Quick has suggested a planting plan which calls for
. planting two large trees in each park. Forester Wriskey
predicted that a large 6" trunk diameter tree, transplanted with
machine, would cost approximately $800. 00 each.
Councilmember Quick also suggested a project whereby all the
bleacher areas of park ballfields are shaded with trees.
Currently Hillview and Silver View offer shaded areas for
ballfield spectators. However, Groveland, Oakwood, Lambert and
City Hall would need large trees to provide shade. If one large
shade tree were planted at Oakwood, one at Lambert and two at
City Hall, the total cost for the four large shade trees would be
approximately $3, 200. 00.
Needless to say, the bencfits of having larger trees at parks,
with added shade for ballfield bleacher spectators would be great
and would add to the parks' amenities.
August 20, 1992
To: Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry
From: Rick Wriskey, City Forester
Subject: Large Tree Transplanting
A tree planting policy using large, machine-dug trees (6-8" dia.) would offer immediate
presence and shade in selected park areas. Their cost (tree and moving), however, would be
in the area of $500-$800 depending on species and availability.
A purchased/hand planted tree of the same species would cost about $150 per specimen of
2-3" diameter. Immediate impact would be less than a machine planted tree but re-
establishment would be faster as transplant shock is actually less for a smaller tree. One
could expect the trees to be of similar size in about 10 years time.
Planting for shade by bleacher and viewing areas around ball fields will be targeted with four
(4) large trees planned for 1993 at City Hall, Lambert and Oakwood Parks. This should be
included as a budgeted item.
There is a possibility ofusing LCMWEnergy grant dollars for this and more if approved. I
will keep you posted on this development. Pleasc lct me know if more contract planting of
this nature is requested or required.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION111( Agenda Section: 8.
GUINEA
STAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-366WS
O Report Date: 9-3-92
AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8. 1992
DISPOSITION
Item Description: Consideration of Council Chambers Logo
Administrator's Review/Recommendation: #/l.,l .�
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
-- 0 -
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY%
Staff has been asked to look into the cost and feasibility of wood carving
the letters "City of Mounds View" , similar to the logo, and attaching them
to the back wall (behind the Council) of the City Council Chambers .
Two woodworkers have been contacted and both have quoted prices around
$200 . One of the woodworkers has drawn a scheme of what it would like on
a smaller scale. The letters would also be stained to match the existing
color of the back wall of the Council Chambers .
i°41;IV
Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant
RECOMMENDATION:
Council to direct staff on how to proceed with a wood carving of the Mounds
View logo for the Council Chambers .
•
v ao. .
4
•
"'^+tea _ _ _ 1 - ..._. ..,_ , _
z
•
•
f
•
-1411111.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . . _ . _ ..... .•
. .
, , ..
. . . ,
. esmi. . . .... .. _
._ .
• .
. .
. .
4
0 .
•
. .4 ' I
........_ .!,_ . ,....,. . . . .... ... . ...
.„.„.,...
...
..._................
.. . .
V
ftk.-?; 1 ?(t
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 9.
1111ONJf STAFF REPORT Report Number: 97-367WS
708
AGENDA SESSION DATE September 8, 1992 Report Date: 9-3-92
DISPOSITION
Item Description:
PROPOSED 1993 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
Administrator's Review/Recommendation:
- No comments to supplement this report
- Comments attached.
Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.)
SUMMARY;
Pursuant to the State Truth In Taxation Law the following actions must be taken at the
September 14, 1992 Council Meeting:
1) A Proposed 1993 Property Tax Levy must be certified to Ramsey County. The
proposed levy may not be exceeded when adopting the Final Levy at the City's Budget
Hearing.
2) The City must set a date for it's Budget Hearing and a date for a continuation of the
Hearing if necessary.
Setting a date for the City's Budget Hearing is the easy decision. It must be held between
November 29 and December 20. The Hearing may not be held on the same day that the
County or School District hold their hearings. The County and the School District choose
their dates before the City. The County's Budget Hearing will be held on December 8, 1992 at
6:00 p.m. The School District's Hearing will be held on December 7, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. and if
necessary a continuation of their Hearing will be held on December 14, 1992. Staff
recommends that the City hold it's Budget Hearing on December 9, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. and if
—neeessary-a-continuation---Hearing-on-December-16-1-992-at 6;00 p.m.
At the present time the City's proposed General Fund Budget has been balanced using the
following assumptions:
• The proposed 1993 property tax levy will be approximately the same amount that was
levied in 1992.
• In 1993 the City will use $44,255 of Fund Balance to help achieve a balanced budget
($6,072 for squad cars & $38,183 from 1991 unappropriated Fund Balance).
• A gas and electric franchise fee will be adopted and $154,561 of the franchise fees
will be used to balance the Budget.
RF,COMMENDATION;
Donald Brager, Finan Director
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
PAGE TWO OF THREE
If the Fund Balance and/or the franchise fees are not used to balance the 1993 Budget the
following actions would have to be taken to achieve a balanced Budget:
1) Reduce expenditures.
2) Increase property taxes.
3) A combination of 1 and 2.
Recently information about 1993 fiscal disparities was received from the County. The City will
receive $436,793 in fiscal disparities payments in 1993. That is an increase of $120,649 over
1992 fiscal disparities payments of $316,144. This increase in fiscal disparities payments has
the effect of lowering tax rates because it reduces the amount of property taxes that must be
collected from local taxpayers.
I have recalculated the impact of the City's portion of property taxes on the taxpayer taking
into account the updated information received from Ramsey County on fiscal disparities. If
the City levies the same dollar amount of property taxes in 1993 as it did in 1992 the City's
portion of the property tax bill would be 8.71% less. The 1993 tax capacity rate would be
19.304% compared to the 1992 rate of 21.147%.
Please see the attachment entitled "1993 Property Tax Levy Alternatives". That attachment lists
several 1993 property tax levy alternatives which have been discussed at previous budget work
sessions. One alternative has been to have a property tax levy which does not increase
property tax bills. That could be accomplished by having the same tax capacity rate in 1993
that the City had in 1992. The 1992 tax capacity rate was 21.147%. Using the 1992 tax
capacity rate in 1993 would result in no property tax increase to the taxpayer. It would,
however, generate an additional $79,225 of property tax revenues. See B of 1993 Property Tax
Levy Alternatives.
The 1992 rate of inflation has been projected to be 3% - 4%. Alternatives C and D show the
effect of a 3% and 4% increase in property tax bills. A 3% increase in property tax bills would
raise $106,475 more taxes than were levied in 1992. A 4% increase in property tax bills would
raise $115,475 more taxes than were levied in 1992.
As was mentioned above the City's proposed General Fund Budget was balanced in part by the
assumption that $154,561 of franchise fees would be allocated to the General Fund.
Alternative E shows the effect upon property tax bills if property taxes were used instead of
the franchise fees to balance the Budget. If property taxes were used to balance the Budget
instead of franchise fees property tax bills would increase 8.29%.
7
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
PAGE THREE OF THREE
It has been estimated that, if approved, franchise fees would generate approximately $280,000
in revenues in 1993. Alternative F shows the effect on property tax bills of using the property
tax levy to raise an amount equal to estimated revenues from franchise fees. If the property
tax levy was increased so that it would generate the same amount of revenue as could be
collected from franchise fees the result would be a 22.09% increase in property tax bills.
Several alternatives for the 1993 proposed property tax levy have been resented. Pursuant to
p
Truth In Taxation laws the City must certify a proposed 1993 property tax levy to Ramsey
County on September 14, 1992 which may not subsequently be increased. Staff awaits
Council's direction on this matter.
Attachment
C
O -t _ c o 0 0 0
U Q-� ti o o o N O
W O M a0 N
76
m a) 0 0 0 0 c* e
1 iti ti ti ti ti ti N
T T T T Nr
T T
WNXCD T T - T T T •T
> N N N N N N
Z a)
(LsO O O O O O
C a) 'I' N. T O O N
I"" w M T N. O 0) .(70.-
-j
0JCO ni N iC7I N N N
Q m
,—
LU
L U ui
J > to
4.
o
U ka= T T T N
fco
rnrno
rnrnp
W 9) L co O
>., a) Ln O O
CC C9
H N R N N
CL N O Q —O- —2—"--�——7—C-
F— s>.) Q a) O tL
a) 'C— Cl) a) v0) U a' O a)
775 a) (IS ka CC O O % c +cu Q
0pa) CD E 2 2 Jc � J — c
0_ a. < cts 05 o o 'NO 'N
Cl) U) CO �� 9 L.LI.
< CO 0 0 w LL.
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1992
RE: INDEX FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1992 CITY
COUNCIL WORK SESSION
__-MEETINGS-SCHEDULED-FOR THE WEEK OF €P-TE BER-7, i-992--------
• MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, LABOR DAY HOLIDAY
. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, COUNCIL WORK SESSION,
7:00 P.M.
ITEMS PROVIDED IN THIS WEEK'S COUNCIL WORK SESSION
PACKET
. This Is It!
. Agenda
******************
ADMINISTRATOR'S SCHEDULE
(Please note that this schedule is subject to change as
meetings are scheduled, rescheduled or canceled. At any time
Audrey, Michele, or-Tim C. will have my-most current-schedule
and a number where I can be reached at all times.)
Monday, September 7
LABOR DAY HOLIDAY
TUESDAY, September 8
9:00 A.M. Staff Meeting
1 :00 P.M. Fire Department Budget Meeting
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE TWO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1992
7:00 P.M. City Council Work Session
Wednesday, September 9
11 :00 - NOON Senior Center Meeting, Fridley
Thursday, September 10
9:00 - NOON TUG Meeting - Golden Valley
Friday, September 11
10:00 A.M. Oak Grove Meeting - Blaine
as
'L r co Lf)
IL Tr T T N
0
0
0
0 Q
"0 U
v)
QI--- Cr) r 0_ I-- r N
C
a
z
F—
W
W c
-o
CC co
WC
CO -0
W N Oo co
N c
F—
Wo E
C/) .N 00 Q
0) Y O co O
O
L' co
° o Z
al CD) — V
Ts oC_ c � 0
0 .0 C W 0
a) �c� ° _ JO
T-- W I- CO U LL Q r W I` N N
0 C)
C C
4) 4)
a) a)
>- M M
> a — -
Q �U �U
C -J C C
O O 1. OT co O
2 f` = rU N NV