HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-01_COUNCIL MEETINGHOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ROLLCALL.
MINUTES of February 1, 1982, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of
seconded by
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLLCALL
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE - Clyde E. Hegman
RECOGNITON OF BOY SCOUT TROUPS - SHOVELING FIRE HYDRANTS
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First
Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divi-
sions, Flood Plain Permits,.Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board
of Appeals and Adjustments Decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5
favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Lot Divisions
1. Lot 7, Block 1, Sious Trail 4th Addition - Generally located East
of County Road 18 and North of Valley View Road - LD -82 -1 (2/24/82)
2. Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition - Generally located
West of Gleason Road and North of W. 78th St. - LD -82 -2 (2/24/82)
B. Set Hearing Dates -3/15/82
1. One Corporate Center Phase 6 - PID Planned Industrial District to
0 -2 Office Building District - Generally located East of Ohms Lane
and West of Metro Blvd. - Z -82 -1 (2/24/82)
2. Amendment to Planned Office District Ordinance
II. PUBLIC HEARING ON UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION Affidavits of
Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Engineer. Spectators heard. If
Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall
vote to pass.
A. One Corporate Center, Phase 6
III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager.
Action of Council by- Motion.
A• Golf Cart Batteries
• B. Deep Well #11 Repair
C. Tractor Loader
D. Arden Playground Equipment
Agenda
Edina City Council
March 1, 1982 "
Page Two
IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Public Access to Cornelia School Area from Parklawn Ave.
• B. Oak Ridge�Plat Approval„
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Board and Commission Appointments
B. Teamsters 320 Agreement - Formal Approval
C. Peyton Property - 7000 Valley View Road
D. Feasibility Report -,Set Hearing Dates - April 5, 1982
1. Benton Ave. Sidewalk:'
2. Parklawn Ave. West of York Ave.
a. Watermain
b. Sanitary Sewer
c. Street Improvements
d.. Street Lights
E. Special Concerns of Mayor.and Council
F. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
VI. RESOLUTIONS
A. Substitution of Collateral - First National Bank of Edina
MICITY OF
QOEDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612- 927 -8861
March 17, 1982
Mr. J. F. Sauve
J. P. Engstrom Realty Co.
5200 Willson Rd., Suite 114
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Sauve:
Enclosed herewith are two certified copies of the resolution adopted by the
Edina City Council authorizing the division of Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th
Addition.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Yours very truly,
City Clerk
enclosure
WINTER OF '82 HYDRANT SHOVELING PROJECT
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church
Boy Scout Troop #bZ
Mr. Michael Zeiler
Christ Presbyterian Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop 13, C d e hl-(T
Mr. Robb Prince & Mr. Bruce
71co G4 Ni�.4.ti 1-,E
First Christian Reformed Church
Boy Scout Troop #JUV
Mr. Jacob Van' T Land
-ioz l w,
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop #123
Mr. Rod Priebe
40 2- Ua.v b0AQN
Cub Scout Pack #123
Mr. David Mogck (pronounced "Mock ")
$ 8 ! 7 I- )oPx+4 w oodl OQ .
Good Samaritan United Methodist Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop #bb
Mr. Edward Rippee & Mr. Bill Wright
SF�24 OLtVC- -5-i- ,ZD.
Cub Scout Pack #68
Mr. Bruce Walters
So► 6 0j • 56 4A St.
Normandale Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop 9
Mr. Jerald Silverman
6004 co oe
Cub Scout Pack #198
Mr. William Bauer
52 6 A,,f &e�;. c ro 61e
Edina- Morningside Communit
Boy Scout Troop #4
& Cub Scout Pack #4
Mr. Robert Davis
42 t Z A N DR .
regational Church
Calvary Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop V
Mr. Donald Schlaefer
� o z 8 L e s lee LA �trc
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kojetin ,
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000
DATE: February 25, 1982
Material Description (General Specifications):
150 Golf car replacement batteries.for electric golf cars.-
Quotations /Bids:
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
Gould Batteries
1, Battery & Tire Whse, Inc. 150 /at $48.95 ea total $7342.50
625 N.Fairview Ave., St.Paul, MN 55104
2. Cushman Motor Company Inc. 150 Trojan batteries at $49.75 ea total $7,462.50
2909 E. Franklin Ave.
Mpls., MN 55406
3. -
Cushman Motor Co., Inc. 150 Exide batteries at 55.50 ea total $8,325.00
2909 E. Franklin Ave.
Mpls., MN 55406 '
Department Recommendation: ,7
150-Gould Batteries from Batt -Qry &',Ti r �Whse, I
Sign
Finance Director's Endorsement•
The recommended bid is is not
re < Department
within the amount budgeted for th purchase.
. N. Dalen, Finance Dir,ctor
City Manager's Endorsement:
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2 I recommend as an alternative:
Kenneth Ros an , City.Manager
AFREQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Nanaver
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEhI IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: 2/26/82
Material Description (General Specifications):
Deep Well Repair - 76th and Kellogg
Quotations /Bids:
Company
1. Layne Minnesota Company
2. Keys Well Drilling,Company.
.3, Bergerson Caswell, Inc
$8,942.00
$9,691.25
Department Recor.nendation: Layne Minnesota Company $6,495.00 as per bid
Public Works (Water Dept.)
Signat Department
Finance Director's Endorseire :
The recommended bid is is not within the amount budget for the purchase,
J. N, Palen, 6Fi n nc Director
Ci ty M aaer's Endorsement
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
_ the purchase.
- -2. I recommend as an alternative:
Kenneth Rosland,
Manager
BID TABULATION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
DEEP WELL PUMP REPAIR 10" COLUMN, 80' SETTING
WELL No. 11 - 76TH AND KELLOGG AVENUE
EDINA, MINNESOTA
BID OPENING: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1982
BIDDER TOTAL
Layne Minnesota Company $6,495.00
Keys Well Drilling Company $8,942.00
Bergerson Caswell, Inc. $9,691.25
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
-rrr , e
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob 6jetin
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
. k
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000
DATE: February-25, 1982
Material Description (General Specifications):
New Industrial 47wheeled rubber t_Tred tractor loader (replacement)
With trade in of,1962 Case loader .
I i
Quotations /Bids:
Co_ mpany Amount of Quote or Bid
l
1. Long Lake Ford Tractor, Inc. $.18,275.00 with 1962 Case,tFade'in
Long Lake, MN 55356
2
_ e
3.
Department Recommendation:
Long-Lake Ford Tractor; Inc. / f
3
Signtk u e Department `
Finance Director's Endorsem?is
The recommended bid is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase.
J. N. Dalen, F' ance Director
_City Manager's Endorsement:
I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2.• I recommend as an alternative:,.
_'KeiinetK Roslan , City Manager
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
l
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kojetin
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
k
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000
DATE: February -- 25,.1982
Material Description (General Specifications):
Replacement of
Playground equipment for Arden Park _ damaged by storm
i
Quotations /Bids:
. 1
Company Amount of Quote
or Bid i
1. Earl F.. Anderson & Assoc. Inc. $6155
9864 James Circle, Bloomington, MN 55431
2. Landscape Structures,, Inc. $6575
{�f
Rt 3, 601 7th ST. S. Delano, MN 55328
g
Department Recommendation: )��
Earl F. Anderson- & Assoc. , Inca
Si gnat a Department
Finance Director's Endorsemen .
The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for
the purchase.
. N. Daalen, Finance Direc
City Mar�.a-ger's Endorsement:
r
` 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend
Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
j
Ros and, City Manager
I LC(3�aVDO[�] MAP a4 /
L 0 0772-
NUMBER LD-81-1
jROQqO1s
C3 cc
c t4 E
ff C
C
X41
41
L 0 C A T 10 N Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail "th Addition
j wl
j�
ENAR
BALLPARK
COMPLEX, ),
(LOWER
wil D FL
L 0 C A T 10 N Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail "th Addition
j wl
j�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF= REPORT
February 24, 1982
LD -82-1 Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th Addition
Generally located east of County Road 18 and north of
Valley View Road.
Refer To: Attached Survey
The proponent is requesting a party wall division of the two family dwelling
on the subject lot. Individual utility connections are provided.
Recorilmendation
Staff recommends approval.
I
0
i IN I �� is
N
rz
o t
Y . cerill
INC.
1 13 -11 c F! E D
L A
�J 0 U R V F. Y Q R S)
6440 FLYING
CLOUU EDEN
PHAI;-OC.
MINN. 55.i44 PiACNE (312-9-0-3030
0 Nu ,
Survey for-
I
0
i IN I �� is
N
rz
o t
Y . cerill
INC.
� q
mi-
DEWEY HI
HYDE I a cr�
PAR o
C1
S SOCCER' ;i�i''�
FIELD ti��• _
' !1. ,�:(� sir r•� J J �•
ARCHERY• +'��� v
RANGE
iL
Aw
ekf
ILA
7 :A'
_1' J� 2ti. � i �n i ~•,, 1 _t J74,3 ;�;�1• � f�� .�y� - r ;. r 1
•
i
L17
DO 0 V 0
(0
rul
NUMBER
LD -82 -2
L O C A T 10 N
Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills
9th Addition
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'v
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
February 24, 1982
LD -82 -2 Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition
Generally located west of Gleason Road and north of
W. 78th Street.
Refer To: Attached Survey
The proponent is requesting a party wall division of a recently constructed
two family dwelling. Individual utility connections are provided.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval.
p
11
k�
` \iY1
P4 \
ab s iQ
/ ^ 1.01
h
°3 '� j B� F � •� L�'l�je
3�3V 'jO
Aj
47
�IJ
i
Q
req 5
Area :$ :
pgrce l 8 =
tearce i A 8 '7!
b ,47 1 V,
I hereby Crrhty that this r5 a true and COrrrC[ repreS•rnl,rhUn of 0 wrvey Jr
the boundaries of the above described !and and of the tocauon of ett burldmys.
F,le ND.
, 14 C
DEMARS - GABRIEL
if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any.
from or on said land
LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
'• I-e 'l a
da •ot -
Book - P,ryr
As surveyed bv,�ne this Y --
- - --
9l
3030 Harbor Lane No.
Plymouth MN 55441
�
T-
$�alr.
Phone: (612) 559.0908
/ / F C
f t % 30
Minn. Reg. No - - -`�O ..._.
y0a 00
T*
4t. C1T��g rr
February 1982
TO: Local Governmental Officials and Concerned Citizens
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh Street and Robert Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6453
Office of the Chairman
At the direction of the Minnesota Legislature, the seven Metropolitan Area
counties and the Metropa'•itan ^auricil have been working together to Find
suitable locations for new sanitary landfills in the Region.
The Council and the count;,-:s are also trying to develop programs to reduce, or
abate; ehe amount of waste buried in landfills. III successfully implEmerlted,
abatement programs could substantially reduce the reed for future landfill
capacity in the Region.
Eden so, there is a serious need for new landfills. The Council estimates that
the Region will run out of landfill capacity by 1 -986. The questions of
"where," "how many" and "how big" Need tc be resolved before the first
shovelful of landfill dirt is turned.
To encourage your participation in answering these questions, I are, encicsing a
fact sheet, in question- and - answer Format, about the landfill siting process
that is now under way. Also enclosed is a summary of the criteria the Council
is using to determine the suitability of the sites.
The Council has received an inventory of candidate landfill sizes from your
county board. The next stfp is for the Council to review the sites and
determine which ones confor;n to Council policies.
Before the sites proposed by your county are accepted by the Cauncil, tney will
be discussed at a special public meeting to be held in your county. The
me =ling will likely be held i1: February or March. -
You will be advised of the date, ;.irre and place of the meeting well in advance.
You will also be sent a draft Council report Zin tr.e candiaate sites.
If you would like additional copies of this information packet, call the
Council's Publ is Information Office at 291 -6464.
SincNrely,
Charles R. Weaver
Cha i rmar.
Enclosures
CRW /poc
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA
FOR REVIEWING
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITES
All seven counties in the Metropolitan Area have identified possible landfill sites. The sites
have been given a preliminary review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
What is the next step?
The Waste Management Act requires that each site "satisfy the standards and criteria ... in
the 1lAetr_op.outan_Co.unciL's -policy p. lanJo. r-so. i. i. d-+v-a ste_ m.anagement.�1.f_te"- our_county
submits its inventory of sites, the Council begins to evaluate each site.
If the MPCA has already reviewed the sites, why does the Council also review them?
MPCA's review was basically a preliminary screening to identify sites with major environ-
mental problems. In addition to environmental factors, the Council's review will deal with
issues such as land use compatibility, transportation and other factors.
How will the Council determine whether a site is acceptable?
The Council's policy plan for solid waste has specific criteria for the review of landfill sites.
The criteria identify desirable as well as unacceptable features.
Factors the Council will consider include:
— Topography
— Soil compositon, erodibility, texture, agricultural value, permeability (rate of drainage)
and thickness;
- Depth to bedrock, outcrop formations;
— Nearness to surface water, floodplains or wetlands;
— Groundwater;
— Drainage;
— Land use, including agricultural, parks, forest, residential area, mining (sand or gravel),
and commercial, industrial or institutional areas;
- Road access and capacity;
— Historical or archeological resources;
— Environmentally unique lands;
— Availability of necessary utilities and emergency services;
— Availability of the site; and
— Wind directions.
Council members and staff will visit each site. Staff will evaluate all the information
submitted by the county, the information collected by the MPCA for its review, and any
other available data on each site. It will then write a report with preliminary evaluations
on the sites.
Will there be opportunities to comment on the sites?
There will be a public meeting in your county to discuss the preliminary staff evaluations
and to gather new information on the sites. The comments and information presented at
the meeting will be studied and a staff recommendation made.
The staff recommendation will be considered first by the Landfill Siting Subcommittee of
the Waste Management Advisory Committee, then by the full advisory committee. After its
review, the advisory committee will forward its recommendation to the Metropolitan
Council's Physical Development Committee. The final decision will -fie by the full
Council. There will be opportunities at each of these meetings for any new information to
be presented.
What happens if a county doesn't submit enough sites or if some of the sites are not
accepted?
State law requires the Council to determine whether a county overlooked other sites that
would satisfy the Council's site review criteria and policies. The Council can reduce the
number of sites needed if other acceptable sites do not exist, but if acceptable areas have
been overlooked, the Council must require the county to search for additional sites.
More information
If you would like a copy of the criteria, call the Council's Public Information Office at
291 -6464.
If you would like additional information, call the Council's solid waste program. Paul Smith
(291 -6408) and Lynne Takemoto (291 -6412) of the Council's staff are available to answer
your questions.
December 1981 Publication no. 12 -81 -107
SITING
NEW SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA
December 1981
04 0
o�
�
cT�"y
i
Publication No. 12-81 -102
SITING NEW SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: What's this "waste crisis" I keep hearing about? My trash is still picked up every
week. So what's the problem?
Answer: There is a mounting problem, although you may not have noticed it. We are
running out of places to put waste.
Q. What kind of waste?
— 't's- called"mixed- municipal - waste - -or "solid ste:-'-It's-the-trash-your-refuse hauler
picks up ... bottles, cans, old newspapers, food wastes.
Q. Why can't we go on burying solid waste as we've always done?
A. Currently, solid waste is carried to 11 sanitary landfills located around the Twin Cities
Region.
But these landfills are filling up rapidly and no new landfills have been built since the
1960s. By 1986, all the landfills in the Region are expected to run out of space.
LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS
Q. Why not expand existing landfills?
A. Some of them already have been expanded. In other cases, the lay of the land doesn't
permit expansion.
Also, some pose a potential threat of pollution to groundwater lying underneath.
Q. Why not build new landfills?
A. Finding new locations for landfills isn't easy. Most people don't want landfills located
near their homes or farms. People are concerned about the risk of groundwater
pollution, increased traffic on nearby roads, flying litter blowing off trash trucks and
the unsightly appearance of landfills.
Q. Why not recycle waste material instead of throwing it away?
A. That's a partial solution. Recycling can substantially reduce the amount of waste going
to landfills. The Metropolitan Council estimates that about 14 percent of all trash is
recycled now. However, recycling will never completely eliminate the need for landfills.
There will always be some wastes that can't be recycled.
Q. Why not recover energy from solid waste by burning it? ,#
A. Energy recovery is our best solution in the long run. But facilities are expensive and take
years to develop.
Q. How much waste could recycling and energy recovery reduce?
A. Planners think that -70 to 90 percent of wastes can be diverted annually from landfills
by the year 2000. Glass bottles, aluminum cans and paper can be recycled into new
bottles, cans and paper. Trash can be burned to recover usable heat energy or composted.
Producing less waste in the first place can reduce the need for landfills. For example,
buying soft drinks in returnable bottles would help ensure that the containers are reused
and not thrown away. In addition, compacting waste can reduce the space it takes up
in landfills.
WHAT'S BEING DONE
Q. It sounds as if people should start doing something about the problem.
A. They have. In 1980, the Minnesota Legislature passed the State Waste Management Act.
The law, as amended, establishes procedures for finding suitable locations for waste
disposal facilities. It also requires counties to make plans for abating (reducing) the
amount of waste going to landfills. The law deals with two other kinds of waste besides
mixed municipal waste —ash from incinerating sewage sludge and hazardous waste.
Sludge is the solid that remains when liquid is removed from sewage at treatment plants.
Sludge ash is the residue left after sewage sludge is burned.
The term "hazardous waste" covers a wide range of substances. It includes poisons,
flammables, explosives, oxidizers, irritants and corrosives. Hazardous wastes cannot be
disposed of routinely because they pose a substantial danger to human health or the
environment. The term does not include nuclear or sewage sludge wastes.
CL What does the state law require?
A. The law contains requirements to:
— Select sites for new landfills by 1983 that will accommodate the Region's trash
disposal needs to the year 2000.
— Abate (reduce) or reuse wastes so fewer landfills are needed, an effort called "land
disposal abatement."
— Select one site in the Metropolitan Region for a sludge ash landfill by Feburary 1983.
— Select one site in the state for hazardous waste disposal by June 1983, and select sites
for chemical processing, incineration and temporary storage of hazardous wastes.
WHO DOES WHAT
Q. Who is going to do all that?
A. The Metropolitan Council and the seven metropolitan counties are the primary agencies
responsible for developing new solid waste landfills and land disposal abatement
programs.
In the case of the sludge ash facility, the Council is the prime mover.
Siting a hazardous waste facility is the responsibility of the State Waste Management
Board, created in 1980 for just such a purpose.
Q. What approach are the Council and the counties using to site new solid waste landfills?
A. The approach is to recycle, or abate, as much solid waste as possible, and then build
only as many landfills as the Region will need for nonrecyclable waste.
Q How are they going to do that?
A. The steps and timing of the process are shown in Figure 1 (page 6).
The Council has already determined how much landfill capacity the Region will need by
the year 2000, assuming no abatement programs are implemented. It also has made a
rough calculation of how much of all solid wastes can be recycled or reused region -wide.
K,
LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE SITES
Each county has searched for possible (or "candidate ") sites in its territory; the law
requires five per county if possible. All seven counties have submitted their lists of
sites to the Minnesota Pollution.Control Agency (PCA) to determine which sites are
"intrinsically suitable" as landfills. Basically, this review is a preliminary screening to
make sure there are no major environmental conflicts.
a. What is next?
A. The Metropolitan Council determines whether the sites in each county's inventory are
suitable. The Council uses its environmental, land use and other policies to make that
determination. For example, it will examine the sites to find out if they have the
necessary sod type and subsurface to protect underground an rela e
_ surface waters. Not all the sites that pass this review will get landfills, but they will form
a "pool" from which suitable locations are chosen.
DEVELOPING ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
Q. What about the abatement programs?
A. By the spring of 1982, the counties are expected to propose abatement programs to
reduce waste that must be landfilled. The Council will review these abatement programs,
and adopt a regional abatement plan to be carried out by the counties. With that
accomplished, the Council will determine how many landfills are needed, a schedule
for developing the landfill sites and abatement objectives for each county.
a. Does that mean that we won't. know how many landfills the Region will need until the
Council adopts its regional abatement plan?
A. Yes, but the counties have to get a headstart in locating suitable sites. One reason is to
encourage the participation of local communities and residents early in the site selection
process. Another reason is to make sure the Region won't get caught short of sites, even
if all of them aren't used. The Council determines the number of landfills; each county
selects specific sites to meet its quota. The counties will then acquire the sites and start
implementing their abatement programs. By 1983, those efforts should be under way.
The system of landfills and abatement programs should meet the Region's disposal needs
for the next 20 years.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS
0. What assurances are there that the environment won't be harmed by any of the landfills?
A. First, the sites must pass a stringent soil test. Some soils —for example, clay —are better
at sealing off the bottom of a landfill. Such a seal would help protect the groundwater.
The Metropolitan Council will also evaluate the sites in light of existing land uses and
the community's land use controls, protection of agriculture and natural resources,
existing and future development, and other factors.
Another safeguard is that the seven metropolitan counties and the PCA are required to
establish and enforce regulations to ensure the sanitary operation, periodic inspection,
monitoring, maintenance and licensing of the sites.
3
AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION?
Q. Why should landfills be located in rural areas when most of the trash is produced by city
people?
A. Solid waste is produced by everyone —rural and city people. It's true that urban areas
now produce more waste than rural areas. However, waste abatement programs are
expected to reduce more waste from urban than rural areas. The net result will beta
more balanced pattern of landfill waste generation. In addition, illegal and unregulated
dumping can pose risks to residents of rural areas as it does for city people.
Another point: State law requires that new landfill sites must be 80 to 250 acres is size,
with a buffer area at least as big as the site itself. There are more land parcels of this
size in rural than in urban areas. It's unfortunately true that soil types most conducive
to-good-far-ming-ar-e-also-t-he-k4nd-most-sui-ted-for-landfills.
Q. What are the rights of people whose land is being taken for a landfill?
A. The state's Constitution provides that no private property can be taken without due
process of law or just compensation. To acquire land, counties must pay at least the
fair market value. If the land is not acquired through eminent domain, the land
owner's compensation is determined by agreement of the parties involved.
RIGHTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Q. Can a county put a landfill anywhere in a city or township without considering local
concerns?
A. No. There is an elaborate system of checks and balances built into the process. The
system is intended to ensure sufficient landfill capacity to meet disposal needs, without
"steamrolling" local communities.
Early in 1982, the Council's Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee will
be expanded to include representatives of communities where sites are being considered.
This will occur before the advisory committee reviews county abatement proposals
submitted to the Council. Such proposals affect local communities because they reduce
the number of landfills needed.
The expanded advisory committee will also shape recommendations to the State
Legislature on ways to provide incentives and compensation to communities where
landfills are proposed.
Q. Are there other safeguards?
A. Yes. Before each county makes the final selection of sites from those approved by the
Council, it must add representatives to its county board from local communities to form
a "site selection authority."
In addition, a city or township may impose conditions on the operation of a landfill
if the conditions are approved by the Council. Before a PCA permit is issued to a
landfill, the county must have a certificate of need issued by the Council. Such a
certificate can be issued only if the Council finds there are no reasonable alternatives
to the disposal facility, including recycling and waste recovery.
A county may override local land use ordinances and regulations. However, it may do so
only if the Council finds the local restrictions are not reasonable.
4
Q. Who will own and operate the landfills?
A. Each county is empowered to do so under state law. However, it's likely that many of
the sites will be privately owned but regulated by the county.
OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE
0. How can a person participate in decisions to be made about the landfills?
A. At several stages in the decision - making process. For example:
February, Public meetings held by Metropolitan Council in each county on
arch T9 candi atd a solid waste sites reviewed by Council.
March, Meetings of the Landfill Review Subcommittee, Waste Management
April 1982 Advisory Committee, the Council's Physical Development
Committee and full Council. Subject: approval or disapproval of
county - proposed landfill sites.
March, Hearings held by counties on proposed abatement proposals.
April 1982
July 1982 Council public hearing on its recommendations for compensating
local communities where candidate sites are located.
October 1982 Council hearing and public meetings on its proposed regional waste
abatement plan and development schedule, including number of
sites, for county landfills.
January- Public meetings held by counties prior to selection of specific
June 1983 sites to be developed as landfills.
The Council's solid waste planning staff is available to answer questions you may have.
If you have questions, call Paul Smith (291 -6408) or Lynn Takemoto (291- 6412).
5
ED
Council advises
Counties propose
Figure 1
abatement programs
what potential
DECISION STEPS IN COUNTY SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITING'
LANDFILL Council estimates
Counties
Counties
Council approves
DECISIONS year -2000 landfill
conduct
propose
certified sites
capacity, assuming
search for
candidate
if consistent with
no abatement
landfill
landfill
Council environ-
(July 1980).
sites
sites; PCA•
vironmental, land use f
(Sept. 1980-
certifies sites
and other policies e
Nov. 19811.
if they are
(March -April 1982).
"intrinsically
r
suitable"
r
(Oct. -Dec. 1981).
c
Council advises
Counties propose
counties about
abatement programs
what potential
(recycling,
there is for
resource recovery)
ABATEMENT abating waste
(April 1982);
DECISIONS otherwise
Council reviews
going to landfills
county abatement
(Jan. 1981).
programs (May -June
1982).
1980 1981
1982
'Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
0
m "pool" of
roved sites,
incil identifies
nber of sites
ded (enough
acity to year
10 for nonrecyclable
tes), schedule
developing sites,
tement objectives
each county;
elops regional
tement plan
1.1983).
1983
Counties
select
and acquire
final sites
(June 1983).
Counties
Implement
abatement
programs
(June 1983).
.t
SUMMARY OF CRITERIA
FOR REVIEWING
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITES
All seven counties in the Metropolitan Area have identified possible landfill sites. The sites
have been given a preliminary review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
What is the next step?
The Waste Management Act requires that each site "satisfy the standards and criteria ... in
the Metropolitan Council's policy plan for solid waste management." After your county
bmits- its - inventory of- sites, t" Cou-nCit- begins to evaluate each site.
If the MPCA has already reviewed the sites, why does the Council also review them?
MPCA's review was basically a preliminary screening to identify sites with major environ-
mental problems. In addition to environmental factors, the Council's review will deal with
issues such as land use compatibility, transportation and other factors.
How will the Council determine whether a site is acceptable?
The Council's policy plan for solid waste has specific criteria for the review of landfill sites.
The criteria identify desirable as well as unacceptable features.
Factors the Council will consider include:
— Topography
— Soil compositon, erodibility, texture, agricultural value, permeability (rate of drainage)
and thickness;
— Depth to bedrock, outcrop formations;
— Nearness to surface water, floodplains or wetlands;
— Groundwater;
— Drainage;
— Land use, including agricultural, parks, forest, residential area, mining (sand or gravel),
and commercial, industrial or institutional areas;
— Road access and capacity;
— Historical or archeological resources;
— Environmentally unique lands;
— Availability of necessary utilities and emergency services;
— Availability of the site; and
— Wind directions.
Council members and staff will visit each site. Staff will evaluate all the information
submitted by the county, the information collected by the MPCA for its review, and any
other available data on each site. It will then write a report with preliminary evaluations
on the sites.
Will then: be opportunities to comment on the sites?
There= willrbe:a public_meeting•in your.... county- to:discuss::the preliminary staff evaluations
and to gather new information on the sites. The comments and information presented at
the meeting will be :studied and a staff recommendation made.
The staff recommendation will be considered first by the Landfill Siting Subcommittee of
the Waste Management Advisory Committee, then by the full advisory committee. After its
review, the advisory committee will forward its recommendation to the Metropolitan
.Council's Physical Development Committee. The final decision will be made by the'full: -
Council. There will be opportunities at.each of these meetings for any new information to
be presented.
What happens if a county doesn't submit enough sites or if some of the sites are not .
accepted?
State law requires the Council to determine whether a county overlooked other sites that
would satisfy the Council's site review criteria and policies. The Council can reduce the
number -of sites needed if other acceptable sites do not exist; but:if;acceptable;areas,have:.-
been overlooked, the Council must require the county to search for:additional sites:
More information
If you would like a copy of the criteria, call the Council's Public Information Office at
291 -6464.
If you would like additional information, call the Council's solid waste program. Paul Smith
(291 -6408) and Lynne Takemoto (291 -6412) of the Council's staff are available to answer:
your questions.
December 1981 Publication no. 12 -81 -107
3750 1 D S TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Mr. C. Wayne Courtney
Mayor of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Courtney:
J%., .3
February 26, 1982
I am writing to you in regard to the Oak
Ridge Plat.
I have just learned that the City Council
took final action approving the Oak Ridge Plat on
Monday, February 22, 1982. I received no individual
notice of the City Council meeting (although I am
sure public notice was given).
The City of Edina went through a very
thorough process in making sure that the neighbors'
concerns were met. In order to accomplish this,
they requested that an independent study be made.
The firm of Barr Engineering was contracted by the
City to do this work. I would like to ask the
City Council to review the following questions:
1. Whether any employee(s) of
Barr Engineering have an interest in the land
or partnership that presently owns part of
the land included in the proposed Oak Ridge
Plat?
2. If so, had this been disclosed
to the City Council?
Mr. Gordon Hughes has informed me this
date that it is possible to have these questions
raised at the City Council meeting on Monday,
March 1, 1982.
Although I will be out of town on
business during the day on Monday, March 1, 1982,
I will make every effort to attend the meeting
immediately upon my arrival.
3750 1 D 5 TOWER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Mr. C. Wayne Courtney
February 26, 1982
Page Two
Thank you very much for the opportunity
to be heard.
Sincerely,
Ron Zamansky
5041 West 66th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
�ri B
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: KENNETH ROSLAND, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: 320 CONTRACT
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1982
The package that was outlined last meeting for settling the Police /320 Contract
has been ratified by the union and would like your formal ratification of
the following terms:
- 9.7% wades
- $10 /month insurance
One (1) floating holiday
KER:md
CITY OF
fgj,EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612- 927 -6661
RFCM 17TTnM
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota,
approves the substitution by its depository, the First Edina National Bank,
of the following security as good and sufficient collateral for the City
of Edina Public Funds in place of Bloomington I.S.D. #271 MN, due 2/1/85
for $100,000.00 at 5.75%:
Koochiching County Minn., due 1/1/94, at 5.80 %, $100,000.00
ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 1982.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of
Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was
duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 1,
1982.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 2nd day of March, 1982.
City Clerk
ot�e
."i
° IaSa• °
OFFICERS:
Robert W. Larson, Chairperson
Donald J. Sandeen, Vice Chairperson
e James F. Lord, Treasurer
P ra C. Mike McLaren, Executive Director
public employees retirement association
U R G E N T
PLEASE PERA 'S RULE OF 90 PLEASE
DUPLICATE (H.F. 1625/S.F. 1548) DUPLICATE
AND POST WILL BE HEARD THE WEEK AND POST
OF MARCH 1, 1982
House File 1625 /Senate File 1548 has passed the appropriate committees in both
the Senate and House and will be voted on in both Houses next week.
The committees in the Legislature have amended the bill to the "Rule of 90."
This will allow full unreduced retirement if your age and service credit equal
90. In addition, the actuarial reduction applied to other retirement rules
is decreased from approximately 6% per year to 3% per year. The amendment
changing the "Rule of 85" to the "Rule of 90" was a compromise to secure support
from those concerned about the cost.
If the "Rule of 90" works as expected, the Legislature will consider the "Rule
of 85" at a future session. The "Rule of 90" is good legislation and will allow
us to determine accurately the effect on the fund by these types of proposals.
The purpose of this letter is to once again encourage you to write or call your
senator and representative and urge the.passage of House File 1625 and Senate
File 1548. Your previous efforts contributed to passage in the,committees and
your continued efforts are essential to secure passage in both Houses.
LISTEN TO THE HOT LINE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION!
Sincerely,
C. a/4
C. Mike McLaren
Executive Director
2/25/82
203 capitol square building 550 cedar street st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 296 -7460 —
Ztag
O
Z
It
Z
Q
Z
Z
Z
February 24, 1982
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
Edina City Manager
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Rosland:
On January 29, 1982 the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council unanimously voted to disband. We are advising you of this deci-
sion pursuant to the Council's Bylaws which require that all participating
units of government be notified of such action. We also wish to advise you
that the dissolution of this organization becomes effective 60 days following
the date of the Council's action.
As you know, the Council was cooperatively organized in 1972 by Hennepin
County, the City of Minneapolis and the suburban units of government
within the County. As originally conceived, the Council was responsible
for managing the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant -in -aid
program. In this capacity, the Council and its staff were responsible for
preparing annual plans, providing technical assistance, conducting research
agencies, all in the pursuit of improving the justice system in our County
through innovative programming. To this end the Council assisted in the
development of over 350 grant projects which represented $21.6 million in
funding assistance for law enforcement, corrections, public defense, prose-
cution, adjudication and a wide range of juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention activities.
Following the discontinuation of the LEAA Program, the Coordinating Council
began a review of its charter and prospects for future activities. It deter-
mined that its primary function had been to represent the interests of its
member units of government in the grant -in -aid program and concluded that
there was no ongoing need for maintaining the organization as a standing
advisory group. The Council, therefore, decided to disband and directed that
we advise Council members of this action.
On behalf of the Coordinating Council we wish to extend our appreciation for
your support during the past ten years. Your participation has made possible
the Council's successful contribution to many justice system improvements in
Hennepin County.
Sincerely,
C. Wayne Courtney
HCCJCC Co -Chair
Edina Mayor
Thomas L. Johnson
HCCJCC Co -Chair
Hennepin County Attorney
A -2308 Government Center, 300 S. Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55487,348-6497
WINTER OF '82 HYDRANT SHOVELING PROJECT
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Michael Zeiler
Christ Presbyterian Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Robb Prince & Mr. Bruce Breedyhoff
First Christian Reformed Church
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Jacob Van' T Land
Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Rod Priebe
Cub Scout Pack #123
Mr. David Mogck (pronounced "Mock ")
Good Samaritan United Methodist Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Edward Rippee & Mr. Bill Wright
Cub Scout Pack #68
Mr. Bruce Walters
Normandale Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Jerald Silverman
Cub Scout Pack #198
Mr. William Bauer
Edina- Mornin side Community Congregational Church
Boy Scout Troop
& Cub Scout Pack #4
Mr. Robert Davis
Calvary Lutheran Church of Edina
Boy Scout Troop
Mr. Donald Schlaefer
RF.gnT.TTTT0N
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th Addition; and
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
That part of Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th Addition lying South of a line
run from a point on the West line of said Lot 7, a distance of 52.84 feet
North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, to a point on the East line of
said Lot 7, a distance of 57.0 feet North of the Southeast corner of said
Lot 7; and
That part of Lot 7, Block 1, Sioux Trail 4th Addition, except that part ly-
ing South of a line run from a point on the West line of said Lot 7, a
distance of 52.84 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, to a
point on the East line of said Lot 7, a distance of 57.0 feet North of the
Southeast corner of said Lot 7; and
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and it
has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as
separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 811 and
801;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as sep-
arate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of
Ordinance Nos. 811 and 801 are hereby waived to allow said division and convey-
ance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent permitted under
Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811 and subject to the limitations set out
in Ordinance No. 811 and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose
or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the
provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in
compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior
approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 1982.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 1, 1982, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 17th day of March, 1982.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition; and
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
That part of Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of a
line described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 9, thence
South 23 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds West on an assumed bearing along the
Northwesterly line of said Lot 9 a distance of 71.53 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 66 degrees 49 minutes 23
seconds East a distance of 60.50 feet; thence South 23 degrees 10 minutes 37
seconds West a distance of 16.25 feet; thence South 66 degrees 49 minutes 23
seconds East a distance of 53.15 feet to the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 9 and said line there terminating; and
That part of Lot 9, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part lying
Northeasterly of a line described as commencing at the Northwest corner of
said Lot 9, thence South 23 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds West, on an
assumed bearing along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 9 a distance of
71.53 feet to the point of beginning of a line to be described; thence South
66 degrees 49 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 60.50 feet; thence South
23 degrees 10 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 16.25 feet; thence South
66 degrees 49 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 53.15 feet to the South-
easterly line of said Lot 9 and said line there terminating; and
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and
it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regula-
tions of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels
as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 811 and
801;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as sep-
arate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of
Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811 and subject to the limitations set out
in Ordinance No. 811 and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose or
as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the provi-
sion that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compli-
ance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior
approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 1982.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 1, 1982, ans as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 17th day of March, 1982.
City Clerk