HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 02-10-1989C
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1989
RECYCLING CASH DRAWING
February 9: No Winner
Next Week: $400 Cash Award
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS.....
1. TOWN MEETING -- Monday, February 13, 7:00 p.m. Town Meeting for
Area 4 residents in City Council chambers. Agenda attached. (M-1)
2. PRESIDENTS' DAY -- Monday, February 20. City offices closed.
3. COMMUNITY CENTER MEETING -- Monday, February 20, 7:30 p.m. Public
information meeting on the Community Center will be held in the City
Council Chambers.
4. SPECIAL COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -- Tuesday, February 21, 6:00 p.m.,
City Council conference room. Council study session on water
pressure and supply.
5. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING -- Monday, February 27. Regular City Council
meeting in City Council Chambers.
6. PLYMOUTH FIRE & ICE FESTIVAL -- Saturday, February 11, Parkers Lake
Park. Schedule of events attached. (M-6)
7. MEETING CALENDARS -- Meeting calendars for February and March are
attached. The February calendar has been revised. The February 14
Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, and February 16 HRA meet-
ings have been cancelled. (M-7)
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1989
Page 2
FOR YOUR INFORMATION....
1. WASTE TRANSFER STATION - DRAFT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIS -- A copy of
the draft final Supplemental EIS is attached for the Council's
information. The Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
will meet on Tuesday, February 14 to act on the Final SEIS for the
Hennepin Resource Recovery Transfer Stations Project. Also
attached is a memo from Blair Tremere providing a status report on
the SEIS.(I-1)
2. PARKERS LAKE PARK DEVELOPMENT - Councilmember Vasiliou last week
requested that Dale Hahn pull together the cost and financing data
for the Parkers Lake Park Development. The following are the
project costs and the financing of those costs.
Project Cost
Total Cost Phase I & II $ 979,856
Pavilion and Equipment S 435,773
TOTAL COST $1,415,629
Financing
Neighborhood & Community Parks Funds $ 658,237
Revenue Sharing S 507,000
Federal & State Grants $ 242,392
Donations $ 8,000
TOTAL $1,415,629
3. TRAIL/WALK PLOWING - This item was included in last week's infor-
mation memorandum, however, because of the lateness of Monday
evening's Council meeting, no Council direction was given. The
Council should provide staff with direction on this subject.
Last fall the City Council identified key trails and sidewalks to
receive snow and ice control services this winter. At the January
23 meeting, Councilmembers asked that the sidewalk and trail plowing
map be returned to them. The staff was also asked to consider the
addition of Vicksburg Lane and Dunkirk Lane to those trails and
sidewalks to be plowed. The Council should be aware that we have
received three phone calls requesting that the trail along Northwest
Boulevard and Medicine Lake Drive be plowed from County Road 9 to
26th Avenue North. These individuals have been advised that because
this is a test program for the first year this trial would not be
considered for addition. If the Council elects to add Vicksburg and
Dunkirk, then for consistency, the Northwest Boulevard/West Medicine
Lake Drive Trail should also be considered. While the addition of
these trails can be accommodated, this action could lead to requests
for other plowing in the future. The precedence of adding trails
could make it difficult not to honor such requests. (I-3)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUm
February 10, 1989
Page 3
4. ADVERTISING IN CITY PUBLICATIONS -- A total of 13 businesses, two
churches and two elected officials have reserved space for
advertisements in city publications. Ads will appear in the
Community Information booklet, due out in April, and Plymouth on
Parade beginning with the May/June issue.
Eight advertisers opted for their ads to appear only in the
Community Information booklet. Nine advertisers chose the package
which included the Community Information booklet and four issues of
Plymouth on Parade. Advertisements from both publications will
generate $11,300 in total revenue. A complete breakdown of
advertisers, ad size, and revenueis attached. (I-4)
5. CITY ATTORNEY CLIENT SUMMARY -- The City Attorney's monthly client
summary for January is attached. (I-5)
6. DEVELOPMENT SIGNAGE -- On Friday, February 10, two development signs
will be placed at the following locations:
1) West of Forestview Lane and north of 18th Avenue North. A.
J. Poppelaars is requesting approval of a preliminary plat.
The preliminary plat is for the creation of 28 single family
lots. (88139)
2) North of County Road 9, west of Vicksburg Lane (4325
Vicksburg Lane). Jack Swedlund is requesting an amendment
to the stage growth and sanitary sewer elements of the
Comprehensive Plan in order to develop approximately 13
acres of land in 1989 rather than 1990. (89001)
These requests will be heard by the Planning Commission at the
February 22, 1989 meeting.
7. MINUTES:
a. Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit, January 18, 1989. (I-7)
S. RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORMS -- Staff responses to resident feedback
forms from the January 30 Town Meeting are attached. Also attached
is a feedback form received in the mail this week from Arthur
Enkers. (I-8)
9. RECYCLING PROGRAM -- The City's recycling program was featured in
the February issue of "Minnesota Cities" magazine. A copy of the
article is attached. (I-9)
10. TAX EXTENSION RATES -- Attached is a summary sheet of tax extension
rates for Hennepin County. (I-10)
11. LYNDALE TERMINAL CO. v. CITY -- Attached is a copy of the Memorandm
of Law that was submitted on February 2 on behalf of the City to the
District Court. (I-11)
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1989
Page 4
12. ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES -- The January newsletter
from the AMM is attached. I-12
13. HENNEPIN COUNTY TASK FORCE ON YOUTH AND DRUGS -- On Wednesday,
February 15 in the Minnetonka Council Chambers, Hennepin County
Commissioner Sam Sivanich will give a special briefing on the find-
ings and recommendations of the Hennepin County Task Force on Youth
and Drugs. A copy of the meeting announcement is attached. (I-13)
14. CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Letter from Barb Stimson, Coldwell Banker, regarding the City's
telephone system. A copy of the Mayor's response is also
attached. (I -14a)
b. Letter from William Hamarman, 4635 Cottonwood Lane, regarding
his 1989 property tax statement. A copy of the Mayor's response
is also attached. (I -14b)
c. Letter from Millicent Cummings, 112 Balsam Lane, protesting her
property valuation. A copy of the Mayor's response is also
attached. (I -14c)
d. Letter from Jesse, Katy, Vicky and Al Hubbell, 12935 - 54th
Avenue North, on the extension of 54th Avenue. A copy of the
Mayor's response is also attached. (I -14d)
e. Letter from Kay Mitchell, Clerk to Hennepin County Board, invit-
ing public officials from Hennepin County to serve on the Board
of Directors for Community Action for Suburban Hennepin.
(I -14e)
f. Letter form Roland Danielson, U.S. Bench Corporation, to City
Manager. (I -14f)
g. Letter of appreciation for Dave Malone, Police Chief, City of
Eau Claire, for assistance provided by Plymouth Department in a
recent investigation. (I -14g)
h. Letter of appreciation from Plymouth resident to Police Depart-
ment. (I -14h)
I. Letter from Sue Nelson, Executive Director, West Suburban
Mediation Center, providing an update on agency's activities.
(I-141)
�. Letter from Ray McEwan, Messiah United Methodist Church, to
Mayor Schneider, commenting on the Council's action on the
ordinance amendment relative to churches. (I -14j)
k. Letter of appreciation from Robbinsdale School Board to City
Manager for assisting in the search for a new school district
superintendent. (I -14k)
T
Fire & Ice Festival
Parkers Lake Park, Co. Rd. 6 and Niagara LN.
Saturday, February 11
SCHEDULED EVENTS:
2:00 Wayzata Senior High Madrigal
Singers
2:15 Minnetonka Figure Skating Club
Demonstrations
2:30-4:30 Ice Fishing Contest
3:00 KS95 Hot Air Balloon
Novice Skating Races
Wayzata Senior High Chamber
_ Orchestra
h . nn - Fireworks
2-6p.m.
ON-GOING EVENTS:
* Co-Rec Softball Tournament
* Hayrides
* Children's Games
* Bonfire
* Concessions
* Ice Miniature Golf
* Hockey Goal Shooting
* Snow Shoeing
* Ice Boat Demonstrations
This event is co-sponsored by: The Plymouth Civic League, First Bank Plymouth, Kani Win Ga Camp
Fire, KS95, Minnetonka Figure Skating Club, Plymouth Ice Boat Association, Plymouth Lions, Plymouth
Police, Plymouth Women of Today, Rotary Club, Scanticon Executive Conference Center and Hotel,
Wayzata/Plymouth Area Chemical Health Commission, and Plymouth Parks and Recreation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CALL PLYMOUTH PARKS AND RECREATION
559-2800 x 266
January 24, 1989
Dear Plymouth Resident:
y:
F
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING, Area 4
Plymouth is a developing community and there are many actions underway or in
the planning stage which could impact upon you. In order to maintain open
communication channels with residents of the community, I have scheduled a
Town Meeting for residents of your area on February 13, 1989.
In order to keep the meetings on an informal basis while dealing with
specific topics of interest to you, the Town Meeting will be for the area
shown on the map below.
On the reverse side of this letter you will find the agenda topics for this
meeting. Following reports on these topics, questions will be entertained
regarding these or other matters. If you have questions about other issues
you do not choose to raise publicly, the Resident Feedback Form you receive
at the meeting may be used. Your particular concern will then be reviewed
and a personal response provided.
I encourage you to join Councilmembers Ricker, Sisk, Vasiliou, Zitur and
myself at 7:00 p.m., February 13, 1989, at the Plymouth City Center. We are
anxious to meet you and look forward to this opportunity to meeting
Informally to discuss matters of mutual interest. If you have any questions
about the Town Meeting, please feel free to call your City Clerk, Laurie
Rauenhorst, at 559-2800, ext. 204.
Sincerely,
V rgil Schneider
Mayor
1989 TOWN MEETING SCHEDULE
AREA 1
NOV. 3
AF EA 2`
AIR. h 0
NOME
AIR.
jtYA'
(I ;
� 00 I it
scc
LAW �r►.
d t
� AV 'kA E A 4N
It
FEBf 13\
s ror \
g
t N
A
EA 3„
JA .
14
a
L UIZ
i
it
ss
rnaa
�SLIN�T---------
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Q a ;: i
N N
u N M
O O N N
f
m N
(A
a)
00
Q
m
W
N N
E 0 m O n
u - N N
Q
Q
00
QCT
QNCV
/�/�
W
Y !
'>
e—
Q
Q
cc
LL
O
M
N
Q
Z
Q
'~
cn
w �
cc
W
M: CL
=
UO
~
N
d7 CL
N
}
z
Zpa.
CL X:
a3
N pq
�p O
�U
M N
LLL
C 3
< U OM
LAJ
o Z t� V) LO
Q
¢
LL,
zip
�z
Z
JLLJ
M
J
'^
L,
N ¢c�
H
L1 0- I�
�y�
W Li d F-
r-
N a N
�--� :E! C
}
z
Z_ a •�
N
Q
Q
W
oL)op a
a
(n
>
N
W
~n
Q
H
!� WC'3 4-)M
r-
N arm'
N
J
a
J
U
�}
N
U
LLJ
}
N
O a.
W U
L Q=
a
O
° �-+
O
O
Q
w
CU0
W a
w <LL-p
O
O
U O
Z
N
WQ
g OLL W
CM
M
�M
O
�-
Q n�
O
JpO
G
LD CD
LD LD
��
V-
N U
o
N�Wm
z
O
Z
Qx
Q
z
a
N
d7
CD
LO
N
Q N N
N
O M r N
N i0 N C
N
0)
00
m
T�
z
U
Q
N
Of = N Of t0 N
OD
T
Q 3 N
Q
Q n r N 00
N
m F
W
LL
O O m N N
7 0 c N
N
LL
N N
00 •
I
F
N N
T
07 O
lLI � � t0
� 3
CL
ao N
a F
O M r N
N i0 N C
N
0)
00
m
T�
z
U
Q
N
Of = N Of t0 N
OD
T
Q 3 N
Q
Q n r N 00
N
m F
W
LL
O O m N N
7 0 c N
N
00 •
I
Q
N
C)
MLO
C
VJ
a
C
Y
U
CO
Q
N
LL
O
r -
(Y)
r-
r-
N
C'M
}
a
z
L!)
Q
z
F-
w �
W�
D
m::a
Wa
cz o
CDM
O
N
cr) a�
�_�
N
M
oa
p�nU�
p
(!y M
O
LU..
ZLU
n Z
Z
a
Ln
N F-
C:) f`--
00 00 LL- Cl.
-j
N a
N
C5
I
Z
�z
��7 = H
O
Q
rlj
Q
H W
V)
2 0 ¢
ti
o
a
Q O
r'
00
00
L) 00
r- CO r
N
N
J
N
U
m a Z
c� = d
Z O O
Q
O
a O U O
Q
U O
M
Z
M
�
C
¢ ^
_=
G
lc::c
OCD
LD CD
N
a
O
Z
Q
Q
D
a
w
Q
Z
D
N
cr)
In
r-
r-
N
• ; 1
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: February 7, 1989
TO: Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
FROM: Solid Waste Division (Wayne Nelson, 291-6406)
SUBJECT: Adequacy Determination - Hennepin County Resource Recovery Transfer
Stations Final Supplemental EIS
INTRODUCTION
This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) evaluates proposed
changes in the transfer station portion of the Hennepin County Resource
Recovery Project. The project was the subject of an EIS determined adequate on
July 10, 1986. The new sites studied are in Brooklyn Park, Plymouth and
Minneapolis. Two additional alternative locations in Plymouth are also
included.
The Metropolitan Council is the Responsible Government Agency (RGU) for
environmental review of the proposed transfer stations. As the RGU, the
Council is charged both with the preparation of the SEIS and the determination
of its adequacy. The Final SEIS must be found adequate if it:
1) Addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which
information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed;
2) Provides responses to the substantive comments received during the
draft SEIS review concerning issues raised in scoping; and
3) Was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and the environmental review program rules
(Minn. Rules Parts: 4410.0200 - 4410.7800)
If only minor changes are made in the draft SEIS, the written comments and
responses may be circulated as the final SEIS. The final SEIS must be
distributed to all the people who received the draft SEIS and notice of its
availability must be published in the EQB monitor at least 10 days before the
adequacy determination. Council practice is to take a final EIS through its
committee and advisory committee process prior to release by the Council and
bring the matter directly back to the Council for the adequacy decision.
DISCUSSION
The Council approved the scoping decision for the SEIS in March 24, 1988. The
Draft SEIS describes and evaluates the proposed transfer stations and the
additional alternatives It analyzes geology and soils, surface runoff, land
use and zoning, transportation, noise, solid waste system impacts, utilities,
local community impacts, wasteshed implications, aesthetics and cultural
resources, and flora and fauna. Specific mitigation strategies to address
groundwater control, transportation needs and household hazardous waste
management are discussed.
The Council held public meetings in Minneapolis on January 3, 1989 and in New
Hope on January 5, 1989 to receive comments on the Draft SEIS. The comment
period closed January 19, 1989. A report of the comments received at the
public meeting and in writing is attached. Staff responses to the comments
and changes in the draft SEIS text are also included in this attachment which
constitutes the final SEIS.
A large number of comments were received because the management of trash,
recyclable materials and household hazardous waste is controversial and three
widely distributed sites were evaluated. Many of the comments were repeated
verbally by different speakers at the public meetings and in the letters
submitted. Only a few changes in the draft SEIS text appear to be necessary.
The comments and responses together constitute the final SEIS.
CONCLUSIONS
The Final SEIS for the Hennepin Resource Recovery Transfer Stations Project
1) Addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which
information can be reasonably obtained have been analyzed;
2) Provides responses to the substantive comments received during the
draft SEIS review concerning issues raised in scoping; and
3) Was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and the environmental review program rules.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Metropolitan Council release the Final SEIS for the Hennepin Resource
Recovery Transfer Stations Project.
WN5007-PROTX4@6
HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATIONS
DRAFT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIS
Prepared by
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Publication No.
February 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Section One 1
Minneapolis public meeting, comments and responses 1
New Hope public meeting, comments and responses 8
Responses to written comments 13
Section Two - Additions To The Draft SEIS Text
21
Section Three - Written Comments 22
HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATIONS - FINAL SEIS
Environmental Quality Board Rules allow the response to written comments on a
draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to be distributed as
the final SEIS if only minor changes are made in the draft document. This
document responds to both the verbal and written comments presented during the
comment period and identifies minor changes in the draft document. Thus the
final SEIS, the draft SEIS and the original EIS together constitute the
complete environmental review of the proposed changes in the Hennepin County
transfer station network.
The Metropolitan Council conducted two meetings to receive comments on the
draft SEIS. About 80 people attended in addition to county and Metropolitan
Council officials. The sign -in sheets, presentation scripts and tape
recordings have been retained along with this document as the public meeting
record.
This document is organized in three sections. The first contains the public
meeting comments and responses plus responses to the written comments. The
comments and responses are numbered to coincide for reference purposes. The
middle section contains changes and additions to the text of the draft SEIS.
The final section contains the written comments received by the Council.
SECTION ONE
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Hennepin Draft SEIS Meeting
Minneapolis - Stewart Park Multipurpose Meeting Room
January 3, 1989
Council member Josephine Nunn called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Approximately 30 people were in the audience and those who signed in are
indicated on the attached list. The other Metropolitan Council members present
were: Joan Campbell, John Evans and Carol Flynn. Ms. Nunn followed the
attached convenor script.
Wayne Nelson of the Council's Solid Waste Division presented an overview of the
draft study using slides of figures from the document. The original EIS
evaluating the mass -burn facility and a network of four transfer stations was
completed in 1986. It included nine alternative transfer station sites. Three
new transfer station sites have been selected by the county and these are the
subject of the SEIS along with. two additional alternative locations.
Mr. Nelson described the transfer station design and operational expectations.
He then explained how the study addressed governmental approvals, geology and
soils, surface water, land use and zoning, transportation, noise, solid waste
system impacts, utilities, local community impacts, wasteshed analysis,
aesthetics and historical/cultural resources, and flora and fauna.
Patricia Christensen offered testimony first. (1) She felt the meeting should
have been conducted 3-5 years earlier before decisions had been made. (2) She
challenged the reliability of the burner. (3) She asked where the garbage will
go if the burner doesn't work and how rats and flies will be prevented. (u)
She would like more detailed information about recycling operations anticipated
-1-
�1
at the facility including the operation of a conveyor and management of
hazardous waste like copier toner mixed with trash. (5) How will plastics be
sorted out. (6) She believes as much as 90 percent of waste could be recycled
and reduce the need the county system.
Christensen response
1 - Meetings on the original EIS were conducted during 1986 for this purpose.
2 - The reliablity of the incinerator is not an issue in the SEIS scoping
document and is not relevant to the environmental suitability of the transfer
stations.
3 - If the incinerator is out of service, the transfer stations will redirect
deliveries to other waste processing facilities or landfills without disrupting
trash collection services. Rats and flies will be prevented by promptly moving
mixed waste through the station into transport trucks, removal of waste on a
daily basis and the application of chemicals by a licensed pest control service
if problems are detected.
4 - Recyclable separation operations will be developed on an experimental basis
by the county. Separation operations where the organic residues are promptly
disposed have no history of environmental problems with off-site risk
potential. Copier toner is not a typical household hazardous waste, but it
would likely be placed in a labeled container and either recycled or disposed
as hazardous waste if delivered to the station. Household hazardous waste will
be stored in a separate room designed with concrete sills and special heating
and air conditioning controls to contain any spills and prevent air dispersal
in the event of an accident. Recycling staging and storage operations are
defined adequately for purposes of environmental review. These operations are
traditional types of industrial activity that will be adjusted based on the
types and volumes of materials actually delivered to the facility. The
operations do not pose environmental risks identified in the scoping decision
and are not listed as a review category in Environmental Quality Board rules.
5 - Plastics are not currently expected to be sorted from mixed waste, but
hand picking is a future possibility.
6 - More recycling would require shifting the mix of waste and recycled
materials management within the transfer stations without affecting the overall
need for transfer stations.
Ray Peterson reported the Phillips Neighborhood Improvement Association has no
specific position yet on the study although it requested the environmental
review. (1) Particular concerns include the rerouting of 22nd Ave. S. How
does the connection with 29th St. affect the signal at 21st Ave. and Lake St?
(2) Will increased truck traffic at Cedar Ave. and 28th St. affect the nursing
home there or other nearby residents? Another site was rejected because of
potential impact on a nursing home. (3) The High -Lake Center was not
specifically analyzed in the land use analysis and none of its tenants are
mentioned by name. (4) Does the proposed site compare favorably with the
alternative Crosstown site indicated on page 28? (5) The details about
recycling are not clear enough. (6) If volume goes beyond 700 TPD, will there
be additional review?
Peterson response
1 - 22nd Ave. will be eliminated within the transfer station site, but a local
street around the site will be constructed to connect with 21st Ave. Use of
21st Ave. by loaded compactor trucks would violate a city ordinance requiring
the use of truck routes when feasible for truck delivery operations. The only
truck route facility access available is off 28th St. Minneapolis Weights and
Measures staff and law enforcement officials have the authority to issue
-2-
citations for violation of this ordinance. The arriving and departing peak
hour traffic associated with the facility totals only 33 vehicles from 7:00 to
8:00 am. and 36 vehicles from 4:30 to 5:30 pm. If half of these vehicles used
the Lake and 21st Ave. intersection, the numbers involved are less than 20
arrivals and departures each hour. Assuming measures to discourage compactor
trucks are effective, the trips would consist of residents and employees and
the impact at the Lake St. and 21st Ave. signal would be negligible. Site
access through this intersection will not be more convenient than for the
existing transfer station and the situation will not change appreciably because
combined traffic flow from the existing station and the six businesses and 27
residences displaced by the new station likely exceeded 20 arrivals and
departures each hour. The county could install a sign at the facility entrance
denying access to trucks observed entering from 21st Ave. and a portable
barrier or curbing could be installed just inside the facility entrance (off
29th St.) to make it difficult for trucks to enter or exit the facility via the
21st Ave. route. Selective truck route enforcement by local police or the
county sheriff could also be instituted.
2 - Impacts on residents and nursing home occupants near Cedar Ave and 28th
St. are not likely to be perceptible. Facility traffic at 28th St. and Cedar
will involve a maximum of 11 vehicles in the am. or pm. peak traffic hours out
of a total volume of more than 29000 vehicles using the intersection each hour
in 1989. The peak hour of truck traffic from the facility will occur between
11:00 am. and noon and involve a maximum of 81 trips. The study projects that
35 percent of the facility traffic other than transfer trailers will use the
Cedar and 28th Ave. intersection. Thus a maximum of 26 trucks are likely to
use the intersection during the busiest hour of facility operations. The
highest volumes of trucks associated with the facility are insignificant in
comparison with the current volumes experienced during rush hours. The high
truck traffic from the facility will occur about midday when the roads are
least used.
3 - The "existing land uses" description on p. 64 should indicate that the High -
Lake Center is immediately -to the south of the site. The High -Lake Center is a
multi -tenant shopping center that includes a grocery store.
4 - The site compares favorably with the Crosstown site in terms of size,
convenience of access (improvements to I -35E could eliminate convenient freeway
access), zoning, noise (immediately adjacent to residential) and development
issues (cement plant demolition and possible relocation). It compares about
evenly on the other criteria.
5 - See Christensen response # 4.
6 - Additional environmental review could be required if the transfer station
plan is changed substantially and the changes pose a risk of significant
adverse environmental impacts. Throughput volume increases are subject to
control through the MPCA permit and county licensing and intake over 700 tons
in a single day would not represent so substantial a change as to require
additional environmental review.
Al Eggen represented the Seward South Project Review Committee. (1) It is
concerned the station would be detrimental to the industrial park proposed for
development north of the Minnehaha Mall. (2) A Cub food store planned at 26th
Ave. & 28th St. would attract 2,000 cars per day which might exceed roadway
capacities if the transfer station is approved. (3) If transport trucks for the
incinerator take Hiawatha and proceed through downtown on 7th St., will the
litter problems be acceptable?
Eggen response
1 - The Minnehaha Mall is east of Hiawatha Ave. and the railroad property that
-3-
currently presents a barrier to facility associated truck traffic that would
use Hiawatha Ave. Facility truck traffic would have essentially no impact on
this neighborhood as long as 28th St. continues to terminate at Hiawatha Ave.
When 28th St. is extended to the east, the residents and local haulers with
destinations in this direction would be likely to use this route. The
wasteshed map projection suggests by its general vertical alignment that the
north/south arterials will continue to serve as the preferred access routes to
the facility.
2 - A Cub Food store would attract much more traffic than a transfer station.
3 - Transport trucks will be routed through the interstate highway system to
the incinerator.
Leslie Davis represented "the Earth Protector Organization and all people of
Minneapolis with any brains." (1) Recycling only 20 percent of the waste is
inadequate. (2) Is it even needed along with the Reuter facility? (3) A
complete plan for the recycling operations should be included. (4) There's not
enough garbage in South Mpls. to justify a transfer station when the burner is
three miles away downtown. (5) If 350 TPD of garbage is currently being
transferred on a half -acre site, why is a 10 -acre site needed for 400 to 700
TPD in a new facility? (6) What is the total traffic volume likely at the
facility including resident deliveries?
Davis response
1 - Environmental review is not the forum for establishing waste management
system priorities. This review evaluates the risks associated specifically
with the transfer station proposals.
2 - The wasteshed analysis includes the Reuter facility and the downtown
incinerator.
3 - See Christensen response #4.
4 - The Minneapolis transfer station proximity to the downtown incinerator is
desirable because of the large volume of trash generated in this heavily
urbanized area and the intervening downtown traffic situation.
5 - The transfer station will dramatically decrease the number of vehicles
delivering to the incinerator and assure that the highway network will be used
to the maximum feasible extent. A 10 -acre site offers significantly better
buffering and traffic management capabilities.
6 - The maximum daily traffic volume is estimated on page 82 at 790 incoming
and outgoing trips including trucks as well as employees and citizens.
City Council member Tony Scallon (1) reported that garbage trucks are currently
diverting off the area of 18th Ave. and Cedar Ave. into residential
neighborhoods. Mitigation is a serious need for this situation. The city may
not be able to handle this problem even though the use of residential streets
for truck transport is not legal. (2) A clearer recycling plan would be
helpful.
Scallon response
1 - Apparently some haulers currently use 18th Ave. S. a block west of Cedar
Ave. to avoid turning from Lake St. at that signalized intersection. The same
problem could occur on Longfellow Ave. a block east of Cedar to avoid the
signal for southbound traffic approaching 28th St. These residential streets
could be posted with signs indicating "trucks prohibited except to access
residences". A warning system could be implemented based on residents
reporting the license registrations of haul vehicles observed on the
residential streets. County staff could follow-up with license inspections or
encouragement to file misdemeanor complaints against driver violators observed
-4-
more than once. A barrier could be erected at the intersection of the facility
access road and 28th St. to discourage eastbound traffic from entering and
westbound traffic from exiting. With a city's concurrence, the county has been
receptive to designating access routes. These routes can be enforced through
citations by the police or authorized county staff. The problem could be
reduced by making 28th St. a one-way westbound throughfare, but this would
increase pressure to seek site access from 21st Ave. and Lake St. or require
circuitous routes to Hiawatha Ave. Departing traffic could still use
residential streets off of 28th Ave.
2 - See Christensen response #4.
Ralph Rye (1) suggested Soo Railroad land would make a better site than Hungry
Hollow. (2) Food stores are within 100 feet of this site and the Hopkins site
was rejected because of proximity to food warehouses, is this fair? (3) Are
the buffer zones adequate? (4) All the transfer stations should have the same
operating hours and limitations so that problems aren't shifted to stations
with the most lenient requirements. (5) Can the light rail transit station
coexist with the transfer station? (6) What traffic is anticipated from 21st
Ave?
Rye response
1 - Alternative sites were evaluated adequately during the original
environmental review. The transfer station requirements for about 10 acres
with good road system access in an industrial zoning can be met in a number of
locations.
2 - The environmental review of the Hopkins site provided no indication that
the transfer station would pose any environmental risk to food warehouses
located nearby.
3 - The minimum set -back of 80 feet from city streets allows space for fencing,
access roads and tree plantings.
4 - Operating hours and limitations are controlled by licenses and conditional
use permits and may be adjusted to deal with problems. Flexibility is
desirable to address special situations. The operating hours and limitations
anticipated vary only marginally for the three facilities and shifts in waste
flows or constituents between facilities are not predicted as a result. Annual
license reviews should provide an opportunity to adjust facility schedules and
operating requirements if necessary to avoid such problems.
5 - Light rail transit is projected on two alignments in the vicinity. One is
on the east side of Hiawatha Ave. and may tunnel under the intersection of
Hiawatha and Lake. The other will leave the railroad right of way on the north
side of 29th St., and either cross to the south of 29th St. near the transfer
station site and turn south along the west side of Hiawatha or skirt the
transfer station on the north side of 28th St. before turning south along the
west side of Hiawatha Ave. A passenger station is likely to be designed to
service the Hiawatha and Lake area. Transfer station development during 1989
is likely to preceed light rail development by two or more years. Construction
planning for the two facilities is, however, being coordinated by Hennepin
County. County staff responsible for light rail and transfer station planning
(Ken Stevens and Brent Lindgren, respectively) were cooperating to assure that
neither project would disrupt the other. The site layout on page 20 of the
Draft SEIS shows an unlabeled light rail right of way on the west side of
Hiawatha Ave. on the alignment that is expected to be used if part of the
transfer station site is needed for this purpose. A light rail system will not
reduce the current capacity of throughfares in the vicinity, but implementation
should reduce traffic volumes generally and thereby improve vehicle access to
the transfer station.
-5-
6 - Only facility residential and employee traffic is anticipated from 21st
Ave. S.
Susan Bell (1) reported neighborhood concern about truck traffic on 18th Ave.
and some residents even shot tires last summer. A child was killed by a
garbage truck a couple of years ago. The increase in truck traffic relative to
current truck traffic levels should be studied. (2) The residential investment
on 18th Ave. is not reflected in the study.
Bell response
1 - See Scallon response #1. Increases in the
proportion of truck only traffic cannot be predicted because the MnDOT base
data does not specify trucks. The calculations of level of service impacts on
intersections and volume to capacity ratios of affected roadways were, however,
adjusted to reflect truck trips as being the equivalent of three vehicle
trips.
2 - Property value impacts from the facility are not anticipated so the amount
of investment in any particular neighborhood should not be affected.
Norm Cappis expressed nervousness about odor because of the noticeable odor
near the transfer station in St. Cloud where he worked. It was pointed out
that the St. Cloud facility included a compost operation that is the primary
cause of odors there. (1) Who made the determination of negligible property
value impacts? (2) Will there be tree plantings to hide the facility? (3)
Will there be a connecting street around the facility? (4) Will the site
attract rodents and will residents be provided assistance with rodent control?
(5) How will odor be controlled?
Cappis response
1 - The Barton-Aschman Assoc. Inc. consultant firm found no reason to
anticipate adverse property value impacts based upon an interview with the
Minneapolis City Assessor and an analysis of current land uses in the immediate
vicinity including the existing transfer station.
2 - Landscaping including trees and shrubs are proposed.
3 - Access around the facility site is shown on the east side (page 20), but
could be established on the west side.
4 - Rodents are not likely to be attracted to the site. If rodents become a
problem, prescribed mitigation measures should provide sufficient control
without off-site impacts.
5 - Odor is not likely to be a problem outside the building because of
operational procedures requiring prompt movement of mixed waste through the
transfer process. This will minimize anerobic decomposition of waste which
is the cause of most odor problems at waste management facilities. Chemical
treatments have been identified as mitigation measures to counteract the
unlikely occurrence of unusual odors.
Tom Steeb (1) feels that 14 employees is too low an employment rate for a
Minneapolis industrial area. (2) Could local residents be hired?
Steeb response
1 - Any employment rate calculation for the facility should account for the
two to ten haulers and recyclers that are likely to be visiting the facility at
any time.
2 - Residency requirements for employment are not appropriate for this
environmental review. The employment standards of the operating entity must
assure that staff with an appropriate range of knowledge, skills and abilities
U
are retained in a context of equal employment opportunity.
John Tafte (1) is concerned that displaced low-income people have assistance in
moving. (2) What is the advantage in transfering the waste to larger trucks
for a relatively short trip downtown?
Tafte response
1 - County relocation benefits have been and are available for low-income
people displaced by the project.
2 - Transfering waste to large trucks reduces by three-fourths the number of
vehicle deliveries from the south Minneapolis wasteshed to the downtown
incinerator or any other facility. The transfer station will allow deliveries
to more distant facilities, when the incinerator is shut down, without
disrupting the trash collection business.
The meeting concluded at 9:10 pm.
-7-
�= 1
Hennepin Draft SEIS Meeting
New Hope - Cooper High School
January 5, 1989
Council member John Evans called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Approximately 50 people were in the audience and those who signed in are
indicated on the attached list. The other Metropolitan Council members present
were: Dirk deVries, Carol Flynn, Mike McLaughlin, Josephine Nunn, Dottie
Rietow, Gertrude Ulrich and Marcy Waritz. Mr. Evans followed the attached
convenor script.
Wayne Nelson of the Council's Solid Waste Division presented an overview of the
draft study using slides of figures from the document. The original EIS
evaluating the mass -burn facility and a network of four transfer stations was
completed in 1986. It included nine alternative transfer station sites. Three
new transfer station sites have been selected by the county and these are the
subject of the SEIS along with two additional alternative locations.
Mr. Nelson described the transfer station design and operational expectations.
He then explained how the study addressed governmental approvals, geology and
soils, surface water, land use and zoning, transportation, noise, solid waste
system impacts, utilities, local community impacts, wasteshed analysis,
aesthetics and historical/cultural resources, and flora and fauna.
Plymouth mayor Virgil Schneider and the city council continue to have grave
concerns about the Plymouth site. (1) Experimentation with recycling and
household hazardous waste management is not appropriate. (2) The proposed site
is within the city's water well field. (3) Illegal citizen disposal at the
gate and along the road is likely. (4) A new facility should meet or exceed
high design and operational standards. (5) The city has an inequitable burden
of county facilities including the 70 -acre adult correctional facility, two
regional parks (440 acres) and 65 acres of trail. (6) Alternative sites not
just within Plymouth should be studied. (7) The study superficially addresses
Plymouth's concerns.
Schneider response
1 - Experimentation with recycling and household hazardous waste management is
necessary and is most appropriate in facilities designed to protect the
environment.
2 - Essentially any Twin Cities location is over acquifers that serve as
municipal well fields. Risks of groundwater contamination will be controlled.
Liquids other than household hazardous wastes are prohibited. The bottom of
the mixed waste pit will be sealed and have no drain. Liquids that are
admitted, to the facility will be controlled four ways: 1) the absorbtion effect
of mixed waste that is moved through the facility and loaded into transfer
vehicles on a daily basis, 2) containerized storage of liquid household
hazardous waste in secure storage areas designed with concrete sills and
special heating and air conditioning controls to contain any spills and prevent
air dispersal in the event of an accident, 3) operational procedures and
training requiring prompt cleanup and notification to regulatory entities in
potential high risk situations, and 4) runoff controls to collect and treat the
small amounts of material lost from vehicles on the exterior paved areas of the
site. No groundwater impacts can be projected and the location a mile from a
city well does not pose an environmental risk. Occasional inspections by city
staff could assure that the above techniques for managing liquids are
implemented satisfactorily.
-8-
3 - Dumping by the gate is not a common problem at transfer stations or
landfills. Anoka Sanitary Landfill Manager Terry Miller reports that illegal
dumping near the entrance has occurred only twice in eight years and both
violators were traced from the contents and agreed to pay the costs of
cleanup. The landfill operation includes a recycling dropoff center. The
South Minneapolis transfer station has no history of this problem.
4 - The facility exceeds design standards for appearance, buffer and runoff
controls. The operational standards indicated as a result of conditional use
permit negotiations with Brooklyn Park are exemplary.
5 - Hosting a 70 -acre correctional facility, two regional parks and trail
systems does not constitute an inequitable community burden. The potential
reduction in property tax receipts is not significant relative to total city
tax revenues. Private ownership of the transfer station or some other means of
adjustment for reduced city tax receipts could be proposed.
6 - Nine alternative site locations outside Plymouth have already been studied
as part of the original EIS.
7 - The study provides the information necessary as a basis for governmental
approvals.
David Lilja, who owns land the county intends to acquire for the Brooklyn Park
site, objected to the taking of his land. His business employes 150 people and
anticipated expansion on the parcel selected for the transfer station. (1) No
one from the county or Brooklyn Park has contacted him about the impact on his
business. (2) There is vacant land across the street and diagonally across
Jefferson Hwy. and 77th Ave.
Lilja response
1 - The site acquisition procedures are not subject to environmental review
because the impacts are individual and not societal in nature. The
implications that this business may relocate are thoroughly described in the
study.
2 - An appropriate study of alternative site locations has been conducted. The
findings for the county proposed site would apply in nearly every respect to
the site identified by Mr. Lilja and this site could probably be selected by
the county without an additional supplemental environmental review.
LeRoy Reinke is concerned because his house will be within 32 feet of Co. Rd. 6
after it is widened. (1) He objects to noise, litter, safety, fumes, dumping
by the gate, spill contamination, monitoring, rodents and property value
impacts. The nearby properties should be purchased if the county can spend $11
million on the project.
Reinke response
1 - The study addresses noise, litter, safety, fumes, spills, monitoring,
rodents and property value impacts. See Schneider response #3 regarding
illegal dumping.
2 - Set back from Co. Rd. 6 will not be affected by the transfer station.
Transfer station traffic will play a very small factor in any traffic related
problems that develop in the future on this expanding throughfare.
Bella Braverman (1) complained
while the site is on the edge
(2) The truck volume will tie
workhouse site alternative is
Braverman response
that the study stressed the industrial zoning
of this zone near her residential neighborhood.
up traffic especially during rush hours. (3) The
in the heart of a residential area.
1 - Residential development begins about a quarter mile west of the Plymouth
site, but this development is buffered from the industrial area by Interstate
494. Residential development about a mile to the east is separated by Hwy.
55. Residences about three-fourths mile southeast are separated by a railroad
track.
2 - The traffic analysis indicates that truck volume will not tie up traffic.
This will be particularly true during rush hours when haulers tend to schedule
pickups in order to avoid traffic delays on throughfares.
3 - The workhouse site alternative is about a quarter mile from residential
development.
Stacy Maniak asked questions about the Brooklyn Park site that were answered as
follows. The site location was changed at the request of the Brooklyn Park
city council. The household hazardous waste management operation will be
segregated with sills, floor coverings and storage containers provided to
manage these items safely. Rats have not been attracted to other well managed
transfer facilities like the one in South Minneapolis and rodent control
services could be used if necessary.
Brian Mark represented the Plymouth Business Action Association. (1) He feels
the traffic information is inaccurate because the situation has changed
considerably. (2) The noise measurements were taken out on Co. Rd. 6 and 494.
The study should evaluate levels at the facility entrances or where trucks
idle. (3) Can the trucks be handled without backing up outside the facility
entrance during peak delivery times. (4) The political decision to eliminate
the Hopkins site does not seem fair. (5) Property values in this exclusive
industrial area are likely to decline.
Mark response
1 - The traffic information is based upon MnDOT growth projections. Recent
increases in employment at CVN Companies and other firms do not invalidate
these projections because growth always occurs in spurts. The assumed growth
rate for background traffic levels in Plymouth are twice the growth rate for
the entire Metropolitan Area.
2 - The noise measurement takes existing ambient noise levels where they are
loudest (the Co. Rd. 6 intersection with Xenium Ave.) and adds the projected
noise from a comparison facility (a waste transfer station in Baltimore Md.)
and the projected noise from the increase in truck traffic associated with the
facility. This approach represents a worst case including truck access to the
facility and on the access roadway.
3 - The peak daily traffic at the facility is projected to occur between 11:00
am. and Noon with 107 arrivals and departures. Approximately 40 truck arrivals
are included in this estimate. There is more than 2,000 ft. of on-site road on
which vehicles could wait to enter the facility. At 40 feet per vehicle, 50
waiting vehicles could be accomodated. No waiting is anticipated, however,
because the facility is designed to handle a minimum of 46 compactor trucks per
hour (7 trucks at a time at 4-7 minutes to unload and allowing a margin of
unpredictable delay) and a substantial number of commercial recycling
vehicles. The scale operation can accomodate 120 trucks per hour. Thus even
at peak inflow, only a few vehicles are likely to have to wait outside the
facility building to unload.
4 - The basis for elimination of the Hopkins site from consideration is not
subject to environmental review, but the analysis of this site remains part of
the environmental review record.
5 - The study found no objective basis for anticipating a decline in property
values. The proposed project involves a high quality industrial building with
-10-
more landscape buffering than any building within view of the site.
Lawrence McGowan (1) suggested the Plymouth transfer station should be sited on
top of a landfill.
McGowan response
1 - Differential settling of landfills generally makes them unsuitable for the
construction of buildings for a period of 20 years or more.
Paul O'Gorman represented the Plymouth Business Action Association and CVN
Companies which employes 4,000 employees on a 24 hour basis and is located
across Co. Rd. 6 from the Plymouth transfer station site. (1) Traffic is his
primary concern. The study does not include 1,500 new CVN employees added
during the past year. (2) The amount of household hazardous waste that could
be stored on the site was not mentioned, will more trucks be required to haul
this away? (3) The study considered traffic from the corners of Xennium and
Co. 61 with Co. 6. This traffic may not change much and will primarily be
affected by the installation of the interchange. The traffic pressure is going
to be where the trucks turn off on Annapolis Dr. and on Watertower Circle, the
accesses to and from the site. (4) Both traffic and noise should be tested for
these locations and compared with after the fact projections. (5) Runoff to
the ponding area will drain either to the 494 ditch or the storm sewer and then
into the pond or swamp area between CVN and 494. This area is connected to the
wetlands across 494 and a system draining to Medicine Lake. The study doesn't
address this impact. (6) Facilities like this shouldn't be put in established
locations, an extra mile or two further wouldn't hurt much.
O'Gorman response
1 - See Mark response V.
2 - The volume of household hazardous waste likely to be delivered to all
three transfer stations per week is predicted on page 138. Storage will depend
upon the stability of materials, the time it takes to fill storage containers
and arrangements for delivery to disposal facilities. Federal hazardous waste
management restrictions govern the duration and volumes of storage allowed.
3 - Trucks will turn off Co. Rd. 6 on Annapolis La. to access the facility.
They will not proceed as far north as Watertower Circle. Facility related
traffic on Annapolis La. will not be affected by intersections and is too low,
combinedwith normal local traffic, to project level of service delays from
optimum conditions.
4 - Projecting noise on Annapolis Dr. would reduce the worst case projection
used in the study. The difference between normal traffic noise on Annapolis
La. and the higher level on Co. Rd. 6 at Xenium Ave would be missed.
5 - Runoff drainage to wetlands after grit has settled and floating litter and
petroleum based materials have been skimmed off is an accepted means of
stormwater treatment.
6 - A more remote site location would raise hauler costs and lose the
advantages of freeway access that minimize truck impacts near less buffered
roadways.
Lyle Clemmens (1) asked if recycling is successful will the waste volumes
diminish enough so transfer stations aren't needed to the extent planned.
Clemmens response
1 - The result will be a shift toward more emphasis on recycling materials
management within the facility and less mixed waste management. Population and
employment growth projections portend an increase in the total stream of waste
-11-
and recyclable collections. Recycling is not expected to reduce the need for
transfer stations.
Tom Dierks (1) asked if anyone is promoting the transfer stations in a positive
light because he has only heard criticisms.
Dierks response
1 - environmental review provides objective information to evaluate concerns.
Rick Peterson (1) indicated that he had invested his life savings in a $200,000
home about a half mile from the Plymouth site and wouldn't have invested if he
had known the station was going to be built.
Peterson response
1 - Personal opinion about adverse property value impacts is not shared by the
city assessors.
Leslie Davis (1) complained that the Metropolitan Council has the wrong plan in
the first place because it relies on dumping and burning. He feels the
suburban communities have the most important ingredient to fight the plan -
money. They just have to make sure they get the right folks to fight for them.
Davis response
1 - These comments do not relate to the environmental review.
The meeting concluded at 9:15 pm.
-12-
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS (The letters are reprinted as Section Three)
Ralph Rye response
(Preferred Soo Railroad site) - See Rye verbal comment response #1.
(Food store proximity) - See Rye verbal comment response #2.
(Buffer zone) - See Rye verbal comment response #3.
(Traffic) - See Rye verbal comment response #4.
(Facility visibility) - The building height will be approximately 58 feet -
about five stories high.
(Truck wash) The truck wash concept was deleted because vehicle owners have
their own facilities for this purpose.
(LRT) See Rye verbal comment response #5.
(Truck storage) No trucks are expected to be serviced or stored on site.
(28th Ave.) See Scallon verbal comment response #1.
(Lake St.) See Peterson verbal comment response #1.
Mary Rye response
(Traffic routes for transfer vehicles) These vehicles must use truck routes and
compliance can be enforced through the contract with the county. Access routes
for the Bloomington facility were negotiated through the conditional use permit
process.
(Trucks waiting on public property) Ample space for any trucks waiting to
unload are provided on-site with more than 1200 feet of access road for at
least 30 compactor trucks. For additional analysis of truck queing see Mark
verbal comment response #3.
(Operation before or after hours) No strategy of fines has been deemed
necessary by Minneapolis officials to assure that official hours of operation
are respected.
(Access to Hiawatha Ave. from 29th St.) No such access is planned.
(Waiting in the event of facility delay) Truck delay of more than a half hour
will not be acceptable and haulers will be redirected to other locations.
(Recycling and household hazardous waste disposal services) The three stations
studied will each offer these services daily. Fees were not addressed during
the study. Illegal dumping is not likely to be a frequent problem and prompt
clean up by facility staff is likely to be negotiated through the conditional
use permit process. See Schneider verbal comment response #3.
(Vehicle inspections) Hennepin County licenses trash haulers and this
management responsibility will not change although the transfer stations may
provide a convenient opportunity for oversight.
(Additional traffic for citizen drop-offs) This resident and employee traffic
are estimated at 284 incoming and outgoing trips on page 82.
(One-way 28th St.) See Scallon verbal comment response #1.
(Backup power supply for transfer stations) The transfer stations are designed
to use public utilities. A portable generator is necessary to supply needed
emergency electrical power. See "Contingency Planning" on page 14 of the draft
SEIS for additional information.
(Noise level above MPCA standards) The noise level in a residential back yard
at 28th St. and Longfellow was measured at 65.8 dBA for 10 percent of a daytime
period. This exceeds the standard by .8 decibels for a residential area. The
standards for 10 percent of the time and 50 percent of the time are projected
to be exceeded by five and two dBA, respectively. The transfer station and
related traffic will account for only 1.0 to 1.2 dBA of the predicted levels.
Noise increases of 0-3 dBA have been determined to be imperceptible in many
independent tests. Noise associated with the transfer station could not be
distinguished from background noise in the back yard location indicated above.
-13-
(Hazardous waste storage schedule) See O'Gorman verbal comment response #2.
(Fire and security precautions) Liquid household hazardous waste will be
stored in containers in secure storage areas designed with concrete sills and
special heating and air conditioning controls to contain any spills and prevent
air dispersal in the event of an accident. Operational procedures and training
will require prompt cleanup and notification to regulatory entities in
potential high risk situations. Specific fire management strategies are
identified in paragraph three of page 14 of the draft SEIS.
Plymouth Mayor Virgil Schneider response
(A true "no -build alternative" would not involve sites in Plymouth) The "no
build alternative" evaluated in the original EIS assumed no transfer stations
would be built. Alternative sites outside Plymouth were adequately addressed
in the original EIS. Nine alternative sites were studied.
(I.A. - Significant issues remain) All the issues raised are addressed to a
reasonable extent.
(I.B. - The study contains inaccuracies or incomplete information) Any
inaccuracies noted have been corrected. The information provided is sufficient
for the risk levels posed by a project of this nature.
(I.C. - Reasons for choosing a Plymouth site over county land in Hopkins are
not valid) An EIS provides background information to support decisionmaking
but does not dictate the basis that must be used to make approvals.
(I.D. - Implication that tax exempt status for a transfer station implies a
minimal impact) The SEIS indicates only that the difference between a taxable
and tax exempt status for the station would have only a minimal impact on
Plymouth's total property tax receipts.
(I.E. - Dropoff operations should have been analyzed in more detail) See
Christensen verbal comments response #4. All transfer station materials
management operations including drop-off programs will be conducted within the
station buildings.
(II.A. - Unacceptable materials management) Unacceptable materials are defined
in Hennepin County Ordinance # 12 dealing with solid waste designation. No
measures can assure that no arbitrary or improper dropoffs will occur outside
the facility premises, but this has not proven to be a significant problem in
similar circumstances - See Schneider verbal comments response #3.
(II.B. - Actual experience with improper hazardous waste) Only citizen dropoff
of household hazard waste is anticipated. The SEIS documents the actual
experience with citizen dropoffs and predicts somewhat higher volumes will be
collected through a continually available program. The information on page 10
refers to hazardous waste that will not be accepted at the facility from
commercial haulers or recyclers. These volumes can only be estimated because
the volumes refused at operating facilities are believed to represent only a
small portion of the actual volume of these materials that are generated.
(II.C. - Small quantities of hazardous waste discovered in the mixed waste
stream) State and federal regulations apply once these materials are
aggregated. Facility efforts to identify and separate such materials are
exemplary because they could legally be left comingled with the waste stream
and have undesirable affects on pollutants associated with incineration
facilities and landfills.
(II.D. - Finalization of plans for hazardous waste management) Hazardous
waste management is and will continue to be an evolving activity. Final design
will be dependent upon approvals including conditional use permits.
Operational procedures and facility adjustments and improvements will be
necessary on an ongoing basis.
(II.E. - Waste diversion plans) While the SEIS describes the backup capacity
available in the proposed transfer station and processing facility network, the
-14-
long-term unavailability of any major system component would have to be
addressed in conjunction with replacement plans for the component.
(II.F. - More information desired in support of governmental approvals) The
purpose of environmental review is to present the information deemed essential
to evaluate the potential risks identified through the scoping process.
Unnecessary detail would be counterproductive to an analysis of reasonably
likely implications.
(III.A.,B. - Well field proximity analysis was cursory) More detailed analysis
of the geohydrology affecting the city well field is not relevant because no
significant groundwater impacts are likely from this facility. City and MPCA
facility inspections can verify whether facility operations are conducted to
standards that prevent liquids from penetrating floor surfaces or storm water
runoff from escaping treatment. See Schneider verbal comment response X62 for
additional information.
(III.C. - Observations of groundwater potential impacts do not specifically
address depository functions including household hazardous waste) The
groundwater analysis and mitigation measures on pp. 55-57 and 165-170
respectively of the draft SEIS address the collection and management of any
materials dropped or spilled on the site or in the facility.
(III.D. - Alternative Plymouth site analyses do not address proximity to the
city well fields) See response to III.A.,B. above. The alternative sites
would be no more or less likely to affect groundwater than the proposed site.
(III.E. - Storm water runoff analysis does not address implications on city
well fields) The analysis indicates that wetlands will not be adversely
affected. The wetlands would have to be adversely affected for storm water
runoff to affect the groundwater. See O'Gorman verbal comment response #5.
(III.F. - Plymouth zoning standards for the industrial park containing the
proposed site discourage public retail/service activities and may prevent
citizen dropoff and recycling functions) The volume of projected citizen
dropoffs does not require a large parking lot or a commercial style operation.
The city position is noted by the inclusion of this letter in the final SEIS.
(III.G. - Use of hazardous waste collection estimates questioned) Estimates
based on actual county experience with special collection projects is the most
reliable way to predict the types and quantities of materials likely to be
delivered to the site. An independent waste generation study provides
additional support for the estimates.
(III.H. - Household hazardous waste definition is contradictory regarding used
motor oil) Although motor oil does not appear on the MPCA list of inventory
categories of household hazardous wastes accepted through its programs, it is
listed in the tables summarizing MPCA collections and the projection for the
transfer stations. There is no implication that this material is not a problem.
(III.I. — Implications for the Plymouth station if household hazardous waste
collections are terminated at another county facility) This possibility is not
addressed in the SEIS scoping decision. Speculation about termination of such
operations at one facility and not the others does not seem very credible.
Presumably, the county would react by replacing any terminated capacity if
a significant volume of collections is jeopardized.
(III.J. - The "no build" option should have addressed specifically the Plymouth
station instead of the network of transfer stations) From an environmental
review perspective the larger network perspective is appropriate because a
specific transfer station is not a mandatory EIS category under EQB rules. The
wasteshed analysis was used to indicate likely backup destinations in the event
of the shutdown of any of the transfer stations (draft SEIS Table 1.6-1).
(III.K. - Property value implications to the community should not be based upon
assessed value and potential ancillary development) Assessed values are the
basis for predicting the impact on tax receipts if the facility is given a tax
-15-
exempt status. The current assessed value is specifically referenced in the
text to indicate that this represents current value only. Potential ancillary
commercial beneficial impacts are enumerated without implying that they would
offset adverse impacts. See Schneider verbal comment response #5.
(III.L. - Outside storage and litter controls) Outside storage will not occur
according to the facility plan. The frequency of outdoor litter pickup is
likely to be negotiated with each city based on minimum standards in a
conditional use permit. Experience with the existing South Minneapolis
transfer station indicates that litter can be successfully controlled.
(III.M. - Control of illegal dumping outside the facility) See Schneider
verbal comment response #3.
(III.N. - Will someone be on-site 24 hours every day) The site will be
protected by a chain link fence and exterior gate that would be locked when the
facility is closed and no one is on the premises.
(III.0. - Does not deal head-on with rejecting extremely hazardous materials)
Mitigation measures encourage the county not to blindly turn away unusual or
particularly troublesome materials. Liability for accepting such materials
may, however, have to be negotiated in some instances. Any materials rejected
at the facility as too dangerous would only be allowed to be taken away under
safe circumstances - illegal dumping outside the gate is not a realistic
outcome.
(III.P. - Concern that design and outreach mitigation recommendations will be
ineffective because they reflect assumptions instead of actual experience) The
county and the MPCA have repeatedly and successfully conducted household
hazardous waste collection programs. The proposed measures are a responsible
professional judgement of additional measures that can assure the safe
operation of continuing programs. Every new program requires initiative.
(IV. - Burden of public facilities) This is an issue that was not included in
the scope for the study largely because there are no standards for community
share of public facility burdens. Facilities vary dramatically in impact and
the significance of these impacts other than property tax consequences is
largely subjective. See Schneider verbal comment response #5.
(V. - Plymouth is asked approve the facility on good faith) The SEIS does not
request city approval. It portrays what is known and can be predicted in
advance that may affect potential environmental impacts.
(VI. - Dropoff and recycling functions were hastily added and require more
study) These management issues do not pose risks that justify additional
environmental review. See Christensen verbal comment response #4.
Cimmarron East Homeowners Association Inc. response
(Traffic impacts are underrepresented) Co. Rd. 6 traffic was estimated using
MnDOT data from actual traffic count records and a projection after an
interchange connecting to I494 is added. Future growth added to both figures.
(Household hazardous waste management not sufficiently addressed) See
Christensen verbal comment response #4 and O'Gorman verbal comment response #2.
(Noise increases from the new Co. Rd. 6 intersection with I494 in combination
with the transfer station would be objectionable) Noise associated with the
transfer station was modeled on traffic levels with the Co. 6/I494 interchange
and did not exceed state standards.
(Property values will be affected) See Mark verbal comment response #5.
Phillips Neighborhood Improvement Association response
(1.1 - Continued operation of the existing transfer station) The existing
South Minneapolis transfer station will not be used to transfer solid waste in
the forseeable future. Minneapolis will use the facility for other purposes
and that were not addressed in the SEIS.
-16-
�1
(1.5.1 - Consistent operating hours) See Rye verbal comment response X64.
(1.5.2 - Management plan for dropoff components) See Christensen verbal comment
response #4.
(1.5.3 - Odor control for trucks outside the building) The facility is not
responsible for controlling odors from hauler's trucks. The trucks have no
history of odor nuisance complaints.
(1.6 - Contingency planning not adequate for capacities estimated in 2020)
Certainly additional planning will be necessary during the life of the
facility.
(2.2 - Alternatives to South Mpls. not adequately explored) Alternatives were
adequately studied in the original EIS. The county decision to reject the
Hopkins site is not subject to the environmental review process. The original
EIS documented that transfer station operation on the Hopkins site would have
no impact on vector levels at food warehouses within a half mile. No off-site
vector problems are anticipated.
(2.2.1 - Disagreement with rationale for selecting the South Mpls. transfer
site) The site selection criteria provided by the county are listed. The
environmental review has to address the sites the proposer seeks to have
approved.
(4.1.3.1 - Measures to be taken if contaminated soils are found) This issue
was not addressed in scoping and should be addressed as in any other
construction project.
(4.2.3.3 - Are there contaminants that will remain after passing through the
grit oil and flammable liquids separator) The MWCC will require an industrial
sewer connection application that will be completed in conjunction with the
local plumbing permits. Monitoring and sampling of the processed waste water
may be required and an industrial discharge permit may be issued at a fee
between $30 and $180 for three years.
(4.2.3.1 - Water quality impacts if there is no stormwater retention pond) A
retention pond may be negotiated with Minneapolis. If one is established, the
connection with the storm sewer system that would be required is indicated on
page 147. The analysis shows that storm water runoff will not increase in
conjunction with the transfer station development and the effect on runoff
quality if a retention pond is not included will not be appreciably different
than under current conditions.(4.3.2.1 - Evaluation of compatibility with
existing land uses) See Peterson verbal comment response #3 regarding
reference to the Hi -Lake Center. The new transfer station building will be set
back and buffered from the Hi -Lake Center and the cemetery. The buffering will
include fencing, landscaping, vegetation, and site roads.
(4.3.2.2 - The B3S-2 zoning to the south of the site allows residential use and
should be mentioned in the narrative) This zoning is clearly indicated on the
site zoning map (Figure 4.3-3). The zone encompases the Hi -Lake Center and its
exclusion from the narrative is not likely to confuse anyone.
(4.3.2.3 - Compatibility with future land uses should address light rail and
plans for redevelopment east of Hiawatha Ave.) See Rye verbal comments
response #5 and Eggen verbal comments response V.
(4.4.1 - Would MnDOT estimates of traffic on redesigned Hiawatha be preferable
to estimates based upon current traffic) The extra cost of redoing this
portion of the analysis from the original EIS was not warranted. Hiawatha
improvements are not likely to increase the impact of facility traffic.
(4.4.3.3 - Accuracy of projection that 65 percent of facility traffic will use
Hiawatha Ave.) This projection derives from a computer model of optimal travel
times using truck routes between waste generation points and disposal
locations.
-17-
(4.4.3.4 - 1989 traffic projections are not far enough into the future) This
section estimates 1989 traffic and indicates the impact of adding facility
traffic. This projection best reflects likely impacts from implementing the
project. Impacts while Hiawatha Ave. is being reconstructed are beyond the
scope of this SEIS.
(4.4.3.4 - Truck access from residential streets and impacts on residential use
near Cedar Ave. and 28th St.) See Peterson verbal comments responses #1 and
#2. The study of level of service implications at Cedar Ave. and 28th St.
addresses turns from all directions.
(4.5.2 - Would seasonal differences in noise levels be significant) Noise will
carry somewhat further during winter but people tend to stay inclosed more and
be less affected.
(4.5.3 - The location of receptor #2 misses impacts on the shopping center)
The location of noise receptor #2 allows a worst case analysis of traffic noise
from Hiawatha Ave. in combination with the projected facility operational
noise. This combined level is less than MPCA standards for commercial uses
like the shopping center.
(4.5.7.1 - Are more stringent Minneapolis noise limits applicable) The
facility is not likely to operate on Sundays or holidays that apply to
haulers. Operations will slow substantially after 6:00 pm and MSW will not be
accepted after 7:00 pm. so the W CA standards are likely to be more stringent
than the Minneapolis limits and apply as indicated in the SEIS.
(4.5.7.1 - Increases in noise levels above standards should be addressed in
some way other than mitigation measures) The study purpose is to describe the
impacts and potential mitigation in an understandable context.
(4.6.1 - Dramatic increases in county recycling goals should be evaluated for
impact on transfer stations) The 20 percent recycling goal is significant
because it represents additional recycling above 1985 levels. See Christensen
verbal comment response #6 regarding the implications of more recycling.
Implications of the incinerator are outside the scope of this SEIS.
(4.6.3.1 - Household waste generation based on Marin County figures is
inaccurate) The Marin County figures were used to estimate an overall
generation rate because they are the best documented figures available from
actual waste samples. Estimates of volumes likely in Hennepin County also
reflect the MPCA experience with demonstration programs.
(4.6.3.2 - Participation in household hazardous waste dropoff ought to exceed a
5 percent rate, would this affect the facilities) Higher volumes than
projected would increase the frequency that collected volumes would have to be
disposed. Substantial increases in volume would have to occur before more
storage space would be prepared for this purpose. Removal of these materials
will benefit incineration and landfill operations, but this impact is outside
the scope of this study. Hazardous materials remaining in the waste stream
will be comingled or absorbed as they have in the past. Iib st hazardous
materials not disposed separately from MSW are likely to escape detection at
the transfer stations.
(4.6.4.2 - If throughput will be near capacity in 2020, why weren't these
volumes evaluated) The capacity referred to here is the 700 tons per day
projected maximum throughput, not the 1,800 maximum design capability. The
year 2000 was chosen because waste generation rates have been estimated to this
date. Longer projections are not as reliable. Table 1.6-1 indicates the
likely backup facilities if capacity at the Bloomington station is not
available. Capacity for dropoff functions is ample for expansion with about
half of each facility reserved for these purposes. The evolutionary nature of
these programs makes predictions of future throughput speculative.
(4.6.5.1 - Can the transfer stations handle all the yard waste after the ban on
disposal with MSW is implemented in 1990) The stations will only provide an
so
area for citizen dropoff. Most yard waste disposal is expected to occur
through other city and county programs. Modification of dropoff operations in
the future cannot be reliably predicted.
(4.6.5.2 - System modifications could have environmental impacts that have not
been evaluated) A responsible effort was undertaken to predict the likely
significant impacts.
(4.7.3 - Indication that a storm water retention pond will be required is
contradictory) The section indicates the nature of the connection that would
be required between a retention pond and the storm sewer system.
(4.8.1.2 - Property value impacts may be realized) They may occur but adverse
impacts are not anticipated by city assessors.
(4.8.3.1 - Displaced employees and residents face problems associated with
poverty) The study does not contest this, it indicates the number of homes and
jobs affected.
(4.8.3.2 - The Minnesota Realtors Association should be contacted about
valuation impacts) Assessor information is superior because these professional
judgements reflect sales price ratios to assessed values instead of listing
expectations. The 58 -foot facility height will not dominate the community.
(4.8.4.3 - A tax generating use would be better for the site) The SEIS
portrays the current tax receipt situation. A tax-exempt facility will not
provide this level of tax receipts.
(4.9 - Wasteshed mapping is disputed) The mapping was derived from a computer
model of optimal travel times using truck routes between waste generation
points and disposal locations. The map indicates that downtown and Northeast
Mpls. generators are likely to be the primary direct contributors to the
downtown facility. The mapping is not intended to establish wasteshed
boundaries. It portrays the likely wastesheds if the proposed network is
implemented.
(4.10.1.1 - Litter and odor controls with frequently opening doors, elimination
of truck wash, fee arrangements and queing delays) Doors will have to be
frequently opened and closed but disposal within the facility will minimize
odor and litter problems. Truck conditions will controlled through county
licensing procedures as they have been in the past. Fee arrangements are not
within the scope of the SEIS. Ample space for any trucks waiting to unload are
provided on-site with more than 1200 feet of access road for at least 30
compactor trucks. For additional analysis of truck queing see Mark verbal
comment response #3.
(4.10.3.1 - Only on-site historical/cultural resources studied) The
perspective of this portion of the study is to determine whether existing
resources will be obliterated. The nearby cemetery will not be affected in a
way that is appreciably different than it is by the existing transfer station
operation and recent site uses.
(4.10.3.2 - How can a 58 -foot structure be buffered?) Trees near the fence
will provide some buffer.
(5.2.2 —Mitigation measures for transportation are desired) See Scallon
verbal comment response #1.
(5.3.1 - Mitigation for household hazardous waste remaining in MSW should be
specified) This is a waste management problem beyond the scope of this SEIS.
(The demonstration on-site recycling program should be evaluated more
thoroughly) See the Christensen verbal comment response #4.
Sterling Electric Co. response
(Additional trash hauler traffic would disrupt business and decrease safety)
The analysis shows the impacts on the Plymouth site area traffic associated
with the facility will not be consequential.
(A transfer station will detract from the appealing community) See the Mark
-19-
verbal comment response #5.
(Illegal dumping fear) See Schneider verbal comment response #3.
(Household hazardous waste volumes and turnover) See the Schneider verbal
comment response #2 and Christensen verbal comment response #4.
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources response
(More information on soils and wetlands on the Carlson Parkway alternative site
would be needed if it is chosen for development) The information would be
provided during the permit process.
Dept. Of The Army response
(No additional information is requested) No response is required.
Earth Protector response
(Challenges the need for transfer stations and the adequacy of an SEIS for
transfer stations that support incineration facilities) These concerns are not
within the scope of study specified for the SEIS.
City of Minneapolis response
(Design and operational mitigating measures for storage of unprocessed
recyclables and household hazardous waste) Measures for hazardous waste
management are specified in section 5.3 of the draft SEIS. Additional measures
for the control of liquids are specified in Section Two of this document.
Specific design of the recycling materials storage area is outside the scope of
study for this SEIS. See the Christensen verbal comment response #4.
(Mitigation measures to discourage truck use of residential streets)
Mitigation measures for this purpose have been added in Section Two of this
document.
(Changes in the Hiawatha Ave. intersection with 28th St. may pose implications
for facility design) Extension of 28th St. as a "through" street proceeding
east from Hiawatha Ave. will not pose significant implications on or from
facility generated traffic. Deliveries by transfer vehicles will continue to
use the indicated routes to the interstate highway system. Local residents and
haulers serving the area east of Hiawatha Ave. will not be affected by turns
to and from Hiawatha. Some traffic volume from Lake St. will probably divert
to 28th St. and facility related traffic will constitute an even smaller
proportion of 28th St. volume.
(Effects of more packer trucks using the incinerator facility than originally
intended) This issue is not within the scope of study specified for the SEIS.
Wasteshed or other limitations of truck volume at the downtown facility could
be negotiated with Hennepin County. The transfer station is certain to reduce
the number of vehicles directly accessing the incinerator facility.
(Additional measures for hazardous incident prevention and response) See the
first response to this letter.
(Analysis documenting the ability to address truck queing on site) The peak
daily traffic at the facility is projected to occur between 11:00 am. and Noon
with 107 arrivals and departures. Approximately 40 truck arrivals are included
in this estimate. There is more than 11200 ft, of on-site road on which
vehicles could wait to enter the facility. At 40 feet per vehicle, 30 waiting
vehicles could be accomodated. No waiting is anticipated, however, because the
facility is designed to handle a minimum of 46 compactor trucks per hour (7
trucks at a time at 4-7 minutes to unload and allowing a margin of
unpredictable delay) and a substantial number of commercial recycling
vehicles. The scale operation can accomodate 120 trucks per hour. Thus even
at peak inflow, only a few vehicles are likely to have to wait outside the
facility building to unload.
-20-
SECTION TWO - ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIS TEXT
MITIGATION SECTION ADDITIONS
The county could install a sign at the facility entrance denying access to
trucks observed entering from 21st Ave. and a portable barrier or curbing could
be installed just inside the facility entrance to make it difficult for trucks
to enter or exit the facility via the 21st Ave. route. Selective truck route
enforcement by local police or the county sheriff could also be instituted.
Residential streets like 18th Ave. S. and Longfellow Ave. S. near 28th St.
could be posted with signs indicating "trucks prohibited except to access
residences". A warning system could be implemented based on residents
reporting the license registrations of haul vehicles observed on the
residential streets. County staff could follow up with license inspections or
encouragement to file misdemeanor complaints against driver violators observed
more than once. A barrier could be erected at the intersection of the facility
access road and 28th St. to discourage eastbound traffic from entering and
westbound traffic from exiting. With city concurrence, the county has been
receptive to designating access routes. These routes can be enforced through
citations by the police or authorized county staff.
Occasional inspections by city staff could assure that the following techniques
for managing liquids are implemented satisfactorily. Liquids other than
household hazardous wastes are prohibited. The bottom of the mixed waste pit
will be sealed and have no drain. Liquids that are admitted to the facility
will be controlled four ways: 1) the absorbtion effect of mixed waste that is
moved through the facility and loaded into transfer vehicles on a daily basis,
2) containerized storage of liquid household hazardous waste in secure storage
areas designed with concrete sills and special heating and air conditioning
controls to contain any spills and prevent air dispersal in the event of an
accident, 3) operational procedures and training requiring prompt cleanup and
notification to regulatory entities in potential high risk situations, and 4)
runoff controls to collect and treat the small amounts of material lost from
vehicles on the exterior paved areas of the site.
GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS SECTION ADDITIONS
Add to Table 3.2-1. The MWCC will require an industrial sewer connection
application that will be completed in conjunction with the local plumbing
permits. Monitoring and sampling of the processed waste water may be required
and an industrial discharge permit may be issued at a fee between $30 and $180
for three years.
Add to Table 3.2-1. A hazardous materials storage and processing permit may be
required from the city of Minneapolis.
-21-
SECTION THREE - WRITTEN COMMENTS
-22-
Jan 3, 1989
SITE
Why was this site picked when Soo Railroad land was available
and no business or homes would need to be relocated at that
site? Of all possible sites in the city of Minneapolis which
was closest to residental zoning?
OTHER SITES
How could the Hopkins site be rejec.ted on basis of closeness
to food warehouses when this site is much closer to a grocery
store?
BUFFER ZONE
How much land is required for a buffer zone bewteen industral
use and residental use?
TRAFFIC
How can other transfer sites limit hours of operation and
storage of refuse overnight? Should not all transfer
stations have the same operational limits?
SITE LOOKS
When did plans for an emposing 6 story tall building replace
the current height of transfer station?
SITE CLEANILNESS -a
When did truck wash and insecption stations get dropped from
site plans?
LRT STATION
Can a LRT station coexist with a garbage transfer station?
TRUCE'S AND STORAGE
Where will trucks be serviced and stored overnight?
28TH AVENUE
Can 28th revete to a one way all the way across the "
railtrack? And will development of Cub foods and access road
to that new shopping area impact on truck traffic
LAKE STREET
Will there be only administration traffic off LaEe Street?
Ralph Rye
Jan 3, 1989
✓ What traffic routes will the transfer vechicles from the
South Minneapolis transfer station be restricted to?'
What traffic routes will transfer vechicles from Bloomington
V transfer station be restricte to?
What traffic routes will transfer vechicles returning from
the Garbage Burner be restricted to?
Will compactor vehicles be allowed to wait on public
property?
If the transfer station operates after or before hours, is
there a fine?
Will there be entrance and/or exit access for compactor
vechicles and transfer vechicles to Hiawatha North and/or
South via 29th Street?
If ther is a slowdown or temporary shutdown, how long will
compactor vehicles be allowed to wait to unload? How many
compactor vehicles can wait to unload on Transfer site
property?
Are all Hennepin County sites going to be drop off sites for
recyclable materials, yard waste, and household hazardous
wastes? hat days and hours will this drop off service be in
operation? Is this a free service or will ther be a fee
charged? Who will clean up "dumping" bby impatient or late
or wrong day individuals and how soon will it be cleanedup?
How often eill vechicles be inspected for adequate brakes,
lead emissions, etc?
What is the projected additional traffic for drop off area
for recyclable, yard waste, and hazardous wastes?
Can 28th Street become one way East between Cedar and
Hiawatha?
What is the planned backip power supply for transfer stations
and garbage burner?
To what level is the MPCA noise standards exceeded at the
interections of Cedar and 28th Street in the Suplemental EIS?
What is an imperceptible increase? And who is it
imperceptible to?
How long will hazardous wastes be stored at all of the
transfer stations? What fire and securrity precautions are
planned?
z
INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
REMARKS BY CITY OF PLYMOUTH MAYOR VIRGIL SCHNEIDER
FOR THE JANUARY 5, 1989 PUBLIC MEETING
REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY TRANSFER STATION PROJECT
I. The City of Plymouth continues to have grave concerns regarding the
proposed location of a resource recovery transfer station in the City.
The City has expressed concerns previously to the Hennepin County Board
on June 11, 1987 and before a Metropolitan Council Panel on February 29,
1988, at the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Hearing. Copies of
the City remarks and background information were submitted at those
times.
The true "no -build alternative" that should have been explicitly
addressed in this document is that other alternative sites in Hennepin
County, not just within Plymouth, might be available and that placing
such a facility in a developing/developed urban area might very well be
inappropriate, hazardous, and environmentally unsound.
A. The City has reviewed the December, 1988, draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and finds that significant
issues remain which either have not been fully addressed or which are
not addressed at all, apparently due,to the lack of information
regarding the construction and operation of such facilities.
B. It contains inaccurate or incomplete information which can
significantly alter one's perception of the proposed facility and, in
this case, tends to minimize features which in fact can be reasonably
expected to present ongoing environmental problems and to foster
1
continued anxiety by the residents of the area and of the entire
community.
C. The contention that alternate sites and the "no build option" have
been adequately addressed is not valid. The stated reasons for
considering the site which the County has already purchased as an
"alternative" to the previously selected site on land the County
already owned in Hopkins have stronoer contradictions than the
reasons the Hopkins site was rejected. The proximity to a food
distribution facility in Hopkins pales against the proximity to the
major Plymouth municipal water well field and food distribution
facility in Plymouth.
D. The suggestion in the SEIS that the proposed transfer station would
have minimal impact due to its tax exempt status is incredible, given
the existing facilities this City has, versus other communities in
the County with similar transportation system access who have no
facilities whatsoever.
E. The proposal to add additional functions to the originally proposed
transfer station may have a rational philosophical basis but has not
had the attention or analysis it deserves because of potential
problems. Dropoff areas for citizens as well as for waste haulers
and municipal recyclers for delivery of recyclable materials and yard
waste, and a dropoff area for County residents for delivery of
household hazardous waste present a,whole spectrum of management and
environmental problems that, at best, receive cursory treatment in
the SEIS, apparently due to the lack of knowledge of how these
functions will work.
2
The external impacts of this facility upon the community are
significantly heightened due to these additional proposed functions,
whereas, the transfer stations alone were to have been self-contained
and enclosed except for the entry and exit of commercial vehicles.
II. The SEIS raises a variety of questions which should be publicly and
thoroughly addressed before AU environmental approvals and permits are
granted. Where there is a lack of knowledge and/or information then
those operations should be explicitly excluded from the proposal until
such time they can be addressed in an acceptable manner. It is not
acceptable to expect the City of Plymouth to be a testing laboratory for
the functions other than the transfer operations based upon current data.
(Note: The page numbers refer to the December, 1988 draft SEIS.)
A. Page 4. What does the statement, "obviously unacceptable material
will be rejected" mean, exactly? Does it suggest that it will be
rejected from the immediate premises but perhaps left elsewhere in
the vicinity because the person bringing it did not realize it would
be rejected?
What exactly are the controls for the unwanted/illegal items? What
are the measures that will assure no arbitrary/improper dropoffs will
be made "at the gate"?
B. Page 10. What actual experience has there been relative to the
expected percentage of improper hazardous waste? Much emphasis seems
to be placed upon the estimates of five to ten percent expectation
based on a previous Environmental Impact Statement for other
facilities. This would not be a problem if the site were only
identified as a transfer station not available to the general public
or recyclers.
3
C. Page 11. The SEIS states the County "will attempt to separate and
remove loads of waste that can be visually identified as containing
unacceptable or hazardous waste, but will not separate small
quantities of household hazardous waste or less obvious commercial or
industrial waste." Is this to be exclusively defined by the County,
and, more probably by personnel on the site? Are guidelines
established by the Pollution Control Agency or by Federal
authorities? The resolution of this problem is not treated directly
by the SEIS.
D. Page 13. The County at this time has not specified details regarding
the design and layout of the Household Hazardous Waste Facility. The
County at this time hasotot developed guidelines for determining
acceptability of the various types of household hazardous waste that
may be encountered. Exactly when will those be accomplished? Does
it not make sense that those should be available for review now and
not, perhaps, at some indefinite time after the facility is under
construction or even under operation?
E. Page 14. The County has no formal waste diversion plan and there is
thus only speculation as to what might happen as a contingency if
other facilities in the County broke down or were unable to legally
handle materials. Is this not an environmental concern and problem?
The SEIS treads lightly on this.
F. Page 32. The purposes of an Environmental Impact Statement in support
of government approvals are outlined. If the SETS is to be truly
meaningful should it not be more detailed and demanding of the
proponent? How can the SEIS effectively serve as a guide to sound
decisionmaking at Ln level of government, if key elements about
4
matters such as hazardous waste handling are circumspect, at best?
The demands that government at all levels place upon the private
sector for performance and compliance should be fully expected and
required of public agencies. The SEIS repeatedly suggests that what
can't be answered now will "probably" be addressed later. This is
not acceptable.
A similar proposal from the private sector would be tabled to allow
additional data and analysis to be submitted. That should be the
case here.
III. There are numerous specific questions about accuracy of the data and of
the analysis of technical data and these require careful scrutiny.
Cursory analyses and environmental assurances are found in response to
these facts: the site is within the City's water well field; there is a
high likelihood of anonymous, illegal citizen drops "at the gate" and
"along the road" off of the site; and the City's restrictions onlel land
uses in the Planned Industrial district which are designed to minimize
public activities of retail service nature, e.g., the dropoff recycling
functions that were added to the transfer station use.
A. Page 38 and Page v. One of the main environmental issues, ground
water contamination, has only been addressed in a cursory manner.
The City has previously demonstrated that the proposed transfer site
is within the City's municipal well ,field. The statement is made
that the study has concluded that releases of contaminants could pose
the same risk to the area ground water supplies regardless of the
location of the transfer stations.
The SEIS cites the EAW: "that, 'This option (relocation of the
facility to another area) would not reduce the potential impact to
1
the regional ground water in that the entire Minneapolis -St. Paul
area has similar hydrogeologic characteristics. The same potential
water resource threats would exist at any site selected in this area'
(Metropolitan Council -1981)."
The soil borings presented in figure 4.1 - 9 and 10 indicate that the
Plymouth site is underlaid by a "clay sand and silty clay." General
conclusions cannot and should not be made for the entire Minneapolis -
St. Paul area and applied to the proposed Plymouth site.
The Plymouth site is directly within the City's municipal well field,
and therefore, requires more detailed, specific analysis for minimum
measures on ground water impact.
B. Page 51. The SEIS indicates that the proposed site possibly features
a creek bed or drainage way based upon the borings that were taken.
The City has been aware of and has expressed concern about the
potential problems that could result with the City's municipal water
well field in the area; this heightens that concern.
C. Page 55 - 57. The ground water levels are such that well points will
probably be required at least to lower the water table during
construction. The observations about ground water apparently deal
with the transfer station and do not deal with the depository
functions that have been added that include household hazardous waste
(legal and illegal).
D. Page 58. The discussion of the so-called alternative site does not
address the location of the City's municipal water well fields which
are clearly identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan and which
have been identified in all previous submittals regarding the
Environment Impact Statement for this project.
6.1
E. Pages 61 and 62. The discussion of storm water drainage from the
site does not address the municipal water well fields and possible
impacts.
F. Page 69 (and Pages v and iii, 19, and 26). Plymouth has high
development standards for all industrial buildings and it is expected
of all development that standards regarding external impacts such as
litter, odor, noise, outside storage, and traffic are met or
exceeded. This includes a County transfer station.
The City planning has produced a planned industrial district which
intentionally discourages public retail/service activities. Citizen
dropoff and recycling functions are of a public retail/service
character. It is not appropriate to assume that all aspects of the
transfer stations including these functions, would be consistent with
City plans and ordinances. The inquiries made to the City that
resulted in the responses in the SEIS were about a totally self-
contained transfer station.
G. Page 135. Hennepin County has not developed estimates of
participation rates, or estimates of waste volumes or characteristics
to be expected for the transfer station, household hazardous waste
dropoff sites. The suggestion that "rough estimates" should be used
based upon the "one-day special collection projects" is highly
.indicative of the shallow analysis of this SEIS as to what could be
one of the most significant problems of the operation. The study is
actually guessing and estimating based on meager experience while at
the same time suggesting that the use of the facility should be
promoted to citizens throughout the County to use it. Interestingly,
the SEIS notes the Bloomington facility will not have these
functions.
7
i
H. Page 136 and 137. The information about expected quantity of
household hazardous waste and the definition of those wastes is
contradictory relative to used motor oils. These substances which
are identified as ones likely to represent the highest volume of any
single item are typically inclusive of gasoline. The implication (by
omission) that they are not a problem, is further evidence of the
shallow analysis. One only needs to compare the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency data on Page 136 to the tables on Pages 137 and 138.
I. Page 138. Little substantive information is provided relative to the
possibility of other facilities breaking down or otherwise failing to
handle the household hazardous wastes. Even if one accepts the
artificially low projected figures (in barrels), the physical
quantity is significant, especially when it is not clear where the
materials will be stored and how they will be disposed of on a
regular and dependable basis.
J. Pages 143, 144. It is difficult.to conclude that the discussion of
the "potential effects of system modifications" and presumably the
"no build option" is realistic and meaningful. Exactly what does
this discussion mean with respect to the environmental impact of this
program and of this facility? Neither the original EIS nor this
supplement deals specifically with the impact of not building this
transfer station. Is that not a requirement? The reference here is
to the entire transfer station system. One can easily conclude from
the analysis that there are so many problems the system should
probably not be built until more answers and policies can be
resolved.
Q
K. Page 149. There are several inaccuracies and problems with data
here. Our remarks earlier stated the amount of already acquired
County land in the City of Plymouth. It is not an accurate
conclusion, at least for the City of Plymouth, that "no serious or
long term adverse impacts on property tax revenues are anticipated
for any of the proposed site taxing authorities."
Further, the discussion about the potential cost of acquisition, is
misleading. The facts are that Hennepin County purchased this prime
industrial land for $1,900,000 about one year ago for the express
purpose of developing a transfer station. This followed the
political decision by the County Board to forego the already selected
and owned Hopkins site. The purchase preceded the preparation of this
report.
The analysis in the SEIS that the potential cost of acquisition
should be based on the "assessed market value of the parcels
involved" is nonsensical. Have you actually experienced or are you
aware of a purchase of prime industrial land for the assessed market
value? Incidentally, the County purchased this property at a
substantial premium over what the seller bought it for about one year
earlier. The suggestion that there is no financial impact upon the
citizens of Plymouth and the County is inaccurate.
The suggestion that this EIS is technically accurate because the land
has already been acquired, for the most part, and therefore can
ignore the actual cost to the County (and to the City and to the
school district) is improper and suspect.
The City is not impressed with the suggestion on Page 149 that the
transfer station may bring a higher level of commercial activity and
i
therefore a "beneficial impact to ancillary businesses". Is the SEIS
seriously suggesting that the additional business realized by "gas
stations and fast food restaurants" would counterbalance the
potential adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts of this
operation?
L. Page 156. City policy governs more than only landscape transition
and litter control. Structures as well as sites must be compatible
with the surroundings. Outside storage and activity, especially
those related to the "new" functions involving citizen dropoff are
not analyzed in detail.
The litter control comments do not indicated how often the site,
versus the pit inside of the building, would be policed for litter.
M. The control of site access by means of a fence does not address the
issue of potential dropoff by citizens and others "outside the gate."
How exactly will that be controlled?
N. Pages 168 to 169. Will at least one person be on the premises at all
time, every day? What exactly will be done to control "anonymous"
dumping of high risk materials? Exactly how will citizen access be
restricted especially when the facility is "closed"?
0. Page 169. The SEIS talks about good intentions but does not deal
head-on with the handling of materials that are rejected or refused
or accepted if there is "no convenient alternative." The comment
that one should avoid having a citizen return later with illegal
material packaged "in an opaque plastic trash bag" does not deal with
the probable situation of finding the illegal material in the ditch
just down the street or freeway from the facility.
10
P. Pages 170, 171. The statements on facility design and "outreach" are
part of the picture but do not effectively grasp the potential severe
consequences of mishandling or inappropriate management techniques.
They suggest instead that best guesses will guide and that, based on
limited experience and knowledge, these prototype activities should
be undertaken.
IV. The City of Plymouth is concerned about equity and the burden it is asked
to bear in addition to existing County sponsored and/or owned facilities.
The identification of two other potential sites in Plymouth as
alternatives begs the question we have raised before: What is the
appropriate equitable burden any given city must bear for county sponsored
and/or owned facilities? The City's position statement originally
adopted in September, 1987, and submitted with earlier testimony, states
that the City has been and shall remain a responsible member of the
Hennepin County community. This SEIS fails to even mention that the City
currently features the following County -owned and related facilities:
Adult Correctional Facility (70 acres); Clifton E. French Regional Park
(280 acres); Pike Lake/Eagle Lake Regional Park (160 acres); and regional
trail corridor (65 acres). The burden of these facilities is part of the
City of Plymouth environment. Adding to this burden j.,a an impact upon the
environment.
V. The City finds the SEIS Statement to be lacking in substance on critical
issues. The document has many references to the things the County has yet
to do, and the things the County lacks in the way of programs, policies,
and experience. Yet the City of Plymouth is being asked to trust the
County to build and operate a multipurpose facility on the faith that it
"should" have minimal impact upon the community and "should" be compatible
R
with established uses in this area. The City cannot share that
conclusion, based upon the review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
VI. Plymouth residents are responsible and concerned county citizens. We are
willing to work with the County and with the Metropolitan Council to
ensure that the concerns expressed herein will be dealt with in a
sensitive and responsible manner. The City has specific zoning
requirements for waste facilities and we understand the statutory
limitations on local zoning prerogatives, relative to facilities such as
transfer stations.
The issue here is whether the required Environmental Impact Statement has
been prepared in a thorough manner to serve as the meaningful tool that
the law requires. We have not reached that conclusion and we suggest -that
neither can you. Further research and work is needed by both the County
and Metropolitan Council before any approvals should be granted for the
facility as proposed.
The addition of the dropoff functions and recycling functions distort the
earlier perceptions of the need for and operation of a transfer station.
The haste with which those additional features were added and analyzed is
apparent. This should be rectified before any permits are issued and
development is undertaken.
1/5/89
12
Cimarron East Homeowners Association, Inc.
14898.19th Ave. No.
Plymouth, MN 55441
January 12, 1989
Wayne Nelson
Project Manager, SEIS
Mears Park Centre
230 East 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Nelson:
I am President of the Cimarron East Homeowners Association. One of our Board
Members (E.W. Olson) and a few of our homeowners attended your January 5th
meeting at Cooper High School.
Our Board represents 184 homeowners located between Fernbrook and Niagra
Lanes, one block north of County Road 6. After reviewing the written
information brought to us by Mr. Olson and hearing his verbal report, the Board
of Directors have unanimously gone on record as strongly opposing the
construction of a Waste Transfer Station either at the primary site on the
northeast corner of 494 and County Road 6 or the secondary site at the Hennepin
County Work House Industrial Site.
Referral to the map of Plymouth will show you that we are a large residential
community practically next door to your primary site and only a few blocks from
the Work House Site. Please find below just a few of our objections.
(1) We do not feel that your report has adequately addressed the traffic
problem. The new clover leaf, already under construction at 494 and County
Road 6 will bring additional traffic to the area off of 494 that does not exist at the
present time. This increase in traffic will exist regardless of the proposed sights,
and would increase significantly with the opening of the Transfer Station at either
of the proposed locations.
January 12, 1989 Wayne Nelson Project Manager, SEIS Page 2.
(2) We do not feel the hazardous waste issue has been adequately addressed. In
addition to the problem of possible ground water contamination and/or run-off,
there will be additional traffic of homeowners and plant personnel bringing waste
materials to the facility.
(3) The increased noise level would be a direct result of the opening of the new
intersection and would increase significantly with the opening of the Transfer
Station. Such an increase in the noise level existing six days a week to
accommodate the Transfer Station would be objectionable.
(4) Contrary to your belief, there is no question in our minds that when you
review the aforementioned objections in addition to others already on record
from testimony at the meeting on January 5, 1989; our property values would
indeed be reduced.
We all purchased our homes prior to any interest being indicated in establishing a
Waste Transfer Station in our backyard. We wish to make our objections a matter
of record and would welcome any opportunity to discuss them with you in person.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lanenberg
President
Cimarron East Homeowners Association, Inc.
cc: City of Plymouth - City Council ,
Board of Directors, Cimarron East Homeowners Association, Inc.
�1
. Phillips
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
c/o Fairview Deaconess Hospital; 1400 E. 24th street, '.Fls.,.`.i; 5540
January 1 1 , 1989
Wayne Nelson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
Z30 E. Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN SS 101
Dear Mr. Nelson.
At its January 9,1989 Board Meeting, the Phillips Neighborhood improvement Association
adopted a resolution to submit the following questions and comments on the Draft Supplemental
Environmental impact Statement (SETS) for the proposed Hennepin County Resource Recovery
Stations. General questions and comments concern the transfer station system and its role as
part of the county's effort to reduce reliance on landfills. Specific questions and comments
address the South Minneapolis site. We have organized our questions and comments in the same
format as that used in the SEIS. We are sending copies to our local elected officials. Please.
duplicate and distribute copies to appropriate Committee and Metro Council Members.
At the time of our board meeting, we were not able to get copies of Mary Rye's questions as
presented at the January 3, 1989 Public Meeting. Please consider her comments as added to this
list of our neighborhood organization.
1 1 Wi11 the current city operated transfer station located across the street from the proposed
county facility be closed down or will it continue to operate in some related function. If it
continues to operate, how will it fit within the County' s waste management plan. Was
continued operation of the current facility taken into a=unt in the SEIS.
1 5 1 Al l transfer stations should have the same operating hours.
1.5.2 No management plan is presented for the recycling, yard waste and household hazardous
waste components of the foci lity.
1.5.3 How will odors be controlled from hauler trucks while outside the building?
1.5 Contingency plans will not be effective as the transfer stations reach capacities estimated
for the year 2020.
2.2 No reasonable attempts were made to identify alternative sites to the Minneapolis South site.
The SEIS does not adequately list the reasons for terminating further consideration of the
Hopkins site. However, it has been stated at other meetings that the Hopkins site was
rejected because of proximity to food industries. The proposed South Minneapolis site is
across the street ( less than 100 feet) from a grocery store. How does this compare with
the proximity to the food industries in Hopkins.
�3e 2
2 2.1 If the oreferrea site s ze is 15 acres, wny is the South Minneapolis site adeouate at 9 3
acres' -
If it was preferable that the site be on county owned property or property that was up for
sale, why was the South Minneapolis site chosen when the land was not county owned or for
sale?
The South Minneaplis site has a high potential for traffic congestion. The changes in
Hiawatha Avenue are not even under construction yet. Bridging under the railroad tracks
and site access off of 28th Street are tied to construction of Hiawatha which is still several
years into the future. Why was the South Minneapolis site determined preferable if access
to all -season roadways and minimal traffic congestion were high priority criteria?
If preference was shown for sites which evidenced minimal visual impact, which were
1,000 feet from the nearest residence and showed low potential for adverse impacts on
local access routes, why was the South Minneapolis site dertermined preferable? The
South Minneapolis site is smaller than desireable. It not only requires the purchase
and relocation of 27 homes and four businesses, but is still within 1,000 feet of
remaining residences and a nursing home. It also has the potential to adversely affect an
adjacent cemetery and shopping center. How is this different from the reasons used to
reject the Crosstown site, the Eden Prarie site , or the County Home School site? The site
evaluation summary in table 2.2-1 for the Crosstown site is similar to the South
Minneapolis site, yet the Crosstown site was rejected.
The reasons for selectins the South Minneapolis site obviously are not to be found within
the county's site selection criteria. Without further explanation the selection process
remains a mystery.
4,1.3.1 The SETS does not identify if any of the proposed site contains contaminated soils. Some of
the site contains prior and existing industrial uses. Industrial land to the east has been
found to contain contaminated soils. Soil analysis was not done for the proposed site, but
was based on a site to the east. What mitigating measures should be taken if contaminated
soi i is found?
4.1.3.3 Are there other contaminates from wastewater collected from the truck maneuvering
floor area, the recycling area floor and the transfer trailer load -out area that will remain
after passing through the grit, oil and flammable liquids separator that pose a hazard if
discharged into the city's sanitary sewer system? How will the wastewater be tested or
monitored for contaminates? How does the projected content of wastewater specifically
compare to MWCC standards?
4.2.3.1 Other sites will have a holding pond for storm water detention and treatment. This
section along with section 4.1.3.3 imply that there will not be a holding pond for the
South Mpls. site. However, section 4.7.3 on page 147 states that a storm water detention
pond will be required. If there will be a pond, where is it on the site plan on page 20. Will
there be any offensive odors and if so, how will they be mitigated? Detention ponds at
other sites are also used for treatment through skimming and sedimentation of fine sands
prior to discharge into storm sewers. If there is no pond at the South Mpls. site, how will
this water be treated. Why is it necessary to treat the water at the other two sites but not
at the Mpls. site. What will be the effect on water quality?
Nage
4.3 2.1 The evaluation of existing land use fails to mention the general commercial area
immediately to the south of the site. The proposed transfer station is across the street
from the Hi -Lake Shopping Center, less than 100 feet away The shipping and receiving
area for the grocery store is just across the street from the proposed transfer facility.
This section does not mention or evaluate land use compatibility of this area. While other
businesses are mentioned by name that are further away from the site, not one of the
businesses in the Hi -Lake Shopping center is named.
While identifying the cemetery as an adjoining spcial/cultural land use, this suction fails
to discuss the potential impact and land use compatibility of the transfer station on the
cemetery except to make a blanket statement for the whole area saying that the transfer
station is not an incompatible land use. This is not a true statement and requires further
substantiation and documentation,
4.;,.2.2 This section fails to mention the B35-2 business/commercial/residential zoning to the
south. This section does not mention that this zoning classification allows for a fairly high
residential usage (about. the same as R-4 )
4.3.2.3 This section mentions compatibility with either current or future land use plans. It
fails to mention the proposed light rail station at Lake and Hiawatha ( one block from the
site) and its potential impact on future land use plans. It also does not mention the
proposed development currently planned for the former railroad land immediately to the
east of the site and the fact that the City Council appointed planning group for this area has
publically gone on record as stating that the proposed transfer station is not compatible
with their development plans.
4.4.1 The methodolgy used to evaluate the transportation impacts is faulty. Why is the projected
traffic volume from the transfer station in the year 2000 compared to the overall traffic
volumes in 1989. In the case of the South Mpls. site, Hiawatha Avenue is just beginning to
be rebuilt. It will not be completed in 1989. However, it is the only probable change that
will occur prior to the year 2000. One would assume that MnDot completed some sort of
traffic analysis prior to designing Hiawatha Avenue and it would make more sense to
compare estimated taffic volumes after the road is open. It makes no sense to use traffic
volumes that we know will change in two or three years.
4.4.3.3 It is difficult to comment on trip distribution shown on figure 4.4-4 as the Wastesnea
map ( figure 4.9.1) does not show the location of the transfer station or the access roads.
However, general comparison of the westeshed map with figure 2 1-3 makes it difficult
to see why 65 percent of incoming and outgoing traffic will use Hiawatha Avenue.
4.4.3.4 This section makes it sound like 1985 is the present and 1989 is the future Exactly
how far in the future should projections be made. It would seem that projecting traffic
volumes at a point in time that is one or two years before the transfer station is even open
is not exactly the future.
In rebuilding Hiawatha, major changes will be made in 28th Street. It will become a
through street and access to and from Hiawatha will be improved. This will probably
generate much more traffic on 28th Street. Direct access to the Minnehaha Mall, Rainbow
foods, and Cub Market will be possible. These stores are major traffic generators. The
area to the east will be intensely developed, generating even more traffic. Turns off of
28th street may become difficult seeing as there will be no turn lanes/turn signals let
alone any traffic signals.
2Z�
This section fails to ioentify impacts while Hiawatha is under construction
The SETS projects that traffic will use Cedar, 28th Street and Hiawatha in this respect,
the site access for the proposed station is exactly the same as it is for the existino transter
station. However, experience shows that the trucks use other residential streets,
including 18th Avenue, instead of using identified truck routes This is despite bung told
not to use residential streets. Proposed volumes for the new station are much higher than
now and this problem will intensify, The SEIS does not identify this as a problem nor does
it propose any workable mitigating measures.
While the SEIS shows that vehicles will enter the transfer station from 28th Street, the
site plan on page 20 shows that access to the station is easier by entering from Lake Street
on 21 st Avenue. The use of this route is likely because the intersection at 21 st and Lake
Street is signalized and left and right hand turns off of Lake Street onto 21 st AvenuQ are
easy. This will impact the shopping center and the cemetery. Trucks will also use 3 i st
Street and turn north on 21 st Avenue to access the transfer station. This would pose a
problem to residences and to South High School which is only a couple of blocks from the
proposed transfer station site. Operation of the exisiting transfer station has shown that
trucks will use the easiest route no matter what they are told and nor matter which
streets are designated as truck routes.
As stated in section 4.8.1 of this document, haulers will also be attracted to take breaks at
the fast food businesses and restaurants in the shopping center (four, not including the
grocery store or the two reastaurants across Lake Street.) Combining the likely use of
21 st Avenue as an access route with patronage of restaurants in the shopping center by
haulers, a situation will result that will be almost equivalent to placing the transfer
station in the middle of the parking lot of the shopping center. This is not acceptable. Yet
the SEIS does not comment on these potential traffic problem. Instead the SEIS accepts at
face value an access plan that does not conform to the reality of the situation or other facts
pre,%ntedwithin the report. No mitigating measures are proposed.
The transportation analysis does not mention that Cedar Avenue and 28th Streets are
primarily residential streets in the stretches that are shown as access routes on figure
4.4-4. What are the impacts of adding significant truck traffic on these streets? What
mitigating measures are possible.
The SEfS does not mention that there is a nursing home at one of the major access corners
at 28th Street and Cedar Avenue. What will be the impact on the nursing home? Will it be
more difficult or dangerous for elderly to cross this Intersection?
The SEIS fails to mention that there is a major 220 unit family housing project located on
Cedar Avenue two blocks north of one of two major access,intersections to the site at 28th
Street. The project was built on both sides of Cedar Avenue and children run across Cedar
Avenue. Children can not be expected to act like adults and safety is a major concern of
residents. What will be the affect of adding more truck traffic on Cedar Avenue and what
mitigating measures are possible.
The SEIS does not adequately address the fact that lefthand turns from southbound lanes on
Cedar to eastbound lanes on 28th are difficult and more likely to nave a LOS of 'E' or 'I".
Lefthand turns from westbound lanes on 28th Street to southbound lanes on Cedar are
equally difficult. Righthand turns from westbound lanes on. 28th Street are likely to
substantially delay eastbound traffic on 28th Street trying to make lefthand turns into the
northbound lane of Cedar Avenue.
pace S
The transportation section should be redone using better information and a more creoibie
methodology.
4.5.2 This section includes a discussion of characteristics of sound. It would seem that there
might be a variation in sound behavior in different seasons, as the buffering capacity of
the surroundings change. In winter, foliage is substantialy reduced and ground freezes.
This would seem to reduce absorption and increase reflectance, thereby increasing sound
levels. Field measurements were taken in July. Would field measurements be different if
taken in January? If so, what would they be?
4.5.3 The location of receptor s2 for the South Mpls. site shown on figure 4.5-2 is not adequate
to measure the noise impact on the shopping center. A location closer to the intersection of
21 st Avenue and 29th Street is also needed, At this location, as well as for most of its
length, the shopping center is less than 100 feet from the proposed transfer station,
not 500 feet. At this location, the site plan ( figure 1.7-4) also shows the access doors for
the large transfer trailors directly in line with 21st Avenue. Operational noise will be
more perceptible, both for the shopping center and at the cemetery at this location. The
proposed site plan also shows Ll on site truck traffic passing 21 st Avenue and 29th
Street. This is a different situation from conditions at receptors S2 and S3 where on site
truck traffic is not as intense. in addition, proiected traffic noise after the station is in
operation does not include the traffic noise from trucks accessing the station using 21 st
Avenue. The probability of trucks using 21st Avenue has been mentioned in the comments
under the transportation section. Both the L(10) and L( 50) MPGA noise standards for
residential ( cemetery) and commercial ( shopping center) are likely to be exceeded at
21 st Avenue and 29th Street.
4.5.7.1 The transfer station will be in operation from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. These operating hours
would fall into both category I and II of the Minneapolis noise limitations (Table 4.5-4).
As the transfer station is in continual operation, the duration of sound is in excess of 2
hours. Traffic noise from motor vehicles near the receptor points would also be from
these vehicles operating on the transfer station site and not just on traffic ways of the
city (and therfore not exempt.) It would appear from the information presented in the
SETS that the Minneapolis noise ordinance standards would be more stringent than MPGA
standards. Therfore comparisons should also be made with the Minneapolis standards.
Will the transfer station be operational on state and federal holidays and/or is a permit
needed i f it w i 11 operate on these hoi idays?
4.5.7.2 Comments have already been made on the inadequacy of the selection of noise receptor
locations and also on the application of noise standards.
Comments in this section bring up a question that also applys to other sections. That is,
when do impacts become significant? This section comments that noise levels at receptor
- 1 already exceed noise standards. What justification is there for making the situation
even worse. The projected noise levels after the station is in operation are two to three
times as loud as MPGA standards stated in this report. ( "As stated, noise level
measurements are logarithmic - an increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of the energy
level of sound.) From table 4.5-3, the noise level after the station is in operation is SdB
greater than the MPGA standard for L( 10) and 2 dB greater for L( 50). Receptor -11, 1 is
also the location of a nursing home, not just a single family residence. Instead of
suggesting mitigating measures, the SETS simply rights off this problem as impercepable.
This is not credible.
Gage E
The three considerations Iiste> in the discussion of receptor v3 in the cerretery fail to
mention that the cemetery is open to the public and used more than just on ^Memorial Da>
and for burials. Is the SE15 attempting to define what constitutes a religious service or
observation? Different MPGA standards should not be used for the cemetery as
recommended in the SETS.
4.6.1 This section states that it seeks to identify the types of changes in the regional and state
solid waste management systems which could affect facility operations.
I f this is the case, then this section should address the possible affects if the county or
state changes current plans that call for only 20% of wastes to be handled by recycling.
The 20% figure is low and it is reasonable to assume that future changes are likely.
This motion should identify quanities of waste that need to he handled by the transfer
stations in order to keep the burner, operating at an economically feasible level. If changes
are made in the county and state waste management plans, the impact of these changes
would seem to be critical information that would affect facility operations. ( For example,
what would happen if the proportion of combustible material in the overall MSW is
significantly reduced. )
This section should address possible regulation of ash disposal as this may greatly affect
the operation of the transfer station (e.g. capacity to handle source separation, storage,
and disposal requirements)
4.6.3.1 It would seem that the level of household hazardous waste from the Marin County study
does not account for the tendency to store such materials and that the MPCA demonstration
program generated significantly higher rates. In calculating the amount of household
hazardous waste for Hennepin County, why were the Marin County figures used without
making adjustments based on the MPCA demonstration program? After all, Marin County
is in California and Hennepin County is in Minnesota.
4.6.3.2 It is apparent from this section that Hennepin County has not presented a plan for
handling of household hazardous waste. How can you evaluate a plan that ooes not exist`
With the absence of a plan, participation rates seem to be a matter of conjecture. in any
case, a participation rate of 5% is dismal. This leaves one to assume tnat 95% of
household hazardous waste will be handled as part of municpal solid waste. With such
dismal projections, it would seem that the county or state would make changes in how this
waste is handled. What might these changes be and what would be the affect on facility
operation?
If a demonstration source separation program is to be put in operation at the South Mpis.
site, what impact will it have on further separation of household hazardous wastes. If 5%
participation in the drop of program generates "considerable" materials, what additional
storage capacity is needed for the South Minneapolis site for harzardous materials
removed during source separation
What will the impact of source separation be on the reduction of household hazardous
waste that would otherwise be sent to the burner? How will these wastes be
identified for separation? For example, pesticides and lawn care products? A typical label
on these products state that "this product is toxic to fish, birds and other wild life. Birds
feeding on treated areas may be killed. Keep out of lakes streams or ponds... Do not
ucu'c
contaminate water by cleoning equipment." These same product labels go onto recommend
disposal methods, "discard by wrapping original container in several layers of newspaper
and discard in trash." These are dangerous products and how can such waste, that is
wrapped in newspaper, be identified for separation?
What will be the affect on wastewater from contaminants contained in household hazardous
waste that are not separated out, but that are released during the compacting process? If
only 5% will be handled through the drop off point, 95% will go through the municipal
solid waste portion of the facility. This is 69,300 gallons per week (17,325 gallons per
station) using the estimates provided in the SETS document.
4.6.4.2 This section states that operating levels of each transfer station will be near capacity by
the year 2020 . Capacity of the stations is between 1,500 to 1,800 tons per day. The
evaluation of impacts in the SETS is based on a station operating at 400 to 700 tons per
day. Why weren't higher operating levels chosen for use in evaluating impacts? Why
weren't impacts evaluated at different operating levels over the projected operating life
span of the transfer stations? Why was the year 2,000 chosen instead of 2005 or some
other year? The projections made in this section invalidate much of the assessments made
in other sections of the SETS and would seem to indicate that impacts will be significantly
greater beyond the year 2000.
If capacity will be exceeded at the Bloomington station, what will be the impact on the
South Minneapolis station? Will wastesheds be reassigned?
This section only discusses the capacity level of the MSW transfer function and does not
address the capacity levels of the drop off and recycling functions.
4.6.5.1 All yard wastes must be diverted from landfills and waste combustion facilities by the
year 1990. Currently it is estimated that 8.7% of the waste stream is yard waste. By the
year 2000, the County projects that 8% of the waste stream that isyerd waste, almost all
yard waste, will be diverted through separating of yard waste from the MSW. The yard
waste drop off section of the facility and its operating role in the overall handling of yard
waste is not cleasriy presented or evaluated in the SETS. Will the transfer stations be the
only drop off center's for yard waste in the system? Will large trucks transfer yard
waste's from the stations to the composting facilities. Are the drop off sections adequately
designed to handle 92% of all yard waste? How will the County achieve a 92% level of
participation in separation of yard wastes when participation levels in drop off of
household hazardous waste are only estimated at 5%?
If emphasis has been placed on management of household hazardous waste, why is a
program envisioned that will only handle 5% of the problem?
How will planning and management efforts, that are implemented to reduce the toxicity and
volume of ash, affect facility operations of the transfer stations, especially since it is
anticipated that new rules will be in effect within two years?
Exactly what is Hennepin County doing to acheive recycling goals and how does the
recycling drop off portion of the facility fit into these plans?
Exactly how does the transfer station concept allow for modification of drop off and
recycling activities in the future and what are the impacts of these modifications that have
been planned into the design?
I
page 8
4.6.5.2 Lacking a real plan from the County on the recycling, household hazardous waste, and
yard waste drop off components of the facility, it would seem that the affects of system
modification could signifcantly change the design and operation of the drop off and
recycling components of the facility. The impact of even the changes mentioned in this
section of the SEIS has not been evaluated in terms of facility design, operations, and other
impact areas (e.g, transporation, noise, etc.)
The time between the adoption of the original EIS and the new plan presented by the county
for the concept and operation of the transfer stations was about two years. During this
time, the changes resulted in the expansion of the South Mpls. facility from an original
plan for 1.3 acres to a plan for 9.3 acres and minimum site area criteria were increased
to 15 acres. Based on the potential chances and unanswered questions that have been
identified in this EIS, the 9.3 acre facility planned for the South Mpls, site could reach
rapacity and/or become outmoded in a similarly short temp period ( two to three years. i
4.7.3 This section states that a storm water detention pond will be required. This pond is not on
the site plan and contradicts information presented in other sections of this report.
4.8.1.2 The adequacy of the report from the Metropolitan Council on affects on property values
is euestionable. We have contacted the Minnesota Association of Realtors. They are aware of
the Metropolitan Council study. The Minnesota Asociation of Realtors have no statement to
support or to contradict the Metro Council study at this time. Instead, they are currently
doing their own study on this issue. This study will not be completed by January 19th.
Other states are being contacted to find out what has happened in comparable situations.
While not able to comment on the specific affects on property values of the location of such
facilities, they have done other studies in which negative perceptions have been shown to
affect property values (e.g. group homes for ex -felons) and where other environmental
issues have affected property values.
The 16 parcels of land curently owned try Hennepin County were only recently purchased
by the County for the sole purpose of building the transfer station.
4.8.3.1 While the existing 30 to 35 employees may not be location dependent, this is not true
for the local community in which these jobs are located. According to census information,
50% of the households in the Phillips Neighborhood do not have access to a vehicle. These
households are dependent on jobs that are located in the community or that are easily
accessable by public transportation. The number of jobs that will be at the transfer
station is very low compared to other development alternatives for this site
Affordable housing is in low supply. Removing the existing housing is a major impact on
the supply of affordable housing.
Relocation efforts to date are already partially responsib)e for two deaths from stress
associated with moving and one dealth from fire in one of the remaining occupied houses.
How do you place a dollar value on these lives or evaluate this in an environmental impact
statement?
4.8.3.2 The Minnesota Realtors Association should be contacted to access potential impacts on
property and business values. The existing transfer station is substamaliy smaller than
its proposed replacement and it is not of the same kind. The impact of a two story building
is not the same as a building that will be as tall as a six story building. A site that is only
1.3 acres is not the same as a site that is 9.3 acres. The presense of the new station will be
�1
Daqe 5
evident for many blocks around the site, whereas the current station is not visual lv
perceotable for more than a block.
4.5.4.3 Minneapolis already has too much property that is not on the tax roles. The a-nount ot
lost tax money is important for the school district which already has financial problems.
There are better uses for the site that would generate even more taxes
4.9 If asssignment of wastesheds, as stated in this section and in the executive summary, war done
to minimize travel time and associated costs, then the area served by the main garbage
burner ( HERC) would include the proposed South Minneapolis site. Based on this, the
South Mpls. site is not a logical location for a transfer station. To achieve use of the
wastesheds identified in figure 4.9- i will require that haulers use designated stations
only. For portions of the wasteshed identified for the Minneapolis South station, the
wasteshed is not based on minim»ing travel time and associated costs.
The wasteshed map should show the location of the transfer stations and identidy the
wasteshed boundaries.
4.10.1.1 With trucks arriving or leaving approximately every minute, how feasible will it be
to maintain doors in a closed position to control litter and odor? This has not been possible
at the existing transfer station.
The truck washing facility has been eliminated from the plan. How will odors from hauler
trucks at the site be controlled if they are not washed? The trucks will not be in the
building all the time and may have to wait in line to be weighed and to gain entrance to the
building.
Private vehicles are allowed to dump solid wastes for a tippinq fee at the existing station.
Will this be allowed at the proposed station? if it is, what will be the impact on odor and
litter control') What will be the impact on truck traffic delays and lines forming outside
the building?
4.10.3.1 Other sections of the SEIS evaluate impacts on adjoining land. Why is the section on
historical/cultural resources limited to only the proposed site. How does the proposed
transfer station affect the historical/cultural resource of the cemetery? You could not get
by with putting this transfer station next to Fort Snelling National Cemetery.
4.10 3.2 How do you buffer a 58 foot tall structure with landscaping?
5.2.2 Based on comments made in the section on transportation, mitigating measures are
necessary and should be identified.
5.3.1 Mitigating measures should be identified for handling household hazardous waste that
remains in the MSW.
There is to be a demonstration source separation program at the South Minneapolis
Transfer station that will screen municipal solid waste more thoroughly than at the other
stations. The operating plan and facility design do not clearly indicate how this is
incorporated and it is not reviewed in the SEIS What facility design cnanges are needed to
screen and separate materials after they have been dumped from hauler trucks, as waste
will not be dumped directly into the pits? How will separated materials be handle- and
stored'% What are the estimated quantities of such materials? How will aWtional materiais
page 10
be disposed of? How will remaining solid waste get to the compactor area? How will the
area be kept clean to control litter, odors and vectors? Will an overhead misting system
still be used to control dust? What safety measures will be required for workers confined
to an enclosed building In which no special ventilation and air cleaning equipment is
planned? What are exposure risks to household hazardous wastes, explosives, etc. in a
portion of the building that will not have the some design precautions as the drop off
storage area for household hazardous wastes?
PNIA would appreciate a response to these questions and comments on the SEIS for the proposed
Hennepin County Resource Recovery Transfer Station Project and in particular the South
Minneeplis site.
SinC�r�ly,
Ray Peterson
PNIA President
M State Representative Karen Clark
State Senator Linda Berglin
Minneapolis Council Member Tony Scallon
Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Spartz-
U.S House Representative Martin Sabo
January 16, 1989
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
Mears Park Centre
120 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Hennepin
County Resource Recovery Transfer Station Project
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We at Sterling Electric Company have serious concerns regarding the
proposed location and handling of waste at the Plymouth Waste Transfer
Site location. We believe the Metropolitan Council has not adequately
assured us that this facility would be well managed and safely operated.
The area of County Road 6 and 1-494 is rapidly changing. With the addition
of the Carlson Complexes, and the growth of other major businesses in the
Industrial Park, the addition of this Recovery Transfer Station is
intolerable. Our traffic levels have doubled since we moved to Plymouth
four years ago. The introduction of 400 or more garbage haulers would
disrupt our business and make it less safe for our employees and
customers. We, like others in the complex, chose the Plymouth area to
conduct our business. Up to 10% of our total business is conducted over
our counter. We are proud of our facility and our community. We invite
our customers to visit us. A Waste Transfer Station located less than a
block from our doors will make it difficult and less appealing for our
customers to come here, especially during the outdoor functions we hold
every summer.
After attending the Public Meeting at Cooper High School on Thursday,
January 5th, 1989, 1 have grave concerns regarding the handling of waste
and the plan of management, which did not seipm of real concern to the
Council. Your responsibility is not only to find the most reasonable
location, but also to assure residents of the community of a safe and
sound operation. If find no assurance in such matters as a "run-off pond"
and skimming devices for floatable wastes".
I also find nothing safe in the fact that you will provide a drop-off
location for household hazardous wastes. As it has been proven, many
people dump hazardous waste with no regard to their environment or the
residents living in the area. We at Sterling Electric do not care to pick up
trash, hazardous or otherwise from our lawn, nor do we want our dumpster
filled with wastes refused at your facility. In the event dumping occurs
at our location, our neighbor's property or the freeway system, who will
take responsibility for clean-up and disposal costs?
The Metropolitan Council is taking a band-aid approach to a long term
problem. There are numerous other environmental problems the Council
has failed to address. Specific details on the design should be made so
that those affected will be adequately informed. before we approve such a
facility in our backyard. A hazardous waste drop-off site for residents of
Hennepin County is needed, but without proper management 24 hours per
day this project could not begin to work effectively. How will household
hazardous wastes be separated, stored and transported out of this facility
and what will the turn -over rate be? The Metropolitan Council has not
seemed responsive to the issues facing their future neighbors. Why should
we accept our backyards for a transfer facility when in return the most
important issues of personal safety, local costs and a clean environment
are overlooked. The Council must address these environmental issues
head-on. -
We appeal to you. We work best when we as a community are united. You
must do your part, too. We are responsible caring people. I write this
because we take pride in being a part of the Plymouth Community. We
need a safe and clean environment to live and work in. We have waste and
we must deal with our growing waste problem. As always, some end up
paying a higher price than others, but we in Plymouth are not reassured as
to the feasibility, safety factors and the need of this transfer site. We
stand behind the City of Plymouth, as presented by Mayor Virgil Schneider
on January 6, 1989. We will not approve of this proposed "neighbor" until
we are assured of a safe and workable facility.
Respectfully,
Sterling Electric Company
Karin J. Lindquist
Operations Manager
cc: Dale Lindquist, President of Sterling Electric
Mr. Virgil Schneider, Mayor of Plymouth, MN
tIN
MTATEE OF
SUPJ 4L�)
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155-40
DNR INFORMA � ION
(612) 296-6157
January 17, 1989
Mr. Wayne Nelson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Hennepin County Resource Recovery Transfer Station Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the above -referenced
document. Our only comment is that we would have liked more information on
soils and wetland types for the Plymouth/County 15 (Carlson Parkway)
Alternative. However, we realize that this site is only an alternative at
this time and that more information would only be necessary if this site
should be proposed for development.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please call Don Buckhout at (612)
296-8212.
Sincerely,
---� L
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
NR Planning and Review
#850098-7
c: Kathleen Wallace
Ron Lawrenz
Laurel Reeves
Gregg Downing, EQB
Robert Welford, USFWS
Warren Porter - Hennepin County, Solid Waste Division
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1135 U.S POST OFFICE i CUSTOM HOUSE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101.1479
Construction -Operations
Regulatory Branch (89-498J-57)
Mr. Wayne Nelson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Center
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Dear Mr. Nelson:
We have reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) for the Hennepin County Solid Waste Transfer Stations. Our involvement
would be limited to the placement of dredged or fill material in waters or
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As stated in the
SEIS, no wetlands are present on any of the sites with the exception of the
Plymouth site (County Road 6 and Interstate 494). However, the SEIS states
that this wetland would not be filled (page 164). In summary, the information
provided indicates that no discharge of dredged or fill material in waters or
wetlands would occur; therefore, no permit from the Corps would be required.
If you have any questions, you may contact Mr. Steve Eggers at 220-0371.
Siely,
Ben Wopat
Chief, Regu atory Branch
Construction -Operations
Earth Protector, Inc.
1138 Plymouth Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
375-0202
•
Mr. Wayne Nelson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
January 19, 1988
R£: Comments on SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) for
Hennepin County Transfer Stations
Dear Mr. Nelson:
It becomes more apparent daily that we may have surpassed the
threshold of pollution that the environment can contain. What with
acid rain continuing unabated, nuclear waste piling up with no solution
in sight, and hazardous waste dumps leaking, we are expected to absorb
the pollution that will be generated by decades of garbage burning that
could only take place with the support of the transfer station network
under discussion in the SEIS.
•
Burning garbage in Sweden and Denmark has had disastrous effects.
Dioxin contamination has been discovered in the breast milk of Swedish,
Danish and Gcrman women. Recent studies support the evidence that dioxin
is passed into nursing infants and the problem is more serious than we
previously thought.
When Hennepin County joined forces with Blount Construction Company
of Alabama to build a garbage burner in downtown Minneapolis, they should
have been stopped immediately by your agency because you are responsible
for solid waste planning in the seven county area and you know and knew
that this project was not what the legislature had in mind when they
listed their hierarchy of waste disposal methods.
Since your agency failed to move correctly during the early stages
of the process, the fate of the communities that must house a transfer
station was sealed and the document now under review is nothing more
than another piece of misleading information that disguises the central
issue of environmentally protective, cost effective waste management.
If prudent, reasonable and aware people take a more macro view of
the Minneapolis transfer station, they would see an inner city community
losing the opportunity to develop a large area of land for positive
purposes in lieu of having a capital intensive ($11 million) project
employing only 14 people, packaging the garbage from small trucks into
larger trucks for the short journey to the downtown Minneapolis garbage
burner.
The various dicussions regarding traffic at all three of the sites
is irrelevant because you do not have a clear idea of the following:
zi
1 . How much garbage is generated in the "waste shed" area? Your
calculations are based on old information and are simply a guess. Even
if your calculations were close, the case has not been made that a transfer
of the garbage from one truck to another would be of benefit to anyone.
Further, you have no idea how many citizen and commercial vehicles will
bring recyclable and household hazardous waste materi.l in each day.
2. You don't have a clear idea of how many trucks will go north
to Elk River from Hennepin County and what impact that will have.
3. You haven't discussed why yard waste would be transferred at
the stations after being collected separately and there is a yard waste
composting facility in close proximity to the Brooklyn Park selected site.
Taking large plots of land for a suburban transfer station network
that supports burning and burying before searching for alternatives does
a disservice to the public who depends on the government to act in the
best interest of the populace. Your agency, while employing some well
intentioned people, has misled, confused and complicated our solid waste
management so greatly that it is even difficult to comment in an orderly
fashion.
The SEIS in question is inadequate in its response to transportation,
solid waste system impacts, local community impacts and cultural resources.
The SEIS in question is inadequate in providing decision makers with
a clear view of what it means to extract prime property, in what is or
will soon be the center of development in each community, and insert a
garbage dump that doesn't pay taxes, empolyees very few people, congests
traffic, polarizes all parties, and ignores alternatives.
You will find attached, a recent final draft and press release from
the Town of East Hampton, New York that points out the central issue we
have been trying to get through to you for several years, that recycling,
composting, reuse and all the other sensible solutions pointed out in the
Earth Protector paper provided to you more than a year ago, is the way to
go. East Hampton recycled 84.4 percent of their waste in the test program.
Often times the Metropolitan Council has attempted to transfer the
responsibility to Hennepin County for their ill conceived plan but you
must share the blame because you had final approval of what they did.
Matter of fact, it has become clear that the original EIS cited reports
that do not exist and may be open for a challenge in the state courts.
The transfer station network supports garbage burning and destroys
opportunity at an extreme financial cost and your SEIS fails to point
that out and deserves to be found inadequate.
It is the intention of Earth Protector to continue commenting on
this issue because it has recently been brought to our attention that
the waste generation figures used in ;.he SEIS were from 1983.
Thank : ou for the opportunity to comment.
Sinc
Leslie avis, President
Enclosure: East Hampton report Earth Protector, Inc.
By
oort- �ecfy
RESOLUTION
of the
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Coy 1 e
Referred to "Orr".
Date
Conveying comments of the City Council of the City of Minneapolis
regarding the adequacy of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) for a Southside Transfer Station to be built by Hennepin County.
Whereas, Hennepin County has proposed a system of transfer stations for
the segregation of recyclables and household hazardous wastes from collections
as well as for the aggregation of other wastes for shipment to its waste -to -
energy facility; and
Whereas, that system of facilities includes a Transfer Station in
Minneapolis; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis has developed specifications for the
design and operations of that facility; and
Whereas, a Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been
developed by the Metropolitan Council, in consultation with Hennepin County
officials, for a Southside (Minneapolis) Transfer Station; and
Whereas, The City of Minneapolis has conducted a review of the SEIS for
its adequacy with respect to both the specifications set out by the City and
other areas of technical concern; and
Whereas, the Metropolitan Council has scheduled_a public meeting to hear
the concerns of the community, at which meeting these comments should be
presented;
G
J_�� i
Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the City Council of the City of
Minneapolis transmit the following summary comments and direct the attention
of the Metropolitan Council to the specific staff concerns attached to
Petition No e2�1�4.3.5, on file in the office of City Clerk.
1. The City Council acknowledges the degree to which Hennepin County has
altered the design of the facility to include functions which could
help facilitate both recycling and the screening -out of materials
which should not be incinerated.
2. The Council urges that:
a. Mitigating measures, in detailed building design and in plans for
operation, be identified and prescribed to contend with
potentially adverse consequences of holding unprocessed
recyclables and household hazardous waste at the facility --even
on the modest and temporary basis which seems intended.
b. Mitigating measures, in street design, signage and operating
instructions to drivers (to preclude the use of Cedar Av by
packer and transfer trucks); and in the new character and
geometrics of Hiawatha Av at its intersection with E 28th St, be
the basis for design.
3. The Council directs the attention of the SEIS to the staff
concerns related to both the above and to the following other
subjects:
a. The potential effects of a greater number of packer trucks than
originally intended going to the plant;
b. The potential for greater permitting requirements and hazardous
incident prevention and response, arising out the broadened scope
of the facility;
c. Appropriate forecasting factors and analysis to assure that
vicinity traffic not be impeded and that all truck queuing be on
site.
4. That this Resolution and its attached petition be forwarded to the
Chair of the Metropolitan Council.
PASSED. DEC 3 01988 19
APPROVED JAN 0 5 19;x,
N 19
ATTEST
C•ry C;srs � `-•
PrINOMI Of r.Ountd
/
Mayor
0 r
NOTICE OF MEETING
METROPOLITAN WASTE MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Approximate
Time
Tuesday, February 14, 1989
Council Chambers
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth Street
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
FEC f C
Cu' :... ... _v
2:00 1. Approval of Agenda and Minutes of January 24, 1989
(Enclosures) (Action)
2:10 2. Council Strategic Planning Discussion
Keefe
2:30 3. Final SEIS Hennepin County Transfer Stations
(Enclosures) (Action) Nelson
3:00 4. Certificate of Need Renewal for Anoka Municipal
Landfill
(Enclosures) (Action) Nelson
3:30 5. Cost Agreement for Minnesota Industrial Containment
Facility
(Info.) Nelson
Dick Beens
Chair
Mears Park Centre, 230 East fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 /6121291-6359 TDD 291-0904
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: February 7, 1989
TO: James G. Willis, City Manager
FROM: Blair Tremere, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: STATUS OF PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY WASTE TRANSFER STATION
I called Mr. Wayne Nelson of the Metropolitan Council staff today and asked
him about the status of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS). He said that they were "wrapping it up" and that he had just
completed the responses to the remark made at the public hearing last month
(which included extensive remarks by Mayor Schneider).
Wayne said that the following events are scheduled regarding this matter:
1. The Waste Management Advisory Committee will consider the matter at
their meeting at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 14.
2. The Environmental Resources Committee will consider the matter at
their meeting at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.
3. The Metropolitan Council should release the SEIS on February 23,
following anticipated recommendations, to do so from the above the
committees.
The meetings are held at the Metro Council Office at Mears Park
Centre, 230 East Fifth Street in St. Paul.
I presumably should receive a copy of the staff remarks and responses prior to
the meeting on February 14 (past experience indicates that I will probably
receive it on February 13).
I will keep you advised as to any changes in this schedule and what we are
able to ascertain as a result of those meetings.
Community Development Coordinator Chuck Dillerud and I have talked with the
Hennepin County staff member, Brent Lindgren (348-6510) who is the coordinator
James G. Willis
February 7, 1989
Page Two
of the Plymouth Transfer Station Project. He has requested a meeting with us
to review the application requirements with their consultant and has suggested
that their consultant already has prepared some of the materials required by
the ordinance for this conditional use permit application.
They have been hesitant to submit materials to us for review prior to the
meeting and we have informed them, therefore, that we will receive any
information they wish to submit at the meeting but will not be responding to
its substance or completeness. That meeting is scheduled for this Friday,
February 10.
I will keep you informed regarding that meeting. Incidentally, the City can
process an application even if the SEIS has not been finalized. We could not
however, issue a permit or allow development on the site prior to the
completion of the SEIS.
cc: Chuck Dillerud
File
(pl/bt/jwtrans:jw)
rCITY+ SCALE OF MILES
PUMOUTR S
0 ____.�__:-
sk., 1111--lillitH.' N,
91 91 12 c
3
19 wmm I I P--.. .1 *14.
.14.
STREET MAP *1
Z5
PACKAGE
4 Issues of Plymouth on Parade
and
Community Information Booklet
Full Page
Burger King $ 2,150*
Half Page
First National Bank of Wayzata
$
1,150*
Stuart Corporation (Summerplace Apts)
$
1,150*
Schiebe Hardware
$
1,150*
Metro Bank Plymouth
$
1,150*
Quarter Page
Messiah United Methodist $ 700
Norwest Bank - Plymouth $ 700
OEI Properties (Harbor Place) $ 600*
Forester's Meats $ 600*
TOTAL $ 9,350
*Received "previous advertiser" discount
Ads for Community Information Booklet
Full Page
Plymouth Metrolink
Half Page
Senator Jim Ramstad
Janssen's Foods
Merrill Lynch
Quarter Page
Commissioner Tad Jude
Christ Memorial Church
Holiday Inn
Plymouth Drug
TOTAL
*Received "previous advertiser" discount
S 510
$ 275*
$ 275*
$ 275*
S 150*
$ 1,950
Law Offices LcFocre
Lefler
Kc11tle(1`,
O'Brien 9:
Drawn
a Pro(rssion3l
Assoc iai ion
CLIENT SUMMARY
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Dale Hahn
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
FEB j: i-89 r
�II� lii s L1►1W�1���
February 8, 9
-------------------------------------------------------
FFDI D
I.D.
-_-----
411431093
Matter#
Name
Fees
Disb
Previous
Total
* 110
General
5,414.00
326.54
0.00
5,740.54
111
Prosecution - Court
4,080.75
54.10
0.00
4;134.85
Time
i11A
Prosecution -Office
4,111.25
1,234.68
0.00
5,345.93
Time
1024
Codification
42.50
168.00
0.00
210.50
2349
Metrolink
187.00
0.00
0.00
187.00
2577
Claims
144.50
0.00
0.00
144.50
General
4378
Groves, S. J. Office
425.00
19.80
0.00
444.80
Park
4598
Perl Land
85.00
0.00
0.00
85.00
Registration
5248
Project 648 -
1,156.00
364.60
0.00
1,520.60
Eminent Domain
5322
Project 762 -
76.50
0.00
0.00
76.50
Eminent Domain
*5438
Plat Opinions
629.00
0.00
0.00
629.00
*continued on next page*
FEDERAL i D NO 41v140311%
Law Offices LcFeverc
Lef ler
kennel\
O'Brien
DraW7
a Professional
Association
CLIENT SUMMARY
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Dale Hahn February 8, 1989
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FED. I.D. 41-1431093
Matter#
Name
Fees
Disb
Previous
Total
5439
Lyndale Terminal Co.
4,794.00
31.50
0.00
4,825.50
V. City of Plymouth
*5606
General Labor
327.25
0.00
0.00
327.25
Matters
5730
Holiday Inn
195.50
0.00
0.00
195.50
Bankruptcy
5761
Bauer V. City
408.00
3.60
0.00
411.60
5807
Bonds - Special
34.00
0.00
0.00
34.00
Matters
5820
TIF III Ryan
0.00
77.50
0.00
77.50
Development
5860
Plymouth Police
722.50
0.00
0.00
722.50
Negotiations
(1989)
5911
Novy: Court of
0.00
171.78
0.00
171.78
Appeals
(Project 408)
*6064
First Bank Land
1,666.00
19.30
0.00
1,685.30
Acquisition
*continued on next page*
FEDERAL I D NO 41.1403177
Law Offices LeFoerc
Lefler
kerinedN
O'Brien K-
Drawz
a Profrssioml
As,oiiation
CLIENT SUMMARY
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
"telephone (612) 333-0543
Dale Hahn February 8, 1989
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FED. I.D. 41-1431093
Matter#
Name
Fees
Disb
Previous
Total
6092
City of Plymouth v.
221.00
3.60
0.00
224.60
Gary Berthiaume
6099
Begin Special
21.25
0.00
0.00
21.25
Assessment Appeal
(Project 544)
6144
Mathews Human Rights
17.00
0.00
0.00
17.00
Complaint
6182
Copeland Land
518.50
0.00
0.00
518.50
Acquisition
6190
10th Avenue Eminent
196.25
0.00
0.00
196.25
Domain
Project 648
6191
County Road 6
1,024.75
30.00
0.00
1,054.75
Eminent Domain
Project 250
6192
Community
93.50
0.00
0.00
93.50
Center -General
6302
Tipton Corp.
263.50
0.00
0.00
263.50
Bankruptcy
A5242699
Project 853
1,542.75
0.00
0.00
1,542.75
Vicksburg Lane
*continued on next page*
FEDERAL i D NO 41-140317'
Law Offices LeFcx,ere
Lef ler
KennedN'
O'Brien &
Drava
a Professional
Association
CLIENT SUMMARY
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Dale Hahn
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
February 8, 1989
FED. I.D. 41-1431093
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matter# Name Fees Disb Previous Total
Improvement From
State Highway
55 to County Road 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Client 66 Totals: 28,397.25 2,505.00 $0.00 $30,902.25
*RETAINER (CREDIT): $ 1,648.25
TOTAL DUE : $29,254.00
MINUTES
PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT
JANUARY 18, 1989
PRESENT: Dennis Jacobson, Peggy Galarneault, Barbara Roberts, Nancy Holter,
Paul Buharin, Mark Ryan, James G. Willis, Frank Boyles
I. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 30. 1988 MINUTES
The Committee approved the November 30, 1988 meetinq minutes as
submitted.
II. REVIEW OF NOVEMBER/DECEMBER RIDERSHIP STATISTICS
Paul Buharin handed out the November/December ridership statistics.
Based upon these statistics, the 12 -month ridership average for the
commuter/reverse commuter service was 408 compared to 374 in 1987. The
internal circulator average daily ridership was 38 as compared to 45 in
1987. On a system total basis, the average daily ridership was 453
which compares with 419 in 1987. Paul Buharin stated that part of this
addition is attributable to transfer revenues being more accurately
accounted for. Nonetheless, the commuter/reverse commuter average
ridership statistics exceeded the target by almost 5%. Internal
circulator averages were 14% less than the target. The total system
average ridership of 453 exceeds the 438 passenger target by 3.4%. This
amounts to approximately an 8% overall increase in ridership over 1987.
III. FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Status of New Route North of County Road 9, South of 45th Between
Fernbrook and Vicksburg.
Despite letters and telephone calls, only one of the five homeowners
associations in this area has responded to our request. The
Kingsview Heights Homeowners Association has now received 200 copies
of a ridership survey and has asked for a Plymouth Metrolink
representative to be present on Tuesday, February 28 at their
homeowners association meeting to discuss 1989 transit services and
the possibility of a new route serving their area. Frank Boyles
will attend.
IV. NEW AREAS OF CONCERN OR RECOMMENDATION
A. Because of complaints with respect to the 35 foot unit 698, Paul
will ask that it not be used for Metrolink purposes in the future.
PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT
January 18, 1989
Page 2
B. One of the drivers - Jim - on the Fernbrook/Medicine Lake route has
taken a left turn from the right turn lane. Paul stated he would
discuss this matter with the Safety Department.
C. Some concern has been expressed about center line marking at the
Park and Ride lot. Frank Boyles will check with the Street
Supervisor on this subject.
D. Riders complain that Unit 41 has caused some people to get headaches
from exhaust fumes. Mark will check with the Maintenance Department
to be sure that the muffler connections are sound.
E. Warmer buses continue to be requested.
F. Fare card availability on the 8 a.m. buses is sometimes lacking.
V. DIAL -A -RIDE SERVICE IN 1989
Frank Boyles provided an update regarding the request for proposal for
dial -a -ride services. He stated that by the next meeting the City
Council will have made a determination of a vendor and steps would be
taken toward implementation of dial -a -ride. A more detailed report will
be provided at the February meeting.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Mark Ryan stated that he was pleased with the success of the Plymouth
Metrolink System and is happy to be associated with it. He thanked PACT
members for their contributions to making the Regional Transit System
better. Jim Willis conveyed the City Council's thanks to PACT members
for their continuing support of the Plymouth Metrolink System. Their
efforts are reflected in the ridership gains which the system has
experienced. Frank Boyles provided a notebook to each PACT member as a
token of appreciation for the many contributions they have made to the
Plymouth Metrolink System over the last two years.
The meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
FB:kec
�r
CITY OF
February 3, 1989 PLYMOUTH+
Marion Bauer
11010 County Road 15
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Marion:
I am in receipt of your resident feedback form from the Town Meeting on
January 30.
As we have discussed in the past, you are interested in seeing that the West
Beach remains open for public swimming. In recent years, the City Council,
during their budget deliberations, has discussed various options for making
cost saving measures. One of many items which has been discussed is the
possibility of closing West Medicine Lake Beach. Upon review of this subject
each year, the Council has chosen to continue the operation of this beach.
With this direction in mind, it is certainly our intent to carry out the
direction of the Council.
Each spring we evaluate all of our facilities, and make what we feel to be
appropriate maintenance improvements to each of our facilities, so that they
are safe and clean environments for public use. West Beach will be given any
necessary work this spring by our maintenance division.
Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. If I can be of further
service to you, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Eric J. Blank, Director
Parks and Recreation
EJB/np
cc: City Manager
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-28001
CITY OF
February 7, 1989 PLYMOUTR
Lisa and Rick Peterson
14605 13th Place North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peterson:
I have been asked to respond to your Resident Feedback Form submitted at the
January 30, 1989 Town Meeting. You have expressed concerns about the proposed
Hennepin County Waste Transfer Station. You are probably aware that the
County Board of Commissioners authorized the purchase of the site at.the
northeast corner of County Road 6 and I-494.
The Metropolitan Council has been coordinating the preparation and review of a
required Environmental Impact Statement which is known as a "supplement"
because it is part of an earlier Environmental Impact Statement they did for
the county relative to other possible locations for waste transfer stations in
the county.
The status of the Environmental Impact Statement is that it is being finalized
by the Metropolitan Council through a committee review process. The latest
information indicates that their Waste Management Advisory Committee will
consider the subject at a meeting on Tuesday, February 14, 1989 at 2:00 p.m.;
that their Environmental Resources Committee will consider the matter at their
meeting on February 15, 1989 at 3:00 p.m.; and that, if endorsed by those
committees, the Metropolitan Council would authorize the release of the final
Environmental Impact Statement on February 23, 1989. The Metropolitan Council
offices are in St. Paul at Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street.
You may also be aware that the county has not yet submitted an application for
a specific development on this property. The City Ordinance requires a
conditional use permit for such facilities in this zoning district and the
ordinance requires that a public hearing be held by the Planning Commission
before a recommendation is made to the City Council regarding the application
for a conditional use permit and site plan approval.
I recommend that you periodically call me or a member of my staff to learn of
the status of any application the county may submit. Once they have submitted
an application, we will be able to inform you of when the Planning Commission
will conduct the public hearing.
I am placing your Resident Feedback Form in our file on this proposed facility
and I will see that the Planning Commission is aware of it at the appropriate
time.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Z C�
Mr. & Mrs. Rick Peterson
February 7, 1989
Page Two
Finally, if you wish, you may examine the original Environmental Impact
Statement and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the
Metropolitan Council. We have a copy of each at the Plymouth City Center.
Concerns about whether the facility should be constructed may be expressed to
the County Board of Commissioners who have the authority to develop the Waste
Management System that includes the transfer stations. You are in
Commissioner Tad Jude's district and his phone number is 348-3084.
Thank you for your inquiries and I hope this information has helped you better
understand the status of the proposed waste transfer facility.
Sincerely,
Blair Tremere
Community Development Director
cc: Assistant City Manager Frank Boyles
File
(pI/bt/rpeterson: jw)
hr S 5
-------- _
CITY OF PLYMOUTHYG�A.
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447- r 7
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: February 1, 1989
TO: Eric Blank, Fred Moore, Blair Tremere, Scott Hovet
FROM:
Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk
SUBJECT TOWN MEETING - RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORMS
FEB 7 1989
C0P4-!4U`JITY DEVELGi's� cNT DEPT.
Attached are "Resident Feedback Forms" from the January 30 Town
Meeting requesting information or City action on a particular
issue(s). Also attached is a copy of the Mayor's letter to each
resident thanking them for their comments and advising them that City
staff members will further investigate the issue and respond to them
in writing. Please send me a copy of the correspondence you send to
each resident. To insure prompt action, please make every effort to
send your response no later than February 17. Copies of all
correspondence will be placed in the Manager's information memorandum.
cc: Frank Boyles, Assistant City Manager
S.F. 2/17/89
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which does not appear
on the town meeting agenda to which you would like the City to respond
and/or investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we
will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: Q.,-,. C -i
ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: I)D
��l S Sl l Uc/-r Lv �
-4-Kc C O In
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT: X Sum ._
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT:
PHONE NUMBER: y-) _ 16
�Qcl
CITY OF
February 1, 1989
PLYMOUTH+
Lisa and Rick Peterson
14605 13th Place North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear. Mr. and Mrs. Peterson:
Thank you for your thoughtful message on the Resident Feedback form you
submitted at the January 30 Town Meeting. Both the City Council and City
staff were gratified that the meeting was so well attended.
In order to more thoroughly respond to your comments, I have referred your
concerns to Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Community Development, for
investigation. A staff member from that department will provide you with
additional information regarding your concerns.
Once again, thank you for participating in the town meeting and feel free to
contact me, City Council members or the City staff at any time if we can be of
service to you.
Sincerely,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
cc: Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Community Development
February 9, 1989
CITY OF
Mr. James Scheu PLYMOUTR
1160 North Evergreen Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG HIGHWAY 55
Dear Mr. Scheu:
At the January 30 town meeting you submitted a question with regard to
frontage roads along Highway 55 in the vicinity of Evergreen Lane. You
commented that in 1972 a plan was publicized in your neighborhood that a
service road paralleling Highway 55 along the north side would be installed.
In 1971 and 1972, the City of Plymouth was analyzing and considering the
street system necessary for the development of the City in the future. As
part of that process, there were several neighborhood meetings held throughout
the city to develop the proposed street plans. There were also several
concepts and proposals which were considered for the future street system.
On February 20, 1972, the City Council adopted the final plan which resulted
from the numerous meetings and several concepts which were considered. The
final plan which was adopted does not include any additional frontage roads
along Highway 55 in the general area of Evergreen Lane. It did include a
future frontage road going from 26th Avenue to 18th Avenue and a portion of
that frontage road has been constructed in conjunction with the industrial
development along the north side of Highway 55. The remainder of the
connection will be completed some time in the future. There will be no
frontage road along Highway 55 which crosses the railroad tracks.
Although a frontage road would relieve congestion along Highway 55, it is not
cost effective to construct this frontage road at all locations. There are
several places where wetlands along the roadway would be impacted and it would
require bridges over the railroad tracks.
Neither the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the City of Plymouth
have plans to construct additional frontage roads, other than the one that I
mentioned westerly of 18th Avenue.
If you would like additional information or wish to discuss this matter in
more detail, please do not hesitate to contact at extension 250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh /
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk`,/
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
February 9, 1989
Mr. Jim Gutting
510 Jonquil Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
STREET LIGHTING PROCEDURE
STREET LIGHTS FOR JONQUIL LANE CUL-DE-SAC
Dear Mr. Gutting:
Within the City of Plymouth street lights along residential streets are
paid for by property owners along the street. The street lights are
installed for the City by Northern States Power Company or Wright -
Hennepin Electric and we pay a monthly fee to cover the energy and
operating cost for these lights. Property owners in the area which
receive the benefit from street lights are then billed by the City on a
monthly basis. Each street light costs approximately $150 per year for
operation and maintenance.
If you or other property owners in your area are requesting street
lights, a petition should be submitted to the City requesting these
lights. For your use, I am attaching a standard petition form. If the
petition is not signed by 100% of the property owners, it would then
require a public hearing before a decision could be made by the City
Council to install the street lights. It is the normal City Council
policy that if 80% of the property owners are not in favor of street
lights, they will not be installed.
If there are any questions with regard to the installation of street
lights, or the petition process for these lights, please contact me at
extension 250.
Sincerely,
✓1 �-✓✓ J
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
enclosure
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
� - b
February 9, 1989
Ms. JoAnn Khoury
530 Wedgewood Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
+
CITY Or
PLYMOUTFt
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
STREET LIGHTING AT CARLSON PARKWAY AND XENIUM LANE
Dear Ms. Khoury:
At the January 30 town meeting, you expressed a concern about the new street
lights recently installed at the intersection of Xenium Lane and Carlson
Parkway. You stated that the lights are shining into the residential
properties at the south side of the roadway.
These streets lights, as installed, do not have a shield on them to reduce the
amount of light which goes onto the adjacent properties. I have requested
Northern States Power Company to install these shields. I believe once the
shields are installed, it will adequately reduce the amount of light going
onto the adjacent properties.
If you have any additional questions or after the shields are installed you do
not think they have addressed your concern, please do not hesitate to contact
me at extension 250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY Or
February 9, 1989 PLYMOUT 4
Mr. John Dumez
2510 Rosewood Lane
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
SNOW PLOWING
Dear Mr. Dumez:
At the town meeting on January 30, you requested information on two
questions. One question involved the traffic at the intersection of
Northwest Boulevard and Campus Drive and the other question was on snow
plowing on the cul-de-sac where you live.
The City of Plymouth has recently completed a traffic analysis at the
intersection of Campus Drive and Northwest Boulevard. In order for a
traffic signal to be installed, the intersection must meet criteria as set
out in a national manual adopted by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The traffic study, which was recently completed, indicates
that this intersection does not yet meet the needs for a traffic signal.
The study did indicate that it is approaching the need and I would expect
that the next time we do a study, in about two years, it will indicate that
a traffic signal is needed. After the national criteria is met, the City
and County will work together on the installation of this traffic signal.
I requested Tom Vetsch, the Street Supervisor, to investigate your concern
about the plowing of the cul-de-sac where you live. Attached is a copy of a
memorandum from Tom Vetsch explaining our plowing procedure. As his
memorandum states, we will be changing our procedure in order to provide
better service to your cul-de-sac. With over 400 cul-de-sacs within the
City of Plymouth, it is not possible to have all of the cul-de-sacs plowed
at the same time that the major streets are plowed. It normally requires an
additional four to six hours to complete the cul-de-sac plowing after the
streets are plowed.
If you would like to discuss either one of these matters in more detail,
please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
enclosure
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk L
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
ter-.
t
CITY O�
February 9, 1989 PUMOUTR
Ms. Kathryn M. Zeinemann
9800 26th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
Dear Ms. Zeinemann:
At the January 30 town meeting you requested information on the proposed
improvement to 26th Avenue. This project, along with East Medicine Lake
Boulevard south of 36th Avenue, is proposed for improvement as part of our
1991 Capital Improvements Program. This program is reviewed each year and
is subject to change. As you stated, this proposed project has been delayed
several times in past years. The major reason for this delay is the
coordination on the construction of the project along East Medicine Lake
Boulevard with the Park Reserve District. They will be constructing a major
pedestrian trailway along the east side of Medicine Lake.
In your "resident feedback form" you stated that you needed to do major
reconstruction work on your driveway. I would suggest that if work is
necessary, you do not delay it because of the proposed City reconstruction
of 26th Avenue. Any portion of your driveway that is disturbed by the City
when 26th Avenue is reconstructed will be replaced by the City as part of
our construction project. Although 26th Avenue was formerly a county road,
it has not been a county road for over 15 years and the County will have no
part of the reconstruction project.
When the street is reconstructed, since your property has access to 26th
Avenue and it serves as your residential street in accordance with City
policies, you would be assessed for the benefit of the residential street.
Until the preliminary reports are prepared, I cannot give you an estimate of
this proposed assessment. If any trees are removed from your property, you
would be compensated for their loss of value. If the trees are located
within city street right-of-way, they are owned by the City of Plymouth and
you would not be compensated for their removal.
The City currently owns 66 feet of right-of-way for 26th Avenue. The
proposed street would only be 36 feet wide, which would leave a boulevard
area behind the curb of the new street of 15 feet on either side. For this
reason, the City would not need to acquire any property from you, but
grading work may be required on your property in order that your lawn will
meet the new roadway. Any disturbance on your property would be restored by
the City as part of the project.
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Ms. Kathryn M. Zeinemann
February 9, 1989
Page Two
As you are aware, the properties on the north side of 26th Avenue are higher
than the roadway and several of the properties on the south side are lower
than the roadway. Although the engineering plans have not been prepared, I
am sure that retaining walls will be required as part of the construction
project in order to minimize the disturbance to the private properties and
to protect trees. If the project continues on schedule for construction in
1991, you would receive a notification of a public hearing on the proposed
project during 1991. At this public hearing, preliminary plans would be
available in order that you could determine the exact effect on your
property. I would suggest that you contact the City Engineering Department
each spring to determine the status of this project.
If you would like additional information, or would like to discuss the
project in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension
250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk`,.
CITY OF
February 9, 1989 PLYMOUTR
Kevin and Terrie Christian
9910 South Shore Drive
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
STREET LIGHTING PROCEDURE
STREET LIGHT ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Christian:
Within the City of Plymouth street lights along residential streets are
paid for by property owners along the street. The street lights are
installed for the City by Northern States Power Company or Wright -
Hennepin Electric and we pay a monthly fee to cover the energy and
operating cost for these lights. Property owners in the area which
receive the benefit from street lights are then billed by the City on a
monthly basis. Each street light costs approximately $150 per year for
operation and maintenance.
If you or other property owners in your area are requesting street
lights, a petition should be submitted to the City requesting these
lights. For your use, I am attaching a standard petition form. If the
petition is not signed by 100% of the property owners, it would then
require a public hearing before a decision could be made by the City
Council to install the street lights. It is the normal City Council
policy that if 80% of the property owners are not in favor of street
lights, they will not be installed.
If there are any questions with regard to the installation of street
lights, or the petition process for these lights, please contact me at
extension 250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
enclosure
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
t </
CITY OF
February 9, 1989 PUMOUTR
Ms. Gloria Swenson
10875 South Shore Drive
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING RESPONSE
10TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
Dear Ms. Swenson:
I am responding to the question you raised at the January 30 town
meeting concerning the improvement of 10th Avenue. Attached is a
drawing showing the location of the construction which will be done on
10th Avenue this summer. 10th Avenue will be moving further away from
your property. The roadway will have a width for four lanes of traffic
(two in each direction).
At the present time, the City of Plymouth has no plan for improving 11th
Avenue. As I believe you are aware, the developer of the area to your
south and east was required to improve 11th Avenue before they could
proceed with the development of the lots. That development has never
proceeded, and therefore, the developer has not improved 11th Avenue.
If you desire to have 11th Avenue improved, you may wish to submit a
petition to the City of Plymouth requesting the street improvement. If
the City accepts the petition and proceeds with the road improvement of
which you are one of the adjacent property owners, you would receive
benefit from the improvement, and therefore, share in the cost of
improving 11th Avenue.
If you have any additional questions, or would like to discuss these
matters in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at
extension 250.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
enclosure
cc: Laurie Rauenhorst, City Clerk,,,
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
o 400
w
70 -INDICA
JSCH, INC.
)SURVEYORS
IWIPMESOTA
GENERAL LAYOUT
.....
.r..•26
. •. , i r..
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
•. -
QMSI ,. .o.E
SR WN 7-89
5 E( 2
�
GENERAL LAYOUT AND ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
CITY PRa. ND.I_PI+F
COMM. NO
t
S a GROVES OFFICE PARK AREA—PHASE II
••i' KE:Ii•
031f— 7_AA
AoppOVEcol
0681033
646
0860763-'
RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM
Please use this form if you have a question or concern which does not appear
on the town meeting agenda to which you would like the City to respond
and/or investigate. If you provide your name, address and phone number, we
will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern.
NATURE OF CONCERN/PROPERTY ADDRESS INVOLVED: a `Yn Xti
Dnp?
-ne.c-O
J, le 6�
�w��1J ingS
D H
Tiles l' 1nt4 l i ./ P h J`tA j
-kz fG h a e
Z& 5 e , ! / ''h et -e- /,-. 7n a -7, e K 'V rJ /qj /'9 /l.- , 1'%-c a 7-17 e C i
b P inL./ -*1D-m I A- l/ A v .0" i e e Xp o e k "'A
I r. 7
ACTIO YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE : ,
ft 'f/r D� R b
/Sls� "aasP
1'� D 0 T'E /-X6 w Ps -.4 S �' "Yy� e D is i r e
NAME OF CONCERNED RESIDENT:& f �j (� I'�L` �Q & S
ADDRESS OF RESIDENT: A9�, �� 2)�e,;
PHONE NUMBER: <h I _ / 2 �4(1
o
Plymouth's recycling succeed
with schedules, prizes
Helen LaFave, Communications Coordinator, City of Plymouth
Plymouth residents can drop off recyclables at a local center. Photo by Helen LaFave.
When the city of Plymouth intro-
duced a revamped recycling program in
February 1988 it did what the previous
versions hadn't been able to accom-
plish—motivate residents to recycle
enough to meet and exceed Hennepin
County and Metropolitan Council man-
dated goals. The new program com-
bines simplicity, convenience, and a
"fun" incentive.
Before the new program, about 16
percent of Plymouth residents had
recycled about two percent of the
waste stream. Now about 65 percent
are recycling once a week and 85 to 90
percent recycle at least once a month.
They divert an average of 300 tons of
solid waste from landfills each month or
approximately 20 percent of the waste
stream.
Hitting the right combination of pro-
gram elements along with planning and
publicity inspired non-recyclers to recy-
cle, according to Plymouth Recycling
8 Minnesota Cities
Coordinator Dick Pouliot. Vital to the
success of the program are bright
colored plastic containers, weekly col-
lections on the same day for the entire
city, and a weekly cash drawing.
' `Ultimately I attribute the pro-
gram's success to the residents and
the fact that we hit upon the combina-
tion that they like," Pouliot said. "The
container made it convenient. Weekly
collections for the whole city every
Thursday made it easy to remember.
And we added some enthusiasm and
pizazz with the cash drawing," he
added.
Plymouth offers curbside recycling
collections each Thursday for metal/
_ aluminum cans, glass containers, news-
papers, and cardboard. All single family
through fourplex homes receive the
service.
Residents in multifamily housing can
use a recycling drop-off center at the
Plymouth public works building.
Recycling containers
City maintenance crews distributed
a bright blue, plastic recycling box to
all participating dwellings in January
1988 along with a brochure explaining
the basics of the new program.
The box holds there grocery bags so
residents can separate metal, glass,
and newspaper. Residents may set out
additional grocery bags for cardboard
along with their recycling box as
necessary.
The blue boxes have served as a
valuable publicity tool. Each is embla-
zoned with the words "We Recycle"
as well as with the logos of the city and
the county. On recycling day they
serve as a reminder to city residents
to recycle and that their neighbors are
recycling. "It has become a friendly
competition between neighbors," said
Mayor Virgil Schneider.
Residents use a recycling box to hold their recyclables.
Photo by Helen LaFave
Recycling cash drawing
The weekly "That's Not Trash, It's
Cash" drawing allowed Plymouth to
add an incentive without going to an
organized refuse system. An organized
system would have permitted rebates
or volume based pricing but the city
council nixed the proposal after resi-
dents expressed a strong preference to
keep an open system. Instead they
opted for the cash drawing.
Each week a randomly selected
address is checked to see if recyclables
are at the curb by 8 a.m. If so, the
household wins $100 or the amount
accumulated from previous weeks. If
not, the $100 goes into the next
week's prize money pot.
To be eligible for the drawing resi-
dents need only recycle. The cash
drawing was set up to be both easy to
participate in and easy to administer.
The drawing also provides a weekly
shot of publicity for the program when
the city announces the results of the
drawing to local newspapers—eliminat-
ing the need for direct mailings to plug
the program. The drawing also has the
advantage of drawing more media cov-
erage as the prize money builds. Thus
far the largest prize awarded has been
$1,200.
"Although the drawing costs the city
and county $100 a week, it also has a
big return in terms of free publicity.
Our local newspapers give it front-page
coverage almost weekly," Schneider
said.
The cash drawing as well as the
recycling participation rates also
receive regular publicity in a bimonthly
city publication and on the municipal
cable television channel.
Weekly collections
Because Plymouth has an open
refuse collection system, city officials
could not mandate that recycling collec-
tion days coincide with refuse collec-
tions. The answer they came up with
was to offer a weekly collection on one
day for the entire city. It made it easy
for residents to remember and made
publicity efforts more effective by sim-
plifying the message being sent to
residents.
Refuse haulers have lent their coop-
eration by experimentally collecting
recyclable yard wastes for eight weeks
last spring and eight weeks last fall. An
evaluation is underway to determine
whether to continue this practice. ■
February 1989 9
a.
www w w w M w w w w w w U ar ••• MwI w op 10 r w _
bAT111 Ob A br31 V m O Ob TArA m b
a b b m A T O m m P A a T s Y �..+.� C N A C4 in O v C
a r N A A hD 0a • p. gyp, y X i � t b N
O� 1'1 • N 'r r .r 10 Q .+ r .•� C 6� IG �( q 1D 1!1 ..1 r YY 10 O� .•r 4
A N TN31 A O a a 0•� � Y7 K. Al N
O
A A .:.L 'p .... • Y
• 'J. L II JJ •O 4444 � YY
" 4O
• U u
A. y d
C, • e h Y u U • 0 1Lp-4 Y L
4AjO>> Y Lb
:.•V. : r0. :y4i :..t •� Y O r aOrJ �N : : iZ auFi ;i 04
:o V r Mg�yw C r. O 9 :.4.1L
:tide~ .0 Rt :u U
4A br. A14J �jA sL u $ ++4
CC i .1 33M Yw
l. . V Y 4 b. A e r ..r•I u V 4 • �`( ..ypi
..,1I L +.I Y ...I
eytppCaq6�••ppyy C •LIy6rOeCU ,T1i� 4Yp,00 +.rAAJ
(yJ r tl
itl1� Vii •f0 O e Y 0A0� iO tl O• r e0
a. a. " a. ?• a. O • a... J~J = .`C A c Y au .'y o ., .� a... :1 .4i A
V A
++ V r .+ .+ .+ A
�iYY�•Mp'I, i. i`1 iio i �"•-lu
rotit
���==1�a
I w I w 1 1 w I w I w w A w w I I w r w I w w I w w w w w w w w w I w
A m N N O T P N 0 r A m N N O T O P N 0 M1I m T T T T T m m T m T T m m
b TTw r4 co Ar A .. bT TIr co mAr P mPPPP0 m PmP Pm m
T T A O O T N P r N T T A 0 0 b T N P r r P A A A A A P P A P A A P P
MI
e M Y 6. • f4 • 31 wq f V f V f V N N A '•I N '•I N N A A
Aj
{. y
4 CTtlW O •C y M� p^ .M •Y y
x6w .Ar : r . IJ U
x .e MM G
M
-,60 9 O �+ a ••� 4 y►. y ��
v 40.Y�Y pula ypYR.,.�s
(/J QQAu�Gi C��1I +1 l r Co m A A
47 r i 0 r O T.^ •" V • 1.5 �° • v Yl -g 'S U y Y • W M w . �.
f1 4 �I 1t♦ � Y
�s-."Sc c •yrs :� M Qy
AJ 0
♦+ 4 Yw
i 4e O •++ p :ra+ r O •+1 :r C
g++7•. 7r � vAi�tRF •.lt e s ♦•p a.lAi tohv .�[ A :p
ae •.1 i V •N A M ! Y a +1 r .•. +. +1 +I M .rel Y Qq
�M W I YW �56 70 V •M ,A ..O �pS�Sdd�
A ...Y, aCC tJ `�Yl(/.. Yrcc r a0 •Zvi . :✓ •m C
Ip £ m >guuuu .1u16- =uuuu h '•o r
A EQ C2S 44 4 0 0000 0 A , 4 c u 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 4 u Q a A
4+1 f.A 4, Y Y Y Y Y Y a tl Y Y Y Y Y YY O gg 4 4 g�A.•. $ YY�g
_Mu°��41 5� iiioq.s�i s r° 931d8�'3c�3i�oadg�$
M
F
A s w w r w
v P b P
b N O 31
t� mAAO
WI wwlMl rrw wwlwA www (-• r1 I Iwr
L T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T GGG JJ! P- V U l f
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H 31 A A M1 A A m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N 1 T N N N N N L
i A A A A A A A A A A A A A .•.IAA • A A • A A M
U,
N O AAA n
r w w I 1 I w r w I A w 1 r r r w r w 1 r r w w O
a Mm31P Ir O O N b b Itlb P m -VfO P31 b NNS
NNAb M131'n1p ., AmNN1p f ryry
ft r`i) M1�b PAAOPo�b Ar311n� wmi ni 1Ao .m•1on n12Q,
.+O�e�ow11p1wo o�3i0�e:oowiw;oai : : 0000
f �3f 31��31�31� yl to �f Y1�In
fFJ rI N wl to M aw 1
uv�+a+ DCC
A..v. r:
:ry lr.1
QQ Y ' •nl . • ~ jt . • • • • . . • . • , • : • '� ' ' • Y Y Y Y Y Y
{I ll Z
OAA fVTTTb M1OP C AN Tfb M • �OA m AM1PT r • r ■ r rA A C
r -
.0
A AA i4N YM1f�10 �OQO W p sp
O NNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN � �A 8AA trDr =OOm (>=y�
[[���(rrrrr .r. 1 w w w A r 0.0 w w r w 1 w W.* w w r I w r A w w r w r w r w M r r w r r w r r w w I w
q r T �OPNO N P T b T M1bb P O M1313131 P1nM10 M1OPAmmOp •OM1 NObPPM1ObA
1y C O bb TSP-r%n"fV3lmAbmObTbAA�11ppOTb31TO1p MSONYI�ATm ppNAN�p I
yy 0 AfVM1TPlM1POPmmbPb M110b w31meAO bbm wmbfFAlOr•NO O 3i NO m 3100
PA( �( qq A 31 m 1010 O N M b NY1 P 1010 F Aw on PO OD %D N A 10 w fm -W w T Pb fn o o 11m T M1b PN31r 1 1
1Z.1 �!• Yl ` A AA A A ryAAAAA •A -4.4 AA AAAA .AA AN AAAAAAAA
.A•'
�uu17(aK�
Z l^ I"• • Y • • 4 : � C
C 61}Y
C..Y1 : a: �N � �wJ •,ar+r •..e•I•• A � .�.
►qi ..rOi .i Yr O0 -C •11Y 09
: e OTZ
y AAA Y , d r CW C JJ .N gLLL • r CW r o
p Y7 ` Y Y t� 0 .+ C 10 A 4 C +1 �J 4 O t7 C W ..M J[ Y C, A
1. 8 8 Q CC 4 '" YY I� q •�O! •�Ot {C1 CO 4C CCC E •p■� Y •pO A Y
�qe YCYi 10OYi ppp7U�pr4iY i .7JiLii -W-C Ol 1i.� LVLLpYOYDC Dip
S UtOmm LV UUaaYl Y7 i1 C�C7 t7 ►+ __= Qpq.i�. �MmmMmF�3 �r.
N
M
.� r• w r w • w• w w w w• w w •
r� �L"O� oPO0�����^�D:+11 m.�r+r•oN voP I �1w.o1f./..-1�IvO1Ofl mNInA•f N ON� �fO� Ym'f ( 1IAfl•mO•fVm0o•oMlmr•r•C• • 10 I mw•1NwOmNfD�0D AwNvm-047k m m
dp
-4•r 10 40 O rm to
.A .4"4 -,P# C04,
N•1 � M w • !O NNN/.-4 vI l �O•fn� I OmNmMv+
1
N �
O A :aCi A.' AJ
�• .i • M bod4ci -4
• A • •y
E •y yj• • , �V ;
41
logo
v �� a ��w� a C•
:: �p�i.•Hprp■bbGS ., •yN ts: .�i ��. W wCuM ��;nLC.l •S0.�.r6q ..qqCr�� '�� +fi• �• yC
OrCC r 0a0b*d Ai
AA fr
r • .r y
AQM-0rM LEI O Ci
04
C M CItI
wzof
C•�CpC ~ O• y
8A4+v3u = -1 •oar > dJ u
A u Z.d • L u u .r ..� ..1 w Y -4 A +� A M r
4 u �. ..� ..� ..r ..� ..r . 4 J 14 d0 ` �l u .1 • G p A pY
A
..•.d ..• u g GOl .ter '�gg ~ H r " ir! u
u fll p
Wil 6 2A,�c.42 C �iS4 v � •.+day
ow
a. �a . a. a. ts IC a
a+ u u u u u- .4 1
" .r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� u Lir � A u� .r +a r -.1
a(q Y Y Y r .K r r r ..� w {� ..»� Y .r ..p� Fa ,�e �t �r yqO� V •1.pr A O
u
i0
• LJ.1Y rLaA AJ L Y OA��id6�O�0.F.iU E+ Y
Illml
g i �� Leu A Y
N
wwwww w M w w I M• w M w w w w w M I w w w w•• •www w w w w w w w
O�Pf mO� r �O .•INO/� m0�0 �p 11'110mm••1011ffmv voAlmvv m N•41ula% %O
m f�m.tiN O� NI w1w Vfm m0��0 ifll U1m.�f��ON�000f�U1 .•100�w1 ml Nin0NS ISI .4
O �•f .�1 P .•1 v RI •y 0 0 N /'N Y1 N n m Ifl C� N ..� N O O Uf m f� .r m r.: 9 v N �0 •�1 N1
q 01 N1 • •� = • . . . •« • • = '•.INO 04 .4 •� •!�1 • • N v "lowl,
Y ••1 N
:4
M Ad • y :y : : `C : O
60, ■ � C : aCi . 4
•uC .may` �� r wO.rr :per r Z u
• M • M + • is V .•1 .A • .A +0 p, • y
o F 04 ■ `O M .
�}I yr �Qy� •OrgO •AJ •� t�y�y uC000 .12 O
..�r L •y •rr•.w CC G •V y y • • .
• M ..N • u ••• O y Y M L »
Ic 00
r ,.
Z .
A aJ fr tJ ..� � • E • .�.� • O +r O • • -.� O
y � gill:; J000.���$ S Oi :Ai wary Aj
It -N., 2 9 1-1 `a A' �'a' y Iwo R4 0 e e" 4 8.� N
++ ++++++++AA ree+ 0000 O00 .� u UY �Aua p,
y rr Auu Qr+A`r�a6riu•rp.Ar+Ar+Ayi ap� u$t7�r1d1LY�0.l+.i uC�Eba
+t.r E+
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333-0543
Telecopier (612) 333-0540
J. Dennis O'Brien
John E. Drawz
David J. Kennedy
Joseph E. Hamilton
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue
Richard J. Schieffer
Charles L. LeFevere
James J. Thomson, Jr
Thomas R. Galt
Steven B. Schmidt
John G. Kressel
James M. Strommen
Ronald H. Batty
William P. Jordan
William R. Skallerud
Corrine A. Heine
David D. Beaudoin
Steven M. Tallen
Mary Frances Skala
Leslie M. Altman
Timothy J. Pawlenty
Rolf A. Sponheim
Julie A. Bergh
Darcy L. Hitesman
David C. Roland
Karen A. Chamerlik
Paul D. Baertschi
Arden Fritz
Clayton L. LeFevere, Retired
Herbert P. Lefler, Retired
LcKwere
Lef ler
Kennedy
O'Brien K
Drawz
a Professional
Association
February 3, 1989
Mr. James C. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Lyndale Terminal Co. v. City of Plymouth
Pear Jim:
Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum of Law that was
submitted on behalf of the City. The hearing was held
yesterday before Judge Schiefelbein. He asked several
questions of both myself and the attorney for Lyndale
Terminal Company. Many of the questions were directed at
the issue of how the City could demonstrate that an
hours -of -operations condition was related to the physical
attributes of the site.
Judge Schiefelbein did not indicate when he would issue a
ruling, but I will let you know as soon as I hear
anything.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
may.
J es J. Thomson
JJT:rsr
cc: Blair Tremere (w/Encl.)
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Lyndale Terminal Co. and )
Holiday Stationstores, Inc., ) DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
VS. ) AND IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
City of Plymouth, a Minnesota ) DEFENDANT
municipal corporation, )
Court File No. 88-10088
Defendant. )
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
INTRODUCTION
This case involves a dispute over whether the City of
Plymouth (City) acted properly in denying a request by Plaintiffs
to amend a resolution that the City adopted in 1983 pertaining to
the site plan for a Holiday Plus store located generally in the
northwest corner of County Road 9 and County Road 18. One of the
conditions of the site plan approval limited the store's hours of
operation. The City contends that it had the authority to impose
that condition in 1983, that it acted reasonably in imposing the
condition, and that Plaintiffs, by accepting the condition at the
time it was imposed and by beginning operations without challeng-
ing the condition, are precluded from objecting to it more than 4
years after it was adopted.
The City contends that it is entitled to summary judgment
because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the City acted
properly in denying Plaintiffs' request.
__71" �,_,
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs submitted their application for plat and site
plan approval in May, 1983. As part of that application, Plain-
tiffs indicated in a letter dated May 2, 1983 that their hours of
operation were from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Monday through
Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. See Exhibit 3.
At the time of the application, the property was classified
in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan as CN (neighborhood
shopping center) and zoned B-2 (shopping center business dis-
trict). One of the major issues at the time was whether the
Holiday Plus store came within the definition of a "neighborhood
shopping center" as compared to a regional shopping center. The
application was opposed by the local neighborhood homeowners'
association because, among other things, it did not believe that
the use came within the definition of a neighborhood shopping
center.
There are no other uses in the City similar to the Holiday
Plus store. See affidavit of Blair Tremere. The Erickson's and
Tyra's stores located near Highway 101 and County Road 6 (see
paragraph 32 of stipulation) only sell grocery products and are
located approximately seven miles from the Holiday Plus store.
Id. The Erickson's store at 4236 North Lancaster Lane only sells
grocery products and is located in a shopping center that is not
opened 24 hours a day. Id.
During the public hearing before the planning commission,
Plaintiffs' representative stated that the primary trade area for
the store involved a two mile radius around the store. See
2
Exhibit 8, page 121. The planning commission, on a 3-3 vote,
failed to recommend approval of the site plan.
The City Council considered the plat and the site plan on
July 11, 1983. By a 4-1 vote, the City Council approved the site
plan.1 Prior to approving the site plan, the City Council
imposed several conditions, one of which limited the hours of
operation to the same ones that Plaintiffs had included as part
of their application. Contrary to the statement of facts set
forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, that condition was
approved before the final action approving the site plan. See
Exhibit 13, page 156. The minutes of that meeting also indicate
that there was discussion concerning the hours of operation
before the resolution approving the site plan was adopted. Id.
Plaintiffs did not object to the condition regarding the
hours of operation at the time of City Council approval. Rather
than objecting to the condition at that time or including it as
part of the lawsuit that was filed by the neighborhood associa-
tion, Plaintiffs waited over four years to challenge the condi-
tion.
In September, 1987, Plaintiffs requested the City to delete
the hours of operation condition. The planning commission
recommended denial of the application and that recommendation was
1Paragraph 12 of the stipulation of facts erroneously states
that the approval of the site plan was unanimous. (See affidavit
of James J. Thomson)
9
ultimately upheld by the City Council when it denied the request
on January 4, 1988.
ARGUMENT
I. THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE AN HOURS OF OPERATION
LIMITATION AS A CONDITION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
A. Cities Have Inherent Authority to Impose Reasonable
Conditions When Approving Site Plans.
Plaintiffs contend that the hours of operation condition is
ultra vires and void because neither Minnesota Statutes Section
462.357 nor the City's Zoning Ordinance expressly authorized the
City to impose such a condition. Express statutory authority,
however, is not required. Cities have inherent authority to
impose reasonable conditions upon approval of site plans. Holmes
v. Planning Board of Town of New Cast1P, 78 A.D.2d 1, 433
N.Y.S.2d 587 (1980).
The Holmes court stated:
With respect to site plan review, the power
to condition is not explicitly set forth in
the statute. Nevertheless, given the plan-
ning board's power to deny the application
outright, it would seem logically to follow
that a planning board may validly impose
reasonable conditions on the approval of a
site plan, both as an accommodation to the
applicant and to further the health, safety,
and general welfare of the community.
433 N.Y.S.2d at 595 (citations omitted).
A condition of site plan approval may be valid even though
the local zoning ordinance does not specify standards for the
imposition of such conditions. See State ex rel. Standard Mining
& Development Corp. v. City of Auburn, 82 Wash.2d 321, 510 P.2d
647 (1973). In City of Auburn, the city planning commission and
4
city council imposed conditions upon a special use permit2 to
allow Standard Mining to conduct gravel mining operations.
Standard Mining challenged the permit conditions under the theory
that the city's ordinance contained no standards to guide the
city council in formulating the conditions that should attach to
a special use permit. Id., 510 P.2d at 651. The trial court
agreed with Standard Mining, but the court on appeal reversed.
The appellate court distinguished the act of setting condi-
tions from that of granting or denying the permit itself. The
court recognized that a city's authority to issue or deny special
use permits must be guided by standards in the ordinance. Id.
The court held, however, that it is not necessary for the ordi-
nance to also set forth specific standards for imposing condi-
tions: "[W]e have not been shown that courts have imposed such a
stringent rule, nor have we been shown that it would serve any
substantial purpose." Id. at 652. See also Conmar Builders,
Inc. v. Board of Appeals, 43 Misc. 2d 577, 251 N.Y.S.2d 521
(1964), where the court held that standards in the ordinance
referred only to matters to be considered in the initial
2The power to impose conditions upon site plan approval is
similar to the inherent powers that cities possess when approving
variances or special use permits. See 3 Anderson, American Law
of Zoning (3d ed. 1986), §§ 20.63 (implied power to impose
conditions upon variances) and 21.30 (inherent power to impose
conditions upon special use permits); Pearson v. Shoemaker, 25
Misc. 2d 591, 202 N.Y.S.2d 779 (1960)(special use permits);
Everson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Allentown, 395 Pa. 168,
149 A.2d 63 (1959)(variances). Because there are few cases that
involve disputes over site plan approval, citation is made in
this memorandum to analogous cases involving similar city
approvals.
5
= k
determination of whether the permit should be granted and did not
restrict the board of appeals' right to impose conditions upon
the permit.
Although courts have not required cities to follow specific
standards when imposing conditions, courts have developed rules
that govern cities' conduct in setting conditions. City of
Auburn, 510 P.2d at 652. To be valid, a condition must: (1) be
related to the use of the land; (2) not be inconsistent with the
zoning regulations of the municipality; (3) not require illegal
conduct on the part of the permit holder; and (4) be in the
public interest. Id. See also Pearson, 202 N.Y.S.2d at 780
(must be directly related to and incidental to use of property
and not inconsistent with provisions'of local ordinance).
Under the rules set forth above, the City had and has
authority to impose reasonable conditions upon the plaintiffs'
request for site plan approval, even though its ordinances do not
expressly provide for such conditions. That power is inherent in
the City's authority to grant site plan approval. Accordingly,
the City's action in imposing conditions upon site plan approval
was not ultra vires. The question remains, however, as to
whether the challenged condition is a reasonable exercise of that
authority.
B. The Hours of Operation Condition Is Reasonable.
The hours of operation condition is a reasonable and valid
condition that furthers the purposes for which site plan approval
is required. Site plan approval is a relatively modern planning
technique. The purpose of site plan approval is to ensure that
C
plans for a proposed development of a single parcel will be in
the public interest. Kozesnik v. Montgomery Township, 24 N.J.
154, 131 A.2d 1, 18 (1957).
An object of site plan review is to make the proposed
development as compatible as possible with adjacent uses, nearby
zoning districts, and the natural features of the area. See 3
Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning (4th ed. 1986) § 62.01[3).
The City's Zoning Ordinance reflects a similar intent to minimize
the impact of non-residential uses upon adjoining properties
through site plan review. See Exhibit 6, Section 8, Subds. F.4.
and G. In particular, the ordinance directs the city council to
consider possible impacts of landscaping, lighting, vibration,
noise, odors, dust, and other aspects of the site. Id.
A valid condition must be related to the use of the land,
rather than the operation of a business. Town of Huntington v.
Sudano, 42 A.D.2d 791, 346 N.Y.S.2d 582, 584 (1973) affirmed, 35
N.W. 2d. 796, 362 N.Y.S. 2d 459, 321 N.E. 2d. 549. A condition
that is directly allied to the use and enjoyment of neighboring
land is valid, however, even though it may affect the financial
success of the business on the property. See id. The hours of
operation of plaintiffs' business bear a direct relationship to
the impacts of the site upon adjacent properties, particularly
with respect to lighting and noise. Courts have upheld hours of
operation conditions as valid restrictions. U -Totem of Alabama,
Inc. V. Board of Adjustment, 412 So.2d 787 (Ala. 1982);
Smalleylocics Corp. v. Dade County, 176 So.2d 574 (Fla. App.
7
� I \
1965) appeal dismissed 179 So. 2d. 211 (Fla. 1965); Montgomery
County v. Mossburg, 228 Md. 555, 180 A.2d 851 (1962).
Plaintiffs argue that the City is prevented from imposing an
hours of operation condition because plaintiffs meet the specific
noise and lighting standards in the ordinance. The performance
standards in the ordinance, however, govern the granting or
denying of site plan approval and not the imposition of condi-
tions. See City of Auburn, 510 P.2d at 652. The City is enti-
tled to impose conditions reasonably calculated to effect the
purposes of site plan review, id. at 653, including the reduc-
tion of site impacts on neighboring lands.
There was evidence before the City council that the site
adversely impacts adjacent properties. Two neighboring resi-
dents, Mr. Eggen and Mr. Martineau, testified at the planning
commission hearing that the lights on the site spilled over onto
neighboring properties. Exhibit 27, pp. 258, 259. Plaintiffs'
own noise consultant acknowledged that traffic coming into the
site after 11:00 p.m. will generate noise. Exh. 34, page 10.
In addition, the hours of operation condition does not
contradict the provisions of the City's zoning regulations. The
condition directly relates to at least two of the physical impact
issues that the ordinance directs the council to consider --
noise and light. The condition is consistent with the objects of
the performance standards, and it does not require illegal
conduct by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' argument that there are insufficient facts tc
support the reasons for denying Plaintiffs' request to amend the
resolution approving the site plan also misses the mark. The
cases cited by Plaintiffs involve situations where a governmental
entity denied an application. The City did not deny Plaintiffs'
site plan application; it approved it subject to certain condi-
tions. In such a situation the only issue is whether the condi-
tions reasonably relate to a legitimate governmental interest.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L.
Ed. 2d 677 (1987). The City has demonstrated that the hours of
operation condition meets that standard. The five reasons
contained in the resolution adopted in 1988 set forth why the
City Council chose not to change its mind concerning the condi-
tion that was imposed in 1983.
Because the hours of operation condition is reasonably
designed to further the purposes of site plan review and relates
to the land use rather than the business, it is a valid condi-
tion. The City is not required to amend conditions that were
valid at the time they were imposed.
II. THE HOURS OF OPERATION CONDITION IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE
UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 462.357.
The City did not violate Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357
by imposing an hours of operation condition on plaintiffs'
request for site approval. That statute provides, in part:
For the purpose of promoting the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare, a
municipality may by ordinance regulate . . .
[uses of land] and may establish standards
and procedures regulating such uses. . .
The regulations may divide the surface, above
surface, and subsurface areas of the munici-
pality into districts or zones of suitable
numbers, shape and area. The regulations
shall be uniform for each class or kind of
buildings, structures or land and for each
9
class or kind of use throughout such dis-
trict, but the regulations in one district
may differ from those in other districts. . .
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 (1988).
The statute requires that a municipality's zoning regula-
tions be uniform within each zoning district. The City's zoning
ordinance meets that requirement. Every non-residential use of
property must apply for site plan approval before a building
permit will be issued. Exhibit 6, Section 8, Subd. F.4. That
regulation is uniform for every non-residential class of property
in the City.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that the resolution approving
site plan approval violates the statute, either because it is not
an ordinance or because the same conditions in that resolution
are not applied to every other parcel of land in B-2 districts.
Both arguments are in error. As stated earlier, a city may
impose conditions on site approval even though the condition is
not expressly mentioned in the ordinance. Holmes v. Planning
Board of Town of New Castle, 78 A.D.2d 1, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587
(1980). The ability to impose additional conditions does not
violate the requirement that regulations be uniform throughout
the district. Steuart Investment Co. v. Board of Commissioners,
St. Mary's County, 38 Md. App. 381, 381 A.2d 1174, 1179 (1978).
Section 462.357 does not require that cities impose identi-
cal site approval, special use permit, or variance conditions
upon similarly zoned properties, nor would it make sense to
impose identical conditions. The site approval, special use
permit, and variance review procedures are intended to adcress
10
site-specific considerations and are not amenable to blanket
conditions that must be applied in every instance.
Plaintiffs' true complaint is not that the City has adopted
non-uniform regulations, but that it has applied its regulations
in a non-uniform manner by imposing a condition upon plaintiffs
that it has not imposed elsewhere. That issue is properly raised
by Plaintiffs' equal protection claim, a claim that is not ripe
for summary judgment because of the numerous fact questions
pertaining to that issue. Plaintiffs' uniformity argument is no
more than an attempt to bring the equal protection claim into
this proceeding through the back door.
III. PLAINTIFFS ACCEPTED THE HOURS OF OPERATION CONDITION WHEN IT
WAS ORIGINALLY IMPOSED AND ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE RELIEVED
OF THAT CONDITION NOW.
Regardless of whether the hours of operation condition is
reasonable as applied to Plaintiffs' site, Plaintiffs accepted
the condition when it was imposed and cannot now complain that it
is unfair. Case law in Minnesota and other jurisdictions holds
that after a property owner has accepted the benefits of a
required city approval, the property owner cannot later challenge
the conditions under which the approval was obtained.
The leading case in Minnesota is Crystal Green v. City of
Crystal, 421 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) review den. (May
25, 1988). In Crystal Green, the city required a developer to
dedicate a frontage road as a condition of subdivision approval.
The developer complied with the dedication requirement "under
protest" and filed its final plat. After it had filed its plat,
the developer sued the city in inverse condemnation, claiming
that the condition was unreasonable and constituted a taking of
property without just compensation. The trial court granted
summary judgment to the city under the theory that the developer
should have challenged the condition prior to filing its final
plat.
On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court.
The appellate court held that developers must challenge dedica-
tions prior to final plat approval "in order to . . . give
municipalities an opportunity to change their requirements if the
requirements are unreasonable .." 421 N.W. 2d at 395.
Similarly, the plaintiffs here have obtained a valuable city
approval in the form of site plan approval. The City imposed the
condition in part based upon Plaintiffs' statement in their
application that those were its hours of operation. See Exhibit
3, p. 2. Plaintiffs accepted the site plan approval with
knowledge of the hours of operation condition and without
objection "because [they] were aware of the situation facing the
council." Exhibit 17, p. 1.
Plaintiffs obtained a building permit, constructed their
building, and have operated their business in compliance with the
condition for over four years. Now, after having reaped the
benefits of the site plan approval, they seek to change the
original conditions upon which that approval was granted, based
upon evidence accumulated years after the City imposed the
condition. A Washington court acknowledged that it is "unfair to
the City to allow its administrative actions to be reviewed by
12
independent and 'after the fact' evidence." Gerla v. City of
Tacoma, 12 Wash. App. 883, 533 P.2d 416, 419 (1975).
Other courts have suggested that once a developer has
accepted a conditioned approval, equitable considerations prevent
the developer from later challenging the conditions. See Town
of Huntington v. Sudano, 42 A.D.2d 791, 346 N.Y.S.2d 582, 584
(N.Y.A.D. 1973)(property owner could not prevent enforcement of
special use permit condition that limited the number of dogs he
could kennel, where permit had been issued 17 years before and
was "enjoyed without demurrer" by his predecessor in title);
Skipjack Cove Marina, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 264
Md. 381, 287 A.2d 49, 52 (1972)(county board did not abuse its
authority by limiting the number of boat slips in a marina to
those represented in the permit application); Montgomery County
v. Mossburg, 228 Md. 555, 180 A.2d 851, 854 (1964)("[A property
owner] may not, we think, as of right demand an unconditioned
special exception. If he decides to accept a conditioned excep-
tion, it would appear that he would not thereafter be in a
position to challenge the conditions . ..")(dicta). See also
White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W. 2d 739, 744
(Minn. 1986) (Wahl, J. concurring).
The City was entitled to rely upon the representations in
Plaintiffs' application for site plan approval when it reviewed
that application. See Exhibit 3, p. 2. The City is not able now
to reevaluate or rescind that approval; it is bound by its
earlier approval. Likewise, Plaintiffs should be bound by the
13
conditions that they accepted without objection prior to con-
structing their building and opening business.
CONCLUSION
The City has the authority to impose reasonable conditions
on site plan approvals, even though its ordinances do not specify
standards to be applied in setting such conditions. The hours of
operation condition that the City imposed upon Plaintiffs' site
plan is reasonable, because it is related to the impact of the
site upon neighboring properties and it furthers the purposes for
which site plan approval is required. Finally, Plaintiffs
accepted the condition without objection and are not entitled to
challenge the condition after having received the benefits of the
approval. The court should therefore enter summary judgment in
favor of the defendant City of Plymouth.
Dated:330Z ?9
0066ME02.I48
LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
a Professional Association
B
J mes J. Thomson, (145300)
rrine A. Heine (1 9743)
2000 First Bank Place West
120 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-0543
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
14
association/d
metropolitan
m i a l i ties
ni
u cp
January, 1989 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul, Minn. 55101 0. 3�
1989-1990 Legislative Program Approved
Gary Bastian
AMM President
leads policy discussion.
An extremely comprehensive set of
60 major policies with 55 subpolicies
was adopted by the AMM general
membership at the Annual Legislative
Policy Meeting Thursday, November
3, 1988 at Mangini's Restaurants on
the East Side of St. Paul. The meeting
was very well attended with 87 dele-
gates representing 39 member cities.
Three issues generated significant dis-
cussion. First, on a very narrow vote
the membership chose to readopt the
previous strong position on Fiscal
Disparities. A holding position had
been recommended by committee.
Secondly, there was a great deal of
discussion concerning combined
sewer separation funding, who should
pay, how it should be paid for, etc. The
recommended policy was adopted. It
calls for no added local property
taxes or metropolitan sewer fees to be
used for the accelerated build and if
federal funds are decreased the AMM
wants the opportunity to review and
comment. Finally, a policy concerning
Group Homes was rejected and sent
back to committee for more input.
In an effort to involve the member-
ship more directly in establishing the
AMM's top priority issues a tear -off
voting sheet was provided with the
mailed policies. The six top rated
policy areas for 1989 concentration
were: Comparable Worth, Land Use
Planning, Levy Limits and Truth in
Taxation, MVET Transfer, Property Tax
Reform with emphasis on Homestead
Credit and funding shifts, and Tax
Increment Financing. These will be
the key issues of focus for the AMM
Legislative Coordinating Committee
activity.
The keynote speaker was Josephine
Nunn, former Mayor of Champlin, for-
mer AMM Board Member and Presi-
dent, and current member of the Metro-
politan Council. Ms. Nunn chaired the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Air-
port Adequacy Study Advisory Task
Force to the Metropolitan Council.
The task force was composed of 35
people representing all public and
private interests that might be con-
cerned with airport activity. She gave
an extremely detailed report of the
process and findings of the task force
leading to their major recommendation
that a dual track strategy be pursued.
The major finding was that growth,
based on the most conservative pro-
jections, would quickly outstrip capa-
city causing significant service delays
and a large loss of economic benefits
The AMM would like to thank Juran
and Moody Inc. and Briggs and Mor-
gan, P.A. for hosting the social hour
which preceded the Annual Legisla-
tive Policy adoption meeting.
Josephine Nunn, Chair
Airport Adequacy Study
`Keynote Speaker.'
to the area. The major recommenda-
tion is to implement a site search and
selection process for a new airport
that includes purchasing and landbank-
ing property while it is available and to
continue MSP expansion through var-
ious techniques along with runway
extension and possible addition. As
the dual task proceeds, the Metropoli-
tan Council will continue tracking
growth and capacity so that a final
build decision can be made at the
appropriate time. If at a future time it
becomes apparent that growth pro-
jections were too great and a new
airport is not needed, then the banked
land could be sold.
The AMM Transportation Committee
and Board of Directors will continue
monitoring this issue and develop or-
ganizational policy in the near future.
Committee discussion to datetendsto
support the site search, selection, and
landbanking track but there is major
disagreement as to future improve-
ments at the existing MSP airport.
President's
Corner
by Gary Bastian
As the calendar has flipped its pages
into 1989, my term as AMM President
is at its mid -point. Most of AMM's
efforts to date have focused on three
areas:
• The 1989 Legislative program.
Through our outreach breakfast meet-
ings and general committee pro-
cess, you have identified and ap-
proved a comprehensive legislative
package to address metropolitan
concerns.
• 1989 Property Tax Reform. A special
board committee (Fehst, Bakken, R.
Peterson) have been working out a
package to be presented to the
1989 Legislature. As I write this
letter, that committee is close to
final recommendations that will be
broughttotheAMM Board on Janu-
ary 19th.
* A special AMM Legislative Coordi-
nating Committee has been meeting
several times a month since last
summer to refine our Legislative
Contact program. Our contacts are
in place and we are sponsoring a
series of joint city official/ local legi-
slator breakfasts next month.
1989 will undoubtedly present all of
us with new and important challenges,
on personal and professional levels.
For instance, the crisis presented
by the growth in the population con-
tracting AIDS will severely test the
character of our society. Does your
community have a non-discrimination
policy/ordinance?
Recycling efforts must be stepped-
up, and local government should be
leading the charge. What does your
city do to set an example for the entire
community? What do you personally
do to foster recycling efforts?
Finally, is your community involved
in any efforts to support local artists?
Some communities in the country re-
quire an art charge (like P.A.C.'s,
W.A.C.'s, S.A.C.'s) to be used to acquire
art for the public domain enjoyment.
Some communities have opened the
walls of city hall to local artists so they
can display their works. What does
your city do?
Here's hoping you and your city
have a great 1989. Remember, get
involved in AMM!
Your Caring Made
The Difference
by John Walker
Early in November, the United Ways of
the St. Paul and Minneapolis Areas
announced the results of their 1988
fund raising campaigns. These cam-
paigns are not by any means a small
effort, with hundreds of volunteers
working together toward a goal of
over 57 million dollars. Both cam-
paigns were successful and exceeded
their goal.
I had the privilege of being a volun-
teer section leader for the United Way
of the Saint Paul Area, working in the
government division with loaned execu-
tives on municipal campaigns.
This year, I felt very fortunate to
have had the assistance of the League
and Association of Metropolitan Muni-
cipalities, including the Manager's As-
sociation. A big thank you goes to
Carol Williams and Roger Peterson,
along with St. Anthony manager Dave
Childs for giving me the opportunity to
present our message at the June
MAMA meeting.
I'd like to point out, however, thatthe
real work and commitment took place
in the offices of the suburban cities
and towns. Thanks to the hard work of
your managears, clerks, campaign coor-
dinators and city employees, the Twin
City campaigns were able to report a
victory in November.
Jointly the Minneapolis and St. Paul
suburban campaigns raised $84,560,
a substantial 20% increase over last
year. Collectively, you opened your
hearts to those who need help the
most. Your contributions will be distri-
buted to over 500 programs that help
youth develop, enable the elderly to
remain independent, reduce the inci-
dence of abuse, provide emergency
food and shelter—along with much
more.
In fact, double digit increases of
10% or more were raised in 21 of the
regular 45 city campaigns and from
five Pacesetter campaigns. Pacesetter
organizations ran early campaigns to
provide leadership and momentum by
striving for a 15% increase over last
year. The cities who raised 10% or
more were: Arden Hills, Brooklyn Cen-
ter, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids,
Eagan, Falcon Heights, Farmington,
Fridley, Inver Grove Heights, Little
Canada, *Maplewood, Mendota
Heights, Mound, Mounds View, New
Brighton, New Hope, *Newport, North
St. Paul, *Oakdale, *Orono, Rose-
mount, *South St. Paul, St. Anthony,
Vadnais Heights, Town of White Bear
and Woodbury. (*indicates Pacesetter
campaigns.)
Again, thanks to all of you for your
generosity and for helping to address
our community's most pressing health
and human service needs. Agency
initiatives in housing, child develop-
ment, education, health and others
will be enhanced because of your
caring.
United Way... it brings out the best
in all of us.
(John has served as a four term Mayor
in Newport and is with the St Paul
Companies. He and his family nowlive
in Cottage Grove.)
Contact System
Update
The Legislative Contact Program con-
tinues to expand upon the activities to
involve more local officials in communi-
cation efforts with their legislators about
issues key to the Metropolitan Cities.
A series of breakfast meetings held
with city contact persons in January
were very successful. All but a handful
of contacts were able to attend and
interact with AMM staff in planning
future events as well as discussing
lobbying material included in a con-
tact notebook.
Three breakfast meetings involving
city contacts and their legislators are
planned in early February. The basic
message to legislators will be a metro-
politan perspective on the six key
areas of legislative activity that were
determined as high priority by the
membeship; Comparable Worth, Land
Use Planning, Levy Limits and Truth in
Taxation, MVET Transfer, Property Tax
Reform, and Tax Increment Financing.
If you would like to participate, please
talk to your city designated contact
person or our office as soon as possi-
ble.
One of the suggestions made at the
contact breakfast meetings was to
increase metro participation at the
March 29 LMC/AMM sponsored Legis-
lative Conference and reception. The
coordinating committee and staff will
be developing some ideas and mater-
ials for that day over the next few
weeks. Please be on the watch for
mailings on this subject in the near
future.
AMM Board of
Directors
�z
Bob Long
Bob Long was elected to the St.
Paul City Council from Ward Three in
November of 1987. He chairs the city
council's Finance, Management and
Personnel Committee and is one of
the City Council Commissioners on
the St. Paul Port Authority. His educa-
tion includes a Bachelor of Arts degree
from Macalester College where he
graduated summa cum laude and Phi
Beta Kappa. He graduated cum laude
from the University of Minnesota Law
School in May of 1985 and is a recipi-
ent of the William O. Douglas Public
Interest Law Award. Bob is a member
of the Minnesota and Ramsey County
Bar Associations, the Volunteer attor-
ney program for southern Minnesota
Regional Legal Services, and the State
Bar's Committee on Legal Assistance
to the Disadvantaged. He is on the
Boards of the National Organization to
Insure a Sound -Controlled Environ-
ment (N.O.I.S.E.) and the St. Paul Pri-
vate Industry Council.
Councilmember Long was elected
to the AMM Board of Directors in May
of 1988 and serves on the Boards
Executive Committee and the Legisla-
tive Coordinating Committee. He is
also a very active member of the AMM
Revenue Committee and the joint city
effort to develop a common property
tax reform proposal for the 1989 legis-
lative session.
Bob is married to Karen and is the
proud father of his first child Nicholas,
born September 25, 1988. He enjoys
various sports activities, reading and
photography.
Gloria Vierling
Gloria Vierling is serving her second
four year term as a Councilmember in
the city of Shakopee. She first became
involved in public sector affairs in
1977 as a member of the Shakopee
Community Service Board where she
served through 1982. In 1980 she was
appointed to the Shakopee Planning
Commission and was appointed the
council liaison for the period 1982
through 1984. During this time, she
was responsible for the capital equip-
ment and computer committee as well
as various other community based
task force studies.
Gloria was elected to the AMM
Board of Directors in May of 1988 but
her involvement in AMM and Metropoli-
tan affairs began long before that. She
has also been a member of two nomi-
nating committees and is now serving
on the Legislative Coordinating Com-
mittee which oversees the AMM's
Legislative Contact System. Gloria was
appointed as an AMM liaison for two
special metropolitan task forces, the
MWCC Rate Study Task Force and an
MPCA Task Force. She is also a
member of the Metropolitan Council
Chairmans Advisory Committee.
Her personal background includes
18 years with St. Francis Regional
Hospital in various capacities and for
the last 12 years as Business Manager
of the Sundance Medical Center. She
attended Shakopee High School and
St. Catherine College. Family includes
husband Jerome, daughters Monica
and Chris, son Greg and grandsons
Chad and Trent.
AMM
Staff
Melanie Ault
Melanie Ault was hired as the AM M's
Legislative Coordinator at the end of
September 1988. Her responsibilities
include establishing and maintaining
the Legislative Contact Program for
the next legislative session.
Melanie's educational background
and broad work experiences add to
those of the AMM Staff. Melanie is
completing the dual degree program
at Hamline University. She graduated
from the School of Law in May 1987
and will graduate from the Master of
Arts in Public Administration program
in May 1989. Emphasis of study for
both degrees is in Law and Local
Government. Melanie also holds a
bachelor's degree from the University
of Minnesota in Philosophy, minoring
in English Literature and French.
Melanie has served as an intern for
the chair of the House of Representa-
tives' Local and Urban Affairs Commit-
tee for two sessions, giving her first-
hand experience as to what really
goes on atthe legislature. Melanie has
also worked for the Jefferson Center
for New Democratic Processes (a non-
profit, non-partisan "think tank" for
citizen participation in policy making),
as well as being the Law School
Bookstore Manager, and a Bookkeep-
er.
Melanie has always been interested
in local government. She feels that the
AMM will provide a great opportunity
to interact with a variety of cities and
city officials giving her invaluable first-
hand experience with the problems
and working of cities.
Omnibus Land Planning Act
AMM's Impact To Date
By Mark Bernhardson, Chair of AMM Land Use Planning Task Force
Through the efforts of the AMM staff
and several dedicated individuals from
AMM communities the proposed legis-
lation that would have substantially
altered the way municipal land use
planning is done in the State of Minne-
sota was held over for interim study
after a Legislative hearing last Febru-
ary 29,1988. The proposed legislation
had been developed over the previous
two years by planning technicians
and the Governor's Advisory Commit-
tee on State and Local Relations
(ACSLR).
The legislative proposal attempted
to combine the Muncipal Land Plan-
ning Act for cities and towns with the
Counties' Land Planning Act. As origi-
nally drafted, the rules for planning for
all three would be the same. This
would have substantially altered the
way municipalities would be able to
do their land use planning. Of signifi-
cant concern was a mandated Board
of Appeals and Adjustments and a
Planning Commission (these Boards
are currently not required in the
enabling legislation) that would be
statutorily delegated power that cur-
rently is reserved to elected officials to
decide how those powers are to be
exercised. In addition the proposal
required that in order to undertake
zoning for a community, that communi-
ty would have to develop a Comprehen-
sive Plan. While this is not a problem
for municipalities in the Metro Area as
they are required to do so under the
1976 Metro Land Planning Act, it is of
substantial interest for Outstate Com-
munities.
As a result of AMM staff efforts in
organizing the testimony of many repre-
sentatives of the AMM communities,
the bill was tabled. In the interim, a
subcommittee composed of representa-
tives from the Township Association,
Counties, State Planning and the
League of Minnesota Cities, was
directed by the ACSLR, to respond to
the testimony on February 29. They
did this through a series of meetings
during the summer and fall of 1988. On
a parallel track, an AMM Task Force
composed of several members of the
AMM's Housing and Economic Develop-
ment Committee reviewed the original
draft legislation together with tracking
Mark Bernhardson
various revisions. On November 23,
the ACSLR Subcommittee prepared
a final draft for recommendation to the
ACSLR for endorsement at their Decem-
ber 8 meeting. The AMM Task Force
met twice between its receipt of that
legislation on November 28 and the
ACSLR meeting and wrote a letter
requesting that no endorsement be
made. The ACSLR did make anendorse-
ment, but directed the ACSLR sub-
committee to meet with the AMM repre-
sentatives concerning those issues
which still needed to be addressed.
The AMM Task Force in its two meet-
ings had identified substantial prob-
lems with even the modified legisla-
tion. In addition, Mary Anderson of the
ACSLR, and a very active AMM mem-
ber, stated that she wanted to partici-
pate in those meetings. Subsequent to
that, the AMM Task Force has again
met and identified additional problems
with the legislation and has had an
initial meeting with representatives of
the ACSLR Subcommittee. Members
of the Task Force which I have had the
privilege of Chairing include:
Blair Tremere
Plymouth
Floyd Olson
Minneapolis
David Ornstein
Bloomington
Ron Rogstad
Oakdale
Geoff Olson
Maplewood
Craig Waldron
Roseville
Andrea Bassett
Woodland
Donna Datsko
St. Paul
The proposed legislation in its cur-
rent form attempts to achieve four
goals:
=) a
A. Recodification.
B. Addressing four to five specific
problems that have been identified
over the last several years.
C. Combining county and city plan-
ning laws.
D. Incorporating various "Good Plan-
ning Ideas".
The AMM Task Force is approach-
ing the discussions on two levels: the
first is to determine the need for enact-
ing the legislation. Most members fee'
that the current Muncipal Enabling
Act works fairly well for those in the
field and that going to the more prescrip-
tive language as proposed in the new
bill causes substantial problems for
municipalities when things have no,
been substantially problematic in the
past. The Task Force is also looking at
specifics and critiquing the bill as it
relates to its internal consistency.
changes from the current Municipal,
Planning Act, and thoughts on the
"Good Ideas".
While we are not, at this time, able to
predict the final outcome, the substan-
tial efforts on the part of Vern Peter-
son, AMM members, and the members
of this Task Force has already had a
substantial impact in altering the tenor
and approach of the draft legislation
We will continue in our discussions
with the ACSLR Subcommittee to make
it even more workable from our stand-
point. It may not be possible to resolve
all the objections and the possibility
exists that the end result will still be
AMM opposition to the bill in accor-
dance with the adopted AMM Policy.
Board Meets Every Month
The Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities' Board of Directors
meets on the first Thursday of every
month (except when a holiday
comes on or near that date). Meet-
ings start at 7:00 p.m. and are held
in the conference room at the Associ-
ation office, 183 University Ave.
East, St. Paul.
All city officials are welcome to
attend the Board meetings, express
their views on any subject and
bring any subject to the attention of
the Board.
Due to security regulations, the
building front door must be locked
at 8:00 p.m. Anyone arriving after
that time, please ring the doorbell
and wait a few minutes for staff to
open the door.
Call the AMM at 227-4008 for
further information.
torce z- C-5
I r �•`��' � �� ck force ,::cines �.It,
:19 e Calh: t nca
chid ,°• I3 t.,
J No has n° T, - C'nt n biro
1 lis . use � rep tral Cul (,c:1} C�•.:
ne T°. oC, art s. C,n a
�•R, r s c amrn•,¢ ¢n \hnnc. p'.•
s w„" �, .� �� „idc.prcad notes it arl E► Cr, g,�aT'{
T a:��''" 'q �l l h(C°nlc , t1ck t°r CC tj115 C InajinC nri^.''
�-��t "`: R,J F�s lh cr �-ou' �srci� concern ab°urit} of COecdman. `'�rrpn, tp1
lmn�.c 1:as -F r9Sll�';n131 { CTI, ,•e: ccth pc Gil'
.,
a 1 c g { . ,•c lt, Ali {_ —n
as el
u i.:n I'LL::: n services planning boar
chaff 9 �1 F 6 G {
L-"—, ,Sl cfe�:u� south st. Icuis park, msn�e o..�, �t �;- }�
Uf ?L11'IIJUIN
cit c" n 71 7Z
hcnnapin ' '~
humcn �L t
ictuicc/
Dear Friend:
Hennepin County Commissioner Sam Sivanich has accepted an
invitation from our agency and the Wayzata Pymouth Chemical Health
Commission to do a special briefing for suburban professionals and
re -idents on the findings and recommendations of the Hennepin County
Ta:�-k Force on Youth and Drugs. His co-presentor will be Dr.Connie
Price of Hennepin County's Office of Planning and Development.
As you may know, Sivanich created and chaired the 24 member Task
Force which existed for nearly two years and heard testimony from
ment, treatment and prevention experts,
kids, parents, law enforceice providers. The findings and
researchers and youth sery
recommendations have been released in a report which will be
available for you at the briefing.
Although the report lists needed legislative,
institutional and
media changes, Sivanich will focus his presentation on an agenda for
change
sainthe
citizenlocal
attitudescommunity
andand
localagency
initiativesepaveacknowledges
that
for
Chang
large scale change.
Please join us for the one hour briefing and refreshments.
Wednesday, February 15
10:00 a.m.
Minnetonka Council Chambers
14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
We would like an idea of the number of people to expect. Please
phone the WHHS office at 920-5533, if you plan to attend.
SA.y S. Sl%ANICH
COMM133IONE2
and DCugs OARD OF xE aNEPIN COUNT' C
l� OU 00 GOVERNMENT CENTER ERS
Force °°
Dear Friend MIN'NEApOLIS. MINK TER
T,of Youth: ESOTA 55487
Count`1
erne41° December 1988 The Hennepin Count
ti y Boar of
February, 19The to d the Comm Is
H nealoners Passed a resoluti_-
And Dru create
identif••i� Task Force was County T=- _
A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK
Z�-AC�,-
COLDWELL BANKER
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
4205 LANCASTER LANE NORTH
PLYMOUTH. MN 55441
is
February 6, 1989 VI
EE13 ?
City of Plymouth ��rU Lr; `j
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
'I
Dear Mayor: �-
I want to register my complaint about the new phone system now in
use at the City of Plymouth offices. One day I was rolled over at least
ten times before my patience ran out. When I finally reached a real
voice, the person I was trying to reach was out sick that day.
Last week I had the unfortunate opportunity to get to do about the same
thing, this time, however, I was smart enough not to waste too much
time.
I seems totally ineffiecient to me for a community agency to be dealing
with people in this way. I work in Plymouth and do alot of my business
in this city so I need to contact the city offices often. I also live
in Plymouth and pay ALOT of property taxes and don't like my money
going to something like this.
Si erely,
-Z
Barb Stimson
CITY C�
February 9, 1989 PLYMOUTH+
Barb Stimson
Colwell Banker
4205 Lancaster Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
SUBJECT: YOUR FEBRUARY 6 LETTER REGARDING THE CITY'S TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Dear Barb:
I share some of the frustrations you identified in your February 6 letter.
For your information I am attaching an excerpt from the City Manager's
February 6 information memorandum to the Mayor and Council. As you can see,
the staff is aware of complaints which have been made regarding the new
system.
There are both strengths and weaknesses in this system and it was undertaken
as a 90 -day trial to determine how well or poorly it could respond to
problems we were having with the telephone system. Obviously it has created
a few problems of its own.
I expect that we will be revising the telephone system within the next sixty
days to respond to concerns we have received.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I apologize for any
Inconvenience we may have caused you. Please be assured that this is the
last thing in the world we meant to do. Thanks again for your letter.
Sincerely,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:kec
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEHORNDUM
February 2, 1989
Page 2
FOR-YQUR INFORMATION.....
I. HO NG REVENUE BOND FINANCING -- During our cent study session,
I indi ted that representatives of Miller d Schroeder, represent-
ing Mr. �Nend, had requested considera on of both the refinancing
of the est housing project nd financing a new housing
project. The Ci originally issu $9,190,000 of housing revenue
bonds in 1984 at an nterest re of approximately 11 percent for
the Fox Forest project. The fronds are callable this September and
the developer has requeste consideration of refinancing in order
that the interest costs c be duced.
Since our meeting, have been bac in touch with Miller and
Schroeder and have asked them to put t ther information for us
which would demo trate some community bene if refinancing were
to occur. Th are currently preparing this although they
have not giv n me a date when it might be ?re
I also
indicated t them your lack of interest in holding a publ earina
on the po ible issuance of additional housing revenue bonds Torthe
new pro ect (Waterford Bridges Apartments) based upon the earlier
Counci policy of limiting the number of dwelling units to be so
financed.
2. VOICE MESSAGING SYSTEM TRIAL - After three weeks of the 90 -day voice
messaging test, reactions have been mixed. We have initiated a
study, the purpose of which will be to:
1) Identify the extent to which the voice messaging system is
resolving problems it was intended to eliminate; e.g. too
many rings before receptionist answer due to congestion;
busy lines and recalls to the switchboard from Building
Inspection, sewer and water billing and police.
2) Identify problems associated with voice messaging system
operation and the source of such problems through interview
with system users, including the general public and staff
members.
a. Determine perception on user friendliness - both
internal and external users.
b. Determine the nature of the interface between the
telephone switch and the voice messaging system.
3) Our study recommendations are to address the following:
a. Determine whether the voice messaging system should
be continued, discontinued or reformatted to better
match voice messaging strengths with the needs of
the system users, especially the general public.
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL HEMORNDUM
February 2, 1989
Page 3
b. If the problem is determined to be the difficulties
associated with a 1978 telephone switch integrating
with 1988 voice messaging technology, a specific
articulation of those problems will be included.
I expect to have the study completed and my recommendations
submitted to the Council by February 27.
3. HAULING FEES FOR DISEASED W00D -- In 1987, as part of the 1988
budget discussion, the Council directed that the household charge
for diseased tree hauling be revised from the 1987 policy of $25 per
hous hold regardless of number of truckloads, to $25 for each full
or pa tial truckload. As a result of this policy change, the City's
cost or diseased tree hauling from private properties was reduced
from $ ,680 in 1987 to $1,355 in 1988. For 1989, the City forester
isrec nding that the pickup fee be revised to $35 per" -truck -
1 oa d
er"-truck-
load. n the basis of projections, the forester expects that t e
City wou d be able to cover diseased tree hauling expenses by is -
Ing the p ckup fee as proposed. The 1989 budget allocate 49,000
for cuttin and hauling of diseased trees from public nd private
properties. A portion of this allocation is use to fund the
diseased tre hauling program. re has not receive complaints about
the fees char ed either in 1987 or 1988. In th absence of Council
direction to t e contrary, we will makear/py
ements to Implement
and publicize t revised pickup fees. A cof the Tree Removal
Notice to be use in 1989 is attached (I-
4. TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ANNUAL 'STATE OF THE CITY" COFFEE
BREAK MEETING - DaVeha
on, Preside of the Twin West Chamber of
Commerce, has askedset aside uesday morning, March 8 from 8
to 9 a.m. for thel "State of the City" meeting. Council -
members will recalwe have previously hosted such a meeting.
The meeting will pan op ortunity for local business persons
to gain a better iinto the current planning and development
activity in the cos well as share information of mutual
concern. This me1 also provide a good opportunity for
Councilmembers to tter acquainted with many of our local
business owners/ope
5. DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATyflG TO 8 NNING PLASTIC -TYPE PACKAGING - At the
Town Meeting Monday vening, o e citizen spoke of her concern with
respect to the cont Hued heavy eliance on non -recyclable packaging
containers. She oted that the City of Minneapolis was currently
considering an o dinance which ould restrict the use of such
packaging materi is and urge the City Council to consider a similar
ordinance. Att ched is a copy of the draft ordinance before the
Minneapolis Ci Council which she s mitted. If the Council wishes
to have the st ff follow-up on this m ter, appropriate direction is
requested. (I )
�J �tAb
January 30, 1989
Fr .0
Virgil Schneider, Mayor - City of Plymouth
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Bldg.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Schneider:
Upon receipt of my property tax statement for 1989, I was once again shocked
and amazed at the utter audacity of your organization! How on earth can you
justify an increase of 9.4% or $417.00.
Taxation without representation is an understatement!!! You people are
totally out of your minds!
I now pay $5019.17 state tax and $4847.06 property tax, for a total of
$9866.23. That's 12.8% of my income! There is no fairness to your system.
It's a disgrace!
I have owned houses in Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania prior to moving
to Minnesota. Your services are no better! The quality of life is much
lower! Care to comment!?
Sincerely,
i
""!-
William B. Hamarman
Concerned Citizen
cc Rudy Perpich, Governor
Virgil Schneider, Mayor/City of Plymouth
Dave Durenberger, US Senator
Rudy Boschwitz, US Senator
Bill Frenzel, US Representative
Warren Limmer, MN State Representative
Patrick McGowan, MN State Senate
ADDENDUM
1) Comparison of State and Property Taxes - As a home owner
• Michigan 1979 - Total taxes - $2542.60 - State ($1330.60)
7.7% of Income Prop. ($7212.00)
• New Jersey 1983 - Total taxes - $2872.00 - State ($1011.00)
6.5% of Income Prop. ($1861.00)
0 Pennsylvania 1985 - Total taxes - $4728.06 - State ($1424.03)
7.9% of Income Prop. ($3304.03)
2) Why is it that Rudy Perpich pays $500.00/yr. for his $239,000.00 home on
the Iron Range, when in Plymouth we pay 10 TIMES MOREH
CITY OF
February 9, 1989 PLYMOUTR
Mr. William B. Hamarman
4635 Cottonwood Lane
Plymouth, MN 55442
SUBJECT: YOUR JANUARY 30, 1989 LETTER
Dear Mr. Hamarman:
I apologize for this delayed response to your letter but I have had some
difficulty locating your address. It was neither contained on your letter
or return envelope and since your telephone number is unlisted, I had some
difficulty.
Yes I care to comment! I agree with you wholeheartedly that the property
and income tax picture in the State of Minnesota is bleak for each of us as
taxpayers. Your letter was properly copied as it is the State Legislature
and Governor -- not the City of Plymouth that sets tax policy which school
districts, counties and cities must live by.
Over the last few years the State has continued to shift the property tax
burden to the suburbs in favor of outstate Minnesota. Of the estimated $216
million property tax increase for 1989, the suburban metropolitan area will
pay all but $7 million of that amount. Outstate Minnesota will be
"burdened" with the rest!
It is obvious that the economic engine running the State of Minnesota is the
Twin City Metropolitan area. I can only recommend that you, as a voter,
join with us to keep the heat on legislators and the Governor to ensure that
they are aware of your dissatisfaction.
Like you, I too wonder why an outstate Minnesota home valued at $239,000
generates $550 in property taxes, while a similarly valued home in Plymouth
generates ten times more, for essentially the same services.
For your information, Plymouth is responsible for between 13 and 15% of your
total property tax bill of $4,847.06 or about $727. For that amount you
annually receive police and fire services, year around street maintenance,
park and recreation programs and facilities, building inspection, and other
typical local government services. I am sure you will find that the local
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
Mr. William B. Hamarman
February 9, 1989
Page 2
government portion of your property tax bill increased as well. While I and
members of the City Council do our best to hold steady on property taxes, I
will make no excuse about the fact that our growing community requires
additional personnel and capital to deliver our services. Nonetheless, our
Council closely scrutinizes each budget in hopes of keeping municipal
services the best bargain on your property tax bill.
You can have an impact on local government spending. I encourage you to
participate in the 1990 budget review process. While we have not yet
established our budget adoption calendar, it will be published in the
Plymouth on Parade newsletter mailed to your home six times each year.
In the meantime if you would like to discuss this subject further, please
feel free to contact me at 559-1111.
Sincerely,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:kec
cc: dames G. Willis, City Manager
Rudy Perpich, Governor
Warren Limmer, Representative
Patrick McGowan, Senator
City Councilmembers
February 5, 1989
Mayor Virgil Schneider
3400 Plymouth Boulevard b1
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Sirt
A few days ago I received my 1989 Tax Statement and am
writing to protest the evaluation of my home. Two years ago
it was appraised at$65,1300,Z
PP last year it had risen to $67,700
)-Z -9-Q-
and this year it has climbed to $75,200. Property values in
Plymouth may be rising to some extent, however I feel that a
$7500 rise over a one-year period is unfair, incorrect or
both.
Because of the school bond I was resigned to some in -
increase in taxes payable, but on account of this unjust assess-
ment of my property my taxes payable have gone up from $605.06
in 1988 to $887.58 this year. It is retired persons such as I
who help make schools affordable for parents of children who
use them. I have contributed to schools in Plymouth for over
thirty years and have never used them. This unjust increase in
assessed property values is making it very difficult for me and
others who have retired to live here.
Please see what can be done about this matter.
Yours truly,
j
Millicent D. Cummings
MILLICENT D CUMMINGS
112-B BALSAM LANE N
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
February 9, 1989
Millicent D. Cummings
112 Balsam Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
CITY OF
PLYMOUTI+
SUBJECT: YOUR FEBRUARY 5, 1989 LETTER PROTESTING YOUR PROPERTY VALUATION
Dear Ms. Cummings:
Thank you for your February 5 letter. In that letter you protest the fact
that your valuation has risen from $67,700 in 1987 to $75,200 in 1988.
I have referred your letter to the City Assessing Division in order that
they can research your concerns and provide you with a written response. I
have asked that they provide me with a copy of their findings. You should
be aware that the 1988 valuation cannot be changed at this point.
If the Assessing Division discovers an error in you 1988 valuation, it will
affect the 1989 valuation you will be receiving this April. You may protest
the 1989 valuation by being present and speaking or submitting written
correspondence at the Board of Review Meeting. This year's Board of Review
is scheduled for Monday, May 8 commencing at 7:30 p.m. in the City Center
City Council Chambers at 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. This is your only
opportunity to protest your 1989 valuation. Protesting orally or in writing
at the meeting accomplishes two things:
1. Assures that the Assessing Division will reexamine the 1989
valuation to confirm its validity or recommend adjustment.
2. Preserves your right of appeal to either the County Board or the
courts if you do not receive satisfaction from the local Board of
Review.
I encourage you to pursue this action if you believe the 1989 valuation is
inaccurate.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for sharing your
concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Virgil Schneider
Mayor
VS:kec
cc: James G. Willis, City Manager
Scott Hovet, City Assessor
S.F. 5/7/89
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
.tear Mr. Mayor,
My name is Jesse Hubbell. I live on 54 th Ave. North,
Pine View
Woods, Plymouth. I live at the end of the street, where some people
are going to make a road running across. There are many deer, hawks,
birds, squirrels, geese, and pheasants which all might run away or get
hit by a car. Then the others won't come back. The reason I wrote you
this letter Mr. Mayor, was because I was hoping you could make it so
they won't make a street. The animals enjoy being here, and my family
and I enjoy having them here. So please try to do all you can for my
family and the animals.
Signed,
Jesse, Katy, Vicky, and Al Hubbell
14s35 svr^ qv
N
plyme�ta M N Ss�i id
CITY OF
February 9, 1989 PLYMOUTH+
Jesse, Katy, Vicky and Al Hubbell
12935 - 54th Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55442
SUBJECT: YOUR FEBRUARY 6 LETTER
Dear Jesse, Katy, Vicky and Al:
Thank you for your February 6 letter. In that letter you expressed concern
about the animals and natural areas which are disturbed by road
construction.
Unfortunately, this is a dilemma that each of us as residents of a
developing community must face. As our community develops, the City Council
has a two -fold obligation to: 1) ensure that development takes place
responsibly and in accordance with our comprehensive plans, while 2)
assuring that natural areas flourish despite urban development.
For your information, I am attaching a copy of the City's Mission
Statement. As you can see, we are equally concerned about fostering
development while concurrently preserving our natural setting. Our desire
is to remain a "city in a country setting." Examples of the City's action
to preserve our natural areas are: 1) our park dedication Policy which sets
aside natural areas for the enjoyment of current' and future residents; 2)
storm water drainage plans designed to ensure that natural ponding areas are
maintained for storm water drainage purposes; 3) landscaping policies which
are intended to preserve unique natural characteristics of our community to
preserve our urban forests and mother nature within our community and
finally; 4) Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinances which encourage
developers to minimize land disruption and preserve natural land features.
Plymouth's park and trail system is well established and features many
natural areas. As part of our efforts we have acquired land west of
Pineview at 54th for community park purposes. A portion of, this property
will remain in its natural state.
Unfortunately, development means that some of the natural areas of Plymouth
will be disrupted to install required roadways and other utilities essential
to the community. With the Council's abiding concern for preservation we
3000 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH tJiiidiJES TA 554.7, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
nesse, Katy, Vicky and Al Hubbell
February 9, 1989
Page 2
hope to be able to retain many of the community's natural characteristics
for our mutual enjoyment.
For additional information I have attached a copy of our Comprehensive Plan
booklet which provides you with an understanding of our thoroughfare plans,
showing why and how roadways are identified for construction through the
community. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
g-loz-z-
Viigil
Schneider
Mayor
VS:kec
4=~ c PHONE
` ?�< =�G 348
-5433
CLERK TO THE BOARD ?/1;,^ �',�vN
tA'�rn0
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
February 7, 1989
The Honorable Virgil Schneider
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Schneider:
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is inviting interested
public officials from suburban Hennepin County municipalities to
serve on the Board of Directors for Community Action for Suburban
Hennepin (CASH), the County's Suburban Community Action Agency.
The Bylaws for CASH require that one-third of its 27 members must
be elected public officials presently holding office. The County
Board has three vacancies to fill (one from the Northwest Human
Services Council Region, one from South Hennepin Human Services
Council Region, and one from West Hennepin Human Services Council
Region).
The County Board is following its open appointments process to
select these directors. I would like your help in recruiting
interested officials to serve from your area.
Nominations for appointment should be submitted to me by
March 31str 1989. I want to encourage you to consider this
opportunity to serve and inform other public officials in your
jurisdiction of these vacancies.
Sincerely,
Kayc e l l
Clerk the Board
KM/jc
SERVING'
Anoka
Anoka County
Apple Valley
Arden Hills
Austin
Blaine
Bloomington
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Buffalo
Burnsville
Carver County
Champlin
Chanhassen
Chaska
Circle Pines
Cokato
Columbia Heights
Coon Rapids
Cottage Grove
Crystal
Dakota County
Deephaven
Delano
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Excelsior
Falcon Heights
Farmington
Fridley
Golden Valley
Hennepin County
Hilltop
Hopkins
Inver Grove Heights
Jordan
Lake Elmo
Lakeville
Landfall
Lauderdale
Lexington
Lino Lakes
Little Canada
Long Lake
Mahtomedi
Mankato
Maplewood
Mendota Heights
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Park Board
State of Minnesota
Minnetonka
Mound
Moundsview
New Brighton
New Hope
Newport
North Mankato
North St. Paul
Oak Park Heights
Oakdale
Orono
Osseo
Plymouth
Prior Lake
Ramsey County
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Rockford
Rosemount
Roseville
St. Anthony
St. Louis Park
St. Michael
St. Paul
St. Paul Park
St. Peter
Savage
Scott County
Shakopee
Shoreview
Shorewood
South St. Paul
Spring Lake Park
Spring Park
Stillwater
Tonka Bay
United States Government
Vadnais Heights
Washington County
Waverly
Wayzata
West St. Paul
White Bear Lake
Wright County
United States
February 7, 1989
Mr. James G. Willis
City Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Mr. Willis:
T ---\JA F
Bench Corporation
3300 SNELLING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406
AREA CODE 612/721.2525
It was certainly pleasant meeting you in person last night at the
Council meeting after the communications through the mail. Please
express our deepest appreciation to the Mayor and Council members
for taking the time to hear our presentation during a long agenda.
We realize after attending a number of council meetings how lengthy
they can become and we are very grateful for the time they allowed
US.
Best wishes in the coming year.
Sincerely,
Roland C. Danielson
U. S. Bench Corp.
RCD: me
A PUBLIC SERVICE FOR OVER 40 YEARS WITHOUT COST TO THE TAXPAYER
CITY OF EAU CLAIRE
January 31, 1989
Richard Carlquist
Chief of Police
Plymouth Police Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Chief Carlquist:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DAVE MALONE - CHIEF OF POLICE
P.O. BOX 496 EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN 54702-0496
On January 28, 1989, Officer Ned Silber of our department advised
me that he had been in contact with Sergeant Holzerland of your
department regarding a suspect (Graham, James R., DOB 03/10/31)
whom we held an active felony warrant for.
Even though the suspect was ultimately taken into custody in
Fridley, Minnesota, this was accomplished as a result of mutual
cooperation between agencies. Your staff was very helpful in
this investigation.
Please convey our appreciation to those involved for their
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
DAVE MALONE
Chief of Police
jr
To the Plymouth Police Department;
Friday night Jan. 20th around mid -night I recieved
a call from the Plymouth Police. I was informed
that I had left my garage door open with the ldght
on. The officer on duty thought that was unusual for r
me so he called and I met him at the Boor. The
officer checked out the garage and around the
house. Everything appeared to be in order. I
then thanked him and cloded the garage door.
I would just like to take this opportunity to say
thank you to this officer and the rest of the
Plymouth Police department for watching out for
me and for my family. I truely appreciated your
concern and awareness of what goes on in my
neighborhood.
Thanks again fort doing a great job!
Medicine Lake Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER
32 Tenth Avenue South, Suite 211, Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0005
TO: Mayor and City Councils
ATTENTION: City Manager
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Support: We are writing to update you on the activities of the West Suburban
Mediation Center prior to sending an annual report.
We wish to thank St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, Plymouth, Richfield,
and Golden Valley for their financial support and case referrals. Two additional
cities have pledged support for 1989, Bloomington and Eden Prairie. Hennepin
County is our primary support again for the third year. Additional sources of
revenue have come from civic organizations and corporations.
Statistics: Percentages of cases from each city is not yet ready. However, in 1988
there was an increase over 1987 as follows: cases, 22%; people served, 50%;
mediations, 537; and conciliations, 24%.
Evaluation: Evaluations from participants show a high level of satisfaction.
One city in evaluating continued funding stated "... the service is a good one
to have available and ... the Center provides it well." "... explored the options
of other providers and has found none in this area who provide the service at no
cost to the participants."
New Directions: A truancy mediation project is being revised and revitalized. As
a pilot project, School District No. 283 will begin to make referrals February 1st.
Initial Mediator Training: A training will begin March 30th for volunteers.
Interested persons should call for information and an interview.
We are interested in asking your assistance with the following:
1. Appointment of a Board Member to act as liaison with your
city if you have not already appointed someone.
2. Suggest to the surburban newspaper editor serving your area to run
a story on our services.
3. Run short articles in the city newsletter periodically (we -
could provide suggested copy).
4. Scheduling of presentations to city councils and staff if
you have not already done so (to quote one city, "• .. the
issue is one of utilization rather than quality." "the
Center's staff (should be encouraged) to actively publicize
the availability of the service."
Enclosed is a copy of an article which appeared in the Hopkins Sailor newspaper
last November.
Thank you, again.
neer
Sue Nelson
Executive Director
enclosures
WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER
32 Tenth Avenue South, Suite 211, Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0005
January 30, 1989
PRESS RELEASE
FOR: IMMEDIATE RELEASE - A":L SOUTH, WEST AND NORTHWEST SUBURBS
CONTACT: SUE NELSON
933-0005
VOLUNTEERS NEEDED
Volunteer mediators are needed to mediate conflicts/disputes/problems in south,
west and two northwest suburbs. Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution
process. Twenty-five hours of initial training begins March 30th. Pre -training
interview required. Minimum commitment of four two hour mediations per month
for one year. Daytime availability desirable. Call Sue Nelson, West Suburban
Mediation Center, 933-0005.
-30-
tz
�c
At,�oeb
Ao
eb
^-
..
a Ab
el
Qo�b m fgz99o�� .. ti �
��y41
ebka'v ,70
I.,q
�`� o� p.ooh
eb
A Z
� oo
c
o Z> + p b
i +' de o.~oc oks °�.� �'o��oo
fb
OQ
` QSS o" $ rb k.4c m ' �S4 bo
a� b�
5 �04Q ,b� 'Y '9' i. ,390�� '000
`lb 47
Q
tj r7 IT
-1V 14 41 RR
rb
lelb' T j 4._
m�y opo s �,��oIC46 'g -trfbc�oo
Ry,
491, eb
et
ebeb O
.tea
boyy��.no 0 oyoS.b o0�
j ,�' ,o � o, a,°.•. oo � c oaf bo $ ;C,Fb �.� S. ^
,�y � o 0 0 0.. 0 AZ o •�
^,oq°' ` 4fhy
o , 3 ? y
cae� q ��°�� o� y°'
�o � �0S tr� � �° ��•b
4u Q g
„q
7
gz.§�
lb A
2 �Qti, Co;
QSS.Q, `� o y ..�
4 °t' ���oq a�o y,f� S b ���fb
5 E
a'bo, °y 4e lb yo CO moo y: ..
• NT
�.
*j CSV
lb 4:0
Cj
fn
ty
Ai
lb IL
fb
° a ti° .�' . �`
° �m 0 0 `� ��,
o 0, X04 C�$4 �6. 0
b
fb
ly
eb 81
eb
eb
'S' �`J 7 it , S''� Gj Qi eb�
rb
lb
eb
4� O
b +o C
ON .�, o
o o$ o
45
ra
n a
b42
41
eb
rb
�S81 W
,*. ods ° S 2 3 0 4b '�°a rb
61
eb AD
Q .
G ��
o�o3� o� �a P�o^�=off °a�� o O?
�'
2y ° ^
oao b o�Ab
. o
° o� •� F 0-4)
"R
pb '� g o° �;' °� �o� off° ob4'•b`�
c
eb
16
oc CR.ob°� •�'
R
r
e!' i
--r _ \-O —\
Cr 0'�.�
�O bio S °� R.� o »,� o wae O C f
� � p
O fD � � � y w O I ��p w � l V
o'w
yfDAr,.(Dc, a g�e�'oa`�w go a' 0'ooav�
lfl ° .' '. fD QG . i fAD n w C A CG A A 4� iC fD �i t
5' �a aw wi m 4. o a:. o ro w QCCs ftp
P7 fn9 N A .7 r+ F CD
,d C co o y -C fico Qi .Oya� fnsc� Z.o C= w S' Mme+
�o co ° ti s :y cfl coo o o A� S C
nm p
ID
SeD ia.
fD aC O O fy9 O t-+ ry (n .. w .y O•,O ry w C -7 F�.►
gti ,,aG
wCD
(9 -w,, .� S �� O r V CD
ID 81,
CD CL tn
o� c�'cfc wao �ocpa'
0 0 ;0--. 10:371, ° Za o a w o
°� aE B
o '� ,°0 a �� < co w fD
° °' .
� �^ � � � O ° ° wFO y
SSG
° no w S a cno 5.SS
f�D
CD `G G IA II O' cy9 iii f9 f�D Q K QyQ
February 8, 1989
Mayor Virgil Schneider
Plymouth City Office
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor:
fi- FEB9&
LT
;w CITY Bi►�r�.<<
We want to express our appreciation for the way you conducted the
Council meeting Monday, February 6, in which the place of worship
resolution was discussed and enacted. Your patience in taking
time to listen to the concerns of the churches is particularly ap-
preciated in view of this sensitive issue. This went a long way
toward restoring faith in the political process which had been a
bit in question due to the handling of communications with the
churches in the past.
The way you dealt with
plans seems to be fair
some church neighbors
carefully addressed on
future.
Sincerely,
Ray McEwan
Co -Chair Trustees
RB/RM/cm
the existing churches future expansion
and equitable. We realize the concerns of
were not met, however, we hope those can be
an individual church project basis in the
cc: Councilman Lloyd Richer
Councilman Robert Zitur
Councilman Jerry Sisk
Councilwoman Maria Vasilou
Catch the SA it
17805 County Road 6 — Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 — Phone: 473-6968
At Crossroads No. 101 and County Road 6.
L
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281
Robbinsdale Area Schools
Learning for a lifetime of growing
February 9, 1989
Mr. James Willis
Manager, City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Willis,
-Z\-,-\ \�-
U : J
The school board of Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale
Area Schools, wishes to thank you for assisting in the search for
a new superintendent for the district. By meeting with the
consultant to the school board and by providing input into the
qualities and characteristics which our superintendent should
possess, you have helped define the type of person which can best
lead District 281 into the 1990s.
We have enclosed a copy of the descriptive brochure which will be
used in conducting the search.
We do appreciate your contribution and sincerely hope you will
continue your interest in our search process as it proceeds.
Thank you.
Paula J. Bgen, irperson
Richard Hoeg, vice- airperson
El -f2 . Jlar N10 c,a--'Hof f F i1
- A« -
zxv
Merrilee Riley, dire for
Patricia Hoyt Ails, clerk
'-Ifo-ward Christenson, director
a
David Southward, director
Dr. Donna j Carter
Superintendent
4148 Winnetha Avenue North
Nei Hope, Minnesota 55427
(612) 533-2781
AN ECL :AL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Independent School District 281
Robbinsdale Area Schools
... invites you to apply for the position
of Superintendent of Schools
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281
Robbinsdale Area Schools
Learning for a lifetime of growing
THE POSITION
The School Board of Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area
Schools, is seeking a Superintendent of Schools. The vacancy resulted from
the resignation of the former superintendent to accept another position. She
served as superintendent for five years and was the third superintendent to
serve since 1930. The firm of Plath, Nielsen, Rodgers Associates has been
engaged to assist in a nationwide search.
THE DISTRICT
Independent School District 281, Robbinsdale Area Schools, is a suburban
district northwest of Minneapolis. It covers 30 square miles and comprises all
of three suburbs — Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale, and parts of four
others — Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Golden Valley and Plymouth. The
population of District 281 is 91,000 people and K-12 enrollment is about 13,933.
District 281 completed a grade reorganization in 1988. The district now main-
tains two high schools (grades nine -12); three middle schools (grades six -eight);
a magnet middle school (grades five -eight) and 11 elementary schools (grades
K -five). District 281 also operates a secondary alternative program, two early
childhood centers and a community education center. In 1988, two district
schools were named as National Schools of Excellence.
District 281 offers excellent educational programs to meet the needs of all
students. Elementary alternatives including a Spanish language -immersion
program are available. Middle schools are designed for the needs of the
preadolescent student and include team teaching, adviser/advisee programs
and exploratory courses. Both high schools offer a wide variety of academic
and extracurricular activities including foreign language and advanced math
and science courses. Students identified as gifted and talented receive serv-
ices through classroom and pull-out programs. The special education program
mainstreams students into regular education classrooms.
District 281's motto Learning for a lifetime of growing is reflected in its commit-
ment to the education of preschool and adult students. The district offers an
early childhood family education program, a cooperative nursery school pro-
gram and a school-age child care program. These programs are nationally
accredited and were cited for excellence by Governor Rudy Perpich in 1988.
The community education and facilities division provides opportunities for all
residents through enrichment classes, volunteer services, a senior citizens' pro-
gram, handicapped adult services and a single adults' program.
District 281 has an experienced teaching staff and emphasizes staff develop-
ment for all employee groups. District employees number approximately 1,629
including 970 licensed educators and 659 classified staff.
The total 1988-89 expenditure budget for all funds is $79,672,210. Income to sup-
port the budget comes from local property taxes; federal, state and county
aids; and other sources such as interest earnings.
THE COMMUNITY
District 281 is minutes from several major cultural, recreational and educational
centers. Quality health care facilities are located within the district and near-
by. Beautiful lakes, parks and wildlife areas are located throughout the
metropolitan area and the state.
THE QUALIFICATIONS
The school board invites applications from candidates who have a high level
of competence in the basic skills and abilities essential for educational,
managerial and community leadership.
The following criteria describe the candidate District 281 is seeking:
• An individual who is effective in building concensus and commitment
among individuals and groups with diverse interests and backgrounds.
• A decisive and compassionate leader with outstanding interpersonal,
motivational and communication skills.
• An experienced administrator skilled in the successful participation of staff
and community in shared planning and decision making.
• An educational leader with a creative outlook concerning innovations in
education and the ability to communicate a vision of quality education for
the future.
• A knowledgeable educator committed to the needs of all students recogniz-
ing their diverse economic, social and cultural backgrounds.
• An able chief executive, competent in the management of district resources,
the assignment of personnel and the delegation of responsibility with
accountability.
• A person who recognizes the role of schools in providing community educa-
tion and services, and is effective in developing positive relationships with
business and with state and local officials.
• A person who inspires trust, has a high level of self-confidence and
optimism, and who models high standards of integrity and personal
performance.
Applicants are required to hold or be able to give evidence of eligibility for
a Minnesota Superintendent's License. Information on licenses can be
obtained from: Dr. George B. Droubie; Manager, Personnel Licensing and
Placement; Division of Special Services; Minnesota Department of Education;
Capital Square, 550 Cedar Street; St. Paul, MN 55101; Telephone: (612)'296-2046.
THE COMPENSATION
The school board will provide a competitive, attractive compensation package
based on the selected candidate's background and experience. The package
will include a multiyear contract, reasonable relocation expenses and com-
prehensive fringe benefits.
THE APPLICATION PROCESS
The District 281 School Board encourages applications by all qualified can-
didates for the position of Superintendent of Schools. The district is an equal
opportunity employer. Notice of this vacancy will be made known to District
281 employees, college and university deans and education faculties, leaders
in school administration, state commissioners of education and officials of
various organizations.
THE APPLICATION PROCESS CONTINUED
Persons wishing to be considered as applicants should submit a formal ap
tion which includes:
• A current resume.
• A letter of application setting forth, in detail, personal qualifications, ex-
perience and reasons for interest in the position. Include a description of
the two most significant professional accomplishments of the past year and
two disappointments of the past year.
• Include demographic information about the applicant's present district.
• The names of four persons who will serve as references and can be presently
contacted. Include names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers and
indicate type and length of relationship with each reference.
• College or university placement papers and credentials. The applicant is
responsible for arranging to have college or university placement papers
forwarded as an essential part of the materials before the deadline.
All materials will be accepted and treated confidentially. After all applica-
tions have been reviewed and preliminary interviews conducted by Dr. Lloyd
Nielsen and Dr. Karl Plath, the school board will select for interview those
candidates it considers most qualified.
Applicants should not make personal contact with members of the school
board or administrative staff.
Letters of application and other required materials must be received by Plath,
Nielsen, Rodgers Associates no later than March 17, 1989, and the superinten-
dent will be expected to be on duty on or about July 1, 1989.
Please address applications, credentials and requests for information to:
Dr. Lloyd C. Nielsen
Consultant to Robbinsdale Area Schools
Plath, Nielsen, Rodgers Associates
3674 Big Fox Road
Gem Lake, MN 55110-4101
Telephone: (612) 429-6325 or (312) 498-4988
THE SCHOOL BOARD
The District 281 School Board consists of seven elected members. Board
members are elected for a three-year term and serve the total school com-
munity. Either two or three positions are open for election on the third Tues-
day in May each year.
Term Expires
Paula Beugen, Chairperson ..........................
July 1, 1991
Richard Hoeg, Vice Chairperson .......................
July 1, 1990
Patricia Hoyt Neils, Clerk ............................
July 1, 1990
Juanita Hoffe, Treasurer .............................
July 1, 1989
Howard Christenson, Director .........................
July 1, 1991
Merrilee Riley, Director .............................
July 1, 1991
David Southward, Director ...........................
July 1, 1989