HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1983/03/14CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
March 14, 1983
7:30 p.m.
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call - Blanchard, Doty, Linke, Hankner, McCarty
3. Approval of Minutes: February 28, 1983 (Regular Meeting)
(received in 3-7-83 packet)
4. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor
------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR
FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
------------------------------------------------
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
ITEM A. Authorize TKDA to Prepare Plans and Specifications
for the Installation of Potassium Permanganate
Injection Systems at Water Treatment Plants 2 and 3
ITEM B. Approve Amendment to Contracts with TKDA and SERCO
Labs for a Pilot Plant Study at Well No. 3 Not to Exceed
$2,000 and $5,000 Respectively
ITEM C. Approve Resolution No. 1577 Approving the Budget
Modifications for the Three Park Shelter Buildings
ITEM D. Licenses for Approval
ITEM E. Approve Resolution No. 1578 Approving Just and Correct
Claims Against City Funds
6. Consideration of Memorandum from John Johnson Regarding Status
of New Trunk Highway 10 (information provided at March 7, 1983
Agenda Session)
7. Consideration of Staff Recommendation Regarding Hiring of
Part-time Personnel for Water Department
8. Report of Director of Public Works/Community Development
9. Report of Attorney
10. Report of Councilmembers
11. Report of Administrator
C. Adjournment
4t, I,_
CONSENT AGENDA
March 14, 1983
The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of
routine and miscellaneous official business of the City Council.
The entire Agenda may be adopted by the Council in one motion. The
motion for adoption is non -debatable and must receive unanimous
approval. By request of any individual Councilmember, any item can
be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda
for debate.
ITEM A. Authorize TKDA to Prepare Plans and Specifications for the
Installation of Potassium Permanganate Injection Systems
at Water Treatment Plants 2 and 3
ITEM B. Approve Amendment to Contracts with TKDA and SERCO Labs for
a Pilot Plant Study at Well No. 3 Not to Exceed $2,000 and
$5,000 Respectively
ITEM C. Adopt Resolution No. 1577 - Approving the Budget Modifications
for the Three Park Shelter Buildings
ITEM D. Licenses for Approval
General Contractor - Expire 6/30/83
Johnson's Remodeling - New
Garbage Haulers - Expire 3/31/82
Richie's Rubbish, Inc. - Renewal
Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. - Renewal
Ace Solid Waste Management, Inc. - Renewal
Walter's Disposal - Renewal
ITEM E. Adopt Resolution No. 1578 - Approving Just and Correct Claims
Against City Funds
,K�Iy TOLTZ. KING DUVALL. ANDERSON
i/A AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 250D AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA $5101
612/2024400
f
March 10, 1983
John C. Johnson, Director
Public Works/Community Development
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
RE: Water Treatment System Analysis
TKDA Commission No. 7848-01
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Submitted herewith is Contract Amendment No. 2 to the Original Agreement
and a new Contract Agreement to provide engineering services for design and
construction of potassium permanganate feed systems for Treatment Plants
No. 2 and 3.
The Contract Amendment to the original Agreement expands the scope to in-
clude pilot testing at Treatment Plant No. 1 for Well No. 3. The engineering
fee is increased by $2,000 to a total of $7,500. The period of completion
has been extended to December, 1983. Upon receipt of a signed Amendment,
TKDA is prepared to proceed, dependent on conditions at Treatment Plant No. 1.
TKDA could proceed at any time after the aerators are replaced and water
demand will not interfere with testing.
The new Contract Agreement is to provide complete design preparation
and construction inspection for potassium permanganate feed systems for
Treatment Plants No. 2 and 3. TKDA will proceed immediately with the design
phase upon receipt of the signed Agreement. Plans and specifications would
be ready for the City's approval within three weeks of receipt of the signed
Agreement.
Please sign both copies of Amendment No. 2 and the
and return one copy to TKDA. If you have any questions
cation, please feel free to contact me at 292-4501.
Sincerely yours,
TOLTZ, KING, DUVA
AND ASSOCIATES, I
PJL/djb
CC: Mounds View City Council
J.T. Kirk
Engineering Agreement
or need more clarifi-
ANDERSON
AMENDMENT NO. 2
to the
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER AGREEMENT
Dated August 21, 1982
Between
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
and
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
for
WATER SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
This Amendment agreed to on March 14, 1983, expands the scope of the original
contract and revises the payment to TKDA for services to reflect the expanded
scope. The period of service is also revised to allow completion of the
expanded scope.
The contract changes are detailed hereinafter
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE.
Replace Exhibit A of the Agreement with the attached.
ARTICLE 2. PERIOD OF SERVICE
Replace the Agreement article with the following:
TKDA agrees that work under this Agreement will begin within 5
days after receipt of Authorization to Proceed. The term of the Agreement
for the performance of services hereunder shall be through December, 1983.
In this regard, it is agreed that the "not to ecxeed" payment figure set forth
in Article 3 herein has been established in anticipation of an orderly and
continuous progress of the Project.
ARTICLE 3. COMPENSATION TO TKDA
Replace paragraph D of the Agreement article with the following:
D. Payment to TKDA for services set forth in EXHIBIT A of this
Agreement, computed in accordance with 3A, B, and C above, shall not exceed
$7,500.00 unless formally changed by Supplemental Agreement for extra work or
changed conditions. Additionally, in the event that services are provided
by TKDA beyond the contract completion date as a result of circumstances
-1-
-2.
beyond the control of TKDA, the "Not to exceed" payment figure shall be
subject to an upward adjustment estabilshed by Supplemental Agreement pursuant
to the provisions of Article 4.
ARTICLE 4. EXTRA WORK AND SERVICES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT
No Change.
ARTICLE 5. ABANDONMENT, CHANGE OF PLAN AND TERMINATION
No Change.
ARTICLE 6. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, REPORTS, AND OTHER DATA
No Change.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2
on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
BY
Mayor
BY
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
BY
Vice President
BY
President
' EXHIBIT A
WATER, SYSTEM INVESTIGATION
FOR THE
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
To assist the City of Mounds View to solve its high iron and manganese
concentration problems, we propose to conduct an engineering investigation
which will include the following tasks;
1. Arrange for the determination of the iron and manganese levels at the
treatment plant locations, before and after treatment, and at various
locations in the distribution system (as reflected by customer complaints)
over a period of 30-45 days. Water quality sampling and analysis will be
conducted by an independent laboratory, with the cost of same to be
billed to the OWNER.
2. Analyze the removal data and compare these to the rated effectiveness
of the treatment facilities at the throughput rates utilized.
3. Analyze treatment plant operations to determine if iron and manganese
carrover can be reduced by plant operation changes or process modifica-
tions.
4. Consider alternative methods of iron and manganese reduction and/or
sequestering as a temporary, or permanent, solution.
5. Analyze, on an overview basis, the configuration of the distribution
system as it affects the concentration of residual iron or mannanese
in various portions of the City.
6. Present the findings of the investigation, together with cost data, for
discussion and consideration.
7. Prepare and present a final report and recommendations.
8. Direct pilot plant testing program at Treatment Plant Nos. 2 and 3
to investigate manganese removal with potassium permanganate and analyze
results.
9. Prepare summary report of pilot plant testing program and present
recommendations for full-scale treatment plant alterations for manganese
reduction at Treatment Plant Nos. 2 and 3.
10. Direct pilot plant testing program at Treatment Plant No. 1 to investigate
manganese removal with potassium permanganate and analyze results.
11. Prepare summary report of pilot plant testing program and present recommenda-
tions for full-scale treatment plant alterations for manganese reduction
at Treatment Plant No. 1.
r ,AnIITECT/EN Between
eER AGREEMENT
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
and
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
f or
ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PROVIDE
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE FEED EQUIPMENT FOR
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS NO. 2 AND 3
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered Into this 14th day of March, 1983, by
and between THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as
the OWNER, and TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
a corporation with a regular place of business at 2500 American National
Bank Bullding, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, hereinafter referred to as TKDA.
' WITNESSETH:
That the OWNER and TKDA, for the consideration hereinafter named,
agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE.
The OWNER agrees to and hereby does retain and employ TKDA
and TKDA agrees to perform Architectural, Engineering and/or Planning
Services fur the project, entitled: Engineering Services to Provide
Potassium Permanganate Feed Equipment for Water Treatment Plants No. 2 and
3, hereinafter referred to as the Project. The Project and those services
to be performed hereunder are more particularly described in attached
EXHIBIT A, a part hereof.
ARTICLE 2. PERIOD OF SERVICE
TKDA agrees that work under this Agreement will begin
within 5 days after receipt of Authorization to Proceed. The term of the
Agreement for the performance of services hereunder shall be 6 months
following the date of Authorization to Proceed. In this regard, it is
agreed that the "not to exceed" payment figure set forth In Article 3
herein has been established In anticipation of an orderly and continuous
progress of the Project for 6 consecutive months through completion of the
Construction Phase, Including record drawings.
ARTICLE 3. COMPENSATION TO TKDA
A. Payment to TKDA for services described in EXHIBIT A of
this Agreement shall be on the hourly rate basis for the hours actually
spent thereon for the persons In the following classifications at the
following ranges In hourly rates. These rates include compensation for all
salary costs, payroll burden, general and administrative overhead and
professional fee.
1983 Range of
Iassiflcatlon Orly Bllling Rates
Senior Engineer and/or Architect
$42.00
to
$62.00
Registered Engineer, Architect or
$33.00
to
$45.00
Land Surveyor
Graduate Engineer, Architect or Planner
$21.00
to
$41.00
Senior Technician, Designer or Drafter
$28.00
to
$45.00
Technician or Drafter
$11.00
to
$29.00
Periodic revisions to the above rates shall be submitted
by TKDA to OWNER for acknowledgement.
B. In addition to the foregoing, TKDA shall be reimbursed at
cost for the following Direct Expenses when Incurred In the performance of
the work:
Travcl and. subs;stcnce.
2. Computer services.
3. Outside professional and technical services.
4. Identifiable reproduction costs.
C. The OWNER shall make monthly payments to TKDA within 30
days of date of Invoice based on computations made In accordance with the
above charges for services provided and expenses Incurred to date,
accompanied by supporting evidence as required. All accounts unpaid after
30 days from the date of original Invoice shall be subject to a service
charge of 1% Per month.
-2-
D. Payment to TKDA for services set forth In EXHIBIT A of
this Agreement, computed In accordance with 3A, B and C above, shall not
exceed $10,000 for Phase I and $1,400 for Phase II (E11,400 total) unless
formally changed by Supplemental Agreement for extra work or changed
conditions. Additionally, In the event that services are provided by TKDA
beyond the contract completion date as a result of circumstances beyond the
control of TKDA, the "not to exceed" payment figure shall be subject to an
upward adjustment established by Supplemental agreement pursuant to the
provisions of Article 4.
ARTICLE 4. EXTRA WORK AND SERVICES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT
If TKDA is of the opinion that any work they have been
directed to perform is beyond the Scope of this Agreement, or that the
level of effort required significantly exceeds that estimated due to
changed conditions and thereby constitutes extra work, they shall promptly
notify the OWNER of that fact. Extra work, additional compensation for
same, and extension of time for completion shall be covered by a
Supplemental Agreement entered Into by both parties prior to proceeding
with any extra work or related expenditures.
ARTICLE 5. ABANDONMENT, CHANGE OF PLAN A4D TERMINATION
' Either Party has the right to terminate this Agreement
upon seven days written notice. In addition; the OWNER may at any time,
reduce the scope of this Agreement. Such reduction In scope shall be set
forth in a written notice from the OWNER to TKDA. In the event of
unresolved dispute over change In scope or changed conditions, this
agreement may also be terminated.
In the event of termination, all documents finished or
unfinished, prepared by TKDA under this Agreement shall be made available
by TKDA to the OWNER pursuant to Article 6, and there shall be no further
obligation of the OWNER to TKDA under this Agreement, except for payment of
amounts due and owing for work performed and expenses Incurred to the date
and Time of termination, computed in accordance with Ariii,i,B 7d.
In the event of a reduction In scope of the Project work,
TKDA shall be paid for the work performed and expenses Incurred on the
project work thus reduced or on any completed and abandoned work, computed
In accordance with Article 3. Any reduction In the "not to exceed" payment
figure shall be established by a Supplemental Agreement entered Into by
both parties.
ARTICLE 6. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, REPORTS AND OTHER DATA
At the time of completion or termination of the work, TKDA
shall make available to the OWNER, all maps, tracings, reports, resource
f materials and other documents pertaining to the work or to the Project.
All such documents are not Intended or represented to be suitable for reuse
by the OWNER or others on extensions of the Project or any other project.
-3-
Any reuse without written verification or adapt ion by TKDA for the specific
purpose Intended will be at OWNER'S sole risk and without liability or
legal exposure to TKDA.
ARTICLE 7. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE CONTRACT
The contract documents shall be deemed to Include this
Agreement with all accompanying exhibits a part hereof.
ARTICLE B. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. To permit TKDA to perform the services required hereunder,
the OWNER shall supply, in proper time and sequence, 9
at no
expense to TKDA.
1. Provide all necessary information regarding Its re-
quir&nor is as necessary for orderly progress of the
work.
2. Designate In writing, a person to act as OWNER'S re-
presentative with respect to the services to be ren-
dered under this Agreement. Such person shall have
authority to transmit Instructions, receive Instruc-
tions, receive information, interpret and define
nwucoic ,,,.i t.ta� vt+h racnart to TKnA'c eerY!COa.
3. Furnish, as required for performance of TKDA's
services (except to the extent provided otherwise In
EXHIBIT A), data prepared by or services of others,
including without limitation, laboratory tests and
inspections of samples, materials and equipment;
and other special data not covered In EXHIBIT A.
4. Provide access to, and make all provisions for TKDA
to enter upon publicly owned nroncrty as oquirea to
perform the work.
5. Act as liaison with other agencies to carry out
necessary coordination and negotiations.
6. Examine all reports, sketches, drawings, specifica-
tions and other documents prepared and presented by
TKDA, obtain advice of an attorney, Insurance
counselor or others as OWNER deems necessary for
such examination and render in writing, decisions
pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as
not to delay the services of TKDA.
7. Give prompt written notice to TKDA whenever OWNER
observes or otherwise becomes aware of any
development that affects the scope of timing of
-4-
TKOArs services or any defect in the work of
Construction Contractor(s) or TKDA.
8. Provide "record" drawings and specifications for all
existing physical plants or facilities which are
pertinent to the Project.
9. Provide other services, materials, or data as may be
set forth In EXHIBIT A.
B. TKDA shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and
completeness of information furnished by the OWNER. If TKDA finds that any
Information furnished by the OWNER is In error or Is Inadequate for Its
purpose, TKDA shall promptly notify the OWNER.
ARTICLE 9. OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Since TKDA has no control over the cost of labor,
materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the
Contractor(s) methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or
market conditions, their opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided
for in EXHIBIT A, a part hereof, are to be made on the basis of their
experience and qualifications and represents their best judgment as an
exp^U !zn.cad and ua1;(;6U rufessiuna; architect or engineer familiar with
r.,� 4 Y
the construction Industry; but TKDA cannot and does not guarantee that
proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from opinions of
probable cost prepared by TKDA. TKDA shall not give an opinion as to other
probable costs relating to the Project such as land, rights -of -way,
permits, legal, accounting, Interest or financing charges.
ARTICLE 10. ASSIGN14ENT
This AgroCmcnt, being
service of the individuals employed by
hereunder, shall not be assigned, sublet
consent of the OWNER.
-5-
intended fo secure the persuiial
and through whcm TKDA performs work
or transferred without the written
f
C
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day
and year first above written.
THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
By
ATTACHMENT - EXHIBIT A
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
By
-6-
CI
4
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE FEED EQUIPMENT
ADDITION TO WATER TREATMENT PLANTS NO. 2 AND 3
TKDA proposes to provide the following engineering services for the design,
specification and construction of potassium permanganate feed equipment to
reduce the manganese concentrations at Water Treatment Plants No. 2 and 3.
The tasks are segregated into two phases; Phase I Is for design,
specification and post construction services, Phase II is for construction
Inspection services.
Phase I
1. Prepare engineering specifications for potassium permanganate feed
system equipment and appurtenances.
2. Prepare detailed design drawings.
3. Provide assistance in obtaining bids, prepare bid tabulation, evaluate
bids, and recommend awarding of contracts.
4. Prepare operation and maintenance manual for chemical handling,
potassium permanganate feed equipment and filter operations.
5. Provide start-up services.
Phase II
1. Review and approve shop drawings, operating and maintenance
Instructions, schedules, guarantees, bonds and certificates of
Inspection as required.
2. Provide Inspection to determine that work is completed in accordance
with the plans and specifications. Inspection will consist of two (2)
site visits; one during construction, and a second after completion to
finalize and approve construction.
3. Provide City with record drawings, shop drawing and equipment
operations and maintenance manuals.
A-1
j
.. MEMO TO: Mounds View City Council
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Did c or
Parks, Recreation a Foe r '
DATE: March 9, 1983
RE: Recap of winter warming house buildings
As you are aware, the Mounds View City Council directed staff
to purchase three porLablc classroom buildings from the Elk
River School District to be used as park shelter buildings at
Groveland, Woodcrest and Hillview neighborhood parks. The City
Council initially allocated $24,000 to complete the project;
$15,000 of which was to be used for the actual purchase of the
buildings and the remaining $9,000 to be used for modifications
and foundations for each of the buildings.
Staff indicated at a City Council meeting in January that the
budgeted amount of $24,000 would be exceeded due to additional
electrical costs that were not projected due to the electric
furnaces needing additional modification because of the three
phase motors and also additional amperage being required at each
building to power the new furnace and light system within the new
buildings.
Staff has included a sub -ledger report that outlines all of the
specific costs associated with the warming house program. The
expenses can basically be broken down into four categories:
1. The first contract with Stenco Construction for a total of
$6,750.00 which included the footings, reroofing of the
building,, door replacements, and other associated carpentry
work sucn as replacement of sills, studding in of walls, etc.
2. The second expenditure would be for fill sand totalling $305.20
which was used at all three locations for not only mixing the
mortar but also some backfill sand was required at Groveland
Park around the footings.
3. The third expenditure was for Smith Lumber whibh totalled
$1,984.39 for materials necessary to build the three buildings
including blocks, shingles, tar paper, two new doors, 2 x 4's
for interior stud walls and wafer board.
4. The fourth expenditure would be the contractor Ernst Machinery
for $15,000.00 for the three buildings.
Total expenditures for the warming house buildings were $29,329.43
which would be a cost overrun of $5,329.43. Staff had initially
projected an overrun of $4,000.00 for the project based on initial
electrical estimates. The additional increase of $1,400.00 is
attributable to Groveland Park as we were unable to run from the
pole next to the building and had to add approximately 20 feet
in wire and trenching costs to the building.
- 2 -
The additional $5,329.43 has also been projected to be assessed �-
to the Recreation AcLiviLy Fund to be paid back during the next
few years with the initial money funded out of the interest from
the M.S.A. street monies from the Silver Lake Woods projects.
Staff has included a resolution that outlines the cost overrun
as well as the projected funds from which the money should be
assessed. Should you have any questions regarding the current
status of the park shelter building account, feel free to con-
tact staff directly at extension #41.
BKA/sll
Attachment
M
RESOLUTION NO. 1577
^ CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUDGET MODIFICATIONS
FOR THE THREE PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council authorized the
purchase and installation of three park shelter buildings on
September 20, 1982 at a purchase price not to exceed $24,000;
and
WHEREAS, the funds were projected to come from the
special capital projects fund; and
WHEREAS, the recreation activities fund was proposed
to repay this special capital projects fund through excess
balances in future years; and
WHEREAS, the expenditures exceeded the initially pro-
jected $24,000 by $5,329.43 due to unprojected electrical
expenses; and
(/�
WHEREAS, the dollars have already been allocated as
authorized informally by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View does hereby authorize staff to exceed
its initially projected $24,000 for the construction of the
three park shelter buildings by $5,329.43 with the monies to be
allocated from the special capital projects fund to be repaid
through the recreation activity fund in future years.
Adopted this 14th of March, 1983.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -A ministrator
U
I'
GOPHER ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS, IN •
"- couYPCIAL • rlDuaTn uL • RESIDENT"
1106 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA• 55435
Phone 755.1930
14
v+
NAME TYy .vs
ADDRESS _2401 1
Eun a•o .:. •(w^ AC
OUAN.
•aVO a+P DATE IT,-
derson _
O E5C p I P T ION
INVOICE A 3017,
DATE i1-12-81
JOB
ADDRESS
:o�•. n to
14.50
Groveland - ServJce (,;serial 891.98
— '-- ieboz 1,- 7 9
8illview Park - Sarvice Per-mit8_50 _.___—•----
1?aterial 267.79
Labor 756.49
1400acrest Park- Service Permit 14.50
hateri_a: 949.99
Labor,.
L: ba:,
jh'oodcrest - Pole lites, repair anSlieplace i•S,0 nano_
8illvielo - Pole lites
e to warming.hse. M�'•
Greenfield - Move fixtures, temp. _ J - ' :,abor
Crovel - Pole lites Labor 9
Platerial 196.73
_ .,.-,,.ea rharmostat o Breaker.
DATE a. i-
12-30-82
NIT PpICE
I,724 22
Sk 25
I10 OL
65
75 282 4(
231 7.
31.10
12-I6� Groveta."a - RELa or oD-_v
95
12 21 82 Slc Groveland ' heating control transformer. Ma 18.00 DR 9
La or E5
YOU MAY REMIT FROM THIS INVOICE
TOTAL $6,453 80
STATEMENT SENT ON REQUEST
7 ne dnroW+:sWv..^.on:-.ssta elneel is OnYnDIN �E11M u0 Da the fa'^e nI�C,D+t �aaann,ilDlateo 1B�IIIE
�` C.
W
:N
W
.0
Q
a
i
N
o
o
Iv
it
N
•4
U
z
H
O
z
.w
Y
0
YI
a
u
L
J
0
uL
W
}
g
J
LL
Y
C
a
a
u
U oo
u
O
UUUODUUUU 0a0e15
OowM D NNhNm moo JIO.D NN 4?
Z • •'
•
'• • r • • • • r 1 • • • r
.I
.I
omolltWhwMM WhhwwwNw.IN
N
J
aW
w
IT U10 ISM 1-'•10N JO S.•.r .a O W.IM
,Ti
P
.•.�NJJJJJWwhh 0+N 111hnO.{
.1
.�
N NIT. L'1 � L'1 u1 W W w w w W M M M M J J
d
J
Q
NNNNN
N
N
O
0 0 O 00 W ni N n W h IV u+ O u+ O W W W tV w J •• H H
O M M o 0 Ut 0 M tV o o •• N J nl W N N N n h .• U+ O+ N
.• .• o Ul ONw h W M M w h h w w W U% w.I N N It
w w LA mO u+MJh WN Jo J.I.I � Coto �m M O+
++.•NS J SJJW whh 0LA UNNN OH 11 .I
• w • • w • • • • w w • • • • • • • . • •
N N to u+ul ul u\w0 UIW W W tOMMM JJ J d
NNNNN N N
O
0
F
W
l7
O
w
O
U
m
z w
U w
H 3:
rL a J
H
u F
W H
W x
0 y
W
W
F
i
o
Q
17
.I
p
i0
1
w
IJ
W
O
z
W
x
w
D
z
MI
N
Uo
z I
H O+
H O
al
w
a
0
M
W
H
J
a
a
7
yJ
r'0
N
0
0
r ► ►
D o wn N�M N111 U1M NNN w0a w 0Nh •i .•
M o U+ 0 tV O h W tV .� .1 0, tV W O O .� O J h 0+ N
.i o Ln S u+ 0+ o 0+V7 O M o o o 0Ta.7 4 N J
w N M •I Ut N 90 w N w J W o w N N M 0%
H NI U+.• H O N N •� .• •i
• • • w •
N a o J d
.t N N I
I
O O U O U O O.
O o UUU v v
J J J
W W w
q q g ♦ W
0KQ H
U U U } >
000000000 K
r+•• u u U u u u u u u r W N
z Zz U
g u u w m w m M X M M u:M q H L
r aLZZWWWWWWWWWa= 7 ►
W zQ g a w m w m m W w w m z u u y
J O y V) vl 2 f: £ Z£ _. L' i L U q L v1 VI J
g U a
F. JJJJ JJ JJ JJJ J (AU. ❑U F�
O Ogq Q t..)H OU W W O
H Uzzzxxxxx====UyO: F-F I-
► zwwwHFr1-I-I-I-rrLwaryw r
W In V1 v1 H H H H H H H H H W Z Z H W W
F tC IY LLTS£7:£ x ==HK WH W W ►
vl y a a Q y 1A 0 fA v1 VI VI M y y W£ U y M 0 ►
w w
0: 0: vl
7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 7 J
L7 H co to o {b to w W t9 td w w w w o m m o m o F Q
Z C.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U F•
M 7JMMMJJ SJ1 JSJ JS J No. -la 7 O
1� cr O N N N m f
Q r" I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"
W W N IV 1V +V IV IV tV N N +V N lV 14 y 1"
I{1 .1 .• .1 .{ .y .4 .• .• .i •'t .• .• .t .t .V .• H ei .1 Z
IX . • w
O x
. y ww y H
y 0 H W 0L
W z 00 Z Q
H H N N H a
.J u .1 .I D w
a J oa J D
a H H
n 7 7
y m m m t110m MMMM MMM IN h tow ut ul m 0
wom mmm MMM MMM no
0.1 W tb
WNNN: JJJJ J J7 SS 1.-CPLN 111
r oovu000O000 oanhOo
o 000O00000Oo 000Ooo
ti000o0 o00 Ono O.•.T o0 m to
J00000000 000 0.? MOO U1U1
N 0 0 0 lV tV lV N N N tV N N w M t0 W M M
0+N U1Nn h hnh nhhhU+•• h0+.1 .+
woDowwWwWwwwwwoJv+aD
Z Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O tp 0 0 0 0 2 Z
p p O D
H H H H -
F h NO AM.IM w Wh 0M0 M W M MNTO F F
A"NNMMOJ JN Q Q
X ONNN.114AI 11a' D:
F F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F
y U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y y
H H O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O D O _
Z Z
H H = H.
At 4z Da Da
OO O NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N
w W w O O O O O O D O O O o O D O O O O O O O O
.1 •V .� hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h
dJ d JJJSSSJJJJJSJdJJJJJJ t
(w cc O O O O o 0 O O V O O O O D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O q
a N N W W tV N N tV N tV .. IV N N N tV N N N N N N N N N
Iy N M 91 A 14
J
W W W
N
Q •
N
r
A n
M1
.i
O
lV
7
'*
N
u
�
1�
•
r
•
^O
o
W
u
a
" O
a
z
J �
OL W •
1L v W VI
V M A. J
Ir ~ J Q
J ~
J H
O
IL a i
r
♦ W H
Y Ow 1 •
y
q W y r
Q W
r
q K a y
r
W � U
y
U
~
J
o D4 7 O
Ex
YI iv yl
• W
W Vl y F
2
�1, Q
Z Z Q
a
0 H H a
IL LiO W
r
-ii J O
r
H
� � r
umnl m r
U m
w
x ao a a
Q u 0 0
Jo J J
W W W
W uj
CZ W o W W
O Co O O
O ♦ (Y
�•
z zl. z z
z
p
'O
? rOi IU,I M
V) y y
p(
ON O O
I
w I-
J
2 }o
6
> }
H V)o y y
J J J
Y
U H N H
K
,a
i- NN N
U 00 p
U hh I,
Q !!
I. p IV IV
O
IL N IV IV No
e7
1
•
r�
�I
Itl?, QIRYTON 110. 1578 `�=tr'- C
CITY OF MnIINr1, V3P11
COUNTY OF HAM;I':Y
STATE' Ole MlHHESO'I'A
APPROVING JII(f AND CORRECT
CLAIM AGAINST CITY FUN14
MIERRAS, the City Council of Mnund:: View, pursuant to
Minnesota ShiMes 412.. 43, has hill nuillovity over the flnnncial affairs
of the City and;
WHEREAS, Till- City Cuum:il ha:: rl viownd the claims numbers:
10895_ through
10953 in
Q amount of
41,842.18
_17982._ tlu'ough
_17998 .� in
the amnnnt or s
84,542.19
--17999_..- 0"I'll :h
_ 9004in
Lin• mmrinnl. ,lf $
437.80 --
I.hr,iq;h ill Will aunumt
TOTAL MOUNT OF f IR! MIHSRN'I'I?D :p
and his found said claims to be ,Just and cnrrect;
(li::t of any exception)
126,822.17
NOW THEIIEFORL, be it resolved that the City Council of ldounds View
hereby approved the attached lists of claims dated by the
vote ayes nayes
ATTEST:
Mnyor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
CHECK
17999
18000
18001
18002
18003
18004
C
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES
AMOUNT
CLAIMANT
PURPOSE
$ 57.00
North Henn. Comm. Col.
training
15.00
Liam Harper
grants & subsidies
5.00
American Red Cross
conferences
30.00
Duane McCarty
refund
5.80
L. M. Nicol MFG
supplies
325.00
Troop N400
postage
$ 37 80
Y C?TY OF MCJ'.r Vi .R i. i' L
CHFCF:' A H 0 U T C L A t
117962
309114. 93
FTFST STATE DANK Cf
C' l
IT
TIME �•
'•
C179R3
2,341.79
'•TATi TRfA; - t a A
PENSICN.
017984
2,153.35
STATE TREA-UREa
PCNSIONS
o17985
175,90
AFTCN ALFS SKI AR A
SUPFLIES,CFr
•
017986
50..10
L PC':IMACTC+'
PCSIACE
017989
796.49
C04 CCCWFr !Tl
LCNT. SYC1'., 'i C',CH
!f
017990
49.65
THOMAS L CHAFFEE
T-AI'111G
:TI' G
!I
917991
11.95
St�JT7 MANIIFAfTUPTNC CO
`.LPPL:FS,CF:'
—
.!
017992
50.60
GEORGE OFMARAIS
GCMIN. iHAPC:YA?LE
Ii •'.
-
017993
14,wat
CIIrSON COI!FT;,UCTICY.
�'PAI=`:, L IIL 1T 1
,
117994
299671.15
FPtST STATE 3 CF
SALARIES, FEG- t.
ANO-GVE6TJNF, I: •;t:LAR
z,r
•i.-.-
AMii-sALAI?IEs.stP=+FART.
TIME
;;A
,r
71799
3,u2_.27
GEOUF HFALT4 PLAN IHC
SALARIES, FEC•.Lir
4�+r
/
I t 7 96
25D.78
FFUDENTIAL INS CO
GFOUP It;iLPA' .
AND-INSUP.ANCJ' ',.NOS
p+'
d17997
? 3 1 28
ICNA GETIRFIIF14T CORP
PENSIONS
�$e
r
,;r
017go8
-3 0
MINNESCTA u F C A
CCNFSRENCES
I,
±5
84,54�..19
NECESSAFY EXFENDI NRES SINCE
LAST COUNCIL HEFTING
�io
O•' CITY OF MCULC'° Virw I. C 1_C-t f, 1 —P A'r L L F
•I:I CHFCYa A 11 0 U
O1 0 A95 � 40, ? 0 Ar,CUEPSE 'Y°' T� N ; INC.
nt.';N9E
I r1^Y,97
D1009A
" 010899
I� C18900
01U901
u1C902
i
-_-- 010923
11C904
'
OLO905
010906
010907
oil
111i90A
®'`II,
Ot0909
Ia•i
010910
III
�3:;
^L9911
^;
010912
OSO913
O109t4
_
010915
01991E
CUTE f'{-1E-2 Fff' i pp•
F• U '+ F C S n
SUPFLTES,OFERATINU ;
ANO-PR INT7NGw +FU6L'GHING
..
q,ta
Ar;FICAN LINE?! SOFFLr •:.0
CLfANIh(-TC,r'11S 4 r.GF
3C.00
is'UGC M.GFW.
H p;:: CEHiC
�
t•
126, 1a
AOLAZYtE r'10W I
S=TLLLIIE
20.0C
AUTOTQAAC
SLPFLIES,CFic'ATING
li
3.51
9GCON ELECTRIC
kLP., F.LUCS h GFCUNOS
14,00
OONALO ORAGER
CCNFELEhCTS
348.50
COFHI< ELECT=TC
SUPPLIES, 8LOGS4G'hCS
31.43
IHPSFSS
UPPLT£S,CPFP,ATING
1,48`..'9
JCPh C JCPh•SV!
CTHER FFCFESSIO M SF,RV
'H
ANC —AL —MIN. CHAP.GES PAYABLE
9.26
L I L L J E SL_L'' '; Liss
LEGAL NCTIC!S
10.00
P A P F a
kT^t[E„ShifS
,.T
75.51
NELS VGN-CI-LITE
-.LPFLIES, ELOCS+CWNOS
'+
19.CC
N£TP.O FOND f,;;h'+.
_ CCNNUKICAIBt. S-IELEPHCNE_
_
2% 562.77
FETRO HASTE cotr;4CL CCNN
HETRC WASTE CCNT COMM
119.25
1iICWFST ASPHLLT UCFP
SUFFLIE5, STRFCIS
734.1.3
N B 'ELL TFL CC
CCNNUNICGTICNS-7CLEPHCNE
I
66.96
hOPTHERN STATUS FCWCP CC
ELECTRICITY
h •
100.00
(OFIALC F PAW Y
-------.._.- --
N,TLEAGE
-`
93.60
PT PSI COLD '10T1LTNG CO
R_r_f U N 0
_' rl
47.25
CITY Cf HOUNI;S VIEW
MIS[ MICE SYFFLIES
ANC-P_OSTACC
_
.- -- A1i0-SUfFlIES,OPERATING
Aha-PRIhTIf;(
ANO-SUFFLIES, VEHICLE
29,60
RGPIT PRINTTNC
PRINTING
;i •
L
l'
I
;:0
y CITY OF WUV, vIrH
CHECK•
+�
010917
'
010918
019919
I�_
O';,
I;
010920
'i
01092 t
010922
A v C U' T
150.17
43.f1
011923 E9.35
010924
010925
010926
_ _— 010927
ui6y[tl
010929
110930
010932
01�933
jNj G1�935
'I, 9ie937
li] Gt0938
t..
c � 1' - -
C L A I " . T
�FEG2S-AL C': • SEFVIC
:I! UNta
P%Mr'LA � RG;T.
S + T OFFICE P'MUCTS
CITY CF SHOREVIEd
SHORTH ELLIOTT ANC
SMITH LUMPER. CO
16.78 S`IYOCRS CPUG STOOLS
96.0P 1SE CCMPUTFR SERVICE
102.00 UD ITOG RENTALS SYSTEM
It; r
E
SCFFLICSrtfERATING ;��
(.M, SViS„ LELIVERY 3
_4tLA51I S,1CPP,PAPT TIME
RISC OFFICE ;UPFLIF.,
RINIAL, ICUIPPE.NT Iy • "
OTHER FRCFES::10N L SEAV
SLIP PLIES,CPERATIN(I
ANU-FESIIVITIES CChVISSICI
SLFPLIEStCiJt F.AI 1RG i.
OTHER PRCFESSIONAL SERV t'
i�
_ UN{FCPHS 4 CLCThTNG •'
--,
Ah0-CLEANIkC•IOMELS }RAGS r
6f,09 HBLTER; CISPO`.'AL SF.F'yiCE REFUSEf,CLLCCTICN
29563.?1 CITY OF 'NHITC PFAP LARF SALARIES, P"'LAFF 0 '
ANU-PENSTCNS .�
_-----ANO-F.I.C.A.
00-f,''OLP INSI'PApt:f.
4140-NORREPS WIFENSATION
5,00 JAN OUFOSE PROCRAH IKSTRUC10i;S
— }
48.00 CAUIC A JGhtISOk-
=i M
37.50 HILLIAM PAHN PROGRAM INSTEUCICFS ^�
4.00 yFNESSA FITEsSCA: PROGRAh INSli<UC1ChS
•
4.170 Pf•TRIC.IG i.'ATSOIt PROGRAM IhS1i+UClt1'�S ;;
62.C^ ALCOHOL COUNTERMEASURE SUPFLIES,CFERATING •
-- — —
"8a.v0 AEf<Ot±Ii, CY'fiAk1CS F�GG�AH IPST4UC1i�5 "
942.48 1eU& CTH_F. F„LFESalUA1 $Er?V .._._ •
12.00 NANCY FETERSCI r•FOGs'uM TtS14UC1C;S
i�
6f,09 HBLTER; CISPO`.'AL SF.F'yiCE REFUSEf,CLLCCTICN
29563.?1 CITY OF 'NHITC PFAP LARF SALARIES, P"'LAFF 0 '
ANU-PENSTCNS .�
_-----ANO-F.I.C.A.
00-f,''OLP INSI'PApt:f.
4140-NORREPS WIFENSATION
5,00 JAN OUFOSE PROCRAH IKSTRUC10i;S
— }
48.00 CAUIC A JGhtISOk-
=i M
37.50 HILLIAM PAHN PROGRAM INSTEUCICFS ^�
4.00 yFNESSA FITEsSCA: PROGRAh INSli<UC1ChS
•
4.170 Pf•TRIC.IG i.'ATSOIt PROGRAM IhS1i+UClt1'�S ;;
62.C^ ALCOHOL COUNTERMEASURE SUPFLIES,CFERATING •
-- — —
"8a.v0 AEf<Ot±Ii, CY'fiAk1CS F�GG�AH IPST4UC1i�5 "
942.48 1eU& CTH_F. F„LFESalUA1 $Er?V .._._ •
12.00 NANCY FETERSCI r•FOGs'uM TtS14UC1C;S
i�
y' CITY `1F VDU'.' yliH A( r e L A t S P A r A is L c
•'ll CHf A V M U '+ T C! 1! T
alnysa
�i
I�
01D941
,�
010942
01,9a?
0V] 44
�'I:
OSr945
rTe;
O1r94E
C6;
OS0a47
,_
1,,019948
r v��01394P
�u
010950
z,
I1 .g
"951
-01J952
r I°!
K'
"tOt4L
Of
tt_d
1Y,
:
16'
!f'
L;
1-1.45 r.IfK F'.Ff6TC
17f.rr CATI SPIFit
1
GC,TICn
PL,:`.T:.,
:,:,Li:
"L&QUVS
ELLS
IriC
37i..,
GiSIGN
SPACE
BIT
100.00
rECFGC
100'1PGIS
E.50 JIN Ab(STPOM
1`..C'' [UiEGAATLiPAL fChF!atKfF.
535.11"4 PUI,ITE.Ch IliX
85.00 RCANORC
22,00 °LANCHL APrnIi
40.00
L 0U GESS
35.00
GOIINO SHAH
164.07
HILLIAP U N,ACCILL ANC CO
19080.48
PARKINS CHEMICAL INC
41,842.18
CHECKS HPITTEh'
74 :NECKS
TOM 12E,384.37
Pll`i�Le
Fr<oceaP Ir•�I•�GtO: S
FIIPilNC _-_
hEFlrcC —
RFNIAL, F: U10liFhI
& F. F C h C
F E. FUN u
"OOST I PERIODICALS
SLPFLIU, LTILITTFS
SUPPLIES,CFE31TIr,G
a FFUr..�
REFLNOS
DEPCSITc_ @UILVIN'G US4GE-
3
SLPFLIF.S,CPERAT
1NG
SUFFLIES,CPERATING
�(�jl'iLiL 1
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: March 9, 1983
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE PART-TIME
PERSONNEL FOR WATER DEPARTMENT
Staff is requesting authorization from you to hire Mr. John
Grahm to work in the Water Department on a part-time basis.
Mr. Grahm was employed with the City of Mounds View last year
and performed satisfactorily. He has agreed to work at a
rate of $5.00 per hour starting April 18, 1983 through the
first week of September, 1983.
Staff would also like to seek a part-time person for the Sewer
Department commencing on or about June 13, 1983 through the
end of October, 1983. Both positions are in the 1983 Budget
at a rate of $5.00 per hour.
Staff would like authorization to proceed to hire Mr. John
Grahm and also to seek a part-time person for the Sewer Depart-
ment.
JCJ/bc
00
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
March 21, 1983
7:00 p.m.
1. Joint meeting with Planning Commission regarding Tony Poppelaars
development proposal and wetland alteration permit.
2. Discussion of Edgewood Square Development Agreement with Bob
Eigenheer (this item will be removed if Mr. Eigenheer does not
provide his written comments for staff review and comment by
Monday).
3. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding proposed Hazardous
Waste Processing Area in the City of Fridley and Resolution
No. 1576 Opposing the Identification of Fridley Site A as a
Hazardous Waste Processing Area.
4. Consideration of staff report regarding the Ramsey County
Gravel Tax Ordinance and Distribution Formula.
5. Consideration of staff report regarding carnival licence
for O'Neil United Shows.
6. Follow-up discussion to March 19th Work Session on 1983 Water
and Sewer Systems Maintenance and Capital Improvement Program.
a.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
9 Planning Comidssion
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: March 17, 1983
SUBJECT: TONY POPPELAARS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Attached are copies of staff report to Planning Commission and
site plan regarding the Poppelaars proposal.
The Planning commission met with Mr. Poppelaars on March 16, 1983
to review development proposal. Many issues were raised as to the
application of Chapter 48 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance. The
following items should be discussed at the joint meeting with the
City Council and Punning Commission on March 21, 1983.
1)
Should application be reviewed under a "conservation" or
"liberal" interpretation of
the ordinance?
2)
What are appropriate uses that
will be considered within
the buffer area or "altered"
wetland area?
a3)
What criteria should be used
to determine the degree of
intensification or intrusion
to be permitted within the
wetland or buffer area?
4) Generally, at what point will alteration of the wetland
and buffer areas become a substantial or significant adverse
impact?
Specific data for wetland in question will be handed out Monday evening.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
JCJ/bc
Attachments
CASE: 125-83, Item G on 4/6/83 Planning Commission Agenda
ITEM: Development Proposal (10 Unit Multiple Dwelling)
Wetlands Alteration Permit
APPLICANT: Tony Poppelaars
LOCATION: 7662/7GG4 Woodlawn Drive
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Applicant requests to construct a 10 unit building on Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2 of Park Vicw Turrace Addition. The applicant also requests a
wetland alteration permit which is required for this development.
PLANNING; CONSIDERATiONs
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan:
1) Existing zoning on the property is R-3, General Residence, based
on the previous zoning language. All existing R-3 residential
zones lie in areas of High Density Residential use. The Planning
Commission is presently undertaking the revision of the zoning
map to bring it into conformance with existing Zoning Code langu-
age. The lots in question lie in an area of High Density Residen-
tial Use and the proposed use would meet Zoning Code requirements.
2) The Comprehensive Plan denotes the area as High Density Residential.
The proposed development would be classified as High Density
Residential.
Parking/Driveway Area:
1) Code requires 1� free spaces per unit and at least one garage
space per unit. Plans show 11 garages (10 required) and 14 free
spaces (15 required). One garage could be replaced with a free
space and the number of spaces would meet Code requirements. Plans
also show 9 foot by 20 foot spaces. Present Code requires A by
20 foot spaces. The new Zoning Code is recommending 9 by 20 foot
spaces. Fifteen 9' foot spaces can be placed on the site and still
remain 5 feet from the front property line.
2) Driveway area is adequate for vehicular maneuverability. ideally
space should be left at the western edge of the parking area for
cars in free space #14 or in garage #11 to back into. Space,
although, is limited.
Utility services:
1) Both water and sewer service is available on woodlawn Drive.
Wetlands Alteration Permit and Drainage:
1) The development as proposed encroaches upon both the wetland
zoning district (including the wetland itself and 100 foot buffer
area) and the floodplain area.
2) The applicant• is proposing to fill a portion of both the wetland
and floodplain, as delineated on the wetland zoning district and
CASE 125-83
Page 2
floodplain zoning maps. The application as proposed requires
the alteration of a wetland. In addition, 100 percent of the
100 foot buffer area is proposed to be altered. Exhibits A
and B show the location of the proposed buildings as they
relate to the wetland, buffer area, and floodplain. Note
that• the buildings lie entirely within the wetland buffer
area. The driveway and parking area does encroach upon the
wetland itself. The main dwelling building and parking area
encroach upon the floodplain area.
3) The Dwelling building has proposed setbacks of 20 feet from
the: front property line and 10 feet from the side property line.
Code requires a 30 foot front yard setback and 20 foot side ylsd
setback. Section 48.08 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance pro-
vides for development density intensification by providing
credits for the undevelopable portion of wetlands. This allows
the possibility that setbacks may be decreased to facilitate
preservation of the wetland area and also allow development to
occur on developable portions of properties.
4) The applicant is proposing to provide some of his stormwater
storage on the parking lot. The wetland area itself is intended
to be used as the stormwater storage area for the remainder of
the water to be stored for the proposed development. According
to Attorney Meyers, wetlands can be used to detain water provided
silt, debris and pollutants are skimmed off prior to the water
entering the wetland. Most, but not all of the stormwater leaving /
the site will pass through the proposed skimmer. Stormwater gener-
ated behind the garages and in the area west of the parking lot
will be directed to the wetland without passing through the
skimmer/runoff detainer.
5) Also according to Attorney Meyers, the Wetland Ordinance does not
prohibit development in wetlands. The Ordinance states that a
wetland alteration permit must be obtained prior to any filling,
excavation, hardcover, structure, etc. taking place on the property.
If the proposed developments meets the standards as stated in the
Ordinance, development of wetlands may be allowed to occur.
6) Exhibit C shows the placement of a typical 1,000 square foot
single family home on the wetland map. Even with the minimum
type of development (a single family home), encroachment into the
wetland buffer area is still required. In other words, the wetland
buffer area covers such a large percentage of the property, that
any type of development would encroach upon the buffer area.
Open Space Requirements:
1) With the adjusting of the parking area to meet the 9� foot space
requirement, and using all of the available non -wetland area, the
open space requirement of 625 square feet per unit (6,250 square
feet total) will be met.
CASE 125-83
Page 3
Easements:
1) Ten foot drainage and utility easements are being provided
along the north and west propertly lines.
Landscaping:
1) The applicant, to date, has not submitted a landscape plan
for this development. Areas where applicant intends to sod
should be shown on the plan.
2) A screened area for a garbage receptacle should also be shown
on a plan.
-._j
'may —_�--
'•1--__._.2f 3 9.1
1 )• e. p t A �n_ p
•v a
I 7tl
n ISNeA I! 14 IiLJ i0^'
/ �• - �, 1 V
i. 2 29
) Q
.it
e:ft,
G1•,.nG..
m 3 28
•
16
K)lY
w Y e �'
•jj:F T.� _- l IS 16
4 27
fI_. _ J —_
1f1I
i'.Ati �.f
26
17
O 14
_
._—
<
7 24
17
WOODLAWN 'r �• �:.r.:s.�
0 19
"
� C� •—
j B 23
—1ne.Lo�
20
10
LL S
i I12 20
� i Q In
LLJ
Lll g LL �C
'^ Ole, , w O 13
Ll
IE C
\ Garr )! ,,a5,ND5 [A 22 ^ 902.
r 4Mr•..-
G DRA afc P/'f `s
p�NMOORI'
N d�K
r; is '^'i.:.. � •v
P
�I
0
Ijle „J 'u. Z� 2s I
tlr-�-,,.
I I,u
v Lseac a
C 11
,L'oh'—�
N ID \ 2 29 i
9 \l , • • a J ?Di 2S
DR. _
' 7..1 x t ' S 26 :I
�v J IR
14
ha
24
N ODLAWN r w. b�— C4 --iAT
r— y'c t A 123
r 19on
r d I '1 Li22 a
D 15
yi�dv�E FAMIW HoMb 1Z 20 79d IBL
0 14
O
I l w —�
lil a ; 1L
kit) rl Z 013
t Dui
m 'S I If n l9 12
IS
tiXH Orr.-.G -- ---- � eRor�ser�—� �
L
3,Vi9 � '� • G771d .�
' � • �V 4�G1'JDS V i r� ?•' 1 .
i
�J l 4W.
Vr�1�N 114N l5 51 :1 Cf5 2' .0
U
REMB
n�
33 '-S1 a I •;I et ei 39 —�
9b
at5nc `—D/7f 0 �J1
pR�INA4f e,�„t rI_ ''4 2 29
Rt' ry fir- 10 (1 "•
p3"NnA �9 C_ .�•-�-- Q �9�e2 I »„
L - � L 3 2B 35E25.—
DR i-
rev
cHuarw
a
r � ' :5•�
�
27
'J
r
2
."
�Ip
' S 26
a
IA
w
17
-
1
�3x
3 :�
'f ri (�I.d
.>_-
r --
d
I
•I /.
I• 1.
7 24 7
,MO
DLAW N
•
S-
19
6 2 3
•�
2
-+� .—
IF of
21
P 7k
to z
/ uP�Y�
117 20_��-
—
I
i
I
14
•.
QW i9
J
Q
!
/
laJ
_
-
i W 6
lL
013
Y� ice•
j
ltvu
_.. -.
_
.tl
_
4 C4 of
Y.41Lk hC,.ii 5/5"\1.1
I' IU
mm
1 pl Nml _Irrp A yy
IMmn rxCxx CO. ION
1 II
--:A'Cp 1
—_ •.tl yryry �i.�l ' 1N1 mlp 11 to pis"
M'P aNC W%Mwmat
Ixl II IN �� i !I w.0 .PAN p1110
I' I mulw.mm111 nW 'd
1 \ 1
ac/ rut
J xlbxl
n IIhN pl I p'
G ICI II I
II V � JIA "(l. Ml I••il
I
114
-
ell
'V 1 � �L ,I.<�I .7I L!C� _ r = . - I npll:..I _— . � . I • , w4rrt. _.__71L=_�=
\\3`)Hul IIIry��I ,JjII . /� ry7ryl!']jetou.am t.rl .
1 y..ru fill ilul �I 'f �� ,Ilkp tC,444 �--�
I S:'^poro I�I(-
5d
aYl4I t1w
MO
�Nuu1 MN unl .I .I =.
(s All
%I 'I I.wn wl I
i
v % a .OW
— -- x l � •IaW1Y d Ir- _..e
�ww rb 4.1 • • r ,-•4-,5-
IwJn _=_ill" Ultl �I u '�. (I �I U �N� ♦ .. � ' \
xIN IxlLx 10.
11
I 1 Mwl�
I \\
1 0 of romp sow
r^
to vorr
I �
i
aa
la
II,10 N
G 45o . •' I W I
N 10
o 9 , II 1 1-
Ijo
I 0 ...
ty o 3 28
DR. —' f�2
l 0
CHURCH `
a _
5 � / 2 17 �. � 114 26 I^ ;
1 3 17
0 ci n+r + y 14 , I• R— 1y 25
W
• O 3 d 4 5� 6 of 18 C
17
4 r WOODLAW N o 19 e
I.1;
02o i5 q n 23
16
c ' 9 j ? 10 1 e',I 22
10 21
ee� �
II aec '
10
i IIz 20 �.
I
ti
CITY of moUpDS nEW 1 12W 19
°F PRO p W ..
13 1e
10 UjjIr OV101014 a:-JO w 013
._ _..1
-
_._ W
--
- ti0 Is le-
TL
< ---- "' B
COMSTOCK & DAVIS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
1446 COUNTY RD. J (851h AVE. N.E.)
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55432
TEL:612.784.9346
March 14, 1983
Mr. John Johnson
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway No. 10
St. Paul, MN 55112
Re: Apartment development by Mr. Tony Poppelaars
Location: Lots 1 and 2, Blk. 2, Park View Terrace
C&D Fil No. 4419
Mr. Johnson,
f the
ots to
pThe arkingeareas.prTheses to followinglareasrarenproposedlfor fillllow construction of
1, Wetland area (area below 903 contour) = 1950 sq. ft. = 36 cu. yds.
2. Flood plain area (area below 904 contour) = 4900 sq. ft, = 163 cu. yds.
91:e developer proposes to fill 0.06 acres out of a total of 0.24 acres of
wetland on his property.
As part of the Rice Creek Watershed Board's requirements the developer proposes
to install a baffled wier device. This wier is used to contain floatable
istdesignedntothe
functionparking
forlot.
rainfall sketch
eventsthis
adevice
device
year frequency, namely
;3 inches in 24 hours.
Design Data:
Drainage area to wier = 0.3 acres
Runoff coeffient - 0.90
Peak runoff rate - 0.6 c.f.s.
Maximum under baffle velocity - 0.5 f.p.s.
Minimum under baffle area = 1.3 sq. ft.
If you have any questions or need further information please contact the writer
at 784-9346.
COMSTOCK 6 DAVIS, INC.
By—-
GC/pmp Lary Coms ock
Encl.
cc/encl: File 4419
I
r �/1�'
flytlnll d101i L.OF...L.....
Bc II
JUII HO.. . �� I� ............
CII It P. hY UAfL
o��2bn15.. . ... ... .. ......................
,DrG'r•S NFU ""eRc-P C
4!E�,
.Pa. klr.— 10�.
,11
j � Pefre55�1'
c, -0_ , crv. C��b
(�Ytp'lx 4'.011 Pam%
all, A°rld-o" i
Wood Qion�S
(,Se2 sike Man S)
�1
c�PGr aPPnr`q jj
�7ork�rc�lorsu��
Gl2cLr o�enl1r—
� -
P'P pop i
0-vma
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
9
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: March 17, 1983
SUBJECT: EDGEWOOD SQUARE FINAL PLAT
Attached for your review are copies of the following:
1) Resolution No. 1365 - This resolution gave approval to
the Bdgewood Square Plat (at that time called Mounds View
Square) with stipulations.
(After Resolution No. 1365 was approved, the applicant had
six months in which to submit a final plat according to the
provisions found in the resolution. Discussions with various
City staff members occurred from September 28, 1981 to April
12, 1982 which culminated in approval of Resolution No. 1429.)
2) Resolution No. 1429 - This resolution approved and author-
ized the execution of Development Agreement No. 82-52 (now
numbered #82-54).
3) Letter dated August 3, 1983 from Director of Public Works/
Community Development to applicant - This letter clarified
the City's position for the applicant regarding provisions
of the development agreement approval.
4) Memo dated December 16, 1982 to City Council from Director
of Public Works/Community Development - This memo included
copies of Development Agreement No. 82-54 (partial copy of
non-standard sheets only).
Please review the attached items in there entirety. The applicant
has not submitted anything for new business to date but should we
receive any additional information, it will be forwarded to you.
/bc
Attachments
U-]
RESOLUTION NO. 1365
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OP MTNNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ENTITLED,
"MOUNDS VIEW SQUARE" WITH STIPULATIONS
WHEREAS, Lhe City Councilof the City of Mounds View held a
public hearing on the preliminary plat entitled, "Mounds View Square"
on September 14, 1981, at 7:50 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission
action and City Codes as they pertain to the Mounds View Square
Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings regarding
the Mounds View Square Plat:
1) Zoning and subdivision requirements regarding lots and sizes
meet minimum standards.
2) The proposed preliminary plat does meet the requirements of
Ordinance 4305.
and;
WHEREAS, the City Council requires the following conditions
regarding the preliminary plat• entitled, "Mounds View Square":
1) Proposed Lot 10 shall have existing garage removed or have
the building incorporated with the new structure.
2) Proposed Lot 5 shall have the overhead electrical wire
relocated.
3) Lots 17, 18 and 19 be dedicated as drainage, utility and wetland
easements Lo the City.
4) The area below the 906 elevation on Lot 16 shown on the grading
and drainago plan also be Ondicated as a drainage, utility and
wetland easements to the City.
5) Minimum sanitary sewer main size shall be 8 inches for the
project.
6) Class 5 gravel base for Edgewood Drive and Pinewood Circle
be increased from 5 inches to 6 inches.
t and;
RESOLUTION NO. 13G5
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mounds View now
requires the applicant for the Mounds View Square Plat to include
the conditions listed above in his final plat and plans and
specifications;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mounds View approves the preliminary plat of Mounds View
Square with the conditions listed above.
Adopted this 28th day of September, 1981.
ATTEST:
.-
Mayor
l•
(SEAL)
Deputy Clerk
00
RESOLUTION NO. 1429
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AIJTIIORI7INC THE CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR AND MAYOR
TO EXECUTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 82-52 WITH ROBERT EIGENHEER
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Code, Section 59.07, requires
development review and approval for the Final Plat Edgewood
Square and installation of improvements requested by Robert
Eigenheer for 2381 County Road I; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed
the Plat and recommended approval in their adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 23-81; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the
final plat, improvement proposal and the recommendation action
of the Planning Commission and Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has stipulated
requirements to be included in Development Agreement No. 82-52
hereto attached;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council authorize its Clerk -Administrator and Mayor to execute
Development Agreement No. 82-52 pursuant to direction found
auuvc.
Adopted this 12th day of April, 1982.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
0
August 3, 1982
C�� 0
out s 1ow
IIAMSEV CO(IN IV. Id INNESOIA
2401111GRIVAY 10
`IOIINnS VII W. MINN W., 2
704-3055
Mr. Robert Eigneheer
12015 Central Avenue N.li.
Blaine, MN 55434
Re: Odgewood Square Ucvelopment Agreement No. 82-52
Dear Mr. Eignenheer:
This letter is to confirm our convera.-Lion on July 28, 1982
concerning the ilg above development agreement and questions that
you had concerning some of Lhc paragrapys;
1) It has always been City policy to require a per lot bond
® from the developer to ensure proper location, siting and
grading of the individual home units. It has been the
constructed.
Policy to allow reduction of the bond amount as homes are
•
2) Exhibit 2A, Items 1 and 2. Ite;,; I requires the developer
L� pay all. bills as they occur on the project.
Item 2 requires
the placing of a cash escrow amount, usually
publiamount•of known oxpenses or c:xpecLed expenses such as
c hearing costs. When the fund is exhausted, 1
requires the developer to continItem
Ile paying additional
expenses. If Item 2 escrow amount is not util.ize(I com-
pletely then the City would refund the balance of the
escrow amount.
3) No. 9113.Exhibit 2A, Item 5. This is a requirement of Resolution
developer is reResolution No. 983 states in part that the
desponsible for maintenance of the drainage
facilities as part of the devel.opulrnt for a period of seven
years. Depending on the situ of Lhu devolopment, the City
establishes a bond amount to be po;;tcd a.,. part of the final
Plat- In your case, this amount has been determined to be
$5,000.
4 4) Exhibit 2A, Item 7. 1'ho Ctly ha:: processed .: reapportion-
ment of all pending :grec.ial anre:::nm'nl:n on Lhc parcel known
1
Mr. I,igenhecr
Pays
August 3, 19112
as Cdgewuod Sgw7r(� D:vololdnunL. It. was determined (luring
Lhc rcahpurLionni,-ul. procc:;n LhaL Luis 17, 18 all(] 19 may
not dcr..ivc bcn:lit from Lhc improvements previously assessed.
Therefore, redi:;tribut.ion of. a:;ses:;menls would not be made
aga.innl Ihuse 1u1:;. You niay wish to 1li:;cu:;:;, with the City
Attorney and/or your attorney, whether language concerning
the reapportionment asses:mients would be included in the
devr.lopment agreement t:11lich would clarify this item to your
SatDSfac Lion.
5) Exhibit. 'A, Llemll. Thi: i';uayraph i:; placing upon you, the
developer, the reguir(�mcnt to assist- in what ever require-
ment's are placed by Ramsey County as a result of the review
of the plat. A; poinL•ed out Lo you, if Lhe county determined
in the review of the plat that additional downstream drain-
age facil.ilics may be required, it is the City's position that
you participate in Lhr, cunl::i of any such improvements that may
be necessary. As mentioned in our meeting, it would be to
your advanLagc to review your drainayc plans with your engi-
❑cer and minimize any surface draina-le diror.ted towards the
ditch along the county road.
Hopefully, the above iLoms ruspond to your questions. if you have
any furLher questions or if I can be of any help as you proceed
towards compleLion of ynnr final plat, plcnsc conL•acL tile. �..
Sincerely,
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
J?�
John C. J nson, Dirce[ur
Public Works/Community Development
JCJ/bc
cc: Dick. Mcycrs,CiLy ALLurucy
Don Pauluy
Steve Rose
of
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Dove lopment(I 0
DATE: December 16, 1982
SUBJECT: EDGEWOOD SQUARE DEVELOPMENT/ROBERT EIGENHEER
Mr. Eigenheer has requested to appear before the City Council
and try to resolve approval of Final Plat. Attached is a copy
of the Development Agreement No. 82-54, Exhibit 2A.
The main problem area is resolving the drainage issue along County
Road I easterly of his project; which has been discussed with the
Council previously. Mr. Liyenheer wishes to present his case
personally. To date, the County and the City have delayed approval
due to the lack of culverts or storm sewer under St. Stephen and
St. Michael Streets.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
JCJ/bc
Attachment
11
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MOUNDS VIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
EDGEWOOD SQUARE
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _ day of
, 19_, by and between the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW,
County of Ramsey, State of. Minnesota, party of the first part,
hereinafter called the "City",
and Robert Eigenheer
party of the second part, hereinafter called the "Developer",
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Developer, in consideration of approval of
the Edgewood Square Final Plat of the proposed public improvement
and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to
perform all of the acts required herr.in and to conform to all of
the conditions set forth as follows:
1. Wherever the word "City" appears herein, it shall mean
and include the City of Mounds View and also said City's agents and
employees; and wherever the word "Developer" appears herein, it
shall mean the developer, and any of its agents and employees.
Wherever the words "development site appear herein, it shall mean
the premises described in the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 (legal description)
Exhibit 2 (site and grade plan)
4 Exhibit 3 (public improvement plans &specs)
Exhibit 4 (Resolution #983 Security, $500tl
Exhibit 5 (Final Plat)
Exhibit 6 (Easement DocumenLs for Lots 17, 18, 19 and
Rev. 4/13/81 parts of Lot 16)
the City in the processing, review and evaluation of the proposed
development and in the inspection of all work performed pursuant
to said contract. Such costs shall include but not be limited to
the administrative, legal, and engineering expenses incurred herein,
and such other expenses as authorized by said Chapter.
13. Developer agrees that the City can terminate development
of the development site or the construction of any building struc-
tures thereon if in the City Council's opinion the terms of this
Development Contract have not been conformed to by the developer
and the said Developer herein agrees to cease construction and
waives its right of recourse, claim, suit or action against the
City. In addition, in the event the Developer fails to conform to
the conditions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to
enforce it pursuant to the terms of this contract and/or the provi-
sions of the Mounds View Home Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code, or applicable Minnesota Statutes. The Developer
herein agrees that in the event the City is compelled to enforce
any of the provisions of this contract by court action and judgment
is rendered in favor of the City, that all costs, disbursements
and reasonable attorney's fees will be paid by said Developer, its
heirs, successors and assigns.
14. The Developer shall furnish to the City at the time of
the execution of this Contract a cash bond, a corporate surety bond,
an irrevocable letter of credit or any other negotiable instrument
approved by the City Attorney, which the Developer agrees to keep in
full force and effect during the term of the obligation created
herein in the amount of $150,000.00
Dollars, wherein the
-4-
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 82-,5110
EXHIBIT 2A
In addition to the foregoing conditions, Developer agrees to the
following:
1) The Developer hereby agrees to pay all bills for
expenses incurred by the City within 30 day of receipt.
2) Post $5,000 in cash to the City to cover inspection
and administrative costs of the City regarding the
improvement of the property.
3) An additional ten (10) feet of drainage and utility
easement be placed along the north line of Lot B.
4) That casement- documents for filing on Lots 17, 18, and
19 and part of Lot 16 denoted drainage easement on the
Edgewood Square Plat be prepared and submitted to the
City subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
5) The Developer submit a 7-year security in the amount of
® $5,000 covering the requirements of Resolution No. 983
for the Plat.
6) That the Developer agrees to the changes in the public
improvement plan and specifications discussed and agreed
to in Meeting Minutes dated 3/30/82 (Exhibit 20) and a
letter from Short-Elliott-liendrickson dated 4/7/82
(Exhibit 2C) hereby attached. This includes the instal-
lation of an outside drop for sewer as stated in 11 of
Exhibit 28.
7) The Developer agrees to allow a special assessment in the
amount of $6,944.82 to be assessed against the benefitting
lots of the property to be known as Edgewood Square.
8) The public improvement shall be completed no later than
October 15, 1982.
9) That the as-builts for the public improvements be submitted
no later than 30 days after final acceptance of the project.
10) No sewer and water connections shall be allowed to the new
improvement prior to its final acceptance.
11) That the Developer agrees to provide drainage along abut-
ting County Road I subject to requirement and approval
of the Ramsey County Engineer and the City.
Development Agreement No. 82-5Z
Exhibit 2A
Page 2
12) Submission of a current permit from Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to recording of the final plat.
Date:
Date:
:1
FOR THE CITY:
FOR THE DEVELOPER:
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Clerk -Administrator
DATE: March 7, 1983
SUBJECT: PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING AREA IN THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY
Attached please find a Notice of Hearing from the Minnesota Waste
Management Board indicating that on April 19, 1983 at 1:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. at the Fridley City Hall a hearing will be held by
the State Hearing Examiner's Office for the purpose of gathering
additional information on the proposed Hazardous Waste Processing
Facility site in Fridley. The hearing is the final step in the
statutorily established process prior to the final selection of
hazardous waste processing areas by the Waste Management Board (WMB).
The area which has previously been identified as Fridley Site A,
note map attached, abuts the westerly Mounds View City limits from
County Road H to County Road H-2.
On November 30, 1982, staff submitted a memorandum, copy attached,
recommending that the City of Mounds View go on record supporting
the City of Fridley's opposition of the preliminary identification
of the site by the WMB. On December 13, 1982 the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 1523 taking such a position.
Unfortunately, the WMB did not agree with Fridley's position and
on December 17, 1982 adopted Fridley A, " . as a proposed area for
transfer/storage and chemical treatment with direction to explore
possible alternatives with the City." Attached is the WMB's
"Basis for the Selection of Criteria and Selection of Areas for
Inclusion in the Proposed Inventory of Processing Areas" dated
February 24, 1983 with the WMB's analysis of Fridley A.
Also attached is the cover sheet of a report from the Anoka County
Soil and Water Conservation District which summarizes the findings
of the District's Board of Supervisors from a technical analysis
of the soils at Fridley A. The Board suggests that Fridley A be
removed from the list of proposed sites for four basic reasons.
These are:
1. A natural water table ranging from 0 - 4 feet in depth.
2. The relatively poor filtering capacity of the predominant
soils on the site.
3. The location of the site in a "... densely populated area
that could be directly affected by contaminants."
-z-
4. The open water areas of Spring Lake, Locke Lake, Rice Creek,
and the Mississippi River in close proximity to the site.
The Board felt that these four factors, "... are all direct
indications that any type of spill, or seepage could be potentially
disastrous to the soil and water resources of the area."
Staff contacts with the City of Fridley indicate that their
Environmental Concerns Committee will be handling most of the
activities surrounding this matter and that they have not as yet
taken an official position for this hearing. Staff would recommend
that the City of Mounds View adopt the attached proposed resolution
opposing the identification of Fridley Site A as a hazardous waste
processing area.
Should you have any questions, or require any additional information,
please advise.
DFP/pf
Attachments
R�1
RESOLUTION NO. 1576
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IDENTIFICATION OF FRIDLEY
SITE A AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING AREA
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Waste Management Board has identi-
fied a site in the City of Fridley as a proposed hazardous waste
processing facility area; and
WHEREAS, this site, known as Fridley A, abutts the City
of Mounds View's westerly border on Pleasant View Drive from
County Road H-2 to County Road H; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has evaluated the site
as it relates to its conformance with the Waste Management Board's
"Basis for the Selection of Criteria and Selection of Areas for
Inclusion in the Proposed Inventory of Processing Areas (Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area)" dated February 24, 1983, and finds that
Fridley A in whole or in part does not conform with four of the
eight factors listed on page 23 of the aforementioned report,
namely, proximity to residential development, soil and water condi-
tions, protection of city wells and water supply intake, and
proximity to natural areas, parks, and historic sites; and
WHEREAS, a report from the Anoka County Soil and Water
Conservation District dated February 7, 1983 recommends that
Fridley A be removed from the list of proposed Hazardous Waste
Processing Facility Sites due to existing soil and water conditions
that would cause for any spill or seepage of hazardous waste
material to be disastrous to the soil and water resources of the
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds
View opposes the identification of Fridley A as a Hazardous
Waste Processing Area.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 28th day of March, 1983.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
MEMO TO: Mayor and Ci
FROM: Clerk-Admini
DATE: November 30,
SUBJECT: WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD PRELIMINARY AREA FOR WASTE
PROCESSING FACILITY - FRIDLEY (SITE A)
Attached please find a packet of material supplied by the
Minnesota Waste Management Board regarding the process for
identifying preliminary areas for hazardous waste processing
facilities, and maps showing those areas identified in the Metro
Region and Fridley Sites A and B. You will note that the Fridley
Site A encompasses a large area running from Highway 10 south
along University Avenue to 73rd and west along 73rd Avenue to the
Mounds View City border.
Also attached is a packet of material supplied by the City of
Fridley regarding the position taken by the City of Fridley with
respect to the identification of hazardous waste processing facility
sites in their city.
The City of Mounds View should be particularly concerned about
the site identified as Fridley Site A which abutts our westerly
border on Pleasant View Drive from County Road H-2 to County Road H.
This site, or at least part of it, appears to be in nonconformance
with the factors for selection of Metro proposed areas as outlined
by the Waste Management Board and included on a sheet in your
packet of material. This lisring indicates that the Waste Manage-
ment Board prefers areas: 1) "that avoid residential areas (either
by having a large industrial area, scattered residential development,
or other development or open space between residential and industrial
development)." 2) "that offer some protection over that designed
into a facility" to the areas, soils, and aquifer conditions.
3) "which have conditions which would protect wells and water supply."
4) "which would avoid natural parks and historic sites." With
respect to Fridley Site A it can be easily stated that all of these
factors are not complied with by at least part of that site, namely,
the area running east to west from University Avenue to the Mounds
view border.
It is staff's position that these factors are not complied with
because the area directly to the north of 73rd Avenue Northeast
is entirely residential development, Rice Creek runs directly south
of the site which ultimately runs into the Mississippi River and
provides a large source of water for the Metropolitan Area, and
the Rice Creek area provides a major natural area and park to all
of the communities it runs through, including the City of Fridley.
-2-
Taking these factors into consideration and the position previously
taken by the City of Fridley as outlined in their Resolution
No. 100-1982 adopted on November 15, 1982, staff would recommend
that the Mounds View City Council go on record supporting the
position taken by the City of Fridley opposing Fridley Site A and
recommending an alternate site in the City of Fridley as identified
by the City of Fridley. Also, staff would recommend that the City
of Mounds View temper our opposition to this site as well as the
other sites we have previously voiced opposition to by indicating
to the Waste Management Board that we are not opposing the location
of hazardous waste transfer or processing sites in the Metropolitan
Area and, in particular, near the City of Mounds View, but that we
are strongly recommending that they make a greater effort to evaluate
each of the sites they have identified in a preliminary manner prior
to making them public as it would appear that the three sites in or
near the City of Mounds View are unacceptable for a number of reasons,
all of which are listed in their factors for consideration. With
that tempering of our position, we would come off as being more
reasonable in the position we are taking on the Fridley site and have
taken on the other sites in the past, and would afore likely have a
greater impact upon the decision -making process of the Waste Manage-
ment Board.
Staff would request Council direction in this matter in order that
an appropriate response might be provided as soon as possible.
DFP/pf
Attachments
MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Proposed Areas for Processing Facilities
Metro Region 12/17/82
C NORTH A Fridley (site A) isod � T�
C
cotes IncinerPlIM Chemical, Transfer -Storage Operation
,iorked denoles cbemm.l d r. ,t.._a . e --I..
RESOLUTION NO. 1523
•0 CTTY 01, MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF F'RIDLEY ON THE SITING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES IN FRIDLEY
WHEREAS, the LJinnosota Waste Management Board has identified
two sites in the City of Fridley as preliminary areas for processing
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley Site A abutts the City of Mounds View's
westerly border on Pleasant View Drive from County Road 11-2 to
County Road 11; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has evaluated the site as
it relates to its conformance with the Waste Management Board's
"Factors For Selection Of Metro Proposed Areas" and finds that that
part of the site lying cast of University Avenue does not conform
with four of the eight factors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has taken a position opposing
the siting of a hazardous waste processing facility in Fridley by
adopting Resolution No. 100-1982 on November 15, 1902.
NOW, THEREC•ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City
of Mounds View that the City of Mounds View supports the City of
Fridley's position of opposition to the siting of a hazardous waste
processing facility in the City of Fridley.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the waste Management Board is
encouraged to promote the use of existing hazardous waste processing
plants and sites as a means of lessening the potential hazards to
the general public.
Adopted this 13th day of December, 1992.
ATTEST: 1i ��—
Mayor
(SEAL)
Cle -Administrat r
J
1t" ` k'\ANOKA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
Qd CONSERVATION DISTRICT
rn
1 ro 560 gun6Pln6. 6oulow4
OO� �O O Ano6a M.nn..olo $5707
Jdlphone 1612:757.4721
MINN_ESOTA L q&�-'
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
February 7, 1?F3
TO: Fridley City Co:mcil
C/o John Flora, Director of Public Horks
aa'
X.r.C. A.
S-r.-r_ Forrest, Division of Solid & Hazardous waste
FRQ;. Arlo::_ So:'. & F;a:er Conser.at:or. District Hoard of Sum:.e:sors
_. Pro;o:e' S:tc "AllH::ardo;:s baste Proeessin;, Facility Sitc,
For'_or.r of Section; <, 3, 10, 11 an: 12. in City of Fridlc;;.
Irfor ::inr.:1 aacket or soil characteristics of 7a'_d area:
After rc:4PwirC the :echtical report submitted by Patricia L.
;?:do17*., D::tr:c'. Cons cr::t:on Aiie, the Hoard would like to ache
eo _-c .; or. the cbo':e site.
' C.,t o` :he a1•+Vo:::-_•e ?4: total acre: of the site, 34: acre. _.
3?; of the area cont-,4n::net sand or wet orZanic soils.
6--ro::_.a:e1y j�j acre: or SE;,A
of the site area contains
n: _....:...._. cu:,:ex soils Which are dry sand soils and hold ec':err
fo:• f:lter:rz ca,:ac".y due to its' coarse terturc.
14 acrE: or �.e,, of the site area is c_as:ifiec
:•::'.• '—'E :Oi;`_ ":.^face:. Thee areas ha'/e rapid run off to :_.":oil:
C.:ch�eo'.rcc r.
D:=c hou-. Ln- areas surround the site, open water are,, a r.:cr _...
rarer _re all vory close by the site.
3?o of the site has we, sand or we,. o^-an:c :o` :
sr:ere 1-i:a;io.^s. The _:o:en:ial for widespread go -and waver con:.r:r..:or
apse:r: :o fc ter; h:Ch. Some of the soils in this wet ceteZory of soil:
with a cr tsb:es of ; - 4 feet have a rather hi6h potential for fro::
action t;::h res�ec: to hon--dingy pond areas, etc.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
41W.V
Proposed Site "A"
Februar-.( 7, 1983
pale Two
'len of••a� nsly-populetESThe factthat the sitee?
area that could be directly a"fee'.'^d'by contaninn%es -&WATiiC open
water areas 'of Sprint Lake, appror_.:^�ately 1,80 ft, to the east of the
eastern border of the site; LockPUke, approximately 533 ft.,south,!cet
of the southwest border of the site; the eatrene closeness or<fti'57MInt
to the south aod'the to the west•4re c
cations that any type of spill, or' �ee;'ege�coul po4en#
to the soil.and water resources o'f :'nc surroundin, ere?,
Tho Hood v6uld su-�e t11thati `tV FridleySiVCW. best9 r),md,1 Ica
tha list of propose: Ha:ardods>Was`ie}proces�:ri;Fi,Ia 3Aty;iSlt'i".:bb39�
It
If
it.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WASTE MA::AGEIfENT BOARD �'. tt08t4D5VIfV1
In the Matter of the Proposed
Hazardous Waste Processing Facility NOTICE OF AND
Areas in the Twin Cities ORDER FOR HEARING
Metropolitan Area
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
information gathering hearings concerning the above -entitled 'matter
will be held by the Waste Management Board ("{iMB") pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 115A.09, subd. 3 (1982) at the times and dates
listed below:
Proposed Area
Date
Location
Time
Shakopee
March 2, 1983
Scott County Courthouse
Assembly Room
1:00 P.M.
428 S. Holmes
and
Shakopee, MN
7:30 p.m.
Minneapolis-
March 8, 1983
Minneapolis City Hall
Areas A, B, C
Room 319
1:00 P.M.
Minneapolis City Hall
Room.317
7:30 p.m.
Roseville
March 15, 1983
Roseville City Hall
1:00 P.M.
2660 Civic Center Dr.
and
Roseville, MN
7:30 p.m.
Lakeville
March 16, 1983
Lakeville City Hall
1:06 P.M.
8747-208th St.
and
Lakeville, MN
7:30 p.m.
Ramsey
March 21, 1983
Ramsey City Hall
1:00 P.M.
15153 Northern Blvd. NW
and
Ramsey, MN
7:3Q p.m.
Forest take
March 23, 1983
Forest Lake City Hall
1:00 p.m.
220 N. Lake Street
and
Forest lake, MN
7:30 p.m.
Inver Grove March 30, 1983 Dakota County Area 1:00 P.M.
Heights, Vocational Technical and
Rosemount Institute 7:30 p.m.
County Road 42
Akron Road
Rosemount, MN
-2-
Proposed Area Date Location Time ^
Plymouth April 5, 1983 Plymouth City Hall 1:00 P.M.
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN
Armstrong Senior High 7:30 p.m.
School (Cafeteria)
10635 - 36th Avenue N.
Plymouth, MN
St. Paul April 11, 1983 St. Paul City Hall 1:.00 P.M.
Areas A and B Council Chambers and
15 W. Kellogg 7:30 p.m.
St. Paul, MN
Fridley April 19, 1983 Fridley City Hall 1:00 P.M.
6431 University Ave. NE and
Fridley, MN 7:30 p.m.
Cottage Grove April 25, 1983 City Hall 1:00 P.M.
7516-80th St. S.
Cottage Grolre, MN
Park Senior High School 7:30 p.m.
Cafeteria
8040-80th Street S.
Cottage Grove, MN
Hastings April 27, 1983 Hastings City Hall 1:00 p.m.
100 Sibley St. and
Hastings, MN 7:30 p.m.
The following proposed areas will be considered at the
hearings:
Shakopee - an area south of Highway 101, including the Valley
Industrial Park
Minneapolis - scattered industrial areas within the city including
the Midway industrial area and the industrial area
north of downtown
Roseville - an area on the western edge of the city south of
County Road C
Lakeville - an area including the Airlake Industrial Park
Ramsey - an area north of Highway 10 and south of the Anoka
Landfill, including the Gateway North Industrial Park
Forest Lake - an area east of I-35W and south of Broadway
Inver Grove Heights - an area on the southeastern edge of the
city, on either side of Highway 55
v
-3-
Rosemount - an area on the northeastern edge of the city, along
Highway 55
Plymouth - an area south of Highway 55 and to the east and west of
I-494
St. Paul - scattered industrial areas in the city including the
Midway industrial area and the Riverview Industrial Park
Fridley - an area in the northern part of the city between the
Burlington Northern railroad tracks and the Moundsview
city limits
Cottage Grove - an area south of Highway 61 at Chemolite Road
Hastings - an area including the Hastings Industrial Park
Specific details on the location of the areas may be obtained
by contacting Sharon Decker, Waste Management Board, 7323-58th
Avenue North, Crystal, Minnesota, 55428, Telephone (612) 536-0816
or 1-800-652-9747.
The hearings will be held before the following Hearing
Examiners of the Office of Administrative Hearings, 400 Summit
Bank Building, 310 - 4th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
55415, (612) 341-7600:
Shakopee, Minneapolis and Cottage Grove - Alan W. Klein
Roseville, Forest lake and Fridley - Phyllis Reba
Ramsey, Inver Grove Heights -Rosemount, and St. Paul -
Howard L. Kaibel
Lakeville, Plymouth and Hastings - Myron S. Greenberg
The purpose of the hearings is to gather additional
information on the proposed areas which may be helpful to the
WMB in determining which areas should be placed on the final`
inventory of hazardous waste processing areas. Information
related to the criteria utilized by the V?MB, as well as any other
information which may assist the WMB in determining whether an
area should be included in the final inventory of processing areas
may be submitted at the hearing.
At the hearings, any local government unit in which an area
is proposed for inclusion in the inventory may propose an
alternative area or areas within its jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. §
115A.091 subd. 3 (1982). These alternatives may include (a)
exclusion or inclusion of land within or near the designated
proposed area,-(b) a different location within the jurisdiction of
r
-4-
the governing unit, (c) specification of the type of processing •
facility for an area, (d) other alternatives.
The l,'MB is a statutory agency of the State of Minnesota with
responsibility for identifying areas which may be used for the
establishment of commercial hazardous waste processing facilities.
The nine member board includes eight citizen members, one from
each of the state's Congressional districts, and a full-time
chairman who is a state employee. The board is the final decision
making authority of the agency. The chairman, in addition to
being a member of the board, is also the executive and operating
officer of the board and as such is authorized by statute to carry
out the executive and administrative functions of the board. The
W14B staff is supervised by the chairman.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115A.09 (1982), the WMB is required
to prepare an inventory of areas of up to ten square miles in size
for commercial hazardous waste processing facilities. The
inventory must include at least three areas for each of the
following categories of processing facilities: (a) a commercial
chemical processing facility for hazardous waste, (b) a commercial
incineration facility for hazardous waste, and (c) a commercial
transfer and storage facility for -hazardous waste. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency is required to prepare a report on the
suitability of each proposed area for the use intended. Sites e
within areas that are on the WMB processing facility inventory may
qualify for supplementary review by the WMB. If a facility
developer obtains a Pollution Control Agency permit for a facility
within an inventoried area but a political subdivision refuses to
approve the establishment or operation of the facility, a petition
may be filed with the WMB requesting review of the decision of the
political subdivision. If, on the basis of review criteria
adopted by the WMB the WMB approves the facility, the WMB approval
supersedes the decision of the political subdivison. Minn. Stat.
§§ 115A.32-.39 (1982).
On April 22, 1982, eight (8) outstate (outside the seven
county Twin Cities metropolitan area) areas were placed on
the WMB inventory of preferred areas for hazardous waste
processing facilities. A reexamination of the Twin Cities
metropolitan area for possible preferred areas will be
accomplished before the WMB inventory is completed.
The procedure for selecting areas to complete the final
inventory is as follows:
1. The Waste Management Board develops criteria for selecting
preliminary areas in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including
those criteria required to be considered by Minn. Stat. § 115A.091
subd. 2 and applies that criteria to identify preliminary areas; 0
ti
-5-
2. The Board compares the preliminary areas on the basis of
certain predetermined factors and selects as proposed areas those
areas that seem most suitable.
3. Public hearings are held for each proposed areal
4. The hearing examiner's report is submitted to the WMB;
5. The WMB reviews the hearing examiner's findings and
recommendations and the record of the hearing; and,
6. The WMB.makes its final decision on the areas to be
included in the processing facility inventory.
The Board's final decision on the inventory will be based on
the data developed by the WMB staff and submitted as part of the
hearing record, testimony of witnesses at the hearing, exhibits
submitted at the hearing and any other material included in the
record of the hearing.
_..
1,CQp;es of "the criteria -
the WMB' uE'il'ized ao selectEtH
proposed. areas for jxzardous aaste'yprocess1—'' cil'i' pr
Ti% nIrC ities metropolitan 'area "wi1S •beL'available at7the rUMW
hearYny?Ss'" abticed."".'In addi"fi'oh"`,�' a sepor.£Y�3nfaininqc�}i`a'�d�
for: th'eaoard .:deci&i_oR to.o'pos�"e;an.areal�Fdr indl"�eisn^'�
inventory will be available prior;to'rthe hearing: To the extent
feasible, these documents may be copied. PLEASE BE ADVISED that
it may not be possible to copy certain documents such as large
maps. PLEASE BE ADVISED that this hearing is neither a contested
case hearing nor a rulemaking hearing. Therefore, the procedural
rules applicable to contested case and rulemaking hearings are
inapplicable. The following procedures shall be followed:
1. The hearing will be opened by the hearing examiner who
will explain the hearing procedures.
2. The WMB staff will introduce the jurisdictional documents,
the WMB criteria, and the report containing the basis for
proposing the area for inclusion in the Board's inventory.
3. The YI1B'staff will briefly summarize the basis for
including the proposed area in the inventory.
4. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to make
oral statements, to offer written documents into the record and to
direct questions to the WMB staff. Representatives of 'the VIMB
staff may address questions to members of the public.
5. The hearing examiner may exclude testimony which is
irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. In addition, the
hearing examiner may disallow questioning which is irrelevant,
immaterial, unduly repetitious, argumentative, harassing, or
adversarial in nature.
6. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 624.72 (1982), no person shall
interfere with the conduct of, or disrupt or threaten interference
with or disruption of the hearing. In the event of any
interference or disruption or threat thereof, the hearing examiner
may take appropriate action.
7. Following the end of the hearing, members of the public
will have seven working days in which to submit additional
documents and comments for the hearing record. Copies of these
documents and comments must be submitted to both the hearing
examiner and the WMB staff.
B. Following the seven day period discussed above, the WMB
staff will have seven working days in which to respond to the
public testimony presented at the hearing and subsequent documents
submitted into the hearing record.
9. Copies of additional documents submitted by members of the
public and the W14B staff responses will be available for
inspection at the WMB offices.
10. No factual information or evidence which is not a part of
the hearing record will be considered by the hearing examiner or
the WMB in the determination of this matter.
11. The hearing examiner will prepare a report which will
contain findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations on
issues related to the proposed areas.
12. The VIMB staff will make final recommendation to the WMB
regarding the proposed areas.
13. The 41MB will make a determination as to which sites should
be included in the final inventory based on the hearing record.
14. Persons wishing to be notified of the availability of the
hearing examiner's report, the staff recommendation, or the
board's determination on the final inventory of preferred areas
may so indicate at the hearing.
PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that, while persons may submit
documents or other information at the hearing or up to seven
working days after the bearing, it would be very helpful to hive
documents submitted to the WMB staff in advance of the hearing.
Therefore, persons wishing to submit documents or other
information are encouraged to do so at the earliest possible time
so that the WMB staff his sufficient time to review the documents
and information.
-7-
Questions concerning the procedures indicated in this Notice
and Order may be directed to Special Assistant Attorney Generals
LeRoy C. Paddock or Alan W. Kowalchyk, 1935 W. County Road B-2,
Roseville, Minnesota, 55113, telephone (612) 379-0424. To submit
documents, obtain copies of WMB criteria, or for additional
information, please contact Sharon Decker at the Board's address
set forth above, telephone (612) 536-0816 or 1-800-652-9747.
February 4, 1983.
Q J""" A, A
ROBERT G. DUNN
Chairman
' STATE OF MINNESOTA �34S�
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD ��
o I'lo1983
1 RECEIVED
Basis for the Selection of Criteria and Selects If3 E1� OF
of Areas for Inclusion in the �''
Proposed Inventory of Processing Areas `'� MOUNDS vim
(Twin Cities Metropolitan Area) Cj/2p26l91Uyx
February 24, 1983
1. BACKGROUND
1. KpCiiQJtvdJl, jj4tg"A astd,M"�nn gem'en't'AcV ee �ihi:%ites �
B,oardIhmatter' l 9ard'!)"t0jl fe- 3rr01- ifi'veritor§'vf�P er as
icommorotn, hazardous_Vistelp"Fodassing`rfdei°fiti"esi.
MciMMIUUMBINOM
at- ;least:3hr_ee'.areas,cfor:.:each)1V01StBT.TowiBg"catNijg s' 8R i89�
fScll'lties •` (a) "a corme"ral7tbWdnl pr6dpssir(!gMlitygdnfl8LQI,'d0uN
ivas'ie 'i(b`j�a�e�nim"ercial"incine'ration i"aTai'iffy'foi'AiV'�►�bflSaABt;t'0;'Ybifd�ll
;a;ton:ner"cial'i"ransfei:end"sioha9e'faci93ty.for hzztlT4llslg'w8stl.
2. The Board is not required to promulgate rules pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch.
14, see Minn. Stat. § 115A.09, subd. 2 (1982), in selecting the factors which
it will utilize in evaluating areas for inclusion in the inventory.
3. I6 electing areas'forFthe'indent"o"ryr Minn Stamo), A4U9",•F3u6d
thglaoard:to consider at least the folbWing fartoffl
(T)he consistency of sitessVith-'State'°nAdUF deraV11 u1a'ti'o'1il,
local land use'indrland° tP01s, �Elia''�Peeiioifi•"di agri-
culture and natural"resou"rce31; ezjsting`a'n 1futu`i. 1.'deV6T"opme
patterns, transportation and other services appropriate to the
hazardous waste facilities, the quality of other potential
sites, and the location of,hazardous-wastegenerat'or1.
4. Areas selected for the inventory are assumed to have sites which could be
available for development of commercial processing facilities.
-2-.
5. The developer of a facility within an area on the inventory must undergo
review by the Board before the developer may apply for Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) permits. Minn. Stat. § 115A.10. This review includes
examination of the prospective facility operator's technical and financial
competence.
6. If a developer -of a'facility'wfiirFwi11'beFloCetedHwitbfiAan�6rea'Sb7l)BCha
inventory:obtains' neces'saryTpermit"s from%tfie;MPCA"'Sifd"�9'polariir8lusiltRtl tn�
refuses'C'to approve �tfie"`re'stabl'i?if9GentfiRr.�ope�atjon;ro�bE�fa'�lm't'y�Ehlb�
may seekifsllpplemerltary•:rev,ieW`'o'f;it'he o79'�Ca1�. u 'i3A'fi5"t?�'e�h.
Stag,S�;J'15A:33.•'(1962), ;�,Fol•lowing"a�Y!irView""of"th'e":rde"'rci�s'i n, nc � p 81�0
hearing ,;the':Board. may ;approve7or;disapprove"the fOgilltyVW.BOOMIMtltib
to�appro a tffe�facil)ty;•£fie B'oardade'�i•YTon:'sGpS?theZdeO,tS1t5�Ot�L�E
?poTi't'1'c31L�5Gbdivision:':rFlion:"'�ia�'§'f'11�i37; sutid�7>�L3'(1982p.
1. Ru'%s gove"rning•the-suppl'emen£ary review-processvjtAye Beer fl6p"te G�
r„
8 201-->8;21'8): ".7hese;cul.es;�provide*,for aVkdi>ii7675 rocess e6c'oSR
{nutuatly�agreeatilP'resolGtion o"f rthe dlfferencesd"eetiie<�rop s e o4'"`ep 9
'aril'ttie'pbl.itical-sutidiv"isioni 'The rules al so pF"MT''for �Gtil'fdA.Tyie'�a7R¢6"f�ffi!1
appointment,`ofbers �6 mem, of"tfie'affect'ed'commun3.ty�6tifie•�oard'as votKng•m
to ad'dre"§'s''th'e"disputed issue'.
8. In making its decision concerning the proposed facility during supplementary
review, the Board must consider at least:
a,) The risk and effect of the proposed facility on local residents, units
of government and the local public health;
b.) The consistency of the proposed facility with, and its effect on,
existing and planned local land use and development;
-3-
c.) The adverse effects of the facility on agriculture and natural resources;
d.) The need for the proposed facility.
Minn. Stat. § 115A.36 (1980).
9. Processing means treatment.of waste after collectjpn and IRdre`dia"P6S1iT.
Processing includes but is not limited to reduction, temporary storage, separa-
tion, exchange, resource recovery, physical, chemical, or biological modifica-
tion, and tranfer from one waste facility to another. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03,
subd. 25 (1982).
10. �Nezandout;waste'-tsa
(A)ny refuse or discarded material or combinations of refuse
or discarded materials in solid, semi -solid, liquid or gaseous
form which cannot be handled by routine waste management tech-
niques because they pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or other living organisms because of
their chemical, biological or physical properties. Categories
of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to:
explosives, flammables, oxidizers, poisons, irritants, and
corrosives. Nazardoes::aastP;does tiot'-1neTQde:'"sewage's1""fig
and `sburce, 5peci&1`.nucleaf�br: by�'pro`duct�naierial,�as d"eiih�$
by the Atomic Ener"gy Act of i954; as''emenaedl
Minn. Stat. 9 116.06, subd. 13 (1982).
11, The wastes generated in Minnesota can be divided into a number of categories
based on their physical and chemical characteristics. The'pHho ipal ezggFi'le
of Wastes generated in Minnesota are:
a.) Heavy'metals and inorganic 'resiluals, This is the largest category and
reflects the predominance of the electronic, primary metal, and fabricated
metal product industries in Minnesota;
b.) Solvents. Solvents of varying types are used by many varied industries
for cleaning and manufacturing purposes;
c.) Oils and greases. These wastes are generated by refineries which pro-
duce petroleum products, service industries such as auto repair shops and
.4-
gasoline stations, and a broad spectrum of manufacturing industries which
use machinery requiring lubrication or hydraulic equipment;
d.) Paint•and organic residues '•orgariid''sllidgef and "stIllrUttomp(no
oil)'.'and"organic'and'oily'"residoe'sT These are the major groupings of
organic wastes (other than lube oils), and they have been aggregated here
because these wastes can be managed in similar ways;
e.) PCBeand PCB wastes. Although the amounts of PCB wastes being disposed
of is insignificant when compared to the overall waste stream (approxi'lately
0.1%) this waste becomes important for two reasons: first, it is a highly
controversial material; second, because of recent EPA regulations limiting
future use of the material, a large quantity of PCB -containing materials
which would not otherwise have been removed from service must be disposed
of over the next seven years.
l2. Transfe"r�s>:orage'facill:tips'aYe:'d�iitE�9'fy=�1oc�iea- afi�c 1i ite �i"cFii'd'e7� ;�
the, ;col lection and"'sho"r£`term�stora"�e ofl'small;gquantalprofitfi'tiFd"o'ffWrM-z=
multiple,iocptions-and then -thettranffh'fFAHVWtfies E ast-' oq$"fi�ie RID
tion: A transfer -storage facility is a warehousing operation', and would re-
semble any other small to medium sized comnercial warehouse. A single building
with truck loading areas would be required. Materials would be brought in in drums
or in bulk, analyzed in a laboratory located in same building, and stored for a
short time with wastes of similar types. When a sufficient load is accumulated,
it would be shipped out for processing or disposal. Some wastes might be "bulked" --
transferred into tanks on site. -for ease of storage, transport, and processing.
In this case, the facility would include some small tanks, either inside or outside
the building.
13. The:category. of. chemical':orrocessino`facili.. ...wid—nA, .4includes
waste''31' IWrit"technoll+nies-includi„g, for example, distillation of spent solvents,
hetlhini 6f WasfA h+' , GQUU,ealie°L.'.'n or aelds dna altglines, dewatering, carbon
-5-
adsorption, chemical oxidation, filtration, and biological treatment.
® 14. Due to the make-up of Minnesota's waste stream the types of chemical treat-
ment facilities most likely to be developed in the state include treatment ficil-
ities for solvents, oils, and aqueous wastes.
15. Incineration involves high temperatureconversion-efnhazardousvaste-toakYr
products such as carbon dioxide and 'steaNr and'•ash residues. At an incineration
facility, organic wastes are fed into a chamber where temperatures are maintained
above 700 degrees centrigrade. Air is typically added to facilitate combustion.
Exhaust gases are passed through scrubbers for cleaning and removal of harmful
materials.
16. Hazardous waste incinerators are required to achieve a 99.99% destruction and
removal efficiency for each principal organic hazardous constituent designated in
its permit for each waste feed. 40 C.F.R. Fart 264 Subpart 0.
17. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for processing facilities require
a primary containment device For all facilities which is designed to prevent leak-
age and overflow for as long as the wastes will remain in the facility. An inspection
program is also required to monitor any deterioration in the primary containment
system so that repairs or replacement can be made before any releases occur; or
failing that, to detect leaks before they become major or result in significant con-
tamination. In addition, where the primary containment device is easily damaged
and/or where inspection is difficult, a secondary containment device is required.
See 46 Fed. Reg. 2808 (1980); 40 C.F.R. Part 264.
18. At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues must be removed
from the facility. Remaining containers, tanks, liners, bases, and soil containing
1 or contaminated with hazardous waste or hazardous waste residues must be decontamin-•
ated or removed. See 40 C.F.R.§§ 264.178, 264,197, 264.228, 264.258 and 264.351.
-6-
19. For processing facilities, proposed MPCA rules have containment and closure re-
quirements which are essentiallly identical to the EPA regulations.
20. Existing MPCA rules provide -that:
1. No'person shall establish, construct,, or operate. & hazardous,wastecfaeiar
in -'wetland, in'a floodplain or within shorelandt
2. No'person shall establish, construct or: operate -A-hazardous•wasto
facility in a location where the topography; geology_jj-:hydrojogy,, ,:AAilxjs
unsuitable for the protection of the groundwater:;andtthe.nunface�-Waten.
3. No.person shall establish;"consthilct b' ',opera'i;ei",. aza`F. o-Mga3W
facility: in a location:where'such:activity;;would re§ult i114ettfi?;ft0di
eir'66ntaminants causing violation of•the'aro6ienii"aii±"qualiiy'sfznda'�9
established:in-Minn. Reg. APC 1 (6 MCAR 5 4.001).
6 MCAR 4.9004B.
21. A`wetland is defined as "a natural marsh where water stands near, at or above
the soil surface during a significant portion of most years, and which is eligible
for classification as an inland"fresh water""wetland typ`e73 "4 or'& under U.S.' De-
partment of Interior classifications." 6 MCAR § 4.9001B.44.
22. ShoreiaW is defined as "land located within the following distances from the
ordinary high water elevation of public waters: (1) 1a"n"wlthi`r'1, D fee
the;norinah high'.;water. mark :of.a.]ake pondor flowage;' andlan'ithin� Wfeet,
of a river or'ste6am...." Minn. Stat. § 105.485 (1980). See 6 MCAR 's 4.9001B.38.
23. A floodplain is defined as "the'areas''aAjoining a WStercourse which-hE911feeit
or hereaftffmay'be covered by the"'regional°'flood." The regional flood is a
flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally
in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an
average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 recurrence interval. Minn. Stat.
§ 104.02 (1980). See also 6 MCAR 5 4.9001B.I:.
-7-
11. PREVIOUS SEARCH (STATEWIDE)
A. Procedural
24. On November 10, 1980, the Board notified officials representing all local
governments in Minnesota that the entire state was being searched for suitable
areas for hazardous waste management facilities.
25. The Board recognized that widespread public involvement should be a central
element in the siting process. Consequently citizens throughout the state were
asked to participate and make recommendations regarding the development of siting
criteria and the collection of data concerning each area. The Board began the
process by holding over 60 meetings across the state to acquaint citizens with
the issue of hazardous waste management and to ask for advice on what criteria
the Board should use in selecting hazardous waste management sites.
26. Based on the recommendations from the public, the suggestions of technical
consultants, staff, and others, and taking into account specific legal require-
ments included in the Waste Management Act, the Board developed selection criteria
and identified 60 "preliminary areas" across the state to study for possible
inclussion on the omcrscinn farilihi`� : •- -
.n�ciiwry.
27. Recognizing that some companies in the state might already be planning to
develop processing facilities, or that existing facilities could be converted to
process hazardous wastes, the Board advertised that it would consider sites
volunteered by local governments -or private firms. Eleven sites were volunteered
before the July 1, 1981 deadline.
28, During the summer of 1981 the Board held public meetings in or near the
identified preliminary areas. The Board also collected information about the
areas (such as land use, transportation access, natural features, etc.) from
state agencies, local governments, and site inspections. Using the information
-8-
gathered from the public meetings and the various other sources, the Board
evaluated the 71 areas (60 preliminary areas plus 11 volunteered areas) and on
September 11, 1981 selected "proposed areas."
29. Formal public hearings were held on the proposed areas within the affected
communities (November and December 1981). Based on the information contained
in the hearing records, the Board then selected the eight Preferred areas out-
side the seven -county Metro Area (April 1982). At the same time the
Board also tentatively identified two preferred areas in the Metro-
politan area.
30. The eight preferred areas identified in April 1982 are:
Duluth (transfer/storage, incineration, chemical processing)
Waite Park & St. Cloud Township (transfer/storage)
Fergus Falls (transfer/storage.)
Mankato and Lime Township (transfer/storage, incineration, them. process.)
Owatonna (transfer/storage, chemical processing)
High Forest Township (near Rochester) (transfer/storage)
Willmar Township (transfer/storage)
31. Realizing that 3/4 of the stata'c hi7_winiie -.Ue
�:. yu�crateu ill Lit
7-county Metropolitan Area, that there are substantial amounts of industrial lands
in the Metro Area, and that a prime public concern is that processing facilities
be located near the sources of generation, the Board voted to continue the
search for preferred areas in the 7-county Metropolitan Area.
B. Criteria Development
32. In initially developing criteria to identify areas during the first search,
the Board used regulatory requirements, public recommendations, and advice
from technical experts.
r:
-9-
33. At a round of public meetings held in January and February of 1981 the
participants were presented with a list of suggested possible siting criteria.
Almost 2,500 members of the public attended the second round of public meetings.
34. The participants were asked to discuss the suggested siting criteria and
to suggest additional criteria. They were then asked to indicate the most impor-
tant criteria for hazardous waste processing facilities. The four dominant evalua-
tion factors identified in these public meetings were: (1) processing facilities
should be near the source of generation of hazardous waste, (2) processing
facilities should be on or near safe transportation routes, (3) processing
facilities should be located in a manner so as to protect water quality, and (4)
the use of land for a hazardous waste processing facility should be compatible
with existing land uses and with any current land use plans.
35, In February of 1981 the Board retained Environmental Resources Management,
Inc., to provide technical assistance to the Board in selecting processing inven-
tory areas. In two working papers ERM analyzed a number of specific criteria which
fue......:vje.S StcJ six pi'opused combinations of
criteria for processing facilities to the Board.
36. As the first siting activity progressed there were numerous opportunities
for public, agency, and technical comment on the factors used in evaluating the
areas under consideration.
37.. The factors used to analyze and compare the proposed areas and select the
preferred areas were as follows:
1st Level of Consideration
Land use
Transportation
-10-
(1st Level of Consideration, cont.)
Hazardous waste processing network (geographic
distribution)
City services (sewer, water, fire)
Proximity to city wells
2nd Level of Consideration
Soil and aquifer conditions
Surface water conditions (drainage, wetlands, ditches)
Air quality (inversions, prevailing winds)
Topography (slopes)
38. First level factors were given the greatest attention by the Board in com-
paring the proposed areas. Second level factors were also considered by the
Board but were given less weight than the first level factors.
III, CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
39, In developing criteria and factors for selection of areas within the
Metropolitan Area the Board used essentially the same factors it used to select pre-
ferred areas in the first search. The primary difference between the two searches
is that the first search covered the entire state and, due to the size of the area
under consideration, thb initial screening was done on a very general basis using
mainly computerized data at a 40 acre resolution. The second search employed a
much more intensive and detailed screening to identify potential areas.
40, Under Minn. Stat. 115A.10 the Board is required to "solicit the active
participation of private waste management firms and shall so conduct its activities
as to encourage private permit applications for facilities in the state."
41. In addition to relying on information gained during the previous search, the
Board also conducted a survey of industries that operate commercial hazardous
waste processing facilities in ^ states. These industries were asked to
identify the 010 characterlw, � L,Wy wDald look fop in prospective. sites for
new development. Eleven industries were surveyed. Their responses were
mixed but generally indicated a preference for sites in industrial areas with
city sewer access, and access to maicr transportation routes. These concerns
corresponded with factors previously used by the Board for selection.
42. In both the statewide and Metro Area searches the Board initially developed
criteria which were applied to the entire study area. Application of this criteria
resulted in the identification of "preliminary areas." The Board then selected
factors that would be used in comparing the preliminary areas and selecting the
most suitable of those areas to be "proposed areas".
43. Proposed areas in the Metropolitan area are subject to public hearings.
Following these hearings the Board will again select the factors to be used in
comparing the *proposed areas and selecting final "preferred areas."
44. The factors to be used in the final selection will be based on the factors
used to select proposed areas and incorporate any additional factors that may be
raised at the hearings, as appropriate.
IV. PRE L'fMiWY-'ICRITER IAI
45. The"cri'terid`6ied'to identify preTiminary ^areasgWpre dill ltRitfn"to
and16pti6h6l criteria. Mandatory cr'i'£er'ia include's'ie�fic -thfe's'hol-d WytMW
be K#t'%in"each'case,. Optional"criteria`lindicated'tho4'A�cohdi$io s Wad .
preferred but not required. Optional criteria were applied as listed, in descend-
ing order of importance. (See Findings 46-91)
46. The criteria used to identify preliminary areas in the Metropolitan Area
were adopted by the Board on July 8, 1982 and are as follows:
4
-12-
CHEMICAL TREATMENT'ANO;TRANSFER/STORAOi9
Mandatory,- Avoid shorelands, floodplains and protected wetlands
Area must be planned or zoned for industry
Area must have city sewer service available or access to
receiving stream within l mile
Area must be within 2 miles of a 9-ton industrial route
Optional - 1. Prefer existing or planned compatible industrial
development (i.e., chemical related, manufacturing,
plating, oil storage, etc.)
2. Prefer close access to major roadways:
a. within 2 miles of an interstate or
b. within 1 mile of a major 2-lane or 4-lane 9-ton
industrial route
3. Prefer areas;which proVid-eblffe—ANrrom''iii j or.�re
devkJopmeatt
4. Prefe"r.-soil,;and a ui'fed"bon'dittII that-offonM`I5UM.
protection'-`ove"r.16esn'
INCINERATION
MrMt'ory, - Avoid shorelands, floodplains and protected wetlands
Avoid areas which are planned or zoned for light industry
Area must have city sewer service available or access
to receiving stream within 1 mile
Area must be within 2 miles or a 9-ton industrial route
Area must provide a buffer from major residential developments
0 ftro nale - 1. Prefer existing or planned compatible industrial development
(i.e., chemical related, manufacturing, plating, oil storage,
etc.)
2. Prefer close access to major roadways:
a. within 2 miles of an interstate exit or
b, within 1 mile of a major 2-lane or 4-lane 9-ton
industrial route
3. Prefer soil°and-,aquifer'conditidns'th$t`offeMHURT profW
tion -oVer:'that"desi Jned :into'+t6erfacil ity.
-13-
A. Mandatory Criteria
47. Avoid shorelands, floodplains and protected wetlands was a mandatory
factor for chemical treatment, transfer/storage and incineration areas.
48. Statutory requirements -- Under Section 115A.09 the Board must consider
the consistency of a site with State and Federal regulations. The Pollution
Control Agency's (PCA) hazardous waste rules provide that hazardous waste
facilities shall not be located in shoreland, floodplains and wetlands. 6
MCAR i 4.9004B.1. In addition, excluding shoreland, floodplains and wetlands
provides protection for some natural resources. Protection of natural resources
is also a factor which must be considered by the Board under the Waste Management
Act.
49. A major issue raised at the public meetings was concern for protection of
water quality. The prime threat to water quality from a hazardous waste pro-
cessing facility is the chance of accidental spills. By locating a facility
away from a shoreland and the chance of a spill running into a water body (and
adversely affecting water quality) is diminished.
50. Area must be planned or zoned for industry was mandatory for chemical
treatment and transfer/storage areas.
51. Statutory requirements -- Requiring that only land which has been planned or
zoned for industry be considered for hazardous waste processing facilities addresses
several criteria which the Board must consider. The use of industrial land helps
to insure that the facility will be consistent with local land use and land use
controls, and will be consistent with existing and future development patterns.
Giving preference to industrial areas help to ensure that the services appropriate
to a hazardous waste facility will be available and that the processing facilities
-14-
will be buffered by other industrial land uses. In addition, the use of industrial
lands should help to protect agriculture resources since land in an industrial
park has already been committed to a non -agriculture use.
50. One of the four main concerns of the citizens for hazardous waste process-
ing facilities was that the facility be consistent with local land use. By util-
izing industrial lands the Board is assuring, to the greatest extent possible in
a regional screening process, that the locations will be consistent with local land
use.
52. Avoid areas which are planned or zoned for light industry was a mandatory
criteria for incineration facilities.
53. In 1982 the Board and staff visited numerous hazardous waste facilities
(both processing and disposal) in other states. It was found that many of
the processing facilities are located compatibly in 'light" industrial areas.
54. The industry representatives surveyed (see #41) indicated that while many
treatment facilities are compatible with "light" industry incineration is gen-
erally viewed as more compatible with "heavy" industrial uses.
55. The definition of "heavy"and "light" industry is not standarized among
communities. Many communities do not differentiate between industry type at
all. However, for those that did specify light industry (either planned or zoned)
the board avoided such areas for incineration designation.
56. Area must have city sewer service available or access to receiving stream
within one mile was a mandatory category for chemical treatment, transfer/ is
storage and incineration' :ilities.
-15-
57. Statutory requirements --Under Section 115A.09 the Board must consider
"other services appropriate to the hazardous waste facilities." Based on
information from the waste management industry representatives, sewer service
or at least a receiving stream that could receive affluent from on -site treat-
ment facilities is a service required by some processing facilities.
58. Areas that are sewered are generalJy.areas where local governments intend to
direct further development and by concentrating on sewered areas, there is greater
conformance to the existing and planned development patterns of the community.
59. Area must be within 2 miles of a 9-ton industrial route was a mandatory cate-
gory for chemical treatment, transfer/storage and incineration facilities.
60. Industrial route was defined as any 9-ton route or any route specifically
identified as a truck route by the local government authority.
61. Statutory requirements --Under Section 115A.09 the Board must consider trans-
portation.
62. Both in public comments and in the survey of management industries, trans-,
portation access to a facility was noted as an important consideration.
63.. Area must provide a buffer from major residential developments was a
mandatory category for incineration facilities. A buffer from major residential
development was an optional condition for chemical treatment and transfer/storage
facilities.
61, �r�ees3were,cons:del�xo,�e=by�ffg�dfi!
-16-
a.) There were large industrial areas where existing industrial land could,
i
be used to buffer any nearby residential areas;
b.) Residential land occupied only 2 or 3 sides of an industrial area so
that development could take place near the non-residential side;
c.) Industrial areaswhich were divided from residentail areas by other
land uses such as cemetaries, parks, highways, natural barriers; or
d.) There is no residential areas near the industrial area or only scattered
residences near the industrial area.
65. Statutory requirement --Providing a buffer from major residential developments
reflects the local land use and land use controls of the area, as well as the
existing and future developmental patterns in the area which must be considered
pursuant to Section 115A.09.
66. Providing a buffer from major residential developments also reflects the
concern of the public that the areas be consistent with local land use.
67. Because incineration is often viewed as a "heavy" industry the Board
felt that industrial areas that had some buffer from major residential develop-
ments would be viewed as more acceptable by local residents. Transfer/storage
and chemical treatment facilities can be considered "light" industry and would not
require as much buffering for aesthetic purposes.
B. €00tidnalIGF,d•tertm
68. Prefer existing or planned compatible industrial development (i.e. chemical
related, manufacturing, plating, oil storage, etc.) was the first optional
criteria for chemical treatment, transfer/storage, and incineration areas.
0
.17-
69, Statutory requirements --By focusing attention on the type of industrial devel-
opment existing or likely to occur the Board was considering the areas consistency
with local land use and land use controls and existing and future development
patterns.
70. This criterion reflects the concern of the public that the areas be con-
sistent with local land use.
71. Many so-called industrial areas in the Metropolitan Area contain primar-
ily offices. Nearly all industrial areas include some office buildings within
them. In evaluating each potential area, the existing mix of office and other
industrial -type uses were assessed and areas that showed a predominance of
manufacturing, chemical related, warehouse, storage, etc. were preferred over areas
that were primarily office or retail establishments.
72. Prefer close access to major roadways:
a.) Within 2 miles of an interstate exit, or
b.) Within 1 mile of a major 2-lane or 4-lane 9-ton industrial route
was the second optional criterion for chemical treatment, transfer/storage, and
incineration areas.
73. This criterion was a refinement of the mandatory criterion regarding
distance to an industrial route. This was designed to further narrow the areas
which met the mandatory transportation criterion to those areas which had
better access.
74. This criterion' meets the statutory requirements and public concerns
discussed in Findings 60-61.
-18-
75, Prefer soil and aquifer conditions that offer natural protection over that
designed into the facility was the 4th optional criterion for chemical treat-
ment and transfer/storage facilities and the 3rd optional criterion for incin-
eration.
76. Both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Geolo-
gical Survey (MGS) advised the Board that soil conditions are not critical for
hazardous waste processing facilities due to the requirements for full contain-
ment of materials on site. The MPCA stated that while heavy textured subsoils
are preferred due to the impermeable nature of such soils, other soils should
not be automatically considered unsuitable. The MGS noted that contact between
the soil and hazardous materials would occur only if and when the man-made con-
tainment structure failed and this contact would only exist until clean-up
procedures were complete.
77. Statutory requirement -- This criterion addresses the statutory require-
ment for protection of natural resources.
V. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
78. The Waste Management Board hired Damon Farber and Associates and E.A.
Hickock and Associates to gather the data needed to apply this criteria to
the 7-county Metropolitan Area.
79. A letter requesting current land use plans, zoning maps and existing land
use maps was mailed to communities within the Metropolitan Area.
-19-
80. Land use information for communities which did not respond to the request
for material, was obtained from the appropriate counties or from the Metropoli-
tan Council.
81. On a series of overlays, all zoned, planned or existing industrial land
was mapped for the 7-county area. Two hundred eighty-six industrial areas.
were identified.
82 All 9-ton roads and "truck routes" were mapped for the 7-county area
using information from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT),
county highway departments and some city highway departments. On an overlay,
all areas over two miles from the identified roads were marked out.
83. Using information on Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) inter-
ceptors taken from the Metro System Inventory 1977, the availability of sewer
to each industrial area (either zoned, planned, or existing) was noted.
84. Using land use plan maps, zoning maps and existing land use maps, the land
use surrounding each industrial area was noted (including the general density
of residential development).
85. Using this information, the mandatory criteria was applied (except for
avoidance of wetlands, shorelands and floodplains which was applied later).
Approximately 124 industrial areas were identified
86. Planned, zoned and existing industrial areas were combined when they
overlapped which considerably reduced the total number of areas under consider-
ation. Boundaries were drawn to include the outer limits of the combined
-20-
areas so that portions of the entire area were either zoned, planned, or exist-
ing industry but not necessarily all three.
87. The remaining areas were transferred on to aerial photos taken in April
1980
88. Three teams of two inspectors each toured all remaining areas noting speci-
fic land use within each area and providing a general description of surround-
ing land uses.
89. Floodplains, protected wetlands and shorelands were outlined on each
aerial photo and confirmed in site tours.
90. Generalized soil and aquifer conditions for each area was noted using soil
information from county soil surveys prepared by the Soil Conservation Service
and water well information from MGS.
91. The optional criteria was applied to the remaining areas in the pre-
scribed order.
VI. PRELIMINARY AREAS
92. Twenty eight (28) preliminary areas were identified.
93. On September 23, 1982 the Board adopted the 28 preliminary areas.
94. Notice was mailed to each of the affected communities September 24, 1982.
n
-21-
95. Press releases concerning the preliminary areas were sent to local news-
papers, TV and radio stations in the Metro Area. A press conference was also
held after the Board's action to adopt the preliminary areas on September 23, 1982.
96, Meetings to brief local officials of affected communities on the Board's
action were held in October 1982. A total of 45 meetings were held. Communi-
ties were invited to participate.
97, Public meetings to discuss each of the preliminary areas were held during
November 1982. A total of 11 public meetings were conducted.
98. The Board staff contacted each affected community and asked to meet individ-
ually with the city staff. Meetings between the staffs were held for all but
2 communities. Two cities, Inver Grove Heights and Shoreview, declined to meet
with Board staff.
99. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program main-
tains records of areas which are reported to be habitat for rare or endangered
plant and animal species or unusual land formation or other natural elements
that are considered significant or unique to Minnesota's environment. This
agency was asked to review and comment on each of the preliminary areas.
100. The DNR Natural Heritage Program noted only two elements within or near the
preliminary areas. These elements were in the Savage Area and near the Shakopee
area.
101, The..DNR Division of Waters reviewed each of the preliminary areas and noted
all protected waters within or near the areas.
.22-
102. The MWCC provided information concerning the availability and capacity of.
sewer for each area.
103 Mn/DOT reviewed the access to each area noting the state highways serving
each area, their functional classification, railroads serving the area, and
any problems. or proposed highway projects associated with the area.
104. Site inspections of the preliminary areas were done by Board staff. These
site inspections provided more detail about specific land uses within each
proposed area than the first site inspections that were done.
10S.The Minnesota Historical Society reviewed all preliminary areas and provided
information about historic sites within or near the areas.
106. On September 24, 1982 the Board advertised for volunteer•sites as done
previously in the statewide search for preferred areas.
107. On October 12, 1982 the Board received a volunteered site from Michael G.
Kasson Jr. The site was located in South St. Paul
108. On October 27, 1982 the Board adopted the volunteered site as a preliminary
area in order that it could be studied further, along with the other 28 prelim-
inary areas.
109. On November 309 1982 the Board received a letter from Michael G. Kasson Jr.
withdrawing the volunteered site.
-23-
® 110. On December 17, 1982 the Board removed the site from further consideration.
111. On November 4, 1982 the Board identified those
' edji,L.tthe5colnparis'oit of the?pfilimina�lyarfrealxilt o'
areM The factors were:
Existing industrial
development
Planned industrial
development
Availability of sewer
(or receiving stream)
and water supply
Transportation access
Proximity to residential
development
soil & aquifer conditions
Protection of city wells
or water supply intake
Proximity to natural
areas, parks, historic
sites
- prefer^manU'Eaci'OFi.fig"�'i�tlt�5tora�e7i.ndast
iFdastrdeMsiWMzM=%aterfaIA-
- prefei•,�:areas"'pleFiried:;fo�indu's`i"r.�"a1"�eve1 p�m iita
-''prefer.+areas VRIBYM
15 ewv.turr.0 aV Va'SR :'7�plR'ni•Sifff4(9ti .
e 2p�0 �„Vuu V C»....._..__.._..,,.
- prr krrha arest�+gc,gY$
transport - ououF"u e
- re a ear'kha a s i ndi (either
by having a large industrial area, scattered
residential development, or other development
or open space between residential and industrial
development).
- Prefer CA.ttd�t 9_ngth LtRtiOt j`✓ �;% 4
2tc��ihaxydasi�n{ � •• , ,
- Aprefer'xar,�s"wlitth'`;fiSi'diiiif"s w cTi'�"l�i W�Ttl
�protedt=�we�.l"s arid'�ivaidFB"IIppl�.
- prefer,areaswhich_avoidDlatur3T perli"s=a"
'sites.
112. The factors were not applied in any preferential order. '
113. All factors (except proximity to natural areas, parks, historic sites)
were a reapplication of criteria used previously. All preliminary areas were
considered to have met the threshold criteria used in the first evaluation.
-24-
114. Comparison of the preliminary areas meets the statutory requirement that
the Board consider the quality of other potential areas when evaluating
areas. (115A.09)
115. In concerning each factor was supplied to the Board on fact sheets.
Existing industrial development
116. Information about existing industry in the areas was obtained from the two
site visits done by consultants and staff and from city staffs in some cases.
117• Selecting areas that have more compatible existing industrial uses addresses
the following statutory and publicly suggested factors:
Statutory:
a) Consistency with local land use and land use controls
b) Existing and future development patterns
c) Location of hazardous waste generators
Public:
a)compatibility with local land use and land use plans
Planned industrial development
118. Information concerning this factor was obtained from local land use plans,
zoning maps, and in many cases, from city staffs.
119., Preferring those areas planned for industrial development addresses the
following statutory and publicly suggested factors:
Statutory:
a) Consistency with local land use and land use controls
b) Existing and future development patterns
-25-
If.
Public:
a) Compatibility with local land use and land use plans
Availability of sewer (or receiving stream) and water supply
120. The availability of sewer or receiving stream was a recheck of mandatory
category applied previously. Areas without sewer or receiving stream were to
be eliminated from consideration in the application of the initial criteria.
However, the first analysis had to rely on general sewer availability information.
This information was checked by the MWCC (and with individual cities in many
cases) and reapplied. The availability of water supply was an issue added to the
analysis at this point.
121. Thies factor addresses, the fviiiii:rig concerns:
Statutory:
a) Other services appropriate to the hazardous waste facilities
b) Protection of natural resources
Public:
a) Protection of !later .^,ualay
Transportation access
122. This information was supplied by Mn/DOT and augmented by city staff informa-
tion, in some cases.
123. This transportation access factor addresses the following concerns:
Statutory:
a) Transportation access
-26-
Public:
a) Safe transportation routes
Proximity to residential development
124, This information was obtained from aerial photographs, the 2 site inspect
tions of each area, zoning and land use plan maps, and city staff information.
125, This factor addresses the following concerns:
Statutory:
a) local land use and land use controls
b) existing and future development patterns
Public:
a) compatibility with local land use and land use plans
Soil and aquifer conditions
126. An analysis of surface and subsurface conditions was done by Board staff
geologists.
127. The soils (0-69" depth) present at the area have been mapped by the USDA
Soil Conservation Service. Using this work, areas of clay -rich soils were
distinguished from those without significant clay content,
128. The logs of existing water -wells were examined and, general comments based
on this review were made. The examination of these records concentrates on
the depth at which significant water usage occurs, how much and what type of
materials exist between the surface and the aquifer, and what potential exists
forisolation of the aquifer from surface activities.
-27-
129. The soils/aquifer factor addresses the following concerns:
® Statutory:
a) Protection of natural resources
Public:
a) Protection of water quality
Protection of City wells or water supply intakes
130, Locations of wells were obtained from MGS well log files, Department of
Health files and city comprehensive plans and maps.
131.71ie'ypre'Bence=ofc1ty,;we].15,3Arlfat2lt�3roTyJkilPC9i'>tloe ec
make7An?1'ttxea_unacceptab"1e� Rtitfi�'th�Ephesencg�ofgidehtydf�'fer�IAW
be':consi'�etenral;ofil5.wi't1i"•'tfie 3e"'p�hyo�F.��"e"'wel'lJ;�g'ene"Ai;4�'fdPo�'Ra"ph
® surface;and;,,ubsur,.facercondifidn'S'.and:directio .o gr n wat er Addition-
ally, processing facilities must retain all materials on -site and any contact
of It .materials with the soil would be due to accidents and on a short-term basis.
/,' i�� �•/f Lewd-.-.
r
132. This factor addresses the following concerns:
Statutory:
a) Protection of natural resources
Public:
a) Protection of water quality
Proximity to natural areas, parks, historic sites
133. Information about this factor was obtained from the DNR Natural Heritage
' Program, the Minnesota Historical Society, land use plans, zoning maps, city
park plans, site tours, and city staffs.
-28-
134. This factor addresses the following concerns:
Statutory:
a) Protection of natural resources
Public:
a) Compatibility with existing land uses
VIII. SELECTION OF PROPOSED AREAS
135. In a 2-day Board meeting on December 16 and 17, 1982 the Board reviewed
each preliminary area using fact sheets and maps supplied by staff. Board
staff reviewed each area verbally, discussing each factor for each area.
136. Representatives of the affected cities and residents were invited to address
the Board following the staff presentation for each area.
137. Fact sheets and notice of the Board meeting to select proposed areas
was mailed to each affected community prior to the meeting.
138. Following the selection of proposed areas, a press conference was held to
announce the proposed areas (December 17, 1982) and a press release was issued.
Notice of the decision was sent to affected communities on December 21, 1982.
139. All preliminary areas were discussed with the Board and public comment was
taken. Following that, all of the areas were briefly reviewed again and the
Board voted to tentatively accept or eliminate each area. The tentative deci-
sions were Later confirmed by formal resolution.
n
-29-
140, All factors for all preliminary areas were discussed with the Board. Dis-
cussed below however, are only those factors emphasized by the Board in its
deliberations.
Burnsville
141. City wells for Burnsville are approximately 3 miles away from the prelimin•
ary area. However, the City of Burnsville has expressed concern for city wells
in Savage (located over a mile to the northwest of the area) which they feel may
be downstream from the area in the groundwater flow.
142. The northwestern portion of the area (west of Burnsville Parkway and north
of Highway 42) is proposed for residential. development. The city intends to form
u
in than area by impounding storm water runoff. The northwestern edge
of the area is proposed to be rezoned from industrial to RM (medium density
residential). There is also a proposal to rezone a portion of the area south
of Highway 42 and west of Burnsville Parkway from industry to PUD. The remain-
der of the area is shown for continued industrial park development. The City
is preparing a report on the industrial area south of Highway 42. This report
recommends promotion of "high quality, high technology" industry and to create
a "campus atmosphere" in the industrial area.
143. The majority of the soil types on -site do not have the clay content that
enhances facility operation. The map shows a "patchy" pattern of soil varia-
bility which is similar to the glacial geology of the area. The largest areas
of soil without the clay content are the Estherville and Manick Series which
form over sandy and -gravelly surfaces. There is also a large area of organic
soil. (peat) in the northern portion of the site. There are many areas within
-37-
of the area) is planned by MnDOT for letting in December 1982.
180. :The'•8laine area was not adoptetlf5f:.r''proposed-&1ft
181. The area contains extensive industrial development with a variety of small
industrial operations in the northern portion of the area. In the southern part of
the area, larger industries such as Carter Day, Onan, Pennzoil, and Medtronic
are located. Ffedt'ro"nic_is'"a hat36ddur^hfz dous:wa
�cili�ty wH%h=man"ufacture's"=etec�'roriic o`mponents r�tes.�sTtvent,55tf. 1e
2__t'I .-a...r•Lt..n.4.....w.1 •. r.4.r.,w-a.:q'.. �.rn': friw? iFnnlST
I at. 111.N 116ic Cii O,Y;- Yll1•Q .:a f, 4t_YII4ii.YVJ.ca..n4u �caa• vl•. .JNV..LL.•.
182. rTfieiaYea�i.s �on�,d M=2 (heBVy�lfltlustry:} pd�c t, MshglMtiWIVA
8evetopmentafol'mosttroT� the areilL 'City^o'ffW`a i. diff-tOWidthe`"i-�►'bf.'til@k'8
portiori''of'tlie "area"fe' a' Tazn(muge7dMIMMMIMM
rrreai'that;h`as�poor°soil"s`�andrwazer .i:aBi'c,�Cnditiens, ipbFtions�3f"tfiis a�io
area�are i`nfend'edfo"reVentiial +r' es"�dentia1 developn�'r� with the rest planned for
commercial and industrial development. There is vacant industrial land within
the area.
183, 'Since tFieicitfi' has�a=n 6e ''oi •laF'ge:iAdes'trieM fd:has7had'-pro`b e�'""mT�,
mishaHdlednwa'"she' 1'the:pa's.t';'<'the+ deare'ficduraged"tfir'ci'tyao wd"r(Cwiihm
•Boar`d`in'td'evi"sing�an a1te"r"haifve'ki�'the• rea's"'ands'r"Tcbii'sfder3if'on"�were''�'6ti . __ .
�ccep£ablM6IM%i.ty3
184• The'lRo.ardadopted:fridley�bsle'proposedFea�'.oP.BtCar1 fS/st4Cppfii
dhemTtrl`areatment�.With::d1"rectlo�i='tc`: ekpTo>'e3p'64S'f b1 e3'�1�eFria"£{�e's�4Til�lfl�
a.ci.tyz
4
MEMO TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Clerk -Administrator
DATE:
March 9, 1983
SUBJECT:
RAMSEY COUNTY GRAVEL TAX
ORDINANCE AND DISTRIBUTION FORMULA
Attached please find correspondence received from the Ramsey County
Department of Public Works on February 17, 1983 regarding the
referenced subject matter. This information was forwarded to
Finance Director Brager and Director of Public Works/Community
Development Johnson, with the attached memo dated February 23, 1983
requesting their input into the proposed formula for distributing
gravel taxes collected by Ramsey County to the municipalities within
the County.
Staff evaluation of the information submitted by Ramsey County reveals
that the proposed distribution formula is identical to that outlined
in Minnesota ,Statutes 383A.16, Read and Dridge Fund. Staff found no
reason on which to base any objections to the proposed distribution
formula and, therefore, would recommend that the Council offer no
comment to Ramsey County on this matter.
DFP/pf
' , Attachments
MEMO TO: Finance Director Brager
Director of Public Work
FROM: Clerk -Administrator
DATE: February 23, 198
SUBJECT: RAMSEY COUNTY GRAVEL
FORMULA
ty Development Johnson
ORDINANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
Attached please find a memo from Ramsey County Director of Public
Works, Ken Weltzin, regarding his department's proposal to the
Ramsey County Public Works Committee for distribution of gravel tax
revenues from the aggregate removal tax ordinance recently adopted
by the County, as authorized by legislation adopted by the State
Legislature in 1982.
I have reviewed Mr. Weltzin's correspondence and determined that
the formula for tax distribution which he refers to would be the
same as that presently used for the distribution of road and
bridge fund monies. My initial reaction is that I see no reason
to object to this formula, however, I would appreciate your comments
prior to it being presented to the City Council for their review.
DFP/pf
Attachment
Ramsey County
I)EPARTMENI' OF PUBLIC WORKS
167 Courthouse
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
(612) 298.4127
RAMSEY COUNTY
MEMORANDUM N
`r FF:B
To: All Municipalities °' RLCL!iI.J
C' CRY OF
From: Kenneth E. Weltzin f�7 WSMOUNDS VIFvi
Subject: Gravel Tax Distribution �Z111�G%
Date: February 16, 1983
KENNETH E. WELTZIN
Director
and
County Engineer
PHYLLIS F, SPECKER
Administrative Assistant
Attached is a copy of a resolution which this department will present to
the Public Works Committee with a request that it be reconmended for County
Board adoption.
' The gravel tax legislation, which mandates in part that counties impose a
production tax on the removal of aggregates from pits, quarries, or deposits,
and that 30 percent of the receipts be distributed to the municipalities
within the county, does not define a method for apportioning receipts to the
municipalities. This department has conferred with the Executive Director's
Office and the Department of Taxation and has agreed that the formula set
forth in Laws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 402, concerning the apportionment
of certain county funds to the municipalities is a fair and equitable method
of distribution.
This is the formula we are recommending to the Public Works Committee and
County Board. If you have any comments concerning this formula for distribution,
please submit them to me in writing by Thursday, March 3, or if you prefer you
may appear at the Public Works Committee meeting to voice your opinion. The
next Public Works Committee meeting will be held at 7:30 a.m., Monday, March 7,
Room 356, City Hall and Courthouse.
The total anticipated revenue from the gravel tax for 1983 is $59,500; the 30
percent to be distributed to the municipalities is estimated at approximately
$18,000. Based on this estimated amount and our proposal, we have prepared a
statement showing estimated revenue to the municipalities,
pfs:js
Att: Suggested Resolution
Estimated Revenue Sheet
Resolution 82-879
' CC: Comnissioners
..400.4
Resolution
Board of
,'TamseJr. GOun y GOmm1SS10nerS
Presented By
Date No
Attention:
WHEREAS, The 1982 State Legislature enacted legislation mandating counties
to impose a production tax on the removal of aggregates from pits, quarries, or
deposits within the counties; and
WHEREAS, County Board Resolution 82-879 approved the Ramsey County Aggregate
Material Removal Tax ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The ordinance provides that all moneys collected as taxes under
this ordinance shall be deposited in the county treasury and credited Go percent
to the county road and bridge fund, SO percent to the road and bridge fund of
those towns as determined by the County Board and to the general fund or other 1
designated fund of those cities as determined by the County Board, and 10 percent 1
Lo a special reserve fund; and
WHEREAS, The law does not define how the JO percent distribution to munic-
ipalities shall be apportioned; dnd
WIIEREAS, IL is determined that a formula similar to the annual appropriations a ;
to the municipalities mandated in 1,aws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 402, is a fair � �A 16!
and equitable method; Now, Therefore, Be It aYaap
RESOLVED, That the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners hereby adopts a i
formula for the distribution of gravel tax revenues to
sey as thennumberty lofpmileses
of 70 percent prorated to the municipalities in proportion
of roads inside and maintained exclusively by each municipality bears to the total
number of miles of roads inside the county and maintained exclusivelyby
the the
assessed and io percent to the y forlpalities taxation inothetionately municipalities; and Be It
assessed valuation of all property
Further i
RESOLVED, That on or about December 15 of each year, the county will drse
from the trust fund estaablished forby t thishis purpose, to the municipalities, gravel
tax revenues due as app
,
i
By
WARREN W. SCNABER, ChaZA-• e - County oa
•
Distribution of Gravel Tax
Formula - Laws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 402
Based on 1982 Aid to Municipalities
Street Mileage Maintained
By Municipalities
Assessed
Valuation
70% Collection
30% Collection
Taxable
Total
Municipality
Miles
Percent
Amount
Value
Percent
Amount
Distribution
Saint Paul
787.00
56.7640
7,152.26
1,524,248.837
54.225
2,928.15
10,080.41
Arden Hills
25.81
1.8616
234.56
70,875.350
2.521
136.14
370.70
`81ai llr
2.00
.1442
18.17
163.683
0.006+
.33
i8.50
Falcon Heights
11.23
.8109
102.17
29,181.704
1.038
56.05
158.22
Gem Lake
0.63
.0454
5.72
4,763.712
0.170+
9.18
14.90
Lauderdale
4.21
.3036
38.26
12,174.725
0.433
23.38
61,64
Little Canada
17.22
1.2420
156.49
43,797.785
1.558
84.13
240.62
Maplewood
87.79
6.3320
797.83
222,244.809
7.906
426.92
1,224.75
Mounds View
31.52
2.2734
286.45
57,382.754
2.041
110.21
396.66
New Brighton
63.75
4.5981
579.36
134,612,646
4.789+
258.61
837.97
North Oaks
31.00
2.2359
281.72
42,558.043
1.514
81.76
363.48
North St. Paul
39.56
2.8533
359.53
55,895.789
1.989+
107.41
466.94
Roseville
104.36
7.5271
948.41
297,425.292
10.581
571.37
1,519.78
Saint Anthony
2.63
.1896
23.89
19,581.470
0.697+
37.64
61.53
Shoreview
51.98
3.7491
472.39
109,204.948
3.885+
209.79
682.18
*Spring Lake Park
591.375
0.021
1.13
1.13
Vadnais Heights
21.93
1.5817
199.29
35,088.560
1.248
67.39
266.68
White Bear Lake
78.41
5.6554
712.58
116,676.493
4.151+
224.15
936.73
White Bear Town
25.41
1.8327
230.92
34,482.421
1.227+
66.26
297.18
Total
1,386.44
•100.0000
12,600.00
2,810,950.396
100.000%
5,400.00
18,000.00
*Not eligible for aid for road construction and maintenance.
5?amsey
Resolution
Board of
Count Commissr'oners
,ented By Commissioner Norgard Date November 22, 1982 No. 82-879
.ention:
Budget 6 Accounting; tzin, Public Works; MICA;
Page 1 of 4
RESOLVED, That the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners hereby approves the
Ramsey County Aggregate Material Removal Tax Ordinance which imposes a production
tax on the removal of aggregate material from pits, quarries, or deposits located
within Ramsey County; establishing reporting requirements; providing penalties
for noncompliance; and providing for the distribution of revenues collected under
the Ordinance as follows:
ORDINANCE
RAMSEY COUNTY
AGGREGATE REMOVAL TAX ORDINANCE
An ordinance imposing a production tax on the removal of aggregate from pits,
quarries, or deposits located within the County; establishing reporting
' requirementsj providing penalties for failure to comply with the provisions
of this ordinance; and providing for distribution of revenueb collected under
this ordinance, pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1980, Chapter 607, Article 19,
sections 5-6 and Minnesota Laws 1981, First Special Session, Chapter 1,
Article 10, sections 17-19 as amended by Minnesota Laws 1982, Chapter 523,
Article HIT, sections 1-4.
THE COUNTY BOARD OF RAMSEY COUNTY ORDAINS:
1.00. DEFINITIONS. The follcwinq words and phrr.ses, when used in this
ordinance, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, shall have the
meanings given them in this section.
1.01. "County" shall mean the County of Ramsey.
1.02. "County Board" shall mean the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners and
their authorized representatives.
1.03. "Aggregate" shall mean non-metallic natural mineral aggregate including,
but not limited to, sand, silica sand, gravel, building stone, crushed rock,
limestone, and granite. Aggregate shall not include dimension atone and
dimension granite.
1.04. "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation,
organization, trustee, association, or other entity.
(continued)
ROBERT J. ORM, Chairman By
e ch - County Bomd
Page ? of 4
1.05. "Operator" shall mean any person engaged in the business of removing
aggregate from the surface or subsurface of the soil, for the purpose of sale,
either directly or indirectly, through the use of the aggregate in a marketable
product or service.
1.06. "Extraction Site" shall mean a pit, quarry, or deposit containing
aggregate and any contiguous property to the pit, quarry, or deposit which is
used by the operator for stockpiling the aggregate.
2.00. IMPOSITION OF TAX
2.01. A production tax on the removal of aggregate from pits, quarries, or
deposits located within this County is hereby imposed. The rate of tax shall
be ten (10) cents per cubic yard or seven (7) cents per ton of aggregate
removed.
2.02. Any operator who removes aggregate from a pit, quarry, or deposit located
within this County shall pay a production tax thereon. The tax shall be
imposed when the aggregate i3 ans rEv frvm lie exiraction site, lte, pCOVldeci
however, that when in the case of storage the stockpile is within the State of
Minnesota and the highways are not used for transporting the aggregate, the
tax shall be imposed when the aggregate is sold.
2.03. In the event that the aggregate is transported directly from the extrac-
tion site to a waterway, railway, or another mode of transportation other than
a highway, a road, or street, the tax imposed by this section shall be
apportioned equally between the county where the aggregate is extracted and
the county to which the aggregate is originally transported. If that destina-
tion is not located in Minnesota, then the county where the aggregate was
extracted shall receive all of the proceeds of the tax.
3.00. REPORTING REOUI.REN.ENTS
3.01. By the 14th day following the last day of each calendar quarter every
operator shall make and file with ':ha County Auditor a correct report under
oath, in such form and containing such information as the Auditor shall
require relative to the quantity of aggregate removed during the preceding
calendar quarter. The report shall be accompanied by a remittance of the
amount of tax due. If any of the proceeds of the tax are to be apportioned
as provided in section 2.03, the operator shall also include on the report
any relevant information concerning the amount of aggregate transported, the
tax, and the county of destination. The County Auditor shall notify the
County Treasurer of the amount of such tax and the county to which it is due.
The County Treasurer shall remit the tax to the appropriate county within
30 days.
3.02. If any operator fails to make the report required by section 3.01 or
files an erroneous report, the County Auditor shall, by the fifth working
day after the date the report became due, determine the amount of tax due and
notify the operator by registered mail of the amount of tax so determined.
An operator may, within 30 days from the date of mailing the notice, file in
the office of the County Auditor a written statement of objections to the
amount of taxes determined to be due. The statement of objections shall be
deemed to be a petition within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 278,
and shalt be governed by sections 278.02 to 278.13.
�+ Page 3 of 4
4.00. VIO141TIONS AND PENALTIES
4.01. Failure to file the report shall result in a penalty of 65 for each of
the first 30 days, beginning on the 14th day after the date when the County
Auditor has sent notice to the operator as provided in section 3.02 during
which the report is overdue and no statement of objection has been filed. For
each subsequent day during which the report is overdue and no statement of
objection has been filed, a penalty of $10 shall be assessed against the
operator who is required to file the report. The penalties imposed by this
section shall be collected as part of the tax. If neither the report nor a
statement of objection has been filed after more than 60 days have elapsed
from the date when the notice was sent, the operator who is required to file
the report is guilty of a misdemeanor.
4.02. It is a misdemeanor for any operator to remove aggregate from a pit,
quarry, or deposit unless all taxes due under this ordinance for the previous
reporting period have been paid or objections thereto have been filed
pursuant to section 3.02.
5.00. DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES
nev q,n_1. A1.1 mnn rnllar�.A as YAYAQ nndnr this ordinance shall be deposited
in the county treasury and credited as follows, for expenditure by the county
board:
(a) Sixty (60) percent to the county road and bridge fund for expenditure
for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of roads, highways and
bridges;
(- (b) Thirty (30) percent to the road and bridge fund of those towns as
determined by the county board and to the general fund or other deaignrted
fund of those cities as determined by the county board, to be expended for
maintenance, construction and reconstruction of roads, highways and bridges;
and
(c) Ten (10) percent to a special reserve fund which is hereby established,
for expenditure for the restoration of abandoned pits, quarries, or deposits
located upon public and tax forfeited lands within the county.
In the event that there are no abandoned pits, quarries or deposits
located upon public or tax forfeited lands within the county, this portion of
the tax shall be deposited in the county road and bridge fund for expenditure
for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of roads, highways and
bridges.
6.00. SEVERABILITY
6.01. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the County Board that this
ordinance, and every provision thereof, shall be severable in accordance with
the following:
(a) If any Court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of
this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other
provisions of this ordinance not specifically included in said judgment.
(b) If any Court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the
application of any provision of this ordinance to a particular pit, quarry,
deposit, or operator, such judgment shall not affect the application of said
provision to any other pit, quarry, deposit, or operator not specifically
Included in said judgment.
(continued)
Resolution'
Board of
J'Famsey Count' Comm. sroners
Presented By Commissioner Noraard Date November 22, 1982 No. 82-879 _
Attention:
Page 4 of 4
7.00. PROVISIONS ARE ACCUMULATIVE
7.01. The provisions of this ordinance are cumulative to all other laws,
ordinances, and regulations heretofore passed, or which may be passed here-
after, covering any subject matter in this ordinance.
8.00. EFFECTIVE DATE
8.01. This ordinance shall be effective the day after passage by the County
Board but no earlier than January 1, 1983.
ROOM I OR7N Cho !a
e ci. - 0 y a
f
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Counc•
Clerk -Administrator
March 11, 1983
SUBJECT: O'NEIL UNITED SHOWS - CARNIVAL LICENSE APPLICATION
Attached please find an application from O'Neil United Shows for
the conduct of a carnival at Mounds View Square from May loth through
May 15th, 1983. The application has been reviewed by the City
Police Department, Fire Department, and Building Inspector and
found to be acceptable conditioned upon the provisions of the
attached agreement which would be entered into between O'Neil United
Shows and the City of Mounds View. This agreement provides for
inspection of the carnival prior to its opening for business by the
City's Fire Department, Building Inspector, and Electrical Inspector
and places limits on the hours of operation during various days of
the week. These restrictions are identical to those placed on
previous carnival operations at the ."•;ounds Vie:: Square.
Staff would recommend Council approval of this application with
an authorization for the agreement during your March 28th Council
Meeting.
DFP/pf
Attachments
Date of application 3
RIISINESS NAME Pt10NE
%22 -
BUSINESS ADDRESS
stree
C
��lfyLL) -- (�LQJ
ZIP code)
OWNERS/CORPORATE OFFICERS/A[iSOCIATES/PARTNERS (name & title):
HAVE YOU EVER HAD A LICENSE REVOKED?
TYPE OF LICENSE REQUESTED:
_V i If yes, attach explanation.
v
REFERENCES: CITIES WHERE PREVTOUSLY OR CURRENTLY LICENSED FOR SAME
ACTIVITY (name of city and ycar(s) licensed)
(! Oe Ai P A A I , I —
LOCATION FOR WHICH LICENSE IS REQUESTED (if aopl.irable)
C ��✓.T��11
OWNER OF PREMISES (if applicable)
Applicants for the follow.inq license mustcompleLe the applicable section
on the reverse side of this form:
�uvices/uingo/bowlinq.alleys/dance halls/ garbage
collection/gasoline stations/kennels/peddlers/solicitors/
restaurants.
I hereby certify that information provided on this application is true
and correct and understand that any misrepresentation made herein may
be grounds for denial of this application.
Applicant's name )Of
(pleas print) I Date of birth C-_/ �.
Applicant's signatures
= = = = = = = =`/ = = = = =
0 Date of Council approval
License number
New __ Renewal
(rev, 5/77) � —'
AMUSEMMOT DEVICE!; ONI-Y;
Number of pinhnll_--
Number ul' goneral
BINGO ONLY:
—
Day(::) of wook _ At what. hours
Officer of AnnueiaLion_ I:Ii(lnaLure) — -- -_ �-
Individual nuporvining games_(silnature)
110WIJNG ALLEY: U14LY:
Number of lanes
DANCE HALLS ONLY:
flow long in opuration at given address
GARBAGE COLLECTION ONLY:
Equipment to be used
Place 6 manner in which garbage will be disposed
Attach map indicating customers served in Mounds View or list thereof.
GASOLINE STATIONS ONLY:
Number of pumps
i
Number & capacity of gasoline storage tanks —
KENNELS ONLY:
Number cf dogs
PEDDLERS/SOLICITORS/TRANSIENT MERCHANTS ONLY:
Type of bus iness/prodact/service/charity
Proposed Mounds View .location of activity/ dj/"C 114, ✓ CgVl'r
Proposed duration of license &Y ►o- MAP l(' - / 4
RESTAURANTS ONLY:
Occupancy load Number hours open per day
e a a n a a a a a a a n a a a a a o o a a a o a e a e a a a a a a a a o 0 0
FOR STAFF USE ONLY: �o
Date application received � "L Fee $ (7h,'� Receipt No. H537,-
10FERENCE CHECK: I BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU CHECK:
POLICE: CIIIe7(:
STAFF
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
1 Carnival License to O'Neil United Shows
Mounds View Location Mounds View Square
This agreement made and entered into on _
by and between the City of Mounds View and the carnival license
applicant, - -----
The license applicant shall hereby be respon:;ible for the
following:
1. Provide a site plan with an approved location.
2. Provide proof of insurance that meets Mounds View
Code provisions 116.04.
3. Payment of all required electrical permit fees.
4. Call Mounds View Inspections, 784-3055, and Fire
Department, 786-443G, for inspection of tnachi.ncry,
rides and location forty-eight (48) hours prior to
operation startup. Approval by the 1luilding
Inspector and Fire Dcpar.t:mont musk hi' 1-`( ivcd prior
to startup.
5. Hours of operation shall be limited from 9:00 A.M.
to 10:00 p.m. on Mondays through 'Vhursdays, 9:00 a.m.
to Midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and 12operation:
to Midnight on Sundays. Dates of: permitted
May 10, 1983 through May 15, 1983__ _____•
6. Applicant shall provide other applicable licenses,
i.e., food, drink, etc.
7. Applicant shall observe and meet all other requirements
of Chapter 116 (and any other applicable sections)
of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
The license applicant is hereby notified that any viulatiun of
the above requirements may result in the revocation of the
license and removal of equipment and machinery.
censee
Ci;y pLMound View
Acknowledgement of receipt: of. Mounds Viow Codo Chapter 1.16.
�...__ Licensoe -
I
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Building Inspector
DATE: March 9, 1983
SUBJECT: CARNIVAL APPLICATION
I have reviewed the attached application with the Fire Department
and Electrical Inspector and submit the following:
1) Electrical permit is required at the rate of $5.50 plus
$1.50 per ride or amusement device requiring electricity.
2) Fire Department requires two-day notice for the set-up
inspection. The applicant should schedule that directly
by calling the Fire Department at 78G-4436.
3) Inspections will be made by myself and the Electrical
Inspector on the day of set-up and should be requested 24
hours in advance.
Operation should not begin until after the above three items have
been carryed out and approved.
Thank you.
1.
SAR/bc
Attachment
tk:+ tM
COUNTY FAIRS O'NEIL UNITED SHOWS
STATE FAIRS
LEGION CELEBRATIONS "WORLD'S CLEANEST MIDWAY"
P.O. Box 6088 — Minneapolis. Minnesota 55406
JOE YAHR. General Manager Phone 722.8410
Promotions Contract
COMPANY 111 ;NICS
GRAND OPENINGS
CHURCH CELEBRATIONS
9�a
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: This contract made and entered into this _U_ day of Fohhrll,ry IBA
by and between O'NEIL UNITED SHOWS
who shell hereinafter be styled party of the first part, and _ Mmndtvipw Shoppingenter of ll—�
city ofMm� ^i 'e--=�i evr — State of _M: i � who shall hereinaftet be styled party of the second part.
WITNESEETH: That for and In consideration of the sum of one dollar In hand paid to ealh other, receipt of which Is here
acknowledged, and other good and valuable considerations hereinafter set forth, both parties aforesaid, bind themselves as fr
Iowa, TO -WIT:
That party of the first part agrees to present their entire company, consisting of high-class pay shows, riding devices, musi
concessions, etc., In the City of Moundsy i ew Slate of Minn , for a period of 6_ days and nights cemmencir
Ift
,n b.!h A.rInnl„elun
MAy ILL—, 18$3_., and ending M _R y .,, ...n.n
...._....
That party of the first part is also to furnish roll tickets, ticket boxes, part of posting paper and advertising agent in l
aforesaid City, several days In advance of this engagement, all of which Is free to the party of the secdnd part.
REMARKS:
O'Neil to furnish insurance certificate
O'Neil to furnish 25 window posters
O'Neil to furnish portable toilets
O'Neil to put full page in local newspaper with discount ride coupons
O'Neil to keep grounds clean
O'Neil to furnish 50,000 discount coupons to stores.
(See reverse side for further remarks)
+.' . That It Is mutually agreed by both parties thereto that there is no other contract or promise, either written or verbal, Sr:
`='' ''• Oct to the approval of the manager of above shows, either by wire or letter.
That party of the second part further agrees to use their influence to prevent other like allracllons from exhibiting In 0
aforesaid City until after the termination of this agreement.
1� su
In the case of sickness or death of any performer, then party of the first part shall have a reasonable tune to rep . ce
act or performer. In case of railroad accident nr delay, strikes, fire, Rood, cyclone, epidemic, or any unforeseen occurrence ov
which the party of the first part has no control then they are not to he hcid for damages, by the party of the second part.
This contract entered into and signed in duplicate in the City of 7Moundcvipw , Stale of . Minn
this the day of _ A.D., 18. _., by the duty authorized representative of the parties hereto.
Parry 01 the mcond Pmil
^n ^'
By
lly ar th, NO pool
1/iJ v
DATE APPROVED: 3-14-83
PROCEEDINGS OF 191E CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 28, 1983
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order
Mayor McCarty at 7:30 PM on February 28, 1983.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Hankner, Blanchard, 2, Roll Call
Doty, Linke a a Mayor McCarty.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Karney, Clerk/Admini-
strator Fauley and Public Works/Community Development
Director Johnson.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to approve the February 3. Approval of
I minutes as corrected. Minutes:
February 14,
4 ayes 0 nays 1 abstention 1983
Motion Carried
Councilmember Blanchard abstained from the vote as she
had not been present at that meeting.
There were no residents requests or comments from 4. Residents
the floor. Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to approve the consent 5. Approval of
agen a as presented, and waive the reading of the Consent Agenda
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to have the second 6. 2nd Reading an(
reading an adoption of Ordinance No. 331, amending Adoption
No. 331
or
the municipal code of Mounds View by amending Ord. the
Chapter 100, entitled "Intoxicating Liquors", and Amending
al Code
waive the reading of the ordinance, Municipof Mounds View
Councilmember Hankner - aye by Amending
Councilmember Blanchard - aye Chptr. 100,
Councilmember Doty - aye Entitled Into
Councilmember Linke - aye xicatinp
Mayor McCarty - aye Liquors'
Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council February 28,'1983
Regular Meeting Page Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: Linke/11ankner to have the second 7. 2nd Reading an
reading an adoption of Ordinance No. 332, amending Adoption of
the municippal code of Mounds View by amending Ord. No. ` 2
Chapter 101, entitled "Non -Intoxicating Liquor", Amending
and waive the reading of the ordinance. Municipai wode
of Mounds View
Councilmember Hankner - aye by Amending
Councilmember Blanchard - aye Chapter 101,
Councilmember Doty - aye Entitled "Non-
Councilmember Linke - aye Intoxicating
Mayor McCarty - aye Liquor"
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to approve Resolution No. 8. Consideration
1574, accepting the final draft of the fiscal impact of Reslt. No.
study from Gunnar Isberg and Associates, and waive 1574 Acceptin;
the reading of the resolution.. the Final Dra
of the Fiscal
5 ayes 0 nays Impact Study
from Gunnar
Isberg and
Associates
Motion Carried
Mayor McCarty noted that he was voting in favor of the
motion because he was accepting the data from the
report. However, he is still in disagreement and
opposed to the consultant's editorialization and
drawing of conclusions. He gave a specific example
from page 15.
Director Johnson reported he will be sending a letter 9. Report of
to George Quickstad regarding MSA funds, and will be Director of
following up with a more detailed letter later. Public Works/
Community
Development
Attorney Karney reported he had received a letter 10. Report of
from the attorney for the Met Council, stating that Attorney
a draft copy of the airport master plan has been
sent to the Council by MAC. It was noted that
Mayor McCarty was reviewing one copy, which was
to be passed on to the other Council members, and
Attorney Karney was to take the library copy to
review immediately.
Councilmember Hankner had no report. 11. Reports c`
Counciim rs
Councilmember Blanchard had no report. `-�"
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
------------------------------------------
Councilmember Doty reported he had attended the Rice
Creek Watershed District meeting in Shoreview on
„1 February 17, along with Director Johnson, and reviewed
some of the information received.
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to accept the 1982 annual
report• from the Police Department.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Linke had no report.
Mayor McCarty had no report.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had received a
Phone call from New Brighton, regarding a joint meeting
on the airport issue, and that they would like a re-
presentative from MAC present, as well as the appro-
priate State Senator and state Representative. He
reported he has alsu heard back from Shoreview and
recommended scheduling the meeting for 7 PM at
City Hall, on March 24.
Motion/Second: Linke/Blanchard to appoint Mayor
McCarty as the formal representative for the City
at the hearing on the airport on March 8.
5 ayes
0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had spoken
with Dick Paradise from the Civil Service Commission
and they would like to have a joint meeting with
the Council.
There was discussion among the Council regarding
the selection process being used, and it was
recommended by Mayor McCarty that if anyone has
any suggestions other than using the process
now being used that they should present them
in writing before the joint meeting. There
was also discussion regarding the criteria that
was being used. It was agreed that the Council
would meet with the Civil Service Commission at
7 AM on March 8 at City Hall,
Finance Director Brager reported the tax bills
have been mailed out by the County and presented
the Council with a report. He explained the
changes in the mill rates.
February 28, 1983
Page Three
-----------------
Motion Carried
12. Report of
Administrator
Motion Carried
Mounds Viow City Council
Regular Meeting
--------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: Linke/Haankner to adjourn the
meeting at 8:01 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays
February 28, 1'983
Page Four
-----------------
13. Adjournment
Motion Car. .d
PROCEEDINGS OF 191E CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
r RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
1 U�-Regular Meeting
March 14, 1983
I1a �s Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
--------------------------------------- - -------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order by
Mayor McCarty at 7:40 PM on March 14, 1983.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Doty,
Linke, Hankner and Mayor McCarty.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/Admini-
strator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development
Director Johnson.
Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to approve the February
78-7}8T minutes as corrected.
5 ayes 0 nays
Robert Eigenheer stated he would like to address the
Council on problems he is having with a stalemate
between the City and Eigenheer Enterprises, on
Edgewood Square. He explained he has been working
with the City Engineer, but there are questions he
cannot answer and there are alterations he would like
to make to the development agreement. Ile added the
estimate he has from his low bidder is good through
April 20, so he must clear up the problems before
that. Mr. Eigenheer gave some examples of things
he would like to change from the development
agreement, such as putting up a model home before
putting the services in, to get a jump on the
season, and not putting the roads in until fall.
Mayor McCarty recommended Mr. Eigenheer submit in
writing the problems he is having with the develop-
ment agreement, and then come in at the next Council
agenda session, where the Council would be willing
to sit down with him and go over each problem in
detail.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the changes made
to Resolution No. 1577,
2.
Call to Ord(
Roll Call
3. Approval of
Minutes:
February 28
1983
Motion Carri
Residents
Requests an(
Comments fre
the Floor
5. Approval of
Consent At,.
Mounds View City Council March 14, 1983
Regular Meeting Page Two
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion Second: Linke/Blanchard to approve the consent
agen a as presented and waive the reading of the
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays
Director Johnson reported he had presented a
memo to the Council a week ago regarding the status
of new Trunk Highway 10. He explained the City has
been requested to send a letter from the Mayor to
the Commissioner of Transportation, stating the
City is in support of it and outlining the reasons
why.
It was the concensus of the Council that Mayor
McCarty should send a letter of support to the
Commissioner of Transportation.
Motion/Second: Doty/11ankner to approve the request
to iri Fe Frr..�ohn Grahm as a part-time Water Depart-
ment employee, at the rate of $5.00 per hour,
beginning June 13, 1983 for 100 working days.
5 ayes 0 nays
Director Johnson presented the Council with a copy
of the sketch of the Miller property, showing the
areas that had been reevaluated. He added he has
pictures available for the Council to look at.
Attorney Meyers had no report.
Councilmember Blanchard stated she had been getting
phone calls regarding dog problems and suggested
the City do something regarding a CSO officer.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Doty to have Staff
investigate the cost and so forth of hiring a
CSO officer, and report back to the Council.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Doty had no report.
Councilmember Linke had no report.
COUnailthember Hahkner bid no report.
Motion Carried
6. Consideration
of Memorandum
from John
Johnson Regari
ing Status of
New Trunk Hwy.
10
1. Consideration
of Staff Recom
mendation
Regarding Hirt
of Part-time
Personnel for
Water Dept
Motion C, .ed
8. Report of
Director of
Public Works/
Community Dvlp
9. Report of
Attorney
10, Reports of
Councilmembers
Motion Carried
��
Mounds View City Council
'Regular Meeting
----------------------------------------------
Mayor McCarty had no report.
n Clerk/Administrator Pauley reminded everyone of
1 the 8 AM meeting on March 19 regarding the 1983
Water and Sewer Systems Maintenance and Capital
Improvement Program.
Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to adjourn the meeting
at 7:56 PM.
5 ayes 0 nays
Maf:ch 14% 1983
Page Three
-------------------
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
, _..__
CLeTn/nuu iu��LatGr
11. Report of
Administrat,
12. Adjournment
Motion Carr;