The URL can be used to link to this page

03-08-99 CC• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Plat Name) AGREEMENT entered into this day of of Otsego ("City"), a municipal corporation organized Minnesota, and 1. Request for approve a plat entitled legally described as follows: 1999 between the City under the laws of the State of ("Developers"). Plat Approval. The Developers have requested that the City (referred to in this Agreement as "the Plat") and (See attached Exhibit A) 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developers enter into this Agreement, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the Wright County Recorder or Registrar of titles within one hundred (100) days after the City Council approves the final plat. Any restrictive covenants for the subject subdivision shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded prior to sale of any lots within the plat. 3. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developers may, not made or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, storm sewers, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the Zoning Administrator, and all conditions contained in the Agreement have been met, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the Wright County Recorder's Office, 4) Developers have initiated and attended a preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer, and 5) the Zoning Administrator has issued a letter that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developers may proceed; or until such time as approval to commence earlier construction is specifically approved by the City, and Developers have fully complied with all conditions set forth by City staff. 4. Phased Development. If the Plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary Plat, the City may refuse to approve final Plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract or the Resolution approving the Final Plat and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Fees and charges collected by the City in connection with infrastructure and public improvements are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the Plat that are designated in an approved preliminary Plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outiots are subdivided into lots and blocks. 5. Preliminary Plat Status. If the Plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary Plat, the Developer shall submit a Staging Plan for City Council approval which may allow the Developer more than one (1) year to subdivide the property into lots and blocks. 6. Sanitary Sewer Service Allocation. Preliminary plat approval by the City does not guarantee allocation of sanitary sewer to the property preliminarily platted. Allocation of sanitary sewer capacity does not occur until final plat approval and posting of all security required by this Agreement. 7. Changes in Official Controls. F -or two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developers. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the plans attached to this Agreement and the conditions stated below. If the plans vary from the written teens of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A Final Plat, , dated , 1999, prepared by Plan B Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Resubdivision Plan, dated , 1999, prepared by Plan C Street Plan and Profile, dated 1999, prepared by Plan D Specifications for Sewer and Water Lines, dated 1999, prepared by Plan E Tree Preservation and Replacement Plans and Landscaping Plan, dated , 1999, prepared by 9. Improvements. The Developers shall install and pay for the following: A. Street B. Street lights C. Site grading and ponding. D. Underground utilities E. Sewer Lines F. Water Lines G. Storm water improvements H. Setting of lot and block monuments I. Construction surveying and staking J. Traffic control signs Improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and the plans furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developers shall obtain all necessary permits before proceeding with construction. The City shall provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure acceptable quality control which will allow certification of the construction work. The City may, when reasonably required to do so and at the Developer's expense, have one (1) or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the improvements and before any security is released, the Developers shall supply the City with a complete set of reproducible "as built" plans and two (2) complete sets of blue line "as built" plans prepared in accordance with City standards. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, iron monuments shall be installed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments are installed. 10. Time of Performance. The Developers shall install all listed improvements by The Developers may request an extension of time from the City, which extension will not be unreasonably withheld. The City may impose conditions on the extension necessary to ensure performance. 11. Right of Entry. The Developers hereby grant to the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors an irrevocable right of entry to enter the plat to perform any and all work and inspections necessary or deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of improvements by Developers or the City, or to make any necessary corrective actions necessary by the City. Except in emergency situations, as defined by the City, the City shall give the developers five (5) business days notice stating the deficiencies and necessary corrections prior to making any corrective action. Said right of entry shall continue until the City finally accepts the improvements and any applicable warranty period has 3 A. Street B. Street lights C. Site grading and ponding. D. Underground utilities E. Sewer Lines F. Water Lines G. Storm water improvements H. -Setting of lot and block monuments I. Construction surveying and staking J. Traffic control signs Improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and the plans furnished to the City and approved by the Cily Engineer. The Developers shall obtain all necessary permits before proceeding with construction. The City shall provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure acceptable quality control which will allow certification of the construction work. The City may, when reasonably required to do so and at the Developer's expense, have one (1) or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the improvements and before any security is released, the Developers shall supply the City with a complete set of reproducible "as built" plans and two (2) complete sets of blue line "as built" plans prepared in accordance with City standards. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, iron monuments shall be installed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments are installed. 10. Time of Performance. The Developers shall install all listed improvements by The Developers may request an extension of time from the City, which extension will not be unreasonably withheld. The City may impose conditions on the extension necessary to ensure performance. 11. Right of Entry. The Developers hereby grant to the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors an irrevocable right of entry to enter the plat to perform any and all work and inspections necessary or deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of improvements by Developers or the City, or to make any necessary corrective actions necessary by the City. Except in emergency situations, as defined by the City, the City shall give the developers five (5) business days notice stating the deficiencies and necessary corrections prior to making any corrective action. Said right of entry shall continue until the City finally accepts the improvements and any applicable warranty period has 3 expired. 12. Erosion Control. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or further building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developers and inspected and approved by the City. If the City Engineer determines that it would be unreasonable to require full implementation of the erosion control plan prior to utility construction or issuance of certain building permits, he shall state in writing what construction can take place and what particular building permits can be issued.prior to full implementation. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or any supplementary instructions, the City may, with reasonable notice, take action as it deems appropriate. 13. Grading Plan. Plat grading shall be in accordance with the grading plan. Ponds, swales, and ditches shall be constructed on public easements or land owned by the City. Within thirty (30) days after completion of grading and before any security release, the Developers shall provide the City with an "as built" grading plan including certification by a registered land surveyor or engineer that all ponds, swales, and ditches have been constructed on public easements or land owned by the City. "As built" plans shall include field verified elevations of the following: A. Cross sections of ponds B. Location and elevations of swales and ditches C. Lot comers and house pads Occupancy permits shall not be issued until the grading and drainage plan is certified as set forth above. 14. Clean Up. The Developers shall promptly clean any and all dirt and debris from streets resulting from construction work by the Developers, their agents or assigns. 15. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this Agreement, improvements lying within public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. 16. Streets. The Developers agree to maintain the streets in the plat until the bituminous surfacing has been accepted by the City. Should the City be required to grade the E! street prior to paving, the cost of such grading shall be paid by the Developers and drawn from the Developer's letter of credit. Should snow plowing be necessary prior to street paving, the Developers shall be responsible for such plowing. If, upon the Developer's request, the City agrees to plow the street prior to acceptance, such work will be done upon agreement that the Developers will hold harmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability claims related to such work and pay all costs associated with that work. Any plowing undertaken by the City will constitute no acceptance or evidence of acceptance of the street(s) in question. Upon final completion of streets and acceptance by the City, the Developers shall guarantee to the City for a period of that the streets have been constructed to City standards. The warranty period shall not commence until such time as street construction is completed and the streets are accepted by the City. 17. Road Connection Fee. In the event that safe, practical and convenient access to the plat requires that the City expand funds for construction, reconstruction or repair of any City street providing access to the plat and which construction, reconstruction or repair would not be necessary or timely but for the development, Developer shall pay a fee for such access to those roadways. The amount of that fee will be based upon engineering studies of the cost of any such improvements and the equitable share that shall be apportioned to the plat. The fee for road connection within this plat is 18. Sewage Treatment. No occupancy permit for any lot in the plat will be issued by the City unless the City Building Official has inspected both the sewer and water hookups to the building and has certified that they have been constructed satisfactorily. 19. City Engineering Administration and Construction Observation, And Legal And Fees Escrow . The Developers shall pay a fee for consulting engineering administration. City engineering administration will include monitoring of construction, observation, consultation with Developers and their engineer on status or problems regarding the project, monitoring during the warranty period and processing of requests for reduction in security. Fees for this service shall be three percent (3%) of the estimated construction cost of the improvements to be inspected, assuming normal construction and project scheduling. The Developers shall pay for construction observation performed by the City's consulting engineer. Construction observation shall include part or full time inspection of proposed street, sanitary sewer, water and stone drainage construction and will be billed on hourly rates estimated to be five percent (5%) of the estimated construction cost of the improvements to be inspected. In the event of prolonged construction or unusual problems, the City will notify the Developers of anticipated cost overruns for administration and observation services. The escrow account shall include estimated fees for Legal expenses and Signs and shall be established as follows: 5 ESCROW Signs (_ at $ per sign) $ Engineering Fees (estimated) $ Legal Fees $ TOTAL, $ This escrow amount shall be submitted to the City prior to the City executing the plat and Developer's Agreement. All administrative and legal fees related to plan review, drafting of the Developer's agreement and any other necessary items shall be paid to the City prior to execution of the plat and Developer's Agreement. Any amounts not utilized from this escrow fund shall be returned to the Developers, with interest, when all improvements have been completed, all financial obligations to the City satisfied, and the required "as built" plans have been received by the City. 20. Administrative Fee. A fee for City Administration of this project shall be paid prior to the City executing the plat and this Agreement. Said fee shall be one percent (1%) of the estimated construction costs of the improvements within the plat. The administrative fee for this Plat is 21. Drainage. The Developers shall fully comply with the Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Resubdivision Plan (Plan B). The City has established a fee for the impact of the Plat upon storm water drainage within the watershed(s). The fee is based upon engineering studies completed by the City. The established storm sewer water impact fee for this Plat is This fee is due prior to the City executing the Plat or signing this Agreement. 22. Security. To ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of park and trail fees, storm water drainage fees, water availability fees and hookup charges, sewer availability fees and hookup charges, and construction of all public improvements, the Developers shall furnish the City with "security" in the amount of $ said amount calculated as follows: Site, grading, drainage, erosion $ control, and turf establishment L Engineering, surveying, and inspection S Construction of street and drainage $ Improvements Water Availability Fees M Sewer Availability Fees $. TOTAL The issuer and form of the security (ies) shall be subject to City approval, and shall be substantially in the form(s) attached hereto as Exhibit B. The security(ies) shall be for a term ending . The City may draw down the security(ies) for any violation of the terms of this Agreement, or upon receiving notice of the pending expiration of the security(ies). It shall be the responsibility of the Developers to inform the City at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the security(ies) of the impending expiration and the status of the project relative to the security and this Agreement. If, for whatever reason, the security(ies) lapses prior to complete compliance with this Agreement, the Developers shall immediately provide the City with either an extension of the security or an irrevocable letter of credit of the same amount upon notification of the expiration. If the required improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security(ies), the City may also may draw down the security(ies). If the security(ies) is drawn down the proceeds shall be used to cure any default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City approval the security may be reduced from time to time down to S or 25% of the security, whichever is more, the amount of warranty security required by this Agreement. It shall not be reduced below this amount until such time as an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of S shall be posted with the City as set forth in paragraph 19 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the posting of warranty security, the security shall not be reduced below twenty-five percent (259/6) of the posted security. Said twenty-five percent (25%) shall be retained until all improvements have been completed, all financial obligations to the City satisfied (which includes posting of warranty security), and the required "as builf'plans have been received by the City. This security amount shall be submitted to the City prior to execution of the plat and Developer's Agreement. All administrative and legal fees related to plan review, drafting of rl the Developer's agreement and any other necessary items shall be paid to the City prior to execution of the plat and the Developer's Agreement. The security for this Agreement shall be an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of 23. Landscaping. The Developers shall plant two (2) trees on every lot in the plat not already containing two (2) trees. Trees shall be selected from among the following species, or other species of tree which meet the approval of the City Building Official: Maples Basswood Linden Birch Ash Ginkgo (male only) Honey Locus Kentucky Coffee Tree Hackberry The minimum tree size shall be two (2) inches caliper, either bare root in season or balled and buriapped. The trees may not be planted in a boulevard. Any trees which can cause a public nuisance or public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak bark are specifically prohibited. The Developers shall sod all front yards within the buildable portion of each lot. The Developers shall provide not less than six (6) inches of topsoil in required front yards or side yards abutting public rights-of-way. Where slopes lie in excess of ten (10) percent, sodding (staked) shall be required. Weather permitting, the trees, grass seed and sod shall be planted before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. All grass seed shall be maintained so that turf is established within one (1) year of planting. At the time of application for a Certificate of Occupancy on each individual lot, the owner shall post a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) cash escrow with the City to guarantee compliance with the landscaping requirements on that individual lot. If the landscaping is not timely completed, the City may enter the lot, perform the work, and apply the cash escrow toward the cost. Upon satisfactory completion of the landscaping, the escrow funds, without interest and less any draw made by the City, shall be returned to the person who deposited the funds with the City. The owner of each lot providing any trees, grass, seed, and sod shall maintain said plantings and warrant them to remain alive, of good quality and disease free for twelve (12) months after planting. Any replacement shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The owners shall post security, as set forth above, to the City to secure these warranties. 24. Subject to approved Plan E, the total number of significant trees to be removed is , which is (is not) within the allowable percentage as set forth in the City Ordinance. The Developer is (is not) required to replace significant trees. 25. Sanitary Sewer Fees. Fees for the provision of sanitary sewer are as follows: units at for a total fee of % of that or shall be paid prior to City execution of the plat and this Agreement. The remainder shall be due upon application for a building permit on each lot within the Plat. 26. Water Fees. Fees for the provision of sanitary sewer are as follows: units at for a total fee of % of that or shall be paid prior to City execution of the plat and this Agreement. The remainder shall be due upon application for a building permit on each lot within the Plat. 27. Oversizing. City and Developer agree that the Developer Improvements should be oversized for the benefit of future development. City and Developer agree that the cost of system oversizing to be reimbursed to the Developer is based upon a cost estimate as determined by both quotes received from the Developer's subcontractor and the City Engineer using the City's Assessment Policy based on a final engineering design. The calculation for oversizing is attached to Exhibit D. If the City Engineer determines additional work as the result of oversizing is required, the City shall reimburse the Developer for the costs associated with this work. 28. Meters. The following provisions shall be made for meters within the Plat: 29. Warranty. The Developers warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year after its completion and acceptance by the City. The amount of posted warranty security for public improvements to be posted by the Developers shall be in the amount of S . The amount, has been determined by the City Engineer, and is based upon the costs of the raw materials and labor which would be necessary to correct the most common deficiencies in such public improvement. 30. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that perform work required by this Agreement, and the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developers hereby authorizes the City to commence an interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of 9 credit in an amount up to one hundred twenty-five percent (125°/0) of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developers shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any fiuther proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain ,jurisdiction to determine attorney fees pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that the Developer desires to make a cash deposit instead of drawing down the letter of credit if a claim is made as stated above, they shall immediately notify the City of this intent at the time the claim is made and shall delivery one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the claim to the City within ten (10) days of such notice in the form of cash or certified check. A. Prompt Payment to Subcontractors Required. The Developer shall pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Developer's receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Developer fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Developer has received payment by the City, the Developer shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1% percent (1.5%) per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of or more is . For an unpaid balance of less than 'the Developer shall pay the actual interest penalty to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Developer shall be awarded its costs and disbursement, including attorney's fees incurred in bringing the action. (See Minn. Stat. §471.425, Subd. 4a.) 31. Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the property and all lots thereon shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following conditions and restrictions which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of the plat and insuring that all conditions imposed by the City in this Agreement are properly recorded against the property. Said conditions shall run with the real property and be binding on all parties having a right, title or interest in the plat or any part thereof, their heirs, executors, representatives, successors and assigns: A. C. 32. Park and Trail Dedication. The Developers shall pay a cash contribution of $ in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements. This charge is calculated as follows: lots at S per lot. The Developers shall also pay 10 a cash contribution of S in satisfaction of the City's trail dedication requirements. This charge is calculated as follows: lots at S per lot. These contributions shall be paid upon sale of each lot within the plat. Prior to issuance of a building permit on each lot within the plat, a proportionate fee (S per lot) shall be paid to the City for that lot's proportionate share of outstanding park and trail fees. 33. Street And Traffic Control Signs. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developers shall pay to the City S for installation of _ traffic control signs (stop signs, street signs, dead-end signs). The said amount was calculated as follows: signs at S per sign. Using these funds, the City shall purchase and install the street and traffic control signs. 34. Street Light Construction. The Developers shall pay for the operation and maintenance of the street lights for a period of one (1) year or until such time as the plat is ninety percent (901/6) built out, whichever occurs first. The first year of operation and maintenance shall not commence until such time as the final plat is accepted by the City and it is formally recorded. Street lighting shall conform to adopted City Policy. 35. Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developers shall pay all costs incurred by them or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including, but not limited to, legal, planning, engineering, and inspection expenses incurred in connection with development of said plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. B. The Developers shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat development. The Developers shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developers shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering fees, attorney's fees, and costs and disbursements. D. The Developers shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but 11 not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developers may or may not have sold, until all bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year. 36. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developers as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the City may then draw down the security established in Paragraph 17 to pay for any work undertaken, provided the Developers are first given notice of the work in default, not less than seven (7) days in advance. This notice provision does not apply if the work performed by the City or its contractors is of an emergency nature, as determined at the sole discretion of the city. Should such emergency work be required the City will make all reasonable efforts to notify the Developers as soon as possible. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part pursuant to any applicable statutes or ordinances. 37. Miscellaneous. A. The Developers represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and environmental regulations except where specifically excluded by this agreement. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat until the Developers does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developers shall cease work until there is compliance. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. C. Breach of any of the terms of this Agreement by the Developers shall be grounds for denial or revocation of building permits. D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developers shall assume all liability for the costs resulting in any delay in completion of public improvements and damage to any public improvements caused by the City, the Developers, is/her contractors, 12 subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface, unless a specific exception is approved by the City. F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the -City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. G. This Agreement shall run with the land, shall be recorded against the title to the property, and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interests in the plat or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns. After the Developer has completed the work required of them under this Agreement, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developers a release or partial release (s) of this Agreement. H. The Developers shall take out and maintain until one (1) year after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and any claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of their subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, and the Developers shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City issuing further building permits. I. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or m equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. I The Developers shall pay for all local costs related to drainage improvements 13 required to complete the construction according to the plans and conditions that are a part of this Agreement. K. Should development of the plat proceed at a pace slower than anticipated, and for that reason, specific terms of this agreement become onerous or unduly burdensome to the Developers, upon his/her application, the City will enter into negotiations regarding those specific terms and shall not unreasonably withhold consent to appropriate changes in the terms of this Agreement. L. A soil report for on-site sewage disposal systems shall be provided. M. Developers shall demonstrate and maintain compliance with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. N. Developers shall be responsible for all on site drainage as well as for any affects that their actions may have on adjoining properties. Specifically, Developer shall maintain existing drainage tiles on site, and shall be responsible for any and all drainage problems related to either the site drainage tiles or problems with on-site drainage facilities to be constructed in accordance with this agreement and plat approval. 38. Notices. Required notices to the Developers shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developers, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developers by registered mail at the following address: Notice to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the following address: City of Otsego, City Hall, 8899 Nashua Avenue NE, Otsego, MN 55330, Attention: City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. CITY OF OTSEGO `A 14 Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk DEVELOPERS Its: BY: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me this day of 1999, by Larry Fournier, Mayor and by Elaine Beatty, City Clerk, of the City Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City and pursuant to the authority of the City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) 15 The foregoing instrument was 1999, by _ respectively of Drafted by: Couri & MacArthur Law Office 705 Central Avenue East P.O. Box 369 St- Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 16 acknowledged before me this day of the and Notary Public CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: MEETING DATE 5. CONSENT AGENDA (Non -Controversial Items) Elaine Beatty Council 3/8/99-6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 5.1. Approve Pay Estimate #2 Re: Water Tank and Tower (Attached) BACKGROUND: 5.1. Attached is Pay Estimate #2 for Water Tower as noted. The City Engineer recommends payment of $233,100.00. RECOMENDATION: This is for Council approval. If this item needs further discussion, it will need to be removed to another portion of the agenda. Thanks, Elaine I 05t PAY ESTIMATE #2 Aarch 2, 1999 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Water Tank & Tower Contractor. Maguire Iron, Inc. Contract Amount: $536,245.00 Award Date: September 15, 1998 Completion Date: November 14, 1999 Dear Council Members: The following work has been completed on the above referenced project: ia,..... M— nrin+inn Percent Total Contract Complete Complete to Balance to Price* to Date Date Complete 1 ;Design Drawings $10,000.00 i 100 i $10,000.00 $U.uu. 2 ;Foundations $80,000.00 1 75 $80,000.00 ; $0.00: 3 `Delivery of Steel $239,000.00 ; 0 j $239,000.00 1 $0.00: 4 ;Field Erection $100,000.00 0 $0.00 1 $100,000.00! $80,000.00; 5 ,Field Painting $80,000.00 1 0 $0.00 j 6 Field Electrical $12,000.00 I 0 $0.00 $12,000.00i TOTALS: $521,000.UU *Item Breakdown per Contractor Change Order No. 1 Item _ A Excavation and grading to develop work $6,550.00 B +Foundation/Footing Redesign ! $965.00 C 'Tank & Tower Structural Redesign and Welding $7,730.00 TOTALS: $15,245.00 Total Contract Price: $536,245.00 USED TO DATE: LESS 10% RETAINAGE: LESS PAY ESTIMATE #1: WE RECOMMEND PARTIAL PAYMENT OF: 46 I $3,035.00; $3,515.00 100 $965.00; $0.00 p $0.00' $7,730.00 $4,000.00 $11,245.00 $333,000.00 $33,300.00 $66,600.00 $233,100.00 FILE. Shara1Excel\0tsego\0T5C86T xis 12199 SHEET. PAY ESTIMATE 02 Page t MAR -02-1999 12:19 MAGUIRE IRCN APPROVALS: CONTRACTOR: Certification by Cc6SE that ems and amounts are correct for the work completed to date, Signed: i i—j Title: J!:�dA • r Date:.3'01-q ENGINEER. CertfIcaticn Engineer. recommend payment for work and quantities as shown. HAKANSON SON ASSO A S, C. Signed: • ri � Title: Date; 7 p OWNER; CITY OF Signed: Title: Date: FILE 3harelEtaellC]�r+Qo�OTIoeBT�I� SHEET`: PAY ESTIMATE 22 Pape 2 3(299 MAR -02-1999 12:05 98x P.03 March 02, 1999 SRL i"LA n N�_- I ftuire Iron, Inc. P.O. BOX 1446 • SIOUX FAILS, SO 57101 PHONE (605) 334-9749 AFTER HOURS (605) 334-0029 FAX (605) 334-9752 Mr. Larry Koshak, P.E. Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN. 55303 Re: BID BREAKDOWN OF LINE ITEM #3 - DELIVERY OF STzEL Otsego, MN. Elevated Water Storage Tank Dear Mr. Koshak: Below is the breakdown of the billing amount for delivery of Fabricated Steel on this project: Steel Costs: J. Steelburg Supply $23,261.67 Papercal 21,515.99 Cargill 14,954.36 From Stock (Ladders, Rails, Vents, Manways, Anchor Bolts) Riser 5,700.00 & Overflow Pipes 4,600.00 Expansion Joint 1,200.00 71,232.02 Fabriacation and Blasting/Priming Labor $52,500.00 3,000 hours @ $17.50/hr.* *Includes payroll taxes and benefits. welding Supplies (Welding Rod, Gas, Oxygen) $8,500.00 Blasting/Priming Supplies (Sand & Primer) $6,088.00 Transportation/Delivery of Steel $7,500.00 Includes: wages, fuel, permits, mileage hotels, meals and equipment costs. Plant Overhead = I5 days @ $4,000.00/day $60,000.00 Includes: Rent, Property Taxes, Utilities Insurance, Repairs, and equipment costs. Pro -rated Gross Profit on this phase of the project $33,179.98 239,000.00 WATER TOWER SPECIALISTS ESTABLISHED 1915 NEW ANO USED TANKS ;:aorlcaung, Erecting. 8cparing and Painting Water Tanks and Towers... TOTAL P.04 CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: MEETING DATE 6. Dan Licht, Assistant City Planner Elaine Beatty, City Clerk Council of: 3/8/99-6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 6.1. Discussion of Memo of 2/24/99 Re: Zoning Ordinance Update 6.2. Consider the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Re: Feedlots 6.3. Discussion of P.C. consideration of pole buildings in Urban Service Area 6.4. See 8.1 Below 6.5. Any Other Plannin15 g Business BACKGROUND: 6.1. Attached is a Memo from Dan Licht for Council consideration. 6.2. Attached is a copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance update recommended for approval by the P.C. unanimously on 3/1/99 (See attached minutes). 6.3. After little discussion and reference to Dan Licht's Report of February 24, 1999 The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Council to leave the Accessory Building Ordinance as approved at the Council Meeting of 2/22/99. (No Change). (See attached minutes of P.C. of 3/1/99) 6.4. This item is on for any comment that Dar, Licht may have on the Attorney portion of .•n the agenda #8.1. 6.5. For ar_y other Planning Business that may need discussion. RECOMMENDATION: This is for Council consideration and any approval needed. Thanks, Elaine FEB -25-1999 10: -�4 NAC 612 595 9837 F.02i02 N I VA e"** NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTA.;TS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM - via fax transmission TO: Mike Robertson / Elaine Beatty FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 24 February 1999 RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance Update FILE NO.: 176.08 - 98.07 With the update the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances nearly complete, our office wanted to suggest that the development regulations be re -codified at this time. The existing Ordinance has not be updated since April 1992. As a result of numerous amendments, the documents have become somewhat unorganized in terms of format and footnotes. We would envision that the work would entail repagination of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, reorganization of the district sections of the Zoning Ordinance and minor format changes such as type size and font The Planning Commission would need to hold a public hearing and the City Council adopt the re -codified Ordinance in summary fashion. The effort would be completed on a time and materials basis. The cost to complete the recodification we would estimate as not more than $750.00 (not including printing). In terms of costs, this may be an opportune time to undertake re -codification as the City Council directed that all new Ordinances be provided to the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff once all of the amendments were approved. I am available at your convenience if you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter further. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA S5416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NACOa WINTERNET.COM TOTAL P.02 CITY" OF OTSEGO PLANNING COYIMISSION YIEETING P MARCH 1, 1999 (YIONDAY) 8PYI NILrUTES 1. Chair Carl Swenson will call meeting to order: Chair Carl Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM. ROLL CALL: Planning Commissioners: Chair Carl Swenson, Richard Nichols, Patrick Moonen, Gene Goenner, Arleen Nagel, and Jim Kolles. Bruce Rask and Christian Nfbanefo, Alt. were absent. Staff: Mike Robertson, City Administrator, Elaine Beatty, City Clerk'Zoning Administrator, Dan Licht, City Planner. City Council: Mayor Larry Fournier, Vern Heidner, Mark Benning, Virginia Wendel and Suzanne Ackerman. 2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of: A. February 16, 1999 Otsego P C./CC Meeting This was tabled to next P.C. Agenda of 3/15/99 Public Hearing to consider the proposed Zoning, Ordinance Amendment Re: Feedlots Hearing was opened by Carl Swenson. Elaine Beatty noted that the proper publishing and posting was completed. Chair Swenson explained the proper hearings procedure. Dan Licht explained NAC's Memo of February 2, 1999 RE: Zoning Ordinance Update; Feedlots. (See Attached). 300' setback has been added. Section 2 definitions have been changed to clarify. Section 3, Page 12 has been changed Re: Building Permits (If it is a farm operation structure - It requires no permit). Hearing was opened to the Public Lloyd Beaudry Do you supersede what the County is doing? Dan Licht noted that Otsego's Ordinance supersedes the County Ordinance. Tony Berning Mr. Licht, the County is saying Otsego is coming under the County Ordinance. Who is right? Mike Robertson explained that when the City incorporated, They were no longer under the jurisdiction of Wright County. Dan Licht - MPCA has designated their review authority to Wright County. It is a separate process, but you still have to get a MPCA Permit. Otsego's Ordinance governs the actual land use. Gene Goenner - Page ..=6, Item D reads six months. Is it six months to start the process? Dan indicated that if they initiate the process within 6 months that they qualify. Gene Goenner - Page 4, Item 1, subsection, we decided to delete this. Dan noted that all deleted items were in Item 46. Gene Goenner said #3 and 4 also fall under that category. Dan Licht noted that 43 is for the Cities process to evaluate. Hearing was re -opened to the Public. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION NI E ETLNGMINLTES OF LARCH 1, 1999 AT SPM - PAGE 2 - �W;p Llov_ d Beaudry Ifyou go to Wright County- and get inspected, what will �. registering in Otsego do? Dan Licht noted that County 9� inspection is regarding County MPCA regulations at Soils and Water. Gene Goenner Understands that we will receive MPCA permits through Wright County instead of the State. The same funding sources will be available to Otsego. Mike Robertson explained the buffer zone advantage that came from registering with the Citv. Lam' Fournier You discussed regulating the feedlot administratively. Will 16632 NE 70TH ST you explain that amendment. Dan Licht explained that the amendment done administratively and allows the City to see if there are any changes in the operation. It is a new process. Hearing was Closed. Discussion brought back to the Planning Commission. Virginia Wendel - If an existing farmer wants to enlarge his animals, can he take animals to a farm --here no farming has been done and re-establish a feedlot? Dan Licht - It is considered a new feedlot. It is not allowed under either the existing or proposed ordinance. If it's been over one year closed, you cannot re-establish a feedlot. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION ON FEEDLOTS. ARLEEN ti AGEL SECONDED THE MOTION. RICHARD NICHOLS AMENDED HIS MOTION TO REFLECT SECTION 2 AND SECTION 26 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ARLEEN NAGEL SECONDED THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This item will be on the 3/8/99 Council Agenda at 6:30PM. 4. Any other P.C. Business A Any proposed updates to review a Consider pole buildings in the Urban Service Area of Otsego Dan Licht reviewed NAC's Memo of 24 February, 1999 Re: Accessory Building update. He noted that the Council had directed the P.C. to review this. CUP information dating back to 1991 were provided. Dan Licht also noted that there are a number of parcels of 5 acres or more in the Urban Service Area. Richard Nichols - Based on the Staff Report and looking at the past 8 years, the ordinance recommendation by the P.C. and passed by the Council is probably the right one. All of the Commissioners agreed. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ORDINANCE STAND AS APPROVED ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. GENE GOENNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MLNUTES OF MARCH 1, 1999 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - ti _< \9 B. Any other P.C. Business 1# a Update P.C. on Council Decision on Accessory Buildin( proposed changes. Reviewed by Dan Licht above. Mike Robertson brought up the training seminars to the P.C. and encouraged attendance. Vern Heidner noted that the Council had approved the contractor for the sewer plant at their last meeting. 5. Ad,�urn by l OPM GENE GOENNER MOTIONED AND RICHARD NICHOLS SECONDED THE MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED UNANLMOUSLY. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50PM. ARLEEN NAGEL, SECRETARY MINUTES BY ELAINE BEATTY, CITY CLERK/ZOTNING AD I. RECORDING SECRETARY. FELE: 9931PCNE`A?S MAR -02-1999 J12 595 3VJF . 01101 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Nmr,6#x eml"* MEMORANDUM - via fax transmission TO: Mike Robertson / Elaine Beatty FROM: Daniel Licht DATE; 2 March 1999 RE: Otsego - Feedlots Administration FILE NO.: 176.08 1 contacted Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District to follow up on Tony Beming's comments that the SWCD was registering feedlots in Otsego under the Wright County Feelot Ordinance, Greg Bangeson of SWCD said that registration refered to by Mr. Berning is provided for in the Wright County Feedlot Ordinace. Under the Ordinance, the County will assume the feedlot permitting process after 1 January 2000. However, SWCD has begun taking registrations in advance of this date in order to inventory the number of feedlots and animal units. The feedlots that ultimately qualifiy for a permit, after the County assumes responsibility for administation of that process, which are registered in advance of 1 January 2000 will simply be issued a new County permit. Mr. Bangeson acknowledged, however, that the Wright County Feedlot Ordinance does not apply within the Cities of Wright County, including Otsego. Mr. Bangeson said that SWCD has propbably registered two or three feedlots that are in Otsego. Because these feedlots are not under the jusrisdicition of the County Ordinance, the registrations are mainly for information purposes. Mr. Bangeson said that he has told those farmers from Otsego that did register with SWCD that the City has adopted its own feedlot regulations with which they must comply. I explained that Otsego was in the process of revising its existing feedlot Ordinance to allow feedlots in certain areas of the City limited expansion opportunities. After the City Council acts on the proposed amendment, I said the City would forward a copy of the new regulations to the SWCD for reference. I also asked that the SWCD stress to feedlot operators in Otsego that they are subject to regulations adopted by the City and not those of the County regarding feedlots to avoid any confusion. Mr. Bangeson said that he would certainly try to assist the farmers understand what regluations applied to their operation depending on their location. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. 5775 WAYZAT.A BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNcSO A 554 1 6 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NGCCWINTERNET•GOM TOTAL P.21 % f NORTHW aSOCIATED CONSULTANTS I N^ COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 2 February 1999 RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance Update; Feedlots FILE NO.: 176.08 - 98.07 Attached is a revised version of the proposed amendment to the feedlot regulations. The significant changes are outlined below. This information may be reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 8:00 PM. A public hearing to consider the proposed amendment has been scheduled for March 1, 1999. • Registration is to be based upon the maximum number of animal units allowed under MPCA permit guidelines. This figure is also to be used in determining expansion potential. An amended registration would be required when the existing number of animal units at the facility is doubled. • Our office contacted the City of Medina regarding changes to their existing hobby farm regulations. City Staff indicated that Medina has talked about changing area requirements, but no amendments to the existing definition has been made. Medina's existing definition is similar to that of Otsego's current definition. In trying to separate farms from hobby farms, the main distinction is the amount of land, the amount of animals/crop agriculture and the commercial purpose of the operation as a principal source of income for the owner. Consideration may be given to setting a higher land amount for a farm, such as 35 to 40 acres. PC. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Jerry Olsen Andy MacArthur 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595.9636 F -\X 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ t1INTERNET.COM CITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE #98 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OTSEGO ZONING ORDINANCE TO RESPOND TO DIRECTIVES OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE REGARDING FARMS AND FEEDLOT REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance (Feedlots) is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 38 FEEDLOT REGULATIONS Section 20-38-1: Purpose 20-38-2: Allowed Feedlots 20-38-3: Prohibited Feedlots 20-38-4: Expansion of Animal Units 20-38-5: Structures for Housing Animals 20-38-6: Existing Feedlots: Compliance With MPCP_ Requirements 20-38-7: Odors 20-38-8: Feedlot Setbacks 20-38-9: New Dwelling Setbacks 20-38-10: Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks 20-38-11: Destruction of Existing Animal Feedlots 20-38-12: Facility Closure 20-38-13: Abandonment 20-38-1: PURPOSE: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the City of Otsego and to regulate existing feedlot operations within the City of Otsego in a manner conducive to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Otsego. These controls are needed due to the recent incorporation from township status to City status and the unique location of the municipality in relation to the Metropolitan Ara. These planning process regulations are also necessary to promote the 1 within the City and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City as well as to: A. Establish conditions under which existing animal feedlots within the City can continue to operate. B. Prohibit the establishment of new animal feedlots within the City. C. To prohibit the expansion of existing animal feedlots to levels not conducive with the present character of the City. D. To provide regulations which can be applied in a fair and equitable nature, but that take into account the inherent fluid nature of an ongoing farm operations and the difficulty of applying strict numbers as criteria for control of an ongoing operation. E. Promote best farm management practices. F. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources. G. Protect human and animal health. H. Implement specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. I. Promote compatibility of uses. J. Promote continuance of agricultural uses while protecting the residents from nuisances caused by large, non-traditional, and intense agricultural uses. K. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of state-wide statutes and regulations governing livestock operations. 20-38-2: ALLOWED FEEDLOTS: A. Urban Service Area: Those feedlots presently existing within the Urban Service Area, designated by the Comprehensive Plan, may continue operations as provided for in this section, subject to the following: M 1. Existing feedlots may continue operations as legal nonconforming uses as set forth in Section 20-15 of this Chapter, and as long as they do not constitute a potential pollution hazard. Such feedlots may only continue on the condition that they obtain approval from MPGA, if necessary. a. Interpretation of Section 15: It is understood that 'by its nature the raising of animals and farming creates a situation where there are seasonal, natural, fluctuations in the number of animals within a facility. It is also understood that to remain viable, a farming operation must have a reasonable ability to limited expansion. Due to these peculiar circumstances, and only for purposes of this Section, the phrase "enlarged" contained in Section 20-15 of this Ordinance shall be construed as an enlargement of a legally established pre-existing use in the following circumstances: (1) In a case where a new structure is constructed or is proposed for construction for the purpose of housing additional animals. (2) In a case where a lagoon or earthen basin associated with an increase in animal units is constructed or proposed for construction. (3) In a case where an existing animal feedlot is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an MPCA permit or interim permit. (4) In the case where additional animal units place the facility in violation of current City ordinances regarding the care of animals. (5) Any increase of the total number of animal units in an existing animal feedlot which raises the cumulative total of animal units above twice the number present upon the facility at the date of adoption of this Ordinance. 3 (6) Any construction, outside of normal maintenance, which has the effect of increasing the size of a building used for the purposes of housing animals which is done without the conditional use permit required by this section. (7) Ongoing violations of other City ordinances. B. Rural Service Area: Those feedlots presently existing within the Rural Service Area, designated by the Comprehensive Plan, may continue operations and be allowed limited expansion opportunities as provided for in this section, subject to the following: 1. Registration: All existing feedlots shall be registered with the City within six (6) months of DAY MONTH 1999 by administrative permit, subject to the procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 9 of this Chapter. a. An application for an administrative permit to register an existing feedlot shall include the following information: (1) Owner's and operator's name and address. (2) Location of the animal feedlot including quarter, section, range and township. (3) Animal types and existing number of animals of each type confined at the feedlot and maximum number of animal units allowed in conformance with MPCA permits and guidelines. (4) A scale drawing clearly indicating the dimensions of the feedlot and showing all existing homes, buildings, existing manure storage areas and/or structures, lakes, ponds, water courses, known wetlands, dry runs, rock outcroppings, roads and wells within one thousand (1,000) feet of the feedlot. (5) Plans for buildings and structures as required by this Ordinance and/or other County and State ordinances and regulations. Ell (6) A manure and waste management plan as required by the MPCA. (7) Leases or agreements allowing disposal of manure on land other than that of the feedlot owner/operator. No land may be subject to more than one (1) such lease or agreement. (8) Documentation of compliance with all MPCA rules and regulations and approval of MPCA permits, as may be applicable. (9) Information identified in section 20-9-3 of this Chapter, as may be applicable. b. Amended Registration: An amendment to a registration may be applied for and shall be administered in a manner similar to a new registration application. Amended registration shall be required for any of the following: (1) Ownership of an existing feedlot is changed, including but not limited to the following: (a) A change in ownership of buildings and/or land. (b) A lease for the use of buildings and/or land is entered into, modified or terminated. (2) There is a substantial change in operation of the feedlot. (a) The number of animal units is increased two hundred (200) percent above the number of animal units existing at the feedlot on the date of registration. (b) Construction of new buildings or expansion of existing buildings capable of housing animals. (c) Any change in the operation of a feedlot that would affect the storage, handling, utilization c)r disposal of manure. 6 C . Termination. Registration of an existing feedlot shall be valid indefinitely provided that the operation is in full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and Countv and/or State regulations, as may be applicable. The owner of a feedlot may terminate an approved registration at any time by submitting a written request to the Zoning Administrator. Once terminated by a feedlot owner, registration shall be permanently forfeited and not be re-established under any circumstances. Any feedlot for which registration was terminated may continue operations as a legal non -conforming use as outlined in Section 20-38-2.A.1 of this Section. d. Any feedlot not registered with the Zoning Administrator within six (6) months of DAY MONTH 1999 may continue operations as a legal non- conforming use as outlined in Section 20-38-2.A.1 of this section. 20-38-3: PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS: No new animal feedlots shall be established within the City. No existing animal feedlot is allowed to expand beyond its level of operation at the date of DAY MONTH, subject to Section 20-38-2 of this section. No operation or facility established with ten (10) animal units or less may expand to more than ten (10) animal units. 20-38-4: EXPANSION OF ANIMAL UNITS: An existing feedlot in the Rural Service Area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, which is registered pursuant to Section 20-38-2.B may be allowed to increase the number of animal units, subject to the following: A. The increase in number of permitted animal units shall be based upon the following provisions: 1. For existing feedlots ow th allowed not more than four hundred (400) animal units by MPCA permit on zrt the date of registration, the number of permitted animal units may be increased up to three hundred (300) percent. 2. For existing feedlots that are allowed more than four hundred (400) animal units by M?CA permit on the date of registration, the number of permitted animal units may be increased up to two hundred (200) percent. C• 3. The number of animal units of any existing feedlot shall not be increased to more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) animal units. B. There is existing building and animal holding areas necessary to adequately house the increase in animal units, in conformance with applicable City ordinances. Any construction of a new building or expansion of an existing building necessary to adequately house the increase in animal units shall be subject to Section 20-38-5 of this section. C. The feedlot owner/operator shall own or have sufficient land under contract for spreading of manure generated by the expanded feedlot operation. D. Approval of an amended registration, as outlined in Section 20-38-2.B of this Chapter. 20-38-5: STRUCTURES FOR HOUSING FARM ANIMALS: The construction of new buildings or expansion of existing buildings intended to house animals in association with an existing feedlot that is in full compliance with this Section shall be subject to the following provisions: A. Construction of new buildings or expansion of existing building for the purpose of housing farm animals is allowed for existing feedlots in the Rural Service Area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, which are registered per Section 20- 38-2.B provided that: 1. Any new building intended to house farm animals is within three hundred (300) feet of an existing building that houses farm animals, except by conditional use permit. 2. Any new building or expansion of an existing building intended to house farm animals may not encroach within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing residential use, except by conditional use permit. 3. Approval of an amended registration, as outlined in Section 20-38-2.B of this Chapter. B. Construction of new buildings or expansion of existing buildings for the purpose of housing farm animals for existing feedlots in the Rural Service Area that are not registered in accordance with Section 20-38-2.B and existing feedlots in the Urban Service Area shall be subject to the provisions of 20- 7 38-5.A above and require approval of a conditional use permit. C. Conditional Use Permits: Application for a conditional use permit under this section shall be regulated by Section 4 of this Chapter. Such a conditional use permit may be granted provided that: 1. Applicant provide proof that the proposed building or building expansion is the necessary to provide sufficient room for the number of animal units to be added, and that the number is allowable under this section. 2. That the proposed building or building expansion is the minimum expansion necessary to adequately house said animals, and to comply with existing City ordinances. 3. That the building or building expansion is to be constructed in such a manner as to not increase the non- conformity; to minimize the impact on surrounding properties; and as may be allowed below: a. For proposed buildings located beyond three hundred (300) feet of an existing building used to house animals, the applicant must demonstrate physical justification for the increased separation and that the distance from existing buildings is the minimum necessary. b. For allowed feedlots within 1,000 feet of an existing residential use, the proposed building or building expansion may not encroach closer to said residential use. 4. The applicant provide documentation of compliance with all MPCA rules and regulations and approval of MPCA permits, as may be applicable. 5. Aonroval of an amended registration, as outlined in Section 20-38-2.B of this Chapter. 6. The provisions of Section 4.2.F of this Chapter are considered and determined to be satisfied. 20-38-6: COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REQUIREMENTS: All existing animal feedlots operating on DAY MONTH 1999 shall continue operating only in strict compliance with all applicable MPCA rules and regulations. E:] 20-38-7: ODORS: All animal feedlot operations shall take responsible measures to minimize odors which have the effect of creating an adverse impact on the environment and quality of life for the residents of the City. 20-38-8: FEEDLOT SETBACKS: Lawfully established feedlots existing prior to DAY MONTH 1999 may be continued in the location existing on such date. 20-38-9: NEW DWELLING SETBACKS: No building permit shall be issued for a new dwelling unit within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing feedlot that is registered under the provisions of Section 20-38-2.B, not including dwellings constructed as a principal residence on the same parcel and under the ownership of the owner/operator of the registered feedlot. 9 20-38-10: MANURE STOCKPILE/APPLICATION SETBACKS: The following manure stockpile and application setbacks are required for all existing animal feedlots: CATEGORY MANURE APPLICATION STOCKPILES Surface/ Incorporated or Irrigation Injected Public lake, 300 feet 100 feet -lake 50 300 feet 77] feet -river/ river, or stream stream 25 feet -surface 10 feet 25 feet Public streets (as measured from 300 feet - the outer irrigation boundary of the right-of-way) 300 feet -surface 300 feet 300 feet Platted Subdivisions 1,000 feet - irrigation 200 feet 200 feet 100 feet 300 feet 200 feet 300 feet Municipal wells 200 feet 200 feet Private wells Public or private 300 feet ditch (including those in a public rights-of-way) 300 feet 300 feet Residence other 300 feet -surface than landowner or 1,000 feet - operator irrigation 20-38-11: DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING ANIMAL FEEDLOTS: Notwithstanding Section_ 20-15-3.J of this Chapter, any animal feedlot lawfully existing as an allowed use under this Section 20-38-2 of this Chapter and any structures or buildings lawfully existing and which are used for the purpose of containing animals associated with an allowed feedlot use, which are destroyed or partially destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its fair market value, may be restored and the same use resumed (if such use was lawfully existing as an allowed use, pl1rsuant to Section 20-38-2 of this section, prior such damage and destruction)or any conforming use established, provided that such reconstruction be completed within twelve (12) months after the date of such damage or destruction. 10 20-38-12: FACILITY CLOSURE: A. Responsible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator of an existing animal feedlot shall be responsible for the ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the facility including the cleaning of buildings and the emptying and proper disposal of manure from all manure holding facilities. B. Closure: If an existing feedlot operation ceases operation, the owner and/or operator shall be responsible for the following: 1. All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste control system shall be removed and disposed of on land or in some other legally permissible manner as soon as practical, but no more than six (6) months, and in a manner conducive to the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Closure of the operation may be postponed for a period of twelve (12) months if the property is posted for sale. 3. Notification to the City that the feedlot operation has been discontinued, and that the property is in compliance with this Section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. If the property is for sale, notification shall be given to all potential buyers of the status of the feedlot use of the property which must comply with all presently applicable zoning ordinances if the feedlot operation is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, as well as the other provisions of section 20-15 of this Chapter. 20-38-13: ABANDONMENT: Owners and operators of animal feedlots, either at the time of abandonment or after, shall have joint and several liability for clean up, closure or remediation of abandoned feedlot sales. Section 2. Section 20-2-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance (definitions) is hereby amended to read as follows: Farm: An unplatted tract of land containing at least � ten (10) acres or more, or two (2) or more abutting parcels under the same ownership having an area of at lest ten (IG) acres, measured from the centerline of abutting roads, ususally with house and other buidlings, arra _ which is n�?-n� L lv "Sed f 4) 11 -,mmorr-ial arTrir-iiIf-iiral Art-ivities such as raislna Cd-LtL Crops are and/or livestock in numbers which do not constitute an animal feedlot, unless the operation is allowed to keep a larger number of animal pursuant to rights as specified in Sections 20-15 and 20-38 of this Chapter. Section 3. Section 20-26-2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Farms - Building Permits) is hereby amended to read as follows: 20-26-2: BUILDING PERMITS: The construction of any building or structure on a farm as a part of the farm operation eXeMpteCl shall require administrative review and approval of the City Building Official. All other structures including residential dwellings and residential accessory structures shall require a building permit and be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. PASSED this day of ATTEST: 9M Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 1999. CITY OF OTSEGO BY: 12 Larry Fournier, Mayor FEB -24-1999 15:2-6 !NC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/oe NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht 24 February 1999 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance Update: Accessory Buildings 176.08 - 98.07 The Otsego City Council approved an amendment to the accessory building provisions of the Zoning Ordinance on February 22, 1999. The Ordinance adopted by the City Council was consistent with that recommended by the Planning Commission except that the provisions were changed to allow pole buildings on lots zoned A-1 or A-2 District in the Rural Service Area that are five acres in size or larger. The Ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission would have allowed for pole buildings on parcels zoned A-1 or A-2 District in the Rural Service Area that are larger than 5 acres. Following adoption of the Ordinance amendment, the City Council directed that the Planning Commission consider whether pole buildings should be allowed in other areas of the City on all parcels that are five acres in size or larger. This memorandum is intended to outline the past approvals for pole building construction and factors to be considered in determining appropriate locations for these building types. ISSUES ANALYSIS Basis of Regulations. During the workshop sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council, our office provided information regarding the philosophies that are the basis of why communities, including Otsego, limit the location of pole buildings. In summary, pole buildings are considered to be a lower quality structure due to the lack of a continuous foundation and grade of siding material. Also, as accessory to residential structures, they are considered out of character in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, regulation on pole buildings represent a community benchmark for construction quality as well as an aesthetic requirement. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@>VYINTERNET.COM FEB -24-1999 15:2" NAC 612 595 %3^ P.03/06 Past Regulation. Prior to adopting the amendment to the accessory building provisions, pole buildings were allowed only as a conditional use in the A-1 and A-2 District provided that the location and placement of the structure did not negatively impact adjacent properties. The previous regulation did not specify any requirement for location in the Rural Service Area or minimum lot size. Going back further, pole type buildings were allowed in all areas prior to adoption of the first Zoning Ordinance. There are numerous pole buildings throughout the City, including many in platted one -acre subdivisions, that were constructed prior to adoption of the limits on such buildings. The table attached as Exhibit A illustrates all of the approved CUP applications for accessory buildings from 1991 to 1998. Twenty applications were processed over this period, of which, four included a proposed pole building. The map attached as Exhibit B illustrates the location of the properties where the buildings were to be constructed. All of the approved pole buildings were in the Rural Service Area defined by the Comprehensive Plan at the time of the City Council's approval. All of the other buildings approved under a conditional use permit vvere stick built structures. Beyond the accessory buildings approved through the CUP process, the City Building Official indicated that roughly 40 new detached accessory structures are constructed in the City each year. These structures are required to have continuous foundations and building materials consistent with the principal structures. Amended Regulation. The amended accessory building regulations that were adopted by the City Council were prepared with the intention of implementing policies that had been established through the CUP process in Ordinance form. In reviewing CUP pole building applications, the location of a property in or outside of the rural service area was used a basis for determining if the proposed structure was appropriate. Construction of pole buildings on properties in the Rural Service Area was determined to be appropriate because the would be fewer compatibility issues with surrounding properties_ The planned rural character and low density of residential development serves to mitigate any potential impacts of a pole building. locating pole buildings in areas already platted with suburban sized lots or planned urban development was discouraged because of anticipated compatibility issues and the intent to encourage quality neighborhoods. The Ordinance amendment allowing pole buildings on parcels in the A-1 or A-2 Zoning District and Rural Service District that are five acres in size or larger is consistent with past decisions for CUP applications over the last eight years. Options. The Planning Commission and City Council may take into consideration the following options when determining what areas of the City to allow pole buildings. The City Council's direction was to only consider allowing pole buildings in other areas of the City with five acre lots. It is assumed that allowing pole buildings in the Sanitary Sewer Service District is not part of this discussion. 2 FEB -24-1999 15:29 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04i08 Rural Service Area only. The City Council has adopted the Zoning Ordinance amendment that makes pole buildings a permitted accessory structure within the A-1 and A-2 Zoning Districts for parcels in the Rural Service area that are five acres in size or larger (Exhibit C). Again, this Ordinance is reflective of City policy that was established over time through decisions on CUP applications processed under the previous accessory building regulations. Urban Service Area Reserve. The Urban Service Reserve Area designated by the Comprehensive Plan Update is where sanitary sewer and water service is anticipated to be extended into when the initial Sanitary Sewer Service District reaches saturation. Because the timing for expansion of the Sanitary Sewer Service District is uncertain, areas of the Urban Service Area Reserve may remain rural character for some time. Therefore, allowing pole buildings may be compatible with the type of development that may be anticipated in this area in the short term. Ultimately, however, this area is anticipated to be developed with urban character uses. Allowing pole buildings in a planned urban area raises the possibility of compatibility issues with the expected new development in terms of character and quality as noted above. Establishing a policy through decisions on the CUP applications limiting accessory pole buildings to the Rural Service Area recognized the potential compatibility issues with planned urban development at such time as sanitary sewer service ultimately became available within the City. Under the Comprehensive Plan Update, sanitary sewer service has become a reality and areas planned for service have been expanded based upon projected growth. Limiting the proliferation of pole buildings to long-term rural areas of the community will continue the implementation of the policies to plan for the compatibility of urban and rural land uses in anticipation of future growth. Long Range Urban Service Area. The existing platted areas of the Community designated as the Long Range Urban Service Area have many properties were one or more pole buildings have been constructed. Therefore, it could be argued that allowing new pole buildings in this area would be consistent with the existing character_ However, these buildings were all constructed prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1991, no new pole buildings have been constructed in this area of the community. The City Building Official has indicated that roughly 40 detached accessory structures are constructed in this area each year. Since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, all of these structures have been required to be stick built with exterior materials consistent with that of the principal structure. Allowing pole buildings in this area of the community now would represent a significant change of policy. Given the suburban and possible urban character of the area that has been promoted over the last eight years, allowing new pole buildings would appear to be a questionable decision. FEB -24-1999 15:29 MPC 612 595 9837 F.05i0E Building Materials. A second issue that was raised by the City Council was building material requirements for accessory structures. Under section 20-16-4.G of the Zoning Ordinance, all accessory structures over 150 square feet must use the "same or suitable quality exterior finish building material... as in the principal structure". The clause goes on to say that "compatible" is to be interpreted to mean that the accessory building must have a similar appearance to the principal structure. Jerry Olsen has said that this has been applied that exterior surface materials and colors must have a residential character. The City has required use of horizontal lap siding with no exposed fasteners for residential accessory structures. Permitted siding materials include wood, vinyl, metal, etc. CONCLUSION The issue as to what areas of the City are appropriate for the construction of accessory pole buildings is a policy decision. The City's Zoning Ordinance has limited the location of pole buildings based upon a number of factors (explained herein), allowing them only in the A-1 or A-2 Zoning District by CUP. Over the last eight years, this Ordinance has been interpreted through CUP decisions that appropriate locations for accessory pole buildings are further limited to larger parcels in the Rural Service Area of the community. The adopted Ordinance amending the accessory building provisions reflect the policy direction established over the last eight years. Amending the Zoning Ordinance again to allow pole buildings in areas of the community with existing suburban or planned urban character would represent a significant change in policy direction in terms of desired neighborhood character, construction standards and property compatibility. If the Planning Commission determines that pole buildings are appropriate in other areas of the community, outside of the Rural Service Area, staff should be directed to prepare appropriate Ordinance amendments. However, the Planning Commission may determine that pole buildings should be permitted only in the situations allowed for by the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance amendment. If the latter is the Planning Commission's direction, then a recommendation should be made to the City Council that the Ordinance provisions as written not be changed. PC. Otsego Mayor and City Council Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Jerry Olsen Andy MacArthur 4 FEB -24-1999 15:29 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06/08 EXHIBIT A Reason for Lot Size Building Size Pole Siding CUP Size (Acres) 1.0 (Sq. FL) 768 Building 1 no wood 2 More than one 2.3 1,170 no wood Size 3 More than one 3.9 440 no wood 4 Size 2.5 1,920 no metal Total Area 5 Total Area 2.5 660 no wood More than one 6 More than one 1.8 no wood 7 More than one 3.3 864 no wood 8 Pole Bldg. 5.0 1,200 yes . metal Total Area More than one 9 Total Area 1.1 1,380 no wood More than one 10 Total Area 12 768 no wood More than one 11 More than one 1.0 1,260 no color 12 More than one 1.0 960 no color 13 More than one 1.1 832 no wood 14 More than one 1.0 1,344 no wood 15 Total Area 1.9 2,400 no wood Size 16 More than one 3.73 1,200 yes metal Pale Building color 17 More than one 2.99 2,080 yes color Total Area Size Pole Building 18 More than one 4.88 3,000 yes metal Total area S¢e 19 Total area 5.0 1,280 no wood 20 More than onei.0 968 no wood EXHIBIT A FEB -24-1999 15:M MAC 512 595 9837 P.07/08 Q z EXHIBIT B FEB-24-1999 15 �O V E1 "'9`T Ffm Y O^WQ z F� NAC 612 595 9837 P.08i08 EXHIBIT C TOTAL P.08 W, CITE' OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: MEETING DATE 7. Larry Koshak, City Engineer Elaine Beatty Council of: 3/8/9 9 -3:30 -PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: 7.1. Receive Feasibility Study for 78th Street and Page Avenue. a. Consider a Resolution Ordering the Feasibility. b. Consider a Resolution Accepting the Report and Adopting the Findings to Set the Impact Fee for Collector Street Access. 7.2. Received the revised 78TH ST. Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Report. Consider a Resolution to Adopt the Report 7.3. Receive Feasibility Report for the Trunk Storm Water Facilities in Sub -Districts 2,5,6,7 and 8 of the LeFebvre Watershed District. 7.4. Receive the Engineer Guideline Manual for the City 7.5. Any other Engineering Business BACKGROUND: Items 7.1 through 7.5 above Larry Koshak, City Engineer will be present to explain these items and answer any questions. Attached is the information from Larry Koshak. 7.5. is for any further Engineering Business that needs discussion, RECOMMENDATION: This is for Council information, update and any decisions. Thanks, Elaine MEMO Date: March 3, 1999 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Feasibility Studies I ordered City Engineer Larry Koshak to move ahead on the feasibility studies necessary for development of the area west of the elementary school. These studies were the sewer/water study for the area and the 78th Street/Page Avenue street study. I have placed these on the Council agenda so that they can be officially ordered by Council. I apologize for moving ahead on this project without Council authorization. In the future no feasibility studies will be undertaken without Council approval. cc: City Staff Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. I & Municipal Engineering Land Surveying CITY OF OTSEGO CITY ENGINEER COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING 3/8199 3601 Thurston Avenue Suite 101 Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 612/427-0520 Fax ITEM 7.1 CONSIDER RECEIVING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 78TH STREET (PROPOSED PAGE AVE. — QUADAY AVE.), PAGE AVE. (85TH STREET TO PROPOSED 78TH STREET) AND QUADAY AVE. (CSAH 42 — PROPOSED 78TH STREET A. Consider Resolution Ordering the Feasibility Study Mike Robertson, Administrator, authorized our firm to proceed with the report so that the City could respond to Developers on cost issues related to the roadway connection fees. B. Consider a Resolution Accepting the Report and Adopting the Finding to set the roadway connect fee for collector street access. ITEM 7.2 CONSIDER RECEIVING THE REVISED 78TH STREET TRUNK SANITARY SEWER AND WATER REPORT A. Consider a Resolution to Adopt the Report ITEM 7.3 CONSIDER RECEIVING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE TRUNK STORM WATER FACILITIES IN SUB -DISTRICTS 2,5,6,7 AND 8 OF THE LEFEBVRE WATERSHED DISTRICT. This report includes the development area referred to in items 7.1 and 7.2 above. ITEM 7.4 CONSIDER RECEIVING THE ENGINEERING GUIDELINES MANUAL FOR DEVLEOPERS. This manual is submitted in draft form. We recommend that a date and time for a workshop be set to go over questions and comments on the data provided in the manual by the Council and staff members. ITEM 7.5 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS City Engineer Council Agenda Items Page 1 of 1 March 3, 1999 C lSharelMunicioaAAOTSEGOt9011ot901agenda3-3-99a doc X ITEM 7.1 FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PROPOSED BITUMINOUS STREET CONSTRUCTION OF PAGE AVENUE, 78TH STREET AND QUADAY AVENUE OTSEGO, MINNESOTA March 1999 Prepared by: HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN 55303 Telephone: 612/427-5860 hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under State of Minnesota Statutes Sections 326.02 to 326.16. Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E. Reg. No. Date Ronald J. Wagner, PE Reg. No. Date C:\Share\Municipai\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc CONTENTS OBJECTIVE II. PROJECT LOCATION III. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A. EXISTING CONDITIONS B. PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS C. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT D. ESTIMATED COSTS E. ROADWAY CONNECTION FEES 1. ROADWAY CONNECTION FEE PER GROSS ACRE 2. ROADWAY CONNECTION FEE PER NET ACRE (ABOVE BUILDABLE ELEVATION) 3. ROADWAY CONNECTION FEE PER LOT UNIT IV. PROJECT FUNDING V. PROJECT SCHEDULE VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS C:\Share\MunicipalWOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc TABLES Table 1 — Improvement Project Cost Estimate Table 2 — Comparison of Cost for Typical Residential Otsego Street to Proposed Improvement (per linear foot) Table 3 — Projected Roadway Connection Fee per Individual Parcel C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX A EXHIBIT A PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION OF PAGE AVENUE & 78T" STREET EXHIBIT C TYPICAL SECTION OF QUADAY AVENUE EXHIBIT Cl TYPICAL SECTION OF QUADAY AVE. AT CSAH 42 INTERSECTION EXHIBIT D PROJECT IMPROVEMENT BENEFITTED AREA, GROSS ACRES EXHIBIT E PROJECT IMPROVEMENT BENEFITTED AREA, NET ACRES EXHIBIT F PROJECT IMPROVEMENT BENEFITTED AREA, LOT UNITS C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc OBJECTIVE The purpose of this report is to identify in detail the nature and extent of the improvements and to develop a total cost estimate based on proposed construction. Within this report we have identified permanent right of way requirements for construction. This report recognizes the City policy for comparing the "equivalent residential street cost" for improvements to the collector streets cost, and identifies the recommended roadway connection fee against benefited properties. This report is intended to be the engineering report to establish an acceptable method of determining roadway connection fees for collector street access. This report is recommended to be reviewed from time to time to make allowance for cost adjustment and benefited area. II. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located within sections 22, 26 & 27 of Township 121 N Range 23W. Construction of Page Avenue is from a north terminus point of the intersection of 85th Street and Page Avenue (existing). The south terminus point is 3/ of a mile south at the center of the NW '/4 of Section 27. The west terminus point of construction of 78th Street is the center of the NW '/4 of Section 27. The east terminus point is 3/4 of a mile east at Quaday Avenue. Reconstruction of Quaday Avenue is from a north terminus point of the intersection of CSAH #42 and Quaday Avenue to a south terminus point mentioned as the east terminus point of Quaday Avenue. A project location map is shown on Exhibit A. The entire project length is approximately 9000 ft. or 1.7 miles. III. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A. EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, Page Avenue and 78' Street are non -existing MSA routes. Their proposed MSA street designations are #103 and #108 respectively. Page Avenue and 78' Street are proposed to be located on what are now agricultural lands. Quaday Avenue (MSA Route #107) is currently a 26 -foot wide gravel rural design street with ditch sections to provide drainage. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps indicate that several of the low areas adjacent to the project are protected under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) Wetland. These areas may require attention during the project design phase. The wetland areas will be delineated and work performed within the guidelines of the WCA. There is no existing right-of-way along 78th Street. The existing right-of-way along Quaday Avenue is 66 -feet wide. The existing ADT for Quaday is 190. There is 25' of right-of-way on the east side of Page Avenue from 85' St. south C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc 1 to the end of the Country Ridge plat. The remainder of Page Avenue proposed to be constructed has no existing right-of-way. B. PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS The project involves reconstructing a portion of Quaday Avenue and constructing Page Avenue and 78th Street to Municipal State Aid (MSA) standards. Quaday Avenue is proposed to be a 40 -foot wide rural design section. A proposed typical section sketch for Quaday Avenue is shown in the Appendix on Exhibit C. Page Avenue and 78th Street is proposed to be a 44 - foot wide urban design section with a 10 -foot wide off-street bike path/walkway proposed along the roadway. A proposed typical section sketch for Page Avenue and 78' Street is shown in the Appendix on Exhibit B. A typical section will consist of a minimum of 4-1/2" of bituminous surface over a minimum of 7" of Class 5 aggregate base course. The bike path typical section consists of a minimum of 2" of bituminous surface over a minimum of 4" of Class 5 aggregate base course. Right-of-way acquisition will be necessary to construct Page Avenue & 78th Street. An 80 -foot wide strip of right-of-way will be required. Additional right-of- way along Quaday Avenue will be required to bring the total to 100 ft. Projected ADT for the roadways is 4500. This is based on a 10 -trip average per dwelling. C. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The proposed street improvements are in the Lefebvre Watershed district. A stormwater trunk under 78th Street is planned. The storm sewer system is connected to Lefebvre Creek. The construction of 78th Street will incorporate the piping to accommodate the proposed Regional Drainage Plan presented in the 1999 Lefebvre Watershed District Report. It is assumed that the pipe on MSA Streets is eligible up to 55% of the MSA fund. This is reflected in the estimate of cost. D. ESTIMATED COSTS Cost estimates for the proposed improvements were determined by estimating quantities and using prices received in previous bids for projects of a similar nature. Overhead and indirect costs of 30% were added to reflect the costs of engineering, legal, administrative and contingency. Estimated cost of R.O.W. is not included due to the dedication decision of the platting process. Table 1 shows the construction cost estimate, which is $1,018,816.50. C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc 2 E. ROADWAY CONNECTION FEES The proposed roadway connection fee has been determined by estimating the cost of a typical residential street in accordance with City Standards. The remainder of the cost will be assumed by State Aid Funding. The proposed street is considered a minor collector due to the ADT that is projected to be generated by new developments in the benefited area. Table 2 shows how the estimated cost per linear foot of a typical residential street was determined. The standard plate for a residential street has also been included for reference. The approximate length of the proposed street construction and reconstruction is 9,000 linear feet. Nine -thousand linear feet (9,000 LF) times the estimated cost per linear foot ($55.64/LF) for a typical residential Otsego Street is $500,760. This is the amount proposed to be paid by benefited properties through roadway connection fees. The estimated cost to construct the collector streets to MSA standards is $1,018,816.50. Therefore, roadway connection fees under these assumptions would pay approximately 50% of the project. Roadway connection fees are proposed to be distributed in one of three different methods: 1) Roadway Connection Fee per Gross Acre 2) Roadway Connection Fee per Net Acre (Acreage above freeboard elevation) 3) Roadway Connection Fee per Projected Lot Unit Roadway connection fee per gross acre is determined by taking the entire area benefited by the collector streets (shown on Exhibit B) and dividing that equally into the project cost determined to construct 9,000 linear feet of local street. The number of gross acres was determined as 429 acres. Therefore, $1,167.27 is the roadway connection fee per gross acre. Roadway connection fee per "net" acre is determined by taking the area benefited by the collector streets (shown on Exhibit C) and subtracting the area considered unbuildable due to wetland, trunk storm ponds, and freeboard. This "net" area was determined to be 384 acres and is divided into the estimated cost to construct 9,000 linear feet of local street. Therefore, $1,304.06/net acre is the roadway connection fee. Roadway connection fee per projected lot is determined by taking the number of projected lots (shown on Exhibit D) and dividing it into the cost determined to C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc 3 construct 9,000 linear feet of local street. The projected number of lots is 884. Therefore, $566.47 is the estimated roadway connection fee per lot. Table 3 shows the projected roadway connection fee for each individual parcel for each of the roadway connection fee distribution method options. IV. PROJECT FUNDING The collector streets will be paid for by roadway connection fees and MSA funds. Each will contribute approximately 50%. Right-of-way costs not included in the plat dedication will be paid for by MSA funds. V. PROJECT SCHEDULE The project is scheduled for the start of construction during the 1999 construction season. The 2nd lift of bituminous surface wear will be installed after a majority of the land has been developed. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION We conclude that the roadway is needed and feasible, and will benefit the area proposed for development. With the projected number of dwellings to occur in the area in the near future, a roadway built to collector and MSA standards is advisable for both safety and efficiency. The project is feasible with roadway connection fees on the developments paying approximately 50% of the cost. We recommend the roadway connection fees be based on the projected number of lots, as this is what most directly impacts the number of vehicles using the roadways. It is recommended that this report, if adopted, should be reviewed from time to time to make adjustments if necessary in costs and/or on actual lots. C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc 4 Table 2 Typical Residential Otsego Street (Cost/LF) ITEM QUANTITY COST/UNIT EXTENDED COST Bituminous 0.7 Tons $25/Ton $17.50 Cl. 5 Aggregate 1.2 Tons $7/Ton $8.40 Curb & Gutter 2 LF $6.50/LF $13.00 Common Excavation 1.3 CY $3/CY $3.90 Estimated Construction Cost Indirect Costs @ 30% Estimated Project Cost Right -of -Way Cost Estimated Project Cost including RM C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc $42.80/LF 12.84/LF $55.64/LF 10.35/LF $65.99/LF z 60' J 33' B - B a 16.5' 16.5' 0 CL SLOPE 1/3" PER FT. S512 CONCRETE ` A & B BITUMINOUS MAT CURB & GUTTER PLACED ON APPROVED SUBGRADE C CLASS 5 GRAVEL BASE 34' WIDTH D APPROVED SUBGRADE 35' WIDTH w LEGEND AASHTP R VALUE SIGMA N18 BITUMINOUS SURFACE AGGREGATE BASE WEAR BASE/BINDER CLASS 5/6 CLASS 3/4 SUBGRADE 234* 3136 SOIL CLASS A 2331 B 3136 C D* A-3 R-70 < 90,000 ** 1 1/2' ** 2" ** 4" - A-4 R-20 < 90,000 1 1/2- 2" 4" - A-6 R-15 < 90,000 1 1/2" 2" 4" 6" A-7 R-10 < 90,000 1 1/2" 2" 6" 7" R-5 <-90,000) 1 1/2 2" 6" 18" * SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER "MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DESIGN THICKNESS PE NOTES: R VALUE IS A MEASURE OF EMBANKMENT SOIL RESISTANCE STRENGTH AS DETERMINED BY THE HVEEM STABILOMETER METHOD SIGMA N18 VALUE IS THE CUMULATIVE DAMAGE EFFECT OF VEHICLES DURING THE DESIGN LIFE OF A FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL IRBAN STREET SECTION - 9 TON NO SCALE .. • W Z J Of w IL 0 CL Table 3 Projected Impact Fee Per Individual Parcel For Collector Streets Mar -99 Parcel Location Per Gross Acre $1,167.27 Per "Net" Acre $1,304.06 Per Lot $566.47 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 22 40 1 $46,690.91 40 $52,162.50 87 $49,282.94 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 22 40 $46,690.91 34 $44,338.13 82 $46,450.59 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 22 40 $46,690.91 40 $52,162.50 100 $56,647.06 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 22 40 $46,690.91 24 $31,297.50 32 $18,127.06 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 27 40 $46,690.91 38.4 $50,076.00 92 $52,115.29 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 27 40 $46,690.91 40 $52,162.50 100 $56,647.06 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 27 40 $46,690.91 40 $52,162.50 100 $56,647.06 E 1/2 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 27 20 $23,345.45 11 $14,344.69 20 $11,329.41 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 27 40 $46,690.91 38.81 $50,597.63 94 $53,248.24 W 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 27 20 $23,345.45 18 $23,473.13 44 $24,924.71 E 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 27 20 $23,345.45 19 $24,777.19 44 $24,924.71 Portion of NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 27 12 $14,007.27 11.11 $14,475.09 20 $11,329.41 Portion of NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 27 22.5 $26,263.64 22.51 $29,341.41 55 $31,155.88 Portion of NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 27 - 14.5 $16,925.45 7.2 1 $9,389.25 14 $7,930.59 429 $500,760.00 384 $500,760.00 884 ;P,UU,IOV.VV Impact Fees for Benifited Properties = $500,760.00 APPENDIX A C:\Share\MunicipalWOTSEGO\337\OT337FEAS.doc �� I■�IEr� ■■M X11111 r �■ �I��;` moi■ � ■■■��'��: Now .Ell 78th ST. 1 .'� 1■1111 ■ ■ �� I 1111 11111■ ■�' �� :: ® �� II�ItiD�i■■111■ �� . ■ �� ■■ �� / � _ ,�� ; • :11111111=== /;.•rte= 1 �ii�11��i11111� �� ■■ `\ 11 ��;��„sus:'► �;;;:;s;;��;;;;��: ' ■�■EXHIBIT A� .. 3000 PROJECT SC&E IN FEET PAGE AVENUE. 78TH ST. LOCATION MAP--Ha anson & QUADAY W z 3 0 Ir 4' 1 A4AX 4.1 M a 3 I LL 0 O F S (7 C41 100 ft 30 ft I 401 Ift 6 ft 12 ft RIGHT TURN LANE 4x 8618 CURB GUTTER 12 ft 12 ft 1 4 f LELAFT TURN DRIVE LANE SHOULDER NE WEAR COURSE 2" TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE 6 ft 47: 30 ft 4:1 4: 1 MAX 8618 CURB GUTTER TACK COAT BASE COURSE 2 1/2 " TYPE 31 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION EXHIBIT Cl PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION AT C.S.A.H. 42 AND QUADAY AVENUE N.E. INTERSECTION CONSTRUC11ON CITY OF (-----10, MINNESOTA DATE: 03 RLE: OT337 Q 3 w O N 2 O C -y 84 ft z 8 ft 6 ft 8 ft 40 ft ,w 8 ft 6 ft 8 ft 3 3 O O ' 8 ft 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft I ISHOULDER DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE SHOULDER I 2% 2% --� I 4• � Mqk �P� T5% 4., Mq �,` �1, iI 57 I TACK COAT WEAR COURSE 2" TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS PA. EMENTBASE COURSE 4144 2 1/2 - TYPE 31 ' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE SUBGRADE PREPARATION EXHIBIT C PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION QUADAY AVENUE N.E. CONSTRUCTION CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE: 03 nU: OT337 wi z 7 ft 10 ft 6 ft 3 O 2 ft 2 ft 10 ft I CLEAR CLEAR SHOULDER ZONE ZONE I -f' 1 M BIKE PATH } Q B618 0 a CURB AND GUTTER (TYPICAL) o' r o 2" TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 4" CL 5 0 0 AGGREGATE BASE SUBGRADE PREPARATION } Q 3 0 a O o' r o 3 W 0 d 0 0 I 7 ft O Q0 80 ft 12 ft 12 ft 10 ft DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE SHOULDER 13 ft 2Z w z 3 0 w 4" TOP SOIL I TACK COAT ' WEAR COURSE I 2" TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BASE COURSE 2 1/2 " TYPE 31 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE SUBGRADE PREPARATION EXHIBIT B PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION PAGE AVE. do 78TH ST. CONSTRUCTION CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE: 03/ FILE: OT337 ■ ra 11 111111■ ■a; �� , ■■■■�� ri v■ ST S. A. H. 0 1500 3000 SCALE IN FEET Hakanson 1-Anders9n011 %USSOC.n C. ]ept nurw A�.w. M.K mw—.m MW e12—ITI—eEeO fAX 412 -417 -OM 40 ST OR z� =a dw zz U 2 i 0 U QUADAY 40 /78th ST.1� 20 0 20 20 12.5 14.5 70th ST.) 40 = GROSS ACRES Z Z m ul O m 72nd ST. EXHIBIT D BENEFITED AREA GROSS AREA PAGE AVENUE, 78TH ST. & QUADAY AVENUE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE: 03/99 FILE: OT337 ST C S. A. H. N�. 31 I H 0 1500 3000 1 SCALE IN FEET HIM Ande�n C. eu-azr-aeeo nuc e�z--4zr� 24 70th ST. ST. 40 -PAGE AVE. QUADAY 40 38.4 78th ST. .8 18 1 19 .5 7.2 40 = NET ACRES = a. �w J- 6 a 3 x v x z 0 U W Z Z rn Ln 0 rn rn x do -a 72nd ST. Z e 0 EXHIBIT E BENERTO AREA "NET" AREA PAGE AVENUE, 78TH ST. do QUADAY AVENUE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE: 03/99 RLE: OT337 Y32LJ'i71ii0_ ■ 1■1111� �� 1■1111� �� i�■■111■ ST C S. A. H. NQ. 311 H 0 1500 3000 SCALE IN FEET Ha anson I-MinAnaAAnoc,.lnc. �.+�..Iaw.w 612-477-aeeo FAX 41:-427eem 87 Z2 2 NW cj— O Z 82 100 coG ytiE PAGE AVE. 9} QUADAYAVE.{ 32 100 92 10 78th ST. 20 4 44 44 20 14 70th ST, w z +0 19 72nd ST. Z P, EXHIBIT F BENEFITED AREA 32 = PROJECTED LOTS PROJECTED # OF LOTS PAGE AVENUE, 78TH ST. do QUADAY AVENUE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE 03/99 FILE: OT337 N/1mm 11 ■� L �� ■ MQcm 1i1111� ■ �� 1 11111. ■a ; �� :: ®� Holum MEE MEE& no FUTURE ST C S. A. H. N{ . 31 70th ST _EE =a NW Civ �Z6 -MSA DUTE 103\/,y, oy�'}ogOJ 2 3 .oma 2 •`�9t MSA R UTE 108 A�\ Fo w Z SA ROUTE1 7-� 72nd ST. 2z z e 0 EXHIBIT G 0 1-5003000 PROJECT LOCATION MAP SCALE IN FEET HalSancon '�TT Anders9n 1� AssOC• nC. I ��0°0� xaa'0� r' t `ii 7-a FAX 12-427 aa= at:-+n-aeeo rix ate-+n-mso PROPOSED ROADWAY (COLLECTOR) CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA DATE: 03/99 FILE: OT337 ITEM 7.2 FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TRUNK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION SECTION 27, CITY OF OTSEGO 78TH STREET, WEST OF QUADAY AVENUE January 26, 1999 Revised,:F,,ebruary 19,x999 Prepared by: 1-10 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN 55303 Telephone: 612/427-5860 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under State of Minnesota Statutes Sections 326.02 to 326.16. Koshak, City Engineer C:\Share\WPmunIAOTSEGO\613\ot313FEAS.doc e717 Reg. Reg. No. Reg. No. Z'113�AL- D afe 9 D afe CONTENTS INTRODUCTION II. DESCRIPTION III. DESIGN BASIS AND ALTERNATIVE a) Sewer Size b) Sewer Location c) Watermain IV. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COSTS C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\613\ot613FEAS.doc I. INTRODUCTION The City of Otsego is in the process of constructing municipal sewer and water facilities. The wastewater treatment facility is scheduled to be on-line in early summer 2000. The municipal well and water tower are currently under construction. The pumphouse will be under construction early in 1999. The Phase I trunk water trunk distribution & sewer collection system is scheduled for May 1999 through October 1999 construction. During planning for the sanitary sewer collection system, an approximate 440 acre initial development area was identified located west of CSAH 42 and south of 85th Street on lands that generally are in the south half of Section 22 and the north half of Section 27. This initial development area is shown on an enclosure. The purpose of this study and report is to evaluate extension of sewer and water westerly from the Phase I system into this initial development area. An enclosure, taken from the 1997 comprehensive sewer plan, shows this initial extension into the development area. The 1997 study estimated the sanitary sewer cost at $730,000 of which $314,000 was identified as lateral sewer to be funded by Developer and $416,000 was identified as trunk to be funded by the trunk connection charge. This current study re-examines the proposed extension based on current developmental timing. This study estimates the cost of the proposed 1999 trunk extension and identifies the portion of those costs deemed to be solely of trunk benefit, which trunk portions are to be funded by the connection charge Income. A development moratorium has been in effect during the time the sanitary sewer and water planning was being reviewed and approved and while the City comprehensive plans and ordinances were being revised to reflect the impact of public sewer and water. This moratorium will be lifted by Council when the ordinances, permits and policies are in place to receive preliminary plats. These preliminary plats will show the location of the proposed streets and platted lots, which in turn locate trunk and lateral sewer and water systems. In anticipation of the moratorium being lifted, and in anticipation of public sewer and water availability, the City has had initial contact from several property owners and developers regarding extension of sewer to serve their properties. Those contacts have led to City authorization of this report and Feasibility Study for public sewer and water extended westerly from the trunk sewer lift station into the development area. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Excerpts from the June 1997 Sanitary Sewer Collection System Study are enclosed. This study evaluated allowable and potential development density within the sewer study area and identified sewer pipe sizing and elevations to provide service. The current proposed sewer is one of the major trunk lines from that study, which extends approximately 4000 ft. westerly from Quaday Ave. This sanitary sewer C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\613\ot6l3FEAS.doc 1 provides trunk gravity flow outlet to approximately 400 ± acres of currently vacant and developable property that is under 6 separate ownerships. This ownership is shown on an enclosure. This trunk line consists of 900 ft. of sewer in Quaday Ave. and approximately 4000 LF of sewer westerly from Quaday Ave. While the primary purpose of this report is for Sanitary Sewer extension, the concurrent extension of watermain is recommended since both of these utilities are required for the density of urban service development proposed. III. DESIGN BASIS & ALTERNATIVE A. SEWER LINE SIZE The 1997 Sewer Study identified a need for an 18 -inch sewer pipe in Quaday Ave. to provide service to this development area plus provide service extension to the south along Quaday Ave. to serve the south TH 101 development areas. This southerly extension can serve properties to near 65th Street. The sewer study also showed the westerly line from Quaday Ave. to be an 18 -inch diameter line immediately adjacent to Quaday decreasing to a 15 -inch line at a location about 1500 ft. west of Quaday. Since completion of the Sewer Study, the City has revised its Comprehensive Plan to show an "Urban Service Reserve" area located generally southwest of the current sewer study area into Section 28 and southwest towards the Odean Ave. and County Road 37 area. Long range city planning has projected ultimate sewered development within this urban service reserve. While the City has not completed a detailed evaluation of development potential for this urban service reserve, initial review of topography indicates that some of this area, primarily properties located south and west of Lefebvre Creek, which are in the south half of Section 27 and the east half of Section 28, could be served by an extension from the currently proposed trunk line. In order to maintain future flexibility of service, we recommend sizing the entire trunk line from Quaday Ave. westerly to a point 4000 ft. west of Quaday as an 18 -inch diameter rather than the 15 -inch size recommended by the 1997 Sewer Study. The larger pipe size, at 0.15% grade, increases conveyance capacity enough to serve portions of the urban service reserve in Section 28, which are up to an additional 1500 to 1800 residential units. B. SEWER LINE LOCATION The ideal location for any sanitary sewer and watermain facilities, regardless of size or trunk vs. lateral service intent is within the right-of-way for a local street. This location allows construction of a line that has a dual function for local service benefit to directly connected residences as well as trunk service. This dual function results in the cost of basic line construction being a developmental cost paid by abutting and serviced properties. With the facility in a local street, only the cost of facility oversizing and extra depth is paid from trunk sources. C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\613\ot613FEAS.doc 2 For this project we anticipate having knowledge of local street layout, via a submitted preliminary plat, prior to completing final design. Once that detailed information is known, the sewer line will be constructed within the right-of-way for a local street. This location, within a local street, is shown in concept as Alternative B and is the basis for costing and cost allocation. Very often, it is not practical or possible to construct trunk sewer lines in local streets. This is true for the City's Phase 1 Trunk System where construction is in highway right-of-way. Often, an alternate choice for location of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain facilities is on or adjacent to existing property ownership boundaries. This option is shown as Alternative A. For the vast majority of developments, the primary ownership boundary between major original land ownerships, such as between original farmsteads, will continue to exist during and after development. Major roads and utilities can most often be routed along original quarter section lines, with relatively minimal impact on development planning. The cost and the allocation of costs for this trunk sewer route along the property line is shown as Alternative A. This alternative can be pursued if development patterns for the adjacent property are not known at the time facility construction is required. This alternative will be within or parallel to a proposed State Aid collector street that has been identified as necessary through the development area from Quaday Ave. to 85th Street. C. CONCURRENT WATERMAIN Extension of sanitary sewer only, without watermain, could be a problem for developmental timing if the more westerly development area significantly precedes the more easterly areas. Concurrently with any moderate level of development within this 400 ± study area it is necessary to provide watermain looping both for fire service and consumption. The water system looping is proposed to be from Quaday Ave. westerly on local streets or the 78' Street alignment and then through the development area from the 78' St. main to either the vicinity of Well Number 2 or via routes through development areas to the 16 -inch main in CSAH 42. The route of the trunk watermain looping can be along or parallel to a necessary State Aid collector street planned for the area. Construction of the 4000 LF 78" Street watermain westerly from Quaday Ave. is recommended to be concurrent with sewer main construction. The looping of the watermain will be required and provided as new development occurs. IV. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COSTS The costs for the proposed facilities are detailed on separate enclosures. The total estimated project cost, which includes the estimated construction cost plus 30% for contingency and indirect costs, is as follows: C:\Share\WPmuni\AOTSEGO\613\ot313FEAS.doc 3 Alternative Route A, parallel to existing property lines, the South line of North %, Section 27: Trunk Sanitary System (18" dia.) $517,710 Trunk Water System (12" dia.) $196,500 Restoration, Topsoil & Seed, Agricultural $141,000 Easement & Right -of -Way $32,000 $887,200 Alternative Route B, on local streets: Trunk Sanitary Sewer (18" dia.) $540,000 Trunk Water System $239,000 Restoration $96,000 Easement & Right -of -Way $0 $875,000 TRUNK AND LATERAL COSTS Alternative A is located on a property line and does not directly provide services to property although there may be potential for some limited direct hookup and benefit, depending on development patterns. The trunk vs. lateral portions of the cost is as follows, with the lateral portion based on 8 -inch diameter sewer lines at maximum 12 foot depth: Based on current information on development patterns, it is likely that the majority of the cost of Alternative A would be of trunk benefit only, which would require funding all or most of the $887,200 project costs from individual water and sewer connection or availability charges (WAC and SAC fees). This funding method had been anticipated in the 1997 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Supply Plans. C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\613\ot613FEAS.doc 4 Total Trunk Cost Lateral Size Oversizing Sewer Pipe System $517,700 $205,600 $312,100 Water Pipe System $196,500 $127,000 $69,500 Restoration $141,000 $88,400 $52,600 Easement & Right -of -Way $32,000 $32,000 $887,200 $453,000 $434,200 Based on current information on development patterns, it is likely that the majority of the cost of Alternative A would be of trunk benefit only, which would require funding all or most of the $887,200 project costs from individual water and sewer connection or availability charges (WAC and SAC fees). This funding method had been anticipated in the 1997 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Supply Plans. C:\Share\Municipal\AOTSEGO\613\ot613FEAS.doc 4 Alternative B The utilities are located within a local street, which location assumes that a preliminary plat is submitted that fixes the location of the street. For this alternative, the local or lateral costs would be funded by the developer as a direct benefit to property. Only the trunk oversizing cost, which includes extra depth, would be a trunk fund cost. Sewer Pipe System Water Pipe System Restoration Easement & Right -of -Way Total Trunk Cost Lateral Size Oversizinq $540,000 $224,700 $315,300 $239,000 $156,300 $82,700 $96,000 $63,000 $33,000 _ 0 $0 $875,000 $444,000 $431,000 This alternative depends on property owner submittal of a development plan and a commitment via the development agreements for construction of the sewer and water lines, which would be located to provide both lateral and trunk benefit. The developer would construct the entire $875,000 project and would be reimbursed from the Utility trunk funds, supported by sewer connection charges (SAC fees) and water connection charges (WAC fees), for the $431,000 in trunk costs. C:\Share\MunicipalWOTSEGO\613\ot613FEAS.doc 5 imam �- DENOTES GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER --------- 4+- DENOTES FORCEMAIN 0 2000 4000 x SCALE IN FEET I fillAnkerson Anderson Assoc.,Inc. EXCERPT FROM 1997 SANITARY SEWER STUDY CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA FILE: OT313 885.7 = 67.3 86' y ' 43 85 h ST • I a y gym. 1 Co Ca cC)ii "j12' 2" .1 Q r •i ��' a5 I al 1 x 882.4 6 I 886.7 ; e .5 8 7 878 84.5 3 874 > 861.5 agg rd T. 46 72 876 300 840.7 O 878 Y _ 20 X65 874 874 864 W 859 856 ' t �'E :i 1 1 !/L��;�;, 83 1; O J ti � Aa ~ 82 873.8 1 00 875.5 867 855 880 86 } 852.4 83 878\�91L 5 .i. 853.2; 32 1 0 ` It 100 92 872 880 880 880 876 86� 860.4 852 851.6 849.1 848.1 -- w 8 4 5.7 > Q r' 66 .. 7 • iJ L: 87a 858 9 88 10 C o 2 O 6 856 859.6 a ,. a 0 859.5 ,. L� C5 D EC XX DENOTES DESIGN NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS �T 0 800 1600 l�L SCALE IN FEET EXCERPT FROM 1997 SANITARY SEWER STUDY Hakanson CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA Anderson Assoc.,Inc. FILE: 0 T313 OF/ ovdm►"ii www �i ► � SOON w, ; I��i% NMI W_WW1► f ST 3 22 0 _ 78TH STREET TRUNK SEWER DATA FROM 1997 STUDY LATERAL 314,000 TRUNK 416,000 TOTAL $730,000 LLQ_ N.E. 0,. STPW. U5� V�l 0 2500 5000 .IVA OIX SCALE IN FEET a�,, `'-'si�i` r �, . •. ,sem CITY OFOTSEGO LEGEND SANITARY SEWER ---*'--YEAR 1 BASE SYSTEM COLLECTION SYSTEM STUDY ----*'—YEAR 5 EXPANSION PHASED SYSTEM �— YEAR 10 EXPANSION Hakanson -----*-YEAR 15 EXPANSION Anderson EXPANSION FORCEMAIN l Assoc.,Inc. U(titZ\Uwp �cnnio- n-� .ung, City of Otsego Sanitary Sewer Collection System Funding Analysis for Phase 1 Trunk Facilities Year Lateral Project Trunk Capital Total Project Cost Cost Expenditure Capitalized Interest Trunk Capital Expenditure Inflated 3% per Yr. Total Payments Residential Equivalent Connections Per Year Cost Per Connection Inflated 3.00% Per Year Income From Connections and Capitalized Annual System Interest Balance Total Cumulative System Balance $1,395,000.00 $0.00 $1,395,000.00 10% 1998 $1,191,000.00 $452,000.00 $739,000.00 $213,400.00 $2,347,400.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $213,400.00 $213,400.00 $221,936.00 1999 $204,657.03 68 $3,090.00 $210,120.00 $5,462.97 $236,494.93 2000 $204,657.03 68 $3,182.70 $216,423.60 $11,766.57 $258,191.96 2001 $204,657.03 68 $3,278.18 $222,916.31 $18,259.28 $287,509.29 2002 5.00% $204,657.03 68 $3,376.53 $229,603.80 $24,946.77 $324,954.30 2003 $1,180,000.00 $650,400.00 529,600.00 26,480.00 $644,649.00 $204,657.03 68 $3,477.83 $236,491.91 $31,834.88 $371,060.75 2004 $204,657.03 68 $3,582.16 $243,586.67 $38,929.64 $426,390.00 2005 $260,860.48 68 $3,689.62 $250,894.27 ($9,966.21) $433,080.75 2006 $260,860.48 68 $3,800.31 $258,421.10 ($2,439.38) $447,867.02 2007 0.00% $260,860.48 68 $3,914.32 $266,173.73 $5,313.25 $471,307.48 2008 $2,182,400.00 $1,349,100.00 $0.00 $1,119,886.00 $260,860.48 68 $4,031.75 $274,158.94 $13,298.46 $503,990.19 2009 $358,497.20 68 $4,152.70 $282,383.71 ($76,113.49) $444,991.76 2010 $358,497.20 68 $42,577.28 $290,855.22 ($67,641.98) $392,443.77 2011 $358,497.20 68 $4,405.60 $299,580.88 ($58,916.32) $346,868.55 2012 0.00% $358,497.20 68 $4,537.77 $308,568.30 ($49,928.90) $308,817.24 2013 $428,000.00 $366.00 $0.00 $96,594.00 $358,497.20 68 $4,673.90 $317,825.35 ($40,671.85) $278,871.21 2014 $366,918.70 68 $4,814.12 $327,360.11 ($39,558.59) $248,885.12 2015 $366,918.70 68 $4,958.54 $337,180.92 ($29,737.79) $227,913.23 2016 $366,918.70 68 $5,107.30 $347,296.34 ($19,622.36) $216,622.50 2017 $366,918.70 68 $5,260.52 $357,715.23 ($9,203.47) $215,715.80 2018 $366,918.70 68 $5,418.33 $368,446.69 $1,527.99 $225,933.53 NOTES: Annual interest rate on Bond sales, for 20 equal annual payments is 6.00% Capitalized interest on each bond sale as shown CONSTRUCTION OF TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES IS FUNDED BY A CONNECTION CHARGE OF $3,000.00 THE LATERAL PORTION OF THE FACILITIES ARE A DEVELOPMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, FUNDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY Sh are/exceUOtseg o/613/ot613s scs Fund.xls 2/15/99 Excerpt from 1997 Sanitary Sewer Study Year 5; Trunk & a MLateral Sub -Trunk p 142,000 Project Costs Costp '- Total Cosh ara, Year 1; Base System 216,600 1 650,4001 529.600 Lift Station & Forcemain 0 1,395,000 1,395,000 Year 1; Gravity System 1,349,100 833,300 2,182,400 County Road 39 area 291,400 125,600 417,000 85th Street area 160,600 613,400 774,000 452,000 739,000 1,191,000 Year 5; North Parish Avenue28,400 526,000 113,600 142,000 Quaday, County Road 42 to 72nd St 308,000 0 308,000 78th Street area, West of Quaday 314,000 _ 416,000 ; .' -730,000' 216,600 1 650,4001 529.600 1 *1.180,000* Year 10; County Road 39 & County Road 42 526,000 234,200 760,200 78th Street, West Residential 356,600 88,400 445,000 Quaday to County Road 37 216,600 308,600 524,600 South District 246,600 202,100 449,000 1,349,100 833,300 2,182,400 Year 15; West 82nd Street Area 171,000 40,000 211,000 TH101 area to 65th Street 195,000 22,000 217,000 366,000 62,000 428,000 TOTALS 2,817,500 3,558,900 6,376,400 The trunk portion of the 78th Street Sewer, $416,000, was funded by the trunk connection charge. c:\Share\WPmuni\AOTSEGO\613\ot613-97sss.doc 0 600 1200 !^ v —�� SCALE IN FEET tales&/o: 1 J tJADA1' AVENUE` aour°I �t Z ! =�� I ? LL.:3 t \ °° o' %� � �� i / ' `\��+ � i• ! / '` a LJ� � IiE ,' I, �o t , i 1 I � , i F•-� i 1 t t ? C� t� W ll� .1 WW � ! ♦ 1 I !� J i� _ t o/, ! !R 1 Ww < �ZO ADOrZ �(` `� t• + � �r I' • ,.`� ill i6 I t �i ( i �' � ^ r • I s/ 1' O I D . /• D E q4GE/ It> . '�' �'.; : ! � � , Il •-T All ALTERNATIVE A CONCEPTUAL SKETCH Hakanson TRUNK SEWER AND WATER '1 Anderson ON EXISTING PROPERTY LINE Assoc.,Inc. �.-.�•�.•�•--•�� CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA ,...,_,.......�-.,,�.. FILE: 0 T313 E!F.� 0 600 1200 SCALE IN FEET LL- 4 ri 4 4ccczp r/ I mad QIJ'ADA �Y!AVENUE A LLJ F ry LLJ uj V LLI o Lp Lu Ln (71 V) _j < Ila z0 D 10, 0 < W, r E� EA ILI Ir ct I koa 'cl L -Z 'J! 00 ALTERNATIVE B CONCEPTUAL SKETCH Hakonson TRUNK SEWER AND WATER Assoc.,ndern sone. WITHIN LOCAL STREET SYSTEM AI CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA OT313 z 'y A LL- mad QIJ'ADA �Y!AVENUE A LLJ F ry LLJ uj V LLI o Lp Lu Ln (71 V) _j < Ila z0 D 10, 0 < W, r E� EA ILI Ir ct I koa 'cl L -Z 'J! 00 ALTERNATIVE B CONCEPTUAL SKETCH Hakonson TRUNK SEWER AND WATER Assoc.,ndern sone. WITHIN LOCAL STREET SYSTEM AI CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA OT313 ITEM 7.3 Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Portions of Lefebvre Watershed March 1999 Prepared by �Hakanson 71■ Anderson ■■■ Assoc.,lnc. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303 (612) 427-0520 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................1 2.0 Hydrologic Model......................................................................................................2 3.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Evaluation.....................................................................3 3.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................3 3.2 Ultimate Development Conditions..........................................................................3 3.2.1 Structure 551..................................................................................................4 3.2.2 Ditch Segment 551.........................................................................................4 3.2.3 Structure 631..................................................................................................4 3.2.4 Ditch Segment 641.........................................................................................5 3.2.5 Structure 651..................................................................................................5 3.2.6 Ditch Segment 651.........................................................................................5 3.2.7 Structure 721..................................................................................................5 3.2.8 Ditch Segment 871.........................................................................................6 3.2.9 Structure 872..................................................................................................6 3.2.10 Structure 871................................................................................................6 3.2.11 Structure 841................................................................................................6 3.2.12 Structure 881................................................................................................7 3.2.13 Structure 851................................................................................................7 3.2.14 Structures 611, 612, 613, and 712...............................................................7 3.2.15 Structure 662................................................................................................7 4.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Implementation.............................................................9 5.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Funding.......................................................................10 Table 1 Summary of Watershed Design Parameters 2 Summary of Cost Estimate for Trunk Stormwater Facility, Lefebvre Study Area 3 Impact Fee Calculation for Lefebvre Study Area Figure 1 Lefebvre Drainage Study Area 2 Lefebvre Overall Plan 3 Drainage Divides for Lefebvre Study Area 4 Land Use Map 5 Ditch Design "A" 6 Ditch Design "B" 7 Tax District for Lefebvre Study Area C: ISharelMunicipaAAOTSEGOk406AIot406aLWS. doc 5.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Funding A taxing district was established for the Lefebvre Watershed in the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan. A portion of this taxing district was established for the study area. The total area within the study area taxing district is 820 acres. This area is shown on Figure 7. The stormwater impact fee was established on a per acre basis. The fee per acre is based on the total cost of the trunk storm sewer facilities divided by the total area within the taxing district. The total trunk storm sewer facilities estimated cost of $1,072,200 is summarized on Table 2. The total cost shown on Table 2 was revised to account for the shared cost of Ditch Segment 551. There is 230 acres of property within the overall Lefebvre taxing district, but outside the study area taxing district, that will contribute flow to Ditch Segment 551. This reduction in the total cost and the calculated stormwater impact fee per acre is present on Table 3. The stormwater impact fee is $1,266 per acre. Page 10 C. IShareWunicipaMOTSEGO1406AIot406aL WS.doc 4.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Implementation The key component to implementing the trunk stormwater system proposed in this report requires obtaining the permanent easements for Ditch Segments 551, 641, 651, and 871. The framework for the proposed stormwater system is based on a regional solution. The developers will be required to coordinate with and participate in the required plan. This regional approach allows development of upstream areas prior to developing downstream areas. Without obtaining the ditch easements described above, which is the main trunk system implemented, the plan as described would not be feasible. The next key component to implementing the proposed trunk stormwater system consists of establishing the allowable normal and flood elevations for wetlands 841L, 8 5 1 L 8 7 1 L and 881L. This issue was discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. These wetland areas provide significant flood storage at the headwaters of the trunk system. If the planned storage can not be obtained, the capacity of the trunk storm sewer systems downstream would have to be increased. The other issue that will have to be addressed early on is the capacity of Structure 631. The existing pipe is undersized. The proposed outlet structure will have to be constructed prior to developing properties in watershed 631L and 641L. The final issue that will have to be addressed in the early stages of development is the capacity of the existing ditch. The existing ditch capacity should be verified to determine if portions of the ditch need to be restored immediately or if each segment of ditch restoration can wait until areas develop. Verifying the ditch capacity would probably consist of performing a one to two day field inspection of the entire length. Critical ditch locations or possible restrictive areas could be cross-sectioned at the same time the field inspection is performed. Page 9 C: IShareWlunicipaA40TSEGO1406AIot4o6aLWS. doc discharge to Ditch Segment 651 just downstream of Structure 721. The estimated construction cost for Structure 662 is $34,600. Page 8 C:1 SharelMunicipaAA0TSEGO1406AIoN06aLWS. doc 3.2.12 Structure 881 Structure 881 serves as the outlet for watershed 881L. the proposed structure consists of installing two 18" RCP culverts. The east end of the pipes will have a spillway structure. The spillway will maintain the outlet elevation of the wetland. The estimated construction cost for Structure 881 is $16,200. 3.2.13 Structure 851 Structure 851 serves as the outlet for watershed 851L. The proposed structure consists of installing a 24" RCP culvert. This pipe will function as an equalizer pipe between ponds 851L and 881L, which have the same 100 -year flood elevation. The estimated construction cost for Structure 851 is $11,600. 3.2.14 Structures 611, 612, 613, and 712 Structures 611, 612, 613 and 712 are the segments of storm sewer pipe which will service the north central portion of the study area. The downstream end of this pipe system discharges to Structure 651. The location of this pipe system follows a proposed Municipal State Aid Street alignment. The following table summarized the outlet characteristics and costs: Structure No. Pipe Length Pipe Size Estimated Construction Cost 611 1100 LF 36" $85,500 612 1300 LF 24" $72,300 613 1100 LF 21" 61,300 712 1100 LF 30" 40,900 Detailed costs for these four outlets are included in Appendix A. 3.2.15 Structure 662 Structure 662 serves as the outlet for watershed 662L. The proposed structure consists of installing 500 feet of 21" RCP storm sewer with 3 junction manholes. The outlet pipe will Page 7 C:ISharelMunicipallAOTSEG01406AIot406aL WS.doc controlling invert of 862.3. The proposed structure consists of installing two 36" RCP culverts with an upstream invert of 862.3. The existing pipe will be removed and disposed. The estimated construction cost for Structure 721 is $28,000. 3.2.8 Ditch Segment 871 Ditch Segment 871 consists of approximately 4200 LF of open channel flow. The upstream end of this segment starts at Structure 841 and discharges to DNR wetland 6W at the downstream end. The ultimate design for this segment of the channel is shown on Figure 6. This entire segment of the ditch will be cleaned to its original grade and the existing ditch slope will be maintained. The estimated construction cost for restoring Ditch Segment 871 is $48,400. 3.2.9 Structure 872 Structure 872 serves as the outlet for watershed 872L. The proposed structure consists of installing two 33" RCP culverts. The pipe inverts will be placed at the ditch bottom. This elevation will need to be verified at the time of construction. The estimated construction cost for Structure 872 is $28,600. 3.2.10 Structure 871 Structure 871 serves as the outlet for watershed 871L. The proposed structure consists of installing two 30" RCP culverts. The pipe inverts will be placed at the ditch bottom. This elevation will need to be verified at the time of construction. The estimated construction cost for Structure 871 is $26,800. 3.2.11 Structure 841 Structure 841 serves as the outlet for watershed 841L. The proposed structure consists of installing a 36" RCP culvert. The north end of the pipe will have a spillway structure. The spillway will maintain the outlet elevation of the wetland. The estimated construction cost for Structure 841 is $21,000. Page 6 C: IShareWunicipa/IA 0 TSEGO1406A WN06aL WS. doc installed adjacent to it to provide for the ultimate design capacity. The estimated construction cost for structure 631 is $40,900. 12.4 Ditch Segment 641 Ditch Segment 641 consists of approximately 1,850 LF of open channel flow. This segment of ditch connects Structures 631 and 651. The ultimate design for this segment of the channel is shown on Figure 6. This entire segment of ditch will be cleaned and the invert lowered to provide a constant slope of 0.1% starting from the upstream invert of Structure 631. The estimated construction cost for restoring Ditch Segment 641 is $22,200. 3.2.5 Structure 651 Structure 651 serves as the outlet for watershed 651L. This structure will also serve as the cross - culvert under future 78th Street. The structure consists of a proposed 42" RCP culvert with a spillway structure on the south end. The spillway will maintain the invert of the ditch at its current elevation. To protect the existing hydrologic condition of DNR Wetland 6W, the ditch invert will not be lowered upstream of Structure 651. A junction manhole will also be installed at the midpoint of Structure 651. The junction manhole will take stormwater discharge from trunk storm sewers from the west as shown. The estimated construction cost for Structure 651 is $34,100. 3.2.6 Ditch Segment 651 Ditch Segment 651 consists of approximately 2,000 LF of open channel flow. This segment of ditch connects Structures 651 and 721. The ultimate design for this segment of the channel is shown on Figure 6. This entire segment of the ditch will be cleaned to its original grade and the existing ditch slope will be maintained. The estimated construction cost for restoring ditch Segment 651 is $23,700. 3.2.7 Structure 721 Structure 721 serves as the outlet for the ponding area in watershed 721 L. The ponding area is a DNR protected waters — Designation #6W. This pond currently has a culvert in place with a Page 5 C:: IShareWunicipaAA0 TSEGOl406A1ot406aL WS. doc system. The normal elevations used in the analysis for these basins were estimated from the topographic maps. Additional field data will be required to determine the lowest normal water elevation at which these basins can be set without "draining" the wetland. The publication "Guidance for Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts to Wetlands", State of Minnesota, Stormwater Advisory Group, May 1995, should be used to evaluate at what elevation the normal water for each wetland can be set. A copy of this publication is included in Appendix A. The following paragraphs discuss the significant futures of the proposed stormwater trunk system. The discussion starts at the downstream end and continues to the upstream end. The construction cost for each portion of the trunk system is also presented. Details of the cost estimates are included in Appendix B. 3.2.1 Structure 551 Structure 551 is at the discharge point of the study area and crosses under State Highway 101. The structure consists of two existing reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) culverts. One culvert is a 72 -inch RCP and the other is a 36" by 58" RC Arch pipe. This structure has adequate capacity for ultimate design and will be utilized in its existing state. 3.2.2 Ditch Segment 551 The first ditch segment upstream of Structure 551 is Ditch 551. This segment consists of approximately 1,800 LF of open channel flow. The ultimate design for this segment of the channel is shown on Figure 5. This entire segment of ditch will be cleaned and the invert lowered to provide a constant slope of 0.1% starting from the upstream invert of Structure 551. The estimated construction cost for restoring Ditch Segment 551 is $72,300. 3.2.3 Structure 631 Structure 631 serves as the cross culvert under County Road 42. Currently there is a 30" RCP in place. The 30" RCP culvert will remain in place, and an additional 48" RCP culvert will be Page 4 C:1ShareWunicipa11A0 TSEG01406Mot406aL WS. doc 3.0 Trunk Stormwater Facilities Evaluation This section of the report discusses the significant portions of the proposed trunk stormwater facilities for the study area. The goal of the analysis was to convey stormwater runoff for the 100 -year storm event, to the study area discharge point in a feasible and economical manner under ultimate development conditions. The hydrologic model described in Section 2 was used for the analysis. Figure 3 illustrates the drainage areas, stormwater detention areas and the proposed conveyance system for the study area. Regional stormwater detention basins, such as DNR Wetland 6W in watershed 721, were used rather than requiring basins on a site -by -site basis. In addition to the flood storage proposed, each developed area will required water quality treatment basins in accordance with the City's St:ormwater Policy. 3.1 Existing Conditions Existing land use conditions within the study area consist mainly of agriculture with some large lot residential areas scattered throughout. The drainage divides shown on Figure 3 are based on existing drainage patterns. It is not anticipated that the overall drainage divides shown will change significantly under developed conditions. Therefore, the existing drainage divides were used for ultimate development conditions discussed below. 3.2 Ultimate Development Conditions Ultimate development conditions represent the conditions that will exist when the entire Study Area is developed, according to the land use shown on Figure 4. In general, the City of Otsego Zoning Map shows that the area north of County Road 42 will develop as industrial/commercial, while the remaining area will develop as high to low density residential. Where possible, existing wetlands were used as stormwater storage areas. These areas are shown on Figure 3. Four large wetland areas that are within watershed areas 841L, 851L, 871L and 881L provide significant storage volume at the upstream end of the proposed trunk stormwater Page 3 C: IShareWlunicipallA0 TSEG01406AIoN06aL WS. doc 2.0 Hydrologic Model A detailed hydrologic computer model was developed to evaluate the proposed stormwater management system for the Lefebvre Watershed. The hydrologic model is based on TR -20, which is a computerized method for solving hydrologic problems using generally accepted SCS methods. The program develops runoff hydrographs which are then routed through detention areas and conveyance systems. Runoff hydrographs were developed for the 24 hour 100 -year storm frequency. These hydrographs were routed through the series of existing and proposed stormwater detention areas and conveyance systems. To facilitate the modeling, the Lefebvre Watershed was divided into drainage areas as shown on Figure 2. As shown on Figure 2, the hydrologic model considered the entire Lefebvre Watershed. This was necessary to ensure that all trunk stormwater conveyance systems are properly sized within the study area. The areas outside the study area were only considered in enough detail to provide accurate estimates of ultimate development stormwater runoff rates and volumes. The future development land use conditions, upon which the model was based, are discussed further in Section 3. Within the study area, runoff curve numbers of 75 and 90 were assumed for residential and industrial/commercial development respectively. Stormwater storage areas and stormwater conveyance systems where flooding of structures could occur were designed for the 100 -year storm event. A summary of the parameters used for each sub -watershed is presented on Table 1. Page 2 C::1ShareWunicipaAA0 TSEGOW06AIot406aL WS. doc 1.0 Introduction This report presents the ultimate trunk storm water facilities which have been proposed for portions of the Lefebvre Watershed. In general, the portion of the Lefebvre Watershed studied lies east of Odean Avenue, west of Highway 101, north of CSAR 37 and south of 85th Street. This area was chosen for the study because it is anticipated that it will develop in conjunction with the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. The study area is shown on Figure 1. This study and report has three main goals. These goals are as follows: 1) Define the trunk stormwater facilities and their requirements. These requirements include: • Capacities for proposed open channels and pipes • Volume of flood storage needed for each drainage area • Maximum allowable outflow from each drainage area 2) Prioritize trunk stormwater facilities for implementation. 3; Establish stormwater impact fees to fund trunk stormwater facilities. The City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan was used as the framework for this study. The Drainage Plan identified the boundaries of what is termed the Lefebvre Watershed. The Drainage Plan used the City's topographical maps to identify existing drainage divides. These drainage divides were separated further into districts and sub -districts. Page 1 C: IShareWunicipailA0 TSEGOX406A kot406aL WS. doc TABLE 1 Summary of Watershed Design Parameters *Included with Storage in Pond 881. Share/NI unicipaUOtsego/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: TABLE 1 3/3/99 PROPOSED Watershed # Normal (Ft.) 100 -Year Flood (Ft.) Storage (Ac -Ft) Peak Outflow (CFS) CN Time of Concentration Peak Inflow (CFS) Peak Time (Hrs.) Runoff Volume (Ac -Ft) 231 L 914.0 916.0 5.3 5.5 75 17.4 121.20 12.05 8.78 5,51 L 851.9 860.0 12.0 230.0 87 18.6 228.90 12.06 17.52 6,11L 868.0 872.1 5.1 13.0 75 40.0 84.15 12.32 9.88 6'12L 874.0 876.6 7.0 15.5 75 50.0 94.65 12.45 13.01 613L 874.0 875.0 50.9 621 862.2 863.2 1.1 25.0 58 35.0 32.43 12.51 5.09 631 L 853.7 860.5 4.7 124.0 1 75 40.0 46.51 12.26 5.02 6,11 L 854.1 861.0 8.6 120.0 80 65.1 107.50 12.32 12.58 651 L 860.0 863.1 6.3 90.0 75 51.4 62.48 12.65 10.41 661 L 75 58.01 12.47 8.15 6132L 711L 868.0 872.1 5.3 16.0 75 25.9 126.40 12.15 11.22 712L 870.0 872.0 2.8 5.9 75 35.0 47.97 12.26 5.18 721L 862.3 866.0 39.0 89.0 75 55.8 197.60 12.53 29.44 8:31 L 871.0 873.0 7.0 17.0 75 47.4 78.99 12.42 10.46 832L 871.5 873.1 4.5 11.0 75 35.0 77.92 12.26 8.41 8.41 L 871.5 873.4 13.0 53.0 71 49.0 91.87 12.44 12.57 851L 871.5 872.6 21.0 75 33.6 404.60 12.58 63.59 871L 868.7 872.5 20.0 70.0 75 60.2 93.05 12.59 14.67 872L 866.0 870.2 7.3 78.0 75 65.1 45.52 12.65 7.58 8B11- 871.3 872.6 34.0 21.0 75 60.0 404.60 12.58 63.59 891L 874.0 876.8 9.0 35.0 72 54.0 117.60 12.51 17.23 893L 872.0 874.4 3.6 12 75 49.2 55.26 12.44 7.52 *Included with Storage in Pond 881. Share/NI unicipaUOtsego/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: TABLE 1 3/3/99 Table 2 Summary of Cost Estimate for Trunk Stormwater Facilities Lefebvre Study Area STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION COST Stormsewer Construction Structure 611 $85,500 Structure 612 $72,300 Structure 613 $61,300 Structure 631 $40,900 Structure 712 $74,500 Structure 651 $34,100 Structure 662 $34,600 Structure 721 $28,000 Structure 841 $21,000 Structure 851 $11,600 Structure 871 $26,800 Structure 872 $28,600 Structure 881 $16,200 Ditch Restoration Ditch Segment 551 - Highway 101 to County Road 42 $72,300 Ditch Segment 641 - County Road 42 to Future 78th Street $22,200 Ditch Segment 651 - Future 78th Street to DNR Wetland 6W (East side) $23,700 Ditch Segment 871 - DNR Wetland 6W (West side) to Structure $48,400 Subtotal $702,000 Overhead: Including Engineering, Legal, Administration and Contingency (30%): $210,600 Ditch Easement Acquisition (22.8 Acres @ $7,000 per Acre): $159,600 TOTAL $1,072,200 Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.x1s 312/99 Sheet: Cover Sheet Table 3 Impact Fee Calculation for Lefebvre Study Area Line 1: Total Cost = Cost for Ditch 551 Line 1 Subtotal: _ Line 2: 230 Acres ($123,400) x (1 - 820 Acres = Line 2 Subtotal: _ Line 3: Impact Fee Calculation: $1,072,200 (from Table 2) $-123,400 $948,800 $948,800 (from Line 1) $88,800 $1,037,600 $1,037,600 (from Line 2) divided by: 820 Acres Impact Fee 4 $1,266/Acre C:1ShareWunicipaAA0TSEGO1406AIoN06aL WS. doc APPENDIX A "Guidance for Evaluating Urban Storm Water and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts to Wetlands" Final Version not included at this time Construction Cost Estimate Structure 611 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 36" Storm Sewer 1100 LF $60 $66,000 2 Junction Manholes 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 3 Restoration 3 ACRE $1,500 $4,500 Total $85,500 Construction Cost Estimate Structure 612 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 24" Storm Sewer 1300 LF $40 $52,000 2 Junction Manholes 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 3 Restoration 3.5 ACRE $1,500 $5,250 i otai :� I L,suu Construction Cost Estimate Structure 613 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 21" Storm Sewer 1100 LF $38 $41,800 2 Junction Manholes 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 3 Restoration 3 ACRE $1,500 $4,500 Total $t5'I,suu Construction Cost Estimate Structure 712 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 30" Storm Sewer 1100 LF $50 $55,000 2 Junction Manholes 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 3 Restoration 3 ACRE $1,500 $4,500 Total $ t4,5UU Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xls Sheet: 611,612,613,712 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 631 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 48" Storm Sewer (Jacking) 88 LF $350 $30,800 2 48" Flared End Section 2 EACH $2,000 $4,000 3 Riprap 75 CY $50 $3,750 4 Granular Filter 40CY $20 $800 5 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 6 Traffic Control 1 LS $500 $500 Total $40,900 SharelMunicipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: PIPE 631 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 651 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 42" Storm Sewer 96 LF $140 $13,440 2 42" Flared End Section 1 EACH $1,700 $1,700 3 Spill Way Structure 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 4 Junction Manhole 1 LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 5 Riprap 16 CY $50 $800 6 Granular Filter 9 CY $20 $180 7 Restoration 1 AC $1,000 $1,000 8 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $34,100 Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xis Sheet: PIPE 651 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 662 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 21" Storm Sewer 500 LF $45 $22,500 2 21" Flared End Section 1 EACH $700 $700 3 Junction Manholes 2 EACH $5,000 $10,000 4 Riprap 7 CY $50 $350 5 Granular Filter 4 CY $20 $80 6 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Total $34,600 Share/MunicipaUOtsego/ot406aLWS.xis Sheet: PIPE 662 3/2/99 Cost Estimate Structure 721 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 36" Storm Sewer (2) 128 LF $100 $12,800 2 36" Flared End Section 4 EACH $1,400 $5,600 3 Riprap 60 CY $50 $3,000 4 Granular Filter 30 CY $20 $600 5 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 6 Remove & Dispose of Existing Pipe 50 LF $20 $1,000 7 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $28,000 Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xls Sheet: PIPE 721 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 841 Item Description Estimated Unit Quantity Unit Price Extension 1 36" Storm Sewer 88 LF $100 $8,800 2 36" Flared End Section 1 EACH $1,400 $1,400 3 Spillway Structure 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 4 Riprap 30 CY $50 $1,500 5 Granular Filter 15 CY $20 $300 6 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $21,000 Shari.-/Municipal/Otsego/ot406aLWS.x Is Sheet: PIPE 841 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 851 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 24" Storm Sewer 88 LF $50 $4,400 2 24" Flared End Section 2 EACH $800 $1,600 3 Riprap 9 CY $50 $450 4 Granular Filter 5 CY $20 $100 5 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 6 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $11,600 Share/Municipal/Otsego/ot406aLWS.xls Sheet: PIPE 851 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate Structure 871 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 30" Storm Sewer (2) 192 LF $80 $15,360 2 30" Flared End Section 4 EACH $1,000 $4,000 3 Riprap 40 CY $50 $2,000 4 Granular Filter 20 CY $20 $400 5 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 6 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 notal ji16,t5UU Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: PIPE 871 3/2/99 Construction Cost Estimate Structure 872 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 33" Storm Sewer (2) 176 LF $90 $15,840 2 33" Flared End Section 4 EACH $1,200 $4,800 3 Riprap 50 CY $50 $2,500 4 Granular Filter 25 L CY $20 $500 5 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 6 Berm Construction 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 rotas :�Z25,bUU Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs 3/2/99 Sheet: PIPE 872 Construction Cost Estimate For Structure 881 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 18" Storm Sewer (2) 88 LF $40 $3,520 2 18" Flared End Section 2 EACH $600 $1,200 3 Spill Way Structure 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 5 Riprap 24 CY $50 $1,200 6 Granular Filter 12 CY $20 $240 7 Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 8 Berm Construction 1 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $16,200 Share IMunidpal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xls Sheet: PIPE 881 3/2/99 Ditch Segment 551 Construction Cost Estimate For 1800 L.F. Ditch Restoration State Highway 101 to County Road 42 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Extension Price 1 Clear and Grub 4.2 Acre $5,000 $21,000 2 Flow Control 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 3 Excavation 2,200 CY $10 $22,000 4 Riprap 200 CY $50 $10,000 5 Granular Filler 100 CY $20 $2,000 6 Restoration 4.2 Acre $1,500 $6,300 7 Erosion Control 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Total $72,300 Share/Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: EXC. 101 TO Cty Rd 42 3/2/99 Ditch Segment 641 Construction Cost Estimate For 1850 L.F. Ditch Restoration County Road 42 to Future 78th Street Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 Clear and Grub 4.3 Acre $400 $1,720 2 Excavation 2,200 CY $5 $11,000 3 Restoration 4.3 Acre $1,500 $6,450 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Total $22,200 ShareiM unicipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: EXC. Cty Rd 42 TO A 3/2/99 Ditch Segment 651 Construction Cost Estimate For 2,000 L.F. Ditch Restoration Future 78th Street to DNR Wetland 6W (East side) Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 Clear and Grub 4.6 Acre $400 $1,840 2 Excavation 2,400 CY $5 $12,000 3 Restoration 4.6 Acre $1,500 $6,900 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Total $23,700 Share/Mun icipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xIs Sheet: A TO DNR Wetland 6W East 3/2/99 Ditch Segment 871 Construction Cost Estimate For 4200 L.F. Ditch Restoration DNR Wetland 6W (West side) to Structure 841 Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension 1 Clear and Grub 9.70 Acre $400 $3,880 2 Excavation 5,000 CY $5 $25,000 3 Restoration 9.70 Acre $1,500 $14,550 4 Erosion Control 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Total $48,400 Sharei Municipal/Otsego/406a/ot406aLWS.xls Sheet: DNR Wetiand 6W West to B 3/2/99 APPENDIX B Trunk Stormwater Facilities Cost Estimates E.: FIGURE 1 LEFEBVRE DRAINAGE STUDY AREA CITY OF OTSEGO LEGEND ------ WATERSHED DMDE -z� owl s 14 MWIAI 'WN��8� US cls L 8 OQ u oV 'g A 40 D r & ch co 7 _D gee TTI� 7woo -Z b U.- Z ;Emm( N' T OT 1 F613 O..p 1. NE I r 662 FoIl Z9*98: (A :o M i? P r \L ----------- _._- C7 cn e rt PAF DAN9F E 5c, Z()C) 0 --- I z > 0 0 LEGEND rjjl DITCH SEGMENT I.D. NUMBER WATERSHED DMDE EXISTING PIPE (ULTIMATE DESIGN) 631 PROPOSED PIPE STRUCTRE I.D. NUMBER PROPOSEDTRUNK (ULTIMATE DESIGN) PROPOSED PIPE - NON -TRUNK (ULTIMATE DESIGN) FL : PEAK 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONOPEN CHANNEL FIGURE 3 N NORMAL ELEVATION WATERSHED NAME S_S 1TORGE REOUREMENT FOR GO YEAR STOMR NT (AC -FT) DRAINAGE DIVIDES FOR 0 _ MAXIMUM ALLOWABLEDISCHARGEPERMANENT EASEMENT AREA LEFEBVRE STUDY AREA FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT (CFS) SIORMWATER DETENTION AREA (WETLAND) TENTION AREA (NON -WETLAND) CITY OF OTSEGO STORMWATER DE EXISTING DETENTION AREA " 10' No MANNING'S "N" = 0.05 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.10 FIGURE 5 DITCH DESIGN A CITY OF OTSEGO i dd 8' N MANNING'S "N" = 0.05 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.10 FIGURE 6 DITCH DESIGN B CITY OF OTSEGO FIGURE 7 TAX DISTRICTS FOR LEFEBVRE STUDY AREA CITY OF OTSEGO LEGEND - TAXING DISTRICT CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: MEETING DATE B.Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney: EB Council 3/8/99 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: 8.1. Discussion of Timing for Lifting Moratorium 8.2. Review Proposed Bonestroo Contract 8.3. Review Revised Developers Agreement 8.4. Any Other Legal Business BACKGROUND: No 8.1 through 8.4 Above: Attached in the information from Andy MacArthur. He will present it to the Council and answer any questions you may have. RECOMMENDATION: This is for Council consideration and Mr. MacArthur will explain which items he needs action on. Th ks, Elaine 03-08-1999 03:0 -PM FROM Couri 3 MacArthur TO CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 4418823 F.02 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct the following improvements: proposed bituminous street construction of Page Avenue and 78th Street and reconstruction to bituminous of Quaday Avenue as follows; Page Avenue from intersection of existing Page Avenue and 85"' Street south to a point'/4 of a mite south at the center of NW '/4 of Section 27, 78"' Street to be constructed from the center of NW %4 eastward 3/4;mile to Quaday Avenue, and reconstruction of Quaday from the described intersection with 78th Street northward to the intersection of Quaday and CSAI-I # 42 as graphically depicted on attached Exhibit A. Those properties benefited by said improvement will be assessed all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 429 or through establishment of fair and equitable fees for connection to such improved roadway. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MRO ESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of , 1999. IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 03-08-1999 03:08PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 P.03 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. i RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT. WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted ,1999, a report has been propared by the City Engineer, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. dated March, 1999 with reference to proposed bituminous street construction and reconstruction las follows: construction of Page Avenue and 78th Street and reconstruction to bituminous of Quaday Avenue as follows; Page Avenue from intersection of existing Page Avenue and 85th Street south to a point 3/4 of a mile south at the center hof NW 1/4 of Section. 27, 781h Street to be constructed from the center of NW 1/4 eastward 3/4 mile to Quaday Avenue, and reconstruction of Quaday frons the described intersection with 78th Street northward to the intersection of Quaday and CSAR # 42 as graphically depicted on attached Exhibit A. This report was :received by the Council on , 1999, and WHEREAS, the Council as reviewed the report and makes the following findings of fact: 1. The report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. 2. The project may be constructed as one project or as individual projects depending upon development proposed within the area. 3. The report contains information upon which the City can determine the amount of proposed assessments against benefited properties. 4. The report contains information upon which the City can calculate a fair and equitable fee for connection to such roadways based upon the affect of any proposed development upon the City's transportation system. 5. That the report should be periodically updated. NOW THEREFOiRE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: 03-08-1999 03:OSPM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 F.04 1. The Council adopts the findings set forth above. 2. That the report be used in consideration of any project or projects for construction of the improvements set forth in the report. i 3. That the report be used for estimation of any assessment of properties benefited by the improvements set forth therein, under Minn. Stat. Chapter429. 4. That the report be used to determine fair and equitable charges for connection to the roadways therein proposed for construction. 5. That the report be periodically updated. ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of March, 1999. IN FAVOR: OPPOSED: CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor Blaine Beatty, Cleric 03-08-1999 03:09PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 P.05 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON INIPRO VEMENT WHEREAS, it is proposed to provide sanitary sewer service by construction of trunk and lateral sdnitary sewer lines within the following described area: southerly along Quaday Avenue from its intersection with CSAR 42 to its intersection with proposed 78th Street and then westerly along proposed 78th Street to its intersection with the proposed extension of Page Avenue and northerly for a distance along said extension of Page Avenue as graphically depicted on attached Exhibit A, and to assess benefited abutting and non -abutting property within the area. The information contained within the report may also be used to establish appropriate fees to' be charged Developers and others within the area for access to trunk facilities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. for study and that they are instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ADOPTED by the Council this day of March, 1999. CITY OF OTSEGO Lamy Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk ©3-ae-1999 03:09Fh1 FROM Couri a MacArthur TO 4418823 P.06 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLU'T'ION RECEIVING REPORT AND FINDINGS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the Council adopted , 1999, a report has been prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. dated March 1999 with reference to the following improvements; delivery of sanitary sewer service by construction of trunk and lateral sanitary sewer lines within the following described area: southerly along Quaday Avenue from its intersection with CSAR 42 to its intersection with proposed 78'h Street and then westerly along proposed 78h Street to its intersection with the proposed extension of Page Avenue and northerly for a distance along said extension of Page Avenue, as graphically depicted on attached Exhibit A. This report was received by the Council on _ , 1999; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible; and WHEREAS, the report contains information relative to costs for provision of such services as set forth in the following Findings of Fact: 1. The report provides information relative to the estimated total costs of providing trunk and lateral sanitary sewer service to the area which can be -used to establish fees, assessments, or area assessments to be assessed or charged against benefited properties within the area. 2. The report provides information regarding the estimated costs of trunk and lateral sanitary sewer services and the distinction between costs which are to be charged as trunk fees or assessments mid those costs which are to be charged as Iateral assessments or fees. 3. The report provides information as to the construction and possible routes of sanitary sewer service to the area_ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council hereby receives the report. 03-08-1999 03:10PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4419823 P.07 2. The Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact as set forth above and directs City staff to use said report as the basis for establishment of fees for Developers in the area, or as the basis for any assessment or area assessment for benefited properties within the area. ADOPTED by the Council this day of March, 1999. CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, City Clerk 03-08-1999 03:11PN FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 P.08 CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLU'T'ION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TRUNK STORM WATER FACILITIES STUDY FOR PORTIONS OF LEFEBVRE WATERSHED DATED MARCH, 1999 WHEREAS, the Council has ordered and received a report entitled "Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Portions of Lefebvre Watershed" dated March, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City has created Storm Sewer Districts within the City, including the Lefebvre Watershed Storm Sewer District; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted resolutions and ordinances which require that persons developing property within. the City pay a fee which fairly and equitably apportions a share of the costs of any required stone drainage improvements within a given district required due to development of the area; and WHEREAS, such fees are to be based upon engineering studies of each watershed district, or a portion thereof, and WHEREAS, the report herein sets forth a proposed fee and the basis for the fee within that portion of the Lefebvre watershed which is presently being considered for development; and WHEREAS, the report contains additional information necessary and helpful in making decisions regarding development within that portion of the Lefebvre Watershed included within the study area. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the Trunk Storm Water Facilities Study for Portions of Lefebvre Watershed, dated March, 1999. 2. That City staff is directed to use this report as a basis for determining any appropriate storm water drainage fees within the area designated, said amounts to be appropriately adjusted from time to time to include any increases in cost. 03-08-1999 03:11PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 P.09 3. That the report will be revised from time to time in order to reflect any substantial changes in conditions. ADOPTED by the Council this day of March, 1999. Elaine Beatty, City Clerk CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fouiniei, Mayor TOTAL P.09 /V 03-03-1999 03:43PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO Michael C. Court- COURT & MACARTHUR Andrew J. MacArthur Attorneys 4a Lmv M=us W. Muter 705 Central Avenue East PO Boz 369 *A LW 50M . -,W 7n St. Michael, MN 55376-0369 (612) 497-2930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) courkvs& acanhurQpoboz. com March 2, 1999 VIA FACSINiII.E AND U.S. MAIC. Ted Field, P.E. Bonestroo, Rosene, , nderlik & Associates 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, NLN 55113 4419e23 P.03 RE: Proposed Bonestroo Contract for Construction Observation Services Dear Ted: Please find enclosed for your review a redrafted Appendix. A to the proposed contract referenced above. This revision is intended to address the concerns raised by the Otsego City Council at their last meeting. The proposed changes have been highlighted. Could you please have this reviewed and get back to me with any comments you might have by next Nlonday. If'you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Very triy.,Yours, ew J. NlacArthuf CO URI .&, i-V/IA,C.A RTUUR Encl. cc: City of Otsego 03-03-1999 03:43PP'l FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 F.04 Appendix A Engineer's Services Section 1. Basic Services Task 1- Bidding and Award Purpose: To assist the City in obtaining construction bids and awarding construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 1.1 Prepare bid proposal and contract forms 1.2 Issue bid advertisement 1.3 Hold pre-bid conference with prospective bidders 1.4 issue addenda, if necessary 1.5 Receive bids 1.6 Analyze bids and recommend award Task 2- Contract _administration Purpose: To develop channels of communication between the contractor, City staff and Engineer; to keep the City informed about the progress of construction; and to review and approve shop drawings. 2.1 Organize, attend and assist the City at the pre -construction conference with the successful bidder; and any other parties, bodies or agencies who have an interest in the Project. 2.2 Review shop drawings, samples and other submittals. Engineer shall review shop drawings, simples and other submissions of the Contractor for their compatibility with the Engineer's desian intent and conformance with information given in the Contract Documents The Engineer shall not be responsible for aspects of any shop drawing submission which are the Contractor's responsibility such as themeans, methods techniques sequences and operations of construction. safety precautions and 12roaams incidental thereto. 2.3 Review the Contractor's request for progress payments, advise the City in writing as to the Engineer's opinion of the extent of the work completed in accordance with the terms of the Construction Contract, and 'issue for processing by the City all requests for payinent. 2.4 Make recommendations to the City as to all claims relating to the execution and progress of the construction work. 03-03-1999 03:44PM FROM Couri a MacArthur TO 4418823 F.05 2.5 Issue such additional instructions to the Contractor as may be necessary to interpret the drawings and specifications or the illustrated changes required in the Contractor's work. 2.6 After consulting with the City, prepare Change Orders for work not covered by the Contract or for, substantial over -run of estimated "contract quantities" as defined in the Project's Contract Documents, for the city's approval and execution. Change Orders shall be processed as soon as practical after the City provides written approval to the Engineer. The City understands that Change Orders may be required during a Project for many reasons, including because of incompleteness, errors, or ambiguities in the Construction Documents. The Engineer shall not be responsible for paving the cost of a Change Order that results from decisions by the City to change the project in order to add value or betterment to the proiect beyond that originally approved. 2.7 Conduct bi-weekly construction progress reviews with the Contractor and the City related to the;Project and Contractor's date of completion. Provide periodic written reports to the City regarding the progress of Project construction. Task 3- Construction Observation Purpose: To endeavor to assure that the plant is constructed in conformance with the plans and specifications. 3.1 Perform continuous on-site construction observation so as to become familiar with the progress and quality of the contractor's work and to determine if the work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City has retained the Engineer for full time inspection of the Project While it is understood that the Engineer does -not' control the Contractor's work, the means or methods of construction or Contractor's safety precautions, the Engineer shall immediatel correct or brie toy the City's attention anv as ect of the Contractor's work which is not in compliance with the Contract Documents or generally accepted standards for construction work. 3.2 Act as the City's liaison with contractor. 3.3 Maintain field records ➢ Record of site visits and observations ➢ Phone call log > Weather conditions ➢ Meetings, discussions, observations and decisions `r Photograph project progress and underground construction details 03-03-1999 03:44PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 F.06 3.4 Provide monthly reports to the City 3.5 Coordinate periodic field tests during the course of construction 3.6 Endeavor to assure that record plans are being maintained by all contracting forces The Engineer's review of the Contractor's work (including reviewing the Contractor's shoo drawings and samples work product and requests for Dgyments') is intended to ensure that the Proiect is constructed in conformance with the Contract Documents The Engineer shall perform these duties using the prevailing professional standard of care. The Engineer shall promptly report any and all substantial construction problems to the City along with appropriate recommendations to resolve the problem. As long as the En eer's duties are performed up to professional standards they do not act as a guarantee of the Contractor's performance or assume responsibility for any acts or omissions of the Contractor including anv failure of the Contractor to properly Rerform its work. in the event that such failure would not be apparent in the course of the Construction Observation undertaken in this Aaxeement. Task 4- Contract Close Out Purpose: To help train plant operators; to endeavor to provide a successful transition from construction to operation; to certify that construction is complete prion to final payment. 4.1 Prepare operation and maintenance manuals regarding operating and maintaining equipment, machinery and apparatus installed as part of the Project. Such instructions shall be supplied by the Contractor and manufacturers' representatives. 4.2 Provide plant start-up services. 4.3 Assist with training of operators. 4.4 Conduct an inspection to determine if the work is substantially complete. On the basis of its on-site observations, the Engineer shall prepare a "punch list" for the Contractor, listing work left to be completed by the Contractor. 4.5 Conduct, in the presence of the City's Representative, a final inspection of the Project as constructed to determine whether it: 03-03-1999 03:45PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 F.07 1) Generally conforms with the Engineer's design concept of the Project as contained in the Contract Documents, and 2) Appears to be constructed in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Engineer shall certify a recommendation for acceptance of the work to the City and then shall forward to the City a written approval of the Contractor's Request for Final Payment, which shall be signed by the Contractor. 4.6 Prepare and fuinish the City a set of reproducible "Record Plans" of the Project showing those changes the Engineer considers significant which were made during the construction process, based on marked -up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the Contractor, upon which the Engineer may rely in preparing the Record Plans. Section 2. PotentiaI Supplemental Services if authorized in advance by the City, the Engineer may provide the following Supplemental Services: 2.1 Making revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are: 2.1.1 Requested by the City and inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given by the City; 2.1,2 Required by the enactment or revisions of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents; 2.1.3 Due to changes required as a result of the City's failure to render decisions in a timely manner; or 2.1.4 Due to any other causes beyond the Engineer's control. 2.2 Providing consultation regarding the replacement of all such parts of the Project as may be damaged by fire or other cause during construction and assisting the City in arranging for continuation of the work should the Contractor default for any reason. 2.3 Providing services made necessary by the default of the Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the work of a Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the City or a Contractor under the Contract for construction. 2.4 Construction dispute resolution assistance. 03-03-1999 03:46PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO 4418823 P.08 2.5 Providing services in connection with warranty work to be done by the Contractor. 2.6 Delete 2.7 Assisting the City or its representative in connection with mediation, arbitration, Litigation or other proceedings involving the Project, including preparing to testify and testifying as an expert witness. 2.8 Providing any other service not otherwise included in Basic Services or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. TOTAL P.08 A 03-03-1999 03:42PM FROM Couri & MacArthur TO Michael C. Couri- Andrew J. MacArthur Manus W. Miller *A Lw Vc&W&I In ="S March 3, 1999 CO URI & MACARTHUR Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East FO Boz 369 3t. Michael, MN 55376-0369 (612) 497--1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) couriandmacanhur0pobay. com Otsego City Council Members c/o Elaine Beatty, Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Developer's Agreement 4418823 P.02 Dear Council Members: Y am in the process oftedrafling the development agreement. The redraft of this agreement will be available tomorrow. I also have additional resolutions for items in Larry Koshak's agenda packet. Please do not hesitate to call ifXou have any questions. Sincerely, ew J. i ur Couri & cArthui ArM/khb CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 9. Council Items: Elaine Beatty March 8,1999 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB, CC 9.1. A. Discussion of EDAAC B. Discussion of Animal Control Ordinance C. Discussion of Surplus General Fund D. Set date for Groundbreaking Ceremony for Wastewater Treatment Plant E. Any Other Council Business BACKGROUND: 9.1.A. The Council received a letter from the EDAAC at last meeting that was tabled for review on this agenda. 9.1.9. Suzanne Ackerman asked this item to be on the agenda last meeting and it was tabled for discussion on this agenda. 9.I.C. Mike Robertson and Gary Groen gave the Council information on the surplus general fund last meeting. It was tabled to this agenda for discussion as to what the money should be used for. 9.1.D. This item was also tabled from last agenda for action at this meeting to set date. 9.1.E. This item is for any other Council Business that needs discussing. RECO144ENDATION: This is for Council information decision. Thanks J`—' '&� Elaine 'JI 17 February 1999 To: Larry Fournier, Mayor, City of Otsego Fr: Otsego EDAAC Sub: Future direction of the EDAAC Last September we met with City Council to discuss the future of the EDAAC. At that time, we suggested that we be combined with the EDA or to disband the EDAAC. Since that time we have had several additional meetings on the same topic. Following are several alternatives that address the disposition of the group: 1.) Combine the EDA and the EDAAC into a new EDA with the specific task of developing the city and minimizing risk. 2.) Continue with the current EDA and EDAAC concept provided that the two groups meet on a regularly scheduled basis. Attached is a memo dated ,14 January 1997 from David Licht that encourages "continuing communication and participation of all parties". We believe that his comment is 100% correct and regret that we did not recognize this earlier. Our frustration is the result of the lack of communication and joint planning. Two possibilities for this option could be: a.) Meet on a monthly basis for 30 minutes prior to the start of the regularly scheduled council meetings. The meeting should also include the City planner. After the joint meeting we could then continue with our independent meetings. b.) Meet every other month for a planning meeting with the EDA, EDAAC and the City Planner. This could be a very powerful meeting considering the attendees and the planning focus. The EDAAC would then conduct their independent meetings during the off months. 3.) Disband the EDAAC unless the city council is committed to one of the options above or an acceptable alternative. With due respect to all parties involved, it's time to put the past behind us, and begin the cooperative effort of planning the economic development of our community. Sincerely, The Otsego EDAAC / Attachment INC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Larry Fournier David Licht 14 January 1997 Otsego - EDAAC / Comprehensive Plan 176.08 I have had a chance to review Liz Wilder's memo to you of 8 January 1997. Of specific interest is Item No. 2 and the EDAAC's role in the Comprehensive Pian. While our office agrees the EDAAC should be actively and primarily involved in the formulation of economic development policies, there needs to be recognition that this should be a cooperative effort involving the EDA and City Planner. We are concerned that unless there is continuing communication and participation of all parties, we will have a repeat of past situations where different directions are being taken. This is again an instance where "team' work, rather than independent work, is critical. PC- Elaine Beatty Liz Wilder , 1, R 1�1 Date: March 3, 1999 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Animal Control Possibilities I checked with the Sheriff's office of Sherburne County regarding animal control. They told me that someone had given me the wrong information and that they did not pick up dogs. I called the Elk River Police Department to see if they would be interested in picking up dogs in Otsego. The Chief told me that they use Community Service Officers (CSO) for animal control. Right now they have three CSO's and they work nights but rarely work weekends. He is trying to get a grant to add a fourth CSO and then he would have weekends covered. If he can do that he might be interested in a weekend contract with us. The dog catcher in Monticello has said that it would not be financially worthwhile for her to be on call on weekends. She has indicated that if someone could bring a dog over to her building on weekends and page her, if she is there to receive the page, that she could take the dog. I don't think that truly would resolve the problem because there are too many "ifs". cc: City Staff / / // 111- Date: � Date: March 3, 1999 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Budget Surplus Options I have enclosed a copy of the options for use of the 1998 budget surplus that you received at the last Council meeting. (I did remove the one option which met with universal disfavor.) As I noted at the end of the meeting, after Gary checked on the matter he found that $47,000 in pre - 1998 sewer and water expenditures had not yet been reimbursed from the Sewer & Water bonds. So that $47,000 can be added to the surplus, which increases the total amount of the surplus to $221,432. When the $72,000 that is recommended to go into fund balance is removed, the amount available to the City is $149,432. cc: City Staff MEMO Date: February 17, 1999 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: 1998 Preliminary Budget Surplus Another memo has detailed the preliminary 1998 final budget figures, which have shown a budget surplus of $174,432 in 1998. As noted, this surplus is due to a variety of positive factors, all of which are not likely to reoccur. The decision for the City Council is what to do with the 1998 budget surplus. You could leave the surplus as fund balance. Fund balance is that amount of the City's cash left over at the end of the year. Since the City receives its second half tax settlement and LGA payments in mid-December, its fund balance always looks nice. However, the fund balance has to last for over 6 months because the City will not receive anymore tax money until next July. Because of this, City auditors always recommend that a City have 45-50% of its yearly budget in fund balance. At the start of 1998, Otsego had a fund balance of $504,884. Otsego's budget for 1999 is $1,281,422. To have a fund balance of 45-50% of the 1999 budget, Otsego would need $576,000- $640,711 in fund balance. That means that the City Council should add a minimum of $72,000 from the budget surplus to its fund balance. That is what City Financial Consultant Gary Groen and I recommend. That means that the City has $102,434 in remaining surplus funds. What follows is a list of possible recommendations for the use of those funds, along with the pros and cons of each. This list is not assumed to include all possibilities. 1998 BUDGET SURPLUS OPTIONS 1. RETURN THE MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS Pros - Everyone loves this idea. Cons - The City is not set up to do this. I could talk to the County to see if they have a mechanism for doing this. I would guess that the costs of doing this would use up a substantial amount of the surplus. 2. PLACE THE MONEY IN A SEWER & WATER BOND RESERVE FUND TO MAKE BOND PAYMENTS IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DEVELOPMENT Pros - It would provide additional reserve for the Sewer/Water bond payments. Cons - The budget surplus money is tax and general revenue money. This method would use it to pay off enterprise fund bonds. 3. PLACE THE MONEY IN THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND TO PURCHASE FUTURE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Pros - This would provide additional money to the fund and make it less likely that future capital equipment purchases would require tax increases. Cons - The Capital Equipment Fund is currently adequate to meet all immediate needs. 4. PLACE THE MONEY IN THE REVOLVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TO BE USED ON FUTURE CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Pros - This provides additional money for projects that cannot be assessed 100% and that are difficult to fund through other sources. Cons - This money is generated through 1998 taxes and receipts but will probably not be spent for a few years. 5. USE THE MONEY AS SEED MONEY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS Pros - This provides money for marketing or a funding source for incentives to attract industrial or commercial development. Cons - The existence of a pot of money can sometimes cause it to be spent frivolously. E 6. PLACE THE MONEY IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING FUND TO BE USED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF CITY HALL Pros - This provides additional money for a future expansion of City Hall (Police Station?) (Post Office?) etc. that could most likely be funded only through tax supported bonds. Cons - This money is generated through 1998 taxes and receipts but will probably not be spent for quite a few years. 7. USE THE MONEY TO FUND FUTURE SCHEDULED PARR IMPROVEMENTS Pros - Everyone loves park improvements. Cons - City policy has been to fund those improvements through development fees and grants. 8. PAY DOWN THE LEASE ON CITY HALL Pros - This frees up money in the future if we make those payments now. Cons - The financial benefit to the City is not realized for several years until the lease is all paid up. 9. USE THE MONEY AS A REVENUE SOURCE FOR THE 2000 BUDGET AND REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX RATE Pros - This provides additional revenue for the 2000 budget allowing less dependence on property taxes. Cons - A budget surplus cannot be guaranteed every year and if the City becomes dependent upon it as a revenue source they would have to reduce spending or raise taxes suddenly if there was not any surplus. 10. USE THE MONEY TO FUND THE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF THE CITY Pros - This provides additional revenue for the general budget allowing less dependence on property taxes. Cons - A budget surplus cannot be guaranteed every year and if the City becomes dependent upon it as a revenue source they would have to reduce spending or raise taxes suddenly if there was not any surplus. cc: City Staff 3 E CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE 9. Council Items: Elaine Beatty March 8, 1999 6:30PM ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: EB 9.2 Mike Robertson, City Administrator -Update: A. Discussion of Street Department part-time Hours B. Any Other Administration Business BACKGROUND: A. A Memo from Mike Robertson dated March 2, 1999 is attached for Council Review. Mike will be present to answer questions and explain. REC0NMENDATION : This is for Council Discussion and any decision. Thanks J_ Elaine Date: March 2, 1999 To: Mayor & Council From: City Administrator Mike Robertson Re: Street Department 1998 Hours In 1998 the Street Department employees, including full and part-time employees, worked a total of 5,161 regular hours and 220 overtime hours. Dave Chase and Rick Knutson combined worked a total of 3,963 regular hours and 181 overtime hours. Which means that the part-time people combined worked 1,198 regular hours and 39 overtime hours. These numbers were accumulated during what was a pretty good year, weather wise. As an example, so far just during January, 1999, part-timers have already accumulated 181 hours and Dave and Rick have accumulated 110 hours of overtime. Because of the increasing amount of part-time hours, and because of the expected increase in the amount of work due to increased development, the Public Works Sub -Committee has recommended that the City Council look seriously at going back to three full-time people on the Street Department. The 1999 budget for the Street Department was based on three full-time workers. Dave Chase feels that the best time for a new person to start is September or October. That way they go through one winter of work while still on their six month probation and Dave can see whether or not they can handle the toughest part of the job. Because of this, Dave would like a decision on whether or not he can hire a full time person by late June. cc: City Staff E CLAIMS LIST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 8, 1999 TO: City Council Attached is the Claims List for your consideration. The grand total you are considering is as follows: Batch 03-08-99 $270,690.19 GRAND TOTAL $270,690.19 The Check issued to Maguire Iron, Inc., for $233,100.00 is ah;o being considered under the Consent Agenda. If you have any questions or if you would like to review this list further, please let me know. Judy Hudson Deputy Clerk/Treasurer vame ._.:h N3.ni 030899 • =0R0A8LE 3AMITATION :aR%N SAND & GRAVEL CO _::-.;7 DISPOSAL SERVICE - WOOOLAKE SANITATION SER . �__ INDUSTRIES :SER ABSTRACT CO :IRROW TRUCKING :ORROW TRUCKING :OURI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE :]URI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE ::URI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE :.I;RI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE :::,�JRI .MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE ::URI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE :01JRI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE :EHN TREE COMPANY ;UERRS WATERCARE SERVICE :':ERRS QATERCARE SERVICE CM ;HERS INC _;K r,._.o. 800STER R.G.H. BOOSTER :.K RIVER FLORAL :'.K RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES :_K RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES [_K R7VER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES Ri'VER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES -K RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES .-K RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES :_K RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES RjV:-R MUNICIPAL UTILITIES :RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES R!V:R MUNIC[PAL UTILITIES :7E:R RE=N LAND SERVICES CO _?SIAP ',i7:3 3ENEFITS INSURANCE CO ';arl; BENEFITS INSURANCE CO �.). 728 riA REriREMENT TRUST ;MA 'REMENT TRUST ' GUII�t IRON, INC. Claims List Page 1 CITY OF OTSEGO Dept Description Culture and Rec (GENERAL) Hwys, Streets, & Roads Recycling Recycling Hwys, Streets, b Roads Sanitary Sewer Construction Hwys, Streets, b Roads General Gout Buildings -8899 Recycling Legal Services Sanitary Sewer Construction Comments Rental Unit Buckshot Recycling Recycling Supplies Damage Deposit Refund Less Super Fee $82.50 ROW Airtime Garbage Service Recycling Cable Franchise Dayton Sewer Agreement Administration Administration Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Old Town Hail Hwys, Streets, & Roads Sanitary Sewer Construction Debt Service (GENERAL) Hwys, Streets, it Roads Administration Recreation - Joint Rec Prog Administration General Govt Buildings -8899 Sanitary Sewer Construction Legal Notice Damage Deposit Less Kit $50 Super $55 Hudson Plant Antelope Park 39 & Nashua 39 & Page 39 94th & Nashua 39 and 101 Parrish & 42 Parrish & 88th Country Ridge 96th St 101/130 Flashers 39/Parrish 85th 3 Parrish Maint Shop Old City Hall ROW Agents 'Wire/Agent Fees STD 310 ram Jan 3 Feb Assessment PPE 2/20/99 PPE 2/20/99 February Cleaning Pay Estimate $2 Transaction Batch Amount Name 114.50 030899 252.30 030899 105.00 030899 317.50 030899 i10.52 030899 400.00 030899 -82.30 030899 81.00 030899 23.85 030899 58.50 030899 1,418.75 030899 68.00 030899 273.40 030899 263.50 030899 170.00 030899 255.00 030899 1,255.20 030899 1,830.50 030899 5815.75 030899 24.30 030899 38.25 030899 33.01 030899 400.00 030899 -105.00 030899 36.95 030899 62.20 030899 12.78 030899 7.99 030899 32.38 030899 7.77 030899 242.39 030899 33.55 030899 12.78 030899 46.65 030899 39.41 030899 16.93 030899 25.67 030899 12.18 030899 53.37 030899 253.59 030839 5,040.87 030899 191.00 030299 27.00 030899 53.59 0309^19 3.313.53 0309'39 1�2.3i 0308 i9 422.39 030899 615.05 030399 233,100.00 030899 Elk River Collision Precision Line Hwys, Streets, & Roads Odean Ave Sanitary Sewer Construction Wastewater Treatment Legal Services General Legal Culture and Rec (GENERAL) Tree removal General Govt Buildings -8899 Supplies for City Hall Hwys, Streets, & Roads Supplies for Maint Administration Administration Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Street Lighting Old Town Hail Hwys, Streets, & Roads Sanitary Sewer Construction Debt Service (GENERAL) Hwys, Streets, it Roads Administration Recreation - Joint Rec Prog Administration General Govt Buildings -8899 Sanitary Sewer Construction Legal Notice Damage Deposit Less Kit $50 Super $55 Hudson Plant Antelope Park 39 & Nashua 39 & Page 39 94th & Nashua 39 and 101 Parrish & 42 Parrish & 88th Country Ridge 96th St 101/130 Flashers 39/Parrish 85th 3 Parrish Maint Shop Old City Hall ROW Agents 'Wire/Agent Fees STD 310 ram Jan 3 Feb Assessment PPE 2/20/99 PPE 2/20/99 February Cleaning Pay Estimate $2 Transaction Batch Amount Name 114.50 030899 252.30 030899 105.00 030899 317.50 030899 i10.52 030899 400.00 030899 -82.30 030899 81.00 030899 23.85 030899 58.50 030899 1,418.75 030899 68.00 030899 273.40 030899 263.50 030899 170.00 030899 255.00 030899 1,255.20 030899 1,830.50 030899 5815.75 030899 24.30 030899 38.25 030899 33.01 030899 400.00 030899 -105.00 030899 36.95 030899 62.20 030899 12.78 030899 7.99 030899 32.38 030899 7.77 030899 242.39 030899 33.55 030899 12.78 030899 46.65 030899 39.41 030899 16.93 030899 25.67 030899 12.18 030899 53.37 030899 253.59 030839 5,040.87 030899 191.00 030299 27.00 030899 53.59 0309^19 3.313.53 0309'39 1�2.3i 0308 i9 422.39 030899 615.05 030399 233,100.00 030899 Claims list Page 2 PM CITY OF OTSEGO Dept Transaction Batch Name Description Comments Amount Name Name 030899 4:4NEGASCO Hwys, Streets, & Roads Service at Shop 204.70 030899 M:NNESOTA COPY ViTEMS Administration Copier Rental 205.00 0:0899 "N ?OLLUTION CONTROL Sanitary Sewer Construction NPDES Annual Fee 1,110.00 030899 NAPA OF _;-K RIVER INC Hwys, Streets, & Roads Parts (Miscell) .-..' 030899 TN+EY 30WES Administration Postage 1;i3.00 030899 =i,cLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FO Assessing PPE 2/20/99 56.98 030899 =UBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD Hwys, Streets, & Roads PPE 2/20/99 145.13 030899 '.BLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD Administration PPE 2/20/99 !SS ._3 030899 =UBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD PPE 2/20/99 358.38 030899 .ANDY'S SANITATION Recycling Recycling 262.50 030899 FATE CAPITAL CREDIT UNION PPE 2/20/99 Olson 141923 50.00 030899 ;S WEST COMMUNICATIONS Culture and Rec (GENERAL) Shed 36.01 030899 ;S 'WEST COMMUNICATIONS Hwys, Streets, & Roads Shop Phone 62.73 030899 S 'WEST COMMUNICATIONS Administration City Hall Phone 337.37 030899 HR:GHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURE Police -Contracted March Patrol 10,625.88 030899 4,R:GHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURE Administration Mailing Labels 16.00 030899 �RiGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURE Administration Assessment Book 5i.10 030899 ,iRIGHT COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES Administration River Rider Contribution 3,195.00 030899 4RIGHT COUNTY RECORDER Administration Openhoven CUP 19.50 030899 It RT' 1UNTY RECORDER Administration Keith Knutson CUPS 39.00 030899 "R. jUNTY RECORDER Administration Elk RIver Collision CUP 39.00 030899 4IGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting 72nd St 11.75 030899 >iRiGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting palmgren 1. 2 030899 .RiGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting 71st NE 11.1; 030899 41(:GHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Parell 7.39 030899 wR[GHi-HENPIEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighr.ing Palmgren 7.89 030899 .1RTGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Odell Circle 11.16 030899 ARIGHT-,HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting City Hall 7.02 030899 'iRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Ouaday & 42 Siren 8.35 030899 ;'-7!'r7-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Shed & Other Buildings City Hall 669.33 030899 aR:i'HT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Shed & Otner Buildings Shed 24.73 030899 '.+RISS .-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Water Uti'_ities (GENERAL) We 11 27.?2 030399 a=:.,.'-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Signal Light 15i.'JO 030899 ,+%: n7-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Palmgren Ave 7•e3 030?99 14%IGH7-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting 37 & Odean 7.89 030899 d i - A E N N E P `.N CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting 72nd/Olean :: ., 020399 =... � E;VNE?IN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street L ;sting Parall Ave 7•%2 030899 N.i:!i-HENNEP:N CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Ogren Ave 11.15 030899 ARIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Odean/37 7.89 030899 a iHT-HEMNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Li;^.ting 72nd St 030?39 a�:� ,-'HE`INEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Streat -ignting Ogren Ave 1-• - 030899 %::HT-HENNE?IN CO-OP ELECT.:. Streit L ;'ting Ogren/71st . ;30:Gi .;%.iHT-'HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRI. Street Li;nting Oday Cir NE , -• - •3'0899 a%:GHS-AE NNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Parall Ave 7.2 01,399 •,=1 a'-`IENNEP74 CO-OP ELECTRI: 'Street !i;nting 83rd Culdesac 7. 2 030899 a= _N,iE?!N CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Rolling Ridge Creek !!.?5 030?99 aP: .!rNNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Ligating Rolling Ridge Creek .:.1; 030299 '+R IGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC Street Lighting Lannen Ave 12. 030839 :.E'iLEP. INC Hays, Streets, & Roads Parts '.8'..-% 034399