Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.16.90 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR JANUARY 16, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. January 2, 1990 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Set Public Hearing to Review Zoning Ordinance - Day Care Centers in B-1 b. Set Public Hearing to Review Sign Ordinance c. Set Public Hearing to Review Density Requirements in B-2 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Solid Waste Collection - Waiver from Ordinance b. Receive Citizens Review Panel/Task Force Report on Co-Composting Plant c. Proposed Solid Waste- Processing System - RECOMP, Inc. 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Ordinance Annexing a Portion of Section 30, Abutting Linden Street 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 1990 Police Officers Agreement 9. NEW BUSINESS a. 1st Street Construction - Project 89-3 b. 1990-91 Goals and Objectives c. Appointment to Various Boards and Commissions d. 1990 Sewer Cleaning e. Volume Based Sewer Rates f. Capital Outlay Purchase - Police g. McVicker Property 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Set Special Meeting - Compensation Study 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve School and Conference Request - Department Heads b. Capital Outlay Requests - Solid Waste Containers c. Approve Contract for Solid Waste Services - FAA d. Resolution Needed to Adopt Amendment - Joint Powers Agreement e. Approve 50% Tuition Reimbursement f. Approve Payment of Bills 12. ADJOURN 13. ADD ON a. Extend Deadline for Assessment Payment - Northern Natural Gas MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS - JANUARY 16, 1990 DATE: JANUARY 12, 1990 5a. Information/Hearing Notice enclosed. b. Information/Hearing Notice enclosed. c. Information/Hearing Notice enclosed. 6a. The petitioner has requested that this item be removed from the agenda. b. Representatives of the Task Force will present the Report at the meeting. It is anticipated that the Task Force will present a brief summary and ask for a special meeting to fully discuss the Report with the Council. c. Memo/Correspondence enclosed. 7a. Letter from Attorney/Ordinance enclosed. 8a. Memo enclosed. 9a. Memo enclosed. b. 1989/90 Goals and Objectives sent previously. Councilmembers should con- sider any goals and objectives they would like added. c. Applications/List enclosed. d. Memo enclosed. e. Memo enclosed. f. Request enclosed. g. Resolution/Letter enclosed. 10a. No information required. Self explanatory. lla. Request enclosed. b. Request enclosed. c. Memo enclosed. d. Request enclosed. The amendments are all satisfactory to staff. e. Request enclosed. f. Copy enclosed. L y Tho y pson City Administrator MEMO TO: Mayor and Council SUBJECT: Arlan Graff/Mechanic DATE : January 17 , 1990 At the January 16 , 1990, City Council Meeting the question was raised about the duties assigned to Arlan Graff. Mr. Graff has been employed by the City of Farmington on a part-time basis since August , 1987 . His assigned duties include routine maintenance of city vehicles , police, fire and building inspector. He is paid at $7 .50 per hour and is used on an "as needed" basis. I have included examples of the type of work performed . As you can see an officer fills out a repair order concerning a mechanical problem and submits it to Mr . Graff. Arlan then evaluates the problem and , if it is within his ability , with the facilities available, he completes the necessary repair or maintenance. If the repair requires specialized tools or electronic equipment, the work is turned over to Farmington Ford for completion . In addition to repairs , Mr . Graff also does routine preventive maintenance on each car at 5 ,000 and 10 ,000 mile intervals. I have included examples of these scheduled maintenance operations . Although Mr . Graff does only routine maintenance and repair , his position saves the City a considerable dollar amount in service. The hourly service rate charged by Farmington Ford is $43.00/hr . , Townsedge Amoco, $39 . 50/hr . Mr . Graff worked a total of 207 .5 hours in 1989 for a total of $1556 .25 . Had these routine maintenance jobs been assigned to Farmington Ford , those 207 .5 hours would have cost the City $8922. 50. The same hours at Townsedge Amoco would have been $8 , 196 .25 . As you can easily see the City realizes substantial savings by keeping routine maintenance in house . Please review the attached material and if you have any additional questions , feel free to contact me . Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police DMS/mw Attach. cc : Larry Thompson File AGENDA REQUEST FORM 4::moof ITEM NO. 5 NAME: Charles Tooker DEPARTMENT: Planning DATE: January 9, 1990 MEETING DATE: January 16, 1990 CATEGORY: Public Hearings SUBJECT Set Public Hearing to Consider Zoning Ordinance Density Requirements in B-2 District EXPLANATION: The Planning Commission recommended that Market Rate Housing should have the same density limits as Elderly and Handicapped Housing at 60 units per acre rather than 20 units per acre. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Planning Commission minutes and agenda report for January 9, 1990 and HRA Director memo of January 9, 1990. REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Karen Finstuen Administration Jerry Henricks EDC/HRA ALA3 SIGNATURE MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN HOUSING DATE: JANUARY 9, 1990 At the January 3, 1990 HRA meeting, the board reviewed the Planning Commissions request for a response to a change in the zoning ordinance pertaining to residential density in the downtown area. The HRA feels that the change in the zoning for residential density associated with existing construction is not appropriate. When comparing the Senior Housing needs/Criteria with market rate needs/criteria such as: 1. Parking 2. Elevators 3. Handicap Accessibility 4. Space needs The Senior Housing facility needs are less than market rate facilities. Also, other factors should be taken into consideration in the evaluation process, such as: 1. Egress in case of an emergency 2. Recreational facilities available in the area 3. Safety factor with children playing in the immediate area 4. Off and on parking availability in the downtown area Finally, the HRA is concerned with the affects this increased density in existing construction will have on the efforts of the HRA to revitalize the downtown area. Will it hamper or assist the revitalization efforts? id„ f �Q ✓L Gerald A. Henricks HRA Executive Director cc: HRA file Charles Tooker Larry Thompson Karen Finstuen Mayor and Council MEMO O: CHARLES TOOKER SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN HOUSING DATE: JANUARY 15, 1990 It has been brought to my attention that the January 9, 1990 downtown housing memo from me was confusing to individuals in regards to the reason the HRA was not in agreement with the change in zoning in the downtown area which is being recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. The HRA does not object to new housing construction plans for this area which take into consideration the actual parking needs, entrance and exit needs, handicapped accessibility needs, recreational needs and other safety factors. However, when permitting the revamping of existing buildings without setting the same criteria demands as for new construction, the Board recognizes the following concerns. First, parking availability is limited, at best, in the downtown area. With the addition of residential facilities without providing for additional parking space, it could create problems such as: a. Snow Birds (vehicles remaining unattended during snow cleanup efforts in the area) ; and b. vehicles occupying needed retail customer space, (This may occur due to various reasons such as individuals working nights, unem- ployed individuals who sleep late or do not leave the building, or vehicles in need of repair remaining parked on street until the repair/parts can be obtained.) Secondly, new construction provides more than one exit from a building in case of fire or other emergency. The existing facility may not provide this need. Thirdly, recreation needs in the downtown area are limited at best. The Board has expressed their position previously on this issue to the Planning Commission and requested that they again analyze this area of concern. At the October 4, 1989 HRA meeting, the Board was reviewing the request by Mr. Quam to add 2 one bedroom units to the second floor of his building located at 345 3rd Street. They were concerned with the safety factor for children whose parents may occupy the unit. Mr. Wier was in attendance at this meeting and he commented on an in- cident which occurred behind the McVicker building. There were small children playing behind the McVicker building and one of the children was riding his bike. A car pulled into the alley nearly striking the bike when the child drove his bike in front of the car. The Board recognized that these things can and do happen in other areas, however, it is their position and desire to minimize the conditions that create the possibility of such a situation occurring. These are some of the concerns of the HRA Board and because of these concerns the HRA cannot support the recommended zoning changes. We appreciate the con- sideration extended by the Planning Commission in requesting a response to a pro- posed change in the zoning ordinance that would impact the HRA. Hopefully this will have clarified the HRA's position pertaining to Downtown Housing. If you hav- any questions, please contact us. Department Heads era of.A. Henrickscc: Mayor and Council HRA Executive Directors . Planning Commission Larry Thompson Karen Finstuen MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 9, 1990 •I 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Hanson, Rotty, Schlawin, Strelow. Members Absent: Dau. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of December 12, 1989. MOTION by Strelow, second by Schlawin to approve the minutes of December 12, 1989 as distributed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing scheduled for 7:00 P.M. regarding a sign size variance requested by Jon S. Falkowski for his office located on the west frontage road for Highway 3 with an address at 916 8th Street. The office had been granted a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission approximately seven years earlier, but no mention was made of a sign. Dr. Falkowski has indicated that the sign was installed to replace one used earlier when this structure was occupied by a church. No one requested to be recognized regarding this issue. MOTION by Schlawin, second by Hanson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION iy Rotty, second by Strelow to approve a variance for Dr. Falkowski which will allow him to keep the 4x6 sign in front of his dental office because the use was approved much earlier without any discussion of a sign, the office faces a State highway with business activity across the highway and the sign uses the same base as was utilized by the church that formerly occupied this lot. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. The Chairman asked Planner Tooker to discuss an informal request from Dave Vanderlinde at 409 Elm Street to rezone his property from R-3 to B-2 in order for him to conduct a bait and tackle business along Highway 50. Planner Tooker suggested that such a change would be disruptive to the neighborhood since there are no other businesses on the north side of the street in this block. The building was formerly occupied by a shoe repair shop attached to a single family dwelling. However, it was a nonconforming use which had to become conforming once it remained vacant for a year. Mr. Vanderlinde was present at the discussion and Chairman Hanson briefly reviewed the concept of spot zoning and home occupations. Member Schlawin said that he did not favor creating a spot zone for such a business and Member Strelow also added that there is too much vacant business space within the B-2 District right now to warrant an expansion. Chairman Hanson explained that Mr. Vanderlinde could make items for sale in his home, but would need to sell them on consignment or wholesale them to retailers in the business district. Mr. Vanderlinde thanked the Commission for its consideration. 5. Planner Tooker presented the concept of increasing the housing unit density for market rate housing within the B-2 District which was suggested by a request from LaDonna Riste to add two apartments to the upper level of a building she owns together with her husband on Oak Street. He read a memo from HRA Director Henricks stating that the HRA Board does not approve of such a density increase for existing construction_ The memo suggests that senior housing facilities take less space than other types of housing and that adding housing units to existing buildings might jeopardize efforts to revitalize the downtown. Planner Tooker said that zoning does not distinguish between new and existing construction and an increase in the number of units downtown would be helpful in attracting new business ventures into the downtown. In reality, there are few structures within the downtown area that would benefit from the proposed Lys change. There are only a handful of buildings with a second level that are suitable for apartment use. As indicated in the Agenda Report, the B-2 District is exempt from off street parking requirements which places market rate housing and sub- sidized housing on equal footing in that one area. The purpose of the proposed zoning amendment is to place them on equal footing with regard to density as well. MOTION by Rotty, second by Schlawin to forward a recommendation to the City Council that it approve an amendment to Table I under B-2 General Business which will change references to gross dwelling units per acre from 20 and 25 units per acre to 60 and 60 units per acre for multi-family dwellings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. There being no further business, the Commission agreed to adjourn at 7:45 P.M. Submitted by, ULML Charles Tooker Planner Approved 1 •. L AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 9, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. - VARIANCE REQUEST FROM JON S. FALKOWSKI Dr. Falkowski installed a sign measuring 4x6 feet in front of his dental office shortly after being given permission by the Planning Commission for a conditional use to utilize the property for other than residential purposes. The property is located in an R-2 Residential District and it may have a sign 50% smaller than the existing sign as a non-residential identification in a residential area. The property fronts on a frontage road which parallels Highway 3. It is situated across the highway from a shopping center and down the street from a used car lot. The structure was originally built as a church' and later sold as a business use primarily because of its location. The Commission reviewed the problem at its December meeting and found no objection to leaving the sign as it is currently. Recommendation Approve the requested variance based upon the fact that the original conditional use was approved by the Planning Commission without any guiding information relative to signs, and the owner installed a sign in good faith believing that the lot was a business lot rather than a non-residential use in a residential district. 4. DISCUSSION - DOWNTOWN HOUSING DENSITY DISCREPANCY The attached memo was sent to the HRA Director following the last meeting of the Planning Commission. He has indicated that a formal response will be available later this week but in time for the January 9th discussion. Essentially, the original high density for the downtown area was 20 units per acre. A new category was established to accommodate Spruce Place based upon the idea that elderly residents do not need or use open space. There has been some concern voiced by staff that to increase density throughout downtown for other than elderly housing could introduce children who will have no place to play. This was a similar con- cern voiced by the HRA when the former Hagen Hardware building was proposed for low to moderate cost housing. The Parks and Recreation Director indicated that the area behind City Hall which was the location of the old City Water Tower will be developed into a tot lot in the future by the Parks and Recreation Department. A revised landscape plan drawn for City Hall showed how this area could be expanded without reducing the number of parking spaces that are available in this parking lot. The issue that is of most concern to the businesses located downtown is off street parking. Expansion of housing opportunities downtown could create a shortage of parking space for their business activity. Currently the ordinance states in Section 10-6-8 that the B-2 General Business District is exempt from providing on site parking space. The reason for this is that typically downtown lots are quite small, making it impossible to operate a business and offer off street parking as well. The thinking was that the parking areas along Second Street and between Third Street and City Hall would provide enough space to serve the downtown. Since then, the Milo Thompson study of downtown suggested that the parking area between Elm and Oak Streets should be extended to Spruce Street and that diagonal on street parking should be introduced whenever feasible near the business activity. From an efficient use of space point of view, all of the blocks downtown except the parking area described as Third and One-Half Street should be devoted to business use without parking. In addition, the upper levels whenever feasible should be converted to office or living space. The intensity of use this suggests will help create an active business district once again. Therefore, the City staff has no reservations about providing an equal footing between market rate housing and units for the elderly and handicapped regarding density. Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council that Table I under B-2 General Business should be revised by changing the reference of gross dwelling units per acre from 20 to 25 units to 60 and 60 units for multi-family dwellings. 0444/72-04.,... Charles Tooker Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota on the 5th day of February 19 90 , at 7:45 (P.M.) gua in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota for the purpose of: considering Zoning Ordinance Density Requirements in B-2 District All persons desiring to be heard, in person or in writing, will be heard at this time. Larry Th son City Administrator Submitted to the Farmington Independent this 17th day of January 19 90 for publication 1 time(s) , the last of which being no later than the 25th day of January , 19 90 cc: Dakota County Tribune AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration Pv64A-' DATE: January 9, 1990 (A-)QA-'3• MEETING DATE: January 16, 1990 �� CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests and Communications SUBJECT: Proposed Solid Waste Processing System - RECOMP, Inc. EXPLANATION: Consider establishing a review of a proposal by RECOMP, Inc. to own and operate a 55 TPD Co-Composting facility in Farmington. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Department Heads Bob Williamson Solid Waste SIGNATv • PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MN. 10-31-89 RECOMP is asking the city of Farmington to host our solid waste processing facility. RECOMP is one of only a few companies that is currently permitted and processing solid waste into compost material on a daily basis in Minnesota and the U.S. RECOMP will provide the City of Farmington financial assurances as to its capability to perform under a 20 year put or pay contract. RECOMP would propose to begin construction in the spring of 1990, and to be fully operational by end of the year. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY - RECOMP, INC. DATE: JANUARY 10, 1990 The City has been approached by RECOMP, Inc. to construct and operate a 55 ton per day solid waste processing facility in Farmington. The facility would com- post MSW by using a digestor. The City would be required, among other things, to donate a site, apply for and secure a State Waste Management CAP Grant for 50% of the capital costs, and guarantee the City's solid waste would be taken to the facility at a set rate (presently $55/ton) . In addition, RECOMP would accept and compensate the City for recyclables. RECOMP would operate the facility and be required to secure an additional 35-40 tons per day designation from the County to make it feasible. It should be noted that RECOMP presently owns and operates a processing facility in St. Cloud. It was agreed that the proposal would not be brought to the Council until staff had completed its initial review, and the Citizens Task Force had completed its study so as to not "muddy up the waters". RECOMP is now asking that the City consider issuing a letter of intent if it wishes to proceed with the proposal in order to approach the County for the additional waste designation. While staff has completed an initial review, it certainly has not approached the scrutiny given the City's facility. Staff does have various concerns (hand sorting, capital intensive, labor costs, proprietary system vs. custom design, lack of City control over operations, etc.) . We are only in a position to discuss them, not make recommendations relating to go/no go. I feel that before a recommendation can be given, a detailed study should be directed by the Council. While a Task Force may not be necessary, it may be an option for the Council. RECOMP has in- dicated they would be comfortable with any method chosen by the City. If the Council directs further study, I will prepare a request for information from RECOMP asking for specific, detailed information. I have enclosed some of the correspondence for your review. e7af7Thompkr City Administrator cc: Robert Williamson Jerry Henricks Department Heads file s This preliminary proposal assumes: - $1,500,000 grant received by Farmington for purchase and construction of land,buildings and improvements, including a compost curing pad. - RECOMP to lease premises from Farmington for 20 years at nominal cost * Farmington owns land, buildings and improvements - RECOMP to furnish additional capital requirements * $1,600,000 to be partially funded by Farmington supported Industrial Revenue Bonds - Land donated by Farmington * 5 acres permitted by RECOMP, with Farmington providing utilities to the site (water, sewer, electric & gas) - Farmington to guarantee 4420 Tons Per Year of mixed MSW * delivery 5 days per week - Farmington may require RECOMP to accept, process and market recyclable items collected from Farmington's Curbside operations and retur 75% of net proceeds from7) sale * recyclables include cardboard,glass,ferrous, aluminum,newspaper (optional),plastic (optional) - RECOMP to design, construct and operate the facility * 20 year put or pay performance-based contract - Revenue sharing with Farmington on compost products * 50% of net proceeds over $4.00/Ton FOB Plant - Dakota County will provide additional tonnage needed of 40 TPD under the same basic conditions at a fee differential set by mutual agreement with Farmington. - RECOMP to design, construct and operate the facility RECOMP will provide a monthl s ro'ect status resort to the Ci durin l de 'as_ construction and installation of the facility. RECOMP will meet with a City representative on a monthly basis, or as required, to review progress details. Operations will be overseen by RECOMP, using local manpower wherever possible. • The facility will include a t.• • •: floor, modified sorting lines, recycle processing station, a composting digeste compost storage pad, : d soil amendment refining equipment. Reduced sort lines are being proposed for this facility mainly because of the extensive curb side operation that Farmington has developed. The sort lines will assist in aluminum/ferrous and reject removal only. Revenue sharing with Farmington on compost products For the purpose of this proposal, RECOMP has assumed an annual yield of compost to be 5,840 tons at $4.00/T FOB plant. RECOMP offers, as a revenue sharing enhancement to pass back to the City of Farmington, annually, 50% of the net revenue (receipt less direct cost) attained over and above the base price of $4.00. This revenue sharing can be in a cash payment or as a credit toward reducing the tipping fee for the following year. Farmington to guarantee 4420 TPY of mixed MSW - excluding curbside recycled products For the purpose of this proposal, we are assuming that Farmington will guarantee 4420 tons per year of mixed MSW to this facility. This will be under a put or pay contract. Since yard waste is currently excluded from the most recent figures and growth factors for the community are in excess of 3% annually, we feel this tonnage figure is achievable and will minimise any element of risk to Farmington involved in a put or pay contract. - RECOMP to accept recyclable items collected from Farmingtons Curbside operations. RECOMP fully supports Farmington for their extensive curb side collection system, and wishes to enhance those efforts in any way possible. We will design the facility with minimum sorting capabilities to recover only ferrous metals and aluminum initially, with expansion capability easily created to address removal of other commodities as value added markets appear. This proposal includes space made available to the City of Farmington, both for overnight storage of their collection vehicles, and for drop off of recycle items collected. At Farmington's discretion, RECOMP offers to accept curbside items, and to process and market these items. RECOMP will reimburse Farmington 75% of the net value received (after processing and transportation costs) for the recycle items delivered to the facility by Farmington's collection vehicles. This will relieve the City of Farmington of all marketing and processing responsibilities involved with the recycle items. Although RECOMP will make every attempt to secure profitable markets for the recyclables, it does not guarantee that any commodity will have a positive market value at any given time. Farmington will be paid for recyclable items received at the end of each month. For the purposes of this proposal, RECOMP has assumed the market value of all recyclables collected by the City to be $50,000.00 per year. We are currently assuming no market value for bundled paper or glass. $1,500.000 grant received by Farmington The grant application will be based on using RECOMP technology. All preliminary indications are pointing to a favorable response to the grant. RECOMP will provide any technical and clerical support for the grant application that the City of Farmington requests, at no additional expense to Farmington assuming there is an active letter of intent operative between the two parties. - Permitting and other regulatory compliances will need to be pursued on a joint basis, as Farmington will be owner, and RECOMP the operator. RECOMP has presumed permitting cost of $100,000 in this proposal. Permits can be maintained in less than 6 months, if there is no public disapproval. It is imperative that RECOMP and Farmington work jointly to educate the community prior to permit application. - RECOMP to lease premises from Farmington Subject to final negotiations, it is assumed that Farmington would use the grant monies to purchase and improve land and to construct the buildings and curing pad on the premises. RECOMP would then lease the premises, at a nominal fee, to house the RECOMP processing equipment. Recomp will own most of the equipment with subordination of some to the Industrial Revenue Bond. r i • Performance specifications need to be agreed upon, as initially outlined in the attached sample contract, allowing Farmington the right to void the contract, should specifications not be met. In the event of default by RECOMP, Farmington would have the right to purchase the existing equipment, at the current depreciated value,or RECOMP will remove its equipment from the building. - Land donated by Farmington A site must be identified. Although Dakota Co. has made a 5 acre parcel available to Farmington, it is yet to be determined if this site would best serve the City. We are assuming that the city of Farmington would be best suited to select the site, which will more than likely have to be rezoned to Al for this type of facility. This proposal assumes full cooperation from the City in rezoning issues. The ideal site would consist of a minimum of five acres, with expansion capabilities to ten. In return for hosting our facility, and making the $1,500,000 grant possible, RECOMP is proposing a split tipping fee. One for the City of Farmington and one for the remaining tonnage required from Dakota County. Anticipated tipping fees for Farmington (assuming the proposal above) would be $55 ton. This fee is guaranteed for the term of the contract (20 yr), to be affected only by variable cost indexes, (cost of living, fuel, tax, etc.) and reject disposal fees as outlined in the attached sample contract. This fee is based on a $55.00 reject disposal fee. RECOMP will make every attempt to minimize this disposal cost. Should we secure disposal cost of under $55.00, Farmington's tipping fee will reduce or increase by $3.00 for every $10.00 in reject disposal costs. The remaining tonnage required from Dakota Co. would require a tipping fee of $59.25/Ton. • • SUMMARY PROJECT: FARMINGTON/DAKOTA COUNTY SIZE: 55 TPD TYPE: MODIFIED SORT (ALUM-FERROUS-CORR. ONLY) START-UP: 1991 NOTES: 16,060 TPY FARMINGTON: 17 TONS/DAY - 5 DAYS/WEEK - 4420 TON PER YR DAKOTA CO: 37.3 TONS/DAY - 6 DAYS/WEEK - 11640 TON PER YR TOTAL 16060 TON PER YR BASE TIPPING FEE: FARMINGTON: $55/TON DAKOTA CO.: $59.25/TON ADDITIONAL REVENUES POSSIBLE TO FARMINGTON: 75% OF NET RECYCLE PRODUCT VALUE 50% OF NET COMPOST VALUE OVER $4.00/T FOB PLANT cc: Robert Williamson 55 TPD COMPOSTING FACILITY FARMZNGTON, MN. NOP. 16, 198.9 ITEMIZED FAC TY PRICE SUS L DESIGN, PERMITS, AND COMSrRUCT1o.N XANA T, $ 390,030 Z SITE WORK, INCLUDING Buy mor Lal7FED 31D: 3N1,aBg Demolition, excavation and fill, parking area and on-site roadways; general site work including fences, gates, lighting, grading, seeding, landscaping, and utility installations within Boundry Limits of the Facility Site, A. BUILDINGS.: (17,800 sq. ft.) 871,000 Tipping building, processing building, storage bulldiAg, office quarters, Including foundations, psora, and 55,8861 sq. ft. curing pad. d. WASTE FROCZBSING EQUIFM6'Iy: 661,000 All installed waste and nitrogen source handling separating, pro ng, starage, and loadout equipment to include, bag breaker, trammel classifier, composting vessel, conveyors, scales and screens. _ S. MATERIAL RECOVERY NQUIPM3DIT: 150,000 All equipment for the separation, handling, storage and loadout of recovered mateiials, such as classifying equipment, balers, compactors, and container& 6. ROLLIIIIG STOCK 129,806 All on-site, mobile equipment and vehicles. 7. K CS/ELBCTRICALr 180,000 Facility controls, HVAC, Facility power airfdustlodor handling and control 0: PAYMENT AND PERFORMANM BiDND& 30,80 9. INSURANCE: 30,000 1a UTILITIES: 60,000 Cost during construction and start-up 11. START-UF AID ACcisprApar sirsrmws 60,E _ ru..ruurriuri rruururriuuiruuuur.u .r.uuuuuuruuuuuururr rrru.ru uu,.u.ruuuuulrrrrrru uuurirriiuuuuurrrriiutnuuululfll lllf YYYIIIIIII If IfY11u11111!IIf IIYYUIl11111H IIYYYlIIIl1111 tiMYlll11'.rl'rllf NyYllll111111tY11JiuItIII�11YYI1Y1111111h page 2 .L. TRAINDIGlOPERA17011AL AtisTATA.Nesa 15,800 Lt SPARS PARTS AND MAIA!TERAAR EQUIPJ1T, 30.E 14. TRUCK SCALE SB, 800 15. LABORATORr & OFFICE EQUIPIVOIT 25, 000 16. MLSCEI LAREU USS I27,O98 TOTAL FACIUTT PRICE, $3,100,898 page 3... 55 TPD COMPOSTING FACILITY ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST DETAIL FARMINGTON, MN. • 1. OPERATION LABOR 391,000 2- tip floor 2- digester/curing/screening 4- sort/recycle preparatlon 2- maintenance 1- manager 1- clerical 4— home office support 2. UTZLI32SS 27,44/0 3 FURL 11,E 4. SUPPLJS 18,868 5. OUTSIDE SERVICES (AIALPT.iCAL) 22/300 6. LEASED Rguremiwir 15,8100 7. 1NSIJRANCE 20,000 8. INCOME TAXES (none aastuged first 4 yrs.) ---- 9. PROPERTY rants 38,0010 iiMMelleat • TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATIONS YR. 1 $ 534,8100 "Assume 3* annual .index adjustments _.__..._..........._.....:....:....�,,..qui iurruinuuuurruu W I11110tlMYlli111111"XiY1111111!!i!I(iYBi�llli!1(Il.MM11iLs1_yA_MYIIUIlUIlHfX�Y'' page4.... 55 ?BD COMPOSTING FACILITY PROJECT REVENUE FARMINGTON, lei. Y. riPpING FRE FARMINGTON - 428 TPY ta $55500/T 243,100 DAKOTA COUNTY - 11,640 TPY F $59.4512, 691,998 Z COMPOST S*MS 6440 TPY 4 $4.081T 25,760 3. FAcEL117 RJCYCr,8 REVENUE' 13,026 4. 251 NET CITY CUBRSTDE REYR P ($50,000) 12,500 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE $ 986,384 page S... 55 TPD COMPOSTING PACU Z'!Y PROJECT SUKJARY AND SRNSITTVITY ANALYSIS PARMINGTON, 1IN. TOTAL REVENUES $ 986,384 TOTAL OPERATING EIPE.WSES 534,000 TOTAL REJECT DISPOSAL COSTS 264,991 -30t REJECT 9 X55/TON TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 337,860 DEBT RES. & WOREING CAPITAL 50,394 ANNUAL THROUGHPUT TONS 36,4360 292 DAYS PER YEAR 14.12IJIUM SORT - FERROUS & ALUMINUM ONLY • Debt service based on $3,360,980 0 8.5t • • MEMO TO: BOB WILLIAMSON SUBJECT: RECOMP PROPOSAL - ANALYSIS DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1989 I have reviewed the Recomp proposal and would like to make the following comments. Please refer to the attached sheet when reviewing my comments. 1. Building Costs My figures show the cost of the 17,900 square foot building and site development to be approximately $1,802,000 ($1,702,000 without the curing pad) . The City' s architect recently prepared a study which indicated the cost for a 17,590 fully insulated concrete block building, which includes a 2,700 square foot office/ restroom/locker room area with decked mezzanine, wash bay, repair bay with hoist and several other amenities would only cost $1,056,902. I cannot explain the discrepancy. I feel it would be helpful to see the type of building design, how the $390,000 for design, permits, etc. was determined, and what materials are to be used for the curing pad. 2. Curing Pad It was my understanding that the majority of the curing had to occur indoors at the outset. While I did not agree with this, it seems this was placed as a condition because of public outcry. 3. Personnel Costs First, I feel the number of employees is excessive. I cannot see how 4 hand sorters costing approximately $100,000 annually could ever be cost effective, especially with the aggressive curbside recycling program in Dakota County. My estimates indicate each sorter would have to remove over 1 ton per day of recyclable materials to be cost effective: WORKERS DAYS/YR TOTAL RECYCLE 4 x 1 x 292 = 1,168 Avoided Landfill Cost 1,168 x 55 = $64,240 Recycle Revenue 1,168 x 15 = $17,520 $81,760 While I am not familiar with handsorting, this seems high, especially since Farmington can document it is already removing 10% of the recyclables at curbside. Also the $26,000 average salary seems high. 4. Tip Fees While the $55/ton seems very competitive, closer analysis shows that the net effect is closer to $70/ton, because per the contract, the City would be required to dispose of its yard waste to meet the 4,420 TPY requirement. The City presently only pays $8/ton to dispose of yard waste, which is estimated to be 10-15% of the total waste stream. 5. Recycling Revenues The proposal calls for the City to be reimbursed for "75% of the net proceeds" for the recycled items. I cannot find any payment to the City or credit on the tip fees, so is it assumed there will be no "net proceeds"? 6. Reject Fee/Compost Revenues While the contract compensates (or penalizes) the City if the $55/ton reject disposal rate is not met, the project assumes a 30% reject rate. Even our most conservative figures show a 25% reject rate, and that is without disposing of the final screenings as RDF. Therefore, if the plant achieves a less than 30% reject rate, the City does not benefit. Also, if the plant's compost output exceeds estimates, the City does not benefit. Summary While I still have other questions, I feel before I can proceed I need the afore- mentioned concerns addressed. Based on my initial review, I feel the building costs are high and the personnel figure is inflated and must be justified. Please review and respond to Nancy Healy and forward this letter to Ms. Healy if you feel it would help. I suggest that we meet with Recomp as soon as possible to discuss the matter. Lar Thompon City Administrator • cc: file _I-Uriw , 1N1. . ILL No .b 12-Ub4-6211 Jan 2 ,90 12 :28 No .001 P .01 • - &am ft. - ASubsea*d . - Bawl&Mils -SIAM 1#12 134?F-7111kSt. . I1 mmitto .F 56�2U 01/02/90si285+gvil 8128 f BT& Mr. Robert Williamson . City of Farmington - 325 Oak St. RECOMp Farmington, HN 55024 . • Dear Bob, . Please excuse the delay in getting back to you, which in no way was meant to imply a lack of interest on our behalf. In answer to the questions posed in Larry's memo dated December 4, 1989s - 1) Building Costs - The majority of the questions involve economics and cost comparisons to the city's composting facility design. Please • r keep in mind that the numbers given in -our proposal of November 16th are estimates only and are not site specific. - We would be very interested in seeing the design prepared by your architect. Our preliminary design is a steel frame, Multi level facility. . Since the grant monies would be used for the building and curing pad, it would seem to me that Farmington and RBCONP would- work . closely on this portion of the project to insure the best_ _ interests of both parties. . The 55,000 sq_ ft., curing/storage pad will be of concrete over a HDPE liner. 2 ) Curing Pad - We find no reason to enclose a curing pad other than public opinion. I know this was a concern frau the beginning, and admit our estimate did not include covered curing. We are hopeful- that with the proper public education, covered curing will not be necessary. Until we have the "blessing" of Dakota County and a - specific site to work with, we cannot ' be sure what siting problems we may incur. . LLuMr , 1141 . ILL No .b12-x354-b211 Jan 2Y0 12 :28 No .001 P .02 - 2 - 3) Personnel Costs There are six sorters at our St. Cloud facility (50TPD) . Sorters are used not only to recover recyclable items, but to recover reject items which could become detrimental to producing a high quality compost. Labor rates may appear to be high, but are based on a similar labor force used at the Elk River RDF facility. These figures also include a 30% benefit package. In final negotiations, this figure could be re-evaluated depending on current market labor demands. 4) TApplag Fees We have made every effort to keep tipping fees attractive to Farmington. Should Dakota County cooperate on this venture, yard waste could possibly remain segregated, at a reduced tipping fee. 5) Recclino Revenues This option was offered at Farmington's discretion. No assumptions were made for .reimbursement, as we were unclear if this is how Farmington wished to proceed. Net recycling revenues for Farmington's curbside operation are estimated to be $53,000 annually, of which 75% ($37,500) would be returned to the catty in either monthly payments or reduction of tipping fees. This assumption could reduce the city's tipping fee by $8.48 per ton. 6) Refect Fees/Co post Revipnues RECOMPguar4antees not to exceed a 30% reject factor. With the landfill situation what it is in the Metro area, we must be conservative on this issue. As far as the plant's compost output exceeding estimates, we are offering a revenue sharing plan in this area too. _LUIlr ,, 1TVL . ILL FlU .D1L-ti'4-DL11 Jan L e`JU 1L :L2$ i40 .UU1 r .u - 3 - We appreciate the time and effort given to us in the past, but feel it is time to push forward. Should Farmington decide to host a RECOMP facility, we will make every effort to attempt to keep costs down, while providing a facility the city can be proud of. However, we want you to know that we will be proposing two composting facilities in the Metro area in the near future. We would hope that one of the locations would be in Farmington, but I guess that is your decision. - Should Farmington decide to proceed with RECOHP, we would need a Letter of Intent from the City before going to the county. Once the additional tonnage is secured from the County, we will provide site specific figures and a guaranteed tipping fee. Again, please excuse the delay in this response. If at all possible, I would like to visit with you and Larry the week of January 8th to get your input. Thank You, M cy Be ley, RECOIP INC. AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. ' / 1 Tom Kaldunski NAME: _ ./ Public Works �' DEPARTMENT: / n DATE: January 2, 1990 MEETING DATE: January 16, 1990 CATEGORY: New Business SUBJECT: Volume Based Sewer Rates EXPLANATION: The Council will be asked to approve the expenditure of $1,000 of sewer rehab furfds to fund 50% of a study to determine the feasibility of water meters and their impact on sewer and water rates. The Water Board has authorized $1,000 for this study. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Tom Kaldunski Public Works SIGNATURE , MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: VOLUME BASED SEWER RATES DATE: JANUARY 11, 1990 At a recent Water Board meeting, a discussion of water meters for all customers took place. In order to complete their review, it was determined that a study on meters should be completed. As Public Works Director I believe that the sewer rates should also be connected to metered water usage to provide the most equitable means of billing customers for municipal services (similar to recent Council action on solid waste rates for commercial and residential customers) . I contacted Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik and Tri-Angle Engineers for proposals to complete a study on water metering. Attached is a copy of the proposals. Both firms quoted a price of $2,000. The scope of the study is outlined on the proposals. The Water Board authorized the expenditure of $1,000 towards this study because, in their opinion, the water and sewer divisions will benefit equally from metering. I agree with this philosophy, therefore, I am asking for Council authorization to utilize $1,000 of the 1990 Sanitary Sewer Rehab Budget to fund 1/2 of this metering study to rehabilitate the billing and rate setting for sanitary sewer use. Currently, the 1990 budget includes $40,000 for sanitary sewer rehab with an additional $21,000 carried over from the 1989 budget. Thomatct s agj Public Wo s Director/Engineer cc: file Larry Thompson Department Heads Water Board D:D C.itirXMau PS. K A.Got DF.€P Meelye C tyatt ft aewi g I VAIN PE Bones f roil $4tTS vk Raterr.PF WW1 w PS. .tants R Wand Pf !I IAe R Magnin A e A J xxots C.Matta.RE. Doratd C `xft.Pf. y /et Kfce Pt dtrt�l Kea'Irks'h R Afrx7yy+t Pf u.a e � RA sere Ri7Letd E.lortt4 P.E. leery A Eaie2?(L PS. l Piet p.�6k PE Jd__S An pen_Pt QVV r7Gi lG/ G p lime.C.O�ei.P.£. Mare A i�prlrLPE. O4pC%C.kt=fe,Al A. 1 Phetp CCZRa SL.PE i L Berl�h 13 Chen R.Gook,PS. ,1rt K frit.PS. 11%-mat F.1t co.PE (ha�+R A •'tion Th Darns F.Npja PS. tilro..g4 t Abnarn,.PS. Hdtiartt A SPIE1.0.Pf a e»to P,rwcye4y Associates ik4«!G.SMArA'fl!.P5. R PlefOrrk%PE. DOrud JEawrztt.Pt ecru,.m•awn Wpm L.sorsna.PE. Mkt a LOi;¢+tn.PF. Matt A St%PZ knr,tog Pani,.C PA %TIM w Pele.Vrs PP M 1 Lawn.PA Engineers & Arcterects. January 10, 1990 Mr.Larry Thompson,Ad,T,strator City of Farmington city Hall 325 Oak Street Farmington, INV 55024 RE: Water Metering System Study Dear Zany: As you requested,Bontstroa,Rosette,Ander c and Associates(Sone roo) has developed a brief proposal to prespare a rem which will evaluate the costs and benefits of a water mete ng system for the City of Fanaingtom We believe that our familiarity with the City and its water system would be most valuable in this bind of analysis. Proposed Scope of Services A feasibility study for a water metering system requires that several assumptions be made regarding changes in water usage and costs, resulting from the conversion from an=- metered system to a user-fee oriented approach. We propose to conduct this study using our records on your water system, applicable industry standards and demographic and billing information provided by the{qty. A summary of the endings of the study would be presented to the Water Commis_on and City Council and 10 copies of the reportwould be provided to the City. The following elements shall be included in the proposed meter study: �)Pre rninary cost es6nate for in.staltraion of metering system. 2)Preliminary cast estnate for operation of metering system. 3)Assumptions regar&ng the impact of water rrieterin& Some of the issues to be=mined include: *Anticipated decline in water use; *Anticiixaed reduction on ire water pumping and treatment cos *Antic:11)01ed redudion zrt sewer balling from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission;and *Ar'ai4caed frwr'eAzse in costs for maintenance and billing of metered sys n. Mr. Larry Thompson January 10, 1990 Farmington, MN 4) Review of anticipated reductions consumption and its impact on rewired well capacity and timing of required improvements. 5) Development of sample rate schedule and analysis of anticipated impact on typical consumer categories (e.g.,single person households,families and commercial user). 6) Development of /bene&analpd.s and anticipated payback,including assumptions about future growth. 7) Recommendations regarding feasibility of water metering for City of Farmington. Project Team The study would be conducted by Bonestroo staff including principal Joseph Andedk, a specialist in the development of user charge systems, who will serve as technical advisor on the project. Engineer Mark Rolls will conduct the research and develop the feasibility ility study. Mark has 10 years of engineering experience in feasibility studies and design, . .ng in water systems. I will also serve on the study team as the principal contact for the City and provide in:km:nation spuific to Farmington's water system. Schedule We would begin the study within two weeks of authorization and anticipate completion within 8 weeks. COSI Our cost for conducting this study is$2,000. Thank you for considering our proposal. Please call me at 636-4600 if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important issue. Sincerely, BONESTROO,ROSENE.A11 DEi UIC ANDASSOCIATES,INC. ,e(21.vtd eelDwdi Glenn R.Cook,P.E. Associate Principal _. • IN..4 I L.i I IVILIYL, T 1� • P.O. BOX 855 • LAKE ELMO, MN 55042.0455 (612) 770-0133 • • • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION: Triangle Engineering , Inc. proposesto pro. ide professionalconsulting engineering service_ for the study , design and implementation of a water metering system for the city of Farmington , MN. QUALIFICATIONS: Triangle Engineerinc ' =_ staff ••,: includes rrofc==ional englne=rswith many years C� �, pcr1e7Ce water system �r systems. operations end metering THE PROJECT: To prepare and p1.esent a stud••, ontht valuebenefit e Gr water metering system for the city of Farmington, . of a Phase II and Phase III of theec+ra , P ��_ .. involves professional work required if the city decides to proceed with install- ation of a metering system. Objective: To provide the city with recommendations regarding install- ation of water meters in the city. Activities: Phase I : This phase includes a study and report evaluating the of a system and cost savings relating to the meterinofst all water sale=_. Items to be studied are g as follow=: 1 . Cost of a meter system installed and operating. 2. Evaluation of volume of reduced water consumption and utilization of water resources. � . Evaluation of reduced water pumping and treatment cossts. -1- 4. Evaluation of reduced sewer billings from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 5. Inpact of metering on equitable distribution of water and sewer costs among consumers. 6. Reduced consumption and its impact on needed well capacity and timing of needed additions. 7. Determination of cost/benefit ratio and payback period. 8. Recommendations. COST PROPOSAL Phase I report cost $2000 Includes one presentation to Water Board , additional meet- ings will be charged at a rate of $65/hour . • The city shall provide written authorization before Triangle Engineering will proceed with Phase II . Phase II co=t. $7600 This phase includes specification writing and preparation of bid documents. Specific items to be included in this phase are as follows: 1. Evaluation of metering and billing systems available including review with city staff . S. Preparation of specifications for purchasing a metering and billing system. Z. Preparation of specifications for installation of the meters,remote readers , and billing equipment. 4. Review all bids and recommend award. Includes a presentation to the city council and two public hearings. Additional meetings will be charged at a rate of $65/hour. Phase III cost $4800 This phase includes inspection of all materials and install- ations. Specific items to be included in this phase are: 1 . Inspection of meter installation. Inspection of materials and billing equipment. 3. Resolve bad plumbing and customer concerns. 4. Authorize payment for materials and construction. 5. Assist with start up of billing system including parallel- ing old system for one quarter. Will be charged at an actual rate of $30/hour. The cost est- imate is based on 1/2 time inspection for 2 months. Verne E. Jacobsen ,president Accepted for the City of Farmington