Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.04.88 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR APRIL 4, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. March 21, 1988 Regular Meeting 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. Set Annual Board of Review/Equalization Hearing for April 18, 1988 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Proclaim April 17-23 as Volunteer Recognition Week b. Proclaim May as Arbor Month and April 29, 1988 as Arbor Day 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Storm Water Management - 4th Street b. Whispering River Townhouse Development c. Discuss Solid Waste 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Appoint Bob Williamson to Various Subcommittees - Dakota County Solid Waste Advisory Committee b. First Time Homebuyer Program 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve Capital Outlay Request - Parks b. Approve Capital Outlay Request - Parks c. Approve Capital Outlay Request - Pool d. Approve School and Conference Request - General Services e. Approve School and Conference Request - Rescue Squad f. Approve School and Conference Request - Fire g. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN 13. ADD ON a. Approve Request to Attend School - Police b. State Auditor's Report c. Vacation Accrual Policy THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. v NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: March 30, 1988 MEETING DATE: April 4, 1988 CATEGORY: Unfinished Business SU3JECT: Discuss Solid Waste EXPLANATION: Receive updated information on the City's Solid Waste Operations REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Update - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Bob Williamson EDC Wayne Henneke Finance Tom Kaldunski General Services /amu SIGN R } MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE/COMPOST PLANT - 5 YEAR COST ANALYSIS DATE: APRIL 1, 1988 Bob Williamson, Larry Thompson, Tom Kaldunski and I have been preparing a complete analysis of a Resource Recovery Program/Solid Waste Operation for the City. The State audit process we have gone through has taken away the time needed to provide Council with a totally complete proposal. It is recommended that Council receive this report and look at the cost and revenue estimates provided to you. This will give us time to get the pieces of information needed to make the analysis complete. Then I recommend a work session be set for the purpose of seeing where we want to go with the Resource Recovery Program. LLA-y,t/ti aU Wayne Henneke Finance Director r RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAM ANNUAL EXPENDITURES - 1988-1992 ANNUAL COSTS ITEM 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 PersonneI '1 City Engineer $1,689 $1,757 $1,827 $1,900 $1,976 Asst. Supt. - general Services 3,016 3,137 3,262 3,393 3,528 Resource Recovery Program Coordinator 34,480 35,859 37,294 38,785 40,337 Recycling Processors (2) 28,040 29,162 30,328 31,541 32,803 Co-Composting Processors (2) 36,220 37,669 39,176 40,743 42,372 Benefits 31,033 32,275 33,566 34,908 36,305 Utilities (Electricity, Water,Sewer) 5,000 5,2E+0 5,408 5,624 5,84.9 Fuel, Oil, Maintenance for Roiling Stock 4,950 5,148 5,3:54 5,568 5,791 Maintenance & Supplies (Building & Equipment.) 16,000 16,640 17,306 17,998 18,718 Rejects to Landfill 31,732 34,905 38,395 42,235 46,459 Publicity & Marketing 5,000 5,200 5,408 5,624 5,849 Dakota County Licensing for Type C (100 SP1) Resource Recovery Facilities Application Fee 150 License Fee 1,2011 1,248 1,298 1,350 1,404 inspections 400 416 433 450 468 Insurance, Taxes. and Miscellaneous 34,080 :37,488 41,237 45,360 49,896 TOTAL 0 & COSTY232,99i $246,102 $260,290 $27 ,480 $291,755 t RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAM REVENUES AND TOTAL COSTS 1988-1992 ITEM 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ANNUAL REVENUES Plastics 5,648 5,930 6,226 6,538 6,865 Glass 13,052 13,705 14,390 15,109 15,865 Newsprint 200T 8 $30/1 6,000 6,300 6,615 6,946 7,293 Office paper 1,412 1,482 1,557 1,634 1,716 Aluminum 11,662 12,245 12,857 13,500 14,175 Ferrous Scrap (218T 8 $25.00) 5,450 5,723 6,009 6,309- 6,625 Corrugated Cardboard 17,670 18,554 19,482 20,456 21,478 -1 Net Council $.50/Household Grant 840 840 840 840 840 Met. Council $4/Recycled Ton Grant 15,300 15,300 15,300 15,300 15,300 TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES $77,034 $80,079 $83,275 $86,632 $90,157 . NET O & M COSTS $155,956 $166,024 $177,015 $188,847 $201,598 WMB GRANT REQUEST $340,799 CAPITAL RECOVERY (W/0 WMB GRANT) $97,044 $97,044 $97,044 $97,044 $97,044 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (W/OO WMB GRANT) $253,001 $263,068 $274,059 $285,892 3298,642 CAPITAL RECOVERY (WITH WMB GRANT) $48,522 $48,522 $48,522 $48,522 $48,522 TOTAL ANNUAL COST (WITH WMB GRANT) $204,478 $214,546 $225,537 $237,370 $50,120 TONS PER YEAR 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 ' '• ANNUAL COST/TON (W/O WMB GRANT) $40 $42 $44 $46 $48 ANNUAL COST/TON (WITH WMB GRANT) $33 $34 $36 $38 $40 (1) Assume 1680 hou=seholds. 8 ,50/ear n , ', RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAM/SOLID WASTE SUMMARY 1989 199• 1993 jitiil 1991 1992 LYt_, PERSONNEL SERVICE:; REGULAR SALARIES 73,960 76,918 79,995 83,194 86,522 OVERTIME 2,156 2,242 2,332 2,425 2,522 PARTTIME 9,770 10,161 10,567 10,990 11,430 BENEFITS 25,722 26,751 27,821 28,934 30,091 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 111,608 116,072 120,715 125,544 130,565 OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES AUTO FUEL & LUBRICANTS 8,000 8,320 8,653 8,999 9,359 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 500 520 541 562 585 INSURANCE 4,158 4,449 4,760 5,094 5,450 EQUIPMENT MAINT./RENTAL 10,000 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 UNIFORMS 1,300 1,352 1,406 1,462 1,521 COMPOSTING PLANT COSTS 214,546 225,537 237,370 250,120 263,871 TOTAL OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES 238,504 250,378 262,930 276,437 290,985 CONTRACTED SERVICES AUDITING & ACCOUNTING SERVICES 1,000 1,100 1,210 1,331 1,464 O.H. REIMBURSEMENT 3,000 3,300 3,630 3,993 4,392 TOTAL CONTRACTED ED SERVICES 4,000 4,400 4,840 5,324 5,856 CAPITAL OUTLAY MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CART ADAPTER ON REAR LOADER 5000 0 0 0 0 DEBT :SERVUCE 1968 PURCHASE OF SIDELOADER & DUMPSTERS 52,868 49,714 46,561 43,407 40,254 1990 PURCHASE OF PACKER 0 0 7,125 6,700 6,275 1992 PURCHASE OF SIDEL OADERR 0 0 0 0 27,160 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 57,868 49,714 53,686 50,107 73,689 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 411,980 420,564 442,171 457.412 501,096 REVENUES TOWNSHIP - 5000T @$75/T 125,000 125,600 125,000 125,600 125,000 USER FEES 86 960 295,564 317.171 332,412 376,096 TOTAL REVENUES 411,980 420,564 44'7,171 457,412 501,096 BILLING UNITS 2,150 2,236 2,325 2,415 2,515 QUARTERLY SOLID WASTE BILL $33.05 $34.10 $34.36 fi: ..38 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM DATE: APRIL 1, 1988 As the Council draws nearer to making its decision on the garbage composting facility, I felt it would be a good idea to write a brief synopsis of revisions that I am considering for the garbage collection system. Our current system consists of 2 rear loading packer trucks (1981 & 1984 vintages with approximately 100 - 1i cubic yard dumpsters for commercial service. We utilize a 3 man full time crew on the collection system. With 1600 residential units and 100 commercial customers (commercial pickups vary from 1 time per week to 3 or 4 times per week) . In addition, the garbage collection crew is backed up by our street maintenance crew to help cover double garbage pickups (holidays) , vacation time, sick leave, breakdowns and routine maintenance of the fleet, and so on. This system has been operating quite well, however, due to the continued growth of the community, it is taking more time and man power to do the job. So far we've kept up with the growth by improving productivity. We are approaching the limits of our existing system and we have to consider updating our equipment. The typical useful life of a garbage truck is 7 - 8 years, therefore I am planning to replace one of our trucks. The 1988 Budget should allow the department to purchase a new garbage truck. When planning the purchase of a major piece of equipment, it is necessary to plan for its useful life. A truck to be purchased this year should be utilized until 1996 or 1997. Based upon our current growth, I would project about 2,500 residential and 130 commercial locations in 1997. In 1988, we are able to serve an average of 300 residential and 20 commercial users per day. In 1997, we will have to serve an average of 500 residential and 30-40 commercial users per day. My department will be hard pressed to serve the 1997 projections with our current system. In order to serve the future needs of the City, we will have to increase pro- ductivity. The most logical choice at this time, is purchasing equipment that will help increase productivity, hence, I've been researching the use of side loading garbage trucks (see attached literature) . The side loading garbage trucks offer the highest productivity of any collection vehicle on the market. The following is a brief synopsis of our proposed collection system. In 1988, we will purchase our first side loading truck to replace one of the rear loading vehicles. It is anticipated that the side loader will be able to handle most of our routine residential garbage pickups with a 2 man crew. The other rear loading truck will be utilized to service our commercial customers with a 1 to 2 man crew and to fill in on double pickup days and during routine maintenance of the side loader. The useful life of the rear loader should be extended due to limited utilization of the rear loader for commercial pickups only, with exceptions as noted. This rear loader was scheduled for replacement between 1990 and 1991. At that time, the purchase of a second side loader is proposed (with a 2 man crew) to keep up with increasing residential garbage pickup. Due to utilization on commercial pickups only, the rear loader's useful life should be extended to 1995 or beyond. It should be noted that these assumptions are based upon the existence of the City's garbage composting facility within 2 - 3 miles of the City which will substantially reduce travel time to the landfill (currently about 20 - 30 miles from the City) . The rear loading truck will also be utilized at the compost facility to haul the plant rejects to the landfill. Other advantages of the side loader include; improved safety due to the fact that the crew will ride in the cab with no one hanging on the outside, the truck is designed to "scale out" when weight restrictions are posted, the truck compacts garbage at a better rate, and so on. In addition, we are considering basing our customer rates on a volume basis. .1 This is due to the fact that current and future tipping fees will be on a volume basis (i.e. cost per cubic yard and/or cost per ton) . We will continue to service commercial and industrial customers with the 1} cubic yard dumpsters. In addition, we are proposing to utilize 90 gallon dumpsters for our residential customers (see attached) . Studies have shown that the typical residential user generates 60 gallons of garbage per week. As the tipping fees increase, it will be very important to charge all customers on a volume basis in relation to the amount of garbage generated. It is unequitable to charge an elderly couple living in an apartment or townhouse the same fee as we charge a family of 6 which lives on acreage and generates large amounts of yard wastes. (Note - We have had houses which have placed as many as 40 garbage bags out for collection in one week.) It is proposed to provide these 90 gallon dumpsters to all residential users in 1988 when the side loader is purchased. A special attachment for dumping these containers is included on the side loader. We will also retro-fit our rear loader with the necessary equipment to utilize the 90 gallon containers in 1988. I have discussed these proposals with other staff members. Wayne Henneke is in the process of preparing the necessary operating budgets and capital improvement plans to incorporate our collection system renovation with the proposed garbage composting facility. This planning should enable the Council to make the proper decisions with respect to our overall garbage collection, recycling and composting systems. It should be noted that it is our intention to schedule the purchase of the side loading truck and residential dumpsters in conjunction with the composting facility. The tentative schedule for the plant is to be into construction in the Fall of 1988. The side loading garbage truck should be delivered at that time, therefore, it is very important that we proceed with the purchase of the new truck as soon as possible. The bids on the new garbage truck should be received in June or July of 1988. This will allow 3 to 6 months for the manufacturing and delivery of the side loading garbage truck. It is strongly recommended that our new collection system be up and running for approximately 3 to 4 months prior to the utilization and shake down of the composting/recycling facility. '. cc: Larry Thompson Wayne Henneke Tom Kaldunski / Bob Williamson City Engineer Jerry Bauer file TJK H ea „? w.& April 8, 1988 Kari R. Erickson Deputy Director Dakota County HRA 2496 145th St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Ms. Erickson, Please be advised that the City Council approve the "first come, first served" option relating to the Farmington First Time Homebuyer Program. It should also be noted that concern was expressed regarding the monitoring of the controls, fees, policies, of designated lending institutions. If you have any questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, Xii,V.or------- Larry Thompson City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council Karen Finstuen Evergreen Investments, Inc. C&S Construction Astra Projects, Inc. Gardner Brothers Construction, Inc. Jon Malinski T&J Development M.W. Johnson Bill Ford/Don Blaisdell C%Iy u0 FahlOtiggidli 325 Oak Sheet • Fa itixgfax, RIK 55024 • (612) 463-7111 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. /10,Z) NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: March 28, 1988 MEETING DATE: April 4, 1988 CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SU3JECT: First Time Homebuyers Program EXPLANATION: Determine allocation of funds for use by first time homebuyers - either through direct allocation or "first come, first served" basis. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Dakota County HRA Recommendation - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Tom Kaldunski General Services Wayne Henneke Finance Karen Finstuen Administration SIGN R MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM DATE: MARCH 29, 1988 Attached, please find various correspondence from the Dakota County HRA relating to the City's first time homebuyer's program. The available $2.3 million are funds remaining from the 1984 program which were not used because conventional mortgage rates fell below the mortgage revenue bond rates. ' The call date on the original issue has now been reached, and the bonds can be issued at a much lower rate. As explained in the memo, the City can either allocate the remaining funds to one or more developers, or open it up on a "first come, first served" basis. I have discussed this matter with some of the developers and all indicate they are extremely interested in the program. Based on the con- versations and input from Dakota County HRA staff, I would recommend that the program be opened up on a first come, first served basis, for the following reasons: 1. The number of requests greatly exceeds available funds. If the money was divided evenly, each developer would realize approximately 7 mortgages. 2. Potential availability of County funds. Developers will not be eligible for Dakota County funds until all Farmington funds have been used. If the funds are specifically allocated to one or more developers, certain developers could be deprived of utilizing County funds in the event the allocated City funds are not completely used. 3. Policy Development. While the funds could be allocated by simple lottery, it is most likely implied that some type of policy/criteria would have to be developed in order for a developer to be eligible. For example, one of the requests is from a builder/developer, who to my knowledge, has never built a home in Farmington. By developing policy, the Council could open itself to criticism and potential dis- crimination lawsuits. 4. Developer Commitment The only concern I have regarding the program is with the lenders themselves. I would hope that the program would be open to as many lenders as possible and that potential homebuyers be given flexibility in choosing lending institutions. My concern is that if a lending institution would get a "lock" on the money, and proper controls are not in place, the lending institution may become dictatorial. I discussed this matter with Kari Erickson and she indicated that only lending institutions which are FHA certified qualify as lenders of the funds. Ms. Erickson has indicated that while there have been some complaints from buyers, they have been few in relation to the number of loans processed. Normally, the complaints have been handled by intervention of the HRA. The HRA will "decertify" a lending institution if it violates the terms of the agreement. This matter will be on the April 4, 1988 agenda for discussion. Lar ThomAn City Administrator cc: Wayne Henneke Tom Kaldunski Karen Finstuen Kari Erickson "Developers" file A inveak DAKOTA COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -471111 2496- 145th St. W. — Rosemount, MN 55068 ti rl's-*<c 5if -111 no Phone 423-4800 r,,vt H R A / - To: DATE 3A I Message: (\"\ 'Y'\ cx) k\A cpc. uyck) cc\1\\6 ?Oa ( ss''\\ (cts ) "- C-c\gK) QN` w*A-\\ ct\) - A`sc\30,- Rpfr s\: mc.BA--cw; \\.c),A -\-kSt•\ go\J %\c,A\ k,. app, v6K\ -ykc\s\ c\Ncg\*\y 4R6qi\w\A-c- , C- \\ Wc.",'%11. 4ti\le&vo\t\S`. 10.P7 DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT r-11 , H R AUTHORITY � 2496- 145th STREET WEST mil ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 612-423-4800 Serving People and Communities MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Thompson, City Administrator ' FROM: Kari Erickson, Deputy Director f SUBJECT: FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM MORTGAGE FUNDS FOR FARMINGTON DATE: March 28, 1988 Mortgage funds for a first-time homebuyer program are expected to be made available around May 1, 1988 . In this program, $2, 311,240 in first-time homebuyer funds will be reserved for the City of Farmington. The City has a couple of options regarding how these funds will be made available to potential first-time homebuyers . The options are to: 1 . Allocate all of the Farmington funds to lenders who will take mortgage applications on a first-come, first-served basis for either existing or new construction homes; or 2 . Allocate all of the funds to one or more developers for new construction loans; or 3 . Allocate some of the funds to lenders and some of the funds to developers . Invitations to participate have been received from both lenders and developers . We received the following requests : Lenders : Total requests of $4, 500, 000 have been received from three lenders (this is $2, 200, 000 more than will be available) . Developers : Five developers requested the entire Farmington allocation of $2, 300, 000 (see Attachment A) . Since the requests far exceed the amount that will be available, the City may want to consider the following items when determining how to allocate the funds : "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" • - 2 - 1 . County-wide funds of $10, 000, 000 will also be made available at about the same time (or possibly at a somewhat later date) as the Farmington funds . The way the programs are structured, the County-wide funds can not be used for any loans in Farmington until all of the funds allocated to the City of Farmington have been used. Considering this, if you have one or more developers who have an allocation that is not being used, no one in Farmington will be able to access the County-wide funds (see Attachment B for a description of the two programs) . This concern makes first-come, first-served loans a more attractive approach. If there is a strong demand for the funds in Farmington (as expected) , it is likely (although not guaranteed) that some County-wide funds will still be available after the Farmington funds have been used. 2 . If funds are allocated to builders/developers, you will need to decide how to allocate the funds . All of the funds ( $2, 311,240 ) could go to one developer, or you could divide the funds between a number of the developers . It is up to the City of Farmington to decide whether they want to go with lender allocations (using a first-come, first-served basis) or builder allocations . Please let me know how you would like to proceed with this program. ATTACHMENT A FARMINGTON BUILDER/DEVELOPER REQUESTS 1 . Evergreen Investments, Inc. $ 2 , 300,000 2 . C & S Construction, Inc. $ 2 , 300,000 3 . Astra Projects, Inc. (Bill Gleason) $ 2, 300, 000 4 . Gardner Brothers Construction, Inc. $ 2 , 300, 000 5 . John Malinski $ 2 , 300 , 000 TOTAL REQUESTS: $11,500,000 Amount of funds available for Farmington: $ 2, 311,240 ATTACHMENT B The Farmington first-time homebuyer program will have 25 year mortgages as compared to 28 year mortgages on the County-wide program. The Farmington funds will also have a mortgage rate that is about 1/4 to 1/2 percent lower than the County-wide. Considering these two factors, the monthly payments and qualifying incomes should be very close on the two programs . The mortgage terms are less than 30 years in both cases because the bond programs are refundings of earlier bond issues; certain legal restrictions require us to have shorter loan terms.