HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.19.89 Council Packet AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
JUNE 19, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. APPROVE MINUTES
a. May 31, 1989 Special
b. June 5, 1989 Regular
4. CITIZENS COMMENTS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Set Public Hearing - Recommended Amendment to the City Code
b. Set Public Hearing - Rezoning in Block 18 from B-3 to R-3
6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
a. Approving Dakota County Estates 6th Addition Preliminary Plat and
Authorizing Signing of Final Plat
b. Approve Developers Agreement - Dakota County Estates 6th Addition
c. Ordinance Amending Title 1-4-2 Relating to Penalties
d. Ordinance Requiring Permits for Private Incineration of Garbage
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Dakota County Estates PUD Review
b. Code Violation - Grading Without a Permit
c. Industrial Revenue Bond Allocation
d. General Services Space Needs
e. Storm Water Utility
f. Solid Waste Budget/Fees
g. Solid Waste Needs Survey
h. Payment of Claim - Tom Ryan Construction
i. 1989 Street Improvement Project No. 89-3
9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Insurance Claim
b. 1989 Seal Coat Project
c. Equipment Purchase - General Services
10. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Contingency Funding - Fire Department
11. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department
b. Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department
c. Final Payment Request - 1988 Street Improvement Project
d. Ordinance Amending Setting of Public Hearings
e. Mountain Dew Days Licenses and Permits
f. Approve Payment of the Bills
12. ADJOURN
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS - JUNE 19, 1989
DATE: JUNE 16, 1989
5a. Hearing notice, Planning Commission minutes, Ordinance enclosed.
b. Request/Hearing Notice/Planning Commission minutes enclosed.
7a&b. The developer has requested these items be pulled so he can fully
review the developers agreement.
c. Memo/Ordinance enclosed.
d. Memo enclosed.
8a. Planning Commission minutes/map enclosed.
b. Various information enclosed.
c. Memo enclosed.
d. Various information enclosed.
e. Memo/Ordinance enclosed.
f. Memo/Budget enclosed.
g. Cover letter/Survey enclosed. It is recommended this survey be sent with
the July billing.
h. Memo enclosed.
i. Memo enclosed.
9a. Memo enclosed.
b. Report enclosed.
c. Memo enclosed.
10a. Request enclosed.
lla. Request enclosed.
b. Request enclosed.
c. RFP enclosed.
d. Ordinance enclosed.
e. Memo/List enclosed.
f. List enclosed.
Larry Thompson
City Administrator
cc: Department Heads
file
7.77
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO. ("w)
NSE: Tom Kaldunski
DEPARTMENT: General Services
DATE: June 6, 1989
MEETING DATE: June 19, 1989
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: General Services - Space Needs
EXPLANATION: Per Council directive
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Tom Kaldunski/Larry Thompson
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Wayne Henneke Finance
Tom Kaldunski General Services
Jerry Bauer General Services
� O
SIGNATURE
', ,
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO. 3144'
NAME: Tom Kaldunski
DEPARTMENT: General Services �j
DATE: 9 /� l�I
MEETING DATE: CI( o (c
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: General Services - Space Needs
EXPLANATION: --- . .4 - - .. • - 10-t, r ...._.4_
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memos - Tom & Larry
arre ,C
"H
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Wayne Henneke Finance
Tom Kaldunski General Services
Jerry Bauer General Services
Iii,..\ '
\ A- A
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SPACE NEEDS - SITING
DATE: JUNE 1, 1989
Per Council directive, staff has reviewed potential sites for the proposed general
service facility. I have attached a map showing potential sites for Council con-
sideration. The following is a discussion for each area.
Present Site
The present site could be expanded to accommodate the needs, but it would require
acquisition and demolition of at least 3 houses, which at a minimum would cost
$175,000. Also, there appeared to be some sentiment of the Council that the
facility did not belong in the area because of residential zoning. It should be
noted that 1st Street is an MSA route and will be designed to handle 9 ton traffic.
Another argument for the site is that it is within walking distance for workers in
the event of inclement weather. Because the facility will be designed for 20+ years,
however, it cannot be certain that the facility will be within walking distance,
regardless of where the facility is located.
South of Fire Hall
While this site does offer good accessibility, it is located in a residential zone,
which again, appeared to be against the sentiments of the Council. Also, I am not
certain as to the availability of the property.
Adelman Property (Ash and Denmark)
This property offers good accessibility and could be easily developed. The lift
station serving the area may have to be modified. I am not certain as to the cost
of the property.
Old Sewage Treatment Site
This site offers poor accessibility and would require a 9 ton road be built through
Empire Township. The average cost of a road, excluding easements, is approximately
$400,000 per mile. While the site is presently owned by the City, it is only 3.4
acres and is irregularly shaped which would require the City to purchase additional
property.
T.H. 50 Industrial Center
This area offers good accessibility and consistent zoning. I am not certain of
the cost of each parcel, but a good rule of thumb would be $8,000 - $10,000 per
acre. I have contacted ENRON regarding the possibility of donating a site to the
City. They seemed receptive to the idea, but could make no commitment.
I would like the Council to narrow the sites down so that staff can prepare a more
detailed analysis. I must emphasize that the City's space needs are a very serious
problem and must be addressed. Even if a referendum were passed today, it is
doubtful that the building could be occupied before next summer. Therefore, the
short term needs will have to be addressed along with the long term. Staff is
still looking for rental space for the short term needs. Regarding the long term
needs, it is my recommendation that the Council focus on an area so that costs can
be more accurately estimated, and then the City can call for a referendum setting
whatever amount the Council feels is appropriate.
It has been noted on several occasions that a referendum would be difficult to
pass, but if it would fail, the Council will have to seriously look at another
referendum, alternative financing or curtailing the growth in Farmington. The
present facilities cannot accommodate existing City needs, let alone future needs
based on growth projections.
77
L7ry Thom son
City Administrator
cc: Tom Kaldunski
Department Heads
file
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: GENERAL SERVICES SPACE NEEDS - STORAGE BUILDING AT FIRE HALL
DATE: JUNE 14, 1989
Per Council directive, Tom Kaldunski, Ken Kuchera and I met to discuss constructing
a steel sided pole building on the present fire hall site for temporary General
Services cold storage. The Fire Chief acknowledged that the Fire Department had
been considering a cold storage building and construction of a metal building had
been discussed. The Fire Chief expressed the following concerns:
1. A pole building would not fit with the existing structure at the site.
Mr. Kuchera indicated that if a separate storage building was proposed, he
would recommend it be constructed with block or a similar material.
2. A temporary use by the General Services could become more permanent than
presently anticipated. Since the Fire Department's cold stroage needs are
more immediate, he would recommend that the building be sized large enough
to accommodate the General Services and Fire Department needs which would
increase the size and cost of the building.
Mr. Kaldunski concurred with the Fire Chief and focused on the construction of a
structure for his Department's temporary needs, and then not proceeding with the
construction in the near future. Such a situation could lead to him searching for
another structure if/when the Fire Department's cold storage needs become critical.
I also share the Fire Chief's and General Services Superintendent's concerns, with
major concern relating to the existing and future development of the area. The
buildings in the vicinity are constructed with brick or cement. The future land
use is for single family dwellings, with staff researching the site of the permanent
General Services facility in the area. I feel that a pole building would not fit
into the overall development plans for the City. While it could be the intent of
the Council to only have the building located at the site on a temporary basis,
I share the Fire Chief's and General Services Superintendent's concern that often
times temporary solutions become permanent.
On a similar note, when the proposal to construct a pole building at the present
site was originally made, Mr. Kaldunski had requested the Planning Commission to
review the matter. The Planning Commission has reviewed the matter, and indicated
that such a structure would exceed the 1,000 square foot limitation set forth in
the code. Therefore, the request was denied.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, it is recommended as follows:
1. A pole building for General Services should not be constructed at the Fire
Hall site.
2. If a cold storage building is constructed at the Fire Hall site, it should be
sized for immediate Fire Department use and constructed out of masonry materials.
3. The construction of a pole structure at the present General Services site
should not be pursued.
4. Staff continue to look for space available for lease.
5. Staff review comments from landowners regarding availability of land for
City purchase for a General Services Facility.
The Finance Director has informed me that recently, Ken Hanson Jr. submitted a
proposal for leasing his building on First Street which is presently being reviewed
by staff. A recommendation will be forthcoming.
d'
Larry Thompson
City Administrator
cc: Department Heads
file
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: GENERAL SERVICES SPACE NEEDS
DATE: JUNE 16, 1989
Staff has been studying the short term and long term space needs of the General
Services Department quite thoroughly. A number of building proposals have been
investigated but none have proved feasible to date.
In a memo dated June 14, 1989, Wayne Henneke, Finance Director has outlined a
proposal for rental/lease purchase of the Hanson Building. This proposal can sol-:e
my Department's short term and long term needs, and it appears very feasible due to
the low cost (approximately $21/sq.ft. ) while providing a building which approaches
my Department's space needs as outlined in the Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik study.
I recommend that the Council authorize my Department to enter into the lease with
Mr. Hanson at this time. This agreement would allow my Department to begin storing
materials and equipment at the Hanson Building immediately. The Department must
vacate the building currently being rented on Second Street before the 1st of Jul-:.
I would also recommend the Council direct staff to investigate the possibility of
acquiring additional land to the north of the Hanson building and to set estimates
on the cost of fencing the property with a 6 foot high cyclone fence.
.7.4.404) 4,4
��
Thoma J. Kaldunski
City Engineer
cc: file
Larry Thompson
Wayne Henneke
TJK
Memo to : Larry Thompson, City Administrator
Date June 14 , 1989
Re Rental of Hanson Building
June 6 , 1989 , Ken Hanson came to my office and stated that
his father and he would be willing to rent the Hanson
Building to the City for $3 , 000/month on a 10 year lease. At
the end of 10 years the City could purchase the building for
$50 , 000 or walk away from the lease. The City would be
responsible for the payment of property taxes , insurance and
utilities . Renovations to the building could be done with
prior permission from the lessor.
A means to analyze Mr . Hanson ' s offer is to look at what
could be purchased through a bond issue with a term of 10
years and debt service payments of $45 , 600 ($36 , 000 lease
payments plus $9, 600 . 00 property taxes ) per year . To keep the
analysis valid , the $50 , 000 needed to purchase the building
- after 10 years will not be included in the bond issue as it is
not included in the $45 , 600 per year lease payments .
Jerry Shannon , Springsted , Inc . , stated that a $324 , 000 Bond
issue could be supported with debt service payments of
$45 , 600 per year . Thebonddiscount plus printing and
issuance costs would total approximately $20 , 000 , leaving
$304 , 000 to purchase the building .
What this analysis shows is that the City could purchase a
$304 , 000 building with the same money that would be spent to
lease the Hanson Building for 10 years . According to the
recent needs study engineered by Bonestroo , Rosene, Anderlik
and Company , it cost $52 . 00/sq . ft . to construct a
maintenance building . $304 , 000 would construct a 5 , 846 sq .
ft . building . For the same price the Hanson Building
provides 15 , 000 sq . ft . of space.
Since the building will be used by the General Fund , Water
Fund , Sewer Fund and Solid Waste Fund , it is recommended to
allocate the debt service between the funds based on their
annual budgets as depicted below:
General Fund 27 . 8% $12 , 676
Water Fund 8 . 3% 3 , 785
Sewer Fund 33 . 30 15 , 185
Solid Waste Fund 30 . 6% 13 , 954
Total $45 , 600
No rate increases would be needed in the enterprise funds to
fund the lease payments . The Sewer Fund was budgeted with a
surplus large enough to fund its allocation and if the
proposed billing changes to the commercial accounts are
authorized , the solid waste fund will be able to fund its
allocation .
(a;%-u2 -A.
Wayne E. Henneke
Finance Director
' _ _ nF_r; Y`Tmcnr He is
September 6, 1988 - Council Meeting - Regular
of small or relatively "flat" developments. MOTION by Kelly, second by Sprute
to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R62-88 approving the subdivision agreement with the SWCD
as proposed with the following change: Section 2. 1: "Services shall be provided
as requested by the City Engineer for new construction . . . . ." APIF, MOTION
CARRIED. It was the consensus of the Council that the agreement be reviewed on
an annual basis.
17. Administrator Thompson presented the 1989 Operating Budget. Mr. Thompson
gave a brief summary of the budget. The Council set a special meeting for
September 14, 1988 for the purpose of reviewing the 1989 Operating Budget with
Department Heads.
18. MOTION by Mayer, second by Kelly to approve a furnace maintenance agreement
with Controlled Air. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
19. MOTION by Kelly, second by Donaldson to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R63-88
ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for the replacement of
two bridges on Flagstaff Avenue, south of T.H. 50. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
20. The Council placed consideration of the Planning Commission and PARAC
appointments on the September 19, 1988 agenda.
21. The Council next considered a memo from Administrator Thompson relating to
space needs of the City. Administrator Thompson recommended, among other things,
the purchase of the Hanson Building for General Services. Concern was expressed
by Councilmembers Sprute -aid=Mayer regarding the acquisition of the Hanson Building
for the following reasons:
a. Trying to retrofit the building for City needs.
b. Building is too large.
c. Building may need repairs.
d. Taking a prime industrial site off the tax rolls.
e. Loading dock is unnecessary.
f. No repair bay. y � �
CotAA-c (n ,A -2O
'rySl�xr � r XOff-Ds ct Coace n Cesgz 'cki,c)s e �CCP��IU� (-oft V1� 0GL08 ,1
Mayor Kelly stated that the building would be an excellent buy for the City.
Administrator Thompson stated that the building had been thoroughly reviewed by
staff and that it would meet the needs of the City for years to come. Administrator
Thompson also reminded the Council of the growth of the City and that the fire
hall which was recently constructed was to meet the needs of the City for several
years; and that now, there was already talk of a storage building and a satellite
station. It was the consensus of the Council that the City was in need of
additional General Services space. It was also the consensus of the Council that
staff obtain estimates on constructing a new building and compare it to the purchase
of the Hanson Building.
22. MOTION by Kelly, second by Donaldson to increase the Police Sergeant's
salary to $75.00 above the top patrolman's salary, effective January 1, 1988.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
23. The Council next considered the replacement of the intersection at 9th and
10th Streets at Hickory Street. City Engineer Kaldunski presented Change Order
No. 1 for project 88-2 which would repair the intersections for $6,007.60.
MOTION by Mayer, second by Donaldson to approve Change Order No. 1 - Project 88-2
(1988 Street and Utility Improvement) adding $6,007.60 for the repair of the
intersections of 9th and 10th Streets at Hickory, to be funded from Contingency.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
r000 -- .._ 'v_ -^+r^+�.- owv t o0vc �a-�'�"+r�
_ CITY OF LAKEVILLE
180TH __ — —1—
_
CITYOF FARMINGTON 111111i+M1,hI I I 111111111
•
'
/ \ IL Iq4 .
•
I it:
S Iii�o����
IF. / ■■■11■11■ , 1 1°AIlll 7�ti 4'0 19Ecce 19
\��1� 1 ��imn,l . /ti•w.
it ■18 117► -wo ` a Z 6.17717t1-1]
I i I
�E �■171/1111111 �y+l I
-SAM....
rl
I I I I I P11111117.6 4 tc -.mn, 4��1
II Sw ry��i
1 L
185TH 18000 -- : 14 13 18
1 /\
C •
I � 'I •
( 7A( (70
�190TH I - --- --- ---
.\ .�MINA , I Illy,- 41
I
1 'P I. i'Il�p/j�`►i e`er ` a.
E.voirla V ii L,2
1 J \.• J :t.`4'V s, f5 .1,:j.!
195TH 1900 44 : — _ .. Iva*x •T. I■■►�-
�19
% I ,. \
\ \
1
_l N � -----
_V
•
N. •. '� Iv�. ^ • -ill'2200TH I._ - - --- --- ---
/ ofreit Al, .
IIFFII 1� 1I �_.
s/
til T/
. I
-1 cli:I III I° _ OP;:199-9:11 i- -':
. *41) 6.ci 1
•
Le
■gym•4) pi- ;4�ti �,✓�� "1 �� .�_
205TH 7 \ .. 1 I_ I� /r� PL 30 i 111111111lllllI
....�..�-1\ ` IIIIIIIIII I I
�•.. �I III I
1
! K.. yY
•
•
•
II /i op
210 rH / Li I I _ /I =l IIII
-- -
:� �/ ill lilIMU ilk! 111111 liii � :
.J61
K SI •.. /1/ I ! `_op I Ise; ilia 111111 11111
61,1050 :2.,,.... - m,AE] _ 1 IHI.1 111 -^
____i„ _,i______
r 111 = li
[OI (I ETD IIID
E En
IIIA®III®®® HOS
_.- 1 PARK 111111111 / ®111111 ®I I I I I I 111 H I
II � 111111111 1`®IIII ®UWJJIh® -
L �-_ �'gym. 11111111 l nm r®®min cm pun=
11111111 I IIII firm ff h111 FM 111111 dim_
215TH 21000 35 I 11111111111 II mom min®®Ell
11: „,- 1 cE ARENA:111111111 IIf ®IIIIII 1071 IIIIII HICI
e 11111111: 111111 mai lulu =j) --SCH•
\ 1 •
SCHOOL IIE 1rW.
ON F jFdii glE
�.
• \� ///
...`�... •
f,� )/�,�j �,� PARK I■I 1 I f I L
•_ _ �{f� _ I l"I ° m t_si. . e .Ir- •mu-
m
SCHOOL sA mffl
__ _ __ ila __ ImilmE IL';I
i
220TH EUREKA TOWNSHIP - xex sxII I
,� s•
I 144 .2:ofidpuICSA / • ._ /
/r.'• i p 0 ,QP-e-iP I a...
4, . I ,,;iff = flia 14 I m
- DAKOTA �+li^+ltir
pZ � I1!T.17IgI41I
; .,..
JLC �� �� � IIs 0 1 i
a...„-,_�1- / COUNTY �1111l1lS i Vik
�® 1
141!■�IRiI..� ■
,
FAIR GROUNDS
I a jr„. C” pyo. y
J 4,
e L�
C o!Y''_ NI g ¢ rc !OOOO
zoyFaciv
46
O 000
5TIMN
sEVT N SCALE IN FEET 1
CITY OF FARKIINGT • N RST PREPARED
ANDERLIK9 ASSOCIATES-CONSULTING
ENGINEERS-SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA
LEGEND,
I3 PARK
--- FUTURE MINOR ARTERI,
AGENDA REQUEST FORM ...
ITEM NO. gIT
NAME: Larry Thompson
DEPARTMENT: Administration
DATE: June 15,1989
MEETING DATE: June 19, 1989
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Budget/ Fees
EXPLANATION: Per Council Directive
REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Recommendation - Wayne Henneke
REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
Department Heads
Robert Williamson Solid Waste
/aZV71"*"..."°"---
SIGNA
Memo to: Mayor & Council
Date June 15, 1989
Re 1989 Solid Waste Budget •
In 1988 , the City Council approved the 1989 Solid Waste
Budget . With the implementation of recycling, the resource
recovery plant not being built in 1989, and possibly the
implementation of yard waste collection it has become
necessary to establish a new 1989 Solid Waste Budget .
Instead of a solid waste department that has one function and
that is to collect mixed solid waste, the solid waste
department has three functions , msw collection, recycling
collection and yard waste collection . Pages 3 - 5 establishs
a budget for each of these functions . Page 2 depicts the
revenue that is generated through each of the three functions
of solid waste. Page 1 summarizes every thing in pages 2 - 5
in a report showing total revenues and total expenses . It
also shows the fund 's working capital .
The proposed budget does not call for an increase in the
solid waste user fee . The rate is currently $42. 50/qtr . and
barring any unforeseen circumstances , the rate should not
increase until 1992 when we must take msw to the County
incinerator .
The billing of commercial solid waste accounts has become a
concern. Attached is a worksheet that shows each of the
City's commercial accounts , number of dumpsters , number of
pickups per week , total proposed bill and total present bill .
The proposed bill takes the number of pickups per week times
the number of containers times the unit rate. A schedule of
proposed rates is attached for your review. By examining the
worksheet it becomes apparant that businesses are getting by
very cheaply for the solid waste service provided to them. An
example is the Farmington Steak House dumpster being picked
up four times a week and charged $96 .25/quarter for the
service. This equals $1 . 85 each day the dumpster is picked
up. A residence is charged $3 . 27 per pickup. I don 't mean
to be just picking on the Farmington Steak House, this
scenerio holds true with almost every one of the commercial
accounts . It is important to bill the commercial accounts
for the service they receive. It is recommended to notify
each of the commercial accounts that the billing process is
going to change. This will give each of the business owners
time to analyze the amount of service they need to dispose of
the msw they generate. Maybe instead of four times a week
pickup, two times a week would be enough. Possibly a 90
gallon container could be used instead of a dumpster. This
billing system allows the business owners to control their
solid waste bill . If no changes are made to the level of
service to each of the commercial accounts , solid waste user
fee revenues will increase over $100 , 000 during a year's
period of time.
•
It is recommended that Council adopt the attached 1989
Proposed Solid Waste Budget and to approve the attached solid
waste user fee schedule.
Zt)
Wayne E . Henneke
Finance Director
c . c . Larry Thompson, City Administrator
Tom Kaldunski , City Engineer
file
ATTACHMENTS: 1989 Proposed Solid Waste Budget
1989 Proposed Solid Waste User Fee Schedule
Solid Waste Commercial Rate Survey
Farmington Commercial User Survey
•
PROPOSED
1989
SOLID WASTE BUDGET
. .
^ COLLECTION/RECYCLING OPERATIONS 1
. REVENUES VS EXPENDITURES
1986 - 1993
1984 .1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
REVENUES ----------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICE CHARGES 203,995 245,437 307,018 373,000 380,460 379,951 443,525 507,192
SPECIAL CHARGES 0 0 0 14,020 27,040 27,040 27,040 27,040
TWP TIPPING FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GRANTS 0 0 0 64,890 32,131 32,317 25,510 25,710
R[CYCLA5LE5 0 0 0 8,000 20,000 20,000 207000 20,000
OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL REVENUE 203,995 245,437 307,018 459,910 459,631 459,308 514,075 579,942
EXPENSES
PEPSlNNEL 100,177 107,330 118,626 146,805 139,202 144,770 150,561 156,583
8�E��TlNG 28,230 25,271 35,971 43,210 u4,882 46,678 �8,545 50,487
CUJRACTED 66,096 105,491 134,733 178,839 172,520 196,279 242,700 274,288
1...��l1�L UUTl AY 14,424 0 1 ,664 63,000 50,080 50,080 5O,080 71,369
Ml��ELL�nbUS 0 0 1 ,461 3,630 19,9(.1,0 21,501 24,189 27,215
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SU�T�TAL EXP. 208,927 238,292 292,455 4357484 426,645 459,308 516,075 579,942
wET GAi� (LUSS) (4,932) 7,145 14,563 24,426 32,986 0 0 0
Hi[Dbr-JTING ADJUSTMEHT 0 0 (14,628) 0 0 0 0 0
NiiKi � CAPlTAL 1/1 (48,135) (53,067) (45,922) (47,98/) (23,561) 9,425 9,425 9,425
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WnRK7iTi CAPITAL 12/31 (53,067) (45,922) (47,987) (23,561) 9,425 9,425 9,425 9,425
QUARTERLY RATE REQUIRED $38.25 $42.50 $42.50 $41.61 $47.62 $53.39
11.11% 0.007 -2.09% 14.44% 12.11%
'
� ' COLLECTION/RECYCLING OPERATIONS 2
• � REVENUE COMPOSITION
` 1986 - 1993
.
.
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
------------------------------------------------------------
REVENUES
DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS 11,116 17,824 0 0 0 0 0 0
COLLECTION FEES
RESIDENTIAL 192,879 227,613 307,018 373,000 380,460 379,951 443,525 507,192
COMMERCIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YARD WASTE 0 0 0 13,020 26,040 26,040 26,040 26,040
SPECIAL PICKUPS 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 17000
----------
192,879 227,613 307,018 387,020 407,500 406,991 470,565 5347232
KESUURCE RECOVERY
RECYCLING: 0 0 0 8,000 207000 20,000 20,000 20,000
TOWNSHIP TiP FEES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6UBTOTL RES RECOVERY 0 0 0 87000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
GRANTS ,
MET C0UNC. (.50/HOUSE) 0 0 0 950 969 988 1,008 1,028
MET COUNCIL ($4/T0N> 0 0 0 2,001 47162 4,329 4,502 4,682
DAKOTA COUNTY 0 0 0 61 ,939 27,000 27,000 20,000 207000
- ----------------------------
SUT-;TOTAL GRANTS 0 0 0 64,890 32,131 32,317 25,310 25,710
- ---------------------------
TOTAL REVENUES 203,995 245,437 307,018 459,910 459,631 459,308 516,075 579,942
----_-=---------=====================----------------============
`
.
•
.
. , MSW COLLECTION OPERATIONS 3
. ' EXPENDITURES
' 1986 - 1993 `
'
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
-------------------- ------------------------------------------
EXPENDlTURES .
M�4 COLLECTION:
------------------------
PERSONNEL SERVICES
REGULAR SALARIES 69,866 73,193 75,07 /-7 61 ,670 64,137 66,702 69,371
OVERTIME 2,138 1,895 2,7156,0o21,A48'' 5,200 5,408 5,624 5,849
PARTTIME 3,440 11,386 15,989 ,120 0 0 0 0
1-:;ENEFIiS 24,733 20,856 24,8430,000 15,418 16,034 16,676 17,343
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUB[OTAL 100,177 107,330 118,626 101,120 82,288 85,579 89,002 92,562
OTHER CURRENT OPERATING
n �
� Ti0FUEL & LUD 8,366 8,629 8,671 m` 9,000 9,360 9,734 10,124 10,529
NAT & ' UPPLIES 243 1,627 857 .5m° 600 624 649 675 702
INSURANCE 4,251 3,117 3,699��m()3,�68' 4,118 4,283 4,454 4,633
Et;IiiIP. ii4I0T. & RENT. 14,216 10,76Z 21 ,024/7/-013,000 13,520 i4,061 14,623 15,208
U�lFORMS 1 ,131 1 ,136 1 ,159 900 936 973 1,012 1 ,053
6CHOOLS & CONF 0 0 561 57x/ -�4�r 728 757 787 819
-----------------------------------------------------------------
�1JBTJ7AL 28,230 25,271 35,971 28, 160 29,286 30,458 31 ,676 32,943
C3MTR(.4CTED SERVICES
II
AUDIT 800 825 925 /����',000 1,040 1,082 1,125 1 ,170
TIPPING FEES 62,766 102,336 130,783 4,f`1,7��el 162,092 185,433 231,421 262,357
5V3RHE34 4ElMD. 2,530 2,530 3,025 3,325 3,458 3,596 3,740 3,890
----'------------------------------------------------------------
�UDTOTAL 66,096 105,691 134,733 176, 129 166,590 190,111 236,286 267,617
OAITAL OUTLAY
MACHINERY & EQUIP 14,424 0 1,664 0 49,080 49,080 49,080 70,369
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUDTOTAL 14,424 0 1,664 0 49,080 49,080 49,080 70,369
CONTINGENCIES
SALARY CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t:iENERAL ~°0 0 1,461 3l,-(4.k, 16,362 17,761 20,302 23,175
- ------------------------------------------------
SUBTUTAL 0 0 1,461 3,000 16,362 17,761 20,302 23,175
------------------------------- -
TOTAL MSW COLLECTION 208,927 238,292 292,455 308,409 343,607 372,990 426,347 486,666
---------=- - ----==- -- --_-
.
� `
�
. ' RECYCLING COLLECTION OPERATIONS 4
` EXPENDITURES
.
1984 - 1993
.
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
RECYCLING COLLECTION!: ---------------------------------------- -------------------
------------------------
PERSONNEL SERVICES
REGULAR S6LARIE6 0 0 0 32,000 38,369 39,904 41,500 43,160
OVERTIME 0 0 0 � *r�` 0 0 0 0 0
PARTTIME 0 0 0 1,248 0 0 0 0
BENEFITS 0 0 0 8,037 9,592 9,976 10,375 10,790
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOT AL 0 0 0 41,285 47,961 49,880 51,875 53,950
OTHER CURRENT OPERATING
AUTO FUEL & LUD 0 0 »�/^ 4,000 4,160 4,326 4,499
NAT & SUPPLIES 0 0 0 /60 ����� 1,820 1,893 1,969 2,047
INSURANCE 0 0 0_ 0 '-47freftr 1,040 1 ,082 1,125 1,170
EQUIP. MAINT. & RENT. i/ 0 000.6 �����- 2,080 2,163 2,250 Z,340
UNIFORMS 0 0 0 ' 400 416 433 450 448
8|}ILDING RENTAL 0 0 0 2,400 2,496 2,596 2,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------
•;/i::::TOTAi- 0 0 0 9,050 9,356 9,730 10,119 10,524
CONTRACTED SERVICES
��~
AUDIT 0 0 0 ..:?4�..1- 520 541 562 585
-------------------------------------------------------- -
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 500 520 541 562 585
CAPlTAL OUTLAY
MACHINERY & EQUIP 0 0 0 63,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
----------------------------------------------------- -------
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 63,000 ` 1,000 1,000 1,000 17000
CONTINGENCIES
SALARY CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0
GENERAL 0 0 0 0 2,942 3,058 3,178 3,303
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 2,942 3,058 3,178 3,303
------------------------------------------------------- ---
TOTAL RECYCL. COLL, 0 0 0 113,835 61,779 64,208 66,735 69,362
------------===------====------=-----------------------
//^2 � -'
' ' / ,
/ �// �/�/
/ � ,` =� -/ ''^
~ ~ \ ,
\
�i93 '`-` [) �/ 2�
� '_' • '
��, � � _»� /
,-.,-- '_ /
� ' ���r .: � � / '
� ^�/ .
/ ~ /���
�7� ^ '' / ^ -
��
- ' \
3/ / ��:,c � /)
-'' ~' _
L,:- 1,4� ��=�^_ �-
35� ---2- r1/'
� �/
4/a ^,
, / �'
7 )7�
, --g-/
. , • ' YARD WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS 5
. EXPENDITURES
• 1986 - 1993
.
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YARD WASTE COLLECTION:
PERSONNEL SERVICES
REGULAR SALARIES 0 0 0 2,000 3,210 3,339 3,472 3,611
3YERT1NE 0 0 0 1 ,000 1,040 1,082 1,125 1,170
PARTTIME 0 0 0 500 3,120 3,245 3,375 3,510
BENEFITS 0 0 0 900 1,583 1,646 1,712 1,780
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6UBTOTAL 0 0 0 4,400 8,953 9,311 9,684 10,071
OTHER CURRENT OPERATING
AUTO FUEL & LUB 0 0 0 ' 3lorreqr 3,640 3,786 3,937 4,095
NAT & SUPPLIES 0 0 0 /+D 500 520 541 562 585
INSURANCE 0 0 0 _'b i'..0fsi- 520 541 562 585
QUIP. MAlNT. & RENT. 0 0 0 1...„401...„40.4.:e� 1,560 1 ,622 1,687 1,755
��_ ��0
------------------------------------ ---- --------------
SUBTDTAL 0 0 0 6,000 6,240 6,490 6,749 7,019
[UnTRALTED SERVICES
AUDIT 0 0 0 -46��~ 520 541 562 585
TIP FEES 0 0 04�71.,710 4,890 5,086 5,290 5,501
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 2,210 5,410 5,627 5,852 6,086
CAPITAL OUTLAY
MACHINERY & EQUIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------- --------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTIHGENCIES
SALARY CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GENERAL 0 0 0 630 656 682 709 738
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 630 656 682 709 738
TOTAL YARD WST COLL. 0 0 0 13,240 21,259 22,110 22,994 23,914
.
•
1989 PROPOSED WASTE USER FEE SCHEDULE
SOLID WASTE RATES
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W/1 90 GALLON CONTAINER $42.50/QUARTER
MULTI-FAMILY (2-4 UNITS) W/1 90 GALLON CONTAINER/UNIT $42.50/QUARTER/UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY (5+ UNITS) W/ 300 GALLON CONTAINER $42.50/QUARTER,/UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY (5+ UNITS W/1 1/2 YARD DUMPSTER $47.50/QUARTER./UNIT
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL W/1 1/2 YD. DUMPSTER $146.75XDAYS PICKED UP/WK = OTRLY.RATE
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL W/ 300 GALLON CONTAINER $141 .7SXDAYS PICKED UP/WK = OTRLY.RATE
INDUSTRIAL W/1 1/2 YD. DUMPSTER $146.75XDAYS PICKED UP /WK = OTRLY.RATE
_NDUSTRIAL W/ 300 GALLON CONTAINER $141.7S1DAYS PICKED UP /WK = OTRLY.RATE
INDUSTRIAL W/6 YARD DUMPSTER $572.00*DAYS PICKED UP/WK = OTRLY.RATE
SPECIAL PICKUPS $1.00/MINUTE/EMPLOYEE 1-a2.4p t.Q,2►I'.CGs-o9T-
Memo to: Larry Thompson, City Administrator
Date April 4 , 1989
Re Solid Waste - Commercial Rates •
Pursuant to your request , the Finance Department conducted a
survey of commercial rates of garbage haulers in Dakota County.
Each hauler was asked how much they charge for a 1 1/2 yard
dumpster that is picked up once a week. The results of the
survey are as follows :
Dana 's Eco $30 - $60/month Depends on weight
and type of garbage
Knudtson Rubbish - $30 - $60/month Depends on weight
and type of garbage
Browning Ferris - $72 . 45/month
Bloomington Sanitation - $72 . 45/month
Quality Waste Control - $50 . 00/month
Mike ' s Disposal Service - $40 - $50/month Depends on weight
of garbage
Lakeville Sanitation - $40/month
Dick ' s Sanitation - $40/month
Farmington has a rate of $114 . 20/quarter for a 1 1/2 yard
dumpster being picked up three times a week . There is not a
rate for less than three times a week pickup. This rate
amounts to approximately $38/month for three times a week
pickup which should be compared to the above listed rates
representing the rate of once a week pickup.
Wayne E. Henneke
Finance Director
c . c . Tom Kaldunski , City Engineer
file
FARMINGTON COMMERCIAL USER SURVEY
DUMPSTER $146.75
90 GALLON CONTAINER $42. 50
90 GALLON TOTAL TOTAL •
ADDRESS NAME # DUMPSTER CONTAINER PROPOSED PRESENT
PICKUPS $141.75/OTR $42.50/OTR BILL BILL
916 - 10th St. JOHN CHAMBERS 1 1 146.75 127.60
5455 UPPER 183RD FIRST NATIONAL BANK 1 1 42.50 81.40
5475 UPPER 183RD AKIN HILL PET HOSP. 1 1 42.50 96.25
5231 W. 195TH AKIN ROAD ELEMENTARY 5 2 1,467.50 436.45
4685 W. 212TH NORTHERN NATURAL GAS 1 1 146.75 114.20
5121 W. 212TH DUO PLASTICS 5 4 2,935.00 1,156.10
4300 W. 220TH DAKOTA ELECTRIC 5 3 2,201.25 311.30
4345 220TH WESTVIEW APARTMENTS 2 1 293.50 255.20
4355 220TH WESTVIEW APARTMENTS 2 1 293.50 255.20
309 3RD LONG BRANCH 4 1 587.00 96.25
310 3RD JRH INVESTMENT CO. 4 2 1,174.00 288.50
323 3RD LEWIS MC VICKER 4 1 587.00 96.25
329 3RD FARMINGTON STEAK HOUSE 4 1 587.00 96.25
421 3RD V.F.W. 4 1 587.00 96.25
508 3RD ERICKSON GROCERY 3 1 440.25 212.60
521 3RD WALNUT APARTMENTS 2 1 293.50 361.25
821 3RD VIC WENZEL 1 1 146.75 288.50
1020 3RD FAIRVIEW APARTMENTS 3 1 440.25 361.25
306 4TH CENTRAL TELEPHONE 4 1 587.00 204.90
27 5TH FARMINGTON LANES 5 1 733.75 96.25
8 8TH SVELA & OSTERMAN 2 1 85.00 96.25
701 8TH LEIBFRIED CONSTRUCTION 4 3 1,761.00 204.90
710 8TH FAITH CHURCH 1 1 146.75 96.25
811 8TH FAREWAY CO. 2 2 587.00 361.25
900 8TH FAREWAY CO. 2 1 293.50 191.40
10 N. 8TH AMERICAN LEGION 3 1 440.25 114.20
11 N. 8TH LEE PALMER 2 1 293.50 114.20
810 9TH TOWNSEDGE TOWNHOUSES 2 1 293.50 131.25
902 9TH TOWNSEDGE TOWNHOUSES 2 1 293.50 131.25
912 9TH TOWNSEDGE TOWNHOUSES 2 1 85.00 131.25
917 9TH DON ENDRES 1 1 146.75 131.25
1320 CENTENNIAL DR S & J PROPERTIES 1 1 146.75 255.20
1321 CENTENNIAL DR FARMINGTON APARTMENTS 2 1 293.50 382.50
1330 CENTENNIAL DR S & J PROPERTIES 1 1 146.75 255.20
1337 CENTENNIAL DR FARMINGTON APARTMENTS 2 2 587.00 382.50
22280 W CHIPPENDALE TOM THUMB 4 1 587.00 204.90
800 DENMARK FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 5 1 733.75 411.15
310 DIVISION RIVERS EDGE MEDICAL CLINIC 2 1 85.00 96.25
512 DIVISION FAA 5 2 1,467.50 688.00 1
24 ELM LARRY OLDENBERG 1 1 146.75 350.90
120 ELM HARDEES 6 1 880.50 528.00
420 ELM P & K COMPANY 2 1 85.00 96.25
515 ELM LARRY IHLE PROPERTIES 3 1 440.25 382.50
625 HERITAGE WAY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1 1 42.50 68.20
701 HERITAGE WAY S & J PROPERTIES 1 1 146.75 255.20
913 MAIN SANFORD HOSPITAL 5 4 2,935.00 458.45
500 MAPLE FARMINGTON ELEMENTARY 5 2 1,467.50 436.45
209 - 211 OAK DENNIS RISTE 4 1 587.00 131.45
SUB - TOTAL 28,937.00 12,118.50
90 GALLON TOTAL TOTAL
ADDRESS NAME # DUMFSTER CONTAINER PROPOSED PRESENT
PICKUPS $141.75/QTR $42.50/QTR BILL BILL
324 OAK FARMINGTON NATIONAL BANK 1 1 146.75 114.20
640 PARK DR S & J PROPERTIES 1 1 146.75 255.20
18266 PILOT KNOB BUDGET MART 2 2 587.00 204.90
18286 PILOT KNOB PILOT KNOB VIDEO 1 1 42.50 42.50
18306 PILOT KNOB DOMINO'S PIZZA 1 1 42.50 96.25
301 PINE WILLYS - MPLS. 2 1 293.50 96.25
114 SPRUCE FARMINGTON ARENA 5 1 733.75 68.20
300 SPRUCE SPRUCE PLACE 2 1 293.50 850.20
315 SPRUCE RED OAK MANOR 2 2 587.00 524.30
18 WALNUT TOWER VIEW APARTMENTS 3 1 440.25 573.75
421 WALNUT ST. MICHEALS REC. CENTER 2 1 85.00 96.25
501 WALNUT FARMINGTON LUTHERAN CHURCH 1 1 146.75 96.25
510 WALNUT FARMINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 5 1 733.75 411.15
600 WALNUT TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH 1 1 42.50 96.25
510 WILLOW PEERLESS PLASTICS 4 2 1,174.00 411.15
519 WILLOW FARMINGTON FLORAL 2 1 293.50 114.20
809 2ND RON ROYCE 1 2 85.00 85.00
4467 WESTDEL RD WESTVIEW MANOR 1 1 146.75 223.00
517 1ST HANSON BEVERAGE 1 1 146.75 114.20
701 1ST WATSON STORE PLANNERS 5 3 2,201.25 780.15
710 1ST FARMINGTON GARAGE 1 1 42.50 96.25
710 1ST FARMINGTON WATER DEPT. 1 1 42.50 96.25
4975 W. 212TH DAKOTA COUNTY HIGHWAY SHOP 1 1 146.75 114.20
5183 W. 212TH FEI 1 2 293.50 300.00
5744 W. 212TH JOHN DEVNEY 1 1 146.75 114.20
6300 W. 212TH CHRISTIAN LIFE CHURCH 1 2 293.50 162.25
400 2ND SOO LINE R.R. 1 1 42.50 96.25
420 2ND FEELEY ELEVATOR 3 1 440.25 243.55
100 3RD SAUBER PLUMBING 2 1 293.50 114.20
101 3RD PEDERSON GARAGE 1 1 146.75 114.20
3053RD FARMINGTON LIQUOR 4 1 587.00 114.20
313 3RD FARMINGTON EAGLES 4 1 587.00 114.20
317-319 3RD LEWIS MC VICKER 4 1 170.00 114.20
320 3RD FARMINGTON INDEPENDENT 4 1 170.00 114.20
324 3RD FARMINGTON BARBER 4 1 170.00 81.30
328 3RD FARMINGTON PRINTING 4 1 587.00 114.20
331 3RD PETERSON FLOORING 2 1 293.50 114.20
332 3RD GERSTER JEWELRY 4 1 170.00 81.30
341-343 3RD STANLEY OVERBY 4 1 170.00 168.30
400 3RD NORTHFIELD PARTNERS 1 1 42.50 81.30
408 3RD DUEBERS 4 3 1,761.00 186.30
409 3RD FARMINGTON AGENCY 1 1 42.50 81.30
417 3RD DR. AILABOUNI 1 1 42.50 81.30
431-433 3RD SR. CENTER 5 1 212.50 81.30
509 3RD POST OFFICE 5 1 212.50 204.90
1017 3RD MC GEES MARKET 3 1 440.25 156.20
15 4TH MARIGOLD FOODS 5 1 733.75 799.15
20 4TH DICKS AUTO 1 1 146.75 114.20
SUB - TOTAL 16,796.00 9,506.75
90 GALLON TOTAL TOTAL
ADDRESS NAME # DUMPSTER CONTAINER PROPOSED PRESENT
PICKUPS £141.75/0TR $42.50/0TR BILL BILL
_5 4TH MID-AMERICA DAIRY STORE 1 1 146.75 114.20
215, 4TH ROBERT CORNIEA 2 1 85.00 81.30
317 4TH ROBERT CORNIEA 2 1 85.00 81.30
100 5TH DAKOTA LUMBER 3 2 880.50 357.65
10 8TH DAIRY QUEEN 3 2 880.50 144.20
100 8TH MN TECH. RESEARCH INC. 1 1 146.75 743.5;
200 8TH FAITH METHODIST 1 1 146.75 114.20
915 8TH MOVIE GO ROUND 3 1 440.25 114.20
:18 5TH DR. FALKOWSKI 1 1 42.50 81.30
:17 STH ANDERSON DRUG 3 1 440.25 114.20
:2. 8TH COAST TO COAST 3 1 440.2_ 114.20
;57 8TH TOWNSEDGE CAR CARE 4 1 587.00 114.20
2185 DENMARK FARMINGTON `IRE DEPT. 1 1 146.75 114.20
10 ELM RAMBLING RIVER PARK, 2 1 293.50 88.70
_. ELM BIBLE BAR,-z'l CHURCH 1 1 42.50 98.25
121 ELM AUSTIN PRODUCTS 4 1 567.00 243.55
ELM HAUGEN FORD 1 1 146.75 114.20
ELM HAUGEN FORD 587.00 135.15
ELM JEFF THELEN 4 1 587.00 114.70
ELM TOM THUMB 5 ? 1.467,50 243.55
511 ELM DR. POLLOCK 1 1 42.50 81.30
821 ELM DR. TRUAX 1 1 42.50 81.30
2.579 FLAGSTAFF TERRY DONNELLY 1 1 146.75 81.20
858 HERITAGE SWIMMING FCOL 1 1 146.75 96.25
2_1-205 OAK NSP - RED ROCK 1 1 42.50 114.20
21 ' OAK PARTS DEFT. OF FARMINGTON 3 1 440.25 114.20
_12 OAK FARMINGTON BAKERY 4 1 587.00 114.20
218 OAK. DISTINCTIVE CATERING 4 1 58/.00 114.20
220 OAK TOM TREVIS 1 1 42.50 81.30
202 OAK WELCOME FRIENDS 3 1. 127.50 81.30
2280-308 OAK PARKER APPLIANCE 4 1 170.00 90.20
212 OAK WOODSMITH FURNITURE 4 1 170.00 90.20
214 OAK DANDY SPORT 4 1 170.00 90.20
21 OAK MIDWEST FEDERAL 1 1 146.75 114.20
225 OAK CITY HALL 2 1 293.50 114.20
-__ OAK POLICE DEFT. 1 1 146.75 114.20
-_- _AK MOTOR PARTS 2 1 293.50 81.30
112 CAR ADVENT CHURCH 1 1 42.50 81.20
181 PILOT KNOB EAGLE EXrern 1 1 146.75 114.20
_z PILOT KNOB ROBERT STEGMAIER 1 1 146.75 114.20
1:9 SPRUCE LAMPERT YARDS 1 2 293.50 243.55
1 SPRUCE BLAHA COLLISION 1 1 146.75 114.20
SPRUCE ST. MICHAELS CHURCH 2 1 293.50 114.20
TUE-TOTAL 12,845.00 5,239.50
-=7=L 58.578.00 26,864.75
, 'y PRELUVjRARY
�
t
IMPORTANT: JOIN HANDS WITH THE CITY AND HELP LOWER YOUR OPERATING COSTS
Dear Business Person:
As you are aware, the City is presently restructuring its entire solid waste
system, including solid waste collections and billing. The restructuring is in
response to escalating disposal costs, and State and County mandates. The
following is a summary of these changes.
RISING LANDFILL COSTS FORCING INCREASED CUSTOMER FEES
Since 1984, landfill costs have increased from $4.50/ton to $45.00/ton - an increase
of 1000Z! Since disposal costs have changed from a relatively insignificant part
of the operating costs to the major cost, the Farmington Mayor and Council have
decided to change from a flat rate to a volume based system. (i.e. , You will be
billed according to the amount of refuse you place for collection.) While this
change will not affect some collection fees (in fact some may go down) others will
see significant increases.
RECYCLING
In order to reduce the volume of refuse going to landfills, the State has mandated
cities begin recycling programs. The City has begun a residential curbside
recycling program, but because of the diversity of waste produced by businesses,
the City is presently gathering information regarding the amount, types, special
needs, etc of businesses before beginning a commercial recycling program. Since
the City is switching to a volume based system, and the City does not charge for
recyclable collections, it is in your interest to reduce the volume of your garbage
by recycling.
Attached is the proposed change in your billing based on your current service.
Please note that your bill is based on the volume of your container times t
number of pickups per we . Please note that the Council has nakt-astiamindareniaptmeddGI
the change --- ---- . _ .- . .- . - - • will be made bye the
October 1, 1989 billing. `-
Ci 4 Fatci itait 325 Oak Stheet • Faitatiagfax, MI 55024 • (612) 463-7111
Y, •
WHAT YOU CAN DO
FIRST, review your present collection needs. Is a 1} yard dumpster necessary, or
could you get by with one or two 90 gallon containers? Do you need two, three, or
more pickups per week? Remember, the smaller the container and/or the fewer pickups
per week, the smaller your bill.
SECOND, look for materials which can be separated and recycled. Presently the City
collects newspaper, glass and beverage cans, and will be collecting tin cans and
office paper in the near future. Again, the more recyclables removed from your
garbage, the smaller your bill.
In the near future you will be contacted to set up an in-person survey of your
solid waste needs. With your cooperation, we can tailor a solid waste program to
KEEP YOUR COSTS DOWN.
If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please contact Robert Williamson
at 463-7111.
Yours truly,
.45Z7Lar Thomp n
City Administrator
cc: Robert Williamson
Mayor and Council
Wayne Henneke
Tom Kaldunski
Karen Finstuen
file