Memo- 2012-2013 MPCA Landfill Colsolidation ProjectPublic Works Department
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy: Mike Mornson, City Manager
Date: Dec 8, 2011
Subject: 2012/2013 MPCA Landfill Consolidation Project
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would like to upgrade the Hopkins landfill by: 1)
consolidating waste to provide a waste -free buffer zone between the landfill and adjacent
properties to help safeguard against methane gas migration; 2) installing a cap that meets
current engineering standards and will lower the risk of groundwater contamination; and 3)
installing a more efficient gas extraction system. Consolidating the waste will reduce the
footprint of the waste storage area which means that the height of the landfill will increase
by about 35' at the center of the site. The attached MPCA memo briefly describes their
proposed 2012/2013 project.
MPCA intends to hold a public informational meeting with area residents & businesses in
late January to present the project and answer questions — the exact date and location is
to be determined.
The project will not entail excessive trucking as no soils or waste will need to be trucked to
or from the landfill site.
The location of the city-wide bulk drop-off event will likely have to be moved for both the
October 2012 and April 2013 bulk drop-off events.
Although the MPCA does not need municipal consent for this project, they have agreed to
provide city staff with design plans for our review & comment prior to bidding the project.
MPCA representatives will be at the Council Worksession to describe their project and
answer questions.
Atchs:
1. MPCA memo
2. Landfill grading plans
Waste Consolidation Project at the Hopkins Landfill
The Closed Landfill Program (CLP) at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is currently in the
design phase of a waste consolidation project at the Hopkins Landfill, The Landfill currently ranks
number 2 (out of 112) on the CLP's risk priority list. Its high ranking is mostly due to the methane gas
issues, common to most landfills, together with the close proximity of a rather high population density
of residents. The cover on the Landfill does not meet today's standards, allowing infiltration of rain and
snow melt into the waste which can increase groundwater contamination.
The CLP is planning on upgrading the Hopkins Landfill to reduce the risk to the public and environment.
A preliminary design has been prepared to accomplish the following:
• Relocate approximately 310,000 cubic yards of waste from the edges to the middle of the site
• Reduce the footprint of the landfill from 26 acres to 16 acres
• Install a new cover that meets current standards
• Replace the active gas extraction system to increase efficiency and to better control landfill gas
migration
• Improve surface water drainage at the site
• Install two passive vents between the Landfill and Raspberry Woods to vent a methane pocket
The CLP will contract with a design firm to finalize the bid documents this winter. Bids will be opened in
early spring 2012 to select a construction contractor. Construction is anticipated to begin in early
September 2012. Phasing of the construction will reduce the amount of exposed waste at one time to
try to reduce odor impacts to the nearby public. The contract will require waste to be covered with
buffer soil as soon as that phase reaches final grade in an effort to reduce odor emissions. The CLP will
monitor the air around the site during construction to evaluate potential impacts to nearby residents.
Final cover construction including a 40 -mil thick plastic liner and two feet of cover soil as well as final
off -cover grading will take place during the spring and summer of 2013.
14-4,500 N
144,400 N
144,200 N
144,000 N
143.800 N
143,600 N
P_
143,400 N
THE VZ"CAL DATUM OF THE TIN FILE ASSOCATED
WITH THIS MAP 15 BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
YERTIC4 DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).
THE HORIZONTAL DATUM OF THIS MAP IS BASED ON
HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM WHICH IS
RELATED TO THE MINNESOTA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM HAD 1953 (EARN 1996) ADJUSTMENT NORTH
ZONE THIS MAP FAS BEEN COMPLLED TO MEET A NSSDA
(JUNE 1996) YERIICAL ACCURACY OF 1 FEET .
Existing Grading and removals olan
W W
oS a$a,
t4
0 7P+1
,
s
O
MAPPING COMPLETE APRIL 30, 2010
REV RENSIDN DESCRIP710N
s s _
V
—CONDENSATE LME CONNECTION TO
IT
C.00.tf—
rAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
�, Ir CITY WATER MAIN TO BE
1 C RELOCATED
EXISTING CEONEBRANE
BARRIER WALL
9ri.o
GAS VENTS EW—'21, EW -22. E
'' EW -24 (TO BE ABANDONED)
Jam\\\
SEAL
oR�voarDEw� �A� er�iS2' a
STATEOF M TMNEYR U�n9E4WTH`E I
suiE OF uMN60TA.
PANT NNE HEATH'Z U—Y P.E.
51 7URE
REV DATE MTF �M` i
144,600 N
144,400 N
144,200 N
144,000 N
143,800 N
143,600 N
143,400 N
Grading Plan
W {yO sW o 4$:
THE VERTICAL DATUM OF THE TIN FILE ASSOCIATED
WTTH THIS MAP IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
YERIICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAYD 88).
• THE HORIZONTAL DATUM OF THIS MAP IS WED ON
HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM WHICH IS
RELATED TO THE MINNESOTA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM NW 1983 (HARN 1996) ADJUSTMENT NORTH
ZONE THIS MAP FIRS BEEN COMPILED TO MEET A NSSDA
(JUNE 1998) VIERTICAL ACCURACY OF 1 FEET .
MAPPING COMPLETED APRIL 30, 2010
Planning & Economic
Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Hopkins City Council Members
FROM: Kersten Elverum, Director of Planning & Development
DATE: December 6, 2011
SUBJECT: Johnson Building
A discussion with Kit Dahl, the owner of the Johnson building at 810 First
Street South, has been scheduled for the December 13, 2011, City
Council work session. He is proposing a concept for the property that
would involve two phases. In the first phase, a portion of the building
would be demolished and reconfigured as a retail/office project utilizing
the righty of way (Second Street South) for parking. A drawing of this
concept is attached.
Acknowledging that a change from warehouse to commercial retail/office uses
would require additional parking, the City would need to allow use of the existing
ROW for that purpose. For everyone's benefit, that parking would need to be
secured through a use agreement until the parking needs could be addressed in
a second phase, which would either involve a second building or a total clearing
of the site.
As detailed in previous planning documents, the ultimate goal is to have
development up to Excelsior Boulevard in an attempt to shrink the visual distance
from the Downtown LRT station to the north side of Excelsior Boulevard and to
create a destination. To assure the City that the phase two eventually happens,
the agreement would need to have a date at which either Mr. Dahl completes the
project or the City would have the ability to exercise an option to purchase the
property to complete the second phase. Determining how future value would be
established and when the trigger date(s) are for exercising the option is a topic
for additional discussion.
In addition, staff would suggest the following conditions:
■ The City would have the ability to dedicate a portion of the ROW for food
trucks or other vendor activity at certain specified times
■ The retail space would be limited to 5000 square feet per user
■ No drive through windows
■ Design of the phase one building should have some orientation to 8t"
Avenue
The proposed project would have an immediate benefit in improving the use,
value and appearance of the property while building on the efforts to make 8t"
Avenue a gateway. Staff has identified the following concerns:
Investing money in the phase one repurposing will make a complete
redevelopment of the site less financially feasible in the future
The phase one redevelopment will create future parking need that will
need to be addressed in phase two
That any reduction in visibility, parking access, etc., as a result of future
redevelopment will be politically difficult to accomplish.
The City's ultimate goal is an exciting, transit -supportive development built right
up to Excelsior Boulevard, but because of these concerns, that may perhaps be
made less likely by the interim project.
The intent of the discussion is to give the owner an indication of the City's
willingness to work with him on this repurposing of his property and to identify the
parameters of the partnership.
F -P
I
Industrial Building Repositioning A
810 First Street w R KS
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Gmk#wcwr. -
MEMO
To: Honorable Mayor and Hopkins City Council
From: Tara Beard, Community Development Coordinator
Date: December 9, 2011
Subject: Home Rehab Loan/Grant Program Terms
2011 CDBG allocations were approved by Hopkins City Council this past February. As in
previous years, the majority of the allocation was given to a home improvement loan/grant
program for low-income homeowners. The loan/grant program continues to serve approximately
6 homeowners each year, with grants or loans (or combinations thereof) up to $25,000. The
program helps maintain the quality of Hopkins housing stock by making improvements such as
new roofs, windows, remedying building code infractions and improving energy efficiency.
Currently the terms of the program state that all existing mortgages, contracts for deed, and other
encumbrances, including the home rehab loan or grant, cannot exceed 90% of the value of the
property. Recently a prospective grant/loan applicant requested an exception to this limit, raising
the issue that many homes today are worth less than what is owed on them.
Staff is considering bringing forth a formal request to the City Council to increase the total Loan
to Value ratio of 90% and would like a discussion at this worksession considering the potential
impacts. Prior to 2007, the total Loan to Value ratio was 100%. This was reduced because the
overall grant/loan maximum was increased from $20,000 to $25,000 and we wanted other
measures in place to limit how much could be borrowed. The impacts of the Great Recession of
2008 are still being felt today, and fewer properties can meet that standard.
The main purpose of the program, to improve Hopkins housing stock, can actually reach more
properties if this limit is increased. So far, the program has been relatively unaffected by
foreclosures, with only two notices of foreclosure ever received. In those cases, under City
Attorney advisement, staff did not pursue collecting its second position mortgage, finding it
would likely cost more to pursue than any potential gain. Furthermore, an improved home in
foreclosure may be more attractive to a future homeowner. However, it is possible that
increasing the Loan to Value limit could expose the City to subordinate mortgages that are more
likely to be foreclosed upon, though an underwater mortgage does not necessarily mean the
homeowner is having difficulty making payments.
Staff proposes increasing the overall Loan to Value ratio at least to its prior limit of 100%, and
perhaps higher. Attached are the first and second quarter reports for the program (3rd quarter
reports have not yet been made available) to help inform the discussion.
Attachments:
1" and 2nd Quarter 2011 Home Rehab Loan/Grant reports
12/8/2011
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING REHABILITATION
CLIENT STATUS REPORT
Ivr,vw J {na,�ry a
Funds Spent
Funds Committed to Contracts
Projects Started
Projects Completed
Others Funded
Others in Process
Funds Reserved
Clients Waiting
Funds Not Committed
Clients Accessed
i
J 104,1 DU IL J iG
Rehab expenditures by city, for the last quarter, and for the past four quarters
Contracts signed in each city for the last quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects in which the first contract was signed in the Ist quarter and forthe past four quarters
Projects completed in the last quarter and in the past four quarters
Projects for which payments were made, but which remained unfinished, in the last quarter and the past four quarters
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the quarter, not included elsewhere.
Aggregate of funds under contract and funds reserved for clients involved in process.
Number of households waiting for fynds, by city
Rehab funds not allocated to particular projects; negative numbers indicate overcommitment of funds
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the past four quarters (includes non -responses and ineligible and withdrawn applicants.)
QUARTER ENDING
MARCH 31 2011
ACTIVITY
IN LAST QUARTER
ACTIVITY IN LAST FOUR QUARTERS
City
Total
Funds spent
Funds committed
Projects
Projects
Others
Others
Funds
Clients
Funds Not
Funds spent
��
Funds spent
Funds commilied
Projects
Projects
funds spent
on Lead
to Contracts
Started
Completed
Funded
in Process
Reserved
Wa tin
Committed
on Lead Issues
to Contra_ cts
Started
Completed
Brooklyn Center
$ 1,099
$
$ -
0
0
1
3
$ 35,057
50
($20,054)
$ 49,989
$ 5,439
$ 1,099
0
2
Brooklyn Park
$ 14,493
$
$ 54,162
2
2
2
1
$ 77,412
33
$ (20,619)
$ 108,746
$ 1 -.
$ 143,441
5
3
Con Pool
$ 31,398
IS
$ 38,678
1
0
4
5
$ 245,233
6
$ 587
$ 125,022
$ 43,027
$ 127,307
8
9
Crystal
$ -
$
$ -
0
0
0
5
$ 122,990
2
$ 18,063
$ 105,576
$ -
$ 44,222
2
4
Edina
$ 18,200
$
$ 78,963
3
0
1
3
$ 151,419
4
$ (43,315)
$ 88,701
$ 1,500
$ 149,465
6
0
Hopkins
$ 12,337
$
$ 22,238
1
1
1
6
$ 136,780
0
$ 185,282
$ 68,343
$ 10,760
$ 78,244
6
2
Maple Grove
S -
-$ -
$ -
0
0
0
2
$ 60,000
6
$ (7,547)
$ 1 --
$ -
$ -
0
0
New Hope
S 29,066
$
$ 33,988
1
0
1
5
$ 129,007
0
$ 77,861
$ 96,343
$ 2,050
$ 128,605
5
2
Richfield
S 41,103
$
$ 43,853
3
2
2
6
$ 138,460
11
$ (37,522)
$ 120,330
IS
$ 14,825
$ - 115,369
10
4
St Louis Park
S 10,878
$
S 10,878
1
0
0
8
$ 206,566
10
$ (19,730.00
10,878
$ -
$ 25,771
1 2
1
Ivr,vw J {na,�ry a
Funds Spent
Funds Committed to Contracts
Projects Started
Projects Completed
Others Funded
Others in Process
Funds Reserved
Clients Waiting
Funds Not Committed
Clients Accessed
i
J 104,1 DU IL J iG
Rehab expenditures by city, for the last quarter, and for the past four quarters
Contracts signed in each city for the last quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects in which the first contract was signed in the Ist quarter and forthe past four quarters
Projects completed in the last quarter and in the past four quarters
Projects for which payments were made, but which remained unfinished, in the last quarter and the past four quarters
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the quarter, not included elsewhere.
Aggregate of funds under contract and funds reserved for clients involved in process.
Number of households waiting for fynds, by city
Rehab funds not allocated to particular projects; negative numbers indicate overcommitment of funds
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the past four quarters (includes non -responses and ineligible and withdrawn applicants.)
QUARTER ENDING
MARCH 31 2011
12/812011
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING REHABILITATION
CLIENT STATUS REPORT
Rehab expenditures by city, for the last quarter, and for the past four quarters
Contracts signed in each city for the last quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects in which the first contract was signed in the Ist quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects completed in the last quarter and in the past four quarters
Projects for which payments were made, but which remained unfinished, in the last quarter and the past four quarters
Clients formally involved in ban processing during the quarter, not included elsewhere.
Aggregate of funds under contract and funds reserved for clients involved in process.
Number of households waiting for funds, by city
Rehab funds not allocated to particular projects; negative numbers indicate over -commitment of funds
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the past four quarters (includes non -responses and ineligible and withdrawn applicants.)
QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30 2011
ACTIVITY
IN LAST QUARTER
ACTIVITY IN LAST FOUR QUARTERS
Funds Spell
lCity
Total
Funds spell
Funds committed
Projects
Projects
Others
Others
Funds
Gierrts
Funds Not
Funds spent
Funds spent
Funds committed
Projects
Projects
funds spent
on Lead
to Contracts
Started
Completed
Funded
in Process
Reserved
Waiting
Comm tted
on Lead Issues
to Contracts
Started
Com feted
Brooklyn Center
$ -
$ -
$ -
0
0
0
4
$ 35,057
50
($2,987)
$ 28,875
$
$ -
0
1
Brooklyn Park
$ 39,672
$ -
$ 6,064
0
2
2
4
$ 39,262
33
$ (20,616)
$ 125,648
$ -
$ 120,167
4
4
Con Pool
$ 61,198
$ -
$ 34,353
1
2
3
6
$ 184,036
11
$ 261,192
$ 152,227
$ 24,477
S 156,314
8
11
Crystal
$ 16,021
$ -
$ 46,021
1
0
1
3
$ 105,969
5
$ 86,715
$ 88,385
$ -
$ 57,031
2
4
Edina
$ 57,088
$ -
$
0
1
1
3
$ 151,419
6
$ (43,315)
$ 115,675
$ 1,500
$ 109,994
4
2
Hopkins
$ 24,996
$ -
$
0
2
2
5
$ 132,511
0
$ 164,554
$ 93,339
$ 10,760
-$ 54,755
5
4
Maple Grove
$ -
$
$
0
0
0
2
$ 60,000
4
$ 9,414
$ -
$ -
$ -
0
0
New Hope
$ 41,446
$
$ 7,458
1
2
1
4
$ 96,653
0
$ 68,568
$ 132,589
$ 2,050
$ 130,863
5
2
Richfield
$ 23,763
$
$ 43,853
2
1
2
10
$ 178,737
18
$ (109,912)
$ 132,572
S 8,675
3 115,369
10
4
St. Louis Park
$ 26,230
$
$ 54,835
2
0
0
6
$ 180,336
13
$ 13,273.00
$ 37108
$ -
$ 80,606
4
1
Rehab expenditures by city, for the last quarter, and for the past four quarters
Contracts signed in each city for the last quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects in which the first contract was signed in the Ist quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects completed in the last quarter and in the past four quarters
Projects for which payments were made, but which remained unfinished, in the last quarter and the past four quarters
Clients formally involved in ban processing during the quarter, not included elsewhere.
Aggregate of funds under contract and funds reserved for clients involved in process.
Number of households waiting for funds, by city
Rehab funds not allocated to particular projects; negative numbers indicate over -commitment of funds
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the past four quarters (includes non -responses and ineligible and withdrawn applicants.)
QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30 2011
TOTALS $ 290,414 $
Funds Spell
Funds Committed to Contracts
Projects Started
Projects Completed
I
Others Funded
Othersin Process
t Funds Reserved
I Clients Waiting
i
C
Funds Not Committed
Clients Accessed
Rehab expenditures by city, for the last quarter, and for the past four quarters
Contracts signed in each city for the last quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects in which the first contract was signed in the Ist quarter and for the past four quarters
Projects completed in the last quarter and in the past four quarters
Projects for which payments were made, but which remained unfinished, in the last quarter and the past four quarters
Clients formally involved in ban processing during the quarter, not included elsewhere.
Aggregate of funds under contract and funds reserved for clients involved in process.
Number of households waiting for funds, by city
Rehab funds not allocated to particular projects; negative numbers indicate over -commitment of funds
Clients formally involved in loan processing during the past four quarters (includes non -responses and ineligible and withdrawn applicants.)
QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30 2011