Loading...
1987-11-02 CC Agenda/Packet• CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. 0. BOX 131 AtBERTVILLE- MINNEso-rA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 2, 1987 I: CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA *III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. COMMUNITY FORUM A. Joint Power's Update V. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS A. Legal -Tax Increment Financing *-Confiming Rocommendations for $250,000.00 Bond B. Park Board -Hockey Shoot Out -Policy of Flooding Ice Rink -Possibility of Hiring Skating Rink Attendant -Information on Warning Track -Update on Door Installation C. Engineering *-PCA Letter and what action should be taken -Construction Update D. Maintenance Sidewalk cleaning Policy E. Administration *-Income Received and Bills to be Paid *-LMC Legislature Issues Voting Card Results *-Action Alert's Re: Federal Cuts OSHA Rules -Other Business -Sign Permit Application's for Franklin VI. MEMBER"S REPORT VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Minnesota Association of Small Cities "Small Talk" - Available B. Public Financial Systems "Redefing..." - Available VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Make our Cm,. Your C/n, We mrtte Home. Industrc, tlusine5s CITY OF ALBERTVILLE P. (). H(» 131 AI BERTV11.I.E, MINNESO TA 55301 PHONE: (612) 497-3384 COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 2, 1987 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA *III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES IV. COMMUNITY FORUM A. Joint Power's Update V. DEPARTMENT BUSINESS A. Legal -Tax Increment Financing *-Confiming Rocommendations for $250,000.00 Bond B. Park Board -Hockey Shoot Out -Policy of Flooding Ice Rink -Possibility of Hiring Skating Rink Attendant. -Information on Warning Track -Update on Door Installation C. Engineering *-PCA Letter and what action should be taken -Construction Update D. Maintenance Sidewalk cleaning Policy E. Administration *-Income Received and Bills to be Paid *-LMC Legislature Issues Voting Card Results *-Action Alert's Re: Federal Cuts OSHA Rules -Other Business -Sign Permit Application's for Franklin VI. MEMBER"S REPORT VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Minnesota Association of Small Cities "Small Talk" - Available B. Public Financial Systems "Redefing..." - Available VIII. MOTION TO ADJOURN Wake our ('av }nur it We "n•ne Hot?)", Ineluslrr, Nusrnv%% The regular meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to order by Mayor Loretta Roden. Members present included Gary Schwenzfeier, Donatus Vetsch and Don Cornelius. Council member Bob Braun was absent. Others present included Maureen Andrews, Bob Miller, Steve Klitzka, Thore Meyer, Gordy Berning and Ken Lindsay. There was a motion made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Don Cornelius to approve the agenda. All were in favor and the motion carried. A motion to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1987 meeting was made by Gary Schwenzfeier and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried. It was pointed out that there were bare wires sticking out of the control box at the base of the Albertville Water Tower and that the cover was off and laying on the ground. Gary Schwenzfeier said the he would check on it and contact the Joint Powers. Bob Miller updated the Council on the Tax Increment Financing proposal for the Meyer project. In discussing the issue with Holmes and Graven, they said that it would cost at least $500.00 to complete the feasibility study on doing a T.I.F. project but did not want to go ahead until the Council made a decision on whether or not to proceed. Bob also spoke with John Gries about this issue and it appears that Mr. Meyer is looking for more that the existing $25,000.00 to do his project. According to John Gries the project costs are as follows: LAND $ 8,000.00 OUTSIDE EQUIPMENT 195,000.00 SITE WORK & ASPHALT 80,000.00 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 47,000.00 BUILDING 200,500.00 INSIDE EQUIPMENT 50,000.00 INVENTORY & SUPPLIES 35,000.00 TOTAL 687,500.00 The Council reconfirmed the fact that they felt that they still needed more information before deciding to go ahead with the hearing on T.I.F. It was suggested that Maureen give Pat Meyer a call to update him on what is happening with the proposal and find out how he would like to proceed with the proposal. The Council was then updated on the bond sale for Barthel Manor--2nd Addition. The preliminary findings from Springstead were reviewed PAGE 2 by the Council and appeared to be in order. A motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Donatus Vetsch to proceed with the bond sale as presented. All were in favor and the motion carried. Maureen was asked to confirm this information with Springstead so that the sale would take place on November 16th. Steve Klitzka and Gordy Berning, representatives of the Park Board were present to discuss several park activitivies. The first item discussed was a "KID'S RAFFLE" with the drawning being held on December 19th at the Lamp Post In. First prize will be a 10-speed bike of the winner's choice (boys or girls) and other prizes will include sundays from the Lamp Post. The seconded item discussed was a Park Board sponsered Hockey Shootout with winners recieving two tickets to a North Star game. There will be six catagories and six pairs of tickets awarded. The Shootout will be held at the City Park sometime in January. More details are being worked out and will be presented to the Council as they develop. The Council was informed that the steel doors had been installed but that there was some additional work that needed to be done before any payment be made. Steve also told the Council that one of the doors will be used for the warming house. In addition to replacing the warming house door, Alpana Windows and Hordis Brother's ^ Glass are donating windows for the building as well. The next item discussed was establishing a check list to be used when renting the park. The form would require a damage deposit along with the rental fees. A reason for this'change is that there has not been established rules for using the park and for cleanup at the end of the day. It was also clearified that when a group rents the park that it only included the softball field and shelter area and that the playground, athelic field and gazebo will remain open to the public at all times. The Council was informed that the Gazebo will be constructed early next spring. The members of the Park Board have agreed to each take turns making sure that the park facility is open and picked up on the weekends during the summer months. Theres was some sidcussion regarding the maintenance of the ice rink. The Council informed the Park Board members that the City maintenance Department will be responsible for maintaining the rink once cal -du -sacs have been cleared of snow, except in the case of real heavy snow storms, in which case it may take a little .-1 longer to get to the ice rink: There was also some discussion about the possiblity of hiring a rink attendant to supervise the weekend skating. The Council felt that it would be better to try installing a sign stating the rules of the rink instead of expending money for a part-time employee. PAGE 4 legally responsible for clearing snow away from publicly owner buildings and parking lots, but that giving the location of the City's sidewalks it would be best to wing back as much snow as possible on both sides of the street and if it becomes necessary during the winter to blow back snow when needed. It was pointed out that it is important to keep away from the grass line as not to demage peoples yards. Other snow related items dicussed included that the "SNOW BIRD" ordinance is in effect and that Maureen should contact the Sheriff's Office and request that tickets be issued. Notice should be given to the newspaper and put on the City Sign as to the same. In addition, it was suggested that a notice be put in the paper regarding the need to clean out around mailbox so that mail can be delivered. Ken Lindsay next informed the Council that the pond discharging was just about complete and that the City had been able to discharge without adding the chemicals this time, saving about $800.00 in chemical costs. Ken also informed the Council that Dennis Fehn is looking to sell the City a motor grader for $1,500.00 and wants to know if the Council is interested. There was some discussion regarding the grading being done by Otesgo Township and the Council will wait until more information is provided. The Council reviewed the Income Recieved and Bills to be Paid. There were some questions regarding the Don's Auto bill the Albertville Auto Parts Store and the Buffalo Bituminous bill. After reviewing the bills it appeared -that the only bill in question was the Buffalo Bituminous bill, which Maureen was asked to hold until it sould be checked. With no other questions regarding the bills, a motion was made by Donatu Vetsch and a second by Gary Schwenzfeier to approve checkthrough 1113 excluding the Buffalo Bituminous chek. All were in favor and fhe motion carried. Maureen was asked to send a letter to the City's federal legislator and Senators regarding the possible federal cuts to local govenment. Discussion on Billboard permits was tabled until the next meeting of the Council. There was addition discussion regarding the raising of the fire hydrants. Maureen informed the Council that she had notified Joint Powers that extensions were needed and Linda stold her that if ther were any questions she would have one of the guys get ahold of Ken. Ken stated that he does not feel that the City should have to raise the hydrant when Munitec is being paid to maintain the water system. Ken said that he was making the complaint as a tax payer and a City employee. The Council said that he should then take his complaint to the full Joint Power's Board. Gary Schwenzfeier pointed out that there appears to be a problem with trucks sitting on the corner of 55th Street and Large Avenue. A ticket had been issued on Sunday evening as well as several complaints having been filed. PAGE 5 A motion was made by Gary Schwenzfeier and a second by Donatus Vetsch to have Ken order 4 addition "NO TRUCKS" signs. All were in favor and the motion carried. The final item brought up by the Council was the fact that a pit bull and been seen running in town. Maureen was asked to send a letter regarding the issue to the owner and notify the sheriff's office that there could be some problems with the dog running. There was no othr business so a motion was made to adjour. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Gary Schwenzfier. All were in favor and the motion carried. CONFIRMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA $250,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A Study No. 3320 October 22, 1987 SPRINGSTED Incorporated SPRINGSTED ,.hd.'!l October 22, 1987 Ms. Loretta Roden, Mayor Members, City Council Ms. Maureen Andrews, Administrator Albertville City Hall Albertville, MN 55301 RE: Confirming Recommendations for the Issuance of $250,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1987A These recommendations will confirm the terms and conditions for the issuance of these bonds, authorized at the City Council's meeting on October 19, 1987. The bonds are being issued to finance the improvement costs for the 2nd Addition to Barthel Manor. The size of the bond issue has been determined as follows: Construction $186,255 Engineering, Contingencies, Administrative/Legal 37,251 Issuance Costs 8,900 Capitalized Interest (to 12-31-88) 17,500 Subtotal $249,906 Allowance for Discount Bidding 3,125 Less: Estimated Reinvestment Earnings (3,031) Total Bond Issue $250,000 Included in the principal amount of the issue is a provision for capitalized interest in the amount of $17,500. This capitalized interest is necessary to fund the June I, 1988 and December I, 1988, interest payments pending the filing of and the receipt of special assessments. All subsequent debt service payments commencing with the June I, 1989 interest payment will be paid from the collection of special assessments. Also included in the principal amount of the issue is a provision for discount bidding in the amount of $3,125. This discount, representing $12.50 per $1,000 of bonds issued, will provide the underwriter with all or part of his profit and/or working capital for purchasing the issue. The City has used this marketing tool in the past and we recommend its continued use with this issue. City of Albertville, Minnesota October 22, 1987 In addition, we are providing the City with the option of prepaying these bonds on December I, 1989, one year prior to the scheduled maturity date. This option will allow the City greater flexibility in exercising its refinancing options. We recommend the City issue temporary bonds rather than definitive bonds as originally contemplated due to the expectation of substantial prepayments of special assessments. Furthermore, definitive bonds would require a higher discount and more capitalized interest than do temporary bonds and thus the amount of the issue has been reduced from $260,000 to $250,000. Pursuant to Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, municipalities are permitted to issue temporary bonds which mature not later than three years from the date of issue. Further, such temporary bonds may be refinanced with additional temporary improvement bonds which second issue also may not exceed three years in maturity. A third issue, if necessary, would be sold as a definitive issue. As stated previously, the primary advantage of issuing temporary bonds is that the City may use prepayments of assessments received over the next few years to reduce and/or eliminate further financing requirements for this project. Consistent with past practices of the City, the interest charged on the assessments will be at a rate of 1.5% above the net effective rate of the bonds issued to finance the project. If the City were to issue definitive bonds at this time, we estimate the net effective rate of the borrowing would be 8.20%. Therefore, the assessments would carry an interest rate of 9.75%. We recommend the City establish the rate on the assessments based on what the City would have received had it sold a definitive issue (see Exhibit III) at the time it sells the temporary issue. This is a protection to the City in the event that a definitive issue will be required in future years. It is currently estimated the City can issue its temporary bonds as a net effective rate of 7.41 %, however, there is no assurance that should definitive financing be required in the future, such a rate may be achieved. Therefore, as a hedge against future potential higher interest costs with the definitive plan, we feel the City would be justified in establishing the assessment rate based on the estimated rate of definitive financing at this time. Exhibit I shows the projection of assessment income assuming the assessments will be filed on October I, 1988. This projection of assessment income does not take into consideration any prepayments, deferments or delinquencies which may occur. Exhibit II shows the projected cash flow for the temporary bond issue. Exhibit III shows the projected cash flow if this were a definitive issue. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 established certain arbitrage reporting and rebate requirements for issuers of tax-exempt obligations. In essence, an issuer must report and rebate the amount of reinvestment income which exceeds the income which would have been earned if the same amount had been invested at the rate of the bonds. However, because the City will issue less than $5,000,000 of government purpose bonds in this calendar year, it is exempt from the reporting and rebating requirement. Page 2 City of Albertville, Minnesota October 22, 1987 The Tax Reform Act also restricts the ability of banks to deduct tax-exempt interest as a carrying expense under certain circumstances in calculating their tax liability. However, these bonds will be qualified bonds which can be included in a bank's calculations of interest deduction. We recornmend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, November 16, with bid proposals to be received at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated at 1:00 P.M. A compilation of proposals received will be made and presented to the Council for consideration of award at 7:30 P.M. that evening. A representative of SPRINGSTED Incorporated will attend your meeting to provide a recommendation. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated /tkf Page 3 EXHIBIT I City of Albertville, Minnesota $260,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 1987A PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME Barthel Manor 2nd Addition Filing Date: 10/ 1/1988 Filing Collect Interest Year Year Principal @ 9.750% Total ----------------------------- ----- Prepared October 20, 1987 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated 1988 1989 21,667 31,740a 53,407 1989 1990 21,667 23,237 44,904 1990 1991 21,667 21,125 42,792 1991 1992 21,667 19,012 40,679 1992 1993 21,667 16,900 38,567 1993 1994 21,667 14,787 36,454 1994 1995 21,667 12,675 34,342 1995 1996 21,667 10,562 32,229 1996 1997 21,667 8,450 30,117 1997 1998 21,667 6,337 28,004 1998 1999 21,667 4,225 25,892 1999 2000 21,663 2,112 23,775 TOTALS 260,000 171,162 431,162 a) Includes interest from filing date to 12/31/1989. Page 4 EXHIBIT II City of Albertville, Minnesota $250,000 G.O. Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1987A Dated: 12- 1-1987 Mature: 12- 1 Year of Year of Levy Mat. (1) (2) 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 TOTALS: Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 7.00% 0 7.00% 250,000 7.00% 250,000 Prepared October 21, 1987 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Total Principal 105% Interest & Interest of Total (5) (6) (7) 17,500 17,500 18,375 17,500 17,500 18,375 17,500 267,500 280,875 52,500 302,500 317,625 Bond Years: 750.00 Annual Interest: 52,500 Avg. Maturity: 3.00 Plus Discount: 3,125 Avg. Annual Rate: 7.000% Net Interest: 55,625 N.I.C. Rate: 7.417% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Page 5 EXHIBIT III > 7 N m Q CD N O t0 N t0 a0 f f of 'n co L m m N I� O In w N Q L 7 .fn .•n CV N N N N O N n o N O U u L C _ y) O O q 7 7 ••-� .mr m f � �n t0 N N u'1 O Ln u7 ll f Of u-f f C n Q m m N N N .-� + .•+ l0 O In < 7 N O (n � 2 L. CL q 1 n N �.+ y �•. _ N InC 1 n Q Q N 01 n Q N •-O O1 � N l0 In 10 Q N N C �+ In -WN CDap 10 -WN O w In m N Q Q f m m M m m" N" -� M 7! f N N < >( ••+ In W .+ A N Q NY f N 0 N �n O q a+ c0 O1 .n M W O O O O m a0 O N .•+ M1 O m O N �n r� N 10 f m -•� O) CO 10 -W N f W m m Q Q f m m m N N N N N O Q Ol O 7 �y i ♦+ 61 T^ > aI Q fD GA O O O O O O O O O O1 Q Of .r Q m CO Ol n m QI O In U N Z 6i -••+ Q O1 -•. Q Of f OD N l0 O m c0 m J CA_ _ _ w N Q N Of OD wQ Q N " m m M M N N -W N N cn L Ico n m «� w O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 4! N m co O N L y un u7 O O. q 4+ C N N L 0l U O O O m In ap q a+ f m O O O O O O O_ O CD O O•-� -W In C q ♦+ q N t0 O7 .. f� f O7 �+ f m w Of m — Of fV Of f C1 f CO C',c0 O m t0 .••� --� q U O _n L U C C! _ _ M N f N CO t0 u'1 m f Q m m C, m N N N N N N r- C f C � � L W N q OJ a+ ^ f 00 OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O f C4 ... f m co cn m m m N 7 N L L C �+ u O y m 0 Q N Of a� 0 n m .+ 6! 7 CU ..C. .•. - uvi 0i E E 7 N O L N ^ W Q ♦+ ...r K ?D I: 1M K K K K C[ ?D K Ln CD6n u'f 6n 1n 6n .n O O O O -n r� O m v1 O) N In Q f C C 4 7 d �+ Z C L C N q U 7 c O m O m 9 O u pQ N N N m y ^^ q m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ?X ?t 6J C C O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 C',O In� O N _ U C O 6n N'/ O O O O O O O O O m N N N CV N fV N N N N N CD 10 N a0 0 CA N n co N W > L O W �+ �L r W L ¢ 0 L i E Of _ O Q In 10 co 0� O 7J �+ q L ++ O �+ N � O1 01 01 Of 01 Of O1 Of � O O •• q N el cli q Cl O _L l7 QI N N A 01 O 01 01 Of Ol O) W Q L v � C1 Ol � O 01 Qf 01 O1 Ql Of O1 Of J U L �O «+ 10 L N Gl �+ 0+ q q q W h- C T Ol .••. «+ GJ .- Page 6 EXHIBIT IV THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS BOND ISSUE ON THEIR BEHALF. SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED WILL RECEIVE PROPOSALS ON — THE FOLLOWING BASIS: $250,000 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A Proposals for the Bonds will be received by SPRINGSTED Incorporated on behalf of the City of Albertville, Minnesota on Monday, November 16, 1987, at 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the some day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated December I, 1987, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on June I and December I of each year, commencing June I, 1988. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest payment. The Bonds will mature on December I, 1990. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on December I, 1989 and June I, 1990 to prepay Bonds due December I, 1990. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance an improvement project within the City. TYPE OF PROPOSAL Proposals must be for not less than $246,875 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds and shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the receipt of proposals. A certified or cashier's check in the amount of $2,500, payable to the order of the City, shall be within 24 hours of award filed by the Purchaser with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's Financial Advisor. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal. The City will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement. No proposal shall be withdrawn after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the proposals is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Page 7 AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the proposal offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's cornputation of the total net dollar interest cost of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. REGISTRAR The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, of Minneapolis, Minnesota which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Invitation for Proposals by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the receipt of proposals. The Purchaser will be provided with 15 copies of the Invitation for Proposals. N 41k;)JW4 z Minnesota Pollution Control Agency UU00 October 16, 1987 Ms. Maureen Andrews City Administrator of Albertville P.O. Box 131 Albertville, Minnesota 55301 Dear Ms. Andrews: RE: Rebudget Request C271087 02, Step 2+3 This is in response to your August 19, 1987 letter requesting a rebudget of project funds. The reason stated in your letter for the rebudget request is that additional engineering services were used to research and respond to a Notice of Violation issued the City. Federal regulation 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart I, Appendix B (2.f) states: Costs which are not necessary for the construction of a treatment works project are unallowable. Such costs include, but are not limited to, fines and penalties due to violations of, or failure to comply with federal, state, or local laws, regulations or procedures. Because the engineering fees were incurred to respond to a Notice of Violation, the costs are unallowable for grant participation. We are denying your request to rebudget funds from Project Contingencies to Other Architectural Engineering Fees. In accordance with the enclosed Disputes Procedure, you may request review of this decision by Mr. Thomas J. Kalitowski, Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If you have any questions, please contact Mary L. James, Grants Project Manager, at (612) 296-7732. Sincerely, Richard J. Sandberg, C Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Division of Water Quality RJS/MLJ:rbj Enclosure cc: Meyer-Rohlin, Incorporated (w/enclosure) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Phone: (612)296-7201 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Oftices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochestr;r Equal Opportunity Employer ATTACHMENT D-4 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY Disputes Review Procedure Federal Construction Grants Program Under 40 CFR 35.3030, Federal wastewater treatment grant recipients who perceive that they have been adversely affected by decisions made by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), or the lack of same, have the right to request a review of the decisions by the U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V, when the authority to make those decisions is pursuant to the Delegation Agreement between the MPCA and EPA Region V. In other words, any decisions made by MPCA under the Delegation Agreement, that in the absence of the Delegation Agreement would be made by EPA Region V, are subject to the review procedure described below. Disputes regarding State law, State regulations and State policies, to the extent same to not conflict the Federal requirements, are not subject to review under the described review procedure but rather shall be reviewed under the State construction grants program review procedure. Federal wastewater treatment grant recipients who perceive they have been adversely affected by a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section staff decision may request review of the decision by the Municiipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief. The procedure is as follows: A. The grantee is required to submit, generally within 45 days of the date when the grantee could have or should have reasonably known of an MPCA staff decision, a request addressed to the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief for a review of the staff decision with the following information: 1. Project name and identification number; 2. A description of the staff action (a copy if possible), the date and the amount in dispute, if applicable; 3. The basis for the grantee's request for review must cite, as applicable: a. Federal Law; b. Title 40 EPA regulation; c. EPA policy; and/or d. EPA Guidance; and 4. The specific action the grantee wants the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief to take. 2 B. The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief will respond generally within 45 days with a formal initial decision or a request for futher information. I. If it is a request for futher information, the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief will indicate: a. What specific information is being requested; b. Why it is being requested; and C. That the grantee has 45 days to respond or the Municipal Wastewater Section staff's previous decision will become the State's final decision subject to no further review by the State or EPA. 2. If it is a State formal initial decision, the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief will indicate via certified mail, return receipt requested: a. That it is a State formal initial decision; b. The basis for the initial decision, citing, as applicable: Ill Federal Law; 2 Title 40 EPA Regulations; 3 EPA Policy; and/or 4 EPA Guidance; and c. The grantee's right to request review by the MPCA Executive Director. C. If the grantee decides to request review by the MPCA Executive Director, the grantee is required to submit, within 45 days of the date of the formal initial decision, a request addressed to the Executive Director of the MPCA for review of the initial decision with the following information: 1. Project name and identification number; 2. A copy of the formal initial decision; 3. The basis for the grantee's request for review must cite, as applicable: a. Federal Law; b. Title 40 EPA Reggulations; C. EPA policy; and d. EPA Guidance; and 4. The Specific action the grantee wants the Executive Director to take D. The Executive Director will respond within 45 days with a final decision or request for further information. I. If it is a request for further information, the Executive Director will indicate: 3 a. What specific information is being requested; b. Why it is being requested; and c. That the grantee has 45 days to respond or the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section Chief's previous initial decision will become the State's final decision subject to no further review by the State or EPA. 2. If it is a State final decision, the Executive Director will indicate via certified mail, return receipt requested: a. That it is a State final decision: b. The basis for the State decision, citing as applicable: Ill Federal Law; 2 Title 40 EPA Regulations; 3 EPA Policy; and/or 4 EPA Guidance; (If the dispute is an issue of State law, State policy and/or State guidance, the grantee will be notified that the issue is not disputable under the Federal Construction Grant's Program disputes review procedure. If the dispute is a Stante issue, the MPCA will make a decision based on the State Construction Grants Program Disputes Procedure). c. The grantee decides to request review by EPA; and d. That if the grantee decides to request EPA region V review, its request must: (1) Be filed by registered mail, return receipt requested to the Regional Disputes Decisions Official, Attention: Cheif, Municipal Facilities Branch, U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604; �2� Include a statement of the amount in dispute; 3 Include a description of the issues involved; 4 Include a concise statement of the objections to the State decision; (5) Include a copy of all written State decisions and communications and documents applicable to the dispute; and (6) Be received by the Region within 30 days of the date of the state decision. i LLL, ���, l_..�t� i I i J I I L:; L_J October 20, 1987 TO: Mayors, Manag and Clerks FROM: Donald A. S1 Executive Director RE: Regional Meeting Legislative Issues Voting Card Results Over 1,300 city officials attended the League's 1987 regional meetings. Meetings where held in Nashwauk, Menahga, Little Falls, Red Wing, Preston, Owatonna, Marshall, Sleepy Eye, Glenwood/Starbuck, Mora, Albertville, Red Lake Falls, and Moorhead. At each regional meeting, city officials were requested to complete a legislative issues voting card. The voting card asked 23 policy position questions concerning the subjects discussed in several issue papers prepared by League staff. The issue papers and voting cards were mailed to all mayors, managers, and clerks prior to the regional meetings. Several cities, unable to attend a regional meetings, mailed in their city's voting card. After tabulating the voting cards, a report on the results was prepared for each LMC legislative policy committees. Enclosed is a copy of the voting results for your review. The committees took these results into consideration when drafting the 1988 Proposed City Policies and Priorities. Your position on these issues was of vital importance to each policy committee wrestling with tough policy questions. However, your opportunity to participate in the development of the League's 1988 Policies and Priorities for Legislative Action is not over. The League's Policy Adoption Conference is scheduled for At the Policy Adoption Conferenc , mem cities t, or propose changes, to the 1988 legislative policies. I hope you will attend the Policy Adoption Conference and bring your city's perspective to the conference. If you plan to attend, please return the enclosed registration form to Gayle Brodt at the League office. There is no registration fee for the conference. . . 2 7 5600 LMC LEGISLATIVE ISSUES VOTING CARD RESULTS Tax Increment Financing TIF a5 I Yes I �fl No Voting Equipment 33r--) Yes No Local Government Election Da Yes No Land Use Legislation -�9 Support ZC9_ Oppose Support-1 Oppose J 07 _ Support 15 b Oppose 55 Support 4It Oppose Support ly0 Oppose 1 3( Support 1_a Oppose 13a Support �5 Oppose Transportation Funding q _ Support Oppose _7 Support Oppose a Support 1 D Oppose Lai Support Oppose ! Support 1 Oppose Should the League introduce tax increment finance legislation Should the League oppose legis- tion that would make current voting equipment obsolete Should the League oppose legislation mandating a local government election day 1. Separate Board of Adjustment 2. Change definition of undue hardship 3. Requirement for comprehensive plan 4. Prohibit conditional zoning 5. Zoning controls consistent with comprehensive plan 6. Change the ability of cities to extend subdivision regulations 7. Fringe Area Growth Proposal 1. Metro Sales Tax 2. Gas Tax Increase 3. MVET Transfer/Dedication 4. Jurisdictional Reassignment 5. Changing the 62/29/9 allocation forumla LMC LEGISLATIVE ISSUE VOTING CARD RESULTS (cont'd) Homestead Credit Program ,-:71 Support Oppose Levy Limit Legislation r Yes No Changes to or new homestead credit program Should the League make the removal of levy limits an "A" priority City Service Charges for Tax -Exempt Property a4g Yes 6Z No Should cities be able to voluntarily impose service charges on tax-exempt property Relative Tax Burdens for Certain Types of Pro ert Residential Homestead taxes are: 14q Too High a 1 (D About Right 14:7 Too Low Residential Nonhomestead/Apartment taxes are: 140 Too High ►a5 About Right c�n_ Too Low Agricultural Homestead taxes are: _4k Too High 150 About Right _Q4 Too Low Commercial/Industrial taxes are: ieq Too High �5 About Right _110 Too Low Local Option Taxes Yes r7l No Should the League support local option taxes? A9r- IX.; [ itirersit-v :eve. E., St. Paul, AIN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 ACTION ALERT October 27, 1981 For further information contact: Ann Higgins Federal Liaison/P.D. CITIES MUST INSIST THAT CONGRESS REACH FY136 BUDGET AGREEMENT TO PREVENT CUTS 1N FUNDS OR SHIFT IN TAX BURDEN TO LOCAL LEVEL Signs are visible once again that cities are likely to take the full brunt of failure in Congress to resolve budget and deficit reduction issues. City officials must act now to make clear the serious impact such failure will have on local tax rates, as well as on maintenance of current programs and the ability of the city to make public improvements, attract business and employment opportunities, and pay the increasingly higher cost of complying with federal mandates. Please contact your member of Congress as well as both Senators Boschwitz and Durenberger to explain exactly how federal deficit reductions will affect your city. Check to see if your member of Congress will be in the district between now and November 20. If so, take the opportunity to have him meet with local officials and city residents to explain what is happening to the budget for city programs and exactly how the Gramm-Rudman "fix" works, what it will mean your city and others in the state, and what the impact of the tax on municipal vehicles would mean to local taxpayers. NOTE: Please contact me if you are planning to talk directly with your Congressman or either of our two Senators about these issues. It is helpful to know both the plans and the outcomes of those discussions. If Congress and the Reagan Administration fail to reach agreement on a combination of budget and tax issues, cities face another round of Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction cuts in federal funding for the following programs: Community Development Block Grants Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants Assisted housing funding, including Section, rental rehabilitation, rural housing programs, public housing operating subsidies, low and moderate income housing Highway and transit funding Urban Development Action Grants (OVER) Job Training Partnership Assistance Grants Airport construction and safety grants Federal funds already "in the pipeline" to cities have been held back, deferred as of October 20, as a result of the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction requirements. Under the sequester as it is called, a total of 8.5 percent of the funding for all city programs is withheld as of now, pending the final sequester report due on November 20. If there is no compromoise or alternative deficit reduction package by that date, the final sequester report would be retroactive to the action initially taken on October 20. While the sequester applies to all municipal programs, it does not &Pply to fy'87 federal funds nor to situations where the city has a pre-existing binding contract - such as under Section 8 low income housing assistance. It is important to take time now to evaluate how these withdrawals of federal funding will affect your community and residents in the months to come. Preparing contingency plans that assume that Gramm-Rudman cuts will become final is prudent at this point. It is also extremely important to relay such information directly to members of Congress who represent your city and the people who live there. It is also important to inform affected constituencies within the city and urge them to contact members of Congress to make clear how cuts will impact needed services and programs. You must also consider what will happen if Congress supports imposition of tax changes that increase local government costs. Once again, city officials must act quickly to emphasize the impact of requiring cities to pay federal gas, excise and annual use taxes on municipal vehicles; to extend mandatory Medicare coverage to currently exempt employees beginning January 1; and forcing cities to face a loss of 8.5 percent of federal funds for FY'88 city budgets (as well as payments cities are scheduled to receive between now and the end of 1987). The following information will help you evaluate the cost increases that will result from imposition of tax changes listed above: User Fee Rate as of October 1, 1987 Gasoline 9 cents/gallon Gasohol 3 cents/gallon Diesel 15 cents/gallon Other special fuels 9 cents/gallon Tires U-40 lbs., no tax over 40-70 lbs., 15 cents per lb. in excess of 40 lbs. Truck and trailer sales Heavy Vehicle Use over 70-90 lbs., $4.50 + 30 cents per lb. in excess of 70 lbs. over 90 lbs., $10.50 + 50 cents per lb. in excess of 90 lbs. 12% of retailer's sale price for trucks over 33,000 lbs. gross wt. (gvw) and trailers over 26,000 lbs. gvw Annual tax: Trucks 55,000 to 75,000 lbs. gvw, $100 plus $22 for each 1,000 lbs. (or fraction thereof) in excess of 55,000 lbs. Trucks over 75,000 lbs. gvw, $550 Reconciliation legislation that combines spending and tax proposals for FY188 may reach the House floor for a vote. In both the House and Senate, Republican members of Congress have thus far refused to participate in developing tax proposals on the grounds that sufficient spending cuts have not been made. Some congressmen are even arguing that triggering of Gramm-Rudman cuts is an outcome they are willing to accept rather than try to work to encourage a compromise settlement on on budget and tax issues. The fact is that such a position will unduly and unfairly impact local government because all federal funds for city programs are targeted by those cutbacks while 96 percent of total federal spending is exempt from deficit reduction requirements. Members of Congress must be called to account for their votes in support of such action when it results in a shift of costs to local taxpayers. Democrats in Congress are also taking part in action that will result in increased costs to local taxpayers. On Wednesday, October 7, House Democrats caucused an agreed to eliminate the exemption for all state and local vehicles from federal gas, excise and annual use taxes. That tax change would probably go into effect January 1, although h the President had recommended earlier that it be effective October 1 (1987). Please take this opportunity to examine local cost increases of these and other changes the city has had to respond to over the past year or more and relay that information to members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation. Across-the-board cuts in programs for cities is simply an unfair and unacceptable method of deficit reduction. Failure to address the shifting of government burdens to the local level without funding to help cities pay the cost does not reduce the tax; it merely alters where it is imposed. imr- 18.3 1 "nii-ersity .- iv. E. , SI. Pain, AIN 55101-25 26 (612) 227-5600 `.'PO: Mayors, Managers and Clerks FROM: Joel J. Jamnik RE: Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHA) Rules. A public hearing on revisions to several OSHA regulations has been scheduled for 9:00 a.m., November 12, 1987 in Room 5 of the State Office Building. City officials may testify at the hearing or may submit written comments to Administrative Law Judge Peter Erickson, Office of Administrative Hearings, Fourth Floor Summit Bank Building, 310 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415. Those wishing to submit written statements should send three copies to Mr. Erickson. The rules as proposed are attached to this action alert. For the most part they seek to provide protection to employees working in confined spaces and may result in additional equipment and personnel costs for mployees including cities. I have placed asterisks before and underinied those sections that will most likely interest city officials. Please contact me if you have any questions. (OVER) Rules as Proposed (all new material) 5205.0116 CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORING. Subpart 1. Internal combustion engines. The employer shall monitor environmental exposure of employees to carbon mono 'de whenever intgmidl combustion engines • re operated indoors to ensure that carbon monoxide levels do not exceed those Eiven to Code o ederal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.1000. Table Z.-1. The air sampling shall he done at least bimonthly and represent exposures during a day of highest usage in the areas where carbon monoxide exposure is most likely. Subp. 2. Lift trucks. Where the carbon monoxide source is lift trucks, the employer shall ensure that engine exhaust gases do not contain more than one percent carbon monoxide for propane fueled trucks or two percent carbon monoxide for gasoline fueled trucks. 5205.0401 EFFECTIVE DATE. Parts .5205.04(N) to 5205.0590 apply w the construction, installation, alteration, and operation of all the installations listed in part 520.5.0400, which are constructed, installed, or altered within the limits of the state of Minnesota after the effective date of these codes. 5205.0675 COVERS AND OVERHEAD DOORS. All covers and horizontal, sliding, and overhead doors of sufficient weight or pressure to cause crushing inlury to employees in the event of their powere or un were c osure shall be provided with a constant pressure closing switch, safety edge, or pressure retie mec h anism. 5205.0710 ALTERATION OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT. All tools and equipment, whether powered or manually operated, shall be used only for their intended purpose. Tools and equipment shall not he altered, modified, or used fix other than their intended purpose without the manufacturers written approval. 5205.0755 POLICE AND PATROL VEHICLES. All police and atrol vehicles that are mark • ccordance with Minnesota Statutes section 169.98, that may be used to transport vio at— o fenders shall be vrovided with an effective barrier between the front and back seat to protect the officers fron assault. The barf1e'r may he retractable so as not to be a hindrance to officers when not transporting violators or offenders. 5205.0865 MACHINE CONTROLS AND EQUIPMENT. On machines with points of operation, pinch points, or nip points, a mechanical or electrical power control shall be provided on each machine to make it possible for the operator to cut off the power from each machine without leaving the position at the point of operation. 5205.0890 MOTOR START BUTTON. The motor start button on machines shall be physically protected against unintended operation. CONFINED SPACES 5205.1000 SCOPE. Parts 5205.1(0) to 5205.1040 prescribe minimum standards for preventing employee exposure to dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency, as defined by part 5205.1010, within such spaces as silos, tanks, vats, vessels, boilers, compartments, ducts, sewers, pipelines, vaults, bins, tubs, pits, and other similar spaces. Parts 5205. ION) to 5205.1040 do not apply to underwater operations conducted in diving bells or other underwater devices or to supervised hyperbaric facilities. 5205.1010 DEFINITIONS. Subpart I. Confined space. "Confined space" is defined by the existence of the following conditions: A. dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency may exist or develop; or B. emergency removal of a suddenly disabled employee is difficult due to the location or size of the access opening. Subp. 2. Confined space entry. "Confined space entry" means any action resulting in any part of the employees face breaking the plane of any opening of the confined space, and includes any ensuing work activities inside the confined space. Subp. 3. Dangerous air contamination. "Dangerous air contamination" is an atmosphere presenting a threat of death or acute injury, illness, or disablement due to the presence of flammable, explosive, toxic, or otherwise injurious or incapacitating substances. A. Dangerous air contamination due to the flammability of a gas or vapor is defined as an atmosphere containing the gas or vapor at a concentration greater than ten percent of its lower explosive (lower Flammable) limit. 13. Dangerous air contamination due to a combustible particulate is defined as a concentration greater than ten percent of the minimum explosive concentration of the particulate. 6) C. Dangerous air contamination due to atmospheric concentration of any toxic, corrosive, or asphyxiant substance listed in Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, part 1910, subpart Z, above the listed numerical value of the permissible exposure limit (PEL). In addition, an atmospheric concentration above the numerical limit listed on the Material Safety Data Shea prepared in conformance with Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.1200(g)(2)(vi) or the Minnesota Employee Right -to -Know Standards, chapter 5206. D. Dangerous air contamination that presents an acute illness hazard represents an atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH); for example, above a maximum concentration from which one could escape within 30 minutes or the length of time an employee will be exposed, whichever is longer, without any escape -impairing symptoms or any immediate severe health effects. "Immediate severe health effect" means that an acute clinical sign of a serious, exposure -related reaction is manifested within 72 hours after exposure. Subp. 4. Oxygen deficiency. "Oxygen deficiency" is defined as an atmosphere containing oxygen at a concentration of less than 19.5 percent by volume. 5205.1020 OPERATING PROCEDURES AND EMPLOYEE TRAINING. Subpart 1. Implementation. The employer shall implement the provisions of this part before any employee is allowed to enter a confined space. Subp. 2. Entry permit system. The employer shall deyelop, implement, and use an entry permit stem that includes a written Sermit procedure that provides all the means necessary to: A. determine and identify to employees the confined spaces where entry permits are required to prevent unauthorized entry; B. determine the actual and potential hazards associated with the space at the time of entry so the employer can choose the appropriate means to execute a safe entry; C. assure by appropriate testing that the control measures used are effective; D. provide for preplanned emergency rescue; E. identify by job title those persons who must sign the entry permit and the duties of each, including the person in charge of entry; and E assure proper calibration of testing and monitoring equipment. Subp. 3. Entry permit and checklists. A written permit form must he coin leled belixe allowing an employee to enter a confined �\ space. The written permit must contain the fi)llowing minimum specific intormahon for each permit entry space: A. date; B. location; C. time of issue/expiration, D. names of employees assigned to enter and name and job title of the person authorizing or in charge of the entry (employer% representative); * ! . description of the hazards known ur reasonably expected to be present in the confined apace; V the aUuosphcric testing required to he done immediately befii,re and during the entry period and the designated individual rrape�ttsihic lot perlorming the tests: G. the personal protective equipment required, including respiratory protection, clothing, or harnesses required for entry and rescue. 11. description of any additional hazards that may he reasonably expected to be generated by the entrants' activities in the space and identification of all special work practices or procedures to be followed; and I. specification of all means of isolation, cleaning, purging, or inerting to be done before entry to remove or control those hazards, or certification that these procedures have been done. Subp. 4. Duration and retention of permit. The maximum duration for which a permit form may be issued is one da . Each %ritten permit funs for confined space entry must be retained for a minimum of 30 ays a available at the work site. Where atmospheric testing showed unacceptable air quality, the employer shall retain, for a minimum of one year, the written permit form or record showing the results of the atmospheric testing. Subp. 5. Operating procedures. A. Written, understandable operating and rescue procedures shall be developed and provided to affected employees. When respiratory protection is used, a respiratory protection program as outlined in Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.134, shall her in place. B. Operating procedures shall conform to the applicable requirements of parts 5205.1030 and 5205.1040 and shall include provision for surveillance of the surrounding area to avoid hazards such as drifting vapors from tanks, piping, and sewers. Subp. 6. Employee training Employees_ incl u dine standby persons rcuuired by part 5205 1040 subparts I item A and 3item _"iW1l be trained in operating and rescue procedures including instructions on the hazards they may encounter. 5205.10.10 PRE -ENTRY PROC CURES. Subpart 1. Application. The applicable provisions of this part shall be implemented before entry into a confined space is permitted. Suhp. 2. Disconnection of lines. Lines that may convey flammable, explosive, toxic, or otherwise injurious or incapacitating substances into the space shall be disconnected, blinded, or blocked off by other positive means to prevent the development of dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency within the space. The disconnection or blind shall be so located or done in such a manner that inadvertent reconnection of the line or removal of the blind is effectively prevented. This subpart does not apply to public utility gas distribution systems. This subpart does not require blocking of all laterals to sewers or storm drains. Where experience or knowledge of industrial use indicates materials resulting in dangerous air contamination may be dumped into an occupied sewer, all such laterals shall be blocked. Subp. 3. Purging of contaminants. The space shall be emptied, flushed, or otherwise purged of flammable, explosive, toxic, or otherwise injurious or incapacitating substances. Subp. 4. Calibration of testing and monitoring equipment. Air testing and monitoring equipment shall be maintained according to manufacturers' instructions. This equipment shall be periodically calibrated with an appropriate test gas to assure proper operation. Subp. 5. Air tests. The air in confined spaces shall be tested with an appropriate device or method to determine whether dangerous air contamination or an oxygen deficiency exists, and a written record of the testing results shall be made and kept at the work site for the duration of the work. Affected employees or their representatives shall be afforded an opportunity to review and record the testing results. Subp. 6. Interconnected spaces. Where interconnected spaces are blinded off as a unit, each space shall be tested and the results recorded in accordance with subpart 5. The most hazardous condition found shall govern procedures to be followed. Subp. 7. Ventilation. Where the existence of dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency is demonstrated by tests performed under subpart 5, existing ventilation shall be augmented by appropriate means. When additional ventilation provided in accordance with this subpart has removed dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency as demonstrated by additional testing conducted and recorded under subpart 5, entry into and work within the space may proceed subJect to part 5205.1(40. Proposed Rules Subp. 8. Ignition sources. No sources of ignition may he introduced into the space until implementation of appropriate provisions of this section has ensured that dangerous air contamination due to flammable or explosive substances does not exist. Subp. 9. Oxygen -consuming equipment. Whenever oxygen -consuming equipment is to be used, measures shall be taken to ensure adequate combustion air and exhaust gas venting. Subp. 10. Ready access. Provision shall be made to permit ready entry and exit from confined spaces. Where there is no ready exit from spaces equipped with automatic fire suppression systems employing harmful design concentra- tions of toxic or oxygen -displacing gases, or total tram flooding, such systems must be deactivated. When it is not practical or safe to deactivate such systems, the provisions of part 5205.1040 related to the use of respiratory protective equipment shall apply during entry into and work within the spaces. 5205.1040 CONFINED SPACE OPERATIONS. Subpart 1. Entry into and work within confined spaces where an atmosphere free of dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency has been ensured. The requirements of this part apply, except as outlined in subpart 2, to entry into and work within a confined space where dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency dues not exist. A. At least one employee shall stand by on the outside of the confined s • c ready to give assistance in case of emergency. At least one additional emDlovee who may have other duties shall he within sight or call of the standby employee. B. Communications (visual, voice, or signal line) shall be maintained between all individuals in the confined space and the standby employee. l\ 1 C. The standby employee shall not enter the confined space without alerting at least one additional employee of the intent to enter the confined space. Entry shall only occur after proper tests have been performed to show that a dangerous air contaminant or oxygen deficiency does not exist or the standby employee is protected as prescribed in subpart 3, items C and D. subitem (1). Subp. 2. Special entry permits and practices. The entry permit practices described in items A and B are applicable only for the restricted circumstances and conditions described. A. Employers whose operations require employees to perforit routine repetitive entry into • lined spaces where entry hermits are require an tat are unlikely to develop a dangerous air cuntarwnant or uxvven deticicncv and have no potential Ior an engulfment condition, mav issue an annual permit instead of a separate permit for each entry When work in a permit entry space is to be one tin er an annual permit, the employer shall: (1) Establish specific entry practices and procedures that must be followed for entry by annual permit before any employee may be authorized to make an entry. (2) Train employees in the practices and procedures required fix such entries. (3) Assure that whenever entry into a confined space is to be made. employees test the atmosphere before entry using an appropriate direct reading instrument (or other device capable of quantitatively identifying anticipated contaminants) with a remote sampling probe, testing for the following conditions and in the following order: oxygen concentration, combustible gas, and suspected toxic material, if any. While occupied, additional monitoring for these gases or vapors shall be dune during the entry period to assure that a potentially dangerous atmosphere does not develop in the confined space. (4) Allow, at the employers discretion, entry by one or more workers without a standby employee where continous, positive ventilation of 200 cubic feet per minute of clean air and/or sufficient ventilation to maintain the atmosphere within estab- lished permit conditions is provided to the confined space. (5) Revoke the permit whenever any test done pursuant to this item shows deviation from permit conditions to more hazardous conditions. In these circumstances, entry may be made only by an entry permit as outlined in part 5205.1020. B. Employers whose operations require employees to perform routine repetitive entry into low hazard below -ground chamber where no risk of engulfment can exist, and where the atmosphere cannot develop a dangerous air contaminant or oxygen deficiency. and where all known sources of hazard are positively controlled, may issue an annual permit instead of a separate permit for each entry. When work under these conditions is performed, the employer ,hall: i (1) Establish specific entry practices and procedures that must be Collowed for entry by annual permit hclore any cinployce may be authorized to make an entry. (2) Train employees in the practices and procedures required for such entries. (3) Allow, at the employer-, discretion, entry by one or more workers without a standby employee when there is assurance that one or more of the fallowing requirements are stet: (a) the space has been ventilated Mire entry using a mechanically powered ventilator for not le„ than is specified ui the ventilation nomograph prepared fir that ventilator, and that ventilation continues throughout the entry: (b) the confined space is continuously ventilated• such mechanical ventilation shall provide positive ventilation of clean air at a rate of at (cast 2M cubic feet per minute per occupant and/or six air changes of the confined space volume per hour, or (c) there is no mechanically powered ventilation but appropriate continuous atmospheric monitoring or frequent aimospl►cnc testing is performed to assure that permit conditions are maintained. (4) Revoke (he permit whenever any test done pursuant to this item show, deviation from permit conditions to more hazardous conditions. In these circumstances• entry may be made only by an entry permit as outlined in part 5205.1020. Suhp. 3. Entry into and work within confined spaces whenever an atmosphere - free of dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency cannot be ensured. The requirements of this part apply to entry into and work within a confined space whenever an atmosphere free of dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency cannot be ensured through the implementation of the applicable provisions of part 5205.1030. or whenever due to an emergency, dangerous air contamination or an oxygen deficiency cannot he prevented through the implementation of the applicable provisions of part 5205.1030. A. Tanks, vessels, or other confined spaces with side and top openings shall be entered from side openings when practicable. For the purposes of this part, side openings are those within 42 inches of the bottom. B Appropriate, approved respiratory protective equipment, in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, title 29. section 1910.13-4- roviCledand worn. C. An approved safety belt with an attached line must be used. The free end of the line shall be secured outside the entry opening. The line shall he at least one-half inch diameter and 2,0(f0 pounds test. �L D. At least one employee shall stand by on the outside of the confined space ready to give assistance in case of emergency. At least one ad iitinn:d emyr • who m �y h we other duties s a e wit in sight or ca o e. . ( I ) The standby employee shall ha appropriate. approved, respiratory protective equipment, including an independent source ol' breathing air that confirms with Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.134(d), available for immediate use. (2) A standby employee protected as prescribed by items C and U may enter the confined space. but only in case of emergency and only after alerting at least one additional employee outside of the confined space of the emergency and of the standby employees intent to enter the confined space. E. When entry must be made through a top opening, the following requirements also apply. ( I ) The safety belt shall be of the harness type that suspends a person in an upright position. (2) An approved hoisting device or other effective means shall be provided for lifting employees out of the space. F. Work involving the use of flame, arc, spark, or other source of ignition is prohibited within a confined space (or any adjacent space having common walls, floor, or ceiling with the confined space) that contains, or is likely to develop, dangerous air contamination due to flammable or explosive substances. G. Whenever gases such as nitrogen are used to provide an inert atmosphere for preventing the ignition of flammable gases or vapors, no flame, arc, spark, or other source of ignition may he permitted unless the oxygen concentration is maintained at less than 20 percent of the concentration that will support combustion. (1) Testing of the oxygen content shall be conducted with sufficient frequency to ensure conformance with this item. (2) A written record of the results of such testing shall be made and kept at the work site for the duration of the work. (3) Affected employees or their representatives shall be provided an opportunity to review and record the testing results. H. Only approved lighting and electrical equipment may be used in confined spaces subject to dangerous air contamination by flammable or explosive substances. 1. Employees working in confined spaces that have last contained substances corrosive to the skin or substances that can be absorbed through the skin shall be provided with, and shall he required to wear, appropriate personal protective clothing or devices in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.132. Subp. 4. Precautions for emergencies involving work in confined spaces. A. At least one person trained in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) shall be immediately available whenever the use of respiratory protective equipment is required by this part. Standards for CPR training shall follow the principles of the ✓� American Heart Association or the American Red Cross. I B. An effective means of communication between employees inside a confined space and a standby employee shall be provided 1 and used whenever the provisions of this part require the use of respiratory protective equipment or whenever employees inside a confined space are out of sight of the standby employee. All affected employees shall be trained to use the communication system. The system must be tested before each use to confirm its effective operation. 5207.0300 CONFINED SPACES. Subpart I . Scope. This subpart prescribes minimum safeguards for preventing employee exposure to dangerous air contamination or oxygen deficiency within such spaces as silos, tanks, vats, vessels, boilers, compartments, ducts, sewers, pipelines, vaults, bins, tubs, pits, and other similar spaces. This subpart does not apply to underwater operations conducted in diving bells or other under- water devices or to supervised hyperbaric facilities. Subp. 2. General requirements. Work in confined spaces on construction sites shall meet the requirements of parts 5205. I(1l)O to 5205.1040. 5207.0310 CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORING. Subpart 1. Internal combustion engines. The employer shall monitor environmental exposure of employees to carbon monoxide whenever internal combustion engines or unvented space heaters are operated indoors to ensure that carbon monoxide levels do not exceed those given in Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, section 1910.1000, Table "L-1. The air sampling shall be done during initial operation and at least bimonthly thereafter and during a period representing highest usage in areas where carbon monoxide exposure is most likely. Subp. 2. Lift trucks. Where the carbon monoxide source is lift trucks, the employer shall ensure that exhaust gases do not contain more than one percent carbon monoxide for propane fueled trucks or two percent carbon monoxide for gasoline fueled trucks. 5207.0610 MOTOR START BUTTON. The motor start button on machines shall be physically protected against unintended operation. 5207.0620 MACHINE CONTROLS AND EQUIPMENT. On machines with points of operation, pinch points, or nip points, a mechanical or electrical power control shall be provided on n each machine to make it possible for the operator to cut off the power from each machine without leaving the position at the point of operation. 5207.0720 ALTERATION OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT. All tools and equipment, whether powered or manually operated, shall be used only for their intended purpose. Tools and equipment shall not be altered, modified, or used for other than their intended purpose without the manufacturers written approval. 4)) r L CONFIRMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA $250,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A Study No. 3320 October 22, 1987 SPRINGSTED Incorporated SPRINGSTED e-, Public Finance Advisors 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 612.223.3000 October 22, 1987 Ms. Loretta Roden, Mayor Members, City Council Ms. Maureen Andrews, Administrator Albertville City Hall Albertville, MN 55301 RE: Confirming Recommendations for the Issuance of $250,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1987A These recommendations will confirm the terms and conditions for the issuance of these bonds, authorized at the City Council's meeting on October 19, 1987. The bonds are being issued to finance the improvement costs for the 2nd Addition to Barthel Manor. The size of the bond issue has been determined as follows: Construction $186, 255 Engineering, Contingencies, Administrative/Legal 37,251 Issuance Costs 8,900 Capitalized Interest (to 12-31-88) 17,500 Subtotal $249,906 Allowance for Discount Bidding 3,125 Less: Estimated Reinvestment Earnings (3,031) Total Bond Issue $250,000 Included in the principal amount of the issue is a provision for capitalized interest in the amount of $17,500. This capitalized interest is necessary to fund the June I, 1988 and December I, 1988, interest payments pending the filing of and the receipt of special assessments. All subsequent debt service payments commencing with the June I, 1989 interest payment will be paid from the collection of special assessments. Also included in the principal amount of the issue is a provision for discount bidding in the amount of $3,125. This discount, representing $12.50 per $1,000 of bonds issued, will provide the underwriter with all or part of his profit and/or working capital for purchasing the issue. The City has used this marketing tool in the past and we recommend its continued use with this issue. Indiana Office: Wisconsin Office: 251 North Illinois Street, Suite 1510 500 Elm Grove Road, Suite 101 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.1942 Elm Grove, Wisconsin 53122.0037 317.237.3636 414.782.8222 City of Albertville, Minnesota October 22, 1987 In addition, we are providing the City with the option of prepaying these bonds on December I, 1989, one year prior to the scheduled maturity date. This option will allow the City greater flexibility in exercising its refinancing options. We recommend the City issue temporary bonds rather than definitive bonds as originally contemplated due to the expectation of substantial prepayments of special assessments. Furthermore, definitive bonds would require a higher discount and more capitalized interest than do temporary bonds and thus the amount of the issue has been reduced from $260,000 to $250,000. Pursuant to Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, municipalities are permitted to issue temporary bonds which mature not later than three years from the date of issue. Further, such temporary bonds may be refinanced with additional temporary improvement bonds which second issue also may not exceed three years in maturity. A third issue, if necessary, would be sold as a definitive issue. As stated previously, the primary advantage of issuing temporary bonds is that the City may use prepayments of assessments received over the next few years to reduce and/or eliminate further financing requirements for this project. Consistent with past practices of the City, the interest charged on the assessments will be at a rate of 1.5% above the net effective rate of the bonds issued to finance the project. If the City were to issue definitive bonds at this time, we estimate the net effective rate of the borrowing would be 8.20%. Therefore, the assessments would carry an interest rate of 9.75%. We recommend the City establish the rate on the assessments based on what the City would have received had it sold a definitive issue (see Exhibit III) at the time it sells the temporary issue. This is a protection to the City in the event that a definitive issue will be required in future years. It is currently estimated the City can issue its temporary bonds as a net effective rate of 7.41 %, however, there is no assurance that should definitive financing be required in the future, such a rate may be achieved. Therefore, as a hedge against future potential higher interest costs with the definitive plan, we feel the City would be justified in establishing the assessment rate based on the estimated rate of definitive financing at this time. Exhibit I shows the projection of assessment income assuming the assessments will be filed on October I, 1988. This projection of assessment income does not take into consideration any prepayments, deferments or delinquencies which may occur. Exhibit It shows the projected cash flow for the temporary bond issue. Exhibit III shows the projected cash flow if this were a definitive issue. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 established certain arbitrage reporting and rebate requirements for issuers of tax-exempt obligations. In essence, an issuer must report and rebate the amount of reinvestment income which exceeds the income which would have been earned if the some amount had been invested at the rate of the bonds. However, because the City will issue less than $5,000,000 of government purpose bonds in this calendar year, it is exempt from the reporting and rebating requirement. Page 2 City of Albertville, Minnesota October 22, 1987 The Tax Reform Act also restricts the ability of banks to deduct tax-exempt interest as a carrying expense under certain circumstances in calculating their tax liability. However, these bonds will be qualified bonds which can be included in a bank's calculations of interest deduction. We recommend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, November 16, with bid proposals to be received at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated at 1:00 P.M. A compilation of proposals received will be made and presented to the Council for consideration of award at 7:30 P.M. that evening. A representative of SPRINGSTED Incorporated will attend your meeting to provide a recommendation. Respectfully submitted, n SPRINGSTED Incorporated /tkf Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 City of Albertville, Minnesota Prepared October 20, 1987 $260,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Series 1987A PROJECTED ASSESSMENT INCOME Barthel Manor 2nd Addition Filing Date: 10/ 1/1988 Filing Year Collect Year Principal Interest @ 9.750% Total 1988 1989 21,667 31,740a 53,407 1989 1990 21,667 23,237 44,904 1990 1991 21,667 21,125 42,792 1991 1992 21,667 19,012 40,679 1992 1993 21,667 16,900 38,567 1993 1994 21,667 14,787 36,454 1994 1995 21,667 21,667 12,675 10,562 34,342 32,229 1995 1996 1996 1997 21,667 8,450 30,117 1997 1998 21,667 21,667 6,337 4,225 28,004 25,892 1998 1999 1999 2000 21,663 2,112 23,775 TOTALS 260,000 171,162 431,162 a) Includes interest from filing date to 12/31/1989. Page 4 EXHIBIT 11 City of Albertville, Minnesota $250,000 G.O. Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1987A Dated: 12- 1-1987 Mature: 12- 1 Year of Year of Levy Mat. (1) (2) 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 TOTALS: Principal Rates (3) (4) 0 7.00% 0 7.00% 250,000 7.00% 250,000 Prepared October 21, 1987 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Total Principal 105% Interest & Interest of Total (5) (6) (7) 17,500 17,500 18,375 17,500 17,500 18,375 17,500 267,500 280,875 52,500 302,500 317,625 Bond Years: 750.00 Annual Interest: 52,500 Avg. Maturity: 3.00 Plus Discount: 3,125 Avg. Annual Rate: 7.000% Net Interest: 55,625 N.I.C. Rate: 7.417% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Page 5 EXHIBIT III d y— m r� m m O M w m .-. .••� > 7 N co M 1MA M m f f m m M Q. M M N f� �•• O N E H•1 w 01 A L ^ j .fr N N N N CV 7 N CL N O U U y co 0 0 m O cm m f� N Q m Ln w N N 1A O f O O 7 K1 �n Of f Cf ' M O C n i O N c7 N L Z N ^� L � i0 1 n N C O n Q N Q1 n f -C�jW O)^+ f N O O Of r� c0 In N L 7� Q Cf r� t0 u'1 f M N O m 0_ co U y M Q N O m (a f N O m Ln M ^� y N Q Q f M M M M M N N N � N y y 6 m m N f Ln f CV M Ln N ip Q) <D O1 11l M m O 1� O O m M 1N N m O N In M t0 f M Cf m t0 f N f f Q Q M M M M N N N N N w O y T Q m CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N > m Q) f r f M m Q) n M— C1 M1 Z N m N ll O M �O M J n N r f N r m m m Ln M•+ O Q Q Q M M M. N N. N N co cn i 41 O O O O O O O O O O O O CD W &M m co ip C Q m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O fm.� •-+ f M m C) M n CI O f Cf Q m N ID O M f0 M a+ n W .... _ U I- C% N M N .•� f N Cf m t0 1A M ...� C I� Q f M M M N N N N N N C L '+ CL ea " :-. f CO CO O O -0 CD CD CO CD CD CD CD C!, y v N Cf Q C1 M aO+ Q ^' c y x x x x x x x x x x x x N u7 O � N u7 V'1 N O O O O'n N v n O M N I� Qf N M Q f y m m m m m A m K cp O 0 C O r .-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O y m q M 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Q 0 O c a 0 o 6n 6n o 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 M N N N. N N N N N N N N ^ > L O a r a ^ m E m W .••� _ O N M Q Mn w m m O > O a+ N Q) Cf Cf Cf Cf Of Cf Cf C� Of O O C",C", N N G1 O 6 � —co i C! Q m C1 w — N >- C, V- O >T r m m O N M f m m <M O) Cf A Cf Cf O1 Cf Cf Q1 Of .. N O O W O .... m m CI 7 L .J �- •+ U N N O 2 7 W L U N y L N W O y C O r �O L G1 O O O a+ M ul m b Ili tD �- U U C Ol >> ^ y L �O N CJ y O U M y 0! 7 CU T a pT E E —cu r O .C� 7 y cu C1 �c C r N C = U C 7 O y N y M M O O E y O) N co ^ �+ L m CO 0 w r L 3 q y L T K O/ 61 ,7 C N l A ♦+ L r O q C y au U U > >�- m0 EXHIBIT IV THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS BOND ISSUE ON THEIR BEHALF. SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED WILL RECEIVE PROPOSALS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: $250,000 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1987A Proposals for the Bonds will be received by SPRINGSTED Incorporated on behalf of the City of Albertville, Minnesota on Monday, November 16, 1987, at 1:00 P.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the some day. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated December I, 1987, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on June I and December I of each year, commencing June I, 1988. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest payment. -- The Bonds will mature on December I, 1990. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on December I, 1989 and June 1, 1990 to prepay Bonds due December I, 1990. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property. The proceeds will be used to finance an improvement project within the City. TYPE OF PROPOSAL Proposals must be for not less than $246,875 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds and shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the receipt of proposals. A certified or cashier's check in the amount of $2,500, payable to the order of the City, shall be within 24 hours of award filed by the Purchaser with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the City's Financial Advisor. The check of the Purchaser will be retained by the City as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal. The City will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement. No proposal shall be withdrawn after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for consideration of the proposals is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of I%. Page 7 AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the proposal offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. REGISTRAR The City will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, of Minneapolis, Minnesota which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no -litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City, or its designee, not later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS Underwriters may obtain a copy of the Invitation for Proposals by request to the City's Financial Advisor prior to the receipt of proposals. The Purchaser will be provided with 15 copies of the Invitation for Proposals. CITY OF ALBERTVILLE I'. 0. BOX I I i Al NLR'l VILI-E, MINNI'tic) I A 55301 11110NI=: (612) 497-1184 LINDBERG TRAVEL STATE OF MN MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. SHERBURNE COUNTY ABSTRACT HEALTH CENTRAL OF BUFFALO SEWER ACCOUNT MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. DON'S AUTO ALBERTVILLE JAYCEES WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT. KEN LINDSAY (PONTOON SEAT) MARK MENTH SOD DISPLAY SALES, INC. UNITED TELEPHONE SYSTEMS WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR/TREAS. MONTICELLO PRINTING EARL F. ANDERSON, INC. FEED —RITE CONTROLS, INC. MAUREEN ANDREWS KEN LINDSAY MIKE MERGES LORI RODEN STATE TREASURER METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICE G.D. LAPLANT PRINCETON CO—OP PERA PERA INCOME RECEIVED NOVEMBER 2, 1987 BILLS TO BE PAID NOVEMBER 2, 1987 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $ 10.00 1,763.07 25.00 1,193.88 2,233.00 278.30 25.00 20.00 25.00 $ 11,573.25 35.38 31.78 180.00 7,361.00 124.57 1,688.12 53.75 92.42 48.00 535.47 629.52 310.20 88.18 1,560.67 7,142.58 33.00 41.65 133.42 133.42 $ 20,223.13 Ilv IN vil, th"N' liu'uiri, MEINY'S DIGGERS, INC. TRUSS MFG. COMPANY AUDITOR'S WARRANT SEWER ACCOUNTS ADDITIONAL INCOME NOVEMBER 2, 1987 ADDITIONAL BILLS NOVEMBER 2, 1987 TOTAL $ 25.00 23,273.44 2,818.93 227.40 $ 37,918.02 DON'S AUTO $ 330.50 ALBERTVILLE AUTO PARTS INC. 687.11 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS 64.50 GARY SPLETT 50.00 TOTAL $ 21,355.24