07/20/1998 CONF MTG - 4825�
�
ClTY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
July 20,1998 - 7:00 p.m.
Fridley Community Center
6085 Seventh Street N.E.
Patio or Room 114
1. Medtronic Update.
2. Budget Wrap-Up:
a. Recycling Center. -
b. Additional Health Insurance Costs.
c. Additional Reserve for COLA.
d. University Avenue Corridor Mowing.
e. Revised Budget Numbers.
3. Gateway East Update.
4. Storm Damage Clean-Up Policy.
5. Other Business.
Adjourn.
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 15, 1998
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �r�jA°
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discussion Issues with Medtronic
Status of Initial Meetinas
The purpose of the first meeting with Keewaydin Group was to identify the issues which
are important to Medtronic regarding development of the site. The purpose of the
second meeting was to respond to those issues with a discussion of the City's goals.
Medtronic is very early in its process regarding development of the propecty. They have
identified an initial immediate space need of 150,000 to 250,000 square feet of office
space, but are unsure about the total size of the development and development staging
(they are currently in the process of hiring the architectural planning team). In addition,
they have not completed a financial or cost analysis regarding the construction costs of
the first phase. Finally, they are currently trying to determine what their ultimate mixture
of employees will be at the site.
Without more definite information, it is difficult to "negotiate" a solid deal; however, it is
possible to identify common goals, financing approaches, land use issues, and the
mechanisms to address these concems. As Medtronic completes its analysis in the
next few months, some of the "issues° may be easily resolved or new ones may appear.
The City's Goals
Medtronic's interest in the site clearly is one step toward accomplishing the original
vision of the property since 1985. While it may seem redundant to define "the vision", it
is always appropriate to approach the negotiating table with the ultimate goals in mind:
Discussion Issues with Medtronic
Page 2 .
July 15, 1998
1. Construction of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of Class A, multi-story office
space prior to the expiration of the TIF- District in 2011 (consistent with 1996 and
1987 Master Plan approvals). In addition, supportive commercial uses may be
permitted which are accessory to a corporate campus.
2. Multi-story parking ramps must be constructed in order to achieve a maximurrr
amount of density.
3. The design of the development must represent a top quality, first class corporate
campus.
4. The development generates a substantial amount of taxes at the close of the TIF
district, and add a substantial tax base for the City.
5. The HRA should recover some of its investment in the site.
6. The development should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- i . . . . . . • . i . � . .
The attached document dated July 13, 1998, represents the discussion points Jim and
presented to Keewaydin Group at our second meeting. We advised them that this is
Staff's approach to these issues and that we are trying to update the City Council and
the Authority as quickly as possible. The next meeting with Keewaydin is Wednesday,
July 22, 1998.
The thrust of our approach is no different than any other redevelopment project. Some
assistance has to be provided in order to accomplish the density of development on the
property (Goal #1). Multi-story office buildings dictate construction of parking ramps.
The cost of the ramps, plus the cost of the land and the building construction cost must
be economically viable for Medtronic or any other office user. The key is to find the
right mixture of tax increment proceeds and land write down to achieve the project.
Because Medtronic has not completed a cost analysis to date, it is premature to "lock in
into a position." It may very well be that another mixture of assistance will be required
to get the project done. In fact, it may be that Medtronic may have to pay for some of
the construction costs for the ramps.
Discussion Issues with Medtronic
Page 3
July 15, 1998
The assistance mixture suggested to Keewaydin Group is that 77 1/2 percent of the tax
increment would be reimbursed to Medtronic and the Authority would retain 22'/z
percent over the life of the district. Medtronic would pay a land sale price equivalent to
what the holding costs would be if Medtronic bought the entire site. Land sale
payments would begin with the second building. The present value of the land sale
payments, plus the tax increment proceeds would roughly equate to the original
acquisition cost of the site for the Authority.
These numbers are based on the construction of five 200,000 square foot office
buildings over the next finrelve years. The ultimate construction plan may be smaller,
but the suggested approach provides Medtronic with a feel for the level of tax increment
which can be generated depending on how aggressive their construction plans are.
Land Use Issues
The following is a synopsis of the land use issues which was discussed with
Keewaydin:
• Need for Master Plan process.
• Need to agree on guidelines for the quality and design of the buildings _
• Types of permitted uses.
• Relationship of plan to Indirect Source Permit and EAW findings.
• Development fees (SAC charges, permit fees, and park fees).
• Platting process.
• Design, timing, and extent of development on the commercial space adjacent to
Highway 65.
All of these issues will be dependent on their proposed plan for the site, but at
minimum, the Master Plan must be required prior to their first building on the site, and
all environmental regulations must be adhered to.
Next Steo . .
At the next meeting with Keewaydin, some type of response to the attached issues will
be received. Unless otherwise directed, staff will proceed with the concepts included in
the attached list.
BD\jt
M-98-157
O7/13/98 �ON I�:48 F.iS 812 885 5989 RR�SS �0'YROE
DISCUSSION PO cIyTS FOR THE AC UIgTTION
OF THE FRTDI,EY EXECUTIVE CEi��'ER SITE $y 1�DTRONIC
July 13.1998
The City/Authority proposal is based on the following assumptions:
I. Medtronic wishes to have space to construct up to 1,000,000 square feet or more of
office space over the next five to fifteen years.
2. Medtronic needs iinmediate space to construct an approximately 200,000 squaze foot
o�ce facility.
3. Medtronic has no interest in holding the land or d�veloping it for other nsers.
Medtronic is not in the land development business.
4. To equalize the cost of the site with sites that do n�need shvctured parlting to achieve
600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of office space, it is necessary for the Authority to
assist with the cost of parking structures.
S. The Authority needs to recover some of its investment in t}�e site.
6. Medtronic nceds a very short response time from the Ciry in order �to meet its Fa�l
1998 building schedule.
7. Medtronic is not asking for any preferential treatrnent in terrns of sigas artd the
nonnat and customary building fees, permit fees, arid associated ezpenses,
8. Medtronic recognizes that it would have holding costs if it were to receive tide to the
entue site in 1998 and is willing to reimburse the City/Authority for those costs.
Based on the above assumptions, our proposal to Medtronic is as follows:
I. The Site presently has 1,069,834 square feet allocated to office space and 357,628
square feet allocatcd to commercial space. We wili continue to use these designations
for this proposal. The Authority assumes the office space site will be suitable for at
Ieast 800,000 square feet of office space. Accordingly, the Authority wi11 provide
1.34 square feet of land for every square foot of office space (that is �
space) that is constructed. I.f the first building is 200,000 square f�eet S thendthe
Authority will provide 268,000 square feet of land.
2• The commercial space parcel may be used for office and should probably be
conveyed as a single parcel. However, this is negotiablc. � .
l� ti`O I
r
.�..
3. Land should be developed from West to East with the commercial space site being the
last parcel developed.
4. The price to Medtronic for land for the first office building is � 1.
5. Land for the remaining office buildings and for the commercial space will be in
accordance with the attached schedule.
6. Medtronic shall receive 77.5% of all tax increment generated by building 1. The
attached schedule indicates the potential available tax increment for just building 1 is
$7,783,631. '
7. Medtronic shall receive 77.5% of the increment generated from all future
development on both the office space parcel and commercial space pazcel. (See
attached schedule for potential available tax increment).
8. Tax increment may only be used for structured parking. In reality, if the roads are not
changed and the site is not reconfigured, there are very few remaining costs that are..
site related. �
�
9. In order for Medtronic to maintain control e sit th first building of 200,040
square feet must be under construction b M ch 1, 999, and completed within 12
months thereafter; 400,000 square feet ' ing(s) must be constructed by
January 2, 2003, and 600,000 square feet by January 2, 2006.
10. After Medtronic has constructed 600,000 square feet of office building on the office
space site, Medtronic will then have the option to do the following:
a. Purchase the balance of the office space site for the price shown on the
attached schedule; and,
b. Purchase the commercial space site for the amount shown on the schedule
if the site is to be used for o�ce space. If, however, the commercial space
site is to be used for commercial activities, then Medtronic shall pay fair
market value for the site.
c. If Medtronic has not purchased the remaining land in both the office space
site and commercial space site by September 1, 2008, then its options to
` purchase shall terminate.
1 l. Medtronic, the City and the Authority must agree on basic guidelines for the quality
and design of the buildings.
12. There will be no special assessments for any improvements previously made to the
Fridley Executive Center Site. There will be no minimum valuation ag�reements.
. _ . . �^:5:.,�:
a
13. Permitted uses on the office space parcel include the following:
a. General office space.
b. Light assembly of Medtronic products (the site is not intended to be a
manufacturing, distribution or warehousing site and so this use requires
further refinement). �
c. Research and development.
d. Conference and training.
e. Childcare or similar facility within the office buildings.
f. Other uses facilitating the above (needs further discussion).
14. Uses for the commercial space site may include the following:
a. All the uses described above for the office space parcel.
b. Upscale hotel with meeting rooms and/or convention faciliries (to be
discussed).
c. Financial institutions.
d. Childcare providers.
e. Other uses which facilitate and enhance the office building development
(uses to be further discussed).
15. Medtronic shall be responsible for all future development costs including:
a. Street lighting.
b. Storm water.
c. Road modification.
d. Site preparation.
e. Surveys and modifications to the plat excluding the first building.
f. All title work, closing costs and related expenses excluding the first
building.
�
16. Medtronic shall pay the customary developer fees for the construction of each
building including park, SAC, WAC, building permit and inspection.
17. Medtronic shall pay for any environmental studies it wishes to have done on the site.
18. The Authority/City shall provide all environmental studies it has done on the site.
19. The Authority/City and Medtronic shall cooperate in securing indirect source permits
and the Authority/City shall pay for the initial process. Medtronic shall pay for any
future arriendments or modifications:
20. Medtronic shall have the right to perform any soil tests and the Authority will provide
Medtronic with any studies it has previously conducted.
21. To the best of the Authority's knowledge there are no hazardous materials on the site.
22. The City's prevailing wage requirement for the construction of buildings needs
discussion.
23. The State of Minnesota's job and wage goal requirements need discussion.
24. Issues relating to Medtronic's Rice Creek office site require additional discussion and
should probably be included in or be part of separate agreements.
JRC/lrb
G:\W PDATA�flFRIDLEY120�DOC�PROPOSA4DOC
Fa-
O
�
w
z
Z
i
w
J
�
�
�
LL
�
F_-
v
� C
m iu m
« _ �
� � m
>U
a
e � U
� C �
t� Q �0
_ m
�
m
N
lf1 LL N
.a �' d
m
m �
0
L
a
� W Yl
� � m
m
m. �
�
a
l"f {L N
G V ~ N
Q m O
J a
�
0
� N Y. M
F- of F�' m
� m ol
w a`'�
N
� '
� e- LL N
� �p ~ m
� m O
� a
C�
��
c
J at
V
O
�
�
OOOOC')'r�01C01�1�CDNt�N�taDl�a0t�a0�e-lnr-e'� f�
I�a00st�c0�N�Gc�e'��NI�t�Ne7NN��� �
v_r>r�v_tio.:�ccovq�vrnnoore��r�o� o�
e-c'��c•fC��•-tONNOfO�NtDMaO�I��e-e'7 c�
er�CO�NCOQf�-O�t�RN�Q)O�COr-.tAC�N V' st
Nc'7c'7�cDTONtOa00N�'�71�C��-�COa0�t7 C7
� � �.- � dV N N c� M c7 V' � V �7 tA tn �
OOOOMt�r")���CO1COtD�c7��N��Oe��(DN C7
I�ON�tOfc'71�tOC7t��a0�'ctO�rC)�NtOC'7 Q
�C�e'11�NtOOt`')e-c'?e�C�c'�I��I��OO�AOOtnN O�
r-r�COCp�O�AICO)I�O��O�f <OtntnN(")ON c'7
d't�l�tOl�t�c')NI�I�I�f�N�Y�OtA'ct�c7c'7N V
CV Ch��`-����NONNNNNNNN c")
� �
00000��"CO.CO��tnt�r`O�OO�OONNCOG�OI"7C'7C00� i M
I�aOCOCO�Q�0000NtAtpC�r'NNOOCONN��A � tA
. NfONNe-I�OOC'7l�re-NtDl�l�<OCOI�I�I�f� � e-
O�NN�����OCOOD�Oe��NNtC�tnCOOD � �'�7
�aDC10�NC0��tO000Nt�')c7c'1tf�tl)�OCOI�t� ` tD
N tO�e-�hC'�c'�c7V'Ost��At[)tq�tCltA � O
N � �
. �
a0 a0 tn tA N N
ch c� v �a' �n �n
u� �n � r- � �
ooric�iuiu�
� r-r-� � r-
�r-���.-
N N c�! ch c�� c�rJ �� ��[f tN
l7�J�01tnLn�-�1�f�
��I�t�00c�er1�1l1A
O O O O � � � � � �
� a- �-- a- � e- r- � � r-
00..1�-�NNC7Mf'��M V�'�tN�
r- �- I� f� M M�� tf)� lA � e- 1� !�
O O N N t[� �A 1� f� O O ch c`') tt� �A
O O O O O O O O � � � � � �
r' r f r r' r' r r r f� T' r r f
In tn l0 M O O h f� R �T �- •- 00 CO tf1 tn N N
OfOf 00.-�•-�NNe'Oe'OC7e'�et�lptA
GO CO 1fJ 1O �- � t� t� CO M 01 � t0 t0 e- � i� !�
� �t f� 1� O O N N tp � 1� f� O O t7 e'� iA �fl
� Q� Q! Q� O O O O O O O O � � � � � �
�- � �.- � � � r- � � r- r- r- r-
�- � CO CO �� e'� e'� O O t� f� st '7 �•- OO aD �� N N
oD a0 a0 a0 C) Of O O � � r- •- N N cO M t7 CO '�t ��[7 tO
t0 t0 N N QJ 00 1A l0 e- e- f� 1� M M Of Of tp tn � � f� 1�
� O� N N�'�t f� f� O O N N�A tf� t� 1� O O M M� tA
cp ap Of O1 C� Q� C1 Q� O O O O O O O O � � � � � �
r-r-���-��r-.-�-��r-�
m�000v000c�000c�0000v00000000
� � c�i o c�'�
L o � �
V N c�'� � �
Z `' -
00000000000000000000000000
oo�nu�oo��oo�n�noou��oo��nooin�oo
G O O O � r ��- N CV lV N C'l�FJ R� C7 �� st ����A �A t0 �O
�
N
tG
1)
�
oou��noo��oo��oo��oo��oou��noo
O O N N�� 1� I� O O N N 1n � 1� 1� O O N N 1A tn f� 1� O O
CCCCOOOO�r'�r'r'r'�r'fV fV NfV NNNNt�1t'')
� 1� l�A � t�A
Q � � �
N N N N
a0a001Cf00•-r'NNt7e'7sf �tff�lltD�Of�1�a�aDCfOf00�•-
rno�o�c�00000000000000000000�r-•-�
���������������������"�����
� � � �.� �.� � � e- � �- � e- � r e� � e- � � � � � � � r- �
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
O? O.N�- O a O � O � O � O � O � O � O � O � O.N- O a O �
�
�
�
�
Q
�
H
�
ff
��
o�
O N
O N
O
N
�
.0
O
L
7
Q
a
d
C
.�
. �
�
C
d
�
m V
�� c
« � w
a� �
E= o
7
h m o
y
Q
8
�
�
O
�
O
Q
a
W
O
�
z
0
�
�
�
¢
Y
}
m
�
W
Q.'
a
w
�
a
Y
�
�
J'
m
�
. �
0
0
Fa-
O
�
W
Z
Z
�
}.
W
J
�
Q.'
LL
Ll..
�
�
U
� �
U �
O Qr.+
D W
�U
N N
N
M
�
�
Z
W
U
N
N
�
�
Z
W
U
�
t-
�
Z
ci
�
c
0
�
�
..
...
N
C
O
v
O O O O O
00000
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
N N N N N
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
ln Ln tn L[)
N N N N
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
00000
N N N N N
0 O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
������
� � � �- r- �-
o� �- co �n r� rn
rn00000
o�00000
e-NNNNN
�
�
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
r- � N CO N
MCOtf')ON
CGOCO�'M
MO�tf�GO
CO C7 O O M
f� tl) N OO M
f�cGtl�MN
N
ti
O
�
�
�
�
N
� o 0 0 0
t!') l!') t1� L1i LLi
ti ti ti ti ti
� ti � ti ti
.�.
�
N
i
O NN�� � cND
O � e�s�CO � N
O I� � � CO � OD
O I�f`�N � M
O N� lt� ln i CO
� CO � I` � i CO
i N
�
�
- . '
w
w
a
�
O
O
O
O
0
O
�
�
Q'
N
O
O
O
0
0
�
N
�
R
O
•..
C
d
d
L
1` (D N � �
���OI�
CO N � �A �
e- M '�t e- t.C)
No0�1'N�-
O tn O �t i`
t1� 1�. cC �F N
� � � � � �
1��t�NCON
N �t CO N N f�
�NMN00e-
vccr-oc�rn
ti cc �n ch o cc
MtAttMN
0 0 0 0 0 0
000000
��rnrn�rn
O
�
O
�
�
ti
t1)
N
�A 1` N N O
r- cfl ao co �n
� � f� N N
NCD�ON
O��t��t'
(D � lf� 1` 00
d-�tMN�
0000�
N � r O
ON�'et
N � N O
•-- � I.C) Ln
i`O�O
C'7 tD tf') �t
MCOCOI�ti
N CO N N o0
CD C? C7 M c'7
� � N O �
�O�N�tM
rnco�N�
N d' �t M N
�
ti
�
tl�
�t
M
�
�
�
M
M
O
�
�
N
ti
�
t� �'Md'MO�N i �
i
rn i no�� n= v
� N C7 M N e- = M
� `�
�
c
�
�
�
U
C
X
H
�
a
++
C
d
d
L
>
a
c
�
�
�
U
C
X
�
�
� � � :.i � Qi V Q�
� � � _
�
Q (� �
. N Q `"' . •� � •�
�
C�NM'�!'�AtC � ��NM�'tnc0 a ��NC'7�Lncfl a �
� ������ � � ������ � � ������ :� � �
•3 C C C C C C O � C C C C C C O � C C C C C C O
m 'a � 'C 'fl '0 '0 � �l0 � "a 'fl � 'a � �"' �� 'D � 'a � � � �" �
� 'j 'j 'j '� '� j � 'j 'j �j �j �j j � �7 �7 �7.�� �� �� �
�mmmmmm �mmmmmm ammmmmm ,
� H _ v � :
O W W �
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 14, 1998
TO: William Burns, City Manager _,���
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Julie Jones, Planning AssistantlRecycling Coordinator
SUBJECT: Budget Debate on Closing Recycling Center
Background
During the June 10 Budget Session, we began to discuss the possible impacts of
closing the Fridley Recycling Center (FRC). With $50,000 in capital improvements
needed at the site and a proposed budget shortfall of $31,000, the logic in keeping the
Fridley Recycling Center open was in question. •
Several Councilmembers wanted to investigate the County's desire to have the City of
Fridley continue to operate a recycling drop-off. Staff also needed more time to
investigate possible financial and political implications of closing the FRC.
County Reaction
Councilmember Billings had a chance to visit with County Commissioner McCarron
about the County's perspective on closing the FRC at the parade the next night.
Commissioner McCarron did not appear to have concems about the City closing its
drop-off and commented that he only saw a need for drop off centers in rural areas.
Fridley staff had met with County staff last January requesting financial assistance with
the needed capital improvements. We also asked the County about their legal
obligations in State Statute (see attachments) to provide options for Anoka County
residents to recycling appliances and problem materials. The County staff responded in
the attached January 23ro memo, saying that the private sector was doing an adequate
job of providing recycling and problem waste handling options for residents. The
County staff also said that they could not help Fridley financially, citing that other
surrounding communities would have to relinquish some of their SCORE funds if the
County were to support the FRC as a regional facility.
What 1998 Activity is Showing Us
Aluminum business was higher in April and May this year, showing that spring
advertising has impacted our business. However, year to date, aluminum collection is
almost level with last year's activity. Financial calculations show that the FRC would
have to increase aluminum collection by 50% to be turning a profit. It would be
unreasonable to expect that we could increase our business to this level, and even if
we did, the added staff costs of handling that level of material would eliminate any
added profit. �
Impacts of Closing FRC
There are many positive and negative impacts to closing the FRC. The positive
impacts would be:
• The City would not lose any SCORE (County) funding.
• Julie could spend more time assisting Community Development activities and
Nature Center programs.
• As other communities in Anoka County grow at a faster rate than Fridley, we
will continue to receive a decreased amount of the County's SCORE funding
allotment. If the FRC is closed, the City can concentrate these decreasing
funds on the curbside recycling program.
• Fridley's curbside program would have a greater chance for competitive
bidding without the aluminum redemption center operating (loss of aluminum
can revenues to the curbside collections increases our per unit contract
costs).
• We would capture some of the lost recycling tonnage through our curbside
collections, improving the efficiency of that program.
The negative impacts of closing the FRC would be:
• Other recycling drop off options are not as accessible to Fridley residents and
businesses.
• Many residents and businesses from surrounding communities (like Spring
Lake Park and Moundsview) that do not have drop-offs will also be affected.
• Fridley would not meet the County recycling goal (but there's no penalty).
• Fridley residents would expect to have two clean up days per year, as all
other Anoka County communities provide, which would cost about $20,000
per year.
• If the FRC is closed, some residents will expect to have the SWAP fee on
their utility bills reduced. The net amount of revenue currently attributable to
the FRC operations equals about $17,000 per year ($.50/uniUquarter). It
should be noted that if the SWAP fee is reduced and clean up days are
implemented, the SWAP budget will be $6,000 more in the red than with the
previously discussed budget proposal.
• Anoka County has no plans in the current draft of their Solid Waste Master
Plan to establish a regional problem waste drop off.
Survey Results .
Staff in conducting a survey of the FRC users from July 14-18. A copy of the survey
questions is attached. We will present the survey results Monday night. The results of
this survey will likely be critical in determining the impacts of a potential FRC closing as
well.
Recommendation
After weighing the potential impacts of closing the FRC, staff supports investing in the
capital improvements at the FRC only if Anoka County will make a commitment to
partially fund the site's continued operation. It is our opinion that State Law requires the
County to offer a recycling center similar to ours. If the City of Fridley is going to fulfill
this legal obligation for the County� it is unfair for Fridley taxpayers to pay anything
towards its operation.
Staff has approached County staff with a similar request, but has been unsuccessful in
obtaining assistance. We now feel it is important for the City to make one more request
to the Anoka County Commissioners to either assist FRC operations or establish a
County regional recycling center as every other metro area county has done. We
recommend asking Anoka County for a commitment of $30,000 per year to subsidize
the operation of the FRC for a minimum of five years, justifying our $50,000 investment
in improvements to the site.
If Anoka County refuses to fund the FRC, staff recommends that the City Council make
plans to close the site effective March 31, 1999, when existing contracts have all
ended.
M-9&155
SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT - RECYCLING CENTER
97-99 RC Budget Chart2
—
115A.�51 Wr�SiE :�L4.'ia►GEVIErT
(b) If, based on the recycling monitoring described in subdivision 4, the director finds
that a county will be unab(e to meet the recyc(ing goals established in subdivisions 2 and 2a;
the director shall, after consideration of the reasons for the county's inability to meet the
goals, recommend tegislation for consideration by the environment and natural resources
committees of the senate and house of representatives, the finance division of the senafe
committee on environment and natural resources, and the house of representatives commit-
tee on environment and natural resources finance to establish mandatory recycling standards
and to authorize the director to mandate appropriate solid waste management techniques de=
si�ned to meet the standards in those counties that are unable to meet the goals.
Subd. 6. County solid waste plans. Each county shall include in its solid waste man-
a�ement ptan described in section 11�A.46, or its sotid waste master plan described in sec-
tion 473.803, a recycling implementation strategy for meeting the recycling goal established
in subdivision 2a along with mechanisms for providing financial incentives to solid waste
generators to reduce the amount of waste generated and to separate recyclable materials from
the waste stream.
Subd. 7. Recycling impiementation strategy. Each eounty shall submit to the director
for approval the recycling implementation strategy required in subdivision 6. The recycling
implementation strategy must be submitted by October 31, 1995, and must:
(1) be consistent with the approved county solid waste management plan;
(2) identify the materials that are being and will be recycled in the county to meet the
goals under this section and the parties responsible and methods for recycling the material;
(3) provide a budget to ensure adequate funding for needed county and local pro�rams
and demunstrate an ongoing commitment to spending the money on recycling programs; aad
(4) include a schedule for implementing recycling activities needed to meet the aoals in
subdivision 2a.
History: ISp1989 c 1 art I S s 12; 1991 c 337 s 19-21; 1992 c 593 art 1 s 14-16, 54;
1993 c 249 s 13,14,61; 1994 c 639 art S s 3; 1995 c 247 art 1 s 14-17; art 2 s 1 S: 1996 c
�170 s 27
115A.552 OPPORTtJNITY TO RECYCLE.
Subdivision 1. County requirement. Counties shall ensure that residents, includin�
residents of single and multifamily dwellings, have an opportunity to recycle. At le_ ast one
_ recycling center shall be available in each countx Opportunity to recycle means availability
of recyclmg and curbside pickup or collection centers for recyclable materials at sites that are
convenient for persons to use. Counties shal! also provide for the recyclin� of Droblem mate-
rials and maior an�liaaces Counties shall assess the operation of existing and proposed re-
cycling centers and s6a11 give due considtration to those centers in ensuring the opportunity
to recycle. To the extent practicable, the costs incurred by a county for collection, storage,
transportation, and recyciing of major appliances must be collected from persons who dis-
card the major appliances.
Subd. 2. Recycling opportunities. An opportunity to recycle must include:
(1) a local recycling center in the county and sites for collectin� recyctab(e materials
that are located m areas convenient for persons to use them;
(2) curbs�de p�ckup, centralized drop-off, or a local recycling center for at least four
broad types of recyclable materials in cities with a population of 5,000 or more persons; and
(3) monthly pickup of at least four broad types of recyciable materials in cities of the
first and second class and cities with 5,000 or more population in the metropolitan area.
Subd. 3. Recycling information, education, and prnmotion. (a) Each county shall
provide infoRnation on how, when, and where materials may be recycled, including a pro-
motional program that publishes notices at least once every three months and encourages
source separation of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional materials.
(b) The director shall develop materials for counties to use in providing information on
and promotion of recycling.
(c) The director shal! provide technical assistance to counties to help counties imple-
ment recycling programs.
339
Subd. 4. Yonresidentiat rec
managers, business owners and II
solid waste to provide appropriate
mercial, industrial, and inscitution
History: 1Sp1989 c 1 an 1�
115A.553 COLLECTION AND
AI.S.
Subdivision 1. Collection c�
ensure alone or in conjunction wi-
caken to markets for sale or to rec
taken by a county under this seMic
from delivering recyclable materi
choice.
Subd. 2. Licensing of recyd:
municipal licenses for collection
Subd. 3.'Ii�aasportation sys
shall develop an efficient transpor
processing centen that may be us,
centers.
History:1Sp1989 c 1 art lt
ll5A.554 AUTHORTTY OF S:
A sanitary district has the su
ary for purposes of secdons 115A.
115A.552; 115A553;115A919;
116.072; 375.18, subdivision 14;
400.161.
History:1Sp1989 c 1 ast 1 t
1 s18; 1996c470s8
xOTE:'ihe amcndmeue oo t6is soaiou
subdivision 5, is effecave oa the eHective datc
ll5AS55 RECYCLING CEN"
• The agency shall designate r
designated as a recycling center, a
hours each week,l2 months eac:
(1) at least four differeut m:
(2) if the recycling centei a�
subdivision 2, paragaph (h), to t
. signs under section 161.242, snb
History:1Sp1989 c 1 art 1�
ll5AS56 MATERIAIS USEI
Materials and products nse�
bins with short life rycles m� b'
als from this state, if available.
History:1989 c 32S s 8
ll5A557 COUNTY WASTE'
Subdivision 1. Distn'bn�°r
purpose of distribution to couna`
the d'uector based on pupulaaon,
yeaz: For purposes of th�s su�
----
���
���'- �
�n and
' V 1SIOQ
wasie
�es ex-
istered
:olitan
�e di-
d pur.
:eto.
s 1S;
solid
�ed in
waste
,riona!
csons.
�r so1-
:rt 1
s ex-
e use
it ac-
l6.
torts; -
t dis- -
es of
con
! ser- --
dv to
r and
,unty
cific
o(ete
: dis-
very
law
,a
w�srE rtw,�wc��-r usa.a� �
Subd. 2. Contents. (a) The p(ans shall describe existing collection, processin„ and dis-
posal systems, including schedules of rates and charges, financing methods, environmental
acceptability, and opportunities for improvemencs in the systems.
(b) The plans shall include an estimate of the land disposal capacity in acre—feet which _
will be needed through the year 2000, on the basis of current and projected waste genetation
practices. In assessing the need for additional capacity for resource recovery or land disposal, �
che plans shall take into account the characteristics of waste stream components and shai!
�ive priority to waste reduction, separation, and recycling.
y (c) The plans shall require the most fe:isibte and prudent reduction of the need for and
practice of land disposal of mixed municipa! solid waste. . -'
(d) The plans shall address at least waste reduction, separation, recycling, and other re-
source recovery•optioas, and shall include specific and quantifiable objectives, immediately
and over specified time peciods, for reducing the land disposal of mired municipal sohd �
waste and for the implementation of feasibie and prudent reduction, separation, recycling, �� .
and uther resource recovery uptions. These objectives shall be consistent with statewide ob- �, q„�;.4
jectives as identified in statute. The ptans shall describe methods for identifying the portioas �:s,
of the waste stream such as leaves, grass, clippino , tree and plant residue, and paper for ap- ';:'`'
plication and mising into the soil and use in agricultural practices. The plans shall descnbe
specific functions to be performed and activities to be undertaken to achieve the abatement,
reduction, separation, recycling, and other resource recovery objectives and shall descnbe -'
the estimated cost, proposed manner of 6nancing, and timing of the functions and activities
The plans shall describe proposed mechanisms for complyin� with the recycling require
ments of section ll�AS�l, and the household hazardous waste management requirements -
of section ll�A.96, subdivision 6.
(e) The plans shall include a comparison of the costs of the activities to be undertalcen, ''
including capital and operating costs, and the effects of the activities on the cost to generators -'��
,,;'
and on persons currently providing solid waste collection, processing, and disposal services �<'
The plans shall include alternatives which could be used to achieve t6e abatement objectives :�
if the proposed functions and activities are not established. `��
(� The plans shall designate how public education shall be accomplished. The plans "
shall. ro che extent practicable and consistent with the achievement of other pubGe policies
and purposes, encourage ownership and operation of so(id waste facilities by private indus
try. Eor solid waste facilities owned or operated by public agzncies or supported primarily by :
public Funds or obiigations issued by a public agency, the plans shall include criteria and stan ,'�'
dards to protect comparable private and public facilities already existing in the area from dis- '�`�"
placement unless the displacement is required in order to achieve the waste management ob- �`:
jectives identified in the plan. � -
(g) The pians shalt establish a siting procedure and development pcogram-to assure the ; -
orderly location, development, and financing of new or expanded solid waste facilities and.� �-`
services su�cient for a prospective ten—year period, including estimated costs and implt-;�
mentation schedules, proposed procedures for operation and maintenance, estimated annt�al ,, ��"
costs and gross revenues, and proposals for the use of facilities after they are no longer need �' -�
.��.
ed or usable. x�`"`;`
(h) The plans shalt describe existing and propused county and municipa( ordinances �.� T�; :
and license and permit requirements relating to solid waste management and shall descn'be ;
existing and proposed regulation and enforcement procedures. ��. �.
s�� ;. :
Subd. 3. [Repealed, 1984 c 644 s 82J - �;:,:
of solid waste
governmental unit or other
A countv or a solid waste
ment unless it establishes a fundin mechanism to assure the abwt ot me entit to wtuca j:'_=::
e esates responsibility to adequately carry out the responsibilitv delegated. _ -- �°�
Subd. �. Jurisdiction of plan. (a) After a county ptan has been submitted for approval -
under subdivision I, a public entity, as defined in section 16B.122, subdivision i, within the
county may not enter inro a binding agreement governing a solid waste management activity •.`
that is inconsistent with the county plan without the consent of the county. - �,-
Date January 23, 1998
C O U N T Y O F A N O K A
Integrated Waste Nlanagement Unit
Government Center
2100 Third Avenue, Room 340 • Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265
612-323-�730 • Fax 612•323•5731
Memo to: Barb Dacey, Community Development D'uector
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Julie Jones, Recycling Coordinator
From: Brad Fields, Director, Integrated Waste Management Departmen
Carolyn Smith, Solid Waste Abatement Specialist -��;��1�%G��
Regarding: Drop-offRecycling Center
Thank you for providing us a tour of your drop-off recycling center. The chauges made ha.ve greatly
improved the site. However, it is our understanding that the city believes an additional $40,000 is needed in
site improvements. Financing these improvements and the longevity of the site aze issues that are being
addressed by the city.
As we discussed, Anoka County complies with statute requirements by allowing residential recycling
programs to be designed and managed by the municipalities. A funding subsidy is provided through SCORE
funds. The private sector and municipalities provide multiple options to effectively manage problem
materials and major appliances. The county manages commercial recycling and household hazardous waste
Programs• "
The county has been receiving SCORE funds &om the state since 1990. It has been the policy of the County
Board to pass the entire SCORE allocation to the municipalities so you can develop residential recycling
programs specific to the needs of your community. The City of Fridley received $76,506 in 1997. These
funds can be used for a variety of abatement programs including improvements to your recycling center.
Regional recycling centers for recyclables, problem materials or appliances have not been considered
necessary to develop. We believe that the present sites are sufficient and convenient for residents. The
county has not budgeted for and dces not have funding or staff for the development of joint city/county sites.
The City of Fridley has done an excellent job managing residential recycling, including the drop-off center.
Thank you for your continued efforts and cooperation. If you have any questions or need further assistance
please feel free to contact us.
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer _
Alternative Drop Off Sites in Anoka County
for Materials Currently Collected at Fridley Recycling Center
Andover Recycling Center
Newspaper Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Andover Recycling Center
Mixed Paper Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Andover Recycling Center
Plastic Bottles Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Andover Recycling Center
Glass Containers Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Andover Recycling Center
Steel Cans Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Andover Recycling Center
Corrugated Cardboard Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Rec clin Center
Aluminum Cans Weyerhaeuser, New Brighton
(Redemption Sites) Schwartzman's, Anoka
Brooklyn Park Aluminum, Osseo
Andover Recycling Center
Scrap Metal Burns Recycling Center
Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Coon Ra ids Rec clin Center
Fluorescent Lamps Van O Lite Store, Fridley (fees)
City of Blaine (once per month)
Major Appliances City of Coon Rapids (once per month)
Encore Recycled Appliance Store,
Fridle $15/unit
Columbia Heights Recycling Center
Phone Books Coon Rapids Recycling Center
Ham Lake Recycling Center
Northtown CUB Foods
BudgeU1999/FRC Alternative Chart
6/30/98
JULY 1998 FRC SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. What are xou dro��ng ofF for recyclingtodav?
0 Newspapers 0 Plastic bottles
0 Steel cans 0 Glass
0 Aluminum foil 0 Appliance
0 Aluminum cans 0 Scrap metal
1
�
1
1
Magazines
Office paper
Fluorescent
Other
✓ � - � • �• 1• - .• - •� . �• _ .•.111'l • • _ l'
� • � : - � • •. -
3. What i�.your city of residence or business?
0 Fridley 0 New Brighton
0 Spring Lake Park 0 Columbia Heights
0 Blaine 0 Minneapolis
0 Roseville 0 Shoreview
0 Ham Lake 0 Lexington
0 Brooklyn Center 0 Brooklyn Park
0 Maple Grove 0 Elk River
0 Forest Lake 0 St. Francis
0 Cedar 0 Chisago
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mounds View
Coon Rapids
St. Anthony
Lino Lakes
Circle Pines
Hilltop
Anoka
Oakdale
Maplewood
Other .:• �
4. Why do yS�u use the Fridley Recycling Center'?
0 Do not have curbside recycling services �
0 Curbside services are unreliable.
0 Have problems with vandalism curbside.
0 Want cash for my aluminum cans, so bring other things, too.
0 Most convenient place to redeem my aluminum cans
0 Use to drop off problem wastes (i.e., appliances, scrap metal, flurorescent
lamps)
Only place where I can bring my business' cardboard.
Do not have recycling senrices at my business.
Like the friendly, clean service.
Use to save money/room in the dumpster at my business.
Other
0
0
0
0
0
5. N^:�: ^�+�^ �+o you use the Fridlev RecyrJjp.c,�Center?
0 Once a week
0 Once a month
0 Quarterly
0 Twice per year
0 Once a year
�
<•
MEMORANDUl'VI
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: July 14, 1998
TO: William W. Bums, City Manager�j'��
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
SUBJECT: Gateway East Update
This is to provide an update on the status of the Gateway East redevelopment
project at the northeast corner of 57�' Avenue and University Avenue. .
�. .
The project area may include acquiring up to five sites. On June 26, 1998 the
HRA completed the acquisition of the JR's Automotive site at 5755 University
Avenue. The two vacant properties have been appraised and staff is in the
process of contacting the owners to begin negotiations. Staff has had
discussions with Anoka County on one of the vacant sites (site befinreen JR's and
the duplex) which went tax forfeit this spring. The property is now in the one
year redemption period which allows the previous owner to pay the back taxes
and regain title. The redemption period ends in May of 1999. In the meantime,
the County will establish the value of the site, probably in August of this year.
The HRA will have to wait until the redemption period has ended to acquire the
site.
As an aside, within the last week we have been contacted by the former owner
of the tax forfeit property about a proposal to construct a four unit townhome
project on his site. It is not clear if this is a bona fide development proposal or a
negotiations tactic, however the property has been appraised and staff is ready
to negotiate within HRA guidelines. It might be possible to acquire the site
sooner if the previous owner is willing to cooperate.
Gateway East Memo
July 14, 1998
Page 2
We have also been in the process of establishing contacts with Valvoline Rapid
Oil about the vacant site adjacent to their store on 57"' Avenue. The property
has been appraised and staff is prepared to begin negotiations quickly.
Staff is still researching legal issues related to the pawn shop and the duplex.
Appraisals have not be ordered pending resolution of these issues. Additional
information will be available at the conference meeting on July 20"'.
��,�
Mark Koegler from the Hoisington Koegler has prepared several preliminary site
plans for the project. The sites plans range from 14 to 22 units of owner-
occupied housing. Copies of the preliminary site plans are attached and staff is
working with Koegler to make several changes to the plans and provide eleva-
tions to show what the units might look like. Staff has reviewed the sites plans
and believes that Plan D may have the best potential. At this point we have not
identified.a price range for the units, nor has any financial analysis been done to
evaluate potential project costs. _
- •� - �
. :
Staff should also mention that at the June 4� 1998 HRA meeting, the HRA
Commissioners expressed reservations about proceeding on the Gateway East
project before the projects in Hyde Park have been completed. Staff
emphasized the Council's direction to continue work on the redevelopment
program in Hyde Park, including housing rehabilitation, scattered site in-fill
housing development and 57"' Avenue. However, the Franks Used Car site
should remain undeveloped until consensus can be reached with the
neighborhood on a redevelopment plan.
�� -����
Unless otherwise directed, staff will continue to work aggressively on this project
and will focus on accomplishing the following activities by the end of this year:
Gateway East Memo
July 14, 1998
Page 3
1. Resolve legal issues on the pawn shop and duplex and begin negotiations to
acquire those sites in a timely fashion. It will also be necessary to hire a
relocation eonsultant.
2. Work with Mark Koegler to revise the proposed site plans and review them
with the Council, HRA, and Planning Commission probably in August of this
year. . �
3. Tour comparable developments in metro area to identify key features that
should be incorporated into the Gateway East project.
4. Complete financial analysis, including project costs, tax increment
projections and identify potential outside funding sources.
5. Conduct neighborhood meeting to review the project, concept plans and
implementation time frame.
6. Develop request for proposals and solicit potential developers. Selection of a
developer could occur by November of this year. _
7. Establish tax increment financing district, including Council and HRA
approvals in the first quarter of 1999.
Attached is a matrix outlining the full development implementation schedule.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Attachment
M-98-
�
U
N
�O
a
�
�
�.
0
>
N
'0
N
�
�
�
W
a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
U
�
C
�
a
0
>
�
0
� ���'
� �
a■� �iiin�m
��mn����mm�iiiii■�i
■�� � ■m�ii��iii
: ■�� �nnm�nm�ni
. ■�i���mm�imin�iii�■iim�
a■i�i�im�n ni�iiiii i�iiii�iiiiii
��in�■ i��mn�iiii ii■ii�ii�iiiiii
��n�■nm��n iii�iiiii�oiii
�■�ne� �n ��mii�uii
■�nm� �i niii�iini�ii n
W ! I
° � i
z �'�� � � �
�
' I I i' � �
,,, � , ,
x �
�
� W
OI q
�
O I
�
<
J
�
�
2 I (' � I
I I I
� I �
� �
� � � � a
m�� �� � �
w ° �€< � � �
r��'j.`_°a '"= 3 � �
'!� tSc�g � 8�3u�il mi� �e � c c
o ���� n 5o5$I N� �' y �� � ��
a '$�; c 1 � ��avl c }9 r
� `° °'� iia o �� � o m��- g
�°mm ` �'��'�i � �> � e � m�c � ��w E �$ �°a
� � �O�m� � �U�al a ac��t a �y'E �g �g `�D�� e m ��W'a
s c � �LL � � � _� � _
s s x��� u°. dif8i� s �> �o'ci� c° S�maao rc =�i �a �����'nic�i
�m
��
2 �s
���
€m
�°
�
U
�
.o
�
��
��
��
O^l U'^
W VJ
a a�i
�
� Q
N O
c� �
w �,
m �
a3i
�
C7
�� ��
�, �
�� �
�n � � i
�a i■ n
::■� � ��e
_.■� � ��mn
■n�n� ni��nn
� i�uni� m�n�inii
���in■ ■niii
�n� � �mn
���' �"'
W i li �i II i iil I
� I I � I i( I
> �� � I
= I I i jl
� I I �
�
�
� d
� W
N
�
�
�
�
J
�
�
� �
Z
D
�
I I
ii
�
� �
� � u
�
a «
I y � O � C
M-
I � �I � d� o �� � V
@��E d avm " cal�l o D
p q m y E � n.- �
� a o? 8� � ��� 5� �S�al€I � e'J3 c
� 10 $ n� o QS� a � c� d � � 3 0� m q� a�
� � > >=�¢ e EE'�UcAC�BUv : nm��
m m—p _'& � d m m� �3atn> 9 •• ��- Cq
< U O Ot/J�. Z a aaooa. .. C�a� N fqU�U
���
N m
m
N � �
'� � n
� m
3�
0
0
d
0
0
0
� z
�
v
a
� �
�
�'
.,.
w
, w
a�
� �
�Y
�
0
�
�
�0 �
lunanni
�
U�
� �
57th Avenue N. E.
57th Ave. N.E. & University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota
57 1/2 Avenue N.E. �
7 8 7 lo
fi f2 f3 19 �
57th Place
` _
N 0 R �� � 60-------100
hoJ�ot NumO�r: Yhaa
�Pt10T1 A w. n...�w�►.�a�.��cs-�e�.s«r�u �B
o.u�,iai..
14 Unita HoiainBton Koegier Group Ina
lYwuw�aoWUes• ror taodYtudn� ..a Cwl�o �. .
9 0
D Q
0 Q
9 0
0 e
� w Q
z
v
� �
a �
v
>
a
1
� �N
►.
a� Q
>
.Q
a
0 0
0 0
� �
0 0
� ��
ii d�-��
1 � Z
13
�'
�
5
1.�0.
57 1/2 Avenue N.E. �
� � ��� ��� ,�
�d
,� ' _1' ��; ,_ _ ��
_ �1 r= �
�'' I �i��� tl1Jf i,
�� -��
J7
�
1�
�
� n I 79
U� I Zo
8 I
� �
� ao�� o (
!RQDD00 a �
�
� � �
57th Avenue N. E.
�------�
�-- -�r
NORTH p So to0
ProJ.et Numl.r: Ye-�n
57th Ave. N.E. & University Ave. N.E. Option B►��. n.m.:r:�c.tet.��oe-�e�,.e..�.0 ��
o.�.: 7/os/os
Fridley, Minnesota zo Units Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Cn.u.. llelal�.n� t.r t.na ►I.neln( .na Y'.1�.
:-
57th Place
0
U
Q
0
D
D
�
�
�I'
I
u
a
a
�
0
w
z
�
a
a
�
c'
.��
.�
ti
�
'"a
a
0
�
Q
u
u
�
ll
�
Q
io
�
fl
0
..��
�I : -
�
12
57 1/2 Avenue N.E. �
15
18
w
z
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
57th Place
21 .
i
� � I Z4 .
� , g
� 0 � �Dfla � I
anutinn a � '
�
� °�n
57th Avenue N. E.
NORT� ���
Prujwt NumOm Ytl-�x m�
57th Ave. N.E. & University Ave. N.E. Option D ���. N.�,.:�:�►�;�.,�otl-�n�.�,..��,�� aa
o.a:,�un�ae
Fridley, Minnesota z4 v��cs Huisingtuu Koeglar Group Itia
Cr��Uw duWUow fw IanJ Pl�aula� uN l�.1�e