The URL can be used to link to this page

2017.10.03 Council Meeting Packet Posted: Sept. 29, 2017 City Council Meeting Schedule Oct. 3, 2017 Time Type of meeting Location 6:15 p.m. First City Council work session to discuss: • 2018 capital budgets Conference Room A 7 p.m. City Council meeting Council Chambers 7:45 p.m. Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting to: • Consider resolutions authorizing demolition or re-sale of 5900 56th Ave. N. Council Chambers Following the EDA meeting Second City Council work session to discuss: • Multi-city effort regarding Blue Line • Constituent issues update • New business* • Announcements* Conference Room A * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov Posted: Sept. 29, 2017 City Council First Work Session Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 6:15 p.m. Conference Room A Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on Oct. 3, 2017 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council Members Staff ____ Dahl ____ Norris ____ Deshler ____ Therres ____ Kolb ____ Gilchrist ____ LaRoche ____ Revering ____ Parsons ____ Ray ____ Adams ____ Sutter ____ Budziszewski ____ Serres II. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda item: 1. 2018 capital budgets III. Adjournment The work session adjourned at ______ p.m. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531- 1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov October 3, 2017 Establish Internal Service Funds for IT, fleet and buildings moving toward the council goal of pay as you go for all capital needs. Establish Park Improvement Fund to track, monitor and implement Parks Master Plan. Consolidate Street Improvement and Street Construction funds into a single fund. The PIR fund finances the capital improvements for all except major buildings, street construction/ improvement and police PERF. The PIR fund finances components of IT with other costs distributed to individual departmental budgets. The PIR fund finances building improvements for city buildings. 2018 projected revenue does not cover costs of PIR capital improvements anticipated in 2018 –primary capital is for the first phase of the parks master plan. The PIR fund reserves should be allocated to capital funds and fund types including Internal Service Funds for IT, buildings and fleet and Capital Project Funds for park improvements and streets. Allocation of reserves to be based on 5-year capital spending projections and 5-year anticipated revenues (excluding Parks Master Plan and general government anticipated expenditures). If Internal Service Funds are established, departmental expenditures will be eliminated and costs replaced with an allocation from each Internal Service Fund. Budgetary controls are strengthened due to centralization of purchases. Total cash reserves = $7,817,653 PIR Fund includes: ◦Administration ◦Elections ◦Finance ◦City Buildings ◦Street Improvements(fleet/equipment) ◦Parks (capital and fleet/equipment) ◦Swimming Pool/Waterslide ◦Community Center NOTE: Special assessments receivable and note receivable will be allocated based on original source. IT Internal Service Fund Fleet Internal Service Fund Major Building Replacement/Building Internal Service Fund Conversion Street Maintenance/Street Reconstruction combination Park Improvement Capital Project Fund PIR Fund reserves distributed to new capital project and internal service funds. Proposed Distribution: * 1% property tax increase projected in 2019; 1% property tax levy projected in 2020. City Council Meeting Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 7 p.m. Council Chambers The city manager’s comments are bolded. 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Agenda The Council will consider approval of the agenda.* 3. Consent Agenda The Council will consider the following items, which are routine and non-controversial in nature, in a single motion: 3.1 Approval of the minutes from the following meetings: a. The regular City Council meeting on Sept. 19, 2017. b. The regular City Council work session on Sept. 19, 2017. 3.2 Approval of the list of license applications submitted by the city clerk to the City Council, a list that is on file in the office of the city clerk. 3.3 Approval of a resolution accepting the following donations: a. $40 from Anthony Pesek for Crystal Police Animal Control. b. $440 from various donation boxes for Crystal Police K-9 Unit. 3.4 Approval of a temporary on-sale liquor license for a Turkey Bingo event on Nov. 3, 2017, submitted by the Church of St. Raphael. 3.5 Approval of a resolution for rescinding no parking restrictions around Forest Elementary. 4. Open Forum (The City Council appreciates hearing from citizens about items of concern and desires to set aside time during each meeting for Open Forum. To provide ample opportunity for all, speaking time is limited to three minutes and topic discussion is limited to ten minutes. The Mayor may, as presiding officer, extend the total time allowed for a topic. By rule, no action may be taken on any item brought before the Council during Open Forum. The Council may place items discussed during Open Forum onto subsequent council meeting agendas.) 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov Crystal City Council Meeting Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 Page 2 of 4 5. Public Hearings 5.1 The Mayor will open a public hearing to receive comment and consider a resolution adopting the assessment roll for Skyway Park phase 16 private driveway construction and sanitary sewer services repairs. As Phase 16 (Skyway Park) private driveway and sanitary sewer work is nearing completion, the assessment roll needs to be adopted. After taking public comment, recommend approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll for Phase 16 (Skyway Park) private driveway construction and sanitary sewer repairs. 5.2 The Mayor will open a public hearing to receive comment and consider a resolution adopting the assessment roll for Twin Oaks Park phase 15 private sanitary sewer services repairs. As the remaining private sanitary sewer repair work is nearing completion in Phase 15 (Twin Oaks), the assessment roll needs to be adopted. After taking public comment, recommend approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll for Phase 15 (Twin Oaks Park) private sanitary sewer repairs. 5.3 The Mayor will open a public hearing to receive comment and consider a resolution adopting the assessment roll for 2017 alley and private driveway construction and sewer service repairs. As this year’s alley project and private driveway and sanitary sewer work are nearing completion, the assessment roll needs to be adopted. After taking public comment, recommend approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll for the 2017 alley and private driveway construction and sanitary sewer repairs. 6. Regular Agenda 6.1 The Council will consider approval of disbursements over $25,000 submitted by the finance department to the city council, a list that is on file in the office of the finance department. Recommend approval of disbursements over $25,000. 6.2 The Council will receive a presentation regarding the 2018 proposed budget and receive citizen comment. Crystal City Council Meeting Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Several years ago the Council requested that the public be invited to comment on the next year’s budget before the City Council’s formal public hearing in December. Finance Director Jean McGann will do a brief presentation on the 2018 preliminary budget and levy. No action is needed other t han to receive public comment. 6.3 The Council will consider second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the City Code and a resolution approving summary language for publication. At its September 19 meeting the City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the City Code. Recommend approval of the second reading of the ordinance and the resolution approving summary language for amendments to Chapter 7. 7. Announcements a. The City Council will have a work session on Thursday, Oct. 12 at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room A at City Hall. b. Special Materials Drop Off Day is on Saturday, Oct. 14 from 8 a.m. – 3 p.m. at the Brooklyn Park Operations and Maintenance Facility. c. West Metro Fire-Rescue District Open House is on Saturday, Oct. 14 from 9 a.m. – noon at Fire Station No. 3, 4251 Xylon Ave. N. West Metro Auxiliary waffle breakfast is from 8 a.m. – noon at Fire Station No. 3. d. The next Citizen Input Time is Tuesday, Oct. 17 at 6 p.m. in Conference Room A. e. The next city council meeting is Tuesday, Oct. 17 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. f. Crystal Business Association meets on Wednesday, Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. at a location to be determined. g. The City of Crystal is seeking volunteers for boards, commissions and task forces. h. Applications are available at www.crystalmn.gov. The application deadline is Oct. 31. i. Girl and Boy Scout troops are invited to lead the pledge at City Council meetings. Troops who are interested may contact city staff for information. j. City council meetings and work sessions are open to the public. Current and previous meetings are available for viewing and listening at www.crystalmn.gov. 8. Adjournment Crystal City Council Meeting Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 Page 4 of 4 9. Oct. 3, 2017 Meeting Schedule Time Type of meeting Location 6:15 p.m. First City Council work session to discuss:  2018 capital budgets Conference Room A 7 p.m. City Council meeting Council Chambers 7:45 p.m. Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting to:  Consider resolutions authorizing demolition or re-sale of 5900 56th Ave. N. Council Chambers Following the EDA meeting Second City Council work session to discuss:  Multi-city effort regarding Blue Line  Constituent issues update  New business*  Announcements* Conference Room A * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. Have a great weekend. See you at Tuesday’s meeting. City Council work session minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at 9:05 p.m. on Sept. 19, 2017 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. Mayor Adams called the meeting to order. I.Attendance The city manager recorded the attendance for City Council members and staff: Council members present: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. City staff present: City Manager A. Norris, Public Works Director/City Engineer M. Ray, and Community Development Director J. Sutter. II.Agenda The Council and staff discussed the following agenda items: 1.Constituent issues update 2.Monthly city manager check in 3.New business 4.Announcements III.Adjournment The work session adjourned at 9:06 p.m. ________________________________ Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: ________ Anne Norris City Manager 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, MN 55422-1696 763-531-1000 • Fax: 763-531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 3.1a City Council meeting minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Page 1 of 5 1.Call to Order, Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Crystal City Council was held on Sept. 19, 2017 at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141 Douglas Dr. N. in Crystal, Minnesota. Mayor Adams called the meeting to order. Roll Call Mayor Adams asked the city clerk to call the roll for elected officials. Upon roll call, the following attendance was recorded: Council members present: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. City staff present: City Manager A. Norris, City Attorney T. Gilchrist, Assistant City Manager/Human Resources Manager K. Therres, Public Works Director/City Engineer M. Ray, Deputy Police Chief D. Leslin, Community Development Director J. Sutter, Recreation Director J.Elholm, Finance Director/AEM Financial Solutions President J. McGann and City Clerk C. Serres. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Adams led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2.Approval of Agenda The Council considered approval of the agenda. Moved by Council Member LaRoche and seconded by Council Member Dahl to approve the agenda. Motion carried. 3. Appearances 3.1 Minnesota American Public Works Association (APWA) Chapter President Chris Petree recognized Public Works Director/City Engineer Mark Ray for receiving the 2017 APWA Myron Calkins Young Leader of the Year Award. 4.Consent Agenda The Council considered the following items, which are routine and non-controversial in nature, in a single motion: 4.1 Approval of the minutes from the following meetings: a.The regular City Council meeting on Sept. 5, 2017. 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, MN 55422-1696 763-531-1000 • Fax: 763-531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 3.1b City Council meeting minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Page 2 of 5 b. The regular City Council work sessions on Sept. 5, 2017. c. The regular City Council work session on Sept. 14, 2017. 4.2 Approval of the list of license applications submitted by the city clerk to the City Council, a list that is on file in the office of the city clerk. 4.3 Approval of Resolution No. 2017-96, accepting the following donation: a. $500 from Crystal Frolics Committee for Crystal Police Explorers. 4.4 Approval of a special permit for wine and beer at Lions Valley Place Park for a cyclocross bike race on Saturday, Nov. 4, from 4-8:30 p.m. and on Sunday, Nov. 5, from 11 a.m.-4 p.m., submitted by Andrew Barlage of USA Cycling, Inc. 4.5 Approval of Crystal/Metropolitan Airports Commission Wildlife Area Improvement Project cooperative agreement with Three Rivers Park District. 4.6 Approval of Resolution No. 2017-97, authorizing the municipal state aid funding advance request. 4.7 Approval of Resolution No. 2017-98, authorizing a grant submittal to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Moved by Council Member LaRoche and seconded by Council Member Parsons to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried. 5. Open Forum The following person addressed the Council: • Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commissioner Burt Orred, 6700 60th Ave. N., congratulated Public Works Director/City Engineer M. Ray on his APWA award. 6. Regular Agenda 6.1 The Council considered approval of disbursements over $25,000 submitted by the finance department to the City Council, a list that is on file in the office of the finance department. Moved by Council Member Deshler and seconded by Council Member Kolb to approve the list of disbursements over $25,000. Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried. 6.2 The Council considered resolutions approving the 2018 utility rates and fee schedule. Finance Director J. McGann addressed the Council. 3.1b City Council meeting minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Moved by Mayor Adams and seconded by Council Member Dahl to amend the fee schedule to reduce the rental license late fee/penalty and failure to demonstrate financial responsibility to 50 percent of the original license fee. By roll call and voting aye: LaRoche, Adams and Dahl. Voting nay: Deshler, Kolb, Parsons and Budziszewski. Motion failed. Moved by Council Member Kolb and seconded by Council Member LaRoche to adopt the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. 2017 – 99 RESOLUTION ADOPTING APPENDIX IV OF THE CRYSTAL CITY CODE RELATING TO THE 2018 FEE SCHEDULE - UTILITY SECTION Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried, resolution declared adopted. Moved by Council Member Kolb and seconded by Council Member Parsons to adopt the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. 2017 – 100 RESOLUTION ADOPTING APPENDIX IV OF THE CRYSTAL CITY CODE RELATING TO THE 2018 FEE SCHEDULE – MAIN SECTION Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried, resolution declared adopted. 6.3 The Council considered a resolution approving a variance for a garage larger than the house at 6517 47th Ave. N. Community Development Director J. Sutter addressed the Council. Moved by Council Member Deshler and seconded by Council Member Budziszewski to adopt the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. 2017 – 101 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 6517 47TH AVENUE NORTH Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried, resolution declared adopted. 3.1b City Council meeting minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Page 4 of 5 6.4 The Council reviewed bids and considered a resolution awarding a contract for construction of quiet zone improvements at the Douglas Drive and West Broadway crossings of the Canadian Pacific. Community Development Director J. Sutter addressed the Council. Moved by Council Member Parsons and seconded by Council Member Deshler to adopt the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. 2017 – 102 AWARD CONTRACT FOR QUIET ZONE PROJECT 2017-08 Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried, resolution declared adopted. 6.5 The Council considered a resolution authorizing the purchase of flashing yellow arrow equipment. Public Works Director/City Engineer M. Ray addressed the Council. Moved by Council Member Deshler and seconded by Council Member LaRoche to adopt the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. 2017 – 103 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF FLASHING YELLOW ARROW EQUIPMENT Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried, resolution declared adopted. 6.6 The Council considered first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 7 of the City Code. City Attorney T. Gilchrist addressed the Council. Moved by Mayor Adams and seconded by Council Member LaRoche to amend Section 715.29 as follows: insert the words “or mayor” after the words “city manager” in the third sentence; and insert the words “mayor, or” after the words “city manager or” in the fourth sentence. Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried. 3.1b City Council meeting minutes Sept. 19, 2017 Page 5 of 5 Moved by Council Member Kolb and seconded by Council Member Dahl to adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 2017 – 05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CRYSTAL CITY CODE And further, that the second and final reading will be held on Oct. 3, 2017. Voting aye: Budziszewski, Dahl, Deshler, Kolb, LaRoche, Parsons and Adams. Motion carried. 7. Announcements The Council made several announcements about upcoming events. 8. Adjournment Moved by Council Member Budziszewski and seconded by Council Member Deshler to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. __________________________________ Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________________ Chrissy Serres City Clerk 3.1b Page 1 of 1 City of Crystal Council Meeting October 3, 2017 Applications for City License Rental – New 3018 Virginia Ave N – Kevin & Pamela Olson (Conditional) Rental – Renewal 4409 Adair Ave N – JDA Group LLC 2701 Brunswick Ave N – Granite Cliffs Apartments (Conditional) 6425 Cloverdale Ave N – Surinder Mohan Sharma (Conditional) 6606 Fairview Ave N – James Lehto 5700 Hampshire Ave N – Todd Campbell 5825 Perry Ave N – Danny Vo & Christina Duong 5222 Unity Ct N – Sivanandam Mariyappan (Conditional) 5625 Vera Cruz Ave N – Troy Jensen & Molly Quinn Jensen (Conditional) 5800 36th Ave N – Good Enterprises (Conditional) 6325 52nd Ave N – JNF Properties 3LLC (Conditional) 6315 55th Ave N – Crystal Senior Housing LTD/Calibre Chase (Conditional) Sign Hanger Signminds Inc 1400 Quincy St NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 3.2 CITY OF CRYSTAL RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM ANTHONY PESEK AND VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute §465.03 requires that all gifts and donations of real or personal property be accepted only with the adoption of a resolution; and WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted by a resolution adopted by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Crystal to accept the following donations: Donor Purpose Amount Anthony Pesek Crystal Police Animal Control $40 Various individuals Crystal Police K-9 Unit $440 And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council sincerely thanks the above-named for their generous donations. Dated: Oct. 3, 2017 By: __________________________ Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Chrissy Serres City Clerk 3.3 3.4 Memorandum DATE: October 3, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Rescind no parking during school hours restriction Background Recently it was brought to the City’s attention that the signs around Forest Elementary school that restrict parking during school hours are faded and need to be replaced. Before just purchasing replacement signs, staff asked the question if the signs were even needed at all. Through the research done, it appears that the current parking restrictions were put in place when the school busses dropped off and picked up children at the street (47th and 48th). All bus drop off/pick up operations are now on the campus and not at the street. The signs could have also been in place to keep vehicles from parking anywhere near the school crossings or potentially to have the streets as open as possible for traffic moving through the area. Over the past few year the City has received some concerns about traffic speeds on 47th and 48th during both school and non-school times. Traffic counts have found that speeds are consistent with residential streets in that around 90% of the traffic is traveling 33mph or slower. One of the most effective ways to actually slow traffic down is to narrow the road. By allowing on-street parking, the street may seem more congested during arrival and dismissal times, but vehicles will be forced to drive slower while navigating around parked cars and other vehicles while in the area. In talking with the buildings and grounds staff at the school, they are supportive of removing the signs. State Statute currently prohibits parking within 20 feet of a marked crosswalk at an intersection. Should parking near the crosswalks that are used for school crossings become an issue, the City will post signs restricting the parking in accordance with State Statute. Requested Action •Motion to approve the resolution recinding the no parking during school hours restriction around Forest Elementary School. 3.5 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _____ RESCINDING NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS AROUND FOREST SCHOOL WHEREAS, it appears that the current no parking during school hours restrictions originate from when school busses dropped off and picked up children on 47th and 48th ; and WHEREAS, now school busses pick up and drop off children on the school campus; and WHEREAS, the City has reached out to the school and they agreed with the rescinding of the restrictions; and WHEREAS, there are existing marked crosswalks across both 47th and 48th at multiple intersections; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota State Statute 169.34, Subd. 1 Paragraph a.6 no parking is permitted within 20 feet of a marked crosswalk at an intersection; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby rescinds the no parking during school hours restrictions on 47th and 48th Ave adjacent to Forest Elementary School. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 3rd day of October 2017. Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: Christina Serres, City Clerk 3.5 Memorandum DATE: October 3, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director Mick Cyert, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: Phase 16 Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Service Repairs Background On September 5, 2017 the City Council declared the amount to be assessed as part of the Phase 16 Street Reconstruction Project’s optional Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Service Repair work, ordered the preparation of the assessment rolls, and called for a public hearing on the assessment for October 3, 2017. The purpose of the public hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express concerns about the actual special assessment. At the Assessment Hearing the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in writing. This is a required step in Minnesota State Statutes for projects with assessments. Once the public hearing is closed, City Council must, by resolution, adopt the same as the special assessment against the lands named in the assessment roll. Again, this is part of the Minnesota State Statute process for special assessments. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become liens against the properties listed. Discussion Of the 495 parcels in Phase 16, 117 participated in the driveway program and 66 in the sewer repair program. Of these, 24 had both done. While every participant signed an agreement showing the cost of the proposed work and waiving their right to appeal the assessment, it is still required to go through the formal assessment process. Attachment Assessment payment options example Recommended Action Hold the Public Assessment Hearing on the project. Motion to approve the Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Phase 16 Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Repairs. 5.1 EXPLANATION OF OPTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PHASE 16 SKYWAY PARK, DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CITY PROJECT No. 2016-16 October 3, 2017 On October 3, 2017, the City of Crystal levied a special assessment (lien) against your property. A special assessment is a charge to you for work performed by the City that benefits your property. The amount to be specifically assessed against your property is $0.00 for driveway construction, and $0.00 for sanitary sewer service repair for a total of 0.00 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PIN #00000000000 4141 Douglas Drive N MARY SMITH Crystal, Minnesota 55422 4141 Douglas Drive N CRYSTAL MN 55422 THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS NOTIFICATION THAT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN LEVIED AND IS DUE AND PAYABLE. You may prepay all or a portion (minimum of $100) of your assessment by delivering or mailing the payment to City of Crystal Assessments , 4141 Douglas Drive North, Crystal MN 55422. Payments must be received in our office no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017. Please make your check payable to the City of Crystal. Visa and MasterCard will also be accepted in our office with a valid picture ID. If the entire assessment is not paid as of 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017 the balance of the assessment will be added to your property tax statement over a 15-year period beginning in 2018, and ending in 2032. The first year you will be charged 14 months of interest on your assessment balance. After the first year, the amount added to your annual property tax statement will be computed by adding 1/15th of your assessment balance plus simple interest computed at 4.0 percent on the declining balance. If you prepay your assessment at any time in a future year, you must pay off the entire balance remaining, and your payment must be made by the last business day prior to November 15 in order to avoid interest charges for the following year. You may qualify to defer your assessment to a later date if you meet the requirements. Please note: If an assessment is deferred, interest will accrue at the rate of 4.0 percent for the 15-year term of the assessment or until the assessment is paid, whichever comes first. To defer your assessment, you must occupy the property as your homestead, meet the income guidelines listed below, and be one of the following:  over the age of 65  totally and permanently disabled  a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other reserves ordered into active military service Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit 1 $47,600 3 $61,200 5 $73,450 7 $84,350 2 $54,400 4 $68,000 6 $78,900 8 $89,800 If you believe that you qualify for the deferment program and need additional information, or you have other questions about this notice, please contact the City of Crystal’s Assessing Specialist, Gail Petschl at 763.531.1118 or gail.petschl@crystalmn.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If paying your 2017 Alley or Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Service Repair assessment on or before November 29, 2017 please cut and return this stub with your payment to: City of Crystal Assessments, 4141 Douglas Dr N, Crystal, MN 55422 Address of Property You Are Paying Assessment on: Amount Enclosed: Property ID# 4141 Douglas Drive N. $ 000000000000000 5.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _____ ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PHASE 16 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIRS PROJECT #2016-16 WHEREAS, the 2017 Phase 16 Street Reconstruction project is being constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 429 requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council ordered preparation of the feasibility report on June 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the feasibility report and called for a public improvement hearing on September 20, 2016; and WHERAS, the City Council held the public improvement hearing on October 20, 2016 and November 1, 2016 and ordered preparation of the plans and specifications on November 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the project plans and specifications and ordered the ad for bid on February 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the contract on April 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, Crystal residents in the Phase 16 Street Reconstruction Project area were given the option to participate in a private driveway replacement program and/or a private sanitary sewer service replacement program as part of the project; and WHERAS; the cost for the optional private work is assessed to the benefitting property; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council ordered the assessment hearing at the September 5, 2017 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council held the assessment hearing on October 3, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA: The proposed assessment, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. The total amount to be assessed is $ 875,794.28 ($609,748.28 driveway, $266,046.00 sanitary sewer). 5.1 1. Such assessment shall be payable in equal principal installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2018, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.0 percent per annum from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2032. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, or make partial payment as provided by City Code, with no interest accrued if the entire assessment is paid or on that principal portion paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution (end of business on November 29, 2017); and the owners may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made prior to November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 3. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 3rd day of October 2017. Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: Christina Serres, City Clerk 5.1 Memorandum DATE: October 3, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director Mick Cyert, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: Phase 15 Private Sanitary Sewer Service Repairs Background On September 5, 2017 the City Council declared the amount to be assessed as part of the Phase 15 Street Reconstruction Project’s optional Private Sanitary Sewer Service Repair work, ordered the preparation of the assessment rolls, and called for a public hearing on the assessment for October 3, 2017. The purpose of the public hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express concerns about the actual special assessment. At the Assessment Hearing the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in writing. This is a required step in Minnesota State Statutes for projects with assessments. While every participant signed an agreement showing the cost of the proposed work and waiving their right to appeal the assessment, it is still required to go through the formal assessment process. Once the public hearing is closed, City Council must, by resolution, adopt the same as the special assessment against the lands named in the assessment roll. Again, this is part of the Minnesota State Statute process for special assessments. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become liens against the properties listed. Discussion While the majority of properties were assessed for this work in October 2016, six of the properties had the sanitary sewer repair done late in the construction season. As such the City was not able to meet all the proper assessment notification requirements and meet the County’s deadline to be put on the assessment roll. This Council item i s just for those remaining six properties that had private sanitary sewer work done but were not included in the assessment last fall. 5.2 Attachment  Assessment payment options example Recommended Action  Hold the Public Assessment Hearing on the project.  Motion to approve the Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Phase 15 Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs. 5.2 EXPLANATION OF OPTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PHASE 15 TWIN OAKS PARK, SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CITY PROJECT No. 2015-15 October 3, 2017 On October 3, 2017, the City of Crystal levied a special assessment (lien) against your property. A special assessment is a charge to you for work performed by the City that benefits your property. The amount to be specifically assessed against your property is for sanitary sewer service repair for a total of 0.00 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PIN #00000000000 4141 Douglas Drive N MARY SMITH Crystal, Minnesota 55422 4141 Douglas Drive N CRYSTAL MN 55422 THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS NOTIFICATION THAT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN LEVIED AND IS DUE AND PAYABLE. You may prepay all or a portion (minimum of $100) of your assessment by delivering or mailing the payment to City of Crystal Assessments , 4141 Douglas Drive North, Crystal MN 55422. Payments must be received in our office no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017. Please make your check payable to the City of Crystal. Visa and MasterCard will also be accepted in our office with a valid picture ID. If the entire assessment is not paid as of 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017 the balance of the assessment will be added to your property tax statement over a 15-year period beginning in 2018, and ending in 2032. The first year you will be charged 14 months of interest on your assessment balance. After the first year, the amount added to your annual property tax statement will be computed by adding 1/15th of your assessment balance plus simple interest computed at 4.5 percent on the declining balance. If you prepay your assessment at any time in a future year, you must pay off the entire balance remaining, and your payment must be made by the last business day prior to November 15 in order to avoid interest charges for the following year. You may qualify to defer your assessment to a later date if you meet the requirements. Please note: If an assessment is deferred, interest will accrue at the rate of 4.5 percent for the 15-year term of the assessment or until the assessment is paid, whichever comes first. To defer your assessment, you must occupy the property as your homestead, meet the income guidelines listed below, and be one of the following:  over the age of 65  totally and permanently disabled  a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other reserves ordered into active military service Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit 1 $47,600 3 $61,200 5 $73,450 7 $84,350 2 $54,400 4 $68,000 6 $78,900 8 $89,800 If you believe that you qualify for the deferment program and need additional information, or you have other questions about this notice, please contact the City of Crystal’s Assessing Specialist, Gail Petschl at 763.531.1118 or gail.petschl@crystalmn.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If paying your 2017 Alley or Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Service Repair assessment on or before November 29, 2017 please cut and return this stub with your payment to: City of Crystal Assessments, 4141 Douglas Dr N, Crystal, MN 55422 Address of Property You Are Paying Assessment on: Amount Enclosed: Property ID# 4141 Douglas Drive N. $ 000000000000000 5.2 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _____ ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TWIN OAKS PARK PHASE 15 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIRS PROJECT #2015-15 WHEREAS, the 2016 Phase 15 Street Reconstruction project is being constructed in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 429 requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council ordered preparation of the feasibility report on June 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the feasibility report and called for a public improvement hearing on September 16, 2015; and WHERAS, the City Council held the public improvement hearing and ordered preparation of the plans and specifications on October 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the project plans and specifications and ordered the ad for bid on February 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the contract on April 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, Crystal residents in the Phase 15 Street Reconstruction Project area were given the option to participate in a private driveway replacement program and/or a private sanitary sewer service replacement program as part of the project; and WHERAS; the cost for the optional private work is assessed to the benefitting property; and WHEREAS, 6 of the 112 properties that participated in the Phase 15 sanitary sewer service repair program were not assessed in 2016 due to the work occurring later in the project process. WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council ordered the assessment hearing at the September 5, 2017 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council held the assessment hearing on October 3, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA: The proposed assessment, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. The total amount to be assessed is $ 12,006.00 5.2 1. Such assessment shall be payable in equal principal installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2018, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.5 percent per annum from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2032. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, or make partial payment as provided by City Code, with no interest accrued if the entire assessment is paid or on that principal portion paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution (end of business on November 29, 2017); and the owners may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made prior to November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 3. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 3rd day of October 2017. Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: Christina Serres, City Clerk 5.2 Memorandum DATE: October 3, 2017 TO: City Council FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Public Works Director Mick Cyert, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: 2017 Alley Construction, Private Driveway Construction and Private Sanitary Sewer Repair Background On September 5, 2017 the City Council declared the amount to be assessed as part of the 2017 Alley Construction, Private Driveway Construction and Private Sanitary Sewer Repair Project, ordered the preparation of the assessment rolls, and called for a public hearing on the assessment for October 3, 2017. The purpose of the public assessment hearing is to give property owners an opportunity to express concerns about the actual special assessment. At the assessment hearing the City Council shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed assessment, whether presented orally or in writing. This is a required step in Minnesota State Statutes for projects with assessments. Once the public hearing is closed, City Council must, by resolution, adopt the same as the special assessment against the lands named in the assessment roll. Again, this is part of the Minnesota State Statute process for special assessments and allows for the project to move forward with beginning the actual construction process. Once the assessment roll is adopted the assessments are set and become liens against the properties listed. Discussion The final cost for the 2017 Alley Construction, Private Driveway Construction and Private Sanitary Sewer Repair Project is as follows: Total Project Cost $187,564.77 Total Private Work Cost $ 55,379.67 Less Storm Drain Contribution - $75,025.91 Total Project Assessed Cost $167,918.53 Less Total Private Work Cost -$ 55,379.67 Total Amount Single Family & Duplex to be Assessed $112,538.86 Total Units (Single & Duplex) 49 Cost Per Unit $2,296.71 5.3 The final cost represents a decrease of $270.29 from the $2,567 amount originally proposed in the initial public notice. The project is assessed to property owners abutting the affected alleys. Of the 49 parcels, 9 participated in the private driveway program and 1 participated in both the driveway and sanitary sewer service repair programs. The value of the private work totaled $55,379.67. While every participant signed an agreement for the optional private work, which included the estimated cost of the proposed driveway and sanitary work and waiving their right to appeal the assessment, it is still necessary to provide the hearing. Attachment  Assessment payment options example. Recommended Action  Hold the Public Hearing on the project.  Motion to approve the Resolution adopting the assessment roll for project #2017-07 Alley and Private Sanitary Sewer and Driveway Construction. 5.3 EXPLANATION OF OPTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 2017 ALLEY CONSTRUCTION, DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CITY PROJECT No. 2017-07 October 3, 2017 On October 3, 2017, the City of Crystal levied a special assessment (lien) against your property. A special assessment is a charge to you for work performed by the City that benefits your property. The amount to be specifically assessed against your property is $0.00 for alley plus $0.00 for driveway construction, and $0.00 for sanitary sewer service repair for a total of 0.00 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PIN #00000000000 4141 Douglas Drive N MARY SMITH Crystal, Minnesota 55422 4141 Douglas Drive N CRYSTAL MN 55422 THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS NOTIFICATION THAT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN LEVIED AND IS DUE AND PAYABLE. You may prepay all or a portion (minimum of $100) of your assessment by delivering or mailing the payment to City of Crystal Assessments , 4141 Douglas Drive North, Crystal MN 55422. Payments must be received in our office no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017. Please make your check payable to the City of Crystal. Visa and MasterCard will also be accepted in our office with a valid picture ID. If the entire assessment is not paid as of 4:30 p.m. on November 29, 2017, the balance of the assessment will be added to your property tax statement over a 10-year period beginning in 2018, and ending in 2027. The first year you will be charged 14 months of interest on your assessment balance. After the first year, the amount added to your annual property tax statement will be computed by adding 1/10th of your assessment balance plus simple interest computed at 4.0 percent on the declining balance. If you prepay your assessment at any time in a future year, you must pay off the entire balance remaining, and your payment must be made by the last business day prior to November 15 in order to avoid interest charges for the following year. You may qualify to defer your assessment to a later date if you meet the requirements. Please note: If an assessment is deferred, interest will accrue at the rate of 4.0 percent for the 10-year term of the assessment or until the assessment is paid, whichever comes first. To defer your assessment, you must occupy the property as your homestead, meet the income guidelines listed below, and be one of the following:  over the age of 65  totally and permanently disabled  a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other reserves ordered into active military service Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit Household Size Income Limit 1 $47,600 3 $61,200 5 $73,450 7 $84,350 2 $54,400 4 $68,000 6 $78,900 8 $89,800 If you believe that you qualify for the deferment program and need additional information, or you have other questions about this notice, please contact the City of Crystal’s Assessing Specialist, Gail Petschl at 763.531.1118 or gail.petschl@crystalmn.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If paying your 2017 Alley, or Private Driveway Construction and Sanitary Sewer Service Repair assessment on or before November 29, 2017 please cut and return this stub with your payment to: City of Crystal Assessments, 4141 Douglas Dr N, Crystal, MN 55422 Address of Property You Are Paying Assessment on: Amount Enclosed: Property ID# 4141 Douglas Drive N. $ 000000000000000 5.3 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _____ ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 2017 ALLEY CONSTRUCTION, PRIVATE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION AND PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIR PROJECT #2017-07 WHEREAS, the 2017 Alley and Driveway Improvement Project #2017-07 involves special assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council ordered the feasibility report for the project on November 15, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council accepted the feasibility report and called for a public improvement hearing on December 20, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council held a public improvement hearing and authorized the preparation of construction plans and specifications by Crystal Engineering Department on February 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council approved construction plans and specifications and authorized solicitation of public bids for said construction on March 7, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council awarded the project contract on April 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council ordered the assessment hearing at the September 5, 2017 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council held the assessment hearing on October 3, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA: The proposed assessment, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. The total amount to be assessed is $167,918.53 ($112,538.86 alley, $55,379.67 private driveways and sewers). 1. Such assessment shall be payable in equal principal installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2018, and shall bear interest at the rate of 4.0 percent per annum from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2027. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, or make partial payment as provided by City Code, with no interest accrued if the entire assessment is 5.3 paid or on that principal portion paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution (end of business on November 29, 2017); and the owners may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made prior to November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 3. The Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 3rd day of October 2017. Jim Adams, Mayor ATTEST: Christina Serres, City Clerk 5.3 6.1 October 3, 2017 6.2 Aug. 10 Work session review of general fund, capital budget,enterprise funds, property tax levy, utility rates and fee schedule. Aug. 17 Work session to review capital budgets and capital funding. Sept. 5 Adopt preliminary 2018 operating budgets and preliminary tax levy. Sept. 19 Adopt 2018 fee schedule and utility rates. Oct.3 Opportunity for public input. Nov. 7 Work session to discuss 2018 General Fund Budget. Determination on allocating resource for Parks Maintenance position or capital improvements. Dec. 5 Review and adopt final 2018 property tax levy and budget. 6.2 To create a thriving business climate. To develop fiscally sound and stable financial policies and practices. To create strong neighborhoods. 6.2 Eliminate Bonding Long-term Planning Comprehensive Capital Plan Eliminate Special Assessments Pay Off Loans Early 6.2 Administration Public Works Public Safety Community Recreation MAYOR & COUNCIL | ADMINISTRATION HUMAN RESOURCES | ASSESSING LEGAL ELECTIONS | FINANCE POLICE| FIRE PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT BUILDING INSPECTIONS HOUSING INSPECTIONS | ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENGINEERING | STREETS | PARK MAINTENANCE FORESTRY | CITY BUILDINGS RECREATION | COMMUNITY CENTER WATERSLIDE/POOL Development 6.2 Category 2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Budget 2018 Proposed 2018 Change 2018 % Change Taxes: Property & Assessments $8,372,633 $8,100,043 $8,783,900 $ 9,337,559 $553,659 5.79% Intergovernmental Revenue 1,991,430 2,048,954 1,973,909 2,135,009 161,100 8.16% Licenses & Permits 808,695 773,479 836,256 844,228 7,972 .95% Charges for Services 673,370 793,092 766,677 830,751 64,074 8.36% Investment Income 48,167 75,154 60,000 68,000 8,000 13.33% Fines & Forfeits 309,358 322,009 326,000 304,000 22,000 -6.75% Interfund Services 308,213 332,886 335,061 434,049 98,988 29.54% Transfers In --110,414 10,400 100,014 N/A% Other 33,079 58,796 19,200 73,080 53,880 280.63% TOTAL $12,544,945 $12,504,413 $13,211,417 $14,037,076 $825,659 6.25% 6.2 Category 2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Budget 2018 Proposed 2018 Change 2018 % Change City Council, Admin., Elections, Legal, Finance $2,072,481 $2,333,780 $2,383,046 $2,291,364 $91,682 -3.85% Police 4,555,663 4,851,832 5,057,200 5,629,175 571,975 11.31% Fire 1,188,463 1,239,663 1,300,110 1,360,507 60,397 4.65% Community Development 736,814 523,035 559,814 571,191 11,377 2.03% Streets, Parks, Buildings, Forestry, Engineering 2,358,462 2,256,907 2,451,239 2,590,741 139,502 5.69% Recreation 1,326,338 1,448,395 1,460,008 1,594,098 134,090 9.18% Transfers out 519,994 ----- Total $12,758,213 $12,653,612 $13,211,417 $14,037,076 $825,659 6.25% 6.2 Major Revenue Changes Total Cost per capita* Projected Property Tax Increase of 5.79%$501,559 $21.95 Police COPS grant $85,000 $3.72 Delinquent Property Tax Collection $52,000 $2.28 Police Drug Task Force $30,000 $1.31 Police Post Board Reimbursement $29,700 $1.30 Historic Donations and reimbursements $32,600 $1.43 Interfund services based on cost analysis $98,988 $4.33 Miscellaneous Increases $49,326 $2.16 Others + transfer/fine reductions -$53,514 -$2.34 Total $825,659 $36.14 *Per capital costs based on the Metropolitan Council’s estimated population of 22,855 for the City of Crystal in 2016. 6.2 Major Expenditure Changes Total Cost Cost per capita* Wage /benefit adjustments and potential addition of 1 Parks Maintenance staff $387,739 $16.97 Two cops funded with COPS grant $162,000 $7.09 Other Public Safety: Body cameras, Logis charges, fire truck lease payment, capital cost increases, etc. $97,700 $4.28 Elections $47,274 $2.07 Website Redesign (not to exceed estimate)$40,000 $1.75 Miscellaneous increases $90,946 $3.98 Total $825,659 $36.14 *Per capital costs based on the Metropolitan Council’s estimated population of 22,852 for the City of Crystal in 2015. 6.2 6.2 6.2 Fund 2015 Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Levied 2018 Proposed 2018 Change 2018 % Change General Fund $8,262,652 $8,015,940 $8,657,000 $9,170,559 $513,559 5.93% Pool Bonds Debt Service 208,849 210,600 212,000 -$(212,000)- EDA 237,245 246,200 277,200 277,200 $0 0% Capital Improvement Funds 566,245 1,119,160 1,141,620 1,457,330 315,710 27.65% Total Tax Levy $9,275,323 $9,591,900 $10,287,820 $10,905,089 $617,269 6% 6.2 Fund 2017 Levied 2018 Proposed 2018 Change 2018 % Change Police Equipment Revolving $137,400 $151,900 $14,500 10.55% * PIR 266,220 567,430 301,210 113.14% Major Building Replacement 574,400 574,400 -0% Street Maintenance 163,600 163,600 -0% Total Capital Improvement Levy $1,141,620 $1,457,330 $315,710 27.65% * $301,000 increase in the PIR designated for park improvements. 6.2 2017 Market Home Value Taxable Market Value 2017 Actual 2018 Estimated Increase/ (Decrease) $146,610 $122,600 $617 $642 $25 162,900 140,300 707 735 28 181,000 160,100 806 838 32 217,200 199,500 1,005 1,045 40 260,640 246,900 1,243 1,293 50 The following table summarizes the estimated tax impact on residential homes based on the proposed increase in city tax levy. The median home value per MLS listings is $180,575. The 2018 estimated tax represents values at, below and above the median value. 6.2 6.2 A. PIR Fund • Master Parks Planning process underway. • Increase LGA revenue for 2018 due to legislative change. • Funding to be considered. B. PERF Fund • Budgetary requests exceed revenue. C. Major Building Replacement • No capital expenditures planned for 2018. D. Street Construction • No capital expenditures planned for 2018. E. Street Maintenance • Planned expenditures include mill and overlay project, sidewalk repair/maintenance and retaining wall repair/replacement. 6.2 Nov. 7 Work session to discuss 2018 General Fund Budget. Determination on allocating resource for Parks Maintenance position or capital improvements. Dec. 5 Public Input meeting in accordance with Truth in Taxation. Dec. 5 Final adoption of 2018 property tax budget and levy. Dec. 19 Continuation date if adoption of 2018 Property Tax Levy and Budget does not occur on Dec. 5, 2017. 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 September 28, 2017 The Honorable Jim Adams, Mayor c/o: Ms. Anne Norris, City Manager City of Crystal Council 4141 Douglas Drive N. Crystal, Minnesota 55422 Dear Mayor Adams and Councilmembers: Re: Ordinance Amendments Chapter 7 (Public Utilities) - Wastes Prohibited in Sewers I am writing on behalf of INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry in regard to the proposed amendments to Section 705.09 that the Crystal City Council is considering to, in part, add “flushable wipes” and other hygiene products to the list of items prohibited from being placed in the sewer. INDA is a trade association whose member companies include almost all wipes fabric makers, wipes manufacturers, and some brand owners. INDA and our members are committed to the proper labeling and disposal of wipe products, and we share your interest in keeping local wastewater facilities well maintained. Because of this shared commitment, we would like to provide you information about flushable wipes that may not have been known to the Council when acting to expand the list of items not to be placed in sewers. INDA would also be pleased to explore working with the City of Crystal on a forensic “collection” study of your system to identify what flushed items are causing problems so that the City is better positioned to craft solutions that address system troubles. A wide variety of categories of nonwoven wipes are now on the market, including wipes for disinfecting, anti-bacterial cleaning, hard surface cleaning, facial applications, make-up removal, baby care, feminine care, and more—none of which are designed to be nor marketed as flushable. Flushable wipes are a special category of wipes that developed due to consumer needs for enhanced cleaning options while toileting. While flushable wipes in some ways resemble baby wipes and other non-flushable wipes on the market, wipes designed to be flushed are very different in purpose and construction. Only flushable wipes use fibers that are exclusively tree-based, maintain wet strength in the package and during use, and then degrade, sink, and lose strength rapidly when flushed and exposed to the wastewater collection system. In contrast, baby wipes and surface/sanitizing wipes use plastic fibers to provide greater wiping strength for the different purpose they serve. Wipes manufacturers currently rely on Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products (attached as Exhibit A). Before a wipe may be labeled flushable, it must pass all seven of the flushablity assessment tests in the Guidelines to validate that it is safe to introduce into a wastewater collection system. Manufacturers also adhere to a Code of Practice for proper labeling (attached as Exhibit B), which assists in determining whether a wipe should bear a “Do Not Flush” logo and includes size specifications so that the logo is prominent on packaging. INDA believes the Council’s additions to the list of prohibited items are not likely to improve Crystal’s sewer conditions and may actually worsen them. Because the amendment does not distinguish between wipes 6.3 labeled flushable and those that are not, consumers who are reluctant to dispose of toileting wipes in a trashcan are likely to simply ignore the prohibition. Flushable wipes are more expensive to produce than baby wipes and therefore are often twice as expensive. Many consumers do not realize that many disposable wipes like baby wipes are not designed to be flushed, while others may know but still flush them for lack of appreciation of the harm they pose to their local sewer system. The ordinance’s ban on flushable wipes may influence consumers to stop paying the premium for flushable wipes and instead buy less expensive baby wipes. As we detail below, the result of the Council’s amendment could be the opposite of its intended outcome, thereby causing consumers to flush a category of wipes demonstrated to be prominent in system clogs and a direct threat to sewer pumps and systems in general. Indeed, mounting information from municipal collection studies, field pump testing, and legal proceedings confirms that disposable wipes specifically designed for flushing are compatible with wastewater infrastructure and are not the cause of clogs in sewer systems. Aside from fats, oils, and grease, the greatest contributor to clogs in studied sewer systems is the inappropriate flushing of products NOT marketed as flushable, including baby wipes, surface/sanitizing wipes, paper towels, and feminine hygiene products. During the most recent municipal collection study, performed in New York City in 2016 at the behest of the City’s Department of Environmental Protection and Law Department, an independent firm collected and identified categories of wipes and other items from the mechanical screens at one of their largest wastewater treatment plants. The study (report attached as Exhibit C) found the leading category of material collected and identified to be baby wipes (38 percent), while flushable wipes constituted less than 2 percent of material collected and identified. Earlier studies in Maine and California demonstrated similar results, showing that products that are not intended to be flushed are causing problems for wastewater systems, not flushable wipes. (See Exhibit D for data from collections studies in Maine, California, and New York City). The recent outcome of a municipal lawsuit against wipes manufacturers also supports our claim that there is scant evidence that flushable wipes are responsible for clogs in wastewater systems. In City of Perry, Iowa v. Procter & Gamble, et al., the City filed suit in 2015 claiming damages to its wastewater system caused by flushable wipes. After more than a year of discovery, the City eventually settled the suit this past July and received no compensation for damages or reimbursed attorney’s fees in part because it could not demonstrate it had experienced any clogs or costs to its system attributable to flushable wipes manufactured by the defendants. The affidavit of Sven Peterson, Perry’s City Administrator, upon settlement of the lawsuit is attached as Exhibit E. Our industry takes very seriously the wastewater community’s concerns as well as our responsibility to be mindful of the post-consumer fate of our products. In that spirit, INDA would be pleased to collaborate with the City of Crystal’s public works staff on a collection study to better understand the true cause of system problems, i.e. whether it is primarily wipes and other materials not labeled flushable or something new not observed in other studies. Based on past experience with systems in Maine, California, and the United Kingdom, such a study could be planned and conducted over a short period of time and jointly staffed by your system experts and 2-3 representatives of the wipes industry at little to no expense. 6.3 Until such a study is conducted that produces data indicating flushable wipes are clogging the local system, INDA respectfully recommends that the Crystal City Council modify its amendment to the list of Wastes Prohibited in Sewers accordingly. Simply adding “baby wipes and surface or sanitizing wipes” would address the leading categories of very high wet strength products proven by recent collection studies to accumulate in sewers. The term “hygiene tissue” is not precise terminology in the hygiene product industry and could be interpreted to ban low wet strength categories such as bath tissue/toilet paper and facial tissue, which is presumably not the intent of the Council. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Should you have an interest in discussing the possibility of a City-INDA collection study or need any further information, I can be reached directly at 703-521-0545 or jfranken@inda.org. Sincerely, Jessica Franken, INDA Director of Government Affairs 6.3 1 Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products A Process for Assessing the Compatibility of Disposable Nonwoven Products with Plumbing and Wastewater Infrastructure Third Edition June 2013 © 2013 INDA and EDANA. All Rights Reserved. EXHIBIT A6.3 2 Contents Page Preface ………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Background to the New Edition …………………………………………… Figure 1: ‘Do Not Flush’ symbol …………………………………….. 4 5 Principles for Assessing Flushability ……………………………………. The Scope of the Flushability Assessment ……………………… Figure 2: Decision-making process …………………………. The Boundaries of the Flushability Assessment ……………… 6 7 7 8 Overview of the Technical Flushability Assessment ……………. Figure 3: Disposal routes .……………………………………………….. Figure 4: Key questions to be answered for a product to be considered flushable …………………………………………………… Figure 5: Tests to be passed in order to make a flushable claim …………………………………………………………………. 8 9 10 11 Summary of Test Methods and Acceptance Criteria …………… 12 Appendices Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms ………………………………………………………………… Appendix 2: Code of Practice: Communicating Appropriate Disposal Pathways for Disposable Nonwoven Products to Protect Wastewater Systems ……………………………………………………………. 19 23 Disclaimer ……………………………………………………………………………… 27 6.3 3 Preface Since the launch of the first edition of this Guideline in 2008, collaborations among INDA, EDANA and Wastewater agencies in the US and Europe identified the need for a more straight- forward and transparent means for differentiating flushable from non-flushable products as well as the benefits of a uniform labeling approach for non-flushable products to guide proper disposal following use. As with previous editions, this edition should be considered a living document that will evolve over time to reflect advances in environmental science and nonwoven technologies as well as changes in consumer practices and wastewater infrastructure. INDA/EDANA will commence a review of this document no later than December 31st, 2015. Continuous improvement in the performance of flushable products and consistent labeling of non-flushable products remains the goal of INDA/EDANA members. This document provides a unified INDA/EDANA Labeling Code of Practice with clear guidance regarding the use of a standardized “Do Not Flush” symbol. It also contains an explicit decision tree to identify non-flushable products that have a significant risk of being mistakenly or inappropriately disposed via the toilet and need to be labeled. Moreover, this edition includes a radically simplified and linear assessment approach, consisting of seven tests including a municipal pump compatibility test, all of which a product must pass to be considered flushable. INDA and EDANA acknowledge and are grateful for the invaluable input of all member and nonmember companies, as well as wastewater agencies in the European Union (EU) and United States (US) who have been involved in the dialogue that shaped these new editions of the Guidelines and Code of Practice. Finally, we are all indebted to Adrian Bridge whose vision started this journey back in 2009, but who sadly passed away before its conclusion. For further information please contact:- In North America: Steve Ogle INDA Director of Technical Affairs sogle@inda.org www.inda.org +1 919-233-1210 Ext 148 In Europe: Jean-Michel Anspach EDANA Technical and Education Director jean-michel.anspach@edana.org www.edana.org +32 2740 1824 6.3 4 Background to the New Edition Flushability has attracted growing interest over the past decade, as an increasing array of personal hygiene and cleansing products have been introduced to the market which either incorrectly claim to be flushable, or which consumers think are flushable. The success of many of these products is testimony to the value consumers place on improved standards of personal hygiene, and their appreciation of increased variety in the products that offer those better standards. These products can however cause challenges for both property owners and the wastewater industry if in fact they are not ‘flushable’, because they may cause clogging, blockages or equipment failure in the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. Since 2004 fiber suppliers, roll goods suppliers, converters and marketers of disposable nonwoven products have been working together through their industry associations, INDA in the US and EDANA in Europe, to collaborate with relevant wastewater agencies to advance the shared objective of ensuring that the only nonwoven products that are flushed are those that are compatible with wastewater systems. The challenge is three-fold and involves ensuring that: • Any product that is marketed as ‘flushable’ can be flushed down the wastewater system without adversely impacting plumbing or wastewater infrastructure and operations; • The general public is made aware of the importance of using the wastewater system to dispose only toilet paper and nonwoven products which have been established to be flushable through the INDA/EDANA Flushability Guidelines Assessment process; and • Products which do not meet the criteria in these guidelines are appropriately labeled in accordance with the INDA/EDANA Code of Practice1. June 2008 saw the publication of the first edition of the INDA/EDANA “Guidance Document for Assessing the Flushability of Nonwoven Consumer Products”. This document provided an industry-accepted definition of flushability, greater clarity on when flushing should be considered an appropriate means of disposal, and a specified approach for assessing the flushability of consumer products. At the time of its publication, the industry recognized that it was a work in progress. Since then, the nonwovens industry has continued to work in partnership with wastewater industries in Europe and the United States to evolve our approach. Specifically we have strived to: • Understand better, with the help of the wastewater industry, the underlying causes and the extent of the problems associated with products being mistakenly or inappropriately disposed via the toilet; • Evolve our flushability assessment to provide a simpler framework with greater rigor for addressing wastewater industry concerns; and • Create more specific labeling recommendations for our member companies so that non- flushable products that have a significant potential for being mistakenly or inappropriately disposed to the toilet are clearly and consistently labeled with a “Do Not Flush” symbol. This current document is the latest output of the industry’s collaborative work. In addition to making changes based on our experiences using the approach and methods contained in our earlier editions, changes have been made based upon input from wastewater agencies in Europe and North America. As with previous editions, this version should be considered a living document that will evolve over time to reflect advances in environmental science and nonwoven technologies, as well as changes in consumer practices and wastewater infrastructure. It represents a consensus of INDA/EDANA members’ views as to what 1 Code of Practice: Communicating Disposal Pathways for Disposable Nonwoven Products to Protect Wastewater Systems (See Appendix 2 of this document). 6.3 5 represents a technically sound and practical approach for evaluating the flushability of nonwoven products. Use of this guideline to support a flushable claim is voluntary. INDA/EDANA will commence a review of this document no later than the 31st December, 2015. This third edition departs significantly from the tiered testing approach in earlier editions. Instead, we have adopted a straight line approach to the assessment. While the tiered testing approach is commonly used in risk assessments, it can be complex and difficult to understand. This straight line approach requires a yes/no answer to each of the technical questions which need to be answered in the affirmative to establish flushability. It eliminates some of the ambiguity in previous editions, is much easier to follow, and now directly addresses an additional wastewater infrastructure concern with the inclusion of a municipal sewage pump test. The heritage of earlier editions is preserved by retaining the existing tests that are most appropriate to the real world, simplifying loading protocols where possible and improving methods to reduce variability as necessary. As such, this third edition is much easier for users to follow and implement, while at the same time providing an appropriate assessment. Its use is expected to become more widespread throughout our industry amongst members and non- members alike. The Flushability Assessment is an integral part of the nonwoven industry’s commitment to prevent problems for the wastewater industry, but it is not the only contribution. Since the publication of previous Guidelines, we have worked collaboratively with the wastewater industry in parts of Europe and the US to better understand the challenges associated with inappropriate disposal of a variety of items to the sewer system. By analyzing the products contributing to actual blockages and clogs2 in sewers, it has become increasingly apparent that the majority of these products (including some types of disposable nonwoven products) were not designed for disposal via this route. Hence, there is a need for much better consumer information and education hopefully leading to more thoughtful and environmentally responsible behavior, relating to flushing practices. One aspect is the need for more effective product labeling. In March 2009 EDANA and INDA produced a “Manufacturers’ Code of Practice on Communicating Disposal Pathways for Personal Hygiene Wet Wipes”. This code covered moist toilet tissue as well as baby, toddler, feminine hygiene, and incontinence wipes. It encouraged member companies to not only follow the guidelines for assessing flushability before marketing products as flushable, but also to label non-flushable products with a distinctive “Do Not Flush” symbol. Based upon usage experience and feedback from our stakeholders, we have revised the Code to facilitate clearer, more consistent communication to consumers. Furthermore, the associations have converged on individual “Do Not Flush” and “Dispose via the Solid Waste Stream” (Tidy Man) symbols shown below in Figure 1 for use on European and US packaging. The revised code is included in full as Appendix 2 to these Flushability Guidelines. 2 See: “The Moraga Pumping Station Study” http://www.inda.org/issues-advocacy/flushability/ and Appendix 3 of the UKWIR Test Protocol to Determine the Flushability of Disposable Products. Report Reference 12/WM/07/16 http://www.ukwir.org/site/web/content/home# Figure 1: The “Do Not Flush” (left) and “Tidy Man” (right) symbols to be used on the packaging of products not designed to be flushed. 6.3 6 Principles for Assessing Flushability The toilet and the wastewater system should not be used as a receptacle for general waste. In their original design, sewage systems were intended to handle human waste, wastewater and latterly, toilet paper. More recently, toilets have been increasingly used for the disposal of a variety of products; many of which are not designed or intended to be flushed, and which can create operational issues for property owners and the operators of wastewater treatment systems. For public health and hygiene reasons, there are products for which flushing represents not only an acceptable but also the most appropriate means of product disposal; providing they can be disposed via the wastewater system without causing harm. The flushability of a disposable nonwoven product depends upon the physical and chemical attributes of both the product itself and of the wastewater and treatment systems through which it is disposed. Wastewater disposal and treatment systems differ by country and region, but commonly involve disposal via the toilet, conveyance via drainage pipes and physical, biological and chemical treatment processes. Flushability is determined by a product’s fate, behavior and effects during the various stages of toilet disposal and wastewater conveyance and treatment. For a product to be deemed flushable there must be evidence indicating that it: • Clears toilets and properly maintained drainage pipe systems when the suppliers recommended usage instructions are correctly followed; • Passes through wastewater conveyance systems and is compatible with wastewater treatment, reuse and disposal systems without causing system blockage, clogging or other operational problems; and • Is unrecognizable in effluent leaving onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems and in digested sludge from wastewater treatment plants that are applied to soil. The Technical Assessment is designed to evaluate the ability of a product to conform to each of these above criteria. Consequently, when a product fulfills the requirements in this assessment, it is considered flushable and can be labeled as such in accordance with the INDA/EDANA Code of Practice. One change from the previous Guidelines is the use of the term ‘disintegration’, in place of ‘dispersibility’. While both terms refer to the breakdown of a product, disintegration is a more inclusive term that refers to the process in which a product weakens, loses its integrity and breaks into smaller parts due to both a physical and chemical or biological breakdown of a product, whereas dispersibility refers simply to the physical separation of the product into smaller pieces. As a result, we have updated the terminology to more accurately reflect the changes that happen to nonwoven products after they have entered the wastewater system.3 Before undertaking a Flushability Assessment, manufacturers are expected to have verified the human and environmental safety of all components of their finished products and complied with all relevant legislation and regulations in bringing a product to market. In this way, not only wastewater infrastructure is protected, but also public health and the broader environment. 3 Regarding the INDA/EDANA approach taken to the processes of dispersibilty and disintegration, we recognize that both relate to how a product breaks apart over time. However, dispersibility is only one mechanism of disintegration. It relates to the process in which a product physically breaks into finer particles that separate from each other and distribute themselves relatively evenly in water. Disintegration includes other processes including dissolution of soluble components and the chemical or biological degradation of constituents in the product. Both disintegration and dispersibility can be determined in the tests associated with these Guidelines, by estimating the mass of a product that passes through sieves following exposure to a set of environmental conditions. This third edition of the Guidelines recognizes the importance of having a physical disintegration metric that prevents permanent wet-strength materials from becoming approved “flushable” products under this process, and has included a Slosh Box Test with pass/fail criteria to capture this concept. 6.3 7 The Scope of the Flushability Assessment This Flushability Assessment has been designed principally for disposable nonwoven wipes, which due to their purpose and use, are frequently disposed of via the toilet into the waste water system. The technical assessment outlined in this document assesses compatibility with plumbing fixtures and drain lines, on-site treatment, municipal wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. Four questions need to be answered in the affirmative for a disposable nonwoven product to come under the scope of this Flushability Assessment and the Code of Practice. These questions are: • Is the product constructed from nonwoven sheet(s)? • Is the product designed for, marketed for, or commonly used in a bathroom setting or for toileting purposes? • In normal use could the product become contaminated with feces, menses, urine and germs typically associated with these wastes? • Is the product designed and marketed to be flushed? If the answer is affirmative in every case and the product passes the technical assessment, it is deemed as flushable and a “Flushable Claim” is appropriate. If these answers are affirmative but the product is not designed to be flushed or it fails the technical assessment, the product should be disposed to the solid waste stream and the packaging should include a ‘Do Not Flush’ symbol in accordance with the Decision Tree contained in Figure 2 below and the “INDA/EDANA Code of Practice: Communicating appropriate Disposal Pathways for Disposable Nonwoven Products to Protect Wastewater Systems". Figure 2: Illustrates the decision-making process for determining whether a product is within the scope of this Flushability Assessment and the labeling requirements specified by the INDA/EDANA Code of Practice. 6.3 8 The Boundaries of the Flushability Assessment The test method development and the validation for this technical assessment have been based primarily on disposable nonwoven wipes. Using this assessment approach for unrelated product types requires further development and validation not contained in this document. This assessment has been developed and evaluated within Europe and the United States by INDA and EDANA and their member companies who produce the vast majority of the total volume of nonwovens used in nonwoven disposable products on the market in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The principles of these guidelines and the test methods could be adapted for other countries, but would first need to account for local habits/practices and wastewater infrastructure in the regions concerned. This is not covered in this document. These guidelines and tests are only relevant for plumbing in permanent building structures and may not be appropriate for sanitary systems found in temporary rest rooms (e.g. Porta-John, Port-O-Let, Port-a-Loo), motor homes, recreational vehicles, and boats, etc. Overview of the Technical Flushability Assessment When a product is disposed of via the wastewater system first it is flushed down the toilet, then it is conveyed via drainage pipes in order to be treated either in an on-site treatment system or in municipal treatment systems as depicted in Figure 3. For a product to be flushable it is necessary to establish that it can pass through all these processes without causing problems, and that is will not do harm in the receiving environments at the end of these processes. The assessment therefore contains the following evaluations, all of which must be addressed: Toilet, Drainline and Ejector Pump Evaluation. Here it is necessary to establish that the product will not cause the toilet to block, that it does not clog the household drain lines, and that it does not accumulate in or clog household sewage ejector pumps that are sometimes used in buildings to assist in the movement of waste. Macerator Toilets are not covered in this document. On-Site Treatment Evaluation. This relates to septic tanks, cesspits or aerobic treatment systems. Here it is necessary to establish that the product will sink with the rest of the solids and will then break down sufficiently under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, that it does not contribute to clogging of the septic tank system or create mechanical problems. Sewer System Evaluation. This relates to conveyance in the sewer system beyond the property and the processing of the waste in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Here it is necessary to establish that the product will pass through the sewer pipes without causing clogs, that it will not blind the screens used at various stages in the system, that it will not cause problems in municipal pump stations, that it will settle and that it will break down under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. 6.3 9 Figure 2: The Disposal Routes for Products Flushed Down the Toilet Outlined on the following flow chart (Figure 4) are the key questions that need to be answered for a product to be considered flushable. The first set of questions relate to the applicability of the product to this assessment; the remaining questions comprise the technical assessment and cover each of the routes the product could follow in the wastewater conveyance and treatment process. The questions in the technical assessment are answered by conducting the test which is referenced in the box below each question. These tests are summarized in Figure 5 and a brief summary of each test method with acceptance criteria is then provided. The acceptance criteria for a specific test demonstrate either compatibility with the disposal system or that the product cannot be considered to be flushable. All questions must be answered in the affirmative for a flushable claim to be made. The full test methods and supplementary guidance documents for use in laboratories are available for download at the INDA/EDANA websites: www.edana.org/industry-initiatives/flushability www.inda.org/issues-advocacy/flushability Sewer System Evaluation Clogging potential, disintegration, settling, Municipal pumps. Toilet, Drain line and Ejector Pump Evaluation On-Site Evaluation Clogging potential, disintegration, settling, Household pumps Municipal Treatment Evaluation Aerobic System Evaluation Septic Tank Evaluation Settling, Biodisintegration/biodegradation Settling, Biodisintegration/biodegradation Settling, Biodisintegration/biodegradation Figure 3: The disposal routes for products flushed down the toilet. 6.3 10 Product Eligibility Is the product constructed from nonwoven sheet(s)?Yes →→→→ Is the product designed for, marketed for, or commonly used in a bathroom setting or for toileting purposes? Yes →→→→ In normal use could the product become contaminated with feces, menses or urine and germs typically associated with these wastes? Yes →→→→ Is the product designed and marketed to be flushed? Yes →→→→ Proceed to Technical Assessment No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Product not in scope Do not flush label Discretionary Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Toilet, Drainline and Ejector Pump Evaluation 1.1 Does the product clear the toilet and the building's lateral drainline? Yes →→→→ 1.2 Does the product have the potential to disintegrate?Yes →→→→ 1.3 Is the product compatible with household sewage ejector pumps? FG501 FG502 FG503 No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required On-site Treatment 2.1 Will the product sink?Yes →→→→ 1.2 Does the product have the potential to biodisintegrate/ biodegrade under aerobic conditions? Yes →→→→ 1.3 Does the product have the potential to biodisintegrate/ biodegrade under anaerobic conditions? FG504 FG505 FG506 No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Sewer System Evaluation 3.1 Does the product transport through the sewer pipe?Yes →→→→ 3.2 Does the product have the potential to disintegrate in the sewer? Yes →→→→ 3.3 Will the product sink?Yes →→→→ 3.4 Is the product compatible with a Municipal Sewer Pump? Yes →→→→ 3.5 Does the product have the potential to biodisintegrate/ biodegrade under aerobic conditions? Yes →→→→ 3.6 Does the product have the potential to biodisintegrate/ biodegrade under anaerobic conditions? Yes →→→→ Flushable Claim Appropriate FG501 FG502 FG504 FG507 FG505 FG506 No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ No ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Not Flushable 'Do Not Flush' Label Required Figure 4: Key questions that need to be answered in the affirmative for a product to be considered flushable. 6.3 11 Test Assessment and action Toilet and Drainline ClearanceTest FG501 ↓↓↓↓Pass Slosh Box Disintegration Test FG502 ↓↓↓↓Pass Household Pump Test FG503 ↓↓↓↓Pass Settling Test FG504 ↓↓↓↓Pass Aerobic Biodisintegration/Biodegradation Test FG505 ↓↓↓↓Pass Anaerobic Biodisintegration/Biodegradation Test FG506 ↓↓↓↓Pass Municipal Sewage Pump Test FG507 ↓↓↓↓Pass Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Flushable Claim Appropriate Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Fail →→→→ Not Flushable. "Do not Flush" label required Figure 5: The tests which need to be passed in order to make a flushable claim. 6.3 12 Summary of Test Methods and Acceptance Criteria Copies of the full test methods are available for download at the INDA/EDANA websites. EDANA website: www.edana.org/industry-initiatives/flushability INDA website: www.inda.org/issues-advocacy/flushability FG501: Toilet and Drainline Clearance Test Purpose To determine the likelihood that a product will successfully clear toilet and building drainage lines. Principles The test system consists of a toilet and drain line. Four different toilet and drain line combinations are contained in the full test methods that cover typical configurations in US, EU (including UK) regions. The ultimate choice of toilet(s) and drain line configuration(s) should be based upon the region where a product is marketed. The test itself simulates 2 days of normal toilet use by a family of four and is repeated at least 3 times. The test system consists of a toilet and drain line. In the case of nonwoven hygienic wipes, a test consists of 35 toilet flushes using a specified loading sequence of product based on the habits and practices of a family of four. This sequence includes flushes with water only, flushes with product and toilet tissue, and flushes with product, simulated fecal matter and toilet tissue. For products other than hygienic wipes, the loading sequence should be amended to reflect specific habits/practices for that product. For each flush, observations are made regarding whether the product clears the toilet bowl and trap. In addition, the travel distance is measured for all flushed materials in the drain line following each flush. The latter information is used to calculate the location of the center of mass of all materials within the drain line relative to the toilet. Prior to conducting a study, a 35 flush sequence excluding test product is used to establish a baseline for each specific toilet and drain line configuration to ensure correct operation of the system. Validity Criteria for the Test System In the baseline evaluation: In the absence of product, no clogs should occur that require use of a plunger to clear toilet tissue and excess water from the bowl and trap. The travel distance of the Centre of Mass of the toilet tissue must not consistently decrease over the course of 5 consecutive flushes. Pass/Fail Criteria To be acceptable: Toilet Clearance: No more than 5% of the flushes containing product (3 flushes for hygienic wipes) should be associated with clogs that require use of a plunger to clear product and excess water from the bowl and trap. Drain line Clearance: The travel distance of the Centre of Mass of the flushed material in the drain line does not consistently decrease over the course of 5 consecutive flushes. 6.3 13 FG502: Slosh Box Disintegration Test Purpose To assess the potential for a product to disintegrate when subjected to mechanical agitation in water or wastewater (optional). Principles The test system consists of an oscillating box containing 2.0 liters of tap water or wastewater (optional), in which a single article (e.g. individual hygienic wipe) is incubated for 3 hours. Subsequently, the contents of the box are transferred to and then rinsed through a 12.5 mm perforated plate sieve. The materials retained on the sieve are recovered and analyzed gravimetrically. This measurement is used to calculate the percent of the article’s initial dry mass passing through the sieve, based on difference. At a minimum, this test is repeated with 6 replicate articles. Pass/Fail Criteria To be acceptable: Greater than 25% of an article’s initial dry mass must pass through the sieve, and this condition must be met for 80% or more of the replicate articles tested. 6.3 14 FG503: Household Pump Test Purpose To assess the compatibility of a product with household sewage ejector pump systems to ensure that the product does not clog, accumulate within or otherwise interfere with normal system operation under high usage conditions. Principles For hygienic wipes, an accelerated 6 day loading protocol is used to verify that the wipes do not clog, accumulate within or otherwise interfere with normal operation of a sewage ejector pump system under high usage conditions. The test system includes a toilet and drainline, connected to a household sewage ejector pump assembly, consisting of a basin and submersible pump. Upon activation, the pump discharges the basin contents upward through a check valve and into an 8-10 ft section of vertical pipe connected by elbow to another section of pipe with a 2 degree downward slope connected by elbow to another section of vertical pipe draining through a screen to a drain. Test articles are flushed down the toilet. The loading protocol consists of 2 loading sequences each day with each sequence consisting of a total of 12 flushes with 6 including product. After each flush, the basin is inspected to determine if the product is interfering with the float device activating the pump. In addition during each pump run, the system is observed to determine if the pump shuts off before fully emptying the basin and if the pump is effectively pumping water from the basin. At the end of each day, the number of articles in the basin is determined. On completion of the final loading sequence, the toilet is flushed as needed to trigger the pump one final time. Subsequently, all articles in the basin are removed and counted. The numbers of articles observed in the basin at the end of days 2 through 6 are averaged, and this value is compared to the number of articles loaded each day. For products which are buoyant in tap water, 150g of Simulated Fecal Matter can be included in two of the flushes within a sequence to simulate the normal presence of fecal solids. For products other than hygienic wipes, the loading sequence and daily quantification of product in the basin should be amended to reflect specific habits/practices for that product. Pass/Fail Criteria To be acceptable: The product must not cause the system to stop functioning at any point during the test. AND The average number of articles remaining in the basin at the end of days 2 through 6 must not exceed the number of articles loaded on a daily basis. 6.3 15 FG504: Settling Test Purpose To assess whether a product settles in sumps, septic tanks, onsite aerobic systems and settling chambers that are associated with pump stations and municipal wastewater treatment plants. Principles The test system consists of an approximately 20cm diameter clear plastic column containing tap water which allows the settling behavior of a product to be observed. The column has graduations that are used for determining the time needed for an article to descend a pre-determined distance in the column. Individual test articles are rinsed in water or flushed through a test drainline. In addition, they can be swirled gently in wastewater for 30 seconds to allow the adsorption of solids (optional). Each article is then placed in a beaker containing tap water, which is poured into the top of the column. The settling rate is calculated from the product’s travel time in the column. This process is repeated for 10 separate articles and the average settling velocity is calculated. The settled articles are then left in the column for 24 hours to verify that they do not become buoyant and float. In the event that articles fail to settle or become buoyant, this process can be repeated with 10 additional articles. Pass/Fail Criteria To be acceptable: The average settling velocity for the articles that settle must exceed 0.1cm/sec and at least 95% of the total articles tested must settle. AND At least 95% of the articles tested must not become sufficiently buoyant to rise more than 30cm from the bottom within 24 hrs. 6.3 16 FG505: Aerobic Biodisintegration/Biodegradation Tests Purpose Either of these tests can be used to assess the potential for a product to biologically degrade under aerobic conditions typically found in sewers as well as onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems. Principles BIODISINTEGRATION TEST This test measures the total mass of a product retained on a 1mm sieve after being incubated with activated sludge for 14 days at ambient laboratory temperature. Samples of product are placed in triplicate 2.8 liter baffled flasks containing 1 liter of activated sludge, which has been pre-screened through a 1mm wire mesh sieve. In addition, identically prepared treatments with USP cotton serve as a positive control. These systems are agitated on a rotary shaker table at 75rpm to provide continuous aeration of the sludge throughout the test. After 14 days, the contents of each flask are passed through a 1mm wire mesh sieve and the material retained on the sieve is recovered, dried and analyzed gravimetrically. The percent of the initial product mass passing through the sieve is calculated based upon difference. The average is calculated for the three replicates. BIODEGRADATION TEST The OECD 301B is a standardized biodegradation test that measures the evolution of carbon dioxide resulting from the mineralization of the organic constituents in the product. Samples should be rinsed prior to testing. Pass/Fail Criteria BIODISINTEGRATION TEST To be acceptable: The average percent of initial dry mass passing through the 1mm sieve after 14 days should exceed 95%. BIODEGRADATION TEST To be acceptable: The average percent of theoretical carbon dioxide produced after 28 days must exceed 60%. Any remaining fraction of the test substance is assumed to be incorporated into biomass or present as products of biosynthesis. Additional information The OECD 301B test method can be downloaded from the OECD website: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ 6.3 17 FG506: Anaerobic Biodisintegration/Biodegradation Tests Purpose Either of these tests can be used to assess the potential for a product to biologically degrade under anaerobic conditions typically found in sewers as well as onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems. Principles BIODISINTEGRATION TEST This test measures the total mass of a product retained on a 1mm sieve after being incubated in anaerobic sludge for 28 days at 35 ± 2°C. Samples of product are incubated in 2 liter vessels containing 1.5 liter of anaerobic digester sludge, which has been prescreened through a 1mm sieve. In addition, identically prepared treatments with USP cotton serve as a positive control. The flasks are incubated statically and in a way that prevents oxygen from entering the test vessels. After 28 days, the contents of each flask are passed through a 1mm wire mesh sieve and the material retained on the sieve is recovered, dried and analyzed gravimetrically. The percent of the initial product mass passing through the sieve is calculated based upon difference. The average is calculated for the three replicates. BIODEGRADATION TEST The OECD 311 biodegradation test measures the evolution of gas (carbon dioxide and methane) resulting from the mineralization of the organic constituents in the product. BIODISINTEGRATION TEST To be acceptable: The average percent of initial dry mass passing through the 1mm sieve after 28 days should exceed 95% BIODEGRADATION TEST To be acceptable: The average percent of theoretical gas produced after 56 days must exceed 70%. Any remaining fraction is assumed to be incorporated into biomass or present as products of biosynthesis. Additional information The OECD 311 test method can be downloaded from the OECD website: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ 6.3 18 FG507: Municipal Sewage Pump Test Purpose To assess the compatibility of products with small municipal sewage pump systems. Principles Individual articles (e.g. hygienic wipes) are positioned near the intake of an operating municipal pump while monitoring power consumption at 1 second intervals relative to a baseline. The test system consists of a ITT Flygt pump; model C-3085.183, operating at a flow rate corresponding its 100% efficiency point (21.2 liters/second or 336 gallons/minute). The pump is allowed to reach steady state and no adjustments to flow, gate valve positioning, or pump adjustments are made after establishing the baseline flow rate. The pump is allowed to run for 5 minutes at this condition to determine a steady state / baseline for power consumption prior to introducing products. Subsequently, an article is introduced every ten seconds for ten minutes (total of 60 pieces) at the pump intake. At the end of the sample introduction the system is allowed to run for an additional five minutes. The pump power consumption and flow rate on the outlet are continuously monitored and recorded. The test consists of 5 separate runs as described above, each of which involving the use of 60 articles. For each of the 5 runs the percent power increase over the baseline is determined for every data point. In addition, the areas under the power curves for the baseline and test periods during the run are integrated and then used to calculate the percent power increase over baseline. For products other than hygienic wipes, the loading sequence may need to be amended to reflect specific habits/practices for that product. Pass/Fail Criteria To be acceptable in the Netherlands: No more than 10% of the individual data points recorded during the 5 runs can exceed a 10% power increase over the baseline. To be acceptable outside the Netherlands: Based upon integration of the power curves, the average percent power increase over baseline for the 5 runs must not exceed 15%. 6.3 19 Appendices Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms. There is much ambiguity surrounding the term ‘flushable’, and historically there has been no consistently accepted definition. Moreover, flushable is often confused with biodegradable and/or dispersible. For the purpose of these Guidelines, the following definition of flushable has been developed. There are many terms used in discussions about flushability. For the ease of use of readers, we have listed below the most commonly used terms in this document together with a brief description of the meaning applied to it in these Guidelines. Aerobic Process: A biochemical or biologically mediated process occurring in the presence of and typically requiring molecular oxygen. Anaerobic Process: A biochemical or biologically mediated process which occurs in the absence of molecular oxygen. Such processes are typically divided into facultative anaerobic processes that occur both in the presence and absence of oxygen and obligate anaerobic processes that occur only when oxygen is absent. Biodegradation: The chemical breakdown of materials by living organisms into simpler molecules, It is catalyzed by naturally occurring microorganisms, typically bacteria and fungi, which use the material as a source of energy and carbon. Mineralization is one process occurring during biodegradation, whereby the material is completely mineralized to simple inorganic molecules (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrate, ammonia). Another process is incorporation of some of the molecular constituents into new microbial biomass. Consequentially, for a material to be considered completely biodegradable, the parent material must disappear, substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (aerobic conditions) and/or methane (anaerobic conditions) must be produced and there should be no persistent constituents remaining or persistent metabolites produced. Biodisintegration: Disintegration that involves biodegradation (see Disintegration). Clarifier: A unit at a wastewater treatment plant used for separating suspended solids from the wastewater via settling and consolidation. For a product to be flushable it should: • Clear toilets and properly maintained drainage pipe systems when the supplier’s recommended usage instructions are correctly followed; • Passes through wastewater conveyance systems and is compatible with wastewater treatment, reuse and disposal systems without causing system blockage, clogging or other operational problems; and • Is unrecognizable in effluent leaving onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems and in digested sludge from wastewater treatment plants that are applied to soil. The Technical Assessment is designed to evaluate the ability of a product to conform with each of these above criteria. Consequently, when a product meets the requirements in the Assessment, it is operationally defined as flushable. 6.3 20 Clog: A restriction or blockage in a toilet, pump, pipe or other conduit that limits the free flow of water that can result from the presence of an object or an accumulation of materials. Degradation: The breakdown of a material into simpler molecules as a result of biological or chemical processes. Digested Sludge: The settled wastewater solids which have been degraded and stabilized under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions – also known as biosolids. Disintegration: The process, in which a product weakens, loses its integrity and breaks into smaller parts. It is operationally defined by measuring mass loss of the product or estimating the mass of the product that passes through sieves after exposure to specific environmental conditions. Disintegration can be the result of dissolution of soluble components, chemical or biological degradation of constituents in the product, physical forces that break the product into smaller particles or a combination of the above. Dispersion: A disintegration process that is characterized by a material breaking into fine particles that separate from each other and distribute themselves more or less evenly in water. It is operationally defined by measuring mass loss of the product or estimating the mass of the product that passes through sieves after exposure to specific environmental conditions. Disposable product: A product designed for single use rather than for medium to long term durability. Such products may be termed consumables. Disposal Pathways: Various routes by which a product may be disposed. In the case of a flushable product, this pathway would include the building’s toilet and drain line system and the wastewater conveyance system (e.g. sewer). Depending upon the system, it could also include pump stations, and a wastewater treatment plant. Drain line: The pipe system that transports wastewater from the toilet, through the building to the onsite wastewater treatment system or to the municipal sewer collection system. Durable product: A product that yields utility overtime and is not consumed in one use. EDANA: EDANA is the international association serving the nonwovens and related industries. Address: Avenue Herrmann-Debroux 46, 1160 Brussels. Belgium. Tel: +32 27349310 Web: www.edana.org/industry-initiatives/flushability Ejector Pump: Equipment typically used within a building to lift wastewater when gravity flow cannot be maintained. In a residential setting these systems are usually found in basements and typically consist of a basin connected to the toilet containing a submersible centrifuge type pump with an open impeller design that can pass solids less than 5cm in size. Hygienic Wipe: A nonwoven sheet, pre-moistened with water or a lotion, used to clean the urogenital and/or anal areas. INDA: INDA is the “Association of the nonwovens fabrics industry” (previously International Nonwovens and Disposables Association). Address: 1100 Crescent Green, Suite 115 Cary. NC 27518. Tel: +1 919-233-1210 Web: www.inda.org/issues-advocacy/flushability 6.3 21 Lift Station or Pumping Stations: Wastewater pumping facility that lifts wastewater from lower to higher elevation. Lift stations is the terminology most commonly used in the United States; pumping stations is the terminology used in Europe. Moist Toilet Paper: A pre-moistened hygienic wipe. Municipal Pump: A pump used in a sewer lift station or within a sewage treatment plant that is used to move wastewater. Nonwoven: A fabric made directly from a web of fibers or continuous filaments without the yarn preparation necessary for weaving or knitting. Physical Disintegration: The process, in which a product weakens, loses its integrity or breaks into smaller parts as a result of physical forces. In some cases, physical disintegration occurs only after a product has been weakened by other processes such as for example biodegradation. Product Flush: Term used in the test methods to describe the process of placing a product in the toilet bowl and activating the flow of water into the bowl. Properly Maintained Drain lines: Are equivalent to "Fit for Purpose" sewer pipes in this document. Re-usable Product: A conventional re-usable product is a product that can potentially be used again for the same function after it has been used once. Settling: The downward movement of an article or suspended solids in a water column as a result of gravitational forces. Septage: The contents (liquid and solid fractions) pumped from a building’s septic or holding tank. Depending on the location, this raw or untreated sewage is treated at a municipal wastewater treatment plant, treated in a separate treatment facility or land applied. Sewer Collection System: System of conduits used to remove and transport human waste and waste waters. They typically begin with connecting pipes from buildings to one or more levels of larger underground horizontal mains, which terminate at wastewater treatment plants. Flow in sewer pipes is generally by gravity, though pumps may be used if necessary. Simulated Fecal Matter (SFM): A material that is used to simulate the presence of feces in a flushability test. It consists of a material that replicates the physical properties and consistency of human adult feces. Slosh Box: Test equipment used to assess the potential for a product to disintegrate when it is subjected to mechanical agitation in water or wastewater. Solids Retention Time (SRT): Term used to describe the average time that sludge remains in a treatment process, such as an activated sludge basin or digester. In the case of activated sludge processes, SRT can also be referred to as Sludge Age (SA) or Mean Cell Retention Time (MCRT). Toilet Flush: Term used in the test methods to describe the process of activating the flow of water into the bowl of a toilet. UKWIR: UK Water Industry Research. http://www.ukwir.org 6.3 22 Wastewater Solids Disposal System: Term to describe the processes used to manage sludge solids leaving a wastewater treatment plant. Various forms of disposition include land filling, incineration and beneficial use as a soil amendment. 6.3 23 Appendix 2: Code of Practice. Code of Practice: Communicating Appropriate Disposal Pathways for Disposable Nonwoven Products to Protect Wastewater Systems INTRODUCTION INDA & EDANA members represent the vast majority of n o n w o v e n s s u p p l i e d t o t h e market today in North America and EMEA respectively ( i n c l u d i n g W e s t e r n C e n t r a l Europe, Eastern Europe, Turkey, C.I.S and the Middle East and Africa). The suppliers of consumer products constructed from nonwoven sheets, represented by EDANA and INDA (the Associations), are committed to communicating to consumers when the toilet is an appropriate disposal route for finished products in the marketplace. The industry will help ensure that only those products compatible with the wastewater system are disposed of by this route. The appeal of these products comes from the advantages they offer in effectiveness, convenience and ease of use. However, the context or location of their usage can inadvertently encourage flushing as the means for disposal which, in certain cases, is not the correct route. Products are defined here at Fig. 2 from the Flushability Guidelines. 6.3 24 This Code of Practice outlines the commitments of the Associations and their member companies to: Use the Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products4 for evaluating flushability of products prior to making a flushable claim; Only identify products as flushable when they meet all criteria contained in the above guideline; Clearly label all products with the ‘Do Not Flush’ logo whenever they are not designed to be flushed or fail the Flushability assessment1; Prominently and clearly display on these non-flushable products the recommended symbol, indicating that they should be disposed of via the solid waste system and not flushed into the wastewater system; Communicate appropriate disposal information for such products in relevant print literature and other communications channels (i.e. websites); For flushable products, clearly provide on the packaging explicit use and flushing instructions; Encourage companies who are not members of the Associations to comply with this Code of Practice; Encourage retailers to subscribe to this Code of Practice, particularly when sourcing private label products, and where possible reinforce proper disposal practices with their customers; and Where appropriate, support work at national and local levels to increase public awareness of proper disposal practices. PRODUCT DISPOSAL There are two primary disposal routes for disposable nonwoven products; via solid waste (trash or rubbish bin) and wastewater (toilet). Only products which have been assessed as flushable according to the definition of flushability and the assessment approach outlined in the Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products1 should be disposed via the toilet. All other products should be disposed of via solid waste. The Definition of Flushability1 For a product to be deemed flushable there must be evidence indicating that it: Clears toilets and properly maintained drainage pipe systems when the suppliers recommended usage instructions are correctly followed; Passes through wastewater conveyance systems and is compatible with wastewater treatment, reuse and disposal systems without causing system blockage, clogging or other operational problems; and Is unrecognizable in effluent leaving onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems and in digested sludge from wastewater treatment plants that are applied to soil. ON-PACK CONSUMER INFORMATION 4 For information on how to obtain a copy of the Guidance Document or the print-quality logos, visit http://www.edana.org/industry-initiatives/flushability or www.inda.org/issues- advocacy/flushability 6.3 25 The packaging of all finished products which have high potential to be discarded via the toilet must clearly inform consumers whether or not the products are appropriate for disposal via the wastewater system. Packaging for non-flushable products must clearly indicate that the product should not be disposed of via the toilet and display the ‘Do Not Flush’ (DNF) logo. Where space permits the additional use of the ‘Dispose via the Solid Waste Stream’ (‘Tidy Man’) logo to confirm disposal in solid waste is encouraged, where used, it is recommended to be same size as the DNF logo. ‘Do Not Flush’ logo ‘Tidy Man’ logo Location: The symbol(s) must be prominent, clearly visible and legible on primary/secondary consumer packaging. The logo should not be obscured by packaging seals. Color: Logo artwork should be dark on white background. Size: Diameter ≥1.1cm (0.45”) for Primary packaging.5 Diameter ≥2.5cm (1”) for Secondary consumer packaging e.g. On shelf club packs, display case, or bundles. Wording: Use of instructions with the DNF logo is optional. Any on-pack instruction for product disposal needs to be clear and explicit. Timing: By January 1, 2015 any existing non-flushable products are to be assessed and labeling updated. Thereafter, all new non-flushable products are expected to follow the Guidelines relating to this Code of Practice. 5 Exclusions: • Regulated products need to comply with size/placement requirements given by any relevant regulation or legislation. • Small packs: Diameter ≥0.635cm (0.25”) as space allows. Diameter 6.3 26 RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL PRACTICES Responsible consumer behaviour is a key aspect in preventing non-flushable products from entering wastewater systems. The improper disposal of such products is one part of a much broader problem. The Associations and their member companies will consider opportunities to support governments, municipalities and wastewater authorities in implementing awareness- raising activities designed to increase understanding of the appropriate disposal routes for flushable and non-flushable wipes. PROMOTION OF THIS CODE OF PRACTICE Although voluntary, the Associations will promote this Code of Practice to its membership and will encourage member companies to operate within the spirit of the Code. The Associations will also seek to ensure that non-member companies are made aware of the Code and are encouraged to comply with it. 6.3 27 This document contains voluntary guidelines for flushability of disposable products constructed from nonwovens. The contents of this document and related code of practice are for general information purposes only. While INDA and EDANA have used reasonable care to ensure the accuracy and completeness of these Guidelines and the Code of Practice, the information contained therein does not constitute professional or legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, INDA and EDANA do not accept liability (whether pursuant to a claim for contribution or under statute, tort, contract or otherwise) for any loss which may arise from reliance on information contained in these Guidelines or the Code of Practice (including in relation to the certification of products). Always consult suitably qualified legal counsel on any specific problem or matter. Any and all information is subject to change without notice. Compliance with these Guidelines and Code of Practice is voluntary and the verification process remains the responsibility of individual companies, using their own technical resources and/or competent third party testing facilities/laboratories. INDA and EDANA do not certify compliance with these Guidelines or the Code of Practice nor do we condone any statement of certification credentials or capabilities or competencies of any laboratory testing entity. For avoidance of doubt, INDA and EDANA are not responsible for verifying any product claims of compliance or flushability on any package labeling. That is the separate responsibility of the party making that claim and fully subject to the applicable trade rules and regulations on advertising claims and labeling. 6.3 June 2013 1 Code of Practice: Communicating Appropriate Disposal Pathways for Disposable Nonwoven Products to Protect Wastewater Systems INTRODUCTION INDA & EDANA members represent the vast majority of nonwovens supplied to the market today in North America and EMEA respectively (including Western Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Turkey, C.I.S and the Middle East and Africa). The suppliers of consumer products constructed from nonwoven sheets, represented by EDANA and INDA (the Associations), are committed to communicating to consumers when the toilet is an appropriate disposal route for finished products in the marketplace. The industry will help ensure that only those products compatible with the wastewater system are disposed of by this route. The appeal of these products comes from the advantages they offer in effectiveness, convenience and ease of use. However, the context or location of their usage can inadvertently encourage flushing as the means for disposal which, in certain cases, is not the correct route. Products are defined here at Fig. 2 from the Flushability Guidelines. EXHIBIT B6.3 June 2013 2 This Code of Practice outlines the commitments of the Associations and their member companies to: Use the Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products1 for evaluating flushability of products prior to making a flushable claim; Only identify products as flushable when they meet all criteria contained in the above guideline; Clearly label all products with the ‘Do Not Flush’ logo whenever they are not designed to be flushed or fail the Flushability assessment1; Prominently and clearly display on these non-flushable products the recommended symbol, indicating that they should be disposed of via the solid waste system and not flushed into the wastewater system; Communicate appropriate disposal information for such products in relevant print literature and other communications channels (i.e. websites); For flushable products, clearly provide on the packaging explicit use and flushing instructions; Encourage companies who are not members of the Associations to comply with this Code of Practice; Encourage retailers to subscribe to this Code of Practice, particularly when sourcing private label products, and where possible reinforce proper disposal practices with their customers; and Where appropriate, support work at national and local levels to increase public awareness of proper disposal practices. PRODUCT DISPOSAL There are two primary disposal routes for disposable nonwoven products; via solid waste (trash or rubbish bin) and wastewater (toilet). Only products which have been assessed as flushable according to the definition of flushability and the assessment approach outlined in the Guidelines for Assessing the Flushability of Disposable Nonwoven Products1 should be disposed via the toilet. All other products should be disposed of via solid waste. The Definition of Flushability1 For a product to be deemed flushable there must be evidence indicating that it: Clears toilets and properly maintained drainage pipe systems when the suppliers recommended usage instructions are correctly followed; Passes through wastewater conveyance systems and is compatible with wastewater treatment, reuse and disposal systems without causing system blockage, clogging or other operational problems; and Is unrecognizable in effluent leaving onsite and municipal wastewater treatment systems and in digested sludge from wastewater treatment plants that are applied to soil. 1 For information on how to obtain a copy of the Guidance Document or the print-quality logos, visit http://www.edana.org/industry-initiatives/flushability or www.inda.org/issues-advocacy/flushability 6.3 June 2013 3 ON-PACK CONSUMER INFORMATION The packaging of all finished products which have high potential to be discarded via the toilet must clearly inform consumers whether or not the products are appropriate for disposal via the wastewater system. Packaging for non-flushable products must clearly indicate that the product should not be disposed of via the toilet and display the ‘Do Not Flush’ (DNF) logo. Where space permits the additional use of the ‘Dispose via the Solid Waste Stream’ (‘Tidy Man’) logo to confirm disposal in solid waste is encouraged, where used, it is recommended to be same size as the DNF logo. ‘Do Not Flush’ logo ‘Tidy Man’ logo Location: The symbol(s) must be prominent, clearly visible and legible on primary/secondary consumer packaging. The logo should not be obscured by packaging seals. Color: Logo artwork should be dark on white background. Size: Diameter 1.1cm (0.45”) for Primary packaging.2 Diameter 2.5cm (1”) for Secondary consumer packaging e.g. On shelf club packs, display case, or bundles. Wording: Use of instructions with the DNF logo is optional. Any on-pack instruction for product disposal needs to be clear and explicit. Timing: By January 1, 2015 any existing non-flushable products are to be assessed and labeling updated. Thereafter, all new non-flushable products are expected to follow the Guidelines relating to this Code of Practice. 2 Exclusions: • Regulated products need to comply with size/placement requirements given by any relevant regulation or legislation. • Small packs: Diameter 0.635cm (0.25”) as space allows. Diameter 6.3 June 2013 4 RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF RESPONSIBLE DISPOSAL PRACTICES Responsible consumer behaviour is a key aspect in preventing non-flushable products from entering wastewater systems. The improper disposal of such products is one part of a much broader problem. The Associations and their member companies will consider opportunities to support governments, municipalities and wastewater authorities in implementing awareness-raising activities designed to increase understanding of the appropriate disposal routes for flushable and non-flushable wipes. PROMOTION OF THIS CODE OF PRACTICE Although voluntary, the Associations will promote this Code of Practice to its membership and will encourage member companies to operate within the spirit of the Code. The Associations will also seek to ensure that non-member companies are made aware of the Code and are encouraged to comply with it. 6.3 20150124.A10 Forensic Evaluation of Non-Dispersables New York City Law Department New York, NY August 15 th 2016 146 Hartford Road Manchester, CT 06040 EXHIBIT C6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 1 Introduction ................................................................................... 4 2 Overview of the Forensic Evaluation ......................................... 5 3 Sample Collection ....................................................................... 6 4 Preparing the Wards Island Evaluation Location ..................... 7 5 Objective and Methodology ...................................................... 8 5.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8 6 Evaluating Recovered Samples ............................................... 10 6.1 Forensics of Materials Recovered from the Bronx Channel .............................................. 10 6.2 Forensics of Materials Recovered from the Manhattan Channel....................................... 11 7 Identifying Recovered Items .................................................... 12 7.1 Summary of Bronx Channel Sort ............................................................................................ 12 7.2 Summary of Manhattan Channel Sort .................................................................................... 15 8 Documenting and Archiving Recovered Items ..................... 17 8.1 Archiving ..................................................................................................................................... 17 8.2 Video Recording ........................................................................................................................ 18 8.3 Photographs ................................................................................................................................ 18 9 Conclusions ................................................................................ 20 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Tables Table 1:Fuss & O’Neill Compensation Schedule Table 2:All Materials Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort Table 3:Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort Table 4:All Materials Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort Table 5:Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort List of Figures Figure 1:All Items Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort Figure 2:Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort Figure 3:All Items Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort Figure 4:Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort Figure 5:Example of Archived Material from Bronx Sort with Unique Identification Number Figure 6:Example of Archived Material from Manhattan Sort with Unique Identification Number Appendices Appendix A: Brands of Identified Wipes – Bronx Channel Sort Appendix B: Brands of Identified Wipes – Manhattan Channel Sort Appendix C: Photographs & Videos attached on WD Passport hard drive Attachments 1.Archived Recovered Items (Under Separate Cover) 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 1 Introduction Fuss & O’Neill Engineers, Inc. (Fuss & O’Neill), with headquarters in Manchester, Connecticut, performed the scope of work described in this Report under Agreement with the New York City Law Department (the Department). The Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Forensic Consulting Services, effective September 1, 2015, is described as follows in Department files: ·Matter #2014-0316398L ·PIN 02516X000762 ·E-PIN 02516N0011001 Fuss & O’Neill staff members involved in the work described in this Report include Mr. Virgil Lloyd, Ms. Aubrey Strause, Mr. Daniel Iannicelli, and Ms. Tenzin Lama. ·Mr. Lloyd is a Senior Vice President and partner with Fuss & O’Neill, with over 37 years of experience in wastewater systems engineering, serving municipalities, state agencies and private clients. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. He holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of New Haven and a BS degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Connecticut. He is a longtime member of the New England Water Environment Association (NEWEA), where he is currently the Council Director of the Collection Systems & Water Resources Council, providing liaison and guidance for eight technical committees in the collection systems and water resources fields. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Water Pollution Abatement Association (CWPAA), where he is responsible for development and coordination of training programs. He is currently the co-chair of the Connecticut PA12-155 Phosphorus Non-Point Source Workgroup. He is also a member of the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the American Public Works Association (APWA). He serves as Principal on this project and provided technical review of this report. ·Ms. Strause is an Associate with Fuss & O’Neill and the owner of the consulting firm Verdant Water, PLLC. She is recognized nationally for her work since 2009 to reduce the burden of non-dispersible wipes in sewer systems, with both the Maine Water Environment Association and Verdant Water. She has two BS degrees in Bioresource Engineering from Rutgers University (1998), and is a licensed Professional Engineer in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine. Ms. Strause is a member of NEWEA, WEF, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), and APWA. She is the author of many articles about the impact disposal of non-dispersible items has, and was the team leader for the Maine Water Environment Association’s “Save Your Pipes: Don’t Flush Baby Wipes” campaign, implemented jointly with the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (INDA). She has been maintaining a reference database of nonwoven fabrics since 2009 and copyrighted this resource through Verdant Water in 2015. She served as technical lead, field leader, and primary author of this report. ·Mr. Iannicelli is a Project Engineer in the Wastewater Department of Fuss & O’Neill. He is primarily involved with the planning, design, and construction oversight of water and 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx wastewater projects. He provided assistance during the field operations described in this report, as he has done on a similar forensics evaluation. ·Ms. Lama was an Environmental Engineer (Engineer) with Fuss & O’Neill. She separated from the firm shortly after this forensic event was completed. She provided assistance during the field operations described in this report. Fuss & O’Neill staff members were compensated at the rates shown in Table 1. Table 1 Fuss & O’Neill Compensation Schedule Billing Category Hourly Rate Engineer, Scientist, Analyst I (Ms. Lama)$117 Engineer, Scientist, Analyst II (Mr. Iannicelli)$127 Associate (Ms. Strause)$227 Senior Officer (Mr. Lloyd)$247 2 Overview of the Forensic Evaluation The New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s (NYC DEP’s) Wards Island Wastewater Treatment Facility is located on Wards Island in the East River (between Manhattan and the Astoria section of Queens). Fuss & O’Neill met in the Administration Building of the facility with NYC DEP Division Chief of Operations, Jerry Fragias, and NYC DEP Wards Island Process Engineer Yu-Tung Chan on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 16. The facility has a design capacity to provide full treatment of 275 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD) and is presently required to maintain the ability to pump 320 MGD, per Mr. Chan. Although the facility is required to maintain a pump capacity of 320 MGD, some storm events cause the plant to reach over 400+ MGD. We understand that this facility is continuously struggling to manage the increasing volumes of non-dispersible materials present in influent. These materials cause operational challenges at points in the treatment process from headworks (screening and material disposal) through secondary treatment (interfering with valves and blocking channels) and sludge management (pump clogging). The purpose of this forensic evaluation was to identify the materials present in a “snapshot” of influent to this facility from a combined system (i.e., both sanitary sewer and storm drain flows). The “snapshot” would compare items entering the facility through two separate channels: one conveying flow from Manhattan, and one conveying flow from the Bronx. The Manhattan channel and the Bronx channel are each served by three functional mechanical screens (a fourth screen at each of the two locations is presently being replaced). The screens use automatic raking mechanisms to scrape debris from evenly spaced bars and deposit the debris into dumpsters, which are emptied manually. The Fuss & O’Neill team had the opportunity to visit the screening system associated with the Bronx channel the afternoon of Tuesday, February 16, but did not see the Manhattan facility. This process is nearly continuous: one dumpster is nearly full in the short time it’s taken the operator to empty the other two dumpsters. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 3 Sample Collection At approximately 7:30 AM on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, NYC DEP Wards Island staff collected materials from each of the two channels, filling one five-gallon bucket with material from the three operating screens serving the Bronx channel and another five-gallon bucket with material from the three operating screens serving the Manhattan channel. A storm event delivered 0.44 inch of rain on February 15 and another 1.01 inches of rain during an intense storm on February 16, the day Fuss & O’Neill arrived on site. This precipitation was measured at station KNYC (Central Park, New York), which is located approximately two miles from the Wards Island facility (Weather Underground;www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNYC/2016/2/16/ DailyHistory.html et al). Flows at the time of collection on February 17 were approximately 146 MGD through the Bronx channel and 79 MGD through the Manhattan channel, with a total of 225 MGD entering the Wards Island treatment facility. One week earlier, on February 10, 2016, flows at the same time of day (7:30 AM) at these locations were 136 MGD through the Bronx channel and 73 MGD through the Manhattan channel, with a total of 209 MGD entering the Wards Island facility. On February 8 and 9, 0.05 and “trace” inch of precipitation were recorded, respectively, more closely representing a dry weather scenario. Flows during the sample collection period were approximately 7.3% higher than flows the previous week as the system responded to the February 15/16 storm event. All data related to facility flows were provided by Mr. Chan. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 4 Preparing the Wards Island Evaluation Location NYC DEP Wards Island operators delivered two five-gallon buckets, one from each the Bronx and Manhattan channels, to the garage of the Sharon Heat Exchanger building shortly after the samples were collected on Wednesday, February 17, 2016. The Fuss & O’Neill team met with Marcus Entenza, NYC DEP Wards Island Health and Safety Officer, in the morning for a site-specific safety orientation, which augmented the Job Hazard Analysis that Fuss & O’Neill staff had prepared in advance. Mr. Entenza, Mr. Fragias, and NYC DEP Wards Island Deputy Plant Chief Malak Shafik would serve as on-site contact people for Fuss & O’Neill staff for the duration of the project. Cell phone numbers for all Fuss & O’Neill staff were provided to NYC DEP Wards Island staff. After the NYC DEP safety orientation, Fuss & O’Neill staff mobilized to the Sharon Heat Exchanger building garage, where sorting, evaluation, and archiving activities would be performed. Substantial personal protective equipment (PPE) were utilized during the forensic evaluation to mitigate or eliminate exposure to biological, physical, and chemical hazards. The Fuss & O’Neill team prepared floor and elevated work areas in the Sharon Heat Exchanger building garage at which to sort the materials that had been collected by NYC DEP staff, as well as areas to archive materials once they were identified. All critical activities performed by Fuss & O’Neill (including sorting, identification, archiving, and documentation of recovered items) were recorded using a SONY Handycam (model DCR-SX45). All videos have been provided on a portable WD “My Passport” Ultra hard drive. See Appendix C . 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 5 Objective and Methodology 5.1 Objective As stated previously, the general objective of this forensic evaluation was to identify the materials present in a “snapshot” of influent to this facility from two service areas. The evaluation was specifically designed to gather information on the quantity and variety of consumer products made from a variety of nonwoven fabrics. These items, commonly referred to as wipes, fall into a number of consumer product categories and are marketed in different ways, including “flushable”, “disposable”, and “biodegradable”. Limited studies of the wipes recovered in influent have been completed to quantify the exact wipe product(s) found in sewage. As a result, many media reports and complaints commonly refer to them as “flushable” due to the disposal method, whether they are marketed as such or not. The objective of this evaluation was to determine, to the maximum extent possible, what specific wipes were recovered, including the brand. 5.2 Methodology The methodologies used by Fuss & O’Neill to sort, identify, and archive recovered wipes are consistent with those described in the Draft “Methodology for Forensics of Products in Wastewater ” (the Methodology), a standard operating procedure (SOP) being developed by Ms. Strause for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA).(Note: This document is due to be published in early 2017- the title and contents are subject to change. This document will be made available by NACWA when it has been finalized.) The approach defined in the Methodology uses characteristics of the recovered wipe, including the following general observations: 1.Dimensions (length and width) 2.General ratio of length to width 3.Presence of an embossed pattern on one or more side of the wipe 4.Presence of pinking (i.e., a zigzag edge) 5.Presence of raised lines (i.e., ribs) on one or more side of the wipe 6.Consistency of ribs (i.e., parallel and evenly spaced vs. variable spacing) 7.Uniformity of ribs (i.e., of equal thickness vs. variable thickness) 8.Orientation of ribs (i.e., crossing the product in its direction of length vs. direction of width) 9.Difference in ribs on the two sides of wipe 10.Location and number of folds on the wipe 11.Absence of folds on the wipe 12.Perforated edges of the wipe, indicating delivery in cylindrical canister 13.Orientation of fibers (i.e, parallel or random) 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 14.Length of fibers, and uniformity and consistency in fiber length 15.Presence of apparent synthetic fibers 16.Opacity when backlit, reflecting the thickness of the wipe 17.Consistency of density of fiber web when backlit 18.Consistency of density of fiber web when placed on a dark surface 19.Texture of wipe as it dried Fuss & O’Neill staff used observations about these characteristics in conjunction with the reference samples maintained by Ms. Strause. Reference samples of more than 200 wipes, in a wide variety of product categories were available during this evaluation in two formats: 1.Laminated in clear plastic, allowing the Fuss & O’Neill team to observe the characteristics. 2.Loose samples in small zippered plastic bags, allowing the team to supplement observations by handling a clean sample of the wipe, and comparing the tear strength of the reference sample to a recovered item. A numbering, organizational, and labeling system used by Ms. Strause allowed staff to quickly find the loose reference sample matching the laminated reference sample. This reference sample set is copyrighted by Ms. Strause. (as Verdant Water, PLLC) It was used by Fuss & O’Neill with permission for this project. It will not be provided to the New York City Law Department. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 6 Evaluating Recovered Samples 6.1 Forensics of Materials Recovered from the Bronx Channel Fuss & O’Neill began the evaluation of materials recovered from the Bronx Channel at approximately 10:00 AM on Wednesday, February 17. The evaluation process continued all day and consisted of separating various items from the five-gallon bucket provided by Wards Island staff. Assessment of the samples included the following steps: ·Separation of trash from possible wipes materials. ·Detailed visual separation of remaining materials into various piles including paper towels, flushable wipes, baby wipes, surface cleaning wipes, feminine hygiene products, hygiene wipes, other wipes, bath/medical wipes, mechanic/shop towels. ·Brand identification of various wipes from each category. ·Archiving brand identified wipes for future reference. Mr. Iannicelli and Ms. Lama performed the initial sort of recovered items larger than 1-inch square, placing easily identifiable products into piles, by category. Items considered trash were counted but not identified. Materials identified as paper towels were placed into piles of roughly equivalent size; these were not identified by brand. Woven mats consisting of primarily hair were counted as trash. All non- wipe items recovered were disposed of after being counted. Materials that were not immediately identifiable or that were very small were placed in a separate location for evaluation by Ms. Strause. All members of the team assigned unique identification numbers to each item as it was archived or identified, working from a sheet of pre-printed labels to avoid duplication. The identification number format was “WI-BX-###”, where: ·WI indicates Wards Island, ·BX indicates the Bronx Channel, and ·### is the unique number of the item recovered from the Bronx Channel sort. Products were archived as they were identified. Items confirmed to be wipes but that could not be identified by brand were also archived. At least one of each unique item was archived via non-thermal lamination, with duplicates of that item placed in zippered plastic bags, due to a finite number of lamination sleeves on site (see Section 8 for materials and methods). Recovered items that were determined to be wipes but that were highly deformed (i.e., stretched to a length that exceeded the size of the lamination sleeve, or twisted into a rope that could not be laminated) were also placed in zippered plastic bags. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Ms. Strause identified materials that were unidentified by the initial sort, using the reference samples as a resource. Ms. Lama and Mr. Iannicelli archived recovered items and photographed items that had been archived. Some items recovered from the Bronx sort were not identified before the team left the site the evening of Wednesday, February 17. These materials were placed in a separate part of the work area, and Ms. Strause resumed evaluating these the morning of Thursday, February 18. 6.2 Forensics of Materials Recovered from the Manhattan Channel Mr. Iannicelli and Ms. Lama began the evaluation of materials recovered from the Manhattan Channel at approximately 9:00 AM on Thursday, February 18. Mr. Iannicelli performed the initial sort of recovered items, placing easily identifiable products into piles, by category. The same rules for categorization used in the sort of materials from the Bronx Channel were followed for the materials from the Manhattan Channel. Materials that were not immediately identifiable were placed in a separate location for evaluation by Ms. Strause. All members of the team assigned unique identification numbers to each item as it was archived or identified, working from a sheet of pre-printed labels to avoid duplication. The identification number format was “WI-M-###”, where: ·WI indicates Wards Island, ·M indicates the Manhattan Channel, and ·### is the unique number of the item recovered from the Manhattan Channel sort. Ms. Lama archived recovered items and photographed materials that had been archived. Ms. Strause identified materials that were unidentified by the initial sort, using the reference samples as a resource. The process continued until 7:00 PM, when the Fuss & O’Neill team had to demobilize. At this time, the Fuss & O’Neill team placed all items from both the Bronx and Manhattan sorts that had been archived into a box and sealed it with packing tape and a custody seal. Custody of this box was formally transferred to the operator on duty in the process building, with instructions to keep it in a refrigerated area. Wipes recovered from the Manhattan channel that were not identified on Thursday, February 18 were separated by layers of clean paper towel and placed into three large zippered plastic bags. Ms. Strause kept custody of these items and later performed identification of them back in Maine at another facility. These items were kept refrigerated until Ms. Strause performed the identification. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 7 Identifying Recovered Items 7.1 Summary of Bronx Channel Sort Figure 1 shows the breakdown of all materials recovered from the Bronx Channel Sort on February 17, 2016. The breakdown primarily shows the majority of items as Paper Towels, Baby Wipes, and Trash. 77% of all sorted items included these three categories.Table 2 shows the count and percentage breakdown of all materials recovered. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of wipe materials recovered from the Bronx Channel Sort on February 17, 2016. This breakdown does not include trash or paper towels. 62% of wipe materials recovered were various brands of Baby Wipes.Table 3 shows the count and percentage breakdown of wipe materials recovered.Appendix A shows an overview of specific brands of each type of wipe found during the sort of items recovered from the Bronx channel. Figure 1 - All Materials Recovered Wards Island - Bronx Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Paper Towels Trash Feminine Hygiene Products Baby Wipes Nonflushable Wipe- Unidentified Feminine Wipes Surface Cleaning Wipes Facial Wipes Hand Wipes Flushable Wipes Bath Wipes Medical Mechanic/Shop Wipes Other Wipe- Pacifier 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Table 2: All Materials Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort All Materials Recovered Count % Trash 100 30.0% Baby Wipes 97 29.1% Paper Towels 62 18.6% Nonflushable Wipe 17 5.1% Feminine Hygiene Products 14 4.2% Feminine Wipes 11 3.3% Surface Cleaning Wipes 10 3.0% Facial Wipes 7 2.1% Bath Wipes 5 1.5% Flushable Wipes 4 1.2% Hand Wipes 2 0.6% Medical 2 0.6% Mechanic/Shop Wipes 1 0.3% Other Wipe- Pacifier 1 0.3% Totals 333 100.0% Figure 2 - Breakdown of Wipes Recovered Wards Island - Bronx Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Baby Wipes Nonflushable Wipe- Unidentified Feminine Wipes Surface Cleaning Wipes Facial Wipes Hand Wipes Flushable Wipes Bath Wipes Medical Wipes Mechanic/Shop Wipes Other Wipe- Pacifier 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Table 3 Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Bronx Channel Sort Wipe Materials Recovered Count % Baby Wipes 97 61.8% Nonflushable Wipe 17 10.8% Feminine Wipes 11 7.0% Surface Cleaning Wipes 10 6.4% Facial Wipes 7 4.5% Hand Wipes 2 1.3% Flushable Wipes 4 2.5% Bath Wipes 5 3.2% Medical Wipes 2 1.3% Mechanic/Shop Wipes 1 0.6% Other Wipe - Pacifier 1 0.6% Totals 157 100.0% For the Bronx sample, a summary of recovered wipes is as follows: Wipes Identified by Brand=126 Total Wipes Recovered=157 % Identified=80.3% # of Unique Category/Brands Identified=33 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 7.2 Summary of Manhattan Channel Sort Figure 3 shows the breakdown of all materials recovered from the Manhattan Channel Sort on February 18, 2016. The breakdown primarily shows the majority of items as Paper Towels, Baby Wipes, and Trash. 80% of all sorted items included these three categories.Table 4 shows the count and percentage breakdown of all materials recovered. Table 4 All Materials Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort All Materials Recovered Count % Paper Towels 127 29.88% Baby Wipes 112 26.35% Trash 100 23.53% Feminine Hygiene Products 26 6.12% Nonflushable Wipe 19 4.47% Feminine Wipes 9 2.12% Flushable Wipes 8 1.88% Surface Cleaning Wipes 6 1.41% Facial Wipes 6 1.41% Bath Wipes 5 1.18% Hand Wipes 4 0.94% Mechanic/Shop Wipes 1 0.24% Other- Medical 1 0.24% Other Wipe- Toilet Hygiene 1 0.24% Totals 425 100% Figure 3 All Materials Recovered Wards Island - Manhattan Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Paper Towels Baby Wipes Trash Feminine Hygiene Products Nonflushable Wipe- Unidentified Feminine Wipes Flushable Wipes Surface Cleaning Wipes Facial Wipes Bath Wipes Hand Wipes Mechanic/Shop Wipes Other- Medical Other Wipe- Toilet Hygiene 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Figure 4 shows the breakdown of wipe materials recovered from the Manhattan Channel Sort on February 18, 2016. This breakdown does not include trash or paper towels. 65% of wipe materials recovered were various brands of Baby Wipes.Table 5 shows the count and percentage breakdown of wipe materials recovered.Appendix B shows an overview of specific brands of each type of wipe found during the sort of items recovered from the Manhattan channel. Table 5 Breakdown of Wipes Recovered – Manhattan Channel Sort Wipe Materials Recovered Count % Baby Wipes 112 65.12% Nonflushable Wipe 19 11.05% Feminine Wipes 9 5.23% Surface Cleaning Wipes 6 3.49% Facial Wipes 6 3.49% Hand Wipes 4 2.33% Flushable Wipes 8 4.65% Bath Wipes 5 2.91% Mechanic/Shop Wipes 1 0.58% Other- Medical 1 0.58% Other Wipe- Toilet Hygiene 1 0.58% Totals 172 100% Figure 4 Breakdown of Wipes Recovered Wards Island - Manhattan Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Baby Wipes Nonflushable Wipe- Unidentified Feminine Wipes Surface Cleaning Wipes Facial Wipes Hand Wipes Flushable Wipes Bath Wipes Mechanic/Shop Wipes Other- Medical Other Wipe- Toilet Hygiene 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx For the Manhattan sample, a summary of recovered wipes is as follows: Wipes Identified by Brand=125 Total Wipes Recovered=172 % Identified=72.7% # of Unique Category/Brands Identified=38 8 Documenting and Archiving Recovered Items 8.1 Archiving All items recovered were given a specific unique identification number to identify the origin of the sorted materials, using the format described in Section 5. Since the components are still biologically active, the items were archived in a way that minimizes decomposition. The preferred method of archiving was lamination, using self-laminating (i.e., non-thermal) pouches distributed by ULINE. These laminating pouches are 8 mils thick, are 9 1/16” x 11 9/16" in size, and isolate the archived item from air, slowing down decomposition. Some of the identified branded materials were found multiple times. There were over 150 wipes recovered in the Bronx sort and over 170 wipes recovered the Manhattan sort, exceeding the number of recovered wipes that were estimated during the planning process. As a result, not enough laminating pouches were present on site to archive all wipes this way, and more pouches could not be delivered to the Wards Island facility in time to be used. After consultation with and consensus from New York City Law Department staff, the Fuss & O’Neill team prioritized laminating at least one example of each positively identified product, and laminating all items identified as flushable wipes. The Fuss & O’Neill team purchased zippered plastic bags at a retail store near the Wards Island facility, and used these to archive duplicates of the laminated products. At least one example of each positively identified product was archived by lamination. 90 items were archived using the lamination method; the remaining were placed in the zippered plastic bags. The unique identification number, date, type of material, and brand was documented on every archived- both laminated and bagged- item using adhesive labels. The brand was archived as Unknown if the specific brand identity could not be determined. Archived items were kept in a cold location to preserve the intact samples. Since the components are still biologically active, the material will continue to break down during and after the lamination process. Keeping the items at a lower temperature will limit this deterioration. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 8.2 Video Recording The entirety of the evaluation process was video-recorded to document the consistent methodology used by Fuss & O’Neill staff. All critical activities performed by Fuss & O’Neill (including sorting, identification, archiving, and documentation of recovered items) were recorded using a SONY Handycam (model DCR-SX45). The forensics evaluation of Manhattan items performed by Ms. Strause in Maine was also recorded in this way. The video data was saved to the portable WD “My Passport” Ultra hard drive attached as Appendix C. 8.3 Photographs Photographs documenting both sides of each archived item were taken. The photos document the characteristics of each wipe recovered during the evaluation, in the event that ongoing biological decomposition of the recovered materials over time makes visual inspection less useful. Approximately 570 photos were taken of the recovered items. These have been saved on the hard drive attached as Appendix C. The file name for each photo includes the unique identification number, as well as whether the photo shows the front or back of the item. Examples of wipes archived from the Bronx and Manhattan sorts, respectively, are shown in Figures 5 and 6. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Figure 5: Example of Archived Material from Bronx Sort with Unique Identification Number Figure 6: Example of Archived Material from Manhattan Sort with Unique Identification Number 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx 9 Conclusions When comparing items recovered from the two sorting events, the following are observed: ·The Manhattan sample contained more individual items (425) than the Bronx sample (333). ·The Manhattan sample had a higher percentage of “flushable” wipes (4.6%) than the Bronx sample (2.5%). ·The Manhattan sample had a lower percentage of trash (23%) than the Bronx sample (30%). ·The Manhattan sample had a higher percentage of paper towels (29.8%) than the Bronx sample (18.6%). ·The Manhattan sample had a lower percentage of wipes (40.7%) than the Bronx sample (47%). ·The Manhattan sample had a higher number of unique brands identified (38) than the Bronx sample (33). ·Approximately 80% of wipes in the Bronx sample were positively identified. ·Approximately 73% of wipes in the Manhattan sample were positively identified. ·The majority of wipes that couldn’t be identified in both Bronx and Manhattan samples were spunlace fabric, and were stretched or distorted to an extent that unique characteristics could not be observed. The overall results from this evaluation differ from other forensics studies for several reasons. These include the following: 1.The study area was a combined system, resulting in a higher percentage of trash than recovered from forensics evaluations that were performed in separated sanitary sewer systems. 2.The prevalence of trash skews the results by percentage (Figures 1 and 3) when compared to other forensics evaluations. 3.The evaluation was performed shortly after a wet weather event. This could have created more turbulence in the system than seen in an equivalent separated sanitary sewer system, resulting in a lower percentage of “flushable” wipes than recovered from other forensics evaluations. 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Appendix A Brands of Identified Wipes from the Bronx Channel Sort 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Table 6 - Brands of Identified Wipes Wards Island - Bronx Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Category and Brand Number Recovered Baby: Huggies- Unknown version 33 Baby: Amazon Elements 13 Baby: Huggies Pure/ Soft Skin 12 Feminine Hygiene: Soft & Gentle 8 Baby: Pampers Baby Fresh 6 Baby: Well Beginnings, etc (Rockline)6 Baby: Well Beginnings Scented (Nutex)5 Surface Cleaning: Total Home (CVS)4 Baby: Pampers Sensitive 4 Baby: Parents Choice (WalMart)4 Baby: Huggies Natural Care 3 Facial: Cetaphil 3 Baby: Marvel Super Hero 2 Bath: Parents Choice (WalMart)2 Feminine Hygiene: Playtex Personal 2 Baby: Seventh Generation 1 Baby: Babyganics Hand, Face, and Baby 1 Baby: Bumboosa 1 Baby: Honest Co 1 Baby: Huggies Cucumber 1 Baby: Little Ones 1 Baby: Members Mark (Sam's Club)1 Baby: Water Wipes 1 Bath: equate (WalMart)1 Facial: Murad 1 Facial: Up & Up Pink Grapefruit (Target)1 Feminine Hygiene: Clarisse 1 Flushable: Kirkland (Costco)1 Flushable: Wipe 'N Fresh 1 Hand: CVS Face & Hand 1 Hand: Purell Sanitizing 1 Medical: Clorox Care Concepts 2 Other: NUBY (Pacifier)1 Wipes Identified by Brand=126 Total Wipes Recovered=157 % Identified=80.3% # of Unique Category/Brands Identified=33 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Appendix B Brands of Identified Wipes from the Manhattan Channel Sort 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Table 7 Brands of Identified Wipes Wards Island - Manhattan Sort - Feb 17, 2016 Category and Brand Number Recovered Baby: Huggies- Unknown version 22 Baby: Pampers Baby Fresh 14 Baby: Pampers Sensitive 9 Baby: Huggies Pure/Soft Skin 8 Baby: My Fair Baby 6 Baby: Well Beginnings Scented (Nutex)5 Baby: Amazon Elements 4 Baby: Parents Choice (WalMart)4 Baby: Seventh Generation 4 Baby: Well Beginnings, etc (Rockline)4 Baby: Huggies Natural Care 3 Baby: Smile & Save (Duane Reade)3 Feminine Hygiene: Clarisse 3 Feminine Hygiene: Summer's Eve 3 Hand: CVS Face & Hand 3 Baby: 365 Everyday Value 3 Baby: Baby Touch 2 Baby: Bumboosa Bamboo 2 Baby: Johnson & Johnson 2 Facial: Equate Sensitive 2 Feminine Hygiene: Playtex Personal 2 Baby: Babyganics Face Hand & Baby 1 Baby: Honest Company 1 Baby: Little Ones 1 Baby: Tender Touch 1 Facial: Acne- Greenbrier 1 Facial: Burt's Bees Exfoliating 1 Facial: Just the Basics 1 Facial: LA Fresh 1 Feminine Hygiene: Soft N Gentle 1 Flushable: Pampers Kandoo 1 Flushable: Rockline 1 Flushable: Up & Up 1 Hand: Wet Nap 1 Medical: Clorox Care Concepts 1 Other- Toilet Hygiene: White Cloud Moist Soft Cloth 1 Surface Cleaning: Lysol 1 Surface Cleaning: Total Home 1 Wipes Identified by Brand=125 Total Wipes Recovered=172 % Identified=72.7% # of Unique Category/Brands Identified=38 6.3 F:\P2015\0124\A10\Deliverables\NYC Law Department Forensic Evaluation Nondispersables Final.Docx Appendix C Photographs & Videos attached on WD Passport hard drive 6.3 PRODUCT CATEGORIES IDENTIFIED Forensic Evaluation of Non-Dispersibles New York City Law Department, New York, NY - August 15th 2016 Material 2010-2012 2016 (NYC) Non-flushable paper (e.g. paper towels, paper napkins) 47% 34% Non-flushable baby wipes 18% 38% Non-flushable feminine hygiene (e.g. tampons, pads, wrappers) 13% 7% Non-flushable household wipes (e.g. cosmetic wipes, hard-surface cleaning wipes) 14% 19% Flushable wipes 8% 2% Collection Studies 2010-2012 Collection Study NYC 2016 Comparison of Flushable and Non-Flushable wipes Flushable Wipes Non-Flushable Wipes Primarily made from biodegradable wood pulp (like toilet paper) Primarily made from non-biodegradable materials including plastics Sink (not buoyant) Float (buoyant) Lose strength when wet and disintegrate Maintain strength when wet and remain intact forever Tear easily and therefore cannot form rope-like shapes Very difficult to tear, easily stretches to rope-like shapes that are capable of wrapping around a pump impeller Biodegrade (break down) during wastewater treatment (like toilet paper) Cannot biodegrade (break down) during wastewater treatment plant EXHIBIT D 6.3 Case 1:15-cv-08051-JMF Document 194-5 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT E 6.3 Case 1:15-cv-08051-JMF Document 194-5 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 3 6.3 Case 1:15-cv-08051-JMF Document 194-5 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 3 6.3 Posted: Sept. 29, 2017 City Council Second Work Session Agenda Oct. 3, 2017 Following the Economic Development Authority meeting Conference Room A Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on Oct. 3, 2017 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council Members Staff ____ Dahl ____ Norris ____ Deshler ____ Therres ____ Kolb ____ Gilchrist ____ LaRoche ____ Revering ____ Parsons ____ Ray ____ Adams ____ Sutter ____ Budziszewski ____ Serres II. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Multi-city effort regarding Blue Line 2. Constituent issues update 3. New business* 4. Announcements* * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. III. Adjournment The work session adjourned at ______ p.m. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531- 1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov Memorandum DATE: September 28, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: Multi-City Effort – Blue Line Brooklyn Park staff recently contacted me about Brookyn Park’s interest in having the cities in the Blue Line Extension (BLX) corridor work together over the next 8-10 months to ensure the full funding agreement (FFA) is secured by mid-2018. Prior to the agreement being secured, the negotiations with Burlington Northern need to be complete and federal dollars that identify the BLX need to be approved (by either the FTA or Congress). To date, Brooklyn Center, Golden Valley and Robbinsdale have indicated their interest in working with Brooklyn Park as a group and Minneapolis is still considering participation in such an effort. The multi-city effort has included discussion of hiring a lobbying group focused on securing the funding and remaining authorizations for the Blue Line Extension. If a lobbying effort is made, participating cities would be responsible for the cost. The preliminary monthly cost allocation suggested is: Brooklyn Center: $500 Brooklyn Park: $3,500 Crystal: $250 Golden Valley: $750 Robbinsdale: $1,000 The cities of Brooklyn Center, Brookyn Park, Golden Valley and Robbinsdale met recently and interviewed a potential lobbying firm for this initiative. The options available to Crystal are: 1. Participate in the group, including a financial obligation; 2. Participate in the group by attending meetings and discussions; or 3. No participation in the group, either financial or otherwise The City Council should discuss the options and provide staff direction.