HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 27, 1993 Work SessionNOTICE OF OFFICIAL MF~.F. TING
Notice is hereby given that an official meeting
is to be held in the
City of Columbia Heights
as follow~
Meeting of:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
Date of Meetinl~
MONDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1993
Time of Meeting:.
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Location of Meeting:.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
590 40TH AVENUE N.E.
Purpose of Meeting:.
WORK SESSION
1. Solid Waste. Tipping Fe.e. Adjustme.nt
2. Share.d Ride. Financing
3. Adjournment
The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on tho basis of disability in the admission
or acce.ss to, or treatment or employme.nt in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be. provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City
of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped
persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance.
Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, Extension 209, to make arrangements.
(TDD/782-2806 for deaf only)
~ DRAFT~-
Post. ItTM brand fax transmittal memo 7671
I~ 5~//~_ , ~'~
Anoka County's
Solid Waste Management Charges
Report
December 21, 1993
Introduction
Since the enactment of the Waste Management Act, Anoka County has made a strong
commitment to environmentally sound integrated solid waste management and to managing
waste in accordance with the order of preference delineated in Minnesota Statutes § 115A.02.
This commitment is based on the County's desire to protect its environment, to meet state,
regional, and County solid waste management policies, and to minimize the exposure of
businesses, municipalities, and citizens to long term 1/ability resulting from the landfilling of
unprocessed waste.
To fulfill its commitments to environmentally sound waste management, the County has
developed an integrated system including: waste reduction and reuse, recycling, yard and
food waste composting, resource recovery, and landfi!Iing.
Undergirding the County's responsibility to manage solid waste in a manner consistent with
State mandates is the County's authority to designate kvhere the waste must be delivered.
Designation assures that waste is managed appropriately and that sufficient revenue is
available to finance the County's programs and to pay the bonds issued to support them.
As a result of a recent court ruling, counties no longer have the authority to prevent the flow
of waste over state lines for disposal at landfills. Out-od-state landfills represent much lower
cost than the integrated system established by tho county; and some haulers have begun
hauling waste to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. If other haulers are to remain competitive,
they are likely to follow suit. The large scale loss of waste deliveries to the Elk River
Resource Recovery Facility ("Facility") will result in the inability of the County to meet its
contractual guarantees to NSP for the delivery of processible waste and in the loss of revenue
to support recycling, abatement, tempesting, processing, and household hazardous waste
collections.
On December 14, 1993, the Anoka County Board reduced the tipping fee at the Facility from
$77 per ton to $68 per ton to address this significant environmental and financial problem.
The Board established a tipping fee of $49 per ton for those haulers willing to enter into a
contract with County. One of the consequen¢~ of reducing the tipping fee is that the County
will not have sufficient revenue to cover the .cost of its solid waste management programs.
The purpose of this report is to assist in developing and evaluating a solid waste management
charge. Part I of the report provides background information describing Anoka County's
commitment to solid waste management and summarizing the County's contractual obligation
and ability to deliver waste to the Facility. Part II of the report describes waste management
funding mechanisms, summarizing the tipping fees and proposing a solid waste management
charge. This part also describes the allocation of program costs across residential and non-
residential improved parcels and describes the rate structure for the residential and non-
residential charges. Part III of the report summarizes the public involvement process.
Finally, Part IV describes the recommendations to implement the waste management charge.
Background
In this background section, the County's commitment to Integrated Waste Management and
its obligation to resource r~ovcry will bc addressed.
Anoka County's Commitment to Integrated Waste Management
Anoka County is dedicated to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing an
environmentally sound solid wa.sty management system, The 1992 Anoka County Solid
Waste Master Plan sets forth a policy of integrated waste management to assure that waste is
managed by appropriate technology and in accordance with the order of preference delineated
in Minnesota statute. Appendix A shows tile quantities of mixed municipal solid waste
managed by Anoka County in ~1992.
Landfill abatement has been identified as a fundamental goal of Anoka County's integrated
waste management program and in state ancI regional policy. To ensure landfill abatement
goals are met, the County has developed programs and policies that support the following
waste management preferences delineated in Minnesota Statutes § 115A.02:
* Waste reduction and reuse;
* Waste recycling;
* Composting of yard waste and food waste;
· Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste tempesting or incineration; and
· Land disposal.
Anoka County implemented the following integrated waste management programs in
accordance with these preferences.
Reduction and Reuse
Waste reduction and reuse programs established by Anoka County have focused on both the
quantity and hazardous nature of the waste generated by citizens and businesses. A public
information program has been implemented which includes direct mail, newsletters, school
presentations, and participation in the regional public information program. A household
hazardous waste program was implemented in 1992 and focuses on proper self-management
of hazardous materials by the resident and the collection of materials that cannot be self-
managed.
Recycling
Anoka County's recycling efforts have resulted in an increase in recycling from 39,002 tons
in 1988 to 67,04;~ tons of mixed municipal solid waste in 1992. As part of its program, the
County partially funds municipal recycling programs. Because of this most municipalities in
Anoka County offer curbside recycling to its residents. In addition, 23 drop off sites are
available for the collection of recyclable materials generated by residents and businesses.
Information and other technical assistance is provided by the County to facilitate both
commercial and residential recycling.
~ -
Yard and Food Waste Composting
The County provides two yard waste drop-off sites for the composting of yard waste. In
addition, many haulers collect yard waste at the curb. In 1992, 22,408 tons of yard waste
were managed. In addition, the County participates in a waste exchange program with Burger
King and is working with Cargill on a pilot project in two schools to promote food waste
composting.
Resource Recovery
Anoka County's resource recovery program meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes §
',~73.848 which prohibits the landfill, lng of unprocessed metropolitan mixed municipal solid
waste. After careful analysis of the waste management options, Anoka County elected to
enter into an agreement with Northern States Power Company (NSP) to design, construct,
own, and operate a refuse derived fuel (RDF) facility in Shcrbume County. The RDF
produced is burned for energy recovery at the United Power Association (UPA) Elk River
Station.
Since the Facility began operation in August 1989, NSP has processed over 1,677,000 tons of
mixed municipal solid waste. In addition, over $0,000 tons of ferrous metals have been
separated at the Facility for recycling at the AMG Resources facility in Newport.
Land Disposal
The County reduction, recycling, and waste processing programs are intended to minimize the
need for land disposal. The County intends to use land disposal only where appropriate,
including the disposal of non-processibles, residues, and ash. The landfills used by the
County are state-of-the-art landfills with a monitoring system, bottom liner, and leaehate
collection system.
Resource l~ecovery Obligations
Under the terms of its 1987 design and construction and service agreements with the County,
NSP has thc responsibility to own, design, construct and operate a 1500 ton per day RDF
Facility in Elk River and to provide the RDF for combustion at UPA's Elk River Station.
Anoka County issued approximately $70 million in revenue bonds for the construction,
retrofitting, and installation of emission control devices for the Facility. In addition the
County issued approximately $1.7 million in general obligation bonds to cover development
costs.
Anoka County contracted with NSP to reserve 500 tons per day of the 1500 tons per day
capacity. However, the County is obligated to deliver :350 tons of mixed municipal solid per
day to avoid, penalties. (Hennepin County, Sherburne County, and the Tri-County Solid
Waste Management Commission also signed separate service agreements with NSP for the
use of the 1500 ton per day Facility). Anoka County also has the obligation to pay NSP a
processing fee, including its pro rata share of the bonds, regardless of the amount of waste
delivered.
2
Because processing is more expensive than landfilling, the County~ implemented designation
pursuant to Minn. ~tat. § 115A.80 et seq. Thc County's Designation Ordinance was approved
by the Metropolitan Council on November 3.7, 3.988, and became effective on July 3.5, 1989.
The designation authority ensured that waste is processed and the County can meet its
obligation to deliver waste to the facility,
In 1993, the Eighth Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals ruled that controlling the
flow of waste across state lines pursuant to designation violates the Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution. Following this ruling, Anoka County revised its Solid Waste
Ordinance to limit the scope of designation to waste delivered within Minnesota. After the
designation ruling, some haulers began hauling waste to landfills in Wisconsin, Iowa and
Illinois. These landfills provide a less expensive disposal option, even when transportation
costs are included, than delivering waste to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. As a
result haulers that comply with designation arc at a competitive disadvantage. To retain
competitive prices for their customers, haulers have begun to dispose of waste at out-of-state
landfills. This could result in a significant reduction in the quantity of waste delivered to the
Elk River Resource Recovery Facility.
Consequently, Anoka County has the following significant concerns. Landfilling of waste is
not the preferred environmental strategy and landfilling increases Anoka County citizen's and
businesses' exposure to superfund liability. In addition, the inability of Anoka County to
meet its contractual obligations would have serious financial consequences and could result in
default under the NSP service agreement. Finally, thc County will not receive the revenue
necessary to pay the costs of its integrated waste management system.
Solid Waste Management Funding Mechanisms
To address the circumstances described above and to assure the delivery of waste to the
Facility, the County reduced its tipping fee and is considering residential and non-residential
solid waste management charges. This section of the report will address the tipping fee,
waste management charges, and the rationale for the development of these charges.
Tipping Fee
Since August 1, 1991, Anoka County charged mixed municipal solid waste haulers a tipping
fee of $77 per ton of waste delivered to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. The fee
was set at $77 per ton to cover the operating, processing, and capital costs at the Facility as
well as a portion of the costs for thc County's solid waste integrated programs for recycling,
yard waste, household hazardous waste, solid waste enforcement, and administration.
Anoka County staff researched tipping fees and costs associated with disposing of waste at
out-of-state landfills. The City of Minneapolis received proposals of $49.96 and $54.37 per
ton for the hauling and disposal of mixed municipal waste at out-of-state landfills. Axe'ret
identifying the costs of these and other competing landfill disposal options available to
haulers, the County determined that offering a tipping fee of $49 per ton would provide an
economically competitive disposal option for haulers to dispose of Anoka County waste at the
Elk River Resource Recovery Facility,
3
On December 14, 1993, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners reduced the tipping fee
to $68 per wn for haul~rs delivering waste to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility and
$49 per ton for haulers contracting with Anoka County for the deliver, tel waste generated in
Anoka County and delivered to the Facility beginning January 3, 199~KTI-Iaulers entering into
a contract by February 8, 1994, will receive the $49 rate retroactive to January 3, 1994.
Haulers signing a contra~ after February 8, 1994, will qualify for the new tipping fee on the
date the contract becomes effective.
The new tipping fee of $49 per ton provides an economic incentive for haulers to contract
with Anoka County for the disposal of solid waste generated in Anoka County, thereby
providing the County with reasonable assurance that waste will be managed in accordance
with the environmental preferences delineated in Minnesota S~atutes § 115A.02 and that the
County can meet its environmental objectives and its contractual obligations to the Facility,
The $68 per ton tipping fee was established, for haulers not contracting with the County,
because it is the estimated average cost of processing a ton of waste at the .Facility in 1994.
Recommended Solid Waste Management Charges
The County developed a structure for a solid waste management charge because the $49 per
ton tipping .fee is below the actual cost of processing a ton of waste at the Facility. The solid
waste management charge should be set at a level that will raise the funds needed to continue
the implementation of the County's integrated waste management programi. These charges
will partially fund Anoka County's integrated solid waste management programs including
waste reduction, recycling, yard waste composting, tree waste, household hazardous waste,
resource recovery, administration, and enforcement programs.
The proposed billing mechanism is the property tax statement. The solid waste management
charges will be due, payable, and collected in thc same manner as property taxes. Late
payments will be subject to the same penalties and interest as overdue real property taxes.
The recommended solid waste management charges were developed taking into consideration
administrative costs of implementing the system, the minimization of financial risk to county
taxpayers, and equity of the rate structure. The collection method minimizes administrative
costs because it is an existing revenue collection system. The financial risk to citizens is also
minimized because there is an effective collection mechanism in place and the amount of
revenue generated is more predictable. Finally, equity is served because all people in Anoka
County benefit from the integrated waste management system and will pay for these services.
The allocation between the residential and the non-residential sectors is based on the benefit
received by each sector. Tax exempt properties will also be required to pay the solid waste
management charge because they also benefit from the services,
4
Funds Required
The total 1994 integrated waste management program costs are $11,849,145. Of this,
$4,069,470 will be financed through the w~te management charge. The remainder will be
funded by tipping fees, SCORE funds, grants, surcharges, and a minimal amount of property
tax. The charts below depict the changes in the source of funds resulting from tho
implementation of the changes.
Anoka County Integrated Solid Waste Management
Sources of Funds (with SW Management Charge)
6% 3% []
$4%
RDF TIp Fee
SW Management
Charge
[] SCOEE Funds
[] LI~DG i~ CI Grc~nt$
[] Surcharge Funds
[] Tax Levy
Sources of Funds (prior to tip fee reduction)
6% 1% 3%
90%
[] EDF Tip Fee
[] ~W Management
Charge
[] SCOI~E Funds
[] LEDG & Cl Grants
[] Surcharge Funds
[] Tax Levy
Integrated Waste Management Budget Summary
The following table describes the integrated waste management program budget, including
deficit~ needing funding through thc waste raanagcmCnt charge,
Operation of Re~uwe R~ove~ Facility $6,g17,~0 $9,0~,~0 ($2,527,000)
Tip Fee: $49 per ton 133,~ runs/year
RRF Facility R~e~e 0 5~,0~ (500,~)
R~ycling 37,652 96,~00 .... (58,~8)
Municipal ~atemeat ~l°eations 747,~0 747,~0 0
Yar~ree W~te 0 164,910
HoU~hold H~dous Waste 347,022 480,056 (133,034)
Inte~ated Waste M~t & Teeh ~aist 151,027 ~35,135 (104,108)
Administration & Enfo~ement .....
0 ~75,000 (175,000)
Bad Debt 0 203,472 (203,472)
~ntingency 0 203,472 (203,~72)
Total $7,779,701 $1~,8~9,145 ($~,069,~)
A 5% allocation for bad debt was included. This percentage was based on historical property
tax delinquencies and discussions with Anoka County property tax staff.
A 5% contingency was included so the financial stability of the County's integrated waste
management program could be maintained should the projected quantity of mixed municipal
solid waste not be realized or if revenues was overestimated.
Cost Allocation
This report allocates the costs associated with services provided to the residential and non-
residential sectors and proposes a solid waste management charge for each sector that reflects
the availability of the services provided by the County to that sector. Those expenses that are
specifically associated with the residential programs will be funded entirely by the residential
solid waste management charge. Similarly, those programs benefitting the non-residential
sector will be funded by the non-residential waste management charge. Programs which
benefit both sectors, such as resource recovery and r~ycling, were allocatcd based on both
the availability of service and the actual use of that service.
The allocation of RDF program costs to the residential sector was based on an average of 1.1
tons per year per household of mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the Facility
multiplied by the number of weighted residential units in the County. This residential waste
total was divided by the total tons of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste delivered to
the Facility in 1992 to arrive at the 73.15 % allocation factor for the RDF program costsfor
the residential sector. The balance of the RDF program costs (26.85%) were allocated to the
non-residential sector.
6
Other County programs were allocated between residential and non-residential on the basis of
projected expenditures as described in APt~ndix B. County administration and other related
costs were split proportionally thc same as the programs in aggregate.
The result of this allocation system is such that the residential charges should cover
$3,070,395 of services which arc available to the residential sector. The non-residential
charge should cover $999,049 for services which are available for the non-residential sector.
Residential Waste Management Charge
The following three categories were developed within the residential sector: Category I
Residences include each dwelling unit within single family homes, townhouses,
condominiums, duplexes, double bungalows, triplexes, quad homes, seasonal recreation
property, and other residential property with one to three dwelling units. Category II
Residences are mobile home pads on property that is classified by the County Assessor as a
mobile home park. Category III Residences include each dwelling unit within apartments
with four or more dwelling units.
The average number of people living in each dwelling unit, as reported in the 1990 Census
for Anoka County, was the determining factor in the allocation of costs among residential
categories. Category I Residences were established for single family dwellings and like
residences. Category II Residences have, on average, 20% fewer people per dwelling than
Category I Residences. (Category III Residences have, on average, 35°~ fewer people per
dwelling than Category I Residences.
Based on historical information and waste trends, it is reasonable to believe that household
waste generation is related to the number of people per household. The total solid waste
management charge needed for the residential sector was allocated in this proportion as
illustrated in the chart below.
Category I
Residences
Category II
Residences
Category III
Residences
72,908
4,692
3.13
2,52
12,946
2.18
/':':~ '*:" .':'!" ~?'.' :::S'".~'¢''''
$36.09
$28.87
$23.46
Sources: 1.990 United States Census for Anoka County and the Anoka County Property Records and Taxation
Divi~ioa.
7
Non-Residential Waste Management Charge
Four categories were developed within the non-residential sector on the basis of the market
value of real property, as determined by the Anoka County Assessor, excluding the estimated
market value of the land. The non-residential sector includes property tax categories
classified by the County Assessor as commercial, industrial, nursing home, service station,
utility, railroad, or tax exempt property which contains improvements other than a dwelling
unit.
The total costs charged to the non-residential properties are allocated to each category in the
same proportion as the aggregate assessed value of the category is to the aggregate assessed
valtte of all the non-residential pwperties. The fee per parcel was determined by dividing the
total charge for the category by the number of parcels within that category. The values of the
non-residential properties were grouped into four categories as shown in the chart below.
Non-Residential Waste management Charge
Category I
$25,000 - $200,000
Category II
$200,001 - $500,000
Category III
$500,001 - $~I,000,000
Category IV
$1,000,001 and over
1,619
587
197
294
$79.97
$259.72
$584.21
$2,047.71
In the absence of specific waste generation data, such as type, quality, and quantity, for each
waste generator or other quantitative measure of benefit, the County developed the four
categories based on the estimated value of the improvements on the land and charged a fiat
fee within each category. This system recognizes that the benefits of the availability of waste
management services and the protection against long term superfund liability are not directly
proportional to the market value of the property, but generally increase as the value of
improvements increases. ,~
'This system includes improved tax exempt property because such property also benefits' from
the availability of services and appropriate management of waste. It does not include parcels
with improvements valued at less than $25,000 because a review of the tax records indicates
that some parcels tend to be unoccupied, non-waste generating properties, such as sewage lift
stations and water pump stations.
Appendix B provides additional detail on the calculation of the charges.
8
Public Involvement'
Anoka County staff have met with groups of Auoka County mixed municipal solid waste
haulers and municipalities to discuss alternative payment options for solid waste management
services provided by the County many times over the past eight months. There have also
been many additional meetings and telephone conversations with haulers to disseminate
information and discuss options.
A public hearing on the proposed tipping fee reduction and solid waste management charges
was held on December 14, 1999, at 10 a,m. in the Board Room of the Anoka County
C-overnment Center to receive written and oral testimony fwm interested parties. The hearing
was continued to December 21, 1993, at 10 a.m, to hear additional comments.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Anoka Board of Commissioners:
1. Accept and approve the Anoka County Solid Waste Management Charges
Report, dated December 21, 1993; and
2. Adopt Resolution 93-180 establishing a Solid Waste Management Service Area
to include the entire County of Anoka; and
3. Adopt Anoka County Ordinance 94-1, Solid Waste Management Charge
Ordinance, at a meeting subsequent to the close of the public hearing; and
Direct staff to negotiate waste delivery contracts with haulers licensed in Anoka
County, reflecting the tipping fee adopted by the County Board in Resolution
93-167; and
Direct staff to prepare a work plan and cost estimates for a study examining the
County's options for assuring the appropriate management of waste generated in
Anoka County and the options for funding Anoka County integrated solid waste
management programs in the future.
9
Appendix A
1992 Anoka County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
The residential and non-residential quantities of mixed municipal solid waste managed
flu'ough the rccycling, yard wa~t~, trce waste and household hazardou~ waztc programs wcrc
evaluated. It should be noted that waste from apartment buildings was included in thc
residential sector. The following chart provides a summary of thc mixed municipal solid
waste managed in 1992.
1992 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Tons Managed
Anoka MSW Delivered to 96,998 35,604 132,602
NSP-Elk River Facility ....
Residential Recycling 16,873 0 16,873
Non-residential Recycling 0 50,170 50,170
Yard Waste 19,878 2,530 22,408
Tree Waste 2,660 2,455 5,115
Household Hazardous Waste 37 0 37
Total 136,446 90,759 227,205
Source: Anoka County Integrated Waste Management Staff Report.
The quantity of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste that will be delivered to the NSP-
Elk River Facility in 1994 is projected to be 133,000 tons, This projection is higher than
projected in the 1992 Anoka County Solid Waste Master Plan (RefMP p. 52), however, 1992
and projected 1993 data indicate that the Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste
deliveries to the NSP-Elk River Facility will remain fiat in 1994.
Anoka County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Delivered
to the NSP-EIk River RDF Facility
· 1990 - 1994
1990
1991
1992
Pr~eeted 1993
Pr~ected 1994
133,340
129,567
132,602
134,000
133,000
10
Sources of Data
The quantity of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste that will be delivered to the Elk
River Resource Re, very Facility in 1994 is pwj~cted to b~ 1~,000 tons. This projection is
higher than projected in ~e 1992 Anoka County Solid Waste Master Plan; however, 1992 and
projected 1993 data indicate that the Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste deliveries to
the Elk River Facility will not exceed 133,(~00 tons in 1994,
Anoka County MSW Delivered to Elk River Resource Recovery Facility
Approximately 73.15 percent of the Anoka County waste delivered to the Facility is from the
residential sector, and approximately 26.85 percent o1~ the waste delivered is from the non-
residential sector. This determination is based on an average of 1.1 ions per year per
household of mixed municipal solid waste delivered ~ the Facility multiplied by the number
of residential units in the County, This residential waste total was divided by the 132,602
tons of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the facility in 1992 to arrive
at the 73.15 percent allocation factor for the residential sector.
Residential Recycling
Each of the 21 municipalities in Anoka Coune/is required to report the quantities of
residential recyclables collected on a semi-annual basis. In 1992, 16,873 tons were reported.
Non.residential Recycling
Anoka County surveyed over 5,000 businesses to determine the quantity of non-residential
recycling. Over 500 businesses with 20 or moro employees were surveyed by telephone, and
other surveys were conducted through the mail. Office of Waste Management volume
conversion rates were used where necessary.
Yard Waste
Yard waste collected at the County yard waste sites and yard waste quantities reported by the
municipalities comprise the 22,408 tons reported in 1992. The residential sector delivered
19,878 of these tons, and the non-residential sector generated 2,530 tons. A conversion factor
of 350 pounds per cubic yard was used,
Tree Waste
The quantity of tree waste collected in 1992 totals $,115 tons. Of this, 2,660 tons were
generated by the residential sector and 2,2"-~5 tons were delivered by the non-residential sector.
A conversion factor of 375 pound~ p~r cubic yard was used.
Household Hazardous Waste
The amount of household hazardous waste collected at the event collections was recorded.
Based on a 10 pound per gallon conversion factor, 37 tons of household hazardous wastes
were collected in 1992
11
APPENDIX B
12
COUNTY OF ANOKA
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2100 3rd Avenue · Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2489
(612) 323-5680
December 1, 1993
JIM A. KORDIAK
The Honorable Donald J. Murzyn, Jr.
Mayor, City of Columbia Heights
590 40th Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878
Dear Mayor Murzyn:
This letter is in response to your memo of November 23, 1993, requesting additional funding to cover the anticipated
1993 cost overruns associated with the Shared Ride transportation program as well as funding for the same program
in 1994,
At this time, I am prepared to recommend to my fellow County Commissioners that we assist the City of Columbia
Heights with the 1993 overruns according to the formula outlined to your City Manager, Patrick Hentges, in a memo
dated August 31,1993. In this formula, Anoka County would pay two-thirds of the cost overrun amount less the 1992
carryover amount ($6,691) not to exceed $13,538 and would be payable at the conclusion of the 1993 accounting year
upon submittal of an expense schedule from the City of Columbia Heights.
! would also recommend that Anoka County provide local dollars to the Shared Ride program for 1994 according to
the formula suggested by Mr. Hentges at the City Council work session held on August 14, 1993. This formula would
allocate administrative dollars on a per capita basis and is also outlined in detail in the memo referenced above. Since
this funding is based on actual administrative dollars apent by Anoka County, it would be payable after the 1994
budget year is closed. The 1994 administrative budget would allow for a maximum payout of $7,230.
if you have any questions or need further Information, please contact me or Margo ! Amau, Supervisor of Management
Operations, at 754-3520. She will be. preparing the resolutions outlining the reimbursement formula for presentation
to the County Board.
Sincerely,
dim l~rdi~k
Anoka Cour~ ~ommissloner
Jl~si
CC:
Anoka County Commissioners
Margo LaBau, Supervisor of Management Operations
Tim Kimhoff, Transportation Specialist
FAX: 323-5682
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
TDD[TTY: 323-5289