HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.c. Storm Water Utility Plany
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 3, 1991
AGENDA ITEM: Minnesota Industrial Containment-
AGENDA SECTION:
Facility Site Compreh. Plan Guide Amendment
old Business
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM .�¢ C C
Lisa Freese, Director of Planning
{Y� 7f a
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Met Council Approval
APP Y:
letter and Staff Report;
Y v
On July 2, 1991 the City Council held a public hearing regarding USPCI's
request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the 236 acre Minnesota
Industrial Containment Facility (MICE) in the Pine Bend area of Eastern
Rosemount. The Council forwarded the Guide Plan amendment to the
Metropolitan Council without taking action on it. The amendment
establishes a Waste Management Land Use Plan Element, redesignates the 236
acre MICE site from General Industrial and Agricultural to Waste
Management, and establishes a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) for
the MICF site.
The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the amendment and at their August 8th
meeting it was approved. The Metropolitan Council did not identify any
significant regional issues with regard to this request.
The Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
requested that the City also amend the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to reflect
the additional sewage flows and revise the Map to show the MUSA Boundary.
Since the City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Guide Plan
it was determined that a letter acknowledging the change in sewage flows
resulting from MICF and a map with the revised boundaries would be
sufficient at this time. Exhibit B is the revised MUSA map. The average
daily sewage flows projected from the facility are 0.02 mgd.
'The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment at the August
25 Regular Meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to adopt A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT.
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1991-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
GUIDE PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount did receive a request to 'amend the
Comprehensive Guide Plan for the 236 -acre site legally described
in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled according to law and held
on the 2nd of July, 1991 to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City requested that the Metropolitan Council review
the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and on August 8, 1991 the
Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
reviewed the amendment and recommended approval to the City
Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of
Rosemount approves the following as an amendment to the Rosemount
Comprehensive Guide Plan:
I. the establishment of a Waste Management Land Use element
2. the redesignation of the site described in Exhibit A from
General Industrial and Agricultural to waste Management;
3. the establishment of a Metropolitan Service Area for the site
described in Exhibit A; and
4. a revision of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as shown on
Exhibit B.
ADOF.ED this 3rd day of September, 1991.
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by
Voted in favor•
Voted against:
Vernon J. Napper, Mayor
Seconded by:
1 fin( i !nJ • 1 M fir ., • '+
Pas
Pas
,t ..✓ I s I .os
' „`'^�._/ ' – iia i .•� I'� i Iii ' Ij ��� •.� —�an
pe RURA
Pet
pill Ar, ci
P/I Pit
r -ao—I it - �``•
.mow+ P!1 �,� 1IV
AC
AG \. i �� "Arae.
t•1 /!1
.;, SERVICE. i
�. .. PIt
X t► ,� I ` ,AG I.01
I
GC 1 AG /!1 ( T t• I • I a
' 4 i _ I AREA
y
-, • __ � -- I r i iia '' � i � --' �_
GI
FIG. 12LEGEND LEG N99O URBAN SERV. AREA PH NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
1990 LAND USE PLAN
n aq
1'/I PUBLIC A INSTITUTIONAL RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL
POS PRESERVATION OPEN AG AGRICULTURAL I I"—���I I j
SPACE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL M)CF Guide Plan Amendment
R O S i�•� ■ � ■ v u N T GP INDUSTRIAL PARI(I GENERAL RIAL AREA Land Use Zdesignatlon
�•/ ��r ■ ■ CC COMMUNITY (COD) MAJOR STREETS
MINNESOTA'
, ^ t G� O�I COMMERCIAL General Industrial and Agriculture
n
� v � I V G A HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL UNDESIGNATED: MEDIUM to Waste Management
GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
CNC CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL Current MUSA
VA MIC.F Musk Add%bo-
A�L
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 330 East Fifth Street. St. Paul, MA' 55101-1634
August 9, 1991
Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE. City of Rosemount
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15468-1
Dear Ms. Freese:
613 391-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 77Y 61� 291-0904
At its meeting on August 8, 1991, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Rosemount's
comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the Metropolitan
and Community Development Committee, Referral Report No. 91-43. A copy of this report is
attached.
The Council approved the following recommendations contained in the above report:
L That the Council adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these
recommendations.
2. Inform the city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no plan
modification is required.
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission commenting on
the plan amendment.
Sin ]v,
L//// F
Be
Man, E. rson
Chair
MEA:ly
Attachment
cc: Stephan Jilk, Administrator, City of Rosemount
R.A. Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Robert Pulford, Environmental Enaineerin- and Management, Ltd.
Barbara Senness, Metropolitan Council Staff C
1
ito osemount
PHONE 16121 423.4411 2675 - 145th Street West. Rosemount. 'Minnesota MAYOR
FAX (6121 423-5203 Mailing Address: Vernon Napper
P. O. Box 510. Rosemount. Minnesota 550684510 COUNCIIMEMBERS
Sheila Kiassen
John Oxborough
Marry Willcox
July 3, 1991 Dennis Wippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jdk
Ms. Lynda Voge
Referrals Coordinator
Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
RE: City of Rosemount Guide Plan Amendment
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility
Dear Ms. Voge:
Enclosed please find five (5) copies of the proposed "'Minnesota
Industrial Containment Facility (MICF)" Guide Plan Amendment,:
submitted for formal review. The proposed amendment includes
the following changes to the guide plan:
1. Creation of a Waste Management land use plan element;
2. Land use redesignations_from General Industrial (156
acres) and Agricultural (80 acres) to Waste Management;
and
3. Creation of a free-standing MUSA for MICF.
City staff, consultants and the proposer have met with
Metropolitan Council staff on numerous occasions to discuss
these issues over the past year. Whatever efforts the
Metropolitan Council can make to expedite thereview of this
amendment will be appreciated.
4Sicer 1*1k
an
City AdmiIstrator
enclosures
cc: City of Coates
City of Inver Grove Heights
Empire Township
Nininger Township
ISD 196
ISD 199
Vermillion River WMO
6Dvery1hings (Poming ` lfb (osemountlJ
00
Li IWX.....N.I"t-
INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR
MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a
copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan
amendment is defined as:
1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety.
2. A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing
comprehensive plan.
3. An amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental
Assessment Work -sheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in
Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing
comprehensive plan; or
4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more.
Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff
report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well.
Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator
Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Sponsoring governmental unit J ?'v of Rosemount
Name of local contact person Lisa J Freese Director of Planning
Address - 28,75 145th St. W„ Rosemount, MN
Telephone 612/423-4411
Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) Dean Johnson
Date of Preparation July 3, 1991
B. Name of Amendment Minnesota Industrial Contairinent Facility
Description/Summary Creation of a Waste Management !-anc use!
MTi
element; land use redesgnation Tran General 157177-1-1 � r d a, tu_r
al
to tti'aste Management; creation of a freestanding in consiae anon
of a proposed non -hazardous indaustriai wase m ; k- i i'�
C. Please attach the following:
1. Five copies of the proposed amendment.
2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change.
3. The current plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment
triggers a map change.
v4
4. The proposed plan map(s) indicating area(s) affected, if the amendment
triggers a map change.
D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check one or more as
appropriate.)
X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on June 25 , 1991
Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review,
X Considered, but not approved, by governing body on July 2, 1991
Other
E Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by the change have been
sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them.
Notification of affected adjacent governmental units is requ ed for m ' Dion
amendments. Inver Grove .Heights; Nini.nger, Ven�12. lion anYlre
TQtlmshios Inver Grave Heights and Rosemount School Districts
July, 3. 1991
Because of the comprehensive nature of most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is
attached to help ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine
whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plans or other
chapters_ of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment
affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address the
issue(s).
IL IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS
A. Wastewater Treatment
1. Change in city's year 20002010 flow projections.
No/Not Applicable.
X Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated?
�"i. t 2 mad averacze daily increase; MXC
2. Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor.
No,Not Applicable.
V Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment
and what will be the net changes in flows?
-0.02 m, -d average dai v increase in Rosemount interceptor
-%t i 4
3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise.
No/Not Applicable.
Yes.
4, Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the
vicinity of the community or proposed development.
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes.
D. Recreation Open Space
1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities.
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes.
III. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK
A. Land Use
1. Describe the following, as appropriate:
a. Size of affected area in acres 236 acres
b. Existing land use(s) 156 acres, General Industrial; 80 a=es , Rricultur
c. Proposed land use(s� 236 acres Waste 1`ianagement
d. Number of residential dwelling units and types involved
NA
e. Proposed density NA
f. Proposed square footage of comme c.al, jin4ustrial or. uWic buildings
3200 sf office/laboratory; 3U s
B. Change in the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or
any additional local staging contained in the original plan.
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes.
C. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community.
No/Not Applicable.
X Yes.
D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area.
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes.
ix
NI. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAONI
A. Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls.
No/Not Applicable.
yes. consideration for rezoning; Agricultural to Waste Manager
kjp00371
04.18.90
Xi
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
DRAFT
6/21/91
WASTE MANAGEMENT LAND USE PLAN
Obiectives
1. To promote effective regulation of waste management
activities.
2. To supplement and enhance environmental protection policies.
3. To establish appropriate, compatible locations for waste
management activities
Plan Elements
Public attitudes and technology involving waste management
continue to evolve. Singular approaches to waste management have
given way to integrated systems including waste reduction, reuse,
_recycling, resource recovery and disposal. Environmental
awareness creates increasing demands for responsible waste
management.
A waste management land use element serves several functions. It
allows for the proper identification of a special use district.
It allows the City to proactively determine where waste related
activities may be compatible with other uses and should be
located. It allows the City to protect waste management
activities from infringement by incompatible uses. It also
allows the City the vehicle to establish proper regulations and
responsible management for waste related activities.
Policy review and analysis is.an on-going requirement in any
growth management plan. The need for continual policy analysis
in waste management planning is particularly vital due to the
rapid changes in waste management technology, regulatory
direction and public sentiment.
Waste Management Policies
It shall be the policy of the City to:
1. Permit waste related activities only when the public
health, safety and welfare is ensured.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
DRAFT 6/21/91
PAGE 2
2. Require that wasterelatedactivities occur in
locations that minimize or eliminate conflicts with
other uses.
3. Locate waste related activities in areas in which long
term land use compatibility and protection from other
conflicting uses may be maximized.
4. Permit waste related activities only when any potential
or known conflicts or impacts are eliminated or
properly mitigated.
5. Require that any waste related facility employ the best
available technology in any aspect of the facility
regarding environmental protection controls.
6. Ensure that the design, construction and operation of
waste related facilities minimize any negative
environmental impacts and mitigate them to fullest
extent possible.
7. Allow waste disposal to occur only when efforts to
reuse and recycle wastes have been exhausted.
8. Considerwasterelated facilities only when the
economic benefits, incentives and other advantages to
the City and community clearly outweigh any known or
potential negative aspects of a facility.
9. Permit waste related facilities only when the proper
infrastructure exists to serve facilities or when
proper improvements can be made without expense or
burden on the city.
Minnesota industrial Containment Facility Exhibit A
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
(From Draft EIS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description
USPCI, Inc. proposes to develop a nonhazardous industrial waste containment facility in the City of
Rosemount which is located in the southeastern portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area of
Minnesota. USPCI, Inc. operates waste treatment and disposal operations in various locations
throughout the United States and is a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Corporation.
The proposed project, referred to as the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICE), plans
to accept only industrial wastes classified as nonhazardous by federal, state and local regulatory
definitions. The proposed Facility will consist of a series of 10 six -acre containment cells, each with
an overall capacity of approximately 252,000 cubic yards including waste and cover material. The
initial waste receiving rate is expected to be between 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of waste per year
and is expected to increase to a maximum of 80,000 cubic yards per year within 3-5 years after Facility
opening. The active life of the Facility is projected to be about 30 years. -
The proposed site is approximately 236 acres in size of which about 120 acres would be occupied by
the 10 containment cells, administrative and laboratory facilities, leachate storage tanks, truck scales
and unloading area; the remaining 116 acres would serve as a buffer area and be generally left in its
natural condition. The site is currently used as pastureland and is located in a predominantly
agricultural and industrial area with scattered rural residential.
The project proposer plans to accept only a specific portion of the nonhazardous industrial waste
stream generated in the state for disposal. Only those wastes certified as nonhazardous and
consistent with the state (MPCA) and local permits will be accepted. These wastes must be
demonstrated to be nonhazardous by an independent testing laboratory before arrival at the Facility
where waste characterization tests will be conducted to confirm previous test results. Waste
acceptance procedures to be used at the MICF are intended to ensure that all wastes accepted are
nonhazardous and compatible with the Facility permits (which excludes municipal solid waste, sewage
sludge, incinerator ash and others). Some typical types of wastes that could be accepted for disposal
- at the M1CF are: variety of wastes from foundries; metal -bearing wastes from recycling operations
such as auto shredding; aluminum and other metal recycling; solidified paints and inks; plastic and
rubber scraps; empty containers; magnetic tapes and circuit boards; asbestos; contaminated soil.
Facility Design
Each of the 10 containment cells will occupy about six acres and is primarily an above -ground
geotechnical structure underlain by a composite liner system composed of a clay laver and two
synthetic liners and two leachate collection systems. The collected leachate will be sampled and
discharged to nearby waste water treatment plant. The leachate collection systems will continue to
function even after the cell is closed. The closed cells will be capped with low permeability soils and
a synthetic liner to minimize leachate formation.
Tne closure and post -closure care requirements by state and local authorities specify a minimum of
20 years continued care, maintenance and monitoring.of the Facility after final closure. The Dakota
County Ordinance No. 110 requires monitoring systems designed for 30 years. Post -closure care
A-1
includes periodic inspection and maintenance of the Facility grounds, leachate collection system, and
sampling of ground water monitoring wells. The project proposer must demonstrate financial
capability of meeting all expenses associated with these activities including any environmental
contingency actions. The state and local agencies also require designation of an appropriate end use
of the Facility site. The Facility has been designed to accommodate various future uses by preserving
areas within and around the containment cells layout which could accommodate structural
development.
Alternatives
The alternatives to the proposed project that were considered include the "no build" alternative and
currently available alternative management methods to land disposal of nonhazardous industrial
wastes such as recycling, reuse and waste reduction. The regulatory data and other sources indicate
that the majority of these wastes are currently being landfilled at public or privately -owned solid waste
disposal facilities and monofills.
Several specific nonhazardous industrial waste types were reviewed to determine the viability and
availability of alternative management methods for handling those wastes. Although management
methods other than disposal exist for certain types of nonhazardous industrial waste, the amount and
types of waste that are managed by waste reduction efforts, recycling or reuse of waste materials
depends on a variety of economic and regulatory factors. The role of alternative management
techniques will largely be determined by waste generators and will be used if they are technically and
economically feasible and offer some advantage over land disposal in terms of cost savings,
convenience or reduced liability for potential environmental contamination problems.
The no build alternative assumes the use of e>asting or planned facilities in the management of
nonhazardous industrial waste. Under this scenario, it is assumed that the majority of waste
generators would continue to dispose of wastes at the Twin Cites metropolitan area solid waste
disposal facilities which are currently accepting these wastes. The current permitted capacity of these
landfills is projected to be exhausted by the end of 1994. Although processes for siting and
developing additional landfilling facilities is underway, it is unlikely these facilities would be
operational before the mid-1990s. Based on these projections, it is evident that the present system
is incapable of accommodating the region's needs and that additional disposal facilities w211 be
necessary to meet those needs.
Potential Impacts and Mitigations
Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts of Facility construction and operation were analyzed in terms of fugitive dust
emissions (particulates) and were compared to alternative development of the site as agriculturally
tilled land. The amount of fugitive dust generated annually by agricultural activities was estimated
to be about four times greater than construction and operation activities associated with the MICF
each year; therefore air quality impacts created by the proposed project are not considered to be
significant and can be mitigated through use of watering techniques, street cleaning and wind break
to control dust.
ii
A-?
Noise Impacts
The noise levels created by Facility construction activities were estimated in order to determine
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. This analysis indicated that during peak construction phases
the project may cause short-term violations of the state noise standards at two residential locations.
It is expected that typical daily operations would generate much lower noise levels that are well below
noise standards for this area. Mitigative measures include use of properly operated and muffled
construction equipment and use of landscaped earthen berms that would provide some noise
abatement.
Surface Water and Stormwater Management
A stormwater management plan has been developed for the Facility site which proposed the
alteration of existing conditions to accommodate Facility development and major precipitation events.
This alteration includes the construction of several retention basins on-site to provide adequate
storage capacity for major storm and snowmelt events. No surface water will be allowed to enter the
cell containment area. The increased on-site storage capacity reduces the downstream flows from the
site over present pre -development conditions.
Leachate and Liner System Analysis
Preliminary cell design, waste acceptance criteria and procedures, and information from the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission were reviewed in order to estimate impacts to liner integrity
and to the local wastewater treatment plant from the generation of leachate. It is technically feasible
and practical to design, construct and operate a landfill operation, of the type proposed, such that
environmental impacts are minimal. The ability to predict environmental impacts from the proposed
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility was limited by the lack of definite information on: quality
assurance procedures for cell construction, on-site waste screening procedures for individual
shipments of waste, and design information on the leachate collection system and storage tanks. The
details of these elements will be reviewed as part of the Facility permit.
As long as adequate design, quality assurance
established and followed, and adequate storage
problem appears to be political acceptability
wastewater treatment plant.
Hydrogeology Impacts
procedures and waste screening procedures are
capacity for leachate is provided, the remaining.
of discharge of the leachate at the Rosemount
The geologic materials beneath the site consist predominantly of sand and gravel glacial outwash
deposits with relatively high permeabilities. The uppermost aquifer beneath the site includes the
glacial outwash deposits, the Prairie du Chien Formation, and the Jordan Sandstone. In the event
that leachate were released from the containment cells, the leachate would migrate vertically
downward through the unsaturated zone and would be likely to impact the upper aquifer. Potential
receptors of contamination released to the upper aquifer from the site include downgradient water
wells utilizing the upper aquifer, and the Mississippi River which is the regional discharge point for
the upper aquifer.
ill
A-3
Currently, low concentrations of particular volatile organic chemicals exist in the upper aquifer
beneath the site. The proposed network of ground water monitoring wells at the NEIGE site will be
sufficient to monitor background contaminant concentrations in the upper aquifer, and will therefore
allow differentiation between existing contamination and any additional contamination originating
from the waste storage cells.
Preliminary ground water contaminant transport modeling indicates that pumping wells proposed for
the MICF will have only local effects on contaminant migration in the upper aquifer. The modeling
suggests that additional pumping wells may be necessary downgradient from the site to provide
adequate capture of any contamination resulting from activities at the proposed MICF. The proposed
Phase II investigation may indicate through ground water modeling whether additional pumping wells
are in fact necessary.
Economic Impacts
Economic impacts of the proposed project include costs of Facility development, operation and
closure, employment, revenues, property values and service demands.
Total construction cost for the MICF is estimated to be about $28.4 million (1989 dollars); the actual
cost will be appreciably higher if inflation and other factors are considered. The proposer anticipates
the need for 10 full-time staff positions resulting in total annual labor cost of approximately $462,000
(1989 dollars). Property taxes have been estimated to be about $230,000 if the Facility had been
operational during 1989.
The project proposer has expressed the commitment to provide payments to local governments
through a variety of funds. The source of these funds are service charges, and surcharges on waste
disposal and will total approximately $11,840,000 over the life of the Facility (1989 dollars). A
Community Trust Fund will be established for a broad range of community development programs
and will total approximately $9.5 million (including interest earned) over the Facility life.
The project proposer has also committed to contributing approximately $20,000 annually during the
Facility life to community organizations. During the first five years of Facility operation, the proposer
will also make contributions of $17,000 annually to Rosemount's Part: Dedication Fund.
In addition to the funds listed above, a separate and permanent Environmental Trust Fund will
provide for financial assurance to ensure proper Facility closure and post -closure care and
environmental contingencies. A separate Ietter of credit will be established to ensure closure of each
cell. Preliminary estimates for these funds are $500,000 for closure of each cell, $600,000 for post -
closure care and $160,000 as contingency reserve for each cell.
Past studies of the impacts of waste management facilities on property values indicate that no
categorical findings can be made as to absolute negative or positive effects of these facilities and that
each project is unique, representing a very complex set of variables. Possible positive effects on
property values that could be attributed to MICF development include the documentation of
groundwater conditions that will result from the groundwater monitoring network that would be part
of the Facility operations and post -closure care responsibilities, and development of the area
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan.
iv
A-4
Negative impacts to property values may be in response to real or perceived nuisances from noise,
dust, traffic and the potential for environmental contamination during the Facility's operating Life.
Since the Facility has fairly minimal needs for public services and is entirely privately financed, no
appreciable indirect costs for public services are expected.
Land Use Impacts
The proposed site is located within a predominantly industrially and agriculturally developed area
which is reflected in the current zoning classifications. The majority of the site is zoned as a Waste
Management District which allows for the development of a Facility such as the MICF; however the
eastern most part of the site is within an Agricultural zone and as such is not compatible with project
development. The Rosemount Comprehensive Plan and zoning classification for this portion of the
site would need to be amended to allow for development of the entire Facility as currently proposed.
Transportation Impacts
The expected daily traffic volumes during normal Facility operations are 20-25 waste transport
vehicles and 36 vehicle trips per day by Facility employees, and periodic services and materials
deliveries. Traffic to the Facility is assumed to be via U.S. Highway 52 and T.H. 55 which currently
operates at about a 69% capacity level during afternoon peal- traffic conditions. The additional
traffic generated by MICF operations will result in an increase to about 71% capacity level for T.H.
55 in the project area and as such, will not significantly impact traffic conditions for this roadway.
Aesthetic Impacts
The final contours of the containment cell portion of the site after complete closure of the Facility
is projected to be at a maximum elevation of 896 feet (MSL). The existing topography of this area
is moderately rolling with maximum elevations of 890-900 feet. Therefore, development of the
containment cells will not intrude on the horizon above the existing higher elevation levels. The
"vie,xshed" for the Facility is generally the areas located northwest and southeast of the site and the
higher elevations located nearly a mile southwest of the Facility. Mitigative measures to minimize
visual impacts of the MICF include development of landscaped berms and plantings of trees and
other vegetation that will help to screen views and enhance the natural character of the area. In
addition, the containment cells will be operating one at a time, for the most part, and will be planted
vrith grasses after final capping of each cell.
V
A-5
I
Metropolitan Council Meeting of August 8, 1991
Business Item: B -2 _
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth St,, St. Paul, Minnesota SS101
612/291-6359
REPORT -OF-7—HE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITiE
Referral Report 91-43
DATE August Z 1991
TO: Metropolitan Council
SUBJECT: Rosemount Comprehmnsive Plan. Amendment
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 1544S-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 16
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on August 1, 1991, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee
discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of a plan amendment for the
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility in Rosemount.
ISSUES AND CONCERN'S
Barbara Senness, Council staff (ext. 6419) presented the report and answered questions from the
Committee. The Committee asked if the city was comfortable with the possibility of limiting
development in the short term, if the Rosemount plant ran out of capacity before improvements
could be made. Ms. Senness responded that if capacity became an issue, the Waste Control
Commission could require the operator of the containment facility to truck leachate to the Metro
plant until additional capacity was available at the Rosemount plant. Bob Pulford, representing
USPCI, who is proposing to construct and operate the facility, explained that industrial wastes
brought to the facility will be placed in cells for long term storage. Once filled, the cells will be
sealed.
Council member Schreiner noted that the containment facility project is a very important one to the
region. It represents the first waste management facility that has been successfully sited. Schreiner
cited the cooperative working relationship between the city and USPCI as a major factor in the
success of the project
FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment does not raise any significant transportation, recreation open space
or surface water issues.
2. In order for the containment facilim, to receive regional sewer service, it must be part of the
MUSA
3• It is'technically feasible to discharge leachate from the containment facility to the Rosemount
treatment plant.
4• The city of Rosemount will need to update its comprehensive sewer plan to reflect thg
amount of wastewater to be generated by the containment facility.
S• If residential growth exceeds Council forecasts, it is possible that the Rosemount plant could
run out of capacity before an expansion is on line. If this occurs, the Waste Control
Commission could require USPCI to truck leachate to the Metro plant.
6. The proposed containment facility is consistent with the Council's Solid Waste Mana eme
Development Guide/Policy Plan. gst
7. The proposed containment facility is consistent with MDIF directives for urban-generated
uses and for expanding an urban' service area. -- - n
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Metropolitan Council;
1• Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations.
2. Inform that city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no plan
modification is required
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Anderson, Chair
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
Mears Park Centre, 230 E 5th St.
SL Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359ITDD 291-0904
DATE: July 22, 1991
TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee
FROM: Research and Long Range Planning (Barbara Senness)
SUBJECT: Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Minnesota Indust:aI Conta;.nment Facility
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15458-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 16
INTRODUCTION
The city of Rosemount has prepared this plan amendment in response to USPCI's proposal to
develop a nonhazardous industrial waste containment facility in the Pine Bend industrial area in
eastern Rosemount (see Attachment 2). The proposed project, referred to as the Minnesota
Industrial Containment Facility, plans to accept only industrial wastes classified as nonhazardous
by federal, state and local regulatory definitions.
The Metropolitan Council prepared the Environmental Impact Statement required for the
project. The project site was previously reviewed by the Council as part of Dakota County's
landfill site inventory and was found to be consistent with Council policy.
AUTHORI'T'Y TO REVIEW
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 requires that amendments to local
comprehensive plans be Prepared, submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and adopted
in the same manner as the original plans (Minn. Stat. 473.M4, subd. 2, 1978). Guidelines adopted
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.864 for reviewing proposed amendments provide a 90 -day review
period for amendments potentially affecting one or more of the metropolitan systems, and a 60 -
day review period for amendments that do not have a potential impact on metropolitan systems.
The city of Rosemount submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on July 5, 1991.
On July 11, 1991. the Chair determined that it was a major amendment under the Council's
Guidelines for Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Therefore, the 90 -day review
period applies and will conclude on October 5, 1991. 1-
DESCRIP'T'ION OF AFFECTED AREA
The area in which the containment facility will be located is known as the Pine Bend industrial
area. The land uses in this area are predominately heavy industrial, served by private sewage
treatment systems. Fisting land uses include: Koch Refinery, DPC Industries (production,
storage and shipping of ammonia products), Walbon Trucking, CF Industries (distribution and
storage of agricultural fertilizer), Continental Nitrogen (chemicals production), Speetro Allovs
(metal foundry), A-1 Concrete, Material Recovery, Ltd. (demolition waste recycling) and the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The western 156 acres of the containment facility site
are currently planned for industrial use.
Portions of the industrial containment facility site have been used intermittently for pasturage in
recent years. The eastern 80 acres of the containment facility site are currently planned for
agricultural use. However, the rolling topography and soils. are not attractive for more intensive
agricultural development.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANT AMENDMENT
The proposed plan amendment includes the following changes to Rosemount's Comprehensive
Plan:
1) creation of a "Waste Management" land use element in the plan,
2) redesignation of the land uses within the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility site
from General Industrial and Agricultural to Waste Management and
3) creation of a non-contiguous, freestanding Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MT -TSA) to
provide wastewater treatment capacity to the containment facility.
The city's objectives in creating a waste management element are 1) to promote effective
regulation of waste management activities, 2) to supplement and enhance environmental
protection policies and 3) to establish appropriate, compatible locations for waste management
activities.
?'hc site of t::e proposed =ntainmcnt facility is 236 acres in size, of which about 120 acres would
be occupied by ten six -acre containment cells, administrative and laboratory facilities, leachate
storage tanks, truck scales and unloading area. The remaining 116 acres would serve as a buffer
area and generally would be left in its natural condition. Typical types of waste that could be
accepted for disposal at this facility include: a variety of wastes from foundries, metal -bearing
wastes from recycling operations such as auto shredding, aluminum and other metal recycling;
solidified paints and inks, plastic and rubber scraps, empty containers, magnetic tapes and circuit
boards, asbestos and contaminated soil.
Makine the site a part of the MUSA would allow the facility to connect to the Rosemount
Wastewater Treatment Plant for the required disposal of leachate collected in the containment
cells. The options for leachate disposal include l) discharging to the Rosemount plant or 2)
trucking to the Metropolitan plant in St. Paul. The site is located immediately adjacent to the
Rosemount plant
ANALYSIS
The following analysis addresses sewer, airport, solid waste and Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework policy concerns. The proposed amendment does not raise any significant
transportation, recreation open space or surface water issues.
Sewers
The plan amendment proposes adding the containment facility site to the MUSA to allow
connection to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant for leachate disposal. In its comments
on the plan amendment (see Attachment 3), the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission noted
that the city will also need to revise its comprehensive sewer plan to reflect the flows generated
by the containment facility.
The Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that metropolitan services will not be
extended to the rural service area. Since the containment facility site is currently in the rural
service area, the Council must add the site to the MUSA if it agrees to allow the connection to
the treatment plant.
The Rosemount plant has a design capacity of 0.72 mgd. The average daily flow in 1990 was 0.56
mgd. Currently, the Commission estimates that it will need to expand the plant by the mid-1990s
to accommodate the anticipated residential growth in Rosemount Based on plant capacity
considerations, in 1989 the Council directed Rose oun; to establish a land banking system to
designate urban service additions (Referral File No. 14815-1). The Council recommended land
banking as an interim measure, to be used until the Council revises its regional forecasts and
schedules additional treatment plant capacity. The city established a land bank in Fall, 1989
(Referral File No. 14815-2). Under the land bank, the city is limited to expanding its urban area
to serve 600 additional acres or the equivalent of about 1,000 additional housing units, until the
Rosemount plant is expanded. As the city receives requests for development outside, but
contiguous to the current MUSA, it submits a minor plan amendment for Council review, adding
the affected area to the MUSA and reducing the available land bank acreage by the size of the
affected area.
Council and Waste Control Commission staff have been working with the city and representatives
Of USPCI for the last year regarding the proposed connection to the Rosemount plant and its
impact on plant capacity. Commission officials have indicated that acceptance of leachate
discharge would be technically feasible in both the short and long term. For planning purposes,
based on the Commission's anticipated annual average daily flow equivalent of 20,000 gallons per
day (0.02 mgd), with a peak flow of 30,000 gallons per day, connecting the containment facility to
the Rosemount plant would accelerate the schedule for plant expansion by eight months. (The
projected flow amounts to about 73 residential equivalent connections.) However, if capacity
problems develop before an expansion is on line, the Commission- could require USPCI to truck
leachate to the Metro plant in the interim.
Airports
The containment facility site is immediately adjacent to the Dakota search area for a new major
airport. Since the area is outside the search area, there are no, additional review requirements at
this time. However, in the event that a new major airport site is located in this general area, any
changes in land use or zoning may eventually (by 1996) be subject to additional requirements
under the state Airport Development Act.
Solid Waste
The Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan contains review criteria
for solid waste management facilities which include locational objectives and criteria. These
criteria indicate that the location of solid waste management facilities will be influenced by several
factors, including: 1) the availability of suitable land, 2) proximity to major highways 2nd sources
of waste and 3) the availability of adequate public utilities such as electric power, water supply
and wastewater treatment services.
The location of the containment facility was clearly influenced by these criteria. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency has previously found the containment facility site to be intrinsically
suitable for a solid waste facility. In addition, it has excellent access to US 52, which is an
element of the metropolitan highway system. Finally, it is located adjacent to a wastewater
treatment plant.
In addition to locational objectives, the policy plan encourages the separation of special wastes,
including nonhazardous industrial wastes, and control of the type of waste accepted at a waste
facility. The plan also encourages the development of private waste management facilities. The
proposed facility meets all these additional objectives.
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF)
The area affected by the proposed amendment is located in the Council's general rural use area.
In this area, the Council supports long-term preservation of agricultural land, plus it will also
support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on
a 40 -acre basis. However, the MDIF also recognizes that the general rural use area is an
appropriate location for facilities such as waste disposal installations, that regcdre isolated and
spacious locations but serve primarily the urban public. The framework states that the Council's
key interest is that these types of facilities are adequately served, consistent with local and
regional plans, and that interference with agricultural activities is miaimize4
There is some overlap between these criteria and the criteria the Council has established for
expansion of an urban service area Before agreeing to expand an urban service area, the Council
must determine that there is a regional need and that adequate regional sewer and highway
capacity is available. Consistency with the Council's rural area density policy is also a prerequisite.
There is clearly a need for environmentally sound waste management facilities in the metropolitan
area. As stated earlier, regional highway and sewer capacity is available to serve the containment
facility site. However, if the facility is connected to the Rosemount plant, to maintain consistency
with regional plans, the Council would need to add the site to the MUSA Since the site is
located in a basically heavy industrial area, interference with agricultural activities is not an issue.
The Council previously found Rosemount's rural density policies largely consistent with Council
policy (Referral File No. 14815-1).
��i►la 1►
1. The proposed amendment does not raise any significant transportation, recreation open
space or surface water issues.
2 In order for the containment facility to receive regional sewer service, it must be part of
the MUSA.
3. It is technically feasible to discharge leachate from the containment facility to the ..
Rosemount treatment plant.
4. The city of Rosemount will need to update its comprehensive sewer plan to reflect the
amount of wastewater to be generated by the containment facility.
5. If residential growth exceeds Council forecasts, it is possible that the Rosemount plant
could run out of capacity before an expansion is on line. If this occurs, the Waste Control
Commission could require USPCI to truck leachate to the Metro plant.
6. The proposed containment facility is consistent with the Council's Solid Waste
Management Development Guide/Policy Plan.
7. The proposed containment facility is consistent with MDIF directives for urban -generated
uses and for expanding an urban service area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Metropolitan Council:
1. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations.
'. Info:m that city of Rosemount that it may place the amendment into effect and no plan
modification is required.
5
----=---- prtl- - Attachn
1 Lf.n..ca
• 1
I I
� urtr000
I L•tf ettNG
IWRNS i Os[ DROVE II
i ANOKA CO. _�.. ter..—.
urstr COLUMBUS
Regional Location ANDortf M.r Latt i
tOtttLEARt rEw SC•«OI•
roRESt LAK[
City of Rosemount I i
wi A« O•rTOR Ar Ka LORD LA[tS
s6 n ria
`toE-�' e«.r►u« eeo[ ones
BLAINE
%tl
NTtowl"t
our AT
wANortt
Lt81116TO�14 CINCLC PINtf
_ WASNIN6TON CO.
GtttJIrIELD CDR 02401 MAPLE Boort OFLto U OYNYt swoeca;. r- T_
tfOORIrN PAlR w1t• rOR�M n 2
OC[FOfD 12• OAKf •rot[ ft•l LTILLwiTI
HENNEPIN CO. rnoLcr u f
Iift"Ito
CtMi[t RIG IVAONUS GRANT
It NGMTOR tIGNTS 2a
IpLotrTTo 1 I c SUL D13A Illi 2A p2f si aTt
rt. �
fa
I Iretot«O[rtI 411101"AelMa PLYMOUTH HOPE CIO lel LIw PJ «
METROPOLITAN I L.I Reunut I et —
COUNCIL "'`['LAIN u
I GOLDLRlid At MAPLE
[reoo ROLL uct DAnAS'""`
e«i LA[ L VALLEYr
7--r17. t I 6 w
ORtoy
ONO . JI ii
) 4.1/raT[ttorr I � I RAMSE7 CO. L•ILa.l•rlt
1 NlRrtttl
MOLLTwDCD 4 ru«[for[—a 1 s7. Lova SAINT ►ASI` 1 LAK I
� Vr:TERTOwN y �i 1 fat[ � rtNacArous
I I IjbtE►«.rtR po►cl« ,,
ST. CROIX #1
3- I 'ET�DNR•CIPS a P e WEST I r000trtf
v� Ir
—.1 is
EDINA I h PAUL AFter
i /
L tICM[I[LC �•1!►O!�' tT «f► tT
rIMOOTA L [
12 NLIGNTf jf VNEIEN L
I i[TOlIU �C«•NNAf1CNlA[C
CAMDEN ICO.-,-Ar�� LAKETOw. �^—� I
[DER ►tAlf1[
I riEDN1A I 57 PAUL
CARVER C
BLOOMINGTON !
Ir Y[1 GfOrC
O. ( 1 LAG•R
C«AER♦ COTTAGE GROVE DE...m.
IC I CwigK•` 1 , JArt[IC•
_ NORWOOD,`Pw I _ I CirYlr Ja['K50N SNA[0►t[
a C COt OGKG DAr LG REN ` WUEVRIt
i I: Ar EAI^i I I I I SAVAGE
rOYN
LENTON
`Iirtyr0 I r.[Irl�I PRIOR [/4"LI VALL Rosemoun%INGEt^ LDUISvgtt
1 «AfTING4 �.
�La1pK
r- CREEP j SOQI GLAKE I C11017 LAKEVILLt /, �/��� ^^I I r•e$rAN
'• Yt eri
i
t, Metropolitan Waste Control Commissior
Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. Minnesota 5510
612222-942
July 16, 1991
Ms. Lynda Voge, Referrals
Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth Street
Mears Park Centre
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 15468-1
Dear Ms. Voge:
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has reviewed the
comprehensive plan amendment submitted by the City of Rosemount.for
the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility. The amendment
proposes a 236 acre freestanding Metropolitan Urban Service Area to
provide for the service needs of a non -hazardous industrial waste
containment facility.
The amendment indicates the waste containment facility- will
generate an estimated average daily wastewater flow of 20,000
gallons per day. The wastewaterflowwill be conveyed for
treatment through the Rosemount Interceptor to the Rosemount_
Wastewater Treatment Plant (W++'TP) .
The Commission staff have met with representatives of the City of
Rosemount and the Minnesota Industrial Containment (MIC) Facility
to discuss the quality and quantity of the wastewater flows to be
generated by the MIC facility. Based on the information provided
at these meetings and the data shown in the comprehensive plan
amendment, adequate capacity is available in the Rosemount
Interceptor and at the Rosemount WWTP to accommodate the needs of
the MIC facility.
The City of Rosemount will need to update its Comprehensive Sewer
Plan (CSP) to show the amount of wastewater to be generated by the
MIC facility. Prior to connecting to the Metropolitan Disposal
System, an Industrial Discharge - Special Discharges Permit and a
Permit for Connection To or Use of Commission Facilities will need
to be obtained from the Commission.
Very truly yours,
457
R. A. Odde
Municipal Services Manager
RAO:EJB:jle
C
E
r -7d
N
to
County Road 38
Source: Rosemount City Zoning
CSAH 42
SS
LEGEND
General Industri
Public/Institution
Agricultural
Site Boundary
Wastewater Trey
Plant
1
Waste
0
Management
:District.:'
CSAH 42
SS
LEGEND
General Industri
Public/Institution
Agricultural
Site Boundary
Wastewater Trey
Plant
1
via
Of RosemouYI�
PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 510. Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
TO: Mayor Napper
Councilmembers Klassen
Oxborough
Willcox
Wippermann
FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator/
DATE: December 2, 1991
RE: USPCI Public Hearing on Rezoning
MAYOR
Vernon Napper
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
John Oxborough
Hurry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
ADMtNISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
I have received the attached letter from Mr. Ken Jackson of USPCI
regarding the hearing scheduled for tomorrow night.
Mr. Jackson is indicating the company's intent to ask for a
continuation of the public hearing for reasons stated.
I would recommend the council's consideration of this request
which would come at the hearing. If the council would consider
such a request, I would suggest that it should be continued until
January 7, 1992, the first council meeting in January.
This would be appropriate to allow the following schedule of
council/planning commission actions if all items would be
approved:
December 3 Dakota County approves county
permit for facility
December 10 City Planning Commission
considers draft city IUP
December 17 MPCA approves their permit for
facility
January 7 City Council holds
continuation of rezoning hearing
January 14 City Planning Commission
considers Interim Use Permit
and recommends approval by
City Council
January 21 City Council holds public
hearing on Interim Use Permit
(Svertylli>ngs (Poming V, Rosemounll!
r i
:-USPCI
U=d
Union P Corporation
December 2, 1991
Mr. Stephan silk
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
P. 0. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Steve,
USPCI, Inc. is requesting that the public hearing and City Council
action scheduled for December 3, 1991 on our rezoning petition be
rescheduled or if the public hearing is opened, that it be
continued.
USPCI corporate staff and legal counsel is currently reviewing the
potential impact on the operation of Minnesota Industrial
Containment Facility due to the proposed permit conditions being
imposed by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. We would also like the additional time to become informed
on the provisions in the city's interim use permit. It is
anticipated that this assessment will require two to three weeks to
complete.
When our corporate review is completed, we will be contacting you
to either reschedule or reconvene the hearing. USPCI would like to
thank the Council in advance for your courtesy and cooperation in
this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Z
2kson INC.
Ken J
senior Vice President
Business Development
KJ: jr
Rosemt.l0
5'15 West Greens Road, Suite 500 • Houston Texas 77067. 713775-7800
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Rosemount DATE: November 12, 1990
FROM: McComb Group, Ltd.
RE: RETAIL AREA FUNCTIONAL PLAN
This memorandum recommends a functional plan for Rosemount's
downtown area that is consistent with previous analysis that deter-
mined:
1. The trade area for retail and service establishments
located in downtown Rosemount, and
2. The amount of additional retail space that can be
supported by households within those areas over the next
ten years.
This phase of the analysis examines the relationships between
retail and service businesses in Rosemount and recommends a
functional plan for these activities that is consistent with Rose -
mount's current development patterns and the locational criteria
of the various types of businesses.
Functional Retail Plan
Rosemount is a freestanding community that is changing to a suburb
by virtue of expanding metropolitan development. This change
presents both opportunities and special problems that are unique
to Rosemount. As has been indicated by the previous analysis,
Rosemount's retail and commercial potential is limited by the
existing MUSA line, heavy industrial development to the east, and
the University of Minnesota Research Center. As a result,
population growth will occur in the western part of the city and
will limit the demand for retail and commercial space.
By 1995, supportable additional retail space in Rosemount is
estimated at about 35,000 square feet, with an additional 34,000
square feet by the year 2000. This presents the City with an
opportunity to strengthen retailing in downtown Rosemount and
provide locations that are consistent with the locational criteria
for these types of businesses and reinforce the traditional role
of downtown.
1
The traditional Rosemount downtown area is centered along Highway
3 and focuses on the intersection with 145th Street. This is the
"100 percent" corner in downtown Rosemount. Current uses in this
area are generally reflective of central business district activity
and it serves as the central location for convenience retail,
service, financial and government activities in Rosemount.
Automobile --oriented and strip -type development has generally
located in peripheral locations along Highway 3 south of Lower
147th Street and County Road 42. Past activities of both the
private and public sectors have, for the most part, created this
logical separation of uses. Proper location of these commercial
activities can reinforce and enhance the retailing activities in
downtown Rosemount. On the other hand, an inconsistent development
pattern of these types of uses can weaken the destination character
of Rosemount and hinder its retail growth.
The recommended functional plan for downtown Rosemount is shown on
Map 1 and contains three primary retail and service land use
designations:
1. CBD Core includes uses such as convenience retail, shopping
goods retail, and sit-down restaurants, as well as business
services, professional services, personal services, financial
institutions and other traditional downtown activities.
Examples of types of stores are shown below:
Food
Gifts
Drug
Pet Store
Liquor
Restaurants
Hardware
Film Processing
Variety Store
Specialty Retail
Clothing, Accessories
Financial _
Furniture
Post Office
Appliances
Office Uses
Music
Other Services
Barber/Beauty Salon
Shoe Repair
Dry Cleaner
Key Shop
Flower Shop
Government
Sporting Goods
Churches
Video
Education
2. Professional/Business Services, including many of the
services indicated above but expanded to include service
businesses that have locational criteria that do not require
high visibility, and other types of businesses that provide
their services off -premise. These uses include:
2
.&
Map 1
Detail Area Functional Plan
CBD CBD G
N i Co
4 CBD t a T o.
Y... �.. C B D
N
. p N m
V a '
DC
Co. Rd. 42
q1I
KEY
CBD CBD Core
PBS Prof.esslonal/Business
Services
DC Destination Commercial
Auto Oriented
G Government
Y.10
Bank/Savings & Loan
Office Uses
Financial
Barber/Beauty Salon
Real Estate
Veterinarian
Accountants
Travel Agent
Medical/Dental
Other Services
Legal
Optometrists
Insurance
Print Shop
3.. Auto -Oriented Destination Commercial includes uses that
benefit from drive-by traffic and are businesses that tend
to be unrelated to other shopping trips. These businesses
benefit from arterial access and visibility. Businesses
typical of this group include:
Fast Food
Auto Supplies
Auto Repair
Auto Dealers
Used Cars
Equipment Rental
Heating &. Plumbing
Ag Services
Service Station
Convenience Store
Day Care
Building Materials
Other Destination and
Auto Oriented Uses
1.
The functional plan contained in Map 1 focuses the traditional
central business district activities around the 100 percent corner.
Professional and business services are concentrated south of 145th
Street along Burma Avenue and west of the railroad tracks. Auto -
oriented destination commercial flanks both sides of Highway 3
south of Lower 147th Street. These land use patterns are consis-
tent with locational critera for these types of uses.
Phvsical Plan
Many of the buildings' locations and uses in downtown Rosemount
support the functional retail plan, while some others do not. This
section contains suggestions for development and redevelopment to
accomodate the various uses in downtown Rosemount that are
consistent with the functional plan. The objective is to reinforce
downtown uses by emphasizing corner buildings, and to also provide
store and business locations that are attractive to retailers and
other businesses. These suggestions are shown on Map 2 and
described below:
o 100 Percent Corner
The intersection of State Highway 3 and West 145th Street
should be reinforced as the 100 percent corner of downtown
Rosemount. The existing buildings on three corners of this
intersection (northwest, southwest and southeast) reinforce
this concept.
4
Map 2
Suggested Development Concepts
DAKOTA COUNTY RD. NO. 42
5
The service station on the northeast corner is a convenience
use and serves a necessary purpose. However, in the future
there may be an opportunity to develop a building that is
more consistent with 100 percent corner concepts, framing the
intersection by providing parking to the side and rear
similar to South Robert Square.
The Geraghty building on the south6t corner gives character
to the downtown and reinforces the traditional character of
Rosemount., However, to adequately utilize this building, it
may be necessary to expand the ground floor portion to
provide more usable area, and to create more convenient
parking to support the building.
o Rosemount Mall Block
Rosemount Mall provides the most significant challenge to
downtown in terms of accommodating retail use. This block
is the logical location for many convenience shopping uses
that can be accommodated in downtown Rosemount. Tom's Super
Value and the hardware store reinforce this use.
However, the mix of structures on this block creates chaotic
land use and poor visibility for retail spaces. The
buildings occupied by Shenanigan's and Crown Auto block
visibility for the Rosemount Mall.
Rosemount Mall is a split-level building with ground floor
portions at the north and south ends and a split-level
portion in the middle. Retail space at the north end of the
building is blocked by Crown Auto and the split-level portion
of the building is not functional in today's market environ-
ment.
The service station at the south end of this block could
remain until such time as a more consistent use for that site
occurs.
Suggested changes that will improve the retail potential of
this area include the following:
1. The split-level portion of the Rosemount Mall could be
demolished and reconstructed with a ground floor retail
tenant area.
2. The area between Tom's Super Value and Rosemount Mall
should be filled with a retail building and a new
facade erected along the full length of the building
to give it a unified look with a design that is
characteristic of Rosemount architecture.
2
3. The buildings housing Shenanigan's, Crown Auto, and
possibly the dentist should be demolished and the
tenants relocated. Shenanigan's could be a restaurant
tenant in a redeveloped mall. This would also provide
an opportunity for Shenanigan's to separate its on sale
and off sale operations. Crown Auto could be relocated
to the south along Highway 3. This would create a
contiguous retail mall anchored by a grocery store and
hardware store, and provide additional space for other
retail tenants.
This solution would create a shopping center building that
fits the criteria of retailers in terms of having good
visibility and parking in front of the stores and would
provide convenient parking for the Geraghty building. As an
alternative, the Rosemount Mall could be demolished and a new
building with these characteristics developed on the site.
o Block A
This area should be redeveloped to provide buildings close
to the street with parking between or behind the buildings
to reinforce the downtown character of Rosemount.
o Blocks B and C
The best use for these blocks is freestanding destination -
type businesses as described above. However, the shallow'-
depth of these parcels dictates that parking will be provided
to some degree in front but in most cases to the sides of
these buildings.
o Block D
This corner parcel enjoys high visibility from both Highway
3 and County Road 42. However, development potential of this
parcel is limited by access constraints. There is a need for
an additional entrance/exit on County Road 42 to provide
adequate ingress and egress to this parcel. Uses on this
site should be those consistent with the high visibility and
automobile orientation of the property.
These concepts for physical development of the downtown area
provide Rosemount with a conceptual framework for use in evaluating
the location, type of buildings, and uses to be developed in the
future within the downtown area. These concepts support the
functional plan and are consistent with contemporary retail
locational criteria.
7
These concepts, if implemented, will require some businesses to
move and provide the opportunity for others to expand and capital
ize on the growing retail demand that will exist in the future.
Many of the businesses in Rosemount could benefit from new and/or
better locations and facilities. This plan provides the :oppor-
tunity to begin discussions with building owners and businesses to
create a downtown area that works .better for both..public and
private interests.
F."
SECTION 6.10 C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
A Purpose And Intent This District correlates only with Downtown Rosemount which is
intended to serve the entire city. The downtoum area is intended to be a diversified
commercial center which offers the full range of comparison goods, sales and services,
cultural and civic, entertainment, financial and offices and public uses. Because the
downtown is an area of relatively higher intensity development and consists of buildings
and uses which pre -date zoning regulations, the City is intended to play a role in the
provision of parking and related public improvements. Thus, normal yard, parking and
lot requirements do not apply within this District.
B. Uses Permitted By Right
1. Accessory Apartments.
2. Professional and Business Offices.
3. All Retail Goods and Service Establishments conducted within structures but excluding
automobile and equipment sales, services and repair establishments; truck -stops; drive-
thru restaurants; gasoline and fuel sales; car washes; and commercial outdoor
recreational uses.
4. Custom Manufacturing not to exceed a gross floor area of 2,000 square feet with at
least 1/13 of said space to be used for retail sales and display purposes.
5. Outdoor Display of Merchandise for direct sale, rental or lease provided said
merchandise consists only of finished products and not disassembled merchandise parts
or junk, except that new products which are customarily sold unassembled and are
intended for consumer purchase and assembly are permitted to be displayed.
6. Video Arcades subject to the following restrictions:
a. Any arcade with fifteen (15) or more machines shall have an adult supervisor on
duty during all hours of operation.
b. No arcade shall be operated within 500 feet of a school, church or residence unless
it is an integral part of a shopping center and does not have an entrance except
from within the shopping center.
C. Uses Permitted By PUD Commercial developments involving multiple parcels, structures
or uses shall be required to use the PUD procedure. Refer to Section 12 for PUD
requirements.
SECTION 6.11 C-3 HIGHWAY SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
A. Purpose And Intent This is a highly specialized district which is located in hieh vehicular
traffic zones with high �nsibilit,}. It is primarily intended to satisfy the needs of passing
motorists.
B. Lases Permitted By Right
1. Automobile Eouipment Sales and Repair Shoes including transmission, body, paint,
muffler, engine, glass, battery and tire sales and services.
2. Eatin- Establishments including truckstops and drive -ups.
3. Hotels and Motels and accessory uses.
4. Car Washes including drive-thru and conveyor types subject to the special restrictions
established for Self -Service Gasoline Stations in the C-1 District. Refer to Section 6.9
BL
20
5. Full -Service Gasoline and Fuel Stations subject to the special restrictions established
for Self -Service Stations in the C-1 District. Refer to Section 6.9 B1.
6. Outdoor Disolav of Merchandise subject to the special restrictions established for the
C-2 District. Refer to Section 6.10 B5.
7. Recreation, Commlrcia]-Ojjtdoor provided all improvements conform to setback
requirements for principal buildings in the district and no facilities are closer than fifty
(50) feet to an "R" District boundary.
C. Uses Permitted By PUD Commercial developments involving multiple parcels, structures
or uses shall be required to use the PUD procedure. Refer to Section 12 for PUD
requirements.
SECTION 6.1-1 C4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
A. Purnose And Intent This district is intended to accommodate abroad range of retail
goods and services which serve the entire community. Though not exclusively, businesses
in this district are relatively freestanding and tend to occupy independent building sites.
They depend on good accessibility, high visibility and relatively large volumes of traffic
and are therefore found along major streets.
B. Uses Permitted By Richt
1. Accessory Apartments.
2. bicultural Implement Sales and Services.
3. Automobile Eouinment Sales and Repair Shops.
4. Automobile and RV Sales. Service and Rental
S. Business Schools.
6. Business Services and Repairs including office supplies and equipment.
7. Clubs and Lodges -Private.
8. Commercial Recreation -Indoor: bowling alleys, pool halls, racquetball and -tennis
courts and roller rinks.
9. Communications Services including radio and TV broadcasting stations and,, studios
but excluding towers.
10. Construction Materials Sales including lumber yards and building supply stores.
11. Dai' Care Centers. Nursers- and Montessori Schools.
12. Eating and Drinking Establishments including drive -ups and taverns.
13. Entertainment Facilities: night clubs, theaters, movie theaters.
14. Financial Institutions and Banks.
15. Food and Beverage Retail Sales.
16. Funeral Homes and Mortuaries.
17. Health Care Facilities hospitals, nursing homes and extended care facilities.
18. Health Spas and Reducing Sa)ons.
19. Home Furnishings Store.
20. Hotels and Motels.
21. Laundry Establishments.
22. Offices. Business and Professional
23. Printing and Duplicating Shops.
24. Repair Services including bicycles, furniture, appliances, shoes, etc.
21
25. Wholesale Businesses and Surply Centers.
26. Animal Sales and Services including pet hospitals, pet shops, kennels and veterinary
clinics provided they have no outdoor runs.
27. Gasoline Stations and Car Washes including drive-thru and conveyor types, subject 7
to the special restrictions established for the C-1 District. Refer to Section 6.9 Bl.
28. Commercial Recreation -Outdoor subject to the special restrictions for the C-3 District.
Refer to Section 6.11 B7.
29. Qutdoor Display of Merchandise subject to the following restrictions:
a. The sale is conducted by the owner or lessee of the premises or with his or her
written permission,
b. The sale is no longer in duration than two (2) days,
c. The goods are those customarily sold within that structure in the C-4 District, and
d. The merchandise and vehicle do not occupy the required parking area of the
principal use.
30- Video Arcades subject to the following:
a. Any arcade with fifteen (15) or more machines shall have an adult supervisor on
the premises during all hours of operation.
b. No arcade shall be operated within 500 feet of a school, church or residence.
C. Uses Permitted by PUD Commercial developments involving multiple parcels, structures
or uses shall be required to use the PUD procedure. Refer to Section 12 for PUD
requirements.
SECTION 6.13 IP INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT
A. Purroosg And Intent This district is intended to accommodate new, modern, high 1
performance, light industrial uses which are planned as a unit and include an internal
circulation system. This district is located within the MUSA and is intended to be served
- — by the public utility systems. Uses shall be conducted completely within structures
excepted as provided for herein.
B. uses Permitted By Right
1. Business and Professional Offices.
? Manufacturinc. Custom.
3. Manufacturing. Warehmmina Whn1Pcn1;nv T)
4. Machine and Repair Shops.
5. Television and Radio Studios.
6. Testinc and Research Laboratories.
?. Outdoor Storage of materials, supplies and finished or semi -finished products provided
such storage shall be completely screened from view- from public streets and adjacent
properties by a wall or fence.
8. Support Commercial Uses provided they are located Within the same structure as the
principal use, and are incidental to the principal use, and do not have an entrance
except from within the principal building.
C. Uses Permitted By PUD Industrial Developments involving multiple parcels, structures
or uses shall be required to use the PUD procedure.
Financial Analysis
Rosemount Stonnwater Utility
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:
SERVICE FEE FUNDED: AMOUNT Corm-CTION CHARGE FUNDED: AMOUNT
DIAMOND PATH/145th $630,000 1992 VERMILLION 210
HAWKINS POND $3001000 211
BIRGER POND $150,000 212 $2001000
BIRGER 146 $172,000
TOTAL $3721000
TOTAL $1,080,000
1993 VERMILLIO 213
214 $130,300
EQUIPMENT 1994 WACHTER 189
191
1992 $157,500 204 $499,100
1993 $10,000
1994 $10,400 1995 VERMILLIO 209 $253,100
1995 $10,800 ERICKSON 190 $190,000
1996 $0 GUN CLUB 126-
TOTAL $1881700 125 $31,800
TOTAL $4740,900
GRAND TOTAL $777,200
TOTAL CAPITAL FINANCING NEEDS
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
$1,609,500 $140,300 $509,500 $485,700 1$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS Rate of Interest= 0.06 Term in years ffO
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
$1651409 $165,409 $165,409 $1651409 $165,409 $165,409 $165,409 $165,409 $165,409 $1650,409 $165,409
$141419 $140,419 $140,41,9 $14,419 $14,419 $14,419 $14,419 $14,419 $140,419 $140,419
$52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362 $52,362
$49,916 $49,916 $49,916 $49,916 4,;49,916 $49,916 $49,916 $49,916
TOTAL $165,409 $179,828 $232,190 $2820,105 $282,105 $282,105 $282,105 $282,105 $282,105 $282,105 $282,105
r
INCOME
SERVICE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
FEES $249,480 $253,880 $261,960 $270,400 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $2781800
OONNEMCIN
C11ARGES $196,000 $1961000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
TOTAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $466,400 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $4741800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800
OPERATING
EXPENSES
GENERAL1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
OPERATING
$98,000
$100,000 $100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
SYSTEM PL
$35,000
$351000
$35,000
SYSTEM
REPLACED
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
TOTAL
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$1601200
$125,200
$125,200
$1251200
$125,200
$160,200
OPERATING
INCOME (LOSS)
Invesbrien Interest
Rate
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
INCOME
$445,480
$449,880
$457,960
$466,400
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
OPERATING
EXPENSE
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$1601200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
DEBT
SERVICE
$165,409
$179,828
$232,190
$2820105
$282,105
$282,105
$282,105
$282,105
$282,105
$282,105
$2821105
INCOME/
LOSS
$121,871
$144,852
$100,570
$59,095
$67,495
$32,495
$67,495
$67,495
$67,495
$67,495
$32495
,
BALANCE
$121,871
$272,816
$387,028
$4651474
$556,242 $616,549 $714,871 $8181110 $926,510
$1,040,330
$1,124,842
INTEREST
GAIN/LOSS
$6,094
$131641
$19,351
_$23,274
$27,812
$30,827
$35,744
$40,905
$46,325
$52,017
$56,242
Financial Analysis
Rosemount
Stormwater
Utility
CONSTRUCTION
PROTECTS:
SERVICE FEE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
CONNECTION
CHARGE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
DIAMOND PATH/145th
$630,000
1992
VERMILLION 210
HAWKINS POND
$300,000
211
BIRGER POND
$150,000
212
$200,000
BIRGER
146
$172,000
TOTAL
$3721000
TOTAL
$110800000
1993
VRRMILLIO 213
214
$130,300
EQUIPMENT
1994
WACHTER
189
191
1992
$1571500
204
$4991100
1993
$10,000
1994
$10,400
1995
VERMILLIO 209
$253,100
1995
$10,800
ERICKSON
190
$1900,000
1996
$0
GUN CLUB
126
TOTAL
$188,700
125
$31,800
TOTAL
$474,900
GRAND
TOTAL
$777,200
TOTAL CAPITAL
FINANCING NEEDS
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
$1,609,500
$140,300
$509,500
$485,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENTS
Rate of
Intere0.07
Term in years
10
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
$166,159
$166,159
$166,159
$166,159
$166,159
$166,159
$166,159 $166,159 $166,159
$1660159
$141484
$141484
$14,484
$14,484
$14,484
$14,484
$14,484
$14,484
$14,484
$521599
$521599
$52,599
$52,599
$52,599
$52,599
$52,599
$52,599
$50,142
$50,142
$50,142
$50,142
$50,142
$50,142
$50,142
TOTAL $166,159
$180,643
$233,242
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384 $283,384
$283,384
$283,384
INCOME
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
SERVICE
FEES $249,480 $253,880 $261,960 $270,400 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800
CONNECTION
CHARGES $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
70TAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $466,400 $4741800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800
OPERATING
EXPENSES
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997-
1998
1999
2000
2001
GENERAL
OPERATING
$98,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
SYSTEM PL
$35,000
$35,000
SYSTEM
REPLACEME
i
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
TOTAL
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200$125,2.00
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
OPERATING
INCOME (LOSS)
Investmen Interest
Rate
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
INCOME
$445,480
$449,880
$457,960
$466,400
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
OPERATING
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
EXPENSE
DEBT
SERVICE
$166,159
$180,643
$233,242
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
$283,384
INCOME/
$121,121
$144,037
$99,518
$57,816
$66,216
$31,216
$66,216
$66,216
$66,216
$66,216
LOSS
BALANCE
$121,121
$271,214
$384,293
$461,324
$550,607
$609,353
$706,037
$807,555
$914,149
$1,026,073
INTEREST
GAIN/LOSS
$6,056
$13,561
•$19,215
$23,066
$27,530
$30,468
$35,302
$40,378
$45,707
$51,304
Financial Analysis
Rosemount
Stormwater
Utility
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
SERVICE FEE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
CONNECTION C11ARGE FUNDED:
AMOUNT
DIAMOND PATH/145th
$630,000
1992
VERMILLION 210
HAWKINS POND
$300,000
211
BIRGER POND
$1500,000
212
$200,000
BIRGER 146
$172,000
TOTAL
$3720,000
TOTAL
$1,080,000
1993
VERMILLIO 213
214
$130r300
EQUIPMENT
1994
WAGGER 189
191
1992
$157,500
204
$499,100
1993
$10,000
1994
$10,400
-
1995
VERMILLIO 209
$253,100
1995
$10,800
ERICKSON 190
$1901000
1996
$0
GUN CLUB 126
TOTAL
$188,700
125
$31,800
TOTAL
$474,900
'
GRAND TOTAL
$777,200
TOTAL CAPITAL
FINANCING NEEDS
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999 2000
2001
$1,609,500
$140,300
$509,500
$485,700
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENTS
Rate of
Interes
- 0.08
Tenn in years
1A
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999 2000
2001
2002
$166,910
$166,910
$166,910
$166,910
$166,910
$166,910
$166,910 $166,910 $166,910
$166,910
$166,910
$14,550
$14,550
$14,550
$14,550
$14,550
$14,550 $14,550 $14,550
$140,550
$14,550
$52,837
$52,837
$52,837
$52,837
$52,837 $52,837 $52,837
$52,837
$52,837
$50,369
$50,369
$50,369
$50,369 $50,369 $50,369
$50,369
$50,369
TOTAL $166,910
$181,460
$234,297
$2841665 $284,665
$2841665
$2841665 $284,665 $284,665
$2841665
$284,665
INCOME
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SERVICE
FEES $249,480 $253,880 $261,960 $270,400 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800
CONNECTION
CHARGES $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $1961000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
TOTAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $466,400 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800
OPERATING EXPENSES
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
GENERAL
OPERATING $98,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1001000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
SYSTEM PL $35,000 $351000
SYS'T'EM
REPLACEME $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200
TOTAL $158,200 $125,200 $125,200 $125,200 $125,200 $160,200 $125,200 $125,200 $125,200
$1961000 $196,000
$474,800 $474,800
2001
$100,000
2002
$100,000
$35,000
$25,200 $25,200
$125,200 $1601200
INCOME/ $120,370 $143,220 $98,463
LOSS
BALANCE $120,370 $269,608 $381,552
INTEREST
GAIN/IHSS $61018 $131480 $19,078
0.05
2002
$474,800
$160,200
$284,665
$561535 $64,935 $29,935 $64,935 $64,935 $64,935 $641935 $29,935
$457,164 $544,957 $602,140 $697,181 $796,975 $901,759 $1,011,781 $1,092,305
$221858 $271248 $30,107 $34,859 $39,849 $45,088 $50,589 $54,615
OPERATING
INCOME (LOSS)
Investmen Interest
Rate
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
INCOME $445,480
$449,880
$457,960
$4661400
$4741800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
OPERATING $158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
EXPENSE
DEBT
SERVICE $166,910
$181,460
$234,297
$2841665
$284,665
$284,665
$284,665
$284,665
$284,665
$2840,665
INCOME/ $120,370 $143,220 $98,463
LOSS
BALANCE $120,370 $269,608 $381,552
INTEREST
GAIN/IHSS $61018 $131480 $19,078
0.05
2002
$474,800
$160,200
$284,665
$561535 $64,935 $29,935 $64,935 $64,935 $64,935 $641935 $29,935
$457,164 $544,957 $602,140 $697,181 $796,975 $901,759 $1,011,781 $1,092,305
$221858 $271248 $30,107 $34,859 $39,849 $45,088 $50,589 $54,615
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:
SERVICE FEE FUNDED:
DIAMOND PATH/145th
HAWKINS POND
BIRDER POND
Financial Analysis
Rosemount Stormwater" Utility
AMOUNT
$630,000
$300,000
$1501000
TOTAL $1,080,000
1992
$157,560
1993
$10,000
1994
$101400
1995
$101800
1996
$0
TOTAL
$188,700
CONNECTION
CHARGE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
1992
VERMILLION
210
1992
211
1994
1995
1996
212
$2001000
1999
BIRGER
146
$172,000
$140,300
$509,500
TOTAL
$372,000
1993
VERMILLION
213
$0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
214
$130,300
1994
WACf=
189
12
1992
1993
191
1995:
1996
1997
204
$499,100
1995
VERMILLION
209
$253,100
$138,524
ERICKSON
190
$190,000
$138,524
GUN CLUB
126
$138,524 $138,524
$12,075
125
$311800
$120,075
$12,075
TOTAL
$474,900
$12,075
$12,075 $12,075
GRAND TOTAL
$7770,200
TOTAL CAPITAL
FINANCING NEEDS
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
$1,609,500
$140,300
$509,500
$485,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENTS
Rate of
Interest= 0.06
Term in years
12
1992
1993
1994
1995:
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 2002
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$138,524
$1381524
$138,524 $138,524
$12,075
$12,075
$120,075
$120,075
$12,075
$120,075
$121075
$12,075
$12,075 $12,075
$43,851
$431851
$430,851
$43,851
$43,851
$43,851
$43,851
$431851 $43,851
$41,802
$41,802
$41,802
$410,802
$41,802
$41,802
$41,802 $41,802
TOTAL $138,524
$150,599
$194,450
$2360,252
$2361252
$2360,252
$236,252
$236,252
$2360,252
$2360252 $2361252
INCOME
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SERVICE
FEES $249,480 $253,880 $261,960 $270,400 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $2781800 $278,800 $278,800
CONNECTION
Cf1ARGES $1961000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $1961000 $1961000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
TOTAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $4661400 $4741800 $474,800 $4741800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800
OPERATING
EXPENSES
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
GENERAL
OPERATING
$981000
$1001,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
SYSTEM PL
$35,000
$351000
$351000
SYSTEM
REPLA+CEME
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$251200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
TOTAL
$158,200
$125,200$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$1251200
$125,200
$1600,200
OPERATING
INCOME (LOSS)
Investment
Interest
Rate
0.05
1992
1993
1994
1995.
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
INCOME
$445,480
$449,880
$457,960
$4661400
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$474,800
$4741800
$4744,800
$474,800
OPERATING
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
EXPENSE
DEBT
SERVICE
$138,524
$150,599
$194,450
$236,252
$236,252
$236,252
$2361252
$236,252
$236,252
$236,252
$2360252
INCOME/
LOSS
$148,756
$174,081
$138,310
$1040,948
$113,348
$78,348
$113,348
$113,348
$113,348
$113,348
$78,348
BALANCE
$148,756
$330,275
$485,099
$614,301
$758,364
$874,630
$1,031,709
$1,196,642
$1,369,822
$1,551,661
$1,707,591
INTEREST
GAIN/LOSS
$7,438
$16,514
$24,255
$30,715
$37,918
$43,731
$511585
$59,832
$68,491
$77,583
$85,380
Financial Analysis
Rosemount Stormwater Utility
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS:
SERVICE FEE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
CONNECTION
CIJARGE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
DIAMOND PATH/145th
$6301000
1992
VERMILLION
210
HAWKINS POND
$300,000
211
BIRGER POND
$150,000
212
$2001000
BIRGER
146
$1720,000
TOTAL.
$372,000
TOTAL
$1,080,000
1993
VERMILL
213
214
$1300,300
EQUIPMENT
1994
WACHTER
189
191
1992
$157,500
204
$4991100
1993
$10,000
1994
$10,400
1995
VERMILLION
209
$253,100
1995
$101800
ERICKSON
190
$190,000
1996
$0
GUN CLUB
126
TOTAL
$188,700
125
$31,800
TOTAL
$474,900
GRAND
TOTAL
$7771200
TOTAL CAPITAL
FINANCING NEEDS
1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
$1,609,500
$140,300 $509,500
$485,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENTS
Rate of
Interest=0.07
Term in years
12
1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 2002
$1391265
$139,265 $139,265
$139,265 $139,265
$139,265
$139,265
$139,265
$139,265
$139,265 $139,265
$12,140 $12,140
$12,140
$12,140
$12,140
$12,140
$12,140
$120,140
$12,140 $12,140
$440085
$440,085
$441,085
$44,085
$441085
$440,085
$440,085
$441085 $44,085
$421026
$421026
$421026
$42,026
$420,026
$421026
$42,026 $42,026
TOTAL $1391265
$151,405 $195,490
$2371516 $237,516
$237,516
$2370,516
$237,516
$237,516
$237,516 $237,516
INCOME
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SERVICE
FEES $2491480 $253,880 $261,960 $270,400 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800 $2781800 $278,800 $278,800 $278,800
CONdE)CTICXV
CHARGE'S $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $1961000 $1960,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
TOTAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $4661400 $4741800 $474,800 $4741800 $474,800 $4741800 $474,800 $474,800
OPERATING
EXPENSES
GENERAL
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
OPERATING
$98,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1004,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
SYSTEM PL
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
SYSTEM
' REPL.ACEME
$25,200$25,200
25
$ ,200
25 200
$ ,
.$25,200
$25,200
$251200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
TOTAL
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200-
$125,200
$125,200
$1251200
$1601200
OPERATING
INCOME (LASS)
Investment
Interest
Rate
0.05
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
INCOME
$4451480
$4491880
$4571960
$4661400
$474,800
$474,800
$4741800
$4741800
$474,800
$474,800
$4740800
OPERATING
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$1251200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$1251T200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
EXPENSE
DEBT
SERVICE
$1391265
$1511405
$195,490
$237,516
$237,516
$237,516
$2371516
$237,516
$237,516
$2371516
$2371516
INCOME/
$1480,015
$173,275
$137,270
$103,684
$112,084
$77,084
$1120084
$1121084
$1121084
$112,084
$77,084
LASS
BALANCE
$148,015
$328,691
$482,396
$610,200
$752,794
$867,518`
$1,022,978
$1,186,211
$1,357,606
$1,537,570
$1,691,532
INTEREST
GAIN/LASS
$7,401
$16,435
$24,120
$30,510
$37,640
$43,376
$51,149
$59,311
$67,880
$76,878
$84,577
Financial Analysis
Rosemount Stormwater Utility
CONSTRUCTION
PROl7ECPS :
SERVICE FEE
FUNDED:
AMOUNT
CONNECTION
CHARGE- FUNDED:
AMOUNT
DIAMOND PATH/145th
$630,000
1992
VERMILLION 210
HAWKINS POND
$300,000
211
BIRGER POND
$1500000
212
$2001000
BIRGER 146
$172,000
TOTAL
$3721000
T02AL$11080,000
1993
VERMILLIO 213
214
$130,300
EQUIPMENT
1994
WACHTER 189
191
1992
$157,500
204
$4991100
1993
$101000
1994
$10,400
1995
VERMILLIO 209
$253,100
1995
$10,800
ERICKSON 190
$190,000
1996
$Q
GUN CLUB 126
TOTAL
$188,700
125
$31,800
TOTAL
$474,900
GRAND TOTAL
$777,200
TOTAL CAPITAL
FINANCING NEEDS
1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999 2000
2001
$1,609,500
$140,300 $509,500
$485,700
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0
$0
DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENT'S
Rate of
Interest= 0.08 Term in years
:)
=12
1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
-
997
1998 1999 2000
2001 2002
$1401008
$1401008 $140,008
$140,008 $140,008
$140,008
$140,008 $140,008 $140,008
$140,008 $140,008
$12,204 $12,204
$12,204
$12,204
$12,204
$12,204 $12,204 $12,204
$120,204 $121204
$44,321
$441321
$44,321
$44,321
$44,321 $44,321 $44,321
$44,321 $44,321
$421250
$421250
$421250
$42,250 $42,250 $42,250
$421250 $421250
TOTAL $140,008
$152,212 $196,533
$238,783 $238,783
$238,783
$238,783 $238,783 $238,783
$238,783 $238,783
A.
INC OMC
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SERVICE
FEES $2491480 $253,880 $261,960 $2700,400 $278,800 $278,800 $2781800 $278,800 $2781800 $278,800 $278,800
CONNDCPICN
CHARGES $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $1960000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000 $196,000
TOTAL
REVENUE $445,480 $449,880 $457,960 $466,400 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $474,800 $4741800
INTEREST
GAIN/LASS $7,364 $16,355 $23,984 $30,304 $37,360 $43,019 $501711 $581787 $671268 $76,172 $83,771
OPERATING
EXPENSES
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
GENERAL
OPERATING
$98,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1001000
$100,000
SYSTEM PL
$35,000
$351000
$35,000
SYSTEM
REPLACI±ME
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
$25,200
TOTAL
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$1601200
OPERATING
INCOME (LOSS)
Investment
Interest
Rate
0.05
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
INCOME
$445,480
$449,880
$457,960
$466,400
$474,800
$474,800
$4741800
$4741800
$474,800
$474,800
$4741800
OPERATING
$158,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$125,200
$160,200
EXPENSE
DEBT
SERVICE
$140,008
$1521212
$196,533
$238,783
$238,783
$238,783
$2381783
$2381783
$2381783
$238,783
$238,783
INCOME/
LOSS
$147,272
$172,468
$136,227
$102,417
$110,817
$75,817
$110,817
$1101817
$1101817
$110,817
$751817
BALANCE
$1471272
$3271103
$4790686
$606,087
$747,208
$860,385
$1,014,221
$1,175,749
$1,345,353
$1,523,437
$1,675,426
INTEREST
GAIN/LASS $7,364 $16,355 $23,984 $30,304 $37,360 $43,019 $501711 $581787 $671268 $76,172 $83,771
}
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 1991
AGENDA ITEM:
Storm Water Utility Discussion
AGENDA SECTION:
Old Business
PREPARED BY:
Ron Wasmund
.�1 C�
AGENDA TEM
Public Works
Director/Building Official
1"� c�iVY'� t�' j
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo, Project Cost Sheets,P
OVE BY:
O & M Budget
and Income Spreadsheets ';;;!i;;:!!W1
The Storm Water Utility has been in development for approximately one
year now. Many changes and calculations have been done. I feel that
we are very near adoption of a policy.
The attached information outlines the services to be provided, the
cost of those services, the fees to be charged and the income
generated from those fees. With this information you will see we can
provide comprehensive storm water management at an affordable rate to
the Rosemount community.
If after our discussion you agree, I would then recommend setting a
public hearing for adoption on December 17, 1991.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to set a Public Hearing for December 17,
1991 regarding Storm Water Utility charge.
COUNCIL ACTION:
A
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MAYOR NAPPER
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MEMO
KLASSEN
OXBOROUGH
WILLCOX
WIPPERMANN
RON WASMUND, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/BUILDING OFFICIAL
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
STORM WATER UTILITY
In this report I will attempt to explain the process, exercises and changes we have
gone through with the Storm Water Utility since the last time it was brought before you.
The first thing we did was to develop a project list of typical services that are provided
as storm sewer maintenance. From that list of projects we developed project cost
sheets. Each service was analyzed for costs, including labor, equipment costs, and
materials. Labor totals were derived using the 1991 salary rates for each maintenance
level position associated with the task and necessary equipment to perform the task.
Equipment costs were calculated using the standard hourly rental rate which we have
on record for each piece of City owned equipment. Material costs were figured using
1991 purchase prices and quantities of each material needed. The only exception was
the water used for jetting. It was assumed for the present time that water would not be
charged for. As policies are examined and modified water may need to be paid for in
the future. I have provided copies of the project cost analysis sheets for your
reference.
Once these costs were derived I then compiled an Operations and Maintenance
Budget assigning other operational costs as they could be conservatively anticipated.
Those cost included such items as equipment repair, fuel, office supplies, small tools,
refuse disposal, informational brochures, engineering and legal fees.
The next step was to determine rates for the utility which were consistent with
neighboring communities yet reflected the amounts which seemed to be acceptable to
the residents of Rosemount. Using information obtained in discussion with you and
what I felt the audience of the informational meeting in July were saying were
acceptable, I adjusted the rates. The areas which seemed to generate the most
discussion were Rural Residential, Agricultural and Undeveloped lands. The previous
rates were $2.43/acre for rural residential and $.50/acre for agricultural and
undeveloped land. There seemed to be a general consensus that the fees were
considerably higher than the level of service provided. Using the project list as a
rationale the rates were adjusted to $.10/acre for agricultural and undeveloped land.
Storm water utility Memo
page 2
as been treated similar to the R-1 districts by assigning the R-1 rate
Rural Residential h The balance of the rural
house and out buildings• acre.
of $4.88 to the first acre including • be considered or granted
residential
paor credits rcel will be charged at the same rate as undeveloped ' land or $.10
Under the new rate structure, no deferments
Undeveloped or Rural Residential.
for conservancy programs mAgricultural,
gross
e was a
Using the new rate schedule and the first draft of the &uct an p ojectsrnot funde
shortage of fees to support costs of operation an cons income and
charges. As a result of the disparity bd�el'cated ope ations hat 1 es
with connection list. Any that p
we went back and prioritized the project
for under general operations were eliminated provided eacheyear utility.
currently
Others
currently budgetthe amount of service
were cut back in scope reducing count costs were eliminated rorlist the
an
initial years. In addition to that all equipment
to you a copy of the priority
calculation of the project. I have p completely and which ones were cut back in
itemization of which ones were eliminated comp y
scope.merit
adjustment made in maintenanc
ad'e projects and elimination of equip
With the
the O & M Budget was reduced from $218,470 to $96,360.
charges
we have made in the process was to examine the
calcula ed assuming
s of bonded
The final step 's bonding history
indebtedness. In the original documentyears. By e a mr�►n9 the City
a 10% rate on all bonds issued for 10 y recent bond sales were
ratin it was determined that we have never opai ec ore than 7.5%
and good bond 9 and the #act thaur
interest on bond sales. Using that history rovided copies
mples
issued for less
than 5% spreadsheets were run. Different am have P re run using
7 and 8 percent for both 10 andexam nal onear ms of debt issue
of those spreadsheets for your
costs, equipment costs, operation and maintenance
The examples all show project These costs are all totaled for each
costs and connection charge funded projects. ;tat Financing Needs".
year to obtain. the respective years "Total Cap r. The amount of
capital needs will be bonded fo
It is then planned that each years cap' 1ents" for each respective year with
repayment is then shown under
a total shown at the b f each yeseSrvice as columr%
from service
e of the examples show the total "Income"uses" including foperat on and
ees and
The second page eratin Expe
connection charges. u tlesoshows lan updates and system replacement costs.
maintenance costs, g P
Using thetotal income annually and subtracting operating and maintenance costs and
debt service costs we derive the total income or loss for each year.
Storm Water Utility Memo
Page 3
The balance line shows the cumulative total for each of the 10 years including interest
earned on the previous years balance.
Using the costs in the 2nd draft of the O & M Budget, the improvement projects which
have always been referred to in the document, and $35,000 every five years for
updating the Storm Sewer Guide Plan as expenses, then calculating income based
upon the fee table changes as I've earlier explained for income, I'm pleased that we
can generate a positive cash flow every year.
Please examine the information provided to see if you agree with the approach and
rates as explained. I would enjoy discussing any questions you have with you either
prior to or at the meeting.
TIME OF YEAR:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT MOWING POND AREAS
SPRINGISUMMER FA
HOLDING PONDS TOTAL ACRES
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: LEVEL It / LEVEL I
RATE OF PAY: $12.80 $9.30
INNER-CITY: ALL (APPROX 216 ACRES TOTALI
RURAL: -
LENGTH OF PROJECT: ACRES/APPROX 50,/CUTTING 3 MOWS/YR
Unit 21630x3288 Unit 5)720 x960-WeedWhig4x2.00
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Tractor 216
rate: $32 88
John Deere Mower/507
rate• $ 960
Weed Whip
rate• $ 2-00
RENTED EQUIPMENT: None
rate:
rate:
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: t
c st:
t
cost:
t
c st:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
MONTHLY•
YEARLY: $1 710.00
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY: $3 535.20--�
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY: MONTHLY- YEARLY:• $5 245.20
Rate = 1 Acre/hr
Level 11 30 hrs/mow x 3 mows = $1152
$12.80
Level 120 hrs/mow x 3 mow = $558
Unit 216 x 30 x 3 = $2,959.20
Unit 507 x 20x 3 = $576.00
0
PROJECT SWEEPING SAND/DIRT
TIME OF YEAR: SPRING 1 time qgr year
PROJECT LOCATION: All asphalt street with storm sewers
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: 2 - Level II f
RATE OF PAY: $1280 x 2 _/ $25.60--
INNER-CITY:
25 60INNER-CITY: All
RURAL: All
LENGTH OF PROJECT:
miles per Year 59 (1 !2 mile
per hour) 59 x 2 x 146.38
= $17.272.84
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Sweeper
rate: $75.50
Tandem Truck
rate: S47.48--
47 48rate•
rate:
RENTED EQUIPMENT:
rate:
rate:
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: My
cost:
My:
cost:
qty
cost:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY: $25-60
MONTHLY•
YEARLY: $ 3.020,80
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY: $122.98
MONTHLY:
YEARLY: $14,511.64
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY: $17,532.44
PROJECT CATCH BASIN CLEANING
TIME OF YEAR: After rain or weekly check
PROJECT LOCATION: All catch basins
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level I
RATE OF PAY: $9.30 /
INNER-CITY: All streets
RURAL: All streets with curb and gutter
LENGTH OF PROJECT: 8 months of year --
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Pick ug rate:-- $13 75 ear hour
Pitch Fork rate:
rate:
RENTED EQUIPMENT: None
rate:
rate:
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: None
qty
cost:
My:
cost:
gtv
cost:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
4
MONTHLY:
16
YEARLY:
128
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
$:37.20
MONTHLY:
$148.80
YEARLY:
$1,190.40
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
$55.00
MONTHLY:
$220.00
YEARLY:
$1,760.00
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
$92.20
MONTHLY:
$368.80
YEARLY:
$2,950,40
6 Month - summer debris
2 Month - ice and snow
PROJECT APRON CLEANING'
TIME OF YEAR: After Heavv Rain]]
times a Year
PROJECT LOCATION: All Opening with Grates
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level II
Level I
RATE OF PAY: $1230 x 32 hrs
/ $9.60- x 32 hrs =
691.20
INNER-CITY: All
RURAL: AU
LENGTH OF PROJECT:
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: One Ton Dump
rate• $14 23 x 32 hrs = $455.36
Fork, Shovels
rate:
rat
RENTED EQUIPMENT: None
rat :
rate•
.rat
MATERIALS REQUIRED: None atv
cost:
atv
cost:
atv
cost:
8x4
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY: 32
YEARLY: 160
x5
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
MONTHLY• $691-20
YEARLY: $ 3,456.00
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY• $ 455 36
YEARLY• $ 2 276.80
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY•
YEARLY•
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY• $1146.56_
YEARLY: $14,905.28
32 hrs = 10.67 hrs/cleaning (12.30 + 9.30 + 14.23)10.67 = 382.31
3 382.31 x 3 = 1146.93 annually
4 day/yr = .57 day/mo Labor = 691`.41
x 5 = $3456.00
7 mo/yr Equipment = 455.49 x 5 = $2276.80
.57/day x 8hr/day = 4.56 hrs/mo
PROJECT MAN HOLE AND CATCH BASIN REPAIR
TIME OF YEAR: Summ r F II
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: L v II
Lev
>9 in
RATE OF PAY:
12. 3
INNER-CITY:
RURAL:
LENGTH OF PROJECT: one m n hole er
r ear
7.94 r hour x 2 276.40 r ear
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Pi k
t ti,%.75 nerho r
1 3 of Tr ck rate: 1 .75 27.50
Took rate:
RENTED EQUIPMENT:
rate:
rat
Sakcrete
ba s x .00
MATERIALS REQUIRED: Cement 30
co t:
cost:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
M NTHLY: YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
MONTHLY: YEAR 1 26.00
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY: YEARLY: $1 650.0_
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
Average 1/2 bag Sakcrete/M.H.
1 MH/Hr.
M NTHLY: YEARLY.
MONTHLY YEARLY: $3 066.00
PROJECT JETTING STORM SEWER PIPES
TIME OF YEAR: Summer Months (3 weeks)
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level 111 j Level I
RATE OF PAY: $1463 / $9.30 = $23 93/hr $191.44
INNER-CITY: 10 000 ft ner year
RURAL:
LENGTH OF PROJECT: ft ter year 10,000 x 1 70 ner ft = $17,000.00 goal
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Jetter Truck rate: $79-97
0103 Safety Truck rate: $12-75 --
1 Ton Dump rate: $14-23
107 95/hr 863 600/day
RENTED EQUIPMENT: Vac Trailer rate: $100 00 per day $1250 oer hour
rate:
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: aty cost:
gty
cost:
aty:
cost:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
MONTHLY: $191-44
YEARLY:
$ 3.063.00
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY: $500-00
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
$13,817.60
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:$
1,600.00
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:•
YEARLY:
$18,480.60
Rate = 80ft/hr. = 640 ft/day = 16 days
PROJECT RE SLOPING DITCHES/DREDGING
TIME OF YEAR: Summer
PROJECT LOCATION: Rural Ar s
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level III
oval i v111
RATE OF PAY:
14.63 12.
INNER-CITY: -
RURAL: Only
LENGTH OF PROJECT: ft 12er year 1,000 ft (1 00 ft per 11
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: 555 Hoe rater 00
Sinal ! A)de ratw 0
B t rat 14.0
1 Ton rat 14.23
RENTED EQUIPMENT: Hop
rateonly
rate -
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: Black dirt aty: 60 Y4rd
cost: . o
st: 29;n QQ
t COSt'
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY: YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY: MONTHLY' S293.84 YEARLY: $ 2 938.40
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY' YEARLY: $10018.40
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY' YEAR!=_710_0_Q_0
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY' YEARLY' k2_1,1186.80
AVERAGE FOOTAGE/HR
PROJECT ri n v�RT .LETTING
TIME OF YEAR: ri F 11
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: ev f 111
l v I
RATE OF PAY: 14.
9. 0
INNER-CITY: 2 er ar
RURAL: 2 er ar
LENGTH OF PROJECT: ft er ear 3 000 x 2.1
er f t = 480.00
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: t Tr k
rt: 7.7
Clean B t
te: 14A
Out
Ditch ne Ton D m
rat : 14.23
RENTED EQUIPMENT: N ne
te:
r te:
rat
cost:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: W t r t
Black Dirt
yrds. c st:
$130.80
Seed t : 1
I f- cost.
trm nn.
M NTHLY:YEARLY:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY:
YEARLY::. 120 .
MONTHLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY: 5 4
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY:
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY:
MONTHLY:
YEARLY: 61 .0
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
YEARLY $6,730.00
TIME OF YEAR:
PROJECT RE -SURFACING -GRAVEL ROADS
(Due to Storm Sewer Run -Off)
SUMMER
PROJECT LOCATION: All -
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level 111 f 3 - Level 11
RATE OF PAY: $14.63 $12.80 -424.241day/mi
INNER-CITY:
RURAL: 18 total miles
LENGTH OF PROJECT: It per year 5,280 x 6 = 31, 680 LF.
miles ger year - 6 1 mile per day (1,173 ton Per day)
EQUIPMENT NEEDED:
RENTED EQUIPMENT: rate: -
rate:
rate:
MATERIALS REQUIRED: Gravel qty: 7,036 tons cost: $15,832-70 wear
qty -cost:
gty: 1 mi cost: 6 mi
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY: MONTHLY: YEARLY:
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY: MONTHLY, _$ 424.24 -YEARLY:$ 2,545-94
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY: MONTHLY: $1,877.12 YEARLY: $11,262.72
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY: — MONTHLY: YEARLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY: — MONTHLY: YEARLY: $29,60-86
13,808-16
Materials 15,832-70
$29,640.86
31680 x 24 x .00617 = 4,691.17 Cu. Yds.
4,691.17 x 1.5 = 7,036.76 Tons
7,036.76 x $2.25/ton = $15,832.70
PROJECT GRADING ROAD DUE TO RAIN
TIME OF YEAR: 3 x pgr year
PROJECT LOCATION: All Gravel Roads
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: Level III . f
RATE OF PAY: $1463
INNER-CITY:
RURAL: All
LENGTH OF PROJECT:
miles per year 18 mile 1/2 mile per hour 18 x 2 x 120 86 = $4 350.96
EQUIPMENT NEEDED: Grader rate• $10916
rate:
rate:
RENTED EQUIPMENT: rate:
rate•
rate:
MATERIALSREQUIRED: t : cost
t cost:
9ty:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY: MONTHLY• 36 YEARLY: 108 hours
TOTAL COST MH WEEKLY: MONTHLY: $ 526-68 YEARLY, $ 1 580.04
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -WEEKLY: MONTHLY- $3 929 76 YEARLY:
RENTED EQUIPMENT -WEEKLY: MONTHLY: YEARLY:
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY: MONTHLY* WERLY• $13 369.32
18 Miles of gravel road total
36 hrs/total grading (1/2 mile/hr)
* 1 time due to snowmelt
* 2 times due to rainfall 2" or more
PROJECT DRED IN PONDS/RE-SLOPING . IDE
S mm r-$--
mm
TIME OF YEAR: r
PROJECT LOCATION: Lev I11
II t
LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE: &.4o Rn = 36.7
3Lh_rpr
RATE OF PAY:
INNER-CITY:
RURAL.
LENGTH OF PROJECT: 2 onds r r 5d s
EQUIPMENT NEEDED*
t7 r da = Jv9-,-v-,'-b-v-'-'—=-�—
RENTED EQUIPMENT* H ^ — Aaw A = 93–.7-5_per hour
rat. ... . ....... . ....
MATERIALS REQUIRED:
M NTHLY: YEARLY:
NO. OF HOURS -WEEKLY: .7 DAILY: 293.84YEARLY: 2938--40
TOTAL COST MH HOURLY: DAILY: 37.84 ____y_E–A–R–Ly–.A1"7 ' —.
EQUIPMENT COST TOTALS -HOURLY: 7.23 __ _ V n YEARLY. 'A_1L0_QQ--M—
RENTED EQUIPMENT -HOURLY:
MWIM I— - - + Mat
TOTAL COST -WEEKLY:
This total would change with the type project.
PROJECT PRIORITY RATING
PRIORITY PROJECT
1 Mowing
2 Sweeping
3 Catch Basin Cleanup
4 Apron Cleaning
5 Manhole/Structure Repair
6 Jetting Storm Sewers
7 Reslope Ditches
8 Jetting Culverts
9 Re-surfacing Gravel
10 Grading Due to Rain
11 Reslope Ponds
Cut Priority #11 completely
Cut Priority #10 completely (covered in General Operating)
Cut Priority #9 completely (covered in General Operating)
Cut Priority #7 by 1/2
Cut Priority #6 by 1/2
MATERIALS
$15,832.70
$15,832.70
LABOR COSTS
Priority #1
1 Pond
2 Ponds
Level 111
$585.20
$1,170.40
Level 11
$512.00
$1,024.00
Level 1
$372.
744.0
Total
$1,469.20
$2,938.40
Priority #10
Level III
$1,580.04
Priority #9
Level 111
$702.24
Level ii
$1,843.20
Total
$2,545.44
Priority #7
Cut project by 1/2
Level ill
$585.20
Level 11
$512.00
Level 1
$372.00
Total
$1,469.20
Priority #6
Cut labor by 1/2
Level 111
$936.32
Level I
595.20
Sub -Total
$1,531.50
TOTAL
$8,595.40
Total Project - a -vin
Equipment
$81,400.00
Labor
$ 8,595.40
Material
$15.832.70
-10.000.00
$105,828.10
Labor Savings
Level III
$4,389.00
Level II
$2,867.20
Level 1
$1,339.20
$8,595.40
$218,470.00
Total Budget (Projects & General Operating)
-81.400.00
Equipment Cost
$137,070.00
-10.000.00
Miscellaneous Equipment Rental
$127,070.00
-15.832.70
Materials
$111,237.30
-8.595.40
Labor
$102,641.90
4 -6.250.00
Department Head Salary
$96,391.90
Balance of O & M Budget
r � o
•+ t r • M v •? i0 N
t r
i � t
r t r
At Y
t. i
i N M tIt
� N
t r
{{fit►► t Qp N
i t • r r
r O t
; INM to F7 � P � �N�p r .Y.qQ1 INI
t '"' t •
�.� r !Y •1
o Mf p O a P W r�y pQ r.
r +p
A . � .p# D gao O+
in t` ■ . • . r r •
to M
t
� �o Mvvt:r
t
a t
i ref t'';,
r t
r � t H .- N •i
1 t r
vi ---- ter.--- �
t ty O O t9 O C! l O
v r +Q lrrf I+S
ice+ � � � � N • � • ■
O
® P •� r
ti i}iS t t CQt app.
O O: �
W }� r �r tN • Y
�� �����-
— � r
t
M
O
1991 BUDGET WORKSHEETS -Z -
-------------------
DEPARTMENT NAME AND # Page One
5l� 1, er )14.` 14,
Dr vrI..
Object
Requested
Fund Account # Obi # Description
Amount
Total
Comments
2.
iGu__rt nG tproj
101 - 4xxxx 101.0 Salaries32f7i
-�
a�
101 - 4xxxx -02- 101.0 Department Head
4carx�4a+e s
i4
101 -4xxxx _03- 101.0 ,- -
r `
101 - 4xxxx -04- 101.0
-05- 101.0(o4d
c I
101 - 4xxxx
^101'-
4xxxx -06- 101.0
s i ,
101 - 4xxxx 102.0 Full -Time Overtime
9p*c>so
p k - rrw,
s I
- 4xxxx 102.1
,1oi
_101 _
101 = 4xxxx 102.2
.�!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 201.0 Office Accessories
$0
*.z
101 - 4xxxx -01- 201.1
4xxxx -01- 201.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 202.0 Duplicating & Copying
S0
i
,s;
101 - 4xxxx-01- 202.1
_
101 = 4xxxx -01= 202.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 203.0 Printed Forms '& Paper
,090
i�O�J s0
t l +ti.t�.L�-64
101 - 4xxxx -01- 203.1
= 4xxxx -01- 203.2
it
101 - 4xxxx -01- 204.0 Envelopes b Letterheads
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 204.1
fOi = 4zzzz =01= 204-.z---
04:2-101
101- 4xxxx -Ol- 205.0 Drafting Supplies
may'
9=s0
24- 101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 205.1
-
tri .
t,,t,34t' '-i w -t251
-
26
101 - 4xxxx -01- 206.0 Microfilm Supplies
$0
t
101 - 4xxxx -01- 206.1
aai
`-101 4xxxx -01=-_-
�_ '
101 - 4xxxx -01- 207.0 Training & Instructnl Supplies
$0
-
101 - 4xxxx -01- 207.1
:, ------
-101-- _4:xxxx-01= 207.2'
101 - 4xxxx -01- 208.0 Miscellaneous 'Supplies
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01-_ 208.1
101--- 4xxxx -01= 208.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 209.0 Other Office Supplies
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 209.1
-4xxxx -01- 209.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 211.0 Cleaning Supplies
$0
_-
101 -4xxxx -01- 211.1
--_-_101-_
-4xxxx -01- 211.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 212.0 Motor Fuels
2!'$O
101 - 4xxxx -01- 212.1
<,I
101"=-4xxxx =01- 212:2- ---- -- - ----
-
, _ _�_
i»4!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 213.0 Lubricants & Additives
$0
�� , �y
»s!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 213.1
101-= 4xxzz--01= 213.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 215.0 Shop Materials
c 00
ZG s0
� t i -V
»s'
101 - 4xxxx -01- 215.1
_
= 4xxxx -01= 215.2 - --------------- ------
- ---101
101- 4xxxx -01- 216.0 Chemical & Chemical Products
$0
-
101 - 4xxxx -01- 216.1
_
101----4xxxx-01--216.2-
01-=-4xxxx-"-01- 216.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 217.0 Clothing Allowance - Police
101
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 217.1
---101-- 4xxxx -01- 217.2
5e!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 218.0 Fire Department Clothing
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 218.1
-- --- - - ----- -
j
IOi--4xxxx--01-=218.2
101 - 4xxxx -01. 219.0 Other Operating Supplies
j -b0
j,�t.7 $0
5 ax `rrcv is 4,`13,' al
101 - 4xxxx -01- 219.1
lk. (& ,
•
101 - 4xxxx -01- 219.2 -
s0-
�----- -
101 - 4xxxx -01- 220.0 Water Meter Purchases
'
101 - 4xxxx -01- 220.1
101 - 4xxxx -01- 220.2 �{> SO F4
101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 221.0 Equipment Parts
}
101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 221.1
--- -
101 - 4xxxx -01= 221.2
S0 Q ,oa�►r ..-+
f2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 222.0 Tires Jtbb
101 - 4xxxx -01- 222.1
14 -
101 - 4xxxx -01= 222.2
-01- 223.0 Building Repair Supplies
$O
5I
101 - 4xxxx
---------
6
101 - 4xxxx -01- 223.1
-01= 223.25
- ______�
101 - 4xxxx
101 - 4xxxx -01- 224.0 Street Maintenance Materials J`�
$0
$
9
;or
101 - 4xxxx -01- 224.1 .._ _ - - --- --- --- - _ _ -
- - 4xxxx -01= 224.2 - - Qor= ?�'/
101 G� $0
�S
:10i
101 - 4xxxx -01- 225.0 Landscaping Materials Z_5C%'
,2�
101 - 4xxxx -01- 225.1 ___..__.-._..---
101 _= 4xxxx -01- 225.2 _ ___.._ _
5'�roSO �r�v�ee LtJrtisi2+1.Y'•ert
,2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 226.0 Sign Repair Materialsi Jr�$Z7
115
101 - 4xxxx -017 226.1
- -
4xxxx -01= 226.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 227.0 Utility System Maint Supplies
$0
e'
101 - 4xxxx -01- 227.1
- - -
,91' ---'-
101 - 4xxxx -01- 227.2
- 4xxxx -01- 228.0 Meter Repair Materials
20'
I '
101
101 - 4xxxx -01- 228.1. --
-------'--'-�
2,
�--101
:2
- - _
= 4xxxx =01= 228.2
-01- 229.0 Other Maintenance Supplies
$0
101 - 4xxxx
--
�24I
101 - 4xxxx O1- 229.1---
-
25 101 = -4xxxx 01= 229.2
230.0 Equipment Repair Materials !�
�1�� g0 for ea sxu�Pis
26
101 - 4xxxx -01-
27
101 - 4xxxx -01- 230.1
-l-
-
Lr
- 4xxxx =01= 230.2 �'�C
5� SO '��r`r4' "off
101 - 4xxxx -01- 241.0 Small Tools
- - .-
101 - 4xxxx -01- 241.1---
,;
101 = 4xxxx -01= 24f.2 -
101 - 4xxxx -01- 242.0 Minor Equipment
$0 �v-'4
22{
101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 242.1-
-
4xxxx =01- 242.2 x,PO
101 - 4xxxx -01- 301.0 Auditing Accounting Services .:
1;'= so
;E
101 - 4xxxx -01- 301.1
-
-- -"--
101_- 4xxxx--01- 301.2
$O
101 - 4xxxx -01- 302.0 Architects' Fees
}-n
101 - 4xxxx -01- 302.1-
-,
- -101--- 4xxxx -01- 302.2
- 4xxxx -Ol- 303.0 Engineering Fees�r.,.�wr...
r,OcxW $OS
101
101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 303.1
--- ----
-10i - 4xxxx -01= 303.2- - f c�
1 f � SO bP�+�i •d.ra r a f
i43
101 - 4xxxx -01- 304.0 Legal Fees
}G61
14
101 - 4xxxx -Oi- 304.1
-- --
l0i - 4xxxx -0f=-304_.2
$0
��,�
101 - 4xxxx -01- 305.0 Medical Dent al Fees
4s'
101 - 4xxxx -01- 305.1�-----
G9
IOr= 4xxxx -Ol- 305.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 306.0 Personnel Testing Recrutmnt
S0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 306.1
- - 101 = 4xxxx -01- 306.2
$O
101 - 4xxxx -01- 307.0 Management Fees
- 4xxxx -01- 307.1
.�
_101
- 101 - 4xxxx -01- 307.2
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 308.0 Instructors' Fees
-
�;;
_101 -_4xxxx -01- 308_.1
---
101 - 4xxxx -01--308.2 Dnp
1,&200 $p
}
101 - 4xxxx -01- 310.0 Testing Services
101 - 4xxxx -01- 310.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 310.2
fir---
101 -
4xxxx -03- 311.0 Officiating Fees
-- -
- - - $0 --
101 -
4xxxx -01- 311.1
101 -
101 -
4xxxx -01- 311.2
4xxxx -01- 312.0 Contract Inspection Fees )
_j5z;,0 $0 7,h 114
-
4xxxx -01- 312.1
_101
16j_-
4xxxx -01= 312.2
I2
101 -
4xxxx -01- 313.0 Temporary Service fees
S0
13
101 -
4xxxx -01- 313.1
!4
101 =
4zxxz =01- 313.2
)` s
101 -
4xxxx -01-315.0 Special Programs
$0
s
101 -
4xxxx -01. 315.1
10�= 4xxxx -01- 315.2 -
�,
'3
4xxxx -01- 319.0 other Professional Services
$0
s
101 -
4xxxx -01- 319.1
;,o;
101 -
4xxxx Ol- 319.2
„I
101 -
4xxxx -01- 321.0 Telephone Costs
S0
,z+
101 -
4xxxx -01- 321.1
i.3
-10f=
4xxxx -01- 321.2 - - -
141
101 -
4xxxx -01- 322.0 Postage Costs
�b00
1C V0 $0 i 1'"'s
101 -
4xxxx -01- 322.1
wta tti
-01= 322.2
101 -
4xxxx -01- 323.0 Radio Units ,
j?� $0
S:
101 -
4xxxx -01- 323.1
,g
101 =
4xxxx -01= 323.2
azo!
101 -
4xxxx -01- 324.0 Messenger Services
S0
1x11
101 -
4xxxx -01- 324.1
101 =
4zxxz =01=-324;2_.____
x31
101 -
4xxxx -01- 329.0 Other Communication Costs
(oab
(�QO $0 ,&ae_r +- C�!►�tl4r
1Ay1bY�G.
241
101 -
4xxxx -Ol- 329.1
7
10r--- 4zxxz =01_--329:2._ -- -- --- - -
_
4-s!
101 -
4xxxx -01- 331.0 Travel Expense
Zao $0 r�rLm Uek.t�l.p
use
12-,
101 -
4xxxx -01- 331.1
zs
101 =4xxxx =0i= 331.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 333.0 Freight & Express Expenses
S0
aC`
101
- 4xxxx -01- 333.1
-101 =-
4zxxz =01= 333.2-
101
- 4xxxx -01- 339.0 Other Transportation Expenses
$0
--
101
- 4xxxx -OS- 339.1
--101
4zxxz_=01= 339.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 341.0 Employment Advertising
$0
_.
101
- 4xxxx -01- 341.1
---
------
101
- 4xxxx -01- 341.2 - -
- ----
_ _---
�__
101
- 4xxxx -01- 349.0 Other Advertising
$0
101
- 4xxxx -01- 349.1
-----___
101-=
4xxxx -01= 349.2
)41
101
- 4xxxx -01- 351.0 Legal Notices Publishing
S0
-
142j
101
- 4xxxx -01- 351.1
1431
iOI --4zxxz =01= 351:2
101 4xxxx -01- 352.0 General Notices & Public Info
loco
1000 SO:
�f 44{
_
;45+:
101
4xxxx -01- 352.1
!4s"�-_101__
4zxxz =01---352.2
47
101
- 4xxxx -01- 353.0 Ordinance Publication
$0
4;`
101
- 4xxxx -01- 353.1
J�c
101
- 4xxxx -01- 359.0 Other Printing & Binding Costs
$0
101
- 4xxxx =01- 359.1
-_
101
- 4xxxx -01---359.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 365.0 Workmen's Comp Insurance
S0
s
101
- 4xxxx -01- 365.1
4xxxx -01= 365.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 369.0 Other Insurance
$0
101
- 4xxxx -01- 369.1
- Iff
- 4zx`xx`=01= 369.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 381.0 Electric Utilities
$0
101
- 4xxxx -01- 381.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 381.2
�.
101--
4xxxx -01- 382.0 Water Utilities ____ ___
._----
.___-_-- so
101 -
4xxxx -01- 382.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 383.0 Gas Utilities
$0
101 -
4xxxx -01- 383.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 383.2
101 -
_
4xxxx -01- 384.0 Refuse Disposal
101 -
4xxxx -01- 384.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 384.2__--
--------, - . -- -.
41
-201 -
4xxxx -01= 389.0 Other Utility Services jC>vo
5 (
101 -
4xxxx -01- 389.1
161
101 -
4xxxx -01- 389.2
7;
101 -
4xxxx -Ol- 391.0 P.C. Maintenance- -
s
101 -
4xxxx -01- 391.1
9
101 -
4xxxx -01= 391.2
---------.---..__._ . - -----
c!
101 -
4xxxx -01- 392.0 P.C. Accessories & Supplies -
$0
101 -
4xxxx -01- 392.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 392.2
101 =
4xxxx -01= 393.0 P.C. Hardware Purchases
--
)14
101 -
4xxxx -01- 393.1
;6i
101 -
4xxxx -01- 393.2
----'-
;6'
- 101 -
4xxxx_-01- 394.0 P.C. Software Purchases -�--_------
-----------$0-
117!
101 -
4xxxx -01-394.1
,s(
101 -
4xxxx -01- 394.2
4xxxx -01- 395.0 P.C. R6Pairs---------
201
101 -
4xxxx -01- 395.1
i2l;
101 -
4xxxx -01- 395.2
!22
101 -
4xxxx -01= 396.0 Coeputer. Maintenance
zs;
101 -
4xxxx -01- 396.1
;24
101 -
4xxxx -01- 396.2
�s,
101 =
4xxxx =01� 397.0 Computer Accessories & Supply^
__
-
s6l
101 -
4xxxx -01- 397.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 397.2
'26
101
'4xxx =01= 398.0 Computer Hardware Purchases -
- - - -
--- -- --- s0-_
#29
101 -
4xxxx -OS- 398.1
se
101 -
4xxxx -01- 398.2
3,,
-101 --
4xxxx --01- 399.0 Computer Software Purchases-- ---
- _
_ _ _
- � $0 -
_
101 -
4xxxx_-01- 399.1
101 -
4xxxx -01- 399.2
34.
10i---
-4xx'xx-01- 401.0 Contracted Building Repairs
-
--.-.$0
101 -
4xxxx -01- 401.1
-
101 -
4xxxx -01- 401.2
-
-----
_-
101-=
4xxxx -01- 403.0 Contracted R & M -Other Imprvmn
$0 Dre a1ai►1a S-fr-ix.L gar
_<
101 -
4xxxx -01- 403.1
---
101
101
- 4xxxx -01- 403.2
= 4xxxx -01- 404:0 Contracted Mach & Equip Repair
00U
-"lf- so ----
O -
)41.
)41.
101
- 4xxxx -01- 404.1 -
-
4;
101
- 4xxxx -01- 404.2
;43;
1Oi
- 4xxxx =01- 409.0 Other Contracted Repair &"Main
$0-
j _
101
- 4xxxx -01- 409.1
<s
101
- 4xxxx -01- 409.2
46'
1Of = 4xxxx--01- 412.0 -Building Rental------
ental
17'
4,,
101
- 4xxxx -01- 412.1
-
43
101
- 4xxxx -01- 412.2
__-_ -
101-.-_
4xxxx -01=-413.0 Office Equipment Rental - -
- -
_____ _ - ._
0
-,
101
- 4xxxx -01- 413.1
101
- 4xxxx -01- 413.2
--
_-- _
--
lot---
4xxxx -01- 414.0 Data Processing Equip Rental
- _
$0
_:
101
- 4xxxx -01- 414.1
=
101
- 4xxxx -01- 414.2
_
4xxxx -01- 415.0 Other Equipment Rental
$0
101
- 4xxxx -01- 415.1
u�
101
- 4xxxx -01- 415.2
101
- 4xxxx -01- 416.0 Machinery Rental
S-) b&o $0 °Y
101
- 4xxxx -01- 416.1
5kioi p*4erI grao��-r'
101
- 4xxxx -01- 416.2
•
101 - 4xxxx -01- 417.0 Uniforms Rental
$0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 417.1
- _
101 - 4xxxx -01- 419.0 Other Rentals
$D
101 - 4xxxx -01- 419.1
101 - 4xxxx -01- 419.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 421.0 Depreciation Expense
$O
f
101-= 4zx -01- 421.1-
21.12
2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 433.0 Dues & Subscriptions
$O
3
101 - 4xxxx -01- 433.1
4
161 = 4 -XX -01=-433.2
)i
s
101 - 4xxxx -01- 435.0 Books Pamphlets1W
Svb $0
� I W140
e
101 - 4xxxx -01- 435.1
i -i0�= 4xxxx =01=.435.2-
35.2- - ---- -- ------
3181
31 z1
101 - 4xxxx -01- 437.0 Conferences & Seminars
OOf7 h�
/ S0
-
�� rwt u�
's
101 - 4xxxx -01- 437.1
'10
101--4xzzz -01= 437:2- - - - - -"
101 - 4xxxx -01- 439.0 Other Miscellaneous Charges
$0
12!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 439.1
.3`
101--- 4x-xxx -01- 439.2--------------
---- ---- --
i;41
101 - 4xxxx -Ol- 514.0 Land Purchases
�O� 3e� $O
'.5�
101 - 4xxxx -01- 510.1
,e
10f -`4xxxx -01. 510.2-----
;71
101 - 4xxxx -01- 521.0 Building & Structure Purchases $O
4
101 - 4xxxx -01- 521.1
,� ----
101-- 4xxxx -01- 521.2
_
>♦20 ixx
101 - 4xx1 -01- 530.0 Improvements Other Than Bldgs
$0
;211
101 - 4xxxx -01- 530.1
i2211Of-
4bX -01= 530:2-
231
101 4xxxx -01- $40.0 Heavy Machinery Purchases
$0Za,
101 - 4xxxx -01- 540.1
!251-TOI-= 4xxxx -01= 540:2--- -
--- _ -
Zs
101 - 4xxxx -01- 550.0 Motor Vehicle Purchases
$p
27
101 - 4xxxx -01- 550.1
----
=;
101 - 4xxxx -01- 560.0 Furniture. & Fixture Purchases
4 -To qSa S0 Fi
(c N s b�rGe -..► a I . I _L
�0
101 - 4xxxx -01- 560.1
---101 - 4xxxx -01- 560:2 ------ -- -------_-_._-^--
__ -_--
32
101 - 4xxxx -01- 570.0 Office Equipment Purchases
$0
:3,
101 - 4xxxx -01- 570.1
----101
_ 4xxxx -01- 570.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 580.0 Other Equipment Purchases
poo vh
Ioe;o $0 Is�c
110' ri acts rrEh�r- ,�.
101 - 4xxxx -01- 580.1
-E'
- 101- -_4xxxx -01- 580.2-
} E
101 - 4xxxx -01- 586.0 Computer Equipment Purchases
$0
as
101 - 4xxxx -01- 586.1
J -
- 101 _ 4xxxx -01- 586.2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 598.0 Council Designated
$O
a2
101 - 4xxxx -01- 598.1 -
43;
1017- -4xxxx -01=
--
ori
101 - 4xxxx -01- 710.0 Transfers
$0
as!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 710.1
4&
101-- 4xxxx -01- 710.2- __.. _._ ._- _.-.-----------
- -_-T
4;!
101 - 4xxxx -01- 720.0 Transfers
$p
481
101 - 4xxxx -01- 720.1
-
<s;
--101--w 4xxxx--01- 720:2 -- ------
150
101 - 4xxxx -01-
;;
101 - 4xxxx -01-
----101--
4xxxx -01- __ _ ___
_ _._-- . -----..___._
___-------_----_-.--
jz_
101 - 4xxxx -01-
4
101 - 4xxxx -01-
-101--_ 4xxxx--Ol---
- -
jr5e
101 - 4xxxx -01-
�f
101 - 4xxxx -01-
_
----101---
_101 -_4xxxx-01_--
}
101 - 4xxxx -01-
101 - 4xxxx -01-