HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 01-23-19871:
a
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 23, 1987
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. BOARD & -COMMISSION INTERVIEW SCHEDULE -- In order to accommodate
the 25 applicants for Board and Commission interview, the Council
has decided to divide into two qroups on Tuesday, January 27 for the
interviews. The applicants will then be narrowed to 6 to 10
finalists, with the Council reinterviewing the finalists on
Saturday, January 31. Attached is a memorandum from Mayor Schneider
outlining the interview process. The Mayor has suggested the
following schedule:
Monday, January 26, 6:45 p.m. - The Council will meet prior to
the Council meeting to discuss the interview questions to be
asked and determine the composition of the interview groups.
Tuesday, January 27, 5:40 p.m. - Interviewing of all applicants
by Council subgroups. Each interview will take approximately 15
minutes.
Saturday, January 31, 9:00 a.m. - Reinterview of the 6 to 10
finalists.
2. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, January 26, 7:30 p.m. Special
City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION -- Wednesday, January 28, 7:30 p.m. The
Planning Commission will meet in the City Council Chambers. Agenda
attached. (M-3)
4. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Thursday, January 29, 6:30
p.m. The annual meeting of the Housinq and Redevelopment Authority
will be held in the City Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-4)
5. SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE -- The next meeting of the Special Study
Committee onCommunity-Based Residential Facilities is scheduled for
Wednesday, February 4, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council conference
room.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 23, 1987
Page two
6. REVISED JANUARY CALENDAR & FEBRUARY CALENDAR -- The revised January
calendar reflecting the Board Commission interview dates and
February meeting calendar are attached. (M-6)
FOR YOUR INFORMATION.....
1. CHELSEA WOODS UPDATE-- Attached is a memorandum from Joe Ryan which
provides an update on actions taken in the Building Inspection
Division with respect to the Chelsea Woods request. The Buildinq
Inspection Department has provided written recommendations to the
Homeowners Association regarding the specific steps for inspecting
fireplaces and separation walls. Joe Ryan has also met with Tom
Barker and Merrill Birch to review Building Inspection records to
determine whether the Homeowners Association would like to obtain
copies. Finally, the Building Inspection Division is in the process
of copying the four sets of plans submitted by Chelsea Woods repre-
sentatives last week. As noted in Joe's memo, we have experienced
unanticipated difficulties in copying the plans and have therefore
asked that the Homeowners Association undertake the copying them-
selves in order to expedite the review process. Tom Barker has
agreed with this request.
Also attached is a memorandum dated January 16 from Fire Chief Lyle
Robinson which describes in some detail the fire prevention
education meeting which was held with Chelsea Woods homeowners on
January 15. A total of 48 residents from the 225 units involved
attended this session. I understand that Lyle and Stan will be
working further with the Homeowners Association to provide materials
for those individuals who are unable to attend the educational
meeting. (I-1)
2. ADULT CORRECTIONS FACILITY -- During the past 18 months, the Adult
Corrections Facility has been receiving male prisoners from the
County Jail. This transfer arrangement was brought about by over-
crowded conditions at the Jail during a period when additional Tail
space was being constructed. Sig Fine has informed me that the new
Jail space is expected to be ready for occupancy by the end of
February and accordingly, the overflow assignment to persons to the
Plymouth facility should terminate. During the past several weeks,
however, Sig tells me that he has been experiencing some over
crowding, particularly, from the increase in the weekend population
with the incarceration of DWI offenders.
3. 1987 BOARD OF REVIEW -- The City Assessor has requested that
Tuesday, June 2, 1987 be scheduled for the 1987 Board of Review.
The Board of Review meeting would commence at 7:30 p.m. in the City
Center Council Chambers. Please let me know whether this date and
time fits into your schedule. If so, I will confirm the Board of
Review date for June 2.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 23, 1987
Page three
4. RECYCLING STATUS REPORT -- Dick Pouliot has prepared the attached
status report on the City's recycling program for the months of
November and December. Also included with the report is an outline
for implementation of the 1987 recylcing program, an outline guide
toward implementation of an organized refuse collection system, and
a copy of the Metropolitan Council study on the need for a regional
organized waste collection system in the metropolitan area. The
study concludes that there is no need for a regional metropolitan -
wide system since local cities have the authority to implement their
own organized refuse collection system. (I-4)
5. CITY ATTORNEY BILLING FOR JANUARY -- The January summary statement
from the City Attorney's office is attached for Council review.
(I-5)
6. COMMUNITY CENTER - SITE ANALYSIS -- Attached is a copy of the site
analysis work completed by BR ith regards to the Community Center
as requested by the Council. The Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission is undertaking the review of this subject as part of the
master planning of Plymouth Creek Park. As soon as possible, the
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will forward a recommen-
dation to the Council as to the best site for the Community Center.
(I-6)
7. DRAFT UNIFORM ELECTRIC FRANCHISE -- The Suburban Rate Authority at
its annual meeting of January 21 was to consider the attached draft
Uniform Electric Franchise. A copy of the draft was provided to the
City for information purposes prior to the annual meeting. (I-7)
8. CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -- Attached is the final version
of Performance Standards and Measurements for the City Manaqer as
adopted by the Council. (I-8)
9. 505 WATERFORD PARK -- Ryan Construction Company has provided the
attached two promotional brochures they designed for 505 Waterford
Park.
10. IMPROVEMENTS TO PLYMOUTH METROLINK PARK AND RIDE LOT -- Since late
1985, we have been working with the Minnesota Department of Trans-
poration in hopes that they would expand the parking capacity in the
Plymouth Metrolink Park and Ride Lot located at the intersection of
County Road 73 and Highway 55. The current capacity of the lot at
approximately 40 has proved to be insufficient to serve all
interested Rideshare and Plymouth Metrolink users. Attached is a
letter from Mr. Bill Crawford, District 5 Engineer, for the
Minnesota Department of Transporation, agreeing that the parking lot
expansion of 18 to 22 additional spaces should be undertaken during
the 1987 construction season. The addition would extend the exist-
ing lot easterly. In March, we can expect to receive a layout plan
from MnDot for Planning Commission and City Council approval. The
project will be undertaken on a cost sharing basis with MnDot paying
$15,000 and Plymouth Metrolink matching that amount. (I-10)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
January 23, 1987
Page four
11. PROPERTY TAX FEATHERING -- Attached are statistics provided by the
Assessing Division regarding payable 1987 taxes. The publication
sets forth the miscellaneous levy rates for payable 1986 and for
payable 1987. The Council will note that in 1986, Plymouth was
included in the overall 3.025 mill level applicable to the majority
of municipalities in the Twin City area. The pay 1987 sheet
confirms that Plymouth has received the tax featherinq and
consequently has been reduced from 3.023 mills to 2.523 mills. The
Council may recall that these are modified mills and actually add to
a higher millage amount when calculated against the value of a
Plymouth mill. Nonetheless, the feathering represents a tax burden
reduction to Plymouth residents and businesses. (I-11)
12. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letters from Kathy Houck, 11435 - 41st Avenue No., and Alan
Schuler, President, Ferndale North Homeowners Association,
stating concern and providing suggestions for improvement to the
City's recycling program. Also attached are responses to Ms.
Houck and Mr. Schuler from Dick Pouliot, and a letter to John
Luoma, Super Cycle, Inc., on the recycling complaints. (I -12a)
b. Letter thanking Mr. Merle Mark, 10730 Union Terrace Way, from
Scott Hovet, for his comments on a Public Service Counter
Customer Comment Card on the quality of service received from
Jan Evenson. (I -12b)
c. Letter to City Council from Terrie Christian, 9910 South Shore
Drive, commenting on the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the Zaremba Midwest,
Plymouth Commercial Center project. (I -12c)
d. Letter to Mr. Jim Olson, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates, from Sherm Goldberg, regarding of the complaint of
Forester of trespassing by Bonestroo onto his property. (I -12d)
e. Letter to Mr. Jim Ritzinger, 10880 South Shore Drive, from Sherm
Goldberg, responding to Mr. Ritzinger's question as to the
accuracy of the half section maps on file with the City.
(I -12e)
James G. Willis
City Manager
JGW:jm
attach
M-\
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 21, 1987
TO: Councilmembers
FROM: Virgil Schneider, Mayor
SUBJECT BOARD/COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Given the number of applications (25) that have been received, I decided
to poll the Council on how we should proceed. There seems to be a
concensus: Break into two groups and interview all applicants paring
the list of 25 to no more than 10, then the whole Council reinterview
the 10 finalists.
To facilitate this plan, I suggest the following:
1. Monday, January 26,6:45 p.m. (no dinner) - Council meet in the
conference room behind the chambers to discuss what questions will be
asked during the interviews. Questions asked the first night will be
identical for subgroup A and subgroup B. The makeup of subgroups A and
B will be determined Monday evening.
2. Tuesday, January 27, at 5:40 p.m. (no dinner) - First interviews
will start at 5:40 SHARP. I will greet the applicants in the lobby and
will explain the following: The process we are going through, the need
for two interviews, the kind of time commitment that would be expected
of them if appointed, the 80% attendance requirement, at least an annual
review of their performance, and ask them if they desire to serve on any
other board or commission than they have applied for. If so, they
should indicate that to the subgroup interviewers. What else would you
want me to say and ask if they have any questions?
My remarks will be written and read so that they will be exactly the
same for all applicants. These interviews will take 15 minutes each.
3. Saturday, January 31, 9:00 a.m. - Reinterview the 6 to 10
finalists. Each subgroup will have two minutes without the applicant
present to summarize the first interview and then 13 minutes to
interview with the applicant to be present. This should take about 2 to
2 1/2 hours.
Immediately after these interviews, the Council should plan to make a
selection. Please reserve Tuesday, February 3, in the p.m., as a backup
interview night as I have not been able to contact Bob Zitur yet and he
may not be able to meet on January 31.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 282 1987
M_3
WHERE: Plymouth City Center
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning
Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on
the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 7:30 P.M.
2.* APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes, January 14, 1987
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Lundgren Brothers Construction Company. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and
Revised Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan/Plat for
Parkers Lake Development/Vicksburg West, west of Vicksburg Lane; east of
Dunkirk Lane at 22nd and 24th Avenues North (86130)
B. Crow -Plymouth Land Limited Partnership. Planned Unit Development Preliminary
Plan/Plat Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience store
with gas pumps and a fast food restaurant on property south of County Road 9
and northeast of Annapolis Lane (86139)
C. Trammell Crow Company. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary
Plat, Final Plat, and Site Plan for "Carlson Center 7th Addition", west of
Carlson Parkway and south of Gleason Lake Road (86145)
4. NEW BUSINESS
* A. Greg Begin, Jerome Begin Contracting Co. Site Plan for the construction of a
39,700 sq. ft. retail center southeast of Future Vinewood Lane and County Road
9. (86124)
B. Boemer Builders for Allied Plastics, Inc. Site Plan and Variance for the
construction of a 46,300 sq. ft. office/warehouse at the northwest corner of
Ranchview Lane and Medina Road (86137)
* C. Happy Chef of Plymouth. Plan Amendment for Signage for the restaurant at
14370 28th Place (87001)
5. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT 10:30 P.M.
A G E N D A
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ANNUAL MEETING
January 29, 1987
6:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes for October 30, 1986 Meeting
III. Nomination and Appointment of Officers
IV. Year End Status Report on the Section 8 Program
A. Utility Allowance Schedule for 1987
B. Letter to All Section 8 Tenants
V. Year End Status Report on the Housing Rehabilitation Program
VI. Year End Status Report on the Senior Citizen Housing Site
VII. Year End Status Report on the Scattered Site Home Ownership Program
VIII. Year End Status Report on the Child Care Subsidy Program
IX. Year End Status Report on the Plymouth House Doctor Program
X. Status Report on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program for Year XIII
XI. Adjournment
')
�
co
�
cz
v]
C 14
rl 41
E•
W
r ''� o
•Q P,
cz
W
M
o.
O U w '
O � C
M
<
•• b O
O� fa U
r-
00 00
Oo
H U
N
N
H
ro
N
�
[s,
w
H
-4
G4 H
9
W
U
U
0
')
�
v]
W
W
M
M
<
Oo
H U
N
N
H
a
-4
G4 H
U
U
0
C)
:Z)0
•• 0
• O
\D U
U)
U)
P4
Cd
�
ua.
rl
00
[�.
„,00w
�0cn
OU
N
N
z0a
H r- H
H 1- H
0 t U O
U
a H U
W
W U
b
(n
PCI
Z-� W
G
`�
O
U
fd
"'d
v o E •�
M
W
N
O
+
U
to
faU
w Cl)"
N
N
3�
s v
ti,U
0 •• a
n H
ss, •�
z5n3
a¢ Z
P
o
OPS O
u'1 H
VI f— � N N
00 ti
j
�
H
U!
<
p
v]
W
LL �o o
�
WFLU
W
V Pq
D+ U
C I;U
o..o
y N
O
_`
P,
a'
6 r4 Im
W
AwEWn
u
o
'z
oa
Ino
H 4 -0C
L)
Cv
oo
UOU
r.
000
P5
�
UOU
0
a ��,���
ap
x ••a
�
^
i N O\ N
Uv Ra U)a
t� U
�
H t\ U
FH,�
�
a
H CHJ
N~�~NHWa�•'wc�
ac7
oac�
O�
cz
r N
P4
J
M - Lt
Pa ;
z C
N
U zz
H isa
U
�
rn
W
Ln
►-] P4
d
a
PQ
L)
U go
v
u0Z,
U
a
P4 t�
haw
N
Ocn
UO
UPa
�QnH
cc
u N O I N O
y�O
x HU
►-a ••,7
a
N 1
2.C;O
i r
U
H V
U ,Z
HZO
O U
•
C7 M
2 ..
Z
H 1� H
U
d C- 0
En
NO
C4
C7
co
H PQ
QN
O Q
00
C
U �.
�I
M
i
pq ^ O
M - Lt
cc j
.--4 OQ �
N
N
N
N
U zz
H isa
�
rn
W
Ln
►-] P4
d
aU
PQ
>+rU-I i
U go
v
o
a
AoEEn M
haw
N
Ocn
UO
UPa
�QnH
cc
u N O I N O
y�O
x HU
►-a ••,7
a
N 1
2.C;O
i r
U
H V
U ,Z
HZO
F D N
Z
fJ
En
NO
C4
;
co
00
U �.
N
N
�CL;
Z ••
W
cn
U
FI
W
— -
F O
P. U
P4
cc j
.--4 OQ �
N
N
U zz
H isa
�
rn
W
Ln
►-] P4
VAS
aU
PQ
>+rU-I i
U go
v
o
a
AoEEn M
haw
N
Ocn
UO
UPa
�QnH
y�O
x HU
►-a ••,7
2.C;O
U V
U
H V
U ,Z
HZO
cc j
.--4 OQ �
N
N
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE:
January 22, 1987
TO: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
FROM: Joe Ryan, Building Official
SUBJECT CHELSEA WOODS UPDATE
Referenced below is a summary of action taken since our meeting of Friday, January
16, 1987, with representatives of the Chelsea Woods Association.
Tuesday, January 20, 1987 - Copies of recommendations regarding the inspection of the
factory built fireplaces and separation walls were delivered to the Association main
office located at 1505 Yuma Lane North. See attached copies.
I contacted Association President, Tom Barker to develop a time frame we could meet
to review the types of permit and inspection related records (which may be on file).
A ten o'clock meeting was agreed upon for Wednesday, January 21, 1987.
Wednesday, January 21, 1987 - I met with Tom Barker and Merrill Birch at ten o'clock
in the Plymouth City Center. I shared with them the various types of permit related
records and forms including inspection reports and Certificates of Occupancy. After
reviewing these documents, Mr. Barker and Mr. Birch concluded that this type of
information would not be of any interest with regards to their immediate concerns.
January 22, 1987 - Our office has completed the process of copying the four sets of
plans which were submitted by Mr. Barker during the meeting last Friday, January 16,
1987. The time frame to review these plans has exceeded our initial intent of 24
hours due to the complications involved in having to reduce and copy the original
plans submitted to us. I have advised Mr. Barker that any future plans intended to be
submitted to our office must be copied by the Homeowners Association in order for us
to expedite the review process. Mr. Barker agreed to this request.
It is my hope to commence with the initial review of the four sets of plans beginning
tomorrow.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
File
January 20, 1987 CITY C
PLYMOUTE+
Mr. Tom Barker
President
Chelsea Woods Homeowners Association
1505 Yuma Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Barker:
As per our meeting on January 16, 1987, I have enclosed recommendations you may wish to
consider regarding the inspection of the factory built fireplaces and separation walls
located in the attached dwelling units of the Chelsea Woods Townhouse development.
These recommendations are intended to assist property owners in employing the services
of an independent building inspection agency to economically evaluate these aspects of
their homes.
Please contact me at 559-2800 should you have any questions or if I may be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
4--QpVr
Joe Ryan
Building Official
JR/gw
cc: City Manager James G. Willis
Community Development Director Blair Tremere
File
ENCS
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
January 20, 1987 �_
FIREPLACE INSPECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Obtain a copy of the manufacture's installation directions for each specific make
and model number of the installed factory build firepaces.
2. Contact an independent building inspection service agency.
3. A visual inspection of each fireplace chase will be necessary to verify full
compliance with the manufacture's installation directions. Inspection of the
fireplaces would involve removing the exterior sheathing and siding material for
each fireplace chase, approximately 5 feet above the base of the fireplace
opening along the three sides of the fireplace chase. The inspection would
include checking the clearances around the chimney and fireplace; the
installation and location of framing components including headers; the and
installation of firestopping if required; and the installation of any accessories
such as glass doors, grates, etc.. The materials could be reinstalled once the
inspection is completed.
4. The inspection agency should provide a written report which identifies compliance
with the manufacture's installation directions. If any deficiencies are found,
they should also be noted on the report.
5. A separate report for each fireplace should be provided.
January 20, 1987
SEPARATION WALL INSPECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Contact an independent building inspection service agency.
2. A visual inspection of each fire separation wall will be necessary to examine the
composition of the building materials used in the wall assemblies, and to verify
the fire resistive rating of the separation walls between each dwelling unit.
3. Inspection of the fire separation wall design and construction would involve
removing an area approximately 16 inches by 16 inches directly through each wall
and examining the composition of the walls and support structure. The opening
would be located between 2 -stud spaces in order that the existing construction
materials could be replaced, or that new materials could be provided. Once
repaired, the opening would then need to be re -taped and sanded, prior to
painting or other decorative restoration.
4. Inspection of the fire separation wall in the attic space involves entering an
attic access panel found in each unit. This involves visual verification of the
wall separation design and materials. No physical alteration and repair should be
necessary to make the inspection.
5. The inspection agency should provide a written report stating the results of the
investigation. The report should also include a statement as to whether the
construction meets the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code in
effect at the time of construction.
6. A separate report for the fire separation wall assembly between each dwelling
unit should be provided.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 16, 1987
TO: Frank Boyles, Assistant Cit�rZ7— FROM: Lyle C. Robinson, Fire Chie
SUBJECT CHELSEA WOODS HOMEOWNERS MEETING JANUARY 15, 1987
There were 48 residents in attendance at the meeting held in the
Council Chambers. After a few opening remarks by Stan Scofield a
film entitled "Fire Power" was shown. This film depicts the
rapid spread of fire and smoke throughout a single family
residence from beginning of the fire to the extinguishment by the
fire department. The second half of the film showed the benefits
of having residential sprinklers in place and the limitation to
the spread of fire then.
Stan then went over the high points of fire safety in the home.
He explained the benefits of smoke detectors and the proper
location of same. He also went through the mechanics of
conducting an exit drill in the home (EDITH) and benefits to the
homeowners by conducting such an exercise.
Stan explained the design of the heatalator type fireplaces which
were involved in the fire on Thanksgiving Day. He attempted to
explain the meaning of "zero clearance" as it pertains to a
fireplace installation. He also indicated the area in the
fireplace construction where we feel there is a possibility that
the fire kindled because of a 2x4 which was installed too close
to the bonnet of the fireplace. The spacing at this point is
required to be 2". It is this dimension which we question and
would recommend that a visual inspection be made of the framing
of the fireplaces in Chelsea Woods. In order to accomplish this
it would necessary to open the wood chase that encloses the
fireplace and the chimney.
We recommended that they do have an examination of their
heatalators and recommended that Jack Pixley or Paul Stegmeyer
Companies be used for this purpose. We also explained the
difference between a masonry fireplace and a heatalator type
fireplace in the inherent safety of one versus the other.
A question was asked regarding the use of glass doors on the
heatalator type fireplaces. Stan's investigation reveals that
only one type of glass door is recommended for the type
heatalator that was in the unit that burned, and that this door
has been discontinued in manufacturing. Stan explained the
function of the glass door and how it did not cause a problem to
the heatalator type fireplaces provided it was the correct glass
door. Other type of glass doors do not provide for the air
circulation that it is necessary to keep the outer surfaces of
the fireplace box and dome at a reduced temperature.
Some of the residents questioned the spread of the fire through
the attic areas. Stan explained that the initial fire spread up
the outside walls and when it reached the soffit or overhang of
the roof it penetrated through this light plywood covering and
extended into the attic. By doing this it went into the attics
of the three units from the outside using the soffit area as the
entry point. They questioned the adequacy of the fire separation
between units. We explained that there was fire spread between
the walls but it did not significantly add to the overall problem
of the fire spread in the attic area. The attic area was
primarily exposed by the fire entering through the soffit area.
Several other questions regarding the use of fire alarms in their
units were raised. One of the residents inquired as to the
feasibility of installing inter -connected alarm systems from one
unit to the other and in effect tying all six or seven units in a
common system. It was explained that this was indeed possible
and would involve some extra cost but it would provide alarms in
all of the adjacent units should a fire occur in any one of the
individual units.
I felt that the meeting went very well and that the questions
raised by the residents were adequately responded to. We
indicated that we would be ready and able to answer any further
questions that they would raise in the future. The underlying
concern from all those present appeared to be the safety of their
units from fire spread, not only in their unit but into their
unit from another unit adjacent. The safety of their heatalator
fireplaces was also paramount in the questions. We gave them the
direct line telephone number to Heatalator Company and indicated
that they may wish to group together and have their manager
contact the factory with a number of their questions to which
they could respond.
LCR:ly
cc: Richard J. Carlquist, Public Safety Director
Stan Scofield, Fire Inspector
Z -1-k
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 22, 1987 for the Council Meeting of January 26, 1987
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Dick Pouliot, Project Coordinator
SUBJECT: Recycling Status Report
Attached is a graph showing the monthly tonnages collected in the recycling
Program to date, the month of November was down considerably, showing a
total tonnage picked up of 37.9 tons. Factors probably contributing to the
low volume for the month of November are the colder weather onset, and the
Saturday pickup after Thanksgiving. December tonnage was 48.94 tons, up
somewhat from November.
A letter was sent to all Homeowners Association Presidents encouraging
their discussion and support of the Plymouth Recycling Program. In this
letter an offer was made to attend any of the Homeowner's Association
meetings at their request (see attached). A letter was also sent to the
Pastor of all Churches in Plymouth requesting support and offering to pass
on the $4.00/ton from the Metropolitan Council (see attached).
A meeting of Recycling coordinators from Metropolitan area Cities was held
on January 21, 1987. Mutual problems were discussed and all are having
missed pickup problems. The meeting was productive and it was decided that
future meetings would be held on at least a bimonthly basis.
A copy of the Recycling film, which was referred to by Councilmember Zitur
at a recent Council meeting is being obtained from the Crystal/New Hope
League of Women Voters and as soon as it is obtained, will be programmed
onto the Cable Channel 7.
An agreement has been reached and a letter signed with the current
Recycling Contractor, WASP, Inc., wherein by mutual agreement they will
continue to pick up the recyclables in Plymouth at the current rate of
$2,250 a month on a once per month basis through the month of March.
Beginning April 1st twice per month collections will begin at a cost of
$4,200 per month up to a base tonnage of 120 tons and $30 per ton for each
ton over 120 tons. During this three month period 'the contract details
will be finalized prior to final approval by the Council.
I am enclosing two outlines, one for the implementation of the Recycling
Program and Agenda into 1987, part of which calls for implementation of an
organized refuse collection system. The second outline is a suggested
guide for implementation of organized refuse collection. Both are for use
by the Recycling Committee.
Memo: James G. Willis
January 22, 1987
Page Two
Also attached is a copy of the Metropolitan Council Study on the need for a
regional organized waste collection system in the Metropolitan area. The
final conclusion of the Study Committee was that there was no need for a
regional Metropolitan -wide system of organized refuse collection in that
the local Cities had the authority to implement their own organized refuse
collection system.
2- 8 1 Q -d. ,
Richard J. Pouliot
RJP:kh
Attachments: Graph
Letters
Outlines for Recycling
Metropolitan Council Study
I
I
December 16, 1986
President
Homeowner's Association
Subject: City of Plymouth Recycling Program
Dear Sir/Madam:
Attached is a chart showing the tons of recyclables collected in the City
of Plymouth since April of 1986 when the curbside collection program began.
It also shows the goals set by Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council
which the City is expected to reach.
Although a valiant effort is being made by some residents to recycle, the
majority of residents do not. We have been collecting less than one half
of the goal in 1986 and the goal increases in 1987. A new County ordinance
now requires each City to pass an ordinance which requires all residents to
recycle. If the City is not collecting its goal in tons by January 1st of
1988, the County may then take over the program, use whatever enforcement
means necessary to achieve the goal, and charge the City for the costs
involved.
Your help is solicited to help increase the participation in your
neighborhood and ultimately to reach the established goals voluntarily.
Please discuss this at your next meeting and encourage all members to
recycle and urge friends and neighbors to recycle also. I am available at
your request to answer any questions or meet with your group to discuss
this subject with you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:kh
Enclosure
cc: Fred G. Moore
Sherman L. Goldberg
-7_L
January 12, 1987
All Plymouth Churches
Subject: City of Plymouth Recycling Program
Dear Pastor:
The City of Plymouth has had a Recycling Program in being since April of 1986,
consisting of a dropoff center and a once per month curbside pickup of newspaper,
cardboard, metal cans and glass bottles. This program is a continuation of State
and County Ordinances to help reduce the quantity of waste material going into
area landfills.
Your assistance and support of this program is requested as we feel it provides a
very visible means for parents to demonstrate to children in the family and the
neighborhood the concept of stewardship. It provides an opportunity to instill
the concept in our next generation that we do have a responsibility to use wisely
what God has given us to use during our lifetime. It also provides a means to
show the next generation that we care about them and that we are conserving the
natural resources for their future use; that we want them to enjoy the same clean
air and pure water, etc. that we have enjoyed during our lifetime.
In addition to the City's Recycling Program some churches now have, and others are
contemplating paper drives, etc., to accomplish the same objectives which the City
program is trying to accomplish, while at the same time providing a small income
source. The Metropolitan Council provides an incentive to the City in the form of
$4 per ton for all recyclables collected. If you now have, or wish to start a
paper drive, etc. the City will pass on the $4 per ton to you. All that is
necessary is a signed statement that the items were collected and a weight
verification slip showing the number of pounds or tons. The $4 per ton can be
submitted twice per year.
If you wish further information on this, or the City's Program, please contact me
at 559-2800. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:kh
cc: Fred G. Moore
Sherman L. Goldberg
Recycling Committee
OUTLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
1987 RECYCLING PROGRAM
I. Continue on the same schedule as used in 1986 through March of 1987.
A. The last Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the month pickups.
B. $2,250 per month plus $30 per ton over 80 ton.
C. Prepare new flyer with new areas, dates and instructions for
delivery in March.
D. Finalize and sign new contract incorporating the above changes.
II. Start in April with the new schedule.
A. Twice per month pickups
B. $4,200 per month plus $30 per ton over 120 ton.
C. Six pickup areas
1. Areas 1, 2 and 3 first and third Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday.
2. Areas 4, 5 and 6 the second and fourth Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday.
D. Expand pickup to all residential areas of the City, including
multiple family apartment buildings (except rural Northwest area of
the City).
III. Organize grass and leaf pickup program.
A. Finalize location for compost
1. Eagan Park
2. Gumsrud Park
3. County Road 6 and I-494 area
B. Fence and schedule entry/open times.
1. Saturday 8:00 to 5:00,
2. Sunday 8:00 to 1:00
3. Week nights, Tuesdays and Thursdays 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
C. Manned versus unmanned
1. Assure no trash dumped in the area
2. Shred and turn compost
3. Give away compost program
IV. Mid summer cleanup of possible recyclable items.
A. Tires
B. Discarded appliances
C. Hazardous wastes, such as paint, etc.
D. Schedule a one time collection and disposition
V. Begin survey of all commercial/industrial properties.
A. Identify current recycling activities and obtain tonnage reports.
B. Suggest methods to begin recycling on contract pickup basis.
C. Include commercial/industrial sites in City ordinance per County
Ordinance 13. (Mandatory recycling)
VI. Adopt organized refuse collection system in the City of Plymouth in
both residential and commercial/industrial areas.
A. Determine total monthly and annual waste stream.
B. Determine total monthly and annual recycling tonnage.
C. Enforce ordinance making recycling mandatory.
D. Prohibit haulers from picking up unprocessed refuse.
VII. Manage entire solid waste disposition in the City.
A. Switch from present "react" mode to "act" mode - get out in front.
B. Maintain eventual 16% reduction for 80% County funding.
C. Funds required above County's share should be paid from the
difference from the total refuse pickup costs and the total dollars
collected for picking up refuse.
=-
OUTLINE GUIDE TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM IN
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH
I. The Solid Waste Committee, consisting of Councilmembers Crain and
Zitur, Frank Boyles, Fred Moore and Dick Pouliot, set date and hold
meeting to discuss the following:
A. The 1987 Recycling Program and Goals:
B. Hennepin County Ordinance 13
Have the City Attorney draft City Ordinance required by
Ordinance 13 for Council action.
C. The Metropolitan Council Organized Collection Study.
D. The need for a Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
E. Billing options under an organized collection system.
1. Ad Vlourum Tax and furnish collection as a service.
2. Special Assessment
3. Monthly billing by Finance Department
II. Notify all Plymouth licensed refuse haulers of a meeting to discuss
organized residential refuse collection for the City of Plymouth.
A. Set date.
B. Invite Chuck Cutter from MRI.
C. Hold the discussion meeting.
D. Determine feelings pro and con of haulers, answer questions and
discuss concerns of the haulers.
E. Suggest additional organizational meetings of haulers and
preliminary organizational steps be taken toward forming a
corporation with the intent toward a negotiated contract with
the City.
III. Review City Ordinances for changes needed to implement organized
collection.
A. Have City Attorney draft new ordinances as necessary.
IV. Advertise, set date and hold public information meeting on proposed
organized collection system and ordinance changes.
A. Determine feelings pro and con of public, answer questions,
discuss concerns with the public, and point out the advantages.
V. Monitor progress of haulers organization
A. Obtain estimated date to implement organized collection from
hauler's prospective.
B. Set proposed future date.
VI. Advertise, set date and hold public hearing on implementation of
residential organized refuse collection system by the City of Plymouth
and proposed ordinances effective on dates set in VB.
VII. Begin contract negotiations with newly formed (PRI?) representatives.
A. Review the Minneapolis contract with MRI, Inc.
B. Sign negotiated contract.
VIII. Begin organized residential refuse collection in the City of
Plymouth. Single family through multiple apartment complexes.
Continue to Review Commercial and Industrial Refuse Collection
Toward Evenual Organized Collection City -Wide, all Types
IX. Set date, hold public hearing on implementation of organized refuse
collection city-wide, all types.
Implement Organized Refuse Collection City -Wide, all Types
-T -LA
STUDY OF ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904
June 1985
Publication No. 19-85-079
=-
A special thanks to the Organized Collection Task Force.
Mary Ayd-e, Chair, National Solid Wastes Management Association
Shirley Brantingham, Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry
Charles Kutter, President, Minneapolis Refuse Inc.
Terry Miller, Waste Manaapent Inc.
Ron Moening, Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Patricia Hoyt Neils, Plymouth City Council
Luther Nelson, Hennepin County
Bob Orth, Ramsey County Commissioner
Vern Peterson, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Betty Sindt, Lakeville City Council
Carolyn Voss, Coon Rapids City Council
Pat Scully, Metropolitan Council
CONTENTS
Pace
ABOUT THIS STUDY .................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................ 2
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM ........................... 4
Introduction..................................................... 4
Regulatory Requirements.. .............................. 6
Profile of the Refuse Collection Industry ........................ 6
Service Levels and Geographic Area...............................10
EVALUATION OF NEED FOR ORGANIZED COLLECTION .........................12
Can Organized Collection Improve Productivity and Reduce
Collection Costs?. .. .... .. ..... .......12
.. ..... ...... ....... . ..
Can Organized Collection Reduce Environmental Impacts and
Improve Public Safety?........................................20
Can Organized Collection Facilitate Implementation of the
Council Solid Waste Guide Chapter?... ..... ... ... ........21
Can Organized Collection Integrate or Enhance Existing County
and Local Authorities for Waste Management?....................22
LIABILITIES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION...............24
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................... ..............26
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................27
APPENDIX............................................................28
FIGURES
1. Market Structure of Refuse Collection: Residential Service....... 4
2. Market Structure of Refuse Collection: Residential Service....... 5
3. Size of Metropolitan Residential, Comercial and Industrial
Refuse Collection Companies by Number of Collection Vehicles..... 9
4. Percent Metropolitan Residential, CorJnercial and Industrial
Refuse Collection Companies by Number of Collection Vehicles..... 9
5. Frequency of Residential Refuse Collection Charges...............18
TABLES
1. Selected Municipal and Township Licensing Requirements for Refuse
Collection....................................................... 7
i
2. Comnercial Refuse Collection Charges in the City of St. Paul,
1985, Monthly Charges for Weekly Pick Up.........................'2
3. Monthly Single -Family Dwelling Residential Refuse Collection
Charges..........................................................13
a. Carver County Residential Refuse Collection Charges to
Households.......................................................14
5. Metropolitan Area Municipalities with Ccntracted Residential
Refuse Collection: April 1985..................................lo
5. Metropolitan Area Municipalities with Franchised Residential
Refuse Collection: April 1985 ....................................19
ii
=— LA
ABOUT THIS STUDY
This study fulfills the legislative requirement that the Metropolitan
Council prepare a study on the need for a system to implement organized
collection of residential, commercial and industrial refuse in the
region. Organized collection, as defined by the Council in its Solid
Waste Management Develooment Guide/Policy Plan means a solid waste
collection system wherein overlap of collection service areas and types
of collection services is prevented or controlled. The organizing body
may be public or private and may exert its control by directly pro-
viding the collection service or contracting for collection services.
This definition of organized collection covers all of the potential
methods available for organizing collection services.
The Council established a task force to help it prepare the organized
collection study. The task force met over a period of two months
reviewing the -collected data and preliminary draft of the study. Task
force members were selected to assure that county, municipal and busi-
ness concerns were addressed in the study.
The data used in the study were obtained from a number of sources
including municipal ordinances and licenses, refuse collection com-
panies operating in the region and national, county and other reports
and studies. Some of the data, particularly price information, will
become dated quickly given the nature of the market and industry.
The study has five sections. The first section•identifies the ques-
tions the study will ask in its attempt to determine whether a system
is needed to implement organized collection in the region. The second
section describes how refuse collection services are currently deliv-
ered in the region. The third section evaluates the need for organized
collection. The fourth section identifies the liabilities and disadvan-
tages of organized collection. The final section provides the reader
with the study's findings and conclusions. The appendix contains a
listing of all known refuse collection companies operating in the
region.
1
INTRODUCTION
In 1984, the state legislature amended the Waste Management Act (WMA)
to require the Metropolitan Council to conduct a study on the way
refuse is collected in the Metropolitan Area. Specifically, the
Council is to "study the need for a system to implement organized col-
lection of residential, commercial and industrial solid waste in the
Metropolitan Area."
Organized collection refers to the manner in which refuse is collected
from the waste generator. Organized collection means a solid waste
collection system wherein overlap of collection service areas and types
of Collection services is-revented or controlled. The or_aniz'ne body
may be public or private, and may exert its control by directly
providing the collection service or contracting for collection
services. Organized collection does not mean that refuse collection is
mandatory or that the county or city will direct where the waste will
be delivered or that a public agency will necessarily perform the col-
lection service.
The different methods to organize refuse collection are contract, fran-
chise, municipal or other private arrangement. The contract method is
where a municipality contracts with one service provider to collect
refuse in a specific area and the city pays the contractor f or the
service. The franchise method is where the city permits one service
provider tO collect refuse in a specific area and establishes .she price
but the service provider retains responsibility for collection of the
service fee. Municipal collection is'where the city provides the ser
vice with public employees. Private arrangements include neighborhood
groups contracting with a refuse collector for the service or several
refuse collectors forming a new company in order to organize their
collection routes.
Currently few areas or municipalities in the region have organised col-
lection of residential solid waste. =ewer still have orcani=ed collec-
tion of cccmercial and industrial wastes. As a rule, most waste gener-
ators arrange directly with a waste hauler for refuse collection
services. Questions have been raised 'about this type of arrangement
fpr refuse collection and whether iumorcvements can be :lade to the col-
lection system ;with implementation of organized collection.
To determine the need for a system to implement organized collection in
the Metr000litan Area, this study will ask four questions. First, can
organized collection improve productivity and reduce collection costs?
This study will evaluate the costs of refuse collection under several
different market arrangements. And if there are cost savings to the
household or business with an organized collection system, the study
will attempt to identify where those cost savings are achieved.
.`
Second, can organized collection reduce environmental impacts in the
neighborhood and improve public safety? This study will evaluate to
what extent organized collection reduces air pollution, fuel consump-
tion, wear and tear on city streets and county and state roads, litter
complaints, rodent harborages and vehicle accidents involving refuse
collection trucks.
Third, can organized collection facilitate implementation of the
Council's Solid Waste Management Develcoment Guide/Policy Plan? This
study will explore what organized collection can do to reach the objec-
tives for abatement programs and obtain information about waste
generation reduction or recovery.
Fourth, can organized collection integrate or enhance existing county
and local authorities for waste management? The study will evaluate
whether organized collection can replace or complement waste designa-
tion. Waste designation is the same as flow control.
These issues will be discussed to better understand what organized col-
lection can and cannot do for improving waste management in the
region. They will also help to determine whether there is a need for a
systematic process to organize refuse collection services in the
region. The report will begin with an evaluation of the existing col-
lection system. This evaluation will serve as the basis for comparison
with oroanized collection systems and with the findings of other
national and local studies that have evaluated refuse collection sys-
tems and costs. The study will also discuss the liabilities.and disad-
vantages associated with organized collection.
The final chapter contains the conclusions regarding organized collec-
tion of refuse. The appendix contains a comprehensive list of the
refuse collection companies licensed by municipalities in the region.
3
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING COULECTICN SYSTEM
iNTrODUCTION
The refuse collection industry in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is
quite unlike the industry as it exists in most other major metropolitan
areas. Most metropolitan areas have fewer, generally larger refuse col-
lection `iTns servicing the region, or rely extensively upon municipal
collection.
In regards to residential refuse collection, the Metrcpolitan Area uses
three different methods or structures for ensuring refuse is ce,-
lected. The predominant method that is used is where each household by
itself arranges ;cr refuse col lection services. The housaiold versa'
arrangement system serves approximately 500,000 households, or 69 per-
cent of the region (see Ficures ? and 2). The role of the municipality
is limited and typically requires a household to remove wastes at least
once a week from the property. Some municipalities have mandatory col-
lection which means that the household must hire a'collection firm to
provide the service. Enforcement occurs on an as needed Iasis.
FiGMRE i
r RK 5 c �pu ar �s� C�LLrEr_c��: ;�5_ �aT 'Y SEAv.cr
N0.LMber of Wousehelda Served - _-
fetal heusehelds to rellent 721.5291
609. 0941- .................................
saa. a41a
�..............................................................
2x9, aoa ....m..........
.
..� : ,..........................................
es. sae
K7177 2. 582
9
Nouaeheld Contract !!tanlelpal Franchise
w4r a erne n t
sI►prll 1 1994 Prevlslenal hleuseheLd Fatln�et+s. r+treeo(Itali
councit•et lha —...Ie ^'!fes 4rea
a
FIGURE 2
rARKET STRUCTURE 01 REFISE COLLECTION: RESIDE 1IAL SERVICE
Percent Municipalities Served
1% Municipal
9X Franchise
2b% Contract
b4X Household
Agreement
Numeric Totals
4ou3aheld Agramentt 157 Franchisai 0
Centracti 231 huyticiplll 2
Percent Households in Region
9% Municipal
IX Franchise
20:� Contract
72% Household
Agreement
17wa aoaniciWities contract for cmaocarcial refuse collootiea.
! Four mm ieipalities franehisa for comrsoreial refuse collection.
The second largest method for provision of refuse collection services
is where a city contracts or franchises with one company for collection
services. There are 23 cities that contract for refuse collection ser-
vices with a private firm and six cities that franchise or license one
collector. The only difference between contract and franchise collec-
tion is the method of billing for the services. Under a contract the -
city is responsible for billing whereas the waste hauler is responsible
for billing under the franchise arrangement. Of the municipalities
that have contracts, 21 are competitively bid and two are negotiated.
Of the cities with franchises, one is competitively bid, and five are
nec_otiated. Cities that have contract collection serve about 145,000
or 20 percent of all the households in the region. Cities with fran-
chises serve about 9,000 or one percent of the households.
The method which serves the least number of households, 62,000 or nine
percent of the region's households, is for the city to provide for
refuse collection services itself. Only two municipalities in the
region currently provide for municipal collection of refuse, the cities
of Minneapolis and Farmington. Minneapolis provides collection ser-
vices to half of the city or about 62,000 households and Farmington
provides collection services to about 1,500 households.
In reaards to commercial and industrial refuse collection, waste gen-
erators typically arrange for collection service on their own with a
waste hauler. Four of the municipalities that have franchise arrange-
ments for residential collection also franchise for commercial refuse
collection. Two municipalities that have contracts for collection also
provide for commercial refuse collection in the contract. All of these
municipalities are relatively small, consequently, the commercial ref-
use collection system is less organized than residential collection.
\ --LA
Less is known about the manner in which industrial wastes are collected
than for residential and ccimercial Collection. °ecause no City pro-
vides for industrial collection, it appears that industrial waste vener-
ators rely completely on arrangements between themselves and waste
haulers for refuse collection.
RECULA.TCRY REOUIREMEVTS
Most c'ties license refuse collectors operatinc within their jurisdic-
tion; however, towns are less likely to license collectors. The pur-
pose of licensing is to ensure that collectors operating within the
city are reputable business operators and carry the appropriate per-
sonal infury, accident and property damage insurance. Eased ;pon infor-
mation received iron municioalities, Table 1 highlights the %r,ber of
refuse collection companies that operate within a given municipality
and their license Tees and insurance requirements. where irfermaton
was available, the table indicates the number of collection firms col-
lecting from the residential and commercial sectors.
Refuse ccllection companies must, comply with other transportation recu-
lation.s. Generally, these focus upon the vehicles operated by the com-
pany and include requirements on the size, weight and safe_ operations.
By far most waste haulers complain about the weight restrictions in the
sprinct'.me. They are often subject to fines because it is freo,,uertly
impossible to operate a packer and comply with the weight restric-
t'cns. TranS7 er stations 'Mould reduce total v?^.4.c1.e lileage °nd Tay
permit collectors =o use smaller trucks and remain CQTCEti ive. r-
rently, many.haulers use very large packer trucks because they are mere
efficient if they must travel a oreat distance tc the landfill.
PROFILE OF 71-F REEUST COLLECTION INDUSTRY
in the !win CitieS the industry can be character zed as very decentral-
'zed, with c..ncen tat i;,n or cicmpanies he s.,,a ll end o; the s:
tru,"n lnformaticn obtained 'rom listings of municipal licenses indi-
cates there are at least 2:5 refuse collection firms in the re?ion.
A listing of all known refuse collection companies cperatinc in the
region is included in the appendix. Most of these collectors have less
than four refuse c0ilecticn vehicles. Figures 3 and a provide a break-
down of company size by nummber of collection vehicles. Although the
breakdown is imperfect because the Council was not able to obtain
information from all of the collection companies, it provides a good
perspective of the :Hake up of the industry. Several fir,rs are very
large and can be characterized by the considerable investment of capi-
tal in equipment such as packer trucks, debris boxes, roll -offs or
other containers.
The data shows that comoanies with more than 40 trucks makeup two per-
cent of the total number of firms in the re=use collection business.
Though the international `irms collect residential, cor^ercial and
industrial wastes, other large local firms compete with these companies
for collection of waste from the cormerclal and industrial sectors.
rp K K 1K w K K w x X W YC x X
O
u7 G u', an en Ln
L
Q N .� CO N �+ r
F� r
O
N H'1 CD t0 u+ Cn %nvn CnOO Inu'fO O LnY9%n %n %m sn OuYnO
O N N N N N u1 CV N Nf %n N N %O — N tv N P9 %O N %O N of fn
m
IC rfn
P mr Ntv N m N AN a of Q Q.-• �D InN PCA Y. f N O cm
« _ r r r r r
0
H
tr N NP N
V n r r r
r0 CD �'.• Cn P Ln <fl 4w
r N
L N p
d V 40 !� S � a
�+ Y
N > e �I •
O V L c V N 1.
O r C
C C O ✓ A J > N L E �o O Y V
Foo C
9 C ?, i� N v . \7 — . L >� P C t9 T « CO {% �+ r «
i L w 10 u C¢ P m m a C r d C C O W L P J
1 C d C t Y Y L Y Q A« C A O N d �+ L > d C V_ O d V
czId
c« N4« c c 07T t« .- o a v a+ oma— o« T c c
P> Y Y Y > 7K C« r- CL C_C _C
1r G L L L A L L + O S O L L A p T C A O L O A 7 C A A R q d A A d
GC <C<fl CC COV V V V V V V V V WWW W W W W C3� Z r J J JJ JJJ
1
ILI
r.
N
.
L
V
O
r
•
C` L
d
CG
L
Ss
tc CL
8
M
8SS
58888
g88
C
s
88888
8
A V
Be
L V
O t
8
N
C _
888
58588
S88
c_�
S
N
V
¢ �
J
d
J
x
x PC
C
x
PC x K
x
K aK x
3.0 3.c
6V+ C
W
�_ t
¢
O N
acx
v
x
w
x
30C VC 3.c VK
x sK
=
S.
w O
c S
W
� =•
x sC
x x x sC
PC
'L C
c
x x x x
K X
}C
KK
KK
x
«
oN
C
F 2
D J
i _W
V
J
c
C:
_G N
N
CJI
W
H
T
N i
Q
C
G
C ¢
C
G_
L
CL
V
=
N Y
d d
{� CL
O
P
W
C
H
N
W
L
c
N
W
N
T
J
N
L
u
�r
d
� N
= C
o—
J
O
Z
rp K K 1K w K K w x X W YC x X
O
u7 G u', an en Ln
L
Q N .� CO N �+ r
F� r
O
N H'1 CD t0 u+ Cn %nvn CnOO Inu'fO O LnY9%n %n %m sn OuYnO
O N N N N N u1 CV N Nf %n N N %O — N tv N P9 %O N %O N of fn
m
IC rfn
P mr Ntv N m N AN a of Q Q.-• �D InN PCA Y. f N O cm
« _ r r r r r
0
H
tr N NP N
V n r r r
r0 CD �'.• Cn P Ln <fl 4w
r N
L N p
d V 40 !� S � a
�+ Y
N > e �I •
O V L c V N 1.
O r C
C C O ✓ A J > N L E �o O Y V
Foo C
9 C ?, i� N v . \7 — . L >� P C t9 T « CO {% �+ r «
i L w 10 u C¢ P m m a C r d C C O W L P J
1 C d C t Y Y L Y Q A« C A O N d �+ L > d C V_ O d V
czId
c« N4« c c 07T t« .- o a v a+ oma— o« T c c
P> Y Y Y > 7K C« r- CL C_C _C
1r G L L L A L L + O S O L L A p T C A O L O A 7 C A A R q d A A d
GC <C<fl CC COV V V V V V V V V WWW W W W W C3� Z r J J JJ JJJ
1
r.
N
.
r
8
Ss
88
8
888
8SS
58888
g88
8gs
s
88888
8
8
Be
�S
8
F80
888
58588
S88
88€
S
€5888
x
x
7K
x Y(
x
x PC
aC x x W ac
x
PC x K
x
K aK x
3.0 3.c
x
xW
xsCx
acx
aKac>CW
x
x x
x
30C VC 3.c VK
x sK
x
aC PC
sc x sC
x sC
x x x sC
PC
x PC PC
x
x x x x
K X
}C
KK
KK
x
KKW
K 7CK
x KX PC 3-C
W
Kxx
x
xIK PC 3.0
rp K K 1K w K K w x X W YC x X
O
u7 G u', an en Ln
L
Q N .� CO N �+ r
F� r
O
N H'1 CD t0 u+ Cn %nvn CnOO Inu'fO O LnY9%n %n %m sn OuYnO
O N N N N N u1 CV N Nf %n N N %O — N tv N P9 %O N %O N of fn
m
IC rfn
P mr Ntv N m N AN a of Q Q.-• �D InN PCA Y. f N O cm
« _ r r r r r
0
H
tr N NP N
V n r r r
r0 CD �'.• Cn P Ln <fl 4w
r N
L N p
d V 40 !� S � a
�+ Y
N > e �I •
O V L c V N 1.
O r C
C C O ✓ A J > N L E �o O Y V
Foo C
9 C ?, i� N v . \7 — . L >� P C t9 T « CO {% �+ r «
i L w 10 u C¢ P m m a C r d C C O W L P J
1 C d C t Y Y L Y Q A« C A O N d �+ L > d C V_ O d V
czId
c« N4« c c 07T t« .- o a v a+ oma— o« T c c
P> Y Y Y > 7K C« r- CL C_C _C
1r G L L L A L L + O S O L L A p T C A O L O A 7 C A A R q d A A d
GC <C<fl CC COV V V V V V V V V WWW W W W W C3� Z r J J JJ JJJ
1
V
6.�C6.
g
c
S�25
25
61
� I
v
�
C
�
0
•
+
8
Qp
O
goo
�O/f N
O wl 6n 1%f
fA %M
O O
N
O
^
Q
O
N 1OA G
N
N K1 Ilf In
L
v
w
C
N
L
.7
c'
c$ cSCOD
Egos
$ 8n 0n S
0-8,
cn
-
8
.a v
e•f v� .n n
A
e�f
nc
t�nS
n r1 en
N
r)
r
7
C
r
c
ocos
SECS
co $
CE -cc
cchco
o 00
c
7 N
N ^ N ^
W
J
L
J
O
'
�
uo
o
W
_vl
� _
V —
Xx x
XXX X
X X
XXX
XXli X
X
r
�
yWj
—
V
v
H
O 1
=
L N
X X
X X 24 PC
X X
xxx
242424
x >�
v OI
s[
w
C
e a
C
ci
•, C
T C I
U
r`• •.�
NX
C. rl
X X X
X x X X
X X
XXX
X x X
X
6
Ld
a CI
N
y
u
`
O
w
—
_G N�
_
W x X?t
X>[ X 7[
Xx X
X X Xx
x Xx
L
O
O
N
—
V
C
W
+
01
^
�
�
r
u
^N
1 L
V
C
q �
X X
x
x
x
x X X
x X
u
c I
I
Y
Z
v dr V I
LM cn
W L L
^ N
�.
N
A u
W
M
0 0 Mf N
O O O 00
{f1 0 ��
Nell
00 a `n
O ^ N
N9 In N N
—
N
A
J O
N N
O P9
N %n r'1
• N r
r
W
N
L r
a�
Y1 M1
n fel ^ O
O .. �O M1
N N ^
•^ _
^
t
^^
.0..
N 7
=
c
�u
h^
wY
N
N
CY
N
�wol
c
E
L
L
N
�•
L
A G
C
O
N
L
C
2
q
d
O. Y Y
4
N .+
7
r 1
Zt
Y
C
Is
N^ J
> y O N
�• C 1 i e
L w .0i N L
V
L
J
`
q
_
Ci
O_ J f
2 z i
O o L
z O C G S
a •� D C O
S A C C Q
^ w w r w
2 Y 1 H N N
C
G
N N V 1 N N
`ice 3 3 3 2
N
A
-=4
FIGURE 3
SIZE OF METROPOLITAN RESIDENTIAL, CQ"-IMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
REFUSE COLLECTION COMPANIES
BY NUMBER OF COLLECTION VEHICLES
e2
50 ..............43...................................................
Is
e 2
1-2 3-4 5-10 11-40 40•
trucks trucks trucks trucks trucks
1154 responses out of 145 haulers contacted. (total number of
regional haulers Is approximately 215.2 Please not* that various
different collection vehicles are used with a wide range of capa-
cities. Also many of the smaller firma work on a part time basis.
FIGURE 4
t PERCH METROPOLITAN RESIDENTII, COWERCIAL -k4D INDUSTRIAL - -
REFUSE COLLECTION COMPANIES1
BY NUMBER OF COLLECTION VEHICLES
5x 11-4e 12» 4e•
12Z 3-11
53x 1-2
tax 3-4
1134 responses out of 125 haulers contacted. (total number of
regional haulers Is approxlmataly 215.) Please note that varlous
different eollectien vehicles are used With a wide range of capa-
sltles. Also many of the smaller firms work an a part time basis.
H
It should be noted that in recent years there has been an increase in
the number of local companies that have been acquired by the interna-
tional companies, especially those local firms that have a significant
percentage of their business collecting commercial wastes.
About 19 percent of the companies have four trucks or less and their
business appears to be concentrated in the residential collection busi-
ness. However, many of these firms do collect from commercial waste
generators. The small' firms appear to compete effectively in this mar-
ket only if the commercial stops are near their other accounts and are
not significant waste generators. Specialized equipment is needed to
handle wastes from large cornercial waste generators.
SER ViCS LEV--I S ANO ucOGRa?!?IC AREAS
There does not appear to be any difference in the type or levels of ser-
vices offered by most of the reTUSe collection rims under either of
the three methods for the provision or collection services. In gener-
al, residential refuse collection occurs once a week. For co,mercial
and industrial waste generators, refuse is picked up on a more frequent
schedule or as needed.
The collection of large, bulky items such as white goods, furniture,
etc. will vary depending upon the market structure. For exam^ole, in
Minneapolis the contract specifies that everything a homeowner puts out
`or pick u; will be collected even free, talky items. Usually, ,.nder
the household arrangement, households are li-ited to two or three =G-
callon cans. Bulky items cost extra, •although.leaves and other Yard
wastes are usually collected provided it is properly packaged for col-
lection. Many cities with contracts generally provide for spring and
fall clean up days to .manage leaves, brush and tulky items.
Some Cities may rec,uiTe szeclal types of pickup services for senior
citizens. !nese=rrancements are of :en suec if i ed in the contract wnere
a municipality contracts for the collection services. !t is not
unheard of that collectors operating under the household agreement ,�,ar-
ket arrancemient wil.1 provide cost differentials to senior citizens.
A significant percentage cf large household goods are handled through
other collection service providers such as Goodwill, Salvation Army or
American Council for the Blind. In essence these organizations provide
for recycling and capture of significant quantities of white goods,
textiles, furniture, shoes and a myriad of household items.
A number cf the smaller refuse collectors focus upon particular waste
streams. It is difficult to quantify but it appears that some haulers
work on a part-time basis and collect, possibly salvage, and dispose of
demolition wastes, construction materials.and other items. In our con-
versations with the collectors, the Council found that some collectors
who handle residential wastes are part-time too.. These collectors work
primarily in the evenings or Saturdays in addition to their regular
Job. A smail number of collectors are primarily in other business such
ip
=--'A
as landscaping, and collect refuse on the side. It is difficult to
quantify the percentage of collectors who operate in the refuse collec-
tion business on a part-time basis. .
Most collection companies operating under the household contract
arrangement try to keep their business within a certain geographic
area, for exa,,nple the Midway area of St. Paul, or North St. Paul,
Maplewood and parts of Roseville. It is to a collectors advantage to
keep travel time at a minimum for efficiency. In some cases there may
be five to 10 companies operating in a particular neighborhood. As
can be seen in Table 1, some municipalities have up to 12 different
companies operating in the city collecting residential refuse. A simi-
lar situation exists for collection of commercial wastes.
Most haulers under any of the service arrangements provide good service
to their customers or at least satisfy the expectations of their cus-
tomers for refuse removal (out of sight, out of mind). Local surveys
indicate that most people. are satisfied with refuse collection ser-
vices. So do national studies which show that everyone is satisfied
with refuse collection a tribute to the industry.
11
-=-
EVALUATION OF NEED FOR ORGANIZED COLLECTION
CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY AND REDUCE COLLECTION
Z =I
Collectors use a variety of ways to establish a price for waste dis-
posal. The costs o -f refuse collection and disposal may depend on the
type of material; its location in relation to the landfill and on the
collector's route; the size of the collection crew; frequency of pick-
up; the type and size of container the refuse is in; the need for any
special collection equipment; and whether the pick up is curb -side,
alley or walk-up, and the pricing of competitors.
Prices for corrercial and industrial waste collection vary. Based on
information taken from license applications from the City of St. Paul,
commercial rates vary from S23 per month for weekly pick-up from a
one cubic yard container to 5220 per month for a 40 cubic yard con-
tainer. Table 2 identifies the range of prices for collection of
commercial wastes within the City of St. Paul..
Table 2
COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES IN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, 1985*
MONTHLY CHARGES FOR 'MEEKLY PICK UP
Cubic Yard Capacity
Rate
Range
of Containers
Low
High
0.5
S_ 30.00
1.0
23.00
- 37.00
1.5
22.50
- 40.00
2.0
27.50
- 46.00
3.0
32.00
-. =2.00
4.0
40.00
- 50.00
6.0
60.00
- 65.00
8.0
75.00
10.0
100.00
15.0
125.00
- 150.00
20.0
140.00
- 170.00
25.0
150.00
30.0
170.00
- 200.00
40.0
190.00
- 220.00
*Source: Licensing a:plications f, -,r refuse haulers
in the city of St. Paul, ;Minn. 1985.
For residential waste generators, the price for collection services
depends upon many factors including the market structure for delivery
of services, the type of service (alley, curb or walk-in) and level of
12
service (bulky items, recycling service). Table 3 shows the differ-
ences in costs to the household as a consequence of the different
market structures, that is, household verbal agreements, franchise,
contract or municipal. For those households where the municipality
contracts for waste collection, total costs to the household (TCHS)
averages $6.03 per month. TCHS with a franchise arrangement averages
$7.03 per month. Where an individual household arranges with a waste
hauler for refuse collection, the TCHS averages 58.21 per month. Under
the municipal collection arrangement in Minneapolis, the YCHS averages
$7.02 per month whereas the TCHS for municipal collection in Farmington
is $8.67 per month. These costs are averages and do not reflect differ-
ences in the type of services provided for or whether the service is
curb -side, alley or walk-in.
It should be understood that all households will pay for refuse collec-
tion when the city contracts for refuse collection. Under the system
where each household arranges for refuse collection services, only
those households desiring the service will pay and oftentimes two or
more households will double up on one account. Some haulers estimate
that about 10 percent of the households in the St. Paul area do this.
MONTHLY
RESIDENTIAL
Market Structure
Household agreement
Franchise
Contract
a
Municipal:
Farmington24
Minneapolis
Table 3
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGESI
Mean
Monthly Charge
38.21
7.03
6.03
8.67
�7 C 21
Mean Monthly
Seniors/Disabled -
Charce
55.57
4.44
3.64
N/A
N/A
1Mean monthly base rate for weekly collection of a 60 -gallon
refuse contain (or the equivalent) curbside.
2Not including walk-up service, bulky -items, extra collection.
The majority do not use transfer stations.
3Approximately half include bulky items, spring clean up. Only
Minneapolis includes walk-up service. The majority do not use
transfer stations.
4Minneapolis includes walk-up service, bulky items, extra col-
lection, but not commercial or industrial wastes.
13
Why is it that refuse collection is more expensive when the household
arranges for collection services than when the municipality contracts
for it? National studies completed by the Center For Government Stud-
ies of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University have
shown that prices paid by households for contract or franchise collec-
tion where it was mandatory to use the designated private collector are
lower than those prices paid by households who use a private fire which
is not under contract to the city or which does not have an exclusive `
franchise. The studies noted that the difference in price can be
attributed to economies of scale and economies of contiguity (for
example, the ability to service all households along a given route,
thereby reducing travel time between stops) achieved ty firms under
contract and exclusive franchise as well as lower billing costs
associated with fines under contract. The study was based upon a
survey of 2,060 cities with a combined population of 52 million people.
A recent study completed for Carver County by John and Michele Genereux
described the refuse collection industry in the county. Although stat-
istical tests were not completed on comparing the costs of providing
refuse collection services among the municipalities within the county,
Table 4 shows that monthly costs to the household are about 51.50 to
3.20 per month less where organized collection exists. For examole,
households in the cities of Mayer, Hamburg and New Germany pay 55.73
per month for refuse collection as opposed to households in the cities
of Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver, Victoria, Cologne and Waccnia, which do
not have organized collection, pay 57.80 to 9.50 per month. All the
waste in Carver County is disposed of at the Louisville landfill.
Table 4
CARVER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECT'_CN CHARGEES
TO HOUSEHOLDS*
Number of Median Monthly
Community Haulers Resic'ential ;ata
Carver 2 8.00
Chanhassen 7 7.00 - 9.50
Chaska 5 8.00 - 9.50
Cologne 5 7.80 - 9.50
Mayer/Hamburg/New Germany 1 5.73
Norwood 1 6.60
Victoria 3 7.80 - 9.50
Waconia 2 7.80 - 8.00
Watertown 1 6.30 - 8.00
Young America 1 6.30
*Source: A description of the oriv?te waste hauling system in
Carver County. For the county of Carver. Jonn P. ano M.
Michele enereux. Feb. 26, 1985.
4
_T_ — LA
The elimination of overlapped collection routes provides for increased
efficiency for collection of wastes. It allows a collector to pick up
refuse from more households within the same amount of time. The city
of St. Paul, when it considered oro_anized collection of refuse, esti-
mated that a collector could do at least 50 more pickups in an eight-
hour day, an increase of 20 percent. Waste collectors in Minneapolis
noted similar increases in efficiency when collection services were
organized.
Additional efficiencies could be achieved with the establishment of
transfer stations in the region. Even if collection routes were organ-
ized, all haulers in St. Paul for example, must still travel at least
30 miles to the landfill. Each collector spends at least one hour and
20 minutes on the average delivering waste to the landfill. A transfer
station would permit a hauler to collect from more households if less
time is spent traveling to and from the landfill. Similarly, labor
costs are reduced because more households can be serviced within the
same amount of time by one person.
Transfer stations significantly reduce operating and maintenances costs
of refuse collection. However, they do increase the capital costs of
solid waste management. These costs should be considered in view of
the reduced mileage and travel time spent by refuse trucks going to the
landfill. Currently, there are few transfer stations in use in the
region. The travel distance to the landfill is an important factor in
the costs of solid waste management.
All the municipalities in the region that have some form of organized
collection system with a contract are listed in Table 5. Costs per
household range from $3.88 for Wayzata to 58.50 for St. Bonifacius.
There does not appear to be any substantial difference in the type or
level of service provided to Wayzata or St. Bonifacius. Other fac-
tors, such as the distance from the cities to the landfill, the one con-
tractor might have bid the job at a loss, may play a role in the differ-
ence. Some of the differences in costs among the cities with contract
collection are attributable to different levels of service (curbside or
alley pickup versus walk-up); collection of bulky items; distance to
the landfill; recycling programs; and profit percentages. Administra-
tion and monitoring costs amount to about five percent of the total
cost of the contract according to the study be Ecodata, Inc. It is
unclear whether cities recover their costs for billing expenses. Some
contracts specify the company to provide an on-call supervisor for
handling complaints.
Altogether, cities that have organized refuse collection have service
costs about one-fourth to one-third less than those relying on individ-
ual households to arrange for collection services. The cost for refuse
collection to households in contract cities is consistently less expen-
sive than for households that make their own arrangements for refuse
collection. It appears these cost differences can be accounted for by
the market structure of the collection services, that is, organized
versus unorganized. Other unknown factors may play a role in the cost
15
Z-�
15
r I
E
0 0 4 0 0
L sNi V
O O O L
C V v a
O O C
dL
zSrSz
r r >
z xzr
z» z
zz=
�
r
w C
J_
yC
6Cl
C
N V
�
v
W
J
p
N LI
L
�•,�
T N C1
¢ Ll
N N N
N
N
N N
N N
L C C
azz>r
> z z
z zaz
rzzzr
>=a
�
W
d
W
S
N
7
N T
d
d d Y
d d d�
d
O
ti•
C C
C
O
C -
e. C CID
O O
S
€ Y :J �
'J h �O
2
•G C
x
C C �O
S S x
222
=
q
v �e •-1
S
x
_
•ea aCl
C
N
S uv
d
S
N
y
d ~
r
• N N N N
N • N • N
• • N N N
• N N N N
N N N
L
q
�•TT�+T
�TTr 7•
�•i.Ti. a�
r>TTT
Thr
�_.
d C �I
N P1 N N
N NY
P1 N ^ P7
e•'1 P'1 P7
y
y r
u u
a C
L O
�ci
= q
w w
J 7.
I
J
<
N CL7
.4
o u
�,M
en f -I
On 6M
C u1 C O
^ C
�
L '�
=
C q)
•
h 10 •O
.
H'1 N
q
p- 11 J h M1
S Y7 1A h -V
eq h 10
<
= VI
M
C C C
C
r O M
N
<
-
ycd
r vi
-•O�Oc•'•
�h.O Nem
cvrr+c
c •ONOC
r•C�
.N.
�!�+%
S
N P<1
n �. N C N
! O N e� C
c n �o N C
e•'f h! e N
N C N
-�'�
O
' C0L
LI
f"! N to h �..•
1Q P7 C\ N =
L!i h
N .O e•'1 P'Y N
•� e"1 r7
L1� -
N
�G
rIN
N
I�
�
u
r C N d
�pNNNO
�O �Cl� o
mob! NSD
h NN
N r1
•O r
war
ntn u'fhC
h � /� P9
e•'I 1C �. cG'
c C N.c••�
n Oh�n u�i
r� �O c
C',N !
N � L
M �C N`
w'
w' moi►...
.
_.� h N
^
•
Pt f
•
T N
:r�r
V
W
�
ZIw
i V
N
! - d
N
r
r
L
O1�
A
N Y
1
C•.1+ L
q
w
d
�
m
T d �
�_
A 6 L
J�
L L
Jd
.-• I N ¢
w
�
_
d O w
N L C
r d •e1
C O C I
r
L t O O
L
da
Y 17 d 0
C J O w
C
w d TZi
CJ r
C,_ el
J
<mV
O O
Y�� C
W��S Z
ZSOOC
NNNN►�
V
'd
Z.T
�NP1
15
0
=�—A
differences. Figure 5 highlights the differences in cost to the house-
hold per month for refuse collection when there are one or more haulers
servicing a municipality. The increased costs in the household aeree-
ment system which averages $8.21 per month are due to the extra costs
associated with the non -exclusivity of collection in a given area.
Municipalities or townships with franchise collections are listed in
Table 6. The costs to the household per month under a franchise
arrangement range from a low of S4.32 for Jordan to a high of $8.75 for
Afton. The average cost per month for all the franchise arrangements
is $7.03. All but one of the franchise agreements are negotiated
between the waste hauler and the city.
There is little information available to document whether organized
collection of commercial and industrial refuse could result in cost
savings to the waste generator. Based upon the available data from
residential refuse collection, it is reasonable to infer that some of
the diseconomies associated with each commercial waste generator
arranging for refuse collection exist as it does for the residential
sector. Presumably, some cost efficiencies could be achieved if ser-
vice to commercial waste generators could be provided for in conjunc-
tion with organized collection of residential refuse. Additional study
is needed to document whether a reduction in costs is realistic. Fur-
thermore, the practicality of an organized collection system for commer-
cial waste generators depends on several factors including the type of
waste requiring disposal, frequency of service, proper collection equip-
ment and suitable pricing arrangements. Appropriate commercial estab-
lishments could be folded into an organized residential collection_
route.
Refuse collection services are in many ways similar to a utility's
function and services such as water, sewer, or electricity. The demand
for refuse collection services, as for most utilities, is inelastic,
that is people have a need for the service but do not demand more ser-
vice if the price goes down. If demand is inelastic, economic theory
says that tax increases will pass through to the consumer of the ser-
vice or goods. Households in the region have experienced increases in
their bills as a direct result of the surcharge on tipping fees at the
landfill. Most increases were about 50 cents per household per month
or $6 annually. This is approximately the increase that could be
expected as a consequence of the surcharge if it were all passed
directly back to the consumer based upon the amount of waste generated
by a typical household in one year. At least one contract between a
municipality and hauler, Hastings, was recently renegotiated as a
direct result of the surcharge on disposal fees according to a city
official. Columbia Heights provided a clause in its contract for com-
plete reimbursement of additional landfill fees approved after 1985.
17
=-,'A
Figure 5.
FREQUENCY OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION CHARGES
(MAY 1985)
40
35
30
10
5
C
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
Monthly Single Family Collection Charge in Dollars
(rounded to nearest half --dollar)
Source: Metropolitan Council survey. May 1985.
1g
`v
25
a
`0
20
z
15
10
5
C
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
Monthly Single Family Collection Charge in Dollars
(rounded to nearest half --dollar)
Source: Metropolitan Council survey. May 1985.
1g
q
— N m
19
=--q
�+ N
C E
EL-
6
o COC 4 c
Z Z Z Z y Z
✓ O
q L
a �
G v�
N
I Q
Tc�l
N N
ecdedo
q jl
zzYZYz
N
V �-
cc
cc
n�
N dl
^
> N
= E L
y q
N N N
d dN 0 6: C d
Y Y Z Y Z 21-
V �"•
SC A N)
J
E
^
pp pp
O OH O c
to I
c"
V
q G q
S L7 I
Y v
W
=
T
d
W
W
C
J
C
d
Z
p�• d
d d d 6: d
W
G
7�0 d
H L
ZZZZ V Z
v+
a
W
Q
�O C
J
C�
• N • N N
^V1
-
E E
s- s- s- $- i-
T
s-
L d
2
~ C
d O V
}••� L
N1n
L.
C�
r
N
\ d dI
L r•
O I�
^
q 0
C N
1
L17 P'1
NG V
M
C
d!
1A Kt OO 04 Lm
PY —
S
co -r
C
i
S C)
H
W
Q
4
N
=
J
C
H•
T C d
r
J = L
u
c0 CD -7
NC
nN c'•'i �I7c
L
C C
N Pf N N
W
O
S
L O�
� N V
NP10 NrN
R N✓ >
Nlf. Q10l Oc
E O—L
Oen Invv
c
c d
J � = N
C .•�•� N
W
✓
V
q
L
� r q
s
C
C t d+ q d
�
ov✓✓t✓
_
✓ L C N L
1r^ dv C_
c ¢ u = 11.) 3
q
— N m
19
=--q
CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IYPACTS AND IMPROVE
PUBLIC SAFETY?
Organized collection does reduce nuisance impacts associated with sev-
eral refuse collectors picking up waste on the sa.Te block. Organized
collection reduces wear and tear on roads and improves air duality
because fuel consumption is reduced. Organized collection improves
public safety because fewer miles are traveled by garbage trucks
thereby decreasing the potential for accidents.
The expected life of any street or alley surface_ is related to the traf-
fic which is carried by the street or alley. The roadway surface is
particularly affected by heavy wheel loads. The effect on a roadway of
one refuse truck is equivalent to 1,500 automobiles. This figure has
been documented by the Research Section of the Minnesota Department of
Transoortation (Mn/DOT) and is currently used by `".n/DOT in street and
highway design.
In its organized collection efforts, St. Paul estimated to what degree
the life of a street can be extended if refuse collection were orcan-
ized. The city assumed that if under the current system, where each
household arranges for collection, traffic volume on a given street is
500 cars per day and five refuse trucks per week, the equivalent traf-
fic on the street amounts to 11,000 cars per week. Under an organized
collection system with only one reTJSe truck per 'Week, the equivalent
traffic on the street is 5,000 cars per week. The comparison shows
that the effect on the roadway by traffic may be substantially
reduced.
Realistically, all streets might not last substantially longer under an
organized collection system because roadway life is decendent upon many
other factors than traffic. However, traffic does have a significant
effect upon roadway life. These additional road'.•ay costs are external
costs passed on the the city as a consequence o' each household arrang-
ing for refuse collection.
The reduced mileace that refuse trucks travel can Teduce the potential
number of accidents involving garbage trucks. Reducing the number of
miles traveled by garbage trucks reduces traffic ccncestion and may
reduce the number of accidents.
Emissions of air pollutants would be reduced because garbage trucks
would reduce total mileage. The precise reducticn in pollutants as a
result of moving to an organized collection system is difficult to
predict because there are beth gasoline and diesel powered collection
vehicles, and it is difficult to estimate the reduction in traffic
congestion and miles traveled by garbage trucks that would be achieved
by organized collection. The emission rates of pollutants vary accord-
ing to the speed of the vehicle with more emissions at lower speeds.
Emissions of importance include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxides. Heavy duty diesel trucks also emit particulates,
20
sulfur oxides, aldehydes and organic acids. Of particular concern are
particulate emissions from diesel engines because they contain poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) which are known carcinogens.
Organized collection is one of several methods that could improve
neighborhood aesthetics. It could eliminate the unsightliness of
containers set out for collection sometimes every day of the week on
some blocks. Oroanized collection could discourage illegal dumping and
stockpiling of unwanted and unsightly items in backyards because the
costs of removal are generally extra where a household arranges for
collection with a was; hauler. Reducing litter, dumping and stock-
piling could contribute to public health and safety.
CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COUtNCIL 'S
SOLID WASTE GUIDE CHAPTER?
This section of the report will evaluate to what extent organized col-
lection can facilitate attainment of the objectives for waste manace-
ment contained in the Council's solid waste policy plan. Three main
areas of concern are the objectives for recycling, management of house-
hold hazardous wastes and improved data collection and management.
Organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste will not necessar-
ily increase participation in recycling activities or the amounts of ;
materials recycled. The hauler providing collection services for recy-
clables, if operating under the system where each household arranges
for collection services, is at a competitive disadvantage because the
revenues from recyclables may not cover the additional collection
costs. This is one reason why few refuse haulers in the Metropolitan
Area provide for comprehensive recyclables collection. If a hauler E
does provide for recyclables collection,, it is probably for a limited
number of materials, that which can be collected in racks attached to
the packer truck.
In some communities in the Metropolitan Area where franchises or con-
tracts are provided for by the municipality, some haulers are providing
for recyclables collection or separate collection of yard waste to
reduce their cost at the landfill. A municipality can more easily pro-
vide monetary or other incentives to the hauler, household or business
to participate in source separation activities if collection is
organized.
Under the system where each household arranges for collection service,
haulers have the opportunity to assess the household's fee based upon
the volume of refuse collected. As land disposal fees rise and become
a greater percentage of total cost of solid waste management, one would
expect differences in monthly rates attributable to the amount of
refuse generated. This provides direct feedback to the household or
waste generation as opposed to most existing contract arrangements
where all households pay the same monthly fee regardless of the volume
of waste generated. However, a variable rate could be established
under a contract arrangement if so desired by the municipality.
21
In regards to data collection and management, a municipality with organ-
ized collection, deoending upon how it is implemented, more easily can
facilitate the development of a comprehensive data collection and mnan-
agement system for solid waste. Organized collection' could facilitate
collection of information about the quantities of waste generated,
recycled or processed in municipalities by population or households, or
businesses. This information could be used by the Council and counties
to target incentives for abatement programs and focus the direction of
the Metropolitan Abatement Fund grant and loan program administered by
the Council.
CAN ORGANIZED CCLLECT:ON INTEGRATE OR ENUAraCE EXzSTiNG COUNTY AND
LOCAL .auTHOkiis=S rGR 'NASiE MANAGEXENT?
Currently, municipalities have the authority for provision of waste
collection services. Municipalities have the authority to implement -
resource recovery facilities by virture of its authority over collec-
tion of waste. Counties, on the other hand, have responsibility for
overall waste management within the county but may not have the
authority for requiring collection services. Consequently, in the
past, development of resource recovery facilities by the counties is
made more tentative because of their lack of authority to ensure a
waste flow to the facility.
Currently, state: law provides counties with the authority for waste
designation. This authority enables the county to direct the f7 ow
refuse to a designated resource recovery facility. The provisions
enabling county desicnat:on were adopted it 1980.
The general issue of need for designation (flow control) has been
debated by the legislature for the past 10 years. When the Legis'.ativ=
Commission on 'Taste Management was created in 1980, it was charged in
part with studying alternative methods of insuring adequate waste
supplies for resource recovery facilities. he !crr,rission's rencrt,
comple.ed in 1922, concluded to at the feasibility cT resource recovery
facilities is dependent upon 'Haste supply, the soundness of the tech-.
nology and markets'for the recovered product. The Commission found
that the waste stream must be assured in some -manner to assure financ-
ing and to permit efficient operation. -Generally waste is assured by
requirinc delivery to a facility, but the Ccrmission, recognized that
under rare circumstances, such as the lack of any other disposal alter-
native, explicit waste assurance might not be needed.
The system of refuse collection where each household and business ince-
collection arranges for waste collection service makes the development
of resource recovery facilities more ccmplicated because an individual
hauler cannot guarrantee delivery of waste to a resource recovery
facility. From day-to-day or month-to-month, the waste generator's
decision on which hauler to use can change. Though the waste is still
there and must be collected, there is no assurance that the new waste
hauler will deliver the waste t0 the same facility the previous
collector used.
22
In other parts of the country, several resource recovery facilities
rely on long-term contracts with municipalities for their waste sup-
ply. In some cases the municipal workers collect the waste and in
others, the city contracts with private haulers for the service. In
these cases organized collection merely substitutes municipal designa-
tion for county designation. Because few Twin Cities communities pro-
vide collection service, this approach is not available in our region.
There is only one municipality in the region that generates enough
waste by itself to construct even a medium-sized resource recovery
facility, that is a facility that could manage about 500 tons per day.
Currently, none of the Metropolitan Area communities that contract for
service specify where waste is to be delivered for disposal; that
choice is left to the hauler. Specification of a disposal site,
however, could be incorporated as part of the service agreements. This
is one way in which organized collection could potentially be a strong
complement to waste designation. If successfully negotiated, contracts
between resource recovery facilities and municipalities could provide
for delivery of adequate waste supplies. In a parallel vein, haulers
operating under collection service agreements would have an enhanced _
capability to contract with recovery facilities for delivery of waste.
In either case, the effort and complexity required to enforce waste
desicnation could be substantially lessened. The degree of this effect
would be directly proportional to the length of the contracts.
23
LIABILITIES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION
There are four potential liabilities or disadvantages to organized
collection of refuse. Organized collection reduces an individual's
choice of garbage collectors, requires additional municipal involve-
ment, broaches anti-trust issues and could potentially adversely affect
existing refuse collection companies.
Households that currently arrange with a hauler for refuse removal
would no longer be able to select the hauler of their choice. This
runs counter to the nationwide trend of permitting individuals more
choice in the type and level of services desired. However, a survey by
the Minnesota Center for Social Research completed Mar. 29, 1985,
showed broad-based support for municipal control, with 77 percent of
those respondents who now select their garbage hauler willing to let
the city decide, although some agree only if it reduces their cost.
There was a small minority, about 11 percent of the population, or
about 20 percent of the respondents who selected their garbage hauler,
who felt strongly that they wanted to retain choice. The study sug-
gested that this group be studied further to identify their concerns.
Organized collection will require municipalities with unorcanized
reTuse collection to become more involved in refuse collection issues.
Because there is a great deal of satisfaction amono households and bus-
inesses about 'he manner in which refuse is handled, it may be diffi-
cult to explain why additional government involvement is necessary..
Municipalities will have to overcome the concern, "If it ain't broke,
why fix it?" Although the cost differentials to the households of the
different market structures is not great, the sum of the costs to all
the households in the city over a period of a year's time can be signif-
icant. For ex -mm -ole, if St. Paul went to an organized collection sys-
tem, it could expect an annual savings of at least S1 million based
uoon 54,986 sincl_-family housing units and a Si.:O differentia'' in
cost per household per month.
Municioalities will incur costs associated with administration, billing
and monitorinc performance of the contract. Billing can be done in con-
4unction with other municipal billings such as property tax stataments
or utility bills. National studies show that billing expenses are much
less if handled by the municipality rather than the waste hauler.
Administration and monitoring costs amount to about five percent of the
total cost of the contract accordinc to the study by Ecodata, Inc.
How organized collection is implemented in the region may be affected
by anti-trust law. This matter requires additional study.
Implementation of organized collection by municipalities has the poten-
tial to adversely impact some refuse collection companies. An increase
in productivity .mems that fewer people are needed to peri`orm the same
24
I --
function. Consequently, fewer collection crews would be needed to col-
lect refuse under an organized collection system. Whether this means a
reduction in collection companies depends upon how organized collection
is implemented. The businesses of some waste haulers, particularly
those operating part-time or collecting waste as a job on the side, may
be adversely affected.
The implementation of the waste management system envisioned by the
Council's solid waste policy plan may work to offset any negative
impacts upon the collection industry as a result of organized collec-
tion. The provision of collection services for yard waste, recyclabies
and household hazardous wastes may compensate for the reduction in the
labor force if organized collection were implemented by a significant
number of cities in the region. Also, there is an opportunity for new
business ventures into management of the yard waste compost sites or
recyclabies processing facilities. The expansion or development of new
industries as a result of increased recycling activities could also
increase the demand for labor.
25
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Organized collection may reduce the costs of residential refuse col-
lection by increasing collection efficiencies. Additional study is
needed to determine if organized collection may benefit commercial
and industrial waste generators.
2. Organized collection reduces adverse environmental impacts when
more than one hauler services a given area or provides the same
type of collection service.
3. OrganizeCcollecticn does not inherently increase participation
in recycling or other abatement programs. It can be implemented in
ways that would help to achieve the abatement objectives of the
Solid Waste Manacement Guide/Policy Plan.
4. Organized collection cannot substitute for waste designation by
the county, but can complement it.
5. Municipalities and towns have adequate authority to organize col-
lection of residential refuse. -
e. Organized collection of residential refuse may be a net benefit to
solid waste management because it may reduce costs and environ-
mental impacts; help implement abatement programs; and improve
information about waste generation, composition and abatement.
7. There is no need for a regional system for implementation of
organized collection. However, individual cc-nnunities should
consider the potential benefits of organized collection.
25
-2--y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annual Report, Sanitation Division 1983. Minneapolis, Minn.
Takina the Waste Out of Minnesota's Refuse. Citizens League,
Minneapolis, Minn. Aug. 1975.
Keeping the Waste Out of Waste:A Proposal to Minimize the Risks by
Decentraiizino the Solid Waste Disposal System. Citizens League.
Minneapolis, Minn. May 19K.
Comparative Study of Municipal Services Delivery, Refuse Collection.
ed. Barbara Stevens. Ecodata, Inc. New York N.Y. 19
John P. and M. Michele Genereux. A Description of the Private Waste
Haulina System in Carver Countv. Minnesota and referred Landfii
Abatement Options for Private Haulers: Results of Inter7�iewswitn Waste
Haulers Conducted in Feb. 1985. Carver County, Minn. 1985.
Proposed Residential Solid Waste Collection Plan for St. Paul, Minn.
Citizens" Solid Waste Committee and Dept. of Public Works, St. Paul,
Minn. 1979.
E.S. Savas and Barbara Stevens. Evaluatino the Organization of Service
Deliverv: Solid Waste Collection and Disoosal. Center for Government
tudies, Columbia University. New York, N.Y. 1976.
1 Barbara Stevens. "Scale, Market Structure and the Cost of Refuse Col-
lection." Review of Economics and Statistics. Aug. 1978. 438-448.
Dennis Younc_. How Shall We Collect the Garbage? The Urban Institute.
Washington, D.C./2.
27.
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN 5 DRAWZ
a Professional Association
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-0543
Page 1 January 9, 1987
ti
C L I E N T S U M M A R Y pi v'"
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3652 Project 404
18.75 $18.75
3756 Mendota, Inc
16,775.00 439.17 $17,214.17
MATTER 4
MATTER NAME FEES
DISB
TOTAL
A5242699
Project 853 Vicksburg Lane
37.50
$37.50
100
Complaints
438.00
$438.00
110
General
7,070.00
220.20
$7,290.20
111
Prosecution - Court Time
5,086.00
48.95
$5,134.95
111A
Prosecution -office Time
5,895.00
59.59
$5,954.59
1024
Codification
98.58
$98.58
1321
Thornton, Francis J.
300.00
$300.00
1554
Project 024 Highway 55
17.00
$17.00
3036
Project 404 Eminent Domain
431.25
$431.25
3243
Sampson, Glenn 0.
30.00
$30.00
3281
Project 455
18.75
6.30
$25.05
3360
Project 426 Carlson Center
765.00
750.00
$1,515.00
3652 Project 404
18.75 $18.75
3756 Mendota, Inc
16,775.00 439.17 $17,214.17
Page 2 January 9, 1987
C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB
3846 Johnson Inverse Condemnation
67.50
3888 Police Officer Negotiations
405.00
3900 Lamson, Robert
140.00
4023 1986 Sergeant Negotiations
37.50
4040 Hazardous Building
303.75
4148 Protect 544
123.31
Is
TOTAL
$67.50
$405.00
$140.00
$37.50
$427.06
18.75
$18.75
4263
Project 544 - Fernbrook Lane
N
168.75
$168.75
4265
Cavanaugh Hazardous Buildings
131.25
17.00
$148.25
4398
Moles --zoning Violation
67.50
$67.50
4560
12510 28th Ave N --Unsanitary
Condition
682.50
14.70
$697.20
4628
Park Acquisition
543.75
9.60
$553.35
4646
Project #804
37.50
$37.50
4701
Project 655 - Easement
131.25
$131.25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
$41,404.65
15
III. SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
i
The Citizens' Committee, working with BRW and the City staff, considered
two alternative sites for the Community Center. One, designated the West
Site, is located at the northeast corner of the "T" intersection of
Plymouth Boulevard and 35th Avenue North. The other, designated as the
East Site, is located on the north boundary of 34th Avenue North, with its
southwestern corner one-quarter mile east of Plymouth Boulevard.
Aside from all other criteria for site selection, the relative cost of
developing each site was considered. The two major considerations were:
o Cost of placing the building on the site as influenced by access,
topography or other surface conditions.
Io Cost of soil correction required due to poor subsoil conditions.
There was no significant difference in the cost of developing either site.
In regard to subsoil conditions, both sites provide relatively good con-
ditions cf bearing and drainage. Neither site will require extensive soil
correction. These conditions were determined from a soils report, prepared
by STS Consultants Ltd., based on soil borings taken on each site. The
soils report was requested by BRW upon authorization by the City of
Plymouth. A copy of this soils report was sent to Eric Blank, Director of
Parks and Recreation.
BRW prepared a Site Forces Evaluation process for community participation
in considering other criteria. This included criteria for both off-site
and on-site forces. Each site was evaluated by BRW as to how well it per-
formed on each criterion and was assigned a numerical "score" on a scale of
1 to 5 with 5 representing the best performance. A detailed description o*
BRW's evaluation and scoring is included below:
SUBTOTAL 51 SUBTOTAL 39
GRAND TOTAL70 DRANO TOTAL 66
Ition
Located on en In collector,
try turns Into site,
Site at elwatlon bet.emn
street and park, access
.00er at a.
Location on Plywouth
Boufevard, highly rissole.
Activlty areas closer to
grade of perk, sots v.Qo-
tatlon to rang In,
No sunt line, farther
than eeSt Site, Mnd
Intervening,
Sight line relationship,
hm sing adjacent,
Sight If ne relationship.
C1.1c linter aojacert.
Landform, viers, e a sting
vegetation, pond p01e1•lal.
major tree ref,0•al, lend-
fori alteration.
So, t,east Orlentatlon.
Seeding from e.lstlng
trees.
E^fry on rest side, e. -
"sed in •inter.
V,,king in "front yard"
some adjacent to open
soac✓per.,
Parking Split rlth SOme at
loner level.
%%jority of parking r.rtite
from mein entry.
Building for. .dre "In"
life, outdoor space fora
elth grade and trees.
Balce street level, less
vlsibfe f•omf off-site,
.e "r landform alteratlon,
E.cess cut and fill Likely
due to steepness.
Topsoil/4lav end Silt
Lenses, so+ perched rater,
Ele.etion bald strut,
potentisi probleei prnvld-
Ing sees'.
Loss of amenity and prime
location maybe
more
sultsble for 01,41 par./
open space uses.
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CENTER SITE ANALYSIS
EAST SITE WEST SITE
I-Site Forces: rel ht x value Total Site Conditions rill ht x value Iota
1. vehicular Access
3
Located on collector street, left
4
turns required to entK .
2„ Pedestrian Access
3
Site higher than street and
4
park, access difficult.
3. Visibility of Site
3
Location on 34th somerhat remote.
S
4. %istionshlp to open Space/
2
Overeler only.
4
Park Amenity Area
3, PAIStlonshlp to Open Space/
4
Sight line relotlonShlp, close
2
Park Outdoor Soorts Meas
distance, stress Intervening,
6,. Relationship to Sen for
2
Slot IIn♦ relationship,
4
Citizen mousing
housing distant,
7. Relationship to Civic Center
2
Sir line relationship,
4
pond and wetland IntKwning,
Z
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
1s
[Sit,_Sq4KJfJc Forces:
1, E.isttng Site Amenitfes
3
Landlore, viers
3
2, Retained Site Aienitlas
S
Site a enftfes retained
2
3, Soler OrientetIon for Pool
S
sdael south orientation
3
y
1 4, Orientation/Location of
4
Entry on east side.
2
I
)j 9ullding Entrance
ilt
3. Psrking Location
4
Parking on side, some
3
adjacent to open spaceipark.
I
6, Perking ReletlonShlD to
2
All perking at upper level.
4
t
Ice Arena
j
7. Parking Relationship to
4
Welorily of parking adjacent
2
Building Entrance
to wain entry,
B„ Spatial Definition treated
3
Billloing for. sites non"
3
by Building Location
site, no outdoor space
I orted.
9. Grode Relatlonsnlp of
4
Above strut level, risible,
3
PuildIngto Surr ou'd Ings
landf ors maintained.
�
1
l
Grading actm0 : Anticipated
10. Gradin I p
4
Reasonable tit and fill
2
•Flt^ .11th SITO
balance potential.
�1
II, Soll Co. I tions
A
Sand/Gra.el/Tfll, some
2
I
perched ratK.
12, Pot entfef Ut" "" Costs
4
Elevation above street,
3
no problems anticipated.
13. Lost Potential For Other Uses
S
Little loss of potential,
(
3
suitability for use high,
SUBTOTAL 51 SUBTOTAL 39
GRAND TOTAL70 DRANO TOTAL 66
Ition
Located on en In collector,
try turns Into site,
Site at elwatlon bet.emn
street and park, access
.00er at a.
Location on Plywouth
Boufevard, highly rissole.
Activlty areas closer to
grade of perk, sots v.Qo-
tatlon to rang In,
No sunt line, farther
than eeSt Site, Mnd
Intervening,
Sight line relationship,
hm sing adjacent,
Sight If ne relationship.
C1.1c linter aojacert.
Landform, viers, e a sting
vegetation, pond p01e1•lal.
major tree ref,0•al, lend-
fori alteration.
So, t,east Orlentatlon.
Seeding from e.lstlng
trees.
E^fry on rest side, e. -
"sed in •inter.
V,,king in "front yard"
some adjacent to open
soac✓per.,
Parking Split rlth SOme at
loner level.
%%jority of parking r.rtite
from mein entry.
Building for. .dre "In"
life, outdoor space fora
elth grade and trees.
Balce street level, less
vlsibfe f•omf off-site,
.e "r landform alteratlon,
E.cess cut and fill Likely
due to steepness.
Topsoil/4lav end Silt
Lenses, so+ perched rater,
Ele.etion bald strut,
potentisi probleei prnvld-
Ing sees'.
Loss of amenity and prime
location maybe
more
sultsble for 01,41 par./
open space uses.
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CENTER SITE ANALYSIS
17
On May 24 and June 12, the Citizens' Committee reviewed the criteria. The
Citizens' Committee established the relative importance of each criterion
by voting for a numerical weight on a preference scale of 1 to 5 in
ascending order of preference.
By multiplying the weight by the value for each criterion for each site, a
final numerical expression or "score" for each site was determined. This
score is no more than a cumulative numerical expresssion of the relative
performance of each site for each criterion, based on BRW's judgment and
the Citizens' Committee's preferences.
Off-site and on-site forces were scored separately, then were combined.
The scoring for each site can be seen on the following sheets which were
used for Citizens' Committee participation.
�✓ 'T 3
v .-
fZ
f
O
10'
O
W
O
N N
Q
`=Q
W
UJ
j�
J
W
~
Vic.
V
W
�✓ 'T 3
v .-
i
N
f
O
10'
O
N N
�'mr�l
N
N;
M, M /9
N
r
N
I N r
l7 I If!
0,
Q'
N
V j !•!
! Q
Q
R Q
0 i 1171
O
N
f
M
N
M
M Mku
MI
W
WU)
W QI
�'
Iym
p
�i00�
IF
a¢
W,OI
1
W
<
-I
M�
ITIQI
.�
Q
Ny
U 9!
W
W
W
Q
Z
0
H
O
H
W
H
N Qi
=
W�
v NI
U
~
C
a
a
ui
U
0
O
V!
W �y
ly y�
W
OQ
00
p'U
(�
�Z
W
W
Z
Q
0-
U
N
Z
NW
ZU'ZZ
y
Z
Q
U
gf
W
U
I
W U
W
h-
OQ
ON
OS
HZ
. p I
i
Q
Q
f.
UZ
O
OZ
QD
ZO
�
U U
U Q
i7j
ay
f -L
a0
0.W
a
U
M
W
Q
F-
JQ
�Q
F-
P
Q
F -Q
Q�
LY-
ZV
09
U
QW
LL.
Q Z
t�
O
(n Z!10
� ^_�
N'—
rJ
�-
y
vl
uZt
O Z
W
UC�
v
W
ci Z
6-
M -p
Q
CL
�y
►- Z
Z I
a Q
ZW
=0
Fc
z
y
p
Z
�
QZ'Z.ZZ
J
QQ
¢W
p J
W
cr¢
J
a
�I
O�
p�
O
�
F-
W
Z
ZZ
Z
<Z
¢
z7—
0 H
O �-
gl
1
W.
JQ
JIL;J'J
jL,Z
``
H
1-
Q
Wa
Q
2a'QSR
yyyyy,,,,,�����
Q;
�U� F-
tJf
>
>'¢a¢a¢
w
WQ�Oma0.W0.0anmcQ'JXc��vOiS
tii
JO
N !7
R
i ui m
HI
6
<
of
16 fA
6
! Ql
O
N
r r
6
r
gel
A C:
t
CA r4i 0! r40
9-1
z
3
0
Z
cc
LLI
4LLJ
O
Z
-a03
CA r4i 0! r40
9-1
3
CA r4i 0! r40
9-1
w
04
C4 0
Ntm
01
0
al
go
Cl 0
yi�tol
01
0
4c
rjuv
dcm
Do-
Z 0
w
!o
!o
cc
f
cc
IQ
z
IC
z
0 1-
CCI
Y)
0
. (A L
(A'
W Jj!
j L
z
0
i
CL
IL
u=j
U)
cn OIN
=
U)
W
0
-C
cc
t
VA 5, 0
u
U.
P
dc UJ
V)w
zo
z
0
0 CC
0
W
LU uj
Uj
t- 11
--Z, t-
L6
0
W,
CJ,
Z
OX (a
o
U.
j
V!
0: OK
10.10.
CL9
CLUJ IL
- w
w I-
Jw
7w
-
44
c
tr,No
4c
4c UJ
be
cc 4c
W
20
ma:
4
2 L
00-
uz
—
z
— w
-C
COW
0-i
R vi
P z
IS
LU
Z
10; 9
0,0
a; w
o
0, iz
Z. W
00;
ZZ,4(Z.
-1 0
cc
0 x
z
0
4c
ex; -u
cc
za
j
'a
2 9 -c
cc
25a
—
53:
4c
0 z
FW t~A
zip
4c
0.
4
ICE a.
ujw 1
= (4 : ic
t
w1m:0
5
0 cia
Rw
0. 9L2
0.9
0
0-
0
O
q-; cm Pf
IV
I vi t4d Is:.
L
I
_I
20
As the site sheets show, the West Site scored better on off-site forces and
the East Site better on on-site forces. This means that the West Site is a
more desirable location and the East Site is easier to develop. As a
result of this split, the Citizens' Committee was asked to vote its overall
preference. The vote split almost evenly (11 to 10 in favor of the East
site). The committee then decided that, in view of the closeness of the
vote, it would recommend that the site decision be made by the City
Council.
SUMMARY
r
The Plymouth Community Center Citizens' Committee, in considering the
programmatic and physical issues regarding the development of a new
Community Center, arrived at the following recommendations:
o A new Community Center should be built, containing a wave pool,
gymnasium, single ice arena, senior center, social spaces and
ancillary facilities as described earlier in this report. Tne
total gross square foot area will be approximately 119,690 sq. ft.
o The cost of the program including building, furniture and equip-
ment, and basic and estimated additional design services cost,
will be approximately $8,165,182.
(includes architectural and engineering fee at .07% (.0625 + .075))
o The final decision on the site for the Community Center is to be
made by the City Council.
LeFeN ere
Lef ler
KenncdN-
O'Brien 8: C> DI
2000 First Bank Place West
MEMORANDUM
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
TO: SRA Directors and SRA City Managers
Telephone (612) 3330543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
FROM: Glenn Purdue, SRA Counsel
Clayton L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler
J. Dennis O'Brien
DATE: January 14, 1987
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
RE: Draft Uniform Electric Franchise
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
Action on the draft Uniform Electric Franchise is on the
Herbert P. Lefler III
James J. Thomson, Jr.
Agenda for next Wednesday's SRA annual meeting. A copy
Thomas R. Galt
of the draft franchise is enclosed for your review prior
Dayle Nolan
to the meeting, if possible. We have been trying to
Brian F. Rice
John G. Kressel
negotiate a franchise agreement with Northern States
Lorraine S.Clugg
Power Company (NSP) over the period of the last two
James M. Strommen
years. For the past year we have been close to stalled
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
because of an issue over the right of a city to mpos_e._a_
Kurt J. Erickson
franchise fee. NSP has adamantly resisted, up to this
William R. Sknerud
time; any— provision in the franchise allowing for a
Rodney D. Anderson
Corrine A. Heine
franchise fee. The SRA committee's instruction from the
David D. Beaudoin
Board was to try to obtain an agreement on the terms of a
Paul E. Rasmussen
franchise.
Steven M. Tallen
Finally, this week, NSP offered a proposed provision
concerning a franchise fee, and I have incorporated that
language in Section 9 of the enclosure. There are
several important aspects of the proposal which you
should consider:
1. NSP proposed a cap of 4%. I have drafted 5%,
whi-cfiis- -t-he sa de figure contained in -the SRA
Uniform Gas_ Franchise. The Board should
address the question of whether any cap should
be stated, and if so, whether it wishes to
approve a recommended franchise with a cap
which may not be accepted by the company.
2. The fee would be _paid to a city not less
frequently than quarterly.
3. Section 9.4 is the company's proposal. If a
city had authority to do so, the condition
stated would require a city to impose an equal
or greater tax on any other energy source..
SRA Directors and SRA City Managers
January 14, 1987
Page 2
before it could collect an electric franchise
fee. Secondly, the last sentence purports to
require a city not to reduce real property
taxes once it begins to collect a franchise
fee. The SRA committee has not considered this
proposal.
4. Section 9.1 requires a notice_ period of at
least 60 days prior to the enactment of a
franchise fee ordinance. The company can be
expected to attempt to mobilize residents to
resist during that period.
I do not believe there are any substantial changes from
the form which was sent out for review prior to the
September meeting.
Draft of 01/14/87
SRA UNIFORM ELECTRIC FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF , COUNTY
MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO , A
MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE,
REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF
, MINNESOTA AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBU-
TION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING
NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPUR-
TENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND
OTHERS, AND TO USE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC
GROUNDS OF SAID CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 "City" In this Ordinance, "City" means the City of
, County of , State of Minnesota.
1.2 "City Utility System" refers to the facilities used for
providing sewer, water, or any other public utility service owned
or operated by City or agency thereof.
1.3 "Company" means ► a
Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns.
1.4 "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties
on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed
to the Division General Manager thereof at
Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Clerk.
1.5 "Public Way" means any street, alley, or other public
right-of-way within the City.
1.6 "Public Ground" means land owned by the City for park,
open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by
the public.
1.7 "Electric Facilities" means electric transmission and
distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, ducts, fix-
tures, and necessary appurtenances owned or operated by the
Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public
use.
SECTION 2. FRANCHISE
2.1 Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a
period of twenty years from January 1, 1987, the right to trans-
mit and furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and other
purposes for public and private use within and through the limits
of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extend-
ed in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct,
operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over,
under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City
subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Company may do all
reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these
purposes, subject, however, to zoning ordinances, other applica-
ble ordinances, permit procedures, and to the further provisions
of this franchise.
2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise
shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law, and its acceptance by the Compa-
ny. An acceptance by the Company must be filed with the City
Clerk within 90 days after publication.
2.3 Service Rates and Area. The service to be provided and
the rates to be charged by Company for electric service in City
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commis-
sion of this State. In addition, the area within the City in
which the Company may provide electric service is subject to the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 216B.40.
2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of
this ordinance shall be paid by the Company.
2.5 Default. If either party asserts the other party is in
default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the
complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and
the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. If the
dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice,
either party may commence an action in District Court to inter-
pret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may
be permitted by law or equity for breach of contract.
SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS
3.1 Location of Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be
located and constructed so as not to interfere with the safety
and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and
they shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the
City. The Company's construction, reconstruction, operation,
repair, maintenance and location of Electric Facilities shall be
subject to other reasonable regulations of the City.
3.2 Field Locations. The Company shall provide field
locations for any of its underground Electric Facilities within a
reasonable period of time on request by the City. The period of
2
�— /
time will be considered reasonable if it compares favorably with
the average time required by the cities in the same county to
locate municipal underground facilities for the Company.
3.3 Street Openings. The Company shall not open or disturb
the paved surface of any Public Way or Public Ground for any
purpose without first having obtained permission from the City,
for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Permit condi-
tions imposed on the Company shall not be more burdensome than
those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work.
The Company may, however, open and disturb the paved surface of
any Public Way or Public Ground without permission where an
emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric
Facilities. In such event the Company shall notify the City not
later than the second working day thereafter.
3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the
opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, the Company shall
restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good
condition as formerly, and shall maintain the same in good
condition for two years thereafter. Said work shall be completed
as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company shall not
promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish,
equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground
in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to the
Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time
following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to
make the restoration at the expense of the Company. The Company
shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed
by the City, including its administrative expense and overhead,
and together with ten percent additional as liquidated damages.
This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to
the City.
3.5 Shared Use of Poles. The Company shall make space
available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility,
police or other City facilities whenever such use will not
interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the Company, by
another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable
television company or other form of communication company. In
addition, the City shall pay for any added cost incurred by the
Company because of such use by City.
SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS
4.1 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ways.
Except as provided in Section 4.3, whenever the City determines
to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade,
or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct
any City Utility System in any Public Way, it may order the
Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located therein. The
Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own ex-
pense. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of
plans to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade,
3
K:
regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or
reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered
within five years of a prior relocation of the same Electrical
Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City shall
reimburse Company for non -betterment expenses on a time and
material basis, but further provided that if a subsequent reloca-
tion is required because of the extension of a City Utility
System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to
make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing contained
in this franchise shall require Company to relocate, remove,
replace or reconnect at its own expense its facilities where such
relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for
the convenience of the City and is not reasonably necessary for
the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or City
Utility System or other City improvement.
4.2 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground.
Except as may be provided in Section 4.3, City may require the
Company to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public
Ground upon a finding by City that the Electric Facilities have
become or will become a substantial impairment of the public use
to which the Public Ground is or will be put. Said relocation or
removal shall be at the Company's expense. The provisions of 4.2
apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance on a
franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an
easement or prescriptive right.
4.3 Projects with State or Federal Funding. Any reloca-
tion, removal, or rearrangement of any Company facilities made
necessary because of the extension into or through City of a
federally -aided highway project shall be governed by the provi-
sions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46 as supplemented or
amended. It is expressly understood that the right herein
granted to Company is a valuable right. City shall not order
Company to remove, or relocate its facilities when a Public Way
is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a
redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in
part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the
reasonable non -betterment costs of such relocation and the loss
and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company,
provided, however, that City need not pay those portions of such
for which reimbursement to it is not available.
4.4 Liability. Nothing contained herein shall relieve any
person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise
reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities while
performing any activity.
SECTION 5. TREE TRIMMING
The Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways
and Public Grounds of City interfering with the proper construc-
tion, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facili-
ties installed hereunder, provided that the Company shall save
F11
�- —
the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom, and
subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the City.
SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION
The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and
harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to
persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction,
maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the
operation of the Electric Facilities located in the City. The
City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned
through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising
out of or alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of
permits for, or inspection of, the Company's plans or work.
Neither shall the City be indemnified if the injury or damage
results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reason-
ably deemed hazardous by Company, but such performance is never-
theless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's
determination.
In the event a suit is brought against the City under
circumstances where the agreement to indemnify applies, the
Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City in
such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to the
Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced by
lack of such notice. If the Company is required to indemnify and
defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but
the Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of
the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This
section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or
immunity otherwise available to the City; and the Company, in
defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to
assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City
could assert in its own behalf.
SECTION 7.
VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS
The City shall' give the Company reasonable notice of a
proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a
City street or other improvement project, the vacation of any
Public Way, after the installation of Electric Facilities, shall
not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and
maintain such Electrical Facilities, until the reasonable cost of
relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such
relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall
City be liable to the Company for failure to preserve a right-
of-way.
SECTION 8.
CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Any change in the form of government of the City shall not
affect the validity of this franchise. Any governmental unit
succeeding the City shall, without the consent of the Company,
5
succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided
in this franchise.
SECTION 9. FRANCHISE FEE
9.1 Separate Ordinance. During the term of the franchise
hereby granted, the City may impose on the Company a franchise
fee of not more than five percent of the Company's gross sales as
hereinafter defined. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a
separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordi-
nance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days after written
notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the
Company by certified mail. The fee shall not become effective
until at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such
adopted ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified
mail.
9.2 Terms Defined. The term "gross sales" means all sums,
excluding any surcharge or similar addition to the Company's
charges to customers for the purpose of reimbursing the Company
for the cost resulting from the franchise fee, received by the
Company from the sale of electricity to its retail customers
within the corporate limits of the City.
9.3 Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be
payable not less often than quarterly, and shall be based on the
gross sales of the Company during complete billing months during
the period for which payment is to be made. The percent fee may
be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change
shall meet the same notice requirements and the percentage may
not be changed more often than annually. Such fee shall not
exceed any amount which the Company may legally charge to its
customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge
equivalent to such fee in its rates for electric service. The
Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed
subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles or
customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting said fran-
chise fee is subject to -the approval of the Public Utilities
Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to
obtain. The Company agrees to make its gross sales records
available for inspection by the City at reasonable times.
9.4 Conditions on the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing
the fee shall not be effective against the Company unless it
lawfully imposes and the City quarterly or more often collects a
fee or tax of the same or greater percentage on the gross sales
within the City of any other energy supplier selling energy
within the City provided that, as to such a supplier, the City
has the legal authority to either require a franchise fee or to
impose a tax. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to
energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling, or
lighting, as well as to the supply of energy needed to run
machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent
to the City, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose
0
of providing fuel for vehicles. The City shall not apply reve-
nues raised by a franchise fee to reduce real property taxes; the
franchise fee shall not be effective if the City reduces its mill
levy for real property taxes within the City while a separate
ordinance imposing a franchise fee on the Company is in effect.
SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for
any reason whatsoever, the validity of the remainder shall not be
affected.
SECTION 11. AMENDMENT
This ordinance may be amended at any time by the City
passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the
amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon
the filing of the Company's written consent thereto with the City
Clerk within 90 days after the passage and publication of the
amendatory ordinance.
SECTION 12. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED
This franchise supersedes the previous
granted to the Company or its predecessor on
as Ordinance No.
Passed and approved
ATTEST:
Clerk of the City of
, Minnesota
0060RE02.C18
Mayor of the City of
Minnesota
7
electric franchise
, 19 ,
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: January 5, 1987
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager
SUBJECT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER
These standards are prepared by Jim Willis and the City Council as a
measure for his performance from January 1, 1987 through December 30,
1987. The standards include specific measurements which will be used
to evaluate performance incentives for 1987. Before the end of May,
1987 and December, 1987, the City Council will meet with Jim Willis to
review his progress in meeting the objectives (quality and timeliness)
and subjective (quality and judgement) components of the standards.
The components below will define "meets expectations" for each
standard.
I. RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY, EFFICIENCY, BALANCE
AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. The foregoing concepts are designed to foster cost effective-
ness in the delivery of all City services and to further
enhance the effectiveness of communications between the City
and it's various constituencies.
- Prepare a written report for the City Council showing
service orientation and concern for the public has been
demonstrated by the City staff. This report shall be
submitted to the Council by December 14, 1987.
** The City Council will judge that service orientation
has met or exceeded the evaluation for 1986.
• Ensure that communications between the City Manager and
department heads are complete, including any necessary
follow up actions, when City Council members have made
written requests of the City Manager. Councilmembers
agree to direct communications to the City Manager rather
than to department heads so that he has an opportunity to
monitor follow up activities. The City Manager will
maintain a system for monitoring such communications and
will share them with all members of the City Council.
** During the evaluation year, the Council shall deter-
mine that there were no examples of communications
breakdown between the City Manager and department
heads due to lack of communications by the City
Manager.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER —
January S, 1987
Page 2
The City Manager shall meet and/or confer with the Mayor
before each Council meeting.
*** The Mayor will report no examples of action items
brought by the City Manager to Council meetings not
previously scheduled or reviewed with him and/or
Council members.
• Ongoing communications between the City Manager and
Councilmembers is individually as well as collectively
deemed to be important. The City Manager will meet with
all Councilmembers individually at least once each
quarter. All meetings will be scheduled by the City
Manager and a brief summary of the topics discussed will be
prepared by the City Manager at the Councilmember's
request.
*** No meetings will be evaluated as ineffective by the
Councilmember involved.
• The City Manager and appropriate department heads shall be
available to meet with neighborhood groups, homeowner
associations, or civic organizations which are concerned
about City problems or procedures. Councilmembers will
notify the City Manager about potential meetings. The City
Manager will assign appropriate persons to attend these
meetings or will attend himself.
*** There will be no examples of meetings reported by
Councilmembers to the City Manager where City admin-
istrative representatives are not present after having
been scheduled to attend.
*** There will be no verifiable complaints from persons
organizing such meetings that the Manager's presence
was evaluated as ineffective.
• The 1987 legislative session will likely focus a great deal
of attention on fiscal policies. Because Plymouth
taxpayers contribute substantial tax monies to the State,
and further, because relatively little of this money comes
back to the community, the Council deems it important that
the City Manager participate actively in representing the
City's interest. The City Manager shall represent
Plymouth's interest by participating as a member of the
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM), and the Municipal
Legislative Commission (MLC). During the legislative
session, the City Manager shall actively follow matters of
concern to the City and represent positions of the City
before appropriate municipal organizations, legislative
committees, and report regularly to the City Council such
activities.
*** There will be no incidence of failure to alert the
Council to important pending legislation.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER
January 5, 1987
Page 3
*** The Council will judge representation to be effective
in outcome, either because positive action by the
legislature results, or the position of the City has
been advanced for consideration at further legislative
sessions.
• The City Manager shall schedule and conduct a city-wide
"Community Attitude Survey" prior to November 1, 1987.
This survey shall follow up on previous surveys utilizing a
similar format. Council members will review and approve
the survey instrument prior to its use. Following receipt
of a report, the Council will evaluate the results and
provide appropriate direction to the City Manaqer based
upon the Council's evaluation of the survey.
*** The Council shall judge from the survey that the
public's opinion of the performance of the City staff
and City Manager have increased or been maintained,
but not decreased, since the last such survey.
• The Council recognizes the need to spend more time together
with the staff in "study" sessions. The City Manaqer shall
as part of the annual Council calendar schedule, organize
material for the periodic study meetings. These meetings
shall provide for an ongoing review of the Council's own
objectives as well as the City's overall comprehensive
planning and development strategies. All study meetings
will be scheduled and organized by the City Manager.
*** No study meeting will be evaluated by the Council as
ineffective and/or non-productive because of poor
preparation or organization on the part of the City
Manager.
B. Employee Involvement. Ongoing communications between the City
Manager and City employees in all departments is deemed
beneficial to the maintenance of a performance oriented
organization. The City Council is especially concerned that
all employees, particularly those working shifts other thanthe
traditional five day work week and employees working
outside of City Center, are made to feel a vital part of the
City employee family. To foster this concept
organization -wide, the following objectives are established:
• The City Manager will meet informally with each employee
group (maintenance, general, police and fire employees) at
least twice during the year to solicit feedback and share
information on organizational goals, objectives, and
matters of concern and/or interest. Such meetings shall be
scheduled during periods of greatest convenience to
employees.
• The City Manager shall promote the City family concept
through the continuation of such activities as the annual
employee picnic and Christmas party.
.ERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER �—
January 5, 1987
Page 4
• The Manager shall meet at least quarterly with all
supervisory employees as a group, and at least biweekly
with department heads.
II. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. The Council has stated that "the protection of the public
health, welfare and safety is of primary importance." To
further that policy statement, the Council adopted the two
following objectives:
1. Fire Station No. 3 - Assure that the planning for Fire
Station No. 3 including modification of Fire Station No. 1
and acquisition of new fire equipment) continues unabated,
with the program being presented to the voters in early
1987. Assuming voter approval, construction should proceed
as soon as possible.
• The City Manager shall insure that the project is
closely monitored and provide the Council with monthly
status reports indicating the status of the project.
2. Police Personnel and Reserves - The City Council shall
continue to give first priority to personnel requests for
police officers in the Public Safety Department, also the
feasibility of establishing a volunteer Police Reserve to
further the ability of the department to cope with its
increasing workload shall be reported to the Council by May
4, 1987.
• The City Manager shall submit a report with accompany-
ing recommendations to the Council by May 4, 1987 with
respect to the establishment of a "volunteer police
reserve" program.
The City Manager shall report to the City Council on
projections of manpower needs in the Public Safety
Department, which report and recommendations shall be
submitted to the City Council not later than June 1,
1987.
III. PUBLIC WORKS
A. Water System - Continuous availability of pure, potable water
Is essential for the continued development of the community
and for public safety purposes. Accordingly, the Council has
established the following objectives:
1. Production of Water - Assure that Wells 8 and 9 are
completed by May 15, 1987, and that one well is on-line no
later than June 15, 1987, or such later date as the Council
may establish.
• The City Manager shall keep the Council informed
monthly on the status of these projects.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER -�--
January 5, 1987
Page 5
2. Water Treatment - Assure that a new water treatment plant
at the Zachary Lane site is on-line and in operation by
June 1, 1988, or such later date as the Council may
establish.
The City Manager shall keep the Council informed
monthly on the status of this project.
B. Streets and Utilities - The conveyance of people, public
safety vehicles and products throughout the community is
essential for community well-being. The City Council promotes
the following objectives in this regard:
1. Street Maintenance Criteria. Develop appropriate mainten-
ance and operational criteria and policies for City road-
ways by July 1, 1987, or such later date as the Council may
establish.
• The City Manager will submit his report with appro-
priate recommendations for Council adoption dealing
with maintenance and operational criteria and policies
for City roadways. This report shall be submitted to
City Council not later than June 22, 1987.
2. Street Evaluation. Complete survey of conditions of all
City streets by September 1, 1987, or such later date as
the Council may establish.
• The City Manager shall review the Short -Elliott -
Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) survey on street conditions
and prepare specific recommendations for Council
consideration. This report shall be presented to the
City Council not later than August 17, 1987.
3. Street Replacement Policies. Establish street (infra
structure) replacement funding policies and criteria by
October 5, 1987, or such later date as the Council may
establish.
• The City Manager shall report his recommendations for
infrastructure funding policies and criteria to the
Council by September 28, 1987. The report shall spec
ifically address the long range fiscal implications
and the legal ramifications of his recommendations.
4. Snowplowing. Annually evaluate the appropriateness of
converting contractual snowplowing areas to City respon-
sibility.
• The City Manager shall prepare a report on the 1986/87
snow and ice control program. The report shall
contain information on the cost and effectiveness of
both city and contracted snow plowing, along with any
recommendations for changes in the program to make the
service more effective. This report shall be
submitted by June 22, 1987.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER = ,
January 5, 1987
Page 6
C. Environmental - The development of the community should not
take place at the expense of the environment and the natural
amenities of the community. The Council believes that the
following objectives must be pursued:
1. Solid Waste Recycling. The solid waste recycling program
must continue and expand through 1987. Hennepin County Chas
established a solid waste recycling goal of 237.2 tons, or
more, in 1987.
• The City Manager shall report at least monthly in his
Manager's Memorandum the status of the tonage of solid
waste collected.
2. Organized Collection Study. The Council should review and
determine if ordinance revisions are necessary to introduce
organized solid waste collection to enhance recycling
efforts by March 1, 1987, or such later date as the Council
may establish.
• The City Manager shall submit a report and initial
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of
solid waste collection, in order to achieve establish-
ed County recycling goals, by the date established by
the Council. This report shall also discuss and make
appropriate recommendations with respect to meeting
recylcing objectives and inaugurating an organized
solid waste collection program in the City.
3. Environmental Development Standards. The City is to
consistently enforce environmental standards for develop-
ment, including erosion control, FHA grading plans,
landscaping, EIS and EAW criteria, and traffic analysis
beginning immediately. The Council is to review the
appropriateness of the criteria by February 1, 1987, or
such later date as the Council may establish.
• The City Manager shall report to the Council by the
due date, how the staff proposes to continue the
enforcement of the Council's various environmental
development standards. This report shall identify the
personnel and resources required to undertake and
effectively enforce such regulations.
During the 1987 construction season, the City Manager
shall report monthly on the status of complaints
received with respect to concerns surrounding the
various environmental development standards and their
enforcement. This report shall be included in the
City Manager's Council Information Memorandum.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER
January 5, 1987
Page 7
IV. PARK FACILITIES
The City's park facilities are an important community resource.
The Council establishes the following objectives with respect to
each:
A. Trail Completion for Public Safety. Planning and construction
of trail segments required to enhance the public safety should
be given first priority. Such trails should be identified,
funded and constructed no later than September 1, 1987, or
such later date as the Council may establish.
• The City Manager shall submit a report to the City
Council not later than April 20, 1987 outlining the
proposed program for the construction of trails to meet
the City Council's policy objective. Thereafter, the
City Manager shall report at least monthly on the status
of the construction of such trails during 1987
construction season. All trail construction shall be
scheduled so as to be completed by the date established
by the Council.
B. Study of Park Usage and Maintenance Levels. A comprehensive
study of the appropriate use of parks by type and maintenance
program for each should be evaluated by the Council to deter-
mine whether changes should be made to the Comprehensive Park
and Trail Plan and maintenance standards. This report shall.
be submitted by September 1, 1987, or such later date as the
Council may establish.
• The City Manager shall submit a report, by the due date,
to the City Council which report shall contain standards
and measurements by which the effectiveness of park
maintenance can be evaluated and/or improved.
C. Construction of Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhoods parks
scheduled for construction in 1987 should be accomplished by
November 15, 1987, or such later date as the Council may
establish.
• The City Manager shall report to the City Council not
later than May 18, 1987 on the proposed 1987 Neighborhood
Park Improvement Program. All construction within the
neighborhood parks is to be accomplished within the
schedule established by the Council.
D. Community Center Data Gathering. The initial investigation
and data gathering for a Community Center should be
accomplished to identify what types of facilities may be
included. These data will be shared with the Council and PRAC
for long range study purposes. No specific program shall be
considered until after Fire Station No. 3 has been approved
for construction.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER g
January 5, 1987
Page 8
• The foregoing objective implies that the Council will, in
conjunction with the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission, evaluate the propriety of proceeding with a
community center following voter consideration of Fire
Station No. 3. If the Council elects to proceed with the
Community Center program, the City Manager shall be
responsible of submitting a detailed work program
outlining specific steps and actions to be undertaken,
within an appropriate schedule, which report shall be
submitted to the Council within 45 days following the
Council's decision to proceed with the project.
V. FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION
A. Develop an integrated internal Manaqement Information System
MIS for the City. This program will be dependent upon
periodic Council approvals before additional phases will be
undertaken, and the target dates for phases 3-5 may be
revised.
• Phase One -
Define scope of program/project - November,
1986. (Accomplished)
• Phase Two -
Design system, develop Requests for
Proposals (RFP), and submit recommendations
to Council by February 2, 1987.
• Phase Three
- Evaluation of RFP's and report to Council
to be completed by July 6, 1987.
• Phase Four
- Installation of new system hardware, with
existing programs, to be completed by
December 31, 1987.
• Phase Five -
Convert current data systems to data base
system by December 31, 1988.
B. Develop and present recommendations to the Council on the
prudent extension of the City's Risk Management Program.
• Report on status and scope of Risk Management Program
along with recommended changes by January 26, 1987.
• Implement approved changes by April 1, 1987.
• Report on results of program by December 7, 1987.
C. Evaluate at least two activities in each department for
significant cost effectiveness prior to August 1, 1987 and
report the results and any recommendations to the City
Council.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER —1 --
January 5, 1987
Page 9
*** Effectiveness of City services will be demonstrated if
the Council concludes that the report of the City Manager
clearly indicates that cost effectiveness is beinq used
as a measure in the provision of public services, whether
by City or private vendors.
D. City Budgeting for 1988. The City Manager shall strive to
submit a General Fund budget for 1988 which reflects no
increase beyond inflation on a per capita basis. New and/or
expanded programs or activities shall be fully cost justified.
*** The City's 1987 General Fund mill rate for taxes payable
in 1988 should not exceed that adopted in 1986 for taxes
payable in 1987, currently estimated to be 12.36 mills.
(This number shall be revised to the actual mill rate
once it has officially been established by Hennepin
County.)
E. Fiscal Health. The City Manager shall submit to the Council
by dune 1, 1987, the completed 1986 audit as well as a report
on the financial condition of the City including status of
reserve funds.
*** The City Council shall judge that the overall fiscal
condition of the City has improved during 1986.
F. Any performance standard which creates an overload for
subordinates are to be brought to the attention of the Council
as soon as the City Manager verifies that they have occurred.
CONCLUSIONS
The City Council will evaluate performance for each standard as
exceeds expectation, meets expectation, or does not meet expectation.
For total performance to qualify for "exceeds expectation":
No standard will be evaluated as "does not meet expectation".
At least two-thirds of the standards will be evaluated as "exceeds
expectation".
For total performance to qualify for "meets expectation":
Less than one-fourth of the standards will be evaluated as "does
not meet expectation".
At least one-fourth of the standards will be evaluated as "exceeds
expectation".
An overall rating of "exceeds expectation" will result in award of
100% of the 1987 performance incentive of $4,500.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENTS - CITY MANAGER
January 5, 1987
Page 10
An overall rating of "meets expectation" will result in award of less
than 100% of the 1987 performance incentive, the amount to be
determined by the percent of individual standards which are rated as
meeting standard.
An overall rating of "does not meet expectation" will result in no
award of 1987 performance incentive.
0100 q
Minnesota
Q Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
OF TRP Golden valley, Minnesota 55422
January 2, 1987
Mr. Frank Boyles
Assistant City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: S.P. 2723 (T.H. 55)
At CSAR 73
Park & Ride Lot
Dear Mr. Boyles;
'�' �'•--ter'- w l
Z 10
9 8403
The following information is being provided to you as a follow up to your
telephone call regarding the possible expansion of the park and ride lot
at T.H. 55 and CSAH 73.
— The proposed expansion will cost approximately $30,000. The dis—
trict is requesting programming of the project for $15,000 of state
funds and $15,000 from city funds.
— Mn/DOT is looking at a possible contract letting on June 26, 1987
so that the work can be completed in the 1987 construction season.
— If the above planned procedure runs into difficulties, the city of
Plymouth may be requested to design the project as part of the T.H.
55 and Golden Rod project being proposed by the city of Plymouth.
A cooperative agreement on the design/construction costs would prob—
ably be required.
The current lot usage has increased significantly since September 1, 1986
and is now consistently at or above the current capacity; therefore, the
lot expansion is certainly warranted. The expansion project should be
coordinated with Mr. Carl Hoffstedt of my staff.
Since ly,
W. M. Crawford, P.E.
District Engineer
cc: James Willis — City of Plymouth
Fred Moore — City of Plymouth
An Equal Opportunity Employer
_AP0_O
u C
tJ'. P 10 a 10 1D O I 1D to M .1 1D P N 10 T
TTm10mO a t!1 C U m rN rlllto M N
N T O b v O M j y i••. •. d M O v T P v M N
� .•� • N ti N e C 6 n fC L N v~ t4 O ••� .+ O
•
>1 L)to CI
•✓ V fU u �Mv O m .
V m C L b d y y y y :O
a - m a :m
v:~p :.•�.>'i t✓�
.d.+ -O m ma -.2
D- N mZ in q. 04
y CLy-. m 'b0 ✓ d c y O .bi ✓ kyr E >. m
� U q y� n d d �✓ .�, y y �
C A d y U C E• d 77 ✓[ C y N 7 �1pp y
6 N� U JLC F oLt q OVilo l� 11 D V w D
d y u d 0-- O >... tm F u 3 ... ✓ ..1
✓✓ n✓✓✓ G iJ ✓L (� Oma+ ✓ u d y .+ m l ••+++ A
�+ A V• 7 U y 'A q U d q d •-� U
orr...a, c>O t; Orr.. PMortnl P MM M MM MM I.IMMMMM MT
O O r v N r Lm 0 m O O r v N N VIN 0 l f 1 N r N r N N N r r N r N N r r
10 v 0 0 0 T M .•1 P R: �O v 0 0 0 0 M M .•� P I!1 N �A N Vl t!1 1A N N Ul N 1!1 4Il N N
• • .y nl N O Al ti 1f1 NN NN N NN NN N N NN N N
m • Y M D O
bled'r✓_ Qg
q .qi � S C e ,.,� : G : ,rr � d ✓ : G :.� Q0.'
X c [
+b•.w bO y (C3p� au m b yH Cai •pCQm :rl U
V d q Y
L FLIy •••1 •Q(p� >• d m!!!
4 d 0 daJ ✓u O ►1 m O V m O Ir pU ..V. F
m Vy' v q L✓ �+•-• 1C — : 0 .� 3 L✓ f � x w Qua .. «+
C y�:" � ��✓ � •✓1 mom° ..C.. :: b e 0 •✓ m•v� : m
fail W.2 O y b✓ H U : .•r : .•t .mi = V .� p : p : u
U L✓ ✓ W b m O O e e O F •✓ Y d
LO C• ✓ >, ..�i m . r ✓ .•1 K m .Fr • Y b 88 � _b � ✓ .. C EE q
= C C C Q y m U d _ yi A ..b. y~ ~ 7 C Dq. : G
sp L w y d u y a C3 d m d
.-+ •gyp C •yp y q •••ppp �• p� O jj m y C m d y Y �l C t •pp q •p
.r 'tpl a C Eli
d A. LL)UU V ••1 >q u9,6 LUUVUF F imp >¢ IO C7 G O ✓7 D G1 C
W 7 Q C m d b 0 0 0 0 0 -+ 4 L b C U 0 0 0 0 O O ~ t .G a d U ✓g+ O Td q •q"
N v CCC L ti✓ y y y y y Y q m y y y y Y y q CC GLC d d
u:
e yvyy y✓ y ✓ y yu ✓r y(�✓✓ y✓ ✓o pd•pl U d C -i C ym O Cy Bp
F� V.:y`y 03 IC>C>CL>C a2 [° W U >CICL7)t a>� [+DU4Xit�'>CL=On vLiF3
Otn100T. o
OM to Or O.D
o..oC�mmP
.1
y .-' - .r .a .•t rt .w .r .n .r .•1 .n .•1 .y .a .-t .a .•1 .r
A N N ry N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N e
O rl ••n N.IN M1
�j/I11 y
NrMvr t+
M1flMrtn U � g���� g�
to m v N .•+ v M
G
m 01D C, Ln in m{nNfr.••11n MTN O m
CDmM 0 1Dr m r O
ON.-t N ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
e tnvP �O �O �O •DPP �D r m N M•Om s {� N.••. P N ry v
L .~•1 .-t •.t .-1T •OmOvv N,n C! PMvm1D IFn Pm N r M vmM
C v 1 p 0 Ln T M N M m O.•• 1 M Lr) N f P D M 1 D P P v v v P 10 m M 1 D A m
S v v �1n v vvv vvlDNtl'. to v 10 v v D Into vtn 1D to to 10 U b 1
[$-. oo•r4 Tpp vop Ln
Yl S . • . • • . . � ZZZZ Z h
yph y N NN MNN • q b Gy y y y y y �C/ S
Z L y1 1 1 1 1 1 Y • to > Y p1 yyyyy L •O
m O..t .rN MM MMMM1DrmP Q.•tNM V •p 1 y0.•1
U++ rrr r r r rrrrrrrrcmmmm m .••t .'� q.r .. N yrrm O p ••••'•
h D N ry N N N ry N N fV fV N N N N N N ry ry ry N S .' .•1 V .'t .•1 r 'j m m m DDD D D ❑ W C7 0. G. D• D
1
C
'� Ln f 1
P r O m r. -%o -•- I r{ n- N U l m v Lm O m• m %D t o M N v r m r N m mm
t n P O M M m `► M Ln m r - I
y
m O
b.+
.r 1D to O r2 O P M r to r .+ r P r .•I .-. T m Vl P r .•. r to .•. O 1D 1p r v
.•t .•t�v MmrN.•nN PmlO to N.•1P1Ov N NmMPP010NOON0
M 10 r v a O v to O Vl O I
rv�.•t tnr N101D tnOeO
>. ar
m
yti M
_ ••1
m m va•11D v m to to P. -I mr%Dw Om mm Pte. to tnv r rm1ON 1D to
.•1 N N N N .•M .•. N .•. .•..•1 .•1 .•1 .•1 N .••. N N N N N •-. N 2.••..••t
.-.Mtn In .-. mT�t/11D0
N N M .•y In An ...•1
.•1
IL
.Z. V D►('
: : : : r
FJL
Im
rptC•.
C
..bACr•.
U Wd
Y✓AO[([C�
1yym.
CC.0 m C • • d q . L✓
•Wpdd
Yuq0CC,1
wdbyyC+
bC
•
•
u-m.Cp..
.�,J!•mCO],.:i
•.wObOy
YTDqy0y.
.W... •ppDiIdp.
✓•C�
'WYOU
.3
C .
.Y+ .t-9. qy
..p0�+t ✓yb qC
d7QC•
1
m1yO..
✓gqN>
yyFWVO.-]].
N3ZZFISCAmmq
FyCO•
LmCq
Ob•
C>
yAmr y0>: . LCqd•
O6
.d -O+ . .adO-. .wY'OyU
O •m•ydV'•�
}`�iSQyQI
•�•C(-(a. .•OCyd
dd
_LZOO
•LUU.OKp0
Ym>qqCp
� .••appCqp
OC O�vlhhLNN
UE s L 211 11
]mp 0�> SL
FT 3 i
P
q
P CO P CO r 1^ CO
u +-C
N r N V1 t0 0
O
10 111 Vt IA IA 1A Y1 Y'1 111 Vf 1fl 1A V1 IA 1f1 1A 1!f to
31
O r r r
V/
/-I
N � 1� �•'� I� P 4J
10 N O �' 1 m f O
---
^
V N
GGi V
^ ••• p h m (y� n< P
^ v P I/ t 1p W v C O
U1 D
C
p r N r P
O r J L V A
S O 1 •'I r P 1! t
q
Jr
=cc
V u
u -c
c.2
Z=
U�C
y1
O 10 1.1 CO IA N O
r u•f OO1�1"1 e•'1Pf'1rrr�N pfelnr 1pc Q r<r ml0 1'1 ONO
O N C
w r O
L O q _r
K 1 O N N O 111 111 11 p• f m 1 n f ") 1 A O 1 1! 1 r
Cm
Z
W q
P 111 111 Vt Q Vt P P m n P f P1 P O 10 r N F 41 u1 P f -co
v v 111 In e v a f f R v1 In In N lIf 111 ID 111 111 V1 Z IA u1 1n v1 ID u'1 u1 I[1
++
� O O O 0 O O O O
�
W
•••J
O OD
+✓
• C
y o u V c A ••••
N A
✓ i
u u u u u V1 u V! V V t L t t
+r+.-.� + u C O 7 7 7 7
ym
O • N N P1 N N A • 1p
O u 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y • Ul >c)-
L N O r r N r 1 P f P 1 f 7 f 7 P 1� O� O D P O• -+ N f n R t O O L O r V (p 0' P 1
y.•- I�1+n �n nn•�nA An^n CO CO W Qlmm C rr Arr LN L I�I� CO
N N N N N N ^ y2 T Y
••`c-'•^-' O d^^• -.-
N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q r r V ••• r N 1� i w W O
Y
0 0 0 0 0 O C7 Z 6 d d p
C
P O P r n M N1 m P N r O r N Q1 n N 1p u•1 r n m e n v< P
V V O I N a1 A
O
�T <9r'b 10 W Nt\ 71^01!1101'1 t1m CPNK•1+P10 t�10P-•2` 1.1 •� 10rr1 u11�N1DO<P10NN
N
d^ O v7 •-- P 1:771NrQ. 101'S)1'1Q of 10 m O�v•'110111 Q<�
u + . . . O
C
•o S 'A� NN W Q1� Or Pr1�P1O 1"101 ppN1D Q•r 1� rNID O10 P10OO <
7v `� P<O11�1.1r a10O 1
Z M. cc
Cx r r-• N N N r r N r. r r r r r r r r N N• -+ N N r N r N r. -. -• r N -
N N 1• t r r 1-1 r- N r r
� Q P
L t A A
O
O
X^
W W J
• N pl
- d > L
W
a+ LZ N V
d✓ •••• L
^r v
q C V
V O d
.+ L✓
N
Q
w O N A O ++
+ d ��
O H
Co T
+ O Q
W V
• L E d
CC l� .`-
O ••- d>+ y
m.
C^ > V d O
O 1-
d d
C q L L
1•- D
J
J W Cr
V1N
Q
O.d+-JNdd
O L.V N u
duO JL u
+ U t u A
Vf
du
J O n+L
C N
'- L G m J d C g q •'
1•••
O
Z N •- O O O C V N n C C d C d d O Y d V •- ^ -- •^ C C C C C Cl E L G �[ d L -- Y •� C C
3 N H 0 0 0 C q �•. >. T O N V G V P O L C >• O^
d+ U^ OJ V C G C C L n 0.10
Vy C C C
O
cd1 pp7
O V• 17 S S •--• J J S S d=
N u
7 q ^
J V O
L q
+
d •r •r i+
C n G V
a
W
u O O O L L L
A >. ]y d W O Y
U u O O K A
+ N^ • d >
S o n n
N
YI
d Or A•r
UJ
S
L C O.u.
ONS
�+ A CC X
AD
O C A Vlu
W N+
O N V O
p
Q >.y
v
H
L V V.••• n
V
.Ti
C7
41
7 7 C 7 7 7 u
O O O O O O
O
M O S7 O.
V C C r W C n
A u L V 7 u N
x V O O A O N
W n+ N
CC 6 u
U V V V U 1--
►••
Q�-^=vq q
W UN! V S2 1- A
r o
1�109f AO f
1�
U N
P1 ►.
O1�1D 1A fO/� f col-
1n In"� 1n 11.1111-1A 111 IA V1 V1
P 1•• 1 N V f N
10 1'f 0 O 1.1 1.1
111 pp
P 1••` �.• L
001 C♦f P 1 N 111 N N A
"
IC 1.1 0 0 0 0 r1 N EO
N N A N N N 1 N ^
N u
•11
u1 N I!1 N In In In N N N v1 N N
. .
N _
••+
N L
O
1n
..
NNN N N. N NNNNNN
L G C EE
` 3
u
O
O
d I C O
VQ CPN(l Y1�`.
L ++
.O •`C
.~.. V.•.
u L
M
.� •�
W
W
F--
W + O N S N
A¢ ^ K A y N
Q S C S`
N n • A
C
7
-1L •r
N n �+ �+
V C
cx V
W cx X O
C
7
H
cx
u O u!
u
~
. r
O
N
N 0 7 A
+ Z d n� CCLD_ N
7 D
O M C
J Y O
Oi O V N
O[ u Q p
N C
•J d op ••4
V
r
•
W
VQ qY i
O N V O C
>•. a, V >�
N h- A V C
W W_ L O O
Lm
>. m >1
Ix
1•••
W
►• L O
O L
C d •K V+��1G
q u V
i C u C V
! �m
V y
0CL •
•
O r M 7
L
W y V d
i+2xu
O I r M V • 7
L
O
N
•OVV
NHc'1 a! .5 yu
qq •OL
u p O2 L1 �+
7
J
++ E O V N
_U
.w Ar
u Oma :R cc L V u
�
W d u >1Y C N
C Q N
V1 A
C • 1 1� v N
. . . . . .
. u N� W C'
C C N Z
�^
O• u NCN N C+
{/1
W
2
C O+Q C A� 3
d a0.. J L OD X
u N V E
V •L+OC �• O
OIC• -t D
p po
��OL
W D
pEE
V • L C+r r O
D` C^O •O n
=
Q
J
P� >� d 7 Y.••.
aDNH C L
� V O �.^r
Yr -.Cm
~
V
J
W
C A V C+ N q N
C O V C V 7 C �-
++ r C A
N d
J + V L O
J V
+• + r + C A
N N
Y
31 y
7 V •
N
N +- 1/1
A
7 V • n
at
J
y
N
E
O V S �• 1+ 1
^ D C C + L OI ^
d A G G d d
7 7 7 7
0p 0 cc 0 OC N C A
V V U H A C
V V �- L •-
N_ V d '^'
.'•` >♦ U
N 7 7 7 7 Q A^
0p 0 0 0 0 Cc N L C A
S V V U V
W
C r' L Q V O C >•
C N d A 0 o Y l V O m v
0 O m
oOO o
10 9 L d A 0>� C V
7 O n C Co O + C
^ V C Dy 7
m O
Q 0 0 0 OC. L 7;
L L L= Y 7 01
r S r A N C C
A L d V 7
+• C O
O cc 0 0 O L *•
L L- L OCP Ly O P •�
J C q
Q L t ^ C V V O d AL-
L C
4^
U
i W V
Y
E C n G d V OI•- •y^ N Q
C O C L S Z
QL1
d Z V 1
8a x
J M .Y C
S Z =
V U W W CD O 1
C> %D r1 ripp
C O c O p f r p
C
O• -••+CC PC
O
10 111 Vt IA IA 1A Y1 Y'1 111 Vf 1fl 1A V1 IA 1f1 1A 1!f to
31
O r r r
V/
/-I
u O n 1-1 t•'t 1'1 11 1.1 f7 1.1 f•1 f•1 17 f•f f1 1'•1 1.1 1.1 1•'1 1•'1 f1
•� O Vl 1A 1A Vl M1 U'1 V11/1 Vl Vt 111 111 1A I!1 V11A 111 4A IA
---
^
�I
OO P f0 co `L+ • • • • • .
O N
V N O -•m H O •r •�NrN 1.1f
Jr
=cc
V u
c.2
Z=
U�C
y1
O 10 1.1 CO IA N O
r u•f OO1�1"1 e•'1Pf'1rrr�N pfelnr 1pc Q r<r ml0 1'1 ONO
O N C
w r O
K 1 O N N O 111 111 11 p• f m 1 n f ") 1 A O 1 1! 1 r
Cm
Z
W q
P 111 111 Vt Q Vt P P m n P f P1 P O 10 r N F 41 u1 P f -co
v v 111 In e v a f f R v1 In In N lIf 111 ID 111 111 V1 Z IA u1 1n v1 ID u'1 u1 I[1
++
� O O O 0 O O O O
�
W
•••J
_
'f • N f1 f 111 1/1
V1•-•
N A
C
•
V1 N1'•t L 7 u
u u u u u V1 u V! V V t L t t
+r+.-.� + u C O 7 7 7 7
ym
O • N N P1 N N A • 1p
O u 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y • Ul >c)-
L N O r r N r 1 P f P 1 f 7 f 7 P 1� O� O D P O• -+ N f n R t O O L O r V (p 0' P 1
y.•- I�1+n �n nn•�nA An^n CO CO W Qlmm C rr Arr LN L I�I� CO
N N N N N N ^ y2 T Y
••`c-'•^-' O d^^• -.-
N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q r r V ••• r N 1� i w W O
Y
0 0 0 0 0 O C7 Z 6 d d p
C
P O P r n M N1 m P N r O r N Q1 n N 1p u•1 r n m e n v< P
-+ < Mo 10 111 P<
V1
> J
�T <9r'b 10 W Nt\ 71^01!1101'1 t1m CPNK•1+P10 t�10P-•2` 1.1 •� 10rr1 u11�N1DO<P10NN
N
d^ O v7 •-- P 1:771NrQ. 101'S)1'1Q of 10 m O�v•'110111 Q<�
u + . . . O
1-010
•o S 'A� NN W Q1� Or Pr1�P1O 1"101 ppN1D Q•r 1� rNID O10 P10OO <
7v `� P<O11�1.1r a10O 1
Z M. cc
Cx r r-• N N N r r N r. r r r r r r r r N N• -+ N N r N r N r. -. -• r N -
N N 1• t r r 1-1 r- N r r
� Q P
W W J
V
CC l� .`-
C d q y V d C q m q
d >• V d Y y
O 1-
O V O C - 1 .- C C > •.- J A q✓
C q L L
1•- D
J
J W Cr
•.� NN
C •- L ^ O - d d O q Y J[ N
C C+
q O
O d 'a � •�
••- O O
C T T+ N q- > L- - p L N C •o O U' n C O O i O. ✓ d N L ✓ C 7 O m A C L
C O O T P ✓ q U
Vf
T d C d J u •.- A +• u✓ O O
N q W E Y Y O. L O✓ O L g d C C> •- n u d d V C d d d a S 0 0 0
C N
'- L G m J d C g q •'
1•••
O
Z N •- O O O C V N n C C d C d d O Y d V •- ^ -- •^ C C C C C Cl E L G �[ d L -- Y •� C C
3 N H 0 0 0 C q �•. >. T O N V G V P O L C >• O^
d+ U^ OJ V C G C C L n 0.10
Vy C C C
O
cd1 pp7
O V• 17 S S •--• J J S S d=
N v1 v1 N N 1- 3 3 3
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
January 8, 1987
Mr. Richard J. Pouliot
City of Plymouth MN
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Pouliot:
Z \a0,__
Thank you for your recent letter regarding our neighborhood's
participation in the City of Plymouth recycling program. The
subject was discussed in detail at the general homeowner's
meeting on January 7, 1987, and the following observations were
made:
1. The level of participation would be much higher if you
would provide suitable containers for the various
materials. Perhaps plastic containers with wheels
for each category is appropriate. Older citizens,
those with handicaps, and those who are not totally
in support of the system would be a lot more likely
to participate.
2. The city should make a better effort to pick up the
sacks on the day that is scheduled. Many of our
residents left their sacks ouside all day on Dec-
ember 30, 1986 and nobody ever picked them up. This
not only created an unattractive appearance for
the neighborhood, but it also attracted several
incidents of vandalism. To make this irritation
worse, several of the residents decided to carry
the sacks of material to the city recycling center
only to find the bins full, and the location looked
worse than a garbage dump!
3. We agree that you should have certain standards for
packaging the material for pickup, but to refuse to
pick up boxes because they are not properly tied or
flattened, or corks and lids are left on bottles is
more than the average citizen can tolerate. For the
majority of people who are marginally supportive of
this project, one of these incidents will forever
turn them against you.
We agree that the results so far have been disappointing, but
perhaps the city should at least take half of the blame. If you
can exhibit a more accomodative attitude we feel the results
will be far better in the future.
V
r��
Thank you for your recent letter regarding our neighborhood's
participation in the City of Plymouth recycling program. The
subject was discussed in detail at the general homeowner's
meeting on January 7, 1987, and the following observations were
made:
1. The level of participation would be much higher if you
would provide suitable containers for the various
materials. Perhaps plastic containers with wheels
for each category is appropriate. Older citizens,
those with handicaps, and those who are not totally
in support of the system would be a lot more likely
to participate.
2. The city should make a better effort to pick up the
sacks on the day that is scheduled. Many of our
residents left their sacks ouside all day on Dec-
ember 30, 1986 and nobody ever picked them up. This
not only created an unattractive appearance for
the neighborhood, but it also attracted several
incidents of vandalism. To make this irritation
worse, several of the residents decided to carry
the sacks of material to the city recycling center
only to find the bins full, and the location looked
worse than a garbage dump!
3. We agree that you should have certain standards for
packaging the material for pickup, but to refuse to
pick up boxes because they are not properly tied or
flattened, or corks and lids are left on bottles is
more than the average citizen can tolerate. For the
majority of people who are marginally supportive of
this project, one of these incidents will forever
turn them against you.
We agree that the results so far have been disappointing, but
perhaps the city should at least take half of the blame. If you
can exhibit a more accomodative attitude we feel the results
will be far better in the future.
Please call me during business hours at 473-5771 if you want to
discuss this subject further.
Sincerely,
Alan Shuler, President
Ferndale North Homeowners
Association
cc: �,Vred G. Moore
Sherman L. Goldberg
r�Lr�
�a
five
CITY OF
January 21, 1987 PLYMOUTR
Mr. Alan Shuler, President
Ferndale North Homeowner's Association
18815 4th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Shuler:
Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1987 pointing out some of the
inadequacies of our current curbside collection Recycling Program. Please
pass on to the members of your homeowner's association my appreciation for
discussing this subject in detail and providing the constructive comments
to me. I would, however, like to provide you with some additional
information regarding the three suggestions made in your letter.
1. Providing plastic containers was researched in detail and was
ruled out only because of the high cost. The City of St.
Louis Park currently uses three stackable plastic containers
to collect recyclables. Each set of these containers costs
approximately $18. In order to provide each of the
approximately 10,000 families in the City of Plymouth with a
set of these containers would cost $180,000. It is
conceivable that as the program grows that these could be
provided in the future. Since the program was still in the
infancy stages, the decision was made to go with the paper
containers instead.
2. I have tried, and will continue to try in every way that I
know, to get our contract pickup hauler to upgrade the
service to a zero missed pickup level. Unfortunately, some
of the drivers that he has hired continue to perform at a
less than satisfactory level. I am at this time attempting
to insert a penalty clause into the next year's contract
wherein a monitary deduction would be made for every missed
pickup. We are also attempting to have our dropoff center
picked up on a more frequent basis in order to prevent the
overflow which your members observed.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Mr. Alan Shuler
January 21, 1987
Page Two
3. I agree 100 percent with your assessment there should be no
items left because of improper packaging of the materials. I
have written to the contractor to this effect and hopefully
there will be no more decisions made by drivers on when to
pick items up or leave them unless they contain items that
cannot be recycled.
Hopefully some of these problems will be solved as we go into our second
year of operation beginning April 1, 1987. At that time a realignment of
the City will be made wherein curbside pickups will be made at each home on
a twice per month basis. In addition where there are now three recycling
pickup areas there will be six pickup areas which should allow the
contractor more time in which to pick up any one area, and therefore,
hopefully eliminate all missed pickups. We also hope to provide additional
dropoff centers and to provide pickup service to all apartment buildings
within the City.
Thank you again for your comments and please feel free to write to me at
any time regarding this subject.
Sincerely
i 0
1Q4;e
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:kh
cc: Fred G. Moore
Sherman L. Goldberg
JW
` 'ac V
CITY Oc
January 21, 1987 PLYMOUTH
Mr. John Luoma
Super Cycle, Inc.
775 Rice Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
Subject: Recycling Complaints
Dear John:
Enclosed are copies of two of the most recent letters to the City
complaining about the Recycling Pickup Program. The letters are
self-explanatory and were received after my letter of December 17, 1986 to
you on this same subject. I wanted you to read and feel the frustrations
that come through in these letters. Most residents merely call and tell us
verbally and then quit the program, others probably don't call at all and
just quit. These letters from people who took the time to write are, I
believe, people who will continue the program but want to improve it by
letting us know in a constructive way what is really happening. I feel the
decline in tonnage collected by the City program can be attributed directly
to these problems. I feel that we both need to declare war in earnest on
missed pickups.
It has come to my attention only fairly recently that your drivers are
deciding not to take some items if packaging or preparation is not up to
their desired standards. This is almost worse than not picking it up at
all. For every incidence of this kind, we probably lose two or three
neighbors in addition to the resident whose items are left because of the
anger and frustration that is precipitated by this action. I have
discussed this with Bill, but because of the legistics involved I don't
know if the information gets to the drivers or not. As I understand our
agreement, you are to pick up all items listed. I, in turn, provide
instructions to the homeowners on how to prepare the items for pickup. If
items are not being prepared satisfactorily, I should be notified and will,
in turn, continue to try to inform the public on what needs to be done.
Under no circumstances should recycled items be deliberately left. This
only serves to aggravate the public and further deteriorate the overall
program, especially a program in its infancy stages such as ours. I know
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800
=-qac"
Mr. John Luoma
January 21, 1987
Page Two
that you have some energetic and consciencious drivers who wish to see the
program grow and realize the importance of maintaining good public
relations. However, every organization has those few who cannot for some
reason measure up to the acceptable standards. It is my hope that you will
take whatever actions are necessary to rid your company of those drivers
who cannot conform to your accepted standards of performance; for these and
any other reasons not noted our program just is not working.
We discussed the matter of a penalty clause for missed pickups at our last
meeting and I feel that if a $10 deduct were made for each missed pickup, a
way would be found to eliminate them completely. I am presently in the
process of rewriting our contract for next year and would like your
agreement on this item as a commitment to zero misses in the future. I am
also prepared to offer a bonus of $50 for each month with zero missed
pickups.
Please let me hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Pouliot
Project Coordinator
RJP:kh
cc: Fred G. Moore
Sherman L. Goldberg
James G. Willis
11435 - 41st Avenue No.
Plymouth, hIN 55441
January 9, 1987
Mayor Virgil Schneider
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Sir:
I have been participating in the city's recycling program since its
inception last April. I had never recycled before as I didn't want to
bother hauling the materials to a recycling location, which never seem
convenient. But I felt once a month curbside pick-up to be a perfect
arrangement.
Unfortunately, there have been four months in which my house was skipped
by the trucks. I called Dick Pouliot who was very apologetic and
promised the crews would be out the following day. On two of those
occasions I had to make another call, and put the items out a third day to
get them picked up. Not only do I and my neighbors not appreciate the
sight of refuse at my curb for three days, but I dislike hauling it in and
out of the garage each night so the newspapers do not get rained or snowed
on.
I live in Mission Hills, not some remote street, and
cannot understand
why the
group hired by the city
always seems to miss
my house. Driving
through
the neighborhood on
recycling day,
I cannot
help but notice the
number
of homes participating
is decreasing
each month, and wonder if it
may be
having an effect. I
know that if
my home
gets missed again I
will save
my recyclables for
the garbage
collector,
and not participate
any further.
Certainly my neighborhood isn't the only one experiencing this problem.
I would suggest discussing this with the contractor hired by the city, and
finding a new one if improvement isn't seen.
Thank you for taking the time to hear my complaint. I am otherwise
happy with the City of Plymouth.
Sincerely,
touck
.
i � E
CITY O�
PLYMOUTH -
January 22, 1987
Mr. Merle Mark
10730 Union Terrace Way
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr Mark:
Thank you for submitting a Public Service Counter Customer Comment Card. I
am pleased that your experience in dealing with Jan Evenson was
satisfactory. Our objective continues to be to provide the best possible
service to residents of our community.
Thank you again for your interest and feedback regarding our performance.
Yours truly,
Scott L. Hovet, CAE
Plymouth Assessor
cc: Dale Hahn
Frank Boyles
Bobbi Leitner
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
y ,o.
2. Name of city Employee (if you recall)
qx,
3. ^ ' Did you have an appoint� f
ntmeoi__ a si seting? Yes x , No it k �y
4. Was service prompt? Yes _No
��-..s—r.�
- #'s:'�'•.tralS:�"t�9V�t4WA'� ',d"r,'S,V u�a atFs-cTsIf'
.6'4r.:...:.
gab
S.° Was service courteous?. Yes No
��r ...
6. Were your questions answered or. business concluded. —s- 03 _.
�-
7. If no what Information do -`you still'require?
_.-. ...-. _ ;.-.. ... .. ate°^.15 .'_-_fY':...•:_ - .. ... .. ::1 N'X:Y`•�w.V°,+°rr.'F�-Czl.YaSF^*^'hn��"r F.ih•
S. Now could we serve you better?sem`'
_ qtr' rx
Your name would be appreciated;` however, if you should prefer to
anonymous, we still value your `observations.
dame Eat, y
U-
1
Address 100RZ
-�- � 4 `
City tip
r�
_...
_ _ a T �i'�•#' J .dpi% J, •.'h.J{.� -
a +o �
a4z,
r
9910 South Shore Drive
Plymouth, Minnesota 554
January 17, 1987
i
Members,',; -of, Government of The City . of Plymouth N.� �qN
2 �•
Plymouth City, Center J y 7- 0 1^�>
400 Pl mouth Boulevard Cif �f `
3 y 44
Plymouth, MN 55 7
Dear Friends,
On January 14, 1987 I- attended a ;planning. commission meeting
because of my interest ;iri: preventing- shopping mallj-rom -b:eing
built on 41 acres north. of highway 55; between°_South= Shore ,:Drive
and county road 18. This letter -addresses that: meeting as;;well"
as the question of whether to`build.10th:Avenue through to South
Shore Drive at great expense to a few citizens due -to the presence
of marshland and Bassett Creek...-
I was ,told by . Mr. Steigerwald "that the: road eventually; would have
1; to be built and ,the property developed, because of _-its gre'at. value
}"Mr. ,Wire..rai'sed'the very . d�quesaion:�of re examining <the plan
\forahe tiproperty -because of a,:present decrease''in`rieed .for,:office
space iri` thee: metro area T1 'of "the Plymouth Shopping Center
<rased the -issue of the_concern that. the DNR has. had iri the past
--
-for- e wildlife in the area
s I agree with Mr... Steige'rwald that the property has great value.
I also agree with Mr. ':ire that re=assessment may,be..appropriate
at this "time. -Just. for the. moment,. I'm going 'ao ask you :all to
focus 'on..a value that is quite different from' dollars: and'cents
What is the.value of marshland? Doe's it support.wildlife.that adds
' to the,; enjoyment .of life :of human -beings? ';.,,How does themarsh and
:creek :Add..:to. the ecological.:balance hof our,lake?' .To walk ,.down-- the,.
railroad tracks:' through the'7:s' : in -the spring. and listen to 'wthe
song of: -hundreds- of redwinged��.blackbirds is of=.value to some of -us -
{t22C :� 7' � ...) � a F Q. 1- .... ? - ys `= r •- .r, •c..- / -: v k e_ ; : �^ ',. yc Y-
bb�_-r `r.�If }y ou-crook �at� the, histo'. of�the :ci' of->Minnea ol"s 'ou ;"know,,that-
f y, Y'Y tY P . Y
A
compared to ?some other cities ` it is a 'quality place ' to live - and'
Y �that"the. city's foresight to protect the lakes plays a large part
' in -the enjoyment its community derives. Let's look at some of our
x
{� own history and use that to learn from. As the closest neighbor
to R,ye`rson Steel, I can say : from a home As
viewpoint that
P=` they -are a darn good neighbor: However, many folks that I have
, to in the last few months who live in the city of Plymouth
...,.,.talked;.f`Ryerson Sted..l should never have been allowed to build
that
ys where they did. It has been pointed out to me that the people
ouldAve. preferred that property to be used for the greatest
x <n
number of"' eople for the enjoyment -of Medicine Lake.
NAt�Y ay.�^i't'Li..l.iT ig+. f-.•.�
v •,> „ r -
ir'V L.
SJ'
=- q a c-,
Page 2 January 17, 1987
Once a property is developed it is nearly impossible to change its
use. Once. the marshland is filled in it is gone...... forever!
I would --also like to'look at this from a dollars and cents view-
point.. Nevin and Iwatched the council meeting on TV Monday
January 12th which looked at the issue of building a road on the
_-property in.question.-117e heard a figure of over 2 million dollars
to build this road. -`when we were working on the Alpha House.'issue
:I seem to all hearing a figure of around `60,000 for- 10 acre
rec
piece of marshland. If I use that as a rough estimate
of property value and figure 41 acres at $6,000/acre I arrive
at 1246 000: Even if I add another X160, 000 for the 10 acres
s across.;he:street I still arrive at only $306,000.
'So'.,. to the. point of all this. How about a Save The Swamp
,4rcampaign?.And how do we pay for the swamp? One way may be to
assess.all`-homes on Medicine Lake and all adjacent properties to
the` 51,`acres . That's called putting my money where my mouth is.
Or,-;maybe A. -fundraiser by the community. There could even -be a
Name the-5wamp.Contest to raise community interest and have some
fun` with the issue.
Some„bene.fits I see from this kind of thinking:
1 Save. the city over 1.5 million dollars
2.' Politically - raise positive feelings toward city government
3." Have a, valuable ecological resource for years to come
4: Prevent those with the shopping center/ hi rise/half-way house
mentality form continually harrassing the city to change -their
plan to allow building there
5. A sigh'of relief from the businesses and homeowners in the
area.
6. You th ink , o f some etc.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God- He, created.
Him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them;
God Faid to them "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill'<the earth, `:and e
subdue i1: ; =anc? rule over the fish of the sea ;and over- the' -birds"of
the ky, and over every living thing that moves on the-"ear.th."
Genesis 1:27-28 New American "tandard.
Remember the extinction of the passenger .pidge0n thathwas`once {
plentiful in 114innesota.
I also want to thank the planning commis ion and Blair Treme're fors N,`;,�" '
the no vote to the shopping center, and the council for the s1X
month delay on the 10th avenue building plans. Congratulations -,,-:
on ,your opportunity to make the city of Plymouth'_.a'communty Ghat
vlanF for the wise use of our resources for the.benefit of..those _
who live here.
Sincerely,
Terrie Christian
' • - - r Kms_ ; -
i
z�a(,A
Mr. Jim Olson
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
2335 W. Trunk Highway 36
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
Subject: Water Treatment Plant and Test Wells
Dear Jim:
Several weeks ago we had a call from Mr. Forester regarding surveyors on
his property without his permission. I talked with Harlan about it, and �n
fact, this was the case. It might be time that you advise and remind your
troops that there should be permission to enter private property prior to
doing so. At the last Council meeting Mr. Forester appeared before the
Plymouth Forum and was upset with the trespass onto his property. I am
sure you can appreciate that this type of action does not help our
negotiations with Mr. Forester.
Also, there was a test hole dug on his property which, according to Bob
Schunicht, has to remain open. If this is the case, then immediate steps
should be taken to fence the area to prevent any accidents.
I would appreciate it if you would take immediate steps to resolve these
questions.
Yours very truly,
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
City Engineer
SLG:kh
cc: Fred G. Moore
Frank Boyles
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY OF
January 16, 1987 PLYMOUTR
Mr. Jim Ritzinger
10880 South Shore Drive
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Subject: Groves Office Park Improvements
Project No. 648
Dear Mr. Ritzinger:
In regards to your question as to the accuracy of the half section maps on
file with the City relative to the right-of-way in front of your parcel for
South Shore Drive, we will be researching our records as well as contacting
Hennepin County as to the validity of the right-of-way shown on their half
section maps. As Bob Johnson of our office indicated to you, these records
are put together by Hennepin County and may or may not be accurate. Also,
if and when the 10th Avenue Project is ordered, we will be researching the
records as to the exact right-of-way the City has on South Shore Drive.
If, in fact, the easements are necessary for any of the construction, the
appropriate legal channels will be taken to acquire same.
In the meantime if you have any records or documents that indicate your
property description, please forward them to our office.
If you have any further questions regarding the matter, please contact the
undersigned.
Yours very truly,
�/
Sherman L. Goldberg, P.E.
City Engineer
SLG:kh
cc: r'red G. Moore
Frank Boyles
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800