The URL can be used to link to this page

10-28-02 CCPeopleService INC Water & -Wastewater Professonafs Mayor, Council Members, Administrator City of Otsego We currently have about 200,000 gallons in our storage tank that can hold 228,000 gallons. Land application is prepared for this fall. Hauling must occur prior to ground freeze which is typically mid November. When the ground freezes, injection of the biosolids cannot proceed and hauling will have to wait until thaw. The current permitted land will not allow a spring, application, due to owner preference, moisture, and compaction reasons. Our storage will be at capacity soon. :D The following are options: Zl> Haul prior to ground freeze; Cost $0.03 per gallon, about $6000.00 This option needs a waiver Haul to incineration facility Cost $0. 13 per gallon + $5 0.00/load (out of 7county metro fee) This cost is about $27,500.00 excluding additional lab fees Use new oxidation ditch for additional storaue Prolonging the inevitable, risking cost increase, additional testing ID & time costs. This option potentially takes flow capacity away next year. Substantial cost and risk factors differentiate the options. I will be available for questions and comments. Thank you, Kurrit Neide eier W/WW Operator PeopleService INC ITEM 5. 1. CLAIMS LIST CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28,2002 TO: Judy Hudson Attached is the Claims List for the City Council. For more details, Please refer to the Check Detail Registers. If you have any questions regarding this service, Please let me know. Claims Register 10-17-2002 $ 78,521.89 10-24-2002 $ 75,573-93 GRAND TOTAL $ 154,095.82 If you have any questions or if you would like to review this list further, please let me know. Kathy Grover Bookkeeper CITY OF OTSEGO 10/17/02 10:46 AM Page 1 *Check Summary Register@ OCTOBER 2002 TER:None Name Check Date Check Amt 10100 BANKOIFELKRIVER UnPaid BUFFALO BITUMINOUS $3,100.00 UnPaid COLBERG-YOUNG CONSTRUCTION INC $1,0WOO UnPaid DESIGN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS $53,634.47 UnPaid DJ'S HEATING & AIR COND $742.94 UnPaid DRAKE CONSTRUCTION, INC. $1,000.00 UnPaid ECM PUBLISHERS INC $178.15 UnPaid FENNA HOMES $1,000.00 UnPaid G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM $651.59 UnPaid GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC $34.20 UnPaid HARDRIVES INC $9,238.68 UnPaid HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS $1,000.00 UnPaid HERMANSON HOMES INC $1,000.00 UnPaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $422.31 UnPaid 11MC $65.00 UnPaid LITTLE FALLS MACHINE $2,950.05 UnPaid MINNESOTA COPY SYSTEMS $268.69 UnPaid MN DEPT OF REVENUE $89.00 UnPaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD $1,146.81 UnPaid TC BUILDERS INC $1,000.00 Total Checks $78.521.89 TER:None CITY OF OTSEGO 10/17/02 10:46 AM Page I *Check Detail Reqister@ OCTOBER 2002 .10100 BANKOFELKRIVER Unpaid BUFFALO BITUMINOUS --- ................................. E 101 -43100-434 Blacktop Patching $3,100.00 94776 PATCHING ON KADLER AVE Total BUFFALO BITUMINOUS $3,100.00 COLBERG-YOUNG CONSTRUCTION INC E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 8252 PARELL LNDSCP Total COLSERG-YOUNG CONSTRUCTION INC $1,000.00 Unpaid DESIGN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS -------- E 423-43100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $53,634.47 PAY I TRAFFIC SIGNALS Total DESIGN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS $53,634.47 DJ'S HEATING & AIR COND E 101 -41940-402 Repairs/Maint Buildingss $742.94 041629 CLEAN & CHECK HEATING Total DJ'S HEATING & AIR COND $742.94 Unpaid DRAKE CONSTRUCTION, INC. E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 15161 84TH ST LNDSCP REFUND Total DRAKE CONSTRUCTION, INC. $1,000.00 npaid ECM PUBLISHERS INC E101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $28.50 135507 PUBLICTESTING E101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $48.45 135511 GENERAL ELECTION E201-45000-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $101.20 135671 HAUNTED HOUSE Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC $178.15 HOMES E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 15044 81ST CIR LNDSCP Total FENNA HOMES $1,000.00 Unpaid G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $80.09 860997 MATS E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $94.94 860998 UNIFORMS E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $76.77 865825 UNIFORMS E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $80.09 870714 MATS E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $73.26 870715 UNIFORMS E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $66.62 875556 UNIFORMS E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $83.47 880445 MATS E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $96.35 880446 UNIFORMS Total G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM $651.59 Unpaid GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC E 101-41400-310 Miscellaneous $34.20 2090620 SEPT LOCATES Total GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC $34.20 Unpaid HARDRIVES INC E 420-43100-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $9,238.68 PAY 4 PAGE AVE Total HARDRIVES INC $9,238.68 Unpaid HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 7801 PARK LNDSCP REFUND Total HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS $1,000.00 HERMANSON HOMES INC E 702-41400-310 MisceHaneous $1,000.00 8020 PARELL LNDSCP REFUND Total HERMANSON HOMES INC $1,000.00 Unpaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST CITY OF OTSEGO *Check Detail Reqister@ OCTOBER 2002 10/17/02 10:46 AM Page 2 FILTER: None E 101-41400-121 PERA $192.31 PPE 10/12 CK DTD 10/16 G 101-21705 Other Retirement $230.00 PPE 10/12 CK DTD 10/16 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $492.31 Unpaid 11MC E 101-41400-355 Dues & Memberships $65.00 MEMBERSHIP CAROL Total IIMC $65.00 Unpaid LITTLE FALLS MACHINE E101-43100-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip ($230-00) 28808 NO DUAL CONTROL VALVE E 101-43100-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $3,180-05 28808 SANDER 92 FORD TRK Total LITTLE FALLS MACHINE $2,950.05 npaJ MINNESOTA COPY" Y S- E —, S — E101-41400-201 OfficeSuppligs $268.69 110558 TONER/DRUM FAX MACHINE Total MINNESOTA COPY SYSTEMS $268.69 paid MN DEPT OF REVENUE G101-21802 SALES TAX PAYABLE $89.00 SALES TAX 12/01 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $89.00 Unpaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMEgi76' E 101-43100-121 PERA $297.93 PPE 10/12 CK DTD 10/16 E 101-41400-121 PERA $298.66 PPE 10/12 CK DTD 10/16 G 101-21704 PERA $550.22 PPE 10/12 CK DTD 10/16 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD $1,146.81 E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 15068 82ND CIR LNDSCP REFUND Total TC BUILDERS INC $1,000.00 10100 BANKOFELKRIVER $78,521.89 FILTER: None CITY OF OTSEGO 10/24/02 11:04 AM Page 1 *Check Summary Register@ OCTOBER 2002 Name Check Date Check Amt 10100 BANKOFEILKRIVER UnPaid BONNIE OR DARRELL WATKINS $435.75 UnPaid CHRISTIAN BUILDERS INC $1,000-00 UnPaid ECM PUBLISHERS INC $320.30 UnPaid ENNAR IRRIGATION $312.89 UnPaid FENNA HOMES $1,000.00 UnPaid FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO $94.19 UnPaid GROEN GARY CPA $1,080.00 UnPajd HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS $1,000.00 UnPajd HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNESOTA $3,891.51 UnPajd JACQUIE ROGNLI $875.00 UnPaid KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED $202.50 UnPajd LAW BULLETIN PUBLISHING CO $805.00 UnPaid LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST $27,500.00 UnPaid MEDICA $4,790.03 UnPaid MIDWEST LANDSCAPES $110.00 UnPaid MINNESOTA LIFE $102.00 UnPaid MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER $9,236.00 UnPaid MN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO $60.00 UnPaid NAGELL APPRAISAL& CONSULTING $3,000.00 UnPaid NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS $5,214.61 UnPajd PEOPLE SERVICE INC. $11,299.75 UnPaid PITNEY BOWES $100.02 UnPaid THE BUSINESS JOURNAL $1,014.00 ,Paid USINTERNET $49.95 Paid WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC $1,299.00 UnPaid XCELENERGY $106.59 UnPaid ZIEGLER INC $674.84 Total Checks $75,573.93 FILTER: None CITY OF OTSEGO 10/24/02 11:04 AM *Check Detail Reqister@ Page 1 OCTOBER 2002 rh—k Arnt invoice 10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER Corn ent M Unpaid BONNIE OR G 701-22316 WATKINS $435.75 Total BONNIE OR DARRELL WATKINS ESCROW REFUND CROW RIVER $435.75 npaid CHRISTIAN BUILDERS INC E702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 Total CHRISTIAN BUILDERS INC $1,000,00 -W 8258 PARELL LNDSCP N ECM PUBLISHERS INC E 201-45000-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $126.50 135929 HAUNTED HOUSE E 101-41400-350 PrintlBinding (GENERAL) $108.30 136080 NOTICE OF PH E 101-45300-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $42.75 136082 E 101-41400-350 HERITAGE COMMISSION Print/Binding (GENERAL) $42.75 136084 LEGALGODFATHERS Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC $320.30 ENNAR IRRIGATi ------ ... . .... G 701-2-2311 ROESSLER MOVE IN $312.89 Total ENNAR IRRIGATION ESCROW REFUND ROESSLER MOVE IN $312.89 npaid ENNA HOMES E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 Total FENNA HOMES $1,000.00 8279 PARELL LNDSCP npaid F1 TiS .. B . EN EFITS INSURANCE CO .... ---------- E 101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $40.19 E 101-41400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $54.00 PW - NOV Total FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO $94.19 ADMIN - NOV npaid GROEN GA*R'Y'CPA E 101 -41600-390 Contracted Services $1,080.00 Total GROEN GARY CPA $1,080.00 SEPT02 24 HFIS Unpaid HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS E 702-41400-310 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 . Total HEARTHSTONE BUILDERS 7851 PARK CRT LNDSCP $1,000.00 Unpaid HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNESOTA E 101-43100-501 Equipment . $3,891.51 17813 Total HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNESOTA HOT WATER PRESSURE WASHER $3,891.51 Unpaid ..... JACQUIE ROGNI-I E 101-41400-347 Newsletter $875.00 2002-06 SEPT/OCT VIEW Total JACQUIE ROGNLI $875.00 Unpaid KENNEDY' &"'G"`-R"AV'^'E-'-N', CHARTE I RE * D E 101-41700-301 Legal Services $202.50 - 53792 Total KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED CHARTER RENEWAL $202.50 E 101-41900-390 Contracted Services $805-00 62806 Total DEVELOPMENT OPPORT AD LAW BULLETIN PUBLISHING CO $805-00 I 1 -aid LEAG �U'l.�E;.-O..F-'.M"�N:.I�.�-C�l"T�-IE'S IN'S -T-R6jj --------- E 101-41400-204 Insurance $26,960.00 11339 E 101-41400-204 Insurance PROP/CASUAL/W CoMp $540.00 11340 Total LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST OPEN MEETING LAW $27,500.00 Unpaid M -- E - DICA CITY OF OTSEGO 10/24/02 11:04 AM Page 2 *Check Detail ReqisterC OCTOBER 2002 E 101-43100-123 Health $2,201.09 PW - NOV E 101-41400-123 Health $2,588.94 ADMIN - NOV Total MEDICA $4,790.03 Unpaid MIDWEST LANDSCAPES E 101-41940-402 Repairs/Maint Buildingss $110.00 BLOW OUT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Total MIDWEST LANDSCAPES $110.00 6n MINNESOTA LIFE .... . ..... E101-41400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $27.40 ADMIN - NOV 2002 E101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $74.60 PW - NOV 2002 Total MINNESOTA LIFE $102.00 Unpaid MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER G 101-21801 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE $9,236.00 BLDG PERMIT SURCHARGE Total MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER $9,236.00 MN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO E 101-43100-360 Education/Training/Conferences $60.00_368053 31 DAY ATTENDEES Total MN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO $60.00 Unpaid NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING E 413-43100-301 Legal Services $1,500.00 10169 STRUTHERS - ODEAN AVE E 415-43251-301 Legal Services $1,500.00 10170 53RD ST - LAHN Total NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING $3,000.00 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS G 701-22327 MRD BANK SITE $587.40 12086 MRD RIVERVIEW BANK G 701-22330 VETSCH -QUEST $663.94 12086 VETCH - QUEST DEV G 701-22326 VALERIUS $542.56 12086 VALERiUS REZONE G 701-22329 QUADAY ADDITION $523.06 12086 DARKENWALD G 701-22325 101 MARKET $410.50 12086 101 MARKET - NATHE G 701-21938 TMH Development $266.50 12086 OTSEGO BUS PARK FINAL PLAT G 701-21978 Kreuser CUP $49.51 12086 HOOFBEATS E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees $349.70 12087 GENERAL E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees $170.50 12087 87TH ST VACATION E 101 -41570-303 Planning Fees $386.51 12087 ZONING ORDINANCE E 101-42420-310 Miscellaneous $714.43 12088 CODE ENFORCEMENT E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees $550.00 12089 MEETINGS Total NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS $5,214.61 Unpaid PEOPLE SERVICE INC. E601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $673.75 6173 LABORIMAINT. SERVICE E 601-49400-390 Contracted Services $2,791.45 6173 MONTHLY SERVICE E 602-49450-390 Contracted Services $7,834.55 6173 MONTHLY SERVICE Total PEOPLE SERVICE INC. $11,299.75 Unpaid PITNEY BOWES E 101-41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $100.02 47050027 -OTO POSTAGE METER Total PITNEY BOWES $100.02 THE BUSINESS JOURNAL E 101-41900-390 Contracted Services $1,014.00 2600142531 BUSINESS AD Total THE BUSINESS JOURNAL $1,014.00 U npaid USINTERNET E 101 -41400-390 Contracted Services $49.95 446282 E-MAIL/WEB PAGE MONTHLY Total US INTERNET $49.95 CITY OF OTSEGO 10/24/02 11:04 AM Page 3 *Check Detail Reqister@ OCTOBER 2GO2 CheckAmt Invoieg Comment Unpaid WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC E 601-49400-390 Contracted SeMces $1,299.00 9328 MONTHLY FEE Total WRIGHT-HENNEPINCO-OP ELECTRIC $1,299.00 .... ...... Unpaid XCELENERGY ....... .. .... .. E 101-43160-322 Utilities $41.47 054157139928 RIVERPOINTE E 101-43160-322 Utilities $65.12 061929356028 RIVERPOINTE Total XCEL ENERGY $106.59 npaid ZIEGLER INC E101-43100-400 Repairs& Maint Cont (equip) $674.84 080030924 ROAD GRADER Total ZIEGLER INC $674.84 10100 BANKOFELKRIVER $75,573.93 FILTER: None Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520 CITY OF OTSEGO CITY COUNCIL CITY ENGINEER'S AGENDA October 28, 2002 Item 7.1: Heritage Hills Speeding Update Item 7.2: Consider Pay Estimate #1 85 th Street Extension Item 7.3: Any Other Engineering Business Civil 6- Municipal E-gineering 25 G:\Municipa[\AOTSEGO\Agendas\councilagenda�41ff6Jurveyingfor i�- �Lu Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. October 8, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Heritage Hills Speeding ,:i -ren? 7." / 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: We have reviewed the information gathered by Mn/DOT within the Heritage Hills Subdivision. The information was gathered between noon on Monday, September 23, 2002 and noon on Wednesday, September 25, 2002. Three stations were set up, one 0.2 miles south of 85 1h Street on O'Brian Avenue, one 0.2 miles south of 95th Street on Ochoa Court and one north of 82 nd Street on O'Brian Avenue (see sketch). Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the streets was between 50 to 80. An average of 80 vehicles per day travel between Walesch Estates and Heritage Hills. The information gathered shows that the majority (95.5%) of traffic was below or not more than 5 miles over the posted speed limit. There were a total of 31 out of 842 cars (3.7%) that were exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph. 7 out of 842 cars (<I%) exceeded the speed limit by more than 10 mph. The worse single offense (55 to 59 mph) occurred at 9:00 am on Wednesday, September 25, 2002. 4 of the 31 speeding offenses occurred at the station north of 82 nd Street on O'Brian Avenue, 15 speeding offenses occurred at the station south of 85 th Street on O'Brian Avenue and 12 speeding offenses occurred at the station south of 85th Street on Ochoa Court. The data collected appears typical of a local street. A majority of the traffic stays within or very near the posted speed limit, but there are speeders. Enforcement to deter the few speeders is suggested. 6 out of 7 excessive speed events occurred between 3:00 prn and 8:00 pm. Sincerely, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. NOWWOV-11pona )W-�Z or MA - a N . We RJW:dlc cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Civil &Municipal Engineering 25 G:%MLIllicipa[\AOTSEGO\910\0(9101illspeeding.do, Land Surveyingfor ITEM NO. 7.2 10/23/02 PAY ESTIMATE NO. 1 CITY OF OTSEGO IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 02-07 85TH STREET (EAST OF C.S.A.H. 42) 23 -Oct -02 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Improvement Project No. 02-07, 85th Street ( East of C.S.A.H. 42) Contractor: W.B. Miller, Inc. Contract Amount: S 238,929.58 Award Date: 08/12/02 Completion Date: 11/15/02 Dear Council Members: The following work has been completed on the above referenced project: Schedule "A" - Street Item No. Description Unit ' Cty Bid Unit Cost Total Contract Estimated Cost Quantity Completed Total Completed to Date To Date 1 Mobilization LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.5 $2,500.00 2 Traffic Control LS 1 $8,300.00 $8,300.00 0.5 S4.150.00 3 Class 5 Aggregate Base TN 2100 $10.00 $21,000.00 169 - 4 Tvoe 31 Non -Wearing Course Mixture TN 635 $32.90 S20,891.50 $10.55 - 5 Type 41 Wearing Course Mixture TN 476 $40.25 $19'159�00 $4,953.60 6 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 290 $1.30 $377.00 27 7 Curb and Gutter Design 8618 LF 2064 $7.45 $15,376.80 4'Dia. Catchbasin/ManT.1-. - 8 Sign Panels (Type C) SF 36.75 $33.50 $1,231.13 EA 9 Pavement Message (Right Arrow) - Epoxy EA 1 S260�00 $260.00 3 10 4" Double Solid Line Yellow - Epoxy LF 940 $1.15 $1,081.00 S695.00 11 4" Solid Line White - Epoxy LF 1910 SO.55 $1,050.50 $420.00 12 24' Stop Bar White - Eooxy LF 35 $12.85 $449.75 - 13 Adiust frame and Ring Casting EA 4 $255.00 S1.020.00 14 Adiust Water Valve Box EA 5 $180.00 $900.00 15 Straw Bales EA 60 $10.30 $618.00 16 Turf Establishment by Seeding AC 2 $825.00 $1,650.00 17 Saw Bituminous Pavement LF 150 $2.60 $390.00 luminous Pavement SY 17 $7.25 $123.25 19 Will Bituminous Surface SY 17 $7.25 $123. 5 Schedule "A" Totals $99,001.18 - $6,650.00 Schedule "B" -Storm Sewer Item No. Descrintion Unit Oty Unit Cost Quantity Completed Total Completed Estimated Cost to Date To Date 20 15" RC Pipe Class 5 LF 96 $17.50 $1,680.00 21 24" RC Pipe Class 5 LF 223 $31.65 $7,057.95 22 15" RC Pipe Class 3 LF 65 $17.50 $1.137.50 23 18* RC Pipe Class 3 LF 169 $19.35 $3,270.15 24 15" HOPE PiDe LF 40 $10.55 $422.00 25 18' HOPE Pipe LF 387 $12.80 $4,953.60 26 21" HOPE Pipe LF 10 $16.35 $163.50 27 27"HOPE Pioe LF 230 $24.55 $5,546.5n 28 4'Dia. Catchbasin/ManT.1-. EA 3 $1,390.00 $4,170.00 29 4'Dia. Storm Manhole EA 7 $1,350.00 S9,45&00 30 2' x 3'Catchbasin EA 3 S1,135.00 $3,405.00 31 18* RCP FES EA 2 S695.00 S1,390.00 32 Class 11 Field Stone Rock Rip -Rap CY 4 S105.00 $420.00 Schedule "B" Totals $43,166.20 OtSego/34310t343payestI.AsPay Est I PE -2 ITEM NO. 7.2 PAY ESTIMATE NO. 1 CITY OF OTSEGO IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 02-07 85TH STREET (EAST OF C.S.A.H. 42) 10/23102 Item No. Description Unit Oty Unit Cost Estimated Cost Quantity Completed Total —C -MPI -t -d to Date To Date 33 8" PVC SOR 26 12 -14'Deep LF 114 14.7 $1,675,80 225 $3,307.50 34 8" PVC SOR 26 14-16'Oeep LF 145 S14.80 S2,146,00 150 $2,220.00 35 8" PVC SDR 26 16-18'Deeo LF 370 S15.35 $5,679.50 465 $7,137.75 36 8" PVC SOR 26 18-20' Oeeo LF 300 1 $16.15 S4,845.00 1 1301 S2.099.501 37 8" PVC S DR 26 20-22' Deep LF 85 $1&70 S1,419.50 441 $734801 38 Standard Sanitary Sewer Manhole M' Oeec EA. 3 $1.445.00 $4,335.00 4 L S4,335. 001 39 Manhole Overdepth VF 24 $77.25 $1,854.00 _3 28,2 $2.180.771 40 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Drop �anhcle LS 1 $2,975,00 S2,975,00 1 $2,975.00 41 81X 6" PVC Wye EA a $36.00 $288,00 $288.00 42 6" PVC SOR 26 Service PiDe LF 350 $10.60 S3,710.00 $4,155.20 43 6* PVC SOR 26 Riser VF 24 $20.50 - $492.00 1392 5 13.E5$276.75 1 44 8" Plug EA 1 $55.00 $55.00 1 155.00 L-- 45 fTelevise Sanitary Sewer LF 1014 $0.80 $811.20 46 Dewatering LF 1014 , S15.45 $15,666.30 1014 — $15,666301 Schedule "C" Totals S45,952.30 $45,431.57 Rrh—fid. "r)" — Item No. Description Unit Qty Unit Cost Estimated Cost Quantity Completed Tot-] Completed to Date To Date 47 6" DIP Watermain Class 52 LF 487 $13.90 $6,769.30 471 $6,546.9() 48 12" DIP Watermain Class 52 LF 1020 $22.15 $22.593.00 1022 $22.637.30 49 Insulation SF 96 $3.10 $297.60 — 50 Watermain Fittings LBS, 3580 $1.50 $5,370.00 1673 $2,509.50 51 Connect to Existing 16' DIP, cut and install 16" x 12" T LS 1 $2,575.00 $2.575.00 1 $2,575.00 — 52 Hydrant w/ Gate Valve EA 4 S2,165.00 $8.660.00 4 $8,660.00 53 12"Butterfly Valve EA 1 $825.00 $825.00 1 $825.00 — 54 6" Gate Valve EA 8 S465.00 $3,720�00 a $3,720.00 Schedule"D" Totals $50,809.9a Total Schedule "A" - Street $99,001.18 Total Schedule "B' - Storm Sewer $43,166.20 Total Schedule "C" - Sanitary Sewer $45,952.3a Total Schedule "D" - Watermain $50,809.9a Total All Schedules $238,929.58 WORK COMPLETED TO DATE: LESS 5% RETAINAGE: LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS WE RECOMMEND PARTIAL PAYMENT OF: APPROYAL3: CONTRAC1,M. %va Miller, I.,— carw"Ocn rho=. I cS S -1,111w- and B.T.0tints am ENGINEER: Certification by E ' ngme�r. We recommend pa pie t work and antities as shown. HAKANSC.N ANIAF3,92N ASSOCIM=�, OWNER: CITY OF OTSEGO Signed: Title: OtSegW243JW43payesti xLsPay Est. 1 - �/bate: //1' Date: $47,473.70 $6,650.00 $47,473.70 $99,555.27 $99,555.27 $4,977.76 $94,577.50 ITEM 8.1. "ORT"Wasir ASSOCIA-tRD CONSULim"Irs* INC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO- Otsego Mayor and City Council FROM- Daniel Licht DATE: 8 October 2002 RE- Otsego - 87hStreet Vacation NAC FILE: 176.08 - 02.23 The City Council considered the request of Guy Rowe and Bob Cederberg for vacation of a portion of 87th Street west of O'Brien Avenue at a public hearing on 12 August 2002. The public hearing was continued to 9 September 2002 in order for City Staff to provide the City Council with additional information. After receiving the report and recommendations from City Staff, the City Council tabled the item until their meeting on 28 October 2002. The item was tabled to allow the three property owners abutting the right-of-way, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Cederberg and Stan Schuster an opportunity to meet and try and reach an agreement for a private easement that would allow for continued access to the north portion of Mr. Schuster's property. City staff met with the property owners involved with the requested vacation of 87' Street at the regular Staff Meeting on 4 October 2002. There was discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan policies for subdivision of one -acre unsewered lots. Absentanability to further divide the Schuster property under the current Comprehensive Plan, the parties are agreeable to an access easement. A draft easement document is to be prepared by the Schuster's attorney by the 28 October 2002 City Council meeting. City staff stands by our recommendation that the right-of-way be vacated as the City does not maintain a street and that the right-of-way serves no present or future public purpose, The Schuster property has reasonable access for the development allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. If sanitary sewer and water becomes available, options for resubdivision of the area will likely exist allowing further division of the Schuster property. pc. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Guy Rowe Bob Cederberg Stan Schuster C) E.. 0 C) LLJ Z Ld LLJ 00 3N 3nN]AV NVI�19,0 In III -------------------- 0! cy. TZ '2D8 'LZ 'Umi *LZ 02S ir/L MN 241 ;0 2u!l lsaM--� 0oct cn I - t;,' T 0 a) 0 le -m 10 a = 0 80 a 21 0 a a cc 0 3.2 6 0 Se 0 N� -E3 L) 'a 4) (71 cr� 0 r 0 Z Q. UJ -0 3. 0 R .2 z 0 ,j 0 Ll uoj uj 0. —0 >,O 4) j� 0 Ne -, o< as a) 0 V) Li > a. C) 0:: CL &3: Lij z 0 Y- u 0 TZ '2D8 'LZ 'Umi *LZ 02S ir/L MN 241 ;0 2u!l lsaM--� 0oct cn I - t;,' T 0 a) 0 le -m 10 a = 0 80 a 21 0 a a cc 0 3.2 6 0 Se 0 N� -E3 L) 'a 4) (71 cr� 0 r 0 Z Q. UJ -0 3. 0 R .2 z 0 ,j 0 Ll uoj uj 0. —0 >,O 4) j� 0 Ne -, o< as a) 0 V) Li > a. C) 0:: CL &3: CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF NUNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A STREET IN THE CITY OF OTSEGO, COUNTY OF WRIGHT- 87' STREET N.E. WHEREAS, the City of Otsego has received a request to vacate a portion of the above-described roadway from two affected property owners, Bob Cederberg, 8700 O'Brian Avenue N.E. and Guy Rowe, 14031 87h Street N.E.; and WHEREAS, the Otsego City Council, on its own motion, ordered a public hearing on the proposed vacation; and NMEREAS, those portions of the road to be vacated are described as follows: That part of 87h Street N.E. as dedicated and depicted on the recorded plat of VASSELTR'S OAK GROVE ESTATE'S, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 3, said VASSEUR'S OAK GROVE ESTATE'S. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that vacating said portion of 87 1h I Street N.E. would be in the public 'interest; and WHEREAS, the City of Otsego having considered the testimony in favor and opposed to vacating that portion of the road so described; and WHEREAS, the City Council ordered a public hearing and meeting to act upon said proposed vacation at 6:30 p.m. on the 12t" day of August 2002, at the Otsego City Hall; and WHEREAS, all legal requirements regarding giving notice have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on the 12th day of August 2002, and at a continuation of that public hearing held on September 9, 2002 at the Otsego City Hall and heard all parties interested therein, and; WHEREAS, it now appears to the Otsego City Council that such portion of said roadway serves no useful public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota, hereby orders: 1. That the portion of that roadway located in the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of 87 Ih Street N.E. as dedicated and depicted on the recorded plat of VASSEUR'S OAK GROVE ESTATE'S, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 3, said VASSEUR'S OAK GROVE ESTATE'S. is hereby vacated. 2. The City Council hereby determines that vacation of said road shall cause no damage to any abutting or nearby property owners and therefore no damages are awarded to any such property owners. Motion for adoption of resolution by seconded by October, 2002. at the meeting of the Otsego City Council on the 28th day of 2 IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor Judy Hudson, City Clerk RIGHT OF WAY VACATION EXHIBIT V' I. c a A L. z z z m CITY OF OTESGO �87TH STREET NE 499.9 .13 17 BLOCK ONE I INCH 60 FEEr PROPOSED 87T)i STREET N.E. VACATION DESCRIPTION: " osrtify that this ftrvy, plan or report � propc by That part of 87th Street N.F— as dedicated and depicted on the recorded n's �der 1-Y direct s-PwI-on -1d that I Orn a d.�r �Ucsmd Hakanson plot of VASSEUR'S OAK GROVE ESTATVS, Wght County. Minnesota, lying Sur -Y— -16- thd k" f the State of westmly of the southerly extension of the east line of Lot I Block 3. Anderson said VASSEUR'S OAK GROVE ESTATE*S. 10/21/02 M11 Assoc.,Inc. Charles R. Chrwopm—. mN L�� No. I Dow CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY CHARTER COMTNIUNICATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Otsego ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota; WHEREAS, the predecessor to Char -ter Communications Holding Co., LLC ("Charter") was issued a "line extension permit" authorizing the delivery of cable service; WHEREAS, Charter's predecessor requested that the City renew the line extension permit which expires on or about December 31, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City subsequently received an inquiry from WH LINK, LLC ("WH Link") concerning grant of a cable franchise authorizing the delivery of competitive cable services in the City; WHEREAS, in response to these requests, the City initiated the cable franchising process mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238, provided notice of its intent to consider issuance of franchises, received cable franchise applications from Charter and WH Link, held a public hearing concerning the applications on May 13, 2002, permitted submission of additional written comments, received timely written comments from WH Link and no comments from Charter, and considered the applications at several separate Council meetings and a worksession; WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a report from its special cable counsel dated August 21, 2002 concerning the applications; WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, the City adopted a cable regulatory ordinance setting forth certain requirements generally applicable to all providers of cable service operating in the City; WHEREAS, the City may require adequate assurance that the applicants have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service, may consider whether the applicants' proposals for providing cable service are reasonable and in the public's interest, and may require each successful applicant to accept a franchise containing reasonable terms and conditions; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered the franchise applications, including the proposals for providing cable service in the City, and proposed franchise ordinances authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, the City considered and approved Charter's qualifications in 1999 when the City approved transfer of rights under the line extension permit to Charter; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered Charter's franchise application, including Charter's proposal for providing cable service in the City. and a proposed franchise ordinance authorizing Charter's continued delivery of cable"service in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, competition in the delivery of cable services may benefit residents and businesses in Otsego by increasing the availability of advanced telecommunications services and infrastructure and contribute to the overall vitality of the community; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, federal and state laws and regulations encourage competition in the provision of telecommunications and cable service and the City may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, Charter continues to possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable television services in the City; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, Charter's franchise application is approved subject to the following conditions: Charter must promptly accept and execute the cable franchise ordinance offered by the City; 2. Charter must construct and operate a system, provide services to residents, and provide other consideration to the City in accordance with the franchise and franchise application, which shall be incorporated into any franchise issued by the City; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that this Resolution shall be effective immediately. Approved this - day of October, 2002 by the City Council of Otsego, Minnesota. M Its: ATTEST: M Its: CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY WH LINK WHEREAS, the City of Otsego ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota; WHEREAS, the predecessor to Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC ("Charter") was issued a "line extension permit" authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, Charter's predecessor requested that the City renew the line extension permit which expires on or about December 31, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City subsequently received an inquiry from WH LINK, LLC ("WH Link") concerning grant of a cable franchise authorizing the delivery of competitive cable services in the City; WHEREAS, in response to these requests, the City initiated the cable franchising process mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238, provided notice of its intent to consider issuance of franchises, received cable franchise applications from Char -ter and WH Link, held a public hearing concerning the applications on May 13, 2002, permitted submission of additional written corriments, received timely written comments from WH Link and no comments from Charter, and considered the applications at several separate Council meetings and a worksession; WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a report from its special cable counsel dated August 21, 2002 concerning the applications; WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, the City adopted a cable regulatory ordinance setting forth certain requirements generally applicable to all providers of cable service operating in the City; WHEREAS, the City may require adequate assurance that the applicants have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service, may consider whether the applicants' proposals for providing cable service are reasonable and in the public's interest, and may require each successful applicant to accept a franchise containing reasonable terms and conditions; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered the franchise applications, including the proposals for providing cable service in the City, and proposed franchise ordinances authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, WH Link is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") duly certified by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") and an open video system ("OVS") operator duly certified by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"); WHEREAS, WH Link's CLEC certification authorizes the company to construct and operate a telephone system and/or resell the incumbent telephone company's services in a service territory that includes all of the City, subject to the City's right-of- way requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link's OVS certification authorizes the company to provide cable services in its "telephone service area" defined as "the area within which such [local exchange] carrier is offering telephone exchange service" pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 573(d), subject to the City's right-of-way requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link has asserted that its OVS certification, and associated federal laws governing OVS, preempt and supercede certain state and local requirements governing cable television systems and service; WHEREAS, WH Link has specifically asserted that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b), which provides: No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existin- franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less 0 burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees; WHEREAS, W`H Link's cable franchise application and service proposal contemplates the operation of a system and provision of cable services to certain selected subdivisions of the City; VvrHEREAS, WH Link's cable franchise application and ser -vice proposal further contemplate the subsequent extension of the system and cable services to the extent WH Link elects to extend its telephone facilities, or is required to extend such facilities by the MPUC as a function of its CLEC certification; WHEREAS, the City's legal counsel requested by letter dated May 17, 2002, that WH Link further explain its proposed service area and system extension proposal; WHEREAS, WH Link responded, among other things, that it was requesting a cable franchise that effectively adopts any system extension and service area requirements imposed by the MPUC as a condition of its CLEC certification, rather than independent cable service area requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link has advised the City that it will only accept a franchise containing terms and conditions reflecting its application and service proposal, and will treat issuance of a franchise on any other terms and conditions as an effective denial of its application; WHEREAS, Charter claims that the City may not issue a franchise based on WH Link's proposal because Charter and its predecessor constructed a system serving the entire City where there is a dwelling density of at least 9 homes per V4cable mile; WHEREAS, Char-ter's application contemplates the City's issuance of a franchise expressly requiring the extension of a system and service based on the above - referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, Charter further claims that the line extension pen -nit currently mandates the above -referenced dwelling density standard by incorporating provisions in cable franchise ordinances issued by certain neighboring municipalities; WHEREAS, the line extension permit incorporates the terms of said franchises "which relate only to" certain specified provisions of the franchises; WHEREAS, the line extension permit does not specifically reference or incorporate the service area or system extension provision in such franchises; WHEREAS, the City's legal counsel requested by letter dated May 17, 2002, that Char -ter provide evidence and explanation to support its claim that the line extension permit incorporated the system extension and service requirement, but Charter did not respond; WHEREAS, the report issued by the City's legal counsel, incorporated herein by reference, concludes that WH Link's OVS certification does not exempt the company from Minnesota's cable statutes, including particularly Section 238.08(l)(b); WHEREAS, the report further concludes, however, that the Council has discretion in determining whether WH Link's proposal is "more favorable or less burdensome" than any current system extension/service area requirements applicable to Charter, and that the Council may conclude that Char -ter is not currently subject to the above -referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, federal and state laws and regulations encourage competition in the provision of telecommunications and cable service and the City may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, competition in the delivery of cable services may benefit residents and businesses in Otsego by increasing the availability of advanced telecommunications services and infrastructure and by contributing to the overall vitality of the community; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, WH Link possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable television services in the City. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, for the reasons stated in the report of the City's legal counsel, WH Link is fully subject to Minnesota's cable laws. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, Charter failed to demonstrate that it is currently subject to an "area served" requirement as contemplated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b); BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, WH Link's application is approved subject to the following conditions: WH Link must promptly accept and execute the cable franchise ordinance offered by the City; 2. WH Link must construct and operate a system, provide services to residents, and provide other consideration to the City in accordance with the franchise and franchise application, which shall be incorporated into any franchise issued by the City. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that this Resolution shall be effective immediately. Approved this day of October, 2002 by the City Council of Otsego, Minnesota. 32 Its: ATTEST: Um Its: CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION RESOLUTION DENYING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY WH LINK WHEREAS, the City of Otsego ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota; WHEREAS, the predecessor to Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC ("Charter") was issued a "line extension permit" authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, Char-ter's predecessor requested that the City renew the line extension permit which expires on or about December 31, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City subsequently received aa inquiry from WH LINK, LLC ("WH Link") concerning grant of a cable franchise authorizing the delivery of competitive cable services in the City; WHEREAS, in response to these requests, the City initiated the cable franchising process mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238, provided notice of its intent to consider issuance of franchises, received cable franchise applications from Charter and WH Link, held a public hearing concerning the applications on May 13, 2002, permitted submission of additional written comments, received timely written comments from WH Link and no comments from Charter, and considered the applications at several separate Council meetings and a worksession; WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a report from its special cable counsel dated August 21, 2002 concerning the applications; WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, the City adopted a cable regulatory ordinance setting forth certain requirements generally applicable to all providers of cable service operating in the City; WHEREAS, the City may require adequate assurance that the applicants have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service, may consider whether the applicants' proposals for providing cable service are reasonable and in the public's interest, and may require each successful applicant to accept a franchise containing reasonable terms and conditions; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered the franchise applications, including the proposals for providing cable service in the City, and proposed franchise ordinances authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, WH Link is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") duly certified by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") and an open video system ("OVS") operator duly certified by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"); WHEREAS, WH Link's CLEC certification authorizes the company to construct and operate a telephone system and/or resell the incumbent telephone company's services in a service territory that includes all of the City, subject to the City's right-of- way requirements; C�l WHEREAS, WH Link's OVS certification authorizes the company to provide cable services in its "telephone service area" defined as "the area within which such [local exchange] carrier is offering telephone exchange service" pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 573(d), subject to the City's right-of-way requirements; C WHEREAS, WH Link has asserted that its OVS certification, and associated federal laws governing OVS, preempt and supercede certain state and local requirements governing cable television systems and service; WHEREAS, WH Link has specifically asserted that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b), which provides: No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on ternis and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees; WHEREAS, WH Link's cable franchise application and service proposal contemplates the operation of a system and provision of cable services to certain selected subdivisions of the City; WHEREAS, WH Link's cable franchise application and service proposal further contemplate the subsequent extension of the system and cable services to the extent WH Link elects to extend its telephone facilities, or is required to extend such facilities by the MPUC as a function of its CLEC certification; WHEREAS, the City's legal counsel requested by letter dated May 17, 2002, that WH Link further explain its proposed service area and system extension proposal; WHEREAS, WH Link responded, among other things, that it was requesting a cable franchise that effectively adopts any system extension and service area requirements imposed by the MPUC as a condition of its CLEC certification, rather than independent cable service area requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link has advised the City that it will only accept a franchise containing terms and conditions reflecting its application and service proposal, and will treat issuance of a franchise on any other terms and conditions as an effective denial of its application; WHEREAS, Charter claims that the City may not issue a franchise based on WH Link's proposal because Charter and its predecessor constructed a system serving the entire City where there is a dwelling density of at least 9 homes per V4cable mile; WHEREAS, the City's line extension permit adopts by reference terms and conditions contained in cable franchises issued by municipalities neighboring the City, and such franchises require the extension of a system and service based on the above - referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, Charter's application contemplates the City's issuance of a franchise expressly requiring the extension of a system and service based on the above - referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, the report issued by the City's legal counsel, incorporated herein by reference, concludes that WH Link's OVS certification does not exempt the company from Minnesota's cable statutes, including particularly Section 238.08(l)(b); WHEREAS, the report further concludes that the Council has discretion in determining whether WH Link's proposal is "more favorable or less burdensome" than any current system extension/ser-vice area requirements applicable to Charter, and that the Council should determine whether Charter is subject to the above -referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, federal and state laws and regulations encourage competition in the provision of telecommunications and cable service and the City may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, WH Link possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable television services in the City. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, for the reasons stated in the report of the City's legal counsel, WH Link is fully subject to Minnesota's cable laws. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, Charter is subject to an "area served" requirement as contemplated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b), as evidenced by Charter's current system construction and Charter's proposal for a franchise expressly requiring system extension and service based on the above -referenced dwelling density standard; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the service proposal in WH Link's franchise application contemplates a system extension and service area requirement that will ensure the availability of competitive cable service to only a relatively small portion of the City, and will not ensure the availability of competitive cable services throughout the City based on the above -referenced dwelling density standard applicable to Charter; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the service proposal in WH Link's franchise application is more favorable and less burdensome than the comparable requirement that has been and will continue to be applied to Charter and therefore fails to comply with Minnesota's cable laws, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l) (b); BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, WH Link's application is denied. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, this Resolution shall be effective immediately. Approved this - day of October, 2002 by the City Council of Otsego, Minnesota. M_ Its: ATTEST: m Its: CITY OF OTSEGO RESOLUTION RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE FRANCHISE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY WH LINK WHEREAS, the City of Otsego ("City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota; WHEREAS, the predecessor to Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC ("Charter") was issued a "line extension permit" authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, Charter's predecessor requested that the City renew the line extension permit which expires on or about December 31, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City subsequently received an inquiry from WH LrTNK, LLC ("WH Link") concerning grant of a cable franchise authorizing the delivery of competitive cable services in the City; WHEREAS, in response to these requests, the City initiated the cable franchising process mandated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 238, provided notice of its intent to consider issuance of franchises, received cable franchise applications from Charter and WH Link, held a public hearing concerning the applications on May 13, 2002, permitted submission of additional written comments, received timely written comments from WH Link and no comments from Charter, and considered the applications at several separate Council meetings and a worksession; WHEREAS, the City Council received and considered a report from its special cable counsel dated August 21, 2002 concerning the applications; WHEREAS, on October 14, 2002, the City adopted a cable regulatory ordinance setting forth certain requirements generally applicable to all providers of cable service operating in the City; WHEREAS, the City may require adequate assurance that the applicants have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service, may consider whether the applicants' proposals for providing cable service are reasonable and in the public's interest, and may require each successful applicant to accept a franchise containing reasonable ternis and conditions; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and considered the franchise applications, including the proposals for providing cable service in the City, and proposed franchise ordinances authorizing the delivery of cable service in the City; WHEREAS, WH Link is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") duly certified by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") and an open video system ("OVS") operator duly certified by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"); WHEREAS, WH Link's CLEC certification authorizes the company to construct and operate a telephone system and/or resell the incumbent telephone company's ser -vices in a service territory that includes all of the City, subject to the City's right-of- way requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link's OVS certification authorizes the company to provide cable services in its "telephone service area" defined as "the area within which such [local exchange] carrier is offering telephone exchange service" pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 573(d), subject to the City's right-of-way requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link has asserted that its OVS certification, and associated federal laws governing OVS, preempt and supercede certain state and local requirements governing cable television systems and service; WHEREAS, WH Link has specifically asserted that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b), which provides: No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees; WHEREAS, WH Link's cable franchise application and service proposal contemplates the operation of a system and provision of cable services to certain selected subdivisions of the City; WHEREAS, WH Link's cable franchise application and service proposal further contemplate the subsequent extension of the system and cable services to the extent ViH Link elects to extend its telephone facilities, or is required to extend such facilities by the MPUC as a function of its CLEC certification; WHEREAS, the City's legal counsel requested by letter dated May 17, 2002, that VvrH Link further explain its proposed service area and system extension proposal; WHEREAS, WH Link responded, among other things, that it was requesting a cable franchise that effectively adopts any system extension and service area requirements imposed by the MPUC as a condition of its CLEC certification, rather than independent cable service area requirements; WHEREAS, WH Link has advised the City that it will only accept a franchise containing terms and conditions reflecting its application and service proposal, and will treat issuance of a franchise on any other terms and conditions as an effective denial of its application; WHEREAS, Charter claims that the City may not issue a franchise based on WH Link's proposal because Charter and its predecessor constructed a system ser-ving the entire City where there is a dwelling density of at least 9 homes per V4cable mile; WHEREAS, the City's line extension permit adopts by reference terrns and conditions contained in cable franchises issued by municipalities neighboring the City, and such franchises require the extension of a system and service based on the above - referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, Charter's application contemplates the City's issuance of a franchise expressly requiring the extension of a system and service based on the above - referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, the report issued by the City's legal counsel, incorporated herein by reference, concludes that WH Link's OVS certification does not exempt the company from Minnesota's cable statutes, including particularly Section 238.08(l)(b); WHEREAS, the report further concludes that the Council has discretion in determining whether WH Link's proposal is "more favorable or less burdensome" than any current system extension/service area requirements applicable to Charter, and that the Council should determine whether Charter is subject to the above -referenced dwelling density standard; WHEREAS, federal and state laws and regulations encourage competition in the provision of telecommuni cations and cable service and the City may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, WH Link possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable television services in the City. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, for the reasons stated in the report of the City's legal counsel, WH Link is fully subject to Minnesota's cable laws. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, Charter is subject to an "area served" requirement as contemplated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l)(b), as evidenced by Char-ter's current system construction and Char-ter's proposal for a franchise expressly requiring system extension and service based on the above -referenced dwelling density standard; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the- service proposal in WH Link's franchise application contemplates a system extension and service area requirement that will ensure the availability of competitive cable service to only a relatively small portion of the City, and will not ensure the availability of competitive cable services throughout the City based on the above -referenced dwelling density standard applicable to Charter; BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the service proposal in WH Link's franchise application is more favorable and less burdensome than the comparable requirement that has been and will continue to be applied to Charter and therefore fails to comply with Minnesota's cable laws, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 238.08(l) (b); BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, WH Link's application is conditionally approved subject to the following conditions: WH Link must promptly accept and execute the cable franchise ordinance offered by the City; 2. WH Link must construct and operate a system, provide services to residents, and provide other consideration to the City in accordance with the franchise and franchise application, which shall be incorporated into any franchise issued by the City, except that WH Link shall extend its system and service throughout the entire corporate boundaries of the City where there is a dwelling density of at least 9 homes per 1/4 cable mile. , 3. In the event WH Link fails to timely accept and execute the cable franchise ordinance offered by the City, WH Link's application shall be denied. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, this Resolution shall be effective in-unediately. Approved this - day of October, 2002 by the City Council of Otsego, Minnesota. Lm Its: ATTEST: m Its: Michael C Couri- Andrew J. MacArthur Robert T. Ruppe- David R. Wendorf *Also licensed in Illinois **Also licensed in California October 24, 2002 City Council Members City of Otsego c/o Judy Hudson, City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 R -E: Animal Ordinance Dear Council Members: COUN & MACARTHUR Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN55376-0369 (763) 497-1930 (763) 497-2599 (FAX) couriandniacarrhur@pobox. com Please find enclosed a copy of the League's model ordmiance regarding animals. This ordmiance is significantly broader than the current City ordmiance, which only relates to dogs and is quite outmoded. I think the first step is for the City Council to make basic decisions as to how much they wish to regulate animals. Based upon that general direction, a draft ordmiance can be established and coordmiated with other existing City Ordinances. I will be available to further discuss this matter at next Monday's regularly scheduled City Council meetmig. Very urs, ew J. ac C 0 U QRI MACLARTHUR Encl. cc: Dan Licht, City Planner LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MODEL ANIMAL ORDINANCE VERSION 5/25/99 Chapter 100 - JXE "Animals ")Animals 100.01 JXE "Definitions: Animals" I Definitions Itc: "100.01 Definitions" \1 2}. As used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following words shall be defined to mean: Im Subd. I Animal. "Animal" shall mean any mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish, bird (including all fowl and poultry) or other member commonly accepted as a part of the animal kingdom. Animals shall be classified as follows: A. Domestic. "Domestic animals" shall mean those animals commonly accepted as domesticated household pets. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include dogs, cats, caged birds, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, domesticated rabbits, fish, non-poisonous, non -venomous and non -constricting reptiles or amphibians, and other similar animals. B. Non -Domestic. "Non -Domestic animals" shall mean those animals commonly considered to be naturally wild and not naturally trained or domesticated, or which are commonly considered to be inherently dangerous to the health, safety, and welfare of people. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include: (1) Any member of the large cat family (family felidae) including lions, tigers, cougars, bobcats, leopards and jaguars, but excluding commonly accepted domesticated house cats. (2) Any naturally wild member of the canine family (family canidae) including wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and jackals, but excluding commonly accepted domesticated dogs. (3) Any crossbreeds such as the crossbreed between a wolf and a dog, unless the crossbreed is commonly accepted as a domesticated house pet. (4) Any member or relative of the rodent family including any skunk (whether or not descented), raccoon, squirrel, or ferret, but excluding those members otherwise defined or commonly accepted as domesticated pets. (5) Any poisonous, venomous, constricting, or inherently dangerous member of the reptile or amphibian families including rattlesnakes, boa constrictors, pit vipers, crocodiles and alligators. (6) Any other animal which is not explicitly listed above but which can be reasonably defined by the terms of this subpart, including but not limited to bears, deer, monkeys and game fish. C. Farm. "Farm animals" shall mean those animals commonly associated with a farm or performing work in an agricultural setting. Unless otherwise defined, such animals shall include members of the equestrian family (horses, mules), bovine family (cows, bulls), sheep, poultry (chickens, turkeys), fowl (ducks, geese), swine (including Vietnamese pot- bellied pigs), goats, bees, and other animals associated with a farm, ranch, or stable. Subd. 2 Cat. "Cat" shall be intended to mean both the male and female of the felidae species commonly accepted as domesticated household pets. Subd. 3 Dog. "Dog" shall be intended to mean both the male and female of the canine species, commonly accepted as domesticated household pets, and other domesticated animals of a dog kind. Subd. 4 Owner. "Owner" shall be intended to mean any person or persons, firm, association or corporation owning, keeping, or harboring an animal. Subd. 5 JXE "Animals:At Large")At Large. "At Large" shall be intended to mean off the premises of the owner and not under the custody and control of the owner or other person, either by leash, cord, chain, or other -wise restrained or confined. Subd. 6 [XE "Permits: Release of Animals"}{XE "Animals: Release Permit")Release Permit. "Release Permit" shall mean a permit issued by the Police Department for the release of any animal that has been taken to the pound. A release permit may be obtained upon payment of a fee in accordance with that regular license requirement if the animal is unlicensed., payment of a release fee, and any maintenance costs incurred in capturing and impounding the animal. The release fee shall be as established from time to time by resolution of the city council, but not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) the first time an animal is impounded, fifty dollars ($50.00) the second time it is impounded, and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the third and each subsequent time the same animal is impounded. For the purpose of a release permit, any change in the registered ownership of an animal subsequent to its impoundment and release shall reset that animal's impoundment count to the beginning of the fee scale. 100.02 Dogs and Cats(tc "100.02 Dogs and Cats" \1 21. Subd. I IXE "Animals: Running at Large Prohibited") Running at Large Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for the dog or cat of any person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog or cat, or the parents or the guardians of any such person under 18 years of age, to run at large. Dogs or cats on a leash and accompanied by a responsible person or accompanied by and under the control and direction of a responsible person so as to be effectively restrained by command as by leash, shall be permitted in streets or on public land unless the City has posted an area with signs reading "Dogs or Cats Prohibited." Subd. 2 IXE "Licenses:Animals"}IXE "Animals: License"} License Required. A. All dogs over the age of six months kept, harbored, or maintained by their owners in the City, shall be licensed and registered with the City. Dog licenses shall be issued by the Clerk -Treasurer upon payment of the license fee. The owner shall state, at the time application is made for the license and upon forms provided for such purpose, his or her name and address and the name, breed, color, and sex of each dog owned or kept by him or her. No license shall be granted for a dog which has not been vaccinated against distemper and rabies, as provided in this Section. Vaccination shall be performed only by a doctor qualified to practice veterinary medicine in the state in which the dog is vaccinated. A veterinarian who vaccinates a dog to be licensed in the City shall complete a certificate of vaccination. One copy shall be issued to the dog owner for affixing to the license application. B. It shall be the duty of each owner of a dog subject to this Section to pay to the Clerk -Treasurer the license fee as imposed by the Council by resolution. C. Upon payment of the license fee, the Clerk -Treasurer shall issue to the owner a license certificate and metallic tag for each dog licensed. The tag shall have stamped on it the year for which it is issued and the number corresponding with the number on the certificate. Every owner shall be required to provide each dog with a collar to which the license tag must be affixed, and shall see that the collar and tag are constantly worn. In case a dog tag is lost or destroyed, a duplicate shall be issued by the Clerk -Treasurer. A charge of two dollars ($2.00) shall be made for each duplicate tag. Dog tags shall not be transferable from one dog to another and no refunds shall be made on any dog license fee or tag because of death of a dog or the owner's leaving the City before the expiration of the license period. D. The licensing provisions of this Subdivision shall not apply to dogs whose owners are non-residents temporarily within the City, nor to dogs brought into the City for the purpose of participating in any dog show, nor shall this provision apply to "seeing eye" dogs properly trained to assist blind persons for the purpose of aiding them in going from place to place. E. The funds received by the Clerk -Treasurer from all dog licenses and metallic tags fees shall first be used to defray any costs incidental to the enforcement of this Section; including, but not restricted to, the costs of licenses, metallic tags, and impounding and maintenance of the dogs. Subd. 3 Cats. Cats shall be included as controlled by this sub -section insofar as running - at -large, pickup, impounding, boarding, licensing and proof of anti -rabies vaccine is concerned. All other provisions of this Section shall also apply to cats unless otherwise provided. Subd. 4 JXE "Cats: Vaccination" I Vaccination. A. All dogs and cats kept harbored, maintained, or transported within the City shall be vaccinated at least once every three years by a licensed veterinarian for: 1 . Rabies - with a live modified vaccine; and 2. Distemper B. A certificate of vaccination must be kept on which is stated the date of vaccination, owner's name and address, the animal's name (if applicable), sex, description and weight, the type of vaccine, and the veterinarian's signature. Upon demand made by the Clerk -Treasurer or a police officer, the owner shall present for examination the required certificate(s) of vaccination for the animal(s). In cases where certificates are not presented, the owner or keeper of the animal(s) shall have seven days in which to present the certificate(s) to the Clerk -Treasurer or police officer. Failure to do so shall be deemed a violation of this Section. 100. 03 {XE "Animals:Non-Domestic")Non-Domestic Animals[tc " 100. 03 Non -Domestic Animals" \1 2). It shall be illegal for any person to own, possess, harbor, or offer for sale, any non-domestic animal within the City limits. Any owner of such an animal at the time of adoption of this Code shall have thirty days in which to remove the animal from the City after which time the City may impound the animal as provided for in this Section. An exception shall be made to this prohibition for animals specifically trained for and actually providing assistance to the handicapped or disabled, and for those animals brought into the City as part of an operating zoo, veterinarian clinic, scientific research laboratory, or a licensed show or exhibition. 100-04 JXE "Animals:Farm"IFam-1 Animals(tc "100.04 Farm Animals" \1 2). Farm animals shall only be kept in an agricultural district of the City, or on a residential lot of at least ten (10) acres in size provided that no animal shelter shall be within three hundred (300) feet of an adjoining piece of property. An exception shall be made to this subsection for those animals brought into the City as part of an operating zoo, veterinarian clinic, scientific research laboratory, or a licensed show or exhibition. 100.05 {XE "Animals: Impounding") Impounding. 0 Subd. I Running at Large. Any unlicensed animal running at large is hereby declared a public nuisance. Any police officer may impound any dog or other animal found unlicensed or any animal found running at large and shall give notice of the impounding to the owner of such dog or other animal, if known. In case the owner is unknown, the officer shall post notice at the City office that if the dog or other animal is not claimed within the time specified in Subd. 3, it will be sold or otherwise disposed of. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, it shall be unlawful to kill, destroy, or otherwise cause injury to any animal, including dogs and cats running at large. Subd. 2 JXE "Animals: Biting") Biting Animals. Any animal that has not been inoculated by a live modified rabies vaccine and which has bitten any person, wherein the skin has been punctured or the services of a doctor are required, shall be confined in the City Pound for a period of not less than ten days, at the expense of the owner. The animal may be released at the end of such time if healthy and free from symptoms of rabies, and by the payment of all costs by the owner. However, if the owner of the animal shall elect immediately upon receipt of notice of need for such confinement by the officer to voluntarily and immediately confine the animal for the required period of time in a veterinary hospital of the owner's choosing, not outside of the County in which this city is located, and provide immediate proof of such confinement in such manner as may be required, the owner may do so. If, however, the animal has been inoculated with a live modified rabies vaccine and the owner has proof of the vaccination by a certificate from a licensed veterinarian, the owner may confine the dog or other animal to the owner's property. Subd. 3 {XE "Animals:Reclaiming"I Reclaiming. All animals conveyed to the pound shall be kept, with humane treatment and sufficient food and water for their comfort, at least five regular business days, unless the animal is a dangerous animal as defined under § 100. 11 in which case it shall be kept for seven regular business days or the times specified in § 100. 11, and except if the animal is a cruelly -treated animal in which case it shall be kept for ten regular business days, unless sooner reclaimed by their owners or keepers as provided by this Section. In case the owner or keeper shall desire to reclaim the animal from the pound, the following shall be required, unless otherwise provided for in this code or established from time to time by resolution of the city council: A. Payment of a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) release fee and receipt of a release permit from the police; B. Payment of maintenance costs, as provided by the pound, per day or any part of day while animal is in said pound; and C. If a dog is unlicensed, payment of a regular license fee and valid certificate of vaccination for rabies and distemper shots is required. The twenty-five dollar ($25.00) release fee in A is in addition to the release permit fee specified by § 100.0 1, Subd. 6. Subd. 4 {XE "Animals:Unclaimed")Unclaimed Animals. At the expiration of the times established in Subdivision 3, if the animal has not been reclaimed in accordance with the provisions of this Section, the officer appointed to enforce this Section may let any person claim the animal by complying with all provisions in this Section, or the officer may sell the animal to the University of Minnesota, or cause the animal to be destroyed in a proper and humaine manner and shall property dispose of the remains thereof. Any money collected under this Section shall be payable to the Clerk -Treasurer. 100.06 (XE "Kennets"){XE "Animals: Kennels" I Kennels (tc "100.06 Kennels" \1 21. Subd. I Definition of Kennel. The keeping of three or more dogs on the same premises, whether owned by the same person or not and for whatever purpose kept, shall constitute a "kennel;" except that a fresh litter of pups may be kept for a period of three months before.such keeping shall be deemed to be a "kennel." Subd. 2 Kennel as a Nuisance. Because the keeping of three or more dogs on the same premises is subject to great abuse, causing discomfort to persons in the area by way of smell, noise, hazard, and general aesthetic depreciation, the keeping of three or more dogs on the premises is hereby declared to be a nuisance and no person shall keep or maintain a kennel within the City. 100.07 (XE "Nuisances:Animals")(XE "Animals:Nuisances "}Nuisances (tc "100.07 Nuisances" \1 2}. Subd. I Habitual Barking. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries. Habitual barking shall be defined as barking for repeated intervals of at least three minutes with less than one minute of interruption. Such barking must also be audible off of the owner's or caretaker's premises. Subd. 2 Damage to Property. It shall be unlawful for any person's dog or other animal to damage any lawn, garden, or other property, whether or not the owner has knowledge of the damage. Any animal covered by this subdivision may be impounded as provided in this Section or a complaint may be issued by anyone aggrieved by an animal under this Section, against the owner of the animal for prosecution under this Section. Subd. 3 Cleaning up litter. The owner of any animal or person having the custody or control of any animal shall be responsible for cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner whether on their own property, on the property of others or on public property. Any person violating this section shall be punishable by a fine of ten dollars ($10.00) or five (5) hours of public lands fecal clean- up. Any person who is found guilty of subsequent violations of this section shall be punished by a fine of at least twenty-five dollars ($25.00) but not more than fifty dollars ($50.00). Subd. 4 Other. Any animals kept contrary to this Section are subject to impoundment as provided in § 100.05 100.08 Seizure of Animals. Any police officer or animal control officer may enter upon private property and seize any animal provided that following exist: A. There is an identified complainant other than the police officer or animal control officer making a contemporaneous complaint about the animal; B. The officer reasonably believes that the animal meets either the barking dog criteria set out in 100.07, subd. 1; the criteria for cruelty set out in 100. 13; or the criteria for an at large animal set out in 100.0 1 subd. 5; C. the officer can demonstrate that there has been at least one previous complaint of a barking dog; inhumane treatment of the animal; or that the animal was at large at this address on a prior date; D. The o ' fficer has made a reasonable attempt to contact the owner of the property and those attempts have either failed or have been ignored; E. The seizure will not involve the forced entry into a private residence. Use of a pass key obtained from a property manager, landlord, innkeeper, or other authorized person to have such key shall not be considered unauthorized entry; and F. Written notice of the seizure is left in a conspicuous place if personal contact with the owner of the dog is not possible. 100.09 Animals Presenting a {XE "Animals: Danger to Health and Safety of City"JDanger to Health and Safety of City(tc " 100.09 Animals Presenting a Danger to Health and Safety of City" \1 21. If, in the reasonable belief of any person or police officer, an animal presents an immediate danger to the health and safety of any person, or the animal is threatening imminent harm to any person, or the animal is in the process of attacking any person, the officer may destroy the animal in a proper and humane manner. Otherwise the person or officer may apprehend the animal and deliver it to the pound for confinement under § 100.05. If the animal is destroyed, a charge of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) to dispose of the animal is payable by the owner of the animal. If the animal is found not to be a danger to the health and safety of the City, it may be released to the owner or keeper in accordance with § 100.05, Subd. 3. 100.10 JXE "Animals: Diseased" I Diseased Animals (tc "100. 10 Diseased Animals" \1 21. Subd. I Running at Large. No person shall keep or allow to be kept on his or her premises, or on premises occupied by them, nor permit to run at large in the City, any animal which is diseased so as to be a danger to the health and safety of the City, even though the animal be properly licensed under this Section. Subd. 2 JXE "Animals: Confinement") Confinement. Any animal reasonably suspected of being diseased and presenting a threat to the health and safety of the public, may be apprehended and confined in the pound by any person or police officer. The police officer shall have a qualified veterinarian examine the animal. If the animal is found to be diseased in such a manner so as to be a danger to the health and safety of the City, the officer shall cause such animal to be painlessly killed and shall properly dispose of the remains. The owner or keeper of the animal killed under this Section shall be liable for at least seventy-five dollars ($75.00) to cover the cost of maintaining and disposing of the animal, plus the costs of any veterinarian examinations. Subd. 3 Release. If the animal, upon examination, is not found to be diseased within the meaning of this Section, the animal shall be released to the owner or keeper free of charge. 100. 11 Dangerous Animals. Subd. 1. Attack by an animal. It shall be unlawful for any person's animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present. This section shall not apply to an attack by a dog under the control of an on -duty law enforcement officer or to an attack upon an uninvited intruder who has entered the owner's home with criminal intent. Subd. 2. Destruction of dangerous animal. The animal control officer shall have the authority to order the destruction of dangerous animals in accordance with the terms established by this ordinance. Sube. 3. Definitions. (1) A dangerous animal is an animal which has: a. Caused bodily injury or disfigurement to any person on public or private property; or b. Engaged in any attack on any person under circumstances which would 0 indicate danger to personal safety; or c. Exhibited unusually aggressive behavior, such as an attack on another animal; or d. Bitten one (1) or more persons on two (2) or more occasions; or e. Been found to be potentially dangerous and/or the owner has personal knowledge of the same, the animal aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic an* als. ZD Im (2) A potentially dangerous animal is an animal which has: a. Bitten a human or a domestic animal on public or private property; or b. When unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public property in an apparent attitude of attack; or c. Has engaged in unprovoked attacks causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. (3) Proper enclosure. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and to provide protection for the animal from the elements. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the animal to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only barriers which prevent the animal from exiting. The enclosure shall not allow the egress of the animal in any manner without human assistance. A pen or kennel shall meet the following minimum specifications: a. Have a minimum overall floor size of thirty-two (32) square feet. b. Sidewalls shall have a minimum height of five (5) feet and be constructed of I I -gauge or heavier wire. Openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches, support posts shall be one -and -one -quarter -inch or larger steel pipe buried in the ground eighteen (18) inches or more. When a concrete floor is not provided, the sidewalls shall be buried a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in the ground. c. A cover over the entire pen or kennel shall be provided. The cover shall be constructed of the same gauge wire or heavier as the sidewalls and shall also have no openings in the wire greater than two (2) inches. d. An entrance/exit gate shall be provided and be constructed of the same material as the sidewalls and shall also have no openings in the wire greater than two (2) inches. The gate shall be equipped with a device capable of being locked and shall be locked at all times when the animal is in the pen or kennel. (4) Unprovoked. Unprovoked shall mean the condition in which the animal is not purposely excited, stimulated, agitated or disturbed. Subd. 4. Designation as potentially dangerous animal. The animal control officer shall designate any animal as a potentially dangerous animal upon receiving such evidence that such potentially dangerous animal has, when unprovoked, then bitten, attacked, or threatened the safety of a person or a domestic animal as stated in subparagraph (c)(2). When an animal is declared potentially dangerous, the animal control officer shall cause one (1) owner of the potentially dangerous animal to be notified in writing that such animal is potentially dangerous. Subd. 5. Evidence justifying designation. The animal control officer shall have the authority to designate any animal as a dangerous animal upon receiving evidence of the following: (1) That the animal has, when unprovoked, bitten, attacked, or threatened the safety of a person or domestic animal as stated in subparagraph (c)(1). (2) That the animal has been declared potentially dangerous and such animal has then bitten, attacked, or threatened the safety of a person or domestic animal as stated in subparagraph (c)(1). Subd. 6. Authority to order destruction. The animal control officer, upon finding that an animal is dangerous hereunder, is authorized to order, as part of the disposition of the case, that the animal be destroyed based on a written order containing one (1) or more of the following findings of fact: (1) The animal is dangerous as demonstrated by a vicious attack, an unprovoked attack, an attack without warning or multiple attacks; or (2) The owner of the animal has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to control the animal in order to prevent injury to persons or other animals. Subd. 7. Procedure. The animal control officer, after having determined that an animal is dangerous, may proceed in the following manner: (1) The animal control officer shall cause one (1) owner of the animal to be notified in writing or in person that the animal is dangerous and may order the animal seized or make such orders as deemed proper. This owner shall be notified as to dates, times, places and parties bitten, and shall be given fourteen (14) days to appeal this order by requesting a hearing before the city council for a review of this determination. a. If no appeal is filed, the orders issued will stand or the animal control officer may order the animal destroyed. b. If an owner requests a hearing for determination as to the dangerous nature of the animal, the hearing shall be held before the city council, which shall set a date for hearing not more than three (3) weeks after demand for the hearing. The records of the animal control or city clerk's office shall be admissible for consideration by the animal control officer without further foundation. After considering all evidence pertaining to the temperament of the animal, the city council shall make an order as it deems proper. The city council may order that the animal control officer take the animal into custody for destruction, if such animal is not currently in custody. If the animal is ordered into custody for destruction, the owner shall immediately make the animal available to the animal control officer. c. No person shall harbor an animal after it has been found by to be dangerous and ordered into custody for destruction. Subd. 8. Stopping an attack. If any police officer or animal control officer is witness to an attack by an a ' nimal upon a person or another animal, the officer may take whatever means the officer deems appropriate to bring the attack to an end and prevent further injury to the victim. Subd. 9. Notification of new address. The owner of an animal which has been identified as dangerous or potentially dangerous must notify the animal control officer in writing if the animal is to be relocated from its current address or given or sold to another person. The notification must be given in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the relocation or transfer of ownership. The notification must include the current owner's name and address, the relocation address, and the name of the new owner, if any. 100. 12 Dangerous animal requirements. Subd. 1. Requirements. If the city council does not order the destruction of an animal that has been declared dangerous, the city council may, as an alternative, order any or all of the following: (1) That the owner provide and maintain a proper enclosure for the dangerous animal as specified in section 100. 11, Subd. 3 (3); (2) Post the front and the rear of the premises with clearly visible warning signs, including a warning symbol to inform children, that there is a dangerous animal on the property as specified in Minnesota Statute 347.5 1; (3) Provide and show proof annually of public liability insurance in the minimum amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00); (4) If the animal is a dog and is outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash (not to exceed six (6) feet in length) and under the physical restraint of a person sixteen ( 16) years of age or older. The muzzle must be of such design as to prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration; (5) If the animal is a dog, it must have an easily identifiable, standardized tag CD identifying the dog as dangerous affixed to its collar at all times as specified in Minnesota Statute 347.5 1; (6) All animals deemed dangerous by the animal control officer shall be registered with the County in which this city is located within fourteen (14) days after the date the animal was so deemed and provide satisfactory proof thereof to the animal control officer. (7) If the animal is a dog, the dog must be licensed and up to date on rabies vaccination. If the animal is a cat or ferret, it must be up to date with rabies vaccination. Subd. 2. Seizure. Animal control shall immediately seize any dangerous animal if the owner does not meet each of the above requirements within fourteen (14) days after the date notice is sent to the owner that the animal is dangerous. Seizure may be appealed to district court by ser-ving a summons and petition upon the city and filing it with the district court. Subd. 3. Reclaiming animals. A dangerous animal seized under subsection 100. 12, Subd. 2, may be reclaimed by the owner of the animal upon payment of impounding and boarding fees, and presenting proof to animal control that each of the requirements under subsection 100. 12, Subd. 2, is fulfilled. An animal not reclaimed under this section within fourteen (14) days may be disposed of as provided under section 100. 11, Subd. 6, and the owner is liable to animal control for costs incurred in confining the animal. Subd. 4. Subsequent offenses. If an owner of an animal has subsequently violated the provisions under section 100. 11 with the same animal, the animal must be seized by animal control. The owner may request a hearing as defined in section 100. 11, Subd. 6. If the owner is found to have violated the provisions for which the animal was seized, the animal control officer shall order the animal destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner shall pay the costs of confining the animal. If the person is found not to have violated the provisions for which the animal was seized, the owner may reclaim the animal under the provisions of subsection 100.12, Subd. 3. If the animal is not yet reclaimed by the owner within fourteen (14) days after the date the owner is notified that the animal may be reclaimed, the animal may be disposed of as provided under section 100. 11, Subd. 6 and the owner is liable to the animal control for the costs incurred in confining, 'impounding and disposing of the animal. 100. 13 {XE "Animals:Basic Care")Basic Careftc " 100. 13 Basic Care" \1 2). All animals shall receive from their owners or keepers kind treatment, housing in the winter, and sufficient food and water for their comfort. Any person not treating their pet in such a humane manner will be subject to the penalties provided in this Section. 100. 14 Breeding Moratorium. Every female dog or female cat in heat shall be confined in a building or other enclosure in such manner that it cannot come in contact with another dog or cat except for planned breeding. Upon capture and failure to reclaim the animal, every dog or cat shall be neutered or spayed prior to being transferred to a new owner. 100. 15 Enforcing Officer(tc " 0 100. 14 Breeding Moratorium. Every female dog or female cat in heat shall be confined in a building or other enclosure in such manner that it cannot come in contact with another dog or cat except for planned breeding. Upon capture and failure to reclaim the animal, every dog or cat shall be neutered or spayed prior to being transferred to a new owner. 11 E100.15 Enforcing Officer" \1 21. The Council is hereby authorized to appoint an animal control officer(s) to enforce the provisions of this Section. In the officer's duty of enforcing the provisions of this Section, he or she may from time to time, with the consent of the Council, designate assistants. 100.16 JXE "Pound, (see animals)") Pound(tc "100.16 Pound" \1 21. Every year the Council shall designate an official pound to which animals found in violation of this chapter shall be taken for safe treatment, and if necessary, for destruction. 100.17 {XE "Animals: Interference with Officers"} Interference with Officers Itc " 100. 17 Interference with Officers" \1 2). No person shall in any manner molest, hinder, or interfere with any person authorized by the Council to capture dogs, cats or other animals and convey them to the pound while engaged in such operation. Nor shall any unauthorized person break open the pound, or attempt to do so, or take or attempt to take from any agent any animal taken up by him or her in compliance with this Chapter, or in any other manner to interfere with or hinder such officer in the discharge of his or her duties under this Chapter. 100.99 JXE "Animals:Violations and Penalties" )Violations and Penalties Itc " 100. 18 Violations and Penalties" \1 2}. Subd. I Separate Offenses. Each day a violation of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such under this Section. Subd. 2 Misdemeanor. Unless otherwise provided, violation of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $700 or imprisonment for up to 90 days. Subd. 3. Petty Misdemeanor. Violations of § § 100.02, 100.07, 100.13 and 100. 14 are petty misdemeanors punishable by a fine up to $200. Michael C Couri- Andrew J. MacArthur Robert T. Ruppe- David R. Wendorf *A I" licemed in 111wis **ALw licmwd in Galomia October 21, 2002 City Council Members City of Otsego c/o Judy Hudson 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Otsego Cemetery Dear Council Members: CO URI & MA CAR THUR Attorneys at Law 705 CentralA venue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN55376-0369 (763) 497-1930 (763) 497-2599 ") couriandrnacarThur@pobox. com T, "15-' OCT 2 2 2,902 DOCUMENT HAS BEEN COPIM & DISTRIBUTED TO: VAYOR PC cou%��ICIL -J/— C; EDAAC PKS & REG ELDGINSP 0 T HE R alL 0 'AT E I would like to* clarify some discussion about the Cemetery that we had at the last regular City Council meeting. Speaking off of the top of my head and relying on mernory, I , indicated to the Council that tiie O*tsego Cemetery was not owned by . the City. After the meeting I went back and reviewed the file and I stand corrected. A portion of the cemetery was conveyed by warranty deed to the Town of Otsego from Alva L. Cooley and Wife by a warranty deed dated March 25, 1867. On September 26, 1949 Oscar J. Tillisch signed a document which purportedly conveyed a tract of land "bordering on the south side of the Otsego Cemetery, extending from the main gate to the west end of the cemetery. and extending south to the County Road, which .runs parallel with the cemetery, this . parcel of land is in the form of a (U) with the small end at the Cemetery Gate." The conveyance was made to the "Otsego Cemetery". The legal description of the property, the form of the "deed" and whom it was intended to be conveyed to are all suspect. One of the problems discussed at that time was the expense that it would take to clear up these issues, versus just leaving the matter alone. The City does own that portion of the property conveyed in 1867, although that legal description is suspect. As to the other portion of the property supposedly conveyed in' 194% it is unclear whether a valid conveyance was made. The "legal description" of that conveyance is ambiguous. It could be costly to quiet title to the cemetery property.' * Letter to Otsego City Council October 21, 2002 Page 2 If further information is needed I will be available to discuss the matter next Monday at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting 0* Very trI.ay-yours, ew J. ac COURI & MACARTHUR Encls. Alva L. Cooley & wife to Waranty Deed Towm of Otsego This indenture made the twenty fifth day of March in the year of our Lord One thousand and eight hundred and sixty seven between Alva L. Cooley and Margaret Cooley, his wife of the County of Wright and State of Minnesota, party of the fir3t part and the Town of Otsego in the County of Wright and State of Minnesota party of the second part. ' Wittnesseth, that the said party of the first part in consideration of the sum of twen d to them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt thereof is her ty oUars, acknowledged have Granted Bargained Sold and Conveyed and do by these pre eby eir eirs; gn Grant Bargain and Convey to the said party of the second part th sents h and assi s forever all that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Wright and State of Minnesota clerk Sed as follows to wit: Commencing at a point fifty five 55 links North of the quarter post on the West side of Scction sixteen (16) Township one hundred and twenty one (121) Range tw ty three (23) west, thence North five (5) chains and d en lirly two (32) hundreths ch's, thence East three (3) and thirty four (34) hundreths ch's, thence South six (6) chains and sevrnty (70) hundreths chs. Thence South sixty seven 67 degrees West three (3) chains and sixty two (62) hundreffis chs. to the place of beghing, being in Section Sixteen (16) Township one hundred and twenty one (121) of Range 23 (23) Making two (2) acres according to a survey and plat made by B. F. Miller and dated October the 5th AD 1866. To have and to hold the same, together with all the hektaments and appurtenances there unto belonging as in anywisc appertaining to the said party of the second part their heirs and assigns forever. And the said Alva L. Cooley and Margaret Cooley party of the fmt pail do covenant with the said party of the second part their heirs and assigns as follows: First, that they are lawfully seized of said premises Second, that they have good right to convey the same. Third, that the same are free from all. encumbrances and FourtI4 that the party of the second part; their heirs and assigns shall grcatbf enjoy and possess the same and that the said party of the first part win Warrant and Defend the title to the same against all lawfW claims. In testimony thereof, the said party of the fmt part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed: Alva L. Cooley Signed, scaled, and delivered in Signed: Margaret Cooley. the pr=nce of-. WM. McLeod US Stamp - 50 cents John McDonald (canceled) State of Minnesota, County of Wright (seal) Be it known that on the 25th of March AD 1867 pmw.A, or mr. bef le, rne A�,a L. Cooley and Margaret Cooley To me personally known to be the same persons desctibed in and who "ecuted the fOr'egoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same frce'ky and voluntarily. And the said Margaret Cooley upon examination separate and apart from her said husband acknowledged that she executed the said deed freely and Voluntarily without any fear or compulsion from anyone. John McDonald Justice of the Peace 0"% ee le IV.-e6pv"'I e, 'e—v z 7 'eO teev I /;Iy- /Ir ol Z let 1 0. e r e; Y- 4e e e -I' e05� e, e' ve of "o .40 go, 14 - ,, "o" I e000 op'. . I I ee," ea &V v XF-36- we.) �-e. oA-' -* ro; - C, re 'If �Weo Ile ell 'i I te "o I et., 7,;. W. fiee, ?e' W-14 Mr, //� 1'e 41.-1 terr, .1 eel.- 50 �-�e cp ir If AtIq lit- e /f _2 o of'e'.z top 'c 1 %00' 4ey oo' ed, Xhl o Qu �o. 4e e'. e '0" 11-1 e.e'A a e -e Otsego Cemetery Association Route 2, Elk River, Minn. J#t 6.1, 7- N -A /V Z_J" A�- tq Y I do j ;t4 It4c aa C'q '�'-r 7t 7 d/t tUNtti1KUV HOSENE ANDERLIK 46 6516361311 10/21/02 14:271T i- '-� ..^. n-3rl f EM 9-A. Otsego East WWTF Phase 2 BRA File Number 503-01-102 Project Progress Review October 21, 2002 As of September 26h 2002 the project was approximately paid out to the 60% level. The original contract amount is $2,217,700. Presently change order additions (completed, yet to be paid) are at 3/10ths of I percent of the original contract amount, or $8,360.00. Excavation and backfilling was been completed to 85 %, concrete 8 1 %, steel 8 1 % & the masonry work to 95 %. Exterior piping and equipment installation was at the 50% level. In addition to the real buildings and tankage completed, the majority of the major process equipment units and related appurtenances have been delivered and paid for. The equipment items have either been placed in their respective locations in the new buildings or are in storage on site. As of the week of October 14th roofing was being completed on the new buildings. The majority of the backfilling has been finished and the only remaining concrete work is the launder in the new final clarifier, some equipment pads and the sidewalks. It appears that the project will be going into the winter season with the temperature sensitive exterior heavy construction completed. The contractor will be focusing on the equipment placement, interior piping, plumbing, HVAC and the electrical through the coming winter months. Ile project has been moving forward without problem and the general contractor — GridOT Construction — has been a pleasure to work with. End Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik 1WS CII -f OF TSEGO ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD October 23, 2002 Ramankutty Kannankutty MNDOT Metro Division 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: City of Otsego Highway 101 Issues Kutty: 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. - Otsego, MN 55330 (763) 441-4414 - Fax: (763) 441-8823 E-mail: cityhall@ci.otsego.mn.us 71 � 6 I am in receipt of your email to Wayne Fingalson of October 18, 2002. 1 have several subjects I wish to discuss with you. Meeting Regarding Interchange Design at Highway 101 & County Road 39 Why was Otsego not invited to this meeting? Neither myself or the City Engineer received an invitation. IVINIDOT has already told us that Otsego must come up with two or three million dollars if we want this interchange to happen. Wright County has not been told to come up with any money and they do not intend to budget anything for this improvement. Yet they are invited to design the intersection and we are not. Yet we asked for the interchange and have a developer willing to contribute to it. What's going an here? I- request that MNDOT cease work on any of the proposed preliminary layouts until they meet with myself and the Otsego City Engineer. We have grave concerns about some of the design statements listed among the options. MNIDOT Comments on Proposed Plats Why is MNDOT involving itself in Otsego's land use decisions when it lacks constitutional authority to do so? MNDOT inserted itself into the Waterfront development at County Road 39 and Highway 101, and now is once again inserting itself into a proposed commercial development at County Road 42 and Highway 101. Commercial land owners are developing the suspicion that MNDOT seeks to delay or stop development in order to reduce its future right-of-way acquisition costs for f uture highway improvements. The City of Otsego spent over seven million dollars to develop a sewer and water system to diversify its tax base through commercial and industrial growth along Highway 101. The City will not tolerate any attempts by MNDOT to interfere in local land use decisions. MNDOT staff were told constantly by myself and other local officials during the inter -regional corridor planning process for Highway 101 that local governments would not forego or limit development to preserve right -of -way for highway improvements that might happen "sometime" in the future. If MNDOT wants right-of-way preserved, it will have to come to the table with a definite commitment. Otherwise the City of Otsego will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent interference by another level of government in our land use decisions. County Access Setback Requirements from Highway 101 The City of Otsego is currently in a dispute with Wright County over their access setback requirements from Highway 101 on County roads. This is a local issue and we expect that it will CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION October 28, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 9. I.A. Peavey House Rent City Administrator 9-I.A. Consider Increasing Peavey House Rent. The Peavey House is currently being rented for $530.00 per month. The City raised the rent from to $530.00 from $500 effective January, 2001. Staff recommends that the rent be increased to a range of $650-$750 a month effective January 1, 2003. ITEM 9A.B. MEMO Date: October 23, 2002 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Update on Special Project Priorities I have divided the special projects list according to the primary person working on it. I have enclosed the memo from the last meeting describing each project. I have also added the Dog Ordinance project requested at the last Council meeting. I would recommend that Council simply number the projects within each person's list to determine the priority. CITY ADMINISTRATOR MIKE ROBERTSON Financial Plan Emergency Response Plan Street Lighting Policy City Identification Signage Costs CITY CLERK JUDY HUDSON Records Retention Schedule' West Otsego Regional Park Sites (Also Council committee) CITY PLANNER DAN LICHT City Ordinance Codification Park Capital Improvements Plan Park Plan Update - West Otsego CITY ENGINEER RON WAGNER Park Capital Improvements Plan CITY ATTORNEY ANDY MACARTHUR Records Retention Schedule Dog Ordinance Update CITY ACCOUNTANT GARY GROEN Otsego Creek Culvert Costs Water & Sewer Budget MEMO Date: October 10, 2002 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Update on Special Projects This memo provides an update on the various special projects currently being pursued by staff. In discussing this with Mayor Fournier it became clear that the majority of these projects had been suggested by individual Councilmembers or staff and that a priority has never been set for them. I would like Council to review the status of these projects and determine what the level of priority should be for each one. FINANCIAL PLAN This plan came out of discussions between myself, City Clerk Judy Hudson and Accountant Gary Groen. We realized that the city,s financial information has not been gathered in one place and was highly dependant on what each of us was carrying in our memories. I'have been working on and off during the year, with assistance from Gary and Judy, to review all of the CitY's financial information and to set it down in one plan. Some of the transfers Council has made from one fund to another this year have been based on this work. I have treated this as my top special project priority through the year. A draft plan could be ready for submittal to Council by November. PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Staff was waiting to receive bids on School Knoll Park that would provide cost information. Now that we have bids, staff is working on Putting together a plan. The plan will be submitted to the Park & Recreation Commission and the Council. Our goal is to submit the plan to the Park & Recreation Commission at their November meeting. This plan would provide legal justification for raising the City,s Park & Trail fees. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN I have received a variety of information but have not had time to start putting a plan together. CITY RECORDS RETENTION SCEDULE City Clerk Hudson has Pulled together all of the requirements of the State and the recommendations of the League of Minnesota Cities for making certain that we are maintaining our records properly. City Attorney MacArthur is currently reviewing the information to be sure we are up to date with legal requirements. it will be Secretary Lindenfelser's top priority this winter to go through every City file, throw out excess copies, and make sure that we have everything we are legally required to. We expect that this will free up some file storage space. STREET LIGHTING POLICY We have at various times over the last four years discussed establishing a street lighting policy to determine where streetlights are located in the City. At this point the City Policy as established in the Engineering Standards Manual is that the City provides streetlights only at intersections. OTSEGO CREEK CULVERTS City Accountant Groen is reviewing past bills but has to meet with Dave Chase to determine which expenses are for culverts and which are not. WEST OTSEGO REGIONAL PARK SITES Councilmembers Struthers and Heidner have been working on this. I have also asked City Clerk Hudson and Secretary Lindenfelser, as residents in the area, to make suggestions. I know that Councilmember Heidner has had at least one conversation with a landowner based on their suggestions. CITY ORDINANCE CODIFICATION The work is being done by the City Planner's office and is almost complete. He expects it will be submitted to the Council in December. 3 CITY IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE COSTS The City Council examined cost estimates I obtained for concrete block signs and concluded that they were too expensive. I was asked to obtain cost information for metal and wood signs. I have not had time to do anything further. PARK PLAN UPDATE The Park Plan needs to be updated for the West Sewer District area. Work on this project has not started yet. WATER & SEWER BUDGET City Accountant Groen is examining water & sewer costs to determine how many customers we need to break even, and to estimate what revenues can be generated at full build out. The following projects have been completed this year. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE This has been completed by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and is ready for Council action. PARRISH AVENUE FLOODING GRANT Staff held many meetings with Parrish Avenue residents to gather information to put into the grant application. I expect that if the grant application is not funded or not funded for all applicants that reapplying for the grant for those people interested will become an annual occurrence. CITY HALL REMODELING PLANS Several options for remodeling City Hall based on future growth and staff needs have been prepared and reviewed by Council and Council has indicated the direction staff should follow. REVISION OF LIQUOR ORDINANCES The ordinances have been revised to hold a joint public hearing rather than individual hearings for every license. CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION October 28, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 9. I.C. Consideration of Purchasing a City Administrator Ford Plow Truck 9.1-C. Consideration of Purchasing a Ford Plow Truck. The truck is a Ford single axel truck with a dump box, a plow in front, and a belly plow. The Public Works Department would like a single axel plow truck because the larger plow trucks have difficulty making some of the turns on the narrower, curvier streets ini,the new subdivisions without occasionally stopping and backing up. 4D The truck would be purchased from the State bid list, which reduces the price, and financed by an Equipment Certificate paid across five years. The payments would be approximately $29,000 a year, would come from the Capital Equipment budget, and would be outside the City levy limit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Public Works Subcommittee has recommended approval of the purchase. The truck would be ordered immediately. ITEM 9.2. A. TO: City Council FROM: Judy Hudson, City Clerk RE: 2003 Fire Assessments. Fire District 2002 Assessment Suggested 2003 151m Assessment Elk River $40.00 $40.00 Monticello $45.00 $45.00 Rogers $55.00 $55.00 Albertville $58.00 $58.00 Amended S65.00 $65.00 EL Last year's fire assessment for Albertville was $65-00, we did come back last year and ic increased this amount. Therefore, I need to continue with the $65.00 fire assessment for Alb ertville and need to amend from the approved $58 to $65.00. Thank you, Judy The City of Albertville Contract needs to be renewed. I talked to Linda on 10- 10-02 and she didn't think there would be an increase.