The URL can be used to link to this page

1986-04-21 CC Agenda/PacketCnp,__ CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4-21-86 1. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Administration • - Approval of the Bills • - Junk Cars - Opening of the Audit Bids (8:00 p.m.) b. Planning - Request for Public Hearings * - Tom Haller and Patty Moses --Request to subdivid their lot located on 50th Street, this request also requires a variance for the frontage requirement - Barthel Construction --Request for Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for: Lot 1 Block 1; Lot 10 Block 5 and Lot 1 Block 6 in the Barthel Industrial Park • - Robert Heuring--Request to approve property split from the existing Heuring farm • - Albertville Clinic --Special Use Permit to place a B' fence on the south side of the Clinic property - Pete Merges for St. Albert's --Request to locate a garage on the Parish Center lot within five feet of the property line (equal to where the Parish Center sits) - Building Inspector - MATT Properties --problem with locating spectic system on property (Loren or one of his representatives will be here to explain the problem) - Building Permits Bernard Richter for a deck $43.25 (pd.) Robert Bongaarts for a garage 51.55 (pd.) Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business PAGE 2 AGENDA 3yk Construciton for new home $656.50 (pd.) 3rthel Construciton for garage 51.55 Lm Hennum for new home 591.55 Lm Hennum for new home 41Q Qn c. Legal - Letter from "Concerned Friends and Neighbors of Otesgo Township" - City's Response (need to respond) - Update on Annexation Hearing d. Engineering - Mike Potter --Open ditch along side his property (11650 57th St) • - Update on the NOV - Release of the Payment to PCI for work completed - Utility service to Barthel's 3 lots on 51st Street • - Request to Construction Bids Notice e. Maintenance - Call for proposals for street patching on Main Avenue - Just a reminder Ken is attending the Wastewater Operator's Conference this week. . V. OTHER BUSINESS • a. Bonding Allocation System --Holmes and Graven • b. Radioactive Waste Repository --"Preserve Our Land" . C. Letter for Don Cornelius • d. March Tax Settlement from Wright County + e. PERA Town Meeting Notice VI. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4-21-86 CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DEPARTMENT BUSINESS a. Administration • - Approval of the Bills - Junk Cars - Opening of the Audit Bids (8:00 p.m.) b. Planning Request for Public Hearings • - Tom Haller and Patty Moses --Request to subdivid their lot located on 50th Street, this request also requires a variance for the frontage requirement - Barthel Construction --Request for Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for: Lot 1 Block 1; Lot 10 Block 5 and Lot 1 Block 6 in the Barthel Industrial Park • - Robert Heuring--Request to approve property split from the existing Heuring farm • - Albertville Clinic --Special Use Permit to place a 8' fence on the south side of the Clinic property - Pete Merges for St. Albert's --Request to locate a garage on the Parish Center lot within five feet of the property line (equal to where the Parish Center sits) - Building Inspector - MATT Properties --problem with locating spectic system on property (Loren or one of his representatives will be here to explain the problem) - Building Permits Bernard Richter for a deck $43.25 (pd.) Robert Bongaarts for a garage 51.55 (pd.) Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business PAGE 2 AGENDA Psyk Construciton for new home $656.50 (pd.) Barthel Construciton for garage 51.55 Jim Hennum for new home 591.55 Jim Hennum for new home 619.90 Jim Hennum for new home 619.90 Jim Hennum for new home 602.30 Jim Hennum for new home 591.55 c. Legal - Letter from "Concerned Friends and Neighbors of Otesgo Township" - City's Response (need to respond) Update on Annexation Hearing d. Engineering - Mike Potter --Open ditch along side his property (11650 57th St) • - Update on the NOV - Release of the Payment to PCI for work completed - Utility service to Barthel's 3 lots on 51st Street • - Request to Construction Bids Notice e. Maintenance - Call for proposals for street patching on Main Avenue - Just a reminder Ken is attending the Wastewater Operator's Conference this week. V. OTHER BUSINESS • a. Bonding Allocation System --Holmes and Graven • b. Radioactive Waste Repository --"Preserve Our Land" • C. Letter for Don Cornelius • d. March Tax Settlement from Wright County s e. PERA Town Meeting Notice VI. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 21, 1986 The April 21st City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Jim Walsh. Members present include Gary Schwenzfeier, Donatus Vetsch and Bob Braun. Council member Don Corneluis was absent. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Don Berning, Barry Johnson and Gary Meyer. The minutes of teh April 7th meeting were read and approved on a motion by Donatus Vetsch and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier. All were in favor. Mr. Jim Trapp of MATT Properties and Loran Kohen, the Building Inspector were present to discuss the results of a Perk Test done on MATT Properties site located on County Road 19. The results show that the land is not suitable for a drain field. MATT Properties asked if they could use a holding tank system in place of a drain field. Loran pointed out to the Council the potential problems with a holding tank system and recommended that MATT Properties explore available land that might be available to located a drain field on. Loran also brought to the Council attention that people are working in the building even though the Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued and will not be until a sceptic system has been approved. Lorans full recommendation was to approve a temporay Certificate of Occupancy for 30 days as long as 2 satilites were located on the site. In addition, with in the 30 days MATT Properties needs to 1) resolve to spectic system problem by buying a peice of land 100'X30-40' to place the system on. 2) Get the plans for sceptic approved by the Building Inspector. 3) Clean up the remains of the fite this winter and get the property back in order. This recommendation was approved on a motion by Bob Braun and a second by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. The entire matter will be brought back to the Council at the May 19th Council meeting to fully resolve the issuses. The City Council referred Bob Heurings's request lot lot subdivision back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. This was done on a motion by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by Bob Braun. All were in favor. At 8:00 p.m. Mayor Walsh called for the Bid Opening for the 1985 Audit Report. Two bids were recieved and are as followed: Gruys, Johnson and Associates, Ltd. $4,350.00 Seifert, Betts and Co., Ltd. $3,875.00 There was a request that Maureen check into having t he Joint Powers Bond work broken out enabling the City to bill the Joint Powers for that work. PAGE 2 MINUTES In additon, there was an inquiry to break the bill down for budgeting purposes. There was a motion to table the selection of the Auditor until Maureen had an opportunity to discuss the bids with Bob Minkema. This motion tabled the issue until the May 5th Council meeting and was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeier. All were in favor. The following requests for public hearing were made: 1. Request by Patty Moses and Tom Haller to split 2 lots off their existing lot on 51st Street. This request also includes a request for variance to allow for 80 foot front widths instead of 90 feet as called for in the Ordinance. The existing lot surrently measures 192' bu 1312'. The new lots would each measure 80'X300' leaving the back lot 192' X 1,012. There would also be a 32; driveway right-of-way for a driveway to get to the back lot. The Council was informed that the Planning Commission has set their hearing for May 8th at 8:00 p.m. There was a motion by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by to set the Council's Public Hearing for May 19th at 8:00 p.m. All were in favor. 2. Barthel Construction was present to request Public Hearings for rezoning and preliminary plats for: Lot 1, Block 1; Lot 10, Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 6 which are all located in the Barthel Industrial Park --Residential Phase II. The Council was again informed that a hearing has been set by the Planning Commission for May 8th at 8:30 p.m. There was a motion to set the hearing before the Council for May 19th at 8:30 p.m. All were in favor. Additional discussion with Barthel Construction focused on the possible park land exchange. A committee made up of a member from the Park Board, Planning Commission, the Council a Citizen at large and maybe a School Board representative will be formed to study the possiblities. This group will be assisted by the Administrator, the Engineer and anyone else that may be deemed necessary. There was a motion to set up this committee by Donatus and seconded by Bob, all were in favor. Donatus will be the Council's representative. The Council also talked to Ken Barthel about putting up a signs showing who is located in the Industrial Park. The City will look into a possible easement on the Carron property. A building permit for St. Albert's Church for a new garde was approved on a motion by -I-)C.; a 1 and a second by 1 ?,� _ All were in favor. This permit was approved pending the Building Inpectors approval. PAGE 3 MINUTES The following building permits were approved: B. Ricther for a deck --motion made by Gary and second by Bob, all were in favor B. Bongaarts for a garage --motion made by Bob and second by Donatus, all were in favor. Doug Psyk for new house --motion by Donatus and second by Gary, all were in favor. Barthel Construction for a garage --motion made by Gary and second by Bob, all were in favor. Jim Hennum for the following five new homes --all pending approval of a site plan. 11620 55th Street --1st by Bob, 2nd by Gary 11701 55th Street --1st by Don, 2nd by Gary 5541 55th Street --1st by Don, 2nd by Gary 11571 55th Street--lst by Don, 2nd by Gary 5544 Lake Street--lst by Bob, 2nd by Don The Council was brought up to date on the Corp of Engineers NOV. Discussion focussed on the fact that they are asking us to provide written garentee that we will never request any assistance form them in the future. A copy of the letter was included in the packet. Other engineering items that were discussed: Release of the PCI Payment. Barry pointed out that a farmer has been discing up part of the road on 55th Street. The following items were is discussed regarding maintenance-- Ken should go around and look for areas that need major patching so that we can have all the work done at the same time. There was also some discussion on trucks parking on the local streets. Maureen was requested to notify these person as to the No Parking rules. and finally Kevin Roden requested that someone look at his curb which he believes is sinking. Barry will look at it before the May 5th Council meeting. There was a motion made by Gary S. and seconded by Bob B. to approve a resolution in theory regarding the Radioactive Waste Repostitory site propsed in Minnesota. All were in favor. This resolution should be sent to the State and Federal REpresentatives. There was a discussion about 1-unk Cars". The topic was tabled until the May 19th meeting so that Maureen can get some information on Junk Car Ordinances. there was an update on the Annexation hearing and discussion on the letter that was sent by the "Concerned Friends and Neighbors of Otesgo Township". It was pointed out that there was no disclaimer on the letter stating who had paid for it. Gary Meyer is looked into the possiblity of turning the letter over to the County Attorney to review. The City will be preparing a response for the Nnwwspaper and a letter to send out to the residents correcting the misleading statements of the Concerned Friends letter. There was a motion to approve the bills made by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor. There was then a motion to adjourn made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Bob Braun. All were in favor. INCOME RECIEVED 4-21-86 G.L. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION $ 55.00 TRI COUNTY ABSTRAT 502.94 ALBERTVILLE LIONS CLUB 25.00 U.S. TREASURY (REVENUE SHARING) 4,019.00 WRIGHT COUNTY (MARCH TAX SETTLEMENT) 10,693.80 DON'S AUTO 50.00 DOUG PSYK (BUILDING PERMIT) 656.50 REGISTERED CLOSERS 5,556.09 ALBERTVILLE BAR 800.00 152 CLUB 800.00 WILFRED LINDENFELSER DIG IN PERMIT 10.00 LICENSE 45.00 MEINY'S DIGGERS 30.00 ROBERT BONGAARTS 51.55 BERNARD RCHTER 43.25 HEIDELBERG INN 750.00 TOTAL $24,088.13 BILLS TO BE PAID 4-21-86 WRIGHT COUNTY TREASURER $ 1,642.50 DEHMER'S FIRE PROTECTION 28.50 NEWMAN SIGNS 95.40 SCHARBER & SONS, INC. 4.51 STATE TREASURER SURPLUS PROPERTY FUND (CHAIRS) 116.00 MINNESOTA FIRE AND SAFETY, INC. 1,558.27 (BUNKER PANTS AND RED SUSPENDERS) CHOUINARDS 20.57 GARY MEYER, P.E. 896.50 JOHN LINDBERG (DEPOSIT FOR GARAGE) 200.00 PATTY BRAUN (WATER METER READING--7 HOURS) 35.00 MINNEGASCO 151.23 FIRST TRUST ST. PAUL (TEMP. SEWER BOND) 29,112.50 ALFRED J. GEORGES (ATTEMPTED TO STEAM OPEN 145.00 STORM SEWER LINE ON LAKE STREET) KEN LINDSAY 592.91 KEN LINDSAY (INSURANCE) 50.00 MAUREEN ANDREWS 461.41 MAUREEN ANDREWS (INSURANCE) 50.00 D.O.E.R. S.S. Ret. DiV. 471.54 TOTAL $35,701.84 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301 PHONE: 497-3384 DATE1 April 18, 1986 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Maureen Andrews, City Administrator,,,� RE: Junk Cars On Thursday, April 17, 1986, Gary Schwenzfeier and I went our and noted "junk cars" that are located throughout the City of Albertville. This is the list of violations that we found: Bob Engstrom 2 or 3 Vehicles Bill Praught 2 or 3 Vehicles and other misc. parts scatter around his yard. Ken Wacker 1 Pickup Pat Hurd 1 car (questionable) Dan Eiden 1 T-Bird (questionable) Clem Marx 1 Dodge 152 Club 1 Dodge It is our intention to notify these people that they are in violation of a City Ordinance and will ask that corrective measures be taken. If you know of any other locations where the City Ordinance is in violation please let me know. Thanks. Make our City........ Your City We invite Home, Industry, Business SUNNYSIDE BUILDERS 11579 - 50th St., N.E. Albertville, MN 55301 497-3517 or 647-9775 � -sT rv� �C�s7 /� I � Ao NZ, I C��6ofT'�i i I I AW CERTIFICATE south line of Government Lot I [lt' mrn�r„I ,or t. Lot I OF SURVEY IHAL 1*-SCKl1'FlON: Ihat I in of t:ovcnwknt lot I, Section 2, township 120, Range 24, wri'ilt C000ty, Minnesota, ,luscritx.'.L; tollows: Goumlencinq at the southeast corner of said GOvernIDN•nL Lot 1; taa,ncum , west, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Govr.rmnenL Lot 1. 1 uustano° of 638.00 feet to the actual point of be{innin4; th�aur Noi "I' a of 2,'4.20 feet; thence fast, a distance of 80.(h) fe,:t; th,•u.;v %u th, a d:;L, — �,I i52.i0 feet; thence West, a dktance of 57n..34 fe,L; then_' Sout!a, a d stall >f 512.9d feet to the northeasterly :orner of 11111KI%(; Anl!I l lu\, a cordia_ L,, L,n. . lit on file and of record in the office of tn. Count, Recorder. i.right lAwn',, Minnesota; thence South 281-Id'-37" West, alon4 the southea;teriv I iu,• of :a,:i !II-:I;klNC ADDITION, a distance of 17().(R) feet to Lhe southa;tsterly ..orn,rr „i ,aid IIf.URING ADDITION; thence South 371-'34'-53" Wost, ci rlilUln'lc of lu'1.5 1—t to Lhe southwest corner of said Coverlinent Lot I; thci,_. V.bst., aloo.t the S:,uth line of said Government Lot I, a distance of b80..in fe'-L to the actual point nt. "b-A'tinin, io.7i a r ;, ,.,r, .,r Icss. cable C to easem,nts, restrictions arld reservatiOn9 of rc,:URi, if AM, 1 . I A - . 638.00.... .; SE Corner of Gov't L It I, Seo.2, Twp 120, kge. 24 O "'l ROBERT HEUR/NG denotes ,ton monuments set Scale 1" _ ,00 Feat \\`\ WESTWOOD SURVEYING COMPANY Survey part of Government Lot 1, Sec 2, Twp. 120, Rge 24, Wright CountyO Or.,W 8 1986 by: I;,,t, Jot) Nt:. 86029 A rir AU)aohifle FamflyCamCmta 5975 Main Ave. N.E., P.O. Box 220, Albertville, MN 55301 March 31, 1986 Donald Berning - City Clerk P.O. Box 131 Albertville, MN 55301 Dear Mr. Berning, The Albertville FamilyCare Center is requesting a permit for an 8' fence on the South side of the building on the property line. Please direct us best how to obtain this permit and what, if any, restrictions might apply. Thank -you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerly, ^ Gail Duncan, Office Manager, /gd DA VID E. EHLENZ, M.D. Diplomate, American Board of Family Practice Phone: (612) 497-2850 / 24 Hours a Day DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1135 U.S. POST OFFICE & CUSTOM MOUSE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101.1479 REPI r 10 ATTENTION OF Treatment Works SUBJECT: Treatment Works Grant Step 2 + 3, C271087 02 Albertville, MN Ms. Maureen T. Andrews City Administrator City of Albertville City Hall Albertville, MN 55301 Dear Ms. Andrews: 7 A P R 1986 The City of Albertville has recently constructed a sewage treatment system designed to service persons living within the jurisdiction of the above named local governmental entity. The project entailed, among other things, the construction of three stabilization pond6 which were lined with polyethylene sheets, seamed togeter (in the field) to provide a continuous membrane. The purpose of the liner is to minimize leakage from the ponds when filled with sewage and thus reduce the potential for ground water contamination. This project was funded under authority of Public Law 92-500 which authorized the United States Government to contribute seventy five percent of eligible construction costs for the facility. Qn additional fifteen percent funding is being provided by the State of Minnesota and the remainder of the costs are being borne by local government. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is the authorized funding agency for the federal government. Plans and specifications for the proposed project were prepared by Meyer-Rohlin, Inc., Engineers and Land Surveyors. The fixed -price construc- tion contract was advertised and competitive bids were received with the low bid of $967,567.22 being submitted by the firm of Progressive Contractors Inc. The synthetic liner for cells 1, 2, and 3 were individual bid items within the contract proposal. The total bid price for the synthetic liner for -the three cells was $165,000.00. Specifications within the contract documents prescribed the physical requirements, performance and guarantee(s) required for the synthetic liner. -2- During construction of the project and installation of the liner the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers performed periodic field inspections of the project to ascertain quality of construction and compliance with contract and grant requirements. The authority and responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to perform inspections as an agent of the Environmental Protection Agency on projects funded in part by the federal government is provided for by Interagency Agreement No. AD-96-F-1-412-1 between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Architect/Engineer has stated both verbally and in writing that the liner as installed meets the intent of the engineer and the contract documents and that the installation is consistent with industry standards. Industry standards generally do not allow a construction contractor to deviate from specifically stated requirements of a design specification. It is the opinion of the Corps of Engineers that the contract documents for installation of the stabilization pond liners for the City of Albertville were neither ambiguous to the degree that rational interpretation was impossible nor were the speci- fications silent as to requirements. For the following reasons, it is the contention of the Corps of Engineers that the installation of the stabilization pond liners for the City of Albertville was not in strict accordance with the prescribed contract requirements. Specifically, specification section 2, subsection 260, para- graph 3.0.c. and Addendum No. 1, paragraph 4 addressgd the mil thickness and specification requirements for the synthetic liner. These documents state in part that: "...it is the intention to not specify a specific mil thickness. The specification requirement is for the liner material to meet all the minimum requirements as given. However in no case should the liner be less than 20 mils in thickness." This specification further requires that the minimum tensile strength of polyethylene (PE) at break be 75 pounds per inch of width. The specification also states that, if polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is used, the factory bonded seam strength shall be 55.2 pounds per inch of width. Paragraph 3.0.d. of this same specification goes n to state that: "...if PE is seamed by the manufacturer at the factory the same specifications for PE shall apply as were given for PVC." Paragraph 3.0.e. for field seams states that: "The field seams shall be constructed so that the seam in shear is as strong as the sheet." This specification requirement clearly does not allow a degradation of tensile strength of the liner material across the seam. The question then becomes, what is the minimum tensile strength require- ment for the sheet? Since the specification allows factory seams having a strength of 55.2 pounds per inch of width and since two or more liner panels seamed at the factory by the manufacturer would constitute a sheet, it is the opinion of the Corps of Engineers that a field seam having a tensile strength of 55.2 pounds per inch of width would meet the specification requirement. It then becomes the responsibility of the contractor to select a liner material of sufficient thickness to meet this requirement. A polyethylene liner material of 20 mil thickness was selected and installed for this project. -3- Tests performed by an independent laboratory on in -place field samples selected by the Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency resulted in values of less than 55.2 pounds per inch of width tensile strength. In light of these test results, the Corps has concluded that the product furnished does not adequately meet the specifications as written. Accordingly the Corps cannot recommend federal grant participation for installation of these liners unless the following conditions are met: 1) That the City of Albertville secure and forward to this office, a written statement from the design engineer that the liner, as installed, will serve its intended purpose for the design life of the project without accelerated degradation due to field seaming techniques or strength of parent material. 2) That the governing body of the City of Albertville furnish this office a written statement acknowledging the issues raised in this letter and affirming that the city fully accepts; responsibility for the integrity of the project at the time of acceptance and further accepts full responsibility for maintaining the project in the future. In the event that claims or litigation are initiated as a result from this project, the City of Albert- ville must further agree in writing to indemnify and hold the U. S. Government, its agents, and assigns harmless to the extent that damages are directly or indirectly related to the design use or installation of the membrane. In addition to the above two conditions we strongly recommend that the grantee accomplish the following two objectives: 1) Secure a bond to cover any costs that may be incurred during the design life of the project due to liner failures which are attributable to seaming methods or strength of the parent material. % 2) Assure that any additional concerns regarding this issue that may be expressed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are adequately addressed and satisfied. Should you have any questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact me at 612-725-5991. Sincerely, cd a -G. Ragan Chief, Treatment rks Section cf: MPCA - Duane Anderson EPA - John Kelley Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn.55313 Phone 612-682-1781 April 15, 1986 Construction Bulletin 7216 Boone Avenue North Suite 76 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Re: Request for Bids Gentlemen: Please publish the enclosed "Request for Bids" in the April 25, May 2 & 9, 1986 publications of the Construction Bulletin. Please bill to the City of Albertville. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC ' G Barr7Johnson Y BDJ:kp cc:Maureen Andrews, Admin. City of Albertville cc:E-8601—A cc:E-8601-B Thore P Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor - MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. �j LJ O ENGINEERS -LAND SURVEYORS 1111 Hwy. 25 N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 Phone 612 - 682 -1781 April 15, 1986 Crow River News 33 2nd Avenue NE Box 286 Osseo, MN 55369 Re: Request for Bids Gentlemen: Please publish the enclosed "Request for Bids" in the April 22, 29 and May 6, 1986 publications of the Crow River News. Please bill the City of Albertville. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. Barry D. Johnson BDJ:kp cc:Maureen Andrews, Admin. City of Albertville cc:E-8601-A cc:8601-B Mjre P. Meyer, Professional Engineer Robert Rohlin, Registered Land Surveyor REQUEST FOR BIDS Notice is hereby given that sealed bids will be received by the City Council of the City of Albertville, Albertville, Minnesota, in the City Hall, until 11:00 A.M., Friday, May 16, 1986, at which time and place the bids will be publicly opened and read aloud for the construction of the quantities: following approximate 8" D.I.P. Watermain & Appurtenance 8" P.V.C. Sanitary Sewer 250 l.f. 250 l.f. Street Construction 2331 Bituminous 26,000 yd2 341 Bituminous 26,000 yd Surmountable Curb & Gutter Class 5 gravel 13,150 l.f. Black Dirt 6,150 c.y. 1,000 c.y. And other related items of work. Plans, specifications and proposal forms as prepared by Meyer-Rohlin, Inc., Engineers and Land Surveyors, 1111 Highway 25 North, Buffalo, Minnesota, 55313, may be seen at the Office of the Engineer, and the Office of the City Clerk. Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidder's bond, certified check or cashier's check in an amount equal to at least Five (5%) percent of the amount of the bid which shall be forfeited to the City in the event that successful bidder fails to enter into a contract within the specified time. The City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any irregularities in the bidding, and further reserves the right to award the contract to the best interests of the City. Plans, specifications and proposal forms may be obtained from the Office of the Engineer upon deposit of Forty ($40.00) Dollars for each set. Deposits will be returned to the Contractors who submit a bona fide bid and who return the plans and specifications in ood condition within ten days after the bids have been opened. A bona fide bidder is one who signs and submits a bid. Sections of the plans and specifications may be purchased at the Office of the Engineer. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE Maureen Andrews, Administrator Publish April 22, 29, May 6, 1986, Crow River Publish April 25, May 2, 9, 1986, Construction News Bulletin Page 1 HOLMES & GRAVEN Attorneys at Law JAMES S. HOI. MES DAVID L. GRAVEN JOHN R. LARSON CHARLES R. WEAVER ROBERT L. DA�IDSON ROBERr J. LINDALL JOHN M. LcFEVRE. JR. LARRY M. WERTHEIM JOHN C. UTLEY JEFFREY R. BRAUCHLE ARLIN B. WAELTI STEFANIE N. GALEY DANIEL R. NELSON BARBARA L. PORTWOOD April 9, 1986 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612 338-1177 2200 Northwestern Financial Center. Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 612 893-9400 Dear Clients and Friends: ROBERT J. DEIKE MARK A. LINDGREN LAURA K. MOLLET BRACE A. KOHN SIrWART D. GREGG CHRISTINE M. CHALE MARY G. DOBBINS MARL .I. BRENDEN STEVEN T. HETLAND PATRICIA A. BLOODGOOD TIMOTHY E. MARX ERIC A. SHORT JOHN R. GREEN As you know, the Legislature has adopted a new bonding allocation system in response to H.R. 3838, the federal tax reform bill adopted by the House of Representatives. A summary and analysis of the new Minnesota Bond Allocation Act is enclosed for your reference. If you desire additional materials, we have prepared a more comprehensive workbook on the Act that includes a copy of the Act, a section summary, and the application and other forms that will be used by the Department of Energy and Economic Development in implementing the Act. For a copy of these materials, please contact Cindy Haugen at (612) 338-1177. If you have questions concerning the Act, please feel free to contact Tim Marx at the same number. I hope }teed will find these materials useful. Very truly yours, 01/ James & Holmes JSH:bel Enclosure KINNESOTA BOND ALLOCATION ACT SECTION SUMMARY Sections 1 through 8. These sections correct necessary cross references in other statutes due to changes made by the Act. Section 9. This section provides the citation to sections 9 through 29 of the Act as the "Minnesota Bond Allocation Act." Section 10. This section defines the terms used in the Act. New definitions that are different from or not in prior law include the following: Subd. 2 defines "Annual Volume Cap," which is the aggregate dollar amount of tax-exempt obligations that can be issued in Minnesota in any one year under existing federal tax law or under the additional limitations imposed by H.R. 3838 or similar limitations finally enacted into law. Subd. 3 defines "Certificate of Allocation" as a certificate to be provided to an issue of obligations under Section 21 of the Act. Subd. 7 defines "Entitlement Issuer" to be issuers that receive entitlement allocations. Subd. 8 defines "Existing Federal Tax Law" as the federal tax law that existed as of December 31, 1985 which limits the aggregate amount of tax- exempt obligations that can be issued by state and local governments in any one calendar year. "Existing federal tax law" refers to the current law limitations on industrial development bonds (IDBs) and single family housing bonds. Subd. 9 defines "federal volume limitation act" as H.R. 3838 enacted on December 17, 1985 by the United States House of Representatives or any law finally adopted after December 31, 1985 that (1) imposes an annual volume cap, (2) allocates the annual volume cap among uses and among issuers and, (3) allows the Governor or the state legislature to override the allocation system provided for in a federal act. Subd. 11 defines "Governmental Volume Cap" as the annual volume cap determined under Subd. 2 less the amount of issuance authority that is to be set -aside for obligations to be issued on behalf of nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. Subd. 12 defines "Issuer" to mean entitlement issuers on other issuers. Subd. 16 defines "multifamily housing project" as it is defined in Minn. Stat. S462C.02, Subd. 5 for which the housing plan and approval requirements of Chapter 462C have been met. Subd. 18 defines "Notice of Entitlement Allocation" to be the applicable notice provided to entitlement issuers under sections 12 and 16 of the Act. 1 Subd. 19 defines "Other Issuers", which means nonentitlement issuers, to include lederally recognized American Indian tribes as well as other issuers under prior law. Subd. 21 changes the prior law definition of "Preliminary Resolution" to exclude the requirement that a project identified in the preliminary resolution be site specific. Subd. 22 defines "Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds" as obligations the proceeds of which are to be used by organizations described in section 501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code for activities directly related to the conduct of those organizations. Subd. 25 defines "Qualified Multifamily Housing Project" as a multifamily housing project in which at least 50% of the units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals whose adjusted gross incomes are 80% or less of median family income. Subd. 26 defines "State Issuer" to mean the State of Minnesota, the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB), or other agencies or entities of the State authorized to issue obligations that have statewide jurisdiction. Section 11. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of this section require DEED to determine the annual volume cap under both existing federal tax law and a federal volume limitation act. Of the annual volume cap under existing federal tax law, DEED is to determine the amount available for entitlement issuers, the amount initially available for distribution through the pool, and the amount available for issuance of qualified mortgage bonds. Of the annual volume cap determined under the federal volume limitation act, DEED is to determine the amount that must be reserved for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, the amount allocated to entitlement issuers for both qualified mortgage bonds and other obligations, and the amount which is initially available for allocation through the pool. For 1987, only one-half of the issuance authority available under a federal volume limitation act will be allocated from January 1, 1987 through June 30, 1987. An exception is made for qualified mortgage bonds, which will be fully allocated during the first six months of 1987. Subdivision 3 of this section allows DEED to adjust the allocations made under this section if the annual volume cap in a federal volume limitation act changes. The amount reserved for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds may not be adjusted, and adjustments cannot be made if the Governor is required to establish a new allocation system under section 27. DEED may not withdraw an allocation if bonds have been issued under that allocation unless it receives the consent of the issuer. Section 12. Subdivisions 1 throuuhh�4 of this section provide for the allocations for entitlement issuers under existing federal tax law. The entitlement allocations which are a recodification of those made by the 1985 Legislature, are as follows: 2 ISSUER Higher Education Coordinating Board Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board '.Minnesota Energy & Economic Development Authority Entitlement Cities : Cities of the First Class: Minneapolis St. Paul Duluth SMSA Cities: Moorhead Rochester St. Cloud $ in millions 25 30 60 72.9 53.8 17.3 5 5 5 Subdivision 5 of this section requires DEED to provide a notice of an entitlement allocation to entitlement issuers. Subdivision 6 of this section allows entitlement issuers to transfer issuance authority but only to other entitlement issuers. Section 13. This section provides for the authority under existing federal tax law. described separately below: allocation of the pool amount of issuance Section 13 has seven subdivisions that are Subd. 1 provides for when and under what circumstances entitlement issuers may apply for an allocation from the pool. Entitlement issuers may apply for an allocation after August 20. However, for entitlement issuers to apply to the pool prior to November 1, they must have adopted final sale resolutions for an amount equal to their entitlement allocations or have returned their entitlement allocations to the pool. As under prior law, a city of the first class may apply to the pool for an allocation for a manufacturing project at any time. A change from prior law (see clause (b)) is that state issuers may apply for an allocation from the pool at anytime to the extent that they have returned a portion of their allocation to the pool. Subd. 2 replicates the prior law application requirements for a preliminary resolution and a deposit of 1% of the amount of the requested allocation. Subd. 3 replicates the provisions of prior law that sets forth the criteria on which applications for allocations from the pool are ranked. Subd. 4 provides for the allocation procedure under existing federal tax law. The procedure is the same as the one established under prior law by the 1985 Legislature with the following exceptions: 1. Allocations will be awarded weekly throughout the year. On each Monday, DEED will consider applications received on the previous Monday. Under prior law, allocations were made bi-monthly. 2. The Act makes clear that if an application is rejected, DEED must notify the applicant and return the application deposit within 30 days unless the applicant requests that the application be resubmitted for consideration in the next application period. 3 3. The time period during which a certain percentage of the pool may not be allocated to certain projects has been changed. Prior to Se tember 30, no more than 20% of the pool may be allocated to pollution control and waste management projects and no more than 35% may be allocated to commercial redevelopment projects. Under prior law, this date was October 31 and the percentage for pollution control and waste management projects was 35%, while the percentage for commercial redevelopment projects was 20%. The amount that is available for commercial redevelopment projects under the Act may be increased to 50% of the pool amount if 45% of the pool remains unallocated on June 30 or if the total amount available for commercial redevelopment projects has been allocated. Under prior law, the amount available for commercial redevelopment projects could be increased to just 30% of the pool amount. Subd. 5 replicates the current law requirement that issuers must provide a letter of intent to DEED by September 1 in order to maintain allocations received prior to September 1. Subd. 6 sets forth the final allocation procedure under existing federal tax law. The final allocation is the same as that established under prior law by the 1985 Legislature with the following exceptions: 1. The date at which the final allocation begins is October 1. Under prior law, the final allocation began on November 1. On the date when the final allocation begins, preliminary resolutions must be filed for all issuance authority that has been reserved. 2. The Act makes clear that entitlement issuers may reallocate issuance authority from the amounts they have retained with preliminary resolutions after September 30 as long as those preliminary resolutions were filed with DEED prior to October 1. Therefore, if an entitlement issuer has reserved a specified amount of issuance authority for specific projects by preliminary resolutions filed prior to October 1, the entitlement issuer may reallocate the aggregate amount it has reserved among the projects identified in those preliminary resolutions. 3. Under the Act, projects that do not meet the definition of manufacturing, pollution control, solid waste, or commercial redevelopment projects may receive allocations after September 30. Under prior law, the pool opened up to all projects after November 1. 4. Under the Act, any amount remaining unallocated after the last allocation of the year is allocated to the Department of Finance which is required to reallocate the remaining authority to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for the issuance of mortgage credit certificates and to the Higher Education Coordinating Board for the issuance of student loan bonds. Under prior law, the Higher Education Coordinating Board received all unused authority at the end of the year. 4 Subd. 7 allows an issuer to return between November 1 and December 1 all or a portion of an allocation that it has obtained and receive a refund of its application deposit equal to one-third of 1% of the amount returned. Under prior law, the last date for returning allocations and receiving a partial refund on application deposits was December 20. Section 14. This section establishes the requirements for the notice of issue under existing federal tax law. This section changes the prior law penalty for not filing a notice within the five day deadline after issuing obligations. Under prior law, the bonds were made void; under the Act, failure to provide the required notice cancels the allocation that was received. Section 15. This section replicates the current law procedure under existing federal tax law for allocating single family housing bonds among issuers under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. Section 16. This section provides for the allocation of entitlements under a federal volume limitation act. The entitlement issuers and entitlement allocations, as determined by DEED, are as follows: Qualified Entitlement Issuers Mortgage Bonds Any Obligations Department of Finance $149,832,000 City of Duluth $ 3,000,000 13, 063, 075 City of Minneapolis 16,000,000 55,074,600 City of St. Paul 8,500,000 40, 709, 088 City of Moorhead 3,780,000 City of Rochester 3,780,000 City of St. Cloud 3,780,000 City of Cottage Grove 10, 000, 000 City of Eagan 10, 000, 000 City of East Grand Forks 7,500,000 If there is an adjustment to the annual volume cap as a result of a change in a federal volume limitation act any adjustment made for "any obligations" must allocate to each city the same percentage of the governmental volume cap that it receives under this section. There has been no change in the entitlement amounts for the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, and St. Paul for qualified mortgage bonds (see clause (3)). The amounts stated are the amount currently allocated to each city by special law. Under subdivision 1 clauses (4) and (5) cities that receive an allocation for the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, are treated as entitlement issuers for the amount of the allocation received. For 1986, the cities of Cottage Grove, Eagan, and East Grand Forks received allocations through this process. Allocations for qualified mortgage bonds under this clause must be used for qualified mortgage bonds prior to September 1, and thereafter may be used to finance multifamily housing projects. An entitlement issuer that receives an allocation for a qualified multifamily housing project (see paragraph after subdivision 1, clause (5)) that does not issue bonds under that allocation will have their 1987 entitlement reduced by the amount of the unused allocation and by the amount of any other allocation that remains unused by that issuer at the end of 1986. Subdivision 2 of this section requires DEED to provide a notice of entitlement allocation to each entitlement issuer under a federal volume limitation act. Section 17. This section provides for the allocation of the state entitlement allocation under a federal volume limitation act. The state entitlement allocation is allocated to the Department of Finance which, in turn, may allocate or reallocate the state entitlement among state issuers. The Department of Finance must, however, allocate 11.5% of the state entitlement or approximately $17.2 million to the IRRRB. In addition, as under prior law, the IRRRB on request must provide 17% of its allocation or approximately $2.9 million to a specified city in the taconite tax relief area. Section 18. This section contains miscellaneous provisions relating to entitlement issuers under a federal volume limitation act. These provisions are as follows: Subd. 1 requires entitlement issuers that issue obligations under its entitlement allocation to provide a notice of issue to DEED within 5 days after issuing the obligations. The penalty for not having filed the notice within the time required is that the allocation is cancelled. Subd. 2 allows entitlement issuers to transfer issuance authority but only to other entitlement issuers. Subd. 3 sets forth the means by which an entitlement issuer may retain all or a portion of its allocation after September 1. An allocation may be retained after September 1 if the entitlement issuer provides to DEED a letter of intent stating its intention to issue the obligations before the end of the calendar year and provides an application deposit equal to 1% of the allocation to be retained. If an entitlement issuer is reserving its allocation both under existing federal tax law and under a federal volume limitation act, the deposit required to retain the existing federal tax law allocation will be credited against the deposit required for the federal volume limitation act allocation. As under prior law, any allocation not reserved by September 1 returns to the pool for reallocation. The Department of Finance, however, may retain $15 million of its allocation after September 1 without providing a letter of intent or an application deposit. This is to allow the Department of Finance the flexibility to issue general obligations after September 1 that may require an allocation under a federal volume limitation act. If an entitlement issuer returns any of the allocation it has reserved before October 31, it will receive a refund of any application deposit made in proportion to the issuance authority returned. If an entitlement issuer returns any portion of its allocation reserved after October 31, but before December 1, it will receive an application deposit refund equal to one-third of 1% of the amount of issuance authority returned. Any amount refunded under this section will be reduced by the amount refunded under section 12 which contains similar provisions for the return of an allocation under the existing federal tax law. This is to prevent double refunds from occurring. 6 Section 19. This section provides for the allocation of the pool amount under a federal volume limitation act. The section is divided into six subdivisions that can be described as follows: Subd. 1 provides for when and under what circumstances entitlement issuers may apply for an allocation from the pool. As under Section 13 for the existing federal tax law, entitlement issuers may apply to the pool after August 20. However, for entitlement issuers to apply to the pool prior to November 1, they must have adopted final sale resolutions for obligations in an amount equal to their entitlement allocation or have returned any remaining amount of its entitlement allocation to the pool. State issuers and the IRRRB may apply to the pool only to the extent that they may have returned issuance authority to the pool from their entitlement allocation. State issuers are otherwise not permitted to apply for allocations from the pool. Entitlement cities who only receive entitlements for qualified mortgage bonds under the process established by Minnesota Statutes 462C may apply for an allocation from the pool at any time see Section 16, Subdivision 1, clauses (4) and (5)), and cities of the first class may apply for an allocation from the pool for a manufacturing project at any time. In addition, any entitlement issuer other than a state issuer may apply for an allocation of up to $10 million for a qualified multifamily housing project after September 1 if it has adopted preliminary resolutions for issuance authority equal to its entitlement allocation. Subd. 2 sets forth the requirements for applications to the pool. Applications for an allocation from the pool under this section may be combined with an application for allocation under Section 13. As under Section 13 for existing federal tax law, a preliminary resolution and application deposit is required. However, the application deposit requirements differ from those under Section 13. The following is a summary of the provisions relating to application deposits: 1. For applications submitted prior to September 1, a 1% deposit is required. 2. Applications submitted after August 31 require a 2% deposit. 3. deposits made under Section 13 will be credited against the deposits required by this section. 4. Applications for a qualified multifamily housing project must include an additional deposit of 1%. Subd. 3 sets forth the allocation criteria according to which applications for allocations from the pool are ranked. The criteria are the same as those listed in Section 13, Subd. 3 for the existing federal tax law with two additions. First, a point is awarded to a project that is a multifamily housing project. Second, a point will be awarded for a multifamily housing project that is designed for rental to handicapped persons or to elderly persons. Applications for refunding issues will receive no points. Subd. 4 sets forth the allocation procedure under a federal volume limitation act. The allocation procedure is the same as that described under Section 13, Subd. 4 except that (1) multifamily housing projects are eligible for funding and receive the same priority as commercial redevelopment projects and (2) after September 30 single family housing projects are eligible to receive allocations from the pool. Subd. 5 requires issuers receiving an allocation from the pool to receive a certificate of allocation under Section 21. Subd. 6 provides for the final allocation of issuance authority under a federal volume limitation act. As under Section 13, Subd. 6, any remaining issuance authority after the last allocation date will be allocated to the Department of Finance for reallocation to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Higher Education Coordinating Board. Section 20. This section sets forth the provisions for qualified 501(cX3) bonds. This section is divided into nine separate subdivisions which can be described as follows: Subd. 1 states that Section 20 applies only to applications for qualified 501 c 3) bonds made under a federal volume limitation act. Subd. 2 provides an entitlement allocation of $20 million for each calendar year to the Higher Education Facilities Authority (HEFA). HEFA may retain its allocation after September 1 if it provides to DEED (1) a letter of intent, (2) a description of the project or projects to be financed, and (3) an application deposit in the amount of 1% of the allocation to be reserved. Any unused and unreserved portion of HEFA's entitlement will return to the qualified 501(c)(3) bond pool. If HEFA returns any or all of its allocation before October 31, it will receive a refund of its application deposit in proportion to the amount of authority returned. Subd. 3 sets forth the application requirements for the qualified 501(cX3) bond pool. A preliminary resolution and application deposit of 1% of the amount of the requested allocation is required. HEFA may apply for an allocation from the pool only if it has adopted final sale resolutions in an amount equal to its entitlement allocation or has returned its remaining entitlement authority for distribution through the pool. Subd. 4 sets forth the procedure by which DEED will allocate issuance authority for qualified 501(c)(3) bond projects. Issuance authority will be allocated on the loth and 25th day of each month from January through August on a first -come, first -served basis. Prior to September 1, the amount allocated to any one 501(cX3) organization cannot exceed $15 million for the year. A further provision allows two or more local issuers to combine their allocations in a single bond issue greater than $15 million as long as no more than $10 million is for facilities located within the boundaries of one issuer. Subd. 5 requires issuers that receive allocations from the qualified 501(cX3) pool to submit a letter of intent to DEED. If the letter is not submitted prior to September 1, the allocation is cancelled and the application deposit is returned to the issuer. If an issuer returns any allocation prior to October 31, it will receive a full refund of its deposit. If the allocation is returned after October 31 and before December 1, one-third of 1% of the application deposit will be returned. 8 Subd. 6 provides for the allocation of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds after September 1. After September 1, qualified 501(cX3) bonds will be allocated by DEED on September 10, October 10, November 10, December 10, and December 20 on a first -come, first -served basis. If issuance authority remains available after the December 20 allocation, the remaining allocation will be allocated to the Department of Finance for reallocation to eligible projects. Subd. 7 requires DEED to provide a notice to an issuer of a qualified 501(eX3) bond allocation. DEED is not allowed to provide such a notice if the allocation to be granted would cause the set -aside for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds to be exceeded. Subd. 8 requires issuers of qualified 501(cX3) bonds to provide a notice of issue ue to DEED within five days after issuing the obligations. As with similar provisions in other parts of the Act, the penalty for failure to file a notice of issue is cancellation of the allocation. Subd. 9 sets aside $70 million for 1986 and $35 million for the first half of 1987 for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds if a federal volume limitation act does not require an amount to be set -aside for these types of bonds. If a federal volume limitation act has no mandatory set -aside, any unused amount of the qualified 50l(cX3) bond allocation would be returned for distribution through the pool under Section 19 after October 31. Section 21. This section provides for the awarding of certificates of allocation under a federal volume limitation act. This section is divided into five subdivisions which can be described as follows: Subd. 1 requires the issuance of certificates of allocation for allocations granite under Section 19 unless the limitations provided for in Subdivision 4 are exceeded. Subd. 2 provides for issuance of certificates of allocation for general obligation bonds. Only general obligation bonds that require an allocation under a federal volume limitation act must receive a certificate. General obligation bonds are not subject to the pool allocation criteria and priorities. The following provisions relate to the issuance of certificates of allocation for general obligation bonds: 1. Entitlement cities may apply for such certificates prior to October 1 only if they have adopted final sale resolutions for their entitlement allocation or have returned any remaining entitlement allocation to the pool. 2. There is a $10 million limitation on these certificates of allocation per issue and no one issuer may receive more than $20 million of general obligation allocations in a calendar year. 3. Requests for allocations for general obligations made on or of ter September 1, must be accompanied by an application deposit of 1% of the amount of allocation requested. 4. Allocations for general obligations will be awarded on Monday of each week for application received by Monday of the preceding week and will be made by lot. 9 Subd. 3 sets forth the notice of issue requirements and the time deadlines for iss uiu g obligations for which certificates of allocation have been obtained. If the notice of issue is not provided to DEED by the time required, the certificate of allocation expires and the deposit is forfeited. The time deadlines and other provisions relating to the notice of issue are as follows: 1. Certificates of allocation issued on or prior to August 15, 1986, or anytime in 1987, expire within 30 days of the date of issuance of the certificate. 2. Certificates of allocation issued between August 16 and September 1, 1986 expire on September 16, 1986. 3. Certificates of allocation issued on or after September 1 and before the second to the last date that allocations are made expire within 15 days after the certificate is issued. 4. Certificates of allocation issued on or after the second to the last time at which allocations are made in 1986 will expire at the end of 1986 or any later time if allowed by a federal volume limitation act. This will allow issuer to apply for a project that may be eligible for a carryforward allocation into 1987. 5. Certificates of allocation for a qualified multifamily housing project will expire within 30 days after issuance of the certificate. 6. Any of the periods specified in paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 may be extended for an additional period of the same number of days for an additional 3% deposit. An additional 4% deposit is required to receive a 30 day extension for a qualified multifamily housing project. Subd. 4 places a limitation on the issuance of certificates of allocation. Certificates of allocation cannot be provided if the allocation requested would cause the volume cap in a federal volume limitation act to be exceeded. If there is insufficient issuance authority to grant allocations for all applications during any one application period, applications for allocations for general obligation bonds will receive priority. In addition, no certificate of allocation will be granted for bond issues that exceed $25 million except that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency or the 'Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board and joint and pooled issue or issues of a joint powers board are limited to $100 million per issue. Subd. 5 provides that certificates of allocation are not transferable. This su BZry sion also clarifies that issuers that receive allocations may transfer those allocations to other issuers that have the same geographic jurisdiction. Section 22. This section requires DEED to provide a notice of the amount of issuance authority available twice a month in the State Register. Section 23. This section protects the state from being liable for any of the actions that It takes to carry out the duties imposed upon it by the Act. 10 Section 24. This section provides that the Act is the exclusive method for allocating issuance authority under a federal volume limitation act and under existing federal tax law. 'Reis section also makes clear that issuers may obtain an allocation under existing federal tax law, under a federal volume limitation act, or both. Section 25. 'Kris section provides that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to this Act. Section 26. This section provides that the Act is a prospective override to any allocation system that may be imposed by federal tax reform legislation. Section 27. This section allows the Governor, under certain specified circumstances, to implement a new allocation system. Because the Act was enacted before the final version of any federal tax reform legislation was a {mown, every possible contingency could not be anticipated by the Act. This section allows the Governor to provide for a different allocation system if any final federal action is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 2& This section provides that the Commissioner of DEED is authorized to provide any certification required by a federal volume limitation act. Section 29. This section appropriates any fees collected by DEED under the Act to the general fund. DEED, however, is appropriated sufficient funds so that it can refund application deposits. Section 30. This is a technical cross-reference correction. Section 31. This section repeals prior law provisions relating to bonding allocation. It provides that any allocations made under the repealed provisions of prior law are valid. It also allows issuers that have received an allocation under prior law to elect to have their applications resubmitted so that an additional allocation under a federal volume limitation act can be received or have their deposit refunded. Section 32. This section provides for the effective date and sunsets only those sections relating to allocations made under a federal volume limitation act as of July 1, 1987. 11 Preserve Our Land P.O. Box 33 Cushing, MN 56443 612/749-2020 Sr Dear Mayor and City Council of On January 16 of this year, the U.S. Department that it had reduced a list of some 230 sites for radioactive waste repository to 20 locations in for us, 8 of the 20 locations are in Minnesota. April 9, 1986 of Energy announced the nations second 7 states. Unfortunately (See enclosed map) Both houses of the Minnesota Legislature, Governor Perpich, our two U.S. Senators, the entire Congressional delegation, numerous County Commission- ers and Township Supervisors have passed resolutions or made statements Opposing the burial of nuclear waste in Minnesota's granite. Official Dept. of Energy Hearings have now been held in each of the 8 potential burial sites. A wide variety of testimony has been presented opposing this poorly concieved plan, much of it centered around the potential Poisoning of our state's valuable water resources. High level radioactive materials must be safely isolated from the environment for at least 10,000 years. The Energy Dept. cannot give any guarantees that this is Possible. On April 16, or shortly thereafter, the Dept. of Energy will Stop taking comments from officials and the general public. (The State of Minnesota is presently suing the federal government to extend the comment period b-vond April 16; at this writing, the issue has not been resolved.) After the public comment period is over, the Dept. of Energy can drop one or more sites in Minnesota, based on the evidence and testimony they have recieved since January 16th. If sites in Minnesota are not elimin- ated, exploration and test drilling will begin at remaining locations, probably early in 1987. We believe the longer this process continues and the more money spent at a given location, the better the chance that a site in our state will become the final choice. If a final site in Minnesota were chosen, highly dangerous radioactive materials would be transported to that location from all parts of the U.S. -- particularly the eastern part of the country. Much of the waste would come from the nation's some 95 nuclear be done both by semi truck and rail. Obviously,Vethelhazards Sof ptran sport- ing anything over icy Minnesota roads in winter is a factor to consider - hauling nuclear materials and the possibility of accidents should be studied thoroughly before final decisions are made. Possible transportation problems are totally ignored by the Energy Dept. in their written material on site selection. The subject recieves brief mention in the Energy Dept's. Draft Area Recommendation Report of January, 1986, part 3, page 238. (This Report is an a a on the 20 potential burial sites from all o— er the easternnU.S.)fThe tmaterial on pale 238 simply lists highways and interstates near the 'Mississippi -Mille c Site' near Poley -- I 94, U.S. 169, 10, State Hiways 23, 959 etc. chr Ottr� r --2-- If the potential site near Foley were selected, radioactive waste ship- — ments of some 250 per month would travel over our state's highways and railroads. We have compiled a chart of some of the cities and towns this dangerous cargo would pass through on way to a Foley site. -- see enclosed flyer. In addition to considering Minnesota winters and likely accidents, we believe there are a number of other questions that must be addressed by the Dept. of Energy before their site selection process goes any further: (1) Can states and/or local governments regulate radioactive shipments passing through their town or area? (2) What 'evacuation plans' will be in place if and when a burial site is chosen in Minnesota? (3) Will local emergency teams -- medical, fire fighters, law enforce- ment -- be trained to handle nuclear shipping accidents? How?' (4) Some'spent nuclear fuel' has been shipped from the NSP nuclear plant near Monticello to Illinois for storage -- a number of the shipping casks exceed allowable levels of radiation leakage. What is being done about this? (5) How severe a crash would nuclear shipping containers withstand without rupturing and releasing radioactive materials? (6) Who is liable in case of a shipping accident? What are the limits of liability? Would this amount be adequate to cover the damage' (7) How large a geographical area could be contaminated by a 'worst case' nuclear transport accident? How many lives could be lost in a major accident? What would projected increase in cancer cases be? How long a time would an area contaminated by, --a major transport accident have to be uninhabitated? We believe the Dept. of Energy should answer these questions -- and others you may have -- before proceeding any farther with site selection. We fully realize the time is short before the April 16 comment date arrives. However, it may well be that the Dept. of Energy will accept material submitted after the 16th -- especially if those comments come from city or county governments. You can send your remarks to the address below: U.S. Dept. of Energy Comments - Draft ARR Chicago Operations Office 9800 South Cass Ave. Argonne, Illinois 60439 Phone -- 312-972-2675 If we can be of help in any way, write or call us. Our group has been actively involved in this matter since last summer. We've collected a good deal of information and are willing to share it with anyone interested. Sincerely, Fa' n Robert Lohman for 'Preserve Our Land' East Fork HUC U.S. Department of Energy's 'Potentially Acceptable Sites' for a RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP in Minnesota.... NOTE the 'Mississippi -Mille Lacs Site' in Benton, Morrison, Mille Lacs and Sherburne Counties and the 'Sauk River Site' in Stearnes, Todd and Pope Counties.... reprinted by 'Preserve Our Land' P.O. Box 33 Cushing, Minnesota 56443 MISS 1551PP1/MILLE Lj9C5 BURIAL 51TE fSouth Ir,n4 Like AI KIN CROW WING �• Rne. ` + d' Lake l N�.-� a�_ MILLE IACI Mille Lacs Lake .Alexander INDIAN RESERVATION Platte Like III \` Shakopee 1 r- \ _ Sullivan Lake I MORRISON Lake n v, f its Lake I Lake Onamia +o Hillman 3 • S Little Falls 2 Pierz `Genola MILLE LACSKANABEC�`�, nn \'$ 1 Lake 1 Buckman Morrill r r° �— .Little Rock __ • Ramey B r e t_ 1 f J 1 nnyv llle N. Benton 23 ,C; oldmgford �. Gilman` s, Mi laca Wo `'.' � B NTON I- — I = fiver =, Oak Park North Lake '• Stanchiield Middle STEARNS popple Creek Foley Ronneby �� I Lake Spunk) Rive, Sartell t �o( ! I nurn lake � vor1� r� Parente. I Stanchiield Upper �d�d �/ auk Rapids (� 3 I Lake Spunk Lake �� ss Waite �Kal/ St. Joseph ;ark — �— — — ,_ — Princeton ISANTI SLR Cloud t � R�� I P' Francis Elk °' Lake s I Mud German Cold :� �i. � Snake Rice Lake Lake lakg Spring , a Rockville J- SHERBURNE Lake I c� Knaus Lake Cedar Island Lake Clearwater l Mud Lake MEEKER Clearwater �C ; Lake ��l P +o u see+ ..: /Sugar S Clear Lake Monticello Lake It�tiC/ a — WRIGHT dater I ss Cedar Lake 0 miles 10 is �� Lake Francs 0 kilometer 10 C Fremonj YP m � :Ik IANOKA Iver I I u IRamserO +o+ �R NC-10 �nnvt=u ntcL n 011vwz) VKVYVJCu 01 1 G TRANSPORTING NUCLEAR WASTE... POTENTIAL ThANSPORTATION ROUTES for shipment of nuclear waste from nuclear utilities in the Eastern one-half of the U.S. to the 'Mississippi Mille L ac's Site'. The city of Foley, Minnesota is located near the center of the proposed site. COUNTIES, CITIES along possible routes within Minnesota borders are listed below, with population of the cities provided.... INTERSTATE 94. HIWAYS 10 & 23 Washington County Wright Ramsey Stearns Hennepin Benton Sherburne Anoka CITY POP. Minneapolis-St.Paul...641,181 Fridley ............... 30,228 Brooklyn Center....... 31,230 Brooklyn Park......... 43,332 Coon Rapids........... 35,826 Anoka ................. 15,634 Champlin .............. 9,006 Maple Grove........... 20,525 Crystal 25,523 ............... Rogers.. ........... 652 St Michael............ 1,519 Albertville........... 564 Monticello............ 2,830 ElkRiver ............. 6,785 BigLake .............. 2,210 Becker ................ 601 Clearwater............ 379 St. Cloud ............. 42,568 Sartell............... 3,427 Waite Park............ 3,496 Sauk Rapids........... 5,843 St. Joseph............ 3,014 Foley..... 1,606 HIWAYS 169. 95 & 231 Sherburne County Mille Lacs Benton Princeton.....3,146 Milaca........2,104 Winona County Olmstead Mower Dakota....... 350 Utica.. 249 Stewartville. 3,925 Dexter...... 279 Austin ....... 23.066 1I Freeborn County Steele Rice Scott Dakota Hennepin Albert Lea ..... 19,200 Geneva. ....... 417 Ellendale..... 555 Owatonna ....... 18,632 Faribault...... 16,241 Lakeville ...... 14,790 Burnsville ..... 35 674 Bloomington..81:831 ..36,851 Richfield...... St. Anthony.... 7981 New Brighton ... 23:269 Mounds View .... 12,593 The listing of cities is not com fete... There would be other towns and cities affected by a NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORT ACCIDENT.... Merely using the list above, 1,223,882 MINNESOTA CITIZENS are living e ong one or more routes proposed by the Dept. of Energy.... These people represent 30 % of the total Minnesota population o „ accor ing to 19BU census. MAP shows main HIWAYS that 16 would be used for NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS to a dump- site near Foley, Minnesota. If a dump opened in the 1990's shipments would total 250 pe month....by the year 2000, shipments would increase to 1 every 90 minutes. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.... Source ... "The Philadelphia Inquirer", series on nuclear waste, Nov.13-20,1983. a �o' 0cn 3 c c boo E � m a 14 _+ r Y n. 0 H 1 Q-�►��i"�� w O Y C W 1 %P°oj C �0 Q b « ti. � •t � O r . 4. •k,. ,Q. ,max s ...,, aQ , Sy k � . (.,Q h� �3• .a w Y , •' S 0. f7• {r ~ W d tl r O O g 03 y0 p` H W p • pq r M M A M Y Y O d r r W N� O S .� Y• O r 7 S O ap � r• O • •'�' +'i H �y M Y O• Y A O Y O > V n 41 4 Y r+ X r O rl Tl • Qi a b V Y p �+ O e� rl:; Q it W "• vy B p 1q LL ''� • :c O+ ., r M +•+ a i I�iO • o �'' , �;j'..4'1d; WCJ a o $ ~ r v p •• o o C a1 • _ i ��'.•��; r M N A q YN 4Or Ytl0p Kti y., uO A `rl tY M d Ix •yC :•�Ei IC Le tz .•�} 0` Y? h O W M ii N O Q {o! i iL M r�ar•c�j.: � 9= C m a , • O ) r��.Ytr! r:yroafi}>'.tiyyS.. •' l+ r� 41. f ^ N Y I � r �.� F >✓l�:�.�F.,< ..f . vs�%fir " what is High -Level Radioactive Waste ? Radioactivity, nuclear waste, spent fuel and reprocessing are all familiar, but rarely understood, terms. Since the pur- pose of this fact sheet is to explain fiigh- level radioactive waste, a logical place to begin is to explain radioactivity. Radioactivity is a Natural Process Atoms of most substances are stable. They have no tendency to break up into simpler atoms. However, some complex atoms, such as uranium, are unstable. ,*-,%�table atoms have too much energy 1 tend to become stable by undergoing spontaneous rearrangement and decay. They expel either nuclear particles (alpha and beta particles) or pure energy (gamma rays). This process is called radi- ation -activity or radioactivity. The individ- ual radioactive atoms are called radionu- clides. Radioactivity has been around for billions of years, but it wasn't discovered by man until 1896. Types of Radiation Alpha Radiation is the least penetrating, but most energetic type of radiation. It will be stopped by a sheet of paper or your skin. If ingested or inhaled, alpha radia- tion can concentrate and cause severe damage to a localized area, such as a hu- man organ. Long-lived radioactive wastes, such as plutonium, are alpha emitters. Beta Radiation has the ability to penetrate through skin or one-half inch of water. Beta radiation can also enter the body through ingested food and water or in- haled air. Once inside, some beta radionu- clides tend to concentrate and remain in 1es or certain organs and cause contin- ` exposure. Beta radiation is emitted itum most spent fuel and reprocessing waste products. ing power r ticles like alpha or beta radiation. Instead, gamma radiation causes the emission of high-energy electromagnetic waves. These waves are similar to x-rays, but are more powerful. These waves require thick shielding because of their intense penetrating power and potential to dam- age human organs. Most of the waste products from spent fuel and reprocess- ing are gamma, as well as beta, emitters. For the first 500 to 1000 years, emissions from high-level waste are dominated by beta and gamma radiation. Dense shield- ing is needed to isolate this radiation. Af- ter about 1000 years, however, long- lived alpha radiation poses the greatest danger. It can enter the food chain and stay radioactive for millions of years. Radioactivity is Dangerous Radiation is energetic and as it passes through human tissue it can kill or dam- age cells or cell components by tearing electrons away from molecules or atoms. This leaves the molecule or atom electri- cally charged or "ionized." Alpha, beta and gamma radiation is invisi- ble, tasteless and odorless. Some radio- nuclides are soluble in water and one is even a gas, capable of producing a breathable, airborne hazard. Our senses cannot warn us of their presence. Yet ra- diation cart be absorbed through the skin, ingested through food and water or in- haled. The severity and type of damage is de- pendent upon the exposure level and the sensitivity of the affected cells. The pre- vention of this potential damage by isolat- ing radioactive wastes and limiting their release to the human environment until they no longer pose a significant threat to public health should be the basic theme of any nuclear waste management program. Decay Chain Usually, when an unstable atom releases Product in Decay Chain Type of Radiation Half-life Uranium 238 Alpha, Gamma 4.5 Billion Years Thorium 234 Beta, Gamma 24.1 Days Protactinium 234 Beta, Gamma 1.2 Minutes Uranium 234 Alpha, Gamma 247,000 Years Thorium-230 Alpha, Gamma 80,000 Years Radium-226 Alpha, Gamma 1,622 Years Radon-222 Alpha 3.8 Days Polonium-218 Alpha, Beta 3.0 Minutes Lead-214 Beta, Gamma 26.8 Minutes Bismuth-214 Alpha, Beta, Gamma 19.7 Minutes Polonium-214 Alpha 0. 000 16 Second Lead-210 Beta, Gamma 22 Years Bismuth-210 Alpha, Beta 5.0 Days Polonium-210 Alpha, Gamma 138.3 Days lead-206 — Stable Uranium-238 decay chain Gamma Radiation does not consist of par Source: Radioactive Waste. Issues and Answers. American Institute of Professional Geologists. radiation, it changes and becomes a dif- ferent chemical element. One atom may change a number of times before it be- comes a stable element. In the uranium decay chain, uranium decays to thorium, which decays to radium, which decays to radon and so on until enough radioactive decay has taken place for the atoms to be- come the stable element lead. These nat- ural transformations are very important, because each chemical element has very different characteristics. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of that element to become the next element on the decay chain. For example, uranium-234 has a half-life of 247,000 years. If we had one pound of it today, 247,000 years from now we would have only one-half pound of uranium-234 left, while the other half would have decayed to thorium 230, the next element on the decay chain. Some radioactive elements have half-lives of only a few seconds while others have half-lives of over 100,000 years. The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Each step of the nuclear fuel cycle pro duces radioactive wastes: 1. Mining of natural uranium ore gen- erates radioactive dust, tailings and ra- don gas. 2. The valuable uranium nuclide, U- 235, is concentrated from the 0.7% found in the natural uranium to the 3- 4% needed by reactors. The remaining 96-97% is a more stable uranium nu- clide, U-238. This concentration proc- ess produces the fuel rods used in elec- tric power reactors, plus substantial low-level radioactive wastes 3. As the U-235 fissions in the reac- tor, the fuel produces heat (which gen- erates steam for power plants), and highly radioactive byproducts, includ- ing plutonium. Each year, one-third of the fuel rods are considered "spent" and are discharged from the reactor. 4. Spent fuel may be reprocessed (re- cycled) to recover residual U-235 and plutonium for producing new fuel rods or atomic weapons. Reprocessing of spent commercial reactor fuel is no longer done in the United States; how- ever, the Department of Energy does reprocess spent fuel for weapons pro- duction. Reprocessing also yields sub- stantial high-level radioactive waste, much of it in liquid form. LOw-Level Wastes These wastes emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation, but lack the toxicity or longevity of high-level and transuranic wastes. They are produced in hospitals, laboratories and in handling high-level wastes at power plants or military instal- lations. Their volume is estimated to be 3.1 million cubic feet in 1985, although the radioactivity is in small amounts rela- tive to the volume. These wastes are gen- erally buried in shallow land and long term exposure can be dangerous. TI"ddmura is Wastes Reprocessing of spent fuel for atomic en- ergy defense activities produces man- made elements which are heavier -than - uranium (transuranic). Although not as Volume Radiation Commercial and military waste generation radioactive as high-level wastes, they are major sources of alpha radiation and are 1 highly toxic and require isolation for thou- sands of years. EMh-Level Wastes These include the spent fuel rods from electric power reactors described earlie, and liquid military reprocessing wastes. They emit alpha, beta and gamma radia- tion. Their danger comes from their in- tense radioactivity and long life. They need to be isolated for 10,000 years or more. The volume of spent fuel generated by power plant reactors averages about 33 metric tons per year. The current inven- tory is estimated to be 12,400 metric tons and is expected to reach over 100,000 metric tons by the year 2020. Power plants store their spent fuel in pools of water to cool, but many of these storage facilities are projected to be full by the mid 1990's. Liquid military waste from reprocessing includes the nitric acid used to dissolve spent fuel. This acid can spontaneously boil due to its high level of radioactivity. Currently, 10 million cubic feet of liquid waste is stored in underground tanks at the Hanford facility in Washington state and Savannah River facility in South Car- olina. Although the volume of military wastes is far greater than the volume of commercial spent reactor fuel, the spec), Radiation pathways into the human body I Storage and Alterhatives ctive This fact sheet summarizes storage and treatment alternatives for high-level ra- dioactive wastes. Storage Alternatives Short -Term Storage The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 di ected the Department of Energy (DOE) to Ludy the need for, and the feasibility of, .nonitored retrievable storage (MRS) for high-level radioactive waste. Current DOE plans call for an MRS facility that would temporarily store waste for a short period of time and perform centralized waste consolidation and packaging tasks prior to burial in a geologic repository. The Department of Energy has under con- sideration three sites in Tennessee. Spent fuel from nuclear power reactors would be sent by rail or truck to the MRS receiv- ing and handling building. There, the spent fuel would be consolidated and re- packaged. This consolidation and repack- aging procedure would cut almost in half the space required for storage and dis- posal of the spent fuel. Following repackaging, the spent fuel could be sent directly to the repository or stored at the MRS facility. Storage plans envision large, steel -lined concrete cylin- ders with concrete and steel caps. These thick storage casks would allow the waste to cool over a limited period of time. DOE is committed to begin accepting dent fuel by January 31, 1998. An MRS .cility could provide flexibility in DOE's schedule obligations for waste accept- ance. This is especially important since Treatment for DOE has already missed many interim milestone dates and most observers doubt that DOE will be able to site and build a repository by 1998. An MRS facil- ity could give DOE needed time to pursue further technical review and analysis and still fulfill its 1998 waste acceptance obli- gation. Long -Term Storage Although continued storage was labeled a "no action" alternative in DOE's 1980 Environmental Impact Statement on management of commercially generated radioactive waste, it could be a suitable alternative to the present federal nuclear waste program of permanent disposal by 1998. The technologies might be similar to those at an MRS facility or at existing shallow underground storage facilities in Sweden. Long-term storage could have a number of advantages over the DOE plans for per- manent deep geologic disposal sites: 1 . The "Out of site, out of mind" per- manent disposal approach could prove disasterous to future generations. Past federal management of high-level radioactive waste has been character- ized by problems and unfulfilled prom- ises. Most observers agree that the present federal nuclear waste program also does not inspire confidence. Fu- ture generations may prefer the op- tions associated with responsible stor- age, rather than the uncertainties and potential problems associated with ir- retrievable disposal. 2. Time would be available to further examine disposal alternatives. Long- term experiments could be performed on various geologic media. Future re- search could produce superior waste packages and waste solidification processes. New disposal techniques could become safe and economical. Waste treatments such as transmuta- tion might be perfected and the waste could be rendered harmless. 3. High-level radioactive waste re- leases large quantities of heat for many years. In a deep geologic reposi- tory, this heat could alter the interac- tion between the waste package, the ground water and the host rock. The heat could actually drive contaminated ground water toward the surface and cause profound chemical and mechan- U.S. Department of Energy concept for a monitored retrievable storage facility ical changes in the host rock. Long- term storage would allow the waste to thermally and radioactively cool be- fore emplacement in a repository and reduce some of these problems. 4. Nuclear waste could be a potential future resource. With permanent dis- posal, the waste would be irretrievable after the repository is sealed. 5. Permanent disposal would not al- low any direct monitoring of the waste. Loss of isolation, such as a waste canister failure or unpredicted radionuclide movement, could go un- detected until it reached the surface environment. By this time, corrective measures could not be taken. Long- term storage, on the other hand, would allow continuous and assured monitoring. Any loss of isolation would be detected early, and the prob- lem could be addressed before it got out of control. DOE has expressed concern that future institutions must be relied upon for the se- curity and long-term maintenance of a storage facility. This concern must be weighed against a decision to commit fu- ture generations to the uncertainties of permanent deep geologic disposal. In ad- dition, the storage of high-level waste would be no more prone to institutional changes than the nation's stockpile of weapons, certain surface stored defense wastes, and a massive quantity of in - dustrial chemicals. A significant amount of the fissionable material still remains in spent fuel after it is removed from nuclear reactors. Com- mercial reprocessing was originally envi- sioned as a means of extracting unused uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel. A reprocessing plant in West Valley, New York operated from 1966-72 but was shut down after experiencing techni- cal problems and reduced demand for re- processing services. Two other plants lo- cated at Morris, Illinois and Barnwell, South Carolina, were constructed but never operated because of a combination of technical and economic problems. Commercial reprocessing is currently ec- onomically unattractive because it is cheaper to mine raw uranium than it is to reprocess spent fuel. The U.S. has large, available reserves of raw uranium which can be enriched and made into fuel rods at less cost than the recovery and repro- cessing of the fissionable material in used spent fuel rods. Also fuel rods are now left in the reactor for a longer period of time, leaving less recoverable uranium and plu- Disposal and storage are different technological methods of isolating radioac- tive waste. Isolation refers to the containment of radioactive wastes so that contact between the human environment and the waste is kept within pre- scribed limits. Disposal is permanent isolation. Disposal does not permit retrievability of the waste, nor does it allow direct or continuous monitoring after closure. Deep geologic repositories for high-level radioactive waste are designed for perma- nent and final disposal. Storage is not permanent isolation. Storage could permit subsequent use or disposal. Waste in storage is easily accessible to retrieve and permits continu- ous monitoring to guarantee isolation. Storage can either be temporary, as in the Monitored Retrievable Storage system, or long-term. Thus, disposal is intended to provide final isolation and is the last step in a waste management process, while storage is intended to provide interim iso- lation with accessibility and retrievability. tonium in the spent fuel. In Europe, reprocessing is more preva- lent. In some cases, portions of the nu- clear industry are government -subsidized and economic considerations are not a priority. In addition, raw uranium is less abundant than in the U.S. or Canada, and reprocessing is more economically viable. Both Great Britain and France have repro- cessing facilities and reprocess spent fuel from other countries. West Germany is constructing a modest reprocessing facil- ity to handle the yearly output of 350 metric tons of spent fuel from its 18 reac- tors. Reprocessing has been promoted as a de- sirable waste management step. The re- moval of plutonium and uranium products was expected to reduce waste volume and lessen heat output and toxicity. How- ever, reprocessing still produces signifi- cant quantities of highly radioactive waste and creates additional operational hazards. In a 1985 study by the congres- sional Office of Technology Assessment, it was concluded that reprocessing "does not appear to offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste man- agement reasons alone." Transmutation Although not a disposal alternative, transmutation could reduce the long-term toxicity of high-level radioactive waste. This technique would be used to convert (transmute) some of the long-lived radio- nuclides into stable or short-lived radionu- clides. In theory, this would reduce the long-term hazard of the waste. Spent fuel would first be reprocessed to remove fissionable uranium and pluto- nium. Next, long-lived radionuclides would be separated from the waste and incorporated into new fuel; while the fue is in the reactor, neutron bombardment would transmute 5 to 7 percent of the long-lived radionuclides into stable or short-lived radionuclides. Repeated recy- cling would eventually result in the trans- mutation of most of the long-lived radio- nuclides to stable or short-lived ones. However, some long-lived radionuclides cannot be transmuted. This process is so complex that it could produce greatly increased operational hazards in the short-term, while resulting in only marginal decreases in long-term dangers. Additional research is needed to consider transmutation as a feasible treatment of nuclear waste. For more information: Managing the Nation's High -Level Radio- active Waste. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess- ment, OTA-0-171, March 1985. Mission Plan for Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/RW-0005, June 1985. % y k' rN,F' j 7 1�i /� % Div V,cp To � � ,6e ,� jy Ta o / 5� 19,ep , W/9 S iN- ;moo - /Ys //r '411 ,p/11,4- Cpr- � ;e.�3 pq CA n '`� So w,� C)o�TiN� x p TD �`!� / �v"')v iA i y)o SoAf�,N-,p- T �� i/i k ,Q J� TO;rvN Ott /7Z Mks cSG Aly Sa,v ifAQ Ta � �� fr,�- /`f r`/�► To S Nr GATlllqMom rX . � 1"0 G c�%s ✓✓""".So %'s'r o�3 AY(34/y '�-'oiv 'r �,r-7-afi -v �oMk M l/Y" 7-.es s l C k /9 7-S GOii) 6' o�v , �J/5t y /3 r c - /1 T-�}ay q�'i T 7-TF0. NpW SO a"91?4 o ice, io Jn��s c,R S o - /ti ,r -. k e, \l/i ATnCR SG l?E 1?,eew Io - i o IJAxI /3u i (goo 1, N? TaS Form No. NIA SCCUNITY PRINTING COMPANY. ST.Cl OUO.NINN OFFICE OF COUNTY AUDITOR No. - ---------- --- Wrizht-------------------------- County, Minnesota Buffalo April- 1986 -------------------------------------------, To............. Don Berning-----------------------------------------------------------------------Clerk of the 5r,60"WCity-VA)W of .... Alboa- ville------------------------- Following is a statement of moneys paid to the Treasurer of your ------------ .city-- - --- ----- ------ __---.-.___.___ at the ....... March ------------------ --.....Settlement 1986L--..-, by Auditor's Warrant No. -.4-0-1-918_----- -_---_ These moneys should be credited to the following funds: Dollars Revenue -------------------•------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------- $--- -- ---------------•- ----1-0-7-.-24---------------- Roadand Bridge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ --- 1..,_Q.1.&-..3.1--------------- Fire__ P_o>=e_Coa-----------------------------•-----------------•--...-------------•---------------------------------- 3.5-0-._b-8-.-..---- ------ Po_1 i c e..................................................................................................................... .---------I-7-9...5-3 --------------- 60 Bond 0' 1-1 - ................................................... PERA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ............... ---------------------------------------- 97.36 Par1cS--------------------------------•---------------------------------------------------------- ------ -3.6-0-•-3-2---------------- 73 Bond ---------------------------------------------------------- _ 165.-3-1__-_____-__-- ----------------------------------------•----•------------•._... 76B--ond 50-.97 Fi.re... 11elief......................................................................................................... ........ 1 1-4-,-2-1-------------- 7.9... Bond --------- 6-8-. -7.6 --- ---------- 81 Bond -----•---------•-•---------------------------------------------•-----•----------......------------------------------------------------ 171.90 ------------------------------ Joint - 0..-3-1 nPowers 84 Bod 860.23 P.e-nalt-y--------------------------------------•-----•-••----------------._...------------------------------------.......... -------- 5.9-5-..3-3. --- -------- 76-1 St. Impr. A. 227.6-5 ------- -- ---PAPA -- -- ......... • ------•------....__........---------•---------------------•----------...-.......-- Water- A. --------•• ------ 10 .55 --------------------------------- ---------------••------------------•------------------•----•----------------------------•----•---------------------------- 60.. Sewer_-A'----------•---•-•---•-----------•--•--•----•-------•--------------•---------•....._..-----•------•--. ------- 9..-b.5.--------- 74-2 Im�r. -A.................................... ------------------ 7.3_-_1....•----------------•------------------------•-------------••-------------------------------------------- ------ --1-08-•-5-0---------------- 7 9 -1-- S-t...... I mp r '----A . ----........ 5.5 4 .-2-9-------•-------- 7_9.- 3...U.t 111_ty..-A-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ---- ------ 13-•-7-7---------------- 7 9 - 2 I mp.r . A .--------•-•-----------------•-•------•-----------------•---- ------ ------ .. -- 41 .-1-5 77 1 Imp-r-' -- A......-----•-----••••-••---------------------------•----•-•-----------------------------------....----- ------ ................................. 4-9 -1•--.S.t.* Imp x..--..A..------------••-----•--- •---•----••-------------------------•--------- ------ .......... - ---- -6-6-7-•-5-8---------------- 83---1 .... Z��x_,...1?.x.aj ............................................. -----------•------------------------------4,,.1-0.8-.-8-1 ................ ----------------------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- - ---- --------- ------------------- Total -------------------------- $-10 , 6 9 3. 80 ................... '-----.__ Ari-- --- ----------- .............. .... AUDITOR NOTE: FORWARD ORIGINAL TO CLERK —ATTACH DUPLICATE TO WARRANT —RETAIN TRIPLICATE. Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota Suite 200 — Skyway Level 514 St. Peter Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-296-7460 PERA TOWN MEETING Dear Member: The Trustees of the Public Employees Retirement Association would like to hear your ideas and suggestions in developing PERA's 1987 legislative agenda. A public information meeting will be held at the location listed below to allow members, representatives from governmental units, and other interested parties to express their concerns with respect to legislative and other matters relevant to PERA. You are invited to attend this meeting, and the Trustees would welcome your input into its legislative policy development process. Your participation will help make the meeting a success and provide the Trustees with a variety of viewpoints that will assist them in their efforts to develop a sound and balanced legislative agenda. PERA staff will provide an update on the 1986 Legislative Session and an analysis on future legislative proposals. Local legislators have also been invited to attend. If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please feel free to call toll free at 1-800-652-9026. Si cerely, es M. Hacking ecutive Director CITY DATE Minneapolis Thursday, May, 15, 1986 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Pension Guarantee TIME LOCATION 6:=p.m. Folwell_Tr. Figh School 3611 20th Avenue South Rule of 85 and Other Early Retirement Options Folwcll Tr b Consolidation of Local rio. mN Police and Fire Associations Into PERA Post -Retirement Adjustments Pre-1973 Retiree Benefits Health Insurance Other Concerns